11/11

On Veteran's Day I wanted to share a picture that was just sent to me a couple days ago from my dad, who got it from my aunt, who got it from one of my grandfather's shipmates. My grandpa is on the top left of the center, the one with no shirt on.

My Grandpa McKoy died two days after I turned 5, and though I don't remember much about him, as I have grown up in these last 20 years since he died, I have come to appreciate his sacrifices on a more meaningful level.

My dad remembers that Grandpa didn't talk much about his experience as a US Navy man in the Pacific theater during WWII, but it is interesting to see his military records and find out that he lied about his age so that he could serve his country as a sixteen year-old. If the draft were reinstated today I don't think we would see that same type of selfless patriotism that The Greatest Generation had.

I am thankful to my grandpa for many reasons in addition to his service to his country. He also had a strong testimony of the gospel that he accepted when he was baptized as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on 21 December 1961 and was a loyal, faithful servant to God until the end.

Jeff's Grandpa Hoopes was an Army medic in the European theater during WWII and he squadron was one of those that landed on Solerno Beach in Italy. Watching the section of the Ken Burns film The War that depicted the events of this invasion was very sobering as we though of how we knew someone who was there and who was part of driving back Axis forces in that part of the world. Here is a picture of Lamro in his uniform.

Who are you remembering on Veteran's Day?

Correction to “Proposition 8”

I have it from a very reliable source (that has access to CA television)that other religions besides the Mormons are being targeted for their efforts to get Proposition 8 passed in California. I have only been following national media outlets, and had heard nothing about this.

Whether that targeting includes thousands of protesters in various locations in two states that have stopped adherents ability to freely worship, or calls to violence and arson, or whether it included statewide run television commercials like this one, or this one, I don't know. If anyone else has information on this, I would be very interested.

Another correction: I just saw this news story, about targeting of another church.

Proposition 8

So, Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, passed in California. Since, the Church of Jesus of Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS church) has taken much heat from the gay community. The Church encouraged it's members to be active on the issue, to donate time and money, to help get the proposition passed. They also spent about $2,000 to fly some Church leaders to CA to have a meeting about it. As a result, protesters have gathered outside LDS Temples in Salt Lake City and Los Angeles, causing the temple in LA to be closed (and preventing LDS church members to practice their religion). There are several different stories here, and as is my way, I will comment on them in a somewhat unorganized way.

What did the LDS Church do that merits protest against it?

First, what atrocity did Mormons (a nickname for members of the LDS Church) commit? One might think that Mormons showed up in droves to vote, and got the measure passed. This seems unlikely. The 1.79% of the CA population that is Mormon may have made a strong showing and the polls, but it was probably not enough to represent 52% of the voting public. What the Mormons did do, however, was to exercise their right to be involved in the political process, by organizing and supporting financially a cause. They voted for something which fell in lines with their values and their system of morality. In short, they disagreed with the gays. Apparently, voting ones values when they are not in line with another group is now something that is not condoned by the gay community in California.

Now, the above treatment is not entirely fair to the gays. If you ask them, I imagine what they would suggest is that the line between the separation between Church and State was crossed, that a tax exempt and 501(c)(3)non-profit organization such as the LDS Church should not be allowed to be involved in politics. This is ridiculous. The ACLU, also a tax exempt organization, as well as many other pro-gay organizations where actively involved. It does not seem to be a problem that a tax exempt entity is fighting in this fight, but rather, that a tax exempt entity that disagrees with the gays (that was only a small part of a much larger coalition) won the fight.

M.J. Sobran (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 58–59) made an amazingly astute point on the demand that religious arguments be left out of politics based on the right to the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. He stated, "What the secularists are increasingly demanding, in their disingenuous way, is that religious people, when they act politically, act only on secularist grounds. They are trying to equate acting on religion with establishing religion."

Neal Maxwell (Ensign, Feb 1979, 69–73) commented similarly in stating "This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened." In the end, the question over gay marriage is defined by moral questions. How can those questions be answered without appeals to some moral framework, which for many (or most) people, is couched in terms of their religious beliefs?

So, the first question is answered: What did the Mormons do that so offended the gay community of California? They held different values and they voted on them.

All of this is made so much more amusing because it a church with a long history be being persecuted. First, speaking of political discrimination, I know of few other groups in the US who has had a religious right of theirs (ironically, related to marriage) made illegal by Congress, and the legislation being upheld by the US Supreme court. Their practice was not only made illegal, but people participating, or who had participated at any time in their lives, were rounded up and jailed. This would be analogous to gay marriage not only be made illegal, but the participants in the 17,000 gay marriages performed in CA in the last several months rounded up and imprisoned.

The Mormons and Persecution

Mormons (at least some of them) have an understanding of persecution not common to many groups. They live in Utah because they were chased from the east, following a trail of persecution and death unheard of in the US in the last 150 years. More recently, (in the last two months here at the University of Michigan), I know of a person who decided to join the Mormon Church who was kicked out of a campus Christian organization. In the last months I know of another Mormon on campus that was not permitted to join a humanitarian mission solely because he was a Mormon. Personally, I believe I was denied admission my top choice of undergraduate universities based upon my religion (a large portion of the pre-admission interview consisted of me being asked to defend my faith, a task not simple for a 17 year old being questioned by a Harvard-educated philosophy professor. After he challenged my Mormonism, he challenged my conservative political beliefs. When I think about the interview, I think how much I would love to have that conversation again).

Further, as most people who served a Mormon mission, I have been spit on, had rocks thrown at me, been yelled and sworn at, and been threatened with violence. In the last two days I have been present as someone called the leader of the LDS church the "head Mormon devil", not in a playful way, and then demonized the leaders of the LDS church for their requests of a famous LDS business scholar. Given all this, to accuse us of patent hate and bigotry towards another group is something meaningful, because we understand hate and bigotry. (When I say we, I mean, some Mormons. Some escape all of this by living their whole lives in predominantly Mormon communities, who sometimes do things they ought not do. Those in CA do not live in predominantly Mormon communities).

The Mormons and California

In reading one of several articles on this issue, one paragraph detailed what kinds of things the protesters had done to the Mormon temple: "Outside the temple, grafitti was scrawled on the walls and signs hung, "Go back to Utah," and "Go to hell Mormons." Their signs said, "No on H8."" This actually made me laugh. Go back to Utah? I am finishing up a book on the history of California, and without the Mormons, the state would not exist as it currently does. James W Marshall, along with his crew that was helping to dig a mill, discovered gold in California at Sutter's Mill in 1848, which started the California Gold Rush, which was a pretty big deal for California. His crew was almost entirely made largely of Mormons. Mormon history and the history of CA are so connected, that to suggest that Mormons go "back" to Utah would be like telling the descendants of fur trappers to get out of Oregon and go back east, or telling the blacks to get out of the South and go back to Africa. Without fur trappers, Oregon would be completly different, and without blacks, the south would not be what it is today.

Who really Supported Prop 8?

First, a majority of voters in CA supported Prop 8. But, more specifically, many, many different religious groups supported it. The NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06marriage.html?_r=2&fta=y&oref=slogin&oref=slogin) reported it this way:

"Supporters of the bans in California, Arizona and Florida benefited from the donations and volunteers mobilized by a broad array of churches and religious groups from across the ethnic spectrum.

The Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, a pastor in Sacramento and president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, said the campaign to pass Proposition 8 had begun with white evangelical churches but had spread to more than 1,130 Hispanic churches whose pastors convinced their members that same-sex marriage threatened the traditional family.

"Without the Latino vote," Mr. Rodriguez said, "Proposition 8 would never have succeeded."

Frank Schubert, the campaign manager for Protect Marriage, the leading group behind Proposition 8, agreed that minority votes had put the measure over the top, saying that a strategy of working with conservative black pastors and community leaders had paid off.

"It's a big reason why we won, no doubt about it," he said.

So, why don't gays go out and protest evangelical churches, or demonize black preachers who urged congregation members to vote Yes on 8? Because it is not politically good. For some reason, it is alright to hate, suggest violent action against, lie about, and demonize Mormons. Why? I am not sure. However, about a year ago I read an article on a USA Today Blog (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/08/hollywoods-terr.html) talking about how Hollywood had no problem vilifying Mormons as violent, but since 9/11, had never depicted Muslims in a violent light (it was written in reaction to the movie September Dawn). I thought one part was worthy of quote here:

Mormons won't respond with any comparable rage, no matter how badly September Dawn tarnishes the memory of their faith's founders. In fact, the LDS Church has adopted an official policy of "no comment" regarding the film, and there have been no examples of young Mormons strapping dynamite to their bodies and blowing themselves up to protest perceived insults to their religion. They have cheerfully endured another recent film assault (Jane Fonda's Georgia Rule) that showed Mormons as stupid, petty, sexually repressed losers, and an edgy episode of TV's South Park showing the story of Joseph Smith with a background chorus describing it as "dumb-dumb-dumb."

The measured response to public smears of Mormonism in effect rebuts the September Dawn suggestion that the church represents a relevant example of violent religious fanaticism. Despite the turbulence of their founding generation, Mormons have been conspicuously peaceful, patriotic, hard-working and neighborly for at least the past 117 years.

If Jews, Muslims, Catholics, or any other organized faith were targeted, you would see a public backlash. Lawsuits, the press getting upset, references to past religious persecution and so on. With the Mormons, we see none of this. The Church issued a statement requesting respect, and that is it. We turn the other cheek, and so keep getting slapped. In the end, given the Author of the suggestion to turn the other cheek, this is a good policy on the large scale.

Gay Marriage Banned

So, gay marriage was banned. Reading many news stories about it, one would believe that gays have been happily getting married for years in CA, and abruptly, something happened. This is false. Gay marriage has ALWAYS (at least until last June) been illegal. The state formally illegalized it several years ago, by a majority vote of the citizens. Then, the California Supreme court, with a one justice margin, overturned that law, claiming it violated the state Constitution. That is fine. That is what courts are supposed to do. But, the constitution was amended, again by a majority vote. Gay marriage was legal for five months, and the people then again banned it (but did not criminalize gays, as was done to the Mormons, as was previously mentioned).

Interestingly, California is not the only state to have such bans on gay marriage. Forty other states have such bans, many of them having them based on a constitutional amendment passed by a ballot measure vote. It is clear—the majority of voters in the majority of states do not want gay marriage to be legal.

Democracy

However, I do not suggest that we say, "the people have spoken," and be done with it. Should the people in a democracy have the right to vote on something like this? I was recently chatting with a friend, an opponent of Prop 8, who suggested it was the job of the court to protect minorities from the majority. This is somewhat true. In the end, as I have previously argued on this blog, this argument is centered around the goodness of homosexuality. This also has a lot to do with whether gay is a noun, or a verb, whether it is something you do, or something you are. If it is immoral, is this a "minority", or simply a group of people who chose to do something. If it is wrong, is there such a thing as gay "rights"? No. However, if homosexuality is moral, then the gay community is deserving of the utmost legal and civil protection that can be provided.

So, who decides if homosexuality is good, if it is something that should be fully condoned by the state? That is the real question. Should judges, who are politically appointed, do so? Should legislatures, who, as result of gerrymandering, disproportionally represent segments of the population, do so? Where there is such a slim margin, districting lines for legislatures could easily determine the outcome of a legislative decision. In a democracy, who is to determine what is right? You can think about that. However, I would suggest letting the people vote on it is a pretty good idea.

End

So, like before, I still have a lot to say, but this post is getting to long, and I have used to much time. Left unattended are the real reasons this is such a big deal both to the gay community and to the supporters of prop 8 (I suggest that it has nothing to do with that either party is campaigning on), the connection this has to Obama winning, the difference between a civil union and marriage, the vested interest the state has in what a marriage is defined as, gayness as a noun or as a verb, and other such issues. I believe this is one of the biggest and most important moral issues facing us as a country. I also believe that the current legal state of gay marriage anywhere in the US is not stochastic and that it will move around. If you made it this far, I welcome your comments, and welcome you to send this post to your friends (both supporters and opponents of Proposition 8).

Site to check out and pass on to your friends

.

.

. http://www.angelfire.com/id/jlamro/

My Incident at the Polls

So, yesterday when I went to vote, I saw something I found disheartening. So, I contacted the Secretary of State for Michigan, and had a few e-mails back and forth yesterday morning. Here they are:

Me

I went to vote this morning, and was surprised to find a large table marked something along the lines of "Democratic Voter Assistance" blocking the sidewalk directly in front of the place I voted [in] Ann Arbor. They appeared to be handing out voter material. I do not know specific regulations or laws, but having such an obvious intrusion to even being able to get to the poll without having to walk around such a thing was not appropriate. It was probably about 30 yards from the building I voted in. It was clearly unavoidable as I made my way to the poll. What can I do about reporting this?

Them

Thank you - we will have staff look into it.

Me

Can you please let me know the outcome?

Thank you.

Them

Okay – Also, just so you know that if it is 100' from the entrance to the door used by voters entering the polling place, it is acceptable. You mentioned about 30 yards so probably is close to the 100'.

Thanks.

Me

There is an entrance to the building that is accessed only by a bridge that leads straight to the door. It was easily within 100 feet of the bridge, which is implicitly the "entrance". From the door, I dont know.

Regards,

Them

Greetings: The type of activity that you describe can take place outside of the polls, however, it must be carried out at least 100 feet away from the doorway being used by voters to enter the building in which the polling place is located. If you feel that the table they have set up is blocking the way of voters as they make their way to the polls, we would encourage you to lodge a complaint with The Ann Arbor City Clerk's office as they would be in position to assess the situation and direct the removal or repositioning of the table if warranted. Thank you for writing. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions. Best Regards, Bradley S. Wittman, Director

A day of gratitude.

I was listening to several of my classmates explain their reaction to the election results last night. They described how they just stood there and wept with joy. I also wept (although perhaps for different reasons). In any event, I am very grateful to live in a place where power changes hands so easily. When Washington gave up the presidency, that was completely unprecedented. It had never happened so easily, so seamlessly. And, ever since, it has continued to happen. This is good. Being who I am, there are many other comments I wish to make. But, last night, this was one of the first things that came to my mind. Regardless of who wins now or later, we live in a country still governed by law, and we are blessed as a result. On a side note, interestingly, while we elected who we did, the five major ballot issues dealing with homosexuality (either the marriage of gays or their right to adopt children), all fell to the side not favoring gays. Strange world.

Election Thoughts

So, the elections are coming up, and so I decided to write down some thoughts on some of the issues at hand. As anyone who has talked with me on this issues knows, I am not a big fan of either of the candidates. Interestingly, I can count on a single hand how many people I have personally met who actually are big fans of any candidate. This year more than in the past, it seems like you have to not only focus on what you like about someone, but what you dislike about someone else, put the two together, and make a decision. After much thinking and reading, I did this, and will be voting strongly against Senator Obama.

Some claim that if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. I would suggest that if negative things are important, they should be said anyways. That said, this is, indeed, a very negative post. It is also not at all well written, and is not terribly insightful. I had been thinking about writing it for a while, and after I wrote it, it was not nearly as great as I had imagined. It is mostly my random rants. However, it is what I think.

Taxes, and implicitly, entitlements- For some of Obama's verbiage and thinking on taxes, see here . My belief is that taxes are currently too high, in most part, to fund things like social spending and expensive wars. While wars will be covered later, tax usage for social programs is one of my largest complaints against Obama. For me, taxes are levied in order for a government to fund its operations – to build infrastructure, educate its citizens, defend itself and so on. However, increasingly, taxes are becoming a tool for income redistribution, taking money from those who make the most, and giving it to those who make the least. More than one third of Americans currently pay NO federal income tax. This number would increase to just below 50 percent if Obama got his way. What this means, in essence, is that about half of the people in the US would be using public goods and paying nothing for them. While many of these people certainly have some good reason they are not making more money and paying taxes, many of them simply do not.

Obama's tax plan centers around decreasing taxes for 95% of Americans. Whenever he says this, it makes me cringe. This is a blatant LIE. Many of the people whose "taxes" would be decreased pay nothing anyways, and will just be getting a larger refundable credit check at the end of the year. Obama wants to turn the IRS into the largest welfare agency the government has. While many are fine with that and in their compassion, would be happy to fund those on the dole, I am not.

Obama himself has discussed this, and says that he wants to "spread the wealth around", and that providing for those who are less fortunate is "neighborliness." I support helping those in need. I do not support the government forcing people to support those who do not support themselves. I have an acquaintance who believes the same, and while she has qualified for welfare and Medicare and food stamps for the last 3 years, and WIC for the last year, she has not used it. I admire her for that. Obama has suggested that to give such handouts to low income people will help them out on their way to wealth (as in the famous conversation to with Joe). This is ridiculous. If neo-classical microeconomics teaches us anything, if you decrease the cost of being poor, there will be more demand for poorness. Using verbiage like "fair", "spreading the wealth around" and "neighborliness" in the context of taxation is very unappealing to me.

CEOs: For Obama, the term CEO is synonymous with evil. That is divisive, classist, and a way to gain votes from people who have no idea what the term even means or entails. Further, when he vilifies people like "hedge fund managers", I sometimes wonder, if pressed, if he even knows what a hedge fund is. This type of rhetoric puts the have-nots against the haves, and makes them less likely to have and more likely to have a disdain for success.

The economy Recently, one of Obama's big pushes is to convince people that McCain will handle the economy the same way that Bush has, and that along with that, it is Bush's fault we are having the economic problem we are. This is ridiculous. The president has very little, if nothing, to do with where we are right now. A common misperception is that the president has some magical ability to make things happen, pass laws, fight crime, and so on. This is, to a large extent, false. While the reasons for the downturn are many and not well understood by anyone (indeed, if we understood fully what was going on, we would be much closer to figuring out what to do about it). It is complicated. There are, however, a couple factors that played into it that are simple.

The largest of which is that people are greedy. In the 90's, laws were passed that forced lenders to lend more freely to parties who had traditionally found it difficult to find credit (i.e., the poor), and as a result, increase the risk implicit in the loans. These lenders were overly aggressive in their lending, housing prices soared, making the asset backing the loans overpriced, and people started defaulting on their loans. In some, people are greedy. If people paid what they promised to pay, there would be no problem. Dishonest home owners who spent more than they needed to on a house are partly to blame. Lenders who got overzealous and over lent are to blame. And now, everyone pays for it (well, with important exceptions. Some parties are gaining enormously from the downturn) .

On a side note, I find it very disheartening how McCain has recently started saying the same kinds of things everyone is saying, that homeowners in default have been innocent bystanders. It is unfortunate, and for many of them not their fault, but for many, it is their fault.

The war- Obama has made this a huge issue, that he was against the war in the beginning. Recently, I have been very interested in war. I have listened to over 40 hours and watched over 14 hours about war, with all its bloody detail. It is terrible, and I hate war. However, concerning the war in Iraq, follow me in a thought experiment. In 2001, it was thought that Saddam Hussein may have had WMDs. There was intelligence, later discredited, that suggested he might. Let's assume that there was an x possibility that Hussein had WMDs, and that he intended to use them to kill thousands of people (something he had done without the help of WMDs, and which he was subsequently sentenced and killed for.) How high would x have to be before you invade Iraq and overthrow Hussein (who was engaged in other atrocities with a 100% probability)? What are the consequences of there being an incident, and you having not invaded? What are the consequences of invading, and finding no WMDs?

I think Zell Miller (D-Georgia), a US Senator, summed up my thinking very well in his speech about that war to the Senate: "A few weeks ago, we were doing some work on my back porch back home, tearing out a section of old stacked rocks, when all of a sudden I uncovered a nest of copperhead snakes. A copperhead will kill you. It could kill one of my dogs. It could kill one of my grandchildren. It could kill any of my four great grandchildren. They play all the time where I found these killers.

And you know, when I discovered these copperheads, I didn't call my wife Shirley and ask her advice, like I do on most things. I didn't yell for help from my neighbors or take it to the city council. I just took a hoe and knocked them in the head and killed them. Dead as a doorknob.

I guess you could call it a unilateral action. Or pre-emptive or even bellicose and reactive.

I took their poisonous heads off because they were a threat to me. And they were a threat to my home and my family. They were a threat to all I hold dear."

For me, any nonzero, positive probability X would have made me consider a war. What happened afterwards is another story. But the initial decision to invade is one that I think was not poorly made.

I find it interesting that now Obama is talking about how we need to put a lot more troops in Afghanistan, and so on. In the end, I don't think that there will be any less war with him, it will just be in a place that he picks, so that he can claim any victory that may or many not happen.

Experience – There was recently an opinion letter written by Karl Kling in the Ann Arbor News (not exactly a bastion of conservative thought) that summed this up perfectly in calling for the election of Liz Brater, Randy Richardville, or Cameron Brown in 2012 for President of the United States. Who are these people? State senators (in this case, from Michigan), exactly the position Obama held just 4 years ago. They would not be qualified to run the most complex, wealthy, and powerful organization on earth in four short years, and neither is Obama.

I remember I was in a political science class the day after the election, and my liberal teacher was in mourning. He was disappointed in the loss of Kerry. He put up an overhead saying "Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, 2008" How insightful that joke turned out to be. Liberals have been salivating over getting Obama on a presidential ticket since he made it on the scene 4 years ago, and not because of his experience.

Relationships – There has been a lot made of the different relationships Obama has had with different people, and I think this is something that should be considered. I don't think that Obama is planning to sell the US to anyone, or that he hates America. However, some of the associates he has kept make one wonder about his core philosophies, or about how he views the world. I saw online, but cannot now come up with the direct text, something that I found funny. It was entitled "Dispelling Myths about Barack Obama", and contained, among other things, the two following lines

1. Myth: Obama is a Muslim. Fact: Obama is a Christian, specifically, the whitey hating Afrocentric kind.
2. Myth: Obama bombed the Pentagon, and claimed he was sad he was not able to do more damage. Fact: False, that was Obama's friend.

Anyway, while not a pivotal question, it is something to think about. There will hopefully be updates on this later, as I attend Obama's former church in Chicago in the near future.

Historic Election: I thought this was an amazing article on why this is an "historic" election.

Education: Obama often talks about how hard it is to get a college education, and how expensive it is. He talks about how hard it is to file for federal aid, specifically how complicated the FAFSA is. My view is this: if you are not smart enough to fill out the FAFSA, or to find someone who is smart enough to help you, you should reconsider college. If you would not make enough upon graduation to repay student loans, maybe you should reconsider your degree. I think we have the best higher education system in the world, and anyone who is willing to work hard is able to succeed in it.

As far as other education, I think that the democratic party as a whole is far too beholden to teachers' unions to be helpful to education. Their idea of improving education is just to throw more money at it. I find it interesting that in the same line they say we need more money for education, they talk about how we are being educationally passed by other countries. We spend more per student on education that many, many countries have in GDP per capita. Something else is missing, namely, a sense of responsibility that I believe is being eroded by the feeling of entitlement and victimization that is pushed by the left.

Health care: I don't have a whole lot to say about health care. I think it is expensive because health care cost is a strictly convex function that has a slope almost equal to infinity as it increases. I also think that, given such expensive health care, it has to be allocated some way. Obama suggests it should not be allocated economically, but rather, by time, or something else non-monetary. I don't agree, although I have no idea how to allocate it. Deep inside of me, I tend to believe that in a situation of scarcity, there will simply be people who don't get the best health care money can buy. That seems pessimistic, but I think it is true. Who those people are is essentially the real political question. Do you disincentivize improving slightly medical care so that everyone can have the same, slightly lower level of care, or do you let things go free and allow the rich to buy more and more years in their life as health care gets better and better? I don't know. Here is an interesting article I recently read on it.

Social Issues: Social issues are very important to me. Specifically, abortion and gay marriage are important to me (as well as all sorts of other issues dealing with death and sex, but we will talk about these two). They are important from an ideological point of view. I do not think there will be any federal action taken on gay marriage, or that Roe v. Wade will be overturned (much to the dismay of Ms. Roe, who is currently anti-abortion, but still sketchy). The fact that liberals would suggest that up until 18 months ago, my wife had the "right" to end what was then Jacob disgusts me. Further, that Stacey currently has the "right" (in many states) to terminate the baby that is growing inside of her is also disheartening. In the end, regarding abortion, I have a hard time believing that liberals care about a woman's ability to choose as much as it just plain irritates them that there are sometimes consequences to having sex. Abortion merely seeks to eliminate those "consequences". Obama does not want such a "punishment" as a baby to exist.

Gay marriage, likewise, is a testy issue for me. I believe that homosexuality is wrong. I strategically chose the word wrong here, as it carries the least baggage of any negative term. I could have chosen the terms evil, immoral, a sin, unethical, bad and so on. Each of those carries certain connotations (that while true) dirty the argument. I will merely say wrong.

While there are many, many arguments people make about gay marriage (education in school, adoption, gay people's rights and so on), EVERY ONE of them starts from the premise that homosexuality is either right, or wrong. If it is not wrong, then there would be no problem that a book called "Sally has two Daddy's" is read in school.

So, in the end, there really is no effectual argument to made here. If homosexuality is wrong, then gay marriage should not be allowed. I believe it is wrong. I do not believe the relativist claims that it can be wrong for me, but that I should not impose my beliefs on others. If it is wrong, then it is wrong for everyone. I very much believe that some things are simply wrong, and wrong for everyone. Democrats, on the whole support gay marriage, but also support relativist claims about disinvolving any moral arguments in public policy. Obama gave what I actually consider a decent speech on this, which can be found here. Some of the parts of the speech are good, others are troubling. But, it does point out his views on the mixture of morality on these types of social issues.

Other stuff: There are many other issues to rant about. But, I won't. This is already too long, challenging only the post on Jacob's birth in length on this blog. So, I will end it.

Stacey the lab rat

So, Stacey is part of some sort of experiement they are doing on pregnant women here that involves her consuming all of these pills that contain some sort of fish oil (or nothing, depending on if she actually got the treatment or not). So, that is exciting. She may comment on this later.

Haircut

So, Jacob got a haircut two days ago. Here he is before, looking a little bit bewildered as he should have been. So, after the thinking, I got to cutting, and Jacob got to crying. He did not like it one little bit, no, not even a little. But, after it was cut, he was fine. Here are two pictures of how it turned out. The part I cut with the buzzers turned out fine, but afterwords we cut a bit with scissors, and that did not turn out as well. But, that is that, and we learned a lot for next time.

More fall pictures

Here are two pictures I took this Sunday of Jacob. I took several that were alright, like these, but none that were spectacular.

10,000 Visitors

So, sometime today I anticipate receiving our 10,000th visitor to the site. That is exciting. It seems like just yesterday we were celebrating 1000, or that we were celebrating the 100th post. Anyways. It has been a good time. If you think you were the 10,000th visitor, comment, and you may get a prize.

Bike ride

So, last week I went on the most amazing (albeit short) bike ride. I went for about 10 miles along the Huron River, through amazing colored trees, ducks and geese, with fog lifting off the river. It was spectacular. But, I did not have my camera. So, I wanted to go again this week, and get some pictures. I called up my home teacher, who bikes, and he took me on a slightly longer (about 26 miles) ride along the other side of the Huron. The leaves had changed a little bit more and were not so spectacular, but, it was still pretty amazing how beautiful it can get here in Michigan. Here are two pictures along the river that I took.

Going to the Temple

Since we have been here in Ann Arbor, we have been able to go to the Detroit temple a few times. It is a quaint little temple, it takes about 45 minutes to get there from our house, and it is pleasant. So far, the Saturday 8:00 AM sessions are fairly empty, and it is nice. While it is a small temple, what it lacks in size, it makes up for in personalness. The first time I went, the temple president greeted me as I both went in, and out. You have to make an appointment, so they have your name on list, like they are waiting for you, so eager for you to come. And, because there are fewer people (at least in the sessions we have gone to), it is quicker. While Provo averages around 1:43 to get through a session, the first session we did took about 1:33. Impressive. Here is a picture we got someone to take of Stacey and I in front of the temple, and one of Stacey, looking very pretty with the yellow flowers. As you can tell, we were looking into a very bright sun.

Big News!

Last March I won a tutu giveaway online from Miss Priss Tutus. I got to pick the colors and it turned out pretty cute. Here it is in all its glory on the dressform before it was shipped to me:

And here is the little lady who will get to wear the tutu first! We had the ultrasound on Tuesday at the hospital and everything looks good. Jeff is happy that he was right again and wonders why I have ultrasounds when I could just trust him when he says he knows what the baby is because she told him so. I am very excited for Jacob to be a big brother to a sister even though he is not too big just yet!

A friendly sort of bee and Fall on campus

The other day Jacob and I ventured outside for a little while. He wanted to model his Halloween costume so I grabbed the new camera and off we went to the front yard and then the backyard. "Mom, where's the candy?"That's the sandbox behind him. You can't tell anymore, but there is sand under the leaves. Jacob loves looking at the trees whenever we go outside. And he loves reaching for the leaves.

The new business building where Jeff's office will be after this semester ends. I love the clouds and trees in this picture.

Ivy changes colors, too, as shown here on the side of the Legal Research library.