So, how do you think each of them did?
How could they have done better?
Did you change your mind concerning any of the candidates?
Who did best? Who did worst?
What was the biggest gaffe of the evening?
I’ll add my comments soon, as the discussion kicks in.
(Editors’ note: this is the first of what we hope will be literally thousands of posts by the great Daniel Bartholomew, who needs no introduction, except to say he’s been blogging about Mormon subjects for many years.)
Yeah Samake is a convert to the LDS Church, a BYU graduate, mayor of Ouelessebougou and a candidate to become president of Mali in 2012. You can find his website here.
On the “About Myself” portion of his website is written an interesting tidbit about how Yeah Samake allows some of our common religious terminology to enter into his political work:
Samake has instituted a council of tribal elders, what he likes to call his “Elder’s Quorum,” where each village sends two trusted elders to the council. It keeps leaders accountable and has become an agent of communication to the communities.
So, along with the two Mormons seeking to be a presidential candidate here in the United States, LDS people should also pay attention to how the presidential race in Mali goes for brother Yeah Samake. Good luck to him!
I was in an MSHA class this week and one of the subjects is a Federal laws passed called “miner’s rights.” Essentially its a law that guarantees that a company cannot fire or harass a person if he or she, in good faith, refuses to work in an unsafe environment. Likewise, the laws protect a person if they file a complaint on their company, or testify against their own company in a court. The instructor of our class mentioned that he had testified in court against his own company 8 times and has filed complaints against his own company 4 times and that he had no fear of reprisal due to these laws.
I confess I think laws like Miner’s Rights are a good thing. In fact, I think they are a great thing. Laws like Miner’s Rights is one of many reason why I can’t be an ideological Libertarian. From a purely ideological point of view, Libertarianism believes that government (and therefore laws) should only provide enforcement of contracts, punishments for people that performed an initial use of force, or for country defense. Sometimes they do throw in some very limited public goods. Sometimes they claim there is no need even for government owned fire engines and that the private sector can handle it better.
Such a philosophy would be against “Miner’s Rights” on the grounds that it’s unnecessary because capitalism will create equivalent or better regulations and environments on their own without government interference. For example, the mining companies will be forced to introduce their own superior safety standards and create their own ‘miner’s rights’ that they enforce internally because it’s the only way they can get the best talent to work for them. If they don’t, they can’t compete and they go out of business.
I confess, I just don’t believe it. Continue reading
No speech has ever stirred the American people so much as Patrick Henry’s “Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death” speech. No matter if I see a professional orator perform it with eloquence, or a young child reciting that speech, it touches my heart with goodness and purpose. The United States of America was built upon these two feelings and Patrick Henry’s speech.
Henry’s cry for liberty started a world wide movement toward governmental freedom, spiritual freedom, and personal freedom.
Liber, Liberty, and Freedom
What is liberty? Years ago I attended a seminar called “The Liber” by a professor named Dr. Shannon Brookes. Dr. Brookes explained that before books and parchment, there was tree bark. Only a few people in each community could read or write the tree bark documents they had. At the time tree bark was the most logical, and simple method of communicating for business, politics, and religion with other communities of people. The word for tree bark is liber, and the people who were privileged enough to learn how to read it, write on it and speak what it said to the community were called “Liber” as well. Continue reading
For a reason that is hard to understand, there have been Mormons that are impressed with how a short CNN web segment explains the Mormon religion. They might not agree with everything on the video, but the respect for it runs strong. Perhaps Mormons are grateful for any perceived neutral or positive presentation of the religion. Perhaps they are happy for any secular mention considering the lack of outraged response to the blasphemous and disgusting “Book of Mormon” musical. A growing and influential religion deserves better than what has come out of obscurity, although a lack of respect and understanding about religion in general is part of today’s society.
The short report by CNN religion editor Dan Gilgoff is bad enough to deserve a critical review. This isn’t even “Mormonism for Dummies,” but just dumb. It doesn’t touch on more than the most basic of basics; some of that only half of the information necessary for understanding. There isn’t much detail to go into to pull from, but that is part of the problem. Superficially it might not have been wrong, yet so far as contexts and relevance it leaves out a lot of important information. This hampers its worth for those who want to know more. Continue reading