Only 15 More Weeks!

I completed my last final exam last night for summer semester (yep, that's right, Friday night - torturous isn't it). Anyway, following the 3 hour ordeal I was able to send off the exam to my professor and raise my arms in triumphant Rocky-like fashion. The most exciting part when I was able to tell my 2 1/2 year old son, Alex, that his Daddy didn't have to go to "class" anymore for at least 3 weeks. I think he might have been more excited than I was. It was so heartbreaking to have to say goodbye every Monday and Tuesday night and have him tell me "Daddy no go class." But now, there is only 1 more semester, a mere 15 weeks, that stand between me and graduate degrees. I can see the light at the end of the tunnel and it looks bright and pretty!

It seems like only yesterday Shiree and I were packing up with our then 7month old Alex and moving to Salt Lake City with the idea that we were going to spend 3 years here while I went to school. I didn't have a job and I had no idea what I wanted to do with my two masters degrees. But through a set of amazing experiences ("tender mercies of the Lord" in the truest sense of the word) it has been almost 2 years later and even though I still don't have a job (at least a paid one - my internship at the VA is unpaid), I have a clear direction of where I want to be in a year and a pretty good idea what I want my career path to look like. The irony is that when we moved here, we did it mostly on faith because I had no idea what possibilities there were for me with an MSW and an MPA. That combination seemed almost illogical at the time. But now that we are getting ready to launch into the "real world" or post-education life, I can look back now and see the path that God has led us through has been the one that fits perfectly into my life, my wants, my desires, my abilities, and my strengths. He has led me up to this point because of my faith and now I am telling Him that it's my turn to take over. The irony is that I was so willing to let Him lead me when we moved here, and now that I have become "learned" (2Ne 9:28-29) I am wanting to lead myself. In reality, I have learned nothing. If I cannot learn to trust in God now that I have my accelades and degrees moreso than before I had them, then my two degrees mean nothing. I think the difference before was that I had no idea what I was going to do, but now I have some idea what I want to do. I am letting my wants get in the way of God's will and that's where the rubber meets the road. My "real" education begins now that this test is upon me. I just hope that I can do better on this test than I did on my last final exam.

Google vs. Cuil

I just read this article in the New York Times about a new start-up company, Cuil (pronounced "cool"), that is trying to give Google (and the other search engines) a run for their money. I say, "more power to 'em." If they can do it, I'll be impressed.

One thing I've noticed in my limited studying of product competition is that once a product has "cornered the market," so to speak, on the product, it has little chance of ever moving from that top-tiered spot.

Let me illustrate. What do you ask for when you blow your nose? A tissue or a Kleenex? The latter is the brand name owned by Kimberly Clark (and consequently one of the products that saved that company from an untimely demise).

Another example: What do you use when you want to write a note and stick it to your computer? A sticky note or a Post-it note? Obviously, the latter was designed and named by the company 3M, who is doing incredibly well in the marketplace.

Final example: When you want to search for something on the internet. Do you type the search query into a search engine? Or do you "Google" it? It will be a crazy day for cornered products when I hear someone say (or say it myself) "Why don't you just 'Cuil' it? But you don't have to take my word for it, check out the website yourself.

Housing Crunch

So the Senate just passed a bill (already passed by the House of Representatives) that allows the government to offer billions of dollars to two major lending corporations: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among other provisions of the bill. The President is expected to sign it early next week. (Interesting that the Legislature works on the weekend, but the President doesn't) Anyway, I was a little concerned about this "bailout bill" because it gives these two corporations a free pass from bankruptcy with few strings attached. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the nations two largest lenders who account for more than half of the $12 trillion dollars in the mortgage market, have gotten a really good deal out of this. They were able to make themselves rich before the housing crisis by sepculating lenders and greedy homeowners. Then, when trouble hit, they had the audactiy to go to the government and say "Please, help us." And the federal government obligingly responded (I'm sure it has something to do with the billions of dollars spent on lobbying legislators each year by these two companies). Now, they can take advantage of the "bailout bill" and let the federal government "save" them while they make even more money now and in the future.

So what do we end up with? Bigger government, a precendence for government bailout, higher national debt threshold (from $9.5 trillion to $10.6 trillion with the passage of this new bill), and richer executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Was it worth it?

I guess some good things that came out of this was the salvation for first-time homeowners and the increase in flexibility for Section 8 low-income housing vouchers. Hoping to be a first-time homeowner myself in the future, I am grateful for the government "having my back." Although, I would like to think that I wouldn't get wrapped up in a home that I couldn't afford and then when trouble hits, depend on the government to bail me out while I maintain my lifestyle of frivolity and greed.

*For further information, read your newspapers ;)

Racism, Ageism, Sexism, and Religiousism...

What a monumental election cycle!! To be able to tackle so many diverse issues all at the same time! We got to see a slew of "isms" all come to the forefront via our presidential candidates. We had a Woman candidate and a Mormon candidate. We have an African American candidate and an Old Man candidate. How exciting!

I think that they have each handled their respective "ism" with grace and dignity and have really been able to open the issues up for more honest discussion.

Contrary to the title of this blog, I want to hear "your thoughts" on these issues related to the presidential race. Were you moved by Obama's speech on race? or by Romney's speech on religion and patriotism? (If you find anywhere McCain talking about his age, let me know)

I have been neglectful...

I apologize to all my readers - all 2 of you ;) that it has been so long since I've posted anything. I realized this the other day (and I even told Shiree) that since the Presidential race kind of slowed down once Obama secured the nomination, I haven't even been that interested in CNN. Surprising, I know. But I just wanted to explain why I have been so lazy in blogging lately. (I even missed posting on the 4th of July).

I will return stronger than ever!!!

Where art thou...Kobe?

So, the NBA Finals concluded last night with an impressive (and lop-sided) victory by the Boston Celtics. Although I didn't watch the first quarter (I finished my exam in a rush so I could get home and watch the rest of the game...I hope I passed), it seems that the first quarter and the first 7-8 minutes of the second quarter were the real challenge for the Celtics. The rest of the game looked like the Lakers hadn't even shown up for the game. The Celitcs completely shut down Kobe's offense, not to mention Gasol and Fisher. I must admit that Odom had a pretty fair game through the first half. The second half was a nightmare for fans of the purple and gold.

Allen, Garnett, and Pierce played their games superbly (and Pierce deserves that Finals MVP Trophy). But the guy who really kept the game out of the reach of the Lakers was Rajon Rondo #9. That guy was amazing last night!! He had 6 steals (he averaged less than 3 per game in the regular season and most of them came from Kobe. He really kept the team fired up throughout the second half with his magnanimous play! My hat is off to the Celtics!

Here's to the Celtics!! And here's to a repeat next year!! (Unless the Jazz make it past the second round)

"As California goes, so goes the nation"? -- NOT!

I've refrained from commenting on this topic for a month, but I can restrain myself no longer. (In fact, this court decision was the catalyst for me to start this blog in the first place.) As a result, this post may greatly hinder my chances at ever seeking a public office someday, but I feel that to not post about it would render me a silent accomplice.

I am an American! As an American, I love the Constitution! So when a State Supreme Court says that the founding document of their state's government (and by extension, the national government) upholds marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, I must emphatically say that I disagree!!

I reject the notion that such an idea could come from such a sensational document. I find it hard to believe that over a hundred years ago when that founding document was written, that the writers of that state's constitution envisioned a circumstance when their words would disgrace the sanctity of marriage by allowing it to be changed from the hallowed union between a man and a woman. Please remember that California was populated by Mexicans at the time of its admission into the Union. Catholicism was huge in the Mexican culture. Can you imagine that the Bishop in Mexico or the Pope would teach their followers to condone this type of disunion? I should think not. Thankfully, the current leadership of the Catholic Church in California continues to reject the idea that marriage is anything besides the union between a woman and a man. Here's an exerpt from a CNN article.

[The] Archdiocese of Los Angeles, California, issued a statement on behalf of seven bishops Monday, saying the Catholic Church "cannot approve of redefining marriage.'Marriage' has a unique place in God's creation, joining a man and a woman in a committed relationship in order to nurture and support the new life for which marriage is intended," the statement said. "The meaning of marriage is deeply rooted in history and culture, and has been shaped considerably by Christian tradition. Its meaning is given, not constructed."

I whole heartedly agree with the Catholic Church's position on this! In a sense, the Bishops are echoing words used by other church leaders in recent years (and throughout history):

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

The Justices from the California Supreme Court ruled that a government regulation banning same-sex couples from obtaining a marriage license was unconstitutional. Their reasoning for that is so twisted it'll make your head turn. They ruled that since marriage has been identified as such a sacred right that it is unconstitutional to deny anyone the right to get married. Did you catch that? At first, it doesn't make sense. But then when you think about it, it starts to seem like it should make sense. However, in reality it doesn't make sense. Judges should be more responsible than that!! Let me illustrate.

This Christian Nation was founded on Christian principles. Hence, the references to God in our founding documents. As Christians, it is a part of Christianity to get married and teach our children to become Christians as well, right? Through the years, marriage has been a hallowed institution by this nation. In fact, our Federal Government was so protective of marriage that they sought to start a war with a little religious group who sought to have more than one wife. (ring any bells). They are still doing that today! (For examples, just google FLDS, Texas, polygamy). We can see that marriage is a special and protected institution. Now, here's where the messed up reasoning of the CA Supreme Court comes in. They said that because of the fact that marriage was so protected that it shouldn't be denied to anybody. They view marriage as an inalienable right protected under their constitution. Nowhere in their Constitution does it say that marriage is an inalienable right. The closest it comes is when they say that:

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Now, you (and several thousands of other people) are probably thinking, well isn't this just the same thing as women's suffrage and civil rights? On the surface, it may seem that way. But different from race, sex, color, ethnicity, disability, etc, sexual orientation is not considered a protected class. The difference is that protected classes cannot change the biology of what they are. I can no more stop being white than I can stop being a man! My actions, however, I have complete control over.

I hope that we can realize that this is just one of the Adversary's tactics to twist up the words of our beloved Constitutions! Just like he manipulated God's words to Adam & Eve in the garden (See Moses 4:7, 10-11), he is trying to manipulate us to think that we should accept this type of ruling because it "protects" marriage by allowing everyone to have that chance. I am all for allowing everyone the chance to get married! But let it be as God ordained it in the beginning and not as man has constructed it.

-Cory-

Additional Information for your reading pleasure:

This is a quote from the Mayor of San Francisco about being able to perform a same-sex marriage today.

"This is an extraordinary moment in history," [San Francisco Mayor Gavin] Newsom told a cheering, standing-room-only crowd at City Hall. "I think today, marriage as an institution has been strengthened."

If you're interested in reading the opinion(s) of the Justices regarding this decision, here is the link where you can find it. I'll warn you now, it is a 172 page document.

In recognizing, however, that the right to marry is a basic, constitutionally protected civil right — “a fundamental right of free men [and women]” (Perez v. Sharp, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711, 714) —the governing California cases establish that this right embodies fundamental interests of an individual that are protected from abrogation or elimination by the state. Because our cases make clear that the right to marry is an integral component of an individual’s interest in personal autonomy protected by the privacy provision of article I, section 1, and of the liberty interest protected by the due process clause of article I, section 7, it is apparent under the California Constitution that the right to marry — like the right to establish a home and raise children — has independent substantive content, and cannot properly be understood as simply the right to enter into such a relationship if (but only if) the Legislature chooses to establish and retain it.

Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Majority Opinion, In Re MARRIAGE CASES, p.63

In discussing the constitutional right to marry in Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711 (Perez), then Justice Traynor in the lead opinion quoted the seminal passage from the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390. There the high court, in describing the scope of the “liberty” protected by the due process clause of the federal Constitution, stated that “ ‘[w]ithout doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of one’s own conscience, and, generally, to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.’ ” (Perez, 32 Cal.2d at p. 714, italics added [“to marry” italicized by Perez], quoting Meyer, 262 U.S. 390, 399.) The Perez decision continued: “Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men.” (Perez, 32 Cal.2d at p. 714.)

Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Majority Opinion, In Re MARRIAGE CASES, p.54

Coolest Vocal Performance Ever!

I found this video and was entranced by the performances. It is awesome!

It is 3 Norwegian singers and a Chilean singer. The one who sings the last verse, Kurt Nilsen, was the World Idol in 2005.

Patriotism at its Finest!

What is the BEST form of government?

We can learn many lessons from history about the problems of poor governmental structure. But what is the best form of government? Is it a Dictatorship? Is it a Socialist regime? Is it a Republic?

While there are pros and cons to each, I would have to agree with Plato: the best form of government is a Philosopher King. Okay, so I don't entirely agree with Plato. He suggested that if government were controlled by a single executive with ultimate power, then the world would be a lot better off. The problem with a single executive with absolute power is that "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Joseph Smith taught that through "sad experience" we have learned that when men gain even a little power, it inflates their pride and causes corruption in their hearts. This was Plato's problem as well. So the question is how do you give ultimate power to a single executive without compromising the morality of the ruler? That question has been debated for centuries. The answer, lies in the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

The Book of Mormon gives us insight into the manner in which a man can exercise the ruling authority without the ruling authority exercising him. While in the Bible we have the examples of three kings who lost their kingdoms because of their thirst for power (Saul, David, and Solomon). In contrast, the Book of Mormon provides three examples of kings who served with their people and found joy and eternal happiness because of it (Mosiah, Benjamin, and Mosiah). Their lives show us the dichotomy between a moral exercise of power and the unjust (or immoral) exercise of power. In fact, the second Mosiah said it best when he explained that unrighteous kings "pervert the ways of all righteousness." (Mosiah 29:23).

In coming back to Plato, we cannot have just any old King. It must be a righteous king. In Plato's terminology, it will be a Philosopher King because a philosopher would know what to do for the good of the people. In short, a philosopher would know what is right in every situation. Now, how can a Philosopher, or any person for that matter, know what is right in every situation? They cannot (see Mosiah 29:12). However, with the added understanding of Book of Mormon (and a lesson from the civilization of the Jaredites & Nephites), Mosiah (the second) teaches that the ideal form of government would be a righteous king. This is similar to Plato's philosopher king but with one major exception: the Righteous King would be Jesus Christ. Can you even fathom a more perfect form of government than to have the most perfect person to have ever walked this earth be in charge? As men, we will always make mistakes and be subject to the temptations of power. But imagine a Man who never made a mistake, or who never succumbed to the fleshy temptation of power and dominion. That Man would be the Perfect Executive! But more importantly, that Man would be the Perfect Friend! and that, in my opinion, is the BEST form of government.