Blogging Part 2

Elder Ballard, in his intriguing speech to BYU-Hawaii graduates, encouraged them to utilize “new media.” He states,

“May I ask that you join the conversation by participating on the Internet…to share the gospel and explain in simple, clear terms the message of the Restoration

We are living in a world saturated with all kinds of voices because now, more than ever, we have a major responsibility…to define ourselves instead of letting others define us

Every disciple of Christ will be most effective, and do the most good by adopting a demeanor worthy of the follower of the Savior of the world.

Your outreach can be international.”

While he never specifically outlined blogging as one of those “new media,” I submit (and I have many associates on the internet that will agree), that blogging is one of those new media.

Now, the issue at hand. While this new trend of blogging is good, it could be much better. I discussed with a girl I work with how she should take the passion she has for politics and debate, and translate that into a blog about those issues, not just about her family life. While Elder Ballard stressed the utilization of blogging for spreading the gospel, I challenge people that I meet to blog not just for gospel-related purposes, but many others as well:

- Apologetics – With the accessibility of anything and everything on the internet, blogging can be beneficial to help defend the church. FAIR does a great job of faithfully discussing many of these difficult subjects, as well as aggressive, bias questions that people can throw at us.

- Honesty – I recently listened to a great presenatation called “Inoculating the Saints,” given at the 2007 Salt Lake Sunstone Symposium, found here at Mormon Matters. Among other things, the concept of honesty within the LDS Church came up. While the Church as a body has been very honest, many times the members don’t recognize the honesty. One of the most telling statements involved a teacher who was teaching 16-year olds. He had a student who had never heard of polygamy. Ever. And he states that this is a major problem, which, to an extent, I agree. But the internet has been wonderful to me, because I’ve learned so much about things that aren’t discussed very often. Polygamy, polyandry, Adam-God, Mountain Meadows, Blacks and the Priesthood, Joseph Smith’s translation process…I could go on and on.

- Culture – Or, in my case, the negative aspects of culture. I find many of the things that we do in the Church “cultural.” For example, I’d never even comprehended about praying or thanking God for rain. I’m from Michigan – according to Yahoo Real Estate, we have over 100 “precipitation days” per year. Yet when I came out to Utah/Idaho, they prayed for “precipitation.” Well I got sick of hearing that real quick, and in a religion class recently, I gave thanks in my prayer for the MOISTURE we received…and got many quizzical looks. Cultural things like white shirts at church, caffine (I love my Coke Zero), marking scriptures, Deseret Book’s Fluff, Mormon pop-music, FPR’s, and the like.

- Education – Long gone is the day when scholarship is only to be found in deep intense scholarly journals that take you 2 hours to get thorugh a paragraph. There are spectacular blogs out there with serious scholarship publishing their findings.

- Opinions – I think this is the best part of blogging. We’re all editorial contributors on the internet. And the best part about that is we, the “everyday folk,” can state our “everyday folk” opinions. I don’t write for the Scroll, but I can state my opinion about administration, the state of the school, or anything else. The best part is that I don’t have to answer to authority (or worry that I’m going to get kicked off the paper)…all I have to do is deal with grouchy readers who want me to talk about something other than BYU-Idaho

So please, SAHM, Blonde Haired ditzy 18-year old, or bitter 24-year old who needs to get a life and quit complaining about things…embrace your nerdiness and blog!

Lost Episode 11 - Cabin Fever

I finally remembered to watch LOST this week, and what a good week to tune in on! Thoughts and impressions from the very start, plus the top 5 questions from this weeks episode.

- Locke's biological mom getting hit by a car to start the episode. I wish I could have just had a bump on my head instead of getting messed up like I did. Interesting side note: Notice that Locke's father was never mentioned by name, only "him." Perhaps a player to be named later?

- Birth of John Locke, and a very direct reference to Luke 1:63

63 And he asked for a writing table, and wrote, saying, His name is John. And they marvelled all.

I know there's been a lot of talk about the influence of Hinduism and the Dalai Lama in this season of LOST, but I wonder if there's some very-much Christian influence. John, as in, the one to pave the way for The One? Makes you wonder if theres some pieces that can be matched there.

- I am starting to love the interaction between Locke, Ben, and Hurley. Locke as the confused leader, Ben as the defeated consigliere, and Hurley as the comic relief.

- Keamy is freaky. And when I say freaky, I mean totally awesome. Cold, calculated, and heartless, he's a perfect fit for the Whitmore team.

- Horrace - I don't know what to think of that scene. Especially the bloody nose. But the interaction was obviously meaningful. Almost like a computer program. It reminded me of the scientist in the movie I, Robot, with Will Smith. He could only ask certian questions, and the scientist could only answer in a certian way. It was only until he asked the RIGHT questions was he able to get his answers.

- First spottage of Richard. Score: Richard 1, Abaddon 0

- Second spottage of Richard - the items at the house. Richard 2, Abaddon 0. This was confusing until I read more about this series of events, especially with relation to the Dalai Lama. There were a lot of references to a 1997 movie call Kundun by Martin Scorsese.

Except for brief sequences in China proper and India, the film is set in Tibet. It begins with the search for the 14th reincarnation of the Dalai Lama. Following a vision by Reting Rinpoche (the regent of Tibet) several lamas disguised as servants discover the location of a promising candidate: a child born to a poor herding family near the Chinese border.

These and other lamas administer a test to the child in which he must select from various objects the ones that belonged to the previous Dalai Lama. The child passes the test; he and his family are brought to Lhasa, where he will be installed as Dalai Lama when he comes of age.

Interesting, is it not? Notice this interaction between Richard and Locke.

Richard: "I want you to look at these things...and think about 'em. Okay, now tell me, John, which of these things belong to you?"
John: "To--to keep?"
Richard: "No, no, John. Which of these things belong to you already?"

Do you see some correlation? Because I do!

- Apparently, Ben wasn't always the Leader of the Others. Richard? Horrace?

- Keamy grabs the secondary protocol, and apparently is going to torch the island. Keamy says that Ben knows about the secondary protocol, and "there's only one place he can go." Wasn't Danielle, Alex, and Karl heading off to the temple? Is that the one place?

- Another interesting interaction between the three Amigos. Locke tells Hurley he can go back to the beach, but Hugo wants to stick around. Then Ben says something that really caught my ear.

BEN: He actually thinks staying was his idea. Not bad, John. Not bad at all.
LOCKE: I'm not you.
BEN: You're certainly not.

HMMMMMMMMM

- Richard trying to get young-Locke (who definitely gets the sympathy vote for getting shoved in a locker and beat up) to go to a science camp. Richard 3, Abaddon 0. And then Locke says his ever-famous line, "Don't tell me what I can't do!" I find that this is a theme of Locke's life - doing things that people tell him he can't do. Yet what is his purpose on the Island?

- I like Lapidus. A lot. I think he's different, and has some sympathy for the survivors. Almost as if he went to the Island with a different motivation than Farraday or Collette or Miles. And his empathy to Michael will be interesting to see how it plays out.

- Desmond sticks around on the boat because he's been on the island for 3 years, and is waiting for his Penny. I can handle the Desmond/Penny love story. Jack and Kate are starting to get on my nerves though.

- Best line of the night. HURLEY: Guys, cabin.

- "Those things had to happen. Because destiny, John, is a fickle bitch" Are we starting to see Ben lose his faith? Jealousy because John is visiting with Jacob more than him? Are we going to see a power struggle between the two (which kind of already happened in Season 3)? Calculating Ben and confused John = great TV

- First appearance of Abaddon. I love this guy. I also can't help but feel for John whenever I see him in a wheelchair. It's interesting how much they can have the wheelchair portray such an enemy and torture device for John. And I totally thought that Abaddon was going to push Locke down the stairs as well. Even Locke had that look in his eyes.

- The "walkabout." Apparently its a "journey of self-discovery." You walk in the Australian outback nothing but a knife and your wits. Abaddon's last line was interesting:

ABADDON: When you're ready, Mr. Locke... (presses button) you'll listen to what I'm saying. And then when you and me run into each other again... you'll owe me one.

When Locke is ready? It's put out as an ultimatum. Also, not "if you and me run into each other," but "when you and me run into each other." So if Abaddon's got some insight to the future, it's another definite. "You'll owe me one..." eerie...

- The last scene with Omar getting the morse code message that the Doc washed up on shore with his throat slit. So it sounds like we're looking at this episode running concurrently with last week. Yet if that dude WAS the doctor...how could he be in both places? TIME TRAVEL?

- Finally, the SAT phone drop. At first I thought "Lapidus wants them to know where Keamy's team is." Jack, impulsively, states that they must follow them. Now I'm not 100% sure, but I wonder if Jack's impulses have done the Losties good or bad. As I think about it more, with Jack knowing where Keamy's team is, plus knowing the terrain of the island better, could work out for the best.

I'd give it a 9.0/10. One of the best for the season so far. There was much more mental stuff than action, and I think once the DVDs come out, a lot of questions will be answered.

GREAT LINKS FOR ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION

LOSTPEDIA Cabin Fever Analysis

Kulturblog's Cabin Fever Analysis

Mormon Mommy Wars Cabin Fever Analysis

David Horowitz Revisited

David Horowitz Revisited

My first assignment for my Media Research class involved a man named David Horowitz. We were required to write a paper on his controversial ads he purchased back in 2001. On Wednesday, all we were told was to “Google David Horowitz and reparations.” Initially, when she mentioned reparations, I had had the thought strike me that this would be about reparations for African Americans. What resulted was his ad which stated “10 Reasons Why Reparations Are a Bad Idea for Blacks – and Racist Too.” My normally conservative self agreed with many of the ideas, but there were an equal number of items that I disagreed with.

Now that I’ve lived here in Rexburg for 3 years, it makes me very grateful that I grew up in a melting-pot of diversity. When my wife visited Michigan for the first time, we went to the local mall to browse the clearance racks. She told me later that she was shocked because there weren’t any “minorities” there. She told me “I felt like the minority!” I’m conservative, so normally reparations don’t sit very well with me, and I’ve never liked using the word “minority” because in my lifetime I’ve felt that the gap between the Caucasian majority and the African-American, Hispanic, Asian, and Indian (just to name the main groups) minorities has been shrinking.

Here are Horowitz’s “10 reasons,” and my response is added in bold.

1. There is no single group responsible for the crime of slavery

This I agree with. Slavery has been around forever, dating back to biblical times. While Horowitz is discussing American slavery, and that no single group is responsible for that, my argument is yes, no single group is responsible for that. We were wrong. Yet I would think that we have made many advancements since 1776, 1860, even 1968 as far as race-relations are concerned.

2. There is no one group that benefited exclusively from it’s fruits

I don’t proclaim to be an expert on this, and I really don’t have time to do the research. But I agree with this. How can one say only whites have benefited. How can one lump all “whites,” when they come from all over?

3. Only a tiny minority of whites owned slaves, and others gave their lives to free them

This I will agree with. The American Civil War is something that I would love to do more research in. I’ve heard it said before that, concerning history, the ones who win the war write the history. Yet how many gave their lives trying to protect the notion that “all men were created equal?” Again, broad generalizations, in my humble opinion, are quickly becoming a virus of our generation.

4. America today is a multiethnic nation and most Americans have no connection (direct or indirect) to slavery

This is probably the best argument that Horowitz makes. Kid Rock put out a great single about 3 months ago called “Amen,” a true indictment against our culture, and one of the things he states that other races “got me feeling guilty of being white.” Sometimes I feel this way. Sometimes I feel almost sheepish because of the fact that I am Caucasian, and apparently I have been lumped into this group. It’s like saying all Christian whites are racist because of the KKK

5. The historical precedents used to justify the reparations claim do not apply, and the claim itself is based on race, not injury

When Horowitz states “the claim itself,” he is referring to the claim of slavery. Again, Horowitz hits a home run again here. What injury does an African American face because of his or her ancestors over 100 years ago? How does that treatment affect them today? Perhaps 40, even 25 years ago, there would have been some prejudice against African Americans, yet with the last 20 years, there has been a great awareness of the plight that many African Americans go through. Plans like Affirmative Action and the initiative of many professional sports teams have sought to equalize the opportunities to a more diverse audience

6. The reparations argument is based on the unfounded claim that all African-American descendants of slaves suffer from the economical consequences of slavery and discrimination

I feel like I’m rehashing the same thing here. Make your own conclusions.

7. The reparations claim is one more attempt to turn African-Americans into victims. It sends out a damaging message to the African-American community

My problem with this argument is that it is blatantly worded to incite. “Turn African Americans into victims” makes a broad generalization. I know many affluent African Americans, and I know many Caucasians who are looking to be victims. Instead of making this assumption based on race, why not economic conditions, or family background, or education, or any number of items? Bad move, Horowitz.

8. Reparations to African-Americans have already been paid

This falls under the “Brandt doesn’t understand this” portion. Insert comment here

9. What about the debts blacks owe to America?

This is another false argument – the debt that blacks owe to America? That’s again stating that there is a divide between blacks and the rest of the world.

10. The reparations claim is a Separatist idea that sets African-Americans against the nation that gave them freedom

Again, this is specifically worded to anger people. “Sets African-Americans against the nation” sounds as though there will be an African American revolution. It seems as though this is

Ironically enough, my professor just informed us that Horowitz did this as an “experiment.” He is a former Black Panther, and wanted to see what the reaction of people. Some colleges ran the ad. Some didn’t run the ad. Some ran the ad and then issued a letter of apology.

In my paper, I addressed the fact that the freedom of the press takes on different connotation involving universities. Because of the public and private universities, privates have the ability to be more selective. Yet where can a public university draw the line? Should a public university be required to allow an advertiser to publish an ad that might be controversial, no matter the price?