I have a friend that lives in the U.S. on a student visa. She is from Pakistan. The other day she told me how much she loves America. She loves it because no matter what titles each individual may have, he identifies himself as an American above all else. He may be Lutheran or Mormon, African American or Hispanic, republican or democrat, but despite all of those titles he is an American first and foremost. Despite all our differences, there is at least one thing that unites us. And that one thing--that one title--we share reminds us that we are in this together.
After our conversation, I wondered why we don't feel the same about our membership in humanity. Why are we not able to transcend all our titles and realize that we are human. Why are we unable to see that despite being gay or straight, black or white, poor or rich, American or Iranian, we are human above all else? Why do our differences keep us from acknowledging our similarities?
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Just Something to Ponder
Why should the man who inherits the capacity to learn to steer rockets through space earn a higher income than the man who is born with the capacity to drive buses? Are justice and equity any better served when rewards are distributed according to inherited genes rather than inherited dollars?
Friday, October 1, 2010
Are Todays Better than Yesterdays?
In an era when we are obsessed with technology and instant gratification, are we setting ourselves up for greater disappointment? Our advancement and innovative progress has been the topic of discussion before. It can be debated both ways...that this progress is both a gift and a detriment to our society.
I hear my parents and grandparents complain all the time about how crazy kids are these days and how nobody has morals anymore. I tell people that I would have loved to grow up and live in the 1950's or 60's because times were better, easier, simpler. All of this I believe to be true; it was simpler. However, the more I think about it, the more I realize they weren't any different at all. Just like today, they made mistakes; they disappointed people they loved and hurt those they didn't.
It only seems that today is worse than yesterday because all our misgivings are out there in the open for everyone to see. It is highly likely that Presidents have been cheating on their wives since the days of Washington and Martha. It just happens that our increased dependency on media, and therefore scandal, exposed Bill Clinton. The ability to be satisfied through one partner for an entire lifetime was just as difficult one hundred years ago as it is today. Unfortunately, the web of connections through Facebook, Twitter, and text messages makes it almost impossible for your wife to hide her passionate connection with someone else. Your boss knows you had an interview last week with your firm's biggest competition. Your mother knows you lied to her about sneaking out after your curfew. It is easier to find the betrayal and unfaithfulness, discovering your fear is more than misplaced intuition.
Over the centuries, we haven't devolved. We're still as human as we ever were. The only difference is that people now know the truth. Do think this is better or worse? I believe ignorance IS bliss. A century ago, we may have been living falsehoods and facades, but people were happy.
I hear my parents and grandparents complain all the time about how crazy kids are these days and how nobody has morals anymore. I tell people that I would have loved to grow up and live in the 1950's or 60's because times were better, easier, simpler. All of this I believe to be true; it was simpler. However, the more I think about it, the more I realize they weren't any different at all. Just like today, they made mistakes; they disappointed people they loved and hurt those they didn't.
It only seems that today is worse than yesterday because all our misgivings are out there in the open for everyone to see. It is highly likely that Presidents have been cheating on their wives since the days of Washington and Martha. It just happens that our increased dependency on media, and therefore scandal, exposed Bill Clinton. The ability to be satisfied through one partner for an entire lifetime was just as difficult one hundred years ago as it is today. Unfortunately, the web of connections through Facebook, Twitter, and text messages makes it almost impossible for your wife to hide her passionate connection with someone else. Your boss knows you had an interview last week with your firm's biggest competition. Your mother knows you lied to her about sneaking out after your curfew. It is easier to find the betrayal and unfaithfulness, discovering your fear is more than misplaced intuition.
Over the centuries, we haven't devolved. We're still as human as we ever were. The only difference is that people now know the truth. Do think this is better or worse? I believe ignorance IS bliss. A century ago, we may have been living falsehoods and facades, but people were happy.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Romans 15:7
Before church on Sunday I engaged in a brief discussion with a woman whom I hadn't met previously. Our conversation was very ordinary. I asked all the usual questions, "Where are you from? What brought you here? Early service or late?" And She asked me all the usual questions, "How long have you been here? What are you studying? Where do you work?" When I responded, "I work in Governor O'Malley's Press Office," she grimaced and said, "Oh we want Ehrlich to win don't we?" (For those of you who do not live in Maryland, Ehrlich is O'Malley's Republican challenger.)
I said no and she peered at me and said so judgmentally, "Well your a conservative aren't you?" as if I wasn't, I somehow didn't belong in the church, or any house of God for that matter. She looked at me as if I was helping the enemy. In this case--in this particular house of God--the enemy simply wasn't a man with opposing ideals or different solutions...he was the devil and depending on how I answered her question, I was his little minion of American destruction.
Usually I pride myself in my beliefs and strong stances on issues, but this lady looked at me with such disdain that it took a good amount of courage to tell her that no, I was in fact not a Conservative and yes, I was still sitting in what seemed apparently to be HER house of God.
She walked away without saying anything more to me. She never got the opportunity to know that I'm conservative on several issues. She will never know that I also have worked for a Republican Governor in Utah. She will never know that I am working in politics not to accumulate power, but to distribute it to those that have none. I'm working in politics not to implement my rules and customs, but to find the solutions to our largest problems whether they come from a Republican or Democratic ideal.
We may be a predominately Christian society but that does not mean that we must force our customs onto those who don't believe in their sanctity. If our country was predominantly Jewish would it be alright to construct a law outlawing the consumption of Pork? If we were a predominantly Muslim country would we be forced to fast during Ramadan?
I am a Democratic Lutheran and as part of the Christian population of America, I wish I could say with confidence that we are an accepting majority. Until we can learn to accept our differences--Liberal or conservative, Baptist or Catholic, Man or Woman, Latino or Native American--we will never be able to harness the strength of our diversity, the strength that the forefathers foresaw in creating a free and accepting nation.
Romans 15:7 Accept One Another, then, just as Christ has accepted you...
I said no and she peered at me and said so judgmentally, "Well your a conservative aren't you?" as if I wasn't, I somehow didn't belong in the church, or any house of God for that matter. She looked at me as if I was helping the enemy. In this case--in this particular house of God--the enemy simply wasn't a man with opposing ideals or different solutions...he was the devil and depending on how I answered her question, I was his little minion of American destruction.
Usually I pride myself in my beliefs and strong stances on issues, but this lady looked at me with such disdain that it took a good amount of courage to tell her that no, I was in fact not a Conservative and yes, I was still sitting in what seemed apparently to be HER house of God.
She walked away without saying anything more to me. She never got the opportunity to know that I'm conservative on several issues. She will never know that I also have worked for a Republican Governor in Utah. She will never know that I am working in politics not to accumulate power, but to distribute it to those that have none. I'm working in politics not to implement my rules and customs, but to find the solutions to our largest problems whether they come from a Republican or Democratic ideal.
We may be a predominately Christian society but that does not mean that we must force our customs onto those who don't believe in their sanctity. If our country was predominantly Jewish would it be alright to construct a law outlawing the consumption of Pork? If we were a predominantly Muslim country would we be forced to fast during Ramadan?
I am a Democratic Lutheran and as part of the Christian population of America, I wish I could say with confidence that we are an accepting majority. Until we can learn to accept our differences--Liberal or conservative, Baptist or Catholic, Man or Woman, Latino or Native American--we will never be able to harness the strength of our diversity, the strength that the forefathers foresaw in creating a free and accepting nation.
Romans 15:7 Accept One Another, then, just as Christ has accepted you...
Friday, August 20, 2010
Where's the Sun?
The other day I realized that I am a person who participates in the same game over and over again, no matter how many times I fail. Unfortunately, I doubt if I am the only person who does this. We are all caught in a pattern of some kind: dating the same men, transferring to one job to another only to find out you have the same responsibilities, giving that friend another chance only to end in the same betrayal, following a daily routine we could do with our eyes shut...basically, continually making the same mistakes.
Why is it so hard to break these patterns even when we recognize them? Are we trying to hold onto a piece of our past because we're afraid of the unknown? Do we refuse to change directions because we can't accept defeat?
We are taught to never give up. If we accept the fact that something is wrong--that we don't like our job, that we fall in love with the wrong men, that we choose the wrong friends, that we can't seem to do anything outside our comfort zone--I think deep down a part of us feels as if we are giving up on the element we have pursued for so long. Is there ever a time to give up? If so, when? How long do we struggle before we decide it's not worth the fight.
I feel like I am in a grove of trees and they keep growing thicker and thicker. I crawl through the branches and cut down the weeds in front of me. I feel like any second I'm going to reach the other side; any second, and I'll be out. But it's been so long since I've seen the sun. Is it time to turn around and find a different way through? I think to myself, "I've struggled this far; it can't all be a waste of time...this path has to go somewhere."
I think the hope of reaching the other side keeps us from turning around. Maybe sometimes, going forward requires accepting defeat and starting over.
Why is it so hard to break these patterns even when we recognize them? Are we trying to hold onto a piece of our past because we're afraid of the unknown? Do we refuse to change directions because we can't accept defeat?
We are taught to never give up. If we accept the fact that something is wrong--that we don't like our job, that we fall in love with the wrong men, that we choose the wrong friends, that we can't seem to do anything outside our comfort zone--I think deep down a part of us feels as if we are giving up on the element we have pursued for so long. Is there ever a time to give up? If so, when? How long do we struggle before we decide it's not worth the fight.
I feel like I am in a grove of trees and they keep growing thicker and thicker. I crawl through the branches and cut down the weeds in front of me. I feel like any second I'm going to reach the other side; any second, and I'll be out. But it's been so long since I've seen the sun. Is it time to turn around and find a different way through? I think to myself, "I've struggled this far; it can't all be a waste of time...this path has to go somewhere."
I think the hope of reaching the other side keeps us from turning around. Maybe sometimes, going forward requires accepting defeat and starting over.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
The National Christmas Tree Lighting
A little while ago, I went to the National Christmas Tree Lighting at the White House. My mom and I were able to win four tickets so I was able to share the experience with my mother as well as some of my new Maryland friends. It was beautiful. The holiday music and decorations definitely signaled the beginning of Christmas. Plus, I was able to share the moment with people I dearly cherish in my life. 
Someone told me recently that moments don't really mean anything unless you live them in consideration to the future. For instance, a kiss is only a kiss. It means something greater when the person your sharing the kiss with becomes your future. I understand this philosophy. When I look back at my own memories, the ones I remember most are those moments which had significant impact on my future: the birth of my little sister, the first time a boy said he liked me, my first job, my best childhood friend. However, I still hold that moments are what makes living worth while whether those seconds or minutes are held in respect to the future or not.
Those listed above are only some of my most significant memories, but the bulk of my memories consists of moments which are only that...only moments: my 21st birthday I spent in Las Vegas, my senior prom, the time my dad caught me sneaking out of the house, the first time I played spin the bottle. At the time, these moments had nothing to do with my future whatsoever, but all of them played a part in making me the woman I am today.
I had to skip one of my graduate classes in order to attend the Christmas Tree Lighting. I could have decided not to go because attending class is has more of a significant impact on my future. But what will I remember ten years from now: that night with my friends watching president Obama turn on the Christmas tree or sitting in a classroom discussing the ethics of public policy?
Someone told me recently that moments don't really mean anything unless you live them in consideration to the future. For instance, a kiss is only a kiss. It means something greater when the person your sharing the kiss with becomes your future. I understand this philosophy. When I look back at my own memories, the ones I remember most are those moments which had significant impact on my future: the birth of my little sister, the first time a boy said he liked me, my first job, my best childhood friend. However, I still hold that moments are what makes living worth while whether those seconds or minutes are held in respect to the future or not.
Those listed above are only some of my most significant memories, but the bulk of my memories consists of moments which are only that...only moments: my 21st birthday I spent in Las Vegas, my senior prom, the time my dad caught me sneaking out of the house, the first time I played spin the bottle. At the time, these moments had nothing to do with my future whatsoever, but all of them played a part in making me the woman I am today.
I had to skip one of my graduate classes in order to attend the Christmas Tree Lighting. I could have decided not to go because attending class is has more of a significant impact on my future. But what will I remember ten years from now: that night with my friends watching president Obama turn on the Christmas tree or sitting in a classroom discussing the ethics of public policy?
The moral of this story is....you should not always choose your moments by considering which will be more influential for your future. Sometimes you should live just for that moment despite its possible insignificance. The moment may be all we have.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Election 2009: America Favors the Alternative
Since last night, news sources have been telling us that the real loser in yesterday's elections was President Obama. They have been telling us that citizens voted in opposition to the Democratic Party in order to exemplify their disappointment over the lack of "change" and societal advancement since Democrats won the White House a year ago. In opposition, I do not believe that the elections were a referendum on President Obama. Instead, I believe the election results are illustrative of a general rejection of authority altogether--a trend that has gradually been developing over the last few years. We not only saw previously Democratic constituencies favor the Republican, but we also witnessed historically Republican precincts voting for the Democratic candidate.
In New Jersey, Republican Chris Christie won the race for Governor. A Republican has not won a statewide race in New Jersey since 1997. In Virginia, McDonnell, also Republican, won the gubernatorial election. McDonnell beat his Democratic opponent, Creigh Deeds, by almost 20% in a state where Democrats have won control of the office 5 out of the last 7 races.
On the flip side, in upstate New York, Democrat Bill Owens won the 23rd Congressional District--a district that has been held by republicans for over one hundred years. Some would argue against this example by saying the Democratic Party only won the seat because the Republican party was split between Diedre Scozzafava and the Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman. However, considering Scozzafava's ideology and support of the Democrat after her withdrawal from the race, if anything, she split the liberal vote.
People are simply no longer accepting the dominant authority, meaning they are rejecting those previously in office, whether that be based on a rejection of the dominant party or a rejection of other historic norms of power. Several important races included a prominent third party candidate illustrating a refusal of the dominant party authorities (both Republican and Democrat) altogether. Additionally, voters seem to be rejecting authority not only on the partisanship of the incumbent, but rejecting the authority of precedent for a particular area. For example, in Atlanta Georgia, Mary Norwood received more votes than her contenders (although a run-off election is to be held). If Norwood is to be elected, she will be the first white mayor in a 35 year history of African American incumbents. The Houston, Texas mayoral race resulted in a 5% lead for Annise Parker. If she wins she will be the first openly gay mayor in Texas, a historically conservative state. In both these examples, voters are rejecting previous authority by refusing to support the historic norms within the region.
The areas in which incumbents did win resulted in very close races. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg won his third term in office. He beat his Democratic opponent, Bill Thompson by a narrow 5 point margin. Considering Bloomberg outspent Thompson 31 million dollars in his campaign, the closeness of this race still exemplifies an extreme refusal of authority even in the presence the incumbent's win.
We are experiencing an important political wave: one described not by an excessive partisan shift due to a disappointment in the predominate party, but one classified by a rejection of existing authority simply because it is the authority. People are looking for ways to transcend external power and thus, are favoring the alternative.
In New Jersey, Republican Chris Christie won the race for Governor. A Republican has not won a statewide race in New Jersey since 1997. In Virginia, McDonnell, also Republican, won the gubernatorial election. McDonnell beat his Democratic opponent, Creigh Deeds, by almost 20% in a state where Democrats have won control of the office 5 out of the last 7 races.
On the flip side, in upstate New York, Democrat Bill Owens won the 23rd Congressional District--a district that has been held by republicans for over one hundred years. Some would argue against this example by saying the Democratic Party only won the seat because the Republican party was split between Diedre Scozzafava and the Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman. However, considering Scozzafava's ideology and support of the Democrat after her withdrawal from the race, if anything, she split the liberal vote.
People are simply no longer accepting the dominant authority, meaning they are rejecting those previously in office, whether that be based on a rejection of the dominant party or a rejection of other historic norms of power. Several important races included a prominent third party candidate illustrating a refusal of the dominant party authorities (both Republican and Democrat) altogether. Additionally, voters seem to be rejecting authority not only on the partisanship of the incumbent, but rejecting the authority of precedent for a particular area. For example, in Atlanta Georgia, Mary Norwood received more votes than her contenders (although a run-off election is to be held). If Norwood is to be elected, she will be the first white mayor in a 35 year history of African American incumbents. The Houston, Texas mayoral race resulted in a 5% lead for Annise Parker. If she wins she will be the first openly gay mayor in Texas, a historically conservative state. In both these examples, voters are rejecting previous authority by refusing to support the historic norms within the region.
The areas in which incumbents did win resulted in very close races. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg won his third term in office. He beat his Democratic opponent, Bill Thompson by a narrow 5 point margin. Considering Bloomberg outspent Thompson 31 million dollars in his campaign, the closeness of this race still exemplifies an extreme refusal of authority even in the presence the incumbent's win.
We are experiencing an important political wave: one described not by an excessive partisan shift due to a disappointment in the predominate party, but one classified by a rejection of existing authority simply because it is the authority. People are looking for ways to transcend external power and thus, are favoring the alternative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)