Christmas Party

Parents (and babies) are invited to a party at our house on Saturday starting at 5:30 PM.  Bring a treat or drink to share as you like.  We will provide some Pizza and Shelley's cheese dip.  If you have any dietary restrictions or preferences let me know.

Christmas Party

Hello all please participate in this survey so we can find a time to get together for a party.  If you can't make it any of the times let me know.

http://doodle.com/dnshr6rexn5f9483

Bill

Bill is looking for addresses to which he might send wedding announcements.  He said he's missing Antares' and Nate's.  Would y'all mind sending me (probably by email) yer's mailing addresses?

Gracias.

Another rambling comment in the form of a post

If you've never read "The Phantom Tollbooth" you're missing out in a serious way.  Near the end of the book, as our hero is nearing his rescue of the two banished princesses Rhyme and Reason, he has do deal with a number of nefarious creatures in the Lands Beyond above Digitopolis.  One of these is the two-headed demon of compromise, which, as you might imagine, never gets anywhere.  I used to wonder why Norton Juster would characterize compromise that way; it is, after all, what our government is set up to do.

The theme I see coming out here is that just about any "pure" implementation would probably be better than what we've got.  The problem isn't public healthcare vs. take care of yourself healthcare, because either system would work great in the social equivalent of the perfect physics world.  Public education might be a good idea for the public if it's implemented correctly, but what we've got is not implemented correctly.  Public healthcare might be good if implemented correctly, but it isn't.  It's people's human pride and selfishness that breaks everything.  In that world, the best we can do is compromise, which, in terms of actual function, is very often the worst of the available options, but the only one that allows for common peace.  Or is supposed to.

Take socialism.  I think this is probably the ideal.  My investment is good for me, true, but in a round-about way that requires me to have faith in you to return the favor at some undetermined future date.  It would just be so simple.  There are numerous examples of the failure of socialism, but none, to my knowledge can be ascribed to a failure in the system itself.  We just don't have that much faith in one another, and the system requires everybody to live solidly by charity.

Then there's the opposite, libertarianism.  It'd also work pretty well.  Everybody takes care of themselves, your problems aren't my problems, and since I'm a nice guy and I like you, I'll pay attention and help you out when you need it.  In our imperfect world, though, it doesn't work because it depends on self-motivation, which is apparently less common than one might hope, and the correct application of agency.  The problem I have with libertarianism, when carried to its logical end, is where it leaves the offspring of the unmotivated.  You would seem to get these cells of parents who don't take care of their children's education, for example.  The failure of the parents limits the children's choices going forward.  The motivated families keep getting smarter and smarter, the unmotivated ones keep not getting smarter, and the gap widens, making it increasingly difficult for a person in unmotivated-land to get in with the better-offs.  To solve this problem, the uppers have to either ignore the disparity, calling it the consequence of agency badly applied (not a solution, and not very charitable, in my view), or help out in some way, effectively ending the libertarian ideal.  I see libertarianism as the default system, from which things like monarchy developed as the uppers realized their power over the lowers and institutionalized the disparity.  In any real world, it just doesn't seem sustainable, unless I misunderstand the concept.  This is a tangent.

So, we're left with the capitalistic republic.  We can't innovate for the sake of innovation very well, so we have to leverage the powerful basic human drives, like selfishness, to drive innovation.  To me, the fact that such astonishing progress is achieved on the back of something like selfishness is both elegant and ironic.  I love it and hate it all at the same time.  And, since we can't agree, (and can't be bothered to discuss things amongst ourselves), we get to elect people to compromise for us.  Again, the solution here is inspiringly elegant.  A system that has done so well at postponing our social collapse, despite our humanity, could only have been divinely inspired, and deserves to be respected and protected.

I think Antares has hit it on the head by recognizing the ACA as possibly the best of the bad solutions, not because it is good in and of itself, but because it is available and is, if nothing else, a chance to look deeply at what we've got and hopefully find a way to fix it.  Following our discussion here, though, I'm not optimistic about that.  Like Antares pointed out, we've already got social medicine, but even though it eats up more of the federal budget than anything except defense (did I get that right?), we can't call it that, and since it's mixed up in this amalgamated behemoth with a few parts capitalism and some healthy doses of anti-capitalistic subsidies and backwards incentives, it doesn't work.  Thank you, compromise.

I guess this isn't a discussion about healthcare anymore.  So, what is the root problem here, and is there a fix for it?

I think I know... :)

No, that is not a sarcastic or malicious smiley face.

Healthcare and Libertarianism

So, this is another difficult topic for me - I guess it wouldn't be discussed here if it were easy, though.

Let me preface my comments with an observation on libertarianism, and let me preface my observation on libertarianism by making a statement on its ideological opposite, communism: I would actually be happy to be a communist if everybody in the economy truly believed in it and practiced it to the best of their ability.  I actually think libertarianism falls in the same category as communism, namely that it is really only effective if its principles are adhered to by a great majority of the people. 

In communism we need to all decide that each of us is enhancing the greater good, and that while there is no direct, personal benefit to my labors it still "averages out" better for my economy and the economy that my children will participate in.  Libertarianism takes the approach of letting each person decide their own destiny without undue influence from other parties in the form of taxes, regulation, etc.  The primary reason I think that libertarianism is a more realistic approach is because it more accurately mirrors the tendencies of the people who practice it.  When Winston Churchill said: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried", I think the exact same thing can be applied to capitalism and libertarianism.  As human beings we are selfish, and a system that works off of this selfishness is generally better than one that pretends the attribute isn't there.

So - the reason for my preface is to state that in my ideal world there would be no ACA, but it also would not have ever come up as an issue because we all understood the importance of taking care of ourselves and the legislation would not even be needed.  Since we don't live in this "perfect" world, we have to deal with compromise, differing ideals, shifting public opinion, election cycles, and everything else.  With that preface, my opinion is that the ACA is probably a necessary evil under our broken system, or at least a necessary experiment that I will be curious to see the result of.

The main reason for this opinion is because I actually believe that we are already living a form of socialized medicine in this country.  Insurance companies are probably the worst thing that ever happened to our healthcare system, for many reasons that I won't get into here beyond a single example of how my group insurance program works for my work.  We all pay hundreds of dollars in insurance payments each month, money that just goes down into a deep dark hole never to be recovered in most cases.  Prior to my child being born, I had put tens of thousands of dollars into the systems and had never used it a single time.  It is a necessary evil, costing tens of thousands of dollars each year but really only there for the off chance I need I get really really sick.  Even when my child was born and had to spend time in the NICU, the insurance coverage was pitiful at best and I know for a fact that my out of pocket costs were higher than they would have been been if I had not had insurance at all.

Meanwhile, there are other people in my office who go to the ER 3 times a week, for everything from a minor cold to a broken bone because their kids are doing something stupid.  They are using way more than their "share" of the system, which is of course why the system was set up.  In the distributed risk model used by all insurance programs from auto insurance to life insurance, we all participate based on the calculated risk we introduce, and the financial aspect of that risk is spread across the entire basis.  Especially in the employer-based group health insurance plans, that risk is spread very inequitably in order to make the cost even for everybody.  That means that I am the one paying for the hundreds of ER visits by just a couple people while I get nothing out of the system.  This is also why we will see so many statistics trying to prove that many of the people who don't have insurance actively avoid having it, who definitely make enough money to be able to pay for it if they want.

Therefore, the bottom line is that there are essentially two types of socialized medicine in this country right now: those who buy insurance and participate in the distributed risk model, and those who don't purchase insurance and are still being paid for through higher health costs and/or higher taxes.  While there are dramatic exceptions highlighted by the proponents of the ACA, for the most part everybody in this country gets their healthcare taken care of one way or another.  The ACA really only formalizes this dirty little secret, and tries to do something about it.

Do I think it is perfect?  No.  I think it is the crowning achievement to a broken healthcare system, and I don't think I have ever heard any commentator or pundit ever claim that our system is anything more than barely functional.  Everybody agrees the system is broken, and while nobody can agree on how to fix it this at least gets things moving.

I think the idea of independence vs. interdependence as presented by Bach is at the heart of the question.  The issue of course is how we interpret each of those terms.  Is me being forced to buy insurance when I don't want to "interdependence"?  I would submit that the answer is no.  As a direct contrast to this idea, Exhibit A is the gasoline/highway tax.  I actually support this tax, because it seems to be the most fair way possible to build infrastructure within our country.  While there are many factors and it is at best an oversimplification, how much I use the system is almost directly correlated with how much I am paying into it.  I am sure the government has plenty of waste, fraud, and abuse that can be pointed to when looking at it, but all in all I am pretty happy with the system.

Exhibit B is the church fast offerings system.  I am very happy to pay into the system for a couple reasons: it is voluntary, I trust the organization handling it, and I am able to see it do good work.  I have personally seen it at work several times, and I generally agree with everything I have seen it applied to.  While you can't really look at this as as system that you "pay into" the way you do with insurance, I would like to think that if I ever needed financial assistance of this type I would be able to take a loan or other assistance without feeling guilty because I have been helpful.

For Exhibit C: I occasionally have people who are obviously on their last leg stop by my house selling things.  I may just be suckered in by somebody with a great sob story, or perhaps the ability to portray their sob story without actually relating it to me, but I end up buying a gallon of cleaner that I don't need from people like this.  I have my own ways of giving, and it should always be up to me to decide how that giving occurs.  A couple years ago I had a nice gentlemen stop by my office offering to clean windows.  He was a real estate professional at the height of the real estate crash (depth of the crash?) and was looking for a way to help his family.  I jumped all over that, and for almost 3 years he worked from 3:00 to 5:00 AM a couple times a week cleaning our building, and we paid him quite well for it.  I have a lot of respect for somebody who might be in a bad situation, but who can take matters into their own hands and try to turn things around.

In short, I think that there is a huge need for ways to make peoples lives better, and I know that I don't do enough of it.  However, I don't really want to be forced to pay for the medical insurance of those around me who don't take care of themselves and get sick all the time, and who go to the hospital at the first sign of a runny nose, and who generally run up the tab for the rest of us.  We are selfish beings, and the only reliable system I have seen use that selfishness to make the world go round.  Capitalism is a horrible system, but to paraphrase old Winston again, it is the worst except for all the rest.  If those around me had to be responsible for their proportionate cost to the system, what would change?  I guarantee they would not go to the hospital nearly as often if they had to bear the full brunt of the cost, and I would like to think that they would also make better decisions overall with regards to their health.  I know this sounds selfish and I guess I just need to own that fact, but I want to be able to help my own family and help the people I want to help, I don't want to see my money wasted and mismanaged when it is supposed to be going to "help" others.

Point 1 on this rant is that I think our insurance system is broken and simply doesn't provide any incentives for people to keep costs under control, and requiring people to buy into it is furthering this broken system.

Point 2 on this rant is closely involved with the first, in that I think that generally speaking, a mandate to buy anything at all is wrong.

While I got into point number 2 a little bit above, it probably deserves a couple paragraphs of its own.   I won't waste too much effort here, since this is the issue that has been bandied around and beat to death already.  While I think there are better ways to do it (that I won't get into now), I don't really have a problem with people being required to buy car insurance, for two reasons. First, you can directly impact other peoples property and lives with your car, and it seems reasonable to mitigate that by requiring people to buy insurance.  You don't have to buy insurance to cover your own car, just to cover other people you might run into.  Secondly, you don't have to purchase car insurance if you don't want to, only if you want to own a car.

In the case of the ACA, there is no way around the mandate: buy health insurance, or receive a financial penalty each year.  This is a requirement from the government to buy something, and I have a hard time justifying the mandate.  Spinning it and calling it a tax doesn't change the fact that we are still being required to purchase something, or suffer a financial penalty.  I don't think this is constitutionally permissible, but I don't think much of what else goes on is either, so I guess nobody cares what I think is constitutional :-)

Now for point 3: There is absolutely no way that this is going to end well just because of the law of unintended consequences.

If there is anything I have learned while trying to manage 50 employees, it is the absolute inescapability of the law of unintended consequences.  No matter what policy you put in place, no matter what new initiative you roll out, there will be people who either game the system, or who actively work against it, or find a loophole you didn't anticipate, or straight up retaliate. If I can't get it right with 50 employees in a fairly closed system, how well will this go as a nationwide program with so many players?

With this, I am supremely confident that this will not go as planned.  How many people will choose to pay the tax and participate in the healthcare system anyway, because it is cheaper?  I have heard that the tax will be less than 1% on most people, and this is a small fraction of what I am currently paying for my health insurance.  What if everybody jumps on board this way and the insurance companies LOSE members rather than gain them?

Does anybody actually believe the cost projections?  I haven't even dug in to them, and I can confidently state that they are wrong.  I don't know when the last time was that our government got any cost projections right, but I assure you it was completely by accident.

What about my health insurance costs?  Now that the person who smoked their whole life and is going to run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs in the last 20 years of their life will be covered by me because this person legally can't be turned down.

I don't have any particular disastrous predictions, I am simply stating that there will be plenty of side effects that were never anticipated.    The government should stay out of everything they possibly can, just because no single entity can regulate and control anything this massive, if anything at all.

Education was brought up as an example of interdependence.  I would submit that our education system is broken, only to be eclipsed by healthcare in brokenness.  We basically have an agrarian-style education system that has changed little if at all since the 1800s; I own 5 or 6 books dedicated to talking about how the brain works and how we learn, and even with all the thousands of studies and millions of dollars dedicated to showing a better way of doing things, we are stuck where we were a hundred years ago.  Why? Because education is government mandated.  The idea of "education for all" is a great idea, and I support the general thesis.  However, we would be light years ahead of where we are today, and I am confident that we would have a system where education was available to all people.

Higher education is another example of where government messing with education causes problems.  I imagine most of you have seen the graphs correlating increases in tuition prices with increases in Pell grants and other funding.  Again - education is extremely important and should be available to anybody who wants it, but I think that intervention by the federal government has caused more harm than good.

I like the way Ronald Reagan put it: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Point 4 probably shows nothing more than how fed up I am with things in general - Even with the other three points explaining why I think the ACA is a disaster, I think it is an experiment worth trying for the following reasons:

1. The insurance system is broken, but it isn't going anywhere.  Would I like to see health insurance become all but completely unnecessary, and do I think this is completely possible? Yes.  I think we could get health care costs to the point that all we needed were high deductible plans that kicked in at $5,000 or so.  If we had to pay all the smaller stuff out of pocket, we would be much more judicious about things, all the insurance company overhead would disappear from our costs, and lots of other benefits.  Realistically though, this won't happen.
2. Making healthcare available for everybody is a worthy goal.  I don't think the ACA is the way to do it, but the idea is still a noble one.  If things are bad enough that anything is better than nothing, then this certainly qualifies as anything.
3. The theory is that costs will go down with the distributed spread.  I am not sure that I believe this, but it is worth testing.
4. If this doesn't work, maybe it will provide impetus to fix it for real?

So there you have it.  Another long blathering post,  that weaves and waves all over the place without being particularly constructive.  I dislike the fact that we are at a place where I have to view the ACA as a necessary evil, but here we are.

To bring things around to my preamble, I think that libertarianism holds the secret to wealth and happiness as a whole for our country.  It is not a fair system, so some people will make it better than others.  However, a rising tides floats all boats, and as long as individual liberties are respected by everybody then the need for an occasional helping hand will be minimal and can be driven by community resources such as churches.  Importantly, those who truly want to succeed will have no limits.

The problem is that libertarianism is an ideal that would require everybody to respect it, which makes it just as difficult to implement as communism.  Those in power could not abuse that power, whether "those in power" refers to the government, wall street, your neighborhood watch, or anybody else.  While I think that that this is a great ideal, realistically people will always abuse their power and influence to further their own benefit.  That same trait of greed and selfishness that makes capitalism/libertarianism the best system of all those available still can't be completely self-regulating because of those exact traits.

I think that in past years we have been closer to the ideal, and that we are drifting in the wrong direction.  I won't list all the reasons, but there are too many examples of big-brotherism, corporate dominance, etc. for my liking.  Under the circumstances, the ACA may actually prove to be an experiment worth running.

In summary, I would design things completely different if I had my way.  Realistically though, I think that things are so broken that almost anything is better than the status quo - I look forward to the results of the experiment, and it might even provide the motivation for achieving real change.

Thoughts?

Independence and Health Care

Once again, my comment was too long for the box, so I made a new post.

Funny enough, a few days ago I quickly checked facebook to see some friends' news. After reading some things and logging out I turned to my wife and said "I HATE politics."

I must correct myself. A lot of good things have been done through politics. I dislike the bad things people do in the name of politics.

I had just read another scathing rant between several parties about the ACA.  Yes, Benjamin, people tend to go black and white on this and call each other evil if they think differently. It is getting out of hand. I listened to a BYU forum the other day by a guy named Mark DeMoss, a prominent evangelical, consultant for Christian-based groups, and past political aide. He also started and later ended the Civility Project to encourage civility in the political sphere. Part of his forum talked about how Christians should be civil as Christ would be, even when we disagree. It is a good listen  (http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=2013).

HEALTH CARE: I was cleaning some oil stains on carpet this morning and thought about how what I was doing was similar to health care. Some people believe steam cleaning is the only way to go. However, steam often releases the glue holding the carpet down, leaving bubbles. Some people believe the buffer and pad method is the only way to go (I worked for Heaven's Best in high school). Both work toward one goal, but using different means. Both have flaws, both have positives. Not one is perfect.

We have to understand that health care is a huge and complex dilemma and not one thing will fix it. Some politicians tend to go to one solution to fix a whole problem because they have limited time and resources. This happens in any camp or political group. I could site many programs, but the one that comes to mind is No Child Left Behind. In all probability, it has left a lot of kids behind. You cannot fix all of America's diverse education problems or accommodate all of America's diverse students with one bill or program. This is my main complaint about the ACA. I wholeheartedly agree that health care needs to be addressed. However, ramming a program through the government is probably not the best solution.

The individual mandate? Could be good, might be bad. I'm not a fan of insurance either or being required to buy it. I can see both sides on this. I am not required to have a car, but modern society is a bit difficult without one, or without a phone, computer, and other things. Does our future society necessitate to some degree buying insurance to guarantee that life goes on without major interruptions? Possibly. Is there another way? Maybe. Tax breaks for those that do buy it? That has been suggested. I don't have an answer, I'm just saying that things like this probably won't solve all the problems.

Money is a huge issue for health care. How do we fund it? Does the government ever ask that? Ben, you mentioned helping people and society out by chipping in. I agree, it should be a voluntary thing.   What I am afraid of is how creating affordable health care programs will affect spending. I've tried to research Massachusetts as the test case, but sometimes it's hard to wade through the info. Spending for their health care did double in a few years and they had to have grants from the feds. Just a little scary to think what could happen with money escalating.  However, any other solution would probably require money too, so no win for money.

Socialized medicine: one major problem I have heard time and time over again is the line at the doctor when people get sick. If health care is completely covered by taxing the people or whatever they do in England, Japan, and other countries, then that means a mass of people seeing few doctors. Some people die waiting.

INDEPENDENCE: A lovely topic. Truly. But I probably won't get into the tear-jerking accounts of military or other patriotic stories.

One thing to remember is that the colonies were not fighting for independence from government, but from a tyrannical government. They believed the King and England's government was overstepping bounds and controlling the colonies too much. No taxation without representation comes to mind. They wanted a government that would allow them some rights as Americans. That is also one reason religious people came to America.

Some people may see the ACA as a federal government overstepping its bounds. One of the great debates when our country was in diapers was federal government vs. state government. Many representatives were afraid of a government similar to England's where a ruling elite would control things like commerce, industry, etc. Is this happening now?


For a later discussion, what do you think about America being involved militarily overseas? This is a large issue I've been thinking about the last few years. James, I would love to hear your take on this. Soldiers sometimes have a unique perspective on this and I am a curious individual.

240

First off, thanks, all, for a great campout.  It was fantastic to see you all again, and to relive the glory days, and look for a hole we didn't find.  It may not compare in magnitude, but in Sunday School today we discussed Alma 17 in which Alma meets Ammon, Aaron, Omner, and Himni after some years apart doing their several works, and I was reminded of our little gathering.  I appreciated being able to discuss all that we discussed, and I learned that my body is not so fond of sleeping bags as it once was.

With the current uprising concerning the individual mandate, I got to thinking about such things as I read many a heated commentary on Facebook about how this is both the greatest moment in recent US history and the first step down a deep slope to absolute constitutional obliteration, to exaggerate but slightly.  One FB friend, in particular, seemed incensed that we had chosen oppression over independence, socialism over democracy.

I think I can guess where the Libertarians in the room stand on the subject, and I think most Republicans and Democrats respectively (or disrespectfully) know where they are supposed to stand.  What I find most discouraging about the debate in general is that people seem to be so ready to cast stones (labeled generally as cold hard facts) at others in an attempt to "convince" one another of the evil of their respective ways without pausing a moment to consider the validity of various idealogical differences.  It would seem a presumptuous thing for me to assert my correctness over yours so categorically, particularly when there is very little chance that I bother to gather facts from sources with which I am unlikely to agree.

What I've been thinking about over the last few days is independence vs. interdependence.  Particularly as we approach Independence Day this week, we consider the ideal of independence to be one of the great virtues we posses and revere as a nation.  I think it's good for a country to be independent of other countries, and for countries which believe in independence to grant the right to others.  What struck me in my Facebook friend's post, however, was how he bemoaned the end of independence, not from a foreign hand, but from our own government.

Was the idea ever to be independent of government?  Or independent of one another?  Isn't there a difference between not being oppressed and being dependent?  I think about all of the ways I am dependent on my government, and in most cases I'm really quite happy to be so.  It actually makes me glad that other motorists are required to carry liability insurance.  I don't mind so much paying taxes on gasoline, considering that doing so means I have good roads on which to drive my cars.  Municipal taxes to support a deterrent for people to break in to my house?  I'll get behind that.

If the colonies had wanted complete independence from not only England, but from each other, could they have achieved it?  Could they have fought the revolution melee style, every colony for itself, and won?  Where would we be if they had?

Independence does not equate with progress.  A nation of independents would have no borders, no public services, no laws, no common rights, no recourse for wrongdoing.  It would consist entirely of farmers working all day, every day, to feed their own families, and he who hath the best shot hath the most land.  He who hath the strongest back hath the most food.  And nobody hath an iPhone.

Isn't it our interdependence that makes us great?  The fact that I invented a better irrigation system so that you could grow more crops means that we both get fed and fewer of us have to do the farming.

It's remarkable to me to look back through history and see how yesterday's liberal ideas are today's conservative ones.  I think both are important, if only to ensure that we evaluate our progress honestly.  How many times, though, have programs or policies been vehemently decried because they were "evil", and yet have so much to do with providing the liberties we enjoy today.  There are certainly lines that should not be crossed, and we should always be on guard to protect them, but it's so easy to take a position on principle without drilling down to figure out what the actual principle is.

I wonder if, at the advent of public education, a similar fight ensued.  What have we gained by giving everybody a better chance at being literate?  Is your kid's education my problem?  I think so.  Even a heartless corporation needs employees who can read and write and communicate with other humans.  Public education is just good economic policy.  Is your kid's health my problem?  I tend to believe that the same arguments apply.

From my point of view, I don't think that the requirement to either buy health insurance or pay a fine at tax time is bad, and I'm not particularly fond of health insurance in the first place.  As evolved humans, we seem to agree that it is right to take care of a sick person.  Unfortunately, modern medicine is expensive.  I agree that it's somewhat uncomfortable to be required to pay for somebody else's care, that it would be better if we all just did it voluntarily.  It's funny that everybody seems to agree that everybody should have access to healthcare, and that the "right" thing is for everybody to pitch in so that can happen; it's just a matter of having to or not.  An attitude shift during tax time would seem to me to solve the disagreement completely.

In short (finally), I think I don't have much problem with the idea or spirit of the individual mandate.  If the nation gets more healthy, I'm happy to pitch in.  The actual mechanics and implementation of the system are likely to be flawed and imperfect, because they will be designed and enforced by politicians, but I think it's right to get stepping in that direction.

What do you all think about it?

Oh, and this is, I believe, the 240th post on our blog.
-Benjamin

Resurrecting Saddam

Benjamin--they killed Saddam.  We can't get him back.

Funny thing, I was just going to assert myself as well and declare a bunch of things, when I saw that I had a new email. Sure enough, James beat me to it. I was even going to say do your own lunch. That's what I get for going to help with the baby.  j/k

Three things I would like addressed:

1st: I think we need our own firewood. I can bring this, if we can fit it in the truck.

2nd: Utensils, paper plates? I can bring these for the group as well. (unless we do mess kits, but I lost mine ages ago)

3rd: Is there room to tie my bike on top of our junk? I kind of want to be semi-mobile for my own reasons. Maybe I should have made a deal about bringing 1 and 2 if I could bring 3.

Here's the Plan:

OK, here we go.  I hereby assert a bunch of stuff which can be treated as the defaults for what we are doing, if we decide to do something else or change it then so be it.

Looks like Cedar mountain is where we are leaning, so lets make it duck creek campground.  Apparently some reservations are available, I will place one in the next 24 hours if I have not heard otherwise from anybody.  I imagine that with 14 impaired the demand will be lower, but it won't hurt to make sure.

I recently got a couple dutch ovens, and have the food already to make that classic standby of dutch oven potatoes and chicken.  I have gotten pretty good at some more advanced recipes and can make them instead if anybody would prefer, but I think that this will work fine.  This means I will take care of dinner completely.

I will also be happy to make my dutch ovens available for use for breakfast. We will have a dutch oven omelet, or a mountain man breakfast, or whatever you want to call it.  The assignments for this meal are as follow:

• Abe - 18 eggs
• Ben - 1 red pepper, 1 green bell pepper, 2 medium onions
• Ked - 1 lb sausage
• Nate - 1 lb bacon
• James - 1 bag frozen hash browns, cooking supplies, oil, salt/pepper, etc.

For lunch the next day, it will be bring your own lunch.  Sounds like there is a high probability of us doing something or being somewhere at that time, so it should probably be something portable.

Everything I have seen calls for great weather, so I plan on sleeping under the stars and will not be bringing a tent.  I will bring a large cooler and some ice, and I will bring a water cooler (2 or 3 gallons, I think there is water at this campground for refilling).

We will meet at Abe's house at 5:00 for an immediate departure.  I will have my truck available and can fit all of us if necessary, although the back seat won't be as nice for somebody (except Ben who probably won;t notice the difference).  I don't anticipate it being too uncomfortable for anybody in just the 45 minute drive.  I can probably fit all of our gear in the bed as long as most of you are minimalistic campers.

Anything I missed?  Feel free to chime in below and make changes to this plan, and we can get a final version of this plan in another post tomorrow night.

The Plan

We don't need a dictatorship.  We just need something other than a straight democracy.  Appointing a person "in charge" would be a better way to go for this type of thing.

 Results of the poll are mostly in and it seems with time constraints and things that Cedar Mountain would be a good option. It is close and fairly easy to navigate.  As far as activities we can go cave hunting or a myriad of other things, hikes etc. The road opens as 5 pm on Friday so that would be a departure time for all that can make it by then.  It is open all day on Saturday for the return.  As for food I think group meals would be relatively easy.  I don't have much camp gear, but I would be happy to by some eggs, bacon and pancake mix for Saturday and Hot dogs and buns for Friday night, I even have roasting sticks I can bring if we don't want to rough out our own sticks.

Someone else can volunteer for lunch on Saturday or we can do our own thing if nobody wants to claim responsibility I can buy stuff I just wouldn't be much for deciding what to eat.

As for campsites either TE-AH or Duck Creek would serve I think.  They are first come first serve so it would just depend on which hasn't been taken.

Let me know what you think.

Abe

The Time is Far Spent

So, what's the plan?

As far as meals go, I think that depends on where we're going.  If we go somewhere more established campground-y I motion for some everybody meals.  If we are going to have to pack things in too far or lack much by the way of cooking facilities, we may be better off with lighter backpacking-style fare.

I understand Nate may get here late-ish Friday; if that's the case, does that influence our location decision?  Do we want to go somewhere he can find us when he gets here, or should we still plan to all go en masse?

So many questions.  This is why dictatorships are easier.  Didn't we have a dictator once?

THE VOTES ARE IN!

It appears it was a 3 to 2 vote to go to Disneyland!

I am only here to ask more questions, something Abe will have to deal with.  You have to ask a lot of questions before you can get the right answers.

Food.

Separate meals? Together?

Location Poll

Ok here is a quick Google Form with the suggested locations.  Lets get this figured out.

Abe

Ked's Comprehensive List of Places and the Wonders They Possess

So, Abe said list all the places we were thinking and he'd make a poll. So, here I've taken my list and also made some notes of why these places might be interesting and the rough driving time to each.
I agree with Ben that we need something to do. I've tried to include places where we could have fun, explore, and that are more in our driving range.

• Cathedral Gorge  (1 hour 34 min)
• We know this is cool. Also, I was told that there are similar canyons close by that are not actually in the state park. We could do whatever we wanted. Cool beans.

• Bull Valley Gorge (2 hours 30 min)
• A long slot canyon. Could be fun, but it is long. 

•  Bryce Canyon (Less than 2 hours)
• National Park, but lots of cool things to see, hiking trails, etc. Can't run wild, though.

• The Mine @ Milford (1 hour 20 min)
• Cool tunnels, excellent exploration. Not a great camping area (although Glen and I did camp in the opening of it) And it's legal.

• Notch Peak (3 hoursish)
• One of the tallest vertical faces in the United States and it's near Delta. Great hike, view. Look it up to see.

• Mammoth Cave area (Less than an hour)
• I'm on the trail of a cave nearby known to only a few people, supposedly large and unexplored. Below I've included some notes taken from a book about the cave. I also recently made contact with someone who's been there and it's still there. He's simply covered the entrance...his email to me is also below.

"Our Cave" Taken from a book of memoirs by Alva Matheson. I've included some interesting snippets.

"Zella, my wife, and I decided to spend a couple of days on the mountain. I had told her about Mammoth Cave and she wanted to see it. I had only been there once, seventeen years earlier, but in my minds eye I knew the road. What I didn't know was that there were two branches of the road about one-hundred yards apart. I took the first on which got me confused. I was so sure I was right that I would not give up hunting. Leaving Zella and LaKay, our baby, at the car I began hunting through the trees. I had about given up and was headed back to the car when my heel broke through soft dirt."  He goes on to detail how they entered and whatnot.

"We passed other intersecting branches and at one place the tunnel opened into a room which I believe to be seventy-five feet across."

"As we reversed our steps the other way and slightly down hill we began to find odd formations where the liquid rock had dripped from the ceiling and had built into odd piles of funny shapes and sizes. As we neared the end of the tunnel Leon began crawling into another small hole. I tried to persuade him to come back but my pleas were of no avail. I listened to his excited Oh's and Ah's and his exclamations for a few minutes and then decided to see for myself. As I entered the reason for his exclamations was easy to see. Before me was a fairyland of the most fascinating little statues resembling elves, fairies, and goblins. Little animated characters of all kinds that one could imagine, ranging in height from one inch to eighteen inches all built up of pine nut size drops of molten lava dripping drop by drop from the ceiling and as the drops had left the ceiling they had gradually built a stalactite formation as as a cooling breeze cooled the outside the hot lava inside had dripped on through lengthening the stalactite and leaving the inside hollow resulting in paper thin tubes from the size of a match stick to eighteen inches in length and an inch in diameter. Most of the large ones, however, were so delicate that they had not been ale to support their own weight and had fallen to the floor. There is an area of several hundred square feet of this formation. The ceiling in this room is a gradual oval and is from nothing to about six feet in height."

Recent email to me from the writer's son:  "Regarding the caves, there are many, but not worth the effort, except for Our Cave, but it is not open at this time, I covered the opening over to protect it.  It is several miles long and unexplored. I may return later this year."  

We could find it. I'm sure he simply covered the entrance with trees or rocks. We have some details as to the general location.

Man Camp Revisited

I just read some of that last post. I totally meant ramble alert, but I was in a hurry. It was quite random too.

Ok, Man Camp.  Here's my proposal:  We each suggest what we want in the camp and maybe each suggest three spots. Then we vote or reduce possibilities by simple deduction of what we want, what's feasible, time, weather, money for gas or entry, etc. Any thoughts or other ways we should do it?

Another thing for us to consider: who can drive?  I wouldn't mind, but the vehicle is in the shop and I honestly have no idea when it will get out. Transmission problems--the joy. 

Too large for a comment

I am leaving town for the weekend and probably won't be getting online much, so I offer some thoughts now. Not very good ones, because I haven't given it a great deal of thought. RANDOM ALERT!!

I think in some respects the plan is a good one. I wonder if the City of Enoch had a similar judge system. It was a community full of religion that succeeded fully in getting everyone translated. What a unique society.

But every society is so completely different. Is there one common goal of society for all societies? Celestial? The same society here will exist there? From a religious standpoint we would say the City of Enoch was ideal. Non-religious people wouldn't say that nor would they believe in a perfect city that was translated. They would envision something different.

We might ask: how would it be for us in another society completely dominated by another religion. We have faced that to some extent. I was in  95% Buddhist country. 4% Muslim and the rest something else. How did that government do with other religions? Decent. But not a hundred years ago.

In some respects in might depend on how close the dominant religion was  to what we term as the true religion. While Buddhism is very different, the basic beliefs are good and entail good living principles. The only problem is getting people to live it. The Thai country would be better off if everyone lived their religion. 

In the D&C (I forget the section) it says that government should protect the exercise of conscience.  What does that mean? Do current governments protect that? Would a completely religious government allow non-believers that protection? In the BoM case, I believe they did.

The High Priest being the Chief Judge? I interviewed a judge in Provo. He probably is a high priest. Wonderful man. I'm not sure I ever felt the spirit so much when interviewing someone or interviewing a secondary source about the primary source. He has strong religious principles and it makes him, in my opinion, one of the best judges possible. He has the Gift of the Holy Ghost and he prays to now what to do. Would you rather have someone using only physical evidence to judge you? Or would you like someone who can ask a higher source to get a better idea.  He told me he meets people all the time that thank him for putting them in jail. He probably made some inspired correct decisions for those people. Other decisions may be inspired for the good of society.  I always thought in the mission field that the Lord puts you in the place where you are needed to help others, but where you can be helped the most too. Dual purpose. Probably that way for judgments. Put the criminal where it will help them best and help society best. Tough to decide, for sure, so I'd rather have heaven's help.

So, in that judge's case I'd say having a judge that is religious works well. That isn't quite what you were asking, but I think it is a benefit to our society. Should all of them be religious? Good question.

Sometimes as people we think things should be static or black and white. That person is ugly or evil. We shift between dichotomies where none should exist or we think some things should be static and non-changing.  While God is unchangeable, he does play ball differently according to what's happening. He commanded Nephi to kill, etc.  The Constitution was not meant to be the final word on government. It was meant to grow as the county grew. Fascinating. What if different types of government are good at different times? Kind of a weird idea I just thought up. In BoM times the judge system and religion intermixed was the best option for them. The City of Enoch had whatever they had. We have ours. We are probably placed in governmental situations that test our faith and agency and will help us somehow. Even bad governments may have a role to play (like bad empires against wicked ancient Israel) The British Empire could be seen as bad because they killed and conquered many people, but because of them Christianity spread far and makes missionary work so much easier. Not so black and white.

So, what if different governments are better for different times? A society that completely adopts an ideology at one point needs different things than a system that adopts 20 ideologies. Just a quick-thought thought.

What should we adopt today? Total religious judge system would provoke uproar, so maybe good LDS people who decide to be judges and do the best they can?  ?

Obviously we live in a day where there are bazillions of ideologies and religions. Totally different than when ancient Israel was with the Egyptians or moved into the desert. Or different than BoM times. We probably need a government that is different. The D&C says the Constitution was given by the Lord. Why didn't he create a Priest/judge system again? Something else needed to protect and test all of his children I guess.

Anyway, total stream of conscious thought junk going on above me. Sorry. Hope some of it is thought provoking and not simply thought vomiting.   KED OUT

Government, cont.

I've got a Gospel Doctrine lesson on Nephite Government (Alma the Younger, King Mosiah, Reign of the Judges, etc.) this next Sunday, and since our last discussion (d)evolved into a discussion about government, I'm curious if any of you have thoughts on the Judges system that I might pilfer for my lesson.

What aspects of Mosiah's plan do you think are good ideas?  What parts wouldn't work?  What about appointing the High Priest to be the first Chief Judge?  Can a government built so solidly on religious principles be accepting of the non- or counter-religious people?

What aspects of the Judges system should we adopt?  Which wouldn't work today?

Man Camp Location

So, Abe and I were discussing man camp locations. Since it is about a month a away I thought we could talk about it again (and I go in phases of writing on the Herd blog and this last while has been one of them).

Abe and I discussed some places over by Escalante. They have slot canyons, arches, etc. Could be a good place to go explore.  OOH. Google Bull Valley Gorge. This is a great place I've wanted to hike since I drove over it. Neato Burrito.

Another option I thought of is Cathedral Gorge State Park. It's not as cool as roughing it somewhere, but imagine exploring the little canyons and crevices at night. Pretty exciting I'd like to think.

These are just some of my thoughts this morning. We could visit some ghost towns or camp in the bottom of the mine out by Milford or....Cedar Mountain....or whatever.

Name the sites you want. Sorry to fill your inboxes.

New Movie?

The guys we hired to do our music for The Device have several cds of music, the latest being Makara, which was released in 2010.

Should we make a new movie and use their music again?  :)

Quick thoughts

Good place to talk about things. I knew we'd come up with very thoughtful...thoughts. Basically a think tank. If we were to continue such a discussion on such a complex topic I guess it would be helpful to have some kind of discussion map where it shows the basic question with other questions stemming from that along with arguments and what not. Hard to keep everything organized in my head and on the screen.

Do we want to keeping discussing this issue? Or move on to evolution?  J/k.

Re: The Great Issue of our Time

What is the question here? Is it an issue of the rightness or wrongness of a particular behavior? Is it a test of how well our personal theories about government coexist with our testimonies of the Restored Gospel and of modern-day prophets, or of our commitment to such?

My thoughts on this issue recently have centered around whether or not a position I hold based on belief should be a position I try to bind to other people in law. my feelings and positions have shifted and changed even over the last few days as I have read and considered everybody's comments. It has really made me think deeply about the interplay between government and religion, and the purpose of government.

If the question is whether or not homosexuality is wrong, my answer is that it is. If the question is whether or not same-sex unions should be legalized under the title "marriage," my answer is also simple: no. My belief should inform my involvement in the democratic process, as well as my own actions and behaviors. I guess I am less Libertarian on this point, as I think that the rules of a community should reflect the values and aspirations of that community.

Why is it illegal to take the life of another person? Because our community ostensibly values every person's life, and believes that each person has a right to live, and we don't want the people we are close to, or ourselves, being killed. We have legislated a value.

Nearly any reasonable person would say that homicide should be illegal because it is, by it's nature, bad. Even a libertarian (I would guess) would say that there ought to be a rule (law) against killing one another, and a means, chosen by the community, of enforcing it (government). There seem to be things that everybody knows are bad, and things that not so many people know are bad, and things that some people say are bad but which others call good. Still more would say that nothing is inherently wrong, because of the temporary nature of existence and lack of meaningful consequences, etc.

How many people have to think something is bad before it deserves to be defined by law as such? How bad does something have to be before it qualifies for its own legislation? Is badness that affects only the doer ever necessary to be made illegal? Can I say that doing bad things makes you a weaker person, less productive to my community, and use that reason to write a law?

We are never (so long as mortals are in charge) going to agree on the basic answers to these questions, let alone the degree to which they should apply. This is exactly the reason we live in the United States of America, because the colonies couldn't agree on a single government, but recognized the value of some common laws and currency. As with most divisive issues, I say let the states decide, and let the Supreme Court Justices get day jobs. If you have a different idea of when life begins than I do, let us not try to "prove it" in the highest court we can find (honestly, that doesn't prove anything), let's agree that there is a possibility we both might be wrong and respect each other anyway, and if I can't stand the sight of your face, I should perhaps go live with people who are more like-minded. If enough of us feel that way, we should do what we can to protect our common ideals and, if necessary, make some laws which apply to our similarly-minded community.

Should it be a goal of government to preserve itself and its people? If you think about America as a sort of being or organism, you can imagine a sort of self-preservation instinct; we avoid things that would hurt us, and seek after what helps us grow and be healthy. Natural and human resources are like food, invaders are like diseases. It seems obvious that we should defend ourselves against an invading army which would damage or make off with our resources, but what about other threats? Moral threats, if unchecked, can damage or destroy the human capital by making them less happy, less efficient, and more dead. Therefore, as Ked pointed out, we have laws against some kinds of behavior. It can be argued (and has been stated by those we consider to be prophets) that the breakdown of the family produces fewer happy and moral people, and that less morality and happiness sickens the country as a whole, threatening our persistence as a society and the well-being of our community. Therefore, we would argue that to preserve the country, we should preserve the family. On this basis I believe I can observe the Bretheren's appeal to "promote [the measures presented in The Family: A Proclamation to the World] designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

Then again, if you don't think it's government's job to preserve the country, or that such preservation should not come at the expense of certain personal liberties, that argument is essentially null.

What is difficult about all of this is our (and everybody else's) real, fervent belief in absolute right and wrong. Yes, there are things that are wrong by their nature, and I personally find homosexual behavior to be on the list. However, the principle of stewardship prohibits me from doing much about that belief outside of my own family, and the principle of agency limits what I can do about it outside of my very own self. I just don't think it is right for us to try and coerce our beliefs on others for reasons they will not accept. As James has pointed out, if we try to do so, we should expect nothing less than some good old-fashioned golden rule retribution.

Yes, the prophets hold stewardship over the Earth to teach and warn, and yes, we ought to follow them in promoting the value of the family, but we can do it charitably, correctly utilizing the power we each have as citizens, recognizing that every person has a right far beyond what the government can guarantee to believe and behave how he wants to. If we think that doctrines A or B should be made secular law for the purpose of preserving our society, it has to be done through the mechanisms available, by consensus. For us, it means doing our best to present what we hold to be truth, respecting every person's right to an opinion.

It is futile to present evidence in an argument when both parties do not recognize the validity of the evidence (making religious appeals ineffectual), or when either party is so committed to his position as to be beyond convincing. Therefore, if we are going to convince anybody, we should spend our time talking to somebody who might listen (being ourselves willing to listen), and bring to the table something besides "God said so." We can bring that too, since we believe it to be true, but we should realize it won't advance the argument much.

When people can not agree on the fundamentals of an argument, they stop trying to find out what is right and revert to proving who is wrong and who is evil. You have the religious right saying homosexuality is wrong and will destroy us all because God said so, the liberal left saying it isn't wrong and would you please leave God out of it because He only exists in your imagination, the right responding with threats of brimstone at some certain but unproveable time in the future, the left responding with words like "bigot", and certain "news" organizations make an insane amount of money by capitalizing on (and amplifying) the rhetoric and emotion, further preventing any useful dialogue.

Anyway, back to my question about the relationship between my beliefs and our laws. Homosexuality is wrong. I would say I know that to be an unalterable truth. Others disagree. Based on the fact that we disagree, it would seem to be imprudent to pass a law in one direction or the other because such a law would impede on somebody's belief -- unless a consensus can be reached that it is wrong or not because:
a) it is against the community's common values, or
b) it threatens the strength and continuity of the community (proven hopefully by strong scientific evidence).


Technically this should be possible. In reality, I don't see it happening on a national level. Whether it is a politically motivated sentiment or not, I think that President Obama's position to leave the issue to the states is the right one.

Because I recognize that we all, as a country, are not going to agree on the issue, I hope we will get to a point that we can continue on in mutual trust and peaceful misunderstanding. I agree with a good many goals of the gay rights movement. I see no good reason to marginalize a person based on what he or she decides to do with whomever behind their closed doors when it has no bearing or reflection on the person's intelligence, dedication, or ability. There's no reason to deny a person a job simply because he is gay. I recognize that it is human nature to be wary of that which is different or not well understood, but I will sure do my best to try see beyond that irrational fear. I also think that two people who care for each other deeply and are concerned for one another's well-being should be granted the right to be there for one another, in a hospital for example. A simplistic assessment of the legal ramifications being discussed, perhaps, but hopefully a good expression of my feelings.

Because I listen to NPR, much of the discussion I hear seems to assume that the issue of the morality of same-sex marriage is a settled one, and that the smarter and more educated folk are just waiting for the rest of us to catch up with the times, as if we were on opposite sides of the civil rights movement we learned about in school. I rather resent this characterization because it casts an automatic light of Dr. King and the Freedom Riders on the one side, and makes people imagine that my friends and I party while wearing pointy white hats. This is just not true. If we could talk like humans to one another, somebody might find out that I don't want anybody dead. I don't want anybody riding in the back of the bus if they don't want to. I don't want anybody to be disrespected (including myself) because we don't agree. I'm not going to say that I think AIDS is a plague sent from God to destroy the wicked (how would I know if it were?). I want you to have a good job. I want you to be happy. I don't want to tell you how you have to be happy, but if you want to talk about it I will sure try to explain why I feel the way I do.

My point in a nutshell: We disagree. That's fine. Let's all honestly, humbly, and respectfully find the best ways to strengthen and protect ourselves, our families, and our society.

One last thought: Some people are gay and want to be. Some people are gay and don't want to be, for the simple reason that they just don't want to be. I worry that if this idea that one is the way one is and can't or shouldn't change gets too much traction, we will be discriminating against those who wish to change by limiting their options for doing so. Let's not even argue about whether or not it is possible, but respect a person's desire to try. There are a good many things that people do these days that weren't supposed to be possible, and I think that there may even be a market for treatment if those with resources weren't afraid of being smeared by those who say they are protecting gay rights. I know there are a few things about me that I'd like to change, and that changing those things may be against my innate mortal nature. I'm glad nobody faults me for wanting me to be stronger or more patient. It's about me being the person I want to be, and really, isn't that what this whole rights movement is about?

My take on the subject at hand

Gay marriage has always been a very difficult topic for me.  This is rooted in my philosophical and political views, which have been heavily influenced by stories of the Book or Mormon, the early members of the church, and even modern spiritual giants that I look up to.  I consider myself a very strong libertarian, having decided long ago that the duopoly of our farcical excuse for a political system really only represents two sides of the exact same destructive coin.

As a libertarian, my strongly rooted belief is that we as a people have the right and the liberty to live our lives however we want as long as we don't infringe on that same right for other people.  While that single phrase instantly sums up the central point of libertarianism, the exact application of the idea is of course all but impossible to bring around to universal appeal, even among libertarians.  It comes down to the shades of grey that we associate with the concepts of "liberty", "infringement", etc.

To give a single example, many states have a law that requires motorcyclists to wear a helmet.  In my mind that is a perfect example of a law that directly contradicts libertarian thought, because wether or not I wear a helmet has little to no impact on the liberty or personal safety of other people.  Sure, I will be handing my life into the hands of every driver who passes me in the street and exposing my daughter to the risk of growing up without a father, but my firm belief is that I have the liberty to make this decision on my own rather than have somebody else make that decision for me.

Next in line on a continuum here might be seatbelt laws - there is not a lot of risk to others if I choose not to wear my seatbelt, but if I get in an accident then my not wearing a seatbelt it is definitely a risk to the others in my car.

While on the seatbelt topic, what about the law requiring me to put my child in a car seat?  Is the law requiring me to do so infringing on my liberty, or is my choice to leave a child out of a car seat infringing on the liberty and personal safety of my daughter?

Now that we are on the parenting topic, how much does the government get to mandate about how I raise my child?  Can I take her out of public school and deprive her of the "normal" social experience of suburban America and the government-mandated education system, or is that going to cause her lasting harm that I cannot be allowed to inflict?  Can I hit my child as a parent?  If the answer is yes, what is the difference between a light spanking and a fist to the side of the head?  Is there some measure of foot-pounds of force that CPS will use to determine when I have crossed the line?

I can't really answer all of my own questions in the preceding paragraphs - I don't think the answers about how much governmental control is permissible are very clear cut, and it becomes very hard to draw a line even for me with my own opinions; trying to draw that line for an entire country full of people seems ridiculous.  Nonetheless, that is where the debate on gay marriage centers in my mind.

I do NOT see gay marriage as a debate on morality, as a debate on the definition of marriage, or a debate on anything other than the question of how much influence the legal system can have on our own lives.  If I decide that I want to ride my motorcycle around without a helmet, I think I should be able to do so.  If somebody wants to beat their kids to within an inch of their lives, I believe that the government has a right and a duty to stop them from causing permanent harm to their children.  If somebody wants to rob a bank, I believe that the government has the duty and obligation to stop that infringement on the rights and liberties of other people.  I am not an anarchist that believes everything goes, but I am not a totalitarian who believes that George Orwell had the right idea either.  So - where in this continuum does the governments ability to decide who I marry fit in?

For me the answer is still "I don't know for sure", but I have to confess that I lean towards the side of saying that the government has no business dictating who I marry.

How many members of the LDS church believe that plural marriage should be legal?  I think most of us believe that the government overstepped their bounds when they dictated that plural marriage was not allowed, especially since God explicitly authorizes it time and time again throughout history and had authorized it at the time that it was outlawed in the 1800's.  If this is the case, what is the difference between each of the following "definitions" of marriage?:

1. Marriage between a man and a woman
2. Marriage between a woman and multiple men
3. Marriage between a man and multiple women
4. Marriage between a man and a man
5. Marriage between a man and multiple women, some of them under the age of 12

Interestingly, each time somebody promotes one of these definitions at the expense of one or more of the others, it usually centers around a particular religious perspective (or lack thereof).  If we interpret the separation of church and state to mean that our religious beliefs and the personal choices of how we live our lives should be separate from the mandates we put on others, then I think that most of the reason or motive for legally defining marriage one way or the other disappears.  To return to my earlier point, my opinion is that the debate is not (or shouldn't be) "Which of the above definitions is correct, and which one is not?"; instead the real question is (or at least should be) "Who is allowed to determine which of the above definitions is correct, and force those determinations upon me?"

Let me flip the argument on its head, in what might be seen as an unfair comparison: purely as an intellectual exercise, what if one day the government determined that marriage between a man and a woman was legally invalid, and that all entities would be required to recognize that fact?  We would all consider it an infringement on our rights, and we would all be out picketing and demanding change and doing whatever else we would deem necessary to turn it around.  We would claim persecution, we would lobby to change the law so we could live the way we wanted, and we would do whatever we felt necessary to live according to our beliefs.

If we claim that we can dictate how somebody lives because of our religious perspectives, what stops somebody else from doing the same with a different set of religious beliefs?  This is about infringing liberty, not about following a particular belief set - our ability to practice our beliefs is defined by our adherence to the principals of liberty, not the other way around; religion and defining marriage and everything else just gets pulled in to justify or explain ones placement of the line defining what a government is allowed to do in our lives and what they are not allowed to do.  If we believe that it was wrong for people to use religious motives to outlaw polygamous marriage 150 years ago, why is it OK for us to outlaw homosexual marriage today because of our religious beliefs?

To be perfectly clear, I believe that marriage was ordained of God, and that it is between man and woman.  I believe that people who contradict that ordination are in violation of Gods law, and will be held accountable for it.  However, just as I would not want somebody to legally define marriage in a way contrary to my beliefs, so I do not think it is my right to legally define it according to my beliefs if they contradict somebody else's or if they infringe on their liberty.

I believe that religion has no place in defining what I am legally allowed to do and what I am not allowed to do.  I believe that I, just like the rest of Gods children on this earth, have certain inalienable rights - among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  I also believe in the rights of others to worship how, where, or what they may.  I think that this extends beyond which building we all enter into each Sunday, and defines all aspects our our worship or lack thereof.  Otherwise we have to acknowledge a middle-eastern style supposed theocracy, just one that happens to subscribe to our beliefs rather than those of the Muslim religion.

To conclude this long, rambling, and probably incoherent post: someday the church may come out and officially state that to be in good standing with the church we must not only oppose the idea of homosexual marriage on a personal and spiritual level, but that we must oppose it on a secular, legal level as well.  If and when that day comes then I will follow Gods will, and do what I am asked to do.  I may have some struggles then just as I do now with what I see as some conflicting ideologies, but there are many mighty men who have gone before me with similar struggles.

My ideas expressed here might not be shared or even understood by all who will read it, but I find this a very conflicting topic and have not been able to find any easy answers.  Some of my deepest beliefs and my most dearly held values seem to be pitted directly against each other, and I am still working to define  harmony between them.  For now, this post represents my views and the perspectives that I understand from Gods teachings.  While I realize that I may receive clarity at some time in the future that will influence a change in this perspective, I see life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the defining characteristics of our country, the purpose of our government, and one of the central points in Gods plan of happiness.  Allowing the government to dictate how I live or who I marry contradicts that belief, and I do not want to impose that contradiction on anybody else any more than I want to have it imposed on me.

Another Thing

One very public thing in the gay marriage debate recently was the announcement by President Obama that he supported gay marriage.

One point he made in his interview was interesting. He mentioned his daughters and how facing the prospect of explaining to them why their friends parents couldn't be married prompted a rethink of his "position". When I first heard that I took it to mean that because it was going to be hard to explain that he then changed his position. What a sad world we live in if that is how are president would approach a situation. After thinking it over however I came to a much more optimistic conclusion that when faced with explaining the situation to his daughters he reflected and then "admitted" that he had a different position on the topic.

If we can't explain something or aren't able to try there is a good chance we don't believe it and we are simply being honest with ourselves and others when we acknowledge that. It is good that he has been honest but sad that he has that position. Because there are valid reasons to think as he did before that civil unions can be brought to an equitable point with the proper time and effort.

Laws and Discrimination

Good references I have to say that both were interesting in their scope. I particularly like the treatment of the purpose of marriage being family and taking care of children.

I have found myself wondering about same-sex unions previously when I had multiple discussions with a coworker at a previous job. I have been opposed to the desire for "gay marriage" on moral grounds definitely but for a long time I didn't have a non-religious argument for a long time. Thomas Sowell an economist and columnist treats the matter well in several columns this is an example. Others can be found at this listing of columns. One thing I ask people when they argue for "gay marriage" is what end goal they are trying to accomplish, and what there argument is for going this route.

I have seen multiple reasons for applying marriage to gay unions primarily centering around the benefits afforded the couples such as visitation rights in hospitals, beneficiary rights on death, and many other connective "rights". However, marriage is not only about rights it is also about responsibilities and the laws centering around marriage rights and responsibilities have been growing up and establishing precedents for hundreds of years under the structure of a man/woman union. To take all of those legal decisions and precedents and apply them to something fundamentally different wholesale is a poor practice. If homosexual people want all of the rights then I think they are afforded the opportunity to build those from the foundation and legally I wouldn't oppose the procedure. The actual relationships aren't something I would legally oppose under our current form of government, but taking something established and trying to get all of the "benefits" in a fell swoop is dangerous for our form of law.

One other thing I like to hear is people try to argue that gays not being able to marry is some form of discrimination. The reality is that a homosexual man has the exact same right that I do and that is to marry a woman. I can't marry a man any more than he can. The argument then could go, "you can marry the person you love". I can marry a woman I love true, but I can marry a woman I do not love. The fundamental action is forming a contract between two human beings in this case the contract has developed and grown between man and woman and there is no discrimination in maintaining the integrity of such contracts.

Well this isn't all that complete, but it will do for now.

The Great Issue of Our Age

No, the title does not refer to how old we are getting. A friend of mine has turned a bit angry about the gay rights movement and keeps posting everywhere his (fiery) comments and beliefs about the subject. Some things he mentioned are:

• Churches that are saying “separate but equal” is just like women's suffrage and civil rights
• The church isn't true to it's history and has changed the definition of marriage
• Gays are genetically engineered that way

He mentions other things, but they are not important. Most of them are just other rants about how everyone who doesn't believe in gay marriage is a bigot. 

Here are some of my thoughts on subjects that go contrary to his arguments and the argument in general. As per my usual blog post--they aren't super organized.

• Race and gender are one thing, but sexual orientation is another. It has not been specifically proven anywhere that homosexuality is genetically pre-determined. The head of the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis S. Collins came out and said it is not hard-wired into an individual. While there may be heritability and influence of environment, choice still plays a significant role. Predispositions, not pre-determinations. Homosexuality is not Hard-wired

• Many say homosexuals cannot change their sexual orientation. AT ALL. However, if there are people who say they have changed, then it must be possible. Here is an interesting article about misinformation that mentions that topic. Misinformation Rampant

• If we are saying that genetic predispositions determine behavior, then how will this bode for the future legal system? Professionals across the globe are finding predispositions to anger, possibly addictions, sensitivity, agreeableness, extroversion, introversion, etc. If one has a predisposition for aggression or anger does that mean they can get away with murder? Where would it end? Once again, the case comes down to predisposition and not predetermination. Individual agency is still in play.

• From an LDS standpoint, if people say “This is the way I am and that's it,” they are giving up on their agency (and taking a step closer to the animal kingdom in my opinion). Agency is what makes God God. He chose to behave a certain way, a righteous way, and became exalted because of it. To give up agency is to give up a whole lot of freedom and future potential.

• The word “rights” comes into play everyday. It's a free country, right? A friend of mine pointed out that what people don't understand is that this is legislating a type of behavior. Can we make laws about behavior? Yes, we do it all the time. Laws against murder, theft, etc. There are laws about decency, lewdness and a host of other things. But doesn't this violate someone's individual rights? Well, I don't know if there is a legal term for it, but it is for the common good, the betterment of society. Now this will provoke a huge argument that homosexuality doesn't harm anyone. This is where we have to establish that the traditional family is the best unit for society. Here is an interesting blog article: Marriage In Thailand homosexuality, sex changes and other things are overwhelmingly abundant. Makes San Francisco look very tame I would say. After my time there I would say that the breakdown of the family has contributed to a ton of this. Children grow up with chaotic families or being assaulted by them (all to common).

• My friend feels the church isn't true to itself historically, has changed their own definition of marriage and should stop persecuting homosexuals. However, there's a reason plural marriage is called plural. Two women aren't married to one man in one marriage. It is more than one marriage, with. Not that this is a huge deal, but just to point out that my friend doesn't know what he's talking about.
• I have other thoughts regarding children, doctrinal things on marriage and such, but they don't have a lot to do with the above thoughts.

What are your thoughts? Anything else that I might add to such a discussion?

Man Camp Scheduled 6/22-6/23

I think Ben called it well in the comments. For the month of June the 22-23 have been stated by everyone to be possible. I didn't get Nate's response on the poll, but we did in the comments. Now we just need to get through deciding on a location. Perhaps we should defer to one or two persons on that one. I will opt out now and just say I am happy to be along for the ride. And I may be able to borrow my moms truck if we go anywhere to hairy.

Man Camp Redux

Check the link in the previous post for the man camp scheduling. I believe we have a few but not all yet. Once everyone weighs in their it will be a little easier to figure when we could all be there. Thanks, A

Man Camp Scheduling

So 3rd Weekend in June 6/15-6/18 (roughly) is the proposed date for our "Man Camp" please leave your Yea or Nay in the comments. Also, if you would like to receive blog comments by email let you can say so in the comments and I will give you that privilege.

So I should have done this before, but for some reason I didn't. This is a link to a scheduling Poll. http://www.doodle.com/drm3m5qvs5vf44pw#table

Man Camp and Psychology

In relation to the last post. There are two great hikes in Kanarraville. The one at the south end of town where you don't have to cross water that much. And the falls trails where you are always crossing the water or in water. I would like to explore both more. Those would be great options as we wouldn't have to drive very far.

In relation to psychology in the title: I have lots of random hobby topics that I research and one of those is psychology things. I have often wondered why I am the way I am--not that I believe psychology can answer all those things or that it provides the understanding of the origin either, but they have excellent research that I tie in with spiritual understanding. Sometimes I have found something about myself either by experience or even something mentioned in my patriarchal blessing and I can google those things and learn a lot.

All this is typed on the fly, so my thoughts aren't too organized. I should have given a ramble alert.

One thing I've learned about is the high sensation seeking trait. Some people are wired so that they need more sensation. There are a variety of outlets for these people--good and bad. Bad outlets: drugs, crime, sex, etc. Good outlets: adventure, travel, creativity, etc. I have always explored my surroundings. From my first neighborhood I would venture out into the fields and explore for miles around. Same thing in Cedar, in Provo, and in Cedar again. I need to see new canyons, caves, peaks, valleys, etc. I have also channeled some of this into creativity. Exploring new ideas, stories, images, and sounds is fascinating as well. Yet, I can't do just one of those things. I always yearn to travel in the real world and in the imaginary.

Now, psychology might say that I was born this way or that my brain became wired this way as I grew up, yadda, yadda, yadda. I believe that this is part of who I was before I was born. My stake president told me "Your mission will be a great adventure." Inspired words. I think Heavenly Father said the same thing to me when I came down to earth. There are things for me to explore here in this life. However, some of these things I explore for others as well.

That's why I adventure. That's why I travel. That's why I dress up in silly costumes, talk in accents, jump off things, climb things, make up stories, imagine crazy things. I think that's all for now. I'm hungry.

Man Camp

I think a camp out once in a while is a great idea. Time out with the guys, in nature, away from all of the hustle and bustle... we could finally pull off a real Starcraft party without interruption.

Just kidding...

I have fond memories of when James and I hiked Pine Valley, spending the night off the side of the trail in some random place, just because. Or rather, a fond memory, because we only did it once, but it was fun.

We wouldn't necessarily have to backpack, but I know there are a few hundred awesome places around here that I've not experienced, places like Kanara creek falls, or even places somewhere between So. Utah and our No. Utah counterpart.

I second the motion, and propose we get something on the calendar. Just stick it on there. It may be unlikely to get all of us at the same time, but let's plan something anyway. 2nd or 3rd weekends in June, or sometime in July is my pitch.

The New Adventure Glove

Some of you may find this trivial and mutter something under your breath about your inbox being filled with my random posts...but this...is magnificent.

I was walking through Cal Ranch when the glory days of high school adventure came back in a rush. There on the wall was something reminiscent of those days, yet more advanced, sleek, and powerful. I present to you the Carhartt Pro-Palm Glove, lovingly termed by me as "The New Adventure Glove.

My wife promised to get me some for my birthday, but I think she's hesitant now. As I slipped the form fitting piece over my hand I could feel the power my hands were wielding. Instantly I wanted to go climb the alley by IFA (old Albertsons) or explore the mine in Milford or tackle some new and...less criminal adventure.

You see, my gloving days go back to when I lived in Vernal. I was probably under the age of ten when I learned you could climb the posts of our pavilion with my mom's yellow-rubber cleaning gloves. I did that every time I cleaned. Later in life I found my black leather work gloves very suitable for adventuring. Of course they didn't have the stick factor of dipped latex or anything, but they had good grip and were well used in scouting. They were the ones I used when ascending the heights of our former educational institution. I still have them in a box somewhere. Maybe I'll put them on display in a glass box someday.

Later my father gave me some baseball batting gloves that had been on sale at a sporting goods store--a combination of fabric, leather, and a small amount of rubber. I used these often too and wore them out. Later I bought some while in Provo and they were invaluable when I was descending many steep, wooded mountainsides. You can descend incredibly steep graded hillsides when you can grab onto the trees. Let me tell you--it's the ultimate bush-wacking experience.

SO, if anyone wants to do something...exciting this summer-let me know. Ghost towns, crazy canyons, etc. I know, we've got kids and wives. But I've got adventure gloves and we need camping with the guys and such. OOh...adventure gloves are calling.

I thought about making a Ked's poetry corner for these, but not enough time.

The Mine

So, I went for a drive with Madeleine and Mairead the other day. I decided to pay a visit to our old stomping grounds to see what had changed. Like somebody had said, the place had been reopened and this is what is there. New towers, conveyor belts, etc.