Dittohead Diplomacy

Tonight, I would like to direct my attention to all you Conservatives out there. I would like to introduce you to two brothers: Fred and George. Yes, I am copying J.K. Rowling, but this is only for the purpose of protecting the identity of my American friends. Please understand that they are only names I have chosen to copy; I am not attacking or even describing the Weasley Family (fictional though they may be, I know there are many out there who are very passionate about them) in any way, shape, or form. Well, I guess there is one exception. In honor of Fred Weasley, who recently gave his life in the Battle of Hogwarts, I will use him as the model we should all follow.
Fred and George both grew up (not playing Quidditch in their English backyard) but listening to Rush Limbaugh while riding in the car with their parents in Utah. Fred and George both liked him equally, but they let him influence them in different ways. George loved Limbaugh, and believed very strongly in Conservative principles; he would do anything to defend his country. He was an inspiration to all who knew him. The problem, however, was that George tried too hard to follow Rush Limbaugh’s example in how he debated with both his liberal acquintainces as well as anyone who disagreed with him even a little. While he inspired many with his love of America, he frequently offended others with his passionate and undiplomatic tone. His friends who only disagreed with him on one or two issues were frustrated with George. In their minds, he was the stereotypical model of the Extreme Right-Wing American: someone who loves America, but is too passionately patriotic for their own good.
Fred, on the other hand, knew how to be friends with those who held differing viewpoints while still keeping his political and moral principles. When Fred graduated from college, he got a good job as an engineer. He was a busy man, but still managed to make time for politics; he was very politically active, and he loved listening to Rush Limbaugh on his way to and from work. One day, while talking with some friends, the subject of daycare came up. One of Fred’s female friends, frustrated by the prospect of finding a good day care center for her small children, expressed her wish that the law require businesses to provide daycare for their employees. Fred, very casually, pointed out the fallacies in that solution. One of them, for example, was the high cost to businesses of providing such a facility. At the end of their discussion, this friend was much more aware and even somewhat persuaded by Fred’s ideas. This woman was lucky that George was not in the room; he might have humiliated her and her naïve ideas.
Anyway, you get the idea. Again, please understand that I am a conservative, and that I am just as frustrated by what is happening to this country right now as anyone else on the Right. However, my friends on the Right who do not know how to have a conversation with anyone who disagrees with them just a little also equally frustrate me. Diplomacy does not necessarily equal compromise. I understand the frustration of the Conservatives in this country at the current administration. Nevertheless, if you want to do something about it, learn how to have a conversation with people who disagree with you. I have always been, and still am, a major supporter of Rush Limbaugh and Conservative Talk Radio. Without Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and others, I do not know how any average American would be able to sift through the liberally biased news sources of ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and others to find the truth. But I recently discovered that I, personally, was a lot like George. I only listened to Rush Limbaugh, and I only recycled his opinions while debating with others. It was getting in the way of effectively arguing and persuading others to my way of thinking, not to mention developing my own opinions. There’s nothing wrong with being a dittohead; I don’t apologize for it, and I don’t expect anyone else to either. However, it is counterproductive if it gets in the way of diplomacy. Contrary to popular perception, you can and should be a dittohead and a diplomat at the same time.

The Catharsis of Halloween

Before I make the argument I am about to make, let me make one thing clear: I love Christmas. It is by far my favorite holiday for so many reasons. As a society, however, I think we've become too emotionally invested in this one Holiday. The problem, in my opinion, comes from the fact that we don't know how to properly celebrate the holidays leading up to it, not to mention other holidays throughout the year. And since it is October, I think I'll discuss this idea in reference to Halloween specifically.
First, a little background. I stopped the whole trick-or-treating thing when I was like twelve. After that, my Halloween tradition varied between watching some stupid show on TV and doing my homework. Somehow, in the back of my mind, I knew I was missing out on something fun, but ignored it and decided to just get myself pumped up for Thanksgiving and Christmas instead. Looking back now, I realize how unhealthy that has been.
I'm going to use myself as a case study here, so hopefully I'm not the only one out there who experiences this. But, I get so excited for Christmas, that's hard to not get overwhelmed and immersed by all the commercialism of it that I forget the true meaning of Christmas, meaning the birth and life of Jesus Christ. Psychologically, I get so excited for it that I create unrealistic expectations for myself during the Holiday Season. If I have an argument with another member of my family near the Holidays, I tend to be too hard on myself afterward and think that there's something wrong with me for being less than perfectly happy during "The Most Wonderful Time of the Year." The reality of the situation, however, is that both of us are experiencing high levels of stress due to the "hustle and bustle" of the season.
Some years, I've been so excited for Christmas that I start listening to Christmas music even before Halloween. By the time Christmas actually gets here, I'm so tired of the sights and sounds that I don't enjoy the holiday and it's hardere to be uplifted by the true meaning of Christmas. But, when Christmas is over, all I have is an unrealistic memory of how perfect Christmas was. That's when the Post-Christmas Depression really kicks in.
So, getting excited for the Christmas season too much and too early is just bad all the way around. Why do I do this, you ask. Like other unhealthy behavior, it's easy to stay in our habits rather than change and improve. I would argue that, like me, celebrating Christmas is second nature to most Americans who do, in fact, celebrate it. We know that we'll wake up to presents on Christmas morning, we'll go to the store, we'll trim the tree, etc. It's almost expected of us; it may even seem un-American if someone doesn't have a Christmas tree.
It's a different story with Halloween, however. Other than maybe accompanying your son, daughter, brother, or sister on their trick-or-treat route, there's no real expectation for actually celebrating the holiday as you get older. You have to go out of your way to arrange a party, buy a costume, go to a haunted house, etc. But, because it's not socially expected of us, many of us don't worry about celebrating a holiday like Halloween.
The thing that more Americans need to realize is how cathartic a holiday like Halloween actually is. By Cathartic, I am comparing the psychological effect of Halloween to Aristotle's view on Greek Tragedy. According to Aristotle, the audience viewing a tragedy like Oedipus is purged of the emotions of fear and pity by vicariously experiencing them through someone else.
In recent years, I've tried to celebrate Halloween more through going to parties, corn mazes, haunted houses, watching scary movies, etc. I've found that I'm able to stay more focused on the spiritual aspects of Christmas because I've already gotten a lot of the fun out of my system. I'm cleansed of the subconcious temptation to get too immersed in the commercialism of Christmas because I was already immersed in the commercialism of Halloween (as a Christian, that's the side that I should stay on, since the religious aspects of Halloween are Satanic) and I'm thus ready to be spiritually uplifted by Christmas. I'm also better able to be realistic about the commercial side of Christmas, and I can enjoy it in a way that is psychologically healthier.
So, if you're like me and you want to enjoy Christmas in a more healthy, realistic, and spiritual way, try celebrating the holidays in between first.

If Freedom is Not Free, Why Should Health Care Be?

Last Tuesday, another girl and I debated two guys from the College Democrats over Health Care. The Democrat moderator asked me if Health Care was a privelege or a right. I've been thinking about his question on and off all week. It's a touchy subject, no doubt, and it's not an easy one to answer. But, maybe I can put things in context here.
A couple of weeks ago, at work, I was having a conversation with my supervisor (who is heavily involved in Army ROTC) and another supervisor from Taiwan. She expressed her doubts regarding the legitimacy of war. My supervisor reiterated a phrase that we hear often: "Freedom is not Free." I reminded her that America wouldn't be such a great place for her to come to live and study if it weren't for the men and women in the armed forces who defend what this country stands for.
Of course, I had heard this phrase many times previously. Usually, when I think of this phrase, I think of the men and women who have died in defense of this country. Never until now, however, did I think of it in relation to domestic issues like Health Care.
First of all, I think there's a reason that among our inalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence, Life is the first one mentioned. I don't think that's a coincidence. It's the duty of the government to ensure that we're protected from enemies, both foreign and domestic. Of course, the first of these enemies should be those who threaten our immediate safety, like murderers and terrorists. I think both Democrats and Republicans should agree that America's greatest enemies are those whose intentions are to take away our lives.
During times of peace and prosperity, it seems that freedom and our American way of life are, in fact, free. It's during these times that we think we're lucky, and we're grateful to a government that is successfully averting the naiton from armed conflict. Every so often, however, there comes a time when war is inevitable, and men have to die in order for the government to keep its pact of protection with the American people.
So, I ask this question of my liberal friends: If freedom (in the sense of our immediate protection), is not free, what makes you think Health Care should be? Somebody will have to pay for this Health Care plan that President Obama and the Democrats are proposing. While the vast majority of Americans on both sides of the political spectrum (myself included) agree that our Health Care system needs to be reformed, it should not be reformed at the expense of the more pressing need of national defense. If we cut our defense spending to help pay for things like Health Care, we'll be in greater danger and we might not get a better health care system anyway. Since the government's number one priority should be our immediate safety, then we (as individuals) should do what we can to work for a better health care system through market-based solutions. I don't understand why that's such a shock for so many liberals. We, as a nation, have a proven track record of fulfilling a countless number of needs and wants through our free market economy.
So, I ask again, if freedom is not free, why should health care be? Why should you or anyone in this country get a free trip to the doctor when soldiers are dying over in the middle east?

Saving Grace

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are in a unique position regarding their beliefs. For those of you unfamiliar with LDS Theology, we believe that God has restored the fulness of his gospel to the earth through a living prophet and that the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints today is the same church as that originally organized by Jesus Christ while he walked the earth; it's built on a foundation of Prophets and Apostles, with Jesus Christ at the head.
As a church, we want people to see that we do believe in and worship Jesus Christ as our Savior. Assuming the definition of a Christian is one who believes in Jesus Christ, then we are Christian, and want others to understand that. However, we also want people to understand the uniqueness of our message which is The Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. So, in that regard, we want people to understand how we're different from other Christian religions.
Sometimes, however, I think in our efforts to show how we're different we miss part of the larger picture of our own theology. I might come back to this idea later, but I think for today I'll just discuss one example of this.
Many Christian religions believe that we are saved by grace alone, while Latter-Day Saints believe that it is by grace we are saved after all we can do. (2 Nephi 25:23, James 2:24) We believe that it's spiritually problematic if there's no emphasis on work and being held accountable for what we do in this life. And, it's not without moral and logical reasons either. Personally, it's never made sense to me that a murderer or child molester can confess his belief in Jesus at the end of his life and still get into heaven.
Yet, as important as this is, I wonder if we emphasize it so much that we forget that we still do, in fact, believe in grace as a church. Just as Stephen E Robinson teaches, too many members try to become perfect and gain eternal life on their own without believing Christ and relying on the enabling power of His Atonement. While it's important to distinguish our beliefs, we should not be doing so to the detriment of our beliefs either.
I'm just grateful that I do have a Savior I can rely on. Eternal Life wouldn't mean anything if there wasn't some work involved on our part. But I know that I can't get it on my own, either. It's only through Him with a capitol "H."

Some thoughts on the Marriage Debate

The thing that the homeosexual community needs to realize is that initiatives like Prop 8 that were passed last year in California are defense measures. Prop 8 did nothing to change the status of civil unions. Prop 8 simply defined a word, and defended an institution that many of us in the heterosexual community hold sacred. For some reason, it seems to me that the gay and lesbian community are the only ones allowed to play the discrimination card here. They talk about their own rights, yet they don't even want to discuss ours. Don't get me wrong; I know there is plenty of unfair discrimination against people who are attracted to those of the same sex, and a lot of that needs to change. However, until the gay and lesbian community can recognize the right of churches (which are and always shoudl be private institutions) to define marriage, they will continue to face massive opposition from The Conservative Christian Right. They like to say that allowing homeosexuals to marry won't affect the rights of churches to define marriage, but there have already been a number of cases in this country where churches were forced to marry same-sex couples. And with liberal ideas currently dominating the American public school system, those who continue to believe in traditional marriage will come under attack and persecution from the American Left. If we're going to grant rights to one group of people, let's make sure that it doesn't trample on the rights on another.

People, Pies, and Politics

Had an interesting experience the other day. I was talking with a friend who is significantly liberal when it comes to politics. Somehow, in our conversation, it came up that I used to work at NuSkin, a multi-level marketing company with its headquarters here in Utah County. She was impressed when I told her of all the humanitarian work that NuSkin is involved with, such as teaching farmers in Africa enhanced farming techniques that will make them more self-reliant, providing food to children in third-world countries, and a host of other services both internationally and domestically. She then said, "hopefully they're doing it because they really care and not for P.R. reasons." The full meaning and impact of what she said didn't hit me till later. She might as well have inserted the word "profit" instead of "P.R. reasons."
The problem with a liberal view of economics is that it assumes that selfishness is the same thing as self-interest. People need to understand this. They are not the same thing. First of all, I agree that selfishness is bad. It blinds our judgement. It makes us deliberately step on other people to get to the top. Self-interest, on the other hand, makes us work for our own good, while recognizing that we can't cheat our way to the top. Self-interest is, in short, working for our own benefit in a judicious and honest manner. This is how law-abiding citizens, including my friend, live. They are motivated by self-interest, which I would argue is just as basic and necessary of a human need as are food, clothing, shelter, and all the other things we often associate with third-world countries, where there is a deficiency of these things. We wouldn't want to live each day of our lives, if it weren't for self-interest. NuSkin, WalMart, Disney, and many other corporations are motivated by self-interest (or P.R. reasons, as my friend would term it) to help millions of people throughout the world, who lack basic human needs. The fundamental problem with my friend's thinking is that it assumes someone has to sacrifice his or her fundamental human need for the good of another. Liberals, for the most part, assume an "either-or" situation, while Conservatives, for the most part, hold to principles that allow everyone to prosper. The ideology of the left says you have to ration the pie out, that there's a limited amount available. The ideology of the right allows for a non-stop pie-making factory.