Why I lean ever-so-slightly to the left

I'm not an extraordinarily opinionated person. In fact, I pride myself quite a bit on being able to see issues from different viewpoints, and understand the benefits of different courses of action. However, through the course of this 2012 election, I've come to realize that although I will probably forever be an independent, I lean just slightly to the democratic side of the issues. And here's my reasoning, accept or reject it as you may:

The separation of church and state and the freedom of religion is sort of the basis of it all. This, to me, is sort of the social version of the Christian idea of free agency - the ability/right to make decisions on our own and to suffer the consequences. The beliefs of others, for the most part, I feel shouldn't be imposed upon me, and mine shouldn't be imposed upon others. This holds up as long as their beliefs don't put me in any kind of immediate danger (or "clear and present danger," to borrow lingo from a supreme court case about the limitations of freedom of speech). To use the traditional example, falsely yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater causing a panic is an example of the limitation of the freedom of speech because it puts people in a clear and present danger of being trampled.

So many of my (still-forming) beliefs on the social issues (doesn't apply so much to the economic ones) are based on this idea: just because I believe something doesn't mean we should pass legislation that imposes that beliefs universally. Take abortion for example. I'm not a supporter of abortion. I not only think it has some pretty heavy spiritual ramifications, but I've spoken with a few women who have had one (not a great sample, I know) and it has some pretty heavy permanent emotional ramifications as well. But I can't use that as an excuse to forbid someone from making their own decision, especially since the story gets all hairy when it comes to rape and incest. (It's not okay to kill babies except when in instances of rape or incest? If your main objection to abortion is that it is killing babies, why would it ever be okay to kill babies?) And as a side note, why is it opposers of abortion are also so heavily in favor of the death penalty?

It's the same idea behind the freedom of speech. I'm not a person who enjoys that there are picketers outside of temple square every six months to make a mockery of what I believe to be the truth. But they have every right to be there. The fact that they are there simply reminds me that we are so free in this country that we don't have to worry about getting in trouble for expressing our beliefs. Sort of the "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" thing.

So, for example, I hate pornography. I think it does so much damage to this world, to families, the individuals, to relationships, and to spirit. But I don't think it should be outlawed. It is protected under the same freedom of speech that guarantees we never have to worry about being publicly executed for expressing our opinions. And no one is being forced to look at it, to boot. (This is not a political example, since I don't think anyone is hoping to ban pornography.)

Economically, I know that through this election the candidates (especially Mitt Romney) have been addressing the "entitlement nation," those who have come to rely on the government for their sustainability and are not making the jump to self-sustainability despite being fully capable of doing so. To get rid of entitlement programs, in my mind, is to throw the baby out with the bath water. Universal health care adds coverage to SO many new people who previously could either not afford it or not receive the benefits of health insurance coverage due to previously existing conditions, that it more than negates the bad that may come from it.

Anyway, I'm sure I could continue but I've waxed boring enough for one day. This is not me saying that I have no room for being convinced otherwise (an ailment that I see as being the biggest culprit of government inaction today -- stubbornness and pride) or that new facts coming to light wouldn't completely change my mind. I also have completely left out things I agree with the right about, and I wholly admit that I don't know enough about economics to know what is the "right" course of action. (Actually I think it's foolish to think there is one "right" course of action, especially when it comes to politics. There is and always will be an argument on the other side that makes completely valid points and brings the issue to a standstill. And as a side note, I would rather test out someone's hypothesis and see where it goes and then make corrections rather than not do anything while people in congress argue about it. This is why I don't really care who wins today's election: Mitt Romney changes everything put in place in the past four years and it works out great? Awesome! It doesn't? Then we know better which course of action to take. Obama gets another four years and his policies have time to take effect and they work? Awesome! If not, then we get a new person who will have a more clear idea of how to fix problems. And although the meantime may be painful while working out the kinks, I still think this would solve the problems faster than bickering and blocking in congress does.)

Anyway, this is where I stand for now, slightly leaning to the left. And now it may make more sense (and give more meaning to) when a democrat says they stand for freedom.

I'm sorry, but...

1. "Separation of church and state," I believe, is very much NOT the same thing as "separation of religion/religious values and The United States of America." Check your context and stop taking everything so literally, people.

2. Even if "separation of church and state" DID mean a separation of religious values and the U.S., it cannot be used as an argument against Prop 8!;If you want so desperately to separate church and state, how can you argue that a church-instituted ceremony like marriage must necessarily be allowed to those not affiliated with the church? They're separate, remember? Keep church things in the church, right? I guess only when it's convenient? To me it's like saying that it is wrong to only allow baptism to those who believe in the church they are being baptized into. Or only allowing worthy LDS members to enter the temple.

3. Something is seriously wrong when the opinion of one person can overturn the majority opinion of millions of people. This whole overturning decisions thing is also the very reason things happened in my family the way they did, and why people I know are in prison for things they didn't do because a judge somewhere with little experience in the case based a single-blow K.O. decision on unsubstantiated evidence.

Here's a Washington Post opinion article about it

K, it's out of my system now. Time to go boating.

Rants

It's probably not a good practice to not write in my blog for almost 3 months, and then have my first post in such a long time be complaining.

I was going to complain about how chick flicks make dating more difficult for guys, but I think I'll let Matt do that since I'm sure he can be much more elaborate than I.

I did, however, just catch myself up on the whole Max Hall controversy thing, including watching his press conference and reading the apology statement issued earlier tonight. It all started from seeing a Facebook group called "Max Hall is classless."

My take:
Hall was frustrated from the things that Utah fans did to his family last year. He's understandably upset and was (probably wrongfully) using the press conference to vent his anger.

That being said, I've heard so many things about incidents started/perpetuated by Utah fans that I can't believe it is just a coincidence. I know BYU fans do/say things out of line (believe me, sitting in the west seats during the 2007 BYU - Utah game was enough for me to be disappointed with even the elderly BYU fans...). But ripping out goal posts at the opponents field? C'mon Utah.

Also, the language used on the Facebook page by the Utah fans isn't really helping their case against Hall's remarks. And not that it's related, but their language isn't helping me gain a respect for their academics either, especially when I see Utah fans using words like "unsincere." (by more than one person...)

Oh well. I thank Utah for a great game Saturday. It was a lot of fun to be at. I'm done complaining about this.

A push towards the middle

It's been too long since I've posted. Sorry. I don't know who I'm apologizing to, since I don't think anyone actually reads this...

So I've been watching a lot of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (quite left-wing, but rational about it all) and The Colbert Report (also left-wing but pretends to be right-wing in order to maintain an agenda of sarcastic humor) in the past few months. I think it has slowly started to make me drift from dead center on my political viewpoint to slightly to the left.

But last night I was watching The Daily Show and actually watched Jon interview his guest (I usually skip over it, but didn't this time) Newt Gingrich. I realized that there really isn't much "truth" in politics, meaning that people are rarely right or wrong. They just have stronger or weaker opinions, and are better or worse at debating them. Jon Stewart usually does a great job debating, but last night good 'ol Newt held his own really well. I'd say he won the debate. But I wouldn't say he was right. Or wrong. Just better at debating.

It reminds me a little bit of the law system. Then again I might just be thinking of The Fugitive we watched last week, where the guy was innocent but "proven" guilty, and the cop was all "he was found guilty in a court of LAW... the guy's guilty" or something along those lines.

Anyway, this all made more sense to me last night when I was watching it. Of course I was falling asleep at the time. Good news though: not only can you text Facebook to update your status, but if you say "note" first, it'll add a note instead of update your status. (As I found out this morning when I had a new note that said "to self: "A push towards the middle.") I wonder what else you can do through text to Facebook.

Hodgepodge

So I started this little collection of random thoughts a few weeks ago, and just realized I haven't been adding much to it, so I thought I'd just finally post it.

Answers to my own questions:
Where in the world is Carmen San Diego? Isn't the answer right there in front of you? San Diego! (Yes, I know that's just her name, but play along...)

How often do I ever answer my own questions? During prayer? During reflection? During self-evaluation? When is the answer right in front of my face? If we're really looking for it that hard, why can't we find it when it's so obvious?

Universalities
There are no hard-and-fast rules to practically anything! Name the rule, someone could probably name the exception.

Nike gives good advice when they say "just do it." It's harder than it sounds, but I guess that's what Nike's all about.

People (myself DEFINITELY included) need to lighten up and just enjoy things and learn to be empathetic. I should lose the sarcasm and learn to listen to people effectively.

Politicians are in a prime position to use superordinate goals to unite all people trying to make this country better, but instead they bicker and whine and thereby accomplish only a fraction of what they could. Compromise is a much less desirable conflict resolution method than using superordinate goals to accomplish a common goal.

In tolerance

If you can think of what movie/TV show has a line about being so famous, you're IN famous (as a description of that infamous means) the you get 100 points and my respect, because I can't remember what it's from.

Anyway, my story begins as such: I was watching the Super Bowl and saw an awesome ad saying that Denny's will be giving out free breakfast to every American on Tuesday February 3rd. (Today). So we got a big group all excited to go (at least 12 or 13 people said they'd show up at out apartment at 7 am, 0 of whom followed through, meaning at 12 or 13 who completely bailed/flaked out.), I set my alarm for 6:45 (and 6:47 and 6:50 because I know myself and my snooze is 5 minutes), and when I woke up we heard that the line around Denny's (not IN Denny's, but AROUND it) was way too long to be worth it. Grrr. I'll live. I made my own pancakes and eggs and toast and OJ and called it my own free mini slam breakfast. I'm over it.

In my grief I set my status on Facebook to: "Bob is a little mad at Denny's for their super duper long line today and ruining our plans. Crappy free breakfast promise: curse you!" Someone commented saying "And this is just a glimpse of what life would be like if we had 'free' healthcare! AAARRRRGGHHHH!"

...

For a long time I was confused about why I seem to be one of a few who doesn't have really strong political opinions. I kept thinking that I must not be as educated, or perhaps not as involved as other people. Recently I've realized I'm just more of a "white" personality. (Not Caucasian. Refer to The Color Code to know what I really mean.) I'm a peacekeeper. I see all sides to practically everything. There are still things that I'm stubborn about, but deep down I can usually see why people believe what they believe.

I think rather than pushing our views onto people, we should try to understand where others come from. That sounds cliché, but whatever. We need tolerance in the world, not dramatic debates.

You're never going to find a policy (outside of the gospel) that can satisfy everyone. Free national healthcare? Interesting how it's mostly the wealthy that are against it and the poor that are for it. So maybe the woman who posted the comment to my status doesn't want there to be "long lines" in order for her to get health care. When's the last time she had to stand in line at a soup kitchen to get free food? She doesn't need to because she can pay for it otherwise. It seems ridiculous to her to need to wait for the throngs in order to get medical help. What if she couldn't afford it otherwise? I bet her opinion would change. Seems to me like pushing political theory will always hurt some and help some. So get off your high horse if you think you've got the "right opinion." You'll almost always notice me get an uncomfortable look when I'm around people who talk politics, partly because I don't know what they're talking about, partly because I don't care, and mostly because I play devil's advocate with them in my head and resolve to believing they think they're more right than they actually are.

Intolerance can be acceptable I think, notably when the intolerance is directed at a person/group being intolerant. (Nazi Germany is the first that comes to mind.) The Savior being intolerant of the moneychangers in the temple is another example. It's not a sin to be intolerant of sin. (For our everyday purposes, however, it may be a sin to be intolerant of a sinner. Excommunication/disfellowship(ment?) is meant to help the individual in the process to repentance, not as a punishment.)

Anyway, we should learn to be so tolerant that we're "IN tolerance" :-) I.e. tolerance surrounds us in such a way that we can accept what happens in life with a smile and an understanding that what doesn't kill us just makes us stronger. (If not physically, then at least metaphorically.)

Suggestions from a white personality with very limited experience:

• Put yourself in someone else's shoes.
• Don't be quick to judge.

• Try to do someone else's homework at least once (not as service, but as a humbling activity for yourself).
• Every time you find a bad quality in someone, match it with at least one equally-weighted good quality.
• Only poke fun at people you know would feel comfortable poking fun at you.
• Don't say "poke fun" in public. It's an annoying phrase. While you're at it, don't say the word "utilize" either. Ironically enough, the word "utilize" is useless. Just say "use." :-)
• Don't be judgmental of those who DO say "poke fun" or "utilize."

Yeah, I know I don't have much good advice. I suppose they're really just a few of the guidelines that I try to live by in general. Whatever. Leave your thoughts, cause I often like them more than my own.

Flaws in the gay rights movement

I'm really not a politically inclined person, so I'm not sure where this is coming from. Actually, it's coming from my roommate who has been watching all the outrage coming from the passing of Prop 8.

I love the ability to protest. Even if it's against the church. I love that our Bill of Rights allows us freedom of speech. I don't dislike the people who protest the passing of prop 8 outside of LDS churches, just as I don't dislike people who protest the church. I do, however, see oh-so-many problems with the arguments they present.

I'm a bigot? I think the gay rights movement is interesting, in that it persecutes me for my beliefs. In all the ruckus over respecting one's beliefs (in allowing gay marriage), mine are being ridiculed! I'm not sure how that makes sense, but oh well.

A loving God? Let's not confuse a loving God with an apathetic God. Referring to God's opinion on the matter, I heard a protestor say "I don't think a loving God would care." That seems to me like saying a that a loving parent wouldn't be concerned over their child's decision to be gay. In fact, that's a weak comparison tailored to those who don't consider homosexuality a sin. To me, its more like saying a loving parent wouldn't care if their child was blindly crossing an eight-lane highway.

A condition or a choice? I don't get how the argument for homosexuality is allowed to change depending on convenience. I taught someone on my mission who was gay, and in a conversation we had with him (it was civil; there was no arguing, just serious discussing) he brought up the fact that people should respect the choice he has made. Later, in a discussion about whether homosexuality is even scientifically founded, (why would an organism ignore the instinct to reproduce it has had for millennea?) he mentioned that it was something he was born with and couldn't help. I don't get it. Arguments that change based on convenience are not on solid ground.

An inalienable right? When did marriage become an inalienable right? I thought marriage was a religious institution specifically designed to be the unification of a man and a woman. To me, saying marriage is an inalienable right is like saying that performing ordinances in the temple is an inalienable right. No! They should only be done under the right conditions. How come we feel like we need to change God's ways to fit our society? To me, saying marriage is an inalienable right (rather than a God-given right) actually diminishes its importance. In my eyes, at least.

Also, I just found out that straight people legally can't enter into a domestic partnership. Shouldn't I be upset about this "inalienable right" being taken from me?

The Mormons did it? Why is it that when a member of the LDS church does something, their religious affiliation is so public? How come you never hear "So-and-so, a member of the local Catholic church, opened the new store on Center street" or "local Lutheran man commits such-and-such a crime."

It's always the Mormons fault. Amidst of a group of over 7 million people who voted Yes on 8, single out the Mormons because their church doesn't believe in gay marriage. What Christian churches DO believe in gay marriage? I think Sodom and Gomorrah has been completely forgotten.

The Courage Campaign (anti-prop 8) has a video showing two members of the campaign trying to get a petition of 17,000 names to "the Prophet-President Monson." (They are filming in California, so I'm not sure how they planned on getting the petition to him. They were just being dramatic.) Just an interesting fact.

A majority vote? This kinda goes with the last one. You can question the constitutionality of passing Proposition 8, but you can't question the fact that a majority of the voters in California don't want to legalize gay marriage. I'm not sure what appealing to the courts will do, but I guess you never know.

Another double standard. It's alright for a gay person to not believe in God, but its not alright for a God-fearing (loving? I always thought it was funny those two meant about the same thing) person to not believe in gay people. A loving God DOES care about the life-altering decisions His children make, and when they go in a path that directly opposes the path he has laid out in the Plan of Salvation he is saddened. He is NOT any less loving because of it, and he is most certainly not apathetic.

It's alright for gay people to express their beliefs, but not alright for church-goers to express their beliefs. Suddenly it becomes a separation-of-church-and-state issue.

It's alright for gays to raise money against Prop 8, but not okay for anyone else to raise money for Prop 8.

It's alright to be gay, but not alright to be against it. Then you're homophobic.

There's too many to list in totality, I'm sure. I guess blogs really do work in forming my thoughts as of late into something coherent. Maybe then when I forget stuff (which takes me no more than 8 hours to completely reset my memory; that's how poor my short-term memory is!) I can look back and see again just why I resent being called a bigot for my beliefs. If my beliefs included physically harming others (like the KKK or the Nazis) I would understand being called a bigot. Fortunately they don't.

Double Standard-22

Oh my.

I love how people create their own ideas of "normal" and then virally expect others to obey them. And by "love" I mean "thinks it's funny how." As if this expectation weren't ridiculous enough, people then go about making exceptions to every rule and expect everyone to obey.

Political. The concept of double standards has been brewing in my head for quite some time, but today it was spurred by the elections. The most recent anti-Obama video I watched must have pushed my double standard-o-meter to overflowing levels, forcing me to sop up the remainder with this new blog acting as my electronic Bounty paper towels.

In politics, I adhere to the "moderation in all things" philosophy. I'll admit to being a fence sitter. I can see the benefit to both right and left thinking, and honestly I believe the country will survive either way. I do NOT appreciate fanaticism that ridicules someone who thinks differently. All democrats are uneducated liberal kooks who don't know reality? Obviously you've never met my mother. Bashing President Bush's policies? By all means, you do a better job! The fact is we've made the President's job an impossible job to accomplish by abdicating all personal responsibility to the government anyway.

That was my digression. I was thinking specifically about the double standard between Clinton and McCain. How come Clinton is ostracized for extra-marital affairs whereas John McCain's affair is shoved under the carpet? I don't think they should be overlooked- I think both are acts unbecoming of someone I want to govern my homeland. I guess I just feel like I need to level playing fields sometimes, especially when all I get from people around here is anti-Obama stuff. I don't really trust Obama or McCain. I'm just sayin'.

Less Political. There are so many double standards between guys and girls! Guys can't call a girl hot. That's chauvinistic. Somehow, at the same time, girls can't put emphasis on a guys looks, but girls have to do everything they can to look as attractive as possible.

A strange thought: girls can wear guys clothes, guys can't wear girls clothes. Again, I don't want to. I'm just sayin'.

There's so many more. I just can't stay focused. I'm going to an elections party or two.