On gun control

It is my opinion that:

 those who clamor for 'More government control and regulation' of anything, the topic du jour being fire arms, those who clamor are those with no faith in the goodness of their fellow man, and no faith in the self control and moral uprightness of individuals.

Their projection: "I don't have any, why should I expect anybody else to? People need someone to tell them what to do."

Well, yes, and no.

Yes, people need to have boundaries: these are what proper parenting will teach. Once parents have taught correct principles, than the children will grow in adherence to these principles into proper adults.

No, a govenrment is not the right organization to instill these boundaries and correct principles.

The problem is not a proliferation of a given type of material object, like firearms. The problem is an ideological abdication of responsibility and rejection of certain authorities in favor or others.

Here we go again: another lunatic shooting

I do grieve for the families who have lost the presence of their loves ones, children and adults: I am comforted in the knowledge and testimony from the Gospel of Jesus Christ that these little children are in the arms of God, and that in His mercy there is still an opportunity for these families to be reunited; that the sad and confused boy who accomplished this evil is now where he can, if he is willing, begin to work through his issues without the confusion caused by a potentially malfunctioning body.

--

That said:

It seems to me that some common threads on this sort of happening are:

“I’M HURT AND YOU DID NOT LISTEN TO ME. NOW YOU WILL LISTEN, AND YOU WILL FEEL THE KIND OF HURT I HAVE HAD TO ENDURE.”

“LOOK AT ME, I AM NOW GETTING MY FAME AND IMMORTALITY IN THE MEDIA.”

To the first: more people need to learn and apply the Gospel of Jesus Christ in its Restored Fullness. Also people need to listen better to people like this who are crying out for help, whether in their isolation or accomplished counseling.

To the second: the media needs to stop crowing about who does this, to stop making idols and whipping boys of the methods and costumes and weapons that are more and more often used in these activities. Stop aggrandizing them.

--

Now the aftermath:

The High Priest of the God of Government threw a press conference and cried while ‘leading the country in mourning.’

Err… sorry, The Presid… Sorry again, nobody uses that title for him.

OBAMA made a statement and showed solidarity with the countries confusion and grief.

--

The pundits are espousing the psychobabble of the secular who are seeking to ‘make sense’ of what has happened.

If they understood the Gospel of Jesus Christ, they would understand that people are free to choose for themselves, and some times they choose evil. GOD who made them in HIS image will be just and merciful to them in HIS time and place, giving them time to repent and make amends.

Of us it is not commanded to understand, but is commanded to forgive: to forgive and love the sinner, and to hate the sin and leave its just recompense to Just Laws, and when they fail to leave it to GOD.

--

The usual suspects are crowing for more gun control, pointing out gleefully about the make of the guns that accomplished this deed.

Of course if the guy who did this had been captive within an SUV as it drove through the school running down its victims, would these same pundits be calling for car control?

Would we be hearing all about the make and model of the villainous SUV?

How we need to be removing these dangerous SUV’s from the streets?

How about his clothes: what brand of shoes was he wearing? Might that have lead to this? Maybe we need shoe control?

You want a dialogue on ‘gun control’?
My starting points:

0-Remove all ‘Gun Free Zones’ from public property.

0a-Where Public Property Security Cordons are established, simply have all weapons that pass through be checked for being properly and safely carried.

1-Cause all willing citizens to openly carry their weapon(s) of choice where ever they want, dependent on whether they have properly discharged their rite of serving on a Jury, criminal record, and limited only by private property owners.

1a-Require all teachers to be armed and certified by local law enforcement in their competence.

2-Allow all willing resident aliens to apply for the same.

3-Cause immediate confinement for being an invading combatant for any illegal alien found possessing a weapon.

That is my opening position. If I were going to engage in the same style of dialogue as the current regime in the White House, that would be my final position.

Information, and Control

I listen to talk radio, as much as a talking clock as for the information it provides.

I heard one caller who got the wheels turning, this morning.

I have had the perception that there are three main arena's of action today:
Information, Energy, and Value.

Information:
Perception is Reality - control perception and you control reality. Control the information a person receives, you control their perceptions.

Energy
Control and consumption of energy influences the standard of living, and by extension happiness.

Value:
A thing's worth is relative to the individual using the thing.

The underlying principle: Control.
Power to destroy a noun is power to control that noun. "Destruction" can mean to damage a physical thing to the point of it being unusable and useless: or to deny access to a thing, or method, etc.

---

This as an underlying foundation I had some thoughts about ideas in discussion as I hear them today.

"Capitalism" equals "Greed"
"Greed is Good," to paraphrase Gordon Gekko.
'I don't want to work for someone else, or for a for-profit-organization, because that is only furthering someone's greed.'
Therefore do not work for anything that has a profit motive.

"Sex" is "Natural"
'Love the one you are with.'
'They are going to do it anyway, teach then to do it right, and give them a safe place to do it.'
Therefore encourage the gratification of appetites, without consideration of consequences thereof.

"Religion" is corrupt and and useless.
Organized Religion is just a bunch of pedophiles and power mongers who are seeking to subject people to their false traditions.
Therefore if one feels the need, pursue 'Spirituality'; since there is no 'truth' anyway anything will do.

Individuals do not have power, except as part of a group.
Therefore to have power, one must suborn himself to a group.

WRONG.
Truth does exist.

Yes, Greed is bad. But the profit motive is what drives Man to provide for His family. The question becomes how do you measure 'profit'?
By acquisition of power and control over a group? "I am the KING."
By accumulation of property and things? "He who dies with the most toys wins"
By the behavior of others? "You taught me to do this."

These are useful measures, but not fully based in truth.
Profit is an increase in value, after the costs have been paid. The attack on Profit is an attack on Value. Increase profit, and you increase the value of society.

Sex is natural, else there would not be any kind of propagation of any species.
BUT Actions have Consequences.
Self control is much more attractive and successful in promoting the propagation of any species than just gratifying appetites is or will be.
In properly ordered societies, of beasts or of Man, rogues without self control are always driven out or destroyed; this to maintain the proper order of the society.

Religion is the connecting of the individual to the divine, by a discipline that is defined by a mythology. The mythology teaches the whys and applications of what the discipline teaches the hows of. Through the shifting of meaning in the use of language, many will take the words used here as denigrating and derogatory toward True Religion, rather than as a starting point in defining the general categories.
True Religion is revealed by GOD, through modern prophets; it will seek to purify the corrupt by teaching correct principles and allowing Man to govern himself accordingly.
False Religion is created by men; it will seek to empower the corrupt by teaching philosophies of men, and compelling Man into subjugation.
Organized Religion, as with any power-structure attracts the corrupt. As with any organization, without careful guards about who does what and has what authority, it will drift from its original stated goals into maintaining and increasing the power of the corrupt within its structure.
In Religion, the guards are its mythology and discipline. When corrupt men seek to change the mythology and discipline of True Religion, other men who are true to the principles either rise up to stop those who are seeking the change, or depart and go elsewhere.

Individuals have much power and ability in themselves, but as each is an individual, how that power and ability is manifest is unique to each one. Groups are useful for making an increase in energy over time, but not all can give the same effort or same value in the effort.

Summary:

Information: the mythology and discipline of religion inform how a person is to behave in the society defined by the adherents of that religion.

Energy: the efforts of the people in the society have consequences, behave good and the society moves to greater peace and order; behave badly and disorder and conflict result.

Value: the nouns that a society values are sought for, and energy is expended to increase the value of those nouns.

Today I see a growing conflict between two general religious groups:

One has a mythology and discipline for teaching and distinguishing correct principles of information, energy, and value, and allowing the individuals to choose for themselves how to apply these. It fights with truth, honor and morality.

The other has a mythology and discipline for controlling information, energy, and value, and thereby controlling the behavior of individuals, and breaking them into isolated manageable groups. It fights by lies, deception and license, among other tactics.

Election aftermath

Some thoughts about what has happened, as I see them:

This last US Election was about Freedom vs. Free Stuff.

Free Stuff won.


This Election was about 'Freedom To Choose for One's Self' vs. 'Freedom From Responsibility for One's Choices.'

Freedom From Responsibility for One's Choices won.


After the last Presidential Election, I commented to a coworker that I was less worried about political constructs, as these could be rebuilt, than I was about the morals and values these constructs are built on.

Mitt Romney was harassed about a "47%" comment he made.
As near as I can see, that comment was dead on.

On the other hand, there are those who say that the GOP did not get their Conservative Base out, because of Romney being a 'New England Moderate.'

You vote for who is available, and support them, and do your best to get them to lead in the direction you want them to go. Or you run yourself.

Refusing to vote and allowing the other side to win, you may as well vote for your political enemies. "Evil prospering by Good Men doing nothing" anyone?

---

The following is doing the rounds in my extended family:

For the past twenty-three years, Ed Lauritsen has been in private practice
as a psychologist and family therapist. He has also taught continuing
education seminars to mental health professionals nationally. He and his
wife Ann have been happily married for 36 years and have five children and
eight grandchildren. The Lauritsens reside in Arizona and are active
members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Dr. Lauritsen
has served as a branch president and as a counselor in two branch
presidencies, four bishoprics and a stake presidency. He  also has served as
a seminary instructor and stake mission president. Both he and Ann have
served Spanish-speaking missions and currently hold leadership positions in
a Spanish-speaking branch.  Dr. Lauritsen can be reached at
edlauritsen@msn.com.

A post-election epiphany: The real winner in campaign 2012
By Dr. Ed Lauritsen.

It is Election Night 2012, and I'm sitting here at my computer listening to
Governor Romney's concession speech, trying to come to grips with his
defeat---our defeat. And into my mind comes three interesting thoughts. The
first comes with a scripture:

"Behold, I will hasten my work in its time." (D&C 88:73).

If the Lord's "work" is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life
of man" (Moses 1:39), and if that process begins by hearing about the
Church and seeing its members, then the sooner and the faster the greatest
number of people can see and hear about the Latter-day Saints--especially
about exemplary Saints like the Romneys--the more the work is hastened.
And though the Church has 55,000+ missionaries who are quietly and
patiently roaming the world knocking on doors, the Lord has brought the LDS
Governor and his LDS family into the very homes of millions of people
around the U.S. and the world via TV, radio, and Internet for more than a
year now--people who might never have received or accepted the missionaries
or LDS neighbors, let alone have learned about the LDS way of life. But now
they have listened, watched, and learned, and many of them will likely be
more curious and receptive to the missionaries in the future.  And that
also goes for many of the Evangelicals, Protestants, and Catholics who
locked arms with the Latter-day Saints (thanks to Glenn Beck) during this
long presidential campaign.  Bottom line: the Romneys lost a hard-fought
political battle, but they--and the Church--won a decisive, long-awaited
cultural and spiritual victory in opening the minds and hearts of millions.

Another post-election thought: "Be careful what you pray for."

Had Romney won, it is highly doubtful that he and his team would have been
able to rescue the nation's wounded economy from the purposeful destruction
that Obama has intentionally inflicted upon it, Obama having done so in
order to "fundamentally transform" our free enterprise system into a
Socialist state.  Had Romney won, the only possible way to have saved the
nation and its economy would have been to make deep cuts in the welfare and
entitlement programs--cuts that would have been branded "murderous,
discriminatory and racist" at every turn by the Liberal mainstream media.
And the ever-increasing drumbeat of these accusations over the next four
years would have given license to thousands--perhaps millions--of
malcontents to take to the streets in "civil unrest" (aka anarchy).
As such, Romney's never-ending vilification in print and in the electronic
media would have soon painted him---and his fellow Mormons--as the enemies
of America, with all the resulting antagonism, stress, and persecution of
the Church, both at home and abroad.

As is, over the next four years, right-wing zealots--not Christian
Conservatives--will likely become increasingly resistant, confrontational,
and possibly violent in response to the creeping Socialism.  Thus, "social
unrest" may begin at the other end of the political spectrum, likely
precipitating equally violent responses from the pro-Socialist masses.

And this foregoing scenario brings me to the third and final thought
tonight, one which also was accompanied by the written word, this time in
the form of a powerful metaphor by Hugh Nibley. I close with it:

“On the last night of a play, the whole cast and stage crew stay in the
theater until the small, or not so small, hours of the morning striking the
old set.  If there is to be a new opening soon, as the economy of the
theater requires, it is important that the new set should be in place and
ready for the opening night; all the while the old set was finishing its
usefulness and then being taken down, the new set was rising in splendor to
be ready for the drama that would immediately follow.  So it is with this
world.  It is not our business to tear down the old set--the agencies that
do that are already hard at work and very efficient--the set is coming down
all around us with spectacular effect.  Our business is to see to it that
the new set is well on the way for what is to come--and that means a
different kind of politics, beyond the scope of the tragedy that is now
playing its closing night.  We are preparing for the establishment of Zion.”

Nibley, Hugh. Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless: Classic Essays of Hugh
W. Nibley, Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Religious Studies Center,
1978, p. 302

WHY TO VOTE

Some words from Prophets of God.

At the time of the end of the exodus:

Joshua 24

15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

16 And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the LORD, to serve other gods;

From the Saviour himself, during the mortal phase of his ministry:

Matthew 22

17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

From the inhabitants of the American continents, in the century prior to the Saviour's mortal ministry:

Mosiah 29: 25-27, 39

25 Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws which have been given you by our fathers, which are correct, and which were given them by the hand of the LORD.

26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law--to do your business by the voice of the people.

27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

39 Therefore, it came to pass that they assembled themselves together in bodies throughout the land, to cast in their voices concerning who should be their judges, to judge them according to the law which had been given them; and they were exceedingly rejoiced because of the liberty which had been granted unto them.

From a modern prophet,  in 1835:

Doctrine & Covenants, Section 134: 1-5

1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

3 We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

Want to read the surrounding versus, and references, go ask someone who has the scriptures.
Or go look them up at LDS.ORG.


In summary: GO VOTE, that you may answer your accountability before God with a clear conscience that you did so.

GISNEP (Disney) has purchased LUCASFILM !??!!

I have been busy or lazy elsewhere, but have finally seen something that has moved me enough to post:

GISNEP (Disney) has purchased LUCASFILM !??!!

And already has an idea and release date for Star Wars 7 ???!!

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

They truly are becoming Mos Eisner Studios. (O.K. Eisner is not there now, but still.....)

Let Star Wars and Indiana Jones step off the stage and someone new come on.
 
This just shows the dearth of creativity and originality in the industry right now.

It is apparently easier to try to milk an old cash cow rather than try to create a new one!

The GOP Convention: is there an accusation that needs to be made?

I have been watching the G.O.P. Convention. Several of the speeches address deficiencies of the current Presidential Administration and Congress. E.G. Not passing a budget in three years; over Five Trillion in budget deficit in this Presidential Term; unemployment over 8% (20 million plus) for the majority of this term; the credit rating of the US Government being downgraded; forcing Obama Care down the collective throats of the American People, etceteras, etceteras, etceteras…

As I hear about these, I am left to wonder: Are these, and all the other supposed deficiencies of the current Presidential Administration and Congress really deficiencies?
Or are these deliberate?

If they are deliberate, why are they being done, to what end?

Frankly, I am kind of waiting for the other shoe to drop, and this accusation to be made, but I seriously doubt the Romney/Ryan Campaign will directly make this, and probably not indirectly either.

 --

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

What document does this list come from?

RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address the "real" issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists' minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management's wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

What document does this list come from?

Riddle me this:
If a Politician Speaks,
and there is no one around to hear,
Is he still lying and pandering?

Answers:

The first list comes from the Communist Manifesto.

The second list is compiled from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

The riddle: answer it for yourself.

Bye, Max. Good boy...

I helped my parents put their thirteen year old, geriatric german shepherd down today.

Max was acquired as a puppy at the same time that my sister got another female dog, Sadie, from the same litter. The two of them played together most of their lives.I enjoyed tossing the stick for them to retrieve, and taking max, or both of them together, for walks.

Three years ago Max started to develop the problem where his nerves in his spine go bad and he began to loose control in stages of everything behind his ribs. We expected he would somehow contract some illness as a result and pass, but he was stubbornly healthy, aside from his troubles with control.

Sadie died suddenly just over one and a half years ago. We were all surprised she went first.

Over the last six months Max’s quality of life began to diminish. He had rough function of his back legs at best, and could not get around well anymore. He had to fight to lever himself up onto his hind legs, and then keep his back end up. Holding his tail for him let him pull himself, and you along. When he lay down somewhere, he would ‘zone out.’ His hearing did not seem to substantially diminish, nor did his eyesight, but his attention did. In the last weeks, he began to loose cognitive control of himself, and would not move to where he could relieve himself.

As Mom and Dad discussed this, they came to the conclusion that it was time, that Max was increasingly distant, and upset. So they called the vet.

They live in an in-law’s apartment attached to my sister’s house, on a large yard that has been in the family for three generations. My brother-in-law chose a spot, and one of my nieces started to dig. I spent two and a half hours finishing the grave. I finished by putting part of his dog-bed in the bottom.

When the time came for the vet to show, I took Max out to a spot in the yard and lay him in the sun. Mom and Dad, and my sister, her husband, and some of their children came about. My sister ended up taking her two younger sisters on an outing, as the vet arrived.

The vet evaluated Max, and gave a clinical agreement that this was the best course, though it hurt to do.

Mom and Dad stood by as I cradled Max while the vet administered the cocktail of narcotics that relaxed and put him to sleep, then the vet gave him the last shot, and within a minuet he was gone.

I wrapped Max in part of his dog-bed and using the vet’s litter, the vet helped me carry Max to his grave. We lowered him in; I adjusted his body some to cover it properly. The vet then left. For a few moments I was alone as my geriatric parents slowly made their way to the spot. For a moment I sobbed uncontrollably. Mom and Dad arrived, and after some prayer, threw the first shovels of dirt in. Dad and I then filled the rest in, and I put some temporary stones around the pile.

Normally I am a very stoic person, but I broke down somewhat as the vet did his job. Then again after putting Max to his final rest. And again as I write this.

I refused to have Max spend his last alive moments near the grave, feeling like it would be taking the condemned to the gallows, as opposed to a final rest spot. It is expected that the pile will settle over the next month or so, and the stones around it will be adjusted to final place, and my brother-in-law may make a marker of some kind.

I do not question the wisdom of the actions, for he was old and disabled, but I will miss Max.

Good boy, Max, Go home now...

You didn't build that...They won't come.

"Those darn Conservatives and their Judo-Christian God. If it weren't for them, we could have compelled the world to Utopia already."

Another happening that the Political Wing of society is trying to exploit to expand the power of their idolatry.
To wit: Some lunatic exploits the rights that the rest of us also enjoy, arms and armors himself, and goes to a mass gathering and starts killing his fellow man.
Cue the pundits, and usual suspects clamoring that those rights need to be curtailed for the safety of the ninnies.

The real solution is not more regulation and government intervention.
The Real Solution includes but is not limited to:
- one part "Teach people correct principles and let them govern themselves"
- one part "He governs best who governs least"
- one part 'Those who choose security over liberty do not have or deserve either.'

Teach people correct principles and let them govern themselves:
Ethics (behavior within the group) vs. Morals (behavior on ones own) was the argument I remember hearing: the Left are more worried about Ethics, and the Right more worried about Morals. However the conclusion I remember reaching was that Morals informed Ethics. Morals are taught and informed by Religion.
Preach to them the Gospel of Jesus Christ. "Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God with all thy heart, might, mind and strength. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self." "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Can anybody argue against these principles as sources of good morals, and thereby good ethics?
Yet those who ascribe to the idolatry of government rejected their forefathers religions.


He governs best who governs least:
"Stay out of my bedroom." "It's a child, not a 'choice'." "Get off my land." "There ought to be a law."
"Someone ought to do something."
Well, yeah. Someone should: the best someone is Parents. Teach them right when young, and when old they will not depart from that right behavior. Set a few rules, including punishments, and them enforce them. Explain as simply as necessary. Keep them easily understandable, and the punishment relates to the rule. Pain is a very good deterrent: 'That is hot - Don't touch it.'

Those who choose security over liberty do not have or deserve either:
Liberty is that general condition where people are able to chose for themselves how they will go about their existence. Security is that general condition where people are constrained and limited in their choices.
This argument, particularly where religion is concerned, often comes down to whether Obedience to Principles is restraining from enjoyable, or constraining from danger.
I submit that the difference generally amounts to willing faith and growing comprehension, vs unwillingness and no comprehension. "Tell me 'why'." "You will learn and comprehend 'why' more as you mature." "I want to know now." "Fine. Touch it and learn for yourself."
---
A 'Utopian Society' that collectivists apparently want to enforce upon the rest of the world is a perversion of that society that God would really like the world to live in: all are free, all are well taught and productive according to their expanding abilities, all are appreciated, the lion lays down with the lamb, swords are turned to plowshares and spears to pruning hooks, no poor among them, etc.

Some understand the passages about the City of Enoch prior to the flood, from Genesis, as that those people in the 365 years that that city stood on this earth accomplished such a society.

Further in the New Testament, particularly Acts of the Apostles, it talks about the church members putting all their goods into a common stock where upon all were able to draw from, and by this procedure everyone in the participating community had their needs taken care of, and there were no poor among them.

But there is one basic operating principle difference between the societies here described, and what the collectivists of today seek for. That is the Freedom to Choose to participate.
People are ennobled into such a society as this by exercise of their choices. They cannot be compelled into such ennobling by any external force.
Government can not and ought not compel people to be good. People must choose it for themselves. Thus a utopia cannot be constructed by any kind of compulsion, but only by the choice of the individuals.

There is one way and one way only to cause a lasting change in a person: they choose by their own will to conform themselves to true principles, as they understand them, and then exercise that choice. Expand their understanding of true principles, and they will choose to follow of themselves. There is no other lasting way.

I just gotta say something somehwere

The Deseret News and The Blaze both talk about UT Governor Herbert essentially saying that the State Forrester has presumably temporary authority to restrict target shooting in unincorporated areas of Utah.

The usual suspects then fade into the foreground and spout their usual lines of diatribe.

While I have not read the full table of comments for the stories, I do notice from the ones I have read that there are no solutions being offered.
Problem: People are going out into the boonies, where there is fire danger, to shoot their guns. Reaction: stop them from shooting at an official level.

How about Solution: Provide more places for shooting to be done that are convenient and safe.

When I was growing up, there were a significant number of places to go shoot, and several of them were official ranges. But thanks to growth, most of these places have been overrun by development. Now there are only a very few that are both safe and convenient. The convenient ones are all out in the fire-danger scrub. The safe ones are not convenient, and often too expensive because not enough people go to profitably support minimal upkeep.

Common sense? I'm all for it. Only vehicles without those fire-causing catalytic converters may be allowed on unimproved surfaces. Just let me go get my dirt bike.

Shooting in a safe and convenient manor? Yes please. So let me build a range where people can go to that is convenient to go to and profitable to manage, or don't complain that I go to the boonies to practice as I choose without your interference.

what makes people great: some incomplete thoughts

Truly Great People recognize that they are great because of the principles they live by, not in spite of them.

The American Revolution was fought over many principles. Among these was the Divine Right Of Kings: when God created Adam and Eve in the Garden, He gave Adam lordship over the earth. This stewardship has been misunderstood as the right to do whatsoever man would without any accountability. This coupled with the idea of Birthright is part of what brings about the ideas of 'Who's your Daddy' and being a person of renown bloodline. The Kings of Europe in particular took this to mean that they had right to rule over their fellows without accountability to them.

In truth this idea is traceable back to the principle of Pride that says "My will be done" regardless of any other idea.
Said differently the ides is who is right instead of what is right. Again this is about the principles one lives by, not something intrinsic to the individual. Go see Jesus' comments about God making children of Abraham out of paving stones when he was talking to some proud, arrogant men in his day.

Today, many decry Americans for claiming to be the best people in the world as jingoism, and arrogance. On one hand the pitfall of pride is easy to trip into and many do: but so long as it is evinced in the way the individual lives, thoughtful and observant people will recognize that it is by principles that people are elevated, not intrinsic value.

Americans are not free and great because they are the best people in the world, as the proud and arrogant would and do accuse. Americans are the best people in the world because they live by the principles of freedom. Further, all other people in the world are invited to join and become the best people in the world, by living by those same principles, wherever they may be.

Ethnicity, heritage, 'who's your daddy, and what great deeds did he do,' these are nice to brag about if the pride of 'my will be done' and who is right are among your core principles.
People who put principle before themselves, and are interested in what is right, are not going to be overly impressed by recitations of what your antecedents did.

I have a question...

This last Sunday, June 10, at Sunday School the question of fairness come up. The topic was on Welfare and Compensation, and the class was asked to put forth ideas about each subject.

For compensation one idea was put forth that I think I have touched on in some previous post, but mention again here. The idea that was brought up was said as "Getting the maximum amount of profit for the minimum amount of work."

In 1983, Prof. Hugh Nibley gave a commencement address at BYU where he addressed this issue as follows:

In my latest class, a graduating honors student in business management (who is here today) wrote this—the assignment was to compare one's self with some character in the Pearl of Great Price, and he quite seriously chose Cain:

Many times I wonder if many of my desires are too self-centered. Cain was after personal gain. He knew the impact of his decision to kill Abel. Now, I do not ignore God and make murderous pacts with Satan; however, I desire to get gain. Unfortunately, my desire to succeed in business is not necessarily to help the Lord's kingdom grow [now there's a refreshing bit of honesty]. Maybe I am pessimistic, but I feel that few businessmen have actually dedicated themselves to the furthering of the Church without first desiring personal gratification. As a business major, I wonder about the ethics of business—"charge as much as possible for a product which was made by someone else who was paid as little as possible." You live on the difference. As a businessman will I be living on someone else's industry and not my own? Will I be contributing to society or will I receive something for nothing, as did Cain? While being honest, these are difficult questions for me.

They have been made difficult by the rhetoric of our times. The Church was full of men in Paul's day teaching that gain is godliness and making others believe it. Today the black robe puts the official stamp of approval on that very proposition. But don't blame the College of Commerce! The Sophists, those shrewd business- and showmen, started that game 2,500 years ago, and you can't blame others for wanting to get in on something so profitable. The learned doctors and masters have always known which side their bread was buttered on and have taken their place in the line. Business and "Independent Studies," the latest of the late-comers, have filled the last gaps; and today, no matter what your bag, you can put in for a cap and gown. And be not alarmed that management is running the show—they always have.

I invite the reader to peruse the full text of the address through the above link.

From The Pearl of Great Price, some of the versus dealing with Cain, as revealed to Joseph Smith, the prophet in 1830.

Pearl of Great Price, Moses, Chapter 5

 22 And the Lord said unto Cain: Why art thou wroth? Why is thy countenance fallen?

 23 If thou doest well, thou shalt be ^aaccepted. And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door, and Satan ^bdesireth to have thee; and except thou shalt hearken unto my commandments, I will ^cdeliver thee up, and it shall be unto thee according to his desire. And thou shalt ^drule over him;

 24 For from this time forth thou shalt be the father of his ^alies; thou shalt be called ^bPerdition; for thou wast also ^cbefore the world.

 25 And it shall be said in time to come—That these abominations were had from ^aCain; for he rejected the greater counsel which was had from God; and this is a ^bcursing which I will put upon thee, except thou repent.

 26 And Cain was wroth, and listened not any more to the voice of the Lord, neither to Abel, his brother, who walked in holiness before the Lord.

 27 And Adam and his wife ^amourned before the Lord, because of Cain and his brethren.

 28 And it came to pass that Cain took one of his brothers’ daughters to ^awife, and they ^bloved Satan more than God.

 29 And Satan said unto Cain: ^aSwear unto me by thy throat, and if thou tell it thou shalt die; and swear thy brethren by their heads, and by the living God, that they tell it not; for if they tell it, they shall surely die; and this that thy father may not know it; and this day I will deliver thy brother Abel into thine hands.

 30 And Satan sware unto Cain that he would do according to his ^acommands. And all these things were done in secret.

 31 And Cain said: Truly I am Mahan, the master of this great ^asecret, that I may ^bmurder and get ^cgain. Wherefore Cain was called Master ^dMahan, and he gloried in his wickedness.

 32 And Cain went into the field, and Cain talked with Abel, his brother. And it came to pass that while they were in the field, Cain rose up against Abel, his brother, and slew him.

 33 And Cain ^agloried in that which he had done, saying: I am free; surely the ^bflocks of my brother falleth into my hands.

 34 And the Lord said unto Cain: Where is Abel, thy brother? And he said: I know not. Am I my brother’s ^akeeper?

 Or the source passage from Genesis 4

 6 And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

 8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

 9 ¶And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?

The Mahan Principle: that one can murder and get gain.
Or said differently: "I will eat my bread by the sweat of another brow, instead of my own."
Some will try to say that this is an idea centered in one political ideology or another. I will not. I Say it is in the ideology of selfishness, not politics.

As the discussion continued, we turned to welfare, and I spoke up mentioning a phrase out of the following passage from The Doctrine and Covenants.

Doctrine and Covenants, Section 104

 11 It is wisdom in me; therefore, a commandment I give unto you, that ye shall organize yourselves and appoint every man his ^astewardship;

 12 That every man may give an account unto me of the stewardship which is appointed unto him.

 13 For it is expedient that I, the Lord, should make every man ^aaccountable, as a ^bsteward over earthly blessings, which I have made and prepared for my creatures.

 14 I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and ^abuilt the earth, my very ^bhandiwork; and all things therein are mine.

 15 And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.

 16 But it must needs be done in mine own ^away; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the ^bpoor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.

 17 For the ^aearth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be ^bagents unto themselves.

 18 Therefore, if any man shall take of the ^aabundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the ^blaw of my gospel, unto the ^cpoor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in ^dhell, being in torment.

"...that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low."

In context I believe that 'the rich,' by whatever gauge, are those who have enough and to spare of a given noun, and by the principle of stewardship are to give of their excess in humility, whereby they are made low, unto those who do not have enough. (Whether through an organization, or individually, is not part of this discussion.)

To cite some parables and events: the Loaves and Fishes, the rich man who built a barn to keep his goods then died, and so forth.

Another person in the class balked at this, saying that he had always understood this particular saying in context of equality, as I understand his thinking, that the rich are to be made low and therefore somehow equal to the poor.

I find little in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as I comprehend it, that is interested in 'equality' or 'fairness,' SAVE FOR making and keeping all men equal before The Law. The Gospel is based on Faith in Jesus as the Savior, Repentance, and interested in Justice, Mercy, and so forth through many other principles. All men are to be equal before those. "Love god and love your neighbor, on all these hang the law and the prophets."

The only other places I find 'equality' dealt with is where God promises to make man equal to the challenges he faces, Individually. Nothing at all about making one man equal with another.

Paul comes to mind in his discussion about about the gifts of the spirit and his metaphor about the parts of the body. There is nothing about equality, but rather about each having their own abilities and challenges to overcome.

Therefore it is to my understanding, an abject waste of time to worry about whether I am equal to others by this measure or that. Yes, God created all men equal, but He also foresaw the challenges and trials of each one, and equipped each one of us with access to the best tools He could to face and overcome the challenges. None of us have the same challenges, or therefor the same abilities. Further none of us will receive the exact same rewards. We will all receive "good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over" for our works. Yes we will all receive our penny for our days hire, but God's pennies vary as much as the level of difficulty for each of us, individually.

If I am missing something, I would like to be enlightened to it. What have I moved past too quickly? What experience have you had that would shed a different understanding on the principles I have addressed, that you are willing to share? Have I even said enough to make my puzzlement plain?

In closing I diverge from my subject some to a joke that amuses me.

A group of technicians and scientists and other learned men assemble and go before The Throne of God.
"God, we challenge you to a contest. We believe we can make a better Man than you can."
1. God smiled.
2. God spoke: O.K. Find your own dirt, and we will start.

Another 'Avengers' post.

Like the rest of the world, I recently saw the Avengers.

Two things stood out that I have not seen mentioned yet.

Scene: Agent Coulson giving Loki his 'the reason you suck' speech. (from IMDB-quotes)
 
Agent Phil Coulson: You're gonna lose.
Loki: Am I?
Agent Phil Coulson: It's in your nature.
Loki: Your heroes are scattered, your floating fortress falls from the sky... where is my disadvantage?
Agent Phil Coulson: You lack conviction.
Loki: I don't think I...
[Coulson shoots Loki with his BFG, causing Loki to be blown through the wall behind him]
Agent Phil Coulson: So that's what it does

I feel that this is an accurate description of why people need to have a central morality in their lives. As portrayed Agent Coulson did, 'truth, justice, and the old fashioned American way' to borrow from another superhero. Loki's central morality 'It's all for me.' This is evident in the conversation that Thor and Loki have, through out the whole movie.
As a callback, Thor understanding about this selfishness versus selflessness idea was one of the major character development points of his movie.

People like Agent Coulson are not hard to find these days, but they are generally derided for being naive and simple, and not being thoughtful or smart enough to grasp all the nuances of modern issues. Actually, I think they are that smart, but most of them also get one other insult thrown at them by pop-culture: they get called 'conservative.'

An echo of Agent Coulson's sentiment was The Old Man in Germany, standing up to Loki. It seams that the greatest lesson of World War II is 'there will always be men like that,' and so there will always need to be people who will stand up to them. Or maybe that is just the lesson of Captain Steve Rodgers.


The second point that stood out.
In his final scene talking to the World Security Council, Nick Fury tells them in so many words then that he is not interested in pursuing the Avengers for what they did in fighting off the invading army.
One exchange I was waiting for in that conversation would be as follows:

World Security Council: They need to be held accountable. They did over three billion dollars of damage to New York City. And that number is still rising. Hundreds of civilians dead, more missing, and thousands injured...
Nick Fury: That is cheep, compared to what YOU tired to do to it.

I was once in a school presentation, the guest-presenter being an USAF Colonel, who was talking about how bombing people in to submission is not how you solve problems. I quipped under my breath, but loud enough to be heard that 'it depends on the bomb.' The Colonel stomped on that. I am not an advocate for using 'the biggest stick,' but I have enough insight to understand that escalation is a real principle, and sometimes the enemy will push until only the nuclear option is viable. A moral and upright people will seek to use every other option first, but will not hesitate long to use the worst if it is necessary. Of course this is why such an array of weapons is had today: peace through strength is moral people having enough intermediate options available to bring the enemy to the realization of the untenable position of force of arms.
For a good example of this, the local Law Enforcement Officers carry a variety of force-options: Talking, pepper spray, a baton, a tazer, and a fire-arm. Most also carry a knife, and have hand-combat training, but the knife is used as a tool, not a weapon, preferring distance and their firearms to the close quarters of a knife fight.
Moral and upright people are not afraid of seeing armed men and women among them. The thoughtful recognize the various levels of force are a mercy against the villains, allowing the villains a place and time to repent, they just need to be smart enough to yield.

Back to the movie, the Avengers were a better force-option than the nuclear one. As the movie bears out, the nuclear weapon was the right tool for stopping the invasion, but not in the way it was initially intended. Boots on the ground proved that out.

I see a whole lot of the current issues of the day echoed through out this movie. The question is: which real world people do the individuals watching line up with which hero-world characters?

A part time job, but...

I have been working on an almost contract level for a local irrigation canal company, helping the Water Master to clear out the debris and so forth. In the last month we have probably removed several dozen cubic yards of tree limbs, leaves, and other non-degradable trash from the clean-outs along the length of the canal. That is just the canal itself, not the laterals that feed from it.

At the same time I have been doing this I have also been volunteering at the local library, shelving some books. This is leading to a part time job being paid to do the same, once I get through the training process. I don't expect to get paid a lot, and am still definitely under-employed, but since no one is hiring that I have seen any sign of for the things I have training for...

It has been nice to work outside in the sunlight and actually see at the end of the day that something has been accomplished. Shelving is not quite that fulfilling, but it is good to see the piles of books ordered and placed back in ready for further circulation.

The next thing to get doing is to get back to my writing and modeling. I have submitted a manuscript for going over, and actually expect it to be turned down, but I really hope in the process I get a proper critique on what to do to improve it (I hope this is not a pipe-dream).
I have been feeling that I should take the things I have been writing and doodling that are related, and post them on deviantArt and see what critique I get there.
Put to do that I need to get things ready to post.

No rest for the weary...
So how can I start making enough income from this to meet my needs, and pay my bills?

book report

I recently finished reading "The Israel Test" by George Gilder.
I cannot help but see familiar themes and ideas, and a few new ideas to pursue. Part of this is due to my religious instruction.

I see themes about the scattering and regathering of the House of Israel as prophesied and partially chronicled in the Old Testament and history in general.
I see aspects of the New Testament expression/symbols drawn from Old Testament ones: the Bride being the covenant people of God/the church/the House of Israel as represented by any of its constituent tribes; the Whore Of All The Earth being those who fight against the Bride, who Israel 'went a whoring after' in the Old Testament.
I see how God worked through remnants of His covenant people, wherever in the world they had gone to, to push civilization forward.

Gilder starts the book addressing an idea that is very much a subtext of my religious training. "The real issue is between the rule of law and the rule of leveler egalitarianism, between creative excellence and covetous "fairness," between admiration of achievement versus envy and resentment of it." (The Israel Test, pg 3, pp2)

I do not believe God has a problem with men prospering. I do believe He and has problem with man giving in to the temptations of the flesh and forgetting his fellows. I do not count the 'Seven Deadly Sins' as doctrine, yet they are profitable for study, and as a good demarcation of which side of above the argument you are on.

Gilder asks a few questions in his thesis as he start the book, to wit:
"What is your attitude toward people who excel you in the creation of wealth or in other accomplishment?
"Do you aspire to their excellence, or do you seethe at it?
"Do you admire and celebrate exceptional achievement, or do you impugn it and seek to tear it down?"
 (The Israel Test, pg 3, pp4)

In his summary of his conclusions at the end of the book, Gilder ties the future of Israel and the United States together, saying in so many words, that as one goes, so goes the other.

As I look around, I see that there are many who have been instructed to seethe and demand 'fairness' from those who prosper. "From each according to his means to each according to their needs." They say that is fair.
I say two points in response, but since neither would make a good sound bite it is nearly impossible to say them. First: I believe God is more concerned with Justice and Mercy, than he is with 'fair.' I will do my best to stand with and echo God in my own concerns that way. But since I am only a single puny man, I will resort to the prayer summarized as 'strength to change what I can, serenity to accept what I can not, wisdom to know the difference' and then let God handle the rest.
Second: to those who do not want to accept God's involvement, don't worry. He has a heaven set aside for you, where he will not be involved. '...In my fathers house are many mansions...' and all that, from The Savior. And from Paul on that same subject, '...one glory of the sun, and one glory of the moon, and one glory of the stars...' Though I believe we are saved from death and hell by the grace of Christ and will be resurrected, we are assigned to our mansions of glory by our works, for just as one person is more faithful than another, so also does God in his justice have a more glorious mansion for the more faithful. Those worried about 'fair' will get their fair share; if they want more, they will seek for more. I would hope they would abandon their childishness and demands for fairness, and start to work to improve themselves, while at the same time encouraging others to the same. "...the greatest of all will be the servant of all..."

I have read an interesting article on deviantART, by $techgnotic posted Mon Apr 3, 2012, that asks the questions:

As a writer, have you ever experienced being pressured to change an important part of a story, either at a prospective publisher’s or editor’s insistence, or simply because of a reader’s impassioned entreaties?

No, I have not, save in cases where the thing being written was for a grade in a class.

As a reader or viewer (of movies, TV shows, videogames, art, etc.) do you feel a sense of entitlement giving you the right to not only criticize but actually demand changes be made to a disappointing work?

No, I do not. This is firmly grounded in two ideas that come to mind: first that I know what reality is and have a firm disconnect between reality and fantasy; the second is of intellectual property rights – it’s not my place to tell the author what to do or not do, unless hired as an editor/collaborator.

Do you feel this entitlement is based in your great investment of both money and time in the work?  Or do you feel this entitlement is based in your great investment of your head and heart in a particularly resonant storyline?

I feel that anyone who is so invested in an idea that the idea/subject of the idea becomes an idol of worship/religion had really better check their gauge and disconnect between reality and fantasy. Further that unless there is an intellectual property rights issue or monetary issue at stake, than criticism may be given but the sense of entitlement is based on a false notion.

As a writer or visual artist, is the connection between you and your audience important enough for you to want to make a change pleasing to them?

Yes, but to a point. There must be a balance between pleasing the audience and pleasing one’s self. Commission pieces are done for the primary audience of whoever is paying for it. Most other work is done for the artist who is producing it. Pieces put out for public consumption require some awareness of the audience, and what will please them. However it is a true principle of always keep them wanting more. A counter-point principle is to end the story without any room for continuation.

As an online reader of Knite, Romantically Apocalyptic, or Off-White, is there an increased value or special connection you experience in being able to connect with the authors of your favorite works-in-progress and contribute your feedback?

I am not an on-line reader at this time, so I cannot answer in that regard. As for other works, I simply have not ever tried to give such feedback, viewing it as not necessary – the work is fiction, or a depiction of the person’s faith, so my criticism might only be needed on the level of improving the artist’s craft/skills, and I have not been interested in contributing to in that regard.

Does the ability to offer comments, suggestions, criticisms, and encouragement bond you creatively to a property in a way eclipsing passive fandom?

To some it may, but to me this bond moves in the direction of religious idolatry, and I prefer not to give that sort of energy of soul or bond to an idea or work.

Does Fan art and Fan Fiction created around an online story with author/reader interactivity become more of an integral part of the property than traditional offline fan art tributes?

That depends on the creator of the original/source work. One of the long standing unofficial rules is ‘the original creator is the God of the universe of the story(s) set there.’ If the creator is going to interact with his fan base and adjust his work accordingly, let him. If this extends to ‘canonizing’ work from outside his own efforts, that is his choice.

Personally, I have thus far had little interaction with online-works.

Offline there are works that have been abandoned by the original creator; some modern where the creator has simply moved on and refuses to interact with that work; some now public domain where the creator has died and the estate has let the copyright lapse. Some of these have been picked up and taken in new directions by fans.

A good real world example for this may be the estate of E.R.Burroughs which I understand holds the copyrights to most all of the authors works, and apparently also intellectual rights to creation of new or derivative properties. The Tarzan-rights have passed around from various comic- and movie- and even TV- studios. This has met with various levels of approval from the estate. Others of the ERB properties have not been let out, for whatever reason.

There are works that have not been abandoned. Of these there are some right’s holders who have forbidden meddling with the property; on-going properties may simply want to maintain the control and direction of where the work is going, and are utterly resistant to outside meddling, for whatever reasons; others simply do not want a finished work to be continued.

An example of non-abandoned work might be the ‘Star Wars’ body of work. George Lucas and his companies have maintained the property rights, yet they have also responded to fans in one form or another. The 501 Legion started as a fan-community, but it got canonized in “Revenge of the Sith.”

If you played ME3, how did you feel about the ending? TMNT or TANT?

I have not played, and cannot give any kind of opinion of any worth about ME3.

As for the Ninja Turtles, I would like to see them in their original published form, without the differing colors of head bands or belts, and where Splinter started out as an unusual rat instead of a human. None of the video-productions have done this that I am aware of.

I am left to consider whether to start publishing my works on deviantART. I wonder what kind of critique I might get from it. I do not feel that my art is up to professional/finished snuff, but my writing may get some of the feedback I have needed.

My largest underlying question is about intellectual property rights.