DO YOU LIKE ALTERNATE HISTORY/SCI-FI BOOKS?

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.

MY ENGLISH WRITING 302: POSITION PAPER

“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.

First Rejection

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.

My position on Video Games

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)

The Power of Consensus

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?