The Official Website of Kendel Christensen
Follow me:
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Living
    • Career and Job Info
    • Fun Activities
    • Life Lessons >
      • Personal Responsibility
    • Human Relations
    • Money-Saving Tips
    • Parenting
    • Other Links
  • Spirituality
    • Favorite Talks
    • For LDS Members
    • General Conference
    • Jerusalem
    • Mission to Argentina
  • Technology
    • FREE Useful Software
    • General Efficiency Tips >
      • Internet Tips
    • Tech Support
  • Knowledge
    • Books
    • BYU
    • Educational Videos
    • Quotes >
      • Spiritual Quotes
      • Wisdom of the World
    • Teaching
    • Timeless Wisdom
    • Coronavirus Information >
      • Coronavirus Resource Page
  • Just Cool
    • Great Videos
    • Heroes
  • About
  • Blog

This election day, 2020

11/3/2020

3 Comments

 
As a lifelong Republican (even including a time voting straight ticket), for the first time I have cast my ballot with confidence for the national Democratic party (THANK you to my many friends who told me I was not alone!). Namely for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. While I disagree with them on many issues, I can give my clear approval to them over the available viable alternative. I have followed Trump's actions with interest since the beginning. I supported him his first two years in office under mostly the protection of "give a new guy a chance," but I clearly and strongly ceased that support and began advocating clear and active opposition to Trump mainly for the following reasons:


1.I cannot trust or support someone who lies with the frequency, the shamelessness, the degree, and absolute disregard for reality and facts as Donald Trump has. I watched the news be filled far too often with our president and his defenders completely gaslighting me and anyone trying to get to the real truth (for a recent example, see his 60 minutes interview where he accuses the interviewer is a 'horrible person' for thinking that he, Trump, would say something that he actually did say). I don't expect any politician to be perfect, but regardless of policies and promises, it is simply too destructive to support someone with this much distaste for honesty and fairness. The amount of things I have heard repeated from good people that I respect that originated from Trump or Trump's defender's mouths that were baseless, conspiratorial, or completely one-sided alone is enough for me to vote against him. We as a nation simply cannot expect to continue to exist and thrive without a well-grounded understanding of reality and truth, even if it isn't flattering. Sometimes, especially if the truth isn't flattering. Related to not taking his word seriously is the anecdotal evidence about Trump not taking his daily briefings and other aspects of his job seriously. To me, he does not take the full weight of his responsibilities and influence seriously. This is reason by itself to seriously send him packing. 

2.I cannot support someone who mocks our troops, our laws, and our institutions. What I mean by this is not his alleged statements of calling our troops "losers and suckers" (though I can't find many credible people who would go on record that "Donald Trump would never say anything close to this"), what I mean is that I was raised thinking that the freedoms I and millions of Americans enjoy is not free. It is fragile. It was paid for by not only blood, but by our public servants having reverence for the rule of law and the needed institutional and democratic norms that form the basis of our free society. With Donald Trump doing things like A)Actively removing independent oversight not only from inspectors general, but also through the Department of Justice subtly or overtly pressuring/threatening multiple reporters and lawyers--getting one fired--who investigate or report things Trump does not like B) Doing what he did to the decisions and cases by Judge Curiel, Judge Robart, & Judge Jackson as well as the meddling in his friends' Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, and other court cases has convinced me that Trump not only is immoral and childish (fairness, is--to me--defined by him as "what I want") but wants and actively pushes the line of the law to "give me what I want, regardless of the facts." With his self-referential morality and me having personally lived in countries where the law was based on the personality of the current leader, it would be wholly immoral for me to support someone who is so antithetical to America's values and sacred history. 

3.Trump's immigration and asylum policies and actions are inhumane and will, as time goes on, be a source of great shame upon my beloved nation. Every single immigration lawyer and advocate I've talked to is appalled at what has been done over the past four years in this country and it needs to be reversed immediately. 

4.I do not believe Trump considers himself the leader of the whole nation nor has he ever in my view seriously tried to build bridges and unite us as a country. On the contrary, I have seen a significant number of actions that I view as actively trying to divide us "other"ize his enemies or anyone that disagrees with him (including multiple calls for violence and support of violence), as well as unconcernedly manipulating the culture wars of deeply personal even sacred issues for his personal gain. 

5.Trump is antithetical to facts and science and expert opinion. He does not, in my opinion, have the humility necessary to understand complex problems until they are urgent or can be tied to his personal interest. The fact that he ignored all internal warnings about Covid-19, and then when the first public reports were available and his Secretary of Health tried to meet with him about it, Trump ignored him for over two weeks, and then when Trump was finally informed of it, fantastically delayed and downplayed his response (as well as actively discouraging THE most effective, though not perfect, by itself, solution to this pandemic with his attorney general even comparing scientific, well-validated responses to the pandemic-that ABSOLUTELY would have saved multiple thousands of lives if followed-to "slavery") and blamed others and point to 'one good thing that should satisfy you' (Side note: the China Travel ban was not a ban, but a restriction that still allowed tens of thousands of non-Americans into the USA for months after it took effect. Also, new data strongly suggests that the majority of the strains that took seed in the USA came from Europe, not China. But besides all that The 'ban' CLEARLY DIDN'T WORK!) and... this one is too big, I'll stop. But suffice to say that it is my belief that if any other generic president-type person were at the helm (not a "brand" real estate agent and reality TV star), America's response, though still not perhaps perfect, would have been worlds more nimble, more competent, and more effective. It is my personal belief that instead of hundreds of thousands dying, a competent response would have yielded less than 50,000 deaths by the pandemic's end. Again, you can disagree with my opinion, but not the logic that if you take this premise to be true, it is understandable that yet again all other considerations aside, this is reason enough to vote against Trump. And I will also say that if the Republican party continues to suppress, mock, and disavow science, it does not deserve the support of intelligent Americans and deserves the punishment it will receive (see point 7)

6.Appointed an attorney general who is on record as supporting the idea that--and I quote: "the mainstream understanding of separation of powers... that the separation of powers means three coequal branches check and balance each other--is wrong" and that the ONLY restraints on presidential power should be "the election process... and the Impeachment process." And Trump himself, on multiple occasions, claiming that the Constitution gives him--again, I quote--"The power to do whatever I want" To those, again, choosing to ignore history, this national already had to get rid of one king and does (or should) not want another. To me, Trump is tyrannical and unworthy of holding this or any other office in this nation because of his many abuses of power, undermining of free elections and suppressing of voting in general (this again could be its own point and singled out as reason by itself) and tendency to disregard norms necessary for a healthy Republic. 

7.I believe Donald Trump has undermined a sincere conservative's ability in the future to make credible moral arguments. Mark my words, future debates against those who argue against needed values and norms (or issues like human trafficking and abortion) will need only respond "oh, but kids in cages" or "How can you talk about morals when you supported someone who lied more than anyone else in history he lied about..." or "why should I believe in America's brand of freedom when they are divided and filled with hate?" etc.

8.Not a single Trump supporter had adequate answers (that amounted to, with one arguable exception, anything beyond their personal opinion/subjective explanations) to Trump's many corruptions. They simply didn't know about them, heard they weren't that bad, or had, again "their way of explaining it away" that mostly consisted of, "well, you know he wasn't serious." Sorry but when you are the president, your actions, your jokes, your sarcasm, it all has consequences. And no one deserves the public trust that so casually treats the value of their words so lightly (and won't give us the truth if it means he has to admit he did anything less than PERFECT). Also, if he didn't tell us the realities of COVID because he thought we would panic, why should we trust him for four more years if another equal or bigger problem arises?  
8a.On the subject of Trump supporters, in my biased sample, they fell into the following categories: 
A) Single issue voters, or voters that are only informed/vote on on a few issues they care about. For this group it was almost immaterial any other fact or concern, as long as [this or that issue] was given at least lip service, they would be standing by 'their' guy. 
B) Voters who began their position by stating something akin to "I vote on policy, not on character" and 
C) What I would consider completely uninformed voters. To them, voting for Trump is a FEELING that represented completely amorphous things like "freedom" and "the flag" and "free speech" and capitalism. When it comes to the specifics of what Trump has done, they can't mention anything beyond appointing Republican judges and tax cuts (and can't fathom why another person wouldn't like him beyond 'sometimes saying mean things' or the person 'being a radical leftist'). These three groups--again, just my biased opinion, feel free to have a different opinion--would have enabled and supported many of the worst tyrants of the past and present: regardless of the facts, regardless of the evidence, they could not fathom that 'their guy' would merit such and such 'extreme' criticism. Because of this, "American exceptionalism" is no more in my mind when it comes to a bulwark against authoritarianism and throwing out the law for personal convenience or because--regardless of the law--they "like" what the wannabe (or actual) tyrant is selling. We have more than enough people in our country now willing to unabashedly support any corrupt harbinger which attitude has corrupted countries and brought down Rome and other civilizations in spades. For me, the number of usually-politically-neutral organizations--e.g., Scientific American, thousands of current and former Justice Department officials--and unprecedented numbers of Republicans (including hundreds of officials who worked for George W. Bush and dozens from Trump's own administration) that condemn him and endorse their ideological opposite party "for the sake of the Republic" is (to me) solid evidence of my belief. 
Of course, there were other groups of Trump supporters: 
D) Trump supporters that were articulate on a wide variety (which differentiated them from group A) of positive things that Trump has done that they liked and were good and--to their credit, as a conservative I could honestly acknowledge the strength of their position and I sympathized with it (again, I'm a lifelong conservative) but unfortunately like all the previous groups were pretty unable to articulate many positive things about Biden/Harris nor were they conversant in the significant number of scandals from Trump's time in office which of course hurt their credibility significantly as I believe in seeing the FULL and (to the extent possible, objective) picture before feeling confident about a decision.  And lastly (found verrrrrrry late in my research because they were not very vocal--the uninformed ones were by far the most vocal) 
E) Trump supporters who could acknowledge (most but not all) the reasons why others could never support him. They saw a good number (but not all) his major corruptions which were to them at least worthy of 'concern' (but which their opinion was that our institutions could 'handle'), they wished his behavior in many respects was different, but for one or many reasons, they were convinced that the overall ledger was positive enough to earn their vote which, though I obviously disagreed with them, I could at least respect (and invariably, they began with an empathetic 'I respect anyone who can't bring themselves to support him'). Though I will say that another theme even in these last two groups were both that "the media can't be trusted" (or at least were 'much harder on Trump than any other President') as well as gave a depiction of "the left" that, to me, was a clear straw man (but some of their concerns I deeply shared).  
I want to stress that I think voting is a deeply personal thing and it is not my place to judge others' values and preferences--by all means vote however you want for whatever reason, though I do reserve the right to call whatever behavior I see as concerning or less or more ideal according to MY values (and I don't claim that my opinions/values are absolutes. Make a superior argument, and I will change my position on just about anything). 

A refrain that my critics (and anyone who dares speak the truth about our louse of a president) is that 'yeah you hate Trump but you can't make a positive case for the alternative'. Though I think this is in bad faith (not only is it morally justifiable to vote for the lesser of two evils--if that is, indeed, the only rational choice), I see it as merely a way to psychologically justify supporting someone who they know, deep down, is not good) 
​
I will however say a few reasons for why I am voting for Biden/Harris
1.Most of his criticisms are shallow, exaggerated, or both. As a career politician he does have significant baggage (Iraq war, his crime bill of 1994 just to name two) and gaffes (mixing up his sister and his wife? Ouch), and even unjustified misleading statements and lies (I've lived Blanton's book "Radical Honesty" and I can tell you a thing or two about the consequences of *always telling the *full truth) and even sins (I can't deny he's done creepy things and his accusations of harassment--though far less severe than Trump's--are not to be taken lightly) which I do not condone nor support (though I will say that I think it significant that Anita Hill came out and officially endorsed him).  However, most of his mistakes (completely unlike Trump), he has disavowed or otherwise taken responsibility for (including past racist comments and both of his major policy mistakes mentioned above).
To a fair-minded person, this should be enough to give him a fair chance and shun the cartoonish caricatures of him (though I will also say that--though no fan of Obama's--I have little reason to believe that the stubborn partisanship of the right will do anything but crucify a Biden presidency no matter the merits of his actions and ideas--please convince me otherwise). 
2.I have met Joe Biden personally. Though his church and I myself disavow his stated position on abortion (though now, for different reasons), I nevertheless felt him to be a sincere person who not only believes in God but believes he will be accountable to him at the end of his life. I, yet again do not see this in Trump
3.Biden is not a socialist, he's a moderate, and a moderate with a proven record for going across the aisle and making things happen between both parties. Anyone who fears an extreme leftist takeover through Kamala Harris or however else--again, just to me--watches too much biased news and is being manipulated by fear and has lost the gift of discernment. To those that disagree, consider this: I believe Obama to be (in private) very extremely left, moreso than Harris. What did he accomplish in office? How far did the Affordable Care Act reeeeally go? Obama didn't get a fraction of the health care reform he wanted, not because of Republicans, but BECAUSE OF DEMOCRATS. Google "blue dogs" and the ACA. It was Democrats who killed ALL the 'extreme' parts of the bill. The left is not a monolith. They are Americans. They have brains. They have families. They want to help this nation be the best it can be, just like you do. They don't want the government to control everything, but they do think that how the government helps or doesn't help looks different than Republicans. That still makes up the core of the Democratic party and their actions against Obamacare v1 proves that. Don't invent an invisible, inhuman enemy bases off of someone that earns money by how many listeners they can enrage.
4.He's capable of empathy and has several tangible plans, including for job creation which independent agencies have validated as more effective than Trump's proposed job creation plan. 

I think, considering the stability of the polls and a few other factors, that Biden and Harris will win today, but regardless of your politics I ask:
#1 That you listen to any idea with an open mind, regardless of its source (studies show that up to 60% of people will dismiss/have a negative perception of any idea merely if it appears with the insignia of the 'opposite' political party) and give whoever the president is in 2021 if they show honest signs of wanting to govern the nation as a whole.
#2 That we all work together to change the two-party system. Contact your state legislatures and local party leaders voicing your support for A) Ranked-Choice voting (in party primaries and B) Proportional allocation of electoral and final tally votes (abolish the winner-take-all system of awarding votes). Especially for the capitalists among you, isn't a truism that more competition is better? Having more than two viable political parties is a reform long overdue, and we the people must demand it even more strongly than we support our preferred candidates (as keeping only two parties viable benefits both Democrats and Republicans!)

Anyway, those are just my thoughts. Feel free to disagree and know that I completely can validate positions that directly oppose mine if you can delineate proper arguments for them (I myself can supply them so I know they exist). Though not usually attracted to politics (besides continued vindication as more revelations come out on Trump's obvious corruption and a few other topics, you can expect my political posts to significantly dwindle). But this cycle I felt a personal need to become invested because of the overabundance of misinformation and what I believed to be tacit and explicit attacks on the Constitution and the rule of law which, to me, comes before any usual policy considerations. For me, one can't argue about the "branches" of policy if someone is hacking away at the "roots" that support them. I may have failed to convince the majority of my Republican friends and neighbors that such considerations merit just as much or more weight than our typical pet policy preferences (at the end of the day, stubborn agency will always rule the day). But no one can say I didn't try, and I could not have lived with myself remaining neutral in a time of moral calamity.

Your friend, even if you hate me,
-Kendel
3 Comments

Top Reasons to Vote Trump Out of Office

9/17/2020

0 Comments

 
​Top Reasons Why I Do Not Support the Re-election of Donald Trump (and NO American should[1])                                                
by Kendel Christensen, Lifelong Conservative.  Twitter: @KendelC
Medium.com Highlight-enabled Link  
 
1. A vote for Trump is a vote against The Constitution. Donald Trump has, on multiple occasions, dismissed, misappropriated, or outright attacked The Constitution of the United States
—the very foundation of America and his Oath of office:
A. Trump has referred to part of the Constitution as “phony”[2]
B. In direct violation of the 10th Amendment, and mocking the very purpose of the American Revolution itself (getting rid of a “king”), Trump has claimed he has “total authority”[3] later even insisting that the Constitution gives him the power to do “whatever I want”. He has repeated this authoritarian claim at least four times.[4]
C. Trump has solicited and accepted foreign interference to meddle in our domestic elections.[5]
D. Trump has repeatedly accepted gifts and money from foreign governments in direct violation of Article 1, Section 9, clause 8 of the Constitution.[6]
E. Trump continually violates the Constitutional principle of separation of powers, attempting to impair the independence[7] of the judiciary branch (harassing several witnesses,[8] at least three sitting judges[9], even individual jury members), but also succeeding in supplanting the separateness of Congress: the Senate Majority Leader admitted that on pending impeachment charges against the President, the Senate would be “coordinating with White House Counsel. There will be no difference between the President’s position and our position as to how to handle this”[10] and more than one senate member kowtowed that, contrary to their oath, they “would not be impartial jurors”[11] in that trial.[12]
F. Despite clear and direct warnings from Congress beforehand, Trump has gone ahead with several executive orders which clearly violate Article I, section 9 of the Constitution bypassing the powers of Congress.[13]
G. Trump has subverted the First Amendment by restricting, discouraging, covertly monitoring[14] (against state wishes—another violation of Amendment 10’s federalism), and even outright terminating Americans’ right to assemble.[15] 
H. Trump has openly admitted to using his constitutional pardon power, as well as awarding awards such as the medal of Freedom, as rewards to those who have donated money to him.[16]
 
2. A vote for Trump is a vote for unrivaled corruption—even against the rule of law itself:
A. Trump has used the power of the government to punish his enemies.[17][18]  
B. Not only has Trump openly asserted that he has the “absolute” right to pardon himself[19] (another distortion of The Constitution), but in effect he has done so by commuting the sentence of a criminal who openly has boasted that he withheld/covered up information that would implicate President Trump in a crime. I have no words that capture this level of unprecedented corruption. 
C. Trump has corrupted several institutions of the government to favor his will[20] over the laws of the country,[21][22] the safety norms of the scientific community,[23] and most shockingly: steadily removing independent oversight.[24] Anyone who studies history or has lived in a failed state as I have, knows that this fact alone cannot be overstated in its concerning, negative impact.
D.  Trump has repeatedly threatened to suspend licenses/shut down news organizations—merely for reporting the truth.[25] And gone after individual reporters for stories he does not like.[26] Trump is even on record calling free-speech opposition to him “treason” .
E. Trump on multiple occasions has instructed his subordinates to break the law[27] including committing felonies[28]
F. While instructing followers to break the law, Trump promised to pardon them[29] (another clear corruption of The Constitution)
G. To condone Trump’s criminal acts, he and his defenders have dismissed or supported: 1) Lying to the FBI 2) Plotting to do criminal acts is acceptable so long as the act is prevented stopped before total fulfilment 3) Covering up clearly criminal acts to ‘earn’ a pardon, and 4) Withholding aid to other countries to receive personal benefits is one of the president’s ‘powers in foreign policy’ (and many other self-serving positions that if adopted would turn America into not a nation of laws, but of authoritarian favoritism).
H. Trump has repeatedly slandered and threatened witnesses, judges, even jury members involved in pending court cases[30] (another clear corruption of the Constitutional pillar of separation of powers)
I. There is evidence that Trump is using the US Attorney General as his personal ‘fixer’[31] and attempting to turn the Department of Justice into a corrupted weapon of his personal agenda that will fight or shield him from any legal consequences and will pretend the guilty are innocent so long as they are friends of the president.[32][33]
 
3. A vote for Trump is a vote to legitimize full-throated propaganda. Trump and his administration not only lie, but pervert the truth to such an extent that they weave a false reality.[34] The ability to even talk about different “points of view” is presumptive because what used to be obvious fact is now so polarizing that agreeing on “facts” devolves into e.g., either ‘fake news’ or gaslighting—resulting in unprecedented division, unprecedented lack of trust in government[35] and unprecedented chaos
as well as damage to the American brand[36]:
A. Early fact checkers estimated that Trump would end his 4-year term saying about 7,000 falsehoods.[37] With time still to go until the election, he has actually said over 20,000 demonstrably false or misleading things.[38] This tsunami of lies is unconscionable by itself (and unprecedented), but as any seeker of truth knows: “lies fly, the truth comes limping after it.” That is, the vast majority of people have neither the time nor energy to comprehensively debunk every (or any) statement and so lies by default become temptingly easy to believe. Americans need to see this and send a LOUD message that we reject propaganda and being played for fools.
B. The White House has denied and lied about a copious number of reports that were demonstrably true[39]
C. Without evidence, Trump gives oxygen to legions of outrageous conspiracy theories, defying logic and perpetuating the very problem described above, of not even being able to agree on what is a fact.[40]
D. There is evidence that Trump cannot handle the truth,[41] and does not hire trustworthy individuals, but rather people who will tell him what he wants to hear. He has no long-term loyalty to principles and turns on people when they have disagreements, contradicting earlier claims about their qualifications and abilities.[42]
E. Trump speaks out of both sides of his mouth, claiming altruism for donating his presidential salary to charity, all the while illegally funneling millions into his pockets.[43]
F. Trump justified keeping his tax returns hidden (and therefore much truth about his life) with the lie that he “couldn’t” release them because he was “under an audit”—when #1) being under an audit would not have prevented him from releasing them,[44] and #2) still refusing to release them long after any supposed audit would have completed—playing the entire country for fools twice.
G. On multiple occasions Trump has used subtle influence, or outright intimidation and coercion to get scientists and credible independent institutions to make false or misleading statements, change standards that fit political ambition over an unbiased scientific process, even prematurely approve drugs that later proved to be deadly[45]—wholly undermining our ability to trust and act on information when lives are on the line (Ask yourself: do you know when a vaccine is coming? Are you confident that any vaccines that become available will have gone through proper procedure, free from political meddling? Nothing is safe from Trump’s interference).
 
4. A vote for Trump is a vote against science and nonpartisan research. In a time of pandemic, it is a vote for prolonged uncertainty and unnecessary death:
A. Trump admitted to shamelessly misleading the public[46] about what he knew about Covid-19—including how contagious and deadly it was[47], repeated false and contradictory information (creating widespread confusion that continues to this day), dismissed or downplayed[48] the seriousness of the threat (when he knew full well what he was saying was a lie), & even called the virus a “hoax.”[49]
B. It’s been estimated that if the United States had responded seriously to the threat even a week or two earlier, 83% of deaths would have been prevented, according to Columbia University.[50] As I write this, the USA has FOUR percent of the world’s population and TWENTY percent of the world’s deaths, putting the USA squarely on top in its failure to contain this threat.
B. Even once Trump started responding to the pandemic, his response was still “an unmitigated disaster”[51] marked by lack of testing (and repeatedly lying about it), embarrassingly inept priorities,[52] promises of a quick fix (or that the virus would “magically disappear”), and a refusal to rapidly mobilize American businesses to produce enough P.P.E. for health care workers.
C. Despite calls from every corner of the scientific & medical community, we have no national contract tracing initiative, still no effective testing system, and have lagged pathetically behind many other nations in creating (and using!) protective equipment.
D. I blame Donald Trump personally for his bad example of not wearing a mask, for politicizing the issue of mask-wearing (thereby discouraging people in the foremost effective response), as well as downplaying other appropriate measures[53], and associating refusal to wear them as a badge of honor or patriotism. There is a reason America’s infection rate is so high and this is one of them.[54]
 
5. A vote for Trump is a vote to reward and encourage politicians
to put their personal interests ahead of the national interest:
A. On a multitude of calls to foreign leaders, top Trump deputies witness that Trump was not only woefully “underprepared” but also “delusional” and “often pursued goals aligned with his own agenda rather than the national interest” [55]
B. To protect his pride or cover mistakes, Trump insults foreign leaders[56], and would arbitrarily detain Americans. [57]
C. Trump reneged background checks for gun buyers — desired by 93 percent of Americans — to please the gun lobby.
D. Many foreign and domestic deals and negotiations are tied with donations and patronage to Trump and his entities.[58][59]
E. Instead of loyalty to principle, purpose, or even party, Trump demands personal loyalty,[60] creating a “cult of personality” or, as Ruth Ben-Bhiat, has said, directly acting out of the playbook of an autocrat bent on destroying democracy.[61]
 
6. A vote for Trump is a vote against common-sense leadership and wise governance:
A. Trump does not lead. He divides. He does not even consider himself the leader of the whole country but rather only of those who support him[62] or from whom he has something to gain.
B. Among a leader’s principal duties is to lead clearly and inspire cooperation/unity. Trump often does the opposite: leveraging division, nursing petty grudges[63],  and encouraging supporters to agitation and even overt violence.[64][65]
C. He actively sows division and leverages divisive, emotionally-charged sensitivities (such as the culture wars) for distraction, pleasure, and power.[66]
D. Trump will punish innocent Americans in the name of punishing his enemies or doing so would advance his personal interests including: 1) allegedly withheld needed resources to ‘Democrat states’ in multiple crises[67], another clear violation of the Constitution and his Presidential Oath.  2) Urged Israel to not allow two Democrats to visit the country then celebrated when Israel complied.[68] And other instances.     E. He goes to absurd lengths to avoid taking responsibility. America should demand in their leader a strong sense of moral obligation, urgency, and responsibility. Trump demonstrates none of these, even willing to sacrifice American lives to advance his preferred narrative.[69]
F. Over 70 Republican National Security Officials called Trump “unfit to lead” and voiced that they would be crossing party lines to vote for Trump’s opponent.[70]
​Dozens more of lifelong conservative, nationally-elected Republicans have followed suit.
 
7. A vote for Trump is a vote against global peace and American leadership abroad:
A. Many of Trump’s calls to other national leaders were “such an abomination that if members of Congress knew the content, even Republicans would not have confidence in the President” according to witnesses.[71]
B. Trump has repeatedly been called a national security threat by government agents and agencies.[72] Despite clear and present compromising risks, Trump’s family received special treatment for background checks and security clearances.[73]
C. Trump shares classified information with enemies, compromising US intelligence, in addition to doing so to punish his enemies[74]
D. Trump on multiple occasions has sided with hostile foreign powers above his own intelligence agencies[75]
E. Trump knew that Michael Flynn was working as a foreign agent and under investigation when he hired him as National Security Advisor.
F. Trump was so prone to fits of rage due to US intelligence reports he did not like, that agents became afraid and even gave up briefing him on certain topics.[76]
G. Because of Trump’s mishandling of the Coronavirus, millions of American’s passports became instantly useless as foreign countries rightly banned US travelers due to the high spread and continuous outbreaks in the country.
H. Trump has destroyed several foreign markets for American goods and services, threatened security agreements that have kept the peace for nearly three quarters of a century, offended allies who we will desperately need to face China and other long-term threats to our security and prosperity. All for no good reason other than Trump’s whim.[77]
 
 
8. A vote for Trump is a vote against basic decency, against morality, and against the conservative movement being able to make a credible, non-demagogic case for governance again (weakening, in the long-term, issues like ending abortion and human trafficking[78]):
A. Trump has committed hundreds of criminal[79] and morally reprehensible acts[80] (without remorse) and is simply not a moral, good person—according to a large (and growing) number of the people who work with him the closest.
B. Trump paid nearly $2 million in damages for misconduct related to using charities as political tools resulting in restrictions on Trump directing future charities and his children undergoing ethics training.[81] Trump paid millions in damages to defrauded students enrolled in Trump University[82] and undocumented workers[83], and preyed upon vulnerable investors to invest in sham businesses.[84]
C. He has openly supported pro-Nazi demonstrators, given derogatory descriptions of immigrants, has attacked women of color in Congress​, demeans descriptions of majority-black cities and even whole African countries.
D. Trump is not even conservative on fiscal policy. Not only will 2020 mark a year where the debt of the government equals the size of the entire U.S. economy,[85] but even before COVID happened Trump increased the amount America went into debt by 74% MORE than his democrat predecessor![86] In my view, the most flagrant violation of his campaign promises and a full betrayal of conservatism.
E. His immigration[87] and family separation policy is objectively dehumanizing.
F. Trump demeans women. In addition to having over 50 sexual misconduct allegations[88], Trump is a proven serial adulterer (who has never even denounced adultery as wrong), has joked that women should prostitute themselves for his benefit--[89] and brags about violating women.[90]
G. Because of Donald Trump, my child’s history class can now teach him about porn stars and paying them off (Trump confessed[91]).                              

  • Let’s become again the “Party of Responsibility” and make him a 1-term footnote to history, not an entire chapter! 


[1] I am not saying that Trump doesn’t do good or doesn’t have a lot of policies that I agree with--he does, and I do. But if you identify as conservative and if you love this country as I do, please vote him out of office to prove that our movement cares more about principles than temporary power. Do you really think the policies he will enact (that he probably cares about only to gain his followers’ votes, not because he actually believes them) will last when he is so abjectly offensive to anyone that crosses him? True conservatives know the way to build lasting policy changes is only through gaining the actual consent of the governed. That means being principled and consistent. Trump is neither, and we must reject him as the figurehead for the Republican cause! To believe the argument “it’s all about policy” or “it’s all about the Supreme Court” is to effectively sell our collective soul which is not worth even gaining the whole world (See Mark 8:36). Standing for PRINCIPLES is more important than 4 years of more favorable policy.

[2] Fox News, October 21, 2019 “Trump calls Constitution clause 'phony,' lashes out at critics”

[3] “Trump's 'total authority' boast should've enraged Republicans. Instead they shrugged.” April 16, 2019

[4] June 16, 2019, June 19, 2019, July 12, 2019, July 23, 2019

[5] “Trump says China should investigate the Bidens” PBS News

[6] “Trump Is Receiving Gifts From Foreign Governments and Violating the Constitution, Ethics Watchdogs Warn” Newsweek

[7] “In His Own Words: The President’s Attacks on the Courts” Brennan Center for Justice

[8] Witness tampering is an impeachable offense

[9] https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-travel-ban-20170208-story.html

[10] “McConnell says he'll be in 'total coordination' with White House on impeachment trial strategy” Dec 12, 2019. The Hill Reporting

[11]“Former Federal Prosecutor Says Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham Are 'Mocking' Juror Oath To Do 'Fair And Impartial Justice'” Newsweek 12/24/19 

[12] https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/bagley/2019/12/17/bagley-cartoon-republican/

[13] “Op-Ed: Trump just made another huge and illegal power grab. Be very alarmed” Los Angeles Times

[14] “The unmarked federal agents arresting people in Portland, explained” Vox

[15] “Protesters, Black Lives Matter DC sue Trump for violating constitutional rights” Jurist Legal News

[16] “Trump picks pardon requests from wealthy pals and GOP donors” AP News

[17] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/us/politics/jeff-sessions-hillary-clinton-donald-trump.html 

[18] “Trump weaponizes the Presidency after impeachment victory” CNN Reporting

[19] Wall Street Journal Reporting, Trump Asserts ‘Absolute Right’ to Pardon Himself

[20] “Trump's new postmaster general could corrupt a key institution ahead of Election Day” NBC News

[21] “Mapping Corruption: Donald Trump’s Executive Branch” The American Prospect

[22] “The System Failed the Test of Trump” The Atlantic

[23] “Trump, without evidence, accuses FDA of delaying coronavirus vaccine trials and pressures agency chief” CNN Reporting

[24] “This is Trump’s vilest act of retribution yet” The Washington Post

[25] “Trump Threatens NBC License, Blasts ‘Disgusting’ Free Press” Bloomberg

[26] “White House: Reporters Can’t Even Ask How Much Taxpayer Money Trump Is Pocketing” New York Magazine

[27]  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-nadler/mueller-report-shows-evidence-trump-committed-crimes-house-judiciary-chairman-says-idUSKCN1UG0IK 

[28] “US election: Trump tells North Carolina voters to vote twice” BBC News

[29] https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/take-the-land-president-trump-wants-a-border-wall-he-wants-it-black-and-he-wants-it-by-election-day/2019/08/27/37b80018-c821-11e9-a4f3-c081a126de70_story.html

[30] https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics/federal-judge-slams-trumps-attacks-judiciary/index.html 

[31] Business Insider “It’s Time to Get Serious About Impeaching Attorney General Bill Barr”

[32] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-07/flynn-prosecutor-van-grack-steps-down-from-criminal-case

[33] USA Today, “Trump Justice: He’s Using His Office to Reward Friends, Punish Enemies, and Tarnish America”

[34] Where the only trusted sources are the ones that praise and credit Trump. https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/bagley/2020/09/01/bagley-cartoon-bring/

[35] “Trump Is Lying More Than Ever: Just Look At The Data” Forbes Reporting

[36] “U.S. allies, tired of flattering Trump, now mock him” LA Times Reporting

[37] “Here's the most incredible thing about Donald Trump's problem with facts” CNN Reporting

[38] “President Trump has made more than 20,000 false or misleading claims” Washington Post Reporting

[39] “Journalist behind bombshell Trump report speaks out” CNN Reporting September 4, 2020

[40] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories_promoted_by_Donald_Trump

[41]MSNBC reporting, Mar. 6, 2020 https://youtu.be/NGGxB5aonkI?t=56

[42] MSNBC Reporting June 19, 2020 “Bridges Burned: Watch Trump Hire 'Best People' And Trash Them As 'Not Qualified' On Their Way Out”

[43]Forbes Report “Trump Has Now Moved $2.3 Million Of Campaign-Donor Money Into His Private Business”

[44] “The President's 'Under Audit' Tax Excuse Is, And Always Has Been, Bogus” Forbes Reporting

[45] https://khn.org/morning-breakout/white-house-task-force-directed-cdc-to-weaken-covid-testing-guidelines/

[46] “I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down." -Donald J. Trump, On his response to Covid-19. Trump caught in Tape in February revealing FULL danger of COVID while downplaying it in public

[47] Behind Trump’s Failures on the Virus, NY Times Reporting

[48] Washington Post Reporting, “10 Times Trump Downplayed the Coronavirus”

[49] “Trump rallies his base to treat coronavirus as a ‘hoax’” Politico Reporting

[50] Fox News Reporting  https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/coronavirus-lockdown-1-week-earlier-in-the-u-s-could-have-saved-36000-lives-new-model-finds

[51] “Brutal Political Ad Calls Out Trump Coronavirus Testing Failures”

[52] “When you test, you have a case. When you test you find something is wrong with people. If we didn’t do any testing, we would have very few cases.” -Donald Trump, May 14, 2020.

[53] “How Right-Wing Pundits Are Covering Coronavirus” NY Times Reporting

[54] “Heroes of the Pandumbic” The Daily Show

[55] CNN Reporting, “Trump’s Phone Calls Alarm US Officials” June 29, 2020

[56] “Trump attacks Danish prime minister for her ‘nasty’ comments about his interest in U.S. purchase of Greenland” Washington Post Reporting

[57] https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-main-concern-about-coronavirus-is-himself-964175/

[58] “Reps of 22 foreign governments have spent money at Trump properties” NBC News Reporting

[59] https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tmobile-trump-hotel-john-legere-20190313-story.html

[60] https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-demands-loyalty-oath-from-job-seekers-who-criticized-him-during-election

[61] https://www.ias.edu/ideas/ben-ghiat-coronavirus-autocracy

[62] “Trump taunts Democrats in White House speech: 'We're here and they're not'” The Hill Reporting

[63] https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/19/politics/mitt-romney-donald-trump-white-house-task-force/index.html

[64]“'No Blame?' ABC News finds 54 cases invoking 'Trump' in connection with violence, threats, alleged assaults.” May 30, 2020.

[65] March 14, 2016 Compilation of Times Trump has Called for Violence

[66] “How Trump uses the culture wars as a distraction from the accelerating Covid-19 crisis”

[67] “Politics Should Not Determine if Americans Receive Aid To Combat Coronavirus” Center for American Progress

[68] https://www.npr.org/2019/08/15/751430877/reps-omar-and-tlaib-barred-from-visiting-israel-after-trump-insists-on-ban

[69] “Trump: ‘No, I Don't Take Responsibility’ For Botched Coronavirus Testing Rollout” Forbes Reporting

[70] “Top Republican National Security Officials Say They Will Vote for Biden” NY Times Reporting

[71] CNN Reporting, “Trump’s Phone Calls Alarm US Officials” June 29, 2020

[72] https://indivisible.org/resource/donald-trump-national-security-risk-here%E2%80%99s-current-trumpthreatlevel

[73] https://www.citizensforethics.org/nepotism-conflicts-interest-jared-kushner-ivanka-trump/

[74] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump%27s_disclosures_of_classified_information

[75] “6 Times Trump Has Sided With A Foreign Country Over the U.S. Government” Washington Post Reporting

[76]“Trump flew into a rage every time US intelligence warned him about Russia, so officials gave up briefing him on it, report says” Business Insider Reporting

[77]Remarks by Former Senator Jeffry Flake (R-Arizona), August 24, 2020

[78] Think of it: Whenever we make a moral plea in the future, a call to do the right thing, the noble thing. The principled thing: ALL OUR DETRACTORS WILL HAVE TO DO is point to the actions of our so-called conservative standard-bearer for evidence of hypocrisy. We are crippling our cause for decades by offering such an easy way out.

[79]“Trump's 3,500 lawsuits unprecedented…” USA Today Reporting

[80] “A Catalog Of Trump’s Worst Cruelties, Collusions, Corruptions, and Crimes” McSweeneys.net

[81] “Social Posts Distort Facts on Trump Charities” Factcheck.org

[82] “Judge finalizes $25 million Trump University settlement for students of 'sham university'” USA Today Reporting

[83] “Trump Paid Over $1 Million in Labor Settlement, Documents Reveal” NY Times Reporting

[84] “Trump Persuaded Struggling People to Invest in Scams, Lawsuit Says” NY Times Reporting

[85] U.S. government debt will nearly equal the size of the entire economy for first time since World War II Washington Post Reporting

[86] Trump’s Deficits are Racing Past Obama’s FORBES Reporting

[87] TIME Reporting, “Trump's New Restrictions on Asylum Seekers Violate U.S. and International Law”

[88]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

[89]Fox News Reporting, September 2, 2020 “Trump joked Sarah Sanders should ‘take one for the team’”

[90] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/leaked-tape-captures-trump-in-crude-rant-with-tv-host

[91] “Trump Admits To Authorizing Stormy Daniels Payoff, Denies Sexual Encounter” NPR Reporting, May 2, 2018
top_reasons_to_vote_trump_out_of_office_.pdf
File Size: 330 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

0 Comments

In Praise of Donald Trump

9/1/2020

0 Comments

 
It is one of my life beliefs that it is morally wrong to criticize something that you do not understand, or have not made an effort to get all the facts about (can you imagine a world where both sides would patiently listen until the other side was satisfied that we understood things from their point of view?). So though I do not plan to vote for Trump because of his obvious corruptions, that does not mean I cannot praise the many policy points which I can objectively praise and genuinely say I and others benefit from:
 
1.Trump is one of the few politicians in history that not only adeptly shuns that title, but truly makes many Americans feel that they have an ally in “the machine”, an anti-establishment “maverick” that says what the common man or woman has on their mind rather than being “politically correct” in the face of contrary lived experience.
2. Trump actually gave adequate discourse to an issue that was ignored by “rank and file” politicians for decades, namely a completely broken immigration system.
3. Trump has appointed two conservative, Pro-life supreme court Justices, and hundreds of conservative Federal judges concerned with protecting the dignity of life and other conservative causes as well as other pro-life advocates in various other posts.
4. Trump is the only sitting president to give remarks in person at the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C.
5. Trump’s administration has issued a ruling reforming Title X family planning funds preventing them from funding entities that provide abortions, favored legislation to end late term abortions, and reinstated and expanded policies prohibiting international aid from funding oversees abortions.[1]
6. Under Trump the U.S. surpassed Russia and Saudi Arabia to become the world’s largest producer of crude oil.
7. Trump signed a law ending the gag orders on Pharmacists that prevented them from sharing money-saving information.
8. Trump signed into a law up to 12 weeks of paid parental leave for millions of federal workers.
9. Trump signed the “Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act” (FOSTA), which includes the “Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act” (SESTA) which both give law enforcement and victims new tools to fight sex trafficking.
10. Trump signed a bill to require airports to provide spaces for breastfeeding Moms.
11. Trump signed the Save our Seas Act which funds $10 million per year to clean tons of plastic & garbage from the ocean.
12. He signed a bill allowing some drug imports from Canada so that prescription prices would go down.
13. In 2018, President Trump signed the First Step Act, a criminal justice bill which enacted reforms that make our justice system fairer and help former inmates successfully return to society.
14. Trump increased funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) by more than 14%.
15. Through Trump’s Anti-Trafficking Coordination Team (ACTeam) initiative, Federal law enforcement more than doubled convictions of human traffickers and increased the number of defendants charged by 75% in ACTeam districts.
16. Trump’s OMB published new anti-trafficking guidance for government procurement officials to more effectively combat human trafficking.
17. Trump’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations arrested 1,588 criminals associated with Human Trafficking.
18. Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services provided funding to support the National Human Trafficking Hotline to identify perpetrators and give victims the help they need.
19. The hotline identified 16,862 potential human trafficking cases.
20. The Trump Administration is promoting second chance hiring to give former inmates the opportunity to live crime-free lives and find meaningful employment.
21. Trump’s and the Board Of Prisons launched a new “Ready to Work Initiative” to help connect employers directly with former prisoners.
22. The Pledge to America’s Workers has resulted in employers committing to train more than 4 million Americans.
23. Signed VA Choice Act and VA Accountability Act, expanded VA telehealth services, walk-in-clinics, and same-day urgent primary and mental health care.
24. Signed legislation to improve the National Suicide Hotline.
25. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act signed into law by Trump doubled the maximum amount of the child tax credit available to parents and lifted the income limits so more people could claim it.
26. Though a strong argument can be made for the distinction between causation and correlation (and Trump himself has said that a president should not get credit for things that ‘happen to occur’ under their watch), it is nevertheless true that (at least before Covid):
27. Violent crime has fallen every year he’s been in office after rising during the 2 years before he was elected.
28. The 25% lowest-paid Americans enjoyed a 4.5% income boost in November 2019, which outpaces a 2.9% gain in earnings for the country's highest-paid workers.
29. New single-family home sales were up 31.6% in October 2019 compared to the previous year.
30. Under his leadership ISIS has lost most of their territory and been largely dismantled.
31. ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi was killed.
32. Manufacturing jobs are growing at the fastest rate in more than 30 years.
33. Stock Market had reached record highs.
34. Median household income had hit highest level ever recorded.
35. African-American unemployment was at an all-time low.
36. Hispanic-American unemployment was at an all-time low.
37. Asian-American unemployment was at an all-time low.
38. Women’s unemployment rate was at a 65-year low.
39. Youth unemployment was at a 50-year low.
40. We had the lowest unemployment rate ever recorded (again, briefly, pre-covid).
 [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-is-devoted-to-protecting-american-freedoms-and-promoting-american-values/
0 Comments

Profile of "Fair-mindedness"

5/27/2020

0 Comments

 
I think it’s safe to say that we as a nation and as individuals could do better on our communication and unity. This can be achieved and improved in many ways but I want to talk about one small piece of the equation.
 
Being “fair” when we communicate.
 
I’ve been in just about every form of discussion from formal debate to dinner table squabbles. And I am friends with people whose opinions are almost totally contrary to my politics, my religion, and my values. Yet, those relationships are among my strongest and ones infused with the most mutual respect.
 
Though of course there are many factors involved in this, one theme is strong: fair-mindedness reigns on both sides of any disagreement or discussion I have within said relationships.
 
In our current political environment, I’ve recently participated in a number of—we’ll call them “discussions”—on social media that for a number of reasons were not nearly as productive or mutually enlightening, primarily from a lack of fair-mindedness. Indeed, before things would go very off the rails, I would often attempt to get some sort of mutual agreement to be fair between us, and most online participants couldn’t even muster a rudimentary definition of what being fair-minded means, to them. Generally speaking, they hadn’t really thought about it!
 
So today I will attempt to provide a thorough definition or at least a “profile” of fair-mindedness -  For my own benefit, but also to serve as a grounding of sorts. I strongly believe that we should stand up for causes we believe in, but I see too many people who are discouraged or even anxious about voicing their thoughts because of fear of backlash and retaliation. Before you jump to thinking any lack of progress or productivity in a discussion is your fault… it might be worth your time to look for patterns that perhaps the person on the other end of the table is—by definition—someone who under no circumstances wants to have a productive conversation. For whatever reason, they’re just not going to treat you fairly: perhaps their entire goal is to validate their own views, put down others, or otherwise see the world through a narrow lens that no amount of diplomacy would have a strong chance of opening up.
 
That’s the first category of differentiating fair-minded people from what I’ll call “arbitrary” people.[i]
 
Intent
 
A fair-minded person actually wants—explicitly desires—to know more and to learn about the world, including about other people and how they think. Though they may believe in objective truth and objectively better methods and goals, they understand that a difference of opinion isn’t something inherently threatening[1]: potentially it’s exciting—something to learn and grow from. They seek truth, which to them has high potential to be different from any one initial position.
 
An arbitrary person, by contrast, likely doesn’t have the goal to listen or learn. Their intent, more often than not, is seeking that their opinions/feelings be validated. Period. They talk and engage with others to be “seen” as smart, right, and/or bask in the attention/imbued feeling of self-importance that comes with someone engaging them on a topic important to them.[2] They are likely patently uncomfortable when they encounter someone with a different view and so when they encounter such people, their unwritten goal can become to point out how that person is uninformed, mistaken, even mentally ill… or evil.[3] In their world, putting down difference is essential to maintaining their feeling comfortable—Their vision of peace in the world often demands “sameness.” If you’re not the same as them, there must be something wrong with you. Forget learning from others who are different, the very existence of someone different is a threat to them. Oftime the only acceptable choice for such (in their mind) is a binary one: become converted or become outcast.
 
Mindset
 
Similar to intent, a fair-minded person has a distinct mindset going into any conversation. For example, they come into a conversation keeping in mind that the default for any scenario is that most likely the things they don’t know far exceed the things they do know—and that’s important[4]. Often of equal importance, they likewise realize, there are “unknown” unknowns that could bear on any point made and most assumptions a person would want to naturally make in things that are not known are speculative and unwarranted. It keeps them humble and changes the way a fair-minded person can reasonably talk about things. It sets the tone for what can be reasonably inferenced and what is purely fiction or hypothetical (areas of conversation that, while interesting, are often tangential to the main goals of productive conversations).
Relatedly, their mindset keeps in mind the difference between an opinion and a fact. They can have a solid opinion on the facts they know but they consciously acknowledge that theirs is but one way to interpret what is known (or knowable). This charitable, fair mindset allows for others to see those same facts from a different (and possibly equally valid) lens and arrive (from their different assumptions) a different and still respectable conclusion. They tend to talk in tentative terms of how something “strikes them” and how things “seem” vs. talking in “well this is how it is”-absolutes (it is very rare that anyone can know something for 100% certain, though of course, there is a reasonable line between where justifiable assumptions end and nonsensical conspiracy theories begin).
 
Further, their mindset values learning from and being sharpened by contrary opinions. They’re typically naturally curious. They enter into a conversation with the assumption that more likely than not their counterpart has information that they do not,  and even if they see the facts differently, enlightenment can be gained by listening to the other person’s set of facts. A fair-minded person can hold their own opinion to be valid and worthy, while also sincerely want to know if there is something they’re missing or wrong about and are open to—even seek—that possibility. It’s one of the cornerstones of being fair-minded (and mature). Indeed, their empathy extends so far that even when their counterpart makes an obvious blunder or contradiction they don’t seize upon it aggressively.  Rather, they try to respond with curiosity or assumed confusion e.g., “did I hear you right… or did I misunderstand…” and then charitably gives the other person a chance to clarify.
 
 
Arbitrary people often operate from the mindset that they already have all the facts[5] and they’re there simply to speak their truths loud and long enough until they achieve submission from any ‘errant’ adversary. If someone disagrees with them, it doesn’t expose the weaknesses and limitations of their view. Their mindset naturally can take this as evidence of some imperfection in the other person only—they aren’t very open to seeking further truth, the only righteous option is defending their truth. You can’t make progress with them because progress (to them) is one-sided: They won’t give up ground because they already occupy the only ground worthy of occupying and anyone not standing alongside them is, by default, to blame for causing any problems for not coming in the only direction that matters—toward them. Their opinion and “reality” are one and the same to them.
 
This mindset seeps into almost every aspect of a conversation. Watch the next time you’re in a conversation with an arbitrary arguer and see how often they use one standard for themselves and their opinions, and a completely different standard for anything brought up that goes against what they say. They seamlessly transition from expecting their opinion to be accepted at face value, to demanding contrary opinions be from the “right” place with “acceptable” sources without one shred of imperfection or applicable bias—all with the presumption being if you fail in one detail, their “rightness” is established by default. Arbitrary people are more than eager to “fill in the gaps” of unknowns with details that justify their story or perspective. To them, that is the only way to finish the story. To have to concede that their opinion makes too many assumptions to be warranted just isn’t something they think about. To them, if it feels right, it is right. Period.
This is because (and this is important in understanding just how unfair arbitrary people can be), they actually set themselves up as the ultimate judge of all truth. Their mindset doesn’t think in terms of what is justifiable in absolute or logical terms—like if what is said passes the “reasonable person” test to use a legal term—the only thing that matters is what they personally think, how they personally feel regardless of how little information they have and how much evidence may go against it. Facts and fairness are tossed out the window because the only important criteria in a point or explanation is what they personally find convincing: they are the measure of all things! Never mind how an outside observer or third party or anyone would debunk an explanation they accept as true. Such people are often “just wrong”—their contradictory standards suddenly and without apology just changed the level of justification needed (from “research-paper” level to “zero”) to dismiss a point merely because it goes against their opinion! 
 
Another egregiously unfair habit of this one-sided mindset is to what I call “sniping” opponents: instead of listening empathetically—with the intent to capture and understand the major point or essence of their counterpart, they instead will interrupt in the middle of a point to “pounce” upon or “snipe” whenever some small detail (to them) isn’t ironclad or makes a small (even if totally unrelated) mistake (a “gotcha!” moment). This not only derails the conversation as a whole, but makes it impossible to converse with them unless you are ready to present novel-sized “acceptable” memorized facts rather than more reasonable levels of facts and inferences. Again, an arbitrary person typically isn’t interested in truth and learning: they seek agreement, sameness, submission, and feeling superior. If a petty point is on their side, that is all that is needed to bring it up—scope and relevancy be hanged.
 
Flow
 
A fair-minded person purposefully keeps a “pulse” as to the way a conversation is going. They pay attention to the body language and subtle gestures of the other person and guard against making them uncomfortable or jumping to conclusions. They pay attention to tempo and pace: have they talked for too long at any one point or otherwise dominated the conversation? “To restore balance,” they think at the back of their mind, “maybe I need to yield or ‘check in’ with my counterpart.” It is important to them that both parties be in sync with one another and they are willing to go back to better delineate a point made sloppily or obtusely. They hesitate to move on until a mutual understanding is felt between both sides on a particular point. After all, how can learning and mutual understanding grow… if the basic building blocks of understanding are shaky? Going back, starting over, or trying something again is a bedrock of their conversational habits. The flow may seem slower[6] at first (one of their habits is to say things like “so what you’re saying is…”, “so what we’ve established so far can be summed up as….”) but these tendencies contribute dramatically to greater productivity and less frustration overall (so long as truth and understanding are included in the goals of the conversation). Meaningfully, a fair-minded person puts the goals of the conversation ahead of their own pride. If a point gets lost or tangled, a fair-minded person can reset it instantly with a “hold on, I think I made a mistake” or a “my bad, let me try that again” and “that’s on me”: to them, it is more important to get the flow going again than to waste time in the blame game or rehashing old ground for the purposes of shaming or avoiding admitting a mistake.
 
An arbitrary person has no qualms about changing the subject or going on a tangent whenever the conversation gets too close to “losing” ground, gets cagey (or vague) with any points that don’t showcase their superiority, isn’t above making personal attacks, and gets frustrated at any direction that leads away from them making their desired points—even if said direction is necessary to the overall conversation. Though they will often interrupt their counterparts, their own time to talk is sacrosanct and immutable—even if they ramble so profusely that they expeditiously destroy any possibility at a logical discussion—marked by mutual opportunity to opine and rebut one point at a time. They erringly think that taking up the most time is somehow evidence that their points are superior or they are “winning”. Conversation is an opportunity to be exploited to the fullest possible extent to get their points out there as often and as strongly as possible—they are unconcerned if potentially important points are left out, if it serves their goal of feeling that their side got more attention. The flow is more deeply impeded by the fact that any rhetorical, logical, or outright idiotic mistakes typically must not be explainable by them taking (often needed) responsibility[7] and therefore must be tip-toed around or neurotically deflected onto circumstances beyond their control, the other speaker, or third parties. Because, contrary to all reason, nothing could be any fault of theirs.
 
Reasonable
 
Speaking of reason, a fair-minded person is movable, acknowledges their weaknesses and limits, tries very hard to be logical, and strongly values consistency and equanimity. In a word, they’re reasonable. Even when it may go against their position, they will answer any genuine and relevant question.
If emotions start to run too hot, a fair-minded person can keep their head in the game enough to attempt to de-escalate the situation or even completely step outside their emotions to see things from a point of view that perhaps they personally find objectionable—not agreeing with it, but simply exercising their objectivity long enough to consider a thought from a context they aren’t naturally inclined to or inherently comfortable with. As Aristotle is reported to have said “It is the mark of an enlightened mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”[8] Moreover, a fair-minded person wants all sides—even if not present—be represented fairly and accurately. Even if they disagree with it, they often will temporarily defend a point that isn’t a fair or accurate representation.
 
By contrast, an arbitrary person has few if any such equitable standards. When asked a question that goes against their goals, they think nothing of using rhetorical tricks to weasel out of answering or even give false or misleading statements or pointing out how someone else did a bad or similar thing too (and how dare you give them a pass while being so hard on me). Their logical toolbox is filled with fallacies that they utilize whenever it benefits them. One of their go-to tricks is to mock, distort, or extremify another’s position rather than argue against what they actually are saying: E.g., “it may be dangerous to open up cities too soon during this pandemic” to them becomes “so you’re saying we have to stay bunkered in our homes and never come out for five years?” They simply aren’t interested in being fair as much as they are being right.
They use emotions as one such tool. Not only do they naturally project emotions (and nefarious motives) onto others, if it suits their purposes, they also can sabotage any conversation by choosing to interpret an innocuous comment to be something personally offensive or (equally disdainful) implicating something to do with something like the “culture wars” and within second all semblance of order because—far from being able to “step into the shoes” of another person or “entertain a thought without accepting it”—now the only topic on the table is “how dare you ___”
 
Further, arbitrary people are not temperate when it comes to information. Their biases are such that they are hard to impress (they often “already know” things that are, in fact, new information), impossible to surprise (“that’s not news…”), and just about everything somehow falls within the boundaries of their “expertise.”  They have built in defense mechanisms that can “auto-explain” away anything they’d prefer not to have to accept (see their tendency to only need superficial answers to complex questions, above, if it so happens to be on “their” side)[9], and they are often far to “quick to understand” what is in fact a very deep, very complex and multifaceted issue (They of course haven’t stopped to consider how deeply implicative an issue could be because considering all the actual factors involved would overwhelm them with the weight of reality that what they don’t know far outweighs the things they do know. Which would open them up to a whole host of issues with their identity: namely that there are extremely smart, well-informed, most often right, and/or don’t need others).
 
Conscientiousness
 
With an arbitrary person, a conversation is often a constant frustrating battle on multiple fronts. Not only are they majorily unaware of why a conversation isn’t going well (and their usually-substantial contributions to that problem), but more often than not they blame their own faults and misunderstandings on the other party. To use another example from the Covid-19 pandemic, they misunderstand the difference between a factor-dependent projection that “up to 2 million people may die” (e.g., if no action/intervention is taken and making some assumptions about the behavior of the virus) with an absolutist promise “that 2 million people will die.” What is their response when 2 million casualties do not come to pass? Blame the experts for lying or “being wrong” of course. It never crosses their mind that a misunderstanding on their part could be what actually went wrong. They simply aren’t aware of how often the things they say—to an outside objective mind—don’t make sense, don’t mean what they think it means, isn’t backed up as strongly or as obviously as they think, etc. And it isn’t their fault that others don’t see their indisputable rightness…  it’s everyone else’s fault but theirs.
Further, they rarely if ever acknowledge strong points of the other side. Their rebuttals almost entirely consist of the weaknesses of the other side’s point and gloss over, minimize, or worse completely bypass any strong points the other side makes as they are too prideful to admit aloud that someone other than themselves is actually being convincing. Not only do they often fail to recognize when their explanations are narrow or shallow but to them, any point—no matter how petty or wildly speculative—is treated in their mind as on par or superior with the most salient, far-reaching obviously notable point the other side may make. “If it backs me up, it matters” is their creed. Reality and integrity be hung.
 
To make the point even more strongly, I believe this entire discussion can be summed up as a simple spectrum: to what extent is a person clear-mindedly grounded in reality, or deluded and living in their own reality?
 
A fair-minded person, conversely, is consciously aware of how delicate communication itself is. They constantly monitor how their statements or tone might be off or at least open to misinterpretation. Likewise, they are completely comfortable with the frequency of how often, in fact, a very intelligent person can get things wrong (even when they very much believe they are right): they can miss a point, mishear, simply have let their mind wander at a crucial part, or—due to no one’s conscious fault—the point simply was not as clear in one’s articulated words as they perceived it was in their head. More often than not, communication has a lot of rough edges and a fair-minded person puts this at the forefront when trying to navigate to mutual and greater understanding. Further, they make it a point to acknowledge and build mutual agreeableness. They take opportunities to say things like “I agree,” “that makes sense,” “that’s a strong point,” etc. To them, being in a conversation isn’t a battle between two opposing forces, it’s (ideally) a team up where two people are trying to work together on a specific problem or goal.[10]
 
Conclusion
 
So the next time you’re discouraged in any sort of discussion or debate... Take a moment to consider if your opponent is even open to hearing you out and playing fair… or if they’re playing by their own rules that from the start are designed to have them win, and anyone else impulsive enough to engage with them, lose.
 


[1] Or even automatically about a black and white “right or wrong” dichotomy—rather very likely two things along the same spectrum of achieving goodness!

[2] Obviously, most of us want our opinions and feelings validated. It’s a natural human need. The difference (and danger here) is seeking this outside the rules of fair play, or to seek this above the virtues of basic honesty or equanimity: is it fair to force the other person to become your personal therapist when you pitched this conversation as a debate about policy? Is it mature to downplay certain facts just so we can maintain a high opinion of our beliefs, or feel more comfortable about things that are inherently wrong or subversive?

[3] See Kathryn Schulz, “On Being Wrong”

[4] Somewhat paradoxically, being so deferential of the unknown doesn’t typically mean a fair-minded person knows less than their counterpart. Though of course there are many exceptions, the fair-minded person typically knows more than their adversary—their heightened awareness of the things they don’t know is so high because as they expand the boundaries of what is known to them the limits to their knowledges “touches” more edges of things that are unknown. Someone who has smaller boundaries of knowledge typically feels they know a lot more than they do—but rarely test and push those boundaries. See: Illusion of Explanatory Depth.

[5] If something they don’t like appears to be true, then all of a sudden it’s important to hold out for more research

[6] “Remember, when it comes to people, slow is fast. And fast, is slow.” -Stephen R. Covey

[7] Directly related to the tendency to making personal attacks, an arbitrary person’s habit of eschewing responsibility could be an essay in and of itself. Because of vastly different rules and goals from both sides, watching a fair-minded person and an arbitrary person argue often results in exchanges like the following:
The arbitrary person makes a wildly inaccurate claim, and the fair-minded person asks them to clarify or provide evidence for the claim. Where does the conversation turn? To how arrogant or condescending the fair-minded person is being.
Regardless of the merits of the actions of the fair-minded person, any and all of their actions could be labeled in self-serving ways. Again, the arbitrary person is serving themselves and a fair-minded person is often trying to get the conversation back on track, but to the arbitrary person all that matters is you made me feel bad, so you must BE bad. Of COURSE no progress can be made with such a person: at the get-go it is a foregone conclusion that they are right and perfect and good—and nothing can be said or implied otherwise!
This tendency even further interrupts flow because even referencing things that happened or were said within the very conversation you are having isn’t subject to basic acknowledgment or admission.
An arbitrary person just contradicted what they said at the beginning of the conversation? No they didn’t, you misunderstood.
They interrupted 6 times in the past 5 minutes? Never happened (or, they point out how their counterpart made an equal or worse offense) etc.

[8] This isn’t even always purposeful or malicious. Remember, they often DEFINE goodness and rightness as SELF-REFERENTIAL. To them, BY DEFINITION, who in their right mind could disagree that their position isn’t the right one? In order to maintain this delusion, they have a strong incentive to make caricature of other’s positions because to do otherwise would lessen the strength of their opinions (and open up the possibility that they may be wrong). “If you don’t agree with me, you must be crazy.” How crazy? I’ll show you.

[9] I’ll never forget one such debate (the topic was the unrest of a country where a branch of a company was operating and the question was “should the company continue operations as normal, or consider bringing employees home?” as there were signs pointing to significant increases in unrest). This was a situation in which literally lives were at stake and when presented with information on how the current situation very closely mirrored a situation that happened in a neighboring country 15 years previously in which things escalated very quickly, the response to the information wasn’t to know more about it, nor any other number of productive paths. It was, rather, an acrimonious  “how come this wasn’t brought up to me sooner?”—self-referential, emotional, looking for blame, and going down a tangential path rather than focusing on what was most important. But instead, the next 10 minutes were wasting apologizing to this person about why they weren’t informed earlier (when, in fact, they had been—they just ignored it, or conveniently forgot it).

[10] This may be a “Sheldon-esque” blindness on my part, but why the heck can’t we—before a conversation starts—take 10 second to establish WHY we both are participating in a conversation? I think it would go a long way in turning a lot of arguments (in which people speak past each other because they are in fact talking about different things) into mutually satisfying discussions.


[i] Other names that to some degree apply are one-sided, self-serving, or biased people. Obviously in some ways we are all biased. But that is no reason to dismiss the fact that some people genuinely strive for objectivity and can achieve it in some respects. Someone with an extremely strong opinion of something can actually empathize, understand, and fully respect someone of the opposite view (I would add… so long as that opinion can be shown to have a self-consistent argument behind it!) The question is… do they so strive? Fair-minded people are careful to guard against biases, even if of course they will be naturally inclined toward one position over others because of unobjective criteria. ‘Arbitrary’ biased people, in contrast, are carelessly biased.
But I went with arbitrary primarily because non fair-minded people don’t have a strong sense of fair play and so to some extent set their own (unfair) rules or are contradictory in their standards of fairness—their standards apply differently for them and their opinions (a sympathetic one that is more than willing to “overlook” their flaws and weaknesses), and a different standard—often a moving target depending on what argument is made—for other’s opinions and “facts” (too often painting the weaknesses as the entire argument). In other words, they’re arbitrary! A synonym for arbitrary is inconsistent… but I didn’t think that fit as well because non fair-minded people can be remarkably predictable and consistent in some ways so I think arbitrary captures not only the tendency to apply different standards at different times but also the fact that they don’t tend to be aware of the ways in which they are inconsistent as well as outright assume more authority than they genuinely command—like an arbitrary authoritarian leader.  
0 Comments

“‘Kindness’ in Today’s Society Has Become its Deepest Vice” Or, “How The Election of Donald Trump Unmasked the Consequences of Being ‘Politically Correct’” By Kendel Christensen

5/21/2017

4 Comments

 
Picture
                I was sent an email this morning about how we need to be “more loving and caring” to our friends and family. It contained the above quote by Maya Angelou as well as a gushing story about a high school teacher that let a struggling student be excused from the final exam and project in his class. Hooray for him! What a hero! How kind! How caring!

…

I about screamed.

This is what our society labels as kindness and caring? Passing a student simply because “they’re going through a rough time?”

You can learn a lot about a society from the “truisms” and platitudes it tends to repeat, and I’ve heard this one so often it seems to be on a special pedestal.
I wonder, why don’t we have a truism that says “Humbly consider what people say, improve in any given way, and throw the rest away” or something like that? Nope. Instead, the gateway of what makes a good person is “how they feel as a result of what you said.” Was it true? Was it helpful? Was it hard to hear, but ultimately the best thing for them in the long-run? Doesn’t matter. They felt bad = you are bad.

On a related note: People still wonder how someone like Trump got elected. He has clear flaws, but to me part of the equation is how bad this idea of protecting others from hearing things that are not “politically correct”. We were to the point where certain opinions and beliefs (because they made people feel bad) were not allowed by the media and social elites. If you expressed them, you deserved shame and shunning, plain and simple—no wonder 66 million people were attracted to a guy who seemed to have the courage to actually say what he believes. Instead of shaming people who believe hurtful things, why can’t we hear them out and engage with them with human dignity? Isn’t that a value this nation was founded on? I’m all about rational thinking and allowing the best ideas to win the day, but clearly, offensive opinions aren’t just going to “go away” if we pretend they are too prejudiced to actually exist in good people. Instead of dismissing and shaming (likely to only have them further dismiss us and entrench their opinions further), what prevents us from engaging in a competent way that allows the possibility that what they are saying doesn’t automatically make them a “deplorable” human being?

Anyway, back to caring and kindness. Don’t get me wrong, I am all about being thoughtful, considerate, and kind (one of my favorite pithy sayings from the Dalai Lama is “Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible”) We should be kind so long as, by kindness, we mean something along the lines of ‘wanting what is best for the other person’ or ‘helping them to achieve a higher level of success or happiness.’ Giving them a ‘free pass’ out of hard work sounds to me more like a distinct lack of caring.

But no, we don’t value instilling virtue, diligence, and high standards in our schools and society at large anymore to an astoundingly large extent. How dare we fail someone because “life happened” and it suddenly isn’t possible (or convenient) to do what is required? Of course we can just change or drop the requirements. We don’t want people to feel bad because they failed. The “kind” and “caring” thing is to protect them from any negative consequences that happen to them. Clearly.
…
…
How does this prepare them for real life? “Life happens” is suddenly an adequate excuse to… not prepare you for real life??
I was a high school teacher for years, and I’m here to tell you: public school doesn’t prepare you for much anymore. It was basically our district’s policy to pass thousands of students who hadn’t learned life’s most basic lesson: that what you make of your life is your responsibility. It’s not anyone else’s fault—even if your life was hard. Or someone was mean to you. Or “made you feel bad.”

Of course there are some exceptions to this (though, careful: the default tendency is for people to assume they are always the exception). But from my perspective, our society has gone too far down this rabbit hole of its highest virtue being to protect other people from “feeling bad.” This empowers incompetence, encourages a mindset that ignores reality and ever taking an inventory of our true abilities, and results in an entitlement mentality.

​I agree with Ted Koppel when he said “Our society finds truth too strong a medicine to digest undiluted. In its purest form, truth is not a polite tap on the shoulder. It is a howling reproach.” Instead of guarding against “feeling bad” we as a society needs to develop the skill of competently considering and engaging with things that may make us want to react negatively. Because the truth—even when it hurts or makes us feel bad—is what, in the end, will set a person free. Not the idea that “I should never say something that will make someone else feel bad.” If someone is living contrary to reality or their ultimate happiness, saying something that makes them feel temporarily bad, but ultimately is in their best interest to hear and apply, is simply the kindest, most caring thing another human can do.
 
Committed to your success,
Kendel
4 Comments

Grateful in Any Circumstance

4/27/2014

3 Comments

 
Picture

Grateful in Any Circumstance

 

Talk given by Kendel Christensen, April 27, 2014

Colonial First Ward. Crystal City, VA

 

        I consider myself a collector. I collect epiphanies. I’m not talking about the epiphany that comes the millisecond after you lean too far back in a chair and YOU KNOW your life is over. Or the epiphany where you realize THE MOMENT you send an email that you spelled a name wrong. I collect life-changing epiphanies (which is why I love quotes). So I am very grateful to speak on President Uchtdorf’s talk entitled “Grateful in Any Circumstance” because it gave me a some important epiphanies about my life. I don’t live up to what I am about to say, but I am trying to live ‘in’ to it.

 

        President Uchtdorf says:

I don’t believe the Lord expects us to be less thankful in times of trial than in times of abundance and ease…

●●●

…I suggest that we see gratitude as a disposition, a way of life that stands independent of our current situation[…that] we focus on being thankful in our circumstances—whatever they may be.

●●●

…It might sound contrary to the wisdom of the world to suggest that one who is burdened with sorrow should give thanks to God. But those who set aside the bottle of bitterness and lift instead the goblet of gratitude can find a purifying drink of healing, peace, and understanding.

As disciples of Christ, we are commanded to “thank the Lord [our] God in all things,” to “sing unto the Lord with thanksgiving,” and to “let[our] heart be full of thanks unto God” (Alma 37:37).

 

        In my oblivious perfectionism, I thought I believed that. I thought I lived that. It is really easy to say, “Oh yeah, I’m always grateful,” when your life is, well, pretty great.

 

        But that was before I had loved ones pass away, promises abandoned, a dream job offer rescinded, and a heart broken. I really tried to look for a way to ‘give thanks for’ those things—to submit myself to my circumstances and try to focus on ‘the good that can come from a bad situation.’ But in all honesty, I just couldn’t be grateful for some of those things. And that made me feel even worse—Like the very fact that I was hurting and not able to use the gospel to make me feel happy all the time meant that there was something wrong with me. That I was unworthy, unlovable, or worse.

 

        I am so glad that we have prophets and apostles to clarify what the truth actually is from the false notions we incorrectly interpret. And President Uchtdorf in his talk clears up this particular false doctrine that I naively believed for so long:

Being grateful in times of distress does not mean that we are pleased with our circumstances. It does mean that through the eyes of faith we look beyond our present-day challenges.

This is not a gratitude of the lips but of the soul. It is a gratitude that heals the heart and expands the mind.

 

        Now, I’m the wrong person right now to speak about the type of gratitude that ‘heals hearts,’ but I can speak from that a majority of the pain and suffering I experience the trials of my life, comes from focusing and fixating and relentlessly narrowing in on what it is that I am not pleased about.

 

        So how do we look beyond our challenges and experience gratitude in the way that President Uchtdorf is talking about? In a way that looks beyond the problem itself, and “expands our minds?” A way that becomes an attitude, a state of mind that is independent of any external circumtances?

 

I.

        Remaining in any state comes down to the choices we make. I believe there are two choices in particular that we need to make to experience this attitude. I believe the first choice is to let go of our preconceived notions of how things “should work,” and perhaps more importantly, of how we think things should work out.

 

        Instead, we look for a broader, more nuanced, more Godlike view. A view that humbly recognizes that what “working out” looks like might not only be something you don’t expect, it could be something that you don’t even have the imagination or even the capacity to imagine.

        Remember, that we are a living Church and we have not yet received many of the ordinances and doctrines of the Gospel. In the words of one prominent Buddhist monk:

“People suffer because they are caught in their views. As soon as we release those views, we are free and we don't suffer anymore.” (Thich Nhat Hanh)

 

        Only once we are free of our preconceived notions can we develop the spirit of gratitude that allows us to be “grateful in all circumstances.” But it is even more than that. President Uchtdorf mentions in Alma 37:37 that the commandment is actually let our hearts be ‘full’ of thanks. And “letting go” is not quite the same as making at least my heart “full of thanks.”

 

II.

        So the second choice in the process is to actively seek out and use our agency to choose to look at life in a grateful way—to mentally explore our life and choose to experience gratitude ‘outside’ our sorrows. There are three ways I’ve found to do this.

 

1.Active Gratitude in the “negative” sense (“at least”)

2.Active Gratitude in the “neutral” sense (“enough”)

3.Active Gratitude in the “positive” sense (“wonderful”)

 

        Active Gratitude in the ‘negative’ sense looks beyond our present circumstance and actively is grateful that our circumstance is, at least, not worse. And things, really, always could be worse.

 

        At least you didn’t grow up with people yelling at you as you went to school that you are a monster and threatening to poison the food you eat (Ruby Bridges). At least you weren’t abused as a small child and then forced to marry that person responsible who was decades your senior (Nujood Ali). At least you don’t wake up every morning in an enemy containment cell wondering if today your food will be edible or not (Elias Feinzlberg).

        If we actively chose to look at our sorrows with this lens, what would it do to our hearts?

 

        Active gratitude in the “neutral” sense actively chooses to accept that what we have received is enough. It chooses to changethe standard of “adequacy” and gives up the desire for more.

        Melody Beattie has said: “Gratitude unlocks the fullness of life…It can turn a meal into a feast, a house into a home, a stranger into a friend. Gratitude makes sense of our past, [and] brings [the] peace [we need] for [that day]...”

 

        Rather than demandingourdesires, we adjustthem. Instead of complaining that we are not eating elaborate recipes made in the halls of kings, we decide that enjoying the wide variety of simple fruits, vegetables, nuts, and grains is itself quite a royal experience. Instead of looking to ‘walk on the moon,’ we are content to enjoy the flowers that blossom at our feet. If we chose to see that we can actually be completely happy with less, by definition, our hearts will be full.

        But Gratitude in the positive sense looks beyond our current circumstance and sees and decides that things are actually more than enough—they’re actually wonderful. It is the gratitude that is conscious of the ever-present treasures that are not only abundant, but truly glorious. Things like:

·       Experiencing conscious awe as you open your eyes and see an incredible array of colors.

·       Gaping wonder that our brains are capable of interpreting not only light into a visual feast, but also the miracle of touch so we can experience that near-heavenly sensation of walking barefoot on new carpet.

·       Profound thankfulness that, in addition to sight and touch, our body can interpret vibrations that allow us to experience sound and enjoy music (can you imagine life without music?)

·       Simple joy in smelling (and tasting) fresh cookies.

·       Living in a world that is alive with sensations of all types—from expressive daffodils that react to the weather, to animals that we can love and love us as deeply as family members.

·       Conscious that, as Pte. Uchtdorf says, “through the Atonement of… Jesus Christ, we can live forever with our loved ones; that in the end, we will have glorious, perfect, and immortal bodies, unburdened by sickness or disability; and that our tears of sadness and loss willbereplaced with an abundance of happiness and joy.”

·       Conscious that God and Christ not only did these things foryou, but they loveyou unconditionally. Unlike just about every other love (including our search for romantic love) God loves you—not because of who you are or the things you do—but because of who Heis.

 

            As Elder Maxwell has commented,

“Sobered and humbled by the grandeur of the Restoration and all that it brings to us, there should be times when you and I leave tears on our pillows out of gratitude for what God has given us.” (“The Wondrous Restoration,” Ensign, Apr 2003, 30)

 

        If we take that perspective, then our hearts will overflow with thanks. Can we live up to the principle of being grateful always? It is a process. Even if we can’t live up to our ideals now, I have a firm faith that, through the grace of God, we can live ‘in’ to them.

 

        In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.


3 Comments

How Being "Right" Makes You Even More Wrong

3/22/2014

2 Comments

 

How Being “Right” Makes You Even More Wrong

By Kendel J. Christensen

 

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. -1 Corinthians 13:1

 

               Recently a relationship I cared very much about ended. I was in shock, disbelief, and trapped in a self-imposed torment for days trying to answer why I had been so blindsided to this outcome. I kept replaying all possible permutations of our every interaction to see what I could have done differently.

 

               Obviously, not all of it was healthy. But, like all trials, good can be gleaned from it.[1] And though it was heart-wrenching, I did learn. But one thing stands out. Something really important. So here is my attempt to capture it.

 

               Though I did not stay in my tormented state long and am again able to think without too much wallowed anguish, my emergence has been palpably different from past difficult experiences.  I don’t like to talk about my time as a teacher in an inner-city high school in Philadelphia. With notable exceptions, overall it was a time of near-continual anxiety and discouragement—an exercise in simply being beat down every day. Though I did get genuinely depressed at times, I had a fail-safe: It never got overwhelmingly hopeless because I knew I was right. The calcified education system and impotent administration were wrong.  No one would deny that my intentions were the right ones and what I was working for were the right things. I was the man in the arena—face marred by sweat and blood—, and the worse things became, the better I was because I would not and did not give up. I was the noble hero in a story that, even it turned out to be a tragedy, would be idealized for the triumph of his inexhaustible effort. It was easy to toss aside anyone who disagreed. They were either part of the problem or unenlightened critics. But this was different. *I* was the one being tossed aside.

 

               I’ve always been the hero in my life. The good guy. Since I was eight years old, I have worked with the utmost zeal to be the nicest, most “good” person possible. Trying to follow the relationship advice I’ve been given, I’ve focused on not just trying to find the right person, but to become the right person.  It has fused with my identity: I’m the guy that “only does what’s right.” I don’t know anyone in my entire past who would say I had anything other than the absolute best of intentions.

 

               And that is why I continually fail with people. I finally get it.

 

               When it comes to people, good intentions aren’t enough to build relationships. Trying to do the right thing isn’t enough. Trying to “always do the right thing,” if it leads you to identify “rightness” with yourself, can actually tear down relationships a great deal. When you assume that you know more than another, or are ‘better’ than another in any way, they’ll pick up on it (quick), and not only likely ignore what you actually say (thus obliterating your original purpose even if noble), but they can also feel threatened, defensive, or at the very least deflated. Thinking that you, categorically, are right is not only arrogant, presumptuous, and a gross distortion of reality—it gradually drains the psychological stamina of others. They may not even be able to articulate that it is happening, but over time, it becomes outright exhausting for some people to be around you. Thus, acting from a place of “I’m right” actually makes you more wrong regardless of the actual facts!

 

               My entire life to this point I have treated as a black and white battle between good and evil, right and wrong, light and darkness. As I gathered more light and knowledge, I became more “good” in my own eyes. People who went against what I knew were wrong, even evil, or at the very least uninformed. Therefore, in my mind (because I am good), showing others the knowledge I had was the “right thing to do” when they did not have it. I acted only out of a pure desire to help. I realized years ago that “some people are not always ‘ready’ to be helped” and we should be “sensitive” to their readiness.[2] But now I finally am beginning to see that not only can “helping” hurt if the person is not open to receiving it, there is actually a greater good in play than imparting information that may, in fact, be very helpful to the person. The greater good is the person themselves. I had become so “enlightened” that I was close-minded to this higher truth. All I could see were facts in front of my face, when I should have been looking at the big picture. I was asking what was right from my point of view, and I was blind to what was best from the other person’s—and an even higher—point of view.[3]  

 

               The world isn’t painted in black and white, and our choices aren’t always between good and evil. Often they are among competing goods. And people are goods-in-themselves. Each walks around as an unexplored infinity behind two eyes. Not only do they have intrinsic worth, but the way they feel has intrinsic worth. I am not just talking about their feeling ‘happy’ or ‘contented’ or even the way they feel about their dream to open a restaurant. I am talking about maintaining their feeling of self-regard—the feeling that they are regarded as a noble creature who sees their worth and potential more clearly after talking with you. While I was pursuing the very real good of spreading light and truth in the form of imparting knowledge, I would routinely trample upon the greater goods of the person themselves and their feelings. Being right made me even more wrong. My brother put it this way, “people can’t feel your intentions, all they can feel is how you make them feel.” Ouch. Truth pierces poignantly in pain.

 

               This new insight can transform our priorities and intentions. From this new perspective, asking the question, “What is the right thing to do?” can not only be answered without balking at the common objections of “ignoring reality” or “giving up on your values” but it also turns in to a different question: “What is the greatest good I can pursue right now?”

 

               Though I still believe this could be answered by declaring what you know with varying degrees of conviction, I am finally aware of a greater good that I am honestly convinced should be pursued in a preponderance of cases, especially in personal conversations.

 

               That greater good is understanding another person. Feeling understood is perhaps our greatest emotional need. Until the other person feels like I understand them, from now on I am going to hesitate to think that there is any other goal more worthy to pursue at that moment.

 

               This realization has honestly changed my life, rewired my brain, and altered the way I see the world. Not only does it reminds me of how little I really understand and how humble I really should be before concluding something so lofty as thinking “I am right,” it also opens up a new dimension for learning. No matter how much I think I know, I am perpetually ignorant of knowledge that is more important at that moment. I am perpetually ignorant about the other person.   

 

               In my blind righteousness, I unwisely thought I was already inoculated against such fundamental ignorance. But alas, like all of us, some lessons aren’t truly comprehended until we personally make the mistake. Once our reality is razed, our vision is clear enough to actually see what we need to see. As James Russell Lowell said, “One thorn of experience is worth a whole wilderness of warning.”

 

The Solution: Establish Mutual Understanding

 

Words have special powers. The power to create smiles or frowns. The power to generate laughs or tears. The power to lift up or put down. The power to motivate or de-motivate. The power to teach good or evil. The power to express love or hate. The power to give or take. The power to heal or harm. Choose your words carefully. -A.D. Williams (1933-1990);

 

So then, how do we avoid harming relationships when we communicate?

 

               Let’s start by looking at the word “communicate.” Its origins are the same as the word “common.” Communication is an effort to share something with another so that both parties then have that thing in common. Until the listener has received the speaker’s knowledge, decision, story, or sentiment, so that both minds come to a common understanding, communication has not happened. Time can pass, words can be exchanged, but unless and until the listener and the speaker both go into a conversation with a common purpose and come out of it with an understanding that is mutual, they have failed to communicate. And now that I have become much more sensitive as to how I communicate, I am bewildered as to how often I and those around me fail in this most basic goal. Truly, as George Bernard Shaw has articulated, “The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”

 

               Why do we fail so fundamentally and so often?

 

               It is because we get distracted by so many competing and compelling impulses that appear more attractive in the short-term. These impulses may even appear good, and so we unconsciously lose track of the greatest good (the other person and how they feel).

 

               I don’t know about you, but when I talk to people, I have irresistible urges to want to jump in to agree, build upon, judge, advise, interpret, clarify, probe, offer solutions, tie in to my previous experiences or knowledge, fix, counsel, relate, refute, solve, etc. Instead of putting listening and sincere curiosity first, I put “responding so that I look good” (in two senses of that word) very often and easily as priority number one. My propensity is described perfectly in the book The EQ Edge by Steven J. Stein and Howard E. Book:

Too often we think that developing a relationship means that we have to talk a lot, impress others with our achievements, let the world know of our past accomplishments and future dreams. Not so. That behavior risks us being experienced as… interested only in ourselves.[4]

 

               Even if we don’t physically “jump in” and speak, if our internal thinking is focused on any other objective than understanding the other person, we literally have little to no brain capacity left to fully discern and appreciate the other person and their needs. From the best thinking I can do, that is likely why we are surprised when our completely well-intentioned responses don’t help or actually increase the other person’s frustration.

 

               Think about it. Some of the above impulses don’t seem selfish or bad—some look like they absolutely are meant for nothing but helping and building up the other person. Armed with the assurance that we are a good person with good intentions, we barge in with our opinion of what will help when we haven’t grasped what is going on from the other person’s point of view. In one study, 92% of participants offered relationship advice drawing only from their personal experience as if their solution applied universally.[5] But ask yourself: can you help or build someone up if they don’t even feel like you see their situation from their perspective? Even if your advice is good, how do you know that that is what they need?

 

               The truth is you don’t. They may need validation, they may need to be listened to as they allow themselves to discover how they are feeling, or they may just need a reminder that they have someone that loves them. If you try to advise, counsel or otherwise offer “help” before understanding the person fully, you are making them feel like you care less about them than you do about fixing them. Instead of getting the sustenance they need, they get force-fed your “helping” of pre-packaged meatloaf. Thinking you’re right makes you even more wrong.

 

               Think about a time where you weren’t listened to. How did you react? Consider someone who was just broken up with. Which one of the following packages of meatloaf do you think would “help” the most?

 

1.      Judge: “That was stupid of her. Her loss. You’ll find someone better.”

2.      Make a determination: “She obviously wasn’t the one for you. There are plenty of fish in the sea.”

3.      Offer solutions: “Hey, you’re a free agent now. I’ll set you up with my cousin. You’ll love her.”

4.      Counsel: “You can’t let this get you down, you gotta pick yourself up and get back out there.”

5.      Interview: “How did this happen? When? Why?”

6.      Relate to what you know: “Look on the bright side, Stephen R. Covey said ‘Don’t cry because it’s over. Smile because it happened.’”[6]

7.      Relate to what you have experienced: “I’ve been there, man. It hurts, but you’ll get over it.”

 

               Some of those things may be true, even right, but they all bypass the greatest good—trying to understand the other person. Depending on the person, it could instantly plunge them into deeper despair (start all over with…what makes you think… your cousin?!). When dealing with relationships, acting from the assumption that what you are offering is “right” makes you more wrong.

 

               Compare the above responses to what one of my close friends said to me in a similar circumstance: “Kendel, I can’t imagine what you must be feeling as it is so rare for you to find your type of girl. I know nothing I can say can make things better. But I’m here for you if you need someone who wants to hear all of what you’re going through.”

 

               Truly, as Dr. Elton Mayo observed, “One friend, one person who is truly understanding, who takes the trouble to listen to us as we consider our problem, can change our whole outlook on the world.”

 

               Though the other responses would likely be completely well-intentioned, my friend helped me more than anyone else. He made me feel safe, cared for, and understood. Unlike everyone who tried to “help,” he tried to feel my emotions alongside me. He cut through all the well-intentioned distractions and touched my heart. With wisdom born of charity, he practiced empathy.

 

               The way to succeed in communication is to focus on what you really want. You don’t really want to advise, counsel, interview, or judge the other person. You really want to help the person? Understanding them is the only way. This is more than merely “active listening.” This is nothing less than removing all other purposes and making your sole motive be hearing them out and showing you now have a common understanding.[7] The greatest good is to have the other person say in their mind, “Finally someone ‘gets it!’ Yes! You understand what I am saying!”—and then sigh with thoroughly overdue relief. There are few things as relieving as having found a comrade that uplifts and sustains your stamina by really understanding you rather than slowly siphoning the little that remains because they are trying so hard to help you, but don’t fully grasp your plight.

 

               Instead of assuming your perspective is correct and universal, and then prescribing solutions, we should first set aside our opinions and other considerations to really listen with the sole purpose to understand. That is the greatest good. If this greater good is neglected by your insistence on moving forward with a “lesser right”—even though you may see ample justification—you are contributing to an even greater wrong. This is as true in personal relationships, as it is for the different sides of a neighborhood, as it for the different sides of national debates.



[1] A man’s errors are his portals of discovery.” -James Joyce

[2] But even here, I have realized about the profound difference delivery makes in the results. There is a difference between instruction and discovery. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “’He’s a fool that cannot conceal his wisdom”

[3] I wonder if there isn’t a relation here to the Biblical insight in John 15:13, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man ‘lay down’ his life for his friends.”—we ‘lay aside’ our view—no matter how informed, and try to understand and just love our friend. I also wonder if this could lead to understanding my relationship with God better or is a key to understanding the true nature of prayer.

[4] The EQ Edge: Emotional Intelligence and Your Success, p. 155-156

[5] See Protinsky, H., and L. Coward. 2001. “Developmental Lessons of Seasoned Marital and Family Therapists: A Qualitative Investigation.” Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 27:375-84.

[6] Stephen Covey didn’t say that. It was Theodor Geisel (Dr. Seuss). But this approach is especially common among the well-meaning. We read things that have helped us—Stephen Covey is a popular offering (and inspired parts of this post)—and spew forth our nuggets of wisdom indeterminately. What we don’t perhaps consider is that when we relate things to our knowledge before understanding, we can make the other person feel objectified. It’s like you have diminished their problem down to a sound-bite when their situation is much more personal and nuanced.

[7] “What is a friend? A single soul dwelling in two bodies.” -Aristotle


2 Comments
<<Previous
    Picture
    Learn More About Me
    Subscribe to blog updates via E-mail by Clicking here. 

    RSS Feed

    Categories

    All
    Apologetics~Religion
    Business
    Education
    Finance
    Human Relations
    Jerusalem~Best
    Jerusalem~Galilee
    Jerusalem~Good
    Jerusalem~Great
    Jerusalem~Lessons
    Kendel's Thoughts On Life
    Life Events~Huge
    Life Events~Medium
    Life Events~Small
    Lifelong Learning
    Notes From Lectures~Other
    Notes From Lectures~Religion
    Notes~Periodic Compilation
    Politics
    Random
    Remember
    Soapboxes
    Teach For America Experiences
    Tips-Finance
    Tips-Tech
    Travel~Africa
    Travel~Jerusalem
    Travel~Jordan
    Travel~Other

    Kendel's Recently Read Books

    Covenant Hearts: Marriage And the Joy of Human Love
    5 of 5 stars
    Covenant Hearts: Marriage And the Joy of Human Love
    by Bruce C. Hafen
    This was the perfect Sunday read and kept me enthralled for weeks. A must-read in my opinion. Brother Hafen has insights to life and marriage that are remarkably deep and complex... yet summarized and presented in very simple, natural way. ...
    The Five Love Languages: How to Express Heartfelt Commitment to Your Mate
    4 of 5 stars
    The Five Love Languages: How to Express Heartfelt Commitment to Your Mate
    by Gary Chapman
    This is a great read! Gary Chapman has a deep, experienced lens through which the reader can see relationships on an entirely different level. His recommendations are extremely practical and the framework he gives--that everyone has a "...
    The Art of Talking to Anyone: Essential People Skills for Success in Any Situation
    2 of 5 stars
    The Art of Talking to Anyone: Essential People Skills for Success in Any Situation
    by Rosalie Maggio
    This book further cements my bias to rarely pick up a book without looking at reviews first. The table of contents looked promising--How to Deal with Conversation Predicaments, How to Keep Any Conversation Going, How to Graciously Stop A Co...
    Writing, Rhetoric, and the Art of Persuasion
    5 of 5 stars
    Writing, Rhetoric, and the Art of Persuasion
    by Michael D.C. Drout
    This book was SO insightful. I learned so much about communication. My favorite part was where he would analyze classic speeches from history and why they were effective. Highly recommended.
    Living With Enthusiasm
    4 of 5 stars
    Living With Enthusiasm
    by L. Tom Perry
    Great Read! There are a great many good thoughts in this book, (the life-changing parts, for me was in the intro and first chapter--I read that years ago and adopted his motto as my own).

    "Every great and commanding moment in...

    goodreads.com

    Archives

    November 2020
    September 2020
    May 2020
    May 2017
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    December 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    November 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    July 2009
    April 2009
    February 2009
    January 2009
    November 2008
    October 2008
    July 2008

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photos used under Creative Commons from ewan traveler, THX0477