ThomStratton.com

…and good viewing. Derek Hough of “Dancing With the Stars” and “Footloose” fame helped Lindsey Stirling with a music video recently. Looks like she returned the favor. This appears to be Mr. Hough’s first video effort on YouTube, too, which makes me wonder if, while shooting her music video, he and Lindsey didn’t also talk a lot about the music video business. Hey, why not? This video had good energy and good dancing. I’ll watch his next one, too, with or without Lindsey, and see what I think.

The freeway I usually take to work has been under construction for the past half a year or so. When I found out it was coming I was dismayed. There are two main freeways that take you north in Salt Lake City, and both get pretty darn crowded. Having one shut down for long periods of time was going to make getting home next to impossible.

That hasn’t happened. Some near-genius planners have managed to keep most of the lanes open during peak hours, and some hard-working crews have been building road, ramps, and bridges in record time. For the most part my commute is only taking about ten minutes longer than usual. Well done, guys!

This could all change come winter, of course. Add a little snow and ice, coupled with serious lane re-directions at significant speed, and this could be a recipe for total nastiness. I hope not. But it’s a eighteen month project, so it’s inevitable we’ll be facing some terrible weather at some point, and that can shut down the freeways regardless of construction.

But for now I have to give a big shout-out to all the people responsible for the I-215 renovations. Good job, guys! You’ve managed to make what could have been a bad situation and made it only mildly inconvenient. I’m impressed and grateful!

Here’s a group of boys that won in the much more important game. The idea had to start somewhere, and whomever started it changed a lot of lives for the better.

https://youtu.be/vUhCucpRuX8

Trigger warning: I discuss politics here, though mostly on a high level, and without naming names.

Popular wisdom is that voting third-party in an election is wasting your vote. I’ve decided that even if that’s true, which it’s not, I don’t care any more. When the first- and second-party options are so horrible, the only hope is to try to change the system, and that requires refusing to play by “the rules.” Remember, political parties have failed before. That’s why your choices today aren’t between the Whig party and the Democratic-Republican party (yes, I know the two parties didn’t even exist at the same time).

Can you imagine if Coke and Pepsi tried to convince you all that they’re the only two drinks that matter and that buying anything else is wasting your money? Or McDonalds and Burger King?

As for wasting your vote, I’ve been wasting my vote for years. Living in Idaho and Utah, it’s almost guaranteed that my vote will make no difference in the outcome. And really when you think about it, in any election, once a candidate has the 50%+1th vote, any votes beyond that are technically wasted. Seriously, how are any of the winner’s excess votes any less wasted than any third-party votes, or votes for the losing main-party candidate? The only votes that really matter were the votes that put the winning candidate over the top.

I know, presidential elections are more complicated than that. But let’s face it. All the polls tell us the main-party candidates this time around are the least popular candidates of all time. If there was ever a time for third-party candidates to steal the show, now is the time. They don’t have to win. They just have to do well enough to keep the main two from winning. Heck, they just have to do well enough to get the main two parties to take notice.

But even if there was no chance that voting third-party would ever change anything, I would still vote third-party this election. There is simply no main-party candidate I can feel good about voting for. Neither of them are good people. I see social media wars being waged trying to prove which candidate is less reprehensible, and that strikes me as wrong. We should be looking for someone we can feel good about, and if that person is not even on the ballot that doesn’t mean we should give in and vote for horrible people.

Of course that means that horrible people are going to win. Unless enough of us decide we’ve had enough and start voting for good people, neither party will ever feel a need to put forward a good person as a candidate. But so long as we continue to play the game by the main-parties’ rules, they will keep winning and we’ll keep getting horrible candidates. As long as they can keep talking us into a “lesser-of-two-evils” mentality in choosing our officials they’ll have no impetus to change.

And why do they deserve our votes, exactly? They continually fail to present good candidates. We shouldn’t continue to reward them with a “I-dislike-the-other-guy-more” vote.

I’m not going to tell you who I intend to vote for. If you really care to know, contact me privately. But if you really find yourself having difficulty voting for either of these two reprehensible beings on the verge of becoming the most powerful person in the world, I urge you to consider not playing by their rules any more. Vote third party. If enough do it, we can make a difference. And really, can any of the main parties say anything differently? If enough people didn’t vote for them, their candidate would lose. And often that’s what happens.

I would like very much to see 2016 be the year the third-party candidates’ collective votes were higher than either one of the main-party candidates. That would send a major wake-up call to both parties, even if one of them still won. It could happen. And if everything I read from people on my social media feeds is true, there are a lot of us who would like to see it happen. So…let’s do it.

Because it’s Friday, here’s some slow-motion underwater explosions. You’re welcome.

And they’ve got a bridge to sell you.

Continuing my series of “Why Should Anyone Care What I Think?”, I thought I’d weigh in on Colin Kaepernick.

He’s free to say what he wants. He’s free to protest peacefully however he wants.

The team that hired him is free to support or criticize or fire him over his protesting while wearing their jersey and thus representing the team.

The supporters of that team are free to voice, increase, or withdraw that support in response to that team’s decisions concerning Kaepernick’s choice of speech-while-in-jersey.

Everyone is free to think what they want about the whole thing. They are free to flood Facebook with oversimplifying meme pics trying to equate this with…well whatever they want, regardless of how intelligent of foolish.

Colin Kaepernick is also free to claim that Hillary is a racist, even if that makes some of his previous supporters abandon him.

Donald Trump is free to suggest Kaepernick leave the country if he doesn’t like it here.

Colin Kaepernick is free to suggest Donald Trump leave the country if he doesn’t like Kaepernick. (He hasn’t said this, to my knowledge.)

Notice a trend yet? There’s this thing called Freedom of Speech, and within certain specific limitations, it means everyone is free to say what they want, no matter what others think about it.

The people of Charlotte and San Diego are free to protest. They are not free to threaten and endanger lives, destroy property or riot.

When protesters do threaten and endanger lives, we are all free to speak against them–and police are free to arrest them for any laws they break. Anyone they threaten or endanger has a right to defend themselves.

University professors, tweeting on their own accounts on their own time, are free to speak against unlawful protest and the rights of victims to defend themselves. And people are free to get upset about it if they feel the professor’s remarks are inappropriate. He is free to apologize and attempt to clarify his remarks–or not to do so. The university that employs him is free to investigate the incident and determine if there is any cause for action. It’s even better when the law department for which that professor works finds that his remarks were indeed protected by the First Amendment. They are free to be alarmed by those remarks, even while protecting them, and are free to say so.

In every case above everyone is acting within their rights. The First Amendment continues to work–at least in these cases mentioned. And you are free to disagree with that, and voice your opinion as you see fit. You are even free to call me an idiot. And I’m free to agree with you, or even beat you to it.

We now return you to your life. Really folks, nothing to see here. Situation as it should be. Continue with your lives. Or change. That’s also entirely up to you.

**I’m speaking about religious experiences again. If this bothers you, tune in tomorrow for some nice, safe political discussion instead. 😉 **

Every six months, the first weekends of April and October, our church has a general conference for all members around the world. This isn’t exactly easy, considering we’ve over 15 million members in nearly every country in the world. As many as can are invited to watch live as the five separate sessions are beamed by satellite around the globe. Others will watch it online sometime after the fact, and still more will receive the transcript of all the addresses in a magazine sent out the following month.

Each conference is a series of talks, music and prayers. Speakers are selected by the First Presidency, the governing body of the church, but not assigned any particular topic. Each speaker prayerfully selects a topic and then prepares their remarks around what they feel we all need to hear. The intent is to help us all deepen our devotion to Christ, learn to be better disciples, and generally encourage us to keep going in an increasingly hostile world.

I look forward to these conferences almost as much as Christmas. Receiving encouragement and instruction from the leaders of the church gives me a tremendous boost. We are also encouraged to prayerfully consider some questions prior to the conference and then look for answers to those questions in the 30+ talks that will be given. I decided to try it this time, and the results were interesting.

One thing I need to explain first is that our church believes in continuing revelation. We have a prophet and apostles who receive revelation for the church, but we also are entitled to revelation for ourselves and our families through the Holy Ghost, in accordance with John 14:26: “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”

So even if the speakers may not specifically address our questions, we believe that the Holy Ghost can whisper thoughts to our minds while we are in the more spiritual mindset induced by listening to the conference addresses. Or he can help us make connections between what is said and our own situation that the speaker could not possibly have anticipated or even intended.

Either way, I have to say it works. Or at least I believe I got my answer. I won’t go into detail, as we also believe such divine inspiration is sacred and not to be treated lightly. But there is a particular weakness that’s been brought painfully to my attention lately, and I’ve been looking for advice on how to overcome it. During one of the very first addresses given a particular idea jumped out, along with the thought that this was my answer. It’s an interesting answer, too, as the connection between my problem and what I feel I need to do about it is not readily clear. It’s going to require some faith on my part, though to be honest, even the most obvious answers require faith if we’re to actually implement them. One form of faith is acting, even when the outcome is not self-evident.

Over the rest of the conference there were numerous addresses that built on that answer, giving me further guidance on how to bring about the change I need, and assuring me that yes, indeed, that was my answer.

I always enjoy the peace that comes into my heart and our home during the two days of General Conference. I love the reassurance that comes that I can become a better person. I enjoy the feeling of love I feel from church leaders through their encouragement and gentle prodding to do better. These are the moments I wish others could experience, the feelings I wish they could feel. Then they would understand why I believe the way I do and belong to the church I belong to.

Now there’s another six months before the next conference. At the moment I’m still experiencing that high, but eventually it will fade, and I’ll need to reinforce the feelings I’ve felt with new experiences. But I’m always glad for these regular oases in the middle of a troubled world. And I’m glad that the people behind the scenes already have every one of the talks converted to mp3 so I can listen to them again. I’ll need that reinforcement as I move forward, implementing the answers I received in the hope of becoming a better person.

The Debate: The Debate was pointless. I suppose for those who’ve somehow managed to avoid the headlines for the past year this could be considered a quick summary of “our story so far”, but nothing new came from it. They spent the bulk of their time attacking one another’s character, and when they did actually provide any thoughts on the issues they spouted platitudes and high-level goals. Both want to defeat ISIS. Both want to repair the damaged relationships between police and the communities they serve. Both want to create jobs. And not one of them gave much detail on how they would do any of that.

Hillary and Trump and Businesses and Taxes: Hearing two rich people argue over taxes as a high-level moral issue is sad. If Trump has done anything illegal to avoid paying taxes then that should disqualify him. In the mean time, he runs a for-profit company who, regardless of what he does, is paying income tax, sales tax, property tax, payroll tax, and probably some sort of tax under Obamacare. Directly or indirectly, he is putting a lot of money into government coffers. If he’s not paying any personal tax it’s because the tax laws allow it. To complain about it is like complaining about Hillary’s motorcade driving right at the speed limit, not slower. If it’s legal, it’s legal.

Hillary (and most of her family) gets the bulk of her money through her non-profit foundation. Non-profits are set up to avoid paying many of the taxes a for-profit company pays. She’s evidently making quite a bit of money from this non-profit, and from what I’ve heard, she pays a high percentage in personal taxes on that money. So what we seem to have (and I doubt it’s true that Trump has paid no taxes for the past twenty years, but even if so, it’s either legal or he’s broken the law) is one candidate that pays a lot of local, state and federal taxes through their business, but may be trying to pay as little as legally possible on his own income, while the other candidate seeks to avoid paying taxes through their business, while paying their personal taxes without a lot of maneuvering.

None of this says anything about either one of them. All it really says is that our tax code may be screwed up. But if we don’t like rich people avoiding taxes we can’t really blame them. Avoiding taxes happens at all levels of income. I have a financial advisor and an accountant that help me avoid paying more taxes than I legally have to. So we can deduce from all of this that both Trump and Hillary avoid taxes in their own way.

The “Other people do it” defense is no excuse: I’ve even caught myself in this one–or rather my wife did. I hear from every side of politics that we’re fed up with the way things are. We want to improve our political discourse. We want honest, accountable politicians. And yet what’s the first thing we do when someone on “our side” does something distasteful? We look to excuse them by looking for all the times when “the other side” did something similar.

And we’re surprised that this is the state of politics in our country? We keep drawing the line lower and lower, and yet are puzzled when people keep coming right up to the line instead of backing farther away from it. It’s a rare person who will refuse to do something that other people are doing and getting away with–and gaining an advantage from. If we really want to improve things we need to be willing to hold our own accountable and continually draw the line higher and higher.

Until then, pulling out the “Yes, but they did it” excuse is really just an admission that “I’m just as bad as they are and I have no moral authority on this matter–if any.”

Words are permeable and open to interpretation: All this stupid back-and-forth taking words out of context is dangerous, and taints everyone who tries it. Everyone knows–or should know–that language is an imprecise vehicle for communicating complex information. It’s also the best thing we’ve got. And let’s face it, unless we want everyone to start talking like a lawyer, we should learn to cut each other some slack. Stop rushing to interpret someone’s words in the worst possible light.

Stop taking every little point as “The Definitive Statement” on the subject. Did Hillary really mean it when she called everyone in America racist? Did Trump really say he was smart for cheating on his taxes? No, and no. For Hillary to spell out exactly who she feels is racist, and how much, would take the entire time allotted for the debate–and still open herself up to misinterpretation. Trump did not admit to cheating on his taxes, only paying as little as possible. And as any businessman will tell you, it’s smart business to find ways to legally pay as little taxes as possible, because every other business is doing the same thing. On top of that, the government is regularly extending tax cuts as incentives to encourage certain things, so they are in the business of encouraging people to pay lower taxes, are they not? Is it not smart to take advantage of what the government incentivizes?

We need to stop yelling “GOTCHA!” every time someone oversimplifies a point or stumbles over their tongue–and let’s face it, both candidates uttered phrases throughout the night that were truly cringe-worthy examples of brains not working perfectly. I saw plenty of people who thought they were so smart for catching Trump in making up the word “braggadocious”. Well, by the strict standard we impose on anyone who communicates publicly these days, every one of those people are now unfit for office. And we wonder why better people don’t run for office. Who in their right mind wants to have to think carefully for five minutes before opening their mouth, afraid of saying something too simply or without acknowledging all the possible ways it could be misinterpreted or misrepresented? (And five minutes would never be enough time!)

This one point alone convinces me that America is getting the candidates we deserve.

Politics is more important than sports: Politics in America has become an extension of our devotion to sports. We pick a team, and we love ’em when they’re winning, and defend ’em when they lose. We also criticize the other team as a matter of course, because no matter how bad our team plays, the other team is always undeserving of any success. Meanwhile we’re up in the stands waving our signs, shaking our foam fingers, and painting our faces, completely convinced that it’s our displays of devotion making all the difference down there on the field.

Have you ever seen a sign in the audience that makes a clear, compelling case for a team’s superiority? “Go Broncos!” Uh yeah, that’ll do it. “Go Vikings, cut the Cheese!” Ooh, sophisticated debate! “Manning is The Man!” Except when he loses, then he’s The Goat.

By the same token, I’ve yet to see anyone change their political opinions over a meme-pic, and rarely from an article from an unabashedly partisan content source (I’d say news source, but so little is actual news these days, while commentary is continually passed off as news). The only times I’ve seen anyone modify their position even a little is when people have taken the time to politely communicate their perspective and context. We change minds by making connections, by communicating, not by cheerleading and banner-waving.

Politics, whether we like it or not, is important–much more so than sports. And yet we can’t seem to break out of treating our politics like we do our sports. We are not forced into backing only one team. There is no virtue in “backing our team” even when they screw up, nor is there nobility in hating the other team regardless of any merit they display. If anything, this entire “team” mentality is increasingly part of the problem. Both sides have found their “wedge issues” by which they hope to keep as many people on their side of the line as possible. They regularly make sure we know that “you can’t support X, because they believe in Wedge Issue Y, and if they’re in office they’ll end all life on earth if they can!”

If we must treat politics like sports, let’s make it more like Fantasy Football, where we draft players based on their own individual stats rather than the team they play on in real life. We need to look at who is more thoughtful and wise in their approach to governance rather than how loyal they are to the team. We might then be able to lure better candidates into politics–people who are willing to hear all sides and look for the best path forward instead of pleasing the “team’s owners.”

In the mean time, could we stop treating social media like every day is Game Day?

Okay, that’ll do for now. </rant>

I guess I’m out of it, as usual. Is pumpkin spice really becoming so prevalent? I’ve only seen it in a few places. But then I’m not really looking. Anyway, it does make for a good parody…