Star of Sophia

Final Project

2011-12-09T00:29:00.000-08:00

I'll have to upload the file somewhere ... but I made a power point presentation for my final project.

My First Term of College

2011-12-09T00:26:00.000-08:00

This is the end of my first term of college. I took two classes, both online, as I did not have a job when I registered, but hoped to find one and did not want my school and work schedule to overlap. By the time I finished my first week of school, I had a job working night shift at a local care home for dementia patients. This has been an experience! Something interesting happens almost every day I go to work. I haven't been to a regular school since 6th grade, as I was homeschooled (self taught, mostly) after that. I was nervous about taking a class with deadlines and assignments, but I think I did pretty okay in the end. I've been practicing my writing by blogging off and on over the years, and it doesn't hurt that I like it!

I feel like I learned a lot this term. It wasn't the ideas or techniques that I read in the book that I appreciated the most (I know how to read, and I could have done that on my own), but the feedback and pushing I got from my teachers. I'm always happy to be shown (whether directly with a note or indirectly through an activity or assignment) how I am doing things wrong. I realized that I had been being lazy, as well as my over use of it and is. I've been catching myself doing the same thing while writing my sociology assignments, and I can re-write my sentences to be more complete. I can really tell the difference between a sentence with a bunch of 'it's and one with actual words instead.

Making Pie

2011-11-27T00:27:00.000-08:00

I was invited to a friend's house for thanksgiving dinner, and so I offered to bring my upside-down pecan pumpkin pie. It's pretty much the most amazing pumpkin pie anyone has ever tasted. After waking up around noon on Thanksgiving, I set to work making my desert. I looked at the recipe, and realized that I had forgotten that I was out of evaporated milk. So, I headed out to Sherm's, battled through the wild crowds, all buying last minute ingredients for their meals. As I was making my way through the store, I passed a display of evaporated milk, so I grabbed one, and was on my way.

After I finally made it back home, I started mixing up the ingredients. First, a big can of pumpkin pie mix, next the evaporated milk. Once I had added the milk, I knew something wasn't right. I looked at my recipe, I looked at the can. I had purchased the wrong size, 12 ounces instead of 5. I didn't have a second can of pumpkin, and I dreaded going all the way to the other side of town and fighting for another can of pumpkin. Besides that, time was running out, and I needed to get to my friend's house soon! I decided to check the local convenience store, and thank goodness, they had a can of pumpkin (puree instead of the mix, but I could deal with that!).

I got home, and mixed up the pies, poured them into the pans and started putting them into the oven. I had ended up with two large pies and four small ones (like pumpkin pie shots). After I put the two large pies in, I realized that I didn't have room in the front for all four little pies, so I reached back and carefully set the little pies in the back. Well, I wasn't quite careful enough, and one of them dumped over, spilling all over the bottom of my oven.

I cleaned up what I could, and continued cooking. In a couple minutes (unknown to me) smoke started billowing out of the oven, and then the smoke alarm went off. Our smoke alarm is ... excessively loud. BEEEEP BEEEEP BEEEP THERE IS SMOKE IN THE HALLWAY BEEEP BEEEEP BEEEP EVACUATE THE BUILDING BEEP BEEEP BEEEP! and so on. I opened the windows and doors, and frantically waved something at the smoke alarm, trying to get the smoke away from it. I turned off the oven, and eventually the alarm stopped. I called up my friend and asked her if I could bake my pies in her oven. She said, sure, as soon as the turkey and rolls are done cooking. So, I started taking the pies out of the oven so that I could wrap them up and bring them over. The first pie I took out, as I was setting it on the stove top, slipped and fell, splat, upside-down on the floor of my kitchen. I almost cried.

I took the other pies out (no more accidents) and cleaned up the floor as best I could. I was a little worried about transporting the pie. I figured that with my luck, I would dump them all over my car. They made it to my friend's house. I carried them to the fence, opened the gate, tripped, almost fell, caught myself, made it through her herd of mastiffs and into the kitchen without further loss of pie. Whew!

Sadly, the pie sat there all through dinner, as the turkey (like all turkeys) took longer to cook than expected. They finally went into the oven at 7, baked for an hour and then got put in the freezer in an attempt to cool them down before people fell asleep. By 9:30 when I had to leave for work, they were still hot, and so I left without seeing what anyone thought of my pies.

In the middle of the night, my friend sent me a message telling me that it was the best pumpkin pie she had ever tasted.

I have half a can of pumpkin puree left ...

Using broken minds as a key to Artificial Intelligence

2011-11-05T12:24:00.000-07:00

I tend to think of the human brain as a very complex computer program that we could possibly re-create if we had enough variables and an effective method for teaching it to "learn" and adapt. In computer programing, one common aspect of all programs are bugs, or quirks in the programing that, when triggered, produce unintentional results. These results aren't always bad, referenced by the humorous phrase, "that's not a bug, that's a feature!" By looking at a program's bugs you can learn a lot about how it works without looking at the source code.

In my job, I work with people whose minds have malfunctioned in one way or another. Last night, one of my residents was rambling on and on as I was getting her dressed. It reminded me of a memory dump in a program, and that's when it hit me: it might be more profitable to create an artificial intelligence where the types of mental illnesses that humans face are possible.

Currently, those working on artificial intelligence are focusing on the visible functions of the human mind, but are not reproducing the system behind it. By taking a look at the mind's bugs (such as schizophrenia, memory loss, paradoxical thinking, fallacies, gullibility and so on) a greater understanding of the underlying structure can be realized.

My favorite (fictional) example of an artificial intelligence's mental neurosis is HAL in 2001: Space Odyssey. He is driven by the directive to make sure his mission succeeds at any cost, and sees the humans as being unnecessary, untrustworthy and flawed companions. He kills off most of the crew before being turned off by the protagonist. If we develop a computer with the ability to become mentally deranged, we will be forced to change our revering attitude toward the computer to one of caution, just as we have toward humans that we do not know. True artificial intelligence would be a dangerous thing, for it would represent a mental force as strong as ours, but malleable in a way that humans are resilient to.

Formal Organizations

2011-11-04T12:52:00.000-07:00

How has one specific formal organization changed your life in some significant way? Explain how the institutional culture has shaped your personality, attitudes, values and/or beliefs. What role did bureaucracy play in this process?

When I was born, I was labelled a member of my parent's church. There was a ceremony (like a christening) that solidified my membership in the eyes of the other members. As I grew, I was socialized to accept the governing structure of the church as being "right" and "obviously the way things should be". When I was a bit older, I was officially made a member, and given a "vote" and felt as though I was an important piece of the organization. This illusion stayed with me until I grew old enough to realize that what we were told, and reality were quite different.

One interesting facet of this church is that it is highly structured and bueracratic. The power structure is VERY rigid and standardized across all congregations. There is a "handbook" for every position, and there are rules for every possible situation. The local administrators are usually well off, business oriented/minded men - even though the members are from all walks of life, and the leadership is *supposed* to be democratic. Once you move beyond the local sphere, there is a HUGE amount of inner-circle self-promotion going on, and it is impossible to get into a position of power without knowing someone or being promoted from a lower position. The sunday school lessons were standardized in the 60s, and now everyone in the world learns from the same book (translated), and hears the same information being regurgitated every week.

When I was 18, I was assigned to teach the 4 and 5 year olds, and had my first experiance of being told that I was not allowed to deviate from the lesson manual, and then realizing that I was being asked to socialize these young children with values and norms that I did not necessarily agree with - ie with being obedient members of the church bueracracy. I had been raised with a strong personal value of education and that there is always more to know about any given topic, and so when I started taking the "adult classes" and realized that it was really just the same exact thing I had been learning for the last 18 years, I lost all interest in being a cooperative member of the group.

Even though I am no longer a member (I was kicked out for heresy :-) ), I still look at some portions of the social structure and can admire it for being very efficient, and working for a large number of people who do not rebel against their socialization. It is very difficult to entirely step away from something that you were born and raised into, and even today, I find myself with values that originated from this organization. There was a emphasis on learning to speak publically, and each member was trained to become a member of the administration, even though most of them would never actually be appointed (it helped maintain the illusion that it was possible), and even today, I can get up in front of a bunch of people and wax philosophical for as long as needed to fill in the time.

Unfortunatly, I believe that the more they move towards a formally burecratic organization and away from their original form, which emphasized creativity, democracy and life-long personal and social change; the less powerful their method of socializing their members and KEEPING members through adulthood will be. If I had been a member in the 1800s when they were still radically progressive (even by today's modern standards) I might have stuck around.

Creativity

2011-10-29T12:16:00.000-07:00

When I was young, people around me always told me that I was creative. I liked to draw, and I did a pretty good job as long as I used a photo or other drawing as a guide. I never agreed that my drawings made me creative; everything that others saw as creativity was just technical skill. To me, creativity involves creating something new, something that has never existed before. The better you can do that, the more creative you really are. On the other hand, there are a lot of things that most people don’t consider to be creative that really are. Any time you have a problem, and you are able to figure out a solution, that’s creativity. When you make something up on the spot, whether it’s a fib, a recipe, a new word, or lyrics to a song you can’t quite remember, that’s creativity.

Creativity is something uniquely organic. A machine does not create, it only imitates, follows instructions, or takes advantage of the fact that we find patterns of symmetry mixed with a touch of random to be beautiful. Of course, a machine can be used to create, but it is not the one doing the creating any more than a No. 2 pencil creates poetry in the margins of school books. A machine cannot solve even the most simple of logical problems if it has not been made aware of the problem and its solution beforehand. A machine does not know how to lie.

Social Structure & Interaction

2011-10-28T12:50:00.000-07:00

After defining these terms, Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, provide an example of each from your personal or social life.

Geimenschaft describes the extended, personal relationships we have with those we come into contact with (what Cooley refered to as primary groups). The most basic and universal example is the family. The members of a Geimenshaft have a feeling of solidarity and tend to place the whole above their own desires and ambitions (knowing that the whole is looking out for them, and those sacrifices will be more than worth it).

Gemein is the German word for common in English and gemeinschaft, community.

A good example of geimenschaft from my personal life is my Dungeons and Dragons (D&D) group. We get together every Saturday and have a blast playing D&D, eat great food and drink copious amounts of alcohol. D&D is, by its nature, a community-building game. You have to work together in order to solve puzzles and conflicts. When the monsters have been killed, and the dragon's horde is divied up, there is a lot of discussion about who could best use each item rather than who has already recieved the most items. In all of the experiances that I have had, sharing food and drink is one of the quickest ways to develop a strong sense of community. It is not a coincidence that the word communion and community are so simillar (and, let me tell you, you can easily tell the difference between the congregations who share a real meal rather than those who ration out little slivers of tasteless flour and sips of wine/water/grape juice).

Gesellschaft describes an association of people who work together, but don't have any other bond keeping them together. A good example of this concept is the typical relationship between the owner of a business and their employees. Even if you are lucky, and the people you work with all get along, the owner (almost) always has the sucess of the business as the first priority, and if you are not contributing to this sucess, you are forced to leave. This is more pronounced the farther removed the owner (or manager) is from interaction with the workers.

Geselle is a word that means journeyman (a craftsman who has completed the first stage of training in a guild) and Gesellschaft then describes an association of journeymen.

An example of gesellschaft in my own life is my relationship to UCC. I have paid UCC money, and I expect to get a return on that investment. Maybe after I have taken classes here for longer, or if I was on the actual campus, or if I wasn't the one paying for my classes, I would have less of a feeling of disconnection with the school as a whole. The less we are connected with the people involved with an orginization, with society, the less likely it is that we can form little, micro-gemeinshaften: friendships, clubs, gangs, cliches ... in short, community.

=====

just a funny note, when I used Google translate to read the dictionary entry on Gesellschaft it translated the syllablization as: ge - sell - ten - sheep

Social Structure & Interaction

2011-10-28T12:48:00.000-07:00

For this activity, I'd like you to demonstrate your understanding of specific principles of social psychology and symbolic interaction by returning to the Lecture Notes/Powerpoint for this section, clicking (again) on the Jane Elliot video clip on the first page, and describing in a few sentences (each) how the clip illustrates the following concepts. Just Google "Jane Elliot, A Class Divided".

Social Status
Roles
In-Groups and Out-Groups
Social Institutions

Social Status denotes your position in the overall web of society as well in each particular social institution that you are a member of.

Jane Elliot took advantage of the naturally ascribed status of eye color and gave it additional meaning. The children most likely had statuses before this experiment started, but the eye color became a master status that overrode all other statuses that they might claim.

Roles are the way in which we fulfil our various statuses. Once we understand our roles, and accept them, then we have a guide as to how we should act.

In itself, the status of eye color has little meaning to grade-school children (as evidenced by the fact that social institutions do not normally grow up around this status), but once Elliot defined the roles of each status, the children responded accordingly and able to figure out how they were 'supposed' to act. I think this shows the importance of a society (especially for children) that properly socializes its members.

In-Groups and Out-Groups describe the relationship between a group that we belong to and other groups with differing norms, statuses, values, etc.

The feelings that each eye color group had towards the other was that of an out-group. The difference between how that manifested in their actions was how each group percieved the worth of their status. The privilleged group looked down on the other group - and ascribed them negative attributes. The un-privilleged group also looked down on themselves, accepting and acting out the negative attributes that were assigned to them.

Social Institutions are the basic way in which we orgianize ourselves into groups based around a common need, goal, interest, status or role.

Before the experiment, the children belonged to the unified institution of their classroom. Once the experiment went underway, they divided into two separate groups, but I think that they were all still in the same social institution, just a vastly different one than before.

Socialization

2011-10-21T12:44:00.000-07:00

What does Mead mean when he says that the self is both a subject and an object to itself?

Mead was making the point that a major aspect of being a self, a concious being, is being able to think of ourselves as others would see us. He posits that this is neccessary for the development of our society as well as for each individual. We all exist as a part of a whole, and by using others as a frame of reference (where we reference ourselves in light of others) we are able to form a view of ourself in context.

I like to talk to myself a lot. I use it, as Mead states, to reason things out, almost like a have an imaginary brain friend. If I can see my thoughts as others see them, then I am better able to form arguments that will make sense to others.

I have been thinking a lot about some people I know with Asberger's Syndrome. They seem to be missing part of the ability to see themselves as others see them. They talk without noticing that everyone else is annoyed or falling asleep.

I think Mead was also trying to say that our sense of self relies on being a part of a society, a "team", and that the I comes from being in the team ... so, you could also say that the I or the me IS the team :D

I really like thinking of examples where we are only the subject or only the object to ourselves ... like when I draw and am absorbed in the act of creation, of placing my own perspective down onto paper (although even that has overtones of communication), and then I realize that I've been at it for hours and didn't eat. Or, from the opposite end, I take care of mentally ill patients for work, and some of them are there, but not there ... some of them have little or no sense of self left. Others have lost the ability to communicate, but they are still very much a self, and those are the ones who will fight you when you violate their privacy. Violence is the last way that they have to communicate with the rest of us.

Gay Marriage is ...

2011-10-17T20:38:00.000-07:00

If you examine the arguments used by the various groups against same-sex marriage, you may notice an interesting pattern. Let's examine a few arguments from those who wish to ban same-sex marriage in the United States.

1) Those who disagree with same-sex marriage may eventually be classed in the same category as racists.

2) If same-sex marriage became a norm, then marriage as we have known it may be gone forever!

3) Same-sex parents might not compensate for the lack of a father or mother in the family.

4) What is the point of marriage if no children can be produced?

5) Children ARE being taught in school that there is no moral taboo associated with same-sex marriage.

6) In the case of many religious adherents, there is the belief that same-sex relations are on par with adultery and having sex with your mother-in-law.

Now, I could have fun arguing against these points, but let's take a closer look at what type of arguments are being used. The first two arguments, unfortunately, expose two of the fears that the opponents of same-sex marriage feel. They are afraid that they will become the minority, and that they will lose something that they hold dear ("traditional" marriage .. which, ironically, has only been around a couple hundred years, and only recently had anything much to do with love and all that jazz). The second two arguments accuse same-sex couples of being insufficient parents. The last two arguments are based purely on a moral appeal to those who hold the belief that sex between two people of the same sex is a sin.

Two thirds of these arguments are based on fear. Fear is one very effective use of arguing through emotions. It can convince people to turn against an idea even if they themselves see nothing wrong with other people practicing it.

The remaining two arguments are logic based, but, in my opinion do not hold up to scrutiny.

The first is two-fold:

Same-sex couples might not provide a balance of gender exposure for their children
and
This balance is required for a healthy childhood
therefore
Same-sex couples might not properly raise a child

the second half of this argument:

Same-sex couples might not properly raise a child
and
those who are might not properly raise a child should not be allowed to marry
therefore
Same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry

I hope I do not have to point out all of the problems with these arguments!

The second argument can be broken down as follows:

Same sex couples cannot produce children
and
Marriage is primarily concerned with reproduction
therefore
Same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry

The second premise of this argument is not true, otherwise you could replace the first premise with those who are infertile through chance, age or choice. You can see where this would be problematic!

For fun, take a look at the types of arguments that proponents of same sex marriage are using and see how they compare.

=====

A fun statistic for you all: When laws are created that say things like "marriage is the union between a man and a woman" this leaves those who are neither in a very sticky legal situation. Did you know that about 1.7% of children are born with an ambiguous sex? That means that in a town the size of Roseburg, there are approximately 400 citizens who do not fall into the traditional male/female categories. The way that laws are being recklessly written in the name of religious morals is very disturbing to me.

For more information on the 1.7% figure: http://www.neiu.edu/~lsfuller/5sexesrevisited.htm

Identity

2011-10-16T12:13:00.000-07:00

Racial Profiling

I've been trying to think if I have ever been the target for racial profiling. As a white person in a predominantly white town, it isn't something that I think about a lot. There are simply too many of us for a targeted reaction to even register. I wonder how often any of us are discriminated against on the basis of our race and we do not even notice. It is something that we generally do not even think about.

I remember the first time I ever consciously noticed a black person. I was in fourth grade, and she was a new student in another class. No one was really brave enough to talk to her, as we were so afraid of possibly offending her (since about the only thing we "knew" about racial relations was that black people were very touchy about how they were treated).

Group Identity

We all belong to groups, most of us belong to many, many groups. I know that I act certain ways and am treated certain ways because of the groups I am associated with. There are some groups that I did not choose, such as being a female, my family, the school classes that I belonged to as a child, my religion. These groups shape who you believe you are, as others treat you in certain ways depending on how they perceive these groups.

For example, my brother and I were very interested in learning how to make computer games when we were children. When my brother showed interest, he was encouraged, given books on the topic and he is now in college as a network administrator and having a blast. On the other hand, when I showed a similar interest, it was as if it did not even register on people's radar. Young girls were not expected to want to program, and people only see what they expect to see.

Ageism

As a young person, I have most definitely been the target for ageism. We tend to think of this as a problem affecting the elderly in our communities, but just as we discriminate against those who fall over a certain age, we also discriminate against those who are younger.

Throughout my working life most of my jobs have involved working with those who are quite a bit older than me. I have a knack of sitting quietly and observing those around me in such a way that they forget I am there and will act naturally. I am always amused when they start bashing on the "young people these days" when I am sitting right there next to them. Many of the negative perceptions that are held about the younger generation by the elderly are false and stem from a misunderstanding of the culture that we have grown up in. I would get worried, but I know that the previous generations have all spent their later years bitching about the youth and how they we are going to ruin the world.

Culture

2011-10-14T12:41:00.000-07:00

One way to best observe culture is to distance yourself from it. For this assignment, I'd like you to attempt to get something done in society BOTH WITH AND WITHOUT THE USE OF SYMBOLS (language or gestures).

For this assignment, you'll need a pet (yours or someone else's) and also, like the first activity, a friend, family member or co-worker.

First, see if you can convey a simple idea - "THIS IS TASTY" - to the pet. You can use gestures, objects, smells, etc. in your effort to convey this idea.
Next, use the following phrase to convey the idea that "THIS IS TASTY" to a person. Try to convey the idea at first WITHOUT the use of any gestures or symbols (just state it plainly without emotion or action). If this fails, try again using gestures or other forms of symbolic communication.
Say, "OOCHING COOS-NO"
(note: this is actually a phonetically correct Ukrainian phrase for "this is tasty!")

Were you able to successfully convey this idea without the use of gestures or symbols?

Did it help to also use gestures or objects to do this? Explain what transpired.

Finally, looking back at the White article on the importance of symbols, discuss one specific idea given that this activity helped you to understand.

Through this excersize I was better able to understand the idea that a thought is better able to be remembered and used if it is represented as a symbol in our minds. My roommate's cat uses language, and by using HER gestures (not human ones) I am able to communicate in a limited way with her: hello, i like you, go away, let's play, would you like to cuddle? and so on .. these are things that a cat can understand, and that they have ways of communicating with each other, but trying to tell her that something is tasty was beyond her realm of experiance - she has no symbol in her mind for yummy food. It is easier to understand this when I tried the same experiment with a human, since we share a common culture. We have MANY symbols (in the forms of gestures, facial expressions and so forth) to denote that food is good, and on top of that, we are exceptionally good at interpreting new symbols if given enough context.

Animal Population Control

2011-10-05T11:59:00.000-07:00

An analysis of Kristof's article [NYTimes, login required]

I felt that Kristof's essay about controlling deer populations through hunting was quite entertaining, and as a bonus, it informed me of a few facts I was not previously aware of.

Because of the humorous tone, as well as the lack of counter-research (showing exactly why other solutions do not work, rather than just making fun of them), I think it would be difficult for this essay to convince an avid animal rights advocate to take up hunting as a recreation, or even support extended hunting. Luckily, I do not think that these people were Kristof's intended audience. Rather, I believe he was aiming for the upper middle class, who is conscious of animal rights, but can see that hunting might be a necessity in certain circumstances.

I was personally astonished that deer would be a leading cause of death in any category, and was dubious when I read Kristof's assertion. It would have been a good idea to spend a little more time establishing a fact that seems so astonishing at first glance. Part of my suspicion was caused by his qualification of category: large, North American mammal. What constitutes "large"? It seemed to me that he was purposely limiting the scope of his question to disclude other obvious answers. But, after doing some research, I found that deer related automobile crashes are one of the leading causes of death in the united states. The runners up in ALL animal categories are Bees/wasps/hornets at 48 deaths per year and dogs at 20 deaths per year [cite]. It would have been a better argument to state that deer are the largest cause of ALL animal related deaths, even above venomous insects. This would have had more impact as well as reducing confusion about which animals Kristof was including.

I would be very interested to see how the number of collisions with deer correspond with the deer population in each area or state. Would reducing the number of deer significantly reduce the number of deer related fatalities? According to the CDC, there are about 20,000 non-fatal car crashes involving deer every year. [cite] I think this topic deserves a more serious look rather than just an off the cuff solution, even if it ends up being the easiest one to implement.

Another point, according to the IHEA, about 1,000 people are injured while hunting per year, and almost 100 of these injuries prove fatal. [cite] If the number of hunters rose, it follows that the number of hunting related injuries would also rise.

The Sociological Perspective

2011-09-30T12:35:00.000-07:00

In order to better appreciate the "sociological imagination" I'd like you to first read, and then think about, C. Wright Mills' notion that "neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood without understanding both."

Next, I'd like you to get away from your computer and into the more tangible world that surrounds you. GO TALK TO SOMEONE RIGHT NOW! You can choose a family member, friend, co-worker, or whomever you think will give you an honest, straightforward answer to this question: "WHAT IS ONE PROBLEM YOU HAD TODAY?" I'd like you to ask this question without any pre-conditioning, so don't tell this person why you are asking the question. Write down their answer and then return to this activity on your computer. Go ahead, go now, it will only take a moment. Seriously, go!.........

When I got to this activity last night, the only person around was my roommate, so I asked her, 'What was a problem you had today?' After a little thought she replied, 'getting my thoughts in order.'

My roommate is also a first term college student, and is taking three classes in addition to working. She has been out of school for a couple years, and is having trouble getting her brain back into gear. This is a problem because she has a lot of reading and writing to do for her classes!

Personal troubles are usually limited to an individual or a small group of individuals where public issues affect a much larger portion of loosely related people. This is not to say that personal troubles do not affect the larger society, in fact they most certainly do, just as public issues in turn affect personal issues. I believe Mills spoke of personal troubles as 'biographical' and public troubles as 'historical.' I believe that these words succinctly underline the meaning behind these two types of issues. There are billions of humans on this globe, and we all fall into groups, cultures, categories which when our personal troubles are taken together, they aggregate into a public trouble. In other words, when one person has trouble finding a parking space, it is a personal trouble, but when almost everyone in a certain group (racial, geographical, religious, etc) has trouble finding a parking space it becomes a public trouble, and the sociologist should start looking for the cause.

My roommate's personal trouble of being unable to study is a latent function of certain public troubles (and some of these 'troubles' are viewed as facts of our culture rather than as a deficiency). My roommate has been out of school for six years, and because of the way our culture currently exists, there is little room to practice reading non-fiction or writing essays outside of school. As everyone should know, what we do not practice becomes rusty from disuse. I would consider the general public's lack of the ability to think critically or logically or to retain pertinent information to be attributed to this 'public trouble' of having no convenient or necessary way to practice the skills that they learn in high school. I would also consider that once we all leave college, unless we take a job where these skills are used, they will again fall into disuse and we will be unable to easily "collect our thoughts and put them in order."

It is important to find the underlying social causes of personal problems because it helps us see that it is impossible to truly solve our personal problems without first solving the underlying problems of society. One of my roommate's favorite phrases when someone is complaining to her about a problem they are having is to say, 'that sounds like a personal problem!' And, I believe that it is also important to be able to recognize when a problem really DOES stem from your own personal choices and actions rather than blaming it on others (parents, neighbors, teachers, etc.)

Another reason it is important to understand how larger social structures affect the individual is because of cause and effect. Knowing that when a government or corporation or religion makes a decree or a decision or a new law that there will be consequences for the common citizen puts some of the responsibility for those problems into the moral realm of these larger entities. But, whether or not they accept that responsibility is another story altogether!

My Brother James

2011-09-30T12:10:00.000-07:00

I’d like to tell you about my little brother James. He is the perfect picture of someone who never concedes to the pressure of what other people think. First of all, he is about a foot taller than most people, and his white-boy afro does nothing to counter this image. He likes the color purple and exotic clothing, and it doesn’t shock the people he knows to see him walking around town in a brightly colored vest, a hat and stripped pants. In the winter, he likes to wear a tremendous trench coat that makes him look like a skinny mobster. And of course, I can’t forget his shoes. He has big feet, not abnormal, but large. The thing with James though is that he hates when shoes touch the ends of his toes, so he always buys shoes that are about an inch longer than he needs, giving his whole costume a clown-like feel.
Another of his quirks is that if he feels that he can pull it off, he will always claim the opposite view in a discussion, and argue his side vehemently until the other parties to the conversation either give in or give up. I must admit that this is his most irritating personality quirk, and those who don’t know that he isn’t really serious can take offense. I remember once when he was a child, he asked me what day it was, and I replied that it was Wednesday. He retorted that it was NOT Wednesday, but Tuesday instead. I did a double take and checked the calendar; it was indeed Wednesday. I let my little brother know that he was wrong, and showed him the calendar, and recounted the things that had happened on each of the days since Sunday when we had gone to church. He still insisted that it was Tuesday rather than Wednesday, and of course I wouldn’t back down since I knew I was right. Eventually we both broke down into giggles because of the sheer comedy of our argument.
Today, my brother James has moved to San Fransisco in order to go to culinary school. Even in a town as diverse as San Fransisco, he still comes across as someone who doesn’t mind being himself in any circumstance. I think his sense of self comes from his feeling of assurance that he is correct. As a way of illustration, let me tell you about the time he decided to make a batch of macaroni and cheese. Our family has a favorite recipe for mac and cheese that involves making a cheesy cream sauce with onions and then adding the cooked macaroni and baking the whole thing until it is a delicious, creamy, cheesy, crunchy magnificent concoction that any of us could eat an entire batch of without blinking an eye. So, while making the cream sauce, James mis-read the recipe as calling for eight cups of flour rather than eight tablespoons, which is sixteen times too much flour! The flour is the third ingredient he needed to add, and instead of thinking, ‘hmm, this seems weird, maybe I should re-evaluate,’ he went right on ahead with his recipe. I walked into the kitchen just as he was attempting to “pour” this brick of flour, macaroni, and chunks of cheese (since, of course, they didn’t melt right when mixed with so much flour) into a casserole pan. If I had not stopped him there, he would have baked it and only admitted to his mistake when it came out of the oven inedible. When I asked him why he hadn’t realized that he had made a mistake he told me that he had followed the recipe, and so how could he have made a mistake?
Another amusing facet of my brother’s personality is his use of made up names and words. He has been doing this since he was old enough to talk as a toddler. When I read an email from him, I feel as though I am reading a foreign tongue, as I only recognize half the words. When I ask him what a word means, he replies that it is a portmanteau between two other words that he feels should go together to create a new word that has the meaning he wanted.
I admire my brother’s strength of character, and I am envious of his ability to act as he sees to be correct without regard to the opinion of others. Of course, this tendency can be taken too far, but any good trait when used without moderation can turn sour. Luckily, as my brother has gotten older, he has learned to curb some of his tendencies when appropriate. He even calls me when he has trouble with a recipe and doesn’t know what to do rather than just foraging ahead.

Things are Not What They Seem!

2011-09-29T12:39:00.000-07:00

What does Berger mean when he says, "things are not what they seem?"

When Berger says “things are not what they seem,” he is referring to all aspects of our social life, from individual to communal to even world wide social structures such as religion, race or gender.

As way of illustration, think of any person you know fairly well, but not intimately. You may know things about them, but you cannot say that you know everything that goes on in their life, and in fact you would probably be shocked to learn of some of their experiences or beliefs. What is true for the individual is also true for organized groups of people. We all hide behind stereotypes, some gladly, some disappointedly, but if you are able to look past your expectations, then you will be able to see the unique and sometimes shocking truth (or at least slightly closer to the truth).

About three years ago, I had a falling away with my church (which will remain anonymous for now). I had been a member since a child, and so I had never really been worried about looking too hard at what it meant to believe what was taught. The actions that started me down the path of leaving was actually, for the first time, taking a critical, outside look at what was actually being said and taught, and how it matched my own personal values. One of the critical choices I made was to start reading a Jewish translation of the ‘Old Testament’. What had once been something that I had heard many times before became new, and I was able to look at it with new eyes, and realized that what I was reading was not what it had seemed to be when I was still entrenched in my old belief systems.

Splenda: The Food of the Devil

2010-01-13T15:53:00.000-08:00

I hate Splenda.

We've been planning a Mediterranean themed meal, and I realized that we didn't have any ground lamb, nor any plain yogurt. So we went off to the store to pick some up.

Safeway didn't have any small cartons of plain yogurt, but we picked up a large one instead. While we were looking at the yogurt, I spotted an interesting flavor: Apple and Goji. After picking up some pita bread, we found out that Safeway (where we live) doesn't carry ground lamb... huh. So, we put the large carton of yogurt back, but kept the pita as well as my little apple and goji yogurt.

We stopped at Albertsons, who didn't carry ground lamb either. Finally, we went to Sherm's (a local grocery) and picked up their last package of ground lamb as well as a small carton of plain yogurt.

When we got home, I was feeling a bit hungry, and decided to try the yogurt I had purchased. Which is where my actual story begins.

I peeled off the lid, and licked the extra yogurt off in anticipation. It was okay, kind of like a tart peach flavor. Then, a second later, an all too familiar bitter-sweet, cloying, chemical flavor flooded my mouth. I looked over the carton. Sure enough, there on the back was the dreaded Splenda logo.

I couldn't bring myself to eat more than a spoonful of the yogurt, before discarding it.

I've been trying to lose weight, and so I've been grabbing the yogurt made with 1% milk, etc. I would rather have something lightly flavored and unsweetened than getting surprised by Splenda.

I know it's my responsibility to read labels before I buy, but :-( this is not the first time I've accidentally been burned by Splenda.

Just a note, I'm not too concerned with the health issues surrounding Splenda and other artificial sugars, I'm just complaining about the nasty after taste.

Health Care and the Next Generation

2010-01-06T02:16:00.000-08:00

I've been reading a bit of the debate about the new health care plans, and how it might affect the young adults of the nation (that's me!) If you read the comments on FOX (yikes!) the main argument is 'why should we pay for something we won't use?' The other argument is 'The old folks have been paying for Medicare their whole lives, and now that's being replaced! What will they do?'

Does anyone else see the funny? What, exactly, is the difference between these two programs, besides the fact that you can tap into it before you get old?

I pay thousands of dollars into Medicare and Social Security every year, and I don't make very much. Everyone pays about 15% of their paycheck to this program, no options. The youth are paying for it, and as of today, gain nothing from it until they reach the age of 65. That means that if you are earning $25,000 a year, you are paying out $4,000 in social costs every year. Which also means you are really only earning $21,000 in a year, minus what you might pay in regular taxes.

I'm not going to jump on the band wagon and say that I trust that anything the government comes up with will be awesome and fix all of our problems, but I sure hope it ends up better than what we have now. If I don't get some of my health problems taken care of, I might not even live much past 65 anyway, and all that Medicare / Social Security money I paid out will have been wasted.

(Digital vs Physical) vs (Owned vs Licensed)

2009-12-31T14:58:00.000-08:00

There are really two questions being discussed here, the question of format and the question of ownership. Cory Doctrow is only talking about the question of ownership, but I think both questions are interesting.

I am a total bibliophile, I have shelves lining all the available space in my tiny apartment. The feel of a physical book .. the pages under my fingers ... it's all part of the experience. But, when it comes right down to it, it is the story, and the content that is the most important. I have an even larger number of books on my computer as .txt or .pdf files. I own these books, and they are 'physical' just as much as a regular book is. I can pass these down to my children, I can lend them out, I can give them away ... I can also make an unhindered number of copies if I want to. And, in fact many of the electronic books I own have been downloaded from some site or another and are illegal to own.

Eventually, they will make ebook readers that are bound in leather, and are an artifact in and of themselves, rather than feeling like a stiff piece of plastic. I own a Kindle, and for the most part I'm pretty happy. It lets me read my electronic books in a more convenient way. Plus, free wireless :-)

Now, the other question, that of book ownership, is a huge deal. The first question is a matter of preference, and no one cares which way you like to read your books (well, they might care, but it's not really their business). Adding DRM to a book is to deny you complete ownership. If I buy a copy of a physical book, I can photocopy it, and then bind it up to make it into another copy. I just have to pay for the paper. There are devices that will let you do this very quickly and efficiently. Creating duplicate digital copies is much easier, but it is the same principle. Before this, book publishers just banked on the majority of their readers to be too lazy to go to all that trouble, and they would only loose a small percentage of sales. But, now that it is so easy anyone can do it in seconds, they are afraid that the percentage of people who won't go and buy a copy will skyrocket.

To solve this problem, they have tried to limit that facet of ownership, but in doing so they have also limited a large number of other ownership rights, for example the right to lend an item to another person, the right to pass down a copy to a relative, and the right to not have to worry that it will disappear if the company who sold it to you goes out of business. Some of these problems have been addressed, but the idea remains that you do not actually own the book that you purchased (or game, or movie, or song, or operating system, or whatever).

The World

2009-12-21T18:20:00.000-08:00

I made the following map - it is not very scientific, and was done by eye. This is a map of browser preference by country. It is very interesting! Internet Explorer (Blue), Firefox (Orange) and Opera (Red) are the only browsers with a majority in any one country. Chrome shows up as a major contender in a few countries, but is never the top browser (yet).

Dr. Horrible vs the Mean Green Mama from Outer Space

2009-07-07T09:37:00.000-07:00

On the face of things, Dr. Horrible's Sing-along Blog and Little Shop of Horrors don't have too much in common (except, they both are musicals ... )

The plot synopsizes from IMDb:

"An aspiring supervillain must balance his career and his pursuit of a beautiful do-gooder."

"A nerdish florist finds his chance for success and romance with the help of a giant man-eating plant who demands to be fed."

But, as I watched Little Shop of Horrors yesterday, all of the little similarities struck me. Before I go on, this is just a fun exercise - both shows are amazing and worth watching more than once :-)

Our Cast of Characters (both of these shows cast actors who were not known for their singing rather than Broadway stars)

Dr. Horrible              Little Shop of Horrors
 Billy / Dr. Horrible      Seymore
 Penny                     Audrey
 Captain Hammer            Orin (Dentist)
 The Evil League of Evil   The Plant from Outer Space
 The Fans                  The Greek Chorus

The storyline in Little Shop starts before Dr. Horrible, as we see our hero meet and grow attached to what will soon be controlling them (the plant and the league).

Both of our heroes are madly in love with a girl that they work with / see at the laundromat. But, they cannot just tell them how they feel - or even talk to her, in Dr. Horrible's case.

Both girls have had a tough life, and are going out with a guy who doesn't love them, or even really like them, and is just using/abusing them.

Both boyfriends are in a position of power (hero/dentist), and love to control others. After seeing the two together, Billy and Seymore sing about how the world seems so wrong, and is falling apart.

"Listen close to everybody's heart
And hear that breaking sou - nd.
Hopes and dreams are shattering apart
And crashing to the ground.

I cannot believe my eyes
How the world's filled with filth and lies!"

-----

She deserves a prince, not a sadistic creep like him.
The man's a total disgrace to the dental profession.
l don't know what's going on, sometimes. Seems like the whole world's going crazy.

Moving on with the plot ... The hero keeps doing what the plant/league asks in an effort to get the girl - that's their real goal. Neither of them realize that they could get her on their own, because the girl likes them as well.

One key difference here is the consequences of following the plant's/league's orders: Seymore gets what he wanted (plus some), where Billy loses everything ...

Things come to a head, and the plant/league asks for a life. Billy and Seymore both are shocked, and refuse - but are convinced after seeing their love and her awful boyfriend together, and resolve to kill him.

They come to the boyfriend with a Gun, almost shoot him, and then the boyfriend accidentally kills himself / sends him crying for his mama. Either way, he is off the scene. For a few moments, Dr. Horrible thinks he has everything he wanted ...

After feeding the plant a couple bodies, Seymore realizes he can leave, but just as he is about to have everything he ever wanted ...

Penny is dead, and Audrey is eaten by the plant.

Now in the movie-musical, the hero saves the girl, and they live happily ever after. But in the original movie, and the theater version of the musical, both the hero and the girl are eaten by the plant, who then takes over the world.

This is a great article detailing why this was an unfortunate change, as it erases the moral message of the show (murder is bad, and has consequences).

Electronic Arts and the Shareholders

2009-05-08T10:12:00.000-07:00

I've been reading Twenty Sided by Shamus Young, who really gets on EA's case about making stupid decisions (DRM, bad games, unfinished games, stupid games, DRM, etc). He blames most of those decisions on EA's board of directors wanting to please the shareholders. (the idiocy of that whole system is a topic for another time)

So, my idea as I was waking up this morning - what if you got a collective of gamers together, and each of them bought at least one share in the company (preferably much more, as shares are only $20 right now). If they got enough members, they would become a major shareholder in the company, and be able to influence the way the company is run by more than just their buying habits.

Anyone out there an expert on this type of thing? If you got only 10,000 gamers to join with $100 investment, you would have control over $1,000,000 .. would EA listen if you threatened to sell it all? EA has to listen to their shareholders, but their shareholders probably aren't going to be the ones buying the games - and could care less about the quality - they are just there to look after their money, and if EA is making money, it's all good. But, the gamers are looking for quality, which would also lead to more money. It's how all of these companies got started, and now that they have made it, they push their way through the competition with marketing, even if their games suck.

What about the Ninjas?

2009-05-06T23:20:00.000-07:00

I've been reading Naruto (Japanese Manga) for the last couple days. It's the story of a young boy who wants to be the best Ninja in the village so that everyone will finally notice him.

The village that this story takes place in has a strong focus on fighting and physical expertise, as its main purpose is training new ninjas. One of the other characters is a strategist rather than a fighter, but is still being trained only to fight because that's "how it's done."

All of this got me thinking about people's talents and how most of us aren't becoming what we do best. In a perfect world, each of us would get to do whatever we were best at. Some would be scholars, some artists, some builders, some inventors, and so on.

But, where in all of today's world would an actual Ninja fit in? Wars are fought with machines and long range missiles. People are generally peaceful toward each other, and when they aren't they also use guns rather than hand to hand tests of strength.

In more primitive times, the warrior was one of the most praised members of society. Everyone's life depended on their strength and skills as a fighter. They would have gotten the best food, the most wealth and the best women (those that lived, anyway). But, today we don't really need that type of warrior, and we certainly don't treat them the same way ... ?

Just because we don't need them, doesn't mean that those people who would have been our great warriors don't exist. What are they doing? Are they the bikers that you see in bars, just waiting to pick a fight? Football players, other athletes, janitors, police, gym teachers?

Another whole group of people who no longer have a high place in our society are crafts-people. We buy our goods en mass from Asia/India. Emphasis is placed on everything being the same, reproducible rather than artistic and unique. Our artisans either get lucky and sell over-priced goods at fairs and boutiques or they get a desk job - most not even realizing that creativity would have been their occupation in other times and places.

On the flip side of this coin, I would have been a peasant farm worker rather than a web designer. There was not a lot of need for thinkers or philosophers back in the day (unless you were rich or got really lucky).

Our culture has changed from being based on strength and force to brains and trickery. This has been good for some and bad for others ... It's just the wheel of fortune that always keeps things interesting.

If I could get a message into everyone's head it would be that you don't have to wait for someone to appreciate your efforts, or to pay your way - do what you are good at, and don't let social expectations keep you back. We should have more ninjas in the world.

Islam and the Right to Freedom

2008-11-29T21:39:00.000-08:00

Over the last few months, the rancor against Islam has been mounting among certain religious folks. Rumors are passed around as truth, false accusations are flying and emails are being sent to and fro with horrific messages of hate and intolerance. The very ideals that these people hold up to those of Islamic faith.

As an average, 'Christian' member of this country, I know very little about Islam other than a few vague ideas. I had, up until today been trying to ignore most of this storm around me. This evening, however, a friend sent me an email about former Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, and his views on multiculturalism in Australia. His basic premise is that Australia belongs to Australians, and if someone doesn't like the rules there, then they shouldn't try to immigrate in the first place. If everyone bows to the most vocal/intolerant group of citizens, everyone will either become that group, or all group identities will be lost. ( Link to article in the Sydney Morning Herald ) The email concluded with the hope that Americans reading it would "grow a backbone" and subscribe to the same policies.

Although I understand his view, and see merit in his goal, I can not agree that it is Right, or that we in America should subscribe to such an ideal.

First, regardless of the past, there is no one religion with an overwhelming majority in this country. General Christianity accounts for 75% of the population, Secularism 13% and then Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and a bunch of other minority religions making up the other 2%. Some seem to think that this means that they, as Christians, have the Right to impose their personal religious beliefs on everyone else in the country as they are "the majority". But, if you break down this broad category, you find that of the total population there are 25% Catholics, 16% Baptists, 7% Methodists, 3% Presbyterians, 2% Pentecostals and 2% Episcopalians/Anglicans, 1% Latter-day Saint and the other 21% being made up of small Protestant denominations.

Following the logic pronounced earlier, since Catholics are the largest denomination, they should be able to dictate the way the rest of society is run. As a whole, Protestantism is larger than Catholicism in the United States, but, just as there are huge differences between Catholics and Protestants, so there are between the various Protestant denominations.

If you were to impose a religious observance to the governing of this country, an you were to choose Protestantism as that religion, which denomination would you choose? The Baptists? The Methodists? These groups are separate because they believe different things, they are different. Just as we have (or should have) the right to be equal, to all have the same opportunities, we should also have the right to be different, to be separate. The difference: it's our choice.

Back to the reason I'm writing this post. Why is there such a backlash against Islam? Fear. Fear of another attack in America (those only happen in other countries), fear of something that's different, fear that has been cultivated since the crusades.

After receiving this email, I decided to take a look at Sharia Law, the moral and legal code that governs all religious Muslims. There is more than one interpretation and execution of these laws, but they were first put into place when Islam was a young religion. After reading through these laws, I was amazed. For its time, it was hugely liberating, forward thinking and just. Today we can see it's flaws, but it was much closer to liberty of thought, liberty of action (within bounds) and liberty of belief than almost any European law at that time, or even centuries afterward. Even today, with a few exceptions, it is a fair and just legal system.

If you read the Qur'an, you will find it to be full of kindness, honesty and admonishments to fulfill your potential as a human being. There are also parts that are less benevolent, or even sinister. But, the same can be said about Judaism, and Christianity, there are parts of their scripture I could never adhere to, and neither do they, although all three groups will tell you that their religious book is completely true and written by God.

In the medieval period, the Islamic world was light-years ahead of Europe in terms of science, society, justice, hygiene, arts, and pretty much everything else. People tend to think of them as barbarians, but their heritage is greater than our own, and we could do better to remember that.

Instead of spreading fear of a religion or a whole group of people, we should be trying to root out what is actually evil: the idea that one group is better than another, the idea that one pattern of government is the best for everyone, the idea that everyone is the same or should be, the idea that government should interfere with matters of belief and on and on and on.

These evil ideas don't just live in the hearts of Muslim Extremists, but in the hearts of my friend who sent me that email, millions of Christians in this country who are preaching against Islam because they can, or are trying to force their brand of Christianity onto the rest of us, whether Christian or not. They say, prayer in school is good! but only their variety of prayer, if every schoolchild was required to even be present at a school-wide pagan ritual for peace, there would be an outcry. And why? for the same reason there is an outcry (although smaller) against any other religious ceremony being forced on young children.

Personally, I think all children should be presented with all religions at a young age to foster tolerance and understanding, but that is also frowned upon by the religious in this country (afraid that their children will be indoctrinated and fall away... that brings up the question, what's so bad about the other religions that you wouldn't want your child practicing it? Maybe that's where tolerance needs to start - a whole generation of children who leave their religion for another - breaking up the immovable force that is parental disapproval).

Finally, if every country had a "state religion" whether enforced or not - but one that was considered de-facto, where could anyone go and be guaranteed religious freedom? I wish every country had tolerance for those with beliefs not their own, for those small groups of people who suffer because they were born in the wrong place at the wrong time.

John Howard might think that his country was founded on the ideals of Christianity. But, the people who founded that continent had a very different idea of the universe, and now these are some of the very people that he is wishing to exclude with his (and their) government.

Why Obama will win the Election

2008-11-04T10:36:00.000-08:00

A good friend of mine told me Friday that he believed that McCain would win the 2008 election, and he had a well thought out explanation as to why. Well, I disagreed, but I have not really thought out why. In no particular order, here are my reasons:

Polls. I'm not sure how much to trust the national polls, but if they are accurate, Obama will win by a large margin.

George Bush. Almost everyone is tired of George Bush and his various wars. Despite McCain's best efforts to the contrary, many still see him as a continuation of Bush's legacy.

Youth. Obama has a power to inspire, and this has no where been more deeply felt than the young voters.

Race. This issue is double edged, on one hand, the black vote, and to a lesser extent the hispanic and other 'colored' voters will overwhelmingly vote for Obama. On the other hand, there are many who still hold on to race based opinions, and will vote against Obama, even if they would have voted for him if he had been white.

First time voters. The Obama campaign has worked hard to insure that all of their supporters register to vote, and then actually go vote (and vote early). Only about 60% of Americans usually vote in an election, leaving 40% of the vote untapped. Obama is doing a very good job accessing that percentage.

Sarah Palin. Deserved or not, there will be many people voting for anyone but Palin.

Technology. Obama is leading in two ways through technology. First, he has the overwhelming support of the tech community (based on his comprehensive technology plan, and his understanding of how things work). Second, his campaign has taken full advantage of the internet, text messaging, blogs, websites, full disclosures of his initiatives in PDF, etc. There is a behind-the-scenes web application put into place that keeps everything organized and connected.

Lengthy Primary. The primaries took Obama to many out of the way places he would not have otherwise visited. I personally know a few people who changed their vote from republican to democratic after hearing him speak in person.

Age. I believe that Obama would be the youngest president, if elected. This is in contrast to McCain who would be the oldest. This may be a deciding factor for some.

McCain's War history. Although un-evident, and unlikely, there are some who fear that McCain's time as a POW had affected him adversely, making him unfit to lead the country.

The Press. For whatever reason, the press absolutely loves Obama. (good looks, good speaker, calm and collected ... everything they admire in a journalist (maybe)).

All of these are little points, but I think they will all add up to a win for Barak Obama.

The watering down of Religion

2008-06-18T02:57:00.000-07:00

After studying various religious movements, I have found a pattern. When the movement begins, all of the members are converts. They strongly believe in the ideas put forth. The founder is alive and well, and everyone has a figurehead to look to. When the founder dies, doesn't matter how, there is a bit of chaos. People are not sure who to follow now. (they are so used to following, it doesn't occur to them that they maybe shouldn't have a leader).

Once that is resolved, the group (or groups) remaining settle happily in their new groove. They rely heavily on the founder's teachings and so the new leaders have a lot less weight. The people stay very close to at least the spirit of the original movement, or at least one of the resulting groups do. But, here comes the shaft. All of these people have children. Unless this is a universal movement where every single person feels spiritually uplifted and edified by it (hint, I don't think this has ever existed), there are going to be some children who do not fit in with the regime. There are a few different types, although it partially depends on the type of group. One set might just up and leave. Another may be an apathetic bunch, who wish to please, and so they stay on, but don't really have any true conviction about their beliefs. Another group may be angered by what is taught and will either stay in and try and destroy it, or leave and try and destroy it.

One last group. The size of this group depends on the overall appeal the movement has on the average person. These people are the same type of person as their parents. They would have converted to this belief if they had not been born to it. If the new religion is at all strange or different or shocking to the average person, this group will be fairly small. The make up of the group starts as 90% or so people who really believe in what they are doing. Once their children grow up, it changes to 80% or so (assuming that this is a strange religion where few (25%) of the children fall into the true believer status and each family has 3 children or so ... and it's an island so that no one can leave). The original adults are still around, so the overall feel of the group is very similar, for now. The next generation is born, grows up and starts to have children. It has been 40 years since the founder died and the group was out on its own. Many of the original members are dead, the ones who were 20 when the founder died, are now 60. From my pseudo-math I get about 40% true believers.

Once all of the original members are gone (about 80 years), the false percentages are gone and it falls to almost exactly the percentage of people that the religion truly appeals to. In this case 25%. Interestingly, this also corresponds to the time when those who have never met the founder of the religion are in charge. So, what does this mean? It means that after 80 years the religion in in the hands of those who do not care about the beliefs of the founders.

Majority rules, even when it's not an official democracy. By forcing/encouraging their children to stay in their religion, it was killed. The flavor of the religion changes at this point, becoming more acceptable to that part of the population that is more numerous. The ones who stayed in the religion because they didn't want to bother finding something else. Now that the 25% of true believers are longer the target for this group, it changes into what the majority needs, as it should. But that 25% for whom the religion was founded are out in the cold with nowhere to go.

What do you think happens? They go off and join the crowds of non-affiliated members of society. A couple of them go off and start their own religion, and in time one of them will gain some ground and it will take off, and all of the people drawn to that idea will join. Then they will have children who will be forced (through brainwashing) to join as well, and the cycle will begin again.

Hooray for Youth Activists

2008-06-17T22:33:00.000-07:00

I ran into an article written by Sasha Mushegian, a Kansas City highschool student, decrying book censorship in school libraries and literature class reading lists. Specifically, she was condemning the actions of her local "fundamental Christian back to the roots, why are my children reading books with the F-word in it" group. Sasha does a wonderful job dissembling the core arguments of this group and most other censorship groups in general. Take a look.

Richard Dawkins had a tv program on in the UK called 'The root of all evil?' exploring, among other things, what affect religion has on young people (you can find a copy on YouTube). Of course he was very negative about it, being who he is and where he stands, but he had some good points. (paraphrase) “Children are labeled with their parent’s religion as babes, even though they could not have come to that decision on their own at that age. We do not label children with the political party of their parents, we expect them to make up their own mind about that sort of thing, why should religion be any different?” I think parents try to project their political outlooks on their children as well. If children are never given the chance to look outside the perfect box their parents put them in (even if the parents are not in it themselves), they will never question the validity of what they were taught. If they never question what they were taught, it can never expand, grow or become perfected. It is expected that parents will indoctrinate their children into their own beliefs. Is this ethical or even effective?

The fewer ideas that are inserted into a child's brain, the less data that child has in order to make decisions then and later in life as an adult. Lack of a decision making ability is severely crippling for anyone.

Many people do not think the FLDS (the polygamist group of Mormons in Texas who were in the news a couple months ago) should be allowed to raise their children because of the specific beliefs that the children are being taught. Is it any more ethical if you are brainwashing them to be Southern Baptists, Gays, Catholics, Wiccans, Presbyterians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Pentecostals, Buddhists, any other religion? How about Republicans, Democrats, Mac users, Doctors, Lawyers, Loggers, Mill workers, Spanish Speakers or overweight ... eh?

You have a right to be any of those things, and you have a right to NOT be any of those things. Everyone else has that right as well. It is almost impossible to raise a child without instilling in them some of your own ideas and ideals. That’s okay. It’s when you actively limit their choice and rebuke them for turning aside form your ideals that you are doing something wrong as a parent.

All that aside, does it even work? If the child is the same type of person as their parents (ie without pressure they would have chosen the same path as their parents) they will probably either A: shrug it off and continue on that path; B: feel hurt, distance themselves from their parents, even though they stay in rank; C: angrily leave the fold, joining a similar group, or becoming agnostic. If they are a different type of person than their parents (this is usually the majority) they might A: stick with what you have told them, even though it doesn’t fit them; B: drift away and join some other group that better fits their personality; C: rebel and try to revolutionize the group they grew up in; D: rebel and try to destroy/“reveal” the group they grew up in and/or anything like it. There are a lot of other possibilities, these are just some examples. Which category each child falls in depends on the way they are raised and their personality.

Which of these examples really accomplished the goal? Most of the first group does, although, only the first one was positive. Out of the second group, the first option would “look” like it worked. The child stays in the religion, from the outside everything looks great, even though they have no conviction that it is true. They stay in out of honor, comfort, fear, laziness or ignorance. Unfortunately, the majority of people in general fall into this category. If raised in a situation that they do not fully believe, they will stay in it as long as possible, which is usually until they die. This is the reason that revolutions do not happen until the conditions are so bad that they cannot be stood for another moment. Anger and aggravation rushes out at whatever is causing the discomfort until it is alleviated. Everyone then goes back to life until they are again discomforted.

You should not force your children to be like you are. Whether you are a member of the religious right, banning Harry Potter and Darwin or a polygamist banning everything possible or a scientist banning fantasy novels. It doesn't matter who you are or what you ban, your children are not you, you will either kill their brains or alienate them from your own way of thinking.

Why do parents do this to their children? They want them to grow up as happy as they were / are. The thing they forget is that they themselves were either A: brainwashed as a child, and never got over it (and as such they can be forgiven, they are just carrying out their programing) B: Converts to that way of thinking, and so they used their mental faculties to decide what was right for them rather than being forced. C: Different in personality their children. Children are not a small version of yourself, they have the right to think what they wish, be comfortable with what they want to be comfortable with, listen to their own music, even though all the adults think it is the devil's music (*shakes head* that one has been going on since someone figured out how to clap their hands to a beat... 'when I was your age, we didn't disgrace ourselves by beating our hands together. Noise, that's what it is! Noise! ... :-) )

As children are people too, they have a right to start choosing who they will be at a younger age than 18. I am really proud of the children who stand up for their rights.

Where is the boundary between the rights of children and the rights of parents? When good choices are removed. There is a difference between ethics and dogma. Teach your child to be a good person, let them decide on the rest. You can help them along by being a good example. I think you will do more by just being an example than by keeping all outside influences away from your children. They will respect you, even if they disagree with your doctrines because you taught them that the most important thing is the way you act, the way you treat other people. If we didn’t have that, we couldn’t call ourselves civilized.

My Research System

2008-06-14T13:06:00.000-07:00

Sort of in response to a recent comment, I would like to share with you my method of studying the scriptures.

My Tools:

an LDS KJV bible (standard translation with an extensive topical index and footnotes)
an Oxford Jewish Study Bible published by JPS
an English-Hebrew Tanakh published by JPS
an interlinear Greek-English New Testament
The Power New Testament A Hebrew Roots NT
Other Bible translations: New World Translation, Young's Literal Translation

Folio Bound VIEWS 3, an old Information Database System
The Hebrew Interlinear Bible
TomBoy notes
Open Office Writer (A word Processor)

My methods are different depending on what I am researching, and why I want to know. I don't use all of these resources every time I study, it all depends on what I am looking for.

Let's say I want to know more about the word translated charity in most English New Testaments. First, I would look up the word charity on Folio or my LDS bible, depending on how high-tech I wanted to get (software vs a book). This would give me every instance of the word charity in the new testament.

Next, if I was using Folio, I would click on one of the words and have it look up the strong's # for me. This would show me the greek word that was translated to charity. Next, I would compare the search results for charity with the list of instances of that greek word being translated charity and see if there are any places where that word is not translated charity, or charity was not translated from that word. Then I would do the same for any word that comes up an an anomaly. In a word processor (rather than the built-in note taker, which works, but I like a real word processor better) I would take notes on what I find. I would also make sure to write down the root of the word that is being used, as well as related words and so on.

To obtain the same results, I could also use my KJV bible's concordance to find instances of the word charity, then look them up on the KJV with Strong's Concordance website. I don't own a physical Strong's concordance, or I could also use that. The process is about the same otherwise.

If I really wanted to go low-tech, I could also use my interlinear greek / english new testament and compare the greek words. I do not speak greek, so I would only come out with a list of greek words minus their meanings.

Let's say that I wanted to study the Jewish idea of heaven. First, using either my concordance or Folio, I would look up where the word heaven is used, or I could just use my memory to start with. Then, I could look in my Jewish study bible and read its commentary for each instance (as well as the text itself, of course). Next, using Folio, I would search for the word heaven in my Legends of the Jews by Ginzberg. That would bring me to various stories and extrapolations about the jewish idea of heaven. I could do the same for the Talmud, Midrash and other jewish commentaries.

What if I wanted to know the origin of Baptism? First, I would look in the Catholic Encyclopedia, or Wikipedia and see what they had to say. I would look at the sources where possible. I would read references to baptism in the scriptures. I would study the origin of the word baptism, and see which other cultures have ritual cleansing, and read about those as well. If I wanted to do extensive research on a topic, I would use TomBoy Notes, which is like a personal wiki, to keep track of all my different pieces of data.

When I study, I cannot use just one book or piece of software. No single tool exists that can do everything that I want to do. And, even if there was one, I wouldn't want to rely on ONE source for all of my knowledge, it would be too easy for me to be lazy and not look outside that box for more information.

TomeCat

2008-05-31T15:40:00.000-07:00

Since 2000 I have personally been working on a program that I call TomeCat. It is just a very basic text reader built with PHP and MySQL. I'm not a programmer by any means, and so the going has been very slow. After my run-in with Libronix (see previous post), I have some new ideas tinkering around in my brain (see other previous post). I'd like to see some of those ideas incorporated into TomeCat.

TomeCat is running on a database right now. Every chapter in the book is a separate entry in the chapter table. This is fine, except that I want to be able to quickly create books, and copying and pasting chapters into a database isn't my idea of fun. It also brought up the question of embedded media such as images, audio, movies, links and so on. I would have to manually add code to the pristine database driven text files. That was kind of bad!

As a in-between step from TomeCat in a web browser to TomeCat as a desktop app, I think XML files are a better way to go. The texts could be converted to simple XML documents with markup tags like book, title, author, chapter, section, img, map, verse, p, audio, crossreference, link and so on. A browser would be able to read this, as well as a desktop app. This would let me get the markup straight before I leap off of the platform that I'm comfortable with.

A couple hurdles that I'm not quite sure how to jump over are how to show the existing table of contents, with separate pages for each chapter. I think this would be accomplished by searching for tags, and then replacing them with functions .. not sure.

The code would have to be manually added (although the basics could be parsed with a custom tool), which is kind of sad, but eventually, I know an editor could be created that took 'What You Mean Is What You Get' and turned it into properly formatted xml.

The reasons I want to eventually go with a desktop app are:

The life of the product is extended past the time when I want a server running for it.
Right click and multiple window interfaces, without using "AJAX". This also means it will work even after web browsers are no longer compatible with the code.
User doesn't have to have anything but the program and documents to use in it. They will not have to install a MySQL database, or PHP, etc.

Wish me luck!

Electronic Text Interface Ideas

2008-05-31T14:07:00.000-07:00

Back in 2007 I wrote a post about an ideal translation program. I would like to expand that idea into ideas for a better digital library system.

First, a list of features for a great electronic text reader. There are many programs that already fall into this category.

Simple interface
Bookmarks to keep your place
no page turning - this is contrived, you are on a computer, scroll already!
Changeable text sizes / fonts alignment.
Unicode is a must!
Can read many different text-file types, especially open ones.
can also read PDF files that have no text (each page is an image)
Can convert all of these formats to a standard electronic text format.
Has support for images and other media with captions.
Can have media galleries attached to a paragraph (many different pictures, all in the same place shown as thumbnails)
The ability to have multiple books open at once, and to view them side by side
The ability to look up words in associated dictionaries / encyclopedias (this ability would NOT be dependent on the TEXT, but on the dictionary/etc.)
The ability to add in new dictionaries / encyclopedias.
The ability to easily create a new text in the proper format, as well as edit existing books. This will let the user fix any formating mistakes the converter makes.
Free or at least cheap
Free books to load into it
sets of books that you can download. Such as the Complete Kipling, or Masonic History, or Sophia's random favorite public domain Fiction
tagging and organizing of books into shelves and sections
more than one library of books possible
integrate with library thing where possible!
The ability to sell books to other users where they aren't able to edit the text.
All text will be copy and pasteable - if a publisher isn't cool with that - too bad - that's why people want their book - so that they can copy and paste sections.
A way to unobtrusively keep track of who has bought what. The fear of pirating should not make the program hard to use! Giving each user an ID, and then inserting that number into their encrypted book would work. They can use their customer ID on many computers / devices.
The internet is not required for use or activation.
If the books are on a CD, they will work.
Keeping all of the files for a book together is n interesting problem. On one hand, you want to keep it open. On the other hand, you don't want people to loose track of their files. A standard archive file would work - as long as the program can read unopened archive files. OOo can read them.
Open standards for the creation of plug ins and modules that anyone can create.
A fully working demo with a time limit to register before only the reader works.

Okay, now features for a reader with research capabilities

all of the above.
The ability to look up phrases to see where else it is referenced in your library.
the ability to look up any word in a concordance - original language and translation and meaning (ie, there are many different words that mean the same thing in most languages, this would include them all under separate result entries.)
the ability to compare different translations of the same work, as well as the original. This would be paragraph by paragraph
Interlinear comparisons, as above.
maps, with coordinates coded into various texts
if a text does not have the coordinates coded in, a basic search is done in the applicable maps for those words. The map itself is coded to know various spellings and variations of place names.
the ability to look up a word by sound, and by the root of a word.
combination search, with an instant tree view of the search results by #
the ability to search by book, collection, library(s) or open documents.
A customizable keyboard mapper so that you can type in any language.
A special character picker for things like cuneiform, where there are too many characters to use a keyboard.
all (or most) of the ideas in my earlier post - I now think that the english language should also have a numbered reference system, like Strong's - that way words can be referenced by number.
simple, easy to use option in the context menu for each word - the menu is customizable through an option ON the menu.
Although many people will be using this for the bible, it should work with any modern or ancient text in any language.
the ability to back track

I know there are more ideas to be had, but this is a good start!

Libronix Digital Library System

2008-05-31T12:37:00.000-07:00

I am again disappointed in my search for a replacement for my old InfoBase Folio Bound Views 3. Libronix talked big, but failed to deliver.

Libronix claimed to use an open format, so that you could access your data even if they go out of business, or whatever. Great! except, once I downloaded a couple demo copies of the content, none of it was in that open format. Further, if you want to create your own files, called PBBs, you have to 1) buy the Personal Book Builder ($250), 2) get a PBB activation code (included with any LOGOS product - starting at $150, going up to $1,380). 3) re-activate your product every year. Okay, now with this, all you have is the BASIC type of book, there is no way to designate a new book as a dictionary or a commentary, it's just a book. You are also legally unable to sell your PBB book. In order to allow it to be sold, you must pay various unknown fees. For $100, you can buy the Private Book Builder. This will let you create books that only your licensed user can access.

There are also claims that it uses the "free" libronix reader. Well, I still haven't been able to get that to work. The free download asks me for my SN (located on the CD I purchased .... wait, I thought it was free?), a customer code and an activation number. I am not against people trying to protect their property, but why all the hassle when it is supposedly free? As of now, I have not found a place on their site to get any of those three required numbers. My copy will expire in 40 days, so at least they give me some time to try and solve the problem.

Okay, so it fails the openness test, what about the product itself? Is it worth the hassle?

It's an okay program, but lacking in a few key areas, like the scroll button on your mouse doesn't work. The books all open on top of each other, only taking up the left hand side of the screen. There is a English concordance for the KJV, but even though I have a Strong's concordance installed, I cannot look words up with it in any useful manner. The hebrew and greek fonts are hard to read, as they didn't expect people to actually look at them. And so on. I only used it for a few minutes, so I haven't found everything I dislike yet.

What about content? There are indeed a few books that they offer that are great resources, BUT they are charging $50 for $10 books. They also have an agenda, conscious or not, involving only mainstream, conservative, protestant, evangelical Christian ideology. I know it is maybe a little too much to ask, but what about books geared toward Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses? Nope, but they do have a whole section on how to convert them back to the true gospel. There are no books about more edgy topics, but plenty of books that dredge out the same old tripe that has been going around for years. For instance, I doubt that I could find any reference to evolution other than bashing it to pieces. Is this because these edgy books are unknown to most people? No, I can find them in my local library (and I live in a small town). Is this because the publishers are awful people and don't see the benefit of electronically distributing their content? No, I have seen them on other digital library websites. Hence my conclusion that LOGOS/Libronix has an agenda.

A List of Woes...

Excessive DRM
Lack of great content
Commercial Content filtered by denominational creed
Lack of a truly free reader
The inability to create your own personal data, with full functionality
The exorbitant prices attached to all functionality
Clunky User Interface

Illegal Aliens cost us $338 Billion in Debt a year!! (or do they?)

2008-04-03T21:08:00.000-07:00

I recently received an email regarding illegal aliens, and the horrible economic harm they are doing to our country.

You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much?

Read this: Boy, am I confused. I have been hammered with the propaganda

that it is the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us.

I now find that to be RIDICULOUS. I hope the following 14 reasons are

forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the

reader gets sick of reading them.

I have included the URL's for verification of all the following facts.

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens

each year.

http://tinyurl.com/zob77

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs

such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school

education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of

English!

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the

American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare &

social services by the American taxpayers.

http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused

by the illegal aliens.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's

two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular,

their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the

US

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens

that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal

aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine,

meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern

border.

Homeland Security Report:

http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

12. The National Policy Institute, 'estimated that the total cost of

mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average

cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.'

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to

their countries of origin.

http://www.rensecom/general75/niht.htm

14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex

Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States '.

http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml

The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR!

Are we THAT stupid???

If this doesn't bother you then just delete the message.

If, on the other hand, if it does raise the hair on the back of your

neck, I hope you forward it to every legal resident in the country

including every representative in Washington, D.C. - five times a week

for as long as it takes to restore some semblance of intelligence in our

policies and enforcement thereof.

That was the entire un-edited email.

There's nothing that irks me more than an 'article' that attacks a specific group of people (be it Muslims, Illegal Aliens or Mormons) without giving all the facts, so that all those who read it come away thinking who knows what. With that in mind, I want to offer a little perspective.

If you look at last year's US budget ( Wikipedia United States federal budget, 2007 ), you'll notice something interesting. $338 Billion dollars sounds like quite a lot, and it is! But, we paid $243.7 billion in debt interest ALONE last year. Just pause and think about that for a minute. That's almost as much as the figure in the email below ... compare that to what we are paying for our active military: $548.8 billion. Social Security/Medicare hits a combined total of $980.6 Billion ... wow. (and don't forget, that number will DOUBLE in ten years)

There are about 7 million illegal aliens in the country (mostly in California and Arizona), that's an average of 1.7 illegal aliens per 100 citizens. If we take the suggested $338 billion dollars and divide it up between them all, we come up with about $48,000 in spending per illegal alien. Maybe you should ask them what they are doing with all of that cash? The more reasonable explanation is that the numbers were inflated. If you check the numbers from The Center for Immigration Studies , you'll find that they figure $10.4 billion in deficit per year. Now, that's still a lot, but not enough to put us in debt, just enough to make us stop and try to figure out a solution. What that solution is, I guess the politicians will argue about until someone does something about it. But, please! keep in mind that we're really talking about people, not numbers.

By the way, do you want to know the real reason we're in debt? (9.5 trillion, if you were wondering) The same reason any of us might be. By spending more than we earn (approx. 2.5 trillion earned and 2.8 trillion spent), as well as not budgeting in debt payments.

The Afterlife

2008-02-23T14:03:00.000-08:00

This subject has imposed itself on me quite a few time this last month. I am beginning to feel that, yes, what we do in this life affects where we will go in the next, but there are millions of possibilities instead of two, three or even seven. Each possible afterlife is merely a gathering of like souls. So, if you are a miser, you will go to a place filled with misers. No one will help you out, but you can save to your heart's delight. If you spent your life serving others, you will go somewhere with others who live to serve. Imagine what that would be like. It could either be very satisfying, or it could be incredibly annoying. But, for the most part, we are not quite so archetypal as all that! Think of it as being gathered up with all of your possible soul mates - all in one place! You may not be exactly the same, but everyone there connects with you - they are all the people who you admire, and who in turn admire you. That isn't to say that everyone who falls into that category in this life will go to the same place - there are choices made that can kick them into another sphere, murder would be a good example.

Let's take Tolkien for an example. Not all (or even most) of his fans would be in the same place as he. But other linguists, historians, etc would - this is a place of equals!

'Getting' to live with who you are is the best punishment/reward I can think of. And, as a bonus, I don't see a lot in the scriptures that specifically contradict this notion.

Justice and Mercy in Mormonism

2008-02-18T22:13:00.000-08:00

There are quite a few strange things about mormon doctrines. One common idea is that Mercy is utterly opposed to Justice and visa versa. Let me wander down the isles of the thought processes that have led us there.

The GOD of the old testament seems harsh, brutal, quick to dish out punishment, and slow to let transgressions go without some recompense. The Law of Torah is filled with death penalties for trivial crimes (or so they seem to us). We do not like to think of God in this light, as we believe that our souls and our futures are in his hands. Along comes Jesus! From the new testament we can see that he is loving, forgiving and fair. Whew! we know we can trust this guy not to kill us for stepping out of line.

In traditional christian thought, Jesus and the Father are one being, so what Jesus is, so is the Father, and we come up with ways to explain away the actions of the old testament god. The mormons, along with other modern arians, did not believe in the traditional trinity, but considered that the members of the godhead were all separate beings. Well, this brought up the idea of the vengeful old testament god again. If there was no new testament Jesus side to god himself, new explanations would have to be found, or the old testament would need to be downplayed (as many modern christian denominations do).

Now, I'm not sure when the Justice vs Mercy doctrine became very popular in mormonism, I'll have to do some research, but, perhaps it stemmed from these early days of the church. The basic premises of the idea is that God represents JUSTICE! perfect justice that must be satisfied at all costs! and Jesus represents MERCY! perfect mercy that could forgive those who were killing him as it was being done. When we sin, God demands that justice be served, thrusting us out into the darkness if we are the least bit imperfect - and then, Jesus saves us with his mercy, by forgiving us and taking on our sins for himself. How this works exactly is up for debate. When we are through with this history lesson, I want to show why this was a false idea in all of its incarnations.

In the very early 1900s, the mormons still believed that god the father was Jehovah or LORD of the old testament, and Jesus was a separate person who played a role as explained above. The modern era was approaching, many converts were joining the church, and as a result, many of the members of the church were becoming uncomfortable with the idea of this GOD, personally untempered by a kinder half.

Luckily for them (or not, as your point of view may be), Talmage came along and introduced what I like to call reformed trinitarianism. Basically, the old testament God, Jehovah, really was Jesus - just pretending. Besides all of the weird stuff that does to your brain (if you were brought up to be a non-trinitarian) like Jesus talking about himself in third person; Abraham, Issac, Jacob and Moses were really talking to Jesus, not the father; and apparently you prayed to Jesus before he came and the Father after etc., it neatly solved the current moral dilemma by placing the mormon godhead in the same murky water as the rest of christianity. Even though this didn't really solve the problem, it DID in so many people's minds, that it didn't really matter one way or the other.

In this doctrinal setting (Jesus is Jehovah), the idea of Justice vs Mercy would not have become as important since both roles were being played by the same person anyway (thus the internal cohesion (or confusion, as I like to think of it as) of the two would have been emphasized rather than the separateness).

Now for the fun part! How is this idea fundamentally flawed?

First off, separating these two attributes between the pair of them implies that God cannot forgive, or is incapable of mercy. Many would tend to agree with this - he represents the LAW, and it would be unbefitting of him to bend it for us (as many a tale about kings exemplifies). But, the other side to this would be that Jesus cannot exhibit justice, or met out retribution. Before you say 'of course he does not judge us - he loves us all unconditionally', remember his words to the scribes and pharisees, remember how he scourged the temple of the money changers, how he scorched the fruitless fig tree. These are not the actions of a man without justice. The thing that Jesus did, that I think was remarkable, was he knew when people were selfish or greedy or abusive, and called them on it - even if it was an acceptable practice for the day. He also associated himself with, and forgave, those that society had cast out. In short, he could see through social and cultural labels down into the human soul.

I would also like to point out that God in the old testament isn't as unmerciful as many think. Just peruse through the search result for forgive in the old testament. As an example (as I am running out of time)

Psalms 86: 5 For thou, Lord, art good, and ready to forgive; and plenteous in mercy unto all them that call upon thee.

There are examples of god the father forgiving people without requiring a sacrifice BEFORE Jesus is born and is killed. There are also examples of Jesus freely forgiving those he met in his life "your sins are forgiven you, go and sin no more". What does this mean? There was no Justice exacted before forgiveness was granted - how is this possible in the DEATH=SIN/SIN=PUNISHMENT model of things?

Lastly, this idea sets up two different ideals - one just and the other merciful. If God and Jesus are both perfect, shouldn't they share an ideal rather than separating it out between them? Is perfection Just, or is it Merciful? If we are to be perfect like our father in heaven is perfect, should we show no mercy, but demand justice in every case? What becomes of the message of Jesus to forgive everyone who crosses our path?

We ourselves should be striving for a balance between the two, and so why not our prime examples in this life as well? God is merciful, Jesus is Just. Instead of patching up things we don't want to hear, we should take a close look at our holy books and either denounce their ideals as not our own, or come to an understanding of the message which the authors were intending.

Good Little Consumers

2008-01-29T18:21:00.000-08:00

I was reading through an article on MSNBC about the proposed "economy stimulant" and ... wow. Here's a little snip:

"The sooner we get this relief in the hands of the American people, the sooner they can begin to do their job of being good consumers," Boehner said.

sheesh.

How the elections are going... or are they?

2008-01-28T21:49:00.000-08:00

I've just noticed that the major networks disagree on who is ahead for the election .. interesting.

MSNBC

Dems-
Obama: 230 / 63
Clinton: 152 / 48
Edwards: 61 / 26

Pubs-
Romney: 59
Huckabee: 40
McCain: 36

ABC

Dems-
Clinton: 222
Obama: 182
Edwards: 51

Pubs-
Romney: 59
Huckabee: 40
McCain: 36

CNN

Dems-
Obama: 230 / 63
Clinton: 152 / 48
Edwards: 61 / 26

Pubs-
Romney: 73 / 67
Huckabee: 38 / 38
McCain: 29 / 26

AOL

Dems-
Obama: 63
Clinton: 48
Edwards: 26

Pubs-
Romney: 59
Huckabee: 40
McCain: 36

I tried to get a more "official" count from the party websites, but - it seems as if both parties are just trying to bash the other (with more links about non-party candidates than their own .. ) and can't be bothered to let their members know how the elections are coming along.

Plus, I wanted to try out this nifty widget from MSNBC

Christians and Indians (and the Creation)

2007-12-31T12:02:00.000-08:00

I was struck the other day at how both of these groups respond to the idea that their idea of the creation may not be scientifically accurate.

The Christians are dealing with the rejection of the idea that an all-powerful being made the earth in 7 earth days, 6000 years ago. The Religious Indians are dealing with a variety of beliefs, for instance, that they lived in an underworld, and climbed up a large bamboo or a pine tree or ... through a hole in the ground, to the American Southwest. Or perhaps, we are all living on the back of a giant turtle.

I am intensely curious as to what the average creationist American would have to say concerning the religious beliefs of the Native Americans. Would they scoff and point out the DNA evidence that shows they came from Asia? Would they accept their stories as true and factual?

Most religious groups will be defending their standpoint against "Science" to their last breath. And, "Science" will be putting forth their ideas as well. The difference between science and other systems of belief is Science loves to change, to find more truth! And most of the others are trying to keep their old ideas firmly established. Hopefully they will remember that their version of the story is really no more factual than any religion (well, maybe a *little* more factual), we still have a long way to go before any of us really understands what happened in the beginning of the universe, the beginning of this galaxy or the beginning of the human race.

Free Rice

2007-12-31T03:20:00.000-08:00

I'd like to let everyone know about this great site! For every vocabulary word you can define, 20 grains of rice are donated to hungry people around the globe! It's an addicting game, and even more so when you know that your high scores help people!

I've created 20,000 grains of rice with a vocabulary level of 44. How about you?

Let's play 'Guess that State'!

2007-12-31T01:51:00.001-08:00

Can you guess which states these are? The images are based off of the private land area in that state.

No? How about the next one?

Here's a hint, the next one isn't Utah.

How many did you guess?

Are you curious about what the rest of the United States looks like?

Huh ... What happened to the western half of the USA?

If you want to look at more detailed maps, check out this page: The National Atlas

The Constitution states in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17:

[The congress shall have power] To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

In other words, the federal government only has the right to own a ten-mile square piece of land for the above specific purposes. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 declared that new states entering the union would have equal footing with the already existing 13 states - all land would belong to the state, and the federal government would need to buy any tract of land it needed for its purposes (listed above).

Well, as you can see by the map, they did pretty well at first, and most of the eastern states remain intact. When the federal government began buying or conquesting land, and creating territories - a new policy came into place. When Ohio was made a state in 1803, the government kept possession of any land not privately owned, rather than turning it over to the state. They promised to sell the land to private parties as quickly as possible, and they would use the proceeds to pay off the national debt. At first, this worked - the states eventually gained possession of the land, and the federal government got a bit of cash. Most of the Louisiana purchase was dealt with in this way (I wonder how much the US Government got back from it's investment?). When Northern Mexico was conquered, and eventually made into states, this policy was not followed (as you can see from the map).

The federal government owns aproximatly:

90% of Alaska
45% of Arizona
45% of California
36% of Colorado
64% of Idaho
30% of Montana
87% of Nevada
35% of New Mexico
52% of Oregon
66% of Utah
30% of Washington, and
48% of wyoming

Coming to a total average of 52% of each state involved. This is a far cry from the limits stated in the constitution. Maybe we should ask why this is true, what they are gaining from the land (as they could sell most of it for a fair profit if they wished).

There is a lot of talk from Native Americans saying how the white-men stole the land .. etc etc. Well, we don't own it either.

With the presidential elections coming up, I wonder how many of them even know (or care) that half of the land in the western USA isn't under the people's care or control? Would the states make better use of the land? Maybe so, but we'll never know.

Import and Export

2007-12-22T13:40:00.000-08:00

In economics class, it is taught that it is preferable for a country to export more than it import. This allows you to have some international leverage, and make some money too.

In light of that concept, It does not matter where the country you reside in stands in this matter, nor your state, province or even city, if you, as an individual or a household do not also follow this pattern of exporting more than you import.

Where do you stand? Do you create more resources than you consume? Energy, food, materials, instruction and entertainment? What do you export that is of an equal value? They do not have to be the same type of resources, that is the point of trading, but are they of equal value to those around you? I would not include money as a resource, for, if something were to happen to its financial backers, money would become practically worthless.

I would encourage everyone to think about what they're import/export ratio is - write a list if you need to, and then find solutions that will bring that ratio up to or above the equilibrium.

NPCs, Quakers and Pawns

2007-12-17T12:01:00.000-08:00

Through a confluence of events, I spent about half an hour yesterday thinking about the roles of heroes, Quakers and chess. I was wondering what a quaker chess set would look like, since they promote the idea that we are all on an equal playing ground - that the king is no better than the peasant and vice-versa. At first, I considered that the whole set would be pawns. But, that wouldn't be really true, just because everyone is "equal" doesn't mean we are all at the lowest common denominator, or even that we are all the SAME. A lot of people confuse equal with same.

I think equality truly means that we all have an equal chance to become whatever type of chess piece we want to become. Some people will be pawns - just going through life, getting in the way, good luck, bad luck ... being Non-Player-Characters (to use an RPG term) to be used and thrown away when they are through. This may seem harsh, especially since there are people like this - but, I believe it is through their own choice. The alternative to being a pawn, would to be one of the "heroic" pieces, the ones that have more choices open to them about how to act, what they want to achieve and so on.

One could argue that there is a social and economic bar placed over a portion of the population that keeps them from being able to be more than a pawn in life. But, I would argue that this is not true! This is because there are numerous examples of rich people who have lived and died and have only been well educated and comfortable pawns, but pawns none the less. You must also remember that you don't have to be Gandhi, or the president of the united states in order to move away from being a pawn. Anyone who can change the world about them (for good or ill) in a way that will last (hopefully) beyond their own life has moved from being a pawn to being something that has made a difference. And, isn't that one of the reasons we are here? If we do not make a difference, what difference did it make that we were born?

Four (plus one) rules for a good game

2007-11-02T14:58:00.000-07:00

I came up with these as I was falling asleep last night:

1) have fun

2) try to win

3) it's okay if you loose, it's just a game

4) no cheating

and, a bonus rule

5) if you win all the time, let someone else win every once in a while.

Dedicating the Statue of Liberty to the LORD

2007-10-30T01:46:00.000-07:00

The statue of liberty was a “gift” from the French government to the American people, as if from a knowing father to an unexperienced child. The sculptor prided himself in creating gargantuan statuary that rivaled that of the ancients. The Statue of Liberty was no exception, it was commonly known that this statue would rival the Colossus of Rhodes, one of the Seven Wonder of the Ancient World (which was also situated in the midst of a busy harbor). The design of the Statue of Liberty was intended to be a depiction of the Roman Goddess, Libertas wearing a representation of the Phrygian cap, which was the mark of a freed slave. In her hand she bore a torch, representing (in the mind of the sculptor) the enlightenment of France being bestowed upon America as a gift (as if the Americans could not find it themselves.

This all adds up to a statue of dubious character, and we could all wonder why it has become such a loved emblem of this country. The answer to this lies in the short poem written to raise funds for the base of the proposed statue by a woman named Emma Lazarus. Emma was a Sephardic Jewish woman born in New York City in 1849.

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

As most Americans know, this poem was later engraved onto a plaque which was placed on the base of the statue. What most Americans don’t know, however, is the message she was trying to give to the world with her poem. By comparing this poem to a selection of her other poetry and by remembering her Jewish upbringing, we can suddenly see a clear message of revolt from the Babylon of Europe, into the welcoming arms of a new mother, a new Zion where true liberty prevails. Let us take this monumental poem phrase by phrase and learn how this Jewish woman dedicated an unavoidable symbol of the corruption of the Old World into a Declaration of the Light of her LORD to all the people of the earth.

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

The poem starts out by proclaiming that this new statue is not like the old Colossus of Rhodes, Apollo, with conquering limbs astride from land to land. Liberty could not be obtained through warfare and domination! What does she replace this standard of European thought with?

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles.

The Mother of Exiles is a mighty woman carrying a torch, but who is she? To answer that question, we can turn to another of Emma’s poems, 1492 (written in 1883) which describes the “two-faced year” in which the Jews were exiled from Spain and a New World was discovered for them to flee to.

1492

Thou two-faced year, Mother of Change and Fate,

Didst weep when Spain cast forth with flaming sword,

The children of the prophets of the Lord,

Prince, priest, and people, spurned by zealot hate.

Hounded from sea to sea, from state to state,

The West refused them, and the East abhorred.

No anchorage the known world could afford,

Close-locked was every port, barred every gate.

Then smiling, thou unveil'dst, O two-faced year,

A virgin world where doors of sunset part,

Saying, "Ho, all who weary, enter here!

There falls each ancient barrier that the art

Of race or creed or rank devised, to rear

Grim bulwarked hatred between heart and heart!"

One cannot help but see the similarity between these two lines: Then smiling, thou unveil'dst, O two-faced year, // A virgin world where doors of sunset part and Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand // A mighty woman with a torch. The lands of America (North and South) were a refuge for the Jews who were being actively cast forth from their homes. Where else could they turn? In another poem, written by Emma during the same time period as The New Colossus, we catch another glimpse of this Mother of Exiles.

By the Waters of Babylon

Part V. - Currents

Vast oceanic movements, the flux and reflux of immeasurable tides oversweep our continent.

From the far Caucasian steppes, from the squalid Ghettoes of Europe,

From Odessa and Bucharest, from Kief and Ekaterinoslav,

Hark to the cry of the exiles of Babylon, the voice of Rachel mourning for her children, of Israel lamenting for Zion.

And lo, like a turbid stream, the long-pent flood bursts the dykes of oppression and rushes hitherward.

Unto her ample breast, the generous mother of nations welcomes them.

The herdsman of Canaan and the seed of Jerusalem's royal shepherd renew their youth amid the pastoral plains of Texas and the golden valleys of the Sierras.

Hark to the cry of the exiles of Babylon, the voice of Rachel mourning for her children, of Israel lamenting for Zion. The Jewish people have been exiled from their homes, cast forth by religion and government, they are crying for peace and freedom. They burst forth from the Old World like a broken dam and flow into the New World, welcomed by The Mother of Nations. Zion and Israel are often depicted in the Scriptures as a woman, the bride of the LORD. It is fitting then, that their lamentations were answered with a new land, a new Zion, where they could proser without turning away from their LORD.

From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

The imprisoned lightning that glows in her torch is a welcoming light for all the world, and this is exemplified by the imagery which casts her as a guardian of the harbor (which, incidentally, was the original purpose of the Colossus of Rhodes) in the next few lines:

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

The message hinted at in the first lines are now brought home; Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp! America has no need of the corruption and religious persecution that had cast so many from their homes. You might also compare the wording of these lines to the end of her poem, 1492. And so, we come to the last line of this poem:

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

The lamp of the Mother of Exiles could represent one of many things, but the most compelling is referenced in yet another of Emma’s poems, titled Gifts:

Gifts

"O World-God, give me Wealth!" the Egyptian cried.

His prayer was granted. High as heaven, behold

Palace and Pyramid; the brimming tide

Of lavish Nile washed all his land with gold.

Armies of slaves toiled ant-wise at his feet,

World-circling traffic roared through mart and street,

His priests were gods, his spice-balmed kings enshrined,

Set death at naught in rock-ribbed channels deep.

Seek Pharaoh's race to-day and ye shall find

Rust and the moth, silence and dusty sleep.

"O World-God, give me beauty!" cried the Greek.

His prayer was granted. All the earth became

Plastic and vocal to his sense; each peak,

Each grove, each stream, quick with Promethean flame,

Peopled the world with imaged grace and light.

The lyre was his, and his the breathing might

Of the immortal marble, his the play

Of diamond-pointed thought and golden tongue.

Go seek the sun-shine race, ye find to-day

A broken column and a lute unstrung.

"O World-God, give me Power!" the Roman cried.

His prayer was granted. The vast world was chained

A captive to the chariot of his pride.

The blood of myriad provinces was drained

To feed that fierce, insatiable red heart.

Invulnerably bulwarked every part

With serried legions and with close-meshed Code,

Within, the burrowing worm had gnawed its home,

A roofless ruin stands where once abode

The imperial race of everlasting Rome.

"O Godhead, give me Truth!" the Hebrew cried.

His prayer was granted; he became the slave

Of the Idea, a pilgrim far and wide,

Cursed, hated, spurned, and scourged with none to save.

The Pharaohs knew him, and when Greece beheld,

His wisdom wore the hoary crown of Eld.

Beauty he hath forsworn, and wealth and power.

Seek him to-day, and find in every land.

No fire consumes him, neither floods devour;

Immortal through the lamp within his hand.

The Lamp of the Hebrews is Truth from the LORD. This theme can be found in a number of Emma’s other works, including "The Choice," "The Feast of Lights," and "In Exile." It isn’t too far of a leap to suggest that the lamp that the Mother of Exiles holds next to the golden door, might be this same lamp mentioned in her other poetry.

In the end, the original message of the Statue of Liberty became turned around from one of condescending light shining forth from the Ancient and Civilized Lands into the Young Lands guiding their reckless venture of freedom into more traditional and tested forms of power and control into a welcoming light of moral truths on which this country was founded shining forth into the rest of the weary world. Emma Lazarus did our world a favor when she dedicated the Statue of Liberty to her LORD and changed her name to the Mother of Exiles.

I would like to give credit to Daniel Marom and his book Prooftexts: A Journal of Jewish Literary History for giving me the idea of writing this essay, and also to Emma Lazarus for being brave enough to combat tendrils of Babylon that had begun to creep into her Zion. May we all have as much courage as her in our own struggles.

Update to Fish on Friday

2007-10-30T01:44:00.000-07:00

there is a possible Dagon influence to the fish on friday thing ... I'll investigate and report back!

Jews and Indians (and DNA)

2007-10-26T23:11:00.000-07:00

I have an acquaintance who believes that he is an Indian. He believes that the Great Spirit changed his DNA, and that he is now a "real" Indian. Why? Because, only actual Indians can speak with the Great Spirit? Because, only Indians can heal though song and ritual? hmm .. what gives a race of people a right to deny their religion, customs or way of life to any other human being? If a person feels their soul being draw toward a certain group of people, they should be allowed to join with them in full fellowship, or practice in solitary as they wish, saying that they are what they are, without the need to have their DNA change in order to legitimately belong to that group. Of course, there is a difference between a person who has been born into a culture, and a person who adopts it later in life. But, even this is a false barrier, for there are newcomers who out -shine those who have lived inside the system their entire lives - it is the fact that they are new that gives them the insights and determination that many lifetime members lack through a sense of complacency and satisfaction with the way things are.

the bible

2007-10-26T23:05:00.000-07:00

I love the bible! but I do not believe it to be true.

How can that be? If you love the Bible, you must truly believe it to be true in your heart.

If I believed the bible to be true, I would hate it. Instead, I have loosened my grasping reliance on this book so that I can love it for what it really is. How many things do we love in this world, even though they are not perfect? True love overlooks imperfections and faults. I love the bible, despite its flaws and falsehoods.

Fish on Friday

2007-10-12T23:37:00.000-07:00

The Catholic Church had and still has in the minds and hearts of the people a strange rule: no meat on Friday or during the Lent Season, but you can eat fish during those times. I had read somewhere once that after the no meat rule came into place (I don't remember why they came up with that rule exactly), the new converts in the northern regions almost defected from the faith as a result of this rule as they had little but meat to eat during the early spring months. The Vatican quickly revised their policy and stipulated that fish could be eaten. The northern Christians were happy enough and life went on.

How true this story is, I don't really know (but I'll look it up on Wikipedia in a minute and then tell you). But, as my husband and I were driving home tonight we came up with a more religiously meaningful reason for eating no meat on Friday, but still allowing fish to be eaten.

I should preface this by telling you that I have been forgoing meat on the Sabbath with the idea that the animals deserve a day of rest as well as we do, so I shouldn't eat them since that isn't very restful for them.

Back to the story, as we were driving home, my husband was lamenting the fact that we would never have great special meals on Sabbath, since to him MEAT = Good Food. He suggested that I move it to a different day, perhaps I should abstain from eating animals on the day they were created (the 6th day). We pondered this for a minute and then realized that this resulted in not eating meat on Friday! wow .. but, you can eat fish (and birds) because they were created on the 5th day! Remember, Saturday is the seventh day of the week. There were factions of Christians who tried to pretend that the Jews were wrong all along and Sunday was the true seventh day .. they didn't succeed, and Sunday is still considered the first day of the week.

So, now that I've speculated, let's look it up and see what scholars (Wikipedia, the Catholic Encyclopedia and a site about the Second Vatican Counsel) say the reasoning behind this rule is.

According to canon law, all Fridays of the year, Ash Wednesday and several other days are days of abstinence, though in most countries, the strict requirements of abstinence have been limited by the bishops (in accordance with Canon 1253) to the Fridays of Lent and Ash Wednesday. On other abstinence days, the faithful are invited to perform some other act of penance.

the historian Socrates (Hist. Eccl., V, 22) tells of the practice of the fifth century: "Some abstain from every sort of creature that has life, while others of all the living creatures eat of fish only. Others eat birds as well as fish, because, according to the Mosaic account of the Creation, they too sprang from the water; others abstain from fruit covered by a hard shell and from eggs. Some eat dry bread only, others not even that; others again when they have fasted to the ninth hour (three o'clock) partake of various kinds of food"

Throughout the Latin Church the law of abstinence prohibits all responsible subjects from indulging in meat diet on duly appointed days. Meat diet comprises the flesh, blood, or marrow of such animals and birds as constitute flesh meat according to the appreciation of intelligent and law-abiding Christians. For this reason the use of fish, vegetables, mollusks, crabs, turtles, frogs, and such-like cold-blooded creatures is not at variance with the law of abstinence. Amphibians are relegated to the category whereunto they bear most striking resemblance.

Some think that an ounce of flesh meat suffices to constitute a serious breach of this law, whereas others claim that nothing short of two ounces involves infringement of this obligation. Ordinarily, the actual observance of the law is confined to such circumstances as carry no insupportable burden. This is why the sick, the infirm, mendicants, labourers, and such as find difficulty in procuring fish diet are not bound to observe the law as long as such conditions prevail.

Friday itself remains a special day of penitential observance throughout the year, a time when those who seek perfection will be mindful of their personal sins and the sins of mankind which they are called upon to help expiate in union with Christ Crucified;

The forty days represents, according to the Bible, the time Jesus spent in the desert, enduring the temptation of Satan

Friday should be in each week something of what Lent is in the entire year. For this reason we urge all to prepare for that weekly Easter that comes with each Sunday be freely making of every Friday a day of self-denial and mortification in prayerful remembrance of the passion of Jesus Christ;

Now I see--Friday is the day Jesus was crucified, and (even though it is called Good Friday), it is a day of fasting (in more ancient times only until the 9th hour, supposedly because the moment of the death of Jesus had some mystic significance freeing the rest of humanity from death, but I'm not very well versed in Catholic theology, so I might be missing the obvious). Because all things have their type or symbolic representation, every Friday represents Good Friday, and every Sunday represents Easter. But, the Friday abstinence also represents Lent, which is a remembrance of Jesus' 40 day fast in the wilderness. So, which is it? a piece of Lent or a piece of Good Friday or maybe both at the same time. I think the last option is the most fitting one, since abstaining on the Fridays during Lent is much more weighty than any other Friday (aside from Good Friday itself).

I couldn't find any substantiation for my 'fast strike of the northern barbarians' story .. oh well, I've told that tale to many a listener already! and ... I couldn't find anything actually refuting it either ;-)

A few other people mentioned the correspondence between not eating meat on the day that the animals were created and the Catholic observance.

I also found this fascinating theory:

The Hebrew scriptures also tell of Leviathan, a primordial gigantic enigmatic sea-creature (think Jonah's whale) that represents death. So carving up and eating Leviathan on the day that Christ killed death makes great sense to the biblical imagination. Because of Christ's victory, the great monster death is now nothing more than fish sticks on your plate!

--The Free Library

Mormon Quote

2007-09-19T02:49:00.000-07:00

"Mormonism be it true or false, holds out to men the greatest inducements that the human mind can grasp. And so it does... It teaches men that they can become divine, that man is God in embryo, that God was once man in mortality, and that the only difference between Gods, angels and men is a difference in education and development. Is such a religion to be sneered at? It teaches that the worlds on high, the stars that glitter in the blue vault of heaven, are kingdoms of God, that they were once earths like this, that they have been redeemed and glorified by the same laws, the same principles that are applied to this planet, and by which it will ascend to a perfected and glorified state. It teaches that these worlds are peopled with human beings, God's sons and daughters, and that every husband and father, may become an Adam, and every wife and mother an Eve, to some future planet."

- Orson F. Whitney 1895

Blog-Merge

2007-09-19T02:43:00.000-07:00

I've merged my posts from Feminitiation and Becoming Eve because, I couldn't keep interested in posting to three different blogs all at the same time. I'm leaving them up though because both of them are very pretty. I'm still keeping Star Tome and my cooking blogs separate though.

/end notice

The Ideal Translation Helper Software

2007-09-19T00:32:00.000-07:00

I ran into an awesome program the other day, The Hebrew Interlinear Bible. It lets you create your own translation of the bible by assigning the appropriate word to each hebrew word. When you make an association, every instance of that word in the entire old testament is "translated" as such. So, that was really cool and everything, but there are a few problems. As an individual issue, I seem to get a whole lot of I/O errors when doing simple things like scrolling through the pages or searching for a word. My husband (who runs linux) has no troubles at all, and neither do a lot of other people. But, even I/O errors aside, there are still some key features missing. The ability to export - at all. you can print the file, but there is no print dialog, it just sends the print command to your printer. I would like to have more than one translation going at a time, and the programs says you can, but I couldn't get it to work - mostly because of all the errors. I'd also like to add a new set of "strong's numbers", because, I feel that they are fundamentally flawed being based on the King James translation of the bible. This *is* possible, but then you loose the ability to use the real strong's numbers! The last actual problem with the program is that the creator hasn't released a new version since 2003, so I know none of these complaints will ever be taken care of. I didn't know I even wanted this program a few days ago, and now I can't do without it!

I looked online for a program that does a similar thing and found Paratext, but it was more like a gated community than a piece of software. I decided to make a list of what my ideal translation program would do...

Languages and Fonts:
Ability to translate texts from more than one language. Hebrew, Greek or any custom language the user could think up. Basically, you would name the language, pick a font and character mapping (unicode would be default but custom maps would be available for custom true type fonts) and then you would be able to assign new numbers and words to it. You would also be able to start out with a new blank language or base it off of an already existing one.

You would be able to apply a language or more than one language at the same time to a book and see what the differences are. An example would be Modern and Middle English. There are words that are the same, and there are words that have a completely different meaning today. This applies to all languages! not just English, and you should be able to use different sets of translation data for them.

Words:
One of the coolest things about the HIB was the built-in Hebrew word database. It knows which words are related to which other words, the only problem being that it was based on strong's numbering system which seriously needs updating. The creator of the program should not be expected to create a word and roots database for every language, so, there should be quick and easy ways for the user to do so. Everyone likes to use their own interpretation anyhow. The way this would work is by letting the user create base and root words, variations and assign "numbers". The numbers may only be for internal consistency for the actual program and the user wouldn't even have to see them. They would serve the same function as the base word data. Every word has a base and a root. Most of the time, they are the same word, but not always, and in the case of compounded words, they can have more than one of each. It would be nice to allow some way to include compound words into the system.

The first time the user opens a new language file and a book in that language, they can edit the options for any particular word. They would be able to denote a base word, if it is the base word, a root word, an etymology or notes section, if they like, about that word and create new translations of anticipated word combinations. For instance, if the first word they opened was Ran, they could set the root and base word as run, and then edit that base word and add runs, running, runner or any other word they liked as 'children' of the base of run. The, as they go through the book they are translating, and they come upon a new variation of run that they had forgotten, no big deal, they just type run in as the base word and it is automatically added in as a child of run. Why is this useful at all? Mostly for future reference, especially useful if you don't know a language well. Think of all the ways people have used the strong's reference numbers - now imagine they were words that meant something to you instead of numbers - you would be able to create word indexes, or create super-intelligent search algorithms. It would also be possible for someone to create a word relation index and then share it with another user but let them actually translate the word. This would be great for language students who are still struggling to know where words end and conjugations begin. This would also help anyone understand the original meaning of a text, since any translation is approximate - you could click on any word and see where it came from and view all the various translations possible for that word in various circumstances.

This base and root word function is nice, but the program would still 'work' without it. The functionality would just be limited, but someone could just manually enter the translation for each word individually and not worry about whether they are translating one instance of eretz as earth and when an and is added to it translate it as land.

The actual translation of the words would involve picking a translation for a specific word that will work for most circumstances, and then, when needed, choosing a separate translation for a single word instance. You could also denote if it is really the same word, but it needs to be translated a little differently in order to make sense in the language it is being translated in, or if it's actually a separate word that happens to be spelt alike. We can use our run example again. Run as in run a race could be denoted as having the base word of run¹ and run as in I have a run in my pants could be denoted as having the base word of run². In this case, they would share the same root word, because they really do mean the same thing in a twisted sort of way.

Note, I think it might be useful to have a tool specifically designed to create root/base relationship files for languages without having to open a text for that language.

Interlinear and Comparative:
One main function of this program would be to create interlinear texts. To one side you could have an accepted translation of the text, loaded in by yourself with markers added for chapters and an automatic parser for paragraphs, sentences or verses. These markers would have to be matched with your original source text file - and this would also be able to be done with a parser if possible, or a point and click system if necessary. The main section of the screen would be taken up with the main text to be edited. Underneath each word would be your own personal translation of the text, root words, base words, some other person's word for word translation of the same text and a place to create a more flowing version of the text with corrected word order, connecting words and grammar (or in some people's cases, theological manipulation). the order these appear, or if the appear at all would be up to each user, if you double click any of these rows, the edit screen pops up with whatever you selected in the focus. For instance, if you double click the root word spot, your cursor will be set in the root word edit box on the edit screen. You will still be able to click on any of these if they are empty (except the source text, obviously). Another, quicker, way to enter text would be to use the tab key - just click once in the appropriate row, a cursor would appear, and then type the word. Pressing tab would move you on to the next word. If you wanted to choose a separate meaning for the word, you would either double click the space or hit an F key, I think to automatically set it to the corresponding meaning.

The only thing that would work differently is the new 'flowing' version of the translation, each sentence/verse/paragraph should be visibly separate in the flowing version - this tool is for literal translations, after all. As above, these marks could be added all at once, or as you create the flowing part of the text.

You should also be able to change the source text - I think of instances where you have more then one version of the text you are translating, and you would need to choose the most likely version to trust in certain cases - these should be marked somehow when you do, however!

Output:
Output is a necessary step! You should be able to output the text as a PDF, plain text, xml, LaTex, html, odt, and others... this would be hard to do though .. I thin k that if the text always lives as xml, the export wouldn't be that bad.

It would be best if the output wasn't strictly for interlinear translations. You should be able to switch between pure interlinear, interlinear with a side translation, side by side comparisons, just the plain translation and so on. It could be / would be formatted in a two column format, with the mormon-style footnotes or commentary style footnotes, depending on the amount of footnote data involved. Just like in the mormon footnotes, these would be denoted in the footnote area by what type of footnote it is - for instance, a cross reference, a topical reference, a language note, commentary and so on. These types and their abbreviations would be set by the user.

This sort of works in with my idea for a lulu book generator, and if I could get that produced, I would certainly have this tool able to interface with it so you could go straight from translator to published book with only a few simple steps in between. But that, is really dreaming.

Why do I care?

2007-04-25T01:38:00.000-07:00

While reading a book today, the thought struck me - 'why do I care what these men think so much, if I disagree so strongly about their fundamental views on females and gender roles? Why am I devoting so much of my time and energies learning about them?'

Part of the answer is simple- the spiritual and mystical ideas that they have come up with concerning our eternal progression and the nature of God are intriguing and make a lot of sense to me (at least until I ask how I fit into the plan).

The other part is a little more complex and of shady certainty. I feel like the prophets and/or their successors really didn't think much about where women fit into their schemes, and so, when they asked God a question, he would have answered their questions. From experience, even if God did expound upon the role of women, if you aren't listening for something, you won't hear it. This is perfectly illustrated by the common phenomenon of hearing a newly learned word many times in a week which you had previously never heard before. Logic implies that the new word had been there all along, but you had never noticed it rather than a freak coincidence.

All this boils down to Women seeking inspiration from "God", and sharing it with her sisters. If this knowledge isn't shared and recorded, it is lost and all we have left are the pondering of men regarding the only thing they have had experience with - the life and concerns of other men.

Jehovah and Women

2007-04-24T00:08:00.000-07:00

Note: I started writing this post months ago, and I don't really know what I was going to say - so I'm posting it incomplete with a follow-up post expressing some new concerns.

After reading the Bible, or other Hebrew-based literature, I can't quite shake off the feeling that something is out of place with the idea of a "loving father who only wants the best for all His children". Some examples of what disturb me are: Certain writings by Paul (all the women know which ones I mean), the fact that the Old Testament seems to be written by men and for men, speaking of the women in third person and using the male-only pronoun rather than the neutral (we don't notice this when reading in the English bible, as they are both translated as man, and we assume that women are included, since that is the way English works).

Moving on to the modern era, in Mormonism, men are required to have at least three wives in order to become a god (at least they think they do), where women are to only have one husband. Consider the eternal implications of this! We know that there is an equal number of male and female children being born. This is true all over the world in every country. If in eternity each male is partnered with three females, that leaves two thirds of the male spirits without a mate, and without a hope of eternal progression. I can see two possible solutions to this within the doctrines of traditional Mormonism. Either the third of the host of heaven who fell in the pre-existence and most, if not all those who are dammed in this life are male- therefore creating a large mis-balance between the genders and a reason for the 1:3 ratio (incidentally, I have read a journal from the 1800s that agrees with this theory). Or,

we do not believe in reincarnation ....

Here are some thoughts:

1) Men receive revelation for us, and they are sexist. God tells them correct principles, and they color them with their own ideas.
2) Jehovah doesn't like women (or think of them as being worth the same as a man)
3) Women were evil in the life before this, so they are paying for it now
4) Men are evil and they made Jehovah up so they could be mean to women

Chimp Spears

2007-04-02T23:33:00.000-07:00

I recently read an article about Chimps in Senegal using spears to hunt small animals. While fascinating in itself, there is one point that relates especially to this blog:

What makes the discovery all the more remarkable, project leader Pruetz said, is who the hunters are: predominantly mature females and immature-youngsters between about two and ten years old.

In normal Chimpanzee social structure, the males do the hunting rather than the females. To see the females taking the initiative with this new technology is intriguing. In modern human society, the males are expected to be the ones who "invent" or discover new technologies. While we are taking steps to address this inequality, if you made a list of famous or influential inventors of the last 100 years, it would consist primarily of men.

Were the females the leading inventors in early human development? If so, what has changed? Why has innovation been labeled as a male activity? Are women still endowed with the power of invention? Or, do the value a different sort of invention - one that directly benefits their lives, rather than abstract acquisition of knowledge?

To answer these questions I think we need to examine the next generation of women - give them a chance to test their skills. Ask the question and see if they will bear out the answer, then ask another question.

Ritual Well

2006-10-29T13:36:00.000-08:00

RitualWell.org

I was reading the Wikipedia article on Rosh Chodesh, when I ran into this site. From what I've seen of it up to this point, it's awesome! It takes all the major Jewish holidays and sabbaths, and give them a feminist not suggesting that these feministic rituals replace the traditional practices, but that they should be added in so that a whole is created rather than halves.

The member's ony section includes a messageboard, and a way to share ritual work between users. Once I registered, I had a hard time finding the forum. I finally found it on the sitemap. And, after looking at it I know why it was buried. The only posts on there were from porn-spam and one angry Christian lady who likes to type in all-caps. That's too bad! It seemed like a great resource.

I'm going to hang out there, so I'm encouraging you to visit and help realize the potential of this site.

Rites for Women

2006-10-10T00:01:00.000-07:00

I live in a small town in the middle of a whole lot of nowhere. There isn't very much culture running around loose around here. So, what is a woman to do who wants to participate in some good ol' ritual work? The local masonic organization has two women's organizations, but I'm a bit young to enjoy hanging with a group of women who could all be my grandmother (or great grandmother). I love old ladies, but . . . it wouldn't be much of a sisterhood. I could join a coven, but there are three types of covens: ones that say witchcraft is real, but don't really believe it - they are just there to scare their parents or whatever. Then, there are covens that are into the getting naked and having sex and all that fun stuff. The third kind is cool, but doesn't exist anywhere near me.

There are a few other societies in the area, but they were all derived from masonry (or came from the same source). There is a big difference between ritual FOR and BY women, and ritual that is essentially a boy's club that allows women to participate. I think letting women into a men's organization takes away from the point of such a club, while not actually giving the women what they came for (unless all they wanted was to ruin the experience of the men).

There is a place for purely manly ritual, just as there is a place for feminine ritual. There is also room for ritual work that brings them both together - in fact I think it is very important for these two groups to work together - sometimes. It is also important that they are allowed to develop separately.

I look around, and I don't see ritual being treated as an art, or as an important aspect of our community - I'd like to change that. If I can start a women's ritualistic society where I live, one can be started ANYWHERE!

But, first, I need to get a little better acquainted with all the variations and aspects of ritual as it stands today. I can fix something until I know where it is broken. I'd also like to bring some of my ideas, and write them down. Everything looks different on paper than just inside your head.

Human Rites

2006-10-08T01:01:00.000-07:00

Humanity has used ritual from the beginning to teach the mysteries of their World to the next generation. Ritual is used as a Rite of Passage, as an Initiation into a select group of people (either invitational or not), as a tool for learning. It is not by chance that the different levels an initiate can move through before becoming a full member are called Degrees -- the same word that is used in universities today as a recognition of a certain amount or type of work that has been accomplished.

The universities are not the only institution that has the vestiges of ritual infused into it. Many of the churches around today, and even more that were around a couple centuries ago are infused with ritual. From the obvious taking of the Eucharist, to the less obvious potlucking (I'll post about that later).

There are some people who claim that religion is only needed and used to control the masses, that ritual is only a brainwashing technique, but that argument is only viable if you consider the human race to be inherently evil. Or, in other words, that we need controlling in order to be decent human beings. Such an argument also implies that it is somehow bad or wrong to want to become a moral individual.

But, no matter what *I* think, the general feeling out in the world is negative, and it has been for quite a number of years. Our parent's and their parents have turned away from being controlled by corporations and corporations hiding under the guise of a religion. But, I feel they threw out the good with the bad. I think there is a new generation coming who will be interested in the things their mothers and fathers threw out - just because they were thrown out, but also because ritual is one of the things human beings have always needed. That generation needs something to gather around that fits them, and they will keep looking until they find it.

Becoming Eve

2006-10-07T23:31:00.000-07:00

The traditional religions in the West today are sadly lacking in an active, positive role for women. Men run the show, men write the scriptures, men speak to God, God is a man, etc. Mormonism is no exception.

I can see some small efforts made by the early Mormon church to include women. These efforts died out near the turn of the century. Priesthood blessings preformed by women were discouraged, the Relief Society was lumped in with the Primary and Youth organizations under the control of the Patriarchal Priesthood (rather than being autonomous), and so on. While the rest of the world was granting women more rights, the Mormons were restricting. I'll leave polygamy for another post or two :-)

As a Mormon woman who is interested in the stranger doctrines of the early church, I wish there had been more revealed about the role of women in the whole scheme of things. In all, it is a confusing mass of data that no one has bothered to reconcile. The main cause of this is the tendency of historians to sweep under the rug many important events and trends because they are deemed "crazy", "heretical", or "dangerous" by the modern church leaders. Publishing the results of research on this topic often results in dis-fellowship or excommunication. The scholars brave enough to study Adam-God (or even interested in it) are mostly men, thus don't have a burning desire to find out what exactly is going to happen to all the woman. A feeling that they are going to be all right and happy is good enough. Now, all you men out there who are exclaiming about how much you do care, please, contribute to this blog, and we can all benefit.