bethings

Punk Rock isn't just for Anarchists anymore

2009-06-17T14:35:00.006-06:00

I just found out that Michale Graves, famous as one of the singers for punk band the Misfits, is a conservative and a Republican. I also found this video from the Daily Show where they make fun of... pretty much everyone.

A Hidden Lesson in Every Commercial

2009-06-05T23:38:00.006-06:00

I just saw this commercial tonight. Notice the difference between the bad car salesman and the good one. You can watch it multiple times if you need to. This test is open-book.

Did you see the difference? Do you see what TV is teaching us? Moustaches are shifty.

"Most Improved" and other burning instead of beauty

2009-05-20T11:46:00.000-06:00

Last week I saw an advertisement for a permanent make-up company in Salt Lake, and I was going to write a post about it, but I got lazy and didn't do it. This week I found a new catalyst in that the young women in my ward are having a presentation on make-up as part of their weekly activity night.

Before I get into the particulars of my catalysts, let me just explain why I have a problem with make-up. I know there's a lot of potential issues with make-up or even with fashion in general, especially when you try to reconcile it with religion, but I think the thing that sets make-up apart from other fashions is how intertwined it becomes with a woman's self-esteem. If it were treated the same way as picking a belt or a pair of shoes, then I don't think I would care. But it's not treated the same. It becomes such a part of a woman's identity that she is convinced that she is not pretty without it, and she's uncomfortable being seen in public until after she has her face painted.

Cultural traditions are complicated and I know there's probably a lot of factors that have gone into making and keeping make-up so connected to self-esteem as it is. I don't know what's to blame for that, but I do see that the make-up companies realize this connection and that they prey on women because of it, taking advantage of self-esteem issues to sell their products. You could probably make an example out of any number of advertising campaigns, but one that is particularly obvious to me is Mary Kay. When they have their little make-up parties to sell the product in women's homes, they actually vote on who is the "most improved" because of the new make-up.

I don't really know what my ward's agenda is with this activity for the young women or how they're going to present it. I think it's entirely possible that they're going to have a very tasteful presentation and try to teach the girls to be moderate in how they wear their make-up. Even that, though, I think is potentially damaging to the young women.

I've seen those reality shows where they give a woman a make-over, which usually involves teaching her how to properly use her make-up. I haven't seen a lot of these shows, but every one that I have seen tells the woman to be more moderate and more sparing in how she applies her make-up. That's fine. The problem is that even this approach (or especially this approach?) teaches the woman that this is the way that her face is meant to be painted. The make-over teaches her what clothes are in style, and maybe what is flattering to her out of that style, but with the make-up it teaches her what matches her, as though it is something permanent that her face needs and not something that changes with the seasons and her moods like other fashions. It teaches her that this is the right look for her features and complexion. Even if the end result is that she wears less make-up than before, it still emphasizes the idea that there is a correct look for this particular woman and that it is only achievable through the application of make-up.

So regardless of the intent, I'd just be afraid that by teaching the young women to use make-up, you're really just teaching them that they need make-up.

Maybe it's an extension of that idea that there is a single correct look for a woman's face and that make-up achieves it that has led our society to the idea of permanent make-up. Anything permanent and unchangeable makes me nervous and I think the fact that there are women who are willing to have their make-up permanently attached just emphasizes how much the industry has convinced them of their inadequacy without it.

There is an additional thing that bothers me about permanent make-up. I'm sure that Salt Lake has more ads for tattoo removal than for tattoo parlors, but permanent make-up has no problem fitting in with all of the other ads for permanently changing a person's body to fit some arbitrary image of beauty. The part of this that really bothers me is that some of the same people who have religious reasons for thinking that tattoos are immoral can think that permanent make-up is just fine. You do realize that they are the same thing, right? The only difference is the shape of the tattoo that you're getting, but it's still a tattoo. I think the women who find themselves in favor of permanent make-up but against traditional tattoos have forgotten why they are against tattoos in the first place. It's so easy to be swept up in a cultural stereotype, but before long we forget our values and just start thinking that the definition of our religion is the same as our niche in that culture.

I guess it makes sense that the cultural associations blur the lines between make-up and tattoos for some women. After all, it's only because of cultural associations that permanent make-up could ever have an appeal in the first place. Women have been taught that they don't look good without it, and that they should always wear it whenever they are visible to anyone else, so it seems like an inconsequential step to have it permanently attached. Societal pressures have already permanently inked the make-up to our identity, so why not to skin?

Star Trek

2009-05-17T03:03:00.001-06:00

I just got back from watching the new Star Trek movie. I liked it a lot. I was pretty worried about some things that they could do to screw it up, but I thought they did everything very well. I especially thought that they did a great job keeping the characters true to how they were written originally.

Fire Creek unleashed

2009-05-07T16:29:00.002-06:00

A long time ago in a valley far far away, I got to be an extra in a movie called Fire Creek. Some of my friends went with: Roy, Becca, and of course Tyler, who got the imaginary crap beat out of him.

Despite it having been 4 years ago this month, they finally decided to release it. I don't know if we're still in it or if they cut that scene or if they just had to start over because they took so long making it, but I want to go see it just in case.

Pants of the Future

2009-05-03T21:34:00.002-06:00

I think I've figured out why everyone in Star Trek and other sci-fi shows wear clothes that look like pajamas. I think it's because our species is so impressed by David Bowie that the future just has to emulate his clothing from the Labyrinth.

Observations

2009-05-01T13:51:00.002-06:00

This morning I shaved my beard into a moustache. When I got to work and my boss called me into his office to help him with something, he looked at me a little bit puzzled, and then asked if I'd gotten a haircut. I grinned and said yes. I did, in fact, get a haircut yesterday.

Then Garrett looked up from what he was doing (also helping Jon) and laughed, pointing out that it was Moustache May.

Jon looked at me again, this time noticing the moustache, but still confused as to what was new. "Oh, yeah, you had a full beard yesterday. I knew something was different but I couldn't figure out what it was."

This might not be that funny on its own, but I mostly like it because I predicted that exact response last night.

Swine Flu Cured

2009-04-30T14:45:00.000-06:00

I think I know how to cure swine flu. I think I remember the news saying that you can't sick from eating pig meat products. That's good news. We're entirely safe eating pork, bacon, ham, etc. All we need to do is eat all of the pigs, and soon the disease will be no more. So, for the sake of humanity's future, eat more bacon.

Not a turn-friendly zone

2009-04-13T10:30:00.001-06:00

What does San Francisco have against left turns? It seems like every street we'd cross while we were there prohibited left-hand turns. I understand the ones that are one-way streets, and I appreciate the sign helping me not get killed by an oncoming bus. But what about all of the other streets? What's their excuse? It's like this city just has something against ambi-turners. You'd think that a city that's so accepting of people swinging both ways would be more tolerant of those of us who like to turn both ways.

Star Trek censorship

2009-04-05T13:14:00.001-06:00

Do you think in the Clean Flicks' version of Star Trek they change his name to William Crappedner?

Worlds Collide

2009-03-01T14:01:00.005-07:00

Last week we had dinner with some newly-made friends and the subject of politics came up. We found out what each other's viewpoint was, and then when we realized that they were opposite of each other, we simply moved on to other topics and we continued to have a good time hanging out and talking.

I have some other friends that I also disagree with on politics, but I still enjoy discussing the subject with them because we can see each other's point of view and disagree without becoming disagreeable, and overall I think we both grow from discussing alternate view points.

I'm not bringing up this difference to say that one way is better than another. I don't need to discuss every subject with every friend that I have. It doesn't matter if it's because we wouldn't disagree in a friendly way or if it's just because we have different passions and the same subjects don't appeal to both my friend and me. My point in bringing this up is that I can choose what to talk about with my friends based on their interests, their passions, and the situation; not just based on my own passions and interests. I think that choice is a good thing.

That brings me to problem I've been feeling about my blog. My blog doesn't give me that same choice as a regular conversation does. My blog isn't individual. In my blog I don't just write to one person and so it's not custom-tailored to how I best communicate with anyone. My blog is written generally to everyone, whether I know them or not, whether they hate me or not. I'm writing simultaneously to my mom and my boss, to the kid that's hated me since the 5th grade and to the friend that lives too far away to in person very often, to my best friend and to the stranger that doesn't know me at all but hates me anyway. Not that those people necessarily read my blog, but they can read it just as easily as someone that I specifically target with any post that I write.

I realize that this is the nature of blogs and of the Internet in general, and for most of my blog's lifespan there's been no problem with that. The most that I've ever had to censor myself with it was to be sure that any references to my crushes were sufficiently disguised that I wouldn't cause myself any public embarrassment. Most of my posts are just silly and stupid, and the worst thing that can happen about someone unexpected reading them is that they won't think I'm as funny as I think I am.

Maybe my life is just different than it once was and that's why my blog has become different, too. If nothing else, my current crush is well-known and she's happy to have me publicly confess it. Maybe the only thing that's really changed is the frequency and passion in recent political discussions. Or maybe nothing's changed at all, and it's just the fact that I'm a multi-faceted person, and that sometimes I want to write about something that I feel more deeply than a burrito. (I mean that metaphorically. I feel burritos all of the way down.)

I think that if I were to have my way then I'd just write about everything that I think and feel, regardless of how personal or controversial or humorous the subject is or isn't. I'd just write open and honestly about myself and all of my facets and not worry about how my reader might judge me. Sometimes that's been fine for me, but I don't know if I'm brave enough to really open myself up to every person that might wander across my blog. I'm afraid of how I might limit my life by doing that. I've realized recently that I can't be open about every facet of myself with every person that I'm friends with. Some people simply aren't comfortable with all of my facets, and unfortunately relationships change or get ruined when they're forced to see me from a point of view that they hadn't previously.

So here I am, at the end of this post, not knowing what to do with my blog and my friends. It'd be nice if I could just separate my digital persona from my real-life image so that I could still use my blog as an outlet for all of my multi-faceted thoughts, or maybe I could separate all of my facets into separate identities and blogs that wouldn't have to collide or interfere with each other. (I could keep just my food-related blogs tied to my real identity, since anyone that looks at me will know that I like food.) I'm afraid it's probably too late for any kind of separation like that for the people that already know me and read my blog, and instead I just feel sad to feel that I've already ruined both my blog and some relationships.

Or maybe I should stop taking the oxycodone so that I can stop feeling so melodramatic about the whole stupid thing.

(I should probably point out that the oxycodone is a joke for the sake of anyone that might think that I'm addicted to painkillers, but the fact that I'd have to point that out just makes me feel like I'm talking in circles.)

The Dawning of the Age of Aquarius

2009-02-10T11:31:00.003-07:00

I listened to the Forrest Gump soundtrack the other day and I've had the Age of Aquarius song stuck in my head. While I was trying to find a place to listen to the song today, I read a little bit about it. Apparently it's from some hippie musical called Hair, and then was later released as a pop song by the 5th Dimension. And, contrary to popular references (including my own three sentences ago) the song is just called "Aquarius", not "Age of Aquarius". Whatever, right?

Here's the interesting thing: Apparently there is some discord among astrologers about when the age of Aquarius really begins, but the first lines of the song lyrics give their own measurement for when it begins: "When the Moon is in the seventh house, and Jupiter aligns with Mars". According to Wikipedia this alignment will really happen on Feb. 14, 2009.

So, whatever the heck the age of Aquarius is, it starts on this week on Valentine's day. Weird, huh?

A Bad Week for Poetry

2009-01-22T12:48:00.003-07:00

I'm not an expert on poetry or anything, but I do like poetry. I even took a poetry class in high school (that I've mostly forgotten). I just want it understood that I'm not a poetry-hater before I say what needs to be said.

About that poetry after Obama's speech on Tuesday: it sucked.

Ok, I don't really know if the poem itself sucked, because it was so boring that I have no idea what the heck the poem was even about. It might be a perfectly good and thought-provoking poem when read on paper. I don't really know. Either the poem sucked, or the delivery sucked, but something definitely sucked.

Wouldn't you be trying to get some kind of message across in a political poem? Well what good is your message if no one can stand listening to you read it? Did the author really need to give a two-second-long pause between every word of the poem? She should have just had Captain Kirk read it. At least his uncomfortably-long-pauses are spaced out enough to make it seem dramatic. Seriously, I couldn't even pay attention to her long enough to hear a whole sentence, let alone to understand what the poem was about. If they really needed that poem to be read after Obama's speech then they should have just typed it into a Speak & Spell and I think it'd be easier to understand.

2009-01-18T15:21:00.004-07:00

Sorry about my last post. I've been informed that it doesn't make any sense. I still like it, though, so I'm not changing it. Instead, I'll just offer my apologies to anyone whose IQ was lowered because of reading it, and I'll try to give you a serious related post to try and make up some of those lost brain cells.

I'm not very far into Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time", but I have noticed something about the way he explains some of the more controversial scientific ideas (such as the big bang). He never insults or discredits religious ideas because of scientific discovery. He is especially courteous and careful about it, trying to be clear that science does not discredit religion, but just adds new understanding.

Take the following excerpt for instance. Hawking has just explained that we can observe that the universe is expanding. From that we know that the universe was once closer together than it is now, and from that we can deduce that there was once a time when the universe was "all at exactly the same place". Now the big bang (when the universe started expanding from being all in exactly the same place) is often treated as being at odds with the idea of divine creation, but Hawking doesn't explain it that way at all.

One could still imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!

I'm very impressed that Hawking doesn't try to say that the big bang discredits the creation, and even offers an explanation of how they can both be true.

One of the reasons that this is so thought-provoking to me is because I realize that the scientific community seems to be much more considerate of the religious community than we are of them. Hawking (himself an atheist) is very careful not to discredit the religious views of his readers, but it seems common to me that religious people are eager to discredit science as "just a theory" and to disbelieve the whole of scientific discovery rather than figure out how to reconcile their beliefs with the new knowledge that mankind is developing.

Science is bunk

2009-01-17T21:22:00.004-07:00

I've started reading "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking. In the first chapter he describes the goals of science and scientific theory. Unfortunately, I think he's wrong about a crucial assumption. Here's (a misrepresentation of) an excerpt from the book:

The eventual goal of science is to provide a single theory that describes the [construction on I-80]. However, the approach most scientists actually follow is to separate the problem into two parts. First, there are the laws that tell us how [the construction on I-80] changes with time. (If we know what [I-80] is like at any one time, these physical laws tell us how it will look at any later time.) Second, there is the question of the initial state of [I-80]. Some people feel that science should be concerned only with the first part; they regard the question of the initial [creation of I-80] as a matter for metaphysics or religion. They would say that [the government], being omnipotent, could have started the [I-80] any way that [they] wanted. That may be so, but in that case [they] also could have made [the construction] develop in a completely arbitrary way. Yet it appears that [they] chose to make [the construction move along] in a very regular way according to certain laws. It therefore seems equally reasonable to suppose that there are also laws governing the initial state [of I-80].

See? Sure, he starts off reasonable enough, but did you see how he thinks that the construction moves along in some way that actually makes sense? Sorry, Stephen, but if the construction is really done "in a completely arbitrary way", then science can't hope to discover any laws to understand it nor to predict when (if ever) it will be completed.

Ok, maybe Stephen Hawking wasn't really talking about the construction on I-80, but if science can't even make sense of the construction, there's no way it can describe the whole universe.

Jane Austen's lingo

2008-12-11T16:19:00.003-07:00

Kelly and I watched Emma the other day (because we like Clueless and we knew that it was a modern day take on the same Jane Austen book). I don't understand the way these people talk. Several times during the movie I had to pause it so that Kelly could explain to me what a character had just said. Once as she was translating she realized that she didn't understand what they had said, either, so we had to rewind and try again. It was still fun to watch the movie, but mostly because we liked trying to figure out how all of the characters from the two movies matched up. I missed Murray, though.

Holy War

2008-11-22T15:24:00.008-07:00

Several weeks ago our Sunday School class broke out into one of its frequent arguments between the kids that support BYU and those that support U of U. (It might actually be the kids whose parents support those schools, but I guess it's normal for loyalty to span generations.) One of our students claimed that BYU shouldn't even be allowed to have that name because Brigham Young founded the University of Utah and not BYU.

I did some research on his claim and thought I'd share it since we're rapidly approaching the climax of Rivalry Week. I discovered not only that Brigham Young had founded both schools, but that they were once part of the same school: the University of Deseret.

In 1850 Brigham Young founded a school called the University of Deseret. I guess he didn't do so well managing it because it only lasted two years before going out of business. Meanwhile other schools were being established in the territory, including a school that was built in Provo in 1862.

In 1867 the University of Deseret reopened, though I assume Brigham was no longer in charge because he was promoting his own goals to open a new school in Draper. The school in Draper didn't pan out, but the University of Deseret did well enough to start expanding, and in 1869 it bought the Provo school and made it part of the University.

Brigham Young continued with his own goal to open a school, and in 1875 he succeeded by purchasing the Provo campus from the University of Deseret. Brigham himself (not the Church) owned the newly purchased school, and named it the Brigham Young Academy.

In 1896 (some years after Brigham's death) the LDS Church acquired Brigham Young Academy, and in 1903 it was split into two separate schools: Brigham Young High School and Brigham Young University. Meanwhile the University of Deseret changed its name to the University of Utah in 1894 (paralleling the change in the name of the territory that was on the brink of becoming a state).

According to legend the rivalry between the two schools started at their very first sporting competition. It was a baseball game in 1895. It was a tie game and there was a brawl after it was over. The rest is history.

New Xbox Experience

2008-11-21T22:34:00.005-07:00

Microsoft released a pretty big update for the Xbox this week. It's basically the Xbox's equivalent of Windows Vista: no new functionality, but everything looks shinier.

The most obvious change is the addition of avatars. They let you create little digital characters for your profile. Basically the same thing as the Nintendo Mii, except that the Xbox versions don't look as much like Lego toys. I'd be a little worried that the introduction of these characters would cheese-up my otherwise adult gaming console, but it doesn't really change anything. There are no changes to existing games and only a few games can use the avatars, and only one of those can do anything with the avatar besides display it. So, really, while the avatar is fun to create, the only functional change that it offers is to give more personality to the old gamer profile icons.

The other noticeable change is the menu system. It's all shiny and bright, and after seeing the avatars you might think that the lighter feel of the menus is another Wii rip-off, but I think it's more similar to the Cover Flow interface that Apple has been putting on their new i-products (tunes and pods and phones). Basically the menu looks like a bunch of individual pages that you flip through. Besides the look of the menu, the menu system has gotten a lot bigger. It scrolls horizontally and vertically, so basically there's just tons of menu options. There are a couple places where the new navigation makes it easier to find things (like that there's finally a separation of full games from trials and demos in the Arcade menu). For the most part, though, the menu options are the same the new layout just gives Microsoft more real estate to throw in advertisements.

Something that actually does upset me about the new interface is that the skins for the dashboard are basically useless now. The old skins still exist, but the new interface just uses them for a background image instead of skinning all of the menus. I probably wouldn't care about that if it weren't for the fact that I had a special edition theme that came with my special edition Halo Xbox. So now I just have a special edition desktop image that anyone could probably get just by downloading a screenshot off the Internet and using that for their background image. It kind of takes the "special" out of the edition.

So, while the update is mostly just visual, there actually are two features that I'm excited about. One is that Netflix now has their own Xbox app, so you can watch the streamable portion of the Netflix library right on your Xbox. If that ends up as nice as I'm hoping then it might make me switch teams away from Blockbuster.

The second new feature that I'm excited about is the Community Games section. It's pretty empty right now, but basically this is a new area that will let individuals share their homebrew games with the rest of the Xbox world. Even if no good games surface out of the community, I think it's awesome and encouraging that it's even an option now.

If you're not an Xbox player you probably don't care about most of this (and if you are then you've probably already drawn your own conclusions), but I just thought I'd share my review while the system is still new enough for a fresh perspective. Even though the avatars are the most prominent change, don't be fooled and think that the Xbox has turned into the Nintendo Wii. Most of the changes are just cosmetic, and probably more ripped off from Apple than Nintendo anyway. If you don't like the cosmetic changes then you can find comfort in the fact that once you pop your game disk in the console is just the same as it always was.

Bluetooth

2008-11-21T14:00:00.002-07:00

Ok, I understand that it's a pretty cool technology to be able to have these wireless devices. I even think a wireless hands-free headset is a good idea. But that's not really the problem is it? If you're on the phone, fine, but if you're not actually talking on the phone, take the stupid thing out of your ear. Don't you know that you look like a moron? I don't walk around holding a phone up to my ear all day long just in case I get a phone call, so take your stupid phone out of your ear when you're not using it.

Where did this tradition come from anyway? Did the inventor of these headsets tell everyone that it would be cool if they just wore them all day long? Because that was a lie. It's not cool. You don't look cool and we're not impressed by you. It's not like driving around in your Porsche to show off that you're successful. It's more like wearing a high-tech pocket protector. So seriously. Just stop it.

Unique Experiences and Circumstances

2008-11-10T11:50:00.003-07:00

The Church made a press release about Proposition 8 the day after the election, mostly in defense of itself and attacks made against it for getting involved politically. This paragraph towards the end struck me:

Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendments, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position. Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances. As we move forward from the election, Church members need to be understanding and accepting of each other and work together for a better society.

What impresses me most is that the Church gives its members flexibility about this issue. It acknowledges that not all members would support the amendment and it seems to be fine with that. Instead of demanding that Church members support the amendment, it grants Church members their varying influences on their votes, and only asks mutual understanding and acceptance, not conformity.

While it would have been nice to have this kind of statement before the election while the debates were actually going on, I'm really glad for it now. Although (as the article states) the debate on the issue is not over, I hope that moving forward this will allow Latter-Day Saints to discuss the topic more openly and respectfully, without accusing each other of wrong doing simply because their politics "are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances."

Election Day

2008-11-04T12:25:00.003-07:00

You know what I'm most excited for today? For it to all be over. It's just gotten way too stressful and I'm eager to get back to where I can complain about the government and not worry about my voice being heard. Think how relaxing it will be when we can just rely on the government to make the wrong decisions without all of us needing to stress and argue about our own political decisions.

Plus then I can get back to writing and thinking about more important things, like food and video games.

In My Defense

2008-10-30T18:56:00.007-06:00

I've gotten some mixed responses to my last blog post (and by that I mean varying degrees of opposition), both on the post itself and from friends that prefer to talk more privately about the matter. I think that my views could use a little clarification.

First let me just point out that my post was not intended to challenge the doctrines of my Church nor of other religions. It was intended to challenge the idea that traditional families are in some kind of danger because of same-sex marriage. Frankly, I think that even opponents of same-sex marriage realize that these are bogus claims, but that they are more comfortable with unsupportable secular claims than with reasoning of a more personal nature (even if the personal or spiritual reasons make more sense). If people more readily admitted that their motives for opposing same-sex marriage were religious then I think that would have been a different blog post. (If you'd like to debate the validity of the secular arguments then I'm happy to hear your opinions, but please make your comments on my other post, as that's not the point of this one.) My point here is that I wasn't meaning to challenge anyone's religious or spiritual views (just their political reasoning).

As for the religious part of this issue, I hope that my friends will recognize the complexity of the situation before they become too worried or angry over my political views. I believe in my Church's teachings regarding families and their eternal nature. In fact, those teachings are very important to me in my personal life. A lot of the joy I get from living my religion is centered around the idea of eternal families. I don't discount that there are differences between men and women or that these are important to our eternal development. I love that my Church believes in both a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother, and I think that it shows the complimentary nature of men and women. I hope that my LDS friends will understand that I don't disregard the revelations about families, marriage, or sexuality. However, there are other revelations (that I also believe in) that are related to my political views on this subject. My Church's doctrine regarding government (D&C 134, the Articles of Faith, and parts of the Book of Mormon) supports the idea that the government should allow its citizens to believe as they will and to live their lives according to their beliefs. While it's easy to use those teachings to defend our own religious freedom, I think that we need to grant that same freedom to people that believe differently than we do (whether religious or not). I don't think that the religious freedom of others should be contingent on whether or not I or anyone else agrees with their beliefs.

Adding to complexity of the issue is the fact that my Church has expressly supported California's Proposition 8 and asked its members to do likewise. I know that this official statement is the whole deciding factor for a lot of Mormons. However, since the Church has also expressly stated that it is to be politically neutral, this departure from its policy only adds to my internal turmoil on the issue. I know that this is not the first time that the Church has laid aside their political neutrality (and maybe this neutrality isn't meant to be permanent anyway), but it is very rare. As far as I know, same-sex marriage is the only issue that has caused the Church to abandon its neutrality since I've been old enough to vote (or at the least since I've been old enough to be concerned about my vote). I can imagine that for some of my friends this is further reason to go with the flow, but I think the abnormality of the situation (not to mention the apparent contradictions with our beliefs on government) requires that we give this additional thought and concern, not that we shut off our brains on the issue.

I know that same-sex marriage is a sensitive subject for a lot of people, and I appreciate everyone that has given this issue thoughtful (and even prayerful) consideration, even if that leads them to different conclusions than me. I hope that they'll give me the same courtesy, even if my conclusions are different than theirs. I don't mind if you think that I am mixed up or mistaken about how I reconcile all of the components of this issue. In fact, if you feel that way I'd probably appreciate hearing your thoughts on the subject, especially if you're willing to share your spiritual motives.

However, that is not an invitation to insult my faith or my dedication to my religion. I want to be very clear about this. I love my religion and my Church, and I have not departed from my faith or testimony. I hope that by being explicit about this I've prevented anyone from drawing the wrong conclusion accidentally. If you disagree with me, whether about politics or religion or something else, that is fine and I'm open to the discussion, and usually I'm even open to changing my view if you convince me that I'm mistaken about my current position. Please be respectful as you disagree with me. Like you, I'm not always right, but I am honestly trying to do the right thing. Don't insult my motives because you disagree with my conclusions.

Traditional Families in Danger

2008-10-20T11:12:00.006-06:00

I originally posted this on my friend Starla's blog, but I wanted to repost it on my own because I think it's an important thing to discuss. Starla had written that Proposition 8 in California will affect our families and children, and she posted a link to this video. The following is from my comment on that blog post.

One thing I don't understand... is exactly how this proposition affects heterosexual and/or "Judeo-Christian" families.

As far as the family in the video, I don't see what the big deal is about the book that was sent home. It seemed like it is introducing the idea that some people's families are different, not that homosexuality is OK. I don't think teaching children to be tolerant of other people's lives is something that we need to be afraid of.

Still, I do think it's ridiculous that the school administration wouldn't acknowledge these parents' right to choose how to introduce this topic to their child, and I think (at least from what the video showed) that the father was completely justified in his rebellion against the administration.

However, the issue with the school administration does seem like a separate issue from gay marriage itself. Couldn't this same scenario have come up regarding sex education or the teaching of evolution in a science class? Some parents have objections to their children being taught these issues in public schools and want to opt their children out of it. If an individual school decides not to inform parents or give them the opportunity to opt out their children, then isn't that an issue that needs to be taken up on a local level with the school? It doesn't mean that we need to make sex education illegal, but that we need to see that parents are given control over what their children are taught. If the school and/or school board won't accommodate that for whatever reason, there are still private schooling options for parents that want their children taught in a religious way.

I think it's fine that religions have their own way of viewing homosexuality and same-sex marriage and that the state doesn't have any right to change the way religions approach the issue, but also don't think religions have the right to impose their views of homosexuality on people that aren't of their faith. If these same-sex marriage ammendments really do negatively impact heterosexual families then I think it's something we should all be aware of, but so far I haven't seen anyone give an explanation of why traditional families need to be concerned.

I'm reposting this because I really would like to see a discussion about the effects on traditional families. I don't mean any disrespect to Starla or my own church or anyone else that is opposing same-sex marriage in the political forum, but I would like to hear your opinions about how traditional families are affected by these ammendments.

Nobody Panic

2008-09-26T19:41:00.003-06:00

So, President Bush gave a speech this week about how to fix the economy.

Good evening. This is an extraordinary period for America's economy.

Good start. "Extraordinary" doesn't sound bad at all.

We're in the midst of a serious financial crisis...

...our entire economy is in danger.

...the gears of the American financial system began grinding to a halt.

...the situation becoming more precarious by the day...

...our country could experience a long and painful recession.

Ok, ok, I get it. He means extraordinarily bad. No need to harp on it.

The government's top economic experts warn that without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic...

Why wait for Congress to cause a panic by inaction when a doomsday speech can do it now?

First, how did our economy reach this point? ... Easy credit... led to excesses and bad decisions. Many mortgage lenders approved loans for borrowers without carefully examining their ability to pay. Many borrowers took out loans larger than they could afford...

So, basically the economy is messed up because some banks made some "bad decisions" lending money to people who couldn't pay it back.

So I've proposed that the federal government reduce the risk posed by these troubled assets, and supply urgently-needed money so banks and other financial institutions can avoid collapse and resume lending.

Great idea. We just need to give those banks that made bad loans a bunch of money so that they can keep making those loans. That should fix the economy in no time.

Despite corrections in the marketplace and instances of abuse, democratic capitalism is the best system ever devised.

Under normal circumstances, I would have followed this course. But these are not normal circumstances.

Right, we only need the best system ever when things are good, not to help us out of a crisis.

The government is the one institution with the patience and resources to buy these assets at their current low prices and hold them until markets return to normal.

...the one institution that doesn't mind putting their money behind a bunch of companies that have shown their prowess at losing their own money.

Under our proposal, the federal government would put up to $700 billion taxpayer dollars on the line...

I mean, that doesn't mind put taxpayer money behind those companies.

Denver in a nutshell

2008-08-18T14:59:00.009-06:00

This video has everything that you ever need to know about Denver. If anyone tries to tell you otherwise, they're a communist.