Seeing the Colors of the Suffrage Movement

As I've given a couple versions of my suffrage tour, I've been grateful that people have reminded me and asked questions that bring women of color into the story. Their contributions are often overlooked, but people of color were vital in the struggle for the 19th amendment, not to mention the continuing fight for civil rights that would follow the decades after the passage of the 19th amendment.

One of the African American heroines of suffrage and women's rights is Ida B. Wells, who had to fight to be included when many white women were uncomfortable with that and actively worked against it. This article details a bit of her struggle with Frances Willard, leader of the temperance anti-alcohol movement.

This article introduced me to Frances Ellen Watkins Harper, who I didn't know anything about until I read the article last week. That article also goes into detail on the many descendants of slaves who were involved in the suffrage and civil rights fights.

D.C. natives should learn more about Mary Church Terrell, a D.C. heroine of the struggle for equal treatment of restaurants decades before the sit-ins and lunch counter protests of the 1960s. The Washington Post did a series of articles on her struggle to enforce D.C.'s anti-discrimination laws in the early 20th century, which can be found here and here.

I wish I knew more about women of color involved in the Mormon suffrage movement. So far, the only thing I have seen was this brief Twitter post on Elizabeth Taylor, a Utah African American suffragist. Would love to know more about her and others like her, so if you know of any resources, hit me up!

American Women Voted in the 18th Century!

Continuing my series on random facts about Women's suffrage.

You may know that the 19th amendment to the US Constitution was ratified in 1920. If you're really up on your history, you'll know that many states had already granted women the right to vote before that (the first state was Wyoming, which entered the Union as a state in 1890 when its women had been voting in the territory for 20 years). So, women have been American voters in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries.

But, I can bet that you didn't know that there were American women who voted in the 18th Century! When the New Jersey constitution was adopted in 1776, it promised voting rights to "all free inhabitants." While American laws may have had gender neutral language, not many women were aware of this language and we don't know if many of them voted.

Interestingly, Joseph Cooper, a Quaker, sponsored language to add "he or she" to the election codes of the state in 1790. I'll note here that the Quakers were one of the few egalitarian religions in the U.S. at the time - they let women vote on church matters and speak in meetings. A lot of early suffragists were Quakers, because they had public speaking experience.

In 1797, a group of women marched to the polls to vote, and nearly defeated a candidate for the legislature. It caused an uproar among newspaper journalists at the time. They portrayed the women as either ignorant or controlled by their husbands. That same man who was nearly defeated later sponsored legislation to restrict voting rights to males only, which was passed by the New Jersey legislature in 1807.

Unfortunately, it would take another 113 years after that 1807 law for all American women to be guaranteed the right to vote in America. But I think it's cool to learn about some women who voted in the early days of our country.

(Source: A History of the American Suffrage Movement, Doris Weatherford, Pages 9-11)

Hope and Politics

Sigh. I really don't want to begin every blog post for the next three and a half years bemoaning the current state of politics, but right now it seems like that is a real possibility. My consolation (if you can call it that) is that right now President Trump's ineptitude is trumping his malevolence (see what I did there?). He hasn't really been able to accomplish a whole lot, but that doesn't mean that he won't accomplish some bad things in the next few years. He certainly wants to limit immigration, give tax cuts to the rich, and capitulate to Russia, but...maybe he won't be able to figure out how.

That's not to say there aren't bad things happening: re-igniting the war on drugs (which hasn't worked), rolling back environmental protections that ensure our air & water are clean, continuing efforts to roll back health care progress, etc. All of that is taking place in an environment of toxic partisanship that seems to suck the oxygen out of any healthy debate based on facts.

So it seems strange to be composing a blog post about Hope in light of the fact that our politics are pretty terrible right now. But I see signs that our system is fighting back against the worst excesses of Trumpism.* Murkowski, Collins, and McCain were able to stop a truly heinous health care bill, hopefully giving us an opportunity to reflect, consider, and fix the very real problems with Obamacare. Congress passed (and the President reluctantly signed) sanctions on Russia that send a signal we won't roll over when our democracy is attacked. The courts are a mixed bag, but they did strike down the first Muslim ban, and I'm hopeful the Supreme Court will ultimately strike down the second, more limited ban. Even the Defense Department has pushed back against the President's ban on transgender service members. Robert Mueller seems to be conducting a thorough investigation of potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Journalists are working hard to ferret out truth, despite an administration determined to fame flames of falsehood.

It's probably just some default setting of my personality, but I feel like there are reasons for hope. Even if it's just hope that Trump's ignorance and ineptitude will continue to triumph over bad intentions, it's still hope. There are still good people in both parties, and currently only about a third of Americans approve of Trump's job performance, giving me hope that people are starting to see through the sham of Donald Trump. A weak and ineffective President can still do damage, but I'm hoping that the continued and sustained pressure of Americans will constrain the damage as much as possible.

The history of America is filled with terrible things happening, but I'm hopeful that it's an arc that bends towards justice and goodness, as long as WE bend it that way. HOPEfully, progress is still possible. I recently saw the Groundhog Day musical, and I liked one of the choruses, which is about how the sun will eventually come up, and spring will arrive:



* I refuse to conflate Trumpism with the Republican party. I may disagree with conservatives, but some principled conservatives spoke out and are speaking out about Trumpism. See Mitt Romney, Jeff Flake, Bill Kristol, and so many others. I strongly disagree with conservatives on many points, but it's sad that the Republican party has been taken over by spineless hacks of Trumpism. I hope their reign may be brief, and the right regains its sanity.

WWJD? When Prioritizing Christians Isn't Christian

Note: I'm aware that this post falls into the category of conflating my personal views with the gospel, something I don't like when my Republican Mormon friends do it with other issues. As always, I speak for myself and my own personal interpretation of the scriptures. If you have a different view, I welcome a rational and reasoned debate about it.

So, unless you've been on a social media/news media blackout, you know that President Donald Trump (ugh, sorry. First time I've typed those words. Give me a minute...).

Ahem, as I was saying: President Trump recently signed an executive order temporarily banning people from 7 Muslim-majority countries (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen) from entering the United States and prioritizing minority religious groups in future admissions to the U.S. President Trump has made clear that his reasons for doing this are to limit the number of Muslim immigrants to the country and increase the number of persecuted Christians who can enter the U.S.

Now, can helping Christians ever be un-Christian? In my view, yes, this currently policy is against the tenants of the Bible, Book of Mormon, and my personal religious views as Christian.

Let's start out by taking it as a given that there are many persecuted Christians whose plight is frightful. I don't in any way diminish the very real (and very horrible) suffering of my Christian brothers and sisters. They deserve our assistance and aid. However, I think in saying that they have suffered more and are more deserving than our Muslim brothers and sisters, we risk our American belief that "all men are created equal" and our Christian belief in the equality of all before God. Just because someone is Christian doesn't mean that they have suffered more than a Muslim refugee fleeing the terrors of ISIS in Syria or Al-queda in Iraq.

The Bible has numerous calls to care for the stranger among us. These calls don't excuse us from this responsibility if the stranger has a different religious view than us. In fact, Jesus explicitly taught that Jews and Samaritans, heirs to a bitter religious conflict, were neighbors and should help each other (see Luke 10:25-37).

I'd like to discuss some of the pro- and anti- immigration ban arguments and why I find them problematic, below.

Pro-immigration ban argument #1: This is temporary, and necessary for our safety while we put additional screening measures in place to ensure immigrants are not terrorists in disguise.
My Response: Refugees already undergo a rigorous screening process. In can take 2-3 years for someone to get to the U.S. as a refugee, and we can choose who we accept and reject. Further, I would argue that we can never remove all risk from the equation. Yes, we may inadvertently let in someone who may be dangerous, but this is not sufficient reason to turn away from many millions of innocent people who are suffering. A free multi-cultural society will always have risks, but the benefits of loving and helping others outweigh these risks. I would also argue that this ban is likely to play into terrorists' hands by giving them propaganda that the U.S. does hate Muslims - thus, this ban is likely to make America less safe.

Pro-immigration ban argument #2: We have already admitted too many immigrants/refugees, and we can't be a dumping ground for the world - even if I admit that we have a responsibility to help, there are limits and we can't help everyone.
My Response: Last year we admitted only 82,000 refugees (12,000 of them from Syria). This is in a population of over 300 million in the U.S., which works out to a very small percentage of our society. Germany has accepted over 1 million refugees out of a population of 80 million. Yes, there are limits to what we can do, but I would argue that we have not yet exhausted our resources of compassion and kindness by admitting only 80,000 refugees.

Anti-immigration ban argument #1: This ban does not target countries whose citizens have actually committed terror attacks against U.S. citizens (Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.).
My Response: Even if it did target those countries instead of the countries Trump has banned, it would still be wrong. Unilaterally saying that all citizens of a certain nation are banned because of the actions of a few is morally repugnant. We cannot blame innocent people for the actions of people who kill them as often as they kill us (for that matter, "us vs. them" is not a good construct).

Anti-immigration ban argument #2: This ban is un-American and not consistent with our history.
My Response: Actually, this ban *is* consistent with our history - we limited Chinese immigration during the railroad expansion of the 19th century, interned Japanese during WWII, and turned away Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust. This argument doesn't acknowledge that, at various times in our past, we have not been true to the inscription on Lady Liberty to give us your poor, tired, hungry masses yearning to breathe free. We must acknowledge that our current call to open our doors to refugees *is* different than our history - we are hopefully progressing and becoming a more open and compassionate society.

Ultimately this ban will keep out translators who assisted U.S. forces in Iraq. It will keep out Syrians who fled Isis. It will keep out Yazidis who fled persecution and torture. This ban is immoral and wrong, and against what I believe this country should stand for. If Jesus were here, I can't believe he would turn away from the suffering refugees. He was one, who fled to Egypt to escape Harrod's slaughter of children.

I couldn't cover every argument, but here are some more well-written posts on this topic:
On Moral Issues and Trump and This is Not Us - By Common Consent Blog
Interfaith Letter to President Trump - Interfaith Immigration Coalition
Trump's Refugee Ban Clashes with Faith-Based Groups' Religious Mission - NPR

If you're wondering what you can do, here are my suggestions:
- Speak to your friends about this. Listen to them, and try to convince them that this ban is wrong.
- Write and call your congressman, Senators, and other representatives. Let your voice be heard in standing up to this policy. Hold them accountable if they don't act against it.
- Volunteer your time (and contribute your money if you can) to a local organization helping refugees in your community.

This Time is Different (Or, Why I Hope I’m Really Really Wrong)

The Presidential Election of 2000 was nothing if not hard fought. George Bush and Al Gore had a vitriolic  campaign (well, as much as Al Gore can be vitriolic…he’s kind of a sleeper). After two Supreme Court decisions, hanging chads, and a mismatch between the popular vote and the electoral college, there was a lot of pain (some of which echoes to this day). When hearing about the ultimate outcome on the radio that fall, many weeks after the election, I was disappointed but not necessarily surprised. I had been pro-Gore, but accepted the outcome and hoped for the best.

Next time around, my first vote in a Presidential election was for a loser. I voted absentee for John Kerry in 2004, while I was in the Missionary Training Center (MTC) preparing to serve my mission. I was super excited, mostly because I was VOTING (*nerd alert*), but also because I didn’t particularly care for then-President Bush. Then, on the day I actually flew from the MTC to my mission, it ended up being Election Day. As we all sat down for a meal with all the missionaries who had trained with me, our Mission President (leader of missionaries in a given area) said that he had “great news” and President Bush had been re-elected.

Don’t get me wrong, that SUCKED. I was disappointed President Bush had been re-elected, and sad that I had to spend that day with a bunch of Republicans, when I would have rather spent it with my family and friends more sympathetic to the Democratic cause. But I didn’t feel an immobilized by it, or terrified, or disheartened for days. I shrugged it off and moved on with my life, knowing we’d live to fight another day. Since then, I’ve been more lucky, having voted for Obama twice.

But on Wednesday night as I drove home from work, I cried. Heaving and gasping sobs. I feel like I need to articulate why this loss mattered (and hurt) so much more than the others. This time is different. This time, my fellow Americans had elected a man so horrifically unqualified that it hurt. It hurt to think that this man would be representing me and representing this country I love so much. It hurt to think that over 50 million Americans either didn’t know or didn’t care what he is, and voted for him anyway. 

I’ve decided to narrow it down to three reasons why this loss hurt so much. It’s not a comprehensive list, but here it is. Mr. Trump is unfit to serve in the presidency due to his (1) blatant dishonesty, (2) mistreatment of women, and (3) xenophobia/Islamophobia. I’ve tried to support these with evidence as much as I’m aware. These issues are the reason I’m so distraught at the outcome of the election.

First, blatant dishonesty. During debates and public speeches Mr. Trump displayed strikingly little knowledge of current events or historical context and little or no willingness to learn, but he also repeatedly lied. He lied about things that were easily disproved, he lied about his opponent’s record, and he lied about his own record. Politifact, the fact checking service, rated 19% of his statements “mostly false,” 34% of his statements “false,” and 17% of his statements as “pants on fire,” the most mendacious rating. How can we trust this man to lead us when he lies so constantly and so blatantly? He does not have any shred of integrity.

Second, his mistreatment of women. We are all aware of his comments on the Access Hollywood tape, where he bragged about assaulting women. He also stated on the Howard Stern show that he liked walking in on naked women participating in his beauty pageant. His Twitter feed provides ample evidence of his views regarding women. He re-tweeted a nasty photo of Ted Cruz’s wife. To me, one of the most terrible example was his Tweet regarding Meagan Kelly, a Fox News journalist who had the audacity to ask him tough questions. His response was to say she was disgusting and must have asked these questions because she was menstruating. In his speeches and actions, Mr. Trump has displayed a disregard for women and made clear that he values them only for their attractiveness.

Third, his xenophobia and Islamophia. Mr. Trump kicked off his campaign by stating that Mexico is deliberately sending us rapists and murderers. He’s called repeatedly for a wall to keep out immigrants (which is cost prohibitive and wouldn’t work anyway). He said that he would ban all Muslims from the country, a blatantly discriminatory practice (which he later amended to “extreme vetting,” whatever that means). He refers to “radical Islamic terrorism,” thus giving the terrorists exactly what they want. Saying the phrase radical Islamic terrorism doesn’t mean you have a plan to actually fight terrorism, it just means that you are willing to let an entire religion practiced by 1.6 billion people be defined by a few thousand extremists.

For these and so many reasons, Donald Trump is not fit to serve as President, and it horrifies me that he will. Some have suggested that his campaign was full of bluster and that he doesn’t really want to deport immigrants or ban Muslims. They suggest that his daughter Ivanka is evidence that he supports women in the workplace and he doesn’t really disrespect women. But that, to me, only makes it worse – it means that he deliberately stoked the flames of racism, misogyny, and hatred in order to win this campaign. Even if he doesn’t believe those things, he didn’t have the decency or integrity to stand up to those horrible forces. Others have suggested that he’ll be checked by our separation of powers and checks on government overreach. I hope and pray that is so, but he can still wield enormous power as President and that depresses me. He has also displayed a striking regard for authoritarian leaders such as Putin, which makes me doubtful that he would accept a Supreme Court decision that goes against him. While I did (and do) disagree with John McCain and Mitt Romney, they were fundamentally decent men trying to serve their country. I can't say the same about Donald Trump with any confidence.

I know there’s a time for coming together. I get that this emotional reaction won’t last – that I can’t let it control me. I understand that we have work to do, to heal this country and bridge the deep divides among us and I need to be a part of that. Something inside me knows that this is not the end of the world and the sun will rise and we will move forward somehow. But for now, I mourn – I mourn that this man will be President for the next four years. I mourn that this behavior didn’t automatically disqualify him from the presidency in the eyes of the voters. For the first time in my life, I hope and pray that I am really really wrong about something. I hope that he won’t govern from a place of fear, that he’ll learn humility and reach out to those in pain. I hope that he isn’t as black as I’m painting him. But nothing that I have seen so far gives me confidence that that outcome will occur or that he actually has compassion for the downtrodden he says he wants to help. Forgive my cynicism while I cry a little bit that America has come to this.

In the words of Tom Hanks in a classic movie I love, here’s what I’m gonna do for now: 

Well, I'm gonna get out of bed every morning... breathe in and out all day long. Then, after a while I won't have to remind myself to get out of bed every morning and breathe in and out... 

Hugs, anyone?

Road Trip!!! (Part 1)

This year my post-busy season road trip took me to Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. I got to visit some amazing historical sites and see some beautiful fall foliage. While you enjoy this visual history of my trip, take a listen to Eleanor Roosevelt's favorite song (we'll get to Eleanor, don't get ahead of yourself):


My first stop was the new LDS church history site in Susquehanna, Pennsylvania. The Church has rebuilt Emma Smith's childhood home and the cabin that she and Joseph lived in as newlyweds. I had a tour all to myself, led by two lovely sister missionaries. It was interesting to see some of the historical documents they had on display in the visitor's center, including a handwritten ordination license - written by Oliver Cowdery for Joseph Smith. It reminds me of my missionary authorization card, stating that I was an authorized representative of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It's awesome to think that comes from the same power and authority that was restored by Joseph Smith. (Note 1)

 It was a BEAUTIFUL day, so I walked a bit down by the Susquehanna river to see the leaves. In this river in 1829, Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith baptized each other.

After that, it was lots more driving to get up the the Finger Lakes area of New York.  Below is a picture of the lovely leaves. Pictures don't do it justice.

Staying overnight in the Finger Lakes area, I headed to Rochester, NY the next day. I stopped at Rochester cemetery. It was pouring rain and the grave was not well marked, but I did manage to find the final resting place of Frederick Douglass, who was not only an abolitionist  but also a strong supporter of women's suffrage.

Which leads to Susan B. Anthony's humble gravesite. Apparently in her will she designated only $25 for her tombstone, with the rest of her inheritance going to The Cause. Her family are buried nearby, and I liked that her parents' tomb had the following four words (one on each side): Liberty - Humanity - Equality - Justice. That sums up the message of the Anthony family pretty well.

 After the cemetery, I visited Susan's home in Rochester, which has become a museum. I was there right when they opened so I got a tour all to myself with a docent named Susan! Susan B. Anthony was a unique individual who was just in the right place at the right time - she was unbelievably hardworking and dedicated to progressive causes, and I owe her so much. In a letter to her mother in 1848 regarding abolition, she wrote: "Though the good folks call us crazy fanatics now, the day will come when they must acknowledge their stupidity." Susan would go on to lead the women's rights movement, fighting battles for women's rights to their property, and education, and their children. I learned that Susan met Harriet Tubman at one point - wouldn't it have been SO AMAZING to be a fly on that wall? Those are two impressive and impassioned ladies! In 1873, this house was the scene of Susan's arrest for the crime of ... voting. The U.S. Marshal came to arrest her in this parlor. Ever the egalitarian, she demanded the Marshal put handcuffs on her too because he would have done it for a man (he declined). Susan had voted because she wanted to test the theory that the 14th and 15th Amendments gave ALL citizens the right to vote because the amendments didn't mention gender. The presiding Judge asked her: "You presented yourself as a female, claiming you had a right to vote?" She responded: "I presented myself not as a female, sir, but as a citizen of the United States." After a brief trial, she was convicted and sentenced to pay $100, which she never paid.

 A park near her home has a statute of her and Frederick Douglass (which someone had outfitted with cutesy caps and a banner for Hillary Rodham Clinton). Susan wrote in 1900 that "When I am called home, if there exist an immortal spirit, mine will still be with you, watching and inspiring you." She didn't live to see the passage of the amendment (which she had written with Elizabeth Cady Staunton) that finally gave women the right to vote, but I like to think she was cheering them on from the spirit world. In her life history, she wrote "Cautious, careful people...can never bring about reform. Those who are really in earnest must be willing to...avow their sympathy with despised and persecuted ideas...and bear the consequences." I admire that - be bold, and do what is right!

 Traveling back to the Finger Lakes from Rochester, the weather forecast predicted a short two hour span without rain, so I hurried to take advantage of that and walk through Watkins Glen state park. It was like being in a splendidly beautiful fall fairy tale. Watkins Glen is a gorge with a river running through it - it has a bunch of waterfalls that are magical.

 Next day brought more rain and a visit to Seneca Falls, NY, where the first women's rights convention was held. Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Staunton had formed a friendship a few years earlier when both weren't allowed to speak or sit with other delegates at the World Anti-Slavery Convention because they were women. Of the five women responsible for planning the convention, only one thought that a list of the women's demands should include the right to vote. I'm glad Elizabeth Cady Staunton was bold enough to hold on to that demand and include it. She also penned the Declaration of Sentiments, an inspired reworking of the Declaration of Independence boldly declaring that all men AND WOMEN are created equal.

Wesleyan Chapel in Seneca Falls, site of the first Women's Rights Convention in 1848

Seneca Falls was where Elizabeth Cady Staunton lived with her family for a while. From everything I've read, she was another inspired individual in the right place at the right time. She was a genius scholar and legal mind (as a teenager she cut out laws she didn't like from her father's law library) and had a wicked sense of humor and great heart. Her kids were holy terrors, though (they nailed their brother's clothes to the roof...with him inside them). She wrote many of the tracts and speeches that Susan B. Anthony was able to go out and deliver because she was single and childless. They were the dream team of women's rights, supported by an army of women who don't get enough credit (someday I'll write blog posts about all of them).

On a fateful day in 1851, a mutual friend of both ladies introduced Elizabeth Cady Staunton  to Susan B. Anthony, which is commemorated with a statute in Seneca Falls. For the next 50 years, they would form the backbone of a movement to transform the status of women in America. When it began, women were discouraged from speaking in public, let alone voting or getting a college education.

 After Seneca Falls, I had another long drive ahead of me, so I stopped in Auburn, NY to visit Harriet Tubman's Home for the Infirm. Harriet Tubman is the ultimate heroine. She was born in slavery and walked to freedom, then returned, risking her life to help others escape. She wrote in 1854, "Tell my brothers to be always watching unto prayer, and when the good old ship of Zion comes along, to be ready to step on board." Harriet was one of those people who seized opportunities to help herself and others. She retired to Auburn after a career as a conductor on the Underground Railroad and nurse/spy for the Union army during the Civil War. She was one tough cookie, and she was also kind - here in Auburn she built a home for poor old people with no place else to go, and provided them food, clothing, and health care.

Harriet Tubman Home for the Infirm

Harriet Tubman's home on the right, her barn on the left.

There is plenty more to my road trip, but the Cubs have won the World Series, all's right with the world, and I'll finish this tomorrow.

Note 1: Mormons believe that the priesthood authority to act in the name of God was restored to the Prophet Joseph Smith by angelic visitations, which occurred at or near this site. Thus, it's called the Priesthood Restoration Site.

Let's Get Mythical

If you're not Mormon or conservative and you don't live in Utah, you may never have heard of Evan McMullin, an independent who is running for President of the United States. He is a Mormon and (former?) Republican with an impressive set of policy proposals. From everything I've read about him, he seems like a decent guy. However, I've noticed a trend among McMullin voters, most of whom have a strong antipathy towards both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Many McMullin voters say that it feels good to cast their vote for "someone of integrity" who they have faith in.

I don't want to disparage that, and I fully support your right to vote however you choose, but there's something of a "this candidate is perfect" flavor to some of the pro-McMullin comments this year (not all). The truth is, it's very easy for Evan McMullin to be a perfect conservative, because he's never held elective office and never had to compromise. He's never been part of the inevitable horse-trading that goes on among those *sordid* politicians with "records." That's not to say that he doesn't believe what he says - it's entirely possible that he is 100% sincere in his beliefs, but the truth is that those beliefs have never been tested by the crucible of actual responsibility.

All of this hoopla reminds me of the satirical news story about the Perfect Republican Candidate. The reason that's a joke: there is no perfect candidate because there are no perfect humans currently on the earth (other than my mom and dad, but they're not currently interested in running). There simply isn't a candidate who perfectly believes everything you believe unless YOU are running. Elections are about choices and they are about viable choices. The simple truth is that we in the U.S. have a winner take all system, and that means that there are only two viable candidates for president this year: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. 

One of these people has the experience and temperament to be president, and one clearly does not. Some (and only some) of the antipathy towards Clinton is that she is a typical politician. She changes her policy positions, cozies up to the rich and powerful, and is ambitious. But to suggest that Clinton and Trump are equally bad is to suggest a false equivalence that is staggering in its ignorance. Clinton is a politician, yes, and she has a penchant for secrecy and power (although I personally don't think she's any worse that any other politician in this respect). She was wrong to use a private email server, and has admitted that it was wrong. But she IS a typical politician with respect to the separation of powers and commitment to decency. She's worked to pass bills like the Children's Health Insurance Program and was a decent Senator for New York and worked hard as Secretary of State. 

Is Hillary perfect? No. Is she likely to do things you disagree with? Absolutely (and that's true for everyone). But she is NOT a narcissistic ignoramus who insults anyone who challenges her, which is a whole lot more than I can say for Trump. I can't imagine Trump as President - please please please please please don't let it happen. Don't let the mythical idea of a perfect candidate keep you from voting for flawed candidate who could win.

Here are some articles which make the anti-Trump case stronger than I can:

The Comprehensive Case Against Donald Trump

Speak Truth to Trump

Decency for President

And of course, John Oliver's epic take-down (definitely PG-13, with lots of language):

Of course, being Anti-Trump isn't enough for some people to vote for Hillary - I respect your right to vote for McMullin if that's the case. But please don't pretend that somehow makes you better than other people for choosing a mythic perfect candidate.

October Optimization

This particular Molly Mormon Democrat can't bring herself to blog about politics when a certain Orange-American is leading in polls for the Republican nomination. When the electorate comes to its senses, she'll be back in the stateship saddle.  In the meantime, here is a post about one of her other loves, Autumn.

Last weekend I spent two days hiking and glorying in the beauties of Virginia autumn along Skyline Drive in the Shenandoah. I spent most of the time alternating between reciting/composing poetry, and laughing at my pretentiousness for reciting/composing poetry. Here are some of my pictures, poems I half remembered during my rambles, and at the end, one of the poems I composed as I hiked (apologies in advance).  If you need a soundtrack to listen to while reading, might I humbly suggest Eva Cassidy's Falling Leaves?

Dark hills against a hollow crocus sky

Scarfed with its crimson pennons, and below 

The dome of sunset long, hushed valleys lie

Cradling the twilight, where the lone winds blow 

And wake among the harps of leafless trees 

Fantastic runes and mournful melodies. 

The chilly purple air is threaded through

With silver from the rising moon afar, 

And from a gulf of clear, unfathomed blue

In the southwest glimmers a great gold star 

Above the darkening druid glens of fir 

Where beckoning boughs and elfin voices stir. 

And so I wander through the shadows still,

And look and listen with a rapt delight, 

Pausing again and yet again at will

To drink the elusive beauty of the night, 

Until my soul is filled, as some deep cup, 

That with divine enchantment is brimmed up. 

(An Autumn Evening, L.M. Montgomery)

Let the mountains shout for joy, and all ye valleys cry aloud; and all ye seas and dry lands tell the wonders of your Eternal King! And ye rivers, and brooks, and rills, flow down with gladness. Let the woods and all the trees of the field praise the Lord; and ye solid rocks weep for joy! And let the sun, moon, and the morning stars sing together, and let all the sons of God shout for joy! And let the eternal creations declare his name forever and ever! 

(Revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith, canonized in 

Mormon scripture as Doctrine & Covenants 128:23)

The leaves are falling, falling as if from far up,

as if orchards were dying high in space.

Each leaf falls as if it were motioning "no."

And tonight the heavy earth is falling

away from all other stars in the loneliness.

We're all falling. This hand here is falling.

And look at the other one. It's in them all.

And yet there is Someone, whose hands

infinitely calm, holding up all this falling. 

(Autumn, Rainer Maria Rilke)

O world, I cannot hold thee close enough!

Thy winds, thy wide grey skies!

Thy mists, that roll and rise!

Thy woods, this autumn day, that ache and sag

And all but cry with colour! That gaunt crag

To crush! To lift the lean of that black bluff!

World, World, I cannot get thee close enough!

Long have I known a glory in it all,

But never knew I this;

Here such a passion is

As stretcheth me apart,—Lord, I do fear

Thou’st made the world too beautiful this year;

My soul is all but out of me,—let fall

No burning leaf; prithee, let no bird call.

(God's World, Edna St. Vincent Millay)

The name—of it—is 'Autumn'—

The hue—of it—is Blood—

An Artery—upon the Hill—

A Vein—along the Road—

Great Globules—in the Alleys—

And Oh, the Shower of Stain—

When Winds—upset the Basin—

And spill the Scarlet Rain—

It sprinkles Bonnets—far below—

It gathers ruddy Pools—

Then—eddies like a Rose—away—

Upon Vermilion Wheels— 

(The Name-of it-is 'Autumn,' Emily Dickinson)

Go, sit upon the lofty hill,

And turn your eyes around,

Where waving woods and waters wild

Do hymn an autumn sound.

The summer sun is faint on them —

The summer flowers depart —

Sit still — as all transform’d to stone,

Except your musing heart.

How there you sat in summer-time,

May yet be in your mind;

And how you heard the green woods sing

Beneath the freshening wind.

Though the same wind now blows around,

You would its blast recall;

For every breath that stirs the trees,

Doth cause a leaf to fall.

Oh! like that wind, is all the mirth

That flesh and dust impart:

We cannot bear its visitings,

When change is on the heart.

Gay words and jests may make us smile,

When Sorrow is asleep;

But other things must make us smile,

When Sorrow bids us weep!

The dearest hands that clasp our hands, —

Their presence may be o’er;

The dearest voice that meets our ear,

That tone may come no more!

Youth fades; and then, the joys of youth,

Which once refresh’d our mind,

Shall come — as, on those sighing woods,

The chilling autumn wind.

Hear not the wind — view not the woods;

Look out o’er vale and hill —

In spring, the sky encircled them —

The sky is round them still.

Come autumn’s scathe — come winter’s cold —

Come change — and human fate!

Whatever prospect Heaven doth bound,

Can ne’er be desolate.

(The Autumn, Elizabeth Barrett Browning)

O hushed October morning mild,

Thy leaves have ripened to the fall;

Tomorrow’s wind, if it be wild,

Should waste them all.

The crows above the forest call;

Tomorrow they may form and go.

O hushed October morning mild,

Begin the hours of this day slow.

Make the day seem to us less brief.

Hearts not averse to being beguiled,

Beguile us in the way you know.

Release one leaf at break of day;

At noon release another leaf;

One from our trees, one far away.

Retard the sun with gentle mist;

Enchant the land with amethyst.

Slow, slow!

For the grapes’ sake, if they were all,

Whose leaves already are burnt with frost,

Whose clustered fruit must else be lost—

For the grapes’ sake along the wall.

(October, Robert Frost)

Nature’s first green is gold,

Her hardest hue to hold.

Her early leaf’s a flower;

But only so an hour.

Then leaf subsides to leaf.

So Eden sank to grief,

So dawn goes down to day.

Nothing gold can stay.

(Nothing Gold Can Stay, Robert Frost)

Downhill, is glorious 

A shouted hymn of praise towards

Nature, and nature's God.

Uphill, is terrible

A whispered curse of labored 

Ragged breath.

Down, Up, Down, Up, 

Mingling the praise and curses

Amidst crunching leaves.

Honey gold to crimson red,

Leaves spiral in the wind

Pulling me down the path.

Grateful, I remember the wonder that is 

My body - this flawed, strong thing.

Its imperfections still allow me to ascend.

I wonder, wandering

If the poet's right, that 

"Nothing gold can stay."

Perhaps, if I leave my doubts, anxieties,

misgivings, to sit and mellow,

They will change to gold.

Then turn to brown, and fall, 

Winter's carpet, preparing

The way for new beginnings.

What will grow? 

If I let those things be? 

Leave them to turn to mulch.

Waiting, still and silent, for spring life.

What will grow? If I am patient?

I suppose it will depend on what I plant.

(Hiking, Me)

There's something ultimately magical about being alone in the forest, and breathing in the glories of nature.  I know I romanticize it, but I really do feel renewed and refreshed while I hike.  Which makes it that much harder to leave when it's over.  Thus, the frowny face when I leave the park behind:

Optimize your October - go outside and enjoy Autumn!

Kim, Gavin, and Martin: Breaking the Law to Save It

Where did August go? Lately my goal has been to blog once a month, but August was a total fail on that score. Here's to recommitting for fall!

The news these days has been abuzz with stories about Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who has refused to issue marriage licenses and been unwilling to comply with the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision authorizing gay marriage everywhere in the United States. To some she has become a hero of the right to religious freedom, to others she is a pariah of backwardness.

As Mrs. Davis has been in the news, I couldn't help but think of Gavin Newsom. In case you've forgotten, Mr. Newsom was mayor of San Francisco several years ago, and in 2004 he directed his city clerks to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, in violation of California state law at that time. In a sense, he is the anti-Kim Davis.

It's interesting to me that your position on gay marriage likely colors how you view both Mr. Newsom and Mrs. Davis, even though they are both doing the same thing - breaking the law because it violates their moral principles. It's also interesting that both individuals have expressed a strong sense of faith (Mr. Newsom is Catholic, Mrs. Davis is a self-described Apostolic Christian). These individuals have reminded me of one of our country's most famous law breakers in the name of religion and conscience: Martin Luther King.

Dr. King's "Letter From Birmingham Jail" remains one of the best explications of breaking the law to save it that I've ever read (and it's probably a better use of your time to read it than this blog post). Here's an excerpt that I thought applied to the current situation:

One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

How then do we determine which laws to follow and which to break? Dr. King writes:

An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law.

Thus, if the presidential candidate I support loses the election, and I had a right to vote and participate in the democratic process behind that, I still have to obey the laws signed by that president. This gets trickier, though, in light of a Supreme Court decision that was not made by democratically elected leaders. One of the main arguments of the anti-gay marriage groups seems to be that the Supreme Court cannot make laws, as they were not democratically elected. I've been disturbed by some of this rhetoric, as it could lead to a lack of respect for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that we disagree with. But I think this goes back to what Dr. King said about the law binding everybody - the majority and the minority.

For example, the marriage licenses issued by Gavin Newsom's clerks were ultimately invalidated by the California courts. In other words, the law should apply equally to everyone - if you believe the law is unjust, work hard to change the law, and be willing to accept the penalties of breaking the law. Current polls suggest that most Americans support gay marriage (55% according to the Pew Research Center's data). How do we square that with peoples' religious beliefs on gay marriage? I think we are all still working that out.

In typical me fashion, I hope we can have respect for both the Gavin Newsoms and Kim Davises of the world. They are doing right as they see the right. Further, they are my brothers and my sisters. My duty is to love them and seek to understand them rather than demonizing them or belittling their sincerely held beliefs. I close with some more of the words of another brother, Dr. King, who asks us some important questions.

But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . ." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?

(Un) American Heroes

I read an article many years ago (either in the Bloggernacle or maybe BYU's Political Review) which talked about the futility of comparing the society in the Book of Mormon to our modern day politics because of the vast differences in our society. While I didn't agree with all of it, it's certainly a valid point that the largely agrarian and tribal society in the Book of Mormon is vastly different than our industrialized democratic republic here in the U.S.

One example of this is Captain Moroni, who is a hero in the Book of Mormon's war chapters. Mormon, the editor of the Book of Mormon, shows Captain Moroni some serious love when he writes: "Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men" (Alma 48:17). Mormon obviously thought Moroni was a hero, and portrayed him as such. With all that, it's no surprise that Mormon named his son Moroni, and generations of church members have looked to Captain Moroni as the paragon of virtue and righteousness.

But if we look closely at the record, Captain Moroni is in some ways a dangerous example to promote when we talk about current political affairs. He executed people who didn't agree with him (Alma 46:34-35, 51:14-20). He also had a vast impatience with anyone who didn't do exactly what he wanted when he wanted it (see Alma 60). In many ways, Captain Moroni saw the world in very black and white terms, which is useful if you're fighting an enemy that wants to kill you and drink your blood, but isn't very useful if you're trying to take part in a democracy where people will disagree with you.

Looking at modern day politics through Captain Moroni's lenses will cause us to see people as traitors if they disagree with us about political affairs. Captain Moroni threatened to lead an insurrection if the government didn't do what he wanted (Alma 60:27), even if the majority will disagreed with his policies, all the while claiming ironically "... I seek not for power, but to pull it down." (Alma 60:36). By seeking to "pull down" those leaders who didn't agree with his worldview, Captain Moroni was like an ancient version of Douglas MacArthur during the Korean war - critical of government policy and seeking to impose his military views on the political leaders of his time.

In America we believe in a secular society where military power is controlled by the civilian branches of government. We also separate government and religious action in order to allow all mankind to "...worship how, where, or what they may" (11th Article of Faith). These concepts would be foreign to Moroni and many in the Book of Mormon, who viewed government and religion as necessarily intertwined, and would likely not appreciated the checks and balances of the American political system. As I've stated before here, and for the reasons laid out much more eloquently here, I believe it's a good thing that America has religious freedom while also strictly separating church and state.

Ultimately, I believe the Book of Mormon teaches us very valuable principles. These principles can be applied differently by different people, and it's only right that in a society based on freedom we argue and debate the priority of various principles and how they apply to various situations. But to use a military leader from thousands of years ago as a political paragon ignores some of the more troubling aspects of his leadership. Hero worship is never a good thing, because humans are fallible and imperfect beings. And what I love about American government is that it recognizes this, and builds in checks and balances to guard against the imperfections in our temperaments.

We're still building America, as this one supremely idealistic scene from the TV show The West Wing reminds us:

Jeff Breckenridge: You got a dollar?
Josh Lyman: Yeah.
Jeff Breckenridge: Take it out. Look at the back. The seal, the pyramid, it's unfinished, with the eye of God looking over it, and the words annuit coeptis - he, god, favors our undertaking. The seal is meant to be unfinished, because this country's meant to be unfinished. We're meant to keep doing better. We're meant to keep discussing and debating. And, we're meant to read books by great historical scholars and then talk about them...
So, study Captain Moroni - be bold and valiant like he was, that's a good thing. But realize that some of his values were un-American, even if he is a hero, and keep building the America you want to see, with empathy for those who disagree and a respect for our constitutional system which guards your liberties, my liberties, and the liberties of all who live here.

Happy Independence Day!

Grinding the Faces of the Poor, and Other American Political Bloodsports

What mean ye that ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the 

faces of the poor? saith the Lord God of Hosts. (Isaiah 3:15)

Nothing makes me angrier than politicians who disparage poor people. It's an easy target, because poor people don't often vote, protest, or communicate with their elected officials. It's a simple way to show you are using government funds sparingly - making sure "undeserving" poor aren't using welfare funds to buy lobster or go a cruise.

The latest example is Kansas, which has recently enacted a law limiting the amount of cash which welfare recipients can withdraw from ATMs and forbidding welfare recipients from spending money on "exotic" entertainment, swimming pools, tattoos, or movies. Even more states are moving to drug test welfare recipients, even though the evidence shows these groups are not more likely to abuse drugs than the population at large. Similarly, government assistance with housing costs disproportionately goes to the mortgage interest deduction for the upper/middle class instead of housing vouchers for those in a lower socioeconomic status.

So, here are my reasons why we need to stop abusing the poor for using government benefits:
1) People using government benefits don't actually spend a large portion of their money on extravagances. Their spending habits aren't actually all that different from the rich or the middle class.
2) There's a myth that the poor are sponging off the rest of us taxpayers, but the truth is that poor people pay taxes too - in some cases more taxes than the rich. Further, government benefits do not allow you to live the high life, as reading this article will show you, people receiving welfare are hardly rich, and often only need temporary assistance to get through the lean times. They're you and me, not some "second class" of citizens who we can mock and disparage.
3) We all receive government benefits, and that doesn't give the government the right to tell us how to live our lives. Should the hedge fund manager be required to stop visiting a strip joint because he claims the mortgage interest deduction on his tax return? (In some cases for both his primary residence and vacation home?) What about the student who receives a low interest loan yet gets a tattoo? These are government benefits, just like food stamps, yet apparently it's okay for Kansas to tell welfare recipients how to spend their money, or for states to invade these people's privacy through requiring drug testing, but the government makes no similar provisions for the other benefactors of government largess.

Isaiah uses strong imagery to condemn those who trample the poor - they "grind their faces" - can you imagine if someone literally did that?  That's assault! Yet it's okay for politicians to condemn these people and figuratively grind their faces into the dust. This is political bloodsport, and IT IS WRONG. It makes me so very sad to think that this is acceptable behavior by politicians, who should be seeking to help these people lift themselves out of poverty, instead of stereotyping them and making life more difficult for them.

Suffragists Unite!

Let's start with what you already know about me: I'm a political nerd, feminist, and Mormon. All of these things motivated me to host a party in March with a theme of Women's History. Because I'm a political nerd, it focused on the struggle for women's suffrage. Because I'm a feminist, it focused on the women who fought for this right. Because I'm a Mormon, it had a food theme and cheesy decorations. Not wanting you, my online friends, to be left out of the fun, I decided to blog about it, so that you could host your very own suffrage party, should you desire to!

Any good party should have good food, and we had that in abundance. Our food theme was green, purple, and white.  Why, you ask?  Good question! These colors were some of the colors associated with women's suffrage. Green symbolized hope, purple represented dignity, and white stood for purity. So, we had cabbage salad (with purple and green/white cabbage), spinach and artichoke dip, smashed avocado, cucumber rolls with white cheese, peanut butter pie (dyed green and purple, of course), green jello with a white something and blackberries (it tasted much better than my description), and blackberry smoothies. My contribution was a cake which recreated a pennant on Wikipedia:

Next, decorations. These were not as pretty as I would have liked, but I ran out of time to make them beautiful so they were merely printouts and some black and white decorations done on butcher paper with a sharpie marker. We had an opportunity to take a "Suffrage Selfie" as you came in the front door:

Also at the front door were short booklets I made which celebrated the life of women suffragists of all different stripes, so that everyone could learn about an amazing American woman.

Our table centerpiece featured doll suffragettes, holding actual signs from the movement. 

We also had a wall showing "pro" and "con" documents/pictures from the early 1900's. Naturally, my favorite argument against women's suffrage was that it would lead to higher taxes.

There was also a large banner, recreating one of the banners that the Silent Sentinels held while picketing the White House during World War I.

The main event, however, was watching the movie "Iron Jawed Angels," which follows the stories of Alice Paul and Lucy Burns, two of the radicals who founded the National Women's Party, picketed the White House, and were eventually thrown in jail, where they staged a hunger strike. It's an intense and fascinating movie, and if you haven't seen it, I highly recommend viewing and/or purchasing it. While it's not rated, there's probably a few moments which are PG-13 in content, FYI.

For the week before the party, I spent time reading about women's suffrage and the women's rights movement of the late 1800's and early 1900's. I learned so much about courageous women who stood up and spoke for what they thought was right. These women are heroines and examples to me. One of the books I read noted that all too often, history books say that "women were granted the right to vote" - a passive sentence that diminishes the decades of struggle and thousands of women who devoted countless hours to the cause. I encourage you to learn more about them and their struggle for ALL OF US. Too often, women's history is forgotten or dismissed, but these women made our country and world a better place. It's up to us to remember them!

Some more resources for planning your Suffrage Party (let's get #SuffrageSelfie trending on twitter, eh?):

Smithsonian Folkways Album Songs of the Suffragettes (Recorded by Elizabeth Knight)

Monica Grabin's Album HerStory - American Women in Song

Wikipedia page about Women's Suffrage in the United States

I've posted the handouts I used here, along with the decorations here (note: copyright violations and factual inaccuracies are possible)

Your Local Library! (if it isn't chock full of books about Suffragettes, stage a protest)

Someone has helpfully uploaded the entire PBS Documentary One Woman One Vote to YouTube:

If you do host a suffrage party, post about your experience in the comments!  Or, feel free to link to stories about women who inspire you.

(Also, if you like this post, you may also enjoy this one and this one).