There is one, and only one, way to end the corruption and cronyism in the House and the Senate:  impose Term Limits.  The President is limited to 2 terms, and many states do it, so why doesn't the Legislative branch to this?  It is simple a case of the fox watching the hen house, and until the American people accept this reality and insist on term limits via a Constitutional amendment, our political system will be status quo, plus or minus we collectively wake up.

Even Jeff Flake, who I've met and like more than most politicians, couldn't resist the urge to remain in power forever despite promising he'd leave after three terms.  Sure, he had his reasons (don't they all), but the fact remains that if we can't trust a guy like Jeff Flake, who can we trust.

One issue with doing this is the lack of qualified, motivated candidates to replace incumbants, right?  WRONG.  The reason candidates don't emerge from the populace is that they can't, for the most part, begin to compete in terms of the financial demands of a campaign.  To run against a reasonably popular incumbent is a losing proposition, and an expensive one at that.

If Jeff Flake wasn't permitted to run again, he wouldn't have, so there's that.   But what he might have done is identify a candidate in his district that shares his limited government values, and help that guy or girl out.  Politicians keep their campaign contributions when they lose (somehow they end up having $1,167.222.34 in the treasury and, dog-gone-it, they just have to have $1,167,222.35 in expenses!  Isn't that sumthin'?)!

My thought is that when a politician runs of out terms he should return the leftover campaign money to a campaign fund in his district for his party to distribute for candidates who are worthy but don't have the financial wherewithal to run for office.  

I'm not for the Campaign Reform Laws of McCain and his lot, but short of returning the excess donations to all contributors on a proportionate basis using a formula 2 pages long, there is no other practical solution that I can identify.

Yes, it gives an advantage, potentially, to the new candidate from the incumbent's party who runs following, but that is far from giving the same guy a free ticket to Washington every 2-4years.  Perpetual incumbency is the root of all evil in Washington, in my opinion.

Responsible parties with contrasting opinions are encouraged to comment.

The Romney Conundrum

It is almost hilarious to witness the gnashing of teeth by self-labeled conservatives - primary among that group, the Evangelicals - over Mitt Romney's presidential campaign.

Are these people conservatives? Well, they say they are. Is Mitt Romney a Christian? Well, he says he is. So who is to be believed?

Lies are politics, politics are lies, so don't accuse me of gnashing my teeth over this. I find it hilarious. According to an article at http://www.mail.com/news/politics/1117874-romneys-Evangelical-problem-display-south.html#.1119488-stage-related1-6, 40% of Evangelicals believe it is 'deeply important' that a candidate share their religious beliefs. Deeply important.

Again, Romney - like all members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - says he is a Christian. Why isn't this good enough for Evangelicals who say they are Christians?

This is how I see it: Mormon beliefs, at their foundation, rely on a belief that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith and declared that he "should not join any of the churches" of the day. He was told that things would be revealed to him and given to him along the way to re-establish The Church of Jesus Christ upon the earth.

I have many wonderful friends who are Roman Catholic. They are among the finest people I know. I am a Mormon, and have many wonderful friends who are members of the LDS Church.

I could spend my time wondering if Catholics are Christians because their church was formed by the very Rome that colluded to crucify Jesus Christ.

But I don't.

I could spend my time wondering why Catholics, who say they believe in the Bible as do I, attend mass on any day of the week they choose. Sure, mass on the Sabbath is fine, but so is mass on M-T-W-Th-F-Sat. What happened to “keep the Sabbath Day holy?”

But I don't.

Why don't I worry about those things? Because my Catholic friends are wonderful people. They are devoted. They have a wonderful commitment to the traditional family. But they aren't any more similar to me in terms of my religious beliefs than is an Evangelical Christian to a Mormon.

So why are some Evangelicals so deeply concerned about Mitt Romney when he shares so many of their beliefs? In reading some of his beliefs below, do you see anything that should offend a person who professes to be a Christian Conservative?

1. Jesus Christ is the Son of God who came to earth and gave His life to atone for the sins of mankind. He was crucified, and then resurrected on the 3rd day, as He had prophesied.
2. Family is all-important and, even beyond the importance other religions place on family, Romney believes that a family can be an eternal thing.
3. Abortion, except when the life of a mother is threatened, is wrong. He has always believed this. Politicians lie about this because they want to beat him. If Romney is guilty of anything, it is that he is not as formidable in defending his record on right-to-life issues as he should be. For clarification of his position over the years, seehttp://aboutmittromney.com/abortion.htm#statements.
4. The federal government should not make all decisions for the states.
5. The states have limited authority to make decisions that affect all of its citizens but, despite any such authority, a state is not empowered to do anything that reduces the freedom of its populace unless that action is necessary to protect the liberty of the populace as a whole.

Evangelicals can think what they want to think about the LDS Church - that is their right. But I would have a much stronger esteem for their concerns about Mitt Romney's Christianity if they were behaving like the Christian they say they are. But they aren't behaving that way at all.

If I were to say that Evangelicals are not Christians because they are breaking the commandment which says they should not bear false witness, would that be fair? If I were to say that Evangelical Christians are not Christians, would that matter more than the fact that they say they are Christians? One would hope so....except they don't live by the same rule.

So let's get past the hullabaloo about Mormons not being Christians and get down to the real issues that cause Evangelicals to resist Mormon theology: their clergy’s’ desire for self-preservation.

My experience is that most Evangelicals are well-intentioned, good people. They aren't divisive in and of themselves. So what is the source of this vitriol? Since it is not typically authored by the lay Evangelical, this hatred must be coming from the only other plausible source: their clergy.

To prove this point I ask these questions:

1. What does a person who attends an Evangelical church have to gain by criticizing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? The answer is clearly nothing.
2. What does a person who attends an Evangelical church have to lose by considering members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be Christians? The answer is, again, nothing.

So who has the motivation to criticize the Mormon Church? The answer is obvious: the clergy.

Since the time when Jesus Christ lived, the history of Christianity is replete with evidence that money has been a driving force. Like it or hate it that is the truth. It takes money to run a church organization - any church organization.

Consider this: the local clergy in the Mormon Church are not paid. They are married, have families, and support their families. IN ADDITION to their many hours of service to their fellow members the local clergy also pays a minimum of 10% tithing along with other donations. For Mormons, 'The Church' consists of a unit labeled as a 'ward' or a 'branch,' and is geographical in nature. Members can't choose their ward/branch based, for example, on their opinion of the sermons that are delivered (largely by lay members, incidentally, rarely by the leaders themselves), or the popularity of the local leaders. There are Mormons who don't care for their current bishop (term is generally about 5 years for a bishop) and still remain active; there are always going to be a few who dislike the local leaders and allow their degree of participation to be affected by their feelings. Hey, people are people; I can't sit in judgment of such a person. That wouldn't be very Christian, would it?

Can the same be said of the clergy of the Evangelical churches? How much money does an Evangelical clergyman donate to his church? Generally nothing. All of the money that supports his church, his family and himself comes from donations that others make to his 'ministry.' On the other hand, as one reader pointed out, many of these good people spend their time serving at home and abroad, in cities and pastures, doing the work of the Lord as they see it. My purpose isn't to discount that service, it is to point out that a reduction in funding affects their ability to support their ministry and 'do good.' From their point of view one can see how defending their interests from the aggressive proselytizing of another religious organization - Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. - could be seen as doing the right thing. But this doesn't change the fact that this defense has a financial component. Contrast this with a Mormon bishop who sees one or more of his members join another church (it happens); the bishop may grieve this change, but it doesn't affect his pocketbook.

So what happens if a Mormon missionary comes to the door of a family that is part of Pastor X's 'congregation,' teaches them the doctrine of the Mormon Church, which Mormons believe is 100% compliant with the Bible's prophecies and the teachings of Jesus Christ, and that family decides to join the Mormon Church? The pastor loses dollars from the income side of his balance sheet and operating budget. That can’t be a positive for them.

Pastors are human. Their instinct is to preserve their income, livelihood, whatever you want to call it. He might reason that he is by and large doing a good thing for his congregation (and he is) by teaching the principles that Jesus taught to the best of his ability (as he undoubtedly does).

So preservation of his 'ministry' is, in his mind, a righteous endeavor. But this is where he goes wrong - it is not right to preserve one's ministry by lying or distorting about the doctrines of a 'different ministry.' But he is compelled to do so because, in his mind, preservation of his ministry is all-important. He has likely trained for many years to be a minister of religion. He worked under someone and then, one day, he was promoted to the head spot, or he may have moved on to another church that - as is the case in the business world - was formerly a competitor. If he moves to another church, his transformation is complete. He must now work to preserve his new ministry and, if it comes at the expense of their former ministry, well, that's just the way it is.

But Mormons are something else altogether. The LDS Church sends young man, at their own expense, to every corner of the earth to testify that Jesus is the Christ. They teach that His Gospel was altered to the point that God had to withdraw His Priesthood Authority from that church that had been established in Italy and Rome. They teach that God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ appeared to a 14 year-old boy in a grove of trees near Palmyra, NY, and that Joseph Smith was put on a path to restore the Church of Jesus Christ to the earth, and to add "of Latter-day Saints" to differentiate it from the original Church of Jesus Christ that the original 12 (absent Judas) apostles organized in lands that were in and around the Mediterranean Sea.

Now, whether you believe these things or not, it is a pretty good story, and a lot of people have become convinced of its truthfulness such they have chosen to leave behind the religion they had been following be baptized and confirmed a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A lot more people reject it and go their merry way.

It has to be said that it is more often than not an excruciating change in a person or family's life, leading to hatred from 'friends' and ostracism from their extended family and pastor. It is tougher than you-know-what to convert to Mormonism, and even tougher to be a Mormon, to follow that lifestyle. So why do people do it? Because they have received a spiritual confirmation from God that the Book of Mormon is the Word of God, as is the Bible, and that it testifies yet again of the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Savior of all Mankind.

To be fair it can, and often is, excruciating for a Mormon to leave the LDS Church. People who go 'another way' are ostracized, even branded with less than positive labels such as "ex-Mormons" or apostates. These labels may be true in terms of the words, but they can be hurtful in their delivery. Someone who leaves the Mormon Church or any faith-based organization should not be subjected to any label that can be construed as persecutive in nature. The ability to choose one's creed is as fundamental to Christianity as it is to the laws of the land.

If you are a Christian, answer this question: when a person - ANY person - comes to Jesus Christ is ANY way, is that not cause for rejoicing? I am LDS, but am always pleased to learn that a person worships Jesus Christ, whether in my way or his/her own way. I would think that my attitude would be true with any Christian except one who has been polluted with prejudice, or is hateful toward Christianity for one or more reasons.

Isn't Jesus Christ what Christianity is all about? Does Jesus love an Evangelical Christian that worships Him more than a Mormon, Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Seventh-day Adventist or Jehovah Witness who also sincerely worships Him? Is that the Jesus Christ that Evangelicals worship, the Savior to which they have committed their lives, or is it the Jesus Christ that said in 2nd Peter 1:7:

And to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness, charity.

Candidly, I am one of those Mormons who would prefer that Mitt Romney not be elected due to the hardship it will be for him and his family. But for those that question his Christian credentials, that question his sincerity in terms of small government, you need to educate yourself. If you are a Christian and seek to demonize Mormons, it's time for you to put on 'the whole armour of God,' as instructed by the Apostle Paul in Ephesians Chapter 6, and to remember the call made by Jesus Himself: "As I have loved you, love one another."

The Mormon people are not perfect, and can be overbearing when testifying of their beliefs. But one thing I can assure you of: the Bishop or your ward, or Branch President of your Branch (if a ward is not yet organized in an area) doesn't care one whit about your money. He will encourage you to pay your tithing so you can receive the blessings that come from keeping that commandment (Malachi 3). As money is donated it is accounted for by a financial clerk who serves for a few months or years, then moves to a different calling that has no financial accounting responsibilities. The money is then deposited in a local bank account, later to be transferred by wire to Church Headquarters in Salt Lake City, Utah. The local leadership never touches the checks or money that is donated. Even the local ward/branch does not directly benefit from the level of donations that are made within that organizational unit. In other words, the poor in an affluent ward do not receive different or greater benefits from the Church's welfare program than do the needy in a poor ward - if anything, the opposite would be true, as there would be more (at least logic would surmise) 'needy' families in a poorer area.

Contrast that with a typical Christian church's organization. Surely people of integrity handle the donations - to assume differently would be to behave as do critics of the Mormon Church when they condemn the Church in ignorance. But at the end of the day, the clergy's temporal needs are met by and through these donations. It is easy to see why a 'ministry' would want to defend its turf, but that doesn't make it right.

What I can tell you is that every single piece of paper I have ever been given by another Christian with anti-Mormon references was written by the possessor's local clergy. I can guarantee you that you will never find a Mormon bishop or any other Mormon authority circulating such material that speaks against other Christian churches.

Jesus said (Matthew 12:33-37) that you will know if a tree is good or evil 'by its fruits. He said "either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. He also says "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."

So what are the fruits of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Are they good? Anyone who knows anything about the Church knows that the people aren’t perfect, but that the Church’s organization is efficient and does a lot of good for members and non-members alike. A Mormon bishop's welfare responsibilities extend to all who live within the boundaries of his ward, not only to the members of the Church that reside there. So, despite the common-sense-likelihood that there have to be exceptions to this rule that have occurred, it is easy to see that a Mormon's interest in bringing others into their Church is not due to anything that could be construed as financial in nature.

To those Evangelicals who wonder if Mitt Romney believes as you do, be of good cheer: if you love the Lord Jesus Christ, Romney feels the same way you do. If you seek to be guided by His life and example, so does Romney.

Religion in waaaay too complex and personal to use as a cornerstone for establishing your political inclinations. Concentrate on the character of the candidate and I am sure you will find that Mitt Romney compares very well with anyone who could possibly run for the Presidency of the United States. If not, vote for someone else but please, please, don't make a decision based on whether a candidate agrees with your brand of Christianity. Any brand of Christianity is better than the brands with which Barack Obama has associated with over his lifetime.

Now let's deal with the accusation that Mitt Romney is a 'flip-flopper.' This accusation has become a common tool in politics, as if people who hold office govern in a vacuum, or are immune to intellectual and spiritual progression.

Romney was a Republican Governor in a Democrat state. He is widely revered in that state to have governed in a very conservative way, not moderate. Moderate is the new pejorative for 'I'm more conservative then he is' by Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.

As governor, Romney had to pick the battles he could win. If you look at his record, he tried to do the right thing every time. Where he failed, he failed, but it was not due to the content of his character. Compromising with a Democrat legislature means that some non-conservative things were agreed to, but the intent of government cannot be to block anything that a governor doesn't believe in (as Obama does). A governor has to veto laws that have passed but are unconstitutional or in some serious way detrimental to the well-being of the citizens of the state. The Legislature makes the laws; the Governor has to decide laws will do more good than harm and which will do more harm than good. He is more of a moderator than a governor, if you get down to the realities of politics.

Many white people - including myself - have been critical of the fact that 95% of black voters voted for Obama. To vote based primarily on race is racist, but that's not news. In our world, it is somehow okay to be racist if you are in a minority that has been, and arguably continues to be, discriminated against. This suggests a belief that it is okay for a minority to discriminate against a majority provided it allows the minority to 'catch up' or overcome the effect of past wrongs. If you question that logic, how would you feel if everyone voted for the candidate based on race alone? Would that be okay with you?

How is Evangelicals voting for 'anyone but Romney' any different than what the black vote did in 2008? To me there is no difference at all. We need to be honest enough to know that 95% of the people of this country would never, and I mean never, agree on anything if it is political in nature. One reader believes that for black voters to vote for Obama is different than the analogy I have made concerning George Wallace's brand of racism. I respect this individual, who is very thoughtful and intelligent, but I disagree. To agree with his opinion would be to agree with the notion that people who are white are justified in not voting for Obama because he is partially African American. I fail to see this logic as valid.

I would hope that most people would vote for the best person in terms of his ability to lead the nation in a path that is good for the nation as a whole. I could say 'in keeping with the vision of the founding fathers' but it has become virtually impossible to iterate what that means. Reasonable people view the founding of this country as either Christian-based or sectarian. They present arguments supporting both allegations, but neither side of the argument ever convinces the other side that it is in error, so it is a pointless conversation. Judicial decisions over the centuries have affected the application of the original verbiage - and who can say for certain what the original verbiage intended to communicate? - so those who want to return our laws to a state that is consistent with the Constitution live in a world that is unlikely to become reality.

I have a high opinion of Mitt Romney as a person, so many will automatically dismiss me as "a Mormon supporting a Mormon - what's news there?' Well, here are the facts: I will vote for Romney if he is nominated, but I couldn't care less whether Evangelical Christians vote for Mitt Romney or not. Vote for Barack Obama if you choose. But at least try to act like the Christian you claim to be as you make your decision because, if you fail to do that, then I will contend that you are not acting in a manner that is consistent with the Christian creed you would have others believe is your ideological foundation.

Showerhead Update

I've received a number of inquiries about this, so I want to come clean:

The White Thingy is here! My plan is to 'upgrade' the WaterPik installation as soon as possible, or within 18 months, whichever comes last.

The anxiety is already invading my routinely homeostatic state of solitude.

Andre the Midget

The other day I, only briefly, morphed into Fezzik, a large character played by Andre the Giant in one of my favorite films, The Princess Bride. If you're wondering - for purposes of this story - yes, I would rather have morphed into Westley (played by Cary Ewes), and would have but for two items:

1) For me, black bandit masks inspire claustrophobic seizures and
2) I looked in the mirror this morning and, sadly, I more strongly resemble Fezzik than Westley

So Fezzik it is!

You may recall that Fezzik and Westley enter into a rhyming competition prior to a mano-a-mano fight which culminates in Fezzik's demise. So I'm talking to a friend and he, quite innocently, asks me “how is it going?” and, for whatever reasons, I replied as follows:

"Well, 2010 was a year of learning…..
Hopefully 2011'll be a year of earning
Because there are many things for which my wife is yearning
Which has left my stomach continually churning."

I don't know where this eruption of relevant nonsense came from, but for the record I am publicly referring to whatever impulses caused this outburst as a gift though madness crossed my mind again and again and again and again.

So, for 2011, instead of monotonously wishing everyone a Happy New Year, I want to wish you all a Wonderful Year of Earning (including moi).

Yippee!

Don't Tell Me I Can't Do It - I Already Know I Can't Do It

This is me being 'the handyman:' I bought a new shower head (took me 5 years to work up the nerve to get on a 5' ladder to see why there was very little water coming out). So far, so mediocre.

But then I have to install it. I purposely found the easiest (for anyone else) shower head I could find. I went so far as to make sure it didn't need Teflon tape on it, though I have a roll of it in my garage. One less thing to screw up. But, no, not a problem for this Waterpik product: to install simply screw onto the pipe and 'hand tighten.' How could anyone screw this up?

It was at the moment that this thought crossed my mind and I was reminded that someone once told me "you aren't just anyone." I still don't know if that was an insult or encouragement, but I know I am 'not just anyone,' which I've hung my hat on for years. Unfortunately, hats don't do shower head installations.

The first thing I did after cutting open the package is to look inside the head for what I had been told was a 'flow regulator.' If you remove the flow regulator, the shower puts out more water, so I pulled 'it' out (see William Jefferson Clinton for what the definition of 'it' is) and began the installation.

I screwed it on the pipe threads left-handed - no small fete for me - hand-tightened per their instructions (the other instruction was "Remove the product from the package" which is so rudimentary that I checked on line to make sure that instruction was in their manual and not just yet another insult to my un-handyman-ness).

So I'm at the 'hand-tighten' stage - the only stage, but still.... - and I'm feeling good. I put it on as tight as I could, used a wrench to torque it a little because my hands don't torque like they used to. I turn the shower on and - wow! - we had more water coming out! Suc..c...e.....s.....s...wait a minute; a little water is leaking out of the head where it meets the pipe. "I guess it's not tight enough," came my newly emboldened but functionally inept reply. I guess it needs to be tighter.

So I bear down a little - don't want to get past the degree of hand-tightening that, say, the Incredible Hulk could achieve. Caution. Be cautious. Turn on the shower and water is still leaking....better call Waterpik Support and admit to them that I can't successfully install an item with one freaking line of installation instructions. But it's 11:00 pm, so they aren't there - I have to sleep on it. If a '90% successful installation' was good enough, I could have moved on with my life. But, no, the worse the handyman, the more perfection he expects of himself. Kind of like the guy who goes golfing once a year, swings as hard as he can, and can't figure out why he is breaking 3 residential windows every hole instead of breaking 90; sometimes you just have to realize the level of expertise you have earned and live to fail another day.

Which I did.

I called Waterpik the next morning and a very nice girl helps me. Sorry, don't mean to be sexist, but now a girl who is probably working at Waterpik part time only because Baskin-Robbins isn't hiring is going to tell me how to install a plumbing item with one installation instruction. Does anyone deserve this much shame?

So Alicia (we're on a first name basis now) asked how she could help. I told her about the installation - that I removed the white thingy you can see in the shower head to increase water flow, and then....."what did you say that was, Alicia? Oh, that's not a flow regulator, its the part that screens the water to remove inorganic cooties before the water shoots out, and it insures that the shower head seals tightly when "hand-tightening it?" Yes, that is somewhat interesting. Doh.

Then I suddenly remembered that the white thingy had been on my sink - the one with no water stopper - and I accidentally knocked it into the sink and, therefore, into the unimaginably gross abyss. "Ohhhh noooooo," I thought or perhaps said, "I've ruined everything," and I haven't even told her that I used a wrench to tighten the connection. Well, I am going right this minute to get a hanger, unscrew it, put some box tape on the end and go fishing for it....or maybe I'll do that later in 'the process.'

Oh, and now I know where the flow regulator is located....it's maybe 1/64th of an inch from the white thingy. Might have been obvious...to another 'handyman.'

Adding insult to injury? Alicia offers to send me a brand new white thingy in case my sink is permanently plugged up, which offer I gladly accepted for no particular reason. I can see it all now: pre-co-ed girl sends part with a wholesale value (it's always important to get the best price you can, so I talked them down a little.....) of $0.00005 to a schmuck who can't follow one simple instruction. Pre-co-ed girl places the call record up on the Idiots Wall of Shame Board for all the world to see. One white thingy costing $0.00005 (plus $0.46 for postage, for a grand total of $.46005) is mailed, one reputation eternally soiled.

With any luck I didn't crack the shower head as a result of my, uh, creative installation techniques. Alicia was really nice (at least to my ear) and said that if the head is broken to "just give us a call." That's the level of confidence she has in me?

If she really knew me she would realize that I am considered to be quite a technical guy. In fact, right now I am working on a new technology certification. And, sure, I'll admit it: while reading the manuals I will be keeping my eyes pealed for anything that refers to the words 'white' and/or 'thingy' so, next time I run into something like this I will be better informed.

Well, so long for now. I have an orphaned white thingy to retrieve from my sink. I was thinking about turning off the water and opening the pipe, but then I thought "Naw, from now on I'm leaving this type of technical stuff to trained professionals."

Like Alicia.

Good grief.