Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things

How ironic that some would have us believe our dedication to God is ignorance. On the contrary, the true believers are tested to not follow blindly, but are constantly questioning and seeking—they do not have a sure knowledge. We walk by faith with trust and hope. Contrast that with the self-assured who would deceive us and have us believe our path is folly. It is they, ironically, who are closed minded in their beliefs and lifestyles for they question not and seek not. It is the disciples of Christ who grow line upon line, from precept to precept, who rely daily on God’s goodness and mercy, who grow from grace to grace who are open minded and seeking for the truth daily, trusting that God will reveal. It is, ironically, our uncertainties that remind us that we are keeping an open mind and constantly seeking to add to the truth, light, and knowledge we have already received.

All things shall work together for your good

The ancient apostles walked and talked with Christ. They testified that He lived, but they also saw firsthand that He died and they knew it with certainty. How terrible to witness of that death and yet how important that they be able to testify absolutely that He died, for otherwise their testimony of His living again would have been questioned and doubted! God made to "work together for your good" the pain of the apostles' experience. God can make our pains and suffering serve high purposes, His purposes.

The Danger of Fear

Is it any wonder that we are commanded so many times in the Scriptures to not doubt and to not fear? Fear is a powerful weapon, for it can keep even the most capable individual on the sideline. Anger, commonly thought of it being powerful, can motivate us to irrational action, but at least it motivates us to action. Fear alone can keep us from acting.

Sample References
Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.—Matthew 21:21

And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?—Matthew 14:31

Behold, I say unto you that whoso believeth in Christ, doubting nothing, whatsoever he shall ask the Father in the name of Christ it shall be granted him; and this promise is unto all, even unto the ends of the earth. ... And whosoever shall believe in my name, doubting nothing, unto him will I confirm all my words, even unto the ends of the earth. ... O then despise not, and wonder not, but hearken unto the words of the Lord, and ask the Father in the name of Jesus for what things soever ye shall stand in need. Doubt not, but be believing, and begin as in times of old, and come unto the Lord with all your heart, and work out your own salvation with fear and trembling before him.—Mormon 9:21,25,27

Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not.—D&C 6:36

Foundations

A house built upon a Sandy Foundation
Can-not withstand the tempests and storms
The foolish man built on a Sandy Foundation
Such wisdom to him, a quaint remnant of yore

Relations, like houses, begin with foundations
Sandy or rocky: just how will we build them?
Those that are built on a Sandy Foundation
Will suffer great falls, as the wisdom of old

So too Conversations are built on foundations
We build them each time we converse with another
The wisdom of ages will guide through the danger
Reminding us always to look where we start

To build up Relations we use conversation
But what are we building and where did we start?
For no matter the stature and beauty of housing
The foundation is surely what matters at heart

Higher Quality Government

13 October 2013

Governor Jerry Brown

c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173

Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Governor Brown:

In 1949 Winston Churchill expressed a truism that has withstood the test of time: “If you make 10,000 regulations you destroy all respect for the law.” So it is with disappointment I read that you recently signed a number of bills including Assembly Bill 48.

As a representative of the People, we expect you to act in our behalf as a common-sense safety valve when the legislature goes astray, and veto such bills. You are the gateway and must require that the legislature produce only sensible, intelligible, and necessary legislation that preserves the rights and freedoms of its citizens.

With your experience as a former California Attorney General I expected you to quickly grasp the fundamental flaws in bills such as AB48, including the absence of a “grandfather clause”—literally creating a new class of criminal out of law-abiding citizens, ex post facto—and the absence of a specific exemption for law enforcement or entities that service law enforcement (e.g. FedEx and UPS).

I have specifically addressed AB48 in this letter, but I do so only to illustrate. There are many other bills that are badly flawed. By signing these bills, you have added dozens of new rules, regulations, and laws that are ill conceived—even unintelligible—and ultimately unconstitutional. These bills will cost the taxpayers millions of dollars to litigate (we will have to prosecute with private funds and defend with tax dollars) and we will ultimately see them struck down, a huge waste of time, resources, and money, irrespective of where anyone stands on the issues behind the bills.

When considering legislation, I ask that you consider this 3-step process:

1. Adopt the philosophy espoused by the Supreme Court of the United States and require that legislation be “written to be understood by the voters” (Heller, 554).
2. Require that the legislation account for mens rea, perhaps better stated as criminal intent. Many bills could meet this requirement by simply adding eight words: “when used in the commission of a crime.” Certainly this requires more work than what the legislature has produced of late, but given the legal background of its members, this is completely feasible and reasonable.
3. Demand a legislative analysis that estimates the number of affected individuals and that illustrates the overlap of the proposed with existing legislation—heed the warning of Prime Minister Churchill. Any legislation that imposes more rules and regulations on the People should be held to the highest standard; if it is truly worth passing, it is worth being done well and done correctly, and bills that are struck down do not meet that standard.

Governor Brown, the People and the State deserve and demand higher-quality legislation from those who represent us. We look to you to send that message loudly and clearly to the legislature. Please veto all legislation that does not meet the criteria outlined above.

Smarter than the average bear

There are times I like to think I'm smarter than the average bear. But then I realize that only holds true so long as the bear doesn't have the home field advantage.

There's lots to know and experience in life, and none of us knows everything about everything in every circumstance.

One Reason Why America is Different

Guns scare most people, and with good reason. Perhaps as much as anything, the right to keep and bear arms represents the very nature of the relationship of the People to their government. As someone once summarized, the People have a government, not vice versa. The Second Amendment is both a manifestation and a reminder of that fundamental arrangement.

Charles C.W. Cooke, a former(?) Briton who writes for National Review recently had an article published about this. He grew up believing that Americans were "batty" and wondered, "Who needs an AR-15? What is all this nonsense about 'liberty'? If you want to play with weapons, join the military." He started out with that in mind as he put together his thesis in school. As he got into the topic, he discovered some interesting things.

Tench Coxe, the 1789 delegate from Pennsylvania, on the importance of the proposed Second Amendment noted: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

One great quote from Cooke's article, "As Coxe implied, the oft-repeated notion that the Second Amendment exists as an anachronism or was passed to protect 'sport shooting' or 'hunting' is as defective as the idea that the First Amendment exists to protect Shakespeare or the Beatles. Certainly it does those things, too. But primarily such protections were chiseled deep into American scripture in order to afford the people the perennial scope to take their government to task."

He goes on to say, "Nobody doubts what guns do. The important question is, Who in society gets such weapons?" He also points out that it was John Locke's beliefs that led us to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (as expressed by Thomas Jefferson). "...from the notion that one controls one's body and may defend it, we get the attendant right to bear arms; you can't defend yourself with parchment." "The police, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, are employees of the public, not the sole enforcers of public order. Americans who would leave the means of violence in the hands of the state and, inevitably, the criminals would remove the means of self-defense from the one group in American life for whom the social compact was constructed: the People."

It seems to me that there is too much unjustified trust in the government to handle all our affairs. As Mr. Cooke points out, our own history shows that governments can and do go bad, and that "it did happen here." In the 17th century, he notes, "colonies prohibited the sale of guns to Indians, while the 'Black Codes' of 18th-century Louisiana required free French colonists not only to disarm but to beat 'any black carrying any potential weapon.'" "After the Civil War, the Democratic party's own 'Black Codes,' which were designed to prohibit freed slaves from owning guns in the South, had the same execrable purpose. [As a response to this abuse] the first draft of the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act rendered it a federal crime to 'deprive any citizen of the United States of any arms or weapons he may have in his house or possession for the defense of his person, family, or property." It's easy to say it can't happen here, that we can't become like Venezuela. History says otherwise, I think. "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."

As unpleasant as guns may be to some or many, it seems to me that things would be very different (worse, I think) without them.

Electricity Costs

Something is severely wrong with our system when a 15kW diesel generator is cheaper to operate than purchasing electricity from SDGE.

To illustrate, a 15kW generator running at full load consumes about 1 gal/hour, and if you get diesel for a generator you don't pay highway taxes on the fuel, so you're at say $3.50/gallon (that number should be a little high, even in California). $3.50/15kW is $0.23 per kWH. If you've looked at your SDGE bill lately, tiers 3 and 4 are well above that price (and who isn't into those tiers when the baselines are so ridiculously small?).

Granted, a house doesn't run at 15kW continuously, so the exercise is not realistic (at less than 1/4 load, the generator is still likely consuming at least 1/4 gal/hr), but in terms of order-of-magnitude comparisons, it serves as context for SDGE's prices. It's also not convenient to continuously fill a diesel generator every few days (depending on the size of the tank and consumption).

But isn't the main selling point of a utility that they can generate and distribute power more efficiently? That obviously isn't happening here.

Adding insult to injury, 18.8% of the electric portion of my most recent bill has nothing to do with the electricity we've used; it's for "public purpose programs" which are defined as "the costs of certain state-mandated programs (such as low-income and energy efficiency programs)." That's right: 18.8% of my bill is to pay for someone else's electricity.

Another ridiculous factoid: the "distribution" and "transmission" portions of the bill are more than the "electricity generation" cost.

The net result is the same question: how did we get to the point where it's even in the same order of magnitude to generate electricity on your own as purchasing it from a utility like SDGE?

Open Letter to the California State Legislature

Good evening. I am writing you to ask that you OPPOSE SB 249. Please remind your fellow legislators of the following key points:

• The scope of the bill affects every citizen, whether or not they are in their immediate voting district.
• Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws.
• The use of weapons to commit crimes is already covered by dozens of existing laws.
• The state’s economy is in shambles. Several cities are insolvent with many more on the way. The legislative body has no excuse for focusing on a non-issue like this.
• The proposed bill has no provision for mens rea or criminal intent; it merely criminalizes the actions of ordinary, law-abiding citizens that they were elected to represent, regardless of the fact that they would never commit a “real” crime.
• The proposed bill turns a paperwork violation into a felony.
• Inventing new crimes by criminalizing the existing, legal behavior of good, tax-paying citizens will cost the state untold millions of dollars in defending this unconstitutional bill, millions more will be spent in prosecuting innocent civilians, with yet more millions being spent on housing them in prisons.
• If you want to help, create jobs, not crimes. Get the government out of the way and off the backs of the people so that the economy can grow.
• The more you try to exercise absolute control over everything and everyone, the more you strangle the people, and by extension, the economy.

The War on Drugs

I read recently an article by Conrad Black wherein he argues that the war on drugs is a failure. This argument is not new, but I was surprised to read it in a conservative media source. It brought to mind the words of Austin Farrer, "Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned." (Light on C. S. Lewis, Harcourt and Brace: New York, 1965, p. 26.), which lead me to ponder on the argument against the legalization of drugs such as marijuana.

In Mr. Black's article, he stops short of arguing that cannabis should be legalized, but gives a number of statistics that suggest that prohibiting it has been an expensive failure. The only downsides he points out fall into half a paragraph where he also dismisses the argument (using statistics) that cannabis use is a gateway drug. Even the negative effects he attributes to cannabis he characterizes as, "less damaging and dangerous to society than alcohol or tobacco."

Among the cannabis characteristics Mr. Black considers "less damaging" is "psychological problems." I find "less damaging" as strange a euphemism as referring to drug use as "recreational". Various medical reports link cannabis use to depression, impotence and other problems. In a time of worldwide financial trouble, not only are we left with the medical bills for these problems, but our society loses out on these individuals' capabilities to create, to better, and to participate.

To argue that cannabis is less damaging than alcohol or tobacco is to effectively make alcohol and tobacco the gateway drugs to cannabis. The former are allowed, goes the reasoning, therefore they should all be allowed; we're already there, and this isn't any worse. And down we go on the slippery slope.

Life and Death

There are some in the world who claim that it is inconsistent to be "pro-life" while also being in favor of the death penalty for crimes such as premeditated murder. The reality is that this argument is specious. It erroneously attempts to find a contradiction where none exists.

It's really this simple: it's the difference between punishing you for your own bad choices and punishing you for someone else's.

The ironic reality is that the only contradiction is in opposing accountability for one's own actions while legalizing and supporting the death of the truly innocent. It is an argument as old as time: In ancient times, slaves were considered "property" and could be treated as inhumanely as their owners saw fit. So too the modern equivalent that innocent embryos are somehow not "life" but only little more than property. The results are awful and terrifying. Such behavior reminds me that whenever people can be persuaded to do evil and to call good evil that "the devil laugheth, and his angels rejoice".

Where are the warning labels?

Many places in the US have regulations and taxes on the purchase or consumption of various items, especially if someone deems them dangerous. For example, you may not be able to purchase Tobacco or alcohol without showing proof of minimum age. Due to pressure by the Federal Government, Tobacco products now carry labels on the product packaging and in the advertising warning of the dangers associated with their use. Advertisements for alcoholic products (apparently voluntarily) include warnings about "responsibly" using their products. You cannot purchase a firearm without showing not just proof of age, but also undergoing a background check and, in some places, passing a basic proficiency test. California even recently passed legislation to require a thumbprint for purchasing ammunition, something not even required for alcohol. For alcohol and Tobacco, on top of the warning labels, we also impose "sin" taxes. But what if there were a product that was far more harmful and addictive than Tobacco or alcohol? Now suppose it carried no warning labels, didn't have any "sin" taxes applied to it, and its distribution network was far more extensive than that used by alcohol and Tobacco?

That product is pornography. Its use is widespread, and its use is found among all age groups. It is highly addictive and some estimates put it at over $100B a year in worldwide revenue. Nowhere does it carry warning labels, and it is available in every household with a computer. The trail of carnage left by pornography range from failed marriages to self-esteem issues among both men and women. It evokes only lust, the same thing that led King David in the Old Testament to commit adultery with the wife of Uriah the Hittite, one of his most faithful soldiers, whom he later had murdered as he tried to avoid the consequences of his actions. Not something to be taken lightly.

The Grass is Always Greener

As the old saying goes, the grass always seems greener on the other side. What if it's because the other side simply has more manure?

Tolerance includes religious views

Richard John Neuhaus: "In a democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more disqualified for being 'religious' than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb."

Professor Dinesh D’Souza: "The attempt to ground respect for equality on a purely secular basis ignores the vital contribution by Christianity to its spread. It is folly to believe that it could survive without the continuing aid of religious belief."

Link to a good article discussing these and other quotes:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/religious-freedom

What Differentiates Man from the Animals

Charles Jefferson, author of The Character of Jesus:

"The only thing which places a man above the beasts of the field is his possession of the spiritual gifts. … Man’s earthly existence is but a test as to whether he will concentrate his efforts, his mind, and his soul upon the things which contribute to the comfort and gratification of his physical instincts and passions, or whether he will make as his life's end and purpose the acquisition of spiritual qualities."

Another thought: "I don't doubt His wisdom; only my understanding of it."

Climate Change Falls Further Apart

An LA Times reports that scientists have determined that sunspots have far greater effect on our climate than they realized. Other articles point out that termites emit significant amounts of carbon dioxide, with some articles reporting they emit as much as ten times what humans do.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg1-2009sep01,0,2797425.column

"What does it say that the modeling that guaranteed disastrous increases in global temperatures never predicted the halt in planetary warming since the late 1990s? (MIT's Richard Lindzen says that "there has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995.") What does it say that the modelers have only just now discovered how sunspots make the Earth warmer?"

http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/04/termites-emit-ten-times-more-co2-than.html
Claims termites emit more CO2 than humans.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061104084951.htm
Claims natural sources, including termites, emit 40% of the CO2.

Quotes on Fear

He has not learned the lesson of life who does not every day surmount a fear. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

To fear is one thing. To let fear grab you by the tail and swing you around is another. ~Katherine Paterson

The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety. ~Henry Louis Mencken

There is a time to take counsel of your fears, and there is a time to never listen to any fear. ~George S. Patton

If you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question

Among lawyers (or so I'm told), there is a saying to the effect that you should never ask a witness a question to which you don't already know the answer. When a gay activist asked Miss USA contestant Carrie Prejean what she thought about marriage, she gave an honest answer, one that contradicted the interrogator's views. In a moment that serves to reinforce the stereotype, the activist went off on a vulgar tirade.

Maybe if he doesn't want to hear the truth, he shouldn't ask the questions.

And maybe he should consider that some people still consider vulgarity to be the tool of those with limited vocabulary.

Constitutional Rights

The US Constitution was written with the purpose of both restricting the government and protecting the rights of the people from the government. The types of rights it protects are defined as pre-existing, natural, and/or God-given. Likewise the constitutions of the various states in this country. The Constitution does not attempt to protect that which is unnatural. So when a Florida judge yesterday decided that a law restricting adoption to traditional married couples was unconstitutional, she was declaring that the constitution protects that which nature itself (basic biology) has denied.

Some try to pervert this by arguing that not all traditional couples are willing or able to have children of their own. This specious argument is merely an attempt to divert attention from the basic, natural, biological way of things by focusing on the exceptions. An exception does not a rule make. It still takes a male and a female to produce children, and the God-given (or natural) design is that children have both a father and mother. Those who argue that all children need is love are naive at best and deceptive at worst. Today's children are tomorrow's adults. Yes, children need food, clothing, shelter, education, direction, values, friendship, love, and so much more. But perhaps the most important thing children need is the perspective, lessons, and skills they gain from two beings that are different in nature: a father and mother.

Others will attempt to twist the notion of natural rights by pointing out that humans, by nature, don't belong on the moon. The Constitution protects the people from the government. It does not prevent the people from choosing the activities they will pursue, and it does not create rights—it protects natural, pre-existing, God-given rights. If the people decide to adopt a law reserving adoption for a married man and woman, then the government's place is to abide by it, conditioned on that law fitting in with the governing document, the Constitution that was created by the people (the "We the People" in the preamble). To argue that the Constitution prevents the people from enacting laws that preserve natural, pre-existing rights is ridiculous. To argue that the Constitution protects the biologically impossible was never the intent and is totally absurd.

References
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97478955
Excerpt:

"A Miami judge ruled Tuesday that there is no rational, scientific or moral reason that sexual orientation should be a barrier to adopting children, finalizing the adoption of two siblings by their gay foster father."

The lie of "human rights" tribunals

What happens when the intolerant decide that freedom of speech should be one-sided? Those in the United States only need look north for the answer. If you don't think it can happen here, then you haven't been paying attention.

Try this on for size. A minister is fined for expressing his opinion in a letter to the editor.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODNhMTMyYjhhZGNkZGY5OGJhMjQ1YTM4MzEwNGRlODM=

"In June of 2002, a Canadian minister, the Rev. Stephen Boissoin wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper in Alberta condemning the "homosexual agenda." It was in no manner close to what could be construed as hate speech. But for having an unpopular and allegedly discriminatory opinion, two years later an anti-Christian activist brought a complaint about Boissoin was brought before the Alberta "human rights" commssion. In 2007, the Alberta tribunal found him guilty of, well, something. And Just last week they finally handed down their sentence against Boissoin."

If that doesn't strike close to home for you, check out the persecution of one of Canada's largest magazines.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmVmYzFlNGRhNzhhNGJkMzRlZDE0Nzc1NjFjNTg0NTY=

"At issue is a cover story National Review’s own Mark Steyn wrote for the Canadian newsweekly Maclean’s, titled “The Future Belongs to Islam.” An excerpt from Steyn’s bestselling book America Alone, the article highlighted the fact that demographic trends suggest that Muslims may well become a majority in much of Europe and that this obviously represents a threat to Europe as we know it. A few Muslim law students objected to the article and filed multiple complaints with Canada’s national and provincial “human rights” tribunals and presto! Steyn’s opinion and Maclean’s right to print it have now been effectively criminalized."