Now, apparently, I get to upload some new themes.

John Hattaway | smokingpen | Alicia Grey | Clockwork Princess | Cassandra West

Real Heroes Fly

And yet, as a candidate for President, or wanna-be candidate, she uses this story to show that she’s been in dangerous situations. This is not unintentional, and I am sure that HRC would like to believe that she has more experience on the international stage than she really does. As a candidate, with experience, she is about on par with Obama. Neither of them have a ton of experience leading states, leading nations, or interacting on the international stage. For that matter, neither does McCain. What we are trying to decide in this election is who is the best of a group of poor candidates to lead the country.

I make no bones about who I intend to vote for and who I want as president. I think that we should go in a completely different direction. Voting for McCain is a vote for G.W. and the current way of doing things. Voting for HRC is similar to voting for Bill Clinton, and his way of doing things. More, we know, in advance, that HRC will push and try to force through legislation that universalizes healthcare in this country. Not really my cup-o-tea either.

In the realm of legislation, though, HRC has also chosen to remember a story about a lady who was refused treatment at a variety of hospitals. When you look deeper, in the news, you discover that this woman (who has a name that HRC refuses to share) actually did receive treatment, was not refused, and did have complications that have nothing to do with the story that HRC chooses to share.

In the light of day, though, you start to look at a variety of instances with HRC that indicate that having her as President will be a lot like having Bill back in office. I didn’t mind, so much, that he was president as talk radio and the news and news in general became very interesting. However, as a result of that presidency, I think the country was hurt… it was hurt in part because our current president has been allowed to run rampant with the appearance of being a god-fearing man, and with the allowances to go about attacking countries and tearing down dictatorships. Essentially, G.W. has become a temporary despot and we, the people, allow him to continue.

Granted, in the light of day, like HRC, he can do what he likes within the rule of law. I don’t think G.W. has broken the law, at least, not within the light of the current press situation in the country… though I think that time (after he is out of office) will tell exactly what has taken place during his presidency. I can see a slow ebbing forth of information as people begin to realize the extent of this presidents actions that will ripple across the news and across the country for the next decade, at least.

HRC, though, is already proving that she will alter the facts for her own use and ends. In her case, the facts are fluid and she learned this, in part, with her husband as they lived in the White House. Granted, she is a powerful woman in her own right, but as a candidate and potential leader, to have someone rampantly share falsehoods in the light of day and in the light of increasing press and public scrutiny I honestly wonder how it is that HRC, Bill, or anyone else thinks they can get away with remembering things wrong.

The problem, though, is not that HRC remembers something one way or another, it is that she chooses to continue promoting it, allows her husband to promote it, and does nothing about it when the press call her on the table. I can understand a pet project – like health care – for someone, but that project is dulled and made less as a result of her embellishing experiences. I can understand her desire to show an understanding of international politics and expressing her experience in some way, but to fabricate a dangerous situation in Bosnia is a falsehood.

Moreover, HRC is not any more qualified than McCain or Obama to be there to answer the Red Phone at 3 a.m. None of them have the experience necessary to answer that phone and make an informed decision. Truth told, no incoming president has that experience regardless of whether he served as a governor, senator, or congressman. There are indicators that would suggest someone as being more capable – cabinet members, military experience, and such, but in this situation even McCain spent his military service as a POW and has a great deal of experience empathizing with the atrocities of war, but not in commanding men in battle or understanding what takes place in the war room.

With all of that, Obama is a dark horse. He is the one we know the least about. As a lawyer he was good at what he did. As a state senator, he was successful and followed the party line, which is to be expected. The man has the ability to unify people whereas McCain and HRC are both going to further divide this country. Sure, I am, at heart, far more conservative in the things I would like to see happen/happening, and I believe, at this point in the process, that the best man to support where I would like to see the country going is Obama – but that does not mean, at this point, he will be the president.

However, I do believe he has the overall support to get the nomination. You see, the Democratic Party has their own, unique, way of nominating a candidate. The candidates all go out and try to get the majority of states votes vying for a set number. The problem, though, is that in a tight race, neither candidate can accomplish all of the pledged delegates necessary to secure the nomination (as McCain has done for the Republican Party) which then lends itself to the Super Delegates. Super Delegates are a group of elected and party officials who can vote for whomever they like. Apparently, this caused a turnover of who received the nomination nearly forty years ago, the memory of which causes the Democratic Party’s Super Delegates to declare who they will vote for (en mas) before there is a clear front-runner. At present, Obama is the clear front-runner, though both HRC and Obama are still getting Super Delegates offering their support.

In Utah news, the currently pledged Super Delegates (two women… there are actually six in this state… but I am referring to the women) are suggesting they will probably change their pledge from HRC to Obama. Jimmy Carter (past president – raised the price of peanuts and isn’t considered a great president) has suggested he is ready to support Obama. Even a close Clinton friend and ally in the Governor of New Mexico has chosen to support Obama.

The writing appears to be on the wall. That writing is that Obama will be the next Democratic Presidential candidate. And yet, the race continues. People watch places like Pennsylvania and talk about how this could make or break Obama… and I don’t care. He will do well enough between now and the Democratic National Convention to secure the nomination. HRC will obfuscate things as much as possible. She will pull tricks out of her hat. She will make a lot of people feel like she can take the helm. This almost has the feel of life or death to me.

Romney dropped out when he realized he couldn’t win. He didn’t try to undermine the party or the candidate and the news believes he is trying to become the Vice-President or to setup a presidential run in 2012 or 2016. And, in that instance, I think that’s great. It doesn’t matter, to me, whether or not McCain has Romney on the ticket, he doesn’t get my vote unless Obama succumbs and puts HRC onto his ticket and then I won’t support him for her.

The point to much of this is that we don’t have a single person who can prove qualifications for president. In HRC’s case, she chooses to remember things in a way that puts the appearance of experience. Because of her fluid way of thinking, speaking, and presenting, she can do as she pleases, but I am not interested in having her as the president. I am of the opinion that a) we need a female president, and b) we need a black president, and c) having either of these would be good for the country; but in the case of HRC as the first female president, I think it would hurt our country more than it would help.

John Hattaway | smokingpen | Alicia Grey | Clockwork Princess | Cassandra West

Real Heroes Fly

One such story idea is a steampunk-pirate story that follows a young man (initially) as he leaves his father’s house for a life on the sea.

One of our conceits for the story is that all of the water gods are interested in this young man for a variety of reasons. As a result, this young mans life is not (really) his own and the water gods are all out looking for him.

So, in that spirit, I was bouncing around the internet and came across a site (no link, sorry) that talked specifically about Egyptian Gods and Mythology. What caught my attention was the distinct lack of a water god.

Why does this interest me?

Well, going back to the conceit of the story, the protagonist is on a sailing/steam ship. As a result of this, he will interact with various water-born deity throughout the story(ies). The outcome has been (part-time), discovering what mythologies and deities he would encounter.

Now, the Romans and the Greeks have the same pantheon of Gods. Sure, different names, but the same group of Gods. The conceit could include both the Greek and Roman in a weird, related, gestalt, that allows for some conflict… but that gets ahead of myself.

However, in all of the mythologies of the world, the Egyptian one has spawned several stories (and the Stargate movie and TV series). What gets me with the lack of a water god is the amount of dependency ancient Egypt had on the Nile River. The flooding of the Nile would deposit sediment and that sediment allowed for a rich growing environment. As a result, one would think that the economic and ecological needs would also have created a water deity along with all of the others.

And yet, they don’t have one.

This doesn’t affect the nature of the story or its outcomes. We’ve talked about some offshoots of the story that might include other pantheons and allow for the inclusion of the Egyptian gods (or a single god… kind of partial to Hathor)… however, you know, that is when I can find the time to write what we’ve outlined and plotted.

John Hattaway | smokingpen | Alicia Grey | Clockwork Princess | Cassandra West

Real Heroes Fly

Recently The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints underwent a change in the hierarchical leadership. Essentially, the former President and presiding authority over the Church, Gordon Bitner Hinckley passed away due to complications brought on by old age, and his First Counselor and President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles took the place as President of the Church, President of the First Presidency, and presiding authority. The only wait in the change was a courtesy to the Hinckley family until after President Hinckley was buried – which took place approximately six days after President Hinckley passed away.

The process of succession within the Church is that the senior most apostle, determined by time served within the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, becomes the presiding authority. After Joseph Smith, the founder and first President of the Church passed away, the Church fell into an interregnum where Brigham Young, the senior member of the Quorum (or Council) of the Twelve took over leadership of the Church. Records indicate that he had two councilors, but the presiding body, the first presidency, was not re-established for three nearly three years after the passing of Joseph Smith.

This pattern, an interregnum of leadership, was followed by John Taylor who, after a period of time, also re-organized the First Presidency. Upon John Taylor’s passing Wilford Woodruff, the fourth President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints received revelation that there would be no period of interregnum and the First Presidency of the Church was established immediately upon burial of John Taylor.

As a result of this, the pattern of succession has been very well established and guessing who the next leader of the Church will be is not necessary. In order for anyone but President Thomas S. Monson to be the presiding authority over the Church one of two things would have to happen:

First: President Monson would have to pass away;
Second: President Monson would have to suggest another member of the Quorum to take his place as presiding authority.

As a result of this, the longest surviving member of the Quorum of the Twelve becomes the presiding authority over the Church.

However, as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints one of the tenets of our religion is that Joseph Smith (founder/first prophet) restored the gospel of Jesus Christ as Christ taught it when he was on the Earth. Essentially, we believe that there was a falling away, or apostasy, and as a result not only was the authority to lead God’s ordained church lost to the world, but the Priesthood authority, and many basic principles of the gospel were lost to the world.

After Christ was crucified on the Cross, died, was resurrected, and then ministered unto the 11 Apostles of the time, the presiding authority being Peter, he left the Apostles to determine who would be the next member of that governing body. At that time Peter created a list of requirements for the new member of the body:

1. Had to be at Christ’s baptism by John
2. Had to be present at the death of Christ
3. Had to be a disciple of Christ during his lifetime

The outcome to these requirements was an eventual termination of authority, or an eventual termination of who could be a member of the presiding body of the Church at that time. Since Luke, one of the writer’s of the Gospels (also bears his name) is also the writer of Acts, and it is in Acts that we discover Peter’s rules for a new apostle, it is also important to note that at no time (in the New Testament) does he offer any further evidence of a presiding authority having changed the requirements for becoming one of the Twelve.

Since the Twelve were the recognized presiding body of the Church, and since you had to know Christ to be a member of this body, it then becomes necessary to determine whether or not it was intentional, on Peter’s part, to create a body that cannot survive past the first generation. Essentially, was Peter intentionally destroying the Quorum of Twelve or was this an oversight on his part?

Regardless, the membership of this body is important enough to note that Luke takes the time (joining the Church after Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection and being an historian and someone who had to gather information to write the books he writes) to tell us how members of the governing body were selected; but at no time does he rescind this and explain that a successor to Peter, or Peter himself, made a change to the hierarchy and membership into the Twelve.

What Luke does do is lay out a narrative concerning the transition from a Jewish preaching missionary effort to a Gentile preaching missionary effort. More specifically, he outlines how Peter was requested, and went, to a Roman town and met with a God Fearer (someone who practices Judaism but does not fully convert due to significant physical requirements). At the same time he introduces Paul, who was a persecutor of the Church and someone who may (or may not) have been a murderer of early Christians.

Throughout the early Christian narrative, and at no time, does anyone take the time to indicate a change in how the authority to lead the Church changes from those who personally knew Christ and worshipped with him to people who were Gentile converts of the Gospel or Jewish converts. Rather, this is omitted – even though a change like this would be very significant to the Church at that time.

What does happen is that the Church narrative moves from Peter to Paul. In this context Paul is rightfully referred to as an “apostle” but not necessarily as one of the Twelve Apostles. The term apostle, very broadly, refers to anyone who is engaged in the missionary work of the Church. So, any disciple of Christ who was sent out to preach Christ’s gospel was also an Apostle of Christ. Granted, we restrict the meaning of the word, probably as a result of various changes in English lexicon since the 16th century when the New Testament was translated for King James (e.g. what gives us the King James version of the Bible) what this does not mean is how we look at Paul.

We can draw similarities between various religions and leadership roles, as well as business and leadership roles, and historical leadership roles to indicate that Paul was (most likely) a leader of some kind within the Church. That is not in contention. What is in contention was whether or not he held the authority necessary to lead the Church if all of the other Apostles (in this case membership in the Quorum of the Twelve) passed on.

Keeping in mind that the method of leadership and that membership in the presiding body of the Church at that time required you to know Christ and that a period of no greater than 70 years could’ve passed before that leadership was extinguished, the question of Paul having that authority is a significant question that can be explored.

However, right of authority and succession of authority become two separate arguments in this instance. Where in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we have a clearly defined succession of authority and where any worthy male member of the Church can become a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, right of authority is less of an issue than succession of authority.

During Peter’s presiding over the Church, there was a period of extreme expansion. The new Christian theology was spread not only to Jews but also to God-fearers and from them to the Gentile nations as a whole. Historical methodology of the Roman Catholic church had allowed for Priests to go among the heathen in the Old and New Worlds thereby converting large numbers of people. These conversion, however, were not always without some cost to the principles of Christ’s Gospel. Specifically, over time, various traditions of the people being converted, those who worshiped idols or other gods, crept into the burgeoning Christian faith.

This is what Paul is best known for. Paul’s letters to the various peoples he converted or helped convert was an effect to try and stifle the influx of non-orthodox ideas to the new religion. He was both verbose and opinionated. He may have also had the power (as a Roman citizen) to travel how and where he wanted without recourse. As a missionary, and a convert, this is a powerful tool to have in Peter’s arsenal. This, however, does not denote that Paul was one of the leading Apostles. It does mean he was a leader of some influence.

Consider that Paul, as a missionary or as a regional leader of the growing faith is tasked with trying to keep that faith as pure as possible. In order to do that he had a couple of options: first, he could spend all of his time traveling from region to region trying to correct the errors in practice and worship that were creeping up; or second, he could write letters (to the literate) in the hopes that his letters would hold some sway over how the religion was to be practiced.

The first option is actually a given. Even today the leadership (this includes the 12, the 70, and the auxiliary leadership) not only writes talks, writes, letters, but they travel extensively to keep the Church in check. Corporations write memos and travel to regional centers and operations to make sure the corporate ethos is being followed. In organizing a body of people, it makes sense that Paul, like Peter and others, would be called upon to travel and write and censure when they could not be in person.

Paul, however, was doomed to failure. Christianity, as a new faith, was not popular and there were a lot of people, not the least of which were the Jews of the time, who wanted to see it destroyed. Moreover, it flew in the face of the pagan religions; and regardless of Paul’s ability (as a Roman) to travel, he was subject to Roman law. This law would eventually lead him to petition a death sentence with the Caesar of the time.

Still, Paul has not been established as a) a member of the governing body; or b) the successor to Peter. Rather what he was, was someone who was assigned to keep people in line, preach the Gospel, and to write letters helping new converts remain true to the faith he was preaching. He was a man of some authority, though how much authority, is in question. And, since he was not a disciple of Christ during his life, and no other evidence of succession exists, he was not likely to have been allowed into the governing body of the Church at that time.

Moreover, the Church at the time of Peter was growing rapidly with a lot of coverts. As people would discuss the new teachings, they would (in effect) become missionaries, though not ordained, and would spread that word to friends and family. This would then spread to others who would discuss the ideas (Greeks) and how it affected their current faith (Jews). The outcome was a conversion process that required a wider base of leadership.

On top of that, the members of the governing body of would be required, to keep order within the Church, to travel rather extensively. This would keep them separated for long periods of time. As men died, replacing them would require that the presiding officer (Peter) find out about the death and then locate a worthy disciple who met his requirements. The outcome from this, though not impossible, would mean that succession of leadership would be limited by time, distance, and association.

Whether or not Christ, who prophesied that the Church would have a “falling away” before his death knew about these restriction on the leadership, on preaching his Gospel, and on succession is not known. What we can infer, however, is that rapid growth, difficulty in choosing a successive leadership, intentionally limiting who can be a member of the governing body, and geography as well as the political atmosphere and government and persecution from established religious practices all led to an eventual disintegration of the Church and a floundering for a period of time.

After the death of the Apostles (who knew Christ) Christianity did not die. Instead, the leadership and responsibility of the faith went into receivership with lower-level leaders (those that did not know Christ, converts, Gentiles, Jews, and etc.) taking charge of the Church as a whole and spreading the word. At the same time, these leaders, having to rely upon their own wisdom, understanding, and learning, could not keep in check the encroachment of pagan ideas into the religion. Also, having to interpret the gospel, they made changes to help support their interpretations.

All of this led to a period of apostasy where the Church was without keys, authority, or ordained leadership. It also led to an apostasy where decisions were made without the influence of the Holy Spirit and as a result changes were made to the basic tenets of the pure Gospel. The apostles died. the Church fell into ruins. And ultimately, other faiths (based off of Christian ethics) rose to fill the void. These faiths furthered the expansion of Christianity.

Ultimately, today, we have a clear succession of leadership. There is no infighting. There are no contests to be one. We don’t appoint elders to decide who is the best one to lead the body of Saints. In the time of Peter, I would imagine this was true as well; though the succession, after Peter, becomes somewhat ambiguous and as far as the historical record indicates, does not show who would succeed him, who did succeed him (other than a member of the 12), or how that succession took place – it does show how succession was meant to happen and a couple of examples of how it happened.

John Hattaway | smokingpen | Alicia Grey | Clockwork Princess | Cassandra West

Real Heroes Fly

Also, I added some headshots to my photo album. Feel free to check them out and make fun of me. Those comments I will definitely post and approve.

John Hattaway

With that said.

Here’s the Front:

Here’s the Back:

(NOTE: Pine box can be any kind of coffin, box, bag, hole, or any other device, method, or belief wherein the body is interred according to beliefs or practices after death.)

We die. The nation goes to war and people die. It is a part of government to send people off to their slaughter, of to their eternal reward because we want a bigger piece of ground, a larger stretch of land; we need to avenge some wrong, or destroy some evil minded (and acting) person. War is hell and people die. In this day and age it is a lot more likely that both men and women will die in combat. We are a people who should be accustomed to this fact of life and for some reason are not. We don’t want anyone to die.

According to this news article at Yahoo News, the U.S. Congress is beginning it’s bi-yearly pandering to constituents. Give them what they want to hear. And as a result, it is becoming evident that two things are happening. One, that national sentiments against the Iraq War efforts are waning and the American people want the troops recalled. And two, that Congressional representatives are aware of those feelings and even though they are not about to call for a unilateral pullout of troops, they are opening debate on Capital Hill about the subject. Debate that means nothing.

Also in that article, and this is what I am writing about, is that we have lost, in combat or because of stupidity, about 2500 American lives. We lament over 2500 American lives. Do we cry over the dead because they are dead? or do we cry over them because we expect that when we send men (and women) into combat zones the advancement of military technology will protect them? I don’t know if anyone is paying attention to those questions. Do we really expect to send men (and women) into war and have them come home alive?

How stupid is that?

People die in war. We, as a nation, have not experienced a real war in a very long time. I mean that. World War II was probably the most real conflict we were involved in. But Korea or Viet Nam, those two wars are equally as important, equally as auspicious. Lot’s of people died. There are only two wars in American history where more people died. It’s interesting to look at the numbers. We’re talking big numbers, not thousands, those are small numbers.

According to http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm the American Revolution had about 4435 deaths. Dead, not wounded. The War of 1812 had 2260 dead. The Mexican War had 13,283 dead – most of those were not combat related. The Civil War had 558,052 dead. The Spanish-American War had 2446 dead, the vast majority not combat related. World War I had 116,708 dead. World War II 407,316 dead. Korea had 33651 dead. And Viet Nam had 58,168 dead. The first Gulf War had 297 casualties.

We have a great deal of hubris as a nation. We expect to send fighting men (and women) into combat and into hostile territories, we expect that our superior numbers, our superior Air Force, our superior fire power and everything else our Military Industrial Complex has built up over the years to protect our young men; and the outcome is that people die in combat zones. We were no more prepared for a war in Iraq than we are for the next great war. And yes, there is a next great war coming. It is inevitable. I don’t know where, I don’t know what will cause it, I don’t know that I care, at the moment, about what will draw the United States, and probably the whole world, into combat; but I do know that we will receive a very rude, very brash awakening to the realities of war and that 2500 dead, though tragic, is nothing compared to what we have experienced and what we will experience. News outlets like CNN or Fox or CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, the BBC have broadcast death right into our homes. We don’t like it. We don’t want to see it. It hurts to watch our friends and neighbors die; but we get it anyway.

Death is a part of life. Death is a part of war. We are lucky that we have had so few reminders of death handed to us in this War. There could be more. There probably will be more dead before we pull out of Iraq and head to the next country, the next conflict, the next battle, or the next needed place.

Dont get me wrong, I like being back here and I look forward to school at BYU. This is one of those things that I chose to do and I wasnt naïve in making that decision; however, watching shows that give a pretty good overview of someplace Ive come to really like makes me think about the changes that Ive made in my life.

One of those changes has been to quit working for Fidelity. Had I stayed in New Hampshire I am pretty confident I would already be a full-time Fidelity employee looking to make a lot more money in the next twelve months than Ive made at almost any other time in my life. And yet, thats not really the point, is it. Money has never been the motivating factor for me even though I realize, more now than ever before, how much life revolved around making money and being able to afford bills and life. Life doesnt have to be expensive but it does have to be paid for.

Missing New Hampshire and Boston and the east coast is not a bad thing. Missing life, that is what I am beginning to think is the problem. I am missing life.

This was why Andy was going to law school. To pay for the life hes chosen. He doesnt need to make a fortune but he does need to be able to afford to live. His family needs to be able to afford to live and in his mind practicing law will help with that.

For me, going back to school and getting the degree will help pay for the life Ive chosen to live. Ive dedicated a large portion of my life to writing and writing is where I want to see myself even if that means giving up my dreams of fiction and working toward other areas where my skills and abilities can be of use to someone, some company. There is a part of me that hopes for success where I want it, that hopes for the opportunity to be published, to be critically successful, to do what Ive always dreamed about doing. Its the naivety I live with in my life.

Money is important but not as important as finding that little niche in life where I can match money with desire. Desire is to write, money is how you pay for self and family. Match the two, desire and money, and youve found something toward happiness. Happiness is the goal.

Religiously we are told that, Man is that he might have joy. We can derive that our goal and objective is to find what brings joy into our lives, individually. This is associated with things like religion, employment, family, and otherelements. Helping others can play a vital role in the process of finding joy and happiness.

For me there is an increasingly difficult balance to be had. For years I was happy having phone conversations with people, going to work, serving in the church, and hoping that someday I would begin to feel the things people around me said they felt. It is, and was, a frustrating process. The is becomes my finding out what people have talked about throughout my entire life. As an adult (up to a few of years ago) many of the urges that are common to most teenagers were completely foreign to me.Up until a few years ago Id always wondered what was wrong with me. Now, I feel that nothing is, but up until a few years ago things seemed out of sorts and they were.

This is all stuff that can be written about. They are experiences that I can carry with me and maybe offer as help to others. My current bishop, in suggesting a calling to me, said that his feelings indicated that my life experiences would be a lot of help where they want me to serve.

I dont know if I can apply what I have learned from life to helping where I am being asked to. For that matter, I am not as confident as I present myself when it comes to this next job. There is always a level of anxiety when it comes tostarting a new job. The expectations, what will happen, time frames, getting to know people. They are excited in having me but there seems to be a certain lack, within me, that cant work past what I am doing to what I need to be doing. Work. Its all there is.

Thats what it was like in New Hampshire. Thats part of me reason for coming back here. Work cant be all there is and it was. I found myself doing the same things, going to the same places, and looking for companionship in places and with people that, under better circumstances, I wouldnt have had those kinds of associations.

Jared said to me that decisions are often made for you because of the lack of choices. Imagine that. A choice made because there are a lack of choices to be made.

Ive read books that indicate that choices and options are limitless so long as you understand and see that there are choices and options you may not be aware of; but that you have to be willing to become aware of other options and choices outside of the ones you may currently know. Learn. Go to school. Look at other options. Talk to people. Listen. Find out what other people have done and then mirror success.

Most people meet their companions (think marriage) in school. Snot the reason I am going back to school and snot the reason I moved back to Utah.

In New Hampshire I knew a brother Flint who told me that sometimes you have to convert and marry the girls. That is a different option. It changes the way you may look at the people around you and the world in general. Brother Flint was right, sometimes you have to convert people to your way of thought, but in that instance it wasnt the right answer.

I miss New Hampshire. I miss a lot of things. I miss the times I had in Layton and I wouldnt move back there to save my life. Not at this juncture in my life. And yet, I miss the people and the dating and the experiences. I dont have that here. Springville is a foreign territory to me. Its a place I am because I am going to BYU, because I need a place to live, and because, when I saw the place, it wasnt someplace that offended me or caused me to want to run in another direction.

What are my choices and how can I change them?

My life is very different now than it was a year or two ago. Its very different now than it was before I move back to Utah from New Hampshire. Things arent moving at the speed I want them to. Yet, they are moving. I am moving forward. Even though I have two weeks between gigs I have another gig coming up.

Then new years coming. January leads to other months, new experiences. New adventures. Its about the new experiences and the new adventures. Some day I may be successful, I may start to date again, I may find that what I am going through is, but for a short time, and I may end up doing well.