When I was a Child

I have a vivid memory from sophomore year--in my very first literature class, I walked in, set my books on the desk, and at the first opportunity, announced I was a cynic. My old, wise, literature professor reacted as I never would have expected. He let the comment slide, asked me too his office afterwards, and gave me an hour-long chat on the evils of cynicism. Namely, cynicism poisons the soul. A cynic is "a person who believes that only selfishness motivates human actions and who disbelieves in or minimizes selfless acts or disinterested points of view." A fixation on cynicism closes the mind to the very ability to recognize good. It separates the individual from the good of humanity and leaves them only able to look for a way to appreciate the spectacle of everyone else's ridiculousness. Oscar Wilde is good for a laugh, but he wasn't very personable.

Life is funny. I have been a cynic for most of my thinking life, yet now I find myself in a position of thinking that one should know life is hard, people are evil, and happy endings are not inevitable, and yet "laugh at the days to come." A position of knowing optimism. Whether this is the correct way to view the world, I don't know. It is entirely possible that I merely swung from one extreme to another. But for now, I do know this. Life is much happier as an optimist than as a cynic.

Faith, Reason, and Murder.

Sometime ago I was introduced to the TV Series Bones. I promptly became a devotee. The show has its downsides: sex is hardly monogamous, and there is a fair bit of gore. On the whole, it appears to be an excellent examination of Faith and Reason in the modern world. On the side of Reason there is Dr. Temperance Brennen, a forensic anthropologist who helps the FBI solve murders by identifying people, how they were murdered, and the likely suspect by the marks left on their bones (this is where the gore enters.) The lady has no patience for God, intuition, faith, or anything that cannot be empirically proved. God is a construct of primitive humanity who need the supernatural to explain what they can't. Science is the only hope for truth and security. Her partner is FBI Agent Booth, Agent of Faith: Catholic, intuitive, go-with-your-gut, compassionate. A mix between a white knight and the psychic. They get along like fire and water, and I first expected the usual, they fall in love, they have a little illicit sex, and Booth goes over to the side of God-hating Reason, but the opposite it true. Booth and Brennen grow to love each other deeply, but they love as partners, co-workers, honorable fellow knights--yet neither forgets the gender of the other. Brennen is fully a woman and fully a partner, where Booth is classically a man, makes no apology for the fact, and uses it for the best of those around him. Even more surprising, it is Brennen that bends, not Booth. Constant exposure to Booth and his love of people and faith in God forces Brennen to realize there is more than science, there is something she cannot put in a test tube that may matter more than life itself. And yet, this acceptance of a "more" does not make her less excellent at her job, rather it makes her more proficient. She moves from being a woman who finds puzzles in corpses to being a woman who has a passion for justice, one who will give her all to serve those who are in agony because their loved one is dead and they have no idea who did it, one who loves.

Lest I sound like too much of a geek, there are other merits to the show. Having had a copious experience with hospitals, I enjoy the medical jargon. It is also very witty in it's dialogue and has a nice balance of black and good humor. And thne there is Angela, but she is a discussion for another day.

That's Medieval!

(In case you wondered, I blog to help me organize my thoughts, so, I make no claim that everything will always make sense.)

I am not an evolutionist. I don't think man is improving, rather, I think man is tending to regress as he gets farther and farther from the moment of Creation and the Fall has more time to work its evil. I have heard a lot of other people espouse this opinion as well. But, I am wondering if the people that espouse this opinion really apply it to social issues, and does it really matter? The thing that brings context to this discussion is medieval punishments: dismemberment, hanging, cutting off hands, stocks, drownings, beheadings, burning at the stake, and quartering are only some of the most common of the medieval world's sentences for crimes ranging from theft to treason. In the modern world, these punishments are held as barbaric, inhuman, a violation of human rights, and people call for more "humane" punishments. Now, put this attitude alongside the concept that man is regressing since the Fall and you have a contradiction. If we are to be consistent, then we have to say that there may be something to the harsh punishments of the medieval era. Add to this confusion, early America also practiced many of these punishments, and the farther we go in becoming a secular nation the more lenient the penal codes become.

However, a few things obstruct a simple answer of "fine, go back to those punishments." First, the age old question of the balance of justice and mercy. Second, the equally old question of the proper measure of punishment for sin on earth in light of the Old and New Testament. Finally, there is one culture that does practice that manner and degree of punishment, Sharia Law under Islam is quite that severe. One could argue that Sharia is not a part of the question because it is a religious law as much as a social law, and without a Incarnate Savior they have every reason to practice the "eye for an eye" law that was the standard before the Old Testament was written.

So, my question is, are we consistant in saying that man is degrading and yet agreeing that the medieval era possessed a barbaric justice system, or is there something to be said for their notion of how to punish evil. And as a corollary, if you dare, where does Sharia Law fit into the discussion?

Princess

It's ironic. Homeschool girls are mocked and ridiculed for wearing ankle-length skirts, and if you wear one, you darn well better have the body and style to pull it off. Yet, most if not all Disney princesses wear long skirts and are held up as the epitome of beauty. Could be just a cultural thing, Beauty would look odd in a miniskirt, and Pocohantas certainly doesn't wear a long skirt, but I wonder if, culturally, we are more traditional than we like to admit. In older times, little girl's wore short skirts and wore their hair long, and when they became women they wore long skirts and pinned their hair up. Have we perhaps switched the roles? Little girls may idolize long skirts but women bear the right to take off the inches? And the long skirts of the Disney princess must be cast aside along with all other childish things, like, perhaps, love of romance, idealism, and a black and white view of the world, also traits that characterize the homeschooled girl and the Disney princess?

Vampires and Unrequited Love

I think, should I ever become a heroin addict, that I shall start by taking 1-6 very conservative shots and then accidentally killing myself with a seventh overdose. I am a somewhat addictive. Fortunately, I limit my addictions to books and tea. The latest bibliographic addiction is the Twilight Series. I am done 2, working on number 3, and I think I understand why they are so rabidly popular, now I need to figure out if I approve.

Bella Swan is a very weak, feminine, human girl. She is afraid of blood, gets motion sick, has the grace of a drunk centipede, she has lousy self-esteem, and struggles with school. A typical young woman with no pressing reason for anyone to fall passionately and self-sacrificingly in love with her. Yet, here comes Edward Cullen, who loves her deeply, loves her so deeply that he cannot leave her and will not drink her blood. Even though her blood is more sweet to him than anything else on the planet.

Here you have it girls. The perfect boyfriend. He will never leave, he can never leave her. He also loves her enough to put her good before his own--he wants to drink her blood and kill her, but he will never hurt her, and in fact drops everything in his life to protect her from all harm. The comparison is fairly obvious, he has a raging lust for her blood yet controls it for her good, contrast this an average stereotype of a boy who has a raging lust for sex, and can either choose to guilt the infatuated girl into sleeping with him or he can not sleep with her, risk losing her, and generally make himself miserable for her sake. To add to this boyfriend's general perfection, he is no wimp. Far from it, he is a perfectly designed killing machine: fast, strong, precise. So, here is a man who who has perfect self-control, has the ability to destroy every living thing in the town if he chose, and is wise enough to fall for a girl who isn't really pretty and has all the feebleness of your average human girl.

In all this, I can see why it is so appealing to large portions of the teen population--though I do admit I have no idea why it is so appealing to boys. But, while painting a beautiful picture of what should be the case in relationships, I wonder if they aren't tainting the the expectations of youth and presenting just too clear a picture of what the reader will not have. I am not sure what I think--but it appears to be a very pleasing lie.

Why do people hate life so much?

You know....the more I read articles like this, http://www.xanga.com/lotta_valdez/690703603/i-really-really-dislike-the-duggars/

The more I think it may be my duty to the mores of the nation to have a zillion kids.