A Question

Is it good to have hope in something even if it's weak or false or unfounded or based on shaky promises?

Think. Discuss.

This is So Wrong

Let it be known that I joked about both of these items in the very recent past, and now here they are for real:

Is he the President of the United States or a movie star??? Is he a politician or a celebrity??? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we ever saw President Bush on the cover of Entertainment Weekly. It's becoming increasingly obvious to me that Obama was running for Student Body President, not President of the United States. This is only one of the many undignified things I have witnessed the Commander-in-Chief exhibiting since his inauguration. This was a popularity contest, and he won it. Now, let's see if he puts soda in all the drinking fountains. Or if he just makes it legal to kill babies instead.

You know, it doesn't really bug me that Obama is being glorified and deified by the media and press, when if President Bush had done any of the same exact things as Obama had done, he would be ridiculed and scorned (can you imagine how they would have attacked Bush if he had stumbled on his inaugural protocol?). It doesn't really bug me that I keep hearing about how black people still complain about discrimination, and how Michelle Obama is a bad example for wearing clothes designed by whites or Asians (seriously, this is news?!?). It doesn't really bug me that he can get away with anything and everything and people will make excuses for him to no end.

Oh wait... All those things really do bug me.

Un-American Redux

Well, whatever the reasoning, Tom Hanks has retracted his unfair and nonsensical statement about Mormon supporters of Prop 8 being un-American (not to mention the hundreds of thousands of non-LDS and/or Catholic Califiornians who were also evidently in favor of it) and actually apologized. Whaddaya know, participating in the democratic process is an American-ish thing to do after all! Thanks for the (eventual) stamp of approval, Tom!

But really, an apology from Hollywood? That's the last thing I expected to hear from this guy. I really would have thought he couldn't care less what his LDS viewers thought of him. He (or his publicist?) at least seems to know to follow whichever way the wind blows.

Un-American

Apparently, Tom Hanks has (very authoritatively, of course) decided that Mormons are "un-American" for our support of Proposition 8 in last fall's election.

Evidently, if you're liberal and follow the lawless standards of the world (nay, even Hollywood, for Pete's sake), that's what qualifies you as an American. If standing up for what I believe in, fighting for traditional values and participating in the democratic process makes me un-American, then I guess that's what I am.

Why do celebrities think they know everything anyway? Stick to acting, leave politics to the politicians. Heaven knows they mess it up enough for themselves. They don't need a bunch of self-important pseudo-intellectuals to help them out.

A Word or Two About Agency

Your Heavenly Father has given you agency, the ability to choose and to act for yourself. Agency is essential in the plan of salvation. Without it, you would not be able to learn or progress or follow the Savior. With it, you are “free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil”.

(Source)


You might be wondering why I put a picture of a jail cell under a blog title and quote about agency. This is for a couple reasons. First, I've been wanting to blog about agency for a while now, considering its relevance to the current political and cultural climate of our country. Also, for my Abnormal Psychology class tonight we took a field trip to the Utah County jail in Springville. We had a short spiel from Sgt. Wall (which felt like a string of scare tactics intended to warn troubled youth against bad and addictive behavior rather than a presentation to a group of college students who just finished studying the psychological causes and effects of substance-related disorders), a brief tour of the facilities (in which we weren't sure who were the caged animals and which were the zoo visitors, us or the inmates, the way they were ogling us) and concluded our visit with a short Q&A session with two young ladies who were serving their respective sentences for extreme and repeated possession, use and selling of various and numerous illegal substances (both of whom were younger than I am, and one of whom had been in and out of jail a total of 21 times... so far...).

So, with the presidential race, as well as issues such as Proposition 8, a lot of LDS people are using the concept of agency (which, as stated above, is our God-given freedom to choose between right and wrong, a gift given to man since the very beginning with Adam and Eve--indeed, according to Preach My Gospel, it's among the very first principles taught to those investigating the Church) in some sort of convoluted misunderstood reasoning against standing for their traditions and beliefs. Agency IS a good thing, and everyone has it, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to stand for and yes, even enforce good things. Agency is sort of a double-edged sword, because we all love and want to be able to choose what we want to do, but at the same time there are always consequences, for good or bad. The poor girls at the jail tearfully expressed their regret for their poor decisions, but at the same time didn't seem to shift the responsibility or blame to anyone else (they indicated they were among the most sober of the other inmates, others might not be so quick to accept the blame). Now, a lot of people feel like enacting and supporting/promoting amendments and laws that protect a preferable way of life or align with your beliefs is in some way infringing on others' agency. This mindset seems completely off to me. According to that logic, why should we even have missionary work or strive to share our beloved beliefs with others? Why would God even give or enforce commandments and why would we have to suffer consequences? Couldn't that be considered an attempt at infringement on agency? Similarly, people feel that we should vote for so-and-so because said candidate believes in, say, abortion and gay marriage, since those are things people should be able to choose, and to vote otherwise would indicate that we DON'T want to allow choice. That is hardly the point. Laws and commandments that protect morality and enforce the right are NOT an infringement on agency. People are always free to choose whether or not to follow or adhere to a set of rules (be they laws, commandments, amendments, recommendations, or friendly suggestions), but we have to do what we can to promote the good while we still can.

I believe that God gave us agency. I also believe that He wants us to use our agency to further His work and share what we believe in any realm, be it social, cultural, political or spiritual. I don't believe efforts such as promoting Proposition 8 are taking away anyone's agency. Standing for truth and righteousness in any way helps us learn and progress and follow the Savior.

Incidentally, both of these tragic ladies (who the Sgt. feels will be back in jail once released, despite their adamant insistence that they were going to clean up for good) responded identically when asked what single word of advice they would give in five seconds to keep people away from making bad choices and ending up like they did:

Keep God in your life.

Over the brink...

Okay, I'm ready to report. But first, the catalyst behind the controversial rentals.

Yesterday I finished reading Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. I wished many times on the mission that I had read it before I left, especially since with the movie release came a lot of discussion and controversy, and I wished I could contribute informedly on the subject, so when I came home, it was on my list of to-read books. Here, I only want to give you a somewhat brief review, just a glimpse of my feelings after reading it. And they are these: Line-blurring pseudo-historical fiction with a not-so-subtle agenda. I have a problem with historical fiction in general, but especially when they start to bring religious doctrine and theology into the mix (don't get me started on The Work and the Glory...). And, let the reader recall that Dan Brown has made claim after claim that the book is "99% accurate", and even provides a disclaimer at the very outset claiming that the contents are historically consistent. I understand that this is a work of fiction, but it just gets too close and takes too many liberties with too many important facts to be overlooked (and yes, people ARE taking this book more seriously than it deserves, which is the cause for any concern I might have about it). It IS well-written, which makes it even that much more convincing, and thereby that much more dangerous (as it were). In the end, I resent the novel's authoritative claims that Da Vinci was a "flamboyant homosexual", that Noah was an albino, and that Walt Disney was a rampant Freemason, not even getting into the Holy Grail/goddess worship/Christ as mere mortal (or rather, Christ's divinity being the result of a vote) issues. While I understand how they can enjoy this book, I really don't know how people, especially Christians, can read it and miss the blatant anti-Christ overtones. Some say that you find what you want to find when reading something like this, but there are some things that are inherently there, whether or not you want to find them. (FYI, my sister Cami has written an excellent essay on the book, which can be found here.)

And now, onto the movie reviews... Spoilers naturally abound.

First, I straightaway watched the film version of aforementioned novel. I thought the whole thing was rushed pacing-wise, and also that the characters came across as wooden and caricatured, rather than layered and interesting, as at least they were portrayed in the novel. But at least some of the easier mysteries were solved more quickly (which annoyed me in the book... If even I can guess what something means, surely these geniuses can). In the film, a lot of the mystery was lost and the denoument/ending was mutilated beyond recognition. I will say that the film was decidedly less propagandistic, and even considerably less controversial in its theories and claims (for instance, the myths and legends of the Grail were not readily accepted and celebrated by Langdon in the film as they were in the novel, rather they were most openly espoused by Leigh Teabing, who of course is portrayed as a bit of a fanatic). It's almost like the filmmakers wanted to make a slightly more Christian-friendly version of the story, a little more politically correct or something. Langdon even makes some relatively redeeming comments throughout the film that, incidentally, his character would never have said in the novel. Anyway, it was a relief when it was over, and while I found the novel more exciting, action/mystery-wise, I found the movie a little less unsettling as far as its smug, authoritative claims go.

And now, for tonight's addition to the marathon of questionable material, I watched the film adaptation of the first novel in Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy, The Golden Compass. Again, I had read a lot about this, including Pullman's unashamed admission that the books have an anti-God allegory intertwined (think of it as the antithesis to the glorious Narnia series, in nearly every way). I decided, after a couple of recommendations and of course my own curiosity and desire to maintain an educated and informed opinion, to watch, and have to say that, just as a film, it was disappointing. Disjointed, confusing, and I just kept wondering when it was ever going to end, and how it could end satisfactorily (which it didn't). The film was less blatant in its propagandistic quality (seems like a trend...), but it was still there. The thing is that any atheistic slants just made the whole project seem sort of... bitter and vindictive. Like, the author was saying, "I'm so sick of God and Christianity that I'm going to make a story that is SOOOO anti-God that it will shock people and offend Christians everywhere!" Kind of childish, and not creative enough to validate such an attitude. It was left WIDE open for a sequel, but it doesn't seem like this film made enough to qualify for a sequel. Just another fantasy film trying to catch a ride on the wave of the far-superior recent book-to-film successes of the works of Rowling, Lewis and Tolkien. I should have known this thing would be a joke when, mingled with the previews at the start of the disc, a completely propagandistic ad about global warming and its negative effect on polar bears played, featuring Lyra (the main character) and other characters from the film. I almost wretched right there.

Anyway, that's all, really. At least all that I want to say here and now. I'm not about to start picketing or anything, I just am glad to know what the hullabaloo is about. Maybe if I were a Catholic, I would take more of an issue with both issues in question, but I'm mostly annoyed that those four hours of my life were spent satisfying a sort of morbid curiosity.

I guess they can't all be Narnia, can they?

On the brink...

Just so you all know, I'm standing on the edge, about to watch two of the more religiously controversial movies in recent cinematic history. Details to follow...

The agony of defeat...

I almost never post things about actual politics-politics, but here goes...


So, over the weekend, Hillary Clinton announced her concession from the presidential race, and urged all of her supporters to turn and support Obama in her stead. Now, I don't pretend to know uber-amounts about politics, and I was absent for a lot of the beginnings of this political drama, but I have caught up enough to know that: 1) I'm glad that Hillary is out; and 2) It seems kind of churlish to suddenly ask her friends to support the person who has been her primary competition for the last several months. All she's done for ages is debate with this person as to why he's an unfit candidate for President, and now she's telling everyone to vote for him. I guess that's how it goes, when you bow out of the race, but seriously, the whole game seems so contrived. Unfortunately, there's not a clear good choice this time around, but I'm pretty sure that Obama would be a veritable political mess in office. No matter what he does, if things turn out sour and people criticize him, everyone will pull the race card, whether or not it has anything to do with the issue at hand. People always say his candidacy has nothing to do with race, but then bring it up anyway! (Especially his wife, oh pur-lease!)

Honestly, I don't think I ever really took Hillary seriously as a presidential candidate. She seemed like a teenager running for student body president rather than a senator running for President of the United States. Some of the Hmong people I talked to about this really had quite a few good points as to why this woman could not run the country, but I won't post them at the risk of igniting a flame of indignation, especially for the super-feminists among you. Besides, Hillary has already basically served two terms as President, it wouldn't be fair for her to get another go!

Here's hoping she doesn't brown-nose her way into a VP spot in the Obama campaign. That's just what we need, Obama AND Clinton in the office...