In all sincerity, and after doing all due diligence on my own before writing this post (which should translate into: With all the sarcasm I posses and at the pinnacle of my frustration...), I ask any and all, What good ever came from whining? What grand thing has anyone ever accomplished in life due to your "piss and moan" fest? When reading history books, where was the chapter that explained "Abraham Lincoln owes most of his success to the global response to his whining."
Dear one and all,
I apologize for the fact that your life sucks. But I am more sorry I have to hear about it. I feel bad that nothing seems to go your way, I have been there. In fact, I have done my fair share of whining myself...so let me give you some advice from experience: Unless you are writing a Dashboard Confessional song, nobody wants to hear about it.
Man up, dig your heels in and fix the aspects of your life that you don't like. Friends got you down? Get new friends. Marriage sucks? Counseling. Work sucks? Quit. And for the love of all that is good in this world - shut up! Unless you are actually trying to work through your problems, talking about them will only bring everyone else down.
That being said. If you need a sounding board to help you determine a course of action to better the situation your in, find a wise friend who is blunt and impartial and ask for advise. If you don't have one, I am more than happy to help.
Sincerely,
MR (On behalf of everyone who is tired of having to sit through your rants)
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Leader of the Band
Writing has got to be one of the most frustrating tasks to ever be given, and I am the moron that gives it to myself on a daily basis. To attempt to express emotion, wit, poetry and intelligence all at once by stringing the right combination of words together is absolutely asinine. But I do it because every now and then I get it right, and its awesome (not in the sense of "Becky is so totally awesome," but in the true sense of the word - leaving someone totally speechless). Nine times out of ten, however, it is the most frustrating part of my day. Most people don't understand what I mean when I try to explain that frustration, but my father does. He'll understand when I tell him I have spent the last two hours attempting to write a tribute to him and his legacy, and I have gone absolutely nowhere. He'll understand that this is not anything against who he is - but that I simply cannot put into words my respect for this man. I cannot write about his legacy...simply because I do not know what to say.
Much of who I am today is a driven from what I saw in my father. My father is the writer in me, he is the voice. My passion, power and poetic prose all come from him (although he was never as alliteration happy as I was). When my father and I get fired up, the same thing happens. We pace. We rant. We pontificate. And we will repeat until every last room is converted or crying (the latter sometimes has adverse affects). When my father wants to, he can blow roofs off houses, or as I used to say, "blow fish right out of the lake like cruise missiles!"
My father is a determined man - I believe the term my mother uses is "stubborn." He genuinely wishes to care for my family and provide for them without the assistance of anyone (thanks for passing that one along, Dad.). He works hard at what he does; at everything he does. I don't think I have ever seen him settle for less than what he is capable of, and I am sure that is because when he does it eats at him constantly. Personal success is important to him, but only as far as providing for the people around him. In short, my father cannot let people down; it is not in his nature.
Now I am a father. Providing for a family of my own, trying to make sure my family is taken care of. I now realize what immense pressure my father put on himself to ensure that my childhood was a happy one. The debt he incurred to make sure we had cars to drive and new clothes at school, the hours he put in at work to pay the bills, vacations, broken windows (I still consider that the best bow and arrow shot of my life) and boken bones (Nichelle...not me - I am invincible), and the overtime he put in at scouts, baseball, band concerts, choir festivals, basketball and the one on one time that seemed ample to me. I am fairly certain all have that would have been re-paid with a sincere thank you. I am certain I did not say it enough.
So again, here I sit - now three hours into this process still trying to figure out how to put my thoughts into a non-schizophrenic expression of gratitude for the man who has given me his life so that I may live mine. For that, I say thank you, Dad. I get it now. Thank You. I have had moderate success in life, and I owe much of it to the attributes he gave me. I am the living legacy of Brad Russon.
"...I thank you for the music and your stories of the road. I thank you for my freedom when it came my time to go. I thank you for the kindness and the times when you got tough. But papa, I don't think I said 'I love you' near enough."
Much of who I am today is a driven from what I saw in my father. My father is the writer in me, he is the voice. My passion, power and poetic prose all come from him (although he was never as alliteration happy as I was). When my father and I get fired up, the same thing happens. We pace. We rant. We pontificate. And we will repeat until every last room is converted or crying (the latter sometimes has adverse affects). When my father wants to, he can blow roofs off houses, or as I used to say, "blow fish right out of the lake like cruise missiles!"
My father is a determined man - I believe the term my mother uses is "stubborn." He genuinely wishes to care for my family and provide for them without the assistance of anyone (thanks for passing that one along, Dad.). He works hard at what he does; at everything he does. I don't think I have ever seen him settle for less than what he is capable of, and I am sure that is because when he does it eats at him constantly. Personal success is important to him, but only as far as providing for the people around him. In short, my father cannot let people down; it is not in his nature.
Now I am a father. Providing for a family of my own, trying to make sure my family is taken care of. I now realize what immense pressure my father put on himself to ensure that my childhood was a happy one. The debt he incurred to make sure we had cars to drive and new clothes at school, the hours he put in at work to pay the bills, vacations, broken windows (I still consider that the best bow and arrow shot of my life) and boken bones (Nichelle...not me - I am invincible), and the overtime he put in at scouts, baseball, band concerts, choir festivals, basketball and the one on one time that seemed ample to me. I am fairly certain all have that would have been re-paid with a sincere thank you. I am certain I did not say it enough.
So again, here I sit - now three hours into this process still trying to figure out how to put my thoughts into a non-schizophrenic expression of gratitude for the man who has given me his life so that I may live mine. For that, I say thank you, Dad. I get it now. Thank You. I have had moderate success in life, and I owe much of it to the attributes he gave me. I am the living legacy of Brad Russon.
"...I thank you for the music and your stories of the road. I thank you for my freedom when it came my time to go. I thank you for the kindness and the times when you got tough. But papa, I don't think I said 'I love you' near enough."
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Things I wish I wrote.
Regardless of religious, political, or personal opinons - this article by Mike Otterson makes sense. I wish I wrote this:
This was taken from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/evangelicals-mormons-and-the-beliefs-of-the-president/2011/06/07/AGnGX8KH_blog.html
Many thanks to Ashley for pointing it out @Ashmolita
Evangelicals, Mormons and the beliefs of the president
A week or so ago I read an essay by evangelical journalist and author Warren Cole Smith, suggesting that voting for a Mormon – any Mormon – was a less than responsible thing to do. I found its logic profoundly disturbing.
Some very good conversations between evangelicals and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been going on for years. I hope there will be more, and that they’ll be instructive and mutually respectful. Conversation is the beginning of understanding. But too often we see reactions to old stereotypes, like this one. So here is my open letter to Warren Cole Smith in response to his assertions.
Dear Warren:
We’ve never met. I hope we might have a chance to do so.
I read your symposium essay and it got me thinking. I hope you won’t mind if I avoid discussing particular political candidates. My church is serious about its neutrality in party politics, and as a church spokesman I am always careful not to tip my hat in the direction of either an incumbent president or any of his opponents.
In fact, this letter is emphatically not about the candidates at all, but about how differently you and I understand what it is to be an American.
I hope I can fairly summarize the salient points of your essay. It seems to boil down to this:
1. Any Mormon, regardless of qualifications for office, is unfit to serve because his or her religion is somehow “demonstrably false.” By false, I assume you mean different from yours, or from how you define “biblical Christianity.”
2. Because Mormons believe in continuing revelation, they could “believe one thing today and another thing tomorrow.”
3. The election of a Mormon president would give the religion a boost because it would seem like an endorsement. And that would be a bad thing.
To be honest, Warren, I don’t really know how good or bad any of the likely candidates – Latter-day Saint or otherwise - might be as president of the United States. I’ll try to figure that out for myself before I enter the voting booth in 2012. But whoever might be elected, I expect the judgment that this nation and history will eventually render about him, or her, will have little to do with where they worshipped on the Sabbath. It will have much to do with their grasp of economics, of foreign policy, of education and health care, of their skills as commander in chief. It will likely reflect how they responded to crises, their core values and ability to unite and rally the American people.
I admit, I’m struggling just a tad with your logic that the very fact of being a Mormon disqualifies a person from high public office. That would be news to Senator Orrin Hatch, who has served his country and constituents for 34 years. And to Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader - one of the most powerful positions in government.
It would also be news to former Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt, who as a member of President George W. Bush’s cabinet ran a department that accounts for almost a quarter of all federal outlays. Or to Larry Echo Hawk, who heads the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, in the present administration. And, of course, to the dozen-or-so other currently serving senators and congressmen who are also Latter-day Saints, as well as the thousands of non-Mormon voters who recognized their merits and helped elect them to office. If there is anything “demonstrable” it’s that Mormons have been serving most capably in national government for over a century.
I’m trying hard to figure out how and why belief in “continuing revelation” has or could compromise the performance of any of these legislators and public servants, since that is what your essay implies. “Continuing revelation” means two things to Mormons. First, it means we look for answers to personal prayers – a practice that you and I probably share. Second, it means church leaders receive inspiration and guidance to lead the church worldwide. It doesn’t mean, as you assert, that we “believe one thing today and another thing tomorrow.” As evidence for that, you offer a theological caricature and cite two changes in church policy, which occurred over 120 years. Something of a stretch, don’t you think?
To your third point, there’s your assertion that the election of Mormons to high office would be a tacit endorsement of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This argument, while not new, is frightening in its implications. Substitute the word “Jew” for “Mormon” and see how comfortable that feels. We may reasonably hope that most people vote on the basis of policy positions and not of denomination. I never thought of the election of John Kennedy as an endorsement for Catholicism, or that Richard Nixon’s election “legitimized” Quakers (as if these groups needed legitimation). I think most Americans saw their religious affiliations as incidental to their policies and platforms.
In reality, the church that I belong to embraces a membership with views across the political spectrum, and maintains its independence and neutrality from party politics. If I know anything about my church, it’s how carefully it distances itself from the actions of party politicians and government, and respects the autonomy of any political office holder.
So let’s move beyond these questionable assertions to the premise in your post that really disturbed me, stated by you this way:
“I believe a candidate who either by intent or effect promotes a false and dangerous religion is unfit to serve.”
Who decides, Warren, that one religion is acceptable and another “false and dangerous”? Do you? Does the church that you attend? Since you aren’t calling for Mormons to be legally barred from the highest office in the land, is your idea just to effectively marginalize Mormons and make it impossible for them to run for office? Do you feel the same way about other faiths that are different from yours? Catholics, perhaps? Isn’t there something called Article VI, a constitutional provision that forbids a religious test for political office? “…No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” What does that mean – what has it ever meant – if it doesn’t apply in a case like this?
What it seems you would like me and six million other Mormons in the U.S. to do is concede a fundamental right granted to all Americans because we don’t fit within your definition of what is theologically acceptable. Fortunately, that’s not what the Constitution says, and it’s not what America teaches. I should hope that I can sit one of my grandchildren on my knee and tell them that in our religiously diverse society they are as good as anyone else, and that they will be judged by the fruits of their lives and not by discriminatory interpretations of their faith.
With the greatest respect, Warren, your position is unreasonable, un-Christian and untrue to American ideals. Neither is it typical of the Christians I know, or of those writing at your venue. Mormons across the country live side by side with evangelicals as neighbors, work associates and friends. There is much that they share. And by the way, despite my clear disagreement with some of your theology, I would have absolutely no problem voting for an evangelical who was in every way qualified to be president of the United States.
It’s time to overcome unfounded fears, to stop propounding them, and to start trying to understand each other better. If you want to talk theology, then let’s get beyond the laundry list of trivia that typically crops up in the news media, and get to the substantial issues – interpretation of the Bible, additional scripture, the purpose of life. Hopefully our next interaction can be a personal one. If you ever come to Salt Lake City, please drop in. I’d welcome a meaningful discussion.
Respectfully,
Mike Otterson
This was taken from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/evangelicals-mormons-and-the-beliefs-of-the-president/2011/06/07/AGnGX8KH_blog.html
Many thanks to Ashley for pointing it out @Ashmolita
Evangelicals, Mormons and the beliefs of the president
A week or so ago I read an essay by evangelical journalist and author Warren Cole Smith, suggesting that voting for a Mormon – any Mormon – was a less than responsible thing to do. I found its logic profoundly disturbing.
Some very good conversations between evangelicals and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been going on for years. I hope there will be more, and that they’ll be instructive and mutually respectful. Conversation is the beginning of understanding. But too often we see reactions to old stereotypes, like this one. So here is my open letter to Warren Cole Smith in response to his assertions.
Dear Warren:
We’ve never met. I hope we might have a chance to do so.
I read your symposium essay and it got me thinking. I hope you won’t mind if I avoid discussing particular political candidates. My church is serious about its neutrality in party politics, and as a church spokesman I am always careful not to tip my hat in the direction of either an incumbent president or any of his opponents.
In fact, this letter is emphatically not about the candidates at all, but about how differently you and I understand what it is to be an American.
I hope I can fairly summarize the salient points of your essay. It seems to boil down to this:
1. Any Mormon, regardless of qualifications for office, is unfit to serve because his or her religion is somehow “demonstrably false.” By false, I assume you mean different from yours, or from how you define “biblical Christianity.”
2. Because Mormons believe in continuing revelation, they could “believe one thing today and another thing tomorrow.”
3. The election of a Mormon president would give the religion a boost because it would seem like an endorsement. And that would be a bad thing.
To be honest, Warren, I don’t really know how good or bad any of the likely candidates – Latter-day Saint or otherwise - might be as president of the United States. I’ll try to figure that out for myself before I enter the voting booth in 2012. But whoever might be elected, I expect the judgment that this nation and history will eventually render about him, or her, will have little to do with where they worshipped on the Sabbath. It will have much to do with their grasp of economics, of foreign policy, of education and health care, of their skills as commander in chief. It will likely reflect how they responded to crises, their core values and ability to unite and rally the American people.
I admit, I’m struggling just a tad with your logic that the very fact of being a Mormon disqualifies a person from high public office. That would be news to Senator Orrin Hatch, who has served his country and constituents for 34 years. And to Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader - one of the most powerful positions in government.
It would also be news to former Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt, who as a member of President George W. Bush’s cabinet ran a department that accounts for almost a quarter of all federal outlays. Or to Larry Echo Hawk, who heads the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, in the present administration. And, of course, to the dozen-or-so other currently serving senators and congressmen who are also Latter-day Saints, as well as the thousands of non-Mormon voters who recognized their merits and helped elect them to office. If there is anything “demonstrable” it’s that Mormons have been serving most capably in national government for over a century.
I’m trying hard to figure out how and why belief in “continuing revelation” has or could compromise the performance of any of these legislators and public servants, since that is what your essay implies. “Continuing revelation” means two things to Mormons. First, it means we look for answers to personal prayers – a practice that you and I probably share. Second, it means church leaders receive inspiration and guidance to lead the church worldwide. It doesn’t mean, as you assert, that we “believe one thing today and another thing tomorrow.” As evidence for that, you offer a theological caricature and cite two changes in church policy, which occurred over 120 years. Something of a stretch, don’t you think?
To your third point, there’s your assertion that the election of Mormons to high office would be a tacit endorsement of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This argument, while not new, is frightening in its implications. Substitute the word “Jew” for “Mormon” and see how comfortable that feels. We may reasonably hope that most people vote on the basis of policy positions and not of denomination. I never thought of the election of John Kennedy as an endorsement for Catholicism, or that Richard Nixon’s election “legitimized” Quakers (as if these groups needed legitimation). I think most Americans saw their religious affiliations as incidental to their policies and platforms.
In reality, the church that I belong to embraces a membership with views across the political spectrum, and maintains its independence and neutrality from party politics. If I know anything about my church, it’s how carefully it distances itself from the actions of party politicians and government, and respects the autonomy of any political office holder.
So let’s move beyond these questionable assertions to the premise in your post that really disturbed me, stated by you this way:
“I believe a candidate who either by intent or effect promotes a false and dangerous religion is unfit to serve.”
Who decides, Warren, that one religion is acceptable and another “false and dangerous”? Do you? Does the church that you attend? Since you aren’t calling for Mormons to be legally barred from the highest office in the land, is your idea just to effectively marginalize Mormons and make it impossible for them to run for office? Do you feel the same way about other faiths that are different from yours? Catholics, perhaps? Isn’t there something called Article VI, a constitutional provision that forbids a religious test for political office? “…No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” What does that mean – what has it ever meant – if it doesn’t apply in a case like this?
What it seems you would like me and six million other Mormons in the U.S. to do is concede a fundamental right granted to all Americans because we don’t fit within your definition of what is theologically acceptable. Fortunately, that’s not what the Constitution says, and it’s not what America teaches. I should hope that I can sit one of my grandchildren on my knee and tell them that in our religiously diverse society they are as good as anyone else, and that they will be judged by the fruits of their lives and not by discriminatory interpretations of their faith.
With the greatest respect, Warren, your position is unreasonable, un-Christian and untrue to American ideals. Neither is it typical of the Christians I know, or of those writing at your venue. Mormons across the country live side by side with evangelicals as neighbors, work associates and friends. There is much that they share. And by the way, despite my clear disagreement with some of your theology, I would have absolutely no problem voting for an evangelical who was in every way qualified to be president of the United States.
It’s time to overcome unfounded fears, to stop propounding them, and to start trying to understand each other better. If you want to talk theology, then let’s get beyond the laundry list of trivia that typically crops up in the news media, and get to the substantial issues – interpretation of the Bible, additional scripture, the purpose of life. Hopefully our next interaction can be a personal one. If you ever come to Salt Lake City, please drop in. I’d welcome a meaningful discussion.
Respectfully,
Mike Otterson
Monday, May 23, 2011
Jordan’s king urges US businessmen to invest in the kingdom despite region’s unrest
By Associated Press, Published: May 21
AMMAN, Jordan — Jordan’s King Abdullah II urged U.S. businessmen visiting the kingdom Saturday to make bigger investments in Jordan, saying they should not be dissuaded by the popular uprisings that have unseated two Arab leaders and threatened others.
Abdullah said investing in Jordan allows them access to three continents, 350 million Arab consumers and a cheap, bilingual and skilled Jordanian labor force.
Some protests calling for political changes have been held in Jordan, but the country has not seen the kind of serious unrest that has hit other Arab nations.
Abdullah addressed American businessmen from companies including Hilton Hotels, Cisco Systems Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., Microsoft Corp., General Electric Co., Citigroup Inc., Raytheon Co. and Boeing Co.
One of the attending firms, the global entertainment organization Rubicon Group Holding, announced it will design and produce a 184-acre theme park in the Red Sea city of Aqaba at a projected cost of $1 billion.
Rubicon said in a statement that the Red Sea Astrarium will feature an attraction inspired by the 2009 movie “Star Trek” and developed by Paramount Recreation.
The statement said the project, which is due for completion in 2014, will generate employment for more than 500 high-skilled workers in the local community and will incorporate renewable technologies throughout the facility.
Rubicon, which is specialized in digital content production for entertainment and education, is headquartered in Jordan with subsidiaries in Los Angeles and two other locations worldwide.
So as I have announced in the past, I am the Associate Director of Themed Entertainment at Rubicon and am currently directing the creative content that will be produced in The Red Sea Astrarium. This is a very exciting time for me and my team to be a part of a huge project, but something that His Majesty believes can bring about major change to a region with huge potential. If you are interested in being a part of this, I am staffing up as fast as I can find qualified people. Get a hold of me!
AMMAN, Jordan — Jordan’s King Abdullah II urged U.S. businessmen visiting the kingdom Saturday to make bigger investments in Jordan, saying they should not be dissuaded by the popular uprisings that have unseated two Arab leaders and threatened others.
Abdullah said investing in Jordan allows them access to three continents, 350 million Arab consumers and a cheap, bilingual and skilled Jordanian labor force.
Some protests calling for political changes have been held in Jordan, but the country has not seen the kind of serious unrest that has hit other Arab nations.
Abdullah addressed American businessmen from companies including Hilton Hotels, Cisco Systems Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., Microsoft Corp., General Electric Co., Citigroup Inc., Raytheon Co. and Boeing Co.
One of the attending firms, the global entertainment organization Rubicon Group Holding, announced it will design and produce a 184-acre theme park in the Red Sea city of Aqaba at a projected cost of $1 billion.
Rubicon said in a statement that the Red Sea Astrarium will feature an attraction inspired by the 2009 movie “Star Trek” and developed by Paramount Recreation.
The statement said the project, which is due for completion in 2014, will generate employment for more than 500 high-skilled workers in the local community and will incorporate renewable technologies throughout the facility.
Rubicon, which is specialized in digital content production for entertainment and education, is headquartered in Jordan with subsidiaries in Los Angeles and two other locations worldwide.
So as I have announced in the past, I am the Associate Director of Themed Entertainment at Rubicon and am currently directing the creative content that will be produced in The Red Sea Astrarium. This is a very exciting time for me and my team to be a part of a huge project, but something that His Majesty believes can bring about major change to a region with huge potential. If you are interested in being a part of this, I am staffing up as fast as I can find qualified people. Get a hold of me!
Monday, May 2, 2011
This is the wrong kind of dance.
It was an interesting experience to not be in the know last night. My wife and I were playing the Wii and then we watched a movie together, so I never even heard the news of what had happened in the world until I was plugging my phone in to go to bed and noticed that ALL of facebook nation and something to say about the death of Osama Bin Laden.
First of all, I really don't like getting my news from Facebook. Not sure whether its because I now feel like I am behind, or I am just bugged that everyone has to post the same thing, twice...on their status line, but I don't like it.
Actually, I think the thing that bothers me is the immense spectrum of responses that came through in light of the news. And perhaps that is what is most un-nerving about all of this. I feel that, as a nation, perhaps we have gone a little off the deep end with this news. Is America more great then it was yesterday? Is "F*^$ Pakistan" really the best response? But most of all, is dancing on the grave of someone else really what this all boils down to? I thought we as a people were better than that (who am I kidding?).
Now don't get me wrong, I am not any different, in many regards than the country as a whole; I just happened to come online and read everything post-news break and had the opportunity to think before responding. So please don't think I am taking the Holier-than-thou approach (as I have noticed most of my posts are); but I am very concerned with how happy we are of the death of another human being. Relieved? Great. Closure? Fine. But Happy? Doesn't seem right. To me, some of the Facebook posts I read last night seemed way too self-righteous and "ass-kicking, gun-toting, Jack Bower owned your Islam ranting, muslim preaching, terrorist-mongering piece of trash."
We should be better than that. Regardless of our views, and I share them; despite what we feel, and I feel it; we need to find some reverence in the fact that we as a country have had to resort to killing another man. A life was ended. And while it was deserved, and very much coming for some time, we should in no way be spitefully dancing on the grave of the deceased. This is not that kind dance. We need to be better than that.
First of all, I really don't like getting my news from Facebook. Not sure whether its because I now feel like I am behind, or I am just bugged that everyone has to post the same thing, twice...on their status line, but I don't like it.
Actually, I think the thing that bothers me is the immense spectrum of responses that came through in light of the news. And perhaps that is what is most un-nerving about all of this. I feel that, as a nation, perhaps we have gone a little off the deep end with this news. Is America more great then it was yesterday? Is "F*^$ Pakistan" really the best response? But most of all, is dancing on the grave of someone else really what this all boils down to? I thought we as a people were better than that (who am I kidding?).
Now don't get me wrong, I am not any different, in many regards than the country as a whole; I just happened to come online and read everything post-news break and had the opportunity to think before responding. So please don't think I am taking the Holier-than-thou approach (as I have noticed most of my posts are); but I am very concerned with how happy we are of the death of another human being. Relieved? Great. Closure? Fine. But Happy? Doesn't seem right. To me, some of the Facebook posts I read last night seemed way too self-righteous and "ass-kicking, gun-toting, Jack Bower owned your Islam ranting, muslim preaching, terrorist-mongering piece of trash."
We should be better than that. Regardless of our views, and I share them; despite what we feel, and I feel it; we need to find some reverence in the fact that we as a country have had to resort to killing another man. A life was ended. And while it was deserved, and very much coming for some time, we should in no way be spitefully dancing on the grave of the deceased. This is not that kind dance. We need to be better than that.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Locked and Loaded
A job offer was extended to me, officially, two days ago. And after a ridiculous amount of study and ponderment (new word, commit that one to memory); the wife and I have decided to accept it.
I have accepted the offer to become the Associate Director of Themed Entertainment at Rubicon Holding, a production studio based out of Amman, Jordan. This job will move us to the Los Angeles area and we are now actively seeking a new place to live. Top runners thus far, Valencia, Northridge and Pasadena.
More to come.
I have accepted the offer to become the Associate Director of Themed Entertainment at Rubicon Holding, a production studio based out of Amman, Jordan. This job will move us to the Los Angeles area and we are now actively seeking a new place to live. Top runners thus far, Valencia, Northridge and Pasadena.
More to come.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Prophesies of Victor Hugo
This past weekend my wife and I went to see a local production of Les Miserables. It was a high school production, and I thought they did a great job. My wife was seeing it for the first time, and I have seen it a few more than that but it was still nice to watch another great production.
Les Mis is a musical rendition of the book by the same title about a man's road to redemption during the French Revolution. Jean Valjean is the protagonist of Victor Hugo's 1862 novel. The character's nineteen year-long struggle with the law for stealing bread (5 years for the theft, 12 years for four attempted escapes and 2 years for fighting back during one escape attempt) during a time of economic and social depression.
Valjean's character in Les Misérables teaches the reader that redemption is possible for anyone, anywhere. This of course, is an incredibly important ideal to take away from the book as well as the show, however I have been interested with the depiction of Javert; the show's antagonist.
Javert is a policeman and prison guard who devotes his life to the law. Javert was born inside a prison. His mother was a Gypsy fortune-teller, and his father was a galley slave. The text states that this experience convinced Javert that he must choose between attacking society, or defending it; given this belief, he joins the police. After leaving the parole board, Javert spends the latter half of his life pursuing Jean Valjean.
For sake of time, I will sum up what happens; but you all should read the book: Javert pursues Valjean all of his life, with intention to return him to prison for life. Late in the story Vealjean has the opportunity to end Javert's life and finally be free. Instead he lets Javert go. Javert wanders the streets in emotional turmoil: his mind simply cannot reconcile the image he had carried through the years of Valjean as a brutal ex-convict, with Valjean's acts of kindness on the barricades. Now, Javert can be justified neither in letting Valjean go nor in arresting him. For the first time in his life, Javert is faced with the situation where he cannot act lawfully without acting immorally, and vice versa. Unable to find a solution to this dilemma and horrified at the sudden realization that Valjean was simultaneously a criminal and a good person—a conundrum which made mockery of Javert's entire system of moral values—Javert decides to remove the problem by removing himself from the problem. He goes into a police station, leaves on one of the desks a note with some remarks on how to improve police and prison operations in the city, then proceeds to Pont-au-Change and drowns himself in the river Seine.
In the musical, Javert's character is almost the same, with one difference. The musical's depiction of Javert has strong religious motivations which differ from Javert in the novel, who, although respecting the church, answered only to the law and not God. To me, this is an interesting change because it represents a host of religious individuals who attempt to guide their lives by a moral compass. Javert runs his life by the moral code he learned in the church, however - it seems to have run him to the far side of the spectrum; for now he struggles to find the good in life when it is not packaged in the black and white portrait set forth by the church.
And while the church, which represents the various religious institutions all over the world are in no way responsible for the effect, its members seem to have a tendency to "look beyond the mark" (for John). We forget that members outside our various organizations can also believe in God (in whatever form we understand) and are striving to be like him. Or even, we forget that some don't believe in God at all and yet still strive to make the world a better place. We forget that people all over the world, regardless of religious affiliation, are actually good.
I find it interesting; in scripture it speaks of the "End of the World" as a time when "man's heart shall fail him, and wax cold." It speaks of hatred and anger and a battle of good and evil (most believe this to be an issue based argument; Evil fights good based upon the fact that they do not wish to conform to the truth), that will ultimately over run the entire planet. That may be true, and will quite possibly happen, but for different reasons. I think that we as a people are capable of ending the world over nothing more than opinion; we hate each other - and unlike Javert, we'd kill each other. Look at the major polarizing ideals in society (Abortion, Homosexuality, Death Penalty, etc); no matter what people think or believe about these ideals, which usually have religious roots, end up in fight...and results in genuine hatred.
Let us not become like Javert, who found it so hard to believe that another man who had such obvious faults could actually be good. Perhaps we can remember that regardless of background, faith and ideals; we can look in the eyes of another man and see a life and remember "to love another person is to see the face of God."
Les Mis is a musical rendition of the book by the same title about a man's road to redemption during the French Revolution. Jean Valjean is the protagonist of Victor Hugo's 1862 novel. The character's nineteen year-long struggle with the law for stealing bread (5 years for the theft, 12 years for four attempted escapes and 2 years for fighting back during one escape attempt) during a time of economic and social depression.
Valjean's character in Les Misérables teaches the reader that redemption is possible for anyone, anywhere. This of course, is an incredibly important ideal to take away from the book as well as the show, however I have been interested with the depiction of Javert; the show's antagonist.
Javert is a policeman and prison guard who devotes his life to the law. Javert was born inside a prison. His mother was a Gypsy fortune-teller, and his father was a galley slave. The text states that this experience convinced Javert that he must choose between attacking society, or defending it; given this belief, he joins the police. After leaving the parole board, Javert spends the latter half of his life pursuing Jean Valjean.
For sake of time, I will sum up what happens; but you all should read the book: Javert pursues Valjean all of his life, with intention to return him to prison for life. Late in the story Vealjean has the opportunity to end Javert's life and finally be free. Instead he lets Javert go. Javert wanders the streets in emotional turmoil: his mind simply cannot reconcile the image he had carried through the years of Valjean as a brutal ex-convict, with Valjean's acts of kindness on the barricades. Now, Javert can be justified neither in letting Valjean go nor in arresting him. For the first time in his life, Javert is faced with the situation where he cannot act lawfully without acting immorally, and vice versa. Unable to find a solution to this dilemma and horrified at the sudden realization that Valjean was simultaneously a criminal and a good person—a conundrum which made mockery of Javert's entire system of moral values—Javert decides to remove the problem by removing himself from the problem. He goes into a police station, leaves on one of the desks a note with some remarks on how to improve police and prison operations in the city, then proceeds to Pont-au-Change and drowns himself in the river Seine.
In the musical, Javert's character is almost the same, with one difference. The musical's depiction of Javert has strong religious motivations which differ from Javert in the novel, who, although respecting the church, answered only to the law and not God. To me, this is an interesting change because it represents a host of religious individuals who attempt to guide their lives by a moral compass. Javert runs his life by the moral code he learned in the church, however - it seems to have run him to the far side of the spectrum; for now he struggles to find the good in life when it is not packaged in the black and white portrait set forth by the church.
And while the church, which represents the various religious institutions all over the world are in no way responsible for the effect, its members seem to have a tendency to "look beyond the mark" (for John). We forget that members outside our various organizations can also believe in God (in whatever form we understand) and are striving to be like him. Or even, we forget that some don't believe in God at all and yet still strive to make the world a better place. We forget that people all over the world, regardless of religious affiliation, are actually good.
I find it interesting; in scripture it speaks of the "End of the World" as a time when "man's heart shall fail him, and wax cold." It speaks of hatred and anger and a battle of good and evil (most believe this to be an issue based argument; Evil fights good based upon the fact that they do not wish to conform to the truth), that will ultimately over run the entire planet. That may be true, and will quite possibly happen, but for different reasons. I think that we as a people are capable of ending the world over nothing more than opinion; we hate each other - and unlike Javert, we'd kill each other. Look at the major polarizing ideals in society (Abortion, Homosexuality, Death Penalty, etc); no matter what people think or believe about these ideals, which usually have religious roots, end up in fight...and results in genuine hatred.
Let us not become like Javert, who found it so hard to believe that another man who had such obvious faults could actually be good. Perhaps we can remember that regardless of background, faith and ideals; we can look in the eyes of another man and see a life and remember "to love another person is to see the face of God."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)