So this last weekend I went to Colorado to campaign for Barack Obama. One of the awesome advantages to living in Utah is that campaigning here is pointless; it's going to go Republican anyway. Luckily, this year Colorado is a big swing state. Obama and John McCain are polling evenly there, so we take trips to Colorado to help it swing for Obama.
The trip was awesome. I went on three different canvassing routes, which basically consists of knocking on people's doors and asking who they are planning on voting for. The goal is two-fold: 1)make sure all the Obama supporters are registered to vote, and 2)finding the indecisive voters and convince them that Obama is the better choice.
It's way cool to take part in the political process, especially when you're doing it with a group of friends. It's like a road trip with a purpose; I highly recommend it.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Books and Writing
So this past week I took my friend's advice and decided to read a Kurt Vonnegut book. The one I chose to read first was Cat's Cradle. I started it on Monday, figuring it would be a good book to read while I was commuting, thinking that I could make it last for the better part of a month that way. Needless to say, I was done with it three days later.
I still need to read more of his books (I now have Slaughterhouse 5), but he may well become my new favorite author, provided the rest of his books are as good as Cat's Cradle, and I expect that they will be.
More than that, however, Vonnegut showed me that I'm not crazy to write the way I do. See, I've long toyed with the idea of writing a book, but I've never really been able to get it going because I've tried to alter my writing to be more like the authors I've read. See, until Vonnegut, I had never come across an author who wrote like me, so I thought I had to change my writing in order for it to be good.
Now, I'm not saying that I'm as good an author as Vonnegut; I'm just saying that I have a similar style to him. It's kinda cheesy to say this, but his book liberated me as far as writing is concerned.
Before reading his book, I had come up with a few book topics and written a few pages here and there, but I could never really get into it. In the few days since reading his book, however, I've doubled the amount of written. On top of that, I have a clear view of the storyline of my book.
It's a weird sensation, having such a clear view of what I want to do in my book. I've never had it before, and it's making it really hard to think of anything other than my book. I think I now know what I'm going to be occupying all my free time with next semester.
I still need to read more of his books (I now have Slaughterhouse 5), but he may well become my new favorite author, provided the rest of his books are as good as Cat's Cradle, and I expect that they will be.
More than that, however, Vonnegut showed me that I'm not crazy to write the way I do. See, I've long toyed with the idea of writing a book, but I've never really been able to get it going because I've tried to alter my writing to be more like the authors I've read. See, until Vonnegut, I had never come across an author who wrote like me, so I thought I had to change my writing in order for it to be good.
Now, I'm not saying that I'm as good an author as Vonnegut; I'm just saying that I have a similar style to him. It's kinda cheesy to say this, but his book liberated me as far as writing is concerned.
Before reading his book, I had come up with a few book topics and written a few pages here and there, but I could never really get into it. In the few days since reading his book, however, I've doubled the amount of written. On top of that, I have a clear view of the storyline of my book.
It's a weird sensation, having such a clear view of what I want to do in my book. I've never had it before, and it's making it really hard to think of anything other than my book. I think I now know what I'm going to be occupying all my free time with next semester.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Motivations
My mom is an incessant worrier. Something is wrong if she has nothing to worry about. Now, this is okay except for the fact that her worrying causes everyone around her to worry as well. On top of that, I have somewhat inherited her constant angst. And on top of that, my parents still try to dictate my life to a large extent.
So I am at college now, but my parents pay for everything (for which I am extremely grateful). They give, however, one stipulation: I have to keep my grades up. If I don't, then I'm punished (they stop paying for school). Imagine the anxiety this causes. I'm constantly asking myself, "Are my grades high enough? How long do I have to study in order to get an A?" and so on.
First off, school should be about learning, not about grades. Grades are a decent measurement of progress, but the point of school should not be to get good grades, but rather to get a good education.
But that's not even the point of this post. My main point is that there has to be a better motivator than worry. It seems as though my parents have done things that have only caused more worry and more anxiety, yet is this really the most powerful motivator there is? Can't we find a better way to motivate people to do well in school? at work? in general? Do we really want everyone in the world to be gray by their 30th birthday?
It seems to me that, at least as far as an education is concerned, a love of learning would be a much better motivator than worry. For work, a love of work would be a better motivator, or a desire to be able to provide for one's family.
So why do people still try to motivate through fear and worry? It is entirely underproductive. If you want someone to do something, show them why it's important, why they should care, why it's interesting; don't punish them for not living according to your standards. Eventually, people will do what they want anyway, so the only way to enlist people's help is by helping them to want to help.
How does one do that, you ask? Well, basically, it depends on the person; there is no one right way to accomplish this. But this is the way it must be done.
So I am at college now, but my parents pay for everything (for which I am extremely grateful). They give, however, one stipulation: I have to keep my grades up. If I don't, then I'm punished (they stop paying for school). Imagine the anxiety this causes. I'm constantly asking myself, "Are my grades high enough? How long do I have to study in order to get an A?" and so on.
First off, school should be about learning, not about grades. Grades are a decent measurement of progress, but the point of school should not be to get good grades, but rather to get a good education.
But that's not even the point of this post. My main point is that there has to be a better motivator than worry. It seems as though my parents have done things that have only caused more worry and more anxiety, yet is this really the most powerful motivator there is? Can't we find a better way to motivate people to do well in school? at work? in general? Do we really want everyone in the world to be gray by their 30th birthday?
It seems to me that, at least as far as an education is concerned, a love of learning would be a much better motivator than worry. For work, a love of work would be a better motivator, or a desire to be able to provide for one's family.
So why do people still try to motivate through fear and worry? It is entirely underproductive. If you want someone to do something, show them why it's important, why they should care, why it's interesting; don't punish them for not living according to your standards. Eventually, people will do what they want anyway, so the only way to enlist people's help is by helping them to want to help.
How does one do that, you ask? Well, basically, it depends on the person; there is no one right way to accomplish this. But this is the way it must be done.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
5 Years Later
So it's now been five years since the start of the War in Iraq... and where are we? 4,000 Americans and over 80,000 Iraqi civilians later, where are we? Was it worth it? Is Iraq truly better now than it was 5 years ago? I'm constantly amazed at how willing people are to simply fight. I'm amazed at how little a human life means to some people, let alone 90,000.
But then, I guess that's not the question facing us today. I guess the question now is: Where do we go from here? Do we stay there for the next hundred years? Or do we get out now? Would getting out now be better, or do we stay until the current government is stable enough to take care of itself? Will it ever be?
And not only in Iraq, but what will be our future foreign policy? Do we continue starting wars like the one in Iraq and the one we had in Vietnam? When do we try diplomacy? The military?
These are tough questions, ones that I wish I had the answers to. One thing I do know: We, the United States of America, have fought so many wars over the last 50 years that war has become the norm. Being in a state of war is our normal state of affairs in this country. That is incredibly sad. War should be the exception, not the norm.
But then, I guess that's not the question facing us today. I guess the question now is: Where do we go from here? Do we stay there for the next hundred years? Or do we get out now? Would getting out now be better, or do we stay until the current government is stable enough to take care of itself? Will it ever be?
And not only in Iraq, but what will be our future foreign policy? Do we continue starting wars like the one in Iraq and the one we had in Vietnam? When do we try diplomacy? The military?
These are tough questions, ones that I wish I had the answers to. One thing I do know: We, the United States of America, have fought so many wars over the last 50 years that war has become the norm. Being in a state of war is our normal state of affairs in this country. That is incredibly sad. War should be the exception, not the norm.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Pointless Responsibilities
Ever feel like you have a pointless responsibility? Or perhaps even more than one? I do. So I'm the ward mission leader in my ward. (Just for explanation, a 'ward' is what we call the local congregation in my church.) Basically, I'm in charge of making sure that people share our teachings/faith with others (oh, yes, that aspect is that integral).
However, being at BYU, as you can imagine, there aren't very many 'nonmembers,' as we call them (though I'm not sure we should). In fact, in my ward, there are NO nonmembers. Thus, there is no one to share the 'Gospel' with ('Gospel' is our term for the sum total of our beliefs/teachings/etc.).
Basically, I feel like I have incredibly useless responsibilities. What am I supposed to do? There is no one to share the Gospel with. I go to monthly meetings to report absolutely nothing. GAAHHHH!
However, being at BYU, as you can imagine, there aren't very many 'nonmembers,' as we call them (though I'm not sure we should). In fact, in my ward, there are NO nonmembers. Thus, there is no one to share the 'Gospel' with ('Gospel' is our term for the sum total of our beliefs/teachings/etc.).
Basically, I feel like I have incredibly useless responsibilities. What am I supposed to do? There is no one to share the Gospel with. I go to monthly meetings to report absolutely nothing. GAAHHHH!
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Mourning
So I am in mourning today, for two reasons. First, Obama lost both Texas and Ohio yesterday... that sucks. Second, and more importantly, this could be disastrous for the Democratic Party. First of all, the primary is now going to go all the way to the convention. On the one hand, that gives McCain a three-month head start on unifying the party behind him. On the other hand, it does means more publicity for Clinton and Obama. However, after her recent success with negative ads, Clinton is sure to use even more of them, which is reason number two for mourning.
Clinton is not going to get the majority of the pledged delegates at this point. She has to win all of the remaining states by at least 60% in order for that to happen, and it won't. If she runs enough negative ads, however, she might go into the convention with momentum and with most of the DNC on her side. If she then gets the nomination, it'll be absolutely disastrous for the Democratic Party, for a number of reasons.
Clinton is divisive. Her negative ads will only reinforce the hatred many people have for her. Many Republicans who don't like McCain will vote for him just to vote against Clinton. In short, Clinton will come out of the convention behind McCain and a Republican could win the Presidency again. And then the Iraqi occupation would go on. And on and on. Not to mention all the Bush taxcuts.
Please, DNC! Pick a candidate now! The party needs it before things get way ugly.
Clinton is not going to get the majority of the pledged delegates at this point. She has to win all of the remaining states by at least 60% in order for that to happen, and it won't. If she runs enough negative ads, however, she might go into the convention with momentum and with most of the DNC on her side. If she then gets the nomination, it'll be absolutely disastrous for the Democratic Party, for a number of reasons.
Clinton is divisive. Her negative ads will only reinforce the hatred many people have for her. Many Republicans who don't like McCain will vote for him just to vote against Clinton. In short, Clinton will come out of the convention behind McCain and a Republican could win the Presidency again. And then the Iraqi occupation would go on. And on and on. Not to mention all the Bush taxcuts.
Please, DNC! Pick a candidate now! The party needs it before things get way ugly.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Ends-Means Analysis
So there is a question that has plagued mankind since the beginning of time: do the ends justify the means? Or, more, specifically, when do the ends justify the means?
Being a liberal at an extremely conservative university, I have few friends that I feel comfortable talking politics with; that I feel will understand me when I try to make points. Politics is an amazingly broad topic, and as such, requires one to know a lot about a lot in order to really have an opinion about something. Since coming home from my mission, I have been actively searching for information on everything that even remotely relates to politics. I do not consider myself an informed person, though I am much more informed than I was 6 months ago when I first came home.
In order to facilitate my knowledge/understanding/growth, I joined the BYU Democrats (yes, I'm a liberal at BYU, maybe now that first paragraph carries a little more meaning). I have made many friends in the club, friends that I respect and from whom I have learned a great deal (and continue to). They are the aforementioned people, the few here I trust to talk politics with. They are also the only ones I feel comfortable sharing my personal inadequacies with: specifically relating to my lack of being informed on political topics.
Recently one of these close friends attacked me on not being adequately informed, something I personally struggle with already. While we are both liberal, he supports Clinton, while I support Obama. He attacked me on not knowing enough about Obama, something I've already confided in him; to make matters even more difficult, he debated with me about it just to prove his point.
As far as I can tell, someone can only have two reasons for accusing someone of something else: 1)that person doesn't realize their fault, or 2)they are not doing anything about it. Considering both statements are untrue of me, I am left with a troubling conundrum: why did this person do what he did? Was I wrong to befriend him? Am I just a glutton for punishment, unconsciously choosing those people who will take advantage of me for their own personal amusement? And what am I to do now with the rage he has so effectively drawn out in me?
Perhaps I could just forgive and forget if I could be sure that this was a one-time thing, but I'm fairly certain that it's exactly the opposite. I'm quite certain that he will keep attacking me where I'm softest. On the one hand, it's good, because I'm now much more motivated to know as much as possible. On the other hand, however, are my motivations righteous? Does that even matter, considering the ends are righteous? Or does the righteousness of the ends depend on the righteousness of the means? Where is the balance?
I am a firm believer that whatever can be accomplished by evil motivations can be accomplished by good motivations. Matter of fact, I strongly believe... no, I know that good motivations will always be able to outperform evil motivations; whether or not good motivations actually do is up to the person, but they will always be able to. So why does my friend (along with what seems like the vast majority of the world) insist on evoking evil intentions out of people, instead of accomplishing the same thing by evoking good intentions?
Being a liberal at an extremely conservative university, I have few friends that I feel comfortable talking politics with; that I feel will understand me when I try to make points. Politics is an amazingly broad topic, and as such, requires one to know a lot about a lot in order to really have an opinion about something. Since coming home from my mission, I have been actively searching for information on everything that even remotely relates to politics. I do not consider myself an informed person, though I am much more informed than I was 6 months ago when I first came home.
In order to facilitate my knowledge/understanding/growth, I joined the BYU Democrats (yes, I'm a liberal at BYU, maybe now that first paragraph carries a little more meaning). I have made many friends in the club, friends that I respect and from whom I have learned a great deal (and continue to). They are the aforementioned people, the few here I trust to talk politics with. They are also the only ones I feel comfortable sharing my personal inadequacies with: specifically relating to my lack of being informed on political topics.
Recently one of these close friends attacked me on not being adequately informed, something I personally struggle with already. While we are both liberal, he supports Clinton, while I support Obama. He attacked me on not knowing enough about Obama, something I've already confided in him; to make matters even more difficult, he debated with me about it just to prove his point.
As far as I can tell, someone can only have two reasons for accusing someone of something else: 1)that person doesn't realize their fault, or 2)they are not doing anything about it. Considering both statements are untrue of me, I am left with a troubling conundrum: why did this person do what he did? Was I wrong to befriend him? Am I just a glutton for punishment, unconsciously choosing those people who will take advantage of me for their own personal amusement? And what am I to do now with the rage he has so effectively drawn out in me?
Perhaps I could just forgive and forget if I could be sure that this was a one-time thing, but I'm fairly certain that it's exactly the opposite. I'm quite certain that he will keep attacking me where I'm softest. On the one hand, it's good, because I'm now much more motivated to know as much as possible. On the other hand, however, are my motivations righteous? Does that even matter, considering the ends are righteous? Or does the righteousness of the ends depend on the righteousness of the means? Where is the balance?
I am a firm believer that whatever can be accomplished by evil motivations can be accomplished by good motivations. Matter of fact, I strongly believe... no, I know that good motivations will always be able to outperform evil motivations; whether or not good motivations actually do is up to the person, but they will always be able to. So why does my friend (along with what seems like the vast majority of the world) insist on evoking evil intentions out of people, instead of accomplishing the same thing by evoking good intentions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)