I'm sure that at one time or another, someone has asked you, "if money and time weren't an issue, what would you do?" Well, I have been asked this question before and it has always troubled me. It is troubling because I've given a great deal of thought to this question and sadly, have not come up with a deeply passionate answer. I've always been concerned about that.
Sure, I've thought of some things I would like to do...like travel. But, beyond that, nothing truly substantial.
I used to think that, because I didn't have a good answer to this question, something was wrong with me. For example, does that fact that I can't answer this question mean that I'm not truly passionate about anything, interested in anything, concerned about anything? I used to think that was the case. But, I'm finally learning that, it's okay not to have an answer to this question...or answer to a lot of other questions regarding my future.
Take a glance at my major: Nonprofit Administration. hmm..sounds legit but, what does that really mean? Well, they are preparing me to lead, administer, and operate a nonprofit company. I would say that 98% of the people who ask me what I'm going to do with my degree have the same response: "oh, you're not going to have any money!" or "really? you can study that and get a degree?" Awesome. That makes me feel great. So, while I have a major and am working toward a goal, (getting a degree) my plans are still murky. There are so many different directions I could go upon graduation and I don't feel a strong pull toward any one thing.
But, what I take comfort in is that I know God is in this plan. I know he is leading me towards something greater than what I'm doing now. Lindenwood is a great place to learn and get prepared for the next phase in my life. While I'm still not sure about the answer to that infamous question, I know that I trust God.
Really, isn't that a better answer to the question?? I could say whatever I wanted but, shouldn't God be in on my dreams and goals? Shouldn't he be the one in control?
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
The Electoral College
This November, I will vote in my first presidential election. Yes, I'm excited. As a result of this new civic responsibility, I am trying to become an informed voter. As I'm reading about candidates and polls and primary results, I am remembering this thing called the "electoral college" that we learned about in 9th grade.
Here is my frustration (which i'm sure that A LOT of people have thought about):
Why do we still have the electoral college?
I understand that the electoral college served it's purpose back in the day. However, we are an educated nation. Are we not capable of electing a president purely on the popular vote?
I could go on but, I'm interested to hear what Caldwell and my bro and especially my cousin have to say about this!
Here is my frustration (which i'm sure that A LOT of people have thought about):
Why do we still have the electoral college?
I understand that the electoral college served it's purpose back in the day. However, we are an educated nation. Are we not capable of electing a president purely on the popular vote?
I could go on but, I'm interested to hear what Caldwell and my bro and especially my cousin have to say about this!
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Striving to answer Yali's question
I am taking an anthropology class regarding social and cultural change and am loving it. We are reading "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond and "Non-Zero" by Robert Wright...both excellent books.
In this class we are striving to answer one question: Why did wealth and power become distributed as they now are, rather than in some other way? For some, this may seem like an easy question with a few simple answers. To others, like myself, it may inspire quite a bit of thought. I don't believe the answer is simple at all. At the least, the answer requires one to review thousands upon thousands of years of human history; quite a daunting task.
The question can be posed in another form: Why weren't Native Americans, Africans, and Aboriginal Australians the ones who decimated, conquered, or virtually exterminated the Europeans and Asians? Why was it the other way around?
A friend of mine views this question as silly because, according to this person, it doesn't matter how it happened; it just did. It already happened and this fact requires no further thought. But, because of the way different peoples and cultures came about and how they conquered other peoples does matter. In fact, we are still living with the effects of said conquering and dominating today.
For example, the interactions among these peoples helped shape the modern world through epidemics, genocide, and conquest. The collisions of cultures caused by these conquests have created reverbations that we are still living with today.
Take Africa for example: Africa is known as the "cradle of civilization" Humans here had a huge head start regarding civilization and progress. Also, malaria and yellow fever that killed Europeans originated in Africa. Yet until recently (recently is relative) African tribes were still living in the stone ages and barely beyond the stage of hunter-gatherers. Why? Why weren't these people the first to domesticate animals? evolve into an agricultural society? produce steel?
This is puzzling to me.
It certainly doesn't boil down to intelligence, does it? Are Europeans smarter than Africans? Is this the answer to my question? Surely not. I do not believe, in any way, that one group is naturally smarter than the other. Different genes: yes. Higher forms of intelligence: I don't think so.
What about another simple answer: geography. Because of geography, did the people of one continent already have a clear advantage over another people?
Is it really that simple?
In this class we are striving to answer one question: Why did wealth and power become distributed as they now are, rather than in some other way? For some, this may seem like an easy question with a few simple answers. To others, like myself, it may inspire quite a bit of thought. I don't believe the answer is simple at all. At the least, the answer requires one to review thousands upon thousands of years of human history; quite a daunting task.
The question can be posed in another form: Why weren't Native Americans, Africans, and Aboriginal Australians the ones who decimated, conquered, or virtually exterminated the Europeans and Asians? Why was it the other way around?
A friend of mine views this question as silly because, according to this person, it doesn't matter how it happened; it just did. It already happened and this fact requires no further thought. But, because of the way different peoples and cultures came about and how they conquered other peoples does matter. In fact, we are still living with the effects of said conquering and dominating today.
For example, the interactions among these peoples helped shape the modern world through epidemics, genocide, and conquest. The collisions of cultures caused by these conquests have created reverbations that we are still living with today.
Take Africa for example: Africa is known as the "cradle of civilization" Humans here had a huge head start regarding civilization and progress. Also, malaria and yellow fever that killed Europeans originated in Africa. Yet until recently (recently is relative) African tribes were still living in the stone ages and barely beyond the stage of hunter-gatherers. Why? Why weren't these people the first to domesticate animals? evolve into an agricultural society? produce steel?
This is puzzling to me.
It certainly doesn't boil down to intelligence, does it? Are Europeans smarter than Africans? Is this the answer to my question? Surely not. I do not believe, in any way, that one group is naturally smarter than the other. Different genes: yes. Higher forms of intelligence: I don't think so.
What about another simple answer: geography. Because of geography, did the people of one continent already have a clear advantage over another people?
Is it really that simple?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)