Friday, April 30, 2004
From the mouth of a chemistry professor
"Atoms are not violent; they are peaceful. They don't attack; they bond."
Here is something interesting as I study for my o-chem exam:
posted by Laura Keslar at 8:29 AM | |
Duh!
But, on a more random note, I do despise how everything turns into a Canadian-medication importation debate. Folks, medication has higher prices in the US for a reason. Be thankful for them. Get over it. If you like the drug prices in Canada, move there then. Just be expecting long waits and the inability to buy some drugs, which are not sold in Canada. Gr. Dumb people.
"Medicare card data show no big savings on top-selling drugs." Duh...What would they have expected? The pharmacist I volunteered with last summer thought that Arizona's medical cards were a big waste of money, too.
But, on a more random note, I do despise how everything turns into a Canadian-medication importation debate. Folks, medication has higher prices in the US for a reason. Be thankful for them. Get over it. If you like the drug prices in Canada, move there then. Just be expecting long waits and the inability to buy some drugs, which are not sold in Canada. Gr. Dumb people.
posted by Laura Keslar at 12:44 AM | |
Showing red and UA Presents pricing
UApresents seems to be in debt this year, though that comes as no surprise. For all I knew, it was a non-profit organization, to some extent, except that it tries to make a profit on its broadway shows to pay for its less popular showings, which, obviously, they operate at a loss. It does this to try to increase its community turnout at the less-popular productions such as ballets, cultural dances, and classical music.
Part of UA Presents' goal is to increase community turnout. While they have tried to do so by decreasing their ticket prices, it seems as though they will try to decrease them even more, so as to make them more desirable for the community to attend, as well as utilizing other techniques as mentioned in article above. It also gives a 50% discount when a customer buys 16 or more tickets.
What's interesting about UA Presents, is that it generally has a 60% occupancy, but its seating capacity is 2,400 at Centennial Hall. So its almost necessary to find programing that would jump the barriers of the different types of audiences, to find program that are interesting to the family, the senior citizen, and the college student.
UA Presents also bases its pricing partly upon the fame of the show; so, the more popular the show, the more you will have to pay. On a side note, UA Presents tends to also charge more than its other "competitors" such as the non-profit Arizona Repertory Theatre and the Arizona Theatrical Company, a difference which is somewhat caused by the fact that its actors are professionals.
Another area that UA Presents should pick up on is its donations. Currently, 10% of its income comes from donations. Part of the problem with donations is, however, that Americans have become less willing to part with their money, especially in regards to giving it to the Arts.
So it looks as though both the UA and UA presents has some serious problems to overcome; hopefully, UApresents can take care of those problems while continuing to provide great plays.
From time to time, I have been known to attend presentations put on my UApresents. The last event tht I attended was a jazz concert put on my the Jazz Hall Preservation Band. Great music. I absolutely enjoy early jazz. But its a shame to hear that this non-profit organization is working in the red.
UApresents seems to be in debt this year, though that comes as no surprise. For all I knew, it was a non-profit organization, to some extent, except that it tries to make a profit on its broadway shows to pay for its less popular showings, which, obviously, they operate at a loss. It does this to try to increase its community turnout at the less-popular productions such as ballets, cultural dances, and classical music.
Part of UA Presents' goal is to increase community turnout. While they have tried to do so by decreasing their ticket prices, it seems as though they will try to decrease them even more, so as to make them more desirable for the community to attend, as well as utilizing other techniques as mentioned in article above. It also gives a 50% discount when a customer buys 16 or more tickets.
What's interesting about UA Presents, is that it generally has a 60% occupancy, but its seating capacity is 2,400 at Centennial Hall. So its almost necessary to find programing that would jump the barriers of the different types of audiences, to find program that are interesting to the family, the senior citizen, and the college student.
UA Presents also bases its pricing partly upon the fame of the show; so, the more popular the show, the more you will have to pay. On a side note, UA Presents tends to also charge more than its other "competitors" such as the non-profit Arizona Repertory Theatre and the Arizona Theatrical Company, a difference which is somewhat caused by the fact that its actors are professionals.
Another area that UA Presents should pick up on is its donations. Currently, 10% of its income comes from donations. Part of the problem with donations is, however, that Americans have become less willing to part with their money, especially in regards to giving it to the Arts.
So it looks as though both the UA and UA presents has some serious problems to overcome; hopefully, UApresents can take care of those problems while continuing to provide great plays.
posted by Laura Keslar at 12:38 AM | |
Wow, this is a first
Question: What would you do if you were Bush?s campaign manager?
Keep up the anti-Kerry ads!
Make it clear why he?s great.
Donate campaign funds to charity.
Ick! I couldn?t work for Bush.
Put the Bush daughters in ads.
And of course, I picked the last option, though it would be preferable to put the Bush cousin in the ads along with the daughters.
Or, they could do as I earlier suggested, and show a mudwrestling contest between Laura Bush and Teresa Heinz-Kerry.
For once, I actually laughed at one of the Wildcat's poll.
Keep up the anti-Kerry ads!
Make it clear why he?s great.
Donate campaign funds to charity.
Ick! I couldn?t work for Bush.
Put the Bush daughters in ads.
And of course, I picked the last option, though it would be preferable to put the Bush cousin in the ads along with the daughters.
Or, they could do as I earlier suggested, and show a mudwrestling contest between Laura Bush and Teresa Heinz-Kerry.
posted by Laura Keslar at 12:17 AM | |
Thursday, April 29, 2004
While I am at it
If you were ever wondering where the journalists from the UA's Wildcat go when they graduate college, you don't have to look any farther than the Arizona Republic. With headlines like these, you can understand where people with the ability to write quizes like this and this can actually get a job that pays them money to write BS.
posted by Laura Keslar at 11:20 PM | |
The RHA banquet
The banquet was for RHA, of which I have been a part of during this last semester as an RHA representative for the dorm in which I live. But while attending this banquet, I decided to put my time to good use and thought of some interesting things to write--none of which I shall actually write about.
Rather, I shall post briefly about some of the things I observed during the banquet. First of all, was the meretricious display of flesh by the females in the room. The invitation said semi-formal, so when did semi-formal translate into midriffs, fat thighs, and cleavage? I hope those girls never walk into any sort of other semi-formal event that actually counts dressed like that. Ugh.
Lovely fun that was, and I almost fell asleep (I accidentally got the caffeine-free coffee, or as most people call it, the decaf) except that the superlatives got the better of me, where the best couple/potential couple came up, where the honorable mention was a Dan-James coupling. Ugh.
And, being the puritanical freak I am, I wondered what place the word "pissed" had at a formal event. Perhaps the same place that "bitch" has in a news publication.
Perhaps I should have known that this was what was to be expected at a semi-formal college event, but what would I have expected having sat through many of my father's business parties and whatnot that I have been forced to attend, where the women dressed modestly and tastefully and the people in the room talked with eloquence instead of vulgarity.
But what is my problem? If these are our future leaders, as many of the advisors said that the students in the room were, what kind of world will I be looking at?
Obviously, one filled with pedestrian speech, whorish women, and acceptance of any deviancy.
It has been a long time since I have posted anything substantial about the University of Arizona and any of her affairs. And, sorry to disappoint you, I have nothing much to report back about, except that I went to the world's boringest gaudy ever.
The banquet was for RHA, of which I have been a part of during this last semester as an RHA representative for the dorm in which I live. But while attending this banquet, I decided to put my time to good use and thought of some interesting things to write--none of which I shall actually write about.
Rather, I shall post briefly about some of the things I observed during the banquet. First of all, was the meretricious display of flesh by the females in the room. The invitation said semi-formal, so when did semi-formal translate into midriffs, fat thighs, and cleavage? I hope those girls never walk into any sort of other semi-formal event that actually counts dressed like that. Ugh.
Lovely fun that was, and I almost fell asleep (I accidentally got the caffeine-free coffee, or as most people call it, the decaf) except that the superlatives got the better of me, where the best couple/potential couple came up, where the honorable mention was a Dan-James coupling. Ugh.
And, being the puritanical freak I am, I wondered what place the word "pissed" had at a formal event. Perhaps the same place that "bitch" has in a news publication.
Perhaps I should have known that this was what was to be expected at a semi-formal college event, but what would I have expected having sat through many of my father's business parties and whatnot that I have been forced to attend, where the women dressed modestly and tastefully and the people in the room talked with eloquence instead of vulgarity.
But what is my problem? If these are our future leaders, as many of the advisors said that the students in the room were, what kind of world will I be looking at?
Obviously, one filled with pedestrian speech, whorish women, and acceptance of any deviancy.
posted by Laura Keslar at 11:02 PM | |
Breath of life
The first major verse that was pointed out came directly from one of my favorite OT books, Genesis.
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen 2:7)
My friend had so eloquently indicated that it was only when man had breath in him that he became a living being. He also pointed out that it was likely Adam and Eve lacked blood (there are reasons for this...scripturally, which I might go into a bit later) and therefore my appeal to what it says in Genesis 9:4-6 would be made to no avail.
My friend continued to point out the numerous references throughout the bible that breath=life (Genesis 6:17, Ezekiel 37:9 and 10).
Also, consider that the Spirit, which brings life, means pneuma or breath (John 6:63, Romans 8:10, 2 Corinthians 3:6, and Galatians 6:8).
But with this view, that it was solely breath that made one alive, I had several problems, many of which are addressed here, where Jason Steffens from Antioch Road did a great job outlining the biblical reasons supporting the personhood and life-ness (is that a word?) of an infant in the womb.
Though my friend is not wrong in that life begins with breath, he is wrong, to some extent, in that which breath it is that brings life. Is it merely our physical breath? Or is it the spirit within us that brings life?
Perhaps I am not making myself clear. My point is that life does begin with the breath of life, and that breath of life being man's spirit. When a clump of cells, to use most people's very pedestrian verbage, receives his spirit, that is when he becomes a living being. Not upon first breath of the oxygen, nitrogen, other diamotic molecules and whatever else exists in the atomsphere that we inhale, but it becomes a he when it recieves the spirit. It is this spirit that brings life, just as the Holy Spirit brings eternal life to man.
My friend's dilemma is that he attributed the reception of the spirit with the reception of air into the lungs, which is not supported by the bible.
Instead, the Bible gives a rather fuller view of life than merely air in the lungs. Instead, it qualifies many things as life-giving. Food, such as bread (Luke 4:4), water (John 4:14 and Revelation 22:17), as well as blood (">Genesis 9:4-6 and Leviticus 17:11).
Therefore, with this in mind, is it possible that life begins (or the spirit enters man) at the time the unit of cells consumes nutrients, has blood, and transports oxygen throughout the body?
This explanation would seemingly remove much of the problems surrounding the question of when life begins and many of the bible verses that seem to indicate that the child is a person, is alive in the mother's womb. For the most part, it does not specify, however, in a few cases it does--at conception.
Now, to be anal, as is my nature, I would like to make note: conception takes place in the fallopian tubes, not the uterus (or womb, as it is referred to in the Bible). The egg is implanted in the uterus but fertilized in the tubes.
As such, this makes it semi-logical to come to the conclusion that the cells that are being developed while still in the fallopian tubes lack its person (or spirit); however, upon reaching the uterus or some time afterward, at which point the unborn child develops enough that it has blood, transports oxygen, and obtains nutrients (all three), the cells gain its spirit, thus becoming a person. This view would then allow for the fact that an unborn infant can be considered alive, can jump in the womb, can be fashioned in the womb, and so forth. It would also allow for the bible to be held consistent in its references to what causes life.
As badly as it sounds, I have been struggling with the abortion issue and when life begins from a Christian perspective. One of the main arguments I have heard from a good friend of mine is that life begins with the ability to breath. For this view, they have taken several key verses, particularly those dealing with breath and the Holy Spirit and how both of them are known to bring life.
The first major verse that was pointed out came directly from one of my favorite OT books, Genesis.
My friend had so eloquently indicated that it was only when man had breath in him that he became a living being. He also pointed out that it was likely Adam and Eve lacked blood (there are reasons for this...scripturally, which I might go into a bit later) and therefore my appeal to what it says in Genesis 9:4-6 would be made to no avail.
My friend continued to point out the numerous references throughout the bible that breath=life (Genesis 6:17, Ezekiel 37:9 and 10).
Also, consider that the Spirit, which brings life, means pneuma or breath (John 6:63, Romans 8:10, 2 Corinthians 3:6, and Galatians 6:8).
But with this view, that it was solely breath that made one alive, I had several problems, many of which are addressed here, where Jason Steffens from Antioch Road did a great job outlining the biblical reasons supporting the personhood and life-ness (is that a word?) of an infant in the womb.
Though my friend is not wrong in that life begins with breath, he is wrong, to some extent, in that which breath it is that brings life. Is it merely our physical breath? Or is it the spirit within us that brings life?
Perhaps I am not making myself clear. My point is that life does begin with the breath of life, and that breath of life being man's spirit. When a clump of cells, to use most people's very pedestrian verbage, receives his spirit, that is when he becomes a living being. Not upon first breath of the oxygen, nitrogen, other diamotic molecules and whatever else exists in the atomsphere that we inhale, but it becomes a he when it recieves the spirit. It is this spirit that brings life, just as the Holy Spirit brings eternal life to man.
My friend's dilemma is that he attributed the reception of the spirit with the reception of air into the lungs, which is not supported by the bible.
Instead, the Bible gives a rather fuller view of life than merely air in the lungs. Instead, it qualifies many things as life-giving. Food, such as bread (Luke 4:4), water (John 4:14 and Revelation 22:17), as well as blood (">Genesis 9:4-6 and Leviticus 17:11).
Therefore, with this in mind, is it possible that life begins (or the spirit enters man) at the time the unit of cells consumes nutrients, has blood, and transports oxygen throughout the body?
This explanation would seemingly remove much of the problems surrounding the question of when life begins and many of the bible verses that seem to indicate that the child is a person, is alive in the mother's womb. For the most part, it does not specify, however, in a few cases it does--at conception.
Now, to be anal, as is my nature, I would like to make note: conception takes place in the fallopian tubes, not the uterus (or womb, as it is referred to in the Bible). The egg is implanted in the uterus but fertilized in the tubes.
As such, this makes it semi-logical to come to the conclusion that the cells that are being developed while still in the fallopian tubes lack its person (or spirit); however, upon reaching the uterus or some time afterward, at which point the unborn child develops enough that it has blood, transports oxygen, and obtains nutrients (all three), the cells gain its spirit, thus becoming a person. This view would then allow for the fact that an unborn infant can be considered alive, can jump in the womb, can be fashioned in the womb, and so forth. It would also allow for the bible to be held consistent in its references to what causes life.
posted by Laura Keslar at 9:55 PM | |
Among other things...a protest
Nothing.
So yesterday, as I was heading out to take my organic chemistry (bleh...give me analytical any day) exam over lovely amines and horrible amino acids and yucky carbohydrates, I saw a lovely little protest. Until now, I was not quite sure what all the brouhaha was about, but all I knew was that a Palestinian flag was being marched around and that there were a lot of girls around who happened to be wearing hijabs.
(I am not complaining about hijabs; during the winter months, I am often tempted to wear on and have been known to do so occasionally.)
Anywho, I had whispered to my friend (the crazy girl next door) that I wanted to participate (well, not with the people protesting, but with the people whom the people were protesting)...and I would have, except her logic won out.
She merely had to say "test" and my loyalties were torn.
Ah, the disappointment. Both the test and my lack of ability to have a little fun.
Over the past four semesters, I have discovered a disturbing trend in my academic and personal life. Whenever there is an interesting protest of some sorts or a political (or perhaps, apolitical) rally of other sorts, I always have a class or test that I simply cannot skip out on. But on all those days when I never have tests or when I can skip class (which I often do, look at me now!), nothing happens.
Nothing.
So yesterday, as I was heading out to take my organic chemistry (bleh...give me analytical any day) exam over lovely amines and horrible amino acids and yucky carbohydrates, I saw a lovely little protest. Until now, I was not quite sure what all the brouhaha was about, but all I knew was that a Palestinian flag was being marched around and that there were a lot of girls around who happened to be wearing hijabs.
(I am not complaining about hijabs; during the winter months, I am often tempted to wear on and have been known to do so occasionally.)
Anywho, I had whispered to my friend (the crazy girl next door) that I wanted to participate (well, not with the people protesting, but with the people whom the people were protesting)...and I would have, except her logic won out.
She merely had to say "test" and my loyalties were torn.
Ah, the disappointment. Both the test and my lack of ability to have a little fun.
posted by Laura Keslar at 10:21 AM | |
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
Not another attack on my man Donald Rumsfeld
Maybe they just want him more than I do and are willing to pay. Hrmph. We will see about that.
What is with people attacking my man? I mean, he is so loveable and adorable, so why would anyone put out a death threat against him or put a price on his head?
Maybe they just want him more than I do and are willing to pay. Hrmph. We will see about that.
posted by Laura Keslar at 3:28 PM | |
The Seventeeth Amendment
For the past three years, I have been saying that it is necessary to appeal the 17th amendment that removes the election of Senators from the State Legislatures to the state's general populace.
Besides the fact that this situation (where the senators were elected by the State and the representatives were elected by the general public) settled some disputes that arose in Congress, this compromise summarized the Founders' belief that the government of the United States of America was formed by both the states and the people; however, this original view was lost in the wording of Amendment 17.
The purpose of the Senate was not only to settle the problem that arose in the Convention but also to protect the smaller states. The other purpose of the Senate was to moderate excessive lawmaking that could eventually harm the rights the states had. Not only that, but the role of the Senate was to prevent the basic mob rule that happens in the House of Representatives, because the number of its members was smaller. Over all, the Senate, as elected by the states, was a protection of the rights of the states as well as a way to protect the rights of the people, in the long run.
It was, therefore, necessary for states to have their own representation and for the people to have their own, as well. Since the Senate answered to the state legislatures, its actions had to be concurrent with most of the states. Having each state select their own representatives allowed for each state to be more independent. Not only does the Senate protect the states and their rights against the people, it also protects them against the federal government and making it dependent upon those states. The Senate has the power not to approve of presidential nominees if it thinks they are inappropriate. Since the state governments founded the federal government, it is only necessary that the executive branch should cater somewhat to the states' opinions.
The opinion of the Founders was that it was both the people and the states who created this new government; the role of the House was to protect the people and the role of the Senate was to protect the states. This original viewpoint changed in the years that followed the creation of the Constitution. It is now common belief that it was only the people who established the current government not the states and people. The original intentions of the Founding Fathers in concern to the Senate were to protect the states' rights from the tyranny of the people and federal government. When the Seventeenth Amendment was passed, it destroyed those intentions and the change damaged the original concept. The Senate is now just a miniature House of Representatives with a set number of representatives. Before, the Senate was not compelled by popular issues of the day but was focussed on the states' rights; now, since they are popularly elected, the Senate acts with the intention of winning the popular vote. Senators do what the people want; they no longer protect the states' rights. There is no checks and balance against the people; the states have no more protection. This change has destroyed the sovereignty of the states that the Founders had tried to insure in the Constitution.
The change that ensued after the passing of the Constitution has destroyed what the Founders believed to be the best compromise between state sovereignty and individual sovereignty. There is no more protection against a tyrannical people or a dictating federal government. The compromise that had divided the Constitutional Convention in half was in vain. The Founding Fathers believed that the states and individuals had created this new government; now that opinion is obsolete. It was the people who created it. The original role of the Senate as the Founders wanted it has been destroyed with the Seventeenth Amendment. Let it be hoped for that the original intentions of the Fathers nor their sacrifices be forgotten despite modern notions concerning those very matters.
Finally, someone has mentioned a very wise idea.
For the past three years, I have been saying that it is necessary to appeal the 17th amendment that removes the election of Senators from the State Legislatures to the state's general populace.
Besides the fact that this situation (where the senators were elected by the State and the representatives were elected by the general public) settled some disputes that arose in Congress, this compromise summarized the Founders' belief that the government of the United States of America was formed by both the states and the people; however, this original view was lost in the wording of Amendment 17.
The purpose of the Senate was not only to settle the problem that arose in the Convention but also to protect the smaller states. The other purpose of the Senate was to moderate excessive lawmaking that could eventually harm the rights the states had. Not only that, but the role of the Senate was to prevent the basic mob rule that happens in the House of Representatives, because the number of its members was smaller. Over all, the Senate, as elected by the states, was a protection of the rights of the states as well as a way to protect the rights of the people, in the long run.
It was, therefore, necessary for states to have their own representation and for the people to have their own, as well. Since the Senate answered to the state legislatures, its actions had to be concurrent with most of the states. Having each state select their own representatives allowed for each state to be more independent. Not only does the Senate protect the states and their rights against the people, it also protects them against the federal government and making it dependent upon those states. The Senate has the power not to approve of presidential nominees if it thinks they are inappropriate. Since the state governments founded the federal government, it is only necessary that the executive branch should cater somewhat to the states' opinions.
The opinion of the Founders was that it was both the people and the states who created this new government; the role of the House was to protect the people and the role of the Senate was to protect the states. This original viewpoint changed in the years that followed the creation of the Constitution. It is now common belief that it was only the people who established the current government not the states and people. The original intentions of the Founding Fathers in concern to the Senate were to protect the states' rights from the tyranny of the people and federal government. When the Seventeenth Amendment was passed, it destroyed those intentions and the change damaged the original concept. The Senate is now just a miniature House of Representatives with a set number of representatives. Before, the Senate was not compelled by popular issues of the day but was focussed on the states' rights; now, since they are popularly elected, the Senate acts with the intention of winning the popular vote. Senators do what the people want; they no longer protect the states' rights. There is no checks and balance against the people; the states have no more protection. This change has destroyed the sovereignty of the states that the Founders had tried to insure in the Constitution.
The change that ensued after the passing of the Constitution has destroyed what the Founders believed to be the best compromise between state sovereignty and individual sovereignty. There is no more protection against a tyrannical people or a dictating federal government. The compromise that had divided the Constitutional Convention in half was in vain. The Founding Fathers believed that the states and individuals had created this new government; now that opinion is obsolete. It was the people who created it. The original role of the Senate as the Founders wanted it has been destroyed with the Seventeenth Amendment. Let it be hoped for that the original intentions of the Fathers nor their sacrifices be forgotten despite modern notions concerning those very matters.
posted by Laura Keslar at 3:21 PM | |
Accessibility of the Bible
I have recently been engaged in a somewhat rather interesting conversation about the KJV in someone's comment section. I have not yet had the time to fully engage myself in it, but I shall as soon as I get done studying...but anyway...
Something was brought up that I would briefly like to expound upon, mostly for my benefit...but maybe for yours.
One of the claims against the KJV goes that the language is archaic. We all know that, right?
Well, the purpose of the bible originally being written in Koine Greek was so that it was accessible to the common people. Likewise, the reason the bible was written in King James' English was to make it accessible (though, the KJV was rather meant to be read in the churches as well).
But because the KJV maintains its "archaic" sound with the "thees" and "thous" and what have you, people say that it is imperative that a newer, more modern sounding, more accessible version be made.
Perhaps I am rambling, so to make this short:
The KJV is accessible. It is written in English. English is the universal language. Almost everywhere you go, people read English, speak English, what have you. Its necessary to know English if you want to survive in the business world, in academia. English is spoken everywhere.
Therefore, if the purpose of the Bible is to be made accessible, then, even if in the King's English, it is.
Brief thoughts on the KJV issue...
I have recently been engaged in a somewhat rather interesting conversation about the KJV in someone's comment section. I have not yet had the time to fully engage myself in it, but I shall as soon as I get done studying...but anyway...
Something was brought up that I would briefly like to expound upon, mostly for my benefit...but maybe for yours.
One of the claims against the KJV goes that the language is archaic. We all know that, right?
Well, the purpose of the bible originally being written in Koine Greek was so that it was accessible to the common people. Likewise, the reason the bible was written in King James' English was to make it accessible (though, the KJV was rather meant to be read in the churches as well).
But because the KJV maintains its "archaic" sound with the "thees" and "thous" and what have you, people say that it is imperative that a newer, more modern sounding, more accessible version be made.
Perhaps I am rambling, so to make this short:
The KJV is accessible. It is written in English. English is the universal language. Almost everywhere you go, people read English, speak English, what have you. Its necessary to know English if you want to survive in the business world, in academia. English is spoken everywhere.
Therefore, if the purpose of the Bible is to be made accessible, then, even if in the King's English, it is.
posted by Laura Keslar at 11:00 AM | |
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
School is hell bent on destroying my life...
Either I post semi-original but late thoughts or I just immediately regurgitate links that I love or I post quizes that I think are the coolest ever. Your choice.
Wait, when did this become a democracy?
By the way, I know I have been slow this past several days, and it shall continue. School...well, to say the least, it has become hell on wheels. Family? More instrusive than I would prefer. As such, both conditions make it highly difficult to post things up on time.
Either I post semi-original but late thoughts or I just immediately regurgitate links that I love or I post quizes that I think are the coolest ever. Your choice.
Wait, when did this become a democracy?
posted by Laura Keslar at 9:57 PM | |
More on Tillman
Now I am glad that I am not the only one who looks at this hullabaloo about Tillman and thinks that it seems to be a bit, dare I say, over done?
posted by Laura Keslar at 6:28 PM | |
And I thought I was bad
This name calling reeks of adolescent high school jealousy the student government and journalism kids felt toward the jocks and cheerleaders.
I might not have been part of the in-crowd, but I would never stoop so low as to try to boost my pride by taking a jab at a man who sacrificed his life for his ideals.
Though I might not think Pat Tillman's heroism deserves to be codified in the naming of a stadium or renaming the Cardinals, I certainly do not think that he deserves, or anyone deserves, to be called a dumb jock.
This name calling reeks of adolescent high school jealousy the student government and journalism kids felt toward the jocks and cheerleaders.
I might not have been part of the in-crowd, but I would never stoop so low as to try to boost my pride by taking a jab at a man who sacrificed his life for his ideals.
posted by Laura Keslar at 6:11 PM | |
Sunday, April 25, 2004
I am the worse sinner ever!
This weekend, my mother needed me to come up to Show Low to clean and ravage my father's deceased mother's house. So, my folks picked me up in Tucson after my last class and for five long hours we drove to Show Low.
We ended up at my grandmother's house around nine-ish. And everyone (everyone being my aunt and uncle, my half brother, his son (my nephew), and his brother-in-law) was sitting around watching a Diamondback's game.
Boring.
But to make matters worse, after the game comes on this tribute for Pat Tillman. And with that, I became rather disgusted.
As I said, I am cruel and heartless.
My problem with this continual portrayal of Pat Tillman as a hero seems to minimize the importance of the other men who were killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. They, like Tilman, are being missed by grieving family members.
So what makes this football player any more important than those other men who died that he, post-mortem, is able to receive so much press for and be called, continually, a hero? Is it simply because he left his multi-million contract? Is it because he was a football player?
I find it disgusting, to tell you the truth. I have no more relationship with him or any of the other men who died overseas that I think he deserves any more of a memorial than they. Its sickening.
Well...perhaps Paul deserves that title and mayhap I am not the worse sinner, but simply the worse person alive. I think I qualify as cruel and unsympathetic for several reasons, first being the death of Pat Tillman.
This weekend, my mother needed me to come up to Show Low to clean and ravage my father's deceased mother's house. So, my folks picked me up in Tucson after my last class and for five long hours we drove to Show Low.
We ended up at my grandmother's house around nine-ish. And everyone (everyone being my aunt and uncle, my half brother, his son (my nephew), and his brother-in-law) was sitting around watching a Diamondback's game.
Boring.
But to make matters worse, after the game comes on this tribute for Pat Tillman. And with that, I became rather disgusted.
As I said, I am cruel and heartless.
My problem with this continual portrayal of Pat Tillman as a hero seems to minimize the importance of the other men who were killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. They, like Tilman, are being missed by grieving family members.
So what makes this football player any more important than those other men who died that he, post-mortem, is able to receive so much press for and be called, continually, a hero? Is it simply because he left his multi-million contract? Is it because he was a football player?
I find it disgusting, to tell you the truth. I have no more relationship with him or any of the other men who died overseas that I think he deserves any more of a memorial than they. Its sickening.
posted by Laura Keslar at 4:40 PM | |
Friday, April 23, 2004
Prof Kunnie
And people think I should have read his guest commentary to the Wildcat. Bah.
Hey hey hey, look at that: someone else decided to pick on crazy socialist Professor Kunnie.
And people think I should have read his guest commentary to the Wildcat. Bah.
posted by Laura Keslar at 11:43 AM | |
Thursday, April 22, 2004
Bible Correcting Baptists--Gasp!
So, they want to make a new Bible? I wonder what makes it better than all the others out there. I mean we have the RSV, the NIV, the ASV, the NRSV, the NKJV, the NASB, The Message, the Amplified Bible, the New Living Translation, the New Life Version, the Contemporary English Version, the 21st Century King James Bible, and the list can go on forever. And each claims to have something better, something newer, something that will make it stand out to the readers.
While reading the article, I find it hilarious that the author describes the translators of the NIV to be "conservative" same with the translators of the RSV. I mean, if those translators are what you call conservative, I wonder what I would be classified as...crazy, perhaps? Extremist? Reactionary? Fundamentalist? Hm.
...the ESV translators [were committed while translating] to ‘‘the truth of God's Word and to historic Christian orthodoxy.''
Interesting, if I do say so myself. Translating to historic Christian orthodoxy? Does that mean they did more than just translate? They actually inserted their own theology in their interpetation of what historic Christian theology was. And, surprisingly enough, historic Christian theology has not been very congruent, by all means.
I really had no intention of dissecting this article any further, but something else caught my eye:
The HCSB says its people uphold strict ‘‘biblical inerrancy,'' signifying the Scriptures are totally free of errors in historical details as well as doctrine, morality and spiritual guidance.
Really now? Biblical inerrancy? So I am wondering whether that is inerrancy in the originals only or in the book they have before them. I wonder whether the people who translated this these "scriptures" consider them to be inerrant.
And goodness, when did "propitiation" become a "fancy theological word"? Why don't people use such words in daily conversation? I know I do. But then again, I also use the phrases "diametrically opposed," "bromidic," and "catamite" in daily conversation as well (really, its better for your health not to know why I use "catamite"). But propitiation is definitely not a fancy word. Bah.
Hah, Bible-correcting Southern Baptists--makes me ashamed to be called a baptist. John the Baptist is probably rolling in his grave and so would Jesus if he was still here--err, in his grave, that is.
So, they want to make a new Bible? I wonder what makes it better than all the others out there. I mean we have the RSV, the NIV, the ASV, the NRSV, the NKJV, the NASB, The Message, the Amplified Bible, the New Living Translation, the New Life Version, the Contemporary English Version, the 21st Century King James Bible, and the list can go on forever. And each claims to have something better, something newer, something that will make it stand out to the readers.
While reading the article, I find it hilarious that the author describes the translators of the NIV to be "conservative" same with the translators of the RSV. I mean, if those translators are what you call conservative, I wonder what I would be classified as...crazy, perhaps? Extremist? Reactionary? Fundamentalist? Hm.
Interesting, if I do say so myself. Translating to historic Christian orthodoxy? Does that mean they did more than just translate? They actually inserted their own theology in their interpetation of what historic Christian theology was. And, surprisingly enough, historic Christian theology has not been very congruent, by all means.
I really had no intention of dissecting this article any further, but something else caught my eye:
Really now? Biblical inerrancy? So I am wondering whether that is inerrancy in the originals only or in the book they have before them. I wonder whether the people who translated this these "scriptures" consider them to be inerrant.
And goodness, when did "propitiation" become a "fancy theological word"? Why don't people use such words in daily conversation? I know I do. But then again, I also use the phrases "diametrically opposed," "bromidic," and "catamite" in daily conversation as well (really, its better for your health not to know why I use "catamite"). But propitiation is definitely not a fancy word. Bah.
posted by Laura Keslar at 10:45 PM | |
Sometimes, I want to tear out my hair
The article fails to touch on a lot of things--number one, the reason for the high prices in the United States. By importing drugs from Canada, where they are cheaper, will do nothing to create a more favorable environment for pharmaceutical manufacturing.
Price discrimination exists for several reasons, first of all because the producers can sell more products this way, thereby decreasing the overall shared costs, which in turn lowers the drug costs of the medication. Secondly, its because the drug companies can. There are people who cannot live without their medication and people will pay anything for it. Inelastic demand curve, people.
By importing drugs from Canada, this distinction between different groups of consumers is eliminated, thereby raising over all costs, except for the mere fact that Canada does have price controls. Lovely fun, eh?
And we all know what price controls do.
Secondly, these same people who support importing drugs from Canada probably despise outsourcing. If that is the case, what do they think they are doing by buying drugs from Canadians? Bah, they are outsourcing, once again.
Another problem with importing Canadian drugs includes the mere fact that Canadians cannot buy certain drugs cheaply or at all simply because the drug companies refuse to sell those specific drugs due to the high losses incurred by selling them in Canada.
Living near the border and having worked in a pharmacy, you hear of people going down to Mexico to buy their perscription drugs; but, as the pharmacist I worked for used to say, "You don't drink the water and you don't eat the food, so why will you buy the drugs?"
I know I like a good deal and cheap products--that is why I shop at Wal-mart; but, cheap drugs are anything but good for America and her economy.
Egads, sometimes, politicians make me want to scream and call them names, things that are too crude for those of the delicate sex to ever repeat. Grr.
The article fails to touch on a lot of things--number one, the reason for the high prices in the United States. By importing drugs from Canada, where they are cheaper, will do nothing to create a more favorable environment for pharmaceutical manufacturing.
Price discrimination exists for several reasons, first of all because the producers can sell more products this way, thereby decreasing the overall shared costs, which in turn lowers the drug costs of the medication. Secondly, its because the drug companies can. There are people who cannot live without their medication and people will pay anything for it. Inelastic demand curve, people.
By importing drugs from Canada, this distinction between different groups of consumers is eliminated, thereby raising over all costs, except for the mere fact that Canada does have price controls. Lovely fun, eh?
And we all know what price controls do.
Secondly, these same people who support importing drugs from Canada probably despise outsourcing. If that is the case, what do they think they are doing by buying drugs from Canadians? Bah, they are outsourcing, once again.
Another problem with importing Canadian drugs includes the mere fact that Canadians cannot buy certain drugs cheaply or at all simply because the drug companies refuse to sell those specific drugs due to the high losses incurred by selling them in Canada.
Living near the border and having worked in a pharmacy, you hear of people going down to Mexico to buy their perscription drugs; but, as the pharmacist I worked for used to say, "You don't drink the water and you don't eat the food, so why will you buy the drugs?"
I know I like a good deal and cheap products--that is why I shop at Wal-mart; but, cheap drugs are anything but good for America and her economy.
posted by Laura Keslar at 10:23 PM | |
About Time
The logic behind this is that children who have an economic advantage will, because of extra availability of services and opportunities, do better on testing and other indicators that are necessary for schools choosing students.
So, when I read this, I all but said, "It's about time."
In his book The End of Racism, Dinesh D'Souza commented that he wouldnt mind seeing economic affirmative action instead of racial affirmative action. His reasoning, if I remember correctly, was that students are more likely to be disadvantaged by economic differences rather than racial differences. And, if going off of economic disadvantages, more students accepted under those terms would be of a racial minority. (Ask any feminist; they will say that those poorest are minorities).
The logic behind this is that children who have an economic advantage will, because of extra availability of services and opportunities, do better on testing and other indicators that are necessary for schools choosing students.
So, when I read this, I all but said, "It's about time."
posted by Laura Keslar at 10:11 PM | |
PRO-Affirmative Action Bakesale
Though I commend them on their semi-uniqueness, I also want to abase them with the fact that they couldnt come up with something any more creative? I mean, come on folks, why copy the CRs? They are all smart cookies in the law college, why couldnt they think up something on their own to protest the CRs' bakesale?
My only question is, though, where was Rachel Wilson?
Last night, at the CR meeting, I was surprised to hear that several liberals on campus organized a pro-affirmative action bakesale. Now that is what I call semi-original. The conservative bakesales have become hackneyed but a PRO-affirmative action bakesale? That has not.
Though I commend them on their semi-uniqueness, I also want to abase them with the fact that they couldnt come up with something any more creative? I mean, come on folks, why copy the CRs? They are all smart cookies in the law college, why couldnt they think up something on their own to protest the CRs' bakesale?
My only question is, though, where was Rachel Wilson?
posted by Laura Keslar at 10:05 AM | |
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
JC is in the House
The only example that Joe Carter forgot was the Christian music of the early 90s, like Carmen. I remember a song of his that went something like "JC is in the house." After that, the initials "JC" were on everything and there was a big (well, it probably wasnt as big as I thought) debate about whether the abbreviation of Jesus Christ's name to JC was a bad thing.
Though I read the article in the Arizona Republica, I failed to comment on it, but someone else did not.
The only example that Joe Carter forgot was the Christian music of the early 90s, like Carmen. I remember a song of his that went something like "JC is in the house." After that, the initials "JC" were on everything and there was a big (well, it probably wasnt as big as I thought) debate about whether the abbreviation of Jesus Christ's name to JC was a bad thing.
posted by Laura Keslar at 12:42 PM | |
My incoherent thoughts on stupid Christians in Arizona
I sure do, I mean, with them saying things like "As Arizonans, we have a special responsibility to reach out to and welcome our brothers and sisters as members of God's family," you just have to laugh.
So everyone coming across the border is my brother and sister in Christ, eh? Wow. Didnt know it by the fact that most of them do not obey God by their illegal border crossings and driving without insurance (yes, I shall be petty here). But by their fruits you shall know them.
If these people are performing illegal acts despite what Scripture has clearly laid out, then they are wrong. So, until they claim it, I dont expect these illegal border crossers to be my brothers and sisters in Christ.
Or maybe these Christians think we are all brothers and sisters, since we are, by God's creation, his children (would find the verse for you in the Old Testament if I could only remember where it was). But this is the reasoning parents tell their children at a young age, when they are trying to explain God; I heard this line and so did most of my friends when I was growing up. But you would expect that by the time these guys had reached puberty, they would have outgrown their childish notions, just like they stopped believing in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.
Obviously not.
But in either case, they lack the intelligence God gave a fly by trying to fit scripture around their political beliefs.
Don't you just love stupid Christians?
I sure do, I mean, with them saying things like "As Arizonans, we have a special responsibility to reach out to and welcome our brothers and sisters as members of God's family," you just have to laugh.
So everyone coming across the border is my brother and sister in Christ, eh? Wow. Didnt know it by the fact that most of them do not obey God by their illegal border crossings and driving without insurance (yes, I shall be petty here). But by their fruits you shall know them.
If these people are performing illegal acts despite what Scripture has clearly laid out, then they are wrong. So, until they claim it, I dont expect these illegal border crossers to be my brothers and sisters in Christ.
Or maybe these Christians think we are all brothers and sisters, since we are, by God's creation, his children (would find the verse for you in the Old Testament if I could only remember where it was). But this is the reasoning parents tell their children at a young age, when they are trying to explain God; I heard this line and so did most of my friends when I was growing up. But you would expect that by the time these guys had reached puberty, they would have outgrown their childish notions, just like they stopped believing in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.
Obviously not.
But in either case, they lack the intelligence God gave a fly by trying to fit scripture around their political beliefs.
posted by Laura Keslar at 12:11 AM | |
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Another notch in its belt
Question: What’s your favorite bedroom activity?
Sleeping, duh.
Cuddling.
Studying!
Uh, it’s too obscene to mention.
I don’t have a bedroom.
Would someone remind me of why this is in a college newspaper.
In its long list of moral decandency, the Wildcat can add its latest poll to the list.
Sleeping, duh.
Cuddling.
Studying!
Uh, it’s too obscene to mention.
I don’t have a bedroom.
Would someone remind me of why this is in a college newspaper.
posted by Laura Keslar at 11:43 PM | |
Say it loud, say it proud
I hate the middle of statements being interjected with the word "but," as if it were necessary to make an apology for any and everything that could possibly offend someone. I hate hearing a Christian who says "This is what I believe, but...your feelings are valid, your beliefs are valid, I empathize with you." I feel your pain.
Why have we become such a nation of people so afraid that our opinions will be offensive to someone and therefore must be invalidated by our inclusion of the word "but." We have become a nation of apologists.
This is what happens when cultural relativism overtakes a society. One's observations of the passing scene have become no more concrete and absolute as two children naming the clouds.
As a Christian, my every action should be in accordance with what the Bible has to say. If someone, myself included as well as my atheist neighbor, decides to disobey what is so clearly written throughout scripture, their actions are wrong and sinful. The attitude is though that what is sin to me might not be sin to you. But sin, my friends, is not only what we perceive (like not doing what you know you ought to do) but also what God perceives, for sin is disobedience against God.
I am sick and tired of hearing Christians being compromisers to the word of God. I am tired of people of all political persuasions defending their moral character (eg not communist, nazi, racist, whatever) themselves against any possible attack by an offended reader, listener, or debater.
From this point on, I refuse to compromise my beliefs, opinions, whatnot for the sake of peace with my friends, classmates, and whomever else I know. I refuse to be overtaken by this onslaught of cultural relativism.
For once, I want to be able to say something without apology. For once, I would like to read a letter to the editor criticizing public administrators and institutions for anti-WASP attitude without the author of said letter defending himself and making sure everyone out there knows he is not a racist even if he thinks whites are being discriminated against. For once, I would like to be able to get into a decent discussion without someone over the vices of collectivism without me being accused of insensitivity.
I hate the middle of statements being interjected with the word "but," as if it were necessary to make an apology for any and everything that could possibly offend someone. I hate hearing a Christian who says "This is what I believe, but...your feelings are valid, your beliefs are valid, I empathize with you." I feel your pain.
Why have we become such a nation of people so afraid that our opinions will be offensive to someone and therefore must be invalidated by our inclusion of the word "but." We have become a nation of apologists.
This is what happens when cultural relativism overtakes a society. One's observations of the passing scene have become no more concrete and absolute as two children naming the clouds.
As a Christian, my every action should be in accordance with what the Bible has to say. If someone, myself included as well as my atheist neighbor, decides to disobey what is so clearly written throughout scripture, their actions are wrong and sinful. The attitude is though that what is sin to me might not be sin to you. But sin, my friends, is not only what we perceive (like not doing what you know you ought to do) but also what God perceives, for sin is disobedience against God.
I am sick and tired of hearing Christians being compromisers to the word of God. I am tired of people of all political persuasions defending their moral character (eg not communist, nazi, racist, whatever) themselves against any possible attack by an offended reader, listener, or debater.
From this point on, I refuse to compromise my beliefs, opinions, whatnot for the sake of peace with my friends, classmates, and whomever else I know. I refuse to be overtaken by this onslaught of cultural relativism.
posted by Laura Keslar at 4:41 PM | |
Saturday, April 17, 2004
Me So Stupid
Ouch.
Oh goodness, you shall laugh at what I just did. One of my plants currently has a pest problem that I am dealing with. Well, one of the flying bugs came straight for my head and I, in my quest to kill it, slammed the flat of my hand into my forehead.
Ouch.
posted by Laura Keslar at 4:29 AM | |
Friday, April 16, 2004
Picking on the UACRs, that I am
A bomb - The College Republicans' affirmative action bake sale. Trying to spark up controversy with chocolate chips has been done before, and with better success. The demonstration of sorts had good intentions, but on such a small scale, it's merely a drop in the take-a-stand bucket. College Republicans surely have the brains to dream up their own ideas.
I have said this before, but the stunt has become so hackneyed that it is not worth doing.
For once, I agree with the Wildcat:
I have said this before, but the stunt has become so hackneyed that it is not worth doing.
posted by Laura Keslar at 12:00 PM | |
Thursday, April 15, 2004
Battle of Algiers
Despite the fallacies of such logic, people still seem to embrace the position.
And couple this illogic to extreme finger pointing, and we get a bunch of idiots.
Well, that is what I got last time I went to a Young Socialist meeting last semester (yes, this is very late in coming). I went with a Muslim friend to attend the viewing of the movie The Battle of Algiers and then to participate in discussion afterward. The discussion was supposed to revolve around the methods the French had used to extract information from the rebels and then to apply that to what the US was doing in Iraq and other US policies.
The emphasis of discussion, thusly, centered around torture as a means of information extraction. The US was compared in all manners and means to the French and the barbarism used by them under conditions of attack.
However, one thing was lacking from the discussion, and that was an examination of the actions of those rebels in Algeria. Not once did anyone comment about their barbarism. Not once did any cringe from the death and havoc reeked by the bombs. Instead, the center of debate was the French and their methods of information extraction and how the United States was wrong in so many ways.
When people blind themselves the extremism of one side or the other, there is nothing gained. Instead, you get futile attempts at solving a problem and a lot of name-calling and finger pointing.
But then, what would I expect? It was this same group that accused Israel of terrorising the US.
How often is it that people have seen terrorist actions and then pointed the blame elsewhere? For instance, we see the horrific actions of the Palestinians against the Israelis, and yet many people point the blame at Israel saying it was Israel who stimulated the reaction, that it was Israel who caused them to do it. That the Palestinians are desperate and this is their only means of providing for their children a free, secure, and prosperous future.
Despite the fallacies of such logic, people still seem to embrace the position.
And couple this illogic to extreme finger pointing, and we get a bunch of idiots.
Well, that is what I got last time I went to a Young Socialist meeting last semester (yes, this is very late in coming). I went with a Muslim friend to attend the viewing of the movie The Battle of Algiers and then to participate in discussion afterward. The discussion was supposed to revolve around the methods the French had used to extract information from the rebels and then to apply that to what the US was doing in Iraq and other US policies.
The emphasis of discussion, thusly, centered around torture as a means of information extraction. The US was compared in all manners and means to the French and the barbarism used by them under conditions of attack.
However, one thing was lacking from the discussion, and that was an examination of the actions of those rebels in Algeria. Not once did anyone comment about their barbarism. Not once did any cringe from the death and havoc reeked by the bombs. Instead, the center of debate was the French and their methods of information extraction and how the United States was wrong in so many ways.
When people blind themselves the extremism of one side or the other, there is nothing gained. Instead, you get futile attempts at solving a problem and a lot of name-calling and finger pointing.
But then, what would I expect? It was this same group that accused Israel of terrorising the US.
posted by Laura Keslar at 12:25 PM | |
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
On Vacationing
I mean, the less time he is in the White House and the more time he is on vacation, the less chance he has of influencing policy. And more than anything, they hate Bush's policy, right?
Well, not unless they are blatant Bush haters and will try anything and everything to discredit him as a President.
I am not quite sure why the left gets so blasted upset about Bush going on vacation. It was just this past week that Barbara Streisand commented on it: "Did you know that in 2001, from January-Labor Day, Bush spent 42% of his time on vacation! Is this what we want out of our president?"
I mean, the less time he is in the White House and the more time he is on vacation, the less chance he has of influencing policy. And more than anything, they hate Bush's policy, right?
Well, not unless they are blatant Bush haters and will try anything and everything to discredit him as a President.
posted by Laura Keslar at 11:31 AM | |
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
Scary Creature on Wheels
Ever since then, I have wondered exactly what it was--that is, until now.
I promise we were not eating Ben and Jerry icre cream.
But there is something I have to laugh about. Most people, whenever they pull a stunt like that, do it to create "dialogue" and "stimulate ideas" and whanot.
Now, I would understand why the people involved in such a stunt would try to "stimulate talk" if they did this in a part of town that was the typical, uptight, stereotype of the blue-blazered Republicans. But on college campuses, it is rather redundant, especially considering that those students who tend to be interested in such things already side with those who are performing, or in this case, pulling. And those who are without opinions really don't give a flying cows udder as to what this all could mean.
Take the crazy girl next door. She was sitting with us and saw it too. But she refused to talk about, which was quite understandable, considering her history. And her roommate already agreed with the message. And me being the arrogant chit that I am, refused to think, "Hmm, maybe Bush did lie to us." Besides, both of them try to avoid politics and religion around me.
Besides, the arguments from the left are always the same; but not to be sectarian, its the same with the right. But I suppose is because of the dirth of conservative ideas that you hear a flood from the liberals.
So even if the crazy-girl-next-door's roommate did offer any arguments, they tend to be the same regurgitated lies and half-truths and faulty logic you have heard before from someone else completely unrelated to her except by political persuasion.
Such things as this effigy do no promote discourse. Instead, they merely point to the ludicrousy of the person/s promoting such ideas to the point where laughter becomes hard and your stomach begins to cramp. It isolates those who are moderates and drives the wedge between the two parties even deeper.
(Via Zonitics)
A few weeks ago, the crazy girl next door, her roommate, and I went to the little pond and ate ice cream. Out of the blue, we saw this hideous thing rolling down Park. Frightening.
Ever since then, I have wondered exactly what it was--that is, until now.
I promise we were not eating Ben and Jerry icre cream.
But there is something I have to laugh about. Most people, whenever they pull a stunt like that, do it to create "dialogue" and "stimulate ideas" and whanot.
Now, I would understand why the people involved in such a stunt would try to "stimulate talk" if they did this in a part of town that was the typical, uptight, stereotype of the blue-blazered Republicans. But on college campuses, it is rather redundant, especially considering that those students who tend to be interested in such things already side with those who are performing, or in this case, pulling. And those who are without opinions really don't give a flying cows udder as to what this all could mean.
Take the crazy girl next door. She was sitting with us and saw it too. But she refused to talk about, which was quite understandable, considering her history. And her roommate already agreed with the message. And me being the arrogant chit that I am, refused to think, "Hmm, maybe Bush did lie to us." Besides, both of them try to avoid politics and religion around me.
Besides, the arguments from the left are always the same; but not to be sectarian, its the same with the right. But I suppose is because of the dirth of conservative ideas that you hear a flood from the liberals.
So even if the crazy-girl-next-door's roommate did offer any arguments, they tend to be the same regurgitated lies and half-truths and faulty logic you have heard before from someone else completely unrelated to her except by political persuasion.
Such things as this effigy do no promote discourse. Instead, they merely point to the ludicrousy of the person/s promoting such ideas to the point where laughter becomes hard and your stomach begins to cramp. It isolates those who are moderates and drives the wedge between the two parties even deeper.
(Via Zonitics)
posted by Laura Keslar at 10:21 PM | |
Flag envy? I think so
The CRs have this dinky flag (well, its a bit better than dinky) and doesnt touch the ground but does not span the entire north side of their tent. The YDs have this huge flag that stretches from side to side of their tent and brushes against the ground.
Though I understand where the YDs are coming from, trying to make themselves appear more patriotic than their conservative counterparts because of the size of their flag, but its just not working for me. I mean, how patriotic can you be when you let a flag touch the ground and use it for shade?
Its like Kid Rock dressing up in an American flag poncho and proceding to hand the flag to someone behind him to fold up nicely and gently and without letting it touch the ground. Talk about a paradox.
Ah, one of these days I need to take a picture of the CR booth out on the mall and the Young Democrats' booth. There is some serious competition going on--at least in the size of their flags. It is as though they are trying to see who can be the more patriotic and display the largest flag.
The CRs have this dinky flag (well, its a bit better than dinky) and doesnt touch the ground but does not span the entire north side of their tent. The YDs have this huge flag that stretches from side to side of their tent and brushes against the ground.
Though I understand where the YDs are coming from, trying to make themselves appear more patriotic than their conservative counterparts because of the size of their flag, but its just not working for me. I mean, how patriotic can you be when you let a flag touch the ground and use it for shade?
Its like Kid Rock dressing up in an American flag poncho and proceding to hand the flag to someone behind him to fold up nicely and gently and without letting it touch the ground. Talk about a paradox.
posted by Laura Keslar at 2:07 PM | |
And their recompense is hell
93. If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever): And the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him.
But then again, maybe I am just misreading this. Maybe all muslims are good muslims and read their Qu'rans daily.
Eleven percent of Palestinians are killed by other Palestinians--seemingly on purpose. Sort of makes you wonder if they read the Qu'ran, where it says in Surah 4:93,
But then again, maybe I am just misreading this. Maybe all muslims are good muslims and read their Qu'rans daily.
posted by Laura Keslar at 1:32 AM | |
Monday, April 12, 2004
There goes my school spirit
Update: Oh, but the geek quiz was fun, though I don't understand how I turned out to be 64% geek. It must have been my TMBG collection. And yes, I was acting childish--but can you blame me? I had utterly absolute fun doing such. I was even almost on the verge to go find an image of a 2 and a bumblebee to put in the "to" and "be" places.
Not to be disloyal to the University of Arizona in its rivalry with ASU, but the Wildcat totally sucks foot, at least when compared to ASU's State Press. I mean, their columnists write semi-decently unlike ours who like to spout off about how they are attracted to transexuals and our news articles consist of trash. At least State Press had the decency to put down the tofu wrestling. And they actually have a real conservative on board, unlike our fake conservative. However, I think the two can battle it out as to who the true geek is, though Spratling might be worse off (well, it depends on whether you look at geekdom as a bad thing) since he now has a girl friend while, to my knowledge, Belshe does not nor will he ever. And Belshe is a Trekkie; though I don't know if Spratling is or not.
But with that aside, I read the Web Devil religiously, despite the fact that doing such goes against school loyalty.
Caveat to normal, sane people who decide not to complain about the number of hyperlinks in a post: I don't recommend reading the following. Either that, or don't click on the blue.
Update: Oh, but the geek quiz was fun, though I don't understand how I turned out to be 64% geek. It must have been my TMBG collection. And yes, I was acting childish--but can you blame me? I had utterly absolute fun doing such. I was even almost on the verge to go find an image of a 2 and a bumblebee to put in the "to" and "be" places.
Not to be disloyal to the University of Arizona in its rivalry with ASU, but the Wildcat totally sucks foot, at least when compared to ASU's State Press. I mean, their columnists write semi-decently unlike ours who like to spout off about how they are attracted to transexuals and our news articles consist of trash. At least State Press had the decency to put down the tofu wrestling. And they actually have a real conservative on board, unlike our fake conservative. However, I think the two can battle it out as to who the true geek is, though Spratling might be worse off (well, it depends on whether you look at geekdom as a bad thing) since he now has a girl friend while, to my knowledge, Belshe does not nor will he ever. And Belshe is a Trekkie; though I don't know if Spratling is or not.
But with that aside, I read the Web Devil religiously, despite the fact that doing such goes against school loyalty.
posted by Laura Keslar at 11:30 PM | |
Redefining Liberty
"How can there possibly be liberty and justice for all, when, in the name of justice, people claim rights to income, food, housing, education, health care, transportation, ad infinitum? We can't. Positive rights to receive such things, absent an obligation to earn them, must violate others' liberty, by taking some of their income without their consent. They are really just wishes, convertible into benefits for some only by employing the government to violate others' rights not to have what is theirs taken." --Pepperdine Professor Gary Galles
I, in a long drawn out manner, have said the same thing. Does anyone see me turning green with jealousy?
Sometimes I wish I were as eloquent as this guy:
I, in a long drawn out manner, have said the same thing. Does anyone see me turning green with jealousy?
posted by Laura Keslar at 4:08 PM | |
This guy is starting to sound like King Lear--just add two more no's
McCain has, once again, saidthat he will not run as Kerry's VP. As so many others have been saying, it is wishful thinking on the part of the democrats to think that McCain will switch sides; however, it is not of no consequence that since losing his presidential bid in 2000 that McCain continues to shift leftward in many of the votes he has taken. Of course, it is understandable that bipartisanship is necessary to get a bill passed in Congress; however, his bipartisanship has stretched the limits. In short, his bipartisanship is bordering on the James Jeffords level.
posted by Laura Keslar at 12:04 PM | |
Sunday, April 11, 2004
A lack of good christian colleges
If those schools did a better job of preparing students for a real world career instead of solely for the ministry, then more students would attend. But when none of them or hardly any of them offer a decent pharmacy program, why would I want to attend? When there is a dirth of good business colleges within the Christian community, why would someone who wants to go into business attend a Christian college?
Secondly, if people want more students to attend Christian colleges and whatnot, perhaps those schools should become accredited. During my high school years, I had changed schools from a private school to a public one. Because the Christian school was unaccredited, I had heck changing over and getting the proper grades. How much more difficult it would have been if I had been transferring from one college to another.
So for those of you who wondered why I turned down free tuition plus several tens of thousands of dollars in scholarship form to pay for my education at a Christian college in favor of a secular institution--that is why.
People wonder why more students do not attend Christian schools. Probably because of the single-mindedness of those very schools...among other things.
If those schools did a better job of preparing students for a real world career instead of solely for the ministry, then more students would attend. But when none of them or hardly any of them offer a decent pharmacy program, why would I want to attend? When there is a dirth of good business colleges within the Christian community, why would someone who wants to go into business attend a Christian college?
Secondly, if people want more students to attend Christian colleges and whatnot, perhaps those schools should become accredited. During my high school years, I had changed schools from a private school to a public one. Because the Christian school was unaccredited, I had heck changing over and getting the proper grades. How much more difficult it would have been if I had been transferring from one college to another.
So for those of you who wondered why I turned down free tuition plus several tens of thousands of dollars in scholarship form to pay for my education at a Christian college in favor of a secular institution--that is why.
posted by Laura Keslar at 11:01 PM | |
I hate the Beatles and Monty Python
In chemistry class, one of my professors had asked the students to write down something about themselves. My something was along the lines of "I hate the Beatles." And the professor read my statement in front of the entire class. If my memory serves me right, the entire class booed me.
So, it is not as though I do not understand the consequences of my strong hatred for both Monty Python and the Beatles. Its simply that I am willing to stand up for what I believe in, hence my recklessness in declaring such.
I have been told by the crazy girl next door not to mention my strong dislike of the Beatles and of Monty Python, since in both cases, I will suffer the reprecussions and full brunt of force by those who espouse and adore each group.
In chemistry class, one of my professors had asked the students to write down something about themselves. My something was along the lines of "I hate the Beatles." And the professor read my statement in front of the entire class. If my memory serves me right, the entire class booed me.
So, it is not as though I do not understand the consequences of my strong hatred for both Monty Python and the Beatles. Its simply that I am willing to stand up for what I believe in, hence my recklessness in declaring such.
posted by Laura Keslar at 10:41 PM | |
Run Down of My Relatively Painful Easter
Wait, I really shouldnt start quoting Shakespeare. The crazy girl next door always stops me when I go to far, which means whenever I start to quote much of anything, which can range from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow to Shakespeare to the Bible to Hammurabi's Code. You never know exactly what I will quote on an off-moment.
But aside from that, I have come to despise high heels. Though I like to tower above everyone at about 6'1 (hey, people here are short; I am normally taller than most people when I don't wear shoes), I have decided that the risk of toppling over is much greater than the rewards of being a virtual tower.
For instance, today, I was stepping out of the car after church service and one of my heels got stuck in the car and I feel down. My knees hit the asphalt. Ouch. They are still bleeding. Thank goodness I shaved my legs today; otherwise, I would have had extremely hairy legs for several weeks, b/c I am not shaving over my poor knees.
Then, I had Easter dinner by myself, first time without my family. And then my dinner was cold.
Ah, its almost over. So yaay.
Despite the fact that I have been utterly unproductive today, I finally managed to make good use out of the University's u-system whatnot. I put bunches of pictures of me, my cat, and just about whatever else I could think of online--perhaps bunches is a bit of an overstatement, but all the same, I am so proud of myself. Now, the only question is whether to actually post my picture here. Now that is the question.
Wait, I really shouldnt start quoting Shakespeare. The crazy girl next door always stops me when I go to far, which means whenever I start to quote much of anything, which can range from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow to Shakespeare to the Bible to Hammurabi's Code. You never know exactly what I will quote on an off-moment.
But aside from that, I have come to despise high heels. Though I like to tower above everyone at about 6'1 (hey, people here are short; I am normally taller than most people when I don't wear shoes), I have decided that the risk of toppling over is much greater than the rewards of being a virtual tower.
For instance, today, I was stepping out of the car after church service and one of my heels got stuck in the car and I feel down. My knees hit the asphalt. Ouch. They are still bleeding. Thank goodness I shaved my legs today; otherwise, I would have had extremely hairy legs for several weeks, b/c I am not shaving over my poor knees.
Then, I had Easter dinner by myself, first time without my family. And then my dinner was cold.
Ah, its almost over. So yaay.
posted by Laura Keslar at 8:30 PM | |
Mother of all Carcinogens
Maybe I should change that little subject line at the top that says "...can cause cancer in the state of California" to "The mother of all carcinogens," as someone aptly described benzene.
posted by Laura Keslar at 2:28 PM | |
Easter--a mistranslation in the KJV?
So, Mac Swift beat me once again. First it was cell churches and now its the term "Easter" in the KJV. Bah.
posted by Laura Keslar at 1:16 PM | |
No Better Time than Easter for My Testimony
I have always been raised in the Christian church. I was sprinkled as an infant in an Episcopalian church Salt Lake City (as I said, I have always been raised in a Christian church; therefore, I am not mormon).
During my early childhood, my family attended a Presbyterian church until my father left because of theological differences. From there, we started attending Community Christian Church, a nondenominational church that has Church of Christ leanings.
We have attended there since I was about five or six. When I was eight, I had a best friend who decided to be baptized. For the longest time, I begged my parents to let me be baptized. After a while, because they thought I was sincere, asked the pastor to come talk to me. He told me what it meant to be baptized and he asked whether or not I believed that Jesus was Lord and Saviour. I agreed and nodded and asked the pastor if he wanted a cookie. And he left the house.
The shut of the door seemed to seal my fate.
The next Sunday I was baptized. I repeated after the pastor, "I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God and I take him as my Lord and Saviour." With that, I was dunked under water, got out and dried off.
For about five months I read my bible devotely, but no personal change had occurred. I was still mean to my brother. I was cruel. I was horrid. I just read my bible every morning at 5 o'clock.
Well, as life would have it, I grew up.
In 1995, I was a rebellious child. In the summer of that year, my family went on a trip to Mount Rushmore. During the trip, my parents tried to get us to sit down as a family and read the scriptures. One lesson my father gave came from Ezekial, and he used the analogy of Christ sitting on the throne of our hearts. He said that we had a choice of either Christ or ourselves sitting on that throne. When we became saved, we allowed Christ to reign over our lives from that throne, that throne we no longer sat on. Throughout the rest of my short life, I have remembered this message.
In sixth grade, I participated in a Bible quizing program called Bible Bowl, where we were required to memorize portions of the scripture and compete upon that knowledge. Within in our local round robin, which included California and Arizona, I almost always won both the test and the actual competition. Though I was not national material, I was still a good player and memorized a great portion of scripture, some of which I remember better than others.
But my attitude stunk. I was rebellious in my heart. Though I obeyed my parents, I was mean to my brother and backtalked my parents. I threw temper tantrums in public. I screamed. I was a horrible child. And this went into my teen years until about seventeen.
Throughout this time of my life, I always doubted my salvation. I never knew if I was saved. Whenever there was an altar call, I would say the words, hoping they were some magic words that would save me. I would take my tears as a genuine change of heart but never see the fruits in my life.
Then one day, I heard from my youth pastor that a person was not truly saved until they cried when they were being saved, that remorse and repetenance were not sincere unless the person cried. Well, this caused me to doubt even more.
In the summer of 2002, I had been asked by the church's secretary to give a communion message in front of the church (a communion message consists of a short scriptural or anecdote about the importance of communion or whatnot). I had done this before, particularly on religious holidays or for the tithe message, but also on normal Sundays, so nothing was horribly wrong with me going in front of the church to give such a message.
Well, I had decided that I would prepare myself in advance of this message and started praying, fasting, and reading my bible. My message had to do with making the sacrifice of Christ, communion, into a ritual--not fully realizing the great sacrifice he made on our behalves. I was sitting through the first half of the church service, during the praise and worship part trying to make sure I memorize my little speech. As I was busy memorizing, my father leaned over and shoved his Bible underneath my nose with his finger pointing out a verse from I Corinthians 2:1-7, something I had memorized in Bible Bowl. It said,
"And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:"
I got a little choked up, because I knew I was trying to appeal to men's wisdom instead of using the power of the Spirit. I realized I was being prideful. But when it was my time to speak, I got up and went to the podium.
But half-way through my message, I began to break down into tears. At the end of it, I was sobbing.
While speaking, I had been convicted. I had realized that I was a prideful creature. I realized that I was wrong. I realized that I was a sinner. I realized that no matter what I had done in my life, it simply was not good enough to attain salvation. I realized that I was never saved in the first place. But most importantly, I realized how I had mocked the death of Christ through my consumption of communion when I doubted my own salvation.
I was stunned. I was hurt. I was guilty. I was embarrassed.
After I was done, I ran off the stage into my father's open arms and sobbed quietly into his shoulder.
After the service, people congratulated me on what a moving little message I gave. I felt no pleasure in their congratulations as I would have normally. I only felt guilty and ashamed of abusing their confidence and trust.
That entire week I was extremely contemplative but I did not make a decision regarding my salvation. I knew I was unsaved, but refused to make a decision.
That is until I picked up a newsletter from David Wilkinson. It had something to do with Moses and the burning bush. But at the end of it, it said something that had piqued my attention. He wrote that this was now the time to choose. Like the burning bush was the time that Moses had to choose. He had to choose whether he would go to the burning bush or whether he would stay away. He continued that now was the time of salvation.
When I got to this passage, I, once again, broke down in tears. Tons of Bible verses running through my head, some of them from the newsletter, some of it from my childhood. I was convicted. I knew I was wrong. I knew I had shamed the one true God. I knew how I had disobeyed God. I knew what I had to do. I knew I was guilty of pride. I knew it was time to submit my life to God. As in 1995, when my father told me about placing Christ on the throne of my heart, I was ready for him to rule. I was finally ready to step off that throne and hand over control to him.
Other things were running through my mind, about how much God loved me. How much I had hurt him but how much he loved me that he would allow himself, his son to be sacrificed for our sins. It was like when I was younger, I had been disobedient. So my father pulled me aside into the garage and pulled off his wide belt--it had deer on it and a wildlife scene, I remember it clearly. I was so scared. I thought he was going to spank me with that, though he had never done that in all my life. But he handed me his belt. As he handed it over to me, he told me that he loved me so much. And that he had done a bad job raising me since I had turned out to be so rebellious so he deserved to be hit with the belt--not me.
Though God did not deserve to be hit, the story struck home with me as I was laying in bed sobbing, crying, weeping. I realized that like my father, God love me and it hurt to see me in rebellion against him, to refuse to submit, to refuse to bend on my knee willingly in front of the throne.
In Jude, the Bible talks about how some people are saved. Some are saved through fear, some are saved through hearing of the grace. I was saved because I hated displeasing my God.
So, it was during these few painful hours that I finally accepted Christ as my Lord and Saviour. That was either the last Saturday of June or the first Saturday of July of 2002.
There was an immediate personality change afterward. No one but I knew what it was. I finally had peace with God.
I was kind to my brother. I was cheerful. I obeyed my parents willingly. I quit listening to secular music as well as christian music. My foul mouth became clean. My lustful thoughts ended. I read my bible faithfully. But more than that, I actually saw the fruits of the Spirit in my life.
The change in my life was an palpatable change. Everyone saw it.
Several months later, my mother came to pick me up for Thanksgiving and take me back home to Yuma. On the way home, she talked about my change. I didnt realize it was visible to others. Before that point, I just knew there was a change in my life. An immediate change.
So my mother asked what had happened and I told her. I shared with her how I wasnt saved before that moment, how my life had changed. She was pleased. It was a blessing, though, to realize that my spiritual change had affected my relationships with everyone around me.
However, it took me about five or six more months before I was baptized. During those five or six months, I searched for a church. I attended mass with a friend until the priest made a political comment about the war in Iraq which really angered me and I left. It was immediately after that that I found out that my father didnt want me attending mass anymore, anyway.
It was during my second semester of college as a freshman that I came to the knowledge that the King James Bible was the only word of God.
With the help of a few friends, we found me an independent baptist church in Tucson. It was a month after finding this church that I was baptized there.
I was baptized May 11, 2003. It was Mother's Day, and both my parents had driven from Yuma to watch me be baptized. And despite my mother's dislike of the pastor, my father liked and approved of the preaching.
My baptism was funny. I was not expecting to be baptized by immersion without the option of sitting down on something. Instead I had to stand up while the pastor tipped me backward. It was frightful. Though they had told me that i would be standing up and he would tip me backward, I simply was not expecting it. So when I went backward, my left leg went up into the air straight out of the water.
But despite my *graceful* moves during my baptism, I was finally baptized as a believer in accordance with the word of God.
This June/July, I will have been a Christian for two years. But during those two years I have had my ups and downs. But I had never lost knowledge of my salvation. As Paul says, he wrote that we may have *knowledge* that we are saved. I have sinned since being saved...but so has everyone else. I have gone through different phases, but I have continued to grow. And hopefully, as this day commerating the resurrection of Christ comes, I will grow in him and continue to show the fruits of the Spirit.
Through his grace, I have been blessed, but then, praise God, so can anyone else.
This evening I have decided to fulfill my promises to everyone. One of which includes my testimony. I figured there is no better day to tell of the power of Christ than on Easter Sunday.
I have always been raised in the Christian church. I was sprinkled as an infant in an Episcopalian church Salt Lake City (as I said, I have always been raised in a Christian church; therefore, I am not mormon).
During my early childhood, my family attended a Presbyterian church until my father left because of theological differences. From there, we started attending Community Christian Church, a nondenominational church that has Church of Christ leanings.
We have attended there since I was about five or six. When I was eight, I had a best friend who decided to be baptized. For the longest time, I begged my parents to let me be baptized. After a while, because they thought I was sincere, asked the pastor to come talk to me. He told me what it meant to be baptized and he asked whether or not I believed that Jesus was Lord and Saviour. I agreed and nodded and asked the pastor if he wanted a cookie. And he left the house.
The shut of the door seemed to seal my fate.
The next Sunday I was baptized. I repeated after the pastor, "I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God and I take him as my Lord and Saviour." With that, I was dunked under water, got out and dried off.
For about five months I read my bible devotely, but no personal change had occurred. I was still mean to my brother. I was cruel. I was horrid. I just read my bible every morning at 5 o'clock.
Well, as life would have it, I grew up.
In 1995, I was a rebellious child. In the summer of that year, my family went on a trip to Mount Rushmore. During the trip, my parents tried to get us to sit down as a family and read the scriptures. One lesson my father gave came from Ezekial, and he used the analogy of Christ sitting on the throne of our hearts. He said that we had a choice of either Christ or ourselves sitting on that throne. When we became saved, we allowed Christ to reign over our lives from that throne, that throne we no longer sat on. Throughout the rest of my short life, I have remembered this message.
In sixth grade, I participated in a Bible quizing program called Bible Bowl, where we were required to memorize portions of the scripture and compete upon that knowledge. Within in our local round robin, which included California and Arizona, I almost always won both the test and the actual competition. Though I was not national material, I was still a good player and memorized a great portion of scripture, some of which I remember better than others.
But my attitude stunk. I was rebellious in my heart. Though I obeyed my parents, I was mean to my brother and backtalked my parents. I threw temper tantrums in public. I screamed. I was a horrible child. And this went into my teen years until about seventeen.
Throughout this time of my life, I always doubted my salvation. I never knew if I was saved. Whenever there was an altar call, I would say the words, hoping they were some magic words that would save me. I would take my tears as a genuine change of heart but never see the fruits in my life.
Then one day, I heard from my youth pastor that a person was not truly saved until they cried when they were being saved, that remorse and repetenance were not sincere unless the person cried. Well, this caused me to doubt even more.
In the summer of 2002, I had been asked by the church's secretary to give a communion message in front of the church (a communion message consists of a short scriptural or anecdote about the importance of communion or whatnot). I had done this before, particularly on religious holidays or for the tithe message, but also on normal Sundays, so nothing was horribly wrong with me going in front of the church to give such a message.
Well, I had decided that I would prepare myself in advance of this message and started praying, fasting, and reading my bible. My message had to do with making the sacrifice of Christ, communion, into a ritual--not fully realizing the great sacrifice he made on our behalves. I was sitting through the first half of the church service, during the praise and worship part trying to make sure I memorize my little speech. As I was busy memorizing, my father leaned over and shoved his Bible underneath my nose with his finger pointing out a verse from I Corinthians 2:1-7, something I had memorized in Bible Bowl. It said,
I got a little choked up, because I knew I was trying to appeal to men's wisdom instead of using the power of the Spirit. I realized I was being prideful. But when it was my time to speak, I got up and went to the podium.
But half-way through my message, I began to break down into tears. At the end of it, I was sobbing.
While speaking, I had been convicted. I had realized that I was a prideful creature. I realized that I was wrong. I realized that I was a sinner. I realized that no matter what I had done in my life, it simply was not good enough to attain salvation. I realized that I was never saved in the first place. But most importantly, I realized how I had mocked the death of Christ through my consumption of communion when I doubted my own salvation.
I was stunned. I was hurt. I was guilty. I was embarrassed.
After I was done, I ran off the stage into my father's open arms and sobbed quietly into his shoulder.
After the service, people congratulated me on what a moving little message I gave. I felt no pleasure in their congratulations as I would have normally. I only felt guilty and ashamed of abusing their confidence and trust.
That entire week I was extremely contemplative but I did not make a decision regarding my salvation. I knew I was unsaved, but refused to make a decision.
That is until I picked up a newsletter from David Wilkinson. It had something to do with Moses and the burning bush. But at the end of it, it said something that had piqued my attention. He wrote that this was now the time to choose. Like the burning bush was the time that Moses had to choose. He had to choose whether he would go to the burning bush or whether he would stay away. He continued that now was the time of salvation.
When I got to this passage, I, once again, broke down in tears. Tons of Bible verses running through my head, some of them from the newsletter, some of it from my childhood. I was convicted. I knew I was wrong. I knew I had shamed the one true God. I knew how I had disobeyed God. I knew what I had to do. I knew I was guilty of pride. I knew it was time to submit my life to God. As in 1995, when my father told me about placing Christ on the throne of my heart, I was ready for him to rule. I was finally ready to step off that throne and hand over control to him.
Other things were running through my mind, about how much God loved me. How much I had hurt him but how much he loved me that he would allow himself, his son to be sacrificed for our sins. It was like when I was younger, I had been disobedient. So my father pulled me aside into the garage and pulled off his wide belt--it had deer on it and a wildlife scene, I remember it clearly. I was so scared. I thought he was going to spank me with that, though he had never done that in all my life. But he handed me his belt. As he handed it over to me, he told me that he loved me so much. And that he had done a bad job raising me since I had turned out to be so rebellious so he deserved to be hit with the belt--not me.
Though God did not deserve to be hit, the story struck home with me as I was laying in bed sobbing, crying, weeping. I realized that like my father, God love me and it hurt to see me in rebellion against him, to refuse to submit, to refuse to bend on my knee willingly in front of the throne.
In Jude, the Bible talks about how some people are saved. Some are saved through fear, some are saved through hearing of the grace. I was saved because I hated displeasing my God.
So, it was during these few painful hours that I finally accepted Christ as my Lord and Saviour. That was either the last Saturday of June or the first Saturday of July of 2002.
There was an immediate personality change afterward. No one but I knew what it was. I finally had peace with God.
I was kind to my brother. I was cheerful. I obeyed my parents willingly. I quit listening to secular music as well as christian music. My foul mouth became clean. My lustful thoughts ended. I read my bible faithfully. But more than that, I actually saw the fruits of the Spirit in my life.
The change in my life was an palpatable change. Everyone saw it.
Several months later, my mother came to pick me up for Thanksgiving and take me back home to Yuma. On the way home, she talked about my change. I didnt realize it was visible to others. Before that point, I just knew there was a change in my life. An immediate change.
So my mother asked what had happened and I told her. I shared with her how I wasnt saved before that moment, how my life had changed. She was pleased. It was a blessing, though, to realize that my spiritual change had affected my relationships with everyone around me.
However, it took me about five or six more months before I was baptized. During those five or six months, I searched for a church. I attended mass with a friend until the priest made a political comment about the war in Iraq which really angered me and I left. It was immediately after that that I found out that my father didnt want me attending mass anymore, anyway.
It was during my second semester of college as a freshman that I came to the knowledge that the King James Bible was the only word of God.
With the help of a few friends, we found me an independent baptist church in Tucson. It was a month after finding this church that I was baptized there.
I was baptized May 11, 2003. It was Mother's Day, and both my parents had driven from Yuma to watch me be baptized. And despite my mother's dislike of the pastor, my father liked and approved of the preaching.
My baptism was funny. I was not expecting to be baptized by immersion without the option of sitting down on something. Instead I had to stand up while the pastor tipped me backward. It was frightful. Though they had told me that i would be standing up and he would tip me backward, I simply was not expecting it. So when I went backward, my left leg went up into the air straight out of the water.
But despite my *graceful* moves during my baptism, I was finally baptized as a believer in accordance with the word of God.
This June/July, I will have been a Christian for two years. But during those two years I have had my ups and downs. But I had never lost knowledge of my salvation. As Paul says, he wrote that we may have *knowledge* that we are saved. I have sinned since being saved...but so has everyone else. I have gone through different phases, but I have continued to grow. And hopefully, as this day commerating the resurrection of Christ comes, I will grow in him and continue to show the fruits of the Spirit.
Through his grace, I have been blessed, but then, praise God, so can anyone else.
posted by Laura Keslar at 1:32 AM | |
Saturday, April 10, 2004
My Political Ideologies, in a nutshell
Well, after that awkward first time, she called back a couple days later in which case I was cognizant. After first talking about little things like what type of music we listened to, our neatness, and our sleeping habits, I launched into the heavy duty questions:
"What is your political affiliations and religious beliefs"
Huh?
Yeah, I was silly. This wasnt the first time that I had asked that question, either. One night at Wednesday church service, as an ice breaker, the youth pastor had asked everyone what would be the first question they would ask a prospective date. While one young man had written down, "Does your father own a shotgun," my question was "What is your political affiliations and religious beliefs."
After asking that of so many people, it truly is my time to answer the question.
In short, I am a registered Republican who considers herself to be an independent conservative who tends to vote Libertarian, especially on economic issues.
I have been a registered Republican since August 2, 2002, which was a Friday, by the way. The day of my birthday. My family had taken me out to lunch and then my mother and I sauntered over to the looming government building in downtown Yuma and I filled out all my paperwork. The hardest part was trying to decide whether to register Libertarian or Republican.
Obviously, I picked Republican and have never looked back. After all, most Libertarians are blowing smoke out their :cough: posteriors.
I have realized a lot of the error and folly about being a Libertarian, especially a social Libertarian.
I hate it that the libertarians would shrink the military, and that abortions would still be considered legal. I don't have a problem with decriminalizing the usage of some drugs, but I would despise it if the local drug store actually lived up to its name.
Their platform on immigration is absolutely absurd. I do not want open borders, even if these immigrants are not getting welfare or other government subsidies.
As I have been quoted as saying elsewhere:
"I realize that not all immigrants, illegal or otherwise, are freeloaders. In fact, many are resourceful, intelligent, and beneficial to the United States. However, an influx of labor into the United States will decrease the wages of individuals already in the United States. The excessive amount of laborers will cause their relative value and subsequent price (wages) to lower to means that would be unable to support people [note, perhaps wages are inflated? ;-)]. Also, as indicated in a LA Times article a couple months ago, these unskilled laborers (ok, not all immigrants are unskilled) do take up jobs of current americans who might be skilled but demand higher wages or whatnot.
Secondly, there is the issue of border security. Open borders would allow easier access into the United States to people who mean her and her people harm.
These are just a few reasons for my dislike of open borders; but, if the US were ever to have open borders, there must be a whole overhaul of the current government policy as well as a huge change in global standards of living, et al. Until that time, it is necessary and essential to keep the borders closed. "
Since this quote, some of my opinions have changed, but this sums it up pretty well. I still consider most social Libertarians to be nuts, but then again, I scored a 52 on the Libertarian Purity Test, which, in their own words, means that I am "a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much."
Very fitting, though The Political Compass has be ranked ecnomically right (7.88) and authoritarian (1.85) as opposed to social libertarian.
With the knowledge of my political party and why chose it out of the way, I will launch into my positions on several issues.
Its the economy, stupid
Firstly, I do not think outsourcing is wrong. The reasons many companies are deciding to produce their products overseas is because of the unfavorable economic climate in the US. And people wonder why we rank lower than Hong Kong on the Index of Economic Freedom from the Heritage Foundation.
Taxation is rather high. I wouldnt mind seeing it decrease significantly, though I do understand the purpose of using taxes to maintain the running of the government.
As for taxation on polluting factories and plants, it is the government's job to protect the environment and the air as both are considered to be public goods and fall under the general welfare clause in the preamble.
The government's job is not to be involved explicitly in the economy. It should not be setting price controls, it should not be spending more to increase GDP. It should not be providing jobs for those out of work. Nor should it be providing re-education programs for those who have gotten laid off because of structural changes in employment opportunities.
Likewise, the federal and local governments should not be providing funds to public universities and other schools. It is not right and unconstitutional to take someone's money (think private property) to provide an education for their neighbor's children. While vouchers are a great idea, they should only be a short term transitional phase between lowering taxes and allowing individuals to provide for a child's education instead of making society as a whole pay.
The government should also not be providing funds for living and health care for those individuals unable to pay. Medicare, medicaid, welfare, social security, etc are all collectivist programs instituted by a socialist. But then, everyone knows that, right?
There is a need for anti-trust laws, since monopolies destroy the rights of the individual.
Social politics
There is nothing wrong with the death penalty for murderers. And by murderers, I simply mean anyone who kills anyone--one person or a bazillion. It's all the same to me. They are murderers and qualify for death.
This is partly based upon religious beliefs stemming from Genesis 9, where God tells Noah that "whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed." Because this commandment is given to Noah and not specifically to one people or another, but to all mankind stemming from Noah, this commandment still applies.
This killing of a murderer should be conducted within the laws of government, however--not through vigilante justice or whatever the heck that is. As in the United States, the person must be tried and all that jazz.
As for what methods to conduct the penalty of death, I really don't care. Call me violent. Let's see it broadcasted on television. And hanging and the shooting squad, though I remember reading somewhere that a couple states still hold the option open--shooting squad, that is.
Abortion is a form of murder. Partial birth abortion is torturous and anyone who performs such a procedure ought to die. As for second trimester abortions, let's not limit ourselves to the extent of our technology. When people say that when the baby can live outside the mother it is considered to be alive, they limit human life on the extent of our technology. Today we have the ability to keep many premature babies alive unlike a decade ago. To decide if a person is alive based upon modern technologies ability to keep them alive is a horrible way to decide if someone is alive or dead.
Homosexual marriage is a logical fallacy.
Judge Roy Moore is an idiot, but then so is Newsom. They pulled the same stunts and yet only Moore is lambasted by the establishment (yes, I am sounding like a flaming lefty).
This was brief, I admit, but I will add more to this as I think of things as time goes on.
International Politics
My sign says it all: "Free Israel." Israel is the only place in the world that I support giving US moneys. Its the only place where I willingly support giving US support to.
As a Christian, it is my duty to support Israel. As Genesis 11 says, those who bless Israel shall be blessed and those who curse Israel shall be cursed. Monetary, military, and diplomatic support is due to Israel.
She has as much right to exist as the US. She has a right to be free from terrorist bombings. She has a right to protect her borders the way she thinks best.
We belong in Iraq. The war in Iraq was justified, even if no weapons show up. That was not the main reason we went into Iraq, but all the same. Even if no evidence pans out as intelligence had pointed to, the altruistic reasons are good enough for me.
Though I would like to see us stop using foreign oil, it is illogical to drill for our own considering the expense of refining it.
Iran needs help. The US should be lending support for its oppressed people who would like to rise up from under Khomeini.
President Bush's credibility went down when he did not support Taiwan's independence. As one of the last bastions of democracy in Asia, Bush's statement did not give any credence to any of the altruistic motives the administration and others have claimed for going into Iraq.
The UN is a waste of time. It is too large. If it wanted to be of any effect, it should become smaller. That way, the interest of its members are better served. Having such a large multinational group provides unnecessary strife due to the number of conflicting interests. By dividing the UN into separate smaller divisions of several nations sharing many of its interests, the UN would become more effective.
But then again, do we really want a UN?
US troops should be withdrawn from many of the countries in which they are stationed.
Other random issues I am too lazy to categorize
Activist judges need to be impeached. Same thing goes for our elected officials who violate their oaths of office.
Bush needs to actually veto something. I mean, three years of not vetoing anything is kind of sickening.
Campaign finance reform violates individual property rights, among other things.
Now that I have gotten distracted, I shall continue this list at a later date. But for now, this consists of a mere briefing of my own political ideologies. This is anything but a complete list, but is meant merely to orientate your understanding of what I am--or rather, who.
The first time I ever talked to my roommate from my freshman year was when she called from Texas while I was asleep. I picked up the phone and she had said something along the lines like her name and if I (Laura) was there and that she is from the UA. Not knowing who she was or what the heck she wanted, I told her that I was asleep and to call back later. I had thought that she was some official at the UA.
Well, after that awkward first time, she called back a couple days later in which case I was cognizant. After first talking about little things like what type of music we listened to, our neatness, and our sleeping habits, I launched into the heavy duty questions:
"What is your political affiliations and religious beliefs"
Huh?
Yeah, I was silly. This wasnt the first time that I had asked that question, either. One night at Wednesday church service, as an ice breaker, the youth pastor had asked everyone what would be the first question they would ask a prospective date. While one young man had written down, "Does your father own a shotgun," my question was "What is your political affiliations and religious beliefs."
After asking that of so many people, it truly is my time to answer the question.
In short, I am a registered Republican who considers herself to be an independent conservative who tends to vote Libertarian, especially on economic issues.
I have been a registered Republican since August 2, 2002, which was a Friday, by the way. The day of my birthday. My family had taken me out to lunch and then my mother and I sauntered over to the looming government building in downtown Yuma and I filled out all my paperwork. The hardest part was trying to decide whether to register Libertarian or Republican.
Obviously, I picked Republican and have never looked back. After all, most Libertarians are blowing smoke out their :cough: posteriors.
I have realized a lot of the error and folly about being a Libertarian, especially a social Libertarian.
I hate it that the libertarians would shrink the military, and that abortions would still be considered legal. I don't have a problem with decriminalizing the usage of some drugs, but I would despise it if the local drug store actually lived up to its name.
Their platform on immigration is absolutely absurd. I do not want open borders, even if these immigrants are not getting welfare or other government subsidies.
As I have been quoted as saying elsewhere:
"I realize that not all immigrants, illegal or otherwise, are freeloaders. In fact, many are resourceful, intelligent, and beneficial to the United States. However, an influx of labor into the United States will decrease the wages of individuals already in the United States. The excessive amount of laborers will cause their relative value and subsequent price (wages) to lower to means that would be unable to support people [note, perhaps wages are inflated? ;-)]. Also, as indicated in a LA Times article a couple months ago, these unskilled laborers (ok, not all immigrants are unskilled) do take up jobs of current americans who might be skilled but demand higher wages or whatnot.
Secondly, there is the issue of border security. Open borders would allow easier access into the United States to people who mean her and her people harm.
These are just a few reasons for my dislike of open borders; but, if the US were ever to have open borders, there must be a whole overhaul of the current government policy as well as a huge change in global standards of living, et al. Until that time, it is necessary and essential to keep the borders closed. "
Since this quote, some of my opinions have changed, but this sums it up pretty well. I still consider most social Libertarians to be nuts, but then again, I scored a 52 on the Libertarian Purity Test, which, in their own words, means that I am "a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much."
Very fitting, though The Political Compass has be ranked ecnomically right (7.88) and authoritarian (1.85) as opposed to social libertarian.
With the knowledge of my political party and why chose it out of the way, I will launch into my positions on several issues.
Its the economy, stupid
Firstly, I do not think outsourcing is wrong. The reasons many companies are deciding to produce their products overseas is because of the unfavorable economic climate in the US. And people wonder why we rank lower than Hong Kong on the Index of Economic Freedom from the Heritage Foundation.
Taxation is rather high. I wouldnt mind seeing it decrease significantly, though I do understand the purpose of using taxes to maintain the running of the government.
As for taxation on polluting factories and plants, it is the government's job to protect the environment and the air as both are considered to be public goods and fall under the general welfare clause in the preamble.
The government's job is not to be involved explicitly in the economy. It should not be setting price controls, it should not be spending more to increase GDP. It should not be providing jobs for those out of work. Nor should it be providing re-education programs for those who have gotten laid off because of structural changes in employment opportunities.
Likewise, the federal and local governments should not be providing funds to public universities and other schools. It is not right and unconstitutional to take someone's money (think private property) to provide an education for their neighbor's children. While vouchers are a great idea, they should only be a short term transitional phase between lowering taxes and allowing individuals to provide for a child's education instead of making society as a whole pay.
The government should also not be providing funds for living and health care for those individuals unable to pay. Medicare, medicaid, welfare, social security, etc are all collectivist programs instituted by a socialist. But then, everyone knows that, right?
There is a need for anti-trust laws, since monopolies destroy the rights of the individual.
Social politics
There is nothing wrong with the death penalty for murderers. And by murderers, I simply mean anyone who kills anyone--one person or a bazillion. It's all the same to me. They are murderers and qualify for death.
This is partly based upon religious beliefs stemming from Genesis 9, where God tells Noah that "whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed." Because this commandment is given to Noah and not specifically to one people or another, but to all mankind stemming from Noah, this commandment still applies.
This killing of a murderer should be conducted within the laws of government, however--not through vigilante justice or whatever the heck that is. As in the United States, the person must be tried and all that jazz.
As for what methods to conduct the penalty of death, I really don't care. Call me violent. Let's see it broadcasted on television. And hanging and the shooting squad, though I remember reading somewhere that a couple states still hold the option open--shooting squad, that is.
Abortion is a form of murder. Partial birth abortion is torturous and anyone who performs such a procedure ought to die. As for second trimester abortions, let's not limit ourselves to the extent of our technology. When people say that when the baby can live outside the mother it is considered to be alive, they limit human life on the extent of our technology. Today we have the ability to keep many premature babies alive unlike a decade ago. To decide if a person is alive based upon modern technologies ability to keep them alive is a horrible way to decide if someone is alive or dead.
Homosexual marriage is a logical fallacy.
Judge Roy Moore is an idiot, but then so is Newsom. They pulled the same stunts and yet only Moore is lambasted by the establishment (yes, I am sounding like a flaming lefty).
This was brief, I admit, but I will add more to this as I think of things as time goes on.
International Politics
My sign says it all: "Free Israel." Israel is the only place in the world that I support giving US moneys. Its the only place where I willingly support giving US support to.
As a Christian, it is my duty to support Israel. As Genesis 11 says, those who bless Israel shall be blessed and those who curse Israel shall be cursed. Monetary, military, and diplomatic support is due to Israel.
She has as much right to exist as the US. She has a right to be free from terrorist bombings. She has a right to protect her borders the way she thinks best.
We belong in Iraq. The war in Iraq was justified, even if no weapons show up. That was not the main reason we went into Iraq, but all the same. Even if no evidence pans out as intelligence had pointed to, the altruistic reasons are good enough for me.
Though I would like to see us stop using foreign oil, it is illogical to drill for our own considering the expense of refining it.
Iran needs help. The US should be lending support for its oppressed people who would like to rise up from under Khomeini.
President Bush's credibility went down when he did not support Taiwan's independence. As one of the last bastions of democracy in Asia, Bush's statement did not give any credence to any of the altruistic motives the administration and others have claimed for going into Iraq.
The UN is a waste of time. It is too large. If it wanted to be of any effect, it should become smaller. That way, the interest of its members are better served. Having such a large multinational group provides unnecessary strife due to the number of conflicting interests. By dividing the UN into separate smaller divisions of several nations sharing many of its interests, the UN would become more effective.
But then again, do we really want a UN?
US troops should be withdrawn from many of the countries in which they are stationed.
Other random issues I am too lazy to categorize
Activist judges need to be impeached. Same thing goes for our elected officials who violate their oaths of office.
Bush needs to actually veto something. I mean, three years of not vetoing anything is kind of sickening.
Campaign finance reform violates individual property rights, among other things.
Now that I have gotten distracted, I shall continue this list at a later date. But for now, this consists of a mere briefing of my own political ideologies. This is anything but a complete list, but is meant merely to orientate your understanding of what I am--or rather, who.
posted by Laura Keslar at 10:44 PM | |
Something rather Inane and Asinine
Buddha is still in his grave. Mohammed is still dead. But Jesus Christ is alive forevermore
Yes, Buddha and Mohammed are still dead and, yes, Christ has risen from the dead and sits at the right hand of the Father, but neither Buddha nor Mohammed claimed to be God nor did their followers claim that they were God. Rather, they just ushered in a new teaching or philosophy, correcting that which came before them, acting as a prophet or messenger.
To compare Mohammed and Buddha to Christ in such a manner gives the impression that their followers claim the same position for each one.
Faulty indeed, but something rather inane and asinine.
Though I like Mac Swift and typically agree with much of what he has to say, today will differ over something rather trivial and something most Christians say. Something that truly does not warrant my comments, but, alas, you shall hear them.
Yes, Buddha and Mohammed are still dead and, yes, Christ has risen from the dead and sits at the right hand of the Father, but neither Buddha nor Mohammed claimed to be God nor did their followers claim that they were God. Rather, they just ushered in a new teaching or philosophy, correcting that which came before them, acting as a prophet or messenger.
To compare Mohammed and Buddha to Christ in such a manner gives the impression that their followers claim the same position for each one.
Faulty indeed, but something rather inane and asinine.
posted by Laura Keslar at 7:14 PM | |
Friday, April 09, 2004
Does Arizona deserve the label?
According to David Dodenhoff, Arizona is pretty split in regards to its political parties. It sort of makes you wonder if Arizona truly deserves the designation as a "conservative" state.
posted by Laura Keslar at 10:52 PM | |
Email Attachment Analogy
Even if you only open attachments from friends, you never know if they have a virus or not, because they might have gotten it from someone else. Just like having sex with a person, when you open an email attachment, you are potentially exposing yourself to all the viral infections passed on by their previous partners. It just recommended that you don't have sex. Or open email attachments.
At least, that is what my mother says.
Wise words from my mother: opening email attachments is like having sex.
Even if you only open attachments from friends, you never know if they have a virus or not, because they might have gotten it from someone else. Just like having sex with a person, when you open an email attachment, you are potentially exposing yourself to all the viral infections passed on by their previous partners. It just recommended that you don't have sex. Or open email attachments.
At least, that is what my mother says.
posted by Laura Keslar at 11:24 AM | |
Times of Weakness
I can be so stupid. Grrr.
Why do you, at times of weakness and sleepiness, tell your roommate things that she should never know about you--things no one knows about you except like you and the people directly involved.
I can be so stupid. Grrr.
posted by Laura Keslar at 12:52 AM | |
Thursday, April 08, 2004
New Stunt for the UACRs
It shall be a good one. They plan on standing outside the post office right around 930 pm, in order to make the 10 o'clock news, with signs saying that Kerry plans to raise your taxes. Very cute, very clever. Probably my favorite thing they will be doing during conservative week. Since it actually seems to be creative in comparison with the rest of the country (well, it depends if everyone else does it, but whatever).
Too bad Thursdays are my bad days.
With almost everyone talking about taxes, I am reminded of a stunt that the UA CRs will pull on Thursday, April 15.
It shall be a good one. They plan on standing outside the post office right around 930 pm, in order to make the 10 o'clock news, with signs saying that Kerry plans to raise your taxes. Very cute, very clever. Probably my favorite thing they will be doing during conservative week. Since it actually seems to be creative in comparison with the rest of the country (well, it depends if everyone else does it, but whatever).
Too bad Thursdays are my bad days.
posted by Laura Keslar at 11:43 PM | |
Cancer of the finger
But one day I will end up with cancer of the finger because of my organic chemistry lab accidents.
Last week, I spilled ethanoic KOH on my hand and I also sprayed the lab with water because one of my pipes broke lose of the microcondenser and water was everywhere. Another time, I got AgNO3 on my fingers, which caused my hand to turn brown. It took like three weeks before the color was completely gone. Then, another time, I ended up with a yellow thumb, because of the iodine.
And just this week, I spilled thionyl chloride all over me and touched someone's random crystals that had formed on their IR card. I think I ought to be more careful and perhaps actually study for my organic chemistry test tomorrow.
We made DEET today in organic chemistry lab and I came away smelling like walking bug repellant. But I liked it--the smell of DEET is a good smell. But then again, I also enjoy the smell of acetone (which, I think, is causing the skin on my fingers to peel) and gasoline (but then, so does everyone else).
But one day I will end up with cancer of the finger because of my organic chemistry lab accidents.
Last week, I spilled ethanoic KOH on my hand and I also sprayed the lab with water because one of my pipes broke lose of the microcondenser and water was everywhere. Another time, I got AgNO3 on my fingers, which caused my hand to turn brown. It took like three weeks before the color was completely gone. Then, another time, I ended up with a yellow thumb, because of the iodine.
And just this week, I spilled thionyl chloride all over me and touched someone's random crystals that had formed on their IR card. I think I ought to be more careful and perhaps actually study for my organic chemistry test tomorrow.
posted by Laura Keslar at 11:12 PM | |
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
Woohoo, we are #5
Interestingly enough, the UA is #5 in the little Student's For Bush club membership--take that ASU. Besides, UA is still so much of a better school
posted by Laura Keslar at