http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/10?lang=eng
9 On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:
10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
I have occasionally wondered why the Mosaic law would indicate that some animal were unclean and not to be eaten. One theory I had was that some types of animals were more prone to carrying diseases which were less likely to be destroyed by the cooking habits of the time. There may or may not be truth to that. However, since the Lord giveth no commands that are physical/temporal (Doc & Cov 29:34), there must be something more.
I do not suppose it is everything more, but at least one thing more is as a reminder to Israel of the need to be clean and pure and separate from the world.
The unclean animals represent gentile or unbelieving nations (see verses above).
The clean animals must therefore represent Israel or covenant nations.
The thought bears pondering - what else can we learn from Israel being represented by clean animals? We should only take clean things into our bodies; we should not mix or mingle or defile ourselves with the unclean. I a sure there are more, but that is enough for now.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Sunday, September 11, 2011
a couple of notes
We are told to stand in holy places, places where we are within the light of truth, illuminated by the Spirit; where we are fed and nourished by the good word of God; where we commune and communicate with the Lord through prayer; and where we prepare ourselves to enter the presence of the Lord.
How do you get to the Holy Place? You enter in by the door (gate? - I bet it is strait); offer sacrifice on the altar; are cleansed in the laver of water; and then you enter the Holy Place. In our lives, to stand in holy places, to approach the Lord, some sacrifice is always required, as is being washed and cleansed. Always.
Divide and Fill with Life
A speaker I heard yesterday pointed out a pattern that I would like to share.
Doctrine and Covenants 95 and Exodus 25 both give rough outlines of how the temple (tabernacle) is to be constructed.
1. The building/tent is to be constructed as directed
2. No unclean thing is to be permitted to enter (it must be cleansed should it be defiled)
3. It is to be dedicated to the Lord
4. The Lord fills it with His Spirit.
1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
1. Our bodies are constructed, patterned after our Spirits, after the likeness of the Only Begotten of the Father.
2. We are repeatedly urged to not allow any unclean thing to enter through our minds, eyes, nose, ears, mouth, heart, skin, etc. (we must also be cleansed after defiling ourselves)
3. When baptized, we take upon us the name of Christ. We further dedicate ourselves to him through sacred covenants.
4. The Lord promises to fill us with His Spirit. Most obviously is in the words of the sacrament prayer, that His Spirit may always be with us.
This pattern of dividing/dedicating/sanctifying something to allow it to be filled with the Holy Ghost is often repeated. Moses and his sons were washed, clothed (symbolizing a new person), anointed, and sanctified (does that sound similar to baptism? more on that in a sec, if I remember) preparatory to their serving in the tabernacle where they would be acting in the name and stead of Christ.
The creation is outlined as three sets of dividing and filling with Spirit (or life, light).
Doctrine and Covenants 95 and Exodus 25 both give rough outlines of how the temple (tabernacle) is to be constructed.
1. The building/tent is to be constructed as directed
2. No unclean thing is to be permitted to enter (it must be cleansed should it be defiled)
3. It is to be dedicated to the Lord
4. The Lord fills it with His Spirit.
1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
1. Our bodies are constructed, patterned after our Spirits, after the likeness of the Only Begotten of the Father.
2. We are repeatedly urged to not allow any unclean thing to enter through our minds, eyes, nose, ears, mouth, heart, skin, etc. (we must also be cleansed after defiling ourselves)
3. When baptized, we take upon us the name of Christ. We further dedicate ourselves to him through sacred covenants.
4. The Lord promises to fill us with His Spirit. Most obviously is in the words of the sacrament prayer, that His Spirit may always be with us.
This pattern of dividing/dedicating/sanctifying something to allow it to be filled with the Holy Ghost is often repeated. Moses and his sons were washed, clothed (symbolizing a new person), anointed, and sanctified (does that sound similar to baptism? more on that in a sec, if I remember) preparatory to their serving in the tabernacle where they would be acting in the name and stead of Christ.
The creation is outlined as three sets of dividing and filling with Spirit (or life, light).
First the light is divided from the dark; the waters above are divided from the waters below; and the earth (land) is divided from the water (seas). Going back around, the light is filled with life-giving light of the sun and the dark is filled with the lights of the moon and stars; the waters above are filled with fowl and the waters below are filled with fishes, etc.; the earth is filled with beasts (water already filled).
Wheat is separated from the tares and filled with Eternal Life. So are the sheep from the goats.
The Lord calls His people peculiar because they are to be separate from the world, divided from it, and then permitted to be filled with life and light.
Wheat is separated from the tares and filled with Eternal Life. So are the sheep from the goats.
The Lord calls His people peculiar because they are to be separate from the world, divided from it, and then permitted to be filled with life and light.
...
Going back to baptism and the setting apart of Levites, Exodus 28, 29 outlines that the priests were to be anointed, consecrated, and sanctified. This process is outlined in 29.
Anointing is washing (with water), being clothed with the garments of the priesthood (a new man), and anointed with oil. Olive oil was used to symbolize the Spirit. Its mundane purposes were for cooking food and being burned for light. Thus it provides nourishment and light (like the Spirit) and, not coincidentally, oil sinks in through your skin very readily. So, to become a priest the sons of Levi were washed with water, became a new man, and given the Holy Ghost.
Consecrating was done by smearing the blood of the sacrificial ram on the right ear, thumb, and big toe. This is to symbolize that what we hear/think, do, and where we go will be dedicated to the Lord. This parallels nicely the law of consecration, where we promise our selves and possessions to the Lord.
Sanctification was symbolically done by the priests ingesting the meat of the burnt offering. They ate the meat (body) of the animal that was sacrificed in similitude of the Lamb of God, not unlike how we weekly ingest the body of Christ in the sacrament. While we do not believe in transubstantiation, we are promised that through the keeping of our covenants, as renewed through the sacrament, the Holy Ghost may always be with us. The temple, sacred grove, various mountain tops (Sinai and burning bush, i.e.), and our bodies are able to be sanctified, purified, made holy by the presence of a member of the Godhead. This is to be sanctified, to have the Spirit of Christ dwell within you. This is done in response to our being cleansed, divided from evil, and dedicated to the Lord in what we hear/think, do, and where we go.
Going back to baptism and the setting apart of Levites, Exodus 28, 29 outlines that the priests were to be anointed, consecrated, and sanctified. This process is outlined in 29.
Anointing is washing (with water), being clothed with the garments of the priesthood (a new man), and anointed with oil. Olive oil was used to symbolize the Spirit. Its mundane purposes were for cooking food and being burned for light. Thus it provides nourishment and light (like the Spirit) and, not coincidentally, oil sinks in through your skin very readily. So, to become a priest the sons of Levi were washed with water, became a new man, and given the Holy Ghost.
Consecrating was done by smearing the blood of the sacrificial ram on the right ear, thumb, and big toe. This is to symbolize that what we hear/think, do, and where we go will be dedicated to the Lord. This parallels nicely the law of consecration, where we promise our selves and possessions to the Lord.
Sanctification was symbolically done by the priests ingesting the meat of the burnt offering. They ate the meat (body) of the animal that was sacrificed in similitude of the Lamb of God, not unlike how we weekly ingest the body of Christ in the sacrament. While we do not believe in transubstantiation, we are promised that through the keeping of our covenants, as renewed through the sacrament, the Holy Ghost may always be with us. The temple, sacred grove, various mountain tops (Sinai and burning bush, i.e.), and our bodies are able to be sanctified, purified, made holy by the presence of a member of the Godhead. This is to be sanctified, to have the Spirit of Christ dwell within you. This is done in response to our being cleansed, divided from evil, and dedicated to the Lord in what we hear/think, do, and where we go.
Sunday, August 07, 2011
The Importance of Earnest
Mel would often playfully mention how nerdy (adorably, I hope) it is of me that I often get sucked into reading the dictionary. I will go and look up a word (gasp - yes I do that, and gasp-gasp I still do it in a book on occasion) and end up reading a number of surrounding, preceding, and following words. While I find this a worthwhile experience, Mel finds it quixotic.
I have recently (perhaps I am late to the game) found that the same exercise in the Bible Dictionary is an exceptionally worthwhile experience. What follows is a recent example. I went to the dictionary to see what it had to say about Ecclesiastes and ended up also reading the entry on earnest.
Honestly, I was surprised that there was even an entry in the Bible Dictionary for earnest. I would expect it in the Topical Guide, but to find it in the Bible Dictionary was intriguing. Until I read the entry. Then it made perfect, wonderful sense.
When we are baptized, we witness (among other things) that we wish to be cleansed of our sins and be found worthy of Celestial glory. In effect, we are telling our Heavenly Father that we wish to do what is necessary to become like Him and to live with Him. The Holy Ghost, specifically, the Gift of the Holy Ghost is Heavenly Father's "earnest money", as Paul explains (see link or entry in BD).
In accompaniment to our covenant and witness, Heavenly Father provides a member of the Godhead (who, being One with Heavenly Father is identical to Him in will and purpose) to be our constant companion. In effect, we have entered in God's presence and are given, from time to time, contingent on our acceptance and obedience, direction and instructions (i.e. personal revelation, whispering of the Spirit) on becoming more like God. Covenant, Witness, Ask and ye shall receive. At that point, we are enabled to live in God's presence and to become like Him, just as we wished. It is then incumbent on us to remain in that presence. We learn though trial and error, and often sad experience, to differentiate between good and evil. Quite simply, we learn the good because we notice that we remain in God's presence and the evil because we have withdrawn ourselves from God's presence with the act. Thus we learn the nature of God and how to become like Him, by learning what may and may not be done in His presence.
To prevent repeating myself too many times I will stop there.
I have recently (perhaps I am late to the game) found that the same exercise in the Bible Dictionary is an exceptionally worthwhile experience. What follows is a recent example. I went to the dictionary to see what it had to say about Ecclesiastes and ended up also reading the entry on earnest.
Honestly, I was surprised that there was even an entry in the Bible Dictionary for earnest. I would expect it in the Topical Guide, but to find it in the Bible Dictionary was intriguing. Until I read the entry. Then it made perfect, wonderful sense.
When we are baptized, we witness (among other things) that we wish to be cleansed of our sins and be found worthy of Celestial glory. In effect, we are telling our Heavenly Father that we wish to do what is necessary to become like Him and to live with Him. The Holy Ghost, specifically, the Gift of the Holy Ghost is Heavenly Father's "earnest money", as Paul explains (see link or entry in BD).
In accompaniment to our covenant and witness, Heavenly Father provides a member of the Godhead (who, being One with Heavenly Father is identical to Him in will and purpose) to be our constant companion. In effect, we have entered in God's presence and are given, from time to time, contingent on our acceptance and obedience, direction and instructions (i.e. personal revelation, whispering of the Spirit) on becoming more like God. Covenant, Witness, Ask and ye shall receive. At that point, we are enabled to live in God's presence and to become like Him, just as we wished. It is then incumbent on us to remain in that presence. We learn though trial and error, and often sad experience, to differentiate between good and evil. Quite simply, we learn the good because we notice that we remain in God's presence and the evil because we have withdrawn ourselves from God's presence with the act. Thus we learn the nature of God and how to become like Him, by learning what may and may not be done in His presence.
To prevent repeating myself too many times I will stop there.
Sunday, July 04, 2010
Movies
Recently, I happened to go to "Prince of Persia" in the theater. I saw there previews for many movies which excited me. This is unusual, as I rarely look forward to any movie, let alone several in one season.
My hopes have been seriously tinged with gall and bitterness.
I saw the first of the movies on my list. For the sake of not making a horribly, horribly long and mean post, I will abbreviate it and refer the reader to a couple of official reviews.
3-D should never be an after thought. And it should never be done unless it is a large, major, concerted effort, interwoven throughout the whole film. It is not some cheapo trick to make more money off a film by charging too much for ruining a movie and the let of a pair of uncomfortable glasses.
I understand things must be adapted when going from one medium to another, but I submit that adaptation is not the same as stripping down. Adaptation takes inspiration from an existing piece or work and injects the creative work of a new author. Stripping down is finding something titillating in existence, guessing why people like it, and then making a caricature of those aspects, to the exclusion of all else in the original.
I will stop here before becoming too worked up.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100630/REVIEWS/100639999
http://www.newsrecord.org/living/entertainment/the-last-airbender-1.2278397
My hopes have been seriously tinged with gall and bitterness.
I saw the first of the movies on my list. For the sake of not making a horribly, horribly long and mean post, I will abbreviate it and refer the reader to a couple of official reviews.
3-D should never be an after thought. And it should never be done unless it is a large, major, concerted effort, interwoven throughout the whole film. It is not some cheapo trick to make more money off a film by charging too much for ruining a movie and the let of a pair of uncomfortable glasses.
I understand things must be adapted when going from one medium to another, but I submit that adaptation is not the same as stripping down. Adaptation takes inspiration from an existing piece or work and injects the creative work of a new author. Stripping down is finding something titillating in existence, guessing why people like it, and then making a caricature of those aspects, to the exclusion of all else in the original.
I will stop here before becoming too worked up.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100630/REVIEWS/100639999
http://www.newsrecord.org/living/entertainment/the-last-airbender-1.2278397
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Are you coming or going?
I suppose that everyone who reads my blog will likely have already watched this video, but I liked it so well that I wanted to place it here. The "coming" rings all too true in what I see and experience, and I hope, pray, and strive for the "going".
Sunday, May 09, 2010
And Freedom for All
I suppose my opinions here may not be the opinions of all who read this. However, I hold that these are, indeed, my opinions, and do not need to reflect yours, that I do not have all of the facts and reserve the right to change my opinion, and that your opinion is just as valid as mine.
That being said, I believe the single biggest problem we have with immigration is that it is too hard. If it were easier to come in properly, then there would be much less need to come in illegally. Or, conversely, it is presently easier for many people to immigrate illegally than it if for them to immigrate legally. Consequently, illegal immigration is an issue. If those same immigrants were legit, then they would be part of the system proper, and not cause for concern. They would "buy-in" to the nation.
I do not understand why we place limits on the number of people permitted to enter from a given country. Those limits vary from country to country. To me, that says, we prefer people of this or that nationality over another nationality. It is stereotyping and racism and profiling, all rolled into one, big, smelly pile of mess.
It is also not necessary to limit the total number of people immigrating, of whatever nationality. There is not a shortage of space in the states. Many international cities are much more densely packed than our large cities, for those who like that kind of thing. Our cities are poorly designed and, more importantly, poorly evolved. Los Angeles, for example, does not have the infrastructure it needs to support its population effectively, and is entirely too sprawling, considering its total population. There is room for growth, if there is room for improvement. In the below graph, note that New York City is on par with other, international cities that I thought of off the top of my head. They are not necessarily the most dense cities. After New York, LA is our second most densely populated city, which we see is about half as dense as the others. Depending on how you count, Chicago may be more dense than LA, but still not a chart-topper. No other cities in the US are worth mentioning on this chart.
Further, there is much of the interior of the nation that is unpopulated, for those who do not wish to live in cities. The world could always do with more farmers. Speaking of which, there is not a shortage of food or arable land, either. There is a shortage of people properly utilizing the land and producing worthwhile crops. I will save my corn tirade for another post.
There is an understandable concern about letting in just anybody. What if the bad guys get in? I have two thoughts there. Firstly, part of being able to get in should be a background check - I think things like criminal histories and terrorist tendencies are legitimate reasons to bar entry. However, point 2 is that those who are of that ilk will not balk at entering illegally anyway. The bad guys are getting in now. The bad guys are also recruiting within our borders without even having to come over. What good is a fence doing anyone in that case?
As to fences, when was the last time that you were asked for a passport/ID/whatever when you left the beach? Could not a well-funded terrorist organization or crime organization get people ashore using speed boats along any number of beaches? How many coast guard patrols would be necessary to secure all of the waterfront along both sides of the county? Or will we build fences there, too?
The harder we work to keep people out, the more it costs us, as citizens and the more desperate normal-ish people are while attempting to enter. Trying to imagine the lengths necessary to ensure only those we want and know about enter is a daunting, frightening task.
Many people do not like the haughty, proud, elitist attitude of the USA. Do you think our current border and immigration policies helps or hurts that image? What about open borders?
"Diversity" is all the rage in businesses and at Universities. However, how truly diverse can any place be, when the inputs and available pools to draw from are stacked decks? Or at least the decks have been picked through to make sure that there are not more than the allowed quota of each type of card.
Many people are concerned that their job will be lost to a migrant worker, if we let everyone in. Well, you may be right, but instead of being afraid of it, do what is necessary to ensure your livelihood. Remember, too, that all of those migrants will need to buy food, clothes, find shelter, and basically pump money back into the system. I would not be surprised if someone did a study and found that the average time to convert from a "third world" or "developing nation" lifestyle, to one of waste and opulence, and consumer-centric is about 0.65 generations. In the mean time, if they can live on smaller wages, so can you. It is the blue-collar equivalent to externalization, collaboration, and out-sourcing. If someone can do your job almost as well for less, then you had better develop additional skills. If a robot or computer can do your job, you had better develop new skills. I will save that tirade for later, too.
I believe those are all of the arguments I have heard against immigration and against population growth. I have not heard anything that makes me think allowing people to attempt to live their dreams is a bad thing. If someone's dream is to come and live off the fat of society, well then at least let them come legally so that they are properly accounted for. However, that is not the dream of anybody I have spoken with who has wanted to come here. Every last person I have spoken to from Canadians to Bulgarians to Cambodians to Latin Americans has wanted to come here to escape crushing economic, political, or cultural hardship. Every last one of them has wanted to enjoy the land for the reason God established it.
I do not feel it is our place to deny them entry.
"We were here first" is both wrong and puerile.
It is time to stop being selfish as individuals and as a nation.
Well, that is my rant. I feel better for having put it out there. I hope no one is offended. If you are, I am sorry your feelings are hurt. Please re-read my first paragraph. I am only sharing my opinion. I am not trying to make you agree, though you are welcome to, if you like.
I do not understand why we place limits on the number of people permitted to enter from a given country. Those limits vary from country to country. To me, that says, we prefer people of this or that nationality over another nationality. It is stereotyping and racism and profiling, all rolled into one, big, smelly pile of mess.
It is also not necessary to limit the total number of people immigrating, of whatever nationality. There is not a shortage of space in the states. Many international cities are much more densely packed than our large cities, for those who like that kind of thing. Our cities are poorly designed and, more importantly, poorly evolved. Los Angeles, for example, does not have the infrastructure it needs to support its population effectively, and is entirely too sprawling, considering its total population. There is room for growth, if there is room for improvement. In the below graph, note that New York City is on par with other, international cities that I thought of off the top of my head. They are not necessarily the most dense cities. After New York, LA is our second most densely populated city, which we see is about half as dense as the others. Depending on how you count, Chicago may be more dense than LA, but still not a chart-topper. No other cities in the US are worth mentioning on this chart.
Further, there is much of the interior of the nation that is unpopulated, for those who do not wish to live in cities. The world could always do with more farmers. Speaking of which, there is not a shortage of food or arable land, either. There is a shortage of people properly utilizing the land and producing worthwhile crops. I will save my corn tirade for another post.
There is an understandable concern about letting in just anybody. What if the bad guys get in? I have two thoughts there. Firstly, part of being able to get in should be a background check - I think things like criminal histories and terrorist tendencies are legitimate reasons to bar entry. However, point 2 is that those who are of that ilk will not balk at entering illegally anyway. The bad guys are getting in now. The bad guys are also recruiting within our borders without even having to come over. What good is a fence doing anyone in that case?
As to fences, when was the last time that you were asked for a passport/ID/whatever when you left the beach? Could not a well-funded terrorist organization or crime organization get people ashore using speed boats along any number of beaches? How many coast guard patrols would be necessary to secure all of the waterfront along both sides of the county? Or will we build fences there, too?
The harder we work to keep people out, the more it costs us, as citizens and the more desperate normal-ish people are while attempting to enter. Trying to imagine the lengths necessary to ensure only those we want and know about enter is a daunting, frightening task.
Many people do not like the haughty, proud, elitist attitude of the USA. Do you think our current border and immigration policies helps or hurts that image? What about open borders?
"Diversity" is all the rage in businesses and at Universities. However, how truly diverse can any place be, when the inputs and available pools to draw from are stacked decks? Or at least the decks have been picked through to make sure that there are not more than the allowed quota of each type of card.
Many people are concerned that their job will be lost to a migrant worker, if we let everyone in. Well, you may be right, but instead of being afraid of it, do what is necessary to ensure your livelihood. Remember, too, that all of those migrants will need to buy food, clothes, find shelter, and basically pump money back into the system. I would not be surprised if someone did a study and found that the average time to convert from a "third world" or "developing nation" lifestyle, to one of waste and opulence, and consumer-centric is about 0.65 generations. In the mean time, if they can live on smaller wages, so can you. It is the blue-collar equivalent to externalization, collaboration, and out-sourcing. If someone can do your job almost as well for less, then you had better develop additional skills. If a robot or computer can do your job, you had better develop new skills. I will save that tirade for later, too.
I believe those are all of the arguments I have heard against immigration and against population growth. I have not heard anything that makes me think allowing people to attempt to live their dreams is a bad thing. If someone's dream is to come and live off the fat of society, well then at least let them come legally so that they are properly accounted for. However, that is not the dream of anybody I have spoken with who has wanted to come here. Every last person I have spoken to from Canadians to Bulgarians to Cambodians to Latin Americans has wanted to come here to escape crushing economic, political, or cultural hardship. Every last one of them has wanted to enjoy the land for the reason God established it.
I do not feel it is our place to deny them entry.
"We were here first" is both wrong and puerile.
It is time to stop being selfish as individuals and as a nation.
Well, that is my rant. I feel better for having put it out there. I hope no one is offended. If you are, I am sorry your feelings are hurt. Please re-read my first paragraph. I am only sharing my opinion. I am not trying to make you agree, though you are welcome to, if you like.
Friday, May 07, 2010
Just Plain Not Right
I do not believe anyone, especially soldiers, should be treated with this level of contempt and disrespect.
http://www.theworld.org/2010/05/07/us-veterans-denied-benefits/
http://www.theworld.org/2010/05/07/us-veterans-denied-benefits/
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Feministic Disparity
I recently heard a program on NPR. I cannot find their program, but the attached link covers the gist of it.
http://www.foodrenegade.com/backyard-farming-is-a-feminist-act/
Apparently, some women are choosing to return to the home and become home makers, even after receiving education and advanced degrees. Some of these women refer to this as feminism. This has some feminists very upset. It has this feminist very happy.
My opinion of feminism is that females ought to be able to make their own decision about what is right for them, based on their own, personal values and belief system. Just as many women were stifled and lost their identities in the kitchens of 1950s America, so too many women are stifled and lose their identities in 1990s and 2000s Corporate America. The problem isn't that women don't belong in the kitchen, or in the workplace, or wherever they wish to be. The problem is that women are not (or feel they are not) allowed to make their own choice and decide what they will be.
Previously, "The Man", men, and society applied so much pressure that it was virtually impossible for a women to be anything other than a homemaker, with few exceptions. Presently, "The Man", women, and society apply very similar levels of pressure on women to get out of the kitchen, get out of the home, and to do what they want to do, so long as what they want to do does not in any way resemble what it was they were previously forced to do.
It is my opinion that some women actually do like being homemakers. Let them choose that for themselves. Why would you deprive women of choices and options in the name of liberty? Feminism is not Female Supremacy, but fairness, equality, and liberty for females.http://www.foodrenegade.com/backyard-farming-is-a-feminist-act/
Apparently, some women are choosing to return to the home and become home makers, even after receiving education and advanced degrees. Some of these women refer to this as feminism. This has some feminists very upset. It has this feminist very happy.
My opinion of feminism is that females ought to be able to make their own decision about what is right for them, based on their own, personal values and belief system. Just as many women were stifled and lost their identities in the kitchens of 1950s America, so too many women are stifled and lose their identities in 1990s and 2000s Corporate America. The problem isn't that women don't belong in the kitchen, or in the workplace, or wherever they wish to be. The problem is that women are not (or feel they are not) allowed to make their own choice and decide what they will be.
Previously, "The Man", men, and society applied so much pressure that it was virtually impossible for a women to be anything other than a homemaker, with few exceptions. Presently, "The Man", women, and society apply very similar levels of pressure on women to get out of the kitchen, get out of the home, and to do what they want to do, so long as what they want to do does not in any way resemble what it was they were previously forced to do.
Update: Here is the link to the story I heard on the air.
http://environmentreport.org/story.php?story_id=4983
Saturday, April 24, 2010
The Destructive Forces of Nature
There are several, highly destructive forces in nature. Listed below are those that come immediately to mind, in no particular order.
Water - as rain, ice, or especially cycling between liquid and solid.
Wind - especially with dust or other particulates suspended.
Fire - especially when it is hot! ;)
Children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)