catalysts for this year's resolutions

Ben Stein wrote an awesome pro-Christmas piece that is especially appropriate considering the school shooting and firefighter baiting that comprised Christmas 2012. He quotes Anne Graham, who once pointed out that God has been kicked out of schools, government, etc.

Read a Gun Owner's A Little Gun History (which demonstrated how, historically, banning guns enslaves citizens) and retweeted The Living Hell of Socialism (a piece on what East Germany was like behind the wall).

Multiple news stories about Hobby Lobby going to court over being forced to pay for employees' chemical abortions.  The most recent (currently down) reveals that the Supreme Court can't be bothered to waive the fine temporarily.

Pins such as those found in my new Anti-Crop Collection.

political apologetics

Last night i watched some West Wing from the first season, which is something that i hadn't done in a very long time. i was shocked to discover that i had seen six out of the first eight episodes. i didn't think i started watching the show until the second or third season. i'm wondering if i caught reruns later on and didn't realize that it was the first season because Moira Kelly is only in half of the episodes.

i forgot how much i loved this show. i absolutely love CJ's klutziness and ineptitude with men (which is funny because Danny's throwing himself at her). i love Toby's crankiness and Sam and Josh's sarcasm. i love Leo's authority and quiet fortitude in the face of his divorce. i love that Donna wants to buy a dvd player, but can't because the administration doesn't "trust her to make a smart investment" so she keeps the change from Josh's lunch for the same reason. i love the chemistry between Jed and Abbey, how she didn't come in right away but was instantly the perfect first lady for the president that has the tendency to get pissed off at the wrong time for the right reasons. i love how this president is pro-life and has faith despite the fact that he's a Democrat (actually, his Catholicism is probably why he's a Democrat, i'm merely commenting on the fact that most in that party are not pro-life, though i am glad to say there are exceptions), that he's a complete nerd, that everyone in the office is brilliant, but makes mistakes like the rest of us.

At the moment, i am exhausted with politics. One of the things i dislike about the West Wing is the tendency for the characters to get conceited towards whoever they're talking to, with total disregard for the person's personal beliefs, because the former "knows" that he or she is smarter, and right. i will allow that very often this attitude turns around to bite them in the butt, but not always. i'm thinking of one time where the Prez and VP are having a fight because they both feel as if the other man is slighting them, not giving enough respect. Why do men have such conceit? Why do they have to strut and make themselves look stupid in attempt to achieve the opposite?

i will never vote any party line. If i was in Congress, i would vote my conscience. i'm not good at falling in line just to fulfill the wishes of someone with their own agenda for its own sake instead of primarily doing what's right for the country and its citizens. Which of course is why i'll never be in Congress, because our government apparently isn't run that way.

The most important issue to me with always be life. i feel bad for Michael J. Fox, i do, but i will never be able to justify using the helpless in an attempt to strengthen the strong, particularly when research with adult stem cells has proved to be more promising than fetal stem cells. i know it's not popular to be pro-life, because everyone wants to feel as if they have been empowered to make whatever choice they want in order to make themself feel better, stronger, etc., but that always needs to be prefaced with not harming anyone else... Which is why i do not understand the Libertarian line on being pro-choice: if hurting others does not apply to killing an innocent and helpless baby, then what does? Punishing someone else for your own mistakes is wrong (not that i consider a baby to be a mistake).

i believe in smaller government, because government has the tendency to take away freedoms, to attempt to control that which should be up to the individual, to become a nanny state that wants to take care of its people from cradle to grave. i believe in individuals empowering themselves, not having anyone tell them "this is how you must live your life because we say so." That isn't a life. i am against socialism 100% because it penalizes the successful for achieving success and says that the individual has no right to defend one's self from those that would seek to put him or her down and keep them there. i am for freedom and capitalism because other systems subvert the right to liberty and to pursue happiness. One's happiness should never depend on the government taking money away from one neighbor and give it to the neighbor who refuses to take part in the pursuit or is less able (taking care of those less able is a responsibility of the Church and charities).

i don't believe in evolution, and if i did then i would be for Survival of the Fittest in terms of man: we are at the top of the food chain. So it makes absolutely no sense for an evolutionist to believe in protecting the environment because we would only be doing what we had evolved to do. i don't believe in global warming, but i believe in conservation and protecting the environment as long as it is not at the loss of human life and livelihood (in other words, within reason). The Bible tells us that man is meant to subdue and protect the earth.

i believe in the Constitution, in what the Founding Fathers were trying to achieve, even as i acknowledge that there were some compromises made within its lines. The Declaration of Independence stated that all men are created equal, and it's horrible how America took advantage of Native Americans and slaves (no matter what their heritage), but i cannot change that. i cannot make any reparations, i can only fight against enslaving new peoples. Even as i am proud of my German heritage, i am aware that my American grandparents' distant cousins allowed (perhaps even caused) horrible things to happen. i cannot change that, either, i can only speak out against it happening in this country as well.

i have never wanted to live in the past before, but oh how i envy how our ancestors were able to travel to a new, untamed land, and form it with their hands into something better. There is no place left on this earth that hasn't been claimed, that cannot be worked by people of all races working to improve their lives while remaining mindful of their equality, own ability to overcome problem's that their peers may fail at, protect the land they have been given, and choose to help enable their neighbors when they are able. Despite my great love for this country, in some ways i am ready to abandon it, for fear of what it is pressing towards becoming. Obama is no Bartlet, and even as i hope for deliverance i live in fear.

i do not believe in world peace. i know that sounds horrible, but it's true. i'm no xenophobe, i want to travel around the world, i don't want to wage war, but praying for one world government, for world peace, is like begging God to enable the anti-Christ. Read your Bible, things are going to be horrific once this happens.

i am not British, but i have grown up reading their literature and learning about their history (more about their history than any other foreign country, at least). There is a chance that i have some Scottish blood in me, but i do not know that with complete certainty. When i say that i am a Conservative, i will not ever apologize for that, but that does not mean the same thing to the rest of the world, or even to many in this country, that it does to one who is conservative It is important to understand the process that brought our country to the point where, what once was an outrageous idea, is now the one that is set in stone and steeped in hundreds of years of history. i am definitely no expert in the matter, but i have a bit of an understanding that the Founding Fathers were intellectuals that knew what parts of Roman republicanism worked and incorporated that with aspects of British parliamentary practices. They knew that having a king can be just as dangerous as having a dictator, and had learned from earlier colonists that socialism was a good way to make colonies fail.

So they did the unthinkable and formed a government that limited the powers of the government and empowered the rights of the individual. This didn't work perfectly, because at first the federal government didn't have enough power, and slave owners had more rights than they should have, but even the authors of a noble experiment are fallible and likely to make mistakes. The question is whether or not we have learned from those mistakes. The ideals espoused by America's Founding Fathers are still considered to be extreme by people around the world, to be a beacon of hope to the people who believe in the same dream they did. i'm sure that many consider those ideals to be liberal (in the truest sense of the world), but over time these ideals stopped being strongly espoused by many in the Democrat party and became the protectorate of the then newly formed Republican party, that is to say Lincoln's party. We were liberal enough to change the Constitution to free the slaves but conservative enough to cling to the ideas in the Constitution that work. Now we are considered to just be backwards, when in reality we are still carrying the banner in an ongoing experiment.

i do not know much about the Progressives in this country, and most of my information on them is from Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, who i do not always agree with but acknowledge are smarter and better informed than i am (it helps to have a staff, i'm sure). But the Progressives, who are hiding behind the labels of liberal and Democrat, are really nothing of the sort. Democrats originally were called Democratic Republicans, and held to the same ideals now considered to be conservative (some still do, of course). The Democrat party has been hijacked by people who want us to believe that they are trying something new, a noble experiment where everyone is equal and everything will be sunshine and daisies. The trouble is that it's all a lie. They are only espousing socialism, Marxism, etc, they only want to take money from the rich and keep everyone poor in order to place themselves in power, and anyone who does not fall in line will be damned. i watched the Hiding Place last week, i saw a little of what the Nazis did to those who spoke up for those who did not have a voice. You can watch Schindler's List to see a bit of what happened to the people the Ten Booms were speaking up for.

i ask you, is that what anyone wants America to become? Do we want the people with large families to be arrested? The people who believe in the same God that the majority of our Founding Fathers did to be told that they cannot teach their own children what they believe? You laugh at me, but children are already being (essentially) brainwashed in public schools and there were hints of getting children to inform on their parents even a couple of decades ago (i'm sure it's worse now). Having a large family, something which was once normal (in Austen's day, a family of eight children was *small*), is now considered to be incredible, even crazy. Now we are told that our planet does not have enough resources to sustain us and that we are selfish to love our children while the rest of the world suffers (even as governments controlled by those with similar feelings to the Progressives keep those peoples controlled and held down).

It astounds me how many people are against the war in Iraq. Did it happen for the wrong reasons? Of course it did. Were there any nukes? No, but Hussein wanted us to think that there were, he thumbed his nose at us, and lied through his teeth. The truth is that he did have weapons that he wasn't meant to and the he was suppressing a people just as the Nazis suppressed the Jews and many Christians (those termed political prisoners). Why are we saying that it was a bad thing to overthrow a tyrant such as this? Why is it a horrible thing to rebuild a country that was ravaged by its own leader? Oh, i know, it's not our place to help them rebuild, what then should we say to Japan and every other country on this planet that owes the U.S. money because we helped them rebuild. Yes, we nuked Japan, we have waged war (and not always in ways that were right), but we always try to rebuild things better than before we came.

Is this news to anyone? America stopped socialism and communism in other countries, and struck blows to them elsewhere, all to be demonized for standing up for the principles we were founded upon. Tyranny is not as easy to get away with as it once was, though in my opinion it is still far too easy. Now the Progressives are here, ready to strike at the heart of those who have defended the weak, the poor, for so long, and helped them achieve greatness. What will happen to the world if we--the Beacon for freedom--should fall? Who will stand against oppression then? There will be no one, such will be the day that the anti-christ comes to power. The world will rejoice, the Christians will hopefully be raptured, and the Jews will go into hiding. Those who stand for freedom, for the radical ideas that were espoused by the Founding Fathers, will be mocked and killed. Right now, that time seems closer than ever.



ETA: i firmly uphold everyone's right to believe and say whatever they choose, but i will never remain silent to appease those who are ignorant or have ill will. i know that many disagree with me, i mean no hatred or disrespect, and am not seeking to start a fight, but hopefully gently inform. However, i am tired of being insulted every single day i sit in class because people around me don't believe that my opinion is as valid, or smart, as theirs. i love history, i love the USA, and i pray for its people, those who are content to be led into the darkness because they do not or cannot recognize it for what it is. This battle is not about what political party one belongs to, but whether we are willing to stand against, what history shows to be a brutal and would be just as much (if not more) so were such a regime to come to power in the United States.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
~ George Santayana

socialism stinks (my 700th post)

i tire of trying to come up with titles.

i used to write quite a bit about politics here, but haven't really had the heart for it lately.  Following the news has been very discouraging, and since my cruise in November i have not paid much attention to it.  Today was my first day back in classes, and i had the chance to hear some Beck and Limbaugh.  It used to be that communism and socialism were strongly looked down upon in this country and in the UK.  Grand Junction's own writer darling, Dalton Trumbo, was red listed and had his work banned at one time.  Now, i am not at all for banning books, plays, etc., and i think that certain senators were just trying to burn witches to save face as it were, but at the same time it seems that conservatives have somehow become the witches.  The truth about communism and socialism isn't taught in schools anymore, and if one believes in freedom they are treated as if they are spiteful and cruel.

Some of the United States' first colonies made a go of socialism, and it didn't work.  Everyone would put the fruit of their labors into a community pot, and everyone would take out of said pot equally.  The trouble was that many people weren't putting into the pot at all (they were simply lazing about or working on mining schemes), while the people who were actually working at something useful were getting the fruit of their labors redistributed.  Colonies were failing because of this.  So they finally got smart and nixed the entire socialism scheme:  if people wanted to eat, have a roof over their head, etc., then they had to work for it.  All of a sudden the colonies were prospering!

Now, i'm no expert on the history of the UK, i'm just an American girl with predominantly German roots (and i know even less about that country's history), but i also have Slavic blood in me.  A couple of semesters i gave a report on Peter Sis' book The Wall: Growing Up Behind the Iron Curtain.  He grew up in a time where Czechoslovakia was ruled by communists, and all he wanted was to listen to rock and roll and draw and paint the things that he felt like expressing, rather than following the party rules about what acceptable art was.  Czechoslovakia's government eventually fell in one of the most successful peaceful protests in human history, the Velvet/Gentle Revolution in 1989! i was eight years old at the time.

What's been bothering me is that David Tennant seems to think that socialism is good ("Scots know to eat what's good for them").  Now, as a freedom loving yank, i am all for Scotland having its independence, but i absolutely abhor socialism; in fact, i think that it would be better for Scotland to remain part of the monarchy instead, if socialism is the other option.  In terms of evils, Republic is better than Monarchy is better than Socialist regime.  i support the Labour line that Scotland should devolve (as my geography professor would have put it) and have more of its own rule, but i don't believe that socialism will help any country.  Sure, it sounds bad that 7% of Scotland's population holds 84% of the wealth, but that's no reason to steal money from the 7% so that the other 93% can play around with what they didn't earn.  In such a situation, no one will prosper.

In Einstein and Eddington, Eddington's sister went to Germany to offer aid because food and medicine weren't being allowed into the Berlin.  She was a Quaker and didn't steal money from the government to do that, so far as i know (after all, it was Britain's government that was stopping those things from being allowed into the city).  Fast forward to today, and where does most aid come from now?  The Red Cross and Southern Baptists, all of which is funded by donations from what i understand.  Who do you think is in Haiti right now picking up the pieces?  People are making all sorts of donations, a percentage of what you buy goes to it at some websites, etc.  The operative term here is donations.  Most of us normal people make donations each year, whether it be because of our faith or because we want a tax break.  The rich donate the most of all, even if they donate the same percentage of their income as the rest of us.  Obama, the great redistributer of wealth, has been reported to donate less than 10% of his income in a given year, which means he isn't even tithing.  Meanwhile, Obama doesn't only want to use the rich people's money, he wants to use the poorer people's money, too, in order to fund things like his version of health care reform, just for starters.  It's bad enough that about 40% of my income goes to taxes like social security, now you want to take more?  No thank you, Mr. President.  i am not as knowledgable or articulate as some, but i do realize that what you're trying to do is not the best idea, in fact it's making a slightly bad situation unbelievably bad.

What bothers me the most about Tennant saying that socialism is good, is that he claims to hold to the Protestant ideals of always being able to do better.  This goes along with the Christian work ethic of giving and working wholeheartedly, as if you're giving directly to God (which you are, according to Christ).  Is he saying that because he has been fortunate enough to work his entire adult life that his money should get taken away and given to people who refuse to work?  Who squander their money?  The harder he works, the more he earns, the closer he gets to becoming part of that 7%.  If he suddenly lands a contract to make a movie, and gets paid millions of dollars for doing so, does he suddenly become his own enemy?  Tennant is very vocal about giving to charity, but what happens when the government takes away so much of your money that you can't live anymore, let alone give to anyone else?  Aren't the people who are in that 7% mostly just like in America, people who earned the money from their own hard work?  From what i understand, it's much easier to fall back into the 93% and have your children living just as poorly as you were when you started, if not more.

i doubt that anything i say can convince anyone, in fact i'm sure that everything that i've written is flawed in some way or utterly offensive, but i still cling to the cry:  "Give me liberty, or give me death!"

ETA: incidentally, i believe that there's a wee bit of Scottish blood in my veins as well. i really wish i knew more about my ancestry.

more on lupus and why Nikki's condition doesn't endorse reform

Quality of life and life expectancy for lupus patients varies greatly, based on the severity of the illness and how long the disease is present before diagnosis and treatment begins. The extent to which the disease has progressed at the onset of treatment greatly impacts the life expectancy for lupus patients. When caught early, lupus can be treated and brought largely into remission before the occurrence of serious organ damage. However, left untreated over a period of time, lupus can lead to serious problems with vital internal organs, including the brain, heart, lungs, and kidneys. Such damage can severely compromise the life expectancy for lupus patients.
~ from Lupus4You.com

The Lupus4You webpage makes it sound as if Nikki was receiving the proper medical attention when she was diagnosed at the age of 21 then she should have never had to leave her job in the first place and never gotten sick. Lupus sounds like it's easy to live with, very manageable, like one of those "extinct" diseases. The drug that is commonly used to treat the disease, Prednisone, appears to be easy to obtain online for as little as $40 for 180 pills of a "standard dose" ($177 at the Canadian website i saw).

There must be a missing piece of the puzzle in this story. Was Nikki allergic to the drugs? Undiagnosed (if so, why would healthcare companies refuse to cover her)? In fact, why would they refuse to cover her at all when this preexisting condition seems to be very easy and cheap to treat??? It sounds like Nikki ignored a condition that she knew she had and killed herself. Of course that is sad, but it is not the government's job to protect us from ourselves, and the healthcare industry cannot force us to follow the best course of treatment, and the medical industry cannot guarantee that such a course of treatment is the best for every individual.

Sure, it's easy to just demonize healthcare industry, but blaming the party that didn't cause the problem and isn't the problem isn't a solution. The problem is the government. We do not need healthcare reform, we need the laws making it so easy to sue doctors for emotional trauma when they did everything they could but couldn't help to stop. Did Nikki's parents sue the doctors? i bet they did, when she waited so long to get help that there was nothing they could do for her, all the surgeries were to fix damage that her own body did to itself and that could have been prevented. That's not the doctor's fault. It's not the Healthcare industry's fault that she refused to seek care. It's painful, but then the truth often is. Let blame lie where it belongs, not on the big bad wolf.

re: my recent weight gain

i have gained 3 pounds. One might think that this has made me upset, but it hasn't. You see, those 3 pounds are pure muscle. i haven't lost any inches around my waist according to the tape measure, but i have gained muscle there (i can open and close my belly button with my muscles now, it's really weird). For the first time since i started losing weight (a little over a year ago), my clothing is truly starting to get loose and fall off me. i have bought several pairs of size 16 pants, and the size 18's i bought right before school started are already getting looser.

Since i started this semester, i have decided that i do not want to be thin. i would like to be thinner, of course, but i do not wish to be a stick or a twig. All the Venuses that i have seen so far in my current art history class are HUGE; they used to be the ideal. Things have changed so very much! So many celebrities and models are too thin and it disgusts me. i will never be curvy, but i am curvier, as strange as that may sound (less flab, more feminine shape). i hope to never stop being an athlete, and i hope to never be so thin that you can see my ribs or washboard abs. Women are meant to be round: i embrace this. At the moment, i think i might be revising my goal to just get under 200, and then see where i go from there. i'm not sure that 165 is as feasible for me as it once was.

wow, that's ironic

There's a pro-Obama site called Velvet Revolution. So... they borrowed the name from people who were protesting communism, and are doing so in support of someone who is openly a socialist. What in the world are they thinking?

searching out of curiosity

Last semester i did a report in Children's Lit about the book The Wall. Last night on my way home from work Rusty Humphries mentioned the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia (which is something i would like to research). It got me thinking... as i recall, my last name is probably Polish or Slavic. Where did the name come from, what was it originally? So i Googled "origin of senko".

Senko means / is...
"Slovak: occupational name for a seller of hay, from seno, ‘hay’."
the name of an exhibit in Copenhagen, Denmark, that features videos in frames
the standard "solid spaghetti stick incense"

Huh, so my ancestors probably smoked hay, used incense to cover up the smell, and then painted psychodelic art. Lovely. (;

Give me your tired...

i'm doing research on Lady Liberty depicted in art (no, not the Statue of Liberty, though she's rather hard to avoid, she really lacks most of the iconography of Liberty) and decided to look up that famous poem, written by none other than Emma Lazarus. It was quite a shock for me to discover... she was a Marxist. Does anyone else find that ironic?

the bars tighten

i have come to the conclusion that the majority of people who voted in this election are on either meth or crack. It's the only explanation that makes sense, really; after all, Oprah was rejoicing with those first time voters who had been clean for a week. i don't want to think badly of my fellow Americans, but really this is the only logical explanation.

WTH WERE THOSE PEOPLE THINKING?!?

i was listening to Glenn Beck this morning, as is my wont. He said that when the new tax plans go into effect he will be paying 65-70% of his income in taxes, plus he tithes, so he is going to have to live off of about 20% of his income. A family of four in Manhattan needs an income of $150,000 just to survive, meanwhile cops make $30,000 a year and their jobs are the first thing on the chopping block when it comes to cutting spending in NYC. i love NY, don't you?

"A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a Democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a Dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again into bondage."

i wrote about this two years ago, and we have now shifting into from apathy into dependency. How did it come to this? What were those people thinking, besides "Oo, free healthcare, college, and a redistribution of wealth!" because that is what Obama promised, that is what he ran on, Socialism, Marxism, higher taxes, etc., ad nauseum (he even admitted this from time to time, when he wasn't trying to lie about it).

i have to go to class, even though my thought is not yet complete. Let me just finish with this: when i was making $6.40 an hour, i was paying a third of my income in taxes. Obama is planning to repeal the Bush tax cuts; how much am i going to have to pay in taxes then? i can't support myself, what would even be the point in working? in trying? It's going to be yet another uphill battle.

Views on Women & Women's Sexuality (in the Middle Ages). i found this doing a little research for my response on The Wife of Bath.

Racial Inequality and Catalyst Weather Patterns (for Children's Lit)

Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry follows Cassie Logan during her fourth grade school year, starting in the fall of 1933. The book is set in a small farming community in Mississippi; one independent family farm and three former plantations turned into sharecropping estates share a tenuous peace during a time of great upheaval. While the story is written about children for children, Cassie and her three siblings have to deal with very adult problems that their family cannot fully protect them from no matter how hard they try.

The event that sets the story in motion happen before the book begins, when night riders pour kerosene on a man and his two nephews, then set them on fire, because one of them reportedly flirted with a white woman. The instigators of the act were the owners of the Wallace store, where young people have started going to dance, drink, and behave inappropriately. Their actions are a source of amusement and derision for the white sharecroppers of the community who are not much better off than they are. The (white) school bus driver frequently tries to run over the Logan children as they are walking to and from school, because he and his passengers find it amusing. The black children’s school cannot afford a bus or new textbooks. There is a strict segregation between white and black here, in the schools and the churches, for who goes over the one lane bridge first, and who gets served first at the store. Blurring the edges by becoming friends with members of the opposing race or expecting equal treatment is not deemed acceptable in this community.

The Logan family has it better than most because they own their farm. The land used to belong to a family named Granger, and they want it back, but the land is part of the Logans and they will not give it up for anything. The mother teaches at the school and the father works for the railroad to help pay the mortgage and make ends meet. Most families aren’t so lucky no matter what their race is. Cotton doesn’t sell for as much anymore, and the sharecroppers are constantly in debt because the landlords keep their tenants that way. The sharecroppers have to borrow money for seed, for tools, for rent, and when the crop comes in hope that it is enough to pay off the debts that they incurred that year. But of course the landlord doesn’t want the people to thrive, he wants them to continue to languish and be under his control.

This is how things were in the South, with the landlords trying to cling to their glory days, before the Civil War was lost and their former livelihood with it. The Logans try to convince their neighbors to not shop at the Wallace store anymore, but the Wallaces pay one of the landlords—the Grangers again—rent (because the store is on Granger land), and each of the landlords is the one guaranteeing the farmers’ credit; everyone involved has a reciprocal interest. If someone tries to rock the boat, the landowners take it as a personal offense. When the Logans find another financial backer for the farmers and start delivering supplies to them from a nearby town, the landlords apply pressure wherever they can, and they have their fingers in a lot of places. The Grangers convince the bank to call the Logan’s mortgage due, two of the landowners tell the sharecroppers that the percentage they are going to withhold has gone up, the Wallaces attack the supply wagon, all of these action are immoral, if not illegal.

This is the main storyline, the underlying one from start to finish, which takes a rather unexpected direction with T.J. Avery. He gets Mrs. Logan fired because she has failed him for cheating on a test. He starts hanging out with two white young adults who use him as the fall guy when they rob a store in Strawberry. Lastly, Mr. Logan chooses to save T.J.’s life by setting a fourth of his crops on fire so the community will pull back together when they have to put it out or risk the destruction of their entire community.

I have to wonder what this book is supposed to be teaching children. First the children sabotage the school bus by digging a trench in the middle of the road during a rain storm, but this action is echoed in the pyromania that their father displays during the thunderstorm. While shopping in Strawberry, Cassie is understandably upset when the storekeeper does not serve T.J. after an hour because he keeps helping the white customers instead, but then she throws a fit and causes even more trouble when she runs into Lillian Jean. I’m not saying that Lillian’s father had any right to throw Cassie in the street, but she equally does not have the right to take revenge on the daughter by damaging her books or blackmailing her.

Everyone, on both sides of the issue, is behaving badly. Even the schoolteachers and parents treat their children with disrespect and complete unfairness, punishing them when they actually try to do the right thing, and never aware or capable of taking action when their children are doing the wrong ones. The pouring rain cannot wash their sins away, and I somehow doubt that the fire has left them any more chance of new growth in the future. This story is incomplete, it starts in the middle and ends in the middle, and though we are given the necessary background to understand, we have no idea what will happen in their future, in their ultimate ends. I am still left wondering: is this story meant to show us to not behave badly? I rather think that it is unapologeticly saying that this is how things were, and there is blood on everyone’s hands.

musings on love, depression, and 9/11

i had a weird dream this morning. i was parachuting/hanggliding/hotairballooning (it was some weird sport that combined the three) and landed in a city and it was a record, the first woman to do it long distance, plus it suddenly became a big deal because of my weight. Some hispanic female anchor said "look at all her jigglies!" and there was an animation of my supposed body fat and shape, and she went on to say how amazing it was that i could even get off the ground. Then we went to another reporter, who had fallen asleep in his seat, and was given animated eyeballs to cover it up, it was hilarious.

i was happy because i was going to see some friends that i hadn't seen in a long time (which aren't real friends, except in this dream, and turned out to be animals). There was a raccoon, snake, some kind of bird, and a brown bear, it was a kind of Kung Fu Panda thing going on, i was supposed to spar with them. Oh, and i also was finally about to go into space. But as i walked up, with all my friends standing around, Bear said something in a huff, turned around, picked up a HUGE toaster oven, and threw it into a bathtub that was full of water and an anonymous bather (only he hadn't let go of the toaster). Everyone gasped, was frozen, unsure how to save him, to stop him, the world was in slow motion... and i woke up.

The dream was so vivid, such a cacophony of subconscious musings that have been rattling throughout my head. i was so happy in the dream. i was upset by the news report, but brushed it off because i was finally going to get to see my friends again! My friends, it turned out, were rather despondent, but things happened so quickly that i couldn't focus on it and react. i had heard earlier in the dream that Bear was mad, but not depressed. Bear's depression had obviously made everyone else depressed and they no longer had any idea how to deal with him. It was as if Bear was waiting for me to get there so he could commit suicide in front of me.



i talked to Brad last night, not about anything important, but about simple things, like how school is going, like how i need to go to the gym, and how crazy it is to live with eight other people. About how he's going to enlist within the next couple of days (as soon as the military gets it's act together and schedules his appointment with the civilian eye doctor) and has a new job. He sounded happier than he has been in a long time, he's working for a friend now in construction, and he enjoys it and is learning new things. i had been worried that he might be suicidal, and was out of contact with him, but he seems to be much improved, though he still enjoys spouting racial slurs. ): i am so torn inside because i love him, but i do not love the way he's acting, and every time he stops acting like an idiot i want to forgive him for all the times that he was. But he hasn't changed enough, i can't deal with his depression and anger, and i don't know that he ever will grow out of that, i don't know if he'll ever realize what he did. Cause and effect, my love....

i know that i did things, too. All he gave me to go on was "critical" and "unreasonable" and my criticisms were reasonable (so it seemed), a reaction to what he was doing. But i got depressed, and i would react to what other people said too, would want to fight against the entire universe because it hurt so much that i couldn't handle it. The way i would get angry, and self-righteous, and critical of everything, it makes me think of how my father acts when he throws a tantrum, he abandons all logic and is consumed by anger. Is that how i was? i didn't throw anything but words, but that can be enough. i want to forget my foolish pride and self preservation and instead love and be selfless... but i don't know how to do that. How do you keep your heart open when even God has hurt you?

i'm not trying to dwell on that anymore, not any of it. No more getting offended because Brad lies to me, because of his hateful comments, because he treats me like crap (that's the plan anyway). No more thinking that God is never going to rescue me, that He will never bring me through this. i don't want this life, going to college, living at home, unemployed, but it is where God put me again. So i try to make the best of it, try to be joyful, try to have hope. Only two more semesters. i enjoy my classes! i keep wondering if i should take one of the student loans that was offered because wouldn't have to work for a while and could pay off some debts and maybe even thrive a little. Of course that would be deferring more debt for later, but it's good debt on my credit report, right?

Finally, on the eve of the anniversary of 9/11, i feel completely safe, yet still wonder if the terrorists are planning something for tomorrow. There is now WTC to down this time, i'm sure their attack would escalate to nuclear weapons, and that is terrifying. i was thinking such a thing would guarantee McCain's victory, that everyone would be patriotic and turn to God again, but not everyone agrees with me. Glenn Beck was reading about some Freedom from Religion group yesterday, pointing out that it was religion that caused the attacks (thus in their mind all religion is bad). Some biased reporter in Hong Kong feels that the Republicans caused 9/11 (how Bush accomplished this after nine months in office while the terrorists had been in the country for years is beyond me).

The truth is that the attack is everyone's fault. It's Abraham's fault for sleeping with that concubine. It's Britain's fault for those dang Crusades. It's America's fault for treating the Native Americans and slaves like garbage, using and abusing them for decades. It's the missionaries' fault for not converting the Muslims... if not for causing more harm all together (i have read about some really hateful and stupid missionaries). It's Clinton's fault for not reacting for nearly a decade. And it's Bush's administration's fault for ignoring the warning signs that had already been ignored for a decade (which also is on Clinton).

Should we close the borders of the Land of Opportunity? Wouldn't America then cease to be anything but an echo of it's former glory? In the same way, how do i close my heart to others, repelling the things that cause pain, without also losing the blessings and love that would also come in?

No one can blame 9/11 on Bush, it is too much blame for one man, it is not wholly his fault, nor it it wholly Clinton's. Centuries of hatred caused this. America has blood on its hands, but we have not been waging war for as long as the Muslim nations have. i would still like to believe that the thing that makes America great is that we learn from our mistakes, we are not set in the bad ways, we change and become greater, rise above, overcome. The Muslim nations cannot say that because they have fallen from their former glory. There was a time where they stopped killing and had great capitals of learning and respect (if my Geography professor was to be believed). Now there are far too many of them who want to kill for their Allah, and whose hearts are full of hatred. Not all Muslims are like this... but then, not all Americans are hateful either. i do not endorse the slaughtering of the "Indians," or the slavery, or the Puritanism, but those are where we came from. Look at where we are now and judge for yourself, if you can, what we have become.

The Presumed Decay of the English Language

The question of if the English language is in a state of decay has been a theme that’s run throughout the course of this class. It is in the minds of the educated when they look at the vocabulary of today’s young people, in both written and spoken usage. The concern has also been a on the minds of writers for the past couple hundreds of years, and in all actuality, even longer than that. This naturally causes me to wonder if the English language is actually in a state of “decay” and what (if anything) can be done to fix it.

“Language IS [sic] understanding, which makes an author's use of language a clear guide to the nature of that author's understanding” (Atkinson, path: Language), yet many of the sources I researched did not seem to have a good grasp on coherently writing while using the English language. Atkinson, using a very broad definition of civilization, puts forth that everything is in a state of decline, from language to morality. He claims that this started with the French Revolution (path: Start of Our Decline); from a Christian viewpoint, I personally feel that any such decline began a lot longer ago, back when original sin occurred. This is a question of worldview: when do you believe that humanity was at its peak?

I did not study Atkinson’s writings in depth; however, his premise seems to be contradictory. He states that a book written in 1935 is less clear than one written in 1776 (path: Language), because the latter is not written in “Plain English.” He does not write using very plain English, and a very common complaint that today’s students have is that books written hundreds of years ago were not written using understandable English, either. This is not just a question of changes of spelling (as cited by Keller as one of the types of evidence for decay in the German language), but of the definitions for words and figures of speech having changed over time. This observation is a fact that does not support or disprove the existence of decay, in my opinion.

Lo, for his part, makes a completely different point about writing in Colonial times:

The 18th century view of language is one of decay and decadence. Their reasoning is that the old Indo-European languages like Sanskrit, Greek and Latin all have complex declension and conjugation schemes, where as the modern Indo-European languages have far fewer cases for declension and conjugation. This "loss" of declension and conjugation cases was a result of speakers of the language getting increasingly careless about their speech (read "lazy"), so the modern speakers are "decadent" as they have allowed the once complex language to decay into such a "simple" language.

Here is the issue from a completely different angle, that English itself was a decayed language from its infancy. I have always been taught that English was the language of the commoners and was a mish mash of multiple language sources that were incorporated into one, making this opinion an obvious one. The church fought to keep the Bible from being translated into such a corrupt language, and the language of the educated and governmental functions in Britain was Latin for a long time, even as the court conversed in English. Today the English language continues to adopt new words; it is always adapting and expanding: that in itself is the antithesis of decay.

Lo also cites two other theories about language decay, the first being that “language change is simply a slow shift of the ‘idealized form’ by small deviations” such as simplifications and errors in pronunciation. In a similar vein:

...At the beginning a small part of a population pronounces certain words that have, for example, the same vowel, differently than the rest of the population. This occurs naturally since humans don't all reproduce exactly the same sounds. However, at some later point in time, for some reason this difference in pronunciation starts to become a signal for social and cultural identity. Others of the population who wish to be identified with the group either consciously or (more likely) unknowingly adopt this difference, exaggerate it, and apply it to change the pronunciation of other words.

Here is where regional changes in English come in, because children are likely to pronounce words with the same accent and inflection as the people they grow up around. Lo combines these two concepts when he writes: “children of immigrants almost always learn the language of their friends at school regardless of the parents' dialect or original language.” Regional slang can be a good example of this phenomenon, for example with the words “y’all” and “ain’t,” which aren’t grammatically acceptable in formal English, but are part of many Americans’ cultural identity. Which still begs the question, is this decay?

I believe that decay is too strong of a word: evolving or devolving would be closer. The common complaint is that “media and the schools are at fault” (Keller); this statement is both true and false. There are good influences and bad, and education (or the lack thereof) strongly influences society. The English language has always changed and will always change, who is there that can say with absolute certainty that it is decaying? I believe that it grows as it decays, as when the ashes of a forest fire nourish the new growth that takes the fills the void left by the destruction. This is a poetic and extreme example, I do not believe that English is dead or just born, but in a constant state of flux that amuses and inspires some, saddens and disturbs others. Other languages came before English, and other languages will someday take its place, there is not one moment in time where the English language is perfect, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop this change, it just is.

Bibliography
Atkinson, Phillip. “A Study of Our Decline.” A Theory of Civilization. 2000. Accessed 6 May 2008. http://www.ourcivilisation.com/impact/index.htm His claim is that civilization is utterly morally bankrupt and that there is nothing that can be done to reverse this process. He says the English language has decayed, and cites examples of books written in Colonial Times to one written in the 20th century, because the newer book is impossible to understand while the former was easier to read. The language he uses is very difficult to understand and is not clear.
--- “Noun Adjectives.” Accessed 7 May 2008. Refers to the writings of Lord Dunsany (Edward Plunkett). I believe that he’s referring mostly to newspaper headlines, but again, difficult to understand.
Keller, Rudi. “Is the German Language Going to the Dogs?” Accessed 6 May 2008. http://www.joern.de/tipsn134.htm This article starts out by quoting someone who is discrediting his own view. It responds to several such quotes. It is difficult to make out what he is saying because his examples are in German.
Lo, Lawrence. “Why Do Languages Change?” Ancient Scripts. 2005. Accessed 6 May 2008. http://www.ancientscripts.com/hl_why.html Using simple words (finally), Lo outlines different theories about why (or even if) language decay is taking place. He writes using clear language and actually makes sense.
Marsh, George P. “Corruptions of Language.” Paradox Application. 1863. Accessed 6 May 2008. http://www.bibles.n7nz.org/marsh/lectur29.html How can something written on the supposed decay of the English language have any bearing on the current state of things when it was written 155 years ago? Marsh fails to use coherent English, loves misusing big words, and seems to think that English is going to the dogs because men are acting feminine.
Orwell, George. “Politics and the English Language.” George Orwell. May 1945. Accessed 6 May 2008. http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/index.cgi/work/essays/language.html What astounds me is how these individuals who are intent on proving that the English language is in a state of decay abuse and misuse it. I have no idea why the word politics is in the title really, the subject is hardly mentioned. Meanwhile, Orwell seems to purposefully be obtuse and uses words in the wrong way himself. Maybe if I could actually understand what he’s failing to say?
Plunkett, Edward. “Claim on the Decay of Language.” Donnellan Lectures. 1943. Accessed 6 May 2008. http://www.ourcivilisation.com/nb021.htm Quote from a lecture...lamenting the fact that nouns are being used as adjectives.

final State and Local Government chapter assignment

What are some of the unsolvable problems that fall within the scope of government's responsibility? Are there ways of matching public expectations with realistic assessments of capacity? Is the public capable of appreciating the complexity of some issues instead of pressing for simple solutions? Also, please remember to write a summary of the main points of the chapter, as well as respondng to the question.

The majority of the problems that this chapter is discussing do not fall within the scope of the government's responsibility at all (in my opinion). It is not the government's job to find people work or save money for them so they can vacation. It is not its responsibility to provide medical care, housing, or education. These are not responsibilities granted in the Constitution, and I doubt that they are in state constitutions, either. Historically, local governments have been responsible for education, and now states are, and as time goes by the federal government has become more and more involved in regulating and trying to solve the problems that pervade this system. Meanwhile the quality of the education of American students has gone from bad to worse. I don't care if the majority of people have been brainwashed into thinking that it's the government's job to fix everything, it can't, it's not their responsibility, and usually their interventions only make matters worse, and this is why democracy has been historically proven to be ineffectual. I want to know who gave the federal, all the way down through the local, government god-like status and started taking away the rights of its citizens? Before the Constitution was written, there was the Declaration of Independence, which affirms that all men have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When the government stops protecting life, guarding liberty, and begins limiting, even infringing upon, the individual's ability to pursue happiness, those actions make the government ineffectual and negligent, if not criminally culpable. The government cannot solve these problems for us, neither should it try to. Individuals must be responsible for their own actions and finding their own prosperity.

Regarding protection of the environment (at least under today's definitions), such a concept probably did not come into the minds of the Founding Fathers because they did not know what technologies would be invented and cause such widespread problems. The government cannot limit where a citizen goes, when, or in what manner. It cannot tell people that they can't buy the car they want to buy or go on their vacation because it would cause too much pollution. Instead the government already taxes the gas that people buy to fuel their car. Create more grants to companies that are trying to discover cleaner burning fuels and ways to electrically power cars. Encourage other ways of living green, for instance, instead of pushing formula and chemical laden diapers into new mother's faces, educate them about the healthy and better alternative of breastfeeding and using cloth diapers. Maybe the government could provide tax incentives to recycling companies and people who recycle, or tax the people who are putting needless waste into landfills. But the government doesn't educate, it doesn't support healthy choices, it pushes bad alternatives on us instead. Instead of rewarding good choices they reward bad ones, further contributing to the problems that they are causing while claiming that they are trying to solve them. If all levels of the government are as in tune with the wants and needs of its citizens as it claims, then the policymakers need to get with the program and start using their heads. If the local government wants to further economic growth so they can increase their base then they need to stop impeding said economic growth.

State and local governments cannot decrease dependence on welfare programs by increasing funding and creating new welfare programs. Instead, it would make more sense to start providing grants to starting and maintaining effective privatized assistance programs that will eventually be funded solely by donations. The largest problem with the criminal system is that many offenders are released too early or do not serve any time at all. While incarceration is costly, if an individual has been declared guilty by a jury then they have lost certain freedoms because of their crimes and must pay a debt to society. Sending the message that criminals will not be punished or can get a Get Out of Jail Free card does not discourage crime, nor does the punishment fit the crime. Similarily, it is not the responsibility of government to discourage or prevent crime in any other way, it is its responsibility to bring offenders to justice.

Public education as it currently exists is ineffectual and causing more problems, these problems need to be taken out of the hands of the lawmakers and put back into the hands of the parents. This is why juvenile crime is up, because some parents are no longer disciplinging or raising their children, but instead are expecting the school system to do it for them. That is not the job of any school, to stand in the place of the parent. Their job is to instill knowledge through learning, which is not what the system is focused on doing so much as control. Public schools throw information at their students, not expecting or desiring them to retain said information. What the system cares about more than anything else is attendance. If the student is in class, that's all that seems to matter. If they pass their tests and do their homework, so much the better! It doesn't matter if they are learning, what matters is if each student jumps through all the hoops and arbitrary requirements that have been put into place so they can make the ultimate achievement: they can get a little piece of paper that the rest of the world can see and approve of. This is lunacy. This does not improve society and does a disservice to each and every student.

Standard English (for Structure of the English Language)

English is a language that constantly adapts, adopting words from other languages, creating new words to meet the needs of its culture and times, but retaining its foundation to allow the reader to understand what was being said and written down hundreds of years ago. The collective dialect has changed over time, just as surely as it is different from region to region, but we are still connected to people in the past through our language.

Jones describes Standard English as “pronunciation” and argues that its adaptation comes from formal, informal, familial, and local influences (450). Knott’s definition for Standard English is even broader:

Standard English is that aggregate of forms, idioms, patterns, words, phrases, and usages, which has been in part inherited and adopted, and in large part devised, cultivated, and perfected, by the aggregate of the long succession of professional literary composers whose oral, manuscript, and printed work constitutes the body of English literature in the broadest sense. (83)

The words you hear, even the way they are pronounced, can be vastly different from region to region (even leaving out the differences between American and British speech), but we are all affected by broader influences which also unite us. Every one of us helps define Standard English, though not on our own. Our first influences are our family and the people we are surrounded with as a baby, for they are who we instinctually learn how to speak from. As we grow older we go to school and learn how to read, and our influences suddenly become vaster. Each one of us is taught by our teacher what formal English was, from our peers what informal English is, and are constantly redefining what English will become. If Knott had written today he might cite the influences of music, television/films, and magazines, but during his childhood the greatest influences were most likely the stories his grandparents told him, plays, and books.

I doubt that Knott could have even imagined YouTube or blogs in his wildest dreams (he was writing this when my grandfather was an infant). In the past new words and expressions were adopted and adapted by word of mouth, most likely changing quickly in a select peer group but more slowly in a larger region and the world. Today anyone can instantly self-publish themselves on a blog or podcast and be read or heard milliseconds later just as easily by someone who lives next door as someone on the other side of the planet. The news of election results and disasters once took days and weeks, if not months, to be reported on, then heard by word of mouth or read in a letter or newspaper, now we have instant access. On September 11th the entire world gave a collective gasp when they saw the Twin Towers collapse. When the next Election Day comes around, we will probably know who the new President of the United States is by the same night or next morning.

In today’s world it is more important than ever to be able to effectively communicate with others. If we all used the same words, but didn’t use punctuation, or tense, and generally we were taught is good grammar, then many people will be scratching their heads and some will most likely be offended. I predict that as technology and cultures continue to adapt and collide that Standard English will be more important than ever, will have to change drastically to meet other languages halfway, or will become a dead language itself. English may be the language of communication and free trade now, but that was because the British Empire spread the language throughout the world. In today’s world birth rates are on the decline in English speaking countries, while on the rise for Muslim people, and all of us are still vastly outnumbered by the Chinese people. As much as I love to speak, read, sing, and write in English, in today’s political environment one starts to wonder how long it will last.

Grey writes, “The only way we can understand our world is through language” (Does Thought Depend on Language?), but what would we become if our language changed? Will our children and their children speak English, and if they do speak another language will they think the same way we do? We don’t know the answers to these questions yet. Language separates us from other cultures, and they usually learn our language, but I wonder what will happen if the United States is overthrown, or evolves into something else, and English is no longer the unofficial national language, but is instead replaced with something else. We all instinctually know what Standard English is now, but if that day ever comes then all of these definitions will be thrown out the window. Instead of being part of our being and life the will become part of history. We cannot know the answers to these questions: not yet, at least, but no matter what happens we will continue to learn what Standard English was as we influence the English of tomorrow.



Annotated Bibliography

Barry, Anita K. English Grammar: Language as Human Behavior. 2nd. ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1997.
Our textbook and the beginning point of my research.

Buckhurst, Helen McM. “Some Recent Americanisms in Standard English.” American Speech, Dec. 25. 159-166. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=9942053&site=ehost-live
Discusses how some slang is forgotten yet some is adopted into the English language. The article is written from a British perspective and points out that Americans are usually more concise.

Grey, D.S. “Does Thought Depend on Language?” Language in Use. 2007. Cambridge, UK. 20 Feb. 2008. http://www.putlearningfirst.com/language/research/thought.html
---. “Endangered Languages.” Language in Use. 2007. Cambridge, UK. 20 Feb. 2008. http://www.putlearningfirst.com/language/04change/endangered.html
---. “The Notion of Correctness.” Language in Use. 2007. Cambridge, UK. 18 Feb. 2008. http://www.putlearningfirst.com/language/07crect/07crect.html
---. “The Standard English Dialect.” Language in Use. 2007. Cambridge, UK. 18 Feb. 2008. http://www.putlearningfirst.com/language/12dial/standard.html
The links that were in our checklist along with other articles available on the same site. Short, but sparks some interesting ideas.

Jones, Margaret E. “The Case for Standard English.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, Oct. 36. 449-456. 20 Feb. 2008. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=9225206&site=ehost-live
A college professor discusses Standard English and its relationship with dialect and education: this is especially influenced by the fact that her fellow professors are from various areas of the country and even abroad.

Knott, Thomas K. “Standard English and Incorrect English.” American Speech, Apr. 34. 83-90. 20 Feb. 2008. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=9989499&site=ehost-live
Examines Standard English in regard to mass education, new technology, population growth, and (then) current world events. This is interesting to read in contrast to the technology and war that we are currently experiencing.

State Government - Assignment 4

Under what circumstances would you participate in protest activity? Are there any forms of protest that you would refuse to use? If so, why?

When I was growing up it seemed like everyone in my family was anti-protest and none of my peers would even consider being involved politically. In high school the only issue that I would have considered picketing against was abortion, but there wasn’t a clinic anywhere near our humble little town, so it wasn’t exactly practical. As I grew older and began to attend college my view of protests gradually changed. In history class we read about Martin Luther King, Jr. We talked about these issues in my American Government and English classes, as I recall, as well. I began to watch some more serious movie, and saw Roots, Malcolm X, Ghandi, and some other historical films. One of my history professors even gave a lecture once about what it was like for him to go to college during Vietnam.

Something that I was always aware of growing up is the fact that my great-grandfather had been a member of the KKK. I didn’t know many black kids growing up, in fact there was only one family in our town for a couple of years, and everyone else was Caucasian or Mexican-American or Native American, with the exception of one Asian family that ran the town’s Chinese food restaurant. I was in band with one girl from that African American family for a couple of weeks (before she quit), and she was always disrupting class, ignoring the teacher’s instructions, and there was one day that I got so mad that I called her the N-word. I’ve always regretted that, I don’t know if I ever saw her again, and I know I never told her I was sorry.

As a child I always felt stigmatized because the only time I knew of white people protesting was when they were holding on to segregation or anti-War, and neither of those takes on those issues have ever applied to me (my father served in Desert Storm and our family is very pro-military). I have gradually become more anti-War but would not protest the war in Iraq. I no longer support it, but at the time it began I did: when everyone just knew that they had nuclear weapons and Hussein was acting like Hitler, I supported it, but now I feel like the U.S. needs to just get out of everyone else’s business and worry about things at home. I believe in protecting our borders but at this point I’m content to let the world blow itself up as long as it doesn’t blow us up. Who are we to get involved in other countries’ issues?

I will not protest gay marriage. I doubt I will ever protest at an abortion clinics. I most definitely would never lynch anyone or burn anything on someone’s lawn. A sit down, that I would do, a march, almost definitely, but it feels like no one cares about anything to protest anymore. People march for different things now, like finding the cure for cancer, birth defects, etc. I used to be very interested politically and now I am just tired. I can think of no issue that I care about enough to protest. My biggest form of protest at the moment is going to be not voting Republican: I haven’t even changed my party affiliation yet.

I feel like the country that I grew up loving is falling apart and I don’t know how to fix it, what to protest, but it’s like the smell of death is hanging over my head. I cannot put this fear into words, I cannot yet give voice to it, but I feel it every time I turn on the news or read the newspaper. I wish that I knew how to protest this, I wish that I knew what I could do, but all I can come up with is joining a militia. That’s so extreme, so anti-peace, and I don’t want to do this. But I am no Ghandi and have no idea how to bring about change. I feel small and insignificant and cut off. My only form of protest is my blog, and I don’t even have the time or energy to devote to that, it just takes it out of me. I refuse to burn the flag and I refuse to blow things up, but I’m afraid that those forms of protest are coming anyway.

shiver me timbers, i have a bone to pick

i have not been writing because i've been simultaneously avoiding feeling and trying to figure some stuff out. My life feels very uneventful. Until about a week ago i was playing World of Warcraft at every available moment, lately not so much. i was trying to level my two characters with my sister's (and so, not supposed to play alone, not that it's enjoyable to play alone) that are at the same level, and now we have all four at the same level, but she is so involved with her guild that there isn't much time for me. i have a Blood Elf Hunter and Troll Shaman that are awesome. i don't care for my Undead Lock or Draenei Pally overly much. We're supposed to start playing a Tauren Druid (me) and Tauren Shaman (her) on a RP server but there just isn't enough time in the day and i've been spending time leveling my Shammy and missing my Hunter and now i just want to play the Shammy but still miss the Hunter (can i have a Shunter or a Hammy, please?). i'm conflicted and wish i was already to lvl 70 but don't like playing alone and am sick of stinking pugs with mush for brains, or people who ninja or don't care what they agro, or being blamed for stuff that is totally outside my control. i'm tired of healing with a shammy that i want to dps with and sick of trying to get my pet to do what i want without getting the nth degree.

Ah, i have no life. And in a way i don't care. WoW every day, day in and day out, what's bad about that? (;

In RL i am working at a Hancock Fabrics that is not in such a safe neighborhood. i like my job, but it's exhausting to be on your feet eight hours straight. My manager wanted me to work five days this week and how am i supposed to do that and enable Megan to work too? Impossible, which totally negates my entire reasons for coming here. Which i embrace and fight simultaneously...

On my last night in Whitewater i was flipping mad because i felt like i was being pulled in a million directions. i started writing a poem about it but haven't been able to finish it. i am not in quite the same zone anymore and can't quite put into words what i'm feeling and working through. It just seems to me that it never works to put God first, then others, then yourself, because myself never has anything left over and what if God's needs conflict with the others'? i still end up feeling guilty and p.o.'d no matter what i do or how hard i try and then guilty that i haven't tried harder and righteous cuz i worked as hard as i could but did i really?

Which just puts pain to a lot of things i've been working through. i feel like the church has totally misconstrued God's intentions in a lot of ways, and i don't exactly know if i'm being stupid and sinful, or if i'm on to something. Am i being nonconformist for a reason? Am i truly meant to be a prophet? Or am i just being a stubborn ass who won't move in the direction my master wants me to? Case in point, the word ass is in the Bible and Red Foreman uses it so eloquently. However if the word was actually directed at myself by my father or anyone else i doubt that i'd feel amused or uplifted. But i've grappled with the idea of cursing a lot lately; i learned to curse from other Christians, and what the Bible says is not to put others down, not to not use certain words. So is not cursing at all merely legalistic?

So here's my bone to pick: why has the church become so legalistic? i feel like we're Protestants are a bunch of Pharisees and Catholics are a bunch of Saducees or vice versa. And i see such hypocricy in the church that it just blows me away and scares me. Here are a few examples:

Nudity is bad. Sex is bad (except when married). Dancing is bad and only leads to sex, so don't do it. Even when married, do not discuss sex ... So, uh, Adam and Eve must have been sinning even before they ate the forbidden fruit. God was crazy when he designed our sexual organs and therefore, by default, sex. Married people with your marital problems due to lack of intimacy and communication: go somewhere else for help. Oh, and don't get me started about the Song of Solomon or David dancing in the streets of Jerusalem.

Drinking alcohol and doing drugs is incredibly horrible! Don't even think of doing it! ... Why did Jesus turn water into wine and then later command his followers to eat bread and drink wine EVERY SINGLE TIME believers meet together?!?!?!? Come to think of it, why did he create drugs of any sort, naturally in nature, or give men the brains to make fake ones??? And is caffeine a bad drug, too? Is it a sin to have a Coca-Cola or a Java Chip Frapp? Is water or oxygen a drug, too? Because i am totally and hopelessly addicted to both, and i've tried stopping, but my body pretty much rebelled.

Card playing is bad. Gambling is bad ... We all know what happened when Jonah was dumped overboard and been swallowed by that fish. And what an awful way to have fun with your family.

Movies are the Devil's work! ... This is the same sort of mentality churches had about novels in Austen's time. My question is, why did God give us an imagination if He didn't intend us to use it? How dare we even talk to each other, tell historical tales, learn how to write letters and words in order to communicate, then learn how to write fiction! Of course several of those steps were entirely necessary in order for God's Word to be recorded in the form of a book....

Back to the sex issue: if you cut back, you'll have fewer kids, and for some reason that's what we all want. Children are a danged nuisance if you ask most people in the church and the world. Breast feeding is utterly offensive, don't do it. Babies and Toddlers only scream, send them to the nursery and pay people to care for them instead of coming to worship themselves. Children are loud and obnoxious, send them to public school so you can get them out of your hair. Don't teach them anything, don't trust them, don't raise them to be Christ-like, expect them to rebel and whine about it when the don't listen to you or get in trouble. Try to control their life throughout high school and college (when it's too late), tell them not to get married until they hit at least 25 (they're too young to know what they want out of life), then badger them until the age of 30 to get on the ball and give you grandkids, then chew them out at the age of 35 when they won't stop having them. Make sure that they know that the career is what's most important, that and perpetuating the cycle that was created before your own time ... DON'T HAVE BABIES AT HOME, DON'T TEACH KIDS AT HOME OR RAISE THEM IN gODLY LIVING, DON'T YOU DARE TELL THEM HOW TO LIVE OR TRY TO RAISE THEM ON YOUR OWN, YOU'RE TOO DUMB!!! ... Meanwhile abortion is bad, birth control WAS bad (but is now expected of you), children are the bane of existence (have i mentioned). How about we let the entire Human species die out or start figuring out how to clone people instead? Oops, but then people wouldn't have souls. WHAT IS GOING WRONG WITH YOUNG PEOPLE TODAY, THE LITTLE WHIPPERSNAPPERS HAVE NO RESPECT!

rofl... No wait... <the writer lets out a piercing scream of horror and fear>...

God made us to appreciate sex, enjoy sex, desire sex, have sex to procreate, have sex to bond with our spouse, and that's it (but i imagine it must be pretty great, all the same). CHILDBIRTH IS NOT A DISEASE, it was what the female body was designed to do, and if it doesn't it can get sick. God designed breasts for feeding babies and the formula makers are only formulating pale copies of the perfect real deal. Children are supposed to be raised by their parents, not figuratively blind teachers who are either underpaid and doing it cuz they love it or are one of those who could not find anything better to do with their lives. Children are a blessing from the Lord and it is up to Him how many children He gives or takes away. Anyone that has a heartbeat has a soul, so yes, abortion is murder. Respect must be given and earned to be received, how about you give love and start acting like an adult and we'll take it from there?

Sarcasm is the recourse of a weak mind ... Complaints against sarcasm are the recourse of those who can't come up with a good retort or face reality.

A couple of weeks ago i was watching an old Homicide:Life on the Street rerun and one of the characters said that you have to know your weakenesses/sins and love them because they're a part of you, too. He said that unless your vices rub against your virtues and are tested then they are worthless (paraphrased, of course). His words rang of truth; how can you know that you truly believe something if you've never questioned it? i am nowhere near as eloquent as him right now, but surely you get the gist: assuming makes an ass of u and me.

We are meant to read God's Word for ourselves and discern for ourselves in which way that God wants us to live. We are meant to live for God alone, and not ignore our own needs, or put others' needs before His, or be selfish and/or rebellious about giving our time and efforts. Where does Jesus tell us to start being legalistic, bind ourselves to new man-made holy "law"s, or ignore His example? i don't know if i could ever be the mouthpiece of God, but i am terrified by the trends that i see in today's church. The most important Law is "Love Your Neighbor as Yourself," but how can you love your neighbor if you hate yourself and how can you love yourself if you hate God's will and vision for your life?

In many ways i have hated the past seven years, nine months, plus, of my life. Others are always trying to sabotage my service of God, and yet i have been completely dependent on others for survival. i hate it when others judge where i am by with worldly yardsticks and yet i find myself doing the same thing. At every turn i question God, i try to understand, i beg Him to explain, i beg Him to deliver, i beg Him to answer me, i beg Him to take care of my needs instead of making me depend on others' grace. Two thought-provoking verses from last week's Bible study stand out in my mind in answer to these questions.

The first is John 1:5: "The light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness can never extinguish it," or, "...and the darkness has not understood it." This suddenly made perfect sense to me in many ways. In my minds eye, the past seven plus years have been spent in a cage, one of God's making. i lament my inability to see Him, feel Him, escape (ironic, when all i want is to be with Him, isn't it?), and have struggled to comprehend the events of my life. i can see myself naked, curled up in the dark, my eyes blinded, my body broken. But at the same time there are times when it is as if i can feel my skin on fire, on fire in a good way, a tickling, itching, new skin growing way. i can feel the star on my forehead, reflecting God's light, picture in my mind's eye the barcode on my neck that has been marked Paid in Full / It is Finished by Jesus, savor the sting of the trinity circles that are also tattooed into my wrists and soul, and feel the itch of the flaming wing that lie nestled in my shoulder blades, longing to burst into life. i sound like a fool, but i know that these marks are a part of me, whether they have been marked on my earthly skin and can be seen on earth or not, i believe that when i stand before Jesus that everyone will be able to see them as i can feel them, etched into my very being. i am wearing a tiara, just like an elf in LotR, and one day i will lay it at His feet, but the burns, reflections, light, will still remain.

So if all of these marks remain with me, and i can still not hear, touch, see, feel Christ, God, the Spirit, what then is the explanation? But as i read John 1:5 i knew, deep within, it is because my body is not capable. God is with me in the cage, but He is the bars that keep out the dark and keep me safe. The Spirit is with me in the cage, He is the air i breathe. Jesus is with me in the cage, knows that i long to anoint his feet with my hair, even if my hair is/was gone and i cannot touch him, He is the light i cannot see, a black light that i will never be able to physically perceive but can feel etched into soul and spirit and mind and flesh. If anyone looks at me with God-given spiritual eyes they will see me as i am, wrists marking that i belong to Christ, a neck marking my freedom, wings waiting to fly, and a crown that will be given to God someday. My body is a cage, but one day i will be freed of my residual self image and see myself as i really am, that is to say, how God sees me, his mental projection of my spiritual self.

The other verse that struck me was not part of my Bible study, it was quite by accident. Ever since i got a cover for my Bible i have kept its bookmark ribbon squarely on the same verse: Proverbs 3:5-6. When i close my Bible i usually pull the ribbon down (towards the bottom of the pages) so that the Bible will close smoothly. Last Tuesday i actually turned to that page, which isn't unusual, but i actually read the verses. "Trust in the LORD with all your heart; do not depend on your own understanding. Seek His will in all you do, and He will direct your paths."

The world's, and church's, and my epidemic is thus: we do not trust God, we try to depend on our own understanding. Most of us, i believe, must not really want to see God as He truly is, rather as we want to see Him. People have a small view of God and don't want the ceiling of their cathedral to be broken open, for cathedral ceilings are majestic enough as it is. But what of me? i asked God to show me Himself as He really is, not as i want Him to be, and yet even i am still clinging to my old version of Him. i see the sky, and sometimes the stars, but He wants me to look past the stars. Now i cannot possibly comprehend what is past the stars, but sometimes i try to, sometimes i am quiet and still and for a few thundering heartbeats i see God as He really is and cannot comprehend it, and then He closes my mind off again before it explodes. But even with my mind closed i struggle to see past the boxy cathedral and reach for those stars, knowing that they represent God in a tangible way, for He not only created them in the instant of one breath, He is the stars and lives between them and lives beyond them forever and to the nth dimension.

God put me in this cage as surely as He has caged my mind. People tell me that my husband is not ready for me yet, that is why i have not met him yet, and i know they are wrong. i am not ready for Him, i feel as if i am, but God tells me that i am not, so i know that it is true. He has caged me because the world is not ready to hear what i have to say, rather, what words He will say through me if i ever prove to be worthy enough to whisper them. i am caged because i am not ready to fly, and if i leave the nest i will die. i am caged because of the beast that prowls outside as a lion, seeking to devour me (1 Peter 5:8).

Oh, that God would put a coal to my mouth and cleanse my lips! i would take it in my mouth like Harry's snitch to cleanse my tongue, throat, lungs, if i could. i am forever crying out, "Here am i, send me!" but God is still too far away for me to comprehend. And now i see, plain as day in front of my face, that i'm not supposed to be trying to comprehend, i'm supposed to just believe and seek His will. Who can really seek His will by taking the Bible out of context, create new Laws, twist His teachings, and shield their heart against the starlight? How can i seek Him unless i let go of my understanding and do His bidding no matter what the cost. Meanwhile, i'm still a WIP.

where i stand (rather, grovel)

So i've been feeling lonely, which is actually somewhat unusual for me. When i'm around people i still feel alone anyway, rarely feel anything but misunderstood and an outcast. i have this crazy inability to feel like i'm actually part of a group or know how to act in one. Sometimes i try so hard to fit in, but it never works, particularly because i am a non-conformist to the depths of my marrow and it always feels forced. i've understood since preschool that it's better to be what God wants you to be than your peers. Even when i want to make people happy it so rarely coincides with what my conscience and intuition are telling me that i always have to ask myself who i should please... God, others, or myself. i don't want to hurt anyone, but how am i supposed to have it every way? i can't.

i don't expect what God is doing in my life to make sense to anyone when it doesn't really make sense to me. For several years now i have embraced the concept that most of the world is mundane, that is to say, they don't pay close attention to God and the spiritual warfare that we are surrounded by. Perhaps this is how God intends most people to be, to be blind to the darkness so they are not afraid. i am not so inclined and am grateful for what he has unlocked in me, even as i live in fear. Many people would probably label me as depressed, maybe even disturbed, but that is not how i think of myself. i am blessed and i am cursed at the same time, and i am happy for it, because i do not want to go back to the way things were... Which is fine, because i don't think i could even if i tried.

i have been called a Drama Queen. To me, this seems an unfair assertion, as i am very easy going, i often roll with the punches instead of making a fuss, and i am not the type to scream or faint while watching the hero grapple with the archenemy: i would instead join in the fight. i am not one to overreact because i am usually too accepting and complacent: i don't fight against what i should, i let people walk all over me rather than cause a fuss, i don't stand up for myself. But things in my life are not so physical as in Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, or Pirates of the Caribbean; what fight against is not understood by the world, and is rarely perceived by human eyes. i fight against the darkness, and i cannot take up a sword, or a wand, etc., i have only my beliefs, my feelings, ideas, and hope. i have only God's Word and God's truth.

It is true, i feel things (emotions) deeply. i am very empathetic: if someone is suffering, i feel their pain as if it is my own, i want to help them. Sorrow can be nearly paralyzing, but it is also empowering. i have long felt that one cannot truly know joy unless one knows despair, nor can one really have hope or faith unless it has been challenged. That is what i am going through, something which some would call a "Dark Night of the Soul," a time like Job went through in which Satan is allowed to do what he will and God is far away. i have no home or barn that could be razed, and i have no children, but it is as if i have the worst luck when it comes to jobs, supporting myself, and keeping a running car. i have no wife to torment me (ha, i would have a husband, but still) but to me it is worse that i have no husband at all. i have no friends to tell me how this is all my fault, but family and acquaintances have done just as bad from time to time. i do not fault anyone in this, it simply is. There was a time in which i didn't care what happened to me, that i was grateful that God thinks that i am strong enough to withstand this, but now i just wish it were over. The past seven and a half years have been extremely difficult, and i have begun to be afraid that i am not strong enough for the task, that i will fail.

It seems to me that people don't really understand this, and as such label it as depression, or something trite. To me, this hurts, but as i have said, i probably take offense too easily. People try to make light of what i'm going through, and i guess i'm like Mary Jane and assert that no one knows what i'm feeling. It's probably true to an extent, i doubt that many have been through this, though prophets and heroes in the Bible are obviously some who have. Others in history that i think this apply to are Joan of Arc and the Lady Jane Grey, but these are rare names that stand out in history. How many people have lived and died by their faith in today's world? Most people live their lives as if God is impersonal and far away; to me He is as necessary as oxygen or water and though He may not be physically tangible i see Him in everything around me, nature, books, movies, casual conversations, music, the news, the list goes on. To me, God has always been evident throughout each day, so to see Him at work around me while simultaneously feeling cut off from Him and caged is torture. i feel like i can't serve Him and am angry with Him even as i long to feel His touch again. Worst of all is trying to talk to Him when it seems like i'm being ignored and that prayer is hopeless.

i know Satan is lying to me. It looks like he is winning in this country, in the world, and i want to fight back, but it's not in my power. This isn't about what i want, it's about what God wants, and what He wants is not something i really understand. Why should i have to wait when i am ready to do whatever it takes? Even Jane ruled for nine days and Joan won many battles before they were imprisoned. i have never had the chance to pursue my dreams, i have yet to begin to fight, which is what makes this so hard. i don't want to watch a hero fighting for me, i want to help him, but i am not even allowed to fight. i have to withstand the taunts and insults that are hurled at me.

i struggle with this on many levels. i don't want to give the darkness power over me. The mundane do not understand what i'm going through, probably think i'm making it up or being overdramatic. How can i witness at all when i am full of so much despair and anger towards God, that i'm having to go through this and am feeling so misunderstood, when i'm supposed to always be ready to give a reason for my hope? It's hard for me to read the Bible right now, to see all of God's promises and then see how devoid my life is from that hope. i still believe every word, i know my Redeemer is faithful and true. How do i reconcile this? Because i recognize Satan, how he loves to twist truth into lies, and i know that my faith is being tested. If they aren't true in my life right now are they never true? No, they are always true, but sometimes we have to wait. And as much as i hate it, i still lack patience.

i feel like a fool to hope, but still i do it. The entire world tells me that i am stupid, but i know it's not true. Things are hard, but God will bring me through it because that is what He has promised, to never leave me or forsake me. i am tired, body and soul, and i cannot explain it, but it is true. It has always been true and always will be.

i wish i could write more, but i'm too tired to make sense right now.

That's a Bad Word?

I work from eleven p.m. to seven a.m. Monday through Friday. It’s my habit to have the radio on whenever I’m driving, and I’m usually tuned in to 1100 KNZZ because I like to hear the news and several of the conservative talk shows. Lately I’ve been extra eager to hear the radio on right after I get off work because the first hour of the Glenn Beck program is now on the air.

Glenn Beck has quickly become my favorite talk show host. He is so irreverent, so funny, and his politics are usually exactly aligned with my own. I haven’t listened to him for a long time relatively speaking, on an off for just over two years now. I was introduced to him three winters ago because his show would be on KNZZ when I would leave Powderhorn to drive home. For a while he wasn’t on anymore, and then they cut out his third hour, but now he’s on for three hours, oddly arranged as one hour in the morning and two hours in the afternoon. So I love to tune in every morning after a long night’s work and be greeted with his trademark, “Hello, you sick, twisted freak.”

This morning a caller wanted to talk about the post-9/11 requirements of photo i.d.’s for everyone. He was trying to compare it to something that the Nazis had done, but he wouldn’t say the word Nazi on the air: he claimed that the call screener had told him not to. I guess he was referring to the requirement that all the Jewish people had to get i.d.’s leading up to World War II and wear the Star of David. Beck asked, “That’s a bad word?” and kicked the guy off the air after confirming with his screener that she had not nixed the term Nazi.

What I’m babbling towards in a round about way is the tendency for people to say a word is bad when it isn’t. I remember hearing on the radio about a high school English teacher being fired because she read the word “niggardly” aloud in class and explained what it meant (“stingy” from Old Norse). I remember during the 2004 debates when Kerry demanded that Bush not call him a liberal. In both cases I found myself perplexed to the point of irritation.

Since when is liberal a bad word? According to dictionary.com “Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value.” We don’t use the word in that way any more; the new term for that ideology is Libertarianism. Liberalism has changed from the idea that everyone is equal with the same rights to something very different. A liberal education is something that’s good to have, but use that word for a politician, and even if they are a liberal, they apparently might become offended.

Why are people so hesitant to stand up for what they are? I embrace liberalism in the classical sense of the word, and though I do not share the ideals of the new form of liberalism, I do rigorously defend their rights to speak up for their beliefs, just as much as I defend the Conservatives’, Christians’, Environmentalists’, Polluters’, Socialists’, Libertarians’ right to freedom of speech. I am proud of being different, is there anything wrong with that? Since when is saying what you believe wrong?

Reflection #2

I have always wondered how it is decided what is the proper way to spell words. From my early grade school days I always remember that there are certain rules to follow, such as “I before E except after C.” But then there are words like weird, and their, and foreign, and a whole slew of words that don’t contain a C but do have E before I. It would sure look weird to spell weird with an “IE”, but it still breaks the rule.

Some words seem to have too many repeated letters. One has to memorize how to spell words such as Mississippi or embarrassment, the latter of which looks like it has too many R’s. For the former I never learned any rhyme or sentence to remember it; I only kept in mind that after M the only vowels are I’s, all of the consonants are doubled, and there are two sets of S’s. Some words are confusing to spell because they aren’t pronounced the way one thinks they should be. For instance, why is separate spelled with an “A” in the middle when I feel like it needs an “E” and people say it like “uh” (or the schwa sound)?

And then there are words that are two words put together that, when apart, sound like the complete opposite, an oxymoron. The word extraordinary is a good example: to me, when reading, it looks like something is very ordinary instead of above the ordinary. The phrase “all right” is usually used (in the circles I traverse) to indicate that something is only “okay”, and not necessarily wanted but must be accepted anyway.

In the United Kingdom they speak the same language we do but their words can sometimes mean different things. When I first started reading the Harry Potter books I had no idea why Harry and Ron would be wearing jumpers and what bogeys were… but Rowling meant sweaters and boogers. The British say “crisps” for “chips” and “biscuit” for “cookie”, “lift” for “elevator” and “flat” for “apartment.” They spell words differently, too. On the Dark Angel message board I used to frequent those from the UK would spell pajamas with a “Y” and add a “U” for words like honour, flavour, and savour, just to name a few. But on the other hand the English language also has different spellings for the same thing, too. I was taught that a boy is blond while a girl is blonde. No one can agree whether to spell the color (colour) gray or grey.

But even in America it depends on where one comes from when it comes to naming things. Most people around here call what I refer to as a Traffic Circle as a Roundabout. In Arizona we say Freeway while around here it is Interstate. When I was living in the Carolinas all of my friends thought that West was Ohio while to me West starts in Colorado and Ohio seems pretty far east to be called Central (of course, most of these friends were from Ohio, so their concept of the term is decidedly different). And then there are words out East that do not even enter into our dialogue, terms such as “Frou Frou,” which is everything that the modern day Southern Belle is about.

Words just make me wonder sometimes. Of course there are no answers to any of my questions and observations without much research, and all of my questions are merely rhetorical… but spelling and syntax sure does confuse things.