For Everyone Else

A Response To Some Other Article Some Place

2011-12-20T08:45:00.000-08:00

The below is a response to an article posted in RELEVANT. The article can be found HERE and is called "Will the Internet Kill Christianity?". I feel a bit bad, in retrospect, posting such a long comment to this post. Very long winded, I doubt anyone will read it on there! (Definitely a TL;DR moment. :( )

Firstly, Where did all these atheists come from? Do they normally hang around here, or have they decided to amass at this article in particular? o_0

NOTE: It really was remarkable how many atheists showed up for the comments in this article. Generally Relevant attracts Christians, with only the occasionally atheist poking the more gullible members into arguing. But, wow, they were every where! I can only call them Trolltheists, since they weren't there to do anything but argue.

Secondly, the internet can be a great place to find information, but you should always take everything you see and everyone you meet with a great big bag o' salt. The anonymity that the internet grants means people can be as ruthless, cruel, dishonest, and underhanded as they want to be without suffering any kind of real consequences. This is why debates don't happen on the internet*, just screaming contests to see who can shout the longest and get the last word in. People online don't typically treat each other with the same dignity and restraint they would in person, because they "aren't really real people" online.

It's not a matter of exchanges ideas, understanding an opposing view points, or even trying to mutually figure out what to believe, it's about winning. And the only real way to win is to tear the other person down until they're crying on the floor, praising their opponent for their superior logic, and waving the proverbial white flag.** Or if they won't give up, humiliating them in front of as many people as possible.*** As long as you come out on top, regardless of whether you're right or not, that's all that matters.

I've long since figured out that it's no use participating in the online community's "debate" when it deals with religion or politics. No one listens. All they ever do is talk over each other and trample over people in their rush to "win". That's not the kind of people I want to be associated with, and certainly not the kind of debate I want to be involved in.

However, a lot of people get online and are completely unaware of the environment they're stepping into. They don't realize that when they debate or argue with someone, what they're saying or thinking or feeling doesn't matter. They'll just keep being torn down until they convert or run away with their tail between their legs because it's always about "the win".

Thirdly, American Christians are astonishingly ignorant of their own faith. I suppose on a day-to-day basis, this is fine. (I mean, historically humanity has spent a lot of time being ignorant and getting away with it.) In real life you generally don't have to worry about someone randomly coming up to you, shouting about what a moron you are and then giving a 5 point dissertation on all the moronic things you've said, but online that's exactly what happens. Online, that level of ignorance is a faith killer.

So, yes, the internet can be a faith killer. If you walk into it thinking you know everything, or that what you know is enough, or not even knowing how ignorant you are, prepare to get torn apart from the butt up. You'll get chewed up and spat out and then have your virtual corpse danced on. That's just the kinda place the online community is if you aren't careful. And people aren't careful.

I've been an active user of the internet for 14 years. I have survived--nay, retained my humanity-- online by knowing where to go, where not to go, the kinds of people who are worth investing in, and the kinds of people who are basically trolls pretending to be human.

There's a lot of great things about the internet, but debating about religion and politics****? That's really not one of them. I stick with nerd stuff, and only certain places, because even being a nerd with opinions can be a dangerous thing on the internet.

*I'm sure there are exceptions, but I'm talking about normal every day behavior online.
**Does this ever happen? I've never seen this happen, especially when dealing in politics and religion.
***This is pretty common though! It's practically an universal pass-time sport online.
****And by this I mean debating two opposing views, not necessarily the subject matter itself. It's possible to talk about religion or politics without it being a debate, but it's a tricky line to walk and most places can't do it. (Mostly because trolls come in and turn it into a debate. Trolls just can't help themselves! <3)

That Subtle Sense of Superiority

2011-10-18T20:35:00.000-07:00

This all started with my husband linking to the article "Come As You Aren't" by R. C. Sproul.

I want to start off by saying I have a GREAT DEAL of RESPECT for Mr. Sproul. I like a lot of what he has to say and I want to make sure anyone reading this doesn't judge all his teaching by this one article. He's got a lot of great stuff, so don't be "scared off" by this one thing he's mistaken about. (I mean, he's only human! ;) )

I admit when I first read this I had NO IDEA what he was trying to say. I still think it's a messy article, like Sproul was just ranting or something and wasn't even sure what his actual point was. However, Mike translated it for me into a nice one paragraph easy-to-understand way. The meaning is something like this:

The gist of this article is that how we dress is an outward reflection of an inward attitude. That is, how we dress at church reflects our attitude towards God. Many people refuse to "dress up" because their attitude toward God is not of reverence or (holy) fear or respect, but because of selfish reasons ("It's more comfortable to dress this way"). Therefore, to show respect for God at church we should dress up, not down.

I have a couple of problems with this.

First, it's not Biblical. The inward-to-outward part has some credence, but the dressing up part does not. You can tell even Sproul knows this on some level, as he doesn't quote any scripture at all but uses vague theology principles to back up his belief (and even then he miss applies these principles). For a man who puts so much stock in scripture and church history, he sure does ignore a lot of it when it comes to this one issue.

Second, scripture teaches the exact opposite of what he's saying. Any time dressing up is mentioned in the New Testament, it's always in a negative light. This article has a ton of verses dealing with the subject. Please read the article I linked to, as they give a very balanced answer about dressing up.

It should be pointed out that women are told specifically not to "dress up" for church in scripture. In fact, it is implied that dressing in a plain and simple manner at church shows humility and reverence to God, where as dressing up shows pride and a lack of respect for God.

Third, history is on my side. It wasn't until the 1800s that people in the congregation started "dressing up" for church. (In the historical context, "dressing up" meant you had extra-fancy clothes for church.) Where as, prior to the 1800s, the congregation wore "street clothes" (anything clean and neat that was acceptable to wear in town). The shift of how people dressed at church was tied into the Industrial Revolution and the sudden upsurge in wealth and easy access to nicer materials. It was a culture based trend motivated almost entirely by pride and vanity; it had nothing to do with Scripture or common historical church practice.

Lastly, I'll give Mr. Sproul some credit for being half right. What we are is sometimes a reflection of who we are on the inside. His conclusion is wrong about how that translates into real-world Christian living though.The Apostle Paul had it right for women. Dress simply and plainly, focus on what matters to God; a gentle and quiet spirit. By being plain on the outside it allows us to focus on what's on the inside.

If we are meeting our King at church, why are we dressing up? We are suppose to bring ourselves low before God, humble and contrite, showing him we understand our true station in life. We are sinners bought with a price, the price of his Son's life. We are to emulate Christ the servant, and be servants ourselves. Therefore, shouldn't what we dress to reflect a humble attitude, one of a servant and saved sinner, rather than one of a royalty? God blesses a humble heart, and dressing up (as proven with women) is not conducive to a humble heart.

When I was discussing this article with someone, I was accused of being relativistic and post-modern ("faith is private, all religions are equal" etc) in my outlook on how people should dress at church. I've been pointing back to scripture, with specific examples, while Mr. Sproul has only been able to come up with "it feels holy" and vague theological principles to back up his belief. How am *I* the one being relativistic?

I can't help it if Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 10 already sets a precedent about how to deal with differing convictions in the church. If Mr. Sproul has to dress up to feel like he's respecting God, than he should do it. It's just that, as a leader, he ought to go out of his way to say that people who are not dressing up at church are no less respectful to God than him. By not making this distinction, he is basically saying the only way to dress at church and show God respect is to dress up, therefore we can judge a person's respect for God based on what they wear. (Which I don't think he believes at all, so he might as well just nip that kind of thinking in the bud!)

Anyway, this was a great romp through scripture and I learned something I had not really thought much about before. I, as a woman, must be careful how I dress in church, but not in the typical "must be modest" way. Rather, I must not dress flashy or in a way to gain attention. My focus at church should never be what I'm wearing (and other people shouldn't be focusing on what I wear either) but on the inward beauty that really matters to God.

I have never been a flashy dresser, but that doesn't mean I don't dress for selfish reasons rather than Godly ones. When it comes to church attire, I typically try to blend in with everyone else. The idea being if I look like them, they won't judge me so harshly or have as many preconceived notions as to the type of person I am before they get to know me. I often find myself in the uncomfortable position of compromising my beliefs on what's acceptable to wear so that other people won't give me the stink eye. And looking back, I feel sad for myself. What a terrible mindset to go to church with!

Well, I can only change the future, not the past! Next time I go to church, I will dress exactly how my conscience dictates. I will not let myself be intimidated by people who only look at the externals. I will stop focusing on the externals myself! I will put my focus where it needs to be, on the inner qualities God truly cares about. :)

Because the Bible Tells me so...

2011-09-23T21:26:00.000-07:00

Fundamentalist say, "I believe because the Bible says so."

Evangelicals say, "I believe it because XYZ proves it."

Is one better than the other? One more spiritual than the other?

I think that to say "The Bible says so" and claim that's a reason to do something is childish. This is the kind of thing you say to kids when they ask questions they can't understand the answers to. It's OK for a while, but it's not the kind of response that can last for forever. Eventually you have to grow up and study the Scriptures and delve deeper than just "it told me so".

Also, using the above method makes it extremely easy to manipulate the Bible into making it say what you want it to say. When you ignore culture, history, and years of church theology, you make yourself an easy target for liars and thieves. You become prey to bad theology, putting unnecessary strain on yourself at best, and leading yourself into disobedience against God at worst. (Hello everyone, this is exactly why we have so much bad theology now!)

Lastly, when you live in a culture that says the Bible is just a bunch of myths or doesn't know anything about it, saying "because the Bible says so" will make no sense what-so-ever. If you are trying to preach Christ and Him crucified, it would help immensely to answer people's basic questions like: Did Jesus really exist? (Give people a break, it's been over 2,000 years since Jesus came down to earth. It's not like when Peter got up and preached to the Jewish crowd--who already knew Jesus existed and that he'd died.)

Why should they believe what the Bible says? Because they have a burning in their bosom? Are we Mormons now that we depend on feeling over reason? It's not like they know you (other than that sketchy religious person who keeps telling them about Jesus), so they have no reason to trust what you have to say.

People need a reason to believe. Whether it's because you've shown yourself to be a truthful person, or because the Bible has shown itself to be a truthful book, a reason is needed. Paul and Peter and many others after them always gave a REASON to believe, a reason for their hope! So too, should we remember that the "Bible says so" will not be enough of a reason for many people to believe.

THAT BEING SAID....

How much proof does a person need? Some people just won't believe. You can throw every historical and scientific fact at them and they will simply brush you off as a religious nut. There's no point in chasing after people who adamantly refuse to listen. (This is what is called "throwing pearl before swine.")

And how many times must we (within the church) re-examine scripture before we believe it? We've got 2,000 years worth of church history at our finger tips! If our Christian fore-fathers have not figured it out already, I highly doubt we will. In which case it's either time to move on or just believe what's already been said on the matter.

There is, perhaps, an element of pride here too. There are things in the Bible that will just look foolish to the world. No matter how you rationalize and sugar coat it, the world will look at you and laugh. I think many Christians find the idea of being publicly shamed like this for the Gospel very very uncomfortable. They don't like it. So they try to make themselves look reasonably, clever, and intellectual, because they can't bear the thought of looking foolish.

Lastly, we defend scripture because we believe it to be true, not because we're trying to decide whether it is true or not. Let's not kid ourselves, we have a bias toward scripture. We already believe the Bible is true. Everything we say and do is based off this. So lets not pretend like we're being objective about our arguments. We're not. We're totally and completely defending our bias. (And lets also admit that that's OK, everyone has a bias.)

The Problem of Womenhood

2011-09-21T01:14:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading "Feminine Threads - Women in the Tapestry of Christian History" by Diana Severance. This is a fascinating book that goes through the history of the Christian church and show cases various women who did extraordinary things. The reason it was written was to show that modern feminism has pretty much made up large portion of history concerning women and how they were treated in Christian churches and Christian influenced societies.

Some interesting highlights...

While I knew that marrying young was common in ye-old-ancient-times I never quite realized *how* young. It was common for women to marry at 12 or 13 years old. When you think about Mary, the Mother of Jesus, you often think of her as an older woman, at least 16... but it seems likely to me she was closer to 12. This makes her willingness to follow God at the risk of being ostracized or possibly killed for getting pregnant out of wedlock even *more amazing*.

It was also disheartening to see how many of these girls were widowed before the age 18 years old. Not only did they have many miscarriages and lose their birthed babies to sickness frequently, it seemed like a husband staying alive until his 10 year wedding anniversary was rare. Can you imagine being 16 and suffering that kind of lose?

Another interesting thing is that authority does not equal influence. Up until recently, only fringe groups in Christianity dared say woman had equal authority within the church as men did. Despite women historically never having positions of power (like being a pastor), history shows again and again that women had more influence over people then men did, both in their own communities and on national levels.

In fact, it's flat out amazing how influential women were despite the social (not Christian) confines of their day. Christian women often learned how to read, write, and (the ambitious) learned several different languages. There were some women who were so well versed in scripture and theology that the contemporary male leadership of their day went to them for advice. They formed societies to help the poor, sick, orphaned, and widowed. They were huge financiers of missionaries and theologians and the afore mentioned societies. In Roman Times (and some other times in history too) wealthy women opened up their homes to be used as churches. Queens (especially early on in Europe) would often lead their Kingly husbands to Christ (sometimes marrying them specifically for that reason!) and there by bring Christ to the whole nation. And then there's all those schools, orphanages, and hospitals specifically started by women too.

You will be hard pressed to find one single great theologian, pastor, missionary, or great evangelical movement that was not directly influenced and propelled by women. In some sense, if men were the head of the church, women were it's hands and feet. But even this is not a perfect analogy, as it implies only men made decisions, when women often took the initiative when they saw a need not being met (to the praise, by the way, of the men).

In Christian marriages, historically, women were treated with respect and valued as people. You will be hard pressed to find a religious text from antiquity that commands men to respect their wives and love them sacrificially, to the death. Yet that is exactly what Apostles told early Christians, and that's exactly what the Christian men of their day did.

Even Jesus, when speaking on divorce and lust, was actually advocating *for* women. It wasn't uncommon for men to divorce their wives over anything (even a slight offense), so that they could remarry younger women. (Leaving their ex-wife destitute and with a social stigma.) Basically, Jesus was cutting this practice at the head and the feet by saying lusting after a woman when you are already married is as bad as adultery and divorcing your wife for anything but specific offenses and then remarrying was also adultery.

Speaking of Jesus, he was very pro-women. We have a hard time seeing this now, because of the cultural divide, but he very much treated women as intelligent and honorable. He taught women directly, something unheard of for his day. He talked to them in public, directly, which was shocking. He healed them and raised them from the dead. Before he died, Jesus remembered his mother, and made sure someone was there to provide for her once he was gone. Women had the privilege of being the first to see the empty tomb and the first to see a resurrected Jesus. All this he did in a society were sometimes just touching a woman made you dirty.

In closing, it is unfortunate that we live in a society that demonizes motherhood, particularly mothers who choose raising their children as their vocation in life. Marriage and motherhood are extremely important, and only the prideful, spiteful, modern feminists of today have the foolishness to think otherwise. A stable and healthy society is always built on a stable and healthy home, and lets not kid ourselves: the greatest influence of a home is the mother. (Something history proves again and again.)

That being said, the push from conservatives to try and bring motherhood and marriage back to it's rightful place of honor will likely end in failure. The problem is they're placing too much trust in a political system and the idea of changing society from the outside. That won't work, and you won't be able to talk people into it when all they can hear you saying is "Women should stay in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant."

I think there is also a tendency to lift up motherhood and marriage to the neglect of other legitimate vocations for women. It's important to remember that women don't have to get married to have value within the Christian community. It's also important to realize that motherhood is not the end-all be-all to a woman's life too. It's also quite possible to be a good mother and have a job--whether it's a ministry position or "for profit". None of these things have to be mutually exclusive, nor does one thing have to be better than the other. All of these vocations and paths can be--and have been--glorifying to God.

If conservatives want to make Christian femininity (including motherhood and marriage) to be honorable in our society again, it's time to stop talking and start doing. You can't make someone change their minds by arguing with them, but you can live your life in such a way that shuts them up. And we have plenty of women from the past and the present who live their lives in a way that would shut all those skeptics up if we put more effort into showing them off.

And that's all I have to say about it. Or at least that all I'm gonna write about it. Phew. ;)

Moving Very Slowly, VERY SLOWLY... Slower and slower and...

2011-05-10T21:46:00.000-07:00

How do I put this?

For a long time I've felt a sort of pointless wandering about myself. What am I suppose to do? What's my purpose? Who am I? What's my worth?

I've always loved drawing. When I was younger I'd go through mountains of paper and never finish one picture. Just the act of drawing, of creating, was exciting to me.

As I got older I realized that people were expecting something of my art. It seemed that, specifically within the Church as whole, the only time anyone was ever truly pleased with my work was when it was "Christian". And by that I mean when it had a Christian moral message or blatantly referenced God or something Biblical.

This annoyed me. It's not that I didn't want God to be in my work, but there was something so fake about how I was going about it. I was not particularly interested in confining my creativity to easy moral messages and quick call-outs to God. It was shallow, it was boring, and it just wasn't interesting.

Why, I lamented, were Christians so easily amused by such shallowness? Why did they always settle for art and music and stories that were so simple? Why did they let themselves be satisfied with the uninteresting, the boring, the "safe"? Didn't they feel a calling for something deeper?

God is interesting. God is deep. God is never boring. Creativity that reflects God is inspiring, it's challenging, it takes our minds and hearts to new places, and when we're done we walk away somehow full, satisfied, better people then when we started.

I felt like I was being called in two different directions. One told me to be moral, upright conservative, predictable, easy to understand, "family friendly", and never talk about really difficult issues. Be good, and don't have too much fun. The other said; be wild, be free, make people laugh, make them cry, make them sigh with longing for a "otherness", follow those "bunny holes" to see where they lead, ask the disturbing questions. To reflect something beautiful and holy.

Inside of this slow nerdy person, there was a fire that burns all the time. It cries out to be free, to be wild, to reach out and grab something higher, purer, holier, than anything to be found on this silly little mudball of a planet. Always that desire was in the back of my mind, the back of my heart. And when I created, it felt like I was channeling that desire, that fire, I was giving it a place to go, and I was alive.

But for a while, I forgot. My heart forgot. I settled for something less, and I lost myself. Desire, what was that? Fire, what did it feel like again? What did it mean to be alive?

I became afraid. Who was I? Why was I here? What was I suppose to be doing? I lived in fear of losing myself, become less, of never really living again.

Recently, though, I got to thinking about it all over again. Did I really draw just to please other people? Because it was all I was good at? No, that can't be quite right. I liked showing off (obviously I'm not perfect) but I drew because I loved it. I knew I was free because I could draw. And when I drew, I felt free.

What have I been doing to myself these last 8 years? Am I total and complete moron? How could I have thought, even for a little while, that I could find happiness some where else? Why did I willingly chain myself down, making myself and everyone else miserable? I mean, seriously, what the crap?!

I feel like I woke up. Or more like, I feel like I'm waking up.

I'm a very slow person. Just, in general, I tend to take things very slowly. So it took me a long time to realize something was wrong, then to figure out what it was, then to know how to fix it, and then how to regain my equilibrium.

So here I am, very slowly getting myself back in order. And I realized something, I realized what I want to do.

I want to create something that reflects, even just a little bit, of the wonder and holiness of God.

Lets get this straight, I don't mean I'm gonna be making any masterpieces or writing great literature. I just don't have that in me and the pressure to do it would kill me creatively. I certainly don't mean I'm gonna make anything "American evangelical Christian". Ugh. I'd rather never draw again than do something substandard and restricting like that.

How do I describe it? You know when, as a Christian, you feel a... an... inner flame, right? I'm sure there's some sort of proper word for it but I'm not quite sure what it's called. It's that thing that makes you happy that God exists. It's that thing that's constantly tickling the back of your mind and heart and reminding you that there's something more than just what you see, feel, or hear. It's that thing that wraps you in peace, that tells you you're forgiven, that scolds you when you've done wrong.

That thing, I want to show that to other people. I want to make something that feels like that.

This isn't about converting people to Christianity. The simple method is best when it comes to that. You want people to be Christians? Then you share Christ and his Resurrection and live like it matters. Anything less is just making things complicated.

No, this is all about my longing to just bring a little bit of heaven down to earth. I want to reflect a bit of God's glory and goodness in the only way I know how: to be creative and to do it well. And if I am ever so fortunate, perhaps something I do will help someone else or significantly change their course of life (in the good sense).

I can do it, I know I can do it. Not because I've got something in me to do it, but because surely God wants others to know of His goodness, holiness, and all that makes Him worthwhile? And if He's with me, then how can I not succeed? So I can definitely do it.

But slowly. Very slowly.

I ain't got nothin' better to say.

2011-04-13T20:41:00.000-07:00

I keep trying to write something and it keeps coming out wrong. Or maybe I've got so much thought in my head that one single blog can't hold it all.

A Summery:

There's a lot of evil in this world, and it makes me want to punch people.

There's a lot of good in this world, and it makes me wish there was more of it.

I wish my government wasn't so corrupt.

I wish people would make up their minds.

Why does my cat keep having problems?

Church

2011-04-10T02:59:00.000-07:00

I might actually be able to go to church today. Normally I can't because I'm not able to wake up early enough for morning services (including the 11am ones). This is because my husband works evenings, and so do I, which means we're "day sleepers". Apparently a life style that does not meld very well with church attendance.

I have tried depriving myself sleep to go to church. All this has done is made me incredibly cranky and unable to remember anything I heard at church. I feel like it's pointless going to church if that's how I'm going to behave.

Why, oh why, have churches gotten rid of evening services? I like small group studies as much as the next, but it's incredibly inconvenient for any new person to the church to try to figure out where and when small groups are being held and which group they ought to be in (as no one knows them well enough to place them). I've tried contacting people, trying to get someone to help us, but no one does.

It also feels invasive when you (or me), a new person, tries to join. It's like you're the odd man out who doesn't know anyone or how anything goes and everyone treats you slightly suspiciously. (Or like they're trying to win you over.) It just doesn't feel natural.

There are a few churches that still have evening services, unfortunately they are not the churches I want to go to. It's mostly Baptist churches that still come together in the evening. And they are..... the more conservative bent Baptist churches. Which might have been fine 4 years ago, but I'm still recovering from Faith Baptist. (A type of church I don't ever want to go to again.)

The thing with church attendance is it's a choice between rarely seeing my husband and go to church, or see my husband all the time and never go to church. The thing is that while I value church, I value my marriage more than it. And I can't have a marriage if I never see my husband.

This is a no win situation for me. Either choice will make me unhappy and I've long since realized that. Some people might say that I'm putting my marriage before God by not going to church. However, my view is that both church and marriage are a God-centered activity. Neglecting either hinders my relationship with God.

That being said, in the practical human aspect, I can't have a relationship with a husband who's never there. God is always there, He is always available. I can have a relationship with God even without going to church, though I know that is not optimal. I can't have a relationship with my husband if I never get to see him.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not so stupid that I think one can have a perfect relationship with God without going to church. Church has value, church is part of a healthy Christian life. I value church, I like church! Even after that horrid experience in Misawa I still want to go to church. I still want to be a part of a body of believers. It is something I value. In fact, I value it more for it's absence right now. I mourn about not going.

My current view is this: I look forward to the times I can go to church. I look forward to a day when I can go to church consistently. I have hope that day will come, and God will someday make it happen. Until then, I do my part to remain spiritually active and growing despite my circumstances.

That Perfect Balance

2011-03-06T04:02:00.000-08:00

Where is that balance in life? Living in America I often feel like I'm inundated with extremes. From politics, to religion, to wealth, you must have more than everyone else, be better than everyone else. Whatever it is, the extreme version of it is what's popular and grabs the most attention.

Except I don't like extremes. (Well, generally. They have their place too.)

Perhaps I'm a coward, but sometimes I just wish we could all just get along. That's not to say I wish we could all just believe the same as me, but that I wish we didn't flip out so much when differences arise. It would be really nice if I could just talk to people, even if we get all heated up over it, and then shake hands afterward.

I'm so tired of the constant contention, strife, and anger. It's infecting everything in this country, even if we don't realize it. Must we always have an enemy to overcome to be happy and feel like we're doing something worthy in our lives?

Well, anyway. Just my late late-early early morning rant for the day. I bet I'll wake up later today and wonder what the heck I was going on about. ;)

The Question of Biblical Manliness

2011-02-26T14:56:00.000-08:00

Some Kind of Christian recently posted a really interesting article about men and Bible. This is my response to his post. :)

"I really like this post! It hits on something I lament about constantly in this culture: the inability for Americans to distinguish "civic religion" as you call it from real Christianity.

So what is a Biblical man? Hmmm...

The first problem I have is with the phrase “Biblical man”. The Bible is--despite the large amount of “main male characters”--actually gender neutral on spiritual lessons. The lessons God teaches men in the Bible are just as applicable to women. This is part of the charm of the Bible--that anyone from any walk of life can read it and learn something about God and how he works.

I think what’s really being asked here is “What is Christian manliness?” How can a man retain or enhance his manliness while at the same time still following Christ? The problem with these kinds of questions is they are so seeped in our cultural that it is difficult to get a true Biblical answer.

There are only two instances that I can think of off the top of my head that deal with men specifically: one is married men and the other is men in church leadership positions. Married men are to love their wives as Christ loves the church and men in leadership are held to a much higher standard than the rest of the congregation. While being married is a goal, it is not nessicary for manliness. (And Paul even encourages men who can to remain single.) We are all to mature in Christ, but that doesn’t mean we’re all gonna be church leaders some day. So even in these two things we can’t really apply them to every man.

I don’t know how to describe it exactly but there’s been a blurring of the lines in what feminine and manliness means in our culture. Men don’t know what it means to be manly because the women they look to to define that term don’t even known. So of course men will ask “What makes me a man?” (Other than the obvious male parts of the human body.)

The matter is further worsened by the fact that conservative Christianity is trying to use an idealized 1950s definition of manliness. Which for all it’s apparent perfection just deepens the confusion and causes people to ask “Well, why should we act that way? Is that even Biblical?”

In response to these types of questions you get sermons like Driscoll’s. Because the question is cultural in nature, there is no real way to answer Biblically. So rather than try, they go to long lengths to justify why they use this ‘50s idealized model of manliness. They can only do it by pulling from non-Biblical sources.

I think the real question ought to be “What makes a Biblical Christian?” Of course, that kind of question requires actual thinking about one’s faith and why we believe what we do, which makes a lot of people uncomfortable. They don’t want to know why they believe, they just want someone to tell them it’s the right thing to believe. :-/"

A Trusted Source

2011-01-13T01:44:00.000-08:00

Mike linked my post below on some other website. Apparently in response to the vehement dislike many of the posters had with the type of birth controls I mentioned before. He wanted to give them a differing opinion from a supposedly well educated and trusted source (that being me).

I'm pleased he thinks so highly of me. I'm just hoping it's justified.

It's not that I think I'm stupid, I'm just kind of nervous about people giving my post a critical eye. It was written primarily for the benefit of my husband and I, and perhaps an interesting opinion for people who are looking into the subject. It's not meant to be some exhaustive defense for or against birth control.

I really try to think through any subject I write about. It's very important to me that I don't write about things that I haven't thoroughly researched. And I try to draw from the most reliable and honest sources, not just the ones that will tell me what I want to hear (or what is popular).

It's difficult to find good sources online. I'm constantly amazed at the shoddy logic and under handed methods used by many writers. Take a quote out of context here, smooth over the part of the research we didn't like there, and generally just ignore anything that disagrees. Any one can lie about their information and you'd never know.

In the Christian realm this is particularly disturbing. Not just because it's dishonest, but because Christians will inevitably use the "God trump card". It comes in various flavors but generally sounds like "the Bible says so", "God says so", and "good Christians who want to make God happy do/believe this way". You can't argue with people who think God is on their side.

Whether this is true or not has very little to do with it. It's simply a method of forcing opponents to look like they are against God and "for the world" (at least on the surface level). Many people fall for it, because they have not been taught to look past the "holy rhetoric" and listen to what's actually being said.

Not that Christians have some sort of monopoly on this behavior. I don't mean to imply that they do. It's just disturbing to see it in people who ought to know better. It's also depressing how many spiritually gullible people are out there.

Birth Control: The Controversy

2011-01-12T06:58:00.000-08:00

When it comes to pregnancy and birth control, people get really opinionated. It is often hard to know who is twisting the facts, who is telling the truth, and who is honest-to-goodness deceived. This post is my search for the truth--as best as we know it--about modern birth control.

Typically there are two views on birth control and they are tied into the view of when human life begins:

With the first view you have the common modern scientific belief that human life starts when the embryo attaches to the uterus wall. This is why almost all methods of birth control are not considered to be an abortifacient by scientists and doctors.

With the second view you have the religious belief that human life starts at fertilization. This means that anything stopping an embryo (fertilized egg) from attaching to the uterus wall is an abortifacient. Under this definition, at least half of all birth control methods could be considered to cause abortions.

Interestingly, actual scientific research always supports the view of human life starting at fertilization. The reason being is that it's a known fact that when the sperm and egg "combine" a totally new life form (with a new genetic code independent of the parents) is formed. All this new life needs is nourishment to grow into a fully functioning human. So whether unintentional or not, science does support the more traditional religious view of when life starts.

For many this knowledge will turn them away from birth control. They view any thing that causes abortions to be murder and will therefore not participate in it. What they fail to realize is that there's more to pregnancy than just the above.

Did you know 10 to 20 percent of all reported pregnancies end in miscarriages? (Medically referred to as spontaneous abortions.) The number rises for unreported pregnancies (women who did not realize they were pregnant), reaching any where from 40 to 50 percent. That means, conservatively speaking, 1 in 4 pregnancies end prematurely.

Why is that? A lot of spontaneous abortions happen for unknown reasons. However, the more commonly known causes are a chromosomal abnormalities (not all sperm and eggs are "healthy" enough to form a viable pregnancy), family genetics, maternal health (or lack there of) and lifestyle factors of women (from anything to drinking alcohol to caffeinated beverages). And lastly age, the older you are significantly increases the chances of spontaneous abortions.

In essence, a fertilized egg does not automatically equal a viable pregnancy. This is a very important point and must not be trivialized or rationalize away. The belief that birth control causes abortion is based on the assumption that most fertilized eggs will lead to a viable pregnancy if left on their own. When birth control interferes with this natural process it therefore kills the unborn. But as shown above, this is not the case. There is literally a 50/50 chance of viability. All embryos do not equal a living breathing baby nine months later.

Next you have to ask what does birth control actually do and why. There seems to be quite a lot of confusion surrounding this issue so lets go over the basics:

Oral birth control works three ways. First, it normally prevents ovulation from occurring so that the egg is never near enough to the uterus to risk fertilization. Second, thickened mucus in the uterus and the fallopian tubes traps the sperm and the occasional ovulated egg so they can't meet. Third, the same chemical that thickens the mucus also thins the walls of the uterus, making it harder for a embryo to attach to the walls to get nourishment.

The non-hormonal IUD's (Paragard) copper causes the uterus to make a spermicide-like fluid . This same fluid is considered to have an ovicidal affect. Ovulation continues as normal. A rare secondary affect of the IUD is irritating the uterus walls so that it makes it hard for an embryo to attach to it.

You will note that in both types of birth control that an egg can be fertilized and the resulting embryo can still attach to the uterus and go full term. I know of one lady who had only one "shriveled" ovary and was taking a hormonal birth control shot and still managed to get pregnant. So just because it makes it harder for an embryo to attach does not mean it makes it impossible.

Thus the million dollar moral question: Does birth control cause more, less, or the same amount of spontaneous abortions as women on no form of birth control at all?

It's important to keep in mind that most forms of birth control studies have not specifically done any tests to answer this question. With the notable exception of Paragard. So some of what I'm about to say is my best guess based on what information we currently have.

In the case of Paragard, the studies show that women using the IUD significantly reduce the amount of spontaneous abortions compared to their birth control-free counter parts. It's something along the lines of women using Paragard have a 1% chance or less of having spontaneous abortions (compare that number to women who aren't on any type of birth control at all). And of those abortions it's unknown how many were actually the result of the Paragard IUD itself or something unrelated (like drinking too much caffeine).

Oral birth control (OBC) is a different matter, but there is enough information out there to make an educated guess. Women on OBC ovulate between 2%-10% of the time (usually from missing or taking their OBC late) or they don't ovulate at all. Then on top of that, even should they ovulate, the thickened mucus traps the sperm and signficantly slows the egg down so they never meet. Which ought to logically lead to the conclusion that people who use OBC as directed will have fewer spontaneous abortions than those not using any birth control at all.

The only OBC I am unsure of is the mini-pill (progestin only) which works primarily by thickening the mucus, thining the uterus walls, and occasionally stopping ovulation. (Women who stop ovulating on the mini-pill generally stop having periods all together. So if you're still having your periods on the mini-pill you're likely still ovulating.*) With this pill, the chances for spontaneous abortions is much higher due to the risk of ovulating. Whether it causes the same amount, less, or more of abortions I don't know. (I leave that up to you to decide.)

So it is fair to say that most forms of birth control prevent spontaneous abortions, not cause them. And of those instances where spontaneous abortions occur, there is no way to know if it's actually the birth control causing it or the female body being disagreeable.

If a person is going to say that birth control is wrong because of the possibility of causing an abortion, then they must also admit that doing anything at all that causes a possible abortion is wrong too. So don't drink alcohol, or have too much caffeine, definitely don't smoke, and--oh yeah--don't have sex. Sex is the ultimate root to all types of abortions--intentional or accidental--because the only way for an abortion to happen is if the sperm and egg meet.

Now if this is not assurance enough, I give you two suggestions. 1) Women, keep track of your ovulation cycle. You can further reduce the risk of unintended abortions by refraining from sexual intercourse during the times you are most likely to be ovulating. 2) In conjunction with the previous suggestion (or if that's just too much work), you can also use a second barrier method on top of whatever birth control you use now while you are ovulating (or all the time). With this combination, you can have lots of intercourse and feel rest assured that only an act of God will get you fertilized.

I did a lot of research and soul searching when writing this post. I could not link to any Christian articles regarding birth control due to their tendency to ignore, trivialize, or misunderstand the data available to them. Most of the sites I found the above information from were secular sites, and many of them referenced actual scientific studies for their information. I also went to a lot of trouble to learn the terms used in these articles so that I knew what they were talking about (aka would not get hoodwinked by a seemingly innocent sounding word) and could adequately explain what I read to you.

I hope you found this an interesting and, hopefully, an educational read. I tried to make this a "no spin zone" and to come at the subject with an honest and open mind.

Whether you still think birth control is wrong or not, I hope you can at least admit that women taking birth control are less likely to have any type of abortion/miscarriages at all than their non-birth control taking counter parts. This ought to be encouraging to you, whatever you think of birth control, as it means less babies are dying no matter which way you look at it.

Information Links:

http://www.modimes.org/baby/loss_miscarriage.html

http://www.hopexchange.com/FAQs.htm

http://www.ehow.com/about_5865198_abortifacient-effects-oral-contraceptives.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragard#cite_note-0

http://www.fhi.org/en/rh/pubs/network/v16_2/nt1623.htm

http://info.k4health.org/pr/b6/B6boxes.shtml

http://www.everything-condoms.com/contraceptives/iucd.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_pregnancy_factor

http://www.oralcontraceptives.com/about_cvc.asp

http://www.epigee.org/guide/pill.html

http://www.ivillage.com/can-you-ovulate-while-pill/6-n-145796

*Note: When using OBC that has estrogen and progestin, you may experience "false periods". These are not related to ovulation. Rather they are the result of uterus shedding some of it's wall lining. "False periods" are typically much lighter than regular periods because there is less for the uterus to "dump".

MP4 is eeeeeevil, sorta :)

2011-01-10T18:52:00.000-08:00

So today H, a realtor who works in the same building as my Boss, made the mistake of recording some videos in MP4. She thought she could basically copy/paste into a DVD and watch it on her dvd. MP4 doesn't work with DVD players, just computers (and generally with Quicktime). So then she tried to figure out how to convert, except none of the stuff she had worked.

Then my Boss must have walked by or she must have asked him for help. So guess what he decides? To ask me if I know what to do. So I'm like "I'll try."

And I do. I try some random program I found through google. It converts the MP4 into VOB, which is what I wanted, but than flat out would not burn to DVD. So from there I went to Windows Movie Maker, which let me make a title screen, and it actually burned. So I'm pretty sure it works now (though I couldn't test it, as there are no DVD players at my work).

I hope it worked. If it did I might have to show H how I did it. However, I wonder if I ought to find some other--much simplier--way for her to do this.... hm....

Random COMPUTERS! :D

2011-01-09T20:55:00.000-08:00

So when I was with my parents I was given 3 computers to fix. One was super super old (from the early 90s), the other was my parents old computer from early '00 and the last was my sister's old computer. Then, at the last minute, my Dad comes home with another computer! (Total now is 4!)

This new computer was from someone at church. I guess a relative of there's got on their desktop and went places that caused viruses to be loaded. Essentially it destroyed the OS. And it was my job to fix it.

Well, it's an eMachine with XP, but no restore discs. Bummer. So I'm thinking "Well, generally there's a restore option right? Just use one of the F# keys...." but no F# key worked. In a last ditch effort I got it Windows Safe mode, as I had read some where that you could access recovery stuff through the start menu. It was a no go. At this point I'm beyond frustrated and decide I'd have better luck wiping the thing clean and starting from square one. (Luckily there was nothing important on the computer.)

Fortunately my parents have an OEM XP disc and a valid key. So I install the OS and then realize eMachine has "special" drivers for it's lan connections. Then I spend almost 30 minutes trying to find the stupid drivers (I was fortunate to find an older model with compatible drivers, otherwise eMachines would have required payment to ship a CD). Ok, so I get everything working and I'm happy to be done.

Jennifer's computer needed to have the harddrive wiped and cleaned and unreadable, for security type purposes. So I do that (takes a while with the program I using). Then I install Ubuntu on it. Why? Well, anyone using her old computer would do better using Ubuntu. :P

But my parents old computer had an important piece fall of the motherboard, so I didn't want to start it. I took out the harddrive, intending to install it on the ancient machine that had Windows 98 on it. Only to discover there are no SATA connectors. Then I open up Jen's computer only to discover there's no space for another harddrive. So then I gave it back and was all like "I dunno what to do with it!" (Until after I got home. Then I realized I could have gotten a free harddrive. DOH!)

Out of the 4 computers given to me, I could only save 2. My parents computer would be good scrap fodder, but the Window 98 machine... well... I was pretty sure that thing was on it's last leg.

But today I get a call from Dad saying how the eMachine wasn't working. The owners couldn't get the monitor to acknowledge the computer. I'm all confused because it worked fine for me. So I call the owner and he's talking to me about it not working, and in the middle of conversion he restarted the machine and I hear. "Oh, it's working!"

-__-

I don't even know what the problem was really. Either the computer couldn't find the driver for the monitor at first boot or he didn't have it plugged in all the way. My best guess. I was just glad it was working at that point.

House improvements

2011-01-09T00:09:00.000-08:00

My list of things I'd like to do to improve my house:

Put better insulation in the attic.
Fix the electrical outlets so they don't pop out. (The cover plate on many are not secure.)
Put a new cover plate on the cable outlet in our room
Replace the remaining curtains.
Get a new stove top.
Get a new oven.
Fix refrigerator: water leak in freezer
Fix cabinet in kitchen and bathroom.
Remove wallpaper in both bathrooms & repaint.
Add new fixtures to Master Bath.
Replace bathroom mirrors.
Pull out all weeds and flowers from garden, replace with rocks.
Trim tree.
Trim all bushes.
Cut down giant bush on the left wall of the house.
Get chairs & small table for patio out back.
Fix air leaks from back door and check windows for possible air leaks.
Figure out how to close off fireplace to prevent cold/hot air from escaping.

Little Bitty Tear Drops

2011-01-07T13:10:00.000-08:00

Tears always seemed like a weakness to me. As a teenager I cried when I was being illogical and unreasonable. I've always heard that tears are an emotional blackmail too. Some women even use them as a weapon (figuratively speaking). I didn't cry much when I was younger, and I liked how I had that level of control.

But now... now I just gotta admit it, I'm a weepy person. I cry when I'm talking about something sad, I cry when I'm angry, I cry when someone else is crying, I cry over sappy parts of movies and songs. And once I start going it's very difficult to stop.

I don't know how to deal with being a weepy person. It feels very awkward to me (yes, I get uncomfortable with myself when I start crying). I can't tell any more when it's ok to cry and when I just need to leave the room.

Mostly I just feel bad for Mike. I feel bad that I cry when I'm trying to talk about something serious. Crying when I'm trying to make a point just seems wrong to me. I just wanna say what I wanna say without all the waterworks. (And it's such an extra hassle too, since you need kleenex and you gotta pause to blow your nose and wipe your eyes. And tears are like glue on glasses to, so I spend 5-10 minutes after having to clean them off.)

Overall, I just don't like crying. My sister can turn her tears on and off. Even though I find that slightly... alarming... I wish I had that level of control. Just "flip a switch" and turn the tears off. It'd be nice.

Webinar

2011-01-07T12:07:00.000-08:00

This Webinar thingy is... interesting. Some of the information was useful, but most of it wasn't practical.

The advert at the end was funny. I guess this is hosted by some company called PowerSite. They talked about how ythey normally charged $1,995 for their sites and the Gold SEO is $3, 595. But the first ten people calling can get it at a low price of $895.

Woooooah! Only $895?! *rolls eyes* For a Realtor, there's no reason to pay that kind of money. All these people are offering is a template website (Blogger does that for free) and plugins.

I hope no one was stupid enough to buy it. >_<

Work Related Talk

2011-01-07T00:04:00.000-08:00

After returning from Christmas vacation and getting back to work, I was astonished to see a new printer/scanner/fax machine. I heard the old fax machine died and I guess the old printer was on it's way out too, so they just said "Heck with it!" and bought a new unit. (Apparently it's VERY expensive too!)

It's a wonderful machine. Today I needed something printed on front and back of the paper. I thought it'd take a while (like the old machine) but it was so fast. Almost as fast as regular printing. Amazing! And the print quality (for faxes even) is better as well.

I was printing a bunch of stuff when a Realtor walked in. She needed the printer. So I let her use it, since I was between prints. She actually called me sweet and gave me a hug for letting her use the printer.

I'm thinking "Well gosh, who ever heard of getting a hug over something like this? Are people in this office super aggressive with their printing rights or something?"

At the beginning of the New Year my Boss has me send out HUDS and helpful tax hints to our clients of the previous year. I remember the first time I did this I was really stressed out, but this time it's been pretty easy. (Though I'm still not sure exactly what paperwork to send in cases of people selling a home for a deceased parent.)

Tomorrow I'm taking a Webinar class my Boss suggested that deals with photography. It's supposedly all about improving your pictures of homes and making them look more dynamic and stuff. I'm interested to see how well this will work and if they're saying anything I don't already know. (It might be one of those classes for people who don't know how to use a camera at all.)

On other news tonight..

2011-01-06T01:09:00.000-08:00

I've pretty much given up on the idea of keeping multiple journals. It just doesn't work. In the end all that happens is I never update. So I've officially stopped posting on the other websites and linked them all to here. The very very veeeery few people who still watched me will at least have some idea where I've gone to. :)

Today I gave my cats catnip. Nice fresh catnip. Puar took a whiff and a chew and then rolled her whole fuzzy body in it. She also got VERY possessive of her "space" and spat at the boys if they got too close. Danny chewed a bit and got loopy enough to lie down on his side. That was it. Ichigo chewed and chewed and then.... nothing. Didn't phase him at all. (Though Mike rightfully points out that he always seems like he's on a high anyway, so it's no surprise it doesn't affect him.)

We did a bunch of grocery shopping. Got lots of fresh foods and stuff. It's expensive to eat healthy. And it's not like you can find coupons on vegetables, you know?

Hmmmm.. I think I was gonna say something else, but I forgot! Ah well, must not be that important. :P

Woah, new layout!

2011-01-06T01:04:00.000-08:00

Finally switched to the newer layouts on Blogger. I sort of kind of like this layout. Though it seems a bit to.... white to me. Needs more blue. Oh well, I might change it later!

Christmas & New Years '10-'11

2011-01-02T20:53:00.000-08:00

It's 2011 everyone. Burning questions on my mind right now? Where are our flying cars? Why don't we have a colony on Mars? Or at LEAST the Moon!? Is anyone else deeply disappointed about these unfulfilled promises? :P

So this year we visited my parents. I love visiting my family! They are a little odd, quirky, hilarious, and completely lovable. I have always known I was blessed to end up in a family with them in it. Every visit just gives more credibility to that.

It's strange, because I had no real love for the area I grew up in. When I left it, I didn't really regret it. But I do regret leaving my family, and I do miss a "familiar place". Though it's exciting to move to a new place every 4 years, it's also tiring and lonely. When I visit my parents, it's like going home.

Well, not exactly. It's hard to explain. Where ever Mike is, that's home. I truly mean it. If Mike isn't there, than a place (no matter how familiar ) feels foreign and colorless. Like a soup with no salt or spice.

This year I bought myself a Kindle as a Christmas present. I brought it with me to my parents because.... well... if you don't use an ebook reader when you're traveling, what's the point of it? I thought my Mom might like the Kindle. She loves reading as much as I do, and travels about as much as me too.

I was disappointed with her response. She did pick it up and mess with it a little, and a few days later she commented on how amazing the screen looked (better than a page in a book) while I was reading a book on it. Beyond that she didn't say much and as far as I know didn't touch it again.

Then, two days before we leave, she comes over and starts talking about different ebook readers. Not just talking about them, she was wondering which one to buy. I was quite surprised, since it seemed to come right out of the blue. (Though now that I think about it, I bet she'd been eyeing my Kindle the whole time and wondering what the whole eReader thing was about.)

But anyone who knows me, knows that I can't pass up an offer to window shop for electronics. And the best kind of shopping is when someone else is spending money.

You might be surprised to know that I recommended she get the Nook, even though I have Kindle. There are a few reasons for this: My Mom is use to working with an iPod's touch screen. When she first handled my Kindle she kept ignoring the buttons and trying to "touch" the screen. The Nook has a touch screen, which means the learning curve is less severe for her. The Nook and many of it's accessories can be bought in the Barnes and Noble store near where she lives. It also reads more formats than the Kindle (particularly ePub) so she won't have to deal with converting files as much. All of these things together made it a better buy for her.

(For myself, I despise the touch screen. Waste of battery power. I also don't have a B&N store near me. While I truly wish Kindle read ePub I'm not that worried about it. I also like Amazon's Whispernet infinitely better than B&N method. And B&N navigation on their website to find ebooks is terrible. I tried finding free ebooks on there and it's like they made it purposefully difficult. And to top it all off the Nook is heavier than the Kindle.)

So the day before we left Mom and I went to Barnes and Noble to buy a Nook. The Nook Kiosk is literally right in front of you when you enter the store. We already knew what type of Nook she was getting (e-ink w/ wifi only) so we politely ignored the sales person and started looking at accessories.

When we were done we went back to the Nook Kiosk to buy our stuff. The Salewoman was helping an older gentlement who was trying to decide between the Color and two e-ink Nooks. The more the talked the more baffled he looked. You could tell that whatever she was telling him wasn't getting through.

My Mom and I (being perpetually nosy and loving to help someone in a bind) began talking to the confused gentlemen. It became clear to him early on that we knew more about the Nook than the Saleswoman did. He actually took us aside and asked us more in-depth questions. By the end of it, we decided he'd do best with the Nook Wifi E-ink Screen and that's what he got.

I walked away feeling immensely pleased with myself but also a little annoyed with the saleswoman. That man should not have had to talk to fellow customers to figure out what Nook to get. I suspect the saleswoman was trying to push the Nook Color on him. I understand the up sell since it's new and all, but there are better ways to go about it. Her "up sell" was just confusing the poor man, and if we hadn't been there I think he'd have walked away all together. When I talked to her, her knowledge of the e-ink screen seemed shaky at best.

As my sister would put it, the whole exchange made me go: =n=

So now my Mom has a Nook. She already bought some books, even a Bible for church!, and she spent most of the night before we left with her "nose to her Nook", reading. I'm really happy I helped "convert" her to eReaders. I hope she has good experiences with the Nook so she'll keep using it.

I think I might have gained weight at my parents house, lol. They were constantly feeding us delicious food. Dad made a turkey Christmas Eve dinner that was delicious. (Mike ate everything on his plate and even had seconds!) The last day we were there we had beef ribs (which were also delicious).

Puar (the female long haired grey cat) seemed to remember my parents house. She lived their for 4 years so I guess it's not surprising. I think, of my 3 cats, she had the best time. No one really bothered her, she ignored the dogs (and thus was ignored by them), and got to go outside on my parents screened in back porch. She also got to sit on her favorite seat cushions and watch birds and squirrels.

Ichigo did alright. I don't think he remembered last year's visit at all. He got in a huge fight with Sara (fur flying and everything) upstairs and there after avoiding the upstairs. He avoided the dogs, smacked them around when they got close, and by the end of our visit would chase after them if he felt harassed. (The dogs--Samuel and Skyler--are pansies and run away.)

He likes high places. One of the first things he did was hop onto the 'frig and then kitchen cabinets. Mom took down all the breakables within 5 minutes of realizing there was no way to prevent him from getting up there. Unfortunately she didn't do the same for her nativity set which was displayed on the fireplace mantel. I almost thought he didn't notice it, but botheration, he got up there. Knocked down several figures, one of the three camels didn't make it and I think a wise man lost a bit of his base.

I thought Mom was gonna be upset but she didn't really care. You'd think it'd have bothered her more, she made the whole set in college. I'd think handmade stuff would be valuable. But apparently she was surprised the set had lasted as long as it had and didn't seem to value it much.

Danny spent almost the entire time in the guest bedroom. I think he went out of that room twice, and never got further than the living room. He's terrified of the dogs (even though they're Yorkies) and he refused to walk past their kennels (which were in the living room). If we didn't pop into the guest room enough, he'd howl for attention.

He howled both ways on the drive. Not all the time, fortunately. Actually, I think part of the way he's howling because he think we're stopping to let him out or he doesn't like the road noise. By the end, I think he's just howling because he's got to pee. Hehe.

Sara (Jen's cat) suffered the worst from our visit. Sara hates other cats, has since the beginning. Having 3 of them show up put her in a foul mood. It got worse when Ichi got up on "her" bed (that's Jen's bed). They got into a hug fight which left bald spots on them both. Ichi ran away, but Sara suffered a real mental shock. She was practically scared of her own shadow for days afterward, and she'd go into a spitting rage at Jen's white statue tiger (we assume she thought it was another cat invading her territory).

In the end, Jen hid her tiger and brought Sara's food, water, and litter box into her room. She also kept her door closed at all times to prevent the other animals from getting in. Eventually Sara settled down, but I suspect she won't actually go down stairs for at least another week.

(Eventually, Ichi went back upstairs. I caught him trying to sneak into Jennifer's room. Probably knowing Sara was in there. I don't think he wanted to fight her, but he does like eating other cat's food and pooing in their little box. Little bully.)

I got to spend an evening with Priscilla while I was there too. That was cool. She hasn't been in my parents house since she was a teenager. She had a severe case of deja vu, since very little hand changed around the house. She said it was like walking into her past and being a teenager all over again. (Which would be alot cooler if her teenager years hadn't sucked so bad. Fortunately some of the only good memories she had of that time were at my parents house.)

We went to New Orleans with the Ds. I generally avoid new Orleans, always felt the place was dirty and had a kind of skeezy feel to it. We stayed in the nicer parts of town though, so that helped. We ate a pizza place (got garlic and sun dried tomota pizza, excellent!) and then some sort of desert that tasted similar to a funnel cake. We went to some festival thing called something like "Lighting of the Oaks". (Can't remember the real name.) It was ok, too many people. Worse than a Japanese festival!

It was cold, in the 20s/30s for the first portion of our trip there. It was strange having a coastal area be colder than Northern Texas. It warmed up by the end of our stay, but then I had to suffer the humidity. Never liked humidity, I'd rather deal with the cold.

For our actual travel, nothing much of interest happened. The Fit travels well, though the seats start hurting your butt by the 5 hour mark. We also discovered trucks don't like being passed by small cars like ours and will purposefully go out of their way to pass us by after we'd done the same to them 5 minutes ago. Also, traveling any where near Dallas sucks.

So now we're home. Glad we cleaned up before we left. Something about coming home to a clean house. It's a great feeling! :)

The Doctrine of Tithing

2010-12-16T20:50:00.000-08:00

You know, I hate the word "tithe" and the theology that goes with it. It comes up every now and then, and no matter how many years pass by it still really ticks me off. I've tried being rational about it, not getting all fired up and whatever, but I've finally just given up. The fact is I hate the practice and I frown on evangelicals for propagating such an erroneous teaching.

My greatest lament is that I can not get my husband to take a serious look at this teaching. I have tried, but I guess I just come off as hysterical when I talk about it. He never takes what I say very seriously and has the general attitude of "Well, we ought to be giving anyway. What does it matter if we call it a tithe or not?"

But it IS important and I want to explain a little about why.

Tithing is not giving. To say they are is to say that a tax is the same a charitable donation. They've got nothing to do with each other.

Giving is something you chose to do. Giving can be anything. You can give to anyone or any charity or institution. You can give in any amount, even just a little bit. There are no guarantees that God will physically bless a giver. There is no punishment for not giving (though their is a punishment for selfishness and greed.)

Tithing is required to be a "Good Christian". Tithing is required to be a member of (some) churches. Tithing must be money. Tithing goes to your church. Tithing is used to support your Pastor's salary and the church building(s). Tithing must be at least 10% of your income before taxes and living expenses. The poor, widowed, and fatherless are expected to tithe. Many teach that if you tithe you will gain something in return from God and if you don't tithe God will punish you in some way.

Many have objected to tithing because it's based on the old Jewish Law. Jesus replaced the High Priest and our bodies are now the Temple so it's not really practical anyway. Additionally, the New Testament authors only talk of giving never tithing. For more detailed arguments concerning this please go HERE , HERE, and HERE. (Disclaimer: I have not read through everything these sites have on them. I can only say the reasoning behind these particular pages is sound.)

But there is a secondary argument that I've heard. They say that tithing was common practice among the godly and was done long before the 10 commandments. They use Genesis 14 as the example.

In this chapter it talks about a huge battled between a bunch of kings (4 vs 5 specifically). After the war, the spoils went to winners (the 4 Kings I believe). Alas, Abram's Nephew, Lot, was part of the spoils! So the Nephew and everything he owned got hauled away.

When Abram heard this he immediately set out to free his nephew. He was successful and freed his Nephew. But not only did he free his nephew, he also "freed" the 4 Kings of all their spoils of war. Abram came back with his Nephew, his Nephew's belongings, plus loot from 9 Kings.

On the way back he bumps into the Kings of Sodom and Salem. The King of Salem is apparently a priest of God as well, and blesses Abram. In return, Abram gives him a tenth (tithe in KJV) of all the loot. The King of Sodom (one of the losers of the war) asks for his men back, but offers Abram all the goods. However, Abram refuses and gives the King of Sodom everything back.

Now what people point out here is that Abram gave Melchizedek a tithe. Therefore, tithing predates the law and is an acceptable practice for Christians.

But lets look at a few things here:

1) Abram gave him a tenth (tithe) of the spoils of war.
2) Abram gave all of King Sodom's stuff back. Which means that Melchizedek didn't get any of it.

3) Before and after this, there is no mention of Abram giving tithes to Melchizedek or anyone else. (In fact, there is no mention of any Jew tithing at all until Leviticus 27!)

So what does this mean? We know Abram regularly offered animal sacrifices to God, but there is no mention of Abram regularly tithing to anyone. Melchizedek seems to be the exception. The Priest-King did not demand or even ask for a tithe. Abram did not give out of "his own pockets" but out of the stolen goods from the defeated kings.

Read that again.

It was only the spoils that got tithed, and not even all of that since Sodom got all his stuff back. Abram gave a tithe of what wasn't really his to begin with. And after this we never hear about Melchizedek or tithing on Abram's part again.

Paul compared Melchizedek to Jesus. (Some even say Melchizedek could have been a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ. Though I'm not sure how likely that actually is.) Please read Hebrews 7 to understand why Paul makes this connection.

Anyway, the point is... Jesus is a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. It implied that Melchizedek got the tithe for being a High Priest of God. Christians only have Jesus as their High Priest. So if we are to tithe, we are only to tithe to Jesus.

But lets take this a few inches more and see if we can take that mile. If we are to reject the Judaic Law form of Tithing and follow the example of Abraham, what would that mean?

1) We should tithe out of our abundance, not our income.
2) If we have a made promise to someone that requires us giving them a portion of our abundance, we are to do so. Exclude the promised portion from the tithe.
3) The person we are to tithe should not ask or demand a tithe.
4) Tithing is rare, rather than common. It has nothing to do with blessing or curses from God.

Lastly, what would it mean to "tithe to Jesus", as that's the only High Priest available to us today? Well, the church building is not Jesus. Church ministries are not Jesus. The Pastor, Youth Pastors, and Deacons/Elders are not Jesus. In fact, Christians are "the Bride of Christ", not Jesus. But tithing to the Bride is not the same thing as tithing to Jesus.

So now we're at a dead end. We have no one to tithe to because Jesus is at the Right Hand of the Father. And even when he gets back, he won't need our money.

But if you're short on time, there's an even simpler way to refute Genesis 14 being a pro-tithe passage. Just say "I notice people were sacrificing animals to God before the Mosaic Law too. Does that mean it's OK for us to do the burnt offering thing today as well?"

Using Genesis 14 to justify modern tithing doesn't work. To try to make it work is taking scripture out of context. Worse yet-- it is forcing Scripture to say what you want it to say to get money. I fervently hope no one reading this wants to be that much of a slime-ball that they would purposefully use scripture to get money.

Other arguments are used for tithing in the New Testament, such as the Widow's Mite. I recommend reading those 3 links above, as they cover that too.

If you really look into it, you will find there is no New Testament support for the modern day tithe. There is much said about generosity, about helping the poor and needy, and even about donations to Christians suffering in other places of the world. But there is nothing--zero--about Christians needing to tithe.

Now you're thinking to yourself, "How are we suppose to give then, if not tithe?"

I say:

1) Give how ever much you want to or are able to give.

2) Don't just give money, or don't feel like only money counts as "giving". Your time, expertise, clothes, or food are just as needed as your money. Consider giving those in place of --or along with-- money.

3) If you're seriously struggling to make ends meat--don't give. Seriously, stop feeling guilty about it. God has *never* demanded money or goods from the poor, Old or New Testament. Anyone claiming otherwise is trying to rob you, and God seriously frowns upon robbing from the poor.

4) Don't limit yourself to the church. Give to that homeless guy on the corner, or that neighbor who is struggling, or to that charity you feel strongly about. Your local church is great, but there's more out there and absolutely no reason to limit yourself.

And that's all I gotta say about that. :)

Dietrich Bonhoeffer the German Who Spoke Out

2010-12-12T00:07:00.000-08:00

We watched a documentary on Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a theologian and part of a German resistant movement against the Nazis before and during WW2. He was, in fact, one of the few Germans who saw through Hitlers sweet talk and thought him a nasty piece of work that would lead to nothing but death.

It's really a shame that for so long so little is mentioned about the resistant movements in Germany. The one Mr. Bonhoeffer was involved in made several attempts to assassinate Hitler, and at the very end they almost killed him. (He had the damnedest luck though, being saved by an exceptionally sturdy wood table.) I feel that if people like Bonhoeffer would be mentioned in the histories of WW2, it would give much more depth to the plight of the every day Germans. It would certainly have made them seem significantly less gullible and foolish.

(It's important to note I'm not talking about Germany currently. Germany now and Germany than are two different things, alright? And I've also got German in me from my Grandpa's side so I'm not unaware of Germans outside of Nazis.)

Mike and I also talked about how it's morally permissible for a Christian to participate in assassination attempts on a government official. This is what we concluded:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Edmund Burke

Allowing a government to murder millions of people and doing nothing about it is the same as murdering those people ourselves. In the case of the Nazis, the silence from the church allowed the Nazi party to brainwash their citizens into thinking it was OK to murder millions of Jews. Their silence was the same as putting an endorsement stamp on the orders to slaughter the Jews.

Yes, Christ endorses non-violence... in a personal way. That is to say, when a thief takes your jacket, give him the clothes on your back. When your stricken on the cheek, offer the other. Love your enemy, all that good stuff. You'll notice this is all one one one. Your enemy, your cheek, your jacket. These things are not referring to justice in general or about other people's suffering, but to personal encounters.

We have some idea what Jesus opinion is about people who see suffering and do nothing. A good example is the Good Samaritan. In this story a man is robbed and left for dead. The righteous and pious walk by doing nothing--and are deemed to be morally wrong. It's only the Samaritan who gets it right when he steps in to personally help this man. And then there's the example of the Adulterous woman too. Supposedly this woman "deserved" to die by stoning, yet even then Jesus stepped in to save her.

And finally, what about his whole death? Why did he do it? He died so that others might have life. He sacrificed himself to give us all the chance to be made right before a righteous and holy God.

We also know, based on the book of James, that those who go around saying things like "God bless you" while leaving a main starving and shirtless have an empty faith. You can't claim to be religious or righteous if you leave others to suffer when you could do something about it.

All these things bring me to the conclusion that being a pacifist is not Christian. Please note, I'm not saying you can't object to war or violence or whatever. I'm not even saying violence shouldn't be the last resort. That's perfectly alright to think that way.

What I am saying is that sometimes you can't solve a problem by peacefully protesting and saying "Peace, peace!". There are times when a person very twisted and evil rises into power who won't listen to your peace talks and will keep on murdering millions regardless of what you say. The only way to stop these type of people is by killing them and/or violently stop them from murdering innocents.

That's just how the world works. It's not a decision to take lightly. But it's also not a decision to think about too long either. Because while you're thinking some one is dying by your inaction.

Now, I know some people are a little bit off and might try to misapply what I'm saying. For instance, you could say that abortion kills millions of innocents every year. This is a horrible injustice and something must be done.

BUT unlike Hitler, our government doesn't force anyone to get an abortion (like China). Yes, they allow it, but it's the individual who chooses to go through with it. (And even if it was still illegal, people would be doing it anyway like they always have.) It's a moral individual issue, not a tyrannical government issue.

Even within the group of people who get abortions, not everyone does it willingly. Some people are deceived, others are forced by family or lovers to go through with it. You can't lump them all together like you can a "Hitler".

In the case of abortion, murdering an abortion doctor is not going to stop anything. Being physically violent towards women getting abortions also won't work. The only thing that will work is education, alternatives, and the transforming power of Christ. Anything less is just putting a band-aid on a broken leg, morally speaking. (The root of the problem must be fixed first before any real meaningful progress can be made.)

And that's pretty much all I've got to say about that.

Textiles and Mexicans

2010-12-11T23:12:00.001-08:00

As I've said before, I've been buying my jeans from Buckle. When I looked at the tag, I saw they were made in Mexico. This got me thinking about how so many of the good we consume in America (USA) are made in other countries and not in our own.

I know a lot of people gripe about that. They complain how so many farming and textile business are out of country. They talk about it taking jobs from people in our country and how the prices are unfairly low, making it "impossible" for American companies to compete.

Well, I've decided I really don't have a problem with imported goods. What I have a problem with is how companies in these other countries treat their workers.

Are they being paid a wage that supports their family? What are their working conditions like? Are they given reasonable working hours? Do they get some sort of health insurance for them and their families?

I really doubt most companies bother about any of these things, which is a shame. Even if you add in all the things I talked about, in 3rd and 2nd world countries, the labor would still be cheap. And making the jobs attractive like what I said would attract better workers and the end quality of the product would be better.

This is my thinking on it anyway.

The other thing I was thinking about is how American made clothes are really not all that expensive. Yes, a shirt might be $10 instead of $6, but the few extra dollars means the shirt will likely be a better quality and last longer. I'd rather pay $10 for a sturdy shirt that lasts 10 years than pay $6 for a shirt that will fall about within 12 months.

Also, I've noticed American made shirts don't have all those crap logos on them. You can actually find really stylish shaped shirts that are solid colors (white, black, red) and not have some ridiculous design slapped all over them.

So I think the next time I buy a shirt it will probably be from a company that makes them in America. It's good to support American businesses, and I really need some shirts that won't get holes in them from simple washing. (In my side loading washer, which is quite gentle.)

Just Day-to-Day Stuff

2010-12-05T08:36:00.000-08:00

Yesterday we went to Buckle for some jeans. A year ago I went to Buckle with Liz, though that was in Ft Worth. She introduced me to the store. I'm glad she did. Buckle is the only store I've been to (that involves clothes) where asking the employees for help will actually get you good results. They're always really knowledgeable and friendly. They do all the leg-work for you, so all you gotta do is stand in the fitting room until you find a pair of jeans you like.

I like this, since I find shopping for any form of clothing to be very stressful. In fact it's really sad how much I hate clothes shopping. To me, going around hauling armfuls of clothes (and this is after you've found the correct size, mind) and trying them on to make sure they look good on you is not fun. It's work, pure and simple.

The mall was packed. I'm not sure what I expected considering it was a Saturday. The first Saturday of the month of December on top of it. It was emotionally exhausting being around all those people!

Next was the bra's. We stopped at Victoria's Secret. Even thinking about going in made my wallet cringe. I got a fitting since I knew my cup size had changed, and sure enough it had. I went from a C to a DD. Which sounds all great if you're a guy, but it was terrible for me. I'd been wear 2 cup sizes too small for probably over a year now. And because of the expensive prices at VS all I could afford was one bra. (Even not counting that, all the other bras I didn't like much anyway.)

Before I got to either of those stores though, I was surprised to see a kiosk for Threading. I was very excited, so much so that I think I gave the impression I was impatient while I waited for my turn. It was a long wait. The lady before me was being super picky and it took forever for her to be satisfied. I like my hair to be trimmed, but otherwise natural, so it didn't take her long to finish with me.

The results are good. I think she did a very nice job. Right now I'm just keeping an eye on my skin. For some reason, any sort of hair removal around my eyebrows causes inflammation. In the case of waxing, I break out terribly. (I look like I have chicken pox!) Threading is suppose to be much more gentle on the skin, so here's hoping! :D

Mike insisted on printing out our wedding photos. We've been married for almost 8 years and we're just now getting around to it. He felt like there was something wrong with us for not having our wedding photos printed. (I really don't care....)

We went through Walmart since they're close and have an hour-ready service. When we went to pick them up, the lady was like "Were these done by a professional?" You could tell by how she said it she was about to say something very unpleasant and she knew it. So I say "Uhm, well... he was a friend of the family's doing it at a discount.." At which point we learn that--apparently--there's this new copyright thing that requires photo developers to get written permission from original photographer (who's professional) to reprint the photos.

Mike and I were pretty shocked. Since when had you needed permission to print out your photos for your home? We weren't mad at the worker, she's just telling us the policy. Mostly we were just confused. Because we were so nice about it, not losing our tempers and going into fits of rage like she expected us to, she gave us the photos anyway. She did give us a stern warning, though, that we needed to have permission next time. (She was risking her job by letting this go.)

What a stupid policy! I can't understand if they asked "If this is professional, and you plan on using this for commercial use, we need permission first." But if you're just printing the photos for home use, which the implied reason for having the photos taken to begin with, it shouldn't be a problem. Just make people sign a waver say they're only using it for home, not commercial. Seriously. STUPID. :-/

Every place we went to was packed. By the end of it I thought Mike (who hates crowds) was gonna choke something. I was glad to get home and away from the crowds!

Being in the Housing Market

2010-11-08T02:11:00.001-08:00

So I'm a Realtor's Assistant. Been one for over a year now. I really didn't know what this job entailed when I first got hired. I'm part-time and I make $8.50 an hour. My hours are extremely flexible, and I can pretty much come in and work when ever I feel like. On the other hand, when houses aren't selling, I have no work to do. The hours I work can very as much as 10 hrs a week to 25 hrs a week. Just depending on the market.

I really like my Boss. He's a cool guy, even if I think his hair style and 'stach are pretty dated. He goes to rock concerts with his wife and teenage daughter on a regular basis. He has a Jazz and Rock band that he runs. He also teaches music at a private school. Even when he's not working as a Realtor, I think he's gotta be pretty busy!

One of the things I've discovered is that Realtor's are "masters of disguise". They can put on smiles that are worth 10 million dollars and be thinking how much they loathe and despise the person they're talking to. It's a wonder to behold, because it's not just the smile... it's the whole body language too. They really know how to send of all the right signals to make you think they're really genuinely interested in everything you have to say, even when they're not. Really, quite amazing!

I don't think most people realize how Realtors work. They get money on commission. So if you don't sell your house, they don't make any money. And if the price is lowered, they're commission will be lower too (since their commission is % based). We had one client dump us after their home wouldn't sell, even though it'd gone into contract 3 times at that point. (It was really not our fault that the buyers kept having problems getting the banks to mortgage the house... which was also over priced. ~_~; ) We wasted $500 on these people and they had the nerve to blame us for the house not selling.

Anyway, when a Realtor says "The price you want to sell is to high. Lower it to XXX amount and people will buy" you should listen to them. They have nothing to gain by insisting on a lower price. It's actually a good sign that you picked an *honest Realtor* when they tell you what you don't want to hear and are willing to take a commission hit to get your home sold.

My Boss actually offers a lot of services for a Realtor. He's really good at what he does too. (He'd be even better if people would listen to what he's saying!) As an Assistant I handle a lot of the technical--none legal and financial--aspects of his job. I take photos of the houses, I make the Virtual Tours, I'm his website manager, I send in the info for all the adverts online and on paper (magazines and newspaper and things). I make every House Flyer "by hand" and use no templates at all. (Very rare in this business.)

I also do a lot of things I don't expect. I do a lot of research related to what other realtors are doing and advertising techniques online. My Boss is constantly sending me FW emails from companies who are trying to get his business. He doesn't have the time (or inclination I expect) to look up whether these companies are worth it, so he makes me do it for him. One of these days I'm just gonna have to tell him straight up "These are just spam. Please just ignore them! If I needed help in these areas I'd have brought it to your attention already."

Ah, but frankly I'm too much of a pansy to say that. I really am. *cries*

That's also something I'm not sure how to deal with. I really don't know how to talk with my Boss. Or it's more accurate to say: I'm terrified of saying something really stupid or obnoxious without meaning to. I'm one of those people who just says what's on my mind at the WORST POSSIBLE TIMES. I also don't know when to shut up. Or I don't speak up when I should and end up in a conversation where I'm suppose to know something and I really don't. This makes things awkward for me when I talk to my Boss. I think I send up multiple prayers weekly that go something like "Oh God, please help me not to sound like an idiot today!"

I really genuinely want to do an excellent job. I want to be the type of worker that any Boss will be sad to see go. I want to be the type of person who clients can trust. I want my work to reflect my respect and love for God, ya know?

When I make mistakes or do something really dumb (and I have, trust me) it makes me want to just curl up and die. It's times like that when I wonder if my expectations are just too high. But lowering them seems like a bad idea, because I'll likely end up being a slacker.

The Last Airbender Got Me Thinking

2010-07-07T20:06:00.000-07:00

I was so excited they were making the Last Airbender into a live action film. I actually made sure not to read any reviews for the movie so I could go into the movie without any mental hindrances.

It was awful. Possibly one of the worst movies I've seen in years. (Though I heard Jonah Hex was pretty bad too!)

One of the major complaints from fans was the white-washing of key characters and how names were mispronounced to be more "Asian authentic". The racist casting practices got me thinking about how Americans view Asians and how the industry views Americans.

So, here we go!

Americans have this inability to tell different Asian culture groups apart. They see an Asian person and they think they are Chinese. They honestly can't tell--and don't even know that it's possible to tell-- the difference between someone from China, Korea, or Japan. Americans just lump them all together.

A common problem is that Americans think that "white" is a title held exclusively by Caucasians/Europeans. I'm still very puzzled as to where this thinking comes from. I lived in Japan for 4 years and watched Chinese and Korean TV for fun too. I never saw any "yellow" skin. The most I saw was people being tanned from either working outside and/or going to the beach. Otherwise most Asians I saw were "white", and sometimes even more "white" than Caucasians. xD

Another common mistake Americans make is that big eyes and fair skin automatically mean someone is Caucasian/European. This is why when they see anime they think Asians are trying to make characters look look Caucasian. Especially when you see blond, red, etc hair colors added to the mix.

I already explained about the skin color. As for the hair, well.... they give people green and purple and pink hair too. The truth is, in anime, hair color often has little to do with the nationality of a character. (Though sometimes it does, and in those cases they actually have to point it out. Otherwise the audience wouldn't know to take notice!)

The history behind Big-Eyes in animation is quite interesting. Big-Eye's does come from American animation, but it doesn't actually have anything to do with nationality or ethnicity. Walt Disney made the style world-wide popular with his creations, like Mickey Mouse and his first full length animation movie Snow White. The reason he used Big-Eyes was to show emotion and youth (age). Often the younger a character is, the bigger the eyes. Larger eyes also make it easier to show emotion, especially with animals and non-human characters. (This is why in Snow White all the animals had big eyes, as well as the non-human dwarves, and the hag. Snow White herself, as well as the Queen and Prince, had small "normal" eyes.)

The Granddaddy of Manga, Osamu Tezuka, brought Big Eyes to Asia. He was inspired by Bambi, Mickey Mouse, and Betty Boop. While W. Disney (the man, not the company) mainly used "Big-Eyes" for animals and villains, Osuma Tezuka took it to the extreme: he used them on everyone! Adults, villains, they all got the Big-Eye Treatment.

So, what does this tell us? Big Eyes in animation do NOT mean that someone is Caucasian or Europeans. It is simply a style of art used to convey a specific type of meaning.

But most Americans are not informed of this. The history of cartoons is just not something most Americans care about. Cartoons are "for kids" and are therefore not worth their time.

This is why you get so much confusion with something like The Last Airbender. They think because Aang is white and has big eyes he must be "white". And because Katana and Sokka are "brown" they must not be "Asian Looking". (I actually saw one person explain that "Cold places are where white people live and hot places are for darker people." Apparently they never heard of the Inuit--commonly called the Eskimos.) And because most Americans have no interest in Asian/Foreign cultures they're completely and totally blind to the blatant cultural references to China, Korea, and Japan. (And that's not even talking about religions!)

Now about the names being "re" pronounced.

People say that the name changes were legitimate because it made it "authentic". This just shows that both Mr. Night knows almost nothing about Central/East Asia. Mr. Night used the Japanese pronunciations, when he should have used Mandarin (Chinese)--the language the show uses.

And on top of all that, except for Toph, most of the names weren't even real "asian" names. They were just Mandarin phrases squished together into one word. Essentially: Made Up Words. So if the creates had a particular way of saying the names, that is the CORRECT way.

Probably the reason most people don't care about the white-washing in TLA or how the series was practically raped by Mr. Night is because it's based off a "kid's cartoon". Apparently, content only matters if it's bad. Everything else like... oh... an interesting story, well thought out script... THAT stuff... doesn't matter. Why waste it on kids? They're dumb anyway.

......

This completely ignores the fact that so many kids AND adults have loved this series. When I went to see the movie, I was surrounded by 20-something men. MEN! And they were military men too! (We live near a base and you can tell by their hair-cut.) Clearly this "cartoon" was good enough reason for military men to go see the movie. Shame it was so badly done!

I just don't understand why people think it's ok to make bad movies and shows because they're for kids. The Last Airbender TV show proved that you can make excellent stories and kids will love them. And so will adults.

That's a lot of viewer-ship... thrown to the wind because people decide kids are too stupid to know a good show from a bad show so why bother?

(sighs)

Anyway. I'm a Whitey-McWhite-White American and if I can tell the difference between a Western European themes show and Eastern Asian themed show, no one else in my country has an excuse. Learn your world cultures people! It's interesting and it'll keep you from sounding like a racist ass.

AutoDesk 3DS Max crashing/BSOD

2010-02-16T13:29:00.000-08:00

This post is for people who have legal copies of AutdoDesk 3DS Max 2010 but are experience a specific set of problems. The problems include:
The program crashing.
The program crashing and freezing up the entire computer requiring a forced restart.
The program causing Blue Screen of Death (BSOD).
The program causing any of the above and corrupting the file afterward.

The specs for the computer that have this problem are:

AMD Phenom II X4 920 2.8GHz
GIGABYTE GA-MA790
2x 4GB G.SKILL DDR2 800 (8GB)
EVGA GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 896MB 448-bit GDDR3
PC Power & Cooling S61EPS 610W
Western Digital Caviar Black 750GB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache
Microsoft Windows Vista 64Bit Premium Home

As you can tell, this computer is not a push over. All components come from well known manufacturers and it's been running fine for a year now. There is no *hardware* reason for the problems this program is having.

Steps I've taken to reduce, but not eliminate the problem:

Installed latest 3DS Max Patch.
Uninstalled current nVidia driver and anything related to it.
Downloaded current driver from EVGA, not nVidia's website.
Downloaded and installed Driver Sweeper from Guru3D.
Went into SAFE MODE on Vista.
Ran Driver Sweeper in SAFE MODE. Restarted into SAFE MODE again.
Cleaned the STARTUP programs in SAFE MODE. Only allowed Firewall/Antivirus to run.
Vista Automatically found drivers. I let it install it's default drivers. (I'm pretty sure you can disable this option and just install EVGA drivers.)
Restarted to regular Vista. Let it finish installing drivers.

The above has worked reasonably well. It has not eliminated the BSOD but has reduced it to a tolerable level. The program can now work for long periods of time on a larger scene, though will occasionally BSOD when working on small, simplier objects. File corruption still occures after a crash.

Next on the list: Install Hotfixes. I'm not sure if these are included in the Service Patch I installed.

It's interesting to note that my husband has the Home version of Vista, which Autodesk doesn't mention on its System Requirements page. Could there be some sort of conflict with the program and Vista Home? I just find that very hard to believe, but I suppose it's a possibility. (Why didn't they include Home anyway? Do most Students have Professional or something?)

What is really causing this BSOD? I wish I could find out what in the drivers is causing the conflict. Would using an older version of nVidia drivers help?

Well, we shall see! If there's anyone out there who has had a similar problem and found a fix, please post here to let me know!

A house, car, and a cat later...

2009-12-12T13:54:00.000-08:00

We finally bought our Honda Fit. It's silver with the GPS. I was not expecting to get this one, since it's the most expensive. But not only was it the only one available (the Cash 4 Clunkers sapped the local supply and with the '10 models on the way no one was restocking). It was fortunate that Mike changed his mind about GPS (he was paranoid about them) and decided they were cool. We now call our car "The Bat-mite". (Yes, I love our car! :D )

It took us almost 2 months of searching before we found a house and bought it. Our house is about 1600SQFT, with 3 bedrooms, and 2 baths. It was built in '75, so there's definitely a certain 70s vibe going on. (The living room is lower than the rest of the house, for instance.) But the previous owner redid almost all the flooring, so it's not too out-dated. My only real complaint is the wallpaper in the bathrooms. Ugh, ugly. Otherwise it's a really nice house, in a nice neighborhood, that we bought at a nice price. (119K, not including closing and taxes and everything.)

We got to visit my family during the Thanksgiving, which was great. It was wonderful to see everyone again. We brought our two cats with us since we didn't have anyone to watch them while we were away. On the way back we took our third cat, Puar (who'd been with my parents for 4 years while we were in Japan), with us.

I tell you, traveling with 3 cats is not something I want to do any time soon. I need to find someone in this neighborhood who's reliable and willing to watch them when we're gone. I'd pay a teenager to do it, since they can always use the money, if I thought I could trust any of the ones here. (Teenagers are hard to trust, because they aren't use to being responsible for a life.)

And in a startling turn of events I got a job. Yes, you read that right. A real, pays-me-money-and-everything, JOB. I am now a Realtor's Assistant, part time. My Boss's name is Ken and is actually the Realtor who helped us buy our house. (Nice guy!) I get to make my own hours. This is generally a great thing, but for me it's fantastic. It allows me to work around my husband's schedule and take time off during the holidays to visit all my family.

My favorite part of the job is taking pictures of the houses and making virtual tours. It gets me out of the office and helps me learn my way around the city. I've seen some beautiful houses and some houses that make me wonder why ANYONE would buy them. My least favorite part of the job is the stupid letters. I have to send out letters to all the people who are trying to sell their house but do not currently have a realtor. I have any where from 5-20 letters a day I have to mail out. And I have to check everday to make sure none of them have gotten a realtor since yesterday. (We get nasty-grams if we send letters out to people who already have a realtor!) Beside it being mind numbing, it's also a form of spam. I hate thnking I 'm spamming some poor Shmoe's mailbox!

Either way, I really like my job. I'm not great at it, since I still have holes in my training. (So there's some things I don't know how to do, and other things I won't know I should be doing until someone tells me!) But I do enjoy working and feeling useful.

We haven't really found a church home yet. There are a few churches here, and we've been two a few. But I haven't felt really connected to any of the people yet. Though I think Grace Church is a our best bet.

Next up: Christmas vacation at my Husband's house. INTERESTING.

Gettin' Closer

2009-07-14T02:20:00.001-07:00

We went to our appointment with Lydia DeLeon-Rush today. I don't know who the "Allied Home Mortgage Capital Corporation" is, but Mrs. Lydia freakin' rocks! She has been so SO helpful with helping us know what to expect when buying a house and connecting us with trustworthy people.

Our credit is good. (Yay!) We should be fine with getting a VA loan. (Also Yay!)

There's a couple of houses we've really liked so far. All of them have a pool. (Which Mike likes for exercise, but I like because Liz's kids can visit us and play in our pool. Maybe Josh'll get over his fear of pools! ^^; )

Our Household goods should get picked up at the end of this month. Terrifying I tell you, terrifying. I hate this part of the move. Trying to decide what goes now and what goes then. Trying to find a place in our bitty house to store the stuff we want to KEEP. *sighs*

Just a passing post...

2009-05-26T23:34:00.001-07:00

Ugh, Verizon I loathe you. Our connection has been awful ever since the switch over from Softbank to Verizon. Today we had no connectivity at all. And since they took over our internet craps out between 12-3pm and is completely unreliable after 915pm at night. Very annoying.

Still haven't gotten a bill from them yet either. Mike'll flip if they charge us full price for the crappy internet we've had.

My average weight is 195 and I've gotten down between 194 and 193. It doesn't sound like a lot but I started a week and a half ago. They say it's healthy to lose 1-2 pounds a week but no more. So I'm trying to lose weight, but not a whole lot at once. It's difficult because it takes so long and I'm American dang it, I'm use to instant gratification! :P

We're still considering buying a house. The lady who hosts the House Buying Seminar is coming back to Misawa for two weeks and said she'd be willing to set time aside to talk to use personally if we make an appointment with her. That'd be great, since while I know something about BUYING a house now, I still no nothing about about SELLING a house. (Which is important since we'll likely move in 4 years again. And if Mike has his way, we'll be moving to Europe so...*shrugs*)

Really hopeful about buying a house. I'd like to, if we can, since it'd be good for us financially in the long term.

The weather is finally getting nice again! The sun is out, the grass and trees are green, and the wind is only chilly (not "OMG COLD").

*sighs* Spring is nice... :)

Escudo vs Sidekick: FIGHT!

2009-04-28T21:01:00.000-07:00

Yesterday we took the car in to get it checked. It's been making this awful high pitched squeal in first gear. Mostly during very humid and cold days. Mike and I both figured it was a built, but what I couldn't figure out is why our belts went bad so fast. I had just replaced them late '08. Turns out the belt wasn't bad, it was just loose. It only cost us 10$ to tighten it.

Phew.

Apparently the Escudo (known as the Sidekick in the US) is a very well known and reliable 4WD vehicle. Ours is a '93. And it did pretty well until it had to sit outside in the cold Misawa winters with nothing to protect it. I think if we'd had a garage--or even a carport--it would have been in better condition. But alas, the military didn't deem out cars worthy of having things like a carport or garage.

The closest thing Suzuki has now to the Sidekick is the SX4 Crossover. Which is around the same price range as the Sidekick and has similar gas mileage and size. The direct decedent to the Sidekick is the Grand Vitara, though it seems a bit more upscale and possibly larger than the Sidekick with poorer gas mileage. It does look more like the Sidekick than the Crossover though. (But I happen to like Crossover's look a bit better.)

Mike mentioned getting a Sidekick back in the States, but I'm still keen on getting a Honda Fit. Sidekicks were built in the 1990s and while they are great cars, I'm tired of owning cars that are 10+ years old. It's nothing personal, but I just want a car that I don't have to repair because something fell out of the bottom of it or something important broke. I'd also really like a warranty for once... so even if something bad does happen we don't have to pay 100s or 1000s of dollars to fix it.

That's all I have to say about that. :P

A splash of Spiritual JibberJabber in that Pot o' Life

2009-04-27T05:28:00.001-07:00

I've been thinking about my "salvation experience" lately. The reason being because, how can you talk to someone about Christ if you do not know him yourself? So it got me thinking about my story. Ah, which is always a bit depressing.

You see, most people have these strong recollections about their salvation experience. They remember going up to an altar, sitting in their bed, a conversation... something. I have nothing of the sort.

I have always had a horrible memory, and this extends to every aspect of my life. I have almost no memories of my life before 12 years old. What memories I do have are very vague, so vague that sometimes I'm not even sure if they happened or I imagined them. Because I was saved, or at least Baptized, at 8 years old I don't remember it. (Though I got some vague memory of my Baptism... though perhaps I only have that because I was nervous/excited about getting "dunked" under water. I can't say for sure.)

Well, this puts me in a bit of a bind. Lots of people like to share their conversion story to others as a way to show "Hey, this Jesus is real and I can prove it with my life!" But I can't do that because I have no "before and after". And of course there's the Pastors up their preaching about that "old man" who use to do all these awful sinful things and I'm thinking "I can't even remember my old man!"

That frustration often turns to doubt because no one else seems to understand where I'm coming from. Almost everyone gets saved in their teens or adult years. My husband, who got saved at 5 yrs old, says he remembers it! How could I have forgotten? Didn't I think it was important?

But I know I must have thought it was important. Because I *do* remember at around 10-12ish (see what I mean?) asking myself "Do I believe in Christ just because my parents do? Is this my faith or theirs?" I struggled with this question for days, because I didn't want to go on pretending to believe in something just to make my parents happy or to "fit in".

I finally concluded that I accepted Christ for myself, not to make my parents or someone else happy. I decided to follow Christ for His sake, not for anyone else's. And, at least I hope, that's what I've been doing ever since.

And I don't think I'm not saved. There are too many indicators in my life that say I've got God's Holy Spirit in me. The easiest ones to spot (and frankly the most boring ones) are a desire to go to church consistently, to read my Bible, to study theology and Biblical history, and pray no matter how awful or good I'm feeling. Could a person without the Holy Spirit be like that for years on end? I don't think so.

But this still leaves me without a "before and after" to tell people. How can I explain the wonderful life-changing sacrifice of Christ to someone without any "before" to give them? This is what I've been asking myself lately.

The closest answer I come up with, it doesn't seem to satisfy really. It seems so... so.. wishy-washy and lacking somehow. But I shall give it now, and we will see over time if it's worth anything:

"There is a God, and He has been with me my whole life. I have laughed and loved, and He shared in my joy. I have stumbled over my words and embarrassed myself, my family, my friends, but He was not embarrassed of me. I have cried so hard I couldn't move and feared so deeply I couldn't breath, yet He was there. He gave me the strength to go on, to move forward. And when I was over-whelmed by life, He was their to comfort me, to re-assure me that He is faithful and will never leave me to fend for myself.

If you are to say "What physical proof do you have that there is a God?" I couldn't tell you. I have never seen God, or touched Him, or heard an audible voice. But there's something inside me, something so strong that even when I am at my most doubtful, my most hard-hearted, I can't ignore it. Even when I want to just give up and pretend like I never knew Him, I can't. I can't deny it, I can't deny His presence. It's an impossibility for me.

And how did I get to know this God? This being who created this universe and all in it? I know Him because of Christ. He who lived, died, and rose again for all the wrong doings all of humanity has ever committed. I simply believed in what he did. By simply believing in the truth of Jesus' action, I went from an enemy of God to His adopted Daughter.

So that is how I know God. I'm His daughter."

See? My testimony is so... boring. It doesn't have the same punch that testimonies from former Abusers, Druggies, Alcoholics, Cutters, Thieves, etc. They can be all like "See the difference in me? I don't do [insert badness] now! This is the difference that Christ makes!" The only "difference" I can talk about is all the things I haven't done, and frankly that's not worth talking about.

I don't mean to sound ungrateful for what I have, by no means. I really love having God in my life. I wouldn't trade that for the most fantastic unbelievable but-it-really-happened conversion story. (Lemme tell ya, 17 years with God is better than any awe-inspiring conversion story.)

But still... I just don't know if my conversion story brings "anything to the table" so to speak. Would it cause people to stop and really consider the sacrifice of Christ? The forgiveness and new life He offers? Or would it be just some more weird/ignorant Religious person rambling added to the cacophony of other religious ramblers? I don't know, I don't know.

Not that I'm worried about it so much as a little frustrated.

That's all I've got to say. Take it or leave or throw a Fuzzy Bug at it. :P

A House to Live In

2009-04-25T22:01:00.001-07:00

Since, as far as we know, we're moving to Wichita Falls I've gotten into looking at houses ahead of time. Sort of to scope out what's there. I've used Truila.com for internet "house shopping". It works pretty well.

To be honest, if we can get some decent housing through the military I'll take that over buying. But the military has this tendency to stick E5s with spouse but no children in tiny two bedroom homes. Sheppard AFB has the Freedom Estates, the smallest of which is still a 3 bedroom house. As long as I can get a 3 bedroom house of a decent size I'm ok with sticking with military housing.

But that's a Big If. I'll be surprised if there isn't already a huge waiting list for Freedom Estates. I can't imagine anyone choosing to live on base when they can live off base and get a bigger house. Though I might get lucky, since the on base housing since to be going through some major renovations. (I have to tell you, newer military housing is really not all that bad.

Thinking about Art

2009-04-23T21:52:00.000-07:00

I use to love to draw. As a kid, I would sit on the couch or on my bed, and draw for hours. I'd leave a trail of paper behind me. It wasn't always fun, but I always felt good about it. When it was hard, I felt challenged and motivated to get past that hurdle, whatever it was. Everything was "How can I draw that?" or "How can I make my drawings better?"

And then... I left home. Some where in those first two years, any artistic inclination left me. There's not one thing in particular that did, just a bunch of stuff. Moving from home and from a family I loved to a strange place, living with a man who was angry all the time and critical, not going to church on a regular basis, and a total lack of friends. I was alone, and some how that loneliness broke me.

I was only 19 then. So very young.

I'm 25 now and doing much better. So is my husband! But getting back into drawing has been very very difficult. But I'm trying. I don't want to remain artless forever. I want to recapture that love of drawing, even when it was hard, and become better.

Someday. Someday. I hope.

Quiche Parade

2009-04-21T07:03:00.000-07:00

I made a QUICHE! That's right, me! I did! It's pretty good too!

It's called a "Spinach, Tomato, Feta Quiche". I actually bought two quiche pans for this. I couldn't find frozen pie crust so I used Pillsbury pie crust from the frig section. I also used regular tomatoes, squeezed to get the extra juices out, instead of cherry tomatoes.

I was very nervous since I've never made quiche before. Lots of recipes I try look straight forward until I'm in the middle of them. This one was very easy and came out great.

My next Quiche will be "Hash Brown Quiche". Made with Turkey Sausage instead of ham. If I can, I'll try to make it for breakfast. Yum Yum! :D

A Study on Tithing

2009-04-21T01:00:00.000-07:00

Last week our Pastor did a sermon on tithing. He actually did a really good job. I liked his preaching on it better than our previous Pastor.

I was not raised in a church that tithed, or even passed plates around. We had a little box in the back where you could give. The only thing I was taught was to give and give generously. (My parents lived this philosophy, not just in money but in word and deed.) So tithing is a very strange way of thinking to me.

So, to help people understand where I'm coming from. I'll link a few places.

The first place is Tektonic. He gives a historical take on tithing. Click Here.

The second place is Theologyweb. They're run by conservative Christians so you get a variety of opinions. They had a "guest speaker" write an article for them called "Tithing: Is it New Testament?" that I really like. The next link is from a thread on their forum which had quite a few interesting posts. It's called "The Backlash Against Tithing".

All in all, I think this is a well rounded representation of the view I hold on the subject. That's pretty much all I wanted to say. :)

Computer Freezing: Solved?

2009-04-14T04:03:00.000-07:00

Yeah so......

I dunno what exactly was going on with my computer but I think I got a pretty good idea. I think it was freezing due to static electricity. Yeah, I know... weird. Here's how I figured it out.

I have a wood shelf it sits on. It's on the bottom shelf, with the top shelf protecting it from cats. (Seriously, my cats would be hopin' all over it without the shelf there.) Originally I had the computer closer to the edge of the shelf, so that it was easier to press the on switch and so forth. I noticed that when I went near the computer with my hand, it would shut off. When the cats walked past it, it would shut off or do that weird freezing thing.

So I thought "Is the computer too close to the carpet?" And I moved it farther back. Maybe 5 inches back. And now... no problems. It doesn't freeze, or randomly shut off when I go to touch it.

Hnnnnnn.... I wish I'd figured this out prior to exchanging GPUs. I really do NOT feel like taking it apart again and putting the 9600GT back in. So for now I'm using my ATI 3850.

Sighs... I'm wondering how many people are having this problem due to static? It's weird problem to have and I wonder if it's mostly due to the design of my case. (Apevia XQpack2)

Oh the pain of DIY computers...

2009-04-09T02:59:00.000-07:00

I'm going to punch or stab something if my computer freezes on me again. Ever since I replaced the cpu cooler, PSU, and GPU it's been freezing on me. And by freezing I mean that though I can see my desktop, my mouse, etc... nothing responds. No amount of pressing buttons on the keyboard, no wiggling of the mouse, nothing. I have to turn it off via the power button, as that's the only thing to respond.

It's very frustrating. And annoying. But mostly it makes me want to hit something. Or stab it. Multiple times.

I'm hoping it's just the front panel being corrupt. See, there's this front panel that controls various... things. Case audio, reset button, hard drive light, etc.... At first I had everything plugged in, but over time I've had to unplug almost everything because it wouldn't work. The reset button in partical, nasty little thing, was causing my computer to randomly reboot on me. The last thing I had plugged in was the HD light. I noticed when the freeze happen the HD light is dark (implying that it's either not working or the HD has ceased all activity.)

Well, if having the reset button plugged in could cause the computer to reboot, maybe the HD light was doing something funky with the Hard drive? HOW that would be possibly, I can't even begin to imagine but at this point I'd be almost happy if that were the case.

It could be, though I hope not, the 9600GT OC nVidia card I got for free from Owin at OverclockersClub. I got it for free from him. It's an RMA card. (That is, he sent in his original because something was wrong with it and got this card from the company.) It could, possibly, be having problems.

And if it's not that... I guess it could be the PSU. Though I hope not. I happen to LIKE my new PSU. It's super quiet and really high quality!

Wah. I hope what I did fixed it. Proof will be in the pooding.

Lose your friends after getting a kid? Naw.

2009-04-03T18:35:00.000-07:00

I was reading a friend's Parenting magazine a while ago. They had an interesting article about things that people swore they wouldn't do before they had kids but ending up doing them anyway. Most of it was interesting, some of it was funny, but one response just bugged me to no end.

There was this woman who vowed that having kids wouldn't change her friendships. But, of course, after her baby came her no-parent friends started drifting away from her. (Or her them?) Calling each other less and less, going out less and less.... they just didn't understand what being a parent was like.

This annoyed me because it seemed so... soo..... stupid. Almost all my friends have children under 6 years old. Many have toddlers and new babies on the way! This is no way prevents me, the no-child woman, from being friends with them.

See, this is what I've learned to do:
1) Be accommodating with my schedule.
2) Always plan on the kids coming along.
3) Help Mom with children when possible to speed things up. (Like getting in and out of cars.)
4) Treat children like people, not like annoying "tag along's".
5) And be willing to talk about things relating to children. (I find this quite profitable since I learn a lot from people with kids that I can pass on to others, or to myself should I find myself in a parental type situation.)

It also helps if you have meaningful friendships. You know, ones that have more to them then going to bars or clubs. Or to have friends with hobbies or interests that don't require you going far from home for long hours.

It might also be that New Moms tend to drop everything else in favor of focusing exclusively on their children. Some of that can't be helped since babies are a lot of work (especially the ornery ones). But there's also a major priority shift that happens when a kid comes along. There's a tendancy, especially with New Moms, to make the children the center of their lives. Everything else is secondary, people (including husbands), pets, and hobbies all. If it's not related to their kid in some form it's just not worth their time (or energy).

Actually, it kind of reminds me of falling in love. You know, that obsessive exclusive type of love? Perhaps it's similar?

Anyway, I think this obsessiveness over children starts to wan as the children get older. More independent from Mom. Suddenly the parent CAN'T have the kid as the center of their world, exclusive to everything else. (Not unless they want to seriously mess their children up!) They have to find something else or go crazy.

This is where they start to find themselves again. It's not that they revert to pre-parent days, but that they start realize that they can't be in Mommy-mode forever. Some day those kids won't be there, some day they'll leave. What will they do when that happens?

Ah... they'll need something to do that does NOT, in fact, involve children. A hobby, an ambition... something they can do seperately from being a Mom. And so they go back and try to remember what they use to like, what they use to want to do, and start pursuing those things again. Or, if they were particularly immature pre-kid days, they find a new hobby or ambition to pursue. (Not that they exclude their Mom-ness, but they start broadening their horizons... adding things to their life.)

(This is my observation anyway. I might be completely wrong as I've never experienced being a New Mom.)

So maybe this woman had friends who were doing things that children could not be incorporated into (drinking and clubs) and/or that the woman herselve was suffering from "New Mom" syndrome.

There. Got that out of my system. :P

Confession

2009-04-03T03:09:00.000-07:00

I'm quite embarrassed, I can even feel my skin burning (which is the closest I get to a blush). Today I discovered that Liz had read my rants on this very blog. This very one!

Ah...

...ah....

...I didn't want her to see the ugly side of me. It's not that I have a problem with being opinionated and just disagreeing. That's ok. But my rants were... angry, bitter, resentful. There was no love in them, none at all.

I value her as a friend, the best one I've had in years. I was afraid if she knew what I was thinking and feeling she'd not like me anymore, she'd think I was lowly and not worth her time. I also didn't want to hurt her... I didn't want all that frustration and anger to get unleashed on her. It didn't seem fair to do that to her, someone I liked so much.

But she says she's still my friend. Even when I'm angry and disagreeable. That's so rare to find in someone. A person who's willing to like you despite yourself. In women it's particularly hard, since we seem so critical of each other.

I feel like a dork saying it, but it's like... it makes me want to be her friend forever. I want us to still be in contact with each other when we're 60. Reminiscing about the good ol' days and laughing about how idiotic we were back then.

..hehe.. I'm such a dork.

North Korea's posturing

2009-03-31T22:58:00.001-07:00

Eh.... I'm a little bit worried about North Korea. Sometime in early April they're launching a "satellite". This "satellite" will be dropping "debris" into the ocean. The ocean that just happens to be in Japan's jurisdiction and just happens to be on the North West side of the main island.

I live on North East side of the main island. I'm a bit nervous.

See, North Korea has been trying to put Nuclear war-heads on missiles for quite some time now. As far as we know they haven't achieved this yet. But what they're doing right now is trying to get their long range missiles to work accurately. And of course the only way to do that is to test them.

The International community believes this satellite is in fact a ruse to cover up their long range missile tests. (That's what the "debris" is.) The US and Japanese Navy ships have already moved ships to the North West seas of Japan. The hope is if a missile SHOULD in fact be launched the Navy could counter it.

Not sure how they plan on that. There are ways to stop a missile once it's been launched, but they're not particularly accurate.

Mike made a very good point when he asked "What do they hope to gain?" Seriously, what DO they hope to gain by threatening their neighbors? Sure they might want to reclaim South Korea, but I'm not particularly sure a long range missile is required for that. And why target at Japan? What do they plan on doing, anexing it? And threatening China is just plain stupid. (Even the ever "arrogant" USA knows better than that.)

I don't know, they really should just keep to themselves. They're not really in the position to go around threatening people like this. At least as far as I can tell.

On the road again...

2009-03-25T17:42:00.000-07:00

*twiddles fingers* So we're still waiting to get an official report stating Mike's got his Instructor position. It's making me a little nervous that we haven't gotten it yet.

Mike got a call this Monday from the... uh... people process new orders... I dunno what they're called. Anyway, he got a call from them saying he needs "retain ability". To which he said "I did that last Friday." Their response was "Oh." He hasn't heard from them since.

I'm hoping they called because his Instructor Duty kit was trying to get through the system. I hope they did not send it back saying "He's not re-enlisted yet."but instead are waiting for the system to update itself.

I really hope that's it.

I read on a blog that United is pet friendly. Apparently all their cargos are temperature controlled so you can travel with your pet any time of year through them. I'm thinking, once we get our orders, we'll be going straight to the airline schedulers and making sure we get only flights that allow pets in cargo.

I am not leaving my pets behind this time.

Starting Fresh

2009-03-24T05:52:00.001-07:00

Not that I have any followers here but...

I deleted a ton of posts. They were ranting posts mostly, written when I was feeling my most angry and rottenest. I think it's better if people don't see that side of me.

Also, I just don't get angry like that anymore. I guess God's dealt with that part of me for the most part. And I'm glad. I hate being angry like that... it's exhausting.

So... now I don't know what I'll be using this blog for, since I'd turned it into my Uber Anger Ranting place. Guess it'll be just another blog again... ah.... well. :)

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY! 4 YRS

2007-05-23T20:03:00.000-07:00

*throws confetti*

That's right, it's our 4th year of marriage as of today! Wow, 4 years! And not only do we STILL love each other, we still like each other too!

What can I say about marriage after 4 years of it? (A lot apparently! LOL)

Marriage gets better with time. Long term marriage deepens love. Those first thrills at the beginning are NOTHING in comparison to the deep love of experience and selflessness that marriage produces. It's a shame people spend all their time focusing on the thrills of love when the deeper stuff is so much better.

Sex in marriage is equal in importance to communication. If you aren't doing both equally and frequently, your marriage will suffer. Never ever believe the lie that sex and communication are at odds with each other, or that you only need one and not the other. You *need both*.

Sex and making love are two different things. Sex is what animals do, making love is what people do. Making love does not always mean sex, but it's ALWAYS sexual! Making love is selfless, compassionate, and beautiful. Never settle for "plain sex" in marriage when you can be making love to each other!

You'll only get out of marriage what you put into it. So if you put in selfishness, fear, jealousy, hatred, and unfaithfulness in ANY degree, so will you reap. And not just a little reaping, but we're talking tons and tons more reaping! It's a very very scary thing.

So every effort must be made to put in selflessness, hope, contentedness, joy, and faithfulness. Because if you put in those things, so will you reap. And not just a little reaping, but we're talking tons and tons more reaping! And what a joy it is to see the good you put in come back to you ten fold!

And the most important thing to put into marriage: Forgiveness. Spouses aren't perfect, there's just no way they can do the right thing all the time. And many times we're going to have to forgive them not once, not twice, but continually. In the words of Jesus:

"Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"

Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times." Matthew 18: 21-22

Speaking of Jesus, He needs to be in a good marriage too! He is the ultimate unchanging moral center in a marriage. He protects, guides, chastises, and gives a deeper joy for the couple. When He is the center everything else falls into place.

Christ doesn't just keep a marriage alive either, He makes it THRIVE. And isn't that what we all want in our marriage, in the end? Not just one that "gets by" but one that's alive and always improving? Christ makes that happen in the most amazing way. So don't leave Him out!

And that's all I've learned in 4 years. Imagine what I'll have learned in 8 years?! HA! I'm looking forward to it!

Lets discuss MODESTY!

2007-01-29T07:24:00.000-08:00

I think it's important to remember what modesty means when discussing what is MODEST to wear. Back during Biblical times, women were covered from head to foot, with mostly just their face and hands showing. Yet even THEN they were not being modest, and thus were instructed by the Apostle Paul to be modest.

This begs the question: If even being completely covered is not enough to be modest in God's eyes, then what is? Clearly covering up your mentionables and unmentionables is not enough!

In Biblical times being vain meant wearing "breaded hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes" (1 Timothy 2:9). Furthermore, these vain women made no effort to be beautiful on the inside before God (2:10). Basically, they cared only about making themselves beautiful on the outside so they could attract attention. This is the opposite of Biblically modesty, vanity and selfishness.

So now we have learned something important: (1) It's not what you wear, but what your reason for wearing it, that God is concerned about. (2) If vanity and selfishness are the opposite to modesty, than even when we cover ourselves up completely, we could be immodest!

Notice that men lusting has *nothing to do* with modesty. Modesty has to do with the heart of the women, not the heart of the men. Even if women dress completely modestly and pleasing to God, they can not stop men from lusting. The reason is because lusting is a heart issue with *the man*, not *the woman*.

I believe that the church is wrong to teach modesty has something to do with preventing men to lust. It distracts from the real message of modesty and gives men excuses to lust.

You don't believe me? Think about it.

If being modest becomes all about what you wear and not making men lust, then women don't have to concern themselves about things like vanity and selfishness. It is, after all, much easier to deal with outward appearances than to deal with inward ones.

By saying it's the women's responsibility to prevent lust, it allows men to "pass the buck". They are, in essence, saying as Adam did, "The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." (Genesis 3:12) It's an easy, cheap way out of being held accountable for their sins.

In the end, was Eve held responsible for Adam eating the fruit? No. In the same way, women are not responsible for men lusting. God holds them accountable for giving into the temptation of lust, not women.

Dear reader, all that I have just said is not to advocate dressing like a slut. Instead, I am saying we are turning modesty into something it is not. By doing so, we give both men AND women an excuse to sin! (Or at the very least make it a lot easier to ignore sin.)

Now, getting back to modesty. How can we dress "modestly" if modesty is not about the length of our skirts? I think there are several ways to know whether we are dressing modestly. Here are some questions to ask ourselves:

"Am I trying to be trendy so I can feel socially accepted?"
"Am I dressing so men will look at me?"
"Do I dress the same as the trashy women in my area?"
"Am I representing Christianity well by what I wear?"
"Do I dress to attract lots of attention from strangers?"
"Am I honoring my parents/husband's wishes by what I wear?"
"Am I flaunting my wealth?"

You'll notice that most of these questions will result in a "personal answer". That is, a woman's answer will differ depending on her maturity and culture. What is modest for one woman may not be for another.

This will cause some conflicts, no doubt. How do you reconcile extreme differences between two people and what they think is modest? I think Paul described what to do in these situations best:

"Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is constructive." 1 Corinthians 10: 23-24

"So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved." 1 Corinthians 10:31-33

Marriage and it's meaning, to Neo

2006-10-17T02:57:00.000-07:00

Marriage is not a Christian idea. Please first get that very thought out of your head. Marriage has been going on before the Church, before the Jews, before the Flood. Marriage can *almost* be classified as a "universal truth", since people from every culture and age have been doing it.

I think pagan marriages are valid in God's eyes. Marriage is a contract, a promise, made between two people. It doesn't matter where you come from either, the marriage contract is essential to society and properly raising children. And then on top of that, when you *break* a contract or promise (just in general) you've lied. We know for a fact that God does not tolerate lying, no matter who you are.

So what is a marriage? I think, based on what people for centuries across the globe have been doing, that marriage is a vow made between a man and woman to stay together, help each other, and raise their children.

Marriage has nothing to do with the church, nor the government. People seem to think it does because they're confusing marriage with something else. In the case of the church, they confuse ceremony with the vow. The church does not make the vow, the couples do, all the church is doing is celebrating and making the vow public. The government is in a similiar position. It can't make the vow, nor can it really enforce it (though it does try). The government is simply keeping track of marriages for legal purposes and taxes.

So I really think there are a lot of people married right now who do not really realize it. They are fooling themselves into thinking they aren't [married] because they haven't had a ceremony or signed a paper for the government. But they have made vows to each other none the less. They are, before God, just as much married as I am to my husband.

As to people living together, who have not made a vow, they really are the worst of the lot. They aren't together for anything more than the convienence of it. It just happens to be cheaper and more comfortable to live together and have sex than to do it apart.

What annoys me is the people who say that it's the "next step" and they "really love" the person [they're living with]. No, the next step is the VOW (aka, marriage). Anything less are two very stupid people acting no better than animals. They're simply using the other person to satisfy their basic impulses. That is really it.

What I think about "gay marriages" is that the whole idea is just absurd. What they are trying to do is label their relationship something it is not. They can say their relationship is a marriage, have the government sanction it, but that does not MAKE it a marriage. (Just like if you keep telling yourself your cat is a dog will not make it a dog, nor make it act like one.)

Straight people aren't withholding marriage because they can't withhold it, so it's not a "right". Marriage is simply [one of] the conclusion(s) of being straight. (The true "next step" in a girl and boy relationship.) By choosing the path of homosexuality they have given up marriage. That is their own fault, not heterosexuals, or the government. (So they really should stop blaming everyone else for the pickle they got themselves into!)

Men and women are not the same (they are only "the same" in the eyes of the law, both God's and man's law). Marriage depends on that difference, it is a strength. A man and man, or women and women, can't have a marriage in any sense the same way as a man and women can have it. Homosexuals, no matter what they label their relationships, will never truly have a marriage simply because of that.

I'm sure someone will read this and thing HOMOPHOBIC! But that's not really the case. I'm not threatend or afraid of homosexuality. Nor do I go around treating homosexual people badly because I happen to think they're being very sinful. They are lost, just as lost as so many others, and I ache more for them not hate them. If anyone despises me for that, so be it.

Anyway.

Neo, Please take what I'm about to say as a compliment, because it's meant as one. The truth is when we focus on politics too much we stop thinking about our beliefs, we just repeat and defend what "our side" believes in the great debate. When you stop looking at politics and start looking at your beliefs, the ones that are REALLY YOURS, you'll find out all sorts of things you didn't know before. Some conclusions will be very different from "your side" and others will fall right in line. This is a good thing. Keep at it! You'll be amazed at what you'll discover.

Oh, I do believe I disagree with you. At least I think so. Which is quite amusing because only a year ago I would have been right with you!

The hard life of a military wife

2006-09-30T19:06:00.000-07:00

I found an awesome book out there for new and "old" military wives. It called "The Homefront Club" and it's written by Jacey Eckhart. If you know someone marrying a military man GET THEM THIS BOOK.

It's hard to express just how difficult being a military wife can be. When we marry a military man, we marry the military too. We have to put up with so much CRAP with almost no guidance. The military TRIES to help, but it's run by active duty men who don't know the first thing about being a military wife. And other military wives tend to isolate themselves from anyone who can help. (This I can only explain by saying you move around so much that you don't want to make friends, or you don't know where to start looking for them.)

I was a military brat, Air Force specifically. I was "lucky" because we didn't move around much. And when we WERE moving it was when I was too young to really care. I didn't have to suffer like most did. But I still got a hefty dose of military life. And even though I resented and hated it quite a lot, I'm glad for it now. It helps me struggle through the hard times.

The Homefront Club was a comfort to me. I cried a lot through it. No one ever talks about the lonliness and isolation you feel when your husband is deployed. How certain times during the week or day make you weep uncontrollably. How you recheck all the locks a million times just to make sure you're safe. How you leave lights on, how you try not to think about the empty spot next to you when you sleep. But this lady talks about those things. She's in her 30s and she still does them! What a relief to know I wasn't alone.

Of course I KNEW I wasn't alone. Obviously other women suffer, a lot of them more than I do. But you don't hear about them. They don't talk about it. (I think a lot of them want to forget about it when it's over.) So you struggle through it, and hope next time it won't hurt too much. But it always hurts.

That's something they never talk about. I wish I'd known to ask my Mom. But I didn't know. And even when I talked to her about it, I don't recall her saying much that helped. (Could she have said anything to help? I don't know. Maybe I wouldn't have been ready.)

You know what really bugs me about this upcoming deployment? Of all the rediculous things to be bothered by, I'm bothered by the fact that the Radio station in S. Dakota won't be here. During Mike's last deployment that radio station was like a bandaid for my pain of lonliness. I had it on almost all the time. It was like a friend and kept me sane during the evenings (I feel the worst during the evening). It was also Christian, and I could almost feel the love of the community through them, since they were always talking about supporting military families. I loved it.

What do we have here? One AFN radio station. They play everything from oldies, country, to rap. No Christian music. And while I like Japanese music, it's not gonna cut it as a safety net for when Mike is gone. And besides, the commercials and radio DJs (for AFN) are kinda annoying.

Anyway.. if you're a military wife of 1, 5, or more than 10 years, please by The Homefront Club. If you know someone who's a military wife buy them this as a birthday gift or something. They'll appreciate it, I promise. :)

The Pope's Insult

2006-09-19T11:58:00.000-07:00

I just found out about the Pope making some statement that really ticked off some Muslims. (I know I'm behind! It's hard to keep up with the news here.) Something about the religion starting in violence I think? I'm hazy on the details. Supposedly the Pope was taken out of context. I dunno, I'm not Catholic so I don't care if he did or not.

Anyway, I found the Islamic response to his comment(s) pretty funny. What they should have done was peacefully objected to his comment(s) through letters and petitions and stuff. What they did end up doing--and what's being showed all over the world--is the exact OPPOSITE of that. Burning images and mock-dolls of the pope, saying means things about him. They're pretty much shooting themselves in the foot.

Now of course not all are doing that. The ones trying to live in peace with some understanding of how the world works are calling for peaceful protests. For sanity. But the very fact that they HAVE to ask their brethren to be peaceful, to act rationally, proves that they aren't going to do either. And they haven't.

I think I should clarify my position on Muslims and the Islamic religion. I think it's wrong. I think it's founder was a violent man, and therefore, the religion can easily lead to violence. However, I don't believe that's the CAUSE for violence in the Middle-east. No, the religion is not the cause of it.

I think the CAUSE of the violence is similiar to what happened with Christianity during the middle ages. Leaders (religious or government) were evil and greedy. They kept their people ignorant and poor. Then they used the religion at hand to manipulate their people into subserviance and violence. Ignorance and cruelty are the greatest breeding grounds for violence.

Even the leaders of [Muslim] terrorists groups are doing the same thing. The greatest (and worst) terrorist leaders in those groups didn't believe in the Muslim God, much less any god at all. They just wanted power. The easiest way for them to build up an army without tons of money and benefits was to talk people into believing they were serving God.

Hopefully those of a more open mind can appreciate the distinction I'm making here. Disagreeing with a religion does not make me intolerant, nor does it mean I hate all the believers in that particular religion. I simply disagree with it.

Recently, I read a story about a group of young people who were dressed up in the traditional Islamic head gear for women. (They were women, but not all Muslims.) They entered a resturant where the owner scowled at them. Then he changed their waitress when the first was being too nice. He also refused to let them eat anything but the sandwiches.

Of course it was his business. He has the right to refuse service (even give subpar service) to any one he wants. I would not take that "freedom" away from him.

However, that behavior is appauling. The last time I looked at the calender it was 2006, not 1906. There's no excuse for such ignorance and stupidity. People like that need a swift kick in the ass.

*leaves and comes back*

Well, I had to leave for a while. I lost my train of thought. Very unfortunate. But that was pretty much all I had to say anyway. Toodles!

Immigration...

2006-05-24T23:27:00.000-07:00

Ok so... a few days ago I was talking with a friend of mine. We were discussing immigration. We both believe that there's nothing at all wrong with immigrants. In fact, we rather like the idea of people coming to our nation to make a new life and home.

The two primary reasons I can tell that people hate immigrants is (1) cheap labor and (2) being different. I feel that the first can be solved or at least minumized while the second one people just need to get over. (Seriously, why do people conviently forget their great grandpappy came from over the sea and was a cheap labor too?)

How about this:

First you send a letter off to the USA department of... I dunno, Immigration, requesting to become a citzen. (This should be avaliable online.) First they'll send you a pamplet. The pamplet will talk about the USA, explain the hardships and rewards. Give an over view of US history and customes, plus talk about the rights of American citizens.

I also believe some good ol' fashioned capitalism would work very well here. I think companies looking to hire workers should be able to offer their own pamplets. All companies would be screened by the Department of Immigration to ensure fair wages and good working conditions, of course. But the idea is to give people looking to live in the US some idea of what type of job they could get.

They would then sign a form stating that they have read the information and request forms for becoming a citizen.

So a second package will be sent. A photo and a thumb print should be required. All information about birth place, country, whatever should be filled out and sent. People coming from countries that harbor known terrorists (like Egypt) should have extensive background checks.

Once the person(s) is cleared a passport of citzenship should be sent. It will have the photo and finger print and will be completely in English. There will also be a pamplet that tells the immigrant what to do *once they are in the USA/airport*. There should also be English instructions for the person to show employees at the airport so they know what to do with them [immigrants].

All airports that accept international flights should have "immigration stations". Here each immigrant will be "checked in". They will be told (or shown) to once again make a copy of their fingerprint and take a photo. The passport will be marked with the date they entered the country.

These "immigration stations" should have (1) companies that are looking for workers (pre-goverment-approved of course), (2) housing/apartment businesses looking to sell/rent and (3) charitable foundations looking to help out. All in their own sections (picture and color labelled to prevent confusion). This will give immgrants coming from poorer countries a better chance to find a job, housing, or help.

After they check in and get their bearings, they should be left alone for, say, 2 years. (I'm just making up a time here.) After 2 years they should be required to take a class on US history and their rights. This could be done in a class locally or through the mail. Upon successfully completing this class they should be considered full US of A citizens. They would be sent a new passport or whatever that basically says "USA Certified". :P

I know you're thinking "Wow, that's a lot of money." But I believe a legal immigrant more than makes up for the money initially spent on them with the taxes that they and their great grand children will end up paying. Not to mention the businesses they'll start. :D

If the goverment (local and federal) were REALLY smart they'd spread immigrants out. Oh, not split up families, but place immigrants all over the US. So instead of the boarder of Mexico being filled with JUST Mexicans, you can have... Oh, I dunno, a MexicanTown (like ChinaTown) in Missori. Just to spice things up and keep the immigration population a reasonable level for local towns and cities to handle.

Now, as for the Mexican/American boarder... well, we know for a fact Mexican immgrants will come whether we have guns or not. So instead of just wasting money keeping them out and scarying the crap out of everyone, why not just streamline and expedite the immigration thing and let them IN LEGALLY? It's a whole lot better, in my opinion, to let people in and keep track of them, than it is to try and force them out and they get in anyway. (Sounds like a security risk.. hm..)

But also, I think by letting them in legally it would be good to make sure businesses are--once again--NOT taking advantage of them. Part of the reason they're "cheap labor" is because they're illegal. So if we make them legal, and make sure they know they're rights and how they should be paid, and make sure any company or business caught paying "under the table" will be IMMEDIATELY CLOSED DOWN.. it might help. Just a little. Don'tcha think?

I would like to close with saying that Americans shouldn't be angry at immigrants for taking "their jobs". A lot of the jobs immigrants are taking are jobs Americans DON'T want. Like being maid, a janitor, etc.. anything that requires backbreaking work and getting messy. Americans should get their head out of their asses and realize that these people are only filling the "job gap" white-collar America is making.

And also, we all came from immigrants. At some point in our family, someone came over in a boat or plane and did all the dirty work the upper class didn't want. At some point our family was poor and doing "cheap labor". How can we begrudge modern immigrants that which our family once had to do? Instead of villifying them and treating them like crap, we should treat them like WE would want to be treated.

Yeah I know. The idea of treating people well, no matter what their station in life is mind boggling. Perhaps impossible. But I still say we should, dang it. :P

The End.

A little Update

2006-03-06T12:11:00.000-08:00

Nifty! Deepest Sender can now be used with Blogger. Maybe now I'll post more! Tehe.

Not much of note has been happening. I've been completely out of the loop when it comes to political hub-bub. (Though there was something about a hunting accident..?)

I'm entirely disgusted with all the major news sources in the US. I watched some Chinese news (we have an English Chinese channel) and was pleasently surprised! Do you know the Chinese actually REPORT news? They don't do editorials. They just report what's going on. No bias (except concerning their own government).

It was so refreshing. No attempts to keep my interest, or entertain me. Just solid reporting.

Lord, the US, Americas, and Europe really needs that type of reporting!

In other news, I finally earned enough to buy a laptop. I got it from Discount Laptops. My laptop looks like this,and it's called the Asus Z70Va (or Chembook 2370Va at this site).

I know you're wondering why I'd go and buy a laptop from a company with a name like that (sounds shifty). But actually, it got incredibly high ratings at places like ResellerRatings. Compare that to Dell.

I could have bought something from my BX. But honestly, they have a crappy selection. It's almost entirely Sony and HP. Sony is expensive and HP can be questionable when it comes to quality.

The specs for my laptop are as follows:

15.4" WSXGA (1680x1050) Wide -Screen Active Matrix Display
1.86 GHz Intel Pentium-M (750) Processor (Sonoma / 2 MB L2 Cache / 533 FSB)
Upgrade to Artic Silver 5 (AS5) Thermal Cooling CPU Compund Paste
128 MB Dedicated DDR2 - Ati Radeon X700 PCI-Express Video Card
1 GB DDR2 (533 MHz) CORSAIR Memory (1 GB x 1)
100 GB Hard Drive (5400 RPM)
8X DVD / 24x10x24 CD-RW Combo Drive w/ Software
Internal 56k Modem
Internal IntelPRO 2915ABG Wireless Ethernet/Lan (802.11 a+b+g)
Internal Bluetooth Wireless Card
8-cell Smart Lithium Ion Battery
Built-in 4-in-1 card reader (SD/MMC/MS/MS PRO)
S-video out, 4 USB (2.0), 1 PCMCIA, IR, IEEE Firewire
10/100/1000 BaseT Ethernet LAN Port
AC Adapter w/ power cord
Free Deluxe Carry Case
MS Windows XP-Home Installed, CD Included
2 yr ChemUSA warranty w/ 1-way paid shipping
1-year limited on-site extended warranty
1-Year Accidental Damage Protection (ADP) for entire system

I actually got to customize most of the laptop. It was really nice! Minus the extended warrenties and shipping (which cost about 150$ & 74$), the laptop came out about 1,620$. I think that's a very comfortable price for a mid-range gaming laptop, don't you?

I'm really nervous, since this is almost 4 months of paychecks. I'm really hoping the machine itself is a good quality (occasionally duds get sent) and that it makes it over here alright (because it's a looong trip over).

Speaking of paychecks, I'll probably quit my job by the end of the month. I'm honestly tired of it. Most of the people I work with are good, and the job is alright, but it's honestly not worth it. Customer Service is not one of those places I wanna stay for long.

Plus I'd like to do other things. I generally don't like taking risks, and getting a job was a risk. But I took it and did moderately well. That's a wonderful feeling. So I'm thinking about the other risks over the last two years I've refused to take... What would happen if I did them? Maybe I'd find out I'm good at, or at least enjoy, them.

But my job doesn't really give me much of a chance to take any other risks. I feel that to continue to grow, I need to move on. And that means quitting.

I'll miss the money though. And a few smiling faces at work. But that's about it. I guess that's better than some. ^^;

And that's all for now. ;)

Why Public Transportation isn't more Popular

2006-01-18T22:12:00.000-08:00

I've always said, and will continue to say, that trains and buses are just not a valid form of transportation for many people. Things like this just enforce my opinion about public transportation.

If enviromentalists want people to drive fewer cars, they better give a good alternative. Saying "take the bus/train/bicyle" is not a good alternative. Not when you live miles away from a drop off point, or the system is never on time (too late or too early).

Cars are wonderful because they get you were you need to go on *your terms*. Sure the traffic may be horrible, but at least you can control how comfortable you are while you're waiting.

I feel like I should go more in depth with this. Buuuuuut I don't feel like it. Sorry folks! XD

Job Job Job..

2005-12-31T03:48:00.000-08:00

I haven't been posting much since I got a job. I'm now a Customer Service Associate at my local Aafes BX. *waves a flag* Yaaaay....

Anyways, I'm exausted today because I went from closing to opening. My body just does NOT like that type of shift in sleep schedule. :-/

Hopefully next week won't be so bad. This week.. I'm working 6 days straight. It's just not healthy for me, especially with so many people coming down with a cold in the store. >_>

Just wanted you guys to know I haven't forgotten you! Just been too tired to post anything remotely interesting here.

Hohohoho!

2005-12-24T17:41:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas everyone!

Waltz through WW2 lane

2005-12-08T20:33:00.000-08:00

I recently plugged in the cable to our TV. I'd been planning to plug it in the computer room but the boxes kinda prevented that from happening, so it's back in the living room again.

Anyway, they recently had a documentary on the Nazis and the concentration camps. *shivers* Seeing all those dead bodies, those starved, beaten dead bodies...

My grandpa (Dad's side) actually was clean up crew for WW2. He had this big chest where he kept all his WW2 stuff in. It went to my Aunt, but I remember looking through there. There were pictures of bodies, two people tall, piled up in heaps.

*shivers*

What horrible horrible things were done. The worst being that the "free" nations directly affected what happened to the jews. Apparently when the Nazis first started their campain against the jews, they were basically just trying to force them OUT of country. This wasn't too bad at first, but when the Nazis took over some neighboring nations, they inheritated millions of jews with them. That meant millions of jews had to move!

Places like America and Britian apparently didn't like Jews much more than the Germans. Only 30% of people in the USA believed Jews deserved equal rights like any citizen. In fact, the opinion of Jews was so low that America tried to stop Jewish immigration! Our government knew about the concentration camps before the war ended but told their informents to stop giving them info, "because it was causing problems". Eventually the concentration camps finally got into the newspapers world wide, but no one really cared. There was almost no public out cry!

Anyway, the camps were partially made to deal with all the jews the Nazis couldn't "export"! They had to do something with them, but obviously they couldn't be treated like human beings since the Nazi doctrine taught they weren't human at all.

My inside just squrims and dies on the inside every time I see anything about WW2. No nation was a "good guy" during that war, they all contributed to millions of murders, whether they did or didn't do anything.

It's absolutely his fault, even if it's not

2005-11-07T16:41:00.000-08:00

A few days ago, a friend of mine who lives in Scotland, was commenting about the disaster in Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina. She's a very nice God fearing women, but seems to believe what BBC and CNN tell her. Which is why she blamed Pres. Bush for the disaster that is now New Orleans. I almost fell over I was so surprised to hear it come from her.

Because of this, I think a little education is in order. Apparently there are quite a few people who know nothing about hurricanes or the procedures the people in their path take.

The last major hurricane to hit between Louisiana and Alabama was Hurricane Camille in 1969. That's about 30 years ago. Generally that area just does not get severe weather because FL, and the countries beneath it, take the worst of the storms. Or the hurricane veers off and hits Texas. (Aren't they lucky?) Even should a cat. 5 start to go straight to that area of the coast, it peeters out before it hits the coast and ends up being a 3 or 2. (My family actually camped out at our house during a cat. 2-low 3 hurricane named George. We were in the eye wall and everything!)

Evacuation has *always* been the responsibility of the local and state government. A good evacuation gets everyone out on time and with the least amount of fuss as possible.

In Mississippi and Alabama very little death happened, just a lot of land damage. The reason for this is because both of those states are prepared and so are their citizens (who generally aren't nutty enough to stay in the area when a cat 5 is coming toward them). Even the poor and the homeless (which both states have plenty of) know to get out of the area and *find a way to do so*.

Louisiana mostly had problems in New Orleans. I am not the least bit surprised either. There are so many reasons why I'm NOT surprised that it's hard to find a place to start.

1: They live in a bowl, way below sea level, next to a gulf that creates more than one hurricane every year. I also believe New Orleans is near a lake or river or something that floods. Hm... terribly smart place to build a city, isn't it?

2: They haven't gotten seriously hit by a hurricane in years (Not even Camille touched them). The citizens are not prepared, mentally, for the *true* devistation a strong hurricane can cause. People stayed when they should have left, because they thought they could weather it.

Not only that, apparently most of the city's population was not aware that they lived in a *death trap*. How could they not know that? It's not like they're all new to the city, many have generations of family who lived there.

3: The Mayor just didn't prepare for it. I think he just didn't think it *would* happen, and therefore didn't prepare or make enough effort to inform his citizens. He can point fingers all he wants, but the responsibility of evacuation and up keep of his city is HIS JOB.

4: Government corruption and violence. When you have a rushed evacuation, guess what happens? BAD THINGS. Mix that with all the violence (gangs, etc) that they have in New Orleans and you get more than BAD THINGS you get AWFUL THINGS.

Also, about relief effort after the disaster(s). With Katrina, people need to keep in mind that after a cat 5 hits, there's not a whole lot any one can do at first. Catagory 5 hurricanes literally clean away the land. There is nothing left, no electricity, no communication, no running water, no roads, no people, nothing. Rescue workers can't just magically plop themselves (and there massive amount of supplies) in the middle of a diseaster area and make it all better.

For federal government to help, a request must be made *by the state*. That's the law, and that's how it's been long before a Bush was in office. I think the reason for this is so that the feds can't force their way into a situation when they're not wanted.

From what I could tell, the Mayor of New Orleans didn't even know how bad the damage was until a *day after* the fact. And then, even though he knew it was bad, he didn't know *how bad* until rescue workers started arriving. But the rescue workers were having problems because apparently everyone in New Orleans lost their minds and were breaking laws, shooting rescue workers, and starting gang wars.

Now really, is that the Presidents fault? Is that even the Federal Governments fault?! No. That is the STATE'S and HUMAN NATURE'S FAULT. Lets keep that straight from now on, alright?

Lastly, I'm so dang proud of my home state, Mississippi. God bless you, people of the coast. You had more devistation than New Orleans, yet lost fewer lives and kept your heads about you.

And if you're wondering, before I got married, I lived less than a 5 minute drive from the coast. My parents still live in that exact same spot, and there house is still standing. I gotta admit that it was disconcerting seeing places I'd walked, ate at, and visited many times nothing more than slabs of concrete. But they're alive, and so are all the people they know. That's what matters

Military can't Sue, boohoo?

2005-10-17T22:12:00.000-07:00

One of the things that really burns my buttons about the military is the fact that a person can not sue for medical malpractice. This means military doctors can get away with outrageous stuff and never have to worry about paying for it later.

The reason for this is called the "Feres Doctrine". I'm fairly sure this law was inacted to prevent the federal government from getting sued for medical malpractice and other types of neglect. For the past 50 years people have been trying to overturn this law to no avail. (Even though a measure to overturn passed the House of Representitives 4 times, only to fail each time in the Senate.)

The problem with this is that it makes it very very hard to keep military doctors and nurses responsible. And from what people can tell (and it's hard to find out because the military refuses to give any real numbers) military doctors are more likely to make mistakes and get away with it than in the civilian world.

The worst part is a lot of times the deaths from malpractice mean that mothers with 2 or more kids are left to live off their husbands retirement money (not enough). They're given no extra financial help and the doctor(s) in question don't get punished.

I think the military needs to take some initive here. Why not set up their own system to deal with malpractice? For instance, a mother with children loses her husband due to malpractice or neglect. This is what I think she should be entitled to:

1: If her husband had 3 years left in the military, she should get 3yrs of full paychecks (that her husband would have provided) and benifits. Or, if he was just about to get out, 1 full year of full paychecks. These paychecks should continue even if she gets remarried within that time frame.
A: It takes time for the "lawsuite" to go through. So I suggest that if the claim is made, this should be immediately activated until proven false.

2: She should be entitled to full retirement paychecks and benifits until she dies. (Currently this is all the widow gets, and even that is taken from her if she gets remarried.)

3: The wife should get a certain amount of money (lets say 20,000$) up front.

4: Each child should get a collage scholorship of at least 2,000$ or more.

5: The doctors or nurses responsible should have a rank reduction, a cut in pay for a period of time, and write a formal apology to the family. (I don't see why they don't do this at least, since even senior airmen caught drinking and driving get a rank reduction. >_>)

6: During the time of their punishment, the doctor or nurse in question should have this malpractice put on public record. Any patient they see will have to sign a piece of paper acknowledging that they know this person has had a malpractice charge brought against them.

The jury that sees malpractice charges should not be completely military. Half the board should consist of civilian doctors. That way the board will not be biased towards the federal government saving money.

I think most of what I've listed is entirely fair. And if the military took this initive they wouldn't have to worry about Feres getting overturned someday and them getting their asses sued off. (Because it'll happen... it'll happen...) They would have complete control over how much money they lose. Plus it would be good for their public image. :P

And that's all I have to say in the matter. I dearly hope I never have to experiance severe malpractice at military doctors hands. This is, btw, part of the reason I'm deathly afraid of going "under the knife" by a military doctor. >_>

Ah, good to be back!

2005-10-16T02:21:00.000-07:00

How frustrating... someone keeps spamming my blog. *shakes fist at them* Now I have to change how comments are made. Gr!

I'm in Japan, moved in, have a new cat (though I still miss my old one), and have my computer up and running. Things are well, but we've missed church again. (It's kinda sad that we've gotten so use to think of Sunday as a day off, instead of a day to go to church..)

If you're a gamer, you've probably heard of a magazine called "Play". Play reviews games. I'm not sure, but I think it must be very popular, especially considering how nice it looks.

The problem with Play is that the people who run it are political idiots. Generally, gamers don't talk about politics unless they're being attacked. I suppose it's for the better, since gamers apparently never studied history, much less payed close enough attention to their representitives. But recently certain government officials and otherwise ignorant parents have been attacking games.

Play recently printed a readers letter concerning these attacks on games/ers. The reader wrote how Puritans fled Europe because they were "whacked-out-nut-cases" and the Europeans couldn't stand their attitude (not because they were being unjustly persecuted). Then this person goes on to say that Hillary Clinton takes after this branch of Christianity and is, in fact, a devotely religious person.

At first I thought it was hystarical, because never ever in my wildest dreams would I think of Hillary as religious. She USES the misinformed who follow religion to garner support, but religious? No.

Then I realized the man was serious. And the magazine people agreed with him! My eyes almost popped out in shock. My husband had apparently read the rest and said they were actually worse so I didn't continue (no point in subjecting my brain to that type of stupidity).

This all leads me to a point: religious folks and conservatives need to stop being hypocrites. There is no point in making such a huge fuss about GTA when there are much much worse things you're allowing your children to watch on TV, theater, and the internet.

All games are clearly labelled with an easy-to-understand rating system. GTA, the game which started this problem, was clearly labelled M+ (for mature). The ratings box even said that the game had sexual situations. No parent has the right to be "outraged" about the game when it's had the contents clearly explained on the box. If the parent was too dumb to take the time to look, the they deserve whatever their children dish out at them.

I also heartily disapprove of this notion that ALL GAMES are for children. The first generation of gamers are no longer children, but are definately still gamers. These gamers are often in their 30s and 40s (with wives, children, and full time jobs). These aren't young adults, these are mature adults, and they want mature games.

Also, the first generation of "hard core" gamers were primarily male. As anyone with an ounce of sense will tell you, men love sex and violence. It's what sells. We see this practiced throughout our entire society and yet not a single peep is heard (except from the "hard core" religious folk). Yet putting these same principles into games is somehow more sinful than other mediums?

No, that absolutely won't work. You can't tell gamers not to have sex, violence, and lewd humor in their games when every other entertainment medium is allowed to do have them. People who think this way get mocked and scorned by gamers.

I dearly hope that Christian groups are staying out of this "fight". By joining in, especially with people like Hillary Clinton as their ally, they are making fools of themselves. I, for one, would not endorse a Christian group that uses so little common sense that God gave them with.

There are deeper issues to deal with. Like why are parents allowing, and often buying them knowingly for, children who should not be playing them? At least gamer parents have enough sense to censor what their children play!

Land of the Rising Sun

2005-09-14T23:40:00.000-07:00

Oops, almost forgot you people in the Blogger world!

I'm in Japan. It's very nice and I like the weather... mostly. (Seems they've had a rather rocky summer this year.) The food is great too. If you ever visit, try their sushi and beef dishes. Yum yum.

They seem to be having an election over here. I have no idea if it's regional or national or what. It's rather hard to find out anything if you have no idea what they're saying. (Though I hope to change that soon!)

One of the channels we get here is BBC. I can't stand it. They appaul me. Some people would call them biased, but I call them unbiased (mostly). They attempt to make everyone view point equally valid, when it's quite clear they aren't. I can't tell you how many times a truth was ignored or out right denied because of that mentality.

Seriously, what's wrong with the UK? You think they'd object to that type of crap journalism. Oh well.

Since this is my third journal, I might not get to it for a while. Especially without my computer.

Keep safe everyone!

GTA and Porn

2005-07-22T20:56:00.000-07:00

So this whole GrandTheftAuto "controversy" is giving me a lot of giggles. This is what I know about it thus far:

Rockstar's programmers were originally thinking of putting a sex scene in the game. Before they even finished the scene it was decided they weren't going to use it. For whatever reason (probably laziness) the programmers left the scene in, but made it so you couldn't access it in the game.

It was not in the game play. You could not access it. It wasn't even a finished scene, the guy had his pants on, the girls breasts looked like triangles of death. Rated R movies have more sex than this unfinished sex scene had.

Well, someone illegally hacked into the game and found this unfinished scene. Delighted, they posted a hack online for people to access. People, probably young men with WAY too much time on their hands, got the hack and installed it (which is also illegal) into the game.

Someone in the media got wind of the hack. This lead to certain parental groups getting up in arms. "GTA is a porn show disguised as a game!" Big retailers such as Walmart, Target, CircuitCity, and Bestbuy got scared and stopped selling the game.

Now, my little readers, think this through carefully.

This was a rated M game. It was not meant for children. You could not access the scene without a hack. That means that the average young/old adult would never have known it was there.

If you picked up GTA and looked, you'd notice a big Mature 17+ M rating. Then, if you'd flipped it over you would read the same thing, plus (in big readable letters) a description of the game. (This is the exact rating description on the box: Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs. Bold Added)

GTA is a pretty immoral game, whether it had sex in it or not. Yet the big retailers only NOW decided that selling the game was "bad". How is a sex scene you couldn't access so much worse than stealing cars, killing people and cops, and generally glorifying bad behavior?

Now it's "adults only". Which means that basically the same people who were buying it before will STILL be buying it because it's suppose to be a game for adults. And all those under aged children who weren't suppose to be playing the game originally but did anyway, will STILL be playing the game.

This hasn't in any way affected the game or it's players. The retailers aren't really doing much more than making themselves look "good" to those ignorant folk who don't pay attention to what games are out. (God of War, for instance, is much worse on the sex than GTA is.)

Such fools the common non-gamers are! Don't you know that there are much worse games than GTA being sold? And don't you know that Walmart and all the others are still selling them?

Be anxious for nothing, but in everything...

2005-07-06T18:02:00.000-07:00

Please pray that I'll be able to take my cat with me to Japan. <_>

Going going.. not gone?

2005-06-23T13:48:00.000-07:00

Well, I've been gone for a while. I went on a month vacation with my husband to visit as many family members as we could. (If you didn't know, we're suppose to be moving to Japan in August.)

Mike hasn't gotten his port-call date yet (that's what tells us when we're flying over). Because of that, we can't pack up anything or put in for base housing. It takes at least 2 months to get our stuff over there and it's almost a month before we're suppose to leave!

Also, I want to bring our cat, but it's hard since we don't know when we're leaving and we need to get a health certificate (that can't be older than 10 days). On top of that I might need to get "USDA" approval on the rabies certificates that she has. I don't even KNOW how to do that. >_<

It's just frustrating since I don't know what to do or how to do and the Air force isn't helping at all. I think it's just this base though. Apparently they really suck at helping people here.

So.. life is kinda blah at the moment. Pray for me, for Mike, for my cat. That in the end it won't be too horrible and tramatizing. ^^;

Thanks ya'll!

To be geeky or not to be...

2005-04-26T13:51:00.000-07:00

I am very much looking forward to Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie and Star Wars Ep 3. I feel that Episode 3 may finally have redeeming values that 1 and 2 utterly lacked. Also, HGG should be fun because I'm not really sure what to expect. I heard that Douglas Adams specifically changed things in the screen play (before he died) from the book.

I also feel the need to point out to someone that the Star Wars cartoons were actually REALLY GOOD. In fact, they were better than episodes 1 and 2... Heck, I would say they were as good as the original movies.

Don't diss 'em just 'cause they're animated! I hate when people do that. It shows they're utterly pig-headed and stuck in a Disney mentality. Animated does not equal children's stories! GET THAT THOUGHT OUT OF YOUR HEAD! >_<

Anyway, I might actually get to see Star Wars 3 with my family! That'd be pretty awesome. :D

I know this is geeky and all, I'm sorry. I have 4 other blogs/journals I have to keep track of and this one falls behind sometimes. :(

2005-04-16T22:10:00.000-07:00

I made a little icon for my Blogger profile. (Blarg, why are they so limiting on the size though? GR!) I wanted to use this:

But blogger wouldn't let me. La sigh! So I posted it here for you to see anyway! Cool hu?

You can make a doll like that by going here and signing up (it's free). It takes a while to find the right dolls, since they have different types.

Ok, I know this isn't about politics or anything like that. But come on! After making something so pretty, how could I NOT post it? :D

True Perfection

2005-04-16T20:51:00.000-07:00

I was thinking today that most people misunderstand perfection. In the USA, at least, we tend to think of perfection as never having a bad hair day, never hurting your hand or stubbing your toe, never getting angry, never crying, and never having to work or have bad things happen to us.

But I don't think that's perfection. I think perfection is more an attitude and less an enviromental thing. That is, perfection would be having a bad hair day and just not caring. It would be hurting ourself and not letting it put us in a bad mood for the rest of the day. We would still get angry, but justly, and we wouldn't hurt in our anger. We would cry, sometimes because we hit our heads, but never selfishly or because someone was cruel to us. We would work, but on things we enjoy. And bad things would happen, but they wouldn't depress us to the point where we want to give up.

And perfection would be in the ground beneath our feet too. The thorn and thistles, the bugs who bite, and the critteres who want us for lunch wouldn't be around. There would be no nasty wheather (like hurricanes, tornados, droughts, and earthquakes) to destroy the land and food we eat. We could sleep outside and never have to worry about being hurt! We could eat and drink, without fear of have being poisoned.

We wouldn't know everything in the world, so we would still make mistakes. But they wouldn't destroy us, and people would forgive us if our mistakes hurt them. We could still grow, still laugh, and still enjoy life.

That is perfection to me. I think the Bible backs up my perception of perfection.

Sometiems I wonder if heaven isn't like that. A place where we could still do things, still learn and grow, but perfectly, without fear or waste..

Hmmmmmmmmmm.........

Moving to...

2005-03-31T15:14:00.000-08:00

Sometime this year I'm moving to Japan, Misawa. I'll be there 4 years. I could have stayed in the states, but Mike would still have had to go for 3 years. Personally I'd rather spend 4 years with Mike then 3 years without!

Anyway, moving to Japan is good. I've always wanted to go there. I hear the food is awesome! Plus, I'd love to really experiance a different culture and learn a different language.

It's interesting to me that some people would find moving to Japan (or another country) a horrendous thing. To me it's an adventure! Since I don't have any friends of my own here, I'm really losing nothing by moving.

One of my [online] friends asked me if I'd be homesick. You know, I'd never thought about it? When I moved away from my family I wasn't really homesick. I'll mostly miss the area here, and maybe some of conviences. But honestly, I have no one to really miss.

I think I must live a very sad life to be able to say that. :-/

When I move to Japan, I want to be a "good American". We're so often known for being arrogent and stupid. I want to be the type of person who gives a good first impression.

Rant rant rant!

2005-03-27T14:13:00.000-08:00

Ah, it bugs me when people lump all non-denominational churches together! I went to one for 12 years, and they were very conservative. In fact, there were three other sister churches who were very similiar. No fish-flopping on the floor. No repeatitive "new" songs. No big band musicals. No shallow sermons.

The thing is you should never EVER generalize non-denominational churches. Why? Because they are each different. In my home town you had charasmatic non-denominational churches next to very traditional conservative ones. They were TOTALLY different!

Agh, I'm so annoyed! If you have been part of a denomination all your life, do yourself a favor: don't make an ASS out of yourself by ASSUMING you know what all non-denominational churches are like. You don't. And when you act like you to, it makes you look stupid.

Let's repeat: Non-denominational churches are not like denominational churches. They have no "code" to adhere to. Therefore, one can be uber conservative, while the next one can be uber liberal.

Have I repeated this enough that you understand? Please, for the love of unity, don't go around making non-denominational churches out to be evil and anti-scriptual! They aren't.

GRA! ARG! FRRUUURG! *makes many more frustrated noises*

Now I'm done. ~_~;

TO END ALL WARS

2005-03-07T18:11:00.000-08:00

I watched "To End All Wars" yesterday. It's a WW2 movie about the Japanese POW camps. It was incredibly moving and (I think) very well done. Every Christian (who is teen age and older) should watch this film! It's gritty, dirty, has bad words (one of which my Scottish friend told me NEVER to repeat again in public), has seriously injured people, and has the strongest message of forgiveness that I have ever seen in a film. (For all you anime lovers, this film gives an interesting insight to how Japanese people [use to] think.)

Perhaps one of the more interesting things to watch was the "Making of" on this film. They used well-known Japanese actors to play the wardens of the POW camps. It was interesting listening to these Japanese actors explain why they decided to play in a film that portrayed thier country in a less than positive light. One of them said that they had hoped this film would educated the generations of Japanese people who came after the war. Apparently these POW camps were swept under the rug by the government and even out right denied that they ever existed. So there are generations of Japanese who don't know what they government was doing during WW2.

Like I said, there were strong themes of forgiveness. This is not the pansy forgiveness you get now from feel-good Christianity, or the weak pointless forgiveness of New Age religions. This is strong solid forgiveness that makes you weep because you can't believe that it happened. But it did happen, because this stuff isn't made up. Someone really went through all that and someone really forgave it all.

I did weep. I wept like a baby. But how could I not weep? The weakness and strength of those men are my own! It touched me so deeply.

And I guess that's why this film really never made a big splash. Who wants to watch a film that makes you think? Who wants to watch a film that makes your heart ache in guilt? Who wants to watch a movie about the most pure form of forgiveness shown to man? Certainly not the people of this nation!

What a world I live in! That I should know people who would not care or understand the message of this film. It would go right over their heads, and they would not even know enough to be ashamed of themselves. What a sad, pointless, and cruel world I live in. God help us all for our spiritual negligance.

So, yes, see this film. It's not for children, but it's good for everyone else. I hope it touches your heart the way it did mine.

I'm more than the color of red or blue! So are you!

2005-03-03T21:10:00.000-08:00

Something that has been irritating me lately is this language of "us" and "them". It's not so much the words that bother me, as the extreme generalization that they create.

How is it that both "sides" can get away with the horrendous personal attacks that they do? How is it fair to say all conservatives are intolerant or homophobes or whatever when it's very unlikely the person saying that has every MET all conservatives? And how can conservatives claim that all liberals are anti-American, murderers, or intolerant or whatever? Have conservatives somehow talked to EVERY SINGLE liberal out there?

No. Neither side has. Yet they keep assuming they know ALL about each other. From where I'm standing, neither side knows--or wants to know--anything about the other AT ALL.

And I'm not talking about accepting their view points. I'm talking about learning what their view points REALLY ARE. Not what the news says they are, not what Hollywood says they are,--not even what colleges say they are--but what the "LITTLE PEOPLE" say they are.

Lets face it, we're all letting the elitests in the News and Hollywood tell us what to think about each other! Why are we doing that? Why can't we simply use our brains instead, think of intelligent debates, without resorting to personal attacks? Or have both sides fallen so far that they've forgotten it's not about proving yourself RIGHT, it's about finding the TRUTH.

And if you really want to find the truth, then you'll stop arguing, and start DEBATING. And maybe by doing so YOU'LL CHANGE FOR THE BETTER!

But God help us, we don't want that. Liberal or conservative, they both want to stay tucked away in their own little worlds where they're comfortable and safe.

Sure, you go ahead. Blind fold yourselves, stuff your ears with cotton, and scream as loud as you want. You're not doing any good. Not for the poor, not for the needy, not for the widows. You're all just obsessed with being right.

Shame on you! Shame on all of you!

If you want to debate ideals, ethics, morals, do so! But do it civilly. Do it like the person you're talking to is a real-live human being made in God's image! Is that so much to ask?

Maybe it is.

I'm a conservative. I'm begging my fellow conservatives not to stoop to this level of personal attacks and pointless arguments! And liberals, I beg you too!

Can't we all just shut up for a moment and appreciate each other for the people we are? There's more to life than politics. There's... you know... life.

Would you like an order of obsession with your fantasy?

2005-02-21T14:27:00.000-08:00

EDIT: Major typos in this entry. I think I fixed them. ^^;

For those of you who don't know, I like anime. Anime is short for Japanese Animation. Most people who read my blog will probably know anime from things like Pokemon, YuGiOh, and other misc kid shows. However, anime is much like live action movie making. Anime deals with all topics, whether adult or young, and is used in all genres.

There's a lot of good anime out there, there's a lot of bad anime. Some of the worst anime involves hentai, yaoi, ecchi, shounen ie, rape, or incest. I will explain some of the terms I just used for the uninformed: Hentail and ecchi are porn. Ecchi, tends to be less explicit and never shows things going "all the way". Yaoi and shounen ie are homosexual romances. Shounen ie, however, mixes in hentai and ecchi. I don't think I need to explain the others.

You're probably astonished that a CARTOON would have such adult themes (horrible themes). And at this point I want to knock something into your head: CARTOONS AREN'T JUST FOR KIDS, ANIMATION IS FOR *EVERYONE*. Anime is mostly animation, not cartoons. (Though they do make cartoons.) Please do not assume anime is automatically a cartoon. More likely it is not, and is most likely adult animation.

Why am I saying all this? Well, in my "private" journal (I use that word loosely) I ranted about the "sex obsession" most anime fans have. Anime fans tend to take good anime (and bad!) and turn it into something involving sex (hentai, shounen ie, rape, etc).

Now, in my private journal, most of my friends are Christians. However, some I'm not sure about or flat out aren't. Some of the people I know who claimed (at some point) to be Christians wander over to my journal. The result is this.

What was interesting to me was someone was claiming that there was, essentially, nothing at all wrong with fantasying and ENJOYING hentai, shounen ei, and rape. The logic being that since people fantasize all the time (like about beating up on someone you don't like) but never do it, then it must be okay. Because, after all, as long as you don't DO IT then no harm is done.

The problem with this is that fantasying is not always good. Actually, most of the times fantasying about bad things makes problems worse, not better. And often a bad fantasy keeps getting repeated over and over again until it becomes an obsession. Obsessions about bad things turn into bad actions. (This is how we get rapists and porn addicts, even murderers.)

I adhore the fact that these things are produced by Japan. But I can't point fingers too much, since many of those same things are created here (and in live action no less!).

My problem is that our society has fallen so far morally that there are thousands (maybe millions?) of kids from 12-19yrs old (and of course older people too) that think it is perfectly okay to read and write fan fiction about these sexual perversions. (And also I'm greatly bothered by the fact that their parents NEVER NOTICE what they're into.)

This is something about the Anime community I do not like. They are incredibly obsessed with sex[ual perversions], and they don't seem to know that it's bad for them! *slaps forehead*

I'm writing all this here because I feel like writing it in my private journal would either be preaching to the choir or falling on deaf ears. To me that's not worth it, since the "deaf ears" will just take my posts as a personal insult. (It's not like they don't already know what I think anyway. :P)

The worst part of all this is that it is my Christian friend, and her friends (who are not Christians) that often inspire me to write these things. I blame it on her family, really. They were too busy being legalistic to instill the "heart" of the law in her. I will be very surprised to see if she ever wanders back from the other extreme her family has often had. :-/

Famous!

2005-02-18T19:34:00.000-08:00

I HAVE EARNED FAME ONCE AGAIN! BWAHAHAHA!!!

No, not really. *cries* Actually I just ended up being the 1,000th commentor at "In Hoc Signo Vinces" blog. The blog is quite nice and I recommend you take a stop over there.

I feel bad though, because I'll comment on the blog and then forget I did. So if anyone asks me a question or has a follow on argument, I never respond. It's never on purpose, but I know it makes me look like a flake. ^^;

It won't make a difference!

2005-02-18T14:04:00.000-08:00

I always find it interesting that when people oppose homosexual marriage, they say it's going to "destoy the family". I think this is a lie that Christians are perpetuating to make their opposition make more sense, and perhaps be more palitable, to the outside world.

In reality, homosexual marriage isn't gonna do a damn thing to traditional marriage. Tradition marriage is and always will be approved of by God. Whether the states endorses it or not, isn't gonna make any difference in heaven.

The most damaging thing homosexual marriage will do is raise the divorce percentage in the USA. Well, maybe not even that, since homosexuals are not that prolific and apparently there's a large number of them that aren't interested in marriage anyway. So if nothing else it'll look really weird and they'll get taxed more. (Yay for the government! :P)

What I see is that Christians are by-and-large ignoring the two biggest killers of marriage: adultry and divorce. Both of these things directly break one of the most important oaths made before God.

The average Christian will say adultry and (sometimes) divorce is wrong. Yet in the supposedly "Christian" community, divorce (I dunno about adultry) is commited just as much as the "pagans". That tells me Christians are only giving lip service to marriage and to God.

If organizations against homosexuality really cared about marriage, they would start by building strong marriages and trying to pass laws that encouraged strong marriages. They would go on huge campeigns and make it a social movement to start and promote healthy marriages.

But they don't.

I can only conclude that Christianity is suffering from a complex. We can't stand people sexually sinning because we do it so much ourselves! In an attempt to not have to deal with our own serious problems we go after other people and other things that really have nothing to do with us.

Let me summerize: When people say homosexuality--especially the marriage part--somehow threatens traditional marriage and families, it just goes to show how WEAK traditional family has become. Shame on all the Christians and people in the world who think of it that way!

Shame on Christians! Christians should be strong enough to simply admit that homosexuality is bad, and that endorsing it socially is a bad idea. And when people ask why, Christians better start coming up with better answers.

Oh yeah, and that whole thing about traditional marriage being around for ages, etc etc, and that's why it should be kept the way it is. Lets remember some things: For thousands of years polygomy was considered "traditional" marriage to. If we're gonna go by history we should start endorsing that too. Homosexuality has also been around for years (just read your Bible folks), and in some societies (like the Japanese) it was actually pretty well accepted. So if we're gonna go by history, homosexuality really isn't that odd or "bad".

I'm honest about why I don't like homosexuality: God calls it a sin. And just like all sins, we need to repent and turn to Christ. But it's no worse or greater a sin then people having sex when they're unwed.

I'm D2M and I approve of this Message!

A Story for Valentine's Day

2005-02-14T10:00:00.000-08:00

This is a review of how my husband and I met and our engagement. It's REALLY long. Sorry about that. Also, sorry for any misspellings and bad grammar. I got REALLY tired at the end of this. ^^;

At the end of year 2000 I got some software (not Macromedia) that allowed me to make websites without any HTML knowledge. I was gleefull, and immediately set out to make myself a website. After some trial and error, I got a website up.

During this time I started a search. I wanted to find other Christians who liked Anime. I'm not sure which search engine I was using (either AOL or MSN), but my first two results were "Zack and Yamcha's Neglected Anime Characters" and "Anime Angels". Of the two, Anime Angels looked more "Christian", so I went with them.

Anime Angels was nice, but it was more community than art, and what I wanted was artists. So I went back to searching. I started searching again. It was very troubling, because I could just not find any other Christian anime artists. But "Zack and Yamcha's Neglected Anime Characters" kept popping back up. Finally I gave up and clicked on the link.

I remember searching the site and not finding anything "Christian". (Mike swears up and down that it was mentioned in his profile page...) Despite this lack of "Christian" material, the site was pretty nice. The layout was done fairly well and the art was pretty good. So I emailed the owner. It was a really short email and went something like "Hey, nice website and art. Keep it up. :) "

He and I had AOL at the time (ah, the days of ignorance!), so when he opened his email, he saw my AOL screen name pop up on his buddy list. He must have been pretty bored at the time, 'cause he IMed me and we started chatting.

Here's where the crazy stuff starts happening. I hadn't chatted with him for very long before I was hit with this incredible feeling. I wasn't sure what it was at the time, being as I'd never felt anything like it, and to be honest it terrified me. For a long long time I struggled with it and I actually started offline (computer) journals at some point to help me deal with this feeling.

Poor poor Mike became the brunt of my unknown feeling. I'm afraid he got quite a "verbal beating" from me because of this. We didn't get along too well at first. (In fact, we actually outright FAUGHT with each other!)

It took me a while, but eventually I figured out what I was feeling. Once I did, I hated myself all the more! I was feeling love. LOVE! Love for a guy whose voice I didn't know and for a guys face I'd never seen in person.

I can't remember exactly how it went, but there was a motto I had (at the time) that went something like "Don't listen to your heart, it lies." I firmly did not believe in "falling in love", and I found "love" itself to be an incredibly questionable idea. So you can see that I did not have a state of mind that lent itself towards "love" and infatuation, much less some stupid online romance.

At the same time, I knew Mike didn't feel the same way for me. I knew he didn't love me beyond a friend. I was honest with myself and realized he probably would never love me. And even if he could or did, what would be the point? We'd never see each other. It was a dead end romance-- love-- in my mind. It was stupid.

So I decided I was going to be a friend, the best friend I could be. I vowed to never let my feeling for him interfere with any good advice I had about women, love, and romance. And I didn't. I didn't let my feelings get the better of me, even when I was dying inside when he talked about women he was thinking about having relationships with. It was hard, but I did it.

We were friends for two years.

I don't know when, but at some point Mike started liking me. I don't think he ever felt for me as strongly as I did for him, but he did feel something. But after two years of friendship, it was rather hard for me to believe he would like me. But after some pushing from mutual friends, I told him I liked him. It was incredibly embaressing, and even know I blush mentioning it. (It just sounds so dorky. ~_~; )

Now around this time, my parents decided it was time to ship my sister and I off to the Grandparents in Florida so they could take a vacation (from us). I passed this news on to Mike, and he suggested that we might be able to meet. Well, I didn't think that would work out at all, since I didn't drive and I doubted he lived anywhere near where I was going.

Well, it turned out that Mike lived an hour away from my Grandparents and had his own car so he could drive and meet us. (What WERE the chances of that?) So we arranged to meet each other. And that's how we ended up meeting face to face for the first time.

When my parents came to pick us up (this is a 12 hour journal, so they stayed a day at my grandparents before leaving), they got to meet Mike. I was personally delighted, because Mike was meeting some very important members of my family all at the once. If they liked him, or at least thought he was safe, I figured he couldn't be too bad.

And they must have seen something trustworthy in him, because they let him drive my sister and I to the city. Honestly, I can't believe they did it either. They'd met him once and they were letting him drive off with their only two children. I can only conclude that my parents trusted me implicetly. o_o

Switch back to my home, Mike and I are chatting (which we do almost every day now) and he mentioned this Anime Convention in Maryland that's happening in August. He planned on going, he already got a list of people who would go with him to share the costs and the driving time. Nice, I think, hope he has a good time.

Well, then he offered that I come along. I honestly did not take the offer seriously at first. I couldn't drive and had no money, how the heck was I suppose to get there? But he was being serious so I did the only thing I could: I asked my parents.

Now, the Convention just happened to fall on my birthday. It also just happened that it was my 18th birthday. (It was also very convenient for me that I hadn't asked for anything major on my birthdya in years.) I didn't actually think I had any hope convincing my parents to take me to Maryland, but I figured if I was going to ask, I better be convincing. So I laid it all out to them and let them think it over.

By some miracle my parents agreed! Let me tell you, I was absolutely flabbergasted that they did too. It would be a 1,000$ plus trip to get over there... it had never occured to me that they'd seriously consider my offer.

So off to the convention we go. There Mike and I had... an interesting time. He was suppose to take me out on a date or something like that (I can't remember exactly how it went), but he never did. (I remember being upset with him over that.)

However, some romantic stuff happened between us anyway. We ended up in the hotel resturant all by ourselves. Mike and I danced to the orchastra music playing. Later when we were sitting outside and talking, one of the waitresses stopped us and giggled and said she'd seen us dancing and wasn't that adorable? xD

Anyway!

Shortly after that, Mike went to college. Good ol' Bob Jones University! We were sorta dating at the time. I wouldn't REALLY call it dating, because I recall that Mike was still open to "other possibilities".This was a difficult time for me, I didn't want to force Mike into a relationship with me if he really wasn't interested or ready. At the same time, I felt he should make up his mind. Did he want me or not? :-/

BJU really took a lot out of Mike. He was working as many hours as he could as a pot-scrubber so he could pay his way through college. While he was working so hard, he kept hearing stories of people getting anonymous money gifts to pay for their college tuition. He was confused, because he knew God had wanted him there, and yet God didn't seem too interested in helping him stay.

So Christmas came around, and I asked my parents if Mike could stay at our place for the holidays. They said yes, so Mike drove down. It was a two week holiday. It turned into a 5 month stay.

Mike couldn't afford to go back to college (he had a 3,000$ debt he had to pay off before he could go back), but he couldn't go home either. He hated home and vowed never to go back. My parents took him in until he could figure out what to do.

It was suggested that Mike try to get into the Air Force. They had a nice fat bonus they were offering at the time to attract people, and it would be more than enough to pay off his debt. He wasn't too happy about the idea, because he'd never been a military type person. But he figured he didn't have many other options, and at least in the military he could get someone ELSE to pay for college. :P

But getting in wasn't easy. It took a while. And during this time, Mike and I got to really know each other. I remember clearly (well, as clearly as remembering ever is for me) cuddling with him and the couch. We were just sitting there and he asked "Hey, will you marry me?" (or something like that) and I said yes.

It was done very simply, very quietly. He didn't have a ring to give me, because he didn't have any money. But to me, that's a very sweet memory.

A few weeks later, he was shipped off to boot camp.

I didn't tell ANYONE what he'd asked. In my mind, a proposal without a ring was like a car without battery. Sure you got the car, but you can't go anywhere with it. And honestly, I didn't think anyone would believe me if I told them he'd proposed but had no proof. So I kept quiet and waited.

When Mike graduated (from boot camp), he plotted with my mother to propose to me. He'd apparently had a pretty spiffy plan worked out. Unfortunately it completely fell apart because his grandma and mother prevented him from buying the ring on time. Not only that, my Mom had let it slip that he was trying to buy me a ring.

And my poor poor Dad. He was the ONLY ONE who didn't realize how serious the relationship with Mike and I had become. He didn't even know that Mike was going to propose to me. I don't think he was too happy about that, but it wasn't all my fault! Everyone else and my aunt KNEW what was going on. :P

In the end, Mike got the ring (though I ended up being there when he bought it) and proposed to me in the food court at the BX. My parents and sister were there, and I got my ring. Naturally I told everyone after that. :P

About 6 months later (most of which was spent states away from each other) we got married. I was 19 when we married, the first of all my friends. Mike was the first guy I ever fell head over heels for, my first date, my first boyfriend, and my first lover.

All in all, I think it turned out pretty well. :)

Too young and not old enough, The American Teen

2005-01-31T07:55:00.000-08:00

I'm going to present a radical idea. It's an old idea, really, but it's been totally lost in "civilized" cultures of today.

Teenagers do not exist. In fact, the word "teenager" is a relatively new term. Before that, guess what 13-19 yr olds were considered? Children or young adults. That's right, you were one or the other.

But the important thing was back in the day you WANTED TO BE A MATURE ADULT. You strived for full adulthood, even if you were confused and emotionally unstable. You strived to be like your parents, because they were your "adult models". You immitated ADULT behavior.

Contrast that with today. Teenagers do not strive to be adults. Sure teens WANT to be adults, but they aren't striving for it. They strive for popularity, they strive for beauty, they strive for pleasure, they strive for love, but not adulthood.

Even worse, they are taught and encouraged by their parents and the world that THIS IS OKAY. It's okay to ignore the future, to revel in the here and now and not worry about tomorrow.

That is very unhealthy. You and I both know it.

Can you imagine if the entire "teenage" population was *striving* to be mature adults? Imagine the types of things they'd be into and want to achieve!

The Fearsome Threesome

2005-01-13T23:48:00.000-08:00

I was reading this post today, and the response. You will notice, rather quickly, that three people seem intent on disagreeing. That would be Adam Beckham, Luke, and the new player Remington.

I would like to dedicate this post to them. If they ever read this (which is doubtful!) I want to ask them not to comment on my journal. They "troll" WORLDblog enough as it is... LOL!

Of the three, Adam is probably the most lovable. This is mostly because he only disagrees 99% of the time, and usually is very good at explaining himself. Sometimes he even makes sense. (He is, in fact, appreciated in an odd sort of way by the commentors, since he always brings more info about a post.)

Luke doesn't post as much as Adam. If he does post, it's normally just to agree with Adam and then take a pot-shot at whoever looks the most vulnerable. I'm glad Luke doesn't post much, because he's really very annoying. Unlike Adam, he rarely brings anything to the discussion, and instead seems content on saying how horrid and stupid everyone is who disagrees with him.

Remington is new. At first I thought he might be nice, even amiable. But my hopes were soon proven false. He's just as hateful as the most hateful conservative claims-to-be-Christian person could be. It's astonishing his conscience even lets him "open his mouth" with how blatantly hypocritical he is.

Oh yes, I almost forgot Fred. (Gravin I think..) The best way to describe Fred is "funny". Funny in that weird ironic sort of way. Fred accuses anything and anyone of being racists. If you have the name "white" in your name, look out! You're racist! (LOL!)

I often feel that Fred HAS to be someone's idea of a joke. Is it possible for a person to really believe that "white people" are basically all racists, no matter what they do? Because that seems to be essentially what Fred believes. o_O;

I am constantly fasinated with Adam, Luke, and Rem. How is it that three people can hold such a similiar view, post only on particular topics (such as the war or homosexuality), and seem to hate everything related to Christianity? I sometimes wonder if they aren't the same person!

Of course Fred is just weird. I really do believe he's someone's attempt to mock everyone on WORLDblog. For instance..

"All white people are racists and are out to put the "black man down"."
..could be...
"All liberals are anti-religious and out to put the "Christian man down"."

His deep apparent hatred for homosexuals could also be someones attempt to mock Christian's apparent "hatred" of homosexuals.

Now that I think about it, I think I might be right. How else could one explain such astonishing extreme-ism?

Anyway... that's all I can think of to say at the moment. It's late and my mind is starting to lose focus.

The Great Wave

2004-12-30T01:37:00.000-08:00

The earthquake and following tsunami that hit India and various other nations is heartbreaking. I don't dare watch news about it, or click on the thumbnails to get a closer view of what's going on. Text is bad enough...

On the forum I run, someone pointed out the utter silence by writers about all the souls lost in those monumental waves. It is true that so many people died who had never read a Bible, never heard of the Savior, and they will now have to meet God face to face and not be able to enter the gates of heaven.

But I find the idea of agonizing and morning for the dead, for those I do not know and will probably never see, somewhat.. well, pointless. Who matters now? Those who are dead, or those who are alive?

I morn more for the living. Those people who lost children, spouses, friends, and everything in between. They will suffer, but in a touchable way. They will suffer in a way that can heal.

But it will take such a long long time. And I really really really deeply feel for those poor souls who not only survived such a horror, but got to witness others die. I doubt there will be a restful night's sleep for them for long long time....

Whatever we can do, we should do. For now I pray. Later, I will hopefully be able to do more.

And of course, lurking in all our minds (at least those who think about it) is "Why? Why did this happen?" For some they will blame God or themselves, and for others they will realize that there is no one to blame. I wonder what that's like, to know that you'll never know WHY. It just happened.

What a horrible thing. To never know.

May good come out of this horrible tragedy. I hope that in the worst of it, people will find that "silver lining" and cling to it. Because hope will be the only thing they'll have.

What surprises me more, is that while I've been skimming the world of personal journals, very few have posted about this. Either they don't know (which would surprise me) or they simply don't want to think about it.

I can't really blame them either. Who wants to think about 50,000+ people dying, and leaving so many behind to morn for them? If we are honest with ourselves, we'll admit we really DON'T like to think about that type of thing. It's a scary thing, a frightful thing, that much death. Because one death, two, three, etc is bad enough.

That's all I can think of to say now.

Moral Superiority?

2004-12-06T05:33:00.000-08:00

One of the problems I have with my "own kind" (that would be the "right") is their mighter-than-thou attitude. As a whole, they seem to think they are so much better than "the left". I should contend that they are not morally any better or worse than the "left", with the exception of abortion (sometimes).

On abortion I do believe there is a reason to feel morally superior. Abortion on demand is the worst, absolutely worst, type of thing I have ever seen. It's strange to me that people of the "left" despise war so much, but are so willing to throw away a "forming" life for the sake of convenience.

But just about everything else I can't say the "left" is any worse or better than the "right". Each has their failures, and each says incredibly thoughtless and stupid things. Each likes to take potshots at each other. And each is just as petty as the other.

So, I wish the "right" would get off their high horse. Come on people! Let's rise above the status quo and be something a little more humble and a little more down to earth.

Boo-ha! FF is out!

2004-11-10T08:50:00.000-08:00

Hey everyone, guess whaaaaaaaa~at?

Mozilla Firefox 1.0 is out! That's right, the "big release"! Firefox is no longer beta, it is... final!

CHECK IT OUT! :D

Why do I even bother?!

2004-11-10T07:51:00.000-08:00

Ack, why do I bother read Bunnie's Blog? I must be one of those people who like to feel pain in the form of frustration. xD She seemed to be doing alright, a little over critical here, and little judgemental and obnoxious over there... but nothing too bad. I thought, "Hey, maybe I could start commenting on her blog again!" Then she started talking about CCM again.

If she'd just shut her trap about that I think I could tolerate, no --get along with-- her. But no, no. She seems to enjoy calling things I enjoy crap. She won't even just admit that she's just "naturally biased" against all CCM, no matter how good or bad it is. She has to be right, everyone else is stupid. Yep, that's Bunnie for ya.

She's Lutheran right? Well, after reading her blog I have little respect for Lutherans. She acts as if anyone who's not Lutheran is obviously stupid. Her attitude can just be... well... she acts like a Liberal reporter/journalist! She's just as intolerant and snobbish as they are.

And you know, I wouldn't hold it against the Lutheran church if it were just her. (A bad egg here and there, it happens.) But the majority of the people who post on her blog (who are Lutherans) share the exact same of attitude she does!

I dearly hope there are some people with better attitudes than Bunnie in the Lutheran church. I really do. If any Lutherans are reading this, prove me wrong! Prove to me that you're not all arrogent and snobbish! I don't want to believe there's an entire denomination breeding people to be that way. I don't.

Lastly, I'm not saying I'm oh-so-much better than Bunnie. I can be prideful, I can be arrogent, I can be mean (but mostly I can be very lazy xD)... I can be those things. But I try not to be, I take pains to not come across that way, especially with my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

Ugh and.. I'd just like to see Bunnie attempt to be a little more humble when dealing with other people. She doesn't have to be like "Lets all just get along!" but she could at least come across less like "Liberal" than she does.

And there, I've ranted. I'm sure I sound mean and stuff, but dang it! I'm frustrated, even if it's my own fault.

My husband right. I'm stupid. I shouldn't go places I know will just frustrate me. xD

The Pros go nuts and Dems need help!

2004-11-08T04:45:00.000-08:00

Okay, I want to comment on something. I've notice when people say they voted for Bush because he was "anti-abortion" or "pro-life" some people come around and go "What has he done?"

Firstly, the President does not have the type of power people credit him with on the issue of abortion. The most he can do is approve of bills and laws brought to him by Congress. If Congress doesn't bring him anything, he can't very well do much. (Consider: he couldn't even go to war without approval from Congress!)

Secondly, abortion (as we know it) came about by judges overstepping their judicial powers (a popular trend, I've noticed). As it is now, anything the President or Congress does that reflects negatively on abortion could very easily be over-turned by the court. So unless judges who oppose abortion in general are nominated and get in, there's little hope of anything happening.

Thirdly, there is years of social brainwashing you're fighting against. Unless 90% of our society suddenly became completely pro-life tomorrow, there's no way a "no abortion" law would ever make it. Not gonna happen. The people and the Congress won't let it.

Sorry Pro-lifers, one President can't change the moral fabric of society.... that's a job for Christ! The best our President can do is enforce the idea of pro-life thinking, and that's about it.

Also, I voted for President Bush, and I think it's funny that most people water the issues down to abortion, "gay marriage", and the war on terror. While all these are very important, I didn't vote for Bush because of that.

To me character is more important than "the issues" or whatever. Even if someone says and believes all the right things, it's practically worthless if they aren't a man of character. So to me, it was his character that I liked.

I am also disappointed in the things I'm hearing from popular Democrates and liberals. The venom and hate that is spewing from their lips is astounishing. If conservatives and Republicans are so intolerant and horrible, why are liberals and Democrates acting just like them? If you think you're ideals are really better, you better act like it.

I am also hoping a powerful third party arises at some point. I would like a party that gives both Democrates and Republicans a run for their money. I feel that this two party system is bad for our country. We need fresh blood, we really do...

And.. uh... I think that's all. Kinda felt good. I don't write about politics much because most of my journals (aka, blogs) aren't meant for that. I don't like turning a personal journal (aka, blog) into a political freak show. Hehe. xD

Why I'm Glad She Didn't Vote

2004-10-06T20:12:00.000-07:00

I have a dear friend who lives in Mississippi. I've known her since I was 15 years old. I do love her. But I'm glad she didn't register to vote!

I know I know, that's a horrible attitude to have. But I say this because the women doesn't think with her head at all. She recently told me she didn't like Bush. When I asked why, I only got a vague answer. Then I asked her what she thought of Kerry, she didn't know.

Chris (a guy she's had a huge "crush" on, but who doesn't seem to return the feelings) is getting stationed in Iraq soon. She's clearly very pessimistic about his chances of survival over there (with how the news is about Iraq it's no wonder..). She's afraid he'll die basically. She also seemed confused about why we were in Iraq to begin with.

Now, firstly, if you are friend, spouse, or b/g friend to anyone in the military you have to accept that they can die on duty. Part of their job is to fight--yes die--for their country. It's what they volunteered to do. If a person can not accept this, then they should not be in a relationship with anyone in the military.

My Dad's in the military, my husband is too. Most of the people I know are in the military. I don't like the thought of them dying that way. And even though it pains me right now just to even let it come to my mind, it's something I have to accept. And I do. I have to. It's the reality of the military.

Secondly, just because her crush is being stationed in a dangerous place, does not mean that him being there is wrong. And if you don't know WHY he's there, isn't it a really good time to find out? I mean, why wallow in ignorance? o_O

Can you imagine what she'd have been like during WW2? My gosh... scary! She'd have had Germany and Japan stomping all over us just for that one guy's life. ~_~;

It's even scarier knowing there are more people like her! People who base their opinions based solely on what affects them and how it makes them feel. People who don't bother to think through what's going on, but accept what they hear from the news. They don't think, they just follow some vaguely formed opinion that doesn't quite make any sense, but they never think about it enough to realize that.

And yes, my friend, though I love her, is like that. Though I don't hate her or even look down on her for it. She came from a bad family, a bad church, had a lot of bad friends, and wasn't really taught critical thinking. But I hope my family, my old church, can be there in a way to help fill the gaps the people in her life created.

But.. anyway... I'm glad she didn't vote. If she did, she'd probably vote for Kerry, knowing nothing about him, simply because "she doesn't like Bush". Dang it! I'd rather them not vote at all if they're going to vote like that. >_<

Though really, she does live in Mississippi. They tend to be very pro-Republican. I dunno.. would her vote actually make a difference there? o_O

I dunno... anyone. That's why I'm glad she's not registered. So sue me. ~_~;

Job Applcation: Political Humor

2004-09-25T16:38:00.000-07:00

I thought this was funny when I read it so I'm passing it on to you...

JOB APPLICATION

NAME:
John Kerry

RESIDENCE:
7 mansions, including one in Washington DC, worth multi-millions. I served in Vietnam (four months).

EXPERIENCE:
Law Enforcement. In my career as a U.S. Senator, I've voted to cut every law
enforcement, CIA, and Defense bill. I ordered the city of Boston to remove a fire hydrant in front of my mansion, thereby endangering my neighbors in the event of fire. I served in Vietnam (four months).

MILITARY:
I served in Vietnam (four months). I used three minor injuries to get an early discharge from the military and service in Vietnam (as documented by the attending doctor). I served in Vietnam (four months). I then returned to the U.S., joined Jane Fonda in protesting the war, and insulted returning Vietnam vets, claiming they committed atrocities and were baby killers. I served in Vietnam (four months). I threw my medals, ribbons, or something away in protest.
Or did I? My book "Vietnam Veterans Against the War: The New Soldier",
shows how I truly feel about the military. I served in Vietnam (four months).

COLLEGE:
I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. Unlike my counterpart
George Bush, I have no higher education and did not get admitted to
Harvard nor graduate with an M.B.A

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:
After College and Vietnam, I ran for the U.S. Congress and have been there ever since. I have no real world experience except marrying very rich women and running their companies vicariously through them. I served in Vietnam (four
months).

ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
As a U.S. Senator I set the record for the most liberal voting record, exceeding even Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton. I have consistently failed to support our military and CIA by voting against their budgets, thus gutting our country's ability to defend itself. Although I voted for the Iraq War, now I am against it and refuse to admit that I voted for it. I voted for every liberal piece of legislation. I have no plan to help this country but I intend to raise taxes significantly if I am elected. I served in Vietnam (four months).

My wealth so far exceeds that of my counterpart, George Bush, that he will never catch up. I make little or no charitable contributions and have never agreed to pay any voluntary excess taxes in Massachusetts, despite family wealth in excess of $ 700 million. I served in Vietnam (four months).

I (we) own 28 manufacturing plants (Heinz) outside of the U.S. in places like Asia, Mexico and Europe. We can make more profit from the cheaper cost of labor in those Countries, although I blame George Bush for sending all of the other jobs out of Country. I served in Vietnam (four months).

Although I claim to be in favor of alternative energy sources, Ted Kennedy and I oppose windmills off Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard as it might spoil our view of the ocean as we cruise on our yachts. I served in Vietnam (four months).

RECORDS AND REFERENCES:
None. However, I served in Vietnam (four months).

PERSONAL:
I practice my Catholic faith whenever cameras are present. I ride a Serotta Bike. I love to ski/snowboard. I call my Gulfstream V Jet the "Flying Squirrel". I call my $850,000 42-foot Hinckley twin diesel yacht the "Scarmouche".

I am fascinated by rap and hip-hop and feel it reflects our real culture.

I own several "Large" SUVs including one parked at my Nantucket summer mansion,though I am against large, polluting, inefficient vehicles and blame George Bush for our energy problems. I served in Vietnam (four months).

PLEASE CONSIDER MY EXPERIENCE WHEN VOTING IN 2004.

I vote!

2004-09-18T19:45:00.000-07:00

So, I got my absentee ballot today (or maybe yesterday since we didn't check the mail then). I knew only who I was voting for President, but everything else I was like "eh?". I could have just marked everything for my party, but I thought it would be good if I checked out some of the other candidates.

I discovered this was harder to do than I would have thought. If they weren't Republican or Democrats, it was almost impossible to find them on the Internet. And even if they were a major party, I was out of luck if the office position wasn't a big "important" one.

I found one website that was for a Libertarian. I know nothing about Libertarians, so for me, it was more about what this candidate believed than what his party stood for. Well, the first thing that stood out to me was his horrible website layout. I mean, come'on! In this day an age even a 15 year old could do better than that. Secondly, he was very vague about what he actually supported or not. I came away going "Uh.. what?" Thirdly, he made a comment that he consistently voted Democrat.

Put this all together and the guy ended up leaving a bad taste in my mouth. I hate when people who are running for any government office do not properly explain themselves. What are their convictions? What direction do they want to go? What do they not like about the current system? What do they like about the current system?

Blah!

The people who ran on the Constitution were no better. Not because of something they said, but simply because I could not find them! How am I suppose to vote for someone I can't get any information on?

I ended up voting Republican on every single thing. This irritated me. I am not really a Republican. I vote for whoever looks like they'll do the job best. I got cornered because I didn't have enough information... (Dang those small government offices that don't seem important enough to be on the net properly!!)

This is naughty of me, but the only group I did no research on was the Democratic Party. I know I know... that's not being an informed voter.

Nothing against the candidates, but they're supporting a Party I can not go along with. (I disagree with the Democratic Party on economics, social issues, government spending, and taxes.) Even if the candidate was good, the fact that they were being backed by a party I disagree with would make them almost impossible for me to vote for.

I also got to vote on [South Dakota] Constitutional amendments and stuff. That was kind fun, though I did have to read some things more than twice before I thought I understood the amendments well enough to say yes or no.

So, yeah... I'm gonna put this in the mailbox.. or.. well.. I'm not sure exactly. The envolope won't fit in the mail, so I may have to use one of those blue drop-off boxes. But I'm gonna do it soon! I'm excited! This is my first chance to vote!

Yay for me!

Been a while, ain't it?

2004-09-14T14:15:00.000-07:00

I haven't been updating lately. Sorry for that, I just haven't had a lot of interesting things to say.

Over two weeks, I've gotten a trojan, a virus, and a worm. You would not believe how incredibly aggrivating that is! The first two were my own fault, because I changed a security setting in Firefox that left it vulnerable. However, that last one was no one's fault (except losely my husband's). Now my husband can't access any of his email. >_<

Uck, it is soooo aggrivating! Can't Microsoft do something about that? I mean, their whole business is making OS's, you think at some point they'd get it right. ~_~;

Ona lighter note.. Molly, the dog I've been babysitting for three months, was taken to her owner yesterday. He (the owner) arrived 7 hours early, and totally caught me off guard (I was sleeping). The only bummer is he hasn't taken all of Molly's stuff back and he still owes me a new CD-RW (yeah, his dog broke my cd writer... amazing, isn't it?).

Mike has been sick since last Friday. Monday he was ordered home from work because he started throwing up. Ever since then, that's pretty much what he's been doing since then.

In the military, when you get sick, you have to go to a doctor and get a check up. This prevents people from "faking" sickness. The only problem is that "going to the doctor" requires you make an appointment early, especially if you need to go to the doctor that day.

Normally this isn't too hard. You simply call the Tricare "hotline" and ask for an appointment. Well, today Tricare was avoiding me! From 7:05am (when they open) to 10am, I could not get a hold of ANYONE. And by the time I *might* have gotten someone, it would have been too late. (You have to call early to get appointments the day you call. If you wait to call later in the day, they won't have any room for you until tomorrow.)

Needless to say I'm highly annoyed. I don't want Mike getting in trouble because *I* couldn't get a hold of someone at Tricare. I tried 5 times to get an appointment! Nothing. And since he was sick, there was nothing he could do anyway! It's not like he was able to clal. *sighs* One more reason why socialized medicare is a horrible idea.... ~_~;

Anywho! That's all for now! Gotta see if I can get a hold of Dan (Molly's owner) so he can pick up the rest of her stuff (and get me a new CD-RW!!!!!!).

Where have I been...?

2004-08-18T10:00:00.000-07:00

Well, I found this new game called "Ragnarok Online" and have paid 7$ for 30hours of play time. So I've been there, ignoring the world. Shameful of me, isn't it? o_O

That and I just having had anything interesting to post. Such is my life! ^_^;

CCM Top Hits

2004-08-10T18:46:00.000-07:00

I am somewhat puzzled about "top of the charts" that Bunnie frequently talks about. Now, I've listened to the Top 20 here in South Dakato, and many times the #1 is not the same as what I hear from Bunnie.

I can only assume a few things from this:

1: They're two different CCM networks.

2: Bunnie listens to the Top 20 when I don't, and consistently happens upon some of the worst Top 5 songs.

3: The Christians in her area have no taste in even passable music.

The last time I listen to the top 20, #2 hit was the only one that sounded "vague". All the others were very very obviously speaking of Christ or God or the sinfulness of man or a combination.

Also, while we can sin, music can't. All it can do is reflect the musicians heart. So then, when you listen to music and judge it, you judge the musicians heart. And when you do that, you must consider, are you judging to improve and help that heart, or are you just doing it out of spite and dislike? Which is truly glorifying to God?

There, I think I've done my bit of rant. (And you should be glad that I edited out so much. Because I was sorely tempted to be a little nasty. But that would make me like too many people I see online anyway... :P)

Happy Birthday To Me!

2004-08-09T02:27:00.000-07:00

Today is my *drum role* 21st birthday!!! Super, hu? Anyway, this is the present I got:

Her name is Puar (poo-ar) and she ended up costing us almost 400$ total. Hehe, so I'm not asking for anything else this year.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME! :D

Feminazi

2004-07-31T13:35:00.000-07:00

I have never understood modern feminism. Women in the USA can now vote, get good jobs, and be treated fairly in court. If we are treated as human beings now on a basic level, then that's what matters. I do not understand what feminist fight for now, other than trying to stomp out being feminine completely. (Doesn't that kinda contradict what they call themselves? o_O)

Anyway, there are places in the world with women who are being treated horrible. They can't get good jobs, they are rejected by there family over things they can't control, and in some places they even circumcise women! *shivers*

Why aren't femaninst over in those places making a difference that will actually save lives? Or is it only the women in "modern" countries that should be worried about?

I dunno, I think it's rather disgusting and hypocritical and just heartless. I live in the lap of luxery, I don't NEED any more rights or whatever. But there are women out there who do.

Shame shame on modern femanists.

Security Update & Nerd Ranting

2004-07-30T14:33:00.000-07:00

Wow.

So (Win)XP wanted me to download this security update. I'd been getting a lot of those recently, and I finally decided to check the details. I should have guessed, it was an Internet Explorer security update.

I don't even need the thing, since I don't use Internet Explorer. XP doesn't use it for updates like '98 does (as far as I know). But I know that it's always wise to keep IE up-to-date. Sometimes I have to use IE to view sites that people (dumbly) decided to make IE only viewable. (This is very rare, but I actually encountered it on a government site once... boy was I surprised!)

I tell you people, stay away from IE. It's just not safe. Use Netscape for heaven's sake, it's much safer. In fact, just about any other browser than IE is safer.

But people stick with what they're use to, even if it's bad for them. You know, there are a lot of anologies I could go with from that. :P

Anyway, for those of you who insist on using IE and all it's security problems, I still have something great for you: MyIE2. This will let you have all the cool features of Firefox (minus security) but keeps IE at the core. Seriously, it lets you use tabbed browsing and a whole bunch of other cool features.

If my husband knew this existed, he'd probably use it instead of Firefox. But I wouldn't let him. IE is, by nature, very unsafe. I refuse to let the thing run on my computer if I can help it.

I have kept my computer virus free since I got it (and that was when I was 16, I'm almost 21 now). If I could, I would abondon Microsoft entirely (and use Linspire instead) because it's also not a very safe system. (Not to mention that to get the next version I'll have to cough up 200$ per computer for it... I hate that so much..)

And of course, most of the people who read the blog (you know, the two of you) probably don't care. But I shall continue to advance safe webbrowsing and OS stability! I MARCH ON!

Am I Turning Liberal?

2004-07-30T06:35:00.000-07:00

I was thinking that the anti-abortion groups need to give a little in certain areas. Moderates on the issue tend to side with pro-abortion simply because the view anti-abortion as uncaring and radical. If you could convince moderates on the issue to tend towards not recommending abortions and not going with pro-abortion groups, wouldn't we all be better off? Because almost all the people I meet who "believe in abortion" only do so under certain circumstances, and definately they do not believe in abortion "on demand".

For instance, I think anti-abortion groups should be pushing for "educated abortion". That is, educating people about abortion and it's alternatives. To educate on the issue of abortion is a sensible thing to do, medically and morally. You should never let someone go into a surgery without telling them the risks, the benifits, and the unknowns. In fact, this should be something pro-life groups heavily endorse, because it's something that [radical] pro-abortion groups heavily fight against. And anything that pro-abortion groups don't want has got to be good for the Mom and child.

There should also be a heavy financial hand from pro-life groups to support adoptions. In fact, anti-abortion groups should stop calling themselves pro-life and start calling themselves "pro-adoption". This is a two-handed name, because it speaks volumes about how much a group really cares about the child AND THE MOTHER. It also makes it so people automatically know what the best alternative to abortion is--adoption.

I think pro-life groups seriously underplay adoption. How often do you hear about a pro-adoption rally? Uh, never. Why is that? If abortion kills babies, shouldn't we be pushing adoption-- a baby saver? Should not the anti-abortion/pro-life groups be in Washington lobbying for easier adoptions with less red tape, yet equally safe standards? Financially endorsing adoption, and clearing up the strange myths that people have about adoptions?

Shouldn't WORLD be running articles that talk about Adoption? Shouldn't they be pushing for it? Why aren't they? You hear lots about abortion and anti-abortion, but almost nothing about adoption.

And it shouldn't stop there. There should be support for Mother's who want to keep their child, but are finacially unable to.

All of the positive aspects of "pro-life" should be pushed forward. Lets have some Pro-Adoption rallies in the middle of abortion rallies instead of pro-life. Imagine the funny looks one would get! :-o

I'm not saying pro-life groups don't endorse adoption either. I'm just saying you almost NEVER HEAR ABOUT IT. All you hear is the "anti-abortion" part... it's all that's printed in the news. Why is it that the voice of adoption often seem stifled?

Of course, now I'm going to be accused of allowing "baby killing" and being wishy-washy. Well, I'm not trying for either. I'm trying to be sensible about the matter. If I'm weak, wishy-washy, for trying to think of ways that might actually WORK in preventing as many of abortions as possible, so sue me.

I dunno, am I turning liberal? I just can't stop thinking that pro-life groups go about things the wrong way... they say they're saving a baby's life... but what about after the baby is born? Will they keep on saving?

Yay!

2004-07-27T15:54:00.000-07:00

WORLDblog is back up! Yay! I can't believe someone gave them a virus! How aweful... But they're pretty new to the online world, so it doesn't surprise me. I hope they fight the good fight and put up a Paypal link so I can help support them. ;)

Negativity in vogue

2004-07-26T05:49:00.000-07:00

Something that has always puzzled me was people's inclination to be absolutely negative. While there is good reason to be negative (since the world is a very depressing place), there are some things worthy of praise. It seems to me that, when so many things are so bleak, that we'd want to focus on those things which aren't.

So how is it that some people not only refuse to acknowledge the goodness that is there, but also seek to destroy the joy other people find [in good things]? It's as if the very thought of goodness make their toes curl up.

I have alwasy suspected, and now feel it being confirmed, that people love to hate. I don't understand why, but they get malicious pleasure out of hating something or someone. It can be our president, a rich man, that nation wide chain-store, or even the guy next door with that sweeeet ride. It's as if people cannot tolerate other's happiness, others success, if it's not their own.

People focus on "hating" on homosexuals, minorities, or whatever, but I think that's more of a surface problem. For even those who advocate not hating other end up hating themselves. Because, as mentioned before, we love to hate.

I often feel that we are immitators of Lucifer, who committed the first sin (that we know of). Lucifer, to my knowledge, hates all that is good. He hates it most in people (Job is a good example of this). The reason for this is that goodness comes from God, and is pleasing to God. And God is the #1 enemy of Lucifer.

So we hate, I suppose because sin is a rejection of God. And if this is the case, than we are doing an aweful lot of rejecting.

Which isn't to say that we should never ever hate, because hatred can be a product of repulsion of something bad. It can be a product of disgust and contempt for something evil. But when we hate that which is good, than we're going about it all backward.

It's just very aggrivating. Can't people be happy without hating? >_<

2004-07-24T11:37:00.000-07:00

Hu, I've been trying to access WORLDblog for the past two days with no success at all. I'm baffled about that, and wondering what exactly is going on. Does anyone over there know that people can't access? I dunno...

Sorry, not much to post about. The dog is outside playing with herself, which is good, that's something she needs to get in the habit of doing. When her owner comes back, there won't be much for her to do while he's at work.

Toodles!

SEE THIS MOVIE!

2004-07-17T21:30:00.000-07:00

How many of you have seen "The Terminal"? You know, that Steven Spielberg movie, with Tom Hanks? How many? I bet none of you...

FOR SHAME!

That movie was so good. Seriously. Like, no violence, but there's suspence. And there's almost no bad language (and what's in there isn't really bad anyway..). There's love interest, but not typical chic-flick romance. The main character is deep, the supporting cast is great. There's.. I mean...

Steven Spielberg is awesome with movies. I mean, he's done action and all that, but this was so different. Like breathing a breath of fresh air. It was REALLY REALLY GOOD.

Everyone should see this film. Everyone... I'm gonna get it when it comes out on DVD for sure. You should at least rent it.

Why oh why do all the good movies get drowned out by the ones with all the money and special affects? *sighs*

2004-07-15T19:30:00.000-07:00

Wow, did.. um. Did Blogger just change how I post things? *blinks* Hu. Looks prettier now.

ANYWAY!

I know this isn't really a place for showing my art. But I really liked how this drawing turned out. Go HERE and check it out. :D

Oh, the pain, the pain....

2004-07-14T12:29:00.000-07:00

Say Anything...

What movie Do you Belong in?(many different outcomes!)
brought to you by Quizilla

LOL.. just for my friend...

I know, I know, lots of quotes...

2004-07-14T11:19:00.000-07:00

Found this on WORLD blog. Thought it was pretty cool.

"Unfortunately Republicans are reluctant to define what liberal means philosophically. Modern liberals are not really liberal in the classical sense, like Jefferson who held truth and individual freedom (and its corresponding responsibility) in the highest regard. Modern liberals say these things, but do the opposite. They say they support free speech, but fight incessantly to restrict any speech that is either religious or political, the two forms protected by the 1st amendment. They say they oppose racism, but instead institutionalize racism (c.f. affirmative action), treating people differently based on the color of their skin. They say they support the little guy, but vote instead to allow the murder of the littlest of all, their own children. They say they support America, but then give speeches that sound remarkably similar to America's worst enemies. They say they support diversity, but oppose any ideas contrary to their own. They claim to be environmental, but leave man out. We're part of nature too."
Rick Flanders

Old Post New Post

2004-07-13T13:16:00.000-07:00

Ah, I found this in my livejournal, something dating back to 8th of December ('03). I thought it was cool:

"Also, I remembered why I think accusing the devil for our own sinfulness is.. well... just not right. First of all, Christ will come back and cast Satan and all his annoying demons away so they can't make any more trouble, yet people will STILL disobey God and rebel. This is proof that we sin whether Satan has anything to do with it or not. Also, saying Satan makes me sin seems to be giving him an AWFUL lot of power. I mean, he's only a fallen angel, and the most he can do is influence certain people and only one at a time (he's not like God and can't be every where at once).

And even so, I'm either God's or I'm not. I can't have Satan or his demons controlling me when I'm owned by Christ. I can't have two masters. I follow God, and perhaps I choose to willfully disobey him, but that is not Satan "making" me do it. That's me choosing to.

Lastly, it doesn't matter who starts it, I'm responsible for falling for the trap. Satan can't control me, so I have to choose. Just like Eve and Adam had to choose, and why they got punished. Satan may cause problems but he's never MAKING me do anything.

That is why I don't blame Satan for my own faults. I blame myself, for I choose, and I am the one who will stand before God in the end."

Moral Ambiguity is the luxery of the selfish.

2004-07-11T15:17:00.000-07:00

So, yesterday I was in Mangasync's IRC channel (What's that? You don't know what IRC is? Ha! Go here to find out. :). Now I normally go there to get a Japanese Anime that's fan subbed (which isn't illegal to my knowledge beceause it's not lisenced in the states and the people who sub don't make a profit from it), and I like to chat with people too.

Well, one day when I was on their and someone posted this quote talking about how President Bush opposed homosexual "marriage". He (Bush) was saying how homosexual "marriage" manipulated the meaning of an institution that is the building block to our society. The guy (or girl?) said "bush soooo needs to be beaten in nov".

Now, I wasn't particularly in a mood for a debate, but there's this saying that goes "Silence can be taken as a form of agreement". So I spoke up and said I agreed with Bush, and you can imagine what happened after that. I really should have known, because the people in the chat were primarily college students in California. (Why does California always get the good anime and manga?! WHY!?)

What I came across deeply unsettled me. These people believed there were no moral absolutes. Everything was based on culture or religion... and that doesn't mean that morals mean anything anyway. Heck, one person was so morally "neutral" that they said murder wasn't wrong! (Talk about alarming..)

So I started thinking, "How do you deal with people like that?" Really, how do you deal with people who are so utterly selfish that morality doesn't matter as long as it's not hurting THEM? (And sometimes I wouldn't if they even care whether it hurts them...)

I don't understand, first of all, how anyone could believe that morals are all relative. There are some areas in life that are sketchy and up for debate, but that doesn't mean all things are in "the gray".

For instance, to say that murder is wrong to me, but not for the next guy who murdered his wife and kids is lunacy. Murder is wrong on so many levels, not the least of which are that it destroys innocent lives. There is no excuse for murder.

And then there's the whole "moral" issue of the difference between murder and killing (which is apparently lost on many people). For instance, when a man goes to take your life and in self-defence you kill him, that is not murder. Or when a wire you tied holding a plank accidently breaks and falls on your friend and kills him, that is not murder. When soldiers are fighting each other, and one (or both) die, that is not murder.

The reason there is a difference is because morally, it is wrong to take someone's life because you're angry, vengeful, bitter, or they are "in your way". If there were no moral laws, absolutes, there would be no reason for people not to murder.

When you take away moral absolutes, you take away the fabric that holds a nation, a community, a family, a person together. And when you take more absolutes away, you're essentially giving people the excuse to do anything they want.

And maybe that's what it's all about. Without moral absolutes, you can lie (white lies), cheat (just on this test), steal (just this one CD), and a number of other things... It lets the utterly selfish and spoiled people do what they really want, SIN.

Perhaps people are also very lazy. They don't want to have to deal with absolutes. If there are moral absolutes, how do you find out which ones are the right ones? Is a moral absolute determined by how good it is for one person, or many? Do you find it in a religious book, or in nature?

It makes me said to watch people erode the very fabric of their being away by thinking that way. It's such an illusion too. No matter what a person says, everyone lives by a moral absolute, and it effects what they do, and that in turn affects what other people do. If you can't acknowledge this, and try to find the TRUTH, then you're doomed to destruction.

Why I wish I had my Own Nation

2004-07-08T10:51:00.000-07:00

Really, I sometimes hate newspaper and tv news and even internet news. I don't read it much anymore. It's not that I want to be cut off from the world, but every time I watch the news, I get really frustrated.

I can't remember anything specific, but almost every time I listen or read news, I'm finding it flawed. It's like they don't care how accurate they are, if they're quoting people in or out of context... because of course they don't care. News is a business. It's all about money.

There are some really horrible things going on in the world, things that never seem to interest the big name news sources. Slavery still exists in the world... women being sold as sex slaves and people being rounded up and forced to do hard labor.. it's happening. But when do we hear about it? Not from the big guys. Because they don't care about real news, they care only about political news.

And while there's all this bad stuff going on, why is the good stuff rarely mentioned? What about inspiring news? News that talks about indurance, selflessness, and sacrifice? No... you're not likely to hear about that either.

Seriously, I sometimes wish I could create my own nation, with my own laws. Maybe some day I will... at least in my mind. ;)

Why I hate the News Sometimes

2004-07-08T10:48:00.000-07:00

I was browsing and I found this article. It made me want to cry. Sometimes I want to take newspapers and TV news and smack them all really hard. I understand that reporting news means you have to report the bad stuff. There's nothing wrong with that. But damn.... what the news is doing... sometimes... it's so aggrivating.... >_<