Eagles Raised as Chickens

Share

As I slowly watch Facebook taken over as a place to regurgitate memes, I withdraw from the world of social networking. I have to wonder what the people who spend time creating these things might accomplish if they put their minds to something more important than entertainment. The energy expended for a few moments of transitory and imagined fame does not match the return on the investment.

A few weeks ago, I caught a student watching videos unrelated to class on his iPAD during class. Aside from the problem of using college bandwidth to do this, I have to wonder what else he might have accomplished with the energies otherwise expended. I took him aside and told him in no uncertain terms "if you paid as much attention to Chemistry, you might be better at chemistry".

Most of these students intend to be medical professionals. With the rest of them, I discussed the importance of focusing themselves on the task at hand. How many of them want to be a patient who goes to a doctor who didn’t pay attention during schooling and who does not pay attention during the procedure? Then I asked them how many of them desire to be that kind of a doctor? You see, all of them will lose patients one day, and they will be able to get over them unless they lose the patient as a consequence of negligence or malpractice.

In his landmark work, The Screwtape Letters, CS Lewis writes about how the Adversary tries to steal our time and render us impotent for positive changes. Eventually we spend our lives doing neither what we like nor what we ought, and the devil wins if he wastes our time.

Several years back, an old friend of mine from high school made the following insight about me that I believe to be fairly accurate. She said, "I suspect, Doug, that you have a great ability to see what people are capable of becoming, and when they do not rise to the opportunity, you are devastated". I have long believed that most of us are Eagles who were raised to believe we are chickens. The story is told of a naturalist who visited a farm and saw an eagle in pecking with the chickens. He informed the farmer that he had an eagle, but the farmer insisted it was a chicken. Years before, he'd found a large egg and placed it in with the others and raised the bird as a chicken. Seriously? Who ever saw a chicken with an eight foot wingspan!

The naturalist set about proving that the bird was an eagle. He put the eagle on a fence post, got its attention and sternly told it as he pointed its face to the sky, "You are an eagle. Fly!" The eagle jumped down and began scratching with the chickens. Next, the naturalist took the eagle up atop the barn, pointed its face to the sky and said, "You are an eagle. Fly!" The eagle jumped down and resumed pecking. Finally, the naturalist took the bird high into the hills where it could not see the farm, pointed its face to the sky, and insisted more sublimely than before, "You are an eagle. Fly!" The eagle looked up, stretched out its wings, and flew, never to be seen again. "That," said the naturalist, "is an eagle."

Despite our potential for greatness, we are taught that we are chickens. For fear of being arrogant or vain or threatening to those around us, we hold ourselves back, believing it to be safer or better if we just peck around for food with the rest of the chickens. Consequently, many of us are lucky to 'scratch' out any kind of meaningful existence with the rest of the barnyard rabble. As long as we ignore our potential, we will never excell at Chemistry or Surgery or driving a big-rig or painting murals. We will spend our lives doing neither what we ought nor what we like. We are not chickens; we are eagles.

The following is often misattributed to Nelson Mendela (yet another one of those memes being falsely propagated on the internet) but actually comes from the book Return to Love by Marianne Williamson:

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us.

You were born to lead. You were born for glory. You were born in a time with the greatest technological, educational, vocational, intellectual, and philosophical opportunities of any time ever seen on this earth. As we decide the destiny of man, remember that of whom much is given much is required. We may not be responsible for past generations, but we cannot escape responsibility for this one; our time has come, and our obligation is clear- to act like the eagles we are and soar.

I Still Believe

Share

Many people think I'm a fool. I will admit that I do some foolish things, some of which (like my goatee) I am considering changing. However, I have come to two conclusions that explain why this is so. First of all, most human beings are not logical, and so they are no more rational than I am to choose to believe in God. Secondly, many of the people if not all who mock my beliefs are not really sure of their own.

Back in graduate school, our plant research group used to get together for journal club and critique the research of others. I learned that just because people agree doesn't make it sound research or useful or even true. I remember very vividly how we became inquisitive and discussed both the methods as well as the results. Most of it was not research on which I would be willing to hang my hat. Yet, many people trust scientists. I try to teach my students to be skeptical of science; that's probably my 'angle'. Just because many scientists agree doesn't make it true, let alone useful.

Consensus is a bad way to arrive at truth. As I have said before, I am fairsure lots of folks went down to the Spanish coast to watch Columbus sail off the edge of the earth, only to have him return many months later claiming to have circumnavigated the globe. Far before his time, scientists had established that the earth was curved, but they were probably all burned as heretics.

Today however it is the believers who are the heretics. People have become so dependent on people that they believe people are the be-all and end-all of everything. How vain. Human life is very fragile, and if the universe wished it, we would all die instantaneously. See, no matter what they say, even they believe in a higher power- even if it's cosmic dust, the Force, or a personified diety.

This morning, I dealt with this. In addition to a comment left by a previous reader, I saw several attacks on matters of faith. After reading the comment, I could tell that she was writing from emotion; she had not addressed or refuted any of the article's points; she assumed because I am strong in my Faith that I will enforce it on everyone else. She doesn't know me very well. Contrariwise, the secretary's daughter reported events from one of her classes that show her professor actively engaged in an attempt to proselyte and convert his students to agree with him. In this online discussion post, he clearly demonstrated his bias while claiming the guise of objectivity. How much more subjective can you be than to say, "You go girl!" in response to a post?

Then there are all the leading assumptions. I am really far more aware of how frequently this is as well as how frequently I say similar things. They say that one person who has an 'imaginary friend' is delusional but that many constitute a religion. In saying so, they are assuming the imaginary friend really is imaginary. How is this any more foolish than to think that drinking beer will get lots of women to want to date you or using drugs to escape reality or that one day soon we won't need any oil? Frequently they are quick to unjustly ascribe positive traits to innocent Muslims while concurrently ascribing negative intentions to most Christians. Honestly, I get very sick of the duplicity.

No matter what they tell you, the President and his closest hangers-on are the ones who are most at war with what you like and believe. They use the same old arguments. They say that we glut ourselves on the labor of others, that we teach people to believe in something that never was or will be, and that we are misleading them to become great. They are the ones who glut themselves (how many vacations is appropriate in a recession anyway?), who teach people to believe in things that never were nor will be (can a solar panel power a diesel truck? how much algae do we need to make a gallon of fuel?) and who mislead people to become great (Obama promised them money 'from his stash'). Whatever a liberal says you are doing is what he's actually doing.

I really think this comes back to consequences and accountability. These people who argue for fairness and equality really want permissibility and allowance. Freedom is responsibility. They preach that whatsoever a man does is no crime, unless you're religious, prosperous, and white, as if I had any say in the circumstances of my birth. They are trying to say that you are a villain because you were born to be one by virtue of where you were born. Say what? That sounds a lot like they're trying to create a Miscreant Class of people. That's contrary to their claims of utopia and peace to keep attempting to balkanize us.

Despite all of this, I still believe in people. I still believe that it is common for the majority of people to desire what is right and good and true. I still believe that, if they know the options, the consequences, and the truth, people will choose what is actually best for them. Whereas many people are kept from the truth because they know not where to find it or because they are deceived by liars, I think they can and will do what is right when the time comes. At least, I'm counting on a specific fraction of them to do so when the time to choose comes. To that end, I will continue to speak and think as I do, because even if you disagree with me, if I get you to think then the effort was worthwhile. Also, I still believe in God. I have arrived at a land of promise by trusting Him, and so I shall continue so to do.

What We Nourish Bears Fruit

Share

Last fall, I dug up over a dozen raspberry canes from my grandparents' back yard. You see, these were nostalgic for me, and since my grandparents didn't want them anymore, I thought I'd try to transplant them to Vegas so that I could continue the familial line for raspberries. Before long, they went dormant, but with our mild winter, they have already begun to metabolise. To my great dismay, very few of them survived.

Part of this is my fault. You see, I had nights when it was cold or dark or when I was out late where I should have watered them. I didn't pay attention enough to their care, and so some of them probably died as a direct consequence of my inattention. Likewise, a friend of mine who's been helping me with landscaping my house pointed out that I needed to water the two trees planted out front at least every other day. Since they were pricey and since I want them to survive, I have been pretty good since he told me about watering them with dedication.

I read a fair handful of posts and memes and other rotgut yesterday trouncing religion as the derangements of a misguided mind. Ironically enough, people have been using this attack line for centuries and people still believe in a Creator. The fact of the matter is that everyone believes in something. We all take things on faith. My students rely on me to give them accurate information, and I know one young lady in my chemistry class who hates having to make corrections crumpled up a paper one night with great theatrics after I told them I had made a mistake. The fact that they do not water or fertilize issues of faith means that faith does not grow for them. The fact that they water and fertilize their own particular beliefs and values and norms means that they are caring for and nurturing what they believe.

Most people are less interested in discovery of the truth than they are in hoping to discover that the truth coincides with their preconceived notions. Of course the people who believe nothing harvest no fruit from matters of faith because they do not cultivate faith. They cultivate other things. Ironically enough, the things they cultivate bear as little fruit as they believe my faith produces. However, it is one of the greatest crimes a human may commit against another to destroy his faith and leave nothing in the wake thereof.

When the time comes to harvest berries, I have very few surviving canes. It is possible that the survivors are stressed enough that they will not produce any berries at all. That does not mean they are fruitless or worthless; it only means they are bearing fruit in accordance with the nurturing care they received. When our faith is not immediately validated with miracles and divine assistance, frequently we throw out the baby with the bath water. It is not necessarily because faith is wrong or even that we have done anything wrong; sometimes we have not done the right things long enough.

With very little exception, only things that are nourished bear fruit. Even the spontaneous berries and nuts in the wild come about because circumstances were sufficient for their nourishment in the wild. Just because those trees produce very little next year does not mean they are worthless. It only means they are not sufficently nourished to produce fruit. Even the best of seeds cannot grow to maturity without the necessary nutrients. We learn of what a seed is made only after we make the material investment to see it grow into that for which we hope.

Most men who discount faith do so because there is no proof. Well, if we had proof, that would not be faith, it would be knowledge, and if a man has knowledge of a thing what need is there for faith? Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things. The man of faith hopes for things unseen that are true. The same is true of a man of science- he hopes for things unseen that are true. Men of science ignore their own faith because it's frequently a shorter path from hope to knowledge, but that doesn't mean we won't be vindicated. In 1492, everyone knew the earth was flat. A great deal of people went to the Spanish shoreline to watch Columbus sail off the edge of the earth to his death. Several months later, perhaps to their great disappointment, he returned and eventuall proved every man of science in his day to be a complete fool. In the 1830s, the US Patent office closed with a statement that 'everything that possibly could be invented already has been'. They have since admitted they were wrong and reopened it.

Only nourished seeds produce fruit. Men of science feed the seeds of their faith with grant money, the lives of graduate students, and large budgets. They begin with knowledge that they also take on faith. I don't know many people who have reproduced Franklin's kite experiment, Mendel's pea garden, or Jablot's petri dishes, but we move forward from that place with the same faith as men who take as truth that Moses parted the Red Sea, Jesus walked on water, and Elijah called dow fire from heaven. None of us have recreated those things either, but that is where we begin. Do not assume we are wrong, for science demonstrates more often than not that what we take to be true is anything but. Someday, what we men of faith nourish will also bear fruit.

Kept Away

Share

I haven't posted as much as I normally do or would like. I've fallen behind on grading in class, and I have 10 assignments that needed to be graded, entered, and then returned, and I am woefully behind in my work. Of course I tell the students not to worry about grades, but they do, and so I've put my shoulder to that wheel.

There are so many things that keep us away from what we ought to do. Sometimes we're tired, other times we're busy, and some nights to be quite frank I couldn't care less. However, the work remains to be done, and there's nobody else I can ask to do the task and on whom I can rely to get things done that are mine to do.

Part of the problem is that I'm under a standing learning curve. When I am at my regular day job in the lab, I have had to learn new things every year for each of the four years I have been here. Professors change curriculum that requires the validation of new experimental procedures, procurement of new equipment and materials, changes in paperwork and timing, more attention to disposal, and learning of new techniques and responsibilities. In the classroom, I have now taught six unique courses in the three years I have been teaching. This year alone, I have taught four unique courses that I have never taught before. Consequently, I must write brand new lectures, quizzes, exams, homework, review sheets, ad infinium in order to prepare. So, I write everything, reproduce it, and then I have to grade it too, sometimes only a week or two after it first came into existence. It's a lot of work starting out.

My great satisfaction this week came in an email last night. One of my students asked me for practical advice in advance of a surgery. When she spoke with the surgeon and attendent physicians, they saluted her for taking those steps and endorsed them all as wise moves. Whatever else she does in life or in class, she learned something useful and practical from me. That is really cool.

I try to be reachable and approachable. Fairly early on, it becomes clear that I'm a big dork. I quote Spock and Serenity, tell jokes about hydrogen atoms in a bar, and confess not only my ineptitude in dating but my nonchalance thereat. Everyone wants to be accepted for who they really are without having to return the favor, and I want them to know I am glad to have them in class. I know that most of these people are already very accomplished. They applied, were accepted into college, and then took enough math, english, and introductory science to end up in chemistry. It kicks their butt. I want them to be successful and to excel in their chosen field. I don't want them to be kept away because of grades.

The other thing you probably don't know is that I am constantly interrupted by minor emergencies. Over the past several weeks, I have held several conversations with people who needed my help. I wouldn't be much of a friend if I were not there for them, and some of these conversations have occured during times when I intended to grade. The grades will eventually get done; this was a more immediate need.

Bit by bit, I hope to get caught up by the weekend on everything except the two exams I'm giving this week. I promised my Chemistry class last night I'd have their stuff back by Wednesday, which gives me a week, and the microbiology class can wait until the following Saturday. I feel better now and have some extra motivation, which should help me keep on task and productive in the hours of the evening besides just doing what I'd like to do.

Loving the Sinner

Share

Although I do not think they mean it this way, I think I discovered the secret to how one can 'support the troops without supporting the mission'.  In this post, I wish to clarify that this in no way unjustly ascribes this virtue to people who spout that line; they prove how they believe by how they treat other men.  The ability to love a person without loving what they do comes when we learn to separate the behavior from the human being and love the human being irrespective of their behavior. As we come to understand and internalize that concept, that we can love a person without loving their behavior, it empowers us and frustrates their efforts to annoy us and have power over us.

When the mob brought the woman taken in adultery before Christ, he ignored their premise. I rather suspect that he was smiling inside the entire time he doodled in the dust, because this was a win-win scenario for everyone who was willing and able to learn. The woman would have mercy; the mob would learn wisdom; Jesus would change their lives by changing their hearts. Naturally, he loved them all. He loved the crowd for their zeal but because he loved them he also desired that things for them should be better, and so he looked forward to this teaching opportunity. As for the woman, he loved who she was, who she really could be, and consequently he condemned only her behavior and sent her on her way.

We talk all the time about how 'everyone's human'. When it comes to our mistakes, we excuse ourselves for our humanity; when people offend us, we take it personally. When someone cuts us off in traffic, we signal our intent with our hands. When we cut off someone in traffic, we act as if we have center of the universe syndrome- that everyone else exists to play a role as supporting cast. I have hanging just inside my front door a picture of Spock with the subtitle: "Remember- Humans are not logical". It has helped me several times in the week since I hung it up to digest the contumelies with which I am faced in life. We are human. We will make mistakes. What makes the difference is whether or not you let your mistakes make you.

I surprised the secretary in the office this week with a conversation while surprising myself. When she told me that she appreciated me because she could tell I really care, I told her that if I really care about someone, I desire that they should be somewhere other than here with someone other than me. You see, I know my weaknesses, and since I am ill-inclined to correct some of them, if I care about you I desire that you have as friend, fiancee, or whatever else someone who is inclined to and capable of and interested in being a better man than I. Also, if I care about you, I do not desire that you languish here in physical, emotional, or spiritual pain. That is selfish. If I really care about you, I hope for your quick death, not because I don't like you, but because that is the shortest path to your eternal, lasting, and full reward for your life. You see, I am not living for this world, and my reward is not here. When I arrive in that next life, I rather suspect I will be somewhat average if not someone with catching up to do.

One night this week, a friend of mine came by for a visit. He told me that he was surprised I am his friend given his past. You see, before that night I didn't really know about his past, but he was measuring his past against mine without considering the different circumstances that brought about our lives. I think he might have expected upon the telling of his tale that I would kick him out of my house and unfriend him. He should know me better than that.

Just as the beard is not the man, the sin is not the man. Human beings are amazing creatures. Now, many of us do justify our own improprieties based on our failings. In doing so, we candidly admit that the behavior is common but not something that necessarily changes our nature. Habits change our nature, and for every sinner who repents, there is more joy in heaven than over the ninety and nine just persons who need no repentance. Now, I don't know 99 people who need no repentance, so the heavens must be very joyous. Although my friend spoke as if I were the exemplar by which he defines a successful life, I told him that as he repents, he is the success story. Don't follow me; follow Christ, and if you end up like me, you'll be ok. There is a good reason why Christ taught the parable of the prodigal son. Our nature does not change by our behavior. The son was still the son of his father. When he contritely returned and sought the comfort and assistance of his father, he was welcomed home without question.

Learn to frankly forgive. Learn to love the sinner, not for what he does, but for who he is. As we gain understanding of the eternal nature of the soul, we understand why the prodigal was welcomed home and why a soldier can be loved and supported despite what he does. Like the prodigal, he is also someone's son, someone's brother, and sometimes someone's father. At his root, he is a human being, which is the most precious resource in the universe according to our Creator. I am sure that my goodness pleases my Father in Heaven. How much more pleasure then must it give Him when you love the sinner? "Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out of your synagogues, or your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them." We can be the means of saving some other soul.

The greatest work in which we can be engaged in this life is to save the souls of our fellow men. I challenge you to look for the good in mankind, in his nature, in his being, and in his potential. As you catch the vision of that, it will help them to see it as well, and perhaps some of them will be inspired to rise to the occasion and live their potential. I rather suspect that one reason why 'cheaters don't change' comes from the fact that nobody cares about them enough to help them change. When they come into our homes or lives and expose the truths about their past, we kick them out and unfriend them. If we cannot be allowed to leave the past in the past when we become new men, we in essence lose our hope for the future. I testify that change is possible. I testify that Christ makes new men with recycled exterior facades. I have learned how to love the sinner, because I know that his sin is never really against me. God sometimes asks things of men so they can prove their worth; they might not do as well as I would like or expect, but He knows what He's doing, and I can salute the office without saluting how the man officiating therein acts. Sin is not our nature, or at least it must not be so, and that is the good news of the gospel- that we can become something other than we are today through Christ.

War on Our Religion

Share

I have been watching the political developments of the last few weeks with a slightly different take than some others. Last night at dinner, a close friend argued in favor of the contraception mandate because "Catholics don't have to pay out because practicing Catholics won't use contraceptives". How many real Catholics would we find? That's like saying people who have self control won't drink if the alcohol is free and provided by their church. He thinks we'd find lots of true adherants. I don't see the logic.

Yesterday, I found three images on the internet I wish to share in the context of war on our religion. I believe that the Monarchists in politics, mostly in the Democrat party but also in all the others, are actively engaged in a war against freedom of religion. Others have used the phrase, "Freedom from religion", but I don't think that's right either. I think Monarchists want to force us to believe as they do for the reasons that they do, and that's the problem.

First up, I found and responded to this inaccurate image of the Jefferson nickle.

The people who posted this are falling for an old lie. This is not a new trick. During the election of 1800, supporters of John Adams ran the inaccurate slogan of "God and Adams or Jefferson and no God". Anyone who knows anything about Jefferson knows that although he was not an adherent of any particular Faith he was still a man of great faith. He did after all write the Declaration of Independence. This is just another in a long series of inaccurate internet posts propagated by people who do not do their own research trying to validate their preconceived notions. Most people are not interested in truth; they secretly hope the truth will validate what they already happen to believe. Just because it's on the internet and popular doesn't make it true; in fact, usually the more popular it is, the less useful or trans-formative it will prove in your life. Do your own homework. That's always good advice.

However, it's spreading like wildfire across the internet as people comment on it. I reject the premise that my faith and my Faith are somehow the problem.  Some of the propagators of these inaccurate notions are naive, but some of them take it as validation of what they believe, very much like the next image.

This one is full of an ad populum designed to make them feel akin to famous historical figures. Lots of people like to link themselves to famous people as if it validates them without considering the links to people who are famous with whom I might not want to be associated. However, many of these figures are fallaciously associated with atheism. Franklin, as a Freemason, had to believe in a supreme being. Jefferson was a Deist. Lincoln spoke and wrote often of God. Einstein believed in a controlling force at least. Spinoza was more of an old world polytheist who believed God made the world and then let it spin without interfering. Darwin studied to enter the clergy before his trip aboard the Beagle. At any rate, the word agnostic (meaning opposed to specific Faith) is more appropriate than aetheist (meaning opposed to faith in general), and so the argument is invalid.

Finally we come to this one. Now at first, I really wanted to like this, but then I looked for images on "Typical Conservatives" and "Typical Republicans" so I could see if I found them offensive. I am not convinced there is anything like a typical liberal, but we do see many of these in Liberals. What I wish to focus on is two specific squares.

Tolerant: except of Christianity

Diverse: unless it's straight, white people

Over the last few weeks, we've heard a load of talk about contraceptives and abortion. First, the Komen foundation tried to split from Planned Parenthood (which is another misnomer). Now, Obama wants to force insurers to provide for abortions and contraceptives. I personally happen to have need of neither of those. I might never need them, and I reject the notion that I should bankroll those who do through open rebellion against my morality. Were I to openly rebel against theirs, they would have be hung, drawn, and quartered, albeit largely metaphorically.  Monday, I tweeted that "The contraceptive debate finally explains Obamacare: Monarchists want to fornicate at will without having to be responsible for children." At the grand opening of the Mob Museum Tuesday (Valentine's Day), former Vegas Mayor Goodman allegedly made comments that cheapen marriage by comparing a wedding ceremony to a mob induction, that once you say 'i do' you never get out. Finally, Wednesday I read an article about how fornication goes high tech. This is one of the things that's wrong with the world- sex as a form of recreation, which is expressly repugnant in the eyes of nature and of "Nature's God" (to quote Jefferson ;)). Humans are the only animals who think this is 'fun'.  The media and cultural icons have led us to believe that sex is fun, but sex isn't really that much fun. Our bodies like it for two reasons. First, our bodies desire to procreate and thereby guarantee the perpetuity of our genes to future generations as proof of their virility. Secondly, our bodies have learned to like sex because there's a pleasure receptor in our brain that is activated during sexual climax that has also been activated at exciting hockey games, during meteor showers, and when you eat potato chips, and our bodies are addicted to it.

These political moves are offensives in the war on morality and religion. I do not accept the premise that they're trying to make a better world for everyone.  What they're actually doing is meddling.  They're in our homes and in our heads without the right because they subscribe to the notion that although you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink that they can lead men to paradise by forcing him to be better.  Religion should be a matter of choice- that we choose to be choice.  In framing the Constitution, Madison wrote that it is for a moral and religious people, something that Monarchists cannot stand. In the marriage debate, some argue for Adam + Steve, but somehow polygamy, polyandry, and filiandry (marriage of close relatives) offend their sensibilities. So much for 'equality'. What they really mean is that they want what they want to be legal, our sensibilities be damned. So much for 'tolerance'. I find it ironic that they do not want the church involved in government but think nothing at all of government dictating terms to the church. When it comes to men of faith, my concern is always the same- even if they mean to rule well, they mean to rule. That is inconsistent with real faith, which makes men agents unto themselves as well as accountable for what they do.

These people want to do whatever they like but cry foul if you do in kind. I responded to a fellow's blog yesterday who complained that religous people always get what they want. When pressed for details, he cited the insertion of "In God We Trust" into the pledge. I followed up with "so, your idea of religious people getting everything they like is when they get something with which you happen to take exception? What is it called then when you get something to which I take exception?" That has gone thus far unanswered. They want standards to be ephemeral, to be integrated constantly. The only constant they accept is change, change to whatever whimsical notion they like at the time. That's not an adult attitude; that's the attitude of a teenager. If they could, they would pass laws that make it allowable to do whatever they like, but if you did that they would call it oppression. Human beings are not logical, and Spock was right to show us.

The radicals of both sides want to impose their morality on everyone else. They wage war against what we believe, and it's time for people to unite, whatever their belief, so that we can believe as we like and live as we ought. Last weekend, I started studying the foundations of the Confederacy. Many among the fans of this movement cite the right to live as they please according to the dictates of conscience. I echo the sentiments of Stonewall Jackson, that it's duplicitous to cry for freedom while you oppress an entire race, religion, nationality, or gender, that it's duplicitous to establish freedom by declaring that those who hold power ought to be denied their rights so you can have yours. Such a notion changes one man's idea of oppression for another's, and the war will go on and on while they scapegoat men of faith for holding fast to a standard.

What College Really Serves

Share

Last semester, I had a student who was very engaged, very enthusiastic, and very attentive. She was also obsessed with grades. When she discovered someone scored a higher grade than she on an exam, she pitched a fit. She misapprehends what the true purpose of college is, and college is part of the reason for her misapprehension.

Like so many others I have seen, this young lady was headed into the medical field. The nursing program weights the GPA of a candidate higher than I think is wisely warranted. You see, GPA is no valuable predictor of dedication, reliability, sacrifice, and fitness for employment. What it tells me is that they are very good at regurgitating information, and nothing else reliably. I know many people, myself included, who had high GPAs but who have not risen to the highest heights of what the world refers to as "success". This is the major reason why I worry less about grades.

My senior semester of undergraduate, I took a very difficult course in Metabolic Regulation. It was renown as a course that destroyed egos and illusions of control. After my first exam, I went to see the professor. You see, I don't study for hours on end to earn a 71%, and I wasn't even one of those students who did well without studying. I put a lot into this, and I asked the professor what I should do differently when studying. His answer surprised me. He told me I shouldn't change a thing. After the final, I went to his office to get my final semester grade. He told me, although someone has since eclipsed this accomplishment, that I had obtained the highest ever total score in his course after some twelve years teaching it. You see, his theory was that his tests held you accountable for everything he felt you should know, and that if you knew everything about a particular subject already, then there was really no reason for you to take the course. I had mastered a significant and impressive fraction of information at the undergraduate level, and he rewarded me accordingly.

I used to tell this young lady to stop trying to prove to me how smart she was. I already knew that. I knew that if I wanted to, I could ask her anything, and she'd at least hit a ground ball to the infield. What I actually desired to see was that she was learning. Learning is the true purpose of college, and if you have not learned in a course, the course has been a failure.

Properly done, college teaches you how to learn. It does not exist to teach you what to learn, although in the process that also occurs, or where to learn or how fast to learn or for what reason you should learn. People come to college with preconceived notions of that already, things they learned in their homes and in their earlier schooling. Instead of learning, students concern themselves with what's going to be on the test, where we are in the text, etc., when I'm trying to teach them things that will transform their lives. No, I won't ask my introductory chemistry students to explain the difference between Tylenol and generics, but I explained it to them because it was relevant to their lives and empowers them to make better choices. If they have not learned, then I have failed, no matter what their grades are. Conversely, no matter what your grade is, it is possible that you have learned.

This is how I know that even students who fail can ultimately be success stories. I think back to my first semester in Vegas when a young lady came to my office just two weeks before the semester ended. She wanted to save her grade, which was a 42%, and there was nothing I could really do to help her. Instead, I began by saying, "The next time you take this course..." and talked about how this was a learning experience for her. I have the great honor of knowing that she was ultimately accepted into the nursing program, and I hope she is doing well applying the lessons she learned from me and from others.

Lines, Borders, and Marks

Share

A friend of mine who has previously worked as a professional surveyor has offered to come help me lay out the garden plots in my back yard. He has educated me a great deal about lines, borders, and marks, and although the scale of my yard is not big enough that it will make a great deal, I am aware consciously of the errors in my landscaping, and I would rather find a more perfect way.

When I ripped out my yard, I did so because the previous owner did right things for the wrong reasons or the wrong way. The old walkway out back was at an angle, such that it looked and felt wrong and dissuaded me from spending any time out back. Thinking that I was good enough to do it myself, I worked all day with a friend to set up forms for new concrete walkways and a concrete staircase. After all that work, it is within 0.25" of tolerance and within 25% of the appropriate slope. That's pretty good for a biochemist.

However, sometimes it's not good enough. If you look at an aerial map or street map of Las Vegas, you will see even if you don't register that the city was laid out originally with an error of two degrees. At Charleston BLVD, all the north-south arterials suddenly jog into their corrected lines because they were not laid out correctly. I find it fascinating to think that the original land surveyors, 150 years ago, walked across the desert floor, hiked up mountains, and tried their best to set markers, especially when I see people today taking shortcuts. Out in Summerlin, it's even worse, because few of the streets are straight. Fascinated with being unique, they laid out concentric circles, and curves that introduce even more error.

Our world today reflects this disdain for the techniques of the past. Just like the people who designed Summerlin's streets, some people today feel like there should be no morality, that it's boring or bad to be straight, and claim that the only rule ought to be "do what feels good for you". They would have you believe that whatsoever a man does is no crime. If there are no straight lines, it is easy to miss the mark.

Technically, sin means simply to miss the mark. When Jay and I worked on the concrete forms, we measured, marked, measured again, and then hoped that the concrete forms would hold their shape when we filled them with concrete. When we dropped those chalk lines, we faced a choice of adjusting them to be more correct or insisting on doing it our own way. So far, the landscaping was good enough for me, but when rain puddles on the top step, I may regret it.

Fortunately, my landscaping is not eternally significant. Unfortunately, other choices we make are. Sometimes we satisfy ourselves with the semblance over substance, saying that it's good enough to look the part, act the part, or get what we can. Sometimes, we intentionally miss the mark because we think we know better than people who do things professionally. As we make these choices, we miss the mark, and since decisions of morality, matrimony, and testimony last far beyond this life, when we move forward sometimes we find ourselves far from our goal.

The story is told of a certain airline flight from New Zealand to Antarctica in 1979. When the plane left, the directions were off by just two degrees. This took them 28 miles from where they were expected to be. During the flight, because it was snowing and the ground was covered with snow, it was difficult to see anything. As they searched for land markers that were miles away because of the error in degrees, they did not notice the altimeter. They were flying towards a volcano, and by the time the alarm klaxon blared, the ground had risen to meet them. All aboard were killed or froze to death before search crews found the site.

There is a reason we do what we do and follow rules. It is not to confine us and hold us back. It is to help us achieve the best approximation of our vision we are capable of achieving. There is an easy way to do things, and then there is the way of vanity, that claims you know better than people who have gone before and done before what you are about to do for the first time. It has been said that smart people learn from their mistakes and that wise people learn from the mistakes of others because there is not time to make them all yourself. The devil and his minions have tried to convince you that the Commandments of God make life harder when they really make life easier. They show us a more perfect way, a straight way, that leads us without errors and corrections to our destinations and keep things laid out as we expect them. You see, others will build based on what we lay down, and if we lay down crooked paths, they will face more trouble making them straight.

The way of God is a way of constancy, a clear and straight path on which we can rely to arrive swiftly and in safety at a land of promise. As Alma taught the people of Gideon:

For I perceive that ye are in the paths of righteousness; I perceive that ye are in the path which leads to the kingdom of God; yea, I perceive that ye are making his paths straight. I perceive that it has been made known unto you, by the testimony of his word, that he cannot walk in crooked paths; neither doth he vary from that which he hath said; neither hath he a shadow of turning from the right to the left, or from that which is right to that which is wrong; therefore, his course is one eternal round. (Alma 7:19-20).

There is a right way, a better way, and a more perfect way than that which any man can design for himself. The lines, borders, and marks were set by a Man who walked into a Wilderness for us so that we might cross it swiftly and safely if we would follow Him. Make sure you include the Lord in your decisions. Much as you may value my opinions and contributions, He is the only one who will give you perfect counsel. If He certifies your choice, make it boldly, confidently, and faithfully, and move forward no matter what happens. Only He knows what will be best for this nation and its people preparatory to the second coming. As Jacob, I echo "Oh Be Wise. What can I say more?"

Are You Ready to Leap?

Share

One of my favorite movie franchises of all time is the Indiana Jones series (except for the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull which I have not seen and never intend to see). Among other things, they actually dealt with themes of principle and virtue, albeit centered around action, and that is why I enjoy them so much. In that franchise, my favorite scene, and one I have referenced off and on for over a decade, is the one in which Indiana must leap from the lion's head. He must make a leap of faith to reach the grail and save his father. I love that.

While serving as a missionary in Austria, the Innsbruck Zone made that our theme. This Sunday afternoon, while reminiscing a bit and perusing some of my memorabilia from that time, I came across the following picture Elder Lucas Howes made and asked myself the question again: "Are You Ready to Leap?"

Only in the leap from the lion's head do we prove our worth.

I spoke today with the office secretary at one of our satellite campuses (campii?) about some of my projects, ideas, and activities. In response, she told me that I'm the only person she knows who is always living as he believes. I told her that I do that because my treasure is not of this world. There is nothing I can imagine in this world that I really value that the world can give me. Sure, I desire a good wife, a dear mate, a help meet, and the children that might come from such a union. I do not have those, and they are not mine to get in any way I would choose according to my morals to acquire them, and so I am free to follow the prompts of my heart. The world cannot give me love or posterity. That relies on the agency of another person, and until such time as I meet someone who is willing and able to start one with me, I concern myself with your families instead.

As I have previously written, I realize this is not about me. It's more than my job, my house, and what I would like to do with my life. I belong to a family, live in a neighborhood, work in a community, and believe in a nation. Beyond all that, I serve a God who has promised that those who lose their lives for His sake shall find them, and so I go about trying to lose the life He gave me doing the things I feel He would have me do and becoming the man I believe He would have me become.

In a few weeks, I will make a decision that will radically change my life. It might be a good thing, and it might be good only far in the future after I pass through a period of trial it will invite. However, I have learned from my parents, from study and from recent personal experience that God loves me and will not allow anything to happen to me that is not somehow calculated for my eternal benefit. I am not living for this world, and so I am willing to rely on the powers and mercy of another one.

Like Indiana, I stand on a ledge where I am asked to take a leap of faith. Every one of you, like him and me will eventually be called upon to do the same if you haven't already. As you look toward that time, ask yourself if you are ready to leap. Will you do what is necessary? Will you do what God asks? What price are you willing to pay to receive the reward you claim you desire above all others? Indiana just had to take a step, but many people have to take thousands of steps, crossing the plains in covered wagons, wandering the Sinai, or living by the Brook Kidron while being fed by birds. I think many of us fear to leap because, although we may be willing to die for our beliefs, we are not really ready to live for them. The pain of death is sudden. The pain of living your beliefs requires you to prove every minute of every hour of every day that you mean what you say. It can be hard to endure to the end.

While my detractors speak of how they know I will fail, I try not to concern myself too much with that. If as a consequence of acting on the promptings of God's Spirit I lose my job, my house, my social standing in the community, or even my life, I trust that God will allow it to be taken because He intends to give me something better. My parents taught me to trust in God and feel as safe in my bed as I am on any podium, in any interview, or on any battlefield. The time, manner, and place of my death are already known, and so rather than concern myself with that, I endeavor to always be ready, to always be true, so that when that time overtakes me I will fell confident before God that I am what I am, and that what I do comes from what I have become. This makes me brave and gives me the courage and faith to leap.

When the time comes for you to make that leap of faith, will you be ready? I challenge you to begin today to change into what you would like to be. Every one of us writes his own autobiography day by day, decision by decision, until our story reflects our values and our decisions. I testify that as you endeavor to be what you were born to be, that you will feel the comfort and presence of our Heavenly Father as well as His voice whispering, "This is the way. Walk ye in it." and be ready when He calls to leap.

Make the Case For It

Share

Over the last several days, I have been reminded of a pet peeve. Many people defend or define things by telling me what they are not. "What is cold?" "It's not hot". "What is rich?" "It's not poor". "Why do you like so-and-so?" "Because he's not like my ex." Tell us why you like it by making the case for it.

Unless you can tout the virtues and qualities of something, I am not sure you really understand or value it. I like my house because it's close enough to work, has enough yard, has a really cool loft I converted to a library, and was cheap enough that I can afford it working at Del Taco. I like my car because it's fuel efficient, paid for, cheap to operate, and gets me reliably from A to B. It would be silly to say that I like my house because it's not a mobile home or not in a different neighborhood, because that's true of MANY homes. Likewise, it would be silly to say I like my car because it's not a Fiat or a rusted out hulk. These comparisons are not sufficient.

Frequently when people try to sell me something, a product or an idea or a person, they do so by telling me that it's not what I currently have. Yes, I know that. Your argument is invalid. Tell me why I would want to acquire it or support it because otherwise what reason have I to change my mind? It is not really a quality to 'not be something'; that's a LACK of a quality. My ex employer, former wife, or old house are no longer mine anymore, and I do not necessarily need or value them or else I might still have them, in which case I wouldn't need your product, service or politician, because I'd already have something that wasn't like the car or house or job I currently have.

I have never heard anyone say they knew their wife was right for them because she wasn't like their ex. That might be true, but they usually list a group of character traits that equate to what they value in the person. If it was about what a thing is not, then it would be equally valuable to date and marry a pencil, a can of orange juice, (or a pillow). This kind of thinking sabotages thought, sabotages people, places, and things, to make them scapegoats. They are trying to hide the flaws in what they want to sell you, and they know it, which is why they cannot show how it is better.

Red Herrings were created to distract us from where we should place our attention. It's never that what people want us to buy or believe has any problems; those things are perfect. What we have or desire or believe is flawed, and they have something better. Of course it's flawed; everything created by man, who is flawed, will be flawed. Show me how it's better. It must be a win-win, or no deal.

Ask people to make the case for why they support with three fundamental legs of argument that define what a thing is. People will foment this year about how particular politicians or policies are good because Romney is not Santorum, Gingrich, or Obama, but we must ask what he really is. People will argue that the policies of the GOP are bad because they will hurt seniors or the poor or the unemployed. Ask how the policies of the DEMs will help those people. Doing no harm is different from doing good. Not being a bad person is different from being a good one. Do not get caught up in 'good' when we can upgrade to 'better' or 'best'.

When people sell you something, remember that they're not necessarily doing it because it's in your best interest. All of these work at home ideas like Mary Kay or Service Merchandise or Tahitian Noni directly benefit the seller more than they do you. Your friends come to sell you knives or vitamins or subscriptions, not because they know you need them, but because they desire to get paid. They have something to get from it, and it is usually far greater than the benefit you will receive. They are looking out for their interests, which is why it's all the more important to ask them to prove to you why it will help you, not just how it can.

Just because a thing can be good doesn't follow that it must be the case. However, the more data you have, the better decision you can make about whether or not an idea, a product, or a policy is right and best for you. To suggest that other people, especially if they do not know you or do not like you, really have your best interests in mind seems silly to me. Ask them to prove it.

The Real Romeo

Share

It is with some trepedation that I anticipate the Utah Shakespeare Festival's return in 2013. For their fifth visit since moving to Vegas, they will do the Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, which is a very wonderful play that is frequently poorly done. Many of my younger acquaintences dramaticize it as a sign of how they expect their love lives to proceed, but very few recognize the truths about the play, particularly that it's a tragedy.

Romeo and Juliet is not about contemporary love. It does not deal with contemporary lovers. It is about the love of youth- the first flame- and about the love of family, or familial piety. What it actually shows is what happens when people do things in the name of love that are nothing like love at all.

Consider the ages of the players. Romeo is around 16 years old (nobody seems to be exactly sure) and Juliet is 13. She is hardly the voluptuous sophisticate as she is depicted in so many theatrical and cinematographic recreations. They are foolish youths who are feeling the first stirrings of what lead to 'family'. Like the youth of today, they are rebelling; unlike the youth of today, they are thoughtful and do not do stupid things like post all their relationship nuances onto Facebook.

The play is, quite frankly, a poem. It is a play on words. In order to sell tickets, get teenagers involved, etc., producers have introduced many things to make the play salacious, sensuous and sensational. It is nothing of the sort. There is no balcony, no kiss, and no making out. Most of the love scenes are poetic exchanges between the players, and they are beautiful expressions of love as the players understand it.

While Romeo watches, Juliet opines the fact that her family is at odds with Romeo's. This is an important point. I have never actually dated a girl whose parents liked me; unlike Juliet, none of them have decided to defy their parents, and none of them have run off with me like Lysander and Hermia to the peril of disproval or death. The same thing comes up when people opine matters of name, wealth, religion, social status, etc., because people are people, and we usually connect with people who share our values in their hearts, no matter what their values might be on paper. This is how proud Texans could fight alongside Carolina farmboys and the Virginia gentry- they shared a value, but I digress. Juliet realizes that she likes Romeo for who he is, irrespective of the titles he might or might not carry, to include his family name. This makes her an interesting love interest, because she does not love as a teenager and demand that he be tall or blonde or know what an adirondack chair is in order to be worthy of her favor.

Romeo is before all else a gentleman, and his first overture is to offer an exchange of vows. Following that, they do not make out, jump into bed together, or any of that other nonsense producers add to make it look like the bastardized form of love with which most folks are familiar. A girl from such a noble family would have allowed no physical contact with a man outside of wedlock. Her reply is a model of propriety and worth learning by heart:

"If that thy bent of love be honourable,

Thy purpose marriage, send me word to-morrow,

By one that I'll procure to come to thee,

Where and what time thou wilt perform the rite;

And all my fortunes at thy foot I'll lay

And follow thee my lord throughout the world. "

If you really love me, marry me first, perform the rite, and then I will be your partner for all time. Oh, for the love that is really seen in this play!

Then and only then do the players make love. Then and only then do they kill themselves to be together. Then and only then do the parents learn that real love means letting people make mistakes and grow as a consequence.

Romeo and Juliet are a tragic example of what happens when we let other people tell us what to do. Its example of love is powerful. The star-crossed lovers make the best choices people of that age might be expected to make, far better than most around us who will sell their virtue cheaply. Their parents, ostensibly out of love, do not treat their children as agents, and by consequence leave them little else in order to be true to their vows. That piety to God is an interesting lesson also. Too frequently, people who love us want us to love them first, even though they also know the first commandment is to love God with everything. I have to credit Romeo and Juliet for that.

As for the productions, this could be such a great story. I hope the USF does it justice and focuses on something else as they make a story about love.

Girls Who Wear Rings

Share

A few semesters ago, I came into class one night and noticed something different about a young lady in the front row. She was wearing a ring on her left ring finger, so I congratulated her on her engagement. Then she told me that she wears that to keep the creepy stalker guys away.

I have news for you. That really keeps the best guys away. A man of good morals will immediately lose interest in a woman when he sees her wearing a ring. Actually, the best of men don't even need a ring; if you mention your boyfriend or fiancee or whatever, they will immediately put you in the friend zone. It is not part of real manhood to steal a friend's girl. You see, that title or token means that she is the property of someone else, and good men do not covet or steal their neighbor's property or family. In the eyes of a good man, you render yourself all but invisible as you attempt to drive away some of the guys who press you and don't know how to accept 'no' as an answer.

Plus, the ring attracts a whole new kind of miscreant. See, there are the guys who like the challenge, who like the pursuit, and they purposefully go looking for girls they can steal, not because they actually desire to keep them, but because it's a kind of sport to take a girl from another guy. This is actually worse than that creepy guy who loves you far too much.

Some of the creepy guys will never understand. However, this is a pretty sure-fire way to drive away the very best of potential mates. When I see a girl with a ring, I am no longer interested. Now, I have friends who tell me that if I want to get hit on, I should wear a ring, but I'm not interested in a girl either who is interested in a guy who is already taken. That's not a sign of respect; it's a sign that they are selfish. Creepy guys might be creepy, but they're not usually predators or players.

The problem with playing games is that it attracts the kind of guy who likes to play games. This is the ultimate game for some guys- capture the flag. They don't want to keep the flag. They get their joy from stealing it from the other team. Some girls, sadly, encourage the game. For some reason they get joy out of watching guys battle it out to see who's more worthy. However exciting that might be, it sets you up to be with a guy who treats you as an object rather than an agent, a partner, a person. You are not some prize to be won, but sometimes you encourage the type of guy to court you who will regard you as such.

Flee Youthful Lusts

Share

Friday night, I went to see the Utah Shakespeare Festival's traveling production of "A Midsummer Night's Dream". Like the previous three years, they did a fantastic job, and I finally discovered why. What struck me most however was the theme of the play, and it bothered me.

After the play, the actors discussed with the audience the 'moral of the story'. As they threw back and forth different ideas, they colored some of them in shades of grey or painted questionable themes with a good connotation. One theme I saw bothered me- defy your parents for the lusts of youth. Most of it is exactly that, youthful lust, and while some people grow up and become adults because they do right things for the wrong reasons, consider how much more blessed are they who choose the better part.

Just over a week ago, I was talking with an old acquaintence of mine. I had not really heard from her for some time, and I haven't seen her in almost two years, primarily because of the boy with whom she was in a relationship. As she second guessed her decision to move on, I told her this: "You CANNOT love another person unless you love yourself. If you ever find yourself neglecting your own well-being or happiness, what you are doing is not love. It's codependence, which looks like love but is always destructive. Be true to yourself, always." Young people, however, like this young lady, misapprehend love. They call lust or desire or attraction or whatever 'love' as if they were synonymous, but they are not. Some of them look like love, but only love nourishes the soul.

I carry around an old copy of "Gospel Principles" originally issued to my grandfather as he served in the Pacific during WWII. During a conference in 1942, J Reuben Clark said the following:

That man or youth who demands without marriage as the price of his favor or love the enjoyment of your body, has in fact nothing but sorrow and degradation to give you in return. That woman who offers to you her body outside wedlock invites you to a feast that brings disease and corruption that will pollute you until death. Any man or woman who demands as the price of his favor or friendship a surrender of any of your righteous standards of living is offering you nothing worth buying.

Yet, many a youth has surrendered the prize for a sonnet, a conquest, or for some temporary pleasure. It changes the choices available to you, as a woman told me this week, because you may have to put off other paths if you get to take them at all as a consequence of your present indulgence to lust. Love, by contrast, always empowers, supports, and seeks and loves the truth. Most of what people call love is something else.

The rising generation is different from previous generations. As the opportunities to connect with strangers increase, intimate connections and conversations with closely associated persons diminish. They no longer know how to talk to anyone they actually know and frequently turn to the internet for friendships and beyond. Where a mission, abroad or in the adjacent state, once sufficed to help a young man mature into roles of responsibility and leadership, some of the youth return without having grown so and are still encouraged, literally or as a consequence of the culture, to marry, mate and multiply before they actually become adults. Whereas young women were once taught how to run a household, many of them now attend college for no other reason than to obtain an “Mrs. degree” or to date. Some of the fathers are noticeably absent when it comes to teaching their sons how to chivalrously defend the virtue of women. Some of the mothers are also actively engaged in efforts that appear designed to hold their daughters back from maturing and to select potential husbands over which they can exert power and influence. In times of general strife, all of these struggling newlyweds may burden others more than the struggles can ever help those couples or the children that seem to quickly follow their nuptials and in some sad cases precede them.

Much as I hate to admit it, a recent quote I heard from Johnny Depp about love sounds very much like wisdom. He tells guys that if they think they love one girl and find themselves interested in another, dump the first one and go after the second, because if they really cared for the first as much as they claim they would never have noticed the second.

Just a few days ago, a friend of mine asked me if she was wrong for not wanting to forgive her father for abuses that continue this day. You see, manipulating emotions or relationships is not love, even though her father claims he loves her. He might, but this particular thing is not an act of true love. As I read the summation of charity from the Bible, I felt impressed to tell her that Love rejoices in truth, which is not what an abuser offers, and that seemed to be the right thing to say.

It has been said that love is wasted on the young. I think that is true, not because only the young can act on it, but because the young call things love that are far from it. They use 'love' as a way to manipulate. They seek acts of love as a sign of love because they are uncertain of their own worth. Unable to really love themselves, they cannot and do not love their neighbor as themselves. If they did, they would not steal, rape, do drugs, be disobedient to parents, or manipulate the emotions of others. Hence, what they call love cannot possibly be, because they do not leave those they claim they love nourished by their affectations.

Several years back, a girl I knew and about whom I cared a great deal told me she loved me. A few weeks later, she told me she didn't love me, that she wanted to see how things might work out with an old boyfriend whom she once caught cheating on her with her best friend. My friends were and still are incredulous. What this particular woman did was foolish and resulted in something different than what she hoped. Not only did she trade a bird in hand for one in the bush, but she also lost the one in the bush! As Shakespeare reminds us in the play, "Cupid is a knavish lad, Thus to make poor females mad". You can say "I love you" and take it back if and only if you said it on the playground during recess. True love cannot be so tenuous a thing that it takes many months to build but mere moments to destroy. Love must include at least the idea of permanence, because truelove is forever. Besides, this other guy already proved he did not love her; if he had, he would never have been interested in another girl.

In the end, lust, and the youthful fascination with 'love' and acts of love is all about selfishness. It's about getting 'action' or attention or free gifts. Love rejoices in the right things, even if they are not pleasurable. I once heard a story of a man who was asked how he knew that his wife was the right person for him. He responded by telling of how she knew about his faults and supported him anyway. Real love endures.

Profile of Jonas Parker

Share

I know a little about Jonas Parker because I've been to his grave. He is buried under a marble marker in Lexington Massachussetts, no more than a few dozen yards from where he died. While we're talking about heroes, let's talk about him.

In April 1775, Jonas Parker was suffering from a long-standing bout of tuberculosis. His younger cousin, John Parker- also suffering from tuberculosis, was commander of the Lexington militia, and when they mustered to arms to meet the Redcoats headed to Concord, he responded to the call. During the night, some came and went from the tavern, but when the advance guard of 100 or so Redcoats came within range of the Lexington Green, Jonas was among the number who lined up on the green.

According to the only eyewitness account, from a man from Woburn named Sylvanus Wood, only 38 men lined up on the green when the drums beat to order. When the Redcoats rounded the road and lined up opposite the Minutement, the general officer, who was actually a field grade officer, ordered the rebels to disburse. Captain John Parker ordered his men to disburse, but Jonas according to history threw his hat down on the ground in front of him, dropped his musket balls into it, and refused to leave.

At this point, accounts vary, but what we do know for sure is that Jonas Parker was killed by a bayonet. Several other Minutemen (eight others, including the Ensign who held the flag) were shot in the back, one on the porch of his own house which still stands at the north end of the green, but Parker was killed by a frontal assault of a bayonet to the chest. What courage must it take to stand in the face of that and hold your ground?

Not everyone was available that early morning to hearken to the battle call. Not everyone was willing to lay everything on the line and hold their ground. Not everyone has so little to lose as Jonas Parker, but all too frequently some of the ones with the most to lose do the least to help. Real men go to the field of battle where all the honor lies.

Susan G Komen = Heroes

Share

I am actually more inclined to support the Komen foundation since their divestiture from Planned Parenthood. I have always been empathetic, albeit not a participant. Pink isn't really a great color on me, although I have one pink shirt and once had a pink tie, and so I am more a supporter by proxy than by donation. However, my family is intimately involved and impacted by this, and so I have long been concerned about breast cancer.

What gets me is how quick people were to assume that the decision by the Komen Foundation proves they are a fraud. Komen has long been under scrutiny given the low rate on return for the investment, but that's partially because fixing cancer begins at the individual level. An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure, and if more people engaged in activities that led to better health, that would lower the rate of cancer more than anything the scientists can do.

I could not believe how fast the Facebook attacks began. I cannot help but assume that the attacks were emotional rather than rational given the speed and scope of the assault. Women and the men who also piped up who sided immediately with Planned Parenthood never make sense to me. Allegedly these women are for women's rights. They talk about advancing women, then they criticize the Captain of that Italian cruise ship for going first to the lifeboats. If you want to be treated as equals like men, quit whining. Also, I am a geneticist. Statistically speaking, half the fetuses they have aborted were women, which means that the claim to be for all women is a lie. Women's liberation movements only care about certain women. They were very opposed to the notion that Palin give birth to Trig and to Bristol's pregnancy. What about a woman's 'right to choose'? By right to choose they mean "Right to Abortion" and demand that every woman they possibly can persuade to get one. The Palins and the Santorums and many others wanted to have children. That is family values.

I have seen the rebuttal from Planned Parenthood's leader. She was clad in garb that accentuated her femininity. That's hardly the image conjured by the notion of equal sexes, because I happen to know that I look awful in a dress. I began to wonder what PLanned Parenthood really represents if that woman is the face and head of the organization. For that matter, does Planned Parenthood perform mammograms? The very name implies something else, awash with contraceptives, advice on how to manage pregnancies, etc., anything and everything to do with 'population control' and not necessarily with the well-being of the population as currently constituted. Oh, they will guise their naked villainy with odd old ends stolen forth from holy writ, but I wager they only seem the saint when most they play the devil.

Contraception exists to prevent the consequences of copulation. Humans are the only species of which I am aware that has sex for recreation. Isaac Asimov thought this odd, and in one of his novels, I think Bicentennial Man, his robot asks somewhat parenthetically "Human beings do this for fun? It sounds painful and messy", and he's exactly right. Its very purpose is to perpetuate the species and replace the current humans hopefully with ones better able to survive genetically whatever faces them tomorrow. I don't think that's what Planned Parenthood is really about.

The nature of the two foundations is different. Unlike the Komen Foundation which at least has scientists on retainer, I wonder how many scientists are employed by Planned Parenthood. Komen is a charity; Planned Parenthood is supported directly by tax dollars, despite the moral opposition from groups that protest the notion of paying for something they find morally repugnant. How many of PP's claims or the anger of those who foment this crisis are based in science? While working at ARUP, I worked briefly on an R&D project related to breast cancer. Some research links abortions to increased risk of breast cancer. If this research is true, planned parenthood and Komen are at odds from the very core of their missions!

I can only guess at the true motives of executives at Komen. They brought on some pro-birth advocate to their board of directors, but Planned Parenthood is loaded up with people who think that abortion should not only be common but that it should be funded by taxpayers. I have even heard audio from Mitt Romney supporting that notion. We have begun as a society to believe in human sacrifice but pat ourselves on the back because it's done, not at an altar in all its blood and gore, but in a clinic. It's still the same to me. Komen is out there saving not only women but the children they bear.

Motherhood is a partnership with God. Life is sacred. I don't know how you compromise on this. Either you are for new life or you are for its extinction. Yet, they dress themselves up as 'for the planet' and they foster the survival of other species at the cost of our own. I do not know how you can say you care for life and protect trees, bugs, and whales while you turn a blind eye to or directly advocate the slaughter of innocent human babies. They are not "Pro-Choice"; they are "Pro-Authoritarianism", and they will persuade every parent possible to abort their children. This is expressly repugnant in the eyes of God, and some day they may have to answer to all the younglings they slaughtered.

I am pro-life, for all life. I am also pro-family. I love children, and those who know me know how much I would like to have some of my own some day. What a shame that people who can reproduce wish they couldn't for the sake of pleasure. That's so selfish. You monarchists want people and society to be better? Start acting with true altruism like you exact from us and protect children, who cannot possibly protect themselves.