If you have a daughter, or have a son that will date girls, or are currently dating yourself (as in you are dating, not you dating you) you should read this.
What do you think?
Friday, August 24, 2007
Girls Gone Mild
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Why does Congress have such a low approval rating?
I have often pondered over the years why politics is so messed up. I mean, why is it that politicians can’t seem to just get the things done that people want them to get done?
For example, congress’s approval rating is something like 25% right now, several points lower than President Bush’s approval rating. Is it really that hard to do your job so that more that a quarter of Americans approve? It seems like you should be able to get a 50% rating relatively easily.
Some possible answers I have considered for why the national legislature is so widely disliked:
1.) Power has a tendency to corrupt. Many of these powerful men and women have been caught using their power in a corrupt manner.
2.) The American culture is not as homogenous as I have a tendency to think. Maybe there are so many different views on how the national government should act that congress can not please all or even most Americans. Each segment wants something that is contradictory to the wants of the other segments.
3.) Members of congress have a tendency to “play politics” too much. Instead of spending their time researching, writing and passing laws, they spend their time accusing other members of the government of no-nos. They propose laws or block passage of laws based on campaign contributions from lobbyists and not on the general good of Americans. They transparently and consistently hold members of their own party to a lower standard of morality and ethics than members of the opposing party.
This has been the extent of my pondering up until a little while ago. Though I think there is some truth to each of the above answers, I have recently become convinced that there is at least one more answer to the question.
4.) Americans don’t know what they want, so congress can’t give it to them. Or in other words, even at the individual level, many Americans want contradictory things.
I guess in some ways this is an extension of #2.
I first considered this one time when I was watching PBS and they were doing a report on a “town meeting” they (PBS) had conducted with some community college students about Social Security and what some solutions could be to the predicted shortfalls in the future. (This was way back in 2005.) Anyway the students almost universally were not interested in any solution that would give them less in benefits (or risk of less in benefits) or increase their contribution burden. There was only one student interviewed who said something to the effect of, “The status quo is unsustainable, therefore I see a reduction is benefits – such as indexing benefit increases to prices instead of wages – as one of the only reasonable solutions.”
When the concept first hit me hard was a few weeks ago when I was reading some columnists' reactions to Michael Moore’s “Sicko”. More than one columnist mentioned the finding of some survey that the majority of Americans want nationalized health care. In my mind I scoffed. I bet if they asked the same Americans if they would like their income taxes to increase by a few percentage points the majority would say no. Yet it is extremely likely we wouldn’t get the former without the latter.
As I started thinking about this more I realized that I am guilty of it too. I want the American government to concentrate their efforts on our numerous domestic problems. I also want America to do what it can to relieve suffering around the world. I want the low prices and competition that would accompany free trade agreements and repealing tariffs, but I also don’t want American workers to lose their jobs and livelihoods. You get the idea.
So I think that we Americans have a tendency not to approve of Congress’s actions while we fail to realize that the alternatives could have been just as bad or worse.
Actually, I think that having unrealistic expectations is a general problem in America, perhaps bred of continuous prosperity. We want to ask what our country (or insert spouse, company, school, community) can do for us instead of what we can do for our country.
This is still kind of a half baked thought, so tell me what you think.
Monday, August 06, 2007
Jared gets published
Okay, so it isn't quite as exciting as an actual academic publishing, but I've still written something that's been submitted and printed in an official publication, and it's kind of exciting to me. The fact that it's an internal Navy publication also does not bother me.
If anything does bother me, it's the fact that I don't have a byline. But I get past that too, rationalizing that I don't want to be associated with the stupid spelling and style errors that Navy copy editors insert after reading my flawless text. It's kind of upsetting when you look back over your work and see that some idiot with a higher pay grade than you has changed the word "aircraft" to "aircrafts," as if that were the plural, or even a word.
But, like I said, I have indeed been published, so it makes me happy. And I can point out what I wrote and tell people it's mine, so who needs a byline, right?
If you'd like to check out my awesome articles, you can check out the first one in the spring 2007 edition of the Treaty Times on page 5, and the latest one in the summer edition on pages 2 and 3. I'll be drafting a fall article soon, but it won't be published until around October.
The articles don't open correctly in Firefox for some reason--you'll need to use Explorer. Happy reading.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Friday, July 20, 2007
Nick, the Simpson
Over on the Simpson movie website you can create a Simpson's Character that looks like you. Here is what I came up with: 
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Number Three
And for my third post, I present to you: Julie the Pushover. Honestly though, I have a problem, and I'm not sure how to deal with it.
I seem to make people feel that they can explode in anger towards me. At work. In front of witnesses. The first time, I thought it was the other person's fault - they were out of line, and my manager took appropriate steps. It all turned out okay enough.
But this time, I totally didn't know what to do. A woman whom I respect, but who has a pretty quick temper, was really angry at me. She's been (less) angry with me before, and things usually blow over by the end of the day or the next day.
I spoke with my boss about a work schedule adjustment to work at home one day a week, and he mentioned the woman by name, telling me that she was a good example because she had adjusted her schedule and communicated it well with him. Then he also mentioned that he wanted to have a meeting so that those of us who are newer or who may be forgetting some of the rules about working from home could be reminded - basically to set the standards of our group working from home.
So I came out of the office, pleased that things were going okay, and said "I think that went okay," as I reached me desk.
The woman then exploded at me. She literally started yelling that she had heard her name and if her schedule was ruined because of this there would be h*** to pay and on and on in the same vent.
Now here is my problem. I tried to actually answer her concerns - telling her our manager used her as a good example, and that he wanted to make sure we all knew the rules, and that she was already doing it right. But she just kept yelling and screaming right over the top of me. And I don't know what to do in that situation. So I sat there and said "ok" and sat down. And besides all that, she was really angry at our manager's management style more than at me - she just took it out on me.
I sat down and then had a few leaky tears - I was angry at myself for not knowing what to say. I'm also perfectly aware (due to my prior experience) that our company definitely counts her actions as harrassment, punishable, etc. So how can I stand up for myself?
My current options are:
(a) tell my manager
(b) tell the woman that the way she yelled at me was wrong
(c) do nothing, but plan what to do if it ever happens again
(d) ???
Problems with this are:
(a) we would either have to go through a whole official conflict resolution, or he would have a talk with her - which would make her very very mad at me
(b) I think she would become angry again
(c) I don't know what to do
(d) ???
Any ideas people? I think I need to plan how to stand up to her (or anyone), but I'm drawing a big blank here.
Well, saying all that at least made me feel better for now - back to work I guess.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Baby Steps
Just an update on the new house - I mean, the old house that is new to us...
We planted 2 Early Girl tomatos, 1 cherry tomato, and 1 pepper plant this year. So few? Well, it's pretty late - but we have a nice sunny southwest corner spot that was already cleared to just dirt. It's our first baby step towards gardening. If this works out, then next year will be bigger an better. :)
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Blessed
Somewhere amid all the madness of moving and family and working overtime, I had the realization that I am so very blessed. Don't get me wrong - I know I've thanked my Heavenly Father for blessings my whole life, but sometimes I felt like I was a good person - so I deserved blessings.
So why, when I am at my most harried, when I haven't read the scriptures for over a week, when I've missed some prayers, when I'm stressed and crabby and tired and occasionally blow my top at those I love, why then am I still blessed?
Maybe, just maybe, I'm not as bad as I think I am. And maybe, even more possibly, Heavenly Father loves me for trying and not just for when I think I'm succeeding.
How am I blessed? So many things.
We had the ceiling in our new house tested for asbestos - turned out positive (as in yes there was asbestos), so I had to find an abatement company to remove it. My mom (as usual) was helping me by finding a list of companies - and she helped me to find the online service that listed contractors licensed for that type of work around here. So I called the first one on the list, and they gave me a quote - it was almost half of what I had been led to expect. I called a few more companies, and their quotes were much higher. I went back to that first company, called their references, and hired them. Now, when you hire a contractor, you sign their bid and pay them half up front. I misunderstood the directions, so I didn't enclose my check. Oops - I found this out just a couple days before they were to begin - I called the company and the owner said "Don't worry - I trust you to pay me" and everything was okay. The company did a great job (even for their better price), and they finished a day earlier than scheduled. So everything just worked out right. What a blessing!
When we moved, some of our friends came over to help us finish off the packing, and also some friends came over to help us pack our truck. And then they all came up to our new house and helped to unpack it too. Friends! What a blessing!
At work, my boss decided that now was the perfect time to put me in for a promotion. I work at a pretty big company, so your manager basically presents you to the review board for promotions and they decide. The board approved my promotion right away, so I am now a level 2, with the accompanying raise, right in time for us to start having house payments. My boss really cares about my professional development and tries to help me improve myself as an employee too. What a blessing!
Last Friday, I was working out at Curves, doing the squat machine totally wrong because I wasn't paying attention. I started to hurt, and in 15 minutes it was so bad that I was laying on the floor. After an hour or so, I was sitting up, and then a friend drove me home. My mom and Dan took care of me, and I am gradually getting better. Dan even helped me to put on my socks for the first couple days. Health (and getting better)! What a blessing!
Other things, not so major, but still blessings, happen all the time. The cashier who points out the weekly coupon and saves me a few bucks; the driver who decides to let me in to their lane; finding our new house; just having things seem to go right when they could've gone wrong. For all those little things, I'm working on recognizing them and saying thank you on the spot - since I tend to forget after a while.
So I just wanted to share some of my blessings, because dwelling on all those good things and good people just makes me happy. Funny how it works just like I was taught.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Salsa Night- July 22nd
JonnyF and family will be here in Sandy for a salsa night on the 22nd, so if you're in the area stop by around 6:00 or so. I'm pretty sure our tomatoes will be ready by then, and we are already drowning in peppers and onions.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Fredricksons' Garden
Behold our garden. It is small, but we like it.
I realize the picture quality isn't that great, but I think you get the idea.
This is what our garden looked like around the beginning of May. The four plants are roma tomato plants we bought from the local farmers market and transplanted shortly before this picture. The picture is from the southeast looking northwest. You can also see two of our trees in the background, one of which is flowering.
We are using a method of gardening called “square-foot gardening” where you don’t plant in rows so much but think of your garden three dimensionally. We are growing peas and pole beans up strings and putting plants that don’t need so much sun in the shade of tall plants, like tomatoes. I don’t know all the details of the philosophy – Katie found it in some book. 
So here are our tomato plants as of two weeks ago. We’re pretty excited. They are even bigger now. I expect about 120 to 150 tomatoes. 
Here is the south corner of our garden two weeks ago. We have some mixed salad-type plants growing in the front and on the left side. We already harvested the ones on the left right before this picture. You can also see some carrots, kale, swiss chard, green peppers, and the one in the back right is a tomatillo plant. 
Here are the north (back) and east (front) corners of our garden. In both cases we have zucchini in the middle. The back ones are surrounded by radishes with cucumbers and green pole beans in the back. The front ones are surrounded by spinach and green onions (both of which we have harvested). Down the right side we have sugar snap peas.
Just in the last two weeks we’ve harvested some more salad and green onions and also some radishes and peas. We’re also growing basil, oregano, parsley, lavender, rosemary, dill and cilantro elsewhere around our yard. 
This is a picture of Elizabeth we took yesterday, just for fun.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Little Jack
We had our Baby!
He was born Tuesday, June 19th at 2:37pm. He was the same length as Grace was, 20 inches, but weighed a whole pound more (8 lbs, 2 oz). He and Alison are doing great, both are getting a decent night sleep thanks to her grandma being here, and Grace is really excited about her baby brother. Here are some pictures! 
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Evolution: Anathema to Mormons?
When Randy and his wife visited this past week, he reminded me that I promised an evolution post a while back. I had actually already written one, a long one, about a month ago, but I didn't like how it ended up, so I never posted it. Here's my second attempt.
With this post, I will not attempt a thorough scientific explanation of evolution, but rather reasons on why you can accept evolution as fact (all of it), and still believe the core doctrines of the church. I'll just state here that the question of whether the theory of organic evolution is true or not is about as silly as the question of whether Newton's theory of gravity is correct. Things fall. Species evolve. Done and done. If you don't accept it you haven't studied it enough. You might say about Newton's theory: "But didn't Eintein prove him wrong with the theory of relativity?" No, he did not- all Einstein did to Newton's theory was to show that it indeed WAS correct in situations where objects are traveling far slower than the speed of light. In fact, Einstein's theory reduces exactly to Newton's theory in the low velocity limit. Einstein expanded upon Newton, and in the future there will be experiments that expand upon evolution, but never prove it wrong- we're past that point already. The likelihood of evolution being proven wrong is about as likely as someone proving that mass actually repels other mass rather than attract it.
As I said, I don't want to get into all the whys and hows of how evolution works, but to talk about how you can accept it and still believe that God created the universe and the earth, and that Christ is still the Savior of it (ie, the important parts of the gospel)
Before we get into what the scriptures say, the first major obstacles to accepting evolution for any Latter-Day Saint are past and current statements by church leaders. We currently have several apostles that openly reject organic evolution, Elders Packer and Nelson probably chief among them (at least they have been the most vocal about it). I've read other, more oblique hints of objection from others such as the whole first presidency, and a few other apostles. Prominent former leaders who ardently objected to it include just about every church president from Joseph F. Smith onward, as well as Elder McConkie, who perhaps has had the most dramatic effect on current opinion in the church about it due to his Mormon Doctrine and The Seven Deadly Heresies, a BYU devotional talk. While I disagree with many of the points Elder McConkie makes in that talk, it is a valuable resource that coherently lays out the reasoning behind "orthodox" Mormon opposition to evolution. Here is part of what he says:These are questions to which all of us should find answers. Every person must choose for himself what he will believe. I recommend that all of you study and ponder and pray and seek light and knowledge in these and in all fields.
I believe that the atonement of Christ is the great and eternal foundation upon which revealed religion rests. I believe that no man can be saved unless he believes that our Lord's atoning sacrifice brings immortality to all and eternal life to those who believe and obey, and no man can believe in the atonement unless he accepts both the divine sonship of Christ and the fall of Adam.
My reasoning causes me to conclude that if death has always prevailed in the world, then there was no fall of Adam that brought death to all forms of life; that if Adam did not fall, there is no need for an atonement; that if there was no atonement, there is no salvation, no resurrection, and no eternal life; and that if there was no atonement, there is nothing in all of the glorious promises that the Lord has given us. I believe that the Fall affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself, and that the Atonement affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself.
I like how he emphasizes that belief in this particular area of doctrine is completely up to the individual (just like any doctrine, really), but what I disagree with is the false dichotomy he sets up between belief in the atonement, and acceptance of evolution. His rhetorical strategy is to suggest that since evolution teaches that death existed before the fall (ie, 4000 B.C.), then the fall could not have happened (at 4000 B.C.), and therefore there was no need for an atonement. All I would say to this is that the biblical and even the temple descriptions of the garden of Eden and the fall are highly symbolic. Did they really eat a piece of fruit that caused their bodies (and the bodies of every other species) to degenerate? Was Eve's body really created from Adam's rib? We need to be very careful not to treat a religious document thousands of years old and having passed through the shaky hands of many scribes as a science textbook.
What is important in the story of the fall is that we are cut off from God because of our sins, and that we need a Savior to intercede for us. Physical death comes on all automatically so Christ will resurrect all automatically. Spiritual death comes on us because of our sins, so Christ will cover those sins that are repented of and save those who follow him. None of these truths require the odd belief that death came into the world around 4000 B.C. If no death existed before the fall, could Adam and Eve eat anything? You might say they were vegetarians, but plant life is...um, alive, and can die, so did the fall only affect animal life? Too many mental gymnastics are required to make that rather (with apologies to Elder McConkie) archaic view of the fall work even on its own internal logic, and nearly impossible when viewed with even rudimentary knowledge of science.
A better way is to follow the injunction of Jesus: "Render to Caeser the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". Lets leave science to the scientists, and the doctrines of salvation to the prophets. This might mean that when a prophet comes along and makes a statement about something in the physical world, we can smile and nod and then go about what we were doing since they were not called as prophets to expound upon science, but to call us to repentence. Often, they are flat out wrong, but this does not undermine their "prophethood". Even prophets are entitled to incorrect opinions. When a prophet speaks about Christ and salvation, I listen. When they talk about science, I tune out. In fact, there is danger in supposing that everything that falls from the lips of a prophet is inspired. There is also danger in thinking that if they are wrong on issues of science, then they might also be wrong on issues of salvation. The Brethren have realized this more and more, and now make far fewer statements about things not really pertaining to our salvation so as to not distract from the "important things".
So what happened at the fall? Modern scripture is quite clear that God created all things spiritually before he created them physically (see Moses 3-4), so I see no reason why the whole garden experience couldn't have been entirely spiritual. Adam and Eve were given choices. They chose knowledge of good and evil, and mortality. God then sent them down to the physical Earth where he had been in the process of creating their bodies from the dust of the earth (literally) for millions of years. Thus Adam fell physically from the presence of God, bringing physical death to us all. Does this mean they had human-like ape parents? Maybe. Does it really matter? I know creationists huff and puff and get all blue in the face talking about how ridiculous the idea is that we came from apes, but I really don't see how it belittles us to say that God used natural tools and processes to create our physical bodies.
Anyway, I'll pause there and see if there are differing or concurring opinions. To summarize my point, I say that the idea that evolution is in direct opposition to the concept of the fall is false (what I perceive as most members' main beef with evolution), even if many church leaders disagree. To justify going against a church leader, I say that we need to listen to them when they talk about the Savior and how to follow him and get back to heaven, but when they start opining on natural phenomenon like the origins of the human body, that is when we can smile and nod and move on (and not publicly denounce them- thats bad). Does that show too much chutzpah on my end?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)