Acadia

I thought I might show you all a few pictures from my recent travels. Please note: I will write nothing thoughtful or profound in this post.

There's really not too much to say about it other than that Acadia National Park is one of the most beautiful places I've ever seen. I can't imagine a place that I would find more beautiful.





Also, the people that I went with weren't all that normal.



Finally, there's picture of me, just to let you know that I'm still alive (cue music).

I Like Law School

And I didn't capitalize the first letter of every word in that title just because it's grammatically correct. This is a big deal.

I honestly hated the first two weeks of it. I was working desperately just to finish normal homework assignments, feeling lost in some classes, and watching as my classmates came up with great arguments I had trouble following. Every time I opened my mouth in class, I was wrong about something (except for that one time when I correctly informed the class that state courts can hear diversity cases and cases arising out of federal law. But I only knew that because I'd screwed up on a question about jurisdiction on my first day of Civil Procedure). I wasn't making friends among my classmates or even networking effectively. I missed the bus to school on my second day.

But then, last night, a wonderful thing happened. I had been working on my first legal memo all day (except for a couple hours of TF2 in which Adam burned lots and lots of bad guys), and I was skipping a major social event to do it. Once I was done with 10 hours of research for the paper, I couldn't work on it any more. So instead I picked up my books for class on Monday and started reading the assignments. And, at about 11:30 p.m., I finished my homework for Monday. As I sat on the couch, my eyes burning from having stared at a computer screen for too long, my head numb from thinking about attorney-client privilege, remedies for breach of contract, and canons of statutory interpretation, a weird feeling came over me. I was happy.

I liked the weird facts in the cases I had read. I liked figuring out why attorney-client privilege is important and why/how applying it to the facts of a case makes people more free. It's still not easy, but I like what I'm doing. And that's important to me.

Beware--Random Thoughts

In a feat of extraordinary extraordinariness, I finished my daily quota of schoolwork before midnight. And so, I thought, what to do with a few minutes of free time, late at night? "Blog" seemed like the sensible answer.

So I learned a couple of interesting things today. State courts have to have personal jurisdiction in order to serve complaints to potential defendants--or in English, if you don't live in a state but someone who does wants to sue you in that state, they can't unless you're also in the state. Interestingly enough, though, "in the state" means "anywhere in the state." That includes if you're in a plane flying over it. There was actually a case where this guy who wanted to sue someone in Arkansas got onto a plane with him (the plane was going to fly over Arkansas). As the plane was over Arkansas, the guy served notice on the person he wanted to sue, and the courts upheld it.

It feels bad when you're waiting for the bus, and it comes, and then just keeps going by without stopping for you.

Sometimes I cover up the fact that I don't know what to say to my classmates outside of class by studying. Instead of talking to people between classes, I just read and reread the cases.

They have free coffee on campus, and my classmates drink it all the time. I don't understand how you can want a hot drink in summer. Now, they do also have free hot water. So, come winter, I may bring hot chocolate powder or cider to drink during class. But will that be giving the appearance of evil?

My computer is pretty. I love seeing all the moving (and apparently non-moving) parts working together fluidly. I get a lasting sense of accomplishment from having built it. It's similar to the feeling I get reading a well-written paper that I wrote. Of course, the beauty here is different than a tree's beauty, a painting's beauty, etc. But there is a beauty to mechanism that too few people appreciate, I think. I should stop talking about this, though, aesthetics never was my strong point.

Of all the topics I like to talk about (religion, philosophy, sports, politics, law, games, writing), the thing I most love to hear is the good that other people think of each other. It feels so good to hear someone talk about how they love someone else, or to hear/see someone show kindness through words.

Creating Truth

Is truth created or discovered?

I eat a tomato, and I don't like it. "I don't like tomatoes" is a true proposition.
However, my mother continues to serve tomatoes, twice a week throughout my childhood. She forces me to eat them. Over time, I acquire a taste for tomatoes. Now, "I like tomatoes" is a true proposition, and "I don't like tomatoes" is not. Have I discovered the truth that I like tomatoes, or have I created it?

The Dark Knight, part II

As promised, here is a follow up post.

First, a response to the (im)poster, who says the following:

"Quoting Batman, 'Sometimes the truth isn't enough. Sometimes people deserve more than the truth.' The Church agrees with Batman here; it teaches that some things are more important than the truth:

Elder Packer has said, 'There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not...Some things that are true are not very useful.' ("The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect")

I gather from this statement that the truth is not always the ultimate reward for someone's faith. That's why the Church teaches 'faith-promoting' history as opposed to true history. I am not saying I agree with this, just that that's how it is."

My response:

It seems inaccurate to call what President Packer describes "more than the truth." Revealing truth "line upon line, precept upon precept" is not the same as lying, which is what Batman referred to when he spoke of "more than the truth." Consider two examples:

First, we teach kindergarten students that 1+1=2. All well and good, but the truth of the proposition "1+1=2" depends on what base number system you're using, as well as on certain postulates of linear algebra. Even that truth that seems most basic is only conditionally true.

Second, let's turn to that great source of wisdom: Return of the Jedi. In it, we have the following conversation:

Luke: Why didn't you tell me? You told me Vader betrayed and murdered my father.

Obi-Wan: Vader was seduced by the dark side of the force. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So what I told you was true, from a certain point of view.

Luke: A certain point of view?

Obi-wan: Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

Earlier, speaking with Yoda about the same thing (that Luke learned that Vader was his father), we have:

Yoda: Unexpected this is, and unfortunate.

Luke: Unfortunate that I know the truth?

Yoda: No! Unfortunate that you rushed to face him, that incomplete was your training, that not ready for the burden were you.

I remain convinced that to some degree, we have to choose to believe something before we can know anything. And I remain steadfast in the faith that, as the hymn says, "all now mysterious shall be bright at last."

This post also having gotten long, my final point will have to wait for part III.

The Dark Knight

Through no fault of my own, I saw this movie thrice in theaters. Having seen it that many times, I've formed some thoughts on it. Having shared those thoughts with others and thus encountered their thoughts, and finding some interest in those thoughts, I thought I'd share some here.

Being that it's me writing, these thoughts are almost all about the ideas and the dialogue. You'll find very little here about the visual effects, hot girls, general scariness, etc. Yes, I am a dull and dry man, and yes, I think that might have affected my success with the ladies.

THE GOOD

Here are the ideas I liked from The Dark Knight.

1) There remains a general spark of goodness in humanity. This was what Batman put his faith in in Batman Begins. The Joker failed to extinguish that spark in The Dark Knight.

2) Good guys can make extremely difficult decisions and emerge not only unscathed, but transcendent in their goodness. Both Batman and Gordon found a way to do this. Harvey Dent did not, and thus failed to meet his test. He wasn't the best of the good guys, as Batman painted him in an attempt to appeal to Dent's better nature. Dent was the weakest.

3) There are evil people. It's difficult and dangerous to judge whether or not another person is evil, and such judgment must be undertaken with caution. But there are, in fact, people that are not to be reasoned with, but fought against.

THE BAD

The following ideas I find erroneous and/or just plain bad.

a) The Joker isn't a schemer--he's just a mad dog chasing cars. Why do we assume that the Joker is telling the truth? In fact, his entire discourse to Dent in the hospital was part of a scheme to push Dent to evil. Everything the Joker carried out required meticulous scheming. He avows himself, in his final conversation with Batman, to be engaged in a battle for Gotham's soul. It's foolhardy to take statements from evil people as truth without thoroughly examining them. Among other wrong things the Joker says that we shouldn't take at face value are the following: the bit about morality and rules being a game that people will throw away at the first sign of trouble, and "you won't kill me through some misguided sense of self-righteousness" (he calls it that because he can't understand it. To those who do not understand righteousness, it is always self-righteousness. Unsurprisingly enough, such people are often selfish).

b) Harvey Dent: "You wouldn't dare try to justify yourself if you knew what I'd lost." Just because you suffered doesn't mean there wasn't a reason for the suffering or for the actions of others that somehow connect to that suffering. Sympathy and suffering should not forestall all counterargument.

c) Batman: "Sometimes the truth isn't enough. Sometimes people deserve more than the truth. Sometimes they deserve to have their faith rewarded." Maybe I'm being picky, but does that mean that the truth cannot be a sufficient reward for people's faith? Of course, it depends on the objects of people's faith, but that seems like an awfully cynical sentiment, especially coming from the fellow who just acted in the firm belief that two shiploads of people--one of which was full of criminals--would refrain from blowing up other people so that they would not be blown up themselves. And had his faith rewarded without having to be lied to.

NOTE: there's more, but this is already a long post. I'll do a part II. Anticipate please.

Humoresque

For those of you who might have trouble appreciating/loving classical music, and for those who just want to listen to something beautiful: observe!

This is Antonin Dvorak's Humoresque. Violin/cello duet by Itzhak Perlman and Yo Yo Ma.
I think this is one of the most beautiful musical performances I've ever heard.

Also, some of the faces they make are really funny.

Ratings and Media Choices

Our media choices affect the spirit we carry with us on a personal level. Perhaps even more importantly, they affect the spirit that can and will be present in the home wherein we make them. I submit these premises at the outset, appealing to my own experience for evidence of their truth.

I broach the subject only to point out two apparent incongruities in both my own choices and my friends' choices.

First: we avoid rated R movies to comply with prophetic counsel (well, some of us do). However, especially in the realm of comedy, many movies that are not rated R are, morally, significantly worse than most rated R movies I have seen. To take a metaphor, mirth acts as a lubricant: with it, we are willing to let a lot more slide than we otherwise would. Humor is just one of several considerations leading to the result that sometimes actions don't match up with intentions in media choices.

Second: We actively and carefully avoid sexual content in movies and games. As we have been warned against pornography, so we avoid it. This is good and proper. However, while we are careful against the temptation to misuse or be too casual with our power to grant life, we are not so careful to avoid becoming too casual about the power to take it. For example:



We like this game. Yet I don't see how, even granting that movies/games that remind us to fight evil are good to some extent, it's proper to seek after things like this.

These incongruities lead to my question: how can I change my taste so as to improve my media choices, thereby improving the spirit I carry with me?

Unmasking an (im)poster

So Damien always brings up interesting things on his blog. Recently he posted about situational ethics. I wondered about his position and a small conversation has ensued. Here's his latest:

"On my post, With All Your Getting, Get Understanding, B. Zeller sought a clarification of my belief in not making decisions until I must:

'Also, just to give a counterpoint, how similar is not carrying around convictions to not deciding whether or not to drink until someone offers you a beer?'

My position is not just similar to your example, that is exactly what I'm saying. I think that creating blanket statements (I will never do x or y) is a bad idea. Here's how my decision-making philosophy works: I gather obligations/devotions/desires through the course of life and when it comes time to decide, I weigh them against each other."

And I decided I'd like to have the glory of posting a reply on my own blog rather than on his comments. So here we go.

I guess I'm not too sure we disagree here; the argument may be simply semantic.

You call the religious obligation a consideration--one of many that enters into any decision. But how is that different from a conviction you carry around? After all, aren't your religious obligations based on a conviction you carry around?

If people have "pre-made" a decision not to drink, isn't that just a very strong consideration--one of many--when the moment of decision actually comes? Their having "pre-made" the decision doesn't destroy any other considerations, it simply strengthens the religious obligation.

I see how you're arguing for open-mindedness here, I'm just not sure that "pre-making" decisions in the way you describe is as closed-minded as one might think.

Random Texts

So last night I was sitting around with my friends...there may or may not have been a movie playing...and I got a random text from a number I didn't recognize:

"Hey you whats up"

In days of yore, when I used to use AIM, sometimes I would get messages from people I didn't know. The game then was to just make conversation until the other person provides enough inadvertent hints to reveal his/her identity. So I went for the same thing here. I text back:

"I'm crossing my legs." (I was). "How are you?"

I figured this was a strange enough reply that how the mystery texter replied to it would reveal whether or not I knew him/her well. Most people I know well would take that kind of reply in stride. The mystery texter replies:

"There a reason they need crossed. . Lol and i'm wet"

This told me a few things: first, the mystery texter does not share my commitment to proper grammar inasmuch as it is possible in a text message. No big deal, but it eliminates everyone I know who texts with proper grammar. Also, the mystery texter didn't seem to take the strangeness in stride. Further, either the mystery texter had just gotten out of the shower--an odd time to be texting me, especially without drying off first--or they got in a water fight, or...well, it's anyone's guess as to how the mystery texter got wet. But I took the wetness as a bad sign. Anyway, I decided to continue with the strangeness approach. I text back:

"Popular demand. How come you're wet?"

Thus far, the mystery texter has not yet replied. I'll give further details as they become available.

Ouch! for Obama

In the NYT, no less!

Is it really the professors?

So Adam has the opinion (via Dennis) that liberal professors and universities go a long way towards creating and perpetuating a lot of the really silly misconceptions that have so damaged modern society (for a list of these, either ask Adam or listen to the Dennis Prager show. Some people would hold that the two activities amount to the same thing sometimes).

Right now I work as a writing fellow for a Sociology of Gender class; I teach the sociology students how to write effectively. Having read several of their papers and talked extensively with the professor that teaches the class, I've come to two conclusions. First, there are a whole lot of silly misconceptions among sociology students, and perhaps there is a big one in the sociology field (more on that later). Second, the professor isn't teaching a lot of these misconceptions. A lot of the things the students say in their papers are ridiculous, though unfortunately I can't post them for confidentiality's sake. But the professor doesn't share those same misconceptions. Her views seem a lot more plausible and nuanced. While that may be just because she's better at expressing them, the other possibility is that it is often the students, not the field at large or the professors, that hold and perpetuate silly misconceptions.

National Anthems: Israel

I'll admit some partiality to Israel's national anthem. Ok, it's my favorite. The music is fantastic and the words express the unity of a people that has transcended the political existence of their country for thousands of years.

What makes me a fellow countryman of, say, a child of illegal immigrants in California? For argument's sake, let's also suppose that this child of illegal immigrants is a far-left liberal who believes that America's net influence on the world has been decidedly bad. I can think of two ways in which we might be considered countrymen.

First, we might be considered countrymen based on politico-geographical borders and the law that rules within them. We were both born within the borders of the United States, and so are both U.S. citizens under law. Because we both subscribe to that law and accept the rights, privileges, and responsibilities it offers, we are countrymen. There seem to be a couple of problems with this view. First, the fact the other person's parents are illegal immigrants makes the common legal ideology seem like a strange commonality. Of course, that has no bearing on what the other person thinks of or reacts to the law, so that point is moot. Second, given the other's political ideology, we disagree significantly about the law. We disagree both about what the current content and purpose of the law is and about what the content and purpose of the law should be. The disagreement is strongest on the law's most fundamental and important points. So that commonality with respect to the law seems problematic.

Second, we might be considered countrymen because we share a national heritage. Given, my ancestors were Mayflower pilgrims (arriving in Plymouth in 1620) and Swiss Huguenots (arriving in Pennsylvania in the 18th century), and the other's are Latin Americans who had little to do with this country until the other's parents illegally entered it. They likely did not enter the country with an aim to be good citizens of it, but to capitalize on the economic situation here to build a more comfortable life for themselves. Of course, my ancestors also came with the intent to build a better life for themselves, but I feel like the two are different somehow. Regardless, the idea is that the other, as a U.S. citizen, inherits the common heritage of U.S. citizens. It's a diverse heritage, but from their diversity our forbears united behind common ideals and forged a national identity--E Pluribus Unum. But I have neither common ideals nor a common national identity with the other here; the other's ideals are radically different from mine, and the other rejects or is ashamed of the national identity that came with U.S. citizenship.

So what makes us countrymen?

The Israelis do not have this problem. They are bound together by a common heritage and belief that has withstood the worst this world has been able to give it. They are passionate about it and, since Moses, have been willing to fight for it.

Observe.

Finally, here are the words:

As long as in the heart, within,
A Jewish soul is yearning,
And to the edges of the East, forward,
An eye gazes towards Zion,

Our hope is not yet lost,
The hope of two thousand years,
To be a free nation in our land,
The land of Zion and Jerusalem.

My True Talent

With a little help from my friends, I've discovered it:

Michelle: well mr. sunshine...

you've managed to make what was already a dreary day all the drearier.

thank you

me: it's my strong suit

take what was happiness, and by pure force of association turn it into oppressive boredom and melancholy

So, there you have it, folks. That's why I'm here.

Principles of Agency

President Kearl gives an interesting talk on principles of agency. Some of his principles run counter to traditional LDS culture or are counterintuitive. He gave the talk again in stake conference today, and again I enjoyed it and learned from it. I thought I might share his principles here.

1- We can have absolute confidence in choices related to salvation; these are matters of obedience, not prayer.

Examples: Thou shalt not kill, pay your tithing, etc.

2- Relatively few of the decisions we face each day are "thou shalt" or "thou shalt not" decisions. Many choices are eternally significant, but not related to salvation. In making those choices, we should remember that they are ours to make. The Lord will not make them for us--He will not choose for us among a variety of good options.

Examples: Where should I live? What career should I pursue? Whom should I marry?

Related notes: Choices have consequences, but these are not always punishments. We should recognize and embrace consequences, not trying to shield ourselves or others from them. Also, we should not try to make decisions for others or let others make decisions for us; the one who makes the decision should be the one who will most directly bear the consequences.

3- A choice delayed is a choice made.

4- Choices often have to be made with incomplete information.

We should not second-guess ourselves when the information becomes more complete later. This is not to say that we shouldn't be careful to gather all the information we can before choosing. We should not be willfully ignorant. However, we can only act on what we know and in whatever circumstances we find ourselves.

5- With the exception of repentance, we cannot change the past.

So don't spend life wishing you had a different past--that is an unconscionable mistake.

6- Not all dumb choices are wrong.

Example: Riding a motorcycle without a helmet is not morally wrong. It is also not smart. We should spend a lot more time worrying about making smart choices and a little less time worrying about making right/wrong choices.

7- Given identical circumstances, different people will make different and equally good choices.

We ought to be less judgmental and more supportive of others' life choices.

8- We don't need to see, and don't get to see, the future.

Remember the hymn "Lead, Kindly Light." We need to be open to being pleasantly surprised by opportunities; we should be prepared to embrace opportunities as they come.

9- We need to frame our prayers so that God can answer them. He will not answer prayers that abridge our agency.

10- Often, decisions become right.

They become right based on the choices we make in relation to them afterwards.

Sad example: Couples who divorce after twenty years of marriage did not make a mistake choosing to marry each other twenty years ago. It's foolish to think that. They made a mistake yesterday, or the day before, but not twenty years ago.

Many of these principles are not widely practiced. I think that is due in part to their being misconstrued. It would be easy to think that these principles mean you should pray less or about fewer decisions. Perhaps that is true, to some extent. But largely they only mean you should pray differently. You should be willing to take responsibility for choices that are yours to make. Be willing to choose your own life. The Lord does help us avoid mistakes, but He will not take away our agency by telling us which is the right choice.

USSR/Russia

This is installment 1 in a weekly feature on national anthems.


A NOTE ON THE FEATURE

Recently, I have been considering doing a weekly feature on national anthems. I wanted to include a little bit of history, the lyrics to the song, and an evaluation of the ideals it expresses, among other things. As with many of my ideas, this one is sadly not new: Wikipedia beat me to it.

That being said, while the information I give on the anthems may not be original or groundbreaking, I can still bring attention to them. And the evaluation of the ideals each nation expresses in its anthem might still be enlightening. So, with that somewhat depressing prelude, I proceed to the first anthem!


USSR/RUSSIA



This week BYUSA is holding its annual elections. As in years past, campus has become a virtual minefield: nearly every path through campus is littered with campaign booths and representatives. If you're not careful, they'll tag you with yet another circular, ribbon, or other humiliating bit of paraphernalia.

How did I approach this minefield on Monday? Easy--I walked straight into it with my eyes open. Predictably, I was approached by a candidate who had lived on my hall freshman year. We were not great friends that year and barely spoke in the five intervening years between then and now, but still he approached me fully expecting that I would support his campaign because we knew each other.

The most interesting thing about the experience was the campaign paraphernalia he bestowed upon me: a bit of red cloth he tied to my backpack. I have since seen several of his supporters wearing such ribbons as armbands. It's amazing that now, roughly eighteen years after the Berlin wall crumbled, red armbands no longer produce stigma. Yes, my friends, now again it is safe to be a Red.

Parenthetically, here's another interesting story: last year I visited my uncle in Georgia. In his ward on Sunday, a young man gave a farewell address; he was leaving on a mission to Russia. A member of the stake presidency in attendance took a moment to speak to the congregation. He asked everyone who remembered praying that the Gospel would go forth to those behind the Iron Curtain to stand up. Nearly all the adults rose to their feet. Most of them prayed for that the same way we might pray that the Gospel might go forth to the Middle East. Miracles do happen, the Lord's work does go forward, and prayers are answered in ways small and great.

Anyway, let's get to the anthem already.

Musically, it's one of the best national anthems the world has ever known. In fact, it's so good that post-Communist Russia re-adopted the tune in 2000. You can hear an instrumental version here and a version with USSR lyrics here.

The words have changed several times. The song was first written in 1939 as the Anthem of the Bolshevik Party. Originally, the lyrics mentioned Stalin, but after his death in 1953 references to him were removed in accordance with the process of Destalinization. From 1953 to 1977 the anthem was played without lyrics. In the latter year, Robert Doucet, a Canadian, composed lyrics for the song so that it could be sung at the inaugural Canada Cup tournament (hockey, of course). The Soviet Union noticed and adopted the new lyrics; the song remained in that form until the nation's collapse. Below you'll find all four versions of the lyrics. Since this has already gotten so long and most of you have certainly lost interest, I'll talk about the lyrics in a later post.

Anthem of the Bolshevik Party

Free children of a state unprecedented [until now],

Today we sing our proud song

About the most powerful party in the world,

About our greatest man ever.

CHORUS

Surrounded with glory, soldered by [our] will,

Grow stronger and live for eternity

The party of Lenin, the party of Stalin

Wise party of Bolsheviks!

You have created a country on our land [starting] from the Kremlin,

The able Motherland of free people.

Our Soviet state stands as rock

Born by your power and truth.

CHORUS

Rotten breeds of lowly treachers

You wipe from your way with a formidable hand

You are the pride of the people, the wisdom of people,

the heart of the people and their conscience.

CHORUS

The sparking genius of Marx and Engels

Envisioned the future rise of the commune.

Lenin has outlined us the road to the freedom

And great Stalin is leading us through it.

CHORUS

1944 Version

United forever in friendship and labour,

Our mighty republics will ever endure.

The great Soviet Union will live through the ages.

The dream of a people their fortress secure.

CHORUS:

Long live our Soviet Motherland, built by the people's mighty hand.

Long live our People, united and free.

Strong in our friendship tried by fire. Long may our crimson flag inspire,

Shining in glory for all men to see.

Through days dark and stormy where Great Lenin led us

Our eyes saw the bright sun of freedom above

and Stalin our Leader with faith in the People,

Inspired us to build up the land that we love.

CHORUS:

Long live our Soviet Motherland, built by the people's mighty hand.

Long live our People, united and free.

Strong in our friendship tried by fire. Long may our crimson flag inspire,

Shining in glory for all men to see.

We fought for the future, destroyed the invader,

and brought to our homeland the Laurels of Fame.

Our glory will live in the memory of nations

and all generations will honour her name.

CHORUS:

Long live our Soviet Motherland, built by the people's mighty hand.

Long live our People, united and free.

Strong in our friendship tried by fire. Long may our crimson flag inspire,

Shining in glory for all men to see.

1977 Version

1.

Unbreakable Union of freeborn Republics,

Great Russia has welded forever to stand.

Created in struggle by will of the people,

United and mighty, our Soviet land!

CHORUS:

Sing to the Motherland, home of the free,

Bulwark of peoples in brotherhood strong.

O Party of Lenin, the strength of the people,

To Communism's triumph lead us on!

2.

Through tempests the sunrays of freedom have cheered us,

Along the new path where great Lenin did lead.

To a righteous cause he raised up the peoples,

Inspired them to labour and valourous deed.

CHORUS

3.

In the victory of Communism's deathless ideal,

We see the future of our dear land.

And to her fluttering scarlet banner,

Selflessly true we always shall stand!

CHORUS

2000 Version

Russia - our sacred stronghold,
Russia - our beloved country.
A mighty will, a great glory
Are your inheritance for all time!

Chorus:
Be glorious, our free Motherland,
Ancient union of brotherly peoples,
Ancestor given wisdom of the people!
Be glorious, country! We take pride in you!

From the southern seas to the polar region
Spread our forests and our fields.
You are one in the world! You are one of a kind,
Native land protected by God!

Chorus

A broad expanse for dreams and for lives
Is opened to us by the coming years.
Our faith in our Motherland gives us strength.
So it was, so it is, and so it will always be!

Chorus

The Right to Self-Esteem

Now, granted, the Daily Universe (BYU's student newspaper) is not the most intellectually astute publication. Of course, I'm not sure that the category "our best and brightest" ever was meant to apply to journalists. So, it may be that no newspaper can properly be called an intellectually astute publication. The point is, the editorial board at the Daily Universe may have gotten what I'm about to bring up completely wrong.

In their editorial from the February 22, 2008 issue, the board talks about political correctness. They make this incredible assertion: "political correctness has among its central objectives to affirm the right to self-esteem."

Please, please, please tell me that no one actually believes that we should have a right to self-esteem. Even if it were just an uncommon belief...if anyone can show me that this is a highly uncommon belief, please do it. Quickly!

I'm sure all of you who will read this have already thought of these things, but just to be clear, let me point out a couple of problems with a right to self-esteem: sports, as we know them, would be rendered unconstitutional. You might actually see this lawsuit: "Patriots Sue Giants, Claim Right to Self-Esteem Violated in Super Bowl Loss." Comedy Central, all late night talk show hosts, and Bill O'Reilly would be in a great deal of trouble. Middle schoolers the country over would never talk.

I think political correctness has its place, though I think it's rather a small one. Certainly it's proper for me to alter my natural speech so as not to grossly affront ethnic groups, minorities, homosexuals, etc. But that alteration is not proper because those groups/people have a right to self-esteem. It is proper because it is respectful and kind. Asserting a right to self-esteem cheapens other rights that our fathers fought and died for. Those who do so should be ashamed of themselves.

Obama's Source of Power

Can anyone beat Barack Obama? He's so motivating, so hopeful, and so eloquent. While most of the nation sees the multitude of problems our nation faces and despairs, or at least is entirely confused, Barack Obama stands strong, telling us that "Yes, we can!"

Observe (fast forward to the 10:00 mark):

Well. A word about that slogan.

As it turns out, Obama isn't the first to champion the "Yes, we can!" mantra. Nor is he the first to bask in the euphoria that mantra creates. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Barack Obama's inspiration: Bob the Builder.

Conservatives are Irrelevant?

On CNN today, in the "Situation Room" (I'm sure the name was originally intended to make the program sound serious, but when you spend a good part of every day in the "Situation Room," doesn't it become the living room? The den maybe?), a panel of experts was discussing recent developments in the presidential race.

The panel noted that 14.4 million Democrats voted in the Super Tuesday primaries yesterday, while only 8.7 million Republicans came out to vote. Further, they pointed out that John McCain has all but secured the Republican nomination despite conservative pundits' best efforts to convince Republicans that McCain is not their man.

One of the experts offered the following analysis: "Conservatives are simply not relevant to what's happening in the United States today."

I thought I might examine that claim.

If Republicans = Conservatives, it seems odd to say they are irrelevant. After all, Republicans comprised 38% of those who voted on Super Tuesday. Certainly they were not the majority, but I was under the impression that the minority was not irrelevant in America. At least not to Democrats, right? Perhaps that's not the case when you disagree with the minority, or when the minority doesn't vote for you?

On the other hand, McCain's success in the Republican primaries despite conservative pundits' militancy against him seems to indicate either that Republican does not mean conservative or that conservatives are not heeding the advice of conservative pundits in this case.

If Republican does not mean conservative, then the CNN analyst could, but need not be, correct. It could be that there simply aren't many conservatives anymore, even among Republicans. In that case, they have become irrelevant in the sense that they are no longer a powerful political voice (although even then, the above comments about minorities still apply). However, it could also be that many conservatives simply did not vote in the Super Tuesday primaries, discouraged by the lack of a candidate that compels them. If that is true, it remains to be seen whether they will be irrelevant or not; conservatives would then be an untapped force in politics, still potent enough to affect the results of the primaries still to come, not to mention the general election.

Unless there are other plausible alternatives I have failed to consider, it seems the CNN analyst must have assumed that there are no longer many conservatives out there. He assumes that Republicans have become something other than conservatives--a new base, a different party with different priorities. These new Republicans are choosing John McCain.

What, then, are new Republicans' priorities? Are there enough new Republicans to effectively oppose the Democrats? Where will the remaining conservatives cast their voice? If the analyst was wrong, all of these questions are more irrelevant than conservatives. If he wasn't, what does the future hold for American politics?

I've experienced some great triumphs in my life. I've scored spectacular goals in soccer games. I got an A in my Metalogic class. I beat Becki Johnson at Rummikub (twice).

Today I experienced the antithesis of triumph. I began the morning by leaving my phone and keys in my room. My roommate was going snowboarding, so no one would be home for the day. I realized this while walking to school, but wasn't overly perturbed because I had all the books I'd need for the day. By the time I walked home at 5 pm, there would be someone there.

A marketing class and a devotional later, at noon, I was walking home. Yes, five hours early. No, I didn't remember that I didn't have my keys. After the twenty minute walk, I tried to walk in the door, and as my shoulder hit the wood, my mind cleared. And I bowed my head in shame.

All the way back up to campus, I tried to think of something that made it ok--something I could appreciate about the extra walking. The mountains are pretty, I guess. Whatever. I'm just lucky I didn't let my mind wander so much that I stepped in front of a car.

Battle at Kruger

Occasionally, there will be exciting things in this blog, like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM

Life is good when you're a water buffalo.