Nobody is ever going to look at my house and say, 'My, what a lovely home!' And nobody is ever going to look at my house and say, 'Wow. You are an amazing housekeeper.' And nobody is ever going to look at my house and say, 'This looks fabulous! You always have things spotless and in their places.' And if anyone said my house looked like a magazine spread, I'd know they had mistaken me for someone else.
But a friend came to visit this week and after she left, she emailed me and said that despite having 8 kids, my house is so peaceful and has a calming influence, and she didn't want to leave, and her kids prayed the next day that they were so grateful to have been able to come to our house.
I had been feeling like such a failure for my housekeeping "skills" (hahaha). But, given the choice, I'd rather be praised for having created a calming, loving sanctuary where people feel safe and loved and rejuvenated and don't want to leave because of how they feel when they are here than being praised for having a "lovely home."
As wonderful as pretty spaces are, safe spaces and heart-lifting spaces are so much more valuable.
Perhaps I am not such a failure at houses after all.
Thursday, December 31, 2015
Jack says,
Jack, running in his new socks, came sliding up to me, "I'm so fast! I'm the gingerbread man!"
Me: "You also smell poopy. Are you a poopy gingerbread man?"
Jack: "No! Gingerbread men can't be poopy. They don't have a bum!"
Me: "You also smell poopy. Are you a poopy gingerbread man?"
Jack: "No! Gingerbread men can't be poopy. They don't have a bum!"
Jack says....
I was reading the computer today when Jack walked up next to me and said, "Can I bang the computer?" I, thinking he meant with his bare hand or a little toy, absently said, "Sure."
Then I looked up. Just in time, as he had a HAMMER in his hands!
Redirected him to the couch to do his banging there.
Note to me: Always look at a kid before you agree to let them do something.
Saturday, December 12, 2015
Jack says....
Jack: "Mom, we have to go to the seminary store. Because that's where my birthday lives. We have to get in the car and drive there. Because I'm poopy. So I can't go."
me: "Or we could just change your diaper."
me:
Friday, December 11, 2015
Jack says....
Jack, after working hard to get his shark costume on, "I got my shark jacket on. Now I'm a dolphin! Dolphins have bums." And then he walked away.
------
Jack, "I want to go to the doctor to get a robot in my mouth."
Me: "What?"
Jack: "Daniel has a robot in his mouth. I want to go to the doctor to get a robot in my mouth."
Daniel has a palate expander in the roof of his mouth. It looks like this:
------
Jack, "I want to go to the doctor to get a robot in my mouth."
Me: "What?"
Jack: "Daniel has a robot in his mouth. I want to go to the doctor to get a robot in my mouth."
Daniel has a palate expander in the roof of his mouth. It looks like this:
I guess to Jack, it's a robot!
Wednesday, December 09, 2015
Jack says....
me: "Jack, are you poopy?"
Jack: "No. I'm Batman."
------
me: "Jack, let's get in the car to go to the store."
Jack: "But Daddy took da car."
me: "No, Daddy went in Dwight's car."
Jack: "Oh! So we can go in da blue car."
me: "Yes."
Jack: "Because Daddy went in da white car so we can go in da blue car because da white car is gone with Daddy and you fixed it!"
me: "Uh....the white van is still broken. Daddy went with his friend, Dwight in his car."
Jack: "Yes. In da white car. So we can take da blue car to da store."
------
Jack: "Mom, can we make these cakes?" (Holding a cake pan that has animal shapes in it)
Me: "Sure."
Jack, looking at the pan: "Giraffses are soft. But lions are scary scary scary! They could eat me eat me!"
Jack: "No. I'm Batman."
------
me: "Jack, let's get in the car to go to the store."
Jack: "But Daddy took da car."
me: "No, Daddy went in Dwight's car."
Jack: "Oh! So we can go in da blue car."
me: "Yes."
Jack: "Because Daddy went in da white car so we can go in da blue car because da white car is gone with Daddy and you fixed it!"
me: "Uh....the white van is still broken. Daddy went with his friend, Dwight in his car."
Jack: "Yes. In da white car. So we can take da blue car to da store."
------
Jack: "Mom, can we make these cakes?" (Holding a cake pan that has animal shapes in it)
Me: "Sure."
Jack, looking at the pan: "Giraffses are soft. But lions are scary scary scary! They could eat me eat me!"
Saturday, December 05, 2015
Gun control
Lots of talk about gun control lately.
Lots of passion involved from lots of people.
Lots of not getting to a decent conclusion from either side.
Why is that?
I think there are two problems.
1. There is a lot of stupid partisan politicking going on. Lots of people saying, "This is obvious" and "There _is_ no other solution." That's just plain not helpful. Lots of people rejecting each other's stats out of hand rather than thoughtful discussion.
2. Failure to define the problem. The problem has been defined as "guns" when really we're talking about multiple problems and guns are a thread that runs through them. The solutions to "guns" is different depending on what the problem is.
Terrorism is one problem, and you'd not solve that by getting guns out of people's houses.
Suicide by firearm is another problem, and you can solve that by getting guns out of people's houses.
Mass shootings by insane people who get angry at society are yet another problem, and it appears that greater attention paid to ammunition stockpiling might help red-flag some of these people (but not all).
Inner-city gang violence is another problem, and there are great programs, like Ceasefire, that appear to work if they get enough funding.
Until we have more research about the actual causes and courses of action to deal with these problems, "guns" is not going to get fixed, as far as I can tell. You have to deal with the overabundance of weapons in our society AND the whatever-it-is that convinces a person to shoot.
So I was going to write more but this guy did it for me, so go read this: http://www.meditations-on-life.com/american-politics/gun-control-arguments-pro-gun-control-vs-anti-gun-control/
Lots of passion involved from lots of people.
Lots of not getting to a decent conclusion from either side.
Why is that?
I think there are two problems.
1. There is a lot of stupid partisan politicking going on. Lots of people saying, "This is obvious" and "There _is_ no other solution." That's just plain not helpful. Lots of people rejecting each other's stats out of hand rather than thoughtful discussion.
2. Failure to define the problem. The problem has been defined as "guns" when really we're talking about multiple problems and guns are a thread that runs through them. The solutions to "guns" is different depending on what the problem is.
Terrorism is one problem, and you'd not solve that by getting guns out of people's houses.
Suicide by firearm is another problem, and you can solve that by getting guns out of people's houses.
Mass shootings by insane people who get angry at society are yet another problem, and it appears that greater attention paid to ammunition stockpiling might help red-flag some of these people (but not all).
Inner-city gang violence is another problem, and there are great programs, like Ceasefire, that appear to work if they get enough funding.
Until we have more research about the actual causes and courses of action to deal with these problems, "guns" is not going to get fixed, as far as I can tell. You have to deal with the overabundance of weapons in our society AND the whatever-it-is that convinces a person to shoot.
So I was going to write more but this guy did it for me, so go read this: http://www.meditations-on-life.com/american-politics/gun-control-arguments-pro-gun-control-vs-anti-gun-control/
Tuesday, December 01, 2015
Caleb says....
So, I was helping Dan with math and tuned in to the other kids just in time to hear "adjusting the laws of physics..." come out of someone's mouth.
"What?" I said. "I tune out for just a minute and you're all adjusting the laws of physics on me?"
"Yes, I am adjusting the laws of physics," Caleb responded, "but in a controlled, fictional, nonexistent environment. You don't have to worry."
Am I relieved?
"What?" I said. "I tune out for just a minute and you're all adjusting the laws of physics on me?"
"Yes, I am adjusting the laws of physics," Caleb responded, "but in a controlled, fictional, nonexistent environment. You don't have to worry."
Am I relieved?
Monday, November 30, 2015
Feminism Thoughts
Obviously I think about feminism often.
I think it's because there is so much pressure from the media and society (especially educated men, weirdly) to be feminist, and I'm just not inclined to join, so I'm constantly trying to figure out why I am so--I can't think of the word; offended but not that and disgusted but not that and opposed but not that but somewhere in between--by it. It's presented as a good thing. How can you be against something that is supposed to help women?
I think that part of it is that it's "supposed" to help women but spends a lot of time and resources proving why my choices (which I made freely and with full knowledge of what I was choosing) are "wrong" and "bad for women." (They never will believe that I wanted to study the humanities because it gives me great joy--not because I was socially pressured into it. In fact, the social pressure was to accept the mechanical engineering department's courting of me into their program, or study chemistry or something equally science-y because I'm good at science and I enjoy science. But studying the humanities was fun and easy, and that's what I wanted to do.)
Anyway, I was reading an article in the newspaper about Utah having the largest "wage gap" in the country, but the article was highly misleading because they were comparing not a woman in one industry with a man in the same industry, but apparently ALL women in Utah (including the stay-at-home moms) with ALL the men in Utah. Total amount made by females divided by number of women in Utah compared to total amount made by males divided by number of men in Utah = simple math but not true comparison. Of course if 78% of men are working full time and only 49% of women are working full time, you're going to see a wage gap using that math because there are fewer women adding to the total amount made.
They did acknowledge that women are drawn to caring professions and men to mechanical professions, and that mechanical professions pay more. But they falsely attributed that to women being told from a young age to consider only those professions instead of respecting women's ability to follow their hearts and talents. (How many women do you know who actually WANT to wok construction jobs? Can't we respect that as a reality instead of a cultural manipulation of women? Wouldn't it be better to ask why we value the caring jobs less monetarily?) (you can read the article here: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865642670/Men-and-women-Understanding-the-wage-gap-is-first-step-in-closing-it.html)
Really, it would help in the evaluation of women's earnings if people would back off and respect women's right to want to stay home and raise children and recognize the immense value that choice has to society. Why are they constantly belittling women who want to stay home? Why constantly push them toward the workplace?
(It should be noted, of course, that friends tell me that women who work feel equally attacked and belittled for not staying home, even outside of Utah. You just can't win, I guess. And this is something the feminists should be addressing, instead of adding to the problem.)
The comparison that needs to happen is within a single industry. That would give us more information about the wage gap, if there is one. Does a female grocery store clerk with the same amount of experience as a male grocery store clerk in the same store get paid the same amount? That's the statistic that is significant.
At least the article is acknowledging that part of the problem is women take time off to raise kids and therefore have less experience than men of the same age. And that's a thorny issue because it's not fair to the men to just pay the women more for less experience. But the end result is fewer women in management, and that looks bad.
Similar to the wage gap issue being a lot more subtle if you have valid statistics and look at the whole picture instead of over simplifying, recently scientists determined that there are few if any differences between male and female brains, and the scientists and feminists made that out to prove that men and women are identical except for a few inconsequential physical differences, so all the differences between men and women are actually cultural and should be stamped out.
That's a big conclusion from a small study. For one thing, people are made up of more than their brains. Male and female hormones, for example, are vastly different and have an enormous impact on how people think and feel and act. And those don't show up in a comparative brain scan. And science completely ignores the influence of the spirit, which they can't acknowledge exists but might have an enormous impact on a person. But we don't know because we know very, very little about the true nature of spirits, especially since our bodies limit them and limit our ability to perceive and understand things as they really are in the eternal world.
Looking at the world and interacting with babies will tell scientists more about the nature of men and women than a simple brain scan comparison. Considering how little we understand of how the brain works at all, saying the structure looks similar means very little anyway. The study even acknowledged they were not looking at how the brains worked, only how they looked. Similar things can work in very different ways (listen to a male voice vs a female voice, for example). Also, small difference in appearance can be massive in function or output. Think how much difference a pinch of salt can make to a dish. Or how different "nine" is from "none." It's just a letter different, but it will change the output significantly. I guess what I'm saying is it's a mistake to attack all women as inferior based on one study that is very limited, just like it's a mistake to include stay-at-home moms (who earn zero) in an analysis of the wage gap. (The brain study was reported on here: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/male-female-brain-valid-distinction-study-35496259 --note that the scientist at the end also is saying what I'm saying here: similar is not the same as equivalent)
So, two things I was particularly thinking about women in work lately.
One: there is a lot of "advice" from feminists about how women should succeed in work. Much of it is based on the idea that women and men are functionally equivalent and only differ in behaviors that were imposed on them by society. This drives me crazy because what they are saying is that women are simply inferior men and if they would just do things men's way, they would be less inferior and more successful.
Why are they assuming the men's way of doing things is superior? Why not assume the women's is? Or there is an in between way that is better than both? And why pressure the women to change instead of educating the men's culture about listening and how to "hear and see" women?
This is one of the big reasons I can't get behind feminism. They can't see women as women, but merely as inferior men who, if taught, will be less inferior or maybe even equal. But we don't become equal by becoming less female! If we don't value women, instead of changing women into something we do value, let's change what we value instead. In other words, why are the women trying to to adapt and change in order to be accepted by men who have prejudices? Why not ask the men to heal their wrong views?
Ironic that feminists are trying to solve problems by using the exact same techniques, thought processes, and behaviors the same feminists decry when being used by an abused wife. Instead of insisting the husband stop being abusive, the wife works her tail off to make herself somehow acceptable to his insanity. Hint for the feminists: You can never work hard enough to satisfy an abuser. They will always abuse because it's not really about you.
Two: It is important to realize where the wage gap came from. Way back when, it was socially acceptable to pay men more than women for the same work in the same industry. Why? The men were assumed to be supporting a family and the women were assumed to be single and supporting only themselves. Why the assumption? It was, generally speaking, true. The exceptions were few and far between (and culturally invisible, to a great extent).
You can look at it this way: What was going on was the men were getting paid for their work AND getting a stipend for their wives' work in staying home raising the children. Women were, essentially, getting paid, through their husbands' employer, to do the immensely vital work of raising good citizens in an intact family.
The problem with it is on a very basic level: it's fundamentally unfair for a woman to deliver ten pizzas for $15 and a man to deliver ten pizzas for $20. Same work. Same duties. Same skills. Same amount of education. And really, the assumptions just didn't hold up. Not all men were supporting families, but they still got paid more. And not all women were single without children, and they still got paid less. And even if the assumptions were true, if you are getting paid to do a job for someone, there isn't a way to twist it that makes it okay to pay different people different amounts for the same job.
So I'm not in favor of keeping the wage gap by any stretch. But it came from a different, woman-friendly and family-friendly place. It was not "pure discrimination" and it would benefit society immensely if people valued the idea that it was best for men to stay with their families and for women to be free to focus on raising their children (whether they have an additional job or not). And one way we show we value things (the main way, it seems) is through money. The wage gap was and is completely unfair, but it seems it could have been an attempt to support strong family structure and keep families (and therefore society) stable.
Unfortunately, any attempt to keep families strong and stable is seen as an attack on women any more. Staying home is not a choice, in their minds, but a prison. Raising children is not a choice, but an abusive obligation that women need to let go of.
As long as feminism denies the nature of women and treats motherhood and raising children as abusive (even while giving lip service to the idea that women get to choose what they want their lives to look like--but if you want to be happy it will look like a man's life, they insist. Their way or no way because any other way is a social manipulation that you didn't choose freely), I can't buy in. Wouldn't it be better to draw the men home more instead of pulling the women out into the workplace more? I do not understand why feminism is blind to what women are and refuses to respect what so many women want.
Who defined your net worth to the world in purely monetary terms? Who decided that success looks like lots of cash and few obligations except to yourself? Who decided that hedonism is the key to happiness?
As long as that is the definition of success, happiness, and value, I don't want any part of feminism.
I think it's because there is so much pressure from the media and society (especially educated men, weirdly) to be feminist, and I'm just not inclined to join, so I'm constantly trying to figure out why I am so--I can't think of the word; offended but not that and disgusted but not that and opposed but not that but somewhere in between--by it. It's presented as a good thing. How can you be against something that is supposed to help women?
I think that part of it is that it's "supposed" to help women but spends a lot of time and resources proving why my choices (which I made freely and with full knowledge of what I was choosing) are "wrong" and "bad for women." (They never will believe that I wanted to study the humanities because it gives me great joy--not because I was socially pressured into it. In fact, the social pressure was to accept the mechanical engineering department's courting of me into their program, or study chemistry or something equally science-y because I'm good at science and I enjoy science. But studying the humanities was fun and easy, and that's what I wanted to do.)
Anyway, I was reading an article in the newspaper about Utah having the largest "wage gap" in the country, but the article was highly misleading because they were comparing not a woman in one industry with a man in the same industry, but apparently ALL women in Utah (including the stay-at-home moms) with ALL the men in Utah. Total amount made by females divided by number of women in Utah compared to total amount made by males divided by number of men in Utah = simple math but not true comparison. Of course if 78% of men are working full time and only 49% of women are working full time, you're going to see a wage gap using that math because there are fewer women adding to the total amount made.
They did acknowledge that women are drawn to caring professions and men to mechanical professions, and that mechanical professions pay more. But they falsely attributed that to women being told from a young age to consider only those professions instead of respecting women's ability to follow their hearts and talents. (How many women do you know who actually WANT to wok construction jobs? Can't we respect that as a reality instead of a cultural manipulation of women? Wouldn't it be better to ask why we value the caring jobs less monetarily?) (you can read the article here: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865642670/Men-and-women-Understanding-the-wage-gap-is-first-step-in-closing-it.html)
Really, it would help in the evaluation of women's earnings if people would back off and respect women's right to want to stay home and raise children and recognize the immense value that choice has to society. Why are they constantly belittling women who want to stay home? Why constantly push them toward the workplace?
(It should be noted, of course, that friends tell me that women who work feel equally attacked and belittled for not staying home, even outside of Utah. You just can't win, I guess. And this is something the feminists should be addressing, instead of adding to the problem.)
The comparison that needs to happen is within a single industry. That would give us more information about the wage gap, if there is one. Does a female grocery store clerk with the same amount of experience as a male grocery store clerk in the same store get paid the same amount? That's the statistic that is significant.
At least the article is acknowledging that part of the problem is women take time off to raise kids and therefore have less experience than men of the same age. And that's a thorny issue because it's not fair to the men to just pay the women more for less experience. But the end result is fewer women in management, and that looks bad.
Similar to the wage gap issue being a lot more subtle if you have valid statistics and look at the whole picture instead of over simplifying, recently scientists determined that there are few if any differences between male and female brains, and the scientists and feminists made that out to prove that men and women are identical except for a few inconsequential physical differences, so all the differences between men and women are actually cultural and should be stamped out.
That's a big conclusion from a small study. For one thing, people are made up of more than their brains. Male and female hormones, for example, are vastly different and have an enormous impact on how people think and feel and act. And those don't show up in a comparative brain scan. And science completely ignores the influence of the spirit, which they can't acknowledge exists but might have an enormous impact on a person. But we don't know because we know very, very little about the true nature of spirits, especially since our bodies limit them and limit our ability to perceive and understand things as they really are in the eternal world.
Looking at the world and interacting with babies will tell scientists more about the nature of men and women than a simple brain scan comparison. Considering how little we understand of how the brain works at all, saying the structure looks similar means very little anyway. The study even acknowledged they were not looking at how the brains worked, only how they looked. Similar things can work in very different ways (listen to a male voice vs a female voice, for example). Also, small difference in appearance can be massive in function or output. Think how much difference a pinch of salt can make to a dish. Or how different "nine" is from "none." It's just a letter different, but it will change the output significantly. I guess what I'm saying is it's a mistake to attack all women as inferior based on one study that is very limited, just like it's a mistake to include stay-at-home moms (who earn zero) in an analysis of the wage gap. (The brain study was reported on here: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/male-female-brain-valid-distinction-study-35496259 --note that the scientist at the end also is saying what I'm saying here: similar is not the same as equivalent)
So, two things I was particularly thinking about women in work lately.
One: there is a lot of "advice" from feminists about how women should succeed in work. Much of it is based on the idea that women and men are functionally equivalent and only differ in behaviors that were imposed on them by society. This drives me crazy because what they are saying is that women are simply inferior men and if they would just do things men's way, they would be less inferior and more successful.
Why are they assuming the men's way of doing things is superior? Why not assume the women's is? Or there is an in between way that is better than both? And why pressure the women to change instead of educating the men's culture about listening and how to "hear and see" women?
This is one of the big reasons I can't get behind feminism. They can't see women as women, but merely as inferior men who, if taught, will be less inferior or maybe even equal. But we don't become equal by becoming less female! If we don't value women, instead of changing women into something we do value, let's change what we value instead. In other words, why are the women trying to to adapt and change in order to be accepted by men who have prejudices? Why not ask the men to heal their wrong views?
Ironic that feminists are trying to solve problems by using the exact same techniques, thought processes, and behaviors the same feminists decry when being used by an abused wife. Instead of insisting the husband stop being abusive, the wife works her tail off to make herself somehow acceptable to his insanity. Hint for the feminists: You can never work hard enough to satisfy an abuser. They will always abuse because it's not really about you.
Two: It is important to realize where the wage gap came from. Way back when, it was socially acceptable to pay men more than women for the same work in the same industry. Why? The men were assumed to be supporting a family and the women were assumed to be single and supporting only themselves. Why the assumption? It was, generally speaking, true. The exceptions were few and far between (and culturally invisible, to a great extent).
You can look at it this way: What was going on was the men were getting paid for their work AND getting a stipend for their wives' work in staying home raising the children. Women were, essentially, getting paid, through their husbands' employer, to do the immensely vital work of raising good citizens in an intact family.
The problem with it is on a very basic level: it's fundamentally unfair for a woman to deliver ten pizzas for $15 and a man to deliver ten pizzas for $20. Same work. Same duties. Same skills. Same amount of education. And really, the assumptions just didn't hold up. Not all men were supporting families, but they still got paid more. And not all women were single without children, and they still got paid less. And even if the assumptions were true, if you are getting paid to do a job for someone, there isn't a way to twist it that makes it okay to pay different people different amounts for the same job.
So I'm not in favor of keeping the wage gap by any stretch. But it came from a different, woman-friendly and family-friendly place. It was not "pure discrimination" and it would benefit society immensely if people valued the idea that it was best for men to stay with their families and for women to be free to focus on raising their children (whether they have an additional job or not). And one way we show we value things (the main way, it seems) is through money. The wage gap was and is completely unfair, but it seems it could have been an attempt to support strong family structure and keep families (and therefore society) stable.
Unfortunately, any attempt to keep families strong and stable is seen as an attack on women any more. Staying home is not a choice, in their minds, but a prison. Raising children is not a choice, but an abusive obligation that women need to let go of.
As long as feminism denies the nature of women and treats motherhood and raising children as abusive (even while giving lip service to the idea that women get to choose what they want their lives to look like--but if you want to be happy it will look like a man's life, they insist. Their way or no way because any other way is a social manipulation that you didn't choose freely), I can't buy in. Wouldn't it be better to draw the men home more instead of pulling the women out into the workplace more? I do not understand why feminism is blind to what women are and refuses to respect what so many women want.
Who defined your net worth to the world in purely monetary terms? Who decided that success looks like lots of cash and few obligations except to yourself? Who decided that hedonism is the key to happiness?
As long as that is the definition of success, happiness, and value, I don't want any part of feminism.
Did I just read that?
"Only children are actually totally normal, according to science"
http://qz.com/560225/only-children-are-actually-totally-normal-according-to-science/
The rest of us--teens and adults--are totally messed up. (Does that mean refusal to go to bed and temper tantrums and hyper-picky eating are normal?)
(The article is about children with no siblings....)
Sunday, November 29, 2015
Funny kids: Jack says....
The kids are frequently telling me they enjoy reading about what they were like when they were littler--here on the blog. And I realized I have drifted from that some. Those things sometimes end up in my journal and sometimes on Facebook, but really the kids themselves can't go back and reminisce either of those places.
So funny kids is back. For the moment. Until I forget again.
Anyway...
A few days ago Jack informed me that he had an owie on his "fronthead." "Forehead," I corrected him, looking at what he was touching.
A few days later, he told me the owie was still there on his "Fivehead."
He kinda got it.
So funny kids is back. For the moment. Until I forget again.
Anyway...
A few days ago Jack informed me that he had an owie on his "fronthead." "Forehead," I corrected him, looking at what he was touching.
A few days later, he told me the owie was still there on his "Fivehead."
He kinda got it.
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Please no more!
I keep running across sensationalized stories (told by FB friends, in the media, etc) of babies and toddlers being tortured to death. Always, the stories are told in graphic detail.
Please, please no more.
I can't take any more.
It's making me physically sick and giving me nightmares and anxiety attacks. I don't need my head filled with the graphic details of how an evil person tortured a baby.
Let's not torture babies at all.
And let's have some decency and not share all the graphic, explicit details.
I can't take any more.
I know the point is to disgust people enough to move them to action, but it seems like this approach is either feeding disgusting voyeuristic tendencies or driving us all into our caves to hide behind our hands and cry.
What good does the manufactured outrage do if I refuse to read the articles because the last one was so distressing? There is no outrage if the coverage of the topic is so disgusting that good people refuse to read. (And that is no favor to the victims).
The media used to quote cops saying, "It's one of the worst cases I've seen," but now they just spill every gruesome detail. Has our society descended so low that we love that kind of thing? Are we not seeing these innocents as suffering humans but instead seeing their gruesome deaths as entertainment?
Just please. No more.
Please, please no more.
I can't take any more.
It's making me physically sick and giving me nightmares and anxiety attacks. I don't need my head filled with the graphic details of how an evil person tortured a baby.
Let's not torture babies at all.
And let's have some decency and not share all the graphic, explicit details.
I can't take any more.
I know the point is to disgust people enough to move them to action, but it seems like this approach is either feeding disgusting voyeuristic tendencies or driving us all into our caves to hide behind our hands and cry.
What good does the manufactured outrage do if I refuse to read the articles because the last one was so distressing? There is no outrage if the coverage of the topic is so disgusting that good people refuse to read. (And that is no favor to the victims).
The media used to quote cops saying, "It's one of the worst cases I've seen," but now they just spill every gruesome detail. Has our society descended so low that we love that kind of thing? Are we not seeing these innocents as suffering humans but instead seeing their gruesome deaths as entertainment?
Just please. No more.
Sunday, November 22, 2015
The Core Issue
There are still many, many angry and hurt people out there arguing against the church.
I move on and then stumble upon yet another article.
Two things I think are important to keep in mind:
Almost every single article I've read from someone who is decrying the church can be traced in one way or another back to John Dehlin. It appears he is single-handedly trying to destroy the church, and it is important for people to realize this is a manufactured "crisis" from a self-proclaimed religious leader who was censured recently. It appears he is trying to get revenge, single-handedly trying to destroy the church. I'm sure he thinks he's succeeding.
Whether it is even possible to succeed depends on the second thing.
That is, the entire debate actually boils down to NOT what Dehlin is saying ("The LDS Church is a bully"--that's what he wants you to think the issue is). The entire debate boils down to who do you believe is actually in charge of the LDS Church.
If you believe the church is run by God with the understanding that He uses imperfect people to do His work, but He is still very much in charge, that completely determines your reaction to any statement, policy change, rule, or doctrine. Your perception of God becomes significant in determining your reaction. My personal understanding of God as someone who loves us deeply leads me to always ask, when something perplexes me, "Could this be God's way of showing love to us? If I try to see from God's perspective, would I see this as loving? I trust that it's loving and will ultimately make people happy eternally even if I don't understand."
If you believe the church is run by a team of men with minimal involvement from God, then you see power-brokering, control, corporate resistance to change, big-company money, etc. You see men who are trying at all costs to try to maintain control without letting people in on it, so they will keep following. You see compulsion and manipulation in everything they do. Perplexingly, if this is what the Mormon Church is, then it is exactly what other churches supposedly are, too, so I don't see why people who dislike how the men of Mormondom run things don't just go someplace where they like how the leaders run things.
Of course, there is more subtlety to the way it's discussed, with varying degrees of God being involved. But ultimately the question boils down to that one question: WHO is actually in charge? God or Men?
Watching all these debates play out, D&C 121 comes to mind frequently. Here are verses 33-46:
"How long can rolling waters remain impure? What power shall stay the heavens? As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints.
"Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
"That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.
"We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
"No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy; That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.
"Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven. The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever."
This is an interesting analysis of the subject. One thing I find particularly interesting is that the righteous leaders do not need to exercise power or maintain power or exercise control in order to stay in charge. This is directly related to what the discontent are saying: They are accusing the brethren of exercising unrighteous dominion, trying to manipulate people into staying and force them to remain subservient (and tithe-payers). The reality is that, for a righteous leader, the people follow without compulsory means. They don't have to be manipulated or controlled.
How you answer the question "Who is in charge" determines how you see what is going on, whether you are following willingly or you feel you are being compelled.
I move on and then stumble upon yet another article.
Two things I think are important to keep in mind:
Almost every single article I've read from someone who is decrying the church can be traced in one way or another back to John Dehlin. It appears he is single-handedly trying to destroy the church, and it is important for people to realize this is a manufactured "crisis" from a self-proclaimed religious leader who was censured recently. It appears he is trying to get revenge, single-handedly trying to destroy the church. I'm sure he thinks he's succeeding.
Whether it is even possible to succeed depends on the second thing.
That is, the entire debate actually boils down to NOT what Dehlin is saying ("The LDS Church is a bully"--that's what he wants you to think the issue is). The entire debate boils down to who do you believe is actually in charge of the LDS Church.
If you believe the church is run by God with the understanding that He uses imperfect people to do His work, but He is still very much in charge, that completely determines your reaction to any statement, policy change, rule, or doctrine. Your perception of God becomes significant in determining your reaction. My personal understanding of God as someone who loves us deeply leads me to always ask, when something perplexes me, "Could this be God's way of showing love to us? If I try to see from God's perspective, would I see this as loving? I trust that it's loving and will ultimately make people happy eternally even if I don't understand."
If you believe the church is run by a team of men with minimal involvement from God, then you see power-brokering, control, corporate resistance to change, big-company money, etc. You see men who are trying at all costs to try to maintain control without letting people in on it, so they will keep following. You see compulsion and manipulation in everything they do. Perplexingly, if this is what the Mormon Church is, then it is exactly what other churches supposedly are, too, so I don't see why people who dislike how the men of Mormondom run things don't just go someplace where they like how the leaders run things.
Of course, there is more subtlety to the way it's discussed, with varying degrees of God being involved. But ultimately the question boils down to that one question: WHO is actually in charge? God or Men?
Watching all these debates play out, D&C 121 comes to mind frequently. Here are verses 33-46:
"How long can rolling waters remain impure? What power shall stay the heavens? As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints.
"Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
"That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.
"We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
"No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy; That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.
"Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven. The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever."
This is an interesting analysis of the subject. One thing I find particularly interesting is that the righteous leaders do not need to exercise power or maintain power or exercise control in order to stay in charge. This is directly related to what the discontent are saying: They are accusing the brethren of exercising unrighteous dominion, trying to manipulate people into staying and force them to remain subservient (and tithe-payers). The reality is that, for a righteous leader, the people follow without compulsory means. They don't have to be manipulated or controlled.
How you answer the question "Who is in charge" determines how you see what is going on, whether you are following willingly or you feel you are being compelled.
Did I just read that?
Blog post from June 2011:
From Boulder Craigslist today: "Free Stuff!!! Kids trucks, Gazelle, Patio furniture, freezer, toddler - (Lyons) pic"
As if Gazelle wasn't surprising enough--toddler?
From Boulder Craigslist today: "Free Stuff!!! Kids trucks, Gazelle, Patio furniture, freezer, toddler - (Lyons) pic"
As if Gazelle wasn't surprising enough--toddler?
Follow up on Choir or Not?
From Sept 2011
It has been suggested that individual amplification is a boundary line for whether something is a choir or not. I actually think this is a good general litmus test.
However, it takes but 2 seconds on YouTube to find examples that break the rule:
Definitely a choir, and every member has individual amplification (due to the nature of the venue and the fact that they were filming, so they needed pristine sound).
and this is definitely an acappella group, but singing completely unamplified:
Obviously the rule must be "I know it when I hear it."
It has been suggested that individual amplification is a boundary line for whether something is a choir or not. I actually think this is a good general litmus test.
However, it takes but 2 seconds on YouTube to find examples that break the rule:
Definitely a choir, and every member has individual amplification (due to the nature of the venue and the fact that they were filming, so they needed pristine sound).
and this is definitely an acappella group, but singing completely unamplified:
Obviously the rule must be "I know it when I hear it."
Did I just read that?
Old blog post, from February 2012:
The teaser under the top headline on Foxnews.com right now: "Despite 2008 Supreme Court decision ensuring DC residents can own guns, some say getting one is 'expensive' and 'very difficult,' but local councilman counters that capital has a higher public safety burden."
The teaser under the top headline on Foxnews.com right now: "Despite 2008 Supreme Court decision ensuring DC residents can own guns, some say getting one is 'expensive' and 'very difficult,' but local councilman counters that capital has a higher public safety burden."
MONEY has a higher public safety burden. Of course.
The error is repeated in the article: ""This is the nation's capital, and we have a higher public safety burden than any other city in this country," Mendelson said." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/23/gun-ownership-very-difficult-despite-supreme-court-rulings/#ixzz1nGHQj3qn
The error is repeated in the article: ""This is the nation's capital, and we have a higher public safety burden than any other city in this country," Mendelson said." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/23/gun-ownership-very-difficult-despite-supreme-court-rulings/#ixzz1nGHQj3qn
I think Washington must have an inflated sense of their own value. That city is the capital for all the rest of us? I want to cash out, thanks.
Saturday, November 21, 2015
Cleaning up blogger
I discovered (to my horror) that I wrote 62 blog posts that ended up in "drafts" instead of published.
That's a lot.
Some are not finished but were written in 2009 so I have no idea what I was planning to say.
So over the next few days I'll publish the ones that warrant publishing, but keep in mind that they're old.
Sorry about that.
(I deleted more than half, so you only get spammed with 30 of them....)
That's a lot.
Some are not finished but were written in 2009 so I have no idea what I was planning to say.
So over the next few days I'll publish the ones that warrant publishing, but keep in mind that they're old.
Sorry about that.
(I deleted more than half, so you only get spammed with 30 of them....)
A blog post I found from 4/30/2010 that for some reason I never published. I'm so glad Tim has put family before career all these years:
FROM NBC:
Hi Mister Tim,
I'm a casting producer for NBC's The Marriage Ref produced by Jerry Seinfeld. I saw your video for Enter Sandman on kazoo and I couldn't resist shooting you an email. Any chance you're married and kazooing drives your wife nuts? Just had to ask. Would love to put you in touch with the casting producers if you are married!!
Theresa Horwitz
Shed Media
Tim replied:
Hi, Theresa!
I am married, but my wife adores the kazoo. We are also not really interested in the reality TV thing if it involves showing my family (we have five kids, and have been through the contract stages for AGT and The Sing-Off; we know the huge family story would make for great TV, but we're not interested).
If there's a way to get me on TV doing music, not involving the family, I'm interested!
Thanks for the email!
FROM NBC:
Hi Mister Tim,
I'm a casting producer for NBC's The Marriage Ref produced by Jerry Seinfeld. I saw your video for Enter Sandman on kazoo and I couldn't resist shooting you an email. Any chance you're married and kazooing drives your wife nuts? Just had to ask. Would love to put you in touch with the casting producers if you are married!!
Theresa Horwitz
Shed Media
Tim replied:
Hi, Theresa!
I am married, but my wife adores the kazoo. We are also not really interested in the reality TV thing if it involves showing my family (we have five kids, and have been through the contract stages for AGT and The Sing-Off; we know the huge family story would make for great TV, but we're not interested).
If there's a way to get me on TV doing music, not involving the family, I'm interested!
Thanks for the email!
Where do they get these questions?
I wrote this in 2007. I don't know why it didn't publish then:
"Raising kids, I get more difficult questions than ever I answered in college.
Today, Dan asked, "Mom, do monkeys have fingernails?"
Um....I think so. I'll have to look up monkey pictures online to be sure."
"Raising kids, I get more difficult questions than ever I answered in college.
Today, Dan asked, "Mom, do monkeys have fingernails?"
Um....I think so. I'll have to look up monkey pictures online to be sure."
SO excited about this--can't not share it.
Wrote this in 2010. I don't know why it went to drafts instead of publishing then:
This is the coolest site on the web. Seriously.
You can now walk 17 of the world's greatest art museums virtually. Zoom in on paintings. Make comments.
You can even make a personal art collection that you can share with others.
Incredible. I love this place.
http://www.googleartproject.com/
This is the coolest site on the web. Seriously.
You can now walk 17 of the world's greatest art museums virtually. Zoom in on paintings. Make comments.
You can even make a personal art collection that you can share with others.
Incredible. I love this place.
http://www.googleartproject.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)