Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | US claims it is 'ready' for Korean missile test
One thing I have yet to see any newspaper report is exactly how far 9300 miles is. A quick estimate using Google Earth showed me something that convinced my North Korea should not have nuclear weapons or long-range missiles. A range of 9300 miles cover all of Asia, Europe, Africa, North America, and the northeern part of South America. By all means, take this weapon away from them!
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | US claims it is 'ready' for Korean missile test
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | US claims it is 'ready' for Korean missile test
One thing I have yet to see any newspaper report is exactly how far 9300 miles is. A quick estimate using Google Earth showed me something that convinced my North Korea should not have nuclear weapons or long-range missiles. A range of 9300 miles cover all of Asia, Europe, Africa, North America, and the northeern part of South America. By all means, take this weapon away from them!
One thing I have yet to see any newspaper report is exactly how far 9300 miles is. A quick estimate using Google Earth showed me something that convinced my North Korea should not have nuclear weapons or long-range missiles. A range of 9300 miles cover all of Asia, Europe, Africa, North America, and the northeern part of South America. By all means, take this weapon away from them!
Monday, June 12, 2006
Maggie Gallagher on Mitt Romney and Gay Marriage on National Review Online
Maggie Gallagher on Mitt Romney and Gay Marriage on National Review Online
Mitt Romney has the argument I've been looking for and slowly developing for 3 years. Marriage is about the children, not the adults. Here it is! Ac lear argument about the real issue at stake. I don't need to say much. Mitt Romney says it all.
Mitt Romney has the argument I've been looking for and slowly developing for 3 years. Marriage is about the children, not the adults. Here it is! Ac lear argument about the real issue at stake. I don't need to say much. Mitt Romney says it all.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Responsibility?
BBC NEWS | Europe | Fears of Poland's gay community
"I want to live in a country which respects human rights."
Ever heard of human responsibility? The liberals in support of gay marriage go off about human rights, but they ignore the fact that along with these rights come responsiblities. Or they do not recognize which responsibilities are necessary to preserve any human society. I can understand the anger against those who threaten homosexuals. That's a righteous anger against those who simply hate. but there is a failure to recognize that there are those who hate the action because it does not promote the continuance of the human race. It promotes sheer self-indulgence, nothing else.
There is a lumping together of those who oppose homosexuals and those who oppose homosexuality. There is a difference it is an important one. Homosexuality is a deviant behavior. It is a sickness. It causes to people to seek happiness in something that, ultimately, will not bring it to them. But this does not mean we need to hate them. They are making a mistake, but hating them will not save anything.
It's like alcoholism. I know someone who was an alcoholic. He struggled with it greatly. It was a deviant behavior that was ruining his chances of a happy life. But his family didn't give up on him. They recognized that there was a difference between the man and the problem. They knew that this man, after you got past the alcohol, was good. His family continued to love him and help him. This doesn't mean they accepted the problem. Loving him and rejecting the problem was possible and necessary. Eventually, he overcame the problem. He is no longer an alcoholic and today is a great man.
We need to look at homosexuality the same way. We can't just reject those who struggle with the problem. We can and need to love them. But this does not mean we accept the problem. It is still a problem. So, we love the person and do our best to help them overcome this challenge. This deviance is not a central part of their personality, their essence, their soul. it can be taken away and they will still be a whole person. In fact, they will be overcoming something that was holding them back.
The great crime of homosexuality is that it focuses a person on themself. It is all about fulfilling their own desires. That is why I believe the only time and place for sex is after marriage. At this point, it's no longer about the individuals involved. It's about the couple. Or, at the least, it is a great deal more likely. Many will point out that many get divorce, have affairs, or simply do not wait until marriage. But that's not the point. Giving up on loyal heterosexual marriage simply because not everyone met its requirements is stupid. The fualt isn't in the institution. It's in humankind. We fall short of the ideal. And destroying the ideal simply because not everyone can meet it doesn't solve the problem. it makes it worse. Now no one has anything to strive for. The rules and bounds that kept society in check, that limited teenage pregnancy, the spread of STDS. fatherless children, divorce, etc. have been abandoned beause they didn't work perfectly, because they were to restrictive. People ignored their true purpose and called it meaningless tradition based on the desire for rich men to gain power over others. And today we see the results. I can lay, with confidence, a great deal of the problems of today's world at the feet of liberals who sought greater freedom, ignoring consequences.
I want human rights, but let's remember that along with every right comes responsibility and consequence.
"I want to live in a country which respects human rights."
Ever heard of human responsibility? The liberals in support of gay marriage go off about human rights, but they ignore the fact that along with these rights come responsiblities. Or they do not recognize which responsibilities are necessary to preserve any human society. I can understand the anger against those who threaten homosexuals. That's a righteous anger against those who simply hate. but there is a failure to recognize that there are those who hate the action because it does not promote the continuance of the human race. It promotes sheer self-indulgence, nothing else.
There is a lumping together of those who oppose homosexuals and those who oppose homosexuality. There is a difference it is an important one. Homosexuality is a deviant behavior. It is a sickness. It causes to people to seek happiness in something that, ultimately, will not bring it to them. But this does not mean we need to hate them. They are making a mistake, but hating them will not save anything.
It's like alcoholism. I know someone who was an alcoholic. He struggled with it greatly. It was a deviant behavior that was ruining his chances of a happy life. But his family didn't give up on him. They recognized that there was a difference between the man and the problem. They knew that this man, after you got past the alcohol, was good. His family continued to love him and help him. This doesn't mean they accepted the problem. Loving him and rejecting the problem was possible and necessary. Eventually, he overcame the problem. He is no longer an alcoholic and today is a great man.
We need to look at homosexuality the same way. We can't just reject those who struggle with the problem. We can and need to love them. But this does not mean we accept the problem. It is still a problem. So, we love the person and do our best to help them overcome this challenge. This deviance is not a central part of their personality, their essence, their soul. it can be taken away and they will still be a whole person. In fact, they will be overcoming something that was holding them back.
The great crime of homosexuality is that it focuses a person on themself. It is all about fulfilling their own desires. That is why I believe the only time and place for sex is after marriage. At this point, it's no longer about the individuals involved. It's about the couple. Or, at the least, it is a great deal more likely. Many will point out that many get divorce, have affairs, or simply do not wait until marriage. But that's not the point. Giving up on loyal heterosexual marriage simply because not everyone met its requirements is stupid. The fualt isn't in the institution. It's in humankind. We fall short of the ideal. And destroying the ideal simply because not everyone can meet it doesn't solve the problem. it makes it worse. Now no one has anything to strive for. The rules and bounds that kept society in check, that limited teenage pregnancy, the spread of STDS. fatherless children, divorce, etc. have been abandoned beause they didn't work perfectly, because they were to restrictive. People ignored their true purpose and called it meaningless tradition based on the desire for rich men to gain power over others. And today we see the results. I can lay, with confidence, a great deal of the problems of today's world at the feet of liberals who sought greater freedom, ignoring consequences.
I want human rights, but let's remember that along with every right comes responsibility and consequence.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Family
So, I was thinking about what we need to do to preserve this nation. Considering my audience, I probably don't have to explain what I mean. It's fairly clear that we're falling apart. So what's the solution? Well, I don't have one for many issues. Especially for things like Iraq, Iran, oil, nuclear weapons, Hugo Chavez, etc. Those are big questions that I don't know enough about, though I continually learn more about them and hope, someday, to have some ideas.
There is something more basic that needs to be done, though. All of those things, they're outside forces. They are all partially controlled or entirely controlled by other nations or forces that we can't control, no matter how hard we try. They present a danger and we need to do something, but we're limited in what we can do. And, most importantly, they are not the greatest threat.
The biggest threat, the most basic, is within our own society. It's the fabric that binds this nation together, that binds any nation together. It's the foundation upon which all communities, from the smallest neighborhood to the greatest nation, are built on. Once again, considering my audience, you know what I'm talking about. The family.
Our society is falling apart. I don't need to list what's happening. We all know it. We've seen it, we've experienced it. It's affected me deeply. Thankfully, I don't face any of the problems, but I've seen one of my closest friends struggle with the results of a shattered family. It's not easy and it's not pretty. He's in good shape now, but he will forever be changed by his experiences.
We don't want this. It causes too much pain. I hate it. I hate watching my friends struggle with divorced parents. I hate watching friends sleeping around. I hate watching friends lose brothers and sisters to drugs, alcohol, and whatever else is out there. I hate the excess of so much that is damaging this world. I hate the lack of everything this world needs.
What we need is a strong family for every person, for every child. Sure it's idealistic. So what? A 4.0 is idealistic. I bit more achievable, but idealistic. It's the ideal of every student. Those that don't strive for it, don't get it. Those who do, may not get it either. But are they worse off for trying? Usually, no, if they didn't sacrifice more important things for it. So, the ideal is a benefit. It is our goal and what we will strive for. Settling for anything less is failure.
So, the beginning? Strengthen marriage. You can't do much with any family without a good mother and father. That's right, mother and father. That's your only option. Mother and father. Anything else has nothing to do with the kids and is a selfish union for the sake of the ones entering into it. Anything else defies what is natural, good, and sacred. Here is the main reason that a Federal Marriage Amendment is a good idea. It strengthens marriage. Because of the wording of the amendment, some have expressed fears that any relationship between two people besides marriage will be discouraged. Ask any quality sociologist if this is a bad thing.
This is a great start. It is a reminder that marriage is about more than just two people being in love. Anybody can fall in love. That's easy. It's also easy to fall out of love. There really isn't a lot to it, alone. What makes it significant is when there is a commitment, a covenant between the two that fall in love. Then, there is something that will last. The commitment plus the love unite to create something that will last, in society, for all time and, in the church, for all eternity.
What this society has forgotten is the commitment part. They're all about falling in love. People fall in love left and right. And there's no discrimination in what they fall in love with. And as a result, we have millions of lonely, broken hearts, with painful ties that don't just affect the lives of the poor, disillusioned lovers, but also the children they conceived and the other lovers they betrayed and...well, you get the picture. It's not a desirable world.
So, this amendment can help remind the nation of the commitment. Define marriage officially. A lot of people complain, "well, there's not mention of marriage in the constitution." Well, duh. That's because up until the 1960's, people had enough common sense to know what marriage was. And then the experimenting started, walls that never should have been torn down were torn down, and the resulting flood washed away the firm definition of marriage that has existed for all of human history, with some notable exceptions (mostly notable because every society that allowed exceptions collapsed shortly after). So, with that public definition gone, we need to write it down more firmly than just in the public consensus. It needs to be in stone. Well, on paper and in computers. But, something tangible which cannot be violated. Namely, the Constitution.
Once we have this definition, we can move on. But, that's for another post. I hope you enjoyed my rambling. I just kind of laid out the thoughts as they came to me. Hope it makes sense.
There is something more basic that needs to be done, though. All of those things, they're outside forces. They are all partially controlled or entirely controlled by other nations or forces that we can't control, no matter how hard we try. They present a danger and we need to do something, but we're limited in what we can do. And, most importantly, they are not the greatest threat.
The biggest threat, the most basic, is within our own society. It's the fabric that binds this nation together, that binds any nation together. It's the foundation upon which all communities, from the smallest neighborhood to the greatest nation, are built on. Once again, considering my audience, you know what I'm talking about. The family.
Our society is falling apart. I don't need to list what's happening. We all know it. We've seen it, we've experienced it. It's affected me deeply. Thankfully, I don't face any of the problems, but I've seen one of my closest friends struggle with the results of a shattered family. It's not easy and it's not pretty. He's in good shape now, but he will forever be changed by his experiences.
We don't want this. It causes too much pain. I hate it. I hate watching my friends struggle with divorced parents. I hate watching friends sleeping around. I hate watching friends lose brothers and sisters to drugs, alcohol, and whatever else is out there. I hate the excess of so much that is damaging this world. I hate the lack of everything this world needs.
What we need is a strong family for every person, for every child. Sure it's idealistic. So what? A 4.0 is idealistic. I bit more achievable, but idealistic. It's the ideal of every student. Those that don't strive for it, don't get it. Those who do, may not get it either. But are they worse off for trying? Usually, no, if they didn't sacrifice more important things for it. So, the ideal is a benefit. It is our goal and what we will strive for. Settling for anything less is failure.
So, the beginning? Strengthen marriage. You can't do much with any family without a good mother and father. That's right, mother and father. That's your only option. Mother and father. Anything else has nothing to do with the kids and is a selfish union for the sake of the ones entering into it. Anything else defies what is natural, good, and sacred. Here is the main reason that a Federal Marriage Amendment is a good idea. It strengthens marriage. Because of the wording of the amendment, some have expressed fears that any relationship between two people besides marriage will be discouraged. Ask any quality sociologist if this is a bad thing.
This is a great start. It is a reminder that marriage is about more than just two people being in love. Anybody can fall in love. That's easy. It's also easy to fall out of love. There really isn't a lot to it, alone. What makes it significant is when there is a commitment, a covenant between the two that fall in love. Then, there is something that will last. The commitment plus the love unite to create something that will last, in society, for all time and, in the church, for all eternity.
What this society has forgotten is the commitment part. They're all about falling in love. People fall in love left and right. And there's no discrimination in what they fall in love with. And as a result, we have millions of lonely, broken hearts, with painful ties that don't just affect the lives of the poor, disillusioned lovers, but also the children they conceived and the other lovers they betrayed and...well, you get the picture. It's not a desirable world.
So, this amendment can help remind the nation of the commitment. Define marriage officially. A lot of people complain, "well, there's not mention of marriage in the constitution." Well, duh. That's because up until the 1960's, people had enough common sense to know what marriage was. And then the experimenting started, walls that never should have been torn down were torn down, and the resulting flood washed away the firm definition of marriage that has existed for all of human history, with some notable exceptions (mostly notable because every society that allowed exceptions collapsed shortly after). So, with that public definition gone, we need to write it down more firmly than just in the public consensus. It needs to be in stone. Well, on paper and in computers. But, something tangible which cannot be violated. Namely, the Constitution.
Once we have this definition, we can move on. But, that's for another post. I hope you enjoyed my rambling. I just kind of laid out the thoughts as they came to me. Hope it makes sense.
Friday, May 26, 2006
A Sign of the Times
Read these two links:
http://www.religiouscoalitionformarriage.org/
http://lds.org/newsroom/showrelease/0,15503,3881-1-23448,00.html
I'm pretty sure everyone who reads is a member of the church and will most likely hear on Sunday what these links say. I just want to add my emphasis, though. Write your senators. You have no idea the effect of a few, hand-written letters in the politics of this nation. Though one of my views is that representatives should vote with their own convictions of what is right, perhaps they lack the courage to vote their own will, if they think their constituents don't back them.
Maybe our letters won't make a difference. But, maybe they will. Maybe our senators have been blinded by the media onslaught against marriage. Maybe all they need is a few voices in support of what is right and they will awaken to the truth. Maybe our letters will make the difference in a vote that will change the course of this nation for all of history.
And have no doubt that it will. What the Congress of the United States of America decides about marriage will affect the future of this world. It will affect, for better or for worse, our futures, the future of our children, and the future of every child in this world. Have no doubt that if this amendment is not passed, marriage will continue crumble in this country. Have no doubt that as marriage crumbles in this land, the beacon to all the world, the city on a hill, it will crumble around the world. Families will fall apart, children will grow up, in the words of Ma Joad in Grapes of Wrath, "wild, like animals." Without reteaching this nation what marriage is, there is no hope for this world.
Write your senators and play your part in the flow of history, help restore this nation to a place where people can look to for hope, inspiration and refuge. Remind our senators that freedom and liberty, safety and security is not about us, it's about our children and the future of the human race.
http://www.religiouscoalitionformarriage.org/
http://lds.org/newsroom/showrelease/0,15503,3881-1-23448,00.html
I'm pretty sure everyone who reads is a member of the church and will most likely hear on Sunday what these links say. I just want to add my emphasis, though. Write your senators. You have no idea the effect of a few, hand-written letters in the politics of this nation. Though one of my views is that representatives should vote with their own convictions of what is right, perhaps they lack the courage to vote their own will, if they think their constituents don't back them.
Maybe our letters won't make a difference. But, maybe they will. Maybe our senators have been blinded by the media onslaught against marriage. Maybe all they need is a few voices in support of what is right and they will awaken to the truth. Maybe our letters will make the difference in a vote that will change the course of this nation for all of history.
And have no doubt that it will. What the Congress of the United States of America decides about marriage will affect the future of this world. It will affect, for better or for worse, our futures, the future of our children, and the future of every child in this world. Have no doubt that if this amendment is not passed, marriage will continue crumble in this country. Have no doubt that as marriage crumbles in this land, the beacon to all the world, the city on a hill, it will crumble around the world. Families will fall apart, children will grow up, in the words of Ma Joad in Grapes of Wrath, "wild, like animals." Without reteaching this nation what marriage is, there is no hope for this world.
Write your senators and play your part in the flow of history, help restore this nation to a place where people can look to for hope, inspiration and refuge. Remind our senators that freedom and liberty, safety and security is not about us, it's about our children and the future of the human race.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Me, as seen through DOM and Dune
I've been thinking the last few days about me. It may seem a little self-centered, but since I'm stuck for eternity as me, there are a few questions I need to answer. Well, more accurately, there are questions that need asking and I need to figure out which questions these are.
One thing I've particularly noticed is a love of reading things on the net. I love to explore sites with information. For example, yesterday when I got home from class I thought about something that I had heard about during the day called the Dominion of Melchizedek. It intrigued me and I proceeded to find out all I could about it.
First I learned that whoever ran the DOM had gone to the trouble to make a website with several links and a "constitution." They had a fancy seal at the top of the main website and the constitution copied many ideas from the U.S., with a few tweaks from the political and ideological leanings of whoever wrote it. From reading that constitution, I learned that they liked the U.S. system of government, or at least the appearance of it. Their personal tweaks concentrated all power into the hands of 24 men, who made all the laws and chose the president of the DOM. So, I had a feeling they wanted the appearance of democracy, but wanted the power to be concentrated in a few hands. Kind of like most European nations. I also learned that these guys didn't understand, first, economics, and second, the cost of running a government. They banned taxes (except an "inflationary tax," interpret that as you may).
Next I discovered a link to the "Melchizedek Bible." From here I read their introduction, which included a biography about the "translators" of the MB, who also happened to be the founders of the DOM. This was the fun part. It turns out the translators and founders are two men who have spent a great deal of their time in jail and in court, mainly on things related to schemes to make money. This biography kept saying there was no proof to any of the convictions, however, never were they jailed without going to trial, and every trial they had "wrongly" convicted the "innocent" men. Why they put so much obviously condemning information on this page, I don't know. They never explain exactly how two innocent men can be wrongly convicted so many times and they never explain how these men's schemes were legal.
I didn't bother finishing this "introduction" and went straight to the MB, their modern-day translation of the King James Bible. It was a joke. Literally, it made me laugh. They just made up their own meanings for what the Bible said, turning it into a laughable attempt to provide legitimacy to their crime-filled lives.
Finished with this website and its attempt to turn this absurd criminal tale into a story of misunderstood "prophets" stuck in a corrupt nation, I went to the web. I quickly discovered that the DOM was well known by the US government - as an attempt to legitimize phony schemes to fool people out of their money. My favorite story is of a man sold loans in Texas from an agency licensed by the DOM and funded by a bank licensed by the DOM and a University he had founded in Louisiana. The bank, of course, had no assets and neither did the university. Also, his company was never registered to make loans in Texas. Somehow he managed to get thousands of dollars from people, though. Amazing.
Anyway, this whole journey took a couple hours and thinking about it later, I think it's interesting that I invested so much time reading about this fake country. Really, I find many aspects of what I read fascinating, though I won't write any more here, out of respect for those of you who would like to return to your normal lives. But I have a thirst for knowledge and not just any knowledge. I know there is a specific type....I'm just trying to figure out what type it is. I like to read about countries, ideologies, corporations and the effects they have around the world. I like to see the trends of people and nations. Not trends as in fashion trends and who their favorite celebrity is, though in certain cases that may factor in, but...well, perhaps an example would be best.
Let's take religion. Religion shapes nations and nations shape religions. That is a trend I would love to explore. Think about the United States. Each trend is obvious. We are shaped by Christianity, specifically, Protestant Christianity. Look at the debates over prayer and Bible study in public schools. But at the same time, we have shaped Protestant Christianity. Evangelism is largely a US phenomenon. And commerce also factors into the equation.
A book that may define me is Dune. I've read a few books exploring how religion, politics, and economics intertwine, and this one has been definitive to me. It tells of a man who goes far beyond being a popular hero, but shapes the future of the entire universe. The hero, Paul Atreides, begins as a political figure. He is the son of a powerful Duke in the future Empire of man. But he and his father quickly become economic figures when they are given control of Arrakis, the economic center of the universe, as it is the sole source of spice, the stuff that allows interplanetary travel. Following an attack and defeat by a rival house, Paul is chased into the desert and becomes a religious figure. The book focuses all these factors onto this single man, in the process, allowing an exploration of how these forces interact.
Ok, anyway, I'm just babbling now. If anyone is still reading, I'm impressed. Maybe I'll continue this later, but for now, I need to do homework.
One thing I've particularly noticed is a love of reading things on the net. I love to explore sites with information. For example, yesterday when I got home from class I thought about something that I had heard about during the day called the Dominion of Melchizedek. It intrigued me and I proceeded to find out all I could about it.
First I learned that whoever ran the DOM had gone to the trouble to make a website with several links and a "constitution." They had a fancy seal at the top of the main website and the constitution copied many ideas from the U.S., with a few tweaks from the political and ideological leanings of whoever wrote it. From reading that constitution, I learned that they liked the U.S. system of government, or at least the appearance of it. Their personal tweaks concentrated all power into the hands of 24 men, who made all the laws and chose the president of the DOM. So, I had a feeling they wanted the appearance of democracy, but wanted the power to be concentrated in a few hands. Kind of like most European nations. I also learned that these guys didn't understand, first, economics, and second, the cost of running a government. They banned taxes (except an "inflationary tax," interpret that as you may).
Next I discovered a link to the "Melchizedek Bible." From here I read their introduction, which included a biography about the "translators" of the MB, who also happened to be the founders of the DOM. This was the fun part. It turns out the translators and founders are two men who have spent a great deal of their time in jail and in court, mainly on things related to schemes to make money. This biography kept saying there was no proof to any of the convictions, however, never were they jailed without going to trial, and every trial they had "wrongly" convicted the "innocent" men. Why they put so much obviously condemning information on this page, I don't know. They never explain exactly how two innocent men can be wrongly convicted so many times and they never explain how these men's schemes were legal.
I didn't bother finishing this "introduction" and went straight to the MB, their modern-day translation of the King James Bible. It was a joke. Literally, it made me laugh. They just made up their own meanings for what the Bible said, turning it into a laughable attempt to provide legitimacy to their crime-filled lives.
Finished with this website and its attempt to turn this absurd criminal tale into a story of misunderstood "prophets" stuck in a corrupt nation, I went to the web. I quickly discovered that the DOM was well known by the US government - as an attempt to legitimize phony schemes to fool people out of their money. My favorite story is of a man sold loans in Texas from an agency licensed by the DOM and funded by a bank licensed by the DOM and a University he had founded in Louisiana. The bank, of course, had no assets and neither did the university. Also, his company was never registered to make loans in Texas. Somehow he managed to get thousands of dollars from people, though. Amazing.
Anyway, this whole journey took a couple hours and thinking about it later, I think it's interesting that I invested so much time reading about this fake country. Really, I find many aspects of what I read fascinating, though I won't write any more here, out of respect for those of you who would like to return to your normal lives. But I have a thirst for knowledge and not just any knowledge. I know there is a specific type....I'm just trying to figure out what type it is. I like to read about countries, ideologies, corporations and the effects they have around the world. I like to see the trends of people and nations. Not trends as in fashion trends and who their favorite celebrity is, though in certain cases that may factor in, but...well, perhaps an example would be best.
Let's take religion. Religion shapes nations and nations shape religions. That is a trend I would love to explore. Think about the United States. Each trend is obvious. We are shaped by Christianity, specifically, Protestant Christianity. Look at the debates over prayer and Bible study in public schools. But at the same time, we have shaped Protestant Christianity. Evangelism is largely a US phenomenon. And commerce also factors into the equation.
A book that may define me is Dune. I've read a few books exploring how religion, politics, and economics intertwine, and this one has been definitive to me. It tells of a man who goes far beyond being a popular hero, but shapes the future of the entire universe. The hero, Paul Atreides, begins as a political figure. He is the son of a powerful Duke in the future Empire of man. But he and his father quickly become economic figures when they are given control of Arrakis, the economic center of the universe, as it is the sole source of spice, the stuff that allows interplanetary travel. Following an attack and defeat by a rival house, Paul is chased into the desert and becomes a religious figure. The book focuses all these factors onto this single man, in the process, allowing an exploration of how these forces interact.
Ok, anyway, I'm just babbling now. If anyone is still reading, I'm impressed. Maybe I'll continue this later, but for now, I need to do homework.
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Redemption
WanderingScribe
This is not a typical story. A woman finds herself homeless and jobless, living out of her car at the edge of some woods near London. Barely scraping enough together to feed herself, she walks into a public library to check her e-mail and decides to start a blog. Within a few months, she has readers around the world and is interviewed by BBC. Now she has a home and a book deal. Besides it being a fascinating story, her blog is a great read, thanks to her ability to write. That book deal is not just because of her sudden fame. Read it and, as she suggests, start from the beginning, as it is a story about her life and, as with any proper story, will have the greatest impact if you start from the beginning.
This is not a typical story. A woman finds herself homeless and jobless, living out of her car at the edge of some woods near London. Barely scraping enough together to feed herself, she walks into a public library to check her e-mail and decides to start a blog. Within a few months, she has readers around the world and is interviewed by BBC. Now she has a home and a book deal. Besides it being a fascinating story, her blog is a great read, thanks to her ability to write. That book deal is not just because of her sudden fame. Read it and, as she suggests, start from the beginning, as it is a story about her life and, as with any proper story, will have the greatest impact if you start from the beginning.
Saturday, May 20, 2006
The Bible - In Chinese
On the topic of the Bible: Immigrants Hear God's Word, In Chinese, via Conference Call. There really is a great deal of good being done outside the church.
The Bible in School
In today's Wall Street journal, there is an article entitled Saving Souls at School. Two court rulings have made it possible for elementary schools to have Bible clubs on campus led by teachers. The article focuses mainly on those who support the idea, so the reaction against it isn't conveyed clearly, but it does mention a few who oppose the idea. Throughout the article, I wasn't exactly sure where I stood, but after reading it and thinking it through, I don't have any objection and think it is an excellent idea.
First of all, the clubs are after school hours and many of the teachers make it clear to the students that they are doing this not as teachers, but as private citizens. This distinction I don't believe is really that important. After all, the idea that public employees and representatives should separate their public lives from their private beliefs is a. impossible, b. unnecessary, and c. dangerous. Separating private beliefs from your public life means you must represent the majority view, or whatever view is common in the government at that time. This is not the idea of representative democracy. The idea is to select men and and women who the public believes are morally straight and mentally capable of the task. And no person can make any decision without considering using their own moral beliefs. It is not possible and should never be asked of anyone. Therefore, Christian teachers, or Jewish, Muslim, etc., should never be asked to leave their religion at the door. Though they should not proselytize, it is not a criminal act for them to speak about their religion in the classroom. Nothing is being forced upon anyone. It is up to the children to decide. And the parents will ultimately have a larger sway on the child's mind, if they are giving as much attention to the child as they should. If not, in most circumstances, that is their own fault and they are the ones who must change, not the teacher.
Anyway, back to Bible clubs. The Moab, Utah school district has allowed the meetings, but is concerned that they blur the line between church and state. The concern is that Christianity is being promoted over other religions. My question is, if a Jewish teacher started a Jewish club, would people have the same concerns? What about a Muslim teacher? Or a Buddhist? Some parents may have a concern, but I doubt anybody with any authority would. These clubs would promote diversity. Yet there is no, I repeat, no difference between these clubs and the Christian clubs, except that Christianity is the majority religion. The fact of the matter is, the state is not promoting the religion, the individual teachers are. And they are not claiming the school supports this religion, they are only saying that they, as individuals do. The school giving permission for this to happen does not constitute an endorsement for the religion, it constitutes an acceptance of people's religious beliefs, which is a fundamental part of the Constitution. Banning the clubs would be the exact opposite: it would be repressing individual citizen's rights to share with others their beliefs.
The claim that this blurs the line between state and religion is further proven baseless by the fact that no other religions are banned from starting clubs. This is the right of every Jew, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu out there. The Founding Father's intent was not to ban religion from the public sphere, an idea unthinkable at the time, but to allow everyone to freely practice their religion. By allowing "religious diversity" clubs to abound and banning Christian clubs, the state is repressing religion, something that is unarguably unconstitutional. Therefore, these Bible clubs, far from blurring any hypothetical line, are showing why our Constitution was written with that clause: to protect our ability to practice any religion.
Also, parents are required to give their permission. The strongest argument against these clubs is that these kids will be taught something their parents don't approve of. This is taken care of by the permission slips. If the parents are uncomfortable with it, they don't have to sign the permission slip and the matter is over. Since the clubs are afterschool affairs, the parents don't have to worry about the teachers "indoctrinating" their children during school hours. Some parents might fear that if all of their child's friends are in the club, the kid might not be able to escape talk of the Bible. Any parent that fears there child will give in to peer pressure regarding something so "dangerous" as beliefs about the bible, should be scared stiff about peer pressure regarding things that represent real dangers later on: drugs, alcohol, sex.
And finally, there is the fact that these teachers are teaching something that no one should be opposed to : good moral conduct, loving one another, being accepting, forgiveness. This is the message of Christ and the Bible. If anything wrong is taught, such as intolerance of non-Christians or other things that Christians are accused of, this is the fault of the specific teacher and the parent should complain about the teacher, not the Bible club. These Bible clubs, if they survive, will do a great deal in improving the morality of Americans. There are few things better than teaching children the words of Christ. At this time in their lives, when they are the most impressionable, there is nothing that could do a better job of countering the trash that fills the modern media, except the parents teaching the Bible. But, since many parents seem to decline the responsibility of this, then the next best place is in these afterschool clubs.
Here's to the future. May it be filled with millions of Bible reading and loving children.
First of all, the clubs are after school hours and many of the teachers make it clear to the students that they are doing this not as teachers, but as private citizens. This distinction I don't believe is really that important. After all, the idea that public employees and representatives should separate their public lives from their private beliefs is a. impossible, b. unnecessary, and c. dangerous. Separating private beliefs from your public life means you must represent the majority view, or whatever view is common in the government at that time. This is not the idea of representative democracy. The idea is to select men and and women who the public believes are morally straight and mentally capable of the task. And no person can make any decision without considering using their own moral beliefs. It is not possible and should never be asked of anyone. Therefore, Christian teachers, or Jewish, Muslim, etc., should never be asked to leave their religion at the door. Though they should not proselytize, it is not a criminal act for them to speak about their religion in the classroom. Nothing is being forced upon anyone. It is up to the children to decide. And the parents will ultimately have a larger sway on the child's mind, if they are giving as much attention to the child as they should. If not, in most circumstances, that is their own fault and they are the ones who must change, not the teacher.
Anyway, back to Bible clubs. The Moab, Utah school district has allowed the meetings, but is concerned that they blur the line between church and state. The concern is that Christianity is being promoted over other religions. My question is, if a Jewish teacher started a Jewish club, would people have the same concerns? What about a Muslim teacher? Or a Buddhist? Some parents may have a concern, but I doubt anybody with any authority would. These clubs would promote diversity. Yet there is no, I repeat, no difference between these clubs and the Christian clubs, except that Christianity is the majority religion. The fact of the matter is, the state is not promoting the religion, the individual teachers are. And they are not claiming the school supports this religion, they are only saying that they, as individuals do. The school giving permission for this to happen does not constitute an endorsement for the religion, it constitutes an acceptance of people's religious beliefs, which is a fundamental part of the Constitution. Banning the clubs would be the exact opposite: it would be repressing individual citizen's rights to share with others their beliefs.
The claim that this blurs the line between state and religion is further proven baseless by the fact that no other religions are banned from starting clubs. This is the right of every Jew, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu out there. The Founding Father's intent was not to ban religion from the public sphere, an idea unthinkable at the time, but to allow everyone to freely practice their religion. By allowing "religious diversity" clubs to abound and banning Christian clubs, the state is repressing religion, something that is unarguably unconstitutional. Therefore, these Bible clubs, far from blurring any hypothetical line, are showing why our Constitution was written with that clause: to protect our ability to practice any religion.
Also, parents are required to give their permission. The strongest argument against these clubs is that these kids will be taught something their parents don't approve of. This is taken care of by the permission slips. If the parents are uncomfortable with it, they don't have to sign the permission slip and the matter is over. Since the clubs are afterschool affairs, the parents don't have to worry about the teachers "indoctrinating" their children during school hours. Some parents might fear that if all of their child's friends are in the club, the kid might not be able to escape talk of the Bible. Any parent that fears there child will give in to peer pressure regarding something so "dangerous" as beliefs about the bible, should be scared stiff about peer pressure regarding things that represent real dangers later on: drugs, alcohol, sex.
And finally, there is the fact that these teachers are teaching something that no one should be opposed to : good moral conduct, loving one another, being accepting, forgiveness. This is the message of Christ and the Bible. If anything wrong is taught, such as intolerance of non-Christians or other things that Christians are accused of, this is the fault of the specific teacher and the parent should complain about the teacher, not the Bible club. These Bible clubs, if they survive, will do a great deal in improving the morality of Americans. There are few things better than teaching children the words of Christ. At this time in their lives, when they are the most impressionable, there is nothing that could do a better job of countering the trash that fills the modern media, except the parents teaching the Bible. But, since many parents seem to decline the responsibility of this, then the next best place is in these afterschool clubs.
Here's to the future. May it be filled with millions of Bible reading and loving children.
Friday, May 19, 2006
The Actor
Venezuela stages mock foreign invasion Reuters.com
Hugo Chavez really is a clever actor. In efforts to stoke anti-American sentiment and unite his people behind him, he holds mock invasions. He points to this as preperations for a future U.S. invasion that he claims is almost certain. Maybe to the poor and illiterate in Venezuala this works, or to those who will believe anything that is anti-U.S., but to anyone who can read the news and pays attention to the real U.S. government, rather than the imperial phantom Chavez has created, this idea is irrational and absurd.
With all the problems the U.S. is facing, why would we invade Venezuela? North Korea is a potential threat, with its likely nuclear weapons and the growing capability to launch them at the U.S. So is Iran, with its insistence on enriching uranium and its threats to Israel. And if it was all about oil, Iran seems like a much better target, since we would have reasons for invading Iran that would mask the drive for oil.
And besides all this, we are still having enough difficulties as it is with Iraq. Unless we had a compelling reason to invade any other country, such as the threat of nuclear reasons, I don't believe there is any possibility of it happening. Chavez is overplaying his own importance. I'm sure if he weren't using all this anti-American rhetoric, the government and media would largely ignore him. He's an actor who is using the stage effectively to solidify his grip on the country and though he is a threat to his own people, our country's best and most likely policy is to do nothing.
I know I've said he is a threat, but upon learning more about him, my opinion is changing. He is democratically elected and there is little we can complain about there. He may be misusing his power, but only Venezuelans can do anything about that. I pity them, but they seem to have brought it upon themselves. As long as his only tool is oil money and as long as all he does is use inane rhetoric, we are safe. We should, however, keep a close eye on him.
Hugo Chavez really is a clever actor. In efforts to stoke anti-American sentiment and unite his people behind him, he holds mock invasions. He points to this as preperations for a future U.S. invasion that he claims is almost certain. Maybe to the poor and illiterate in Venezuala this works, or to those who will believe anything that is anti-U.S., but to anyone who can read the news and pays attention to the real U.S. government, rather than the imperial phantom Chavez has created, this idea is irrational and absurd.
With all the problems the U.S. is facing, why would we invade Venezuela? North Korea is a potential threat, with its likely nuclear weapons and the growing capability to launch them at the U.S. So is Iran, with its insistence on enriching uranium and its threats to Israel. And if it was all about oil, Iran seems like a much better target, since we would have reasons for invading Iran that would mask the drive for oil.
And besides all this, we are still having enough difficulties as it is with Iraq. Unless we had a compelling reason to invade any other country, such as the threat of nuclear reasons, I don't believe there is any possibility of it happening. Chavez is overplaying his own importance. I'm sure if he weren't using all this anti-American rhetoric, the government and media would largely ignore him. He's an actor who is using the stage effectively to solidify his grip on the country and though he is a threat to his own people, our country's best and most likely policy is to do nothing.
I know I've said he is a threat, but upon learning more about him, my opinion is changing. He is democratically elected and there is little we can complain about there. He may be misusing his power, but only Venezuelans can do anything about that. I pity them, but they seem to have brought it upon themselves. As long as his only tool is oil money and as long as all he does is use inane rhetoric, we are safe. We should, however, keep a close eye on him.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Um...logic?
Vote in House Seeks to Erase Oil Windfall
So, I'm curious about something. We're facing a couple major problems. The first is that we are far too dependent on foreign oil. The second, which is partly a result of the first, is that gas prices are at a record high. So what's the House's reaction? Raise taxes on gas companies and continue the ban on further drilling. How is this a solution for anything? Sure, reactionists are happy because the "evil" oil companies profits are cut a little, but how does this affect the average American? Gas prices will go up even more. Yes, something needs to be done about tax cuts to the oil industry, but not now. Not when gas prices are the highest and not before we've found a way to decrease the pressure on the oil supply. The House is asking for one result: permanently higher gas prices.
So, I'm curious about something. We're facing a couple major problems. The first is that we are far too dependent on foreign oil. The second, which is partly a result of the first, is that gas prices are at a record high. So what's the House's reaction? Raise taxes on gas companies and continue the ban on further drilling. How is this a solution for anything? Sure, reactionists are happy because the "evil" oil companies profits are cut a little, but how does this affect the average American? Gas prices will go up even more. Yes, something needs to be done about tax cuts to the oil industry, but not now. Not when gas prices are the highest and not before we've found a way to decrease the pressure on the oil supply. The House is asking for one result: permanently higher gas prices.
Monday, May 15, 2006
Unbias
Comment is free: Chavez is a populist, not a socialist
Here is an intelligent look at Chavez, less biased than my tirade below. Don't pay attention to the comments after the article, though. They are a joke.
Here is an intelligent look at Chavez, less biased than my tirade below. Don't pay attention to the comments after the article, though. They are a joke.
My Rant
CNN.com - Chavez: Imprison 'genocidal' Bush - May 15, 2006
Chavez continues to scare me. The fact that anyone listens to him with any seriousness whatsoever is surprising to me. This man calls the President of the United States an international criminal and genocidal. Hold on, exactly how is Bush genocidal? What people in the US have been killed as part of this genocide? Exactly what group of people have US troops been wiping out in Iraq or Afghanistan? How can anyone listen to this tripe? I can't believe the mayor of London sat down with this man! He doesn't use logic! Everything he says in sensational, designed for one purpose: to catch the media's attention. He doen't care about people. He offers low-priced oil to people in the US and Europe. To what purpose? To help people? There are thousands in his own country who are poverty-stricken! If he cared about anyone, he would help his own people first, not the far more wealthy Americans and Europeans.
Chavez, if he weren't such a danger, would be a joke. He claims he and the Iranians want peace. Right. So the Iranians, who have said Israel should be wiped off the map, want peace? The Iranians, who have sent men over to help the Iraq terrorists, want peace? Venezuela hasn't done anything to further any war, as far as I know, but I don't see anything that Chavez is doing to help any peace effort.
If anything, he's trying to incite war. He doesn't want any part in the goals of America. We want peace. We want freedom for others. But he claims not to see this. He claims that capitalism doesn't work and we are imperialistic. But where does the evidence lie? Capitalism vs. populism, socialism, communism, call it what you like. US vs. Russia. Who's left standing? US vs. China. Which country adopted the economic modeol of the other? US vs. Cuba. Which one are people fleeing out of? US vs. North Korea. Which one are people starving in? Now, tell me again that capitalism doesn't work.
And if we are imperialistic, we are the worst impirialists of all time. Conquering countries and then setting up parliaments and letting them choose their own leaders? Letting them train, no, training their troops. Hold on, what empire in all of history has ever done this? Name one.
Chavez...I can't use the words for what Chavez is, but he is wrong. Use a little bit of logic and all his arguments fall apart. He is after one thing: power. And he will do anything to get it.
Chavez continues to scare me. The fact that anyone listens to him with any seriousness whatsoever is surprising to me. This man calls the President of the United States an international criminal and genocidal. Hold on, exactly how is Bush genocidal? What people in the US have been killed as part of this genocide? Exactly what group of people have US troops been wiping out in Iraq or Afghanistan? How can anyone listen to this tripe? I can't believe the mayor of London sat down with this man! He doesn't use logic! Everything he says in sensational, designed for one purpose: to catch the media's attention. He doen't care about people. He offers low-priced oil to people in the US and Europe. To what purpose? To help people? There are thousands in his own country who are poverty-stricken! If he cared about anyone, he would help his own people first, not the far more wealthy Americans and Europeans.
Chavez, if he weren't such a danger, would be a joke. He claims he and the Iranians want peace. Right. So the Iranians, who have said Israel should be wiped off the map, want peace? The Iranians, who have sent men over to help the Iraq terrorists, want peace? Venezuela hasn't done anything to further any war, as far as I know, but I don't see anything that Chavez is doing to help any peace effort.
If anything, he's trying to incite war. He doesn't want any part in the goals of America. We want peace. We want freedom for others. But he claims not to see this. He claims that capitalism doesn't work and we are imperialistic. But where does the evidence lie? Capitalism vs. populism, socialism, communism, call it what you like. US vs. Russia. Who's left standing? US vs. China. Which country adopted the economic modeol of the other? US vs. Cuba. Which one are people fleeing out of? US vs. North Korea. Which one are people starving in? Now, tell me again that capitalism doesn't work.
And if we are imperialistic, we are the worst impirialists of all time. Conquering countries and then setting up parliaments and letting them choose their own leaders? Letting them train, no, training their troops. Hold on, what empire in all of history has ever done this? Name one.
Chavez...I can't use the words for what Chavez is, but he is wrong. Use a little bit of logic and all his arguments fall apart. He is after one thing: power. And he will do anything to get it.
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Inspiration
Just finished reading Rocket Boys, or October Sky, as it's now known. Rocket Boys was a better title. Anyway, I practically bawled. It's strange. I've read a lot of books already in my short life, many of them touching. I don't know if any single one of them has touched me the way this one has. Several times, my eyes teared up. More than once, those tears escaped down my cheeks. For heaven's sake, its a book about boys launching rockets! But at the same time, it's the journey of a boy trying to find his place in the world and trying to find out if his father really loves him, trying to earn his father's love. If there is something that gets to me, it's a father-son story.
Read it.
Read it.
Friday, May 12, 2006
America's Potential
Despite everything wrong in this world, there is good. Governments may be corrupt, beauracracies bloated, cities ridden with crime and families crumbling, but there is hope.
According to a recently published study called the 2006 Index of Global Philanthropy, despite whatever problems our government faces, it manages to give $19.7 billion a year in aid. And that is only official government aid. Religious organizations give $4.5 billion in aid. Not impressed? Corporations give $5 billion in aid. Ok, not too much more, but there's more. Private organizations gave almost $10 billion. Now here's the whopper: individual remittance, or the money from individuals within the US sent to those without, adds up to $47 billion.
"Wait," some might say. "How can you count money immigrants send to their families? That's not aid." I would strongly disagree. According to the Wall Street Journal article I have gained this information from, individual remittance is "arguably the most efficient..involving little or no overhead and filling people's basic needs directly." While the aid governments, religious organizations, and corporations is sifted through by governments and partly used to pay for employees, offices, paperwork, etc., individual remittances goes straight into the hands of those who need it most. There is no better form of charity. $47 billion. That alone is an argument that perhaps one of the most charitable things we can do for development in Mexico is allow temporary workers to come here.
All of this is evidence that there is hope. There are enough people in this country who care that we send at least $86.2 billion out into the world with the hope that that money will improve the condition of the huge numbers of those suffering. Of course, there is a great deal more we can do. So much of our money goes to things that really don't matter. Billions go into video games alone, and this is a part of the entertainment industry just hitting full stride. Imagien how much more we spend on well established forms of entertainment. What about all the money wasted in casinos across the nation? Imagien what the money people spend on lotteries could do if they instead spent it to help others! This is not a call for change in government policy. This is something government cannot do. This is a change that must come directly from the people. Our hearts must change. Our desires must change. Following that, the government will change to reflect our changed desire.
There is hope and there will be a great deal more if we set ourselves aside and serve others. This will save the world. Anything else will destroy it.
According to a recently published study called the 2006 Index of Global Philanthropy, despite whatever problems our government faces, it manages to give $19.7 billion a year in aid. And that is only official government aid. Religious organizations give $4.5 billion in aid. Not impressed? Corporations give $5 billion in aid. Ok, not too much more, but there's more. Private organizations gave almost $10 billion. Now here's the whopper: individual remittance, or the money from individuals within the US sent to those without, adds up to $47 billion.
"Wait," some might say. "How can you count money immigrants send to their families? That's not aid." I would strongly disagree. According to the Wall Street Journal article I have gained this information from, individual remittance is "arguably the most efficient..involving little or no overhead and filling people's basic needs directly." While the aid governments, religious organizations, and corporations is sifted through by governments and partly used to pay for employees, offices, paperwork, etc., individual remittances goes straight into the hands of those who need it most. There is no better form of charity. $47 billion. That alone is an argument that perhaps one of the most charitable things we can do for development in Mexico is allow temporary workers to come here.
All of this is evidence that there is hope. There are enough people in this country who care that we send at least $86.2 billion out into the world with the hope that that money will improve the condition of the huge numbers of those suffering. Of course, there is a great deal more we can do. So much of our money goes to things that really don't matter. Billions go into video games alone, and this is a part of the entertainment industry just hitting full stride. Imagien how much more we spend on well established forms of entertainment. What about all the money wasted in casinos across the nation? Imagien what the money people spend on lotteries could do if they instead spent it to help others! This is not a call for change in government policy. This is something government cannot do. This is a change that must come directly from the people. Our hearts must change. Our desires must change. Following that, the government will change to reflect our changed desire.
There is hope and there will be a great deal more if we set ourselves aside and serve others. This will save the world. Anything else will destroy it.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
To Be Alone
I guess it's been a while since I've written anything. I'd imagine not many people are checking this blog anymore. Oh well. This is for those of you who randomly happen by.
So, I'm back at college for the Spring after two awesome semesters. I can tell you, it's not the same at all. Really, it's pitiful here. It's actually kind of lonely. At the end of last semester, I was always with good friends. I never ate alone. I stayed up late talking to my roommate. We watched movies, went up the canyon, did all kinds fo things. And now I'm here and all my friends have gone home. But, I don't want to dwell on that. Life will improve. I'll make more friends.
It's interesting. Once again, the shell has been rebuilt and its ripped away, this time perhaps even more so. Yet, at the same time, this shell was closer to the real me. Though it's been painful, the pain isn't so much me having to rebuild who I am. This time its simply sorrow for what was. I miss my friends intensely. But I know who I am, to an extent.
It will be interesting to see where this term leads. Where am I going, exactly? Though I have a good idea of who I am, there are questions left, as always. Its difficult to place in words, and there's a great deal I can't say in this blog, but I am confused about certain things. Change will do that. In building that shell, you get used to one picture. You structure the world around you according to what you're used to. You organize things in your mind based on your daily experience. But then your daily experience changes. What is around you shifts. Perhaps the hardest thing is when only portions change, and not the entire thing.
I can easily remember when I first came up here. It wasn't too hard. I missed family and friends, but I was excited. And everything changed. I was in a completely new environment. There were challenges, but I was ready to meet them. I was prepared.
Things are different now. I'm not exactly sure what I expected, but I didn't expect it to be this hard. What makes it so hard is that just a portion of the picture has changed. I've moved to a different dorm, there's fewer peope on campus, but, most significantly, my closest friends, and most of the people I knew, have gone home. So much here reminds me of the great times we had, but I can't share those memories with them, but they're not here. Well, I guess I can eventually, but not in the moment.
Well, time will ease the pain. I'll get used to my new situation. I can keep in touch with my friends and I'll make new friends. And eventually I'll leave campus. I'll always miss my friends, but it will be easier when I'm not reminded daily of them and the things we did together.
TImes will be good again. Really, life is good. My friends may not be close, but I can still talk to them. They're still here. And I can always look to the future. They'll be there, in the future, always. And if anything should happen to prevent me from seeing that future with them, I pray that God will watch over us and know that we will see each other again, whether on this side of the veil or on the other.
So, here's to the future, which fills the present with light and hope.
So, I'm back at college for the Spring after two awesome semesters. I can tell you, it's not the same at all. Really, it's pitiful here. It's actually kind of lonely. At the end of last semester, I was always with good friends. I never ate alone. I stayed up late talking to my roommate. We watched movies, went up the canyon, did all kinds fo things. And now I'm here and all my friends have gone home. But, I don't want to dwell on that. Life will improve. I'll make more friends.
It's interesting. Once again, the shell has been rebuilt and its ripped away, this time perhaps even more so. Yet, at the same time, this shell was closer to the real me. Though it's been painful, the pain isn't so much me having to rebuild who I am. This time its simply sorrow for what was. I miss my friends intensely. But I know who I am, to an extent.
It will be interesting to see where this term leads. Where am I going, exactly? Though I have a good idea of who I am, there are questions left, as always. Its difficult to place in words, and there's a great deal I can't say in this blog, but I am confused about certain things. Change will do that. In building that shell, you get used to one picture. You structure the world around you according to what you're used to. You organize things in your mind based on your daily experience. But then your daily experience changes. What is around you shifts. Perhaps the hardest thing is when only portions change, and not the entire thing.
I can easily remember when I first came up here. It wasn't too hard. I missed family and friends, but I was excited. And everything changed. I was in a completely new environment. There were challenges, but I was ready to meet them. I was prepared.
Things are different now. I'm not exactly sure what I expected, but I didn't expect it to be this hard. What makes it so hard is that just a portion of the picture has changed. I've moved to a different dorm, there's fewer peope on campus, but, most significantly, my closest friends, and most of the people I knew, have gone home. So much here reminds me of the great times we had, but I can't share those memories with them, but they're not here. Well, I guess I can eventually, but not in the moment.
Well, time will ease the pain. I'll get used to my new situation. I can keep in touch with my friends and I'll make new friends. And eventually I'll leave campus. I'll always miss my friends, but it will be easier when I'm not reminded daily of them and the things we did together.
TImes will be good again. Really, life is good. My friends may not be close, but I can still talk to them. They're still here. And I can always look to the future. They'll be there, in the future, always. And if anything should happen to prevent me from seeing that future with them, I pray that God will watch over us and know that we will see each other again, whether on this side of the veil or on the other.
So, here's to the future, which fills the present with light and hope.
Monday, April 03, 2006
Cafe Hayek: Are 'Illegal' Immigrants Illegal?
This is one of the poorest arguments I have ever read. Law is what we actually practice? No! Law is what is on our books. if we don't enforce it, if the people disagree with it, then get rid of the law! If you say that what we do is law and what is on the books is meaningless, then lets get rid of the legislatures. What good are they doing?
Usually I respect this blog, but this post is inane. I'm glad this man is not a lawyer or involved in the government, because we would be in sad shape if he were. This country is a built on laws. Not social customs, which is is calling law, but the codes of law written in the books. Yes there are laws on the books we ignore, but that is simply because they are usually strange laws few people know exist and don't want to go through the effort of getting rid of. The vast majority of written law is enforced as best as humanly possible.
And regarding illegal immigrants. They are illegal. The law says they should not be here. So a lot of people aren't doing anything to get them out. That's because we are wealthy and the costs of those immigrants aren't having a big enough effect for us to do something. If most people don't mind them being here, rather than undermine the rule of law by redefining it, let's change the law. It is vital to the survival of this nation that we remain a nation of laws. If we turned to social custom, chaos will result. I guarantee it. The only way we can support our vast and complicated nation is by recognizing law as what is on the books. Sorry Don, but your argument is one of anarchy and chaos.
This is one of the poorest arguments I have ever read. Law is what we actually practice? No! Law is what is on our books. if we don't enforce it, if the people disagree with it, then get rid of the law! If you say that what we do is law and what is on the books is meaningless, then lets get rid of the legislatures. What good are they doing?
Usually I respect this blog, but this post is inane. I'm glad this man is not a lawyer or involved in the government, because we would be in sad shape if he were. This country is a built on laws. Not social customs, which is is calling law, but the codes of law written in the books. Yes there are laws on the books we ignore, but that is simply because they are usually strange laws few people know exist and don't want to go through the effort of getting rid of. The vast majority of written law is enforced as best as humanly possible.
And regarding illegal immigrants. They are illegal. The law says they should not be here. So a lot of people aren't doing anything to get them out. That's because we are wealthy and the costs of those immigrants aren't having a big enough effect for us to do something. If most people don't mind them being here, rather than undermine the rule of law by redefining it, let's change the law. It is vital to the survival of this nation that we remain a nation of laws. If we turned to social custom, chaos will result. I guarantee it. The only way we can support our vast and complicated nation is by recognizing law as what is on the books. Sorry Don, but your argument is one of anarchy and chaos.
Monday, March 20, 2006
Visitors Seek a Taste of Revolution in Venezuela - New York Times
Hugo Chavez has quite a skill. By doing lots of good things, he hides the bad things he's doing or the good things he could be doing that he is ignoring.
It's interesting that these people talk about an "alternative" to globalism and the "imperialism" of the U.S. They make it sound like a new idea. Yet everything Chavez is doing has been done before. The article makes numerous references to Mao, Cuba, Nicaragua, and other countries that have preceded Venezuela in revolutons that supposedly better the people's lives. Yet Mao killed millions. Thousands flee Cuba every year. Nicaragua is still a destitute country. WHy is this alternative worth anything? We have shown that ist does not work over and over and over. The Soviet Union. Fully communist China. North Korea. Cuba. No socialist government that has fought against capitalismand globalization has won. Always, always, the forces of the market have broken down the barriers people put up. Why? Because the market works. The people in all of the countries are still poor. Is it because evil capitalists in America and Europe are sucking up all the wealth? No! It is because oppresive governments have blocked the wealth we have created from getting into their countries, or have used the wealth to enhance their power and prestige. Hugo Chavez is no revolutionary. His ideas are as old, and older, than Marx. And he will fail. He will lose his power someday. Communism, no matter how watered down, and no matter what mask it wears, will never work. In a few years, the poor who support Chavez will still be poor, while he revels in hi newfound power. Or, they will be a little richer, while Chavez glories in his power and begins invading his neighbors. We've seen these patterns before. One is that of Soviet Russia and every other communist regime. The other is that of Hitler. Hugo Chavez has two things going for him: good PR people and lots of oil money. Don't let his tricks fool you. He is an evil man who does not care the least for his people. He is off his rocker (accussing Bush of wanting to invade Venezuela?) and a threat to th countries around him. To all those dreamers who call Chavez and modern Venezuela a success, wake up. That's all it is, a dream.
Hugo Chavez has quite a skill. By doing lots of good things, he hides the bad things he's doing or the good things he could be doing that he is ignoring.
It's interesting that these people talk about an "alternative" to globalism and the "imperialism" of the U.S. They make it sound like a new idea. Yet everything Chavez is doing has been done before. The article makes numerous references to Mao, Cuba, Nicaragua, and other countries that have preceded Venezuela in revolutons that supposedly better the people's lives. Yet Mao killed millions. Thousands flee Cuba every year. Nicaragua is still a destitute country. WHy is this alternative worth anything? We have shown that ist does not work over and over and over. The Soviet Union. Fully communist China. North Korea. Cuba. No socialist government that has fought against capitalismand globalization has won. Always, always, the forces of the market have broken down the barriers people put up. Why? Because the market works. The people in all of the countries are still poor. Is it because evil capitalists in America and Europe are sucking up all the wealth? No! It is because oppresive governments have blocked the wealth we have created from getting into their countries, or have used the wealth to enhance their power and prestige. Hugo Chavez is no revolutionary. His ideas are as old, and older, than Marx. And he will fail. He will lose his power someday. Communism, no matter how watered down, and no matter what mask it wears, will never work. In a few years, the poor who support Chavez will still be poor, while he revels in hi newfound power. Or, they will be a little richer, while Chavez glories in his power and begins invading his neighbors. We've seen these patterns before. One is that of Soviet Russia and every other communist regime. The other is that of Hitler. Hugo Chavez has two things going for him: good PR people and lots of oil money. Don't let his tricks fool you. He is an evil man who does not care the least for his people. He is off his rocker (accussing Bush of wanting to invade Venezuela?) and a threat to th countries around him. To all those dreamers who call Chavez and modern Venezuela a success, wake up. That's all it is, a dream.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
French Protests Over Youth Labor Law Spread to 150 Cities and Towns - New York Times
Do they even teach economics in France? Does a single one of these students understand anything about how businesses run? "Anticapitalism and self-management"? What a joke!
Let's compare numbers.
U.S.: capitalist free-market country. Unemployment rate? About 5%.
France: Socialist masquerading as a capitalist country. Unemployment rate? About 10%.
Why? Job security. The French want job security. Of course. Eveyone wants that. Americans want that badly. But I think we see something else. We recognize that there is uncertainty in life. That businesses don't exist to employ people. That the market isn't a constant. We understand, for the most part, that businesses grow and shrink, that jobs come and go. The important thing is that they have the ability to. This way, we keep a low unemployment rate, yet have highly productive businesses.
The French think businesses exist to employ people. Sorry, but that is wrong. Busniesses exist to produce. They need the flexibilty to change as the market changes. If they can't do this, they will hire less people. Machines are much easier to replace and shut down if there are laws agianst firing people. Get rid of the bad laws, and more people will be hired. Maybe you'll have to switch companies every once-in-a-while. What's better, ten different jobs or no job at all?
What is probably most disturbing is that, according to the Wall Street Journal, an economics student organized these protests. What kind of econ major is he? What do they teach in French universities? Do they study socialism in their econ classes? Don't they understand how the market works? You make it more costly to hire workers and fewer workers will be hired. It seems very expensive to hire workers in France, so few are hired. Basic economics. And this fool, Razzye Hammadi, says that he is "totally opposed in principle" to tinkering with France's labor laws. They are broken!!! With unemployment double that of the country where "evil" market forces create a "precarious" situation for workers, I don't understand the reasoning. Once again, what's better, a "precarious" job which you only hold for a few months, or no job at all? Maybe someday someone can go to France and teach them what has made the U.S. the most powerful and richest nation ever to exist.
Do they even teach economics in France? Does a single one of these students understand anything about how businesses run? "Anticapitalism and self-management"? What a joke!
Let's compare numbers.
U.S.: capitalist free-market country. Unemployment rate? About 5%.
France: Socialist masquerading as a capitalist country. Unemployment rate? About 10%.
Why? Job security. The French want job security. Of course. Eveyone wants that. Americans want that badly. But I think we see something else. We recognize that there is uncertainty in life. That businesses don't exist to employ people. That the market isn't a constant. We understand, for the most part, that businesses grow and shrink, that jobs come and go. The important thing is that they have the ability to. This way, we keep a low unemployment rate, yet have highly productive businesses.
The French think businesses exist to employ people. Sorry, but that is wrong. Busniesses exist to produce. They need the flexibilty to change as the market changes. If they can't do this, they will hire less people. Machines are much easier to replace and shut down if there are laws agianst firing people. Get rid of the bad laws, and more people will be hired. Maybe you'll have to switch companies every once-in-a-while. What's better, ten different jobs or no job at all?
What is probably most disturbing is that, according to the Wall Street Journal, an economics student organized these protests. What kind of econ major is he? What do they teach in French universities? Do they study socialism in their econ classes? Don't they understand how the market works? You make it more costly to hire workers and fewer workers will be hired. It seems very expensive to hire workers in France, so few are hired. Basic economics. And this fool, Razzye Hammadi, says that he is "totally opposed in principle" to tinkering with France's labor laws. They are broken!!! With unemployment double that of the country where "evil" market forces create a "precarious" situation for workers, I don't understand the reasoning. Once again, what's better, a "precarious" job which you only hold for a few months, or no job at all? Maybe someday someone can go to France and teach them what has made the U.S. the most powerful and richest nation ever to exist.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
InvisibleHeart.com: Home and Main Menu Page
I found this one interesting, since the Settlers of Catan is pretty popular with my friends and I.
I found this one interesting, since the Settlers of Catan is pretty popular with my friends and I.
Cafe Hayek: The New Yorker and the Beatles
This article written by, I believe, an Economics professor, supports, with an economic argument, the stupidity of killing the Dubai port deal. It's a good read, with an excellent illustrative example.
This article written by, I believe, an Economics professor, supports, with an economic argument, the stupidity of killing the Dubai port deal. It's a good read, with an excellent illustrative example.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Dubai Ports Deal
I found a great article about the ports affair. Unfortunately, it’s a Wall Street Journal article and you can’t view it unless you subscribe. But I can quote it.
The article, entitled “Port Deal: Not a Foreign Idea,” it begins by stating, “Amid the political firestorm surrounding Dubai Ports World, one fact is often lost -- foreign companies already manage most of the terminals at American ports, the result of a longtime dominance of global shipping lines that often run the facilities that handle their cargoes.” I have read quotes by representatives saying that the ports need to stay in American hands. It’s a nice sentiment, but here’s the problem: according to this article, “more than 60% of the container terminals at the nation's 10 busiest ports are at least partly managed by foreign operators, and in some cases, companies controlled by foreign governments.” Our ports are already in the hands of foreign companies. Those ports that were going to be controlled by Dubai weren’t under American control in the first place. They were under British control.
That in itself is a little scary, considering the amount of shipping that comes through our ports. Thankfully, the article goes on to say, “security -- such as the inspection of containers -- is conducted by federal enforcement agencies including the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection no matter who operates the terminal.” Besides reassuring us that our ports can still remain relatively secure, this fact also negates the argument that Dubai’s ownership of the ports threatens our security. If this company does not control the security of the port, then no threat to our security exists.
So what’s the problem? I see it as two-fold. First, Congress is simply uninformed or the people who might re-elect them this November are, putting pressure on Congress to make an unwise, but popular move. Second, sheer racism. People see that Dubai is an Arab company and don’t look any farther. It’s Arab, so it’s linked to terrorism and it’s a threat to the nation. They ignore the fact that it is an international company, accountable to customers all over the world. They ignore the fact that it is based in a nation that is a strong ally to the U.S. They don’t bother to look and see if the company has any real links to terrorism. They just assume there must be links because the company is Arab. It’s just like the old image in the south that all black men are eager to rape white women because one or two may have done so sometime in the past.
The racism is there and it is something we must root out and destroy. Racism tore this country apart in the past and it may again, if we let it spread. We cannot discriminate against a company just because it is Arab, just as we cannot discriminate against an individual because he is Arab. If I had heard any good solid arguments of exactly how Dubai could be a threat, I would support the fight against the port deal. I have hear absolutely no valid arguments, though; just outright racism.
Please, let’s fight this. America has come to far to sink to that level again.
Of course, all of this is moot. Dubai announced today that it will hand the ports to an “American entity.” Racism wins, for the moment. But lets learn from this moment and not repeat the mistake. We lost an opportunity to show that we do not hate Arabs as a whole, just those who support terrorism.
The article, entitled “Port Deal: Not a Foreign Idea,” it begins by stating, “Amid the political firestorm surrounding Dubai Ports World, one fact is often lost -- foreign companies already manage most of the terminals at American ports, the result of a longtime dominance of global shipping lines that often run the facilities that handle their cargoes.” I have read quotes by representatives saying that the ports need to stay in American hands. It’s a nice sentiment, but here’s the problem: according to this article, “more than 60% of the container terminals at the nation's 10 busiest ports are at least partly managed by foreign operators, and in some cases, companies controlled by foreign governments.” Our ports are already in the hands of foreign companies. Those ports that were going to be controlled by Dubai weren’t under American control in the first place. They were under British control.
That in itself is a little scary, considering the amount of shipping that comes through our ports. Thankfully, the article goes on to say, “security -- such as the inspection of containers -- is conducted by federal enforcement agencies including the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection no matter who operates the terminal.” Besides reassuring us that our ports can still remain relatively secure, this fact also negates the argument that Dubai’s ownership of the ports threatens our security. If this company does not control the security of the port, then no threat to our security exists.
So what’s the problem? I see it as two-fold. First, Congress is simply uninformed or the people who might re-elect them this November are, putting pressure on Congress to make an unwise, but popular move. Second, sheer racism. People see that Dubai is an Arab company and don’t look any farther. It’s Arab, so it’s linked to terrorism and it’s a threat to the nation. They ignore the fact that it is an international company, accountable to customers all over the world. They ignore the fact that it is based in a nation that is a strong ally to the U.S. They don’t bother to look and see if the company has any real links to terrorism. They just assume there must be links because the company is Arab. It’s just like the old image in the south that all black men are eager to rape white women because one or two may have done so sometime in the past.
The racism is there and it is something we must root out and destroy. Racism tore this country apart in the past and it may again, if we let it spread. We cannot discriminate against a company just because it is Arab, just as we cannot discriminate against an individual because he is Arab. If I had heard any good solid arguments of exactly how Dubai could be a threat, I would support the fight against the port deal. I have hear absolutely no valid arguments, though; just outright racism.
Please, let’s fight this. America has come to far to sink to that level again.
Of course, all of this is moot. Dubai announced today that it will hand the ports to an “American entity.” Racism wins, for the moment. But lets learn from this moment and not repeat the mistake. We lost an opportunity to show that we do not hate Arabs as a whole, just those who support terrorism.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
WSJ.com - Minding the Gap
I'd like to add my humble analysis.
Heather Boushey has a dangerous viewpoint. She believes that if people are going into debt to "keep up with the Joneses," or buy that nice car or boat or 50-in plasma screen, then the rich should be taxed and the money be provided to these people who are too poor to afford these luxuries. This is more dangerous than allowing these people to go into debt in the first place. If you let them go into debt, then eventually they will go bankrupt and, hopefully, learn their lesson. If, however, you fund their uncontrolled consumerism, the economy gets propped up on an unstable foundation: one that depends on the rich providing money for the middle-class to spend uncontrollably. I hope she knows how stupid this is.
From the little I know, it seems that the most dangerous thing socially and economically that she talks about is this debt. If we don't get rid of it by giving them more money, what do we do to limit the danger to society? This isn't an easy question to answer. I don't think the government can do much, except try to encourage a more frugal way of life. But how can our government encourage something it definitely is not doing? I think we must turn to other social institutions: churches, neighborhoods, clubs. By instilling a social responsibility to not go into debt, then the crisis would resolve itself. But this is a notoriously hard, if not impossible task. Not sees things the way I do and there is no one social institution that reaches everyone.
Well, I guess government does. So this leads to a familiar charge: get the government to spend less. Referring to my earlier question, I have to say, it was kind of dumb. See, we are the government. It's not some strange seperate institution. We elect citizens to offices. Citizens fill the ranks of the bureaurocracy. Every politician, every lobbyist, is a member of this nation, of some local community. Many have children going to schools with other people's children. So, if the government begins encouraging less spending, and we spend less, then the government will be spending less.
The problem is still not easy. Members of government have been trying to cut spending for years with little effect. The problem is that no one is willing to cut what he is spending. The farmers want their subsidies. The retired want their social security. The poor want their welfare. The scientists want their funding. Where do we cut spending? That is not a question I can answer. It is only a question this nation as a whole can answer, since we all have different priorities. Only by writing our congressmen can we let them know.
I think an excellent ides would be for everyone to do two things. First, those who are in debt, stop spending money and get out of debt. Second, everyone think about what they feel we don't need to spend money on and write their congressmen. This way, Congress would have a better idea of what the people are willing to give up and they would have a great deal of support for their arguments.
I'd like to add my humble analysis.
Heather Boushey has a dangerous viewpoint. She believes that if people are going into debt to "keep up with the Joneses," or buy that nice car or boat or 50-in plasma screen, then the rich should be taxed and the money be provided to these people who are too poor to afford these luxuries. This is more dangerous than allowing these people to go into debt in the first place. If you let them go into debt, then eventually they will go bankrupt and, hopefully, learn their lesson. If, however, you fund their uncontrolled consumerism, the economy gets propped up on an unstable foundation: one that depends on the rich providing money for the middle-class to spend uncontrollably. I hope she knows how stupid this is.
From the little I know, it seems that the most dangerous thing socially and economically that she talks about is this debt. If we don't get rid of it by giving them more money, what do we do to limit the danger to society? This isn't an easy question to answer. I don't think the government can do much, except try to encourage a more frugal way of life. But how can our government encourage something it definitely is not doing? I think we must turn to other social institutions: churches, neighborhoods, clubs. By instilling a social responsibility to not go into debt, then the crisis would resolve itself. But this is a notoriously hard, if not impossible task. Not sees things the way I do and there is no one social institution that reaches everyone.
Well, I guess government does. So this leads to a familiar charge: get the government to spend less. Referring to my earlier question, I have to say, it was kind of dumb. See, we are the government. It's not some strange seperate institution. We elect citizens to offices. Citizens fill the ranks of the bureaurocracy. Every politician, every lobbyist, is a member of this nation, of some local community. Many have children going to schools with other people's children. So, if the government begins encouraging less spending, and we spend less, then the government will be spending less.
The problem is still not easy. Members of government have been trying to cut spending for years with little effect. The problem is that no one is willing to cut what he is spending. The farmers want their subsidies. The retired want their social security. The poor want their welfare. The scientists want their funding. Where do we cut spending? That is not a question I can answer. It is only a question this nation as a whole can answer, since we all have different priorities. Only by writing our congressmen can we let them know.
I think an excellent ides would be for everyone to do two things. First, those who are in debt, stop spending money and get out of debt. Second, everyone think about what they feel we don't need to spend money on and write their congressmen. This way, Congress would have a better idea of what the people are willing to give up and they would have a great deal of support for their arguments.
Friday, March 03, 2006
in Reply
My dad once told me, “Perhaps the best way to soften your mind and strengthen your faith, is to spend a dark evening with the stars.” Last weekend, at the end of a date, we began talking about the stars. We looked up at the sky, trying to find constellations. We ended up finding a good stargazing spot and from there we entered a long and enlightening conversation. Using the stars a beginning, we discussed family, the church, society as a whole, the end of the world, temples, the priesthood, etc. These glimpses of heaven are needed to remind us that we are, “less than the dust of the earth.” Among our cities, walking and driving along the asphalt and cement we laid, working and studying in the buildings we raised up, sitting in the comfort of the couches and chairs we designed and built, it is easy to forget the beauty, splendor, majesty, and the awesome magnificence of God’s creation. This creation we cannot match; we must be reminded of it.
Perhaps one of the dangerous aspects of city life is this separation from God’s creation. We become so focused on what we, as humans have done, we forget the planet upon which we walk, the planet the dwarfs all we have accomplished.
So, star-gazing is an excellent pastime, as well as night walks. These things are just a little more difficult when it gets below freezing at night. But I cannot wait until its warm enough that the seep and dissipation is forestalled long enough for an enjoyable night-walk (the unique warmth the last few days made that star-gazing date possible).
Perhaps one of the dangerous aspects of city life is this separation from God’s creation. We become so focused on what we, as humans have done, we forget the planet upon which we walk, the planet the dwarfs all we have accomplished.
So, star-gazing is an excellent pastime, as well as night walks. These things are just a little more difficult when it gets below freezing at night. But I cannot wait until its warm enough that the seep and dissipation is forestalled long enough for an enjoyable night-walk (the unique warmth the last few days made that star-gazing date possible).
Thursday, March 02, 2006
The Shadow
Lying in the grass, I look up from my reading and watch the shadow of the building approach. Just inches away, the shadow represents the coming close of the day. With only a few hours left, this time of warmth and light, this momentary spring, will soon give way to a cold, dark winter night.
Welcoming the time in the sun with flip-flops and t-shirts, a new optimism filled the campus during this warmth. Walking across campus, I cannot miss the many people taking advantage of it, studying, reading, and chatting outside. This afternoon, I studied in the sun, allowing its light and warmth to rejuvenate my spirit. I cannot help but enjoy this rare moment to lie in the grass and relax.
Looking down at my biology book, I think of the glory of the sun, or rather one component of it – its light. I think of the beautiful processes by which this light enters plants, transforming into life giving sugars. Water, air, and sunlight, transforming into the wonderfully complex molecules from which all life derives its energy. I think of the path that energy follows until it enters us, driving our brains, allowing us to read, to write, to build, to fly, to know and understand this complex world, and finally, providing us with the heat that keeps us alive.
The shadow draws closer now, almost touching the edge of the grass. I glance up to the cause of this shadow. The large glass building stands tall at the edge of the square. I squint at the bright sun, hovering just over the top edge of the building. My heart yearns for it to remain in that spot, providing the light and warmth that pulled me out of my dorm to study outside.
It cannot last. Despite my deepest desires, the sun sinks lower and the shadow creeps closer. As this grey shadow begins to cover my body and the grass around me, a soft cool breeze picks up and the temperature drops noticeably. I do not yet need my sweater, but the time draws nearer.
As I consider moving inside, I look around and realize some warmth, some hope remains. This long, cold shadow has yet to cover most of the campus. Many people still sit, enjoying the sun, not aware of the impending cold night. My gaze travels further, out of the square to the white peaks beyond the campus buildings. Long after the valley lies in shadow, the mountains will reach up into the path of the sun’s rays, continuing to receive light and warmth.
Perhaps this is why holy places are always equated with high places, with mountains. The mountains receive the last light, the last glory from the sun. Though the light will remain for some time; though those tall, beautiful mountain peaks will be illuminated for hours longer, the night will come. The cold will set in. Even these mountains, thousands of feet above me, will fall under the shadow as the sun drops below the horizon. Even these, where light and glory remain the longest, a long, dark night will fall. And there at the peaks, the highest places in the world, the nights are the loneliest and coldest.
Without the heat and light from the sun, the warmth from the day will seep out of the ground, out of the cement and dirt and wood that make up this terrestrial sphere. It will seep out into an infinitely colder outer space, dissipating into virtually nothing.
It becomes apparent that all that protects us from the irreversible seep and dissipation is the heat our bodies produce, a heat that cannot long battle the overwhelming chill of space. We use machines to produce heat, but machines use energy living things collected from the sun millennia ago; our clothes hold in our heat, but we produce it by consuming energy other beings collected from the sun. Ultimately, the source of all energy and heat is the sun. Without its return, our sphere, with all of its life, would become a cold, dead sphere, with all of its heat lost to cold space long before.
But hope is not lost. Tomorrow, the sun will return. Tomorrow, that dissipated heat will be replaced. Tomorrow, those same peaks that were the last to lose the light and glory will be the first to receive them again. Upon this hope all life relies: that the morning will come, that the light and life of the world will return, spreading its glory over the face of all the earth.
Welcoming the time in the sun with flip-flops and t-shirts, a new optimism filled the campus during this warmth. Walking across campus, I cannot miss the many people taking advantage of it, studying, reading, and chatting outside. This afternoon, I studied in the sun, allowing its light and warmth to rejuvenate my spirit. I cannot help but enjoy this rare moment to lie in the grass and relax.
Looking down at my biology book, I think of the glory of the sun, or rather one component of it – its light. I think of the beautiful processes by which this light enters plants, transforming into life giving sugars. Water, air, and sunlight, transforming into the wonderfully complex molecules from which all life derives its energy. I think of the path that energy follows until it enters us, driving our brains, allowing us to read, to write, to build, to fly, to know and understand this complex world, and finally, providing us with the heat that keeps us alive.
The shadow draws closer now, almost touching the edge of the grass. I glance up to the cause of this shadow. The large glass building stands tall at the edge of the square. I squint at the bright sun, hovering just over the top edge of the building. My heart yearns for it to remain in that spot, providing the light and warmth that pulled me out of my dorm to study outside.
It cannot last. Despite my deepest desires, the sun sinks lower and the shadow creeps closer. As this grey shadow begins to cover my body and the grass around me, a soft cool breeze picks up and the temperature drops noticeably. I do not yet need my sweater, but the time draws nearer.
As I consider moving inside, I look around and realize some warmth, some hope remains. This long, cold shadow has yet to cover most of the campus. Many people still sit, enjoying the sun, not aware of the impending cold night. My gaze travels further, out of the square to the white peaks beyond the campus buildings. Long after the valley lies in shadow, the mountains will reach up into the path of the sun’s rays, continuing to receive light and warmth.
Perhaps this is why holy places are always equated with high places, with mountains. The mountains receive the last light, the last glory from the sun. Though the light will remain for some time; though those tall, beautiful mountain peaks will be illuminated for hours longer, the night will come. The cold will set in. Even these mountains, thousands of feet above me, will fall under the shadow as the sun drops below the horizon. Even these, where light and glory remain the longest, a long, dark night will fall. And there at the peaks, the highest places in the world, the nights are the loneliest and coldest.
Without the heat and light from the sun, the warmth from the day will seep out of the ground, out of the cement and dirt and wood that make up this terrestrial sphere. It will seep out into an infinitely colder outer space, dissipating into virtually nothing.
It becomes apparent that all that protects us from the irreversible seep and dissipation is the heat our bodies produce, a heat that cannot long battle the overwhelming chill of space. We use machines to produce heat, but machines use energy living things collected from the sun millennia ago; our clothes hold in our heat, but we produce it by consuming energy other beings collected from the sun. Ultimately, the source of all energy and heat is the sun. Without its return, our sphere, with all of its life, would become a cold, dead sphere, with all of its heat lost to cold space long before.
But hope is not lost. Tomorrow, the sun will return. Tomorrow, that dissipated heat will be replaced. Tomorrow, those same peaks that were the last to lose the light and glory will be the first to receive them again. Upon this hope all life relies: that the morning will come, that the light and life of the world will return, spreading its glory over the face of all the earth.
Monday, February 27, 2006
WSJ.com - Real Time
So, I was reading this editorial about blogging, and it made me feel bad about not posting. I want my blog to be read. There's one little problem: waht do I write? I'm really not sure.
Hmmm..?
How about the end of the world? Always an interesting subject.
For some odd reason this has been on my mind lately. See, this is the way I see it. The time isn't too far away when massive wars and rebellions will tear apart the modern world. Natural disasters will also wrack the earth. Why? Well, my main reason to believe so is prophecy. There is a great deal in Revelation, Isaiah, and the Book of Mormon that prophesies of these things occuring in the last days.
Once this occurs, life will be a little different. Without strong central governments and with the famines caused by wars and natural disasters, people are going to be starving all over the place. But you'll notice a few spots where people are organized and surviving. These spots, I believe, will be centered where there are LDS communities. Why? Well, prophecy. We've been told for 70 years to store food. Now, to be sure, not every LDS family is doing it, but the church as a whole is better prepared than most. So the LDS will have food.
The next thing I think may happen: the center of communities will be LDS buildings. Temples, bishop's storehouses, chapels. Three reasons for this. One, because these buildings are dedicated to the Lord, I feel he will preserve many of them. Second, they are being built and refitted in ways that will help them survive the natural disasters of whatever area they are located in. Third, the combination of the fact that the LDS people have been storing food and the priesthood leadership.
Which leads me to my last point. Some of the strongest leadership we will find in these dark days will be the priesthood leadership. The priesthood will become the government of the communities, in a way. Probably only in the times during and immediately after disasters, since leadership will be selected by the community as a whole in the long-term, but priesthood leadership will be very important to all communities, not just the LDS.
So, there's my speculation. Remember, it's only speculation. Not a shred of this, except for the fact that the end of the world will occur, is going to happen for sure. None of it is doctrine. It's just how I see things. There's more I could expand on, but I think I'll save that for another time.
So, I was reading this editorial about blogging, and it made me feel bad about not posting. I want my blog to be read. There's one little problem: waht do I write? I'm really not sure.
Hmmm..?
How about the end of the world? Always an interesting subject.
For some odd reason this has been on my mind lately. See, this is the way I see it. The time isn't too far away when massive wars and rebellions will tear apart the modern world. Natural disasters will also wrack the earth. Why? Well, my main reason to believe so is prophecy. There is a great deal in Revelation, Isaiah, and the Book of Mormon that prophesies of these things occuring in the last days.
Once this occurs, life will be a little different. Without strong central governments and with the famines caused by wars and natural disasters, people are going to be starving all over the place. But you'll notice a few spots where people are organized and surviving. These spots, I believe, will be centered where there are LDS communities. Why? Well, prophecy. We've been told for 70 years to store food. Now, to be sure, not every LDS family is doing it, but the church as a whole is better prepared than most. So the LDS will have food.
The next thing I think may happen: the center of communities will be LDS buildings. Temples, bishop's storehouses, chapels. Three reasons for this. One, because these buildings are dedicated to the Lord, I feel he will preserve many of them. Second, they are being built and refitted in ways that will help them survive the natural disasters of whatever area they are located in. Third, the combination of the fact that the LDS people have been storing food and the priesthood leadership.
Which leads me to my last point. Some of the strongest leadership we will find in these dark days will be the priesthood leadership. The priesthood will become the government of the communities, in a way. Probably only in the times during and immediately after disasters, since leadership will be selected by the community as a whole in the long-term, but priesthood leadership will be very important to all communities, not just the LDS.
So, there's my speculation. Remember, it's only speculation. Not a shred of this, except for the fact that the end of the world will occur, is going to happen for sure. None of it is doctrine. It's just how I see things. There's more I could expand on, but I think I'll save that for another time.
Monday, February 20, 2006
Every once in-a-while, someone tells me they read my blog and it spurs me on to write again. So, I'm just putting in this little blurb about what I read in the scriptures this weekend. If any of you haven't read the book of Acts, read it. It is a perfect example of the workings of the church without Christ on the earth. The entire church is lead by apostles and the local areas by elders and "overseers," or bishops, as we know them. Missionaries are called and preach the gospel wherever they go, being led by the spirit. Whenever they find believers, the believers are first baptised by immersion and then given the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, if the appropriate priesthood authority is held by the missionaries. It truly is amazing and builds my testimony that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the restored Church of Christ. All right. Bed time.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
European Papers Publish Cartoons in Stand for Press Freedom - New York Times
Has the European media ever heard of the word respect? Do they have any idea that the beliefs of these Muslims they are so intent on angering are actually believed? The Muslims didn't just make up a bunch of lies and say, "Hey, this sounds good, lets do this." Islam is a religion that developed as a way to help explain the world and priovide social control. It is just as a viable, and perhaps more so, than the Europeans damnable secular beliefs. These newspapers claim this religious dogma conflicts with democracy. There is no relation! This has to do with treating fellow human beings, though they believe differently, with repsect. I could understand if this dealt with women's rights or something that had to do with society as a whole. There are things in the Muslim world that deserve criticism, just as there are in the Christian and secular worlds. This action on the part of the European newspapers, however, is criticising a religious belief that harms absolutely no one. It is a smack in the face to everyone who holds any belief, religious or not. It says that Europeans do not believe in respect for another's beliefs. They would rather have everyone keep their religious beliefs in their home. Well, why can these secularists hold their inane views up for the world to see while the religious must cower, shamed that they actually believe man is something more than a product of random chance in an uncaring universe?
The issue at stake is not freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to offend. There are certain restraints that must be conformed to for any society to survive. With the increasing numbers of Muslims in Europe, Europeans will have to change their views or they face a bloody future. They say they don't want to fight over religion. They say they want peace and acceptance for all, yet every day they express racism and intolerance towards the Muslim world. I understand that these are deep-seated prejudices that have existed for centuries, but the Europeans sure didn't have to fight too long to get over the deep-seated belief in God they once had. I'm sure they can get over the belief that their way is the best way.
Has the European media ever heard of the word respect? Do they have any idea that the beliefs of these Muslims they are so intent on angering are actually believed? The Muslims didn't just make up a bunch of lies and say, "Hey, this sounds good, lets do this." Islam is a religion that developed as a way to help explain the world and priovide social control. It is just as a viable, and perhaps more so, than the Europeans damnable secular beliefs. These newspapers claim this religious dogma conflicts with democracy. There is no relation! This has to do with treating fellow human beings, though they believe differently, with repsect. I could understand if this dealt with women's rights or something that had to do with society as a whole. There are things in the Muslim world that deserve criticism, just as there are in the Christian and secular worlds. This action on the part of the European newspapers, however, is criticising a religious belief that harms absolutely no one. It is a smack in the face to everyone who holds any belief, religious or not. It says that Europeans do not believe in respect for another's beliefs. They would rather have everyone keep their religious beliefs in their home. Well, why can these secularists hold their inane views up for the world to see while the religious must cower, shamed that they actually believe man is something more than a product of random chance in an uncaring universe?
The issue at stake is not freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to offend. There are certain restraints that must be conformed to for any society to survive. With the increasing numbers of Muslims in Europe, Europeans will have to change their views or they face a bloody future. They say they don't want to fight over religion. They say they want peace and acceptance for all, yet every day they express racism and intolerance towards the Muslim world. I understand that these are deep-seated prejudices that have existed for centuries, but the Europeans sure didn't have to fight too long to get over the deep-seated belief in God they once had. I'm sure they can get over the belief that their way is the best way.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Let me paint a picture. Before a cheering crowd stands a man who sees the poverty of his people, a woman mourning the death of her son in a war she believes is unjust, and a
woman who grieves the death of her husband, who wanted independence for his country. Each of these people supports a cause. They want the U.S. to change. They want the U.S. to stop fighting foreign wars and stop interfering in foreign markets. They want the U.S. to allow other people to live the way they choose to live and accept that these people may have different values. They want peace and freedom.
But let's look a little deeper. First, the woman grieving hers husband. Though her husband did support independence, he was killed in an FBI raid. The FBI were searching for him because he stole $7.2 million from the U.S. Also, the country is Puerto Rico, a territory if the U.S.; a territory that I don't think many would consider exactly enslaved by the U.S. Now the second woman. Her son died in Iraq. Her son died as a volunteer in the military, fighting in a war to free a nation terrorized by its president and in which every intelligence agency in the world believed there were WMD. And finally, the man who claims to be fighting for the welfare of his nation. The man who is kicking out Christian missionaries, who threatens everybody who is American, whether they are good or bad, who fights against big business, taking away jobs from his people, who nationalizes industries, an economic move which has already been proven to devestate economies. A man who lies and threatens, who creates conspiracy theories to bring him sympathy, pity, and power. He is a man who seeks one thing - power at the expense of all else, even the welfare of his own people.
You can see these people as freedom fighters, who are fighting against a corrupt nation, or as villains who are spreading lies and deceit about a generally good nation. Or perhaps it is more complex than that. Maybe the people are bad, but the nation is also corrupt and they merely are feeding off that corruption. Or maybe the nation is good and these people are good and they are merely blinded by grief over the pain they see in those they love. The point is, I may be wrong.
Here is how I see it, though. Elma Beatriz Rosado was married to a criminal. He may have had good intentions, but he stole millions of dollars from the U.S. He broke the law and deserved to pay the consequence. He may have been killed before he could face trial, but I have serious doubts that the FBI shot without provocation. Cindy Sheehan is fighting not in support of her son, but against him. Rather than asking this government to structure an effective reconstruction scheme so that we can build up a nation and pull out without risking the civil war or having to return, she demands we pull out now and abandon the Iraqis to the terrorists who still have far too much control. She fights, blinded by her own grief, ignoring the fact that if we pull out now, her son's life would truly be a waste: Iraq would simply develop into a place either just as bad or worse than what it was like under Saddam.
Finally, Hugo Chavez. I do not have the words, and would not be willing to write them if I did, to describe my feelings about this man. He is truly a villaim who desires one thing: power. To get it, he plays off the unpopular actions of the U.S. He harnesses the traditional biases of the people against big business and the rich. He plays off racism: the battle between Hispanic and white Americans. To keep power and make it appear that he cares about the people, he tears apart the Venezualen economy. This man is evil. I have no doubt about this. He is doing things similar to what Hitler did in Germany. He is playing off the natural prejudices and the poverty of the people to, perfectly legally, place himself in power. The parallels are scary. In the early nineties, Chavez attempted a failed coup and was placed in jail. When he came out, he used the poverty of the people to catapult himself into elected office. Hitler attempted a coup. He was placed in jail. He came out, played off the terrible poverty of the Depression, and was elected into office. These moves do not mean Chavez is Hitler. But they may show that he thinks in a similar way. Let's not repeat history. Let's watch Chavez closely and be sure to defend the rights of his people, since so far he has not.
woman who grieves the death of her husband, who wanted independence for his country. Each of these people supports a cause. They want the U.S. to change. They want the U.S. to stop fighting foreign wars and stop interfering in foreign markets. They want the U.S. to allow other people to live the way they choose to live and accept that these people may have different values. They want peace and freedom.
But let's look a little deeper. First, the woman grieving hers husband. Though her husband did support independence, he was killed in an FBI raid. The FBI were searching for him because he stole $7.2 million from the U.S. Also, the country is Puerto Rico, a territory if the U.S.; a territory that I don't think many would consider exactly enslaved by the U.S. Now the second woman. Her son died in Iraq. Her son died as a volunteer in the military, fighting in a war to free a nation terrorized by its president and in which every intelligence agency in the world believed there were WMD. And finally, the man who claims to be fighting for the welfare of his nation. The man who is kicking out Christian missionaries, who threatens everybody who is American, whether they are good or bad, who fights against big business, taking away jobs from his people, who nationalizes industries, an economic move which has already been proven to devestate economies. A man who lies and threatens, who creates conspiracy theories to bring him sympathy, pity, and power. He is a man who seeks one thing - power at the expense of all else, even the welfare of his own people.
You can see these people as freedom fighters, who are fighting against a corrupt nation, or as villains who are spreading lies and deceit about a generally good nation. Or perhaps it is more complex than that. Maybe the people are bad, but the nation is also corrupt and they merely are feeding off that corruption. Or maybe the nation is good and these people are good and they are merely blinded by grief over the pain they see in those they love. The point is, I may be wrong.
Here is how I see it, though. Elma Beatriz Rosado was married to a criminal. He may have had good intentions, but he stole millions of dollars from the U.S. He broke the law and deserved to pay the consequence. He may have been killed before he could face trial, but I have serious doubts that the FBI shot without provocation. Cindy Sheehan is fighting not in support of her son, but against him. Rather than asking this government to structure an effective reconstruction scheme so that we can build up a nation and pull out without risking the civil war or having to return, she demands we pull out now and abandon the Iraqis to the terrorists who still have far too much control. She fights, blinded by her own grief, ignoring the fact that if we pull out now, her son's life would truly be a waste: Iraq would simply develop into a place either just as bad or worse than what it was like under Saddam.
Finally, Hugo Chavez. I do not have the words, and would not be willing to write them if I did, to describe my feelings about this man. He is truly a villaim who desires one thing: power. To get it, he plays off the unpopular actions of the U.S. He harnesses the traditional biases of the people against big business and the rich. He plays off racism: the battle between Hispanic and white Americans. To keep power and make it appear that he cares about the people, he tears apart the Venezualen economy. This man is evil. I have no doubt about this. He is doing things similar to what Hitler did in Germany. He is playing off the natural prejudices and the poverty of the people to, perfectly legally, place himself in power. The parallels are scary. In the early nineties, Chavez attempted a failed coup and was placed in jail. When he came out, he used the poverty of the people to catapult himself into elected office. Hitler attempted a coup. He was placed in jail. He came out, played off the terrible poverty of the Depression, and was elected into office. These moves do not mean Chavez is Hitler. But they may show that he thinks in a similar way. Let's not repeat history. Let's watch Chavez closely and be sure to defend the rights of his people, since so far he has not.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Snow Angels
“If you can talk, you can sing. If you can walk, you can dance.”
-African proverb
Tonight I went to a church dance and had the time of my life. I don’t know what it is exactly that makes it so fun. It’s not like I can dance. I do the same thing over and over, just kicking my feet and swinging my arms. And I’m not a big fan of most of the music they play. In fact, outside of the dance, I usually hate to hear that stuff. Yet I’ve had more fun at dances, especially the two church dances I’ve been to up here, then I’ve had almost anywhere else. I can’t explain it.
Regardless, my ears hurt. We danced next to the speaker. How dumb can you get? Here are two speakers on top of each other, blasting loud enough to be heard clearly outside of the church, and we danced right next to them. Well, it was fun.
That’s the story of the dance.
-African proverb
Tonight I went to a church dance and had the time of my life. I don’t know what it is exactly that makes it so fun. It’s not like I can dance. I do the same thing over and over, just kicking my feet and swinging my arms. And I’m not a big fan of most of the music they play. In fact, outside of the dance, I usually hate to hear that stuff. Yet I’ve had more fun at dances, especially the two church dances I’ve been to up here, then I’ve had almost anywhere else. I can’t explain it.
Regardless, my ears hurt. We danced next to the speaker. How dumb can you get? Here are two speakers on top of each other, blasting loud enough to be heard clearly outside of the church, and we danced right next to them. Well, it was fun.
That’s the story of the dance.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Peanut M&M's
It’s been too long since I last wrote. It’s been good back at school, but a little weird. I’m still adjusting to having two different homes. I love it here, but I miss my home. When I’m home, I miss here.
Leading a life like this has some interesting effects. I’m separated from my home, family, and old friends. Suddenly, I’m in new environment, facing new challenges, and some old one. Living away from home for college makes it impossible to live the same superficial life. I can’t base me, my personality, off of my friends, family or home. I don’t have those here. No In-n-Out, no beaches, I can’t wear sandals or shorts year-round. I spend time with people who are very different and have different interests from my old friends. Relationships take on a new character. No relationship here can take the place of the ones I had back home, the ones that helped me define who I was. Suddenly, the that was my life is taken away. Now what? Do I develop a new shell?
I started to. Then I went home for Christmas. What happened there? The new, still fragile shell cracked. It didn’t hold up. I couldn’t figure it out. Who am I, exactly? It’s really not an easy question. But having two homes has helped me answer that question
Living in two homes, as I already said, makes it difficult to live in a shell. Each time I move from one home to the other, the shell cracks and is stripped away. What is revealed each time is the person I truly am. That is the great benefit of living away from home, of traveling and experiencing the world. I am able to define myself by what I am inside, but what I consistently do wherever I am, rather than by what I wear, who I spend time with, or where I hang out. Suddenly, the importance of truly knowing who you are is apparent. If I didn’t know who I was, what would I do? I would seek out things that don’t matter. I would search for what I had before and always be disappointed because I can’t find it. But now that won’t happen. Though the journey is nowhere near over, I have come to this realization. I have made the first step.
I know who I am. I am a child of God. I am a divine being, here on this earth, learning all I can so I can return back to my Heavenly Father and, if I live the way he has asked, inherit all he has. That truth provides me with a basis on which I can always act, no matter where I am. Wherever I am, I will seek out the way I can serve him best. Here, it is in class, learning of the universe he has created, and being a friend to those around me. This gives a purpose to my life; a purpose that is greater and deeper than getting the best grades or having the most fun possible or being popular or doing the best in video games. Though at times each of these concerns may cloud my mind and distract me, my understanding of who I am is at the root of my being, and it shines with a light that pierces through all the mists of darkness that stop me from finding my way.
If I were all alone, in a new, unfamiliar place, without a friend, without the ability to do well in school, without the wealth that allows me to sit in privacy and type this entry, I would still have this truth. I am still a child of God and he has a task for me, wherever I am, and I will fulfill it. This is there core around which I build my shell and no matter what happens to the shell, that core will remain and guide me through all my life.
Leading a life like this has some interesting effects. I’m separated from my home, family, and old friends. Suddenly, I’m in new environment, facing new challenges, and some old one. Living away from home for college makes it impossible to live the same superficial life. I can’t base me, my personality, off of my friends, family or home. I don’t have those here. No In-n-Out, no beaches, I can’t wear sandals or shorts year-round. I spend time with people who are very different and have different interests from my old friends. Relationships take on a new character. No relationship here can take the place of the ones I had back home, the ones that helped me define who I was. Suddenly, the that was my life is taken away. Now what? Do I develop a new shell?
I started to. Then I went home for Christmas. What happened there? The new, still fragile shell cracked. It didn’t hold up. I couldn’t figure it out. Who am I, exactly? It’s really not an easy question. But having two homes has helped me answer that question
Living in two homes, as I already said, makes it difficult to live in a shell. Each time I move from one home to the other, the shell cracks and is stripped away. What is revealed each time is the person I truly am. That is the great benefit of living away from home, of traveling and experiencing the world. I am able to define myself by what I am inside, but what I consistently do wherever I am, rather than by what I wear, who I spend time with, or where I hang out. Suddenly, the importance of truly knowing who you are is apparent. If I didn’t know who I was, what would I do? I would seek out things that don’t matter. I would search for what I had before and always be disappointed because I can’t find it. But now that won’t happen. Though the journey is nowhere near over, I have come to this realization. I have made the first step.
I know who I am. I am a child of God. I am a divine being, here on this earth, learning all I can so I can return back to my Heavenly Father and, if I live the way he has asked, inherit all he has. That truth provides me with a basis on which I can always act, no matter where I am. Wherever I am, I will seek out the way I can serve him best. Here, it is in class, learning of the universe he has created, and being a friend to those around me. This gives a purpose to my life; a purpose that is greater and deeper than getting the best grades or having the most fun possible or being popular or doing the best in video games. Though at times each of these concerns may cloud my mind and distract me, my understanding of who I am is at the root of my being, and it shines with a light that pierces through all the mists of darkness that stop me from finding my way.
If I were all alone, in a new, unfamiliar place, without a friend, without the ability to do well in school, without the wealth that allows me to sit in privacy and type this entry, I would still have this truth. I am still a child of God and he has a task for me, wherever I am, and I will fulfill it. This is there core around which I build my shell and no matter what happens to the shell, that core will remain and guide me through all my life.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Time to get back to blogging again. I took quite a break there. I hope somebody out there is willing to read this still.
Calvin and Hobbes commentary on TV is right in line with what I think. In case I haven't said it enough, I love this comic strip! Actually, I got the Complete Calvin and Hobbes for Christmas. What can I say, I'm obsessed.
Calvin and Hobbes commentary on TV is right in line with what I think. In case I haven't said it enough, I love this comic strip! Actually, I got the Complete Calvin and Hobbes for Christmas. What can I say, I'm obsessed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)