You Don't Need A Sign

Credit: InsidePigeonForgeTN

Growing up in the church, I heard many stories of people getting signs that helped them confirm their faith in the form of voices/warnings in their head, miracles, and of course visions in the case of Joseph Smith and others around the time of the founding of the church. Throughout my teenage years, I consistently asked God for one of those signs. I believed that with faith, even that of a mustard seed, I could get a big sign from God that would confirm to me that my faith in Jesus Christ and his church as real and valid. Or did I want it for some other reason? Looking back, I think consciously I wanted a sign for that reason but subconsciously, I just thought it would be cool; maybe something I could tell my friends and family about. Undoubtedly I think it would have helped my faith but the fact that I thought it was necessary for that faith is what made it so hard for me to finally get that personal confirmation of the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

This hope/expectation for a miraculous sign didn't just affect my testimony; it ended up ruining the quality of my prayers. I would pray for things like "if you give me a Corvette, I will know prayer works" pretending to myself that that would actually happen. I do not think that is impossible but it's an intrinsically flawed and selfish approach to prayer and faith. Not only would that minimize the amount of faith required to know for myself that the things I was unsure of were true, but this method required no sacrifice and offered much reward. God is good, but He often wants and expects us to be willing to make sacrifices for the greatest rewards available, not the least of which knowing which church was going to lead us to eternal life. I didn't deserve a Corvette and God knows I would probably think more about the Corvette than the confirmation of prayer that I had just received. As humans, we don't appreciate the value of something if it is just given to us for free or without work and effort.

This way of thinking lasted much too long and affected my testimony. I never disbelieved but I always felt jealous of people in church who would tell their stories of miracles and signs given them in moments of faith crises. Was I not good enough to get one of these miracles? Why would one person deserve a sign and not another? The sad truth of that question is that I had already experienced miracles, I just was unwilling to accept that that was my miracle because it wasn't like someone else's. How selfish of me. Years prior, my family and I were out looking for a Christmas tree as we do every year after Thanksgiving. My sister and brother and I went on our own to try and find that perfect tree. None of us really had a good sense of direction and didn't pay any attention to land marks that would help us get back to our point of origin. We searched for maybe 30 minutes with no luck and decided to head back. We thought we may simply have to turn around 180 degrees and we'd find our way but after a long time of walking, we didn't see our car, we didn't hear anyone responding to our shouts; we were lost. So my sister said we should get on our knees and pray. We found a road and knelt there and prayed that we could find our way. We then started walking down the road and just over the hill, we saw our family hauling in a tree and shouting for us. It was the the most immediate answer to a prayer that I had ever experienced, and even during my teenage years, I never forgot this experience, so why did I not see it as a miracle or a direct answer to my prayer?

Credit: Chicago Tribune

I think back to the story I heard many times of a man shingling his roof. He did not have a harness on to secure him in case he slipped and was not well prepared for an incident. And that incident occurred; he slips and started to slide down the roof towards the edge where there was a roughly 15-20 foot drop to the ground. As he is slipping he says a quick prayer asking God to protect him (despite his lack of preparedness that would have prevented this situation in the first place.) Just as he says 'Amen' his belt catches a loose nail stopping his fall and saving him from a long fall that could have broken bones or even worse. He immediately says "never mind God, I caught a nail" completely ignorant to the fact that it was God who put the nail there. I personally like to believe his belt broke or the nail popped out at that moment but I know God is more forgiving and kind than I. This, in so many ways, was similar to my experience. I thought, "well, we were already on the road so even if we didn't stop and pray, we would have just found them down the road anyway" and similar excuses to discount the minor miracle we experienced. It wasn't until much later that I not only realized how significant this experience was, no matter how insignificant it may seem, but how little having an experience like that mattered. I am extremely grateful for it, but it didn't end up strengthening my faith and was not the reason I gained a testimony of the power of prayer or the gospel.

Unfortunately, I am among the crowd that didn't really gain a testimony of the gospel until I went on my mission. While in the MTC, a member of our Branch Presidency challenged us to read the Book of Mormon and then ask in sincere prayer if its words were true. I knew this was how we were supposed to gain a testimony of the Book of Mormon, I had heard dozens of stories about people doing this exact thing, but I realized that I had not done that myself. I was too busy trying to get God to give me big signs to help me confirm, or gain, my faith and testimony. My search for signs delayed the most powerful confirmation of truth I had ever had in my life and significantly slowed my progress as a member of the church. All it took was a sincere prayer and a reflection of my thoughts. It may not come in the same form to everyone, but in that moment, God knew that I wasn't trying to get anything out of it except a confirmation of truth. I wasn't looking for a story to tell my friends and family, I wasn't looking for material rewards, and I wasn't looking for a big sign. I was just looking for truth.

That would be a great ending to the story but the unfortunate truth is, I fell into some of the same habits in the years after I came home from my mission. I would ask God in prayer that if my pursuing of a woman I liked was the right path for me, to give me a sign, or, more often than not, ask for a specific sign like "have them send me a text message right now." We don't choose God's terms, and in the case of dating, God doesn't choose our significant other ("Mate Selection", Eternal Marriage Student Manual.) But this wasn't just limited to my dating life, I adopted this flawed approach to prayer and signs in various aspects of my life. I would ask for signs to help me find the right answers on tests that I hadn't studied enough for, I would ask for miracles that would help me financially, or to let me know if I should buy a new piece of technology I really wanted. Can God answer those prayers? Of course He can. Will he? Often, yes, but not often in the ways we want Him to. 

The moral of the story here is of course, as the title suggests, that we don't need a sign from God to know what is true or what is right, but also, that we are prone to repeating our mistakes and falling back into bad habits. And I can't give you the antidote to this problem. I think the best thing we can do, in my experience, is to continually look for ways we can improve ourselves and be honest with ourselves when it comes to our faults and shortcomings. Just like repentance, you can't make any progress if you are unwilling to admit to the problem. It's so easy to follow the natural path life takes us, but the easiest things are hardly worth it. We must find the hard things in life to progress and we must be willing to make sacrifices in order to get what we find truly valuable, and I'm not talking about money. We always hear that "history repeats itself" and that is always true for those who hope for miracles to change the course of history, or for the matters of this article, your own life, and do not appreciate the value of humility and personal effort. We don't need signs, we need answers. Signs are welcomed but should not be expected.

Liberty, Security, or Somewhere in the Middle?

For as long as I have been alive, there has been an intense political divide in the country. This division of ideologies, opinions, and policies has only become more extreme each year. This division has almost always been left vs. right, liberalism vs. conservatism, democrats vs. republicans, but with the current situation (I won't say it since that's all you hear about these days and this post isn't about that), the line between the two has been slightly blurred. Affiliates on both sides of the spectrum have been in support of, or opposed to various actions and policies enacted throughout the country, neither of which have completely laid claim to one position. Many on the left support continuing to keep the economy shut down in the name of security and health, yet many are advocating to open it back up. Many on the right support opening up the economy, yet many still want to side with security and protection. Many discussions and arguments have broken out about how to handle threats on a micro and macro level. This does not only apply to the current 'threat' but any potential threat, whether it be a virus, a foreign attack, or anything else that may do harm to the citizens of this country.

Do we maintain the freedoms we often tout, and leave it to everyone to decide for themselves how they want to handle the threat? Do we continue to have expert recommendations for each threat we encounter but have no mandates or legal repercussions for not following? Or do we sacrifice some of our freedoms and leave our fate in the hands of those deemed experts to protect the many? Do we assume that the majority, if left to handle a threat for themselves, will make that threat worse due to ignorance or carelessness? After thinking about these questions, I made a realization about the political parties/ideologies and how they connect to these questions. As stated earlier, this type of situation has blurred the lines between the parties a bit, so I am going to be creating a new spectrum. I am also of the opinion that blurring the lines between the parties is a good thing, for it will open up more topics for discussion rather than immediate criticism and scrutiny based on your political affiliation. This spectrum is not meant to associate you to a specific party per se, rather, help you see where you personally line up in the discussion of Liberty and Freedom vs. Security and Protection. I will try to advocate both sides of the spectrum, along with their pros and cons.

As you can see, it isn't separated out as a left vs right map like the political compass you may have seen. Rather, it deals with security vs liberty. Another difference is that it is a gradient, so you can be on another part of the spectrum but with the same color as someone on the opposite side. This explains why some on the left and right agree with certain policies, but maybe for different reasons.

Let's start with the side of Security and Protection. Who doesn't want security, or to be protected from harm or theft? A safety.com poll found that roughly 38% of the US households have some form of a security system and we can well assume that those roughly 125 million Americans aren't only associating themselves with one political party. I worked for 3 years at one of the largest home security companies in the country and spoke with thousands of people who were often open about their political beliefs and the policies they were or were not in support of. Of course security comes at a cost, and in the case of security systems, that is part of your hard earned paycheck every single month. That may very well be one of the biggest contributing factors to why the number isn't higher than 38%. Another cost, however, that must be paid to maintain security on a macro level, isn't always monetary. While your tax dollars do go towards paying to enact and enforce a lot of those policies aimed at protecting us as a nation, the expense I am referring to is that of Liberty and Freedom. We may often think that we can have both, but if you look at any law, it either limits or restricts certain actions, or, requires certain additional actions to maintain safety and compliance. Most people will probably argue that many of these are required sacrifices, such as food and drug regulations and standards, or anything that protects human life. We are a country of laws after all, right? At least that's what I often hear, but what civilized country isn't a country of laws? We don't tout this country as the land of the laws, rather, we proclaim the land of the free!

So let's discuss Liberty and Freedom. Yes, we have laws, but to be a land of the free, we must not seek so many laws in the name of 'security' lest we lose our freedoms. Every law passed means less liberty, by definition. Liberty means "the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views." Every law restricts our behavior, and often, one's way of life. Many laws keep us safe, but if you were to say all laws are necessary, you would be setting yourself up for hypocrisy. If you have ever criticized or been against a bill created, passed or voted upon by the House of Representatives, the Senate, or any President of the United States, past or present, you know that not all laws are necessary or desirable. Even if a minority is against an enacted or proposed law, it should be considered whether or not it is necessary. I'm sure I'm not the only one to check out various dumb laws throughout the country for a laugh. While many are comical and easy to criticize, you must also think of them critically. Why would such a silly law be enacted, especially when it isn't harming anyone? For example, in North Dakota, one may be jailed for wearing a hat while dancing, or for even wearing a hat at a function where dancing is taking place.1 In Vermont, women must obtain written permission from their husband to wear false teeth.2 In Indiana, it is illegal for one to catch a fish with his/her bare hands.3 If you were in any of these states, would you have supported any of these laws? Even if they wouldn't affect you personally, you should be able to see how these unnecessary 'restrictions imposed by authority' disrupt 'one's way of life [and/or] behavior'. Now of course not all laws that we may believe need to be done away with are as silly or seemingly pointless as some of these, but unless 100% of the nation is in favor of a law, we should consider the repercussions and liberties on the line.

Consider, for example, the "law of unintended consequences", an examination of events, usually revolving around politics, where the unintended or unforeseen consequences of an action may often be worse than the policy enacted aimed at accomplishing the opposite. You may have heard recently "we must not let the cure be worse than the disease." That is one of thousands of examples where policy aimed at helping people can have adverse and opposite effects. "Economists and other social scientists have heeded [the power of the law of unintended consequences] for centuries; for just as long, politicians and popular opinion have largely ignored it."4 Another one of these examples that you may have heard of is the 'three strikes, you're out" policy in California.

In an understandable reaction to “liberal” judges who would give slaps on the wrist to repeat offenders, the 1990s saw a wave of automatic sentencing legislation to take away judges’ discretion. This included California’s famous 1994 “Three Strikes and You’re Out” rule (Proposition 184), where someone convicted of a third felony would get 25 years to life. Currently, 24 states have some form of “three strikes” legislation.One problem with these rules is that many acts are felonies that most people would consider petty, such as bringing a smoke bomb to high school. In California, one man with two prior felony convictions was sentenced to 25 years to life for being with a friend who got caught selling $20 of cocaine to an undercover cop. An unintended consequence of the “three strikes” rules is that someone with two prior felony convictions now has a serious incentive to evade arrest for a third. And in fact, empirical studies of Los Angeles data suggest that more police officers have been killed because of this effect.5

(Photo: World History Archive/Newscom)


"Give me liberty or give me death!" A quote by Patrick Henry in 1775 that most of us have probably heard multiple times in our lives. But what does it mean and why did he say it? I could write a few paragraphs explaining the historical significance but I think it's best to discuss what he was trying to say and how it can apply to us today. First, I'd like to introduce another great quote from his speech which comes just prior to the famous one liner: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" I think this is a remarkable summation of what his quote means. He doesn't say 'give me freedom or kill me', rather, that he is willing to fight, even to his own demise, in order to obtain or maintain freedom. What is the point of being alive if you can't live your life how you want? Is peace (security) so important that we are willing to be put in chains to obtain it?

These two quotes are what inspired me to write this, in conjunction with our current situation. There are some who are willing to be put in figurative chains in order to obtain security, and peace of mind. While I personally do not agree with that stance, I understand some people think differently than I do, worry about different things than I do, and may feel life is more worth living when they feel they are completely free of external threats, regardless of how that restricts them personally. There's nothing wrong with wanting to have the benefits of security; I didn't think more or less of anyone paying for a security system because many would often praise the peace of mind it brought them, even if they never had to use it. Depending on how you look at it, some might even argue most of the trade offs of some laws are well worth the rewards. Why do we even need so much freedom in America? Other countries have less freedoms and more laws and seem to be doing just fine, right? One of the many reasons other countries, particularly developed ones such as those in Europe and parts of Asia, do not value freedom is because they don't understand the importance of such, which seems to becoming more common in America lately as well. Yet our country was founded on the premise of freedom by some of the most brilliant minds in history. Were they just anarchists who wanted to do whatever they wanted? Or was there more to it? Of course that is rhetorical, I sure hope everyone understands that the founding fathers of our country weren't anarchists; they of course understood the importance of some level of law. However, they believed these laws were meant to be restrictive, and that government was meant to be small, and beholden to the citizens of that nation. That the only responsibilities were to protect our "inalienable rights" which are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The role of government is to protect our freedoms, so much as they can also protect our lives. As stated in my favorite movie, V for Vendetta, "People should not be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people." Many throughout the world view their government as being on their side, and that the bigger their government, the bigger their protections. But if there is anything you should learn from your history classes, it should be the fact that history repeats itself. Historically, the more control governments have had, the more oppressed their people became. The quality of life decreases, poverty increases, and all citizens become slaves to the state. You can't eat without permission, you can't sleep without permission, and you can't live without permission, and that's barely an exaggeration if at all. The greatest events of oppression in history came from countries where the citizens gave up too much liberty to their government, or where the government took too many liberties from the citizens and they were powerless to fight back. Every law passed that is not directly a protection of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness is a step towards potential oppression at the hands of the government, historically, no matter how good or altruistic those laws may seem.

So what's the solution? I’m not going to argue that if you lean more towards one side of the spectrum than I do that you are wrong; everyone has different desires and preferences. I will argue, however, in favor of liberty and why that is truly the safest option. Keeping in consideration all of the facts I have presented above, including historical cycles and trends, the best solution is whatever will best maintain our liberties. This does not necessarily mean less security, for we maintain the power to choose how to protect ourselves; there are no ‘one size fits all’ solutions for anything in this world, especially in regards to protection from various threats. We live in a developed nation that, though not invulnerable to threats, is highly capable of dealing with almost anything we can imagine without the need of government control or regulation. The only threat we would be incapable of dealing with is that of a tyrannical government forcing us into oppression if we choose to err on the side of ‘safety’ and sacrifice our freedoms. The true irony in seeking more security over freedom is that eventually too much government ‘protection’ can lead to an inability to protect yourself from said government. In our current situation, it is mostly private companies that are providing the best solutions and contributing the most to society, NOT government. As described before, we can sacrifice our freedoms, or they can be taken from us involuntarily. The argument right now is whether or not we should be sacrificing some of our liberties in order to protect the vulnerable, but the result is that those in power are taking those liberties away from us without giving us the choice. Let us not forget what the ‘law of unintended consequences’ teaches us about what happens when policies are forced upon a society without considering all the consequences, and without full support of those who elect our leaders. Let us also not forget what happens when a government is able to maintain full power and control over its people. These things don’t happen in one night; Rome wasn’t built in one day. They slowly chip away at liberties, telling you it is for your protection or in your best interest and before you know, you are fresh out of liberties.


Sources: 1, 2, 3 - https://www.policeone.com/police-humor/articles/50-dumb-laws-in-america-URIQZkUxvuyDrSQu/
4 - https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/540/handouts/french/unintconseq.html
5 - https://fee.org/articles/5-unintended-consequences-of-regulation-and-government-meddling/

The State of Us

By now, everyone I'm sure has come to realize that we as humans have become increasingly divergent, divided, and often hateful.  Whether or not we want to admit it, we all contribute to this state of being; a state I am calling the state of "us".

What I will address pertains mostly to us in the United States but definitely is applicable to almost every developed country in the world.

As an analogy to what I'll be addressing, I will use plot of the movie Runaway Jury. If you haven't seen the movie, the following synopsis from Wikipedia will contain key plot points and spoilers. It has been further condensed by myself. Certain important characters pertaining to the analogy will be bolded:

"In New Orleans, a failed day trader at a stock brokerage firm shows up at the office and opens fire on his former colleagues, then kills himself.  Two years later, with attorney Wendell Rohr, a victim's widow Celeste Wood takes Vicksburg Firearms to court on the grounds that the company's gross negligence led to her husband's death. During jury selection, jury consultant Rankin Fitch and his team communicate background information on each of the jurors to lead defense attorney Durwood Cable in the courtroom through electronic surveillance.

"Among jurors in the jury pool is a man named Nick Easter. During the trial, a woman named Marlee makes an offer to Fitch and Rohr: she will deliver the verdict to the first bidder.

"Rohr loses a key witness due to harassment, and after confronting Fitch, decides that he cannot win the case. He asks his firm's partners for $10 million. Fitch sends an operative to kidnap Marlee, but she fights him off and raises Fitch's price to $15 million. On principle, Rohr changes his mind and refuses to pay. Fitch agrees to pay Marlee to be certain of the verdict.

"Fitch's subordinate, Doyle, travels to Gardner, Indiana, where he discovers that Nick is really Jeff Kerr, a law school drop-out, and that Marlee's real name is Gabby Brandt, and the spouse of Jeff. Gabby's sister died in a school shooting. The town sued the gun manufacturer and Fitch helped the defense win the case. Doyle concludes that Nick and Marlee's offer is a set-up, and he calls Fitch, but it is too late.

"Nick receives confirmation of receipt of payment and he steers the jury in favor of Rohr. Vicksburg Firearms is found liable, with the jury awarding $110 million in general damages to Celeste Wood."

On a side note, it's not clear in the synopsis but Nick and Marlee had the intention of swaying the verdict in favor of Celeste Wood and Rohr regardless of who paid them. What makes the plot more interesting is the fact that it was Fitch who ended up paying them and  Durwood Cable still loses the case AND $15 million in bribe money.

Before I explain the analogy I would like to explain what sparked my interest to write about all of this. Recently I came across an article from the Daily Wire called WNBA Championship Team Announces They Won't Visit White House -- But They Haven't Even Been Invited! The reason this sparked my interest is two-fold: first, it shows how eager everyone is to make a political statement, often of hate, and often in an effort to be labeled as courageous, defiantly brave, or unique. The second reason is that it shows how eager those on the opposing side of the political spectrum are to mock those making these differing actions and statements in order to get a reaction (often a Facebook "reaction"):

Speaking of the Facebook reactions, this is one form in public reactions that many seek. When released in February 2016, many people thought this was a long waited upgrade to the Facebook interface. People could finally express a few emotions to a post, video, or comment with the simple click of a mouse or tap on a screen. But were there negative effects to this new addition? Absolutely. In my personal experience, since the release of the Facebook reactions, social media has become more and more hateful and negative. The first 5 reactions (like, love, haha, wow, and sad) were the most used upon release from what I observed, but as time went on, the angry reaction showed up more and more. Initially, I would see it maybe twice a day as a popular reaction to posts as I scrolled through Facebook. Compare that to today where nearly every other post has people who, for one reason or another, find a reason to be angry about it's contents.

The Facebook reactions couldn't have come at a worse time. 2016 was the year of the US election and tensions were high. Attacks on the left, the right, and everyone in between were being spat out. What better way to know people are angry at what Trump said than to simply see how many "angry" reactions you got. What better way to mock Hillary than to post something she said or did and see how many "haha" reactions you got.  This created the state of us.

The state of us is that we want to laugh, or we want to be angry at someone or something. The state of us doesn't feel the need for love or compassion because those don't get enough "shares" on Facebook. The state of us doesn't feel the need to ignore political or philosophical differences because "sticking it to the man" gets more respect and attention. Everyone loves a good "burn" story such as an article named something along the lines of "Watch Donald Trump get completely eviscerated in debate on CNN" or "Watch Hillary Clinton get burned in debate against Donald Trump". Though these are often forms of entertainment among different political opponents, it has created a state of "one-upping" and, what I like to call "reaction competition".

Now to explain the analogy: First, Facebook (and the executives) we will compare to Nick and Marlee, the ones who were leveraging the case to the highest bidder; Right ideologies we will compare to Vicksburg Firearms and Left ideologies we will compare to Celeste Wood; Wendell Rohr, the attorney of Celeste Wood, is comparable to the liberals or the Left; Durwood Cable is comparable to conservatives or the Right; and lastly, Rankin Fitch is the US government and laws (this will all make sense in a minute).

First thing to note is this analogy isn't trying to point out who is right or who is wrong in comparing the Right vs the Left; rather it is comparing what role Facebook has in pitting us against each other for its own gain. Another thing to note is that Fitch is bidding on behalf of Durwood Cable, but doesn't represent Durwood Cable, but itself is also trying to get monetary gain from the situation.

With the newly understood comparisons, the plot becomes this:
Facebook is looking to get some sort of gain in this world, mostly monetary. Through the use of the US government and laws, it acquires information on all its users, both from the Left and from the Right. It uses this information and sells it to either the government or to advertisers in order to get gain. However, that isn't enough for Facebook. They decide to use the Facebook platform in order to pit the Right versus the Left. Though it is abundantly clear Facebook favors the Left, it isn't going to make it easy for the Left or else they can't use them in their plot to make money; if there is only one bidder on any item, the bidding price will remain low. Facebook creates "reactions" as part of their plan to create anger between the Left and the Right to start the bidding war. Facebook fully intends to let the Left win but only when the bids are high enough.  The Left ideologies are shown first on your Facebook feed in order to try and get you to sympathize with the Left, and stories containing negative content regarding Right ideologies are mixed in in order to get some "angry" reactions. Because Facebook is the owner of the information, the Right feels threatened but refuses to back down. The Right offers all of its money in advertising on Facebook in order to promote positive posts of their ideologies, and uses the US government to cite laws such as the right to free speech and other legal rights. Facebook takes the money, yet continues to suppress the Right and their ideologies working around the law, or completely ignores it, and gives the Left cheap advertising of their content/ideologies. Though the Left thinks they've won, Facebook is the real winner, with the executives cashing in on every move on both sides.

The main difference here is that Celeste Wood and Wendell Rohr cashed in more than Nick and Marlee, but in this case, Facebook cashes in the larger haul.

You may be saying that it seems more obvious to compare Facebook to Rankin Fitch since they are the ones with the information on each of the jurors. However, if we made that comparison, that would allude to Facebook eventually being the losers and having the biggest loss among the parties involved. While this isn't the case, it should be. We can't let Facebook win, nor should we allow them to pit us against each other for its own gain.  The way it is inciting this war is through what I previously mentioned, reaction competition.  Rohr and Fitch were competing for the verdict by putting their money on the line. Facebook is forcing the Left and the Right to compete with advertising money for those who depend on viewership for income (political news sites, channels, blogs, etc.) as well as competing for reactions for those passively involved who get no monetary gain. Because most of us fall into the passively involved category, we don't get monetary gain if our ideologies get more shares or reactions, but we feel more of a sense of accomplishment and victory the more numbers we see next to how many people reacted to our posts, or the posts of those we follow.  If we can incite more people to anger, and react with the "angry" reaction, or we can make a mockery the opposing political view by getting more "haha" reactions, we win. Or so we think.  

The real way to win is to be human. The state of us 30 years ago, before social media, was kind. People said "hello" with a smile to strangers on the street. People rushed to help those in need, regardless of who they voted for. Meeting the President of the United States was an honor, whether or not you voted for him. The well being of humanity came first, not political ideologies.

In the Boy Scouts of America program, it was said that if anyone were to achieve the accomplishment of acquiring all merit badges that were offered in the program, they were given the chance to meet the President of the United States. While I was part of the program, Barack Obama was President, and I, nor my friend liked him. We both preferred the Republican party candidates and Presidents in the past. However, when my friend heard about the opportunity to meet Obama, he worked hard on trying to get each merit badge. He still respected the President even though he didn't agree with him politically.

Today, the state of us has changed. We would rather be right than be kind. We would rather win than be humble. We would rather laugh and mock than befriend and serve.

So how do we change the state of us to a more compassionate, caring, and serving state? The answer is simple but the implementation is difficult: swallow your pride.

It is our pride that drives us to divide us. The state of us is prideful. If we viewed people as more important than being right, we would become more compassionate. We need to see humanity in a new light. Whether you believe we are created by God or became through evolution, the fact of the matter is that humans are incredible. We have capabilities above that of any other creature on earth. We can't let us destroy ourselves. Whether that means you spend less time on Facebook, or unfollow pages that continually post just for the reactions, or leave Facebook all together, the best solution to the state of us is to remove anything that forces us to compete, and encourage and support anything that brings us together.

I have fallen victim to Facebook's plot but I intend to escape. I feel better when I'm nice to my friends rather than when I'm right. Shouldn't that be the state of us?

In summary, the state of us is declining. We are divided, and we are in a constant debate and finding fault for the division. The Right blames Obama and the Left. The Left blames Trump and the Right.  Though I have my own opinions on the matter, one thing that I hope can be agreed on by both sides is that Facebook played a part in inciting anger, and causing division, as well as the declined of our state of being. Proving which political ideology or President is the cause of the problem doesn't provide the solution. The solution is to care less about who is right, and care more about how to be happy and how to be kind.  If someone is drowning, is the first question you ask before jumping in to save them "who did you vote for?" Of course not! We would jump to the rescue if we are able. We need to stop seeing people as "Left", "Right" or anything in between, and start viewing people as humans. As yourself.

And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. (Luke 6:31)

iPhone for a week: What I learned

Image credit: Android Central

   If you know me you know that I am a big proponent of Android and an enemy to iPhone.  I have complained about Apple's lack of innovation, creativity, and usability for a long time.  Ever since I received my first Android phone back in 2010, I have been comparing the pros and cons of iOS and Android.  Since that time, I have only had Android phones but had many opportunities to use iOS through my iPod and friends' or family's iPhones. I watched dozens if not hundreds of videos about iPhones each year to see what each year's iPhone has to offer.  But this time around I actually decided to try out the iPhone for myself.  I ordered my new Pixel 2 XL and had planned to sell my old Android phone to my sister-in-law once I received it but she wanted a good camera phone for her trip to France so I made a deal to sell it to her early if she gave me her iPhone 6.  Finally I can experience, more than ever, first hand how iOS feels to use on a daily basis and see what it is that so many die-hard iPhone fans and enthusiasts love about it.  This is what I learned.

   I made a list of pros and cons with comparison to modern Android phones.  To make things as fair as possible, the comparisons I make are comparing the most up-to-date versions of each operating system, iOS 11 vs Android 8.0 (Oreo) in an iPhone 6 vs a Nexus 6p (pictured above).  I will also avoid making unfair comparisons like screen size, or things that come to personal preference because it is either a changeable variable amongst devices on both sides or isn't something that can be seen as factual.  I also ignored the slow speed of the iPhone assuming it is based on it simply being a bit of an older device (though my Nexus 6P was also over 2 years old, it has stayed extremely fast).  In comparison with Android, in my short experience (8 days) with iOS I accumulated 3 pros and 79 cons.  The pros and cons will fully be written below but I would like to touch upon a few in particular.  I would also like to note that the cons I list are (1) things that are an issue or something not accessible on iOS that is accessible on most if not all Android phones and (2) things that, if implemented by Apple in iOS, would not force iPhone users to change the way they currently use their devices, but allows them added functionality if they want it.  This way it doesn't feel like a list of ways I want iOS to be more like Android, but rather things I've noticed in Android that make the user experience better, easier, and/or more user-friendly.

   Amongst my list of cons, there are of course easily noticeable features as well as some minute details.  Often the noticeable features show a bigger contrast between Android and iOS but can be seen as user preference, but it's the minute details that really make up each OS (operating system) and let you see how much thought was actually put into each OS.  For those who get bored of just reading, don't worry, there are pictures. :) ;)

Design and Hardware

  Let's start with the design and hardware of each briefly, and then we will move on to the OS.  The iPhone is a pretty device but that really comes down to personal preference. But let's talk about the functional parts of the design. The battery size of the iPhone 6 is 1810 mAH but to make a fair comparison to my larger device, the iPhone 6 Plus has a 2915 mAH. My Nexus 6P has a 3450 mAH.  Even if you don't understand how mAH (milli Amp Hours) works, you can at least understand that bigger the number, the bigger the battery.  Because Apple is always on the quest of "the thinnest phone" title, the battery size, and thus the battery life, suffer.  I experienced this everyday with my iPhone. I would have to charge it at least 2 times throughout the day not including the overnight charge. My Nexus 6P would almost always last a full day on a single charge, usually with 15-20% remaining by the time I go to bed. I also made calls from each device to two different people, one with an iPhone 7, the other with a Pixel XL.  The best call quality was my Nexus to the Pixel, then my Nexus to the iPhone 7. Calls made from the iPhone 6 sounded horrible.  It seemed to me that Apple focused too much on how the phone looked and not how it operated. While I could go on and on about the physical aspects of the phones, let's move to the OS.

The OS

   The operating systems are very very different. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Yes there are similarities but those similarities are heavily overshadowed by their differences.  I will be straightforward here, the iPhone drove me crazy.  They don't think of the "little things".  I realized that Apple goes about their operating system in the mindset of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".  It is a very bare-bones system with very little functionality.  In comparison, if you have a 1965 Ford Bronco that "ain't broke" and works fine, or a 2017 Ford Explorer that of course also works fine, which will you choose? I'm assuming you would go with the latter. Now what if I told you the 1965 Ford also costs 30% more than the 2017 Ford? Not only does the newer Ford cost less, it also has a lot more features ranging from heated seats to a great sound system, additional safety features, better gas mileage, etc.  Not only did the OS feel old, it felt intentionally old. Apple was the first to popularize the "smartphone" and it seems the current OS, ten years later, is still focused on the nostalgia of the first. While Android phones have some features now that were in the first versions of Android 8-9 years ago, those features remain not due to nostalgia, but due to it initially being an innovative, functional idea that still is useful.  In my opinion, the biggest example of this is the home screen and application layout. The first iPhone, as well as all iPhones since, require that you order your apps top to bottom, left to right, like a book.  While that initially may have been a software or coding limitation, Apple decided to stick with it.  If you have 4 apps, those 4 apps have to sit on the very top of the phone. On Android, however, if you have 4 apps, you can place those apps anywhere on the screen; all 4 on top, all 4 on bottom, 1 in each corner, whatever you want. If you have small hands you may elect to put all your apps on the bottom of the screen.  Additionally, there is an "app drawer" on Android that allows you to view all apps alphabetically. This means that you can leave some apps that you don't use very often or at all in the app drawer and off of your home screens. With Apple, whether you use them or not, they have to be on your home screen somewhere. Again, this may have initially been a software limitation with the first iteration of the iPhone, but Apple has decided to keep this to maintain the feel of the first iPhone.  To prove my point, let me provide screenshots of the first OS on iPhone compared to the most recent OS, as well as the first and most recent versions of Android OS:

  As you may have noticed, iOS 11.0 looks very similar to iOS 1.0, yet Android 1.0 is very different compared to Android 8.0.  I would dare say if the apps on each version of iOS were lined up the same and you had the same background you wouldn't be able to tell much of a difference between the two, while on the Android side of things, it would look like 2 completely different operating systems.  Each version of Android made everything more refined, useful, attractive, and user-friendly.  Though you can't see all of the changes just at a glance, you can tell that there are comparable differences.

Another example: Calculators

As you can see, iOS 1.0 and 11.0 are virtually the same, where Android 8.0 and Android 1.0 are very different. Android 8.0 adds functionality, is more refined, and more user-friendly. iOS hasn't changed any functionality, just color.

Minute Details

  Some of the little things that I particularly enjoy about Android that you can't experience in iOS include the ability to see in your notification bar whether or not you are connected to your Bluetooth device instead of having to go into your Bluetooth settings to check. I enjoy being able to set my default internet browser, music app, photos app, etc., whereas Apple forces you to use the default apps: Safari, iTunes, iMessage, etc.  I enjoy being able to put widgets on my screen (if you don’t know what widgets are, refer to the image below) so that I can access functions or information from certain apps without having to open them. I enjoy being able to choose the volume of my phone, alarms, and media at any given time.  I enjoy being able to change/choose my WiFi or Bluetooth connections without opening my settings.  I like being able to text (SMS) or make calls over WiFi when I'm in a location with poor reception or no reception. After looking at my "cons" list I realized that there are often just extra steps required on iOS to do the same things on Android. I made a chart to prove my point:

And another:

Widgets (quick access to an app function or app information from your home screen):

So what does iOS have to offer?

   The simple solution to that is exclusivity, status, and possessiveness.  When texting your friends, your texts show up in green when you text friends who don't have an iPhone, and blue for friends who do have an iPhone. When you see green, you exclude yourself from those people and essentially put yourself above them because they don't have an iPhone and you do.  My Nexus' default device name is "Nexus 6P" while the iPhone defaults to "Derek's iPhone". Apple wants you to feel like the phone is part of you and that you should hold that possession close and never leave it.  The cost of iPhones are more than double the average cost of an Android phone which may cause one to personally elevate their status; it makes you feel like you are richer, cooler, and better than those who can't afford such a device.  The iPhone isn't a smartphone, it's a marketing tool. It's a gimmick and a way to think, not a piece of technology.  Apple isn't a tech company, but rather a marketing company.

   The mindset of Android developers and the mindset of Apple developers are very different from one another.  As I once heard, Android says "tell us what you want" and Apple says "we know what's best for you".

  I would suggest reading all of the pros and cons listed below.  There were dozens of things that the designers of Android considered that Apple just did not that makes the user experience better and easier on Android.

   To summarize, Apple focuses too much on how the phone looks physically, and the nostalgia of the OS, and less on how the user interacts with the system.  Android focuses on usability, functionality, multitasking, speed, etc.  Anyone that has had the opportunity to fully experience both, in my mind, should clearly favor an Android phone over an iPhone if they are looking for a device that can give them the best bang for their buck, the best user experience, the quickest navigation of phone functions, and the least frustration.  Though there are a few pros the iPhone holds over Android, they are far outweighed by the cons (again, see below).  Though I will admit I definitely have a bias, I tried to forget my bias in order to see things from both sides, yet I was disappointed in how difficult iOS was to operate, how inefficient it was to use for daily functions, and how little thought was put into the usability of the OS instead of just how the OS looks. Please let me know what I missed either on the iPhone side or the Android side in the comments.

(Again, these pros and cons are in comparison to an Android phone; pros are what the iPhone does better than Android, and the cons are what Android does better than iPhone.)
iPhone pros:
1. Easy to change notification type for each app (ie: whether or not the notifications pop up on your screen, or are hidden, etc.)
2. Quick screenshots
3. Web search from notifications bar

iPhone cons:
1. User data hard to transfer from one OS to another
2. App store is disorganized (https://photos.app.goo.gl/T1pGPddXdwQmfzXw1 - iOS vs https://photos.app.goo.gl/wMuGb46VrXgPRUWf2 - Android)
3. Volume notification in the middle of the screen; blocks view (https://photos.app.goo.gl/ov3gJX5eGfjyFI732)
4. Ringer volume and alarm volume are the same (https://photos.app.goo.gl/rlL8CopX57sIAb0A3)
5. No labels on quick toggles
6. Screen touch accuracy is bad
7. Never get full bars/service
8. "Silent" switch is useless. If it's on silent and you hit the volume rocker it turns the volume on and to go back to silent you have to switch it off and then on again
9. No back button; if an app needs to open another app and you want to go back then you have to open multitasking and select the app again
10. No widgets, can't access app info or functions without opening the app first
11. Can't change default music, always switches to Apple music
12. No quick settings, only quick toggle (WiFi, bluetooth, etc.)
13. Quick toggle hard to access (often scrolls page up instead of opening toggle bar)
14. Quick toggle not customizable (can't move most used toggles to where you want)
15. No quick reply (you can reply from the notifications but it's less efficient, takes 2 steps) (https://photos.app.goo.gl/D3F7RJwPH0Z5xsoI2)
16. Can't just swipe notifications away, have to swipe to the left then press clear (https://photos.app.goo.gl/D3F7RJwPH0Z5xsoI2)
17. Camera app is limited, no fine tuning
18. Again, no back button! Can't get rid of my keyboard without clicking on screen content.
19. Can't get rid of keyboard at all in notes or messages without scrolling up
20. Voice assistant sucks, very limited and sounds unnatural
21. No multiscreen
22. No quick multitasking (switching between most recent apps without having to pull up multitasking window and selecting each app each time)
23. Can't put apps anywhere on screen, hard to organize
24. Notifications are dismissed only from swiping from the very bottom of the screen
25. Notifications take up entire screen (https://photos.app.goo.gl/auD1Puus05MUtePN2 - iOS vs https://photos.app.goo.gl/yx1TR1fHOkG2Jmcl2 - Android)
26. Difficult to place cursor in text
27. Can't set most default apps; Apple rules all
28. Clock setting is inefficient (https://photos.app.goo.gl/7YL5MQnx7ByRndqQ2 - iOS vs https://photos.app.goo.gl/q9Oc2JvyxIv4tZcj1 - Android)
29. No quick charge (for newer iPhones, no quick charge out of the box)
30. Messages app: can't edit contact colors
31. No visual voicemail. It's 2017!!!! (https://photos.app.goo.gl/vsZOTlV7H2JXerNt2)
32. Hard to share data app to app; limited to what Apple allows (https://photos.app.goo.gl/4SzVGvOmoaPlJi6p1 - iOS vs https://photos.app.goo.gl/W4d9xP55GHkLdYyR2 - Android)
33. Calculator has no scientific functions (https://photos.app.goo.gl/RvnukPdt2JQZWjQo1)
34. Can't see battery percentage at the top of the phone (iPhone X)
35. Apps keep crashing
36. Seemingly no smart home control
37. No quick access to camera, extra steps
38. No pattern unlock
39. Multitasking is horizontal; apps are harder to see or dismiss; can only dismiss by swiping up (https://photos.app.goo.gl/ABvuShLAUbPR1Ny93)
40. No third party apps
41. App average cost significantly higher
42. Startup took way too long (even with the newest devices compared to Android)
43. Couldn't set up phone without inserting a SIM card!!!!!
44. App store requires you put in your password to install any app, even if it's free
45. Bluetooth audio volume is same as other media volume
46. Notifications aren't grouped; notification overload
47. No specific webpage access from home screen (no short cuts)
48. Can't expand notification text without opening app or extra steps
49. Can't see active notifications without pulling down notification bar
50. Can't update in the background (OS update requires you completely stop using the phone until it's done updating)
51. Prompts you only for fingerprint when trying to unlock to open a certain app (instead of both fingerprint or passcode (extra step)) (https://photos.app.goo.gl/yunTxK2kL3OECMPy1)
52. Can't toggle notification numbers on apps
53. Booting uses too much battery (I went from 85%-55% when restarting the phone)
54. No notification LED
55. No ambient display
56. Battery life sucks (small battery and inefficient operating system)
57. Can't tell if you're connected to Bluetooth if you're not in Bluetooth settings
58. Sometimes when it's unlocked it still makes you press the home button to go to the home screen. Random. Extra step (https://photos.app.goo.gl/g9AyFISgBS30yRVv1)
59. Pauses music to Bluetooth device when you use Siri or microphone in another app but doesn't resume after
60. Call quality is poor
61. No wifi calls
62. No auto fill
63. No ability within notifications to access functions of an app (example: setting a YouTube video that pops up in the notifications to "watch later")
64. Notifications don't always disappear after you already opened it. Specifically email
65. No SMS over WiFi!!!!!!
66. Can't touch where you want a scroll bar to go, must click and drag
67. Can't tell if phone is on silent
68. Can't change default keyboard
69. Must use Apple keyboard when replying from notifications
70. No option to see WiFi password as you type it
71. Forces you to download apps to access information or products like on Amazon, can't view through simple internet browser
72. Clock doesn't tell you how long before your alarm goes off
73. Can't cancel alarm about to go off without going to clock, turning it off and waiting until the time has passed to turn it back on if you have it on repeat
74. Can't use other browsers, just skins
75. Few battery statistics/data including no prediction of remaining use time or mapping of previous usage
76. Can't reject calls from screen (https://photos.app.goo.gl/E0VwiPVMcTefEueG2)
77. OS updates require too much minimum battery level (40% vs 20% on Android)
78. Too many steps to uninstall an app
79. Settings are poorly organized, doesn't make sense (example: screen adaptive brightness isn't in the "display" settings, but in the "general" settings submenu)

Personal issues with the iPhone:
1: Stupid default keyboard, can't tell when it's capitalized and not
2: Apps don't feel coherent; Apple apps all have different styles/themes etc.
3: Camera app is ugly
4: No good alarm sounds
5: Default apps suck
6: Can't do Do Not Disturb mode from volume rocker
7: Why is there camera access from the notifications menu?? It's accessible from swiping from the bottom already
8. Contacts organized by last name (annoying because most people don't put everyone's last name in the phone, leaves you guessing if you have to find someone by their first name or last name)