There are those who will always live in a nation of poverty and those who go through trying times only to rebound. The men women and children of third world countries give new meaning to poverty and hunger. Here in America when in need there's always a government agency nearby, well at least most of the time. Many countries like Mexico and the Philippines there is no such help, you check in to the hospital but there's no checking out, unless of course you have the currency to pay the bill. The dream of having a home, a successful career and business is out of reach for so many. Here in America the possibilities are usually endless for some while others struggle to provide daily living for their loved ones. The responsibility to feed the world doesn't fall on one but on all. God cannot force us to do what one doesn't care to do, He can only encourage us to do so. When I personally think about my dreams and what I have actually accomplished it could if I let it, leave me feeling disappointed. However not for long. I'll tell you why. To encourage others, to leave one feeling he or she has hope and that God would never leave nor forsake them, that is my reward. We may look at what others have accomplished, how well they're living and enjoying their current lives, by doing this we sometimes come down hard on ourselves. This we shouldn't do. 

HASHEM desires our happiness there's no denying it. Matthew chapter twenty five Yeshua speaks of the future when God will separate between the sheep and the goats, those are His and those who are not. Those who are, have and will continue to do as He has done. As it says, "When you have done this for the least of these brothers of mine, it is as though you have done it for me." 

well before ng forum, as usual we were at the office for the OJT. nagpaalam kami sa supervisor that we are going to leave earlier, mga 2 o'clock ng hapon for the seminar... and since may aasikasuhin din si tin. pinayagan naman kami. galing office, tin and bheng headed for school while i went home to change clothes. i was in jeans and shoes i went to the office, then i changed into slippers and shorts going to school. ang sarap ng feeling ng hindi ka balot na balot. na miss ko yung times na pumapasok ako sa school na naka shorts ng slippers lang. so tin ang bheng went to cerealicious, coz they were craving for it, then went to Andrew to get some application form for Ivan's sistah. humabol ako sa kanila. then kamain kami sa eric's, nag-isaw silang dalawa... nagrice-siomai naman ako. nainggit ako bigla dun sa kinain nilang isaw, kaya bumili na rin ako after kong maubos yung food.

after eating we headed to Rob since 3 hrs. pa yung hihintayin namin at  tsaka bibilhan rin ni tin ng jacket si ivan kasi rainy season na. sweet noh! may nakita kaming jacket sa nike pero XL. then punta kami ng adidas baka meron dun... while naglalakad, nagtatawanan, hanggang sa katatawa ko lumabas bigla yung bubblegum sa bibig ko (bheng and i were chewing a gum at that time kasi nga kakakain lang namin). taena! ang baboy! di ko na pinulot yung bubblegum... sorry nalang kung may naka-apak nun. =(

then nasa adidas na may nakita akong jacket and shirt ng mag ensignia ng la salle and logo ng adidas. the nice thing is naka-embroidered yung logo, may pang-ateneo din dun. unfortunately, hindi kami naka-hanap ng jacket for ivan.

dumating si jacob... then kumain kami sa hotshots. ang ingay namin dun.. just like old times. kahit san mo kami ilagay, ang ingay talaga. grabe si jacob, supertaster pala siya... kasi yung inorder nyang food lasang amag daw... di ko naman nalasahan (malay ko ba kung anong lasa ng amag...), i taste nothing different dun sa burger. he called the attention of the waitress kasi lasang amag nga... yun pala, may blue cheese yung inorder nya... pati yung salad na inorder nila tin blue cheese yung dip. si jacob trip yung waiter dun sa hotshots. hahaha! pagkatapos kumain, pumunta na kami ng school for the forum.

nung nasa forum na, pinag-usapan yung mga mga changes sa ICTM curriculum. dun ko naisip na ang malas pala ng id#105 na batch, kasi yung batch lang nila yung walang certification. before sila nakapasok may CISCO certification program kami, tapos nawala. then for the upcoming batches, tied up na ang school sa SAP which means there will be SAP certification added to the requirements. na-bored kami sa forum kaya lumabas kami ng ISR... dun sa lobby nagkwentuhan nalang, catching up on each others lives.. it was to good to be back in school, lalo na kung magkikita-kita kayo... bday pala ni hazel kahapon... di man lang nanglibre... hmffff! and at last nakita na namin si angelica! hehehe! =)

love kulot

The littlest one, Tiny, is still getting used to it, and doesn't like to move very fast on the slats, but he is slowly getting the hang of it! We still put them back in the building every night. On the first picture, you can see the doorway that leads back into the building.

This is one of my favorite hens, and her name is Amy. She's a little slower than all the rest doing everything, but she's very cute and friendly. And on top of all that, she's got a much longer beak and bigger eyes than all the rest of the hens! Mom calls her a little collie hen, since she's got such a long beak! Even when all the hens are out, you can spot her easily because of her big eyes.

This is a rather interesting and accidental picture I got of our male guinea, while I had him cornered in the Rooster Pen. I have yet to figure out why he was turning his head upside down, but I'm glad I caught it. :D

This is my favorite rooster, Daniel. Danny for short. I think he's improving with the hens, including the younger ones. I have had him out with them and whenever he gets too rowdy, Jacob takes care of him. He hasn't been chasing the hens as much, so I'm hoping he's grown out of that phase he was in. :) Mom said in about two weeks we can start mixing foods with the younger/older hens and start moving them over to the Hen Pen!!

This is an old picture of Prince, which I have edited a little and added Scripture to.

O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 15:55 & 57

I know the Scripture probably doesn't really match the picture, but I couldn't think of a better one. If anyone else can, please do let me know!!

What is time or the years of ones life if the will of God is not known. The eviction of Adam and Eve from the Garden of HASHEM, the death of civilization through the flood of Noah's time, the destruction of the first and second Temples in Jerusalem and the current famines known to many nations and peoples, the hatred one country has for another and lets not forget the cesspool of immorality out of control in this country alone. 

The Children of Israel were warned when they inquired of God to have an earthly king of their own as did all other nations. HASHEM responded to Samuel, "They have not rejected you, they have rejected Me." Samuel's heart like Moses was broken and he wept within because like Moses Samuel had a genuine relationship with the King of Kings.  

Zechariah 8: 1 - 8 - A message came from Adonai-Tzva'ot: "Adonai-Tzva'ot says, 'I am extremely jealous on Tziyon's behalf, and I Am jealous for her with great fury.' Adonai says, 'I am returning to Tziyon, and I will live in Yerushalayim. Then Yerushalayim will be called Truth City, Adonai-Tzva'ot Mountain, the Mountain of the Holy One. Adonai-Tzva'ot says, 'Old men and old women will once again sit in the open places of Yerushalayim , each one with his cane in his hand, because of their great age. The city's open places will also be full of boys and girls playing there.' Adonai-Tzva'ot says, "This may seem amazing to the survivors in those days, but must it also seem amazing to me? says Adonai-Tzva'ot. Adonai-Tzva'ot says, 'I will save My people from lands east and west; I will bring them back, and they will live in Yerushalayim. They will be My people; and I will be their God, with faithfulness and justice.'

To dwell in the rest of HASHEM (to live with eternal peace) is to live in a city with no walls. Hardly the city of Jerusalem today. "A voice cries out in the wilderness - prepare the way of the Lord." The time has been upon us for quite awhile now. The signs are undeniable and as clear as day. Our prophets of old were stoned to death and in the case of Isaiah sawed in half. They were murdered because the masses, not all but the masses didn't care to hear the warnings sent forth by HASHEM. The prophets were chosen by God to do such a work. Today we have many who call themselves prophets, pastors, priests and Rabbi's. There are those from each circle who have a genuine relationship and fear of HASHEM, so where do we go from here? 

Many of us desire to dwell in a city with no walls. We desire great things, mighty things, the very things in which God holds the only key. Within that city with no walls there are rules and guidelines (Torah) not disobedience and self gratification, but righteous living. Judges do not overturn any ruling and the majority cannot sway the courts no matter how many votes they collect from an immoral society. Yes this is 5768 (2008) however God is alive and has never abandoned not one. The truth is it is you and I that have abandoned Him. I dream of a place and time where as men we can take care of our families working one job and it is sufficient, our wives are happy to look after the children and as a community we all wait excitingly for the eve of the Sabbath. Imagine a neighborhood where the doors can be left unlocked and we speak to one another. A neighborhood where all our children are friends and study together. A place in which HASHEM Himself appears because it is free of strife, free of gossip and slander, a neighborhood of clean hands and pure hearts. We all remember the song sung by John Lennon, 'I know that I'm just a dreamer but I'm not the only one, I hope some day that you can join us and we can all live as one.' 

One needn't look far to see that God is warning us with signs and wonders, just look at the fires in California, the floods in the mid west and droughts in numerous other places. The book of revelation foretells us of the wrath. The cups of fury. The seventy pound pieces of hail. Etc Etc... 

Please pray.

shalom in abundance. 

Shalom.

I finished Hugo-nominated Halting State by Charles Stross and found it thoroughly enjoyable, exciting, and daring. A much more in depth review will follow before the voting deadline on Monday, I promise.

Happy Independence Day! Let us know what you blew up!

So, the family I spoke about yesterday, their hardest test is going to be keeping the faith.  We have to be intecessors for them.  We have to continue to lift them up and pray for God's will in Jacob's life and their life.  Please do that with me.

• The city of Uruk is established and ruled by an Apollonian and imperialist young man named Gilgamesh.
• Gilgamesh is perceived, by at least some of his subjects, as an unjust ruler. He, for example, overworks the city dwellers of Uruk and takes into his bed the newleywed brides of the city before passing them off to their husbands.
• The gods, worried at Gilgamesh's unbridled Apollonian and imperial power, fashion a Dionysian wild-man of equal strength to match Gilgamesh, and name him Enkidu.
• Enkidu, as an innocent and uncultivated Tarzan-like figure, does not stay in the wilderness, but undergoes a process of civilizing. The process begins by encountering a woman, followed by adopting the manners of shepherds, such as drinking from a cup. Enkidu's adoption of ever more civilized ways, however, diminishes his native born wild power.
• Enkidu, on hearing of the injustices in Uruk, becomes the young rural revolutionary who is determined to go to the big city and set the political order right:

I will go to the place where Gilgamesh lords it over people, I will challenge him boldly, and I will cry aloud in Uruk, 'I have come to change the old order, for I am the strongest here.'

It is at this point, at the end of Part One, that one of the great scenes in the Gilgamesh Epic occurs. Like Jacob at night, wrestling the angel of the Lord in the book of Genesis, so Enkidu, in a night clash, wrestles with Gilgamesh.

This wrestling scene possesses all the elements of a contemporary arena-staged World Wrestling Federation (WWF) match today. Following, for example, is how the Epic of Gilgamesh describes Enkidu entering the city. Notice that he is an outsized persona who, as it were, struts onto the city stage. He is even trailed by a sexy woman (though not here, elsewhere in the Epic the woman is described as a temple prostitute and someone who did it with Enkidu for six days and seven nights nonstop). Also notice that the crowd is abuzz in Enkidu's presence, sizing him up, and trying to decide whether he is a match for his opponent, Gilgamesh. Enkidu, from the vantage of the people in the street, is the good guy:

Now Enkidu strode in front and the woman followed behind. He entered Uruk, that great market, and all the fold thronged round him where he stood in the street in strong-walled Uruk. The people jostled; speaking of him they said, 'He is the spit of Gilgamesh.' 'He is shorter.' 'He is bigger of bone.' 'This is the one who was reared on the milk of wild beasts. His is the greatest strength.' The men rejoiced, 'Gilgamesh has met his match. This great one, this hero whose beauty is like a god, he is a match even for Gilgamesh.'

Like any good wrestling match, the challenger (in this case, Enkidu) must offer a provocation to the reigning champion (in this case, Gilgamesh). Enkidu does this by blocking Gilgamesh's way to the evening's latest virgin newleywed, waiting for her husband in the bridal chamber:

In Uruk the bridal bed was made, fit for the goddess of love. The bride waited for the bridegroom, but in the night Gilgamesh got up and came to the house. Then Enkidu stepped out, he stood in the street and blocked the way. Mighty Gilgamesh came on and Enkidu met him at the gate. He put out his foot and prevented Gilgamesh from entering the house, so they grappled, holding each other like bulls. They broke the doorposts and the walls shook, they snorted like bulls locked together. They shattered the doorposts and the walls shook. Gilgamesh bent his knee with his foot planted on the ground and with a turn Enkidu was thrown.

On being thrown, Enkidu declares:

[Y]ou are raised above all men, and Enlil has given you the kingship, for your strength surpasses the strength of men.

The Epic then states:

So Enkidu and Gilgamesh embraced and their friendship was sealed.

Dionysian Enkidu and Apollonian Gilgamesh were now a fearsome tag team with still more powerful opponents, later in the Epic, to come. 

Isaac, determined that Jacob shouldn't marry a Canaanite wife, sends him to the house of Bethuel in Paddan-Aran. There he is to take as wife one of the daughters of Laban, his mother's brother. Isaac blesses Jacob, and also bestows the patriarchal blessing on him:

May [God] give you the blessing of Abraham, to you and to your offspring with you, so that you may take possession of the land where you now live as an alien - land that God gave to Abraham.

Esau meanwhile, seeing that Canaanite women displease his father, goes to Ishmael and takes one of his daughters, Mahalath, as wife.

What is interesting about the patriarchal blessing Jacob receives is that this time he receives it without any subterfuge. As the Notes say, here it seems as if Esau is not eligible because of his Hittite wives. He tries to rectify it by adding a wife from the patriarchal line, but he remains married to his first wives. Also, Ishmael's lineage does not culminate in God's chosen's people. At any rate, now Rebekah and Jacob are blameless, and Esau is the black sheep, as opposed to the J story in Genesis 27.

So Jacob sets off to Haran, and along the way comes to a "certain place" ("place" also meaning "shrine" in Hebrew) where he sleeps. He has a dream in which he sees a great ladder reaching up to heaven, with angels going up and down it. God appears in the dream and gives him the patriarchal blessing in person, confirming that he is the next chosen patriarch. He is promised the land he lives in for himself and his children, that God will be with him and keep him forever, and that he will be brought back to the promised land, "for I will not leave you until I have done what I promised you".

Upon awakening he takes the stone he had used as a pillow and sets it up as a pillar, anointing it with oil. He calls the place Bethel, the "house of God" (bet-el). He makes a vow of his own:

If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and clothing to wear, so that I come again to my father's house in peace, then the Lord shall be my God, and this stone, which I have set up as a pillar, shall be God's house; and of all that you give me I will surely give one-tenth to you.

Points to ponder

It's a bit strange that Jacob makes his vow conditional on God's actions. In the dream God promised all those things Jacob now sets as conditions. It does remind me of something I heard a lot in my childhood - you're not allowed to bargain with God: that is, "I will be good if you do this and that for me". Maybe things are different for patriarchs. The Notes don't indicate that anything is amiss with Jacob's vow, so I guess it's not meant that way. On the other hand, at this point his vow does make it seem as if there is a partnership between him and God, with both parties having to fulfil certain conditions.

The patriarchal line skips Esau and continues with Jacob. After this chapter it seems that the continuation of the patriarchal line is now unblemished by deceit - Jacob is chosen by God and Isaac, and Esau never had a chance.

Note

• "A similar stairway to heaven that gods traverse is known from Mesopotamian texts." Ziggurats or temple towers "are also described as linking heaven and earth". (Notes)

Image: Jacob's Dream, by Giovan Battista Tiepolo (1696 – 1770)

When things go wrong with Sarah's rollback, it becomes a story of a couple deeply in love faced with an oncoming tragedy that nothing in the world can possibly avert. Between flashbacks and conversations, Donald tells the story of his relationship with Sarah, as well as her first triumph translating the alien language. The characters are relatively predictable, which is in line with the other Sawyer book I've read, Hominids (which was so bad... yet it won a Hugo, wtf?)

Deftly woven into these interactions and memories are discussions of the SETI program. Rollback is nearly an elaborate essay or fictional case study of the characteristics of a SETI astronomer. It makes some thought provoking, keen observations and speculations about intelligent life that is interested in finding other intelligent life. They're certainly things that I've never considered before—I recommend reading the book if only for that reason. I would entertain the argument that the emotion is wrapped around a fascinating essay on SETI psychology.

Rollback is definitely the most thought provoking of the three Hugo-nominated books I've read thus far. It definitely seems the most science bound of the three I've read. In addition, it entertains questions of ethics and morals as well as personal responsibility. It is one of the only books I've read that's made me think so much about mortality. The plot, while not complicated or really as good as either Chabon's Yiddish Policemen's Union or Scalzi's Last Colony is designed to pull the ol' heartstrings, and sometimes it's a bit heavy-handed. This book might make you cry if you get emotional about people in love and people dying and songs like Sufjan Steven's "Casimir Pulaski Day":

If you like that sort of thing, you should read Rollback.

If you like cool discussions of SETI psychology and don't mind emotional stories at the same time, you should read Rollback.

If you're slogging through the Hugo nominees because you were too busy to read them sooner, you could also read Rollback because it's quick, but you won't miss anything huge if you don't. It's better than Hominids, and can certainly stay in the running with the other two, but it's not my favorite.

The aging Isaac instructs Esau to hunt game and prepare him savoury food of it so that he can bestow the blessing due the first-born son (berakah) on him. Rebekah overhears, and immediately takes steps to ensure that her beloved Jacob receives the blessing instead. She has him fetch two kids, and prepares food of them. Then she dresses Jacob in Esau's clothes, and covers his arms and neck with the skin of the kids - since Esau's skin is hairy and Jacob's smooth.

Isaac seems to be suspicious. He wonders how Esau managed to hunt and cook the animal so quickly, and Jacob answers "because the Lord your God granted me success". This is heavily ironic, since what is happening is that what God told Rebekah while her children were still in her womb is now coming true. Jacob's name means "he supplants" or "he takes by the heel" - a reference to his being born grasping the heel of his older brother. The elder now has been supplanted and will be ruled by his brother. Since his sense of smell and touch seem to confirm the identity of his first-born Isaac blesses him:

May God give of the dew of heaven,

and the fatness of the earth,

and plenty of grain and wine.

Let the peoples server you,

and the nations bow down to you.

Be lord over your brothers,

and may your mother's sons bow down to you.

When Esau returns from the hunt what has transpired becomes clear to him and Isaac. Apparently the blessing can't be revoked once given, and therefore all Isaac can do in response to Esau's pleading for a blessing is tell him the following:

See, away from the fatness of the earth shall your home be,

and away from the dew of heaven on high.

By your sword shall you live,

and you shall server your brother;

but when you break loose,

you shall break his yoke from your neck.

This blessing is awfully like a curse, and calls to mind God's description of the unborn Ishmael to Hagar in Genesis 16. Both are to have violent lives. Isaac's words are all the more harsh since previously Esau had a good relationship with the earth, albeit as hunter rather than farmer. Esau's breaking of the yoke is said to probably refer to "Edom's successful revolt against Judah in the mid-ninth century BCE after a period of Judean hegemony (2 K. 8. 20-22)" (Notes).

Understandably the furious Esau wants to kill Jacob, but the latter is sent away by his mother to her brother Laban in Haran. "Why should I lose both of you in one day?" she asks Jacob - since if Esau killed his brother his death would not be far behind.

It is hard not to feel sorry for Esau (and Isaac), duped by Rebekah and Jacob, whereas the story of Esau's loss of his birthright painted him as a non-too bright oaf. Esau does have has a hand in bringing his misfortune about - also by marrying outside the approved group. And apparently Jacob at least gets some of his just deserts as his story unfolds.

The chapter ends with one of those abrupt transitions from one story to something unrelated, apparently often signalling the move from one source to the next; in this case it's from tje J to the P text. Rebekah tells Isaac that she is weary of life because of Esau's Hittite women. She fears that Jacob may marry one too.

Point to ponder

The patriarchs are hardly blameless - Abraham is said to have walked with God, yet he lied about Sarah being his wife. Isaac lies about Rebekah being his wife (in a near identical story). And now Jacob starts his life as a patriarch in his own right by stealing his brother's birthright and the blessing due the first-born son. That's quite a substantial transgression. Rebekah, the matriarch, is instigator of this particular transgression - yet she was specifically chosen for Isaac by God.

Image: Isaac Blesses Jacob, by Govert Flinck (1615 – 1660)

Because everybody loves zombies!

1) What is the relationship between the students, faculty, and staff like?
2) Does everyone have an equal say in decision-making?
3) How powerful is the president and administration?
4) Does the Community Council work with the Board of Trustees?
5) What are some current issues being discussed in meetings? How are they resolved?
6) Is there a selection process for BOT members? If so, what is that process like?
7) How often do the BOT meet?
8) What are the responsibilities of the BOT members?

My absurdly long and not-quite-together answer:

Thank you for asking about my involvement in Hampshire as the student trustee! I know your deadline is coming up, so I'm getting this out to you as fast as I can. Hampshire, like any college, is a very complicated place. I've tried to capture as many of the nuances as I can, to the best of my understanding—which is that of a slightly jaded recent graduate. The first few questions take a little while to answer, the rest are quick:

Understanding the governance structures and tensions between political groups at Hampshire also requires an understanding of Hampshire's context. I'm assuming you've done your research to an extent and know that the school was founded in the mid-60's. It grew out of a response to make college more useful and more affordable for the large rise in college-bound students during the 50's—there's a document called The New College Plan from 1958, commissioned by the heads of Mount Holyoke, Smith, Amherst, and the University of Massachusetts. (linked below)

They basically said, "We need colleges to teach better with fewer faculty and less cost. How can we do this? Teach the students to self-teach!" Professors would spend a lot of time teaching students up front to become independent learners, and could then become facilitators in later years of the undergraduate program, helping students construct independent, inquiry-based courses of study.

This educational philosophy and structure of negotiated learning bled over into the social life of campus as well. It was planned that faculty and students would live and work together on campus. Campus-wide decisions were to be made by a council consisting of both students and faculty. Students could become members of and vote in the different Schools of Thought (our fancy way of pretending we don't have departments). Faculty were in charge of the different houses. Power was meant to be relatively well distributed, because Hampshire was a new, 'experimenting' school—everybody had a stake in it together.

However, the administrative side of the college is and has always been conservative. While the college's first constitution was very liberal and inclusive, inviting most of the community to participate in governance, the Board of Trustees retained a hold by including a clause that said in essence, "the Board has final say on all decisions." Every iteration of the college's constitution has retained this sentiment.

Reading back in college archives, I've gotten a sense that despite all the utopian, intentional planning, shared decision making responsibilities, and other idealistic intentions, Hampshire has always struggled with division of power. If you can imagine, for a moment, that every group—students, administrators, faculty—feels like they are supposed to have decision making power, because it says right here in some document that philosophically, they should have it! Each group feels it should have more autonomy to make decisions, or even that they should be let in on the decision making process at all. Meanwhile, the other groups feel that they've made room at the tables, room that is not being taken advantage of. Ill will and arguments follow.

Remember, this is a school in which students are instructed to be individual self-starters, and supposedly similarly natured faculty are hired. Many people paint both the academic communities and social communities on campus as highly isolating. As the retiring Dean of Faculty likes to say, "It's like rugged American individualism gone horribly wrong." Students, staff and faculty often have very strong individual relationships, but often have strained relations as separate political groups, because they feel they are working against the best efforts of the other groups to destroy whatever it is that the school stands for. Yet all groups will generally say they are interested in "bringing Hampshire to the next level."

Note: When I mention groups of people, I mean those who are politically active internally. These groups consist of ten percent of students, a slightly larger amount of faculty, most of the administrators, and hardly any of the staff. Administrators, in this case, are cabinet-level deans and directors of various departments, or anyone with 'dean' in their title.

In general, the power is distributed to the areas in which people are most involved. Students have Community Council, which is supposedly the decision maker for student life on campus. In reality, the Dean of Students has the final say. The Faculty Meeting is the body of all the faculty and is responsible for making decisions of academic policy. All the rest is taken up by the administration, with some help from a few interested faculty and students. "All the rest" includes buildings & grounds, development (fundraising), communications, student life (oh, you thought students had any say here?), admissions, and the business office—powers including, but not limited to, setting the budget. All the heads of these departments report to the president.

Remember, he who controls the budget controls the priorities of an institution. The president's flunkies make the budget with little input from others.

The direct superiors of the president are the trustees. They meet as a board four times a year—three times at Hampshire and one 'retreat' at which they talk about one or two major over-arching philosophical issues. The board has a number of committees that report during its regular meetings. They include the Executive Committee, Nominating & Governance, Finance, Investment (which is a subcommitte of the Finance Committee, I think), Admissions, Identity & Profile, Development, Academic Affairs, Student Life, Buildings & Grounds, and likely a few others.

Decisions that get made at the board level first go through the committee, get discussed, shaped, and brought to the board as a motion and a vote. The members of the committees are usually staff and administrators in those areas, a handful of trustees (including the chair of the committee), and an elected faculty, staff and student representative. The reps are elected from their constituencies in generally very low turnout elections.

The president sits at the center of the web of power. The majority of presentations at board meetings are given by the president and his cabinet members: Deans of Faculty and Students, Directors of Admissions, Communications, Buildings & Grounds and Development, and the Treasurer. It's not surprising, as the board has delegated the majority of their power to the position of the president. The board's responsibilities, according to the outgoing chair of the board, are to provide "disinterested guidance and support from a level removed from the details and specifics of daily life at the college." They're responsible for the mission and policy level decisions, and the fiscal health of the institution.

If you ask students, the actual responsibilities of most trustees include the difficult tasks of showing up and giving significant sums of money.

I feel like I've been going on a long time at this point... and it's starting to turn into a rant. I'll answer the rest of your questions as briefly as I can.

Community Council is a student run council that is nearly defunct, despite the best efforts of a decade. It's been in a slow decline since the early 70's and at this point is considered a joke by most students, and by many administrators. The board has nearly zero interactions with the council.

Aside from the elected student, faculty, and staff trustees, there are two alumni trustees who are also elected by the constituency. The rest are recommended to the Nominating & Governance committee of the board, who selects the best candidates and presents them to the board.

Current issues being discussed by the board include a number of things. Some are more mundane issues such as: Should Hampshire buy nearby land? How are the fundraising goals being met? What is our master capital campaign, and how are we accounting for future expenses in today's budget? Bigger issues include the study done by the Center of Inquiry in the Liberal Arts at Wabash College, which showed that students' opinions of Hampshire are not entirely what the faculty and administration expects or wants, as well as a discussion of divestment from companies that are profiting from the Israel/Palestine situation. That particular issue is the first one I've seen create any sort of real conflict between board members and students. I and many others are waiting with baited breath to see how this one turns out.

An interesting point to keep in mind—students brought the divestment question to the board. Despite an effort by some on the board to squash it, the topic is being discussed. Students, when they get their act together, do wield some power at the board level.

This is a lot to digest... Does it answer your questions? I worry that I've been too involved in the college to give a simple answer, but none of it is very simple.

The most interesting thing I've found is that outside of Hampshire, almost none of this matters. I suppose I understand how to navigate institutional politics a bit better than I did, but most of what I cared about seems so petty. It seems so petty now because I don't believe that Hampshire is doing as much of consequence in the world as it could be. If there was some greater reason to give a damn about the school, maybe it would seem more consequential.

Don't get me wrong—Hampshire did great things for me. I mean, without it, I probably wouldn't have gone on a cross country circus tour! But like I said, Hampshire is so focused on individualism that it can't seem to focus its energies outside itself. It's sad to see something with so much potential fall so short.

Some good reading material:
The New College Plan (1958) .pdf *I highly recommend reading this. It's short!
The Making of A College (1965) .pdf *This has some really great things to say and expands upon The New College Plan. It contains Hampshire's original working documents.
Hampshire College Constitution (1998 version) .pdf
Numerous other resources are available at the archives website.

Abraham marries a woman called Keturah ("incense"), and has six sons with her. According to the Notes the sons' names are those of Arabian places and tribes. One of the sons, Jokshan, will become the father of Sheba, the queen later visited by Solomon. Abraham gives all that he has to Isaac, but he bestows gifts on the sons of all his concubines. These sons do get sent away from Isaac however, to the east. Isaac is to continue the patriarchal line, and Abraham clearly wants to avoid any territorial disputes.

At the age of 175 Abraham dies and is buried in the family tomb already containing the remains of Sarah.

The chapter also outlines the descendants of the other line of Abraham's family, that fathered by Ishmael. Ishmael, who dies at 137, has 12 sons, all princes. His descendants fulfil the promise God made to his mother in Genesis 16. According to the Notes

the genealogical split between the children of Hagar and the children of Keturah distinguishes the Arabs of the Syrian and Sinai deserts (the Ishmaelites), who were primarily pastoralists, from the peoples of the Arabian peninsula, in whose southern regions were settled nations wealthy from trade in incense, spices and gold.

Isaac married the Aramean Rebekah when he was 40, but his children are only born when he is 60. Like Sarah, she turns out to be barren, but Isaac prays to God and she conceives. Ominously, "the children struggled together within her". In answer to her questions God says to her:

Two nations are in your womb,

and two peoples born of you shall be divided;

the one shall be stronger than the other,

the elder shall serve the younger.

The boys are born with the second child holding on to heel of his brother. Esau, the first-born, was red, and "all his body like a hairy mantle". His name refers to "red" in Hebrew. The younger brother, Jacob, gets his name from the word "heel" in Hebrew. Jacob's birth already points to his eventual usurpation of the rights and privileges of his brother.

Esau is his father's son. A man of the field, a skillful hunter, he is the favourite of Isaac who loves eating game. Jacob is his mother's favourite, a quiet man who "lives in tents". The Notes point out that they personify predatory wildness and culture respectively. In their relations with each other Jacob is clearly the intellectual superior of his instinct-led brother.

After coming home from a failed hunt Esau comes upon Jacob cooking stew. His hunger for "some of that red stuff" (emphasising his inarticulateness) drives him to agree to sell his birthright for a portion of it. Jacob gets him to swear to his selling the birthright, which makes the transaction legally binding. The wild man Esau is intent only on having his immediate need sated - he says that he is "about to die" of hunger - and pays no attention to the future, to the consequences of his actions.

Notes

• Sheba was a "wealthy southern Arabian kingdom". (Notes)
• The theme of the ascent of the younger son (Isaac, Jacob) is a repeated one in Genesis. (Notes)
• In chapter 10 "Joktan" is listed as son of Eber (descendant of Shem) and father of Sheba (among others).

Esau Sells his Birthright to Jacob, by Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn (1606 – 1669)

What do you do with a 36' blue veggie-oil-converted-hippy-circus-bus that you don't want sitting on your lawn?

Episodio sexto de la primera temporada de la serie de Perdidos (1x06: House of the Rising Sun, La Casa del Sol Naciente). Jack y Kate descubren dos cuerpos en las cuevas, a los que John Locke denominó como Adán y Eva. Dentro de los cuerpos, Jack encontró en sus bolsillos dos piedras: una negra y otra blanca. Y así quedaba expuesto uno de los misterios de Perdidos de los que menos sabemos y de los que no hemos vuelto a saber practicamente nada.

Hoy en EL CONDENSADOR DE FLUZO, vamos a arrojar un poquito de luz sobre ello. A continuación más datos sobre los cuerpos de Adán y Eva, comentarios de los creadores al respecto y posibles identidades de los cuerpos.

Hay spoilers así que puede que no quieras seguir leyendo.

MÁS DATOS CONCRETOS QUE CONOCEMOS

El deterioro de la ropa nos da alguna pista sobre su identidad. Según Jack, refleja que llevan muertos unos 40 o 50 años. Junto con las piedras son los únicos datos concretos que pueden servir como pistas. Jack cogió esas piedras, y al menos en pantalla, no hemos visto que le haya revelado a John Locke haberlas encontrado.

COMENTARIOS Y PISTAS DE LOS CREADORES

En una entrevista de Marzo de 2.007 con Damon Lindelof y Carlton Cuse (creadores de Perdidos), éstos aseguraron que el descubrimiento de Adán y Eva era la primera pista para enlazar con el tema de los viajes en el tiempo, demostrando así que desde el principio de la serie tenían algunas ideas claras.

En otra entrevista, Carlton Cuse respondió:

La respuesta a esa pregunta está en la línea temporal natural de la Isla. No queremos decir mucho sobre eso, pero hay un par de easter eggs en el episodio Not in Portland, uno de los cuales es un anagrama que actualmente arroja luz sobre los esqueletos y da pistas sobre un misterio mitológico mayor que empezará a destaparse más adelante (¿Quiza la capacidad para mover la isla y viajar en el tiempo?)

Damon Lindelof añadió:

Hay algunas cosas que sabemos desde el principio. Independientemente de que no sabíamos cómo sería el final, sabíamos qué iba a suceder, y empezamos a exponerlo en la primera temporada. Así que los esqueletos son la prueba viviente de ello. Cuando lleguemos al final la gente dirá, "esa es la prueba que desde el principio sabían lo que estaban haciendo"

UN ANAGRAMA QUE ARROJA LUZ A ESTE MISTERIO

Como ya adelantamos en esta entrada, en el episodio Not in Portland existe un anagrama respecto a la compañia a la que representa Richard Alpert: Mittelos es un un anagrama de Lost Time. ¿Será este el anagrama al que hacen referencia? o ¿será otro?

¿A QUIÉN PODRÍAN PERTENECER LOS CUERPOS?

• Nativos antes de la llegada de Dharma: Quizá responsables de la creación de la estatua con el pie de cuatro dedos.

• Supervivientes o descendientes de ellos de La Roca Negra: Podrían haber sobrevivido al naufragio. Aunque más que naufragio, dada la capacidad de moverse la isla en el espacio (¿y en el tiempo?) quiza la isla apareciera de repente y levantara al barco, quedandose este en mitad de la isla.
• Desmond y Penny: ¿Imagináis que al final de la serie se descubre que Adán y Eva son Desmond y Penny? Un grandioso final circular con viajes en el tiempo. Como nota importante añadir una cosa: En el episodio Flashes before your eyes se pueden ver las piedras negra y blanca (aunque algunos dicen que son solo tapones de cerveza)
• Bernard y Rose: Posiblemente ambos jamás abandonen la isla. Las piedras podrían ser una pista respeto a su etnia.
• Jacob y Leah: Dadas las referencias biblicas, en el último capítulo del Génesis, Jacob es enterrado en una cueva junto a Leah.
• Los padres de Charlotte: Dado que Charlotte ha revelado que ha nacido en la isla, ¿serán los esqueletos de sus padres?

Gerald DeGroot y Karen DeGroot

• Gerald DeGroot y Karen DeGroot: Los fundadores de la Iniciativa Dharma bien podrían ser Adán y Eva en esta historia.
• Amelia Earhart y Fred Noonan: Personajes del universo expandido de Perdidos en la red. Amelia Earhart y su copiloto Fred Noonan se supone que se perdieron durante unl vuelo en torno al año 1937.

Pero no son las únicas alternativas, hay otras que aunque aparentemente más inverosimiles, despiertan nuestro interes, ya que muchas revelarían más viajes temporales como los siguientes:

Aaron Littleton y Ji-Yeon Kwon

• Aaron y Ji-Yeon
• Ben y Annie

Sería muy potito que fueran:

• Hugo y Libbie
• Goodwin y Juliet
• Charlie y Claire

Y si no, siempre pueden ser alguna pareja formada por: Jack, Kate, Sawyer y Juliet.

Via | Todo Series