A Health Issue
I have a health issue; I see my doctor. She examines me and explains options to take care of my health. I discuss the options with family and trusted friends. I make a decision of which option to follow, whether it's medication or procedure. If needed, I arrive back at the health center, follow the option and go home to heal. This is the United States. This is what we do, day after day after day.
Not so fast. That process isn't so easy for me. You see, I'm a woman. Strangers think they can tell me what to do with my own health. If I choose not to listen to them, they stand outside my health center, hold up bloody signs, yell at me. Some strangers even kill over my health decision. They kill my doctor; they kill other strangers. Yell, intimidate, kill.
My Planned Parenthood Health Center is still here. It's not going anywhere.
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: How to Muddy the Waters
"Religious freedom" is a phrase coined by Evangelical Christians and used to practice bigotry and hatred (examples include Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee). How does such a phrase become twisted to meet their own political ends? Here's the recipe.
1. Adopt the identification of oneself as an Evangelical Christian.
Who are Evangelical Christians? According to The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, the Unabridged Edition, A Christian is defined as "of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ" and, "exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ: Christ like." The descriptive word of "Evangelical" means, "marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause". The key words then in defining an Evangelical Christian are "a zealous Jesus Christ follower who is Christ like in spirit".
Why would politicians want to identify with them? Eighty-three percent of Americans label themselves as Christian. If I want to have political sway over a large number of people, it would seem logical to choose the largest-size religious group within which to work.
2. Ignore teachings of Jesus Christ, Diety of Evangelical Christians; act as if those teachings don't exist.
What are the teachings of Jesus Christ [if indeed he truly existed]? What better place to look than through Jesus' own words? Those words, of course, can be found in the Christian Bible, in the section called, "The New Testament". As a child in elementary school, I received a gift of a Bible from a mother in one of our church families (at the time, my father was pastoring an Evangelical-Christian church in Illinois). What was interesting in that book were the words of Jesus Christ, which were the only words printed in red. They begin in the book of Matthew and continue through the book of John. There is no confusion about which words were those of Jesus.
Another source for identifying words of Jesus Christ is so-called, The Jefferson Bible, authored by Thomas Jefferson, hence the title. In The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, the original title, with Editor, Douglas E. Lurton, and published by Wilfred Funk, Inc., New York, 1944, Lurton explains Jefferson's purpose in separating out Jesus' sayings: "During his first term in the White House, [Jefferson] revealed his dream of separating the sayings which were indisputably the words of Jesus from what he considered to be extraneous matter in the Holy Library of 66 volumes, 1189 chapters, 773,000 words..." (The Jefferson Bible)
Three years later in 1816, Jefferson writes to Charles Thompson, "I, too, have made a wee little book from the same materials, which I call the philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus..." [One has to wonder how Jefferson was able to explain the obvious dissonance between his slave-holding and 'doctrines of Jesus' that he espoused, having freed only a handful of slaves during his lifetime.] "...If I had time I would add to my little book the Greek, Latin and French texts, in columns side by side." Later, such a work is completed and placed in the United States National Museum at Washington in 1895. The 57th Congress in 1904 provided for publication of this work; a limited edition of these volumes was presented to members of the House and Senate. From thence, comes the English section of the text edited by Lurton (The Jefferson Bible).
From Evangelical Christians who truly believe doctrines of Jesus, these are the actions we would we would expect to see: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you... Bless the peacemakers... Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them... Ye shall know them by their fruits [actions]."
3. Focus only on tangential, ambiguous and inconsistent writings that are not credited to Jesus Christ but, instead, are mostly found in "The Old Testament" as well as a few from followers of Jesus in "The New Testament".
Evangelical Christians use the Old Testament to argue for or against many issues. Whether the issue is gun control, Obamacare, or Planned Parenthood, Christians can interpret verses, can find something no matter how ambiguous, to support their argument. [Just as importantly, nonbelievers can cite Biblical verses that counter those same arguments.] The fact remains, however, that the words of Jesus are the "Gold Standard". It is his teachings from which their religion of Christianity arose and Christ is, after all, the namesake of their religion. Old Testament text or Paul's writings (marketing expert extraordinaire) or letters from any other follower do not qualify without exact words of Jesus. As Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Adams in 1813, "We must reduce our volume to the simple Evangelists; select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the [ambiguous grammatical structure] into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from Him by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves [my Italics]. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man." (The Jefferson Bible)
"Religious freedom" is screamed only when issues surround use of tangential, ambiguous, or inconsistent writings [call it "extraneous matter"] from both Old and New Testaments to justify behavior toward a particular issue. Imagine these scenarios: Jesus appears at a Planned Parenthood Clinic where mainly women receive all kinds of health care, including abortions. He gets into the face of a patient walking into the Clinic, holds up horrendous pictures of fetuses and screams epithets against women who are actually making a private, legal decision about their own health care. Jesus tells his followers to buy more and more guns because that's the only way to maintain peace and safety. Jesus says that lack of health care for those unable to afford it is just too bad; quality health care is only for those who have money or can afford a good health insurance plan.
These kinds of behaviors don't speak to the writings of the Evangelical Christian's Jesus ("Christ like...exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ"). Rather, these behaviors sound like actions of "...those guiding or influencing governmental policy, or of winning and holding control over a government..." and "political affairs...especially competition between groups or individuals for power and leadership." In other words, these behaviors illustrate the meaning of politics (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus).
The recent use of the phrase "religious freedom" is not at all about religion; it's all about politics. It's a misnomer created to draw into the political fold any Evangelical Christians who buy their supposed message of religion. Instead, their goal is absolute power and control. The real meaning of "religious freedom" is the "quality or state of being free" in "relation or devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or Diety." (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus) In no way have Evangelical Christians been kept from the freedom of practicing the words of Jesus, their Diety.
Political shysters have turned the meaning of "religious freedom" on its head, purposefully to confuse, to muddy it, and make its true meaning unclear. In reality, the phrase becomes an excuse to practice bigotry and hatred. Wake up, Jesus-followers! You've got several wolves (like Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump, etc.) in your midst. They're not interested in your religion; only in your politics -- and your vote!
"Religious freedom" is a phrase coined by Evangelical Christians and used to practice bigotry and hatred (examples include Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee). How does such a phrase become twisted to meet their own political ends? Here's the recipe.
1. Adopt the identification of oneself as an Evangelical Christian.
Who are Evangelical Christians? According to The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, the Unabridged Edition, A Christian is defined as "of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ" and, "exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ: Christ like." The descriptive word of "Evangelical" means, "marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause". The key words then in defining an Evangelical Christian are "a zealous Jesus Christ follower who is Christ like in spirit".
Why would politicians want to identify with them? Eighty-three percent of Americans label themselves as Christian. If I want to have political sway over a large number of people, it would seem logical to choose the largest-size religious group within which to work.
2. Ignore teachings of Jesus Christ, Diety of Evangelical Christians; act as if those teachings don't exist.
What are the teachings of Jesus Christ [if indeed he truly existed]? What better place to look than through Jesus' own words? Those words, of course, can be found in the Christian Bible, in the section called, "The New Testament". As a child in elementary school, I received a gift of a Bible from a mother in one of our church families (at the time, my father was pastoring an Evangelical-Christian church in Illinois). What was interesting in that book were the words of Jesus Christ, which were the only words printed in red. They begin in the book of Matthew and continue through the book of John. There is no confusion about which words were those of Jesus.
Another source for identifying words of Jesus Christ is so-called, The Jefferson Bible, authored by Thomas Jefferson, hence the title. In The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, the original title, with Editor, Douglas E. Lurton, and published by Wilfred Funk, Inc., New York, 1944, Lurton explains Jefferson's purpose in separating out Jesus' sayings: "During his first term in the White House, [Jefferson] revealed his dream of separating the sayings which were indisputably the words of Jesus from what he considered to be extraneous matter in the Holy Library of 66 volumes, 1189 chapters, 773,000 words..." (The Jefferson Bible)
Three years later in 1816, Jefferson writes to Charles Thompson, "I, too, have made a wee little book from the same materials, which I call the philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus..." [One has to wonder how Jefferson was able to explain the obvious dissonance between his slave-holding and 'doctrines of Jesus' that he espoused, having freed only a handful of slaves during his lifetime.] "...If I had time I would add to my little book the Greek, Latin and French texts, in columns side by side." Later, such a work is completed and placed in the United States National Museum at Washington in 1895. The 57th Congress in 1904 provided for publication of this work; a limited edition of these volumes was presented to members of the House and Senate. From thence, comes the English section of the text edited by Lurton (The Jefferson Bible).
From Evangelical Christians who truly believe doctrines of Jesus, these are the actions we would we would expect to see: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you... Bless the peacemakers... Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them... Ye shall know them by their fruits [actions]."
3. Focus only on tangential, ambiguous and inconsistent writings that are not credited to Jesus Christ but, instead, are mostly found in "The Old Testament" as well as a few from followers of Jesus in "The New Testament".
Evangelical Christians use the Old Testament to argue for or against many issues. Whether the issue is gun control, Obamacare, or Planned Parenthood, Christians can interpret verses, can find something no matter how ambiguous, to support their argument. [Just as importantly, nonbelievers can cite Biblical verses that counter those same arguments.] The fact remains, however, that the words of Jesus are the "Gold Standard". It is his teachings from which their religion of Christianity arose and Christ is, after all, the namesake of their religion. Old Testament text or Paul's writings (marketing expert extraordinaire) or letters from any other follower do not qualify without exact words of Jesus. As Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Adams in 1813, "We must reduce our volume to the simple Evangelists; select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the [ambiguous grammatical structure] into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from Him by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves [my Italics]. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man." (The Jefferson Bible)
"Religious freedom" is screamed only when issues surround use of tangential, ambiguous, or inconsistent writings [call it "extraneous matter"] from both Old and New Testaments to justify behavior toward a particular issue. Imagine these scenarios: Jesus appears at a Planned Parenthood Clinic where mainly women receive all kinds of health care, including abortions. He gets into the face of a patient walking into the Clinic, holds up horrendous pictures of fetuses and screams epithets against women who are actually making a private, legal decision about their own health care. Jesus tells his followers to buy more and more guns because that's the only way to maintain peace and safety. Jesus says that lack of health care for those unable to afford it is just too bad; quality health care is only for those who have money or can afford a good health insurance plan.
These kinds of behaviors don't speak to the writings of the Evangelical Christian's Jesus ("Christ like...exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ"). Rather, these behaviors sound like actions of "...those guiding or influencing governmental policy, or of winning and holding control over a government..." and "political affairs...especially competition between groups or individuals for power and leadership." In other words, these behaviors illustrate the meaning of politics (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus).
The recent use of the phrase "religious freedom" is not at all about religion; it's all about politics. It's a misnomer created to draw into the political fold any Evangelical Christians who buy their supposed message of religion. Instead, their goal is absolute power and control. The real meaning of "religious freedom" is the "quality or state of being free" in "relation or devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or Diety." (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus) In no way have Evangelical Christians been kept from the freedom of practicing the words of Jesus, their Diety.
Political shysters have turned the meaning of "religious freedom" on its head, purposefully to confuse, to muddy it, and make its true meaning unclear. In reality, the phrase becomes an excuse to practice bigotry and hatred. Wake up, Jesus-followers! You've got several wolves (like Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump, etc.) in your midst. They're not interested in your religion; only in your politics -- and your vote!
Saturday, November 21, 2015
A Control Issue, Maybe?
Evangelical Christians now make up an identifiable voting block within the world of politics. The power they wield belies the low numbers they have (extremist Republican caucus in the House of Representatives, for example) compared to other voting blocks, like independents, moderate-to-liberal thinkers and voters. Where does this Evangelical Christian group come from?
During most of the 20th Century, Evangelical Christians are viewed as a religious entity only. The family in which I am reared is part of that group. We children are taught that we are special. Why? Because we are chosen people of God. Of all the people in the world, we are the only chosen ones: we are Evangelical Christians. We have a market on knowing who will go to heaven and who will not -- we are positively adamant that there is a heaven and a hell. If we follow what our church teaches us (study the words of Jesus Christ, and follow his precepts: that is the meaning of "Christian" is it not?), we will be guaranteed a place in heaven.
Some of the church rules of Christianity we are to follow? Rules to show we are special? Girls cannot wear long pants, shorts, jewelry, or make-up. We children cannot go to dances or movies. We cannot play cards, smoke, or drink alcohol (adults are to follow the same rules).
Are these required actions connected in any way to our religious belief system? Do we feel special as a result? If that means feeling like I'm sticking out like a sore thumb, maybe. Climbing trees with other friends is near to impossible for us girls; staying away from high school dances is alienating. Is it human for parents to want to protect their children and do what is in their view the right thing? It is not special. It has nothing to do with the religion (our cousins go to the same Evangelical Christian denominational church in another state and have a lot more freedom than we do). For whatever reason, it is human on the part of our parents. (Control issue, maybe?)
What about the following words that Jesus Christ used? His parable that says "For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." (Christian Bible, Matthew 25:35-40)
How do these words preached by Jesus Christ fit into the behavior of Evangelical Christians? Do these words inform the behavior of the Evangelical Christian voting block? Not as I can tell. The plight of Syrian refugees (LGBT's; women's rights to their own bodies, to equal pay; workers' low pay, etc.) wouldn't be nearly as controversial if Evangelical Christians actually followed the words of their namesake. If actions they take are any guide, these actions of Evangelical Christians are not in the least connected to anything religious, or to what they would define as being religious. They are human reactions based on fear. Their religion has nothing to do with it. They are human and they are afraid. (Control issue, maybe?)
Is there anything wrong with being human? The only thing wrong is when Evangelical Christians say they base their behavior (when it comes to issues like that above) on their religious beliefs. If this were true, their behavior would follow the parable of Jesus Christ. Since they are not following the words of Jesus Christ, their actions have no basis in "religious freedom." Is anyone stopping them from following Jesus Christ's example?
Nowadays Evangelical Christians are masquerading as a religious group; they are not. They are a political block not tied to anything preached in Matthew 25:35-40. Their purpose? Control issue? Of course!
[In the 21st Century, the Evangelical Christian church in which I grew up allows dancing, even on their college campuses. It's more expedient when selling their wares to other cultures, I'm told.]
Evangelical Christians now make up an identifiable voting block within the world of politics. The power they wield belies the low numbers they have (extremist Republican caucus in the House of Representatives, for example) compared to other voting blocks, like independents, moderate-to-liberal thinkers and voters. Where does this Evangelical Christian group come from?
During most of the 20th Century, Evangelical Christians are viewed as a religious entity only. The family in which I am reared is part of that group. We children are taught that we are special. Why? Because we are chosen people of God. Of all the people in the world, we are the only chosen ones: we are Evangelical Christians. We have a market on knowing who will go to heaven and who will not -- we are positively adamant that there is a heaven and a hell. If we follow what our church teaches us (study the words of Jesus Christ, and follow his precepts: that is the meaning of "Christian" is it not?), we will be guaranteed a place in heaven.
Some of the church rules of Christianity we are to follow? Rules to show we are special? Girls cannot wear long pants, shorts, jewelry, or make-up. We children cannot go to dances or movies. We cannot play cards, smoke, or drink alcohol (adults are to follow the same rules).
Are these required actions connected in any way to our religious belief system? Do we feel special as a result? If that means feeling like I'm sticking out like a sore thumb, maybe. Climbing trees with other friends is near to impossible for us girls; staying away from high school dances is alienating. Is it human for parents to want to protect their children and do what is in their view the right thing? It is not special. It has nothing to do with the religion (our cousins go to the same Evangelical Christian denominational church in another state and have a lot more freedom than we do). For whatever reason, it is human on the part of our parents. (Control issue, maybe?)
What about the following words that Jesus Christ used? His parable that says "For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." (Christian Bible, Matthew 25:35-40)
How do these words preached by Jesus Christ fit into the behavior of Evangelical Christians? Do these words inform the behavior of the Evangelical Christian voting block? Not as I can tell. The plight of Syrian refugees (LGBT's; women's rights to their own bodies, to equal pay; workers' low pay, etc.) wouldn't be nearly as controversial if Evangelical Christians actually followed the words of their namesake. If actions they take are any guide, these actions of Evangelical Christians are not in the least connected to anything religious, or to what they would define as being religious. They are human reactions based on fear. Their religion has nothing to do with it. They are human and they are afraid. (Control issue, maybe?)
Is there anything wrong with being human? The only thing wrong is when Evangelical Christians say they base their behavior (when it comes to issues like that above) on their religious beliefs. If this were true, their behavior would follow the parable of Jesus Christ. Since they are not following the words of Jesus Christ, their actions have no basis in "religious freedom." Is anyone stopping them from following Jesus Christ's example?
Nowadays Evangelical Christians are masquerading as a religious group; they are not. They are a political block not tied to anything preached in Matthew 25:35-40. Their purpose? Control issue? Of course!
[In the 21st Century, the Evangelical Christian church in which I grew up allows dancing, even on their college campuses. It's more expedient when selling their wares to other cultures, I'm told.]
Thursday, November 19, 2015
RINO?
Recently a friend responded to a political email I'd sent. He used the term "RINO", I assumed, to refer to Republicans. Since I hadn't heard the acronym before, I created my own meaning of it as it pertains to the GOP. (My following creativity with this acronym has nothing to do with it's real meaning which is, I'm told, "Republican In Name Only".)
MY meaning for RINO is "Republicans in the NO!"
The word, "rino", conjures up "rhino", a shortened form of rhinoceros, those large animals found in Africa and Southeast Asia. In reading about the rhinoceros, I realized they are a perfect symbol for GOP leadership and presidential candidates. Here's why:
1. There are black rhinos and there are white rhinos. That's exactly how the GOP sees the world -- in black and white.
2. Rhinos have pea-size brains in relation to their size (adults are one ton). The GOP is too big for its britches; it's leaders collectively think and act very small. Consider: no Obamacare for the needy; no Planned Parenthood healthcare for needy women or men; no increase in minimum wage; no Syrian refugees into our country except maybe for Christians, etc., etc.
3. According to the African Wildlife Foundation, rhino horns in Asia are prized because they are believed to be a cure for hangovers, cancer, impotence. In reality, the horns are made of keratin, the same material as our hair and nails. As one writer put it, their horns "are as effective at curing cancer as chewing fingernails." The GOP's presidential candidates would have us believe they have the solutions to our country's problems. In reality? They solve nothing. In fact, their "solutions" only make our country's problems worse by seeding distrust, practicing extreme partisanship, fostering alienation. Their "horns", their ideas, are only good for chewing one's fingernails!
Let's start a movement to replace the elephant as a GOP symbol! Why not the rhinoceros? Elephants represent the exact opposite of the current GOP -- they are too smart and too empathetic with their fellow elephants to represent the GOP! Then again, rhinoceros are dwindling in their populations. Do we really want to see the GOP dwindle out of existence? Hmmm...
Recently a friend responded to a political email I'd sent. He used the term "RINO", I assumed, to refer to Republicans. Since I hadn't heard the acronym before, I created my own meaning of it as it pertains to the GOP. (My following creativity with this acronym has nothing to do with it's real meaning which is, I'm told, "Republican In Name Only".)
MY meaning for RINO is "Republicans in the NO!"
The word, "rino", conjures up "rhino", a shortened form of rhinoceros, those large animals found in Africa and Southeast Asia. In reading about the rhinoceros, I realized they are a perfect symbol for GOP leadership and presidential candidates. Here's why:
1. There are black rhinos and there are white rhinos. That's exactly how the GOP sees the world -- in black and white.
2. Rhinos have pea-size brains in relation to their size (adults are one ton). The GOP is too big for its britches; it's leaders collectively think and act very small. Consider: no Obamacare for the needy; no Planned Parenthood healthcare for needy women or men; no increase in minimum wage; no Syrian refugees into our country except maybe for Christians, etc., etc.
3. According to the African Wildlife Foundation, rhino horns in Asia are prized because they are believed to be a cure for hangovers, cancer, impotence. In reality, the horns are made of keratin, the same material as our hair and nails. As one writer put it, their horns "are as effective at curing cancer as chewing fingernails." The GOP's presidential candidates would have us believe they have the solutions to our country's problems. In reality? They solve nothing. In fact, their "solutions" only make our country's problems worse by seeding distrust, practicing extreme partisanship, fostering alienation. Their "horns", their ideas, are only good for chewing one's fingernails!
Let's start a movement to replace the elephant as a GOP symbol! Why not the rhinoceros? Elephants represent the exact opposite of the current GOP -- they are too smart and too empathetic with their fellow elephants to represent the GOP! Then again, rhinoceros are dwindling in their populations. Do we really want to see the GOP dwindle out of existence? Hmmm...
Friday, October 23, 2015
Go Hillary!
If ever there was a time to stand up for someone and support her, the time is now. Hillary Rodham Clinton amazed me yesterday with her stamina, her clearness of thought, and her patience, her cool under fire. If she can put up with, and overcome, all the bullying displayed by Tea Party Republicans at their trumped-up Benghazi hearing, she can put up with any mud thrown at her.
Let's be clear. Politics is not an easy game to play. It is particularly dirty when women are reaching for equality, cracking the glass ceiling, becoming the first President of the U.S. who is a woman. It's reminiscent of early feminists like Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony. All they were asking for was the right to their own property, to control their own lives, and later, the right to vote. Hillary is continuing that struggle. For anyone advocating for the rights of women (or girls just reaching for the stars), support for Hillary is a must. Go Hillary!
If ever there was a time to stand up for someone and support her, the time is now. Hillary Rodham Clinton amazed me yesterday with her stamina, her clearness of thought, and her patience, her cool under fire. If she can put up with, and overcome, all the bullying displayed by Tea Party Republicans at their trumped-up Benghazi hearing, she can put up with any mud thrown at her.
Let's be clear. Politics is not an easy game to play. It is particularly dirty when women are reaching for equality, cracking the glass ceiling, becoming the first President of the U.S. who is a woman. It's reminiscent of early feminists like Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony. All they were asking for was the right to their own property, to control their own lives, and later, the right to vote. Hillary is continuing that struggle. For anyone advocating for the rights of women (or girls just reaching for the stars), support for Hillary is a must. Go Hillary!
Monday, August 24, 2015
Transcending the Political: Can it be done?
Having opposing political views can be a detriment to any relationship, whether it is between siblings, friends, or neighbors. Living as a Democrat in a state where the overall philosophy is Republican can mean for some insecurity. Who has my back? Does anyone have my back?
This came up recently as I was negotiating a change in the way things have always been done. As newly-elected President of the Board of the Musselshell Valley Historical Museum, my job, as I saw it, was to help identify a goal for improving the organization. In this case, it was to increase the amount of business over that of the past year: to encourage more people to come through our doors.
In March, a program was initiated between long-time community members and our local school. Through sharing their personal histories with students, it was hoped that community members could serve as a link to our museum. Would students bring their families to visit the Museum this summer?
At the same time, members of our Board were updating and increasing exhibits. They created and constructed a new exhibit, a Tack Room that included early saddles, bridles, angora chaps, cavalry tack, stock brands, tools for horseshoe repair, harness of all kinds, etc.
Students came; families came; visitors from within our state came as well as other states and a few other countries. By late July, we had already exceeded total number of visitors from the previous year. But another problem arose: were we meeting needs of our visitors? Could they wander at will throughout the Museum, visit displays, and better understand those living here in the past? Or, as most recently, was it necessary for them to be toured and explained to all along the way?
Heads butt over responsibility of Guides; I seek counsel from experienced/previous Board members; two volunteer Guides resign. I call for an extra meeting of the Board. What's the problem? How can it be corrected?
For a week, I prepare. I hear rumors, possible machinations taken by another Board member to undercut the meeting, other comments that make me wonder what could happen. It feels a lot like 1981.
Memory floods back. I am a newly-minted Principal of a 500-student elementary school in Indiana. It's 7:00 pm. In the multi-purpose room, I am presiding over a Parent-Teacher-Organization meeting after which primary students will perform for their parents. The second-grade students are lined up at the door ready to come in. Without warning, a parent stands up and begins to complain about a change I had made in bus pick-up for students. Another parent stands, and then another.
I regain control by reassuring parents I will discuss the problem with them after the meeting in a vacant classroom where they can vent their feelings. I do just that. About five or six parents show up (out of a total of 60-80). As they begin, I pick up chalk and, as each parent relates their problem, I list it on the chalkboard. After they are finished, I go through each listed item. I understand their complaint, I apologize where needed, and I resolve to correct whatever mistakes have been made. They have vented, calmed down, and have expressed appreciation as they leave.
Is that experience from years ago similar to what I'll experience in this extra Board meeting? Will I be put on the carpet? Will a crowd of people be gathered in the room when I enter? Will there be anger, frustration, lots of confrontation? Will I be called upon to answer for the two Guides' resignations? Will my opposing political views engender distrust among those attending (views made much more public now than when I was younger)? How will I handle the situation, whatever it is?
There is no chalkboard or chalk in the room where the Board meeting will be held. But I do have a tripod, a large newsprint chart, and black markers. I resolve to record complaints on the chart and, as in the past, go through each one, discuss it, and , in the end, defuse the situation. I calm down, become resolute. This approach has worked in the past; it can work again.
The day of the Board meeting, I enter the room right on time, almost to the minute. Eight Board members sit in their usual places around several tables. They chat quietly across the room. I interrupt a conversation. I ask each person if they are ready to tackle the problem. They answer in the affirmative as I go around the room, calling them by name. It appears my fears have not materialized. No need for giving a speech, laying my resignation letter on the table, or walking out of the room. This groups does have my back -- and we're on our way to resolution.
Several hours later, I leave the meeting, feeling affirmed. Work has been done even though there is a lot more to do. Making nice with one Board member may be the only way to mend differences between us. Overall, however, more problems have been presented and solved than I expected. Most Board members have met me more than halfway. There is no feeling on my part that differences in politics have made any difference in the meeting. Board members had been there to explore alternatives in resolving an issue and that's exactly what we did.
Did we transcend politics? Decidedly. Our desire to overcome difficulties and work as a team ruled the day. Would that political leaders (like Republican candidates for President?) could follow the example of the good people of Roundup. Forget extremism, fostering dissension, and polarizing our country. Use cooperation to "make our country great again"!
Having opposing political views can be a detriment to any relationship, whether it is between siblings, friends, or neighbors. Living as a Democrat in a state where the overall philosophy is Republican can mean for some insecurity. Who has my back? Does anyone have my back?
This came up recently as I was negotiating a change in the way things have always been done. As newly-elected President of the Board of the Musselshell Valley Historical Museum, my job, as I saw it, was to help identify a goal for improving the organization. In this case, it was to increase the amount of business over that of the past year: to encourage more people to come through our doors.
In March, a program was initiated between long-time community members and our local school. Through sharing their personal histories with students, it was hoped that community members could serve as a link to our museum. Would students bring their families to visit the Museum this summer?
At the same time, members of our Board were updating and increasing exhibits. They created and constructed a new exhibit, a Tack Room that included early saddles, bridles, angora chaps, cavalry tack, stock brands, tools for horseshoe repair, harness of all kinds, etc.
Students came; families came; visitors from within our state came as well as other states and a few other countries. By late July, we had already exceeded total number of visitors from the previous year. But another problem arose: were we meeting needs of our visitors? Could they wander at will throughout the Museum, visit displays, and better understand those living here in the past? Or, as most recently, was it necessary for them to be toured and explained to all along the way?
Heads butt over responsibility of Guides; I seek counsel from experienced/previous Board members; two volunteer Guides resign. I call for an extra meeting of the Board. What's the problem? How can it be corrected?
For a week, I prepare. I hear rumors, possible machinations taken by another Board member to undercut the meeting, other comments that make me wonder what could happen. It feels a lot like 1981.
Memory floods back. I am a newly-minted Principal of a 500-student elementary school in Indiana. It's 7:00 pm. In the multi-purpose room, I am presiding over a Parent-Teacher-Organization meeting after which primary students will perform for their parents. The second-grade students are lined up at the door ready to come in. Without warning, a parent stands up and begins to complain about a change I had made in bus pick-up for students. Another parent stands, and then another.
I regain control by reassuring parents I will discuss the problem with them after the meeting in a vacant classroom where they can vent their feelings. I do just that. About five or six parents show up (out of a total of 60-80). As they begin, I pick up chalk and, as each parent relates their problem, I list it on the chalkboard. After they are finished, I go through each listed item. I understand their complaint, I apologize where needed, and I resolve to correct whatever mistakes have been made. They have vented, calmed down, and have expressed appreciation as they leave.
Is that experience from years ago similar to what I'll experience in this extra Board meeting? Will I be put on the carpet? Will a crowd of people be gathered in the room when I enter? Will there be anger, frustration, lots of confrontation? Will I be called upon to answer for the two Guides' resignations? Will my opposing political views engender distrust among those attending (views made much more public now than when I was younger)? How will I handle the situation, whatever it is?
There is no chalkboard or chalk in the room where the Board meeting will be held. But I do have a tripod, a large newsprint chart, and black markers. I resolve to record complaints on the chart and, as in the past, go through each one, discuss it, and , in the end, defuse the situation. I calm down, become resolute. This approach has worked in the past; it can work again.
The day of the Board meeting, I enter the room right on time, almost to the minute. Eight Board members sit in their usual places around several tables. They chat quietly across the room. I interrupt a conversation. I ask each person if they are ready to tackle the problem. They answer in the affirmative as I go around the room, calling them by name. It appears my fears have not materialized. No need for giving a speech, laying my resignation letter on the table, or walking out of the room. This groups does have my back -- and we're on our way to resolution.
Several hours later, I leave the meeting, feeling affirmed. Work has been done even though there is a lot more to do. Making nice with one Board member may be the only way to mend differences between us. Overall, however, more problems have been presented and solved than I expected. Most Board members have met me more than halfway. There is no feeling on my part that differences in politics have made any difference in the meeting. Board members had been there to explore alternatives in resolving an issue and that's exactly what we did.
Did we transcend politics? Decidedly. Our desire to overcome difficulties and work as a team ruled the day. Would that political leaders (like Republican candidates for President?) could follow the example of the good people of Roundup. Forget extremism, fostering dissension, and polarizing our country. Use cooperation to "make our country great again"!
Sunday, July 26, 2015
Benefits of Living Blue in a Red State
I am an introvert; I have always felt in the minority. Some studies show that, in the general population, introverts make up about 10 percent -- which leaves extraverts the overwhelming majority. What's the difference?
According to Kroeger and Thuesen in their book Type Talk, these are the preferences of both:
Introvert Extravert
territoriality sociability
concentration interaction
internal external
depth breadth
intensive extensive
limited relationships multiple relationships
energy conservation energy expenditure
internal reactions external events
reflective gregarious
think, then speak speak, then think
Additionally, I grew up in an evangelical Christian family at a time when that was definitely not cool. Public school was a nightmare in the sense that we as children were encouraged to be in the world, but not of the world. As girls, we were required to wear dresses only (no shorts, long pants, or jeans), no make-up and no jewelry. We could not go to movies, attend dances or play cards. Sundays were for reflection and naps; no play. At that time as a child, I felt weird, faceless, out of sync with my peers. (On a Sunday afternoon, my fifth-grade playmate kept sending me upstairs to my napping mother to ask for a quarter so I could go to the movie matinee with her. No, no and NO was the answer.)
Currently, I'm a Democrat living in a red state. In my town, there is no Democratic organization, no get-togethers with others who have common values, no sharing of ideas or principals. There is no common activism involved in generating enthusiasm for our cause. In our voting district, a small percentage of all voters vote Democratic. We are the silent minority.
I am an introvert with an evangelical Christian background but who no longer tracks in that path; I am a Democrat living in a place where Republicans overwhelmingly outnumber us. I am definitely in the minority. So what could possibly be beneficial about living here?
I am an introvert; I have always felt in the minority. Some studies show that, in the general population, introverts make up about 10 percent -- which leaves extraverts the overwhelming majority. What's the difference?
According to Kroeger and Thuesen in their book Type Talk, these are the preferences of both:
Introvert Extravert
territoriality sociability
concentration interaction
internal external
depth breadth
intensive extensive
limited relationships multiple relationships
energy conservation energy expenditure
internal reactions external events
reflective gregarious
think, then speak speak, then think
Additionally, I grew up in an evangelical Christian family at a time when that was definitely not cool. Public school was a nightmare in the sense that we as children were encouraged to be in the world, but not of the world. As girls, we were required to wear dresses only (no shorts, long pants, or jeans), no make-up and no jewelry. We could not go to movies, attend dances or play cards. Sundays were for reflection and naps; no play. At that time as a child, I felt weird, faceless, out of sync with my peers. (On a Sunday afternoon, my fifth-grade playmate kept sending me upstairs to my napping mother to ask for a quarter so I could go to the movie matinee with her. No, no and NO was the answer.)
Currently, I'm a Democrat living in a red state. In my town, there is no Democratic organization, no get-togethers with others who have common values, no sharing of ideas or principals. There is no common activism involved in generating enthusiasm for our cause. In our voting district, a small percentage of all voters vote Democratic. We are the silent minority.
I am an introvert with an evangelical Christian background but who no longer tracks in that path; I am a Democrat living in a place where Republicans overwhelmingly outnumber us. I am definitely in the minority. So what could possibly be beneficial about living here?
- On Sundays, I ride my bike around town while most everyone else is sitting in church. There are no distractions, few disruptions, just my quiet time to contemplate and enjoy.
- My political stance allows me to stay somewhat invisible. No sense in voting for someone for school board (something I tried last spring) who has opposite political views.
- Society at large tends to ignore me which allows freedom from intermingling with larger groups of people with whom I may not have a lot in common.
Sunday, July 5, 2015
A Story of Obamacare
Jim and Jane live in Mississippi. They are quite content because they have a daughter, Jill, in whom they have much pride. Family activities have always included Jill even though she is now in her early twenties and has been unable to become self-sufficient. As a result, she cannot afford to carry her own health insurance.
One day, Jim hears that the new Obamacare health care insurance system will introduce a program whereby parents may carry their children's health insurance on their own plan, up until the child turns 26 years of age. Despite the fact that Jim and Jane have voted Republican most of their adult lives, they decide this Obamacare health program is worth checking out. Indeed, they find that their daughter can be covered on their own policy for several more years, until Jill turns 26. "It is a godsend -- literally," they exclaim. "Whatever happens, we know that Jill will be covered by our insurance policy."
Within the following year, the worst happens. Jill is involved in a single-car accident, suffers a severe concussion, and expires soon after reaching a hospital. Her parents are absolutely devastated. They question themselves. "What will we do without our child? How can we continue as a family without her? Did we do enough for her while she was in our care?" All stages of grief become a part of their daily lives: denial and isolation, anger, bargaining, depression. Finally, as a part of their acceptance process, they realize that including Jill under their own health care policy was a symbol of how much they cared for their daughter while she lived. They were reassured that they did all that was humanly possible to extend their umbrella of caring to include Jill.
Obamacare was a reason that Jim and Jane felt they did their best for their daughter. Upon hearing of this story and the role that Obamacare played in reassuring the parents, an evangelical Christian friend became livid. To hear that Obamacare could make such an important positive impact went against everything he had heard on the Fox channel. How could this be? Anger was palpable in his reaction.
I hear these stories and I wonder why Republicans (many of whom are evangelical Christians) have so much difficulty with Obamacare. In growing up in an evangelical Christian family myself, I do not have an answer. I remember verses from the Bible that admonish us to "Do unto others..." and "Ye do it unto the least of these, my brethren, ye do it unto me". We sang choruses "Jesus loves the little children; all the children of the world. Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight..." If all this is true and espoused by evangelical Christians, it would seem that Obamacare provides something needed by all of us, all Americans: quality healthcare. If they truly believe what they espouse, evangelical Christians (many of whom vote Republican) would be doing all in their power to see that people besides themselves would receive all the benefits of a good health care policy. Jim and Jane were certainly doing that for their daughter under Obamacare and, hence, experienced healing reassurance.
Supporting a Republican party that does nothing in Congress but vote to repeal Obamacare 60+ times (vowing to continue such a stance even after a second Supreme Court decision supporting Obamacare!) seems to go against values that the church preaches (see above). Where's the problem here, evangelical Christians who vote Republican? Is it the message or the messenger? Something just doesn't fit!
Jim and Jane live in Mississippi. They are quite content because they have a daughter, Jill, in whom they have much pride. Family activities have always included Jill even though she is now in her early twenties and has been unable to become self-sufficient. As a result, she cannot afford to carry her own health insurance.
One day, Jim hears that the new Obamacare health care insurance system will introduce a program whereby parents may carry their children's health insurance on their own plan, up until the child turns 26 years of age. Despite the fact that Jim and Jane have voted Republican most of their adult lives, they decide this Obamacare health program is worth checking out. Indeed, they find that their daughter can be covered on their own policy for several more years, until Jill turns 26. "It is a godsend -- literally," they exclaim. "Whatever happens, we know that Jill will be covered by our insurance policy."
Within the following year, the worst happens. Jill is involved in a single-car accident, suffers a severe concussion, and expires soon after reaching a hospital. Her parents are absolutely devastated. They question themselves. "What will we do without our child? How can we continue as a family without her? Did we do enough for her while she was in our care?" All stages of grief become a part of their daily lives: denial and isolation, anger, bargaining, depression. Finally, as a part of their acceptance process, they realize that including Jill under their own health care policy was a symbol of how much they cared for their daughter while she lived. They were reassured that they did all that was humanly possible to extend their umbrella of caring to include Jill.
Obamacare was a reason that Jim and Jane felt they did their best for their daughter. Upon hearing of this story and the role that Obamacare played in reassuring the parents, an evangelical Christian friend became livid. To hear that Obamacare could make such an important positive impact went against everything he had heard on the Fox channel. How could this be? Anger was palpable in his reaction.
I hear these stories and I wonder why Republicans (many of whom are evangelical Christians) have so much difficulty with Obamacare. In growing up in an evangelical Christian family myself, I do not have an answer. I remember verses from the Bible that admonish us to "Do unto others..." and "Ye do it unto the least of these, my brethren, ye do it unto me". We sang choruses "Jesus loves the little children; all the children of the world. Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight..." If all this is true and espoused by evangelical Christians, it would seem that Obamacare provides something needed by all of us, all Americans: quality healthcare. If they truly believe what they espouse, evangelical Christians (many of whom vote Republican) would be doing all in their power to see that people besides themselves would receive all the benefits of a good health care policy. Jim and Jane were certainly doing that for their daughter under Obamacare and, hence, experienced healing reassurance.
Supporting a Republican party that does nothing in Congress but vote to repeal Obamacare 60+ times (vowing to continue such a stance even after a second Supreme Court decision supporting Obamacare!) seems to go against values that the church preaches (see above). Where's the problem here, evangelical Christians who vote Republican? Is it the message or the messenger? Something just doesn't fit!
Friday, June 26, 2015
The Pendulum Swings Part II
Obamacare and PLOM-ing
I tune in late this morning to hear that Obamacare has been upheld again by the Supreme Court . This is the second time. Will it be the last challenge to Obamacare at the Supreme Court? Many think so since the first decision resulted in a 5-4 win and the second, a 6-3 win. But there is no way to share joy in my town tonight.
Living in a small town within a red state means that, as a progressive, I celebrate these major victories alone. In fact, to some extent, I have felt under siege. It has resulted in another one of those PLOM times (Poor Little Ole Me). Most of my transactions today have been colored by that fact and I'm feeling stifled, under-appreciated, and dare I say, on the right side for a change. My celebration, however, is a silent cheer, a muffled yell, a beating on my chest -- behind closed doors.
I awake at 6 a.m. energized and determined to observe the final stages of pouring a new concrete sidewalk at the Catholic Church across the alley. A 3-man team has been digging up dirt and old concrete, building wood forms, all to prepare for the concrete to be delivered today. I observe, ask names of each tool they use, and take notes on each step. At my own pace, it's likely this can be done; my project is much simpler. However, I'm told by a worker I couldn't do it because it's too hard, I shouldn't do it, and he advised me not to do it.
Around noon, I visit a meeting in which the community group is developing ways and means to (1) get reps from different groups in town to work together, (2) improve attractiveness of downtown, and (3) develop our economy as a result. Comments from several people lead me to believe that (1) my organization is already being represented inferring there is no need for me to attend here, (2) care needs to be taken that those who might disrupt the group should not be able to attend, present company excepted of course, and (3) "Does everybody know Edith?" used as my welcome to the group.
Later, I keep an appointment to have some work done. Although there's never been a problem in the past discussing political/religious viewpoints (since neither of us has brought it up), there seems to be some conversational pushback concerning one conservative program in which this person believes and brings up in our discussion (Why now? I ask myself). Eventually, the conversation gets shifted to a more non-threatening topic.
The hives that began this morning have blossomed considerably. I purchase pills and cream from our pharmacy. Tomorrow I see a P.A. at the local clinic.
My answers to the situations above are: Investigate further in trying my hand at a relatively new skill despite others' misgivings (I've done some patching), stop attending the meeting at which there already seems to be a rep, and steer clear sooner from a political discussion with someone whose views have been made clear.
PLOM-ing is no fun. There is a need to become more proactive. Take control of my own life recognizing that I am not a victim. For now, celebrating the success of Obamacare is done through writing, a more viable outlet in this time, in this place. I commit to writing more often.
Obamacare and PLOM-ing
I tune in late this morning to hear that Obamacare has been upheld again by the Supreme Court . This is the second time. Will it be the last challenge to Obamacare at the Supreme Court? Many think so since the first decision resulted in a 5-4 win and the second, a 6-3 win. But there is no way to share joy in my town tonight.
Living in a small town within a red state means that, as a progressive, I celebrate these major victories alone. In fact, to some extent, I have felt under siege. It has resulted in another one of those PLOM times (Poor Little Ole Me). Most of my transactions today have been colored by that fact and I'm feeling stifled, under-appreciated, and dare I say, on the right side for a change. My celebration, however, is a silent cheer, a muffled yell, a beating on my chest -- behind closed doors.
I awake at 6 a.m. energized and determined to observe the final stages of pouring a new concrete sidewalk at the Catholic Church across the alley. A 3-man team has been digging up dirt and old concrete, building wood forms, all to prepare for the concrete to be delivered today. I observe, ask names of each tool they use, and take notes on each step. At my own pace, it's likely this can be done; my project is much simpler. However, I'm told by a worker I couldn't do it because it's too hard, I shouldn't do it, and he advised me not to do it.
Around noon, I visit a meeting in which the community group is developing ways and means to (1) get reps from different groups in town to work together, (2) improve attractiveness of downtown, and (3) develop our economy as a result. Comments from several people lead me to believe that (1) my organization is already being represented inferring there is no need for me to attend here, (2) care needs to be taken that those who might disrupt the group should not be able to attend, present company excepted of course, and (3) "Does everybody know Edith?" used as my welcome to the group.
Later, I keep an appointment to have some work done. Although there's never been a problem in the past discussing political/religious viewpoints (since neither of us has brought it up), there seems to be some conversational pushback concerning one conservative program in which this person believes and brings up in our discussion (Why now? I ask myself). Eventually, the conversation gets shifted to a more non-threatening topic.
The hives that began this morning have blossomed considerably. I purchase pills and cream from our pharmacy. Tomorrow I see a P.A. at the local clinic.
My answers to the situations above are: Investigate further in trying my hand at a relatively new skill despite others' misgivings (I've done some patching), stop attending the meeting at which there already seems to be a rep, and steer clear sooner from a political discussion with someone whose views have been made clear.
PLOM-ing is no fun. There is a need to become more proactive. Take control of my own life recognizing that I am not a victim. For now, celebrating the success of Obamacare is done through writing, a more viable outlet in this time, in this place. I commit to writing more often.
The Pendulum Swings Part I
A Letter
It's been almost a year since my last entry on this blog. What has happened in the interim? I received about 435 votes in the election, the same amount that every other Democrat received in their 2014 state races. In other words, it wasn't what any of us did nor did not do; it was pretty much a party-line vote. My Republican competitor was closer to about 1200 votes.
Spring, 2015, I was elected as President of the Board for our Musselshell Valley Historical Museum and Vice-chair of our UUA Fellowship in Billing, 50 miles distant. I ran for, and lost, election to our local school board. So I win a few, lose a few. Winning, on the other hand, is not always something to celebrate. Conducting two Museum fundraisers within two months, standing on my feet for seven hours at one of them, is extremely tiring. Planning for and creating future Museum exhibits is challenging and time-consuming. And driving 50 miles to a Fellowship Board meeting must be squeezed into a long list of other errands in order to conserve on gas. Even losing an election can be a good learning experience when unexpected comments from individuals in town show they've been listening and they're admiring of my throwing my hat into the ring (no Democrat has done it in a long while -- for good reason evidently).
Nowadays? This is the first week sunlight begins to shorten. I will hardly notice until something happens, my early mornings won't be as bright as they are now; I won't be able to sit out on my deck and write quite as early. The cycle begins anew.
My getting is older is just the same. I do O.K. Walking, riding my bike are several ways I exercise. It just takes me longer to do almost everything -- and that's good. The secret for me is to pace myself (except when I'm serving at a Pancake Breakfast for seven hours!). Pacing is good but it's also helpful to persist in all of my exercising. Listening to my body is the other requirement for maintaining good health.
For example, there are several choices I can make when taking my almost-daily bike ride. I can go north on my street and south down the next street, about one mile from one end of town to the other. This can happen for four streets until the pavement runs out (several newer streets are unpaved). Going north is sloping up while south is the opposite. Or I can cross Highway 89 our main street, go east several blocks before turning north. Several more blocks take me across Highway 12, where I circle the town park with its play area, tennis courts and pool I peddle by the pasture where the new elementary school will be constructed (this will be the last school year in the original 1911 sandstone building located 1/2 block from my house).
Ice cream hill is the point as which I turn west. (It used to look like the top of an ice cream cone but since city trucks have begun to remove much of the soil, it's lost its shape.) I cross 89 once more heading four blocks to the last paved street on that side of town. I turn south. This is the street we look forward to (when Lori rides with me) because we get to coast almost all the way to the last street. It takes only three more blocks east before starting back north for several blocks and turning into my alley.
Whichever path I choose depends on how I feel. If my knee is giving me pain (tripped up a high curb last week), a shorter route makes more sense. If, however, I've spent time during the morning on my exercise routines (stretching, physical therapy, and shoulder strengthening), I'm ready to circumvent the town. (Is there an exercise for almost every malady?! Like lying on my back on the floor, napping sometimes, to straighten/ease my back.)
What a life! Rarely boring, well-paced much of the time, with persistence-in-all-things as a favorite motto (after two years, still have to build a porch rail and cement some sidewalk!). Along the way I remind myself to be thankful for my challenges here, like having too much to do and even having those PLOM-ing times that inevitably appear (see next entry). Those challenges force me to use my own creativity and skills. Yes, life is slower (may take a while to get my sea legs after sitting too long) but it matches where I am -- and that ain't bad!
A Letter
It's been almost a year since my last entry on this blog. What has happened in the interim? I received about 435 votes in the election, the same amount that every other Democrat received in their 2014 state races. In other words, it wasn't what any of us did nor did not do; it was pretty much a party-line vote. My Republican competitor was closer to about 1200 votes.
Spring, 2015, I was elected as President of the Board for our Musselshell Valley Historical Museum and Vice-chair of our UUA Fellowship in Billing, 50 miles distant. I ran for, and lost, election to our local school board. So I win a few, lose a few. Winning, on the other hand, is not always something to celebrate. Conducting two Museum fundraisers within two months, standing on my feet for seven hours at one of them, is extremely tiring. Planning for and creating future Museum exhibits is challenging and time-consuming. And driving 50 miles to a Fellowship Board meeting must be squeezed into a long list of other errands in order to conserve on gas. Even losing an election can be a good learning experience when unexpected comments from individuals in town show they've been listening and they're admiring of my throwing my hat into the ring (no Democrat has done it in a long while -- for good reason evidently).
Nowadays? This is the first week sunlight begins to shorten. I will hardly notice until something happens, my early mornings won't be as bright as they are now; I won't be able to sit out on my deck and write quite as early. The cycle begins anew.
My getting is older is just the same. I do O.K. Walking, riding my bike are several ways I exercise. It just takes me longer to do almost everything -- and that's good. The secret for me is to pace myself (except when I'm serving at a Pancake Breakfast for seven hours!). Pacing is good but it's also helpful to persist in all of my exercising. Listening to my body is the other requirement for maintaining good health.
For example, there are several choices I can make when taking my almost-daily bike ride. I can go north on my street and south down the next street, about one mile from one end of town to the other. This can happen for four streets until the pavement runs out (several newer streets are unpaved). Going north is sloping up while south is the opposite. Or I can cross Highway 89 our main street, go east several blocks before turning north. Several more blocks take me across Highway 12, where I circle the town park with its play area, tennis courts and pool I peddle by the pasture where the new elementary school will be constructed (this will be the last school year in the original 1911 sandstone building located 1/2 block from my house).
Ice cream hill is the point as which I turn west. (It used to look like the top of an ice cream cone but since city trucks have begun to remove much of the soil, it's lost its shape.) I cross 89 once more heading four blocks to the last paved street on that side of town. I turn south. This is the street we look forward to (when Lori rides with me) because we get to coast almost all the way to the last street. It takes only three more blocks east before starting back north for several blocks and turning into my alley.
Whichever path I choose depends on how I feel. If my knee is giving me pain (tripped up a high curb last week), a shorter route makes more sense. If, however, I've spent time during the morning on my exercise routines (stretching, physical therapy, and shoulder strengthening), I'm ready to circumvent the town. (Is there an exercise for almost every malady?! Like lying on my back on the floor, napping sometimes, to straighten/ease my back.)
What a life! Rarely boring, well-paced much of the time, with persistence-in-all-things as a favorite motto (after two years, still have to build a porch rail and cement some sidewalk!). Along the way I remind myself to be thankful for my challenges here, like having too much to do and even having those PLOM-ing times that inevitably appear (see next entry). Those challenges force me to use my own creativity and skills. Yes, life is slower (may take a while to get my sea legs after sitting too long) but it matches where I am -- and that ain't bad!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)