The Truth!

Ryan Probasco is another person that has interesting things to say about Chad Phares recent article in the BYU-Tehran (Idaho) newspaper that they crank out every week. Ryan read many of the same opinion peices over the years and had some great things to say about opinions published.

The following was written by Ryan Probasco and is worth reading.

It makes me wonder for which reason Chad Phares is writing about the church (in Chad's own terms): "fame" or "financial gain?" I'm assuming it's fame: and not only because the Scroll is free.

It's interesting that despite not being a general authority (one way to avoid his criticism) Chad's writing is mysteriously safe from the "spew false doctrine and intermingle fact with fiction" designation he freely pronounces on the work of his peers. I wonder what office of the priesthood Chad holds that gives him the authority to receive revelation on the truthfulness of LDS books for Scroll readers?

Last time I checked, the church owned bookstore Deseret Book was stocking and selling a whole array of Orson Scott Card books includingSaints. If this book is really critically" hurting the church why haven't the Apostles pulled it? This is a question that Chad can't
answer because to do so he must either call the Apostles stupid or he must admit that his motive for writing isn't pure.

So why is Chad Pares making a big deal about LDS books he doesn't like? My guess is that he's trying to stir up controversy in hopes that it will win him fame as a writer. Chad's writing unwittingly reveals his own hypocrisy and ill-intent before it even begins to displace any of his famous peers.

Chad Pares' article:
Important topics? No. Why not write about something truly critical like the rise of pornography among church members?

Edifying? If written by an apostle--an apostle wouldn't waste time writing about such a ridiculous topic.

Written by Card--Card didn't get a large audience by criticizing his peers.

Nice try, Chad.

The following was written by Shem in response to the Chad Phares Article. He presents some very good arguments althoug I do not wholly agree with everyone he says. It was just to good not to post.

Thank-you Shem and feel free to respond to anything that I write in the future with your insite and wit.

Well, I finally found your blog. I dunno. Maybe you can be more specific as to what you disagree with. Some of what he said struck a chord of agreement with me. Here's my spin on it.

In Utah, and more than likely Idaho as well, there is this horrible cloud of "pseudomormonism" as I will call it. The thought of it sends chills up my spine. A seething mass of people devoid of independent thought. And because they cannot think for themselves, they turn... to the church and solid doctrine? no. To the Deseret Bookstore. Because if you fill your home with enough Janis Kapp Perry music and your kids read all of the Tennis shoes among the Nephites books, your kids will not end up doing drugs and getting pregnant. That's the theory, I guess.

Mind you, I'm illustrating the worst case scenario. But oh, how I loathe the barren wasteland where people quote from the same miserable faith-promoting stories and myths and poems but not from the scriptures. Where they can talk for three hours about the Work and the Glory, but never actually mention Christ in their testimony because they're too busy thanking people and talking about food storage. People who can give you ten explanations about the origins of the dinosaurs or why blacks didn't have the priesthood, none of which are doctrinal, but yell at their kids and kick their dog.

I know no one is perfect. But I've seen people with real genuine faith, where things like charity and kindness mean more than the position of Kolob or the latest John Bytheway talk. And I prefer that to this cloud of mormon culture that so often obscures anything even close to the truth.

I had a seminary teacher who cried as he bore his testimony of Star Wars episode I because the Jedi building looked like a temple and the Yoda's council had 12 people like apostles. He was a nice man, I sincerly love him, but please. Teach me of Christ, of repentance not Yoda or Ender or Micheal McClean. Not that any of these things are bad in and of themselves. But "Sunshine for the LDS Soul" won't save me on Judgement Day. Neither will Temple and the Cosmos or any of your "deep doctrine" about the name of Heavenly Mother and stuff like that. Take me away from this cursed land where everything is too shallow or too deep. Let's get back to basics.

Plus, I work in the library, and every day we get another LDS romance book. These things are crap. Take the cheesiest drug store romance novel you have, change the sex scene into a talk about the temple and the characters into a relief society president and a BYU football star, and you've got the story.

Terribly written, and there's a billion of them. These folks would never be published in the real world. But I guess we're so desperate for something clean that we crank out this "Charly" crap.

Same goes for music and in some cases even art. And so not only are the people deprived of real literature and music because they favor the dumbed-down pop-mormon counterfeit, but the shelter-bubble gets bigger and they become even less able to relate to anything non-mormon. While simutanously they drown in the sleaziest, stupidest mucus the world has to offer, just so long as it's PG-13 and not R. Okay, I'm done.

All this aside, there are lots of people in Utah and everywhere else who humbly, consistently live the true gospel. If you look for the good, you'll find it, if you look for something to complain about, well, it's here too.

Shem posted a very long response to Chad Phares article which I think is great. I agree with prety much all he said. I suggest to everyone that they read his response. I am going to make it a post on my blog soon, so check back soon.

Why did this article strike a chord with me? Well here are just a few reasons.

Chad uses the term "official church doctrine" in his article. When you hear someone asking if something is "official church doctrine" one of two things is going on with this person. Either they are not sure about what is being taught, or they disagree and refuse to believe what is being taught. When someone plays this card, they are throwing up a smoke screen for what they really think, they are afraid to say, "I think that this is wrong," or ," I am not sure about what you are teaching?".

There are really only two kinds of Doctrine, true and false. Either what is being said , not matter who is saying it, is true or false with regards to Doctrine. Whether Elder Holland, or sister Jones is saying it, if it is true their can be no further arguement. It is doctrine.

Another thing that set me off was that when he said that it is not possible for someone to write edifying things regarding the book of Mormon or anything else that can uplift another person. I personally will someday write a collection of essays on the Book of Mormon and will attempt to have it publshed. This was another thing that set me off because I believe just the opposite. Members have a duty to uplift and teach each other doctrine from the scriputres. Why call a teacher if they cannot uplift?

One last reason that phares is way off is that he assumes that writers of LDS literature, both fiction and non-fiction, are declaring doctrine for the Church in their writings. This is simply not so. A good author will have the gumption to say that they are wholly responsible for what they are writing and that their work does not necessarily reflects the views of the Church. If it does not, read with caution. If the Author fails to do this, Desert book, probably under the auspices of the Chruch prints this in every book that it publishes.

These and many other reasons are why I took issue with Phares in his article and am working on a letter that is now seven singles spaced typed pages long.

It will fully explain why this article has made me a man on a mission.

Stay tuned.

About a week ago Chad Phares wrote this article in Scroll, the BYU-Idaho newspaper. Think of a longer Ke Ala Kai and you get the idea of how good this newspaper is. Chad wrote this article and sparks flew out of my ears when I read what he had to say about LDS authors. If this does not make you just as mad, then just forget you even read the article in the first place.

Choose LDS books cautiously — avoid doctrinal deceptions

by Chad Phares
PHA98001@BYUI.EDU
Scroll Senior Writer
An oddity is in progress. Thanks to the growth of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the LDS literature business has increased in production and popularity, allowing members of the Church and those of other faiths alike a chance to read a bevy of books relating to the gospel.

The oddity: Some of these books aren’t helping the Church — they’re hurting it. Critically.

Although writing LDS literature has turned into a profitable venture for some members of the Church, some of the authors are merely seeking fame and financial gain — not the welfare of Zion.

Granted, there are several books written by lay members that are written for the general welfare of the church and teach correct doctrine. In addition, the books written by general authorities should be read with confidence that correct doctrine is being taught.

These books, however, are difficult to find thanks to other books that exist which spew false doctrine and intermingle fact with fiction page after page.

Orson Scott Card is a successful science fiction novel writer who dabbles in fictional church history novels just enough to confuse both members and those of other faiths.

Several who have read Card’s book, Saints, said they feel like he portrayed Joseph Smith as a power hungry leader intent on living in secretive polygamous relationships.

The problem with the book is if the reader doesn’t know Card is LDS, he might believe that he is an anti-Mormon writer.

Card himself readily admits in his book A Storyteller in Zion that he isn’t a scholar, and his role in the Church gives him no special claim to inspiration for the body of the Saints.

Apparently, this hasn’t stopped him from attempting to do so in his essays in the book.

One essay is about the importance of establishing Zion, while another discusses the importance of Book of Mormon principles.

Important topics? Yes.

Edifying? If written by an apostle — yes.

Written by Card — no.

Another book, Chris Stewart’s The Brothers, is the first in a series of books that will follow the history of the plan of salvation from the premortal existence to the resurrection of all men.

The book tells of the relationships between Ammon, Luke, Peter, Michael, Lucifer and Moses in the premortal existence (dialog included).

So what gives Stewart the authority to write this book? Did he receive a special revelation? Was he commissioned by the Church to write it? Does he even know more than the average church member about what Lucifer said to Ammon in the premortal existence?

Nope. None of those things. The book is, however, making him a good deal of money.

LDS genre books occasionally take the focus off of the basic doctrines of salvation, leading to fanatical study of things like the last days, polygamy or the location of Kolob, rather than the core principles of the gospel.

Elder Bruce R. McConkie warned against fanatical study of gospel topics.

“Stable and sound persons are never fanatics; they do not ride gospel hobbies,” Elder McConkie said.

Shane Whelan, author of More than One, was excommunicated from the Church in 2002 after refusing to denounce his book on polygamy.

Whelan’s response: “I still believe this is the Lord’s church, but I think there is a lot wrong with some of the people who are running it.”

And this is who we have writing church literature?

The Church has written and authorized certain books as doctrine of the Church that are intended to be used by members. In addition to The Book of Mormon, Holy Bible, Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants, missionaries are allowed to take five other books with them into the mission field.

Each of these five books has been approved as official church doctrine and they allow missionaries to be sure they are reading and teaching correct principles.

If there were a need for a book about polygamy or other misunderstood doctrines to be written, it would be — perhaps by an apostle.

But right now the need doesn’t exist, so lay members should try to steer clear of things they don’t understand.

Elder M. Russell Ballard cautioned members against believing all things they read in books not authorized by the Church.

“There are those who, without authority, claim Church endorsement to their products and practices,” Elder Ballard said. “Beware of such.”

President Joseph F. Smith taught that such teachings might lead to apostasy and loss of eternal life.

Meanwhile, despite the warnings, members continue to read and write their way toward unhappiness and false doctrine.

Wise members don’t waste time and salvation reading the literature, although peculiarly enough others still do—regardless of the warnings received from Church leaders.

And that really is odd.

I think that one of the keys to good bloggin is brevity. Keep it short and sweet and you have a good blog. Well maybe?? er I dunno.

A lot of couples that engage in Public Displays of affection are not expressing their for each other. In my expert opinion they are trying to convince each other of the love between them by saying, or rather shouting, “ Hey, look at us swap DNA. We love each other so much.”

I think that there are some public displays of affection that are acceptable. Holding hands, putting an arm around a loved one at a movie, or giving a hug at an airport, all of these, along with others are acceptable forms of public affection. But love, and the expression of it, goes far beyond physical interaction. Love manifests itself in many other ways.

An unfortunate thing is that in the English one word describes this multifaceted thing that we call love. In ancient Greece there are three words that were used to express love. They were Eros, this is erotic or passionate love that drives a couple to sexual activity, Agape, the kind of love that exists between parents and children, and Philia, the kind of brotherly or plutonic love that can exist between both men and women. But all of these are taken and lumped into one word, love.

Frankly, couples that are passionately kissing are playing with fire, they are running with scissors, they are walking a tight rope straddling two pools, one is full of hungry great white sharks, and the other is full of Jelly Belly jelly beans, and many other clichés that we could use in our discussion about passionately kissing.

I consider myself an observer of life. My hope is that through my observations of other actions that I can learn something that will make me a better person and that I will not fall into the same traps that they have fallen into. On more then one occasion, close friends have come, prior to their wedding, and have said that they wished that they not used physical means to express their love. The best thing to do is to save these signs of affection until we have been properly pronounced man and wife.

It is official. I was just informed that Dating passed away last night in her home outside of Provo. "Dating" is survived by her children "Hanging Out" and "Hooking Up". Since '97 "Dating's" health was in decline and had turned the day to day operations of providing interaction between the single sexes to her children. Meanwhile "Dating" went into semi-retirement.

It was hoped that "Dating's" health would improve during a much needed sabatical, but it was clear to all associated with "Dating" that she was in decline and despite many "creative" attempts, it was only a matter of time. In late 2000 it was clear that "Dating" was improving, but shortly the decline in health continued.

Finally by 2002, "Dating" went into full retirement leaving the corperation to her children. After two years of being in and out of the hospital and assisted living homes "Dating" slipped into a coma and it was clear that she would not recover. After a week both "Hanging out" and her brother "Hooking up" jointly decided to take their mother off of life support Tuesday morning. She would pass away later that night in her Provo home.

"Hanging out" had this to say," Our mother has made so many happy over the years, it is regretfull that she will not be around to affect lives of generations to come."

"Dating's" ex-husband "Breaking Up" could not be reached for comment.

I thought that I had found sanctuary in the Mac lab on our computer barren campus. There I could blog and surf the net in peace. Then the IT people come fiddling about with things and now they don't work quite the same. Why can't they just leave well enough alone. I don't know what they did, but now they are just about useless.

It is not a frustration with Apple, but with people who do not know how to care for a computer, no those who think they do and end up ruining what was a sweet integrated experience. I've had the same laptop for almost four years and have never had any problems for one simple reason, I know how to care for a computer. I know that it is a good idea to run a defragmentation program and a scan disk from time to time and have done other simple maintenance things that ensure that it runs great all the time, everytime. Well, about as good as you would expect from a PIII 700mghz VAIO laptop that is running Windows Me.

I can't wait to upgrade. I can't wait to get the computer of my dreams. Well, what I can afford. And then no one will touch it but me.

So with that in mind, before you go a tinkering, make sure that you know what you are doing, or find someone who does.

I used to love video games, but the older I get the less and less I like them. Case in point is Halo 2. My roomate went to Kaneohe and waited in line for forty five minutes to get a special collectors edition that came with a dvd that chronicles the making of the game, and various things related to Halo. I really like video games, not so much for the gameplay, but for the stories.

Metroid,The legend of Zelda, Metal Gear Solid I and II, and Final Fantasy along with countless other games are fun for me because of their stories. If these were all made into movies, I would throw down the bones to see them. But really, the gameplay kind of gets in the way for me. Honestly, if someone would play the game and advance the story, and then let me sit in to watch, I would be fine. Why did I stay up until 4:30 on a Saturday morning playing Metal Gear? The further that I got, the better the story became.

Mindless shooting is not my cup of tea. There has to be a reason behind it. I played Doom for about two weeks before I put it down and never picked it up again. There was no story, just shooting, and that can only carry a game so far. Betrayal at Krondor is another Great game that I would play, even today, because of the rich story, and sub-plots that add to the gameplay and make it all worth it.

In short, why these be movies. The cinematic sequences in these games are almost animated movie quality. Why expend the effort to turn them into great movies? You could make money on both ends. Sell the game and the movie at the same time and make a bundle? But that probably will not happen.

Until then, keep on gaming

Okay let’s get right back to it. Science and religion has been posted and the follow up is on its’ way. Expect it sometime later this week. I like the way that it is, but am thinking about strengthening the position with some authoritative quotations to make the point. I like it the way that it is and think that it holds water, so wait and see.

I had allot fun writing a total of ten typed pages in such a short period of time, a sign of what a motivated writer and his computer can do.

So what’s next? The election is over and there is really not much more to be said. Bush won, and Kerry lost. No amount of saying that it is not so will change reality. It refreshing to see that many did not by into the Michael Moore propaganda machine and voted for the right things. Another victory against the kind of socialism that has taken Europe and bankrupted them in terms of morality.

I do not care about what many have said about he last two Star Wars films. The first film did leave many wanting for more, but second film was much better and satisfied everything that I would expect from a Star Wars film. Movie goers should remeber that the first films were special because nothing like them had been done up until that point. Since then we have been bombarded with science fiction, and three movies that have probably dethrowned Star Wars as the greatest movies in all geekdom.

Who would thought that the LOTR films would be as good as they were.

I will see Episode three when it is released and think that it will be everything that I expect it to be.

(The following Represent the views of the Blogger and should be regarded as such)
Science and Religion
Science and religion are two schools of thought that have been at odds with each for as long as can be remembered. Members of the clergy in all ages of human existence have persecuted individuals in an effort to eliminate any debate about what they are saying. The gods have spoken, and their word is enough. The religious feel threatened by science, and can you blame them? Prominent scientists make statements and support ideas that go against doctrines and beliefs that many hold dear. The religious feel a need to defend themselves and their beliefs.
I should know. I used to fall into the camp of the theologically threatened. After having served a mission, it seemed blasphemous that such things as organic evolution would be taught at a church university. It seemed as though there was need to drive these ideas out of the minds and off of the campuses of church schools. But something happened that would change the way that I would look at science and religion forever. This change of heart came in of all places a geology life of the past class. This class was devoted to studying life throughout the history of the earth, and even dealt with theories that attempt to explain how the earth itself and the very universe we live in was formed.
The class seemed interesting because it would cover the idea of organic evolution in great detail. We would learn about Charles Darwin and his amazing voyage on the S.S. Beagle as the ship’s naturalist. For the first time, I would understand that there is room enough for science and religion, and that the religious can believe in what is dear to them and not feel threatened when a scientist is making a statement that goes contrary to what the faithful hold dear.
I hope to share my ideas.
Science is not founded upon fact, but theory. Natural scientists seek to find ways to explain why things in the world happen the way they do. After much experimentation and observation of natural phenomena, the good scientist will come up with a theory that will attempt to explain why certain things happen the way they do. Scientific theories become more and more accepted when different scientists conduct experiments and come to the same conclusion that was reached by previous experiments.
If, over long periods of time, the theories hold true, they can eventually be taken as fact. The theory of gravity remains the best way to explain why things stay on the earth instead of floating off into space, even hundreds of years after Newton was beaned on the head by the apple. But more often then not, one theory will give way to another. An example of this is Einstein’s theory of general relativity. For years this was held as an important theory that was indisputable. Then the study of quantum mechanics came along and in many respects supplanted much of what Einstein did. This happens over and over in the history of science. A very good theory will come along that is very good at explaining why certain things are, and then days, months, or years later, a new theory will replace the old theory and will be touted as the answer. But eventually that idea gives way to a new one.
The problem with organic evolution, like gravity, is that no one has been able to sufficiently come up with a way to explain the opposite. It could come tomorrow, next week, next year, or next century, but the possibility remains that it could happen.
With the transitory nature of science, all sciences in mind, it stands that the religious can breathe a sigh of relief as I have. Organic evolution is a good theory, but a theory nonetheless. It has stood for hundreds of years, but there is a possibility that it could be disproved.
Another reason that the religious should breathe a collective sigh of relief is that God will always know more then any scientist, or collection of scientists. No think tank can come up with an explanation for everything, and even if all the scientific minds were gathered together, they would still know nothing compared to what God knows. God reveals to men knowledge about things as he sees fit. I see certain scientific innovations as ways of furthering God’s purposes and the spreading of his word. Imagine if we never figured out how to get an aircraft off of the ground, or generate electricity, or any number of things that we take for granted. Perhaps God is really working behind the scenes to make the lives of his children better through technology.
Many quote Einstein as saying that the more that he studied, the more he is convinced that there is a God who is really the author of a universe that is filled with so much order. The religious can breathe another sigh of relief to know that there are people who live in both camps. Who can spend all day in the lab and then come away with a greater appreciation for God and his creation. At the same time, the religious should take a look at themselves and ask why are Catholic priests, people who are supposed to be in touch with the divine, sexually abusing young boys, and why can’t the Vatican come up with an acceptable way of dealing with the offenders.
Holding to one of the articles of faith, we should realize that there are many things that God has yet to reveal to his children regarding his kingdom, which can be defined as pretty much everything that is on Earth, or in the heavens above. The story is still unfolding, and it is necessary to realize that God will justify the righteous. If you want to study science, go ahead and study science, if you want to be religious be religious. But understand that both have their limits. Science cannot explain everything all at once, and God has not revealed all that he knows with relationship to what is on earth and in heaven.
Presidents David O. Mckay and Spencer W. Kimball were two men who held this point of view, and ever since I took this point of view life has, become so much easier with regards to the question of science and religion. On the other hand, President Brigham Young, and Joseph Fielding Smith, and Elder Bruce R. McKonkie had a different point of view. Who is right and who is wrong? We must simply wait and see, but we must also understand that while prophets should be revered, we must also realize that they are men, albeit holy men, but men just the same. And they are not infallible in all that they say. When they are speaking as prophets, seers, and revelators is when we should not question what they are saying. But when they appear in T.V. interviews, when they asked about their opinions, we are not bound.
President George Albert Smith was a vegetarian. He made it clear that this was a personal preference, and that as prophet, he would not expect anyone to change their diets to reflect a personal preference that he had. When President Hinkley speaks about pornography in general conference, it should be clear that this is not only his position but God’s position on the matter, and that the saints would do well to follow the council that is given.
Have prophets spoken out against science in an official context? The only official statement that I can think of that has any bearing on the matter is the statement of the first presidency about the origin and destiny of man. With that taken care of, it still leaves allot of room for every other question that science attempts to explain through the theory making process of experimentation and observation.
In fact, the religious should pursue the study of their fait with the same rigor that scientists treat an experiment in the lab. It is amazing that there are people who have gone to church for years and know relatively nothing about the faith, while a biology, or chemistry student, by putting forth the effort can learn what would have taken years to learn with only casual perusal with which many treat their faith.
I have to keep studying and learning about my faith, for in the moment I say that I have it all figured out is when I am the most vulnerable to losing my faith. The same is true for science. The minute that they choose to think that they know it all is about the time when a new theory comes along that will show the error in what was previously held.
In the camp of religion, there is also widespread laziness. The members of most faiths do not take the time to figure out why their faith is right, but simply accept it based on the words of higher authorities. While religious leaders, who are worthy, should be venerated, it should not negate the need for study on the part of the disciple.
Really, what is science? Here are some definitions:
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical

explanation of phenomena.

Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.

With these definitions in mind, science does not merely include what we traditionally think of as science, but should include art, literature, history, economics, politics, and even religion. A new category could be created called the theological sciences.
In conclusion we should believe all that god has revealed, all that he does now reveal, including that which he reveals, that comes out of the laboratory, and we should believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things that will explain why things are in the heavens and in the earth. This is my own modified article of faith, and both the scientists and religionists would do well to give this some thought.

The election is now over. Bush is still our guy. And Liberalism is in its’ death throws.

<>Now that the storm has passed, we can all get on with our lives. Well, us conservatives. I was at the heart of the liberal web today, to check out what allot of liberals are saying about the defeat of their candidate and you would not believe it. They were making allot of the same claims that they were making after the 2000 election. <>“The nightmare continues” said one article. Another made the claim that once again “Bush stole the election”. If anyone hates to lose, it is the Democrats. They can’t stand the fact that American’s have a backbone when it comes to morals, and do not give into the rationalizing objectivism that has swept Europe turning it into a moral wasteland. The only people that the Democrats have to blame for losing the election are none other then themselves.

But with that aside let’s talk about science and religion and can the two ever be reconciled. This last Sunday my friend Scott shared an essay that he wrote about how the two must build bridges between each other. But I hold that bridges cannot be built, that they are already there, and that it is up to us cross them. I am going to get to work on it if I have the time. I am of the opinion that there is much that we have yet to learn about both science and religion, and that the same care that goes into studying science should also go into the study of Religion.

<>
I shall be interesting to see what happends.

Stay tuned

I went to bed last night expecting to wake and still not know who the president would be. When I woke up this morning and heard those sweat words from Jeffery Christley that Kerry conceded, I could not help but feel a sigh of relief. That's right, Bush is the president, and to put the icing on the cake Tom Daschle was booted from the senate. I guess being chummy with Michael Moore did not win him any love in the state he represents.

Modern Liberalism just took a big blow. Republicans have decsive majorities in the house and the senate. I hope that we can count on more tax cuts and stability in Iraq and cakes and rainbows for all.

It is now 11:46pm HST (Hawaii standard time) and their is still no clear winner as to who is the President. Jared is saying that is Bush, and I would agree whole heartedly if it were not for Ohio, who as of now has not finished counting all of their votes. I hope that this is not a repeat of the 2000 election with endless recounts and finally a supreme court decision to put an end to the electoral mess of that election year.

Fox news is confident, and is touting Bush as needing only one more electoral vote. Cnn is showing its' liberal colors by saying that it is still unclear who the winner of the state is. Drudge declared Bush the winner earlier this evening, but then updated his page to reflect that it is not quite over yet.

So who do I want. In a perfect world, Michael Badnarik would be the president elect and lead us out of federal government bondage. But alas, that is not the world that we live in. Badnarik, who was a clear voice of reason, who had some great ideas, was shut out by the two party system.

Oh,well.

There will not be a winner declared until later this week. Kerry and Edwards will not concede until the higher powers that be tell them that it is over. And they will complain that twice have Republicans stolen the election.

So, lets watch the tv tomorrow and see how it will all play out. I am going to check Fox and CNN one more time and then go to bed.

Go Bush.

Tom Daschle has lost his seat in the Senate. Oh happy day!!!!!!
It is only fitting that the man, who embraced Michael Moore after a special screening of Farenheit 9/11 was ousted by John Thune.

Oh Happy Day!!!!!!

Perhaps one of the most liberal voices in congress is gone, and hopefully never to be heard from again. If only the same thing would have happend to Cynthia Mckinney in my home state of Georgia. For those of you who don't know, Mckinney lost here seat to Denise Majjette, but because she was able to run in a new district, and win.

Well, you can't win them all. But at lest, there is one less liberal in Congress.

In May George Lucas will release the final chapter of the Star Wars saga thus concluding a story that has been thirty years in the telling. Finally questions that have been hot issues of debate in comic books shops and basement apartments around the country will be answered.

We will discover how Annakin Skywalker became Darth Vader. We will also know how many other things came to be that I will not take the time answer now. (Really it is because I do not know what other questions that need to be answered.)

Which brings me to another point, what am I going to have to look forward to. Lord of the Rings has concluded. Really all that remains is watch the extended version of Return of the King and then after that, it is all over. (A film version of the The Hobbit anyone?)

So what is out there worth watching right now? The answer is not a whole lot. Unless you dig foreign and independent films, then you have all you would ever want and then some. If I am going to pay the exorbitant cost of going to the cinema, or rent a DVD it had better be well worth my while. The last movie that I watched was Sky Captain and the world of Tomorrow, and can honestly say that was barely worth the drive to Mililani and the eight bucks needed to gain admittance.

What about foreign films? Well that is really hit or miss. Some are really good, but most of the time they don’t have the same kind of budget that Hollywood films have and make sacrifices which can take away from the film. Case in point is the Korean film Musa, The Warrior. Musa would fall into the Braveheart category, if there is such a category, of films. The costumes were great, as was the acting and story. But they obviously did not have access to good special effects and an actual musical score (It sounded like the music you would hear in a Chinese buffet. I hope that gives you an idea of what the music was like.) Certain fight scenes, where people get decapitated, ended up looking just bad and almost comical.

But why do you have to go to the movies? Why don’t you stay at home and read a book? Take your mind to new places and learn something.