"Advice for frustrated job hunters: Stay focused." This was the headline of an article in a recent Snohomish County newspaper. Pathetic excuse for journalism, if you ask me. Advice as general as "focus" can be extended to virtually every problem, every facet of life. Here are a few I came up with: "Advice for absent-minded professors: Stay focused." "Advice for struggling high school students: Stay focused." "Advice for easily distracted alligator trainers: Stay focused."
I realize there is a limited amount of detail one can put into a headline, but come on folks, can't we do better than this? There is a disturbing trend in the modern media to create news based on the obvious, self-evident truths we call common sense. I attribute this to a certain laziness on the part of journalists, who no longer do the difficult research and analysis that leads to those counter-intuitive insights that readers find interesting.
"Advice for anyone who faces any particular challenge, difficulty, trial, or speed bump in the road of Life: Stay focused." And while focused, keep a focus on the lesser-known phenomena that make life interesting.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
My Colon, My Friend
I never thought I'd be talking colonoscopy at my age (42), but here I am, getting a colonoscopy today. There seems to be a family history of colon polyps (siblings found with colon polyps at age 40) so I thought I'd strike while the iron is hot. This Colyte stuff is really awful, though; drain cleaner for the body...think Dumb and Dumber, only worse. I had to start the clear fluids diet yesterday, and my appointment isn't for several hours, so I'm STARVING. Right now I could kill for a California Chicken Burger from Red Robin. I think that will be my first stop on the way home, although they say you get pretty loopy from the sedative so I'll probably just go home and sleep. But oh yes, that burger is mine tomorrow (repeat for dramatic effect).
UPDATE: The colonoscopy went smoothly and the doctor found nothing out of the ordinary.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Where Have All the Artists Gone?
One of my many New Year's resolutions is to find out where all the talented artists have gone. It seems that I'm always looking to the past to find the best examples of talent, creativity, and self expression, whether it be in the realm of art, music, or literature. I got a new iPod for Christmas and I am hard-pressed to find any modern-day band that compares to the artists of yesteryear. Listen to Queen's Greatest Hits and you'll see what I mean. There is nothing that compares to the vocals, melodies, harmonies, pianos, or guitars. My wife's cousin is an unbelievably talented drummer, despite his 10-year bout with cancer. Even with his physical limitations I know he drums circles around the competition. He's done a lot of studio work for different artists, and the feedback he gets from his peer community is this -- "Nobody plays drums like you anymore." He's my age, so I think it's a generational thing. Yes, there are some new artists that look promising, but until the next musical renaissance comes along I will continue to seek perfection in the past.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Thanksgiving
Thanksgiving Day is that one day we set aside each year to express our gratitude. While I think this is a good idea, it's mostly a symbolic gesture because we really express our gratitude by our actions throughout the year. I think a more accurate term for it is "Thanksgiving Rewards Day," because we really celebrate the fruits of our thanksgiving by stuffing ourselves with turkey and watching football. Again, I think this tradition is fine, as long as we regularly express our thanks through our words and deeds. While I think JFK's legacy is hugely overblown, I think he got it right when he said "As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them."
Yes, we need to live by our words, but uttering them can also be a great comfort to ourselves and others. The story of the thankful Samaritan has great meaning. As Jesus Christ went through Samaria and Galilee, “he entered into a certain village, [and] there met him ten men that were lepers” who “lifted up their voices, and said, Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.” Jesus told them to go show themselves unto the priest. “And it came to pass, that, as they went, they were cleansed. “And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God. “And fell down … at his feet, giving him thanks: and he was a Samaritan. “And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine? “There are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger. “And he said unto him, Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole” (Luke 17:12–19).
Yes, we need to live by our words, but uttering them can also be a great comfort to ourselves and others. The story of the thankful Samaritan has great meaning. As Jesus Christ went through Samaria and Galilee, “he entered into a certain village, [and] there met him ten men that were lepers” who “lifted up their voices, and said, Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.” Jesus told them to go show themselves unto the priest. “And it came to pass, that, as they went, they were cleansed. “And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God. “And fell down … at his feet, giving him thanks: and he was a Samaritan. “And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine? “There are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger. “And he said unto him, Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole” (Luke 17:12–19).
Monday, November 10, 2008
Same Sex Marriage and Polygamy
I'm no expert on the same sex marriage platform, so set me straight (no pun intended) if I'm not accurately representing their position. My instincts tell me that monogamy is not a tenet of the SSM movement. An initial internet search yielded this interesting website devoted to this question.
My hypothesis is this: monogamy is not important to SSM advocates. How do I come to this conclusion? Well, for starters, monogamy doesn't appear to be a plank in the platform. Second, SSM advocates often use infidelity and marriage failure rates among heterosexual couples as an argument in favor of SSM. The rationale is that heterosexual couples have done enough damage to the institution of marriage that SSM won't make any difference. This reasoning is often used against traditional marriage advocates, who generally believe that SSM will destroy the institution of marriage. My biggest reason for opposing SSM is that it would allow public schools to teach the next generation that SSM is normal. I believe SSM confuses children, frustrates the family unit, and has irreversible negative social consequences, but that's a topic for a different blog.
My point is this: SSM advocates claim that marriage is a right that should be extended to homosexuals. They base this on the fact that marriage is a legal arrangement between consenting adults. If I have framed their argument correctly, then in order to remain logically consistent and to strengthen their argument even further, SSM advocates should actively support plural marriage as well. Proposition 8 provided California with a definition of marriage: the union of one man and one woman. The objection from SSM advocates focuses solely on the issue of gender, not on the number of participants. If marriage is a right that consenting adults are entitled to, and if monogamy is not a stated ideal, then they should have no problem with institutionalized polygamy. Yet SSM advocates avoid the plural marriage issue like the plague, and they are smart to do so because they understand the stigma associated with polygamy. Their silence on this question is understandable, but I would love to hear an SSM movement representative provide a clear and unequivocal statement on polygamy.
A June 2006 article in the Weekly Standard included some interesting conclusions on polygamy by Stanley Kurtz, a fellow at the Hudson Institute. He was grieved at the arguments of modern intellectuals who support decriminalizing polygamy. Kurtz concluded, "Marriage, as its ultramodern critics would like to say, is indeed about choosing one's partner, and about freedom in a society that values freedom. But that's not the only thing it is about. As the Supreme Court justices who unanimously decided Reynolds in 1878 understood, marriage is also about sustaining the conditions in which freedom can thrive. Polygamy in all its forms is a recipe for social structures that inhibit and ultimately undermine social freedom and democracy. A hard-won lesson of Western history is that genuine democratic self-rule begins at the hearth of the monogamous family." While I tend to agree with his conclusion, it doesn't really demonstrate the nexus between polygamy and the undermining of freedom/democracy.
So I ask...if it's really all about consenting adults, on what basis can one support SSM and oppose polygamy?
My hypothesis is this: monogamy is not important to SSM advocates. How do I come to this conclusion? Well, for starters, monogamy doesn't appear to be a plank in the platform. Second, SSM advocates often use infidelity and marriage failure rates among heterosexual couples as an argument in favor of SSM. The rationale is that heterosexual couples have done enough damage to the institution of marriage that SSM won't make any difference. This reasoning is often used against traditional marriage advocates, who generally believe that SSM will destroy the institution of marriage. My biggest reason for opposing SSM is that it would allow public schools to teach the next generation that SSM is normal. I believe SSM confuses children, frustrates the family unit, and has irreversible negative social consequences, but that's a topic for a different blog.
My point is this: SSM advocates claim that marriage is a right that should be extended to homosexuals. They base this on the fact that marriage is a legal arrangement between consenting adults. If I have framed their argument correctly, then in order to remain logically consistent and to strengthen their argument even further, SSM advocates should actively support plural marriage as well. Proposition 8 provided California with a definition of marriage: the union of one man and one woman. The objection from SSM advocates focuses solely on the issue of gender, not on the number of participants. If marriage is a right that consenting adults are entitled to, and if monogamy is not a stated ideal, then they should have no problem with institutionalized polygamy. Yet SSM advocates avoid the plural marriage issue like the plague, and they are smart to do so because they understand the stigma associated with polygamy. Their silence on this question is understandable, but I would love to hear an SSM movement representative provide a clear and unequivocal statement on polygamy.
A June 2006 article in the Weekly Standard included some interesting conclusions on polygamy by Stanley Kurtz, a fellow at the Hudson Institute. He was grieved at the arguments of modern intellectuals who support decriminalizing polygamy. Kurtz concluded, "Marriage, as its ultramodern critics would like to say, is indeed about choosing one's partner, and about freedom in a society that values freedom. But that's not the only thing it is about. As the Supreme Court justices who unanimously decided Reynolds in 1878 understood, marriage is also about sustaining the conditions in which freedom can thrive. Polygamy in all its forms is a recipe for social structures that inhibit and ultimately undermine social freedom and democracy. A hard-won lesson of Western history is that genuine democratic self-rule begins at the hearth of the monogamous family." While I tend to agree with his conclusion, it doesn't really demonstrate the nexus between polygamy and the undermining of freedom/democracy.
So I ask...if it's really all about consenting adults, on what basis can one support SSM and oppose polygamy?
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Size Does Matter
As I sit here composing this blog, I'm enjoying a nice large bowl of my favorite cold cereal. It's one of those oatmealy-raisiny cereals, the kind that sticks in your teeth, doused in extra-cold milk. Sometimes I pour the milk in a bowl and put it in the freezer for a few minutes, just until a small ring of ice forms around the edge. I love cereal, and I know why. Growing up in a relatively large family with little disposable income, we ate what my mom bought. And that was usually Corn Flakes. On special occasions, or when my mom was feeling unusually spendthrift, we got Shredded Wheat, Kix, or Cheerios...but 95% of the time it was Corn Flakes. I hate Corn Flakes. In my movie about an overpopulated future earth, the dramatic phrase would be "Soylent Green is...is Corn Flakes!"
Recently I became aware of my tendency to eat out of extremely large bowls. This is not good, because what looks like a small amount in a large bowl is actually a fairly large amount of food. I believe I started doing this after my mission to Korea, where they put hot soups and other foods in incredibly large bowls. They only fill the bowl about halfway, but I think part of the reason is that it helps prevents spills. I need to control my portions, so I'm going to try to select smaller vessels in an attempt to trick myself into thinking I'm eating a lot. We'll see what happens.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
What's Your Story?
I was pleasantly surprised to learn that a childhood friend I haven't seen in over 30 years lives less than 10 miles from me and is still a faithful member of my church. He spoke in my ward today and shared some personal stories related to his assigned topic. It was quite nostalgic. It made me think about the other speaker -- the high councilman who droned on an on and didn't tell one personal story. He essentially read from the scriptures and summed up with his testimony. If there's one thing that people in our church need to learn, it's public speaking. Yes, I think that sharing one's personal convictions in public can have a strong impact on an audience and move them spiritually, but I also like to hear their personal stories and the experiences that have shaped their character. Good public speaking is essentially the art of storytelling, and it would do us all good to reflect on those stories that have shaped us and to share them in a meaningful way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
