Thinking About Integrity

This morning, I've been thinking a lot about the idea of heroes. When we're children, we have a lot of heroes. For some people, a hero may be a parent, teacher, or favorite character. For example, a child might admire a firefighter, her first grade teacher, or a superhero like Spiderman or Superman.

As we get older though, our heroes start to become tarnished. The child may learn that the firefighter isn’t that heroic or may outgrow his admiration of Superman. As adults, we assume that everyone is tarnished, everyone is flawed and we stop admiring people who aren’t “perfect.” We stop believing in the idea of heroism, and we become cynical and jaded about human nature.

I think many of us still have an idealism about what a hero should be, but real life experience teaches us that there are no heroes because a real human can’t live up to the perfect ideal. Perhaps we need to change our definition of heroism. Maybe a hero is not a person without flaws. Instead, the true hero is someone who overcomes her or his flaws when doing so matters most.

Personally, I have four people I admire greatly. Three of my heroes are fairly well-known, while I don’t know the name of my fourth hero. For those who know me well, it won't be a surprise that my four heroes are members of the gay and lesbian community. My first hero is U.S. diver and Olympic gold medalist Greg Louganis. Mr. Louganis overcame so much to accomplish his diving records, and I admire the fact that he was flawed but still great. Anyone who hasn’t read is memoir “Breaking the Surface” should buy a copy and read it.

My second hero is Col. Greta Cammermeyer, the Army nurse who challenged “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” in the early 1990s. Col. Cammermeyer served with integrity, and her suit against the Army made her the highest-ranking officer to challenge that law. She later had an unsuccessful bid for Congress. Again, those who haven’t read “Serving in Silence,” the memoir of her service, should get a copy soon.

My third hero is Mark Bingham, one of the passengers on United Flight 93. Mr. Bingham was about my age and also born in Arizona. More importantly, he was among those passengers who rushed the hijackers and kept Flight 93 from reaching its target. I should also add that I respect his mother because she didn't let the media “whitewash” his story. That is, she made sure America knew that one of its 9/11 heroes was gay. I think too many parents would have tried to hide that fact, and I admire her for being true to Mr. Bingham’s memory.

My fourth hero is a woman whose name I have never known. However, her face is seared in my mind. Following the horrific 1989 earthquake in California when two sections of the freeway collapsed onto one another like pancakes, she was regularly shown on the news walking that stretch, tears streaming down her face, searching for her “friend.” I don't know if it's true, but I've heard in the years since then that she was looking for her lost partner. Of course, no news agency would say that in 1989, and I’ve never been able to find out what her name was or for whom she was searching. Whether or not she was actually a lesbian, her devotion and her sorrow will forever haunt my memory.

These four people were not perfect. They were human, which means they made mistakes, they had flaws, and they sometimes did things that weren't admirable. What sets them apart is that when it really mattered, they were true to themselves and they faced adversity with integrity. That's a model we all should follow. I wonder how many of us would have our legacies whitewashed and “straightened up” by those we leave behind?

Creatively Adrift

This week, my online poetry writing class started. I love reading poetry, and I admire those who write good poetry. To me, a good poet is the most gifted writer because she or he can convey important information in the most concise way possible. I also love the wordplay involved with poetics, the way poets use a word’s multiple meanings in the same text.

While I love poetry, I’ve never considered myself a poet. I’ve dabbled in it a bit, which I think is true of many writers. But, I’ve never shared my efforts with anyone. I’m a perfectionist, and my work has never felt “worthy” of sharing. While that’s also true of my prose, I’m more comfortable sharing my prose works with others because I write in prose more often. And, I’m opinionated. (Hence, this blog.)

My poetry class requires us to post poems for our instructor to review each week. Twice during the class, we’ll also post poems for our classmates to read, which terrifies me. However, I’m trying to approach this class with a willingness to take risks. That’s because Jen recently reminded me of an article I read about a year ago, which talked about how many people aren’t afraid of failure. Instead, they’re afraid of success. That article was a bit unnerving because I saw a reflection of myself.

Because of that article, I think my fear of this class is prompted by an opportunity for growth. That is, my terror at writing and sharing my poems could be a fear of success, meaning this is a step I ought to take in my writing life to become the writer I want to be. Since that could be possible, I’m trying to face my fear in hopes that some growth and improvement as a writer will be the end result. Keep your fingers crossed this works out.

Fast Food Insanity

-->

In the past couple of weeks, social networking has fueled a brouhaha over the fast food chain Chick –fil –A and the owner’s public stance opposing same-sex marriage. The company has donated large sums of money to groups opposing same-sex marriage, based on the owner’s interpretations of Christian doctrine.

In response, liberal groups organized a boycott of the company, while conservatives planned an appreciation day, in hopes of boosting the company’s sales. Conservatives positioned their event as a “free speech” issue, claiming that liberal activists were trying to deny the company owners Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and religion by boycotting the company.

The claim is patently absurd, although many on the left would be only too happy to deny free-speech rights to conservatives. Of course, conservatives are equally ready to permanently gag the left. No one active in politics can remember that we’re Americans first and political ideologues second. Since both sides of the debate are equally rabid and ridiculous, I won’t address the absurdities they’ve been spouting.

My issue about this entire debate comes from the political arena. Various elected officials in different cities and states have taken sides in the debate over the company and its activities. The mayors of Boston and Chicago announced that they would actively oppose any attempts to open either corporate-owned stores or franchises in their cities. New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn originally supported these kinds of stances, but she later revised her comments, indicating that she is only siding with New York University students who are petitioning to close the only location in New York City, which is on the NYU campus.

I read a brilliantly worded Op-Ed on the New York Times by Steve Salbu titled “Let Chick-fil-A Fly Free.” Mr. Salbu’s essay argued that political figures have no business trying to keep Chick-fil-A from opening new stores in their cites, and he argues that attempts to do so are violations of citizens’ rights by these elected officials. That is, he positions his argument to say that an elected official who uses the office to suppress a business is making a choice for all the citizens, when citizens should be allowed to “vote” on the issue by either supporting or boycotting the company. His comments echo Mayor Bloomberg of New York, who said that he opposes the company’s stance but that it has a right to run its business as it sees fit.

While I think there are some holes to this argument, I agree with Mr. Salbu that citizens will vote on this issue, either by giving this company money or taking their custom elsewhere. Ironically, this isn’t the first time that Chick-fil-A has donated money to groups opposing gay rights. And, it won’t be the last. What is notable this time is that a wider portion of Americans is aware of the issue and is taking a stance. In the past, only members of the LGBTQ community and its closest allies were aware of Chick-fil-A’s business practices. In the long run, that suggests that companies like Chick-fil-A are on the losing end of history.

Turning over a New (Political) Leaf

Earlier this week, I posted a teaser graphic about the differences between discussions and lectures. I’d like to expand on that post a bit, since it’s something I struggle with. It’s easy, I think, to become entrenched in my own personal beliefs and values, unwilling to listen to another person’s ideas and reconsider my beliefs in light of the discussion. And, I think that kind of entrenchment is exactly what’s wrong with America today.

Americans used to be able to discuss the important issues with respect. We could civilly “agree to disagree,” but we also recognized that we needed to leave our entrenched positions and meet in the middle to find solutions to our shared problems. The ideologues at each extreme weren’t ever happy with that, but each side compromised for the good of all. Today, no one is willing to compromise, ever. In fact, suggesting that someone “compromise” has somehow become twisted to mean, “You compromise and give me everything I want, but I won’t move an inch.”

I personally blame the political entertainers (or politicotainers as I will call them in this post) like Limbaugh, Maddow, Beck and Maher. And, I blame their followers, the people who watch those programs or listen to their radio shows on a regular basis. Fans of politicotainers like to say that these people serve an important role in politics. But, they don’t. These people are paid entertainers, and their only job is to make money for their advertisers. Most aren’t political experts, yet people listen to their shows and ape their comments and views without giving any of the material serious study.

We’ve become sheeple (that is, sheep-people) willing to stampede in whatever direction our favorite politicotainer points. I even lump Stewart and Colbert into the politicotainer category, since so many people get their “hard news facts” from those comedy shows. While Stewart and Colbert usually remember that they’re comedians first, they sometimes slip into the role of “political analyst” that Maddow and Limbaugh like to claim.

What’s the solution? The first step is easy, but it’s also hard. TURN. THAT. CRAP. OFF. Really. Turn off all those politicotainer programs we all listen to or watch on a regular basis. Those people aren’t really political experts, and they’re not interested in finding solutions to the country’s problems. They only make money if everything continues to fall apart. Then, they get paid for gleefully “reporting” on the decline. So, turn them off. Sure, it means disrupting a daily routine, but like any habit, repetition will make it easier.

The second step is much, much harder. It requires all of us to actively seek out information from all sides of a debate, perhaps in newspapers, magazines and books. Then, we have to read and think about that material, choosing what to believe and what to discount. The recent decline in journalism makes this harder. But, I also think that newspapers and magazines are dying because no one wants to do the hard work of reading widely and thinking deeply. We could put a lot of skilled journalists back to work here while also educating ourselves.

The third and final step is the toughest of all. We must then engage in a respectful discussion of ideas with those who hold the exact opposite point of view. That’s tough, and the chart I posted earlier this week has some excellent tips on how a respectful discussion works. (Since no one I know has practiced that art in at least a decade, including me, I hope the chart will be useful.) It’s only by entering into respectful discussions that we’ll be able to find common ground with those who hold opinions that counter our own. And, until we see what we have in common, we’ll never find the solution to our country’s problems.

This weekend, I’m going to scout out news sources that I can use for step two. It will be tough, since my attention will be on the Olympics and seeing “The Dark Knight Rises” with friends. But, I’m committing myself to this new course of action so I’m ready to cast an informed vote in November. Who will join me?

Discussion or Lecture?

I'm working on a post for Friday that will address the need for "discussions" in greater detail. As a teaser for that, I share this image, which is making the rounds online:

Between Faith and Ideology

In the July 15, 2012 issue of the New York Times, Ross Douthat criticized the current state of liberal Christianity. In the article, Mr. Douthat seemed to place a large share of the blame on the writings of John Shelby Spong, a retired Episcopal bishop and liberal theologian.

While I’m willing to admit that liberal Christianity has its problems, I’m not sure one man is responsible for its ills. Although I’m not Episcopalian, I’ve read a number of Bishop Spong’s books in my quest to understand and define my own personal beliefs. I don’t agree with everything Bishop Spong’s books said, but I do feel that those works demonstrate a careful studying of his religion and a set of beliefs informed by thought and reflection. His model is one I think every person of faith should follow, regardless of religious affiliation.

 I’m also not convinced that conservative Christianity is as healthy and strong as Mr. Douthat wants to believe. Truthfully, I think many of the world’s major religions are at a crossroads, feeling the pressures of an increasingly interconnected global economy and the changes wrought by technological advances.

Certainly, the Roman Catholic Church is grappling with ideological divisions between liberal and conservative leaders. Most of the Protestant denominations face similar issues, as Mr. Douthat’s op-ed noted. In the past decade, Muslims have also found themselves at an ideological crossroads, with Western nations and liberal imams demanding that liberal Muslims denounce the activities of the September 11^th terrorists, while conservative imams have escalated their anti-Western rhetoric in response to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To my mind, faith is a personal matter, and ideology should be too. Let me unpack that statement. I define faith as the set of beliefs that governs a person’s actions, the person’s moral and/or ethical compass in life. In contrast, ideology is the outward demonstration of that faith. I think that definition works for most of the world’s religions, and it seems to apply also to those who are agnostic or atheist.

Mr. Douthat’s article critiques the liberal Christian ideology that welcomes multicultural influences and pluralism. In leveling that criticism, he forgets that Americans have developed a firm belief in pluralism, using our multiculturalism as a source of strength. To abandon that in the pew or the temple or the mosque is to turn our backs on one of our country’s great assets.

Those of us fortunate to have friends who are Christian, atheist, Buddhist, Wiccan, Muslim, agnostic or Jewish see how interacting with believers from different backgrounds strengthens our own faith and deepens our connections to our own beliefs. The problem isn’t with multiculturalism. The problem is with an anti-intellectualism movement, which asks that people stop thinking for themselves and blindly follow another person’s faith and ideology. People of faith need to examine their beliefs to ensure that the inward faith and its outward manifestations are in accord.

Change, Nostalgia and Sentimentality

I read an article recently that talked about the differences between nostalgia and sentimentality. The writer argued that nostalgia is a realistic and appropriate reaction to change, while sentimentality is an inappropriate romanticizing of things that weren’t really good at all. The article went on to argue that New Yorkers, because of the constant changes around us, are better at handling nostalgia and sentimentality. That is, this writer claimed that New Yorkers don't feel sentimentality, which the article portrayed as a negative emotion built on false memories. Instead, we feel nostalgia, which is a loss for things that were good, an emotion the writer said made us better aware of how to accept life’s inevitable changes.

I’m not sure if I buy into the writer’s premise, but I can see that I’m learning the differences between those two emotions in my own life. Perhaps that's why I'm convinced I could never live in Tucson or Seattle again. That is, maybe I'm on my way to becoming a true New Yorker because I recognize every event, every activity, every change that occurs in our lives changes us profoundly. Because of those changes, when we leave the place that formed us and move somewhere else, the new place also makes impression upon us and it changes us too. In some ways, our new homes make it impossible for us to go back to where we started, which is why we’re told that, “you can’t go home again.”

I also think that those people staying in the same place their entire lives experience profound change, although they may not realize it. For those who live in the same area where they were born, the changes wrought by time are slower and less perceptible. In fact, many of them will argue that nothing about them changes, and they often find comfort in that belief.

For these people, having a relative move away is a scary proposition. When that person returns for visits, she or he doesn’t seem to be the same person anymore. That is, the person who has left the hometown has changed in ways that are far more obvious than the person who stayed in one place. However, the people who stay also change because change is inevitable. It just happens at a much slower pace, which makes the changes imperceptible to those living them.

The truth is, change happens no matter what we might do in our efforts to stop it. No matter how convinced we are that where we live never changes, it actually does. Even the smallest town or hamlet in America experiences change over time. Time is change, and the passage of time results in changes to people and the environment. Even in a small town, new businesses move in with a new family or an old business closes because the family who owned it goes away. Maybe the old man who ran the corner store finally succumbs to old age, and no one in his family is left to take over the store. All of these events, while small in the grand scheme of things, change the character of that town and all the people in it. That's why some of the greatest fiction deals with small towns and the people in them, focusing closely on what happens when one event affects everyone in that town.

 In some ways it's a law of physics writ large and turned into an acting agent upon the human condition. That is, it's a law of physics turned into a law of human nature. The people who stay in one place are like the objects at rest. Physics tells us those objects will not change unless acted upon by an outside force. And, the people who leave are like the objects in motion that won't stop unless forced to do so by an outside force. Where physics fails to apply to human nature is that even when staying in one place, change is inevitable. Human beings don’t like change; we prefer our schedules and to keep everything in comfortable sameness. But, change happens all the time, so we’d do well to learn to embrace it and channel its power to create new and better worlds for ourselves and those around us.