Today, October 10, marks one year from the day Naomi was due to be born. The slight change in the weather and little bit of rain has conjured many feelings from last year, and has left me reeling a little in the wake of the most difficult year of my life.
It's been hard thinking about what to write lately.
I have wanted to upload photos, but Naomi hates when I'm at the computer when she's awake and there is so much to do when she's asleep. So forgive me. Here's another photo-less blog post, and I'm afraid it's a little less than cheery.
An article on the cover of the Wall Street Journal inspired me to write today. It's got two photos in front and center -- one of Steve Jobs and one of his estranged biological father. You can see a little family resemblance. Apparently Steve's biological father is a successful businessman and owner of a casino in Reno, Nevada. He is also the biological father of another successful novelist, Mona Simpson. Moderately successful father -- two exceptionally successful children.
Although it wasn't the focus of the article in the newspaper at all, this story reminded me of the book Outliers, where the author poses a theory that successful people are successes because of their parents' careers, where they lived and literally when they were born -- down to the day.
Is it coincidence that this father has two very successful and creative children? I don't believe in coincidences; I believe everything has a reason even if it's not readily explainable. Perhaps there was a little help from their DNA. And because the two children were raised in environments (not with their biological father) where their creativity and skills were allowed to develop, the opportunity came and both children were ready to take it... and make it.
Does intelligence and advancement in certain areas make its way into the next generation even if parenting is not there to support it? How then, does parenting assist in the development of exceptional people?
This leads me to my persistent personal complex: I desperately want to be someone or do something "special" and "exceptional." And my life is anything but.
I'm terribly average.
Oh sure, anyone who knows me can name a number of qualities or skills where I have excelled, but I am certainly not exceptional in any of them. My desires for my life and windows of opportunity were not congruent with the skill level I had at the time. My DNA and hours of preparation seriously lacked when opportunity opened up for me. Therefore I've remained "just okay."
Want an example? Take dancing.
My parents didn't have the money for a good portion of my childhood to put me in dance lessons consistently, year after year. I loved to dance, but I got self conscious when my body changed so I didn't pursue it through those awkward years. Then when auditions for teams in high school and early college years came, I tried out on a number of occasions, but was hopelessly unprepared to be among the skilled team members.
Through college, the love for dance was reignited and I pursued it course after course, year after year. However, I do not have a dancer's body because of 1) obvious DNA, and 2) the crucial teenage formative years were spent rather sedentary instead of in technique classes where my body would have been trained to do certain things, causing it to look not dancer prime. I also was nowhere near the skill level of the other dancers in my class who had been dancing nonstop since childhood. So while I was in the same course level, I was rarely chosen to have anything but a background position.
Though I progressed and enjoyed myself as my body learned to move, I was not -- nor will I ever be considered to be among the best, or exceptional. And I'm over 30; the window of opportunity to be exceptional is closed. It takes the teenage and college years to spend the hours of preparation so when opportunity comes in the late 20s or early 30s, it's prime for optimal success.
Not knowing this early enough in life, I spent those years doing other things.
And sadly, I still do other things than what I really want to do. But now, it's not about choice. It's about necessity. I'm living the consequence of my choices earlier in life. That's adulthood.
While this realization is often depressing to me, and particularly hard on a weary soul, I take comfort believing in generational progression. Naomi has two parents who have a pretty good perspective on life navigation, and who have made some steps toward excellence. While her mother may have navigated her life short of being anything special, I believe I've made some progressive steps. Hopefully it's somewhere in her DNA. It gives a little comfort to my disheartened heart that I can help my daughter develop, perhaps quicker and more focused than I did. I often have my hands tied in her tutelage and will continue to have them tied when I spend 80% of the week away from her, but I can do what I can in the remaining 20%.
In generational progression, we stand on the shoulders who've gone before, even if it's only genetically. I see my older nieces thrive and excel in ways I didn't even think about when I was their age. I see them standing on their parents' shoulders. I believe that Steve Jobs' biological father gave him something, even if it was only DNA, that contributed to his and his sister's successes. I know it's possible and real.
But generational progression isn't automatic; it's everything about the little choices.
And though Naomi is only one year old this week, I have big hopes for her. And no, it's not that she become any one thing in particular. It is only my hope that Naomi will take whatever we've provided her in DNA or tutelage (or both!), and choose to use the developmental years and hours to practice and master whatever skill(s) she loves. So when the doors of opportunity open, she can walk right through confidently because she is well prepared.
She can be an exceptional success.
Showing posts with label Purpose for Living. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Purpose for Living. Show all posts
6/29/11
What Is Un-American
In celebration of the upcoming Independence Day 2011, I’m using this blog today as my soapbox for a truly American commentary.
In recent years, the phrase “Un-American” has been thrown around to describe everything from not supporting gay marriage to baseball ownership to lowering taxes. I think the assignment of anything as “Un-American” is ridiculous. Here’s why:
Our country, the United States of America, has a history of pretty much everything from the most brutal of oppression to the greatest freedoms granted to its citizens on the planet. In the beginning, a group of people left one country seeking religious freedom and remained on a land that afforded it. A few hundred years later descendents of those people kicked another religious group virtually out of the country. At one point in our history we opened our arms wide open to the “tired…poor…[and] huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” A hundred or so years later we have border patrol with guns and bureaucratic messes to become a citizen. And not too long ago Americans generally accepted black people as less than human, but today we hail one as our Commander in Chief.
Is it all American. Celebrating freedom and tortuously persecuting people we don’t understand is also American.
When I was a senior in high school, I was part of an AP American History class. After the AP test, there were a few weeks left before school ended, and our teacher thought the group of us were mature enough to handle a special project. She didn’t do this for every class, but we expressed our interest so she organized the Totalitarian Regime.
The student with the highest grade in the class was the Totalitarian Leader, the top 15 were in the "elite class" with privileges, and the rest of the class were “normal people” with certain discriminations like they weren’t allowed to speak to the top 15 without permission from Leader. At the beginning of every class we could report on others' behavior and win or lose points according to the Leader’s whim. We were seated in the room according to the points we had and we could lose or gain them at any time for any reason.
The Leader was generally fair, but she was strict. And she was encouraged to play favorites. When we gained points, we would move up in the class and get closer and closer to the Leader. We wore red bands around our sleeves at all times. If we were ever caught not wearing our bands, we could be reported and penalized. There was a whole list of strict rules, and sometimes rules were added without everyone knowing, and the ignorant were punished if acted against the rules even if they didn't know what they were being punished for.
I was in the top 15 to begin with, but I think moved up to #3 for a short time. I decided to play the class game and participated enthusiastically. Seeing how I could gain power, I played dirty. I ratted on my friends. I even made stuff up to penalize others. The accused could challenge their accusation, but the Leader decided the ultimate outcome and usually favored those in the top 15. Our grades for the quarter depended on how well we participated in the project.
I quickly recognized the “project” as lesson in freedom and parallels to oppressive forms of government throughout history. I particularly saw a parallel to Nazism as I had heard stories throughout my life of my grandmother and great-grandmother in Germany in the early-mid 20th century.
One day I came home in tears to my mom and expressed my frustration and hatred of this way of school life. I hated the dishonesty (even though it was a game), constantly looking over my shoulder, turning my back on my friends, and fearing opening my mouth to say anything since everything could be twisted and misconstrued as words against the Leader or the class Regime.
My mom talked me through it and her words gave me some perspective. She told me I was a descendant of John Adams, and I must have the freedom blood running through my veins. Even at 17, I think my spirit could determine the injustice, and it yearned to speak out and break free from the oppressiveness even though I was among the top 15 in the class.
The next day I came to class ready to give some h--l. I remember I was sitting at position 4 or 5 from the Leader. When it came time to report, I stood and said, “For the first time, I have nothing to report. In fact, I won’t ever have anything to report again. I think this situation and regime is wrong and I won’t support it any longer. I do not care what the consequences are. I’m finished.”
I tore off the red arm band, dramatically slammed it on my desk and walked out. My heart thudded in my throat. Adrenaline rushing. I descended the stairs right outside the door and spent the rest of the class time in the broadcast studio (where we filmed the daily announcements called “Minervision”). A short time later, the 2nd-in-command guy came after me and tried talking me into going back to class. I think we talked for 15 minutes, or perhaps until the class period was nearly over. But I was determined. I had made my stand and I was not going back. I don’t care if I failed the class. I hated it. I had to make a statement and follow through with it.
I think that may have been the second-to-last day of that class for the entire school year (and my high school career), so I figured going back for another time didn’t matter too much. I ended up talking to my teacher later and she told me with a smirk on her face that she was disappointed in me since I was, “doing so well.” Even though I had fully expected to fail the class, I ended up getting an A after all.
I know if that had been real life and I openly turned my back on the totalitarian regime, I probably would have been shot on site or suffered some other ignominious death. But death or not, I can confidently stand in front of my Maker knowing I stayed true to my heart and resisted an institution I knew to be inherently wrong.
I think I learned what I needed to in that AP American History class. I learned to be grateful for the rights my government affords me. As flawed and frustrating as our current government is, we have a Constitution that balances powers, and we still have people in this country who uphold those rights afforded us in that document.
So what's "un-American"? I don't know if we can truly call anything that. But I do know what is. Opposition is American. Differing beliefs is American. Oppression is American. Liberation of the downtrodden is American. Choice is American. Freedom is American.
And I'll fight for that American way in whatever way I know how.
In recent years, the phrase “Un-American” has been thrown around to describe everything from not supporting gay marriage to baseball ownership to lowering taxes. I think the assignment of anything as “Un-American” is ridiculous. Here’s why:
Our country, the United States of America, has a history of pretty much everything from the most brutal of oppression to the greatest freedoms granted to its citizens on the planet. In the beginning, a group of people left one country seeking religious freedom and remained on a land that afforded it. A few hundred years later descendents of those people kicked another religious group virtually out of the country. At one point in our history we opened our arms wide open to the “tired…poor…[and] huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” A hundred or so years later we have border patrol with guns and bureaucratic messes to become a citizen. And not too long ago Americans generally accepted black people as less than human, but today we hail one as our Commander in Chief.
Is it all American. Celebrating freedom and tortuously persecuting people we don’t understand is also American.
When I was a senior in high school, I was part of an AP American History class. After the AP test, there were a few weeks left before school ended, and our teacher thought the group of us were mature enough to handle a special project. She didn’t do this for every class, but we expressed our interest so she organized the Totalitarian Regime.
The student with the highest grade in the class was the Totalitarian Leader, the top 15 were in the "elite class" with privileges, and the rest of the class were “normal people” with certain discriminations like they weren’t allowed to speak to the top 15 without permission from Leader. At the beginning of every class we could report on others' behavior and win or lose points according to the Leader’s whim. We were seated in the room according to the points we had and we could lose or gain them at any time for any reason.
The Leader was generally fair, but she was strict. And she was encouraged to play favorites. When we gained points, we would move up in the class and get closer and closer to the Leader. We wore red bands around our sleeves at all times. If we were ever caught not wearing our bands, we could be reported and penalized. There was a whole list of strict rules, and sometimes rules were added without everyone knowing, and the ignorant were punished if acted against the rules even if they didn't know what they were being punished for.
I was in the top 15 to begin with, but I think moved up to #3 for a short time. I decided to play the class game and participated enthusiastically. Seeing how I could gain power, I played dirty. I ratted on my friends. I even made stuff up to penalize others. The accused could challenge their accusation, but the Leader decided the ultimate outcome and usually favored those in the top 15. Our grades for the quarter depended on how well we participated in the project.
I quickly recognized the “project” as lesson in freedom and parallels to oppressive forms of government throughout history. I particularly saw a parallel to Nazism as I had heard stories throughout my life of my grandmother and great-grandmother in Germany in the early-mid 20th century.
One day I came home in tears to my mom and expressed my frustration and hatred of this way of school life. I hated the dishonesty (even though it was a game), constantly looking over my shoulder, turning my back on my friends, and fearing opening my mouth to say anything since everything could be twisted and misconstrued as words against the Leader or the class Regime.
My mom talked me through it and her words gave me some perspective. She told me I was a descendant of John Adams, and I must have the freedom blood running through my veins. Even at 17, I think my spirit could determine the injustice, and it yearned to speak out and break free from the oppressiveness even though I was among the top 15 in the class.
The next day I came to class ready to give some h--l. I remember I was sitting at position 4 or 5 from the Leader. When it came time to report, I stood and said, “For the first time, I have nothing to report. In fact, I won’t ever have anything to report again. I think this situation and regime is wrong and I won’t support it any longer. I do not care what the consequences are. I’m finished.”
I tore off the red arm band, dramatically slammed it on my desk and walked out. My heart thudded in my throat. Adrenaline rushing. I descended the stairs right outside the door and spent the rest of the class time in the broadcast studio (where we filmed the daily announcements called “Minervision”). A short time later, the 2nd-in-command guy came after me and tried talking me into going back to class. I think we talked for 15 minutes, or perhaps until the class period was nearly over. But I was determined. I had made my stand and I was not going back. I don’t care if I failed the class. I hated it. I had to make a statement and follow through with it.
I think that may have been the second-to-last day of that class for the entire school year (and my high school career), so I figured going back for another time didn’t matter too much. I ended up talking to my teacher later and she told me with a smirk on her face that she was disappointed in me since I was, “doing so well.” Even though I had fully expected to fail the class, I ended up getting an A after all.
I know if that had been real life and I openly turned my back on the totalitarian regime, I probably would have been shot on site or suffered some other ignominious death. But death or not, I can confidently stand in front of my Maker knowing I stayed true to my heart and resisted an institution I knew to be inherently wrong.
I think I learned what I needed to in that AP American History class. I learned to be grateful for the rights my government affords me. As flawed and frustrating as our current government is, we have a Constitution that balances powers, and we still have people in this country who uphold those rights afforded us in that document.
So what's "un-American"? I don't know if we can truly call anything that. But I do know what is. Opposition is American. Differing beliefs is American. Oppression is American. Liberation of the downtrodden is American. Choice is American. Freedom is American.
And I'll fight for that American way in whatever way I know how.
6/28/10
Genetic History, Parental Influence & Agency
Way back to my second year of college when I was in the middle of my confused, what-do-I-want-to-do-with-my-life phase, I changed my major and minor 3 or 4 times. One of these choices was a short-lived, two-semester stint with a child development minor. I took nearly all the requirements for the minor in two semesters, and dozens of child psychology assignments, university day care hours and preschool lesson plans later, I realized I was being trained to be a day care professional, which was (and is) definitely NOT the life I wanted to live.
A few things still irk me about the mentality of the training, one of which was the approach to the "nature vs. nurture" argument. I had a child psychology teacher who either didn't communicate effectively to help us understand what she was talking about, or didn't completely care about what she was required to discuss in the class. Probably both. Regardless, I remember reading about and discussing nature vs. nurture and thinking the whole time, "something is seriously missing in this discussion. It's not one way or the other..."
Although I haven't kept up on the latest studies, I believe the consensus among scholars, sociologists and child psychologists is: it's a combination of both. No, I am not among the list of three aforementioned groups of brain lovers, but I can tell you something I've seen out of anecdotal observation and a little bit of pondering. I propose that the "nature vs. nurture" argument isn't two sided, it's three dimensional:
Anecdote 1 - NATURE: I have a dear friend whom I've known since their first daughter was toddling in diapers. That little toddler is now 16 years old and she has 5 siblings for a total of, yes, 6 children in the family. The friend (mother) is an intelligent, witty woman with an uncanny ability to write frustrating situations humorously. Knowing what I know about her and her husband's exceptional parenting, I laughed and was fascinated by this particular blog post of hers: Measure of a Mom.
Anecdote 2 - NURTURE: I have a sister with 5 daughters, the eldest being 11 years. With a house full of 6 emotional, dramatic females, you'd think their home was a mad house. It is not. I have several memories of arriving at their home on a random afternoon to find the two oldest quietly sitting on the couch reading books, one on the floor doing a puzzle, one at the kitchen table drawing or painting and the youngest down for a nap. It was quiet, peaceful and in order. Of course their house gets cluttered and lived in, of course my sister and her husband lose their patience at times, and of course there are sister disagreements. But overall, their girls do not bicker or call each other names, they do not wail in grocery stores for treats, and they know how to behave themselves in church and concerts.
Yes, concerts. My parents tell a story of sitting with the little girls while their mother (my sister) played the violin in a symphony concert performance. The girls are used to attending these concerts from a very young age, paying attention to pieces they know or like (since the music is played in their home) or drawing pictures on notepads when they are not interested in the music. At the close of a particular concert a few older ladies turned around to leave when they saw the 4 little girls (I think their daddy had the youngest in his arms asleep elsewhere), and were visibly startled. They commented to my parents how beautiful they were, but particularly, that they "had no idea they were enjoying a concert sitting in front of a family of small children."
One would certainly say my sister and her husband's parenting and nurturing have everything to do with all five little girls growing up so peacefully.
NEUROSCIENTIST'S STUDY - The Three Ingredients: This is an article from NPR about the brains of psychopaths and a neuroscientist's discovery in his own family history. The writer says there are three "ingredients" to making a psychopath: brain patterns, genetic makeup and abuse and/or violence in childhood.
The article clearly states it's generalized and oversimplified, but it's fascinating nonetheless. Here, this neuroscientist has all the family history and the brain patterns to make him a psychopath (nature), yet he is not. They say it's because he was loved and doted upon as a child (nurture).
I appreciate this article's direction and how it caused me to think about it all deeper. But I believe it's missing one key ingredient in the reasoning this particular man is not a psychopath: agency, or personal choice. I think we could combine the first two ingredients, brain patterns and genetic makeup, and label them both as "genetic tendencies" or nature. Then the second ingredient would be how a child is reared, which includes parenting, education, and the opportunities the child has for full emotional and social development. And the third, agency and accountability, comes in at older childhood (about 8 years). It's not just about nature vs. nurture why a person turns out the way he or she does. It has to do with how the person chooses to use his or her genetics makeup and childhood rearing to be a good, hardworking person or a psychopath.
Oh sure, there are definite genetic diseases that limit a person's ability of understanding and choice such as Down's Syndrome, Fragile X Syndrome and the like. A person with one of those may never know the full power of agency with their genes limiting their bodies in certain ways. They were definitely "born that way." But do they stand on the same level as obesity, alcoholism, sexual orientation, and, as the NPR article above introduces, psychopathy? All of the latter categories have used the same "I was born this way" argument.
I would contest that genetics (nature) and childhood development (nurture) do have a great deal of influence on a person to be a certain way. And the choice to do a particular act or another may be extremely more difficult for a person in one of those latter categories. However, we may underestimate the power of the third dimension: choice. We may just be able to choose more in our lives that we give ourselves credit for.
A few things still irk me about the mentality of the training, one of which was the approach to the "nature vs. nurture" argument. I had a child psychology teacher who either didn't communicate effectively to help us understand what she was talking about, or didn't completely care about what she was required to discuss in the class. Probably both. Regardless, I remember reading about and discussing nature vs. nurture and thinking the whole time, "something is seriously missing in this discussion. It's not one way or the other..."
Although I haven't kept up on the latest studies, I believe the consensus among scholars, sociologists and child psychologists is: it's a combination of both. No, I am not among the list of three aforementioned groups of brain lovers, but I can tell you something I've seen out of anecdotal observation and a little bit of pondering. I propose that the "nature vs. nurture" argument isn't two sided, it's three dimensional:
1) Family Genetic History
2) Parental Influence / Rearing
3) Agency / Personal Choice
Yes, concerts. My parents tell a story of sitting with the little girls while their mother (my sister) played the violin in a symphony concert performance. The girls are used to attending these concerts from a very young age, paying attention to pieces they know or like (since the music is played in their home) or drawing pictures on notepads when they are not interested in the music. At the close of a particular concert a few older ladies turned around to leave when they saw the 4 little girls (I think their daddy had the youngest in his arms asleep elsewhere), and were visibly startled. They commented to my parents how beautiful they were, but particularly, that they "had no idea they were enjoying a concert sitting in front of a family of small children."
One would certainly say my sister and her husband's parenting and nurturing have everything to do with all five little girls growing up so peacefully.
The article clearly states it's generalized and oversimplified, but it's fascinating nonetheless. Here, this neuroscientist has all the family history and the brain patterns to make him a psychopath (nature), yet he is not. They say it's because he was loved and doted upon as a child (nurture).
I appreciate this article's direction and how it caused me to think about it all deeper. But I believe it's missing one key ingredient in the reasoning this particular man is not a psychopath: agency, or personal choice. I think we could combine the first two ingredients, brain patterns and genetic makeup, and label them both as "genetic tendencies" or nature. Then the second ingredient would be how a child is reared, which includes parenting, education, and the opportunities the child has for full emotional and social development. And the third, agency and accountability, comes in at older childhood (about 8 years). It's not just about nature vs. nurture why a person turns out the way he or she does. It has to do with how the person chooses to use his or her genetics makeup and childhood rearing to be a good, hardworking person or a psychopath.
Oh sure, there are definite genetic diseases that limit a person's ability of understanding and choice such as Down's Syndrome, Fragile X Syndrome and the like. A person with one of those may never know the full power of agency with their genes limiting their bodies in certain ways. They were definitely "born that way." But do they stand on the same level as obesity, alcoholism, sexual orientation, and, as the NPR article above introduces, psychopathy? All of the latter categories have used the same "I was born this way" argument.
I would contest that genetics (nature) and childhood development (nurture) do have a great deal of influence on a person to be a certain way. And the choice to do a particular act or another may be extremely more difficult for a person in one of those latter categories. However, we may underestimate the power of the third dimension: choice. We may just be able to choose more in our lives that we give ourselves credit for.
4/14/10
Belief: It's a choice
A few weeks ago I watched an episode of The Colbert Report, an intelligent, cynical and hilarious take on the day's news, when something Mr. Colbert said stuck out to me profoundly. While criticizing conservative commentators and the myriads of chain-email-believers dead set on Obama being the Anti-Christ, he said, "It doesn't matter if they're reading the original birth certificate, they still won't believe he's a citizen!" Uproarious audience laughter erupted.
I chuckled too, but not for the same reason. The principle behind what he's saying is true of all sides: we all choose who we follow and what we believe.
It need not be said that information and opinions are available in an overabundance. Any media that seeps into your brain originates from another person who has an opinion or point of view about something. Each has a motive of sharing that piece of media too, and I think all motives (whether moral or sinister) can be traced down to one of these three: 1) to convince you of a different way of thinking, 2) to earn money, or 3) simply to share information.
It also doesn't need to be said that with all this overabundance of information that much of it directly conflicts. For example, NPR reports one aspect of the infamous Health Care Bill and interviews professionals and legislative representatives and you get one thing, and FOX interviews other professionals and legislative representatives and you get information directly negating the other! Another example is religion. Many who grew up going to one Church heard and learned a list of doctrines only to read and hear later in life apparently legitimate research claiming it can "prove" that very doctrine or source of scripture to be false. Another example happens to each of us in one way or another. A conflict arises among friends or family, and each person has their own version of what happened and inform you of such. The same thing happens in court when a person is on trial for a crime; a judge/jury must hear all sides of the issue and make a decision on who is right, and what is correct.
Who or what do you believe? On what basis do you decide what's "correct"? The person or group who has more "evidence" at present? The person or source you heard first (or last)? Why do two people who experience the same event, or hear the same story, or read the same piece of legislature, or go to the same church, etc. etc., come out with such different --and often directly opposing-- information?
As I mulled over that comical, but profound statement by Mr. Colbert, I have realized that our decisions as humans are not based upon fact. They're based upon belief.
We would all like to think that what we believe is "truth." But if you take any piece of legislature, any religious doctrine, any court trial, or any other piece of information that's up for interpretation, you could make a table list of directly conflicting points of view or "facts" on each side like this:
You can have equal amounts of evidence, or you can have more evidence weighted on one side or the other. But evidence alone cannot make something true or false enough for someone to believe View 1 or View 2 (or View 3, 4, or 956) alone. Some choices are irrational. Some choices are spiritual. Some choices are logical and deductive. Some choices are emotional.
The truth is this: you choose what to believe.
A friend of mine told me recently the most profound bit of counsel her mother gave to her when she was a teenager. Her mother said, "Be careful whom you choose to listen to." We each choose to listen to one side or the other. There is no original thought, but that what we hear whispered or shouted into our minds. We choose what information to let in, what to believe, and whom to follow.
And it doesn't matter if you have the proof of evidence in your hand --whether it's a birth certificate or a book-- if you don't believe it in the first place.
I chuckled too, but not for the same reason. The principle behind what he's saying is true of all sides: we all choose who we follow and what we believe.
SIDE NOTE: If any of you have parents, siblings or distant uncles who follow those aforementioned conservative or liberal commentators (who will remain unnamed here since the names aren't important), and gape open-mouthed at the latest "REPUBLICANS ARE RUINING YOUR COUNTRY! BE VERY AFRAID!" or "OBAMA = THE DEVIL" in ALL CAPS Comic Sans font emails that they unfailingly forward to you, or if you are that person, don't worry... this blog post isn't about the sides, but a commentary on the process of decision.
It need not be said that information and opinions are available in an overabundance. Any media that seeps into your brain originates from another person who has an opinion or point of view about something. Each has a motive of sharing that piece of media too, and I think all motives (whether moral or sinister) can be traced down to one of these three: 1) to convince you of a different way of thinking, 2) to earn money, or 3) simply to share information.
It also doesn't need to be said that with all this overabundance of information that much of it directly conflicts. For example, NPR reports one aspect of the infamous Health Care Bill and interviews professionals and legislative representatives and you get one thing, and FOX interviews other professionals and legislative representatives and you get information directly negating the other! Another example is religion. Many who grew up going to one Church heard and learned a list of doctrines only to read and hear later in life apparently legitimate research claiming it can "prove" that very doctrine or source of scripture to be false. Another example happens to each of us in one way or another. A conflict arises among friends or family, and each person has their own version of what happened and inform you of such. The same thing happens in court when a person is on trial for a crime; a judge/jury must hear all sides of the issue and make a decision on who is right, and what is correct.
Who or what do you believe? On what basis do you decide what's "correct"? The person or group who has more "evidence" at present? The person or source you heard first (or last)? Why do two people who experience the same event, or hear the same story, or read the same piece of legislature, or go to the same church, etc. etc., come out with such different --and often directly opposing-- information?
As I mulled over that comical, but profound statement by Mr. Colbert, I have realized that our decisions as humans are not based upon fact. They're based upon belief.
We would all like to think that what we believe is "truth." But if you take any piece of legislature, any religious doctrine, any court trial, or any other piece of information that's up for interpretation, you could make a table list of directly conflicting points of view or "facts" on each side like this:
The truth is this: you choose what to believe.
A friend of mine told me recently the most profound bit of counsel her mother gave to her when she was a teenager. Her mother said, "Be careful whom you choose to listen to." We each choose to listen to one side or the other. There is no original thought, but that what we hear whispered or shouted into our minds. We choose what information to let in, what to believe, and whom to follow.
And it doesn't matter if you have the proof of evidence in your hand --whether it's a birth certificate or a book-- if you don't believe it in the first place.
1/20/10
Converstations on Culture and Morality
It was just a month after our move to California that our bishop invited us to participate in the calling sessions to get people aware of Proposition 8. It was a simple grass roots effort where we met at a member's house and called people in our district (the West Los Angeles / Venice areas) to let them know about the Proposition and to vote for it.
I hadn't previously heard anything about it, but sensing the importance I willingly participated 2 or 3 times. I got sworn at, hung up on, talked to dozens of people who didn't speak English, and also had some stimulating conversations that I've thought about several times since then.
One was a man who proceeded posing a series of questions to me after my introduction. He asked, "Now am I supposed to vote for it or against it?" Then he asked, "Are you going Obama or McCain?" He also asked, "How do they feel about this marriage thing?" I didn't know then, but I later learned that both of them were once for traditional marriage.
Since then, I need not say how much muck and publicity this topic has gotten. However, it's still not dead. The topic is still very fresh on people's minds and people are very passionate one way or the other. This is the reason for this post today.
Today at lunch I had a conversation with some co-workers that turned to that homosexuality topic... again. It started out by talking about different cultures and nationalities marrying.
Apparently there are still cultures, religions and people who disown (and even murder) their children if they marry outside of their community, their religion, or their parental approval. Examples of Irish Catholic families, Muslim families and Italians were given. This isn't surprising, right?
But the tone of the conversation is one that I wanted to note. Everyone was talking about this were aghast. "Can you believe that there are some people who are so behind the times?" and "You know, people who are so stuck in whatever's said in the book (referring to the Qur'an) that the progression of society has completely passed them by..."
I'd like to note that I do not necessarily agree with parents disowning their children because they choose a different path. I know of people who have left their long family line of steeped religion to pursue the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and whose parents disowned them. I've also known the reverse! So I'm not giving a blanket statement here pro or con with that.
What I would like to mention is the judgement from this group of people that those people's actions of "disowning" and "not keeping up with the times." Because in the very next breath it turned to the homosexuality issue.
One woman said, and many others agreed, how stupid it was that a friend pulled her children out of the Torrance public school system because homosexual marriage and homosexuality is openly taught as normal and acceptable. "My friend and her Church teaches her kids that homosexuals are evil people and that it's a choice to live that way," she said with disdain. "It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that homosexuals are evil people and it's a choice! I have gay friends and there's no way a person would choose a lifestyle to be ridiculed and excluded from normal society."
I wanted to scream, but calmly said, "Can't there be some people who don't agree with the act and lifestyle of homosexuality but still love the person?" She responded, "Sure, but that's not what they teach."
What I realized today is: our culture says that it's not okay for anyone to say something is "immoral." It's somehow wrong to say that something is wrong. From this conversation, which is, I'm sure, one of many similar conversations across the westernized world, it's okay to judge people who judge the way they don't want to them to judge. Or in other words, judging is okay, but only if I do it and only if it agrees with the way I do it.
Yes, there are passages in the Bible that talk about "unnatural affections" and immorality being the cause of the downfall of many societies. I believe the prophets of the ages and today who say that immorality will be the cause of the downfall of our society. I support the role of a husband and wife, a man and a woman, as parents rearing their children the best way they know how.
People who believe this way aren't "behind the times." In fact, many of us have read and studied the times and cycles of humanity from many parts of this world from many generations. That doesn't mean I love people any less who choose immoral behavior, whether it be infidelity, fornication, smoking, drinking, etc. etc. etc.
The truth is, some behavior is immoral. Regardless of how we sugarcoat it, twist it, judge it, or otherwise accept it, some behavior is not right -- whether it's 2,000 years ago, 200 years ago, today or 2,000 years from now. And you know, this whole call to stand up for our beliefs in our government wasn't new when we were asked to make calls about Proposition 8 in 2008? You know it was given with Captain Moroni? And even more recently -- 15 years ago?
I hadn't previously heard anything about it, but sensing the importance I willingly participated 2 or 3 times. I got sworn at, hung up on, talked to dozens of people who didn't speak English, and also had some stimulating conversations that I've thought about several times since then.
One was a man who proceeded posing a series of questions to me after my introduction. He asked, "Now am I supposed to vote for it or against it?" Then he asked, "Are you going Obama or McCain?" He also asked, "How do they feel about this marriage thing?" I didn't know then, but I later learned that both of them were once for traditional marriage.
Since then, I need not say how much muck and publicity this topic has gotten. However, it's still not dead. The topic is still very fresh on people's minds and people are very passionate one way or the other. This is the reason for this post today.
Today at lunch I had a conversation with some co-workers that turned to that homosexuality topic... again. It started out by talking about different cultures and nationalities marrying.
Apparently there are still cultures, religions and people who disown (and even murder) their children if they marry outside of their community, their religion, or their parental approval. Examples of Irish Catholic families, Muslim families and Italians were given. This isn't surprising, right?
But the tone of the conversation is one that I wanted to note. Everyone was talking about this were aghast. "Can you believe that there are some people who are so behind the times?" and "You know, people who are so stuck in whatever's said in the book (referring to the Qur'an) that the progression of society has completely passed them by..."
I'd like to note that I do not necessarily agree with parents disowning their children because they choose a different path. I know of people who have left their long family line of steeped religion to pursue the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and whose parents disowned them. I've also known the reverse! So I'm not giving a blanket statement here pro or con with that.
What I would like to mention is the judgement from this group of people that those people's actions of "disowning" and "not keeping up with the times." Because in the very next breath it turned to the homosexuality issue.
One woman said, and many others agreed, how stupid it was that a friend pulled her children out of the Torrance public school system because homosexual marriage and homosexuality is openly taught as normal and acceptable. "My friend and her Church teaches her kids that homosexuals are evil people and that it's a choice to live that way," she said with disdain. "It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that homosexuals are evil people and it's a choice! I have gay friends and there's no way a person would choose a lifestyle to be ridiculed and excluded from normal society."
I wanted to scream, but calmly said, "Can't there be some people who don't agree with the act and lifestyle of homosexuality but still love the person?" She responded, "Sure, but that's not what they teach."
What I realized today is: our culture says that it's not okay for anyone to say something is "immoral." It's somehow wrong to say that something is wrong. From this conversation, which is, I'm sure, one of many similar conversations across the westernized world, it's okay to judge people who judge the way they don't want to them to judge. Or in other words, judging is okay, but only if I do it and only if it agrees with the way I do it.
Yes, there are passages in the Bible that talk about "unnatural affections" and immorality being the cause of the downfall of many societies. I believe the prophets of the ages and today who say that immorality will be the cause of the downfall of our society. I support the role of a husband and wife, a man and a woman, as parents rearing their children the best way they know how.
People who believe this way aren't "behind the times." In fact, many of us have read and studied the times and cycles of humanity from many parts of this world from many generations. That doesn't mean I love people any less who choose immoral behavior, whether it be infidelity, fornication, smoking, drinking, etc. etc. etc.
The truth is, some behavior is immoral. Regardless of how we sugarcoat it, twist it, judge it, or otherwise accept it, some behavior is not right -- whether it's 2,000 years ago, 200 years ago, today or 2,000 years from now. And you know, this whole call to stand up for our beliefs in our government wasn't new when we were asked to make calls about Proposition 8 in 2008? You know it was given with Captain Moroni? And even more recently -- 15 years ago?
"We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity...will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
"We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."This proclamation was read by President Gordon B. Hinckley as part of his message at the General Relief Society Meeting held September 23, 1995, in Salt Lake City, Utah.
7/7/09
Idolizing the Rare
I watched the memorial service for Michael Jackson streaming online today. I thoroughly enjoyed it – not for a performance sake, but mostly for the poignant tenderness shared by the Jackson family and the truly spiritual moments. I firmly declare: the event matched the man.
There are many voices out there still criticizing Michael, his life, and all the fanfare we've given to him in his death. One voice in particular, Sean Hannity, bitterly criticized the elaborate memorial service at the Staples Center in downtown Los Angeles. "Why don't we memorialize our soldiers like that?" he argued. First, we do memorialize our soldiers like that. Ever been to Washington DC? Or how about Pearl Harbor? No we don't celebrate individual soldiers with the glitz of today's service for MJ, but our servicemen and women are celebrated as a whole.
One could take the same argument to the comparison of salaries of teachers vs. NBA players. Why do we pay pittance to the men and women teaching our children, but delve out billions to tall men who can throw a bouncy ball through a hoop? The answer is simple. We live by a societal law: We value that which is rare.
In the book You Are Special by Max Lucado, the wooden people go around giving star stickers to those they value and dot stickers to those they disvalue. Stars are given for those who can sing or jump high. Dots are for those who have scratched paint or trip up.
We do the same.
Michael Jackson has had more than his fair share of stars and dots! Just a few years ago we all slathered the man in gray dots when words of accusation flared over the airways and through magazines. "He's weird!" we all cried out! Then, as more information disseminated about who the man truly was after his untimely death, we (as a society) have thrown more stars at him than any other in our history as a country.
Michael Jackson was talented. He did a lot of good. He had his struggles. He was rare. The call and theme from the memorial service was this: Let us take his example and build upon it – the good and the bad. Make our lives better. Look at ourselves in the mirror and start a change with us.
Those voices who rant, "We should not be idolizing the man" actually benefit from the same societal setup as Michael did. Hannity does not have a paycheck without a certain number of stickers. Same with the politician. Like it or not, wrong or right, that's just the way it is in America.
This is not the way it will always be, however. There is a place and a time when each of us will walk on equal ground. Stickers will not stick. We will all know what truly has value, and Who is the most rare, and most important. In the benediction of MJ's memorial, Pastor Smith uttered the words, "...even the King of Pop will bend his knee to the King of Kings."
It is my hope that we don't wait till death – anyone's death – before we each learn to disvalue "stickers" altogether, find that which has the most value, and worship Him who is most rare.
There are many voices out there still criticizing Michael, his life, and all the fanfare we've given to him in his death. One voice in particular, Sean Hannity, bitterly criticized the elaborate memorial service at the Staples Center in downtown Los Angeles. "Why don't we memorialize our soldiers like that?" he argued. First, we do memorialize our soldiers like that. Ever been to Washington DC? Or how about Pearl Harbor? No we don't celebrate individual soldiers with the glitz of today's service for MJ, but our servicemen and women are celebrated as a whole.
One could take the same argument to the comparison of salaries of teachers vs. NBA players. Why do we pay pittance to the men and women teaching our children, but delve out billions to tall men who can throw a bouncy ball through a hoop? The answer is simple. We live by a societal law: We value that which is rare.
In the book You Are Special by Max Lucado, the wooden people go around giving star stickers to those they value and dot stickers to those they disvalue. Stars are given for those who can sing or jump high. Dots are for those who have scratched paint or trip up.
We do the same.
Michael Jackson has had more than his fair share of stars and dots! Just a few years ago we all slathered the man in gray dots when words of accusation flared over the airways and through magazines. "He's weird!" we all cried out! Then, as more information disseminated about who the man truly was after his untimely death, we (as a society) have thrown more stars at him than any other in our history as a country.
Michael Jackson was talented. He did a lot of good. He had his struggles. He was rare. The call and theme from the memorial service was this: Let us take his example and build upon it – the good and the bad. Make our lives better. Look at ourselves in the mirror and start a change with us.
Those voices who rant, "We should not be idolizing the man" actually benefit from the same societal setup as Michael did. Hannity does not have a paycheck without a certain number of stickers. Same with the politician. Like it or not, wrong or right, that's just the way it is in America.
This is not the way it will always be, however. There is a place and a time when each of us will walk on equal ground. Stickers will not stick. We will all know what truly has value, and Who is the most rare, and most important. In the benediction of MJ's memorial, Pastor Smith uttered the words, "...even the King of Pop will bend his knee to the King of Kings."
It is my hope that we don't wait till death – anyone's death – before we each learn to disvalue "stickers" altogether, find that which has the most value, and worship Him who is most rare.
5/19/09
Moving in to a new world... blogging
Steve, my husband of five and a half years, is fiercely protective of his privacy, and has insisted I do not create any family web site, blog or anything that would publicize his face, family or persona.
Me? I borderline overshare.
The other day we were in Best Buy looking for another digital camera for me. As I tested the cameras, I took a picture of him looking at other cameras. You could barely see his face bowed over the electronics. However, when he saw the image he asked, "Why did you take a picture of ME? I don't want random people seeing pictures of me!" I rolled my eyes and promptly deleted the photo.
However, I wore him down enough that he joined Facebook last summer, and I have finally worn him down enough to be okay with me setting up a blog for our family.
The reasons I'm finally here?
1- I feel driven to share some of my cool experiences in Los Angeles. It's a peculiar life living here...
2- I enjoy several of my friends' blogs, and would joy in cross-sharing experiences and photos.
3- The end-of-the-year letter tends to be too much around the Christmas season, and I missed the opportunity to share what an incredible year we had in 2007. There are too many miracles to not be shared.
So trusting that we can maintain some semblance of privacy for Steve, as well as fill that need to "share" that I have, I'm setting up a blog. I hope my posts are as sweet and enjoyable as all yours have been.
Here we go! Off to a new world of cyber-sharing...
Me? I borderline overshare.
The other day we were in Best Buy looking for another digital camera for me. As I tested the cameras, I took a picture of him looking at other cameras. You could barely see his face bowed over the electronics. However, when he saw the image he asked, "Why did you take a picture of ME? I don't want random people seeing pictures of me!" I rolled my eyes and promptly deleted the photo.
However, I wore him down enough that he joined Facebook last summer, and I have finally worn him down enough to be okay with me setting up a blog for our family.
The reasons I'm finally here?
1- I feel driven to share some of my cool experiences in Los Angeles. It's a peculiar life living here...
2- I enjoy several of my friends' blogs, and would joy in cross-sharing experiences and photos.
3- The end-of-the-year letter tends to be too much around the Christmas season, and I missed the opportunity to share what an incredible year we had in 2007. There are too many miracles to not be shared.
So trusting that we can maintain some semblance of privacy for Steve, as well as fill that need to "share" that I have, I'm setting up a blog. I hope my posts are as sweet and enjoyable as all yours have been.
Here we go! Off to a new world of cyber-sharing...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)