Wiquer Kingdom

And He's Done What?

2010-11-21T21:52:00.000-08:00

So it's been a few years since Obama has been the failing leader of this country, and what has he done? In my opinion....nothing. He's spent trillions, acts smug and arrogent as usual, and still hasn't fulfilled one promise except spend our money to make the rich even richer. I thought Bush was bad for the tax cuts the rich received, but Obama just gives them money to "keep them in business and provide jobs."

Instead of focusing on a new world order he hopes to be in charge of, and trying to improve on his horrible public speaking skills (I've never seen someone as bad as him at speaking publicly), maybe he should improve our country and focus on our needs. His healthcare bill is pathetic if not completely a waste as healthcare companies are still confused as to how to bill customers. Someone, please, tell me what good he has done. If you can tell me something good he personally (not the senate, not congress, but Obama himself) then let me know because he hasn't done a damn thing at all.

Forwarded Letter to Obama

2010-04-29T07:31:00.000-07:00

I received this e-mail yesterday from my wife. Even if this letter isn't real it's completely true and I agree with it. If it is true, this old man rules!

"This venerable and much honored WW II vet is well known in Hawaii

for his seventy-plus years of service to patriotic organizations and causes all over the country. A humble man without a political bone in his body, he has never spoken out before about a government official, until now. He dictated this letter to a friend, signed it and mailed it to the president.

Dear President Obama,

My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor , allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.

So here goes.

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

I can't figure out what country you are the president of.

You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:

" We're no longer a Christian nation"
" America is arrogant" - (Your wife even
announced to the world," America is mean-
spirited. " Please tell her to try preaching
that nonsense to 23 generations of our
war dead buried all over the globe who
died for no other reason than to free a
whole lot of strangers from tyranny and
hopelessness.)

I'd say shame on the both of you, but I don't think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

After 9/11 you said," America hasn't lived up to her ideals."

Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.

I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.

Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue . You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts , who was putting up a fight? You don't mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.

You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.

And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle...

Sincerely,

Harold B. Estes"

Health Care Reform is Supposed to be Better?

2010-04-28T23:04:00.000-07:00

I agree that all citizens in the United States should have health care; the health care system has spun too far out of control. Premiums are too high, health care companies make too much money, and companies are dropping health care to save money. So what's the solution?

Well, President Osama (I mean....Obama) came out and said he would reform health care so everyone would have it! Yay right? It only took him a year longer to get things passed then he promised, and now that the reform bill has passed everything will be spiffy right? Wrong. Although more Americans will have health care and I am totally supportive of that, and the national debt will be $24 million dollars down, according to a report on Yahoo the government was planning on cutting funds to Medicare by 15%. Wow! Medicare (for those of you who are oblivious) is for elderly people that need further help with medical bills. In fact, according to the same report on Yahoo, the majority of funds hospitals are able to bring in are due to Medicare and the growing number of those that are older going to the hospital on a consistent basis.

How is this bad? The government will be saving the country money right? Everyone will have health care right? Well yes and yes. However if you haven't seen the problem yet let me elaborate. If Medicare funds are cut by 15% Medicare won't be able to cover as many costs as they have in the past (which is 100% of costs in many situations). Therefore the elderly will not be able to pay for everything they are in need of, causing the hospitals to either lose money because of lack of payments, or because people just won't go because they can't afford it anymore. What happens next you ask? According to economists on the same Yahoo article 50% of hospitals will go under financially from the decrease in services. What happens then if half our hospitals are gone? Crowded hospitals, longer wait times, higher stress on doctors because of the lack of other hospitals, and frustration with the health care system because it'll end up like Canada, and we all want to prevent that. What else? Doctors, nurses, all hospital personnel are unemployed. I thought the government was going to try and prevent unemployment rates from sky rocketing, guess not.

Another bit of information I don't like about this reform. According to the same Yahoo article the Democrats want to pass a bill (under the idea from Obama) that the government should increase taxes on health insurance companies to discourage them from having such high premiums. Are you retarded or high on drugs? Look at the tobacco company you ignorant morons. The government taxes the tobacco companies and those taxes increase all the time. Who pays for it? Not the tobacco companies, but the customers. Companies just increase their prices. Health insurance companies are just going to hike up the prices to pay for those taxes. Then what happens? People like me that can't afford health insurance in the first place get screwed because we have to:

1 - Pay for our own health insurance because the government picks and chooses who they help out with insurance (like Medicaid).
2 - Pay the taxes on the higher premiums.
3 - Pay more taxes for this stupid reform to cover the costs of others to have insurance.
4 - Get screwed by the government because they just can't figure it out.

We have the best health care in the world, it doesn't need to be CHANGED but REGULATED; the government is there to govern and regulate not CONTROL! Look at the government run entities:

1 - Medicaid (probably going to be stopped with this new reform) was easy to fraud, wasn't regulated closely, and is costing us billions each year.
2 - USPS (United States Postal Service) is continually closing facilities, raising prices to match what they need (and for those that don't know, the USPS is required to have about $1 billion in extra revenue every year to put into an emergency fund, and so where is that money now to help them out?), and the service is worse and worse because they hire idiots.

Look how well these entities are doing and how well the government takes control! This reform is going to cause more problems than solutions if our mentally retarded government officials can't get their heads out of their butts and figure something out to stop screwing people that actually work to make an honest living and stop aiding those that take advantage of government handouts that are easy to get. Thanks Obama, your New World Order and plans to take over the world with your cocky attitude are going to screw "your country" that you "care about" even more than when Bush was in office! Might as well add a hammer and a sickle to the flag now so it doesn't come to a surprise in the future!

Scare Tactics

2010-04-22T18:56:00.000-07:00

For some reason people like to use scare tactics to take control. This is one way our government likes to keep their power. The best example of government using scare tactics is the movie "V for Vendetta." If you have not seen this particular film let me elaborate. A politician seeking the position of leadership plotted to kill thousands of his own people with a virus to spread scare among people. After the virus was released he, and others within his party, blamed a group of radicals for the spread and promised a change if he were elected. After he was elected a cure was magically discovered, manufactured, and distributed among those suffering. So much trust was put into the government they began using scare tactics to control the people by implementing curfews, a fear of being arrested for talking bad about the government (cough...patriot act), and a continual reminder that the people needed the government to do this for their own safety.

Lets look at our previous president, George W. Bush. In my opinion Bush is uneducated, not good with words at all, and selfish. A terrorist attack on the United States happened on 9/11/01. Rumor has it the government knew about it, but lets bypass the conspiracy theories because none of them can be proved or disproved. What happened was we invaded Afghanistan (which in my opinion was our right), and then the government went too far. George W. Bush and his administration made up lies in order to invade Iraq. I'm not saying Saddam shouldn't have been taken out at sometime, but why fabricate the truth to such a high degree? Then the Bush administration started doing the same thing as in "V for Vendetta;" they began to tell us that we need them to be safe from terrorists. In order to keep us safe they initiated the "Patriot Act" also known as the UnPatriot Act by those in the Wiquer Party. According to the Patriot Act the government had the right to take anyone for any suspicion for as long as they wanted without an explanation. Sure, that sounds so "patriotic." The fear of war, attacks, and internal persecution was highly pushed during the Bush era.

Lets look at our current president, Osama Obama. Not only, in my opinion, is he a Muslim that is really just looking for world domination through kissing the butts of other countries instead of taking care of his own like he needs, but he's also an arrogant fake like those you love to hate. Does he use scare tactics of war to take control of us? I haven't seen it (although I have to digress and say, didn't he promise to get us out of the middle east, yet sent 70,000 more troops out there not too long ago?). How does the Obama administration use scare tactics? By using the biggest thing hurting the United States: the economy. The Liberals all together like to come out and say without them we cannot get out of this recession. We need them to bring the United States back up to a financial power. This coming from a President that bought his wife a 6 digit helicopter to travel in, made around $5 million last year from salary and book sales, and burns millions of gallons of fuel (paid for by our tax dollars which we apparently don't have) to kiss the butts of other countries.

Why can't we have a president that won't use scare tactics? The government is already there, it already exists, tell us something we want to hear. I want the government to tell us:

- Government officials will start using their own money to pay for their gas, travels, hotels, etc. instead of taxes we pay (outside of paying their salary)
- They'll stop spending billions on a war they promised to stop 7 months ago
- They'll stop spending billions on welfare and other government programs on those that aren't in need, just lazy
- They'll stop spending billions on foreign aid when people in this country are suffering (I'm not saying stop foreign aid, I'm saying to cut it on those countries that don't need us and burn our flags when they don't want our help anyway)

Bush used scare tactics, Obama is using the same tactics with a different focus, and I can almost guarantee the next president is going to use scare tactics. When a country can't even trust their own government that government has gone off the deep end.

Big O Ripoff

2010-04-19T09:20:00.000-07:00

So I haven't blogged in a while, but I have so much to rave about. First of all, Big O Tires is a scam, right off hand I want to say it. Do not go there. Lets start at the beginning. I went in for their economic oil change they had been advertising for quite some time. A full checkup for $20 and an oil change, not a bad deal at all! I take my wife's CR-V. They tell me everything looks good except the struts need to be replaced and show me the wavy wear in her tires; it will cost $1000 for both front and rear struts. They were pushing me to sign papers to get the work done right then and there. They gave me the "It's unsafe for us to let you drive out of here...blah blah blah" speech. Since I didn't have the money I was able to collect my keys and take off.

Four months later my wife's car needed to be registered and we needed new tires in order for it to pass. Japanese Auto up in Orem said they would take a look at the struts to see if they needed to be replaced, and how much it would be. Two guys came out, checked the struts, tested them, then looked at me and said, "Your struts are perfectly fine. The tires you have were worn from off road use." Yep, that off road use was from the previous owner.

Experience number two was with my car. I have a Saturn Ion 2 and the car has been awesome. I took this car into Big-O after I took in my wife's, but before I found out about the struts being fine. A different guy that I talked to called me on my cell and told me two of my tires wouldn't pass the next month when I went in to register the car, and he had some good deals he could give me. I told him I was ok and that I go to Discount Tire Company (whom I love) and they could give me a better deal. This guy gave me the same BS about how he couldn't let me drive out of there because it was unsafe. So of course I walked back to the store, grabbed my keys from behind the counter, and just took off (I paid for the service before I left the first time). Went to discount, and they told me my tires were fine. The guy just wanted a sale.

Big-O is a huge ripoff, and their tires suck anyway. If you want an honest company to fix your car, either go to Japanese Auto or Altech Auto in Orem (both are honest and will save you money), and go to Discount Tire Company for your tires. They gave us a great deal on 4 new tires for my wife's CR-V and extended the warranty for free.

Corporate Evil

2009-09-11T23:58:00.000-07:00

Finally, I was able to quit my job of the last 5 years at an evil corporation that I will not name because they paid for my school the last 4 years; I want to give them one positive thing before I rip into corporate schemes. It feels great to be away from the corporate environment of:

1 - Being scrutinized and undermined by corporate fat cats that have no idea what my job was in the first place.
2 - Insane rules and regulations brought upon everyone as a punishment for the lack of accountability of a few.
3 - Downsizing and held raises so the fat cats can keep their overpaid wages consistent for doing nothing.
4 - The reminder that there are no other jobs out there so I have to stick with it (but not anymore!)

Major corporations are part of the problem causing the economy to stay at a slum (in my opinion at least). In many cases they are laying off and cutting budgets to the hard working employees so they can keep high wages at the corporate level. Why not get rid of a few of the slothfull corporate employees that are too less accountable to save the company in the first place? One high waged job will keep the job of 10+ others.

Scare tactics are commonly being used by corporate offices with the idea that employees will work harder in order to keep their jobs. Well, it doesn't work. The place of my employment for the last 5 years has tried to scare people since I started working there; about 6 people working there as long as I have should have been fired, while only a few have. Then there are about 10 others that have been on the verge of being fired for years. People don't care! They do still do the minimum they have to in order to keep a job, it's the American way.

I'm not saying all corporations are like this, but all the corporations I've been involved with directly or indirectly are very close. Those making 7 digits a year should sacrifice so that jobs are not lost, which will result in few jobs being taken away, which will result in our economy not going down the crap hole as fast as it is/has/will continue to do so. No it won't fix the problem, but at least it's a start.

My Opinion About Homeopathics

2009-08-06T23:44:00.000-07:00

Straight up and out of the bag, homeopathics CAN work but homeopaths themselves are quacks. Let me explain. My family has been diagnosed with celiacs disease; an intolerance to gluten (a protein found in wheat, barley, oats, rye, and many other grains). When gluten is consumed it is the equivalent of eating small portions of poison over time. My mother was the first to discover she had it but years after she was feeling the affects. She began seeing a homeopath in Provo named Julie. Everyone in my family knows how much "love" I have for this quack.

Julie used an "advanced computer program" that determined your tolerance for certain foods programmed into the computer. She would stick a little metallic/needle like structure connected to the computer to your finger and the computer would give her a rating regarding your tolerance. Brilliant!

The first time I went to Julie (my mother was present) she gave me all these little droplet containers to help my my multiple "intolerance levels" for a wide variety of foods. While she was "testing" me she would try to convince me of things that were not true. "You have problems digesting fiber don't you?" Me: "Not that I know of." Julie: "The computer says you do, so you do." (What just happened? The computer knows me better than me? Um...sure.) Here's what's interesting too, she told me I had horrible psoriasis because I was allergic to alcohol and vinegar. Then, she put alcohol and vinegar in my droplet bottles to preserve the magic liquid (does this make sense? "Avoid alcohol and vinegar, unless I give it to you because I'm magic.") She also gave me pills telling me I had multiple worms in my intestines that were causing my stomach cramps (please note that Julie and the computer decided I had stomach cramps, as I was unaware my stomach was ever cramping).

Diligently I took these nasty drops and pills and powders that she gave me. 1 month later when my mom wasn't present, Julie told me I needed even more. Instead of asking she just kept on piling up pills, droplets, powders, etc. onto my mother's bill. So, in one month I miraculously became allergic to foods I don't eat anyway (one example was asparagus, never had it before then and never will after I tasted it once). She asked how I was feeling after taking her "magic" and I informed her I felt like crap compared to before.

On my own I stopped taking the crap she gave me. After one week I felt exactly like I did before taking the magic ingredients; I felt great. The third and very last time I ever went to Julie on my own decision (my mother asked me to go after this, but I refused and I was 16 at the time) I lied to Julie and told her I finished all her useless toad eyes and newt tongues she gave me, and the computer agreed with my lies! Yay!

There are three things I want to discuss: homeopathics and "natural" substances, prescription drugs, the power of the mind.

The above experience shows you that the homeopath herself was the problem, not the concept itself. I have seen homeopathics work after a very very very very long time regarding my mother's health. However, it wasn't until after she started seeing a doctor (real doctor with his PhD) that uses both homeopathic and prescription drugs in his practice that things started happening for her. But take a look at what "natural" or aka homoepathic drugs can have. The FDA cannot regulate homeopathic drugs because they are classified as supplements. All vitamins, minerals, etc. are not under the jurisdiction of the FDA. In fact, if you're taking "natural drugs" you could be taking water and not even knowing it, and there is nothing you can do. The first step to choosing a homeopathic drug is finding a reputable company, then the second step is to take the drugs.

Homeopathic drugs can be effective, but the downside is they can take forever to do anything. Ugh..."I hate wait." (tell me what movie that is and you are awesome). This leads us into prescription drugs. Why are prescription drugs even used if we have natural resources to help us out? Well, prescription drugs are fast and give us the results we want right? Sort of. They are fast that's for sure. Nevertheless, prescription drugs are not always good (uh oh, the drug companies will shut down my blog now). Ever thought about why your doctor has to give you permission to take a drug? It's not just so he/she can make money for the prescription, that's just an added bonus. It is because prescription drugs are the strongest, most hardcore form of whatever you want them to be. You want to feel better faster from a cold or flu? Take a prescription or over the counter drug (note that a virus cannot be killed, just temporarily controlled/relieved). Can you take other forms of vitamins that are natural? Sure, but who wants those anyway? They are slow! Prescriptions rule?

The mind, in my opinion, does have power over the body. I personally don't believe someone can wake up after finding out they have cancer and say, "I don't have cancer anymore." then go on their way living life without cancer just because they say so. Not at all. Their mind can help beat cancer, but it's not a miracle worker. Our bodies are incredible! They can do things you won't believe, but we need to make them do it. The mind is powerful enough to control the body in ways to help it overcome illness to a certain degree; the mind is powerful. It is so powerful in fact, that women can actually convince their bodies that they are pregnant even though they never had sex. Their bodies will actually grow as if they were pregnant! Isn't that amazing? (and pathetic at the same time)

So if our mind is so great why don't we use it? We've grown up in a world where we've been accustomed to say, "Doctor give me a quick fix." and going on our way. We don't want to put forth effort to make our bodies healthy, we want the miracle drugs that will make us better without us having to commit to anything. In a way I don't blame people, we are expected to get a great deal done for work, school, etc. in a short period of time. We don't want to waste time on slow processes.

So where do I stand? Prescription drugs are fast, affordable (with insurance), and easy to get. However they can also cause many problems from their extreme strengths created in labs for the purpose of imitating natural substances at, again, extreme strengths. Homeopathics can work and keep your body in a healthy lifestyle. However, the homeopaths that distribute these "natural" cures are what you need to watch out for, and if you have the time to wait for something to kick in be my guest. The mind can only do so much, but use it. It will help. Everything we have is good, everything we have is bad. What's my solution? Buy my sugar water...I mean, natural 100% guaranteed pills that are clear and odorless. You'll be saved forever!

Seminary Principal "Scandal"

2009-07-29T23:39:00.000-07:00

I don't know how far out of Utah this story has been published (if at all), but an LDS Seminary Principal has been accused of having innapropriate relations with a female student at Lone Peak High School in Highland, UT. For those who don't know (and hardly anyone reads this blog, so the few people that actually do already know) but seminary is an excused time from regular school hours for students of any faith to sit in a classroom learning about LDS doctrine and studying scriptures. The principal is someone appointed by LDS Church officials to oversee the program at a particular high school.

Don't remember his first name but the last name is Pratt, was a well-known teacher/principal that was spoken highly of because of his care and concern for students. One girl, whose name has not been released, was apparently having very heavy relationships with Pratt within the last year. She didn't come forward, her parents became suspicious and they came forward. Here's my take on the whole thing and these are not in any particular order of importance (if you haven't read much about it check online newspapers and you'll get the entire story):

1 - Parental Involvement: The parents of the student are the ones that came forward, making statements like, "He overpowered our daughter." and "He manipulated our innocent child." blah blah blah blah. At first this girl didn't say any of those things, but now she is. An interview with her published in the Deseret News revealed that she has now been duplicating the statements made by her parents. Are the parents now manipulating their daughter? I think a little bit.

2 - Who's to blame: If you read comments in the articles posted on Deseretnews.com and harktheherald.com you'll notice people are defending and insulting both sides. Some say he's 100% to blame because he's the older person, while others say she has some blame (I have yet to see someone blame her 100%) because she is old enough to know right from wrong. Taking a look at it, both are to blame in my opinion.

She was 15 at the time the relationship started. LDS members baptize children at 8 years old when they are believed to have a greater knowledge of right and wrong. She knew it was wrong, so she can't say she hasn't had any fault. She kept seeing him, she did not tell parents, she lied to her parents, she lied to her friends, and she never came forward. Some people say she was scared, but she herself said she wasn't scared. She truly believed that he wanted to have a relationship with her.

Now to him, he's in that position of authority. As a teacher/coach I understand how high school students look up to those that are older and "more wise" than they are. For example, kids in my weight lifting class at PGHS would question me about some of the things I would teach. As soon as I explained it, even if they still thought I was wrong, they would agree with me and let it go. Why? Because I was in that position to demand respect and receive it, and they knew it and gave it. Pratt was in a position where he knew people listened to him and valued his opinion. According to the girl, he came on to her and said he had fantasized about her. I don't know how much of that is true since everything has been one sided thus far. However, if it is true then he overstepped his boundaries. Plain and simple, he overstepped his boundaries.

In addition, Pratt, according to parents, would continue to call this girl daily; the parents asked him to stay away from her and yet he continued to do that. If that is true (again, his side has not been brought to the public so it's all one sided, these could be false allegations and I wouldn't be shocked if they were) then Pratt knew what he was doing.

So if this is all true (I'm not assuming it is) I'd say it's 80% him and 20% her. However, I wouldn't make a final opinion until after I hear what he has to say unless he makes a plea deal.

3 - Should he have been fired?: I didn't think so at first, however, when he said in court, "The truth will hopefully be revealed when it needs to be" (or something very close to that, but the same meaning) made me think there is something to hide. Therefore, I think he should have been fired right away. Being a teacher I feel they should keep their jobs until the trial is done. Students make false accusations all the time about teachers, and they shouldn't be fired just because of that accusation. The facts need to be found before action is taken. Utah County is way too hyped up about prosecuting anyone accused of crimes with an underage individual. When court starts we'll see what the truth was.

I grew up with the Pratt family and I know them well. This individual is much older than I am, so he wasn't one of the siblings I knew, but everyone in the family that I know are excellent people. That doesn't mean I'm making excuses for him, he made a mistake by having any type of relationship outside of school with this person whether it was meant to help her or it was sexual. You have to be careful. He made a mistake by going too far, but we'll see how far he actually went when his trial begins. I hope this never happened and the lives of both families can get back to normal. If it did happen, it will hurt a great deal of people.

Depression Medication During Pregnancy

2009-07-28T22:17:00.000-07:00

I haven't written for a while because...well, I just don't care. However there's a topic that came to my attention that I never really thought was that controversial until I saw a news story on it and read a few other blogs online: taking depression medication while pregnant.

First of all, if you're a guy and pregnant and taking depression medication there are just too many messed up things to count, so I will push that subject aside and let you deal with it without my opinion (and you're probably happy I'm not stating it). Nevertheless this has been an ongoing issue with women. To see some good information about it go to the following link:

http://www.babycenter.com/404_is-it-safe-to-take-antidepressants-during-pregnancy_2343.bc

One thing about depression medication is it can increase the risk of health problems in unborn children. Some things include:

- Asthma
- Inconsistent heart fibrillation
- ADD (Just a note, I swear I have ADD and I turned out fi...hey look a bird!)
- Learning disabilities

Look at the warnings, first any site you read says that medication can "INCREASE" the risk of the health issues and others. The medication does not CAUSE the health defect to happen, and it's not guaranteed to happen. Yes, there are risks to any type of prescription medication. In fact, there are risks of natural pills and medications also. Pregnancy makes a woman's body so sensitive to certain types of indigestible (is that even a word?) items that doctors warned my wife of:

- Grape seed extract (natural)
- Vitamin C (natural)
- Airborne (good stuff, claims to be natural, but who cares it works!)
- All natural herbs

All of these things are suspected (it's never been concluded) to cause harm because the items have not been tested thoroughly. So even "natural" things can increase health defects during pregnancy.

Second, lets take a look at the effects of depression on a child in the womb at the following link:

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancyhealth/depressionduringpregnancy.html

If a mother consumes depression medication during pregnancy studies so a slight increased risk (less than a 1% added increase) to the different health risks listed above. The mother isn't depressed and the child has a low risk (FYI - my wife takes Wellbutrin and I'll discuss that further, but there is only a .04% increased risk with her dosage). If a mother does not take the medication she is depressed, can ruin her own body by starvation, suicidal thoughts, stress, etc. while the child is also susceptible to those outcomes. I wish I had a percentage for those risks but I don't, so I can't confirm if those are more common or not, but seems to me that a mother not taking care of her body at the same time would be more detrimental to the baby's health because of the lack of nutrition and stress related illnesses that can pass on from the mother to the baby.

Let me give you an example. I mentioned earlier that my wife takes Wellbutrin (spelling? I'm a PE teacher, I don't have to spell correctly). When we were first married she was on Prozac and took Xanex here and there for panic attacks. She asked her doctor what to do because we were going to start trying to have a child. He (being the idiot he is) told her to go straight off her medication and not take anything because it would cause too many problems. My wife trusting someone who thinks he's a doctor went straight off of her Prozac, and it was a turn for the worst. She was not only depressed, but she was completely lifeless. This effected me as well. Instead of going back on Prozac and to that same idiot that thinks he's smart, she asked her current OBGYN (Brian Watabe in American Fork, UT, he's awesome!) for his recommendation, which was Wellbutrin. The medication did not take effect on my wife for six months because it is such a low dose her body had to really fight to see it was there (Wellbutrin is considered the weakest of weak depression medications at the dose she has). However, before she became pregnant her depression was conquered by the medication and her strong will power. During her pregnancy she was happy, the baby is fine, and the depression medication actually helped her beat postpartum depression after our baby boy was born.

My conclusion, depression medication at low doses is the best decision. Going off medication can cause damage to the mother and the child. High doses increase the health risks listed above, however, they are still only around a 4% increase. All those people saying that women are poisoning their children by taking medication need to look at the research and facts before making judgements. Going through depression during pregnancy effects not only the mother, but also the child, spouse, other children, etc. My wife is currently pregnant and taking Wellbutrin again, and everything will be fine.

Joel Osteen

2009-06-08T20:11:00.000-07:00

So if you don't know who this guy is here's a few hints:

1) One of the million TV preachers.
2) Has a perm-a-grin when he talks.
3) Blinks between every syllabel of every word he speaks.

Sound familiar? If not go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Osteen

So when I saw this guy I thought in my head, "Oh no, another guy preaching miracles and hiring people to fake like they've been healed." However, when I watched him there wasn't any of that. So that was something that struck me as odd but actually nice about this guy.

I've watched the guy a few times and although I don't agree with him on everything (as no religion points agree with one another on everything, that's why they are separate religions) I feel like he is more genuine than many others. Why? Well, he preaches what he believes and doesn't focus on telling his followers why others are wrong. Many, if not most, Evangelical churches focus on the faults of others instead of focusing on their own beliefes. (As a side note, one of my favorite experiences on my mission was when we were on the street with a Jehovah's Witness and Evangelical Preacher. The preacher used a scripture against the JW to prove a point against their beliefs, then used the same scripture on us to prove a point of the opposite view, making the scripture contradict the actual meaning he used against the JW. As long as they can use something against you so that you're wrong, they will not matter if they contradict what they said before.)

Now, my experience with all Evangelicals (and I know most aren't like this, this is my experience) is that they are completely anti every other religion, especially LDS. So what did I assume about Joel Osteen? That he was completely anti-Mormon and would preach against other religions to his grave. Again, I was wrong.

Joel Osteen was on Larry King live. When asked if someone could only go to heaven if they accepted Jesus Christ he said something to the point of, "I don't know." What? Did someone claiming to be an Evangelical preacher just say, "I don't know" to one of the most obvious answers for most Evangelical followers? What was his follow-up comment? It was something like, "I can't judge, only Christ can judge." A caller later asked him, "The Bible says that Jesus told his disciples that the only way to get to Heaven is through Jesus. Do you agree?" Joel Osteen agreed with the caller, but still would not say if a Jewish person, or any other person that didn't accept Jesus Christ as their Savior was condemned to Hell. He has actually said this on a few occasions. At first it seems like he's contradicting himself but if you think about it, he's actually correct because only Christ and the Father can judge us. He's not putting himself in God's shoes like others try to do.

The last few things I saw just a few days ago were on Youtube. First I saw a few videos by this Leaven Ministries religion that does put themselves in God's shoes and think that they are equals with God. It ripped on every word Joel said. Trying to prove him wrong like they know the exact meaning of the Bible and there is nothing else it can mean. It's pretty funny how hypocritic this Leaven Ministries is about this guy. Anyway, I saw another video on the side called, "Osteen Biffs Mormonism" so I clicked on it. Osteen was asked if he though Mormons were Christian because of Mitt Romney running for President. Osteen said something to the fact of, "Well Mitt said Christ was his Savior so I do believe they are Christian. I can't judge if someone is Christian it's something in their hearts." Way to go Osteen, you show that you're not judging someone because you think you know more like this Leaven BS. Of course that video was by Leaven again and they came up with the same lame crap all anti-Mormons do.

It's very respectable the way Osteen is breaking away from main stream, hard nosed, non-humble Christianity judging everyone and putting themselves on pedistals. He preaches what he knows to be true and he isn't putting others down to make himself look bigger. I now have a lot of respect for Osteen no matter what other people say. Osteen, you are a good man.

Proposition 8 Upheld

2009-05-26T22:21:00.000-07:00

I read many different articles and comments about how Prop 8 was upheld in California, but those married before Prop 8 passed were allowed to keep their marriages legal and recognized by the State of California. So a decision has been made, hopefully.

If you've read my posts you know how I feel about Prop 8 because of the other things it would lead too. If you think about it the protests wouldn't end there. There are now protests in states that legalized same-sex marriage by gays saying religions should be restricted from:

1 - Denying marriage ceremonies in their church institutions.
2 - Teaching against same-sex relationships.

First of all there is a separation between Church and State so you're wasting your time and trying to force your lifestyle on everyone especially in the religious areas of our freedom, so stop being narrow minded (which is funny, because extremist protestors call everyone else narrow minded if they don't agree with their views, very interesting). People can choose to protest and ridicule your lifestyle and there is nothing you can do to change that; protesting is a great part of living in the United States and having the freedom to say what we want. Go ahead and protest yourself because you have that right to do it also, but let others do what they want otherwise you're just practicing hypocrisy yourself.

Second, gays are asking for equal "rights." Think about it for a second. Did you think about it? If you didn't you're lazy (I can say that because I live in a country where I can say that...you're lazy). Marriage isn't a "right" it's a privilege. Getting a drivers license isn't a "right" it's a privilege. Marriage requires you to pay for and obtain a marriage license to be recognized by the state/federal government, just like driving. You do have equal rights. You have the same opportunity for the following:

- Job availability
- Education
- Freedom of speech
- Freedom to vote
- Freedom to bare arms

You have the same rights as everyone else. So stop saying, "Equal Rights" when that's not what you're actually asking for in return. You're looking for privileges so ask for that instead of looking like fools. I understand there are things you want that married couples are awarded when the state recognizes the marriage to be legal. However, you're not going to get it because of the definition of marriage currently held.

Personally the biggest issue to me is the hypocrisy by the protestors. As I mentioned previously I have read many articles and comments on this Prop 8 decision. Many of those against Prop 8 call others "bigots" because they do not like the thought of same sex-marriage. Have you ever looked up the definition of bigotry? "Bigotry: intolerance toward those of different creeds or religious affiliations." This is the exact definition found in the latest version of Websters dictionary (well, the latest version I have as a poor college student). Based on that definition, EVERYONE is a bigot even those that are gay. Way to use words you don't understand. You remind me of Ralph Wiggum everytime you open up your mouths and say things you don't understand, "Me fail English? That's unpossible."

Some of the comments in regards to the California issues (not any of the other states that approved same-sex marriage, just California, think about that for a second, it's because California was going to allow discrimination charges against religious organizations if they denied marriage to same sex couples, other states are not doing that) blame the LDS Church. Well, I've written a few blogs about this, so read those. However, people are now saying things like, "What if the government said you couldn't be Mormon?" or, "What if marriage between Mormons was illegal?" My favorite was, "What if Mormons were restricted or hated? You'd change your mind." Again, Church and State people, you'll never win that battle. However I actually want to comment on these useless comments. Take a look at LDS history. Polygamy was made illegal to spite Mormons no matter what you believe about the reason. So we didn't whine about it, we dealt with it when we believed we were supposed to stop. How about the extermination order? I know Wikipedia isn't the best source for everything, but this sums it all up:

"Missouri Executive Order 44, also known as the "extermination order" (alt. exterminating order) in Latter Day Saint history, was an executive order issued on October 27, 1838 by Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs. The order was in response to what Boggs termed 'open and avowed defiance of the laws, and of having made war upon the people of this State ... the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace—their outrages are beyond all description.' The order was formally rescinded in 1976."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_Order

What if Mormons were hated? Ha! You have no idea what the history of this Church entails, and still entails if you ask that question. EVERY single religious organization at some time has had hatred brought before them in one way or another; some worse than others at one point of time. Everyone has been hated against, don't act like you're the only ones.

Nobody is taking away your rights to marriage. In fact, look up history books and you'll see marriage was mostly used for religious purposes. When religions make restrictions on it you shouldn't complain, they started the whole trend! In addition, this government we have now was based off of religion! You can't escape religion because religion is history.

I have the freedom to express my points of view. I'm not saying I hate anyone that's gay. I have friends that are gay. However, being as blunt as I am I told them my view on Prop 8 and they didn't fight with me, instead they respected my opinion because they know everyone can differ when it comes to thoughts and ideas. I agree with gays when they say everyone should have equal rights. In regards to the "write" of marriage the people have spoken. Personally, I logically do not believe homosexuality is natural, otherwise men could have babies with men naturally and the same with women. Your appeal failed because it was a fair poll. Live with it. You want to get married? Move to another state. It's that easy. Quit crying about it and move on.

Now, for the extremists on the other side of the discussion you need to calm down too. You should not be rubbing the decision into the face of those that fought for same-sex marriage. Insulting the personal lives of homosexuals is not the right thing to do. Saying "God hates gays" is something you don't know. Are you trying to put yourself in God's shoes or say you're God yourself? We must be respectfull. Homosexuals are still citizens of this country and provide to this nation in many positive ways. Yes problems have arised from homosexuals, but what group/sexual orientation/religion/race/ethnicity etc hasn't caused a problem? Individuals need to take responsibility for their individual actions (read my previous blog about blaming an entire group). People need to be left alone in their personal lives unless it is directly effecting you.

The decision has been made either way. Both sides should leave it be.

Socialized Health Care

2009-05-11T23:27:00.001-07:00

So I haven't been able to post anything for a while due to two things:

1 - I've been busy figuring out my financial situation with my wife.
2 - I didn't care to post anything.

One heave topic in news article here in Utah is the fact that healthcare companies (pharmaceutical companies, doctors, insurance companies, etc.) told Obama that they would decrease health care almost $2 trillion over the next few years to get socialized health care underway.

Hey, that's great for people that don't have health care! Not being sarcastic, but I think everyone should have the opportunity to receive equal health care treatments. However, I feel everyone should pay for them out of their own pocket like I do. No offense to people that don't have benefits offered to them at their job, but that's life. There are state programs to help people pay for insurance premiums and other things when health insurance is not affordable. Is socialized health care really necessary?

Let's look at some observations (not facts, observations). I spent time in Canada where socialized health care dominates the American wannabes (take that Canada!). How it worked was money was taken out from taxes of each worker to provide healthcare to everyone. If that person needed to go to the hospital there was no co-pay because their taxes were going toward that expense already. That's a nice feature right? Well, those same people had to wait up to 1 year before they were allowed surgery (again, observation not documented fact). One acquaintence had a dark spot in her heart that was presumed to be a hole. She was told to return in 9 months and it would be observed even more. Awesome! 9 months later she could be diagnosed.

Again, I think it's a good thing for everyone to have health care, however, socialistic views that turn into Communism run by our power hungry government officials is not the answer. Ask any doctor and they'll tell you the government will tell them what to charge for services, how many services they can do in a certain period of time, etc. What happens when healthcare professionals don't get the money they want? They quit, and nobody else goes into that field. Let's be honest, how many people get their MD to "help people?" Hardly any. Those are the ones that donate their time and don't have mansions or multiplce sports cars in their driveway.

Why would socialized health care actually benefit most people? The working class will be taxed the same amount they are paying for healthcare each month to cover these expenses, yet others will take advantage of the system that will eventually be dragged down even worse than it is. I won't be saving any money; in fact, it might cost more out of my pocket for this whole thing. I don't want to be selfish, but come on! Having those that work to take care of yet another thing (in addition to welfare, medicare, medicaid, etc.) so that others not working can laugh in our face and say, "Here's something else I don't have to do so that I can get something for nothing." If the government wants to give out socialized healthcare EVERYONE needs to contribute in one way or another. No more freeloaders; Obama loves to give to those freeloaders.

(Addition) I read an article after I wrote this blog on yahoo.com saying that Medicare funds will be depleted soon. If we have socialized healthcare isn't Medicare basically obsolete? Someone explain that to me why we would care because we're moving into a Communistic government anyway.

Props to Miss California

2009-04-20T23:55:00.001-07:00

So if you haven't seen the video yet, you will. Miss Caifornia was asked whether or not she believed other states should follow the example of Vermont (being the 4th state to legalize same sex marriage). She was respectfull in saying that it's great that states are making their choices and voting on their opinions in this country. Then she said with her family she grew up with the idea that marriage was between a man and a woman. Oh yeah! The judge that asked her the question shook his head in disgust (what a poser).

This post isn't an argument for or against same sex marriage, you can read other posts if you want to read that. This is to give props to Mis California. She spoke her mind. It's a tough question and a tough thought in our world today. She didn't break down to the pressures of those wanting to take away freedom of speech in this country. No! She stood strong to her morals and beliefs which is not being done; people today try to be the so called "norm" and try to "rebel" against something they don't even understand, they just want to rebel for arguments sake.

So Miss California, you have my respect for speaking your mind and not being a poser when those who want to take away our freedom of speech will call you negative names. Way to stand up to the posers of the world.

Blaming a Whole for the Actions of a Few

2009-04-09T13:48:00.000-07:00

So being LDS you hear quite a bit from others saying, "You believe this because I know a Mormon that believes that" blah blah blah blah. This doesn't happen only in the Church, but it is pretty common when others find out my religious beliefs. These kind of accusations of blaming an entire group of any size (religions, corporations, families, etc.) are too common and need to be stopped.

My favorite example is of Prosper Inc. here in Utah (given to me by actual people in the company at the time of the incident, and RFH nominated these guys for Boner of the Day right after the incident happened). Prosper is a coaching company selling packets teaching people how to be successful at investing in stock, real estate, running online businesses, etc. The department here in my neck of the woods did not have a training department. Sales were down, so a few of the sales managers decided they would have a little exercise to boost confidence and increase sales. The sales representatives gathered together and saw a large barrel of water in front of them. The managers asked for a volunteer explaining exactly what was going to happen. They were going to dunk the person's head into the water and hold him/her down for a specific amount of time. One man raised his hand and volunteered. He put his own head in the water and a few (exact # not known) managers held him under for a specific amount of time. The volunteer tried to get out of the water before time expired and struggled to come up due to the force being applied by those around him. After time was up they released their grip on the volunteer as he shot up gasping for air. The managers than said, "Did you see how (name) was struggling to come up? We want you to work that hard for sales."

Wow. First of all that was not the smartest thing to do. Second, the volunteer filed a lawsuit against Prosper even though he knew exactly what was going to happen (he said he was not told what he was going to do). Third, Prosper was blamed for the entire thing even though it was the sales managers, on their own without other people involved or even knowing about the exercise, that carried out the stupid activity. Prosper shouldn't be blamed for this; the managers that thought this was a good idea should be blamed.

Another example. Here at work we have a third party company controlling our medical benefits for health insurance only. In this company one person (an incompetent person) made the mistake of cancelling all the health insurance for every employee on our project at our sight. This turned into a huge mess. However, everyone was blaming my company for the entire mix up because they are the ones that hired those people to handle it. BS. Blame the person that caused the trouble. Not a company that is not handling the whole thing, but doing what they can to fix it even though it's not their fault.

Here's one I love to talk about: gay marriage and the LDS Church. I already wrote a few different blogs on here about them so you can read those. However, there is one person that is also a blogger that I want to point out with the profile name of El Genio. If you read my extremist blog I mentioned a little bit about why the LDS Church was so involved in Prop 8 in California (because it was decided that any religious institution that denied marriage to a homosexual couple could be sued for discrimination and the government would not step in). El Genio decided to comment on the blog trying to twist my words by claiming I said the government would force religious organizations to wed homosexuals (learn to read). BTW, El Genio is an LDS homosexual as admitted on his blog so I think he just wanted it to say something like that so he could argue.

If you look up the profile of El Genio and read his blog there is one post about his ward in California consistently talking about the traditional family and the sanctity of marriage even after Prop 8 was passed. He blames the Church's involvement for these discussions held in his ward in California. That's not all, another LDS homosexual commented on his blog saying, "It's more than just a political issue for them; it's a moral issue. And until the whole freaking world agrees with them they won't let it go, even if their side won and it should be over." Them meaning the entire LDS Church of course.

Now let's put the blame on the entire Church for your ward's actions. That's the only way you can feel better about it isn't it El Genio and friend? Here in Utah, even during the Prop 8 debates I didn't hear one thing about the issue in a religious meeting, neither did anyone else I've talked to since reading your blog. If your ward is so obsessed about it than blame them, not the entire Church. People like you just have to have something to blame; you're one of the causes of this world having to always complain about everything.

Did you not notice that the other four states that legalized same-sex marriage in the east have not had the LDS Church protesting like with Prop 8? Why? Because they are just legalizing it so that it can just happen; they didn't come out with any type of statement saying that a religious organization could be sued for discrimination for not allowing a homosexual marriage in their institution. Vermont and Iowa just legalized the practice, you don't hear anything about officials in the LDS Church trying to have that turned around. Do you see the difference now? If you don't want your church talking about it then tell someone it's not allowing the spirit. If you keep your mouth shut you won't see results.

I have friends that are homosexuals. I don't believe God hates homosexuals. I don't believe they are cast to Hell other than the same things everyone else is cast to Hell for. So you can't blame the Church for anything because I'm part of the Church; blame the people in the Church (just like in the blogs I wrote where I say people inside the Church need to open their minds).

Moving on to another subject. People like to blame an entire nation for something only a few people project. When the United States invaded Iraq there were many countries not supporting the whole movement. The biggest one was France that I remember (I was in Canada serving a mission for my Church at the time so we didn't really hear much about it). I remember hearing that the United States officials were changing the names of things from French Fries to Freedom Fries and so forth. Whenever I heard people talk about the whole issue it was "France" that was opposing our forces, blah blah blah blah. Well, I met people from France while I was in Canada and they agreed with the war, but whenever they introduced themselves as French citizens they were told what they believed. It wasn't France people, it was the French government officials! Blame the people making the decisions not those without a voice. Canadian troops went to war but I can't tell you how many protests against the war we saw in downtown Calgary. You can't say that Canada supported us, but you can only say the Canadian government officials supported us. Do you get what I'm saying?

Individuals should be punished and blamed for their own poor decisions rather than an entire organization. When an entire organization is blamed for a few individuals' mistakes it is pathetic and used as an excuse by those wanting to destroy the entire organization (like El Genio). Quit blaming everyone and focus on those causing the problems.

Capital Punishment...

2009-04-06T21:32:00.000-07:00

Many people all across the United States debate whether or not capital punishment is humane and/or cost effective. Well, we cannot really debate on whether or not it is humane because it's up to each individual person to determine what is morally humane in their own mind. In my opinion, if someone takes the life of another willingly and openly they don't deserve their own life. So, the only real thing to debate is whether or not capital punishment is cost effective.

We should first look at some things that are involved in costs for the death penalty VS life without parole and with parole.

Costs for both the death penalty and life with or without parole:

- Guard wages
- Utilities
- Food
- Appeals (more so for capital punishment, but both sentences receive a great deal of appeals)
- Mechanism (lethal injection, gas, etc.) for death
- Funeral services (some states actually pay for a casket and burial plot) for death
- Materials (depending on the state and security of the prison, this could be televisions, weight lifting equipment, security systems, locks, etc.)
- Maintenance of building
- ...and the list can go on

Now, if you research information online about the cost of death VS babying someone in prison the rest of their life you'll find a great deal of conflicting information. First you'll notice that each state has a large difference in costs depending on how much they will spend on the list above. Second you'll notice the different years projected in each report. Third you'll notice that different reports for the same year and same state have conflicting information (due to the different items being budgeted). Fourth you'll notice that if someone is pro death they will tweak the report to their advantage, and vice versa with someone anti death. So research cannot necessarily be done online because of the conflicting information. Even when I wrote in to the Utah State Penitentiary asking about where to find costs of the death penalty VS life without parole in Utah they gave me different sites that conflicted with one another. An exact answer just does not exist.

So what do you think as readers? What is your opinion on the entire matter? Would you support capital punishment? Do you think it costs more either way?

My opinion is as follows: either way we'll pay money that we don't have. People on death row have the right to an appeal. Sometimes these appeals can last years and years. What happens to the inmate while they are waiting? Well, they are kept alive by our tax dollars while the courts are using our tax dollars to do whatever they do exactly. In many cases that I've read the inmate dies on death row before a date for his/her death is even decided. What a waste of money in my opinion.

I support capital punishment for moral reasons, but for financial reasons there is not enough evidence to say it is more cost effective.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Life Saver or Life Taker?

2009-04-01T23:10:00.000-07:00

I'll be honest and say right off hand that I support embryonic stem cell research (let's call it ESCR for short to save my lazy fingers from typing it so many times). Now, I'm not a Liberal but I'm not Republican if you have read my other entries you'd know that; let's get that out of the way right now. My opinions are from my own research and studies (I wrote a paper on this and changed my views after studying ESCR) Many people here in Utah disagree with me, and they do not understand why my opinion is swayed toward such an "evil act that is not condoned by God." (This is a statement I saw someone make on an opinion article on the Deseret News web site) To be straight forward, I do not see it as murder. Let's take a look at what ESCR really is.

ESCR is the study of manipulating a newly fertalized egg (hence, embryonic research) to grow as any other cell in the body. How can this be done? When an egg is fertalized by a sperm cell the sperm cell begins to split. The cells continue splitting until they develop into germ layers (in short). Once in germ layers the specific organs, skeletal system, nervous systems, etc. are developed from one of those specific germ layers. In a lab studying ESCR they take donated reproductive products and artificially fertilize the egg in a lab (please remember this for future discussion below). Before the germ layers form scientists stop the embryo from developing any further (I don't understand how the whole process is done but this is what they do). Why do they do this? Before cells develop into the germ layers they can be manipulated to grow as any type of cell/tissue in the body. Once the embryo splits into germ layers they cannot reverse the process and the cells cannot be manipulated easily. Stem cell research is still done after this time, but it has a different purpose for the most part. I've never been able to get a straight answer as to how the process works thereafter due to the conflicting web pages on the net. However, from what I understand they then use those stem cells created from the embryo to replace damaged or lost tissue in the body. For example, I read one article where an ill woman with a bad liver went to China (stem cell research is more widely accepted and used in China) to receive treatment. They used stem cells to help regrow healthy liver cells and the individual has almost fully recovered. In any other circumstance she was going to die (told by her many doctors).

Now, for those that are against ESCR I can understand. The view I've heard the most is that it is taking away a life that could have been. I understand how you see that, as fertilization does take place and life begins to grow. A constant debate in the United States right now is when the spirit enters the body of an unborn child (if you are religious that is). Being a member of the LDS Church I am in the minority for approving ESCR, but to keep the record straight the LDS Church has neither officially condemned nor approved the study of ESCR. There are many debates among LDS members as to when the spirit does enter the body, but nothing has been officially announced. There have been opinions stated by leaders of the Church but opinions are not doctrine.

In addition, many people have compared ESCR to abortion. Again, I see where you're coming from and respect your opinion regarding the issue. Abortion is taking a live embryo/fetus out of the mother in order to terminate the life. I am not a supporter of abortion, and will explain to you why abortion is completely different.

First things first, remember that the reproductive products (sperm and eggs) are donated to ESCR centers willingly. This leads to the fact that the sperm and egg are artificially fertilized in a lab and grown in a dish. Embryos are not taken from a uterus inside of a woman. How can I justify this as not preventing life? Well, being a PE teacher and a coach I've come accustomed to saying the phrase, "Use it or lose it" to my students (mainly in regards to muscle development and loss). If you are not going to use it you're going to lose it. Men and women that are not going to use these products of reproduction, therefore, preventing life in their own way. Instead, they donate it to be used for studies. Waste it, or try something productive?

In addition to the above comments we have to remember that life can only start when sperm and eggs come together from sexual intercourse (if not in a lab). For those to say ESCR is murder do not understand the strength in hypocrisy of their accusations. What do I mean? Well, if you believe it is murder let me ask you a few questions (and you have to have had sex at least once to answer, otherwise, you don't apply):

1 - Have you ever used contraceptions or contraceptive actions of any type (i.e. condoms, birth control, onanism, day after pill)?
2 - (Men)Have you ever had sexual intercourse when your partner (hopefully your spouse right ;) was not ovulating?
3 - Have you ever attempted artificial insemination of any type without success?

If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions you are a murderer according to your own standards. How you ask? Lets look at it one by one. First, if you use contraceptions you are PREVENTING life. Contraceptions are used to prevent fertilization by either preventing reproductive products to be produced, or preventing them from getting together for a little tea party (notice the number of times I said preventing). Therefore, you are preventing a possible life that could have been. Second, when you have sexual intercourse when your partner is not ovulating the sperm is going to die and fertilization will not take place. Knowingly doing this is murder because you are preventing life. Third, artificial insemination (if failed) kills both the sperm and egg cells used in the attemp(s). Murder. Sound ridiculous? Well, in my opinion so is your claim about ESCR in the same manner. If you can justify any of the three questions above you are really less productive than ESCR. Do I really believe that any of the three questions above are considered "murder?" No, I believe the choices above are based on what people decide to do in their lives regarding the subject. However, in my opinion calling ESCR murder is the same as calling the above murder; it's all the same thing if you think about it.

ESCR actually can save lives, therefore not preventing life. How ironic is that? When stem cells are successfully grown and used it helps save lives. Is it better to waste the stem cells that were not going to be used by the donors than to provide hope to someone dying? It does not make sense to me that it should be wasted. Wasting the products prevents life, so how is using them to save another person's life murder?

Now the heated debate, abortion VS ESCR. Here is my opinion and you do not have to agree because you have the freedom to think how you want, but ESCR and abortion are completely different. I explained what ESCR is above. Abortion is taken a live embryo/fetus out of the human body (something ESCR does not do since it is all lab work) for the intent to TERMINATE the living cells/fetus. The sole purpose of abortion is elimination without possibility of life. ESCR is the study to prolong life using DONATED human materials in a lab. Abortion is a cop out for "mistakes" for people not ready to take responsibility for their actions in most situations (not all, there are exceptions in my opinion where abortion is acceptable). The debate over when the spirit enters the body can't be solved because it is all based on opinion. Until that time it's your opinion against mine. It can't be used in this debate because there is no physical proof, spiritual revelation, etc. that pinpoints this important time in life. I'm sorry, but that's just not a good argument to say when the spirit actually enters the body in this case.

I've read and even used the study conducted at UCLA to my advantage and in hope it works out. If you do not know what I'm talking about, you can go to the following link for further information:

http://www.worldhealth.net/news/ucla_researchers_transform_stem_cells_fo

If you do not want to read the article it sums up some studies at UCLA that have successfully manipulated fat cells taken from liposuction patients into smooth muscle (vital organs in the body). Hey, that's awesome! Until they become just as successful at this as ESCR then I'm all for making the switch. In fact, if they pay for my liposuction I have tons of fat to donate; that would be advantageous for multiple people! However, the first study on this was in 2001 that I read and it still hasn't been successful enough to be satisfactory. Until then, I'm a supporter of ESCR.

You still may disagree with my opinion but that's ok, because I disagree with yours and we could debate on this for a very long time. If you disagree please feel free to tell me why without trying to insult me or insult my ideas "just because" like the guy from California that has no idea what he's talking about (previous post). I provided my point of view using common sense and logic, so please do the same. I'd love to hear your ideas about this subject.

Everybody is a Critic

2009-04-01T13:36:00.001-07:00

I received the following email today regarding an alternative to bailing the United States out of debt:

There are about 40 million people over age 50 in the work force. Pay them $1 million apiece severance with these stipulations:

They leave their jobs, which means 40 million job openings. Unemployment fixed.
They buy new American cars; 40 million cars ordered. Auto industry fixed.
They either buy a house or pay off their mortgage. Housing crisis fixed.
Some people make things so complicated when they don't have to be.
This is a lot less than the billions given to banks and insurance companies.

Although I admit that the person who wrote this is on the right path to what we should be doing to bailout this economic crisis (giving money to the people, not companies that waste it), they are still way off.

First, the government has spent over $1,000,000,000,000 (trillion) on bailouts already, and people are already fussing about how bad we are going to be in debt from it in the future. If the plan above was executed, we would be using $40,000,000,000,000 (trillion) in getting things "fixed." (if you read it closely, the guy who wrote this said it would cost less than the billions already used, he must have flunked math) So why would increasing the bailout amount by almost 40 times help us?

Second, the value of the dollar would drop fast. According to reports in the Deseret News, the GNP (Gross National Product) of the United States is around $6,000,000,000,000 (trillion) per year depending on the report you look at. If we just give out money at such a large amount, an amount that takes the United States almost 7 years to get, our dollar would be worth snot. Don't forget Nazi Germany after the war where people were rushing wheelbarrows full of money to buy a loaf of bread.

Third, people will still misuse money given to them freely. There is no way the government will be able to regulate whether or not these people receiving money would spend it to recover the economy.

Fourth, giving money to 40 million people would not fix the unemployment problem, as the money is not going to companies. Some companies would let those people retire and not have to pay them further to save money, in addition to not hiring anyone to fill their position to save money again. So 40 million jobs would not be available. Same with the auto industry (I'd rather buy a foreign car than a GM car, I want something to last, not crap like Chevy or Ford) and the housing market (how are they going to regulate people from buying bigger houses and blowing the money?)

The best part of this email was the comments included from people that were forwarding it to others. One comment said, "Yeah! The government should read this e-mail and act on it. It would only cost $40,000,000 (million) to do." Well, genius, do your math and you'll see that it's not a great idea. Another comment was, "How come nobody in the government can think of this? The guy who wrote this should be president." If this guy was our President we'd be in more of a financial hole than Obama is digging us into as we speak.

Here's my question to people, and let me know if you have the answer, I'd love to see your comments if you know:

1 - With the bailout money given to banks and so forth, how much of that money was used to help those in trouble with loans? Seems to me banks are just pocketing the money and not using it toward lending and keeping the system going. If you know if there is a number out there, please let me know.

2 - Although AIG apologized for their bone headed bonuses to employees, and the government is now going to tax 90% of bonuses given out using bailout money (if it's above a certain amount I believe), how is that going to help them get their money back if they are still losing 10% of billions of dollars? It seems like another cop out to me. "Here you go, here's a huge bonus. We'll make it bigger so the 10% you get to keep is a larger amount."

3 - How is it beneficial to give money to banks instead of giving money to the people to circulate within the United States? If we circulate the money then the economy goes up.

4 - Why is money being given to banks and other financial institutions when it could have been used to create jobs with companies? Obama says he wants to build roads, well, he could have used alot of that money to create construction jobs for hundreds of thousands of people. Instead, corporate big-whigs are getting the money and hording it.

Simple as it seems it could be, the bailout isn't just a few things here and there that could be fixed. It's a matter of what the money should be going to in order to benefit the public, and not corporations. However, giving people money up to $40 trillion is not the answer either.

Online Get Rich Quick Schemes

2009-03-21T07:03:00.000-07:00

I was browsing Craigslist jobs just to see what was available around here to see if a second job might be possible for the summer. If you have ever noticed, a great deal of these jobs are sales jobs and in this economy those are the hardest to make money. However, you see the title saying something like, "Work part time and make 6 digits!!!" or "Make $20 p/h minimum at home." and so forth.

Curious as to what these "companies" were selling, I clicked on multiple links inside the advertisements to be taken to a new website with the so called information (I can't provide the links because they were actually advertising on this blog once, and part of the google ads privacy act prohibits me to do so). I was reading each site information (they all looked just like blogs, not professional sites) and the information was pleasing to the mind:

- Work part time
- Work from home
- Guaranteed to work (this is a red flag right here)
- Help from the creator
- 6 digits with no effort at all
- Testimonials from hundreds of other people

Who would not want to start doing this? Oh, and one more thing, you had to pay a minimum of $20 to get the material. The most expensive I saw was $30, so not too bad to make 6 digits right? What a generous person to reveal their secrets on how to make money.

First flag, the websites are not professionally built. Having a brother that is a graphic designer and seeing his work, it's easy to tell who paid what to have their website look good. These sites are horrible. If this person actually made a great deal of money working part time they would be able to create a better looking site to attract a wider audience.

Second flag, working part time and from home are very "iffy." There are legitimate part time jobs that are from home, but they do not pay a high amount of money. There are always exceptions to things, but in this case these exceptions are extremely rare. Why can this person work part time and make money but not you? Simple, people at the head of a company make a great deal of money because people under them do all the work. If this guy can recruit a bunch of people to follow his ideas so he can profit, of course he is only working part time. If these "jobs" include you recruiting people (MLM/pyramid schemes) then you are making that person even more money when all he did was make a bad looking website. You can't work part time until you start getting people to fall for the same thing and work for you.

Third flag, guarantees are never 100% in anything. Something can always go wrong. Compare these advertisements to those you see on TV. You see someone that joined some group to make money using "the best secrets out there" and they are making six digits a year working part time also! Wow, everyone has this secret! However, if you watch the infomercials you will always see something to the fact of, "Results not typical" or, "Results may vary." Well if the results are not typical, someone on an advertisement makes $100,000, how is it guaranteed to make you 6 digits? I read the fine print one a few of those websites, and I copied their disclaimer below:

"Results not typical. Income made is based off effort of the buyer. We are not responsible for any losses in finances to due failure to follow exact procedures."

Fourth flag, the creators consider help the information you pay for. They do not give you one-on-one coaching. When you pay them money you get a bunch of material that they supposedly wrote themselves, then you're on your own.

Last and final flag, testimonials are not real. My favorite was four of the eight links I clicked on had testimonials of the same people (well, the same pictures of people that supposedly used the system) but these people had a different name and location on each website. I know they didn't do all of them and get rich in a different name. So either it's the same person doing all the websites thinking they are tricky, or it's people just copying others to make money.

How do these people actually make it rich? By creating a website guaranteeing money and getting people to pay up to $30 to find out how. Think about it, if only 10,000 people sign up (which is small compared to how many people see these sites) then the owner of the site makes $300,000 by working part time and doing nothing. That's how they actually made their riches, not by some big business idea. Getting you to pay them is their business idea.

If you fall for this, you might as well admit that the money you sent to the Nigerian princess asking for your help, and in return will give you $100,000,000 for providing them thousands of dollars is real. It does not make sense people!

Why it's best to invest now!

2009-03-03T20:47:00.001-08:00

I had a post before about why I like Scottrade so much. I've been watching the stock market the last few months and can't hold it in anymore...the best time to invest in the stock market is now!!! Why? Think about it for a minute. First, stocks are at the lowest since 1997. Second, stocks are so low for many companies that they are just staying at a current price. What does that mean? They will either stay at a streamline or they will go up again.

Here's an example. I invested in a copper mining company here in Utah (CPRK). They released pink sheets (high risk penny stocks) back in 2007 before they began production at their copper mill. The stocks at one point reached up to $.40 a share while the company was not even in production. These same stocks have plummeted down to less than $.01 just last month. The stock streamlined for a long time between $.01 and $.0125. Now that the copper mill has announced they will be digging in the next few weeks, they have contracts with different countries for a copper supply, and that all equipment is running as planned, the stock has gone up to $.03 a share. I have approximately 13700 shares that I bought for close to $.01. I invested $150 into the company and my account is now just under $400!

Many people think investments can be risky at this time. Yes they can if you buy and sell at a rapid rate. However, if you buy stock in a company you know will be around because they offer resources we can't live without (like fake vomit and dog poop, can't live without it) it would be safe to say you can buy some stock and keep it for a while to see it go up. It might go up and down, but overall, stocks are so low they only have a little more they can go down before they'll go back up.

First thing you want to do if you are investing is to find companies you have trust in. I heard of CPRK and knew they couldn't go much lower than $.01 per share, so I decided to buy in them knowing I'd at least get most of my money back if the worst happened. Then look at how the company is doing by reading their investment reports (Scottrade offers these reports as part of the company info page whenever you want). Check out their price graphs for the last few months, years, etc. depending on how long they have been around. Then, think about whether or not you think this company is going to continue making it in this economy. Using CPRK, copper is something used in countless products, so I think they will be mining for a while. Plus...the company I invested in hadn't even started production (I emphasize that because if they could get to $.40 without making money they should help the stocks go up if they are making money). Next, choose what company you want to trade with. Read my blog about Scottrade to see if that would work for you. I already referred 5 people and they all love the site, plust when you get referred by a current member you get free trades. (Most companies charge you per transaction, so free trades is nice when you are paying $7 per transaction)

Seriously, if you are wanting to know what to do with the money you pulled from the bank because you felt it wasn't safe, invest in a company and hold on to those shares.

Extremist Republicans, Atheists, and Liberals Just Want to Take Freedom Away

2009-02-26T14:17:00.000-08:00

If you've read any of the other posts I've written, you'll know I do not belong to any political party due to the fact that they are too far one sided. A compromise is the only way to run this country correctly. Will anybody ever do that? Nope.

First, I'm not saying you can't be a Republican, Liberal, or an Atheist (basically the same thing). This country allows EVERYONE to have the freedom they want in ACCORDANCE with our current LAWS (all caps for a reason). So you can be an Atheist, a Liberal, Wicca, Christian, Jewish, etc. We can voice our opinions because our country has allowed us to do so (to a point while the (Un)Patriot Act by dubbya is being executed). So again, realize I'm not saying you can't believe what you want to believe.

Second, I'm not saying this information in the blog pertains to all Republicans, Atheists, and Liberals. This pertains to the EXTREME persons of the said parties/believe systems that never shut their mouth and want to control things. So if you take offense to this post then it's your own fault, because I'm not offending you, you're choosing to be offended because that's how you are, and the rest of this post will prove it.

Let us start out with a few stories and observations I've seen. Approximately 5 or more years ago (I can't remember how long ago, if I cared about the exact time I'd google it), an Atheist group here in Utah petitioned the fact that the State of Utah was placing crosses at freeway locations where a highway patrolman was killed on duty. They complained the crosses were a direct disregard for their freedom of religion to not believe in the symbol of a cross (Jesus Christ), and that the State of Utah should honor their request to place a death symbol of another kind to honor those that died. During the court session to determine whether or not these crosses were discriminating against Atheists, the families of the fallen patrolmen were asked their views on the matter. Most of them were Christian, some not. ALL of them loved the idea of the cross to honor their family, even those that did not believe in what the symbol of the cross represented. The case was thrown out and the crosses are still used. Wasn't it religious discrimination by the Atheists by restricting Christian's from expressing their beliefs? Sure was.

Just recently we all dealt with news of Proposition 8 in California taking away the right of homosexuals to be married to one another. We all know the preconceived thoughts of Republicans is anti-gay marriage, and Liberals (Liberals are not Democrats, the Democratic party isn't extreme like Liberals today) are pro-gay marriage. Don't misread what I just wrote, I said preconceived thoughts, meaning if someone said they were a Republican you would automatically think you knew their views whether you do or not. The LDS Church was also heavily involved in the political campaigns in regards to Proposition 8, even though it was mainly individuals within the Church and not the Church as a whole. Many people blame the LDS Church for Proposition 8 passing, even though the LDS Church was only one of the multiple religions affiliated with hoping Proposition 8 passed. If you just google anything from "Mormons and gay marriage" to "Mormons and prop 8" you'll find thousands of message boards from Liberals that just rip on all Christian beliefs, especially LDS beliefs. Some comments I've seen are, "Why can't you just leave people alone and let them live their lives?" Well, in response, the State of California invited those people to vote for or against the proposition. In addition, those that voted for Proposition 8 have the right to believe what they want, so why don't you leave them alone you hypocrite?

On the same note with Proposition 8, many Extremist Republicans were personally insulting homosexuals with their protest of Proposition 8. Now, I'm not a supporter of homosexual marriage and I don't have to be because I have the freedom to say what I want when I want. However, my opinion that when you take it as far as insulting people to fail to prove your point is taking it to an immature level. There is no need to point fingers at people because of association (this goes with all three groups discussed on this blog). Those immature protesters are also hypocrites proved by their actions.

Lets get one thing straight before I go on. The LDS Church would not have been as involved in the political controversy of Proposition 8 if the fact that they would have been forced to allow homosexuals to be married in LDS temples due to discrimination. If a religious organization was to deny homosexual marriage to any homosexual couple they could have a lawsuit, hence, forcing religions to marry them or suffer lawsuits. LDS members must go through a process to get into the temples because temples are considered holy and a sacred place. Even many members of the LDS Church are not allowed in the temple because they did not go through this process. If Proposition 8 failed to pass the State of California was going to punish any religious group that denied marriage to a homosexual couple. That means that the purpose of going to the temple would have been useless because the LDS Church would not be able to make homosexuals go through the same process. So homosexual marriage isn't just a request for equality, it's a request to be pampered and be given exceptions that others can't have. All in all, homosexuals want to be exceptions to many rules, and that's not equality, it's being lazy.

Let's discuss abortion (Atheists you can relax, I'm actually done with you). Abortion is taking away life of an unborn child. I believe if you choose to have an abortion because of your own selfish reasons you're a murderer, plain and simple. I can believe that because I live in the USA where I have the freedom to say and believe what I want. My favorite arguments from people that support abortion are, "You're telling me that I can't do what I want with my body by making abortion illegal" and, "I made a mistake so I just need to wipe my slate clean, and you won't let that happen." Both these statements were on a discussion forum with Deseret News regarding abortion. Most Liberals believe that you should be able to have an abortion up to 6 months of pregnancy, some up to live birth. First of all, I think you can make a decision for your own life just as someone that chooses to burglarize a home, or rape an innocent woman. However, you're taking something from someone else and you should be punished for that. You're not taking something just from your body, but from another body. Also, wiping your slate clean and not taking responsibility for your immature actions you'll most likely repeat isn't my idea of a positive experience.

Now for my opinions on the subjects. I am Christian and know that homosexuality is not natural. If it was, guys could get pregnant from other guys and same for women. If it was the way God wanted it to be then you'd be able to procreate since a commandment is to multiply and replenish the Earth. You are out of luck on that one. I don't hate someone or discriminate against them because of their homosexuality, it would be because of their personality whether homosexual or heterosexual. I have friends that are homosexuls. My thoughts on the whole homosexuality bit is that there is a chemical imbalance in the brain. I do not believe homosexuality is a disease, a devil trapped inside someone, or natural. Think about it, men and women have different levels of certain hormones that make them how they are. If someones brain controlled the release of a different hormone it could alter the tendencies of that person. You could be born with these, or it could come later. How does it happen? I don't know exactly.

Also, when you are excited your brain emits endorphins that make you feel like you feel good. When you get to a point that you are numb to the level of hormones you're used to, you need more or something different. Those that get addicted to pornography need more and more endorphins, but you can only go so far in heterosexual pornography before you hit a brick wall. What happens? You start watching homosexual porn to get those endorphins. Then you think you have to act on homosexual tendencies to feel the same way. It's obvious, there is a chemical imbalance in the brain of homosexuals. (I'm not saying every homosexual individual is addicted to porn, I'm using at as an example of how people say they "became" homosexual)Can it be changed or altered? I don't know, but if being gay is natural then I think there should be nothing to hide and some homosexuals should go into a test to prove that hormonal changes in their brains can't effect who they really are.

Now, homosexual marriage is a different subject than the practices of homosexual individuals. It was the decision of the founding fathers that homosexual marriage was to be illegal so if you want to blame someone for the law blame them. One argument I read on a blog for homosexual marriage was, "The times have changed, get with it." Well, times do change, and people who say that are the ones destroying this world. Let's look at it this way, before the United States of America was established as an independent republic there were colonies that would make their own laws regarding certain practices. For example, one colony could say having sex before marriage was illegal and could be punished by the law. People now would say that's crazy, we're having sex all the time and it's fine. Really? How high do you think abortion rates have gone up since it was "cool" to have sex before marriage? How fast do STD's get spread because people are careless? How many kids do not have a healthy home life because their parents either non-existent or aren't together? Everything is fine? Sure. The times have changed, and it's not for the better. The Bible says the world would get wicked before the second coming, so you people that say that are just fulfilling what we Christians believe and you don't even know it. Thanks for proving that we're even more right than you.

Now my favorite thing, most Liberals are the biggest hypocrites out of everyone. First of all, Liberals are loud mouths and immature in the way they argue because all they do is try to personally insult people to make a point. They don't even know what they think most of the time, they just argue for argument sake. If gay marriage were the trend, Liberals would fight to make it illegal because they just like to make a stink about everything. It's true and they know it. Second, Liberals always say to have an open mind when talking to others, but an open mind to them really means you have to agree with them. If you do not agree with a Liberal then you are not open. Funny thing is they don't have an open mind because they don't have minds of their own, and they will rip you a new one if your open mind doesn't include their beliefs. Don't they know that most people do study what they believe and just don't agree with their stupid ways?

Every particular group ruins this country by trying to go too far left or right. People need to compromise on how things are run in this country. The government is currently using all these commercials on television on how to compromise in marriage to make a marriage work, yet they won't compromise on their political beliefs. And if someone doesn't agree with you then you can TALK about it in a MATURE manner. Otherwise, you'll look like you have no idea what you're talking about like most Liberals because they just believe everything they want that proves their point of view, but don't open their minds to things that prove they are wrong (and they are wrong).

So again, be what you want, it doesn't matter. Just be mature and open minded about the whole thing. I love to research both sides so I can decide what I believe on certain topics. After I see the advantages and disadvantages of something, I decide if I believe it or not. If you want to be a tool, then believe what you're told and do what you're told. When you just do what you're told and argue with everyone youre taking their freedom to think, act, and be the way they want. Me, I'll make my own decisions.

The Good and Bad of Facebook

2009-02-24T12:47:00.000-08:00

Facebook is used by a ton of people, maybe more than stalker space (aka myspace). There are some good things and some bad things about facebook. First, the bad things about Facebook and the obsessive Facebook users:

- If someone comments on your wall, they expect you to comment back, otherwise you don't like them. (which is probably true in most cases)
- Writing words to express feelings can be misinterpreted because some people lack the ability to define tone in a written statement. When this happens, others react completely different than what you would think.
- People whom you have never met before take offense if you do not want to be their friends. Seriously? Get a life if that's how you react to it.
- People you knew of but never liked/got along with take offense when you don't add them as your friends. Seriously? Again, get a life.
- People think they are cool because they have more friends than you on Facebook...even though they don't know half the people on their list.
- People will send you a message on Facebook and expect you to look at it right away. It's called a phone, use it if you need to get a hold of someone right away!
- There are thousands of applications to download for nothing useful. For example, cavemen, vampires (I actually kind of like the vampire app), best friend applications (what is this world coming too with a best friends application?), etc. And...these applications require that they can look up your information whenever needed. No thanks.
- People post their opinions/comments on a profile application where the point is to have others comment with you, and get offended if you don't have the same opinion. If you don't want people to comment, keep it to yourself!
- People want you to join thousands of groups that continuously send you spam messages everyday.

Now the good things about Facebook:

- You can keep in touch with friend that you don't associate with often.
- You can update multiple people on how you/your family is doing by posting up pictures and videos without repeating yourself to everyone each time they ask how you are doing.
- You can make people that you don't want to be friends with upset (at least it makes me laugh).
- You can store pictures and videos online without having to keep them on your hard drive.
- You can chat online whilst avoiding talking on the phone for hours with someone.
- You can delete people whenever you feel like it.

So as you can see, the negative actually outweighs the positive, but the positive can be fun at times. I don't mind Facebook too much. In fact, I like to keep up with people that I was close with at one time or another. I don't necessarily look at other peoples' profiles, but more on their current comments and status messages.

My huge beef with Facebook is how serious some people take it. I get friend requests from people I have never met, heard of, or even thought existed pretty often. Why do you think I'm going to add you to my friends list so you can see my personal information? I don't get it. Sometimes I get a request from someone I knew back in the day and it takes me a while to realize who they are. If I knew we were friends at one time I'd say yes to their request. However, most of the time it's people I never associated with the entire time I was around them (i.e. school, work, etc.). Why do people think it's cool to stay home all day and get as many friends online as they can? Who are they thinking they are actually impressing? I just don't get it.

For a while there I was saying "Decline" to friend requests from a great deal of people that I did not really care about staying in contact with. Usually if family adds me I will always add them no matter how close we are, because it's family and you never know when you are going to get together. My wife told me I should just start adding people because it's nice to see what people are up to. I took her advice, added a bunch of people that asked me to be friends, then a week later deleted all of them. There was no point in adding them as they were just trying to build up their "friends" list. You are the people I don't want to associate with because I truly see you showing up to my house with a knife wondering where your dog ran off too.

Facebook users need to calm down and enjoy what they have instead of making it their entire life. Seriously, get a life and do something.

Giving Freebies in Education

2009-02-16T12:33:00.001-08:00

Channel 2 News on KJZZ reported that a recommendation was brought before the state board of education that would allow anyone with a Bachelor's degree take a test (I'm guessing the Praxis since all educators are required to take it) and receive their teaching license.

Well, it's not a huge surprise since not that many people want to stay here in Utah because pay is much lower so they go somewhere else. Some people want to stay and help improve our system here, but it's tempting to leave. You have to have money to create excellent opportunities, and teachers are just not able to do that with the funds they currently receive.

I worked hard for my teaching and coaching license received in December. I passed all my classes with high grades, finished practicum classes with excellent remarks, and completed my student teaching with high recommendations from both my cooperating teachers. I worked hard. So is it fair that someone that has never taught receive a teaching license? Do we really want people that have no experience teaching being the ones responsible for our kids to learn?

Just because you have the degree and the knowledge does not mean you can teach or coach. It's like my Rangers soccer coach, Lincoln. He was a nice guy, a personable salesman type, and he played soccer in California. However, the guy wasn't that great of a coach. The way he explained positions, formations, etc. was confusing to most people on the team. However, when I actually watched a video on soccer coaching I understood what was happening because the instructor knew how to TEACH the material because he TAUGHT soccer and COACHED soccer for so long. It's just like education. If you get someone that knows the material but does not know how to teach, the level of education we want kids to learn will never be taught.

We've all had those teachers that we could not learn from one bit. We just did not understand a word they said and we could not learn anything for the life of us. I had one teacher like that at BYU for Physiology. This guy was not usually a teacher. He was a professor in the Physiology department doing research, but did not teach the high end Physiology classes except for the year I had to take Physiology. Man did this guy not know how to teach. First of all, he did not graduate in any type of education, so he was not prepared to discuss Physiology with 18 - 25 year old students. Second, nobody ever prepared him how to teach. Third, the guy did not know how to explain anything. Here's a list of things he did that educators are specifically instructed not to do their first year of school:

He said: The book was not necessary because tests were based off of his lecture notes
Reality: His tests were actually parts of other professors' tests that required book reading. Plus, their lecture notes were not the same as his.

He said: Tests were not going to be worth much of the grade because he believes practice and repetition are key, so quizzes and labs would be a large factor for grades more than other classes.
Reality: Tests were still worth 60% of the grade, so if you failed one test you couldn't do better than a "C" grade.

He said: Come in and I'll talk to you whenever you need help.
Reality: Even when he was in his office (which he was hardly there during his posted hours) he would pass you off to the TA's because he was busy.

I received a "C" grade in the class because I studied hard for the final and aced it using study guides from other teachers. This guy should not be teaching Physiology. How did I learn Physiology? The Physical Education major at BYU required Exercise Physiology to be taken because it is part of the Praxis licensing exam. Our program had one designated teacher, Dr. Pat Vehrs. Dr. Vehrs knew how to teach. Everything my other teacher tried to teach was clarified and explained so much better in my Exercise Physiology class. I loved that class. I received an "A-" in the class. It was great.

Teachers must be properly trained in order to teach their subject of expertise. In my personal opinion, if someone can teach and they already have their degree than by all means give them the license so they can continue to help students improve. However, just giving people a license to pass a test is not the solution.

Bailout Causes Problems; Waste of Time

2009-02-10T14:27:00.000-08:00

So I guess some Republicans decided to vote with those socialist liberals in order to finally get the bailout ready and going (took you guys long enough). How effective is the bailout going to be? Well, in my opinion, they are just giving money to corrupt corporations they have dealings with, just a big ol' repeat of Bush and Cheney. Way to go Obama! Feed those that have more money than they need with more money again.

Why can't the government use some common sense when it comes to how they should "bailout" the United States because of stupidity? The first bailout was given out and look what companies did with that; vacations, renovations, tighter loan processes (even though loans were supposed to be easy to get), etc. You can't regulate these things even if you tried.

Why are you dropping the value of the dollar to give money away to businesses? Isn't the point of having a business to succeed or fail? These companies took chances that they chose to take and they failed. Also, 10 years ago if someone lost their job and had to sell their house, or even lost their house, those people weren't "bailed out" by the government, so why should people now be bailed out? It's not fair. You're just giving people excuses to get money they don't deserve, and that leads to Socialism! Look how well Socialism worked in other countries...oh wait, it didn't because people in the government seats will always put themselves above others. What are you going to do next? Increase the amount of funds to go to disability and welfare so more people that refuse to work like the rest of us get more money to live off of? How come you're not just figuring out how to create jobs. The bailout won't create jobs. Companies are going to fire more people even if they get a bailout, then spend the money so corporate execs can have a nice Hawaiian vacation. So if you don't create jobs first you're just giving away money that's going to be wasted to companies not willing to hire. Way to go! You just wasted an entire month when you could have been productive. According to various website polls, the public is losing interest in what the bailout is going to do. For example, Yahoo reports that the support for the simulus plan is down 6%. How many people voted? Thousands! I'm not the only one not impressed by this crap.

How about this idea, since Liberals are all about just giving away money. How about you give me money, since I didn't cause this whole crisis, so I can go buy a house of someone that is in danger of foreclosure? That way I get rewarded for not being an idiot, the person that was an idiot still gets saved, and the banks/mortgage companies receive their money. Wow, and it won't cost you a damn thing more than you're planning to give out already. Holy cow, something that makes sense by someone not affiliated with any stupid political party? Can't be. We can't reward those people that work hard, we have to reward people that will make us money for ourselves. We need to give money to people that don't want to take responsibility for their actions, not people that are suckers and actually contribute to society.

Obama, you're already starting to fail in my eyes. You're wasting money as we speak. I thought you would provide a huge change, but you're just doing stuff for your own benefit. Don't try and say you've only been in office for a month, cause guess what? You promised change and you're aiming toward it in the wrong way. You talk the big talk, but I don't see anything showing you'll do what you say you'll do. You better bail yourself out of this whole situation. I don't want another repeat of the last 8 years.

Should USPS Go to 5 Delivery Days?

2009-02-03T15:42:00.000-08:00

So it was mentioned by Jack/John Potter (he goes by both for some unknown reason) that the USPS should cut one day of delivery to decrease their own expenses, therefore, preventing continual price increases for the next few years. If you go to the following USPS link, you'll see the "benefits" of this cut:

http://faq.usps.com/eCustomer/iq/usps/request.do?session={ea6903d0-f24c-11dd-c457-000000000000}

Having my experience with USPS, they'll increase their prices no matter what. In 2008 they said they needed to increase prices because gas prices had gone up so fast. However, when gas prices decrease by more than $4 a gallon all over the United States USPS is still asking for a price increase. So we all know the gas price excuse was full of BS to get more money (for those of you who don't know, USPS does not get any money from taxes, it's all from money they receive for products/services). Second of all, tell your carriers to walk more. I see carriers drive from house to house for areas with door delivery. Why can't they walk up the street, come back on the other side, then get back into their vehicle? Lazy carriers. And thanks to George Dubblya, USPS is now allowed to request price increases every year instead of having to wait two years to even think about it.

Now, should USPS drop to five delivery days? Well, here are the pros from my point of view:

- Maintenance on vehicles will go down, saving money.
- The amount of gasoline required for services will decrease.
- USPS will not need as many rural carrier associates, saving money used for wages.
- Mail carriers will not have as many days to whine about pathetic things like a snowflake in front of a mailbox.
- People will not pathetically sit at their house anticipating mail delivery 6 days a week, relieving stress from those that have no reason to be stressed out anyway.

However, here are the cons:

- Business will not receive mail everyday, meaning that deadlines for bills and other things could be missed easier.
- Jobs will be cut because not as many people will be needed to deliver the mail throughout the week. And if this happens, the government really isn't doing anything to help with the job situation.
- People that wait pathetically for mail delivery everyday will have to find something else to do, which will probably annoy normal people.

In my opinion, if USPS wants to save money and perform like a business then they should cut one day of delivery. It will cut the time rural carrier associates are needed (for those that do not know, rural carrier associates are basically substitute carriers), but that's what happens with a business. If they keep six days of delivery and increase prices, they will lose money because a great deal of people are already pissed off about price increases that have happened this year. If you look at UPS and FedEx, you'll see their prices aren't very different from USPS anymore. At the same time, they actually give you a tracking number and want to help you when something is lost or damaged, unlike USPS.

Here's what's awesome about USPS cutting a day of delivery, it's not up to them at all! The United States Congress is in charge of how many days of delivery there should be. So I know USPS is saying they want to cut it down as an alternative to other things, but the United States Congress is solely responsible for the final decision. So if you agree/disagree with the idea, write your congressman and give him your opinions. USPS doesn't care because it's not up to them anyway.

I Love Julia Louise-Dreyfus

2009-01-26T20:06:00.000-08:00

Alright, so there are many pretty women out there involved in acting (but my wife is hotter than all of them). My wife always talks about having a hollywood crush. It used to be Juaquin Phoenix for her, but after seeing his rap video she's decided it's time for someone else for her. My crush used to be Monica Beluchi (spelling?), however, she's starting to get old. So I started looking for a new hollywood crush.

In November I was up watching Conan O'Brian while trying to fall asleep. Julia Louise-Dreyfus was the first guest of the day. In she comes and man did she look good! I always thought she was cute near the end of Seinfeld (the brown fluffy hair and the polygamist looking dresses weren't doing it for me) but I really didn't pay attention to her. I saw her in a few episodes and thought she looked really good, but I wasn't giving her the googley eyes like some guys do to pretty women. But here comes, strolling in with her black hair (love the darker hair), nice smile, and great attitude. Best of all, she had a sense of humor by stealing Tina Fey's grammy (Tina Fey isn't even funny or talented, why is she famous?). One of the funniest Conan episodes I've ever seen. Best part is it was on again this last Friday night, so I got to see it all again.

So Julia Louise-Dreyfus, you're my hollywood crush. You are the babe of hollywood babes. You will be considered the Wiquer Crush in our nerdy band of secret combinations that we don't even pay attention to anyway.

Why I Oppose Girl Scout Cookies

2009-01-22T16:40:00.000-08:00

First of all, I don't actually hate the cookies themselves because they actually taste decent sometimes, but I've had better (that's what she said). No, it's not the cookies, it's the people who sell the cookies. I'm not talking about girl scouts because I've actually never seen a girl scout sell the cookies here in Utah, not once. I'm talking about their parents and friends.

I always get approached at work by someone selling these evil cookies for her daughter. She asked me how many I wanted. Being poor and not willing to support someone I don't care about, I said none. This mother then got all pushy on me saying I needed to support the girl scouts, blah blah blah. She's currently letting me think about how many I want to buy. Guess what my answer is....none! Go away.

Last year I went to Macey's around girl scout cookie time and saw a table with three adults and a bunch of little girls running around. The girls were getting into the way of everyone trying to get carts, while the adults were asking people "What kind of cookies would you like?" as they were walking by. Girls weren't doing anything but annoying everyone around them. They asked me what cookies I wanted (and luckily my wife wasn't with me because she would have been mad at me, and will get mad when she reads this) and I said, "I already bought girl scout cookies and they took forever to get to me, they didn't taste good, and they were overpriced. Never again!" The lady didn't know what to say to me and just sat there staring at me. Ha ha ha ha... Wiquerking 1, girl scouts 0.

My favorite part of girl scout cookies is if you don't buy them people act as if you committed the unpardonable sin. "It's not about the cookies it's about helping girl scouts earn money." Well, I don't care about girl scouts. Not only that, but if I pay for something it better be good. Girl scout cookies are not that good. They are overrated, like the SEC and Big 12 in football. If I don't want to buy them, I don't have to. I don't buy everything just because it'll help someone. If I did my family wouldn't get what they need.

Girl scouts should do something productive to get their money for girls camp and whatever other crap they do (I have no idea, I don't think my sister was a girl scout). They should actually do something to benefit the community instead of contributing to increased numbers of heart disease and obesity. Girl scouts should provide a service. Babysit or clean or something. You benefit the community and you get your money. Plus you don't have to share earnings with the stupid company that makes girl scout cookies, it's all yours!!!

Lastly, girls should spend the money on something fun, not girls camp. Ask girls how they like girls camp and most of them will say, "It's alright." Why do you go then? Why not spend the money at something fun like a trip to Disneyland or Lagoon for those in Utah. My favorite place to spend hard earned money for scouts was Lake Powell. We used to work for money buy taking crap people didn't want anymore, fixing it up (like cars, lawn mowers, etc.)and then blow all the money at Lake Powell on boats, wave runners, good food, etc. It was great and we all enjoyed it. It was for a good cause and we helped people get rid of stuff they didn't want by giving it to people who didn't want to spend much on the same thing. Parents got rid of their annoying teenage boys for a full week, and those annoying teenage boys had a blast away from nagging parents. Why should I be enthusiastic about buying girl scout cookies if girls aren't enthusiastic about where the money is going? Why make your parents go through all that trouble if you aren't going to enjoy yourself anyway? If anything, girl scout cookies make this world a horrible place, and need to be banned.

Obama, make your "change" and ban girl scout cookies from the United States. Then I might consider voting for you on re-election instead of voting for myself again.

Why I Like Scottrade

2009-01-22T13:02:00.000-08:00

For those that don't know I was a business major when I started school. I decided to switch majors when I discovered my three hour classes going fast due to snoozing. So I do have a little business background, even though I am a certified teacher for PE.

A friend of mine came to me and told me about some stock he found for a certain company here in Utah. The stock had been up to $.50 a share, but dropped to almost $.04 with this recession going on. Great thing is, this company just started production last week and he told me about them over 5 months ago. So I thought, I need to get into this.

This same friend of mine referred me to Scottrade because that's what he was using, and because if you get referred, or refer someone you get free trades (it's usually $7 per trade transaction). So I signed up, received 7 free trades, and was on my way.

Now, the reason I like Scottrade is because they don't bug you like other companies. One friend of mine was with etrade and every time he went a few days without a transaction they would call him and bug him about it. Scottrade called me to welcome me, and to offer me some advice on trading. That was it. I receive maybe one call every two weeks regarding FREE classes they are holding to help people learn about trading. It's great! Plus, the stocks my friend told me about went down to $.01 each, so I was able to buy 15,000 for only $150. I just need to sit on that and wait for the economy to go back up and I'll be good for life (and the company is now in production).

So if you are thinking of stock trading while stocks are at an all time low, go through Scottrade. Ask me and I'll refer you so you can get free trades. It's great, and easy to follow.

Living Through This Economy

2009-01-21T12:29:00.000-08:00

Like I wrote in a previous post, the economy is going to pits. People are losing jobs, spending has gone down, the stock market is down low(which is nice for people like me who buy stocks at their all time lowest). The government only has so much money to provide unemployment, food stamps, welfare, etc. to those that were already taking advantage of the benefits of either not being able to work or choosing not to work. Obama (through Powell) asked for volunteers to help the government get this nation back on track. However, some people don't have the time/finances to volunteer. Here are some common sense tips in my mind that can help us deal with the recession we're in:

1 - Transportation - Seriously, you hear this more than you want to, but either take the bus or car pool. With carpooling you can save money on gas and wear & tear on your car. Take a small sedan for example, you can comfortably fit four people (five if you don't have a personal bubble) in one car. That means you only have to drive once a week, twice a week once every four weeks, to get to work. This will save on gas, wear & tear, and if many people do it the freeways will clear up decreasing traffic jams and crowded roads.

Taking the bus has more advantages, and also less. Let me explain. If you take the bus you don't have to worry about filling your tank with gas, wondering who you can carpool with, and car insurance isn't a worry. The only problem with taking the bus is you have to fit your schedule around when buses arrive, and they do not run past a certain time depending on your area. Lets see the price difference. Gas is about $1.59 right now. My tank is 12 gallons, so it costs approximately $19.08 to fill my tank. I fill up twice a month. So there is $40. Add in oil changes every three months, and insurance, and you're looking at another $80 a month. $120 at least for me. Now, that's me, and I don't drive very often. Many people fill up their cars once a week. UTA bus passes are $74.50 a month. That's less than insurance alone! Plus, you can ride TRAX in downtown SLC with that $74.50.

2 - Grocery Shopping - Ok, this might be a personal observation that you don't believe, but it seriously works. I get paid every once every two weeks, and no other income is coming in. I have a decent job that pays well for what I do, but still, it's not enough to just relax and not worry about finances. My wife and I need to make sure we have everything we need for two weeks before I get paid, mainly groceries; plan out your meals up to two weeks in advance. We decide what we're going to have, what we need, and we buy it all at once with the exception of some fruits or vegetables just so they are fresh when we plan on eating them in a meal. When we head to the store we get our list and that's it. We prevent the zombie like wandering from aisle to aisle buying little things that add up to an unknown amount. This has literally saved us $100 a week.

In addition to planning meals, plan meals with a few similar ingredients. Dillweed (I just like to say that, it's a funny word....dillweed) is a spice that isn't used very often, and you do not have to use much in recipes. Instead of planning out a meal that calls for dillweed, then not using it again for months, plan out two or three different dishes with that ingredient so you use it up. Not only does this use what you already have, but it prevents you from buying 10 or 12 different things that you will only use once. So use the stuff you buy.

How about getting together with others and only providing half or less of a meal? This might be a little tender to talk about (oh look, I do have some color showing in my black heart), but some people can't even afford to buy ingredients for food for a couple days. It's happening and it's sad. Well, my American Heritage teacher at BYU SLC Center would talk about his experience in the depression and how they survived. His mother and father could only afford food for a few days, and his dad was only paid weekly. This was the case with all his neighbors too. Instead of everyone whining about it and worrying about what they were going to do, they got together and shared the food they had. Now, I'm not saying you'll have a feast, but you'll be able to eat. Let me give you an example. Six families in his neighborhood were chatting outside in his yard. One person would say, "I have a few potatoes in my cabinets." and another would say, "I have some carrots." etc. Everyone would bring a few vegetables chopped up and put them in a soup. There would be enough for everyone to have a few servings. The next day, they would take what they had again and make a meal for everyone instead of each family eating their potaties, and meat, and milk all at one sitting. It might be uncomfortable or awkward for some, but take what you have and get together with others to make a meal. It will help.

3 - Use unecessary luxuries to your advantage. My wife and I have cable and Internet through a local company. We use the Internet to find ideas on how to save money. We also split Internet with our neighbors to split the cost. Therefore, the money we save from ideas we get online, and splitting the Internet bill helps save us money to pay for the Internet if not more. People are still buying things online. Maybe sell a few things, or buy your items online if it's cheaper than going to the store. Do the research because finding deals is worth it. Check out my visited websites and you'll see some of the things you can get great deals on. Cable...well, that's something to find other ideas on how to save money if you watch the right channel. Otherwise, it's for my wife to stay sane when she can't go outside, and for me to watch my MWC sports.

4 - Budget. Alright, I know people hate doing this, but budgeting will help. If you know how to budget than you're already going to be successful. If you do not know how or don't know where to start here are a few tips. First, take your automatic expenses like gas, electricity, rent, etc. that you have to pay otherwise it's gone. These shouldn't be more than you make, otherwise you need to get rid of a few unecessary luxuries. Second, estimate how much you'll spend on food after PLANNING TWO WEEKS IN ADVANCE for your meals. Third, add up the costs of other expenses such as gasoline for driving, cable, Internet, etc. that you have but can decrease. Fourth, add up how much you make with your net pay, then check out the difference. If your income exceeds your expenses, excellent. If your income is less, there are few things you need to cut.

We can live through this crisis as long we use our brains (it's that thing in our heads, three feet above our butts). Trying to live in the lap of luxury will only cause more stress and harm on the economy.

Obama as President

2009-01-20T16:45:00.001-08:00

So there are many issues I could write about in regards to Obama's inauguration, and I will write about a few of them so I don't waste your time with too much common sense.

1 - Obama will change things. Now, for those that know me personally I didn't like George Bush as a president, and I didn't agree with most the things he did. However, he still did some good and wasn't the worst president we've ever had (he was just close). Obama will change things that the Bush Administration did. I don't know what he'll change, or how he'll change it, but it will be changed otherwise his entire campaign was a lie. My excitement in this whole thing will be when the change happens. If it sucks, everyone that voted for Obama (and those that didn't but are followers of the norm) that rubbed his victory into the faces of those that didn't vote for him (myself included because I had a write-in ballot and voted for myself) will be embarrassed by their immature actions. If it goes well and he does save this country, it just goes to show that Liberals CAN do something morally right. So I'm excited to see what happens, for better or for worse.

2 - Race. If you haven't read my race post then you should before you get all mad at my comments. First of all, those that voted for Obama just because he is HALF black (I emphasize half for a reason) don't really care about this country as much as they do image and to "prove a point" (an unknown and stupid point). If you voted for Obama because you liked his ideas and policies, then good for you. I don't think the "race" thing that never existed but was played out by Obama and many of his followers will be changed. How can something that didn't exist be changed? It either has to be created or ignored for 4/8 more years. Complaining about race as one of the disadvantages to anything is in vain about 80% of the time, but does happen 20% in things such as job availability, hate crimes (I don't say crimes in general because crimes are committed against one's own race most of the time), etc.

3 - War. How many of you really think this war will be ended because Obama will be the new president? I personally don't think it's going to end as soon as some people think. There is still a lot going on over there. And if the "rumors" are true that one of the main reasons we went into the middle east is because of oil, you won't see that war ending any time soon. I do think Obama sincerely wants to end the war and bring as many soldiers as he can home, but it's not up to him solely. The President is limited in HIS power (Hillary Clinton will never win). So it might just not happen.

4 - Taxes. Apparently Obama is saying now that instead of reversing Bush's tax cut for the rich he's going to let it expire. For those of you who didn't know, the tax cut policy is only good until 2010, then it's back to what it was before Bush gave himself and his buddies, I mean, those that need more money because they don't have enough over $250,000 to live their luxurious lives. So taxes will probably be the same for a while. However, Obama is very fond of giving bailout handouts to corporations, and that money comes from taxes. I'm guessing a tax height to give millions to corporations so they can continue to have their private jets, make 7 digits a year, and so forth. Doesn't if feel good to know that the hard earned money you receive will be going to corporations that will still charge you full price even though it was you that bailed them out? Don't be surprised if a tax height is coming.

5 - Economy. Yes the economy is going to pits. Everyone knows it. Recessions happen every once in a while and then we bounce back. This one is a little heavier than ones before. So lets see how Obama does in bringing this economy back. How about instead of giving money to the thousands of morons that took out mortgages they couldn't afford, second mortgages they couldn't afford, etc. to prevent too many foreclosures, you give that money to people not in extreme debt that can buy those houses from the idiots so everyone wins. Those that didn't screw up the economy get houses, and those that did still get bailed out but they don't get a handout to keep this hell hole from expanding. To me, that's a Bush policy by saying, "We shall give back to the rich and the stupid that caused this financial crisis in the first place." Be smart Obama, don't give money to the ones that screwed us up.

I don't think Obama can do worse than the previous president of 8 years. However, I don't think he's doing things that much different. The only advantage I see so far is he actually speaks proper English. We'll see how these next four years play out.

BYU Fans Can be Annoying, but Utah and Utah State Fans...

2009-01-20T16:44:00.000-08:00

I'm a huge BYU fan; love watching BYU sports. I've always thought Ute fans were annoying because they are immature, obnoxious, smell funny, and always make excuses. It's true. My favorite thing about Ute fans is they like to make comments on BYU articles online about something that is not relevant to the article. For example, if you look up the Deseret News articles about BYU basketball you'll find comments from Ute fans about football. If you go to BYU articles about golf, Ute fans are talking about football. They can't let it go. It's annoying.

However, most BYU fans are annoying in their own way. Now, don't get me wrong, Ute fans will always be the most annoying fans on the face of the Earth. However, when I went to a couple of basketball games with my wife I was annoyed at all the BYU fans around me. Same with the football games I went to. Not only is it true that all BYU fans are wannabe coaches, but they don't stop making excuses for everything.

"Oh, if that person would have caught that ball the game would have been over."

"If we made that three pointer the game would have been over."

"We just didn't play like we were supposed to. Give it to us any other day and we'll win that game."

Now I'm used to Ute fans saying this over and over and over, even when they have no chance of winning no matter what. Over the last few years as I was getting into actually talking about BYU football and basketball I noticed BYU fans saying these things repeatedly. Isn't part of the game about being consistent? "If's" and "but's" shouldn't even be said because it didn't happen, and the game is over. The only time a game should be argued is when the refs completely suck and the game was a blowout.

Now lets talk about Utah State fans (they are included in the title). To all the Utah State fans, you don't have anything to talk about, so why are you even talking? When was the last time your football team did anything good? When was the last time your basketball team went to the NCAA tournament? My favorite was the 2003-2004 season when Utah State did beat BYU, but lost games to some crap teams. They weren't even invited to the NCAA tournament and they threw a fit (especially their coach, the biggest baby I've ever seen). They were invited to the NIT that year, and they lost in the first round. How do you expect to get any respect when your team can't win in a lower tournament?

Here's my favorite example of the intelligence of Utah and Utah State fans. BYU beat Utah State in mens basketball on a neutral court in SLC. Both teams shot like crap, and so it was whoever shot less crappy for the day that would win. The game was close and fun to watch. After the game was over, Utah State fans automatically started saying, "If we had Wilkinson we'd have won that game easy." My favorite part, Wilkinson played almost the entire game. He was there, and yet in their small little brains they come up with the idea that he didn't play. Awesome.

So all in all, almost all Utah based fans are annoying when it comes to coping with a loss. You lost, get over it. BYU lost two games this year in basketball because they made poor decisions at the end. The refs didn't lose the games, they played great in both games, they just folded under pressure. Utah lost to a division two team because they suck. BYU beat Utah State because they are better. That's how it works.

Racism is Stupid

2009-01-20T16:43:00.000-08:00

Ok, so someone explain to me why they can hate someone just because the color of their skin is different. Please, explain to me how that is right in both the eyes of God because it's hard to see a God that hates his own creation that the Bible says he loves.

Lets get some facts straight. Yes, different races, religions, nations, etc. were treated horribly throughout the years. Jews have been persecuted since they can remember (read the Bible). The Nazi's didn't help by killing approximately 6 million in concentration camps. Whenever a new Christian religion is founded it is ridiculed by existing sects (Catholics to Prodestants, Lutherans, Calvinists, etc., then all of the above to newer religions such as Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses, etc.). People have treated others horribly throughout the years in this world because they were different.

Today there is all this politically correct BS that people are trying to push on to others. Well, why can you be racist against me and it be ok if I'm "white"? Why can't I say, "I want to be called European American."? Why is it respectible for blacks to call one another by the "N" word (I hate that word for my own reasons) but if someone else says it it's completely uncalled for? Where's the respect in a word that was used to discriminate and lower human beings?

To be honest, I don't care if people call me white. I don't care if people wish me a happy Hanukah just because I don't follow the Jewish faith. I don't care if people don't want to say Merry Christmas, but don't say I can't say it. I don't care if people want to hate each other, just don't hate each other because of skin color or religion. I don't care if you hate me because I'm white, but don't expect me to react because you aren't white.

The picture above was drawn by my brother on racism. It represents that racism just kills you more than it does others. You don't gain anything by being racist or prejudice. You don't improve yourself. You don't prove anything to anyone else. You don't move closer to God as the KKK claims. So why hate people because of the color of their skin?

Mormons and Gay Marriage

2009-01-20T16:41:00.000-08:00

Before I start off I will say, I'm a member of the LDS Church (Mormons as some people call us). My opinion is that religion causes much of the strife in this world. Admit it, people use religion as a crutch in many things. I'll admit LDS members use Religion by saying, "I don't drink because I'm Mormon." or, "I don't have sex before marriage because I'm Mormon." It can be seen in all religions (I just use the LDS Church since it is what I have the experience with). People just can't say, "I don't drink because alcohol smells like piss and I'd rather not wake up throwing up in the morning." as I did at parties.

Lets look at what the post is really about. Gay marriage. Many blame my church as the only reason why gay marriage isn't legal. If that's true, and we're not the predominant religion in any state except for Utah, then why is gay marraige still illegal in many other states? Think about it. Yes the LDS Church leaders encourage MEMBERS of the LDS CHURCH to vote agains gay marriage as we believe it is not natural or of God. This doesn't mean we hate homosexuals, we just do not agree with their practices. Doesn't matter that not everyone that voted against legalizing gay marriage was LDS, it's the LDS Church's fault according to everyone mad about the outcome. (cough excuses) Just another scapegoat to blame someone else for your failed attempt. Blame those that didn't vote. We do have freedom to vote however we want here. Deal with it.

How about an example of blame for homosexual inequality from BYU, everybody's "favorite" university. A group of homosexual and lesbian members called Soulforce visited campus to protest something they don't understand about BYU and homosexuals. Listed below are their claims and my answer (not BYU's, not the LDS Church's, but mine so comment to me if you disagree):

1. BYU opposes gays to attend their university and so gay students are driven into depression because of it. (Give me a break)

My Answer: Get a life. You can be openly gay and attend BYU. (What?!?!?!) That's right. Now don't take "openly gay" as the freedom for someone to openly talk about their desires. Nope, not at all. You must not talk about it because it contradicts the PRIVATE UNIVERSITY'S (I hope that sinks in, if not, PRIVATE UNIVERSITY)honor code of morality according to the principles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. You can tell people you are gay, but you cannot talk about gay practices. Straight students are also restricted and encouraged to restrain from talking about sexual activities amongst each other.

2. BYU should let gays date and make love because it's not right to restrict them from their passions (seriously, this is what someone told me).

My Answer: So you want things that not even BYU students can have? Let me explain, at BYU you sign an honor code saying you will stay away from sexual intercourse and other sexual activites (kissing is not a sexual activity) outside of marriage. Because gays cannot be legally married they cannot engage in any type of sexual activity at all if attending BYU. "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, IN OBEYING, HORORING, AND SUSTAINING THE LAW." AofF #12. If straight students are restricted from having sexual intercourse outside of marriage, why should homosexual students have sexual intercourse outside of marriage? Now you're asking for more than other students. Don't be selfish.

3. Gays accept straight relationships, so you should accept gay relationships.

My Answer: Talking to a member of Soulforce named Tim (well, that's what he said his name was) the above statement is not entirely true. When I told him I am attracted to women and I have sex with only my female wife his answer was, "That's disgusting." Why is it disgusting? Because he said he can't find himself attracted to women. He didn't accept my choice to only be attractive to women, so why should I accept his to be attracted to men? Don't be a hypocrit (I'm not saying all homosexuals think this way, just the ones making the claims from Soulforce).

So, the LDS Church is not restricting gay marriage from being passed, it's everyone that voted! Get over it! If you want to blame someone for the fact that you can't get married then blame the founding fathers that wrote the law that marriage was only sanctioned between a man and a woman. They wrote the law while they established the government here, take it out on them.

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" -- Isaiah 5:20