Introducing even a hint of negativity into a review or article will bring down the wrath of Apple’s most fanatical fans.
(read more at The Thin Skin of Apple Fans @ The New York Times)
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Madeline
My sister Rachel has made many friends as she has blogged about her life. One of the great things about blogging is the ability to network with people you never would have had the opportunity to meet in person. Rachel has befriended a couple about a year ago with a beautiful baby girl named Madeline. I learned that Madeline started her life in this world already facing adversity but from what I've seen, her smile could only brighten the day of anyone who was caught by it. Recently baby Madeline has passed on leaving the world missing her smile but never forgetting it. Please support her parents and friends of the family in the remembrance of this beautiful girl through the March of Dimes.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Tech Fair
This is the tech fair I helped in. I was running the sound board during the fashion show. :)
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Remember when...
U.S. soldier uses Quran for target practice
Within 45 minutes this headline had over 300 Diggs and 200 comments. The comments section instantly became a flame thread of one user offending another with their opinions on the issue.
Remember when the first amendment protected your personal expression?
(Insert typical overused dictionary definition here)
Offend
1 a: to transgress the moral or divine law
b: to violate a law or rule : do wrong
2 a: to cause difficulty, discomfort, or injury
b: to cause dislike, anger, or vexation
I see two different meanings above. The first definition includes moral and divine in the same sentence. Notice the words are separated by OR. I like that because not all of us believe the two are mutually exclusive to one another. I might be offended if it implied otherwise.
The latter definition addresses the personal touch. This is where offense interacts with us. This is why being offended incites such strong emotional reactions. This will be the definition I use. I don't have the energy to wrote about morality today.
So back to the CNN story. A sniper in the US military marked a target on a book, scribbled an explicative onto one of the pages, propped it up, and fired on it. He claimed he did not know it was a Quran. My opinion (and that of U.S. officials) is that he knew exactly what it was. The effect of his actions led to protests by the local villagers, his reassignment back to the United States, and a mushy apology by our armed forces.
I should probably clear up my point; you have the right to be offended even if you prefer not to be. You have the right to live in a world where diversity is reality even when you prefer everyone think like you. You even have the right to expect people to agree with you even though you can't make them. You do have the right to look down on other people and think less of them because you worship the correct sky fairy even if they are happy believing something else. I have the right to think less of you for your age, religion, sexual orientation, race, choice of home furnishings, gas consumption of your vehicle or your insistence that your Apple computer makes you look smarter even though doing so would make me intolerant.
I have the right to desecrate any religious artifact (that belongs to me) no matter the political stance of the culture or country that perceives it as sacred.
Now let me also explain the difference between right/entitlement and action. Personally, I would not be interested in shooting a Quran or a Bible. Why? For the same reasons Muslims and Christians don't want me to. They value these items. I chose to respect their beliefs. By doing so I can learn from them and that respect can be reciprocated. We don't need to be anarchists to have rights. The decision of the soldier to shoot that Quran may have been offensive, but it was not against the law (U.S. law at least). Obviously he has some personal beliefs that differ strongly from those of the host country, but shooting a phone book would not really have been an effective way to express himself would it?
The media that followed focused on the apology:
"I come before you here seeking your forgiveness," Hammond said to tribal leaders and others at the apology ceremony. "In the most humble manner I look in your eyes today and I say please forgive me and my soldiers." (because he and all his other soldiers of course share the blame)
Another military official kissed a Quran and presented it as "a humble gift" to the tribal leaders. (hope he wasn't a Christian, that's heresy)
Sheikh Hamadi al-Qirtani, in a speech on behalf of all tribal sheiks of Radhwaniya, called the incident "aggression against the entire Islamic world." (as opposed to Suicide Bomber Kills 4, 10 Killed Near Pakistani Army Base, Taliban Suicide Bomber Kills 12, Suicide Bomber Kills 22)
I understand there is a difference between books and bodies. But it seems that some people place greater value on one more than the other.
Within 45 minutes this headline had over 300 Diggs and 200 comments. The comments section instantly became a flame thread of one user offending another with their opinions on the issue.
Remember when the first amendment protected your personal expression?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion unless I am offended, or prohibit the free exercise thereof unless I am offended; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press unless I am offended; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble unless I am offended ....Oops I grabbed the human resource version. You know where I am going with this. This brings up an interesting question... do you have a right not to be offended? Sounds interesting, but before getting too far we must find the operational definition of offend.
(Insert typical overused dictionary definition here)
Offend
1 a: to transgress the moral or divine law
b: to violate a law or rule : do wrong
2 a: to cause difficulty, discomfort, or injury
b: to cause dislike, anger, or vexation
I see two different meanings above. The first definition includes moral and divine in the same sentence. Notice the words are separated by OR. I like that because not all of us believe the two are mutually exclusive to one another. I might be offended if it implied otherwise.
The latter definition addresses the personal touch. This is where offense interacts with us. This is why being offended incites such strong emotional reactions. This will be the definition I use. I don't have the energy to wrote about morality today.
So back to the CNN story. A sniper in the US military marked a target on a book, scribbled an explicative onto one of the pages, propped it up, and fired on it. He claimed he did not know it was a Quran. My opinion (and that of U.S. officials) is that he knew exactly what it was. The effect of his actions led to protests by the local villagers, his reassignment back to the United States, and a mushy apology by our armed forces.
While I was asleep one night did a cadre of militant human resource employees rise up and overpower the government? Is our country's military now responsible for the feel goods of every person our soldiers and citizens offend? A book was shot with a gun. To many millions this book is very sacred, to many millions more it is as useful as an email from Classmates.com. Can Islam really expect the value applied to an artifact of religious significance mean the same to someone who does not share in their beliefs? Apparently. And apparently it only applies to Islam. In 2001 the Taliban dynamited the Buddhas of Bamyan in Afghanistan because they failed to place the same value on them that a Buddhist might. I am still unsure how many death vows have been placed on Muslim people by the intolerant and vindictive Buddhists.
(Spot the sarcasm and win a free Playstation 3! But not really)
(Spot the sarcasm and win a free Playstation 3! But not really)I should probably clear up my point; you have the right to be offended even if you prefer not to be. You have the right to live in a world where diversity is reality even when you prefer everyone think like you. You even have the right to expect people to agree with you even though you can't make them. You do have the right to look down on other people and think less of them because you worship the correct sky fairy even if they are happy believing something else. I have the right to think less of you for your age, religion, sexual orientation, race, choice of home furnishings, gas consumption of your vehicle or your insistence that your Apple computer makes you look smarter even though doing so would make me intolerant.
I have the right to desecrate any religious artifact (that belongs to me) no matter the political stance of the culture or country that perceives it as sacred.
Now let me also explain the difference between right/entitlement and action. Personally, I would not be interested in shooting a Quran or a Bible. Why? For the same reasons Muslims and Christians don't want me to. They value these items. I chose to respect their beliefs. By doing so I can learn from them and that respect can be reciprocated. We don't need to be anarchists to have rights. The decision of the soldier to shoot that Quran may have been offensive, but it was not against the law (U.S. law at least). Obviously he has some personal beliefs that differ strongly from those of the host country, but shooting a phone book would not really have been an effective way to express himself would it?
The media that followed focused on the apology:
"I come before you here seeking your forgiveness," Hammond said to tribal leaders and others at the apology ceremony. "In the most humble manner I look in your eyes today and I say please forgive me and my soldiers." (because he and all his other soldiers of course share the blame)
Another military official kissed a Quran and presented it as "a humble gift" to the tribal leaders. (hope he wasn't a Christian, that's heresy)
Sheikh Hamadi al-Qirtani, in a speech on behalf of all tribal sheiks of Radhwaniya, called the incident "aggression against the entire Islamic world." (as opposed to Suicide Bomber Kills 4, 10 Killed Near Pakistani Army Base, Taliban Suicide Bomber Kills 12, Suicide Bomber Kills 22)
I understand there is a difference between books and bodies. But it seems that some people place greater value on one more than the other.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
The Utah Official State Governnment
Utah legislators are considering a bill that would make Alco-pops (cheer beer, b!#@h pop) unavailable in grocery stores. They would be available exclusively at... STATE liquor stores. The logic for this move is some people think they are being marketed towards children because of the fruity taste. Apparently High School students from across the state showed up on Utah's capital hill in support of the bill.
"They are directed towards youth, and we're trying to help the youth to stop buying and drinking them," explained Hunter Erickson, student at North Sanpete High School.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Attorney General Mark Shurtleff have both said they would support the plan. (ksl.com)
I think Utah's (non-drinking by default) youth, and the Church of Do What We Say, have forgotten that you have to be 21 to buy alcohol. If kids are getting it, its not because of the marketing, its because someone is either breaking the law or not enforcing it.
Not only is it not necessary to stick another worthless law on the books, but the whole situation would allow a state government the ability to pass a law that increases its own monopoly on alcohol sales.
Here are a few laws I propose to the Grand State of Utah and the Mormon Congress:
1. Pass a law that legalizes adulthood.
2. Pass a law that seperates religious perversion of lawmaking
3. Pass a law that negates tax-free status to religious institutions that exert influence in government.
4. Pass a law banning Chris Butters.
If you have questions or concerns, take them to your representative at 50 E North Temple, Monday through Friday 8AM-5PM. (Ernie Woo)
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Who are you voting for?
found @ http://www.nataliedee.com/020408/im-gonna-vote-for-mccain-cause-hes-a-white-dude.jpg
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
My Political ID
| You are a Social Liberal (68% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (70% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid Free Online Dating Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test |
Sunday, January 13, 2008
A Good Thing About Utah
My friend Mike took me to Snowbird today to teach me to board on the toe edge. I am improving slowly but I had some fantastic wipeouts. ALWAYS WEAR A HELMET. I am sure that at least one of my better wipeouts could have been a concussion without it.
On the lift on our way up to one of the longer runs the cloud cover that had turned the first half of our run into 200ft visibility started to clear, leaving the rocky peaks of the surrounding mountains visible. The air was CLEAN and cold and the mountains looked so dominating. It was comfortable. It was cathartic. I feel like I've had a particularly bad end of the previous year and this helped me forget it. Some people are drawn to the oceans and seas, some to the wide open flatlands. I am a mountain lover. Wherever I end up in this life it will be in the shadow of a mountain.
Its easy to wonder why I stay in Utah. We are second only to Islamic cultures in our homogeneous religious saturation. It makes life hard and it makes reverse discrimination easy, but I can stand up for my own beliefs now. I'm not letting the crazy people take away my mountains.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
This post might not last very long
Its crazy in this world you have to spell out what you expect from people. Instead of just KNOWING the person you like is showing you the same respect you have to define rules and set limits. Its all verbal. We are a society of lawyers and if you didn't spell it out: well its not their fault now is it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
