Not sure what to title this as.

I mean, it's not just one book and the author is just as important as the books. So, please read this article and then put these books on your reading list--they're on mine.

Socialism in Provence 1871-1914: A Study in the Origins of the Modern French Left

I could probably go on with books!! I wish I had more time to read after seeing some of these titles.

Bedknob and Broomstick

Just knocking another book off my list--I want to read every book/story that classic Disney movies are based on. I'm not sure which ones are left, but I just bought 101 Dalmatians which has been at the top of the list for about 8 years. I didn't even realize that "Bedknob and Broomstick" was on the list until I found it on the shelf at camp this summer. It's only half like the movie that we all know and love, but still was an excellent book. I decided to go ahead and link to the movie too, in case that it isn't one that you know.

Madame Curie

A surprisingly entertaining book about the life and work of Marie Curie. I admit that I didn't finish this book at camp because the chapter on the death of her husband (sorry to spoil the plot) left me feeling sad and depressed--I wasn't expecting that, especially since it's written by her daughter Eve. This biography will interest any history buff, science nerd, or anyone who's interested in turn of the century family life from Poland to France.

"The Thirteenth Tale" By Diane Setterfield

Well, I honestly started out not really feeling the content of this book. There were a few themes that I am not a big fan of, but that didn't stop me from picking this book up whenever I could to read more. I ended up finishing it at 4am, something I honestly haven't done with a book in a number of years. I highly recommend it; which 4 days ago wouldn't have been the case.

Assassin's Apprentice by Robin Hobb

"Tell this to King Shrewd. Our population grows, but there is a limit to our arable soil. Wild game will only feed so many. Comes a time when a country must open itself to trade, especially so rocky and mountainous a country as mine. You have heard, perhaps, that the Jhaampe way is that the ruler is the servant of his people? Well, I serve them in this wise. I marry my beloved younger sister away, in the hopes of winning grain and trade routes and lowland goods for my people, and grazing rights in the cold part of the year when our pastures are under snow. For this, too, I am willing to give you timbers, the great straight timbers that Verity will need to build his warships. Our mountains grow white oak such as you have never seen. This is a thing my father would refuse. He has the old feelings about the cutting of live trees, And like Regal, he sees your coast as a liability, your ocean as a great barrier. But I see it as your father did--a wide road that leads in all directions, and your coast as our access to it. And I see no offense in using trees uprooted by the annual floods and windstorms."

Very few times do you find a fiction novel like this that makes you really understand what it means to live in the real world...or at least one that I'll actually enjoy reading. A lot of attempts are made, I guess, focusing on the problems invasions by foreigners, but few go further to be viewed through the eyes of a bastard son of the crown prince turned assassin for the king, his grandfather. I mean, you can get a number of ideas about the world we live in just by judging how well the kingdom's ambassadors do their job of actually knowing the people they are visiting...and the importance of information and allies.

I highly rate this 1st book in the series.

Movies

The Princess Diaries 2--I thought it was an excellent movie. I've never read the books and from what I saw on wikipedia, I doubt that I'll ever read them, but maybe I will...not sure yet. Anyway. The movie was extremely cute. I've only watched the 1st one once and I thought it was nice, but a bit...outlandish, I guess. I mean, what else can you think about the story where a girl with no importance turns out to be a real princess? So I treat it as being totally removed from 2, which makes them both the better movie, I think. But the second movie is the tale of a princess fighting the oppressive law that states that she must marry if she wishes to be queen. The storyline is great (many of my favorite fiction novels have had a similar plot) and the choice in cast is amazing--I love Julie Andrews and her chemistry with Anne Hathaway as her granddaughter is awesome--much like my grandmother with myself. I highly recommend this movie whether or not you've seen the 1st one, and I think the letter 2 following the title is a bit misleading.

The Queen is a very good movie describing the royal family in the days following Princess Diana's death. I love the way Queen Elizabeth II is portrayed, as the private woman who's 1st priority is her grandsons and maintaining the decorum of the royal post. I don't remember 1997 much myself, but I think I do remember the whole privateness of the situation...how the queen was slow to react and reluctant to bend to the public will. Which is her right as a human. The queen is a woman who was given a title with her birth. Her life is a private thing. Just because she was forced into the spotlight doesn't give the public the right to pry. And that's what the movie tries to show, I think. We complain about young hollywood basking and abusing the spotlight and abuses committed by the paparazzi, but when it comes to the queen we expect total openness. The same is true of America's president. We forget that when it comes down to it they are made of the same flesh and blood that we all are made of and deserve the same courtesies that we demand in the private sphere.

"Women's Diaries of the Westward Journey" by Lillian Schlissel

Women's Diaries of the Westward Journey is an amazingly interesting book, with a few drawbacks that may or may not take away from its importance. I'll let you decide.

This book is essentially tracing the women's journey across the midwest to California and Oregon using the diaries that these women kept and left behind. Schlissel uses 96 diaries to defend her conclusions, and as one can expect that the journey wasn't entirely different for these women. There are some differences, as the circumstances of women differed--being married with children, newly wed without children, being older with children back home, etc, but the scenery doesn't change that much. This is where I find the drawback--the book is really repetitive. I understand why, but it can still be tedious. But once you overlook this, there's a lot of important information to be found. And a lot of questions that you can ask about women living on the road and those things that we women have to deal with that men will probably never understand.

Even with the repetitiveness, it's a very quick read--I think I spent 3 hours reading 150 pages before class, not sure how much time I've spent since to finish it. And it's a very visual book--you should be able to vividly picture the world that these women traveled through.

"Christmas After All" by Kathryn Lasky

Well, I thought this was a very enjoyable, informative tale describing life in 1932 in the weeks leading up to Christmas. Yes, it's written for 5th graders. And yes, it's historical fiction. But I look at books as a way to get kids interested in the past...including awesome pop culture, which this book does a great job of doing. There's a few spots where I'm not sure of the historical accuracy--Hitler is mentioned along with the fact that his party was gaining influence. But it's also mentioned that the US knew that they had a thing against the Jews. I don't know how public that information was in 1932. But I consider this a minor problem in a book who's sole importance for me is not in teaching history, but in getting kids interested in history. I love the inclusion of the main character, later in life, becoming a member of the WASPs and the fact that they didn't get formal recognition until 1991. Take that anti-revision history people--textbooks written 20 years ago wouldn't have even acknowledged the WASPs! So which book does a better job of teaching history? but I digress there. Sorry.

Hand this book to your 10 year old. Boys may or may not like it. I will warn you that there are 3 mentions of the fact that the friend of the main characters father killed himself by blasting his head off with a shotgun. I thought that when it happened in the story it was a bit shocking, but at least was vague enough for the naive reader--but later the character is quite blunt about the blasting. Just a warning, but as with everything, you should be reading what your kids are reading, know what they're watching, who their friends are. It's your judgment that matters--you know your kid.

"Wolf Tower" by Tanith Lee

It was an an okay short read, for me. But then I'm probably a freak of nature when it comes to reading. In this book's case I was reading faster than I could comprehend the words and nothing was there to stop me. I guess it's only to be expected in a book intended for younger audiences, but normally I don't have such problems. Maybe it's because I'm tired. I can't really say. But the story is very good--I quite enjoyed the plot and the fairy tale romance is extremely cute, I think. Simplistic, but again, look at the audience. I'm game for the rest of the series, though who knows when I'll get around to reading them.

"Murder at Fenway Park" By Troy Soos

I love this book. There, I said it. And I'll probably say it about a lot of books. And I'm fine with that.

So, we have very old fashioned baseball (it's 1912) and a murder entrenched in the not quite so idealistic world of old fashioned baseball. And it's written by a guy who's a member of the Society for American Baseball Research, so it's not like he's pulling his information from the center of left field (pun intended). What is there not to love?!??!

Plus (there's always a plus in my most loved books) there are a few anecdotes scattered throughout the novel that just make a person like me that loves history and especially tracing things through time (and if you've read my other blog "Daily Dose" you've probably heard me complain about a bunch of certain misconceptions used by the media when it comes to history [cough: Fox News/Conservatives]). Anywho. You have to remember that this is historical fiction, but I think I've taken enough history courses to be able to definitively say that your imagination is often better than a history book to explain societal relations. But I digress. Here's a few snap shots of these "pluses" in action:

     "The game remained scoreless into the top of the ninth inning. And that's when I figured out how Hal Chase did it.
     Jake Stahl hit a grounder to third to open our half of the inning, and I kept my eyes on Chase from the moment the bat made contact. While the ball skipped to the third baseman, Chase stayed anchored well off the first base bag. Then just before the ball was fielded, he broke for the base. When the third baseman's throw arrived, Chase was hustling as hard as he could to take the throw at first--but his initial delay ensured that he wouldn't be in time to catch the ball cleanly. The son of a bitch. He was really throwing the game.
     Yesterday, with the sight of a dead man still fresh in my eyes, I would have thought that murder was the most heinous of crimes. But now I'd seen Hal Chase try to throw a baseball game. It was an offense that seemed worse than murder--a crime less gruesome, but a sacrilege more sinister."

      "By our second week back in Boston, with Peggy still on Cape Cod, I started to read the newspapers. Any page without box scores on it was unfamiliar territory to me, but I decided to explore the news sections and find out what was going on in the world--not due to any sudden interest in international affairs, but because I thought it would give me more to talk about with Peggy
     Since the presidential nominating conventions were coming up, it seemed a good time to start following the campaigns. I read about the opening of the Republican convention in Chicago, expecting it would be straightforward and easy to understand. I assumed that President Taft would automatically be nominated to head the Republican ticket again. But then Teddy Roosevelt's followers got mad at Taft's nomination by what they called "conservatives" and went off to form a "Progressive Party." Great--just when I start to follow politics, they complicate it by forming a third party. Well, at least it's supposed to go smoothly with the Democrats; according to the papers, Champ Clark is an easy winner for the nomination. Not that it mattered--I wouldn't be old enough to vote yet."

Then of course, you can just marvel at the type of man Mickey Rawlings is, to accept his life as a utility player, never destined for stardom. This book is awesome. It's the first in a series of currently, I believe, 5 such mystery books. I've read 2 or 3 others and loved them just as much. It's fun since this is the 1st in the series to see where he started out at, because here he meets his long time friends (when I met them) (and oh what a meeting that was), and when I read his books he was quite a few years older and no longer the "rookie" player. Of course I'll link up to as many as I can find, hopefully in order.

I hope you enjoy these as much as I've enjoyed them. And maybe you'll be like me and REALLY want to read the biography of a certain Ty Cobb, haha.

The Twilight Samurai

Amazing visualization of the 1868 Japan that we're studying class. I highly recommend this movie.

Shadows on my Heart: Civil War Diary of Lucy Buck

Definitely not your typically view of the Civil War. This is the diary of a southern plantation mistress of sorts (she's a young southern daughter, not married). If nothing else, she gives a different view of the Yankees than the heroic champions of freedom that we are often taught in school. Is she biased? Of course, but that's what makes it real. You'll need to like the way Anne of Green Gables talks because this girl does have a visual way of writing like that and since it's her diary, there's no Marilla around to tell her to "shut up and get to the point" haha. So keep that in mind if you're thinking about reading this book.

Winter Break Reading

I didn't read as much over winter break as I could have, but I worked and had a ton of mail to answer. But I did get to finally finish 2 books that I started over Thanksgiving. They were The Sleeping Beauty by Mercedes Lackey and Royal Assassin by Robin Hobb. Both were, I admit, slow reading at first, but in both cases the story is well worth the time. In the case of Royal Assassin, I don't think it would be possible to write such an epic story without all the detail. I highly recommend both books.

With graduation looming only 4 months from now, I have a lot of stuff that's going to get in my way of reading, but I suspect that there will be 4 upcoming posts illustrating gender in the civil war, since that's what my history thesis will be dealing with. I'm excited to read these books.

Norfolk (and a few other Southern cities) exempt from Emancipation Proclimation

..."On September 22 [1862], Lincoln issued the preliminary proclamation of emancipation. He declared that on January 1, 1863, "all persons held as slaves within any state, or designated part of a state, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free." The proclamation stated further that the Executive "will recognize and maintain the freedom of such person, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom."

Radical as this step was in relation to the earlier policy of the administration toward slavery, Lincoln did not let it cause him to abandon his fundamental purpose--the restoration of the Union. In fact,he tried to use it to induce the rebel states to return to the Union. He began the preliminary proclamation for example, by declaring, "Hereafter, as heretofore, the war will be prossecuted [sic] for the object of practically restoring the constitutional relation between the United States, and each of the states, and the people thereof, in which states that relation is, or may be suspended, or disturbed." To this end Lincoln set forth what amounted to minimum conditions for reconstruction. He said that on January 1, 1863, the executive would designate which states were in rebellion; "and the fact that any state, or the people thereof shall, on that day be, in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States, by members chosen thereto, at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such state shall have participated, shall in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such state and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States." In this way Lincoln connected emancipation with reconstruction.

...skip a few paragraphs:
1: on how it is worth more to the states to have an election than to continue fighting the war
2: on telling military governors to hold elections ASAP and how he'd "be very glad if any Congressional District" would elect a representative"
3: on getting annoyed that "nothing had been done about congressional elections" in November in NOLA
4: on elections finally being held in December and early January in 4 states: Louisiana (7600 votes cast), Eastern VA (Norfolk, Portsmouth, Eastern Shore; 1400 votes cast), 400 votes from Western VA, North Carolina (2nd district: 864 votes cast), and Tennessee (1900 votes cast in the 9th district).

"Lincoln apparently was satisfied with these results and intent on having them accepted by Congress. This much he made clear when the question of exempting parts of the South from the effect of the Emancipation Proclamation came up at a Cabinet meeting in December. Replying to a question about the exemption of New Orleans and the surrounding area, he explained that he had promised the people there that he would exempt them if they would elect members of Congress. Salmon P. Chase interjected that while two representatives had been elected from Louisiana, "they have not yet got their seats, and it is not certain that they will." At this, according to John P. Usher, the Secretary of the Interior, Lincoln "rose from his seat, apparently irritated, and walked rapidly back and forth, across the room. Looking over his shoulder at Mr. Chase, he said: 'That it is, sir. I am to be bullied by Congress, am I? If I do, I'll be durned.' "

So anxious was Lincoln to promote reconstruction that he exempted the states in which elections had been held, even though only one of them had fulfilled the conditions outlined in the preliminary proclamation of September. The President had therein stated that for representatives to be accepted, they had to be chosen at elections in which a majority of the qualified voters had participated. Only Louisiana had met this requirement; the 7600 voters who had turned out were about half the number who had voted in the elections of 1859. Congress, furthermore, had not admitted any of the members-elect, as Lincoln had specified it should. Nevertheless, he excepted from the effect of the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863, all of Tennessee, though elections had taken place in only pone part of the state; the parishes in and around New Orleans, in Louisiana; Norfolk and the eastern-shore section of Virginia; and all forty-eight counties of West Virginia, just then on the verge of statehood, where no elections had been held"

From: "Reconstructing the Union: Theory and Policy during the Civil War"
By Herman Belz; 1969

The Kennedy Mini-series

I just heard about this mini-series and I wanted to share my 2 cents. I'm going to focus on "conservative history" and reality. I've spent my college years learning about history and the "new" way our story is being told. Here's what I think "revisionist" history means:

The reason why the history taught today is different than it was 30 years ago because there was a social revolution. Minorities were no longer standing by and letting the story be told by and about the old white male. As we search out these new people's histories, we're also finding a whole mess of "dirty laundry" that the white man has been hiding. It complicates things, in a good way. History is no longer some perfect ideal that seems too good to be true. Anyone who pays any attention to modern society KNOWS that life is complicated. We know what kinds of decisions go into an event. We can't turn a historical event into a soundbite--it's just not possible. If you want a shining example of this, please visit Harry Truman's Presidential Library and Museum. The main exhibit there literally puts you into his shoes, giving you the information that he had and asking you "what would you do" when it comes to dropping the a-bomb. I have put this museum on the top of my vacation list.

Back to the Kennedy mini-series issue, there is debate about whether political leanings were involved. The History Channel claims that there are issues with historical accuracy and the main producer claims that it's because of his conservative leanings. I say that the truth is somewhere in between. I haven't studied conservative responses to Kennedy and he's old enough that people that were liberal back then would have turned conservative now. So I'm left to speculate. Since there are no obviously outrageous secrets spilled (according to some insider who's seen the series), I assume that the exact opposite is true. I think that the series shows too nice of a story of the Kennedys. There is that question about Marilyn Monroe and maybe they show a historically inaccurate account of this. Maybe their take on the Bay of Pigs is inaccurate. Maybe they focus too much on speculating on the personal life--more than can accurately be known. There's too many questions. Since neither Kennedys who are said to have objected to the series elected to speak, it's still only speculation as to if they are actually involved. This analysis would definitely not hold up in court.

On the Civil War

With what's going on in the Middle East right now I think this is especially fitting.

"By December [1860] the subject was omnipresent, inescapable. 'Nothing was talked of but secession,' remembered one Southerner, 'in every company, at every street corner, whenever two people met that was the subject discussed.' How could Southerners not have seen secession coming, especially as they were, taken as a group, its architects? They did see it coming, of course. They voted and acted in ways that made it a likely, then an inevitable, then an accomplished fact. But they did not, could not, have foretold how it would feel.

And how did it feel? In diary after diary, letter after letter, Southerners describe themselves as being in a state of what might be termed political shock. The particulars and timing, of course, vary from state to state, family to family, person to person--but the trajectory goes something like this. Passing references to political affairs begin to lengthen, deepen, and become more personal; the abstract busy-ness of everyday life takes on direction and then energy, surging, swirling, and building, until the writers find themselves at the epicenter of something mammoth and unknown to them. It is a curious feeling, so immediate and strong, so much larger than the little bodies that seek to apprehend it, direct it, join it. Eventually, when political affairs have achieved sufficient gravity, time begins to warp. The months that stretch out between the election and Sumter become a hurtling calm, a furious wait. Finally, the wait--timeless and brief, exhilarating and terrifying--is over. If will be War. The mammoth something has swallowed up all the little writers, leaving of each only a disembodied narrative voice to comment distantly on the life it has surrendered to the rush.

This was an aspect of the secession crisis white Southerners shared regardless of political stripe. They were, all of them, at the center of the furious calm, safe for the moment but watching nervously as a storm raged about them, beyond their power and their ken. Men who had dedicated their whole lives to Southern independence pinched themselves as events they had set in motion took on a life of their own--and then slipped quietly out of their control. Others more removed from politics were altogether thunderstruck, exhilarated and dazed by turns. In diary after diary, unionist and disunionist alike document a reaction that seems a lot like shock. 'Things seem to progress in a slow but certain way,' Meta Grimball marveled from her South Carolina plantation. "Everything goes on as usual, the planting, the negros, all just the same; and a great Empire tumbling to pieces about us.' ...."

Excerpt from:
Berry, Stephen William. All that makes a man: love and ambition in the Civil War South. New York: Oxford UP, 2003.

The Week of the Bad Music

It all started with Rebecca Black's "Friday" and ended with Glee's "Original Song" episode. Whenever I think about a song's composure I picture Roger from 101 Dalmations telling his wife "Melody first, my dear, then the lyrics". I think that there are two types of bad songs: those which have a terrible melody and those which have terrible lyrics (okay, so there's the third type that both suck, but I don't know if I've ever heard one of those). I'm definitely no music producer, and am quick to admit that I probably have terrible taste in music according to some standards, but I think I can give a decent report on a song.

So, on to this week where we see a terrific example of how terrible lyrics can ruin terrific melodies. Okay, "Friday" isn't exactly Chopin or Bach in the melody area, but it isn't god-awful. It fits with the pop/party music that is popular with the teen sect. However overly simplistic lyrics (you know you've heard them) that sound like a 10 year old wrote them makes this one of the worst songs I've ever heard. I would personally love to double "Gibbs smack" whomever the writer of that song was for doing that to the poor girl. She sounds fine, it's the stupid lyrics. I also heard about the awful comments written about her--really??! We live in an incredibly ignorant society. Give the girl a break and shoot her producer for the song choice.

I think that it's fitting that Glee tackled songwriting this week in their episode to show just how dumb lyrics can be. "Trouty Mouth", "My Hairband", "Big Ass...Heart" yeah--wow, sounds like a 16 year old wrote them, which is incredibly fitting given that these are supposed to be high schoolers. But if you ignore the words you can imagine how the songs can be improved with just better content and styling. The melodies were not compromised when making fun of teenagers writing lyrics.

P.S. I LOVED the song "Loser like me"! It's exactly what I like Glee to say since so many teens watch this show.

Technology

I hate "pop-unders". They're pop-ups that pop under the currently opened screen--I'm sure you've gotten them. I think I'd rather have the old pop-ups because at least then it's easy to see them and close them. With a pop-under you first have to notice that it's opened (or else you'll have 10,000 screens open) and then have to get it to the top "layer" of the screen to be able to close it. I swear it takes 4 times as long. [End Rant]

To what extent...

is continuing to get pregnant when you know you'll have a miscarriage abortion? I just watched The Time Traveler's Wife and I wanted to smack the main girl. While I understand that an abhorrent number of pregnancies end in miscarriage, to willingly continue to try to have children is in my mind equivalent to willfully causing the death of that many unborn children. You should know by now that I'm pro-choice yet anti-abortion--so I'm as much against conceiving a child you know will more than likely die before birth as I am for not making it illegal (if that makes sense).

One might argue that in one case God is choosing for the death of the child and in the other man is choosing, but I say that in both cases man is at fault--God did not make man blind to the fact that 100% of the pregnancies are ending pre-maturely--by ignoring the facts you are willfully choosing to kill a fetus.

I'm curious to know the number of God-fearing Christian women who choose some permanent form of contraception because they know that any pregnancy would just result in miscarriage, since most religions are against such things.

Judging People

I try really hard not to judge people, but there are a couple things that just can't escape my notice. The first is a guy in a suit who tosses his tie over his shoulder while he eats to keep from spilling something on it. Yeah...sorry bud, but I judge you.

The second is anyone over the age of 25 who doesn't have a clue about what's going on in the world. It's really not hard to watch the 30 minute world news or pick up a newspaper or spend 30 minutes on some news site...trust me, no one's life is so busy that they can't spend 30 minutes a day learning about what's going on in the rest of the world. Farmville really isn't that important. This is why anyone who's friends with me on Facebook gets bombarded with links to news articles that I've been reading. I look at it as my little mission in the world to show uninterested young adults that there's more to the world than petty drama.

[End Rant]

Stamps

I go through a lot of stamps in a month--I love writing snail mail. I don't much mind the prices, but if I had my way, out of country postage would cost exactly twice as much as domestic postage. It would make my life so much easier.

McCarthyism on Biggest Loser

You've probably read my take on McCarthyism before. I never thought that I'd find an example on The Biggest Loser, but this weeks Valentine's Day episode is exactly that. The person who won the temptation was kept secret (oh, he decided to tell everyone)--you heard at least one person pick out who they thought was the "Communist" who we, the viewers, knew was innocent.

Still stupid choice, bud. My favorite temptation was last season when the guy won by eating one M&M because everyone put the weight-loss above the game.

Citizenship

A person born of foreign parents on American soil (be it continental, territorial, military base or military ship) is a naturalize born American citizen. A person born of at least one American parent on foreign soil is not? This seems silly to me.

Radio Commercials

For some reason, the conservative radio station in Charlottesville, VA has been following me for the past 3 years. In my 2nd year, the music station I had my alarm clock set to suddenly became the talk show. It didn't annoy me, so I left it. Then I decided that I wanted music, so I changed to another music station. On Jan 1st, guess what showed up again? I left it, again, because it isn't too bad. Except for the chosen commercials, which is what I'm here to talk about.

It's amazing what type of commercials I hear on this station. The one that prompted me to write this is about a website that they advertised for. It's apparently about the predictions some guy made about the end of America. When you watch the video, he will show you how he accurately predicted the fall of "Fannie and Freddie" and a couple of those banks after the housing collapse, to convince you that he knows when the end of America will be. I HAVE NOT YET WATCHED THE VIDEO. So, saying that, I'm going to make my own predictions about the video. You should believe me because I predicted that the housing market would collapse when I was 16 years old. I admit I was slightly off. In my predictions, I said that the market would collapse somewhere around my freshman year of college, then would rebound and I was hoping that by the time I graduated from college the market would still be weak so that I could get a decent house for cheap. My predictions were wrong because I didn't know that the fall was going to be that steep or that the banking market was so tragically linked to the housing market--all my observations came from the fact that housing prices were going out of control--I didn't know why they got so high so quickly.

My predictions about the video are that it will be vague. I also believe that it will be in some way propaganda. So my predictions aren't so vague I will risk being specific: it will have to do with governmental actions. I'm not sure if this will be from causing ultimate warfare or if it will be from internal misdeeds. I'll probably be wrong with this prediction, but at least I'm not vague. Now I'll go to the website and see how I did. I'll probably only make it through about 2 minutes of the video.

OH! I forgot. I'm sure that there will be advertisements on the site. When a person decides to put advertisements on their website they get paid for hosting those advertisements--yes, that's why I have advertisements on my blog--if people are going to read this then I might as well make a buck or two. But I'm not forcing people to come here. I'm not advertising propaganda on the radio to scare people into checking the website. Whether from fear or curiosity, I'm sure that after that that commercial aired a lot of people went to the website. And I'm sure a lot of them are the type to click on any advertisements they see: especially if those advertisements are for other "end of America" stuff. It's convenient that whoever made the video will be making a tidy sum of money from it.

Now I'll go check out that video.

Huh. Well, I WAS wrong. The page is actually a very plain. The "video" isn't even really a video, but the animation of a letter written by a guy in an investment bank. He says that he did predict the collapse of all those banks accurately, but doesn't have proof. He claims that what's going to tear down the country is that he says he sees the same issues he saw in those collapsing banks in the U.S. Treasury and that all of America's savings are going to be wiped out.

Want to know MY problem with this analysis? Life is a self-fulfilling prophesy, especially in banks. If you say there's going to be a run on the bank, there WILL be a run on the bank as everyone who hears it wants to get their money out first. So, this guy's prediction can be fulfilled just because enough people believe him.

I went back to the letter to scroll through it (when you try to leave it takes you to a written out version of the letter, much better--it's HUGE) there are facts and figures, but I think you should take them with a grain of salt. Here's why: when you get to the end of the letter, he wants you to purchase a $50 subscription (normally $99--HE'S SAVING YOU MONEY!!) to hear more. He wants to talk you into profiting off of the problems with the economy. So, all those cushy figures showing the rising cost of copper and cotton? Well, he wants you to get into the market--which will artificially raise the prices. So, you can bet that anyone who's heard of this guy in the past 10 years...crap. I just looked at the x-axis scale on his gold and silver scale--it starts in year 2000. His commodity figure is only 2 years old. Biased?!? Yeah, totally. How about we look at a 100 year figure--so we can see the comparison to what was going on before the Great Depression.

If this guy was actually trying to make money responsibly, and if he did care about saving America, he wouldn't be making awareness this way. If he has a problem with the way the U.S. Treasury is being run, he should go to them and do whatever in his power (or outside his power) to FIX IT. But no, he wants you to buy his product (so he's guaranteed to make money) to teach you how to invest your money--which you could lose since that's the way of investments. My conclusion: it's a scam. Could he be right about the U.S. Treasury? Maybe. But getting into the commodities market will drive up the prices of the actual commodity. If you buy a barrel of crude oil for $100 and sell it for $150, then yeah, you make $50, but you also will lose that money when you go to the gas pump and it now costs you the added amount for the price of the crude oil used to make the gas. And it hurts everyone around you even more because they didn't make that $50. Can your conscience handle that?

If I had money...

I would probably invest in stock. Contrary to what might be popular belief, I like stock. I think that stock, used properly is a great investment strategy. But what's been done recently with stock is not, I believe, socially acceptable.

In my perfect world, stock would only be bought and sold by the individual companies. The physical stock market can exist, but there wouldn't be the middle man mutual funds. When a person buys stock in their companies, they would choose those companies based on their own personal values, not because that's the most popular stock on Tuesday.

Supposing that I had an extra $1000 lying around, this is what I would do. I would research all my favorite companies and decide which one I support the most. It would have to be one which is located in the US and which gets all or most of it's raw goods from the US. No, I'm not geo-phobic (is that even a word? If not, my definition is a person afraid of a global economy); I just believe that my money should promote job growth in my country of residence because more jobs in-country means a better economy which means that in 5 years when I might need a new job there will be one available. Ideally, my company of choice would be a global company, hiring people in multiple countries and using those countries source material. But anyway, after choosing my company, I base my wanted rate of return on their statistics. For example, let's say that I want to earn 10%. So, I will leave my $1000 worth of stock alone until it hits that 10% growth at which time I will decide whether to "let it ride" or sell off $100 worth of stock, so that I still only have my initial $1000 investment at risk. Hmm...my math may be off...I was never good at these problems in accounting, which is why I was rejected from the Comm School. In any case, seeing as how I know I made money (whatever the amount) and I know that I'm willing to risk losing all of my initial $1000 investment, the actual amounts don't mean much to me.

My only rules, since ethics are most important in my stock choices, are that I will refuse to invest in the housing market (outside of buying a home to live in). Everyone needs a place to live--I REFUSE to artificially buoy prices to make a quick buck. I also refuse to dally in the goods market (beef, gold, wood, OIL, COAL,...any source material) because again, these are things that artificially raise prices. I also would choose to instantly sell my stock for whatever the price is, if my company does something that I find to be unethical. For example: I refuse to invest in Wal-Mart because I do not agree with it's hiring practices. I believe that for as much money they make in a year, they should be able to offer some kind of insurance to their employees, even if it's the most rudimentary.

School Segreagation: 2011 style

I was slightly shocked when I heard about this; that a school in PA has been experimenting with segregating black students from the rest of the school for about 20 minutes a day while also separating the girls from the boys in that race. Actually, I can say a lot of things in favor of this, and not because I've suddenly turned racist.

Ask people who've gone to all girls or all boys schools. They believe that they got a better education that way; that they were able to better learn without pressures of being around those of the opposite sex. The same would be true, I assume, for those of other races. But just as I don't think that I would have done as well without guys in my classes (I got all my motivation from wanting to squish guys under my foot as my grades surpassed them), I'm sure that there are those who would prefer to continue as they always have. But school psychologists have been trying to bring groups of support together for all of my school career. In 5th grade I was put into "Project Girl Power" where every week or so the girls would get together with our female counselor to talk about how girls can succeed in a world with a glass ceiling. In high school the most important club that you didn't choose to be in was/is the "Young Black Men's Club" (it had a better name, but as I'm a white woman, I didn't really pay that much attention). They would get together with their black counselors and talk about ways to get black men interested in education and out of gangs and jail. I knew a lot of guys who were in that club and I can tell you that they will go exceptionally far. So, we can agree with these segregationist clubs, but not with a segregationist classrooms? That makes no since.

There's a huge difference between segregation in the 50s and segregation today in schools. For one, there's no separate building. They're also not going to be handing the black students hand-me-down textbooks. There will not be new teachers, but rather the restructuring of the students into a specific schedule. There will not be, I assume, a separate lunch for the black students, nor would black students be forced into separated extra-curricular classes.

One last thing, just as a warning, not as a criticism: it should be voluntary. Many schools have a voluntary single-sex class available, the same should be true here. The problem with trying to stuff everyone into the "best teaching environment" mold is that there's about 20 different ways to learn and everyone excels in a different environment. Purposefully removing the black student with all white friends who is excelling would be incredibly unproductive in the least.

Why is Eli Whitney black?

Random story. In my 11th grade AP US History class half of my classmates, including myself, admitted that for most of our lives we were under the impression that Eli Whitney was black, which is obviously an error. We could come up with no reason as to why we had this impression, except that it was shared by so many of us. I dunno.

In case you care, Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin which made the separation of cotton seeds from the usable cotton more efficient. This helped to expand the use of slavery as it made cotton a more profitable crop.

FUCK!

http://nation.foxnews.com/obesity/2010/12/13/first-lady-childhood-obesity-national-security-threatI don't normally curse; in fact I never do. But I'm pissed. At FOX News of course. And their loyal readers. I finally have the credible argument I needed to maybe get FOX News to remove their "Fair and Balanced" lie. And what pisses me off is that the "intelligent real Americans" who believe that crap actually DO BELIEVE THAT CRAP! Look, here's the "article". FOX News changed the picture to support their political bias. Why do I know this? Logic:

If they didn't consciously decide to change the picture then there would be no point to changing it. If they did consciously decide, then of course they're going to choose the picture that best supports their message.

And the "loyal Americans" ate it all up--read the comments. Why exactly do schools even bother to teach about Yellow Journalism when half the population won't believe it true from their precious FOX News?

I really shouldn't read FOX News at bed time.

T.V.

People say that television is going to the dogs. While I think this is true for American television, British television is hitting it's prime, I think. Or at least British actors are. I've been watching Doctor Who, Primeval, Merlin (and have on my list of shows to watch when I get time: Torchwood and The Sarah-Jane Adventures). It's not just because I happen to love basic science fiction (I dislike shows and books that make up too much stuff--I have enough trouble in science and foreign/ancient history trying to remember what words mean), but it's the actors. Heck, who doesn't love Hugh Laurie--so you know it isn't just the accent.

I personally think that its the difference in expectations of male actors in Britain--it has to be. I mean, you are going to be hard-pressed to find an American male actor who is comfortable enough to really show his emotions and wear his heart on his sleeve. I mean, think about the last time you saw one of your favorite actors cry on screen--did it look fake? I can't remember the last time I watched an actor cry on screen, especially not on television.

Maybe I'm just biased because I've been watching so much British TV lately. Maybe I'm just tired because I had 3 finals in 3 days. Maybe it's because I've never been so excited by a bromance as I have been with watching Prince Arthur, Merlin and the Knights of the Round Table. And then we have Keanu Reeves who has no tear ducts nor muscles in his face.

Raptors

I never really understood the fascination with raptors before....the dinosaurs, not the birds. Velociraptor to be precise. I watched the 3 Jurassic Park movies and enjoyed their ferociousness, but it never really clicked as to why they were so popular on the internet. Then I started watching the ITV show Primeval and it became obvious--they're pretty wicked smart. I guess I was just too young to fully enjoy their awesomeness when I first watched Jurassic Park. Looks like I'll have to do some re-watching while I'm home for winter break.

Buddhism Sounds Like Protestanism

"The precursor to these reform movements was the monk Genshin (942-1017). His popular work Ojo Yoshu (Essentials of Salvation) depicted the horrors of hell and contrasted them vividly with the bliss of the Western Paradise. To attain rebirth in this paradise, Genshin stressed faith in the efficacy of the original vow of Amida Buddha (Amitabha). This could be manifested in the practice of menbutsu, by reciting the sacred name of Amida Buddha in the formula Namu Amida Butsu (Hail to the Name of Amida Buddha).

By stressing faith and dependence on the power of another (tariki), Genshin brought a totally new conccept to Japanese Buddhism. The sequel to his teaching was to deny, as a means of salvation, dependence on one's own strength (jiriki) as practiced in traditional Buddhism, be it in the form of ascetic observance, in spiritual and metaphysical exercises, or in performing good works. By simplifying the creed, he also opened the gate of paradise to the reach of common men.

The way that was paved by Genshin was brought into fruition by Honen (1133-1212), who became the ffounder of the Pure Land (Jodo) Sect in Japan (around 1175). Honen taught absolute efficacy of nembutsu, and departed in some points from the teachings of Genshin. For example, Genshin maintained that in invoking the sacred name of Buddha, one ought to form a mental image of Amida Buddha, and meditate on it. Honen rejected meditation or complete comprehension as unnecessary.

Shinran (1173-1262) moved Honen's teachings of the absolute efficacy of nembutsu one step further and to its logical conclusion. In traditional Pure Land beliefs, such as those advocated by the Chinese monk Shandao and by Honen, the awakening of faith required diligent observance of prayers to the Three Treasures. Thus there was an an element of acquiring faith by one's own power. To Shinran "faith is a gift freely given" by all Buddhas. He maintained that faith as well as the thought of Amida Buddha was transferred to or conferred upon all sentient beings to ensure the latter's salvation. And since salvation was dependent on the works of Amida Buddha: "If a good man can attain salvation, even more so a wicked man."

From "Japan: A Documentary History" by David Lu.

Wow, didn't know until about 30 seconds ago that there's evidence of early Christianity reaching Japan in around 400 AD. However, given that the widely accepted notion that Christianity didn't arrive until 1549, then you'll be quick to notice the similarities between Christian ideas and a Buddhist ideology that wasn't supposed to know that it existed, especially given that Luther didn't write his 95 Thesis until 1517--well after Shinran said "faith is a gift freely given" by all Buddhas.

BBC loves

I love the Doctor and I love Merlin and Arthur. What can make for a better video?!?

I [heart] Confusion

Or is that Confucian? I'll let you decide:

"When the government of a nation has gone astray, Heaven will chastise it through calamities. If storms and floods do not cause the government to mend its ways, Heaven will strike terror in the people's hearts by still greater disasters. Ruin will come at last if these two visitations are not sufficient to check the downward course. With gracious love toward the ruler, the Heavenly Way will make use of these means to prevent the final necessary evil, while the principles of propriety and music are positive means to guiding the people"
--nope, not from some recient Christian group, but from "The Heaven-Appointed Duty of Subjects" by Kumazawa Banzan (1619-1691) Confucian Scholar of sorts who "submitted an opinion to Shogun Tsunayoshi, who ordered his arrest".

Why This Country Sucks

I'm going to start a new series here called "Why This Country Sucks". Pretty much, I'm just going to identify a problem with this country and give a credible solution. There's a whole lot of overlap (go figure) so it'll probably be a pointless and confusing series. But there's going to be one major theme, I know. That is, individual accountability goes a whole lot farther than what you do for yourself and your family and friends. Individual accountability must be an accountability for the entire country (and ultimately the world) if you ever want to expel the phrase "this country sucks" from your vocabulary.

Today's lecture: On schools; specifically on in-school-suspension--why it's great and why it's so hard to find.

Did you know that the typical punishment for a child that skips school is out of school suspension for the day? So you just rewarded the child with the outcome that they wanted in the first place—they get to skip school. A suspension counts as an unexcused absence, which at the schools I've been to, 10 equal failing the class. So, if a student gets caught skipping school for one day, plus the day they get sent home for punishment, that's 2 days absent. The major reason for this is because schools don’t have an in school suspension program in place, generally because when the funding fails the extra teacher who doesn’t actually teach but supervises the delinquent children is let go. With no extra hands there to watch them, the students are sent home. If the parents were to all volunteer for just an hour a day to sit in that classroom then no students would have to be sent home as a reward for skipping school. I believe that no crime committed by students should result in an out of school suspension, including fighting. If we send them home, then those student who don’t want to be in school will start fights to be sent home. And what’s to stop them? They aren’t going to get some revelation while sitting at home in front of the TV screen that an education is the key to their future. We have to make it so that if nothing else no one slips through the cracks in the education system by being absent due to suspensions.

A Simpler Label For Not-So-Secret Information

President Obama on Thursday rolled back a proliferating array of policies by which federal agencies had kept unclassified information from the public, issuing an executive order intended to create a uniform way of handling such information. Mr. Obama’s order requires agencies to use only one term — “Controlled Unclassified Information,” or CUI — when stamping certain documents that officials believe should be safeguarded but that are not delicate enough to warrant being classified. That label would replace almost 120 markings that various agencies had developed to protect information.
---from this article from the NY Times

Wow, you'd think that they would learn this years ago. But then, ICS is still not fully incorporated--there is still ego amongst the ranks.

I didn't mean it!

I'm watching Bones and was thinking earlier this episode that Booth and his new girlfriend, Hannah, are getting too close. I randomly thought that the only way that he and Bones will ever get together is if Hannah ends up dead. And then Booth get's a phone call saying Hannah got shot. And then in the hospital, Bones saves Hannah's life by telling her that the nick on her leg is worse than her doctor told her and that if left untreated it could kill her. Wow. I really didn't mean for the producers to kill her off. Or maybe I'm just really good at pointing out the predictable.

Cathy's 2011-12 Political Predictions

I'm actually optimistic about the coming 2 years. And no, I'm don't classify myself as Republican. Here's why:

I'm pretty sure that the Republican's threw away the past 2 years. They did NOTHING that I can see to help Obama make better policy decisions--they threw him and the rest of congress under the bus.

The Democrats aren't Obama's type of people--they also threw him under the bus. They handed him crap and he had to sign it to get anything done.

Now, why do I think both parties tanked? Because the Democrats are a bit too idealistic and a bit too much government for the rest of America. They really should have pulled back on some things and would have had the Republicans actually pulled their weight. But they didn't because they have their head's stuck up their butts too often.

So, now that we have Republican majority in the House I expect better bills to come out. I'm not sure how the numbers work and how much Reps and Dems in the house will have to work together there, but with the Senate still belonging to the Dems, whatever hits the president's desk is going to HAVE to be bi-partisan.

So, we're going to see 1 of 2 things happen:
1) The dems and reps are going to actually work together and the country is going to prosper.
2)They're going to play chicken and see who blinks first and nothing will get accomplished.

In either case, it's going to be a hard sell in 2012 to say that Obama caused the issues, though maybe in the 2nd case I would expect him to get his butt to the Capital Building and show them who's boss.

I'm also extremely giddy to see what happens to the tea party backed candidates. I'm sad that it looks like they all ran as Republicans (I was hoping that they would make my life easy and actually get themselves together to run as a 3rd party)--it's made finding them in the election results difficult. But anyway, I fully expect that somewhere one or more of them is going to wake up one morning about 2 months into their term and wonder how on earth they are going to keep their word on the platforms that they ran on. How many said no to pork barrels? How exactly do they plan to get money to their localities without them?

By the way, I need to look into one candidate labeled "the mom in sneakers" because she's quite proud to be, what?, 9th in pork barreling. I'm glad that she's honest.

Tea Party Vows to Police Voter Fraud

Wow, scary thought. Here's the article.

Pretty much they're welcoming McCarthyist tactics to the polling booths. These people are encouraging individuals to "turn in" those who vote illegally--whatever that means. Probably the most common will be for illegal aliens getting paid to vote. So, they're going to pull over every Hispanic they can, because these people don't have the specialized training to be able to accurately tell an illegal from a legal. Tea Party authorized racism in action--and they wonder why so many people disagree with their practices.

I'm sorry, but I believe in a free country. Which means that individuals are free, in my book, to sell their votes. Why? For a few reasons:
1: Secret Ballot. Imagine how much money you can make off people buying your vote (dozens of people if you wish) and then you step into that booth you can choose for yourself--you can lie all you want about who you voted for and no one but you will ever know.
2: Of those who do vote, most sell their votes without even realizing it. They vote for the name they know better and that's the person who's better able to get their message across--which normally means that they've spent the most money on TV ads. Ever notice that positive relationship between amount of money a candidate spends and their chance at winning. Only when they've done something really stupid do they lose, normally.

Don't go after the people voting--that's impossible at best for the average American to do effectively. But anyone, including myself can be vigilant about REAL voter fraud. Cases where your vote isn't secret--times where there is tangible negligence of the voting processes.

If you want to stop those not eligible to vote then you need to get the police manpower into the field to stop identity theft--easiest way to get legal information into the hands of those who misuse it. It's not just about stealing the retirement savings of little old ladies, but gets terrorists onto planes, helps murderers escape, you name it.

I wonder how many innocent people will be terrorized by these "do gooders"? As my own personal judge of the effectiveness of this idea (in other words, how it's obviously not just blatant racism), would be if they pulled me over for being to young to vote. I really don't look like my 22 years.

Goblin Market by Christina Rossetti (1830-1894)

I've always liked this poem and I've never really liked poems.

Morning and evening
Maids heard the goblins cry:
"Come buy our orchard fruits,
Come buy, come buy:
Apples and quinces,
Lemons and oranges,
Plump unpecked cherries-
Melons and raspberries,
Bloom-down-cheeked peaches,
Swart-headed mulberries,
Wild free-born cranberries,
Crab-apples, dewberries,
Pine-apples, blackberries,
Apricots, strawberries--
All ripe together
In summer weather--
Morns that pass by,
Fair eves that fly;
Come buy, come buy;
Our grapes fresh from the vine,
Pomegranates full and fine,
Dates and sharp bullaces,
Rare pears and greengages,
Damsons and bilberries,
Taste them and try:
Currants and gooseberries,
Bright-fire-like barberries,
Figs to fill your mouth,
Citrons from the South,
Sweet to tongue and sound to eye,
Come buy, come buy."

Quote

"The art of diplomacy is the luck of knowing more of your rival's secrets than he knows of yours. Always deal from a position of power. These were Shrewd's maxims. And Verity abided by them."
--From Assassin's Apprentice by Robin Hobb

Amusements

Picked these up from a forwarded email.

1. Ever wonder about those people who spend $4.00 apiece on those little bottles of Evian water?
Try spelling Evian backwards :NAIVE

2. Isn't making a smoking section in a restaurant like making a peeing section in a swimming pool? (My sentiments exactly!)

15. I was thinking about how people seem to read the Bible a whole lot more as they get older; then it dawned on me ... they're cramming for their final exam.

17. Why do they put pictures of criminals up in the Post Office? What are we supposed to do, write to them?
Why don't they just put their pictures on the postage stamps so the mailmen can look for them while they deliver the mail?
----actually, I think this would be a smart way to get more people's attention about wanted posters. Speaking of stamps, I love the idea of forever stamps, but why can't they make them something other than the liberty bell? I guess it's to keep people like me from buying them, though I do have a nice selection for when the prices do increase.

21. Ever wonder what the speed of lightning would be if it didn't zigzag?

***Edit: 3/30/2011: They have made all new stamps forever stamps!!!! Brilliant!

From "Assassin's Apprentice" by Robin Hobb

"Tell this to King Shrewd. Our population grows, but there is a limit to our arable soil. Wild game will only feed so many. Comes a time when a country must open itself to trade, especially so rocky and mountainous a country as mine. You have heard, perhaps, that the Jhaampe way is that the ruler is the servant of his people? Well, I serve them in this wise. I marry my beloved younger sister away, in the hopes of winning grain and trade routes and lowland goods for my people, and grazing rights in the cold part of the year when our pastures are under snow. For this, too, I am willing to give you timbers, the great straight timbers that Verity will need to build his warships. Our mountains grow white oak such as you have never seen. This is a thing my father would refuse. He has the old feelings about the cutting of live trees, And like Regal, he sees your coast as a liability, your ocean as a great barrier. But I see it as your father did--a wide road that leads in all directions, and your coast as our access to it. And I see no offense in using trees uprooted by the annual floods and windstorms."

excellent quote, I think.

Wondering Aloud.

It's 1982 and Ellen Goodman from the Washington Post Writers Group was tasked with writing a review to put on the back of my book Women's Diaries of the Westward Journey by Lillian Schlissel. She wrote, "In this new season of migration, when the economy acts like a centrifuge, it is equally challenging to keep a family together..."

As I wasn't alive in 1982, I can't really say what the economy was like. Nor can I say much about the "new season of migration". But I can say something about a centrifuge. I've used one probably 2 dozen times during the 7 weeks of bio-lab I've had so far and will probably use it more in the coming weeks. A centrifuge literally spins around in circles causing everything inside your tube to get squished into the tip, creating a little pellet. I'm not sure how this can describe an economy. Unless, of course, she means that all the wealth got spun around in circles until it all ended up in the hands of a very few people (making up that pellet). Ah well. If you could provide some insight, that would be much appreciated.

On a similar, but probably not related note, there was a funny moment in my lecture course today. The professor that was speaking had a total brain fart when describing initial thoughts about coral reefs. Apparently early scientists of the species thought that the corals were..."umm....what's the name for, uhh, vegetarians?" "Herbivores" (said someone from the audience).  "Thank-you" (from the professor). It was a great lecture. He told us about 2 research projects he worked on measuring the affects of stresses on coral reefs (increased amount of nutrients, increased water temperatures, increased sediment runoff, etc). One was in Israel where they worked out of a military tent while the military vessels sailed past checking on their work. The other was off the coast of Key Largo, FL where they lived 80m under the ocean surface for 10 days with a broken toilet where they had to venture out of the habitat to a separate bubble and "release more nutrients into the ocean column" and then told us of the certain fish that liked to hang around and bit the legs of those using the bathroom. Good times. Oh, and they couldn't have an open flame because they were under pressure, so they had to eat freeze dried astronaut meals for those 10 days.

Test Your Savvy on Religion

see orignial: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/opinion/10kristof.html?src=me&ref=general
Time for a pop quiz.

Damon Winter/The New York Times

Nicholas D. Kristof

On the Ground

Share Your Comments About This Column

Nicholas Kristof addresses reader feedback and posts short takes from his travels.

Go to Columnist Page »

The New York Times reported recently on a Pew Research Center poll in which religious people turned out to be remarkably uninformed about religion. Almost half of Catholics didn’t understand Communion. Most Protestants didn’t know that Martin Luther started the Reformation. Almost half of Jews didn’t realize Maimonides was Jewish. And atheists were among the best informed about religion.
So let me give everybody another chance. And given the uproar about Islam, I’ll focus on extremism and fundamentalism — and, as you’ll see, there’s a larger point to this quiz. Note that some questions have more than one correct choice; answers are at the end.

 1. Which holy book stipulates that a girl who does not bleed on her wedding night should be stoned to death?
a. Koran
b. Old Testament
c. (Hindu) Upanishads

2. Which holy text declares: “Let there be no compulsion in religion”?
a. Koran
b. Gospel of Matthew
c. Letter of Paul to the Romans

3. The terrorists who pioneered the suicide vest in modern times, and the use of women in terror attacks, were affiliated with which major religion?
a. Islam
b. Christianity
c. Hinduism

4. "Every child is touched by the devil as soon as he is born and this contact makes him cry. Excepted are Mary and her Son.” This verse is from:
a. Letters of Paul to the Corinthians
b. The Book of Revelation
c. An Islamic hadith, or religious tale

5. Which holy text is sympathetic to slavery?
a. Old Testament
b. New Testament
c. Koran

6. In the New Testament, Jesus’ views of homosexuality are:
a. strongly condemnatory
b. forgiving
c. never mentioned

7. Which holy text urges responding to evil with kindness, saying: “repel the evil deed with one which is better.”
a. Gospel of Luke
b. Book of Isaiah
c. Koran

8. Which religious figure preaches tolerance by suggesting that God looks after all peoples and leads them all to their promised lands?
a. Muhammad
b. Amos
c. Jesus

9. Which of these religious leaders was a polygamist?
a. Jacob
b. King David
c. Muhammad

10. What characterizes Muhammad’s behavior toward the Jews of his time?
a. He killed them.
b. He married one.
c. He praised them as a chosen people.

11. Which holy scripture urges that the "little ones" of the enemy be dashed against the stones?
a. Book of Psalms
b. Koran
c. Leviticus

12. Which holy scripture suggests beating wives who misbehave?
a. Koran
b. Letters of Paul to the Corinthians
c. Book of Judges

13. Which religious leader is quoted as commanding women to be silent during services?
a. The first Dalai Lama
b. St. Paul
c. Muhammad

Answers:
1. b. Deuteronomy 22:21.
2. a. Koran, 2:256. But other sections of the Koran do describe coercion.
3. c. Most early suicide bombings were by Tamil Hindus (some secular) in Sri Lanka and India.
4. c. Hadith. Islam teaches that Jesus was a prophet to be revered.
5. All of the above.
6. c. Other parts of the New and Old Testaments object to homosexuality, but there’s no indication of Jesus’ views.
7. c. Koran, 41:34. Jesus says much the same thing in different words.
8. b. Amos 9:7
9. all of them
10. all of these. Muhammad’s Jewish wife was seized in battle, which undermines the spirit of the gesture. By some accounts he had a second Jewish wife as well.
11. a. Psalm 137
12. a. Koran 4:34
13. b. St. Paul, both in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2, but many scholars believe that neither section was actually written by Paul.

And yes, the point of this little quiz is that religion is more complicated than it sometimes seems, and that we should be wary of rushing to inflammatory conclusions about any faith, especially based on cherry-picking texts. The most crucial element is perhaps not what is in our scriptures, but what is in our hearts.

I invite you to comment on this column on my blog, On the Ground. Please also join me on Facebook, watch my YouTube videos and follow me on Twitter.

Fox News on Hulu

I can't help but feel like I was in some way responsible for this addition to the TV site since I sent about 40 emails to various Fox personalities asking why they were so against sharing their video with folks like me who don't care to pay for access to the channel. But I'm concerned as to why they are the only videos which are so proud to include the intro and conclusion telling us that these videos are exclusive for Hulu. Are they censoring something? Or just embarrassed to share with the free world (taken literally) what they tell the paying world? Sigh, I guess it's back to the emailing for me. I really would love to get my hands on some "Fox and Friends" because honestly, they HAVE to do better than what is used as soundbites on youtube and certain comedy central shows.

rally to restore sanity/keep fear alive

Wow, I'm not sure where I've been recently, but I'm extremely excited for October 30th. I LOVE Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert. They are definitely my type of people. I won't be able to attend, but my heart is all there. I also love that it's also a campaign to raise money for schools.

I didn't realize how serious this was until I saw Colbert's speech to congress. Wow. I have to say that I think I've used similar arguments while being sarcastic to friends and family about this. I like that as I post this someone thought it fitting to complain in the comments section about his "lying" to congress by being in character. I don't know how it can be called lying when it's his way of expressing his opinion. This debate has been going on for at least a decade with parties on both sides using formal, traditional tone. And it's getting no where. What they need to hear is what everyone's too afraid to say; what they all say behind closed doors. He gives a quite reasoned argument, which few people do when being themselves. Ask Mr. Glenn Beck: he's quite fond of contradicting himself within one sentence. What I find upsetting about this is the lady of congress who is spotted texting while she should be listening. Something tells me that this was more performance than actual speech for someone in that room, and I don't think it was Mr. Colbert.

Please check out the Rally to Restore Sanity or Keep Fear Alive.
More interesting information found at: http://www.jonstewartrally.com/ and http://www.colbertrally.com/

The power of a voice.

I had an interesting thought while at dinner tonight.This year is the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy/Nixon debate. Everyone says that Nixon lost because he looked so bad and Kennedy looked so good in front of the camera. I started thinking about other speeches/debates and then thought about the mock debate a few years ago between "The West Wing" characters. So I wondered what would happen if we handed the speeches to different people to read, what would happen. Would the public feel the same way if personality didn't matter? It would definitely help Obama since he's quoted as saying that it didn't matter if he claimed the earth were round, the republicans would vote against him.

And it's not just the Kennedy/Nixon debate to test, anything would work. I had to look up speeches for an english class back in 11th grade and it was funny how it didn't much matter who I was reading, the tone was exactly the same. Subject might change, but the same allusions were made. I think it would be an interesting test to do a bit like Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert are doing on the October 30th, only without letting the public in on it. Take a generic speech and some unknown actor and give it in town hall style. Maybe bill it as being partisan. Then judge people's reactions--cheers and jeers should be enough. The last lines could be that this was a "test of public sentiment" and give them information on where to find results if they care at all. I wonder what kinds of things all Americans would be able to agree on.

Random bit of Thursday

I've been having a heck of a month trying to remember all that I've been thinking of--I think lack of sleep is the reason for it. Anywho.

I read about Dairy Queen going to open about 100 stores in China. My question is...for those who always complain about the US sending jobs overseas, I wonder whether they are for or against this.

Have you ever realized how similar to Christianity Buddhism is? We were sitting in discussion for Early Japanese History chatting about what Buddhism was doing in year 1100 or so. Let's just say that I was quietly giggling to myself about belief in mappo (the decline of humanity/end of days), the formation of various sects of Buddhism with similar but different core beliefs on sin and enlightenment (read: salvation) (including campaigning that only through belief in their sect would save the soul from the mappo), and how one of the most important Bodhisattva promised in life that  he would not go on to nirvana without knowing that all the humans are saved. Then there was the whole fact that at this time there was a focus on getting Buddhism to the masses, not just to the aristocracy.

I hate stereotyping

 In response to the Islamophobic comments to this article.

I'm sorry. But why the heck does EVERYONE insist on grouping EVERYONE into categories that they don't belong in?!?! I personally think that 90% of the people who bother to comment on this rubbish news site are ignorant homophobic bigots who never leave their 5 acre farm and insist that their wives and female children wear skirts at all times and can't read anything other than the Bible. But no. I know enough females that choose to only wear skirts, enough people who live on farms, enough people who are opinionated to fall into my own trap. Why must we propagate the ignorance? Instead let's treat individuals as they really are.

How many Christian groups promote intolerance? I can give you 2 that have done something news worth in the past year: Dove World Outreach Center in FL and Westboro Baptist Church in KS. Does that mean that we should think all Apostolic and Baptist Churches are centers of intolerance? No. Heck. You know what the problem with the Christian faith is? It's that there is so much schism that you CAN'T group them all together. Why do people have fuel to hate the Catholics? Because you can go into any Catholic church and hear the same sermons. But that's not what makes a church it's own body. The Catholics use the same Bible as the Protestants and the Mormons and ALL those people who believe in Christ. Unless they are the group that thinks that only the KJV is correct which means that those people will want to kill me. And those folks over there who say that Catholics worship the Devil, Mary, Saints as equal to Jesus (take your pick)--I'm on their hit list too. There is no such thing as the Christian faith, because no one wants to admit to it because then you have to include "all of them". Poor Muslims for having a unified faith. Because then no one believes you when you say "that person is crazy--he doesn't really believe in what I believe". I guess that's what happens when your god doesn't allow for division. Oh wait. Doesn't it say somewhere in the bible that the Church (god's church, not a building) cannot be divided? OOPS...someone broke the rule.

If a church with only 50 members has a website, you can be sure that those with 100 have them too. Yup--the church I used to go to (Catholic--you can see that I'm biased) even has a website. Look them up. How many can you find with racist (pick your definition: religion, country of origin, etc) underpinnings. If they aren't bold enough, look for those groups to know to be racist (see above) and see what kind of faith they support. Neo-Nazis attack a number of races "and people with different political or religious opinions"--from Wikipedia. See--there's some "Christian" church out there with people who use their faith as some basis of their bigotry. Why Christian? Because they hate everyone else (see the community approved list.

What does it mean to have a religious community? Why is it that individuals walk into and out of churches of supposedly the same denomination and can only find one that they can actually agree with? As a former Catholic, I have to say that I don't agree with some fathers who think gays are unholy sinners, and to have one's tubes tied is a sentence to life in Hell. Actually, the priests who have had the longest tenures at my church were of a more moderate belief. To live in love free of lies is more holy than lying and cheating to protect against a fate that God gave you. To sentence your children to suffer in a life in which you had them but cannot pay for their well being is a similar sin. I know that this is the same difference you find in your own churches. I know that there has been some time that whatever denomination you are, you have seen a church of the same which you just think are a bunch of crazy nuts--either too liberal or too conservative. The Anglican church is splitting as we speak.

Christians have this luxury--to say "they aren't of my faith". We don't extend this luxury to those of other denominations. To the mainstream American, a Jew is a Jew and who cares if he's orthodox or non, kosher or not. A Buddhist is a Buddhist, etc. The same is true of the Muslims--are they Sunni or Shiite? Do we care? And why do we? At the end of the day we are all individuals with our own beliefs characterized by our own experiences. Why do the radicals attack? Is it because they've heard the snide remarks? The FL pastor didn't want to believe that his burning of the Qur'an caused violent protests in the middle east. All actions have reactions. Why do we only pay attention when the story turns violent and claim "we didn't see it coming"? Columbine, VA Tech, 9-11, that guy who killed a security guard at the Holocaust Museum, Ft Hood, that guy who just killed 6 people this morning when his eggs were cold because that was the last straw. How often is the newsworthy story that "last straw"? What really are the causes behind the effects? Again, do we care? At what point will YOU attack someone? When does it quit having viable causes and becomes merely a matter of insanity--drowning your 5 children, microwaving your newborn, etc.

And one last thing, I promise. How many truly evil people have hidden their intentions behind benign faces?

Jobs

You'd think that there were no jobs in existence in this country (see previous post). Curious, I decided to do some job searching of my own. I found quite a few just in the state of Virginia. I've heard a lot about people who just don't know how to get hired and that's why they can't find work. I'm sure this is common knowledge to a lot of people, but I also handed out a lot of applications 2 summers ago when I worked at a small store down the street of my house. There are a few dos and don'ts to follow for those who are looking for work.

1. Make sure you actually want the job you're applying for. With those applications, it was not uncommon for women to walk in off the streets and rudely ask for an application. We weren't really hiring (there was an 80 hour cap on hours per week, so employees were limited), but that didn't stop me from handing out the applications--at least these people were trying. Maybe 3 came back completed out of the 40 I gave out. And one of those was from a guy who included his resume then bugged us for the next 3 weeks that if we weren't going to hire him, he needed his resume back because it cost him money and he needed it to apply for another job. Seriously--when you're applying to a crummy job (i.e. one that's going to be long hours for minimum wage) apply in person if possible. I got the application on a whim, turned it in a week later (after having spilled water on it) and was just going to hand it over and leave, but ended up with an impromptu interview and tour and was hired right then and there. That help wanted sign had been up for about a month and had ANYONE showed the slightest interest would have gotten it. So, my advice is that you need to remember that you are competing against people who honestly are applying just because they have to in order to keep their unemployment benefits.

2. I've heard many people talk about their resumes and how they really look immature. Even the best educated people don't have the most talent with writing resumes--heck, I think of myself as a pretty smart person and I know that I'm not a very good writer of anything. I also hate to "sell" myself which is exactly what you need to do on a resume. So, best advice--get someone professional to look over yours. Employment agencies will probably do it for free, especially if it's for people who have been out of work for awhile--and I'm sure such agencies will do the review work online.

3. Do as your future employer asks. If they want a cover sheet, include a cover sheet. If they want a resume, include a resume, etc. Any applications that are missing items WILL be thrown away. To assume otherwise is a waste of your time. Also, if you want to keep your job, you should really assume that your boss knows best. Too often people get fired of quit because they think that their boss is an idiot. While this may be true, don't let it lead you back down the path of unemployment. If you absolutely hate your job, start job searching. Nothing says that you can't look for a job while you already have one.

4. Be willing to move. If you are one of those persons who doesn't want to leave your area, then I hope you are resigned to being unemployed for a very long time. Just saying--you have to go after the jobs, not wait for the jobs to come to you.

5. Be willing to work below your potential. If nothing else, you will learn a lot about the world. Working at that store did extraordinarily well in helping me decide that I want to do a whole lot better with my college education. But income is income. And if you have a problem with illegal immigrants taking your potential jobs, like I said to begin this, make sure you actually want the job that you are applying for.

Jobs Lost

Hmm...54,000 jobs lost in August. Ya know--that's a highly speculative number. I agree that when you know that 150,000 jobs were lost by the census workers who knew their job was only temporary (leaving a net increase in jobs of 67,000)and then you realize that August probably is a high month for job losses anyway because of the end of the vacation season. I know that everyone who was making a buck or 2 at summer camps, ice cream parlors, and souvenir shops in tourist traps either lost their job or is only working there for off season possibilities and/or just to keep the doors open all year. Similarly, I predict that business will begin to thrive in college towns. I know that I'm already used to coming back to school in late August to find 3 or 4 new businesses on the Corner because the previous ones didn't survive the deserted summer season. Do we need to do something to increase employment? Yes. But also remember, the "natural" unemployment rate is 5%. Which is low for most countries in this world.

Letter to Glenn Beck

was reading up on your 912 project and just about had an annurism from laughing so hard. I want you to think exceptionally broadly (which may or may not be possible) and look VERY closely at something.

"and when we demand that we are self-reliant, we will ensure that others can rely on us, not the government."--from your website
"b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed"--a definition from Marriam-Webster (I'm going to hold off on what it's a definition of for the time being so as to not throw you off).

So, to what extent do you propose that "others can rely on us, not the government"? Do you include things like, say, housing, jobs, food, etc? Those things that welfare and social security cover? That people can go to their community members and ask for help as they need it? So, if I'm a poor man trying to feed my family, say, with farming, the community will do it's best to help me to become self-sufficient. Would that include giving me land to farm on? When my baby gets sick, the community would do it's best to help her get better--even if that means asking the community doctor to help her free of charge? At what point does community assistance to self-reliance end?

Now, how do my questions relate to that definition? Aren't they mutually compatible--where the "goods owned in common" include what is "owned" by the community members that can be given freely to help the individual become self-sufficient--without the use of the government (I shan't debate the validity of saying (or implying) that there is no government in a community that you describe).

Getting the picture yet? Now....what do you say to the fact that that 2nd definition belongs to communism? Ignore all preconceptions and arguments about it, the society you envision with self-reliance regulated by the community is a communistic society. You don't say that "WE can rely on US", you say "OTHERS can rely on US"--so you agree with me that the only way to fix society is for the community to get off their asses and aid those around them--even if it means giving up the 80 acre PRIVATE PROPERTY compound that houses 4 people in a 4000 sq ft mansion VOLUNTARILY to support the upward mobility of a poor family of 10. That sure as hell isn't capitalism which would ask how much could you sell that property for nor is it socialism in which some arbitrary 3rd party TELLS you to do it.

Blink and you're dead

Creepy tale from the world of Doctor Who :-). I love how deliciously scary the angels are.