Friday, November 6, 2009

BYU vs New Mexico Women's Soccer Video

This is video showed on ESPN SportsCenter of a women's soccer match between BYU vs. New Mexico. New Mexico women's soccer player, Elizabeth Lambert #15 wouldn't be kicked out of a MMA match with some of those moves.All I can say if you have children reading blogs with you, you may want to ask them to leave the room, this is ugly.

Here is the quote from New Mexico's coach Kit Vela, after the game: "We showed a lot of character out there tonight... I think we dished out everything we were getting and it was a heck of a game." I was going to past a link to the quotes but New Mexico has since removed that paragraph from their website.

So my question is, are these actions coming from the player acting independently or encouraged by the coach? It doesn't seem any discipline will come from the coach, and after the debacle that is New Mexico's athletic program this year, is New Mexico going to take any disciplinary actions? If this happened in football or basketball the NCAA would come down hard and fast, since it is women's soccer I am doubtful anything will happen but hope I am wrong.

Friday, October 16, 2009

Going through some photos the other day...
Ahhh....remembering the skinny days!

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Religious Freedom

I wanted to get all of your takes on this talk given by Elder Oaks.

"As I address this audience of young adults, I invite your careful attention to what I say on these subjects, because I am describing conditions you will face and challenges you must confront."

Religious Freedom

Friday, September 4, 2009

Open mind, close mouth

As I woke this morning to get my daily blog stalker fix, I had two friends write about the same thing. Yesterday Tabbi posted a link on her facebook about this subject. I have been thinking about the last week as well. It is the subject of the political parties and people who belong to them, not being open to any change unless it was the idea of their party. I could site a number of examples of things that Bush did that had Obama done, the conservatives would have had a conniption fit. Likewise, there are some things that Obama has said, that if Bush would have said the same thing you would have thought the world was ending. Without further adieu here is the article.

I would also recommend reading George Washington's farewell address. Here is the part that I thought was the most applicable to this discussion:

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

Guyana orders Mormon missionaries to leave

I came upon this story today on MSNBC:

GEORGETOWN, Guyana - Authorities in Guyana grew "uncomfortable" with the presence of Mormon missionaries who have been ordered to leave the South American country, a governing party leader said Thursday.

About 40 missionaries were briefly detained Wednesday and told to leave within a month as authorities said their travel documents were out of date.

Comments by Donald Ramotar of the governing People's Progressive Party, however, suggested the crackdown went beyond immigration issues.

"While we tolerate all religions, it appears that some officials had become uncomfortable with them around," said Ramotar, the party's general secretary.

Ramotar declined to elaborate. But some government officials and party members said privately that leaders felt the Mormons were too close to opposition figures and also were wary of the church's independent charity work in the interior.

The sources agreed to discuss the matter only if they were not quoted by name because they feared angering their bosses and losing their jobs.

Links to opposition?
Church spokesman Leslie Sobers also raised the issue, saying he thought the government might have been uneasy over perceived links between the Mormons and the opposition.

He said opposition legislator Volda Lawrence traveled to Utah as a guest of the church two years ago, although the church also invited the pro-government head of the race commission, Juan Edghill, to visit.

A lawyer for the church, Nigel Hughes, expressed puzzlement over the deportation order.

"This whole thing is very strange. These people have about $2 million in property in Guyana, do great missionary work and cultivate farms in the country. Why then expel them?" Hughes said.

The main opposition party said the roundup of the missionaries, mainly U.S. citizens, denied the church workers due process and set a bad example as Guyana complains to neighboring countries about the deportation of Guyanese citizens.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been sending missionaries to this former British colony for more than 20 years. About 100 of them are now in Guyana, many of them deep in the country's interior where the government has little presence.

Monday, August 31, 2009


Can one of you law students please explain the legal basis of this decision? Even if you disagree, I'd like to understand the legal point of view of the judge who made this decision.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

What do you think?

For one of my classes I have to write a paper on the following topic:

"How best to conceive and measure success in life"

I have some ideas and thoughts but would love to hear the take of those who read this blog (both of you)

I look forward to hearing what you have to say and will post all or portions of my paper next week after it is turned in.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Work environment

I've been a little surprised at the lack of professionalism (or substitute in morals/standards/values etc) at work, even among degree-holding, married people with children. I can't believe some of the things that are said and talked about here. It's like I'm back in the locker room in high school. My classmates at Tech were much higher caliber people than what I've experienced so far here in the "corporate world". I guess we ride the line between blue collar and white collar here, so it makes some sense. I think when I move to my next rotation at the corporate office in September things will probably be much different. It's hard to believe anything gets accomplished here with people being so unbelievably petty, crude, immature, and disrespectful. Just to be clear, I haven't been targeted or mistreated at all. It's just what I see and hear that is disturbing. If anyone has any suggestions about the right response to this stuff let me know. Keep in mind I am the new guy and low on the totem pole, and my boss is one of the worst offenders in the office.

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

I came across this joke the other day:

I recently asked my friends' little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, 'If you were President what would be the first thing you would do? '

She replied, 'I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people.'

Her parents beamed.

'Wow...what a worthy goal.' I told her, 'But you don't have to wait until you're President to do that.. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and rake my yard, and I'll pay you $50.

Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house. '

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, ' Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?

I said, 'Welcome to the Republican Party.'

Her parents still aren't speaking to me.

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Thursday, May 28, 2009

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

Martin Luther King, Jr.
August 28, 1963

Martin Luther King, Jr. has always been a hero of mine. He was a man that put his principles above everything. I truly believe that he meant his words to apply to all of mankind. I believe that if the tables had been turned and he would have been born into a world where anyone else was judged by the color of their skin he would have stood up for them, even if he wasn’t categorized with them.

Today I was going to talk about a couple of experiences I had this week: one with the wife of a deceased WWII veteran and another with an Iraq War hero. I will have to get back to those because this topic has been eating at me.

We have made enormous progress since King’s time. I would even say that we are at the verge of living his dream. I would never compare what we are going through now with the atrocities faced during the civil rights movement. In this case, I truly hope history doesn’t repeat itself. With that being said, there are some areas that need serious improvement.

I’m not talking about the way we think and react in social settings. I know that unfortunately there will always be differences, misunderstandings, and stereotypes between races. What I am talking about are the public and corporate policies that propagate the judgment of others by the color of their skin.

I know what it’s like to be turned away from a job because of my skin color, even though I am best qualified. This may seem trivial to some, but it is an experience that first heightened my awareness of race issues in America. When I was 17 I applied for a job at a retail store and got an interview. I nailed the interview, and was even told that I was a shoo in. I have to say that I appreciated the manager’s honesty when she told me that she got word from corporate that if there were any acceptable black or hispanic applicants that they had to hire them to meet their quota. So, I’m still not sure if this was just a corporate policy or if there was some affirmative action law in effect. Who knows, it may have just been an effort to create a more diverse appearance for marketing purposes. At any rate, the manager was very frank with me by letting me know that I was the most qualified applicant and her choice for the job, but she couldn’t hire me because I’m white.

I thought that I would never be subjected to any sort of racism worse than being turned away from a job. But I was wrong. A large part of my job now is government contracting. I routinely turn down proposals that are the most qualified because they are not from minority owned businesses (and minority has a very narrow definition). I have now been on the other side of the coin, and it feels much worse. I hate racist policies. They degrade the people they are trying to elevate. They are telling them that they aren’t good enough to make it on their own so they need the government’s ruling hand to interfere.

You could probably also guess that another reason I brought this subject up is the recent nomination of the self-proclaimed racist, Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. In her own words, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”

Moreover, it sickens me that no one will stand up to her. She has no chance of being judged by the content of her character (or lack thereof) because she has already been judged and deemed flawless because of her race (and gender). I think that the way she ruled in the New Haven Firefighter’s case should disqualify her from being a judge let alone on the Supreme Court! Here is a link to the left’s defense of her on this case, no matter how you spin it, it’s still a bunch of bunk.

On the bright side, to finish this post on a positive note, my recent outlook has been very optimistic. I have faith that good people everywhere will begin to unite and draw the line very clearly where they stand. At that point the “tent” under which they stand will grow bigger, not because the good people compromise their values to meet others half way, but because they stand firm until others recognize that they share the same values and then they will flock to the tent regardless of the color of their skin. In that day, Martin Luther King’s dream will be a reality.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

You Are Not Forgotten

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots...

-Thomas Jefferson, 1787

More than 1.3 million Americans have fought and died on behalf of our country during the past 233 years. Except for Afghanistan and Iraq, those wars have receded into the pages of history books. But our country was not built on history books. It was built on the backs of men and women who believed in the fundamental principles of freedom – principles for which they were willing to put their lives on the line.

I recently had the opportunity to visit Arlington National Cemetery while TDY to Washington D.C. Buried there are more than 300,000 Americans who gave their lives defending the freedom of others. It is just one of many cemeteries around the world where we honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice.

On Memorial Day, we owe these people more than a day off of work, a backyard barbecue, or a day at the water park. I plan to stop wherever I am and whatever I am doing on Memorial Day at 3 p.m. for the National Moment of Remembrance. I hope you will too. Take a moment to reflect on the sacrifices made and the lives lost in the name of freedom.

Our history is full of stories of ordinary people who displayed extraordinary heroism. No doubt our future holds more amazing stories of heartache and heroism. Some of those stories are playing out now in current conflicts around the world. These are stories that bind us together, as one, under the Stars and Stripes of the United States of America. They’re the stories of real people whose loved ones suffered and mourned. Let us never forget to honor them all.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

How much is freedom worth?

We are all born with certain inalienable rights. As Thomas Jefferson put it,
"The evidence of [the] natural right [of expatriation], like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of Kings."

Let me stop here and say something about our founding fathers. I hate it when people take a quote from the founding fathers and change the context to support their view. I mean, anyone could take any side of a political argument and find a quote by Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, or some well-known, well-regarded historical figure that supports their way of thinking. It is also ridiculous to try to pin labels on founding fathers like “liberal” or “conservative.” I am extremely grateful for the founders of this great country and I believe that they were inspired collectively and individually in the matters of government. With that being said, it is also important to understand that the founding fathers, in spite of all their wisdom, were not perfect. They had many good ideas, but also had many bad ideas, and for the most part, they even recognized that. I could go on about the dynamics of the personalities that led to the formation of our government, but I have already strayed too far from the point I want to talk about. It suffices to say that a quote from a founding father should never serve as a means to prove a point in and of itself.

We are also born with the ability to give up our inalienable rights as we desire. I have always believed that the human soul desires freedom. There is nothing more precious than our individual freedom to live our lives according to our own free will, to suffer the consequences of our own bad decisions and to reap the rewards of our own skill, industry, and righteousness. There isn’t anything I would trade for my freedom. I don’t want to trade my freedom for money, I don’t want to trade it for health, and I don’t want to trade it for security. I would rather die than live all of my days in bondage.

We are all in bondage to a certain degree. I have come to the conclusion that there are issues on both sides of the political aisle that put us in bondage. I think that some of the lengths we are willing to go to in the name of security take away our freedom, but more specifically, the recent push toward socialism. Lately, I have posed this question: does every soul really desire freedom?

The policies that our government has been implementing these past few years have been slowly reducing our freedoms like a frog having the heat slowly increased until he’s boiled. Years from now, I may find myself extremely grateful for Barack Obama. He was the one that came along and cranked the heat up so fast that the frog finally leapt from the water… I hope. At least I hold this optimistic view based on the faith that the human soul has a desire to be free and that people will start to wake up. The policies that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are currently implementing are the antithesis of individual freedom. Are there people who know and understand this but would like to go ahead with it anyways? There was a war in heaven over whether we should be allowed to have our agency. Are we still fighting that battle today?

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Oil Feeds My Children

“OIL FEEDS MY CHILDREN” was the bumper sticker on the SUV in Houston, Texas, where 68.7 percent of the job market comprises oil and gas exploration and production. Clearly in a statement meant to appeal to the emotional side of the energy debate, the driver of the SUV missed the mark. You see, to the people that the statement is directed toward, the real emotional issue is the children that are killed every day by the effects of oil on the environment. On the other hand, why does this gas-guzzling SUV driver even have children that need fed? What gives them the right? Their offspring are just as guilty of carbon output. Besides all of that, they should have known that they aren’t allowed to appeal to emotion on that side of the argument. The sticker was probably a lie anyways. I mean there is no way that oil literally feeds their children, unless they’re talking about fish oil, which I hear is good for your brain, but their kids may need a little more variety in their diet.

The truth is that if you have children or if you are a child, you are also fed by oil, of this I have no doubt, but this fact alone will never detract from the evil reputation of oil. I would like to thank Lewis and Josiah for bringing up this topic while we were in Houston for Dane’s wedding. As tempted as I am to comment on how cute Dane looked, I’m afraid I’ve turned into the guy that would rather solve the world’s problems, or at least the country’s. Don’t worry, I won’t bore you with all the facts, semi-truths, lies and conspiracy theories behind energy. This issue is really much simpler than anyone thinks. The bottom line is that the principles of capitalism work every time they are tried. The problem is that we aren’t letting that happen. I mean let’s just say that the government is the answer, let’s pretend that the government really wants us to get off of oil and into alternative energy. So they first stop oil exploration, then tax the crap out of oil and use the revenue to invest in alternative energy. This will make oil prices go up and thereby increase demand for alternatives. They would also propel propaganda about the evils of oil and the environment and start a “green” movement, but that’s a topic for another post. So far, it seems like it just might work, assuming of course that the angels up there in Washington will be honest stewards of tax payer money and make sure every dime goes to alternative energy. Wow, I said that with a straight face. If this doesn’t sound absolutely insane to you already, there’s a good chance you are college educated and a better chance that you consider yourself in tune with pop culture. But even so, the government solution should start to raise the red flag in your mind in the next steps. As soon as we have made alternative energy attractive enough by vilifying oil, we can thank the government for graciously taking away the windfall profits from oil companies and all go out and buy our nice new alternative fuel cars. As soon as that happens, what happens to the price of oil? It plummets, but don’t worry, government will keep taxing it higher. The government has an answer for anything, including mandating the use of electric go-carts, and banning the use of oil. This isn’t that far-fetched, people. I would ask the important question, “at what point during all of this did we throw away socialism and leap to full-scale communism?” but I don’t think anyone cares. I’m not saying we need to try all-out unregulated mob-rule. I object to any corporate tactics which hinder competition. Which, by-the-way are also aided and abetted by the government.

Government does have a role though, it is to make everyone able to compete equally without cheating. Let's eliminate the monopolizing business tactics, let’s get the favoritism bought by lobbyists under control. Let's have parity and fairness. That all starts with us rooting out the weasels in government, also a topic for another post.

If we could be fair about the competition, America can and will find a solution that is BETTER than oil, not just artificially better based on what the government imposes, but actually BETTER. I mean we’re the country that put a man on the moon, we didn’t say half way is good enough as long as we keep the competition from making it.

One thing that our government has lacked for a long time is faith in US. I mean how many opportunities have been squandered with these bail-outs?? How much hope has been lost with the recent taxation?? How much prosperity has been squandered away in the devaluation of our currency with the money-printing?? I think we are long past due for the government to step aside and make way for the people. I for one will be picketing against socialism on July 4th. My only plea for you is next time you start a sentence with “what we should do is…” consider if you are looking for a government answer or a real answer.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Gotta Love Churchill!!!

"I contend that a country trying to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle". - Winston Churchill

Tuesday, April 7, 2009


In the recent G20 meetings there was an extreme amount of authority given to the IMF. One big problem I have had with the IMF is the amount of stipulations they give to those countries they aid. Micromanaging the insufficient amounts of money they do give so the countries lose the ability to spend the money on the things they need and instead have to spend money on the needs the IMF perceives they need. The IMF has said it will give more aid with fewer stipulations. I'd love to hear your opinions on the G20 and the IMF.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Ski Day at the Beav

Doug's post derserved a visual. Hopefully everyone got the rest of the pictures. Thanks for the free passes Heber, and also for this awesome pose.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

I don't know how many of you have ever seen, witnessed, or touched my softer side; but I wanted to say what a great time I had this past Saturday at the Beav. I can honestly say I missed those who weren't able to make it, and further say that I was glad to be with those that did. I find that life is very stressful for me right now and that was just what I needed on Saturday. I wish I had been able to bring Darci, she would have had fun too. Anyway, thanks Heber and Jon and everyone one else who had anything to do with the event.

Thursday, March 5, 2009

A letter from a law student to American liberals

I came upon this letter HERE the other day. I think it sounds like a pretty fair deal.

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters,

We’ve stuck together since the late 1950s, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know that we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and just will not ever agree on what’s right. So let’s just end it right now while we can do it on friendly terms. We can smile, shake hands, chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and each go our own way.

So here’s a model separation agreement.

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by land mass, each taking a portion. That’s going to be the difficult part, but I’m sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy. Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate taste. We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can have those. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. And since you hate guns and you hate war, we’ll take the firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell. But you are going to be responsible for finding a biodiesel vehicle big enough to haul them around.

We’ll keep the capitalism, the greedy corporations, the pharmaceutical companies; we will keep Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have the homeless, the homeboys, the hippies and illegal aliens. We will keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, the greedy CEOS and all of the rednecks. We’ll keep the Bibles and we’ll let you have NBC and Hollywood.

You can be nice to Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer anybody that threatens us. You can have the peaceniks and the war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we will provide them with security. You won’t have to worry about it. We will keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley Maclaine. You can also have the UN, but we will no longer pay the bill.

We will keep the SUVs, the pickup trucks and the oversize luxury cars. You can have the compacts, the subcompacts and every Subaru station wagon you can find. You can give everybody healthcare, if you can find any practicing doctors. We will continue to believe that healthcare is a privilege and not a right. We will keep “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” and the national anthem, and I am sure you will be happy to substitute in their place “Imagine.” I’d like to teach the world to sing “Kumbaya” or “We are the world.” We will practice trickle-down economics and you can give trickle-up poverty your best shot. And since it so offends you, we will keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots. And if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the friendly spirit of parting, I’ll bet you ANWAR which one of us will need whose help in about 15 years.


John J Wall

Law student and an American

P.S. You can also have Barbara Streisand and Jane Fonda

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Explains it Pretty Well

Thanks Kory for the Pic

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Full House?

I am really torn on the issue of D.C. getting a seat in the house. I understand that they people there are taxed and receive other rights that are given to "states" under the constitution like trial by jury, interstate rights, etc. I can understand both sides of this debate. What I don't understand, and maybe you who have lived in D.C. can help me out, is why they can't vote with Maryland? They do pay taxes and deserve to be represented.

So here are some questions that I'm hoping some people that contribute to or read the blog can help clarify.

Why does Utah need to get an extra seat in the House? Is this just for political reasons to get the votes they need? If it passes that Utah gets one seat representing the entire state I will be very disappointed. I'm actually disappointed it was even been brought up, who votes these people in?

Why is there no talk of adding two Senate seats? It seems like the inevitable next step, but I haven't heard any mention of it.

I'm counting on you law students to help me better understand this.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

It's Official

"President Barack H. Obama, with a stroke of his magisterial pen, has made the $787 billion stimulus package the law of the land. Americans can now breathe a sigh of relief knowing that their current state of high financial anxiety will be shared by generations to come."


When did it happen?

On my way home the other day I heard a report on NPR about housekeepers is Southern California and how they have been effected by the economic downturn. Many of them are out of jobs because of the large amount of home foreclosures and people tightening their belts and starting to clean their own homes. It ended with an El Salvadorian housekeeper pleading to Mr. Obama to help her and her family. Her response bothered me, but sadly didn't surprise me. At what point in time did people start to think it was the responsibility of the government to help them?

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Yeah for Skiing!! (and snowboarding, I guess)

Here you go Jon, I'm finally chiming in. So I've been working at Beaver Mtn. for quite some time now and I have been able to save up some passes. I would really like it if we could get together and make it a day. I might be able to get a pass for everyone, but I need to know the numbers; like Jon said, wives are invited. March 7 would work out great for me. So come on guys, what do you say? Let's go skiing! (or snowboarding or whatever).

Sorry Randy, I've been hoping that I could still be skiing in June for years; it hasn't happened in the past and I don't think it'll be happening this year. Stupid seasons.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Ski Day

Heber called me the other day and suggested that we have a ski day for the Arnell Boys. You know, a reunion of sorts. He may have a few free passes but we could all split the total cost. Wives would also be invited. Speaking with Brent he said he would try to make it as well. Heber, chime in here with any details. I'm thinking the first weekend in March. USU's last b-ball home games is March 7th, so that would be fun to go to after a day on the slopes. What do you all say?

Keynesian Shmeynsian

The government "bailout" is based on the economic theory of one man, John Maynard Keynes. Keynes was not a normal man. Not abnormal like Stephen Hawking is abnormal, more abnormal like Richard Simmons is abnormal. While very odd he was still very smart understood economics, I just disagree with a lot of his theories. Keynes did a lot of study on economies during recessions and depressions, which is one of the reasons he is so looked to at this time. He said that during a recession an economy is unable to pull itself up and the only way for it to get back on its feet is help from the government. The idea is that the spending stimulates the economy and money starts to flow to others by way of jobs, which leads to pay checks which leads to spending and thus reversing the downward cycle of the recession.

There are two problems with our current situation that I can't understand how this theory would work. First is just a general problem with the theory. Keynes was right that spending by the government can reverse a recession and depression. What I haven't been able to find in his theories or have heard an explanation from the Obama administration or anyone in Congress who has voted for the bill is what will happen when the recession is over? How will this be repaid? How will we deal with the debt? There will come a time when countries will call their debts due and other countries will not be willing to loan us more. The credit card offers will stop coming. Then what? That exact scenario caused huge problems for Bolivia and Poland. Both those countries suffered from hyper inflation and depression when they couldn't borrow anymore and had too much debt and couldn't pay it off. The U.S. is heading down the same road.

The second problem causing this recession that isn't touched by any economic theory I have been able to find is the lack of trust. Nobody trusts anyone else to do the right thing. People aren't trusting banks to give them honest contracts that are just. They are worried of interest rates jumping up or the banks trying to swindle them out of their money. In return banks don't trust people to pay back their loans. Too many people of fraudulently obtained mortgages borrowed more than they should have and are willing to walk away from their home without giving any thought to the contract and promise they made to pay money on their debt. No amount of government spending is going to restore trust. That is something you just can't stimulate.