bluedreams

I voted that probably the saddest story I've heard in a month. All around depressing. It probably didn't help that when I first heard about it there was still hope that she might be found....and then I clicked a follow-up only to find out she'd been prostituted, raped, and killed and had probably dealt with her mother's abuse/neglect before but no one did squat for it. I'm glad Shaq is helping out, though. With luv, BD

This is true, but as one who's gut reaction was what you described, it's definitely because of what FunkyTown said as well as a general amount of stereotypes that go around about liberals in the first place that bring this about. After the gut reaction, I do agree with you that patriotism can be a neutral thing. To be honest, I'm probably not the most patriotic person around. Solely because I worry more about humanity as a whole and its collective destiny than I do of my nation. I love my nation because many of the fundamental ideals that it esteems are ones that I would hope be maintained in the future. It is the ideas that I love moreso than the land it's attached to. There are points where, how you are defining patriotism would border more on the line of extreme nationalism (maybe even facism). To me, if we begin utilizing or endorsing practises that go against our core ideology - even in the name of protecting our land - the unpatriotic acts are the ones that threaten our beliefs and (if its bad enough) humanity. Those who fight against it are far more patriotic. America isn't a piece of rock, it's not a certain royal family, or a political party. It's a philosophy, a way of life, and a set of ideals (many that I would consider inspired). The core of what being American is, is one of basic culture and fundamental approaches to democracy. So therefore the definition of patriotism is also stretched to not only incorporate those who defend land, but those who defend the ideals the land called the U.S. was based upon. With luv, BD

Like you said, these questions are complex ones. There's no one straight forward answer to any of them (well except that LDS don't believe in predestination, exactly). Here are some of my personal experiences with adoption. You can take them as you will. I was going to be adopted when I was an infant. My mother had me out of wedlock and did not have a stable job. For a woman who still believed adamently in the LDS faith and the structure of the family as 2 parents preferably sealed in the temple and children, she wanted me to have that as well and worked to give me that, even flying out to Utah to give it a better shot at the adoption thing. The process was painful...emotionally exhausting on her end at least. Insomuch that she's still very critical of commercials on the byu channel about LDS adoption services about how it contrives adoption to be like. Anyways my mother had found a family that she believed perfect. She felt good about the option and in her mind, it was the perfect family situation that she could imagine for her child. Through no fault of her own and some very strange mishaps in paper work, it made it look that I had already been given away and the parents entered another adoption contract that was not me. In Utah at the time, you were not allowed to adopt two seperate children at the same time. So there my mom was with still with the child and two other families that her LDS agent had in mind. She said that she simply didn't feel right about them and the adoption agent that had been working with my mom confided that she agreed. By then I was about 2 months old and that was simply enough for my mother emotionally. I found this story entirely out not too long ago and long after I received my patriarchal blessing. In the moment a line from my blessing connected strongly with the story and I felt strongly assured that I was supposed to be in the family that I was in. It meant having a very messy family and came with its own set of challenges, but I understood that this is the path that I needed to be on even from way back when. I, nor anyone else, fully can see why certain things come about. LDS certainly don't believe we are predetestined/fated to, say, be born into an abusive home, horribly disfigured, living in a state of constant starvation, or a plethora of other problems that can befall humanity. But we are foreordained to certain things and I do believe certain experiences were expected to be apart of our path on earth. Right now, you feel called to adopt a child with special needs. If that is what you feel you need to do, work on doing it. If it is successful, I'd assume that that child needed you as his/her parent and that you should then work diligently to take care of his needs. But as mormonmusic pointed out, that path may leave to unexpected results. We're not God, we do not see things fully....what matters most is that we do what he asks us to do. The more complex questions of life and within our own experiences will find their resolution in their own due time. With luv, BD

To me art is somewhat like the bible...it's purpose is steeped in message and symbolism and not necessarily the blatant events. The best art for me is art that encourages interaction, thought, and above all message. Not all art needs to have symbols or the likes...it's still art if it doesn't have any at all but is very straight forward. But the actual image always comes second to the underlying message for me.So when I see art, especially art that is not necessarily meant to be simply pretty, my first thought is about what message it's working to convey. I'm sure the muscle was deservedly pulled. Most people have a little creativity in them. I'm glad you've found an outlet for yours. Can't prove it either, but I completely agree. I once made a series of paintings that were facial side profiles of four very different women. One was inspired by asian styles of art, showing a portrait of a geisha. Another was more of an abstracted representation of a woman in an african mask with fairly sharp colors. Another was a deep colored painting that was dark brown with strong red and orange tone that was very fierce looking. The last was of a painting of a hawaiian woman looking up....the only word to describe it is cute. I then went around selling copies. Who liked what was often very dependent on their personality. My mother, for example, only really liked the hawaiian painting because she very much agrees with how you see art: as something that should be pleasing to the eye. With luv, BD

That is definitely amazing art. With luv, BD

I still hold issue with the assumption that one cannot protest against something and not be patriotic through said action. To be loyal, or love, support, and defend one's country does not necessitate that one defend all that occurs within said country. Especially in the American sense where country isn't tied specifically within one leader or specific policy but within founding principles and ideas. If something is seen as a threat to the country's foundational principles....say like all men created equal. Than to protest against policies that go against the country - for example, the Civil Rights movement - would be an act of patriotism as one defends American principles. America, after all, is more than just a homeland. What is patriotic in America, to me, differs between people by what they value most in american society today. For example, I think trying to build up and create stronger communities is just as patriotic as saluting the flag as long as the idea is to build up a strong nation and defend it....whether that defence comes from internal growth or more external displays. But even if you desire more patriotic, by your definition, displays....there's plenty on the liberal end. Obama, for example had that childhood of listening to grandpa's stories about WWII and learning to love one's country. To be honest any president, by your use of the definition, would constitute being patriotic during their administration, including a large number of 'liberal' democrats. And if you wanted an indication of patriotism, one need only to have lived on the East Coast during 9-11 for a good time to see it. I lived just south of DC, I saw the pentagon within those first few months and could fully understand the reactions of the people living nearby for the next few years. No matter who it was and what the political ideology was they all hailed the American spirit equally strong. It wasn't just Congress singing along, but almost all Americans doing the same...burning candles, volunteering, and doing whatever little way they could to support our country. In retrospect, it was partially to our detriment in the following years. Patriotism of this sort, without any other counter can be dangerous....it led to actions that IMHO should never have been allowed and wouldn't have in any other state of collective psyche. To be honest LM...that's about as far as I'm willing to go on this note. The question insists a level of restraint on my part in answering than i prefe rto give on internet forums. The idea that conservatives or liberals are more patriotic is beyond asenine to me....it's purely insulting. I can't seperate my emotions from the abstract definitions you've given, because as an America of the left-leaning type all I can see is the blue skies of the morning my country and home was hit by airplanes...the shocking look of a deep black hole in the side of the pentagon the TV's did no justice for as we passed it on the highway...the candles lit and prayers given equally by friends no matter what their religion or political thought...the deep desires of all in that time to show the world that we were Americans who loved our country, and would not stand for such attacks. All I can think of is the vast wave of collective emotions that took me and all the people I knew - no matter what their leaning may have been - in the following months to come. Liberals and conservatives are most likely equally patriotic....they both love and defend their country....but how they go about doing so may strongly differ. With luv, BD

Sure you can....maybe not well, but I'd probably let you have it in a white room to do some touch ups Oh you probably are. Self-diagnosis is completely legit on this one. Artists are just a different type of crazy in the nut farm. With luv, BD

What they represent to him...more specifically. Most of the people I'm not litterally turned off by. (Well except for the generalized people who represent stereotypes. That's moreso out of a general dislike of stereotypes.) I guess it would be moreso what is excluded of being truly American would be a given. It isn't exactly what is explicitly said, but what comes with his underlying message that strikes me the wrong way...sort of. To put it simply, I really just don't agree with the message to some extent in almost every way. He already painted into the painting a number of figures that he sees as wrong about America. That most of these people (esp. the historical figures) are considered american heroes isn't in question. It isn't about how many of them he could jam into one painting. It's about the story he painted with them. He could have painted the same story with no one or with 500 people in it. If you 100% agree or even 90% agree with the message, nothing. If you don't, plenty. No...my point was moreso that not all black people are liberals or democrats. That's he's reading Skousen more likely shows where his hypothetical political affiliation stands more so than the color of his skin. well at least until the Dems and Republicans decided to switch roles. THe history of Dem's and civil rights was beginning to turn prior to the 60's. I'm not bashing President Benson....but I'm saying he was wrong in worrying about the civil rights undercover mission was to bring in communism. Just as people were wrong to believe the Japanese living in the U.S. were inherently suspicious of some conspiracy or spy work for Japan during WWII and people are wrong now to believe people of the Islamic faith are automatically desiring death to America. Fear and real threats/problems instigating these beliefs does not negate this. Yeah...that's it. I'm not going to try and demonstrate my love for the country. It's there, it's ingrained, and it's apart of me through and through. I probably don't have as much country worship as some might. America's made it's list of mistakes and errors, faults and missteps, and a number of problems in the past and present that are reprehensible. It's more of a love that is very aware that what is loved is far from perfect, isn't necessarily your one and only fated soulmate, but that's enduring, real, and still going strong. But what I love about the nation and its foundings, how I would depict it, and how I connect that to my faith is different to this painting. The painting irritates me in a similar light as someone who speaks of their lover as entirely flawless and that love (the romantic, good feelings type of love...not the Charity, pure love of christ type) is all you need to make things work in a relationship. Woah now....I didn't say the guy was racist. THere's a differences between uber-conservative republican and overt racist. Yeah, but then he wouldn't be taken seriously. Art is more subtle.....that work is more for graphic artists and very bad political cartoonists, not a muralist. Art wise, his message is still heavy handed without being ridiculously blatant. With luv, BD

I wouldn't call it impossible. If you're LDS you technically believe it's happened at least twice;). Still I don't think most believe, rationally, that poverty will be irradicated but that it can be relieved and made less severe. The statistics that prove this, show a correlation, yes. But correlation does not equal causatation. In fact when these studies are read, a more important indicator of charitable contribution and hours of service is religiousity. In fact when the liberal and conservatives are realligned by religious devotion the religious liberals and conservative contribute around the same followed by the not-so-devoted liberals who are then trailed by their secular-leaning conservative counterparts. With luv, BD

Actually, though I really hate his painting, I think it and his other painting are among the few of his more original ideas as paintings. But fine, I'll take out the uber. It's still conservative and it still has a conservative bend to it. It's not about the actual people, but what they represent. They're his version of american heroes and thus what it means to truly be an american. He also has Ronald Reagan in there, though he puts the media, hollywood, and politicians as influenced by ye old Satan. It isn't the men/women themselves and their individual or personal thoughts/actions but what they represent to him. Christie Mcauliffe reps the sacrifices for advances in technology (specifically the space prorgram. The teacher does not represent demographics, but teaching our youth important stuff (unless they're biology teachers pushing evolution, cuz then he's right over with satan and his liberal left professor minion). The Black college student is probably not a liberal....look at the book he's holding. The immigrant is asian and has little to do with political affiliation (though asian immigrants are pretty split with both parties anyways) and his purpose in the painting isn't to do with that anyways. He just in a bit of surprise cuz he wasn't christian and is just now learning what makes America great. So having JC with a constitution in his hand is a shocker. JFK's is alright cuz he wanted civil rights (which even most conservatives will like nowadays because it's now an ingrained point in the American psyche, even if these same conservatives may have been with Benson in worrying about possibly red connections) and a strong space program (this guy really likes spaceships, though I think its connections to how great the constitution is is fairly limited). Jefferson is there (and in the position that he is) cuz he wrote the DoI as a founding father of the nation, not the democratic party. It's not the people, but what he interprets their lives to be, that displays his conservative flare and the overall message. They're not people in the usual sense, but symbols of the America that's built through hard work, cool technology, ideas that he sees promoting the idea of all men created equal, and preferably with limited government practices or those crazies who believe in evilution in humans (spelling error on purpose). I mean for pete's sake he chooses a soldier to represent King who took a note from Ghandi as a very strong pacifist (bringing social change through nonviolents methods). If that's not interpreting people's lives in terms of ones ideology I don't know what is. He states it himself. They're symbols....of those who maintained liberties, promoted conservative values, desired a more christian education, and staved off socialism in his mind. Aparently you didn't read closely about the professor where he's holding the book origin of Species and saying he "represents the liberal lefts control of our education system." In part, but not all. The entirety of it pulls off the message. They don't. No, my knee jerk reaction was simply that I didn't like it...it sort of creeped me out. Nothing new to me. I don't like almost everything from Dewey, Olson, and Swindle as well for varying reasons. Wouldn't call any of their's necessarily uber-conservate republican (a lot of other things, but not that). I don't like his other piece that's very similar to this one in style because it also creeps me out and I wouldn't call that one uber-conservative republican. No, it was only after I actually took a better look at it and delved into his symbols that the original creepy, moved closer to disgust and for it to land on my short list of paintings I don't just dislike but absolutely hate and inevitably label it the conservative version of the second coming. If I hate a painting, I don't do it for knee jerk reasons. With luv, BD

Anyone can paint if they take the time to learn. The difference between an artist and the average paintbrush holder is the level of crazy that's infected them. I think he's passed on that note. But seriously, I've already given my opinion on the painting itself: I hate it, a lot. It's the uber-conservative republican version of the second coming. Which is ridiculous to think will come about. What will actually occur, who will actually be there, will probably surprise many of us and I doubt it'll have little to fall on lines of political party and current social ideologies. As for his work as a whole, excluding the two murals he's done, I think it's quite unremarkable. Largely pretty landscapes with little originality in style or presentation. Conservative, I guess you could say. His work blends in with a long list of mediocre landscape artists. The difference is that he's "made it," tapping into a mainstream western ideal of art that has little personality or meaning beyond the very obvious image. With luv, BD

Hey, if I started something up, you think I could earn an income as a government employee for repressing folk....err, I mean helping maintain order. I could use some extra cash. (tongue walking out of mouth to find a new home in a more civil minded individual) With luv, BD

You're supposed to adopt them????.....oops, I bought mine at a local flea market for $50. Ahh well....he's happy and I'm happy and according to PETA I'm a crappy vegetarian as well. Life, what are you going to do about it? That said, I could see the need to having stricter laws about buy/selling pets for the number of abuses that can happen in the process. With luv, BD

They really shoud have an entrance booth to protests. You can sign your name, what exact thing your protesting, and for an extra 5 bucks be given your own protest sign in the following styles: Mundane, slightly risque, and outlandish metaphors. It would be so much easier to keep track.... with luv, BD

On a related note, thought you might like this from Jon Stewart. Hulu - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart: Sean Hannity Uses Glenn Becks Protest Footage With luv, BD

Help of course, they make it look cool and they are giving their message of supporting communism upfront at the door. With luv, BD

Not likely. The saying is wrong, actually. Statistically speaking, people stay about the same, voting wise, from when they were in their 20's. In fact the reason this statement works right now is because the generation ahead of us (GenX) was majority conservative... and have stayed that way over the years. With luv, BD

To note, i don't think you're a racist....or even Skousen necessarily.

Yes, in a sense. Though artist don't usually call it stealing. Art borrows and builds upon past art all the time. Sometimes this can cross the line, but in this case I probably say it hasn't....any more than doing a million landscapes that look practically the same to me is. As long as he painted it, did not immediately transfer the basic work onto the canvas, and still hold his own original touch to his painting, I'd consider it new art. Not the most original, but new. Sounds like dadaism (an art movement) to me I think I might. The one with the more heavenly looking seen with a darker corner. There's a broken column somewhere in there too... with luv, BD

Lol. No that would be the realization that supreme court decisions about disputes of private/government property are a mar on his soul. At least he realizes his mistakes. The people he's in company with (journalists, a proffesor who believes in evolution, them greedy lawyers, smug hollywood, and blinded politicians) don't seem to have a clue that they're being led by Satan. I love that he states you can tell who people ID with by their reactions. It's like the finishing touches of judgment being made. And I knew what I was getting when I decided to watch this. I once had to watch a documentary on kinkade and I left with stomach pains from the man. So it's not much of a surprise. I just have very strong feelings about art. That was hilariously bad. The art on the rockefeller building was propaganda. Most public art is. But he's missing half of it. He ignores the large part of symbolism shown within the art of NYC. And I'm surprised he didn't mention how communist Isaiah is. The symbols used by the USSR go long before the state as symbols and all of the work he criticizes were made prior to the absolute paranoia that would swallow Americans about communism, socialism, and fascism. It like pointing to the upside down stars on LDS temples and pointing to the obvious signs of satanism IMO. On to man at the crossroads. Diego Rivera happens to be one of my favorite artists. He was a communist, but the meaning that Beck puts in his art is off, really off. And Rockefeller was never happy about this painting and considering that Rivera didn't like Rockefeller isn't much of a surprise. He tried to control his desires for the painting (artists are not fans of that) and he would later destroy it because of the Lenin bit that he always disliked. I completely disagree with his idea that Lenin is the savior in this painting. Man is the controller of his destiny, the man behind the machine. The world has brought out many evils, wars, and tyrannies but also the altering and grasping for new ideas. Not only ones based on marxism, but also shown are breakthroughs in social liberties, science, and technology. These are the things that are coming out of humanity, the ground a crop with all sorts of plants, in his day. And the man is at a cross roads where he must choose what he will utilize and propogate into the future. Communism isn't the basis of his message. Actually, the painting, in and of itself doesn't bother me. I agree with it. In some ways the economic system did entrap the slaveowner in a system where they were dependent on bondage. Something about the bondage of sin comes to mind. The painting in and of itself doesn't bother me and I can't help but wonder if this picture was commissioned by Skousen or rather he found it and interpreted it to fit his ideas on slavery. Because the words that follow are a load of crap that flirts with racism. They weren't actually willing to do it....that was the delay to emancipation. That they talked for 2 decades without any real formative plans should speak volumes for their willingness. That the formers of the new government had to work around slavery in the first place to comfort their southern brother should speak a couple more encyclopedias. At every turn they found excuses to maintain the system that they already had because it worked for them. Turner was an excuse. The northern influence was an excuse. That the slaves were just peachy being slaves and that it was a natural state of being for the lesser folk was an excuse. The politcal startegy and Lincoln's initial desires was for this slow death. They were cutting off the practice to of slavery from spreading west. The south saw it as an afront to their lifestyle and fought back. For heaven's sake, in the letters of secession many specifaclly state that it was for their "right" to have slaves. Gradual emancipation was a means to get people off their back about an immoral practice. Of course they were. What was the point of fighting? Any sign of dissent would lead to punishment. That they were usually cheerful means a) they knew better than to complain to their masters and overseers b) You find whatever happiness you can in a half-life c) on the off chance the people were documenting the three people who did like have their lives subjugated, controlled, and repressed by others. That there were "vicious" types should state of the unhappiness and discontent that was truly lurking under the surface. What he states onwards from slow labor to slaves trying to drive down their own worth shows classic passive aggression Of course they did. What kid wouldn't want to run around naked and miss out on school all day. That children, who still have a weak grasp on social and economic disparities would envy this is of no value or surprise. And now it's bordering racist No, there's a reason people in the they were important slaves to begin with. They could whether it. All the weak ones were killed off by a horrifying boat ride over, leaving an unnatural selection of hardier people. In the caribbean they had started using black slaves because the native populations just kept dying from the work. But the main reason they were brutal in excess was because slaves cost money and were apart of their livelihoods. They'd also built a system of behavior and culture around slavery that allowed for a more sustainable system that preferred implicit reminders of power than explicit. And this would definitely be an example of flirting with racism. :eek: No, that's really all I have to say but the story of abinadi comes to mind while reading this. This I agree with. not necessarily his wording, but that the South was paranoid about slave rebellion and chaos breaking was very real. But I'm not given to much sympathy for it as skousen's writing sounds like. To me, their paranoia is no different than that of a murderer fear that he'll be caught by the cops. They had laid down a very dangerous system where something could unexpected blow up in their faces. No. Northern freedom was not the best because the people in the north were marred by racism as much as the south was. But slavery was not better than freedom Just like there are people who return to abusive spouses. That some preffered the life of a slave isn't a good indication of whether slavery was better. It only shows that the slaves were human. The ran from the terrors of slavery, into a life with no familial and little community support. They were, most likely, with few skills, illiterate, and with little idea of the northern state culture. Slavery wasn't better, but it was known. They had built the tools necessary to survive being a slave, which in turn handicapped them for any other life. oh so much better. From slavery to an american version of the feudal state. That is skousens best hypothetical solution of if things were to not end in civil war?!? Great:rolleyes:....it can join the ranks of The Bell Curve in further validating racist beliefs and easing the conscience of racist beliefs. With luv, BD

Neither am I. As CoC pointed out, it's growing momentum. Personally i'm not looking forward to the day where I'll be considered a bigoted homophobe because of my beliefs in marriage as an institution meant to define and support the relationships betwen men and women. I don't mind and would certainly vote for civil unions having rights equal to those of marriage...but that doesn't seem to be enough. Aw well, life. With luv, BD

Excuse what is about to come. I'm an art person, love art, and do it myself. So I often have strong feelings towards the topic of art and its representation. I hate, hate hate hate HATE this painting. This isn't much of an understatement, I litterally get a headache from the youtube video that was posted with it. The first time I saw this paint, it creeped me out. The second time I decidred to really look at it and figure out why this bothered me more than the usual painting. It's just ridiculously propagandic. Not specifically in the american constitution sense (which it is quite a bite), but an america conservative right leaning sense. I'm not a fan of overly emotive realism (kitch art) to begin with, but this is on my list of paintings that surely take the cake for me. It's up there with an old premortal existance painting, a swindle of christ's dead body, and another recent piece by Dewey. Eeyup, sure did. It was my job to help them pick out frames for it. whew....well that's mostly out of my system. Ending rant now. With luv, BD

I'm sure that there were women who did. But according to the polls at the time, many more didn't. Personally, I never liked the woman because I felt like it was a cheap pandering to women (ie. me). Going by memory, but I'm pretty sure there's a reason McCain felt the need to say Obama wouldn't completely decimate the nation. There was this mounting amount of unprecedented fear (that sometimes bordered on racist) that began to circulate around this time. Palin did not help it at all. Cuz she wasn't given as many oppurtunities;). No seriosly though, I can't remember Biden's gaffes nearly as much as how badly Palin dropped the ball. She didn't just botch the 1 or 2 interviews that came her way but almost sounded incoherent. It was like she couldn't get past to whatever talking points the people who prepped her for it beforehand suggested she stick with....even when it wasn't exactly pertinent or even remotely related to the question. when SNL can do almost an entire comedy skit by quoting you nigh verbatim, it's not a good sign. It gave him a momentary boost, but it was already dying before the september crash because of the reasons above. But after the crash the thought of having McCain, who insisted the economy was perfectly fine prior, backed by Palin, who was not strong on what was essential for the multiple problems facing our nation as the most prominent figures in American politics was not a pretty idea in the least. If he chose a republican like Romney, who has a pretty good record when it comes to money issues, McCain might have had a little shot. With luv, BD

lol...funny stuff, that. No really, I laughed a bit at the satire.....mainly while thinking of myself as a mob-boss. It's still making me chuckle (cuz I could so pull it off:ph34r:) Personally, sarah was horrifying to my mobster-type self for 3 reasons: 1. She was an obvious pandering to the disenfranchized women of hillary (ironically, polls showed this had an opposite effect. Women did not like the lady, generally speaking) 2. Her place had this way to increase the more frantic and unpresedented worries. 3. She really knew very little about national and international politics...or at least she had a very hard time verbalizing this when in interviews. This led to 2 other reasons she freaked me out: - by the end there was the terrible thought of what if McCain died and she became president. -she seemed like a female version of Bush McCain's campaign officially met its coffin with the market's fall and his then flub in response. But Palin, to me, was simply padding for the coffin's interior. With luv, BD

I don't see how this makes the news, they have a tuition price raise every year like clockwork. Eeeyup! that's how I can be a 3rd year student at a private university with no scholarships and no loans to speak of. But 20 K for an in-state resident seems pretty high. I remember when I was looking they were between 7-10 for the better schools. Utah Valley University is around the same price as BYU for in-state students. With luv, BD