A friend's recent blog post got me thinking about a recent decision--
Avatar has made more money than any other film ever. But that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone is a fan. Initially, I had very mixed feelings about it. In fact, I had to wait a full 36 hours after seeing the movie before I could tell whether I liked Avatar or not.
I finally decided that I did. I know it's endlessly formulaic. Fern Gully, Dances With Wolves, Pocahontas, The Last Samurai. This latest incarnation is doing the same dance over again that we've seen countless times.
And that's why I find it so fascinating. No matter how much we deny it today we still believe that there are superior and inferior nations ("developed" and "developing" ring a bell?). And when you realize that nation is just the modern and repackaged concept of culture, that's not a comforting thought.
I think we're trying to deal with an unsettling theme we haven't been able to collectively process yet. I've often wondered what I would be like if I stepped into the life and circumstances of a Darfur native, a North Korean, an Israeli or Palestinian. Perhaps we could all use an avatar. Walk in another person's "shoes" for a while.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Happy Anniversary!
Though it's been sadly uninspired as of late, this blog is now one year old.
Happy First, "Adam's In Site"!
Here's a list of links to my three favorite entries of 2009:
1) My "Social Experiment"
2) In My Opinion No. 1: Animals
3) Yes, I Speak Teacher
Happy First, "Adam's In Site"!
Here's a list of links to my three favorite entries of 2009:
1) My "Social Experiment"
2) In My Opinion No. 1: Animals
3) Yes, I Speak Teacher
Monday, December 14, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Then and Now
Both community colleges where I teach have construction sites for new buildings. It's amazing how small, local colleges are exploding in terms of popularity and enrollment, generating a never-ending need for more class space. The phenomenon has given me pause as I contrast this past summer's with my current employment. For a brief three-week stint, I was one of those construction workers. One of my coworkers at the time told me that anytime I felt frustrated with teaching I just needed to remember the heat, fatigue, and squalor of being on the lowest rung of the construction industry.
In that vein, I've got a list of stark contrasts, then and now:
In that vein, I've got a list of stark contrasts, then and now:
- Then: My day started at 4:30 a.m. I can't tell you how violated I felt every time that blasted alarm went off at the ungodly hour.
- Now: 6 a.m. on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and you wouldn't believe how much of a difference an hour and a half makes. 9 a.m. on Tuesday and Thursdays--bliss!
- Then: I sunburned and peeled and sunburned again before my skin adjusted to the Virginia summer sun and I stopped forgetting to apply sunscreen.
- Now: I work under fluorescents and miss ol' yellow-face.
- Then: Wicked callouses in just a few weeks. It's amazing what five straight days of shoveling gravel can do to unprotected hands.
- Now: Baby soft again. I guess a month isn't long enough to make it permanent.
- Then: Voracious appetite. I used to come home and eat thirds or fourths at every dinner.
- Now: I have to remind myself to eat lunch.
- Then: Typical attire included hardhat, safety glasses, long-sleeved shirt (on days with insulation) or white T-shirt to reflect the sunlight, industrial gloves, blue jeans, steel-toed boots (which discolored one toenail). Apply several coats of grime to complete the ensemble (grime = dirt + sweat).
- Now: Collared shirt, sweater, belt and slacks, argyle socks, dress shoes, backpack. I only sweat if I overdress that day.
- Then: Hating my job; dreading it every night before I went to bed.
- Now: Loving life! (Merely tolerating the bad writing.)
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
In My Opinion, No. 2: War
Deep down, I'm a pacifist. I believe it's the only postition that is morally viable. That said, I think that even something as heinous as war is sometimes necessary, but only when every other resort is utterly exhausted.
When gunpowder became commonplace on the battlefield sometime around the Napoleanic Era something irrevocably changed about warfare. It's right around this time that world history loses much of its appeal to me (and I minored in history). The gun is a devastatingly powerful weapon in terms of both accuracy, range, and damage. I don't think it's prosaic to say that its widespread use and the invention of even deadlier weapons have forever altered the course of human history.
Most disturbing to me is the gun's dehumanizing effect. Modern soldiers never see their enemy face-to-face, allowing us to more easily overlook individuals obliterated and become innured to the sheer numbers of lives lost. It used to be that you would stand toe-to-toe with your opponent in a match of skill, strength, and stamina. You needed to know something about them, which sometimes led to respect and admiration, if ancient literature--which often extols the virtues of a "worthy opponent"--is any indication. Today, in our efforts to minimize American casualties, we've developed technologies so advanced that we can now send an unmanned plane to level a building, push a button to bomb a city, or snipe a "target" from a mile away. I used to know an LDS artilleryman who had served in Desert Storm and wasn't sure if or how many he had killed, but was haunted by the fact that he may have hit innocent bystanders. Modern warfare is both strange and tragic; no wonder much of the literature about it is bleak, depressing, and hopeless.
Because war, by definition, is the systematic destruction of another group of human beings and their livelihoods, it should never be treated lightly. Naturally, I'm troubled with the many organizations, such as today's Al-Qaeda, and nations, like Nazi Germany, who wantonly dole out death to accomplish their aims, as if it were the primary solution to any problem.
But what of us? We're certainly not the killers that some groups are, but I wonder if sometimes the United States is either too hasty or too inconsistent in going to war. For over 70% of the 20th century, the United States was engaged in some type of warfare, from territorial wars in Latin America to the two World Wars to Cold War conflicts and, finally, to Desert Storm. While we have long since abandoned wars for territorial acquisition, our more recent justification for war usually falls somewhere between protecting American interests/survival and spreading democracy. But are we unwavering and honest in these endeavors?
We have become a policing nation in the sense that we go to war to right international wrongs and bring unethical ideologies down. But we do so inconsistently and often overlook the most heinous of crimes against humanity. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, killing about a thousand Kuwaiti civilians, we began a seven-month conflict to liberate the overrun country. Just three years later, between 500 thousand to a million people were killed in the Rwandan Genocide while the United States looked on, actually lobbying, just after the fighting began, that all UN troops leave Rwanda. The genocide in Darfur is making headlines today, but little is actually being done about the conflict with fatalities now numbering in the hundreds of thousands.
Some promote our role as the global enforcer for democracy, but we are variable in our dedication. The United States went to war with factions in Korea, Laos and Vietnam in the 1950s and 60s to halt the spread of communism, a sort of political preemptive strike. But we never made similar attempts in Russia or China, probably because wars with superpowers would have been disastrous for us. Today, we ignore the newest communist leanings in countries like Moldova and others. With the possible exceptions of China and North Korea, communism has almost become a joke, synonymous with poverty and backward thinking.
No, terrorism and tyranny are the modern manifestations of political evil. Americans believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and went to war to stop the perceived threat. Years and many casualties later and we know now that Iraq was merely posturing in an attempt to look more powerful. There were no weapons of mass destruction to be found and no evidence that there had been any. Some say that we ousted an immoral and threatening head of state and, therefore, did the world a favor, but was that justification enough to go to war? If it is then we have a long list to tackle, including Kim Jong-il of North Korea, Omar al-Bashir in Sudan, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran, Bashar al-Assad of Syria, and others. Certainly ousting each one would stretch our military resources very thin, and is therefore impractical, but I still don't understand our rationale. Why Hussein now and Ahmadinejad later?
As with all other moral concerns, I look to my religion for answers and guidance. Bruce R. McConkie, an apostle of the Church, described war as the "most satanic and evil state of affairs that can exist [...]. It is organized and systematic murder" (Mormon Doctrine). Under what circumstances then would the Lord permit such evil?
The Book of Mormon is rife with war, especially as the events wind down to the genocide that wipes out the Nephite civilization. In fact, primarily as a result of studying the Book of Mormon, I ruled out preemptive strike as a justifiable reason to go to war. If we are meant to liken the Nephites to ourselves, then their account becomes very relevant to this discussion. One LDS blogger's take on war goes as follows:
Additionally, the Nephites are divinely instructed not be "guilty of the first offense and neither the second" (Alma 43:46). When the Gadiation robbers, who have some similarity to modern terrorist groups, threatened the Nephites, the Nephite response is instructive: "[...] if we should go up against them the Lord would deliver us into their hands; therefore we will prepare ourselves in the center of our lands, and we will gather all our armies together, and will wait till they shall come against us; therefore as the Lord liveth, if we do this he will deliver them into our hands" (3 Nephi 3:21). If preemptive strike is unacceptable for the Nephites, then what of us?
Initially, then I was confused in rereading comments on the current conflict in Iraq. Church President Gordon Hinckley said in April 2003 that "as citizens we are all under the direction of our respective national leaders. They have access to greater political and military intelligence than do the people generally." Then again, bearing in mind that the Church is an international organization, his comments were directed to all members under various leaders with different opinions on war. Additionally, I wonder if Church members are as willing to accept President Hinckley's comment today, now that we have a new administration with a different outlook on war. I believe we are still beholden to "being subject to [...] presidents."
Other religious leaders also possess spiritual insight. Last year I read a biography on Gandhi and was very impressed with his life and mission. Gandhi taught that non-violent protest is more powerful than war because it converts an enemy's soul, instead of destroying it. I'm also interested in the idea the apostle Dallin Oaks outlines, that Jesus did not attempt to oust the tyrannical Roman Empire but taught his followers to be good citizens and peacemakers. In fact, Christ was rejected as the Messiah partly because the Jews had "missed the mark" and thought the Savior would fight their battles and liberate them politically.
Finally, I am comforted by the teachings of Elder Oaks in his talk entitled "World Peace." He espouses the idea that peace is not the absence but the opposite of war. In order to promote global peace, we must become local peacemakers. Praying and hoping for world peace is insufficient. Healing our relationships, forgiving quickly, and helping others is also necessary. If everyone really did that, all wars would cease.
When gunpowder became commonplace on the battlefield sometime around the Napoleanic Era something irrevocably changed about warfare. It's right around this time that world history loses much of its appeal to me (and I minored in history). The gun is a devastatingly powerful weapon in terms of both accuracy, range, and damage. I don't think it's prosaic to say that its widespread use and the invention of even deadlier weapons have forever altered the course of human history.
Most disturbing to me is the gun's dehumanizing effect. Modern soldiers never see their enemy face-to-face, allowing us to more easily overlook individuals obliterated and become innured to the sheer numbers of lives lost. It used to be that you would stand toe-to-toe with your opponent in a match of skill, strength, and stamina. You needed to know something about them, which sometimes led to respect and admiration, if ancient literature--which often extols the virtues of a "worthy opponent"--is any indication. Today, in our efforts to minimize American casualties, we've developed technologies so advanced that we can now send an unmanned plane to level a building, push a button to bomb a city, or snipe a "target" from a mile away. I used to know an LDS artilleryman who had served in Desert Storm and wasn't sure if or how many he had killed, but was haunted by the fact that he may have hit innocent bystanders. Modern warfare is both strange and tragic; no wonder much of the literature about it is bleak, depressing, and hopeless.
Because war, by definition, is the systematic destruction of another group of human beings and their livelihoods, it should never be treated lightly. Naturally, I'm troubled with the many organizations, such as today's Al-Qaeda, and nations, like Nazi Germany, who wantonly dole out death to accomplish their aims, as if it were the primary solution to any problem.
But what of us? We're certainly not the killers that some groups are, but I wonder if sometimes the United States is either too hasty or too inconsistent in going to war. For over 70% of the 20th century, the United States was engaged in some type of warfare, from territorial wars in Latin America to the two World Wars to Cold War conflicts and, finally, to Desert Storm. While we have long since abandoned wars for territorial acquisition, our more recent justification for war usually falls somewhere between protecting American interests/survival and spreading democracy. But are we unwavering and honest in these endeavors?
We have become a policing nation in the sense that we go to war to right international wrongs and bring unethical ideologies down. But we do so inconsistently and often overlook the most heinous of crimes against humanity. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, killing about a thousand Kuwaiti civilians, we began a seven-month conflict to liberate the overrun country. Just three years later, between 500 thousand to a million people were killed in the Rwandan Genocide while the United States looked on, actually lobbying, just after the fighting began, that all UN troops leave Rwanda. The genocide in Darfur is making headlines today, but little is actually being done about the conflict with fatalities now numbering in the hundreds of thousands.
Some promote our role as the global enforcer for democracy, but we are variable in our dedication. The United States went to war with factions in Korea, Laos and Vietnam in the 1950s and 60s to halt the spread of communism, a sort of political preemptive strike. But we never made similar attempts in Russia or China, probably because wars with superpowers would have been disastrous for us. Today, we ignore the newest communist leanings in countries like Moldova and others. With the possible exceptions of China and North Korea, communism has almost become a joke, synonymous with poverty and backward thinking.
No, terrorism and tyranny are the modern manifestations of political evil. Americans believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and went to war to stop the perceived threat. Years and many casualties later and we know now that Iraq was merely posturing in an attempt to look more powerful. There were no weapons of mass destruction to be found and no evidence that there had been any. Some say that we ousted an immoral and threatening head of state and, therefore, did the world a favor, but was that justification enough to go to war? If it is then we have a long list to tackle, including Kim Jong-il of North Korea, Omar al-Bashir in Sudan, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran, Bashar al-Assad of Syria, and others. Certainly ousting each one would stretch our military resources very thin, and is therefore impractical, but I still don't understand our rationale. Why Hussein now and Ahmadinejad later?
As with all other moral concerns, I look to my religion for answers and guidance. Bruce R. McConkie, an apostle of the Church, described war as the "most satanic and evil state of affairs that can exist [...]. It is organized and systematic murder" (Mormon Doctrine). Under what circumstances then would the Lord permit such evil?
The Book of Mormon is rife with war, especially as the events wind down to the genocide that wipes out the Nephite civilization. In fact, primarily as a result of studying the Book of Mormon, I ruled out preemptive strike as a justifiable reason to go to war. If we are meant to liken the Nephites to ourselves, then their account becomes very relevant to this discussion. One LDS blogger's take on war goes as follows:
"[N]ever in the whole of the Book of Mormon can there be found a single instance of any group, who is identified as righteous, launching a war or invading enemy territory even when they had clear and compelling evidence that they were about to be attacked. [...] According to the Book of Mormon there are several conditions, all of which must be met, to justify war: 1) Life and land and rights must be threatened by an enemy that wishes to take them away by forcible subjection (Alma 43:9-10, 43:46-47). 2) The enemy must actually have the power to follow through on their threat to deprive the conquered of their rights, land, and life (Alma 43:14, Alma 48:4). 3) War should be in defense against invaders (3 Nephi 3:21)."
Additionally, the Nephites are divinely instructed not be "guilty of the first offense and neither the second" (Alma 43:46). When the Gadiation robbers, who have some similarity to modern terrorist groups, threatened the Nephites, the Nephite response is instructive: "[...] if we should go up against them the Lord would deliver us into their hands; therefore we will prepare ourselves in the center of our lands, and we will gather all our armies together, and will wait till they shall come against us; therefore as the Lord liveth, if we do this he will deliver them into our hands" (3 Nephi 3:21). If preemptive strike is unacceptable for the Nephites, then what of us?
Initially, then I was confused in rereading comments on the current conflict in Iraq. Church President Gordon Hinckley said in April 2003 that "as citizens we are all under the direction of our respective national leaders. They have access to greater political and military intelligence than do the people generally." Then again, bearing in mind that the Church is an international organization, his comments were directed to all members under various leaders with different opinions on war. Additionally, I wonder if Church members are as willing to accept President Hinckley's comment today, now that we have a new administration with a different outlook on war. I believe we are still beholden to "being subject to [...] presidents."
Other religious leaders also possess spiritual insight. Last year I read a biography on Gandhi and was very impressed with his life and mission. Gandhi taught that non-violent protest is more powerful than war because it converts an enemy's soul, instead of destroying it. I'm also interested in the idea the apostle Dallin Oaks outlines, that Jesus did not attempt to oust the tyrannical Roman Empire but taught his followers to be good citizens and peacemakers. In fact, Christ was rejected as the Messiah partly because the Jews had "missed the mark" and thought the Savior would fight their battles and liberate them politically.
Finally, I am comforted by the teachings of Elder Oaks in his talk entitled "World Peace." He espouses the idea that peace is not the absence but the opposite of war. In order to promote global peace, we must become local peacemakers. Praying and hoping for world peace is insufficient. Healing our relationships, forgiving quickly, and helping others is also necessary. If everyone really did that, all wars would cease.
Friday, November 6, 2009
I am Ninja
This Halloween I was a ninja-pirate, or, I should say, a ninja with pirate elements. Here are some of the crazy antics I had with my friends last weekend:
Arriving at the barn dance with Eve in traditional Japanese dress and my roommate Carl as a bucket list.
From right to left: Myles as a medieval peasant from the hit movie "A Knight's Tale," Heidi as Princess Fiona, me, and Merry as herself.
We went to a corn maze Halloween night. It was not frightening, so I didn't have to punch anyone this time.
Arriving at the barn dance with Eve in traditional Japanese dress and my roommate Carl as a bucket list.From right to left: Myles as a medieval peasant from the hit movie "A Knight's Tale," Heidi as Princess Fiona, me, and Merry as herself.
Nobody kicks the bucket on my watch!
Urban ninja!
Trick-or-treating on Embassy Row. This is the gang in front of the Cosmos Club with random Cosmos Club employee.
We went to a corn maze Halloween night. It was not frightening, so I didn't have to punch anyone this time.
After the corn maze, we went to my apartment, watched "Corpse Bride" and ate Halloween cake. It was so good it made Sarah cry.
Perhaps I should also mention that I did extensive research on the art of being ninja. Here's a small taste: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lVSub2wsys
Sunday, October 25, 2009
In My Opinion, No. 1: Animals
It may surprise some of you, readers, but I'm deeply interested in animals. I blame my parents, who got me a subscription to Zoobooks while in my formative years when I didn't know any better. Thus began a long-lasting interest in the kingdom that is defined, according to the Smithsonian Institute's Animal, as any multicellular species that takes in food. As a food-consumer myself, I can identify with that sort. That's my kind of organism!
Resultantly, I know things one shouldn't know about animals. I know why pigeons have acclimatized so well to urban settings. I've read how certain ravens have been observed using passing cars to open hard seeds and nuts. I know that, in danger, squirrels circularly climb, simultaneously escaping danger on the ground while putting the trunk between themselves and any airborne predator. Owls' ears are on the sides of their head, while the tufts on top simply direct sound. While cheetahs are the fastest animal on land, pronghorn gazelle are the second fastest, peregrine falcons fastest in air, and sailfish fastest in water. The axolotl is a creature that even in adult form has not metamorphosed as other amphibians do (and as its DNA was designed) but can be artificially matured in a laboratory. The ancestors of gerbils come from the Gobi Desert in Mongolia, while chickens hail from tropical jungles in Southeast Asia. And, yes, I have read cover-to-cover the book sitting on my shelf entitled How to Raise Milk Goats Successfully.
As I've matured, the basis for my interest in animals has shifted from boyhood curiosity to firmer ground. As with so many other things in my life, I find that my spirituality influences my way of thinking. How compelling it was for me to discover that animals have spirits of their own and that some will inhabit the heavens, that they too are here to fulfill a measure of creation, and that God has commanded humankind to treat animals well. As a practicing Latter-day Saint, I am reminded every time I go to the temple how important the Earth and its lifeforms are to God. Nature is beautiful, complex, and majestic and, in my opinion, worth preserving even if we are inconvenienced in doing so.
I'm a firm believer that all lifeforms have intrinsic worth and that to take a life, directly or indirectly, animal or human, is a practice that must be held up to careful scrutiny. That being said, I'm not a vegetarian and I value human life much more than the life of, say, a cat. Even a really awesome cat. In fact, the aesthetic or utilitarian qualities of animals seldom affect the importance I place on any particular species. I kill only in self-defense or to eat. If a mosquito attacks, I fight back. I feel no guilt eating meat. But I am willing and do pay more for animal products humanely raised and slaughtered. I've even been known to go out of my way to take a nasty insect outside instead of crushing it with the nearest shoe.
But it's strange to me that so few people share my feeling. After thinking about it, I grew surprised that the Christian world in general seems so apathetic toward animal life, with little or no liturgy on the subject.
That said, might I suggest some reading material on the subject of animals/nature that might be of interest to Christians (and Mormons in particular): Genesis 1:26, 28; 9:2-5; JST Genesis 9:10-11; Deuteronomy 12:15-16; Psalms 115:16; Proverbs 12:10; Isaiah 45:18; Daniel 1:8, 12, 15; 1 Timothy 4:1, 3-4; Doctrine and Covenants 49:18-19, 21; 89:12-13; 104:13-14; Moses 7:48-49. Also, Gerald E. Jones' "The Gospel and Animals."
What especially saddens me is the extinction of an entire species. As a LDS, I know that all animal life will be resurrected so, in a way, the species is not forever lost. But is that a viable justification for causing a species to go extinct? If so, the same rationale can be used about taking other forms of life, even human. Through intentional harm, apathy, overhunting, or lack of foresight, we sometimes bar a unique group of animals from multiplying. Do we not rob them the ability to obey the law God specifically gave them in the creation?
I conclude with a Zion's Camp story, from the life of the Prophet Joseph Smith: "We crossed the Embarras [R]iver and encamped on a small branch of the same about one mile west. In pitching my tent we found three massasaugas or prairie rattlesnakes, which the brethren were about to kill, but I said, ‘Let them alone—don’t hurt them! How will the serpent ever lose his venom, while the servants of God possess the same disposition and continue to make war upon it? Men must become harmless, before the brute creation; and when men lose their vicious dispositions and cease to destroy the animal race, the lion and the lamb can dwell together, and the sucking child can play with the serpent in safety.’ The brethren took the serpents carefully on sticks and carried them across the creek. I exhorted the brethren not to kill a serpent, bird, or an animal of any kind during our journey unless it became necessary in order to preserve ourselves from hunger" (History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2:71-72).
Resultantly, I know things one shouldn't know about animals. I know why pigeons have acclimatized so well to urban settings. I've read how certain ravens have been observed using passing cars to open hard seeds and nuts. I know that, in danger, squirrels circularly climb, simultaneously escaping danger on the ground while putting the trunk between themselves and any airborne predator. Owls' ears are on the sides of their head, while the tufts on top simply direct sound. While cheetahs are the fastest animal on land, pronghorn gazelle are the second fastest, peregrine falcons fastest in air, and sailfish fastest in water. The axolotl is a creature that even in adult form has not metamorphosed as other amphibians do (and as its DNA was designed) but can be artificially matured in a laboratory. The ancestors of gerbils come from the Gobi Desert in Mongolia, while chickens hail from tropical jungles in Southeast Asia. And, yes, I have read cover-to-cover the book sitting on my shelf entitled How to Raise Milk Goats Successfully.
As I've matured, the basis for my interest in animals has shifted from boyhood curiosity to firmer ground. As with so many other things in my life, I find that my spirituality influences my way of thinking. How compelling it was for me to discover that animals have spirits of their own and that some will inhabit the heavens, that they too are here to fulfill a measure of creation, and that God has commanded humankind to treat animals well. As a practicing Latter-day Saint, I am reminded every time I go to the temple how important the Earth and its lifeforms are to God. Nature is beautiful, complex, and majestic and, in my opinion, worth preserving even if we are inconvenienced in doing so.I'm a firm believer that all lifeforms have intrinsic worth and that to take a life, directly or indirectly, animal or human, is a practice that must be held up to careful scrutiny. That being said, I'm not a vegetarian and I value human life much more than the life of, say, a cat. Even a really awesome cat. In fact, the aesthetic or utilitarian qualities of animals seldom affect the importance I place on any particular species. I kill only in self-defense or to eat. If a mosquito attacks, I fight back. I feel no guilt eating meat. But I am willing and do pay more for animal products humanely raised and slaughtered. I've even been known to go out of my way to take a nasty insect outside instead of crushing it with the nearest shoe.
But it's strange to me that so few people share my feeling. After thinking about it, I grew surprised that the Christian world in general seems so apathetic toward animal life, with little or no liturgy on the subject.
That said, might I suggest some reading material on the subject of animals/nature that might be of interest to Christians (and Mormons in particular): Genesis 1:26, 28; 9:2-5; JST Genesis 9:10-11; Deuteronomy 12:15-16; Psalms 115:16; Proverbs 12:10; Isaiah 45:18; Daniel 1:8, 12, 15; 1 Timothy 4:1, 3-4; Doctrine and Covenants 49:18-19, 21; 89:12-13; 104:13-14; Moses 7:48-49. Also, Gerald E. Jones' "The Gospel and Animals."
What especially saddens me is the extinction of an entire species. As a LDS, I know that all animal life will be resurrected so, in a way, the species is not forever lost. But is that a viable justification for causing a species to go extinct? If so, the same rationale can be used about taking other forms of life, even human. Through intentional harm, apathy, overhunting, or lack of foresight, we sometimes bar a unique group of animals from multiplying. Do we not rob them the ability to obey the law God specifically gave them in the creation?
I conclude with a Zion's Camp story, from the life of the Prophet Joseph Smith: "We crossed the Embarras [R]iver and encamped on a small branch of the same about one mile west. In pitching my tent we found three massasaugas or prairie rattlesnakes, which the brethren were about to kill, but I said, ‘Let them alone—don’t hurt them! How will the serpent ever lose his venom, while the servants of God possess the same disposition and continue to make war upon it? Men must become harmless, before the brute creation; and when men lose their vicious dispositions and cease to destroy the animal race, the lion and the lamb can dwell together, and the sucking child can play with the serpent in safety.’ The brethren took the serpents carefully on sticks and carried them across the creek. I exhorted the brethren not to kill a serpent, bird, or an animal of any kind during our journey unless it became necessary in order to preserve ourselves from hunger" (History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2:71-72).
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
i miss books
For almost an entire month I have not indulged in any leisure reading. My mind has not atrophied because I still read plenty of essays and short stories in order to teach my class. It's my soul that ails me these days.
I am in the middle of reading Les Miserables but it's anyone's guess when I'll have time to finish it.
I am in the middle of reading Les Miserables but it's anyone's guess when I'll have time to finish it.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Bucket List
A friend recently posted on her blog 100 things she wanted to do before she dies. Coincidentally, I already had made one about a year ago and thought I'd drag it out and post it. Here are the highlights of my list; skipped numbers indicate something I've left out for privacy's sake while things crossed out indicate something completed but possibly needing repeating:
1) travel toEurope, South America, East Asia
2) get married in the temple
3) become a father
4) baptize my children
6) write a book
7) publish said book
8) learn to paint
9) complete a week-long hike
10) live in a wooded area
11) sail a boat
12) plant a garden
13) learn birdwatching
14) habitually have long talks with my siblings
16) laugh every day
17) baptize a friend or neighbor
18) white-water rafting
19) build a giant sandcastle
20) learn to make old-fashioned maps
22)live with friends
23) fulfill my ward callings
24) read scriptures, pray daily
25) learn bass guitar
26) get a Ph.D
27) inspire some students
29) learn assertiveness
31) read great literature
32) eat my own home-grown food
33) recycle
34) buy a hybrid car
35) live in a foreign country (preferably Brazil, New Zealand, or Portugal)
37) donate to charities
38) visit Africa
39) own a cat, name him Maxwell
40) raise cashmere goats
41) live in the country
42) own a library
43) ride my bike weekly
44) get to the point that I can ride my bike as long as I want without exhaustion
45) learn more languages
46) become a better cook
47) help build my own house
48) remodel an old house
49) live by a lake
50) live along the Pacific northwest
51) serve another mission
53)teach college
56) do more projects with my dad
57) attend hockey games
58) publish an essay
59) plan fun dates
64) take ancestors' names to the temple
65) visit my grandparents in Canada
66) put others before myself
67)see a Broadway show
68) play sports
71) design a floorplan
72) build furniture/bookshelves
74) learn east-coast swing dance
75)start/join a book club
77) frequent the temple
78) know God
82) go on a non-typical cruise
83) climb some serious mountains
84) help save wildlife
85) dress up every Halloween
87) 200 in bowling
88) find music I like again
89) store food
91) pay off student loans
92) pay a full tithe
93) donate to the Perpetual Education Fund
94) raise chickens
95) get a new wardrobe
96) 100% home teaching
99) witness children learn to walk/talk/read
101) see Christ
ED: items in italics are things I'm currently working on.
1) travel to
2) get married in the temple
3) become a father
4) baptize my children
6) write a book
7) publish said book
8) learn to paint
9) complete a week-long hike
10) live in a wooded area
11) sail a boat
12) plant a garden
13) learn birdwatching
14) habitually have long talks with my siblings
16) laugh every day
17) baptize a friend or neighbor
18) white-water rafting
19) build a giant sandcastle
20) learn to make old-fashioned maps
22)
23) fulfill my ward callings
24) read scriptures, pray daily
25) learn bass guitar
26) get a Ph.D
27) inspire some students
29) learn assertiveness
31) read great literature
32) eat my own home-grown food
33) recycle
34) buy a hybrid car
35) live in a foreign country (preferably Brazil, New Zealand, or Portugal)
37) donate to charities
38) visit Africa
39) own a cat, name him Maxwell
40) raise cashmere goats
41) live in the country
42) own a library
43) ride my bike weekly
44) get to the point that I can ride my bike as long as I want without exhaustion
45) learn more languages
46) become a better cook
47) help build my own house
48) remodel an old house
49) live by a lake
50) live along the Pacific northwest
51) serve another mission
53)
56) do more projects with my dad
57) attend hockey games
58) publish an essay
59) plan fun dates
64) take ancestors' names to the temple
65) visit my grandparents in Canada
66) put others before myself
67)
68) play sports
71) design a floorplan
72) build furniture/bookshelves
74) learn east-coast swing dance
75)
77) frequent the temple
78) know God
82) go on a non-typical cruise
83) climb some serious mountains
84) help save wildlife
85) dress up every Halloween
87) 200 in bowling
88) find music I like again
89) store food
91) pay off student loans
92) pay a full tithe
93) donate to the Perpetual Education Fund
94) raise chickens
95) get a new wardrobe
96) 100% home teaching
99) witness children learn to walk/talk/read
101) see Christ
ED: items in italics are things I'm currently working on.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Yea or Nay
For the past month and a half I've been sporting a beard.
At first it was just a lark. I was working with a roofing crew the last two weeks of the summer and it seemed the natural course of things to try to blend in, especially after they found out I had no criminal record. Plus, I was lazy. Not shaving meant I had an extra ten minutes in the morning, precious time when you're waking at 4:30 a.m.
But the beard-growing became more deliberate when I contemplated the maturing effect it has on my baby face, which belies my 28 years. I was about to start teaching English to college freshman and I didn't want to look like a student. When people guess my age it's usually in the 23-25 range, which is roughly the same age as some of the freshmen at Montgomery and NOVA. So I've kept it a few weeks into the semester to establish myself as an authority figure. All fear me.
So, it's time to cast your vote. Beard or no. Plenty of pros and cons, which balances the scales and makes me indecisive. Your vote could tip the balance.
At first it was just a lark. I was working with a roofing crew the last two weeks of the summer and it seemed the natural course of things to try to blend in, especially after they found out I had no criminal record. Plus, I was lazy. Not shaving meant I had an extra ten minutes in the morning, precious time when you're waking at 4:30 a.m.But the beard-growing became more deliberate when I contemplated the maturing effect it has on my baby face, which belies my 28 years. I was about to start teaching English to college freshman and I didn't want to look like a student. When people guess my age it's usually in the 23-25 range, which is roughly the same age as some of the freshmen at Montgomery and NOVA. So I've kept it a few weeks into the semester to establish myself as an authority figure. All fear me.
People say I look good with a beard, that it "works." Someone even said, "As a rule I don't like beards, but yours isn't bad."
But I'm still not sure bearded is really me. I look in the mirror and continue to surprise myself with my appearance. What's more, sometimes it itches, especially on humid days. And you know that comforting feeling that washes over you when you turn your pillow over and it's cool on the other side. I don't feel it anymore, just bristles.So, it's time to cast your vote. Beard or no. Plenty of pros and cons, which balances the scales and makes me indecisive. Your vote could tip the balance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)