brandonrobison.net

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says “smacking someone in the face” is not cruel or unusual! Three cheers for torture!

Last week, in light of the recent publicity the CIA has received for waterboarding three terrorist suspects, Justice Scalia told the BBC that the Eighth Amendment is actually referring to punishment for a crime. Since many terrorists have not been charged or convicted of any crimes, the amendment clearly doesn’t apply to them. Furthermore, despite the wording of “cruel and unusual punishments [shall not be] inflicted” being very black-and-white sounding, it apparently is not. Again, Justice Scalia provided some insight by posing the questions, “How close does the threat have to be? And how severe can the infliction of pain be?”

I am so glad Justice Scalia offered this gray-area-view of the Constitution for me. I have been thinking a lot lately about “torture” and if it is morally permissible or not. Since we are at a significant risk of terrorist attacks (Code Yellow!), I am constantly worried that my home or car will be broken into by terrorists or other thugs. As such, I have tried to prepare myself by mentally running through hundreds of scenarios. And thanks to the guidance of a Supreme Court Justice, I now know the right thing to do if the situation presents itself.

For example, let’s pretend a burglar is trying to break into my home. After tackling him, wrestling him to the ground, and tying him up, I can safely assume he has other burglar friends who may at some point want to break into my house. At this point, I could call on the wisdom and guidance of Justice Scalia and take him into a dark room, put a bag over his head, and put his head into my sink while I force water all over his covered face. Or I can smack him, since that was specifically stated as being ok.

Either way, it is a morally righteous act. I am not doing it to punish him for breaking in, but merely to thwart the future attempts of other thieves.

God bless Supreme Court Justice’s Constitutional interpretations, and God bless the USA!

Note: This article/blog will also be appearing in the 2/25 edition of the UNLV Rebel Yell.

The evening of the 13th, as I drove home, I noticed my nose and throat felt a little funny. The weather had been wild all day, with wind gusts up to 60mph. The air was filled with dust. As I woke up on the 14th, I knew it was not the weather, but that I had caught a cold. Blargh.

I initially tried to ignore it. I got dressed for work and went out. After about an hour, however, my head felt like it was going to explode. I spent the majority of the rest of the day sleeping at Ashley’s, letting her take care of me between her own work and things she had to do.

By night, I was feeling a bit better — either due to sleeping or the drugs I was on — and Ashley and I went to Sensi at the Bellagio for dinner. Pictures will be posted later.

I’m going back to sleep.

Wow, after being down for… ever…? It’s finally back up (that’s what she said) — the website, I mean!

With such a wonderfully easy way to update, I may actually do this more often.

Ashley and I are registered at Target and Amazon.com. So, go buy us lots of cool things:

Target

Amazon.com

Many members of the Church easily recognize Satan’s role as a tempter of persons and as a figure who stands opposed to the plan of salvation. When we think of the war in heaven, we often, without giving it much thought, think it was simply a grand debate over whether we should follow God’s plan or whether we should follow Satan’s plan. While this is true, it is far too simplistic. We concentrate heavily on God’s plan, and we often fail to realize exactly what Satan’s plan was.

On the one hand, God’s plan was to send us to earth where we could learn and have experiences away from God’s direct influence. This would allow us to develop in ways not possible while still in his presence. If we lived righteously, we could return to Him and gain exaltation and eternal life.

God’s plan allowed for the use of free agency or choice. Whatever you call it, is the same thing: freedom.

On the other hand, Satan’s plan would force us all to act in whatever way Satan desired, also eventually to return to heaven.

God’s and Satan’s ideas were similar: they both desired for everyone to return to heaven after their probation on earth was finished. The major difference? God’s plan was to use freedom, while Satan’s was to use coercion. Satan’s plan, albeit philanthropic-sounding in its efforts to allow everyone to return to heaven, was so evil, due to its use of force, that Satan and his followers were cast out of heaven.

We are taught by our church leaders to liken scriptures and gospel principles to our lives. Satan’s false-philanthropy, as I like to call it, can be easily seen in today’s world, especially in the realm of law and politics.

For example, several of the people currently running to be the next president of the United States have plans to roll out a national form of health care service. These plans, like Satan’s, sound very nice: every person in the country would be covered for health-related expenses; every person would be taken care of. And the cost? We would all be taxed for it, involuntarily. We would be forced to participate, even if we didn’t want to pay for it. Allowing individuals choices within this system, eg., allowing them to pick their own doctors and providers, would still be the same kind of system, only with the facade of allowing for choice. Regardless, it would still be utilizing force.

As we approach the election season, and as we progress toward more and more socialistic proposals, let us keep these ideas in mind. No kind of paternalism, no matter how nice, pleasant, or otherwise philanthropic-sounding, is truly in accordance with the gospel of Jesus Christ, unless it is implemented voluntarily and people have total freedom as to whether they participate or not.

Any other system is operating under the same principle as what Satan proposed in the pre-existence.

[updated/edited for typos on 6 Apr 2009.]