Today is 4/11.  In America 411 is synonymous with the dialed number on the telephone for “information”; this was what we formerly used if we didn’t have the “White/Yellow Pages” handy.  Now the internet and search engines have made those services obsolete.

But it’s odd, that in this great “Age of Information” that so many have lost the ability to think for themselves and pushed that job onto the government or media.

I don’t have to tell you what is happening all around you.

You already know that you are being held hostage in some form of house arrest.

Oh sure, they call it “Social Distancing”, “Quarantine”, or “Lockdown”.

Odd that they can’t think of a better sounding euphemism for house arrest.  Perhaps “Stay Home Fun Zone!”

But there is nothing fun about the real world implications that these authoritarian measures are having and will have in the coming weeks, months, and years.

Where did we lose our way?  Have we become so susceptible to a media that is constantly in search of click-bait to hold our attention for a moment or too, that we lose our minds and can’t think rationally in the face of a challenge we’ve met time and again for all of humanity?

Every year the world is plagued by viruses that prey on those with weakened immune systems.

Every year hundreds of thousands die from them.

Why did we decide to shut down this year?  Is this year’s virus really that much more dangerous to all of humanity?  Is the death toll really that much higher?

Even that, is beside the point.

“What is my point then?”

Why do we not recognize the real viruses that have infected America and much of the world?

One virus is that we allow the freedoms that so many the world over have died for, to be lost in a mind-numbed state of panic.  Where are the protests over this lockdown?

I don’t know about your country, but in America we have a Bill of Rights.  The very first amendment reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Why are we not petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances right now?!?

They took away the right to peaceably assemble!  Did will really just roll over on the first amendment?

Just in case you weren’t certain, there is no asterisk that nullifies the constitution, stating:

*Except when scary germs are out there!

Did we forget that authoritarian governments the world over are responsible for the untimely deaths of hundreds of millions during just the past century?

Do you think that number is high?  Sadly, it is not.  WWI, WWII, ethnic purges in Europe, Russia, Asia and other countries.

Over 100 million government forced abortions for the demonic “one-child” policy in China, as well as the 60 plus million Chinese who died of starvation during Mao’s “Great Leap Forward”.

Personally I’m not afraid of viruses.  I’m afraid of tyrannical governments.  Because they will leave you no choice.  You will have no freedom.  And they will unhesitatingly take your life.  They will do what is best for their power and wealth, with very little concern for you.

You are far more likely to be killed by them and their policies that seasonal flu (which, FYI, government can’t protect you from either).

When people are trusted with personal liberty and are under rule of law (not of men), where actions have consequences, society very quickly learns how to protect itself and even thrive by working together.

Those whose goods and services are favored through voluntary transactions are rewarded and propagated, those who do not add value fail, and often times after failure they get better and find ways to help and build society.  They don’t get bailouts.

Similarly, we don’t need an autocrat to tell us when we can leave home or when it is ok to do business or any other silly aspect of the current stay-at-home madness.

If I am genuinely worried about a virus or that those I come in contact with may be affected, I can take my own precautions.  You can too.

Those who are in real danger and their loved ones can be trusted to take what they deem are necessary precautions as well.

Sweden trusts their own citizens during this time of panic, why can’t the rest of the world?

Another virus that has swept America and the world is the idea that government can bail everyone out and nobody need to suffer (little thought for the 17 million in the US who already lost their ability to provide for themselves).

Or that since government can print money, we can just print our way out of this mess (worked great in Zimbabwe, Weimar Germany, Argentina, and most recently in Venezuela, right?)

Think about that for a second.  Are you willing to put your trust in a bureaucratic nightmare that can only give to you by taking from someone else?

Maybe you believe that the other person has plenty and it’s reasonable for you to take from them.

This of course is a fallacy.

It is the tyranny of the majority.  It’s two wolves and one sheep voting on what is for dinner.

And do you think the bailouts are really even engineered to actually benefit the poor to begin with?  No!

They may toss a bone to the poor in the hopes of generating perpetually impoverished wards of the state who will keep voting for them (because they have become like drug addicts, dependent on their dealer’s supply), but they don’t get the real money.

No, the real money, the big money, goes to the powerful elites and ensures that their bad investments get bailed out by working class Americans that pay taxes and own small businesses but are not part of the elite.

What do you think the Federal Reserve is doing right now?  This private bank with a government issued monopoly on US dollar creation is now buying up unlimited debt, not just government debt and mortgage debt, but now private corporate debt as well.

And of course, no protest, because “it is a time of panic, this requires drastic (see draconian) action!”  Who benefits form this most?  The ultra-wealthy who instead of losing on risky investments, instead get to keep all the upside action, with little concern for any downside risk.

It’s time to wake up America (and world)!

Government is only valid in securing our natural rights.  It is not valid in placing us all under house arrest and then picking and choosing winners and losers.

Often times you hear someone say “It’s a free country!”, effectively telling someone they may disagree with, that they can do what they want, even if they think it’s a poor choice.

Let’s remember the rugged people who settled this country from coast to coast.

Did they get government bailouts when their ox got sick on the trail?

No!

Did they shut down the country when Malaria was decimating the population?

No!

They accepted that while all die, only a courageous and fortunate few truly live free; many of them determined to do just that, and despite the uncertainties we now face, so should we!

Do we chose liberty and reassert our natural God-given rights?

YES!!!

And that’s the 411 for today, 4/11/2020.

 

 

 

 

Global warming is going to devastate humanity and earth as we know it!  Why?

I would wager that you are likely to know someone who is suffering a material level of psychological trauma because of their fear of a warmer planet.  I have seen this manifest itself in people I personally know.  The anxiety is real.

I’m here to tell you: it’s going to be ok.

How can I be so certain?

Well, let’s think about this in three simple questions:

Question 1:  Is the earth warming, and if so, are humans the primary cause of this warming?  (Anthropogenic Global Warming)

Question 2:  Assuming that the earth is warming primarily through human causation, is this a good thing, a bad thing, or a mixed bag of good and bad?

Question 3:  Assuming that human causation is primarily driving global warming, and global warming is a significantly bad thing, are the measures that humans could realistically take worth the price paid to effect material change?

I won’t bore you with facts about how other planets in the solar system have seen similar temperature patterns to the earth due to solar cycles (different climates, but same ball of fire in the middle of us).

Nor will I bore you with the fact that human CO2 production amounts to about 3% of total global CO2 production, and that CO2 isn’t anywhere as influential of a greenhouse gas as say… water evaporation.

Let’s just assume the worst case scenario.  Humans are driving global warming.  Let’s assume that somehow, humans push global temperatures so high that the ice caps entirely melt (up to two miles thick in Antartica).

In this imagined new world, sea levels rise 124 feet approximately.

That is a lot!

That stated, to melt such a large amount of ice would take not just a few years, but thousands if not tens of thousands of years.  We would have time to move inland.

A much more drastic change in sea level actually took place from the end of the ice age some 10,000 years ago when peak ice levels covered large portions of North America and Europe to when the melt off was mostly complete (note: it’s still in process, e.g. glaciers still melting) the sea rose 400 feet.

No doubt that was a dramatic melt off!

Recent discoveries seem to point to a celestial event (perhaps meteor(s) or an extreme solar event) as triggering a massive melt-off at the end of the Ice Age.

Global warming alone would have taken a much, much longer time to melt such large concentrations of ice (as is the case today) only that today the bulk of the earth’s ice is soundly secured at the south pole where it just doesn’t get that warm, ever, and melt-off would take millennia.

So, even if the relatively small amount of ice remaining from the ice age were to melt off, we would have time to deal with it.  Again, that is the highly unlikely worst case scenario.

Not that I want anyone to worry about something they have no control over, but if we are to worry about environmental disasters likely to be cause by mankind we should look no further than nuclear power (possibility of meltdowns making areas uninhabitable for generations) and nuclear war (possibility of destroying more human, wild, and plant life than all previous wars combined).

Why these are no longer major concerns to most is a bit baffling.  We are coming up on 75 years into the nuclear age, and there have been a handful of catastrophes and other major close calls.

Thankfully the worst hasn’t materialized, but I think we are far from being out of the woods.

I’ll leave that nuanced discussion for another time.

Now, regarding the title of my article in relation to fracking (hydraulic fracturing):  The American economy (and by extension the world) has hugely benefitted in the last several years due to this innovate practice.  Fracking has vastly increased the production and future supplies of both natural gas and petroleum.

I realize that the environmental impact of this practice can indeed carry risks, and has resulted in some concerning outcomes in many cases.

I don’t want to minimize those, and hope that better techniques will come into place to deal with risks for underground water contamination and the potential to destabilize seismically active areas.

Nevertheless, it has also had a positive environmental effect by significantly replacing coal with (now) less expensive and much cleaner burning natural gas (more on that below).

With that said, here are some of the amazing positives that have come from the use of fracking for more than 10 years:

US oil production increased from approx. 5 million barrels per day in 2008, to approx. 12 million barrels per day in 2019.  About half of current production comes from fracking operations.

US oil consumption was relatively steady during this time period (about 20 million barrels per day), meaning that imported oil was reduced from about 14 million per day in 2008 to 8 million per day in 2019.

The extra 6 million barrels per day from fracking certainly has lowered the price of oil (over $100 for most of 2007 to 2014 to the current level at about $60 per barrel).

It’s not a stretch to imagine that in a world without fracking, oil would be at least double the current price, and the US would be bleeding economically to fund importation of overseas production to a far greater extent than it does today (this pull on overseas oil would also drive up costs for the rest of the world that competes for the same supply).

Fracking has also increased natural gas production in the US by 60% during the same 2008-2019 timeframe.

Importantly, this has driven the price of natural gas to historic lows (currently a fifth of historic highs from 2008), making it affordable to replace far dirtier fuel feedstocks such as coal.

In fact, the large increase in natural gas production has been specifically for that purpose, to replace coal electricity generation with electricity produced by clean-burning natural gas.

It is difficult and highly speculative to guess, but I would argue that the savings to the American economy over the last twelve years (in oil costs/imports and electricity cost savings from natural gas) would easily surpass any other technological or industrial development of that same period.

Assuming double the price of oil and gas (which I believe is conservative), the US economy is about $2.73 trillion richer over the past 12 years because of fracking.  Assuming a worse-case scenario where prices are triple, that grows to $5.46 trillion (or about $455 billion more to the US economy per annum).

US GDP is currently about $20.5 trillion per year (2018), the above savings alone could nearly match the component of growth for the most recent year (2.9% growth in 2018, or about $595 billion in growth over the previous year).

I think the above teaches a valuable lesson.  The lesson is that (absent destructive forces such as war or destructive policy implementations such as communism), markets and technology provide ever better solutions to difficult problems.

Battery technologies will continue to improve, solar energy technologies will continue to improve, more cars sold will no longer use fossil fuels, other unforeseen advances will take place, and 12 years from now I imagine it will be far more difficult to still sell the public on the anthropogenic global warming catastrophe that they’ve been trying to sell us ever since I was a child.

 

 

 

 

*Tonic:   one that invigorates, restores, refreshes, or stimulates.

Perhaps you are like me and are the fortunate beneficiary of having many strong, benevolent, and yes masculine (manly, male) influences in your life; for me from my very first days in this world.

As I explore this topic, I will interposition the eternal truth of the following concept:

*Win-win:   advantageous or satisfactory to all parties involved.

Many today try to define the world in terms of those that have and those that have not.  Or with regard to power dynamics, those with power and those without.  This is the basis of “identity politics”, perversely viewing people as amorphous groups and not as the unique individuals they are.

This concept has lead to the “common enemy” approach, that leads individuals to shame, call-out, harass, and attack others on the basis of their association with a perceptibly maligned group.

An infinitely better way to coexist is by using the “common humanity” approach used by Martin Luther King, Jr. when he stated:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

He invoked the value of the individual, to be judged by the content of their character, rather than the identity of their group.

The “common enemy” approach used in identity politics is an example of a “zero-sum” us vs. them approach to life.

The reality is that life is not a zero-sum game, which is defined as follows:

*Zero-sum:  of, relating to, or being a situation (such as a game or relationship) in which a gain for one side entails a corresponding loss for the other side.

A zero-sum game would be, for example, a bet between two parties, where the loser of the bet pays the winner $100.

An example of a win-win would be when someone voluntarily pays $100 to another to purchase a good or service.  The purchaser is voluntarily entering the agreement because they feel the good or service provided will improve their situation (more than retaining their $100).  The seller also voluntarily enters the agreement because the amount paid for the good or service provided will perceptibly improve the seller’s situation more than the effort, training, and/or capital necessary to provide said good or service.

Win-win situations (most voluntary arraignments) yield gains for both parties, and played out repeatedly over generations has yielded the immense gains in technology and standards of living we now benefit from.  In many ways, the poorest among us today have access to standards of living that not even royalty enjoyed 200 years ago.

Zero-sum leads to entropy and often even worse, the us vs. them mentality can lead to war, destruction, suffering, and death.

I make this distinction to emphasize the eminent importance of magnanimous men in the world today.  Those of this world, both male and female, are beneficiaries of the many good men on it’s face.  Good men and good women are part of the ultimate win-win.

I write this in no way to be dismissive of women, “tonic femininity” is every bit as important as “tonic masculinity”, but for this missive I’ll focus my comments on the latter.

My dad:  How lucky am I.  First of all, I am fortunate to not only have had my dad in the formative years of my life, but to still have him.

My dad worked hard to support our family, he did so to provide the most basic necessities of life: food, shelter, safety.  His effort allowed my mother to provide around-the-clock care to me and my siblings, enhancing her efforts as an angel mother.

Beyond the basics, we had additional things we wanted and enjoyed, and my dad expended much effort in assuring we felt loved by spending time with us: whether it was playing sports with us, taking us out with the scouts, taking us to church, playful roughhousing at home, coaching our youth sports, or just having one-on-one conversations with us, his benevolent and masculine influence as been a standard that I wish to emulate in my own parenting.

He has also been an example of how men should treat women.  He empowered my mother, if we ever spoke disrespectfully to our mother it was dad who emphatically decried our inappropriate behavior and made it clear that such behavior is unacceptable.

He showed us that women should be held in esteem, and that our mother’s voice not only mattered, but should be given deference.

My brothers have also been perennially beneficial in my understanding of what true masculinity should be:

My older brother was with me from my day-one.  We are only separated by 15 months, and had a close relationship from the very beginning.  Virtually all of my earliest memories involve him, and they are overwhelmingly positive.

I remember jumping up and down in my crib at night and yelling out “Car, Car!” as any automobile passed outside the window.  Sharing the same room (and wanting some sleep) he would then encourage me to go to bed, haha!

In a more profound way, I still remember the first day he went to school.  I remember waiting by the window in our living room, greatly anticipating when he should return; I remember the joy I felt when I saw him walking the sidewalk toward home!

Why such joy?  Because I loved him, because he was a win-win in my life; it wasn’t him against me in some weird power struggle zero-sum game, it was us together, better because we’re brothers!

As the years went on we would become competitive in sports, we’d wrestle at times, or have “dead-arm” fights, and like most brothers we had to learn to sort out the bad and turn to the good, but he made me better in most every aspect I think can be measured, and at the end of the day I knew he had my proverbial back.

This is the same with my younger brother.  We had our spats at times, especially during our earlier years, but we came together with our love of the testosterone-drenched world of professional wrestling.

Now, I won’t claim that pro-wrestling is the best example of masculinity out there, haha, in many aspects it is quite the opposite.

However, the under-arching reason that pro-wrestling appeals especially to young men is it’s portrayal of good versus evil or perhaps the journey to overcome certain and formidable opposition.

Young men are in search of inspiration to face a world that is filled with the unknown, that includes tragedy, tribulation, and unfairness.  In many ways this is played out in the world of professional wrestling, and interestingly my brother and I went from having real difficulties in our relationship, to sharing a passion and bonding as brothers should; our own battles were no longer perceived as you vs. me, but instead replaced by emulating our favorite wrestlers and cooperatively staging our own “matches” while also enjoying the performances of the then WWF and WCW.

My cohesive relationships with both these brothers has continued to this day.

My youngest brother was an example of being a little masculine warrior: he was born very prematurely at 1 pound and 1 ounce.  He shouldn’t have lived for a day, but fought to live 6 months after his birth; he is an example of the determination, grit, and desire to live that a child barely 5 months in the womb can show when given the chance.

Yes, people are people even before they are born; my early-bird brother is a fighting example of that!

At age 19 I began serving as a missionary of Jesus Christ for my church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints).  I was in the Dominican Republic and facing the most significant mental, psychological, and physical battles of my life to that point, as I struggled to adapt to my new role, lifestyle, and place in the world.

I contemplated returning home early (my mission was scheduled to be for two years).  I went to see the president presiding over my mission unsure if I was going to tell him that I needed to return home.

Up until that point I had been fortunate to have had a number of conversations with my mission president that gave me an impression of the good man he was.

He was assertive and outspoken, but humble and loving at the same time.  Importantly, he was inspired by God.

When I went to speak with him, he perceived my intention.  He asked me if I believed that I was called by a prophet of God to serve the mission I was then serving.  I did.  He then told me something to the effect that “even if my mission were 24 months of hell, I needed to do it, because it was the right thing.”

When he said this, that message resonated with me powerfully.  I didn’t have a mental, psychological, or physical impediment that limited me from serving (and I don’t mean to be dismissive of those that have as they can be very profound and sometimes limiting factors), I just needed to accept that I would have hardship and that it was ok, because what I was doing was worth the sacrifices I perceived myself to be making.

My mission president reassured me though that “it wouldn’t be 24 months of hell, but that there would be lots of good times ahead too”.

He was prophetic on all accounts.  I needed his powerful masculine influence at that time to tell me what I may not have wanted to consider, but he always showed me love, concern, and compassion, and 19 years later still keeps tabs on me and supports me in my life and challenges.

I am fortunate to have many, many other great men in my life too.  Masculinity for me is a tonic, and not at all toxic.

Good men support, lift, love, and empower other men AND women.

Good men combined WITH good women produce the greatest results of all, good families.  Good families produce good communities.  Good communities produce a good world.

This is the classic win-win at it’s best.

*definitions sourced from Merriam-Webster

 

 

Regardless of where you sit on the so-called “political spectrum”, I would venture to say that most individuals would agree in basic principle on most things; the differences however (and sadly, the vitriol) come largely from our disagreements in how to accomplish certain outcomes.

A prime example of this is when we talk about whether to legalize certain (or perhaps even all) drugs, plants, fungi, or any substance that may be viewed as potentially dangerous or that leads to vice.

Most wouldn’t hesitate to agree that the end goal is for a society that is less violent, has fewer overdose deaths, fewer people helplessly addicted, and most importantly one that protects the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

So, with that in mind, I attempt a look into the general possibility of drug legalization (which would to include various classes of currently illicit substances).

History is sadly replete with examples of drug-prohibition related violence.

What caused “Prohibition” (the prohibition of alcohol during 1920-1933 in the United States) to fuel gangland violence and strengthen organized crime during this period?

A change in the distribution network.

Let me elaborate:

Previous to 1920, family owned businesses and regular companies with shareholders, corporate officers, and legal liability were distributing beer, wine, whiskey, etc.  Once prohibition hit, demand didn’t proverbially “dry-up”, rather, there was simply a change in the distribution network.

Instead of family businesses and corporations, organized crime and “moonshiners” stepped-in to fill the demand.

Instead of having beverages brewed under careful supervision (public liability to provide consistent and uncontaminated products), organized crime and various other moonshiners whipped up their own concoctions, which inevitably lead to products tainted with methanol (the dangerous cousin of ethanol that can potentially cause blindness and death) and other potentially dangerous or deadly compounds when the brew had an unknown provenance.

Additionally, due to the inherent possibility of criminal prosecution for distributing alcohol, those doing so would turn to providing beverages with the highest alcohol content possible, to minimize the bulk of a shipment, allowing for easier, more covert transportation.

So instead of a beer truck hauling beer with approximately 3 to 5% alcohol content, the moonshiners and organized crime were often pushing the upper limits of high alcohol content to as high as 95%, minimizing their risk of detection, but certainly upping the risk to the end-consumer.

Very sadly, the modern world is replete with far greater degrees of violence and contamination due to drug prohibition that make 1920s “Americana” look like a walk in the park.

The drug war in Mexico has averaged greater than 20,000 deaths per year for more than a decade now!  Nearly a quarter million people in 10 years, and why?  Drug cartels, prohibition.

But why do drug cartels exist?  Similar to the above explanation, there is a demand for their product.  Since the product is illegal, high risk is involved in it’s delivery, and therefore the desired product becomes even more valuable (just as in the 1920s during the above mentioned “Prohibition” period).

Previous to the modern trouble in Mexico, cartels (of course) existed and similarly intolerable degrees of violence happened throughout Central and South America, with an epicenter in Columbia during the 1970s through the 1990s.

All this was an inevitable consequence of Nixon’s “War on Drugs”, which every subsequent presidential administration has continued to pursue.

Today the world at large, and perhaps especially the United States, is being affected by an “opioid crisis”.

Addiction to opioids, commonly prescribed by doctors, has lead many unwitting patients into the dark paths of addiction.  When the doctors are no longer willing to prescribe or provide for the addicted person’s requirements, the addict (sadly, but predictably) will often turn to the black-market in search of ever more potent and dangerous opioids such as heroin.

To maximize profit, and minimize shipments (again similar to “Prohibition”) drug dealers have once again resorted to ever more dangerous strategies to deploy their product, reduce their risks, and make more money.

One recent strategy is “cutting-in” synthetic opioids such as fentanyl and carfentanyl, which are up to 5,000 times as potent as a unit of heroin.  Such “spiking” of heroin with said substances has lead to a massive surge in overdose deaths in the US, to the extent that average life expectancy is currently in decline in America.

Again, these are the results of drug prohibition.  Saying something is illegal doesn’t make it go away.  It just makes the market for it more opaque, dangerous, and expensive.

The above anecdotes are with respect to arguably three of the most dangerous drugs consumed, namely alcohol, cocaine, and heroin.  But each has relatively benign analogues:

Alcohol consumed in beer, while definitely having the potential for danger, takes a much higher level of total consumption to reach inebriation than say, a hard liquor.  A person having just a beer with lunch or dinner is hardly someone involved in high-risk behavior.

Similarly, Peruvians and Bolivians that chew coca-leaves to offset the effects of working in high-altitudes are hardly high-risk users when compared to those using the highly processed and concentrated derivative of the coca-leaf: cocaine.

And Aunt Betty taking a “Lortab” after surgery is probably not the opioid user you or I are worried about.

It then seems absurd to consider certain “drugs” that are found in nature and used in their natural (not concentrated) state to have such staunch opposition to their legalization.

Of course, the most evident is so-called marijuana legislation.  It is bizarre that there is not (at minimum) a federal allowance for medicinal cannabis.

Many who oppose it’s legalization may be surprised that cocaine (of all things) is actually approved for medicinal purposes.  Granted, while limited to things like nose surgeries and it’s use as an anesthetic, it is commonly used in modern medicine.

Why not allow those suffering from terminal cancer or going through chemotherapy, or dealing with epileptic seizures, etc. the use of cannabis to ease their condition and pain?

Granted there are many other potential uses, but those are some of the more dire conditions many face who potentially could benefit.

Similarly, many with PTSD and other mental conditions have found help with psychedelics such as “magic mushrooms” which contain the naturally occurring  psychoactive compound psilocybin.

Yet even synthetics such as LSD have shown therapeutic benefits for many.

In controlled settings and in prescribed amounts, these can be safely administered and show potential for improving patients mental states and helping them deal with life-altering mental and emotional struggles.

Beyond medical marijuana, magic mushrooms, or mere marshmallows, why does any governing body have the right to tell you what to consume?

Maybe instead of turning to pain-killers, anti-depressants, anti-anxiety medications, etc., many could find relief in less toxic, less addictive, and less deadly ways.

Do these various substances have potential for abuse?  Absolutely.  Can they result in dangerous behavior?  Indeed.  But that can be said for many things used in society that aren’t illegal, and especially many of the legally prescribed medications doctors dole out every day.

Education is the most important thing.

This requires time, effort, and an open mind, but the results can be lead people to beneficial treatments and away from addictive and destructive substances.

Instead of shouting the slogan so many of us heard growing up of “Just Say No!”, perhaps we could have open conversations with each-other and our children about the effects, dangers, and potential for abuse and addiction, or treatment and therapy, that any given substance has.

At the end of the day, a substance is just a tool.  It is neither inherently good or bad.  Like a car, a gun, a computer, a knife, a smartphone, they can all be used to in beneficial ways or destructive ways.  The utility depends on the user.

We are free agents unto ourselves, we are responsible for the wise or foolish use of any tool.

We don’t need “Big Brother” to tell us what tools we can or can’t use.

What we need is for people of all backgrounds to educate each other so that we can make the best and most responsible decisions for our individual and family circumstances.

 

 

 

Warning: contains “Back to the Future” spoilers!

I don’t know about you, but I’m oddly perturbed by the amount of anti-bullying dogma that gets thrust in my face seemingly at every turn.

Some bullies are meant to be celebrated!  (Hint: fictional ones)

Don’t get me wrong, like any rational human I am against real bullying and believe that standing up to bullies is a best course of action.  The reality is that we will always have some level of bullying to deal with throughout life.

Effectively standing up to and dealing with bullies is like pulling the weeds and planting a garden.  It takes effort and commitment to maintain, is often a task we’d rather put off, but the results when we do it can be beautiful and productive.

If people truly abided the non-aggression principle, our society both locally and internationally would be a freer and more peaceful place to live.  I won’t get into that discussion much further, but for those interested in the philosophy of the “non-aggression principle” I feel this is a good starting point:

https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression

Today I wanted to take a different look at things, to look to the alpha-bully of cinematic history for inspiration, the one and only Biff Tannen: the archetypal school bully from the “Back to the Future” trilogy.

I will detail some of Biff’s aggressive behavior from the first movie of the trilogy; perhaps you will see evidence of these types of behavior in others you know, or heaven forbid, in yourself.

Some may dismiss actor Thomas F. Wilson and writers Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale’s portrayal of Biff as simply a comic exaggeration of the jock-bully type; but the reality is that they embodied a bully of mythical proportions and brilliantly executed a character that we loved to hate.  Who else has done this as successfully?

In professional wrestling, wrestlers can only dream of creating a villainous “heel” character that is so roundly hated with gusto, as was Biff in “Back to the Future”.  Such a character fills arenas and sells pay-per-views, even more so if there is a countering “babyface” or good-guy to oppose them.

After all, the worst thing that can happen in movies or professional wrestling, or any form of entertainment (including politics), is for people to just not care for a given character.  Which characters rise to the top?  The most loved and hated.

And people LOVE to hate Biff Tannen.  Because of this intense disgust for Biff and everything he embodies, George McFly decking Biff is such a huge payoff later in the film.

And this is why Biff is so important to the movie.

Like any epic story, legitimate opposition needs to stand in the protagonist’s way.  There needs to be some opposable force that is generally believable, significant and/or ominous/evil, otherwise the ultimate victory or triumph rings hollow.

So, with no further ado, here are the 5 things that make Biff the king of schoolyard bullies:

1.  Gaslighting/not accepting responsibility/playing the victim:  In Biff’s opening scene in “Back to the Future” now middle-aged Biff shows up at the McFly household with a towed and seemingly totaled car.  Instead of accepting responsibility for wrecking George McFly’s car, Biff tells George “I can’t believe you’d loan me a car without telling me it has a blind spot!  I could’ve been killed!” Here Biff uses “gas-lighting” (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting for further information) on George to insinuate he is to blame for the accident.  Later, George ask Biff to have his insurance pay for the car, but Biff rebuts this by saying “It’s your car, your insurance should pay for it.  I want to know who is going to pay for THIS (holding his blazer)?  I spilled beer all over it when the car smashed into me.  Who’s going to pay my cleaning bill?”  Here Biff epically pushes the blame further to George, and plays up his status as victim by asking George to pay to clean the blazer that he spilled beer (of all things) on, which we all know should not be ingested while operating a moving vehicle.
2. Forcing compliance, extortion:  In both the first and second scenes that Biff’s character appears in, Biff is insinuated to force George to either do his reports for work (first scene, as middle-aged men in 1985) or to do his homework (second scene, as high school students in 1955).  At no point do we hear that George will be compensated with anything for completing these tasks or that this is a voluntary help George is giving.  Implicit is the underling threat that if they aren’t completed something bad will happen to George, occasioned by Biff violently knocking his knuckles on the top of George’s head, saying “Hello McFly!” and then grabbing him by his shirt and forcibly inquiring of George that he wouldn’t want anything bad to happen to him (Biff) by not completing the forced tasks, Biff reiterates the point when sensing hesitation from George, until George relents under the apparent threat and states his compliance with Biff.  At another point, Biff tells George that his “going into the diner” is going to cost him and asks him how much money he has on him; this, simply an unveiled attempt at extorting George.
3. Repeated insults:  Biff has a number of go-to insults, perhaps his favorite is “Butthead!”.  While inane, it is particularly effective on some, especially when repeated ad nauseam; he simultaneously diminishes the target with an insult that strikes at both their mental capacity and physical appearance.  The repetition and forceful conviction of its use add to the impact.  Beyond the simple name calling, Biff also insults by questioning the character of individuals.  His favorite is “What are you, Chicken?!?”  This question insinuates the target is fearful, or worse, has no conviction to their purported beliefs.  Of course, we only see Biff level this accusation at those he doesn’t find threatening, and while surrounded by his friends.
4. Restricting both movement and free association:  Multiple times Biff states “I thought I told you to never come in here!” (typically to George).  Biff also tells Marty to “Make like a tree, and get out of here!”.  Biff also reiterates to Lorraine through both word and action that “you’re mine”, inferring she is somehow his property and his alone.  (See below “Violence” for further restriction of movement)
5. Violence:  Biff uses various degrees of violence or the threat of violence, some of which have already been mentioned.  At a minimal level, he uses what he pretends to be playful teasing by saying “Look, shoe’s untied!” and then slapping his victim when they look.  As mentioned before, Biff escalates with “Hello McFly!” accompanied by knuckle-knocking on the head and forcefully grabbing clothing.  Biff also forcibly grabs Lorraine by the arm in the cafeteria, followed by pushing and then grabbing Marty (who he prepares to punch) before Principle Strickland breaks it up; later his violent episodes escalate to attempting to ram Marty (on a skateboard) into a truck.  This culminates in Biff’s assault on Lorraine at the dance, which has a drunken Biff forcing himself on Lorraine while physically restraining her in the car (at minimum, some level of sexual/physical assault is implied) prior to George coming to her rescue (while almost getting his arm broken by the violent Biff), Biff then shoves Lorraine to the ground when she attempts to intervene, ending in George knocking Biff unconscious with a surprise left hook.

While seemingly one-dimensional, Thomas F. Wilson sells the character so well, from memorable facial expressions to unforgettable voice intonations, Wilson embodies a twisted, conniving, physically imposing and menacing threat throughout the film.

Initially, he is comic-like in his school yard villainy, and yet his bullying becomes very dark and sinister as the movie progresses.

At it’s core, what makes this movie memorable and relatable has nothing to do with traveling through time, its all about the need to confront and stand up to bullies, and how doing so can sometimes be terrifying and difficult, but ultimately rewarding.  It’s about facing opposition head on, and overcoming.

That’s what turns a good move into a great one, there needs to be believable, significant, even ominous and evil opposition, and that’s why we should celebrate the writers of “Back to the Future” and Thomas F. Wilson for their transcendent portrayal of Biff Tannen, bully par excellence!

 

 

 

You can’t spell diet without die, as in “I’d rather”…

Perhaps that sums up most of my life experience with the idea of strictly adhering to a regimented and meted out consumption of healthy food.

But the reality is that prior to going on a so-called “diet”, I was already (for the most part) eating healthy.

Nutrition and exercise have been part of my life for better than 20 years now.  During this time I’ve learned a lot about nutrition in general, but specifically things that seem to resonate for me.

Still, I didn’t want to go on a damn diet!  Sorry, I shouldn’t use the d word, but this will be hard to write without using the word diet repeatedly-

Needless to say, I finally did bite the bullet and committed to go on a diet.

Context:  I was about 9 weeks from going on a cruise with a group of other singles.

Objective:  Lose about 8-10 lbs and try to maintain muscle mass, about 1 pound per week (which I felt was realistic).

Rational:  I’ve worked out for a long time, but those efforts would be more visible if I was less flabby.

Theory:  Women are superficial and like abs.

Haha, before you judge me too harshly, I’m sorry, but women are superficial, and THAT’S ok-

I’m not saying that it ranks number one on what they want, or that they are as superficial as men, but let’s be honest, aesthetics do matter to some degree, and in that sense most of us are at least a little superficial.

Results:  I lost about 8-10 pounds and women ARE superficial.

But in reality, what we call superficial may be something else.  We are attracted to health.  That seems like a perfectly plausible evolutionary rational for our superficiality, right?!?

Back to the diet.  Why did I hold off for so long on doing this?  I hit my goal, lost some excess flab and felt better about my body.  I didn’t change my exercise routine, just my food consumption.

You may ask what my diet was, and granted 10 pounds is not earth-shattering to anyone, but for those interested, I mostly swapped carbs for healthy fats.  I didn’t go full “Keto”, but my diet was probably about 50% fat/25% protein/25% carbs (by calories) and the carbs had a high percentage of dietary fiber.  I did reduce my caloric intake too, but not by a huge amount, probably about 500 fewer calories per day (my thought being that over 7 days this would be 3,500 calories which is equal to 1 pound of fat).

I ball-parked things, mostly doing the math in my head and organizing food day to day.  I even had cheat meals here and there, but for the most part was quite strict.

This was where I realized why I had avoided dieting for so long.  The discipline component.  I always liked having some wiggle room, and stricter diets don’t allow much for that.  Also, this diet ran from about mid Nov to mid Jan, the dreaded food binging  “holidaze”.

I saw countless goodies and reward foods brought in to work, co-workers bringing back delicious take-out meals, and slowly began to learn the joy of deprivation.

Yes, the joy of deprivation.  I’m going to sound like a masochist now.  But there was something oddly rewarding about not participating, and eating a bag of carrots or some boiled eggs.  Perhaps I just enjoyed the ephemeral sense of moral-superiority my boring health foods gave me over my colleagues, haha!

The last few weeks I changed one of my diet protocols, and to be honest I feel that this last change was the most important, and the one that has made me –GASP– want to continue on my diet once it was over:

Time-restricted eating.  My goal with time-restricted eating was to eat all the food within an 8 to maximum 12 hour period, with my goal to mostly be in the 8-9 hour range.

If I’m eating all of my food within say 9 hours, then this means that I will fast from food for the other 15 hours.  I would only drink water during the other 15 hours.

As a member of the LDS faith (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) we are encouraged to do a 24 hour fast (of both food and water) the first Sunday of each month.

For the most part, I had actually been pretty good to adhere to this in recent years, and admittedly it was after learning all the health benefits that fasting offers (I wish it was more due to my spiritual yearnings, but hey, I’ll use the selfish health motivation if that’s what it takes) and I also enjoyed the sense of control I had by managing my hunger and thirst.

So, I figured 15 hours won’t be bad, but I did worry about repeating the process day after day.

After just a few days though, I found that it wasn’t particularly hard.  My body quickly got used to just not eating during the time I wasn’t planning on it.  Surprisingly, I wasn’t overly hungry, and didn’t feel the need to gorge during my 9 hour window of eating.

I haven’t lost muscle-mass either, which (as someone who enjoys powerlifting and bodybuilding exercises) I was worried about by restricting my diet.  Fortunately, muscle loss has not materialized, and my lifts are close to or at my all time highs, despite losing overall body mass.

Everybody is different though.  I’m not going to tell you to follow my diet.  Your body may thrive on something entirely different.

I do however think time-restricted eating is applicable to most individuals.  I think our bodies simply function better that way.  Also, I do think it is always a good idea to eat whole and minimally processed foods.  You will simply get more nutrition that way.

Ultimately, I learned that a diet is not a bad thing.  In fact, diet is just a bad word.  It’s more about taking control of what you eat and when you eat it.

I’ll repeat that, don’t diet.  Just understand that you are in control of what you eat and when you eat it.  Nobody else.

Now I am in control.  I am happier.  Deprivation can feel good.  Good food after being deprived is even better.

I eat a hearty mix of good, healthy foods, I’m not actually deprived at all.  Now I feel satisfied, normal, even when it’s been nearly 15 hours since I ate.  My body is able to use fat for energy.  I’m not always on the glycogen (sugar/carb) rollercoaster.

Do I have a good cheat meal when I go out on the weekend?  Yes!  Do I feel like dessert after?  Not really.  Do I need to chug a Pepsi to wash down what I ate?  Not really.

Occasionally I will, but I’ve earned it-

And it feels good to earn it.

So don’t be like me, don’t fear taking control of what you eat and when you eat it (diet).

Simply do it.  Don’t sue me Nike, that’s not trademarked.

This is your life.  The longer I’m on this beautiful blue marble flying through space the more I realize that I am in control.

I am to act.  Not to be acted upon.

Where I am, who I become, how I live, what I believe, is up to me.  Of course I have externalities that influence and mold me, but ultimately I am the one empowered to take the rudder and navigate the ship of my life through the forces of nature that act upon it.

Maybe I’ll have wind to wrestle against, maybe heavy waves, perhaps violent storms, maybe a hole or two to plug.

These are the externalities, some will be positive, others negative, but I’m the one with my hand on the rudder.

Until the day I die(t)!!!

 

 

 

 

 

There is a brilliant future ahead of us, sans public transportation.  There are heroic efforts being made today that will bring an end to the tyranny of so-called “public transportation”.

Can you see the bright light at the end of the $4.4 billion tunnel?

Yes, in one of countless examples (across the world) of wasteful government theft, the hapless taxpayers in NYC shelled out that amount for one single mile of subway line.  That’s right, one mile.  $70,000 per inch!

I dream of a different world, one where the massive burden of unbridled bureaucratic profligacy doesn’t yoke helpless tax-slaves, a world where no cumbersome public transports clog the roads, grind traffic to a halt at railway crossings, and where government cronies don’t become wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

Being a car owner, I have rarely had the desire to engage with public transportation in any of it’s malignant forms, but I do have experience with it regardless.

I live about a mile away from a light-rail station, as well as it’s heavy-rail counter-part.  I am all too aware of these stops, not because I frequent said modes of transportation, but because they are consistently slowing mine.

You may relate, as any time you come to a railway crossing the time required to give safe passage to a train can cause regular vehicular congestion.

And why trains of all things?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m fascinated by trains myself, but view little utility in this 1800’s mode of transportation now that we’re well into the 21st century.

Sure, trains are great for moving really heavy things across the country and I have no problem with freight trains, but then again, why should I?

Freight trains are a private business that I pay for when I purchase something to be shipped, or consume something that was shipped for local consumption.  Similar to trucking companies, these businesses must provide you some benefit in exchange for your voluntarily utilized money.

Public transportation is quite different.  This is not a voluntary transaction.  It is the government pointing a gun at your head in exchange for your (tax) dollars.

Unlike a business, bureaucrats don’t care about wasting money, they have no ownership and are at no risk of losing their own money.

More important to them is to purchase (with your money) the votes of their perceived constituents and to grease the pockets of those who donate to their campaigns (often the benefactors of government contracts for public transportation expenditures).

But what about the poor you may ask?

I lived for two years in the Dominican Republic, a developing country in the Caribbean, as a missionary for the LDS Church.  It was there where I encountered how impoverished people find transportation.

While the DR does have public transportation which I rode occasionally, called the OMSA (public buses), most of my experience finding inexpensive transportation was using Guaguas (private buses), publicos (private cars running specific routes), motoconchos (motorcylce taxis) and regular taxis (again private).

Living in various barrios of Santo Domingo and the Dominican countryside gave me the opportunity to travel as the locals did.

Public transporation was set to schedules that may or may not have been convenient to passengers, was of course subsidized with taxes, had only set stops, and while cheap to the end consumer, was hugely expensive to those paying taxes, and was by no means a final travel solution, as most still needed transportation to and from the distant bus stops.

The various private modes of transportation (while naturally having their own problems and risks) did a much better job of getting people to exactly where they needed to go.

This was done inexpensively without tax-payer subsidization; granted, that was a given as they were responding to market forces and consumer demand, rather than arbitrary bureaucracy.

Here in the United States and in much of the world, the last few years have witnessed the rise of companies such as Uber and Lyft.

Utilizing privately developed technology, these companies have obviated traditional taxis, and in many cases public transportation as well.

I rode in Uber just yesterday, as I had dropped off my car to have the tires and oil changed.  Realizing this would take several hours, I used a simple app to hail an Uber, and within less than 5 minutes had the ride I needed.

No need to walk a long distance to a bus stop, take the bus to the train, take the train to another bus, then walk from the final bus stop to my house.

Nope.  My Uber picked me up and drove me straight home.  I saved a ton of time, and didn’t cost tax-payers anything.  Also, it didn’t cost me much, far less than a traditional taxi.

This is just the beginning.

Tesla has been notably in the news regarding autonomous car technology, having something called “auto-pilot” on many of their models.  But Tesla is hardly the only automotive company utilizing such technology.  Most new autos already have some type of autonomous interface, even if it is just lane departure warnings, emergency brake applications, back-up sensors, etc.

While it is hard to say how far out the broad implementation of fully autonomous cars is, it’s not hard to imagine that in the next 5-15 years we will see many individuals decide they would rather use an inexpensive autonomous Uber than own their own car, or even better, than use public transportation.

At that point, companies like Uber and Tesla will offer a service so convenient and inexpensive that most will realize that public transportation is totally unnecessary and wasteful.

Hopefully then, citizens the world over will no longer have to work hours upon hours to fund $70,000 “per inch” nightmares, or any other government boondoggles the world over.

So, wherever you live, make sure your local politicians are well aware that you do not want to be saddled with massive public transportation bonds that fund nothing more than their donors pockets and impoverish generations of taxpayers.

Especially now that public transportation is in the final round of it’s humiliating defeat to the future of super-inexpensive private transportation!

 

For several months I had been meaning to see the movie “Hacksaw Ridge”.  Finally I did, and while it is certainly not for the faint of heart, those so inclined will be rewarded with something truly special…

(If you have not seen the movie, there may be “spoilers” below; that stated, what I have written would be unlikely to dissuade you from viewing it).

Prior to even hearing about this movie I had read an article that lauded Desmond T. Doss, a man classified as a conscientious objector during the second World War.

Despite harsh treatment from many enlisted, perhaps especially from his superiors, several who thought him a coward, he pushed forward, not looking for an escape from what he knew could potentially cost him his life.

Determined to serve with his enlisted brothers, but not kill, he braved the front lines of the brutal and relentless fight in Okinawa without a weapon, as a medic, hoping to save lives rather than take them.

After arriving and experiencing the horrors of the battle on the front lines, he managed (crediting God’s help) the fortitude to stay with the wounded after his battalion had retreated down a ridge (Hacksaw Ridge) and throughout the night worked tirelessly to locate and then lower wounded men back to safety.

Although he was alone in his efforts on the ridge and in constant mortal danger, after finding each man and bringing him to the ridge (often on his shoulders) he devised a clever rope tie to harness and then lower the wounded down the steep cliff.  Doing this he managed to help save 75 men.

As this is portrayed in the movie (and as Doss recollected the experience) after lowering each man to safety, (and though utterly exhausted and suffering his own injuries) he would pray “Please Lord, help me get one more.”

I found the portrayal in the movie particularly poignant, as in it I perceived this man’s heroic example an analogy to what was accomplished by Jesus Christ for each of us.

Doss, one by one, helped to save those 75 men.  While Christ, one by one, with his atoning sacrifice for every individual, helps to save us, not just in this life, but in eternity.

As a Christian and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I believe that Jesus Christ willingly atoned for the sins of every individual who will accept him as their savior.

And additionally, that Christ suffered death and then (in reality) rose again to life on the third day, conquering the death of all humanity and ultimately lifting us all from death to life, through the power of his resurrection.

It surpasses my own comprehension just how Jesus was able to accomplish this.

However, it is a truth that I have felt in my whole being.

I have been given understanding that Christ is real… a beautiful experience that resonates with me still.

Watching the afore mentioned scene from the movie, I wondered if, perhaps, as Jesus Christ battled through the anguish and suffering, occasioned by taking upon himself our sins, pains, afflictions, temptations, sicknesses, infirmities, and ultimately death, that perhaps verbally (or in his heart), he could have been heard to say:

“Please Father… help me save one more.”

It may be that such a process is repeated time and again, not only for 75 men close to death’s door on a remote ridge in Okinawa, but for everyone: you, me, and all else, until each of us is not lowered, but instead raised, one by one, with His hand firmly grasping yours, then mine, to the safety of a heavenly embrace.

As an eligible bachelor this post will likely only bring me grief, but the truth must be told!

Did you know that the gift of a diamond ring upon engagement to get married is a tradition that has only gained footing in the last century?

Who instilled this tradition on (most prominently) the American psyche?

De Beers.

No, I’m not talking about some hip brewing company, De Beers is the company formed in the late 1800’s after the discovery of enormous reserves of diamonds were found in mines near the Orange River in South Africa.

To maintain the perception of diamonds as a precious gem (whereas if the immense supplies of diamonds had been released they may be, at best, semi-precious), De Beers formed what became one of the most prolific monopolies in history.

Assuming control of various competing mines and supply channels, they quickly cornered the market for diamonds.

But the greatest genius of De Beers is how they marketed diamonds, particularly the diamond engagement ring.

They pushed the “A diamond is forever” slogan into the American subconscious.

They effectively created the “tradition” of giving a diamond ring to commemorate a wedding engagement.

They paraded Hollywood starlets with the biggest and best diamond jewelry, and effectively used a huge advertising budget to emblaze the pre-eminence of diamonds as the gem of love and eternity (even though they can be broken, burned, blemished, etc.).

They simultaneously pushed up the value of diamonds artificially through limiting supply and increasing demand, all while somehow making selling a diamond an entirely losing proposition.

Think about it… have you ever attempted to sell a diamond?  If you have, you know that you will never get what you paid for it, you are lucky to get half.  Who wants an used diamond?

Are you starting to see?

For more on the above, I highly recommend the following article that was published by “The Atlantic” in Feb of 1982, the article not only holds up well 35 years on, it is still a revelation to those who read it today:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/

That’s just the tip of the iceberg though.

What is the danger in buying a diamond ring as a symbol of love and getting engaged to be married?  Those things seem nice and exciting!  Perhaps this is why De Beers has had such phenomenal success.

Depending on sources, the average engagement ring costs about $6,000:

https://www.bustle.com/articles/144926-this-is-the-average-cost-of-an-engagement-ring

Think about that for a minute.  $6,000.00 for a shiny piece of hardened carbon on less than a quarter ounce of precious metal?  Something that can be easily lost, broken, stolen, or heaven forbid, the engagement/marriage doesn’t work out…

What is the opportunity cost of this expensive purchase?

Many (especially young couples) don’t have $6,000 on tap, so most of these rings get financed.  The true cost of the ring with interest ends up being much more.

What if couples didn’t have to burden their finances at the beginning of marriage when they most likely are scrimping just to get by?  What if this money was used to start a small side-business that the couple ran together?  What if it was used to pay off other debts?

Perhaps an even greater detriment of this modern “tradition”, is that many men very likely PUT OFF marriage simply because they can’t save up enough to purchase the ring they may feel their prospective bride wants or that he perceives she deserves.

Some compare the wedding ring to a version of the modern dowry.  But instead of the in-laws getting two acres of fertile pasture, three cows, and a beautiful chicken coop, a portion of the modern dowry just goes to some middle-man jeweler you don’t know and most goes back to De Beers; so much for keeping it in the family…

So what is the solution?

The solution is for individuals to determine a new path.  Couples need to find some new tradition that may be entirely unique to themselves to replace or dismiss going into debt for something an advertising agency made you unnecessarily desire.

If you want a ring, still get one.  But maybe with a different gem?  Maybe a birthstone, or your fiancé’s favorite non-diamond gem.  Maybe one with both of your birthstones together (granted birthstones are their own arbitrary creation, but that’s another story).

Or heaven forbid… a cubic zirconia!  Wear it with pride, say “I couldn’t burden my fiancé with having him buy me a diamond, I insisted it be a cubic zirconia (which arguably are prettier)!”.

And no, you’re not going to miss the fact that you can’t cut glass with it, nobody does that in real life…

If you’re hoping to have the biggest-prettiest diamond that you can make your friends jealous with, then I’m sure this post isn’t for you; I will tell you though, that someone else has a bigger and prettier ring than you.

Instead, be unique.

Find a different way.  A more MEANINGFUL and PRACTICAL way.

Not one devised by a brilliant ad agency rep, intended to suck you dry when you’re poor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” -John 14:6

Today is Easter.  A celebration of Jesus Christ overcoming death, by rising from the dead, resurrecting his previously tormented and lifeless mortal body to immortal physical perfection and eternal life.

He is the way:

Through Christ I may find redemption from my foibles, sins, weaknesses, and all imperfections.  I am quite flawed, and therefore eternally grateful that Christ gave himself for me, took upon himself all my tribulation, pain, and evil:

“And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people.

And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities.

Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh that he might take upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions according to the power of his deliverance; and now behold, this is the testimony which is in me.” -Alma 7:11-13

Only through Jesus Christ can I be cleansed to once again live with God.

He is the truth:

How then do I follow Jesus Christ?  By studying his teachings.  He taught eternal truths, often in parable, but often in unmistakably simple and direct terms:

“Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” -Mathew 22:35-40

I can follow Christ by first searching, then believing his teachings; and then, having the faith in Christ to implement those very principles and doctrines in my own life.

He is the life:

As mentioned before, Christ overcame death.  This is a gift given to all mankind, the gift to become immortal, to have my spirit someday reunited with my body, but in immortality and without mortal flaw.

If I also strive to implement his teachings throughout my life and accept him as my redeemer, then I will also be given the greatest gift, that of eternal life, which is life with God.

“But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.” -1 Corinthians 2:9

Another great beauty of what Jesus Christ accomplished for all (referred to as “the Atonement”) is that every member of the human family will be given ample opportunity to accept his sacrifice and teachings.  It may be in the next life, as this life is so short and so many have died without any or sufficient knowledge of Christ.

Ultimately though, all things will be made right, and each person will at some point have the full opportunities to participate in the blessings that Jesus Christ has secured for each of us, should we accept and follow him in faith and devotion.

My testimony of Jesus Christ:

I believe that Jesus Christ truly is exactly who he said he is:

“Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” -Mark 14:61-62

I have personally felt the love that Jesus Christ has for me.  It is something that is impossible to relate in words, all I can really say is that it is REAL.  His love is INFINITELY POWERFUL.  It is BEAUTIFUL.  It is PERSONAL.

Happy Easter my friends!

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”