Daily Gratitude - Day 4

A while ago, I read an article that reported research finding that people who read a lot of fiction have more empathy than those who do not. I don't know how it was measured or what the method of testing was but I remember thinking, "Hey...that makes sense. I read a lot of fiction and I have a lot of empathy." The best kind of truth is when it is self-validating, right?





When I saw this Caitlyn Connolly print titled, “But if you look at it this way,” I immediately bought it because that’s what I want to do. I feel it is so important in almost every area of our lives (marriage, parenting, religion, politics) to at least try to see things from other perspectives. I don’t have to change my mind or think like someone else but I want to know not just how other people view the world but why. Sometimes this makes me feel wishy-washy and I get that there are times when a person has to take a stand but I can usually see both sides of any issue and it makes it impossible to be a hard-liner. Because today is election day, this personal failing or wonderful blessing (depends which way you’re looking) is something I’ve thought a lot about. I rarely choose one political party and their candidates consistently over another. If I was forced to choose, I would probably choose more conservative candidates and issues but not always. What makes me so curious is the absolute certainty a lot of people claim to possess about what is right. Really? Always? For everyone? I see a lot of truth and goodness as well as a lot of perversion and corruption within both major parties. I’d vote third party but I’m not anti republican or democrat.  Besides, some of those candidates are often..well...kind of crazy. Just watch the Vermont governor's debate. What do you do when those kinds of candidates are your alternatives?



Today is election day and during tonight's choir rehearsal, I was sitting next to a woman who kept checking the election outcomes on her phone whenever she could. Without any provocation or encouragement from me, she would lean over and say, "At least so and so is ahead. That other guys is an idiot," or "What is wrong with the people in our state? Why don't we care about what's in our food?"  I never knew what to say. If I nodded, she would just keep going but not saying anything was sort of like nodding too. Why would she assume I felt the same as her about these things? Because of my gender? My age? My skin color? My voice part?

I voted my conscience, as best as I could with the candidates and options available and it was kind of all over the place.The only person I've told how I voted is Jay because he loves me regardless...even when I sometimes cancel out his vote. I feel so blessed to have the privilege and right to vote. I never want to abuse it through negligence or apathy. It matters because the alternative is so much worse.

A Post In Which I Wax Philisophical About Something I Know Nothing About

I wish I enjoyed politics.  For something that seems so staged, slick and frivolous, the things they do and do not have serious implications for the rest of us.  My friend, Michelle, has gotten quite involved at the local level on the side of things she feels passionate about and I've noticed a feeling akin to envy when she speaks so eloquently on issues she's clearly studied. 

I'm sure my innate laziness which hounds me in all aspects of my life is the same thing holding me back from really jumping into the fray, but there's another slightly more noble reason.  I cannot decide which side is more right.  Or, for that matter, which side is more wrong. 

I am a moderate.  An independent.   One day, while still on our cruise, my sister Sarah and I were watching CNN in our room/stall while a panel of pundits discussed the "fairness" of the debt ceiling limit negotiations that Speaker of the House John Boehner supposedly walked out on.  The democrats were screaming foul by declaring their side had made so many concessions and this deal that President Obama had suggested was completely fair.  Even so-called moderates, the ones that are supposed to be representing me, said it was a shame that the talks had broken down because it was the best deal that had ever been on the table. 

I looked over at Sarah and said, "You know if the democrats think it's fair and a republican stormed out, that it wasn't at all fair.  The most "fair" deal will be when both sides are unhappy about what is passed." 

I know that is a simpleton's view of things but as I've read and watched the news today, everyone is lamenting about how horrible this current deal is.  Obama can't lead.  Tea Partiers are holding the nation as hostages.  Romney would never accept this plan. Democrats lose.  Republicans lose.  The middle class loses. America loses. 

This universal discontent makes me think that maybe, finally, the balance between cuts and social spending is where it needs to be...for now.  I don't actually know and I hate to trivialize something that is a really big deal.  Debt is a nasty master.  It holds our nation hostage.  It controls our foreign policy, controls our states and cities and even our individual families.  As a Dave Ramsier, I wish all of our leaders, liberals and conservatives alike, could see the wisdom in austerity.  That you can do more, be more generous, have a stronger national defense, plan for the future when freed from the bondage of debt.  

I have no idea if the drama in Washington will help our nation or hurt it.  But, as someone who considers herself a reasonable person, it makes sense to me that both sides are going to have to let go of the pipe dream, at least for the moment, and grab hold of an actual compromise. 

What Is Truth?

My good intentions aren't exactly translating into blogging gold, but I did have an idea this afternoon about what I'd like to write about today.  However, it's now ten thirty at night and my head is tired and I'm not positive my deep thoughts, not to mention my passion about the topic, are best expressed in my current condition.   Please accept my pre-emptive apology for any rambling, veering off topic, or dangling prepositions.

I was on a news web site today and out of the corner of my eye, near the bottom was a link to an article about Glen Beck and a Mormon Prophecy.  Curious, I clicked on it and was taken to the Huffington Post web site and read the rather poorly written and poorly researched article by Dana Milbank.  When I finished the article, I surmised that the point he was trying to make was that Beck, who is Mormon, is doing the things he's doing and saying the things he's saying to essentially incite other Mormons, who would understand his coded messages, to follow him.

While that hypothesis should be dissected and discussed all by itself,  the authors presumption that Beck does this intentionally is not what actually got my dander up.  What did were contents of the one-thousand four-hundred and seventy-three comments that followed (there are now nearly four-thousand.  I can't bear to look).  I didn't read all of them.  I don't even think I skimmed half of them.  I didn't have to.  From the first hundred, it was clear that the vast, vast majority were anti-Beck, anti Fox news, anti-Mormon, anti-Romney, anti-Joseph Smith, and just plain....anti.  I realize the people who take the time to comment on online articles are, in general, more opinionated and less nice about giving their opinions, but so many comments, attacking...well....me wasn't a pleasant part of my day.

There was all sorts of false accusations and misinformation being spewed about with very little opposition (one poor commenter was clearly a member of the LDS church and was bravely trying to fend off some of the more malicious or erroneous comments).  It struck me then and I almost made a comment (in fact, I tried but was required to create a Huffington Post user name and password and that extra step made my gumption go away) that these very individuals who rail and moan and abuse Fox News, hate Glen Beck, ridicule those who listen to him are essentially mocking their own reflection.

Sure, they may vote differently and maybe they even drive a Prius instead of a truck but they are mirror images of each other, clinging to their version of truth just as fervently and sometimes as offensively as the other side.

Fox News has a conservative bias.  It does.  They say they are fair and balanced and they are....to conservatives.  Almost every other news outlet has a liberal bias.  They do.  They are just so surrounded by like-minded people that they sound equally fair and balanced to each other.   But none are doling out truth.

And neither is Glen Beck.  He is giving his opinion.  His opinion is more lucrative when it's loud and controversial.   I'm not saying his opinion is wrong.  Just that it's his.  It's not mine.  It's not the opinion of the LDS church.  They have their own format for giving theirs and it happened last weekend and the Lincoln Memorial was not in the background.  

As for the author of the article, well, that's not the truth either.  It makes me sad and angry that the many comments I read assumed it was.  Think people!  Know the difference between information and speculation.  Recognize bias - both in others and in yourself.  When taking a side, know why and what for and allow others to do the same without fear of harassment or ridicule.  

Galileo said, "All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered, the point is to discover them."  He was probably referring to His once controversial discovery about the earth revolving around the sun but do you think there is a "true" political side?  Ayn Rand made her case for capitalism.  Glen Beck makes his for his own brand of conservatism.  Many others claim social justice equals truth.  And then there are those fools who comment on the Huffington Post about what they think is truth.  Is there a truth for America?   If there is, as a Mormon, is it my responsibility to start listening to Glen Beck?  (That last question is not something I'm actually wondering.  And that's the truth).

Sunday Thoughts

During their eighteen month mission to Myanmar, my parents taught several English classes, one being held in the small building where the Yangon branch met on a weekly basis. My sisters and I accompanied my parents to their classes while we were visiting and during one class, my dad had each of us sit in smaller groups with about eight of their students and converse in English.

Most of the student's English was very rudimentary and the possible topics were limited to our names, our families, our ages and hobbies. However, I believe one topic that was brought up with each group was what I thought of Myanmar.

I made sure to reply with enthusiasm about their beautiful land (it's really stunning), their art and the kindness of the people. Likewise, the question usually turned and a few wanted to give their opinions about America.

There can't be many things as embarrassing as what America looks like on TV. Most of these people had never met any Americans outside of the humanitarian missionaries from the church, but they did know who Britney Spears was. My only defense was to emphatically tell them, "Most American people are not anything like Britney Spears!"

Today, in Sacrament Meeting, a soft-spoken and kind man serving in the bishopric made a few comments about the unfortunate hostility displayed towards the LDS church this week following the passing of Proposition 8 in California. With sadness in his voice, he wondered what the world was coming to when one police officer overheard another police officer make the comment "I hope they burn it down" referring to the Los Angeles temple as protesters started to climb the temple fence. He sorrowed that the temple grounds in Salt Lake City could become a place of fear instead of peace after an envelope containing white powder was mailed to an office building on Temple square. I agree. These stories make me sad and, I admit....mad.

Does this building offend you?

But as I sat there, I remembered explaining to an impressionable Myanmar teenager about the millions upon millions of good, decent, non-insane clothes wearing Americans that never make it on the TV shows or magazine covers. Our news, our movies, our television shows don't really represent who we are and how we act. I can't help but feel the same rules apply in their case.

Clearly, the gay and lesbian movement has some bad apples - some Britney Spears in their midst. Those bad apples are obviously more exciting than the quiet, peaceful protesters and as a result, they make the news with their hateful signs, deplorable behavior and intolerant remarks. But the whole group is not - cannot be hateful, deplorable, and intolerant. We, as human beings, just aren't.

I am in favor of protecting the definition of traditional marriage and I am not a bigot. Defining marriage as something between a man and a woman is not the definition of hate. Thinking so is no different than George Bush saying, "You're either with us, or against us." Yes. That's right. You agree with George Bush (Gasp!). I believe in the Golden Rule and I believe every man, woman and child is a literal child of God. I firmly believe that men are that they have joy. I've heard this argument to defend those who want same-sex marriages to be legal - that every person has the right to be happy and to be married to the person they love. I agree...in part.

The Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

There's the hiccup. Are our rights given to us by our government, which is most definitely secular, or by our "Creator" - God, who is holy? If given by God, which is what is written, then, ideally, our legal rights should match perfectly with our eternal, spiritual rights. However, more often they do not and are thus held, in my opinion, to a lesser standard. So, if the gay and lesbian movement wants the secular, non-holy government to give them the green light to be legally joined together, then I think they have the right to pursue that possibility. But, they seem to want more than a green light.

I think what they really want, just like myself, is to feel the joy that God promises. They use the phrase "pursuing happiness" and, unfortunately, have been deceived that this kind of happiness - joy - is possible to attain while committing sin. Yes, I believe engaging in homosexuality is a sin. My source for believing that comes from the same source that tells me murder, adultery, stealing, lying and cheating are sins. Justification by using alternative interpretations in my mind equates to what Bill Clinton did when hedging about the definition of "is". There is right and there is wrong because there is opposition in all things. There is wickedness and righteousness - misery and joy. I want my brothers and sisters to be happy on earth, because that's the here and now that we know, but I want their eternal happiness more. I don't believe turning our backs on truth is doing anyone a favor. I certainly don't think accepting sin is an act of love.

THE act of love.

So, I sit here on a Sunday evening...in limbo land, wishing for calm and understanding. The brave, brave souls who worked tirelessly for passage of Prop 8 in California had every right to express their beliefs through the democratic process just as the groups protesting now have the same right to stand in front of courthouses and government buildings peacefully waving signs. It's the goons on either side that don't belong.

Even though the news doesn't fairly represent the debate and there are a few who spoil the efforts of many, the democratic process, protests and all, is one of the best faces of America and one I would be proud to show the people of Myanmar.

Post Election Thoughts

In forty years, will I remember who I voted for and and why in the 2008 presidential election? Will I remember how I felt upon hearing the results? Not if I don't write it down.

For this reason, and this reason only, I want to write about how I feel about electing Barack Hussein Obama into a chapter of American history. In other words, I have no stomach for debate.

The campaign was so long. I remember first hearing about Obama almost two years ago while living in Spokane. It irritated me that so many people liked him without knowing anything about him. He seemed all hype. I remember seeing a political cartoon that showed a young 20-something woman wearing a large belt buckle emblazoned with a glittery "OBAMA" and saying, "I don't know what it is, but I want it." The Obama girl song bombarded Youtube. Liking Obama meant you were cool and hip, part of the MTV crowd, and because I am none of those things, I didn't want anything to do with him.

That seems eons ago. Somehow, this one-term senator from Illinois moved from being an Internet sensation to being the overwhelming choice for President of the United States. Did people vote for him because a big-busted girl sang a song about liking him? No.

President-Elect Obama has charisma. He is an innate leader and gifted communicator. I listened to him and wanted to cheer, even though he didn't represent my politics or my views on many moral, economic and diplomatic issues. I guess you could say he has the "it" factor.

But as the campaign wore on, and the throng of adoring fans grew larger, I stepped back to check my own motivations for liking the man. Was I voting for a rock star or a president?

I decided I needed to start looking at this election with my head, and not my heart and in doing so, Obama lost a bit of his sparkle. His comments about "spreading the wealth around" and "economic justice" are so contrary to what I feel the purpose of taxation should be. More and more promises that require more and more money worried me. Was he advocating handing out fish or was he planning on teaching man to fish? The final straw was kicking reporters who worked for papers that didn't endorse his presidency off of his campaign trail to make room for more zealots.

As I went into vote yesterday morning, I knew who and what I was going to vote for. Each amendment, candidate - local, state and national - and referendum had been studied. When I began selecting boxes on the touch screen in front of me, my first selection was for McCain/Palin.

I finished voting, pushed "Next" several times until I came to the "Cast Ballot" button.

I paused.

What did I really want? Was the most important thing to vote for the guy who promises not to raise my taxes? No. Was the most important thing to vote for the guy who promises to scare away all the bad guys? No. Was the most important thing to vote for the guy who will put the least scary judges on the bench? I hope not. No.

At that deciding moment, I wanted the best man in office. I wanted an effective communicator...an effective leader - a person who will be a strong representative for America in this global age. I wanted someone with perspective, poise, energy and, I suppose, a little charm. I wanted to vote for Obama.

So I did.

His election does not cause elation, pride, or a strong desire to link arms at Starbucks and sing along with Bruce Springsteen with fellow liberals. I don't think that because I voted for Obama, I somehow "got it right"-- a sentiment I'm not sure belongs in politics. Instead, I'm hopeful. Hopeful that the man who gave an incredible and memorable speech last night believes the powerful words he spoke. Hopeful that America listened and put its hate for those who think differently to rest. Hopeful that he can and will change some of the ugliness in American politics. Mostly hopeful that it's not a mistake to vote for a man, instead of an elephant or a donkey.

Regardless, I refuse to be a cynic or an adoring fan. At this point, I don't believe it benefits our nation to cheer or heckle our president as if he were merely the quarterback of our favorite football team or our nemesis chess rival (do people heckle at chess tournaments?) For the next four years, I will put my trust in President Obama as long as he continues to earn it.