Categories
culture

Julie Beck Knows

Let me start off by saying that I absolutely loved Sister Beck’s talk. I was almost as excited about it as Laura was about President Eyring in the First Presidency (she cheered out loud at that announcement). I don’t try to push my thoughts on those subjects here but I heard about a RadioWest show discussing the talk and I had to comment.

My basic impression of the show was that it was the typical dithering that we find whenever we try to tackle a spiritual topic from a secular viewpoint. The discussion rings hollow in many places. My favorite comment from the participants came from Julie Smith who pointed out that this talk was pointed specifically at mothers and that despite all the emphasis in the church on being mothers there is very little counsel directed specifically at mothers. On the other hand there was commentary such as the statement by Marie Cornwall (sp?) that the option to stay at home is not an economic reality for most people. She states that in Utah a family must have a minimum household income of $70,000 to purchase a median home. This is blatantly untrue. It is based on some economic assumptions that run counter to the counsel that has been given repeatedly to church members so those who live in that economic reality are undermining their own ability to follow this counsel being given now. The fact is that I purchased a very decent house less than 2 years ago and I could afford this house on just over half of the income that she cited. (To afford my house now with my current debt would require more than that, but I could still afford it at it’s current value on much less than $70K.)

The last caller, Reina (sp?) from Pocatello, expressed the same sentiments that I have and that Laura has as someone who has chosen to stay at home that the talk was right on. She nailed the truth with “if the talk is taken in the spirit that she delivered it there is no way that anyone can be offended mom or not, stay-at-home mom or working mom.”

I not only listened to the show, but I tracked down some of the blogosphere discussion that was referenced in the show (Julie Smith, Kristine, TftCarrie, fMhLisa). I found that most discussion seemed to miss the point of the talk that our focus in parenting (mothering specifically) needs to change. There was plenty of discussion about how the high standards illustrated in the talk make some people feel guilty. I have long been concerned as I looked at the mothers in my neighborhood that even those who are following all the counsel of staying at home to raise their children are doing too much. They engage in so many activities that their children do not get the highest level of mother’s attention that they need. Those who have tried to avoid the pull of a society that tells the lie that you can do everything found this talk very validating because it made it much easier to let go of the pull of the world that wants us to tear ourselves apart having it all.

Sister Beck was telling us to make a choice and quit trying to be everything to everyone all the time. We have to accept that a woman can’t be a great employee, and a great mother, and a great community activist, and everything else which she might want to do well all at the same time. (In the same vein a father can’t be a great father, and a great breadwinner, and a great activist, and a pursue every hobby to which he is inclined at the same time.) I believe that women can “have it all” if they choose, but not all at once nor should they feel pressured into choosing to “have it all.” My mother-in-law is a great example of this. She chose to postpone her education when she started having children. She eventually finished her college degree after three of her children had finished theirs and she now works because she feels the desire to work. I guarantee that she is happier to have raised her children by giving them her undivided attention than she would have been if she had tried to do all of that at once.

Categories
culture

Real Life Choose Your Own Adventure

I was surprised by the news that JK Rowling announced that Dumbledore was gay. At first I was annoyed that she would take the time to insert something into the story that was never apparent in any of the books. It sounded like she was going back and writing an alternate ending after everyone had already purchased the book. If she were going to write more books I would be more open to such amove, but with the series over it seemed rather tactless.

As my annoyance festered I looked closer into the news and found that the story is not quite what the headlines made it out to be. Rowling always thought of Dumbledore as being gay – that’s fine, she’s the author and is entitled to think of her characters as she chooses. It was not enough of an issue as she wrote the books to make her write that into the stories so it should not be made an issue after they are done. I suspect that it would not have become an issue if she had not encountered questions related to Dumbledore. Apparently there was reference in some of the screen writing for the movies that have not yet been made in the series to a female romantic interest in Dumbledore’s past. That was not in the book anymore than his being gay and she is perfectly welcome to make sure that it is not inserted into the movies. The fact that it almost was put in the movie proves that his being gay really was not in the books.

She revealed her inner view of Dumbledore in response to a question from the audience where she was speaking. I have no problems with whatever her personal view was on Dumbledore but I hope that they don’t make it more of an issue in the movies than she did in the books.

Categories
culture

Doing the Impossible

I thought it interesting to learn about the blog post from Bobby Calvan – the blog no longer exists – which proves that nothing is impossible. (Hat tip Steve Urquhart) For those who are interested the entire post – and the 197 comments that were generated in just over 3 hours – has been preserved by Doc Weasle.

A brief summary would go like this – Bobby, a reporter, is in a hurry in Baghdad and is delayed by an American soldier because of insufficient identification at a checkpoint. He is feels superior to the soldier because this particular soldier has not heard of Knight Ridder (and pronounces the name wrong to boot). He then takes to time to blog about the incident as evidence that the American soldiers, “are the absolute worst.”

In feeling so intellectually superior to this soldier he demonstrates that one bit of trivia is not proof of a great body of knowledge. Apparently he is unaware that Knight Ridder is not a household name (like the Associated Press, or ever Reuters might be) because they don’t publish anything with their name. In other words, they are exactly one step further up the money chain than most readers ever dig into their news sources.

The post proves that even in Baghdad Bobby Calvan felt safe enough to cop an attitude with a soldier and that it doesn’t take long to have almost 200 people tell him off for it.

I’m not sure which is harder – uniting the internet (like Bobby Calvan did) or enforcing democracy as an outsider (like the soldier in Baghdad is trying to do). Hopefully the soldiers will eventually be as successful as Mr. Calvan has been.

Categories
culture politics State

Bureaucracy in Action

This is what happens when we expect government bureaucracy to manage something rather than leaving things in the hands of individuals.

Loving couple. Loving home. Steady jobs. No criminal history. Kids like them and the birth mother wants it.

Despite all that, Michael Valez and Michael Oberg are wading upriver through the state child protection system to be able to take care of four kids belonging to Valez’s niece. . .

To the state, it’s a simple matter of the law, which says that to adopt or be a foster parent, you must be legally married or single and not cohabitating. Officials asked for clarification of a judge’s directive that Valez have custody of the children, requesting that the court take custody or grant custody to the state’s Division of Child and Family Services.

The rules governing DCFS are quite reasonable – I don’t think that they should be running around placing kids in unstable situations such as with a couple that has decided that they should move in together to save rent. On the other hand we are faced with the question – who is responsible for raising these kids? Is it the state (DCFS) or the mother? I would argue that too often the state is given precedence over the parents and it is only rarely justified. I think that cases like this, where DCFS is actively trying to help the mother to prepare herself to resume raising the children (as they ought to), should make it that much easier to admit that primary responsibility lies with the mother and therefore her wishes, not to mention the wishes of the children, should take precedence over “the rules.” (Maybe if there was a criminal history to consider I would change my mind.)

Luckily reason has prevailed (so far) –

On Friday, the courts took custody, then turned around and granted Valez temporary custody of the children.

“The judge said, ‘I see absolutely no reason why the kids can’t stay where they’re at,'” Valez said.

If only this were the case all the time.

Categories
National politics State

New Attorney General

I guess this means that I should abandon that thin sliver of hope that some post-hypnotic suggestion would cause Bush to name Senator Hatch as the new Attorney General and give us an easy way to put him out to pasture.

Categories
National politics

Power Struggle

This is nothing new in politics (power struggles in general or this one in particular) but it is starting to get more press coverage – the question is, “Who controls the nomination process – the states, or the parties?” The struggle is most public among the Democrats as their candidates have now promised to honor the Party primary calendar. The Republicans are dealing with the very same issue but without the same level of publicity. The struggle between the parties and the states seems to be a direct result of a struggle among the states to gain influence in the candidate selection process. I am left to wonder how the traditional set of early states was initially established? Was that set by the parties, or by the respective states? (Can anyone enlighten me on that?)

In my mind the parties should not control the process. On the other hand, they are choosing representatives for their respective parties so they should have control of how those representatives are chosen. I believe that experience had led the parties to value a process where they largely mimic each other through the primary cycle. (I’m not sure exactly why that is although I have a few guesses) While I believe that states should be able to choose how and when they participate in the primary selection process I’m not convinced that voters win when the primary season is pushed so far in advance of the general election. Imagine if the candidates for the election of 2000 were chosen in mid 1997 and then had 9/11 occur in mid 1998. We could find that the candidates we had chosen were ill suited to our new reality. (I know that’s an extreme example – almost too ridiculous to comprehend, but you can’t miss my point) There’s always a certain amount of risk that changes will occur between the primary selection and the final vote, but the earlier we push the primaries the greater that risk becomes.

What do other people think? Who should control the primary schedule? What would the ideal schedule look like (in general terms)? Is the current reshuffling power-struggle good, bad, or neutral for voters and the country?

Categories
politics

Dump Cheney

I was so disgusted with the lame excuse offered by our VP – that he is not part of the Executive Branch of government – that I did a little research to see how much of a legislator he is. Vice Presidents have cast 243 votes in the history of our nation (a little more than 1 per year) Cheney has cast 7 votes in just under 7 years so he’s right on track. By contrast, John Kerry was often maligned in 2004 for missing votes on the Senate floor while he was running for president. Although he missed more than 90% of the votes he still cast 16 votes that year. If Cheney is doing 7% of the work of an absentee senator without being part of the Executive branch then he should be working gratis (no charge) because I am convinced that he is not working pro bono (for the public good).

I have never been a big fan of Cheney and I thought he should be replaced years ago, but by now I have long given up hope of that. I was surprised to find A GOP Plan To Oust Cheney today. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t really think this plan will happen although it certainly would be a step in the right direction.

Categories
culture politics

Subtle Biases

Among the many places I get political news and information is the new York Time Political blog, The Caucus. Unique among those sources, The Caucus displays a tag cloud which shows the tags they use on their posts with the tags displayed in a font size proportional to how often the tag is used.

The Caucus Tags

It is no surprise that 2008 is the largest tag (most common), but Hillary always seemed to be disproportionally large compared to other candidates. I always dismissed that as a result of the fact that her full name is spelled out and thus takes more space. After seeing the cloud so many times I finally got curious to see how much the various tags were really used. The result revealed an unspoken bias at the blog.

The top two presidential candidates for the Democrats have as many stories as the top 3 presidential candidates for the Republicans (548 in each case). John Edwards is tagged 146 times for the Democrats as well. Following to lower tier candidates the coverage of Democrats makes further gains despite the fact that there are more Republican candidates. Interestingly even President Bush receives fewer tags than either Hillary or Barak. The most telling statistic for me however was the fact that there were 62 posts carrying the tag “CONSERVATIVES” (yes, all caps) and not a single post with a tag for liberals (all caps or otherwise). I guess the reader can decide if that is because they don’t cover liberal stories, or if it is because they don’t consider anything to be liberal.

I am not complaining that there is a bias here. My feeling is that every information source is biased, even good, scientific data , but it is better once the bias is recognized publicly. If anyone wants to see the raw data I used they can download it – I have added some tags for sorting between candidates, parties, issues etc. – or they can go to The Caucus and view the page source to get up-to-date data.

Categories
culture politics

Uncivil War

Today is the anniversary of the official surrender at Appomatox that ended the Civil War in 1865. That random tidbit struck home to me as I was reading The Passing of the Armies by Joshua Chamberlain (who officially received the arms and flags of the Confederate army in surrender). I had not realized until I was getting to that climax of the book that I was reading of the events on the day 142 years after this all happened. When I realized that, it really made me think about the results of that war and the example of humanity displayed during that surrender.

Now, a century and a half later, we are engaged in a war that is, in many ways less civil than that one. I am not talking about Iraq or Afghanistan – I am talking about America. Our political and social ideologies are every bit as divided as they were in the 1860’s. We have seen the same rancor and the same intensity of rhetoric for the last 13 years (or more) and it signals a deep rift in our nation. Like the war that brought about a rebirth in our nation, most of the citizens are able to live rather amicably with their neighbors, but our public discourse on ideas rages hotter and hotter when we feel free to express ourselves.

I ask myself, where is our Gettysburg, where the tide turns and we stop winding up our division and start winding down our conflict? Is it past? Or is it (more likely) yet to come? When we finally come to a resolution will we act with the dignity and honor displayed by the Union and Confederate soldiers? They honored each other with displays of respect and valued the courage displayed by their former enemies and forged again the bonds of national brotherhood even when they did not see eye to eye on some of the (semi)concluded issues.

Like the Civil War, I am confident that a resolution will come to the issues we face today which cause so much division among us. Will we be able to effect a better reconciliation than they did? We had to fight a second campaign after 100 years to bring further resolution to the questions of how all people should be treated and we still feel the effects of that divisive war.

Where is our President Lincoln or our General Lee who could fight so passionately and so honorably for the ideas they believed in and yet they held no malice for their opponent, only for the ideas they opposed?

What lies ahead for us? Is it possible that we can be passionate without being scurrilous?

Categories
meta

Cleaning House

I love finding new resources from the people I read. Today that led me to Twenty Usability Tips for Your Blog. The result is that I am rethinking what I am doing here. My focus has been fairly vague and I have felt it in my writing. Also, between this post and the Lessons for Would-Be Bloggers I have a couple of changes I would like to make to the presentation of my site.

I am rethinking my categories and hoping that I can clean things up so that there is less clutter and more clarity. Wish me luck.