Am I a Hypocrite?

"Judge Norman Randy Smith - He was confirmed in 2007 after being nominated by President George W. Bush. Born in Logan, Utah, Smith graduated from Brigham Young University with a bachelor’s degree in 1974, and received his J.D. from Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark School of Law in 1977." (Note: In addition to practicing law and serving as a U.S. Ambassador, J. Reuben Clark was also a member of the First Presidency of the LDS Church for several years.)

This man is one of three who will, as a panel, judge the appeal of Perry v. Schwarzenegger...

This man (and I am making an educated guess), is a Mormon. Who graduated from the same law school that Lynn Wardle teaches at (note that it says he is a "Bruce C. Hafen Professor of Law" - I haven't been able to pinpoint what that means, exaclty).

(More on Lynn Wardle here. And here.)

(More on Bruce C. Hafen here. Also, Bruce C. Hafen used to be the Dean of BYU's J. Reuben Clark Law School.)

The other two Judges on the 9th Circuit Panel are more left-leaning (which is great for us!), but I have also heard that Judge Smith is pretty moderate (even on equality isses) for a "conservative judge."

However, I am not convinced. Let me preface this by saying that I am not calling for harassment, or a lynch mob, or anything of that sort, of Judge Smith. But I am not convinced.

His church is heavily invested in his ruling; one of the defendants (NOM) is a Mormon front-group; the law school he attended is replete with people in high positions (a Dean of the law school; a famous lawyer; the fact that the law school is named after a member of the LDS Church's First Presidency) who have come out with mean-spirited, unsubstantiated, and flat-out wrong statements and propositions that undermine not only our equality, but our humanity...

So, here is the question: Am I a hypocrite for thinking that Judge Smith should remove himself from the three-judge panel because of his multiple conflicts of interest? Especially since the last ruling was made by a man who is not-so-secretly gay (ahem, Judge Vaughn Walker). And especially since I thought it was ridiculous that Judge Walker was getting criticized for it by the pro-Proposition 8 Team (they insinuated that judges cannot be gay because you cannot trust a gay man's judgment)...?

I mean, really, come on, isn't this akin to my made-up analogy of a Judge, who graduated from Hitler Law School, deciding a case for/against a state constitutional ban on Jewish rights, with the defendants of the ban in question being created and funded by the Nazi's, with whom the Judge has personal and spiritual associations?

The LDS Church, circa 1943

My only remaining grandparent (my dad's father) passed away on April 2nd this year, about thirteen months after his wife passed away. I now have no grandparents - and I feel cheated. My dad and his siblings have been sorting things out as far as who gets what, trying to clear my grandpa's house so that it can be sold.

Yesterday I noticed a pocket-sized book that looked pretty old, but in fairly good condition, sitting on one of the counters in our kitchen. It is about the size of a pocket-size LDS hymn book, with the title in black against a brown cover. I don't know why I glanced at it, but I did. (I suspect that it's because I have a mild interest in old editions of literature, such as my mom's nursing textbooks from the late 1970's/early 1980's.) Anyway, I flipped open the cover and in my grandma's distinctive cursive handwriting was written "Marlene Oliver." The title page indicated that it was published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in 1943, and a preface was written and signed by The First Presidency at the time, which consisted of Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, and David O. McKay.

This book is simply titled "Principles of the Gospel."

It is topically-based, much like the "Mormon Doctrine" book, and obviously the first thing I looked for started with the letter "H" - homosexuality. But this topic was not present in the book. So I just flipped through the book, browsing until I came upon the subject heading "Church and State" on page 246.

I read all that was written under this subject heading, and I will present it here - with my added italics. (Copyright to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints):

"Church and State

The Church stands for the separation of Church and State. The Church has no civil political functions. As the Church may not assume the functions of the State, so the State may not assume the functions of the Church. The Church is responsible for and must carry on the work of the Lord, directing the conduct of its members, one towards the other, as followers of the lowly Christ, not forgetting the humble, the poor and the needy, and those in distress, leading them all to righteous living and a spiritual life that shall bring them to salvation, exaltation, and eternal progression in wisdom, knowledge, understanding, and power. ***

"The State is responsible for the civil control of its citizens or subjects, for their political welfare, and for the carrying forward of political policies, domestic and foreign, of the body politic. For these policies, their success or failure, the state is alone responsible, and it must carry their burdens. All these matters involve and directly affect Church members because they are part of the body politic, and members must give allegiance to their sovereign and render it loyal service when called thereto. But the Church, itself, as such, has no responsibility for these policies, as to which it has no means of doing more than urging its members fully to render that loyalty to their country and to free institutions which the loftiest patriotism calls for.

"Nevertheless, as a correlative of the principle of separation of the Church and the State, themselves, there is an obligation running from every citizen or subject to the State. This obligation is voiced in that Article of Faith which declares: 'We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.'

"For one hundred years, the Church has been guided by the following principles:

"We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

"We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

"We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

"We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion.

"We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

"We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men owe respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker. ***

"We believe *** that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed. (D & C 134:1-6, 8; Message of the First Presidency, April, 1942)"

This stunned me! I hope it stuns you, too! It stunned me because this is in stark contrast to what the Church now voices in regards to the separation of Church and State, as well as in regards to politics in general.

I actually agreed with the majority of what was written in this section. I still have questions and thoughts, but this pretty much sums up what I feel in my heart. If I had read this in 1943 and was not a member of the Church at the time, I probably would've joined! It just aligns so well with what I feel has been conveyed to me by the Holy Ghost.

So, the question is: what happened?! What changed?! Why is the Church now voicing different principles? I don't understand, and I probably never will... Sigh.

I am disappointed and confused by my childhood faith. But at the same time, I am just overjoyed that I was led to see this passage in this book! I believe that everything happens for a reason, and I was meant to see this passage at this time. It has given me some clarity, some confidence, and some ground to stand on. I am truly blessed and grateful!

Perfection

I am going to keep my comments to a minimum (for once), as I believe that the article below says everything concisely, accurately, and better than I ever could. So here I go:

This article (published in the Deseret News, even) is perfection. More? Sorry, that's it.

Religion in Politics is Getting Tiresome

Mixed Message from the "Kingdom"

We've all heard the news about the Church supporting Salt Lake City's non-discrimination ordinance that would add "sexual orientation" protections to the list of protected statuses in the city's areas of employment and housing...

I don't know about you, but when I hear of news about the Church and its political support of anything, my ears perk up and I frantically search the internet to see if the media have picked it up yet.

I first heard word of the Church's actions from the "8: The Mormon Proposition" group on Facebook; a message was sent out to members of the group telling of how "well-placed people inside the Mormon Church" contacted others who were involved with Reed Cowan's documentary to let them know that the Church planned a statement and that they needed to "Watch what we [the Church] are about to do. You will be pleased."

At that point the media hadn't picked up the story yet, and I began to ponder about whether or not I believed the message sent to me by the "8: The Mormon Proposition" group. Honestly, the thought came into my mind that whoever sent the message was trying to rile people up with a sensationalized message - this person proved me wrong!

How do I feel about it? Honestly, I am confused and don't really know, but I will explain my feelings as best I can.

I am upset that the Church got involved, for several reasons. My primary reason for disagreement is because I don't like it when any Church gets involved in politics - period! Even when the Church and I agree on an issue (such as this ordinance), I don't think it is appropriate or ethical for any religion to get involved in politics. It shouldn't happen unless there is an issue that directly or specifically addresses religion.

I don't like the Church being involved in this specific issue because once it is involved a precedent is set. It is said about Utah politics that, "When the Church says 'jump,' those on Capitol Hill say, 'How high?'" So the legislature will, begrudgingly, refrain from challenging this ordinance. The precedent that is set is that the gay community now becomes dependent on the Church for any legislation that affects our community. One could argue that that's the way it already is, but the Church sends enough mixed messages that this ordinance could very well end up being challenged and revoked, which leads me to...

The way the Church handled its press release was, to me, not good enough. If we look back at Prop. 8 and the way the Church announced its support of that measure, it came in the form of a letter written and signed by the First Presidency that was read in every California ward's sacrament meeting. Compared to that, some "Joe Blo" from PR reading a statement written by the PR department carries little to no weight. He wasn't even an official spokesperson! (Those would be Kim Farrah and Scott Trotter). Admittedly, Prop. 8 and this ordinance bear little resemblance in "weight" themselves, but after the fiasco that was Prop. 8, a letter from the First Presidency read in Salt Lake City's wards should've been the least the Church could do.

The way in which the Church announced its support is the reason why people and groups still disagree with the Church on this ordinance. The Sutherland Institute, which is based on LDS principles, issued a statement disagreeing with the Church. The Utah Eagle Forum, which thinks it's based on LDS principles, also disagrees with the Church's stance on the ordinance. The reason why it's "okay" for them to disagree with the Church, but it wasn't "okay" for people who disagreed with the Church on Prop. 8, was because of the reason stated above: this time the statement didn't come from the First Presidency or the Prophet, it came from "Joe Blo" in PR. (The fact that certain people and groups still choose to disagree with the Church is not evidentiary of their "apostasy" - it is evidentiary of their being homophobic.)

And this is not a mistake. The Church does not issue anything - anything - publicly until it has been reviewed, revised, and "okayed" by the highest leaders of the Church. And since Prop. 8 - hell, since the beginning of friggin' time - the Church has been extremely careful with its PR. No one can convince me that everything about this announcement was not thoroughly thought out, or revised, or considered. I guarantee you that even this PR guy's tie was thought out in detail.

In short, the Church knows that an announcement doesn't carry as much weight when it is not delivered in a Church setting by its highest leaders...

Besides, the fact that the Church came in at the last minute to "save the day" when the city knew the ordinance would already pass is beyond disingenuous. I've heard comments from several people, including some MoHo's, with the general consensus being that, "We must thank the Church for doing this for us." To them I say, "I am not going to thank the Church for this; I am going to thank Salt Lake City and Mayor Ralph Becker for this."

Furthermore, the fact that Reed Cowan's documentary is coming out in the next few months has not gone over the Church's head. And that's what I believe this is all about - the Church having some backup, some "ammo" in its arsenal, to address coming criticism once "8: The Mormon Proposition" is released.

I would say the one reason why I am so confused about the Church's actions is because its statement read that this ordinance provides "common-sense rights that should be available to everyone" when just weeks ago Elder Oaks referred to gay rights as "alleged."

Oaks also said, "Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights."

Well, are they "common-sense rights" or "alleged civil rights?" This is one of those Mysteries of the "Kingdom." Can you blame me for being confused?!

One of the reasons the Church supports the ordinance is because it allows for religious freedom and exemption from the ordinance...

Oh, that's nice - especially when the Church owns half of the property in Salt Lake City. The exemption not only protects strictly religious property - such as churches, or temple grounds - but it applies to everything the Church owns. That means that the multi-billion dollar ($1.5 - $8 billion is estimated) City Creek Center being built by the Church, with not only its mall stores (and the stores' employees) but its high-end apartments and condominums, will be exempt from the ordinance. You won't find any dirty gays working for Macy's or Hot Dog On a Stick! Now, I'm not saying that this is inappropriate. In fact, as long as the Church does not accept any federal or state tax monies it is completely appropriate. But I am offended when the Church acts like it is doing us a favor. Please, I'm not a "petulant tween!"

If it's religious exemptions the Church wants, then why did it oppose gay marriage in Maine, which, in its legal form, allowed for religious exemptions? Call me confused... again.

In general, there have been two types of responses from members: those who disagree (like the Sutherland Institute and the Utah Eagle Forum) and those who agree with the Church. Some who agree with the Church are engaging in revisionist history, saying that the Church's position nor doctrine has changed. Huh?! Wha?! The Church itself called the announcement, "an historic statement." If nothing has changed, why is it so historic?

It confuses me when people say, "God is the same yesterday, today, and forever." To them I say: "God may be unchanging, but the Church sure isn't." The mere fact that the Church has made this leap compared to twenty years ago (when people were excommunicated just for having gay feelings) is evidence. If it is okay to support a public policy position such as this today, now, then why wasn't it okay twenty years ago? Why is it okay for a person to have gay feelings today and not be excommunicated when twenty years ago it was different?

Having made all my complaints, and despite all my misgivings and hesitancy to send the Church a "thank you" card, I ultimately feel that if the Church's support helped in any way to save someone's life, then it is worth it.

I just wish I understood more what the Church really feels. I'm getting sick of the mixed messages.

Call me confused. And cautiously optimistic.

"Because you scare me..."

I went to SLC Pride this weekend - a little rainy, but I've interpreted it as "braving the storm." For, in fact, isn't that what we've all done? We should be proud of ourselves for doing that.

However, I faced a storm when I got home. You see, I had explained to my mom well ahead of time that I was going to the Pride Festival (as I had done the year before), but I did not explain this to my dad for two reasons. I figured that he would know I was gone but not know where I was going (as usual - which is TOTALLY fine), and I also figured that he would get angry and perhaps not let me go. So I figured that I would have to confront him with the truth when I got home. I didn't want to, but I knew it would be a possibility.

When I returned home, the only person there was my older brother who was napping in the basement. So I went to my room and straightened it up and started to watch TV. When my dad got home, he came up to my room and talked with me. Our conversation, recreated to the best of my memory and ability:

"Where were you?"

"I was hanging out with friends."

"Who? What were you doing?"

"You don't know them. We chilled, watched a movie, went out to eat. [All true - but with different groups of people.]

"Oh okay... Well I know you were at this Pride thing they've got going on downtown."

"How did you know I was there?"

"Drew, don't you think I would know? Sure, I know! Why wouldn't I know where you were?"

"Did mom tell you?"

"No, she didn't tell me. I just knew. [pause] So these 'people' you were with - I assume they struggle with the same thing? Are these the people from that thing in Lehi?" [I still don't know how he knew. I don't believe that my mom told him.]

"Yeah, they are the ones from Lehi."

"Um... It really disappoints me that you went to that thing [Pride]. It completely goes against everything that I've taught you."

"You haven't even been to it before."

"That doesn't mean that I don't have an idea of what it's about."

"Oh, so you're passing judgment on something and, by default, onto me, that you only have an 'idea' about? That's not fair. That doesn't make sense to me."

"I'm not passing judgment, Drew. I'm just trying to help you. Look - there is one view on homosexuality as far as the world is concerned, and that view is put on for show at these things."

"Oh, really?! What is this 'one view'?"

"The world doesn't separate the feelings from the behavior. They think that it's one way or the other; that if you have these feelings then you must act upon them."

"So? Just because you disagree with them doesn't mean that there's only one view."

"Well, yeah there is but not according to the world. The only time I have seen a positive view put forward and encouraged was that one guy who wrote that book [Ty Mansfield, co-author of In Quiet Desperation]. What's his name? [I didn't tell him his name.] Well, anyway, that is the only example I can think of where gay people are encouraged to obey the commandments, stay celibate, etc... And that is sad. It's a total shame."

[I should've said something snarky like, "Well I think it's sad that half of all of Utah's homeless teens identify as LGBT and have been kicked out of their homes," but I didn't.] "Well it's the Church's own fault. It's published by the Church [vicariously] and is sold in Deseret Book [a church-owned store]. You can't put that onto anyone else. The Church publishes it but doesn't let people know that they sell it. I have to find out from another gay person, who found out from another gay person, etc... You remember the pamphlet, God Loveth His Children? Well the only advertising the Church did [that I saw] was in the Deseret News. Bishop ______ didn't even know about it - I had to tell him when I went to talk with him once. You would think that the Church would make a huge announcement about new literature it produces, especially about something as important as this. How would Bishop ______ not know about it? You would think they would make it known to their leadership if they produced something like that."

"I just don't think the world is ready for it yet. One day all of this will seem trivial because it will become a non-issue. But it hasn't happened yet."

"Dad, things are changing, and I want to be a part of it. It's a process; it doesn't just happen overnight. I'm not going to put my life on hold because the world's not ready for it yet."

[long pause]

"You know, Drew? This whole 'ASS' thing is taking its toll on me. It really is." [I'm not joking, either. He really said this.]

"'ASS' thing? 'SSA', you mean?" [laughing and rolling my eyes]

"Yeah, sorry: SSA. It just takes its toll, you know?"

"Uh, yeah... I know."

"And it really just upsets me when you wear your ring." [My ring is silver with a flat top, in which six small fake stones, each one a different color rainbow, are set.]

"Why?!"

"Because I don't think that it represents what you think it represents."

"Well what do you think it represents? What do you think when you see it?"

"I think it sends the message, 'Hey! Come have a good time! Yeah, come on over. Let's hook up and have a good time. I'm looking for somethin'.'"

"Well that's not what it means."

"Well that's what I'm saying - that you are sending the wrong message by wearing it. And I don't like you to wear it because I think that people who don't know you well enough will think that about you when it's not true."

"Well that's their problem, not mine."

"I just think that it does you a disservice. [long pause] Yeah, Drew, it just really shreds my heart when I see you wearing that ring. It really does. [short pause] It's like you're shoving it in people's faces!"

"What?! That doesnt' even make sense, Dad. You wear a wedding ring - does that mean that you're shoving your marriage down in people's faces? At work? At the gym? In Church?" [When I was talking with Scott earlier today, he made a comparison to a "CTR" ring that I could've used in my argument.]

"I just don't like it. In all my life, I have never seen another person wear a ring like that - not once. And yet you feel as if you must wear it. I don't understand that."

"Well you obviously don't know a lot of gay people then."

"Oh, that's bologna! You don't think I've seen gay people downtown? None of them feel like they need to wear a ring."

"Well I do. Besides, it's a ring - you don't just walk up to someone and check to see if they are wearing a ring. That's ridiculous."

"Well, no, but rings are noticeable. And yours would stick out like a sore thumb!"

[long pause]

"Dad, I would be willing to not wear my ring during a specific time, day, or place just for you. Do you want me to do that?

"No. Drew, I love you and I hope you know that. I worry about your safety. I just don't want you coming home one day beat up."

"I know. Love you, too."

[He comes over to the bed, where I am sitting, and gives me a hug. About five minutes later I walk down the stairs and he is smiling and getting ready to go to the family party at my relatives' house. My mom and sister are in the kitchen just around the corner.]

"Thanks for talking with me. I guess we just don't have very good communication. I want to have that communication with you. How come you tell mom things and not me sometimes?"

"Because you scare me..."

Metacontingencies: Giving Them a Reason

As I was studying for my Behavior Analysis final tonight, I read some interesting material that gave me some insight as to why society, in general, has a hard time changing its customary traditions and accepting gay marriage. It all has to do with metacontingencies.

Before I go any further, I want to cite the textbook from which I am borrowing information:

Pierce, W. D., & Cheney, C. (2008) Behavior Analysis and Learning. Great Britain: Psychology Press.

In addition, I will provided in-text notations regarding the page numbers on which I found the information.

First, in order to understand what a metacontingency is, one must understand what a contingency is in regards to the study of behavior. A contingency "defines the relationship between the [environment], the operant [a willful behavior], and the consequences that follow the behavior" (344). So, in other words, an environment or situation sets the occasion for a behavior to be willed, with positive or negative consequences following. These consequences influence whether the individual will emit (will) the particular behavior in the future.

Does that make sense?

So, a metacontingency describes "the contingent relations among cultural practices and the effects of those practices for the group" (354). Therefore, a metacontingency describes a contingency of behavior on a cultural level rather than on an individual level (which a contingency describes).

A further example, as provided by the text:

"A culture is said to be evolved when the community adopts these innovations. Adoption of innovations depends on the metacontingencies facing the group. For example, a new food crop with higher yield is selected when the metacontingencies favor increased grain production. This could occur when a community is impoverished or when higher yielding crops support the feeding of domestic animals used for work or consumption. Higher yield crops may not be selected when food is overly abundant, when increased grain supply leads to problems of storage, or when a new crop attracts pests that spread disease" (337).

In other words, our behavior as individuals, families, societies is influenced by its consequences. If a behavior or practice will produce a benefit, then we are more likely to emit this behavior than if the consequences were neutral or negative.

It is with this premise that I present a new approach to establish gay marriage as an option throughout this country: we must give society a reason to not just want gay marriage, but to need it. The bottom line is that society will change with its circumstances - just look at the current recession. Would the Bush and Obama administrations have bailed out companies if there were no benefits (that may be real or perceived)? If there was not economic worry, these administrations would not have bailed out anybody. And if these bailouts do not work, then future administrations will be more likely to refuse the bailing-out of companies.

At the end of the day, those who are against gay marriage don't see any benefit for themselves. In fact, most don't even see the issue's consequences as neutral - they see them as negative and harmful. It is our job to illustrate to them the benefits that gay marriage will bring to them as individuals, as families, and as an American society. Now, I believe that there are indeed some benefits to legalizing gay marriage, but that is not the issue. Even if those benefits are only perceived by society, then they will be more accepting of gay marriage. Now, I'm not advocating that we lie to them or promote a false agenda; all I am saying is that we need to get them to become more comfortable in other ways, such as being more willing to even discuss the issue rather than ignore it or shut it down.

That is why "coming out" is (in my opinion) the most effective way to win sympathy for us as individuals and as a group, as well as the most effective way to win votes for gay marriage. In behavioral psychology terms, this is because their contingencies have changed. They no longer feel innocent for voting against gay marriage because now they know people on a personal level who will be directly affected by their votes. The process of "coming out" by one person sets the occasion for the listeners (a.k.a. friends and family) to emit a different behavior (vote for gay marriage), which will be followed by consequences (which may vary due to many factors).

This is supported (I believe) by further passages from the text:

"A common observation is that cultural practices in humans often remain unchanged over many generations, even when these customs make no sense. A practice may persist for many years because the members of the group who engage in it fail to contact a change in the metacontingencies. At the individual level, a person [obeys]... the taboo because the social contingencies arranged by the group [for disobeying the taboo] avert contact with the positive reinforcement contingency. Cultural practices also may persist when the metacontingencies are stable and the current practices are sufficient to meet the contingencies" (337-8).

In other words, if circumstances don't change, then people and society will never change. People stick to tradition (opposing gay marriage) because not doing so will produce negative consequences (administered by their families, friends, churches, etc...).

Calls for change challenge individuals to really consider what they need and what society needs. So it is not just our job to challenge on an individual level but on a societal level as well. We need to make the consequences for supporting gay marriage positive for the individual and for society. Only then will people be willing to accept us and realize that we have rights as divine creatures. After all, people will only do something if there is some benefit (short- or long-term) to themselves; if there is nothing of personal benefit for supporting gay marriage, then people will not support it. Support can be defined in any way the individual perceives; it can be intrinsically motivated ("I feel good when I value my fellow citizens with equality") or it can be extrinsically motivated ("It will encourage American acceptance abroad"). The point is that we must stress the positive consequences for individuals and societies who support gay marriage. Only then will we win our rightful cause.

Why I Voted for Barack Obama

Barack Obama has been elected to be the 44th President of the United States. Wow! I woke up today and felt so happy that America got it right. The fact that he happened to be African-American was just a plus; he exemplifies common sense, something that George W. Bush can't even say! I will explain why I voted for him.

FACT: The number one reason why Barack Obama got my vote was because of his proposed tax policies. Now, I also happen to know that this is one of the top reasons why some people voted against him, but that's because they didn't fully understand his policies. Every individual making more than $250,000 annually will see a tax increase; every individual making less than $250,000 will see his or her taxes at or below George W. Bush era levels.

ANALYSIS: For the past eight years, we have seen the biggest tax cuts in decades go to Fortune 500 companies (which includes some oil companies), their respective CEOs, and the top one percent of wealthy Americans. These companies are pulling in record profits; Chevron just reported its biggest quarterly earnings in its 129-year history last week, and we are in a recession!

John McCain mentioned in the last debate that America has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. However, a study by the United States Congress released a few months ago reported that two-thirds of all American companies do not pay taxes due to loopholes in the system.

Barack Obama was criticized for saying he wanted to "spread the wealth." In my opinion, he should have said that he wanted to "bring back some balance." The middle class has been ignored for the past eight years; it's our turn now! The majority of McCain supporters I've talked to say that they would never vote for Barack Obama because he will "raise our taxes." My question to them is this: "Do you make over $250,000 annually?"

I rest my case.

FACT: Barack Obama favors universal healthcare; Republicans call this "Socialism." John McCain's solution to the problem is to give uninsured families a $5,000 tax credit to pay for market-based insurance. Also, members of the United States Congress get taxpayer-funded healthcare through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).

ANALYSIS: According to the National Coalition on Health Care, the average cost for annual health insurance for a family of four in 2007 was $12,100. Sorry, John McCain, but your plan isn't going to cut it!

However, I don't think that Barack Obama's solution should be the first approach...

While taking classes for my Surgical Technology major, I and my classmates learned that in America there are no price caps for medical supplies, including medications; this is why any hospital in America can, and does, charge patients $5 for one pill of Tylenol. It is not uncommon for medical supply companies to impose mark-ups of 1,000 percent on products. And I know this to be true because I've had experience with it during my clinical rotation as a Surgical Tech...

As a Surgical Technologist, it is my responsibility to open sterile supplies for every procedure onto a sterile back table. Here's the catch: some of these supplies may never be used! Because they were opened, however, hospital policy requires the O.R. Nurse to charge the patient for them. That is why it is important for me to know the procedure like the back of my hand, so that I can implement some cost-effectiveness when I open sterile supplies. Another example of unethical charging by hospitals are policies that require the O.R. Nurses to charge the patient for a 50-mL bottle of "local" when only 5-10 mLs were drawn up and used; and because the bottles are multi-use, policies like these allow hospitals to charge five different patients for five bottles of "local" when a total of just one 50-mL bottle of "local" was ever actually used.

Thus, my position on solving the health care crisis is more regulation of these companies through the implementation of price caps. If the cost of healthcare is driven down, it will become more affordable to all.

However, I had to choose the lesser of two evils and I do believe that universal health care is a better solution than a $5,000 tax credit.

The bottom line is that if members of Congress have taxpayer-funded healthcare, and if prisoners in Guantanamo Bay have taxpayer-funded healthcare, then every legal citizen of the United States of America is entitled to taxpayer-funded healthcare. Period.


Don't get me wrong, however. Barack Obama is not perfect; I don't agree with him on everything. For example, I don't support his "pro-choice" position on abortion. And while I support "green" technology, it is often expensive; it should not be a top priority right now, especially when we are in a recession. And I didn't support his vote (and McCain's) for the recent bailout of the banking industry.

The following is a journal entry of mine from January 27th, 2008:

"...The second most recent thing was my 18th birthday on Wednesday, January 23rd. It's supposed to be one of those big, special birthdays but it didn't feel like one. It was just another day. I won't feel the power from it until this November, when I will be able to vote for U.S. President. I've been watching both the Democratic and Republican debates and am pretty pleased with the Democratic candidates. The only Republican candidate I like is Romney. I like him because he is so business savvy and optimistic. His whole record has been turning things around. He did that with the 2002 Winter Olympics here in Salt Lake. If he wins the nomination, I will vote for him. If he doesn't, I will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is, whether it be Obama or Clinton. Obama is so full of optimism and is truly inspiring. I've heard older Americans talk about him as the next JFK. The only time he is negative is when he responds (and rightly so) to Clinton's attacks. A Romney v. Obama ballot would be so hard for me to handle..."

However, I feel like he understands the plight of the average American trying to make ends meet in 2008. And that is why I voted for Barack Obama.

We welcome you, Mr. President.

High Expectations

I have high expectations for the upcoming week. I just hope that at least one of these expectations is met; maybe next week won't be a total failure. I am cautiously optimistic.

As everybody already knows, the 2008 Presidential Election is just over two days away and the stakes couldn't be higher. To me, the choice for United States President is crystal clear; some of you already know whom I voted for (yes, I voted early), and some of you don't; I will formally post who I voted for and why on Monday.

I also have high expectations for Tuesday night, when I will meet with my therapist for the first time in months. Some recent events in my life have forced me to seek outside help. I will not disclose most of these events here because they are either too personal or involve confidentiality with another person or both. However, I am also meeting with her because I need some help in organizing my thoughts and feelings before I head off to Logan in almost exactly two months. I am both scared and excited to move, and I really need some help.

I have high expectations of myself; I got one bad evaluation last week at PCMC and I need to be a superstar this next week. The evaluation was filled out by one of my preceptors, so it wasn't really official. But I have hope that it will not put a stain on my name because in talking with my Nurse Educator, Sean, he thought that she had been too hard on me because of the difficulty of the cases that day and due to the fact that three other people who had precepted me had filled out evaluations that had directly contradicted what this preceptor had said about me. I'm just crossing my fingers.

There's more that I'm anticipating and that I have high expectations for, but for now I am choosing to not disclose this information. All I can say is that my depression and anxiety are creeping back again; they've been dormant for the past few months and I am dreading their return!

I ask humbly to be remembered in your prayers. Thank you.