Randomizer Vol. I

A few thoughts that have been stirring about in my head recently...

• Why do Mormon Democrats disregard 80% or more of what President Benson said whenever it regarded politics?  Yes, he wrote some books expressing personal views, yet he spoke on plenty of occasions in his official capacity as a prophet and apostle concerning Constitutional issues.  How can one disregard addresses given in General Conference, at BYU devotionals, or other forums where the audience was the Church in general and the remarks prepared under the mantle of his divine calling?  Do these people realize he was actually given a blessing, by a prophet, to be given the gift of Constitutional and political perception that would be necessary for our time?  President David O. McKay, in his role as prophet, gave President Benson this blessing, and not as a personal blessing, but with a specific and divinely appointed purpose.  I'm not saying that everything he said is right or true, but not everything he said can be brushed aside either.
• Progressivism, the Constitution, and the Book of Mormon.  This one is quite simple, really.  Progressives generally believe in a very liberal interpretation of the Constitution, if they still believe it at all.  Social justice and other factors have changed society so much that we just can't interpret it literally anymore, 250 years of progress has simply removed us from that time and ushered in a new era of progressive politics.  So if I am to apply the same logic to the Book of Mormon or Bible, why even read them at all?  We're 2000 years, not a mere 200, from the days that those words were written.  Yet we still read the words as they were written then, not as they are reinterpreted today.  We still value the meaning, intent, and emotions of the original authors; we don't supplant them with the ideas of those that have come long after.  If I want to understand the Book of Moroni, I can't do it by reading all the commentary on Moroni while ignoring his own words.  Likewise, if we want to understand the Constitution, we must read more from the writings of those who actually wrote it, not those who interpreted it decades or centuries after the fact.  In so doing, we can find that most debates of today have already been settled by the framers of our Constitution themselves, and often in ways that directly conflict with what has been deemed the socially mandated interpretation forced upon us by social justice.  General Welfare an open ended clause to do anything that seems good?  Wrong.  And so on...
• Can't we agree that Democrat vs. Republican isn't armageddon?  It isn't good vs. evil, or right vs. wrong.  It's one parties' views versus another's.  It's a divide with good and bad people on both sides.  And let's agree that, frankly, most people on both sides generally want the same thing--a better America, a prosperous people, and so on, we just disagree on HOW to accomplish that.  I'm sick of liberal rhetoric being flung at me that I'm somehow callous to the plight of the poor because I generally support Republicans, all of whom are apparently rich, privileged white guys.  Or the rhetoric that Republicans are somehow opposed to helping those in need because they want to reign in entitlement spending.  Come on, people.  Really?  I'm not a fan of social security so I must not care about the elderly?  You mean if the government doesn't do it, no one will?  You mean....people don't actually care enough about people to step in and help?  Did you know that before there was government sponsored unemployment insurance, many communities in the 19th century actually created their own community form of unemployment assistance?  On a completely voluntary basis, yet still with the participation of virtually the whole community, people voluntarily contributed their money so that it could be donated to fellow townspeople who had to miss work or lost their job altogether.  Government can help people, yes, but people can help people, too, and it doesn't have to be the exclusive right of one over the other.  There can be a balance, but it must be in supportive harmony, not a domineering cacophony of overwhelming proportions that our current entitlements have become.
• Vanilla ice cream.  Pure.  Simple. And always waiting for me in my grandma's freezer as a boy, as I was the "Plain Jane" grandson who didn't like all the crunches, stripes, chunks, and other flavorful additions that all other ice cream's had. 
• What's with George Lucas' hair?  It's like he has a God complex or something.  How could anyone in their right mind actually style their hair in some wafting Old Testament fashion when it is as white and silky as that?  Then again, I've seen most of George Lucas' recent work, and can confirm that he is not in his right mind.