This I Know

I got my morning chuckle when I read a snide remark today about liberals blaming AIDS on a lack of federal funding. Outside of that one snark, I didn't find the site it was on enjoyable and I won't be returning. I did, however, get a kick out of that.

I bring up the subject of liberals, because it has come to my attention that I have not sufficiently explained my position on political "correctness" on this blog. It boils down to this: I don't think anyone in this country should be so easily offended that politically "incorrect" statements give rise to the behavior which they do. (Lobbying, protesting, whining, regulating, etc....) This came up because a cherished old friend of mine (who, after some deliberation about Anne Shirley and her bosom friend Dianna, I've decided instead to call My Own Personal Dharma) recently emailed me a book recommendation- a book she enjoyed and which, based on her memory of our history together, she thought I might also enjoy. With the description of the book was a note in which she expressed that she was hesitant to send the book, afraid it might offend me. She thought this (no thanks I'm sure to my review of that other book) because some of the reviews on Amazon.com said the book was received by some readers as feminist and anti-Christian. (It is important to note that the book is set in medieval times. A time period that was, by nature, anti-Christian. It was called the "dark ages" for a reason.) As far as the feminism goes, I am not afraid of feminists nor so easily offended. Do I think the world has a very distorted view of women's strengths, abilities, and roles? YES. Am I going to curl up in a ball and cry about it? No. For the same reason I spurn political "correctness" so vehemently- that people need to get a backbone and not let the fact that someone somewhere might be saying something out loud about God, bother them- I am not. (My Own Personal Dharma is one of those, my friends who stand far to the left of me and Dr. Laura and for some reason still seem to like me anyway. And I like her.) No, rather than getting fetal and letting the tears flow, I will instead, continue to stand for what is right without shame and I will not get offended if people don't believe me. I hope they will afford me the same courtesy.

To that end, I would like to tell you what it is that I believe, so there's not all this weirdness between us. I hope that when all of you know where I stand, we can go forward as friends and without fear.

I believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. I believe that they live and that they are three separate and distinct beings. I believe that God hears and answers prayers if we have faith and are willing to hear his answers. Sometimes they are not the answers we want or expect. I believe that we are the literal and beloved spirit children of our Father in Heaven and that we lived with him before we came to this earth, and that we have both a divine nature and destiny. I believe our bodies are a sacred gift from God and that we should do all in our power to take care of them, from exercising and eating right to avoiding addictive substances. I don't drink or smoke. I believe people will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression. I believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. I believe that we are saved through the grace of Christ after all that we can do. I believe God would not have gone to all the trouble to tell the prophets and apostles so much about how people should comport themselves if He did not care about it.

I believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those in authority, to preach the gospel and administer the ordinances thereof.

I believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children. I believe that sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples enable family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. I believe that gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. I believe that sexual relations should be kept within the bounds of marriage between a husband and wife who have been legally and lawfully wedded. I believe in the sanctity of life and it's importance in God's plan. I am against abortion. I believe parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. I believe that raising children in this way is the path to our greatest happiness and the most noble endeavor a couple can undertake. I also believe that husbands and wives will be held accountable before God for how they execute this greatest of responsibilities. I believe children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. I believe successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. I believe that with the sacred endowment of gender come certain responsibilities. Fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. I realize many times circumstances arise when there is only one parent. I am not saying these people cannot be successful. I am saying that the responsibility has been divinely divided in this way, and that God has given each of us inherent gifts specific to our genders, to assist us in our respective stewardships. A single parent can do a wonderful job and raise wonderful children, but as a child from a broken home, I feel that I can say- that parent will have more difficulty doing so than two parents who love each other would together. I believe that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

I believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly. I also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. I believe there is a living prophet on the earth today and that the restoration of the priesthood and revelation foretold of in the scriptures has come. I believe we live in the last days and that Jesus Christ will come again.

I claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of my own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, worship how, when, or what they may. I believe in the freedom of speech, without which I could not be writing this blog. I also believe in being respectful to those around you and using freedom of speech in a manner that is considerate of others' rights to not hear what it is you might have to say. (As long as I'm on the respect issue- I believe that P.[ublic] D.[isplays of] A.[ffection] are rude and inconsiderate, no matter who they are between.) I believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, and in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. I believe that any law-abiding person is welcome to come to this country and better their circumstances. I believe that a high percentage of illegal immigrants do not sustain the law. If they were law-abiding people they would not be here, they'd be waiting for their visas like everyone else. I believe that people have a sacred responsibility to vote if they live in a country where this right is afforded to them. I believe that voting for Hillary is wrong. (Ha Ha) I believe in upholding the Constitution of the United States and that, in spite of America's flaws, ours is still the best system of government in the world. I believe in our sovereignty as a nation and that we should stay away from the U.N..

I believe that we should all be honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and that we should be doing good to all men in whatever ways we can. I believe and try to follow the admonition of Paul- I believe all things, I hope all things, my people have endured many things and we hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report of praiseworthy, I strive to seek after these things.

I believe in love. I believe in chocolate and femininity and keeping a journal. I believe that the beauties of this earth are a testament of the Creator

and a gift from Him to help us remember just how much we are loved. I believe that God has given man the charge to take care of the earth and that wastefulness of any thing is always abhorrant, but also that the earth's resources are here for us to use. I love the seasons and bad weather and the opportunities they are to be reminded that storms pass and that the sun always shines again. (Some places more than others.)


I believe that every single person on this earth has something positive to offer it (and I try to remember that when I am dealing with them. : ) ) I believe that it's never too late to start over, that the adage "an old dog can't learn new tricks" is a lie, and that every single day is a gift which we can use to stand a little taller and do a little more. I believe we should all try to do so.


I realized as I was just reading over what I wrote up there, that I misspoke. I said these are the things I believe. I should have said these are the things I know, because I do know them. I realize there are going to be people- maybe lots of people- who don't agree with me. Some may even become angry at my conviction. They will accuse me of hating people who are different from me (which I do not), of being narrow-minded (which I am not) and of not thinking for myself (which is not now nor has it ever been the case- since I was eight months old). I do not pass judgement on people who disagree with me. I believe most of those people have not gained their own testimony of these things. I think most people in this world are just trying to do their best and be good people. That is what I would like to believe, anyway- that people do the best they can with the knowledge and emotional scars they have.

I love My Own Personal Dharma- I always have- and many others who stand with her, a little further to the left than I. This is who I am. I am not afraid of other opinions- I am not so easily offended. I hope none of you are either. I had a teacher once who said, "I've found that with people who are easily offended, it is almost always because they have too much pride." I don't know if this is universally true, but I do tend to believe it in the case of political "correctness".

Oh- one more thing. I believe that anyone can know the truthfulness of these things if they exercise enough faith to ask God, believing that they will receive an answer. I know the words of the prophets are true which said: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." (James 1:5)

"...and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, having real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." (Mor. 10:4-5)

Eating Crow

Well, good. I'm glad that the hometown rag covered that story. I must say I am very surprised. That publication has come up the tiniest bit in my esteem. Not all the way out of loathing, but up a little nonetheless.

What You Didn't Hear About

I can't stand it anymore. It needs to be said. The news is worthless. And not just that ridiculous newspaper in Tracktown either.

Two weeks ago, a U.S. Border Patrol Agent was killed while on the job. You did not hear about this. Even the local news where it happened refused to cover the story. Here is what happened. Border Agents were pursuing illegal aliens who are known drug runners south. There was an extensive high speed chase. When an agent further south finally got out of his car to throw down the spike strips (used to stop a car in a high speed chase-) the agent was run over by the illegal aliens. IN A HUMMER. And they didn't even swerve. The bad guys got away. And you didn't hear a word about it.

Last week, a U.S. Border Patrol agent shot an illegal alien. Headlines all screamed out against him and the terrible tragedy of it all. If anyone bothered to read all the fine print, he had made a vehicle stop and was standing on the side of the truck when the illegal aliens took off. He was caught on the truck and was dragged for 20 feet before firing a single shot into the driver's leg, obviously NOT trying to kill him. This was highly publicized.

Does anyone else see the glaring one-sidedness and injustice here?

The Jane Austen Book Club

by Karen Joy Fowler. Maybe you've heard of it? It was just released as a major motion picture. Those of you who've been reading the blog for a while know my stance on screen adaptations so I read the book this weekend. I have not DISLIKED a book so much since 6th grade when Mr. Percy ruined by spring break by forcing me to wade through 300 pages of politcally motivated talking bunnies. There is not enough I can say about how much I did not enjoy this book, but here is a start.


A Little to the Left
If I were in a ballroom filled with hundreds of people and this author, I feel almost certain I would not meet another person who so totally disagrees with my personal view of the world. This book is extremely politically "correct". The characters are a smattering of mid-20's to mid-60's women, only one of whom needs a man- and this is passed off as acceptable because she and her husband are a mixed latina-caucasian marriage. One woman is homosexual and the author states that this is due to "a genetic code" as if this is a proven fact. The only main character who is a man is made pc by the emasculinization of him in a flashback to his childhood in which he is for the hundredth time helpless and he comes to the realization that he will rely on his big sisters to rescue him in any situation for the rest of his life. The author ends the account with the statement that, "no one who'd known Grigg since infancy could have doubted he was born to be a heroine." (Italics added.) This leaves the question of his sexual orientation dubious until the end of the book when he hooks up with one of the women.

Of the other two men who appear in the book, one is the evil-husband-who-leaves, and the other is the perfect husband who is not really wanted or needed but is a nice thing to have. Yuck. To think there are all these men in this country who experienced such a serious lapse in judgement and had the audacity to be born white, masculine men. The nerve. Let's punish them.


Also, the author is preachy about other leftist issues including such things as the environment. I quote, "A few shells were washed over at the water's edge, small and perfect, but everyone was too ecologically well behaved to pick these up." (Italics added.) Would someone please mind telling me when it became bad for the environment to pick up seashells at the beach?


Literally Speaking
For those of you my friends who stand far to the left of me and Dr. Laura, I want to explain why this book is still garbage even if you share the author's political opinions. First of all, there is almost no plot. None.

Second of all, the women are snotty, pretentious, and clearly think they are superior to men. There is a scene in the book in which the characters openly mock a published author at a fundraiser dinner after he comments that, "I don't read much women's stuff. I like a good plot." This is written as a blunder of conversation and the women very unlikeably and condescendingly make him pay for it for the rest of the evening. (It reminded me of Lady Catherine in Pride and Prejudice when she begins criticizing Elizabeth Bennet's performance at the pianoforte by saying, "I never learned to play the pianoforte, but if I had learnt, I should be a true proficient.")

It is possible that the author may have written the nearly plotless book as a nod to Jane Austen. Many critics contend that nothing happens in her books. I believe this shows great ignorance. So much happens in them that when made into a good movie it has to be six hours long. Not only that, but even holding to the argument that Austen's characters move about very little in their humdrum lives, you still care about them deeply. The author of The Jane Austen Book Club did not achieve this in spite of the enormous effort she put into writing them each a tragic backstory. There is not enough of a now-story for you to care or not care. Their background stories- which take up 3/4 of the book, are for the most part, those moments in our lives that each of us are most ashamed of and which, if given a chance, we would go back and change. They are not very likeable people and as I was reading, I kept hoping that all the unpleasant histories of these people would somehow either be overcome or that they would be better people in the end because of their experiences with the books or each other. Not so. While one or two may have found minimal happiness in spite of their previous experiences, the attention the author gives this is so miniscule in comparison to the long drawn out accounts of misery, that it affords the reader almost no satisfaction at all. The compensation for wading through all their personal garbage is too little to make it worth it. I think the author must be aware of this on some level because at the end of the book one of her characters thinks to herself, "What if you had a happy ending and didn't notice? Sylvia made a mental note. Don't miss the happy ending." It's that obscure.

A couple of the characters use the f-word a lot. (I stopped counting at 11 times.) I suspect that the author was trying to make this a literary device to denote the demarcation between the younger and older generations, but this distinction was unnecessary, distracting, and added nothing to their already established personalities. It was extraneous and offensive.

You all know I am the queen of throwing out random quotations and movie references mid-conversation. And yet, when the author unashamedly steals phrases from Jane Austen, speaking of her characters without giving the credit to Austen by the use of quotation marks or in any other way (e.g.- "It put her in mind of something...", and a hundred other turns of phrase that are period-derived syntax) I found it very grating. I think she did this intentionally to illustrate how much the books permeated the characters' lives, but it came off as contrived and pompous. (Look at me! Look at me! I'm writing like Jane Austen!)

The hands-down most irritating thing about the writing in The Jane Austen Book Club was the perspective it was written from. It is third person omniscient so the narrator knows what everyone is thinking, yet it is written in the first person so the narrator is repeatedly saying, "WE" did this and "WE" thought that. The narrator is never identified as any one of the characters and in the end the best the reader can do is to assume the narrator is some nebulous collective psyche. The other alternative is that the narrator is Jane Austen herself, since she is the only other "person" there who is not one of the main characters- but if that was the intention, it was unclear and presumptuous.


Reviews
Patricia T O'Connor of The New York Times Book Review said of this book,
"This exquisite novel is bigger and more ambitious than it appears... Fowler's shrewdest, funniest fiction yet, a novel about how we engage with a novel. You don't have to be a student of Jane Austen to enjoy it, either...Lovers of Austen will relish this book, but I envy any reader who comes to it unfamiliar with her. There's no better introduction."

Wow. I don't even know where to start. What a load of crap. Sorry. But it's true. If this not-funny-at-all book is her funniest, pity the reader who's read any of her other work. I am a lover of Jane Austen books and I did not enjoy this at all. The book discussions were minimal and they assumed you have a working knowledge and memory of every single one of the books. Not only that, but the people trail in and out of points they're making as if you, the reader, are expected to be able to finish their thoughts on your own, they are so obvious to the author. Anyone who has not read at least some of the books will be lost during every book discussion the club has. To say "there's no better introduction" to Jane Austen is tantamount to saying, "Hey. I found some old rotton produce at the bottom of the vegetable bin. Let's serve that as the appetizer to all our guests. Then when we bring out the main course they will be REALLY excited to dig in." Please. I hope that nobody anywhere reads this before reading Austen's own works. I would hate to think that they would forever have this book associated with her books. In short, I would not recommend this book to anyone. At all. Ever.