A Little Holiday Light

I was privileged today to attend the holiday concert at Franklin Middle School to see one of my students perform in choir. I was prepared for the usual music making of young people. What I wasn't prepared for was the jolt of hope I received. These young people made some very impressive music and most of them seemed to really be enjoying themselves. (The few who didn't were trying really hard to seem bored.)

I realized that although things aren't ideal, they also aren't hopeless. All the desperate negativity I see on Facebook and in the traditional media regarding the education of our young people - despair I, myself, have passed on - just can't stand up to what I saw today. With professionals like Michael Helman and Anne Bailey in the trenches (not to mention the music professionals there with whom I'm not acquainted), there is still light and life being communicated to our kids. I applaud their  courage, their stamina, and the sacrifices they make every day to keep the  lower lights burning, sending a gleam of hope across the waves in the stormy seas of our time. Thanks to the Franklin Middle School for this little holiday miracle.

Why I Support Matt Bloxham's Boise Bid

A friend of mine messaged me yesterday asking about my support for Matt Bloxham. Before I answer that question, I would like to say that this is the one race where I truly wish I could vote for both candidates. Both are qualified, intelligent people with considerable communication skills. Both have experience in public service and are respected members of the community. Should Mr. Nye be elected, I have no doubt he will do his best to represent the citizens of Bannock County well.

That said, there are a few reasons I decided to publicly support and vote for Matt Bloxham. An experience I had with him a couple weeks ago illustrates them much better than I could ever explain.

After one of the candidate debates, Michael O’Donnell in the Idaho State Journal summarized it, publishing his impressions of what the candidates said. O’Donnell’s version of Matt’s position on education funding bothered me. Matt didn’t look too good on funding infrastructure improvement either. Given my previous exchanges with Matt on the subjects, I wanted some clarification and sent him a Facebook message asking if he had been represented accurately, and if so, why. His response was swift, inviting me to meet with him at a local eatery in order to better explain his statements.

As I had suspected, Mr. O’Donnell hadn’t adequately summarized Matt’s statements in the debate. Matt explained that, while it is true increasing taxes is not his first impulse to fix our educational woes, it is because the current system of funding earmarks hobbles the school districts in their efforts to spend money where money is needed. By coincidence, a friend of mine who is employed with the local school district was also taking lunch at E-fresh that day and I asked him if he would join us for a minute, since our topic of discussion was one with which he was intimately acquainted. My friend oversees a major department at the school district. Matt asked him about the funding for his department and my friend replied that while he had more than enough funding for materials, he desperately needed funds to hire more people. The current system of funding earmarks prohibited him from spending the money he had on the resource he needed the most. Matt’s point that before we ask for more money we need to more effectively spend the money we have couldn’t have been more poignantly made.

My friend excused himself because he needed to get back to work. I asked Matt if he had checked into the recent history of education funding in our state, specifically in regards to former Governor Jim Risch’s base switch from property tax to sales tax in 2006. This significant switch deprived our education system of a stable source of funding and replaced it with a highly variable and volatile funding source.  Matt hadn’t known about this before I brought it to his attention. He indicated that not only had he looked into it, he had discussed it with several of his political contacts and found out some very interesting information. Because of the sensitive nature of that information, I can only say that no one need worry about Mr. Bloxham’s dedication to providing education in Idaho with the money it needs in a stable and sustainable way.

I then asked Matt why Mr. O’Donnell quoted him saying that he doesn’t support a 1¢ increase in the fuel tax to fix Idaho’s aging roads and bridges. He explained that when the debate occurred, he was concerned that raising the tax on fuel would have a negative impact on the trucking industry in our state. While such a tax wouldn’t be too much of a burden for the average fuel consumer to bear, for those who purchased fuel in great quantities, it could have very negative consequences, potentially driving their business out of Idaho. However, since the debate, he had spoken with several of his contacts in the industry who supported the tax increase. Since they were supportive of the tax, Matt said he had no problem supporting it as well. To me, this demonstrated not only an uncommon ability to understand the intricate web that connects seemingly disparate issues, but also the ability to revise a position in the light of new and reliable information.

I consider myself to be fiscally conservative. Although I work at a public library and obviously believe in the good that can be done with public spending, I also believe that public money is sacred and should be spent with all the wisdom and restraint we can humanly muster. I perceive that Mr. Bloxham feels the same way.

Also, as much as I despise party politics, given the current composition of the Idaho Congress, Bannock County needs a Republican representative whose voice will actually be heard. Democrats have little to no influence in our Republican-dominated legislature, a fact which has muted the voice of Bannock County in Boise for decades. Put another way, Democrats are the kids with cooties in the sandbox whom no one will play with. We need to change that, and strange as it may seem, at this point, I think sending a Republican into the fray is the best way to get that ball rolling, especially when Matt is that Republican.

This doesn’t mean I think any Republican will do. I didn't vote for Terrel Tovey because statements he has made regarding Democrats indicate to me that he is unable to see beyond a person's party affiliation to work for the common good.  Mr. Bloxham, on the other hand, would be a credit to any party with which he aligned, not least because he has the ability to see past partisan politics to all the people he's serving. As I’ve illustrated above, I have had the opportunity to spend some time with Matt, and he is an informed, intelligent, and insightful person who asks sincere questions and really listens to the answers. Should those answers provide unexpected information, Matt evaluates it and, if it proves sound, he adjusts his views accordingly. Unlike the Titanic legislators we’ve had for the last 15-plus years, Matt will change his course if he sees an iceberg. He also doesn’t surround himself with people who will tell him what he wants to hear. This is the kind of legislator we want in Idaho.

We put our trust in those we send to represent us, but these people are human. Will Matt and I agree on everything? No. Will he make mistakes? Possibly, but from what I’ve seen, he has both the integrity to be true to his constituents and the humility to recover when he makes a misstep. He takes the time and listens to people. He genuinely cares about Idaho in general and Southeastern Idaho in particular. His youth and energy make him a breath of fresh air that our stale statehouse sorely needs. And although the “R” beside his name on the ballot means he will be given a place at the table, it doesn’t mean those who identify as a “D”, an “I” or an “L” will be deprived of a voice at that table. This is why I support Matt Bloxham in his bid to represent Bannock County in the Idaho legislature.

More Humble Pie

I sent this letter to Ian Fennell at the Idaho State Journal on August 23, 2014. I have yet to receive any acknowledgment of said letter and am wondering if it will be published. Given that uncertainty, I figured this was the next best place to post it so it would gain some kind of publicity:

"I can admit when I’m wrong. It was careless of me to make such a broad, easily-misunderstood statement regarding people who move into our state. It was also unkind of me to use adjectives like “pouty” and “petulant,” and I should have refrained from doing so.

In a debate as highly charged with emotion as this has been, it is unwise to do anything but dispassionately stick to the facts. Emotion clouds judgment and obscures truth, making a muddy, unproductive mess. We fail in our efforts to make Pocatello a great place to live when that kind of environment is fostered. While I stand by my view that the ordinance protects all residents of Pocatello and was legally adopted, I apologize to Mr. Swenson and ask forgiveness from my community for contributing to the mud-slinging.

I would also like to specifically apologize to Glenda Bellanca and any other “transplant” to Pocatello who have gracefully come and strengthened us with their refreshing and respectfully-shared perspectives, as well as their revitalizing energy and industry. They have seen what Idaho has to offer and come to partake, replenishing the soil in which they have set down their roots. Immigration, whether between states in the union or our union and other countries, is vital to the health of any community of people, keeping it from growing complacent or stagnant.

As a human being, I do have limits to my tolerance. Ironically, it is injustice, intolerance, and unkindness with which I have the most trouble. The faults we find in others are frequently the faults in our own characters we find most distasteful. It seems Mr. Swenson and I see certain things differently, but for my part, I will in future do my best to keep the contributions I make to the discussion factual and respectful."

I'm sure this won't be the last time I will have to eat my words, but I hope this taste of humble pie will deter me from being careless for a while.

Fingers Pointing Back at Me

Now that I'm a couple of days removed from the anger that first inspired my recent letter to the editor, I am keenly aware of how I could have better handled the situation.

Instead of returning Mr. Swenson's unkind words and jibes, I should have focused purely on the facts. I should have outlined what was incorrect (that the ordinance only protects LGBT people) and presented the correct information (that the ordinance protects all people). In this way, I would have neutralized the name-calling and still spoken the truth.

I deeply regret giving in to my urge to be mean. I hope I can clean up the mess.

Speaking Up

It has often been said that if you tell a lie long enough, people will accept it as the truth. Yesterday, I sent a letter to the editor of the Idaho State Journal in response to an editorial in Sunday's paper where George Swenson wrote an inflammatory piece about Pocatello's non-discrimination ordinance. Most of his words were just sour grapes that the vote didn't go his way, but there was one assertion he made that I couldn't resist answering. I still believe that responding to argumentative words with other argumentative words is a less effective way of resolving the issue, but in the case of blatant lies, I think it's better to shine the light on them and show them as such.

For those of you who don't get the Journal, here is what I sent. It is not as compassionate as it should be.

"George Swenson’s recent Sunday editorial regarding Pocatello’s non-discrimination ordinance poked the hornet’s nest yet again, hoping to see if there were any hornets left to anger. Ostensibly dedicated to Christianity, he doesn’t seem to be interested in fostering any kind of peace. Instead, his diatribe questions the integrity of many people involved in the election and the intelligence of anyone who voted for the ordinance. Election officials and volunteers, Councilman Steve Brown, and Mike Simpson are all targeted, but this editorial can easily be seen for what it is: a pouty and carelessly accusatory cluster of sour grapes proffered by a petulant individual who didn’t get his way.

The one assertion he makes that merits any real response is that the ordinance creates a specially protected class of people in violation of the Constitution, specifically in regard to use of public accommodations. This tired argument has been made time and again ever since the ordinance was proposed and is just as erroneous now as it was then. All people, of whatever sexual orientation or gender, are protected by this ordinance. To address Mr. Swenson’s citation of PDA's (public displays of affection) as a specific example of the alleged inequality created by the ordinance, whether at a public park or a garage sale, all people are welcome as long as they conduct themselves within the legal code. PDA’s, straight or gay, tasteful or not, are currently legal as long as no genitalia is displayed. Perhaps, if Mr. Swenson is so worried about these PDA’s, he should spend more time trying to change the law to ban them all. Good luck with that.

How long are we going to have to endure the querulous ranting of those who didn’t get their way in what was a heavily-scrutinized, protracted, but ultimately legal process? And why is it that transplanted Californians are the ones crying the loudest?"

In all honesty, I probably shouldn't have sent it. I allowed my ire to get the better of my good sense leading me to ignore the nudgings I believe the universe was sending me to be my better self. Have I mentioned I don't like to be nudged?

 I'm not always up to following my ideals, but I still hold them. Exceptions to them are not always justified, but I'm committed to the truth as far as it is perceivable, and the truth needs to win.

The Wrath of God

Years ago when I read The Strain trilogy, its authors posited that God and DNA were synonymous, that God was found in the proteins that direct the development or perversion of living cells. That idea struck me with significant force and has worked its way into my understanding of God and how He functions. (Please forgive my use of the masculine pronoun. I am limited by the English language.)

God truly is in everything. He is the energy that makes stars burn and galaxies spin. He is mitochondria. He is chlorophyll. He is the volcanic eruption. He is the bond between two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom. He is our intuition. He is the wind.

I am contemplating what this means when it is said that God's wrath will destroy nations. If prophecies of the brutal subjugation and destruction of the great Native American nations are to be believed, then God was, indeed, with the Europeans, but it wasn't because of their virtue or their professed religion that they conquered. It was because they carried God with them in the form of microbes. Charles Mann asserts in Before Columbus: The Americas of 1491 that it was smallpox, anthrax, measles, and other diseases that decimated the Native American populations, allowing Pizarro, Cortes, and the other conquerors to overcome them. Does that mean God sometimes destroys basically innocent people? It certainly sounds like something you'd hear in the Old Testament, doesn't it? Perhaps that explains the dichotomy of the biblical God. Perhaps how we face this aspect of God is an important factor in the health of our souls, or whatever you choose to call that which enlivens our physical selves.

Add the Words

On Friday night, I attended a screening of the documentary film "Add the Words". It is a potent opus that did its job, convincing me that the cause it chronicles is a worthy one. However, cautious skeptic that I am, I still have some reservations about how the equality war in Idaho is being waged.

The film begins with footage of speeches and sermons being delivered in Africa demonizing homosexual people. The violent rhetoric used is sobering as are the images of African men being publicly shamed and beaten. Those clips are quickly followed by scenes of violence occurring in Russia. An image that firmly stamped itself on my consciousness was that of a young man, presumably gay, being savagely choked in the crook of another man's arm, the crying and coughing victim struggling futilely to free himself from possible death. In those few moments, I understood two things: people really are suffering. even dying, due to hatred aimed at their sexual expression, and we in Idaho who have it somewhat better than people in Africa and Russia are trying to prevent the same scenes from playing out here. Things truly are better in Idaho, but not by much. The naked hatred vented in other parts of the world exists here but is often cloaked with a variably thin veneer of civility.

While I now more fully understand the need to put certain specific words into existing law, I am also concerned about the conduct of those striving to see the inclusion take place. I saw several things during the course of the film that could weaken the cause it champions, a cause I do not want to fail.

First, it is crucial that we who would see the words added take care not to antagonize possible allies. Surely there are other ways of helping the average citizen see their tacit complicity in the oppressive behavior of the Idaho State Senate than blocking the entrances to the halls of government for days at a time. Many of these people have just causes of their own to champion, and frustrating their efforts makes it less likely they will ally themselves with ours. Or, perhaps, it should have been made more explicit to the frustrated people trying to gain access to the Senate chambers that the obstruction they were experiencing is precisely the type of obstruction the Senate itself was imposing on the protesters. The people standing in front of doors with their hands over their mouths were more than a nuisance; they were a physical representation of the stonewalling they experienced themselves.

Second, we must also carefully consider how we respond to our opposition. In one part of the film, former Senator LeFavour stands with her hand over her mouth while a man hypocritically rages at her that she has only violence and hatred in her heart. She protests he is mistaken, but her quiet words only provoke the man to escalate his verbal tirade and it takes a state trooper to get the guy to back off. While Senator LeFavour certainly didn't do anything wrong, this episode illustrates my point. The man was using words and so was the Senator as she opposed his opinion. In essence, she was trying to fight fire with fire and it didn't work. It only gave the man openings to continue ranting and it would have been better for the Senator to remain silent. I am grateful that she, herself, did not allow her distress and anger to overcome her decorum. However, this episode begs the question: Wouldn't acts of kindness or service be a better answer to angry words? Would that not be more likely to win hearts and minds than any amount of talking we could do? There is, indeed, a time for debate, but it must be engaged in sparingly and in a timely fashion. In my own life, I have found hate can only be defeated with unconditional love, and service is that love's truest expression.

Having said that, when we must use words, we must be masters of logical argument, educating ourselves regarding flaws in logic so we can point them out in reasoning used against us and avoid using them ourselves. We must also be certain that the information we use is as correct as possible, with an awareness that any flaw will be exploited by the opposition. Anyone who has been trained in the art of debate understands this. One small instance I saw in the film is when the leader of the Add the Words campaign, a former active LDS person, stated that it was a sin to consume alcohol. Technically, a sin is something that goes against God's commandments. The Word of Wisdom that proscribes imbibing alcohol is "not given by way of commandment." Therefore, it's not technically a sin to consume alcohol, though it can keep you out of the temple. It's this kind of technicality or issue of semantics that damages credibility during a debate.

We cannot afford to become like Napoleon in George Orwell's Animal Farm lest our cause lose its moral imperative. Our words mean nothing if our behavior contradicts them.

Finally, we cannot be victims. In saying this, I am not laying blame on those who have been bashed, fired, denied housing, shamed, etc. I am not saying the social and physical persecution only exists because people bring it on themselves. What I am saying is I have seen an eagerness to assume any adversity faced has bigotry at its root. I have also seen a haste to saint or martyr very complex human beings whose lives have ended by the hands of others or by their own, a status that strips them of their humanity and obscures the full truth of their lives and deaths. This is usually done to bypass rationality, directly appeal to the emotions, and illustrate the need to end persecution through tougher laws, but in reality that tactic weakens our position substantially. The most egregious example of this in the film is the invocation of Matthew Shepard's brutal murder. Enough evidence has come to light to potently suggest Mr. Shepard was murdered more because of his drug dealing than his sexuality. This does not negate the horror of his death, but it does cast doubt on the credibility of those who raised a foundation in his name, labeled his death a hate crime, and hold him out as the poster child for LGBT violence everywhere. The truth will either set you free or bind you depending on whether you accept it or deny it.

Similar simplification occurred in the portrayals of the two local teens who completed suicide. I was acquainted with one of them, and while I do not doubt he was persecuted for his sexuality, he also was known for a tendency to play fast and loose with the truth. This made him unpopular with many people in the gay community, yet these same people have no problem now holding him up as a victim and a face to rally behind.  "It's for the children!" is a cheap tactic used by both sides of this debate to incite people to turn on their tear ducts, abandon reason, and head for their pitchforks and torches. It is vitally important to refrain from making emotional appeals like these and adhere to rational discussion of the facts, however inconvenient, because failing to do so is an exploitable weakness that the opposition eagerly calls us on.

This is truly a human rights issue,  but due to the many people who think we should live in a theocracy, we are often forced to bear the burden of proof regarding the moral rightness of our cause. We must use supportable, well-presented facts to establish that this is a civil rights issue and set aside purely religious objections. Furthermore, we need to change those hearts and minds with the very Christ-like love they say they enshrine.