Effusions about Ducks

I love ducks.
I didn't always love ducks. I used to just kind of like ducks. Now I love them.
First of all, let me make something perfectly clear. When I say ducks I mean ducks. Not swans, which I find beautiful but have no strong feelings about, or geese who I think are just about the nastiest, meanest, and dirtiest animals alive. (I was attacked by a goose when I was little.) The only way I like geese is cooked. No when I say ducks that's exactly what I mean.
Quack.
College contributed greatly to this phenomena. After my first year at Otterbein as a music major, I switched to political science and started going to the branch campus of OSU at Newark.
When I left Otterbein, I left behind my only college friend. I didn't really know anyone at Newark and even though I tried to make friends it never really worked out for me. That was until I discovered the pond out back.
I made friends with the ducks.
Ducks are very friendly. And excellent lunch companions. Every day it was warm I would eat my lunch by the pond and watch the ducks. It was my favorite part of the day.
A couple Christmases after that I went to a party at the "Embassy Suites" for my friend Amanda's husband's company. Amanda I spent most of the night watching the cutest little ducks they had there in their indoor pond. These ducks were the most interesting I had ever seen. They were from somewhere in Asia, I think, and were tiny. They even had a little duck hutch to live in! After a long time of viewing enjoyment, Amanda and I named one of the ducks, "The Duck of Indecision" because he kept coming up to the water's edge, putting a foot in, leaning over like he was going to dive in, and then walking back to the duck hutch. (I actually haven't visited them for awhile and really should go see them. After all, it's not as though I don't have visitation rights.)
My fascination with ducks started to take off after that. It wasn't long afterwards that I had to finish up my classes at the main campus of OSU, and much to my delight I discovered Mirror Lake, and whole new host of ducks!
Baby ducks are the best. I think they're even cuter than puppies. And it's hilarious (and sometime scary!) how they just follow each other around in an even little line. One time at the Riverwalk in Gahanna I watched a group of tiny baby ducks swimming on top of the little waterfall. They would swim right up to the edge like daring little ducklings, start to go over, and then pull themselves back up at the last minute. After about ten minutes or so of this, one of the baby ducks finally went over the waterfall! Momma Duck quaked and looked over the edge worriedly, and as she did so each little brother and sister then proceeded one by one to follow after their sibling over the waterfall! I was scared for the babies because there were lots of sharp rocks down at the bottom, but luckily they were all okay and seemed to think it was great fun because they swam off happily while Momma quaked angrily at them, and when they continued to ignore her, finally flew over and rounded them up.
There were about nine baby ducks at Mirror Lake and a bunch of adult ducks as well. They were actually very reflective of OSU campus. They were a very diverse lot with all different types, sizes, and colors of ducks.
The first one I named was a baby at the time. He had several white feathers that stuck up from his head like spikey hair, so I named him "the Punk Rock Duck."
After that was Bob and Weave, Dodge, Dive, and Duck (haha) and many others I can't remember now.
So I highly recommend that if ever you need company, find a pond with some ducks.
You'll be glad you did.

A Sordid Affair

Alright America. I have a question for you.
When did it suddenly become okay in our culture to have an affair?
This is something that has REALLY been weighing heavily on my heart lately. It seems like everytime I turn around anymore another person has had an affair and it's no big deal!
I speak from personal experience here. I know two people who had an affair and the majority of their friends didn't utter one word of censure. In fact, they practically pretended it didn't happen.
Utterly unbelievable.
Back in Biblical times, adultery was against the law. If you committed adultery, you were stoned to death.
But in 2006 it seems like it's almost become a cool thing to brag about at the water cooler.
I cannot even begin to comprehend it.
For those of you who are Christian and have convinced yourself this is okay, I have only one thing to say to you-I don't want to hear any of your enlightened garbage-how else do you THINK you can interpret "Thou shalt not commit adultery?"
For those who aren't Christian, you still have no excuse. One of the core values that almost anyone of any faith, creed, or belief system agrees with is the age old "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If you don't even believe in the golden rule, you are a discredit to our society.
I have personally witnessed several times how horribly affairs rip peoples lives apart and devastate them. Both times I prayed I would never have to watch anyone go through that kind of anguish ever again.
Come on America. Having an affair is not cool. It's hurtful and destructive. If we can't even be considerate of people's feelings, then we are doomed to become a selfish, narcissistic, spoiled nation.
I for one don't want to be around if that happens.

Jihad?

I've noticed in the course of my college career here on OSU campus that in several places the words God=Santa Claus for Adults has been stenciled on the ground.
I asked my husband, a former OSU graduate, where this came from and he told me that it's done by the group "Students for Freethought."
My husband went on to explain to me his first encounter with this group. (Keep in mind this was probably about 4 years ago.) Apparently he met them one day in the oval and was intrigued by their group name. My husband initially thought they were an organization who promoted tolerance or something equally interesting.
As my husband spoke to them though, he discovered that they were the local chapter of organized atheists. This lessened his interest slightly being that he is a devoted Christian, but he continued to listen to their speech.
From my understanding of his story the way they pitched their group to him was that basically you had to believe what they believed (there is no God) and that was the only free thought they promoted. I admit I laughed after he finished the story, and didn't have a very favorable impression of the group.
This is not the end of my story though.
I found out a few weeks later that my good friend's boyfriend, Jason, is a member of this group.
Both my friend and her boyfriend are serious atheists, and both are very intellectual and excellent people. Though we disagree in fundamentals (belief in God) we concur on many other subjects. Both of them have excellent moral codes that I admire, and I care about them both very much.
So what, as a Christian, should I think?
Before finding out that Jason was affiliated with this group, my first thought was naturally jihad. But then I remembered I am neither a fundamentalist Muslim nor a warhawk. (And let's face it, the Crusades were a ridicuously BAD idea.) Come to think of it, I'm a pacifist and can't even stand the war in Iraq. So I dropped that idea quicker than a hot potato.
My thoughts after realizing Jason was a member were more reflective and less reactionary in nature.
I considered the metaphor-God as Santa. I do believe God can see me when I'm sleeping, let alone when I'm awake. I know he knows if I've been bad or good and I DO try to be good for goodness sake (and for His). Hmmmm....Santa is a happy jolly guy. Albeit his fasion sense is a little off, but I certainly believe God could be as cheerful and loving as Santa, and as strict when you are bad (although I suspect God would give me a talking to instead of a lump of coal for bad behavior). And the image of God and Santa in popular culture seem to mesh well-white hair, white beard, etc. So I suppose this is not a HUGE insult.
Discarding being up in arms and being greatly offended I now wonder, is this religious persecution?
Hmmm....well I don't think it's meant to be nice. I mean it wouldn't be very nice if I stenciled Jews=Complaint without Reason or Atheism=Anger without Cause on the sidewalk (I realize not all atheists are angry, and my two friends are certainly excluded from this fecitious remark. I also apologize for the lack of clever stencil ideas and will try to do better next time). Still, I don't suppose it's as mean as a Jehovah Witnesses telling you that you aren't one of the 144,000, or your boyfriend's roomates harassing you because you don't drink or smoke.
But it bothers me a little bit. I guess the reason why is because to me it seems like a sign of religious intolerance. I don't think it's too much to ask that atheists and others respect my faith. I grew up Mormon, so I've already dealt with a lot of harassment in my life. Yet I can still honestly say that I try to be very tolerant of other faiths. I have two atheists, a former Jehovah Witness, a Hindu, and even a pagan for friends, and I'm pretty sure they'd all be willing to vouch that I'm a fairly tolerant person who respects their beliefs. (Well maybe not the former Jehovah Witness. He and I don't really hang out anymore since he had an affair.) I don't think it's too much to ask for the same courtesy in return.
But hey, it's a free country right? I fully expect to be harassed by much more than just the sidewalk for being a Christian.
I just hope that when I get up to Heaven, God isn't wearing a red hat. ;)

Lord Hall

Every Tuesday and Thursday on my way to class at OSU I walk by "Lord Hall." Recently I noticed that this is where the Department of Anthropology was housed.
Now this struck me as particularly amusing because I'm going to guess that 95% of anthropologists don't even believe in the Lord. Of course I realize this could be named for someone who's last name was Lord, or some Lord of the type who comes from ancient England, but either way I found it funny.
After a little thought on the subject, I would like to propose that OSU construct a building called "Darwin Hall" and relocate the religion department there post haste. That way the contradiction can be complete and I can have another source of amusement.
Until then, I will just have to entertain myself by cavorting with the ducks at Mirror Lake. ;)

Leave Narnia Alone

About a year ago I heard that some people wanted to re-release "The Chronicals of Narnia" with the Christian content removed from it. I was completely horrified at this thought.
Normally I would treat you all to another one of my rants, but I'm actually going to let an article do most of the talking for me. I found this on the Virtual Narnia Website. It's called "Narnia Declawed," and is an attempt at what "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" would be like after such a treatment. Here's what it said-

"Once there were four children whose names were Peter--oh, wait, he was a disciple. Keys to the kingdom and all that. Well, then: Once there were four children whose names were Percy, Susan--oops, that name's based on the Biblical Susanna. And wasn't there a Santa Lucia, too? So: Once there were four children whose names were Percy, Sybil, Edmund, and Lana. Moving right along, these four kids entered a magical land via armoire. There they became involved in an epic struggle of good versus evil--oh, wait, there's no such thing as absolutes. No one is all evil. The Witch is just misunderstood. She probably had an unhappy childhood. Oh, and we can't keep calling her the Witch. That implies censure. We'll call her pagan--no, that might remind people that there's an opposite to paganism, such as religion. Ah! We'll call her a Child of Nature. So, these four kids join forces with the local inhabitants and try to overthrow the Witch--er, Child of Nature (despite her very stable and mutually beneficial reign.) However, lacking any true leadership (That would mean Him, and we certainly can't include Him.), the children and other rebels soon are turned into overlarge paperweights. Huh, well, that won't sell. Let's try this: We'll include him, but only after a fashion. So, the children go to meet Aslan and Edmund is rescued. Then Nature Girl comes to claim the traitor, according to ancient law. Aslan, not being a type of Christ, cannot die and be resurrected, so he has to give Edmund back, to fulfill the law. Nature Girl kills Edmund (but he had it coming, after all), and the four thrones are never filled. No, no. That won't do. Well, how about this: Nature Girl comes to claim Edmund, and Aslan says, "No, that's just tough. You can't have him. I don't have to honor the law my old man put into Narnia years ago."--wait, that implies creation. Can't have that. Aha!: The Witch, er, Child of Nature, comes for Edmund, and Aslan eats her (So what if it was supposed to be a parley? Getting to eat your enemies during a truce is one of the beauties of situational ethics.). Everybody else lives happily ever after, including the wolves, hags, efreets, etc. who are shown the error of their ways and reintegrated into society. The four children, not satisfied with the concept of "divine right of kings," hold elections to see who will be the new president of Narnia. Some dwarf, who was never given fair opportunity for advancement in Nature Girl's regime, gets the job. The kids go back through the wardrobe. Book sales plummet. The End."
(this article can be found at http://www.thelionscall.com/humor/narnia_declawed.cfm?menu_parent_id=4&menu_item_id=55 if you want to check the website out)

What would be left of the story? The Christian themes are essential to the tales.
I mean,what if I were to say, " 'The Communist Manifesto' is too anti-religious for me. As a Christian I'm offended. Espeically that line about religion being 'the opium of the people.' That should be taken out entirely. Why don't we re-issue a version that's Christian friendly!" Wouldn't people laugh at that?
I don't understand why people can't leave literature alone. Instead they insist on re-interrpreting things in a way that pleases them (don't forget, Emma's gay!) or re-publishing things in a way that won't offend them.
I know I can't be too far off here in saying that this is silly because my friend, who is an atheist, agreed with me that it would be wrong to re-write C.S. Lewis' stories.
If it offends you, just don't read it. I promise you that here in America, that's still an option.

Is Emma Gay?

One more Jane Austen thought for the day and then I will cease and desist.
I have been recently reading a book called "The Friendly Jane Austen" that discusses everything you could ever hope for about Jane, the period her books were written in, and the material of the books themselves. While I have really been enjoying this book, I came upon a section called, "Is Emma Gay?"
The basis of the arguement for this was that Emma was UNDEINABLY a gay character because (are you ready for this) of the excessive admiration she gives in the book of her female friend.
Apparently, the real clincher for poor Emma's sexuality was when she described her friend Harriet's eyes as being partiularly beautiful.
Let me just say I am so sick of the revisiontists and their idiotic assumptios as they read into everything. I suppose if Jane Austen wrote about a man smoking a cigar, it would really be her way of talking about penises as well!
C'mon people!
The problem with those who make these conclusions is that they are taking what they read entirely out of context.
Fact is that back in those times, it was perfectly normal for a woman to admire her friend openly, and nobody even thought of questioning her sexuality.
This is very similar to the people who insist that the relationship between Frodo and Sam in the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy is also homesexual.
Again, here lies the problem. At the time Tolkien wrote this, there was still a thing in the English culture called the "Master/Servant Relationship." I know this is going to sound shocking to some people, but apparently, the master and servent (both of the male persuasion) often had a very close relationship and there was nothing homosexual about it.
So to all those revisionsts out there, both as a history major and as a woman, I beg of you-before you jump to conclusions about the sexuality of my favorite literary characters, do your homework first. Please do not impose the standards of YOUR day and age upon time periods where they were not valid.
Although I hate to give you any more fodder for your presumtions, I am going to have to admit something to you right now. I have quite often and in public no less admired many of my female friends. I have so many beautiful girl friends (oh I said girlfriends, I MUST be gay) and cannot deny that I think they are very attractive. Despite this perplexity, I have a husband who would be more than willing to vouch to you of my firm and undeterring striaghtness. I am sorry to cause you pain, but I cannot deny this truth.
This, my dear readers, is a faithful narrative of all my feelings about my female friends. Make of it what you will. ;)

Mr. Darcy

Now it's time for some thoughts on Mr. Darcy. One thing I already know I won't be able to get away from on my blog is Jane Austen, and recently I had an epiphany.
For awhile I had been asking myself, why do women LOVE Mr. Darcy so incredibly much? Hmmm.....I mean at the beginning of the book he's very much a jerk. I myself have a personal adversion to jerks, so I know this is not the most attractive feature of a man. True he's a nice guy in the end, but why are so many women so completely crazy about this man?
I have come up with a theory. I thought it might be slightly original, but my husband quickly guessed it before I could even tell him what it is, so maybe it's not as ground breaking as I thought. Still, I'd like to share it with you.
I think most women are madly in love with the character of Mr. Darcy (aside from the denziens of females my mother's age who's real reason is just that Colin Firth played him in the BBC version, and they have selected him as their generation's sex symbol, but as I was saying) because Mr. Darcy is an example of a man who CHANGED for a woman.
Think about it. What is the number one goal for many women when they meet a man? That's right, they want to "change" him. Women are proactive. They think "If only I can change such and such, then he'll be the PERFECT man for me!"
So what's the problem with this? Well ladies, and I hate to break it to you, Mr. Darcy is different because he CHOSE to change for Elizabeth. The type of men you are trying to change are not going to do it of their own free will. For such a thing to be worthwhile, they are going to have to want to change on their own.
Women love Mr. Darcy because he is unattainable. The man who will CHANGE for them.
I'm sorry girls, but he's a literary character.
But fear not. We probably can't make men WANT to change for us as women, but we can use our brains and find men who are more compatible in the first place. The best men are the ones who don't need changing.
Anyone ever see Due South? =)

Thoughts on God, Love, and Jane Austen

Recently my friend and I debated the existence of God. During this debate I tried to come up with probable reasons as to why God existed, each of which my friend was deftly able to shoot down. When we finished, it was obvious my friend had the stronger arguments. But instead of making me question my Creator's existence, it prompted the following thoughts.
My friend's main argument was that it is not logical to believe in God. So why do I believe in him anyway?
I've realized that even if believing in God does not seem logical or rational, it still makes perfect sense in my life to believe in Him. Why is this?
I started to think about the sense in believing in something others would say is illogical. Why historically and in the present do so many human beings believe in God even though it appears to some not be logical? Should we as human beings always try to do what is rational? Will this give us the greatest amount of happiness?
I started thinking about love. In many ways love is the most illogical thing in this world. There is nothing rational about putting your heart out into the open so it is perfectly available to be hurt, trampled on, and pained. It doesn't make any sense to take such a risk. Being in love opens you up to all sorts of problems and disappointments. And yet human beings quite regularly submit themselves to love. Surely this defies all reason?
Why do people fall in love? Before I met the man I married, I myself was involved in two emotionally taxing relationships that caused me a lot of heartache and fear. Given the chance, would I take both of them back?
Definitely not. Why? It is certainly not logical for me to submit myself to pain. So what reason could I have for not wanting to erase these incidents? I believe it's because although the pain the relationships caused me was admittedly undesirable, the happiness that I experienced from being in love was far greater than any amount of hurt it caused.
I find a good way to explain this contradiction is by looking at Jane Auste's "Sense and Sensibility." Recently I read an article that explained how the two sisters in this book, Elinor and Marianne, represent two schools of thought common at that time. Elinor represents "sense" or in other words the type of reason exemplified by the Age of Enlightenment Ideals. Marianne on the other hand represents "sensibility" or the philosophy of action according to feeling as espoused by the Romantic period. Whenever I read this book, I encounter the same feelings about the sisters. Though I admire and respect Elinor greatly for her common sense and her logical mind, my heart relates better to Marianne every time. Why? Elinor is clearly more sensible and reasonable, while Marianne is often perceived as foolhardy and rash. But this does not change the fact that I always love Marianne better.
Does this make sense? Marianne after all has her heart ripped out due to her sensibility-led life, which leads her to fall for a man who turns out to be a rogue and a cad. But every time I read the book it seems to me that the joy she derives from the choices she makes are greater than the happiness that Elinor experiences. It may not be logical for Marianne to do what she does, given the amount of pain it causes her, but she truly seems to have the stronger amount of felicity in her life.
This, I think, illustrates why it makes sense for me to believe in God. It certainly does not always seem rational to do so, especially in a day and age where more and more Christians are harassed for believing in something with such an emotional connection, and for holding onto old morals so typically laughed at and derided for their close-mindedness. Does it therefore make sense to continue to believe in something that so many atheists and agnostics are able to point out the illogicality of? My answer is simple, though it may not work for everyone. For me, the decision to believe in God has made me a better person, given me a peace of mind from knowing I can obtain Salvation, and gifted my life with the greatest fulfillment I could wish for.
Is it logical to believe in God? Maybe not. But one must keep in mind that logic is a man-made system and, like man, is fallible. This is not to say that reason and logic do not have their place. Indeed, they are quite necessary for making many of the good decisions in our lives. I've also found that some arguements my friend deemed "illogical" still seem perfectly logical to me. Logic is often subjective in mankind's case. Therefore man certainly could not lead his life sucessfuly relying on logic alone. Without the illogical, the "sensibility" in life, we would not have things like the amazing music and beautiful works of art of the Romantic Period. And I'm sure anyone who's ever been in love will back me up in saying that sometimes it's okay to do something illogical. If we never give way to feeling, we can deny ourselves some of the greatest opportunities for joy. Believing in God may not seem rational, but for me it makes perfect sense.

Welcome and My First Rant

Welcome to my blog! The title is taken from the essay I wrote that will be my second post, but I feel it my duty to reserve a very special rant for my first post, as I can remain silent on the subject no longer.
For those of you who like Eric Clapton, I would like apologize now. I would like to, but I probably can't, because I have a bone to pick with those of you who have been floundering under what I consider one of the craziest misconceptions of all time. Let me just go ahead and say it-
"Wonderful Tonight" is NOT a romantic song!
Time after time again it appals me to watch people dance to this at weddings, proms, etc. with tearful reactions and ill-informed sentimentality. For my own personal sanity I must asume that those of you responsible have never bothered to listen to the lyrics.
If you had, perhaps you would realize that the song is NOT about how wonderful Eric Clapton thinks his lovely lady is, but about how, the drunker he gets the better she looks to him. I'm not quite sure either what is so romantic about the fact that she has to drive him home at the end of the song because he is so trashed.
Now I will admit that to many college students (and going to OSU I can speak from personal experience here) this could possibly BE the ideal of romance. But for those of use who are either too young to even be drinking legally (I can tell you for a fact that they played it at the Gahanna Lincoln High School Prom) or those of us who are past the days of throwing up in a toilet for kicks, there should not be anything romantic about this song.
This is not meant as a personal attack against Mr. Clapton himself. Although I personally do not like his singing voice, I admit that "Layla", both slow and fast versions, is an extremely catchy song, that I cannot help but sing along with "Coccaine," and that I DO in fact find his newer song "Blue Eyes Blue" particularly poetic. However, this does not excuse those of you dancing the first dance at your wedding-and you know who you are-to "Wonderful Tonight" with mooney eyes and happy sighs.
All I ask people, is that you know what you're about.
"Wonderful Tonight" is a college boy's anthem. It is not romantic.