.:on direction:.

I was thinking the other day (although at this point it was not "the other day"...) about spiritual mentors. I don't have a formal one, but I do have an older friend who is very grounded in her faith and she and I often have many discussions about spirituality, God, religion, politics and even the mundane [clothes, fashion, music, boys, etc.].

I then decided to do a search for "catholic spiritual mentor" or "advisor". To my amazement there is not a website (I'm lazy.. so no link within the first 5 google pages) that gives you a way to connect with some kind of spiritual mentor. Or least, get set up to connect with a mentor.

So I've decided to create that network. I'd love for this to be a network that pulls information from all the churches across the states that have some kind of mentoring program already established. And ideally, I'd like for this to be not just a Catholic spiritual guidance hub, but a catholic one in the true sense of the word.

We'll see. Given that I have no programming skills this could be difficult.

here's the link for now that explains this a little better

once again catholic

just relaxing 

some women from the women's organization. We had just finished making some earring. 

.:morocon and america:.

The internet connection here is as slow as construction on the beltway and works as often as Congress. My parents left yesterday and I'll be here for three weeks by myself until my mom arrives. Am I nervous? A bit. Everyone here is very sweet, but I really do miss America. I think that until we go to some place that is so incomprehensibly (made that up) different, it's hard to realise just how great our country is. We have electricity, have cars, we have paved roads, and as stupid as our government can be at times, the government is ours. We control who we elect, and those who we elect care about us. I know that sometimes we elect the wrong people to office, and sometimes the elected officials really don't give a damn about us, but let me tell you they care a whole lot more about us than the government here cares about its people. And they way we carry out business!

IT ALL JUST MAKES SO MUCH SENSE!

And I think what makes us so great is that we always point out our problems. We always criticize. Perhaps we should just be thankful for what we have, but you know what, I don't want to just be thankful. That kind of mentality leads to us keeping the status quo. Everyday Americans complain and more power to them. I say that really only if for every compliant a suggestion is offered. Here I see people waiting for hand outs. I see them look at me as an American and ask for money. God damnit. I offer my help but I give my money freely to the American homeless because they are my first and foremost, they are in the end, my citizens and brothers and sisters. For others, I'll offer help, or else why would I be here? But everyone looks for a handout from the government or from tourists and what do they offer in return? Nothing but blank stares that say "You haven't given enough". Of course I'm on a tangent but that kind of mentality grates against us as Americans I think. We like to be generous, but we also like to be thanked. We're tired of everyone wanting something from us and then never appreciating what we do. It's always, go away Americans, but when we leave and something goes wrong it's "where were you America? Help us now". We're the world police and world benefactors and I don't see anything wrong with that. I just don't like that nothing we do is ever good enough. I really don't think I can explain just how much I appreciate all that I have after living like this.

how am i living?
like Rosseau's noble savage. You know, I'm sure others would be repulsed by the people here. Yes the kids run around in underwear without shoes. Yes everyone wears donated clothes. Yes they live in wood shacks on stilts. No there is no running water. No there is no sewage system. No there is no electricity (except here, and that is by generator and occassionally). But people are nice and living is natural. They're a simple people, but like anywhere there are the people who want to better their lives. I feel as though we all have a right to live as we choose. That doesn't mean that they have to live basically 150 years in the past. People here have a right to electricity and all the benefits of technology. Does that mean that somehow it should just appear? No. With help they can buy these luxuries for themselves. What is most neede here is an economy. With a sustainable economy they can support themselves. Solar panels would be great here. To jump start an economy all that is needed is investment.

Well I should go. Once again, sorry to my friends that I can't email or chat with you that often. I'll call via a satellite phone and dear God have patience because those things are slow.

love!

.:la selva!:.

Well we finally arrived in Mocoron. The province/state here is Gracias A Dios. The entire area is known as La Mosquita. I think it is kinda similar to the aborigine in Australia, but then again I've never been to Australia. The people are sweet and kind. Life is pretty simple here. People wake with the rising of the sun and rest with setting of darkness. Animals roam the streets, if the dirt paths can even be called streets. Cow dung lines the roads as it permeates the fresh air. The diet consists of staples such as rice and beans, platanos and whatever meat can be found. I think that more vegetables need to be incorporated but with the current state of electricity I think the people would have trouble keeping the vegetables fresh. The temperatue is actually rather pleasant. It seems as if the moisture in the air can be rung out like a wet towel. The river provides a nice quick moving current to cool the body down. The bigger village is Puerto Limpira. The woman we're with, Norma Love, says to think of the area as being about a hundred years behind and she's about right. In Puerto Limpira they are installing a sewage system. Of course there is always the ironic satellite positioned next to a wood house on stilts but I suppose technology comes in whatever fashion it does.

ipod: uhm.. the generator and the wildlife

.:from honduras:.

well I'm in La Ceiba, Honduras. The exchange rate is unbelievable! (Cheap for Americans...) We tomorrow for Puerto Limpira and then travel 70 km down a dirt road to Morocon. Yes, I'll be in the jungle. Should be fun. Everyone here is nice. It's a slow pace but I suppose that is rather refreshing. The compound I'll be at only has power for a few hours a day so I'll blog and write to you when I can.

.:lies, lies:.

sometimes when I think about the current government all I think is: "lies, lies, it's all lies!" We've for ourselves a nation of freedom, a beacon of light and liberty, a city on a city. Yet we play a game of disguise, a farce in which profit is dressed as liberty.

All I can hope for is a new party in control in two years time.

ipod: rise up with fists! by jenny lewis and the watson twins

.:gayety:.

I was talking with a friend and he asked how I felt about gay adoption. I responded that I hate the topic, but proceeded to offer some of my thoughts. I think that a child should have good male and female influences in his or her life, preferably influences that are lifelong. Consider, why do we have godparents? Or perhaps, if not why, then what function should they serve? So I think the conservative thought is right in that regard--to the need for good role models of both genders (here I'm not sure which is appropriate, gender or sex, but I will say gender because that implies a role within society and the child will grow to become a certain role). However, the conservative thought is shooting itself in the foot by talking about the "defense of marriage" when divorce exists and the sanctity of the family when single parenthood exists. If it is required that a child have both a mother and father then let us destroy all orphanages, let us take away custody from single parents. A child needs a family, agreed. A child needs role models, agreed. A child needs love, agreed. However, if we believe that a child needs a family in the most fundamental sense of a nucleus of mother, father, child, then we shall be hurting the lives of many children because of our high minded principles and would we not be in violation of our other morals? If a child should not be raised without a mother and father what do we do with the many single mothers (and fathers) and orphans? Do we hold out hope that the orphans will be adopted? Do we hold out hope that the single parent will get remarried? But I thought that twice married is adultery? Or am I interpreting the Bible too literally? I suppose I should go eat my challah, grab a floor length skirt, give up shellfish, switch back to the Friday sabbath, wear a doily when in church while I sit silently listening to a male preacher, and give up cheeseburgers.

I'd rather let gays adopt.

ipod: for what it's worth by the cardigans

.:standing on principles:.

I'm always torn between giving the police the power to stop illegal activity and protecting our rights as people. I watch so much Law and Order that I sympathise with the police, while at the same time I watch enough movies about communism and the regime of totalitarian governments that I fear giving the police such power. I think that police should knock, wait and then assess whether to enter or wait a little longer. If they feel that the situation should be conducted without a knock warrant, then they should get that warrant. What to do with them and the evidence they seize when they violate that law is something I haven't quite figured out. I don't like the exclusionary rule when I hear about a guilty man going free. I don't think I know about the exclusionary rule being used when the wrong person is caught because then the case should be thrown out all together. However, it's contrary to our constitutional thought to say that the exclusionary rule allows a guilty man to go free precisely because of the fact that all are assumed innocent until proven guilty. When a man is judged he is judged as "not guilty" or "guilty", not as "innocent". I'm not quite sure what the difference is between "not guilty" and "innocent" but I suspect it has to do with the order. One who is innocent is not guilty, but it is not necessarily true that one is not guilty is innocent. I suppose that is a result of the crime the person is accused of. If John Doe were charged with murder and that is what the jury is deliberating, to say that he is not guilty means that he did not the do that particular crime, but it could be true that he committed manslaughter and so was not innocent on a larger scale. I have no idea but that is just a thought...

On the subject, I know a lot of people and kids watch the show 24. I was an Alias fan so I kinda didn't want to like the show. After seeing a few episodes and watching a few years of Alias, I can conclude that these shows are scary in a political sense. As we watch the shows we become wrapped up in the protagonist, we sympathise, we want her/him to get the bad guys, and at any means necessary. So then of course when in real life the president wishes to spy on Americans the outrage is mixed. 24 and Alias fans would surely support the use of wire tapping if that allowed Agent Bristow or Jack Bauer get the terrorist. So my fear is that as we as a country engross ourselves in the shows where the government is the good guy fighting the bad guy who is a terrorist, we erode our conviction to uphold personal liberty even if that comes at the cost of our safety. It's a principles versus practice debate. In fact, the economists would refer to it as a risk threshold: upholding principles is doesn't protect us physically and is therefore risky, doing what is necessary in practice, alternatively, protects us physically and is therefore less risky. If we are risk-adverse then we'll support more government intervention and we'll stand less frequently on principle. The problem however, is that I'm talking about physical protection from some nebulous bad guy. We've seen over and over again what happens when we fear for our safety and give power to a hero who will promise us safety. He becomes the government who protects us. As we allot him power, we lose our own. History has show the results of extremely powerful governments. Totalitarianism scares me. What scares me more is that totalitarianism usually arises out of a people's belief in the saving power of a charismatic politician who promises safety or prosperity, but the other half of the deal is our civil liberties.

on the ipod: money tree by the dansettes
related movie: v for vendetta
& its great quote: "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

.:selves:.

Empty vase I've said I am. In search of water to feed the flowers that I have not. Perhaps it is foolish to say "in search". If I suppose myself to have come to God, am I not already filled? Where does the water go? Do my shortcomings and failings perforate my delicate glass frame, allowing whatever fills me to seep out just as it comes in? Do I, at other times, try to fill the void with alcohol, to join friends in their reveries? Such foolishness am I! The morning after is a wash in stupor, laziness, sickness and at times, regret. The queasiness can disarm even the strongest of stomachs. So why then, if there are so many ill effects, does one persist with such a course? Perhaps it is rash to say all drink with the necessary end of drunkenness. Most of the time judgment becomes clouded and the line that separates pleasant giddiness from wayward indulgence is often cross with just that one last drink too many. It is often said that we engage in certain behaviour because we desire the acceptance of others. I think also that we do so to accept ourselves. Yes that does seem a bit paradoxical to say that we engage in behaviour unlike our normal one to accept ourselves. So, I will act differently in order to accept myself. But these notions of self and behaviour are tricky! Let us suppose that for every "self" in us there is an opposing self. For example, I have a religious self, a self that attempts to live morally and in pursuit of God. Countering that self I have a hedonist self, a self that attempts to live pleasurably and in pursuit of worldly satisfaction. Within "me" are these many and opposing selves. Then, to live with so many combatant selves becomes a daily battle that amounts to a life long war. To accept "myself" is to accept all the inner competing selves. We pick which of these jihadist inner factions we wish to represent and comprise the "me". Yet time toils and in living we see the other selves in us played out in others that we meet. Perhaps out of envy or curiosity, we wish to try composing a new "me" of these sequestered selves. Yet to do so requires either the gut of a titan, the dedication of a monk or the looseness of a drunkard. Should neither the gut nor the dedication appear present within ourselves, the looseness of a drunkard can be attained rather easily. And so we drink to accept our selves, to accept a different composition of repressed bits. We drink to be accepted by others, and more specifically, to be accepted by the others whose composition of a total self resembles the new composition we are painting for ourselves with each new splash of alcohol. And in the light of day we wake to find that the drunkard is gone and in his stead lies an invalid overcome with illness. The "me" of the morning is the same as the "me" of the earlier evening only this time it is a "me" of a lesser physical disposition. The new and different "me" of the night has passed on, chained in yet again, only to be showcased again with alcohol or a complete change in gut. The foolishness of man arises when he learns nothing from this foray into an elixir-induced deviation from the standard composition of self. The composition bonded together by the molecules will break as the elixir breaks. And so the cycle continues.

on the ipod: what sarah said by death cab for cutie