Love is not about you, it never was. You do not love to satisfy your own needs. A selfish person has not felt, given, or expressed love in any way. Love is unique and personal. You cannot love different people in the same way. If that was the case then most actions would be accepted as love. There can be no love in ignorance, the lack of understanding of a person damns one's love.

The person who does not accept love is just as worse. This person is miserable and blames all others for it. In their selfishness, the love expressed by others is not in the way they see fit, and therefore they do not see themselves as loved. They give all that they have until all they have is a pit of their own misery. Priding in the fact that they gave their all, but too proud to get out of the mud.

They do sincerely love, but one cannot be loving by themselves. Love not given and received is not love at all. They sit in their pit longing for what they won't accept. They feel all the pains and hurts as anyone else who as given their heart away, but they do it without any of the comfort of others. This person is miserable; by their own accord. This person lacks all godliness. This person is a step away from not being human at all. The only god-like qualities they hold do not extend farther than their lonely pit.

In their misery they scream out for help only to reject the hand offered. How can one take so much pain? How could one let their heart shrink in a self-created pit of selfishness? The only pain comparable to theirs is the pain of the person offering their hand to lift them out.

A Good Point

Children, you must remember something. A man without ambition is dead. A man with ambition but no love is dead. A man with ambition and love for his blessings here on earth is ever so alive.

- Pearl Bailey, ""Talking to Myself" (1971)"

Buttars Saves The World?!

By Robert Gehrke

The Salt Lake Tribune
Posted: 02/20/2009 12:37:00 PM MST

An anti-gay diatribe by Sen. Chris Buttars will cost him his spot on the Senate Judiciary Committee, The Tribune has learned.

Senate Republicans, prompted by complaints from minority Democrats, held a frank discussion of Buttars' actions in a closed-door caucus Thursday. Afterward, senators would not discuss what action, if any, might be taken against the West Jordan Republican.

Part of it, Senate leaders said, depends on what Buttars, who left the Capitol after Thursday's caucus to be with his family, decides to do. He did not return a phone message. But Senate President Michael Waddoups said the action he plans to take is clear.

"I've made up my mind what I'm going to do," Waddoups, R-Taylorsville
UTAH POLITICS

Sources familiar with the Senate discussions, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the Senate Republican caucus decided to remove Buttars from the Senate Judiciary Committee, a panel which he currently chairs.

It is unclear how that move would affect his position on another panel, the Judicial Confirmation Committee, which he also chairs and is a member of by virtue of his position on the Judiciary Committee.

A news conference has been scheduled for Friday morning to discuss the Buttars situation.

Senate Majority Whip Scott Jenkins, R-Plain City, said Buttars is aware of his range of options, and no decision is final until Buttars reports back to Waddoups on Friday
Advertisement
about how he wants to handle the issue.

Waddoups has considerable authority to discipline members of the Senate, including stripping them of any or all committee assignments.

"We're dealing with a very sensitive issue," said Senate Assistant Majority Whip Greg Bell, R-Fruit Heights. "We want to be judicious. We want those who have been offended to understand … and we also want to make sure that Senator Buttars is dealt with fairly."

In an interview for a documentary film, Buttars called gays "the greatest threat to America going down." He said homosexuals lack any morals and want special rights.

"It's the beginning of the end," Buttars said. "Oh, it's worse than that. Sure. Sodom and Gomorrah was localized. This is worldwide."

Senate Minority Leader Pat Jones, D-Holladay, said members of her caucus were offended by the remarks and she went to Waddoups and told him that, unless Republican leaders took some steps to acknowledge the slight, they planned to raise the issue on the floor.

Gayle Ruzicka, president of the Utah Eagle Forum, a conservative organization that has been among Buttars' most strident supporters, said she did not expect any action against the senator.

"It's a free speech issue," she said. "I'm sure they'd defend anybody's right on that floor to say what they want to say."

Waddoups said on Wednesday that he thought it would be "inappropriate" to take any action against Buttars for stating his own opinion when those statements were not a violation of Senate rules.

A year ago, Buttars was also in the crossfire, in that instance for statements he made that were deemed racially insensitive during debate on a school construction bill. He apologized on the floor of the Senate for those remarks, but the NAACP and others called for his resignation.

He also was stripped by then-Senate President John Valentine of his chairmanship of the Judicial Nomination Committee after he wrote a letter on Senate letterhead scolding a judge for ruling against a friend.

Despite the controversies, Buttars withstood a strong challenge to win re-election by a comfortable margin. But Valentine lost his bid for re-election as Senate President based, at least in part, on his punishment of Buttars.

The plant's common name refers to Venus, the Roman goddess of love, whereas the genus name refers to Dione.[citation needed] Dionaea is a monotypic genus closely related to the waterwheel plant and sundews.

On Death

I would rather be ashes than dust!
I would rather that my spark should burn out in a brilliant blaze
than it should be stifled by dry rot.
I would rather be a superb meteor,
every atom of me in magnificent glow,
than a sleepy and permanent planet.
The proper function of man is to live, not to exist.
I shall not waste my days trying to prolong them.

I shall use my time.

- Jack London

We Are All Socialists Now

By Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas | NEWSWEEK

In many ways our economy already resembles a European one. As boomers age and spending grows, we will become even more French.
The interview was nearly over. on the Fox News Channel last Wednesday evening, Sean Hannity was coming to the end of a segment with Indiana Congressman Mike Pence, the chair of the House Republican Conference and a vociferous foe of President Obama's nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill. How, Pence had asked rhetorically, was $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts going to put people back to work in Indiana? How would $20 million for "fish passage barriers" (a provision to pay for the removal of barriers in rivers and streams so that fish could migrate freely) help create jobs? Hannity could not have agreed more. "It is … the European Socialist Act of 2009," the host said, signing off. "We're counting on you to stop it. Thank you, congressman."

There it was, just before the commercial: the S word, a favorite among conservatives since John McCain began using it during the presidential campaign. (Remember Joe the Plumber? Sadly, so do we.) But it seems strangely beside the point. The U.S. government has already—under a conservative Republican administration—effectively nationalized the banking and mortgage industries. That seems a stronger sign of socialism than $50 million for art. Whether we want to admit it or not—and many, especially Congressman Pence and Hannity, do not—the America of 2009 is moving toward a modern European state.

We remain a center-right nation in many ways—particularly culturally, and our instinct, once the crisis passes, will be to try to revert to a more free-market style of capitalism—but it was, again, under a conservative GOP administration that we enacted the largest expansion of the welfare state in 30 years: prescription drugs for the elderly. People on the right and the left want government to invest in alternative energies in order to break our addiction to foreign oil. And it is unlikely that even the reddest of states will decline federal money for infrastructural improvements.

If we fail to acknowledge the reality of the growing role of government in the economy, insisting instead on fighting 21st-century wars with 20th-century terms and tactics, then we are doomed to a fractious and unedifying debate. The sooner we understand where we truly stand, the sooner we can think more clearly about how to use government in today's world.

As the Obama administration presses the largest fiscal bill in American history, caps the salaries of executives at institutions receiving federal aid at $500,000 and introduces a new plan to rescue the banking industry, the unemployment rate is at its highest in 16 years. The Dow has slumped to 1998 levels, and last year mortgage foreclosures rose 81 percent.

All of this is unfolding in an economy that can no longer be understood, even in passing, as the Great Society vs. the Gipper. Whether we like it or not—or even whether many people have thought much about it or not—the numbers clearly suggest that we are headed in a more European direction. A decade ago U.S. government spending was 34.3 percent of GDP, compared with 48.2 percent in the euro zone—a roughly 14-point gap, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In 2010 U.S. spending is expected to be 39.9 percent of GDP, compared with 47.1 percent in the euro zone—a gap of less than 8 points. As entitlement spending rises over the next decade, we will become even more French.

This is not to say that berets will be all the rage this spring, or that Obama has promised a croissant in every toaster oven. But the simple fact of the matter is that the political conversation, which shifts from time to time, has shifted anew, and for the foreseeable future Americans will be more engaged with questions about how to manage a mixed economy than about whether we should have one.

The architect of this new era of big government? History has a sense of humor, for the man who laid the foundations for the world Obama now rules is George W. Bush, who moved to bail out the financial sector last autumn with $700 billion.

Bush brought the Age of Reagan to a close; now Obama has gone further, reversing Bill Clinton's end of big government. The story, as always, is complicated. Polls show that Americans don't trust government and still don't want big government. They do, however, want what government delivers, like health care and national defense and, now, protections from banking and housing failure. During the roughly three decades since Reagan made big government the enemy and "liberal" an epithet, government did not shrink. It grew. But the economy grew just as fast, so government as a percentage of GDP remained about the same. Much of that economic growth was real, but for the past five years or so, it has borne a suspicious resemblance to Bernie Madoff's stock fund. Americans have been living high on borrowed money (the savings rate dropped from 7.6 percent in 1992 to less than zero in 2005) while financiers built castles in the air.

Now comes the reckoning. The answer may indeed be more government. In the short run, since neither consumers nor business is likely to do it, the government will have to stimulate the economy. And in the long run, an aging population and global warming and higher energy costs will demand more government taxing and spending. The catch is that more government intrusion in the economy will almost surely limit growth (as it has in Europe, where a big welfare state has caused chronic high unemployment). Growth has always been America's birthright and saving grace.

The Obama administration is caught in a paradox. It must borrow and spend to fix a crisis created by too much borrowing and spending. Having pumped the economy up with a stimulus, the president will have to cut the growth of entitlement spending by holding down health care and retirement costs and still invest in ways that will produce long-term growth. Obama talks of the need for smart government. To get the balance between America and France right, the new president will need all the smarts he can summon.

© 2009

Is it true?

When my love swears that she is made of truth,
I do believe her, though I know she lies,
That she might think me some untutored youth,
Unlearned in the world's false subtleties.
Thus vainly thinking that she thinks me young,
Although she knows my days are past the best,
Simply I credit her false-speaking tongue;
On both sides thus is simple truth supprest.
But wherefore says she not she is unjust?
And wherefore say not I that I am old?
Oh, love's best habit is in seeming trust,
And age in love loves not to have years told:
Therefore I lie with her and she with me,
And in our faults by lies we flattered be.

- William Shakespeare