Traveler

Why should LGBTQ+ have equal access to children? You do understand that sexual preference are learned? We also know that preferences are completely reliant on exposure – especially exposure to trusted individuals. Parents (gardens) are the most likely example that a child will learn to prefer. This is why under the law that a parent abusing their child has the added charge of aggravated. The Traveler

I have heard this before but there is a problem. That is that the LBGTQ+ community seems to have difficulty reporting sexual abuse. They will say they are against grooming, but the question lies with what preventive actions do they take. Mostly there is silence. I do agree with your post in general. Though I am not deeply involved with the LGBTQ+ community those with whom I converse are not interested in children. Some say there is a stigma of hidden abuse when same sex individuals show interest in children. In the scientific community examples are classified as higher than lowest levels of learning but even at the lowest levels of learning it can be argued that examples play a critical role. I realize that we walk a fine line with children and the examples they are given. We do not want to instill bitter resentments towards the LGBTQ+ community and at the same time we should not (intentionally or unintentionally) portray LGBTQ+ as equal or desirable. It is my opinion that this conundrum of sexual preference has an ebb and flow about it and that we are currently at a point where, as a society, we have crossed the Rubicon and that the dangers the prophets (both ancient and modern) have warned are crossing barriers much to rapidly. Gender dysphoria is not so much an adult problem as it has become a major problem with children in school. I see no effort in the LGBTQ+ community to curb introducing vulnerable children to things they are not mentally equipped to handle -including and especially pornography and masturbation. The Traveler

What is the argument you have heard from the LGBTQ+ community as to why adoptions should not favor heterosexual couples whenever possible? The Traveler

Not sure what is meant by other ways? Even with IVF, an egg form a female and a sperm from a male is required. Every person that has ever lived on earth has a biological mother and a biological father. For whatever reason, the LGBTQ+ community avoids the science that sexual preferences are learned or acquired. For example, sometimes saying – G-d made me this way. Or saying with all the problems do you really think I would choose this? Not everything we learn is by what means some would define as a choice. There is a logical conundrum when individuals that consider themselves LGBTQ+ decide to be parents of children. Since we know that sexual preferences are learned or acquired – I have a difficult time with the logic of those in heterosexual relationships that support and encourage those that are LGBTQ+ to raise children. Usually the argument is because there are heterosexual parents are doing a horrible job of it. Using a negative to support a conclusion is not logical. Saying that something is better than feeding children to crocodiles is not a good argument for that something because we all know that there is something much better. The Traveler

Lucifer has often presented himself as the Messiah or Christ. It is not uncommon for those that were once enlightened to think they have increased in enlightenment after they have left the fold. In short, the worse apostates are those that think themselves the more enlightened. The Traveler

I am a mathematician and the source. I have used Chaos theory and fractals to develop projections for material handling and robotic loading in large complex manufacturing. Here is a little exercise for anyone interested. Do a Google search on “chaos theory and fractals” and read to your heart’s content. The Traveler

A simple internet search will provide information: Science has proven that preferences (including sexual preferences) are learned or acquired. We have known this for decades. It is a scientific fact that anyone can learn or acquire a different sexual preference. It is a fundamental principle of LDS theology to allow agency – even though it is likely misused. I am not against an adult choosing LGBTQ+. I am (as a scientist) against anyone lying that sexual preference is not a choice. I am against the beguiling of children (under age 25) that they have not choice or any control concerning their sexual preference. Obviously sexual preference is not genetic – no one is born outside of heterosexual relationships. If there is an argument for LGBTQ+ sustainability – I would like to see that data. If current trends continue (the math is fractals, and the scientific model is Chayos Theory – the same that is used to prove Climate Change) – the USA society will eventually die off because of changes is sexual behavior. It is simply not scientifically possible to support changing human behavior because of climate change and not support changing human behavior to heterosexual for the exact same reason – preventing the extinction of species. The Traveler

Traditions are seldom as clear cut and defined as advertised. Especially if they are preserved through oral traditions. Even written records carefully scrutinized by scribes have strong variances but with written records it is easier to trace variation s. I will give a quick example concerning the temple garment. I recall in my younger days decades ago going to the temple for the first time. My grandparents talked to me about the “traditional” use and attitude concerning the garment. Back then all garments were one piece but there were variations. There was an old style that was the only style authorized for use at the temple. I kept one of those in my temple clothing bag. It was a one piece with long sleeves to my wrists and long legs to my ankles. My grandparents would not wear any other style and felt strongly that anyone using the modern styles were spiritually corrupt. They were so devout in wearing the garment that they would never take it completely off. When bathing or changing they would keep an arm or leg on until an arm or lag was in the new garment. I have not researched this garment tradition, and I doubt anything was written other than in some journals. And I am quite sure that journals in various areas will have slight differences. Even with written records there are differences in the text. There are over a thousand different types of ancient Biblical text that are labeled as different because they are differences. I have done research for such things be contacting the local rabbi and discovered that they are delighted that someone is interested in Jewish traditions. But I have also discovered that you can get different information from different Rabbis. I have also discovered that you can discover different Christian traditions talking to Christians in different areas of the world – even of the same denomination. I also discovered a oral tradition concerning the saying “No man knows the hour or the day, not even the angles of heaven but G-d alone knows”, And that tradition presents a very different meaning concerning what day or hour something will happen. Converts with a strong Jewish background have a great deal to add to our understanding of scripture – especially the Book of Mormon but few of us generational LDS types seem to care much – basically thinking that because we have prophets to explain everything we do not need to listen. I am of a different mind and reference Moroni chapter 10 – especially following the favored missionary verses at the beginning of the chapter. I think that is great importance concerning spiritual gifts and that everyone has their own spiritual gifts and something to add to the whole of understanding. The Traveler

I will take on your reference – rather than depending on religious notions, I will start with scientific notions. In science one of the critical notions of life is the ability to reproduce. This definition is not necessarily a singular notion but as a species or type of life. In labs there have been various scientific experiments to duplicate life but the conclusion is that if chemical reactions are incapable of rejuvenating offspring – it is not life. Human life is the most advanced intelligent species we have ever encountered. The propagation of the human species is only accomplished through heterosexual relationships. Traditionally we have attempted to define this heterosexual relationship that successfully produces offspring in successful societies as a family. Some have suggested that it takes a community to raise a child. But if that community is operating under the notion that a child does not need to respect heterosexual relationships and heterosexual families as the necessary element of sustaining that community – then that society (community) is pursuing a unstainable theory of families that sustain communities. We have concluded by scientific studies that preferences are controlled by various areas of the cortex part of the brain. Because preferences are controlled by the cortex we know that preferences are learned or acquired. We also know that executive level capabilities of learning are not fully developed in the cortex until a child reaches the age of 25. Sexual preferences are known in science to be learned preferences along with all the other preferences learned in humans. The teaching or allowing the teaching of unsustainable sexual preferences to individuals under the age of 25 must be forbidden is a society is to be sustainable. Science and logic clearly demonstrates that LGBTQ+ families are unsustainable. Logic clearly indicates that including a definition of LGBTQ+ as family friendly will reduce the rate of reproduction in a society and if rate of reproduction drops below an average of 2 per heterosexual couple that society is doomed unless attitudes are changed (sexual preferences altered). Our current society in the USA has crossed the threshold of sustainability. Currently the only way our society can continue is to either change the teaching of sexual preferences or import populations from other societies – which will change the fundamental dynamics of our society. The Traveler

We are told in the Book of Mormon that when we understand the Hebrew traditions that we will understand Isaiah better. We are also told about the importance of Isaiah. I have often pondered this particular insight into scripture study. The idea that part of scripture study includes study of things other than just any particular scripture by itself. Then it seem inevitable that I will come across someone that will not consider any idea without a direct scripture source. Most hard-core Traditional Christians will say that if it is not in the Bible – they will not believe it. Of course, the great exception is the various creeds – especially the Trinity. If it is as they say (such thinkers) – creeds, sermons, Bible classes, discussion, opinions and all such things would not take place or be expressed. Only scripture would be read and referenced without embellishments. I find that including ancient traditions to be extremely eye opening to scripture meaning – often pointing to a understanding 180 degrees in directional understanding from what the casual reader concludes. I have found that the ancient traditions of Middle Eastern Kingdoms – especially the Suzerain Servant Vassel treaties extremely enlightening in understanding the fall and exile of Adam (man) and the relationships of mankind to the Father, and Son. I will not add something that can be taken as just my opinion. I believe that there are critical caveats to understanding and studying scripture – regardless of whatever method or construct one uses: Caveat 1. Prayer. I believe scripture and study should be pursued in the attitude of prayer and whatever impressions one has ask directly if the understanding is correct. Caveat 2. The gift of the Holy Ghose is given and maintained by covenant. As members of the Church of Jesus Christ we receive the covenant of the Holy Ghost, and that covenant is renewed when we take the sacrament. Someone without this covenant may not have a complete understanding of scripture. Caveat 3. Meet with and discuss your studies with other Saints often. Especially those that are loyal to their covenants. Family and friends, I believe to be a good source. But the key is listening – especially to new ideas. On occasion, I have found even atheists to have useful ideas. As Latter-day Saints, I do not believe that contentious exchanges of ideas are ever needed or useful. It is not up to us (as an individual) to convince anyone of anything. There is a saying that a person convinced against their will is of the same opinion still. I have come to believe that if in any discussion you find that you are getting angry or upset – that you are being dominated by a dark unclean spirit. If someone is angry or upset, it is best to apologize for speaking to them and leave them to deal with whatever darkness has angered them. The one exception is if a loving spirit convinces you to provide a witness. If a loving spirit is so influencing, you – not only can you remain calm but in that calmness you can accept whatever is the outcome. The Traveler

An idea from my wife that worked wonders for our family – started when I was in a bishopric and she had all the kids (quite young) to deal with on her own. In essence, it was a 3-tier reward system that she came up with: First tier. There were 5 things each child was expected to do for church and they got a reward (candy) for each one. Not sure I remember all five but they were like 1. Be ready for Church 5 minutes before expected. 2. Bring your scriptures. 3. Sing the hymns 4. Be reverent and not disruptive – especially during the passing of the sacrament (up to 3 warnings max from mom) 5. Attend class without complaints from instructor. Second tier. If all 5 were completed and achieved an extra much larger treat was achieved. Third tier. If all the children achieved the second tier a big treat was given to the whole family. I think it worked because each kid wanted the second-tier treat. And the family reward got enough attention that the older kids became shepherds of the younger. It became easy for the wife to be on time and she got many comments on how reverent and good our kids were Two caveats – 1. When kids were small (infants) the wife would hold training sessions at home teaching the infants to sit quietly for an hour in the front room. We never took kids our of church meetings. 2. When youngest son returned from his mission – first day back from church he expected and asked for his treat thinking it was a perinate family tradition. Last note – this got us through raising our kids but 2 have gone inactive and not returned. It is my theory that parents can only have influence for so long. Eventually kids will determine their path. Our family in heaven experienced this reality as well. One last note - we only had 5. If you find something for 11 - I am sure your reward will be much greater.😇 The Traveler

So much has changed during my lifetime. I remember in high school 4 friends went to Mexico on a SCUBA trip. We were all members of the Church so wanted to attend Church in Mexico for the experience. Back then there were less than 1 ½ million members worldwide. We found a little branch to attend and the members there went nuts to welcome Utah Saints (especially the youth). Many were so poor they were barefoot (we were way overdressed) and yet they wanted to feed us and go without themselves (back then there was no block – church was an all-Sabbath day event so those that had long distances to travel brought food to eat between morning and afternoon sessions). Nowadays many places are overwhelmed with visiting members. A few decades ago, my family was welcomed to a ward but asked to only attend sacrament meeting because there were so many visitors we could not be accommodated in classes (including priesthood). I was somewhat surprised because I grew up thinking priesthood meetings were mandatory for priesthood holders. In a visit to my ancestry home in Demark the wife and I attended a ward that was so overwhelmed with visiting members (thanks to a cruse ship) that they ran out of headphones for listening a translation. The wife and I attended a ward meeting listed on the church website while visiting Glacier National Park. Come to find out that the entire ward had only 3 members – a bishop and two counselors. Their whole purpose was to provide a sacrament meeting for visiting members. All normal functions (talks, prayers, music, sacrament etc.) were selected for visiting members with temple recommends. Note to other travelers – if you are on vacation and want spectator only status – do not get to Church until the last minute. If you are willing to participate show up early – the earlier the better. The Traveler

I will take a little exception. First off what you have referenced were all voluntary conditions. In the case with Peter and the death that was brought – it was not quite as you have expressed. The reason for the death was for lying to G-d through lies to his servant. There was no edict to become a disciple of Christ – that was all voluntary. I personally am not sure that it was because they held back but rather that they lied and said that they had given. In all cases that I am aware all forced “charity” by government has failed. I do have some personal knowledge about the United Order because my great grandfather was the executive secretary (CEO) of a United Order in Utah. No one was forced to join the order. I published a while back on this forum all the rules of the United Order from a copy that hung in his office. It was common for new individuals (families) to join or leave. Any death penalties were either exaggerated or for crimes subject to public laws outside of the Order and not according to Order rules. I thought to offer other examples because I know of a United Order that was purchased by a family when the Church divested itself. But the real issue is the Principle of Agency – which I believe was the prime directive of our pre-existence and still a most important principle. Which brings me to one final very important principle – the people under the conditions you referenced were one. It was not just the matter of the wealthy making a sacrifice – there was a change of attitude at all economic levels. Scripture tells us that they were all of one mind and heart. With all this in mind – take note who in a ward regularly shows up for various service opportunities like physical facility clean up or welfare assignments or disaster relief projects. In my mind these are the only ones that would actually work out well in a City of Enoch or United Order type of society. It is my personal experience that most of this category are at the lower levels of the economic ladder. I say most because there are always those few exceptions. The Traveler

The problem is not Nike but the people the run it. The Traveler

I have a friend that was having problems with everything in his life. He could not keep up with all his bills and his car, boat and house were being repossessed or closed. His wife was leaving him, he was in danger of losing his job because of stress – it seemed that everything was falling apart. I was talking to him and brought up that when I have serious problems, I just open up the Book of Mormon and suddenly find the answer. I suggested he try that. Within a few weeks all his problems seemed to disappear. He bought a bigger house, and new car and even a bigger boat. His wife was no longer leaving him and purchased several new outfits. I asked him what had happened – he said he followed my advice. Wow, I asked what did you open up to in the Book of Mormon and read? He said he opened up the Book of Mormon and right there in big bold letters it said, “Chapter 11”. The Traveler

If Jack Frost is responsible for turning all the leaves on the trees to colors and making them fall off the trees in the fall – who is responsible for putting the leaves back on the trees in the spring? Answer – The Releaf Society - my wife agrees and says that men by themselves cannot be responsible for anything. The Traveler

Sorry about your phone. Since I am retired and no longer require a dependable hot spot my wife wanted me to switch to a Chinese phone (iPhone) – I now have enough experience to understand your frustration. If you have an Android – it was not your phone that lost your long response. There is a difference between “nice” things and expensive things – anyone that can afford expensive things is not poor and should be paying the same tax rate as everybody else that is rich and can afford expensive things. There is a very big difference between someone in poverty and someone that that spends foolishly. You should read the book “The Richest Man in Babylon”. Pay particular attention to Arkad’s Seven Cures of Poverty (or how to generate money and wealth). I was raised by an extremely wealthy man that grew up with 13 siblings raised poor in a 3-bedroom house without running water, central heat or electricity. When I reached the age of 8, I was expected to have a job outside of our home and family and pay for my own clothing, school supplies and leisure activities. Most of our food we grew ourselves. We raised rabbits and chickens for meat – we hunted and fished not for fun but to have enough to eat. I am dyslexic and had great difficulty with school subjects that were not logical (most of them excluding math and science). I also have difficulty with emotions – especially in relationships. For me kindness or cruelty should not be based on emotions (like revenge) but rather on logic and what I consider intelligence (the ability to learn and alter one’s behavior). I do not understand the emotion of attachments to things that naturally decay. I very much regret that our society measures wealth by the accumulation of things. If we view economy in such a manner, we will fail at every attempt to end poverty and increase lasting wealth – regardless of if it is for ourselves or someone else. The only way to help the poor is one on one – something that government (local, state or federal) is incapable of. Bureaucrats are incapable of helping anyone – they are only capable of following some set of rules and showing others how to follow those rules. Everything in government is instituted through bureaucrats. Jordon Peterson makes a very good point about helping others. First begin with taking care of yourself. If you can succeed with that, you can start to take care of those closest to you. When you get good at that you can start to teach other how to do what you have learned. My father would always say – if you want to learn something never consider learning it from someone that has only failed at doing it. Learn from the most successful person at doing what you want to learn, that you can find. If you can take care of yourself and teach other to take care of themselves – you and your friends are rich. The most successful system I have found to diminish poverty is capitalism and a strong middle class. I believe if a government comes up with any idea that in any way diminishes capitalism and/or a strong middle class – you will fail badly, and poverty will expand until either a different way of achieved or the middle class is destroyed resulting in a system of the very rich living off the very poor. There is no example in history of diminishing poverty without a strong middle class. The Traveler

WWI? You are a lot older than I thought. How are you still breating? You should be studied in a lab. The Traveler

It is my belief that you just do not get it. All the principles of the Great Society are still 100% being utilized – both in regards to the poor and solving environmental problems. There is a joke about how many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb. Answer – it only takes one, but the lightbulb has to want to change. The great lesson of the universe is that nothing happens without incentive. If it was not for the incentive of gravity – water would not flow downhill. I really think you have it backwards – someone without a roof over their head or food in their belly is going to be much more motivated to learn about how to get a roof over their head and food for their belly. If they are not interested or will not pay attention when they have the problem – they will be less interested if the roof over their head and food for the belly is no longer their problem. I believe that ever one should pay taxes – even the poor and especially pay taxes on money or benefits coming from the government. This little principle would change the thinking about government spending, and it would become more obvious that government spending is seldom a solution. We will all have a better understanding of government if we all have skin in the game. The problem with federal government involvement is that their attitude is and has to be - one size to fit all. I have done a great deal of service with people in poverty and have learned that there are at least 5 very big categories of impoverished people. You may know more. 1 chronic substance addiction 2 Mentally or physically handicapped or incompetent. 3 The Hobo – someone that has chosen poverty as their preferred way of life 4 People living on the economic edge of poverty. These are what many point to as needing help and assistance from the government. They can survive but and illness of accident (or other form of bad luck) pulls them under. 5 The elderly that are in the final stages of their life cycle. Sadly, many in poverty qualify under more than one of the above categories. For example, for whatever reason there is a strong correlation between #s 1 and 2. Only those uniquely of only the #4 category can successfully be helped out of poverty. My point in all this is that we need to trash all of the current poverty programs coming out of the failed Great Society – I am glad you have at least an inkling for this. I am concerned that your chart is misleading. I do not like the idea that the age 65 and up are getting entitlement benefits. We have screwed over Social Security to the point of using SS funds for the millions coming across our borders claiming asylum (among other Great Society ideas). This points to another big problem I have – you are not being charitable if you are using someone else’s money. It is extremely rare that someone that contributes to SS gets more back than they paid in. The only reason that SS has had problems is because someone in government has provided SS funds to individuals that never contributed. Your other concern about people being underpaid magically goes away with Milton Friedman’s negative income tax (so does minimum wage). If the wage is not worth the work required (underpaid) they can quit and live on their negative income tax. The wonderful thing here is that people get to choose for themselves what works best for them. Without the labor the rich CEO’s would very quickly figure out they need to pay labor more just to compete. We would have a self-correcting system that provides incentives to both sides of the equation. The other sad truth is that anyone that has started up their own business knows that they will work for years without even earning minimum wage – I know this because I have started up more than one successful business. It is not unlikely that you will work for yourself for free. One business I worked for free for 12 years – when I sold the business the government took more than I was able to keep. If you deprive the rich of their sweat equity – the economy and ingenuity of this country will collapse. One thing I very much dislike about the Democrats (or just about anyone in a power position of government) is that they think that their thinking is the only thinking that matters. The Traveler

I will give you two. First – it is an idea that has never worked has whenever tried it has made poverty more abundant. A prime example is the Great Society established under President Johnston. It was argued that by taxing the haves (just 2% of the GDP) and transferring through government regulation the money to the poor that poverty would be eliminated. Currently through taxation the government is regulating money to the poor, that is almost 30% of the GDP and poverty today is worse than before the grand idea of the Great Society. The argument is always that with just a little more taxes on the haves we can overcome poverty. In light of history – I am of the mind that money (economy) is not the root cause of poverty in our modern society and money alone is not a solution. The second reason – is the problem of entitlement. Those receiving government subsidies begin to think they are entitled to those subsidies – perhaps even more. I am more in favor of Milton Friedman’s concept of “Negative Income Tax”. It is somewhat similar to guaranteed income but with a very important caveat. It must be established in a manner that whatever an individual is able to earn by their own labor – they will always end up with more income. Thus, there is always an incentive to work to increase one’s income rather than to petition more from the government or think the government can solve the problem on its own – that is truly an argument with no merit or example. The Traveler

Labels are a problem. I cannot criticize too harshly because I have used labels, but the truth is – labels are more propaganda than descriptive. Let’s start with liberals and conservatives. Historically liberals believed in individuals exercising their prerogative and conservatives historically believed that individuals must be governed and kept within the guidelines projected by authority. Considering the history – I would say I am a liberal. It seems to me that the current definitions of liberals and conservatives are ambiguous such that I do not think of myself as either. But there are other problems with conservatives and liberals. Which is most likely to borrow money and create debt? Are we thinking liberals? And yet it is considered a conservative principle to borrow money to purchase a house or start a business. I would think that liberals ought to be against money loans with compound interest. And yet it seems that liberals are the most likely to borrow money without any consideration of interest? What is really meant by the “left” and the “right”? The most common answer is that the left is for more and bigger government and the right is for minimal and smaller government. But then it would seem that everybody agrees that the Nazis were right wing? How can that be? The Nazis were socialists and believed in the government control of everything – including who should be able to live and reproduce offspring. As I understand history the Romans were very good at labeling things – especially things that they did not like. For example, the Romans called the land of Israel, Palestine and the people that lived there Palestinians. The people in the Middle East that today call themselves Palestinians are less genetically connected to the people that the Romans gave the name to than are the Jews that are claimed to have no right to Palestinians. Another example from the Romans is the label “Christian”. Initially the followers of Jesus were Jews but as more and more Gentiles converted – it seems that the label of Christian was not so bad. Jesus called those that followed him (especially in baptism) disciples. Today many refuse to call us LDS Christians. That is fine with me. Knowing where the label came from in the first place – I have no problem being excluded from that label. When I am asked concerning my religious faith – I always respond with, “I am a disciple of Jesus the Christ and a devout believer in G-d”. Hopefully, this will clear up the ambiguity of labels and give an accurate description of how I define myself. Politically, I have difficulty defining myself. I very much dislike the, “I am a social liberal and fiscal conservative”. I am kind of a Libertarian. But mostly I believe in state rights trumping federalism. I am mostly connected to the political philosophy Frederic Bastiat as published in his little book, “The Law”. His concept of legal plunder is profound for our day. The Traveler

Before I begin, I would make clear that I am not a fan of Trump – especially for president. But there are some things about your post that I believe ought to be addressed: First – I would agree that Trump has narcissistic tendencies. I am not sure that calling him a raging narcissist is clinically accurate. I would also interject that every professional politician (holding such a position as a lifelong pursuit) has narcissistic tendencies. I would also interject that those that resort to name calling in the political arena by the nature of such also qualify as narcissistic in my mind and also have a tendency towards what you call “raging”. I do not believe that a searl liar is capable of introducing the Abraham Accords and bring the world closer to peace. Second – I would agree that Trump tends to exaggerate issues that he is passionate about. I do not believe that qualifies him or anyone else that does so as a serial liar. Again, I have not encountered any politician that does not tend to exaggerate the issues they champion or skew what their opponents have said or done. I do believe that to testify falsely before an official magistrate fully qualifies as bearing false witness against you neighbor – the worse kind of a lie in my mind (which is exactly what was done to Trump at a FISA Court on 16 points of accusations). I personally believe that bearing false witness against one’s neighbor does technically qualify someone as a serial liar. I realize that in political arenas there is a tendence to talk about candidates. I do believe that on this forum we ought to avoid name calling (such as raging narcissist or serial liar and talk specifically about promises in campaigning as opposed to actual efforts and accomplishments.) I oppose Trump as president because I do not believe he is either capable himself or capable of putting together a team to address the corruption of Washington DC. This was what I thought was his primary issue when he ran the first time and I really to do have a clear understanding what he intends this time around. The only reason that I can see for anyone to support Trump is to keep the democratic party establishment from continuing down their demonstrated path as has been established during the past 3 democratic presidents. In particular issues surrounding Israel and even more so what was done under the current administration concerning the Abraham Accords. Congress has been so economically undisciplined I do not understand why any current member of the House or Senate should be reelected. The Traveler

Every one of which is a politician by definition. The Traveler

You realize that the ultimate poll is what we call the voting poll. You are correct that there is a great deal of intent to skew polls (especially political polls) for all kinds of reasons. This is why it is critical to ensure that registered voters are constantly validated to insure that individuals that have previously registered have not moved their residence from the district or died or for some other reason such that they are not controlling their ballot to insure it is a legal poll. It is sad that any effort to authenticate voter registration is labeled racists – I believe for no other reason than control and skew the official poll. The argument that there is not enough tampering to change results is also a divergent claim. Because politicians want to claim that the skewed vote is an overwhelming mandate. The Traveler

Information about fracking (hydraulically fractured and horizontal drilling). I have a brother that is an engineer that worked in upper management of a natural gas provider (he is now retired) that is an expert in fracking. Drilling is a mining process and everything humans utilize that is not grown is mined. Even water is basically provided via mining technology that relies heavily on drilling and transportation techniques. Petroleum products (including natural gas) come primarily from deep pockets of hydrocarbon deposits. Generally, most think of these deposits as some kind of underground reservoir resembling an underground swimming pool. In reality the deposits are more like a thin giant potato chip often stretching for many miles and winding through several layers of earth's crust. Hydrocarbons are one of the most plentiful elements of the universe but here on earth the reservoirs are deep in the earth’s crust. There are two important technical elements to fracking. The first is high pressure hydraulics that separate layers no more than the diameter of a grain of sand (sand silica) which maintains small area openings for the high-pressure petroleum to escape under controlled circumstances. The second is horizontal drilling. This technique allows drillers to extract the petroleum through a single pump that can replace fields of hundreds of pumps and drill holes using previous methods. This fracking process is more environmentally friendly than nature’s natural movements. The only problem are legal problems because the oil from many miles away (on someone else’s property) can easily be extracted. All of the argued points by uninformed environmentalists are without merit and it can even be argued that fracking is better for the environment than doing nothing and letting nature take its course. Worse that uninformed environmentalists are power crazy politicians with an agenda that is incapable of extending their intent beyond their personalized shellfish bubble. I believe that some day in the future that historians will look back on our era as a time of deliberate political unrest stumbling over false claims of pseudo-science and utter nonsense believed by an uninformed populous. Obviously, the age of enlightenment is over and has been replaced by an age of gullibility. The Traveler