Sorry, that was me saying “My Butt!” in Turkish, which happens to be one of several languages in the world for which the letter I can be found in the word team.
In fact there are a plentiful stock of languages for which I can be found in team. These languages include:
The next time you hear your coach or some other fool tell you there’s no I in team, be sure to point out that there is in at least 28 languages.
Now some of you might be thinking this is stupid because the coach will point out we’re in America where we speak English. If you don’t immediately choose to play the discrimination card, you can point out that one of these languages is Vietnamese, and remind the coach that they have an I in team and America couldn’t beat them.
One of the many things I love about history is finding the origins to little things we take for granted. Among my favorites: prior to the latter 1800’s police as we think of them today did not exist. One of the first modern police forces was established in New York, primarily to handle the excessive population due to the influx of immigrants. To identify these police officers to the public they were given large badges that were made of copper. It became quite common for these men to be referred too as coppers and overtime this shortened to cops.
This is on my mind because a recurring problem I have had with Hollywood I have also found this afternoon in one of the books I’m reading. I suppose it particularly upsets me because this author has done a remarkable job of research and accuracy in his books, which take place between 500 B.C. and 300 A.D. It’s a common blunder created when people assume that words today meant the same thing before whatever happened to give them this meaning.
If I were to travel back to 1750 New York and called the local constable or night watchmen coppers, everyone would be looking at me funny or think I’d gone mad. Similarly, were I commanding a lot of archers during the Peloponnesian War and shouted, “Fire!” they would panic thinking the enemy had set our camp or some nearby terrain on fire, or possibly that a flamethrower was approaching our position (Yes, they had working and deadly efficient flamethrowers in 490 B.C.).
Today, we associate the word fire with, among other things, the discharge of any ranged weapon be it a gun, bow, catapult, cannon, etc.; however, this was not so prior to the advent of firearms.
Think about it. What purpose is their in saying fire to an archer? Fire has nothing to do with the use of bows, slings, catapults, ballistae, or trebuchets. Even in cases when arrows or whatever other projectiles may have been ignited, how would the soldiers know if their commander was calling for the regular launch of their weapons or ordering them to ignite their weapons and wait for him to say fire a second time. In fact the commanders of the time would actually say loose, release, let fly, or something along those lines.
A good place to look for this is in LOTR: Two Towers. As the Battle for Helms Deep begins Aragorn and Théoden both command their archers to attack. Aragorn gives the order correctly telling the elves to release their arrows. However, when Théoden give the command two of his subordinates incorrectly say “Fire!”
Not until the 1300’s when the first cannons, and later guns, began to appear on the battlefield would fire come to have its meaning. After a cannon, or gun, had been primed and loaded the commander would call “Fire!” instructing a man standing nearby to touch the torch he’d be carrying to the weapon, and thus discharging it.
The term was not common until the latter 1600’s when guns began to become the primary weapon for most armies. Due to the complexity of earlier cannons and guns the weapons were prone to misfire, and the men vulnerable to infantry and especially cavalry. The latter could easily charge across the field in the time it would take men to reload their guns.
As technology progressed torches were replaced by fuses, which at the time were small slow-burning pieces of rope. These fuses would be replaced by flint prior to the 1700’s, and so fire was no longer necessary. In describing the discharge of firearms men would often say spark after the use of flint began, but on the battlefield the command word remained fire. Eventually flint was replaced by percussion caps during the early 1800’s, and percussion caps were ultimately replaced in the late 1800’s by bullets as we know them today. In our time some people say shoot or shot when describing the discharge of firearms, not unlike when using flint had people saying spark, nevertheless the predominant word in the minds of people today remains fire.
In my younger days I used to do a lot of performances. I still love to dance, sing, act, and, especially after my senior year of high school, do my own stunts. I was always sad when the performance was over because the cast a crew would go our separate ways after having spent so much time together. I knew I’d see some of them again in other performances, heck I knew I’d see some of them the next day for one reason or another, but there would be an emptiness in my heart for the excess amount of time we spent together and that importance of our relationship when we worked together.
These thoughts occupy my mind tonight as I have finished the last of my finals for the Fall semester, and begin the long wait until spring semester starts. I will miss, and I shared this with some of them, my teachers and classmates. I miss some from summer semester, too.
I wish I had been a better friend during my high school and early college years. During that time in my life I slowly emerged from the isolationist bubble I had gotten used to. Now, the people I owe so much to are the people I miss the most, and had I been a better friend I might still have contact and miss them less. I have limited contact with a few who have moved around but there are others of such importance to me that I cannot describe whose names and faces have begun to fade.
To all of you I am grateful and have not but fond memories of the times we spent together, within performances and other capacities. Many of you may never know it but you have places among the characters in my writings both past and I’m sure the future. How I wish I could relive some of those precious moments.
Do not be concerned for me. I am well; I have a beautiful wife, and so far three amazing children. And like we told each other after all those shows and gatherings, we will see each other again, making new bonds and strengthening old ones in the next whatever that may come.
For the last several months my wife has been making a list of reasons for why she loves me. It’s a very nice thing to do, I enjoy reading it, and I’ll miss reading it when the list stops after our anniversary. In particular I’ve enjoyed reading the comments of various friends and family members made to certain things on this list, Freezer Tetris among my favorites.
My wife mentioned to me that some of her friends have been telling her now that she nears completion of this list that it is my turn. They believe I need to make a similar list for why I love my wife. This is not a bad idea. There’s certainly nothing forbidding or preventing me from composing such a list. I have as yet not made such a list because I do not feel it necessary, and I will tell you why.
My wife began making her list because she recognized that she was being quite cruel to me. She knew she was assuming the worst of me at all times and blaming me for all that was not perfect in her life, and she also knew this was damaging our family rather than strengthening it. She decided she needed to force herself to find the good in me, and I think it has worked marvelously.
Though her moments of cruelty cut me quite deeply on occasion, I have never subscribed to that idea of getting even. I’ve never attempted to be cruel to her in return, I’ve never blamed her solely responsible for any imperfections in our life, and though I do on occasion expect the worst from her I have never drawn a premature conclusion that she would act in the worst. We all have faults, some of us are more tolerant than others, some of us are more enduring than others, and some of us are more accepting than others.
I do not need to remind myself why I love my wife nor search for the reasons why I do so. If ever I were to compose a list of reasons it would be because I want to boast of my wife’s awesomeness, for she is awesome, not because I need to get over her faults. Boasting is something I try not to do because, in addition to leading to pride, it can hurt the feelings of people who have not had the same good fortunes that I have enjoyed.
An example: My wife has boasted much of me these last few months, if you don’t believe me then read her list. I submit that her boasting has made her friends saddened when they think of the inferior grade husbands they have gotten stuck with, and the fact that I haven’t made a list is one thing they can make out to be a fault with me in an attempt to assuage their lack of satisfaction with the aforementioned inferior models.
I do not wish to make my fellow brethren feel disappointed with their wives, and so I will not boast of my wife’s awesomeness.
One of my favorite side effects of writing stories is coming up with good ideas. To be clear, I’m not referring to good ideas to advance the plot or develop a character, but rather the good ideas that are applicable to reality.
Whilst brainstorming I had one such epiphany. In one of my most recent stories I had decided that the Terrans (humans for non sci-fi readers) had for their government a Democracy, based largely on the Athenian model. From this I segued into the Terrans being quiet highly educated, a practical necessity for a working Democracy, which in turn meant they must have an excellent educational system. This then got me to thinking about ways of solving, or simply eliminating, problems with our modern school system.
Now, I am by no means an expert in the workings of our educational system. That said, my humble opinion is that one of the foundation stones of the flaws in this system are committees and boards. There are other problems and multiple possible sources working together to cause them, but this seems like an important one that needs to go.
First, when there is a budget shortage cuts need to be made. Programs and Teachers seem to be the victims of these budget cuts. This results in the decrease of all extra curricular activities that are not the most popular of boys’ sports and an increase in the number of students per teacher.Unless I’m mistaken, committees and boards are the ones who make the decisions on what gets cut.
When talking about the education system however, it seems to me the most useless elements are the administrators and committees. The students are the most important people in the education system, and they need teachers, which makes teachers the second most important. Schools need an administrator or principal to make decisions, supply materials, and other functions that would otherwise require the teachers to spend more time accomplishing tasks that do not involve students. That’s where it should stop in my mind.
Committees and boards exist because people need/want oversight, watchdogs, and bureaucracy. Though these groups and their responsibilities are intended to make sure students get the best education (the job for which we are already paying teachers and principals) they in fact take away resources and valuable time from the students, teachers, and principals.
If you were one of a group of twelve people (this number has been chosen at random) whose job it is to determine how to spend money, would you recognize that it doesn’t really require twelve of you to make this decision? If you did would you elect to reduce the size of the board, thus risking your own job. If not, would you elect to have your pay and benefits reduced? Many of us may want to say we would, but how many seriously would follow through.
Instead these committees and boards elect to lay-off or reduce the compensation of what they perceive to be the things which are not as important as themselves: Programs and Teachers. If I’m not mistaken, these committees also are responsible for deciding what portion of funding goes to their pockets in the form of salary or benefits. And these committees and boards occasionally have additional committees or boards that preside over them. In essence we are paying lots of people lots of money to make sure that the people we hired to make sure the other people we hired are making sure that teachers and extra curricular programs are providing our kids the best education possible are getting rid of those same teachers and programs because by the time money trickles down to them, there are no funds left. I understand that last sentence may have been difficult, thus highlighting my point. To simplify I’ll use an example.
From the money intended to educate our children Joe is paid to make sure that Dan, who is also paid, is making sure that Mrs. Smith and other teachers are providing our children with the finest instruction in Math, Science, English, Sports, Music, History, Foreign Language, and Art. Each category has multiple sub categories such as: Algebra, Geometry, Biology, Chemistry, Literature, Writing, Football, Water Polo, Band, Choir, US history, World history, Spanish, French, Theater, Sculpting, and the list goes on. After Joe takes out his compensation, and Dan after him, the funds left for Mrs. Smith and these programs has already been depleted.
“But we need oversight! Got to have us some of that regulation!” some might say. Ok, keep your boards and committees but have state assemblies allot them separate funds instead of having these committees and boards tap into educational funds. In doing so if there’s a budget shortage then these committees and boards would have to get rid of their own members and the ones who remain would have to work harder, instead of them firing teachers and making the teachers that remain work harder. This should also ensure that every penny allotted to the education fund goes to education, not bureaucracy.
I love the idea of Alternate History stories because, being the history fanatic that I am, I’ve often theorized about how different happenings would have affected the world. I’m somewhat disappointed though. There are millions of interesting points in history to target, but most authors seem to pick the American Civil War or the Second World War.What if Carthage defeated Rome in the third Punic war? What if the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria, sank in a storm as they were crossing the Atlantic? What if John Calvin and Martin Luther never rebelled against the Catholic Church? I’d be interested in these.
I remember hearing of a book that I wanted to read but never found, I don’t remember the title, heck I might never have known it. It is a fact that during WW2 scientists were experimenting and making progress with technology that we still think of as futuristic. Examples include stealth technology, teleportation, and energy weapons. This book presented that Germany had successfully achieved time travel, and the hero of the story is a time traveler not from the future, but from the past. I thought that was cool.
My favorite idea for alternate history though was presented in an episode of an awesome TV show: Quantum Leap. In one particular episode Sam leaps into the body of a secret service agent the day of President Kennedy’s assassination.He’s unable to save the president but he is able to protect the first lady.We find out before the episode ends that originally both the president and first lady were killed, but now Sam has changed history, and so we, the audience, are living in an alternate timeline.This idea is awesome to me, the idea that we could already be living in an alternate history.
As for science fiction, it would be more appropriate to say I like space fiction. I prefer spaceships and adventures that travel across the galaxy over genetic engineering, chemistry, physics, or mathematics. I’d much rather read something like Star Trek and Star Wars instead of Jurassic Park or The Sphere. I like the adventure, and if the adventure is good I don’t care about the science that makes the adventure possible.Too many science fiction books bore me with how things work, I’d rather read about the things being used. I don’t need to know how the flux capacitor works, I’m content with being told that it works.
“If you give a mouse a cookie, he’s going to want a glass of milk,” (Laura Joffe Numeroff and Felicia Bond. If You Give a Mouse a Cookie.). This is arguably one of the most accurate allegories ever penned. When something is given to appease the ill content it sets a dangerous precedent, and the more giving that takes place, the stronger that precedent becomes. So it is that when rights and liberties are relinquished for one reason or another it becomes that much easier to reduce them a little more. Eventually, the time will come when there is nothing left to give, unless at some point the people say, “STOP!” Freedom of speech and religion are under slow attack as efforts are made to restrict them, and unless the American people stand firm these freedoms will eventually disappear entirely.
The most frequent burden upon freedom of speech is the argument of some speech being harmful to certain audiences or the public in general. In March 2006, a funeral was held in honor of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, a soldier killed in action during the war on terror. Not far away a church group was protesting with verbal and written messages speaking unfavorably about the country, the military, and perhaps the deceased and funeral guests directly as well. The father of the late marine sued the church leader, and won a huge settlement in the lower courts. After an appeal undid that settlement this argument found its way to the United States Supreme Court. The case is perceived as one that will set a powerful precedent to affect the future of freedom of speech.
Clearly, freedom of speech is not perfect. The messages presented by the religious group near this funeral were cruel, hurtful, untimely, and rude to say the least. Despite the unpleasantness of their content the messages expressed at this funeral are as if a simple case of name calling when compared to other graphic horrors written and spoken throughout the country. Groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and various splinter factions regularly speak unkindly about other races and ethnicities in public. Evangelists from around the world travel to Salt Lake City to shout unpleasant comments when the Latter-Day Saints gather for their semiannual conferences. During, but not limited to, the 2008 primary and presidential campaign there was no shortage of irreverent comments toward Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, not to mention women in general on a daily basis. Nevertheless, it was in 1791, and to this day remains, important that citizens be able not just to have their opinions and ideals, but to be able to share them publicly without fear of prosecution.
The Supreme Court has a tremendous opportunity in this case. Should they rule that the First Amendment protects the comments of the church group then life will continue without interruption. Should they decide the First Amendment does not apply in this instance, there could be broad consequences. Rules would have to be created or altered to determine how people can protest. Similarly, there would be changes to how people can share their opinions on religion, about the military, and politics. Conceivably these rules could include being so far away that the people protesting can’t be heard, and a list of words and phrases that can’t be used, because they are unpleasant, would be in need of constant update every time somebody heard one they did not like. Little by little freedom of speech will be eaten away in the attempt to please those who disapprove of what is being said. There is a statement often attributed to Benjamin Franklin or Voltaire, modern historians now speculate neither of them said this and remain uncertain to whom it can be credited, that speaks to how this matter should be settled: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
One opponent to freedom of religion has been the gay rights movement, and religion has already suffered a loss. In California, two doctors, because of their religious beliefs, declined to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient. These doctors arranged, out of their own pockets, for the patient to see another physician who had no qualms about the matter, and the patient has had three children since. In 2008, the patient sued the first two doctors for discrimination. This case eventually came before the California Supreme Court where it was unanimously decided that the doctors’ freedom of religion is trumped by the civil rights of the patient.
There are several key facts to display the lack of support for freedom of religion. The doctors did not deny treatment to an unwell patient; they declined to perform an elective procedure for personal reasons. Furthermore, the doctors went out of their way to arrange for the patient to still have her elective procedure with another physician, which the patient accepted and has had three successful procedures since. In addition the court’s decision is contradictory; freedom of religion is a civil right. Therefore the court’s decision can be interpreted several different ways: that the rights of two are less important than the rights of one, or possibly that the rights of one member of a minority (homosexuals) are more important than two members of a majority (heterosexuals), among other interpretations. Regardless of their reasoning, the precedent that freedom of religion can be trumped has been set.
This opens up the possibility of churches being attacked in a variety of ways since freedom of religion is no longer a reliable shield. There are many faiths that do not condone various activities or life choices, homosexuality one among many. Without freedom of religion, churches can be forced to perform ordinances for people not in alignment with their faith; the law would force them to commit what churches and churchgoers could perceive as blasphemy. Some churches would have to alter the teachings of their rhetoric, for some teachings, such as the discouragement of homosexuality, if not protected by freedom of religion, could easily be relabeled hate speech or discrimination. These are merely the conservative possibilities to which religions of every kind, having so many different philosophies between them, will be vulnerable.With more rules and regulations churches would become more and more uniform until an eventual point where the state could conceivably control every detail about theology in the country.
Restriction by definition states that more will be lost than gained. A decision is made to limit speech because of certain circumstances but it creates a precedent for more restrictions. Altering the idea of freedom of religion to freedom from disagreeable religion sets the stage for churches not necessarily run directly by the state but to teach by the dictates of it.
Our legal system is based on the idea that it is better to allow the guilty to go unpunished then to punish the innocent. Shouldn’t this same concept apply to our constitutional rights.
Several years ago I wrote a 60,000 word story, King Topher vs. The Legions of Forlgonaka, and I got a great many rejections from agents and publishers alike. Nobody wanted it.
While this was depressing, it was far from devastating. I knew the first day of my first professional writing class this was likely to happen. What was most irritating were my friends and family who suggested I was a fool for having hope that my stories would be successful someday.
Though daunted by these influences and other life events, I eventually got back to work on several new projects. Most of my time has been dedicated to a series of science fiction short stories I call Odd Space. I just got my first rejection letter today from a sci-fi magazine I'd hoped would publish the first of the series (I understand the purpose of form letters, but they're still annoying).
It wasn't quite as bothersome being rejected again. I suppose I've gotten used to it, or rather more used to it. I also suspect this while I was contemplating my submission. Though I believe I could argue that my story was what they wanted it was clear they wanted a little more on new and useful technology in their publications, where as my story focused more on humanity in the future.
I could quit. Stop wasting my time writing and focus on nursing or IT, two carriers that are actually making money today, but. . . like so many have said: I am a fool.
Time to prepare my submission for another magazine, hopefully I'll have a better report in a few weeks.
It has come to my attention that there are some mixed reactions (surprise, surprise) to something my wife recently said about me. Having waited and listened to the secondary sources I feel the time is right for me to speak up on this matter.
My wife has said one reason she loves me is that I don’t play video games as often as I used too. This, much to the dismay of two indescribably valuable friends, and myself, is true. I used to play video games all the time, but lately I’m lucky if I can sneak in an hour or two per week.
One reason is because I don’t have any new games. In the abundance of time that unemployment has provided me I’ve played and even beaten my games several times. I’ve accomplished all that there is, or all that I desire, to accomplish in them.When I have found time to play I get bored rather quickly because of this and will pop in two or three games for maybe 5 minutes each before deciding I don’t want to play anymore. What new games I have acquired in the last year are actually old games I remember fondly from years ago, and so they are not a new experience for me.
I don’t have time to play video games anymore. Going back to school, which I love, occupies the majority of my time with classes and especially homework.I also have lessons to prepare for Elder’s Quorum, and unlike some teachers I like to put thought and effort into my teaching. What little time I have in between these is used for job searching and on occasion, eating and sleeping. I also get distracted with little projects I want to complete, such as correcting misconceptions about my faith and writing stories for publication, friends, and family.
I have other things I want to do with the little bits of free time I have. I have three kids, only one of whom is old enough to be playing video games and there are only two I want her to play at this point. They like it when I chase, wrestle, sing, dance, and tickle them. They smile at me when they want to play with me, how am I supposed to resist that?! I used to hate reading, but somehow Shirley has got me interested in it. I’ve read more books this last year than I have in all 28 before. I was already familiar with some of the authors I’ve been reading, but I discovered two authors whom I love and sadly they’ve only written three books each. I highly recommend Sandra McDonald’s Sci-Fi trilogy (a bit more profanity than preferred but I got over it) and Michael Curtis Ford’s historical fiction.
Now, having said all this, let me be clear: I still love and want to play video games. I have not been “cured” of this so called video game disease or addiction. I’m keeping a list of video games I intend to play as soon as I have the money to afford them. If any of you care to make a donation to prevent this poor soul (me) of falling away from the purer faith (that video games are awesome) your contributions would be most welcome and appreciated.
The List (not a complete list or in any particular order):
Mass Effect 2 (360)
Halo: Reach (360)
Fable 3 (360)
Fallout 3 (360)
Fallout New Vegas (360)
The New Super Mario Brothers (Wii)
Overlord 2 (360)
Having finished this post I have a few hours before bed time… I think I’ll go and do what comes naturally to anyone of German ancestry: Conquer France! (Empire: Total War for PC)
For close to six years I’ve been a teacher. When I accepted my newest group of students I was quite concerned, for I knew many of them would not be good students. All, save one or two, did not participate in class, never brought their books, stared at the floor, and played with whatever gadgets they had. Of course they weren’t prisoners, but many were in my class not by choice but because they felt required by family, friends, or conscience. I’d already proved to be quite a capable teacher, but to help me improve this classes’ reputation I studied some of the teaching methods of classes even more successful than my own. The result was adapting my lessons to use a series of props and visual aids that, by themselves, had nothing to do with my lesson; however, through a series of antics and games I was able to tie them into each aspect of their lessons. Though there are still a few less actives in class, these lessons have made remarkable improvement to the majority of the class.
One day, after class had ended and I was cleaning up my props, several gentlemen whom I didn’t know but had seen on occasion entered for they intended to use my classroom for a meeting. The first two men complemented me on the props I was using, wishing that they could have sat in on my lesson. However the third gentleman politely informed me that I must cease immediately my teaching style and teach strictly from the book without any outside sources. He was even so kind as to point out this rule to me in a book he happened to have on him. This was the issue in one of my most recent arguments. Was my teaching style inappropriate? Did I need to revert to by the book teaching? I didn’t think so, and this occasion, like so many other arguments, confirms that I prefer a consensual style or argument.
Rather than contend with this man on the right or wrong of his opinion toward my teaching, I thanked him for his opinion and left. Arguing with him would accomplish nothing, he was not my superior and I have had experience with plenty of by the book types before. I went instead to my direct superior and to my superior’s superior for confirmation. I explained to them both what had happened, not revealing the identity of gentlemen, and explained peacefully how I believed my methods were improving the class. Fortunately they agreed with me, encouraged me to continue teaching as I saw fit, and for my part the issue was resolved.
This is indeed my typical style of my argument. I prefer a casual conversation with the open minded, such as my superior, rather than a yay or nay bash with someone already set in their way, as this gentleman was. In matters where a course of action is required, I prefer to go straight to the final authority rather than present the same argument over and over again to different audiences.
I believe what has influenced my method of argument most is my father. Surely a majority of sons have had arguments with their fathers. I lost many of these due to the harsh words and the volume he employed, the occasional usage of physical force, and quite commonly due to the wisdom of “Because I said so” with I of course meaning: the all powerful and knowing one. At an early age I recognized the flawed manner in which he tried to argue. Sure he won many of the arguments, but only temporarily, and would just have to argue again anywhere from minutes to years later. I remember once reading a text, it may have been by Sun Tzu but I cannot quite remember, that stated something along the lines of: The best way to defeat your opponents is to make them see they were wrong to oppose you in the first place. Though this source was speaking of war, the same principle, I believe, can be applied to argument. Adversarial argument only diminishes people’s willingness to conflict with you in the moment; it does not change their perception of an issue, and after a brief rest bit they’ll return to argue their point again. Only through consensual argument can each side reach an understanding if not an agreement, and through understanding we can avoid the extreme emotions and decisions which give argument the negative connotation it has. This is what I like the most about consensual argument.
My senior year of high school introduced a new teacher to campus and I happened to have him for first period. His name was Dudditch and he taught me among the more important principles of successful conversation that I still practice today. He often reminded us about how important it was to wait until someone has finished speaking. Most of us are guilty, when having discussions, of answering questions or interrupting, with commentary or correction, the person who is speaking. Mr. Dudditch was respectful at all times, listened to what was said, asked questions and provided feedback.
I believe the consensual style of argument to be more prudent and successful. Politicians tend to be adversarial arguers and I submit that Congressmen are no exception to this. When was the last time you heard of a politician accomplishing something? Not supporting something or striking something down, but actually accomplishing something? In 1787, the men of the Continental Congress were deadlocked on several issues, but perhaps none more famous than how many seats each state would have in Congress. Some favored equal representation for each state and others demanded representation determined by population. This issue threatened the whole convention with failure, until a compromise was proposed that both sides could agree on. And so we can see that adversarial argument endangered, were consensual argument allowed for the creation of arguably the most important document ever conceived by man. Ask yourself: where would we as a nation be if not for consensual argument?
Whenever Elder Wood is near, you will find yourself in the hospital.
It amazes me quite often that in nearly 30 years of life I have avoided every accident, injury, illness, or other situation that would require a visit to the hospital, but for a single small 10 month excerpt. During those months I found myself in the Pacific and was rushed to the Emergency Room on 4 separate and completely unrelated occasions, followed later by a mysterious ailment that sent me home. The one commonality was the Elder Wood happened to be nearby.
One day Elder Wood, then one of my Zone Leaders, and I went out on splits together. Enroot to our first appointment a bike accident sent me to the emergency room.
Several weeks later again Elder Wood, still my Zone Leader, and I had spent the day together on splits. Just before we were to call it a day another trip to the ER was made when I passed out during a ward activity.
Several more weeks later Elder Wood, now an AP, was visiting our island for training purposes. Though we were not on splits that day, he ended up being the one to drive me to the ER after the pole pounder dropped on my head.
Shortly after I was transferred to another island, the same island Wood happened to be on, another trip was made to the ER after a bad reaction to some macadamia nuts.
Wood was there when I went to Mission HQ to pick up my newest companion, that day I saw the first sign of the ailment that would eventually send me home.
For his last 6 weeks in the islands, Wood was given his choice of assignments. He chose to train a greenie. That same period I was emergency transferred to the same area and just days before the 6 weeks had ended president called to tell me that it was time I headed home.
Wood and I thought we would head home on the same flight, but because of my medical problems, President decided to send me home on the first available flight. In hindsight this was probably a good thing, for if we’d flow together surely the plane would have crashed.
My wife and I started going back to school recently. She on track to finish with two AA degrees, and I’ll need another semester at least to finish one. I’ve taken five classes so far in this return, and all of my classmates seem to be intelligible people. For some reason my wife, having taken only two classes, has ended up with someone crazy in each.
Her Women’s History class in the summer had a lady who regularly tried to bible bash with the teacher, so much so the teacher had to publicly threaten to call the Dean on her. In her current class - some funky name I can’t remember but it has something to do with helping children discover mathematics – she has, among others, one of those classmates who insists they know something because of some silly reason.
My wife loves telling me about these people and their embarrassments, she has little patience for annoying people. One day, not long ago, she told me about how the class had an assignment to determine, by means of the Chinese Zodiac, the year of the United States, 1776. The afore mentioned classmate insisted 1776 was the year of the Rat, knowing this somehow through the knowledge that this classmate’s herself was year of the Monkey.
I, not knowing off the top of my head the proper zodiac, assumed this classmate was correct, reasoning: Oh, that explains why we keep going into places where we are not welcome and making a mess.
It turned out though, after my wife came home and looked it up, that 1776 is also the year of the Monkey. My wife is eager to see how this will affect her all knowing classmate. Even though this rendered my rat comment obsolete, I am still conforted. As the year of the Monkey that explains why we dance and play and throw our poop at the other nations of the world.
Don’t get me wrong, I love my country but no matter where you stand on international affairs one must admit America doesn’t have a glorious track record.
In case any of you are curious I discovered my Chinese zodiac while serving my mission. I was curious after meeting a family who explained to me that the mother and daughter were a tiger and dragon respectively, and the father and son were a rabbit and dog respectively. Anyone else notice how the women are powerful carnivores and the men are cute little playthings. I myself was quite dismayed at finding out I’m a chicken.
For those of you who may not know we’ve been having some interesting going ons in the ways of politics around here. Particular I’m refereeing to how California has become the central battleground for the issue of Marriage.
After all the time, money, and heartache spent on both sides of the Prop 8 campaign, and after its passage the witch hunts that followed when supporters’ names were released and the backlashes against churches and businesses, I was very ticked off to hear one man say it was all for nothing, both parties had wasted their efforts.
As ticked off as I was, I respected this decision. It has been common practice in our nation for over 200 years that the judicial branch has the authority to determine whether laws are constitutional or not.
Now recently I read an article that depresses me even more. Another judge, and an appellate court has decided that the people of California cannot force our district attorney or governor to defend our laws. This astounds me: the Judicial Branch has, by this decision, just said that the Executive Branch does not have to and cannot be made to enforce laws. Anyone who has taken even the most basic American government class knows that enforcing laws is the primary function of the Executive Branch!
Though Prop 8 was passed by California voters, and though each man said they would support the will of the people no matter the outcome of Prop 8, both AG Brown and Gov. Schwarzenegger have refused to support or defend the law.
I commend them for standing upon their principles, but as representatives of the people it is their job to defend all our laws, not pick and choose those that they agree with. If they find they cannot do this because of the dictates of their conscience, that is their right, but as this prevents them from carrying out their civic duty they should resign.
In one of my classes this semester we recently gave oral presentations on issues of our own choosing. I was one of three that chose the issue of marriage. I was rather disappointed in the other two speakers, I get that way when I encounter people that do not seem open to multiple points of view. Of course I could be wrong about them and I hope I am, but their presentations came across as a challenge to their opposition. Instead of welcoming a productive discussion it seemed they were entrenched on their side and insulting what they portrayed as the only reason for the existence of opposition. Such discussions are hardly productive and I believe at the heart of the very issue being in such bitter a conflict as it is.
This was my presentation:
Since before my time there has been a variety of arguments in our country concerning the separation of Church and State Most recently this has had a significant revival on the subject of marriage. Some say that marriage is an inalienable right to all people regardless of circumstances, while others say it is a sacred privilege that is not to be altered or mocked. Who has the final say on the issue of marriage, Church or State? Is there a common ground for both?
I am interested in this matter because my home state seems to have become the main battleground of this conflict. I have participated in not one but two votes on the matter, paid close attention to legal challenges that followed, and have close family members, as well as friends, on both sides of the issue. The matter has often weighed heavily on my mind because I see serious pros and cons to both, and like everyone else I cannot accurately predict what will happen with either victory. There is only speculation. It also bothers me how extreme people on both sides have gone in their references for the motives and mannerisms of their opponents.
The Constitution’s, and its subsequent amendments’, language has been interpreted in so many different ways by so many different people making it of no help in resolving this conflict. Ultimately the Supreme Court has the final say on how the Constitution’s language is to be interpreted, but as yet they have not gotten involved.
In the past, regulations and requirements for marriage have been left to the sovereignty of the States in the US, but recently the Federal Government has begun to supersede this tradition. Additionally the United Nations has declared marriage to be an inalienable right. With this in mind it is clear that the State has declared the subject of marriage to be its territory, and it is therefore understandable why people would be upset by Church crossing the line and trying to interfere. However, it is important to note that State crossed that line first. Marriage has been around a lot longer than marriage licenses, paperwork, business days, and blood tests.
I propose a happy middle ground that I believe can be found by indeed keeping Church and State separate:
Allow Churches to regulate marriage by the dictates of their own faith and rules without any interference from the State. This would mean no more marriage licenses, the only authority two people need is from their pastor, bishop, priest, whatever, or his superiors if there be any. This would also mean an end to all tax credits, benefits, or inheritance rights currently afforded by the State to married couples. Marriage would once again be a private matter between spouses and whatever higher being they believe in not recognized in any way shape or form by government.
Any and all couples, weather married or not, who want to be recognized by the State can apply for a civil union. Now we already have these so some changes should be made. These unions can be a right, and therefore everybody could enter into such a union with anybody they want. These unions would grant the tax credits, benefits, inheritance rights and whatever other things the State decides.
With this, churches will be free to teach their differing views on the morality of marriage, schools will teach the existence of civil unions, and parents would, hopefully, teach their children to do both.
History is full of stories involving mysterious curses that have made even the most skeptical of people open their minds to possibility. Death came to the founders of King Tutankhamen’s tomb just as the curse warning trespassers away said. The Romanovs, Russia’s royal family, were victims of a mass execution within the year of a curse mumbled by Rasputin on his death bed.
My personal favorite is an American curse that some claim has taken the lives of several U.S. Presidents. In 1931 Ripley’s Believe It or Not published the earliest known source of the curse. It has been called by many names: The Curse of Techumseh, The Curse of the Year Zero, the Curse of Tippicanoe, and The Presidents’ Curse, among others.
The exact words of the curse are unknown, but according to Ripley’s the curse details that every President of the United States elected on a year ending with the number zero, will die in office beginning with the election of 1840.
The identity of whoever cast this curse is also a mystery, but popular opinion suggests it was one of two Native American brothers who lost everything at a battle near a river called Tippiecanoe.
In the Early 1800’s two brothers decided to work together in finding a means of protecting their people and their lands from the encroaching white settlers. Their names were Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa. The former was a chief among their people and the later was believed to be a prophet. One night the prophet had a vision in which he was told if his people should abandon all the customs and goods of the whites then the Great Spirit (Master of Life, God) would reward them by driving out the whites. The brothers spread word of this revelation and their people gathered in large numbers to a place near Tippecanoe.
In the fall of 1811 the Indian population settled near the river had grown so vast that the white settlers became quite nervous. Rather than flee as Tenskwatawa prophesied they would, the settlers demanded the government protect them from the savages. The Governor himself, William Henry Harrison, at the head of over one-thousand infantry and cavalry marched toward the Indians’ settlement, and in the battle that followed they drove off the Indian forces and burnt the settlement to the ground. The Indians were crushed; never again would Tecumseh rally his people and no longer would the people look upon Tenskwatawa as a prophet.
The date on which these brothers, if not another being, cast this curse is also a mystery. Although there was an election in 1820 it is easy to see why the curse began with the election of 1840.
The Election of 1840 - William Henry Harrison defeats Incumbent Martin Van Buren
The curse begins with William Henry Harrison, the same man who not thirty years earlier was victorious in the battle of Tipicanoe. He even used that victory to help himself get elected. President Harrison took office in March of 1841and died of pneumonia April 4 that same year. He was the first president to die while in office, and to this day holds the record for the shortest presidency.
The Election of 1860 - Abraham Lincoln defeats Stephen A. Douglas
On the fourteenth day of April, 1865, little more than a month into his second term as President of the United States, Lincoln was shot and killed while attending the theater by John Wilkes Booth. Lincoln was the first president to be killed.
The Election of 1880 - James A. Garfield defeats Winfield S. Hancock
On July 2, 1881 President Garfield was shot by a disgruntled man whose political ambitions had been setback. The bullet was never removed, for it was never found, and though for a time it appeared that President Garfield might recover, an infection and internal bleeding took him in mid September of that same year.
The Election of 1900 - Incumbent William McKinley defeats William Jennings Bryan
Roughly a year after his reelection, President McKinley was shot twice by a deranged anarchist in September of 1901. He survived another eight days before succumbing to his wounds.
The Election of 1920 - Warren G. Harding defeats James M. Cox
Whilst contemplating to unveil a scandal in his administration, Harding died of a heart attack in a San Francisco hotel in the late summer of 1923.
The Election of 1940 - Incumbent Franklin D. Roosevelt defeats Wendell L. Willkie
On April 12, 1945, mere months before the surrender of Japan, F.D.R. died of a cerebral hemorrhage.
The Election of 1960 - John F. Kennedy defeats Richard M. Nixon
While parading in Dallas, TX in November of 1963 President Kennedy was shot in the head by an assassin and killed.
The Election of 1980 - Ronald W. Reagan defeats Incumbent Jimmy Carter
On January 20, 1981, Reagan was shot while getting into his car, but… he quickly recovered and returned to work. He completed two full terms in office, and died a civilian over a decade later.
The Election of 2000 - George W. Bush defeats Al Gore
It suffices to say that shoes are not lethal weapons, and the former President survives to this day.
Now, with this knowledge in hand let us ask ourselves two questions:
First, is the curse real or was it invented to fill the pages of Ripley’s Believe It or Not? We may never know, but consider the following: Ripley’s first published this in 1931, prior to two of these Presidents’ deaths. Also, of so far 44 Presidents, eight have died in office and seven of those are on this list.
Second, did Ronald Reagan defeat the curse? It is possible, after all he survived as did Bush after him. However of 9 presidents elected on a year ending in 0, the curse’s record is currently 7 to 2. That’s a success rate of greater than 75% a conclusive result in most any experiment.
Whether you are a skeptic or a believer, we shall have to wait and see the results of the next election in 2020 before exploring the matter further. Consider what you have read when a friend or a loved one tells you they intend to go into politics.
