What do they think?

I always wonder when i read or hear something that criticizes something i believe in ( usually politics or religion), how useful it would be to have a dubbed over version responding point by point to everythg that the person says. There are always plenty of responses that address one or two issues in a statement, but i've always observed that the simplest major issues (i.e. the ones that didnt really need a rebuttal) are the ones that get responded to, and there are nearly akways major questions that just get ignored n the response. Is this because there is no good answer? Is this because its a criticism drawn so far out of context it isnt graced witha reply? Is it because it wasnt the most important point to the person writing the rebuttal?

I'd really like to be more politically involved in a positive way right now than i have been - its just been really difficult with the current climqte to feel like anything i write isnt just going to stoke fires of frustration in someone else. I've found it difficult to hold a dialogue in person for mltipel reasons. i'm easily distracted by all sorts of different thoughts so that i never finish a point but move from one to another without really finishing any sngle thought. Also, i usually am usually listeng more to respond than the listen, and so my comments are often off topic or not as complete as i would like them to be. Finally, i'm not usually comfortable "going the distance" with someone else - pushing when a point made by either person seems weak - both because i dont think they really want that and i dont want to back myself into a corner i cant get out of. Its also more helpful to have some time to look things up and find what studies have demonstrated a realistic solution could be.

I dont know if i'l make it through it all, but i'd like to go thrugh obama's speech and point out where i think he got it and where i think he's misrepresenting or oversimplifying the opposing view a esentially, what went through my head when he said it. I would like to be sbe to go cite references for stuff but given the time at hand i'll probaboy just rerence my head and ope to have some n hand studies, etc to reference . That kind of thung is massively time consuming and i dnt have the time to dedicate now, but i hoep to do ts for about 15 min per day and see how far i can get doing that over the next few days. When i'm dne i'll probably ry to pull something of romneys or some other recent issue that's popular n the news - i'm sure there will be plenty coming to us in the future.

Personal and congregational worship?

Deuteronomy 17:18-20

18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: 

19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: 

20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.

This passage emphasizes the importance of scripture study in a time when scriptures were hard to come by. Having the king study them is a great way to ensure that the king doesnt deviate far from serving God.

Is this one reason why kings took on them the responsibility of the people (think: Mosiah and Benjamin's people): Because the people had no scriptures but what they heard during congregational worship? Is congregational worship an ancient practice to provide a way for people to learn the gospel? I think we will always worship together because the gospel teaches us to love others; but it makes me wonder if the purpose of congregational worship anciently was different than today - and if so, what ought it to be today?

Helaman 10

I recently read this passage and remembered a lesson that i learned while serving a mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

4 Blessed art thou, Nephi, for those things which thou hast done; for I have beheld how thou hast with unwearyingness declared the word, which I have given unto thee, unto this people. And thou hast not feared them, and hast not sought thine own life, but hast sought my will, and to keep my commandments.
5 And now, because thou hast done this with such unwearyingness, behold, I will bless thee forever; and I will make thee mighty in word and in deed, in faith and in works; yea, even that all things shall be done unto thee according to thy word, for thou shalt not ask that which is contrary to my will.
6 Behold, thou art Nephi, and I am God. Behold, I declare it unto thee in the presence of mine angels, that ye shall have power over this people, and shall smite the earth with famine, and with pestilence, and destruction, according to the wickedness of this people.
7 Behold, I give unto you power, that whatsoever ye shall seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; and thus shall ye have power among this people.

The lesson is mostly unconnected with the content of the passage, but this records a promise and command given to one of God's prophets in The Book of Mormon. Before I went on my mission (I could have ben 10 or I could have been 18 - I don't remember) I remember my mom emphasizing that this was a meaningful passage to her and after that I always paid attention to it when i read it. By the time I was on my mission, this prophet's faithfulness was a primary influence in my daily behavior - i thought about this passage with frequency and aspired to the obedience that brought these blessings to the prophet.

I think that the background for the lesson was this: Several weeks before I came home I was trying to motivate a small group of missionaries to work very hard. I knew that they would be more motivated by recalling instruction they had received from the scriptures or elsewhere to work very hard, than they would by my account of this passage that was meaningful to me. So I asked each missionary to come to a meeting prepared to share a scripture that had influenced their day-to-day behavior on their mission.

When we held the meeting I was shocked that, rather than repeatedly hearing of the "unwearyingness" mentioned in the verses above, I heard passages that described other attributes that should guide the daily behavior of missionaries specifically and worshipful disciples, such as love for others, humility, etc. As I recall, the passages reflected the things that each individual had particular strengths in. As much as i should have known all of this long before, it powerfully taught me two things: 1) working hard was something i was very good at and thought hard about, but it wasn't the only thing missionaries needed to do to be faithful disciples. 2) everybody was already working hard according to what Heavenly Father ad impressed upon them.

Two simple things, but it was a powerful lesson to me.

Best Christmas Movie Dialogue

Favorite dialogue of all time in a Christmas movie? Youtube Skeletor and Christmas for a hilarious clip. Look for the ne that is about a minute and a half long. Gets me every time.

Merry Christmas!

Walking

This article is more useful to modellers than the casual reader (take hoe points for the non-modeller are that i look at where i'm going whie i'm walking and am more likely to fall in heavy crowds because of contact with others). But it is interesting to see that the way they can model pedestrian behaviors and what they're thinking it could be useful for (e.g. Robotics).

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/17/6884.full

Tragedy of the Commons

I promise to get back to what i started 2 days ago, but I'm short on time tonight, so i thought i'd paste n something from an article called "the Tragedy of the Commons."  it's an interesting read, though i disagree with his reasons for writing the article. Here's what the tragedy is:

"The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to meof adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component.

1. The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly + 1.

2. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision making herdsman is only a fraction of - 1.

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another.... But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit -- in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all."

Of all the elements in the periodic table, six are the most abundant in living organisms: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, and phosphorus. The goal of life is to obtain these elements in a form that they can be used in directly, or to synthesize them into a useable form. Also, once obtained, these elements are required for different things. Sometimes an organism needs oxygen because it is an element that is part of a structural molecule the organism is synthesizing (think - a starchy cell wall). But sometimes oxygen is necessary because an animal needs it to get energy out of it (for example, to power the building of that starchy cell wall).

The question is - what are the useable forms of those elements, and how are those useable forms created. For example, we don't make the vitamin B12 but we do require it to live. Is there an abundance of vitamin b12 on the earth already, or does it have to be made? If we don't make it, what does? How does it make it?

These are fundamental questions in biology, and an emerging theme is that eukaryotes (roughly, organisms with a nucleus, many of which are multicellular) aren't great at making their own nutrients. Single celled prokaryotes, different from eukaryotes n several ways includng being anucleate and unicellular, are great at synthesizing these molecules from materials that are not useful to humans. For example, Escherichia coli cells in the human astrointestinal tract synthesize vitamin B12 that we subsequently take up and use. The emerging model is that eukaryotes use prokaryotes n symbiotic associations to live in places they otherwise couldn't live because the prokaryotes provide nutrition to the eukaryote, just as in the example above.

More on this later - i was trying to build up to another cool association, but took too long getting there.