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.

Uno Math

Today we played a math game with Uno cards. I like Uno cards because the numbers are big and easy to see (unlike face cards), and it is just single digit numbers 0-9 (unlike Rook which goes to 14).

We were practicing numbers, so first we sorted number cards from not-number cards (sorting skills are on the list for kindergarten). We set the non-numbers (the skips, draws and wilds) aside, and played with just number cards.

I dealt out about 5 cards per person (we play open face usually because it's hard for the little guys to hold many cards in their hand), and set out a draw pile (face down) and a play pile (face up).

This game I named "Up or Down or Stay the Same."
To play, look at the card on top of the play pile. Each player may place a card that is up (one bigger), down (one smaller) or stays the same as the visible card. (Kindergarteners are supposed to practice counting both forward and backward from 10). We used the 0 card to be both 0 and 10, so the number sequence was cyclical and there were always 3 potential cards that could be played. 
We started off taking turns but soon turned to everyone just playing a card when they could. Everyone drew one more card if nobody was able to play. With a little help my not-quite 3-year-old got in on the fun too and enjoyed putting down cards.

For younger kids, you can play simply matching games, or counting only up, or play it by color rather than by numbers. An Uno deck has nearly limitless options!

Just another homeschooling day

Selected quotes from the last 30 minutes:

Me: Just a second Eagle, I will color your ears as soon as I am done cutting out Bear's brain.

Wolf: owww! you cut my fingers off! owwwwww!!!...hey look, I can grab the doorknob now.

Bear: Why is my face all bendy?

Me: Whoops buddy, your brain is sticking out of your head

What,  your house doesn't sound like this? Oh, maybe it's because you weren't making body posters and pasting up faces (and brains) because you've just started studying anatomy.

the three posters are on the door/wall/door at the end of our hall.
I couldn't get them all in one shot because it was too dark
(and too wide a frame) but you get the idea.

see the brain behind the face?

Eagle poses with his body poster. He colored that face himself.

now you get Wolf's fingers/doorknob comment, right? ☺

Turtleneck Appreciation Week

A little story

Once upon a time, there was a lovely thing called the turtleneck sweater. It was soft and stretchy, and kept people's necks warm when the weather got cool. It could roll down to cover just part of the neck in the warmer cool weather, and it could unroll for the really cold times. Everyone appreciated turtlenecks,  everyone had them, and everyone was happy.

One day, a Designer got it into his head that turtlenecks looked funny. He cut the turtlenecks off all the sweaters he could find, leaving wide collars and open necks. At first people didn't like it; their necks got cold, they had to use scarves and other extra things to stay warm enough. Where once just the simple turtleneck had been enough, now they needed accessories.

Of course this was good business for the Designers, and so one after another jumped on board with the new look. Low-cut necks! Scarves! Necklaces! What's not to love! Over time, people became so accustomed to the low-cut look that it became considered 'normal.' The rare person who did wear a turtleneck was considered old-fashioned or backward.

But some people remembered what turtlenecks were like. They remembered how soft and comfortable and warm and simple and practical they were. They went on wearing them, and tried to help others realize that the Designers were following whim and income, rather than practicality or common sense. Some people believed them, and even though the vast majority of the population had given up turtlenecks for over a century, slowly they started trying them again. Once someone tried turtlenecks, they almost always became an advocate for them, and so slowly the turtleneck-wearing population increased to nearly half.

The Designers were distraught. How could they make money on accessories if everyone went back to turtlenecks? So they devised a plan. Soon, the prestigious American Academy of Apparel authoritatively declared that turtlenecks were a relic of the past, and that all educated, forward-thinking people should avoid them at all costs.

This is why this week, turtleneck-lovers are uniting to call the American Academy of Apparel on their greedy and unethical behavior.  

Today, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a statement supporting the routine circumcision of infant males. This flies in the face of ALL competent medical research in the area. No other medical organization in any country recommends routine circumcision. The AAP is motivated by their pocketbooks, not their ethics. (Frankly, the fact that they would make such a statement leaves me with the conclusion that I dare not trust their advice in any area.)

Dr. Bob Block, the current president of the AAP, proudly proclaims “AAP ROCKS” on his open hands in his profile picture on Twitter. In response,  human rights advocates everywhere are protesting him and the AAP by writing our thoughts on our hands and sharing them across the internet (as well writing numerous letters and emails of course). We are "washing our hands of the AAP," and showing the world exactly what we think of the American Academy of Pediatrics and their infant circumcision policy.

Finding the Way

We are visiting family in another state right now. Thanks to several weeks away from home at this point, my kids' routines (especially their sleep patterns) are all out of whack. This afternoon we went to church with my sister in law and her family, but Bear (5) and Eagle (2) were really tired, and since mormon church lasts 3 hours, I decided to bring them home in the middle, so that they could get naps.
My sister in law offered to drive us home (we had all come in one car), but it is only a few blocks, so I said no, we would walk home.
On the way  home, Bear got several yards ahead of me (I was walking with Eagle at a slower pace). It's a residential area, with very little traffic, and I wasn't worried about him being quite a ways ahead of me, however he glanced back and saw how far apart we were and came running back.
"I was scared" he said. Scared of being too far ahead of me. Scared of going the wrong direction, because he didn't know how to find his aunt's house.

"It's ok," I assured him, "if you start to go the wrong way I will call out to you to come back to the right way."
"But mom, what if I get too far away and I can't hear or see you?"
"Then I will come looking for you until I find you."
"But mom, what if I am so far away that you can't find me!?"

I thought of the broader life implications as I answered that one. Beyond the few blocks walk back to his aunt's house, I know there will be times in his life (as there all in all our lives) when he feels lost, when he wants or needs direction from someone else. I hope that I can be someone he trusts for that direction, but I also know that there will be times when I cannot be the one he turns to.
So what did I tell him?
I told him that most of the people he will meet in the world are good people. I told him that if he can't find me, and doesn't know what to do, that he can ask someone else and they will help him.
And I believe that that applies more broadly than just our walk home too. There are so many sources of direction (good direction) and help. Sometimes it may be a parent or teacher or neighbor, but sometimes it might also come from a stranger. I have been inspired and directed by things I've read that were written by people I certainly don't know personally, and yet they have affected my life in significant ways. Obviously, we can also find direction and inspiration directly from Deity.
It's nice to have someone to hold hands with. On the other hand, even when there is nobody close enough to hold hands, there is still always someone (or Someone) who can help you find the way.

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.

Happy Mother's Day

In the heavens are parents single? 

No, the thought makes reason stare. 

Truth is reason 

Truth eternal tells me

A year or so ago I wrote about my experiences with coming to know Mother in Heaven. Several people subsequently came to me telling me that they had similar feelings or experiences. Others came to me with a different message. "She is sacred," they said, "we should not talk about Her, at least not in public ways. She is too special. It is not appropriate to spread pearls before swine."

Humor me for a moment. Think of a mother that you know. Any mother, but preferably a mother with a lot of kids. Does she consider any of them to be swine? (aside from those little moments when they won't clean up their room or neglect to use a fork...) Would she want them to not know who she was? How about this scenario: some of them get to know her but some of them don't.
Can you think of ANY mother who feels that way about her children?

Speaking as a mother, as someone who knows many other mothers, I cannot.

I believe that our Mother in Heaven is there, is important, and wants us to know Her and know about Her and seek Her just as we do our Father and Brother. I believe that patriarchal cultural norms (including centuries of misogyny) have hidden Mother from many of Her children, but neither She NOR FATHER have ever wanted Her to be hidden from her children. That was and is and continues to be an entirely man-made construct.

While the rampant communication of the digital era has allowed rumors and misinformation to spread, and even allowed sacred things (that should be kept private) to be shouted from the rooftops, it has also facilitated the teaching of important truths to the world. The knowledge of Mother is a plain and precious thing, something that instantly and instinctively feels true to many when they hear it. Some people will reject it, because it us unfamiliar and belief persistence is a powerful thing. But I categorically reject the notion that we should keep this knowledge to ourselves. Mother matters, just as surely as motherhood or women themselves matter. To say otherwise is to practice benevolent sexism.

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.

I can see clearly now...

Nine years ago I went in for a routine eye exam and came out with a very mild prescription (+0.50 in one eye and +0.25 in the other...). They said I had very good vision, but with a slight astigmatism, and that it would probably get in the way for when I was trying to see details on things, like reading or computer work.
Initially I didn't even get the glasses made, but then I thought of my coming quarter of school (three English classes plus working as a seamstress) and decided to go ahead and get them. I picked out some slender, silver, wire-framed glasses with a "preppy" look that were as invisible as possible on my face. Sure enough, when I spent consecutive hours doing close work, I felt eye strain and the glasses really helped.

Once I was out of school, I put the glasses in their case, and rarely used them. Occasionally (when I was tired, or working at something for many hours) I'd get them out. After several years of marriage my husband came home and saw me with the glasses and stopped dead in his tracks "You have glasses?!" Mmmm, yep, got them before we even met... but that just goes to show how rarely I wore them!

Fast-forward to a few months ago when I started grad school. Textbooks and lots of papers to write led me to get out my glasses on a regular basis. And I started to notice that I needed them, not just that they helped, but that I actually couldn't read or work at the computer very well without them. I noticed that captions on movies were fuzzy, I couldn't read them from across the room. (It's a big shift from the 20/15 vision I had at 10 years old.) Wolf has braces, so every couple of months Hubby or I needs to take him into Anchorage for his next appointment. Last week was my [first] turn, and so I made an eye appointment while I was in town. When we got into town the first night, we got into the rental car and I went to pull out of the parking lot and realized I couldn't read the signs and thought "whoa, I need my glasses for driving!" so I stopped and put them on. The next morning, on the way to the appointment, I grabbed my glasses, but promptly had to stop and take them off because my depth perception was all funky with them on.

The doctor did the exam and said "well, you're farsighted with an astigmatism, so you'll probably notice most when you're looking at close range, such as reading, or when there is glare, such as a computer screen or driving at night." Oh my, this guy was good. "And if you try to wear them just walking around the house, you'll probably stumble because it'll throw off your depth perception."
I guess I wasn't crazy after all.

So I have new glasses. My prescription is up just a smidge (now +0.50 in both eyes), and this time I got hefty plastic frames with no nose pieces and scratch-resistance, so they're a little more practical for someone who routinely has children climbing on her...

Lights in the Darkness

Winter in the arctic is long and dark. Actually we are coming out of it now (only a couple of weeks left until equinox), but in exchange, we get something that you in lighter parts of the world do not:

The Aurora

in spite of the variety of colors I see in other photos, ours here are pretty much just green

but I did take these photos from my living room

unfortunately the video I froze my tooshie off to get just shows darkness...
with a lot of me whispering "they're so bright!"

There is actually another thing that lights up the dark days:

and they're even multi-colored!