Here are some pictures from about a week ago. Two of them are mine, of them is my sister's.
Don't they make cute eskimos?
Dec 12, 2007
snow day!!!
Here are some pictures from about a week ago. Two of them are mine, of them is my sister's.
Don't they make cute eskimos?
Dec 11, 2007
my slideshow
Some things are hard to see, or think about. But we should think about them anyway, because maybe it'll motivate us to change or do something about them.
I took a sociology class in college—current social problems. We were divided into groups and asked to each review a topic and do a presentation on it. The presentation that I was responsbile for was entitled, "Genocide, Hatred and Violence."
Holy cow. Not a fun topic, right?
The sad thing is, these things happen. To people like you and me. I know this isn't very Christmasy of me, but I wanted to post this slideshow (I put it together for this class.) I feel like, around Christmas time, it's easy for people (myself included) to get caught up in things that aren't important. My little ponies. Polly pockets. When there are kids out there who don't have parents, a clean place to sleep, or enough food to keep them healthy. We have so much, those of us with the luxury of a roof over our heads, fast-food restaraunts, and a laptop to blog with. So... this video. Watch it. Cry a little; I do. And then think, "what can I do about it?" That's the clincher. We can do plenty. There are people out there who spend all of their time and money helping people in these situations. And there are people who spend their whole lives preaching against these very things; Genocide, hatred, and violence. Even social awareness, even that, being willing to connect with these people who have suffered so much, is something important.
I took a sociology class in college—current social problems. We were divided into groups and asked to each review a topic and do a presentation on it. The presentation that I was responsbile for was entitled, "Genocide, Hatred and Violence."
Holy cow. Not a fun topic, right?
The sad thing is, these things happen. To people like you and me. I know this isn't very Christmasy of me, but I wanted to post this slideshow (I put it together for this class.) I feel like, around Christmas time, it's easy for people (myself included) to get caught up in things that aren't important. My little ponies. Polly pockets. When there are kids out there who don't have parents, a clean place to sleep, or enough food to keep them healthy. We have so much, those of us with the luxury of a roof over our heads, fast-food restaraunts, and a laptop to blog with. So... this video. Watch it. Cry a little; I do. And then think, "what can I do about it?" That's the clincher. We can do plenty. There are people out there who spend all of their time and money helping people in these situations. And there are people who spend their whole lives preaching against these very things; Genocide, hatred, and violence. Even social awareness, even that, being willing to connect with these people who have suffered so much, is something important.
Dec 6, 2007
Romney addresses Religion
I'm amazed... he actually did it.
Agree or disagree, like or dislike, Romney's speech on religion and state, and his own personal convictions, brought tears to my eyes. It's about twenty minutes long, but Definitely Worth A Listen.
Agree or disagree, like or dislike, Romney's speech on religion and state, and his own personal convictions, brought tears to my eyes. It's about twenty minutes long, but Definitely Worth A Listen.
Dec 5, 2007
The Democratic Debate, hosted by NPR
I LOVED this debate. Here is the short summary of how I think things came off:
1) Hilary Clinton. She's the most polished-sounding of the candidates, and she has a sort of "above it all" thing going for her. In the polls, and in the way she discusses the issues. I like her views on Iraq to a point; her views on Iran scare me a little. She sounds like she'd be OK with going to war with Iran at some point. Possibly the most experienced of the candidates, possibly the most qualified. She and Joe Biden are about equally both, I think.
2) Barack Obama. Stumbled over his words a little. Still sounds inexperienced and a touch idealistic, but his views on Iran, Iraq, China, and especially illegal immigration really resonate with me. He's getting more and more specific with his ideas of alternatives to the way things are now, and I like what I'm hearing. Perhaps the most likeable of the candidates, or at least, seems to be the most earnest and heartfelt (to me.)
3) Joe Biden. I love Joe Biden! Wow, what a guy. He is someone I would trust not to judge hastily, but who I would also trust not to be pressured or to go with the status quo simply because it is. Very experienced in foreign relations, which will be VITAL in this next presidency. I like what he had to say on Iran and on China... I felt that his views on China were actually the most wise, the most balanced, and the most feasible. He and Hillary actually agree on China, but I feel that Biden has the ring of authority here because of his experience in foreign relations.
4) John Edwards. I like him, he's perhaps the second most "likeable," "Earnest", of the candidates. But I don't feel that his ideas on Iran and China are fleshed out enough. He's got a lot to say about immigration and the american economy and not continuing our current trade habits with China, and I think superficially, I agree with what he has to say on the subject. I like his compassionate stance on Illegal immigration.
5) Mike Gavel: He was a tad fiesty. Not too likeable, I don't think... he seemed to most determined to say why the other candidates were wrong, especially in the discussion about the resolution just voted on in the senate about Iran and designating certain groups to be proponents of terror. I agreed with what he said, but I didn't like the way he said it. I felt like he might have a tendency to one-mindedness, perhaps a tendency not to listen to others. Sorry, this is just my own sort of typing-as-I'm-thinking rumination. Anyway, I agreed with him, but I dont' want another president who is unwilling to listen to the other side and other, perhaps better ideas and options from those around him who have experience.
6) Dennis Kucinich: I agree with most of what he says. I'm starting to get annoyed as his querilous, "I am the only candidate here who..." blah blah blah. SO you didn't vote to go to war. Good for you. OK, now move on to something else. I think the man has integrity, but he has something to learn about likeability. Plus, I worry about his experience. He has consistently voted against funding the war, even when it was popular to be funding the war, but has he ever done anything himself with foreign relations? What are his ideas? I want to hear those, not just why he's different and better than all the other candidates because he voted a certain way all this time.
7) Chris Dodd: I actually don't remember too much of what he said... this is probably a bad sign (either of my own deteriorating mental capacity as I approach the culmination of pregnancy or of his memorability as a candidate.
One thing: I absolutely LOVE the way that NPR handled this debate. They kept the questions to three important categories so that they could allow each candidate to respond at lenght, and so that the interviewers (Robert Segal, Michelle Norris) coudl follow up and ask further questions. Also, they kept things pretty much on issue, were good at not allowing any candidate to ward off a question by making generalized sorts of statements (a source of big frustration to me during all these other debates). Also, they did a good job at keeping mudslinging out of it, and keeping things civil and agreeable between the candidates. Good job NPR!
Here's the link if you wanted to listen but missed it. This will take you to a page that has the transcript, but there's a "listen" button at the top so that you don't have to strain your eyes reading two-hours worth of material, lol.
1) Hilary Clinton. She's the most polished-sounding of the candidates, and she has a sort of "above it all" thing going for her. In the polls, and in the way she discusses the issues. I like her views on Iraq to a point; her views on Iran scare me a little. She sounds like she'd be OK with going to war with Iran at some point. Possibly the most experienced of the candidates, possibly the most qualified. She and Joe Biden are about equally both, I think.
2) Barack Obama. Stumbled over his words a little. Still sounds inexperienced and a touch idealistic, but his views on Iran, Iraq, China, and especially illegal immigration really resonate with me. He's getting more and more specific with his ideas of alternatives to the way things are now, and I like what I'm hearing. Perhaps the most likeable of the candidates, or at least, seems to be the most earnest and heartfelt (to me.)
3) Joe Biden. I love Joe Biden! Wow, what a guy. He is someone I would trust not to judge hastily, but who I would also trust not to be pressured or to go with the status quo simply because it is. Very experienced in foreign relations, which will be VITAL in this next presidency. I like what he had to say on Iran and on China... I felt that his views on China were actually the most wise, the most balanced, and the most feasible. He and Hillary actually agree on China, but I feel that Biden has the ring of authority here because of his experience in foreign relations.
4) John Edwards. I like him, he's perhaps the second most "likeable," "Earnest", of the candidates. But I don't feel that his ideas on Iran and China are fleshed out enough. He's got a lot to say about immigration and the american economy and not continuing our current trade habits with China, and I think superficially, I agree with what he has to say on the subject. I like his compassionate stance on Illegal immigration.
5) Mike Gavel: He was a tad fiesty. Not too likeable, I don't think... he seemed to most determined to say why the other candidates were wrong, especially in the discussion about the resolution just voted on in the senate about Iran and designating certain groups to be proponents of terror. I agreed with what he said, but I didn't like the way he said it. I felt like he might have a tendency to one-mindedness, perhaps a tendency not to listen to others. Sorry, this is just my own sort of typing-as-I'm-thinking rumination. Anyway, I agreed with him, but I dont' want another president who is unwilling to listen to the other side and other, perhaps better ideas and options from those around him who have experience.
6) Dennis Kucinich: I agree with most of what he says. I'm starting to get annoyed as his querilous, "I am the only candidate here who..." blah blah blah. SO you didn't vote to go to war. Good for you. OK, now move on to something else. I think the man has integrity, but he has something to learn about likeability. Plus, I worry about his experience. He has consistently voted against funding the war, even when it was popular to be funding the war, but has he ever done anything himself with foreign relations? What are his ideas? I want to hear those, not just why he's different and better than all the other candidates because he voted a certain way all this time.
7) Chris Dodd: I actually don't remember too much of what he said... this is probably a bad sign (either of my own deteriorating mental capacity as I approach the culmination of pregnancy or of his memorability as a candidate.
One thing: I absolutely LOVE the way that NPR handled this debate. They kept the questions to three important categories so that they could allow each candidate to respond at lenght, and so that the interviewers (Robert Segal, Michelle Norris) coudl follow up and ask further questions. Also, they kept things pretty much on issue, were good at not allowing any candidate to ward off a question by making generalized sorts of statements (a source of big frustration to me during all these other debates). Also, they did a good job at keeping mudslinging out of it, and keeping things civil and agreeable between the candidates. Good job NPR!
Here's the link if you wanted to listen but missed it. This will take you to a page that has the transcript, but there's a "listen" button at the top so that you don't have to strain your eyes reading two-hours worth of material, lol.
Dec 3, 2007
Vader is not the most sensitive dad...
I have to say I think I sympathise more with Vader on this one. Unfortunately, I think that my daughter and I have had a few exchanges like this. Just, you know. A couple. When she's jumping up and down and whining because I won't give her cinnamon toast, or something. OK, I"m a good mom. I promise.
Little house
I thought I'd blog about something much more innocuous today, literature-wise. Not less important or less salient, but less controversial.
I've read a ton of books for a person of my age. Reading is and always has been my addiction. I'm proud and ashamed of this fact. I don't know how many books I've read and I don't care to count, and some of it has been crap. You have to wade through the garbage sometimes to find a treasure. Every once in a while I've had to put a book down, but at this point I can usually identify a book I'm not going to want to finish by it's cover (tee hee, yes, you can judge books by their cover, you just have to have the right sorts of prejudices) and the summary blurb on the back. So here, I've made a fun list. The twelve best young adult/childrens' fiction authors of the 19-20th centuries. This is strictly my opinion, without cross-referencing with literature experts or critics of any sort. It's the list of my favorites, based upon my own insatiable consumption of young adult/child fiction.
In no particular order:
Frances Hodgson Burnett
Mark Twain
Joan Aiken
Beverly Cleary
Rhoald Dahl
Laura Ingalls Wilder
Robert Louis Stevenson
C.S. Lewis
Mary Mapes Dodge
J.R.R. Tolkien
Judy Blume
Cynthia Voigt
Of these authors, I'd say #1 for me is based upon writing quality, wow, hard choice, but... Mark Twain.
Of the books of these authors, I'd say the very best one is either Huckleberry Finn, the Secret Garden, or Little House on the Prairie. My favorite is the third.
I love the little house books. First of all, they are true stories of an amazing family. My favorite character: Pa. He digs wells, he hews logs, he hunts for bears and brings them home to feed his family, he plows and plants acres and acres of wheat year after year even through all the meager yields, the constant crashing of his hopes and dreams.
My next favorite character: Ma. She keeps her dirt floors swept, her bread fresh and delicious even for want of most major ingredients, her little girls learning their letters and numbers even in the middle of the harshest blizzard. She can make apple pie when there aren't any apples to be had. She makes sure that there is a Christmas even when the family is on the brink of starvation.
My favorite line of the book (repeated a few times throughout the books)...
"Caroline, do you realize that you are the light of my life and the joy of my existence?" (Pa, to Ma.)
A-MA-ZING books. Read them. Gobble them down. Feel amazed and a little guilty at the safety and pleasure of our lives nowadays. Feel stunned and a little jealous at the adventure and exploration of the frontier. Learn what sacrifice really can mean, sacrifice for the greater good and the health of the community. These people were friends with their family and close neighbors, because they had to be to survive physically and emotionally. The warmth of the pioneer society has died out in our own; this is the primary jealousy I feel as I read these books. I mourn the loss of that.
Plus, there are absolutely no atheists in this book. From what one can tell. Laura Ingalls Wilder has never been inclined to preachiness.
*disclaimer... anything that has not been published in English, I haven't had a chance to peruse. So if my list seems biased toward English and American authors, that's why. :)
I've read a ton of books for a person of my age. Reading is and always has been my addiction. I'm proud and ashamed of this fact. I don't know how many books I've read and I don't care to count, and some of it has been crap. You have to wade through the garbage sometimes to find a treasure. Every once in a while I've had to put a book down, but at this point I can usually identify a book I'm not going to want to finish by it's cover (tee hee, yes, you can judge books by their cover, you just have to have the right sorts of prejudices) and the summary blurb on the back. So here, I've made a fun list. The twelve best young adult/childrens' fiction authors of the 19-20th centuries. This is strictly my opinion, without cross-referencing with literature experts or critics of any sort. It's the list of my favorites, based upon my own insatiable consumption of young adult/child fiction.
In no particular order:
Frances Hodgson Burnett
Mark Twain
Joan Aiken
Beverly Cleary
Rhoald Dahl
Laura Ingalls Wilder
Robert Louis Stevenson
C.S. Lewis
Mary Mapes Dodge
J.R.R. Tolkien
Judy Blume
Cynthia Voigt
Of these authors, I'd say #1 for me is based upon writing quality, wow, hard choice, but... Mark Twain.
Of the books of these authors, I'd say the very best one is either Huckleberry Finn, the Secret Garden, or Little House on the Prairie. My favorite is the third.
I love the little house books. First of all, they are true stories of an amazing family. My favorite character: Pa. He digs wells, he hews logs, he hunts for bears and brings them home to feed his family, he plows and plants acres and acres of wheat year after year even through all the meager yields, the constant crashing of his hopes and dreams.
My next favorite character: Ma. She keeps her dirt floors swept, her bread fresh and delicious even for want of most major ingredients, her little girls learning their letters and numbers even in the middle of the harshest blizzard. She can make apple pie when there aren't any apples to be had. She makes sure that there is a Christmas even when the family is on the brink of starvation.
My favorite line of the book (repeated a few times throughout the books)...
"Caroline, do you realize that you are the light of my life and the joy of my existence?" (Pa, to Ma.)
A-MA-ZING books. Read them. Gobble them down. Feel amazed and a little guilty at the safety and pleasure of our lives nowadays. Feel stunned and a little jealous at the adventure and exploration of the frontier. Learn what sacrifice really can mean, sacrifice for the greater good and the health of the community. These people were friends with their family and close neighbors, because they had to be to survive physically and emotionally. The warmth of the pioneer society has died out in our own; this is the primary jealousy I feel as I read these books. I mourn the loss of that.
Plus, there are absolutely no atheists in this book. From what one can tell. Laura Ingalls Wilder has never been inclined to preachiness.
*disclaimer... anything that has not been published in English, I haven't had a chance to peruse. So if my list seems biased toward English and American authors, that's why. :)
Dec 1, 2007
Pullman, the Golden Compass, and Killing God
I'm writing this post because I'm soooo tired of all those emails I've been getting! You know which ones I mean. I don't write back, because I don't like to get into unnecessary debates. But I feel a need to express my frustration about it, so here all of you lucky people go.
I have a pretty strong opinion about the Golden Compass books.
I loved, loved, loved this series. I also don't agree with where the author is coming from.
Lots of books are like that. Hemingway, for instance, was very anti-feminist and pro free-love,and yet even the most conservative of people will read his stuff. Why? Because it's good writing and it teaches us important truths, even if we don't agree
with every aspect of his arguments.
The thing about Pullman: Yes, he is an atheist. More specifically, he is a Humanist, an outspoken secularist. He's also a brilliant writer. The His Dark Materials series explores not only the idea of religious persecution and dogmatism, but childhood, innocense, the nature of the human soul and its influence on the human experience. He explores the idea of the Fall of Adam, setting those who want to prevent it (the Magisterium, or Church) against those who are trying to cause it (Lord Asriel, Lyra, and all the protagonists). This could be viewed as troubling to Catholics, perhaps, or other Christian religious groups that believe that the fall should never have happened. But In LDS culture, we believe that it was a good thing. Where's the beef? Are we just jumping on the "I'm P.O'd because I'm religious and I'm extrasensative to anything that may seem even slightly anti-religious" wagon? Shame, shame.
Those who object to Pullman's books have been making some rash statements. For instance, that he wrote the series as an anti-Chronicles of Narnia series. This is not true; he himself states that, if he has based this series on any other set of books, it's Milton's Paradise Lost.
His books make a statement about religious dogmatism and persecution, not about religion in general. Many people who have read them don't think of them as against the God of Christianity, (or for that matter, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buhddism, or Polytheistic socieities), but against the God that is set up by those who are engaged religious tyranny. He does kill a character named God, yes; a senile, misguided, hateful character whose wish is to enslave human beings into a narrow range of experiences and behaviors. Does this sound familiar, guys? I read these books and read a man who did not kill God, but instead, killed Satan. Who, we must admit, has been behind some of our more oppressive religious events. The crusades, the inquisition, the holocaust... can we really ignore the influence of Satan in religious persecution and dogmatism?
In these emails, Pullman is described as a God-hater, a sneaky atheist who is trying to convert the world's children to atheism. Phillip Pullman is a decent man. He's been described as a polite and considerate debating partner. He doesn't deserve to be villanized, and that's what happening.
I have a hard time when religious people decide to tell everyone that someone is evil simply because he doesn't believe the same way that they do, and examines a different wordview in his writing. Conservative "Christian" groups did the same thing with the Harry Potter series (which actually had lots of beautiful religious (Christian) symbolism).
When it comes down to it, if I decided to decry every author whose beliefs conflicted with my own, I'd be eliminating a lot of great writing. I'd have to elmiminate Hemingway, Steinbeck, Thoreau, Rousseau, Milton, Dante, even CS Lewis because he doesn't share my exact Christian beliefs.And if I decried every artist who lived a lifestyle that I could not condone, the list would have to stretch to include Mozart, Beethoven, Rachmaninov, Liszt, and a great many others who have created inspiring, uplifting material.
I guess what I'm saying is, it's fine for people to decide, as individuals, that Pullman isn't for them. But to mass email everyone about how evil a certain author is, or a certain series, is not only intolerant, but is somewhat hypocritical. Unless these same people are also sending out emails about Steinbech, Mozart, etcetera.
Having said that, I do NOT think this is a children's series. Some of the materialin it is way too adult (children get kidnapped and harmed, Lyra loses her best friend in frightful circumstances, and the Magisterium is very scary and evil). I don't want my little daughter worrying about these things yet, and I know she would. I won't be taking the kids to see the movie.
Skywalker and I will find a babysitter and enjoy it together, because he also loved the books.
I have a pretty strong opinion about the Golden Compass books.
I loved, loved, loved this series. I also don't agree with where the author is coming from.
Lots of books are like that. Hemingway, for instance, was very anti-feminist and pro free-love,and yet even the most conservative of people will read his stuff. Why? Because it's good writing and it teaches us important truths, even if we don't agree
with every aspect of his arguments.
The thing about Pullman: Yes, he is an atheist. More specifically, he is a Humanist, an outspoken secularist. He's also a brilliant writer. The His Dark Materials series explores not only the idea of religious persecution and dogmatism, but childhood, innocense, the nature of the human soul and its influence on the human experience. He explores the idea of the Fall of Adam, setting those who want to prevent it (the Magisterium, or Church) against those who are trying to cause it (Lord Asriel, Lyra, and all the protagonists). This could be viewed as troubling to Catholics, perhaps, or other Christian religious groups that believe that the fall should never have happened. But In LDS culture, we believe that it was a good thing. Where's the beef? Are we just jumping on the "I'm P.O'd because I'm religious and I'm extrasensative to anything that may seem even slightly anti-religious" wagon? Shame, shame.
Those who object to Pullman's books have been making some rash statements. For instance, that he wrote the series as an anti-Chronicles of Narnia series. This is not true; he himself states that, if he has based this series on any other set of books, it's Milton's Paradise Lost.
His books make a statement about religious dogmatism and persecution, not about religion in general. Many people who have read them don't think of them as against the God of Christianity, (or for that matter, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buhddism, or Polytheistic socieities), but against the God that is set up by those who are engaged religious tyranny. He does kill a character named God, yes; a senile, misguided, hateful character whose wish is to enslave human beings into a narrow range of experiences and behaviors. Does this sound familiar, guys? I read these books and read a man who did not kill God, but instead, killed Satan. Who, we must admit, has been behind some of our more oppressive religious events. The crusades, the inquisition, the holocaust... can we really ignore the influence of Satan in religious persecution and dogmatism?
In these emails, Pullman is described as a God-hater, a sneaky atheist who is trying to convert the world's children to atheism. Phillip Pullman is a decent man. He's been described as a polite and considerate debating partner. He doesn't deserve to be villanized, and that's what happening.
I have a hard time when religious people decide to tell everyone that someone is evil simply because he doesn't believe the same way that they do, and examines a different wordview in his writing. Conservative "Christian" groups did the same thing with the Harry Potter series (which actually had lots of beautiful religious (Christian) symbolism).
When it comes down to it, if I decided to decry every author whose beliefs conflicted with my own, I'd be eliminating a lot of great writing. I'd have to elmiminate Hemingway, Steinbeck, Thoreau, Rousseau, Milton, Dante, even CS Lewis because he doesn't share my exact Christian beliefs.And if I decried every artist who lived a lifestyle that I could not condone, the list would have to stretch to include Mozart, Beethoven, Rachmaninov, Liszt, and a great many others who have created inspiring, uplifting material.
I guess what I'm saying is, it's fine for people to decide, as individuals, that Pullman isn't for them. But to mass email everyone about how evil a certain author is, or a certain series, is not only intolerant, but is somewhat hypocritical. Unless these same people are also sending out emails about Steinbech, Mozart, etcetera.
Having said that, I do NOT think this is a children's series. Some of the materialin it is way too adult (children get kidnapped and harmed, Lyra loses her best friend in frightful circumstances, and the Magisterium is very scary and evil). I don't want my little daughter worrying about these things yet, and I know she would. I won't be taking the kids to see the movie.
Skywalker and I will find a babysitter and enjoy it together, because he also loved the books.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)