Trump Nation. Or, What Needs to Be Said about Trump that Not Enough Good People are Saying

*This post was originally a response to a Facebook post, shared by a friend, but written by a stranger.

I appreciate the empathy, level-headedness, and decency of this post. I agree that we MUST learn to better understand the other side, not because we don’t believe in our political values, but precisely because we are passionate about them, and we must better understand our fellow Americans in order to communicate those values effectively. And, of course, for the good of our nation; I believe our "divided house" can stand -but only if we keep open the gates of peaceful (albeit heated) debate and compromise. I loved the call for those who voted for Trump to show vigilance and accountability in speaking up against Trump’s words and actions now that he is president elect; I believe the same would have applied had Hillary won (i.e. her supporters would have a special responsibility to monitor her actions).

But my favorite thing about this post was that it demonstrated an ability to respectfully disagree, an ability that Trump’s entire campaign (and perhaps his entire life, at least based on his track record of tweets) failed to demonstrate. In fact, it is this ability which breeds compromise and which happens to be at the heart of democracy itself. As I see it, Trump’s message was a message of anti-democracy, a message of authoritarianism and even proto-fascism. I know many will dismiss this as “extreme rhetoric,” but what other words can I use to describe a man who said, “I alone can fix this,” and who threatened to jail his political opponent? (the peaceful transfer of power happens to be a cornerstone of successful democracy). Trump did not win the primaries through intelligent and reasoned debate; he won them largely by insulting and dismissing his contenders. And although it was not included here in the list of “cons about Trump,” it is this anti-democratic stance and disregard for constitutional norms which I believe is the most important, over-arching “con” that transcended political and party differences -because it threatened the fiber and freedom of our American way of life. Obviously, many others did not see it this way. And that’s where I’m struggling to make sense of Tuesday night’s results.

I understand that Hillary was perhaps the most hated nominee ever to run for president. I can understand a third-party vote and I can respect it. But I am truly struggling to understand the many, many wonderful Americans (and fellow Mormons) who decided that Hillary was the lesser of two evils and actually filled in that bubble next to “Trump/Pence.” Reading this post helped somewhat. But there are still so many areas where I am left scratching my head in utter dismay.

I understand that Obamacare was not affordable, but to dismantle it completely with no alternative plan? I understand that some regulations have hurt small businesses, but to wildly lower taxes on the wealthiest of wealthy Americans at a time when wealth inequality is reaching record highs? Any criticism of the Clinton Foundation pales once placed side-by-side with Trump’s pseudo charities. And the same goes for any criticism of Clinton’s lack of a moral compass. Yes, she has sold out to the highest bidder, but Trump WAS that highest bidder (figuratively speaking). Yes, she has accepted large amounts of dark money, but she was also the candidate talking about overturning Citizens United, thereby lessening government corruption, while Trump was talking about overturning Roe v. Wade. And, despite her checkered past, Clinton has, time and time again, made a stand for morally important issues. What has Trump EVER stood for?

The main area that frustrates me is this: Hillary was a “normal” candidate, Trump was not. And many good and reasonable people, including the author of this post, are failing to say it. And I believe that it needs to be said. Instead, they basically say, “Well, each candidate had pros and cons. People were stuck between a rock and a hard place. It was like choosing between apples and oranges.” Perhaps; if the apple was merely mealy and over-ripe and the orange was moldy and rotten. Hillary was unacceptable like wearing short shorts to school in the dead of winter; Trump was unacceptable like wearing nothing but a string bikini. The difference was there and it was a big one: there was strong precedent for almost everything that Hillary said and did (other than being a woman, of course). Yes, the emails were not great, but there was a strong precedent for the use of private email servers in government. The same goes for embassy attacks. The FBI ruling on Hillary (each time) has been “careless but not criminal.” Has Hillary told lies and made back-room deals? Absolutely. Has she told or made many more than most other prominent politicians? I’m not convinced that she has.

Again, place her dishonesty side by side with Trump’s. Have we ever seen a president show such an utter disregard for facts (e.g. Muslims celebrated in the streets after 9/11)? Have we ever seen such shameless, in-your-face whoppers? Have we ever tolerated a prominent figure openly mocking persons with disabilities (let alone our president-elect)? Have we ever, in recent history, tolerated racially charged “witch hunts” led by our own president (e.g. the birther movement)? Has a prominent nominee ever mocked a woman for possibly being on her period, or a contender for the size of his penis or the looks of his wife? No. Trump’s promiscuity and indecency was not hidden in the background or admitted apologetically; it was unashamedly shouted from the rafters.

And this is to say nothing of the fact that Trump will be our first president to have zero military or government experience, and that he seems to be embracing a philosophy of nativism and isolationism --at a time when globalization is on the rise and when global organizations such as the EU and NATO are largely what is keeping truly frightening figures like Putin in check. Or, worse still, Trump has threatened to legitimize ISIS by giving them the full-blown, “boots on the ground” holy war that they’ve been dreaming of. Terrorists should be ignominiously executed as the cowards and criminals that they are. They, by their very nature, cannot be defeated in traditional warfare.

We are in uncharted territory here. We have made the unacceptable acceptable. We have debased and degraded the discourse of our democracy --and how do we undo that? Combine this with Trump’s disregard for democratic norms and values and we have a scenario frightening enough that is should have overcome party loyalty or differences in political opinion. A vote for change is one thing, but you don’t “drain the swamp” by electing the swamp monster. You do not fight back against “an expanding and unaccountable executive branch” by electing a demagogue.

I don’t want to “write off half the nation,” and I refuse to do so, so please, please help me understand.

Finally, the last question asked in the post: “what am I missing about my own party that drove these people to such desperation for change that they were even willing to vote for Trump?” It’s on the right track, but, ultimately, misleading. Many people who voted for Trump do, indeed, place the bulk of the blame for their problems on the Democratic Party (or, to hear Trump speak, it rests with just two people from that party: Obama and Hillary), but the true picture is much, much more complicated. You have to look at the changes that globalization is bringing, that shifting demographics and new technologies are bringing. You have to look at the changes the “black lives matter” and “LGTB rights” movements represent. You have to understand the complexities of the rise of radical Islam and the fact that wages have stagnated for the past few decades while the vast majority of gains in GDP have gone to the top one percent. You have to ask what role our Reality TV obsessed culture played in all of this. You have to consider the way that social media has inoculated us in our own personal echo chambers, and has propagated fake news in a way we have never seen before. And that’s just for starters.

The better questions might be, “Why have we become so polarized? Why have we lost basic faith in our system of government? How was our our anger and fear so effectively misdirected? What moral numbness allowed us to convince ourselves that Trump was ‘just another candidate,’ that scapegoating entire groups of people and turning to a bully was ever, ever OK? And what part did both the Democratic and Republican parties play in helping to create that desperation? What part may I have played?”

The Shame Game (Or, How I'm Starting to Understand the Root Problem of my Problems)

Last night, I had a shame attack. This post isn’t about the attack itself, but about how important it is for me to finally have the words to name it (thank you again, Brene Brown). It’s clear to me now that I’ve had frequent shame attacks throughout my life (I wonder if I am particularly prone to them or if most people have this many?) but, before now, I didn’t know what to call the experiences and I didn’t know what common thread was connecting them. I did know that even mildly humiliating experiences (e.g. losing control of my Primary class, oversharing at a social event) would often trigger memories of much deeper pains and humiliations (e.g. being berated at work, walking in late to an important meeting). Turns out, the common thread was shame. It has always been shame. And when I’d feel shame, past experiences of shame would rise to the surface, as if to validate the shame and the pain that I was feeling now.

For me, the experience of a shame attack is a lot like a panic attack; I’m paralyzed with anxiety and it's very physical (trembling, rapid breath, etc.). I think the main difference for me is in what drives the attack. With panic attacks, the driving force is an unspecified threat or the fear of all the things that could go wrong; with shame attacks, the driving fear is that I am wrong. Fundamentally flawed. Doomed to fail again and again. And that I will never be enough, no matter how hard I try. It feels like being two inches tall. It feels like drowning. And it is deeply frightening and intensely discouraging.

Interestingly, the thing that triggers the shame attack for me is generally not the thing that is actually driving the attack. For instance, last night, the trigger was being late to a photo shoot and fearing that I wouldn’t get the pictures I’d been hoping for as a result. A failed photo shoot is not a big deal. But interpreting the experience as “the proof” that I am failing as a parent…that’s a much bigger deal (i.e. If I can’t even get my ragamuffin-looking children to look presentable on time when it really counts, if I can’t even get some pictures to capture how special my children are at these ages…Well then, what does that say about me as a parent?) After an hour of crying and working through some of the anger (Dave and I had been fighting too), I started being honest with myself about the true source of my problem or the reason why I was feeling so vulnerable about my parenting (I mean, I’m always feeling vulnerable about my parenting, but even more so lately). It’s simple. I am struggling, especially with Junie. And I feel ashamed about it.

Before our trip to Utah/Idaho at the end of February, it felt like we were in a golden stage where Junie was concerned; she happily followed Peter around the house, filling up the toy shopping cart or going along with whatever game he came up with. She was snugly, napping well, thriving, and talking more every day. I’m so thankful to say that she still is doing all of those things; however, whether it was an independence surge that corresponded perfectly with her second birthday or the fact that she learned how to climb out of her crib and the sleep deprivation that followed, she's been doing more hair-pulling, pushing, "chucking," and tantrum-throwing than ever. I don’t think I’m doing a very good job at teaching her how to deal with her ever-intensifying emotions. I’m yelling at her on a daily basis. I’m scared that she is going to become the “bully” of her preschool class this Fall. So, that’s the situation that I need to deal with, and I need to try to deal with it joyfully and lovingly and courageously because she is so dang cute and sweet (even when she’s furious) and she is growing oh-too fast. But my shame is getting in the way.

When it comes to how to deal with the shame though (or how to become “shame resilient” as Brene Brown would say) I don’t have much to offer. I don’t know what I am doing. But I’m guessing that being able to honestly label the problem is a good place to start. I’m “in a shame attack”; the attack isn’t me. I am making mistakes, but I am not the mistakes; I am learning from them even though I will probably repeat them. I know this kind of self-talk will help. I know prayer will help. I know that I need to try to give myself breaks to read, walk, exercise or to write. Beyond that, a big challenge is going to be staying engaged with my kids instead of turning to the type of escape/numbing behaviors that I've been doing a lot of lately (e.g. making David put Junie to bed every night, stuffing my mouth with chocolate every time the kids aren’t looking, staying up late watching movies).

Interestingly, I’m also not going to discount the power of music. Last week when I felt myself spiraling into a shame cycle (I’d been yelling at the kids all morning) I put on Joe Pug’s latest album, Windfall, and it totally pulled me out of it. For real it did. Here's a line from one of the songs: "Don't back down yet/It'll get brighter/Stand your ground like a veteran fighter/Grip that wheel just a little bit tighter now." So music helps. That’s at least one specific suggestion that I can take with me on this road away from shame and toward self-love and “wholeheartedness”; because I don’t have many other ideas. At least not yet I don't. But I will.

The Whole of Human Suffering (or How the Love of God Makes Me Think of a Bench)

To be honest, the topic of adversity, trials and suffering is not one of my favorites. It’s a topic that comes up frequently in church talks and lessons, but it’s simply not a topic that I particularly enjoy. And, when I actually stop to question why, the reasons for my dislike and discomfort become pretty clear. I’m not a person who has suffered much in life, and, as such, it can be pretty guilt-inducing to think about those who have/are going through hell; I know I’m no better than them, so why am I getting off so easy?

Secondly, these kind of talks and lessons are extremely anxiety-inducing; they very effectively remind me that it’s not a matter of if I will suffer greatly in life, but only a matter of when and how much and in what various ways. The inevitably of future suffering is a hard fact to face square-on at any time, especially on a peaceful Sunday that has, up to that point, consisted mostly of pleasant family time and social interactions. 

If you’re anything like me, then you’ve felt yourself building a barrier between your heart and this topic and you’ve deliberately let your mind wander during these types of lessons. So much easier the wall than the vulnerability. So much better the distance than the fear and the foreboding. I’d much prefer a lesson about following the spirit or serving others –something I can fully engage with during class and then start attempting to implement right away. How do you implement a lesson about adversity in your day-to-day life aside from “waiting for the other shoe to drop” and hoping for the best? Hoping, that, when the time comes, you will be able to keep your heart open through the suffering and not lose your faith and not lose yourself? While, at the same time, being careful not to think too much about the suffering that’s coming, so as not to diminish your enjoyment of the good times that are happening right now?

I don’t know the answer. But I have thought a lot about human suffering in recent years. I’ve thought about the enormity of it. Suffering is a topic we should think about because we cannot, indefinitely, avoid thinking about. My goal is to find new and healthier ways to think about it. And, I’d like to somehow find a balance between enjoying today’s fair weather while still, at least to some extent, preparing for tomorrow’s storm (as completely unprepared as I feel and undoubtedly am).

Human suffering is immense; we come to understand it gradually and continually up until the moment of our deaths and possibly beyond. But we never understand the full spectrum of human suffering; we know it would kill us if we did. I believe that Christ did, and that the only reason that it didn’t kill Him was because of who He was and who His father was. However, even being spared the fullness of it, the longer we live, the more of it we taste, the more of it we understand. Hypothetically, if I live to be seventy, having suffered only mildly to moderately during the majority of my “trials,” my understanding of suffering at that point alone would be enough to completely overwhelm and incapacitate my twenty-year-old self (assuming it were possible to transfer understanding to past versions of ourselves). So, it’s probably a good thing that the process happens gradually. The rate of the exposure/learning isn’t constant, but the process never stops. And, when all is said and done, we hope to be better because of it. More empathetic. More human.

Everyone can give examples of how his/her understanding of suffering has increased in recent years. What are yours? For me, the obvious ones are: a better understanding of the potential pain of losing a child (I’ll hit five years of parenthood come October), a better understanding of the agony of helplessly watching a child suffer (watching both kids go through bouts of the flu or other minor traumas), and an increased empathy for those who lose a spouse after half a lifetime of companionship (as Dave and I approach the ten-year mark). These aren’t things I have actually suffered, but I better understand the potential suffering nonetheless. And as I do actually suffer them --please, please not these exact trials, but whatever does come into my path-- my understanding, and hopefully my empathy, will only increase –exponentially.

My understanding of suffering has also widened as I’ve watched others, particularly immediate family members, go through things that I wouldn’t have (and they probably wouldn’t have) ever imagined. It’s been “up close and personal” for me as they’ve dealt with depression, debilitating anxiety, losing a child, struggling to raise a child with disabilities, watching their financial prospects dissipate, undergoing a crisis of faith/leaving a religious group, or even watching my dad’s face as his peers and best friends grow old and begin to die.

On top of all this, other exposure to suffering (although I try to limit it) seems to affect me with its "realness" more powerfully than it once would have, as my muscles of empathy stretch to take on the load: stories of war/genocide, of oppression, of innocence lost too soon. And the heart-wrenching posts in my Facebook feed of young mothers made widows, debilitating sicknesses, chronically ill children. The extent of it honestly takes my breath away sometimes. How can this possibly be right? What order can be seen in this seemingly endless, senseless chaos? What do we do with all this suffering?!

Like most people, I can think back to a time when I was struggling deeply with something (something that seems silly now but didn’t seem silly at the time) and then…I found a measure of peace. For me, like for many of us, that peace came when I opened my heart to God (knowing that “God” means so many different things to different people). When I felt like screaming at the sky, “This can’t be right! I’m-so-so-angry-I’m-so-so-confused!” the answer that came back wasn’t a shout at all; It was a calm and simple “I love you. I’m here with you.” That was all. Somehow, that was enough. To me, the love of God is best visualized as an old friend sitting on a rickety park bench. The friend has been sitting there a long, long time and will continue to sit there forever –just beyond your line of sight but ready to step in at a moment’s notice, no matter how long it’s been since you sent that last greeting card. The friend waves at you from his bench, and tries to get your attention from time to time, but is never pushy, never going to rush or force you. The friend just loves you. And understands you wholeheartedly.

That’s how I would describe my experiences in resolving suffering, anyway. And it’s exactly the type of experience that I hope to think back on to get me through upcoming difficulties. But just remembering it isn’t going to be enough. How could it possibly be enough in the face of future suffering so intense that I cannot now begin to comprehend it?

There are many ways to respond to suffering, many of them destructive and unhealthy, and we all engage in them from time to time: bitterness, jealously, numbing ourselves, self-hatred at our perceived impotence, and a fear-inspired mask that keeps us at a distance from everyone and everything. The alternative? Take a deep breath…Courage. Keeping our hearts open to God (or a higher power or our own “better angels” or whatever God is to you). Learning about vulnerability and practicing it. Staying “real” and connected to others as “naked” as it sometimes makes us feel. Respecting our limits and setting boundaries when possible. Loving and forgiving ourselves. Giving ourselves time. And, for me, turning to God and turning the suffering over to God. Again. And again. And, imperfectly, again.

I’d like to be better at remembering Christ whose heart was bruised beyond any of ours will ever be, but who remained open and giving and brave as he prayed for others during his own excruciating death. So, without having done anything to celebrate Lent or even having done anything particularly spiritual to celebrate Easter (I was too sick to even go to church on Easter Sunday), I’d like to resolve here and now to be better at doing just that. To be better at remembering Christ as the friend who always stays, as the friend sitting on the bench, as the friend who teaches us how to suffer.

Austenland and Me (or, How One Line from a Very Silly Romcom Changed my Life)

This is not a movie review; it’s a post about self-discovery. I’ll need to give a little background about the movie, Austenland, first though (spoilers follow). The movie is based on a novel by Shannon Hale of the same title (which I haven’t yet read). Our heroine, Jane, is a single woman in her 30s obsessed with the world of Jane Austen who decides to blow her savings on a vacation to Austenland (a theme park where romance is guaranteed) in an attempt to get the whole thing out of her system -once and for all. She arrives and, well…hilarity ensues. (Jane Seymour is excellent as Mrs. Wattlesbrook, the resort’s director, by the way). At the end of her stay, Jane decides to reject her scripted romance with "the resident Mr. Darcy” in favor of “something real.”

I’ll jump in at this point to say that my husband, David, is my Mr. Darcy. In fact, before I met David, my best friend’s mother (who was reading Pride and Prejudice at the time) told me that the guy I was currently dating was my “Mr. Wickham” but that my “Mr. Darcy” was just around the corner. As it turned out, just months after this exchange, I met Dave, but unlike Elizabeth Bennett’s initial reaction of disdain, mine was nothing short of love-at-first-sight. Don’t ask me how I knew, but from the moment I walked into that half-empty BYU classroom and David turned around in his chair and smiled at me in that perfectly genuine way of his, I knew. I could feel the rest of my life about to unfold.

There’s a part in The Happiness Project in which Gretchen Rubin talks about her feelings for her husband, Jamie. She explains that, to her, he exists in epic proportions, like a hero from Greek Mythology. I immediately related because I feel the same way about my David. I’ll save my love letter until our anniversary next month, but, suffice it to say, I adore him. Or, to get my Austen on, we have been “incandescently happy” in our marriage these past seven years.

But here’s the catch: while these feelings of intense love and appreciation for my husband are entirely wonderful and healthy, the undercurrent of unworthiness that so often accompanies them is anything but. For instance, the seemingly innocent thought, “I’m so lucky to have him,” often holds a darker side -a side that says, “I’m so lucky to have him because I really don’t deserve him.” It’s funny, because the thing I probably love the most about my husband is his great esteem for me, and yet, deep down, I don’t believe that his feelings for me are truly deserved or completely based in reality. And so I’ve gone on, year after year, with a distant feeling of shame or unworthiness in my marriage that has sometimes ebbed to an almost inaudible echo of an echo, but that has sometimes risen to an almost deafening shout.

Which bring us back to Austenland. In the last scene of the movie, the Mr. Darcy character (Henry Nobly) shows up at Jane’s apartment. He tells her that his love wasn’t, in fact, scripted. “The night of the ball you said you wanted something real. I’d like to think I am real. Is it possible that someone like me can make you happy? Will you let me try?” To which our disbelieving heroine replies, “No. See, people don’t do this. This is my fantasy. This isn’t…” And then, with conviction, Mr. Nobly cups her face in his hands and says, “Have you stopped to consider that you might have this all backward? Jane…you are my fantasy.”

 It hit me then. (Okay, to be honest, it didn’t hit me until my second viewing of the movie, but, eventually, it did hit me.) I. am. Dave’s. fantasy. It was an incredibly empowering thought. His feelings for me are every bit as valid as my feelings for him. And I’m convinced that by remembering this, or, more importantly, by believing and internalizing this, I will transform my life and my marriage for the better. Without turning this into a lengthy post about shame and worthiness, I’ll just share a little bit about what I’ve been learning from author Brene Brown in her book, Daring Greatly. Self-love is foundational to any relationship. It takes self-love to be “real” and to be vulnerable and to really connect with others. And love is what grows out of this honest and respectful connection. So self-love isn’t just good; it’s essential and it greatly magnifies our ability to wholeheartedly love those around us.

So, the next time I catch myself thinking, “How did I ever get him?” or “He does so much more for me than I do for him” or even just a, “Dang! I’m lucky to have him,” I’m going to force myself to repeat these words and I’m going to try to really believe them: “He is lucky to have me. I enrich his life deeply. I am worthy of love and I am going to approach the people in my life from a place of worthiness. I am David’s fantasy as much as he is mine.”

My 2016 Politics

This post started as a Facebook comment, in an attempt to explain my political opinions and who I'll be voting for this election year.

So…here are a few of my thoughts: ;)

1. The Economy.

Prosperity as we know it has always been based on a thriving economy. Republicans and Democrats agree on this, but they have wildly different ideas about how we reach that end goal. To me, it makes sense to listen to economists, historians, and other scholars who have devoted much of their lives to studying these issues -to try to see past some of the political rhetoric, as hard as it is to do. Of course, the “experts” will always have their own political biases and will often give very different solutions, but I think some common threads may arise. For instance, most economists seem to think that investing in our infrastructure is a good idea -not just for the immediate jobs it will create but for bringing businesses to our shores in the future. Many of these projects are best handled at the level of the federal government. Not all government spending is created equal; some represents a logical investment.

While everyone agrees that job creation is central to the economy, I think it's important to emphasize that it's not just about creating jobs, it's about creating good jobs. When many jobs are so low-paying that only illegal immigrants will work them, or when a growing number of Americans work full-time but still live below the poverty line and require government assistance... This is a serious economic problem. Despite the conservative narrative, an unwillingness to work is not the central problem here.

While it's true that not all government spending/involvement is bad for the economy, it's also true that not all cuts to federal spending are good for the economy. As one example, cuts made to the IRS cost much more than they save in total revenue lost through increased tax evasion. Finally, there is so much government spending (or lack of spending) that just doesn't seem logical at all, until you follow the money trail. Which brings me to…

2. Corruption.

Why do we spend the enormous amount that we do locking up non-violent criminals (addicts) who often become repeat offenders? It doesn’t really make sense until you take into account the enormous power of the prison lobby. As another example, a lot of the problems with our healthcare system suddenly make sense when you consider the sizable influence of the insurance lobby on our government. And the list of examples goes on and on. It sometimes seems like we could find bipartisan solutions to almost any problem if only we could eliminate lobbying from powerful interests/groups. The fundamental problem seems to be: How do we make politicians vote in a way that is not in their own, personal best interest? How do we build more accountability into system? I think that change will of necessity come from the people. I think the level of support that Sanders has received (which was totally unexpected, by the way) partially represents that movement. Campaign finance reform is going to be central to that movement. We can't hope to have candidates make it to office without being beholden to powerful moneyed interests, if they don't stop accepting increasingly enormous amounts of money from said interests in order to get elected in the first place.

3. Sensible Regulations.

A capitalist economy has proven to be the best for many reasons. Even “socialist” countries/groups never advocated a total and equal redistribution of all wealth (with the only notable exception being the United Order of the LDS Church). To me, it seems that what all this debate really revolves around is the extent to which our government should regulate our capitalistic economy. What I truly don’t understand it the far-right/libertarian point-of-view in which the free market seems to magically solve all problems. That seems like a fantasy world to me. In the absence of strong regulations from a democratic government, other “regulations” and “governments” would rise up to fill the power void. These organizations may not be formally recognized as “governments” (Secret Combinations, anyone?), but they would attempt to consolidate power and to rig the system in their favor. Most importantly, these “governments” would not be accountable to the people. That doesn’t sound like “freedom” to me. Corruption would run rampant (much more so than it does today). History has shown this to be the case. I love to read what Teddy Roosevelt said and did about cronyism and about breaking up monopolies in his day. To me, it’s not about “wanting the government to fix all my problems.” It’s about wanting to feel protected by the government because I, as a common person, still have a voice in that government. That means a democratic government that puts strong and sensible regulations on our economy.

4. A Level Playing Field.

Life is not fair. Some children are born into the Romney household and some are born into poverty. The narratives we tell about self-made men often prove false; generally, windows of opportunity were open to them that were not open to others. Granted, they had to grab hold of those opportunities and succeed (where many tried to grab hold and failed) but the point is, the opportunity was there. Life is not fair, but, as a society, we should try to be fair, meaning that we should try to open more "windows of opportunity" for more people. It's not that everyone gets to score a touchdown, it's that everyone gets a fair shot at trying out for the team. Much like justice, it's not something we hope to achieve in its entirety, but it is an ideal that we strive toward nonetheless. This is a moral conviction for me that began while I was working for the Disability Resource Center (DRC) during college. The DRC's motto was "A Level Playing Field." I saw students succeed once higher education was made accessible to them, like a blind friend who turned out to be much better at math than me, despite stereotypes that blind people can't do math. She needed a system that made it accessible to her. She needed a fair shot. 

Providing opportunities should be a hallmark of who we are as a nation. Isn't that what the American Dream is all about? In some ways it is (e.g. all children have the right to a free and appropriate education), but in so many ways we could do much better, particularity with community-based interventions (as one of the strongest indicators of a person's future success is the community/neighborhood they are born into). Unfortunately, America doesn't score very well on measures of social mobility, meaning that people who are trying to work their way up are having a harder time than ever at doing it.

Okay...I should probably attempt to address "who I'm voting for" thing at some point.

You know (or can guess) my feelings on Trump. Cruz is almost worse because he hides his “crazy” under a guise of sanity and respectability while mocking republicans who are willing to make compromises and get legislation passed. Dear Senator Cruz, an ability to compromise does not equal weakness (unless you are willing to call all of our country’s founding fathers wimps); it’s called being a politician and doing your job. Obstructionism is not the answer. (I really wanted to use an expletive there, but I resisted.) J

I don’t like Rubio or Clinton because I think they are both “bought and paid for” by their parties and by other powerful people and organizations. They scare me less than Trump or Cruz. I think Clinton is smarter and more experienced (especially with foreign policy) than Rubio, which I believe would ultimately benefit our country. I think she would be very concerned about her legacy as president, which I think would also ultimately benefit our country. I do not think Clinton is free from corruption (far from it!) but I still have a hard time understanding the overwhelming, venomous hatred that has long been directed at her. I would vote for her to stop a Trump victory.

And then there’s Sanders. I probably don’t need to elaborate on what it is that I like about him (based on the essay that I have already written above), but he is speaking out against government corruption --and he isn’t just talking the talk, he’s walking the walk. That’s the main thing. That’s a HUGE thing. And honestly, most of his policies make sense to me. We need a public healthcare option. We need to make college affordable again. We need to invest in our infrastructure. I think he goes too far with some of his proposals (e.g. affordable college education is probably better than free), but I don’t think he would have a prayer of achieving his entire vision of “democratic socialism” as president. I think he would probably be able to move us in the right direction though. But, then again, with how divisive he is (and Hilary is too), I wonder if the “gridlock” would only worsen.

Downton Abbey Season 4 Review

Dave and I watched the Downton Abbey season four finale last night, and I’m now curious to know what some of you thought about it. Here’s what I thought:

Overall, I was a bit underwhelmed this season (particularly as it progressed toward the final episodes). Thinking about it, I realized that the main reason for this lukewarm sentiment was the lack of a compelling romance. Edith’s romances are always, well, icky, and the Tom/school teacher budding romance was uncomfortable at best. With Mary now free, there could have been at least the beginnings of something good, but no; I don’t mind the “multiple suitors vie for Mary’s attention” plot-line, but when they are all as boring as a pressed white shirt, who really cares? (The last guy actually started out with potential, but he pretty much became instantly boring once he fell in love with Mary and started being nice to her. (At any rate, he’s nowhere near as cute or charming as a certain blonde-haired lawyer from yesteryear). And poor Mary? She started out convincingly heartbroken, but is now back to being as unlikable (almost) as ever. If the writers don’t come up with a better male lead to humanize her a little, I fear we are in for a lot more of this self-absorbed heiress, “go ahead and try to win my affections” act.

What else happened? Well, I rather enjoyed Rose’s involvement with the black Jazz singer; he was delightfully cast. Daisy’s crush on Alfred (really, Alfred? –when cuter what’s-his-name guy was never good enough for you?) started out amusing enough, but if I am honest it was starting to wear pretty thin by the end of the season. And now Ms. Crawley has a suitor? Are we supposed to care about him or just enjoy watching her squirm whenever he brings her flowers and the like? The Anna/Bates conflict was by far the most interesting story-line this season, but I don’t think they did enough with it. Anna didn’t suspect Bates a little more given the arrows of pure hatred that he was shooting across the table at Mr. Green? Does she, like, know her husband? Did Bates confront the villain or simply push him into oncoming traffic with all the grace and precision of a trained assassin? After all, we now know he is a competent forger, a skilled pickpocket, and a very smooth liar. The season finale certainly could have done more with that, right? Speaking of the season finale, while killing off a main character every time seems far from necessary, I would like to be at least half-way to the edge of my seat waiting to see what will happen in the next season by the time the current season comes to an end. (To be fair though, the season finale did include an impressive number of gorgeous costume changes amid an apparently nonstop string of high-society events.)

As far as season five goes, all we seem to know for certain is that the Edith baby thing will explode (can’t say I’m looking forward to that), and that Mary will be pressured to pick a suitor (blah). They could have thrown some new complication into Mary’s love life (and, no, boring suitor #2 turning out to be super rich does not qualify). Or why not do more with Thomas’ scheming? We get vague threats that he has dirt on the new lady’s maid all season, but we still have absolutely no idea what those secrets might be? Even some revelation into what happened with Edith’s guy would have been appreciated. Is he living a double life? How ‘bout a shot of his body lying in a ditch? Come on, give us something to bite our teeth into! While the creators of the series are still nailing the details like setting, dialogue and humor, I’m afraid that if they don’t put a little more effort into major plot developments –or at least give us a decent love interest to pine after- the glory days of Downton may be forever lost somewhere down that dirt road near the smoking remains of Mathew’s car. 

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.