The Line between Public and Private

I would like to discuss the line between public and private.
What sparked this interest are two recent events that make you wonder where does the line get drawn on your public and private life.

The first is the total infusion of the racist comments secretly recorded of Donald Sterling - owner of the Clippers basketball team. (still as of 05/12/2014).  And the second is the ousting of the CEO of Mozilla due to a $1000 donation to the Prop 8 (California Marriage intuitive) several years ago.


Any smart person knows that what they do and say in private could and likely will be used against you in the future if you have some sort of more public profile.  That being - if you are in upper management of an organization, are in entertainment in anyway etc you have a public profile.
Those that are just one of 30k employees for a large company need not worry as much.


So what makes these situations a bit disturbing?   The fact that something that should be private has turned into something that is public.  Take the Mozilla case for a moment.  What does a $1000 donation to a political cause have to do with anything?  Would it have mattered if he had given the money to elect a green party candidate?  How about to a political party - Communist of America, or the US NAZI party or the Democrats.  It really would not.  It would be a bit disturbing, but, is not a person allowed the ability to express themselves?  The more disturbing is that because it was in support of a cause that got labeled as anti-gay he got hit.  He donated to a hot button issue.

"The forces of intolerance won. With Eich caving in, there is no conversation, and the world is not a better place for the free exchange of ideas. " Mozilla CEO Eich caves over Prop. 8 donation

Again where does one's support of prop 8 have to do with his ability to run the company?
Maybe it does but, in the end talk is talk and actions are actions.  You need to judge the person more by the actions not just the talk.
It takes a pretty good charlatan to talk like a racist in private and be 100% non racist in public.
The Sterling case is classic in this regard.  He was discriminator long before these comments were leaked.  He'd been to court multiple times on just these issues.  But, that finally do something now years later.  Seems like they are a little late to the party, and may have gone overboard to make up for something that should have been done years ago.





Where should the line be drawn when it comes to conduct in private for a more or less public figure.

Have people become so intolerant of a person being able to express their views if they are against a hot button group that they in reality are being intolerant?
I definitely see a difference between someone donating to prop. 8 for example and them saying that anyone that is gay or gay leaning can not work at my company.  One is discrimination and the other is expressing a voice in the public square and going through legal channels to get things changed.
Also it seems that now in some cases you find a cloud of fear hanging over you.  Decide to support something deemed against our protected group(s) and you'll be run out of town.  So you don't express your opinion since you feel afraid to be harassed if someone decides to turn against you.  Not good.
You begin to cut out even the civilized discussion.  Why, fear that's why!

Many groups have been putting the fear factor into things for quite some time now.  They make themselves appear to be move then the 10% of the population that they are.  This in turn with the fact they are willing to fight in court helps them to get their way.  Those groups reluctant to go to court, and that do not have a lot of people in high profile professions don't seem to be much of a threat.

Take the Montgomery bus boycott as an example.  This worked as all non-violent protest should in the end due to what it caused.  They found an injustice and decided to show how much they as a group could effect the overall good.  They simply quit using the bus.  They company to gain back the ridership and fix things had to reevaluate their policy of who sits where in the bus.  They did not go around bad mouthing the drivers (they just doing their job) , or egging the buses or the like.  No they found alternate forms of transportation.  Then as the economics began to be felt the bus company, local government and the like had to come to the table to rectify the situation.

This is how things should be handled in cases like the basketball team owner that is racist.  Quit going and then as things do down the drain he will have to sell.  Who will hold on to a team that is losing a ton of money?
Works the same with any business.  Take the baker and photographer that decided they would not do business associated with a same-sex wedding.  The people that got rejected decided to do more then just take their business elsewhere and tell all their friends and like minded individuals to do the same.  No they had to go to court and claim discrimination.  Sadly, it was for what would have to be classified as religious discrimination.  They chose to not bake a cake or take pictures their religious belief do not support same sex marriage.  And sadly, the baker and photographer both lost.




This opens up another can of worms in my opinion.  The can that states - your religious beliefs don't matter if we decide they don't matter.   I guess someone could come and take someone to court if they decided to their business being closed on Sunday is discrimination.  Do I see a future law suite against Hobby Lobby on the horizon.  Some Atheist or agnostic decides he feels threatened, or discriminated against due to the fact they are closed on Sunday (day of the Lord ie. Sabbath) and since they don't believe in a supreme being.
Someone tried this against the Boy Scouts and it did not work in relation to the Pledge of Allegiance and Oath/Law.

Where do you draw the line?  When do your religious beliefs become discrimination?

Liberty versus liberty: religious freedom bills trouble gay rights supporters

At UVU, Elder Oaks sees hope despite 'alarming' religious liberty trends

"Elder Oaks maintained that freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion doubly protect religious liberty, but he said there are reasons to be concerned about the vitality of both.
"I fear that free speech is diminishing as a result of the chilling effect of mostly invisible restraints, even censorship."
He cited a number of examples but then added another, one "very personal to me," of the boycotts, firings and intimidation of those who backed Proposition 8 — defining marriage as between a man and a woman — in California. He mentioned the recent resignation of Mozilla's new CEO over a $1,000 donation he made to Proposition 8 six years ago.
Elder Oaks called it "another unfortunate example of bullying and intimidation that too often seeks to censor speech in the public square."

I think the Mozilla case show a bit of over reach.  The Donald Sterling case show a lack of action till it was past the time it would not cause other problems.


We really need to be careful when we go and take a person's personal at home talk and put it out in the the public arena.  We need to be careful that we don't take things out of context.  That we give the benefit of the doubt first and after we have good details then we take action.  That way we allow everyone to have their turn and so there can be a civilized discourse.

Once we throw out the ability to have a civilized conversation about Politics, Religion, racism, and the like we have lost a lot of what makes America great.  We have decided to let fear and extortion rule supreme.  And unfortunately that is what they use in dictatorships to keep themselves in power.






Buaidh - NO - Bas

Is Government working in your BEST Interest?

I guess when we start to talk about government we need to define a few of the more common version of government.

This will work like many of the discussion I had with the Cub Scout about types of government when helping them understand what it means to "pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the REPUBLIC to which it stands".  Most did not know what a republic is.  Many adults may not know what a republic is.

So there we start.
A Republic referrers to a form of government where things are in general public.  This means offices are not inherited, and things are in general out in the open.  Viewable by the masses in one form or another.

Then you have a Monarchy.  This is a simple form that has as it's head a single person who passes their office down hierarchically.  The the person that held the position in times immortal my have gotten selected due to some act of valor, heroism, skill etc.  Over time due to it being hereditary the competence of the person may be in question.

Then you have your forms of Dictatorships.  These are situations were one or just a couple people are in charge (like a monarchy) and maintain that position by force in most cases.  The populous in no way had a say in who these people that run things are.  That is what acts of force are so commonly used.  People disappear when they appose those in charge.  Not a good system to be under.

Then there are the Theocracies.  They basically have leadership based on religious elements.  Again in this system the church and state are near identical.  What the church says the state or government promotes.  If the church says it is wrong to kiss and show signs of affection in public then the government in short order will pass a law making that illegal.  There are mixed feelings on this government style.  Some good, some bad.

Then there is Communism where the government dictates how things are to be.  They control production, schooling, recreation and the like.  They basically treat you like a child; believe you don't know what is best for you.  They also like to make thing equal for everyone. This is generally not a very good method, hard to implement.  Lots of problems arise and life is not good.

Then the granddaddy of them all Democracy.  There are various levels of democracy.  Pure democracy requires that every little change be voted on by the populous as a whole.  Can you imagine needing to get 300 million people to vote every time we decide to send aid to some foreign country or have a new ambassador to Brazil.  Nothing would get done very quickly.
That is why usually you see a representative form of democracy.  This is where the populous votes on the people that want to represent them.  Those people then become the ones that work out aid bills, ambassadors, regulation on immigration and the like.  We don't have to get bogged down in the details.  We also are not voting hundreds of time each year on every little thing.
You still have to pay attention to what the representative is doing.  If he is voting for things you don't like then you have to vote for some one else the next time you have a chance.
This is generally considered the best form of government.
It is what the United States and most Western European countries us.  Lots of central and south American countries use this as well, though it has not always been so.

Lastly, you have Anarchy where there is no form of government.  In reality this does not last long as you will find people coalescing around certain ideas of picking someone as there leader.

Each and everyone one of these forms of government has its drawbacks.  The question then become which of these will best serve your own interests?

If your the king your likely to do fine in a monarchy.  Not so well if your the little man.  Do something the local king does not like and you might just end up in prison.  Or have your head cut off.
The laws, taxes etc under this system are determined by the king.  If he decides to build some huge palace he might raise taxes.  What benefit does this have to anyone outside the person(s) that will reside in the palace?  None really so it is potentially a very selfish form of government.
Mosiah 29:16 "Now I say unto you, that because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you".

Dictatorships are also selfish.  One or a couple of people decide what the heck is going on.  If they don't like what you are saying about them, or what you have been doing - you disappear.  Force and fear keeps them in control.  This is no in the interest of the people.  Select groups of people benefit, though the majority suffer.
I've never heard of a righteous dictatorship.

Communism also is a special animal.  The ideal that everyone is equal.  That everyone is part of owner of everything seems like a great idea.  If production is great all benefit, if production is bad all suffer.  However, since all is "classless" who do you blame?
This method failed over time in Russia and is not in anyway close to its pure form in China.  In reality this system of government is as much economic as political.
Not much of this is in your self interest.  Not much of this is to your benefit.  And in some respects it maybe detrimental.
One reason this system does not work so well is that force is again included.  You don't have those that are well off give freely of their goods to help the destitute.  You have no one well off technically so, wealth is automatically redistributed.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints early on had a United Order which some would claim is basically communism. it is clearly not since people freely entered the order and chose to use their wealth to benefit of all -
United Order 
An organization through which the Saints in the early days of the restored Church sought to live the law of consecration. Individuals shared property, goods, and profits, receiving these things according to their wants and needs (D&C 51:3; 78:1–15; 104).

One of the problems with communism is that eventually, little motivation exists to improve things.  Production does not meet reality and shortages, and other problems arise.

So some form of democratic government with a free market type system is the best.  Still there are flaws but, generally this will be the system that creates the greatest wealth, helps the greatest number of people and causes general prosperity.

It's now a system that takes from the rich to help the poor or the like.  It's people being able to start up companies with minimal government interferance.  It's people free do as they will.
Granted we have to have some minimum standard right?
Some would argue that we do not.  That we will self regulate if need be.... that eventually the gross polutors will go away.  Some of that may be true.  But, we always act in our own self interest.
And that is why we must ask....  Is the government working in our best interest?

It's a good question when it comes to a representative democracy.
We have people representing us but, do we have the time to find out what they are voting for?

In the end your vote may statistically mean next to nothing.  Especially, given the amount of time needed to properly understand candidates and their positions.  Being thus, we end up with a lot of poorly qualified people in all kinds of elected positions.
That goodness there are term limited.  We just keep rotating in the less then qualified.  Some times a good one come along and things get done for the betterment of all in the community.  To often it is for the good of the few.

This has been true over the years.  For some time the business/factory owners had the full support of people and government when unionizing was underway.  Then years later the tables were turned.  The workers organizing were backed.
So things do switch around.  You have person in government that may help out the farm lobby, basically causing them more wealth at the expense of someone else which in most cases are the city folks

David Freidman talking on government and economics
Buaidh - NO - Bas

A rather quick fix to the Immigration issue

A proper interpretation of the 14th Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States of America will and could very well limit or remove a lot of the issues we are currently having with illegal immigration.

Here is the text in full:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.^[1]

The key point is found in section 1; "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State"


See it mentions subject to the jurisdiction thereof.  What does being subject to the jurisdiction mean?

Well let's take the case of a Gal from say Ireland that cross the atlantic and gets into the country while on a visitor visa.  Legitimate for the time being.... 10 months later she is pregnant by another person from England who is also not in the country legally anymore.  Should the baby born automatically get citizenship?
Well both the parents are not under the jurisdiction of the United States as they over stayed their visas.  Especially, they might have been if the birth occurred within the time frame that the visa was effective (usually 6 months from date of issue).

I believe that jurisdiction refers legal standing of an individual.  Thus because this couple has no legal standing they have no jurisdiction and are therefore no under our jurisdiction.  The baby therefore should not get automatic citizenship.

Now this would be different if one of the parents has citizenship or permanent legal residence.





Why would this small little part have any major effect on the whole immigration debate?

Well, if you make it so that a ton of people do not automatically get citizenship you do not promote people wanting to come here for "Birth Tourism" or coming here with any intent of having children and being able to stay.

If you make it less desirable to come here and bypass the rules or you make it clear that just because someone has come here does not them a ton of extra rights they likely will not come here in the first place.

I've heard of women in labor that will jump the border down by Mexico just so their child can be born here in the united states.
Now I might see them doing this for financial or medical reasons but, many times it appears it is for more then that.
If they lady being illegal find here child is not given automatic citizenship she likely will not do it again or at all in the first place.




Deincentivizing things is what you have to do.  Making it so people here for all the wrong reasons don't feel like staying here is the quickest way to resolve the illegal immigration issue.

They claim recently that illegal immigration has gone down.  Though the trend has followed the rise in unemployment.  Thus with minimal chance at getting a job the illegal goes home.  You make it that way for the 11 million plus illegals and presto the problem is solved.  You don't have to go off granting a path to citizenship or the like.  Make the reason that come here go away and you solve the problem.

If I emigrate to the UK for the free medical and do so illegally and then have my ability to get said free medical taken away due to my status then why will I stay there?  NO real reason would exist and I'd go home unless I'm really worse off there......

But, come on do you believe these people would be some much worse off back home?

Also I saw in a recent article Luck of the Irish on the BBC site that many of Irish are pushing to have the immigration reform bill passed not necessarily because it helps the Latino but, because it helps them. Directly quoting from the article
"We're meeting with people whose grandparents were immigrants, and I tell them that under the regulations today, their grandparents wouldn't get in," says Staunton, an Irish immigrant who has been in the US for 31 years. 

You see they have bought in on the fact that many of the politicans' grandparents who came from Ireland would not make it in under the current system.  Might be but, is this any reason to support something that is full of holes and can be solved in better ways?

 So let's work to make it less desirable to be here illegally and then we can work on fixing the citizenship status of those that remain behind.

This means we have to hit the employers, and the employed that are here illegally......




As an aside.  They would never do it but a few landmines at the border would sure make people think twice before crossing.




Buaidh - NO - Bas

A few more thoughts on Marriage

Most of the talk these days is about gay marriage.  Oft forgotten is the fact that traditional marriage in America and around the world is falling by the way side.  Some even site this as a reason to allow for gay marriage....  "can't make things any worse"


In reality marriage has been under attack long before the gays started to make such a big deal out of it.  it may have started back in the free love days of the 60's and 70's.  The time when the sexual revolution began.  But, the seedy side of things has been a problem for years on end.
Child prostitution was an issues in England in the 1800's.  Royal families are full of less then legitimate heirs ..... some of which left their mark on history and did not just disappear in a convent somewhere.  Take Theresa Countess of Portugal the illegitimate daughter of Alfonso VI king of Leon and Castile.  Her son Alfonso Henriques became the first king of Portugal.


However, despite all this marriage has been falling apart for some time.  It is being attacked or damaged in a variety of ways.
First you have the fact that many states have made divorce "no fault".  That means you don't really need much of a reason to divorce your spouse.  Just claim differences that can not be resolved and presto.  Used to be you needed infidelity, or other types of abuse, or neglect.  That made people work on fixing things before heading to court.
Also there is a general attitude even among those interested in getting married that they will wait till they are better off financially, done with school etc.
Yes, once married you may have a kid or two come along fairly quickly.  Though delaying just creates other problems.
Along those same lines are those that feel let's just try things out for a time and see if it works out.  Then if things are going well we can officially hitch up even though we may have been living together for several years.  What does this create?  A higher rate of divorce for those that do get married after living together for a time.
Why?
Likely, it has to do with the lack of desire to fix things.  The lack of commitment that is created, and other related ideas and issues.



Then beyond the break down of marriage you have increasingly low birthrate in many countries due to the cost of living, and marriage related issues.  With persons delaying getting married you find also an increase in the delay of children or you find young children of older parents.  In the past people might get married by 20 and start setting up their own farm some where in the area of their families (farther west depending on land availability).  Thus the age span between generations is about 20 years +/- 5 years.
Now a days it is more like 30-40.  What a change.

So is there a solution to all this?
Is there something that can be done to fix society?  To strengthen marriage, make it more common place and at the same time make it better (better quality, more useful to society, more strengthening etc).
It may seem simple.  It may seem like 'why did I not think of that sooner'.  Just follow god's plan.  Spend time with your family and get your priorities right.  You find just this message in the below video.



One final thought.  Someone posted on facebook something along the following lines. 
'You can't read the bible in school.  But, they give them away for free in prison.  So maybe we wouldn't need to hand them out in prison, if we started to allow people to read the bible in school."
You get the point.

Want a book they likely won't tell you you can't read it at school?
Request a free copy here - Free not so banned book

Yes, we can fix things.  Hope is not all lost.  Stick with it and do what is right...... it will all work out in the end.


Buaidh - NO - Bas

Moral Dilemma

So this weekend we acquired a copy of the movie "The Box" staring Cameron Diaz to watch.  Boy it turned out to be a bit creepy.  Though the premise is very interesting.

If a guy shows up at your home and delivers you a box with a button on top with the following caveat (if you push the button you get 1 million dollars cash but some random unknown person will die) what would you do?

This follows a similar premise to the movie "Indecent Propsal".
Offering a million bucks for you to do something that you know is not appropriate.

So the question falls - where is your cut off point when it comes to immoral proposals?




Would you cave in at 1 million dollars, 10 million, or 100,000?

With the movie the box the couple stresses over what could happen and all the ramifications etc.  Then they basically think "no one will know, and the box has no wires and the like."

In the end it appears some type of alien group was conducting some type of physiological experiment, some high up level of the government. 

In reality we deal with see types of moral dilemmas on a daily basis.  Usually it is small stuff like dealing with a miss charge on a grocery bill or really stopping fully at that stop sign at 9pm at night.
Daily we have to internally fight off the everyone is doing it routine, and do the right thing.  Do we step up and admit we did something wrong?   Do we take responsibility when being handed the traffic ticket or do we fight it tooth and nail?

Just imagine how much better the world would be if everyone just did the right thing.  Though due to the way the plan is laid out we are always given our agency - the choice to make the decision and some times pick wrongly.




But, it was known that we would make mistakes, and since we had to be "unspotted" to enter the presence of God additional things were put into place to help us fill the gap become worthy to enter his presence.



Jesus was sent to fill that gap.  So all of us stressing over making the right choice can rest a little easier and know that if we do our best to make the hard moral choices we still have a way to come back if we chose wrong.

Would you like a free copy of a book that will help you to make the hard moral choices?  A book that lays out the plan of happiness?
A book that will make you feel better as you apply the things it teaches.  That help you to feel that not all is lost.  That there is good in the world today and you don't have to be the only one working for it?

Free book on God's Plan of Happiness

Buaidh - NO - Bas

The Boy Scouts of America and gay scouts

By now you have probably heard about the possible loosening of the regulation to not allow openly gay Scout leaders and members be members of the Boy Scouts of America.

Currently if Johnny has an openly lesbian mother that wants to be the den leaders she can't.  Same goes for Fred's openly gay dad being a leader in his local scout group.
Some will say it's about time that you get with the modern world and just let them join.  "What's the harm?"  "Why are you being discriminatory?"
Those kind of comments are coming from the gay supporters.  Though in reality they are what 10% of the overall population?



Is it right that such a small group of people push their agenda on the rest of the population?  Some may even equate it to the civil rights movement and getting equality in places like the Southern States.  Or the women's lib movement or Title 9.  But, are they really the same?    The Boy Scouts have successfully in the past make it a requirement to profess some form of religiousness.  The atheist could not get parts of the Scout Oath and Law thrown out because it made references to God.  Same thing on the orientation element.

Check out some comments by Bill Gates on the whole issue.  I hope just because he's someone that has been successful people don't just go his route without thinking of the consequences. 

"Should the Boys Scouts of America Change it's stance on Gay leaders?" - Gates - "Absolutely" - "Why?" - Gates - "It's 2013!"
Not such a good idea to just update things because it's a new year and we need to be modern.  I'm glad that the Boy Scouts are sending out questionnaires to it's leaders and members.  It allows them to see if people are hot to the idea of gay leaders and scouts or not.  I believe due to the fact that at least 60% of scouting organizations come from a handful or religions they are going to find out quickly things need to stay the same.  Yes, a few corporate sponsors may back out or quit sending money.  You'll have to get more from the rank and file but, since it is what they want they should be more then happy to hand over a little more.

So here would be the great compromise.

Why not ask Bill Gates who's flush with money and giving away so much to various charities and organizations to create the -
Gay Scouts of America. 
This would be an organization of and by the gays for the gays.  Just think of it.  They could have the sexual orientation merit badge and other related topics the real Boy Scouts can not even dream of touching.  They could even throw the whole youth protection element out the window.  Why?  You are actively promoting taking all kinds of people in and well "Buyer Beware" might just apply.
You are opening it  to everyone regardless of orientation - warts and all.



So Bill Gates has the money to bank roll a venture like this.  He has the funds to help them be set up for several years at the least.  It would be the grand experiment.  And then as their numbers grow they could prove they have a place in society.  Unfortunately, if they fail it would only validate why things need to stay the same in the good old Boy Scouts of America.

So why not weigh in on this topic.  How have you been responding to the questionnaire?  Do you think things need to be modernized in the scouting movement?  Or should the many years of experience that have worked be the guide?
Would it be OK to have individual units deciding if they want to have gay leaders and boys.




Buiadh - NO - Bas