JinxIdoru

Same-Sex Temple Marriage... Give it Time

2012-01-15T12:18:00.002-07:00

The New Year is an apt time for predictions. So here is a prediction you probably haven't heard before. Within the next fifty years, the LDS Church (Mormons) will no longer prohibit homosexuality, and within the next hundred years, the church will permit same-sex marriages in LDS temples. I predict this because I don't see any other option.

With every day that passes, homosexuality becomes more and more accepted by the population at large. It's interesting to consider the demographics of polls regarding same-sex marriage. In a recent poll in NY, 70% of people under the age of 35 supported marriage equality. The only group opposed are those over the age of 65 (link). The youth of today are raised in an environment that is increasingly welcome to homosexuals. Every day proponents of marriage equality are added to the voter rolls, while opponents pass away (gallup poll). Much how I am confused that society supported segregation in the 1950s, no doubt my grandchildren will be confused at how anyone opposed same-sex marriage in the 2000s.

What then happens to the church as this country becomes more and more progressive with respect to LGBT issues. It will eventually become a massive recruitment problem for the church once public sentiment has drifted to be so completely divergent from the teachings of the church. Consider the sister of a happily married gay man. How likely is that woman to listen to a message from missionaries who teach that her brother's lifestyle is an abomination?

The church will also continue to lose members, a trend that has already begun. I know personally of multiple people who have left the LDS faith because they were unable to reconcile what they felt in their hearts with what was taught over the pulpit concerning Prop 8. As homosexuality becomes more and more acceptable, this is a trend that will only accelerate. By all accounts, the church lost hundreds if not thousands of members as a result of its political involvement with the Prop 8 issue. Signing for Something was a website that was setup for the express purpose of encouraging and cataloging Mormon resignations.

You combine these two effects and what do you get? You get a church which is growing slower and shrinking faster. There is plenty of evidence showing that the growth of Mormonism is slowing in the United States (link). This is why I believe that the church will change its stance on homosexuality, because it has no choice. It if doesn't, it'll die away in obscurity. But if there's one thing that organizations do, it's survive. They're just like any living organism; they do what they must to survive. In the case of the Mormons, it'll be to permit homosexuality and eventually permit same-sex temple marriage. There are many who doubt that the church could change its doctrine so dramatically. And yet, they've done it before.

They've done it multiple times. It was once taught that polygamy was a doctrine required for admittance to the Celestial Kingdom (the highest part of Mormon heaven) (Journal of Discourses vol 1, pg 269). The leaders of the church taught repeatedly of the importance of polygamy, the critical nature of its practice (Journal of Discourses vol 25, pg 21). The practice had always been illegal, but the government started putting on the pressure at the end of the 19th century. Mormon leaders were imprisoned and the government refused to seat Utah's legislators. After a few decades of resistance, the church saw the writing on the wall and capitulated. Polygamy was removed from its exalted state and switched to verboten with the strike of Wilford Woodruff's pen (link).

Consider how the church treats polygamy now. It is hard to find a group of people who hate polygamy so strongly as do modern Mormons. How could the church make such a 180 degree turn? A doctrine that was once taught as a requirement for salvation is now universally reviled as a vile, malignant sin. That is the power of the LDS prophet. Since he speaks as the mouth-piece of God, he can reverse doctrine by the power of his voice. The following is an oft-repeated statement within Mormon circles, "When the prophet speaks, the debate is over."

Consider the attitude of the church towards African Americans. It has changed just as radically over the years. The Pearl of Great Price (a book accepted as scripture by Mormons) teaches that as punishment for killing Abel, Cain was stricken with black skin, as well as all his descendants (Moses 7:22). This curse was preserved through the flood because Noah's son Ham had married a Canaanite, Egyptus, from whom Egypt got its name (Abraham 1:23,25). I am not making this up.

It was taught that before this life, we all lived with God. Some were more valiant, more obedient than others. The ones who were most valiant had the privilege of being born into Mormon homes. The least valiant were born with black skin. This was taught on many occasions, most notably by Alvin R. Dyer in a talk entitled, "For What Purpose?" (alternate link). John Taylor taught that black people were allowed to survive the flood so that Satan would have a representation on the Earth (link). Brigham Young taught that interracial marriage is punishable by death (link). Ezra Taft Benson, who would later go on to become the prophet, was quite critical of black people and what he referred to as the "so-called civil rights movement". The list goes on and on.

Teachings of this nature were fine in the 1800s and early 1900s, but the cultural sensibilities began to shift in the middle of the last century. Treating blacks like animals became less popular. This was beginning to become a problem for the church, hurting missionary efforts and causing members to leave. Eventually, the church had no choice. Can you imagine how many people would be willing to call themselves Mormon today if the church still maintained the above teachings about black people? The church would have trouble converting a single person. People would leave the church in droves.

So the church reversed its policy in 1978. Then prophet of the church, Spencer W. Kimball, released a "revelation" which changed a hundred years of teachings in an instant. Teachings that were once accepted by most members and taught freely over the pulpit were pushed to the back corner. You would now be hard-pressed to find a member of the church who actually believes that blacks descend from Cain and is willing to admit to said belief. In a few short decades, these teachings have all but disappeared. Why? Because church survival required said belief to disappear.

These are just two examples. There are dozens of others: blood atonement, Adam-God theory, blood oaths in the temple, naked touching in the temple, prohibition on interracial marriage, the ancestry of Native Americans, etc. When a particular doctrine or practice becomes sufficiently unpopular, preventing the growth of the church, the policy or doctrine is changed. And it is done in such a way that the membership forgets that it was ever any different. We have always been at war with Eurasia. Again and again this has happened and will continue to happen. If it doesn't, the church will wither away.

Mark my words. We have already begun to see the church's stance on homosexuality liberalize. It is no longer a sin to have homosexual thoughts. Mormon bishops no longer send gay people to be "fixed" at BYU by attaching electrodes to their testicles (link) (video). The church isn't even willing to state categorically that homosexuality is a choice in its newest pamphlet, "God Loveth His Children", whereas this was once taught readily. I know people who are openly gay and even serving in the church, just so long as they don't have gay sex (link). I have even heard of bishops telling gay men that they can hold hands and even kiss. Things are changing right underneath our noses, changing for the better. That is why I can't help but look at the future with optimism.

It gets better.

Giving 50/50 an F

2011-10-08T11:27:00.000-07:00

Sarah and I watched 50/50 last night. It's a story about a 27-year-old guy (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) who develops a rare form of cancer and is given a 50% chance of surviving. The movie revolves around him and his friends/family coming to grips with and dealing with the cancer in their own ways. We see his interactions with his girlfriend (Bryce Dallas Howard), his best friend (Seth Rogan), his mother (Anjelica Huston), and his therapist (Anna Kendrick). It's a comedy about a very serious subject. It's the sort of movie which has you laughing hysterically then weeping uncontrollably. In other words, it's basically real life. We both loved the movie.

My intention though is not to write a review of the movie, but rather to address a certain characteristic of the movie. 50/50 is rated R. There is no violence. There is a little bit of sex, but nothing much more than one could see on prime-time television. The movie deals with adult subjects, but that doesn't give a movie an R-rating. The reason for the rating, as far as I could tell, was the language.

According to the movie rating site kids in mind, 50/50 sported "about 56 F-words and its derivatives, 13 sexual references, 26 scatological terms, 17 anatomical terms, 3 mild obscenities, name-calling..., 17 religious exclamations." The majority of the profanity came from Seth Rogan, though everyone got a chance to throw in an F-word or two.

So why do movies have to put in all this profanity? Why do they have to take a beautiful story about a guy dealing with a life-threatening disease and poison it with foul language? These are the sorts of questions I used to ask when I was younger and refused to watch R-rated movies. It used to bother me that they would put in these bits for no more reason than to just make the movie edgier, to try to entice people come see it. At least, that's what I thought at the time. But I've since come to my senses.

Why do movie-makers put profanity into a movie? Simply, because that's how people talk. Take the average two guys in their late 20s. They probably use the F-word. They probably use it a lot. If a movie is trying to portray an honest, realistic representation of life, why shouldn't they have the characters speaking the way that people actually speak in real life?

I have seen a number of movies/television about gang-bangers or mafiosos where they are not using profanity so as to avoid an R-rating. It sounds ridiculous when people portraying these types of people say things like, "What the freak?!" or "Dang it!". People in those situations simply do not speak like that. Speaking for myself, it completely takes me out of the moment to see clearly non-realistic representations of these characters.

Of course, many of the people who question the use of profanity in movies probably just don't hear a lot of profanity in their daily lives. But I can assure you that the F-word is used all of the time by people in all walks of life. As a youth I was told that profanity is only used by ignorant people with low vocabularies, but it's just not true. Doctors, scientists, engineers, mothers, and even the vice president Joe Biden use the F-word on a daily basis. Let's stop pretending that vulgarity doesn't exist and just move on with our lives.

I Never Thought I'd Say It: Thank You Discovery Institute

2011-04-11T23:31:00.002-07:00

I will get around to explaining my surprising gratitude towards the Discovery Institute in a moment, but first, some background. If you are not listening to the RadioLab podcast, you need to be. There was an amazing episode recently that really affected me.

One story in the episode spoke of a woman, Zelda Gamson, who was trying to quit smoking. For years she tried everything, but again and again she would fail in her endeavor. The addiction was just too strong. One day she devised a solution. She made a pact with her friend. If she ever smoked again, even once, she would give $5,000 to the Klu Klux Klan. Lo and behold, it worked; she never smoked again. Any time she would feel the temptation to smoke, she would think of the KKK. The idea of giving them her money was so repugnant that it transcended her desire for a cigarette, thus giving her the will-power to finally quit her habit.

Permit one other quick diversion. Having a girlfriend has not done my body any favors. After a year wherein I finally arrived at an acceptable weight, a few short months of undone all my 2010 efforts. In an effort to turn back the hands of the clock, Sarah and I have both been trying to exercise every morning. Needless to say, our results have been less than laudable. The lure of the pillow is strong in opposition to the pain of push-ups and curls.

Upon listening to the above episode, a thought struck us. Perhaps we could find a charity that we found to be repugnant, one with which we strongly disagree. Could we use the threat of our money going to this cause as a sufficient counterweight to the siren's call of the mattress in the morning?

Enter the Discovery Institute. As of two weeks ago, any day in which I fail to exercise results in a $5 donation to the Discovery Institute. Sarah has selected an equally repugnant recipient: Michele Bachmann. Guess how many days we have failed to exercise since beginning this program. I'll give you a hint. The answer rhymes with "hero".

The theory behind the program is quite sound. Humans aren't very good with the concept of "delayed gratification". Evolutionarily we are predisposed to fulfilling our needs in the near term rather than taking actions which give us a benefit sometime in the future. That's the very reason why exercise is so difficult. We experience pain immediately, something our body doesn't want, in order to gain better health at some point in the future, a time about which our body doesn't care. It's just not a fair fight, not a fair fight at all.

The threat of donating to the Discovery Institute changes the equation. It is no longer a choice between pleasure in the future and pain today. It is now a choice between pain today (exercise) and worse pain today (knowing that $5 of my money will help promote creationism). When the equation is changed in this fashion, exercise immediately becomes the preferable choice. Both of us have been surprised at how this has made the choice to exercise not only the least painful, but easy. I'm not using any hyperbole when I state that the thought of being on their donor list is so repulsive that not getting up isn't even a question.

So I suppose I should thank the Discovery Institute. Thank you. I sincerely hope to never give you a single dollar.

Faith-Promoting Coincidence

2010-08-01T11:23:00.000-07:00

For the past month or two, about once a week the power has suddenly gone off throughout the house. In order to return my world to light, I have to go flip the switch in the outside breaker box. This is not something one should generally ever have to do. After calling an electrician, I was informed that my breaker box was very old and in need of replacement. Total price-tag: $1,600. Yikes!

Something interesting happened a few days later. On Wednesday morning, after thinking over my options for a few days, I contacted the electrician to schedule the replacement. I was not crazy about the $1,600 expense, but I didn't have much other option. Later that day I came into an unexpected amount of money. It was completely unexpected, from some work I had done a while back. After taxes, the money came out to just over the amount needed for the new breaker box.

If I were still a believer, I would have been getting up at church to share my incredible, faith-promoting experience. I would tell of how I wasn't sure how I was going to get the money together (even though every person in this country has credit cards). Then I would start tearing up as I spoke of how God had presented a solution in the form of this unexpected money after I had taken a step of faith by scheduling the work. I would share this story for years to come, expressing my gratitude for a God who cares about something as insignificant as myself and my breaker box.

But that is just not the case for me. I have been careful to put money aside for the inevitable problems that regularly accompany home-ownership. I will be able to cover the expense without worrying about where I will find the money or having to go without food. That doesn't change the fact that $1,600 is a fair chunk of change that I would much rather have going to something I want rather than a new breaker box, but I'll be alright.

So, why would God miraculously bless me with the money to pay for something for which I could already pay easily on my own? Why would God bless a person like me, an atheist, who does not believe in him? Obviously he did not. Sometimes things just happen. Sometimes events randomly converge in a seemingly significant manner. No amount of injected purpose can change the fact that it is just a meaningless coincidence, like the millions of meaningless coincidences that happen every day all over the world.

In Remembrance of Those Who Live

2010-07-06T21:16:00.004-07:00

By way of preface, I noticed today that the last time I had posted to this blog was Jul 6, 2009. In other words, if I fail to post within the next hour and forty minutes, I will have to admit to myself that I allowed an entire year to go by without taking the time to make a single post. I cannot live with the realization that I have shirked my duty to the five or so people who I have failed to offend yet. As such, I am determined to rise to the challenge of diluting myself into believing that I am an active blogger.

Two days ago was Independence Day. In this post-Facebook world every holiday provides an opportunity for "friends" around the world to express their holiday feelings in 140 characters or less. The 4th of July is no different. My news feed was awash in patriotic expressions of love for our country and troops. I, not wishing to rock the boat, posted my own expression of patriotic fervor.

On this day, let us remember not only those who have died, but also those who have lived. Let us remember not only a nation that dared sail the seas to aid our European cousins, but also a nation that dared sail the skies to the moon. Let us remember not only those who toppled tyrants, but also those who created an alternative to tyranny. Let us honor those lives lost by never forgetting those lives lived.

Independence Day and I have had a complicated relationship of late. On the one hand, I do love America, deeply. The United States is an amazing country, one in which I am proud and grateful to have been raised. I love to study about the lives of our Founding Fathers—especially when the histories in question do not shy away from the more nuanced truth of our nation's founding. It is truly amazing what these men created: a republic unlike any that had come before. OK, fine, that last sentence was a touch hyperbolic, but it sounded good.

On the other hand, I have a tough time with the nationalistic fervor that accompanies this holiday. I am not fond of absurd, grossly over generalized affirmations like, "America is the best country in the world?" Best at what? From the recent World Cup, we're clearly not the best country in the world at soccer. I especially shy away from the bizarre Christian-infused rhetoric that fills the air so readily of late. I'm not sure how Jesus became so pro-America, but—if the image put forth by Evangelicals is to be believed—when he returns, he'll be driving a Hummer.

The most troubling aspect of typical Christo-american nationalism is the obsession with the military. This is what I have noticed the most of late, and is probably the leading cause of this recent rift between myself and the 4th. I recall noticing it first a few years ago as I watched the Freedom Days parade in Provo, UT. At the time, the Iraq War had just begun to develop into the quagmire that we all now know and love. War was on my mind; it was on everyone's mind. I watched as military vehicles drove along the parade route to the cheers and adulation of the crowd. Then I felt the Earth rumble as five fighter jets performed a fly-by in perfect formation. Tears welled in my eyes. They were not the same tears of pride and joy that filled the eyes of my fellow parade-goers. They were tears of sadness.

Please understand that I am not a fanatical, anti-military liberal who believes that we should all just sit around the campfire singing Kumbaya while smoking pot. I recognize the necessity of the military and the need, at times, for us to engage in wars aboard and at home. I am proud of our forebears who gave their lives on foreign soil for the good of America and the world. I am proud of those who now are willing to serve our country. I am especially those families that willingly give up their loved ones, not knowing if they will return. I am proud of and support our military. In that regard, I honestly do believe we are the best in the world.

That all said, I also believe that the existence and necessity of our military should fill us all with a deep abiding sadness. The fact that we have a military at all betrays a massive human failure on the part of the whole world. How wonderful it would be to live in a day when we no longer had to send our sons and daughters to war. How wonderful it would be if no parent ever had to receive another notice of their child's passing on foreign shores. How wonderful it would be for no child to ever again be raised without a parent, having been killed in lands the child can't even pronounce. We do not live in that world, for these reasons I wept.

I also wept because of the pride so many Americans have not only in our servicemen, but in the industrial military complex itself. Why should we be proud of the fact that we must spend $800 billion a year? Why should we be proud of the fact that our loved ones leave us to die? Why doesn't the sight of our military fill us with sadness and cause us to cry out in desperation, "This has to stop!"

America's greatness is not defined by it's military might. Our ability to face down other nations who wish us harm serves to protect our greatness, not define it. When I think of the things that make America great, I think of a man who dared America to walk on the moon. I think of a woman who refused to give up her seat on a bus. I think of the scientists and engineers who revolutionized the world by bringing forth the internet. I think of the men and women who put their own lives on hold to help complete strangers in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. I think of an industrious people who built the Hoover Dam. I think of a people who tamed the wilderness and made the desert to bloom. These are the symbols that make me proud to be an American. These are people that truly make us great.

Echoes of Myself

2009-07-06T07:29:00.003-07:00

One of my favorite elements of the internet is how it keeps a readily accessible record of our past online interactions. Forty years from now, the very words I'm writing at this moment will still be searchable and accessible to my kids and grandkids. That's pretty cool, but can also be dangerous if you don't take care with what you chisel into the internet stone.

While searching for something completely unrelated, I stumbled upon a conversation between myself and another gentleman on March 8, 2003. It was fascinating to read as it gave a beautiful snapshot of my thinking and temperament at the moment. Although many of my views have since changed, I'm so glad that this still exists. I can't help but wonder what I'll think in six years when I look back at what I am posting today.

Here is the conversation in its entirety. I think the last comment I make is the most interesting when cast in the light of my current beliefs.

jinxidoru: I noticed a discussion on religion and couldn't help but input my two cents.

I am a devote Christian. I cannot accept the idea that God does not have a true church on the Earth today. Many people say that it really doesn't matter what church you belong to just so long as you do good things. I agree to an extent. The most important is to be a good person. You could be a member of the best church ever, but if you're not being a good person, it's pretty pointless. But there is a lot of confusion among the churches on the earth and what constitutes good. For this reason, God has his true church, so that the doctrines are taught properly and with the correct authority. Without this, there is confusion, and people bicker and argue over rediculous things. What is the proper way to baptize? How do we receive salvation? Are there prophets on the earth today? There have to be answers to these questions.

For example, in the times of Jesus Christ, he was very forthright about issues when they were brought to his attention. He didn't give non-committal answers. He gave cut-and-dry answers with little room for interpretation. Why should we believe that whereas Jesus Christ was very direct before, that for some reason he's decided to confuse us by spreading the truth like leaves in the wind.

I cannot accept this. It is for this reason that I have asked the only person who knows what church is the true church of Jesus Christ. I asked Heavenly Father, and I believe that he has made it known unto me personally what church is his and what church has prophets who truly speak with God in our day.

By saying this, I do not mean to be exclusionary nor demeaning in any way. I simply express my feelings and the reason I belong to the church to which I belong. I encourage everyone to pray and ask God where the truth is, and to follow not what I have said but rather what God says to you. We can be tolerant and accepting because ultimately, it's our decisions, not the decisions of others which determine the outcome of our existence.

I apologize if this sounds super-preachy. I'm sure it does, and I'm sure I'll be totally flamed for everything I've just said, but that's ok. I felt that I should share my feelings, so I did.

Creoena: My opinion is that people should live their own lives and not follow some belief imposed on them. People can believe what they want, but have religious folk really thought about their religion and the truth behind it? For example, Creation is all but proven false, and Noah's Ark seems like a story out of a children's book than something actually true.

jinxidoru: I find it funny that you say that people should live their own lives and not follow some belief imposed on them, and then you try to impose on everyone your beliefs. I could easily say that your lack of belief has been imposed on you by society.

Secondly, just because you don't believe in Creation does not mean that it's all but proven false. I have never heard a legitimate scientist say that creation has been proven false. They are not that stupid. Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Copernicus all believed in God (though some in differing ways). Even Steven Hawking, one of the greatest minds of our day, does not deny the existence of God. I don't know whether or not he believes in God, but I have read many instances where he affirms the possibility of the existence of God and of creationism. Please do not say ridiculous lies (in regards to Creation being proved wrong) that have no base in reality just because they back up what you believe.

Prove that you believe what you just said in your post by allowing other people to make the choice that they want to believe in God without people like you slandering them and calling them childish for their beliefs.

Creoena: LOL

I impose a belief that people should have their own beliefs and morals. And you're right, I do impose it on people. But there's a difference. This is that I believe people should follow THEIR hearts, and not become a collective mind. My imposition (if thats a word) does not have any strings attached, while religion does. And I do realize people's own beliefs may be to believe in god and religion and whatever else, but I guess if that's what people want to believe than it will have to be, but I honestly don't really understand why someone would not want to be a true individual.

Secondly, I do have to apologize.....creation has not officially been disproven, but every day the truth is coming more and more from science.

Third, I did not call religion childish, I just feel the story of Noah's ark is a bit childish. Religion is actually quite complex, or there wouldn't have been all the religious wars that there has been. And the day religious people stop trying to convert us to religion, and we all know that will never happen, I will stop promoting Atheism, so I guess you're just going to have to deal with it.

jinxidoru: I agree with a lot of what you said except one thing. I don't think you should ever stop promoting Atheism unless you stop believing in it, just I will not stop promoting Christianity unless I were to stop believing in it. If we feel that something is correct and right, we should do all we can to help others understand it and accept it if they can. For this I respect your desire to promote your beliefs and encourage you to continue even if I don't necesarily agree with said beliefs.

Creoena: Wow, well said. This would be a rather dull world if everyone agreed with everything.

And here's one more extra post I found on the same forum, but a different thread. Here's a comment with which I still agree 100%.

jinxidoru: One more thing. If you're Christian, please don't post unless you have something intelligent to say. It really sheds a negative light on the rest of us. Reading some of the posts by so called "Christians" I can fully understand why we are often times labeled has hypocrites. Please quit using profanity and show a little love, kindness, and open-mindedness. As we always say, "What would Jesus do?" Well, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't go around dropping the F-bomb at people he didn't agree with.

iTunes Remote pairing code

2009-06-20T12:06:00.005-07:00

If you have an iPhone or iPod Touch, you are probably familiar with the iTunes Remote app. It allows you to control iTunes from a really well designed application. I have recently been working on reverse engineering the communication so that I can use the same remote to control other media applications like Boxee and XBMC. There are a number of other projects doing similar things (stereo).

The communication has not been difficult to decode. It is a variation of the previously reverse-engineered DAAP communication used by iTunes sharing. It's referred to as DACP. If you are looking for information about this protocol, Jeffrey Sharkey has done an excellent job of documenting his efforts in creating a Google Android implementation of the iTunes Remote (Android DACP Remote Control).

Before you can use the iPhone as a remote, there is a pairing process which occurs between the server and the remote. There is a good discussion of the pairing process by mycroes (Pairing the Itunes Remote app with your own server). The one part that is missing is how iTunes generates the pairing code which it sends back to the iPhone. I have finally, with a fair bit of effort, been able to decode the value.

The pairing code is generated by a hash algorithm I was able to lift and modify from the xine source code. The algorithm takes two arguments. The first is the Pair parameter in the _touch-remote._tcp zeroconf record (refer to mycroes's article). The Pair parameter is a 16 character hexadecimal string. The second is the four digit passcode provided by the remote which must be sent back by iTunes (or the custom server).

These two parameters can be passed to the function provided below. The result is a 32 character hexadecimal string which is returned back to the remote application in the form of a GET request.

Since this code was modified from GPL source code (xine), it is also protected by the GPL. Feel free to use this code for whatever you want. All I ask is that you give me proper attribution. Also, I would love to hear what you have done with it, so please let me know if you use it for a cool project.

With no further ado, here's the source.


std::string itunes_pairingcode( std::string passcode, std::string pair ) 
{
    // initialize the param array
    char param[64];
    ::memset( param, 0, 64 );
    param[56] = '\xc0';
    param[24] = '\x80';

    // set the pair value
    ::strncpy( param, pair.c_str(), 16 );

    // copy the pair code
    ::strncpy( param+16, passcode.c_str(), 4 );
    param[22] = param[19];
    param[20] = param[18];
    param[18] = param[17];
    param[19] = param[17] = 0;

    // initialize a, b, c, d
    uint32_t a = 0x67452301;
    uint32_t b = 0xefcdab89;
    uint32_t c = 0x98badcfe;
    uint32_t d = 0x10325476;

    a = ((b & c) | (~b & d)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x00)) + a - 0x28955B88;
    a = ((a << 0x07) | (a >> 0x19)) + b;
    d = ((a & b) | (~a & c)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x04)) + d - 0x173848AA;
    d = ((d << 0x0c) | (d >> 0x14)) + a;
    c = ((d & a) | (~d & b)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x08)) + c + 0x242070DB;
    c = ((c << 0x11) | (c >> 0x0f)) + d;
    b = ((c & d) | (~c & a)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x0c)) + b - 0x3E423112;
    b = ((b << 0x16) | (b >> 0x0a)) + c;
    a = ((b & c) | (~b & d)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x10)) + a - 0x0A83F051;
    a = ((a << 0x07) | (a >> 0x19)) + b;
    d = ((a & b) | (~a & c)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x14)) + d + 0x4787C62A;
    d = ((d << 0x0c) | (d >> 0x14)) + a;
    c = ((d & a) | (~d & b)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x18)) + c - 0x57CFB9ED;
    c = ((c << 0x11) | (c >> 0x0f)) + d;
    b = ((c & d) | (~c & a)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x1c)) + b - 0x02B96AFF;
    b = ((b << 0x16) | (b >> 0x0a)) + c;
    a = ((b & c) | (~b & d)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x20)) + a + 0x698098D8;
    a = ((a << 0x07) | (a >> 0x19)) + b;
    d = ((a & b) | (~a & c)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x24)) + d - 0x74BB0851;
    d = ((d << 0x0c) | (d >> 0x14)) + a;
    c = ((d & a) | (~d & b)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x28)) + c - 0x0000A44F;
    c = ((c << 0x11) | (c >> 0x0f)) + d;
    b = ((c & d) | (~c & a)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x2C)) + b - 0x76A32842;
    b = ((b << 0x16) | (b >> 0x0a)) + c;
    a = ((b & c) | (~b & d)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x30)) + a + 0x6B901122;
    a = ((a << 0x07) | (a >> 0x19)) + b;
    d = ((a & b) | (~a & c)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x34)) + d - 0x02678E6D;
    d = ((d << 0x0c) | (d >> 0x14)) + a;
    c = ((d & a) | (~d & b)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x38)) + c - 0x5986BC72;
    c = ((c << 0x11) | (c >> 0x0f)) + d;
    b = ((c & d) | (~c & a)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x3c)) + b + 0x49B40821;
    b = ((b << 0x16) | (b >> 0x0a)) + c;
    
    a = ((b & d) | (~d & c)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x04)) + a - 0x09E1DA9E;
    a = ((a << 0x05) | (a >> 0x1b)) + b;
    d = ((a & c) | (~c & b)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x18)) + d - 0x3FBF4CC0;
    d = ((d << 0x09) | (d >> 0x17)) + a;
    c = ((d & b) | (~b & a)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x2c)) + c + 0x265E5A51;
    c = ((c << 0x0e) | (c >> 0x12)) + d;
    b = ((c & a) | (~a & d)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x00)) + b - 0x16493856;
    b = ((b << 0x14) | (b >> 0x0c)) + c;
    a = ((b & d) | (~d & c)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x14)) + a - 0x29D0EFA3;
    a = ((a << 0x05) | (a >> 0x1b)) + b;
    d = ((a & c) | (~c & b)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x28)) + d + 0x02441453;
    d = ((d << 0x09) | (d >> 0x17)) + a;
    c = ((d & b) | (~b & a)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x3c)) + c - 0x275E197F;
    c = ((c << 0x0e) | (c >> 0x12)) + d;
    b = ((c & a) | (~a & d)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x10)) + b - 0x182C0438;
    b = ((b << 0x14) | (b >> 0x0c)) + c;
    a = ((b & d) | (~d & c)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x24)) + a + 0x21E1CDE6;
    a = ((a << 0x05) | (a >> 0x1b)) + b;
    d = ((a & c) | (~c & b)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x38)) + d - 0x3CC8F82A;
    d = ((d << 0x09) | (d >> 0x17)) + a;
    c = ((d & b) | (~b & a)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x0c)) + c - 0x0B2AF279;
    c = ((c << 0x0e) | (c >> 0x12)) + d;
    b = ((c & a) | (~a & d)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x20)) + b + 0x455A14ED;
    b = ((b << 0x14) | (b >> 0x0c)) + c;
    a = ((b & d) | (~d & c)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x34)) + a - 0x561C16FB;
    a = ((a << 0x05) | (a >> 0x1b)) + b;
    d = ((a & c) | (~c & b)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x08)) + d - 0x03105C08;
    d = ((d << 0x09) | (d >> 0x17)) + a;
    c = ((d & b) | (~b & a)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x1c)) + c + 0x676F02D9;
    c = ((c << 0x0e) | (c >> 0x12)) + d;
    b = ((c & a) | (~a & d)) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x30)) + b - 0x72D5B376;
    b = ((b << 0x14) | (b >> 0x0c)) + c;
    
    a = (b ^ c ^ d) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x14)) + a - 0x0005C6BE;
    a = ((a << 0x04) | (a >> 0x1c)) + b;
    d = (a ^ b ^ c) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x20)) + d - 0x788E097F;
    d = ((d << 0x0b) | (d >> 0x15)) + a;
    c = (d ^ a ^ b) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x2c)) + c + 0x6D9D6122;
    c = ((c << 0x10) | (c >> 0x10)) + d;
    b = (c ^ d ^ a) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x38)) + b - 0x021AC7F4;
    b = ((b << 0x17) | (b >> 0x09)) + c;
    a = (b ^ c ^ d) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x04)) + a - 0x5B4115BC;
    a = ((a << 0x04) | (a >> 0x1c)) + b;
    d = (a ^ b ^ c) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x10)) + d + 0x4BDECFA9;
    d = ((d << 0x0b) | (d >> 0x15)) + a;
    c = (d ^ a ^ b) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x1c)) + c - 0x0944B4A0;
    c = ((c << 0x10) | (c >> 0x10)) + d;
    b = (c ^ d ^ a) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x28)) + b - 0x41404390;
    b = ((b << 0x17) | (b >> 0x09)) + c;
    a = (b ^ c ^ d) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x34)) + a + 0x289B7EC6;
    a = ((a << 0x04) | (a >> 0x1c)) + b;
    d = (a ^ b ^ c) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x00)) + d - 0x155ED806;
    d = ((d << 0x0b) | (d >> 0x15)) + a;
    c = (d ^ a ^ b) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x0c)) + c - 0x2B10CF7B;
    c = ((c << 0x10) | (c >> 0x10)) + d;
    b = (c ^ d ^ a) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x18)) + b + 0x04881D05;
    b = ((b << 0x17) | (b >> 0x09)) + c;
    a = (b ^ c ^ d) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x24)) + a - 0x262B2FC7;
    a = ((a << 0x04) | (a >> 0x1c)) + b;
    d = (a ^ b ^ c) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x30)) + d - 0x1924661B;
    d = ((d << 0x0b) | (d >> 0x15)) + a;
    c = (d ^ a ^ b) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x3c)) + c + 0x1fa27cf8;
    c = ((c << 0x10) | (c >> 0x10)) + d;
    b = (c ^ d ^ a) + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x08)) + b - 0x3B53A99B;
    b = ((b << 0x17) | (b >> 0x09)) + c;
    
    a = ((~d | b) ^ c)  + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x00)) + a - 0x0BD6DDBC;
    a = ((a << 0x06) | (a >> 0x1a)) + b; 
    d = ((~c | a) ^ b)  + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x1c)) + d + 0x432AFF97;
    d = ((d << 0x0a) | (d >> 0x16)) + a; 
    c = ((~b | d) ^ a)  + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x38)) + c - 0x546BDC59;
    c = ((c << 0x0f) | (c >> 0x11)) + d; 
    b = ((~a | c) ^ d)  + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x14)) + b - 0x036C5FC7;
    b = ((b << 0x15) | (b >> 0x0b)) + c; 
    a = ((~d | b) ^ c)  + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x30)) + a + 0x655B59C3;
    a = ((a << 0x06) | (a >> 0x1a)) + b; 
    d = ((~c | a) ^ b)  + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x0C)) + d - 0x70F3336E;
    d = ((d << 0x0a) | (d >> 0x16)) + a; 
    c = ((~b | d) ^ a)  + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x28)) + c - 0x00100B83;
    c = ((c << 0x0f) | (c >> 0x11)) + d; 
    b = ((~a | c) ^ d)  + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x04)) + b - 0x7A7BA22F;
    b = ((b << 0x15) | (b >> 0x0b)) + c; 
    a = ((~d | b) ^ c)  + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x20)) + a + 0x6FA87E4F;
    a = ((a << 0x06) | (a >> 0x1a)) + b; 
    d = ((~c | a) ^ b)  + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x3c)) + d - 0x01D31920;
    d = ((d << 0x0a) | (d >> 0x16)) + a; 
    c = ((~b | d) ^ a)  + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x18)) + c - 0x5CFEBCEC;
    c = ((c << 0x0f) | (c >> 0x11)) + d; 
    b = ((~a | c) ^ d)  + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x34)) + b + 0x4E0811A1;
    b = ((b << 0x15) | (b >> 0x0b)) + c; 
    a = ((~d | b) ^ c)  + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x10)) + a - 0x08AC817E;
    a = ((a << 0x06) | (a >> 0x1a)) + b; 
    d = ((~c | a) ^ b)  + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x2c)) + d - 0x42C50DCB;
    d = ((d << 0x0a) | (d >> 0x16)) + a; 
    c = ((~b | d) ^ a)  + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x08)) + c + 0x2AD7D2BB;
    c = ((c << 0x0f) | (c >> 0x11)) + d; 
    b = ((~a | c) ^ d)  + (*(uint32_t*)(param+0x24)) + b - 0x14792C6F;
    b = ((b << 0x15) | (b >> 0x0b)) + c; 

    a += 0x67452301;
    b += 0xefcdab89;
    c += 0x98badcfe;
    d += 0x10325476;

    // switch to little endian
    a = ((a&0xff000000)>>24) + ((a&0xff0000)>>8) + ((a&0xff00)<<8) + ((a&0xff)<<24);
    b = ((b&0xff000000)>>24) + ((b&0xff0000)>>8) + ((b&0xff00)<<8) + ((b&0xff)<<24);
    c = ((c&0xff000000)>>24) + ((c&0xff0000)>>8) + ((c&0xff00)<<8) + ((c&0xff)<<24);
    d = ((d&0xff000000)>>24) + ((d&0xff0000)>>8) + ((d&0xff00)<<8) + ((d&0xff)<<24);

    // write the pairing id and return it
    char retval[33];
    snprintf( retval, sizeof(retval), "%0X%0X%0X%0X", a, b, c, d );
    return retval;
}

Teabagging the White House

2009-04-20T10:24:00.004-07:00

By now, I suspect you have all heard of these anti-tax protests staged around the country on April 15th. For the benefit of posterity, I will give a brief synopsis. With the passing of the recent stimulus package of about $800 billion, Republicans are furious. To air their grievances, they have turned to the street and organized a nation-wide protest to decry the massive increase in taxes brought on by the stimulus package. They have chosen to refer to themselves as a tea party, in order to hearken back to Boston Tea Party of the revolution.

For starters, I don't know who it was that came up with the name of tea parties for these recent anti-tax protests, but I want to thank whoever it was. You have given us liberals a gift. Mocking you has never been so easy. These teabagging jokes just write themselves. The last time you gave us such a comedic gift of this quality, a lawyer was pulling BBs out of his face.

I love that they try to connect themselves to the Boston Tea Party. Republicans are trying to connect the current state of the nation with the state of pre-revolution America. Any grade-schooler can tell you the battle cry of the original tea partiers, "No taxation without representation!" But does that refer to the current state of America? Are Republicans being taxed without representation? They would have you think they are, but the answer is obviously no. In fact there are two problems with that claim.

The first problem with the above statement is the claim that we are being taxed. That is the most bizarre element of this whole circus. Taxes have not gone up. In fact, I just got my pay check for the last half of March. Guess what. My taxes went down. The stimulus package contained about $300 billion in tax cuts. Those were put in to appease the Republicans, who still refused to vote for it as a complete block. So, I'm not sure whose taxes you are protesting, not mine apparently.

Last I checked, Republicans still have the right to vote. The fact that more Americans disagree with them today than agree with them does not change the fact that they still have representation. Over the last eight years I watched as the leader made decision after decision that made me sick to my stomach. Did Democrats lack representation? No. We simply lacked control. That is the situation you are currently in. You mucked up government so bad that people decided that they had had enough and voted you guys out of office. Apparently though, your idea of being represented is that my viewpoint (and the views of the majority of America) be relegated to the dustbin. Ahhh... sounds like the Bush years.

It's illuminating to consider how Republicans considered protesters just a few years back. When Republicans were in power, anyone who voiced any sort of dissent were considered anti-American. I can't count the number of times I was personally called anti-American because I had the audacity to voice my disagreement with the current administration. According to Republicans of the past eight years, the First Ammendment provides all Americans the right to freely speak in favor of the Executive branch.

Well, the tables have certainly changed, haven't they? Your man is no longer in power, and the value of dissent has completely changed in your eyes as a result. Whereas you once considered dissent to be anti-American, you now have pundits like O'Reilly and Hannity extolling the great patriotic fervor of those protesting. How is it that when you disagree with the government you are patriotic, but when I do the same thing I am anti-American?!

I would like to state categorically that I believe peaceful public dissent to be a wonderful thing. It is a hallmark of a free nation. Although I think that these tea parties are ridiculous, I wholeheartedly encourage Americans who feel disenfranchised by Obama's presidency to let their voice be heard. Please keep it up. Protesting is not anti-American. Quite the contrary, it's one of the most American activities that exists.

The funniest part of this whole anti-American rhetoric is how there have been a number of tea parties where secession was advocated. This was especially the case in Texas, where even the governor tipped his hat to the seditious talk. So, let me get this right. If I believe that we should stop sending our children to die in Iraq, I am anti-American. But, if you advocate seceding, you are a patriot. In the words of my brother, "The party of Lincoln certainly has come full circle, hasn't it?"

Translation Telephone

2009-03-22T14:44:00.004-07:00

A friend recently sent me a list of phrases. They were all cliches that she had entered into an online translator then had it translate again and again and again. The results were generally pretty far from the original. I decided to create an automated version of the above. What follows below is just that. Enter in a phrase and click 'start'. The phrase will begin being translated between random languages and you can see how quickly it gets mutilated.

Translation Telephone

start

Original:

Current:

Current (English):

Less than .1%

2009-03-19T21:25:00.004-07:00

Before I get to my main point, I want to make a few things clear. I am just as outraged as anyone about $165 million dollars in bonuses to AIG. Even during times of boom and economic stability, that would seem undue and excessive. When considered with respect to the fact that the American taxpayers own 80% of the company, it is nearly inexcusable. It gets even worse when you remember the fact that AIG is in part responsible for the mess in which we now find ourselves. So, I am not trying to defend AIG in any way shape or form.

What I am saying is that we should stop worrying about this AIG issue. It is a non-issue. AIG has received $170 billion in bailout money. That puts the bonuses at equaling less than .1% of the total bailout money. That is a drop in the bucket. More money could be found in a single earmark of the recent omnibus spending bill. It is hard to visualize numbers that are this huge. When we start talking millions, billions, and trillions our frame of reference disappears. It's the same relation that a dime has to a $100 bill. We spend more than $165 million every single day in Iraq.

Of course, any money is galling, but we have bigger things to worry about. We are talking about an economy that is losing trillions of dollars. Why are we quibbling over a measly 100 million?! I am very uncomfortable that our government is spending time on little more than a witch-hunt when there are far more important things to be done. Geitner needs to be focusing on the important issues of fixing this economy, but instead he is playing ring-master to a congressional circus.

I should also note something that Congress and much of the media seems completely unable to grasp. These are not "performance bonuses". They are "retention bonuses". Most people look at bonuses as being based upon performance. But sometimes bonuses are given out as a way to retain employees, to get them to stay to the end of a project. This happened to me at my current job. I wasn't sure I wanted to stay, so they provided a bonus to be awarded on the two-year mark of my employment. If I left before that date, I would forfeit the bonus. That is the type of bonuses these are; they are not dependent upon retention.

People also fail to grasp that these are legally binding contracts that provide for these bonuses. That has resulted in the government performing an end-run. They know they can't get the money back, so they have created legislation to tax the hell out of these people. That is a scary precedent. Punitive taxation is not a habit we should get into. This also comes with an economic cost of causing people to not trust these retention bonuses in the future. Employees engage in these sorts of bonuses because they have trust in the company. Now they have to fear that the government will take bonus away through special legislation. That is not a fear we want to validate as it brings moral hazard.

Ultimately, I do not fault the congressman themselves for this ridiculous roadshow we are forced to behold. This is one of the unfortunate side-effects of a democracy. Even if these elected officials know that they shouldn't be wasting their time on this, we force them to do so. We demand that they attack these sorts of red herrings. If they don't, we refuse to vote for them. It really is unfortunate, but it's the way that our government works.

We Need Another World War

2009-02-16T14:51:00.000-07:00

Until recently, I thought we all agreed that the New Deal rescued America from the Great Depression. Apparently I was wrong. As the voices calling for a new New Deal have become louder, the voices deriding the idea have grown commensurately louder as well. You can't watch Fox News for too long without hearing someone speak on the ills of the New Deal, and how government spending will kill us.

So, if it wasn't the New Deal, what then saved America from the massive unemployment of the 1930s? Among the naysayers, almost universally they will point to World War II. For the purpose of this article, I am not going to refute this claim. Let's accept that World War II, not the New Deal, saved us from the depression.

What is it about a war that stimulates an economy? Simply put: government spending. During the war, the government increased spending in historic proportions. They needed tanks and bombs, but they didn't have the cash. So they took on debt (war bonds). The national debt sky-rocketed. The deficit spending resulted in a stimulus affect on the national economy, a stimulus affect that lasted even after the war subsided.

It is important to take note of what provided the stimulating affect. It was not the war in and of itself. It was the affect of massive government spending. What this shows is that, if the New Deal indeed did fail, it was because it didn't go far enough. It didn't spend enough. Let's keep that in mind as we look to enact a new stimulus package. The depression wasn't fixed by massive tax cuts. It was fixed by massive, unprecedented government spending.

A Parable

2009-02-16T13:31:00.002-07:00

There was a boy, a boy named Joe. As a child, he was instructed by his doctor to take a particular multi-vitamin that the doctor sold. It was to be taken every morning. At first he wasn't pleased. It was big, it was hard to swallow, and it left a bitter after-taste. The doctor explained that it would help him feel good and keep him from becoming ill. He decided to trust the doctor, taking the pill every morning as instructed.

Sure enough, the pill worked. Joe remained healthy throughout his childhood. He would hear of other children getting pneumonia or the influenza. But, he remained healthy. Sure, he would come down with the occasional cold. But, thanks to the pill, the colds never progressed any further. He sincerely felt sorry for those who didn't take the pill.

Among his friends, there were those who took the pill and others who did not. The funny thing was that he couldn't tell any difference between them. They all seemed to be healthy regardless of whether or not they took the pill. The doctor explained that those friends were actually very sick inside but didn't realize it. Joe needed to encourage them to start taking the pill before they all became terribly ill. With Joe's encouragement, a few of them did. Joe felt good that he had saved his friends from a horrible, premature death.

There were a few times when Joe neglected to take his pill. Sometimes it was on accident, other times on purpose. Regardless of the reason, each time he did, he would take horribly ill. He would experience piercing headaches and crippling nausea. Upon taking the pill, it would all go away. Clearly he she was actually a very sick person. The only thing keeping him healthy was the pill.

As Joe entered adulthood, he had to start paying for the pill himself. He was surprised at how expensive it was. "But," he told himself, "how can you put a price on good health?"

In college he befriended a pre-med student named Ann. Ann had not heard of this particular multi-vitamin he was taking. She became immediately interested. Joe was a handsome, healthy man. Clearly it had done him some good. Perhaps she should take it as well. Due to her inquisitive nature, before she started taking the pill, Ann wanted to know what it was. She took one to a lab to be tested. The results were surprising.

The pill consisted of an interesting chemical. The chemical was highly addictive, similar to narcotics. Interestingly, there were no other side-effects, neither negative nor positive. If a person continued to take the chemical, they would feel fine. If they stopped they would experience intense withdrawal.

Ann was surprised by Joe's response to the lab tests. Rather than thanking her, Joe was furious. He was sure that the findings were faulty. He accused her of lying. He endeavored to prove her wrong. He had other doctors test the pill. Surprisingly, they all came back with the same results. The only doctors who disagreed were those who prescribed the pill. They would dissuade him from testing the pill. They would say, "Look at yourself. Isn't your good health proof enough?"

Eventually Joe had to admit that Ann was right. He stopped taking the pill, cold turkey. At first, he became very ill. Many times he considered giving up. After all, as long as he kept taking the pill, there were no side-effects. But he simply couldn't imagine spending the rest of his life taking the pill knowing what he now knew.

Then came one morning, months later. The sickness was gone. The desire to take the pill has gone. Joe felt the same as he had his whole life, happy and healthy. It was clear that he had been wrong in believing that he was a sick person except for the pill. Clearly he had always been a healthy individual, regardless of the pill.

"He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

Tax cuts? Didn't we already try that?

2009-02-07T10:05:00.002-07:00

I, like much of America, am concerned about the coming stimulus package. I am not concerned about how big it is though. What concerns me is how big it isn't. Desperate times call for desperate measures. What especially concerns me is the huge amount of the package dedicated to tax-cuts.

Republicans believe that tax-cuts are the solution to any problem. I am afraid to go to a Republican doctor for fear that his solution to 105 fever would be a drop in the capital gains tax (that was a joke). The argument is that tax-cuts stimulate spending by putting more money in people's pockets. This seems reasonable and can be at times. Right now is one of those times when it is not reasonable.

People are cutting their spending because they are unsure with the future. As they watch news of massive layoffs and pay-cuts, they can't help wondering if they're not next on the cutting-block. If traditionally stable companies like Microsoft and IBM are handing out pink-slips, nobody's job is safe. If you were fired tomorrow, what would save your butt? A big chunk of cash in savings. So a lot of people are putting money in their savings accounts as a cushion. This is a good thing on an individual level, but it's horrible for the economy. With more people saving, less people are buying. If less people are buying, companies stop making stuff. If companies stop making stuff, people lose their jobs.

Would tax-cuts get people to stop saving and start spending? Unlikely. What would you do if you had an extra $100 per month? Would you spend it, or save it? That $100 could become very, very important in a year or two, much more important than a new dress today. When we received the $600 stimulus check last year, most people saved it (or paid down debt, which is basically the same thing). Why would we expect people to do anything different; the situation has only worsened.

The solution is direct spending into the economy. With tax-cuts, we sit back and hope that the $300 billion actually makes it into the economy rather than getting stuck in someone's bank account. With direct spending, we know that every single dollar is making it into the economy. The money goes to paying employees, buying materials, and generally infusing capital into the economy from day one.

Apart from the issue of economic stimulus, this is also a great time to bolster our national infrastructure (which needs it badly). In an economic slump, everything becomes cheaper. Road and bridge projects that would have cost a fortune two years ago have become relatively cheap. We know that we should "buy low, sell high," but we rarely do it. Here's our chance to do just that.

So why are Republicans clinging so hard to the idea of tax-cuts if they just won't work? Honestly, I think that the Right is worried. They have been preaching the gospel of tax-cuts for years. If they are proven wrong, they will be in big trouble. So what's their solution? Stay the course. That's the wrong solution.

I admire President Obama's attempts at being conciliatory and trying to include Republicans in the decision-making process. That said, he must not capitulate to their demands. There is a reason why Americans overwhelmingly voted for Democrats. Republicans have had eight years to prove their hypothesis regarding tax-cuts. The hypothesis has failed, and the American people know it.

Feeling the Spirit

2009-02-03T00:56:00.003-07:00

Recently I have been discussing my current religious beliefs with an old friend. She asked me the following question:

So, in your past you have 'felt the Spirit". What do you attribute that to now?

I spent a fair bit of time working on a response to her question, as I felt it to be a very valid inquiry. The following is what I ended up writing in response. I decided to share it here for others' perusal.

In short, yes. I have "felt the spirit." Frankly, I still do. I have spent a lot of time thinking about this whole issue. It has somewhat to do with the reasons I am who I am and believe what I believe.

The implicit argument is that my "feeling the spirit" proves that the church is true. It's the key argument to the church's truthfulness. Leaders speak of how the only way to know if the church is true is to pray and "feel the spirit," as opposed to thorough rational examination. But, is the spirit actually a valid litmus test of veracity?

Consider Paul H. Dunn. In case you don't recall, he was a member of the Presidency of the Quorum of the Seventy. He would share incredible, inspirational stories about his time as a solider and when he played baseball for the St. Louis Cardinals. People spoke of how strong the spirit was at his firesides and conference talks. There was one problem though. The stories weren't true. He made them up. Why was the spirit testifying to the truth of falsehoods?

As a missionary, I relished sharing how I knew the church was true; I had asked God, and he had responded. It never really occurred to me that non-Mormons ever did the same thing. It never occurred to me that non-Mormons had prayed and felt like they had received an answer telling them that their church was true. It never occurred to me that people who prayed to find the true church would ever be led anywhere other than the Lord's true church, the Mormons.

With time, it donned on me that the way people explained their spiritual experiences was quite similar across all faiths. I came to realize that Mormons aren't the only ones who ask God for direction and feel that they receive it. Nearly everyone with any strong faith will tell you the same story, they "feel" that their particular dogma is right and true. Those feelings they describe are pretty universal. They feel good, peace, comfort, love.

If the spirit is meant to lead people to the truthfulness of the restored gospel, why is the spirit leading millions of people to churches other than the Mormon church? Why is the spirit leading people astray? Why is it that the majority of the people who read and pray about the Book of Mormon do not receive an answer?

The obvious response at this point is that these people are not feeling the spirit. They are simply responding to their emotions, emotions that are not sent by God but generated internally. This raises a pertinent question. Who am I to presume that I am able to properly interpret the spirit when so many others (much better people than myself) are unable to properly do so? How can I be so pompous?

The spirit has a dark side too. History is replete with charismatic leaders who manipulate the emotional fervor (read: the spirit) of groups of people into believing absurdities and committing atrocities. Take Heaven's Gate. Take Jim Jones. Speak to the members of these groups, these cults, and you will find that say that they know their leader is right and good because of the way they feel. Why else would people have followed Jim Jones half way around the world unless they really, truly felt that he was right? Once again, was the spirit an adequate measure of the truthfulness of these cults? Or was it this willingness to follow the spirit that led them to their doom?

Through the above examples, and countless others, it is clear that the spirit is not an effective barometer of truthfulness. The spirit spends a lot of time testifying of things that are simply not true.

So what is the spirit? Honestly? I don't know. I can tell you a few things I do know though. I continue to "feel the spirit," even as a non-believer. I am moved by goodness. I feel peace in my life. I experience love and concern. I feel sorrow when others are hurt. I experience all of these things that I previously associated with the spirit. If anything, I experience them more now. I suppose that, if the spirit testifies of truthfulness, it's actually currently testifying of the rightness of leaving the church.

A Pious President

2009-01-28T10:51:00.005-07:00

Nearly everyone who attended BYU remembers the letters to the editor in the school newspaper, the Daily Universe. It was always guaranteed to deliver a hefty dose of self-righteousness, sarcastic rebuttals, and massive logical fallacies. Even as an alumni, I continue to read them online. I recently submitted my own, which was published. I have provided it for your reading pleasure:

Those who defend Bush's eight years of incompetence are often quick to point to his piety. Many dismiss his poor record by stating, "At least we have a man of faith and prayer leading the country." After eight years of having a pious leader, we can see where it has led us. Clearly Bush's prayers did not reveal Iraq's lack of WMDs. Prayer failed to dissuade him from narrowing the definition of torture. Prayer failed to aid him in responding to Katrina. Clearly prayer has failed us. It's time we give intelligence a try.

UPDATE: In the collection of letters that followed my posting, I found a response to my above letter:

What intelligence?

This is to the author of the Jan. 23 letter, "A pious president," and his absurd explanation of the perceived failings of our country's late administration. This author's assault on President Bush hits lower than all previous DU letters on the subject. In fact, his criticism extends past the presidency and past even the personal religious life of the man who filled it. It hits directly those who commend Bush for his faith and prayers.

But the range of the attacks goes beyond even this. The author ultimately suggests that we remove prayer as an effective engine with which to run our country, replacing it with "intelligence." I have several direct questions for the author and any who would make a similar suggestion. Whose intelligence? The new president's? The UN's? Yours? Replacing a higher power with these choices would be the most unintelligent decision we could make! God help this country the day it and its leaders cease to call upon Him and "lean unto [their] own understanding" (Proverbs 3:5).

You may find fault with some of the current or previous administration's policies, as have many others this last week. I don't agree with many of our new president's propositions, but I hope that this man is praying for guidance in his decisions. Who are you to denounce a national leader or anyone else for seeking the will of God in their endeavors? Please, let's keep our arguments and criticisms above the point of equating someone's mistakes to his practice of communing with the Lord!

MARCOR PLATT
St. Johns, Ariz.

The Freedom of No Religion

2009-01-20T15:04:00.004-07:00

I just finished watching President Obama's 2009 Inaugural Address. There was a particular statement that was made that affected me. He stated, "For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus." There was a pause. I held my breath in hope, but expected to be disappointed. Then he added this, "and non-believers."

Thank you President Obama. Thank you so much.

We, as non-believers, are so often left out, cast by the wayside. So often the concept of "freedom of religion" is taken to mean the freedom to believe in any religion but fails to include those who do not believe in any religion. Contrast the above comment with a selection of excerpts from what former (and future) presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, said in his famous speech regarding religion.

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom... Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me... We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders.

As a side-note, Romney quotes John Adams a couple times. This is the same man who said such memorable things as "This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it." And who can forget, “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion.” So much for the founding fathers all being Christians or even believers in any sense at all. But I digress.

I do not bring up Romney in an effort to discredit or attack him. There is no need to do so, as he has left the political arena for the time-being. I simply mention him as a way to contrast the common, prevailing winds regarding those of us who do not believe in God. I cannot possibly thank Obama enough for having the courage and compassion to include us in the dialogue. Freedom of religion should apply to all, of any faith or the lack thereof.

L.E.P.E.R: Chapter 5

2008-11-27T12:56:00.003-07:00

This is the sixth (and last) in a series of posts wherein I have presented a novel I started writing in high school. Please read the introduction post (link) for an explanation.

The crowd was beginning to disperse. The same boy who had stopped to stare at the stage had finally grown weary of staring at the once interesting stage. He walked away in search of a restroom, not because he was in need of the facilities; he just thought that a group of people standing around the restroom would look funnier than a group of people standing around the stage. The size of the crowd was diminishing but was still fairly large when Omar finally leaped to the stage.

Omar, once again wearing the gaudy clothing he had worn upon arriving at the city, spoke in a very dramatic speech. Everything he said made people think that he had written, revised, rewritten, and rehearsed every word. This was untrue. Omar had only written it once; he had made Joe revise it.

As the crowd noticed that something actually was occurring on the stage, each face in the crowd scrutinized the site before their eyes. A fearful silence fell across the crowd. The fear of a clown actually within a few feet of them was too much to handle. Many collapsed to the ground as they fainted. Others were scared stiff to where they couldn't move. One started laughing. Someone knocked him cold for his own safety.

Clowns are the second most feared humanoid in the whole galaxy. Ataxian history is split into ages, somewhat like a millennium. The ages are referred to by the name of an animal. This has caused enormous strife in past years as historians argued whether the present age was the age of the Fruitbat or the Ostrich. The last age before the age of the Fruitbat/Ostrich was the age of the Rubber Chicken, a horrific time when clowns ruled on high. A few older residents of Ataxia still remember the horrible age. The clowns were expelled from civilization by a large group of revolutionists to a remote planet in Ataxia. The planet had but one exit, which was sealed by strong magicks.

The most feared humanoid of the galaxy is remembered for the time when they roamed free, or The Great Silence. Mimes can occasionally be seen in the wilderness and are often found attempting to reenter the cities from which they were expelled.

Once the crowd calmed down a bit they noticed a few obvious differences between Omar and your average clown. Firstly, it is common knowledge that no clown will ever wear polyester. Clowns may wear baggy cloths, big shoes, and big red noses, but they still have some sense of fashion. Omar's outfit was made of 100% polyester. The second difference was the apparent absence of floppy shoes and a little flower that squirts water.

Omar spoke to the assembled crowd, "I see all your sad faces out there. I can tell that you are all in need of something." The something was probably a good day's wages, or in the case of Mary, a pony. "You need a cure."

Omar paused to let that last remark set in. The people nodded in agreement. "Yeah," they thought. "We need a cure." A man ventured the naive question, "A cure for what?" He was greeted with several Shh's.

"You need a cure for everything. And I have it." He held a bottle of the miracle elixir high. "This little bottle will cure any ailment a person can imagine." What he didn't tell him was the person he was speaking of was Ben Helpur, who had been dead for the past 10 years and wasn't imagining much of anything.

The crowd erupted in a chorus of ahh's. Omar was pleased; they were stupider than he had imagined.

Lister wasn't paying much attention, and due to her inability to pay anything other than the plumber, Mary wasn't paying much attention, either. His gaze was centered on a man who had just entered the crowd. He was dressed much like Lister and appeared to be up to no good. The man wandered through the crowd requesting people for money.

"Mary, I think we found picket-line breaker."

"Don't ask me for help. Me not know how to put line back together."

Omar was well under way telling the crowd about all the many ailments that could be cured by a single drop of his miracle elixir. He smiled to himself as he took in the stupid looks on the people's faces. A large sale was guaranteed with a crowd like this.

Joe had just begun his performance. His clothing had been replaced with the average clothing of a common leper. Not to say that there is anything extremely common about a leper. Lepers have never been able to make a very good living on planets which believe in embalming. In such places, people are continuously mistaking lepers for mummies, which isn't especially good for business. The lepers there have made the best of the situation by throwing curses at people who don't give them money. Joe could easily have passed off as a mummy, expect for his abundance of life not usually found in mummies.

Joe wandered through the crowd pretending to have as many illnesses as he could conceive. "Please mam," he said to a woman in the crowd. "Spare a coin for a poor destitute leper?"

"Oh you poor man. Of course I'll give you some money." The woman searched around in her handbag. She frowned as she obviously couldn't find what she searching for. She pulled a small card from the bag and said, "Do you take credit?"

Joe waved the card away and coughed as he replied, "That's all right. *cough* I'll be fine. *COUGH*"

"That's good enough proof for me," a voice said as it walked towards Joe. "Ok Mary, smash his head in!"

Mary lumbered through the crowd towards Joe. "Sorry." was the lost thing that Joe heard before Mary's fist planted itself on the top of his head.

The woman shrieked from the sight of the poor leper being knocked to the ground. "That poor man," she began. "Why did you have to go and strike. . ." She was knocked unconscious before she could finish her sentence.

Lister looked from Mary to the woman's prone body in the mud, then back at Mary, then back at the body, then at the sun. Staring at the sun always made Lister sneeze and he felt like sneezing. This he did, it made Lister feel good, but he knew there wasn't time to feel good. He and Mary had to make a swift exit.

At just that moment, Omar reached the point in his performance where he showed the crowd the amazing healing power of the miracle elixir. He turned to the fleeing Lister and said as sympathetic as possible, "Oh you poor man."

Lister, who hadn't been paying attention to anything that had been occurring, was shocked when he saw the tip of Omar's pointer finger facing right towards him. Lister made a motion as if to say, "Who? Me?"

"Yes you, my poor leprous friend."

Lister had no desire whatsoever to come anywhere near that stage, but the crowd had a big affect on his decision. The crowd grabbed him and tossed him onto stage. Well, not exactly. They missed by a few feet; his chin landed on the stage though. Lister turned to make another run for it, but it was obvious that he was completely trapped by the crowd. Giving in, he climbed up onto the stage.

Omar grabbed Lister's arm so as to position him in the most visible location for the crowd. If Omar had actually looked at the leper's face, he would have known that this specimen was not Joe. If this had happened, the occurrence would have been followed by a few frantic moments of silence as Omar contemplated his quickest escape. This did not happen though. Rather, Omar smiled at the crowd as if to say, "You guys are complete idiots, and I'll soon have your money." Being the complete idiots that they were, they translated the smile as, "I'm so happy that I can help you poor people."

"My poor leprous friend," he addressed Lister. "Because of your sad state, I will give you a free bottle of my miracle elixir."

Lister licked his lips at the thought of a free drink. Omar popped the cork off the elixir. Lister didn't need so much as a signal as he began downing the liquid. It tingled as it started to spread through his system. Lister paused halfway through the bottle to reflect on his new feeling. It felt as if for an instant his entire body went numb, then, instantly came back alive. The bizarre thing was that once the numbness was gone from his body, he felt revitalized to a level that he hadn't felt previously. Lister stood motionless as he contemplated the tingling in his body.

Omar swiped the bottle from Lister's hand. "Now we see what the amazing miracle elixir has done for this poor leper. Omar began unraveling the bandages that hid Lister's sore-covered body. Lister would have objected to the man undressing him, but he was still trying to get used to the new feeling that was sweeping through his whole bodily frame. Also, Lister didn't have to worry because he was wearing a white undershirt and some very sporty boxers with little dragons all over.

Finally, once the wrapping was totally removed, Omar realized, the person he had just "cured" was not Joe Smiley. This would have caused him to panic and flee, had it not been for the fact that the man who had been dressed as a leper turned out to be just that, a man dressed as a leper. No open sores could be found anywhere on the body. Their was a small scar on Lister's forearm shaped like a cloud, but apart from that, he looked perfectly healthy.

Lister's feeling was beginning to subside as a new feeling entered his body, the feelings of disappointment, anger, fear, and embarrassment all wrapped together. His awful body, the one he was always having to piece back together was completely healthy. A tear came to his eye. The small cloud of flees that accompanied him most everywhere dispersed.

The crowd broke into an enormous round of applause and cheers. People began yelling for bottles and waving money in the air. Lister was returned to the crowd in much the same way as he left the crowd, with a swift kick to rear.

Lister stayed in the pile of mud in which he had landed. It made him feel a little more comfortable. Mary attempted to help him up, but he had no desire to do anything but lie in the mud. All the while, people scrambled to get a bottle of Omar's amazing miracle elixir.

Magic. It's what makes the world go round. It's what makes the stars come up at night. It's what makes the sun rise and fall every day. Actually, that's only one theory. There are some heated debates occurring presently about what does make the sun rise and fall every day. The wizards swear that it's the magical field that surrounds every planet. Scientists contend that it's caused by some sort of daily explosion or, in their own words, a fairly big bang. The clergymen insist that the sun is dragged through the sky by a God, called the Great Willy Winky, wearing a large bowtie.

A heated argument has ensued for years concerning this question. Each party has fought the sympathy of the public. The whole issue is nearing an end. For the most part, the populous has chosen to side with the church. This is for a couple reasons. First, if you don't side with the church they'll probably get you with some sort of inquisition. And, the church's idea of the Great Willy Winky was recently popularized a song which hit the top five in every prominent city of Ataxia. Part of the chorus goes:

Great Willy Winky runs cross the sky.
Upwards and Downwards in his bowtie.

Realizing that they have lost the argument on what controls the sun's rise and fall, the wizards have dedicated their strength towards another effort. Namely, they dedicated their time to convincing the populous that magic is responsible for pickles.

Magic has needed improve its appearance in the eyes of the people. Everyone is always leery of magic. This is O.K. for most wizards. Who needs friends when you are the most powerful being on the planet. The problem with this is that Ataxian magic has yet to evolve to the strength of magic in other galaxies.

Ataxia has evolved at a much slower rate than most galaxies. The God of a planet is always responsible for prodding evolution along by doing stuff like planting big stone monoliths in front of monkey homes and giving someone the idea to invent slushies. Once civilization is going, Gods just have to sit around being worshipped and cause a tornado or two.

Evolution on Ataxia didn't work that simple. The Gods knew that they were supposed to build some big thing but couldn't remember that it was a monolith. Instead, they gave the inhabitants of Ataxia a big watermelon. While being very appreciated down below, it didn't help evolution. Ataxian residents have been forced to evolve almost completely by themselves. This causes some problems.

Magic's evolution has been a rough one in the hands of incompetent humanoid creatures. Magic is used by the commanding of the elements. With control of the elements one can have untold of power. Ataxian wizards are unable to control any element at all. They perform magic by requesting the element for what they want. This seems it would be fine, except for the elemental spirits.

Elemental spirits invisibly wander the worlds. They have full power of the elements. A wizard does not actually control the elements, but controls the elemental spirit. Their are many spirits walking across the planets and they move instantaneously to any point on the planet. Some stronger wizards will even have their own spirit which will come to them whenever they're needed. They work fine for the needs of evolved magicians, but have grown to be a major pain for Ataxian magicians.

Apart from having great power, elemental spirits are very rude and snobby creatures. They enjoy talking back to wizards when they try to cast spells. This doesn't make for very fast combat if you're pleading with an elemental spirit to create a fireball. The elemental spirits speak normally, but have a channeling power with their voice which allows them to be heard by only one or two people.

Elemental spirits are also very stubborn. They demand that wizards be polite. If wizards aren't polite to the spirits, they won't even bother responding. This is the most important element of Ataxian magic, the art of being polite to elemental spirits. Studying acolytes spend hours in their small cubicles at wizard's school practicing their politeness on such things as plants and doorknobs. Politeness to elemental spirits involves the same old stuff like, always say thank-you, always hold the door open for them, and don't cast a spell with your mouth full. The most important part of being polite to an elemental spirit is encapsulated in the word, "Bica."

Bica, pronounced beeka, is the arcane word for "please." Bica must always be said just before or just after the magic words are said. No spell would even be considered if it was not prefixed or suffixed with Bica.

Because of the need for politeness the rudeness of elemental spirits when attempting to cast a spell, the galaxy has never had to worry too much about magic getting too powerful. While magic can do some great damage in the wrong hands, it's repairable.

Melzar awoke with a jerk. If you would have asked Melzar, the jerk was Gord, but that isn't what I meant. What I meant was that Melzar awoke suddenly. He stood up in the small tent. Too small for Melzar to stand up actually. Instead, he had to crouch, which just wasn't the powerful figure message he was trying to get across. Gord hung helplessly from Melzar's arm, snoring.

As if he were speaking to an enormous crowd of his loyal subjects, he announced, "I had a dream."

'Hmm,' thought Melzar. "That sounded good! Let me try do that again."

Once again Melzar announced in a booming voice, "I had a dream."

Melzar's pleasure was interrupted by Gord's rather rude voice. "Master, I get the idea. You had a dream. But what was it about?!?"

Melzar glanced around embarrassingly. "Dream? Right. . . my dream."

Gord stared inquisitively at Melzar. At least, Melzar thought it was inquisition in Gord's stare. It's hard to tell with a puppet. Actually, the stare was just Gord looking tired.

"Well, I had a dream. . ."

"Master, we established that."

"We did? Oh yah, we did!"

Melzar was not a morning person. We thought he was, but he definitely wasn't. Actually, we wasn't an anytime person.

"Well, I dreamed that I was to conquer Slander by turning the populous into lepers unless they bow down and worship me as their king." Melzar stated this very triumphantly.

Incredibly, Gord was excited. Then again, if Melzar were the king, maybe Gord would be a duke or even better, a duchess. Gord responded excitedly, "Master, that's wonderful! So, in your dream you were told you would become the king of Slander?"

The gleam in Melzar's eye disappeared with Gord's degleaming statement. Gord noticed the drop in enthusiasm in Melzar's demeanor.

"Master, what's wrong? You should be joyous!"

Melzar had hoped that Gord wouldn't bring this up. "Actually, the dream told me that I would be unsuccessful."

Gord looked in udder surprise at Melzar. "Master, with all due respect, what?!? You aren't going to succeed?"

"Nope."

"Master, and you still plan to go on with it?"

"Yep."

"Master, that's dumb!"

Melzar knew Gord wouldn't understand. Handpuppets just don't understand this sort of thing. Then again, Melzar didn't understand it very well either. If he had been thinking straight, he would have gone home and forgotten about the whole thing. What stopped him from leaving was the last thing which HAzburn told him. He couldn't remember what it was exactly; all he could remember was something about movie rights. Melzar had no idea what movie rights meant, but he wanted to know, and going to Slander was the only way he would find out.

"I can't quite explain it," began Melzar rather sheepishly. "It has to do with something called movie rights."

"Master, movie rights? What is a movie rights?"

"I'm not sure, but that is why I need to go to Slander. I must discover movie rights."

Gord did not want to pursue it any longer, neither did Melzar. Gord was beginning to see his dream of becoming a duchess slowly seeping away.

"Master, if we are to go turn people into lepers in Slander, how do we get there?"

"The portal," responded Melzar rather simply.

"Master, beg your pardon, but we don't know where the portal is, remember?"

Before Melzar could respond--not that he was planning to respond--the bottom of the tent was torn completely in half. The object causing the tent bottom to rip was the same object which was about to cause the tent top to rip apart. The object threw Melzar back as it ascended from the ground.

The object was made entirely of wood planks nailed together. The structure looked large enough to hold one person--two in the case of Gord and Melzar. The object looked like a small house. The top came to a point and resembled a roof. The door was made from the same sort of rotten wood that the rest of the structure was constructed of. The door had one difference. A small moon shaped sigil cut through the otherwise plain wood face.

Gord stared in awe at the thing which was now occupying the largest portion of the tent. What it was, he didn't know. He just thought that it looked interesting. After all, Gord had no idea how they were able to get those little rainbow-colored marshmellows to float in jello, but he still liked the taste.

Melzar, on the otherhand, knew exactly what it was. Dusting himself off with Gord's face, Melzar stood erect, causing the point of his hat to poke through the tent roof, or rather, would have poked through the tent roof had the roof not been ripped apart. Melzar spoke in a low tone so as to prevay a sense of mysticism. "The portal." Instead, he prevayed a sense of talking quietly.

L.E.P.E.R: Chapter 4

2008-11-27T12:50:00.002-07:00

This is the fifth in a series of posts wherein I have presented a novel I started writing in high school. Please read the introduction post (link) for an explanation.

Lister and Mary walked through the market together. Some people stopped to stare at the unlikely pair. But most people didn't stop. Rather, they turned around and went the other way. The few of the more unlucky ones who stopped to stare were accidentally stepped on as Mary walked by. Oaffs are not very good at doing two things at a time and currently Mary was having a difficulty talking to Lister as they walked, much less look where she was going. They were busy talking about astrology.

"Me Leo," answered Mary.

"Wow! Leo is my sign, too," exclaimed Lister.

Their job was pretty easy. All they had to do was keep an eye out for people begging for money. If they found someone, Mary's job was to beat their head into the ground. Mary's pay was whatever could be found after she smashed someone's skull.

It was mid-day and they hadn't found a single beggar yet. That's not to say that Mary hadn't smashed anyone's head. She had mauled two people so far. The first person was someone who was lighting a pipe. He made the grave mistake of asking Mary for a match. The second was a mime. It was an honest mistake, and no one really minded.

They had gotten quite bored so they decided that if anyone was going to do any begging, they'd have to come to them, because they were sick of walking around. They noticed a stage with a number of people standing around the parameter. They figured that something interesting must be going on.

Upon arriving in the crowd, they didn't notice anything on stage, but something had to be going on so they stood quietly and watched. Actually, nothing had been happening on stage for the past two hours. A young child was walking by the stage and stopped to stare at the interesting stage. A couple young women noticed the boy staring at the stage and walked over to discover what the child was examining. Before long, a large group of people had formed around the stage, all thinking that something was occurring of utter importance on the stage. For two hours the group kept getting larger and larger.

"What is everyone staring at?" whispered Lister.

"Shhhh!" responded a few people standing near by.

"Oh dear," began a very kind sounding voice behind Lister.

Lister turned to behold an old, hunch-backed lady. The lady had a smile on her face, which made her look like someone's grandmother.

"Yes?" questioned Lister rather cautiously. In Lister's experience, old ladies could never be trusted. The few he had encountered on the streets of Slander had been known to carry mace in their handbags. Once, when Lister was begging for some money, an old lady beat him over the head. He couldn't figure out how such a feeble women could be so strong with a mace.

"Oh dear," she repeated. "You're a leper. Oh please let me help. Here are four gold pieces." She held the gold pieces towards Lister.

Though he was happy she wasn't in the process of reaching into her handbag for a mace, he knew that it wouldn't be right to accept any money when they were on strike. "Thank you, but I can't accept you're money," he said as nicely as possible, while keeping an eye on her handbag in case she made a motion towards it. "You see, we beggars are on strike because of. . ."

Mary, who had been paying attention to the wonderful performance on stage, suddenly heard a word that grabbed her attention. She swung around as fast as possible and attacked the first person she saw, who happened to be the old lady. The lady crumbled to the ground like a circus tent whose support beams were all suddenly removed.

Lister's eyes bulged as he saw the woman crumble. He stared up at Mary then back at the corpse at his feet.

"Sorry, me thought she have match." Mary frowned as she realized the error of her action.

Lister shook his head and pulled Mary's arm. "Let's get out of here." He moved deeper into the crowd.

"Wait."

"What?"

"She have good mace in bag."

Omar and Joe stood beside the hot-dog cart. Both were deeply involved in the difficult job of eating their hot-dogs. Neither said anything as they considered the best way to go about consuming the food. Joe had obviously taken a more direct offensive strategy in eating the hot-dog because he finished much before Omar. Omar was a taking a defensive approach to the consummation of the hot-dog. Slow and steady.

Joe turned to Omar. "Omar?"

Omar responded by saying, "What do you want?" But because of the great amount of food in his mouth, Joe heard him say "Eh?"

"Have I ever told you what they put in those things?" he said pointing to the hot-dog.

Omar stopped mid-bite. The sound of his swallowing was easily heard by all. Pulling the hot-dog away from his face, he glared at it. He handed the half-eaten sausage to Joe, and with a sigh replied, "Fine! Take it!"

Joe smiled with pleasure at his insightful question. "Well, if you aren't going to eat it." The second was downed quicker than the first.

Omar stared at Joe in the same manner that someone would stare at someone who had just coned that someone out of a hot-dog. Omar did this until it got quite boring, approximately 12 seconds later. At this point he turned away from Joe, because it was obvious that Joe was oblivious to the reason for which Omar was staring at him.

As Omar turned away from Joe his laid hold of something that extremely pleased him. It pleased him so much that he nearly forgot about the hot-dog. . . nearly. Omar caught sight of the large crowd which was huddled around the stage down the street. He reached over and grabbed Joe's sleeve.

"Joe!"

"What? I'm trying to order another hot-dog."

"You can do that later, but right now, look!" Omar pointed down the street.

Joe strained to see what Omar was pointing at.

"Whoa! That's awesome!" Joe lit up like a lightbulb and, figuring that he had sufficiently satisfied Omar, promptly headed back to the hot-dog stand. His exit would have been successful had it not been for Omar's hand still holding onto Joe's sleeve.

"Let's go get a closer look."

Joe looked at Omar with a very surprised look. "What do you mean, get a closer look? It's only a three-legged dog. It is cool but I for one do not want to get a closer look!"

Omar's eyes bulged with Joe's words. He turned his head slowly, for effect, towards Joe. "Three-legged dog?!?" Omar was nearly yelling. It seemed to Joe that Omar was always nearly yelling, except for when he was yelling. "I wasn't pointing to that three-legged dog. I was pointing. . ." Omar turned back towards the stage, then stopped. He glanced around with his eyes, scanning the area around the stage. Then he continued his nearly yelling. "What three-legged dog?!?"

Joe scratched the back of his head innocently. "Well, there isn't actually a three-legged dog over there. I just said it 'cause I didn't know what you were pointing at." He ventured a smile.

Omar shook his head in disbelief. Omar muttered under his breath, "You are so stupid." Fortunately, Joe thought he had said, "You are so special."

Joe, figuring that the conversation was over, headed back to the hot-dog stand, but was prevented from getting there because of Omar's hand which had been wisely left on Joe's sleeve. "Come on! We have a show to do."

Melzar was lying on his back in the tent. He was completely unconscious. Gord lay next to him. Though he had been the winner of the fight, he was also lying unconscious, due to the unwise idea of giving the feet high fives.

The wasteland was laughing in the special way that wastelands laugh. A full description of how a wasteland goes about laughing would be to difficult too write in a few paragraphs because the explanation involves quantum physics and an extensive knowledge of the implications of orange jello.

This is one of the mysteries of the galaxy of Ataxia, orange jello. Years ago, a strange occurrence occurred, which strange occurrences seem to have a tendency to do. A small intergalactic portal formed in Miss Thelma Crumpetscone's kitchen on Earth. The portal was never discovered by Miss Crumpetscone, but before it disappeared, the portal was able to capture a small bowl of orange jello. This bowl of orange jello suddenly appeared in a temple on the planet Flekir, Ataxia. It was considered a gift from the Gods.

Many attempts have been made to replicate this orange jello. The closest anyone has ever come has been to make green jello with little colored marshmallows. There are many people who believe that once the secret to orange jello is discovered, we will know the answer to why people have bellybuttons.

Melzar was presently having a dream in which he had sneaked into the temple of orange jello and eaten the entire bowl of jello. It gave him a very satisfying feeling. When it came right down to it, orange jello tastes pretty good. As he was eating the last bit of orange jello, he heard a sound booming from all around him. The sound was a horrible screeching sound. Melzar covered his ears, which was not a good idea because he had been eating the jello with his hands. Jello dripped out of his ears.

The screeching stopped and was replaced by a quite rustling sort of sound. Then a voice came over the microphone. "Ahem. Testing. . .testing. . .one. . .two. . .three. Hey! Can you hear me down there?"

Melzar looked all around to find the owner of the voice. He responded nervously. "Yes. I can here you." Melzar continued looking around the room.

"Good!" replied the voice. The voice was a very pleasing voice. It sounded very familiar, but Melzar couldn't put his finger on where he had heard the voice. Melzar never would remember what the voice sounded like. When Melzar was a young boy he'd been captured by two earthlings from NASA. The earthlings brought him back to Earth and forced him to watch 24 hours straight of "American Bandstand" reruns. When they returned Melzar a week later they hypnotized him and made him forget everything that had happened. If he had not been forced to forget this, he would have realized that the voice was almost identical to that of Dick Clark's. Fortunately for him, he had forgotten.

"I am. . ." The voice stopped and cleared its voice. It then began again in a much lower, more ominous tone. "I am HAzburn, your guardian spirit."

"I have a guardian spirit?" Melzar was thoroughly surprised.

"OK, OK, maybe I'm not YOUR guardian spirit. You don't actually have a guardian spirit, I'm working overtime."

Melzar was slightly let down but tried to make the best of it. "Well it's nice of you to put in extra time to be my guardian spirit."

The voice's tone changed from ominous to condescending. "Look! I'm not exactly doing this for the job satisfaction! I said 'overtime!' That means I get paid more for this. No one else would even take the job." HAzburn paused. "I've got a family to feed you know."

"What does a guardian spirit get paid, Hazburn?" questioned Melzar.

"HAzburn."

"What?"

"My names HAzburn, not Hazburn."

"Oh, sorry. . .HAzburn. So, what do you get paid for this job."

"Orange jello with little rainbow-colored marshmallows."

"You get. . ." HAzburn interrupted Melzar impatiently.

"Look. I didn't come here to chat with you about my wages. I came to deliver a message." It was obvious that HAzburn was either getting impatient or just wanted to sound impatient.

Melzar was once again surprised. People did not often come with a message. Those who did usually did not leave looking the same as they had left. "You have a message for me?" Melzar sounded much like a child asking his mother for a cookie.

Unfortunately for Melzar, HAzburn did not sound like a mother giving a cookie to her child. He sounded much more like a mother who was now reconsidering why she had gone and given birth to a child. "Look. Just shut up and let me do the talking."

Melzar opened his mouth as if to say something, but he was actually just opening his mouth so he could put another spoon full of orange jello inside. He decided that talking back would not be a good idea. He wasn't sure why it was a bad idea, but he decided that it probably was.

"OK. I'm glad you've decided to keep your mouth shut. I promise that I won't be long. I don't so much have a message, more of a dream sequence. And here it is. . ." There was an exceedingly long pause during which the only sound was the faint rustling sound. Then Melzar heard an small explosion and HAzburn's voice cursing about some sort of projectile or projector or something.

HAzburn's voice returned. "Well, we are experiencing some technical difficulties here. We will be with you as soon as possible." HAzburn's voice was followed by even more cursing and the sound of machinery being moved around. The sounds continued for a few minutes. All the while, Melzar sat quietly eating the bowl of orange jello. He tried to think about why people had bellybuttons. After pondering the subject with no result, he concluded that it was only a dream so the orange jello didn't have any affect. It tasted good though.

The sound stopped and was replaced once again with the voice. "Sorry for the wait. We will now return to our previously programmed dream sequence."

Suddenly, the temple surrounding Melzar disappeared. Melzar was somewhat let down. The room didn't fade into nothingness. It didn't swirl around and disappear into a point. It didn't fog up and disappear by the time the fog lifted. It just plain disappeared. Melzar wasn't completely disappointed with the disappearance because he still held the half eaten bowl of orange jello in his hands.

The rustling sound was joined by a faint flipping sound in the distance, after which the darkness left Melzar. Not far in front of Melzar a large number three in a circle appeared. The circle behind the three resembled a clock because of the dim line that revolved around the center of the circle like the hand of a clock. The line jumped quarter hours very quickly. When the line returned to the straight up position, the number was replaced by a two. This happened again until the number was replaced with a one. After the line made the revolution, the circle disappeared with the number.

Everything was returned to darkness which faded away quickly to reveal a beautiful pond. Melzar was sitting on a lily-pad. The alarming thing was that he realized that he had been shrunk to the size of a frog, and even more alarming was that his orange jello was missing. Behind him he noticed a large-well, large to him now-castle. The castle walls were crawling with frogs in armour. They looked fearful to Melzar. He didn't know how he could tell, they just seemed fearful. He turned back around to see a gigantic chef tromping through the water. Instinctively, Melzar leaped out and bit the man's leg. The chef fell to his watery death.

Everything once again blinked to darkness. "Sorry," interrupted HAzburn. "Wrong dream."

"Look," HAzburn explained. "I'll just tell you what was in the dream. Basically, you are supposed to go to Slander and turn everyone into lepers until they declare you king out of fear. It was a very simple dream."

Melzar's whole body shuddered with excitement and because he needed to use the bathroom-orange jello can do that to you. "So. . ." Melzar could hardly speak from his excitement. "So I succeed?!?"

"Of course not." HAzburn laughed at Melzar's naivetÃƒÂ©. "You fail miserably. You're the bad guy; you have to fail. Do you really think that anyone would buy the movie rights if you were victorious?"

"Movie rights?"

"Never mind. I've delivered my message and now I'm leaving."

Melzar spoke anxiously. "But you can't leave. I have so many questions."

A bland monotone voice replaced HAzburn's. "The number you have reached is no longer in service. Please hang-up and dial again."

Melzar stood feeling hopeless in the remnants of his dream. He thought about pondering the events that had just occurred, but he realized that his dream was almost over and he hadn't finished the orange jello.

Herbert was an ordinary frog, but he had always felt he had an important purpose. The night before he had a dream that proved to him that he was important. He wasn't sure what the dream meant, but it had quite a few people with parts falling off all the time, and he was given a crown. He knew that this dream was sent by the Gods to show him his purpose. Regrettably, before he could discover what exactly that purpose was, a chef captured his entire kingdom and served his legs for dinner.

Continue to Chapter 5

L.E.P.E.R: Chapter 3

2008-11-27T12:33:00.003-07:00

This is the fourth in a series of posts wherein I have presented a novel I started writing in high school. Please read the introduction post (link) for an explanation.

The sun had just recently clawed its way past the horizon, and the first signs of morning were descending on the market. Merchants were busy preparing their stands for the business expected to come later that day. Anything one would ever want could easily be found in the market, be it fish, jewelry, assassins, and miracle cures.

Invigorated by a night's rest in one of Slander's less famous taverns, Joe and Omar were just as busy preparing their wares. A small stage folded out from the side of the carriage. Though not large, the stage was big enough and sturdy enough to hold about five men. A shelf, full of MIRRACUL ELICKSUR, was positioned near the back of the stage. It was crammed full of bottles; the two expected an enormous sale. Joe and Omar had circled around out of sight behind the stage to discuss the day to follow.

"OK Joe," began Omar, much like a coach getting ready to give his team a final pep talk before the state championship. "Here's the plan."

Joe was listening, but one wouldn't know it by looking at his face. He appeared as if he had consumed a little bit too much Slanderian ale the night before. Slanderian ale had an interesting affect on people not accustomed to it. It was so potent that it could make even the most sober person in the world drunk with one small sip. The odd thing about getting drunk on the ale is that you only remain drunk for a few seconds. Instead of a Happy Hour, most Slanderian bars had a Happy Minute a few times every day.

This could have been the cause of Joe's absent look, but Joe hadn't had any ale of any kind the night before. The real reason for Joe's expression was that he had suddenly started wondering what it would be like to be a campfire. The idea was meant to hit an inventor in stand near Joe and Omar's stage, but it had missed. If the idea had met it's mark, the inventor would have made a breakthrough in fire proof clothing, but instead, he became a door-to-door anvil salesman. Such is the way with ideas.

"You will be. . .," Omar stopped as he noticed the vacant look in Joe's eyes, who was currently leaping back and forth through the campfire. "Joe? JOE!"

Joe shook his head, sending the idea flying into a nearby cart of herrings. "Sorry, I was thinking about something. What were you saying?"

Omar let out a sigh of disapproval as he continued with his previous train of thought. "What we do is this. Dressed as Dr. Bumble, I will be on stage at the start. You will be wandering around in the crowd, dressed as a leper. When I--"

"Wait just a second!" Joe Smiley interrupted. "Why do I always have to be the leper?!?"

"Who else do you expect to be the leper? Me?"

Joe nodded.

"You're a much better leper than I am," pleaded Omar.

"I don't care. I'm not going to be the leper this time," demanded Joe, much like a child demands that it is his turn on the merry-go-round.

"But, Joe--" pleaded Omar again.

"I'm not listening to you until you let me be the doctor." With that Joe plugged both ears with his pointer fingers, and began humming. It was obvious to Omar that Joe had somehow misplaced his maturity. This was not exactly true. Joe had simply tied it to the tracks in front of Omar's train of thought.

"Don't be chil--"

"I'm not listening!" shouted Joe.

Omar attempted to say more but was drowned out by Joe's singing. "Ohhhh, say can you see?"

Omar was about to incapacitate Joe with a swift kick to the head, but stopped in confusion.

"See what?" Omar said in puzzlement.

Joe unplugged his ears. The ropes tying his maturity to the tracks had come somewhat loose, but it had been successful in derailing Omar's train of thought. "What do you mean, 'See what?'"

"What were you asking if I could see?"

"I didn't ask you anything. I distinctly remember being mad at you and not talking to you."

"You said 'Ohhhh, say can you see?' See what?"

"I don't know."

"Why did you say it then?" inquired Omar.

"Beat's me. It just sorta, came out." Joe shrugged to show that he hadn't any idea. Both stood staring at one another in bewilderment until Joe finally said, "Where was I?"

Omar opened his mouth as if to answer. Noticing an easy target, a passing idea threw itself into Omar's gaping mouth. Omar hesitated for a moment as the idea settled in and found a place to sit, then a smile stretched across Omar's face.

"You were about to tell me that you demand that I be the doctor," said Omar.

"I was? I mean, I was! You always get to be the leper, so it's my turn!" demanded Joe.

"All right, all right! If it's that important to you, you can be the leper, but hurry up. A small crowd is starting to form."

With that, Omar grabbed the doctor's costume and rushed around to the front.

Jarol gazed admiringly at the picketers. Though not admiringly, many shoppers had stopped to gaze at the group of strikers. All observers had made sure to keep a safe distance from the stinky convocation of street rats. A few bodies lay strewn across the cobblestones, once belonging to daring souls who had ventured a bit too close. In fact, the stench was preventing the police from breaking up the strike.

Rumors were spreading like wildfires across the crowd. Each spectator had a different opinion of what the group was doing. Most agreed that they were selling something, because most of the signs proclaimed "SALE!" The confusion was over what exactly they were selling. Though many opinions were floating around, the most excepted one was that they were advertising some sort of new deodorant. A few in the crowd did not even think that they were selling anything. One man near the back thought that they were performing a three-ring circus. It's obvious that the man was blind.

There's the thing with being blind. You never have to worry about not enjoying something that you are staring at. If you are staring at a large pile of bird droppings, you can easily imagine that you are staring at a large pile of walrus droppings instead. Hey, you're blind so what's the difference. This particular man, David, had been a very intelligent and observant man, until one day he noticed the benefits of being blind. At that point, he closed his eyes on the world, literally. He wanted to become a beggar but they wouldn't allow him to join their ranks because he had a house with indoor plumbing.

Jarol stepped away from his quite vigil. Turning down a nearby alley he was immediately confronted with the dirty faces of Lister and a large Oaff. The Oaff wore a small sticker on the front of his shirt. It was blue with a large white stripe in the middle. The writing on the sticker read:
Hello, My Name Is
George
Jarol stepped up to the towering oaff. Speaking in a voice barely above a whisper, Jarol addressed the oaff, "Good day George." Jarol considered extending his hand in fellowship, but wisely chose not to after seeing the creatures enormous hands.

The oaff's face gave a look of mindless wonder as he stared off into space. This was a little bit deceiving for the oaff was actually only mindless. Wonder was far above the creature's head. After a few moments, the oaff realized that the two others present were staring at him. This made it feel very self-conscious, which is not an easy thing to do.

The creature might have said something intelligent like, "Good day, sir." or even "How do you do?" but instead it decided to simply say, "Huh?" That is the interesting thing about oaffs they are not actually stupid in thought. They often come up with amazing ideas, but the problem is that they think that their intelligent ideas are stupid and their stupid ideas are intelligent.

"I said, 'Good day, George." repeated Jarol.

"Who George?" replied the oaff.

Having worked with oaffs before, Jarol was not surprised in the least by the creature having forgotten its name. Jarol figured that the reason for the name-sticker was not to aid others in divining its name, but rather to aid the oaff in remembering it. "You are George," he stated.

"Me? George?" said the oaff in a surprised manner. "No, me not George. Me Mary!"

"Mary?" asked Jarol. "But your shirt says 'George.'"

"That not say George," said Mary as if talking to a group of 1st graders. "It say egroeg si eman ym olleh!"

"What is 'egroeg si eman ym olleh?'" inquired Lister, who had been listening to the conversation up until now.

Mary scratched its head for a moment, trying to fool people into believing that it was thinking. After a few moments he replied, "Me don't know. What it mean?"

Lister looked back in bewilderment. "You don't know what it means?"

Mary scratched its head again. The oaff almost got them believing that it was thinking, but not quite. Frowning, Mary replied, "That dumb joke!"

Jarol let out a sigh of disgust, after which he glared at Lister.

Lister knew exactly what Jarol was trying to say with the look. He answered the glare defensively, "He was the only oaff I could find."

"She!"

"What?" questioned Lister.

Mary glared down angrily at the two lepers. "Me not man! Me woman! You think I look like man?!?" Mary began sobbing.

Lister just plain avoided Jarol's glaring look. He turned to Mary in an attempt to console the sobbing creature. "I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. We both think you are--GULP--beautiful."

With a face drenched in tears, she turned to the two. "You not mean that! You think me ugly! And you right too!" Mary burst into another fit of tears.

Unfortunately, Lister and Jarol both knew that she couldn't have been more correct, but if they were convince her to help them, they would have to do something. Suddenly, a lightbulb formed above Lister's head. Actually, it would be more correct to state that a lightbulb fell from above onto his head. However it came to be above Lister's head, it gave him an idea.

Trying to sound as sincere as possible, he asked the sobbing oaff, "I think you are so beautiful that I was wondering if I could invite you to dinner tomorrow."

Jarol's jaw dropped. Mary stopped crying and her face lit up. "Yes, me happy to 'comp'ny you." Incredibly, Smiling made her look even stupider.

Mary turned to Jarol, "What me need to do?"

Jarol was glad that Mary changed the subject. Jarol didn't know if he had the skill to accomplish such a task himself. "The beggars are on strike, and we. . . Mary? Why are you hiding behind Lister?" Jarol stared quizitively at Mary.

"Sorry. Last job I have, me was match lighter."

"Match lighter?"

"Me stand at parties and people say 'strike' when they need strike match to light pipe."

"What's a match?"

"Me not know, but they hurt!"

"Anyway," Jarol began, very exhausted with the conversation. "We beggars are on. . . having a protest. None of us are allowed to beg for money until the st. . . protest is over. Your job is to smash the head of anyone who crosses the picket line."

Mary stared blankly--it was the only way Mary knew how to stare--at Jarol. It was evident to the two lepers that they had lost Mary at 'We.'

"Lister, take Mary and tell her when to smash someone's head."

"Yes, sir!" replied Lister.

Jarol headed back towards the strike. As he walked off, he muttered as many cuss-words as he could think of, which wasn't very many. Actually, he couldn't think of any good cuss-words because his mind was entirely too befuddled from talking to the oaff.

The bleak, sun-scorched wasteland stretched out in every direction. Well, maybe not stretched. By saying stretched it sounds as if the wasteland was having difficulty covering the enormous expanse of land, but it was quite obvious that the wasteland wasn't even working at all to cover the land. Actually, the land welcomed the wasteland covering it. Then the land didn't have to be scorched by the sun and didn't have to worry about women in high-heels walking all across them. Indeed, it was a good life to be land covered by wasteland.

At this moment, the wasteland was not very happy. You see, wastelands enjoy the sun. It makes sure they keep a good tan in case a glacier happens to go flow by. The sun also keeps away women in high-heels. But at the present moment a small tent was casting an annoying shadow on the wasteland, which was preventing the wasteland from tanning evenly. Unfortunately, without opposable thumbs, the wasteland couldn't do much to help its situation.

The tent was not an empty tent, quite the opposite actually. The tent contained two individuals. . . OK, one and a half individuals. As it turns out, these one and half individuals were not especially happy either.

"Master? I thought you said that the portal was near by!" said the half an individual in a tone reserved for getting mad at the TV repair man.

The entire individual turned very slowly towards the half an individual propped on his hand. He had practiced this glance for a long time, but had not had occasion to make use of it. Basically, it involved turning your head slowly as your eyes got progressively larger; then, upon reaching his target, he would glare at him. Unfortunately, his response was not quite as dramatic, "Shut up."

"Master, I can't believe you can't find the portal!"

"I'm not the one who ordered all of the roads to be destroyed after I conquered the planet," replied Melzar.

"Master, oh sure! Just turn the whole thing around! It's my fault isn't it!?! Sure, blame it on the poor defenseless hand puppet. Who fed you when you were young? Who picked up the spoon so you could eat your smashed carrots?"

Melzar looked very ashamed. "I'm sorry Gord. Can you ever forgive me?"

"Master, well. . ."

Melzar's mind suddenly clicked with the word 'Master.' "Wait a minute. What am I talking about? I am I apologizing? I'm the master around here!"

"Master of Stupidity is more like it!" Gord would have stuck out his tongue, but his design did not allow him to do this, because his tongue was drawn on.

Melzar paused for a moment as he thought of a creative come back. "I am rubber you are glue!" Melzar failed with the creative part.

"Master, you might have rubber for brains."

"That's it! Come on!"

"Master, what?!?"

"Let's fight!" Melzar stood and began bouncing around like a boxer. The hand with Gord on it was out in front of Melzar while his other fist looked ready to punch.

"Master!?! OK, I'll fight you but I warn you, you're out-numbered!"

"Out-numbered? There's only one of you."

"Master, that's what you think. Feet!! Attack!!"

The scene that followed was all but pretty.

Continue to Chapter 4

L.E.P.E.R: Chapter 2

2008-11-27T12:23:00.004-07:00

This is the third in a series of posts wherein I have presented a novel I started writing in high school. Please read the introduction post (link) for an explanation.

Thousands of years ago, when Ataxia was still a very young galaxy and the gods were not as wise as they are today, the Gods were sitting in the meeting hall of their palace. The Gods had come up with a big problem. All problems were big for the Gods. A small problem is hardly a matter of which Godly beings should trouble themselves with.

The problem they were confronted with at this current time was the problem of travel throughout Ataxia. To make Ataxia a truly great galaxy and therefore a place worthy of being destroyed, the spheres of Ataxia had to be connected in some way to allow travel between the separate spheres.

Many ideas were tossed around. As is the case with most committees, especially those being devised of either extremely intelligent or extremely stupid people, the later in this case, no one actually listened to anyone else's ideas. It was a general agreement that the object of meetings was to throw out the most ideas, useful or useless, while still attempting to avoid listening to anyone else's ideas.

The meeting went on and on until the supply of complimentary donuts was expired. The Gods slowly slipped out one by one, attempting not to be noticed. If noticed, they would glance down at their watch and exclaim, "Oh no! I'm late!" They would then escape before they had to answer for what they were late. This continued until the only thing left in the hall was an empty box of donuts.

As is usually the case in Ataxia, the resolution of how to connect the spheres was left up to the citizens of Ataxia. A group of wizards were assembled to devise a plan. The chairman wisely chose not to bring donuts to the meeting. After several hours of boring debate, the wizards arrived at a solution.

An intricate network of magical--what did you expect, they're wizards--portals was to be designed to connect the spheres with one another. Each portal was to be placed in a carefully chosen place. Cities quickly sprung up around these new intergalactic portals. Most planets welcomed these new forms of travel, but not all. Some planets were so opposed to these portals that they went to great lengths in preventing their usage by doing such things as posting guards at the portals and building impenetrable structures around the doorway.

Though the general consensus amongst the spheres is that the portals are a great asset, the portals are all heavily guarded to prevent the entrance of questionable characters to their country. The portals were quite small and they did not lend themselves to transfer of large numbers of people, so a full fledged attack from another world was unlikely, but it was always good to be careful.

The portals are the most common medium of which Ataxians use to travel between the spheres, but it is said that other options of travel exist for those who know how to use them.

Melzar marched out of his throneroom triumphantly. Gord swung helplessly at the wizard's side. He entered a room full of books and shelves. The room had been aptly named, the library.

The library had never received much use. Melzar was never very fond of reading or studying. Originally, his tower had been built without a library, but recently, a few fellow mad wizards had visited his tower to judge whether or not Melzar was worthy of becoming a member of the Mad, Evil Wizards Union. His request was denied due to his tower's lack of a library and his hairlessness. He then decided it wise to construct a library.

Melzar scanned the rows of volumes in search of one he needed. Most of the books were duplicate copies of the exact same set of encyclopedias. While constructing his library, he had stumbled upon a flee market and had purchased twenty sets of encyclopedias.

Finally, his eyes spotted the reference he had been searching for. His hand reached up and pulled a weathered book with the golden inscription on the cover announcing the title to be, "Herman's Guide to Ataxia." The book was a sort of travel guide for the Ataxian traveler.

Melzar stepped to a table with the enormous book. Setting it on the table, he blew the dust from its cover and progressed to the table of contents. The book was comprised of three sections, appropriately entitled: section one, section two, and section three. Section one consisted of maps and charts of all known cities and planets in Ataxia. It even contained a few planets which no one had and has ever discovered. The second section was comprised of page after page containing descriptions of every city and planet. The third and final section was added to make the book appear larger. The editor claimed the section to be area for notes, but in truth, it was 1003 pages of blank paper. When writing a tome for magical libraries, it is the general agreement between authors that bigger is better.

Melzar skimmed through the second section. His eyes scanned the pages as they flew by his face. Suddenly, his eyes noticed something of interest. Flipping back a few pages, he found the word that had caught his attention. The word happened to be, "Slander." He lowered his eyes to read the text which followed.

"Slander, the largest and wealthiest city of the planet Libel, is a popular vacationing spot throughout Ataxia. Its enormous market and gracious acceptance of foreigners are only a few of the things that attract tourists to this booming metropolis. All are welcome to the city, and encouraged to spend large sums of money. The city is ruled by a governor who is elected every five years. This is city is also home to one of the Seven Wonders of the Galaxy, the city gates."

Melzar's lips curled up in an evil grin. With a withered finger he pointed to the bold city name, "Here we will begin our conquest!!!" Melzar cackled maniacally at his discovery. Gord joined in the evil display of joy.

"We will leave immediately," Melzar stated as he finished laughing.

"Master, of course, but how will we conquer the city?"

"That I do not know, but we will go to this city and there we will formulate a plan to take control of the puny citizens."

Turning to the first section of the tome, the wizard pin-pointed the easiest path of travel. Luck shined upon him, for a portal was located not far from his tower which would bring him directly to Slander.

Slamming the book shut, the sage stood up from his seat at the table. Speaking to Gord he stated, "It is only a short ride from here, and if we leave now, we will be able to reach the portal before sundown."

"Master, let us go then."

The two shared one more maniacal laugh before they gathered their things to leave.

Though Slander was an enormous city, it only contained one bridge. This was probably because Slander did not have a river going through it, unless you count the rivers of sewage flowing down the streets. The bridge had been the result of a architectural mistake. The governor of Rednals, a nearby city-state, had ordered the construction of a bridge. Unfortunately, the architect who was hired for the job, unbeknownst to the governor was dyslexic, and as a result, the bridge was built in Slander instead.

Nevertheless, it was a beautiful bridge for which the citizens of Slander held no small amount of pride. The bridge, though seemingly useless without water, had come in handy on a number of occasions.

The beggars of the city were especially complimentary of the bridge. It is difficult to find appropriate sleeping and dining accommodations without a bridge. Until the construction of the bridge, beggars had been known to sleep on occasion in taverns and a few even had houses. When the bridge was built, a hoard of beggars moved under the bridge. One of the efforts of L.E.P.E.R. was to encourage the erecting of another bridge, as the present one was beginning to get somewhat crowded.

The section in which the L.E.P.E.R. meeting was to take place was beginning to fill with a motley crew of beggars and lepers. The idea of an organization for beggars had appealed to the local beggars.

The last few months had been pretty scary times for the beggars. Only two months prior, the governor had signed a city ordinance that would clean up the streets of Slander dramatically; the governor appropriated funds for a sewer system, which was under construction at this very time. As if that wasn't bad enough, two days ago the governor passed another ordinance that setup fines for people littering. Beggar life was starting to look pretty bad.

By sundown all but two of the people who had been contacted had shown up. These two people were, as it turns out, dead, but had been known to frequent the evening streets of Slander on occasion.

A leprous man stepped up to an overturned cardboard box which was apparently to act as a pulpit. Jarol was the man's name. He had been the originator of L.E.P.E.R., and as such was also the self-appointed president. His history of beggaring was second in length only to Tom. Jarol was a master, while only around 40 or 50 years old, he gave the appearance of at least 100. He had been one of the rare but lucky infants born with leprosy. While most children come out head first, then the rest of the body when born. Jarol had been born a piece at a time. After birth, he was assembled. Many considered him a prodigy, but everyone respected him.

"Ahem!"

The group of beggars in attendance fell quiet in an instant. The only sound in the assembly was that of Jarol picking up his jaw and putting it back in place.

"I am glad to see that such a large group of you have come together to this first meeting of L.E.P.E.R.," began Jarol in a very stately manner. "I'm sure that you all know why we have assembled this evening."

"In my day," came the voice of Tom from the congregation. "We didn't need reasons to meet. Of course, back then we didn't ever meet due to all the flooding, but we loved it!"

"As I was saying," Jarol sent a cold glance at Tom. Tom either didn't notice or chose not to notice, "I'm sure you all know why we have assembled this evening."

The crowd nodded in an attempt to show that they comprehended what was progressing, but it is unlikely that many of them had any idea what was taking place.

"As you know, the governor of our great city has deemed it necessary to clean up the streets of Slander." Jarol watched as some of the faces started to change with his last words. "Do you understand what that will do to us?"

A voice volunteered to answer from the crowd, "There'll be no sewage to lie in."

"Precisely!"

"Disease and plague will be reduced!" volunteered another.

"Exactly!"

"We will be forced into homes!" This last statement sent a gasp throughout all those in attendance. The eyes of every beggar glanced at their humble home. All were fearful at the thought that one day they might be ripped from their current home under the bridge to a civilized house. The house might even have this cut deeper than anything running water.

"Will we let the governor tear us from our filthy existence?!?" Jarol shouted at the beggars.

"NO!" cried the motley-crew.

"We must take a stand and show the governor that you don't push around a leper!"

The bridge erupted in the cheers of excited beggars. One soul ventured amongst the cheers, "But what can we do?"

"Tomorrow, at dawn, we make our demands known to the governor and all the city. Tomorrow we go on strike!"

Once again the bridge exploded with cheering beggars. All were filled with encouragement. They were tired of being treated as gentlemen and ready to be treated as what they were, beggars and lepers!

"Tomorrow, at dawn, we meet at the Southern entrance to the marketplace. Meeting adjourned!"

The governor marched purposefully through the archway. The governor wore a long flowing robe of yellow. On numerous occasions, he had been advised by friends and family that yellow was not the most royal of colors. For his last birthday, he was given a very majestic wardrobe of purple robes and hats, but he refused to wear any of it. The robe dragged several feet behind him as we walked. It is the general consensus that the more awkward the clothing, the more important the wearer.

As he approached the guard to his conference chamber, he stated as politely as is befitting a political figure. "Good morning, Francis."

"Um... Phebus,... sir!" the powerful man responded cautiously. Phebus had never known the governor to be a cruel man, but it was always wise to be careful around high-ranking officials.

"Sorry about that. I do that everyday, don't I?" responded the governor in a matter-of-fact sort of tone.

"Um... Yes, sir!" Guards are not very fond of speaking with anyone, much less important people. If Phebus had wanted to interact with people, he would have joined the city-guard or the circus.

"Well good! At least we are consistent! Keep up the good work!" With a quick salute, the governor was gone into the conference room. Phebus let out a sigh of relief and went back to counting the stones on the floor.

The walls of the conference room were adorned with maps displaying locations from all across Libel and a few from other spheres of Ataxia. A large oak table was situated in the center of the room. Four men were already seated around the circular table, leaving one chair open for the governor. As the governor entered the room, all stood to recognize the man. Their greeting was met by a salute from the governor. The governor always enjoyed saluting and did so whenever the opportunity arose. The men stayed standing until the governor found his seat.

"Good morning to you men," greeted the governor. The rest responded with similar pleasantries.

"Now to business," stated the governor in a purposeful manner. "Is there any business to discuss?"

All in attendance fell silent. Each looked at one another in an uncomfortable way, trying to not be seen.

"Anything?" the governor said almost pleading.

A large man in armour stood. "Well, your majesty..."

"Yes?"

"There seems to be some sort of demonstration forming at the southern entrance to the market."

"Demonstration?" asked the governor in a surprised, yet excited fashion; it had been quite some time since they had had business to talk about in these conferences. Usually, they just sat around and stared at one another, very boring.

"Yes, sir. It seems that the beggars of the city have decided to go on strike."

The governor stood as he exclaimed, "What!?! How can beggars go on strike?" The governor was starting to realize that staring isn't all that boring after all.

"I'm not sure, sir. All I know is that they are picketing and won't except any handouts. What should we do?"

"Nothing!" snapped the governor. Governors had to worry about serious matters, and everything that he knew pointed at the fact that this was not a serious matter. He didn't have time to worry of simple matters like beggar strikes. He had to worry about important things, even if he couldn't think of any important matters at the moment.

"But, sir "

"I will not be bothered with simple things like this. Now, let's have a seat and get back to work."

The governor smiled as he returned to his seat. He felt that he had handled that quite well, even if he hadn't handled it much at all.

"Now, where were we?" inquired the governor.

"We were staring at one another, sir." responded the man to his left.

"Ahh, of course."

Someone looking down from a window high above the market would probably have mistaken the crowd of dirty creatures below as a swarm of rats. If that same person were to investigate what was occurring below, he would approach the crowd, and from the smell, he would be convinced that it was a convocation of rats. After which, he would return to his room and avoid the gathering all together.

Actually, if that person had listened to his eyes rather than his nose, he would have noticed that, though not much higher on the food chain than rats, the crowd consisted of a large number of beggars and lepers. But that is the way with Slanderian citizens. The sense of smell often ruled out above the sense of sight, causing some strategic business decisions in the market. The fruit carts could always be found surrounded by numerous other dealers, while the sauer kraut dealer never had to worry much about other merchants stealing his location.

The beggars--who all of the merchants were avoiding at the moment--were almost organized. It had been a difficult ordeal, attempting to organize the disordered group of misfits. One that Lister and Jarol had not had an easy time accomplishing.

Most of the beggars carried signs. Their illiteracy made the picketers seem more like a advertisement than a group of serious strikers. Some signs were left over from a recent sale at Bert's Slightly Used Armour Emporium. Another couple signs were found in the garbage after a yard sale. Most were very colorful and bright, but the signs did not very well portray their reason for striking. Nevertheless, the important thing to them was having a sign, not the words which were written upon it.

Continue to Chapter 3

L.E.P.E.R: Chapter 1

2008-11-27T12:16:00.003-07:00

This is the second in a series of posts wherein I have presented a novel I started writing in high school. Please read the introduction post (link) for an explanation.

A carriage flew through the city gates. Arrows placed themselves somewhat less than gently in the sides of the escaping vehicle. The fat man driving the carriage hopped and bounced around in the driver's seat.

The fleeing wagon was closely followed by a group of mounted and heavily armed men. From the tone of their voices, it would be reasonable to guess that they were less than friendly, the wagon's driver considered it best not to stop to confirm his assumption.

The coach continued its speedy withdrawal from the city. Ruts in the road did not ease their escape. Many times an onlooker could have sworn that only two of the carriage's wheels were touching the path. The other two wheels simply spun uselessly in the air. With every rut and turn, the sound of bottles being smashed and a man cursing could be heard coming from the carriage's insides.

As the carriage rumbled over a hill out of the horsemen's view. The leading cavalier slowed his horse and raised an armored fist. The signal was probably meant to be a motion for the other riders to halt, but if it was, the notion was lost on the not so sharp minds of the following riders. His companions simply continued riding until the leader made his command a little more explicit.

"HALT!"

Recognizing their leader's voice, the horses acknowledged the command and came to an abrupt stop. The riders on the other hand continued moving even after their mounts had halted. They sailed through the air until gravity suddenly realized what was happening and decided to put and end to everyone's fun. The rider's grunted as their bodies were introduced to the muddy ground. One of the rider's began to giggle a moment later.

"I guess we showed them that we don't take kindly to traveling miracle healers," stated the commander proudly. Attempting to ignore the stupidity of his troop.

"Showed who sir?" asked a knight, who was unsuccessfully attempting to lift himself up from the muddy path.

"Those men in the carriage," replied the commander in a tone best suited for conversations with first graders. Under the circumstances, he figured it would be appropriate.

"What carriage sir?" another soldier inquired in a very interested manner.

"The carriage we were following." The commander began to get somewhat annoyed.

The first soldier was beginning to look confused. The look seemed to fit him very well. "Carriage, I never saw any carriage."

"I love carriages!" added the giggling rider.

The commander let out a sigh which combined the emotions of disappointment, annoyance, and utter hopelessness. It was times like this when he tried not to think about the other job offers he had considered before accepting his current post. He could have been an admiral, sailing the oceans in search of some place people called the East. It would have been a wonderful life, but instead, he decided to join the army.

"You idiot! You've got your helmet on backwards," laughed a fellow cavalier.

"I do? Well what do you know? I have got it on backwards!"

A tear worked its way out of the commander's eye. With his head resting in his open palms, he began to weep.

The carriage rumbled to an awkward halt. The chubby driver hopped down from his seat atop the coach. Dressed in a rather gaudy manner, the man struck you as a fugitive from the local circus. It was also apparent that the local circus probably didn't want him back. No visible attempt seemed to have been made while dressing to conceal any of the man's extra weight. Quite the opposite actually, the man's clothes seemed to magnify his obtuse proportions. Accompanying his body was a face which fit perfectly.. His face gave him the appearance of a being an over-sized bulldog, too much skin, but not enough face.

"Well, I think we lost 'em," stated the man as he stepped around the carriage.

Nobody answered.

"I said, 'I think we lost 'em!'" he repeated.

Still, nobody answered.

"Hello!" He continued as he circled to the rear of the carriage. "Smiley? What are you doing in there?!?"

The man reached to knock on the carriage's door. As if the door suddenly sensed that it was about to be hit, it retaliated by throwing itself open. The chubby man was thrown to the ground with a great "Ooph!" If he had been tossed to the ground a few moments earlier, things would not have been so bad, but gravity was beginning to get angry because of how many attempts there had been at flying in the past few moments, that no mercy was extended in the force with which the man was placed on the ground.

The carriage dumped its contents across the muddy ground. The contents were mainly glass jars, two chests, a bath towel with the embroidered name of a local hotel chain, and another interestingly dressed man. The man seemed to be the larger man's companion in his effort to escape the circus. This man was of a much different shape. He was a tall lanky man. Lieing on his side he would have looked very similar to the other man standing up straight

"You know Omar?" The taller man began as he pushed himself up his muddy seat. "I had this great idea after this bottle hit me on the head. I can't remember it now because of another bottle which hit me on the head. All I remember is that I had a name for it. Plastic."

"Shut up and help me stand up, Smiley." Omar lyed on the ground like a helpless beached whale. Had it not been for his friend Smiley, he would have eventually dried up in the sun causing a horrible smell.

"What happened?" inquired the plump chap as he helped Smiley to his feet.

"That last bump we hit." started the man, somewhat disoriented. "That last bump was a killer. Everything fell from the shelves and most of bottles either spilled or broke. By the way, Omar, who taught you to drive?"

"Look!" cried Omar defensively. "I didn't hear anyone else volunteering to drive. I got us away from those guards didn't I?"

"All right, all right! Just help me pick up these jars."

Smiley bent down to begin picking up the few unscathed jars. He was somewhat thinner than Omar, but no less gaudy in fashion. Smiley spoke with the same sort of eloquence exhibited by his larger companion. It was obvious to see that they were both highly-skilled actors.

"We sure worked that town over, didn't we Smiley?" laughed Omar

"They fell for it hook, line, and sinker. How did we do before we were Ã¢â‚¬Ëœasked' to leave?"

"Haven't had a chance to count the loot, but it's sure to-- Did any of these jars not spill?" Omar inquired as he held the broken fragments of a bottle in one hand and an empty one in the other.

Smiley frowned as he replied, "Not that I can tell."

"Take these bottles and find a stream of something. I'll stay here and try to clean up the mess and figure out where to go next."

Smiley grabbed an armful of empty bottles and tromped off in the search of water.

Omar Bumble and Jim Smiley had been partners in business for the past ten years. They had played nearly every scam possible. They had met in boarding school and became friends immediately. Well, immediately after Omar pummeled Smiley for tricking him into lighting his own hair on fire. From that day on, they had been kicked out of nearly every prominent city throughout all of Ataxia. Many of them twice. They had been forced to change their names so many times that neither could actually remember what the other's name had been originally.

At the current time, they were selling miracle cures. The miracle cures which they sold came in the form of a bottle with a label reading:

MIRRACUL ELICKSUR
Heels all nown alements including,
Flew, amonia, body odor, death, chicken pocks,
leprsy, smelly foots, broked legs, etc.
In no time, Smiley returned with his armful of bottles all full.

"I found a spring to fill the bottles," he responded as he placed his burden into the back of the stagecoach.

"Good, I've decided where our next stop shall be, Slander." Omar stated proudly as he folded up a map. One of Omar's talents had always been folding maps. His parents wished him to become a professional map-folder for a local cartographer, but his heart just wasn't in map folding.

Omar and Smiley climbed back onto the coach and set out on their voyage to Slander.

The streets of Slander were filled with throngs of people, as was the usual in the afternoon. People pushed their way through the crowds of people. Slander's markets were said to be the best in the world. It was said that if something could be found in Ataxia, it could be found in the markets of Slander. Millions of coins passed hands each day in the booming marketplace, not always with the previous consent of the donator. Naturally, a center of so many transactions could not go unnoticed by the darker side of society. Pickpockets and assassins flocked to the marketplace like flies to a casserole. Not only did this place attract thieves and cutthroats, but also its fair share of beggars and insurance salesmen.

Lister had spent the last three years of his life as a fairly successful beggar. He had risen rather quickly through the ranks of beggardom. This was partly due to his recent contraction of leprosy.

While the general populous feared leprosy like the plague--mainly because it was the plague--beggars dreamed of contracting the disease. Through the studies of Mathias, the most famous beggar of all-time, he proved that leprosy guaranteed an increase of at least 50% in profits. He showed up to a 300% increase was possible under the best conditions.

Prior to becoming a Slanderian beggar, Lister had experienced a somewhat unsuccessful life as a traveling tinker. His travels one day led him to the market of the booming city of Slander. He was immediately struck by the number of beggars and their surprising success. From that day forward, his tinkering days came to an end, and his days of beggaring began.

On this particular day, Lister was not actually beggaring, he was on a mission. It was about time the beggars of Slander organized, or so thought Lister and a few of his friends. Lister had been sent to inform all of the prominent beggars in his area of the first meeting.

Lister turned a corner to catch the sight of Tom. Tom was an old beggar who had begged for as long as anyone could remember. He was one of those "In my day..." sort of people who would annoy everyone with stories about what being a beggar was like years ago. Strangely, his stories of the past were not much different from what it was like to be a beggar now. It's pretty tough to make beggaring sound worse than it already is.

"Tom?" Lister said, less as a question and more as a statement of presence.

"Wha, wha, did somebody say my name?" inquired Tom.

Tom pretended that his hearing and eyesight was less than perfect. Money flowed more freely to those who are old and feeble. In truth, Tom had nearly the best hearing and eyesight in the entire city.

"Tom, I'm Lister," began Lister, extending his hand. After noticing Lister to be a leper, he shook Lister's hand happily. Not only had Tom been cursed with good eyesight and hearing, but also with the seeming inability to come down with leprosy, but he never quit trying. "I'm here on behalf of-- sorry, but could I get my hand back?"

Lister's hand, though his arm had returned to his side, had stayed in Tom's hand, which he was still shaking. This was a small problem with leprosy, the loss of limbs every now and then, but this was considered a small problem when compared with the profits associated with leprosy. Tom apologized and gave back the hand.

"Now, as I was saying," began Lister once again. "I am here on behalf of L.E.P.E.R., or "The Organization of Beggars and Lepers of Slander."

"An organization of beggars eh? You know, in my day we didn't have organizations. We had to fend for ourselves! Beggars hated each other, and we loved it!"

"I'm sure you did," agreed Lister, trying not to encourage the slightly senile beggar. "There've been some laws passed by the governor which are putting the stranglehold on us beggars."

"Laws?!? In my day, we didn't have laws! We were mugged everyday, and we loved it!"

"OK, just take this card, and we hope to see you there tonight under the bridge."

Lister handed a card to Tom that was supposed to be a reminder of the meeting, but due to the illiteracy of beggars, the cards had been swiped from a local tailor shop. The card read: Flint's Tailor Shop 5 gold off your next purchase.

"Bridges?!? In my day, we didn't have bridges! If we wanted to cross a river, we swam! Of course, back then the rivers were full of crocodiles." Lister was far down the street by this time, but in the distance he could hear, "We loved it!"

Melzar's eyes panned across the bleak landscape. It seemed a real shame to classify the scene in front of Melzar as "landscape." Classifying this view of scorched and decimated earth as a "landscape" would be a demeaning injustice to the many other normal, Gods-fearing landscapes in existence such as forests and meadows. No, this was definitely not "landscape."

Dead bodies lay strewn across the blistered soil. Surprisingly few vultures were feeding on the carrion; most were too busy calling relatives concerning feasts and dinners they would be hosting. Above all of this destruction lingered a stench, a very odd stench. Most stenches result from pungent objects being left out in the sun for too long. This stench was somewhat different; it had descended on the land due to their being a stench left out in the sun for too long.

Standing high above this desolate wasteland, the black silhouette of the great wizard, Melzar, could be seen atop his tower of ebony. Melzar was your common stereotypical evil wizard: black flowing robe, wrinkled skin, evil glowing eyes, the whole works. Well, the whole works minus one volume. This volume happened to be located at the end of his chin where a beard should have been.

It was quite difficult to be a proper wizard, even a kind-hearted one, without the aid of a long flowing beard. For years, his beardlessness had been a cause of no small amount of turmoil and grief. Had it not been for the wizard academy's rule that all applicants are required to have a beard of at least two feet in length, Melzar would have been a great kind-hearted magician in the service of some king. But no, they turned him away, and as a result, turned him to the evil side of magic.

He had made many attempts at correcting his hairlessness. Hours had been spent high in his tower mixing the components of spells to cure this problem. He had even spent twenty gold coins on the purchase of Dr. Bumble's Magical Hair Growth Elixir, but nothing had worked.

"Master?" ventured a timid voice behind Melzar.

Melzar turned from his quite vigil to address the speaker, who turned out to be a handpuppet upon his own hand, which had been behind his back. It seemed to have been the product of an old athletic sock for a body, two black buttons for eyes, and a red marker employed to draw lips and a tongue.

"Yes Gord?" inquired the wizard.

"Master, what is wrong? You do not seem to be your same evil self today," asked the puppet.

"I have been thinking..."

"Master, you know what the psychiatrist told you about thinking."

Whenever the puppet spoke, Melzar's lips could be seen moving slightly.

"It's just that... I mean... well..."

"Master, you can tell me. I'm your best friend. Go on," encouraged Gord.

Melzar strode thoughtfully from the balcony to his throne room. Being connected to Melzar's hand and as such, having little say in his movement, followed the wizard to the throneroom.

"Gord, I'm bored."

Gord pulled back in surprise at his Master's last statement.

"Master, how could you be bored? You are the supreme dictator over an entire world. You kill millions of people everyday, and don't even think twice about it. People would die to have your power. To tell the truth, many have."

Melzar sat upon his gold encrusted throne. He leaned his head on his hand, in a thoughtful manner.

"Master! That hurts," cried Gord.

"Sorry," he said while switching head rests.

A few minutes passed while Melzar was lost in thought. Gord had learned long ago that you never interrupt a thinking wizard. This is partly due to their rather short temper but mostly because they could be pondering a spell like MoirÃƒÂ©'s Do-it-yourself Supernova. A slight startle could cause the wizard to suddenly blurt out the magic words, and-- let's just say that it isn't a pretty picture.

Then, as if he had suddenly heard the ringing of an ice cream truck, he instantly looked forward.

"I know what I've got to do!" Melzar stated as if he had just reached the top of Mt. Everest.

"Master, what do you have to do?" Gord was clearly excited.

"I've got to find something to excite my life."

Humans are masters at stating the obvious. Melzar, being a wizard, had many extraordinary and enhanced abilities or powers. One of these enhanced abilities was stating the obvious. He was a pro.

"Master, do you wish me to hire an assassin?" Gord inquired in an attempt to be helpful.

"No assassins. They just aren't a match for me anymore. The last one you hired didn't even get past the door. Remember the one that I killed in my sleep? The guards had to tell me in the morning because I never woke up. No, assassins are out."

"Master, what if we insight a rebellion?"

"Those stupid rebellions are easier to crush than a walnut."

"Master, what if..." Gord did not finish his sentence because Melzar's other hand had grown weary of Gord's babbling and decided to restrict the movement of his mouth.

Gord looked up to see Melzar doing something he had never seen the wizard do before. The old man was smiling. Actually, his mouth wasn't smiling. Melzar's brain had sent a message to his mouth instructing it to smile. While the message was traveling towards the mouth, it ran into a few friends who invited it to the pituitary gland for lunch. Three hours later the message finally reached its target, but by that time, the message was inebriated. This resulted in a mere smirk.

"I know what to do to ease my boredom!" Melzar stated triumphantly, while, as far as he knew, smiling.

"Master? What is it? Tell me! What is it?" Handpuppets are very excitable.

"I will conquer another world!" Melzar announced as he commenced with a few minutes of maniacal laughter.

Gord thought the idea was wonderful but wished the suspense would have lasted for slightly longer. Nevertheless, evil characters never miss a chance to laugh maniacally.

A carriage rumbled towards the city gates. The gates of Slander had once been named one of the Seven Wonders of the Galaxy. It was an attempt by the Slanderian government to increase the tourism. The scheme had worked for a time. In other words, the plot worked great until people arrived and actually saw the gates.

Structurally speaking, the gates were no different than any other gate you would find on a city. It was supported by two large guard towers, had a steel gate, and looked pretty normal, structurally that is. What made this particular gate stand out, was the simple fact that for some bizarre reason, the whole thing was painted mauve.

Years previous, the governor had passed a law which put a tax on painter's brushes. Obviously, the painters' guild was infuriated. As a result, the painters' guild secretly painted the entire gate and gatehouse. They chose mauve because it was the guild's colors mauve and turquoise; it didn't look half bad on the basketball uniforms. The governor ordered the guild to repaint the building or be imprisoned. The order was revoked after the guild threatened to paint the royal palace turquoise.

The coach pulled to a stop in front of the closing gate. The larger of the two men on the carriage stood to address the guards on the towers.

"We request admittance to this fine city," yelled Omar.

"Go away!" called the guard. "We never admit people to the city after dark."

Omar looked at the sky to verify his assumption that it wasn't after dark; it was barely after noon.

"What do you mean after dark?!?" Omar was beginning to get angry; it didn't take much.

I am convinced that there is a direct correlation between weight and anger. The bigger one is, the angrier they can get. It's as if their large size holds more anger. This is true for everyone I know, even Santa Claus. I imagine him, around July, yelling profanities at his little elf helpers, who, because of their very small size, are unable to be angry enough to fight back.

The guard looked towards the sky as if he hadn't noticed that day had crept up on him only a mere six hours ago. When his eyes were facing towards the sky, he made his best shot at being startled, which looked more like he tripped on a rock.

"Well, what do you know? It is daytime," the guard said with a fake smile. His beaming face was extinguished by the coldness in Omar's glance.

"So, can we enter the city?"

"No," the guard paused. "We don't allow mimes into the city."

"Mimes?!?" Omar had taken enough. He had been called every bad name imaginable throughout his travels, but no one had ever had the nerve to call him a mime. "Do we look like mimes? Rather, do we sound like mimes?"

Omar's anger had gotten about as high as his navel.

"You never know, your friend could be a ventriloquist."

"Look! We are not mimes, and he," pointing to Jim, "is not a ventriloquist!"

The anger had now reached his armpits.

"Well maybe you aren't a mime, but you could have some hidden in the back of your carriage. We'll have to come down and check."

The anger was beginning to spill out the top of his head and form a puddle on the ground. He was so angry that he couldn't even say anything, he just sat down and waited for the guards. In the meantime he turned to Jim.

"Can you believe this?"

Jim opened his eyes and let out a large yawn. Smacking his lips he responded, "What did you say?"

"You've been sleeping all this time?"

"I think so. I couldn't really tell because I was asleep," Jim hadn't regained all his senses yet from his nap.

Omar made a great effort to say something to Jim, but the only things that would come out were garbled mumbles. He finally resorted to merely letting out a sigh of disgust.

"Hey," started Jim. "what's that puddle on the ground?"

Four guards stepped from the guard tower. They were heavily armed and looked like they were serious about this inspection.

"Don't worry, this will only take a moment," stated a guard as they circled the carriage.

The platoon disappeared into the carriage. They reemerged two minutes later.

"OK!" yelled a guard towards the gatekeeper. "No mimes, let'em in!"

The gate slowly lifted and the carriage rumbled through. Omar's anger had begun evaporating off, but it would remain at a critical level for the next half-hour.

Continue to Chapter 2

L.E.P.E.R: Prologue

2008-11-27T12:11:00.005-07:00

This is the first in a series of posts wherein I have presented a novel I started writing in high school. Please read the introduction post (link) for an explanation.

Scientists believe that the universe began with an enormous explosion called the "Big Bang." This theory is all well and good, but what was before this explosion. Scientists have no idea. Actually, they just plain try to avoid the question. They have a sort of sixth sense that lets them know when someone is going to ask what came before the "Big Bang". Just try it. Go up to a scientist and ask, "What was around before the 'Big Bang?'" I'll be willing to bet money that right before you pop the question, he'll need to use the restroom and will stay either until you leave or until the restroom starts to smell.

Now back to the beginning of the universe. Scientists have come quite close to the actual start of the universe. They do have one thing wrong though; it wasn't exactly a "Big" Bang. It was actually a fairly small bang in comparison to what it did. It was a bang not much bigger than a house in size and rather minuscule in the noise department, but what it lacked in strength, it made up for in effect. This "Little Bang" this is how the experts like to refer to it was like the first domino in a series of hundreds. The domino is quite small and doesn't make much noise when it falls, but it causes plenty.

Another discrepancy with the "Big Bang" idea is what caused it. Scientists have had little experience in dealing with this question because when it finally comes up, they are usually in the restroom, waiting for the interrogator to leave.

To explain the phenomenon of the "Little Bang," the first question that must be answered is the question of what came before the bang. The bang was not actually the beginning of the universe; it was more like the dispersing of it. There was plenty of matter around, but it was all in one place. This one place is referred to as the Mansion of the Gods.

The Gods lived for eons in the Mansion of the Gods. It is impossible to know exactly or even approximately how long they were around before the "Little Bang," but according to the great historian, Therin Binsbury, "It was a long time." The reason it is impossible to measure this time is because Gods have no notion of time. Time was not something for which Gods care. Time is something which was dreamt up by mortals to measure the length of life. Since Gods are not mortal, they have nothing to measure and hence, have no use for time. This does make it difficult to invite others for tea, but for that matter, Gods aren't too keen on tea.

Gods may not like tea, but one thing that they do like is destroying and blowing things up. Sure, they make worlds and populate them with millions of people, but they always have it in mind to zap it when enough people are around. It is this such instinct that led to an experiment which the Gods attempted one afternoon it's always afternoon to a God. One of the younger Gods was sent to shut off the power to the house. The rest of the Gods commenced to put strips of tin foil in the light sockets, where the foil formed a "U" and was inserted much like an electrical plug. I remind you that Gods like anything which is somewhat destructive or likely to cause an explosion. They had no idea what would happen, but they were pretty sure it would be exciting.

To say the result was exciting would not be unlike saying that the Atlantic Ocean is "kinda big." The result was extraordinary. "Wow," is all that was said in response when Zeus was asked about the event. Words would no do the event justice, but here goes a worthy attempt. Upon the resurgence of power into the mansion's electrical outlets, everything got bright for a split second then went dark. The only words which were spoken were those belonging to Thor, "Bummer! That su "

The sentence was left unfinished or perhaps merely unheard due to the sudden explosion of sparks from the outlets. The first thoughts in their minds should have been, "RUN FOR COVER!!!!" But, as stated before, Gods were the universe's first pyro- and electromaniacs, and as such running for cover was, like time, yet to be conceived by the Gods. The next occurrence was even more amazing to their maniacal minds. The house just exploded in an amazing display of fireworks and electricity.

After the explosion, bits of the mansion were floating all across the newly created universe. The Gods were still in a daze from the astounding display of destruction that had just occurred. Flowing from many of the Gods' eyes were tears of joy and ecstasy. If Gods had acknowledged time, a great deal of it would have passed before they were sober enough to speak in something other than mumbles and stuttered tones.

Eventually the Gods looked around themselves and realized what had actually happened. The sight around them was magnificent. It was the second greatest thing they had ever witnessed. What they saw was the beginnings of the universe, planets, solar systems, and stars. They would have something to describe the feeling as if they had ever gone to Kindergarten, and seen the first sight of the playground, eyes wide with the visual delicacy of swings, monkey bars, and slides. But because they did not acknowledge time, they never knew when to go out to recess, so they were unable to explain their experience.

The universe was quickly divvied up amongst the Gods. As is common with the more immature group of any race, the younger Gods queried, "What do we get?" The older Gods looked somewhat annoyed, for none of them wished to part with any area of the universe of which they had so recently come into control. Luckily, there was a collection of planets and stars on the far side of the universe which no one had been willing to take. The younger Gods, being somewhat more dim than their older comrades, were more than overjoyed that they should be given a galaxy of their own to control.

The reason for this area of the cosmos not being claimed would be due to the fact that in the galactic real estate business, it was deemed less than prime. The galaxy was less a galaxy and more a large conglomeration of spheres, each of which contained within, one or two planets and a sun around which they revolved. A few hundred of these spheres had been smooshed together and thrown out into the cosmos. The result was not unlike what happens when a bag of marshmallows is poured into the microwave; then, cooked on high.

It is here, within this sorry excuse for a galaxy and under the hands of a group of Gods whose combined IQ might be enough to drool on oneself, that our story takes place. It is here, in the galaxy of Ataxia.

Continue to Chapter 1

L.E.P.E.R

2008-11-27T11:49:00.006-07:00

In high school I aspired to be an author. I began work on a novel during my senior year and continued to work on it off and on during my freshman year of college. Sadly, one thing led to another, and I never made it further than the 5th chapter. Although I still try to write as much as possible, and have even been published a few times, I have yet to return to my dream of writing fiction. Maybe one day I shall... who knows?

A while back I stumbled upon a draft of the first five chapters of my novel. The title of the book is "L.E.P.E.R". It is comedy sci-fi/fantasy. Think of a cross between Douglas Adams (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) and Terry Pratchett (Discworld). At the behest of a friend, I have decided to provide the draft here for your perusal.

A few disclaimers first. I wrote this during my senior year of high school and my freshman year of college. That was 11 years ago. This is a draft, so there are plenty of mistakes. I thought about proofreading it before posting it, but frankly, I'm too lazy. I'm sure there are plenty of spelling errors and grammatical errors. If I remember correctly, there's even a character whose name mysteriously changes halfway through. Maybe I fixed that at some point; I'm not sure. Also, I am sad to say that there was once a collection of humorous footnotes that accompanied the text. Sadly, the footnotes have been lost at some point. If I can ever find them, I will be sure to add them back. Lastly, one benefit of me having written this so long ago is that you are welcome to criticize it all you want. I've become sufficiently emotionally detached.

With no further ado, here is L.E.P.E.R:

Book of Mormon Historicity: Archeology

2008-11-27T11:16:00.003-07:00

This is the fourth (and final) in a series of posts wherein I explain reasons why I do not believe in the Book of Mormon. Please read the introduction post (link) for an explanation.

The following is excerpted from the Smithsonian's official statement regarding the Book of Mormon, "Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book."

Mormon scholars have attempted to stretch the archeological record for decades, in order to create evidence for the Book of Mormon. Quetzalcoatl is one such example. I was always taught that the Quetzalcoatl mythology was a clear smoking-gun of Christ's visit to the Americas. Years later, there are few Mormon scholars who would make that claim anymore.

I have yet to find a single bit of supposed archeological evidence that is not extremely spurious. When scholars are pointing to such sketchy finds as NHM being the resting place of Ishmael, you know that there isn't a lot to hold onto. That said, if you do know of some good archeological evidence, let me know.

Just as Spanish, French, and Italian still bare a strong resemblance to their mother tongue, Latin, we should see a strong link between Native American language and its supposed mother tongue, Hebrew. We do not. Some Mormon scholars attempt to stretch the evidence to imply that we do, but it's pretty weak evidence (and could easily be a result of post-Columbus interaction).

We also fail to see the cultural footprint of Book of Mormon peoples. We fail to see Hebrew architecture or religion or culture or anything that might conceivably link ancient American society with its alleged Hebrew source. For a people so concerned with Jesus Christ, we would conceivably expect to see some vestige of Christian worship in the Americas. We do not. We see nothing of the kind.

One thing that makes Book of Mormon archeology difficult is the very fact that scholars cannot even agree on where the events took place. Most Mormon scholars now believe that the events took place in Mesoamerica. This has led to such obtuse theories as the two-Cumorah theory. But there are some who claim that the events took place in New England. This is much more inline with what Joseph Smith taught regarding the subject of the Book of Mormon. He clearly taught that the Book of Mormon peoples dwelled in the region of New York, but this carries many major problems as well.

Ultimately, what is most telling for me is the fact that the only scholars who see any connection between Mesoamerican and Book of Mormon culture, language, and genetics are those who are Mormon. There are no independent, unbiased scholars who give any credence to the claims of Hebrew descent for the Native Americans. One could accuse non-Mormon scholars of hiding evidence so as to discredit the Book of Mormon. But that would be a pretty strong accusation. I can't imagine that any archeologists care enough about Mormonism to commit fraud.

Book of Mormon Historicity: Translation

2008-11-26T11:32:00.003-07:00

This is the third in a series of posts wherein I explain reasons why I do not believe in the Book of Mormon. Please read the introduction post (link) for an explanation.

I recently watched the movie Emma Smith: My Story. I had to laugh out loud when Joseph Smith was first presented translating the plates. There was this great scene where Joseph was sitting across from Emma. The plates were open before him. He was reading aloud as his finger traced his position in the text. He looked as if we were just reading the plates directly. The Urim and Thummim were nowhere in sight. For that matter, neither is the seer stone and hat he used in the translation either.

I was raised being taught that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim like spectacles to translate the Book of Mormon text from the gold plates. He would separate himself from his scribe with a curtain. I had also been taught that he eventually became sufficiently versed in Reformed Egyptian, that he no longer needed the Urim and Thummim to translate. Most of my Mormon readers were probably raised with the same understanding of the translation process.

The truth regarding the translation process is much different. Russell M. Nelson discussed the method of how the Book of Mormon was translated in the July 1993 Ensign. In an article entitled "A Treasured Testament" (link) he quotes from David Whitmer, who explains how the translation took place.

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.”
(David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)

Now what is this seer stone to which Mr. Whitmer refers? One might think that it is a reference to the Urim and Thummim. On the contrary, it is a polished stone he found while digging a well as a youth. He would peer into this stone and claim to see hidden treasure. He was hired on a number of occasions to find treasure, using his seer stone. It should be noted that he never found any. So, Joseph was translating with a stone that he had previously used, unsuccessfully, for the purpose of finding treasure. To me, this seems very suspect.

It is also interesting to note that Joseph would generally translate without the gold plates. Usually the plates would be sitting on a shelf, under a cloth. Joseph would instead use his seer stone and hat for the translation. This, of course, begs the question of why the plates were even necessary. If it was not even necessary for him to look at the plates during the translation process, why did God bother putting him and his family in such grave danger by having him hold onto the plates.

I also am led to question why we never hear the true story of the translation. From the Ensign quote above, he see that the true story is neither a secret nor heretical. And yet, we never hear this story in Sunday School. Movies are made (often by the church) which give a false portrayal of the events. But I suppose I understand why the true story is not portrayed. Frankly, it is pretty weird.

To illuminate another reason I doubt that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon, we need to fast forward a few years to another book translated by Joseph, the Book of Abraham. For those who are unfamiliar with the origin of the Book of Abraham, it was allegedly translated, by Joseph Smith, from a number of ancient Egyptian scrolls. The three facsimiles are reproductions of images from the scrolls. The interpretations of said images were provided by Joseph.

It may surprise people that we actually have possession of these scrolls. They were returned to the church, after having been lost, a few decades back. There was a lot of excitement at the time. A lot has transpired since Joseph's time with regards to Egyptology. For one thing, we deciphered the Rosetta Stone, which means there are many people who can translate Egyptian now. Here was an opportunity to prove Joseph's translating powers. The church promised to print the forthcoming translation in the Improvement Era. That was their intention up until the point that it was discovered that Joseph's translation was completely bunk.

The scrolls are actually funeral texts that were very common in the era. They make no mention of Abraham, much less the creation, Kolob, or the pre-mortal existence. Joseph's interpretation of the facsimiles is so completely distant from the actual translation, that it's nearly laughable. It should be no surprise that the church decided to not publish the translations and has largely attempted to sweep this all under the rug.

The reason I mention the Book of Abraham in a discussion of the Book of Mormon is to establish precedent. Joseph Smith clearly lied about his ability to translate the Book of Abraham. He lied about his interpretation of the facsimiles. He most likely fabricated the scriptural text. Therefore, if he lied about the Book of Abraham, is it too far of a stretch to believe he did the same with the Book of Mormon?

Book of Mormon Historicity: Anachronisms

2008-11-25T12:46:00.003-07:00

This is the second in a series of posts wherein I explain reasons why I do not believe in the Book of Mormon. Please read the introduction post (link) for an explanation.

The definition of anachronism is "The representation of someone as existing or something as happening in other than chronological, proper, or historical order." Anachronisms are things that are out of place in a time period, like a Roman soldier wearing a wristwatch, or a Muslim in the time of Christ.

The Book of Mormon is full of anachronisms. Here is a list of just some of the anachronisms that appear in the Book of Mormon text: elephants, horses, barley, steel, cimiters, metal swords, chariots, silk, compasses, "Christ", "adieu", coins. Individually one can explain some of these away by saying that we just haven't found record of them in the New World. The problem comes at the shear enormity of things that are mentioned which are out of place chronologically or geographically.

Let's say that there is a 20% chance that there were actually elephants in the Americas at the time of the Book of Mormon. And let's say there was a 20% chance that there were horses. The probability that there were both, is 4%. If the probability that there were metal swords that we've never found is also 20%, then we now have a .8% chance of all three. As you can see, the probability drops pretty quickly when taking unlikely events in aggregate.

Another form of anachronism is the presence of 19th century theological thought within the Book of Mormon. It seems odd that the Book of Mormon peoples would live in a very similar theological environment to the one in which Joseph himself lived.

The teachings of Nehor and Korihor are very similar to the teachings of Universalists. In Joseph's day they were considered by many to be an affront to traditional Christianity, as they taught universal salvation. It's interesting that a philosophy that was making such strong headway in 19th century America is the heresy of choice in ancient America.

Due to some recent murders in the area, the Masons were also a popular target of social derision and suspicion. Many have noticed the similarity between the Masons and the secret combinations of the Gadianton Robbers. It's ironic that Joseph would later become a very high ranking mason himself.

There is also a striking resemblance between much of the doctrine in the Book of Mormon with 19th century Methodist teachings, especially with regards to the conversion pattern. I cannot possibly hope to do this issue justice, so I encourage interested parties to read "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins" by Grant H. Palmer (link). He approaches this subject in some depth and it is fascinating.

One thing I will mention, that is addressed at length by Palmer, is the occurrence of a Methodist tent meeting near Palmyra during Joseph's childhood. The preacher was a certain Pastor Benjamin. As one reads the news clippings concerning the event, it is stunning. The similarity of the event to the first few chapters of Mosiah is undeniable. A tower was built. People came, placing their tents so that they were facing the tower from which the preacher spoke. Those who confessed Jesus had their names recorded. It was as striking coincidence.

Another anachronism is the appearance of King James language throughout the Book of Mormon. As you know, Nephi obtained the Brass Plates from Laban, which gave him and his descendants access to large portions of the Old Testament. Nephi quoted freely from Isaiah and clearly had a record of Moses and others. Arguably, since these records come from at least 600 BC (probably earlier because of their having been written on Brass Plates), one would expect the accuracy of Mormon's source material to be superior to those used to make the King James Version. Also, Mormon and Joseph were both translating through the power of God. Therefore, one would expect their translations to be even better as a result. Nevertheless, we do not see that in practice.

The text appearing in the Book of Mormon is almost always the same as the KJV. Though, there are a few places where it differs. One would expect that, as we find older manuscripts, we would see the text coming more in sync with that presented in the Book of Mormon (and the JST). We do not. Quite the contrary, we see the text diverging in places where Joseph did not change the text and staying the same in places where he did. In fact, many well-known mistakes from the KJV have been perpetuated in the Book of Mormon. Why would mistakes made by 17th century scholars also appear in a 600 BC record? The most likely explanation is that that Joseph copied this sections from the KJV Bible directly.

Book of Mormon Historicity: Genetics

2008-11-24T11:58:00.002-07:00

This is the first in a series of posts wherein I explain reasons why I do not believe in the Book of Mormon. Please read the introduction post (link) for an explanation.

Recent technological advances have given us very powerful tools for determining ancestry through genetic markers. I will not go into depth about these techniques at this time (mainly because I only have a cursory knowledge myself). Suffice it to say that there is no genetic evidence that the ancestors of Native Americans were Israelite, not a bit.

On the contrary, there is voluminous genetic evidence that the original inhabitants of America were of East Asian descent. One need only compare the appearance of East Asians with that of Native Americans; the similarity is undeniable. But one need not trust their eyes, the genetic record tells the same story. This fits in very well with the long defended argument that the first human inhabitants of America came by way of a land bridge across the Bering Strait.

Another interesting thing to note regarding Book of Mormon genetics is the limited amount of diversity we should expect to see. Mitochondrial DNA is passed down directly from one's mother. There is no cross-over during meiosis, so it makes for a very useful tool in determining ancestry. Nephi and company only had two unique sets of Mitochondrial DNA (Sariah, Ishmael's wife). This should make spotting these DNA markers very easy, as they would have only diverged by mutations over the past 2,600 years. In truth, the DNA shows much higher genetic drift than could occur in the above situation.

There is only one reasonable argument, that I have heard, to combat this genetic issue. If Nephi and family came to an already populated American continent, their genetic markers could have been covered up by the genetic markers of the larger population already here. The big problem with this argument is that one would need to explain what people are doing crossing the Bering Strait millenia prior to the Fall of Adam. We also have to wonder why the Book of Mormon authors make special mention of the Mulekites and finding the extinct Jaredite nation, but fail to mention an even larger civilization all around them.

Is the Book of Mormon True?

2008-11-24T11:35:00.006-07:00

I have recently been thinking about the Book of Mormon. This is probably due to a recent comment asking me what I believed regarding the origin of the Book of Mormon. For me, the evidence is overwhelming that the book cannot possibly be historically accurate. If one considers the Book of Mormon as a literal record of early American inhabitants, there are enormous problems that must be considered. Let's face it, science has not been kind to the Book of Mormon (or Christianity as a whole for that matter).

This has caused me to wonder what others (especially active Mormons) think about the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I have recently asked a few friends and acquaintances concerning their views on this issue. Do you believe that the Book of Mormon is literally true? In other words, was Nephi a real man who traveled from Jerusalem to the Americas around 600 BC? Or, is the Book of Mormon simply an inspirational book whose historicity is irrelevant to its core message of Jesus Christ being the savior of mankind? Or, is it something more complicated? I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this issue.

I have also decided to post the evidences that cause me to discredit the literal historicity of the Book of Mormon. Rather than do so in one huge unwieldy post, I will do so episodically over the next few days. I will break the evidence into separate categories and address each individually. This should be a little easier to digest for readers.

As always, I would love to hear people's comments. If I make any glaring mistakes in my claims (especially facts), do not hesitate to call me out. Also, it is not my intention to offend or attack anyone's beliefs. I simply want to express how I personally feel. If you think you might be offended by what I am going to write, please do not read any of the forthcoming posts.

Same-Sex Marriage Bad, Civil Unions Good.

2008-11-22T10:42:00.002-07:00

I have heard the same refrain from most Mormons throughout the long and arduous debate over Prop 8 and same-sex marriage. Proponents of Prop 8 claim that it their support has nothing to do with discrimination. They always claim to be in favor of civil unions and gay rights, just so long as the word marriage is not used. They claim that they have absolutely no ill-will towards gays. In fact, they also seem to have a bunch of friends who are gay, at least, they claim as much.

Well, if that's the case (that you are so in favor of civil unions), then why did the predominantly Mormon state of Utah pass a constitutional amendment in 2004 explicitly denying gay couples the opportunity to have civil unions? Here is the text of the amendment (link):

Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.

If you all are such big fans of civil unions, then why did you vote them down in 2004?

So, what are we to make of the pro-civil union rhetoric that we have been hearing out of the church and its membership for the past few months? Does this mean that Mormons have changed their opinions about civil unions and domestic partnerships? Does this mean that members of the church are going to line up in support of providing all of the legal benefits of marriage to civil unions? Or was it just election-time rhetoric?

We shall see, and we won't have to wait very long. A gay-rights group called Equality Utah (link) has picked up the fight here in Utah. They are taking the church at its words and are introducing 5 bills into the Utah legislature to secure legal rights for the those who wish to enter into civil unions (link). They have called on the church to make good on their statements by aiding in their efforts to secure these rights.

The church has definitely painted itself into a corner. In order to not come off as bigots, the church was forced to make certain concessions in the fight for Prop 8. Those concessions are coming back to haunt them. If they come out in opposition to these legislative measures, they will look very hypocritical. I highly doubt they would come out in favor of the measures. That would be such a 180 degree reversal. Though, I would welcome such a reversal of policy. Ultimately, they will probably remain silent on the issue. Equality Utah has been trying to remove this option from the LDS church by actively and openly asking for their support. If the church does remain silent on the issue, that itself will speak volumes.

Is the LDS Church Shrinking?

2008-11-20T11:20:00.003-07:00

I have a degree with Mathematics, so it goes without saying that I enjoy the company of numbers. I love combing through statistics, looking for interesting correlations. It is this interest which led me recently to look at religious identification numbers from the US Census Bureau.

Comparing religious affiliation numbers between churches is not easy. Every church has there own method of reporting membership numbers. The LDS church reports everyone who has ever been baptized. Other churches, especially those with no formal membership concept, may report the number of people who attend each week. So, how does one actually compare membership numbers between sects? The best way is by asking people what religion they belong to, regardless of whether or not that church actually considers them a member. Since religion is an issue of belief, it seems reasonable to compare based upon belief, rather than membership.

The US Census Bureau has performed a study to determine US church membership based upon this identification, and the numbers are very intriguing (link). The data compares identification in 1990 with 2001. It only deals with adult population (which I consider a good idea when discussing religion).

Those who identified themselves as Mormon in 1990 totaled 2.48 million. In 2001 the number has grown to 2.78 million, giving a 12% gain over the 11 years. That seems like a strong growth number. But one must look at another factor when considering these numbers. The adult population, in the same time period, has grown from 175 million to 207 million, a growth of 18.5%. Therefore, if the Mormon church was not converting anyone, simply accounting for growth based upon the growth of population, the church should have had 2.94 million members in 2001. There is a shortfall of about 160,000 members or a growth of -6%. In other words, convert growth for the Mormon church in the United States is actually negative, the number of people leaving has exceeded the number joining.

This is not an isolated fact. A lot of Christian congregations have been seeing negative convert growth. While Christianity (in whole) has seen total growth of 5.29%, their convert growth has dropped to -13%. But this drop in membership was not felt equally among all groups. Evangelism and non-congregational Christianity seems to have been cannibalizing on the other Christian sects, as their numbers have increased. The study does note though that, since no options were provided, loosely-affiliated groups (like non-denominational and evangelical) can fluctuate a lot.

The religions that saw real growth were the non-Christian religions. Religions such as Islam, Buddhism, and Hindu saw huge growth (32% real, 14% convert). Some of that may be due to immigration, but I have my doubts. If someone wants to research that, I'd love to hear the results.

The biggest winner though was the atheists, humanists, and agnostics. Those who did not specify a religion climbed from 8% of the population to 14%. That means they had a convert growth of 87%. That's pretty astounding.

I'm not too surprised by these numbers though. Christianity has been seeing massive growth over the past 50 to 60 years. We, as a nation, are far more religious than we even were during the time of the Founding Fathers. Christianity, as a percentage of population, topped out around 90%. There weren't many people left to convert. The only way to go was down.

I also input all of the numbers into a spreadsheet on Google Docs if anyone wants to look at it (link).

Why Blame Mormons for Prop 8?

2008-11-13T13:16:00.003-07:00

The Mormon church has been experiencing a lot of blowback since Nov 4. There have been protests and demonstrations at temples and meetinghouses all across California. The protests have even extended past the borders of California. There were protests as far away as NYC where reportedly 10,000 people gathered. I myself attended a protest/rally held in front of the Church Office Building and Salt Lake Temple. This has clearly not been good PR for the Mormons.

Mormons are obviously confused as to why they are being singled out. As a commenter posted on my previous post, "But why go after the LDS Church in general when the voting members of the LDS Church consisted of an estimated mere 2-5% of the Yes vote?" Let me explain why the LDS church is being targeted. It is true that Mormons make up a small portion of the California electorate. Nevertheless, according to "Mormons For 8" (link), of the roughly $32 million in pro-Prop 8 contributions, 48% was donated by Mormons. That's a total of over $15 million. It also turns out that about $5 million of the money donated by Mormons came from out of state. That's 1/6 of the budget to pass Prop 8 coming from out-of-state Mormons. This money was used to create advertisements and spread propaganda that was full of lies and deception.

Money was not the only form of support offered by members of the church. If you lived in California, Prop 8 was discussed ad nauseum over the pulpit. People were strongly encouraged to give of their time to knock doors and make phone calls. The church setup phone centers here in Utah to call potential voters in California. Church leaders gave speeches declaring that this was something that God wanted the members of the church to focus on. I have spoken previously of the lies that were spread by church leaders.

One thing to note as well is that the Mormon leaders have a stronger sway on their membership than most congregations. Few evangelists believe that Pat Robertson speaks for and in behalf of God. On the contrary, it is a core tenet of Mormon doctrine that when the Prophet speaks, it is non different than if the Lord himself had come down and spoken (D&C 1:38). It leaves those who disagree in a very difficult situation.

Ultimately, I have no qualms saying that without the vast support of the Mormon church, Prop 8 would not have passed.

The Winds of Change are Blowing

2008-11-05T23:28:00.002-07:00

I, like many Americans, thrilled in the election of Barack Obama last night. It was an emotional night of joy in his victory, in America's victory. But the presidential election was not the only fight on my mind. As President-elect Obama took the stand to deliver his acceptance speech, 20% of Californian precincts were reporting and Prop 8 was showing a 12% lead. It was a bitter-sweet moment.

I stayed up until 4am in hopes of seeing the tide turn and Prop 8 be struck down. There was a moment of hope as the lead dropped to a mere 4%, but the gap failed to close further. And here we are, 11:32 pm on the night of November 5th. Prop 8 has passed and same-sex marriage has been banned in California by constitutional amendment.

As I drove around running errands this morning I was happy for Obama's victory, but sad for the passing of Prop 8. But then I began to think about what had happened. I took hope. In 2000, California passed Proposition 22, which led to the definition of marriage as a man and a woman. Proposition 22 passed by a margin of 22%. Eight years later, Proposition 8 comes before the electorate and wins by 4%. Clearly, the winds are changing.

I examined the demographic information of voters, provided by CNN's website. Only 39% of people between the ages of 18 and 29 voted in favor of the proposition. With each passing year, more and more open-minded youth enter the electorate. Also, more and more people come to the conclusion that discrimination based upon sexual preference is wrong. In 2000, if I had lived in California, I would have voted in favor of Proposition 22. My views have changed a lot in the past eight years, and I'm not the only one.

We have not seen the end of same-sex marriage. California will vote on this again in 2010 or 2012 or 2016. It may take a few years, but time is on our side. Eventually same-sex marriage will be legalized, and it won't be long. I suspect that my grandchildren will look back with surprise that there was an era when people looked at homosexuals any differently than heterosexuals.

A tree can push against the wind for only so long before it snaps and gives way. The winds are blowing and they don't appear to be letting up anytime soon.

Questionnaire About Homosexuality

2008-10-24T18:56:00.003-07:00

Through the last few weeks, I have had a lot of discussions about homosexuality. Many people with whom I have conversed believe that homosexuality is immoral. I was on a walk today, thinking about Prop 8, and a number of questions occurred to me. I am very interested to hear from all you who believe homosexuality to be a sin or immoral. I don't mean any of the following questions to be leading. I have paused my evangelizing to switch into "find-out" phase. So I would love to hear your responses. If you're not comfortable commenting for the world to see, feel free to just email me with your responses.

Why do you believe homosexuality is immoral?
Is homosexuality a choice or are people born gay, or is an interplay between nature and nurture? To what extent?
Do you believe that those who have been "born" gay would be happier or better off remaining celibate?
What factors cause someone to choose to be gay?
Can homosexuality be "cured?" And if so, how?
Is same-gender attraction strictly sexual in nature?
If you answered no to the previous question, do homosexual couples feel love (non-sexual) for one another in the same fashion that heterosexual couples feel for one another?
Are practicing gays bad people?
Will God send practicing gays to hell?
Would you vote for an openly gay president?

One more reason to love Apple.

2008-10-24T13:19:00.003-07:00

Apple has just released the following statement:

Apple is publicly opposing Proposition 8 and making a donation of $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees’ same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights — including the right to marry — should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.

Way to go Steve!

Prop 8: And the Gloves are Officially Off.

2008-10-23T23:16:00.003-07:00

Last week I wrote a post entitled "Mormon Leaders Lied About Prop 8." If you haven't read it, you can probably tell from the name that it contained a heavy helping of anger and even a tad bit of vitriol as well. Though few may believe me, it was not my intention to ignite a firestorm. I have always been taught that one should stand up what is right, no matter the consequences.

So, I must say that I was surprised when it failed to ignite any firestorm whatsoever. I actually have received quite a few messages of support and appreciation for my words. A number of people contacted me to inform me of their disgust as well at the tactics their wards are using. Even strangers have contacted me. In fact, I was surprised to find out that someone I do not know, within hours of my clicking Publish, had published his own blog entry extolling my post. I was flattered.

That all said, I will admit, with a bit of shame, that I was excited to read a recent comment by my good friend, Kalon. Someone finally stepped up to the plate to put me in my place and call me to task for what I have said. I commend him on this. Rather than simply respond in the comments, I've decided to write a substantial response. What follows is the entirety of his comment with my responses interspersed.

"I have been trying to decide if I should comment or not. At first I thought I would just add fuel to the fire. But as your follow-up post stated, I now feel as if I should balance the influence of what you have already written."

I say with all honesty and sincerity that I greatly appreciate your comments, and for your willingness to take the time to share your thoughts. We all gain by the exchange of divergent opinions. Thank you.

"You stated that Elder Cook doesn't have the right to redefine the language. I wasn't there and highly doubt that you understood him correctly. However, who has the right to redefine the English language? You? The California Supreme Court? This is exactly what Prop 8 is trying to protect against, the redefinition of marriage. Marriage is defined as between man and woman. Gay-marriage is a literal oxymoron."

For those who are a little confused, we are referring to Elder Cook redefining the word "tolerance" in a recent broadcast. He said, straight up that "tolerance" has nothing to do with "live and let live." He then proceeded to discuss how real "tolerance," as practiced by Jesus was exemplified in his sermon on the mount when he said that we should be like a city on a hill. I took issue with his attempts at redefining the word "tolerance."

Upon first reading your comment, I must admit that I was a bit taken back by this statement. You've got a good point here. Ultimately, Prop 8 does come down to the issue of redefining marriage. A number of people, including Kate Kelly and Josh Cook, have pointed this out in the last few days. This is one place where we can all agree. It is about redefining marriage. I believe that we, as a culture have a right to redefine marriage to a more progressive definition, one based upon love rather than gender. It's hard to argue this point because it does come down ultimately to belief and preference.

I would claim though that there is plenty of precedent for changing traditional views. Traditionally, black people were not technically citizens. We decided to change those definitions. The same sort of thing occurred with women. The "traditional views" in these cases were that women and blacks were second-class citizens. That's how things have always been, why should we change these "traditional roles?" Why should we redefine the meaning of words (like citizen or land-owner)? We redefined these words because our morality progressed to a point where we could no longer abide such treatment of fellow human-beings.

That brings us back to Elder Cook. You make a good point. I quibble with Elder Cook redefining a word while advocating the change of another. After some thought, I think there's a difference. Elder Cook did not claim to be redefining a word, he claimed that this was always the meaning of the word and that we were all messed up for thinking differently. He turned a word of love and inclusion to a word of exclusion. He wasn't offering an argument to change the meaning of the word, he was simply claiming that we were wrong. I don't like his version of tolerance. Granted, you clearly don't care for my version of marriage.

Lastly, you admit that you weren't there but claim that I'm probably mistaken. On what grounds to you make such a claim? I encourage you to find a copy of his talk and read/listen to it. If, after doing that, you feel that I am still mistaken, I encourage you to return and explain how.

What does "kingdom is not of this world" and "render unto Caesar" have to do with "live and let live?" His "kingdom" has stricter standards and higher laws than anything that exists on the earth and he openly proclaimed these to everyone whether they were in his face or not. "Render unto Caesar" was a statement about taxes, hardly related to tolerance.

Let's look at the life of Jesus. When was he ever politically active? Never. He kept very aloof of the politics of the nation. Instead, he spent his time with those who needed him. Contrary to the above claim, he refused to spend time with those who would not listen to him. Think of his trial before Caiaphas and Herod. Before Caiaphas he said little. Before Herod he said nothing. These would have been great opportunities to affect or call for political changes. He declined the opportunity. Christ's ministry was always an individual ministry. His ministry was that we should be a light on a hill, not that we should go into the valley and force people to think and act a certain way by force.

It's true that the laws and standards of his kingdom are much stricter than those of this world. But, as he clearly states, said kingdom is not of this world. Establishing political laws to enforce morality was never stated as his intention. I continue to believe that "render unto Caesar" is a good example of this. You're free to believe that the teaching is only about taxes, but I am inclined to agree with most scholars in the belief that Jesus was making a statement about the place of government with regards to spirituality.

What implication of gay porn? You were obviously upset when you wrote this post and went too far. You are right about the point of marriage not being a significant part in my education but "gay marriage" is already receiving a lot more focus then "traditional" marriage ever did. In fact I don't remember any talk about marriage in school growing up, but some school are now passing out booklets about "gay-marriage." If it were to only get the same amount of focus as it has always received then maybe it would be as big of deal to other people.

I apologize that you misunderstood me. My comment about gay porn was meant to be hyperbole. I'm sorry that I failed to adequately demonstrate that fact. I will try to be more careful in the future.

If what you are saying is true (i.e. passing out booklets about gay-marriage) then that needs to be stopped. We don't need to pass Prop 8 to make the above illegal.

You don't need to pass a law legalizing "gay-marriage" to teach that it is wrong to tease other people.

Two things. First of all, same-sex marriage is already legal. The law that is being debated is to make same-sex marriage illegal. Secondly, you're right that we don't need a law to teach that it is wrong to tease other people. But, unless I am mistaken (if I am, please correct me), you do not want same-sex marriage mentioned in schools. If a teacher is not allowed to mention same-sex marriage, then how will the teacher get kids to stop teasing Billy for having two dads?

Just because "same gender attraction is not a choice" for some people doesn't mean that other people can't go either way. There may very well be a sixth grader trying to decide between Timmy and Sally.

For some people?! SOME PEOPLE?! I am so tired of this idea that the majority of gay people are sexual perverts that just want to get some awesome same-gender sex. It's ridiculous. It's offensive. It encourages self-loathing in people who are good wonderful people. This is honestly something that sickens me.

You are spot on when you posed "We don't teach children about straight sex at that age, so why would we teach about gay sex?" But as was already mentioned in a previous comment there are people that aren't considering age when they feel they need to make a statement. Also see here for another example.

Would it have been appropriate had it been a straight marriage? Regardless of that, there will be abuses of the system. I can give you endless anecdotes on either side of almost any issue. We have examples of teachers taking kids to churches for indoctrination purposes as well. These issues are alarming and should be dealt with. Also, would Prop 8 have prevented the above field trip? I don't see how it would have. (Obviously, with Prop 8 there wouldn't have been a marriage, but substitute a ring ceremony).

Under "Temple Gay Marriage" you state what the church might have said, though you didn't "recall if it was stated explicitly." You then end up concluding that "this is simply a lie." It is really easy to fabricate a stance and then point out why it was wrong, but please don't defame a church because of something they might have said but didn't.

This is not a fabricated stance. Here's a quote from the church's website, "Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities open to the public." Maybe I'm imagining something here, but every time I hear comments like this, it feels like they are trying to bring people's attention to the temple. It's classic plausible deniability. You say everything up to a certain line and let others draw their own conclusions. I have heard a number of people since make the claim that temples will be forced to solemnize same-sex marriages. To those people I say that this is a lie.

It's not same-sex marriage that puts the church's tax exempt status at risk it is the open support of prop 8 (and the earlier prop 22) that threaten this status. According to the irs pdf one of the requirements for holding tax exempt status is "no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation." Fortunately I don't think support for Prop 8 is that "substantial" in respect to all that the church does, but it is still a risk.

Sorry, that's incorrect. When the issue of tax exempt status was broached in the broadcast. It was not in reference to the fight against Prop 8. The church is on very solid ground here. As long as they don't endorse a particular candidate, they are welcome to fight for Prop 8, or any political issue, as much as they want.

I don't know to which statute you are referring in your adoption section but according to this NPR article the sited adoption agency closure was directly related to same-sex marriage legalization. Also take a good look at some of the other situations in the above mentioned article. You say there is no problem but it appears that is blind ignorance.

I encourage you to look at your article one more time. The only case that makes any mention of same-sex marriage is the case where a clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony. All of the other cases resulted from anti-discrimination and civil rights laws. Note even that a number of the states mentioned do not even have same-sex marriage. In other words, Prop 8 has nothing to do with anything mentioned in the provided article.

I also agree that each of us need to "really think about this issue. Reason it out." We do need to verify what we hear. We do need to "cut through the lies" whether they be from a church leader or written in a blog.

I'll be honest. I appreciated your comments until this point. You have not-so-subtley claimed that I am lieing. If that is the case, I urge you to point our where. None of the issues you have mentioned in your comment were examples of lies. You provided arguments against what I have claimed, but you have not shown me to be lieing. If you're going to accuse me of lieing, please back it up with some evidence.

Prop 8: Protecting Our Religious Freedoms?

2008-10-22T20:57:00.004-07:00

You can probably except me to write a few more of these Proposition 8 posts before November 4. At first my thought was that I should keep my nose out of this because it is a California issue. Living in Utah, California politics aren't exactly any of my business. But, since the Mormon church is employing Utahans to call people in California, for the purpose of influencing voters, I decided that this Utahan should do his part in balancing that influence.

There are many people who don't understand why it is so imperative that Proposition 8 be passed. How is it that gay people getting married affect/hurt heterosexual couples? It's a valid question. It is my considered belief that we should never limit people's rights unless the free exercise of said rights impinges upon others' rights. Or, as the old adage goes, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

Proponents of 8 are then placed in a situation where they need to create an argument of how gay couples getting marriage impinges upon their rights or hurts them in some fashion. Thus we come to one of the key arguments put forth by those who fight against gay marriage. They claim that legal acceptance of same-sex marriage will cause the government to force churches to solemnize gay marriages.

I have mentioned this LIE in a previous post, but I have since stumbled on an even better rebuttal. Let's look at what the court stated when proposition 22 was repealed, which led to this whole SNAFU in the first place:

...no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.

This statement was brought to my attention by one Daniel Embree in a letter appearing in BYU's Daily Universe newspaper on Oct 17 (Religious freedom intact). Sadly, the profundity of this statement was probably lost on many readers. This was especially evidenced by the response of another Daniel, Daniel Cooper, on Oct 20 (Religious freedom). He attempts to refute Mr. Embree's statement by quoting the LDS church's stance on same-sex marriage, The Divine Institution of Marriage, in which the church clearly states that the legalization of same-sex marriage will set “church and state on a collision course." Of course, one can't help but wonder who is doing the colliding?

What's alarming is how Mr Cooper finishes his letter. He says, "Remember, this is the official view of the Church which is governed by Jesus Christ. I doubt it's a lie." What he is implying is that, even though the church is clearly contrary to reality, it must be right because it's the church. If the church states that the moon is made of butter, then it must be the case. If the church states that blacks descended from Cain, then it must be so. No, it means that the church is wrong. Please, I beg of people to do research and not simply accept talking points as the truth because they come from the church.

Now, I'm sure that the leaders feel validated in stretching the truth. I don't intend to ascribe nefarious intentions to leadership of the Mormon church. They honestly believe that they are doing what's right. I have no doubt that they know that they are stretching the truth, but that it's justified for the greater good. They would be wise to remember D&C 10:25-26.

"No On Prop 8" has provided a great page that cuts through the lies put forth by proponents of Prop 8. It's their Facts v. Fiction page. I encourage people to read the facts and make their decision, regardless of what that decision might be. I applaud my friend Kate who commented on my previous Prop 8 post. She has stated that she will be voting in favor of Prop 8, but she is doing so after having researched the issue honestly. Her decision was not made because her bishop told her what to think.

Fixing the Blame

2008-10-17T21:44:00.002-07:00

We've all read the headlines. We've watched as the Dow dropped first below 10,000 then, soon after, below 9,000. We can all hear the tell-tale hoof-beats of the four horsemen coming round the bend. It's not long before we all end up fighting road battles in dune buggies in search of gasoline. And, as with any crisis, before we can all waste away into oblivion, there's one thing we need to do. We need to figure out who is to blame.

Fortunately, I am here to cut through the spin and tell you exactly who is at fault. Was it the Republicans, with there thirst for deregulation? Was it the Democrats, all part of their plan to slaughter unborn children and turn everyone gay? Was it the bankers who preyed on unsuspecting victims? Or was it Wall Street in their never-ending greedy quest for more money? The answer to all of these questions is yes. But you know who else is to blame, probably most of all? You are. You and me, we're the culprits.

It's about time we, as Americans, stop looking to place the blame on someone else. When something bad happens, it must be someone else's fault. We can't possibly be to blame. And yet, more often than not, we are to blame. We are the root cause of almost all of our country's problems.

We can all agree that one of the main causes, if not the primary cause, of all our current economic woes was the collapse of the housing market and all of these sub-prime loans that were issued. So, that would sound like it's the banks' fault. But wait, who holds those mortgages? Who took out a 30-year ARM? Who took an interest-only mortgage, figuring they'd be fine as long as houses continued to climb in price? Who bought a $400,000 home when they could barely even afford a $200,000 home? Who couldn't be satisfied simply renting and had to buy a home because the Joneses just bought an awesome home? Who thought the bubble would never pop? You did. We did.

Sure, banks were trying to take advantage of people with crappy loans that they couldn't really afford. And, sure, Congress was cutting threw bank regulations faster than Brazilians through the Amazon. But, as far as I am aware, no one at Citibank held a gun to anyone's head and forced them into a mortgage. They offered and we acquiesced. Why? Because we were greedy and wanted more. Isn't that the American dream? To consume to the heart's delight?

Now, before anyone misunderstand me, we need to fix the problems with the banks and put back regulations that protect us as a nation from this sort of thing. But we also need to stop being so greedy. We need to stop consuming like starving sheep. And we need to accept that we are part of the problem. If we fail to do that then we will simply repeat our mistakes. Who feels sorry for a rabbit that gets caught in the same trap twice?

But the financial crisis is not the only thing that's our fault. As I mentioned before, we're to blame for most of America's problems. The sooner we realize that, the sooner we can fix these problems and make America better. We all complain about politicians, but who elects these people? We do. We're sick and tired of the barrage of attack ads. If we hate them so much, why do they keep airing? Because we eat them up. Why is the political discussion devolve to attacks rather than rise to solutions? Because we prefer to vote against someone rather than for someone. Should the candidates be blamed for giving us exactly what we want? I don't think so. I think we should take the blame.

There was a wonderful question posed at one of the presidential debates. Someone inquired as to what sacrifices they, if elected as president, will ask us to make. What an enlightened question. We've become fat and lazy on our excess. It's time to sacrifice for a better tomorrow, not only for our children, but for ourselves as well. If we are to blame, then that gives us the power to fix the problem.

Come November 4 we will be selecting a new president for the coming four years. I'm happy about our two choices. I think they are both capable people. I have my preference, but I can honestly say that I believe either one will do honor to the office. I hope that we can all unite behind the next president and do our part. Because, no matter who it is, they can't possibly fix the problems we now face on their own.

Mormon Leaders Lied About Prop 8

2008-10-15T21:35:00.004-07:00

I did something very foolish last Wednesday, something extremely foolish. On Sunday evening, the Elder's Quorum President stopped by to invite us to a broadcast regarding California Proposition 8, the proposed amendment to make same-sex marriage illegal. I am strongly opposed to the said measure (not that it matters since I am not from California). I have heard that the church has been vociferously fighting in favor of this proposition, so I wanted to hear the church leadership defend its position.

That was my mistake. I cannot recall the last time I was so angry. Eventually I woke up a friend at 1am because I desperately needed someone to whom I could vent. Let me get something straight. I was not angry because I disagreed with the views expressed. Everyone has the right to believe as they wish. Straight-up lies and manipulation, that's what bothers me. Sitting there, listening to Elder Cook, Elder Ballard, and Elder Bednar stretching the truth and manipulating emotions... well... it made me want to scream.

Tolerance
Let's look at some of the nonsense they shared. Elder Cook definitely took the gold for his attempt at redefining the word tolerance. He stated that there are many who are opposed to prop 8 in the name of tolerance (myself for example). According to him the word tolerance has been distorted from its original meaning. My opinion of tolerance has always been "live and let live." If someone is doing something that doesn't effect anyone else, even if I don't like it, I should let them do it. Elder Cook claimed that this is not Christ's version of tolerance. In fact, he even mentioned "live and let live" explicitly as the antithesis of tolerance. Apparently real tolerance is recognizing sin and helping others overcome it. What does that have to do with tolerance?! Why doesn't he just come out and say that he is against tolerance in the the case of same-sex marriage, rather than trying to commit a semantic attack by redefining the word? I'm going to start doing that. I'll go punch someone in the nose and call it a hug. Sorry, you don't have the right to redefine the English language.

I take issue with his claim that Christ did not practice "live and let live." Elder Cook sited the teaching from the Sermon on the Mount of "let your light so shine". I interpret this to mean be good and let your example speak for itself. How "let your light so shine" implies going and telling others that they are sinning is beyond me. Look at Christ's ministry. The only time he got in people's faces about sinning was when they got in his face first. When people didn't listen to him or disagreed with him, he left and spoke with others. He never attempted to affect political change. On the contrary he claimed that his "kingdom is not of this world" and "render unto Caesar." He was too busy healing the sick to be making calls regarding gay marriage. No, I'm sorry Elder Cook, your definition of tolerance does not fit with the example of Christ in the scriptures.

Education
Prop 8 proponents claim that schools will be required to teach about same-sex marriage in the same fashion as they do regarding heterosexual marriage. I just don't see how this is a problem. The implication seems to be that schools will be showing gay porn or something. How much did you learn about marriage in schools? Not much. It's not a big part of the curriculum. Also, I think it's great for children to learn that just because Jimmy has two dads, he shouldn't be teased. What's wrong with that?

Of course, there are many who think that this acceptance of same-sex marriage in schools will lead to children accepting homosexuality as a valid option in their developing sexuality. Really? This is crazy for so many reasons. This may surprise a lot of people, so I'm going to say it slowly. Same... gender... attraction... is... not... a... choice. What kid is sitting in 6th grade English class deciding that they'd much rather be attracted to Timmy than Sally? Do you people really think that? Also, what kid is thinking, "Hey now that I can get married to Bruce in ten years, I'm not going to bother being attracted to Sara." It's laughable, but I feel like that's what people are implying.

The other implication is that they will teach kindergartners about gay sex. That's just not true. The law is that they should be taught age-appropriate material. We don't teach children about straight sex at that age, so why would we teach about gay sex?

Lastly, how often will this subject be broached in schools? Once a year, maybe? Think about how often the issue of heterosexual marriage is broached. Why are the teachers going to start teaching about same-sex marriage more than they teach about traditional marriage? Therefore, you will still have plenty of opportunity to indoctrinate your children into believing that homosexuality is a pernicious, evil sin.

Temple Gay Marriage
I don't recall if it was stated explicitly, but I know that it was implied that the church might be forced to solemnize same-sex marriages in their temples and churches. This is just fear-mongering at its worst. This is simply not true, not in the least. People mention this because of a statute that prevents people from forbidding gay marriages in public venues. In other words, if you have a gazebo that you rent out for marriages, you cannot deny access to a gay couple. This is not an issue because neither the temples nor churches are publicly available for people to get married. If this were true, then a Methodist couple could sue to perform a marriage in the San Diego temple. Clearly that is not the case. The law protects the rights of private property. This is simply a lie, nothing more.

Tax Exempt Status
Elder Ballard claimed that same-sex marriage puts at risk the church's tax exempt status. The church might also lose its right to speak freely about its beliefs that homosexuality is wrong. This is also... a lie. It's time for a history lesson. Over 200 years ago, a group of men with frilly shirts got together and decided that there needs to be a separation between church and state and that people should have the right to speak their mind. It's called the first amendment. Pat Robertson can get on TV and say that fags are evil all he wants. Why? Because he has the right to free speech. Though I disagree with the way he uses that right, I am thankful he has it. If the church were really at risk of losing its right to teach that gays are going to hell, we would have much bigger problems on our hands.

Adoption
It was claimed that the passing of this law could jeopardize LDS Family Services right to place children exclusively with straight couples. The case that is sited regarding this issue is a case where a Catholic adoption agency in Massachusetts closed its doors because the state denied them the right to discriminate in placement based upon sexual orientation. The fact that is generally forgotten is that this had nothing to do with the legalization of same-sex marriage. It was the result of a separate statute passed well before same-sex marriage was legalized. That statute (as far as I am aware) does not exist in California.

Also, clearly the church is still able to restrict placement to only recommend holding LDS families. Any openly gay couple would not be able to hold a temple recommend, nor probably maintain their membership status. Therefore, there's no problem.

Marriage and Child Rearing is the Greatest Joy
Second in despicableness only to Elder Cook's semantic acrobats was when Elder Bednar was shown answering questions regarding Prop 8 posed by a number of young adults. The discussion was so full of half-truths and manipulation that it made me sick.

One young man asked why we needed to fight against same-sex marriage. Elder Bednar responded by talking about how being a husband, father, and grand-father has been the greatest joy in his life. He seemed to be implying that legalization of same-sex marriage would limit people's abilities to participate in a good 'ole fashioned heterosexual marriage. That's just fear-mongering and Elder Bednar knows it. Are we to believe that once same-sex marriage is legal that no one is going to want to get married to people of the opposite gender? I, for one, am not lining up at the courthouse to marry my buddy Steve.

It was odd to hear Elder Bednar extolling the joys of marriage and child-rearing while openly fighting to prevent 10% of America from enjoying said joys. Does he honestly think that if gay people can't get married to their partners that they are suddenly going to become attracted to the opposite gender? Sadly, he probably does. Why can't people who are attracted to their own gender have the opportunity to make a lifelong commitment to someone who the love deeply? It boggles the imagination.

Prophetic Wisdom
It hurt to look around at all of the people just eating up every ridiculous half-truth that spewed forth from these men's mouths. This is something that makes me very sad. I suspect that very few people left that broadcast and verified what they heard. Instead, they said to themselves that an apostle spoke, so it must be true. I wish people could simply accept these men as wise men, but fallible. They might be wrong.

The circular logic surrounding modern-day prophets is mind-numbing. When one looks at racist statements by past leaders like Brigham Young or fallacious teachings of Bruce R. McConkie, people are quick to point out that prophets are imperfect. But then people readily immediately accept every word from present leaders of the church. Apparently, prophets only become fallible once they've passed on, how convenient. If prophets really are fallible (as has been shown, numerous times) then members of the church would be wise to not blindly accept, but really think things through thoroughly. Unfortunately, people are quick to follow the advice of N. Eldon Tanner, "When the prophet speaks, the debate is over." People's ability to accept leaders' fallibility at the same moment as denying their fallibility is stunning.

Conclusion
I have a friend with whom I have discussed same-sex marriage at length. She's conflicted over the matter because she has difficulty seeing anything wrong with same-sex marriage. Maybe my perception is wrong, but it appears that in her heart she sees no problem. But she's torn because the "Lord's Annointed" have stated categorically that she needs to be opposed, actively and openly. Why is the church encouraging people to ignore their hearts? Isn't that the ultimate source of members' testimonies in the first place? Apparently the spirit is a sufficient witness regarding the Book of Mormon, but not same-sex marriage.

Ultimately, I'm fine with you believing whatever you will regarding Prop 8. Clearly I have my own views, but I rejoice in people's ability to have differing views while still sitting down and enjoying dinner together. I love to hear a well-worded argument that makes me reconsider my own views. I heard just such an argument the other day regarding this very topic. It was refreshing. Although I disagreed with the writer, I respected his/her ability to put forth a cogent argument that didn't devolve into "God Hates Fags."

I encourage everyone to really think about this issue. Reason it out. Cut through the lies and manipulation. Get down to the meat of the matter. Pray. Make up your own mind. How strange it is that we fought so hard for agency in the pre-Earth life only to come here and so readily forfeit it.

Same-Sex Marriage

2008-07-15T21:18:00.004-07:00

It finally occurred to me the other day what bothers me about same-sex marriage. It has nothing to do with the "same-sex" portion. It has to do with the second word, "marriage." Don't get me wrong; I am in favor of marriage. Although I am single, I very much look forward to the day when I find someone with whom to spend the rest of my life. I'm just not sure I understand why the government is involved in the issue of marriage.

Why should the government have anything to do with marriage? Shouldn't it be an agreement between two people? Why can't we leave marriage in the realm of religion? Those who believe most strongly in marriage are generally religious. To those people I ask, why should the government have a say in an institution set forth by God?

One of the biggest arguments in favor of same-sex marriage is that gays are denied many benefits that heterosexual people are able to enjoy as a married couple. Heterosexuals are entitled to health-care benefits for their spouses. There are tax benefits. Many employers have benefits for married people. This is a good point. People should not be denied these benefits based upon sexual preference. But then again, why should people be denied these benefits based upon marital status? Why should a couple of married gay men receive more benefits than a couple of unattached roommates? I don't believe that they should, nor do I believe that a couple of heterosexuals should have the right to more benefits than the gay couple.

This all said, I am happy for the recent court ruling in California. It was hard not to be happy seeing all of the people rejoicing outside of the courthouse. I can understand how happy a number of these people were to finally be able to make a life-long commitment to someone they loved deeply. So, as long as there is government-sanctioned marriage, all people should be able to participate, regardless of sexual orientation.

I have one last note. I just realized how libertarian this makes me sound. I would like to emphasize, for any first-time readers, that I am most definitely not libertarian! I cannot emphasize that enough.

Eternal Truths? (Continued)

2008-07-03T16:58:00.004-07:00

After reading my previous blog post (link) a few people asked me to elaborate on the nine issues I mentioned. I put forth the argument that religion (Mormonism in particular) is just as changing and mutable as science is. I state this argument because people often state that we should trust God over science because God's truths never change, whereas science changes a lot. I listed nine examples of ways in which God's truths have changed. OK, that's a bit disingenuous. I have nine examples of ways in which people's understanding of God's truths have changed. But regardless, that makes no difference. Because one could easily say that scientific truths don't change, it's simply our understanding of those truths.

Before I begin I want to point out a few disclaimers. None of what I state below is for the purpose of proving that the church isn't true or that religion is stupid. I simply want people to realize that one must be careful with religious truths. They are just as fickle as scientific truths. Many horrible atrocities have occurred and continue to occur because people are unwilling to see their religious views as amendable.

I will also put forth that the following is going to be pretty long. I'm going to include a lot of quotes. I know that it's generally wise to keep blog posts as short as possible. This will not be one of those posts. So, if you aren't interested in the material, feel free to stop reading now.

There is one argument that can be used against any of the following points. That argument is either that prophets are fallible or that they were simply speaking their opinion. I agree with that view 100%. The difficulty is that generally we don't know when prophets are speaking their opinion. We are generally only told ex-post-facto. Take blacks and the priesthood. We now see this as a matter of policy rather than doctrine. It's pretty clear that turn-of-the-century Mormons saw this as doctrine. Sure, they were wrong, but how many things do we consider to be doctrine that are only opinions (ie one earring, no gambling, etc..).

As with any post, I am always happy to hear dissenting opinions and other interpretations. I may not agree with you, but I will appreciate the opportunity to consider your opinion. That is one of the primary ways we grow in knowledge, hearing others views which do not match with our own. So, with no further ado, here we go.

1. Mormons no longer believe that blacks are descended from Cain, nor that they are lesser than white people. This is a doctrine that was taught quite clearly by people like Brigham Young and John Taylor.

Simply put, Brigham Young and John Taylor were racists. There is no way around that fact. Here are a few choice quotes (the emphasis is mine).

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the AFRICAN RACE? If the WHITE man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the PENALTY, under the LAW OF GOD, IS DEATH ON THE SPOT. THIS WILL ALWAYS BE SO."
-Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, page 110)

"And after the flood we are told that the CURSE that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through HAM'S WIFE, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? because it was necessary that the DEVIL SHOULD HAVE A REPRESENTATION upon the earth as well as God;..."
- John Taylor (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 22, page 304)

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the AFRICAN RACE? If the WHITE man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the PENALTY, under the LAW OF GOD, IS DEATH ON THE SPOT. THIS WILL ALWAYS BE SO."
-Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, page 110)

I hope all of my readers feel truly saddened by these horrible teachings. There are plenty more quotes like the three above. If you really want to see some others, please follow this link. Contrast these teachings with a talk recently given by Gordon B. Hinckley in April 2006 conference.

"Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ.
...Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such."
-Gordon B. Hinckley ("The Need for Greater Kindness," Ensign, May 2006, page 58)

Clearly there has been a change in opinion of the prophets towards people of color. Thank goodness for this. But we must accept the fact that in Brigham Young and John Taylor's day blacks were considered to be less than white people. Also, this view did not end with the turn of the century. I have quotes from people like Mark E. Petersen and Ezra Taft Benson that cause the heart to break. Let it be remembered that the church did not aid in the civil rights movement, quite the opposite. Thank goodness this has changed.

2. Mormons no longer believe that polygamy is a requirement for exaltation.

This may be a surprise to many people, but polygamy was taught to be a requirement for exaltation. Now there is an arguable explanation for this. One may say that it is a requirement to follow all of the Lord's commandments to receive exaltation. So, when polygamy was a commandment, it was required, now it is not. There are a few problematic statements though. Here is one:

"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them."
-Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 268)

3. The Lamanites are no longer thought to be the principle ancestors of the American Indians.

Recent advances in DNA research have not been good for the church's claims regarding the Book of Mormon. Many of you are probably aware (or maybe not) that the introduction to the Book of Mormon was recently changed from "...they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians" to "...they are among the ancestors of the American Indians." If the Lamanites were the principle ancestors of the American Indians, we would expect to see bagel eating Indians with long-noses (sorry, that was inappropriate). But we do not. Instead, we see people with very similar features to Asians, just as anthropologists have been claiming for years.

The theories regarding this discrepancy are many and varied. The Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR) has a page dedicated to explaining the DNA issue (link). Notice that the general claim is that the Lamanites were engulfed by a larger non-Lamanite Asian-descendent race. It should be clear that this is a change of view from that held by the church for the past nearly two centuries.

4. According to Gordon B. Hinckley, we no longer necessarily believe that God was once a man like us.

Most of us are quite familiar with the

From an interview with Time magazine in August 1997, Hinckley is responding to Luke P Wilson.

Q: ...about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

A: I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it.

And now here's another interview in 1997 with the San Francisco Chronicle.

Q: Don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?

A: I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Now that's more a couplet than anything else.

I was always taught that this is true. This has been taught for decades. I taught this on my mission. Gordon B. Hinckley is not denying this doctrine, but he is clearly distancing us from the doctrine. How many years until this doctrine completely disappears from Mormon theology?

5. Many people no longer believe that Noah's flood was a world event but rather that it was a localized event.

I'm not going to say much on this subject. The leadership of the church hasn't spoken much on this topic. They leave this to the theologians. But there is definitely a movement away from the idea of a universal flood. After all, it just doesn't make sense. But that said, there are numerous statements from prophets throughout the years affirming the church's belief in a universal flood rather than a localized flood. We've already given up, for the most part, on young earth creationism, can universal flood be far behind?

6. Mormons no longer permit women to give priesthood blessings, even though they used to do so in Nauvoo.

Chris Welton, if you're reading, this one's for you. This may come as a surprise, but women used to have the right to give blessings. The right was not quite as unlimited as men, but they had the right to do so for family members and some others. One common case was that women would give blessings to the pregnant women within the relief society. Here are a few quotes about it.

"A wife does not hold the priesthood in connection with her husband, but she enjoys the benefits thereof with him; and if she is requested to lay hands on the sick with him, or with any other officer holding the Melchizedek priesthood, she may do so with perfect propriety. It is no uncommon thing for a man and wife unitedly to administer to their children, and the husband being mouth, he may properly say out of courtesy, 'By authority of the holy priesthood in us vested.'"
- Joseph F. Smith (The Improvement Era, 1907, vol. 10 no. 4, page 308)

"4. Have the sisters the right to administer to sick children?
Answer: Yes; they have the same right to administer to sick children as to adults, and may anoint and lay hands upon them in faith.

5. Should the administering and anointing be sealed?
Answer: It is proper for sisters to lay on hands, using a few simple words, avoiding the terms employed in the temple, and instead of using the word 'seal' use the word 'confirm'".
- Letter sent to Bishops and Stake Presidents by the First Presidency in 1914

A remnant of this practice can still be seen in the fact that women are able to officiate in the priesthood within the temple. But the act of a women joining priesthood holders in the practice of the laying on of hands is definitely not accepted any longer. In fact, you can get in big trouble for claiming that women can, just ask Margaret Toscano.

7. Blood atonement is no longer believed.

Here's another repugnant teaching brought to us by Brigham Young. Blood atonement claims that there are certain sins which the atonement of Jesus does not cover. Those who commit these sins cannot reach the highest degree of the celestial kingdom unless they personally atone for the sin by having their own blood willingly spilt. Here are some quotes (emphasis is mine):

"There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to HAVE THEIR BLOOD SPILT upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an OFFERING FOR THEIR SINS; and the smoking incense would ATONE for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world."
- Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 53-54)

" I will say further; I HAVE HAD MEN COME TO ME AND OFFER THEIR LIVES TO ATONE FOR THEIR SINS."
- Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 53-54)

“It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet MEN CAN COMMIT SINS WHICH IT CAN NEVER REMIT. As it was in ancient days, so it is in our day; and though the principles are taught publicly from this stand, still the people do not understand them; yet the law is precisely the same. There are sins that can be ATONED for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, of a calf, or of turtle doves, cannot remit, but THEY MUST BE ATONED FOR BY THE BLOOD OF THE MAN."
- Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 53-54)

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the AFRICAN RACE? If the WHITE man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the PENALTY, under the LAW OF GOD, IS DEATH ON THE SPOT. THIS WILL ALWAYS BE SO."
-Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, page 110)

“In debate, George A. Smith said imprisonment was better than hanging. “I replied, I was opposed to hanging, even if a man kill another, I WILL SHOOT HIM, OR CUT OFF HIS HEAD, SPILL HIS BLOOD on the ground, and let the smoke thereof ascend up to God; and if ever I have the privilege of making a law on that subject, I will have it so.”
- Joseph Smith (History of the Church, Vol. 5, page 296)

“Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and PUT A JAVELIN THROUGH BOTH OF THEM, YOU WOULD BE JUSTIFIED, AND THEY WOULD ATONE FOR THEIR SINS, AND BE RECEIVED INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would DO IT WITH CLEAN HANDS... “There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, YOUR OWN BLOOD MUST ATONE FOR IT;...”
- Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, page 247)

Thankfully, we no longer subscribe to these beliefs. At least, I don't think we do.

8. Apparently the Book of Abraham was inspired by papyri rather than translated from papyri.

A few decades ago there was no doubt that Joseph Smith had translated the Book of Abraham from a collection of papyri that he had purchased in Kirtland. There was no doubt of this. But then we found the papyri, which were thought to have been burned in a museum fire years ago. We were excited to get the papyri translated so that we could prove that Joseph Smith could be vindicated by modern egyptologists.

There was one problem though. We came to discover that the papyri did not contain the Book of Abraham. This was what really brought Hugh Nibley into the spotlight as the foremost Mormon apologist. He spent the rest of his life making excuses and defending the Book of Abraham. Since his death, John Gee has picked up the torch. Sadly, things don't look good. The debate on this issue is very extensive, so I will leave you with two links by which interested parties can research the state of affairs. The first is from FAIR (link). The other is from a person who does not believe that the Book of Abraham is inspired (link). These two sites are in no way comprehensive.

9. There are many, many prophecies given by various prophets that failed to come true. People believed them at the time but no longer do.

Now this is a topic that could be discussed endlessly. There have been so many prophecies, but we only hear about the ones that come true. I have a personal one from my patriarchal blessing that had a timeline associated with it and everything that did not come true (no, it had nothing to do with marriage). Let's look at some.

"I will state as a prophecy, that there will not be an unbelieving Gentile upon this continent 50 years hence; and if they are not greatly scourged, and in a great measure overthrown, within five or ten years of this date, then the Book of Mormon will have proved itself false."
- Parley P. Pratt (Truth Vindicated, 1838)

Clearly this prophecy did not come true, unless he was actually trying to prophecy that the Book of Mormon was false (just kidding).

3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.
4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.
5 And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.
6 And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations;
- Joseph Smith (D&C 87:3-6)

Here's the famous scripture where Joseph Smith prophesied the Civil War. We rarely look past the first verse though. Although he was right about the Civil War and South Carolina, he was wrong about a lot of other things in his prophecy. He was wrong about the slaves rising up against their masters. He was wrong about the "end of all nations."

“The ten tribes shall come; they are not lost unto the Lord; they shall be brought forth as hath been predicted; and I say unto you there are those now living—aye, some here present—who shall live to read the records of the Lost Tribes of Israel, which shall be made one with the record of the Jews, or the Holy Bible, and the record of the Nephites, or the Book of Mormon, even as the Lord hath predicted”
- James E. Talmage (Conference Report, Oct. 1916, page 76)

I first read this prophecy on my mission. It made me very excited because I looked at the 1916 date and realized that there aren't too many people who would have been in attendance in 1916 that are still alive. I think we have pretty much reached the point when we can discount this prophecy. True, it's still possible, but I can't imagine a lot of people are holding their breath.

Joseph sent some people to Canada, instructing them that he had received a revelation that someone would buy the copyright to the Book of Mormon. They were unable to find a buyer. Joseph response was, "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil." Sadly, we aren't generally privileged to know from whence the revelations come until after the fact.

There are plenty of other prophecies that have not come true. Just do a search on Google. There are plenty which are cases of people taking prophecies out of context, but there are plenty of other legitimate examples.

Well, hopefully I have adequately dealt with each of the issues presented previously. Let me know if you have any other questions or if I have misrepresented some of the facts above.

Eternal Truths?

2008-06-28T15:15:00.002-07:00

In the eternal battle between science and religion, an oft used attack against science is that science is constantly changing. The implication is that one should not put their faith in science because the theories are constantly being updated and disproved, whereas religion deals with eternal truths that never change. So one should put their faith in the truths of the bible, for example.

But is religious truth any more stable than scientific truth? Clearly it is not. To combat this view, I wanted to present a small list of ways in which religion (specifically Mormonism) has changed through the years.

Mormons no longer believe that blacks are descended from Cain, nor that they are lesser than white people. This is a doctrine that was taught quite clearly by people like Brigham Young and John Taylor. Sure, one can say that they were simply stating their opinions, but that doesn't change the fact that the people of the time certainly thought they were hearing doctrine.
Mormons no longer believe that polygamy is a requirement for exaltation.
The Lamanites are no longer thought to be the principle ancestors of the American Indians.
According to Gordon B. Hinckley, we no longer necessarily believe that God was once a man like us.
Many people no longer believe that Noah's flood was a world event but rather that it was a localized event.
Mormons no longer permit women to give priesthood blessings, even though they used to do so in Nauvoo.
Blood atonement is no longer believed.
Apparently the Book of Abraham was inspired by papyri rather than translated from papyri.
There are many, many prophecies given by various prophets that failed to come true. People believed them at the time but no longer do.

New Reasons to Hate Microsoft

2008-06-19T12:29:00.002-07:00

A few years ago I finally abandoned Microsoft completely. I turned from the darkness of Redmond, WA and walked towards the light of Cupertino, CA. I am now a happy Mac user. One of the nice things about leaving Microsoft is not having to spend so much time hating that company. It takes a toll on one's life dedicating that much energy to loathing a corporation. I thought I was free of that hatred once and for all. How wrong I was.

I recently bought an XBox 360 for the purpose of playing Halo 3 and GTA IV. XBox has a pretty good online system that allows you to hook up with players around the world. Months ago I signed up so that I and a friend could play Halo 3 to the wee hours of the morning. Eventhough most services that connect players are free (ie. Blizzard's Battle-Net), XBox-Live charges a small fee per account. We created two accounts, one for him and one for myself. For some reason, we couldn't get his credit card to work, so I used my own. We were only paying for one month (at least, that's what I thought).

Fast forward a few months. My friend (Shaun) has since moved to Alaska for the summer. I've been enjoying XBox-Live by myself. Then one day I realize that Shaun's old account is still working. Upon investigation, I discover that Microsoft has been automatically renewing my membership. I have no recollection of enabling that feature. In fact, there is no way I ever would have enabled that, because we both knew Shaun was leaving in a few weeks.

So, I go into the console to turn off the credit card payments. Unfortunately, there is no way of doing this. You can replace the credit card with another card. You can upgrade the account from monthly to yearly, but there's no way to remove the credit card. After digging, I find that the only solution is to call in to cancel the subscription. This I do.

I will not bore you with the hour and a half I spend trying to get this taken care of, during which I am hung-up on multiple times. There was one good exchange though. I finally spoke with a man named Ray. I explain the situation and he says that he needs the contact information for Shaun's account. I don't have that information. We specifically put in a bunch of dummy information because we were just using the account for a little while. But this was ridiculous in any case. I simply wanted them to stop billing my credit card, I shouldn't have to give any information other than my credit card information. He obstinately refused on the grounds that it is against company policy. I just love that excuse.

So, finally I asked him what I should do. He suggested that I--and let me note that I am not making this up--cancel my credit card. So, the solution to getting Microsoft to stop charging me for an unused XBox-Live account is to cancel my credit card. That is the dumbest idea I have ever heard in my entire life. Upon saying that to him, he told me that it was my first warning. I should also note that I laughed hysterically when he told me this, that's probably what he disliked. I unfortunately failed to use my other two warnings, though, at that point, I fully intended to do so.

Eventually I started digging and got lucky enough to find a bit of contact information that we had actually put in correctly and I was able to get the credit card removed. At that point I decided to have it removed from my other account as well. Eventually I'm going to want to cancel my other account, and I don't want to have to go through this again. In the future, you can by month and year subscriptions at GameStop. I will just buy those and enter the redemption code. That will keep my credit card safely out of the hands of Microsoft.

In case anyone from Microsoft is reading this, I will give a few pieces of advice:

Stop automatically billing people's credit cards without asking them to do so first.
Allow people to cancel/change their subscriptions directly, without calling your stupid customer service department. When I cancelled my World of Warcraft account, there was no hassle. I simply went into my account management and stopped my subscription. It was quite simple. So simple that I later re-instated my account for a few months.
These sorts of actions are simply costing you money in the long run. You created a very negative experience for myself. A simple search online shows you have created a lot of ill-will as a result of this policy. I am not the only one who has been screwed. You may trick a few people into paying for a service they're not using (clearly your goal), but the bad publicity and anger it creates in people outways that small gain. I have now removed my credit card completely and will no longer impulsively buy arcade games as I have in the past. I would sooner die than give you my credit card again.
Lastly, how I loath you Microsoft.

Google Analytics

2008-06-16T08:25:00.003-07:00

Usually I use this blog as a soapbox to rant about whatever is on my mind. I usually don't use this as a forum for sharing personal experiences, like most blogs. Today, I will throw a wrench in the mix and do just that.

I recently setup Google Analytics for this blog. It's a program that allows you to monitor the traffic that you receive to your website. You can see how people found your site and what they did once they arrived. For a free analytics tool its pretty good.

A few days ago I was examining my keywords report, the report that shows you what keywords people searched to find your site. Most of the keywords made a lot of sense, like $4 gas. This makes sense, since I just recently wrote a post called "The Joys of $4 Gas." I even had the miracle of forgiveness, which clearly led people to my review of Spencer W. Kimball's "Miracle of Forgiveness," that I wrote a few years back. But then there was one that really confused me. Someone searched for "did people get died in the 1920 in the mexico if you believed in God?" What is that supposed to mean?! I would have dismissed this as some weird typo had it not been for the fact that someone searched for this again a few days later. I typed this search into Google, and sure enough, I am the top response. So, it makes sense why they would come to my site, but it still makes no sense why they were searching for it in the first place.

If anyone has any clue what in the world that person was searching for, I would love to know!

The Joys of $4 Gas

2008-06-13T04:36:00.003-07:00

I just filled up the 14 gallon tank on my MINI Cooper. It hurts my heart to see the numbers spin skyward as they pass $40 and head right on into the $50 range. There are a lot of people very frustrated with the massive cost at the pump these days, and it's no wonder. Even if allegations that the price inflation is largely due to speculators is true, there is a lot of the rise in oil prices that can easily be connected to simple economics, supply and demand. And what that means is that we shouldn't expect the prices to come down anytime soon, if ever. That said, there are actually a lot of good things about high priced oil.

Supply and demand dictates that as the price goes up, demand goes down. Fortunately, that is exactly what we are seeing in America. If I remember correctly, oil demand has actually fallen 2% (don't quote me on that) recently. That's pretty amazing. We have steadily been increasing out oil consumption over the past few years. This has been causing massive amounts of pollution and increases in greenhouse gases. Now that the price of gas is getting so high, people are beginning to make hard decisions about their oil consumption. More and more people are riding mass transit. People are consolidating trips to the store or other places. There's more car-pooling. These are all good things from an environmental perspective.

Along the same lines as above, SUV and truck sales are plummeting like a rock. A number of car companies are attempting to jettison their SUV lines. GM is trying to sell the Hummer brand, but nobody wants it. These are cars that, with rare exceptions, have no business being on the road. They take massive amounts of fuel, create tons of pollution, and take up a lot of space on the roadway. I, for one, am not disappointed to see these vehicles turn to dust.

Most people want alternate, sustainable energy. Most of us believe that the country needs to be finding solutions to our coming energy woes. Unfortunately, the people who are most capable of solving this problem (the private sector) have no incentive to do so as long as oil remains cheap. Whether you believe it or not, oil has been very cheap for years. The reason we don't have alternate energy is because it's just not cost-effective. Now that oil is expensive, other forms of cleaner, sustainable energy become cost-effective. We are bound to see all sorts of interesting innovations in the coming years.

It certainly would be nice if we could have cheaper gas at the same time as we reduce pollution, stay out of our SUVs, and obtain clean energy. But, clearly, that is not going to happen. We have short memory spans. The minute the price of oil dropped low enough again, we would forget all about the woes of $4 fuel and return to wanton, unchecked consumption like the sort at which we've proven our adeptness for so long.

City Creek Center

2008-06-09T19:46:00.003-07:00

If you've been to Salt Lake City anytime in the last year or so, I'm sure you're aware of the massive hole across the street from Temple Square. Over the next few years we will see this hole slowly build heavenwards as the City Creek Center approaches its 2012 completion. The City Creek Center will be a 20 acre project (3 city blocks) consisting of shopping, offices, and residential units. It's meant to be similar to the Gateway Mall, a few blocks east. If you want more information about this center, you can check their website.

The center is primarily funded by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormons). The expected price tag is roughly $1.5 billion. This should encourage an obvious question. What in the world is a church doing building a $1.5 billion mall? I'm really surprised this has not had more airtime in the media. In fact, I've heard little to no discussion of this question.

First of all, it just seems odd that a church has any business building a mall. How does that help spread the gospel of Jesus Christ? How does that aid in any of the three-fold purposes of the church (proclaim the gospel, redeem the dead, and perfect the saints)? If anyone can provide an answer to this, I am extremely intrigued, honestly.

The bigger problem in my mind is the quantity of money being appropriated to this project. $1.5 billion is a fairly large chunk of change. To put that into perspective, according to the church, $104.9 million was given as humanitarian aid in 2007 (source). And that's a substantial gain from the past, given that between 1985 and 2005, the church provided a total of $660 million in material assistance. That would be an average of $33 million per year for twenty years (source). It doesn't take a mathematical genius to see the discrepancy.

The church has released one statement regarding this. They have stated that tithing funds were not used. The money comes from other investments that the church has, specifically Property Reserve, Inc. The church, undoubtedly, has massive holdings and a massive amount of wealth. Their willingness to drop $1.5 billion is sufficient indication of that fact. But, this begs the question of where those holdings came from in the first place. My guess is that these holdings are a result of tithing funds donated by the millions of saints who've preceded myself. Maybe the church acquired these holdings through other actions, but I doubt it. If that is true, saying that the money is not tithing money is splitting hairs and a little dishonest.

That all aside, who cares where it came from? It's money that is at the disposal of the church. Regardless of where the money came from, it means that the church has decided that it is better to spend that money on a mall than to use it in helping people. I just can't imagine Jesus doing this sort of thing.

As I've stated above, I would love to hear answers to how this is reasonable. As is often the case, we don't always know the whole story. So, if there's something I'm missing, please let me know, so I can stop being annoyed by this.

The Economics of SmithsTix

2008-05-31T11:29:00.002-07:00

Mylie Cyrus (aka Hannah Montana) is coming to Stadium of Fire this year (a big 4th of July celebration in Provo, Utah). According to Deseret News, they had sold out of tickets within 10 minutes of making them available. They had a drawing to determine who would be able to be in line as the ticket office opened. Rather than purchasing only a few tickets, everyone purchased the limit of 25 tickets.

We live in the eBay generation and people knew they would be getting far more than their listed ticket price in resale. A quick jaunt over to eBay shows that people are doing just that. Numerous tickets are being sold for high markup prices and the number of available tickets as well as the demand for said tickets is sure to ramp-up as the 4th of July gets closer.

Clearly, the venue set the ticket price far too low. Arbitrage is the process of buying a commodity on one market for immediate resale on another where there is a price discrepancy. Since the price people are willing to pay for Stadium of Fire tickets is higher than the price the ticket office is demanding, there ends up being massive amounts of arbitrage, as evidenced by the number of ticket lots showing up on eBay.

But what is the problem with people reselling the tickets? What's the problem with random people making a tidy profit on an arbitrage opportunity? I personally would much rather that the venue receive the excess money than some random Joe Shmoe. If the venue receives the extra cash, then they can utilize it to improve the venue, maybe make it bigger (thus dropping the prices by increasing supply).

One of the hardest elements of sales is determining the right price. You need to find the price that maximizes the product of volume and marginal profit. This can be very hard to determine beforehand. But, as mentioned before, we live in the eBay generation. The great thing about eBay is that I as a seller need not determine the price of a commodity beforehand. I am able to allow the market to determine the right price based upon the forces of supply and demand.

Why don't venues start using a system like this for ticket sales? Instead of setting a price they can hold an online auction. People specify the number of tickets they want and the price they are willing to pay. Tickets are then divvied out appropriately, after a certain period of time has passed, say a month. The venue would also no longer need to figure out how much more valuable front-row tickets are over nose-bleed tickets. The market could figure all of this out for them.

In the past, a paradigm of this nature would have been impossible, but technology has made this quite possible. In fact, I have no doubt that eBay would be more than happy to provide the technology (which they basically have built already).

A Response to Dostoyevsky

2008-04-15T08:04:00.003-07:00

After listening to an episode of Speaking of Faith on NPR the other day, I was introduced to a book called The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality. I have begun reading it and have found it to be quite good, though I haven't finished it yet. I read a paragraph that really impressed me, as it articulates my thoughts and feelings precisely. As a result, I wanted to share it with all of you.

Where morals are concerned, the loss of faith changes nothing or next to nothing. That you have lost your faith does not mean that you will suddenly decide to betray your friends or indulge in robbery, rape, assassination and torture. "If God does not exist," says Dostoyevsky's Ivan Karamazov, "everything is allowed." Not at all, for the simple reason that I will not allow myself everything! As Kant demonstrated, either morals are autonomous or they do not exist at all. If a person refrains from murdering his neighbor only out of fear of divine retribution, his behavior is dictated not by moral values but by caution, fear of the holy policeman, egoism. And if a person does good only with an eye to salvation, she is not doing good (since her behavior is dictated by self-interest, rather than by duty or by love) and will thus not be saved. This is Kant, the Enlightenment and humanity at their best: A good deed is not good because God commanded me to do it (in which case it would have been good for Abraham to slit his son's throat); on the contrary, it is because an action is good that it is possible to believe God commanded it. Rather than religion being the basis for morals, morals are now the basis for religion. This is the inception of modernity. To have a religion, the Critique of Practical Reason points out, is to "acknowledge all one's duties as sacred commandments." For those who no longer have faith, commandments vanish (or, rather, lose their sacred quality), and all that remains are duties--that is, the commandments we impose upon ourselves.
- Comte-Sponville, Andre
"The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality"
pages 41-42

The Holy Ghost: Credible Witness?

2008-03-21T11:23:00.002-07:00

I have always been raised to see the Holy Ghost as the ultimate litmus test of truth. Moroni 10:3-5 lays out clearly that it is by the power of the Holy Ghost that we may know the truth of all things. Even the Bible has similar language. Jesus says he will send the Comforter who, among other things, will guide us into all truth (John 16:13). And yet I wonder, is the Holy Ghost really a good litmus test of what is true?

One immediate issue regards the definition of the word truth. Truth can be used in a number of ways, especially regarding spiritual matters. If someone shares an allegory, let's say The Mediator, I am liable to respond by saying, "That's so true." Clearly I am not saying that the story is factually true. I am saying that the message is true. Likewise, I may have felt the spirit. Is the spirit saying that the man in the story actually existed? Is the spirit testifying of the truthfulness of the story or the message? I would argue, the message.

Another example is Paul H. Dunn. For those who don't know. He was a general authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He was well known for his amazing faith promoting stories about his time in WWII and playing major league baseball. Thousands of people listened to him speak or purchased his tapes and books. All this came to a crashing end in 1991 when he was forced to admit that he had made up many of his stories. And yet people felt the spirit when listening to his stories. If the spirit testifies of factual truth, how could that be? Are we to believe that the Holy Ghost, who knoweth all things, was fooled? Obviously not. The reasonable thing to believe is that the spirit was testifying of the truth of the message.

Recently I was reading a novel; I felt the spirit very strongly. It wasn't religious in any way. It was just a popcorn fantasy novel, and yet I felt the spirit while reading it. Should I assume that the authors actually translated this book from ancient records and that it is a factually true story? No, it was that something in the book resonated with the soul. I was being testified to about truth, but not factual truth.

So then, what are we to make of the Holy Ghost as a testifier of truth. We need to look at these spiritual promptings as compasses towards goodness and truth. It should not be used as a definite litmus test of factual truth. As shown above, utilizing it in this fashion will provide plenty of false positives.

In Defense of Mormonism

2008-03-21T10:05:00.002-07:00

ad hominem: adj marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made (Merriam-Webster).

I've recently been studying a lot of questions I have had for years regarding the church. There are many websites that are more than happy to share apparent problems with Mormon history or issues with our doctrine. There are also plenty of websites whose defined purpose is to defend the church. The two primary apologist sites, from which most others draw their conclusions, are the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) and the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR).

I recently read "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins" by Grant H. Palmer. The book presents many problems with the church's claims regarding its origins. For the most part, the book was well done, and presented very good information. The author presented a lot of facts of which I had not been aware. After reading the book, I turned to the apologists to get a response. I figured they must have a response to such damning evidence. I found an article at FAIR entitled A summary of Five Reviews of Grant Palmer's "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins".

Rather than finding a point-by-point rebuttal of Palmer, I found a vitriolic, biting attack against him personally. The one review I read at length spent at least 60% of the review attacking Grant Palmer, labeling him as an anti-Mormon, casting aspersions on his motives and his integrity. The only element of Palmer's book to which they speak at any length is his Golden Pot hypothesis. This was a very small portion of the book, one chapter. It's also the one part of the book that Palmer presents as speculative in nature. They never answer the legitimate factual issues he raises. Instead, they dismiss the remainder with trite comments like how he would "not attempt...to answer all the problems raised by Palmer; [as] a few examples will illustrate the kind of faulty speculation, incomplete evidence, and misleading 'parallels' that plague his book."

This experience made me think on the other Mormon apologetics I had read. The majority share a characteristic, ad hominem. An ad hominem attack is when a rebuttal focuses on the person rather than the message. It is a logical fallacy. The truthfulness of a message is irrespective of the messenger. I will grant the fact that looking at the messenger is a valid method of determining bias, but showing bias does not disprove an argument. After all, apologists have a clear bias, but that doesn't mean we should disregard legitimate facts they present.

Before anyone says it, I know that this tool is used by both sides. There is a lot of vitriol and anger on both sides. There are plenty of sources (like Palmer's book above) that present the facts but do not resort to ad hominem. I generally steer myself towards those sources. Unfortunately, I can't find many voices like that on the apologist side of the fence.

One tool used by apologists in ad hominem attacks is the application of the pejorative anti-Mormon. Unfortunately, to most apologists, the definition of anti-Mormon is anyone who has looked at the evidence and doesn't believe the church is true. I don't understand how that makes someone anti-Mormon. I do not believe the Catholic church is the true church, does that make me anti-Catholic. I do not believe that the Koran is inspired, does that make me anti-Muslim, no? But if I say that the evidence seems to point to the Book of Mormon being authored by Joseph Smith himself, I am labeled an anti-Mormon.

This makes it very difficult to ask legitimate questions about our origins. If, after looking at the evidence, I come to different conclusions than the church leadership, then I have been fooled by the devil. At that point, all of my views are to be disregarded as the idle ramblings of a spiritual weakling. By so doing, the church remains insulated.

It's not a good sign if Mormons are unable to listen to opposing views in a civil fashion. Why do apologists generally decline to answer issues, preferring to attack the messenger? Why are they afraid of legitimate inquiries? Why is everyone who disagrees immediately an anti-Mormon?

Noah's Flood Never Happened

2008-03-15T09:34:00.003-07:00

The great flood of the Bible is one of those things that has bothered me for a long time. It's just hard for me to understand how so many people can believe in this event, even though the facts so clearly show that it couldn't have occurred. Nevertheless, belief in the literal flood is still going strong. So, I've decided to outline my reasons for not believing the flood in the interest of hearing explanations. I'd love to hear people defend their belief.

I should note a few things before I begin. For starters, this is not a rigorous scientific paper. I thought about doing extensive research and providing numbers and stats for each issue. Ultimately I decided to forgo such work, mainly because I just don't care enough about this issue to dedicate more than a half hour of my time. Sorry.

Secondly, I am speaking to a literal universal flood as taught in the Bible and other scriptures. I am aware of the belief that this could have been a localized flood. I actually think that's quite likely. Many myths have a basis in fact and simply become bigger and bigger as time goes on. But, the fact is that a localized flood is not what the Bible tells us occurred. The Bible states that it was a universal flood. So, I will be speaking to that.

Lastly, there are many issues out there. The issues below are simply the list that have occurred to myself. This isn't meant as an aggregate of other people's views.

Distribution of Species
Supposedly Noah took two of every animal on the ark. Actually the Bible states that Noah took seven of all of the clean animals. But that's irrelevant, just an interesting tidbit. So, Noah gets off the ark and pushes all the animals out. The animals begin dispersing from Mt. Ararat. How would we get the distribution of animals that we see currently in the world? The Earth is clearly delineated with regards to animals. For example, Koalas are only found in Australia. But if all the animals dispersed from the same location, why would they end up being clearly partitioned?

Also, how would they be able to get to all of the portions of the Earth? Are we to assume that Elk hopped in the water and swam across the Atlantic ocean to arrive in North America? How else could they have arrived here. The land bridge between Asia and North America was long gone by this time. Even if we could account for North America, that would still leave countless islands, like Australia, bereft of even the simplest of fauna.

So, if we are to hold on to a belief in Noah's Flood, what answer do we have? The only viable answer I can imagine is that God, after the flood, took the animals and distributed them by hand himself. While this is possible, assuming a all-powerful God, it raises a number of questions. If God was just going to wave a magic wand over the Earth after the flood, why would he even bother having Noah go through the trouble of collecting the species in the first place? Seems kind of silly.

Diversity of Species
We have already named and identified over one and a half million species to date. There are scientists who believe that there may be as many as fifty million species in the world total, though conservative estimates are in the order of two million. That's a lot of different animals. Now, a huge portion of those species are insects or water-dwelling, which could have survived the flood (except for the fresh/salt water issue). Well, some of the insects could have survived, others would have died, so they'd have to come on the ark. It just doesn't strike me as possible that the ark would be nearly big enough to hold all of these animals, as well as food sufficient to feed them.

There is a Bible study site that claims there is no problem with regards to the size of the ark: How BIG was Noah's Ark? The assumption they make is that Noah didn't bring every species of every animal. Instead he would have brought a few canines which would have evolved into the diverse members of its species. Is it really possible that a mere 4,000 years would account for the diversity that we currently see in animal species? Definitely not. Evolution doesn't work that quickly. We could of course resort to the old Deus Ex Machina resolution as we examined above. But if we continue to resort to this convention, then we have completely detached from reality and might as well just close our eyes and whistle.

Archaeological Evidence
The water lasted on the Earth for 150 days. The first question of course is where in the world all that water went. But more importantly, why don't we see any geological evidence of this. Why don't we see a massive die-out of animals in the fossil record at about 4,000 years ago. Shouldn't we find well preserved ruins dating from the period? We don't. We see absolutely no evidence of this huge world-wide event.

Are we to assume that God went around and cleaned up all of the evidence so no one would know? Why would he want to hide the truth from us? I can just feel people getting ready to say, "It's so we have faith." So you're saying that God values people who ignore the proof of their eyes simply because someone told them a ridiculous story? Why would God value irrationality?

Genetic Diversity of Humans
The assumption of the flood is that we all then come from the same lineage. We are all cousins back just 4,000 years. This does not come even remotely close to accounting for the genetic diversity of humans. There is no way. An examination of Mitochondrial DNA has placed our closest common ancestor at around 140,000 years ago. Examination of the Y chromosome has corroborated this estimate. There's a big difference between this and the 4,000 years required by the flood.

Moral Implications
Beyond the issue of whether or not the flood actually occurred is the moral implication if it did. This means that God murdered every living creature on the Earth. Maybe the people were really, really bad. But are we to assume that all of the animals were evil too? I thought fetuses were innocent. I'm sure that there were pregnant women among those who were killed. Is this really the sort of thing a loving God would do? Would God really commit the worst, most gratuitous example of genocide the world has ever seen? That's pretty messed up.

One explanation I have been given before is that it was an act of mercy because those people would have children and they would be doomed by the evils of their parents. This has two major problems. First, this points towards fatalism. It implies that God doesn't give us all a fair chance to be saved, but instead he has us born into certain circumstances that are more or less likely to us being saved. That doesn't sound very fair. Secondly, if this is the case, why doesn't God kill evil people now instead of allowing them to propagate? Did he care more about unborn children before the flood than after?

Conclusion
I just can't find a reasonable reason to believe in a universal flood as taught by the scriptures. The only way to explain it is resorting to the Deus Ex Machina explanation of God just waving his magic wand and fixing everything. I hate that theists resort to this answer so often. If we accept this answer then we have to address the fact that God works really hard to hide himself, but then gets mad at us when we don't believe in him. Weird.

I would love to hear comments from readers as to how one might reconcile the above issues. But I honestly can't imagine any way, but I'm always open to being proved wrong.

Is Romney Good for the Church? Who cares?!

2008-01-30T01:37:00.000-07:00

I do not care for Mitt Romney. Anyone who has spent more than a few moments reading past posts in my blog should not be too surprised by the above statement. I have plenty of reasons for disliking him and not wanting him to be elected as president. That said, something I dislike far more than Mitt Romney is the reason I hear sited so often here in Utah for electing him. I have spoken with so many people who are excited for the possibility of a President Romney because of what it will do for the Mormon church.

Excuse me if we don't see eye-to-eye at this point, but I do not see this as a compelling reason for electing a person. Last time I checked, this election is not for Mission President but for American President. Selecting a president is serious business. We are selecting the man who will make incredibly important decisions that will affect us all for the next four years. We are selecting the proverbial "leader of the free world." This is a decision that should be made in the light of what is best for America, what will help us be the best nation we can. This is not a decision that should be made based upon the gains we, or an officiated organization, hope to acquire as a result.

It ridiculous that we get angry with people bringing his religion into the debate. We are annoyed that people will not vote for him because they believe that he will be in the pocket of the church. Then we immediately turn and speak of how important it is that he be elected so that he can carry on God's work in the White House. If I'm understanding correctly, what we're saying is that it's OK to vote for someone because of their religion, but it's not OK to vote against someone because of their religion. Sorry, we can't have it both ways.

Don't get me wrong. I am completely fine with people who honestly like Mitt Romney because they think he will make a good president. I may not have that same view, but I respect your right and reasons for having that view. I encourage you to take that belief right to the polls. But, if you nothing about Romney except that he is Mormon and you are planning to vote for him, I urge you to dig a little deeper. The office of President of the United States of America should be much more than simply a tool with which to speak to our neighbors about the gospel.

No eHarmony for me

2008-01-16T06:03:00.000-07:00

I'm sure you've all seen the advertisements for eHarmony. It's the company with commercials that always show some couple who are just a little two happy about having found one another. Then that nerdy-looking guy comes on and continues, with the same forced happiness, to explain how through their special profile they match you with the perfect partner. Not only am I sure you've seen the advertisements, I'm also sure that you have, like me, considering checking it out. Well, I finally did.

I considered my situation. I'm a bit of an odd, incompatible nut. I find it hard to find people in whom I am interested romantically. Even when I do get into a relationship, I usually end up jumping trip pretty quickly. So, eHarmony seems to be perfect for me, if it does what it claims. It takes care of the whole, finding a compatible nut, which I find so difficult to do for myself. Also, I'm not willing to shell out money for something like this. Since they provide a free trial, I don't have to. The only way I have to shell out money is if I want to contact someone. The likelihood of me actually contacting someone I have been paired with on eHarmony is pretty slim. So, I'm safe from having to shell out any cash.

Having awoken this morning at an extremely early hour, but not feeling the need for more sleep, I figured this would be the best time to give this whole eHarmony thing a try. The nice thing with early in the morning is that I don't have to run the risk of someone walking in on me using an online dating site. That would exceed my embarrassment threshold.

I logged in and began the personality profile. Fortunately, since the idea behind eHarmony is that you are matched based upon a personality profile, you don't have to write any sort of stupid profile that is meant to trick people into sending you a "flirt". (I hope to go through the remainder of my life without ever having to write that word again. Bleh!) No, I didn't have to go through that sort of demeaning experience. Instead I had to demean myself in a completely different way. I had to fill out 11 pages of disagree/somewhat agree/strongly agree questions.

Upon completion of the profile, I was then given a page which explains my personality. It's so awkward reading automated personality descriptions. On one hand, they're so cookie-cutter. It feels like you're reading a fortune cookie or a high school newspaper horoscope (except without the non-humerous references to the writer's best friends). It's always awkward, for me at least, to read a really positive personality analysis. It doesn't make me feel good about myself, it just makes me question the validity of the data I entered that would give me such a positive personality analysis. But then I realize that probably all of the analysis are probably pretty positive sounding. I mean, they aren't going to come out and say, "You're a total A-hole" or "While suicide is horrible choice, sometimes it might be the right one." I think it would be awesome if they did, but they probably won't.

Here's a great tidbit from my long profile. "Selfish people might be embarrassed by you. While they're using their time and energy almost exclusively on themselves, they see you giving time to others, and your kindness puts them in a bad light." I didn't make that up, though I think eHarmony did.

Now to my matches section. Bare in mind before I share with you a few of the gems that eHarmony located that I was pretty open with my criteria for a match. I said that I was willing to date someone who lives anywhere in the United States for example. I tried to keep most of those options as wide as was reasonable. So, just remember that when I tell you that I was matched with no one. Not a single person in the entire United States. Oh wait, there's a button that says "Find New Matches." Phew! I thought that I was a pathetic weirdo, doomed to die alone. But I had simply neglected to click the button to populate my matches.

So, I click on the perform search and at the end, you know what happens. Nothing! No, my initial inclination was the correct. I am a pathetic creature. While performing the search, it popped with one of those helpful tips. It was about how eHarmony helps by finding people who match your "inner qualities" which is "a great place to start." What does it mean when you can't even arrive at the place to start because no one matches your "inner qualities?"

Well, jump forward an hour or so. I have clicked on the "Find New Matches" button so many times that my mouse cursor has bored a whole through my Firefox window. Lo and behold, the last click provided me with seven matches. I'm a little nervous though. What clearly has happened is that eHarmony finally, after a massive amount of prodding from myself, has decided to throw some matches at me. Let's consider the possibilities. Either these seven people finally created profiles all at the same instant, the only seven people in the country to be compatible with me. Or, alternatively, eHarmony decided to throw seven people from the undesirable pile (which I am presumably a member of myself) at me to get me to quit clicking the search button. I figure the latter to be most likely. Though, come to think of it, apparently the "inner quality" that we must match is undesirable. That's a start at least.

Top Five Issues

2007-12-26T10:53:00.000-07:00

In light of the upcoming primaries, I though it might be good to list my top political issues. There are so many issues out there from farm subsidies to abortion to free trade. But, if you're like me, then the majority of these issues are insignificant to you and your voting decisions. Each of us has a few issues that are the real issues we vote upon. So, I thought I would enumerate my top five issues here. I urge everyone who reads this to share your top five in a comment or on your own blog (in which case, please place a link in the comments).

Iraq - I want us to get out of Iraq. I am in favor of withdrawal. It's the one issue on which Ron Paul and I see eye-to-eye. We are spending so much money on the war, money that could be spent on any number of important domestic programs. And, in a broader sense, I want elected officials who will not bring us into another preemptive war.
Universal Health Care - I have believed in universal health care for as long as I have paid attention to politics. It's interesting that we are the only 1st world country which does not have universal health care, and yet we spend more per capita than any other country on health care. And our health as a nation sucks.
Free Trade - Protectionism is the wrong answer. Free trade is the right one. Protectionism is the easy solution. But, as with most easy solutions, it will only work in the short run. It will bite us in the end.
Science - The national science budget has been cut again. There couldn't be a worse thing to cut. If we want to maintain our position of dominance on the world stage, we cannot afford to abandon the actions that brought us here. A good investment in science also creates jobs, good intelligent jobs, the sort we need to promote (rather than protecting doomed jobs by fighting free trade). And, in a broader sense, I want elected officials who are knowledgeable about science. I'm tired of lawyers.
Separation of Church and State - Lately the lines have been blurring between religion and government. The founding fathers established the separation of church and state for a reason. It benefits both parties. Unfortunately, there has been a lot of influence lately from the Christian Right aimed at the White House.

The Right Way to Read a Blog

2007-12-23T11:50:00.000-07:00

If you see JINXIDORU written in big block letters above this post and a blue bar above that, it means that you're probably not reading my blog in the way the 21st century intended you to read it. Here's the problem. If you're anything like me (for your sake, I hope the answer is no), you have a lot of friends with blogs. As each month passes more of your friends start creating blogs and encouraging you to read them. In fact, they probably ask you every time they see you whether you've read their most recent post about their childhood pet. But, you have no interest in checking for new blog posts every day to all fifty of your friends, especially when most of the blogs are like this one where the owner only posts once every other week. So, how is one to keep up to date on blogs without checking fifty sites every time you open your browser?

Well, fortunately, the internet gods have provided us a solution, and it is called RSS (Really Simple Syndication). The simplest explanation is that RSS provides a system wherein your computer periodically (usually once an hour) checks if a site has updated. If the site has updated since the last check, then the user is notified. Using RSS, one needs not constantly check if their are new posts. Your computer also keeps track of what posts you have read and which you have not. So, you can wait to read someone's posts until the perfect opportunity.

So, how do you use RSS? First you will need an aggregator. An aggregator is the program which takes individual RSS feeds and combines them (or aggregates) so the user can see which have updated and so on. There are many aggregators available, some for cost, most for free. With the number and quality of free aggregators, there is no reason to pay for one. In fact, Firefox and IE7 provide a mechanism for placing RSS feeds as bookmarks. When you expand the bookmark, it expands to the most recent 5 or 10 posts on the site.

While there are a lot of options, in my opinion the very best aggregator is Google Reader. Google Reader has a lot of great options and can be accessed from anywhere in the world. They even have an iPhone interface so that you can check people's blogs very easily from your iPhone. It's just plain a great product, and it's free.

So, let's setup a Google Reader account. Go to the Google Reader site and create an account. You can login directly if you have a gmail account or any Google account for that matter (blogger, analytics, personalized home page, etc...). Once you are in the program, you will see a dark blue link on the left with a big blue plus sign that reads "Add Subscription". Click that link, and you will be prompted for a feed URL. Go ahead and enter the address for a blog you read, for example "http://jinxidoru.blogspot.com". This will add the feed for the given blog to your feed list. If you now click the link at the top left that reads "All items", you will see a list of the most recent entries from the given blog. Click on any of these posts to read the post directly within Google Reader. Here is one of the great things about Google Reader, you can read the blogs without even going to the blog. Notice that once you've clicked on a post, it highlights to indicate that it has been read.

Google Reader has tons of great options. I'll give you a few, because I'm sure you can search out many others on your own. If you especially like a blog post or for some reason want to go back to it (say you didn't finish reading it), you can click the star next to a title. This will place the specific post in your Starred Items list. You can see all of the posts you've starred by clicking "Starred items" on the upper left.

Once you get a number of blogs, you can categorize them. This allows you to check specific types of blogs separately. The main reason I do this is because I use Google Reader to read the news. Most news sites provide RSS feeds. In fact, blogs were not the original intended purpose of RSS feeds, it was more for news sites. You can subscribe to CNN's news feed and you will see stories come across as they become available on CNN. But, as I'm sure you can imagine, CNN produces new stories much quicker than this blog, for example. And, while you probably want to read every single word that I write (and ponder it deeply, but ultimately accepting my opinions 100%), you probably won't read every CNN story. So the best thing to do is keep them separate. Create a tag for news and another tag for blogs. This way all of the new stories in your news feeds won't clutter your list of blog posts. This can be done by clicking "Settings", located at the very-top right of the screen then selected the "Subscriptions" tab on the following page. You can change the folders to which a blog belongs by selecting the correct folder in the drop-down list.

Alternatively to adding subscriptions through the "Add Subscription" link, you can add subscriptions with most modern browsers in an even easier way. If you visit a site with an RSS feed (like this one for example) there will be a little RSS icon on the address bar. It looks like the imagine posted to the left. Check in your address bar right now, there should be one if you are using Firefox. IE7 does something similar, I'm pretty sure. If you click it, there are a number of options which allow you to subscribe immediately.

One last option is for Google Reader users who also use Google's personalized home page. You can add a Google Reader widget your personalized home page. Then every time you start up your browser you will see who has updated their blog.

Well, I hope this has been helpful in some way. If anyone has any questions or needs help setting this up, let me know. I would be more than happy to assist. I really do encourage everyone to start using this. It has saved me a lot of time and helped me keep up-to-date much better with my friends' blogs.

The Ten Commandments? Not in my court house.

2007-12-08T11:43:00.000-07:00

Last night I had a discussion with a good friend about the Ten Commandments. More specifically, we discussed past issues of the commandments being displayed in public areas, such as court houses. This is an issue often brought up by believers to illustrate just how bad things have become in America. So, in the light of the Christmas season, I thought I might explain my reasons for siding with those who would take down the Ten Commandments.

I should note that I am not completely opposed to their display. The first amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." So, we see that the first amendment does not say that the government can't talk about or touch anything involving religion. It simply states that the government is not allowed to "establish" religion. Therefore, the question becomes whether or not displaying the Ten Commandments is an establishment of religion. Therein lies the crux of the matter.

There is a difference between presenting something for historical purposes and promoting something in a religious context. It comes down to intent, which is a difficult thing to show. But, then again, that's why we have the courts.

This same issue was broached in a court case against the Dover, Pennsylvania school board recently. They got in trouble because the they prepared a statement that biology teachers were to read before their classes that promoted Intelligent Design. The ensuing court case centered around the question of whether the school board was trying to promote religion or if it was presenting a legitimate scientific theory. The judge found that the school board was in fact trying to establish religion. In other words, the statement wasn't necessarily the problem. The problem was the intentions of the school board. They could reinstate the statement, as long as they could prove that it has nothing to do with the desire to promote religion.

The same is the case with the Ten Commandments. I have a number of atheist friends and associates. They are reasonable folk who have no problem with the commandments in an historical context. But when the commandments are placed as a sign of support by the given court house, that is when they have a problem.

Another defense given of the commandments is that they are the basis upon which our law system is built. I had believed this for years, until one day I read the Ten Commandments with that in mind. I realized how little the Decalogue has to do with our current system of laws. Let's examine each of the commandments.

1. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me
2. Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol
3. Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of thy God
4. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
The first four commandments all deal with things that fall within our most cherished of rights, the freedom of religion. There are few, even among the most devote that would want these first four commandments to be instated as laws.

5. Honor thy Father and Mother
Yes, we think this is a good idea, but once again, not law worthy. And, we most definitely do not agree with this in the strict sense to which it was adhered at the time the commandments were given.

6. Thou shalt not murder
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery
8. Thou shalt not steal
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness
Now that we have reached number six, we have finally arrived at the realm of laws we can actually agree upon as a nation. Six and eight are definitely within the realm of our law system. Seven and nine are a little fuzzier. Although adultery and lying are not illegal they can, in certain situations, result in legal repercussions. Even though these commandments do fit into our law system, the implication that we got them from here is silly. A cursory reading of the Old Testament shows that these four commandments were acknowledged long before Moses brought them down on tablets of stone.

10. Thou shalt not covet
Well, number ten is basically the cornerstone of our American capitalist system.

So, as you can see, our government is not based upon the Ten Commandments. In fact there are only two in the whole ten which are actually legitimate laws which we respect today. Of course, the natural response is then, "See how far we've fallen?!" But, it would take a truly fanatical person to believe that we should instate the above ten items as actual laws.

Let's think about this as objectively as we are able. Do we really think that people are putting up the Ten Commandments simply for their historical context? If so, why don't we see more copies of the Magna Carta and the Code of Hammurabi hanging in court houses? Those are two documents that have very strong, clear connections to our American justice system, as opposed to the Ten Commandments, which clearly do not. Let's be honest with ourselves. The majority of cases where the Ten Commandments are put on display, it is for the religious message that they present. It is a statement of support for Judeo-Christianity. And when such is the case, we are falling quite clearly within the realms of the establishment clause.

Godless America?

2007-11-30T21:36:00.000-07:00

So I received an email from a friend the other day. I disagreed with much of it, and felt a moral obligation to respond. I sent a mass response. After receiving a few responses thanking me for my comments, I decided that this would be something worth putting on my blog. The text of the original forward can be found here. My response is given below.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Even more than not finding atheism in the Constitution, I do not find Christianity or any belief system at all. The word "God" does not appear even once in the Constitution. In fact, this was actually a point of major contention during the Constitutional Convention. There were those who wanted to put in religious tests, just like many other countries. The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, chose to leave such things out. Another interesting tidbit: "godless constitution" was a pejorative used by detractors from the constitution after the convention to convince people to not ratify because it did not make mention of God.

People who don't believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have a number of friends who are atheists who are afraid to admit it. I have a friend who has been beat up for being an atheist. Christians love to play the martyr and believe that they are in the minority. News flash, not anymore. We talk about the good 'ole days when people believed in God. Truth is that religious fervor is far greater now than in the past. I suspected this to be true, and looked it up in the census records. It's amazing how common religious belief is. It is far more common than atheism. And it is far more common than it was during the 40s. The Cold War brought about a study increase in Christianity. If anyone wants a citation, I would be happy to dig up the actual numbers.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this happen?" (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"

This is such an absurd claim. The implication is that God did not allow things like this to occur back in the days when everyone believed in God. That is just plain crazy. A cursory glance at world history shows that such is not the case at all. Horrible natural disasters have been occurring for years and will continue for years to come. This is just an example of Billy Graham's daughter trying to manipulate people, a truly disgraceful act.

Since first writing this response, I have come to find out that the above paragraph is not originally Ben Stein's. It was added by someone else at some point. You can find more information about the original content of his statement at Snopes. This also goes for the following paragraph as well.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.

This is just sick. I'm not sure what message we are supposed to come away with from this sentence. Are we to come away thinking that beating our kids is a good idea? I hope not. Are we supposed to see that his "secular" ideas on child raising are flawed because his son committed suicide? Well then Christian child-rearing is flawed because I know a number of good Christian families whose lives have been wracked with the horrors of suicide. Ultimately though, the worst part about the above paragraph is that Dr. Spock's son did not in fact commit suicide. It was his grandson (http://www.snopes.com/medical/doctor/drspock.asp).

Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing.

If only this were true. That would be nice. Maybe my inbox is different than other people's, but I am constantly getting Christian forwards telling me that God is watching, or about some kid with cancer, or that God approves of the war in Iraq, or that I should boycott the "Golden Compass" movie.

In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Wait. So, terrorist attacks are occurring because we aren't reading the Bible in school? No, I think terrorist attacks are occurring because of Fundamentalist Islamofascists. The funny thing is that those terrorists are atheists. They are among the most God-fearing people that this world has been able to produce.

You're right, the Bible does say "thou shalt not kill." So why is the Christian Right so strongly in favor of doing just that in Iraq on a daily basis? "Love your neighbor" huh? So, why do I hear Christians using pejoratives like "rag-head?" I agree that these are principals that could help the nation, but I don't see violations coming from the atheists. It's coming from the Christians. All you need to do is look at the statistics. Crime is more commonly committed by non-atheists. Atheists have a lower divorce rate. Atheists are the problem? No, not practicing what you preach is the problem.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Maybe we should actually ask ourselves how we became so disconnected with the next generation. I don't know a lot of youth. But I run into high schoolers on occasion. To be honest, I am generally very impressed. The majority of youth have no interest in killing people. They actually care about the world. They are great kids. They just need us, as adults, to recognize that fact. I urge you to think of the youth that you know personally. I wouldn't be surprised if you also were impressed generally. There are bad eggs, but there always are.

The Real Reason We Are In Iraq

2007-11-26T10:02:00.001-07:00

For a long time I have been echoing the claims of many other people who have actively said that we have never had any intentions of ever leaving Iraq. Well, I just read an article which shows that this claim is--not surprisingly--true. Check out this article to see what I mean: Iraqis may offer US deal to stay longer. Clearly, we are in no hurry to leave, even after (read: if) we secure the region.

I have believed that since the very beginning of the war it has largely been about this and only this. We want a presence in the Middle East that has no connection to Saudia Arabia. Since there's no nation that will welcome us with open arms, we create our own by invading Iraq and establishing a democracy there. Now, with a democratic foothold, we can severing ties with Saudia Arabia unless they do what we tell them to do.

I am not saying that this is good or bad. I can see why someone would think this is a good idea. What bothers me is that we have been told from the beginning that we are not planning to stay in Iraq, but now here's talk of 50,000 troops on permanent placement in Iraq, after the war. That's a lot of troops. I feel like we bought a couch, but when we get home we discover that the couch box was actually containing a computer. When we complain, the store manager tries to tell us how great this computer is. Well, it might be a great computer, but that's not what I was sold. The American people might feel a little better if we had been told what we were buying back in 2003.

What's wrong with Wal-Mart?

2007-11-19T22:59:00.001-07:00

So, I was just reading an article in the Salt Lake Tribune about a protest recently in Salt Lake City against big box stores. I've mentioned something about this previously, but I am going to mention it again. Can someone please explain to me what the problem with big box stores is? I don't understand why it's better to be buying from local businesses. Every time I hear people harping on this issue, they seem to just accept it without explanation that buying local is a good thing. I for one do not understand why buying locally is a good thing.

To begin with, many people will say that Wal-Mart is bad because of their health-care policies. There is some definite truth to this argument. Wal-Mart needs to fix this, and the government has started stepping in to make them do something about it. Regardless, I question the sort of health-care that people are receiving working at locally owned businesses. A small business oftentimes can't afford good health-care for their employees because of the volume issue.

The wage issue is brought up a lot as well. But what sort of wages can a locally-owned business pay? Clearly they can't compete in this area for the same reason that they can't compete when it comes to prices. Small businesses don't have the infrastructure and pull with suppliers to get the prices that stores like Wal-Mart can pull down. So, maybe I'm wrong on this, but I highly doubt that locally owned businesses are paying them employees any better than the box stores. Also, what sort of job security can they offer? Very little. Small businesses fail all the time because the owners aren't business people.

Though touched on in the previous paragraph, it bares emphasizing, box stores can get better prices for their customers. If you've never read "The World is Flat" by Thomas Friedman, it's worth a read. He explains the whole Wal-Mart supply chain. It is impressive and explains very clearly why Wal-Mart can undercut others on prices. It isn't because of they are doing anything underhanded it's simply because they have an incredible supply chain.

Now, people are quick to say that even if buying locally is a little more expensive, it's worth it. Well, that's fine for those of us who are doing well financially. But, how about the minimum-wage single-parent home? Wal-Mart is a life-saver for folk like that. Of course, the claim is that Wal-Mart is the reason they are poor. But that is just downright ridiculous. Wal-Mart has not caused an increase in the poor. Quite the opposite, it has provided jobs to a lot of people. The low prices at box stores are a huge gain for a family on a small income.

The gains from box stores are many as well. The benefit to low income families has already been mentioned. Another benefit is the gain in efficiency. Rather than drive your car to five different stores, you can go to just one place. Not only do you save time, but you also drive less--which is better for the environment. Also, the space required for one box store is far less than the space used by a sprawling downtown. Box stores are well funded so they provide security. Rarely do you see box stores going under, whereas local businesses are failing all the time. Also, since they are well-funded, they can pay for security. So they remain safe places, which cannot be said for a lot of locally owned downtown areas in large cities.

I just can't see the problem with big box stores. This may come as a big surprise to those who know me as I am generally a bleeding-heart liberal. But before that, I am a rational person. And I can't find any rational reason to fight the box stores.

Ultimately it comes down the issue of paradigm shifts. The world is changing. We can either fight it (and get trampled) or figure out how work with the changing world. Every new
innovation brings joy to many, but unemployment to a few. You can either complain and try to get the government to hold back the whole economy simply because you don't want to change jobs, or you can accept your fate and move on. Let's chose to move on.

Stop Talking About Abortion!

2007-10-22T21:29:00.001-07:00

Harry Reid, senate majority leader, brought up a great point when he spoke at BYU recently. To paraphrase, he voiced his belief that if it weren't for abortion and gay marriage, many more Mormons would be Democrats, like himself. He then stated that neither of these issues is all that important, and that it doesn't make sense to vote on these issues.

I could not possibly agree with him more. I get so frustrated with how abortion takes such a front-seat in most people's politics. Too often I have heard, "I would support [insert name here] if he wasn't pro-choice." For a vast number of people in America, abortion is their number one issue.

Why is this the case? Why should we care so much about abortion? Aren't there other issues that are far more pressing? Aren't there other issues that affect us more directly? Is the legality of abortion really more important than free trade, health care, national security, privacy, or education? It seems that the preceding issues are far more pressing and will have a greater affect on my life and the lives of every American citizen than on whether or not a woman is permitted to have an abortion.

I think there is a simple explanation for why abortion is such a key issue in American politics. Abortion can be such a black & white issue. Either you are for or against it. On the other hand, all of the issues mentioned in the previous paragraph are issues that do not have simple answers. We live in a sound-bite world. Any answer which cannot be compressed into 20 seconds of audio falls by the wayside. You can easily fit "I will defend the lives of unborn children" into a sound-bite. Try to do the same with globalization. Good luck.

Sadly, our national ADD and desire for simple black & white issues deepens the divide between us as a nation as well. We have all made up our minds, for the most part, on these highly divisive black & white issues. So the louder we yell, we do not acquire more acolytes, instead we only alienate the opposite camp that much more. On the other hand, nuanced issues like globalization and education have no black & white stances. It's not a for-or-against issue. It's something where we can spend time discussing and solving rather than evangelizing and dividing.

These are the issues that I would like to see more strongly dominate the public discourse. Of course, even when these issues do appear, we work very hard to turn it into a black & white issue. We need to stop polarizing every issue. We need to stop working so hard to figure out what the Democrat and Republican position are for each issue. Instead, we should figure out where we stand and bring our reasons to the table so that they can be discussed and evaluated.

So, let's stop talking about abortion, and start talking about what's really important.

"The Dawkins Delusion" by Alister E. McGrath

2007-07-21T00:11:00.000-07:00

At the beginning I felt this book had promise. It was nice to know that the author of the book had previously been an atheist, so I felt that he could at least bring some understanding to the table. I was also heartened by his generally positive treatment of Dawkins, especially in speaking of his previous book. For these reasons, I became interested immediately in the rebuttal McGrath would bring to the table. I was sorely disappointed.

As an over-arching theme of the entire book, McGrath claims that Dawkins fails to bring any sort of scientific rigor to the table. There is some (emphasis some) truth to that statement. But, as is generally the case with criticism, McGrath finds himself guilty of the same sin throughout. If the writing style of Dawkins is so polemic then it would be wise to take the high road and avoid it, rather than hiking up the pant legs and hopping right down into the muck.

The most frustrating thing about this book was how consistently McGrath claimed Dawkins holds certain views, then proves those views false. Unfortunately, a quick glance at the actual text shows over and again that Dawkins never claimed those arguments in the first place.

The place where this is most prevalent is in the middle 20 pages where McGrath attacks Dawkins views on where a belief in God came from. He says that Dawkins falls back on all sorts of arguments such as memes that are completely insubstantial. The funny thing is that if you read Dawkins's book, you see that he makes no claim to the authenticity of the ideas. In fact, he is quite careful to couch all of the claims as hypothesis, nothing more. Whereas McGrath claims that Dawkins is saying that these are true. It's even odd that so much space of this 100 page book was spent discussing this issue as it is completely ancillary to Dawkins's argument in the first place.

Next, McGrath seems to imply that Dawkins hates all religious people. He does not. In fact, he talks many times about how much he likes these people. It's not the people he hates, it's the belief systems. I felt that this was very clear throughout. I will admit that his tone can be quite sarcastic and condescending at times. He does not take that to the next level of hate, which is what McGrath seems to imply.

McGrath continually amazed me at the odd selection of talking points. He seemed to just be frustrated and not know where to go so he just went wherever the wind would take him. This is most evident in his refutation of Dawkins's discussion of infinite regress. He actually claims that scientists searching for the grand unification theory debunks the infinite regress argument. How ridiculous of an argument is that? I just couldn't believe that such an idea could possibly strike someone as even remotely cogent.

Another of his tactics is to counter claims made by Dawkins by saying, "I don't believe that." That's wonderful that he is a progressive person with regards to religion, but such is generally not the case. Dawkins never claims that beliefs he's countering are held by everyone. Just because some Christians realize the Earth is older than 6,000 years doesn't mean that it's not an important talking point, because the fact remains that many people do believe it.

And I have one more thing while I'm bashing the book. Why was he only able to come up with 96 large print pages against Dawkins's 400 page behemoth? I left the book feeling that McGrath hadn't really tried to respond to Dawkins. He feels like he just gave up half way through. The majority of "The God Delusion" remains completely unmentioned, unrefuted.

But now for the reason I gave the book two stars instead of just one. His last chapter made me think. Dawkins blames much of the world's problems on religion, especially violence. McGrath makes a good argument that it is really dogmaticism, not religion (though he stops short of saying it thusly). There have been dogmatic atheists that have caused untold horror just as there are dogmatic theists that have also caused untold horror. This last chapter really made me have to think a bit about where the problem of violence stems. If the book had simply been this chapter rather than the previous nonsense, I probably would have rated it four stars.

Ultimately, McGrath explains very well his purpose in writing this book. His purpose is not scholarly, his purpose is to supply people answers for when their friends come around. I think that's a shame. Is that what our public dialogue is? Are we simply looking for pre-written answers to throw at those with whom we disagree? Or are we honestly seeking for truth and answers?

"Promise of the Witch-King" by R.A. Salvatore

2007-05-26T17:48:00.000-07:00

I'd be interested to hear what Freud would have to say about my preference for the bad characters in media. If I play a video game where I can choose between being good or evil, I always choose evil. I'm not sure why. I fancy myself a fairly nice person in real-life, but I just can't help rooting for the bad guys. Here was a book that gave me that opportunity.

Salvatore has done a very interesting thing with this book. He has created two series with the same first volume: Servant of the Shard. The book ends with two different paths laid out. One follows the usual gang of Drizzt and company. The other thread follows the "bad" guys. So, obviously, what path do I take?

You know, I think the reason I prefer the bad guys is because they are more interesting, more complete, generally. In most media, the good guys are just too good. There is a tendency to make the good guys perfect. They may have one or two foibles or skeletons in their closets, but ultimately they are always interested in altruism. This is hard to identify with, because we are all such a crazy mix of love and hate, self-interest and sacrifice. So, the bad guys, more often portray that mix of emotions that make human beings so interesting.

Then again, maybe I am fascinated by the bad guys because I'm actually repressing my true evil nature; that my real desire is to go around stealing cars and generally just shooting up the city. I sure hope it's the other explanation.

"Misquoting Jesus" by Bart D. Ehrman

2007-05-25T17:47:00.000-07:00

I have been wanting to read this book ever since I heard Terry Gross talking with the author on Fresh Air on NPR (yeah, I know I'm a geek, what of it?). It discusses the history of the Bible with a strong emphasis on how the book has come to be changed and modified to the form which he now have today.

As a Mormon, there's one thing you learn about the Bible as a child, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." We are loath to admit that too loudly in public, but it's true. Since I was a tike I have been taught that the Bible is a great book, but it also has a lot of problems. I had always heard that but had never actually looked into what those changes might be.

I must say that even from with that background, I was a bit surprised about some of the changes brought to light in this book. For example, to name the most surprising for myself, the story we love so much about the woman taken in adultery to whom Jesus says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" isn't original. It was probably added by some scribe later on. I thought this might be a fluke or a lie, but other places corroborated the claim. In fact, I even read a few criticisms of the book from various sources, none of which refuted the above claim. There are a number of other cases that are similar.

The most fascinating part of the book though was the explanations on how the Bible came to be changed. The vast majority of the changes that have occurred in the Bible have nothing to do with anyone's nefarious ends, rather they just changed by accident. Ehrman goes into wonderful detail on how these sorts of things could and did happen.

I could see a lot of people being bothered by books like this. In fact, I have seen a number of people who have been bothered by books like this (for example: this book). Many people would rather close their eyes, put their fingers in their ears and sing Onward Christian Soldiers. I have found that I would like to do that many times when facts appear that conflict with my beliefs. But, it does not make one stronger ignoring the world and becoming stodgy and dogmatic. Strength comes from taking the truth and figuring out where to put it, as hard as it may be.

"Guards! Guards!" by Terry Pratchett

2007-05-12T17:44:00.000-07:00

It has been far too long since the last time I read Terry Pratchett. I must make sure to not let the time pass so quickly next time. For anyone who has not read Mr. Pratchett's work, well, shame on you. He is one of the greatest things to come forth from the 20th century into the 21st. His books are a cross between Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and whatever happens to be your favorite fantasy franchise (please don't say Harry Potter).

The thing that is great about Terry Pratchett over other comedic authors is his ability to tell a story regardless of the comedy. I love Douglas Adams (Hitchhiker), but his books have nothing to stand on apart from the comedy. Pull out the comedy and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Pratchett on the other hand will have you laughing hysterically, but you still find the story pulls you along. You care about what is happening to the characters, not just about the next joke. That is the difference between most comedy and great comedy.

"Knots : mathematics with a twist" by Alexei Sossinsky

2007-05-05T17:40:00.000-07:00

It wasn't long ago that I first heard about knot theory and I had wanted to learn a little more ever since. Knot theory is the mathematical study of knots. Knot theory is pretty new, having only been seriously studied as a separate discipline from graph theory for the past few years. Its development has been largely affected by many recent developments in various disciplines such as chemistry and physics.

This book was interesting, but left me unsatisfied. It was an extremely small book. As a result, it couldn't ever tell much of anything because it was in too much of a hurry to get to the next topic. The author also claimed that the book should be easily understandable to anyone. As I was reading, I kept thinking, "How would someone without upper-level mathematical training possibly understand this section."

Ultimately, I would not recommend this book. But if the goal of this book is simply to whet the appetite and cause the reader to look deeper into the subject, then I believe that his mission was a success.

"The God Effect" by Brian Clegg

2007-05-01T11:25:00.000-07:00

As difficult to understand as relativity is. There is one phenomenon that blows it out of the water. Compared to quantum mechanics, relativity is arithmetic. Quantum is just the weirdest thing that science has ever devised. It really has dashed the hopes of the many people who have hoped and searched for elegant and simple explanations for the machinations of reality.

The God Effect focuses on one of weirdest qualities of quantum mechanics: quantum entanglement. I won't go into details here, because I'm just plain not smart enough. Suffice to say that it is a phenomenon that results in the connection or entanglement of particles at extremely far distances. Although many of the greatest minds, like Einstein, have tried to disprove this bizarre phenomenon, physicists have had to begrudgingly accept its reality in the face of its creepy consequences. This book is largely dedicated to how quantum entanglement holds the key to many burgeoning technologies that are bound to become common place in the not-too-distant-future.

The title of the book is a slight-bit of a misnomer. Anyone expecting any sort of religious discussion in the book will be disappointed. Nevertheless, the title got me thinking, especially in the wake of the intelligent design and evolution books I've been reading of late. Theists oftentimes promote a view of God that results in some definite theological problems. The view of which I'm speaking is something called the "God of the Gaps." Basically we just relegate God to all of the gaps in our knowledge. This is basically what the intelligent design community does. They take two fossils and claim that God is in the gap. The problem with this view is that eventually a transitional fossil is found and we now have two smaller gaps. So, God just keeps getting smaller and smaller. In this view, God is only as book as our lack of knowledge. This doesn't sound much like the all-powerful God that theists are generally wont to worship. Although, they don't realize it, they are promoting this weakened form of God.

Contemplating quantum has given me a better place to put God. Quantum, in my extremely limited knowledge, doesn't involve certainties. Instead, we have probabilities that something will happen. Be aware that these probabilities are not a result of our inadequacy at predicting the outcome, but rather it is something intrinsic in the particle. Although one result may be more likely than another, it is still a probability. So, determinism flies out the window (sorry Descartes). But, what if this is where we put God? What if this is how God functions? What if he is behind the seemingly random actions of every particle?

There is a lot to this theory that should be very appealing to theists. The problem of the gaps is gone. We are not going to get better at predicting the actions of these particles. Sure, we will get more precise at measuring the probabilities, but that will not give us the ability to determine the outcome of quantum actions with 100% certainty. So God never gets any smaller. Also, God then becomes the key player in every particle of existence. How could one be any more powerful than that? Another thing that should attract theists is that it properly shields God from us. There is no way that this idea could be proved or disproved. That makes for a very attractive religious argument.

"On Intelligence" by Jeff Hawkins & Sandra Blakeslee

2007-04-23T10:58:00.000-07:00

Before reading this book, I was a person who firmly believed that stories of artificial intelligence (AI) are and will always be just that: stories. I have had many long conversations with one particular co-worker about AI, and have always made it quite clear that I just don't believe it's possible. I guess I should clarify that when I speak of AI, I am using the definition that most people use, which is artificial consciousness or artificial human-like intelligence. In many ways, AI already exists, but not in the above form. For the remainder of this post, I will use AI to mean this above definition of human-like intelligence, rather than the broader definition.

There are a lot of reasons for which I find the science-fiction rendition of AI to be impossible. I won't enumerate all of my reasons. Suffice it to say, that what I have seen as a computer programmer has been far less than impressive. While we are capable of modeling certain isolated human functions, a general universal intelligence algorithm will not result from specialized paths of research. I just don't even see the seed of AI in the current work available.

Then I read the above book. I very much just stumbled upon it. I checked it out because the book I actually wanted was checked out. I wasn't even sure if I would actually read it at all. Once I started reading, I found it to be a very compelling book. In a sense, the book made me a convert.

Jeff Hawkins explains how current efforts towards AI are fundamentally flawed. He claims that all of the approaches that are actively being pursued are dead-ends, even neural-networks. He explains that the computers we have today are, speed-wise, far faster then any human brain. Nevertheless, we can't come even close to performing the accomplishing what the human brain can do very simply. The reason he gives is that we have been approaching the issue from the wrong direction. He then goes into an explanation of how the brain (specifically, the neocortex) works. He then makes a strong argument for this being the model we should follow in our attempts at creating intelligence.

Now, much of the book is supposition, which Hawkins makes no attempt at hiding. Something I really liked was that he even went over what experiments need to be performed to verify a number of his theories. A number of this theories are bound to be incorrect, thus is the nature of science. But he does make compelling arguments for his theories, and I would not be surprised if he is right. And, if he is right, then AI is very much a possibility, not necessarily simple, but within our grasp, yes.

One other thing I enjoyed was that Hawkins asserts that the AI we are going to see will not be the walking, talking robots of science-fiction. We won't have AIs experiencing emotion and the sort. The AI will continue to function as tools for us, but they will do so in amazing new ways. He gives a few examples of possible applications of an artificial neocortex, and claims that we are ill-equipped to make predictions about what we will do with this new tool, as it will be employed to solve all sorts of unimaginable problems.

This really was a great book for anyone who has the least interest in human intelligence. It is well-written and only gets thick in a few places, though he gives ample warning of such sections.

"Frankenstein" by Mary Shelley

2007-04-15T11:56:00.000-07:00

Here is a book that has been so misrepresented for years. I never had any interest in reading Frankenstein. It always struck me as a stupid story. Scientist makes monster. Monster kills people. People get mad and kill monster. Ho hum. That is what I always assumed that the book consisted of, and I imagine that most people reading this who have not read Frankenstein have thought the same thing.

I then had a neighbor who had me read a selection from the book. I was surprised. It was nothing like what I imagined it would be. The selection I read did not portray a lumbering mute creature as is usually presented in movies, but rather, the monster was a very eloquent speaker, capable of making cogent arguments in his defense. The book, rather than being a silly Victorian scary story, as I had thought, is actually a very philosophical piece that addresses many difficult issues. The legend of Frankenstein, perpetuated by the numerous derivative works, such as plays and movies, has been so distorted as to render it nearly unrecognizable from the book that gave the legend birth. This truly is a shame, because the very heart of the story has been removed in so doing.

Something especially important that has been largely lost through the derivative works is the virtue of the monster. Throughout the book, I continually sided with the monster rather than Frankenstein. Even as the monster committed horrible acts, I couldn't help but blame the doctor rather than the monster. While I couldn't condone the acts he committed, I couldn't help but pity the unfortunate circumstances that brought him to that point and lament the many things people could have done to prevent him from becoming a killer. I think there is a poignant lesson to be learned by his treatment and the end result.

The Problem with Environmentalists

2007-04-10T11:04:00.000-07:00

I, like the vast majority of the people in this country, love the environment. The Earth is a beautiful place that we must be careful to protect and treat with respect and love. I generally recycle. I try to buy earth-friendly protects. I generally choose to not take a plastic bag whenever I shop, opting for my backpack or just carry it in my arms. I try to walk as much as possible. Basically, I try to do my part.

That said, it may be surprising that I do not care much for the environmental movement. I have described myself as being a "wanna-be environmentalist." As I stated, I try to live a green life, but I just can't support environmentalists, and I don't think I'm alone. The environmentalists fail so much in their attempts to reach the mass population. There are a number of reasons for this failure. Most of the problems have nothing to do with the message, but rather the delivery of the message.

The reason An Inconvenient Truth has become so popular is in the way it speaks to its viewers. Al Gore does not tell his viewers that they are evil. He doesn't spend his time accusing people of one thing or another. Instead, he presents the problem in a very effective manner. Then rather than sending a negative message, he gives a positive message. He tells viewers that we can fix this problem and he explains how. The most powerful part of the movie for me was when Gore showed, through the ice core, how the Clean Air Act has been successful in cleaning up America.

The environmentalists say you have to stop doing X because you're destroying the environment. On the other hand, Gore said do Y and you can help save the environment. Do you see the difference? Both are sending the same message, but which are people more likely to respond to? One makes people feel guilty. The other makes people feel like heroes. Which feeling is most likely to move people to action?

Environmentalists put forth a platform of dissonance. Rather being for issues, they seem to only be against issues. I provide lots of complaints, but rarely do they supply any solutions. Environmentalists have to large part of the blame for global warming. Their strong anti-nuclear agenda over the past thirty years has caused the United States to build a ridiculous number of very dirty coal plants. They are against coal, but they are also against nuclear. Some are even against wind power because it might kill birds. Others are against hydroelectric because it modifies the terrain. How do they expect us to generate electricity? It seems that the only viable solution for these people is that we all go back in time and live like primitives or mass-suicide.

In the last few years, I have noticed a movement towards a more eco-friendly policies in the United States. The citizens of this country are calling for better environmental policy. For proof, one need only look to some of the recent bipartisan efforts of California (of course, Bush will have to leave office before we see the same efforts on the federal level). We are worried about global warming and other ecological issues. That said, I don't believe it's people like Green Peace that are bringing about this change. It's the more moderate voices of people like Al Gore that are moving people. It's this realization that we can be friendly to the environment without giving up the amenities of modern life that is pushing people to live greener, not guilt imposed by a self-righteous group of hypocrites.

"Genetics Demystified" by Edward Willett

2007-04-09T22:35:00.000-07:00

I have come to the sad realization that my science knowledge is very focused. I know a lot about computer science, mathematics, and physics. But, when it comes to other fields of science, I don't know that much. In my freshman year of college I took a biology class, which I hated. After that, all of my science classes were physics classes. Reading about evolution highlighted my limited knowledge in these other fields, so I decided to rectify that problem.

I had seen these Demystified books before and was intrigued. They claim to be good self-teaching guides. They are even set up like textbooks, with problem sets at the end of each chapter and a final test at the termination of the entire work. There are Demystified books on a number of subjects including quantum mechanics, organic chemistry, and algebra. They are also not meant to be just for anyone. The do expect the reader to have a certain level of competency before reading. So, in that way they are not like the Dummies books which expect the reader to have just recently mastered literacy and therefore talk down to the reader.

I have to say that if all of the Demystified books are as good as this one, then I am sold. It was very clear and explained complicated concepts in an understandable form. The quizzes were a great way to check my grasp of the material and gave me direction as to the parts of the chapter that I may not have fully grasped. I will definitely read more of these books.

One thing also struck me as I read. It is incredible what we have discovered in the last one hundred years. It is truly amazing the things we have discovered in the field of genetics, a relatively new field. I was constantly amazed by how people could possibly have come up with many of the great discoveries in genetics. In a way, it makes me very proud of humans as a whole. We really are amazing creatures.

"Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design" by Michael Shermer

2007-04-03T14:49:00.000-07:00

Going into this book, I was a fence sitter. I felt that Intelligent Design (ID) had no business being considered a scientific pursuit, but it seemed that they had a lot of good arguments against evolution. I have never been a strong proponent of evolution, but this book has changed that. It was spectacular.

As the book began, it sounded like Shermer was not going to actually deal with any of ID arguments. Instead, he had a very demeaning tone which sounded as if was just going to summarily dismiss them without even addressing any of their issues. Fortunately, this fear quickly disappeared as Shermer rigorously addressed every point put forward by the ID camp. As I read, I found myself thinking "Yes, but what about the transitional fossils" or "what about, the Cambrian explosion." But sure enough, every point was addressed and answered clearly and succinctly.

It really is amazing that this book is not even 200 pages. That is one of its strengths. Authors are rarely adept at getting to the point (myself included). Most 600+ page non-fiction books I have read could easily have been half the size. Shermer displays his skill at presenting the facts clearly, yet doing it in very few words. As a result, the ideas are not lossed in superfluous text.

Anyone who has wondered at all about the evolution/ID debate should definitely read this book. I would not recommend starting with this book though. Since it answers the issues presented by the ID movement, one should familiarize oneself with those arguments first. Then, once you are thoroughly confused, read Why Darwin Matters to be enlightened.