We just finished handing out all our candy, 7:26pm, 350 pieces (we gave some kids two of the smaller pieces). Last year it was closer to 8...quite a few, and still a lot walking by.
And, I am proud to say that I didn't eat a single piece. One of the advantages of having so many kids so quickly :) I DID enjoy a nice big piece of maple bacon wedding cake this weekend at the wedding we were at (all the food was fantastic actually). The cake was as good as it sounds!
Monday, October 31, 2011
Thursday, October 27, 2011
It Gets Better Project - Republicans
I've been following the "It Gets Better" project since it started over a year ago by Dan Savage and others. There are thousands (maybe millions) of It Gets Better videos that have been made by gay people, advocates, companies, and I'm glad to say even many professional sports teams now have added videos. The Advocate published an article yesterday with a link to an It Gets Better video made by all of the senators and representatives from New Jersey - ALL of them, including the 3 Republicans. I commend them for putting aside political differences and addressing need for change with the problems of kids getting bullied and feeling the need to commit suicide.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Dear Me...
One of my dear friends recently posted a blog entry about an article about celebrities writing letters to their younger selves - cleverly titled Dear Me. Our diversity groups at work have had similar exercises, the results of which people within the group have shared.
I've done this exercise in my head many times. Maybe I have watched and read too much sci-fi and have "seen" the bad things that can happen because of messing with the timeline, but I always end up on the skeptical side of making changes. ("Back to the Future" is probably the most widely known example. If you're more geeky, Star Trek: The Next Generation had an episode called "Parallels" which discussed alternate realities. Star Trek: Voyager had several episodes dealing with time travel and the "temporal prime directive" and how bad things can get when you mess with time).
In any case, it's always been very hard for me to come up with things I would actually tell my younger self, for fear that I would actually make things turn out worse somehow. Maybe that is a testament to how well I think my life has turned out (?), maybe I haven't made too many major mistakes (?). I always come up with about 2 or 3 very specific things I'd probably like to undo (I won't share these :) But I also think I might encourage my younger self to not be so afraid to do things - almost every regret I come up with is usually something I DIDN'T do.
My friend and I also agreed that maybe the point of the exercise is to make sure you learn from your mistakes (since you can't actually go tell your younger self stuff).
I've done this exercise in my head many times. Maybe I have watched and read too much sci-fi and have "seen" the bad things that can happen because of messing with the timeline, but I always end up on the skeptical side of making changes. ("Back to the Future" is probably the most widely known example. If you're more geeky, Star Trek: The Next Generation had an episode called "Parallels" which discussed alternate realities. Star Trek: Voyager had several episodes dealing with time travel and the "temporal prime directive" and how bad things can get when you mess with time).
In any case, it's always been very hard for me to come up with things I would actually tell my younger self, for fear that I would actually make things turn out worse somehow. Maybe that is a testament to how well I think my life has turned out (?), maybe I haven't made too many major mistakes (?). I always come up with about 2 or 3 very specific things I'd probably like to undo (I won't share these :) But I also think I might encourage my younger self to not be so afraid to do things - almost every regret I come up with is usually something I DIDN'T do.
My friend and I also agreed that maybe the point of the exercise is to make sure you learn from your mistakes (since you can't actually go tell your younger self stuff).
vs.
WARNING: rant ahead.
I have a set of geek podcasts I listen to, one of them being NPR's "Science Friday". They're pretty hit and miss, some are fluff and some are really interesting, depends on the speaker usually.
Anyway, the one I listened to yesterday was about "denialism" of science in our society. Basically, the group of science-oriented people who think that people who ignore science because of some other belief (religion, morality, or just plain ignorance) are stupid and wrong. Just like people who perceive science conflicting with their religious or moral beliefs are stupid and wrong.
Now...I'm not defending a "side" here, and in fact I am really tired of the fact that we have "sides" in the first place. In this particular case, the issue is always portrayed as "science vs. religion" or "science vs. morality", as if they are really two comparable things.
Science, to my understanding, and based on definitions I've found, is basically the process of understanding and explaining how things work. How things "are". Conclusions, theories, postulates, etc. in science can be proven or dis-proven, and to me, a good scientist is always in pursuit of the truth, meaning their goal should be to better understand how the world around them works, functions, etc.
Faith, religion, morality, etc. are essentially a set of beliefs a person has about what's right and wrong, or how the world should be, or in an abstract sense, the "why" behind how the world is.
Scientific understandings can certainly be APPLIED - as a factor in creating and inventing new things, making things work better, and making decisions as a society or government on the laws and policies we make.
Beliefs can also be APPLIED in a similar manner - many of society's laws and rules have a moral as well as practical basis (we all agree that people shouldn't kill other people, that we shouldn't steal from each other, etc.)
The problem is when these two things are equated. It is all too easy to look through history and see where a particular religion or belief system "took offense" to a scientific explanation of how something in the world works. When scientists in the middle ages learned that the sun and planets didn't revolve around the earth, they were made to be religious heretics because that threatened a belief that the earth and its people were somehow "divine".
Did the fact that we now understood something that we didn't understand before actually change the scientific reality of anything? No. Did that have to mean that the people's belief that the earth and its people were special or "divine" really have to change? No - in fact it seems like it should never really be a big stretch for someone who believes in a higher power to believe that maybe the higher power knows more than they do (duh).
Likewise, we see scientists who have turned their science into their belief system - that every scientific conclusion should dictate the way we live, and that if we don't "believe" in this science and do as it "instructs" we are wrong. (NOTE I'm not talking about a person choosing to believe there is no higher power or choosing not to have a belief system, which is an individual choice). The examples that came up in this podcast were genetically modified food, and abortion. This guy's argument was that because no one has gotten "significantly ill" because of genetically modified food (a subjective phrase, not a scientific one), that we should all just be ok with it. And that on abortion, if science were to prove that an unborn fetus less than 3 months old couldn't actually feel the abortion procedure being done, that everyone against abortion should rethink their views and be ok with that and that we're stupid and ignorant if we're not. In effect, creating (ironically) a belief system out of science.
The particular abortion discussion that was going on was between this speaker and a caller who was fairly obviously against abortion - but in this case I felt like she was at least making the distinction between science and her beliefs - basically saying that one of the reasons she BELIEVES abortion is wrong is because of scientific evidence that a fetus can feel what's going on.
I guess the frustration I have really is that everything in our society seems to be geared toward A vs. B, yes or no, up-or-down votes, one-word answers, polarization, where in reality issues are complicated and most people are somewhere in the middle. Politicians are the worst on this, and the media feeds into it as well.
"Either you're pro-life or you're pro-choice."
"For genetically modified food or against it."
"For or against gay marriage."
"Democrat or Republican."
"Creation or Evolution."
and my personal favorite "If you're not a Republican then you must be against God."
That's just a short list. If I look those over, I know that on most of them I have more than one opinion and have a whole range of feelings on them, and some can't even be directly compared. The creation vs. evolution example is along the same lines as the earlier mention of "heretics" that thought everything revolved around the earth. Just because we now understand something more about the world (that evolution has gone on and is still going on today), does that preclude the existence of God or a higher power? Of course not - in fact I'd say that a higher power designing a planet would probably want to have designed in the capability of things to evolve and adapt if they wanted it to survive a long time. It isn't a big stretch to think the writers of the bible wrote things in terms they understood AT THE TIME - that doesn't make them wrong, it just means we know more about how our world works now than they did then.
I have a set of geek podcasts I listen to, one of them being NPR's "Science Friday". They're pretty hit and miss, some are fluff and some are really interesting, depends on the speaker usually.
Anyway, the one I listened to yesterday was about "denialism" of science in our society. Basically, the group of science-oriented people who think that people who ignore science because of some other belief (religion, morality, or just plain ignorance) are stupid and wrong. Just like people who perceive science conflicting with their religious or moral beliefs are stupid and wrong.
Now...I'm not defending a "side" here, and in fact I am really tired of the fact that we have "sides" in the first place. In this particular case, the issue is always portrayed as "science vs. religion" or "science vs. morality", as if they are really two comparable things.
Science, to my understanding, and based on definitions I've found, is basically the process of understanding and explaining how things work. How things "are". Conclusions, theories, postulates, etc. in science can be proven or dis-proven, and to me, a good scientist is always in pursuit of the truth, meaning their goal should be to better understand how the world around them works, functions, etc.
Faith, religion, morality, etc. are essentially a set of beliefs a person has about what's right and wrong, or how the world should be, or in an abstract sense, the "why" behind how the world is.
Scientific understandings can certainly be APPLIED - as a factor in creating and inventing new things, making things work better, and making decisions as a society or government on the laws and policies we make.
Beliefs can also be APPLIED in a similar manner - many of society's laws and rules have a moral as well as practical basis (we all agree that people shouldn't kill other people, that we shouldn't steal from each other, etc.)
The problem is when these two things are equated. It is all too easy to look through history and see where a particular religion or belief system "took offense" to a scientific explanation of how something in the world works. When scientists in the middle ages learned that the sun and planets didn't revolve around the earth, they were made to be religious heretics because that threatened a belief that the earth and its people were somehow "divine".
Did the fact that we now understood something that we didn't understand before actually change the scientific reality of anything? No. Did that have to mean that the people's belief that the earth and its people were special or "divine" really have to change? No - in fact it seems like it should never really be a big stretch for someone who believes in a higher power to believe that maybe the higher power knows more than they do (duh).
Likewise, we see scientists who have turned their science into their belief system - that every scientific conclusion should dictate the way we live, and that if we don't "believe" in this science and do as it "instructs" we are wrong. (NOTE I'm not talking about a person choosing to believe there is no higher power or choosing not to have a belief system, which is an individual choice). The examples that came up in this podcast were genetically modified food, and abortion. This guy's argument was that because no one has gotten "significantly ill" because of genetically modified food (a subjective phrase, not a scientific one), that we should all just be ok with it. And that on abortion, if science were to prove that an unborn fetus less than 3 months old couldn't actually feel the abortion procedure being done, that everyone against abortion should rethink their views and be ok with that and that we're stupid and ignorant if we're not. In effect, creating (ironically) a belief system out of science.
The particular abortion discussion that was going on was between this speaker and a caller who was fairly obviously against abortion - but in this case I felt like she was at least making the distinction between science and her beliefs - basically saying that one of the reasons she BELIEVES abortion is wrong is because of scientific evidence that a fetus can feel what's going on.
I guess the frustration I have really is that everything in our society seems to be geared toward A vs. B, yes or no, up-or-down votes, one-word answers, polarization, where in reality issues are complicated and most people are somewhere in the middle. Politicians are the worst on this, and the media feeds into it as well.
"Either you're pro-life or you're pro-choice."
"For genetically modified food or against it."
"For or against gay marriage."
"Democrat or Republican."
"Creation or Evolution."
and my personal favorite "If you're not a Republican then you must be against God."
That's just a short list. If I look those over, I know that on most of them I have more than one opinion and have a whole range of feelings on them, and some can't even be directly compared. The creation vs. evolution example is along the same lines as the earlier mention of "heretics" that thought everything revolved around the earth. Just because we now understand something more about the world (that evolution has gone on and is still going on today), does that preclude the existence of God or a higher power? Of course not - in fact I'd say that a higher power designing a planet would probably want to have designed in the capability of things to evolve and adapt if they wanted it to survive a long time. It isn't a big stretch to think the writers of the bible wrote things in terms they understood AT THE TIME - that doesn't make them wrong, it just means we know more about how our world works now than they did then.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Presbyterian Church, Madison, Wisconsin
Thanks to my faraway (in Iowa) friend Susan for sharing this one:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20111016/OPINION01/310160020/1036/Guest-columnist-long-journey-changed-heart
I grew up in a Presbyterian church so this means a little bit more to me. Blessings to Scott Anderson as he re-embarks on his journey as a pastor.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20111016/OPINION01/310160020/1036/Guest-columnist-long-journey-changed-heart
I grew up in a Presbyterian church so this means a little bit more to me. Blessings to Scott Anderson as he re-embarks on his journey as a pastor.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Yes to animal shelter adoption, no to animal breeders
I recently saw this posted on the Camp Companion Facebook page, and it broke my heart. I encourage everyone to read it, I'll warn you if you have pets of your own you will be in tears (but you should still read it and pass it on).
http://themagnificentsoil.tumblr.com/post/10716076247/a-letter-from-a-shelter-manager-anonymous-in
I realize there are "human" problems like poverty and hunger that we need to deal with and I'm not trying to inflate animal issues. But the problem with the uncontrolled population is one that can be solved. I certainly hope that employees at animal pounds treat the animals there with as much dignity and respect as possible - there is no reason to abuse animals, even if they are going to be put to sleep. However, animal pound employees are not the problem - they do not have the resources to deal with an overpopulation problem that is caused by people buying animals from breeders and then surrendering or abandoning them because "they're too much work" or "they didn't expect this or that".
There is NO need for pet breeders - we have plenty of available pets in this world just waiting for good homes. Even if you want a purebred, an estimated 30% of animals in shelters and rescues are purebreds. And pets need to be spayed and neutered!!! There is no good excuse for not doing this - for people that can't afford to have this done privately at their vet, there are public and private programs all over the place to help with this and many will even do it for free.
The animals that are euthanized at shelters for no good reason don't get a choice. We, as a society, need to step up and solve this very solvable problem that WE have created.
http://themagnificentsoil.tumblr.com/post/10716076247/a-letter-from-a-shelter-manager-anonymous-in
I realize there are "human" problems like poverty and hunger that we need to deal with and I'm not trying to inflate animal issues. But the problem with the uncontrolled population is one that can be solved. I certainly hope that employees at animal pounds treat the animals there with as much dignity and respect as possible - there is no reason to abuse animals, even if they are going to be put to sleep. However, animal pound employees are not the problem - they do not have the resources to deal with an overpopulation problem that is caused by people buying animals from breeders and then surrendering or abandoning them because "they're too much work" or "they didn't expect this or that".
There is NO need for pet breeders - we have plenty of available pets in this world just waiting for good homes. Even if you want a purebred, an estimated 30% of animals in shelters and rescues are purebreds. And pets need to be spayed and neutered!!! There is no good excuse for not doing this - for people that can't afford to have this done privately at their vet, there are public and private programs all over the place to help with this and many will even do it for free.
The animals that are euthanized at shelters for no good reason don't get a choice. We, as a society, need to step up and solve this very solvable problem that WE have created.
Friday, October 7, 2011
This one deserves a repost...
Thanks to friend Shelley for sharing this one - I, too, grew up with Mr. Rodgers Neighborhood and believe if we could all be more like Fred Rodgers, this world would be a wonderful place to be.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2011/09/each-of-you-is-special-just-because.html
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2011/09/each-of-you-is-special-just-because.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)