Rocky Mountain Straight Talk

With self esteem being the most aggressively touted attribute in modern society, why do we still have so many people who hate themselves? Remember when Madonna published a book filled with pornographic pictures, in which she was the star? A well known psychologist (whom I respect) looked at that book and said that it showed an extreme depth of self-hatred. What makes a famous performer with great talent hate herself, and why would she expose her troubled personality so blatantly?

Where does it start? Are the parents at fault? If so, why do three children in one family like and respect themselves, and one hate and abuse himself? It happens all the time, and everyone knows it. There is usually one child in a family whose character and behavior patterns are more constructive than the rest, and one whose patterns are more destructive. Why? No one knows all the answers to this tough question, but it helps to realize that each of these four children has a distinct personality and behavior patterns. They have their parents and home in common, but everything else is separate. Every attribute they bring to their parents and home is different than that brought by their siblings. Some bring overwhelmingly positive attributes and others overwhelmingly negative attributes, and the parents have to try to make sense out of this crazy quilt of personalities, character patterns, talents and weaknesses.

And guess what? The parents bring their own personalities, character patterns, talents and weaknesses to this wondrous collection. Depending on your own personality, it's enough to give you either a headache or a sense of wonder and awe. To quote the kids, it's awesome!

How did good American families of a century or two ago keep most of their kids flying right? And contrary to the vehement denials of modern thinkers, they did. For one thing, each family member knew what his job was and usually had to work very hard, in order for the family to have enough to eat. A youngster who rises before dawn and works hard all day, after which he spends a considerable amount of time cleaning and sharpening his tools for tomorrow, has little time or energy left for either making or getting into trouble. Daughters worked just as hard as sons, but primarily under Mother's tutelage. Dad was in charge, and he kept the kids in line. More to the point, it was his job to keep the kids in line, and if he didn't, he was a poor parent, and everyone knew it. The training an 1796 father received was exactly the opposite of the training a 1996 father receives.

Today's fathers and mothers aren't supposed to be too firmly in charge, because such parents are labeled controllers; that's supposed to be bad for the kid's emotional health. So, too many modern parents, confused about how much controlling is too much, don't control enough; they let their kids rule the roost. That's bad for both their kids' and society's health.

Another fact: Until the last few decades, families tended to remain intact; single parent families were almost always the result of death, rather than divorce. The children in such a family didn't have to contend with battles between divorced parents, as do so many of today's kids. Kids can't be expected to handle such conflict very well, especially if one or both parents tell them that the other parent is unfit, or even coach them to accuse the other parent of abuse.

Another extremely disturbing problem is modern parental abandonment of children to the school or the "village." Schools don't do a good job of rearing kids. They do some educating, depending on the skill, commitment and philosophy of the teachers and administration, and they do some indoctrinating, again, depending on the philosophy of the teachers and administration, but they don't make good parents of someone else's children. More to the point, they shouldn't have to be parents to other's children. As Abraham Lincoln said (slightly paraphrased), "It's a teacher's job to learn 'em," and while it is a teacher's job to "learn 'em," it is not a teacher's job to parent them.

Another peculiar thing in modern American culture is the deliberate baiting of kids to defy authority, especially parental authority. This is being done by our culture, in general, and segments of our entertainment industry, in particular. For about three decades, the words to teen's songs have encouraged rebellion and defiance, and the themes of teen's movies deify rebels and encourage violence. Partying, with drugs, booze and sex, is represented as the ultimate in enjoyable activities.

There is an over-riding theme to all of these self-destructive activities, which is that having fun should be at the top of everyone's list, because life is short, and when it's over, it's over. Work all week, if necessary, in order to collect the means to have fun all weekend; in a nutshell, eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die, and if we die of an overdose, it doesn't matter, because everyone has to die of something. There are no consequences, and the only reason people don't indulge in these activities is because they are too old or too fearful, and, therefore, deserving of nothing but contempt.

To those parents who doubt: This is the message your youth receive, on a daily basis. Is it any wonder they foul up their lives with drugs and disease? We harp constantly on self esteem, while neglecting to tell our kids that self-esteem has a price. Though its secondary price is, indeed, accomplishment, its primary price is adherence to one's own code of honor, which is really nothing more than a bone-deep knowledge of right and wrong. Even if we hate that code and do everything we can to prove that we have rejected it, it can and will extract its pound of flesh in selfhatred, as it has with any number of celebrities across the globe.

Until next time,

I know a man who has indulged in just about every self-destructive act he could think of. He used to be the most miserably unhappy man around. After many years of this dumb-headed lifestyle, he married a good, patient woman who had high standards and lived up to those standards.

As a result of his marriage, he dramatically improved his behavior; unfortunately, though he was less unhappy, he still had a long way to go. After several years, she became pregnant, but he was still an unhappy man, as both a person and a husband. The baby was born, and the man seemed to improve a little more, but he still had a long upward climb, so far as his behavior was concerned. He seemed unable to escape his old friends and his and their old lifestyles, and he seemed, equally, unable to attain any significant degree of happiness.

He got a job with a good company, and, in a few months, they transferred him to another part of the country. An astonishing thing happened; in a new environment, with new friends, he began to clean up his behavior and become more the man his wife had always known he could be. As he made significant changes, he began to experience some degree of happiness. That small taste of joy not only gave him a vision of how things could be, but it gave him the hope and determination to strive for greater joy. The result has been nothing short of astonishing. He has begun to discover that fulfillment comes from within, whereas, in the past, he had always been convinced that if others would treat him more fairly, he would be happy. Now he has found that if he is to enjoy life, he must continue to develop his internal capacity for contentment. He must learn to appreciate the good people and things he has right under his nose, and he must cease to even consider the use of stimulating activities and substances as an option in his quest for happiness.

Many people depend on others for their internal sunshine, because they have a very limited capacity for happiness. Let's face it; a capacity for happiness is an internal strength and the lack of that capacity is a critical, internal weakness, and while a person who has lacked it, in the past, can develop an internal strength, it can never become external. By that, I mean that no other person can ever take over a job that is intrinsically yours. You are, and must always remain, responsible for your own happiness.

I have known people who have married many, many times. Such people can and do experience a feeling of exhilaration when a new "mate" comes on the scene, but the emotional excitement rarely lasts very long. Therefore, they are forever searching for someone else who will provide them with that which they must, in truth, provide for themselves.

The reason no one can push the responsibility for his/her own happiness onto someone else is because it doesn't work, no matter how much we want to convince ourselves that it will, if only we look long enough and try hard enough. In short, others do not have the power to make us happy. Unfortunately, many people are so determined to find someone else who will give them happiness that they refuse to do anything for themselves.

While it is true that infatuation can be pleasant, each of its components, whether excitement, entertainment, companionship or hormone-induced euphoria, is external and can cease just as easily and quickly as they begin. This is why we have these newfangled marriage ceremonies in which the partners vow to remain married for "as long as we both shall love." When infatuation wanes, the marriage is history, because infatuation has everything to do with emotional excitement, which is temporary, and nothing to do with real happiness, and happiness is what the participants were really seeking.

The euphoria created by infatuation is no more substantial than cotton candy, but real happiness is made of sterner stuff. It is made up of responsible behavior, such as treating others with kindness and consideration and living up to one's own standards of decency and goodness. Being just as concerned for another's welfare as for our own is an integral part of happiness, because selfishness and happiness cannot successfully co-exist. Very selfish people are not happy and happy people are not selfish. Such a simple formula is pretty easy to work out.

Abraham Lincoln once said that people are just about as happy as they make up their minds to be. To his great advice, I should like to add that they are about as happy as they are willing to make other people. Making others happy is an easy skill to develop, but it is still totally dependent on others willingness to be happy, because, in the final analysis, no matter how many people are trying to make you happy, you will only be happy if you truly want to be. To those who are on the receiving end of someone else's efforts to bring them contentment, I would like to recommend a formula Jane Austen used in " Pride and Prejudice. She has her character not only willing but eager to be pleased; in fact, more than willing and eager, he is determined to be pleased. People who have a great capacity for happiness are, invariably, willing and eager to be pleased. They are, in fact, determined to be pleased.

Come to think of it, what do you get when you cross someone who is willing and eager, in fact, determined to be pleased, with another someone who is willing and eager, even determined to please? Yup! You guessed it, two people who have discovered the elusive secret to happiness.

Until next time,

Greetings, Gentle Reader,

In olden days, a respected man was loved by his friends and feared by his enemies. If he were insufficiently love or feared, he was less than he should be. He had failed in his quest to become a truly honorable man. Modern people are much inclined to take issue with the fear inspired by a man of honor in ancient days, but we must remember that the code required it.

An analysis of this code will bring us to an understanding that if a man were feared by his enemies, those enemies had good reason for their fear. It proved that he had the power to destroy, and power was the bottom line. A man of power was great; a man who lacked power was less than the dust of the earth.

Within societies where the code was different, the behavior was also different. If the code taught compassion and a love of peace, the people learned to be peace-loving and compassionate. Where the code taught gross immorality, the people were grossly immoral. Where the Ten Commandments was the code of the people, the standards of behavior were completely different than they were for their contemporaries. In Assyria, it was totally acceptable to attack the neighboring nations, including that nation we know as Israel, and dismember, skin and otherwise torture the citizens to death. The reading of their history gives the average American the creeps. We don't even like to hear about such things, much less contemplate the manner of death visited on their unfortunate victims.

It all came down to the code by which the people. Lacking a code that decried brutality, the people were brutal, as ancient history teaches us. Lacking a code that required honesty, rampant dishonesty became the norm, as English history teaches us. Lacking a code that teaches the people that it is wrong to indulge in destructive lifestyles, the people will destroy themselves, both individually and collectively, as modern America is doing.

When our modern social engineers changed the code, they forgot that the people would revert to savagery unless the new code they adopted to replace the old code, decried savagery. It didn't, and vast numbers of our people have, indeed, reverted to savagery. Their savagery is not a result of society's victimization. It is a result of their being told that the old code no longer applies to them, BECAUSE they are victims. It is a result of their being deprived of the fruits of the old code. Those fruits are homes with strong fathers, who have authority and who feed and clothe their own loved ones. Those fruits are mothers, who are available to their children. Mothers who teach and guide, rather than holding down three jobs in a struggle for survival.

The code, by which an honorable nation lives, sheds its light to all of the nation's citizens. When that code is changed, the light is blown out. When the light is blown out, the people cannot see. When the people cannot see, they lose their way. When the people lose their way, chaos rules. When chaos becomes the order of the day, it is only a matter of time before a dictator arises, promising and capable of delivering, order and safety. This safety is, inevitably, secured by sacrificing the liberty of the people.

We have reverted to a code in which power is everything, and he who has no power is less than the dust of the earth. Is that really what we had in mind?

Until next time,
Muriel Sluyter

Return to the Neighborhood.

Greetings, Gentle Reader,

Do humans become deprived because they are depraved, or do they succumb to depravity because they are deprived? This dichotomy has plagued mankind for thousands of years! This is no philosophical argument posed for the entertainment of debating teams. It is, rather, the basis for the opposing philosophies of the two primary political parties of this nation.

The one party, convinced that poverty is the basis for depravity, gears up to provide housing, food stamps, medical care and most other human needs in an attempt to stop crime, illegitimacy, drug use, alcoholism and every other form of depravity. It is unfortunate that, in the attempt to deal with social problems in this manner, the individual is absolved of all responsibility for his or her actions, and society and the predominant culture are instead declared to be the cause of all anti-social behavior. Many a court case is being won on that premise alone. Common sense and experience argue that the outcome of such thinking can be predicted with pinpoint accuracy.

The incidence of crime increases so rapidly that it can only be referred to as an explosion. Drug use, alcoholism, fatherless homes and their concomitant disease, illegitimacy and delinquency become a flood, indeed an incoming tide, which destroys everything in its path. Our NATION is in its path.

The opposing philosophy, which declares that depravity begets deprivation, requires that humans, all humans, young, middle-aged and elderly, take responsibility for their own actions... that no segment of society parasitize any other segment of society... that broken homes are too often the precursors of societal decay, characterized by the adoption of juvenile male values as the standard for acceptable behavior... that mothers are the primary trainers of the rising generation and that nothing less will produce a sufficiently healthy, productive human product...that prison populations are made up, to a great extent, of inadequately fathered and/or mothered offspring who are, as a result, insecure and have become firstly unproductive, then violent and, finally, devoid of conscience, capable of destroying even their own children on occasion.

These opposing philosophies are at the heart of our national value system. Each of our political parties has its value system imbedded in its platform. First, one set of values is implemented, then the other, as the political parties come to power by way of elections. We must individually choose which value system we will espouse and then take responsibility for its implementation on a local, state and national scale. It is not responsible for us to neglect to vote and then complain about the values imposed on the nation by the triumphant political party. We must expect no one else to do the work which is rightfully ours. We've tried that, and the resulting mess is rapidly destroying us.

Until next time,

Muriel Sluyter

Return to the Neighborhood.

Greetings, Gentle Reader,

In the 1950s science fiction stories were all the rage. Not only did the reading public love them, writers were crazy about them as well. There were no real boundaries; they could think up the most unlikely scenarios, because anything was not only possible (sort of), but acceptable, when they were not tied to reality.

In the 21st century we are dealing with what could be called "science fiction on steroids, with no holds barred," so let me retell a story that applies to today’s world.

It begins with the hero running and hiding from alien invaders. The entire story is taken up with his strenuous and successful efforts to stay ahead of his potential captors. He is alone, because everyone else on earth has been captured, and he must be constantly running and hiding so he can avoid the fate of the entire rest of the population.

The end of the story could have been thought up by no one but an O’ Henry fan: As the man is about to be captured, the story abruptly goes to an alien who is tending to the inanimate body of the hero. It is in a drawer in a vast warehouse filled with drawers holding the bodies of all the other earthlings. There is an electronic feed going into his brain, playing the movie of him constantly running and escaping. He is not really doing anything. He has been a captive for some time, as have all other earthlings, but he thinks he is running and successfully eluding his pursuers, because the movie attached to his brain allows him to think he is free, though being relentlessly pursued.

An assistant asks the attendant why they are playing this particular movie for this supine, totally immobile occupant of the drawer. The attendant explains that this earthling needs to think he is successfully eluding his captors, so that is what they allow him to believe.

Now back to the 21st century: We have thousands of interactive video games. They allow the player to be a part of the story. In some of them, he wins only if he blows the head off other characters. Rape has become common in some of these games. One particular game has the player assassinating President Bush.

These games tend to be addictive, causing the player to crave the interaction just as an addict does a substance.

How are these games different from the science fiction story? They pull the player into a fictional world and entice him to engage in abusive or violent activities that his brain begins to tell him is reality. Studies have shown that players of these types of games are vastly more prone to violent and/or abusive behavior than are non-players.

We haven’t exactly been invaded by aliens from another planet, but Americans have been invaded by aliens from another culture: The National Anthem is forbidden in some schools, a simple prayer can get a student expelled or a teacher fired. A Ten Commandments display can earn a city a very expensive law suit, one that most cities cannot afford. A cross sends some of our citizens into a state of near apoplexy.

We know we have been warned that the time would come when our Constitution would hang by a thread. It is there now. Brother Brigham warned us the time would come when the Constitution would be upheld by the Saints only. Are we up to that task? Our modern prophets are, but are we?

Our elected representatives make decisions for the rest of us. That is how our Republic functions. It is an inspired form of government, by which I mean mankind didn’t think it up. It came to our founding fathers from the real Father of us all, as did our form of Church government.

How are we carrying out the mandate given to us by our Heavenly Father? He expects us to govern ourselves according to His patterns. Are we doing that? Are we seeking out representatives who will do all in their power to support and maintain the Constitution?

Unfortunately, too many of us are easily persuaded by sweet words to vote for representatives who are only too eager to finish off our Constitution. We must learn to look at what a man or woman has done, rather than just to listen to what he says he will do in the future. People cannot hide their past actions, but the skillful can charm us into a state of mindless comfort, causing us to ignore their true goals.

We are not exactly in drawers in a warehouse, but we are becoming frighteningly close. Let us turn to the prophets of God for our wisdom. We need that wisdom more than we ever have in the past.

Until next time,

Muriel Sluyter

Return to the Neighborhood.

Greetings, Gentle Reader,

In all societies, there is an implication, even an acceptance, that some people are of greater value than others. My question is simple; is it true? Are some people, intrinsically, more valuable than others? Is a constructive, hard-working, sober, responsible citizen of greater intrinsic value than a destructive, lazy, drunken or stoned, irresponsible one? No. Let's see why:

The answer is no, because when dealing with intrinsic value, as opposed to extrinsic value, we can't count one's worth to the community; much as we might want to, we cannot even count one's tendency toward virtue or vice. In fact, we can neither add to nor subtract from intrinsic value, because, being a constant, it is unaffected by behavior.

To better understand, let's go to a hospital's newborn nursery and stand over the bassinets, without knowing where the babies' fathers work or even whether some of the fathers or mothers are criminals. As we look down on those tiny, squalling bundles, can we assign greater value to some and lesser value to others? I think that we cannot. Each is a 100% human being, bringing with him nothing but potential - potential for good and potential for bad.

Therefore, the intrinsic value of each baby is identical to that of his tiny neighbor, whether he is the offspring of the President of the United States or a prisoner on death row.

I am not saying that the babies' potential is the same, because it is not; I am only saying their actual value as human beings is the same, and when we ignore or deny that, we begin to think as the Hitlers of this world think. We begin to decide which child we would throw overboard first, if we were all floating on a lifeboat and rapidly running out of drinking water. Remember, when those who think like Hitler are in a lifeboat-type situation, the strong dispose of the weak; their only dilemma being which of the weak is the weakest and, therefore, the most readily disposable. It is an unnerving fact that the weakness we are talking about is physical and/or political. If Sister Teresa were in a boat with 10 huge drug dealers, she would be the weakest and would be thrown overboard first. Like it or not, with that type of thinking, the law of the jungle applies.

There is another factor: If one of the babies in the nursery is anencephalic, meaning that its brain is only partially there, is its value the same as it would be if its brain were perfect? What if one of the babies is irreversibly blind, does that lessen its value? What if the baby is blind, but is curable; does its curability affect its worth? Suppose it can be cured, but at an astronomical cost - then what? Difficult questions, indeed.

If our sample babies are of differing worth, who determines the worth? The parents? The government? The Doctor? Let's face it; once we decide that humans have differing degrees of value, SOMEONE must determine it.

My conviction is that each of the babies has the same intrinsic value; their futures may be markedly different, but their value is not. This thinking is outdated today. Now, school children are often led, by their teachers, through the lifeboat scenario and are required to decide who must die first.

The world assigns importance according to one's ability to make money, therefore, a rich man is greater than a poor man. But, if we accept that concept, it means that a filthy rich, murderous drug dealer is greater than a poor, honest, hardworking man with a wife and two kids. Do we agree with that? Is that really what we think, or has our value system become so complicated, so confusing, that, though we reject such an evaluation consciously, we have acquiesced to it subconsciously? Have we been enticed into thinking that a big-time drug dealer is to be admired,
provided he gives millions to charity? Likewise, have we come to the point of thinking that an innocent person is expendable, if his continued existence creates a level of inconvenience that cannot be tolerated with ease?

These kinds of questions cause confusion, if our value system is relative - in essence, floating free of any concrete convictions of the intrinsic worth of humans. Society's expanding level of corruption causes its citizens to abandon the concept of intrinsic value and, instead, define value by using increasingly selfish parameters. "What's in it for me?" " What's it going to cost me?" "How long am I going to have to put up with this?"

This confusion of values is visible elsewhere: Violence is often classified as entertainment. When the Romans used to throw people to the lions, they did it for entertainment. Now, if throwing people to the lions was entertaining, did that make it right? Does a particular activity change its properties, depending on whether the spectators and/or participants are paying customers? No. If it is good when we pay to be entertained by it, then it is still good when we become its victims. If it is evil and we hate it when we're its victims, it is still evil when we seek it out and call it entertainment.

Human life is sacred; it always has been and it always will be. Each of us is of inestimable value, and we ignore that irrevocable truth at great national peril.

Return to the Neighborhood.

Until next time,

Muriel Sluyter

Greetings, Gentle Reader,

This earth life will never mete out much fairness, so things work out better if we just stop whining and go to work. Each of us will get a raw deal from time to time, as does every other person on this planet. Whiners not only make themselves miserable, but everyone who has to live around them.

Heavenly Father has put us on a fallen planet. He would not have done that to us, unless He knew it would be good for us. When we whimper and whine, complain and bellyache, we are telling Him that He just does not measure up to our idea of a loving father. We want smooth sailing, and He has given us storms and wild tempests.

So, who is right, Heavenly Father or us? If we are right in our desire to have a life of ease, then Heavenly Father has to be wrong. If He is right, and what He has put us into is best for us, then we are just being ungrateful brats. Neither of these scenarios is pleasant, but one of them has to be right.

Most of us know better than to rant and rail at Heavenly Father, but do we feel the same about endless whining? We should. It doesn’t help, and it always hurts.

Remember the young mother whose husband came in, unexpectedly, from the fields and was dead within hours? We read of it in the Church News. She was not prepared to support her two small sons. She hadn’t the schooling to do so. But she had no choice. She could have whined her life away, but she buckled down, got her degree and supported her two boys through childhood and into adulthood. Then she went on missions and, finally, did endless work for others in the temple. She worked her way through life, rather than whining her way through life. What a difference attitude makes!

Once upon a time, when one of my sons was playing basketball, I remember sitting on the sidelines, shouting, "Fight harder! Fight harder!"

His team was not winning, and it was obvious the boys were simply not fighting with all their hearts. They were going through the motions, but they were not paying the full price, and as a result, they were losing. Life is like that. We have to play it with all our heart, otherwise, the vicissitudes of life, some of them downright gruesome, will roll right over the top of us, grinding our face into the dirt in the process.

After a game like that, some teams sit around and assure each other that the loss was not their fault. The referee wasn’t fair, the court wasn’t properly maintained, the coach did a lousy job. No! The kids didn’t fight hard enough. They failed themselves.

That’s the story of many people’s lives. They have failed and are continuing to fail themselves. This is human nature at its most irresponsible. It doesn’t matter what my problem is, it isn’t my fault. If all else fails, I’ll blame it on my ancestors for giving me lousy genes.

In modern America, one of the worst instances of our failing ourselves, our mate and our children, and even our grandchildren, is the overwhelming divorce rate. It is too easy to throw in the towel, so to speak, and sue for divorce. The wife isn’t as pretty as she used to be. He is going bald, and besides, he’s a grouch, an overweight grouch. He has an overhanging gut he didn’t used to have.

Okay. So he no longer looks like a movie hero. She no longer looks like a movie queen. So what? Get used to it!

A dear friend’s oldest daughter began to have trouble with her marriage. Her husband of many years became verbally abusive, and openly let her know that he really didn’t like her anymore. My friend had reached the point of advising her daughter to end her temple marriage, but she approached me about the subject before she did so. She was surprised when I told her the statistics concerning unhappy marriages turning around within approximately a five year period, about 80% of the time, IF the couple determinedly sticks it out.

A short time ago, I asked her how her daughter’s marriage was coming along. She happily stated that her son-in-law had ceased to be abusive and once again had become a loving husband.

There is no way to know what had happened in that marriage, but the wife had refused to end it, though her husband seemed to be attempting to push her to do so. Her determination to honor and continue to value her temple marriage had paid off. More than anything else, she knew the Lord would not want her to walk away from her eternal vows and commitments, so she had simply chosen to be obedient. She didn’t whine and blame anyone else. She didn’t really know what was wrong, so she just buckled down and stuck it out. We LDS must try to follow her lead.

Sometimes a mate simply walks out and no one can stop him or her. Sometimes an offspring walks away from the church, from his or her vows and from all responsibilities. We can’t win them all, all of the time, but we can always determine within ourselves to fight to the very end. The Prophet Joseph did that. He was the best of the best, and we can and should follow his lead. We simply need to put our head down, like any good work horse, and pull our load. We can do it, and it will be eternally worth it.

This fake world of ours is run by plastic people, who want our money... all of it. To accomplish this, they must convince us that products that have no real value are indispensable. They have to create discontent within us. They must convince us that we are too fat, too thin, smell bad, wear unfashionable clothes, aren't sexy enough, etc. Creating dissatisfaction opens our wallets. Let's watch them in action.

When I turn the TV on, chances are that I will see someone pumping iron or running. (He may be unable to tell right from wrong, but my, oh my, does he look good!) Perhaps, he is working at one of those weird machines that exercises every part of the body. They are capable of finding and torturing muscles that didn't even exist when I was a kid. And, that's because a sadist invented those muscles the day I turned forty.

Next, an expert cautions me to count the grams of fat and sodium in everything I eat. This is followed by an admission that the cholesterol obsession of the last several years may have overstated the problem, that eating foods high in fiber cause gas, and that the wonders of science
include a new chemical that will make my yucky, fake food taste delicious. Of course, I know that next year the wonders of science will include a discovery that this new chemical causes cancer. (Hey, Guys! I know this is asking a lot, but could you find which delicious foods are going to kill me and, then, stick with your story (about how they're going to kill me) longer than it takes to eat a Big Mac, please?)

The commercials start the moment I sit down, with a bowl of buttered popcorn. (Eating this is supposed to give me a guilty conscience, but, contrary to what is implied, eating butter is not worse than lying, cheating and stealing. )

My first bite coincides with the first commercial. It tells me that if I spend a fortune, I can lose all of the ugly fat that my popcorn will produce. I don't fall for the first commercial, so the second one is served up with my second bite of popcorn. In this one, a sexy girl and an unbelievably ugly
guy are preparing to eat dinner. The girl sprays something awful on their food and coos, " I can't believe it's not butter." Maybe, I should tell her that it isn't, but since I'm eating real butter on my popcorn, and she is eating runny, plastic goo on her dinner, I haven't the heart to set her straight.

Right after the runny, plastic goo succeeds in making my tummy feel funny, a gorgeous girl begins to sing the praises of a new phone system. (No! I don't want it!) The camera starts to swing and sway. I keep looking around for the Hawaiian dance band that's causing this undulating motion, but there isn't one, and it doesn't matter anyway, because if they don't come up with a dramamine commercial in just about ten seconds, I'm in big trouble, because the bathroom has been taken captive by a veritable hoard of little scrubbing bubbles, singing at the top of their tiny bristles, and I can't get in there, and I am going to toss my cookies (popcorn )!!

By now, I am so traumatized that I turn the TV off, go to bed and pull the covers over my head. I would consider taking two aspirins, but I'm sure that I saw a commercial warning me that aspirin causes obesity, or maybe it causes hair loss. No, I think it's bad breath, or, it could be constipation. I am becoming confused! Maybe if I take two aspirins, I will get my ZZZs. Help! I think I'm losing my grip.

I don't think I am up to the modern, glitzy world of con men who want to sell me everything from fake butter to fake hair, fake eggs to fake people. Each guarantees me that if I buy his product, I will become leaner, younger, more attractive and rich. Very rich. Right after I get the formula for becoming rich, very rich, the financial news tells me that everything is going to crash, and that I'm going to have to live in a grass hut on a tropical island, because I will be broke. Is that a promise?

Do you suppose that the experts could spend less time on the less important details of our diet and more time on the more important details of our society? For instance: A walk in a big city park is going to kill me a lot faster than a walk into McDonald's. Knives and bullets are faster than cholesterol. And, since most students think that there is nothing wrong with cheating, maybe we could concentrate a little less on their flabby muscles and a little more on their flabby sense of honor. In addition, If we don't want teens to have babies, maybe we should stop teaching them to have sex. That is what causes it. Remember?

Is it possible that we are spending too much time fiddling with things of lesser urgency, while Rome (America) is burning down around our ears?

Greetings, Gentle Reader,

A Cherokee Elder was teaching his grandchildren about life. He said, "A fight is going on inside me... it is a terrible fight, and it is between two wolves. One wolf represents fear, anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego."

"The other wolf stands for joy, peace, love, hope, sharing, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, friendship, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith."

"This same fight is going on inside you, and inside every other person, too."

One of the children asked, "Which wolf will win?"

Grandfather replied, "The one you feed."

Are Americans feeding the wrong wolf? Let's see: Do you lock your doors at night? Why? Do you let your children walk home alone at night? Why not? What do you fear? What will happen to the rapists and murderers currently on trial? Chances are they will be out in twenty years. And they won't be Lone Rangers; there will be plenty of their ilk with them. Why? Because we are no longer a civilized people.

Instead of producing fewer criminals and controlling the ones we have, we buy bigger locks. We used to leave the keys in our cars, now we lock our cars, then put them in locked garages.

Why are we producing so many vicious criminals? We are determinedly, even defiantly, feeding the wrong wolf. We used to kill bears that threatened us. Last summer, a bear chased our stock. I called the Division of Wildlife and was told we could do nothing unless the bear attacked us. Hmm... How do I shoot a bear that's tearing me to pieces?

Some national agencies are run by half-civilized people with no sense of value. To such, humans are of lesser value than animals, plants and bugs. Nor is a little girl more valuable than the animal who rapes and murders her.

People in other countries think we are terrible. Why? Few know many Americans, but they see our movies, and in most, Americans are awful. They spend the entire movie attacking other people and hopping in and out of bed with anyone available. They prove to viewers, in living color, that Americans are both repulsive and repulsively uncivilized.

Citizens used to be safe on our streets, because criminals were locked up. Now citizens are locked in minifortresses, because criminals are safe on our streets. If a criminal attacks with a gun, he will be back on the street before his victim is out of the hospital. If a victim defends himself with a gun, he is likely to find himself punished more severely than his attacker.

We are a civilized nation. Or are we? That is the crux of the matter. We are not only uncivilized, we wear our incivility like a badge of virtue.

Writers of letters to editors make politically motivated charges they know are lies, but they also know most readers won't know they are lies. In their minds, if a falsehood is not exposed, it's as good as truth. Stalin said a lie repeated often enough is accepted as fact. Every dictator of the past century - most of them mass murderers- operated on the same principle.

Candidates tell outrageous lies to cheering followers, most of whom, knowing they are false, repeat them anyway.

Large numbers of schools produce functionally illiterate children; when officials are called to account and threatened with competition, they fly into uncivilized hysterics. It's everyone's fault but theirs. All they need is more money.

We have become a violent nation. Why? Because, we have devalued virtue, elevated expediency and wealth, and belligerently, even self-righteously, fed the wrong wolf.

Greetings Gentle Reader,

A mother of my acquaintance, in an attempt to keep her twin sons from fighting, told them that brothers only fight back to back. The boys tried mightily to follow her instructions. Soon, in a state of extreme frustration, they returned. Turning their backs to each other, they demonstrated the impossibility of landing a blow no matter how they tried, and, oh, how they tried!

Even though we all had a good chuckle, the principle remains intact. Brothers should never fight, except back to back. To whom does this apply? Obviously, it applies to siblings and, yes, their parents as well. All homes would benefit from parents who never fight with, but only for, each other even though that principle (a correct one) has little credibility these days.

There are things which the children of quarreling parents assume to be acceptable, one is that petty bickering is okay, another is that negotiation is not necessary, still another is to neither compromise nor take turns, but the saddest thing they learn is that family cohesiveness and loyalty always take a back seat to personal whims. How can any child feel secure when he knows that parental wants are more important than he is?

If brothers shouldn't fight and parents shouldn't fight, how about fellow Americans? Can perpetual nastiness between citizens be acceptable? We modern Americans need to relearn the meaning of fighting back to back. We are being taught from all sides, by both precept and example, that fighting is not only acceptable, but that it pays very well.

Benjamin Franklin said to a colleague, at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." The basic meaning of this is "We must fight back to back or we will be so vulnerable that 'they' will pick us off one at a time."

We ask decent, honorable people to run for public office, and then we abuse them with very little provocation. We have some truly loyal Americans in some of our state capitals and in Washington, and yet the slander to which they are subjected is something of which all Americans
should be deeply ashamed.

The best, the finest are, too often, unwilling to tolerate the attacks they would attract if they were to accept a term as a public servant. Since we do want the best, and we do need the best, we are going to have to change the way we treat loyal, hard-working citizens who are in our service. We do have some good ones to practice on, and since we are not going to learn this skill any younger we had better get started, hadn't we?

Do we gain by listening to the teachings and warnings of our predecessors? Did they know things that we have yet to learn? Can their hard-won wisdom save us from committing critical errors that will cause us grief and misery? Yes, especially if we have enough sense to act on their warnings.

Let's examine the writings of some wise men of the past: John Adams our second President, and the man primarily responsible for shepherding our Declaration of Independence through Congress, said: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

H.R. Haweis, an 1800's English clergyman, left this ominous warning, applicable to America's growing ranks of lawless and violent citizens: "It is useless to make good laws for bad people."

Edmund Burke saw the horrifying excesses of the French revolution and, rather than romanticize them, as was and is the norm, he recognized them for what they were. He warned, "Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without... It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free... Their passions forge their fetters. "

Grover Cleveland, our President in the early 1880's, said: "A government FOR the people must depend for its success on the intelligence, the morality, the justice, and the interest of the people themselves."

Considering the above, I would say we are in big trouble. So, is there a solution? Indeed, there is: For a starter, we had better become good enough people to be governed by our Constitution, because it, and it alone, stands between us a growing cadre of government officials who are anxious to: 1) relieve us of our freedoms and 2) destroy our sovereignty.

We must cease to be apathetic. Americans seem not to care about much of anything anymore, especially if it takes place outside their TV screens. An amazingly small number of people bother to register and vote, even though the very life of our nation depends, according to Grover Cleveland, on the interest the American people take in their government. When common, everyday citizens abdicate their sacred responsibility to their nation, political predators in the states and in Washington eagerly take advantage of their sloth.

Let's make those who want to govern us meet Haweis' and Adams' standard; they must be moral, honest and decent, free of greed, ambition, and a desire to see the world at the taxpayer's expense. They must be willing to forego the temptation to implement a social agenda contrary to the values of the majority of those whom they govern. Let's vote for individuals eager to be public servants, while avoiding giving power to those who can't wait to become public parasites, predators and/or social engineers.

James Garfield, elected President in 1881, said, "The people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them..."

That's the answer; let's apply the Adams, Haweis, Burke, Cleveland and Garfield test; if we have a Representative, Senator or even a President who measures up, let's keep him; otherwise, let's put him out to pasture.

Greetings, Gentle Reader,

Several decades ago a very old woman in a large Eastern city was evicted from her apartment. She was put out on the sidewalk with all her meager belongings. She seemed confused. She simply sat there on a chair, doing nothing, saying nothing.

The people walking by began to take her belongings. By the time the TV cameraman got there she appeared to have little left but the chair on which she sat.

This awful scene, observed from coast to coast, horrified the rest of America, but the people who passed by the old lady, as she was being robbed, seemed not to have taken any interest in her plight.

If this were to happen today, what would be the reaction of the people in America’s heartland? I would want them to be horrified, as we were back then. I would want someone to stand up to the predators and defend her. In fact, what I would like to see is some tall man in a military uniform take her under his arm and warn off all those who were preying on one so helpless.

That’s the America I know. That’s the America I have always loved. That’s the America I will love until the day I die, after which I will no doubt tell everyone in the Spirit World that America is the sweetest country on the face of the earth. And, yes, that’s the America I yearn for us to be, even when we fall short.

Can you imagine anyone in the rural Rocky Mountain West walking by such a scene, without doing something to help a confused old lady? I cannot.

The fact that she had been thrown out on the street, in her condition, was truly evil, but to have others strip her of everything she owned is beyond comprehension. It might well happen in a big city, but not in rural America, especially western America.

So, now to the big question. If those of you who live in big cities were to observe such a horrifying scene, what would you do? Think it over. Think through all the details. What would you do?

The people stealing from the old woman were not aggressive. They were not attacking her. They were simply taking everything a totally helpless old woman owned.

Would you defend her? Would you be sufficiently aggressive in her defense that the human trash preying on her would back off?

Sometimes we have to take a stand in defense of the helpless, but if we have never contemplated having to do so, there is a chance we would take no action. There is a silly commercial that says, "Life comes at you fast." The grammar may be wanting, but the concept is intact. Life does come at you "fast", so it pays to contemplate potential circumstances and decide how we would react to them before they happen. That is why the military drills and drills and drills. Anything less is an open invitation to failure, and failure means dead soldiers and Marines. It especially means death to those who fly airplanes at the speed of sound. So think it over. What would you do?

Somehow, we need to be prepared to defend the defenseless anytime their plight is put before us, but we need to do it without letting it sour us on our fellow humans. Our soldiers in Iraq must fight and kill, yet be ready to be kind to innocent Iraqis, especially the children, who are as much victims as are our soldiers.

We must be the same. We must fight for the weak when it is time to do so, but we must extend love when that is right.

The Lord needs a cheerful people. He wants them to be brave and willing to do what is needed, but we must be cheerful as well.

When our people came west, life was hard and not without danger, but at the end of the day, Brother Brigham wanted them to sing and dance. Why? Because it helped them to be cheerful. It helped them to like each other. It helped them to see each other’s good side. It reminded them that they were all in this together, and when a team all pulls the same way, they get the job done.

We can be strong and faithful. We can be brave and kind. Perhaps the hardest part is to defend the defenseless without becoming estranged from our fellow beings. By extrapolation, that means we must live with neighbors of different political persuasions, different races and different religions without ill will. It means we must behave as the Lord told us He wanted us to behave. The Book of Mormon calls it railing, and the Lord wants us not to do it.

Let us be determined to do as He commanded us.

Return to the Neighborhood.

Greetings, Gentle Reader,

A young man and I approached the post office door at the same time. I smiled at him and stepped aside, expecting him to hold the door for me. Instead, he smiled back, opened the door and walked through. As I realized that I had fallen back into an old pattern that is no longer in effect, it struck my funny bone, and I started to giggle.

It reminded me of another incident of thirty-plus years ago. At that time I was also approaching a post office door. There were several older men standing around, passing the time of day. One of them stepped forward, smiled and opened the door for me. As he did, he touched his fingers to the brim of his hat in a courteous salute. I remember thinking that, though we were in California at the time, this man must have come from southwestern Colorado. It was such a typical Colorado salute for a man of his generation.

At that time in our nation's history, men treated women with respect and courtesy. In fact, contrary to what we are told by today's man haters, a man who abused his wife was not the norm - at least not in southwestern Colorado. And since we were stationed in many different parts of this country over the years, I can say that it was not the norm in any of the other places in which I have lived. Don't misunderstand; I am not saying it didn't happen; I am saying it was not the norm on the east coast, in the Midwest, in the Northwest, nor in Cal ifornia. I cannot say what went on in the Northeast or the Southeast, not did I ever live in the northern part of the Midwest, but for rest, a man who abused his wife was the exception, not the rule.

A paratrooper named Ross Carter wrote a book of his experiences during the hard fighting in Europe, as the allies took the continent back from Adolf Hitler - one bloody battle at a time. He said the men, overwhelming, were fighting for their wives, their fiances, their mothers and their sisters. Each man was fighting for a world in which his loved ones would remain safe and free.

During that period in our history, the term "battle of the sexes" was often used. If it was a battle at all, it was a tremendously fun battle. Good men valued good women, and they were willing to fight to protect them. Having been born very shortly before that war started, I know that is true. In fact, before the feminists began the battle of the sexes in earnest, maligning and abusing all men shamefully and unjustly - with special attention to white men - we women were treated with care and respect; and we were protected by men much more than we were ever abused.

Women were protected from contact sports, because women's bodies take a worse beating from that sort of sport than men's do, seriously compromising their chance of survival during childbirth. Feminists interpreted this as discrimination, while the rest of us interpreted it as protection. Men were kept from women's locker rooms, dorms and bathrooms. Normal women knew those rules were for their protection. Feminists saw it as discrimination (and they have successfully discarded those rules in many colleges.) But when they forced themselves into the locker rooms of professional football teams, they were outraged that the men walked around naked in front of them. They saw no reason why men should be protected from a woman reporter's outrageous intrusion in a locker room - where the men really do take showers with their clothes off - but they were furious when they were not protected from the sight of naked males. What did they think football players did in their locker rooms? Play Old Maid?

When I hear women say they are feminists because they want to be equal with men, I cringe. We were always treated as though we were superior to men. Men held doors, chairs and coats for us. They stood up and gave us their seats, and they let us get ahead of them in a line. If a woman's car broke, some man would invariably come along and fix it - right on the street and without charge. I was never afraid of being attacked when a man stopped to help me; I knew why he was stopping. If I were in trouble and had to go into a man's repair shop to buy something, I knew I would probably be able to buy what I needed for less than they would sell it to a man.

My husband treated women this way. He was an honorable, decent man, and he treated women as though they were God's gift to good men. If I was very tired and would rather go without food than get some for myself, he would get it for me. He tucked me in carefully at night and was happy to get me a glass of water if I was thirsty. He tried to make sure my car was safe and filled with fuel. He didn't like to have me wandering around our property alone at night, and that was especially if it was cold or rainy. He preferred to have me stay inside, while he tended to whatever problem had arisen. If it was something I had to do and he couldn't do it for me, then he accompanied me.

We are in a fight for the survival of our society and our country. That which we know to be good is derided and punished. That which we know to be bad is forced on us by the courts and government. Our government persecutes and prosecutes whistle blowers. Women in the military have to abandon their babies to serve in foreign lands. Men are forced to have women with them 24 hours a day in missile silos. Military people are told that adultery is totally acceptable in our modern society, but are drummed out of the military when they engage in it, and then lie about it. But then politicians seem to have a free pass on all offenses, even when they betray us to our enemies.

The people of our nation have split into two opposing camps. One side aggressively embraces and defends our present society, with its rampant sexual and social depravity, anti-nationalism and refusal to accept personal responsibility for the social violence it has spawned. The other side remembers what it was like to leave the keys in the car and the door unlocked. They remember when children were safe on the school grounds and the schools taught history, geography and the three "R's." They remember unabashed patriotism and devotion to a good, constructive country, filled with freedom and concern for one's fellow man.

If the intelligent women of this country could know what they have forfeited in their ridiculous fight for "equality," many of them would shed tears for its loss, as I do. We are a culture at war with itself, and we are losing.