Gay Marriage, again.

Normally I can't keep my mind on one thing for more than about three miliseconds, so I'm stumped why my thoughts have fixated on the problems with gay marriage since California's high court recognized that the Golden State is governed by the people.

I've been asked numerous times by liberal friends and enemies how two gay people tying the knot threatens my marriage.

I'm married, it's true. And it's also true that if Bob and Steve want to get hitched, my relationship with Esther remains largely unaffected. (She still wears the pants and runs the show, no matter what, if I know what's good for me.)

But, back to the thought-provoking question. Before I answer I want to point out a couple of things. First, the question assumes that I've asserted gay marriage will harm my marriage. And I haven't. (I'll explain in a bit). The second is that the question itself is illustrative of the narcissistic nature of society today.

Not once have I ever said or implied that if Bob and Steve get all fancied up, go to a preacher, exchange vows and kisses, and make a matrimonial life together, that my marriage would be ruined, or lessened, or depleted. Simply stated, it wouldn't. The covenants and vows I've made with God and Esther are in place regardless of changes in societal norms.

There are a lot of things that don't affect my relationship with my wife. Some examples include high gas prices, litter along the roadside, cigarettes, cancer, the AMC Pacer, and genocide. Just as these things have nothing to do with my marriage, gay matrimony occurs independent of my personal relationships.

I'm opposed to gay marriage -- not because of its effect on me -- because of the unknown effect on future generations of human beings. My thoughts on the relationship between family and society are not based on theory or concocted ideas. They're based on a strong religious belief I hold, that God has a plan for mankind, and that marriage is simply a first step to creating safe passage for the next generation, as part of that plan.

Marriage isn't the destination. It's the vehicle.

Marriage isn't about two people in love. It's about creating a stable environment for children.

Let's hypothetically tweak God's plan for a minute. Let's say that kids didn't happen because of romantic affection. Let's say that they didn't need parenting. They just sort of walk out of the woods and they already know how to eat and care for themselves. Relationships would develop, but there would be no mom and dad, or child. Just "other people".

Think through this, for a moment. Let's say the concept of "Mom and Dad" simply vanishes. There are no aunts and uncles, because those relationships pass through parents. And if there are no aunts and uncles, there are certainly no cousins. If there's no "mom and dad" then there are no siblings, because - by definition - siblings are relatives with common parents. There's no grandma and grandpa for the same reason. In fact, ALL of our true familial relationships exist because of our biological parentage.

I certainly understand that there are exceptions. Spouses die. Some get divorced involuntarily. Others are not able to have children. But a general pattern exists: man and woman are joined and they bring forth children.

Am I too far out there to make the case that nature's template -- the fact that we can concieve, bear, and rear children -- forced the necessity of an elevated level of commitment between the parents charged with nurturing those souls -- not so the parents could feel good and warm and fuzzy, but so their progeny would have the best chance at a happy and balanced life?

I don't think my wife likes this argument because it sort of points out that romantic love is a trick. It's God's way of tricking us into doing the right thing: having kids and staying together. I have to admit, it's a pretty awesome trick, but a trick nonetheless.

Those who see marriage simply as some kind of personal right, don't fully appreciate the broad implications marriage has on the future of humanity. Marriage will never successfully be a narcissistic assertion of personal liberty, because that contradicts the very nature of marriage, which requires a great deal of selflessness and sacrifice.

Same sex marriage ban upheld

If you care a whit what Neal Larson thinks, mark this prediction: Gay marriage will be legal in California within the next five years.

For conservatives believing in traditional marriage, yesterday's ruling by the California Supreme Court was cause for celebration. For those on the other side who believe marriage should be extended to gay couples, it was cause for outrage. But, relevant to my prediction, it was cause for mobilization.

Liberals never give up. Ever. So passionate are they about their cause, they are very good at directing their anger into activism. For reasons I don't fully understand, conservatives don't make good activists. Leftists do.

While right now, marriage defined as being only between a man and woman appears safe. The people passed a state constitutional amendment, and the state's supreme court is not inclined to interfere. This sense of safety, I predict, will spawn conservative complacency.

We'd like to think it's a brick wall. A dead end. A family-friendly cul-de-sac. It's at best a detour, if not just a speed bump for liberals.

Puzzling

Here's the link and video David in Ammon was talking about today... Just as telling are the comments afterward from traditional leftists who are seeing the Obama campaign was a big bait-and-switch scheme. It seems to be caving in on him.

ADD Friday

On Friday's show, we'll get specific about Monday evening's Memorial Day walk in Idaho Falls with organizer Michael Harris.

Plus, don't forget we have ADD Friday Trivia, and a whole lot more!

Credit Card Reform

Congress just passed a significant credit card regulation bill that would, among other things, place limits on raising interest rates and charging fees.

I'm not a fan of government regulation, but if we had to choose an industry to regulate based on slimy and slick practices, I admit credit card companies would be at or near the top of my list. If you've ever taken the time to actually read through all of the fine print on a credit card application, congratulations. You deserve some college credit, or something, for that. With that much fine print, you know they're up to something.

At any rate, I have one very simple idea that I threw past US Senator Mike Crapo. He liked it. Maybe you will too.

Instead of enacting intricate regulation, credit card companies should simply be required to disclose in simple, prominent, bold, and large print on every statement the amount of actual dollars the consumer has had or does have available vs. the amount the credit card companies have required from the consumer.

It's simple. Add up, over the history of the credit card account, all the cash advances, purchase amounts, and remaining credit on the card. Then contrast that with all the payments the consumer has made plus any outstanding balance. Two figures should be displayed very visibly on each statement.

Additionally, credit card companies would have to publish this ratio, collectively, of all open accounts.

If John Smith sees that he's purchased 500 dollars worth of items, taken out 300 dollars for a cash advance and still has two hundred dollars left in available credit, John will see that that credit card company has allowed him use of a thousand dollars. But, if John has already paid $1,000 making minimum payments, still has an $800 balance with only $200 credit available, he'll quickly see what exactly the credit card company is doing, and he, the consumer can make an educated and informed decision about what to do next.

This simple disclosure requirement will change consumer behavior, plus put pressure on credit card companies to offer more attractive products to consumers.

Judge slaps embezzler's wrist... with a wet noodle.

Here's the message now... Deliberately and methodically steal more than $150,000 from your employers over a number of years, and go to jail.

For four months.

And get out on work release during that time.

Word has it that our local chapter of the Embezzling Enthusiasts Club have already formed a Re-elect Judge Joel Tingey campaign.

Click here for the latest Neal Larson Show Parody...

Re-build the Teton Dam?

Local News 8 did a story on this a couple of days ago, and while it would be understandable for some locals to be apprehensive about rebuilding the dam -- which failed almost thirty-three years ago -- I have no doubt a new dam would be safe.

Think of the agricultural uses of having another reservoir, not to mention the boating and fishing.

What do you think?

Missing link no longer missing

Scientists say this is it:

I guess we can all stop believing in God now.

Meet Dave Roseberry

I can't decide if this guy is a stud, or desperate. He's well-educated. He'd say even too educated in this job market. He can't find work.

I admire the grit of a well-schooled man who would stand on the street corner advertising himself in a tough economy. But I don't know if this is his best option. (I guess with local media coverage, he's not doing too badly for himself.)

Perhaps he should hold a "Hot & Ready $5" pizza sign as well, and at least make a few bucks an hour doing it. If only it were tax season and he was willing to dress up like the Statue of Liberty...

At any rate, I hope this works for him. I believe the good jobs go to those who not only have their bases covered with education and good hygiene, communication, and people skills, but are also willing to think outside the box, show a little courage and humility, and make themselves seen and heard.

Dave Roseberry is certainly doing that and I wish him the best.

From Free to Fee

Most of us love the Internet. We use it to find movie listings, get the weather, read the news, watch videos, order merchandise, and a plethora of other daily necessities. Once we pay our ISP's to provide us with the Net, we want the rest to be free.

But, according to this Financial Times article, the current business model of most content providers isn't working. They're not making enough money on the advertising side to compensate themselves for the cost of providing their content on the consumer side.

The Post Register is like thousands of other papers across the country: in transition. As their traditional medium is becoming outmoded, they're working to find a venue to stay in business, but it's a risk to start charging for content in a cyberworld where most are accustomed to free.

Charles Darwin's survival-of-the-fittest model works well in capitalist America. The weak content-providers will fail, leaving more consumers to support the strong online companies, and the free model will be viable again.

So, on a Tuesday Neal Larson Show, we'll have a FlashPoll: Would you start paying for news and content on the Internet?

My prediction for the outcome will be an overwhelming "no" but we should have an interesting conversation about the future of the Internet.

Old Faithful pics catch peeing workers

Here's the site...

Rammell jumping to governor's race

A month ago, Rex Rammell awkwardly announced at a local tea party that he would attempt to unseat Congressman Mike Simpson. His announcement, of course, was met with mixed feelings. Perhaps it gave Rex a bit of a bitter taste in his mouth to have been booed by those he believes should be supporting him.

Now he's washing down that bitter taste with a change of mind. Recognizing a chink in Governor Butch Otter's armour after a contentious and politically costly legislative standoff over transportation funding, Rex has decided to abandon his congressional aspirations and pursue the governor's office.

Was this a good idea? In the moment, it may seem so. But I think it's a mistake for several reasons:

1. It appears opportunistic.

While Governor Otter may be vulnerable over losing some political capital and clout from the transportation staredown, few people like it when politicians take obvious advantage of a political situation. Whenever there's inter-party imbalance and division, the vacuum always gets filled, but it's usually by those who are either established, savvy, or both. Rex appears neither with this decision.

2. It appears reactionary.

Any viable congressional candidate deliberates extensively over the decision to run. Likewise, making the decision to end a congressional campaign is no small matter. But Rex made it look easy, combining both inside of a month, simply because there was what appeared to be a greener pasture close by.

3. It is short-sighted.

I conducted a FlashPoll on the program asking listeners who had voted for Governor Otter before, if he had lost their support during the legislative session. Overwhelmingly, the answer was "yes". Rex needs to know that outrage has a shelf life. The transportation funding insistence is Governor Otter's only real transgression with conservatives. In a year, it's a non-issue for most voters who will have tired of hearing Rex Rammell talk over and over about Governor Otter's transportation funding standoff, much like they tired of hearing about Jim Risch shooting Rammell's elk.

Mike Simpson on the other hand, has a number of votes that have angered many. Immigration, earmarks, environmental issues. Simpson has several weaknesses with the base, all of them ammo for a viable candidate, especially in a primary race.


I would have played it differently had I been Rex. Perhaps he should have leveraged the Governor's situation to bolster his congressional prospects, arguing that political power erodes commitment to conservative principles. To jump so quickly from one opportunity to another only draws attention to the weaknesses that have haunted Rex's political ambitions from the beginning.

Jealousy: Among the worst of human emotions.

Jealousy is a terrible thing.

I will preemptively tell you that I am taking the liberty of assuming the subject of this story rammed her car into her husband's car because she was jealous.

News reports say that Leticia Guerrero of Idaho Falls was arrested after she ran her car, multiple times, into her husband's vehicle. Had her husband been the only occupant, I would have assumed anger. Had her husband and three kids been in the car, I would have considered insanity as a motive. Her husband and three kids were in the car, but there was a fifth person, which makes jealousy the chief suspect of motivators.

It was her ex husband's new girlfriend sitting in the passenger seat.

I won't even begin to defend Leticia's actions. (I'm not sure why I feel like I can properly call her by her first name, other than to say perhaps I feel an odd kinship with her.) Some of us may have to hearken back to high school, or even junior high, to dust off the memory of romantic jealousy. The sad fact is that jealousy was powerful enough then that most of us can quickly dust off those memories.

I have a theory that we all have a little kid inside of us. A snot-nosed, greedy, tantrum-throwing kid who thinks he owns everything under the sun. If we don't get control of the inside brat, he takes over. He's particularly posessive of positive love and attention. Throw in a little drama, insecurity and co-dependence, and you have the recipe that can cook even the sanest of souls into a criminal.

Referring to my third paragraph, I want to revise my thoughts, mid-blog post. I eliminated anger and insanity as motives earlier. Actually jealousy is anger and insanity. And more. Sort of like when you mix two flavors -- say orange and chocolate -- you get a whole new flavor. Jealousy is a lot like that. It's not one single emotion. It's a mix of a few ugly ones.

Not that I'm a guy who thinks we should be easy on criminals, nor do I think a woman who would ram a car containing her three children has any reasonable excuse. But there's that little nugget of empathy inside me, created out of those dusted off memories, that gives me pause to consider the pain of a tortured soul driven to do something stupid.

What I hope will happen, which won't happen, will be that the husband will be so impressed by the intensity of this ex-wife's emotion that he'll ditch the new babe, ask for his ex to come back, make again the home intact, and give three scared kids a mom and dad they deserve.

But that's nearly as unrealistic as the little jealous brat inside all of us. But we can always hope.

Monday: Expert Network, Tuesday: Governor Otter

On Monday's NLS, it's the Expert Network. We'll have joining us Rich Cartney from Good Samaritan. Plus, we'll be discussing the legalities of gay marriage with local personal injury attorney Brent Gordon.

Then, on Tuesday's NLS, we'll hear from a post-legislative-session Governor Butch Otter. I'll ask him about this year's very contentious session, how it has affected him politically, and how his perspective as a governor has changed compared to his perspective as a lawmaker while he was in Congress. We'll also be hearing from Congressman Mike Simpson and US Senator Mike Crapo. A full Tuesday coming up on the NLS.

Shameless Promotion

So every morning team in the market seems to be shamelessly calling on listeners to vote on a poll at Idaho Falls Magazine. Since I really want to come in respectably I'm forced to do the same. Please consider casting your vote in my behalf!

Finding Balance

Swine Flu. Bank bailouts. Rising unemployment. The fight over gay marriage. California wildfires. Somalian pirate ships. Shaken babies. Education cuts. Rising taxes. Defecting Republicans.

Seems the things that can get us down get the most attention.

I'm no self-help, positive-attitude guru. Let me assert that disclaimer up front. But, what I am is a guy who struggles to find that balance, or at least try to exist in the same area code.

I think we're all concerned over the future. Gone, it seems, are the halcyon days that most of us enjoyed in childhood. We have requirements of parenting, bill-paying, church and community serving, spousing, and all the other things we do to try and make a life.

Too often forgotten is what Stephen Covey called sharpening the saw. LDS Church founder Joseph Smith called it unstringing the bow. I won't try to add my own version to the lexicon, but I do believe we need substantive detours that allow us a reprieve.

We all ought to create a safe harbor. A place where batteries are recharged, overburdened spirits are rested, and no adversarial or burdensome influence is allowed. We all need at least a little dose of Hakuna Matata.

My last year and a half of in college I had three kids, a demanding church calling, worked more than full-time, and somehow managed to earn 59 credits during that time. How? Balance. I made sure that I had resting periods. I would study for two hours, then take a 15 or 20 minute break doing whatever I wanted -- walking around the library, eating a Snickers bar, napping. I made sure all my school assignments were done when I left the library so when I was home I was husband and father. Those resting periods -- along with some help from above, I'm convinced -- were more valuable than you can imagine.

I'm not sure why I felt inclined to write this today. Maybe it was just for my benefit. Perhaps someone will pull something of value from it. But find brief, regular, healthy, and frequent escapes and you will be able to accomplish more than you know.