February 2016 - Blind Date

Emily:

In February I decided to do something I hadn’t done in a while, I went on a blind date. The person setting me up didn’t know me that well but luckily gave me some information about my options. There was one Gothic Horror option (no thanks) and one memoir about a girl from Afghanistan (I was worried about a Kite Runner repeat), and some other options I can’t remember (perhaps there’s a reason I didn’t choose them). Ultimately, I went with a mystery because a good mystery novel is like my homemade apple pie, I can’t say no.

“A Blind Date with a Book” was a cute display at our favorite store Bookman’s and I was totally sold. I spent forever looking at all of the options, wondering excitingly what each held. I know everyone says don’t judge a book by it’s cover, but I do. I also judge them heavily by the synopsis on the back. All of the books eager to on a blind date were beautifully wrapped and only had their genre, setting, and year published and a short tagline listed on the front. I think I would give a lot more books a chance if I had less information to make a decision on.

Unwrapping my mystery choice felt like a mildly exciting roller coaster ride--nothing too crazy, but still enough to make you want to ride it again. I do have to give my blind date book props though. The cover was interesting and the synopsis wasn’t bad, but I still don’t think I would have bought it on my own.

The Poison Tree by Erin Kelly balked mystery traditions by making it obvious from the beginning ‘who dunnit’. The problem is we don’t know what he did. That’s the mystery that Kelly craftly unfolds throughout the book--why our protagonist's husband is being let out of prison and why that makes the protagonist even more paranoid and neurotic. The suspense of the past and the present day kept me wholly engaged in the book. But, ultimately Kelly’s main character---whose perspective you see it all through was a major let down that ruin an interesting story.

I guess the downfall of this book is the main character. In the end, the book is about a girl who having never rebelled in her life decides to throw away her talents to hang with a crowd that fascinates her (that’s it, they have no other redeeming qualities--they’re just “interesting”). Maybe if there had been more substance behind her fascination, her decisions would have been more understandable. Instead, you painfully watch her throw her life away.

But despite the book being less than stellar, I would totally go on another blind date with a book. Maybe it’s the thrill of not knowing what kind of gem I’ll find or maybe that I’m expanding my horizons or maybe I just trust my local Bookman’s employees enough to trust they’ll put an amazing book in my hands one day.  

So, thank you mysterious date-setter for providing me with a wonderful experience despite my mediocre date. No many people can say that for a blind date.

Dallin:

Pictures from the month:

We played a game called Konexi which is basically a mix between scrabble and jenga.

We received an Oreganos gift card from my brother and sister in law. We got the stuffed crust pizza or something. It was a hefty pizza. We made it through about one and a half slices before we said uncle and then had leftovers for the rest of the week! Worried that we would exercise moderation, we proceeded to eat a pizookie, which is the glorious symbiosis of cookies and ice cream. 

I fell asleep on the patio

This felt like the longest February in years! 

I liked it.

Republicans and Democrats: What are your principles?

During the Bush administration, I am ashamed to admit that yes, I was sympathetic to the Patriot Act. I was accepting of the fact that the government was given the authority to gather foreign intelligence information from both U.S. and non-U.S. citizens.

Under Obama, however, I changed my mind completely and realized this was a terrible (and unconstitutional) idea. What changed? Simply put - the party. Consider this my official confession of my impervious, unprincipled partisan politics. Please don't be like me.

Those who have principles act in accordance with a predetermined set of rules even when doing so goes against your immediate self interest. They will just as readily admit to wrongdoing of their own side as well as their opponents because their bedrock isn't in the person or party.

When George Washington stepped down from office he shocked the world by voluntarily relinquishing power when absolute power was his for the taking. This world changing abdication set in place a historically anomalous precedent that was rooted in principle.

German Philosopher Immanuel Kant introduced the idea of universal law. "Morality must be a moral law conceived so abstractly that it is capable of guiding us to the right action in application to every possible set of circumstances." In other words, we should ask ourselves whether we can make our decisions universal law. If I lie, can I then say it's ok for everyone to lie?

The political climate in the United States has turned into one big game of "the ends justify the means". Obama has not only shown, but boasted, that he is willing and ready to go around Congress, and the principles of American governance, because his noble cause justifies the means.

Should the President be able to modify an existing law, such as Obamacare, for his political convenience? Should the IRS and EPA be used to attack political opponents. Those who support the President should ask themselves, should Donald Trump be allowed to justify his means this way?
We shouldn't care how worthy a politician's cause is, if they don't go about seeking change the correct way then they show an ambivalence, even antipathy, for democracy when democracy proves inconvenient.

Recent analysis at Pew Research Center indicates that 40 percent of millennials believe that the government should be able to stop citizens from making public statements that are offensive to minorities. The problem is this can't be turned into a principle because that requires that we define every little thing that is or isn't offensive. Who determines what is or isn't offensive? Should we just institute an authoritarian who will decree these things for us, or should we all just agree that the Founders of our nation were on to something when they added the First Amendment to the Constitution, thereby allowing everyone the right to say offensive things?

Today's political climate is increasingly turning into an exhibition of "what's in it for me?". Politicians have learned that by promising the moon, they can buy votes with the possibility of being in charge of deciding who are the beneficiaries because ss Thomas Sowell states "from a political standpoint, it makes perfect sense to gain the support of two different sets of voters, especially since most of them do not understand the full economic implications of the policies."

If the idea of taxing the rich was only a matter of giving to the poor, why not simply institute a flat tax at, let's just say, 80 percent? That's highly unlikely given that politicians benefit from a complicated tax code because it allows them to grant arbitrary favors and buy off constituencies. Adding layers of government inevitably leads to adding layers of corruption.

Those who sing the praises of socialism and centrally planned economies are merely advocating the shifting present corruption to a central entity which has no recourse or accountability. Do you think the government is going to put themselves in jail?

I'm about as anti-Trump as it gets, but I understand the rise of Donald Trump is a reaction to people feeling like they have their backs up against the wall. They see that those in power aren't willing to play by the rules anymore. If people no longer willing to abide, then compliance to our predetermined set of rules and founding principles becomes a losing strategy. This is why it feels like we're living in Bizarro Opposite Day World where "conservatives" who claim to support limited government are throwing their support behind a strongman whose solution to every problem is more government.

Personally, I would rather lose elections and retain my principles than become a political whore in the name of winning. The outcome does not excuse any wrong committed to attain it. Dystopias are a popular fiction, but I have to wonder if we were to see what the transition from now to Dystopia if it didn't look a little like what we're seeing now.

Our Founders pledged their lives to one another, vowing to fight and die to protect each other’s rights against a government that sought to control them. As Glenn Beck recently affirmed in his closing remarks at CPAC:

"Loyalty oaths should never be made to parties. This is far beyond Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, Tea Party, Evangelical or atheist. You don’t owe loyalty or an oath to any party that fails to defend these principles. And it definitely isn’t an oath to the Government. No, our loyalty and our dedication are owed to the Original Principals, to our God, and to each other.

Let me reiterate some of our Founding principles:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. That among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

No matter what comes our way we have nobody to blame (or commend), but ourselves.