The law of the land: considering same-sex marriage

Today my facebook wall is covered with these:

Today the Supreme Court will decide whether same sex marriage is legal in this country.

In recent years, the equals symbol has been used by the marriage equality movement and those who support it. I am told that representing it in red is indicative of this movement being about love.

I have been raised my entire life with the teaching that homosexual behavior is wrong. That is a moral stance adopted by more than a few religions, and I believe that these religions are entitled to it.

I also believe there is a reason for the separation of church and state. Our founding fathers were spiritual men and I think they were inspired men, but most were not actually religious. They objected to state religion because they saw how it had been abused in Europe. They felt strongly that government and religion need to operate independently. I agree with them.

There are times when government and religion agree on issues (such as murder), and there are times when they disagree. When they disagree, each should function in their own sphere. Government establishes what is legal in the temporal world, while religion declares what is acceptable in the spiritual one. In this imperfect world, it is inevitable that they will not always be in perfect alignment. Marriage equality is one such issue. I believe that government has a duty to interfere with things like underage marriages (because by legal definition the underage party is not able to give consent). I believe that government has a duty to interfere in cases of abuse of spouse or child. I do not believe that government has a duty--or even a right--to legislate or vote on the non-abusive relationships of consenting adults.

Ironically, just over a century ago my religion fought hard for the right to polygamous marriages. Sixty years ago many states had laws against interracial marriages. I do not think it was right for the government to interfere at those times. I do not think it is right for them to interfere now. The constitution says that people should have equal rights under the law. The only logical constitutional conclusion that I see for the Supreme Court today is to legalize marriage for any pair of consenting adults. No religious group will be obligated to perform religious rites for these couples unless they want to (and I'm sure that many will not). No religious group even has to allow these couples to be part of their sects (and again, I'm sure that many will not). But I also think that no group (religious or otherwise) has a right to overrule the constitutional rights of anyone else. (Writing as someone from within a faith group that has had our rights stomped on, I feel very very strongly about this.)

As my friend eloquently put it:

As homosexuals couldn't possibly do anything to desecrate the institution of marriage that hetereosexuals haven't been doing for millenia, I cannot support the notion that marriage equality is going to destroy it.

As "traditional marriage" has very often historically meant as a transfer of property from one man (the bride's father) to another (the groom), sometimes based on affection but often based on convenience, politics, economics, or the need for another generation, I cannot support the notion that our modern ideal of marriage union largely based on love should exclude consenting adults.

I think the rift between the exclusive and the inclusive will cause more damage to society than marriage equality.

I can't support that it's bad for children when lesbian homes have a 0% rate of reported abuse, where 1 in 4 children in heterosexual homes report abuse. http://bit.ly/aOkzC3 I cannot look at my friends' long-sought daughter and think she will be disadvantaged for having two amazing mothers.

I hope that when Justices go to make a decision, the Constitution alone becomes their Bible.

I am a straight ally.

I have heard people speak with great emotion on this issue. I have heard appeals about love, about physical ambiguity, about moral imperatives... Ultimately, the thing that speaks the most loudly to me is logic. And while I do feel some conflict over how to reconcile these opinions personally in my religious context, I do not feel any conflict over what I think the law of the land should be.

I know these statements will probably be troubling for some of those nearest me (particularly my family). I hope they can be understanding of my attempts to reconcile my thoughts on this matter. Honestly, I hadn't planned to say anything about this today. As I said, my facebook wall is covered with little red equals, but I had no intention of joining them because I simply did not want to engage in the conflict. I was going to stand quietly on the side. But Thomas Jefferson put it well when he noted that "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."

This is my conscience. I will speak it.

Why this Pro-Lifer Votes 'Pro-Choice' (for now)

I hope you don't mind if I share a thought on an issue (which is a realization that led me to shift my political stances significantly a few years ago).

I am heartily pro-life. In the past I had sometimes let that issue be the single issue that determined who I voted for. After all, killing babies is evil, so anyone who doesn't fight abortion must also be evil. But in light of the facts I've changed my mind.

I appreciate that there are a GREAT many arguments about when a baby becomes a baby...certainly in the first few hours or days after the sperm meets the egg it doesn't seem like much of a baby. A significant number of these joinings don't manage to implant in the uterus and are miscarried...sometimes this is the result of a birth control pill or an IUD or something like a morning-after-pill, and probably just as often it just happens naturally. I, personally, do not consider this to be an abortion. I think that morning after pills should be readily available to victims of rape and incest, and you know what, frankly, probably to anyone who wants them. A morning after pill taken the day after sex works the same way as a birth control pill taken the day before.
Once we get past implantation though, things change. Human babies have a heartbeat by about 5 weeks gestation (this is 1 week after mom has missed her period, or within a few days of when she gets a positive pregnancy test). I know plenty of people who will argue about whether the spirit/soul of the child is in there yet at this stage--the baby certainly doesn't look very human yet. [see image]
But a heartbeat seems to me to be a fair designation of "life." In other words, I think a baby is a baby by the time that mommy knows it is there.

Without equivocation, I affirm that I want to protect the lives of babies before they are born. I also state, equally vehemently, that I want to protect the lives of people of all ages after they are born. I think that someone who values life needs to value comprehensive healthcare and welfare programs for the impoverished, because every year far more people die preventable deaths outside of wombs than in them.

I really hate abortion, personally. I cannot imagine a circumstance where I would ever have one, nor would I ever advise a friend to do so.  BUT, currently our society has SO LITTLE support for poor parents, single parents, working mothers, etc that I have sympathy for why some women feel that they simply cannot have a(nother) baby. They can't afford the child, the diapers, the food, the clothes, the childcare, etc etc. Giving up babies to adoption is stigmatized, keeping a baby and raising it alone is stigmatized... it's a lose-lose-lose situation. Some of these women are married and simply feel they cannot afford another baby, or are afraid to bring a child into an abusive situation. I know we sensationalize stories about abortions for gender-selection and things like that, but those are such a small minority. The one person I have personally known who got an abortion did so because she had been drinking and using drugs at the time she conceived and she feared that her actions would harm the child for a lifetime. She considered abortion the humane choice. Whether anyone else agrees with her is not the point. The point is that she took the matter seriously, and was trying to make a moral choice from her perspective.

If we make abortion illegal, then women are still going to do it, but instead of going to doctors in clean offices they will be doing it with coat hangers in basements...that's what they were doing before 1972 and I have no hesitation in thinking they will do it again. Women used to die from those abortions. Yes, babies are dying now, but the death toll was twice as high when both baby and mother died. Making something illegal doesn't make it stop. Consider marijuana! Or the speakeasies during prohibition!

I would love to see the abortion rates go down in this country, but I don't think that overturning Roe vs Wade is the solution. In order to reduce the abortion rate, the first step is to reduce those unwanted pregnancies. This requires easy and affordable access to contraceptives for any woman who wants them. It requires reducing the cultural stigma that surrounds rape, so that women who are raped will not be afraid to go to the hospital (and get the morning after pill). It should include reducing rape--a good first step there would be to prosecute and punish more than 3 of every 100 rapists, or to even report more than the half that get reported currently. It also requires more comprehensive sex education for every young person in the country. I love the idea of having parents do this teaching, but since most of them don't, then it should be available in schools. (Abstinence is a great part of sex ed, but should never be the only thing taught, because there will always be kids who simply are not going to do it.)
Once we've reduced the number of unplanned pregnancies, there remains the question of how to address the ones that do happen. Here again, society needs to step up. These women and girls need to be supported. They need to know that if they have this baby, they will be able to afford those diapers and clothes, that food, that childcare. They need people around them who will help them through the pregnancy, birth, and parenting processes. If they choose to give the child up for adoption, they need to have the option of choosing the adoptive parents, having an open or closed adoption, or whatever else feels most comfortable to them. AND they need to be supported before, during, and after the adoptive process (I hear that giving up a child for adoption can feel very much like losing a child, and that intense grieving is normal, even for a mother who felt sure in her choice. If she felt pressured into it at all, I'm sure it is much worse.)

I am pro-life, but I believe that abortion needs to remain legal in this country, at least for now. I certainly support there being some limitations and restrictions, but until the social structure and support is in place for these women and girls, I find it counter-productive to try to make abortion entirely illegal. There is a letter here which provides an excellent example of someone who is trying to work on that social support (I know it's long, but it is really really good). It is one tiny step and we have so much further to go, but it is heading in the right direction. My hope (and my vote) go toward supporting the social policies that will reduce the unplanned pregnancies, and support those who have them: it is the most pro-life option I can think of.

Brief Political Musings

I have not written much here about my political thoughts this year. I have brought them up a lot on facebook, but all my blogging has backed off as I focus on homeschooling.
I do want to say a couple of things though.

Firstly, as I have said before, I am an idealist. I am frustrated by the two-party system in the US, as are many people. I have a few thoughts about what would be better (abolishing parties altogether for example, so that candidates would have to make their own statements of belief, rather than just toeing the party platform line), however I continue to believe there is one thing we can all do that (IF many of us will do it) may begin to be a voice for change. That is to vote third party. We have seen small ripples begin in the houses of congress, where "Tea Party" candidates have won elections and begun to push views that are beyond the limited (and remarkably similar) stances of the two biggest parties. Whether you like the Tea Party or not, it must be admitted that this is a voice being heard, and all because people refused to accept "the lesser of two evils" but demanded their right to vote their true conscience.
So I heartily support voting for who you believe in most, regardless of affiliation or statistical likelihood of winning. I realize that our electoral college system will stand in the way of this having much effect on presidential elections (yet), but remember how I'm an idealist? I look forward with hope to a time when that system will be adjusted or abolished. And in the meantime, voting third party CAN make real changes in all the other races.

Secondly, I very strongly urge everyone to consider two things about the issues. Firstly, obviously, the positions taken by the candidates; but even more importantly, which issues are current, pressing, and likely to come up in the next 4 years. For example, regardless of your stance on abortion, our supreme court is so evenly split that I don't see Roe vs Wade getting overturned in the near future. So how much does that stance matter right now? On the other hand, we are currently involved in multiple overseas conflicts, and know that Iran is very close to having nuclear weapons, therefore foreign policy positions and plans seem extremely important at this time.
I have reached the conclusion that, while I side with different candidates on different issues, that I should give more weight to the issues that are likely to be "on the docket" in the coming few years. So, personally, I am most concerned about foreign policy, unemployment, national debt, gay marriage, the environment, and healthcare. (I still care a great deal about abortion, education, etc etc, I just don't see them as likely to get much attention in the near future, due to the long list of more-pressing issues).

So, since it is deeply unlikely that there is a candidate (for any race) who perfectly represents your ideals, I suggest the pragmatic approach of considering what issues are likely to be the center of focus in the next few years, and focus on those in choosing your vote. When I was 18, my first vote was based almost entirely on the one issue I understood (abortion), and I think it grossly limited me. Politics, economics, and social structure are complicated and multi-faceted things, and the responsible voter should consider as broad a slice of the issues as they are able. It is unconscionable, in my opinion, to focus on one or even two issues at the expense of all the others.

A minister in Texas has issued a request for 40 days of fasting, prayer, and action (from now until election day). Regardless of the issues or candidates you favor, I urge you to take this time to consider these things seriously and carefully and not make snap decisions on anything. If you are so inclined, pray for the candidates, pray over the issues, pray for the voters, and for the leaders who are not up for election but who will remain in office over the coming years. Voting is a responsibility which should not be approached casually or haphazardly. We are blessed to live in a place where we have a right to contribute our voice to the political direction of our nation; let us live up to that responsibility.

Of Hearts, Brains, and Assumptions

If you aren't liberal when you're young, you have no heart. 

If you're not conservative when you're old, you have no brain.

I've heard this several times recently.
I've also noticed that it is always said from old conservative people to young liberal people. In other words, it's something that old conservatives tell young liberals (and tell themselves) to justify the fact that they have changed as they've aged.
It's also pretty patronizing.
Because what I actually hear is this: "well, you're young and emotional, I am sympathetic to your childish feelings. But when you grow up and think about things more, you'll be like me."



How many times does one change in this regard? Because I started out very young as a conservative. It's what I was taught to be. And then in my mid-twenties I became liberal, because I learned more about the complexity of the issues and the world. When my parents were the age I am now, they were conservative... so did they get 'old' prematurely? Or do I get to qualify as 'old' in spite of my liberalism? I wonder, at what point will I be 'old'? President Obama turns 51 this year, and he's liberal. Sarah Palin is three years younger, but she's conservative.

Let us be logical here, political beliefs are not a product of age. They are the product, I think, of priorities. Consider, for example, the simple matter of finance. The average young person has very little money, and might naturally be in favor of things like economical stimulus programs and wealth redistribution. The average older person has significantly more money. They have probably worked hard for it, and they feel entitled to keep it rather than be obligated to share it. So they want to get rid of taxation on capital gains and estates.
A younger person--a poorer person--may be more likely to need assistance from welfare, whereas an older person is more concerned with investments, property taxes, and social security. This is all rational, I don't think less of a person for having different priorities than my own. I do get a bit miffed when they belittle my priorities or (especially) my intelligence.

Please, do tell me what you believe, and why. Tell me why it's important to you. I do care, and I am interested. If you can, give me statistics to back it up (because I find facts to be remarkably convincing). From time to time, new information leads me to change my perspective (that would be how I became the liberal I am today in fact).
But don't pat me on the head with a patronizing "Mother knows best" attitude. Do not belittle me, my mind, or my abilities in that way. Trust that I am capable of feeling--and thinking--rationally and responsibly.
Be willing to appreciate that we can have different interests and priorities, and that that's ok. We can still respect each other. Let's just stop pretending that our differences are a product of maturity or intelligence, because they aren't.

On Assumptions and Attribution, or, In Defense of Wild-Eyed Idealism

"Wild-eyed idealism is noble, wonderful, and impractical. Because we ourselves do good, and because we so ardently want everyone to be good, we think that simple social legislation will enable them to be so. But people don’t do good. People are selfish, and if we don’t make them work, they won’t."

I recently received the following as part of a longer letter from a family member. I've heard this argument from several sources lately, and it seems prevalent among the politically conservative demographic. I'm studying social psychology this term though, and it seems that there is a scientific explanation for this perspective, as well as for my own.
So this was my reply.



Enter social psychology, and the note that the majority of people assume internal attribution for behavior. In other words, the natural human inclination (apparently) is to assume that a person is what he is and does what he does because of who he is (without regard to circumstances). They guy in line ahead of you is slow and bumbling because he's stupid, or lazy, or careless; not because he narrowly avoided an accident getting here, or because he just found out that his wife has cancer.

There are some people (apparently I am one, as I discovered in a class exercise), who tend to be willing to give people the benefit of the doubt, and allow for the possibility--even probability--of an external attribution.
The book discussed social politics, in particular the example of welfare, and noted that the typical conservative line is that poor people got there because they were lazy or uncaring (internal attribute), and that they would prefer to just mooch off the system indefinitely. The typical liberal perspective is that people are poor because of lack of education, layoffs, lack of access to training or employment, and other such external attributes. The opinion on that side is that, given a little help, and some opportunities, they will use the system for a time, but ultimately that they want to be independent and support themselves.

So they've collected some statistics. It seems that the average person on government assistance is there for about a year. Then they are gainfully employed and support themselves. I found it interesting that the statistics seem to point much more one direction than the other...

Now I realize that in many cases the real truth is probably somewhere in the middle--that most situations arise out of a combination of internal and external reasons. It's interesting how we displace though. Several members of our family have been unemployed or underemployed within the last few years, and (knowing the specifics), we have all given each other the benefit of the doubt. We have assumed that each was doing the best he could to be employed, and we have prayed for each others' success. I did not hear any judgments about getting WIC, unemployment benefits, medicaid, or food stamps (although I know several of us have done that). Why then do we assume that the people that we don't know are any different from the ones we do know?

Judge not that ye be not judged. For with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you (Matt 7:2). Christ taught that, Elder Uchdorf just quoted him a few days ago, with the simple sermon, "Stop It!" Obviously, feel free to vote as you believe is best. But in the meantime, watch your words, and your deeds, and even your thoughts (Mosiah 4:30), because a judgment within your heart is still a judgment.
I dare say this injunction against judgment applies not just to the behavior of individuals, but also to their politics. I feel strongly about my idealistic stances, and I don't think they are impractical. They may be improbable for right now, but wasn't Jesus himself the original wild-eyed liberal idealist? Is improbability (or even impracticability) a reason to give up on those ideals? Jesus didn't. And I may be the most tenacious person I know.

Yep, I'm pretty universalist. 'Love one another' meant everybody, not just the people who look/think/believe like you do.

Earthquake!

So there was an earthquake on the east coast of the USA yesterday. My sister lives in Virginia and said it was pretty scary for her and her little ones--things fell off shelves and they had just all gathered under the dining room table when the shaking stopped. Friends of mine in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire said they felt it too. A 5.9 is a pretty good size. I remember an earthquake in Seattle 9 or 10 years ago that was about that size, and I felt it where I was in college in Ellensburg  (110 miles away). It made the lights swing and they closed several buildings on campus for several hours while they inspected them for structural damage. I remember that being unnerving.
Prior to that I remember one other earthquake. I was 13 or 14 and I was babysitting and the whole house started swaying. It scared me for a minute until I realized that it was just an earthquake... I don't remember how big it was, but there was no damage. I called my dad and he made the excellent point that aftershocks tend to be smaller than the initial quake, and I calmed down and was ok.

When we moved to Homer two years ago I learned what it means to be totally unphased by earthquakes. We had been there just a few weeks when one afternoon things started to shake. At first I thought it was our dryer, because it could get a pretty good vibration going on through the house...but the dryer wasn't running. By the time I realized it was an earthquake it was over. I hurried to the other room where my then 2-years-old Bear was playing serenely. I asked if he was ok. He said yes. I asked if he felt the shaking. He looked at me like I was asking about quantum physics. Alrighty then!
Over the next few months I learned that we would get earthquakes several times a week--sometimes several times a day--and that every 6-8 weeks one would be a 3 or 4 or 5 and I would feel it. I learned how to guess at how big they were (and I got fairly good too--I'd put my guess on my facebook, and then ten minutes later go look it up, and I was usually within 0.2 or so!) I also learned that familiarity breeds contempt, or, at least, apathy, because not one of my kids has ever seemed the least bit phased by all these earthquakes. And, I confess, at this point, neither am I. If nothing even falls off a shelf, well, I just hop on facebook and make my prediction...
Of course, here in Kotzebue we are off the ring of fire (for the first time in my life I live in a non-earthquake zone!), so perhaps I'll re-sensitize to them. Who knows. Here I think we are probably more likely to see a polar bear in downtown than to feel an earthquake. (I'll be sure to let you know if that happens.)

But back to the Virginia quake, KSL News (in Utah) made sure to let us all know that four spires broke off the top of the Mormon temple.
AND, in case you haven't heard yet, there are some conflicting opinions about the causes of the shaking...

It has been determined that the epicenter of the Va earthquake was in a graveyard just outside of DC. The cause appears to be all of our Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves.


The President has just confirmed that the DC earthquake yesterday occurred on a rare and obscure fault-line, apparently known as "Bush's Fault."

Michelle Bachmann has promised to keep future quakes at 2.9.

The president wanted it to be a 3.6, but the Republicans said it needed to be a 6.0, so they compromised.

It wasn't an earthquake. It was a 14.6 Trillion dollar check bouncing.

...got any more for me?

Thoughts on Patriotism

(I'll warn you upfront that this post carries a tone of frustration and annoyance at the narrow definition of 'patriotism' that I often encounter.)

I like to be patriotic. I think our national holiday is a good time to think about what patriotism is and how we can be patriotic. I do NOT think that the military is the be all and end all of patriotism.
There you have it. I'm sick and tired of people saying "well I wanted to serve my country so I enlisted..." By all means, support the troops. If you'd like to enlist, feel free! But if you'd like to serve your country, please remember that you can do it in many other ways too. My husband wanted to serve his country, so he became a school teacher. My friend wanted to serve, so she works for a local women's shelter. I care about my country, so I teach my children to take care of the earth we live on and to serve the people we live around. I care about my country, so I get involved with politics, and I always vote.
As I said, I support the troops--the men and women who get out and do things. I really don't support the military-industrial complex that the USA has developed. I'm a pacifist, conscientious objector, and so on.  A friend of mine (who served in the military for several years by the way) has some very similar opinions about this. She wrote a great post here.

There's another thing that really makes me sick, and I hear it every Independence Day too: We live in a great country ("the promised land" yadda yadda yadda), and in fact it is the best country on earth. No it's not folks. We live in a great country, definitely. We in the United States have a lot of blessings and opportunities that are not available elsewhere. We have a lot of wealth (a ridiculous amount in fact). But we are not superior to other countries or peoples. More blessed (in certain areas), sure, but not superior.
Can we please learn to appreciate what we have without knocking down others in the process? Julie can be pretty without saying that Susie is ugly, you know?

That's all. Be grateful and happy with what you have. Work to take care of it and of the people around you. Remember that no one is inherently superior to anyone else, especially not because of being born between some transient manmade borders.

The problem with neutrality

"Take sides.
Neutrality helps the oppressor,
never the oppressed.
Silence encourages the tormentor,
never the tormented."

--Elie Weisel (holocaust survivor, author of "Night")

Precisely why I will not be neutral, and will not be quiet. ☺

Femininity vs. Feminism

Once upon a time women in this country were repressed. They were not just "the gentle sex" or "the fair sex" but also "the lesser sex." They were beaten and abused and in most cultures had few if any rights. Once upon a time suffragettes marched for the right to vote. Had I been alive, I would have been there right beside Cady Stanton, Susan B Anthony, and Amelia Bloomer, demanding that women be allowed to dress as they pleased and vote in elections.Once those rights were secured, women began pushing into other things that had previously been male-only domain. They demanded easier access to education, and the right to work. They instigated legislation to punish perpetrators of domestic violence, abuse, and sexual harassment. Were these fights still being fought I would be standing there beside the fighters.

With equal rights established however, the movement called 'feminism' began to push for other things. It began to focus on cultural acceptance and approval for crudeness in language and behavior. It fought for--and won--the right to abort babies without medical reason (where are the rights of the unborn women?!) It fought to teach women that they cannot be complete or fulfilled unless they have a career outside the home, and to preach the notion that keeping a home and raising children is inferior to having a career. In other words, the feminist movement began to undermine all the things that made women unique. In the quest for 'equality' feminism has pushed so far and so fast that it has gone far beyond the mark, so that now women are fighting, not for the right to be women, but for the right to be men; or, more accurately, to be more than men. By demanding sameness across the genders, women are forfeiting the things that make us special and unique. In order for masculinity to be valuable, it must be balanced by femininity! As the movement of feminism gains strength in the world, femininity is losing the ability to be a moderating force in the world, or to create balance between masculine and feminine. This is not empowering anyone; it is stifling everyone.

I am staunchly feminine, staunchly pro-woman. Therefore, I can only conclude that in this country, and at this stage in history, I must be anti-feminism.

There are fights worth fighting, even still. Women are being held down in places like Afghanistan and what support we can give is worth the fight. Women are victims of domestic abuse in our own country, and what we can do to support and help them here is of course worth our while. However the larger 'feminism' movement in this country has lost the nobility of purpose that once guided them. They have turned toward anger and vulgarity to accomplish their goals, and their goals are no longer positive or even things worth fighting for.
If you dare, you might check out the post "I HATED The Vagina Monologues and So Should You" (disclaimer: the play--and therefore the post--have sexual content including pedophilia, rape, lesbianism and prostitution).

I conclude with a link to two inspirational blog posts:

• The truth about Women that Feminists Don't Want You to Know, posted at Ladies Against Feminism: Promoting Beautiful Womanhood. I don't agree with everything written at that site, but I find that I agree with them more often than not. Their post talks about powerful historical women, and how they did not need feminism to be who they were and accomplish what they did. I found it inspiring to review examples of powerful women who gloried in womanhood, motherhood, and homemaking.
• Returning to Motherhood: One Solution for the Economic Crisis, posted by my friend at MotherLoverGoddess. I don't agree with everything she writes either, but I think this post makes excellent points about women in the home verses women in the workplace.

Morals

Please note: This post contains both politics and religion. And some very strong opinions.
I won't be offended if you just walk away, but I've just been thinking about this lately and wanted to write about it... ☺


There is a lot of debate in political and social circles about how certain 'religious values' should not be forced upon people who are not part of the religion.

On the other hand, there are certain 'values' (shared by religion) that are apparently just universal and everybody agrees on them whether they are 'religious' or not.

So here is my question: Where does one draw the line between 'religious values' and 'universal values'?

We all agree that it's not ok to kill people, don't we? Or take stuff that isn't yours, right? But since both of those are from the Ten Commandments then they were religious values before they were universal ones. So if we all agree about the killing and the stealing, why do we debate the applicability of others of the Big Ten like adultery or honoring parents? Have morals become an a la carte commodity?!

Of course it gets more intricate. We all seem to agree that it's not normally ok to kill someone, but what if that someone was attacking you and it was self defense? What if that someone was old and sick and dying anyway? What if that person was an unborn baby who "wasn't a person yet"? What if that person was a murderer himself? What if that person wanted to die? What if that person is being slowly yet surely (yet passively) killed because they cannot afford the medical treatment to recover and their fellow citizens voted against extending care to them? If we believe that "thou shalt not kill" then how come some situations are 'universal' or 'obviously wrong' but others are not?

When psychological studies [*link 1, **link2] say that the ideal developmental situation for a child is within a nuclear family with one father and one mother, am I "pushing religious fundamentalism" to vote to preserve the legal monopoly of that type of marriage? When I suggest that I think that "single parenting is not the ideal" am I "insulting those who choose differently" from myself? Or am I just responding logically in accordance with scientific fact? (which would therefore make it universally right, rather than just my opinion).

I do not believe in the notion of moral 'grey area.' Right and wrong exist and no sum of loudly-spoken or cleverly-worded opinions can change them. Some moral laws are easier to follow than others, and I appreciate that. Most of us find it easy enough to pay for our items at the store rather than stealing them, but struggle somewhat more to keep the sabbath day holy or to eschew covetousness or lust.
I certainly respect that everyone has their own opinion about things, but when it comes to 'moral' issues (which I think includes all social issues), it's worth keeping in mind that those 'universal values' started as 'religious values.' Maybe those who are so offended by 'religious values' need to remember that the very concept of 'values' comes from religion. Maybe when a movement comes into conflict with religious values, it's not because religion is outdated, maybe it's because there's something actually (universally) wrong with the movement itself.



*The article at link1 was written specifically in regard to children being raised by heterosexual couples verses homosexual couples. The first portion covers studies indicating the health of children raised with heterosexual parenting arrangements. The second portion covers studies indicating problems resulting from being raised in homosexual parenting arrangements. Both are heavily cited and all references are included at the end of the article. All the studies are within the last 20 or so years, so the information is not 'outdated' or 'biased by the times.'
**link2 is a blog post which cites several studies discussing dual parenting verses single parenting, specifically in cases of divorce or never-married parents. The conclusions there are also irrefutably in favor of a child being raised by both parents.

On Recent Political Happenings

I can respect an educated opinion, even if I disagree with it.
I cannot respect an uneducated opinion,
or the one who holds it

There is a lot of heated emotion (and discussion and debate) swirling around right now in regard to recent political happenings in this country. Wild arguments rage on facebook threads and I imagine in many other places as well. I see people that I generally respect posting opinions with which I completely disagree.
Occasionally, very occasionally, politics and morality overlap. In those cases there really is a right and a wrong answer. But the rest of the time--truly the vast majority of the time--there is not a right and a wrong so much as just varying opinions. It makes me sad to see how difficult it is to find a solution that is satisfactory to everyone, and I wish it were simpler, but we are all different people in different situations with different priorities so different opinions are inevitable. I hope that continued efforts at changes will bring more satisfaction to a wider spectrum of the population.
In the meantime, I just have one simple thing to say to everybody out there who is sharing their political opinions: please do your research. If you want to bash on a certain system, make sure you actually know about that system (not just that you've heard a few disgruntled stories). If you want to praise a system, the same applies. Don't be passive. Write letters to your congressmen--whether you love things or hate them, you have a right to tell your representatives so, because you voted them in and you can vote them out again. Once you have done your research, write blog posts or letters to editors. And finally, be open to shifting your views (I frequently find that the world--especially the political world--is not very cut and dried, and that there is good within 'bad' things, and bad within 'good' ones). I have always had a lot of opinions about things, and they have not always all stayed the same--the world is always changing, we are always changing, and it is only logical that our opinions should change with us.

Monday Answers--Health Care

Today I'll be posting the first of my answers as explained here. I don't know that I will always do this weekly, but if you ever leave a question in my comments, I do read them all, and I do try to answer them!

Today's topic is universal health care, aka single-payer health care, aka socialized medicine.

Well, here's a doozie: What's your take on the potential for universal
healthcare? It's been on my mind a lot. Always interested in hearing more
thoughts and opinions.

There is a bill currently facing our congress which has lots of people screaming about socialized medicine and loss of patient rights and all kinds of other things...I will start off by saying that I have not read the bill. I would like to actually (in spite of it being over 1000 pages)--I'd like to see what is really in it--but I have not read it yet. So, the best I can do today is answer with my thoughts about the concept in general, and then my feelings on what I do know of the bill.

Point #1--I think that socialized medicine is a whopping lot better than the capitalistic system we have right now. If you didn't read it when I linked it last fall, I would encourage you to read the post my husband made here. He lived in Norway for two years, and has some personal experience with socialised medicine. Or maybe go read the post my cousin wrote here. He lived in Switzerland for several years as a child and then in Germany for two more as an adult. Both of them heartily favor socialised medicine because they have seen how well it works. The WHO statistics seem to point quite clearly to socialized systems as the best if you look at their chart of the world's healthiest countries. Yes, it is true that the system will run into problems if it is underfunded (as it is in Canada, Ireland or the UK--the places where most of the horror stories come from), but, if it's properly funded, then you'll probably end up with something like France (#1) or the Scandinavian countries...
Yes, I did say 'probably'...this is because I realize that we have a very big country, and there is a lot of diversity in terms of proximity to care providers, health education, and other things which might affect the fair rationing of care. A socialized system--one which provides free care to everyone--will have to insist on a certain amount of taking turns, and it's true that sometimes people will have to wait for things like surgeries that (in fairness) shouldn't wait. So I think that a dual system makes sense: have a public option available to everyone--for free of course, but still have a few private options available. The private sector--as with education--would cost more, but if you had the money you could get things faster and/or get things which were not deemed 'necessary' but which you wanted (say, for example, an extra ultrasound, a vasectomy, or most cosmetic procedures). Honestly, I think some sort of combination like that probably makes the most sense.

Point #2--My understanding of the current bill is that it's not socialized medicine at all. It is actually an attempt to reform a capitalistic system. I don't know that I think it's ideal, but reform definitely seems in order, and I think this sortof plan is likely to go over with the American people much better than a truly social one.

• In my understanding, the bills calls for making efforts to cut waste by demanding that medical practice be evidence-based (rather than marketing-based). Well hallelujah! Unfortunately the research isn't always clear--sometimes one study directly contradicts another--so determining which evidence to use as basis for medical practice may be complicated...but I think that the bill is making a push in the right direction at least.
• The bill will determine the value of the doctors' time, which will probably cut the incomes of many of them (what's not to love about that?! I would like to see people enter medicine because they want to help others, not because they want to get rich). I recently heard the complaint that this is "putting a value on humans" but we've been doing that for years with minimum wage...I think it's a healthy change.
• The bill will offer an alternative to private insurance, so that everyone will be able to get some kind of insurance that they can afford, whether it's private insurance for the richer, public insurance for the middle class, or publicly-funded insurance (medicaid) for the impoverished. It would force insurance companies to change their policies so that they couldn't drop someone just because they got cancer and suddenly became expensive. In other words, it would provide insurance to everyone (but everyone would have their choice of insurances), as opposed to the social model of scrapping insurance and just giving everybody free care when they walk in the hospital doors.
• The government will push hard(er)--require?--people to get preventative medical care, including vaccines. (Um, they kinda 'require' vaccines already and if you don't believe in them it's pretty simple to get an exemption...) Although I expect more people would probably go in for routine check-ups, I don't see this making a difference in our right to make choices about our care, so again, I don't see a problem.
• One complaint I've heard is in regard to the rationing of care is that the elderly or those who have chronic/fatal conditions would likely be pushed to the end of the list for certain surgeries and treatments. It's a matter of doing the liver transplant for the guy who's 46 instead of for the guy who's 86, (regardless of how long they've been waiting or why they need it), because the former is likely to get more good out of it. On the one hand I can appreciate that that sounds a bit heartless, on the other hand I look at how many people are currently unable to get the treatments and surgeries that they need, and I think that if we're not going to be able to save everybody, it does make sense to try to save the ones who have the greatest life expectancy first.
  

A few other things that I think need to happen--and I don't know if they are in the bill or not (mostly I think not):

• It needs to be a whole lot harder to sue doctors for malpractice. Yes, it needs to be possible, but it needs to be harder. There should be more mediation and arbitration required before litigation is possible. With that in place, malpractice insurance prices should come down, and thus doctors fees should be able to come down.
• Costs should be the same for everybody. In other words, there should not be a pre-negotiated preferred rate for insurance companies but another (higher) one for people who pay out of pocket. There should not be preferred and non-preferred providers (with different rates of coverage). I suppose it's fine if one doctor wants to charge a little more than another, but I'd like to see it more like grocery stores...milk may cost more at one place than at another, but it's not much more, and the prices are public knowledge.
• It should be illegal to advertise for pharmaceuticals of any kind, or to anyone. In other words, when the drugs are released, doctors should receive information (brochures perhaps) detailing the contents, purpose, and side-effects of the drug. The doctors can then choose to add it to their repetoire or not. Meanwhile, there would be no drug lunches, no free palm-pilots given to doctors to encourage them to prescribe one thing over another, and none of those horrible ads which stealthily proclaim "this drug may change your life, (and it may kill you)...ask your doctor about it today!"
• The whole drug testing/approval process needs to be longer. In the rush to get new things on the market, the FDA has streamlined things so much that in my opinion most things are insufficiently tested before being released to the public (I think the frequency of drug-recalls for serious injuries and deaths validates this view). Anyway, I think a good option would be to do the testing as they currently do, and then release the drug as a "phase B testing" option, where patients (with their doctors) could choose it with the understanding that it had been through initial testing but was still considered experimental. It would be an informed consent sort of thing. New drugs would have to be in this phase for a minimum of 2 years (or x number of people trying it) before they could have final approval and be released for general usage. I think this would cut back on a lot of the lawsuits by helping protect and inform the population about things that have only had minimal testing, while still allowing them access to new formulas as soon as possible.

A final thought:
If you are scared about the idea of the government having control in our health care, I would ask you to think about the other things they control in this country: roads, the postal service, schools...I'm not saying that all those things are perfect, but would you really rather pay for private courier service when the post office provides free mail delivery (usually to your door) 6 days a week? Go ahead and complain about 40-something cent stamps, but remember what you'll pay to send the same thing via FedEx or UPS. Nationalizing a system can save costs and improve service (in my humble opinion), and I think that socialized medicine--or yes, that bill that's in the house right now--may have flaws, but it's a darn sight better than what we have right now.



(Feel free to leave more questions...I'll get to them in coming weeks!)

Today

It's big and historic, and I don't really have anything to say that has not already been said, so I'll just post some links...

RasJane made a great post a couple of days ago. If you don't know her, she has a multi-racial family, and has (I think) a better perspective than I do on the significance of today's events.

I also read this article on a British blog (only the first half is relevent). I thought it was well-written and makes some good points.

FYI, the most memorable inauguration of my life prior to today was when Bill Clinton took the oath in 1993. We were watching it on tv when the power went out, and it stayed out all day. At the time we made jokes about Bill being so bad that he blew the power...I had a very simplistic view of politics at the time, obviously! ☺ It also happened to be my little brother's first birthday, and so he (who is 17 today, good grief!) was confused that we had candles around all day, but then that night we wanted him to blow some out, but then we got upset when he continued to try to blow out all the other candles...



In personal news, little Bear is sick. We'd been doing so well on night-weaning--I think we had five (maybe only 4?) nights without nursing, but last night he clearly needed it, and he nursed like a maniac all night. This morning one of the first things he did was to sneeze, shooting out one of those long snot strings that just dangles until someone gets it....he was throroughly distressed over that, and has been asking me to get the 'snuggerts' all day. Poor kiddo. I hate it when my little ones are stuffed up and they're not old enough to know how to blow their nose.

some thoughts after the fact

I have a lot of friends who shared their presidential preferences with me prior to the election. Apparently I'm the friend of rebels, because my McCain-voting friends all live in states that swung for Obama, and my Obama-voting friends all live in states that swung for McCain. Except for Indiana, which was split almost down the center (I actually don't know which way it ended up) but anyway I know people who voted both ways there, so the original statement still holds. I hang out with rebels people who do their own thinking rather than following the crowd. ☺

The night before election day I was talking with my dad about the candidates and issues, and suffice it to say that my priorities are not the same as his. He commented that when he was my age he was more liberal than he is now, but that with age he has become "more jaded and cynical" (his words, not mine). Then he said "you know, I would expect a young person to be idealistic and hopeful--if they weren't then I'd be worried."
I thought that was a very interesting commentary on politics.

Ralph Nader: A Reasonable Choice

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. ~~George Bernard Shaw "Man and Superman" 1903

Maybe you've heard of it (and maybe you haven't) but there's a movie called "Ralph Nader: An Unreasonable Man" which is, oddly enough, about Ralph Nader. If you have Netflix, it's available to watch instantly. I strongly recommend it.
Now go ahead and make fun of him for just a second for being named Ralph...now remind yourself that it's not his fault. Besides which, it's not any worse than being named George, and that's served a bunch of presidents just fine.
Are you done giggling now?
Now?
OK. Good.

Here are some facts about a candidate that I finally feel comfortable standing behind:
(this is mostly quoted and/or paraphrased from his biographical information on his own site)
♦He was named by Time Magazine as one of the 100 Most Influential Americans in the twentieth century.
♦He graduated from Princeton magna cum laude. He has studied Chinese and Russian, and received his LLB 'with distinction' from Harvard Law (in other words, he's smart).
♦After serving with the army, he traveled through Latin America, Africa, and Europe. He has interviewed world leaders as a freelance journalist, and seen firsthand the world and the great social struggles within it.

♦Nader is authentic and frank (Find the episode of SNL he appeared on--he's a terrible actor). In spite of efforts to find them, no one has ever been able to find a scandal around him.

♦Nader has been an advocate for the consumer since the age of 31 when he wrote an article "The Safe Car You Can't Buy," which pointed out safety defects in US cars and criticized the auto industry for them. (Incidentally, the auto industry went to great lengths to try to quiet or discredit him, but they were unable to find any blots on his character.) His research and subsequent lobbying helped push congress to pass the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (which included things like requiring seatbelts in all vehicles). In the process, he also won a settlement ($425,000 for invasion of his privacy as they tried to bring him down), and so he found himself financially set for life...but did he retire? No! Instead he has put that money toward making this country a better and safer place for consumers. He feels it is an ethical imperative to take on these issues, and that the federal government is now one of them. "Our 'democracy' is a fraud--it's consumer fraud" ~Pat Buchanan

Here are some more things Nader has lobbied for, created, or otherwise helped establish:

• Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
• Clean Air Act
• Consumer Product Safety Commission
• Safe Drinking Water Act
• Freedom of Information Act
• Center for Science in the Public Interest
• Wholesome Meat Act (requiring inspections at slaughterhouses and packing plants)
• Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights
• warning labels on medications
• and literally dozens more...

He believes that corporations have too much power in and over the government, and strives to make our government 'by the people, for the people, and of the people.' He believes in using the legal system to right injustices, and to strengthen democracy. Even if you have no desire to vote for him, you should understand that his efforts have a daily effect on you. If you ever wear a seatbelt, breathe clean air, eat safe food, get a refund when you're bumped from a flight, or a dozen other things...Nader was behind it.

A few words from Ralph:

"If you get things out in the open, you'll get some action."

"The democrats and republicans are essentially one corporate entity with two heads."

And since I always say it should be about issues, not just the character and accomplishments of the candidate, here are his positions:

• Shift power back to the people and away from the corporate monopolies in radio, television, telephone, gas, and electric, and utility companies.
• Improve workers rights, including a living wage ($10/hr), the right to unionize, and seating judges who will side with wronged employees over corporations. (Down with Walmart!)
• Stop the bailout, and instead focus on jailing the crooked people involved.
  
• His energy policy includes tax incentives for those who comply as well as tax penalties for those who do not. Some points are: more efficient factories, promote renewable energy development, improve transportation options, and preserve regulatory protections. (He favors solar power first as it is safer the nuclear.)
• In education, he favors cutting out high-stakes testing and increasing funding. He is pro-vouchers.
  
• Nader favors a "National Initiative" which would move us more toward a true democracy--where petitions could be turned into national ballot measures, and the people could vote for what they want, instead of standing by while congress sits in the laps of corporations and ignores the people.
• Single Payer Healthcare (my Hubby wrote about this recently too if you didn't go read it yet).
• In the middle east: pull out of Iraq quickly, and work with existing peaceful groups to stabilize the area.
• Be hard on corporate crime.
• Civil liberties, including pulling back on the Patriot Act and racial profiling, equal pay for women, gay-rights, racial-equality, rights and support for those with disabilities, and legalizing medical marijuana (it's safer than a lot of the stuff the FDA has approved) and industrial hemp.
• In agriculture, increase food safety, promote and protect the small farms, organic foods, and sustainable practices. He supports genetically modified foods.

Yes, I disagree with him on some things...I oppose same-sex marriage (although I favor equal rights--just not special rights). I oppose genetically modified foods (although I at least trust Nader to put safety ahead of profit, which is my main objection to GM foods). Ralph Nader is not perfect, BUT I find him unerringly honest, and while I disagree with him on some specifics, I do trust that he will always be genuine and do what he feels is right, even if it's unpopular. Furthermore, I heartily believe in voting third party in the interest of breaking up the duopoly which currently exists in US politics.

Again and again, Ralph Nader is an advocate for the little guy, and seeks to make the bigwigs be accountable. Honestly, it reminds me of the continental congress the summer that they sent George III the Declaration of Independence, and so I leave you with a quote from that same...
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

With the lesser of two evils, you still end up with evil.

Vote for someone you actually like.

If you don't vote your conscience now, when will you start?

Politics meets Religion

I'm registered as 'undeclared' in political party. If you've read any of my other political posts you know I have some pretty strong feelings about people who vote party line just because it's the party line (brainless idiots). Well, I have the same problem with people who get all hung up on one issue--like abortion, or gay marriage, or healthcare, or the environment. I'm not saying that these are not important issues, just that I don't think that any one issue can trump all the others, and it's pretty rediculous to vote like it can. I have spoken with some very intelligent people who feel that one certain issue (such as abortion) is important enough that they will look at a candidate's stance on that issue over any other. All other things being equal, ok, but what if all other things are NOT equal? No, I don't want babies to die, BUT there are children and adults dying every day because of the pathetic state of healthcare in this country, and there are soldiers dying in a war that is dragging on and on and on...so if I'm truly pro-LIFE then that should include ALL lives, not just the unborn ones...and that means I've got a foot in each of the major camps because nobody out there is commited to protecting ALL life. (I could go on about this but the more I talk about it the more upset I get so I'm going to shift gears now...)
I grew up in a liberal state and thought I was conservative. Then I moved to a conservative state and discovered I was liberal. I concluded that I must be a moderate, but of course even that is not true: I simply refuse to be bound by labels such as 'liberal' 'conservative' 'democrat' or 'republican.' Instead, I try to look at things through scripture-colored glasses. On any issue, I consider the word of God...what has He said about this? Does scripture give a stance on abortion? Yup. Does it give a stance on homosexuality? Definitely. Does it give a stance on caring for the environment? Yes. Does it give a stance on welfare? war? fiscal responsibility? Oh yes it does.
Do all these stances fall within one political party? Nope. And that is why I cannot, in good conscience, declare alignment with any existing political party.

(Darn, what if there was such a party? Could we call it the "More Right" party?!)

Some Political Thoughts...

I'm going to go ahead and delve into politics again. I don't do that very often, but sometimes writing about things helps me sort them out in my own head. I have been struggling to reach conclusions about our current presidential race, and I guess I just want to ramble about it a little.
I do not vote by party, nor do I declare affiliation with any party. I try to learn all I can about the issues and the candidates' positions, and then I vote by those. My views on things have not really changed over the years, however as I become aware of more and more issues, my preferred candidates have varied. I consider myself a moderate, although it's more accurate to say that on certain topics I'm very conservative, and on others I'm very liberal...I actually don't stand on middle ground on many issues at all...I just appear to land there because of the diversity of my other views. (If you really want to know my specific views, I'll answer questions in the comments...feel free to ask what you like.) In liberal Washington state, I voted for the most conservative guys. In conservative Utah, I was a "bleeding liberal." Alaska is an interesting place, because we appear 'conservative' on many fronts, but then we go off and legalize marijuana for personal use (yup, you can grow your own, you just can't sell it to anybody...I can see gro-lights in kitchen windows here in town). We're pro-gun and pro-oil...and also concerned about the environment, endangered animals, and climate change. Many of us run on hydro-power.
Of course, the big news this week is that my governor has been selected as McCain's vice presidential nominee. (Scribbit: Motherhood in Alaska, wrote a nice little piece about her today.) When I first heard that I (like many others) thought it was some kind of last-ditch effort to get attention away from Obama (and the timing was exquisite in that regard), but now I am seeing the wisdom in his choice. Sarah Palin was elected before we got to Alaska, and until this week I knew very little about her--just that she'd had a baby this last spring. But the more I learn of her the more I like her. If only the ticket were Palin/McCain, I would not have any trouble deciding how to vote!
If you've been reading here for long, you know that I've mentioned pro-Obama things before, and my feelings on him have not really changed--he is a rousing speaker and definitely gets me excited. I want change too! I agree with his stance on many many issues, and I don't have a problem with him being a celebrity, or being young and less-experienced...however I have begun to question his integrity, and that concerns me. McCain, on the other hand, seems quite trustworthy, and I trust that he'll do what he says...I'm just not sure how much I agree with him about what he should do!! McCain's speech last night did put my mind at ease about his positions and plans on a number of issues, although I still disagree with him on some things. Then, of course, there is always the option of voting for a third party candidate, someone like Nader (green party) who is closer to my personal convictions anyway, even though I know he won't win. With Palin on the republican ticket, there's little doubt as to which way this state will swing, so maybe I should say to heck with the big guys and use my vote instead to make a statement about what I really think of two-party politics.

Yes We Can

I have still not settled entirely on one candidate as my 'favorite' in the current electoral proceedings. I am inclined to agree with my friend Magical Mama that we need a composite candidate. But, in light of that impossibility, I continue to seek realistic options. I liked a lot of things about Romney (and his religion being the same as mine had nothing to do with it, I assure you). I see a lot of things I like in Ron Paul (and will likely be posting about him again, as I recently read something else I liked). Today, however, I want to share something I recently encountered about Barack Obama. In terms of realistic candidates, I feel pretty good about him, and this little clip just gave me warm fuzzies all over.

I was able to find a video of the original speech (in New Hampshire, on the night of their primaries). You can also read the full text of the speech, although this clip (the finale of course) is, obviously, the best part.
(and, if the video won't play correctly, here is where to go to see the original.)


This music video was created by Will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas.

Because of the overlapping of the words on the clip, it can be difficult to hear all the words. However, I was so moved by this that I transcribed it so that I wouldn't miss anything.


It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation.
Yes we can.
It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail toward freedom.
Yes we can.
It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness.
Yes we can.
It was the call of workers who organized; women who reached for the ballots; a President who chose the moon as our new frontier; and a King who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the Promised Land.
Yes we can to justice and equality.
Yes we can to opportunity and prosperity.
Yes we can heal this nation.
Yes we can repair this world.
Yes we can.
We know the battle ahead will be long, but always remember that no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change.
We want change.
We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics...they will only grow louder and more dissonant. We've been asked to pause for a reality check. We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.
Now the hopes of the little girl who goes to a crumbling school in Dillon are the same as the dreams of the boy who learns on the streets of LA; we will remember that there is something happening in America; that we are not as divided as our politics suggests; that we are one people; we are one nation; and together, we will begin the next great chapter in the American story with three words that will ring from coast to coast; from sea to shining sea: Yes we can. Yes we can. Yes we can. Yes we can.

Yes.

We.

Can.

A Candidate for Me...

So, I took another quiz
66% John Edwards
64% Hillary Clinton
60% Barack Obama
59% Tom Tancredo
58% Joe Biden
57% Chris Dodd
57% John McCain
56% Mike Huckabee
54% Bill Richardson
50% Mitt Romney
47% Dennis Kucinich
46% Mike Gravel
43% Fred Thompson
42% Rudy Giuliani
35% Ron Paul

2008 Presidential Candidate Matching Quiz

Interesting that my top three should land like that, because I watched the democratic debate with the three of them last week, and that was NOT what I thought! I saw three people with almost identical platforms, but one kept changing the subject away from himself, and tried to make the others look bad; one seemed unable to look the camera in the eye, and also changed the subject a lot; and one answered questions straight up, looked me in the eye, and said a lot of things which I agree with. So my fingers are crossed for Obama.