A blog about space – Yippy!

15 June 2008, 6:16 pm by Giggles
Categories: Happy Things, Learn Something

This is one of my new favorite blogs.

I’ve always loved space and I know what quite a few things up in the sky are already. But every few days this blog points out what the most interesting thing is up there and how to find it.

Discovery News: What’s Up?

Share your thoughts

Which of the five goes?

14 June 2008, 10:17 pm by Giggles
Categories: Family, Happy Things, Questions, Relationships

A friend of mine asked me Friday night, if one of my five senses had to go, which would I choose. I had to think about what I would miss from each one.

Thursday night I spent an hour out on the edge of town looking at the stars. I’ve seen lots of bunnies on my runs lately. Sunsets are amazing. I’ve been a camera person since I was little. Colors. Places. People. I don’t think I could lose sight.42D

Crickets. Music. Birds. Laughter. Fireworks. The sounds of someone breathing. The voices of those close to me. I couldn’t lose hearing.

Not having a sense of feeling could be a safety issue. I wouldn’t know if I was burning myself with things or not. But more than that, if I couldn’t feel I wouldn’t be able to feel soft touches, silky fabrics, someone holding my hand, fuzzy blankets, grass. I don’t want to lose feeling.

I asked some friends today and they said they’d probably go with smell. But smell is such a huge memory trigger for me. Flowers. Baked bread. Rain. So many memories are so much stronger for me because there is a smell associated with them. I don’t know that my memory would be complete without it. I don’t want to lose that one either.

So I guess that means that even though I’d never taste the wonderful Brazilian food at Tucanos or chocolate or strawberries or fresh bread and butter again, I’d have to go with taste.

I’m really glad it’s only hypothetical though and I can keep all five.

Share your thoughts

A place to relax

12 June 2008, 1:41 pm by Giggles
Categories: Happy Things

I think one of my favorite things about my apartment is the bedroom. It’s just a bedroom. It’s not doubling as an office. It’s not doubling as a sewing room. It’s just a bedroom. Neither the computer nor the sewing machine are in there. In my last apartment I alternated which of those two I had in my bedroom. Any time you see something about how to sleep better, it’s probably going to say that you need to reserve the bedroom just for sleeping. I’m a good sleeper and so I can sleep if the computer or sewing machine are in there. But I really like that they aren’t.

Home should be a refuge from the world, and I love that mine is. But within the home, the bedroom is the sanctuary.

2 Shared thoughts

They should be shot

11 June 2008, 1:25 pm by Giggles
Categories: Exercise, Venting

People who smoke should be shot. They’re killing themselves anyway, why not make it faster.

One of my neighbors smokes. So that means that when they do – my apartment smells like a cheap motel (and I don’t stay in motels). And lately, whatever they’ve been smoking makes the inside of my nose burn. Which makes it real hard to go to sleep at night when they decide to smoke then.

How do their rights extend to not only killing themselves slowly, but killing others slowly as well? Why do they have the right to make my apartment stink?

I’m training for a marathon here, I don’t need them screwing up my lung capacity. When I run past a car where the driver is smoking, or I’m at an intersection waiting for a light to change and there is a car with a driving smoking waiting to, I feel like yelling over at them, “Hey, I’m trying to breathe here, do you mind?”

It’s illegal to kill people quickly. Why isn’t it illegal to kill people slowly? It’s illegal to vandalize the property of others. Why isn’t it illegal to vandalize the property of others by making it stink?

1 Shared thought

Official?

10 June 2008, 11:50 am by Giggles
Categories: Relationships

What makes something official?

I have known people who have agreed to get married, started planning the wedding, even gone so far as to schedule the temple ceremony. But if you ask them about it, they aren’t “officially” engaged because he hasn’t given her a ring yet. Huh? The way I look at it, if you’ve agreed to get married then you are engaged. There’s none of this silly official/unofficial stuff going on. I recently brought up this topic with some other people I know, and the response was interesting.

There were several girls who said it’s similar to waiting until after the first trimester of a pregnancy to tell people you are pregnant. At that point the danger of a miscarriage has dropped significantly and the chance of actually having the baby are much better so it’s then okay to tell people you are pregnant. Waiting until the guy forks over a huge chunk of change on a ring, thus having him put forth some kind of financial investment on the relationship, increases the chance of actually having a wedding so then you can tell people you are officially engaged.

There are several problems with this line of reasoning though. First off, if you are going to compare it to being pregnant – a woman is not “unofficially” pregnant for the first trimester. She’s pregnant. She’s pregnant from the moment that egg and sperm got together and started multiplying and dividing. I can completely understand waiting to tell people until later though.

With an engagement – you are engaged from the moment the man and woman get together and agree to do some multiplying of their own later. Now maybe they want to wait until later to announce it, but that doesn’t change the fact that they’ve been engaged the whole time.

You cannot be unofficially pregnant. You cannot be unofficially engaged.

Also, why do women require a financial investment in the relationship from guys? Do guys require the same? Okay, there has been a thing such as a dowry in the past, but not so much any more. I’d rather marry someone who can invest emotionally, mentally, and spiritually in the relationship than someone who’s just invested financially.

Another friend went and looked up the definition of the term “engaged” in the dictionary:

1: to offer (as one’s word) as security for a debt or cause
2 a obsolete : to entangle or entrap in or as if in a snare or bog b: to attract and hold by influence or power c: to interlock with : MESH; also : to cause (mechanical parts) to mesh
3: to bind (as oneself) to do something; especially : to bind by a pledge to marry
4 a: to provide occupation for : INVOLVE b: to arrange to obtain the use or services of : HIRE
5 a: to hold the attention of : ENGROSS b: to induce to participate
6 a: to enter into contest or battle with b: to bring together or interlock (weapons)
7: to deal with especially at length
intransitive verb
1 a: to pledge oneself : PROMISE b: GUARANTEE
2 a: to begin and carry on an enterprise or activity b: to take part : PARTICIPATE c: to give attention to something : DEAL
3: to enter into conflict or battle
4: to come together and interlock (as of machinery parts) : be or become in gear

Whereas the definition of the term betrothed is:

1: to promise to marry
2: to give in marriage

Looking at those two definitions, I think I’d rather be betrothed than engaged any day. And I will be betrothed when I agree to marry someone, not when he spends a lot of money on a ring.

Share your thoughts

Taking a stand

2 June 2008, 11:45 pm by Giggles
Categories: Family, Gospel, News, Politics

There are a few things to set out first here.

It was my understanding when I was in school and learning about how the United States government is set up and works, that it was the legislative branch that makes the laws, the executive branch that enforces the laws, and the judicial branch that helps everyone understands those laws. In this way, there are checks and balances so that no one side gets more powerful than any other. I do not remember once being told that it was the judicial branch that set the laws without any checks or balances on them. But that is what seems to be happening lately.

The other thing I have to state is to explain the reason why I feel like I even have to say anything about this, in the past, now, or again in the future.

8 And it came to pass that he said unto them: Behold, here are the waters of Mormon (for thus were they called) and now, as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light;
9 Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the first resurrection, that ye may have eternal life-
10 Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?
(Mosiah 18:8-10, italics added)

I feel it is a matter of covenant for me to take a stand on certain issues. This would be one of them.

Along with it being part of a covenant, from ages 12-18, young women in the LDS church follow the motto to “Stand for Truth and Righteousness.” While I never imagined myself taking a stand on this, nor in this way, I need to.

Now, on to what I’m standing for this time around. I’m standing for families.

I recently read a news article in the Deseret News where a group is asking The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to not do anything about the recent changes in law that the California Supreme Court has made (previous blog entry).

There has been a lot in the news on the topic lately. Several states (article 1, article 2) have asked California to wait till the issue again comes up on their ballot in November (the voters already voted on it in the past, but the Supreme Court decided they didn’t really mean it last time). It has qualified to be on the ballot again this year. (They were already counting signatures when the court ruled.) In fact, the petition was turned in several weeks before the Supreme Court ruled. There goes that judicial branch again, getting ahead of themselves. Someone should really start applying those checks and balances.

The New York governor decided that if the judicial branch can make laws, then why not the executive branch as well; and has told all state agencies that they have to acknowledge any and all marriage performed anywhere else, even if such a marriage would be illegal if performed in the state of New York (article 1, article 2).

So why am I blogging about it again? The group that would like the LDS church to remain quiet on this issued does not understand what they are asking. They cannot remain quiet. They cannot sit this one out. Standing as a witness at all times and in all things and in all places means taking a stand and not stepping aside. It won’t happen. And I’ll stand right there with them on this. Marriage is not something governments created. Marriage is ordained of God. Marriage is only marriage when it is between a man and a woman.

I have some other thoughts on marriage, but those will wait for another blog. Right now, I just want to make sure everyone knows where I stand on this, and that I will be standing, not sitting it out, not stepping aside. I will stand.

1 Shared thought

China – I read about that in a book

29 May 2008, 3:11 pm by Giggles
Categories: Books, Family, News

The tragedy of the destruction in China is appalling. The stories that have been catching my attention about it though are those about the families that lost their only child, and just how many of those families there are because of the laws against having more than one child. (One-Child Policy Lifted for Quake Victims’ Parents; Parents’ Grief Turns to Rage at Chinese Officials; China Amends Child Policy for Some Quake Victims)

I can’t help but be reminded of a seven book series I read over the last few years. It is the Shadow Children series by Margaret Peterson Haddix. In this fictional future, a great war left the land struggling under a large famine, and the government ruled that families could only have two children. Any children beyond that would be killed and the parents punished. As the title of the series might suggest, it is about those children who must live in the shadows because they are illegal, not allowed, an unwanted burden on a society that would rather kill them than feed and educate them.

Parents in China who have more than one child, unless they live in more rural areas where they are permitted to try again if their first child is a girl, must pay fines for their second and third children. Only the first is allowed to go to school. The other children are not wanted by the Chinese society.

It’s what those books of fiction were about, only it’s not fiction. It actually happens in this world.

1 Shared thought