Okay, clear statements so no one gets confused about my position:
1) All people are children of God, and are meant to grow up to be like their Father. I don't see this as a metaphor.
2) I am NOT okay with single parenthood -- it should be avoided at all costs and remedied as quickly as possible. My heart goes out to single parents everywhere, keep going and do your best. Single parenthood by choice is wrong. I believe this because of personal experience, and this won't change until I have a significant amount of counter-experience.
3) Pornography is WRONG. It promotes sex trafficking, is always a contributing factor to sex crimes, rewires your brain, and there is absolutely nothing natural about having sex with a picture. If an individual is going to view it, I have no right to stop them--but I believe that nearly every studio that produce it should be wiped out of civil society all together. Use those cameras to inspire, rather than to enslave.
4) I am NOT okay with abortion. I don't have any right to tell someone else what choice they should make, but I'd encourage anyone to find another way. If the mother is treating the fetus as an allergin, or there is absolutely no medical possibility of survival for mother and baby, or if a woman was raped, then I feel it's my responsibility to offer emotional support and help that family in anyway I can. This stems almost solely from religious beliefs.
5) I am NOT okay with same-sex marriage. Calling it marriage presents legal difficulties. If you can make a civil institution that preserves a religions' right to marry whomever they want without government interference, then I can be content with that. I'm not okay with people losing their jobs or social standing because of their sexual experience or preferences. I'm equally against people who use this delicate subject primarily for attention. These beliefs stem from my understanding of biology, religious beliefs, personal experience, personal preferences, and ideals.
6) I am ALL IN FAVOR of smaller government in low-population density areas. Larger government makes sense in high-population density areas. This belief is subject to change, and I question it often.
6a) Tag onto that last one, I am a DECENTRALIST. It keeps the power closer to where it can do the most good, and it lets locals determine the best way to govern themselves.
7) I have no right to force anyone to do anything, with the exception that I reserve the right to preserve my agency as well. I will say nothing on the matter until a person's actions conflict with that agency in a way I find unacceptable. Legislation and appropriation means enforcement. This belief is primarily religious, and comes from my personal preferences and ideals.
8) I do not believe in our legal system. Lawyers are either clerks (which I'm okay with, they're needed) or bullies. As someone who once was a bully, you often bully believing your defending or championing someone else--still bullying. If people would be more willing to forgive, we'd save ourselves a lot of heartache and money.
9) War is wrong. Preemptive police actions are war, and the people who start and perpetuate them are butchers. The people who financially enable war are drowning in the blood of their victims. Destroying a nation's capital, or government is war. The U.S.A. is at war with several nations right now, and we are the aggressors, we are in the wrong. No matter how wicked and horrible I think other people are, killing thousands of soldiers, civilians, and leaders is still killing. Unless you, personally, are willing to pull the trigger to kill a stranger, then I think supporting war is hypocritical. You don't get peace with bombs, and you don't liberate people with warfare. We are not liberating anyone, we're just disrupting their neighborhoods and telling them why we're so great and why they should be like us. This belief comes from my personal preferences, and personal religious education.
10) I am a divine creationist. I think evolutionary creationism is hokum. You can't make a working cell from organic matter, you can make a grouping of symbiotic prokaryotic cells into a eukaryote organism, and you see enough creatures of inferior complexity that are dependent on organisms of greater complexity for their survival to discredit the idea that all life was created via random processes. Using statistical methods, in order to see a planet like Earth, it would take many orders of magnitude longer than the estimated age of the universe for our planet to be in the state it's in. In fact, given the aforementioned holes in "evolution as a means of planetary creation," the best of our understanding dictates that this world is a numerical impossibility--particularly when critically inserted into drake's equation (you have multiple zero terms).
Fossils are likely designed creatures that God wouldn't put life into because they disrupt the ecosystem, or detract from His divine plan for us. We lived before we came here, and a lot of what we see on the Earth today came from ideas and designs we shared with God--He obviously refined them, and made them viable, and granted them life. We considered it a privilege and a high-honor that God would adopt our ideas as His own.
Cell mutation and adaptation is normal and par for the course--makes sense that God would want His works to last for a very long time, seeing as He is eternal. He'd build anything that was meant to last to be very resilient and durable. Evolution in that sense, that living organisms adapt and gain greater capacity to exist in their environment is scientific fact and indisputable.
11) Global warming is fact. Man-caused global warming is a silly thing to debate. It's happening no matter what the cause, we can attempt to fight it and lose, or we can adapt to it and prosper.
12) Science is not a system of beliefs. The best science is data, and methods to repeatably obtain similar data. Science needs engineering (or experimentation) before it's of any worth, and engineering needs science to be of any value.
13) Racism has a place. It can help us understand a person's background, and cultural beliefs. If it influences the way we treat them in any way, or mars our perception of them, then it's wrong.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Thursday, December 8, 2011
The way things work
Inspired by:
http://xkcd.com/385/
You chose to be a mormon, and you're free to change that decision at any time. You wouldn't change your decision for all the misunderstanding, flak, and criticism in the world--not because you're opposed to change, just because you don't believe negativity should influence your decision-making process.
It upsets you to hear people within your own faith become increasingly antagonistic towards their religion, but you do your best to bite your tongue.
You try to illustrate the logical disparity in the way your treated because of your faith on particular matters, only to be received with more antagonism and criticism.
You know you're not right about everything, and that's fine, because you're still learning and know that you have a long way to go--but you ARE right about a few things and get attacked because you won't compromise that standard.
You can see wisdom, and room for improvement on your church's policy--but acknowledge that you don't have any certain idea as to HOW to improve that policy, and simply lack enough information to make an educated guess.
Having said that, you don't mind being held to a double-standard, because you've always held yourself to the highest standards you could think of, and you don't mind that other people do the same to you.
You're a mormon by choice. . .no one is making you stay that way but yourself. You're still a mormon.
http://xkcd.com/385/
You're not a mormon
- You get completely wasted one night and get in a car accident.
Society) Doesn't care, let the authorities handle it.
Your church) Frowns on your reckless behavior - Accuse people of not being "born again" to their face
Society) Is dismissive of you, largely doesn't care
Your church) Varies from praising you for being a defender of the faith to not really caring - You attack someone's faith or way of life
Society) Is tolerant and largely silent regarding your behavior
Your church) Praises you, in general, for supporting them. Tries to publicly preach love and kindness.
Now, you're a Mormon.
- You get wasted and get in a car accident.
Society) Let the authorities handle it. You see a handful of news articles describing how the mormon church is wrong because they preach abstaining from alcohol and it creates these nut-jobs who inevitably go overboard.
Your church) Varies depending on your attitude. It ranges from "let the authorities handle it" to "removal from the church, and let the authorities handle it" - You boldly state to someone that what they're doing doesn't fit your interpretation of doctrine
Society) Criticizes church policy, demonizes you, and tries to make your mistake as public as possible.
Your church) Tries to lovingly correct you, and reminds you that we are to do our best to teach principles and leave the interpretation up to the Spirit of God. Church usually defends its members from the public flak they get, while still attempting to help the public distinguish the difference between an individual member and the church as a whole. - You attack someone's faith or way of life
Society) Large quantities of angry and loud people start protesting around your places of worship, everything you said is circulated as fast as modern media will allow. People start drafting legal cases against you, and try to label you and everyone of your faith as bigoted and entirely off-base.
Your church) Reminds you of the policy and doctrine instituted in 1844, that we claim the privilege of worshipping God, and allow all men the same privilege to worship how, where, and whatever they may. Makes a public statement that the church in no way holds your position or view point, and never has.
Now you're me
You chose to be a mormon, and you're free to change that decision at any time. You wouldn't change your decision for all the misunderstanding, flak, and criticism in the world--not because you're opposed to change, just because you don't believe negativity should influence your decision-making process.
It upsets you to hear people within your own faith become increasingly antagonistic towards their religion, but you do your best to bite your tongue.
You try to illustrate the logical disparity in the way your treated because of your faith on particular matters, only to be received with more antagonism and criticism.
You know you're not right about everything, and that's fine, because you're still learning and know that you have a long way to go--but you ARE right about a few things and get attacked because you won't compromise that standard.
You can see wisdom, and room for improvement on your church's policy--but acknowledge that you don't have any certain idea as to HOW to improve that policy, and simply lack enough information to make an educated guess.
Having said that, you don't mind being held to a double-standard, because you've always held yourself to the highest standards you could think of, and you don't mind that other people do the same to you.
You're a mormon by choice. . .no one is making you stay that way but yourself. You're still a mormon.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
A good king. . .
Those who would've been nobles in medieval times, instead of being the only permitted social class with the right to fight for the kingdom, never take up arms in defense of their titles and wealth. Political leaders are no longer concerned with God's approval over their reign, only with their approval rating.
In many ways we are better off, and no one would dispute that fact if we looked at standards of living. However, historically we have always said that we must learn from our failures--but then never discuss them. Why did monarchy fail? Why do we still have bits of it in our societies today if it was largely a failure? What, about monarchy, is a success that enabled the institution to endure for several millennium?
Well, I believe I have the answer--and it can all be summarized in the attributes of a good king.
A good king raises no army, but is the sole defender of his realm. Every tyrant in history has been labeled so because they compelled their people into conquest and fighting. A true leader would take the burden of defense and military conquest solely on himself. If that meant he was the only man taking up the sword to defend the realm from an army, then a good king would do so even to his death. It is also worth noting that a good king would never, in reality, stand alone--his people would want to defend him and would take up arms willingly beside him.
A good king rewards titles, honors, and responsibility. He motivates those he rules to be the best they can be. He harnesses the ambitions of his people to become the best they can be and to work for the good of the nation. He acknowledges the nobility and capacity for honor in all his subjects, and seeks to recognize and reward them as capable. He relies more on this than internal discipline and taxation.A good king is the most prominent patron of the arts. Without nobility and visibility, we are not inclined to view and study the past--market forces have proven that with modern entities of high culture (symphonies, operas). What good would titles and honors be if they did not carry historical significance. Speech writers, musicians, dancers, painters, all of these move towards subjects of note and portray (and often embellish upon) their triumphs and shortcomings. Having these as part of a monarch's role specifically makes titles of honor carry actual power and influence. The arts, above all other institutions, make a responsibility of weight and importance beyond the lifespan of the individual granted it.
A good king spends the majority of his time pondering on the difficulties of his people. He is worried about all he serves and is never able to set their problems aside until they are solved to satisfaction. It's not enough to just work through problems, he must address them in a patient, wise, and loving fashion. Some matters are delicate, some parties are wrong, some issues only exist when given attention. It is a king's duty to resolve these, and not let them fester or escalate. If it means the king needs to play the bad guy, or the knight in shining armor, or simply needs to be present to solve an issue, than he does it. Within the responsibility, I consider the charge to carry forth and encourage research.
Now for my point (and reason for making this post). We have a lot of crappy leaders. Most of us, if we were honest with ourselves, would make crappy leaders. We don't have guidelines for good leadership--we barely have a measuring stick to serve as comparison. I am not just referring to political leadership. These principles apply to any person who fills a role of governor. Good fathers are, in a way, good kings in their homes. Leaders of school boards are kings in their sphere of influence. Many matriarchs are the monarchs of their realm. Many adults do serve in king-ship style roles in one way or another.
My real hope is that some few people will take this to heart and start to make a measuring stick for themselves to see how well they are filling their leadership role within their sphere of influence. I don't, honestly, know what the criteria would be for a good queen. I'll leave that post up to Dani.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Shouting (well, speaking in civil tones) at a wall
By Todd
For the first time in my life, I've been actively engaged in the US political process. This is not something I ever saw myself doing. I've been a political passivist my entire life. I have not been ignorant to what's going on around me at any point in my life. I carefully read all the political debates and opinions regarding homosexual activism along with the judicial activism accompanied it. I understood the views being portrayed. I felt it very odd that the voting majority stayed silent on the matter -- with the exception of church entities who rallied their members to vote in support of their beliefs.
I read all the debates and after affects of the abortion issues. I usually read the peer-reviewed articles about these issues too (though they are rarely without political biases). I carefully studied each candidate in the last presidential election. I keep an eye on local politicians and how they vote regarding things in my community, and what things are planned.
I stayed my voting right under the premise that I do not, in reality, know who has the right or best views. Homosexual activism I felt was wrong--largely because it had to be brought up. There's no reason anyone should mistreat another human being. The fact that people felt compelled to bring this issue to the public forum was a symptom of a greater problem, namely that of mistreating fellow human beings in individual lives.
I've read carefully the blogs and posts of the 99% and occupy wallstreet movements, and I concur and agree with their premises for protest--but their procedure is unenlightened and unoriginal. Ultimately, these protests could merely be a change in form of governance, and not actually improve upon existing governance.
I believe the underlying disease is an unwillingness to accept self-governance. I can manage my own life better than any proud and haughty Harvard graduate. Government (and people in general) don't like to give up control, and won't unless compelled to. For all their learning and education, no one inside of the political forum is particularly wise. I really just want to be left alone. I don't want to control other people, and I want those who feel it needful to control me to start sharing my sentiments.
This time around, one candidate has come to my attention. He largely demonstrates the same half-truth and lack of insight into actual governing problems, but the precedence he wants to set is to get the government out of people's lives.
I'm in favor of that on grounds of belief. I am a follower of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. In the early history of this church, polygamy was practiced as a way of uniting families and caring for the destitute daughters of God. It was never about oppressing women as the general public has fallaciously believed, nor concerned with stealing women from their husbands as some people citing statistics about early church leadership would like you to conclude. It was not founded or even compatible with the middle-eastern tradition where women were considered inferior to men. It was a means to creating stronger and greater homes.
The US government used that practice as leverage to seize all the property of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, deny its members the right to vote, and threaten them with military occupation should the practice persist. To me, that was a moral wrong--and I believe people now in days would agree that such rebuttle to a controversial practice was unfair and unjust. However, the practice of polygamy and the persecution of it was so isolated and the harm of practicing it so small in numerical quantity that it NEVER should've become an issue for a government to be involved with. Even today, those practicing it are so small in number that they hardly merit our attention (if you want to help women being oppressed inside of fundamentalist compounds, volunteer to help them and share your beliefs with them individually and not with a court-order; even shouting over the compound wall with a megaphone is better than that).
That being said, the precedent exists inside of the US for mistreating members of the Church of Jesus Christ. We still see it today when popular culture is praised for mocking our beliefs and our well-intended programs (paragraph 3). We still hear the ignorant masses referring to our practices and temple worship as being cultist. Regardless of the morality of the situation, the US culture and government are largely at odds with my beliefs. Ultimately, I don't really care much about popular culture or cinematic whims, so long as it does not interfere with my free practice of religion.
I want them to stay out of temples and temple worship. I want them out of our beliefs. I want the US government to mind its own business and to let the people of the Church of Jesus Christ who are not guilty of grievous moral wrongs worship how, where, and what they may. The larger the government gets, the more oppression the Mormon people will experience. The more we force our American culture on people, the less likely we are to discover and adopt the culture God would have us participate in. The more involved the US becomes with our lives, the more the moral and cultural values of the masses will be forced on people of faith.
From what I've written, many people would think I'm supporting Mitt Romney (an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ). I am not. I honestly believe, after studying what Mr. Romney has said, that he intends to continue the precedent of increasing the size and scope of government. He is in favor of war and universal military presence. He is confused on moral values when the issues are controversial (paragraph 2 and 3). He says exactly what people want to hear. His positions and policies are as equally confused as any other candidate. He is not above ridiculing his opponents for mistakes or difficulties they've faced. His only mention of religion is that his "Mormon" faith will not affect his role as president.
In the end, I believe Mitt Romney is a typical run-of-the-mill politician, and will do little more than point out to the masses that members of the Church of Jesus Christ are people with some peculiar traits to them--a fact that has already been established and accepted into the political and cultural forum. He might enact some policies that will make more useless bureaucratic jobs in this country, but I believe congress is already well on their way to accomplishing that regardless of the next president.
I don't support any candidates' platform, and I don't think any of them would help with the actual issues we face today (and I'll likely make more blog posts illuminating what I think those are). For that reason, I have chosen not to participate in government for the entirety of my life. I refuse to vote in favor of people who would give me the greatest financial gain or personal benefit. I refuse to vote for people who are morally confused. I only will vote for someone who actually wants to treat the causes of our social diseases and not merely reform programs to address the newest set of symptoms.
I'm voting this year, and I'm voting for Ron Paul. While his policies are of ambiguously beneficial nature at best, his rallying cry has always been, for the 30 years he's been in office, to reduce the size of government and get it out of people's lives. He's always voted consistently with that view, and never made a campaign promise that he didn't keep. I respect that in a politician, even if I have marginal respect for his actual policy ideas.
As an example: Ron Paul believes there should be no federal restriction or support of abortion-despite a personal experience with early abortion where he helped deliver a baby and then saw it literally thrown in a garbage can screaming and left to die. If I had been there and watched that new born scream and suffer as he died of exposure, I would be outraged. He personally believes abortion is wrong, but his belief only affected his personal medical practice. He does not force that belief on anyone, and his voting record on legislation has remained consistent with that for 30 years--to remove both regulation against abortion, and funding for government-provided abortion. He's not conflicted, he's consistent.
Getting the government out of individuals' lives is the ONLY platform available that could contribute to my faith and my freedom. Regardless of the good intentions and good results of government programs, they all say the same thing to the American culture "I know how to govern you, better than you do." That is a cultural and a moral wrong. It's a very pure form of the deadly sin of pride.
There's no room in a just and fair world for oppression, racism, ridicule or affirmative action. Treating a group of people different for any reason is wrong. No amount of legislation or government funds can reverse a personal habit of hatred.
I would be inclined to believe that people in favor of government programs are seldomly found volunteering their labor and talents implementing their beliefs. How many homosexual activists draft and debate actual legislation--as opposed to those who just shout in the streets that they've been wronged? How many pro-choice people volunteer in abortion clinics? How many pro-life people volunteer funds and time towards early sex-education? How many people are shouting at congress to make more jobs instead of engineering new ideas and avenues of work in their own community and lives?
I'm not conflicted in voting for Ron Paul. I want the US government to accomplish nothing--I want it to shutdown frequently and force a reduction in bureaucratic nonsense. I want some counter-voice to be brought into the American culture that says government isn't the answer to individual problems.
I really just want people to stop pushing agendas on me and into the public forum and start actually doing what they say they believe. That's the cure to the political ills we face, not a political representative or platform.
For the first time in my life, I've been actively engaged in the US political process. This is not something I ever saw myself doing. I've been a political passivist my entire life. I have not been ignorant to what's going on around me at any point in my life. I carefully read all the political debates and opinions regarding homosexual activism along with the judicial activism accompanied it. I understood the views being portrayed. I felt it very odd that the voting majority stayed silent on the matter -- with the exception of church entities who rallied their members to vote in support of their beliefs.
I read all the debates and after affects of the abortion issues. I usually read the peer-reviewed articles about these issues too (though they are rarely without political biases). I carefully studied each candidate in the last presidential election. I keep an eye on local politicians and how they vote regarding things in my community, and what things are planned.
I stayed my voting right under the premise that I do not, in reality, know who has the right or best views. Homosexual activism I felt was wrong--largely because it had to be brought up. There's no reason anyone should mistreat another human being. The fact that people felt compelled to bring this issue to the public forum was a symptom of a greater problem, namely that of mistreating fellow human beings in individual lives.
I've read carefully the blogs and posts of the 99% and occupy wallstreet movements, and I concur and agree with their premises for protest--but their procedure is unenlightened and unoriginal. Ultimately, these protests could merely be a change in form of governance, and not actually improve upon existing governance.
I believe the underlying disease is an unwillingness to accept self-governance. I can manage my own life better than any proud and haughty Harvard graduate. Government (and people in general) don't like to give up control, and won't unless compelled to. For all their learning and education, no one inside of the political forum is particularly wise. I really just want to be left alone. I don't want to control other people, and I want those who feel it needful to control me to start sharing my sentiments.
This time around, one candidate has come to my attention. He largely demonstrates the same half-truth and lack of insight into actual governing problems, but the precedence he wants to set is to get the government out of people's lives.
I'm in favor of that on grounds of belief. I am a follower of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. In the early history of this church, polygamy was practiced as a way of uniting families and caring for the destitute daughters of God. It was never about oppressing women as the general public has fallaciously believed, nor concerned with stealing women from their husbands as some people citing statistics about early church leadership would like you to conclude. It was not founded or even compatible with the middle-eastern tradition where women were considered inferior to men. It was a means to creating stronger and greater homes.
The US government used that practice as leverage to seize all the property of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, deny its members the right to vote, and threaten them with military occupation should the practice persist. To me, that was a moral wrong--and I believe people now in days would agree that such rebuttle to a controversial practice was unfair and unjust. However, the practice of polygamy and the persecution of it was so isolated and the harm of practicing it so small in numerical quantity that it NEVER should've become an issue for a government to be involved with. Even today, those practicing it are so small in number that they hardly merit our attention (if you want to help women being oppressed inside of fundamentalist compounds, volunteer to help them and share your beliefs with them individually and not with a court-order; even shouting over the compound wall with a megaphone is better than that).
That being said, the precedent exists inside of the US for mistreating members of the Church of Jesus Christ. We still see it today when popular culture is praised for mocking our beliefs and our well-intended programs (paragraph 3). We still hear the ignorant masses referring to our practices and temple worship as being cultist. Regardless of the morality of the situation, the US culture and government are largely at odds with my beliefs. Ultimately, I don't really care much about popular culture or cinematic whims, so long as it does not interfere with my free practice of religion.
I want them to stay out of temples and temple worship. I want them out of our beliefs. I want the US government to mind its own business and to let the people of the Church of Jesus Christ who are not guilty of grievous moral wrongs worship how, where, and what they may. The larger the government gets, the more oppression the Mormon people will experience. The more we force our American culture on people, the less likely we are to discover and adopt the culture God would have us participate in. The more involved the US becomes with our lives, the more the moral and cultural values of the masses will be forced on people of faith.
From what I've written, many people would think I'm supporting Mitt Romney (an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ). I am not. I honestly believe, after studying what Mr. Romney has said, that he intends to continue the precedent of increasing the size and scope of government. He is in favor of war and universal military presence. He is confused on moral values when the issues are controversial (paragraph 2 and 3). He says exactly what people want to hear. His positions and policies are as equally confused as any other candidate. He is not above ridiculing his opponents for mistakes or difficulties they've faced. His only mention of religion is that his "Mormon" faith will not affect his role as president.
In the end, I believe Mitt Romney is a typical run-of-the-mill politician, and will do little more than point out to the masses that members of the Church of Jesus Christ are people with some peculiar traits to them--a fact that has already been established and accepted into the political and cultural forum. He might enact some policies that will make more useless bureaucratic jobs in this country, but I believe congress is already well on their way to accomplishing that regardless of the next president.
I don't support any candidates' platform, and I don't think any of them would help with the actual issues we face today (and I'll likely make more blog posts illuminating what I think those are). For that reason, I have chosen not to participate in government for the entirety of my life. I refuse to vote in favor of people who would give me the greatest financial gain or personal benefit. I refuse to vote for people who are morally confused. I only will vote for someone who actually wants to treat the causes of our social diseases and not merely reform programs to address the newest set of symptoms.
I'm voting this year, and I'm voting for Ron Paul. While his policies are of ambiguously beneficial nature at best, his rallying cry has always been, for the 30 years he's been in office, to reduce the size of government and get it out of people's lives. He's always voted consistently with that view, and never made a campaign promise that he didn't keep. I respect that in a politician, even if I have marginal respect for his actual policy ideas.
As an example: Ron Paul believes there should be no federal restriction or support of abortion-despite a personal experience with early abortion where he helped deliver a baby and then saw it literally thrown in a garbage can screaming and left to die. If I had been there and watched that new born scream and suffer as he died of exposure, I would be outraged. He personally believes abortion is wrong, but his belief only affected his personal medical practice. He does not force that belief on anyone, and his voting record on legislation has remained consistent with that for 30 years--to remove both regulation against abortion, and funding for government-provided abortion. He's not conflicted, he's consistent.
Getting the government out of individuals' lives is the ONLY platform available that could contribute to my faith and my freedom. Regardless of the good intentions and good results of government programs, they all say the same thing to the American culture "I know how to govern you, better than you do." That is a cultural and a moral wrong. It's a very pure form of the deadly sin of pride.
There's no room in a just and fair world for oppression, racism, ridicule or affirmative action. Treating a group of people different for any reason is wrong. No amount of legislation or government funds can reverse a personal habit of hatred. I would be inclined to believe that people in favor of government programs are seldomly found volunteering their labor and talents implementing their beliefs. How many homosexual activists draft and debate actual legislation--as opposed to those who just shout in the streets that they've been wronged? How many pro-choice people volunteer in abortion clinics? How many pro-life people volunteer funds and time towards early sex-education? How many people are shouting at congress to make more jobs instead of engineering new ideas and avenues of work in their own community and lives?
I'm not conflicted in voting for Ron Paul. I want the US government to accomplish nothing--I want it to shutdown frequently and force a reduction in bureaucratic nonsense. I want some counter-voice to be brought into the American culture that says government isn't the answer to individual problems.
I really just want people to stop pushing agendas on me and into the public forum and start actually doing what they say they believe. That's the cure to the political ills we face, not a political representative or platform.
Friday, October 14, 2011
out of the mouth of a 4 year old
Setting: Home from Preschool, N is in the living room organizing some of her toys.
I'm sitting in the rocking chair with baby Y.
N turns to me and says....
"I fart from my bum. hehehehehehehehehe"
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Questions I didn't want answered
I'm trying very hard to teach N about propriety, moral values, and graciousness. I find getting her to really evaluate and think about her actions is a powerful and effective method. Sometimes, this forces Dani and I to laugh at what I say to N. Here's a series of questions that I've asked N, which I found I didn't want an answer to:
N, why are there panties on your head?
N, why are you naked?
N, why are you covered in hair? (it was her own hair)
N, why are you trying to put a stick up your butt?
N, why are you naked, again?
N, why is V locked in the pantry?
N, why are there pen marks all over the wall?
N, why are there panties on your head?
N, why are you naked?
N, why are you covered in hair? (it was her own hair)
N, why are you trying to put a stick up your butt?
N, why are you naked, again?
N, why is V locked in the pantry?
N, why are there pen marks all over the wall?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)