The proposed mosque near what used to be World Trade Center has many names: the Cordoba House, Park 51, the Ground Zero mosque. Unfortunately, it has become embroiled in controversy because it lies two blocks from Ground Zero. First, some facts.
1. Islam is composed of many different groups that believe many different things, much like Christianity is composed of many different groups that believe many different things. Equating those planning the mosque to those who caused 9/11 would be like equating a group of violent fundamental Christians who want to kill everyone who doesn't agree with them with the Catholic church. Sure, they share some religious beliefs. But enormous differences set them apart. Same with the group that wants to build the mosque. They're not connected to the 9/11 terrorists. In fact, they're sworn enemies.
2. Two blocks is a large distance in the area around Ground Zero. A Greek Orthodox church, a synagogue, and two Catholic churches sit just one block from Ground Zero, along with literally hundreds of businesses. (Google Maps is a great resource to look at the area). It's a crowded, diverse place. A mosque would fit right in, and would be a great asset to the many Muslims in the area. Another mosque already sits four blocks from the site. Again, very crowded, very diverse.
3. Make no mistake--the controversy about this mosque is spawned by conservative news organizations and conservative politicians in order to gain votes for the upcoming election. It's fearmongering at it's most base. It's bullying of the worst kind. It's the same kind of scapegoating that led the Nazis to kill the Jews and gypsies and led the U.S. to throw thousands of Japanese into what were basically prison camps. It should have no place in the civilized world.
4. Most of the people in Manhattan want this mosque built. The majority of it will serve as a recreational area, open to all people.
5. Originally, opponents of the mosque tried to stop it with lawsuits (alleging that the building should be designated a historic building, etc.) Now that those lawsuits failed, those same people say "of course those people can build there, because of the freedoms of the First Amendment, but building there would be insensitive." So apparently they're acknowledging those original lawsuits were an attempt to subvert the First Amendment...
I understand that ignorant, racist, or xenophobic people could view the move as insensitive. I have yet to hear an argument against the mosque that isn't based in ignorance, racism, or xenophobia. If you can find one, please point it out to me.
Did I mention that I despise bullies? Most grownups outgrow the bullying phase in high school. Or so I thought. Sigh.
Current mood: sad.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Neil Peart's Impression of Logan and the Bluebird Restaurant
Those of you who like Logan and/or Rush should enjoy this. Especially those of you with fond memories of this restaurant.
http://www.neilpeart.net/news/august_09.html
http://www.neilpeart.net/news/august_09.html
Friday, August 13, 2010
Scapegoating
It seems like recent months have brought an increase of negative public opinion towards certain minority groups. Hispanics and Muslims seem to be getting the majority of the negative attention at this point. Some politicians are more than willing to jump into the fray (attempting to pass laws that encourage racial profiling, using racist terms usually reserved for animals when referring to these people giving birth (i.e. "dropping babies"), and telling people where they should and shouldn't build their places of worship). Some of these politicians even changed their previous moderate sensibilities and became a part of that fray (I'm looking at you, McCain). Unfortunately for the LDS church, some of these politicians are LDS. Politicians, of course, are often more than happy to give up their personal convictions in order to increase their chances of winning an election.
So why this increase in negative public opinion? The U.S. is, after all, deporting many more illegal immigrants this year than it has in years past. Crime is down. The economy--
The economy is down. And because it's down, many people require a scapegoat. Apparently blaming Bush for starting it and Obama for continuing it/exacerbating it/starting it (depending on a person's political inclinations and/or levels of intelligence) isn't enough. And, of course, because the state of the economy is always someone else's fault, taking personal responsibility is out of the question.
I understand people are out of work and worried about their finances. I have close family members that have been out of work since the recession started. I'm praying that I'll be able to find work in a year, after I take the bar. But hard times are what led the Germans to begin scapegoating Jews and Gypsies after World War I. It's a dangerous path, one that history rightfully condemns. It leads to dark, dangerous places, and it should have no place among us.
May we have the strength to condemn it when it raises its ugly head.
So why this increase in negative public opinion? The U.S. is, after all, deporting many more illegal immigrants this year than it has in years past. Crime is down. The economy--
The economy is down. And because it's down, many people require a scapegoat. Apparently blaming Bush for starting it and Obama for continuing it/exacerbating it/starting it (depending on a person's political inclinations and/or levels of intelligence) isn't enough. And, of course, because the state of the economy is always someone else's fault, taking personal responsibility is out of the question.
I understand people are out of work and worried about their finances. I have close family members that have been out of work since the recession started. I'm praying that I'll be able to find work in a year, after I take the bar. But hard times are what led the Germans to begin scapegoating Jews and Gypsies after World War I. It's a dangerous path, one that history rightfully condemns. It leads to dark, dangerous places, and it should have no place among us.
May we have the strength to condemn it when it raises its ugly head.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Renting
I got home from work yesterday to find a For Sale sign in our front yard.
The house we've lived in for over two years is up for sale, and the landlord didn't even give us a heads up.
I looked up the listing online. It exaggerates (lies) about how much each of the two units in the house are renting for, claiming that we pay $45 more per month than we actually do, and listing the other unit as being $100 more per month than what it was advertised for a month ago, before new renters moved in. The selling price is probably fairly reasonable ($180K for a two-unit house in a fairly nice neighborhood, just a couple of miles from downtown). But I'm worried that someone's going to buy the house and either kick us out so they can live in our apartment, or (more likely) start charging us what the listing claims we're paying.
Any suggestions? Should I call the realtors and tell them the listing is wrong? Should I call the landlord out on the lie? Obviously, I may need to do some digging on landlord/tenant law.
Oh, and the listing also says this house is 97 years old. Wow.
The house we've lived in for over two years is up for sale, and the landlord didn't even give us a heads up.
I looked up the listing online. It exaggerates (lies) about how much each of the two units in the house are renting for, claiming that we pay $45 more per month than we actually do, and listing the other unit as being $100 more per month than what it was advertised for a month ago, before new renters moved in. The selling price is probably fairly reasonable ($180K for a two-unit house in a fairly nice neighborhood, just a couple of miles from downtown). But I'm worried that someone's going to buy the house and either kick us out so they can live in our apartment, or (more likely) start charging us what the listing claims we're paying.
Any suggestions? Should I call the realtors and tell them the listing is wrong? Should I call the landlord out on the lie? Obviously, I may need to do some digging on landlord/tenant law.
Oh, and the listing also says this house is 97 years old. Wow.
Monday, August 02, 2010
No Royal Road to Geometry
Or biology. Or religion.
An LDS scientist discusses how silly it is to argue against certain disciplines without knowing anything about them. If you want to understand something, you have to put in the effort.
I've been guilty of the same thing (anytime I say anything about economics, for example). But we should learn to ignore those who make a habit of it.
Unfortunately, he doesn't allow comments, or you would see the principle in action. (The biggest anti-evolution LDS bloggers/commenters, for example, have absolutely no background in biology--not a terrible surprise; the biggest pro-evolution LDS bloggers do have biology degrees. Hmmm).
Some other LDS science blogs written by biologists:
http://ldsscience.blogspot.com/ (life science researcher)
http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com/ (Professor of Biology/Evolution--only some of the posts are science)
http://sciencebysteve.net/ (Biology/Evolution Professor at BYU)
The "science" blogs written by people with no background in the science they discuss aren't worth mentioning, for the reasons stated in the "Royal Road" article above.
An LDS scientist discusses how silly it is to argue against certain disciplines without knowing anything about them. If you want to understand something, you have to put in the effort.
I've been guilty of the same thing (anytime I say anything about economics, for example). But we should learn to ignore those who make a habit of it.
Unfortunately, he doesn't allow comments, or you would see the principle in action. (The biggest anti-evolution LDS bloggers/commenters, for example, have absolutely no background in biology--not a terrible surprise; the biggest pro-evolution LDS bloggers do have biology degrees. Hmmm).
Some other LDS science blogs written by biologists:
http://ldsscience.blogspot.com/ (life science researcher)
http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com/ (Professor of Biology/Evolution--only some of the posts are science)
http://sciencebysteve.net/ (Biology/Evolution Professor at BYU)
The "science" blogs written by people with no background in the science they discuss aren't worth mentioning, for the reasons stated in the "Royal Road" article above.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Numbers
Active members of the EQ: 11.
Active members of the EQ a month from now: 9.
Number of active members of the EQ we lost in the past three months: 5. A similar number moved out the previous summer.
Ouch.
The ward has always depended on students and student's spouses who were just here for a short time (under a year to four years). Especially since part of our ward is downtown Cincinnati, and so we get everything that comes with that (lots of members living in poverty, lots of members without cars, etc.) For example, the last and the current EQ presidents, the last two executive secretaries (currently we just go without), and the current and last YW presidents all fit into the student/student spouse category. Now just two couples in the ward fit that definition. Tough times ahead.
If you're thinking of moving (going to grad school, finding work, etc.) I know just the place...
Please. Before they demote us to a branch, or force us to combine with some other ward. Small is great, but there is such a thing as too small.
And no, we don't have an EQ secretary, or an EQ teacher, or any of those others EQ callings I hear rumors about. Heck, we're lucky to have a president and two counselors right now...
Active members of the EQ a month from now: 9.
Number of active members of the EQ we lost in the past three months: 5. A similar number moved out the previous summer.
Ouch.
The ward has always depended on students and student's spouses who were just here for a short time (under a year to four years). Especially since part of our ward is downtown Cincinnati, and so we get everything that comes with that (lots of members living in poverty, lots of members without cars, etc.) For example, the last and the current EQ presidents, the last two executive secretaries (currently we just go without), and the current and last YW presidents all fit into the student/student spouse category. Now just two couples in the ward fit that definition. Tough times ahead.
If you're thinking of moving (going to grad school, finding work, etc.) I know just the place...
Please. Before they demote us to a branch, or force us to combine with some other ward. Small is great, but there is such a thing as too small.
And no, we don't have an EQ secretary, or an EQ teacher, or any of those others EQ callings I hear rumors about. Heck, we're lucky to have a president and two counselors right now...
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Doctrine and Covenants, Government, and Religion
I gave a lesson to the youth in my ward on July 4th; they asked me to talk about the gospel and its connection to the government. I meant to post about it earlier, but a kidney stone (which made itself known literally five minutes before the lesson, calmed down for the lesson, and then came back with a vengeance to ruin most of the rest of the week) derailed me. (My strength is finally back to almost-normal, I think.)
I don't think they knew what they were getting themselves into by asking me to teach. I didn't. Teaching adults is easy--create good questions and have them discuss the questions until time runs out. The teenagers here had a harder time speaking up, meaning I had to teach more.
Anyway, I made some interesting discoveries in researching the lesson. The first thing that came to mind was the 12th Article of Faith. While important, alone it's way too simplistic for any decent discussion of the topic. Plus, it seems like many people focus on that one scripture and ignore all other scriptures. Fortunately, an entire section in D&C provides some real meat.
I highly recommend a thorough reading of Section 134. Here's what I found most interesting.
First, separation of church and state. Verse 4 reads in part, "We do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion." In other words, the government has no right to tell us when to pray or how to worship. To me, this sounds like an argument against things such as mandatory prayers in school (although I realize this scripture can be interpreted in different ways). Certainly, minority religions (such as the LDS church) depend on the separation of church and state to keep majority religions from telling us how to worship. It's unfortunate, in this respect, that the Supreme Court, the body that interprets the First Amendment which gives us our religious liberties, is so void of religious diversity.
Verse 5 is also interesting. It begins, "We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such government." Notice the exception? We're not bound to sustain or uphold governments when our inherent and inalienable rights are not protected. What rights are those? Verse 2 gives us some hints: "The free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life." In other words, if your free exercise of conscience is not protected, you have no obligation to uphold the government. My interpretation is that the free exercise of conscience includes the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. LDS teenager Helmut Huebener, then, committed no sin when he and his friends spoke out against the Nazis in Nazi Germany, even though they broke the law by doing so. Those who engage in religious ceremonies that harm no one are also, in my opinion, not committing sin, even though the U.S. government may view such acts as illegal.
Any thoughts on this subject? It's much more nuanced than those who frequently quote the 12th Article of Faith realize. In any case, I'm grateful for the freedom of religion in the U.S. It may not be the optimum level of freedom, but it's better than most other countries (even most other civilized countries). I'm a big fan of Europe, but when it comes to religious freedoms, the U.S. is superior.
I don't think they knew what they were getting themselves into by asking me to teach. I didn't. Teaching adults is easy--create good questions and have them discuss the questions until time runs out. The teenagers here had a harder time speaking up, meaning I had to teach more.
Anyway, I made some interesting discoveries in researching the lesson. The first thing that came to mind was the 12th Article of Faith. While important, alone it's way too simplistic for any decent discussion of the topic. Plus, it seems like many people focus on that one scripture and ignore all other scriptures. Fortunately, an entire section in D&C provides some real meat.
I highly recommend a thorough reading of Section 134. Here's what I found most interesting.
First, separation of church and state. Verse 4 reads in part, "We do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion." In other words, the government has no right to tell us when to pray or how to worship. To me, this sounds like an argument against things such as mandatory prayers in school (although I realize this scripture can be interpreted in different ways). Certainly, minority religions (such as the LDS church) depend on the separation of church and state to keep majority religions from telling us how to worship. It's unfortunate, in this respect, that the Supreme Court, the body that interprets the First Amendment which gives us our religious liberties, is so void of religious diversity.
Verse 5 is also interesting. It begins, "We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such government." Notice the exception? We're not bound to sustain or uphold governments when our inherent and inalienable rights are not protected. What rights are those? Verse 2 gives us some hints: "The free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life." In other words, if your free exercise of conscience is not protected, you have no obligation to uphold the government. My interpretation is that the free exercise of conscience includes the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. LDS teenager Helmut Huebener, then, committed no sin when he and his friends spoke out against the Nazis in Nazi Germany, even though they broke the law by doing so. Those who engage in religious ceremonies that harm no one are also, in my opinion, not committing sin, even though the U.S. government may view such acts as illegal.
Any thoughts on this subject? It's much more nuanced than those who frequently quote the 12th Article of Faith realize. In any case, I'm grateful for the freedom of religion in the U.S. It may not be the optimum level of freedom, but it's better than most other countries (even most other civilized countries). I'm a big fan of Europe, but when it comes to religious freedoms, the U.S. is superior.
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Hulu update
Warehouse 13: horrific. It's got to be pretty bad if I can't manage to finish the first episode. Take Adam Sandler's worst movie and turn it into sci-fi. Yech.
Grade: F.
Persons Unknown: OK. People who like dark might like it--it feels more horror than sci-fi. I don't really recommend it, but I won't discourage anyone from watching it either.
Grade: C.
Day Break: awesome. Just 13 episodes (like Firefly, it was canceled mid-season). Pretty much a cop/mystery show with a sci-fi twist. Very intense (definitely a PG-13), with some great characters and some great actors. It ties up fairly well at the end (in other words, it does in 13 episodes what Lost couldn't do in 121). And yes, Adam Baldwin plays himself, as he does in every TV show he's in. Grade: A-.
Grade: F.
Persons Unknown: OK. People who like dark might like it--it feels more horror than sci-fi. I don't really recommend it, but I won't discourage anyone from watching it either.
Grade: C.
Day Break: awesome. Just 13 episodes (like Firefly, it was canceled mid-season). Pretty much a cop/mystery show with a sci-fi twist. Very intense (definitely a PG-13), with some great characters and some great actors. It ties up fairly well at the end (in other words, it does in 13 episodes what Lost couldn't do in 121). And yes, Adam Baldwin plays himself, as he does in every TV show he's in. Grade: A-.
Thursday, July 01, 2010
What the Republican Party would need to do to win me back
“As I look out at the political landscape now, I find plenty of slogans on the Republican side, but not very many ideas."
Bob Bennett, Republican Senator from Utah
A little known fact--not too many years ago, I considered myself a Republican. Not that I ever really thought much about politics back then, but...
More recently, I registered as Republican--but that had more to do with being able to vote in the primaries in Utah (the winner of the Republican primaries in Utah almost always wins office) than actually agreeing with the Republican platform.
I'm also a big fan of moderate Republicans (Jon Huntsman's my hero, and I used to like McCain before he conformed).
But I'm not a Republican. And, at least most of the time, I won't vote for Republicans. If Republicans want to win me back, here's what they need to do.
1. Focus on cost effectiveness. Eliminating a huge money-saving provision in the healthcare bill by falsely labeling it a "death panel" is not the way to go about this. Nor is giving huge amounts of money to defense contractors. Republicans complain about high taxes and about how much the government is spending; if they truly believe this, they need to focus on cost effectiveness. Instead of attacking programs that help people, they need to focus on how to provide the same benefits at a lower cost. It's not hard. For example, changing food stamps so that they can only be used for specific healthy foods (fruits, vegetables, whole grains, dairy, etc.) instead of on candy, potato chips, and soft drinks. How would this save money? By driving Medicaid costs way down. Simple solution. Still taking care of the poor, but saving big money doing it.
2. Be pro-science. Obviously, the Republican party has significant links to Big Oil and the religious right, two organizations that have some definite anti-science leanings, at least in regards to specific areas. (They also have big links to tobacco, which also used to have anti-science leanings, but got overwhelmed by an enormous amount of scientific information regarding the dangers of tobacco). Granted, some Democrats are anti-science when it comes to vaccines and such, and both McCain and Romney believe evolution occurs (as opposed to Palin and Hucklebee, who don't), but overall, Democrats are more scientifically literate.
3. Be pro-education. Education is an investment. Smart Republicans would negotiate with teacher unions, and offer decent money (ie--a living wage) to teachers (especially young teachers) in return for less job security (meaning ineffective teachers would be able to get booted more easily).
Also, they would implement summer programs that would allow high school students the chance to graduate a year early. Schools would save money by using resources (school buildings and teacher benefits) more effectively, and more teachers would have the opportunity to work--and get paid--for work done in the summer. There's the cost-effectiveness idea again.
4. Charge people for driving on roads. Roads should be paid for by those who use them. I'm not suggesting we toll every road; I'm suggesting we pay for roads, road repairs, and road maintenance solely through gasoline taxes, and decrease all other taxes that currently pay for roads. Benefits? People actually pay for what they use. Plus, less air pollution, reduced medical costs because of reduced air pollution, and a greater incentive to move away from our addiction to oil.
5. Be willing to negotiate and compromise on immigration. Focusing solely on "strengthen the border" while ignoring everything else is stupid. We need comprehensive reform, and it won't happen as long as Republican politicians continue to make foreigners scapegoats. Half the children being born in the US are minorities, and unless the Republican party starts recognizing this, and starts showing these minorities more respect, the Republican party will die with the baby boomers.
Any other ideas for Republicans? I think Republicans have a lot of good ideals (limited government, an emphasis on high moral standards, etc.) But I have to agree with Bob Bennett. Republicans currently have plenty of slogans, but not enough real ideas.
Bob Bennett, Republican Senator from Utah
A little known fact--not too many years ago, I considered myself a Republican. Not that I ever really thought much about politics back then, but...
More recently, I registered as Republican--but that had more to do with being able to vote in the primaries in Utah (the winner of the Republican primaries in Utah almost always wins office) than actually agreeing with the Republican platform.
I'm also a big fan of moderate Republicans (Jon Huntsman's my hero, and I used to like McCain before he conformed).
But I'm not a Republican. And, at least most of the time, I won't vote for Republicans. If Republicans want to win me back, here's what they need to do.
1. Focus on cost effectiveness. Eliminating a huge money-saving provision in the healthcare bill by falsely labeling it a "death panel" is not the way to go about this. Nor is giving huge amounts of money to defense contractors. Republicans complain about high taxes and about how much the government is spending; if they truly believe this, they need to focus on cost effectiveness. Instead of attacking programs that help people, they need to focus on how to provide the same benefits at a lower cost. It's not hard. For example, changing food stamps so that they can only be used for specific healthy foods (fruits, vegetables, whole grains, dairy, etc.) instead of on candy, potato chips, and soft drinks. How would this save money? By driving Medicaid costs way down. Simple solution. Still taking care of the poor, but saving big money doing it.
2. Be pro-science. Obviously, the Republican party has significant links to Big Oil and the religious right, two organizations that have some definite anti-science leanings, at least in regards to specific areas. (They also have big links to tobacco, which also used to have anti-science leanings, but got overwhelmed by an enormous amount of scientific information regarding the dangers of tobacco). Granted, some Democrats are anti-science when it comes to vaccines and such, and both McCain and Romney believe evolution occurs (as opposed to Palin and Hucklebee, who don't), but overall, Democrats are more scientifically literate.
3. Be pro-education. Education is an investment. Smart Republicans would negotiate with teacher unions, and offer decent money (ie--a living wage) to teachers (especially young teachers) in return for less job security (meaning ineffective teachers would be able to get booted more easily).
Also, they would implement summer programs that would allow high school students the chance to graduate a year early. Schools would save money by using resources (school buildings and teacher benefits) more effectively, and more teachers would have the opportunity to work--and get paid--for work done in the summer. There's the cost-effectiveness idea again.
4. Charge people for driving on roads. Roads should be paid for by those who use them. I'm not suggesting we toll every road; I'm suggesting we pay for roads, road repairs, and road maintenance solely through gasoline taxes, and decrease all other taxes that currently pay for roads. Benefits? People actually pay for what they use. Plus, less air pollution, reduced medical costs because of reduced air pollution, and a greater incentive to move away from our addiction to oil.
5. Be willing to negotiate and compromise on immigration. Focusing solely on "strengthen the border" while ignoring everything else is stupid. We need comprehensive reform, and it won't happen as long as Republican politicians continue to make foreigners scapegoats. Half the children being born in the US are minorities, and unless the Republican party starts recognizing this, and starts showing these minorities more respect, the Republican party will die with the baby boomers.
Any other ideas for Republicans? I think Republicans have a lot of good ideals (limited government, an emphasis on high moral standards, etc.) But I have to agree with Bob Bennett. Republicans currently have plenty of slogans, but not enough real ideas.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
America and the LDS Church
The LDS church started out as an American church, but, as missionaries were sent out to Europe, the Pacific Islands, and elsewhere, it quickly became an international church. Originally, European saints immigrated to Utah. But most of the members in Tonga and Samoa did not. Now, the majority of members of the church are not Americans. The church seems to make an effort to call itself an international church. A member of the First Presidency is not American and does not speak English as a first language. Many other General Authorities come from a variety of foreign countries.
Why then, do pictures like this exist? This is unfortunately displayed at the BYU Bookstore. This picture, in my view, falsely raises the US Constitution (an inspired yet deeply flawed document--it allowed for slavery, after all) into holy scripture. We are not an American church. Yet some members don't seem to get it.
A few years ago I showed up to church for the first time in my Idaho Falls ward. An enormous American flag plastered the front of the chapel. I can't imagine any other ward in any other country desecrating their chapel with a flag of their country during the sacrament, but somehow, in the US, it wasn't a big deal.
Anytime politics is brought up in a gospel context, I think to myself--do these people realize that members in other countries think entirely different about politics? I think President Uchtdorf, for example, doesn't think universal healthcare is of the devil. I'm pretty sure fast offerings in Germany go a lot further because they're not used to pay for the healthcare of church members.
I like America. I like the Constitution. It is an important document--and, most importantly for the LDS church, it allows for the freedom of religion. The First Amendment allowed the church to grow in the US (although eventually even the Constitution wasn't enough to keep bigots from driving us out). Many countries adopted aspects of the Constitution, and now our religion can be practiced in many countries.
However, if we start putting our good but flawed Constitution on a pedestal, or if we do the same with our founding fathers (good men, but not the angels some make them out to be), our flag, or our American customs, we run the danger of turning patriotism into a false idol. And that's not behavior that God's church, an international church, should engage in.
Why then, do pictures like this exist? This is unfortunately displayed at the BYU Bookstore. This picture, in my view, falsely raises the US Constitution (an inspired yet deeply flawed document--it allowed for slavery, after all) into holy scripture. We are not an American church. Yet some members don't seem to get it.
A few years ago I showed up to church for the first time in my Idaho Falls ward. An enormous American flag plastered the front of the chapel. I can't imagine any other ward in any other country desecrating their chapel with a flag of their country during the sacrament, but somehow, in the US, it wasn't a big deal.
Anytime politics is brought up in a gospel context, I think to myself--do these people realize that members in other countries think entirely different about politics? I think President Uchtdorf, for example, doesn't think universal healthcare is of the devil. I'm pretty sure fast offerings in Germany go a lot further because they're not used to pay for the healthcare of church members.
I like America. I like the Constitution. It is an important document--and, most importantly for the LDS church, it allows for the freedom of religion. The First Amendment allowed the church to grow in the US (although eventually even the Constitution wasn't enough to keep bigots from driving us out). Many countries adopted aspects of the Constitution, and now our religion can be practiced in many countries.
However, if we start putting our good but flawed Constitution on a pedestal, or if we do the same with our founding fathers (good men, but not the angels some make them out to be), our flag, or our American customs, we run the danger of turning patriotism into a false idol. And that's not behavior that God's church, an international church, should engage in.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
This is a billboard seen going south from our place towards downtown Cincinnati. Apparently, the good folks at the Creation Museum in Kentucky believe that dinosaurs breathed fire, despite a total lack of evidence for that belief. I know that the Creation Museum lacks evidence for many (most, all?) of its claims (people riding on dinosaurs Flintstone-style, etc.) but claims of a fire-breathing dragon surprise even me.Or it might not even be a belief--it could just be that dragons (as well as dinosaurs) sell. And at $22 admission, and over a million visitors since it opened three years ago, it's apparently working.
Friday, June 04, 2010
Working the Connection Angle
I always envied those who used connections to get jobs. During and after high school, some of my best friends got jobs with their dad's companies. I had mixed feelings about my not having connections. On the one hand, I hated that I had to work so much harder to find work. On the other hand, I was proud of every job I found because I found it without help.
I worked six jobs before my mission, all ones I found myself. My first job after the mission was working at a car rental place; I found it through the friend of a friend, so I had a bit of a connection there. The next job was definitely a connection-type job. Two uncles worked at a sleep clinic. The only catch was I had to volunteer full-time for a couple of months, but I soon got a job offer that ended up paying for most of college (plus a car and my Europe trip). One very sweet connection.
I'm still more proud of the jobs I get myself, without help--but I'm smart enough to use the connection angle to my advantage. As fate would have it, I'm headed into the field of pharmaceutical law. I'm taking the classes for it, and I (through lots of interviews with no connections) found a job in it. But my uncle--one of the uncles who was instrumental in helping me get a job in the sleep field--now works for a drug company. And he knows attorneys there. Am I working the connection angle? Oh yeah. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping something will come of it.
And I remain impressed with those few individuals who, like my uncle, go high places without the connections. That's an incredibly difficult feat. As for me--it's a harsh world out there, especially in this job market; I'm taking all the help I can get.
I worked six jobs before my mission, all ones I found myself. My first job after the mission was working at a car rental place; I found it through the friend of a friend, so I had a bit of a connection there. The next job was definitely a connection-type job. Two uncles worked at a sleep clinic. The only catch was I had to volunteer full-time for a couple of months, but I soon got a job offer that ended up paying for most of college (plus a car and my Europe trip). One very sweet connection.
I'm still more proud of the jobs I get myself, without help--but I'm smart enough to use the connection angle to my advantage. As fate would have it, I'm headed into the field of pharmaceutical law. I'm taking the classes for it, and I (through lots of interviews with no connections) found a job in it. But my uncle--one of the uncles who was instrumental in helping me get a job in the sleep field--now works for a drug company. And he knows attorneys there. Am I working the connection angle? Oh yeah. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping something will come of it.
And I remain impressed with those few individuals who, like my uncle, go high places without the connections. That's an incredibly difficult feat. As for me--it's a harsh world out there, especially in this job market; I'm taking all the help I can get.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Best books series
So a friend just posted a long list of his favorite books on facebook. I don't have the patience or memory for that--but I do want to do a few posts about the best books out there, categorized by genre.
The first genre, my favorite, is fantasy. Fantasy authors seem to like to write in series, so here are the best series in fantasy that I'm aware of.
1. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings"
2. George R.R. Martin's "A Game of Thrones"
3. Robin Hobb's "Assassin's Apprentice" (a follow-up series, also excellent and what I'm currently re-reading, is "Fool's Errand")
A warning on Martin--he's pretty graphic.
All three series have great plot, characters, and writing style.
Some LDS writers on Hobb and Martin (Tolkien needs no recommendation):
Orson Scott Card:
"Robin Hobb...arguably set the standard for the modern serious fantasy novel."
"the...excellent heroic fiction of...Robin Hobb and George R. R. Martin..."
Plus two more detailed (and raving) reviews of Hobb's work here and here. Yeah. OSC's a huge Robin Hobb fan.
Brandon Sanderson:
"Robin Hobb...in my opinion writes far better than I do myself."
"George R. R. Martin (is) probably the most skilled epic fantasy writer on the market right now."
This stuff (unlike most the fantasy I read as a teenager) will stand the test of time. It's not just good fantasy. It's good literature.
Any other recommendations?
The first genre, my favorite, is fantasy. Fantasy authors seem to like to write in series, so here are the best series in fantasy that I'm aware of.
1. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings"
2. George R.R. Martin's "A Game of Thrones"
3. Robin Hobb's "Assassin's Apprentice" (a follow-up series, also excellent and what I'm currently re-reading, is "Fool's Errand")
A warning on Martin--he's pretty graphic.
All three series have great plot, characters, and writing style.
Some LDS writers on Hobb and Martin (Tolkien needs no recommendation):
Orson Scott Card:
"Robin Hobb...arguably set the standard for the modern serious fantasy novel."
"the...excellent heroic fiction of...Robin Hobb and George R. R. Martin..."
Plus two more detailed (and raving) reviews of Hobb's work here and here. Yeah. OSC's a huge Robin Hobb fan.
Brandon Sanderson:
"Robin Hobb...in my opinion writes far better than I do myself."
"George R. R. Martin (is) probably the most skilled epic fantasy writer on the market right now."
This stuff (unlike most the fantasy I read as a teenager) will stand the test of time. It's not just good fantasy. It's good literature.
Any other recommendations?
Sunday, May 16, 2010
TV shows to watch this summer
Two recommendations.
The first reminds me in some ways of Firefly--great dialogue, cool characters, Western (although based in today's Kentucky, and not tomorrow's space). I hesitated to watch it at first, because it's based in the South--but it's good. Really good. Justified is definitely a PG-13, though, so don't come blaming me if you don't like the show because of that aspect--but it's the best show on TV right now that I know of. Try it out. Just one episode.
The second one I've mentioned before, but I have to mention again, if only because I don't know anyone else who's seen it, and it deserves to be watched. That show is Journeyman. I little bit of science fiction, but it's more of just a good drama with the sci-fi element creating the drama. It only lasted one season, but you can find it (for absolutely free, and no waiting for the next episode) on Hulu. Next to Firefly, it's the greatest short-lived show I know of.
The first reminds me in some ways of Firefly--great dialogue, cool characters, Western (although based in today's Kentucky, and not tomorrow's space). I hesitated to watch it at first, because it's based in the South--but it's good. Really good. Justified is definitely a PG-13, though, so don't come blaming me if you don't like the show because of that aspect--but it's the best show on TV right now that I know of. Try it out. Just one episode.
The second one I've mentioned before, but I have to mention again, if only because I don't know anyone else who's seen it, and it deserves to be watched. That show is Journeyman. I little bit of science fiction, but it's more of just a good drama with the sci-fi element creating the drama. It only lasted one season, but you can find it (for absolutely free, and no waiting for the next episode) on Hulu. Next to Firefly, it's the greatest short-lived show I know of.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Two LDS members, two leaders in immigration reform--on different sides
The man behind Arizona's new immigration law is LDS.
Fortunately, he's not the first member of the church to make a difference in immigration. Rex Lee, president of BYU and US Solicitor General, played a big role in immigration and state's rights.
In 1975, Texas passed a law similar in idiocy to the one in Arizona. Illegal immigrants in Texas could not attend public schools.
Carter's administration supported a lawsuit against Texas. Reagan became president, Rex Lee was his Solicitor General, and the Texas case reached the Supreme Court.
The Reagan administration debated which side to support. Rex Lee refused to change sides. Rex Lee, and therefore Reagan, fought against Texas.
Unfortunately, our current Supreme Court Chief Justice disagreed with Rex Lee. That doesn't give me much faith in our current Supreme Court.
However, knowing that Rex Lee, a Mormon, had compassion for the underclass gives me hope. I have a fairly good idea of where LDS leaders stand on this issue (they have considerably more compassion than most politicians in Arizona do). I hope LDS politicians will repent (if need be) and have that same compassion. I hope they will become more like Rex Lee.
Fortunately, he's not the first member of the church to make a difference in immigration. Rex Lee, president of BYU and US Solicitor General, played a big role in immigration and state's rights.
In 1975, Texas passed a law similar in idiocy to the one in Arizona. Illegal immigrants in Texas could not attend public schools.
Carter's administration supported a lawsuit against Texas. Reagan became president, Rex Lee was his Solicitor General, and the Texas case reached the Supreme Court.
The Reagan administration debated which side to support. Rex Lee refused to change sides. Rex Lee, and therefore Reagan, fought against Texas.
Unfortunately, our current Supreme Court Chief Justice disagreed with Rex Lee. That doesn't give me much faith in our current Supreme Court.
However, knowing that Rex Lee, a Mormon, had compassion for the underclass gives me hope. I have a fairly good idea of where LDS leaders stand on this issue (they have considerably more compassion than most politicians in Arizona do). I hope LDS politicians will repent (if need be) and have that same compassion. I hope they will become more like Rex Lee.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Rock Band
I played Rock Band for the first time a couple of months ago, and decided I wanted it. I made a deal that if I didn't buy any junk food for a year, I would get myself the game. Well...I caved in. Not to the junk food deal (we haven't bought junk food for months), but to the "wait for a year" part. I saw a deal for Beatles Rock Band with Rock Band II "instruments" and both the Beatles and the Rock Band II software, for about $80. So I bought it.
The package arrived, and not only were the instruments Rock Band I instead of Rock Band II (in other words, not wireless), but the Rock Band II software was nowhere to be found. I emailed the company a complaint, and they gave me a $20 coupon to make up for it. $20 doesn't buy me the software, let alone pay for the difference between the instruments, so I complained again. All I wanted was the Rock Band II software (and that's all I asked for). But instead--they gave me a full refund.
So I got the Rock Band instruments and the Beatles software for free. Plus the $20 gift certificate (which I'll use to pay for most of Rock Band I software and a Classic Rock expansion).
As I've said before, it always pays to complain after you've been ripped off...
In this case it pays so much that I almost feel like I'm taking advantage of them.
Meanwhile, we're enjoying rocking out to the Beatles. Great music that I really should know better than I do.
And "I am the Walrus" is so cool and crazy that I'm beginning to think that the Beatles are the first progressive rock band (and not King Crimson, like I've always believed).
Interesting side note--if you go to buy single tracks for Rock Band off the internet, you'll find they have a separate category for "prog." Looks like my obscure tastes are going a bit more mainstream.
The package arrived, and not only were the instruments Rock Band I instead of Rock Band II (in other words, not wireless), but the Rock Band II software was nowhere to be found. I emailed the company a complaint, and they gave me a $20 coupon to make up for it. $20 doesn't buy me the software, let alone pay for the difference between the instruments, so I complained again. All I wanted was the Rock Band II software (and that's all I asked for). But instead--they gave me a full refund.
So I got the Rock Band instruments and the Beatles software for free. Plus the $20 gift certificate (which I'll use to pay for most of Rock Band I software and a Classic Rock expansion).
As I've said before, it always pays to complain after you've been ripped off...
In this case it pays so much that I almost feel like I'm taking advantage of them.
Meanwhile, we're enjoying rocking out to the Beatles. Great music that I really should know better than I do.
And "I am the Walrus" is so cool and crazy that I'm beginning to think that the Beatles are the first progressive rock band (and not King Crimson, like I've always believed).
Interesting side note--if you go to buy single tracks for Rock Band off the internet, you'll find they have a separate category for "prog." Looks like my obscure tastes are going a bit more mainstream.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Goodbye Arizona
We've been making a list of possible places to move to after law school. If I stay with my current job, which is a real possibility, we are limited to Cincinnati, Cody Wyoming, and maybe Denver. Another possibility is a judicial clerkship for one year. I'd work for a judge for one year for not much more than what I was making as a teacher, but it would look real nice on a resume. So we've been thinking about places where I could apply for a clerkship. Pretty much just places out west. Once I clerk for a judge in any given state, my resume looks extra nice in that state; for example, if I clerk for the Supreme Court of Idaho, I'd probably be able to get a job with the best firms in Idaho.
Now, though, I've decided to take Arizona off that list of potential places.
Why?
Ever since my mission, I've looked at the pros and cons to living in the US versus western Europe. Europeans focus more on education, have more culture, cheaper (yet just as good) healthcare, better public transportation, more livable cities, less violence.
The US has less of an obsession with sex (although that is changing), stronger freedoms of speech and religion (both exist in Europe too, but they're slightly more protected here), and, at least until now, you weren't required to carry around identification with you so you could prove to the cops that you were in the country legally.
A Russian friend of mine in Germany assisted Eastern Europeans coming (illegally) into Germany. He'd tell them to not speak when they went out in public, for fear of the police hearing their foreign language and asking for their papers. Those unfortunate to have black or brown skin (mostly people from Africa and the Middle East) could be stopped by police just because their skin was a different color. If they didn't have identification on them, the police assumed they were in the country illegally.
Now, Arizona has created a law that I pray will be found unconstitutional. Police in Arizona are now obligated to stop everyone they suspect might be an illegal immigrant (ie--looks Mexican) and ask for their papers. If they don't have papers on them, they can be arrested (regardless of whether or not they are American citizens). If you're brown and you want to go on a bike ride, better take your driver's license. And forget about going for that swim.
And let's not even think about how crime will soar when criminals realize they can victimize illegal immigrants without fear of the police being called. If your house is robbed or your daughter raped, and you're an illegal immigrant and you call the cops, you can kiss the USA goodbye. If you call the cops, you'll be deported. Crime will go up, while the reporting of crime will go down.
An article about it (and about the sad fall of what used to be one of America's great politicians) is here. Another article here. Sad times indeed. America just got a little less great.
Now, though, I've decided to take Arizona off that list of potential places.
Why?
Ever since my mission, I've looked at the pros and cons to living in the US versus western Europe. Europeans focus more on education, have more culture, cheaper (yet just as good) healthcare, better public transportation, more livable cities, less violence.
The US has less of an obsession with sex (although that is changing), stronger freedoms of speech and religion (both exist in Europe too, but they're slightly more protected here), and, at least until now, you weren't required to carry around identification with you so you could prove to the cops that you were in the country legally.
A Russian friend of mine in Germany assisted Eastern Europeans coming (illegally) into Germany. He'd tell them to not speak when they went out in public, for fear of the police hearing their foreign language and asking for their papers. Those unfortunate to have black or brown skin (mostly people from Africa and the Middle East) could be stopped by police just because their skin was a different color. If they didn't have identification on them, the police assumed they were in the country illegally.
Now, Arizona has created a law that I pray will be found unconstitutional. Police in Arizona are now obligated to stop everyone they suspect might be an illegal immigrant (ie--looks Mexican) and ask for their papers. If they don't have papers on them, they can be arrested (regardless of whether or not they are American citizens). If you're brown and you want to go on a bike ride, better take your driver's license. And forget about going for that swim.
And let's not even think about how crime will soar when criminals realize they can victimize illegal immigrants without fear of the police being called. If your house is robbed or your daughter raped, and you're an illegal immigrant and you call the cops, you can kiss the USA goodbye. If you call the cops, you'll be deported. Crime will go up, while the reporting of crime will go down.
An article about it (and about the sad fall of what used to be one of America's great politicians) is here. Another article here. Sad times indeed. America just got a little less great.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
The Church speaks up on the whole Glenn Beck/Social Justice thing
Okay, so it's just the church newsroom, not an official proclamation. Still, worth a read. I'm also interested in hearing what you think about it.
Here it is. Click on the link at the church website for the actual article.
Here it is. Click on the link at the church website for the actual article.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Criticism at Church Part II
Funny incident yesterday; I'm sitting in Priesthood opening exercises, and a friend is struggling with his 14-month-old daughter. She and Peter are the only two pre-nursery, post-newborns in the ward. Peter is not in the room.
The kid is being a bit fussy, and her dad is trying to settle her down. I remember a previous encounter with a certain ward member who criticized me in private after Peter acted up a bit (detailed here), so I looked over to the other side of the room to see how this same man was reacting to this new disturbance.
He erupted. Loudly, and in public. Said something about how he couldn't hear and how my friend needed to take his daughter out. The whole room heard him.
There were two people acting like children in that room. One of them had an excuse.
His behavior still makes me angry. On the upside, a large portion of the ward saw that behavior yesterday. He publicly embarrassed himself.
It was then that I realized that, given what I know of this man's very structured concepts of gender roles (to put it nicely), and his church callings when his kids were small, that it's unlikely he ever dealt directly with his own pre-nursery children in church. That, and possibly some hearing loss that he's sensitive about, may contribute to his poor behavior. Given what others might think of him now, following this latest incident, I might even have a little pity for him.
The kid is being a bit fussy, and her dad is trying to settle her down. I remember a previous encounter with a certain ward member who criticized me in private after Peter acted up a bit (detailed here), so I looked over to the other side of the room to see how this same man was reacting to this new disturbance.
He erupted. Loudly, and in public. Said something about how he couldn't hear and how my friend needed to take his daughter out. The whole room heard him.
There were two people acting like children in that room. One of them had an excuse.
His behavior still makes me angry. On the upside, a large portion of the ward saw that behavior yesterday. He publicly embarrassed himself.
It was then that I realized that, given what I know of this man's very structured concepts of gender roles (to put it nicely), and his church callings when his kids were small, that it's unlikely he ever dealt directly with his own pre-nursery children in church. That, and possibly some hearing loss that he's sensitive about, may contribute to his poor behavior. Given what others might think of him now, following this latest incident, I might even have a little pity for him.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Blog help?
We're planning a church site/Montreal (and maybe Quebec) trip for May--we're both very excited about it.
Meanwhile, I keep on getting spam comments on this blog. They usually pop up at just one or two posts I've made. Any ideas on how to get rid of those comments? I know I can delete them, but that's getting old--there needs to be an easier way. I don't want to restrict access or make it a bigger pain to comment. I wish I could restrict comments on just those posts (other blogs have the ability to halt comments on one post at a time, but I don't think blogger is quite that advanced). The only thing I can figure out is to delete the posts that get the spam, and then repost them.
Any better ideas?
If you see any posts here in the next few days that seem familiar, it's just because I deleted the original and then re-posted it. I hope that works...
Meanwhile, I keep on getting spam comments on this blog. They usually pop up at just one or two posts I've made. Any ideas on how to get rid of those comments? I know I can delete them, but that's getting old--there needs to be an easier way. I don't want to restrict access or make it a bigger pain to comment. I wish I could restrict comments on just those posts (other blogs have the ability to halt comments on one post at a time, but I don't think blogger is quite that advanced). The only thing I can figure out is to delete the posts that get the spam, and then repost them.
Any better ideas?
If you see any posts here in the next few days that seem familiar, it's just because I deleted the original and then re-posted it. I hope that works...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)