Anziano Jolley

Since I will be leaving on a LDS mission in 1 month from TODAY, I have set up a separate blog for y'all to receive updates about my adventures. The url is http://anzianojolley.blogspot.com

Please subscribe.

The blog will be kept by my little sister.

Bought and Paid for

I was reading the Deseret News today. I came across this article about the senate race in Utah. Senator Bennett has spent an ungodly sum of money on his campaign so far... $2 MILLION. Combined, ALL of his challengers, republican, democrat, third party, ALL of them have spent $85000. That's compared to his $2000000.

Where does such an ungodly sum come from? The banks he bailed out, the drug companies that he supports, and the rest of the ridiculous special interests that have him bought and paid for.
"Bennett reported raising $398,000 in the last quarter of 2009 — and only 1 percent of it came from donors with addresses in Utah." Here's the source for that.

That's a ridiculous sum of money. 1% came from Utah. ONE PERCENT. There is no legitimate reason for anyone outside of Utah to be contributing!

Let him feel your rage. He doesn't represent me, he doesn't represent you, unless your name is Zions Bancorporation, EnergySolutions Inc, or Pfizer Inc. Don't vote for a man who has no interest in his own constituency's concerns.

Research the other candidates. Attend the Republican Caucuses. After all, everyone in Utah knows that republicans are the only ones who can win statewide. If you don't attend the Republican Caucuses, and make sure he has to face a primary, he won't.

Reading List

So, I was reading Selja's blog, and she said in this post that she thought it'd be cool to have a soundtrack to your life. I dunno. I think that'd get really annoying sometimes. If everyone you knew was a little radio station, broadcasting their music to the world, you'd get some mixture of Taylor Swift, Yellowcard, Fictionist, Muse, MCR, and just all sorts of general cacophany. I've heard the idea before, and I still think it'd be annoying.

On a different note, I think I'd like to tell the world about some interesting websites that I've been following/reading. First of all, MakeUseOf. It's a pretty legit website with all sorts of nerdy articles about how to get cool free apps for your computer. It also talks about other weird computerey things. One of the other sites I'll mention, I found through one of their articles.

I found MIT's OpenCourseWare through MakeUseOf. It's a bunch of MIT courses, with videos and lecture notes and homework for almost all of the courses they offer there. I'm currently listening to/watching a lecture from their Intro to Computer Science class. I figure that computer programming is interesting enough to learn, and a useful skill.

Next, I use Google Reader to read all my friend's blogs, and to read MakeUseOf and the news. It's well laid out, and I in general like it.

I'm reading a book called The Next 100 Years by George Friedman. It suggests a very interesting future for the world. I'm also reading Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, a parody of Pride and Prejudice, rewritten by Alexander Grahme-Smith. It's pretty hilarious.

I recently read Little Brother, by Cory Doctorow, a intriguing book inspired by 1984. I highly suggest it. You can find it online for free here.

I am also, preparing for my mission to Milan, Italy, by reading Preach My Gospel and the Standard Works. I'm currently in the middle of Isaiah. It's terribly interesting.

Out of curiosity, what books have YOU read recently? Comment with your suggestions!

Finals

Well kids, I have two finals left. I've been studying very little for these finals. And so I have not been doing incredibly well on them.

Would you like to know why?

It's because of the what the magic 8 ball said.

I asked it a question.

It said "A definite yes."

So... I took its advice.

It has been interesting.

call me.

Privacy

As an FYI... Facebook has changed their privacy settings page. If you find the "such and such is now friends with such and such" annoying, please look into removing such posts from your own privacy settings. You can't turn off the other people's, but you can remove yours from their walls.

If you feel like doing something, go to your facebook, click settings in the upper right corner, and then click privacy settings, and play around with it a bit.

With Us, or Against Us?

George W. Bush famously stated that "you're either with us, or with the terrorists." Interesting statement. I was reminded of this by reading my New Testament, and coming across Luke 9:50, wherein Jesus states "Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us" Mr. Bush states that any not with us are against us, while Jesus states that any not against us are for us. These are two very different approaches to the same group of people. The one's who are undecided. Bush puts them against us, while Christ puts them with us. Whose team are you on?

Guantanamo Bay

Due to a recent Facebook Chat conversation, I thought I would record some thoughts, in a return to a more political nature of this blog.

Guantanamo Bay. President Obama is attempting to close it. The men imprisoned there are accused of heinous crimes. They have been held there and subjected to enhanced interrogation.

What makes a "terrorist" different from you and me? They are people. Being people, they have rights to life, liberty, and property. Two of these have been denied them for who knows how long. They are not given a trial, and they have not been treated as the Geneva Conventions allow. Why? Because we have said that they are "terrorists", and therefore are scum.

However heinous their crimes, all men should be given a fair trial. This is why John Adams defended the British Regulars who were accused of manslaughter in the "Boston Massacre." The opinion of the public does not change the fact that they are people, and deserve that right. If they are found guilty, then let them be punished accordingly. If they are found not guilty, then let them go free. Not giving them a trial is unjust.

Let us imagine for a second that the tables are turned. Instead of the United States occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, the opposite is true. They are occupying us. Would we resist, even if they were here trying to give us "Democracy"? I certainly would. For resistance, I would be labeled a terrorist by the United States of Iraq. I would then be imprisoned without trial under questionable circumstances. I could be subjected to "enhanced interrogation". Would I find it to be pleasant? I doubt it. Would I define it as torture? Probably.

Even though the above is not the case, it certainly questions the Christianness of our actions. The Golden Rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is exactly the opposite of what we are doing in these countries. No matter how noble the cause, the end does not justify the means. We must not be led to believe that our safety and security, and the future "democracy" of Afghanistan are worth the loss of a military that has been historically the kindest conqueror ever.

Time

Since I started my policy of doing my homework in advance, I feel like I have all the time in the world. It's an incredible feeling. I'm taking 15 credit hours, and I feel like I have time to spare. I'm ahead in all of my classes, I'm working to get even farther ahead, and I've cleaned all of my dishes in the sink because I can. It's an incredible feeling. I thought I'd list some ideas as to where all this time came from, because I've never had it before.

First and most importantly, I don't eat meals in the cannon center anymore. That place ate up nearly an hour and a half a meal, at least. I now spend about 15 minutes a meal. That's an incredible amount of time right there.

Second, I don't have a girlfriend. Girlfriends are fun, and great, but they take up a LOT of time. I had a girlfriend for all of my previous semesters.

Third, I don't have guys down the hall constantly playing videogames and sucking me into their world. That's probably nearly as much time as the cannon center. Woot for not playing videogames except like an hour a week. That's a win.

Fourth, I think I'm taking a slightly easier 15 credits than normal. 5 of those credits are religion classes and orchestra. 6 are microbiology and chemistry, and 4 are hebrew.

Fifth, unlike during the summer, I'm not working a full-time job. In fact, I'm only taking classes. That's it. I have time to do things with my life because of it. It's incredible.

Anyways, I've got to get back to my homework that's not due till next friday. Peace be with you!

Cleanliness

I've never thought of myself as a particularly clean person. In fact, I'm kinda messy. However, since I've gotten back to the Y, I find myself being the clean roommate. My housemates are all excessively messy. The sink is constantly full of dirty dishes. None of them are ever mine, though. I wiped down the countertops in our house, because I just couldn't handle how filthy it was. It was GROSS! I dunno. I find myself being more clean than usual, in the presence of such filth.

I hate "just friends"

In the past year, I have been in close relationships with two of my friends. I've also felt the pain of ending those relationships. Both times, we ended the relationship by being "just friends". The first time it was my prerogative, the second, it was hers. Both times, though, we were lying. There is no going directly from boyfriend/girlfriend to "just friends" in my experience. When you break up, you go to acquaintance status. You aren't really even friends anymore without some serious work. No matter how much I would like to be friends with them still, it hasn't worked for me. I went through a period of avoiding them, or them avoiding me or both, then slowly became friends again. I still feel robbed of one of my best friends because we broke up under not the best circumstances.

My first girlfriend, Clarissa, put it best. When you break up, it's like you jump off a cliff. You don't walk back the way you came, you jump straight off a cliff. Suddenly, you're at the bottom, hardly even friends, if that. You have to work to get to that "just friends" you talked about.

A Creed

I found this on the website freedomforceinternational.org. I found it to be just about in line with what I believe. Please read and comment.

THE CREED OF FREEDOM
INTRINSIC NATURE OF RIGHTS
I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights
are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to
grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal
liberty.
I believe that a just state derives its power solely from its citizens. Therefore, the
state must never presume to do anything beyond what individual citizens also have the right
to do. Otherwise, the state is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the
servant of society.
SUPREMACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
I believe that one of the greatest threats to freedom is to allow any group, no matter
its numeric superiority, to deny the rights of the minority; and that one of the primary
functions of a just state is to protect each individual from the greed and passion of the
majority.
FREEDOM OF CHOICE
I believe that desirable social and economic objectives are better achieved by
voluntary action than by coercion of law. I believe that social tranquility and brotherhood
are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and the power of good example than by
coercion of law. I believe that those in need are better served by charity, which is the giving
of one's own money, than by welfare, which is the giving of other people's money through
coercion of law.
EQUALITY UNDER LAW
I believe that all citizens should be equal under law, regardless of their national
origin, race, religion, gender, education, economic status, life style, or political opinion.
Likewise, no class should be given preferential treatment, regardless of the merit or
popularity of its cause. To favor one class over another is not equality under law.
PROPER ROLE OF THE STATE
I believe that the proper role of the state is negative, not positive; defensive, not
aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for
some, it must also be able to take from others, and once that power is granted, there are
those who will seek it for their advantage. It always leads to legalized plunder and loss of
freedom. If the state is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it is also powerful
enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of the state is to
protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens; nothing more. That state is best which
governs least.

Rupert Murdoch

I don't like Rupert Murdoch. The man has FAR too much power. He owns News Corp. also known as Murdoch's News Corp. This company has amongst its subsidiaries ALL of the Fox Broadcasting Company, MySpace, and about a fifth of the newspapers and magazines in the United States.

I read an article today that made me just grimace at the News Corp. Basically, the article states that Fox recently decided to reduce its carbon footprint. Therefore, to help with this, they sneakily stuck global warming messages into their most popular shows, like the Simpson's, Family Guy, 24, etc.

I don't approve. IF Global Warming is a real phenomenon, this is the wrong way to deal with it.

The way that Congress has recently pushed through a multiplicity of bills is also the wrong way to do things. The Cap and Trade bill, (more like Cap and Tax) was 1200 pages long. It was passed through the House of Representatives in something like 1 week. Have you ever read 1200 pages in a week? Have you ever read 1200 pages of legislation in a week? The answer is no. No person can read and comprehend and revise that much legislation in that short of a time. Is Global Warming that urgent? We've been talking about it for nearly 20 years. Would another month hurt that much? I don't think so.

I'm angry at News Corp. I'm angry at Congress. Grumble.

Global Warming (A Hot Topic)

I read in the Deserted News yesterday that the Western Governor's Association says that the science on Global Warming is done. It's for sure. It's conclusive. I have several questions for these folks.

Question #1: Since when is science EVER conclusive? I've been taught in my science classes all of my life to always doubt the current model. Relativity? It has to be wrong. It's just our best guess so far. Same goes for Quantum Mechanics, Coulomb's Law, AND Anthropogenic Climate Change. Science is not conclusive. Ever. Especially sciences that have been in heavy research for 30 years. If Coulomb's Law has to be wrong, and it hasn't changed in a VERY long time, then Climate Change must follow the same logic. Except that it's a lot newer, and hasn't been quite as conclusively proven.

Question #2: Even if the science is conclusive, are the politics and policy? What evidence do we have that the current proposals to halt climate change will work? For the policy often referred to as "Cap and Trade," we have evidence to the contrary. The Kyoto Protocol was a treaty which took force in February of 2005. It promotes "Cap and Trade" measures between countries. It basically punishes those who increase their CO2 and GHG emissions past 1990 levels by making them pay countries which have decreased their emissions levels. As of 2004, all of 4 major industrial countries have reduced their emissions below 1990 levels. These are the following: The Russian Federation, the UK, Denmark, and Germany. While Germany, Denmark, and the UK are to be commended for their success, the Russian Federation deserves no such glory. Anyone remember what happened in Russia in 1990? Their government, which owned everything, collapsed. Their emissions ratings in that year were exceptionally high due to the fact that their government was still functioning. Since their economy collapsed, it made it rather easy for them to have emissions under 1990 levels. Also, other than these FOUR countries, the vast majority of the 183 signers of the Kyoto Protocol have had increases in their emissions levels. It doesn't seem to have had much effect on emissions levels in any other country, and has simply moved wealth around.

Question #3: Given the failure to achieve the goals of the Kyoto Protocol, why is the United States Government so deadset on doing the same thing here? There must be a better way. One that will actually work, perhaps? If something must be done, I propose to simply pump tax dollars into research grants for developing things that will work.

Hmm... I was going to slip some jokes in here.... I kinda forgot what they were.... or where they went. Oh well. I hope you laughed in some part of this post...

What do you think? I don't see the current proposals as being effectual at preventing Climate Change, assuming the science is conclusive. Do you agree, disagree, or have an entirely different viewpoint? Spell it out! (Thanks for reading, and thank you in advance for your intelligent discourse).

P.S. I am my primary source, with supporting info from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_protocol Look at the graph about 3/4 of the way through the article.

Liberalism and Conservatism

I've been thinking lately. (Shocker, right?) Why is it that I call myself a Classical Liberal, and believe in constitutionally limited government, and yet several of my friends call themselves Liberal, and believe in extremely strong government? In the time of Jefferson, I think they would be called conservative. In the days of the founding of the United States, Liberalism meant believing in small government, and natural rights. Conservatism used to mean in favor of conserving the rights of the monarchy and the aristocracy. Monarchy, as a system, believes very little in its people. It believes that a privileged class ought to control most EVERYTHING. Liberalism has come to believe in much the same things, especially in its latest manifestation under President Obama. The GM and Chrysler takeovers are proof of this.

Conservatism has come to mean conserving the rights, freedoms, liberties, and traditions of small government the United States has come to be known for.

This change in meaning of the two words is an advantage to the Liberal movement, and a disadvantage to the conservative movement. This is because Liberal has a connotation of moving forward, while conservative has a connotation of holding back.

Would anyone like to explain how these words switched meanings?

On a lighter note

I remembered a story of little Ben today. In 1995, when Gordon B. Hinckley, Thomas S. Monson, and James E. Faust became the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, little Ben was watching it on the TV. Little Ben LOVED trains. He noticed that Gordon, Thomas and James are all characters on his favorite TV show, Thomas the Tank Engine. "It makes perfect sense mommy! Gordon, Thomas and James!" Little Ben was rather excited to find out that his church leaders were his favorite TV show's main characters.

Several years later, when James left this world, a slightly bigger Ben was delighted to find out that his replacement was another character on the show, Henry. Unfortunately, soon thereafter, Gordon passed on as well, as was replaced with someone who isn't quite a Thomas the Tank Engine character. There aren't any Dieters in the Tank Engine lineup. Thomas is in charge now, though, which is as it should be.

I therefore have a proposition to make. I propose that we petition Takara Tomy, the makers of Thomas merchandise, to create a new tank engine. Dieter the Diesel Tank Engine. Any takers? I'd buy one.

Optimism

I am often told that I am too optimistic in regards to how people act. Whenever I am criticized in such a way, I am asked "Have you met people, Ben?" The answer is obviously yes. I have met people. The question is usually met with a qualifier of "as in non-utah people." The answer to that is also yes. But what bothers me is that those who ask the question don't strike me as having any more experience with people, and often strike me as having less experience with people. So, I ask any person who has asked me this, "Have YOU met people?" I assume the answer is yes, but your condescending tone begs another question. What is it that makes your experience with people more vast or more valid than mine? My view of people is just as valid as yours so far as I see it. Please justify yourselves.

Thank you for reading and putting up with my style.

Intelligence

In discussions of public education with many of my friends, I have been confronted with a very elitist viewpoint of education. It can be summarized in the following quote.

"The way the system is now is excellent. On one end you have the people that no matter what you do, for whatever reason, they fail. They don't care, they don't have the ability, whatever, they just drop out and fail to the lowest class. Then in the middle you have people who "become organized" as the mission statement said, and then you have people like us who go "HEEEEECK NO!" see the problems in the system, but ultimately still get through, thinking, and are ahead."

As much as I might like to think that I'm better and more intelligent than most people, I just cannot honestly believe that it's true. I'm fairly certain that I'm about average in most every respect. I've only had more opportunity to fulfill my dreams than others. It is not my intelligence or my ability that has brought me to where I am, but my environment and my choices. I have been extremely blessed to live in a loving home where intelligent discussion and wit were prized. I have been blessed to have a family that can afford to put me through college. I personally do not have merits that make me so much better than anyone else, except perhaps my circumstances.

I sometimes come off as highfallutin and cocky, but that is a fault of my personality that is entirely unjustified. When I put my beliefs out in the public forum for picking and pulling and squeezing and poking, I am not trying to say: "This is what is right, listen," but instead simply saying: "Here's something I've been thinking about... I think you should give it a thought or two as well."

Angels or Demons?

I've come to realize in discussions with some of my close friends that I believe that people are more like angels than like demons. There is evil in the world, but I believe that most people are essentially good. I believe that most people, given the chance to pursue their dreams, free from institutional bondage, will do good things. Hence, I put my faith in people, rather than institutions.

I also believe that most of those who do evil acts don't wake up in the morning thinking, "how can I make the world a more miserable place? How can I destroy the lives of as many people as possible?" People who think like that are demonic. I think that they are few and far between. Most people who do evil acts think that they are pursuing noble and good ends. They just approach those noble and good ends with too much force and overbearance, and instead of making the world a better place, destroy things.

I believe that creating powerful institutions, like governments, is necessary, but dangerous. Governments not held in check by the superior power of the people will become corrupt and do things not in the best interests of those they attempt to protect.

I realize that there are those who do not have as much faith in people as myself, as much as I hate to admit it. To those, I would argue the following. People on the whole are good. Some are evil. If you create a powerful institution like a powerful government, you will give much power to individuals. Those that are evil are naturally drawn to these positions of power. If you create such a government, sooner or later, you will end up with evil men in positions of great power.

There are those that believe that mankind, left without an all-powerful government to keep the people in line will do all sorts of horrible things. I cannot believe that.

Much of my belief is founded in certain scriptural texts. From Mosiah 29:26-27,

"Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people. And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land."

Given that this statement is true, I cannot believe that people are essentially devilish. That's too darn depressing. If it's true, then the judgments of God are about to fall upon this people in America. I'd rather not have that happen. So, I maintain my faith that people are generally good.

Musicalness...

So... I've been listening to the radio a lot recently, due to the deliverizing I do. Therefore, I would like to say this.

Firstly, I don't care if I can't read your poker face. I don't play poker. What good would it do me to read it? Secondly, the only way I could ever wake up in Vegas is if I was drugged, kidnapped and dragged there. Why in the world should I care what I get for waking up there? Thirdly, there's not a soul mate for everyone. Stop complaining. Fourthly, you must have one obsessive creeper, Kelsey. Run. Run fast. Anyone who's willing to "swim the ocean for you..." is a little too creeper for me. Fifthly, that annoying singer who I've never heard of before... why should I care if you made it through the night? Lastly, I want to be the last one there. Shut up.

My presets are my sister's choices. They're all either country, or the following two stations... mix 107.9 and "my" 99.5. I'm fairly certain that mix... literally means that they have a mix of songs that they play... over and over and over again. In the same order. And the person whose 99.5 it is, please choose better music.

You know... maybe I should've put this on Jeff's communist music site......

Clark Planetarium, 17 Again, and Wicked.

In the past two days, I have been to all of the above. I went to the Planetarium... 5 minutes before it closed... FAIL. So... I wandered over to Barnes and Noble, and read Dr. Seuss there. Fun times!! I then saw 17 Again. It was VERY similar to Big, but... backwards. Interesting film. I half suggest that you see it. It was quite a bit better than I expected given the whole... Zac Efron thing. I kinda liked it actually.

Today, I had the wonderful experience of trying to change the printer at work. MAN ALIVE. That simple change causes all sorts of havoc at work. We basically stopped working for an hour. All because the STUPID NETWORK was run by people not at our store. I hate being the person in charge of computers at home and at work. Because... as much as I may half-understand what to do, at least 99% of how I fix computers and related stuff is guesswork.

Course, the bad memory of that stupid printer was quickly removed by going to Chuckarama (which was not as bad as I remember it...) and then to see Wicked. It was an excellent production, though a slightly larger cast would have been nice. At parts, they were supposed to look like a mob, and looked like a couple of hooligans. There weren't quite enough to make it look convincing all the time. But... I loved the singing. It was excellently done.

Nappy TIME!!! good night y'all!