Matt Williams

Wendy

English 1010

September 30, 2007

Journey

So, I’m walking, out of Patterson, towards Central. I’m walking towards my favorite place on campus, the BCM.

I walk into the BCM, say “Hi” to Jeff, and go up into the loft upstairs. The environment immediately starts affecting me, just as it did the first time I came here. There is such a spirit of love in the building. Such a spirit of holiness. Not that any of us is perfect, but that most of us are Christians, believers in the One True God.

I sit and think of my place in the world, how it affects me, and vice versa. The world: it tempts me, tries me, seducing me to sin, again and again. Yet as I sit here, I’m reminded of my Savior’s love for me, and of how He told me “…fear not, I have overcome the world.” I’m reminded of my place in the world. My place is one of those lights in the darkness. I’m a Christian in a secular world, in a secular campus.

Where I’m going in the world, I don’t yet know. I could be a missionary, here in the States, or out in some country. I could be a pastor. I could be a high school math teacher. I have no freaking clue. So, for now, I’m going to go through life, enjoying it, trying to become less and less hypocritical, growing in Christ, searching for my place in this world.

final draft

Matt Williams

Wendy

English 1010

September 25, 2007

Textual Analysis Essay

David Griffith’s Prime Directive is an interesting essay, talking about a multitude of subjects, but bringing them all home to one main theme: human nature. He relates to us a true story of a night in his life: the night before Halloween. He opens up to us using a night in his life, and talks to us about politics and human nature. He uses imagery and familiar figures of speech to make his point and to win us over to his way of thinking.

The structure of Griffith’s essay is just that of a story. He tells the story chronologically. Yet his theme is still expressed strongly, and in an organized way. It is as if he himself is reminded and convinced in the order that he tells, reminds, and convinces us. It flows and makes sense. His tone and attitude throughout the essay is that of a character; a man trying to have a good time and trying to stay away from the house, which exemplifies loneliness. His voice throughout the essay is somewhat humorous, but is mainly serious, as he is bringing up a rather grave and touchy subject.

Griffith opens up on the night before Halloween, telling us about the start to his night. “…the world seems rife with omens.” (Griffith 125) Here he uses foreshadowing, warning us of the upcoming events and things to come. Throughout the essay, he informs us of his night, the parties he goes too, the conversations he participates in, informs of us what the Prime Directive is, and other various things. He appears down-to-earth by trying to relate to us, whether it is by use of cell phones to him mentioning names of popular music artists. “I flip open the cell phone and scroll through my list of contacts; I need company. That’s the genius of the thing—it cuts loneliness.” (Griffith 126) He relates to us, because a lot of us use our phones to keep us company, to find people to talk to, to text message, etc. “I flip open the cell phone; it makes a xylophonic noise; I arbitrarily push buttons to give the appearance that I have official business here.” (Griffith 126) He also uses his phone as a means of escape, showing that people don’t like being caught seemingly out of place; that they want to appear to be important.

Next he opens up some about his home life, letting us know where he’s coming from, while at the same time revealing his guilt and sorrow. “I should be in Indiana helping my wife hang pictures, or raking leaves…” (Griffith 126-7) This lets us know why he is out going to parties instead of being with his family. While he is at a party, discussion arises around Star Trek. They mention the Prime Directive. “The Prime Directive is the moral code that governs the conduct of all Space Federation members; it says that no Star Fleet personnel may interfere with the healthy development of alien life and culture.” (Griffith 127-8) He is still in story mode, but sets up the theme of the essay: politics and human nature. They’ve struck gold! The room erupts with excitement! Griffith uses this to bring home the idea of politics, and to introduce the war in Iraq. “The room erupts—we’ve hit upon something. Star Trek is a morality tale! Someone rattles off the different ethnic backgrounds of the characters—It’s like the United Nations… It’s like trying to introduce democracy to Iraq!” (Griffith 128) Now he has introduced part of his theme, and in a clever way. “There’s a feeling that the Prime Directive will help us to solve this crisis.” (Griffith 128) So, now we know Griffith’s stand on the war; leave them alone to deal with their own problems themselves. Why get involved?

He continues telling about the party, and they continue to talk about the war in Iraq. They mention some confirmed atrocities of the war: Iraqi casualties, no weapons of mass destruction, detainees being held without charge. “But nobody mentions Abu Ghraib.” (Griffith 128) Here he introduces the next theme, human nature.

He leaves this party to go to another party, so he doesn’t have to go home to loneliness. Here he runs into an old friend of his, dressed as none other than army specialist Charles Graner. Here Griffith tells the story of re-enacting the taking of the abominable pictures of the detainees of Abu Ghraib. “He has actually gone through with it, gone beyond the point where rational people turn back, chicken out, shake their heads and laugh it off. It is somehow exhilarating.” (Griffith 133) Griffith here starts talking about rationality and intelligence. He starts the process of stereotyping soldiers, and saying that we’ve all got cruelty inside us. “It was his way of showing that what went on in Abu Ghraib was not a case of ‘a few bad apples,’ but a case of what we’ve all become, what we’re all capable of.” (Griffith 134) Here he points out that we all are cruel on the inside, that we are all capable of being animals. “The still images we’d all seen on the news, on the internet, had become useless, inert, lifeless—they required work on our part, work to imagine the suffering of others, work to insert ourselves into their large, unspeakable silence.” (Griffith 135) With this quote he proves that we are truly all animals by making us realize that what he says is true. It is hard to imagine what those detainees went through. It requires work and effort on our part. Sure, we’ll be grossed out by the pictures we see, or at least the first time we see them, but after that it takes work, even with such gruesome images, to imagine what Graner and England put those poor people through. “But then it’s so easy to moralize the situation, become polemical about it. Those soldiers were hicks from the sticks; something in their environment made them this way. In those photos, they were acting out their sick fantasies of power on the poor detainees.” (Griffith 135) Here Griffith comes back to his stereotyping. “Have we come to expect nothing more from people like Graner and England, who we imagine to be from tacky trailer parks in dead-end hollers?” (Griffith 135) “Educated, metropolitan people could never do such things; we are too aware too aware of the ways in which we must respect one another’s differences; too aware that any amount of cruelty is uncivilized and culturally reprehensible. These kids from the sticks make perfect soldiers because they naturally hate what is foreign.” (Griffith 135) In these last couple of quotes, we get images in our minds. We picture trailer parks with families who have little to no intelligence; we see people out in the country farming, they can’t be intelligent at all. We see these people, or at least are talked into seeing them by Griffith, and think that they are capable of such atrocities. We also see people in big houses, with expensive cars and business suits, and we imagine, or, once again, are talked into imagining, that they could not possibly do such things. Griffith is very clever at winning us over to his side. He uses great imagery and figures of speech to create mental images, such as ‘hicks from the sticks’ and ‘educated, metropolitan people’, to win us over to his bias, his stereotyping, and his way of thinking.

Griffith also tries to convince us that even though re-enacting taking pictures of Abu Ghraib is cruel and grotesque, it also makes us mindful of them, allowing us to mourn them and sympathize with them. “I posed with Graner, and by doing so, humiliated those victims all over again. But didn’t I also commemorate them and mourn them? This was more than just post-modern satire. In that moment, Graner and his prisoner were alive, in front of me.” (Griffith 136) “This practice of recreating Christ’s Passion is not a metaphor. You actually participate in the condemning of the Lord, and by doing so, become mindful of the fact that man’s sin made his death inevitable. It’s this mindfulness that makes the difference.” (Griffith 136) Griffith uses religion to bring home a point, uses Christ’s Passion, something most people are at least vaguely familiar with, to convince us and make us understand something. To convince us that re-enacting things like Christ’s Passion and the atrocities of Abu Ghraib brings them close to home for us. Makes them seem more lifelike. Makes us feel guilty, and allows us to sympathize with them. “If I am not mindful of what I’ve done, I’m nothing but a ham, a pornographer. If I am mindful, the photo might become sacramental—a reminder of my fall from grace.” (Griffith 136) He makes the point that if we are mindful of the wrong that we have done, it allows us to sympathize with those the wrong was done towards. He uses the terms ‘ham’ and ‘pornographer’ to emphasize that point. When you see the term ham, you typically think of something dead and lifeless that is going to be devoured by something. When you see the term pornographer, it makes it seem like the person is trying to make fun of it, almost, or trying to use it for personal gain, perverting it. If we are mindful of the wrong that we have done, then we learn from those mistakes, strengthening us and giving us the courage to help stop such things from happening.

At the end of the essay, Griffith passes out candy with his neighbor. “Mel is a kind, loving man, even if we don’t see eye to eye on religion, so I agreed.” (Griffith 137) He describes a loving, nice, thoughtful man, but he then continues and describes him again: “They walked to the table and as the first dipped his hand into the bowl, Mel sat straight up and roared, ‘WHAT’RE YOU DOING?’ The two kids screamed and ran from the porch. Mel stood up and with his mask still on, laughed and laughed. The man was giddy—I mean scarily pleased with his ability to cause small children to hyperventilate.” (Griffith 137) Griffith uses this scenario as a ‘case in point’, to drive home his point that we humans can be incredibly kind, loving and sympathetic; and at the same time evil and heartless.

So, we now see what Griffith is saying. We see his views on the war in Iraq, along with his stereotypes and his views on Abu Ghraib, or more specifically, people like Graner. We see some of the ways he tries to convince us of his stand on things; he uses imagery and familiar figures of speech, along with chronologically structured story to get his points across. So, will the Prime Directive help us solve the war in Iraq? Griffith seems to think so.

Works Cited

Griffith, David. “Prime Directive” A Good War Is Hard to Find: the Art of Violence in America Brooklyn. Soft Skull Press. 2006.

Textual Analysis Essay

Matt Williams

Wendy

English 1010

September 25, 2007

Textual Analysis Essay

David Griffith’s Prime Directive is an interesting essay, talking about a multitude of subjects, but bringing them all home to one main theme: human nature. He relates to us a true story of a night in his life: the night before Halloween. He opens up to us using a night in his life, and talks to us about politics and human nature. He uses imagery and familiar figures of speech to make his point and to win us over to his way of thinking.

The structure of Griffith’s essay is just that of a story. He tells the story chronologically. Yet his theme is still expressed strongly, and in an organized way. It is as if he himself is reminded and convinced in the order that he tells, reminds, and convinces us. It flows and makes sense. His tone and attitude throughout the essay is that of a character; a man trying to have a good time and trying to stay away from the house, which exemplifies loneliness. His voice throughout the essay is somewhat humorous, but is mainly serious, as he is bringing up a rather grave and touchy subject.

Griffith opens up on the night before Halloween, telling us about the start to his night. “…the world seems rife with omens.” (Griffith 125) Here he uses foreshadowing, warning us of the upcoming events and things to come. Throughout the essay, he informs us of his night, the parties he goes too, the conversations he participates in, informs of us what the Prime Directive is, and other various things. He appears down-to-earth by trying to relate to us, whether it is by use of cell phones to him mentioning names of popular music artists. “I flip open the cell phone and scroll through my list of contacts; I need company. That’s the genius of the thing—it cuts loneliness.” (Griffith 126) Here he relates to us, because a lot of us use our phones to keep us company, to find people to talk to, to text message, etc. “I flip open the cell phone; it makes a xylophonic noise; I arbitrarily push buttons to give the appearance that I have official business here.” (Griffith 126) He also uses his phone as a means of escape, showing that people don’t like being caught seemingly out of place; that they want to appear to be important.

Next he opens up some about his home life, letting us know where he’s coming from, while at the same time revealing his guilt and sorrow. “I should be in Indiana helping my wife hang pictures, or raking leaves…” (Griffith 126-7) This lets us know why he is out going to parties instead of being with his family. While he is at a party, discussion arises around Star Trek. They mention the Prime Directive. “The Prime Directive is the moral code that governs the conduct of all Space Federation members; it says that no Star Fleet personnel may interfere with the healthy development of alien life and culture.” (Griffith 127-8) Here he is still in story mode, but sets up the theme of the essay: politics and human nature. They’ve struck gold! The room erupts with excitement! Griffith uses this to bring home the idea of politics, and to introduce the war in Iraq. “The room erupts—we’ve hit upon something. Star Trek is a morality tale! Someone rattles off the different ethnic backgrounds of the characters—It’s like the United Nations… It’s like trying to introduce democracy to Iraq!” (Griffith 128) Now he has introduced part of his theme, and in a clever way. “There’s a feeling that the Prime Directive will help us to solve this crisis.” (Griffith 128) So, now we know Griffith’s stand on the war; leave them alone to deal with their own problems themselves. Why get involved?

He continues telling about the party, and they continue to talk about the war in Iraq. They mention some confirmed atrocities of the war: Iraqi casualties, no weapons of mass destruction, detainees being held without charge. “But nobody mentions Abu Ghraib.” (Griffith 128) Here he introduces the next theme, human nature.

He leaves this party to go to another party, so he doesn’t have to go home to loneliness. Here he runs into an old friend of his, dressed as none other than army specialist Charles Graner. Here Griffith tells the story of re-enacting the taking of the abominable pictures of the detainees of Abu Ghraib. “He has actually gone through with it, gone beyond the point where rational people turn back, chicken out, shake their heads and laugh it off. It is somehow exhilarating.” (Griffith 133) Griffith here starts talking about rationality and intelligence. Here, he starts the process of stereotyping soldiers, and saying that we’ve all got cruelty inside us. “It was his way of showing that what went on in Abu Ghraib was not a case of ‘a few bad apples,’ but a case of what we’ve all become, what we’re all capable of.” (Griffith 134) Here he points out that we all are cruel on the inside, that we are all capable of being animals. “The still images we’d all seen on the news, on the internet, had become useless, inert, lifeless—they required work on our part, work to imagine the suffering of others, work to insert ourselves into their large, unspeakable silence.” (Griffith 135) Here he proves that we are truly all animals by making us realize that what he says is true. It is hard to imagine what those detainees went through. It requires work and effort on our part. Sure, we’ll be grossed out by the pictures we see, or at least the first time we see them, but after that it takes work, even with such gruesome images, to imagine what Graner and England put those poor people through. “But then it’s so easy to moralize the situation, become polemical about it. Those soldiers were hicks from the sticks; something in their environment made them this way. In those photos, they were acting out their sick fantasies of power on the poor detainees.” (Griffith 135) Here Griffith comes back to his stereotyping. “Have we come to expect nothing more from people like Graner and England, who we imagine to be from tacky trailer parks in dead-end hollers?” (Griffith 135) “Educated, metropolitan people could never do such things; we are too aware too aware of the ways in which we must respect one another’s differences; too aware that any amount of cruelty is uncivilized and culturally reprehensible. These kids from the sticks make perfect soldiers because they naturally hate what is foreign.” (Griffith 135) In these last couple of quotes, we get images in our minds. We picture trailer parks with families who have little to no intelligence; we see people out in the country farming, they can’t be intelligent at all. We see these people, or at least are talked into seeing them by Griffith, and think that they are capable of such atrocities. We also see people in big houses, with expensive cars and business suits, and we imagine, or, once again, are talked into imagining, that they could not possibly do such things. Griffith is very clever at winning us over to his side. He uses great imagery and figures of speech to create mental images, such as ‘hicks from the sticks’ and ‘educated, metropolitan people’, to win us over to his bias, his stereotyping, and his way of thinking.

Griffith also tries to convince us that even though re-enacting taking pictures of Abu Ghraib is cruel and grotesque, it also makes us mindful of them, allowing us to mourn them and sympathize with them. “I posed with Graner, and by doing so, humiliated those victims all over again. But didn’t I also commemorate them and mourn them? This was more than just post-modern satire. In that moment, Graner and his prisoner were alive, in front of me.” (Griffith 136) “This practice of recreating Christ’s Passion is not a metaphor. You actually participate in the condemning of the Lord, and by doing so, become mindful of the fact that man’s sin made his death inevitable. It’s this mindfulness that makes the difference.” (Griffith 136) Here Griffith uses religion to bring home a point, uses Christ’s Passion, something most people are at least vaguely familiar with, to convince us and make us understand something. To convince us that re-enacting things like Christ’s Passion and the atrocities of Abu Ghraib brings them close to home for us. Makes them seem more lifelike. Makes us feel guilty, and allows us to sympathize with them. “If I am not mindful of what I’ve done, I’m nothing but a ham, a pornographer. If I am mindful, the photo might become sacramental—a reminder of my fall from grace.” (Griffith 136) He makes the point that if we are mindful of the wrong that we have done, it allows us to sympathize with those the wrong was done towards. He uses the terms ‘ham’ and ‘pornographer’ to emphasize that point. When you see the term ham, you typically think of something dead and lifeless that is going to be devoured by something. When you see the term pornographer, it makes it seem like the person is trying to make fun of it, almost, or trying to use it for personal gain, perverting it.

At the end of the essay, Griffith passes out candy with his neighbor. “Mel is a kind, loving man, even if we don’t see eye to eye on religion, so I agreed.” (Griffith 137) Here he describes a loving, nice, thoughtful man, but he then continues and describes him again: “They walked to the table and as the first dipped his hand into the bowl, Mel sat straight up and roared, ‘WHAT’RE YOU DOING?’ The two kids screamed and ran from the porch. Mel stood up and with his mask still on, laughed and laughed. The man was giddy—I mean scarily pleased with his ability to cause small children to hyperventilate.” (Griffith 137) Griffith uses this scenario as a ‘case in point’, to drive home his point that we humans can be both incredibly kind, loving and sympathetic, and at the same time evil and heartless.

So, we now see what Griffith is saying. We see his views on the war in Iraq, along with his stereotypes and his views on Abu Ghraib, or more specifically, people like Graner. We see some of the ways he tries to convince us of his stand on things; he uses imagery and familiar figures of speech, along with chronologically structured story to get his points across. So, will the Prime Directive help us solve the war in Iraq? Griffith seems to think so.

Works Cited

Griffith, David. “Prime Directive” A Good War Is Hard to Find: the Art of Violence in America Brooklyn. Soft Skull Press. 2006.

Prime Directive

He mentions Star Trek some, assuming we know some about it. He mentions evening Mass, which lets us know where he is coming from religiously, Catholic. He mentions that he should be with his wife in Indiana, helping his wife with various chores. He feels guilty, that he should be with his family, instead enjoying himself at a Halloween party. He relates the Prime Directive to politics, mentioning that it is like the United Nation, while taking a swipe at Bush himself. It seems like they think America should take more of a “Prime Directive” view of the middle east and leave them be, to grow and advance as they see fit. I like how he makes connections and dissimilarities between himself and Captain Kirk. He mentions Abu Ghraib, which instantly sickens me. The horrible things we did to those prisoners. How inhumane can we get? How cruel? Apparently very. His use of the “f” word emphasizes the passion in which his cousin has when he says he can’t wait to bomb Iraq. I’m disgusted that someone would dress up like Graner and imitate his abominable acts against those prisoners. He mentions the pictures on the internet from Abu Ghraib and that they no longer disgust us as they should, but that we have to work to make them do so. That’s sick on our part, to look at these photos and not be disgusted. Men covered in excretion, hooked up to wires, being tortured, being paraded around nude like some mistreated dog. It sickens me to think that humans are capable of such acts of cruelty and indignity. His mention of recreating Christ’s death reminds me that man has always been this cruel; his cruelty just takes different shapes and forms. The Romans crucified, nailing you to a cross, causing extreme pain, and eventually, when you can’t stand the pain any longer, you suffocate because you can’t get air to your lungs, because breathing requires you to support your body on the nails driven through you, and I can’t (nor do I want too) imagine the pain it must cause. He mentions the bumper stickers that his neighbor has on his car, how they are anti-war and anti-religion. It makes me wonder why you would not support a war that supports the freedom of other humans, so they can have a shot at life, a decent one, based on what they make of themselves, just like you have. But, that’s just my own opinion on the matter. Other people have lost loved ones to the war, and I can see how that might make them anti-war. But it should make them proud of those lost ones, who stood up for a cause that is just.

The story of the scholarships

I never thought that in my life time I would be going to college for free. I mean for one my grades suck, I don’t go to class, and did I mention my grades suck? If I did not to have this check right here in front of me and someone were to tell me that I would be going to college for free I’d probably laugh right in their face. Heck, when I told my teacher she instantly looked up at me and gave me that face of utter shock. It wasn’t a bad face, it was actually very comforting; she knew exactly what this meant for me.
I mean I do not know how to say this without sounding stupid, but I really didn’t do anything to get to this point. Heck I didn’t even fill out any of the scholarship form, my mom did that while I sat my lazy ass on the couch and watched Drake and Josh. I didn’t even try when it came to the ACT I mean I took it and I got a 26 but I didn’t try, hell, I didn’t even use a calculator when it came to the math section. So after I graduated I had really no idea what I was going to do when I found out that I had been accepted at the University of Memphis. I don’t know how this happened because I never even applied; I guess my mom must have filled all that crap out. A few weeks later, I found out that I even got a half tuition scholarship from the school itself. To top it all off the State of Tennessee is even going to be giving me 4,000 dollars to go to school.
I still feel like I don’t deserve this when I look at two of my best friends like Matt and Daniel, and I think about all the crap that they went through to get their scholarship and it just doesn’t seem fair to me you know. I feel like I just skimmed by and got a lucky break. Does that make sense or am I just over analyzing this situation?
I remember all my life going to church with Matt and his whole life was about that church; he did all the extra stuff he could. I mean he taught Sunday school, he went on mission trips, he led prayer, and even organized countless fundraisers so we could go to cool places like Six Flags. Well our church gives out a scholarship every year to somebody going to college. I talked to Matt the day he turned in his application and he told me he thought he had no chance of getting the scholarship. When I asked him why he told me that it was just he never felt like anything he did at this church meant much and that it just made him feel really unappreciated. One day when we were going down to New Orleans for a mission trip I was talking to Matt and our youth minister came up him and told him that it looked like he was going to be the one to get the scholarship. The look on Matt’s face was priceless; you could just tell that he felt like what he did mattered.
Then there is my other friend Daniel, this kid is crazy. He’s one of the most amazing actors I've seen in a long time but if you ask him about it he’ll tell you differently. He’s always been one of those people to always be down on himself. He did speech and drama where he competed against people and always found ways of lowering his achievements. One day in class Matt, Daniel, and I were all sitting in class when another one of our friends came up and was filling out and application for the University of Memphis full tuition theatre and dance scholarship and when Daniel asked him about it Jordan (One of our friends and Daniel’s best friend) told Daniel about it and the next thing we knew Daniel had rushed out the door and was already talking to the theatre director and his speech coach about letters of recommendation.
Daniel was so excited when he made finalist for the scholarship and immediately began working on his monologues, practicing for us every moment he got. We were watching him perform for his speech coach when she told him to be “more manly” and I quote “Lead with your penis.” Well as it came time for the audition I remember talking to Daniel and he told me that I felt like if he didn’t get this scholarship then there would be no point for him to even be a theatre major and basically told me that if he didn’t get this scholarship he wasn’t going to even study theatre in college.
After Daniel got back all he could talk about was how his audition went and about how he thought he had done. He also told us that he would find out by the end of the week if he had gotten it. Unfortunately, a week went by and he didn’t hear anything about the scholarship but then one fateful day, while we were math class, I suddenly hear Daniel let out a scream and the next thing I knew Daniel was telling me that he was one of the three people selected for the scholarship.
It’s hard for me to put into words how I feel. I guess what i'm trying to say is this, I don’t think I deserve my scholarships, but I’m glad I got them. I mean I didn’t really work hard to get them but I got them. After the look of shock came off my teachers face she started to cry because she understood that this was my second chance. A chance for me to do what I should have done when I first stepped in to the walls of my high school. The same thing goes with Daniel and Matt. Matt getting that scholarship will probably change his life forever, because from now on he will know that what he does, does actually matter. And now Daniel will never feel like he isn’t talented at what he loves to do and has a new confidence in him that will carry him far in life. These changes that will help us shape who we are all came from the scholarship we got to help us go to college. While people can tell us that we don’t deserve them no one will be able to take them away but us. They have given us the resources to be who ever we strive to be.

story

"Matt, have you finished that application yet?"
"No, momma, not yet"
"Well, you need too. The deadline's soon, isn't it?"
"Todd said something about Mother's Day, but this sheet says June 30"
"Well, you still prolly need to get it done"
"Ok momma, I will"
As a senior in high school, I didn't have much money of my own. I typically spent most of it, and paid for my gas and car insurance. So, scholarships seemed really inviting. And there weren't many people who could apply for the church scholarship, so I figured I might have a shot at getting it. The prospect of an extra thousand bucks was really inviting. So I got an application from church. Of course, as a high school student, I was very adept at procrastination. So, it was a couple of months before I actually filled it out.
The application process itself is quite simple. We just had to fill about the form, and the Scholarship Committee looked over the applicants. Basic questions like high school, GPA, ACT score, college planning to attned, leadership positions, those kinds of questions. Most of it, though, is based off of churchmanship, or how much you've done with the church, how often you've come, stuff you've gone to. I figured I'd have a good shot. There were only like two other people who could have gotten it.
Well, on the way to New Orleans (we were going there to work with Operation N.O.A.H Rebuild) Todd (the youth minister) is talking to me about the scholarship, and how its looking like it'll be me, because the only other person to apply didn't fill it out correctly, and he rarely came to church.
So, last Sunday, Todd asks me to run projection, because he's preaching since our pastor was out of town, and he normally does the projection.
"Oh yeah, I'm gonna recognize you in the service today," Todd says.
"What for?"
"Winning the church scholarship."
"Oh, ok."
So, I received the scholarship, or at least a certificate. They are sending the money to the school, who will then give it to me.

my it lab

so, today, we have homework to do in the "my it lab" thingy for MIS intro to business micro computers. i spent like 15 minutes trying to do one step, one simple little step. now i feel so stupid. you had the ctrl+home. i thought it meant the home on the screen. it really meant the home key on the keyboard. wow. i feel really stupid now. once i figured that out, i was finally able to finish. and this is my declared major? wow. i've gotta get a lot better. wow. lol.

free-writing list thingy

• ACT
• need money
• getting a job
• doing good in school
• looking at schools
• college fair
• choosing u of m
• church
• parents not having money for me for school
• applying for church scholarship
• worried about keeping my grades up
• worried about always having an honors class
  

today

so, today, i get home and find an email from my friend aaron at church. i respond back. here's the convo as it is right now.

hey matt,

sorry for sending this to both of you emails, but i dont know which is your primary. lol

but ive been reading exodus for my quiet time for about a week now, and i found something

you might be interested in. you know how you came up with that "Zeus" thing? well check this out

and tell me what you think:

i believe it is exodus 23:13.

i dont want this to sound like im pickin at ya. i just know i would want someone to tell me something like this.

and if you find something that applies to me, dont think twice and dropping me an email, ok?

oh well hope this helps,

aaron

to be honest, i don't think it matters much, if at all. not that the word of God doesn't. (by the way, i'm in exodus too. ch 34-35 tomorrow) but there are several OT laws that we no longer follow, such as the end of lev. 19:19 "..., nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together." look at your tags and see how many shirts you have that follow that law. very few if any. i think the exodus verse is saying don't worship the pagan gods, its not speaking against actually using the name zeus or cupid or hades or anything like that. the bible itself uses the term hades over and over again. granted, it uses it as a place, not a god, but hades is the greek god of the underworld. and daniel and the other three we called by pagan god's names, if you remember from the daniel study. and they had to learn all of the babylonian (sp?) literature, which most likely included pagan god's, as most ancient literature does. in acts 17:23 paul uses the pagan gods to proclaim God. paul uses the "unknown god" that they serve to explain the true God that was unkown to them (this one might be a stretch, but i don't think so, honestly) not that it means a whole lot to you, but we're made to study greek mythology in school, somewhat like daniel, though i doubt on the same lever. i for one find mythology very interesting. so, bro, there you have my take. let me know what you think. i love you, have a good night at church.


matt


so, that's it right now. we'll see what he says back, and i'll update this accordingly. i know my last blog sucked, but oh well. this one might not be better as far as what we're supposed to actually be doing, but i want to see what you guys think (fellow christians, mainly, but anyone is welcome to join in) of the convo. do you guys think i'm mistaken in my stand? I guess i should explain what's going on. i was hanging out with my youth minister and a friend of our's, and we were talking about movie's based on greek battles and such, like troy (never seen it, but would like too). zack mentions that it doesn't use "Jesus Christ" (used as a curse word, usually called taking the Lord's Name in vain) because, historically, Christ hadn't been born yet. so we were joking around about saying "Zeus dangit!" instead of the "Gd" word. if you guys don't have Bibles and need me to cite the verses, just let me know. i'm interested in what you guys have to say on the matter.
ok guys, the rest of aaron and mine's convo.

hey matt,

thats cool i just thought you might find it interesting.

but yeah ive often thought about the clothes of mixed materials.

its some cool food for thought. you never know.

ive also thought of 2 others.

like in the new testament, it says men should uncover their head in prayer. that

we do still do. but in like the next verse it say women should have their heads covered.

the other i thought of is men shouldn't wear womens clothing and women shouldnt wear men's. but with our culture clothes a generic. i dont now though. but like i said, food for thought. any how, check ya later man.

aaron


very true. some women still do the whole cover the head thing. from what i've heard on facebook, some churches do that. there is so much like that that most ppl don't ever realize. and i struggle with the wearing a hat while i pray. i don't think God doesn't listen just cuz you have a hat on, cuz there are times that you might have to pray with a hat on. and then there is the whole pray without ceasing thing (pretty much why i don't think it matters, at least not all the time.) i think formal prayers you should uncover your head (you know, when you do the whole close your eyes bow your head thing) but the pray w/out ceasing i think its ok to wear a hat. idk. we won't have to worry about that eventually. love ya bro.


thanks for the input guys, i appreciate it.

Hungry Hearts

The article "Hungry Hearts", written by John Lahr in The New Yorker, is an overview of two plays: "Pen" and "A Safe Harbor for Elizabeth Bishop". "Pen" is about a child who leaves his parents, both of whom are trying to control his life. "A Safe Harbor for Elizabeth Bishop" is about a child whose parents "leave" her, one by dying, and the other by retreating into madness. A quote from the article that helps set the tone and voice of it is "Home is not always where the heart is... sometimes family members can't find their hearts with two hands and a map. " Here he's taking a serious matter and making it humorous.
The article is pretty well structured, he spends a little bit of time on the first play, and uses a quote, "I'm supposed to leave you...", from it to transition into the next play. He seems to assume an intellectual audience, and though he gives, some background information, he assumes you know some about what he's talking about.