through the looking-glass

New Year's Eve

2012-02-09T17:39:00.000-06:00

So we saw New Year's Eve over the weekend. It was, of course, awful. We knew it would be, and we thought it would be fun to go have a good laugh. But this is the thing: Even knowing it was going to be bad, we were surprised at how bad it was. I don't remember Valentine's Day, but I'm pretty sure this was worse. (They're made by the same guy and at least five of the actors overlap, including Ashton Kutcher and Jessica Biel.)

The characters were all stock and stale: There was the token gay guy saying "va-jay-jay" (even worse, it was in the context of this sentence: "May the best va-jay-jay win!"), there was the pregnant lady swearing (complete with totally unrealistic belly; seriously Hollywood, how have you not managed to fake a convincing pregnant belly yet?), there was the token old lady swearing and taking a really, really long time to do things. There was the slightly crazy homeopathic lady, the soldier, the patient being snuck out of a hospital to grant his dying wish, the single mom who used to be so free-spirited but she got hurt and now she's a homebody who keeps her daughter from having any fun, the playboy who changes his ways when he realizes he only wants one woman now--and, of course, Katherine Heigl stuffing her face with chocolate. Don't forget the cranky but good-hearted Polish/Czech guy, the comical Indian guy, and the randy Latina with more boobs than torso, wearing something the neckline of which in real life would come up to her chin but in the movie was practically to her navel. In the cast we have the 80s rock star, the 90s tv star, the cult classic one-hit wonder, the rapper (two, actually), the real-life politician, the child star wearing a lot of makeup, the comedian, the current teen starlet (who of course sings in the movie, including a bad-music-video type scene that rivals Zac Efron's in High School Musical 2 for cheesiness*), the Oscars eye-candy and heavy-hitters... and Ryan Seacrest.

Hillary Swank was not remotely believable as the person in charge of a high-stress job that is going wrong in New York City (at best she manages mildly concerned). Jessica Biel and Sarah Paulson were not believable as pregnant women. Carla Gugino was not believable as a doctor. Piper's mom was not believable as a human being.

I could be wrong, but women who are about to deliver don't generally look that droopy to me (Sarah Paulson's was worse than this picture shows). Also, Jessica Biel did a handstand in the movie. Also, contrary to what these two pictures would have you believe, they both walked around rubbing their bellies constantly.

Did I mention that I feel like the entire premise of the movie was contrived and ridiculous? I don't know what deal Garry Marshall has with the lobbyists for... holidays... but I honestly felt like the entire purpose of this movie was to convince people that New Year's Eve is the most exciting holiday ever. The phrase, "It's New Year's Eve; anything can happen!" (or a variation thereof) definitely happened more than once, not to mention the cheesy voiceover at the beginning that goes on about how New Year's Eve is the one night when the entire world comes together to celebrate and that's how you know there's still magic in the world. Okay, most of the world actually does celebrate something on December 31 despite there being several countries that don't use the Gregorian calendar, but the world coming together? I've never heard any kind of special global awareness at the end of the year. Besides which there's the fact that everyone in the world is celebrating midnight at different times... But you know, whatever. I'm nitpicking now.

Hands down, the best part of the movie was Michelle Pfeiffer, even though her storyline was one that would have been better as an entire movie of its own. She's the only person who does real acting in this movie, and her character's anxiety and painful-but-endearing awkwardness was sweet. (The second-best part of the movie was a double-fake-out toward the end in which you think that the mystery woman Josh Duhamel has spent the entire movie trying to reach is someone, but then it isn't, and then you think it's someone else but it isn't either, and finally the third time's the charm! Good times.)

And the moral of the story is--besides the obvious one about how I love bashing terrible movies--it's a good thing this is in the dollar theater now, because if you want to see it that's all you should spend. Redbox is also acceptable.

*Just kidding, it's not even close. The Zac Efron video is so bad it should win awards, and this one's actually not awful aside from that really-fast-head-turning thing they love to do and the part where she looks longingly out the window and clutches the grate in the elevator.

Beginnings, by Carol Lynn Pearson--6/10

2012-02-09T10:01:00.000-06:00

Well, we all know poetry isn't really my thing. Every so often I read a poem that really strikes me, and CLP had a few of those (below). There were also a few that I particularly disliked, but for the most part they were just nice poems to read.

Unfed

We feed one another

In rations,

Serve affection

Measured to

The minimum daily

Requirement,

The very acceptable

Least--

While love

Bursts the walls

Of our larder,

Wondering,

Amazed,

Why we are afraid

To feast.

To One Who Has Been Done Dirt

Cry or curse or call it unfair,

But be grateful till the grave

That in this hurt

You're the one who received,

And not the one who gave.

The Waste

They're dumping wheat

Into the sea,

And oranges too,

I hear

Just like my heart

That annually

Wastes fields of love

For fear.

Prop 8 Was Overturned

2012-02-08T13:00:00.001-06:00

Some people are very happy (including me)!

Some people aren't happy.*

Here's the opinion on the ruling. I'm still a little hesitant to get too excited because of course it's going to be appealed and there's a chance it will go to the SCOTUS (which is scary). However, there's also a chance that the Supreme Court won't hear the case and even if it does, the 9th circuit ruling is written in a way that will make it hard to overturn (because it's so narrow). So I'm hopeful.

Marriage is a civil institution, not a religious one. (Atheists can marry, can't they? You can be completely anti-religion and get married.) I understand why Mormons (and other Christians) feel so strongly about it, because marriage is very sacred to us. But that sanctity is a religious principle and is therefore ineligible as a basis for making something law--because like it or not, the Constitution does not allow our government to make religious beliefs into law. That's just how things have to work if we want the freedom Americans are so proud of.

I keep hearing people say things like, "It's a sad day when the vote of the majority means nothing." But the thing is, we are not actually a democracy, and the voice of the majority is not the final word. What I find much more sad is that we have a majority that votes to deprive other Americans of basic rights.

Can you imagine what would have happened if we'd voted on whether or not to end segregation? Civil rights are not up to the majority (for reasons that should be a lot more obvious than they apparently are).

But anyway, all future fears aside... This is a good day.

* "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regrets today’s decision... Marriage should be recognized as only between a man and a woman. We have always had that view." I think someone's forgetting their church history...

The Gender Genie

2012-02-05T13:52:00.000-06:00

This post was a lot less topically-charged when I started writing it, but I suppose it's even more appropriate now, in light of recent highly ridiculous events. We'll call this Exhibit A.

The other day someone directed me to a really fascinating experiment. It's called The Gender Genie, and it analyzes a text to guess the gender of the writer. I spent an hour or so putting in several of my blog posts (I ended up testing 26), and it turned out that the Genie was wrong almost exactly half the time; on the original post where I found it, 24 different bloggers were tested and the Genie was wrong on 11 of them (funny, that's almost exactly the same percentage). (Although to be fair, only one post from each of the different bloggers was tested.)

What was most interesting to me was that on my posts, the divide didn't even fall along the lines I thought it would. I guessed that my more researched/intellectual posts would be identified as male while the ones in which I just talk about my life would be female, but that's not how it played out. Here are the posts I tested:

Philosophy Series: Being Commanded in All Things - male
In Which I am Not Putting Down Anyone's Choices that Differ from Mine - female
Rape Culture, Gender Privilege, and Sexual Harassment: Things to Think About - female
Elaine Dalton - male
Why I Blog - female
SkyMall Adventures - male
Nickel and Dimed, by Barbara Ehrenreich - female
Troy Davis - male
The Rights of the People, by David K. Shipler - male
I Should Be a History Teacher - female
Philosophy Series: Pregnancy and Childbirth - female (barely)
A Plea - male
Lies My History Class Taught Me - male
Fast Food Nation, by Eric Schlosser - male
America the "Beautiful" - male
Dafni's Birth Story - female
2011 Trip to Utah - female
The Birth Order Book, by Dr. Kevin Leman - male
Happy Graduating - female
This is Halloween - female
Some Serious Whining - male (very)
Traveling Through Space and Time... to Utah - female
I'm Sleepy - female
Required Reading - female
20 Greatest Harry Potter Characters - male
Thanksgiving at Home - female

This test uses an algorithm based on research that was current at the time (and is now a few years old). And I'm not gonna lie, though it feels presumptuous of me to say so--I'm a tiny bit skeptical about its validity. I'm just having a hard time with the fact that the words around, what, more, are, is, who, a, at, and to are all supposedly masculine, and that apparently only women talk about women, because she, her, and hers are all feminine keywords. But then maybe I shouldn't be surprised, since there's also the fact that--although the algorithm supposedly boasts 80% accuracy--it's hovering right around 50% for everything I've seen so far. That's not an especially impressive number... In fact it seems to say that the Genie could spit out a random result each time and be correct just as often.

Anyway. I would be really interested to see what kind of results you get, so let me know if you try it out! Something to note if you want to test your own blog posts: The text needs to be about 500 words or longer, and it can't include substantial quotes (or it won't be your own writing that's getting analyzed). If you don't have as many ridiculously long posts as I do, just combine two or three of your posts that all have a similar style.

What do you think about the test?

Eff Effing Efferson.

2012-02-03T20:46:00.001-06:00

Or: Musings on a Conversation.

Part One: Trolls Masquerading as Friends

Why is it that when I post something about what I believe, other people come argue with me, and then tell me that I'm obnoxious and hypocritical because they don't succeed in getting me to agree with them? (Please note that, while I will discuss things with others to their hearts' content, I am not the one seeking out other people's perspectives to debate. Please also note that these are people who have absolutely no interest in me or my life other than to chime in and disagree with me every time I talk about my beliefs.)

Why do these people not seem to understand that I've been thinking about these things for months and years? That I have researched/am always researching the crap out of them and know very well why I believe the way I do, and am not just arguing to be stubborn? How is it possible that I tolerate this, these people who never talk to me except to tell me I'm wrong about something, and yet I'm the close-minded one?

Part Two: I Really Hate Mansplaining

Why, when I'm talking about how destructive traditional gender roles can be to women, are some men incapable of listening to what I'm saying? Why do they not realize that I'm talking about deeply personal experiences and might have some perspective on the issue that they don't? That having never experienced it themselves actually does mean they might not be qualified to argue with me about it?

Also, what kind of robot thinks that emotion has no place in a conversation? We are talking about something that causes me pain, an issue which is very personal and on which I am very much in the minority in my life. I am explaining something that is emotionally traumatic, and you are just dismissing it. YES, I AM GOING TO BE EMOTIONAL.

Difficult Conversations 101 (since I am apparently becoming an expert in them): When someone tries to dismiss your point based on the fact that you are expressing emotion, they forfeit all credibility and the conversation is over.

Especially when it's a conversation about sexism, because this is how sexist men shut down women's experiences: If you get emotional you're just a hysterical woman, and if you don't, then it obviously isn't that big a deal and they brush you off.

Feminism for Men 101: If you are a man, you are not qualified to tell me that my entire life's experience with discrimination is wrong. End. of. effing. story. You know what? If you're a woman you're not qualified to tell me that either. Because you weren't there. But if you're a man--especially a white American Christian man, for crying out effing loud--you have absolutely no foundation upon which to judge the experience of women and tell us that we are wrong. Either you accept that right now, or we are done talking. (And if you cannot accept it, as some people apparently cannot, then I honestly and sincerely ache for the women in your life.)

It is not my problem that you refuse to listen to my experience. It is not my problem that you can't handle emotion in a conversation. And if you have the nerve to tell me that I am cheap and entitled because of those things, then you are not welcome in my life.

Squirrel Seeks Chipmunk, by David Sedaris--7/10

2012-02-01T07:44:00.000-06:00

I've been meaning to read David Sedaris for so long, and this was my first go. I haven't quite figured out his style yet, although it's obviously satirical--he makes fun of an awful lot of different kinds of people in this book. But I need to check out a few more of his things and get a better sense for his writing, because it's definitely intriguing. A very dry and sometimes morbid humor.

The narration was fantastic, and included Jack Donaghy's mother, so you really can't go wrong there. It's quite short, too--only three discs long--so I imagine that reading the physical book would go fairly quickly.

The Influencing Machine, by Brooke Gladstone--8/10

2012-01-31T08:05:00.002-06:00

I love the way this book was done. It's graphic nonfiction, done in the style of a comic book (illustrated by Josh Neufeld), which makes it a really fast and fun read. But it's full of historical data, too, as well as being a commentary on the way media influences us (and has throughout history). I found all of it fascinating, because I'm a nerd like that.

I think Ira Glass said it best on the back cover: "Like Malcolm Gladwell or Michael Lewis or Michael Pollan, Brooke somehow takes a subject most of us don’t give a damn about and makes it completely entertaining." (I adore both Michael Pollan and Ira Glass, so this endorsement might hold more weight for me than it does for you. It's true, though!) Here's an example:

I would check it out immediately if I were you. Library impulse-grabs for the win!

Tower Heist

2012-01-30T19:44:00.000-06:00

Or, why I ended up liking this movie although Mike had to drag me to see it.

We saw it last night at the dollar theater. First of all, it was funny. I'm not really a Ben Stiller or Eddie Murphy kind of person, except for Madagascar and Mulan. But I thought the humor was done really well. It was subtle - yes, subtle - not what you'd expect from the headliners, but Matthew Broderick added a lot and the rest of the cast was good too.

Second... Well, if you've seen the movie and have ever read the political posts on my blog, you know what's second. Yes, I liked the premise: Ridiculously wealthy company owner scams his employees by investing/losing their pension funds; loyal manager learns that none of them will be getting their money back and the owner will (1) go free and (2) essentially not even be affected because he has his "nest egg" to fall back on, so he and some other employees decide to steal the nest egg.

Here's why the illegality of that doesn't bother me:

Sometimes the law actually impedes justice. Most of the time that's something we have to live with, a sacrifice for the sake of preserving people's freedoms (i.e. how a criminal will go free if no one can prove he did it, even if everyone KNOWS he did).
In this particular case, it's not only justice that would be sacrificed by obeying the law; it's the lives and livelihoods of dozens of completely innocent people. Some of those people were eight months pregnant and had just lost any way to pay for the delivery of their baby. Some were old men on the verge of retiring, whose life's savings had just been stolen. They were doormen and maids and concierges and cooks; they were not making a ton of money. They couldn't afford to lose everything they'd saved.
Based on what I understood from the relatively sparse information given, there was nothing the law could do to help them. The rich man had hidden the extra money from the government when he was arrested (which was yet another illegal action), so the government couldn't confiscate it. And even if they could, the money would've gone to the banks and those people would still be screwed.
I don't consider that nest egg as belonging to the rich man at all, since he'd stolen the money in the first place.
Essentially: I think it was wrong legally, but not morally. (Because the law does not automatically = moral rightness.) And in this case there were circumstances that I think were just more important.

In any case, it was a fun movie. Nothing earth-shattering, but as heist movies go, not the worst either.

Whew.

2012-01-27T15:35:00.000-06:00

It's been a long week.

As I mentioned, Saturday evening Dafni started having contractions. My mom and I packed some things hurriedly, including our Subway, which we decided to eat in the car because we had over an hour to drive. It turned out (obviously) that we needn't have rushed. We spent Saturday night, Sunday, and Monday constantly reevaluating because she had contractions the entire time, and they kept gradually getting stronger, but still no baby. In the meantime we played with Goose, watched movies, and sat around talking (internet-lessly, as you may have noticed).

Monday afternoon we came to the conclusion that having Jaylee around was keeping Dafni from really focusing on starting labor, so my dad and Daniel came to pick her up. It worked; Tuesday morning the contractions really started buckling down, and around 1:00 the midwife, Sarah, showed up, followed by Danielle and Gina, her assistants. They set up, we moved to the bedroom, and the real labor began.

Guys... It was amazing. Okay, not at first, because mostly Talia and I were near tears every time Dafni had one of the really hard contractions. But it was amazing before that, because Dafni and Brandon kept talking about how much nicer it was to just be able to walk around their own house and watch movies, eat, and do whatever they wanted right up until the end (their first had been born in a hospital in Idaho, with a midwife). And it was amazing again when we got closer to the end, and Talia and I could see Brielle's head start to show.

And then she was out, in four pushes. Three days of slowly intensifying contractions, three hours of the really bad ones, and then in about twenty minutes Sarah was catching Brielle and handing her up to mommy. It was incredible.

I was supposed to have started work again on Tuesday, but Sunday night we could tell that that wouldn't be possible, and I arranged to come back on Wednesday instead. So Tuesday night I drove home, by myself in a torrential rainstorm, and it was not my favorite thing, but I listened to Squirrel Seeks Chipmunk and didn't get lost or die, so it turned out okay. I got to see Mike for about an hour, but pretty much went straight to bed. Wednesday morning I woke up at 5:30 and went to work, watching Lana and now also her new baby sister (two-month old Harper). Daniel was still watching Jaylee but needed help because he was packing to leave for China the next day, so he brought her over to me and I watched the three of them together for a couple hours (which was not at all as chaotic as it could have been).

At 3:00 I got off work, went home and took over watching Jaylee for Mike (who had no idea what he was doing and was exhausted after 45 minutes with her), cleaned up, packed Goose into the car, picked up Alex from her granny's, and drove back out to Dafni's house for everyone - my dad, Daniel, Alex, and Jaylee - to meet Brielle for the first time. We left much earlier than we would have wished, but also much later since we all had to get up early the next day. We got home and I helped Daniel with his packing, then went straight to bed.

Thursday I worked, picked Mike up from work, and finally got to have an evening at home (though dinner was a bit of a scrounge since we had nothing in the house and were waiting on a paycheck).Today I worked half a day, walked home, and helped Benjamin with a project he was working on; I am now, finally, for the first time since last Saturday afternoon, feeling like things are back to normal. It's so nice, though I miss all the family I got to see so much over the long weekend.

And now I get to go shower, because I literally have not had a chance since Tuesday morning and my hair is feeling it. I spent naptime at work yesterday catching up on the blogs and Facebook, spent an hour this afternoon catching up on Google+, and have revived my blog. Welcome back, real life.

Baby Brielle

2012-01-24T21:37:00.001-06:00

I have a new niece today! I've been at my sister's house for the past four days, since she started having contractions Saturday night; tonight I see my bed (and the internet) for the first time since then. Baby Brielle was 9 pounds, 9 ounces, and 23 inches long. She is so beautiful and I can't wait to see her again tomorrow (when I will hopefully also get a hold of some of the pictures we took). In the meantime, here are these:

And now, goodnight. I am about as exhausted as I can be considering that no babies came out of my uterus today, and I start work again tomorrow with Lana and her new little sister. 5:30 am can only come too soon.

What Women Know

2012-01-19T01:29:00.000-06:00

Last week I was reading something fascinating--a Master's thesis by Julie Hollist, entitled "The Ideal Mormon Woman: An Analysis of Ensign Articles and Comparison to LDS Women's Perceptions of Gender Role Expectations"--which could really be a post (or several) of its own, and I might end up doing that too but in the meantime I'm just establishing the trail through which I found this: the subject of today's post.

What Women Know

(written in response to this, which many of you probably remember)

"Several ideas within the body of President Beck's talk conflict with our inspiration and experience. We are authors of our own lives, and this is the story we know to be true:

Fathers as well as mothers, men as well as women, are called to nurture. Nurturing is not confined to mothering or housekeeping, but is a universal attribute that communicates patience, peacefulness, and care.

Housework is something that grownups do and that children learn by example and instruction. Unfortunately, women and girls still perform the bulk of the world's low-paid and unpaid labor, including housework—often at the expense of their own education, leadership, creativity, health, and well-being. Men and boys who share care-work and household responsibilities make it possible for all family members to live happier, more fulfilling lives.

We reject teachings that encourage women to shoulder ultimate responsibility for every aspect of child-rearing and family life, and to take on shame and guilt when things do not go according to plan.

The choice to have children does not rule out other avenues of influence and power. By valuing ourselves as lifelong achievers, apart from our roles as mothers, friends, partners, sisters, aunts, and grandmothers, we stand for creativity, public service, competence, and growth. We take joy in the collective contributions we make in the fields of government, medicine, academia, law, journalism, human services, business, art, health care advocacy, music, technology, child development, and science.

Men are our fathers, sons, brothers, partners, lovers, and friends. Many of them also struggle within a system that equates leadership with hierarchy and domination. We distrust separate-but-equal rhetoric; anyone who is regularly reminded that she is “equally important” is probably not. Partnership is illusory without equal decision-making power.

We claim the life-affirming powers of spirit and wisdom, and reject the glorification of violence in all its forms. We are filled with unutterable sadness by the Book of Mormon story of more than 2,000 young soldiers whose mothers teach them that faith in God will preserve them in battles in which they kill other mothers' children. This is not a success story. It is a story of the failure of human relationships and the horrors of war. In a world that has grown increasingly violent, we believe that one of the most important passages in LDS scripture is D&C 98:16: 'Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace. . . .'”

There are a few more if you follow the link, but these are the ones that resonate especially with me. What do you think? Were there parts of Sister Beck's talk that bothered you, or are you more uncomfortable with what I just posted? I was surprised to see the last point about the glorification of violence--but pleasantly so, because I very much agree. Which points surprised you, if any?

Help! Help! I'm Being Repressed!

2012-01-18T12:20:00.001-06:00

With the new layout, the "like" buttons are now working! I guess my last several templates really were repressing the code. (P.S. How do you like the new layout?)

My Favorite Books of 2011

2012-01-17T15:57:00.000-06:00

Best YA and Middle Grade

The Book Thief, by Markus Zusak
Because of Mr. Terupt, by Rob Buyea
One of the best books, YA or otherwise, I've read in a long time. About a fifth-grade class that goes through some pretty big changes when there's a tragedy in their class.
Okay for Now, by Gary D. Schmidt
Sequel to The Wednesday Wars, though it isn't necessary to have read the first. Both so, so wonderful.
I am the Messenger, by Markus Zusak
A surprisingly unique plot, though the Hero's Journey is obvious.
For the Win, by Cory Doctorow
Par for the Cory Doctorow course: thrilling story, cast of technological teen prodigies, rebellion against the corrupt establishment, terrifying semi-futuristic plotlines that don't sound all that futuristic, and the occasional surprisingly-understandable explanation of concepts that are otherwise really hard for me.

Best Nonfiction

The Dance of the Dissident Daughter, by Sue Monk Kidd
A People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present, by Howard Zinn
Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, by Barbara Ehrenreich
I think this is one of the most important books an American can read.
The Rights of the People, by David K. Shipler
An excellent, if at times slightly pedantic, look into how Americans don't have anywhere near the level of freedom we think we have.
Bossypants, by Tina Fey
What else would you expect from Tina Fey but hilarity and insight all wrapped up together? Listen to the audiobook if you can--she narrates it herself.
Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches from the Frontlines of the New Girlie-Girl Culture, by Peggy Orenstein
This is a short, easy introduction to the world that questions the culture of Pink (not the color, but the marketing tool/gender stereotype). Fascinating.

Best Adult Fiction

Dreams of Joy, by Lisa See
Amazing sequel to Shanghai Girls; takes place in newly-Communist China.
Norwegian Wood, by Haruki Murakami
My favorite Haruki Murakami so far. Beautiful writing, beautiful characters. One of my very favorite books.
Chocolat, by Joanne Harris
The book on which the movie was based. I love them both deeply.
The Story of Edgar Sawtelle, by David Wroblewski
Not my usual fare, and therefore all the more wonderful because of the surprise. About a boy born mute (but not deaf) into a family that breeds a very special kind of dog. Very similar to a certain Shakespeare play.
Mistborn, by Brandon Sanderson
Good old Brandon Sanderson; you really can't go wrong with him if you're even the tiniest bit interested in the fantasy genre.
Bel Canto, by Ann Patchett
I seem to have had a stronger reaction to this book than most of the other people I know who've read it, but I don't know why. It's a gorgeous book based on the Lima Crisis of 1996-7; a really fascinating story.

Can We Hear Ourselves When We Say These Things?

2012-01-16T13:34:00.000-06:00

Religious leaders warn of threat to freedom from same-sex marriage

Published: January 16th, 2012
Almost 40 American religious leaders have collectively issued an open letter warning about the threat to religious freedom posed by the potential legalisation of same-sex marriage in the US.

The letter, which includes contributions from evangelical, Catholic and Jewish leaders, warns that the introduction of homosexual marriages would end up “pressuring both individuals and religious organisations - throughout their operations, well beyond religious ceremonies - to treat same-sex sexual conduct as the moral equivalent of marital sexual conduct.”

I can respond to this only by reposting something I posted a few days ago:

Same-sex marriage does not threaten heterosexual marriage in any way. Churches will not be required to perform ceremonies that they are morally against. Marriage is not a Christian practice, it is a human practice. And it is wrong to tell others that they can't get married because of your beliefs. If homosexuality is wrong, God will deal with it. End of story.

Confessions of a Closet Catholic, by Sarah Darer Littman--6.5/10

2012-01-15T23:39:00.000-06:00

I loved the premise of this book. The protagonist is eleven-almost-twelve, a Jewish girl who decides to give up being Jewish for Lent. Her best friend is Catholic, and Justine really wants to be, too--so she sets up a confessional in her closet with her teddy bear priest (Father Ted), a contraband rosary, her Hail Mary cheat sheet, and matza and grape juice for communion.

Her exploration is mixed in with the typical trials of childhood--feeling less loved as the middle child, thinking she's ugly (of course, because she has curly hair), having a crush on her best friend's brother--and I think would be really great for older kids and younger teenagers to read. The religious questions make it interesting for adults, too, and the age of the protagonist makes the process heartwarming rather than painful (like it often is when the questioner is older). If nothing else, I think it's always important to get to know other religions, and since I'm neither Catholic nor Jewish, I really enjoyed this.

Alice I Have Been, by Melanie Benjamin--5.5/10

2012-01-14T17:17:00.000-06:00

Overall, a pretty disappointing endeavor. I loved the first several discs, the part about Alice's childhood at Oxford. She was a bright, interesting girl with a lovely curiosity and a kind heart. I really enjoyed the image of her early life and her family's relationship with Charles Dodson.

It was teenage Alice that made me gag, the Alice that was "courting." Oh, she was irritating. She simpered and sighed and grew weak and trembly when she thought of her love (literally: once, he kissed her, and her knees actually buckled. He had to catch her and carry her to a chair). It was just gross--and her romantic relationships were almost the sole topic of that entire portion of the book.

Adult Alice was pretty typically Victorian, too, but there's less opportunity for matrons to be gag-inducing, so the third section was better essentially by default. There was more depth in the content, too--more introspection as she grows old, and more narrative interest in the form of her sons going to war. If I would have stopped around disc eight (which I considered), I would have hated the whole thing. The end pulled things together enough that I don't regret having read it, but it certainly wasn't one of my favorites.

January's a Good Time for Thinking about Civil Rights

2012-01-12T21:34:00.000-06:00

In 1966, Uhura was the first black woman as a main character on American television who was not a servant. NBC refused to let Nichelle Nichols be a regular, claiming Deep South affiliates would be angered, so Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry hired her as a “day worker,” but included her in almost every episode. She actually made more money than any of the other actors through this workaround, but it was still a humiliating second-class status. The network people made life hard for Nichols, constantly trying to pare down her screen time, purposefully dropping racist comments in her presence and even withholding her fan mail from her. This deplorable state of affairs led Nichols to make the decision to quit after the first season, but then she happened to meet the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., who pleaded with her to stick with the show because as a black woman she was portraying the first non-stereotypical role on television.

Philosophy Series: Being Commanded in All Things

2012-01-08T22:13:00.000-06:00

I thought I should probably share some examples of things I think fall into the category of being commanded in all things, especially since the original post sounds a little harsh on its own. This started out as a comment on the other post, and then got so long that I decided it should be not only a post of its own, but one in the philosophy series. It essentially is a kind of unorthodox-Mormon manifesto anyway, so I suppose it could be considered my philosophy on being Mormon. I'm bugged by these kinds of things, some more than others:

CES won't hire women with children under 18 to be seminary or institute teachers (though they can be secretaries). If a woman is teaching seminary and becomes pregnant, she is fired. What gives CES the right to make this decision for women?
CES won't hire single men to teach, or sometimes hires them with the condition that if they're not married within two years, they're fired. If a teacher gets divorced, he (not sure about women) is fired.
(This is a "more than others." These policies are not just overly-controlling, they're discriminatory and absolutely appalling.)
Sleepovers. They've now been discouraged in General Conference (scroll up to the beginning of the paragraph) and alluded to in For the Strength of Youth (in the Sexual Purity chapter, interestingly, as though many LDS teens are throwing coed sleepovers), so to many Mormons this will be considered doctrine. I think that's absurd. It might be good advice, but this barges right in on territory that should belong quite firmly to parents. Religions should not be regulating this kind of activity.
LDS funerals are considered church meetings and must be conducted by a bishop or stake president. The bishop tells the mourning family what music can and cannot be played, and the church handbook specifies that no rituals or customs of other religions are allowed. It also says that no digital presentations can be used, and that "teaching and testifying about the plan of salvation, particularly the Savior’s Atonement and Resurrection, is an essential purpose of the services associated with a Church member’s death." In fact, the handbook says, “Funerals provide an important opportunity to teach the gospel and testify of the plan of salvation. They also provide an opportunity to pay tribute to the deceased. However, such tributes should not dominate a funeral service.” Really?? That seems one hundred percent backward to me, and I think it's wrong for the church to restrict how members honor their dead.
Mormon culture generally requires that young men wear white shirts to pass the sacrament, even though the church handbook specifically says it is not required. It is also highly frowned upon for women to wear pants, though there is no reason why they shouldn't, and certainly no rule telling them to do so (at least not in regular church meetings). Young men are harassed for having shaggy hair or not wearing a tie, and are not allowed to have earrings. Young women are only allowed to have one pair. In some circumstances men are not allowed to have facial hair or ponytails. In some women are required to wear skirts and pantyhose (missions, the MTC, and working for CES, for example). Why must we care so much about people's appearance?? Every one of those things is completely arbitrary, a matter of culture if anything, and yet it is included as a principle of our religion (whether officially or not).
The blanket prohibition against R-rated movies (which, thankfully, is something General Authorities appear to be moving away from; the last time it was mentioned in Conference was ten years ago, though it's shown up in the New Era and Friend plenty since then). You've probably heard it a million times, and for good reason--MPAA ratings are arbitrary and useless. I've seen PG-13 movies that were trashy and vulgar, and I've seen R movies that were lovely and uplifting and beautiful. Please, watch The King's Speech and tell me that there's anything inappropriate about it. It's a beautiful movie and I would gladly sit down and watch it with the entire Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency. Watch Match Point, and compare the sexual content to that of The Notebook or any of the old James Bond movies. Watch Bridesmaids and compare it to What Women Want and Dinner for Schmucks. (I'm not going to say I'd want to watch Bridesmaids with General Authorities--just pointing out how arbitrary the ratings are.)

The thing that people often say in response to some of these points--the thing I myself said until less than a year ago--is that it's "a matter of principle; if the prophet asked us not to do it, then that's good enough for me." Well, I don't feel that way anymore. I don’t think “because someone told me to” is a good reason to do anything, even if that someone is the prophet.

I think we need to make our choices for ourselves. Following the prophet’s counsel is a choice, yes, but the way Mormons often approach it, it's a choice that pretty much absolves you of any further responsibility. Essentially I think we've just misunderstood what “following the prophet” means. It doesn't mean that you make a one-time, blanket decision to always follow anything and everything the prophet says no matter what--I think it means that you take each individual issue and look at it, consider it, see what it would mean for you, and then decide whether or not you’re going to follow the prophet’s counsel regarding that specific issue. And I don't think there's anything wrong with deciding that you feel differently about something, because I believe that our personal relationships with God take precedence over the rules set by the church for its membership of fourteen million. I don't believe that it's only okay to question as long as you end up coming to the same conclusion they do, because that would mean it isn't really okay to question.

The gospel is the substance of thedivine plan for personal, individualsalvation and exaltation. The Church isthe delivery system that provides themeans and resources to implement thisplan in each individual’s life.Procedures programs and policies aredeveloped within the Church to help usrealize gospel blessings according to ourindividual capacity and circumstances.Under divine direction, these policies,programs, and procedures do changefrom time to time as necessary to fulfillgospel purposes.Underlying every aspect of Churchadministration and activity are therevealed eternal principles as contained inthe scriptures. As individually and collectively we increase our knowledge, acceptance, and application of gospel principles,we become less dependent on Churchprograms. Our lives become gospelcentered.

...The conformity we requireshould be according toGod’s standards. The orthodoxy uponwhich we insist must be founded infundamental principles and eternal law,including free agency and the divine uniqueness of the individual. It is importanttherefore to know the difference betweeneternal gospel principles which areunchanging, universally applicable, andcultural norms which may vary withtime and circumstance.

--Ronald Poelman, First Quorum of the Seventy

I realize that sounds like I'm saying my life is more gospel-centered than that of people who are Mormon in the orthodox way, so I want to tell you right up front that I am not saying that. In fact I guarantee the opposite is true in countless cases. But I do want to say that the more I think about Mormon culture, the more similarities I'm starting to see between us and the Jews--following rule after rule that must seem, to outsiders, completely arbitrary and pointless, and that don't even have any significance if you follow them for the sake of the letter of the law instead of the spirit of it. As a people, as members of the LDS church, I think that we will become more gospel-centered when we can stop caring so much about the tiny little things and focus on the actual principles of Christ's teachings. I doubt very much if God cares whether we have one earring or twelve, vote Communist in the next election, or try every kind of alcohol there is at some point in our lives. What I think he cares about is that we respect our bodies, be good neighbors to others, and never judge someone who does do those things. LDS culture could make some progress in that area.

Dear Mormons:

2012-01-05T22:48:00.001-06:00

For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
Doctrine and Covenants 58:26

Favorite Posts of 2011

2012-01-03T10:46:00.000-06:00

My friend Laura did this on her art blog and I really liked the idea.

My Blog's Top Five Most Popular Posts (of all time, actually, not just this year, but they do all come from this year--apparently I was on a roll in 2011!)

My Favorite Posts:

Rape Culture, Gender Privilege, and Sexual Harrassment: Things to Think About
And All Nature Laughed in the Sunshine
A Few Things I Really Hope You'll Check Out
The Declaration of Independence
Philosophy Series: Pregnancy and Childbirth (which gets an Honorable Mention; this was the sixth most popular post, just barely missing the top five. I feel strongly about this issue and I think it's such a beautiful thing that too few women know about!)
Reading Stereotypes
Nickel and Dimed, by Barbara Echenreich -- best nonfiction I read in 2011
Actors Who Make Me Want to See or Not See a Movie When I Find Out They're In It

P.S.--About My Reading Theme

2012-01-02T20:08:00.000-06:00

I decided to scrap the fiction theme for this year because I know I won't be able to do it justice and I don't want to waste such a good one. This shall be the year of feminism, both fiction and non. I'll be reading other nonfiction, too, particularly in the realms of politics, philosophy, and religion. And I'm still doing the Bible. (If you're interested in a fiction reading challenge, check out my friend Larissa's!)

2011 in Pictures and Links

2012-01-02T18:13:00.000-06:00

I spent most of January waiting to hear back from the library between interviews, and then finding out that I didn't get the job. Yeah, I still think about that every so often when I'm there. I saw Maya Angelou and, to end the month on a more awesome note, we road-tripped to San Antonio to hang out with the newly-wed Megan and Eric.

In February I found out that I'd been un-Facebook-friended by some close friends from college, and it really hurt. Snowpocalypse 2011 was weirdly under-represented on my blog; I checked out 100 YA books for feminists and adopted a new philosophy for the changes happening in my life. My lovely aunt Virginia was in Dallas for business and stopped in for a day, and Megan got her wedding photos back and gave us this magazine-worthy example of Lin's and my collective fabulousness:

In March I was lamenting the movie landscape of 2011 (which was not very promising but improved quite a bit in the second half of the year), being enraged by the fight in Wisconsin over collective bargaining rights, and reminiscing.

April was pretty much the worst. There were some bad family things going on, and a friend from high school was killed in Afghanistan. Perhaps to take my mind off those things, I spent a lot of time being in love with nature and started my philosophy series.

I don't know if May was so much better to make up for April having been one of the worst months of my adult life, or if it was just better in comparison (because April was the worst). But May was fantastic. We had a reunion of sorts, spent several really wonderful days with my family, went to my brother's murder mystery dinner, house/babysat for my baby cousin, saw Gary Shteyngart and Sarah Dessen at the Dallas Museum of Art, and saw Bridesmaids in the theater two or three times (it became my favorite movie of 2011). I read some really fantastic books and saw a PostSecret that turned out to be foreshadowing for what was to come later in the year.

In June I turned 26, learned some interesting things about myself, read new Lisa See, and went out with friends to do some awesome karaoke. Also, June is an excellent time for getting photos of people in midair.

In July I had to give up on the big trip Mike and I were planning, which would have been our first out of the country. I'd been planning it for months and was really depressed when it fell through. Luckily July was also the month of the last Harry Potter movie's release, and my siblings and I did a marathon leading up to the midnight showing. And I discovered / scanned to Facebook a lot of old family pictures and was really happy with the conversations and reminiscing that started because of it.

In August I read Thomas Hardy for therapy, saw this guy speak (and liked him less for it), and thought about how much I love historical fiction and wish my history classes in high school had done justice to the subject.

In September I took a break from the interwebs, particularly Facebook and news sites, and it was really fantastic. I started a weekly feature that didn't last very long once my internet hiatus ended. I celebrated Banned Books Week, discovered that some of my chronic headaches have now morphed into migraines, and posted--all at once--the first two of my Mormon posts. September is when I discovered all the new blogs that I've loved reading since.

Mike's sister got married in October, so we went to Utah. In a spontaneous addition to our plans, I got to have lunch with Megan and go to Counterpoint--hopefully the first of many times! I shared the conclusions I came to during my September hiatus, documented Texas's Evil Summer of 2011, went to the State Fair with my family, and went trick or treating with a Goose.

November was quiet. I spent a lot of time reading blogs, came out as one hundred percent pro-marriage equality, discovered several really brilliant articles about rape culture and gender privilege, and had a lovely Thanksgiving with my family (plus an early one with our friends, for which I made amazing Parker House rolls).

My boss had her baby right after Thanksgiving, so in December I started a two-month leave from work while she's on maternity leave. I got twenty-year-old spam, followed by a Christmas Eve email from an unknown blog reader that was a really wonderful surprise. I posted articles that yielded the two most epic conversations in the history of my Facebook wall (you can only see them if we're FB friends, but if we're not and you'd like to be, send me a request!) as well as a surprise--hopefully not unpleasant--for many of my friends. Dafni and Brandon came to stay for the entire Christmas vacation (they just went home a couple hours ago, actually) and it was really fabulous having them here.

It was a surprisingly hard year for me. Some great things happened, and daily activities were the usual. But some pretty terrible things happened, too, and I've never had such an emotionally painful year. I am hoping hard that 2012 will be better on this front. It looks promising so far!

Reading 2012

2011-12-30T17:59:00.000-06:00

I probably wouldn't have posted this until January if Megan hadn't requested that I do it earlier, but she did! So here it is.

My reading theme for next year is threefold: for fiction, a different country each month; for nonfiction, feminist / Mormon studies / political philosophy books; and for spiritual things, the Bible. (Don't laugh at me for having three different themes; I'd be reading the nonfiction even if they didn't fit in, so I figured I'd acknowledge that from the beginning. And the Bible was actually going to be something I did this year, and then I didn't start on time so I didn't do it. I haven't read it through since high school and I want to again.)

Based on my suckiness at reading this year (since I discovered so many blogs to follow), I'm not going to be ambitious with the number of books. I figure I'll have one fiction and one nonfiction going at any given time, with the Bible going along in the background; and since I no longer read as fast as I used to, I'll probably pick only one book for each country and anything I read beyond that will be a bonus. (Which is kind of a shame, and makes me think that I might end up wanting to repeat this theme again another year since there's so much good stuff out there.)

I made a starter list already a couple months ago, so I'll be using that as well as looking for new things to add. I haven't decided yet what the country will be for January, and that's been holding up the actual publishing of this post, so I'm going to let it go now and add an update when I decide. Feel free to make recommendations, whether from my starter list or my Goodreads to-read shelf or your own reading. One of the criteria I'm using in my decision is how easily I can get a copy of it, so just keep that in mind if I don't take you up on your suggestion.

Is your reading for 2012 going to have a theme or goal? (As usual, let me know if you want any suggestions!)

Dread

2011-12-29T23:53:00.001-06:00

Lord, please do not let pregnancy sickness be like what I have experienced today. I am fairly suspicious that this has been a migraine--debilitating headache, nausea, entire body shaky and weak, grande mocha and Excedrin (not at the same time) both unsuccessful in the long term--and I'll tell you this for free, I have not enjoyed it. The nausea is my least favorite part, believe it or not; most of the time I'd take the excruciating pain instead. I'm used to headaches. Nausea makes me want to cry. So, God, since I know you love my future babies too... Please make pregnancy easier than today. That is all.

Baby Steps

2011-12-28T12:21:00.001-06:00

I still hate you, Sensa, but thank you for at least choosing a size 8 instead of 2 or 4. It's miniscule, but it is progress.

Liberal Quiz

2011-12-28T02:02:00.005-06:00

First time...

My Liberal Identity

You are a Working Class Warrior, also known as a blue-collar Democrat. You believe that the little guy is getting screwed by conservative greed-mongers and corporate criminals, and you’re not going to take it anymore.

Take the quiz at
About.com Political Humor

Second time... Same result, even though almost every answer was different! Interesting.

One more time for good measure...

My Liberal Identity

You are a Social Justice Crusader, also known as a rights activist. You believe in equality, fairness, and preventing neo-Confederate conservative troglodytes from rolling back fifty years of civil rights gains.

Take the quiz at
About.com Political Humor

Both pretty accurate, I'd say. How I sometimes love a good quiz.

Merry Holidays!

2011-12-26T21:33:00.001-06:00

Christmas is already over, and I hope you had a lovely one. I did (even though Mike's gift was an XBOX 360, so I've barely seen him since yesterday. I told him to enjoy Christmas break while it lasts).

If you are celebrating Hanukkah, I hope you're doing it in a less lame way than we did! Not that what we did was lame--going to our local Israeli market with my visiting cousin (from the Israeli side of the family), eating falafel and buying our favorite Israeli snacks--but it wasn't much of a Hanukkah celebration. No lighting the menorah, no sufganiyot this year (Brandon made empanadas in the tradition of his family, and that was quite enough frying for one holiday). I missed it, so next year I'm pushing for a better celebration.

The New Year's celebrations are next, and what's dominating my thoughts is that I'm still in the middle of the 2011 reading list, and not quite ready to start the 2012 theme... Ack! Maybe I'll figure out how to fit my current books into the new theme (about which I'll be posting soon, not that most of you care. How my nerdiness must bore you sometimes! I do hope not, though).

After that, no holidays I care about for another... well, approximately ten months. :) But quite a few exciting things will be happening in January, not least of which is that Dafni will probably be having her baby! And it has only just occurred to me that between our immediate families, Mike and I now have at least one birthday in every month of the year (most of them have two). (Are you interested in hearing them? Because that's the kind of thing I like to share.)

January: my youngest brother, Joseph, my dad, and our new brother-in-law Bryan (who I just Facebook-stalked because he hasn't had a birthday yet since he joined the family)
February: my youngest sister, Dafni, and my aunt Miki (who's generally considered immediate family because she lived with us for so long) on the same day; our brother-in-law Jeremy
March: Brandon, Dafni's husband, and Anna, Mike's younger sister
April: Mike and our niece Mia
May: our sister-in-law, Candice, and her son Foxx (on consecutive days!), plus our anniversary
June: me, my brother Benjamin, and our nephew Cillian
July: our niece Alex, my mom, my brother Daniel, and Mike's brother Dan
August: Talia, the sister just younger than me, and our niece Kennedy
September: Ed and Liron, Miki's husband and son (on the same day!), Mike's older sister Lis, and his dad
October: Kristofer, Talia's husband, and Sapphire, our newest niece
November: Jaylee, also known as Goose
December: Mike's mom

Hooray for celebrations! What did you (/are you planning to) do for the holidays?

In Which I am Not Putting Down Anyone's Choices that Differ from Mine

2011-12-21T13:31:00.000-06:00

It has come to my attention that some people might feel hurt by the thoughts I've been sharing. I can understand that, and I want you all to know that I am not judging anyone's choices. I'm talking about my own experiences, and I am fully aware that others have had different ones. I do think there are problems with Mormon culture, yes, but that doesn't have anything to do with individuals' choices--none of these behaviors are problems except when they expand beyond an individual and start being forced on others and taught as doctrine.

I've said many times, and I'll say again, that I do not think there is anything wrong with dressing modestly, nor do I think that dressing "immodestly" is preferable (I use scare quotes because I think the concept of what is immodest is one of the problems). I am not saying that Mormon girls should start wearing tube tops and miniskirts everywhere. I am only talking about problems with the way modesty is taught, when it becomes just as objectifying as the worldly attitude it is supposed to be opposing. Sexualizing something doesn’t mean just making it look sexy--it means that you see it first and foremost for its sexual nature. If your first concern about the female body is to cover it up so it doesn’t look sexually appealing, then yes, you are sexualizing it. Whether you see it as a sexual object to be flaunted or a sexual object to be hidden, it is still a sexual object.

I think I have also said that I do not judge people who don't share my political beliefs. Yes, I have strong opinions. In many cases I believe that the position I hold is the right one, which in some cases means I think opposing viewpoints are wrong (as opposed to just less preferable). This still does not mean I think you are a bad person, nor will I ever tell you that you are. I think I am entitled to believe that something is right or wrong. I do not think I am entitled to judge your character based on your choices, and I don't think you are entitled to judge mine.

If you were bothered by the Mormon dating satire I did a couple posts ago, I am sorry, but it was that--a satire. Again, I wasn't saying that there is anything wrong with a person making those choices; I was talking about Mormon culture at-large, which teaches those choices as the morally right ones to make. It is one thing for a person to decide to get married before 21; that is an individual's choice, and it is fine. It is quite a different thing for a religion to teach that young women (and only young women) should get married before 21. That's what I have a problem with.

I understand how people could feel hurt by things I've said, and I want to make it clear that I'm not intending to say anything personal about anyone. So please don't take it personally. I am certainly not attacking anyone, and I'm very sorry if anyone feels that I am. And for the record, I don't think it's okay to attack people because you were hurt by something they said.

Surprise

2011-12-20T03:01:00.002-06:00

I think some people have been surprised lately by the things I've been posting and writing about. A lot of things have changed for me in the last few years, and especially this year. A lot of things have happened, I've learned quite a bit, and my opinions and feelings have evolved. In many ways I'm very different from the person I was in college, and even just two or three years ago. It's clear that not everyone thinks this change has been for the better, but I do, and that's what matters.

Someone asked (fairly bluntly, which I quite appreciated) where I am with the LDS church right now, and I may as well share because I think it helps clarify a lot of the thoughts I've been sharing lately. This is what I told her:

Where I am with the church is that I think Mormon culture is absolutely out of control, has extended far, far beyond actual doctrine, and is incredibly judgmental, repressive, and unhealthy in many ways. There are many wonderful things about the church, that's still very true. But it seems that a lot of those wonderful things disappear the instant you start to have ANY ideas that are a little bit different from mainstream Mormon beliefs. You wouldn't believe how I have been vilified and attacked, by former friends, by family, by many different Mormons, for simply having different political beliefs. And not even the super touchy ones, like gay marriage or abortion--I have been called, verbatim, "a bad person" for my ideas on HEALTH CARE. There are actually a lot more liberal Mormons than people think--you just don't know about them because they're afraid of people finding out. For good bloody reason. There are large communities of politically liberal Mormons for exactly this reason--we are not accepted in the majority of mainstream Mormon wards. This is not a church doctrine; General Authorities often stress the importance of LOVE before other things, of respect toward all different beliefs, etc. But it doesn't filter down into actual practice, and this is the kind of stuff I meant when I said earlier that Mormon culture is toxic. It can be great as long as you're like everyone else--although in many ways there are still problems, like in the way modesty is often taught--but if you are different, then it is not great. And I have a big problem with that.

Puritan Mormons

2011-12-16T09:26:00.000-06:00

or, Why I'm Half Expecting the Next Edition of For the Strength of Youth to Come Out with a Picture Like This on the Cover:

Here's the micromanaged Mormon process of dating and marriage.

Don't date until you're sixteen.
When you do date, make sure boys are GENERALLY the ones who ask.
Make sure you only date Mormon boys/girls (because you marry the people you date).
Make REALLY sure you don't do anything remotely intimate.
Don't date the same person frequently.
Have them meet your parents.
Don't stay out late.
Don't sit in your car.
Don't just "hang out"--a date is a "planned activity".
Have your dates chaperoned by other young couples who are also not being intimate.
"Protect each other's honor and virtue."
Don't have a sexual thought this whole time.
To that end, girls, don't show shoulders, backs, cleavage, stomach, or more than three inches of thigh; don't wear things that fit your form; have only one pair of earrings; short skirts with leggings underneath are not okay, but strapless tops with spandex shirts underneath are. Naked shoulders and legs and backs are okay when you're swimming, but still no stomachs. (And if you have a two-piece that covers your whole stomach but might flash a little bit of stomach when you're in the water, THAT'S NOT OKAY, so you should probably just wear a one-piece; we don't care if it's incredibly inconvenient and you have to strip naked or do some really awkward rearranging to pee, that underwater glimpse of stomach is too much to be borne and you'd just better not risk it.)
Boys, you be modest too.
Also don't be vain and focus on your appearance.

As you start becoming an adult, "make dating and marriage a high priority."
Find the person you're going to marry, date for six weeks, and then, on your wedding night, throw all those years of rigid sexual repression out the window and have a healthy long-term relationship with the spouse you've known for two months. (Never mind the fact that half of you have never been in a long-term relationship before, because until you were 18 you were told not to date one person exclusively, and now you're 19 and married.)
Have babies immediately, because nothing else matters in a woman's life and also your uterus will shrivel at 25.
Women, stay home with your kids because otherwise you are selfish and your children will suffer.
Happily ever after.

Change a few words in there--like "car" (to "carriage") and "hang out"--and this could be a guideline to dating in the Victorian era. Seriously, could we nitpick things more? Why does every tiny little aspect of life have to be regulated by rules? What happened to personal responsibility and leading horses to water?

Does life really need to be motivated by the fear of how many ways there are to screw things up?

Me too, Post Secret friend...

2011-12-15T01:28:00.001-06:00

Me too. I love seeing a book that still has one of these in there, and I feel sad knowing I'll never use one again. For the rest of my life, I think I'll be struggling to decide--am I holding onto this because it's really better, or just because I'm nostalgic? Because there are a lot of things I don't want to let go, and a lot of things I don't want to embrace. I'm wondering if one of the defining measurements of my life will be how I walk the line between irrational curmudgeonry and 1950s-in-love-with-the-future science-worshipitude. I can tell you right now that I'll never be guilty of the second, but since the society I live in seems to be, it'll be a line I have to walk all the same.

"If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar."

2011-12-12T16:55:00.000-06:00

I posted a link to this story on Facebook last night, along with a declaration of how utterly crap I think it is.

Companies pull ads from Muslim reality TV show

I only wish I shopped at Lowe's more, so that my boycott would actually mean something. But I'm boycotting anyway, as a matter of principle, and I sent them an email too.

In the comments on another website that was discussing this issue, this idiotic gem was shared, along with the followup:

"I’ll shop there now! Good on them."
"No I was not being ironic. I do believe Islam = hate. That is not bigotry, but a criticism of the faith."

In the first place, I love the logical fallacy that if something is "a criticism of the faith," it is necessarily not bigoted.

In the second, I love the irony of Christians feeling justified in this kind of hateful behavior toward Muslims because they believe Islam teaches hate. (I also love that Christians feel qualified to make statements about what Islam is or isn't, even in direct contradiction to what Muslims say it is and isn't. You'd think the "are Mormons Christian" debate would have taught us, at least, a little better than that.)

The title of this post comes from 1 John 4:20, and I think it sums things up pretty neatly.

Twenty-Year-Old Spam

2011-12-11T19:30:00.001-06:00

I received this in my spam folder a couple days ago. Spam from the past? Lost in a time warp until this week? Who knows?

You MUST Be Joking.

2011-12-08T23:21:00.001-06:00

http://ldsliving.com/story/66896-single-saints-inner-beauty-is-not-enough

I don't even want to bother pointing out all the ways in which this article sucks.

BLERG.

Sometimes You Just Need a Good Graphic

2011-12-08T17:31:00.001-06:00

And I've been collecting them the last few weeks.

Finally (and I apologize in advance for this one, but it had to be shared):

Which one's your favorite? :)

Are You Sure You're Wearing Pants?

2011-12-08T01:02:00.001-06:00

I am in love with this graphic, and so--even though most of you have already seen this since I posted it on Facebook earlier--I will share it here as well. You can never be too vigilant in the battle against GLHP (Girls Leaving the House Pantsless) Syndrome; also you can never have enough flowcharts. To that end I give you this masterpiece:

Constant vigilance, my friends!

Sex Ed from Holland

2011-12-06T10:51:00.001-06:00

I just read a really fascinating article, and I have to admit I'm completely torn about the subject. The gist of it is this:

In America, compared to Holland, teen birth rates are eight times higher; abortion rates are twice as high; and the AIDS rate is three times greater.

In Holland, teens are commonly allowed to have boyfriends/girlfriends sleep over at their parents' house; birth control is widely distributed; and sex is not culturally restricted to marriage, but is connected to love. (Basically, there is no culture of "hooking up" like there is in America.)

I give you this hoping that you will be enticed to read the rest of the interview, because it makes some truly excellent points and also gives necessary background to the information I mentioned. It's not long, and it's very conversational; very easy to follow.

I think there’s no doubt that America's super-restrictive attitude toward sex both causes and exacerbates a lot of the problems it’s meant to prevent. But I'm still torn on actual teen sex.

On the one hand, the emotional consequences of sex can be a lot stronger for teens, and let's be honest--their judgment and decision-making skills are not those of adults. I think about myself as a teenager, the things I believed about the world and wanted for my own life, and how much I changed within only one or two years after high school (and then how much again within only five years of that)... and I think there's a reason we try to treat teenagers like children. Because they're not adults. Frankly, I think choosing a college is the only big life decision a teenager should ever make.

On the other hand, though... I wonder why puberty begins so young if teenagers are really so ill-equipped to handle it. It doesn’t seem logical to me that teens develop such a powerful instinct that they are then supposed to completely ignore, at an age at which their judgment and self-control are far from mature.

As far as cultural attitudes toward sex, at least, I think it's pretty clear that Holland has us beat; if nothing else, their statistics say a lot. Who knows, maybe there's something to be said for chilling the eff out as a new cultural standard.

Makoto Fujimura

2011-12-05T20:39:00.000-06:00

This man's work is gorgeous. If I could have these two pieces--and if I had a room big enough to do justice to that second piece--I would be a very happy lady.

The Lord of the Rings, by J.R.R. Tolkien--8/10

2011-12-03T17:48:00.000-06:00

I haven't finished this yet, but being close to the end of The Two Towers--and already knowing the story from the movies--I feel like I can safely review at this point.

For once in my life, I'm really glad to have seen the movies before I read this book. Or maybe, now that I'm an adult and know that Tolkien is one of the staples of classic English literature and also have been introduced favorably to the fantasy genre in other ways and am therefore not totally averse to it like I used to be, I would have eventually become interested in it even if I hadn't seen the movies. All I know is that the first time I tried, somewhere in the early years of high school, I got bored and quit. But I did see the movies, and I loved them; I think it's very lucky that they were funded well enough to have been done as fantastically as they were, because that's part of what made the book exciting for me.

The movies followed a lot of things about the book really well; I was pleased to see that several of my favorite lines were actually Tolkien's and not the addition of a screenwriter. It always irritates me when people find a book interesting enough to make a movie out of it, but don't think the author's words are good enough to use.

Anyway. If a movie is done well, it can be really fun to see it before reading a book, because then the book is like an extra treat (since it usually contains scenes and storylines that got omitted from the movie for the sake of time). The problem is that you can't tell until it's too late, and if a movie is bad, then you're stuck with those actors in your head when you try the book. That's why my book-first policy is generally pretty stict, but in this case I'll admit, I'm glad I deviated. If you haven't read this book, do, even if you don't like fantasy. It's clever and often funny in addition to just being a really exciting, engaging story with wonderful characters. And if you're a fan of the movies, it will make you want to watch them again, too.

The Christian Cop-Out

2011-12-02T01:53:00.004-06:00

I love when I come across something that perfectly explains something I've been thinking about myself. I have often wondered where Christians get the idea that their governments are exempt from the principles they're supposed to follow, that Christ only ever intended for individuals to follow his teachings individually.

"Frankly, I'm sick and tired of hearing this epic cop-out on the part of Christians: "I wonder if Jesus meant for the government to feed the poor, or for us to voluntarily give to make sure all the poor people have food." Many don't even wonder about the notion. They insist they know. Provision and care for the least of these -- the sick, the poor, the homeless, the addicted, the mentally ill, the displaced, the marginalized -- is an individual mandate. Human institutions of government have no business worrying about such things.

What a load of bull dung."

I'm talking about this article from The Christian Left, which you should read, but if you don't you can get the gist of it from my post here.

This is not to say, of course, that I believe our government should be Christian. (I don't.) What it does mean is simply that I believe Christians should vote and participate in government in the same way that they do in their personal lives. "Voting according to your beliefs" does not mean "voting to enact legislation that will force all Americans to live by your beliefs." It means (if you're a Christian) voting for things--for programs, policies, people--that enact Christ's teachings. Like caring for the poor.

"Force everyone to do the right thing" is not a commandment. "Love thy neighbor" is.

The article quotes several scriptures, including Exodus, Leviticus, and Isaiah (links are to the King James versions). I think Jeremiah 22 is my favorite, particularly verse 3, which is specifically directed to rulers (at that time, the king):

3 Thus saith the Lord; Execute ye ^ajudgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the ^bstranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent ^cblood in this place.

For Christians:
Jesus Christ said countless times to care for the poor and love your neighbor as yourself, and he said it to human institutions, too.

For Americans:
The Declaration of Independence says that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are unalienable rights, and specifically that "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." It says that when a government fails to do this, "it is the right of the people" to change it.

I'm not sure where the confusion is.

Wait--yes I am. It's where greed comes in, and selfishness. It's where, somewhere along the way, someone started thinking that freedom of the market is the same thing as freedom, and therefore is the ultimate highest good. Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but if you want mine... I have a pretty hard time imagining a Jesus who thinks a "big government nanny state" is a worse evil than oppressing and neglecting the poor.

Philosophy Series: Mormon Modesty Misses the Point

2011-11-29T09:24:00.000-06:00

This post from Doves and Serpents is by far the best, simplest thing I've ever read on Mormon modesty. (The bold is my emphasis.)

The way we talk and think about modesty is rooted in sexism. It’s rooted in what I believe are false notions about men, women and sex. Men are not simple creatures that can’t control themselves if they see some flesh. Sexual arousal is natural, a biological fact, for men and women. Both men and women are visually stimulated (although our culture is, and has been for most of recorded history, focused on stimulating men). Arousal, in [and] of itself, is not immoral, only our actions can be ethical or unethical. Women’s bodies, and their ability to procreate, are not dangerous. The connections made between sexual violence against women and the clothes they wear are spurious and damaging. Sadly, we live in a world where women can be attacked no matter what they are wearing. One of the most poignant things to come out of the SlutWalks was seeing women walk in the clothes they had been raped in – sweatpants, jeans, bulky winter coats – no piece of clothing or glimpse of skin ever causes sexual violence. Before puberty, children are not really capable of being modest or immodest. We cover them to keep them warm and protected from the elements, but suggesting that a young girl’s shoulders are somehow immodest is on par with putting her in a padded bra or high-heeled boots, it sexualizes her too young.

We teach our girls from a very young age to constantly be aware of how others will perceive them. Mothers and grandmothers are most often the gatekeepers and enforcers of modesty rules, passing them on to children who wouldn’t even begin to worry about wearing a sleeveless dress unless someone told them it was wrong. Of course, the morality of modesty aside, a very pragmatic argument can be made that every culture has rules about getting dressed and we have to prepare our daughters to function within society. They will run into people who will judge them for what they wear or don’t wear. They will encounter dress codes in their schools and future workplaces. It’s our duty as parents to prepare our children for these realities, but it is not more important than how our children feel about themselves.

I’m a big believer in getting to grips with what we really believe and trying to act in a way that honors our truest values and intentions. Although modesty is ostensibly an external practice, I believe the best modesty lessons teach our children to think about who they are and what they want to convey through their clothing and then give them the freedom to own those choices. Some critical thought about getting dressed is a necessity for women in a world of mixed messages.

However, at this time in your daughter’s life, the best lesson might be to say nothing, to allow her some respite from being constantly aware of how her looks or dress might impact others. The best lesson might be to brave the disapproving looks and comments from other mothers and teach your daughter that sometimes we get judged for the choices we make, but it doesn’t matter as long as we know why we are making them and that people all over the world have different ideas about the right way to get dressed. The best lesson might be that there is nothing shameful about her precious little body and covering up her favorite dress won’t make her more holy because holiness is something that comes from the inside.

In the Wild, by David Elliott and Holly Meade--8/10

2011-11-28T18:40:00.000-06:00

In the Wild by David Elliott
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

The illustration in this book is definitely worth 5 stars--it is absolutely gorgeous! I really don't know if I've ever seen such beautiful illustrations. My niece picked it up at the library and I made her check it out after glimpsing the pages as she turned through it; then she went home, and I kept it to read for myself.

The writing, though, I would give 3 stars or maybe even 2, so I'm compromising with the overall review. Some of it I liked; most of it was only okay, and some of it bothered me--like how the poor rhinoceros gets the only negative poem in the book. What's that about?

A horn stuck on a boot-like face,
So wrong, so clearly out of place.
A frightful sight, preposterous--
it must be a Rhinoceros!

I was also bugged by inconsistencies: the meter sometimes changes mid-poem, so they don't have a good rhythm; some are titled, like "The Panda," "The Wolf," and "The Giraffe," but in some the animal's name is just incorporated into the text, like with the rhinoceros; some poems are written about the animals but some are written to them, and one is even written in the format of a letter complete with salutation and signature.

If I could get a hold of just the pictures, I would absolutely frame them and put them in a kid's bedroom. The writing is just so disappointing next to the brilliance of the illustrations.

This isn't my favorite page, although I do love it; it's just the only one I could find online.

View all my Goodreads reviews

Let the Christmas Music Begin

2011-11-27T23:26:00.000-06:00

Do you ever look back at something you wrote, think it's totally absurd, and then get slightly weirded out when you realize how not long ago you actually wrote it? I just saw the post I wrote in 2008 about my favorite Christmas songs, and I laughed a bit at a few of the songs that were on there.

"Ave Maria" used to be number 5, but has moved to number one. (I know this isn't technically a Christmas song, but this is when I just love listening to it.) "O Come, O Come Emmanuel" is also still on there, and is in mostly the same place--maybe moved down to number 3, because number 2 now belongs to "The Coventry Carol" (formerly number 6).

"O Holy Night" is also still on there--however, Celine Dion and Amy Grant are certainly no longer my favorite versions, and I sort of cringe in remembering that I listed them as such only three years ago. I'm currently favoring The Irish Tenors and Celtic Woman, but am open to suggestions for new favorite versions!

"I Want a Hippopotamus for Christmas" was number 10 on the old list, and is one that I actually sort of hate now. (Also "Baby it's Cold Outside," which didn't make the old list but used to be one I loved. I still like it in Elf, but mostly I find it a little smarmy.) "God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen," "We Three Kings," and "Carol of the Bells" were 9, 8, and 7 respectively, and although I like all of those songs, I don't think I would put them on a list of my favorites anymore except as my favorites of all the other songs that aren't my favorite.

I also still like "Silent Night," and of course, you can never go wrong with The Nutcracker Suite.

I am absurdly picky about Christmas music, but the stuff I like, I love. Absolutely adore. And I can listen to it over and over for hours. (My Christmas playlist on Grooveshark contains 81 songs right now, and almost all of those tracks are just different versions of the songs I mentioned above.)

I do need to find some new songs to add to the list, though... So, based on the information I've given you about my tastes, can you recommend anything?

In the Spirit of Thanksgiving...

2011-11-26T20:26:00.000-06:00

With the focus on gratitude this time of year, I've been looking around for things I can do for others and I thought I'd share in case any of you are finding yourselves similarly inclined. I'm certainly not doing these all at once, but they're all causes I'd like to support at some time or another.

Utah Co-op is doing an Angel Tree drive; they post information about each "angel in need" and you can claim the one you want, shop for them, and either drop off the package or mail it in to the address they provide.

The Breast Cancer site has a "click to give" program in which sponsors donate money for each click; also, money from sales goes to help fund mammograms. (The same site also has pages for hunger, veterans, animals, rainforests, autism, child health, and literacy.)

You probably already know that when you buy a pair of Toms shoes, you also buy a second pair that goes to a child who needs them.

Kiva is a really cool organization through which you can lend--not donate--small amounts of money to people in poor countries, to help them build up a business and get on their feet. This is one of the ones I'm most excited about doing; Chuck and Josh talked it up on our favorite podcast, and you can read about it on the How Stuff Works website (the Kiva website also has a really easy-to-follow explanation of microlending).

You can donate money, host a dinner, sponsor a child's education, or write a letter to a woman in Somalia or Congo through A Thousand Sisters (another one I'm excited to do, having just learned about it a few days ago).

Or you can donate to Opening Doors, a scholarship fundraiser from LDS Philanthropies to help send single mothers to LDS Business College.

Many grocery stores have a food donation program going during the holidays, and I know some of them are really simple--you can just grab an already-packed bag from the front of the store, pay for it, and stick it in the box on your way out.

For most of these charities it doesn't matter how small your donation is, and though it sounds like a patronizing cliche, it really is better to give a tiny amount than nothing at all--everything does help, and frankly it's good for you, too. (For Opening Doors, I had just happened to have $9.43 deposited in my PayPal account by Ebates the day before, so that's what I donated.) I think knowing that you've done something, even if you wish you could've done more, is good for the soul. The widow's mite and all that, you know?

What others should we know about?

Happy Thanksgiving!

2011-11-24T11:48:00.001-06:00

I wish we were capable of accepting history as it actually happened instead of celebrating a holiday that covers up mass murder, the sex-slave trade, racism, and the Eurocentric rewriting of history to say what we want it to say...

But I am still okay with using the day to give thanks for all the blessings in my life.

I'm thankful for all the time we're able to spend with our families, and all the help they've been able to give us when we need it; I'm thankful for the internet, bittersweet gift though it is, and for the connections it allows me to discover and maintain; I'm thankful for Mike's job that provides for us, and mine that works with all my limitations; I'm thankful to have beautiful babies in my life who are sources of pure sweet goodness; I'm thankful for nature and music, which are the ultimate conductors of divine love that can help me feel good about life even when it seems to hate me; I'm thankful for books and the constant opportunities for learning, escape, and empathy they offer; I'm thankful for old friends who share my interests and new friends who are on the same journey I am; I'm thankful for Mike, for how well we can work together to deal with all the messes in our life. And I'm thankful for this time of year, when everything just seems more special and beautiful, and it's so easy to focus on peace and kindness and happiness and love.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone... I hope it's a wonderful one.

The Book Thief, by Markus Zusak--9/10

2011-11-23T08:18:00.002-06:00

You miss a few things if you listen to this on audio, because I saw some illustrations and formatting when I picked up a hard copy--but the narrator is also fantastic and it's a lot of fun hearing it read in a German accent, so you'll have to just decide which you'd rather get; I can't say which is better. I can say, though, that I am currently in love with Markus Zusak's books. The first one I read, I Am the Messenger, was amazing, and The Book Thief was equally incredible: The story, characters, and writing are just beautiful and loveable, and if you don't find yourself in tears by the end, I will possibly question the functionality of your tear ducts. Or soul. (Okay, not really.)

This is a story about a German girl named Liesel, growing up outside Munich during World War II. She's best friends with Rudy, her neighbor; Hans, her foster father; and Max, the Jew who's hiding in their basement. She's a book thief, and her story is narrated by Death (a surprisingly compassionate character).

Shop to Occupy

2011-11-22T21:15:00.000-06:00

If you're participating in Small Business Saturday this year (the day after Black Friday), or if you'd just like to consider doing your shopping at independent stores, these links might help you out. You can buy online if you don't live near them.

IndieBound

American Booksellers Association

Independent Online Booksellers Association (there are some really cool bookstores on these three sites!)

Wanna Buy a Watch? (antique jewelry and watches)

Nell Hill's (vintage home furnishings)

Estes Ark (stuffed animals)

Archie McPhee & Co. (everything totally random)

Abt Electronics and Appliances

"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

2011-11-21T09:48:00.007-06:00

To be perfectly honest, until now I've been kind of a pansy about this topic, because... well, because my beliefs have changed so much in the last three years that I'm now considered a "radical" by most of the people I knew before, and I didn't want to add even more material to the pile of criticisms. But I'm not going to be a pansy about it anymore, and interestingly enough, it was seeing The Help that led me to this decision. I watched the way black people were being treated in that movie and I felt sick to my stomach, especially when I thought about the fact that there is another group of people being treated much the same way right now.

So I would like to share this, which I found last night. It's exactly what I would like to say--to everyone, not just BYU students.

A response to the hateful and deceiving articles in our Daily Universe [BYU's student newspaper] against our homosexual brothers and sisters:

We of the BYU community who are sympathetic to our homosexual brothers and sisters were extremely hurt by the ignorant articles in the Daily Universe comparing homosexuals to prostitutes and serial killers. Gay students are in every classroom, every ward, and every apartment complex at BYU and we want to reach out in love to help you better understand.

-Utah leads the nation in youth suicides and teen homelessness, a large number of which are gay youth. (Utah Suicide Stats Alarming, Salt Lake Tribune, 2007)

-Gay youth who are rejected by family or peers are 8 times more likely to commit suicide, 6 times as likely to be depressed, and 3 times as likely to use illegal drugs and engage in unsafe social behavior. (Ryan, Huebner, Diaz, & Sanchez. 2009. Pediatrics)

Attempts to “love the sinner and hate the sin” more often than not come across as rejection, hate, and hostility. The hostility directed toward anonymous populations instead spiritually wounds your brothers and sisters all around you. If you don’t think you know a gay person, you’re wrong. They just don’t trust you enough to tell you.

The attitude and environment at BYU represented by those articles creates and reopens wounds that the Son of God Himself died to heal. Gay members of the church struggle under the burden of self-loathing encouraged by a culture that inadvertently teaches that those attracted to the same sex are not worthy of God’s love. Only through much pain and the mercy of Jesus Christ are those wounds healed. And it is not your place to undo what He has done.

Some people believe that homosexuality is a sin, but what does that have to do with love? The task of any religion is not to teach us who we’re entitled to hate, but who we’re required to love.

To our gay brothers and sisters at BYU you are not alone. We love you. There is a place for you, with us and with God.

For more information, see the Facebook group: ShameOnYouDU.

So. In the spirit of not being a pansy:

I fully support gay marriage being legal, think the LDS church was wrong to support Prop 8, and believe that the way most of the Christian world is treating homosexuals is absolutely un-Christian.

If churches don't want to perform the ceremonies, they shouldn't have to. But as far as recognition from the government goes, there is not one reason why religious beliefs should have any say in the matter. The United States government is not an arm of your religion, no matter what religion it is.

Stop trying to force people to live according to your standards--you don't have that right. Stop trying to change them yourself--it's not your responsibility. Stop focusing on their sins--focus on their humanity. Love them--not in the "I love you so I have to hurt you" way, but just in the "I love you because you are a child of God just like me and everyone else" way. Mind your own business and stay out of their sex lives. Stop thinking that allowing them to get married will somehow have any effect on you--their marriage is not about you. And most of all, stop alienating, judging, and abusing them. Please. It's time for this to stop.

If I Were Braver...

2011-11-20T22:18:00.001-06:00

I would have told off several people at the movie theater this weekend.

We finally saw The Help--which was, incidentally, amazing; I'm going to pick up the book as soon as possible now that I know how much I love the story--and let me tell you, except for when I've seen kids' movies, I don't think I've ever sat in a theater with such an annoying crowd of people.

There was the girl on Mike's right side, who inexplicably began stomping her feet on the floor for several minutes with her sandals slapping loudly.

There was the woman on my left side, who--equally inexplicably, since I never saw her put anything in her mouth--was crinkling a very noisy wrapper throughout at least half of the movie.

And there was the row of women behind us, who spent the entire last 45 minutes of the movie talking--not whispering, talking--about how the movie was differing from the book.

I swear, I wanted to smack them all. I am not a publicly-confrontational kind of person, but they each got their share of glares; that's how irritated I was. I just couldn't believe how rude they were being, how totally unaware of themselves and the fact that they were surrounded by other people. It's really frustrating when people think they're the only ones in the universe, you know? It's just frustrating.

Such a lovely movie though. I really do love it.

Rape Culture, Gender Privilege, and Sexual Harrassment: Things to Think About

2011-11-14T18:22:00.005-06:00

I've been reading a lot of new stuff lately, and I mean a lot--I had to start using Google Reader because there was no other way for me to keep current with the approximately 35 blogs I've started following. As such, I've been posting less here, but also collecting a few articles and posts that were especially meaningful to me for the sake of sharing them with you. I hope you'll find them as interesting as I do, and maybe leave with a few things to think about.

I followed an amazing trail of fantastic articles today. It started with something that referenced this post on rape culture from earlier in the year, which links to this post on why we need to stop teaching Young Women that they should be modest "for" the Young Men, then to another post written in response (which I find absolutely infuriating all the way down to the comments, which the author apparently thinks help his case), and finally to this post which is so amazing that I sent it to my younger brothers, who are now fully immersed in the grown-up dating world and who are too otherwise sweet and awesome to not have this information under their belts. Somewhere in there--I can't remember where--a blog linked to this post on Standards Night by the woman who founded Segullah.

There the thread broke and was picked up in a totally unrelated post on a different site, which I deemed irrefutable evidence of harmony in the universe because it's exactly the same topic but now addressed by men (in articles posted several months after the ones by the women). It started with this post on the privilege men don't know they have in not having sexual assault be a part of their daily thoughts; that post led to this one on harrassment and all those "jokes" that women "just don't get" because they're "oversensitive" (I sent this one to my brothers, too, as it's basically the male-perspective version of the first one I sent)... Which led to this fantastic guide for men called How Not To Be An Asshole.

Really, some of the best reading I've done in a while, and that's saying something. I'll end with something that was linked in the comments on one of those posts, and which I tried to post on Facebook but since it's been "loading" for about fifteen minutes I suspect that it's not going to make it:

I laughed out loud, but although it's done quite amusingly, this wonderful poster is not a joke. Seriously--let's start putting things like this up, and stop implying that it's the victims' responsibility to not get assaulted. Let's stop fostering a rape culture, and let's start by no longer teaching young girls that the behavior of boys is something they 1) can control and 2) are responsible for.

Rape culture is 1 in 6 women being sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. Rape culture is not even talking about the reality that many women are sexually assaulted multiple times in their lives. Rape culture is the way in which the constant threat of sexual assault affects women’s daily movements. Rape culture is telling girls and women to be careful about what you wear, how you wear it, how you carry yourself, where you walk, when you walk there, with whom you walk, whom you trust, what you do, where you do it, with whom you do it, what you drink, how much you drink, whether you make eye contact, if you’re alone, if you’re with a stranger, if you’re in a group, if you’re in a group of strangers, if it’s dark, if the area is unfamiliar, if you’re carrying something, how you carry it, what kind of shoes you’re wearing in case you have to run, what kind of purse you carry, what jewelry you wear, what time it is, what street it is, what environment it is, how many people you sleep with, what kind of people you sleep with, who your friends are, to whom you give your number, who’s around when the delivery guy comes, to get an apartment where you can see who’s at the door before they can see you, to check before you open the door to the delivery guy, to own a dog or a dog-sound-making machine, to get a roommate, to take self-defense, to always be alert always pay attention always watch your back always be aware of your surroundings and never let your guard down for a moment lest you be sexually assaulted and if you are and didn’t follow all the rules it’s your fault.

–Melissa McEwan from Shakesville, on FAQ: Rape Culture 101

This is something that always bothered me as a teenager, long before I knew why it did, and as an adult I've thought about it a lot. Have you had any experiences with it? (This is a silly question to ask, because if you're a woman it's virtually guaranteed that you have, and to my knowledge I have maybe three male readers; but I'll ask nonetheless.)

If by "best" you mean "driest"...

2011-11-13T14:12:00.000-06:00

I've been doing some research in trying to find the states with the mildest climates in the U.S. Several pages have come up with lists that claim "the best weather" in the country--and I've been surprised to find that the cities that top these lists are all desert cities. Yuma, Tucson, Phoenix, Albuquerque, El Paso, Las Vegas, Reno... This is puzzling to me, because when I think of fantastic weather I do not think of cacti or triple digit temperatures (despite having grown up in Arizona). But I'm seeing this a lot, so now I'm wondering--is warm weather and dryness what most people are looking for? Maybe Mike and I are just different now that we've gotten so grouchy about super hot summers. What do you think the best weather is?

The Best Thing I Have EVER HEARD.

2011-11-11T09:18:00.003-06:00

Dafni texted me last night with the news that Jaylee was pretending to read me a book over the phone. She said Goose was talking to me (which she apparently does a lot!) and Brandon said "Miri likes books!" so she went and got a book, sat down, and started reading into the phone.

Then there is the status update from this morning:
Jaylee puts her cell phone and wallet into her purse and tells me she's going to the store. Her list: eggs, cheese, broccoli, 2 apples, a book and daddy.

I might burst from the cuteness. Really.

Daylight Savings My Eye

2011-11-09T11:44:00.002-06:00

I don't know why it makes sense for Daylight Savings Time to end at the beginning of winter. Sunday was fantastic--I slept in and still woke up at 7:45, and all day long we kept thinking it was later than it was. It's really nice to be thinking "crap, it's getting late," and then look at the clock and see that no it isn't. However, it is now fully light outside when I wake up at 6:00 in the morning, and fully dark at 6:00 in the evening. Maybe it's just me, but I think the sun is shining at the wrong 6:00.

In other news, due to my recent discovery of KERA member benefits, I have been obsessively looking up performances for the last hour and a half (even the ones for which there actually is no discount--it just got me looking). And I am pretty much bursting with excitement about Les Miserables and The Nutcracker. I've never seen either live, and I've always wanted to. Don't worry, I've got it alll planned out.

Brilliant.

2011-11-08T10:37:00.001-06:00

A fascinating blog post: A Prophet Occupies Wall Street. This is a talk that was given in October 1953, in General Conference, by Spencer W. Kimball as a member of the Twelve.

"All money is not lucre—all money is not filthy. There is clean money—clean money with which to buy food, clothes, shelter, and other necessities and with which to make contributions toward the building of the kingdom of God.

Clean money is that compensation received for a full day’s honest work. It is that reasonable pay for faithful service. It is that fair profit from the sale of goods, commodities, or service. It is that income received from transactions where all parties profit.

. . . Compromise money is filthy, graft money is unclean, profits and commissions derived from the sale of worthless stocks are contaminated as is the money derived from other deceptions, excessive charges, oppression to the poor and compensation which is not fully earned. I feel strongly that men who accept wages or salary and do not give commensurate time, energy, devotion, and service are receiving money that is not clean. Certainly those who deal in the forbidden are recipients of filthy lucre.

. . . I am sure that money is unclean when it is obtained through oppression, fraud[,] bribery, or through misrepresentations.

. . . He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want (Prov. 22:16). Much is said about the hirer and the hired in the scriptures, and about the employer and the employee:

Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days. Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth ( James 5:1-4).

. . . Again:

Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates: At his day thou shalt give him his hire neither shall the sun go down upon it; for he is poor, and setteth his heart upon it… ( Deut. 24:14-15).

And to me that means, woe unto them who will rationalize, who will explain away their errors in these matters, who justify their oppressions. Farm hands, domestic help, and unprotected people are often oppressed, when economic circumstances place them in the position where they must accept what is offered or remain unemployed. And we sometimes justify ourselves in underpaying and even boast about it:

Woe to them that devise iniquity, and work evil upon their beds! when the morning is light, they practice it, because it is in the power of their hand. And they covet fields, and take them by violence; and houses, and take them away: so they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage ( Micah 2:1-2).

. . . And as we look about, we see many who are greedy for excessive wealth, and especially that which comes with sharp practices and at the expense of strict honesty and complete integrity. It is hard to satisfy us. The more we have, the more we want.

. . . For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. Having food and raiment let us be therewith content. Why another farm, another herd of sheep, another bunch of cattle, another ranch? Why another hotel, another cafe, another store, another shop? Why another plant, another office, another service, another business? Why another of anything if one has that already which provides the necessities and reasonable luxuries? Why continue to expand and increase holdings, especially when those increased responsibilities draw one’s interests away from proper family and spiritual commitments, and from those things to which the Lord would have us give precedence in our lives? Why must we always be expanding to the point where our interests are divided and our attentions and thoughts are upon the things of the world? Certainly when one’s temporal possessions become great, it is very difficult for one to give proper attention to the spiritual things.”

And then this from Proverbs struck me:
A faithful man shall abound with blessings: but he that maketh haste to be rich shall not be innocent (Prov. 28:20)."

If you're interested, this BYU database appears to be the only place online where you can read the entire talk; the Conference archives don't go back far enough on the church website.

Do the Police Need a Warrant to Track Your Car? We'll See...

2011-11-08T09:14:00.000-06:00

I heard about this Supreme Court case on the radio this morning. They are deciding the issue of whether or not the police need a warrant to place GPS tracking devices on people's cars. "Police, quite naturally, want to use new technology to get the goods on the bad guys," and the public naturally wants them to be able to do that, too. But on the other hand, "citizens, quite naturally, think that when they leave their homes, they still have some zone of personal privacy in their cars."

The outcome of this case will have a lot to say about whether or not that last statement is true. But in any case, it was just an interesting story to listen to, since it sounded exactly like it could've been an excerpt from this book I reviewed a couple months ago. It's pretty scary, the things that can happen when we don't pay attention. I hope the Supreme Court is paying enough attention here.

Two Gifts in One

2011-11-07T12:40:00.000-06:00

I've decided that I'm going to try and buy all my Christmas gifts from independent merchants this year, including wrapping. A few days ago my mother-in-law sent her annual message reminding us to put our Christmas lists together, and I was thinking about that when I saw this posted on Facebook by one of my cousins:

There are a couple things I've been thinking about for a few weeks already, so I'll probably exempt myself on those if I can't find anything comparable; but I bet I can do it with everything else.

I'll be posting my Christmas list soon, like I usually do--for the convenience of my family, and also a little bit because twice a year I like to indulge in a little materialistic fantasy--and when I include links, like I usually do, I'm going to try and expand beyond Amazon and Barnes & Noble. This won't mean that anyone has to buy the gift from any particular place, but if they do happen to be interested in a little big-business boycott this year, they'll hopefully have a place to start.

Philosophy Series: The Environment

2011-11-04T15:50:00.006-05:00

My Stance:
I believe the government and all people should make preserving the environment a high priority. I believe that we have a responsibility to take care of the earth, and that the safety of the environment is always more important than someone's opportunity to make a profit.

Why:
In the first place, out of practicality. As far as we know, there is only one planet in the universe that we can all live on. We know that many of our resources are limited. We know that many of our behaviors are destroying parts of the planet. We don't have a giant spaceship where we can all relocate; we don't have little WALL-E robots to clean up our mess, or EVE robots to come back and search for signs that the earth is capable of sustaining life again. It's stupid to continue on as we are. It's like tearing down your own house from the inside and using the bricks as chairs. Sure, the chairs are useful--but what are you going to do when your house is gone?

In the second place, I believe that the earth is sacred. I believe that we have a powerful relationship with nature, that we are part of nature, and that we should have the utmost respect for the life of the earth. I believe, like Hugh Nibley, that "man’s dominion is a call to service, not a license to exterminate." I believe, like Joseph Fielding Smith, David McKay, and Stephen Richards, that "love of nature is akin to the love of God," and that "nature helps us to see and understand God. To all His creations we owe an allegiance of service and a profound admiration."

I believe that we shouldn't kill animals unless we are eating them. (I also believe that eating meat is fine, but that it shouldn't be too big a part of one's diet.)

I think that by this point, everyone should be making at least some effort to recycle. (Mike and I haven't managed aluminum or paper yet, but we save all our plastic and take it to Target or Brookshire's when we shop. It's small, but it's better than nothing.)

I support much higher energy efficiency requirements for cars, lightbulbs, refrigerators, etc., and I believe that we should be focusing heavily on energy sources like wind and solar, on both an individual and a national/global scale (because of the belief I mentioned earlier that keeping our home intact is more important than making a profit).

In a similar vein, yesterday I came across a couple blog posts that really surprised me. You can probably guess how I feel about that information, but what do you think about it?

[Edit, 11/8: Funnily enough, this post was written almost exactly one month before I posted mine, but I didn't see it until today. It's a fantastic piece that goes perfectly with what I've said here, but specific to Mormons.]

The Castle Corona, by Sharon Creech--8/10

2011-11-02T07:20:00.000-05:00

Everything about this book is lovely. It's nothing earth-shattering, just an enjoyable read; I love the illustration on the cover and the size and shape of the book itself, which is what led me to pick it up in the first place. The illustrations inside are just as beautiful, the characters are silly and fun, and the story--though not based on a very original framework--is done simply and well. It doesn't end quite as predictably as you'd think, either, and that makes it a little more interesting to me. My first thought was that I want to give it to my nieces (my nephews can't read yet), and I think many adults would enjoy it as well.

Elaine Dalton

2011-10-31T07:50:00.023-05:00

My hopes went up when Elaine Dalton started talking in Conference earlier this month--a woman was actually going to address the men!--but they went steadily down as she continued speaking. It was a fine talk, but nothing special, and nothing everyone hasn't heard approximately eight billion times.

I wish people in the church would occasionally expand the "good fathers" talk beyond the importance of virtue, providing for the family, and not looking at porn. There's so much more to being a good dad, and frankly, those three things are kind of basic for Mormons. If you're LDS, you know about the priesthood and being righteous--but being righteous does not necessarily make you a good dad.

How about discussing the fact that a father can do just as much nurturing as a mother, not just providing and "protecting"? How about mentioning that a father needs to be more than just a provider, or a disciplinarian? How about letting fathers know that loving their children's mother means working with her, doing their share of housework and raising the kids--not just saying the words and giving her flowers three times a year? How about discussing the attitude a father can have toward his daughters; how the way he treats them influences the way his daughters will relate to men, the way his sons will relate to women, for the rest of their lives?

These things, unlike "be virtuous and worthy priesthood holders," are not always common knowledge. They are not constantly discussed at church. They could stand to be mentioned every now and then--and the other topics could stand to be let up on occasionally. (Don't you feel like people start tuning out when they realize a speaker is just repeating things everyone's heard before?)

Besides which, I believe that trying hard is vastly more important than always being "worthy." In fact, it's impossible to always BE worthy. You can be a good father without having a current temple recommend, and you can have a current temple recommend without being a particularly good dad. There are non-priesthood-holders who are much better dads than some priesthood holders.

In the case of the "good father" talk, I think we should be emphasizing those secular aspects rather than going on about virtue, etc. The virtue thing comes up basically everywhere in the church, and these are issues that don't get touched on as much. Being a good dad is much more about these other things than it is about the priesthood, and it's a fantastic topic that deserves to be actually addressed, instead of just a disguise for the same old virtue-and-purity talk. All I'm saying is, if you're going to talk about being a good father--then do, talk about it. Is that too much to ask?

Actors Who Make Me Want to NOT See a Movie When I Find Out They're In It, Even If I Did Want to See It Before, and Often for No Good Reason:

2011-10-29T11:44:00.001-05:00

*the caveat here is sort of the opposite of the last one--the favorites are not necessarily favorite roles that actor has played, but are more likely movies that I enjoyed in spite of these actors being in them

I find Cameron Diaz really annoying for some reason. I really don't know why; maybe it's that she seems kind of vapid.
Favorite: In Her Shoes, The Holiday, Knight and Day. Least: The Green Hornet. Refused to see at least partially because she was in them: Bad Teacher, What Happens in Vegas, My Sister's Keeper.

I have long hated Kirsten Dunst, and though I feel a little bad saying that because I'm sure she's a lovely person, I just really cannot stand her. I have often said, and been told that I'm rude for doing so, that she just makes me want to punch her in the face. It is rude of me, I fully agree. And yet...

Favorite: Little Women, Mona Lisa Smile. Least: Spiderman 1-3. Refused: Wimbledon, Bring It On.

It pains my sister that I dislike Katherine Heigl so, but it is true. She always seems awkward to me, in the way she talks and carries herself.

Least: 27 Dresses, Killers. Refused: Life as We Know It, The Ugly Truth, One for the Money (this movie combines two things I can't stand, so I think I can safely say that I'd as soon stab myself repeatedly with a toothpick as watch it).

Not a fan of Jeff Bridges. He's a good actor, but something about him just weirds me out. Maybe it's because he's too good at playing villains, I don't know.

Favorite: True Grit (his character, not the movie). Least: Iron Man (his character, not the movie). Refused: TRON: Legacy.

Every time we watch a movie with Aaron Eckhart, Mike is appalled at my totally arbitrary dislike of him. I don't know, maybe it's that ridiculous Crimson Chin jawline; maybe it's the way too boy-next-door nice-looking-ness. I never said this was a logical list.
Favorite: The Dark Knight, Thank You for Smoking. Refused: Battle Los Angeles, Rabbit Hole.

Oy, Ashton Kutcher. I just can't take that guy seriously, and I don't find him funny, either. Blech. He's pretty, though, I'll give him that. Way too pretty.
Favorite: The Guardian. Least: Killers, My Boss's Daughter, Dude, Where's My Car? Refused: No Strings Attached, What Happens in Vegas, Guess Who.

With Philip Seymour Hoffman I think we have the same problem as with Jeff Bridges--he's just too good at being creepy. I actually haven't seen many of his movies, but I've been creeped out by his characters when I have.
Favorite: The Ides of March. Least: Doubt.

I think John C. Reilly's IMDb bio pretty much explains things. I was surprised to really like his character in The Hours, and actually I enjoyed Cedar Rapids and kind of liked him in spite of his character's obnoxiousness... But only kind of.
Favorite: The Hours. Least: Cedar Rapids, Never Been Kissed. Refused: Step Brothers, Cyrus.

I'm not really a fan of the Seth Rogen/Jonah Hill style of humor. And I was not pleased that the second time I have ever seen my name come up in pop culture, it was associated with that group. Kind of unfortunate, you know?

Favorite: How to Train Your Dragon, Megamind, Horton Hears a Who! Least: The Green Hornet, The 40 Year Old Virgin. Refused: Knocked Up, Pineapple Express, Superbad, Get Him to the Greek.

I can knowingly attribute my dislike of Jonathan Rhys Meyers only to the fact that he looks like a jerk. (I mean come on, look at that picture.) However, I have seen Bend it Like Beckham and Mission: Impossible 3 but don't remember him in either movie, so maybe my subconscious is just holding onto something from one of them.
Favorite: Match Point (I love the movie, but don't like his character). Least: August Rush. Refused: The Tudors (oh, the magazine ads for this show creep me out).

I used to love Matthew McConaughey--several years ago, when I was in my chick flick/Delilah radio phase (yeah, I know, I was awesome). I still secretly sort of love How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, but maybe that's because I haven't watched it in years so I just have nice memories. :)
Favorite: The Wedding Planner, U-571. Least: Sahara, Failure to Launch. Refused: The Lincoln Lawyer, Ghosts of Girlfriends Past, Fool's Gold.

I'm always turned off to a movie when I see that it stars country singers...

Tim McGraw--Friday Night Lights, Flicka, The Blind Side, Four Christmases
Toby Keith--Broken Bridges, Beer for My Horses
Taylor Swift--Valentine's Day
Billy Ray Cyrus--The Spy Next Door
Miley Cyrus--The Last Song
Trace Adkins--The Lincoln Lawyer
Dwight Yoakam and Tim McGraw--Dirty Girl

Or current/former child stars (see Taylor Swift and Miley Cyrus above, Justin Bieber, Taylor Lautner, etc.)...

Anyway. This is by no means a complete list, but these are the first ones who came to my head. I'm sure more will come up in the comments!

Baggage Claim

2011-10-26T13:19:00.010-05:00

Yesterday on Smart Pretty and Awkward I found a website that I think is kind of great. Check it out.

http://emotionalbagcheck.com/

(Megan W L, this totally is something you could have invented.)

Actors Who Make Me Want to See a Movie When I Find Out They're In It, Even If I Specifically Didn't Want to See It Before and Know It Will Be Stupid:

2011-10-26T07:39:00.007-05:00

*in no particular order
**and when I say "favorite," I don't necessarily mean the movie--just the actor's role in that movie

I think Meryl Streep is one of the most elegant people alive. Her voice is beautiful and totally underappreciated in her career; actually, she and Madonna used to be up for a lot of the same roles, including Eva Peron in Evita.
Favorite: Mamma Mia, Julie & Julia, The Hours. Least favorite: Adaptation. Top of the to-see list: Postcards from the Edge, The Iron Lady, Lions for Lambs.

Helena Bonham Carter would be incredibly intimidating to me in real life. She's a brilliant actor, and I love that she can play total lunatic (Bellatrix Lestrange, the Red Queen) as well as absolutely normal (Queen Elizabeth, Mrs. Bucket). She's pretty much the epitome of cool.
Favorite: The King's Speech, Harry Potter, Fight Club. Least: Terminator Salvation. To-see: Les Miserables, Toast, Twelfth Night, Howards End.

Emma Thompson is sort of sneaky in her awesomeness. She never seems to be the point, you know? like even when she's in a leading role, she's just sort of understated. So you have to be paying attention to know how funny she can be, in addition to that understated elegance.
Favorite: Much Ado About Nothing, Love Actually, Stranger than Fiction. To-see: Pirate Radio, An Education, The Remains of the Day, Howards End.

I feel like I want Minnie Driver to be my best friend. She's good in a serious role, too, but mostly I love when she makes me laugh, playing amazing characters like Carlotta in The Phantom of the Opera. I wish she were in more movies.
Favorite: Good Will Hunting, An Ideal Husband. Least: Ella Enchanted. To-see: Princess Mononoke, Take.

I haven't even seen Emily Blunt in that many movies, and some of them--like The Adjustment Bureau--were fun, but not anything special. But I really like her quirky attitude.
Favorite: Sunshine Cleaning, Wild Target, The Devil Wears Prada. Least: Gnomeo & Juliet. To-see: Charlie Wilson's War, The Young Victoria.

Well, I do not think this needs to be explained. Tina Fey is one of my heroes, and she is a comic genius. I want her to be in more movies, and I don't even care if they're all silly--a movie can be total crap, but if Tina Fey is in it, it's still worth seeing.
Favorite: Mean Girls, Ponyo, and of course, 30 Rock. Least: The Invention of Lying. To-see: "Elmo and the Bookaneers;" all the episodes of Saturday Night Live that I haven't seen yet.

Alec Baldwin has become one of my favorite actors since I started watching 30 Rock. I love his satirical humor, and I think Jack Donaghy is probably one of the top ten best TV characters ever.
Favorite: 30 Rock, The Aviator, Madagascar 2. Least: Saturday Night Live: The Best of Alec Baldwin (oh, some of it is so funny, but the gay sex jokes are just too too much for me). To-see: The Good Shepherd, The Royal Tenenbaums, Running with Scissors.

I don't really know what it is about Alfred Molina, but I love seeing this guy in movies. He's brilliant as a villain, but somehow I always find myself liking his characters even as I hate them.
Favorite: Chocolat, Maverick. Least: Spiderman 2, Abduction (I say this with the intent to never, ever watch this movie). To-see: Vivaldi, Poe, Frida, Magnolia, Anna Karenina.

Ah, Cillian Murphy. I find this guy incredibly attractive, I'm not gonna lie. Whether he's a villain or not, I am just intrigued by that completely un-macho intellectual persona.
Favorite: Batman Begins, Inception. To-see: Intermission, The Wind that Shakes the Barley, Cold Mountain.

So, Mike always makes fun of me for how much I love Jeff Goldblum. He says "You've barely even seen him in anything!" Which is sort of true, actually, but the things I have seen him in are just awesome.
Ultimate favorite: the episode of Friends where he plays Leonard Hayes. Also: Independence Day, The Switch. To-see: Morning Glory, Man of the Year, Mini's First Time, the 1980 TV movie of The Legend of Sleepy Hollow in which he plays Ichabod Crane.

Stanley Tucci is actually one of my very favorites, and I wish he were in more movies! I love the characters he plays and I swear he's the kind of guy I just want to be my best friend, or my favorite uncle.
Favorite: Easy A, The Devil Wears Prada, Shall We Dance. Least: The Lovely Bones. I have not seen this, and I will not, because I saw a trailer and have read part of the book and know that he will be too, too good as that awful creepy man and I cannot have that creepiness associated with Stanley Tucci in my head. To-see: The Hunger Games (!), Burlesque.

I just like Michael Caine a lot. I like the fact that he was a hotshot playboy in the 60s, and I like that he plays nothing but crotchety old men now that he's older. (He does crotchety old man really well.)
Favorite: The Prestige, The Muppet Christmas Carol, Miss Congeniality, The Eagle Has Landed. To-see: Alfie, The Man Who Would Be King, Hannah and Her Sisters.

Paul Giamatti makes me happy. There's something endearing about him, and I always want to like his character no matter what.
Favorite: Cinderella Man, Lady in the Water. Least: Saving Private Ryan. (This is a cop-out because it's not really a Paul Giamatti movie; also, I didn't hate it, but was traumatized by it and never want to watch it again.) To-see: Ironclad, Barney's Version.

I don't think I'd seen Robert Downey Jr. in anything before Iron Man. (Just kidding--one movie.) Most of my thoughts about him are based off of three movies (and only two characters), but he does those characters really well and I think he is fabulous. I am a fan of that dry clever wit. ("You wear a jacket.")
Favorite: Sherlock Holmes, Iron Man. Least: Due Date. To-see: Good Night and Good Luck (have seen this, but before I knew who he was), The Avengers, The Soloist, Chaplin, Sherlock Holmes 2.

Leonardo DiCaprio is a funny one for me--I was in love with him in eighth grade, when Titanic came out, and then when I got older I was embarrassed about it so I specifically didn't like him, but now that he's older he's actually become a really fantastic actor and I know that any movie starring him is going to be interesting and substantive.
Favorite: Inception, Shutter Island, The Aviator, The Departed. Least: Guess! To-see: J. Edgar, The Great Gatsby, Gangs of New York.

Emma Stone is funny. She's smart. And I loved her enough in Easy A that ever since then, I'm interested in anything that she's in. It is also awesome that she keeps working with others who are on this list.
Favorite: Easy A, Crazy, Stupid, Love. To-see: The Help. (And then only things going forward, because I'm not interested in anything she was in before Easy A.)

I just remembered Maggie Gyllenhaal. She's another one that I would love to know in real life; her characters are always so daring and snarky and laid-back, and she just seems like a lot of fun. Any time I see her name in the cast, I'm more interested than I would have been. (Does anyone know if it's a coincidence that she's in so many movies with Drew Barrymore? I've seen three on IMDb already.)
Favorite: Stranger than Fiction, Mona Lisa Smile, Away We Go. To-see: Paris, Je T'aime, Learning to Fly, Donnie Darko.

Thanks to Lori, I have also remembered Cate Blanchett, who is another new-ish favorite. Her place on this list dates to when I first saw The Aviator, and she was amazing as Katharine Hepburn (my number one favorite actress of all time, but I only included living actors on this list).
Favorite: Lord of the Rings, The Aviator, Robin Hood, Hanna. Least: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. To-see: The Talented Mr. Ripley, Elizabeth, The Shipping News, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (which I've been avoiding because the idea kind of creeped me out, but now I'm interested in watching because I like her).

Honorable mentions (aka I find them really attractive):

In a few days I'll be doing the opposite of this collection: actors who make me NOT want to see a movie, even if I'd wanted to see it before I found out they were in it. Who are your favorites?

Philosophy Series: Filling Out the Abortion Discussion

2011-10-25T11:13:00.003-05:00

An article from 2008, which I recently saw linked in the comments of a blog I was reading: When Moral Issues Become Political Issues. This article addresses the practical ramifications of making abortion illegal with exceptions, and many of them were things I'd never considered--like the fact that in order to make it legal in the case of rape, all allegations of rape would have to be tried and proven in a court. The two issues I see as the biggest problems with that:

Court cases, even simple ones, usually take several months, and it would be impossible to conclude them in time to perform an abortion.
In order to prevent all women who want abortions from claiming rape, the women whose cases could not be proven would have to be punished. This is problematic for two reasons: one, that rape often can't be proved even when it did happen; and two, that it would discourage even more women from coming forward when they have been raped, because they would be afraid of the consequences if they couldn't prove it. These are not casualties I am willing to accept.

For the record: I believe that forcing a woman to go through with a pregnancy that resulted from rape is a kind of rape in itself.

A few points concerning the LDS Church's official stance on abortion:

"The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience," but "allows for possible exceptions for its members."
"Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct." Italics added, to emphasize that the Church believes this is a personal decision.
"The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion." In its policy of political neutrality, the Church has made clear that they "reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church." This is what the Church did in regard to Prop 8; they have not done it for abortion.

Some things to think about.

For the record (because it seems to bear repeating): My personal beliefs are identical to those of the writer of the article I linked to--and, incidentally, mesh very cleanly with the Church's stance.

Morally, I believe that elective abortion is very wrong, and in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life, I believe it should be considered seriously first.

Politically, I believe that it should be legal. Unlike that of gay marriage, the question of abortion is one in which I can understand wanting to involve the law, because we are talking about a human life. But there are too many reasons why it would be wrong to do so; there are too many cases where exceptions would have to be made, and there is no way to legislate those without seriously wronging innocent women. (And for those in the camp of not making those exceptions, there are even more things that are just wrong about what they want to do--like the hypocrisy of being "pro-life" when you would not allow an abortion that would save the live of the mother.) In the end, plain and simple, I believe that the responsibility and choice can lie only with the woman.

A Cloudy Day

2011-10-23T17:11:00.000-05:00

Today has been off for me, but the last few hours have been incredibly therapeutic. I was feeling vaguely stressed out all morning and just kind of emotionally fragile, so Mike and I decided to head outside, where it's cloudy and cool and absolutely gorgeous after the storm last night. He took me to a part of Wylie I've never been to (!) and it was beautiful--there's a dam, and we stood out on a fishing pier and watched fish and turtles in the water below us. Then we went to a place by the lake, laid out blankets, ate sandwiches and just listened to the wind in the grass and the crickets chirping nearby. We stretched out for a while and read our books--I was starting The Lord of the Rings--then headed home when it looked like the clouds might be clearing. (Today's just a cloudy kind of day, and we're not really in the mood for sunshine. :) )

Nature is amazing.

Evil Summer 2011

2011-10-21T10:57:00.002-05:00

So I found out today that we're being upped to Stage 3 Water Conservation, because the drought is continuing and expected to last for something like the next six months. This is not good news. We've had some rain, but not enough, and we're not making up for it fast enough to fill the lakes (man-made) back up. I was planning on sharing these pictures anyway, so this seems like an appropriate time.

This is what our backyard normally looks like:

And this is what it looked like during the summer.

These are dead leaves falling in July.

Why I Blog

2011-10-18T10:03:00.000-05:00

You may have noticed that I've been sharing more than I usually do on my blog.

My time offline last month had me asking myself the question of why I do this, and I'm going to share what I've discovered with you. (I think it's kind of appropriate that this happens to be my 1000th blog post, too; I don't generally bother with the commemorative posts anymore (because my well of ideas ran out several milestones ago), but maybe this can count as one.)

When I went offline, I told you about how dependent I'd gotten on comments, how I wasn't having fun anymore because I'd get frustrated when I wasn't getting enough feedback. So of course I thought about learning to "do it for myself," figuring out how to not need the comments, just being happy with putting my thoughts out there. But I have realized now that I don't just blog for myself, and I think that makes sense, because let's be honest--if it was only for me, I'd just write in my journal.

I blog because I'm a person who needs to discuss ideas, to have connections with people, to share things I care about with others. I don't want to just make speeches about my ideas without knowing that someone is listening, and I don't really like people to just listen without responding, either. (This is not to say that I don't want you to read if you're not going to comment--I'm just explaining what motivates me. I absolutely welcome all readers, and you don't have to comment for me to love you!)

Another reason that is not why I blog: to argue.

I don't believe in just ignoring the hard issues, so people often think that means I like to argue. But I don't. In fact I really hate it. I don't like it when people never comment on my blog except to argue with me, because it feels like they're not actually interested in me, and just like the opportunity to bicker about politics. And it's sometimes a little unsatisfying when people comment only to agree with me, too, without offering any of their own ideas. (Again, please don't think this means I'd rather you didn't comment at all; everyone likes to know that someone agrees with their thoughts, even if they don't expound on it. The support is valuable in itself.)

So, in the last couple weeks, I have decided to really put my thoughts together here. I've been sharing a lot more of the things I think about, because that's what my blog is for--and at the same time, I've been trying to dial down my neediness for responses. They're a big part of why this is fun for me, but as I discovered when I was offline, the writing itself is a big part of it too. Blogging, unlike Facebook, was one thing I really missed when I wasn't doing it. So I'm going to continue.

It occurred to me a while ago that I have a lot of life philosophies besides the political ones, and I'd like to start including those in the philosophy series. I don't know when that will begin, because I haven't thought of any specific ones to write yet (although I do have one in the political arena that will come up soon). But I figured I may as well introduce the concept.

So that's it. That's why I blog. I've been doing it for almost five years now, and I will probably still be doing it in another five; after all, everyone needs an outlet. I'm glad mine connects me to all of you.

The Story of Edgar Sawtelle, by David Wroblewski--9/10

2011-10-17T09:41:00.000-05:00

This book was so surprising to me, and so very beautiful. It's lucky that I didn't know what it was about until the day I picked it up to start reading, because honestly, I'm not really into "boy and his dog"-type stories; I probably would have been totally turned off to it if I'd known. I'm so glad I didn't.

The Story of Edgar Sawtelle is about a boy who is born mute (but not deaf), on a gorgeous farm where his parents breed and train dogs. Edgar has an incredible relationship with these dogs, who can understand him better than most humans can, and he is the one responsible for naming them. Every time a new litter is born he plants himself in the barn with his dictionary, and I have to tell you that Edgar's love of words is one of the things that makes him so wonderful a character to me. I just loved reading those scenes.

Edgar is a wonderful character, and the Sawtelle dogs are some of the best non-human characters I've ever read. I kept being surprised, even as I was reading, at how lovely the language was, how engaging the characters were, how interesting--and tragic--the story was.

The summary you get from the inside flap is that one day, something really terrible happens on the Sawtelle farm and Edgar ends up fleeing into the Chequamegon, the 800,000+ acre forest wilderness in northern Wisconsin. A few of the dogs come with him, and together they survive as Edgar tries to work through what has happened at home. I can't write much more without including major spoilers, so I will say only that I was surprised to find a seriously strong resemblance to a certain Shakespeare play, which was not what I was expecting; like I said, the story is intriguing. I think I could recommend it to just about anyone.

Post-Utah

2011-10-15T10:29:00.000-05:00

It has come to my attention that my iPod no longer holds a charge for more than a couple days, even if untouched. I charged it before we left for Utah and then didn't use it until the plane ride home; pulled it out to listen to The Book Thief, and discovered it was dead. Read SkyMall magazine instead. It was very sad.

The speed limit on the President George Bush Turnpike went up to 70 mph several months ago. I have developed a theory that the reason for this was to make PGBT so much more convenient than the alternative (highways 75 and 635, where the speed limit is 60 or 65) that people would choose to drive on it in spite of the tolls. Further theorizing takes us into conspiracy territory: The traffic on 75 and especially 635 is always unbelievably bad, with frequent accidents, but somehow George Bush is always pretty much clear and was even before the speed limit hike. Unless people just choose to be better drivers on George Bush... I'm just sayin'.

The weather app on my phone is fairly useless. The whole time we were in Utah it gave me Wylie weather; last night, back in Texas, I looked and it gave me Payson. We were never even in Payson, unless you count flying over it, at which time my phone was turned off. What the heck, T-Mobile?

I miss playing the bass clarinet so much that I cried during Lori's community band concert last week. Yeah, I'm admitting it. If you've ever been in a performing group, you can probably understand at least a little. I miss playing music, and I miss being part of that kind of group. Lori lives in Frisco, 40 minutes away in good traffic, and we only have one car... but I'm still half considering joining. That's how much I miss it.

And, finally, I have lost another Facebook friend. This one was family, so that's kind of extra awkward, especially because I'm pretty sure at SOME point in the rest of our lives she will want to be friends again, and then she'll have to send me a request, and it will be silly. Sigh. I hate that people have such personal reactions to just talking about things. That's six down.

Sigh...

2011-10-14T13:58:00.001-05:00

I feel like sharing this here in addition to Facebook. It was posted by someone I love and deeply respect, but reading it tied my stomach in knots and made me kind of upset.

So here is my response (updated slightly from Facebook):

I left college with $70,000 in debt and no degree (long and crappy story).

I worked 20+ hours a week making less than minimum wage while I was there.

I chose an out of state university where my tuition was partially paid by the members of the church that runs it.

I started working at age 16, and the money I made went to insurance payments.

I got decent grades in high school and received no scholarships.

My husband and I live with my parents, knowing we can't have everything we want. We don't eat out every day, although we do eat out more than we'd like to because it's hard to share a kitchen and cook when we both work all day and he sometimes doesn't get home until 8:00 (after a 13-hour day). We have no credit card, one car that we bought for $1500, no iPad (or cable or internet), and cheap phones with no data plan that can connect to wi-fi. Considering that we both work and have no children, we're not thrilled about our situation. And we don't assume that everyone who's struggling is doing so because of bad decisions, because we're too smart to think we know everything about other people.

We have never made enough money to be able to save anything, though we've tried countless times. We expect nothing to be handed to us, and will probably continue to work our asses off and still not be able to make ends meet.

That is NOT how it's supposed to work.

We are the 99%, and we do not judge people about whom we know nothing.

So, We're Back!

2011-10-13T14:06:00.002-05:00

Our trip was lovely. Ever since we moved, Mike and I seem to take bad weather with us each time we go back--and true to form, Utah gave us some truly crap weather when we first arrived. As soon as Anna's wedding was over, though, it warmed up, stopped raining, and became the gorgeous Utah autumn that I know and adore.

Wednesday night: Arrival at the Provo Municipal Airport. I am hesitant to talk this up too much because I don't want our secret to become too well known... But since you are my friends I will tell you--flying into and out of Provo is fantastic. Less stressful, simpler, quicker... Seriously. With any luck I will never see the Salt Lake airport again. (Also, Frontier now serves warm chocolate chip cookies on their flights! Shameless PR plug, obviously, but who even cares those cookies are good.)

Thursday: Hung out with Dan, Candice, nephews and brand new niece, Sapphire Katarina Starr Shorten. Weather cleared up enough to give us hope for Friday; saw a terrible movie (Zookeeper), hiked Rock Canyon, went to wedding dinner at Brick Oven.

Friday: The Wedding of Anna and Bryan. Spent the day setting up, wedding at 4:00, reception at 6:00.

Saturday: Hung out with Liz and Jeremy in the morning, lost track of time, and were not ready when Dan came to pick us up for the X96 Big-Ass Show in Salt Lake. Mike and Dan dropped me off to meet my online friend Megan for lunch. Then she and I went to a Feminism-and-the-Church conference at the University of Utah, after which she dropped me off at the show, where we saw most of Panic at the Disco (lead singer had malaria). That guy in the blue is the lead singer of The Neon Trees; it was basically Panic at the Disco karaoke, with various lead singers of other bands filling in for different songs. It was still fun, and the lead singer of the Brobecks was also there. I was happy (except for the tree right in our line of sight).

Sunday: Walked in the mountains up Provo Canyon. (Gorgeous.) Went to Dan and Candice's to hang out before family dinner. After dinner, played Boggle with Rick and Nathalie (I won, and Nathalie drew me a champion's belt and made me hold it over my head while she cheered). Watched The Terminal while Rick read the book we gave him for his birthday and Nathalie slept (Mike joined her toward the end).

Cillian loved the dinosaur book we gave him, and I love this picture of him reading it.

They followed him around the house like this for about ten minutes; Mike was making zombie noises and asking where they were, pretending he couldn't see them behind him.

Monday: Lunch with Mike's friends Sam and Ryan, plus Ryan's wife and new baby. Good times. Repacked our room, which had been a disaster ever since the first day when Mike tried to find his work-out clothes without waking me up. Wandered around our beloved Barnes and Noble for a few minutes. Dan, Candice, Kennedy, Mia, Cillian, Foxx, and Sapphire came over for dinner. Played a couple rounds of Boggle with Mike's parents (he won, and displayed the belt). Went to Dan and Candice's to watch a few episodes of The Big Bang Theory.

Tuesday: Flew out very early. Mike was sick and I got super nauseated on the plane, but no barf bags were needed, and lunch in Denver solved my half of the problem. Benjamin picked us up; spent the rest of the day watching 30 Rock (oh, how we missed Liz Lemon and Jack Donaghy in Utah). Not kidding--we watched probably ten episodes.

Exit row = actual room for your legs!

Wednesday: Back to work.

It was a good trip. Still waiting to get rich so we can make it more than once a year.

SkyMall Adventures

2011-10-13T10:41:00.002-05:00

Sometimes looking through the SkyMall magazine is really fantastic. To be honest, I've actually seen plenty of things in there that I think would be really awesome gifts; but then sometimes, what you find is just the most ridiculous thing you can imagine, and you need to mock it on the internet.

Like the Swoop n Scoop, a cereal bowl with separate compartments for milk and cereal. So you "never eat soggy cereal again," and can stand around in your kitchen having a hilarious time feeling like a midget because your cereal bowl could serve salad for six.

Or this Vintage Express Aging Accelerator, which is supposed to add "the delicious flavor of 10 years of aging" to your wine in seconds by recreating the earth's magnetic field. Is the idea of instantly aging wine as funny to you as it is to me? I'm not sure why it is. There's a wine rack, too, which "transforms inexpensive red and white wines into premium vintages," using magnets that realign the particles of the wine. Not kidding.

These next two may be some of my favorites: the Litter Robot and the Litter Kwitter 3-Step Cat Toilet Training System. For potty training cats.

I really don't know what to say about those, or about this: the Brobdingnagian Sports Chair. On the one hand, I am kind of thrilled about a literary reference; on the other hand... What? Why? It says it "affords ample room for sharing with a friend." I don't think so, Tim--those chairs, even giant sized, are not comfortable for two people. Six cup holders in the armrests? What is le point? And of course this is all beside the fact that at five and a half feet tall, this chair is going to annoy the crap out of anyone sitting behind you. I'm just saying--funny idea, but maybe not great for real life. I feel like this was invented by ten-year-olds.

And speaking of literary references, I think this alarm clock may be the nerdiest and most fantastic thing I have ever seen. The alarm wakes you with a bird singing, then "a discreet cough" and a message from a butler in the voice of Stephen Fry--a different message every morning for six months before they start over. "Message sample: (discreet cough) Good morning, Sir. I'm so sorry to disturb you, but it appears to be morning. Very inconvenient, I agree. I believe it is the rotation of the earth that is to blame."

And finally, there is this collection of uber-nerdy movie memorabilia inspired by Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Batman, The Da Vinci Code, Avatar, and others. You can buy the earrings Hermione wore at the Yule Ball, Xenophilius Lovegood's necklace, or the Triwizard Cup. For myself, I am wondering just how nerdy it would be if I were to buy and wear the Evenstar Pendant of Arwen... Too nerdy? Or just nerdy enough to be awesome? It's kind of a theoretical question because I'm not spending $150 on a necklace anytime soon, but it's still one for which I'd like an answer... Just saying.

A Few Things I Really Hope You'll Check Out

2011-10-12T12:48:00.005-05:00

Dr. Pepper's manly new soda--10 whole calories, and not for women
Oh, men. Are they really so pathetic? I guess so, if they won't drink diet sodas because they're "not manly." This is why the feminist movement is important for both genders; women aren't the only ones who have stupid expectations placed on them, and who feel pressure to conform.

Miss Representation
My cousin Sara posted this fantastic video on Facebook today:
.
A shorter video that comes from the Women's Media Center website (if you're seeing it cut in half, go to the website to watch it there):

This is why I laugh/cry when people say they don't believe in feminism. Here's a hint: If you don't like what these videos tells you--if you think women shouldn't be discriminated against because they're women--then you're a feminist. That's all feminism is. (Just for the record.)

And if you're curious about the Wall Street protests, this article is the simplest explanation I've seen; it explores really important issues that are related to my recent post about Nickel and Dimed. Then there's this article, which is linked at the end of the Wall Street one. I would like to literally beg you to read them both.

United States of Whatever

2011-10-12T08:55:00.003-05:00

It makes me really angry that I live in a world, in a supposedly free and amazing country, where this kind of crap happens.

Should Minor Offenders be Subject to Strip Searches?

This man was in jail for a week while his wife was seven months pregnant with a condition that makes her likely to give birth prematurely. He was forced to shower and be searched naked by a guard, then was transferred to a prison with rapists and murderers. For a TRAFFIC FINE. Which he had ALREADY PAID.

He showed the cop the document proving he'd paid, and was arrested anyway. Then they treated him like a dangerous criminal, and couldn't be bothered to get him out of jail until his wife got a lawyer.

This is not okay! What is the point of our system if this is what happens to American citizens who have done nothing wrong?

It makes me even more angry that people justify it when this kind of thing happens, as though these kinds of casualties are just part of the deal.

I can't wait to see how that court case comes out.

[I would like to note here the introduction of a new label called United States of Whatever, which will be used to identify examples of how the spirit of America is flagrantly ignored and undermined by the actual practices of the government and people. Just so you know.]

Brain Dump

2011-10-08T22:30:00.000-05:00

Am I really supposed to find these ads believable? Does anyone, do you think? Because in fact the idea of so many scientifically amazing things happening in Wylie, Texas is pretty... not believable.

Lana's new movie is Madagascar, which--unsurprisingly--she has a hard time pronouncing. She says it "Madagoos," and with her chirpy little mouse voice, it is just about the most adorable thing I have ever heard in my entire life.

I can't decide if I want to label these brain dump posts according to their content, or just keep it simple with the brain dump label. Thoughts?

This brain dump is really short because we've been in Utah and, with the wedding and everything else thus far, so busy that I've only had about half an hour since Wednesday night to get on a computer. Speaking of which, the wedding was fantastic and I will write a real post/share pictures soon--probably after we get back to Texas, unless I end up having a lot of time tomorrow.

It's been a good week so far.

Questions About My Blog Layout:

2011-10-04T12:57:00.000-05:00

1. Does it still look good on white like this, or should I just get a different layout altogether?

2. Does the header look weird to you, or like it's on purpose?

3. If the header is in fact not on purpose, and therefore not within my ability to fix... Does that ruin the layout and mean I should go with something else?

Nickel and Dimed, by Barbara Ehrenreich--10/10

2011-10-03T08:07:00.107-05:00

It probably seems like every time I write a review of a nonfiction book, I say something about wishing I could get everyone I know to read it. Well, prepare to be un-surprised.

Here's the thing: Of all the books I've said that about, if you're only going to read one, it needs to be this one. Cinderella Ate My Daughter, The Rights of the People, Food Rules, Fast Food Nation, Do One Green Thing--these are all really important books, and I really do wish everyone would read them. But this book addresses an issue that is so much more urgent than the others, and I hope you know that it means a lot when I say that.

The premise of Nickel and Dimed is that good old-fashioned style of reporting in which a journalist goes undercover to write a story. Barbara Ehrenreich was at lunch with her editor one day, talking about national poverty (welfare reform was big in the news), wondering how the four million women who were about to be "booted into the labor market" were going to fare on their $6 and $7 hourly jobs, and her editor suggested that she try it for herself. So she did--she spent three months working at low-wage jobs, one month each in Key West, Florida (where she lives); Portland, Maine; and Minneapolis, Minnesota.

She worked as a waitress, a hotel maid, a house cleaner, a nursing home aide, and a Wal-Mart associate--and as a white, educated, healthy woman with no children to support (but also no husband or roommate to contribute income), she found that she could not make enough money to live in even the most inferior circumstances. She ate as cheaply as she could (which was difficult in Minneapolis, since she didn't have a refrigerator), sometimes lucky enough to get some free breakfasts from an employer. She used pay phones when she didn't have phone service in her room (and because back then, there were still pay phones to use). She didn't go out, had "no expenditures on 'carousing,' flashy clothes, or any of the other indulgences that are often smugly believed to undermine the budgets of the poor"--her most extravagant purchase was a pair of $30 Dockers, for work, which she bought because she thought they'd last longer than the cheaper options.

In her first apartment in Key West, she made enough to cover food, gas, toiletries, laundry, phone, utilities, and rent (with only $22 extra per month for emergencies and things like medical or dental care). But she had to move to be closer to work, and the new rent--in a trailer park--was too high to be maintained with one job.

In Portland she was closest to a good balance between income and expenses, but only because she worked two jobs, seven days a week. Gas and electricity were included in her rent, and she got free meals on the weekends at her second job. But she was also getting an off-season rate at her apartment, and if she'd stayed until the summer, her rent would have more than tripled (making it completely unaffordable).

And in Minneapolis, she never did find an apartment she could afford, though she looked for the entire time she was there. She ended up living in a dirty motel with mice, mold, no screen on the window, no AC or fan, no refrigerator or microwave, and no lock on the door--for $255 a week, or $1020 per month. And not only was her pay at Wal-Mart not enough to cover this, her constantly changing schedule kept her from getting a second job.

As you read all of this, you have to keep in mind that Ehrenreich's experience happened under the best possible circumstances, in both the national economy--where things have only gotten worse for the poor since 2000--and her personal situation: Though her lodgings were generally disgusting and tiny, she was at least not sharing with children, roommates, parents, or other relatives, like most of the poor do; she was coming from a lifetime of good health and medical care, which the poor do not have; she had a car; and, ultimately, she had her real life to fall back on. The poor have none of these advantages.

Ehrenreich's personal experience is dismal, but it might not be that shocking to many of us who have worked the same types of jobs. What is shocking is the information she gathered on her coworkers as part of her research. Guys... This is really important information. I know it's hard to read about, I know it's depressing, and I know a lot of people don't want to hear it. But this is a totally unacceptable situation, and it is not right for us to ignore it. Frankly, based on what I can see of the country's general attitude toward the poor, I think we all need a serious reality check.

You need to read this book. You need to see what it is really like for these people (because if your complaints are about big-screen TVs and gym memberships, I hate to say it, but you basically have no idea what you're talking about. How do you know where these people got their TVs? You know you can get just about anything for free on Craigslist, right? Maybe someone gave it to them, which is how I got my 50-something-inch TV. Maybe we should all think really hard before deciding that we know anything about a person's situation). I think, if we looked into it, we'd be surprised by how little we actually know about welfare programs (like the fact that about a quarter of TANF recipients are employed--which means they work just as hard as anyone else, at a job that just doesn't pay enough).

This is just too important an issue for us to be complacent about. I don't mean to be judgmental, and if it helps, I'm talking to myself here too. Friday night we were leaving Wal-Mart and a guy walked past us in the parking lot and asked if we wanted to buy banana bread from a little tray he was carrying. I said "no thanks" and we kept walking, and usually we would have left it there. But I'd been writing this post earlier that day, and as we walked to the car I thought about that man--wearing a clean white t-shirt tucked into clean jeans, no belt, hair and skin looking a little dirty--and I almost started crying, I felt so bad for him. Mike did too, so he ran after him and bought one of those little banana breads. We didn't eat it, and I feel like an incredible jerk for that. But at least we did something, I guess.

A lot of people probably would have assumed that man was trying to get money for drugs. I don't know, maybe he was. But in the first place, that doesn't make him a bad person. And in the second place... Well, I just don't want to be the kind of person who assumes the worst about someone to assuage my own guilt for not helping them. I think we've all been that person at some point. I don't know what that man's circumstances are, but if I'm going to assume anything, it should be the fact that he probably doesn't have a lot going for him in life. Christ never said we should help the poor only if we think they deserve it; my responsibility is not to make assumptions about him, just to do what I can to help him.

There are far too many others like that man. There are people living in third-world conditions right here in America, through no fault of their own--and this country needs to do something about it. Read this book to start getting a glimpse of how bad the problem is. I know that sounds like a really enticing offer; I know it's stressful to think about. But the way the poor live in this country needs to change, and they need us to know about it first.

Published 2001. Top ten most challenged books of 2010.
Reasons challenged: drugs, inaccurate, offensive language, political viewpoint, and religious viewpoint

Dragonfly Summer

2011-09-30T16:09:00.001-05:00

I've had various Counting Crows songs bouncing through my head all week, because Monday morning--completely unprompted, since I hadn't listened to CC for at least a couple weeks prior--I woke up with "Round Here" and "Sullivan Street" in my head. I kind of love it.

Thank you, NPR, for this fantastic headline:
Congratulations, Television! You Are Even Worse At Masculinity Than Femininity

I never played Scrabble growing up, and I've never been very good at that kind of game; it's taken me a long time to figure out how to maximize the special squares on the board. But I am finally getting there, and Sunday night I was excited to have this happen:

(Yeah, that's how good our stupid phone cameras are.) That's a 64-point word! I may have gotten a higher score since then, I don't remember, but at the time I think this was the highest I've ever gotten. Yay word games.

And, in case you're wondering about the title of this post--this has been a summer of dragonflies. They are everywhere, and maybe I just didn't pay enough attention in years past, but I never noticed so many before. Last Sunday, after Mike and I had spent the night at Dafni and Brandon's house, we spent the morning chasing dragonflies around the backyard with Jaylee. It was a fantastic morning.

(This is actually a picture from last summer, because I don't think I've taken any of dragonflies this year. Which is a shame, because they've been much prettier than this one--bigger, and blue instead of brown. Maybe I can still get some before winter sets in.)

Banned Books Week has been lovely, although I wish there were actual events around here to celebrate it, rather than just me reading as many banned books as I can and talking about them. (Speaking of which: the current tally is three, with one more to hopefully be finished over the weekend; reviews of the last two will come next week before we leave for Utah.)

And, finally... We're leaving for Utah! I can't believe we're down to only a few days, and I really can't believe that Anna will be married one week from today! And we'll have a new niece when we get there! This is an eventful week for the Shortens. Also, we are planning on being in the mountains as much as possible. I can't wait.

Pocket Watches and Descartes

2011-09-29T12:27:00.001-05:00

This is the name of an article from BYU Magazine that I saw linked on another blog. It's a nice article, short, and you can read it here.

I'm posting about it because I found it really dissatisfying. I fully identify with the subject--this is exactly what I've been going through for the last few years of my life. I felt a strong connection to the writer's experience, felt solidarity with someone who was describing my situation almost perfectly. And that's why I was so disappointed with how easily it ended.

It's obvious that the article was shortened to fit space constraints--that kind of conciseness comes from editors, not writers. There was probably more padding in the original, and a less abrupt ending. But it's not just the quick ending of the writing that bothers me, it's the quick ending of the story itself. It pretty much sounds like this experience took place over the course of a school year. She got back from her mission, thinking she had it all figured out; she took a class that made her start asking questions; she struggled for months; and then she found peace.

What?

Was it really that simple for her? Because I'll tell you what, it has not been for me. I'm going on... well, several years, at least three and at the most eight depending on where you start counting (about which I am not sure). Reading articles like this ends up being pretty frustrating, because they always seem to end the same way: namely, with the author suddenly realizing--all in one warm fuzzy moment--that ultimately God will take care of everything. And then that's it.

But is that really it? I mean, I've had those moments too, tons of them--and the thing is, they always end. You can't get through these kinds of questions with little spiritual epiphanies, because really, they aren't epiphanies; they're things you've always been told, and maybe sometimes you forget them for a while and so it's supremely encouraging and uplifting to be reminded, but in the end you didn't actually learn anything new that will change your situation or add another piece to the pocket watch. If you're really talking about "deeper, unsettling questions" and "a full-blown Cartesian experience," then it seems a little improbable to me that all your problems can be solved in one moment of sudden understanding.

But maybe it's just me.

Story(mony) Hour

2011-09-28T16:08:00.004-05:00

I used to be one of those people who griped about "storymonies." Then last night I remembered a bishop I had as a teenager--one who, years before I discovered any smidgen of liberal "rebellion" in myself, rubbed me the wrong way when he sat in on our Girls' Camp testimony meeting, telling us specifically what we should and should not say, and ending the meeting long before we were done. (He was as literal, by-the-book, and strict as they come--both as a bishop and as a person--and even as the Molly Mormon I was, we didn't get along.)

So now I'm just wondering--how meaningful can you really expect testimonies to be if they're only a bunch of stock phrases? Those rambling stories that make everyone roll their eyes are also the things that make a testimony personal. You can only hear "I know the church is true" so many times before the words kind of start to lose significance, you know? I just think sometimes we're too concerned with ceremony in the church, and I think this is one of those times.

The Chocolate War, by Robert Cormier --8/10

2011-09-28T12:26:00.002-05:00

No one is kidding when they say this is a dark book. You wouldn't think a novel about a school chocolate sale could be that interesting, much less controversial--but then, The Chocolate War isn't really about a chocolate sale. It's about all the darkest aspects of human nature--how people hate anyone who chooses to be different because it undermines their own security; how the strong prey on the weak, and how the strong aren't actually that strong at all, but are in pain like everyone else and taking it out on anyone smaller, and in the end life is an infinite chain of hurting and being hurt.

Like I said: dark. But it's good, and not only do I think kids shouldn't be prevented from reading it, I think it's probably important for them to read. Things don't seem to end well for the kid who dares to disturb the universe--but then again, we're also very aware of how different things could have been if just one of the other links along the chain would have chosen to break free. Honestly, I don't think there's anything in this book that a teenager doesn't have the right to know about.

Published 1974. Fourth most challenged book from 1990-1999, third most challenged from 2000-2009.
Reasons challenged: offensive language, religious viewpoint, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group, violence.

"I can sympathize," Cormier said of parent concerns about his novel. "I know there are sensitive kids and sensitive parents. My problem is when they want to prevent other people from reading it."

Crank, by Ellen Hopkins--7/10

2011-09-27T15:20:00.001-05:00

I keep having to give this book a numerical rating, and I don't really know how to. I was fascinated, but I didn't like it; I read it in probably two or three hours, partially because it's written in verse with only a few sentences per page, and partially because there was a morbid curiosity that, more than once, made me hover by the couch and turn several more pages after I'd already stood up to go to the bathroom, the kitchen, wherever.

Because I am laughably ignorant in the realm of drug slang, I did not know what Crank was about before I started reading. In case you don't either, "crank" is meth, and the book is about a girl named Kristina who starts using it. It's reminiscient of Go Ask Alice, except that 1) this book actually is based on a true story (the author's daughter), and 2) Kristina's meeting of "the monster" is fully voluntary.

Crank has a deceptively comfortable ending if you don't know that there are sequels (which I didn't until I started this post. There are spoilers in the descriptions, but then again, there's a pretty big spoiler in the author's note right at the beginning of the book... And anyway let's be honest--knowing that the book is about teen drug use, there isn't really a lot of mystery in where it's going to begin with). But I'm certainly considering picking up Glass the next time I'm at the library.

Published 2004. Fourth most challenged book in 2010.
Reasons challenged: drugs, offensive language, sexually explicit.

"Some call my books edgy; others say they're dark. They do explore tough subject matter -- addiction, abuse, thoughts of suicide, teen prostitution. But they bring young adult readers a middle-aged author's broader perspective. They show outcomes to choices, offer understanding. And each is infused with hope. I don't sugarcoat, but neither is the content gratuitous. Something would-be censors could only know if they'd actually read the books rather than skimming for dirty words or sexual content."
--Ellen Hopkins

Migraine

2011-09-23T22:38:00.000-05:00

Apparently I get migraines now. Holy crap.

I've always had chronic headaches, and sometimes they are bad. But I never thought they were migraines because there was no nausea or light sensitivity. Twice now, in the last couple months, I've had headaches that I think might be migraines, because they come with nausea in addition to the crippling pain.

I am really, really not a fan.

By which I mean that I would sort of like to die right now.

Ow. :(

Brain Dump

2011-09-23T08:52:00.005-05:00

I'm considering making the "brain dump" a new feature of my blog, or at least for as long as I'm not using Facebook regularly. It turns out I have a lot of little thoughts throughout the day that normally would become Facebook statusi; so, rather than sharing my brain with the world every ten minutes, I'm going to combine them all into a weekly post (probably to be done on Fridays, since the post I wrote last Friday happens to fit exactly). Having the draft running all week will also allow me to filter out the stupid ones before they make it to the internets. :)

What is with English speakers and our need to condense everything as much as possible? Why is "cellphone" a word now? The same thing happened with "payphone." A cellphone isn't a thing--it's a phone that uses a cellular network. This is everywhere now and I cringe every time I see it.

I was playing a geography game on my phone and there was a multiple choice question that asked, "Which of these does not belong?" The options were Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Ethiopia, so I picked Saudi Arabia. The correct answer, it seems, was Ethiopia, since it's the only one that doesn't border the Red Sea. Silly me, thinking the one that didn't belong was the one that's NOT IN AFRICA.

It's pretty disheartening to see how the majority of YA "lit" can now be boiled down to two categories: books that look like Twilight, and books that look like Gossip Girl. The teen aisle at Barnes and Noble is an increasingly depressing place to be.

I find one of the new Facebook changes particularly interesting--the birthday feature, which is now actually harder to use (look how it's wedged in to that sidebar, halfway down the screen, and it doesn't even use the word "birthday" to catch your attention, just that teeny little icon).

Besides that, I have to admire the new heights of laziness this feature allows us to reach. I mean, come on--it wasn't easy enough to write on someone's wall before? We needed a pop-up box? Honestly, if you can't even be bothered to visit someone's Facebook profile to wish them happy birthday, I'm not entirely sure you care enough to be wishing them happy birthday.

Troy Davis

2011-09-22T13:21:00.004-05:00

I've been avoiding posting anything controversial and I'm still going to do that for a while. But I'm reading about something this morning that is making me feel physically sick to my stomach, and I think it's important for me to share it.

A death row inmate, sentenced for killing a police officer, was executed last night in Georgia after lots of delays and appeals. Crowds of people were marching through the streets in protest--it seems there were several significant problems with the evidence against him, including six witnesses who say the police threatened them if they didn't choose Davis out of the lineup, and the fact that seven out of the nine eyewitnesses recanted their testimony after trial. (This editorial has the most complete list of all the other problems with the case.)

I want to point out something about the way this story is being handled. When I was reading this morning, the CBS, ABC, MSNBC, NPR, and CNN websites all featured Troy Davis on the front page before you even have to scroll down. (I included the links, though I'm sure the front pages will change in an hour or so.) Every one of those headlines was some variation of the phrase "Troy Davis executed," all using his name.

On the Fox News website I had to scroll down to the third page--past an article and photo criticizing Obama--to find the story. And the tiny headline said "Georgia executes cop killer." (Once you get into the articles themselves you can't really tell what site you're on anymore, since most of them, including Fox, just tweaked an AP article.)

This is a serious event, one that hundreds of thousands of people are upset about today. A man was killed by the state. Whether you approve of the execution or not, I think the issue deserves a little respect. Fox can't take one inch from the Republican debates for it? President Obama can't make even one statement about it?

Completely aside from all the questions about the morality, efficiency, or fairness of the death penalty itself, I find it disturbing that a man would be killed when there is this much reason to doubt his guilt. I feel so sad for a man who might have been innocent; for his sister and his niece, who last saw him when there was still hope the execution might be stopped; for his teenage nephew, who led a group of supporters outside the prison; for the family of the dead police officer, who still think, more than ten years later, that another man's death will bring them peace. It doesn't matter if they investigate this; even if he's found innocent, no investigation can give Troy Davis his life back. This is not a decision that Georgia or the Supreme Court can take back, and I hope we will remember their choice for a long time. I am not proud of our judicial system today.

Isn't This Beautiful?

2011-09-21T13:57:00.000-05:00

What I'm Going to Read for Banned Books Week 2011

2011-09-21T13:08:00.001-05:00

--which is next week, in case you didn't know. BBW is always the last week of September.

I started with the top ten list for 2010, where, rather unhelpfully, the only books my Goodreads friends have read and reviewed are the same ones I have read (with one exception). So I chose:

Nickel and Dimed, by Barbara Ehrenreich
Because it's been on my shelves for several months anyway, and this is a good reason to finally pick it up.

The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, by Sherman Alexie
Because the premise is intriguing--and because this was the Goodreads exception, and I'm interested to see whether I agree with the one- and two-star reviews or the four-star.

The Chocolate War, by Robert Cormier
Because I've meant to read this book for so long--and checked it out from the library so many times--that sometimes I think I actually have read it. Also because it's one of the top five most challenged books of the last two decades--the only book that stays in the top five in both decades. That warrants some attention.

As sort of alternates, in case I decide to bring this year's count up to five:

Either Brave New World or The Color Purple, since both are on my "I can't believe I haven't read this yet" list. The choice will probably depend on how easily I can obtain a copy; if I'm remembering my disbelief from last year correctly, none of my libraries carry The Color Purple.

One of these three from the 2010 list: Crank, Lush, or What My Mother Doesn't Know. Have any of you heard anything about them? Based on their summaries I'll probably go with Crank--the other two don't really grab my attention--so let me know if I should switch.