My last piece on Steve Jobs.

I just read the eulogy by his sister: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/opinion/mona-simpsons-eulogy-for-steve-jobs.html

as I read this, I see people grasping at straws.
I see a man who was self-sufficient and good at what he does.
Who was good at being "good" and yet, that's not enough, is it?

Steve was not a saint.  Not even close.  The news/anecdotal accounts/hushed stories attest to that.

and yet, he affected his family so deeply.  the people he touched.  and here is a man, that may be closest to one who universally affected the world.  the contemporary alexander the great, caesar, or King Solomon, if you will.

Yet Solomon's wisdom prevails.  All is vanity.  There is nothing new under the sun.  Steve may have done his best at making his mark, but in the end, he will fade into history.

His last words tear at my heart.  "Oh wow. Oh wow. Oh wow."  I wonder.  were these words uttered in rapture or horror?  What did he see past those shoulders?  Those two words, expressed through a dying man's lips.  A man whose physical being will pass away, but whose soul will remain forever.

It hurts my heart.  Because he was a "great" man.. but greatness does not make for salvation.

What did he see?  Did he see the depths of hell automatically or did he see the complete righteousness of Christ illuminating the complete failings of his sin?  What will I see?

Even so, it is well with my soul.

the things people spend their life doing...

I read this article on how boys and girls choirs have a distinct sound.  That the soloists' voices hit a certain frequency that resonate with the soul... I thought that was pretty cool.  What I don't think is cool is how everyone's still so obsessed with technology so that using this knowledge that there's this specific "shine" in boys and girls' voices, they can create synthetic choirs.  yighs.


when they were talking about the "shine" in voices, i automatically thought back to the concept of phusis.  I don't know too much about it (except that it's pronounced "physis"), but these two philosophy professors (from Hahvahd and Cal [go bears!]) did this study on finding meaning and how old greek classics and such, when they describe something particularly great or amazing but in our nature, it's this moment of "shining."  One guy also said the English language even adopted that concept in our phrase that someone can "really shine at" something or other.  You can find more info here if you wanna listen.... but... yeah.

Anyway, I like this.  Even though I'm not in school, I like learning new tidbits and stuff... I mean, it's basically the same thing.  Fed stuff in college; fed stuff now.  The most research I'd do is a quick google search.
Lame.
but keeps my mind active/making connections/dots/thinking....

perhaps it's pretentious.

but i'm in the Bay!  Where else can i embrace such wannabe academia?!!!!!!

babies

i know it's a culturally insensitive thing to say, or just that people are sensitive about it in general, but i just don't understand why people don't have babies.

i don't understand the whole "wait until X is done with Y until we start a family."

i don't understand flippant choices to use certain kinds of contraceptives and i definitely don't understand studied choices to do so.

i mean, i guess it's a tad personal because I was a "surprise" for my parents.... and they weren't necessarily financially well-off (both were students in seminary - dad going for mdiv, mom going for christian education which she didn't finish because of.. her surprise (me!) ); they hadn't been married for a set amount of time...

anyway, i guess the issue maybe deals a little with life.  Lately i've been drawn to dystopian stories and i always wonder (like in the story "The ones who walk away from the omelas") is the happiness of a city worth the life of one child?  and on the car ride home, my brother and i got into a pretty heated debate about whether if given the choice, you would press a button to kill someone but at the same time achieve the cure for cancer.  there are so many .. assumptions/presuppositions that come with that thought .. but anyway, i automatically thought of abortion.

Anyway, the reason i came to this train of thought was because I finally found the time to read Revive Our Hearts's segment on "Are There Enough Children In The World"  and that kind of idea is always interesting for me to learn about (especially since I don't totally buy into the "overpopulation" idea of the world)... and as i was reading, i just wanted to write about babies.

I'm glad I grew up with the opportunity to babysit and be around babies.  and kids.  it's cool seeing my sister and brother interact with children as well.  i think seeing their natural comfort in "handling" kids (especially unruly ones) is interesting to watch.. although i get pretty ticked off when they tell me "not to judge" when i say a kid is spoiled.. honestly, i'm not judging ... a spoiled kid's a spoiled kid.. but enough on that.
i'm just going to leave you with some pictures and links...

BABIES ARE JUST SO PRECIOUS!!!   (but i guess i should add the disclaimer that i understand there are details and complications and i shouldn't be so openly dismayed when friends tell me they are waiting to start a family etc................ or... okay, i guess there are things i shouldn't publicly say on a blog. LOL)

Links to peruse:
Trailer for the documentary Babies
A cover of Bruno Mars "Just the Way You Are" from a boy about his little sister (who has down syndrome - a rare case nowadays)
http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/2/birth-control-pill-abortifacient-and-contraceptive/
http://www.aaplog.org/position-and-papers/oral-contraceptive-controversy/
http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Feb/22/growing-debate-about-abortifacient-effect-birth-co/


[steps off soap box // fade to black]

Thankful

When I opened this email from our president with the above heading, I was, of course, curious. Would he explicitly express to whom he is thankful? would he mention God?

The email:

Junia --

When Michelle and I sit down with our family to give thanks today, I want you to know that we'll be especially grateful for folks like you.

Everything we have been able to accomplish in the last two years was possible because you have been willing to work for it and organize for it.

And every time we face a setback, or when progress doesn't happen as quickly as we would like, we know that you'll be right there with us, ready to fight another day.

So I want to thank you -- for everything.

I also hope you'll join me in taking a moment to remember that the freedoms and security we enjoy as Americans are protected by the brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces. These patriots are willing to lay down their lives in our defense, and each of us owes them and their families a debt of gratitude.

Have a wonderful day, and God bless.

Barack


was as typical as you'd expect from our silver-tongued president. Interestingly, he gives thanks to us, to the troops.. and in the end he has a shoutout to God.. (sort of).. in the "God bless" I guess though, but who is God to bless? Me? You? Us?

Ultimately, I don't harbor any hard feelings towards the president, and I think he's doing the best job he can, and if he weren't messing up in office, some other guy would be.. and honestly, i'd rather have him there.. than.. say, palin.. BUT, i can't help but be intrigued and also semi-dissect public figures' notices ..

especially comparing President Obama's thanksgiving email to say.. a speech from one of our founding fathers... there's a considerable difference.

what the.. no, No.. absolutely NOT. NO.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11699682

are you serious Sarah Palin?
Seriously Sarah Palin, if you run for president, Obama is guaranteed his second term.

That video is beyond ridiculous.  It's like 3 people, all white people..  what happened to latinos?  asians?  southeast Asians?

and not to be mean, but your accent is that of CANADA.

Ms. Sarah Palin, you might have a HUGE hand in the sweeping GOP successes during this year's elections, but if they're smart (and they are), I doubt they'll back you as president.  you're more of a risk than an asset to this country.

YIKES.

You know how people used to say "Not my president!" about GW Bush?  I used to think that was incredibly rude and unnecessary - because he IS your president.....  if you don't like him, then move to Canada.

But in this case, if Palin becomes president (a hUge IF, but i mean, i don't have much faith in either side of America.. the red or the blue..) ...  I won't HAVE to move to Canada.. it will have moved to us! AHHHHH

thoughts on voting

i should've read up on this wayy more than i did.  i have no excuse.
i think we all should vote... i think you should exercise your right as a citizen and furthermore, actively work to prevent decay in society (whether they want it or not).
with that said, i think when i vote, i realize how stupid i am, how i'm really no better than any ignorant, uninformed voter, because that's what i am.  i don't take the time to read up on issues, i focus on a few and get too lazy with the rest... i jump on bandwagons and brush off this blase attitude with the "eh, lesser of two evils" blah blah blah.

which sucks. and so, next time, i plan on spending more time and evenly researching the ideas that are passed my way as a CA/US citizen.. (rather than simply sticking my nose into the interesting ones).

i have a proposition idea.
Each election day, they should have a prop for "regular citizens should lose their right to vote if they don't vote on at least 4 props" ... that way, people would panic, feel outraged, go out and vote.. and this cycle would continue. hahaha.

(i swear, i think if you tweak my idea.. it might work..)

disturbed by a commercial

story idea:
look up seasonique commercial

dystopia where women don't have to have periods.


HOW IS THIS EVEN NATURAL?
EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWw


"Who says?"

NATURE

GOD!
HELLO!

america's got talent

i keep on watching this clip over and over again. it gets me every time. i THINK about it at random times. Her cute face, excitement, talent!

i'm GLAD she didn't go through though, because kids get messed up in the adult world of entertainment.

i'd like to think that's why Sharon said no.

anyway, looking forward to seeing her in the future. (she seems like she'll break through sooner or later; she's all up in the media apparently...according to various youtube clips i found haha)

PS, hopefully she'll come back withOUT that awkward dance crew.. -_-

Today was a good day for NPR

As i drove down to So Cal, I was listening to NPR and MAN the topics today were spot on.

First there was a discussion about the need for blacks to not let the messenger get in the way of the message (in regards to the Tea Party etc) based on an article written by a republican black woman, Sophia Nelson.  Interested in looking her up.  Good dialogue

THEN there was a discussion about CHEATING in schools.  AGH I actually got off the freeway, pulled over, and spent a good five minutes trying to call in and give my two cents.  Maybe one day I'll write about cheating....
basically how I grew up not cheating but ignoring when others cheated until a certain boy in my high school class whom eVERYone knew cheated got into Stanford..
I didn't cheat in college either... and when I began TEACHING I was really hard on cheating until I went to GCA.
I think I changed my philosophy a little, being lenient on the first one, trying to vary my tests and projects so that kids CAN'T viably cheat, and of course, if they cheat, just give them another assignment for a maximum grade of a C.  Easy peasy..

It was interesting how a lot of students unfortunately aren't prepared to write college-level (works cited, research intensive) work in high school.  ... America and education.  ..::sigh::..

I thought about starting an interactive blog where each post would be something that would be useful to students
like how to cite a book
how to start an intro paragraph

under the idea that we must "first learn the rules in order to throw them out." (yea yea JM!)

it got staticky.

THEN
in LA i listened to a story of an American family that lives off of welfare.  I thought about health a lot.. :-/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128618224


Other discussions of note:
Debate over high-risk abortion public funding
Republicans blocking extension of unemployment benefits
Army + don't ask don't tell
auto-dealership bailout vs non-bailout / closing dealerships critique


There were random stuff too
like Lilith concert, a probe on Mars (pretty cool tho), human beings evolutionary development in terms of running,... yeah


ANyway, today was especially interesting... http://www.npr.org

I got into the habit of listening and absorbing information that way during my sophomore year when I worked a mind-numbing job and had an ipod.  At first, I couldn't focus, but now, I'm glad I can!

UM, I watched 24:Redemption last night.. and wow, 24 is kind of cool. and I just wish I had more international awareness............

reading reading lolita in tehran

so i'm sad as i near the end of the book (isn't that always delicious, regretting the end, but having to have a go at it anyway because you can't leave it unfinished?  like life should be, no?)

reading about it makes me care more about Iran.  Now, whenever I hear about news related with Iran, I think of the book and what I learned through that.  Books are powerful.

On that note, do I like the smell of old books?  It always icks me out.  I always try to smell it to see if it has that spicy old musty smell laden with secrets... but really, it's just nasty.  old dust.  being handled.  .. i think books have B.O.


Lastly: I'm excited to try my hand at Henry James and mayyybe give Nabakov another chance in Pale Fire.  (Heck no am i reading Lolita again.  no matter WHAT concessions she made about the sickness of the ordeal and how it's about this abuse of power etc etc... that subject material is le nasty)

ugh - woman finds head in blue ikea bag. lovely

She said: "It didn't look like it had been there a long time. Being an inquisitive person I wanted to find out what it was.

"I tried to open out the bag with my gloves on and look inside .

"I opened the bag and I think I saw hair. The hair had a dyed look and an old look about it. The dye was certainly not something that was done recently. It was red.

"I work with wigs a lot and it didn't feel new.

"I felt a bit shaken and had to go back to the house.

"I hadn't noticed the smell at first, but when I got home the smell on my gloves was really overpowering."

Ms Anderson went home and returned to the scene with her partner, civil engineer Jem Kitchen, 47, who contacted the police.



Okay, what the hay.
who the hECK does that? She saw a suspicious blue back and picked it up. (okay, not that bad). She sees hair. (errm). she doesn't notice the smell til later?! SHE TAKES IT HOME WITH HER? her PARTNER CONTACTS THE POLICE only AFTER returning to the scene? What the.. WEIRDO

grace used to live under a rock.

that's just something that i just said

is has nothing to do with what i'm about to do

just some links
because i don't know where else to put them
and i don't want to forget just yet


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8682558.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8677637.stm

Will life ever change for children like Mohammed? Can it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8549756.stm
This is an article about a boy named Mohammed who is 11 years old and sells cigarettes for $2/day. His mother is sick and his father is a poor rickshaw driver. Mohammed weaves in and out of traffic, avoiding cars, to sell cigarettes... hopefully avoiding those who'll want to take a cigarette without paying or who would hit him because they disagree about the price.
he doesn't go to school.

Dhaka UN Development Programme spokesman Sakil Faizullah says that most working children cannot afford the time to attend regular schooling.
"Because these girls and boys do not have access to education, they become trapped in low-skilled, low-income jobs, which further push them into the vicious cycle of inter-generational poverty," he said.
"Many occupations involve working in hazardous conditions that endanger the child's physical or mental health and moral development."


how can i actively care?


Just got back from the Women/Children's shelter. makes me think. makes me discouraged. makes me tired. makes me grateful. makes me think.

*yawn*

i'm tired of reading all those articles about how books will be replaced by the kindle/ipad/[insert electronic device here].

it gets me all riled up unfortunately.

i'm tired of reading all the refutations as well.

Honestly, I think it's because people have nothing to say so they drum up the same tired predictions over and over again so they can hit their quota and take home a paycheck.

Because we all know that half the predictions will be wrong and then 50 years from now, used as an example of how we never imagined "such and such" could have existed and even refuted it!.. I mean that's what we do now isn't it? Pick-and-choose research.

umm so yeah.

3 of my friends are engaged. it makes sense that i write this.

anyway i just read this article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/single-marry

okay; a lie; i began reading it because it had an intriguing, gutsy premise.. and then it kept on going and going and going.. so i stopped and decided to link it and post my thoughts.

i also happened to watch this right after: http://vimeo.com/9044218


what the HECK.

The first article scared me a little... made me think; was interesting..
The second video was like uhhh... how sad.

I'm not trying to be hoity toity but yeah.

That's all.

asia america where have you gone?

As i read laurence yep and amy tan to my kids i realize that these are the pioneers of asian american literature.

if you know me, you know for the most part, i hate asian american literature. just like an asian, it tries SO hard. but maybe what i didn't like wasn't the actual literature (despite my professed hatred of all things amy tan, i've read almost all her books), but i hated the box it placed me into.


to backtrack, i never identified myself as Asian or Korean. I was American. I hated the term white-washed as well since hello i was born and raised in america..of course i'm american... if my parents wanted me to be korean, they should and would have stayed there.

anyway,fast forward to high school.. as Miss Chin (ironical cruel twist of fate gave her many), a student teacher, led The Joy Luck Club discussions. "What does X show about Asian American identity?" "How does Joy Luck Club show what all asians in america are like?" okay, maybe not so extreme, but it was definitely annoying.. i'm Korean American if anything, I never grew up believing in ghosts, and my parents didn't pressure me academically. Asian American is not a box.

But, admittedly, they opened up discussion. When I teach Asian American short stories to middle school kids who are if anything, American Asians, it moves me that I am able to bring something they can relate to. As my teaching manual tells me to "accustom your students to a different culture, discuss Asia-related topics, compare and contrast the Asian perspective to their own perspective", I not only find it ironic but a refreshing challenge to teach Asian American literature to international Asian americans.... and THEN i realize.. WOW how crazy it is that they took the leap to write literature. what asian parent would like that?
even NOW you don't see asian american writers.. and when you do, it's always some mumbo jumbo-y stuff on art, dragons, weird twisted love..okay, oops.. off track.


that is all to say though, for once in my life, i'm interested. especially as i prepare to study again, i want to take my comparative literature background and re-explore American literature, and how in this current day and age, the idea of AMERICAN encompasses more of the secondary cultures aspect than ever before..

and i want to write.


maybe it'll be titled "my crazy grandmother."





heeheee: a few weeks ago in 7th grade reading class

"My mom's coming to visit in March!"
"Oh! Is your crazy grandmother coming too?"
"Gordon! You can't call her that - I may call her that but she's MY grandmother. Make sure you never call her the crazy grandmother.. especially in front of my mom!"
"Oh."


oh Gordon.

gordon is another kettle of fish altogether.

cute little Sid-the-sloth-from Ice age doppelganger with a hint of asberger's and a big heart? makes me want to laugh and give up and laugh some more ..in despairing helplessness always remedied by when he pats my back and tells me "Miss Kim, it's all right!" (No Gordon it's not - you need to turn in your work late tomorrow)

Grace reminded me February is Black History Month.

The Sword and The Robe
By Thurgood Marshall

The task of interpretation is the cornerstone of the judicial process. As we undertake it, we must strive for neutrality. None of us is perfect, and I recognize that neutrality is more ideal than real. Each of us brings along to the judicial role certain preconceived biases. It is, I suppose, impossible to make a decision totally uninfluenced by them. But we as judges must try to do so to the extent we possibly can.

This ideal of neutrality is particularly hard to maintain in times such as these, when our society faces major unsolved problems. Indeed, we judges are frequently criticized these days for our neutrality. For example, it is argued by some members of our society that the judiciary has not taken an active enough role in combating crime. It is urged that we as judges, should take sides, that we should stand shoulder to shoulder with the police and prosecutors. Convictions should be easier, appellate review more rapid and resort to habeas corpus – what the founders of this republic called the Great Writ – drastically curtailed. All of this frightens me, because when I was in law school, I was taught not that judges were there to see the defendant convicted and punished in every case but that they were there to see justice done in every case. Of course the state had to carry a heavy burden to obtain a conviction. Of course appellate judges would weigh each case carefully. Of course an individual, once convicted, could attack his sentence later. This, so I was taught, was not to coddle the guilty but to protect the innocent. I was raised in the days when the prevailing maxim was: "It is better that a thousand guilty people go free than that one innocent person suffer unjustly.

Well, that's just what I was taught, and maybe I was taught wrong. But the suggestion that we as judges take sides frightens me for another, more fundamental reason as well. As I have said, judges are required in our system to be as neutral as they possibly can, to stand above the political questions in which the other branches of government are necessarily entangled. The Constitution established a legislative branch to make the laws and an executive branch to enforce them. Both branches are elected and are designed to respond to everchanging public concern, and problems. Indeed, as we were reminded just last November, the failure of either branch to respond to the will of the majority can quickly be remedied at the polls.

Bar the framers of the Constitution recognized that responsiveness to the will of the majority may, if unchecked, become a tyranny of the majority. They therefore created a third branch – the judiciary – to check the actions of the legislature and the executive. In order to fulfill this function, the judiciary was intentionally isolated from the political process and purposely spared the task of dealing with changing public concerns and problems. Article III judges are guaranteed life tenure. Similarly, their compensation cannot be decreased during their term in office – a provision, as we have recently seen, that certainly has its tangible benefits, Finally, the constitutional task we are assigned as judges is a very narrow one. We cannot make the laws, and it is not our duty to see that they are enforced. We merely interpret them through the painstaking process of adjudicating actual "cases or controversies" that come before us.

We have seen what happens when the courts have permitted themselves to be moved by prevailing political pressures and have deferred to the mob rather than interpret the Constitution. Dred Scott, Plessy, Korematsu, and the trial proceedings in Moore v. Dempsey, come readily to mind as unfortunate examples. They are decisions of which the entire judicial community, even after all these years, should be ashamed. There have also been times when the courts have stood proudly as a bulwark against what was politically expedient but also unconstitutional. One need only recall the school desegregation cases to understand why this ability to stand above the fray is so important.

Our central function is to act as neutral arbiters of disputes that arise under the law. To this end, we bind ourselves through our own code of ethics to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or partiality. We must handle the cases that come before us without regard for what result might meet with public approval. We must decide each case in accordance with the law. We must not reach for a result that we, in our arrogance, believe will further some goal not related to the concrete case before us. And we must treat the litigants in every case in an evenhanded manner. It would be as wrong to favor the prosecution in every criminal case as it would be to favor the plaintiff in every tort suit.

We must never forget that the only real source of power that we as judges can tap is the respect of the people. We will command that respect only as long as we strive for neutrality. If we are perceived as campaigning for particular policies, as joining with other branches of government in resolving questions not committed to us by the Constitution, we may gain some public acclaim in the short run. In the long run, however, we will cease to be perceived as neutral arbiters, and we will lose that public respect so vital to our function.

I do not suggest that we as judges should not be concerned about the problem of crime. Every thinking American is worried about it. And just about all of us have lurking somewhere in the back of our minds what we consider the ideal solution.

But when we accepted the judicial mantle, we yielded our right to advocate publicly our favored solutions for society's problems. The tools for solving these problems are in the hands of the other branches of government because that is where the Constitution has placed them. That is also where we should leave them. I therefore urge that you politely disregard any suggestion that you give up the robe for the sword.

Mary Jane: my legal friend?

Selina, my coworker told me that marijuana is now legal in California. I flat out said, "No way, I don't believe you!" My reasons being that there has been no hoopla over this, and yes, there already might be legal medical marijuana, and California is a more open state, but for SURE there would have been some sort of hullaballoo over this, no?

But then, onto my trusty NY Times blares this headline: Committee Approves Calif. Pot Legalization Bill

Say what?

And indeed, that does seem to be the case:
A bill seeking to legalize marijuana in California won initial approval from a legislative committee Tuesday in what may be a purely symbolic vote because a second committee likely won't take it up in time.

The state Assembly's public safety committee voted 4-3 on the measure that would tax and regulate marijuana in the same way alcohol is controlled.

However, upon closer inspection, it probably won't come to be.

But the health committee also must approve the measure by Friday before the full Assembly can consider it, an unlikely scenario.

The health committee is not considering the bill during its meeting Tuesday. And the bill's backers would have to get a special waiver to reconvene the health committee later this week.

Which allows this substance-free being to relax a bit. But then, what is up with this? "a purely symbolic vote"? You know what this is, right? It's injecting it into the system. It's making the possibility of such a bill a plausible reality... and usually, the way our relative society works is
1) mention something AWFUL/WEIRD/CRAZY
2) Keep on mentioning it (subliminal! .. or not so subtly)
3) Make waves proposing something crazy
4) Garner more popular support from people for various reasons
5) Slowly the idea is no longer crazy
6) A modest, cautious compromise is made
7) Later on down the years, the previous "making waves" news is waved in with the times.


Sometimes this is a good thing (ie getting rid of slavery). Most times, we don't always have that blessed discernment.

ANYWAY BACK to this issue, it appears that people agree with me

If the bill does die, a spokesman for the bill's author, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, said the San Francisco Democrat would hold off on reintroducing legislation until after the November election, which could feature a marijuana legalization ballot proposition.

Though the successful committee vote could end up being purely symbolic, pot advocates hailed it as an important step forward.

''We're thrilled,'' said Stephen Gutwillig of the Drug Policy Alliance, a pro-legalization group. ''This to me, this is the formal beginning of the end of marijuana prohibition in the United States.''



But this isn't what irks me.
What irks me is this:
The legislation would allow adults 21 and older to legally possess, grow and sell marijuana. The state would charge a $50-per-ounce fee and a 9 percent tax on retail sales.

State tax collectors have estimated the bill could bring in nearly $1.4 billion in revenue.

A HA!
I remember last year listening to the radio about how legalizing marijuana could do wonders for California's economy... and how "cooperative" and eager such growers are to comply. (sure sure, let's fast forward ten years when Pot Lobbyists take over our government. LOVELY! absolutely LOVELY!) AND NOW look.

What bugs me, is this bid to legalize marijuana is from greed, and from a desire for a simpler solution to get out of this economic mess that California dug itself into. What the California, can't we do better than that?

AND I bet we'll reach a calmer solution.
We'll mollify the public by giving more money to schools, lowering the UC system fees hike by 15%, and stressing that there would be regulation and rules (just like how we successfully controlled cigarettes and alcohol ... except the last time I checked cigarettes and alcohol related deaths still rank in the top ten causes in the US)


oh and of course:
Under the bill, much of that money would go to fund drug abuse education and prevention programs. Republican Assemblyman Danny Gilmore ridiculed that idea during the hearing at the state Capitol.


Oh whew. Thanks~! Great, now I can rest easy.

I think this dude says it best:

"We're going to legalize marijuana, we're going to tax it, and then we're going to educate our kids about the harms of drugs?'' said Gilmore, a 31-year veteran of the California Highway Patrol. ''You've got to be kidding me.''


This is retarded.

Where were these people in 7th grade when we learned that "marijuana" is the gateway drug.

SURE.
LAUGH AT ME!


or tell me to "take care of my own life" and don't butt into others'.


The thing is; when people start smoking, drinking, engaging in weird substances, it DOES affect me.
* drunk drivers
* second hand smoke
* second hand marijuana smoke (favorite Breakfast in Berkeley I tell ya)
* lobbyists who are filthy rich
* (future/past/current) friends who get addicted
* (future/past/current) friends who don't have all the pieces together in the mental department.



whatever, there's more.
whatever.

this is just dumb and makes me mad.

Oh yeah.. it MESSES WITH YOUR MIND!



and i mean when I was in high school there were PLENTY of people smoking pot when it was ILLEGAL! How much more kids will be doing this when it's legalized? COME ON! How many kids would not start if they see their teachers taking an MJ break? Come ON!

but it's attractive.

"Some wonder why many of us are making such a big fuss about the Manhattan Declaration, and I’d submit that it is because some of us see a dangerous drift happening. Packer, who signed the MD and also the original ECT document, is representative of this drift. It seems, and this deserves further exploration, that Packer’s initial steps in this direction started in the mid-1960s, then bloomed more fully in the decade following. Packer’s biographer, Alistar McGrath, acknowledges that Packer’s support of ECT “can be seen to rest on precisely the theological foundations developed by Packer in England during the 1970s” (J. I. Packer, p. 160). Specifically, Packer took the side of evangelical ecumenism in opposition to Lloyd-Jones in 1966, then co-authored a work with two Anglo-Catholics in 1970 (Growing into Union) that many evangelicals felt conceded too much biblical ground on critical doctrinal issues. The publication of that work led to the formal break between Lloyd-Jones and Packer, bringing an end to the Puritan Conferences.

I think this backdrop is important so that we see this issue in relation to the larger issues. Too many defenses of the signers of the MD err precisely by seeing only this document, not the larger questions on the table and trends at work. Once ecumenism has been embraced, common ground becomes the goal. That almost without fail means that differences are minimized or dismissed altogether. Perceived piety or devotion to good works gradually trump soundness on the gospel as the evidence of genuine Christianity. That seems like the only way to explain how Packer can claim that Teresa is a model Christian because “what one does for others is the real test of the genuineness and depth of one’s love to God, and specifically to Jesus Christ the Lord” (p. 262).

As I said earlier on this subject, the Manhattan Declaration represents another step toward accepting the false notion that being a Christian is demonstrated by doing something about social issues. It seems clear to me that J. I. Packer has taken that step."

http://gloryandgrace.dbts.edu/?p=188

ecumenism is attractive to me. a desire to be friends with everyone (people pleasing), a desire for social justice (perhaps stronger than a desire for personal piety and holiness a la James 1) makes the perfect formula for a wish for "why can't we just all get along?"

but, i'm also really stubborn and i don't like to be self-contradictory, and it doesn't make sense for me, to "hold hands and kumbaya" with people who don't hold to the same core views. If we have different reasons for wanting the same outcome, it's bound to turn out like a man on two horses. The horses might run together for a while, and he'll look really cool, but one horse is bound to turn one way or another and the man will fall; or even worse, the horses will approach a tree and the horses will naturally swerve to avoid the tree and the man will slam into the tree. It's bound to happen - at least it does in cartoons anyway.

the point of this is just to say, i wish, but i understand why not. and perhaps this is a good time to understand this as many of my friends go onto humanitarian efforts... just because we both seek relief for the downtrodden, doesn't mean we do so with the same motives or even that we can cooperate together beyond a certain superficial point.


i feel regretful, but it's only surface regret. i think right underneath that little crust, i know what i know.. but i want to at least acknowledge that it's not a single, determined, ignoring-all-other-options knowledge.

-~-~-~-~-~-

in other news. it makes sense that true Christians would have the gift of literacy... since true Christians want the Word and since the Bible isn't easy literature, people are naturally going to get better at expressing themselves and understanding. Furthermore, I think logic also gets a boost since we're not as blinded by sin. Really! Does this sound bigoted? I hope not. I KNOW there are plenty of non-Christian geniuses with great literacy. .. but there's also a lot of not-smart Christians, who for some reason can write or speak beautifully, logically, simply, or clearly.

response

The Side A/Side B debatefrom More Musings on Christianity, Homosexuality, and the Bible by Misty

As many of you know, there is a debate among gay Christians about what the Bible teaches regarding same-sex sexual relationships. "Side A" believes that God approves of same-sex sexual relationships and that living a chaste life means abstaining from sex prior to entering into same-sex marriage. "Side B" believes that God does not approve of same-sex sexual relationships and that living a chaste life means living celibate (or, in some cases, being married to an opposite-sex partner, where both partners know it is a "mixed orientation" marriage). In my writings I have sometimes referred to Side A as the "affirming" position and Side B as the "traditional" position. I just like the idea of using terms that aren't judgmental or inflammatory when engaging in this debate.

Yet even though I take the Side B position, more than half of my gay Christian friends are Side A and we get along just fine. Why is that? I first began to realize that there were Side A evangelical Christians out there when I began meeting them at gay churches and gay Christian Bible studies. I'd worship with them, discuss the Scriptures, share testmonies and prayer requests. A group of Side A Christians prayed for me and supported me during the entire controversy I went through with my old denomination. When you experience that kind of close fellowship with one another, you can't deny the presence of the Holy Spirit is among you.

I also came to understand that many Side A evangelicals have scripturally-based reasons for believing as they do. Some arguments are very sound while others I can't agree with. But I agree with them on all the important things: the central doctrines of the gospel and the saving work of Jesus Christ. I just don't agree with their understanding of what the Bible teaches about the specific issue of whether homosexual sexual relations is sinful.

So this is how I've come to think of our differences. Suppose I were asked to write out a list of sins for which I think Jesus died on the cross. This list would represent my interpretation of what Scripture teaches to be sin. I might put down a thousand things on that list, one of which would be homosexual sexual relations. Then I'd leave a large section at the bottom of the paper blank for all the sins I might have left out, perhaps out of ignorance or self-deception or whatever. A Side A Christian might do the exact same thing, except he or she excludes homosexual sexual relations from their list and instead includes the sin of thinking homosexual sexual relations is a sin. So we have both included something on our list that the other person has excluded, and excluded something that the other has included. And we both acknowledge that our own lists are probably very flawed.

Now when we both come before Jesus to ask for forgiveness of our sins, we know that he pays for everything regardless of whether we have included them on our "list" or not. We both come with humility of mind, trusting that his blood will cover not just the sins we've acknowledged but also the ones we've failed to acknowledge because of ignorance, prejudice, hardness of heart, or whatever. So in the end does it really matter if a Side A Christian and a Side B Christian don't agree with each other's "lists"?

The main thing is that we both come before Christ knowing that he can remove all our transgressions, whether we fully understand what those transgressions are or not. In Christ there are no more lists. Our lists have been wiped clean, both what was on it and what we failed to put on them. And since we both come away from the throne of grace so thoroughly cleansed and perfected in Christ's righteousness, can't we forgive each other those disagreements that the blood of Christ has ultimately made irrelevant?

..






So, I subscribe to Misty's blog, initially because she had some candid food for thought especially during the times of Prop 8. I am very interested in the homosexual community and what's been going around in terms of society in the past ten years, and it seems like there are few people (besides Al Mohler and John Piper) who really address homosexuality in a balanced, loving, and curious way. I like where she goes with this article except I think where Misty and I part in terms of thought is in her last paragraph.




The main thing is that we both come before Christ knowing that he can remove all our transgressions, whether we fully understand what those transgressions are or not. In Christ there are no more lists. Our lists have been wiped clean, both what was on it and what we failed to put on them. And since we both come away from the throne of grace so thoroughly cleansed and perfected in Christ's righteousness, can't we forgive each other those disagreements that the blood of Christ has ultimately made irrelevant?




Simply because all my sins have been wiped clean does not mean that I continue sinning if I can help it. For a long time, I didn't know pride was a sin. I really didn't. When I found out (the hard way), I had to change! I had to change because sin is not to be taken lightly. One sin is all it took for a fatty cup of wrath to have my name written on it. One sin was all it took for that said cup of wrath to be poured upon Jesus Christ. One sin was all it took for my Savior to be physically mauled and humiliated and spiritually mauled and humiliated a gajillion times worse. One sin was all it took for the perfect relationship of the trinity to be split. One sin was all it took for God to take PLEASURE in killing His Son.


The Bible is pretty clear. But our eyes are mucusy, there's a film. And as we grow in Christ, what used to be dim becomes clear; the way we thought as a child matures when we grow into an adult. Heck, that statement itself demonstrates this fact. I cannot condemn a brother or sister for engaging in a sin out of ignorance. I cannot judge. But, I can encourage the brethren and challenge predispositions and thoughts with the inerrant truth of the Scripture. I can do that at least because others have loved me enough to do that for me. We sharpen each other. We are USED by God to sanctify each other.. to clear our minds. We cannot judge because we are not the Judge; but pointing out error is not bigotry or prejudice. Pointing out error is loving. Because of these "Side A Christians" truly love God, they WOULD want to obey His commands. Same goes for me, as a "Side B Christian." I want to obey God's commands.


That's why rather than throwing in the towel and refusing to fight over the "technicalities" of sin that Christ died for anyway, we need to be careful and really seek out within us that which we can submit to the Lord. Our sins have been washed clean, and while we're on earth, we can not be perfect. Yet we can bring joy to the Lord when we demonstrate repentance with a desire to not return to the things of the world. I think that goes for everything, whether it's sexual or dietary preference.