Current Thoughts on The Affordable Care Act

I hope you don’t mind hearing my two-cents about The Affordable Care Act. But there is just so much fear-mongering going on about it (e. g. “this will be the worst disaster our country has ever seen, mark my words!”) and also a whole lot of talk of lost liberties (e.g. “you will not be able to keep your exact same plan and coverage, waaa!” –btw, yes, you  may have fewer plan options and your premiums may go up, but you will likely be getting more benefits in return such as lower deductibles, prescription drug coverage, etc.). Of course there's also a lot of Obama-slamming and political garbage going on too (e.g. "Obama deceived the American people, blah, blah, blah"). All that aside though, here's the way I see it; this new Act has a lot of potential to increase liberties, give Americans more options, and empower a lot of people. As just one example, let’s say I wanted to quit my job (also assuming that I was currently working outside of the home) and start a private speech therapy practice. Before, fear of not being able to pay for insurance while getting things up and running might have been a big deterrent. With the new system though, a “safety net” is put in place so that health care is not such a worry while my income is temporarily so low (because I will be getting a government subsidy). Once I build up a clientele and am back on my feet again, I can start paying back into the system. If I am paying more at that point, I don’t think I would mind so much. Also, doing something progressive about our currently 30 million uninsured Americans is a pretty big deal in my book. And you realize that we have been paying for those uninsured Americans all along –every time one steps into an E.R. and can’t pay the bill- right? Remember that we are starting from one of the worst healthcare cost situations in the rich world (we pay about twice per capita of what other countries pay, while still managing to have many Americans declare bankruptcy every year over medical expenses or simply get by without adequate care). It's nuts. We need to move to a better system, even if it isn't a perfect one.

Letter to Utah Senator Mike Lee

October 15, 2013

Dear Senator Lee,

I am writing as an American, Utahan, family member, and parent to express my concern with the current government shutdown and, more specifically, to express my disapproval of your behavior as an elected representative of Utah at the recent “Million Vet March” rally that took place earlier this week at the World War 2 memorial. I should begin by saying that the shutdown has hit close to home for me as I have a brother who has been furloughed these past weeks as well as a sister who may no longer be able to sell her house (as her buyer is seeking an FHA loan) due to the government shutdown. While I do not claim to understand all of the intricacies of the current political melodrama in Washington, D.C., when drastic action is taken that so negatively affects the lives of so many Americans, I have to wonder whether or not such action was justified and, in this instance, I simply cannot see how it was warranted. President Obama rightfully won the 2012 election; the majority of Americans supported the main changes that would be brought about by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). I am especially distressed by the failure of his opposition to use specific terms in describing what they perceive as the main problems with the ACA and, likewise, their failure to offer logical and specific alternative solutions. In fact, the opposition seems reluctant to even acknowledge that our current health care system (a system that includes some 30 million uninsured Americans, causes our government to have the highest health spending in the world, and causes many Americans to declare bankruptcy every year over medical expenses) is clearly dysfunctional. I am troubled when I consider the possibility that such violent and nonproductive opposition to the ACA may be personally and politically advantageous to certain political leaders regardless of whether they are truly representing the best interests of the majority of their voting constituency.

Just as the government shutdown has negatively affected many Americans on a personal level, it is to be expected that negative effects would also follow on a national level, including the closure of many of our National Parks and monuments. I do not understand how anyone, let alone one of my own elected representatives from Utah, could expect these monuments to stay open and operational when they simply lack the personnel and financial resources to do so given the current government shutdown. Listening to the speeches given at Sunday’s rally, including your own, there was no logical or truthful connection between the closure of the monument being a direct result of the shutdown and, in turn, of the shutdown being a direct result of the activities of all our government officials, including the actions and decisions of our elected officials from the Republican Party. The rally exemplified what I believe most frustrates the majority of Americans concerning the current state of our government: the extreme polarization of the political parties; a complete unwillingness to compromise for the common good; a readiness to make excuses, to place blame elsewhere, and to villainize the opposition; and, most importantly, a lack of honest accountability to the very people they promised to serve and represent.

I could say more about the distasteful nature of some of comments that were made at the rally –comments which you appear to have supported and applauded – specifically Larry Klayman’s racially and religiously bigoted comment that Obama should “put the Quran down” and “come out with his hands up.” I was also confused by your apparent approval of the prominent presence of a Confederate flag at the rally, a symbol that is associated with white supremacy much in the same way that the Nazi swastika is associated with anti-Semitism. However, I hope that I have already made my disapproval and disappointment quite clear. I believe that the majority of Utahans want to be represented by reasonable conservative politicians who demonstrate thoughtful and responsible behavior. I sincerely hope that you will better consider the true preferences and attitudes of the majority of the Utahans you represent as well as the reputation of our great state as you go forward serving our community and country in the future.

Laurie Madsen

Logan, Utah 

New Addiction: Choffe

So Choffe is kind of what it sounds like: a chocolaty-spin on coffee, specifically with ground cocoa beans instead of ground coffee beans. I’ve heard it called “Mormon coffee,” and people like me (Mormons who know in their hearts they would be coffee drinkers if it wasn’t for the WoW) are an obvious target. It brews just like coffee, and I’ve heard it works best in a French Press (since I don’t have one of those, I just let it soak it hot water in the microwave and pour it through a fine mesh strainer into my thermos). It claims to be supremely healthy but I’m a little skeptical of that claim –especially after I add good dose of sweetened coffee creamer, but I guess that it probably would beat out cookies or ice cream for a “healthy” late-night snack. It is wonderfully rich, earthy tasting stuff. The aroma alone is magnificent. And there’s not really any going back to regular hot chocolate after trying this. So you’ve been warned. If you want to risk becoming an addict too they sell it on Amazon and also at “Luv to Cook” in Logan.

Adventures in Snacking: Naturebox Review

Naturebox is a monthly subscription service that sends you an adorable little box full of five small snack bags for 20 dollars a month. My favorite part of the experience since signing up (which happened a few months ago after seeing an ad on Facebook) has been the excitement of opening the box and trying each of the five new snacks for the first ime. And they have been, overall, very tasty little snacks. My neighbor called them “froo froo” snacks and was a little hesitant to eat many since they are kind of fancy and expensive. Their big thing is that they are “healthier” (no high fructose corn syrup, no artificial colors, blah blah) which is great, but my biggest selling point has been the variety of flavors it’s been bringing to my pantry on a monthly basis. Except cross out “monthly” and replace it with “weekly” since that’s about how long they last (yes, with a family of only two adults and a toddler). They are just a little too yummy and the quantities a little too small to stretch very far into the month. (It’s also true that the idea of “healthy snacks” could arguably pose an oxymoron). I think we will cancel our subscription soon, but it has been fun while it lasted. Here’s a sample of what we’ve received.

July Box:

Bag 1: Big Island Pineapple Rings – delectable dried pineapple (really, better than Trader Joe’s) but also very small in quantity and gone by the third day

Bag 2: Sun Dried Tomato Almonds – good roasted almond flavor (reminded me of almonds I have bought in little tins in the past) with the crusted-on tomato spice giving a nice twist

Bag 3: Country Ranch Sunflower Seeds – a bit of a disappointment, perhaps because the second bag of straight nuts in one month. Also, the ranch flavor is pretty subtle. Tastes a lot like any bag of sunflower seeds I have tried in the past.

Bag 4: Blueberry Figgy Bars –These really are yummy and come with around six individually wrapped smallish bars. I have tried other fancy fig/granola bars and these are the best; Really hearty to bite into without any fake-y aftertaste. Peter loves them.

Bag 5: Lemon Tea Biscuits –adorable little  shortbread-type cookies that would go perfectly with a hot cup of Choffee. Also soft and bite-sized and easy for Peter to eat.

Other Things We’ve Gotten:

Granolas –mixed feelings here. I’ve definitely preferred the soft-cluster granola over the super-crunchy variety. The flavors have been very good (banana bread granola, cherry chocolate granola, etc.) but the bigger issue is what do you do with such a small portion of granola? Eat one bowl of it for breakfast? Spread it out by sprinkling on yogurt of couple of times? It’s just kind of an awkward snack for eating on it’s own.

Savory Cracker-type Things –Italian Bistro Pretzles, Sesame Stix, Toasted Cheddar Stix, Guacamole Stix, and other similar fare has been satisfying overall and can work well in place of croutons, crackers, or chips.

Trail Mixes –This has perhaps been my favorite type of item; I love the combinations and flavors naturebox comes up with! Both the Taj Mahal Snack Mix (wonderful with golden raisins and a curry flavor) and the Italian Trail Mix (dried tomatoes, robust herb-flavor) were delish.

Kettle Corns (AKA: Corn Nuts) –Mesquite, BBQ, or Honey Roasted, it still tastes a lot like Corn Nuts to me. A big complaint is that they are way too hard-crunchy to feed to Peter. But Dave and I must not be very hot on them either since we still have a couple of unfinished bags sitting in our cupboard.

So that should give a pretty good idea of what naturebox is all about. I guess they also try to “give back” by donating to organizations that help fight hunger, which sounds very cool, but I haven’t researched the company enough to know very much about that. For lots more info you can go to naturebox.com.

Book Review: The Glass Castle

*While this post is mostly a review of The Glass Castle (a
memoir of Jeannette Walls’s childhood), it also incorporates ideas inspired by
Half Broke Horses (a true-life novel by Jeannette Walls’ about the life of her
maternal grandmother and the childhood of her mother). The two books are a lot
like “prequel” and “sequel” of the same work to me.

The Glass Castle probably made it to the best seller list
for a lot of reasons, but one of those reasons certainly has to be because of
the gripping narrative that it tells. From the first scene in which a
3-year-old Jeannette catches on fire while boiling hot dogs (her mother
explains that children need to learn self-reliance from an early age) and is
then “rescued” early from the hospital by her father -who is always running
from one problem or debt collector to the next- you know that she is in for one
heck of a childhood. Near the end of the novel, when a teenage Jeannette and
her siblings struggle to put every penny they can into an “escape” fund only to
have it raided by their alcoholic father, I was invested in the Walls’ story
and struggle.

I think what really intrigued me though -what I haven’t been
able to stop thinking about since- were the larger-than-life characters –precisely
because they were not, in fact “larger-than-life” but because they were as
“real life” as it comes. Watching an interview with the author, she said that
one of the things that struck her most while researching the life of Lily
Casey, as extraordinary as her exploits may seem to us now, was how “common”
Lily’s story was for that day and age. She also discussed how, while the
actions of others may be hard to understand at surface level, the answers to
why people do the things that they do can often be found by taking a look into
their past. Rose Mary Walls’, Jeannette’s mother, a well-informed,
college-educated woman, raised by an extremely resourceful mother, but unable
to hold down a steady job. Rex Walls’, Jeannette’s father, with his sharp intelligence,
big dreams, and insatiable curiosity, but largely controlled by his destructive
addictions. Looking at Rose Mary’s upbringing explains a lot; her childhood,
spent exploring an enormous ranch, was characterized by freedom and adventure
–ideals she continued to seek as an adult. What’s more, Rose Mary’s generation,
which is also the generation of my own mother (and I’ve drawn several parallels
between the two women), lived to see the “wild places” of their childhoods be
tamed; literally, as The West was developed and modernized, but perhaps
figuratively as well. They seemed to live in this special window where children
were no longer seen as “little adults,” meant to start pulling their weight
from an early age, but before modern parenting advice forbade giving a good
spank or advised against letting your children roam free. This generation also
grew up under the threat of the atom bomb, and I wonder if that wouldn’t have
led to a certain sense of resignation or helplessness against the “powers that
be.” Contrasting Rose Mary’s approach to life with that of her mother’s, Lily
Casey’s, the differences are obvious. Granted, Lily Casey was never the “free
spirit” that Rose Mary was, but she also learned early on that survival was a
struggle, sentimentality a weakness she couldn’t afford. So, the point is that
it’s led me to think a lot about the importance of the context in which we grow
and live, particularly of the generation to which we belong.

At the same time, and maybe in direct contrast to this idea,
is the idea that life is what we choose to take away from it –despite the
context of our upbringing. The case in point here being Jeannette Walls who
became a best-selling author and apparently lives an emotionally healthy life
(now living with and taking care of her mother). In that same author interview,
Walls explains that she sometimes hears her memoir read aloud in angry tone
–even though she wouldn’t read her own words in that way. And while her younger
brother, as an adult, demanded an apology from their mother, Wall’s decided not
to see herself as needing to “forgive” anyone –thereby framing herself as the
victim. The best example is probably found in the book’s title; Walls explained
that while mention of their father’s “glass castle” evokes feeling of
bitterness and disappointment in her siblings, she now sees it as the promise
that kept her going, a representation of her hope for a better future.

And a third theme that I want to just briefly touch on
is that while we may “get the life we want” (like Walls commented in one of her
college courses while thinking of her homeless parents), it is rarely that
simple. Walls (again in the interview) explained that as she grew to understand her
mother better, she realized that Rose Mary was lacking in some very basic skills
required to hold down a job. She came to the conclusion that her mother may
have been, like she explained to Wall’s younger brother when he demanded an
apology, doing the best that she could in a difficult situation. The
implications here about the judgments we may pass on others who live in
conditions of poverty seem pretty clear.

So I guess I’ve come up with a bunch of seemingly
contradictory ideas and conclusions. Weird how often that seems to happen to me.
I’m starting to think that maybe the whole truth of something is usually a
combination of its two, seemingly opposite halves. But since I’m pretty sure I’m
not quite up to that level philosophizing, we’ll call it a day.
Here is that link to the Jeannette Walls interview I kept referring to:
Jeannette Walls Interview

On Being a Young Woman and a Mormon. Thoughts inspired by "The Book of Mormon Girl: A Memoir of an American Faith" by Joanna Brooks

Before downloading said book to my kindle ipad app, I read a few reviews to get a better idea of what I would be in for. The conclusion seemed to be, that whatever criticism you may find of Brooks’ retelling, it succeeds at its main purpose: that of being good, honest memoir. I also found these quotes about memoirs while reading a review from “bhodges” from the website, By Common Consent:

You’re sure to hear a few such discordant notes as Brook’s fingers glide up and down the scale, but to focus on such slips overlooks the book’s overall melody... Memoirs aren’t intended to tell a disconnected story of one’s life, but to invite readers into an intensely subjective world... American publisher William Sloan says readers of such works are not so much saying to the author ‘Tell me about you,’ but rather ‘Tell me about me; as I use your book and life as a mirror.’”

And this was certainly the phenomenon that I experienced while reading the first few chapters, recalling the fierce and often tumultuous emotions of my middle school years like nothing I have ever read before. Of course it was also the first time I’d really read a first-hand account of what it was like to be a young and awkward girl growing up in the LDS faith. I think the beauty of good memoir is that it allows one to reflect and to experience without sitting in any sort of judgment seat –without wondering which influences were “good” or “bad,” or, worse in this instance, without trying to fit everything that stemmed from my being a Mormon and a young woman into a tidy, brown-paper package of “good.”

To quote the first paragraph if chapter 3, “The year we all turned twelve, the boys in my Sunday School class received the priesthood…That’s what Chuckie, Mike, and Brian got for their twelfth birthdays. I got Marie Osmond’s Guide to Beauty, Health and Style.” Following this statement, there is no overt discussion of gender roles in the church, of whether or not things are as they should be in LDS youth culture. There is instead a rather poetic and humorous description of the pin-sharp impressions that the pictures and quotes from Marie Osmond, the Mormon dream girl who was apparently achieving perfection here on earth, left on Brooks’ idealistic young-adult mind.  I loved that she could still picture the exact poses and quotes from various pages of the book. Because, while I’ve never actually seen a copy of Marie Osmond’s Guide to Beauty, Health and Style, I played out my own versions of this experience time and time again. For me, there was the Guide for the Winter Woman by a company called Chroma (I'd never actually been tested by a Chroma color analyst specialist, but my mom was certain that I was a “Winter”). How I poured over those black and white sketches of different Winter woman hair styles, and dreamed of the day when my own long, unruly, always-parted-down-the-middle, never-styled-or-touched-with-product locks would be transformed into a glorious, womanly hairdo! There was my subscription to the magazine Seventeen from which I eagerly read make-up tips. And how could I forget the day during my junior year of high school when I discovered The Fascinating Woman on our living room bookshelf and began studying it with something akin to religious zeal (if you've never heard of this book, please look it up).

That author explains a sort of kinship that she felt with Marie Osmond as a fellow Mormon girl. But more, you get a sense of how adhering to this guide filled a void of purpose in her life. She writes, “You and me, Marie, wrestling the dark energies of childhood depressions and nascent eating disorders…What to do with our bodies? If they were not instruments of priesthood power, and not yet instruments of eternal procreation, what was our purpose?” This next quote especially struck a chord with me: “Marie, your precisely numbered regimens gave me great comfort. Especially the idea that with a little practice I could change, I could convert those long columns of personal minuses into a perfect string of pluses.” This idea that I would overcome all -or at least most- of my flaws while in this earthly life -why oh why was this idea so strongly ingrained in my mind? What’s more, what was there to make me think that once I had reached a state of “Marie Osmond awesomeness” there was anything to guarantee that I would stay there? I wish someone could have disillusioned me of these ideas a lot sooner. I think I'd have been much happier for it.

I’m still not sure what all of this has to do with growing up as a young woman in the church. Maybe the author and I just both happened to be intense young women, demanding too much of ourselves at a very young age in our quest for finding meaning in life and eventual perfection. Whatever the case, growing up in the church added many subtle colors to my life, colors that have been integrated into the “whole” of me in some ways that I think I am only beginning to understand.

I certainly don’t mean for this to be a negative post. I think the overall impact of my experiences in the young womens’ program of the church were overwhelmingly positive (After all, it was at a young womens’ activity that I learned the side-part for my hair, the only “style” I  ever really adopted. Ouch. Sorry, I couldn’t resist that one). But in all seriousness, I had many wonderful experiences studying scriptures, serving in the church, and, most of all, feeling the very real and immediate love of my Heavenly Father –many of these experiences brought on as a direct result from my involvement in the church as a youth. And that is to say nothing of the sense of belonging and confidence that I so desperately needed and was able to find therein.

As you've probably guessed though, I’d like to open up a discussion about being a young woman in the church. What were your experiences? Was there too much emphasis on health and beauty? Did you place unrealistic demands on yourself in order to “prepare” to be a saintly wife and mother someday? Did you sense a vacancy of purpose during those years of waiting for the dreamed-of temple marriage to arrive? And, most importantly, what do you think could be done to improve the system –in the church and in the world at large? –How can we encourage young women to “dream big” without coming up with crazy expectations of personal perfection? How can we give motherhood the respect it deserves, without making it the “end all, be all” of mortal existence? After all, and now speaking from personal experience on this one, being a mother will not stop a woman from needing to be an individual -a person- too. And, as much as these words may be spoken during Young Women lessons, how can we get our young women to actually believe them?

How can we help our young women to love their bodies, to love their idiosyncrasies, and, yes, even to love their imperfections -or, at the very least to make peace with them? How can we better prepare them for the possibility of their R.M. in shining armor never making his long-awaited appearance? How can we better prepare them for a life that will almost always fall short of their visions of a celestial home here on earth? I think these are very big and very important questions (while also giving some insight into why I am completely terrified to raise a teenage daughter). I’d really like to hear your ideas on these issues. Please sound off below.

Eating and Cooking: Simplified and “Healthified”

Back in my “Cooking and Happiness” post, I mentioned that I wanted to find ways to make cooking less of a relentless chore and more of a pleasure. While taking some of the stress out of the plan-shop-cook-eat process, I also wanted ideas that would reduce the guilt; I wanted to feel good about what I was eating without reinventing my life to do so. And, thanks to various sources of inspiration, here’s what I’ve discovered so far. It boils down to 3 basic ideas.

1. Have lots of vegetables, fruits, and other whole foods on hand.

Having healthy stuff on hand is only part of the solution, but it is a completely essential part. Picking up a bountiful basket (5 fruits and 5 vegetables, see bountifulbaskets.org) at the beginning of each week has been a fun and economical way to get more fruits and vegetables into our house. It’s also helped me branch out and try new foods and new recipes (brussel sprouts in a black pepper sauce, anyone? roasted persimmons?). Another breakthrough has been having David pick up produce on his way home from work (especially now that it’s getting warm enough for him to easily swing by Lee’s Marketplace on his bike). Sending him on a quick produce run after Peter is in bed also works well. Dave tends to shop quickly, stick to the list, and avoid temptation food. Another recent practice that has dramatically increased our intake of whole foods has been keeping the freezer well-stocked with frozen fruit.

2. Actually eat the whole foods that we do have on hand.

Having a bunch of good stuff in the fridge is no guarantee that it will be eaten, so having a simplified and flexible repertoire of breakfast, lunch, and dinner recipes has been a big deal for me. Basically, I ‘m trying to eat fruit and whole grains for breakfast (usually a simple combination of frozen blueberries with oatmeal that gets thrown in the microwave or a slice of toast with a piece of fruit). For lunch, a salad or veggie tray or a smoothie with something legume-based on the side (e.g. hummus and pita, bean burgers, a lentil stew). And then a vegetable stir-fry or vegetable soup or some other cooked vegetable type dish for dinner. Of course there is a ton of flexibility in here -especially with dinner- but that’s the basic plan. Don’t get me wrong, I still want to make creamy pasta dishes and juicy roasts (on special occasions) and a whole slew of other adventurous –and sometimes calorie-ridden- dinner recipes, but stir-frying up some vegies with rice make a great “every-day” sort of plan. Having a simple and versatile list of sauces and glazes that can mix-and-match with various vegies is a big help. I’m also collecting favorite recipes in a file in Word so that I can quickly search my list by ingredients (e.g. search “mushrooms”). I’m hoping this will also help with eating things in-season (i.e. buying the produce as it comes into season at the local gardeners’ market and then coming home and figuring out what to do with it.)

Another key piece of this puzzle is finding the time and energy to prep the food. Stir-fries and stews may be easy and versatile, but there is still going to be quite a bit of rinsing, peeling and chopping involved. Putting a salad or mini salad bar together can be especially time-intensive. What’s been working for us has been making a big salad right after coming home from the grocery store and then eating it with lunch throughout the week. I, personally, also do better when I can get things chopped and washed during the first part of the day as I tend to lose motivation in the later part of the afternoon. Dave loves coming home with everything laid out in bowls and ready for him to cook. By the way, heavily enlisting my spouse in this whole process (or maybe he has been enlisting me) has probably been the real reason that any of this has worked.

I also really like the system that my in-laws have developed; on Saturdays, they pick up their bountiful basket of produce, look through some cookbooks on the spot in order to plan a couple of meals based on the basket’s contents, head to the grocery store to fill in the missing ingredients, and then go home to do most of the prep for the following week (i.e. getting the veggies washed, chopped, and stored for the salad bar and for other upcoming meals. It makes for a long morning but also for easy, healthy eating during the remainder of the week.

3. Limit the “goodies.”

This one really goes back to the idea of what foods you have on hand. If peanut butter M&Ms are on the counter, you can bet I’ll be eating those for lunch no matter how many shiny pieces of fruit are sitting nearby. I’ve realized that this idea of pushing out “the bad” by filling up the empty spaces with “the good” has many implications beyond food. But for me with regard to eating it was fairly simple: 1) having healthy snacks on hand and 2) admitting that I am weak when it comes to chocolate (among other things) and having Dave hide the goodies (yes, including the chocolate chips intended for baking). I didn’t want to go without it, but I also didn’t want to get to the end of the day and realize I’d consumed a large bag of chocolate-covered raisins (and not much of anything else). This way, I can look forward to a treat at the end of the day, but I have a better idea of how much of it I’m eating. This plan of attack wouldn’t work for everyone –and it’s not without its drawbacks- but, hey, it works surprisingly well for me. Also, buying things in smaller portions -especially ice cream, which can’t really be hidden in the freezer- helps a great deal (it may not be even close to the best value in terms of price per once, but I sure value the end result of not feeling sick and guilty when the carton is empty).

Whew! So that’s the gist of it –with more details to follow in future posts. This is not a list of rules (or at least I keep telling myself that) but, rather, a list of principles. There’s no “all or nothing” about it. Whenever I’m able to increase the overall proportion of whole and healthy foods in my diet (even if it’s just by a little bit on some days or not at all on others), I win. How’s that for simplified and “healthified”? 

Going Somewhat Vegetarian: Or, How We Mostly Stopped Buying Meat

To be clear (if the title of this post wasn't enough), we have not gone vegetarian. This week, we did the lunch buffet at the Indian Oven where I ate more Chicken Curry in one sitting than anyone ever should, vegetarian or no. The week before that, we got big, meaty subs from Logan's Heroes. And the week before that, we did pick up the Gourmet Vegetarian pizza from Papa Murpheys (but that's just because it's their best pizza -really, try it). That being said, I cannot remember the last time I bought meat at the grocery store (with the exception of two organic chicken breasts that we paid $10 for and served to some company).

It happened gradually. I was actually going to title this post, “Taking the Plunge” or something exciting like that, but it's really been more like taking a ride on a long, gently sloping slide (which didn't make for nearly as good of a title). It had a lot to do with the Cache Valley Gardener's Market ending in the fall -where we had been buying local meat that had been raised in a more humane -not to mention in a more environmentally-friendly- manner. Once it ended, we kept holding off on buying meat until we could find a seller we'd feel good about. And maybe that's all it took. Just a few weeks of not buying meat. I'd find myself wandering through the meat section thinking, “Well, we've been fine without it for this long...” Maybe it was Dave getting this disappointed look on his face when I said I'd planned meatloaf for dinner. Maybe it was just one Netflix food documentary too many (you know how Netflix does this thing?: “Because you watch Food Inc. here are a zillion other distressing food documentaries that you need to watch!”)

Like I mentioned before, I do often order meat at restaurants. I also eat meat that others have prepared (like at a ward party or when eating with friends or family). I just don't feel much desire to buy the stuff anymore. I still wonder what the point of it all is. I mean, why go half-way? What kind of mixed messages I am trying to send? (As you can tell, this is still a bit of a moral dilemma that I like to ponder on occasionally). Well, there are a few reasons. For one, I know myself and the limits of my own willpower all too well; I think if I were to quit eating meat entirely I would probably go nutsy and splurge in other terrible ways. Also, despite what any vegan will tell you, I believe that meat does in fact have some important nutritional value. That being said, I don't think we need to eat it every day (thank you “Word of Wisdom” for clearing that up). What's more, I am discovering that many meals are fine -if not better- without it. I suppose that the most fundamental reason why I am not a vegetarian is that I don't believe that man eating beasts is inherently wrong (again, thank you “Word of Wisdom”). I could be called a “speciesist” for saying that, and I suppose I am. So be it.

And there's another important reason: convenience and “do-ability.” That might sound a bit on the selfish side, but I'm very aware that many people simply don't have the resources or the time to go to the lengths that Dave and I have gone to. They can't spend 30 minutes driving across the valley to buy local, free range eggs. They can't pay $30+ dollars for a roast at the farmer's market. What's more, they may have a picky spouse or child and are just doing their best to get something edible on the table. Basically, it is hard to eat healthy –let only to eat conscientiously in our society. No one has unlimited resources, and Dave and I are no exception. (For example, we couldn't really afford to buy organic on everything, and we rarely do buy organic -partly because we got disillusioned after reading, The Omnivore's Dilemma). But, I figure this is at least something I can do. And I like to hope that a lot of little somethings will eventually add up to...well, something more.

A Follow-up And a Rant

The “follow-up” portion of this post will be very brief (I can already sense your collective sigh of relief!). Basically it is just to say that I am increasingly respecting both sides of this particular debate (well, except for the NRA's complete refusal to budge -I have zero respect for that), and I am increasingly appreciating the complexity of this issue. Objective, fact-ridden articles such as this one http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/02/gun-violence-in-america-the-13-key-questions-with-13-concise-answers/272727/
have been especially good at helping me see the “bigger picture” and ask the important questions. Questions such as: Would lowering total gun violence necessarily lower the incidence of mass shootings? How do we close the “private sales background check” loophole? Would banning assault weapons even be effective at this point (considering how many are already in circulation)? What would be effective and how do we access this type of data? You get the idea. Complex stuff.

So, on to the rant (I hope you are as excited as I am). While I've grown in respect for those arguing gun rights, I am more and more bothered by posts such as this one: 

 

or this one:  

or this one: 

or even this one:

(Disclaimer: if it was you, dear reader, who posted these memes, please do not take this as a personal attack. I am going after the meme here -not the meme-poster)

If someone can explain to me the redeeming value of these types of politically-charged memes, please do. I can certainly see purpose, but I wouldn't call it “redeeming.” I can see how they serve to “fire-up the base.” I can see how they lead to mob-think mentality and an added certainty that your chosen group is right because they are very good at pushing emotional buttons while ignoring considerations such as reason and civility.

So, let's take the first one. Let's assume that all the numbers are accurate (which I didn't check, but I would hope the person who posted it had). Even if accurate, the figures lead to a very distorted take-home message. There's a quote I recently came across that really hit home with me: “Figures don't lie, but liars figure.” Like I've said before, if someone is of the opinion that our efforts are misdirected in going after gun control –that there are much more effective ways to save the greatest number of American lives, I would respect that opinion. I would love to discuss it. Clearly though, that is not the take-home message of this particular internet meme; rather, it seems to be to trivialize the negative effects of gun violence on our society in a most insensitive manner. What do these numbers mean to someone who has lost a loved one in a senseless act of gun-violence? How can a figure, like the one presented here, begin to account for the toll that tragedies like Sandy Hook take on our National morale?

I'm discovering that what really bothers me about political memes isn't so much what is said, but all the things that are left unsaid --the second meme being my case-in-point. It conveniently looks over the profound differences in nature that exist between a car and a gun (e.g. a car was invented to transport people from point A to point B, a gun was invented to hunt and kill), the profoundly different ways their misuse as well as their appropriate use affects society, and the profoundly different ways we potentially deal with each problem. It also jumps to the conclusion that guns will be completely taken away, when, so far anyway, I haven't heard any politician putting that idea forward. But none of that matters because it accomplishes what it was meant to accomplish; it pushes on all the right emotional hot-spots.

Even the third meme, which I find least offensive, still gives me some pause. I appreciate the comparison it is making (really, I do), but as you follow this comparison further, some important differences become apparent. Like the idea that increasing the availability of fire extinguishers, as opposed to guns, isn't going to increase the likelihood of more fires occurring (i.e. the need for the fire extinguisher in the first place).

And the last meme. It really seems innocent enough. But think of how easy it would be to find some contradictory statement from a different general authority (or even from the same general authority) given at a different place and time and to then use that quote to “challenge” the first quote. I also don't like quotes like this being taken out of context without the whole background being given. Mostly, I just don't like seeing our general authorities being paraded around on facebook like puppets being made to support this or that political opinion (I know that sounds harsh. Does anyone else feel this way?) Sharing quotes by general authorities to bare testimony or to uplift others seems like a different matter entirely.

Before I sign-out, it's confession time. Amid all this meme-angst, I actually sought out a pro-gun control meme. I wanted to make a statement. I wanted to “fight back.” And I had a very specific meme in mind. It was going to be The Doctor (from BBC's Doctor Who) looking totally awesome, saving planets right and left, feared by villains throughout time and space, and armed with only a humble sonic-screwdriver. There would also be some pithy quote or text to drive the message home. I'd like to say it never got posted to my wall because I saw the error of my ways. Because I realized the hypocrisy. Because I didn't want to add to the meme-induced idiocy. I'd like to say that, but it wouldn't be true. It never got posted because I couldn't find one out there, and I lacked the ambition and know-how to make one myself. And yet, as I type this, I am starting to see some value in the memes that increasingly fill our social-media world. As long as we don't view any particular meme as an end in and of itself. As long as we view it has a starting point -as a springboard into deeper waters.    

Feminism, Freedom, and Gun Control, Oh My!

The title of this post is a pun on “Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!” from the Wizard of Oz because I feel like I am tackling a lot of big scary things with this post. Things I've been thinking a lot about -and things I have a lot more thinking about to do. My opinions tend to evolve, and there is always more to learn about any issue. So, please feel welcome to comment. This post started as a comment to a friend's post, so I've left it in that format. Obviously, it got way too long to post as comment though. :)

ON FEMINISM

So, (deep breath) here some of the thoughts I had while reading your post. I loved what you said about womanhood -particularly, “What we should be fighting for as women is mutual respect, and dignity in what we are and choose to be.” This has so many wonderful implications. I also couldn't help thinking of the “wear pants to church” thing that happened in December. I think a lot of people mistook what that was actually about for many of the women who participated. For me, (although I missed church that day) it would have been about a lot of things, but it would NOT have been about trying to take over Priesthood responsibilities. It would NOT have been about trying to prove that men and women are the same or have been given the same responsibilities from God. It would have been about helping women find a voice who feel like they have lost theirs in the church's male hierarchy -particularly women who may have been wronged or ignored by a priesthood holder in the past. It would have been about admitting that these things happen and that members of the church (even our own priesthood leaders) are not always perfect. It would have been about helping women with doubts (or women who disagree with certain statements or opinions from the general authorities – from the past or present) find support and love and an answer that “it is okay to have questions and to disagree with certain things –it does NOT mean that you are a heretic who needs to leave the church.” It would have been about opening a discussion about ways our “mormon culture” -particularly in Utah- could be improved to be more inclusive -more understanding. More willing to listen.

I think the idea that men and women should be the same and should fulfill the same roles in the same ways has been an enemy to feminism. I loved this article called Why Women Still Can't Have It All written by Anne-Marie Slaughter http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/ She talked about trying to balance motherhood with a high-power, government job. Because the job was so un-family-friendly, she ended up switching to a less prestigious position in order to spend more time with her teenage sons who needed her. It made me sad, because she is just the type of responsible, family-oriented person that I would want in government. It made me sad because I wish there were more female voices in government, but, since the current male-dominated system dictates that women should fill these positions in the same manner that men do (i.e. long hours, long commute, little flexibility), women are often pushed out. Do you see what I mean? Maybe there are some implications here for the article that you read about women serving in the military. Maybe there are ways for women to get involved -to play an equal part- without being drafted. Ways that would be more workable for them -more suited to their responsibilities and natures. After all, isn't that what happened during the last great wars? Women kept things running at home and cared for the injured. That said, if a woman wants to fight in the army -or be a general in the army, for that matter- I say that she should. And I think there are things we could do as a society to make that career choice an easier one for her -starting by giving her the same level of respect while acknowledging that she may do things differently or have different demands placed upon her than a man in that same position would. Some people would say this is an anti-feminism thing to say. In that case, their breed of feminism isn't the same as mine.

FREEDOM AS IT RELATES TO GUN CONTROL

So, to switch topics, back to the second half of your post about gun control. (Another deep breath). The main thing that your post made me think about was this very important idea of “choice.” I think this idea gets over-simplified at times. The way I see it, it is not just either “we either choose to let you have a gun” or “we take your choice away by taking your gun.” I think there is so much “gray area” between those two extremes. For instance, when a new tax comes into effect, you no longer get to “choose” what to do with that money. However, you do “choose” to live in America, you do get to “choose” your representatives in government and you hope that their choice (that the tax is necessary or worthwhile) would also represent your choice and would be in the best interest of our society. Our representative government chooses, and then it becomes law. That's the pattern. For example, we chose that we would not tolerate the negative affects of drugs on our society and, therefore, we cannot use certain drugs legally or must have a prescription to use others. New gun legislation would fit this same pattern. We determine that we will not tolerate the negative affects of guns -or certain types of guns- on our society, and we create new legislation. It probably wouldn't be, “you cannot choose to have a gun” but, “if you choose to have a gun, you must undergo regular background checks, pay a gun-tax, or some other regulation." Is this a breach of freedom and choice? I would say yes. But so are many other things. I cannot “choose” to drive without a license. I cannot “choose” to go 100 mph on the interstate. I cannot “choose” to go through airport without getting the full body pat-down. And, as an extreme example, a young man cannot “choose” to ignore the draft.

I sympathize with the “Ron Paul” view of less government = more freedom because I think it is true in the purest sense of the word “freedom.” But I don't want to live in that country. And I am confused when some breaches of freedom (e.g. our taxes paying for public education) seem so much more acceptable than other would-be breaches of freedom (e.g. our taxes paying for public healthcare) when they both happen by this same democratic process. We determine the level of violence we will tolerate, the level of inequality or injustice that we will tolerate, the level of abuses among the easily victimized that we will tolerate, and we act. You could say we are trading certain freedoms, yes, but isn't this the nature of civilization? We try to elevate our society. We try to preserve it. I do not believe that a free-market system, left unchecked, would accomplish this. You could argue that our current system is not accomplishing this either. I respect that opinion. I also respect the opinion that more free-market, less government/less regulation would be for the best. What concerns me is when these opinions and judgments seem to be made primarily along along party-lines -rather than through careful reason and thought. If someone believes that paying more taxes/going into more national debt is worth it in order to build an enormous national military but not worth it in order to help fund college educations, they should be able to explain why. They should really think about why it is worth trading freedoms in one instance and not in the other.

Because I am in favor of stricter gun regulation, does not at all mean that I am not concerned about freedom. I am very concerned about our freedoms. I am concerned that our very democratic process is under threat from the extremely influential, often extremely wealthy, powers that be. I think it is fascinating that there is so much discussion of freedom as it it relates to gun control, but hardly any as it relates Citizens United, a Supreme Court ruling that allows for limitless, anonymous campaign financing. When our elected officials are beholden to those who financed their campaign, what kinds of decisions do we think they are going to make once in office? The amount of money you have seems to increasingly determine the amount of influence that you have in our current political system. I am very concerned with how this affects our democracy and our freedoms. I see the downfall of America stemming from this type of corruption, greed, and arrogance.

MORE ON GUN CONTROL

But back to gun control. I also think there is a fundamental difference between telling someone whether or not they have the right to carry a gun versus whether or not they have a right to be feminine. Both are rights, but carrying a gun is a much heavier right. It's a lot like having a driver's license. If someone's vision is inadequate or they have a history of x-number of past offenses, they can't carry a license to drive. If someone's mental health is inadequate or they have a criminal record, they can't carry a gun. Some responsibilities and rights seem to need to be regulated. I guess you could argue that carrying a gun is a right whereas carrying a driver's license is a privilege...but that just seems backwards to me.

I think you brought up some other really great points. I also don't believe that stricter regulation will stop the violence. But I do hope that such laws would decrease it. Of course the die-hard criminals will still commit horrific and violent crimes, but it seems to me that we should at least make it harder for them to do so. There are not many weapons that will kill people as rapidly or as effectively as an assault rifle. The Oklahoma bomber was very effective at killing a lot of people, be he expended great resources to do so. He had to create the bomb (not an entirely easy thing to do since dynamite is illegal) and then I believe he also tested it in advance. Now, contrast that with the Virginia Tech shooter. He opened a couple of credit card accounts that were being promoted on-campus (each with a $500 dollar credit limit), bought the assault weapon and a bunch of ammo, and stated shooting. It doesn't seem like the current system could have made it much easier for him than that. Maybe he would have gone to great lengths to obtain a powerful weapon even if we had better regulation in place, but maybe not. Maybe he simply wouldn't have had the resources, perseverance, or intelligence to do so without getting caught. The likelihood of him having been able to commit a crime of that magnitude with better gun regulation in place almost certainly goes down. I think this same logic applies in situations where the crime is not premeditated. If two guys start fighting in a bar, someone is likely to get hurt. Tables, glasses, even knives may be thrown. But the likelihood of fatalities occurring from this fight (to those fighting and to the bystanders) is much lower if guns are not involved. I also think suicide rates go down in countries with fewer guns for this reason. People who try to over-dose are often unsuccessful. Guns are very effective at what they do.

How we protect ourselves is an important question. In many instances, there are other ways to be protected. In an up-close attack, I would think that pepper spray would be pretty effective. Better home security systems probably help a great deal against intruders. Against the government...well, all I can say about that is that the government currently has some pretty impressive weapons on their side... Also, I seriously question the gun wielder’s judgment when it comes to declaring what actually constitutes tyranny. But still, what do we do when a criminal has a gun (because it will still inevitably happen, no matter how strict the regulation)? It is an important question and not easily answered. I just don't think we solve the problem of guns with more guns. After all, isn't that the situation we currently have in America (i.e. TONS of guns and ammo in circulation)? It doesn't seem to be working.

I also wonder about the need for guns in a post-apocalyptic scenario. And I also need to think about the Mexico issue that you bring up.

I agree with you when you say that what the world needs most is people making little choices every day to do the right thing. For most of us (myself included), I think that's where our lives have the greatest impact. But I also think the world needs its “movers and the shakers” -the suffragettes and abolitionists of yesterday. Where would we be without them? We recently watched the PBS series called The Abolitionists, and I was very impressed with it. William Lloyd Garrison preached and practiced pacifism, but he never stopped sharing his voice. He never stopped printing and speaking out against slavery. Many people from his time thought he was a radical -an extremest- and frowned upon his outspokenness -even those who were anti-slavery in their hearts. And yet, his influence in ending slavery is too great to measure. My point is, I think there is something in many people that reflexively dislikes “activism” and I think we should be wary of that attitude.