Blog Action Day 2008 Poverty from Blog Action Day on Vimeo.

ShareThis

Oldest Skeleton in the Americas

Another interesting article out of National Geographic, this time finding the oldest human skeleton found on the American continent.  Early indications are that it will challenge the long held teaching that the earliest settlers of the Americas came from North Asia, this skeleton believed to be most similar to Southeast Asians.  The ethnic complexity of ancient America has been well documented despite the prevailing voice of Bering Strait landbridge theories.  The Book of Mormon of course has been telling us this all along, both in terms of ancient vogages across the sea and Lehi’s family finding others already in the Americas.

This find doesn’t change much in terms of what we already knew, if we truly acknowledged everything we knew and didn’t jump to conclusions, but the fact that many scholars and the lay consumers of their publications did jump to conclusions and absolutely dismissed alternative migration patterns should be a reminder that we should be cautious in our consumption of the current truth claims of science.  Scientific understanding, particularly in the more ‘interprative’ sciences (I’m thinking particularly of history and archeology but also things as ‘certain’ as DNA), should be accompanied by humility and any acknowledgement that what we do not know is more than what we do.  Such a stance would make one a better scientist in my opinion, always on the lookout for additional understanding.

ShareThis

ShareThis

One interviewee stated, in essence, that the “gods of history” had given mankind another chance to step in and prevent genocide; another chance, referring to the failure of the international community to intervene in Rwanda. His language, of course, caused me to reflect about God, mass sufferings in history, and the test of this life. Who will have to answer for this in the day of Judgment? The Janjaweed? Sudanese leaders? The Chinese? The U.N.? U.S. Business? me?

The power of citizens. We are living in a pivotal moment in history. Citizen groups are becoming powerful enough to sway government, to speak louder than big business dollars, and to have impact at a level greater than the nation-state.  The citizen movement was the only thing keeping Darfur on the agenda, and no matter how disappointing the ultimate outcome the fact that citizens on one side of the are actively fighting for the well-being of citizens in a remote corner of the world is a welcome advancement.

When Christ spoke that core principle, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” how far does my personal responsibility expand?  Where should I put my limited time and resources?  I see bums every day walking to work but then I go into an office trying to support positive change all around the world.  Is one better than the other?

ShareThis

2500 years ago a man named Jacob rebuked a gathering of men who had through their actions abused their wives and children.  He spoke in the name of the Lord saying “I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women and whoredoms are an abomination before me… I have seen the sorrow and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people [and can suffer it no longer’.”  In our modern day men continue to destroy these most precious and tender daughters of God.  Thanks be to God that He has raised up a woman named Betty Makoni to continue this battle for what is right and the only acceptable mode of behavior towards these most precious souls in the eyes of God.

In blogging fashion I will honor with her with links to her story–

Her official website

Her Ashoka Fellow profile

A speech she gave at the Global Philanthropy Forum

From the Global Fund for Women

From the United Nation’s Girls Education Initiative

From the BBC

ShareThis

Some may hear that first finding and think that they should go chasing after money with the intention of giving it away after they’ve accumulated it but I think that is a faulty and dangerous interpretation. (This happens to be a view I believe is quite common in my own cultural community, particularly along the Watsatch Front). Although the intent-to-do-good motive is the only justifiable reason for pursuing wealth, doing so in the mode of pursuing wealth now with the intent to give later is dangerous. If you cannot give when you have little then I will predict, and the data supports it, you will not give as readily if you do become wealthy. As wealth accumulates so do appetites and the ability to consume.

It is interesting that the study was conducted giving $5 and $20 donations, which is a small price for happiness and very much in the budget of every individual especially if it is truly a sacrifice and not just a skim off the excess.

Perhaps psychiatrists should consider prescribing gift cards to Global Giving instead of packets of pills.

Could giving be somehow measured into the GNH Gross National Happiness.
Now that you want to give away your money, who should you give it to?

I think there is a strong argument for the answer being found in the second article.

ShareThis

I wrote the following review, not to cry evil and argue that the documentary was ‘completely biased’ or ‘wrong’ or anything to that effect. I believe in questioning and thinking deeply on information presented to me and just wanted to point out some failings that I saw that should make us stop and think.  The letter:

I was disappointed in the quality of journalism displayed in “The Mormons” documentary. It really made me question the objectivity in other programs backed by Frontline and American Experience. I do not think the filmmakers were actively trying to push an agenda but I do feel they fell into the same pitfalls and stereotypical biased reporting of the Church on the most controversial topics.  Evidence of perpetuating stereotypes and poor journalism:

Perpetuating Stereotypes:

Mormons worship Joseph Smith: The narrator, who should be most objective, says Joseph Smith is the “Alpha and Omega” of the Latter-day Saints. No Latter-day Saint would agree with such a statement. Taking Biblical language used for Christ and applying it to Joseph Smith has clear connotations of old, false notions that Mormons worship Joseph Smith or are not Biblical Christians.

Mormons practice polygamy: Even after showing a clip of the leader of the Mormon church saying categorically that Mormons do not practice polygamy the filmmakers proceed to show a long segment on the lifestyles of “fundamentalist” Mormons. I believe that modern day practicing polygamists are newsworthy and interesting but not clearly separating such practitioners from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints only perpetuates the stereotypes.

Mormonism contains witchcraft: The translation of Book of Mormon is portrayed as mystical with a strong focus on use of a seer stone with repeated ‘looming’ images. They do not mention elements of the translation that are perhaps most remarkable: the speed in which a 500 page book was produced, accounts of witnesses of the translation process, or showing of the original manuscripts showing no editing, no breakage in dictation yet remarkable internal consistency and external consistency to things not known in Joseph’s day about Near Eastern or Mesoamerican culture and language.

Missionaries are annoying: showing outward stereotype of missionaries ‘harassing people on the streets and not showing the “inside” view that missionaries do not like street contacting, are taught it is the least effective way of finding people to teach, nor do they show missionaries inside a person’s home who actually enjoy and welcomed them.

The Amount of Airtime given to topics:

Airtime given to ex-mormons or historical critics vs. practicing believers. Why do journalists covering the Mormons continually go to ex-mormons or historical critics for the final say in Mormon doctrine and Mormon living. Why would you ask a Quaker to define Islam? Or a Catholic priest to be the expert on Buddhist philosophy?

The amount of airtime given to widespread systematized persecution, murder, and rape of the Mormons vs. the amount given to a one-time incident of a isolated small group of Mormons.

Airtime given to the sexual overtones of polygamy with added commentary vs. brief statement by narrator that many (if not most) plural marriages were not sexual at all.

Not allowing believing LDS commentaries on the most controversial topics:

No LDS commentary allowed after claim of “no archaeological evidence” of the Book of Mormon.

No LDS commentary allowed after claim that the Book of Mormon has no ancient elements, a “nineteenth century creation”.

No LDS commentary about Joseph Smith and ‘golddigging’ claims only that of an ex-mormon.

No LDS commentary in regards to a strong statement of a scholar saying Joseph was “faking it” in relation to the creation of the Book of Mormon.

No LDS commentary allowed on the issue of the blacks and the priesthood. Why not interview someone like Jessie Embry who is well known researcher on the topic.

No examples of believing LDS intellectuals. How about a Truman Madsen, Havard trained philosopher yet believing Mormon?

No active LDS perspective on the excommunication process.  No story from the perspective of someone who had a positive experience and eventually returned to the church. All of this coupled with a completely false image of a lone chair in front of a wall of judges.

No active LDS commentary allowed to an ex-mormon’s strong claim that “his (Joseph’s) sexual desire drove his practice (of polygamy)”

No active LDS commentary allowed to claims that Joseph had an “affair” with a nineteen year old girl.

No LDS opinion allowed in regards to the decision to end polygamy.

It’s right and proper to allow differing opinions but to not give voice, particularly, to the accused is poor documentation.  Helen Whitney and Frontline, you lost a certain amount of credibility in my eyes.

ShareThis

Admired by all that knew him:

NPR

Mike Wallace

ShareThis

The common themes of the Republicans could be summarized as speaking about the sanctity of personal freedom and the efficiency of market mechanisms.

John McCain was flat out childish in his personal attacks on Gov. Romney. I think he came across as one who thinks through the eyes of militarism and traditional Washington politics. Overly entrenched in politician life I think he has lost touch with the experience of common America.

Fred Thompson was the calm grandfather of the group. I don’t think he added anything very insightful on the issues. I liked that he emphasized that the Constitution should be the foundation of government policy (words Ron Paul has been using for thirty years).

Ron Paul impressed me with his understanding and focus on the root cause of problems and was extremely consistent on principles based on the Constitution. Refreshingly, he did not get involved in the childish attacking of other candidates. He was given very little air time to explain his opinions, seemingly unfair considering his neck-and-neck showing with McCain and Giuliani in Iowa and strong polling in New Hampshire. I think his enthusiasm has the tendency to come across as overly radical which is unfortunate because his ideas are extremely wise and cut to the heart of the issues. I recall that he was the only candidate to receive applause from the audience after a specific response. A good moment for him was when the moderator went one by one through the candidates regarding changing their policy positions according to political expediency and for Ron Paul the moderator had to admit that Ron Paul’s record and stances have not changed, only his party label–I think that exercise was the answer to the question and shows Paul’s integrity and principle based platform.

Mitt Romney came across as a leader who has the management skill and personal savvy to get his way. I was disappointed in how readily he gets involved in the bickering and attacking of other candidates. He is obviously trying extremely hard to play the political game: watching his word choice, very concerned with image, etc. I think he could make a good president but I worry that he is overly concerned with image and surface solutions.

Mike Huckabee won in Iowa because nobody knows who to vote for and therefore default to the one they see as standing for the moral values of Christians. As a leader, politician, and innovator he brings nothing to the table. I think he would be a wash as president.

Rudy Giuliani is still riding the wave of name recognition. His platform is weak. Some of his policies I believe are based on faulty assumptions. I don’t think I could handle his intermittent raising eyebrows for the next four years on the news although presidential impersonators would have a lot of material.

Democrats big government to ‘solve everyone’s problems’, continued foreign empire policies, have a good heart but wrong policies to achieve the desired ends. Best moment was when moderator called them all on the rhetoric of the word “change.”

John Edwards loves to use emotionally loaded examples and numbers that appeal to the working class; sounds good but clouds the issues and root causes. A pied piper. I think his accent could be a problem for foreign relations.

Barack Obama I think is all rhetoric. He is a great speaker and very likable because he paints a very Utopian picture but falls very short in any sort of record or ability to bring about the changes he describes. I thinks he is a bit naive in terms of management.

Richardson is an idiot in my opinion. Annoyingly always spouting his resume. Thinks the U.S. President can individually solve all the problems of the world. But scored a great laugh when he called on all the participants to be more civil in their exchanges.

Hilary came across as the most experienced among the democratic candidates but as a ruthless politician doing whatever it takes to woo the voters, not principle based at all. I agree that a woman president of the U.S. would be a revolutionary moment for America but she is not the best woman to be that person. I found it funny that for all other candidates ABC showed the spouse while they were speaking, for Hilary they only had Chelsea to put up on the screen.

Overall, pretty fascinating how open the race is. I think the public remains largely uninformed and cast their support for reasons other than solid principles. I fear that our political system is so tied up with money and the framing of media that the best person for the job will not emerge the winner.

ShareThis