Welcome, Mr. President.

(One of Mike's Christmas gifts to me this year. Love it.)

It comes to Manhattan.

There is going to be a Proposition 8 protest tomorrow night outside of our temple in Manhattan, against our church. It's all over the internet. ALL over the internet. Facebook, Craigs List, Perez Hilton (I'm never reading his site again- I'm so over his intolerance & bigotry towards the church), miscellaneous websites calling for people to travel to Lincoln Center with signs & tshirts. It just makes me sick. I have no idea how many people will show up. It could be thousands. Mike was planning on going to the temple tomorrow night, to worship. He wants to go. But will he be safe? Will he get egged? Even if there are risks of verbal or even physical abuse, should he still go? We've never had to worry about something like this before. Luckily, the temple in New York has these really great double walls (with a cushion of a few inches in between) that are totally soundproof. It's amazing.

.

This just makes me really sad. Really, really sad. Members all over the country are getting persecuted for voting with their conscience (& again- read my post on what percentage of the vote was actually members of our faith). The church has been singled out so viciously, & all in the name of tolerance & love. I will stand up for what I believe in, & I'll defend my church & my faith as often as I need to, but as Mike pointed out to me a few minutes ago, the church is apparently just the most politically acceptable target. In the eyes of those who are protesting, Jews, Blacks, Evangelicals or Catholics apparently had nothing to do with the vote. Can you imagine the backlash if the vote (in three states! three!) was blamed on Blacks? Or Jews?! It's frustrating, & if I were to step back with an unbiased view I would say that the treatment of the LDS church the past couple of weeks has been really disgusting.

.

Sad.

...

I read this talk this morning on the train. It calmed me down a bit, & gave me comfort- even with the realization that things will likely only get worse.

.

To my inquiring sister and all who seek to know how we should respond to our accusers, I reply, we love them. Whatever their race, creed, religion, or political persuasion, if we follow Christ and show forth His courage, we must love them. We do not feel we are better than they are. Rather, we desire with our love to show them a better way—the way of Jesus Christ. His way leads to the gate of baptism, the strait and narrow path of righteous living, and the temple of God. He is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). Only through Him can we and all our brothers and sisters inherit the greatest gift we can receive—eternal life and eternal happiness. To help them, to be an example for them, is not for the weak. It is for the strong. It is for you and me, Latter-day Saints who pay the price of discipleship by answering our accusers with Christian courage.

Elder Robert D. Hales

Facts are facts are facts are facts (Prop 8).

"Let us leave a record so that the choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel."

Elder Neal A. Maxwell

In the face of true persecution targeted towards members of the church recently (not-so-peaceful protests outside the temple in LA / outside of Temple Square in Salt Lake), keep in mind:

1. Mormons make up less than 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 34 million.
2. Mormon voters were less than 5% of the yes vote. If one estimates that 250,000 LDS are registered voters (the rest being children), then LDS voters made up 4.6% of the Yes vote and 2.4% of the total Proposition 8 vote.
3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) donated no money to the Yes on 8 campaign. Individual members of the Church were encouraged to support the Yes on 8 efforts and, exercising their constitutional right to free speech, donated whatever they felt like donating.
4. The No on 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes on 8 campaign. Unofficial estimates put No on 8 at $38 million and Yes on 8 at $32 million, making it the most expensive non-presidential election in the country.
5. Advertising messages for the Yes on 8 campaign are based on case law and real-life situations. The No on 8 supporters have insisted that the Yes on 8 messaging is based on lies. Every Yes on 8 claim is supported.
6. The majority of our friends and neighbors voted Yes on 8. Los Angeles County voted in favor of Yes on 8. Ventura County voted in favor of Yes on 8.
7. African Americans overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8. Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8. This was interesting because the majority of these voters voted for President-elect Obama. No on 8 supporters had assumed that Obama voters would vote No on 8.
8. The majority of Latino voters voted Yes on 8. Exit polls show that the majority of Latinos supported Yes on 8 and cited religious beliefs (assumed to be primarily Catholic).
9. The Yes on 8 coalition was a broad spectrum of religious organizations. Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims – all supported Yes on 8. It is estimated that there are 10 million Catholics and 10 million Protestants in California. Mormons were a tiny fraction of the population represented by Yes on 8 coalition members.
10. Not all Mormons voted in favor of Proposition 8. Our faith accords that each person be allowed to choose for him or her self. Church leaders have asked members to treat other members with "civility, respect and love," despite their differing views.
11. The Church did not violate the principal of separation of church and state. This principle is derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state", which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, although it has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court in recent years. The LDS Church is under no obligation to refrain from participating in the political process, to the extent permitted by law. U.S. election law is very clear that Churches may not endorse candidates, but may support issues. The Church has always been very careful on this matter and occasionally (not often) chooses to support causes that it feels to be of a moral nature.
12. Supporters of Proposition 8 did exactly what the Constitution provides for all citizens: they exercised their First Amendment rights to speak out on an issue that concerned them, make contributions to a cause that they support, and then vote in the regular electoral process. For the most part, this seems to have been done in an open, fair, and civil way. Opponents of 8 have accused supporters of being bigots, liars, and worse. The fact is, we simply did what Americans do – we spoke up, we campaigned, and we voted.

*All contents of this post taken directly from my super-brilliant sister Joanna. I "borrowed" it all, because it was just that good. She's really great, & I'd link her blog... but it's exclusive.

It's a done deal, so let's all be friends.

Image via Mormon in Manhattan, via Design for Obama

Vote.

I voted. Because I can. Because I have the right to. Because I should. Because if I didn't, then I would have lost my right to express an opinion (either way) for the next 4 years.

.

We voted at the community center near our apartment. The line was streaming out the door by 7:30am. I'll admit that I sort of teared up when we got there, because there were so many people, & I'm just really grateful for the right I have to cast my vote (especially after reading In the Time of the Butterflies). No matter your political views, this election is historic in that so many people CARE. I think that's just great. There were families taking pictures, people getting their picture taken next to the voting booth... They were clearly first-time voters, & they looked proud. I was, too.

Barack Obama.

The Economist endorsed Barack Obama last week. I think it's a brilliantly clear article.

.

America should take a chance and make Barack Obama the next leader of the free world

.
It is impossible to forecast how important any presidency will be. Back in 2000 America stood tall as the undisputed superpower, at peace with a generally admiring world. The main argument was over what to do with the federal government’s huge budget surplus. Nobody foresaw the seismic events of the next eight years. When Americans go to the polls next week the mood will be very different. The United States is unhappy, divided and foundering both at home and abroad. Its self-belief and values are under attack.

For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.

Thinking about 2009 and 2017
The immediate focus, which has dominated the campaign, looks daunting enough: repairing America’s economy and its international reputation. The financial crisis is far from finished. The United States is at the start of a painful recession. Some form of further fiscal stimulus is needed (see article), though estimates of the budget deficit next year already spiral above $1 trillion. Some 50m Americans have negligible health-care cover. Abroad, even though troops are dying in two countries, the cack-handed way in which George Bush has prosecuted his war on terror has left America less feared by its enemies and less admired by its friends than it once was.

Yet there are also longer-term challenges, worth stressing if only because they have been so ignored on the campaign. Jump forward to 2017, when the next president will hope to relinquish office. A combination of demography and the rising costs of America’s huge entitlement programmes—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—will be starting to bankrupt the country (see article). Abroad a greater task is already evident: welding the new emerging powers to the West. That is not just a matter of handling the rise of India and China, drawing them into global efforts, such as curbs on climate change; it means reselling economic and political freedom to a world that too quickly associates American capitalism with Lehman Brothers and American justice with Guantánamo Bay. This will take patience, fortitude, salesmanship and strategy.

At the beginning of this election year, there were strong arguments against putting another Republican in the White House. A spell in opposition seemed apt punishment for the incompetence, cronyism and extremism of the Bush presidency. Conservative America also needs to recover its vim. Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism.

The selection of Mr McCain as the Republicans’ candidate was a powerful reason to reconsider. Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?). Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies.

If only the real John McCain had been running
That, however, was Senator McCain; the Candidate McCain of the past six months has too often seemed the victim of political sorcery, his good features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated. The fiscal conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them. The man who denounced the religious right as “agents of intolerance” now embraces theocratic culture warriors. The campaigner against ethanol subsidies (who had a better record on global warming than most Democrats) came out in favour of a petrol-tax holiday. It has not all disappeared: his support for free trade has never wavered. Yet rather than heading towards the centre after he won the nomination, Mr McCain moved to the right.

Meanwhile his temperament, always perhaps his weak spot, has been found wanting. Sometimes the seat-of-the-pants method still works: his gut reaction over Georgia—to warn Russia off immediately—was the right one. Yet on the great issue of the campaign, the financial crisis, he has seemed all at sea, emitting panic and indecision. Mr McCain has never been particularly interested in economics, but, unlike Mr Obama, he has made little effort to catch up or to bring in good advisers (Doug Holtz-Eakin being the impressive exception).

The choice of Sarah Palin epitomised the sloppiness. It is not just that she is an unconvincing stand-in, nor even that she seems to have been chosen partly for her views on divisive social issues, notably abortion. Mr McCain made his most important appointment having met her just twice.

Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them.

Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America’s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America’s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism.

So Mr Obama’s star quality will be useful to him as president. But that alone is not enough to earn him the job. Charisma will not fix Medicare nor deal with Iran. Can he govern well? Two doubts present themselves: his lack of executive experience; and the suspicion that he is too far to the left.

There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and out-fought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right.

Political fire, far from rattling Mr Obama, seems to bring out the best in him: the furore about his (admittedly ghastly) preacher prompted one of the most thoughtful speeches of the campaign. On the financial crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain’s has been febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well.

It is hard too nowadays to depict him as soft when it comes to dealing with America’s enemies. Part of Mr Obama’s original appeal to the Democratic left was his keenness to get American troops out of Iraq; but since the primaries he has moved to the centre, pragmatically saying the troops will leave only when the conditions are right. His determination to focus American power on Afghanistan, Pakistan and proliferation was prescient. He is keener to talk to Iran than Mr McCain is— but that makes sense, providing certain conditions are met.

Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy. Despite the protectionist rhetoric that still sometimes seeps into his speeches, Mr Obama would not sponsor a China-bashing bill. But what happens if one appears out of Congress? Worryingly, he has a poor record of defying his party’s baronies, especially the unions. His advisers insist that Mr Obama is too clever to usher in a new age of over-regulation, that he will stop such nonsense getting out of Congress, that he is a political chameleon who would move to the centre in Washington. But the risk remains that on economic matters the centre that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the country as a whole.

He has earned it
So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.

Proposition 8 (deep breath).

What a complicated issue. Honestly - were in not for the position of the church, I feel like it would be that much more complicated for me. I'm not a blind follower, but I am really grateful that we are provided with clarity in areas that really are so grey. I support same-sex unions & equal rights for domestic partners (of any sex). I believe in agency. I have a diverse group of friends, & I hope to always be accepting of those who are unique (in whatever way, shape or form). Like I said- this issue is complicated, & sometimes, it's personal.

Like Jan & Tom in this video, I have friends, who just happen to be gay. I don't define them by their sexual orientation (nor do they define me by mine). I love them, without "strings".

So, it's sort of hard sometimes. To know people who this could effect. Whose lives could be changed, because of it.

My (admittedly limited) understanding, however, leads me to believe that Proposition 8 is fundamentally about protecting children & their rights. I don't believe it's about discrimination against those who might lead a different lifestyle than I do. I don't believe that the church is against those who are gay. I do believe that the traditional family unit is sacred. I think this statement, from those who are ordained by God to lead His church, is pretty clear:

The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.

I think this video presents a very clear, simple (albeit not flawless) argument in support of Proposition 8.

Up for discussion (cricket, cricket).

Snooze.

I agree with Matt. Last night's debate was boring. I kept falling asleep. I don't like either one of them, & it's frustrating to see the negative turn this campaign has taken. McCain calling Obama that one didn't help much, either. Maureen Dowd's piece in the New York Times this morning was interesting- "If McCain loses, he will have contributed to his own downfall by failing to live up to his personal standard of honor." Amen.

Another interesting article - The Worst Debate Ever. "How the hell did candidates manage to be so timid and uninspiring at a time when American troops are in two problematic wars, the world financial markets are in scary free fall and the Dow has lost 1,400 points since Oct. 1? This is a moment history rarely sees – and both men blew it."

PS- I consider myself pretty balanced in terms of the information I receive, especially considering that my two major sources of news are a) The New York Times & their blatant liberal bias & b) Drudge Report, who clearly has Republican leanings (probably an understatement).

She did just fine.

She called him Senator Obiden, used that blasted "six-pack Americans" quote again, & her wink made me shriek just a tiny bit, but otherwise... she did just fine. I was sort of proud. Or maybe just relieved (I was nervous for her all day, given the low expectations thanks to recent horrific interviews).

.

The bad news is that the debate really didn't do anything for me- for either ticket.

I giggled.

Letterman's Top 10 Things Overheard at Sarah Palin's Debate Camp

.

#10: “Let’s practice your bewildered silence”

#9: “Can you try saying ‘Yes’ instead of ‘You betcha’?”

#8: "Hey, I can see Mexico from here!”

#7: “Maybe we’ll get lucky and there won’t be any questions about Iraq, taxes, or health care”

#6: “We’re screwed!”

#5: “Can I just use that lipstick-pit bull thing again?”

#4: “We have to wrap it up for the day — McCain eats dinner at 4:30″

#3: “Can we get Congress to bail us out of this debate?”

#2: “John Edwards wants to know if you’d like some private tutoring in his van”

#1: “Any way we can just get Tina Fey to do it?”

I'm sorry. I just can't resist.

I'm scared.

.

First, I should mention that I watched all 90+ minutes of the debate last night & thought that McCain dominated Obama in the arena of foreign policy. But seriously? Sarah Plain? Potential Vice President of the United States? No wonder they're barely letting her speak to the press.

.

Thanks, Dooce.

This week:

• I am sick for the 8th day in a row. Please, please go away dry cough & sore throat. I'm going to turn into a bumble bee soon thanks to all of the tea + honey I've consumed, & I'd love to be able to get through a sentence without coughing.
• I had to cancel on my very diligent visiting teacher for I think the 3rd time in a row, putting me on the list of MOST TERRIBLE PEOPLE EVER. I'll thank the Dow's 450-point drop yesterday as the latest excuse of why I was at work so late. Sorry Suzi. Oh- & I missed Julia's birthday party on Monday. Boo.
• I sort of feel like the sky is falling. Being involved in Wall Street (as vague & broad a term as that is) during this financial crisis is both exciting & terrifying. I'm very, very conscious of all of the people around me that are negatively effected, & my job makes me acutely aware of the real anxiety that exists right now.
• I slept 8 hours (in a row) for the first time in probably three weeks last night. It made the 5:30 alarm clock not so bad, & really, I feel so much better. I even made Mike an English muffin (with jam) before he left for Seminary. I'm such a good wife.
• I've commited to making small goals that are easier to keep, so that I won't get so depressed when I fail to keep the really big ones that I just can't seem to. Example: I'd love to spend an hour at the gym every single day so that I will look like Heidi Klum, but it just can't happen most (any?) days. Solution: 8 minute Abs + 20 pushups every morning. That only takes about 10 minutes, so there is little excuse to not get it done, & then at least I'm doing something beyond typing a few thousand words a day. Once I get this whole go-to-be-early-wake-up-early routine down, I'm going to work on getting in a morning run in a few times a week.
• I've realized that my pleas of almost exactly a year ago have done no use. These are still everywhere (& I still hate them). I almost thought that these were cute, but then quickly changed my mind. Just because something is trendy doesn't mean we have to wear it.
• I'm so tired of this presidential election. I've determined that both candidates (& their VP's for that matter) are just ridiculous - in a bad way. Have you seen the (very legitimate, not written by "crazy liberals") fact checks on Sarah Palin? Both in print & on the news? They make me really angry, & feeling like the woman has actually been intentionally deceitful. I'm sorry, but I don't really believe that American women are dumb enough to vote for a candidate simply because his VP has ovaries, too. The realization that we don't have a great candidate to vote for has left me feeling hopeless (sorry, Barack) & frustrated. I really wish Bloomberg had run. At least then we'd have someone who actually understands the economy (vs. McCain's incoherent mess on the Today Show). I guess it means I'm voting for Ruth White.
• I dream of no lines at Shake Shack. We've tried a few times over the past few weeks but the line is always way too long. Winter is always a good time to go, I suppose, but it also means shivering through your Shack Burger. I can't win.

Being white is great (wait, does that make me racist?)

I may be jumping the gun here, but at first glance, I think this site is funny - Stuff White People Like. I wouldn't give it the full-fledged Mike Whiting Seal of Approval without further review, but this post is spot on (think every returned missionary you've ever met that served his/her mission in a soccer-loving country). And how about this one on our penchant for expensive brunch places? Ironically enough, Kathryn and I are headed to Norma's again tomorrow!

Change we can Believe in.

William F. Buckley, Jr. {November 24, 1925 – February 27, 2008}

Ever wonder how Judeo-Christian moral conservatism and economic liberalism got lumped in the same political party, the party we LDS folks often hold so unquestionably close to our hearts? Many would credit this man. Below is a clip of a debate with Chomsky in 1969 (still extremely relevant in this day of Iraq/Afghanistan). By manner of speech alone, which would you guess to be Buckley?

Thoughts?

Vote.

USA Today has a Candidate Match poll on their website {thanks Melissa}, that while obviously overly simplistic, is interesting.

I've always liked Obama. My results showed as much.

The importance of stance selection

Our friends in the legislative branch of government have once again succeeded in bringing to the forefront of cultural awareness one of the burning questions of our time. I refer to the following article, Idaho senator fined for lewd behavior at Minneapolis airport. To summarize:

...U.S. Sen. Larry Craig, an Idaho Republican, pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in Minnesota this month after being arrested by a plainclothes police officer investigating complaints of lewd conduct in a men's restroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport…Sgt. Dave Karsnia reported that at “at 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot ... The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area” … Craig spokesman said the incident is a "he said/he said misunderstanding.” Craig denied any lewd intentions and told police he has a "wide stance" in the bathroom and reached down to pick up a piece of paper from the floor...

This should serve as a gut check for each of us. Are you also a practitioner of the wide stance, understandably mistakable for homoerotic innuendo?

Or perhaps worse, the stand and wipe? (Ladies, you’re excused – I have been told that squatting is a female must in substandard seat conditions. Men – if this is part of your repertoire, it’s time for a course correction. The last thing any guy wants is someone standing in the stall next to him, pants around the ankles. This means you, Dustin!)

Or maybe you’re like me, a firm believer in the tried and true Beyonce maneuver (lean “to the left, to the left!”)?

We can clearly see Mr. Blair's technique shining through. Let’s hear your thoughts!

Elected President... TWICE....

Random post, I know. Thought you could all enjoy a laugh. Or a cry.

Piece of the Puzzle.

I've been married for two years this month. We don't have children. We aren't expecting at the moment. This apparently gives people the right to ask me about my sex life. Frankly, it is one of the questions that frustrates me most. The "So, when are you planning on starting a family?" questions that people (especially within our religious culture) feel free to ask, no matter their level of familiarity with us. They may as well just say, "What's wrong with you, and why are you so self-obsessed that you are not procreating?" I met a man at church a few months ago and he asked me when I was planning on getting pregnant, within SECONDS of meeting him (to be fair, he was old- very old school, but still). I was absolutely flabergasted, and could barely mutter a half-witty, "We'll let you know when we're there" response. I spent the next 24 hours scheming up a clever response for the next time I was asked such an invasive question (I get this question a lot). I thought of everything from the sarcastic to the embarrassing. I couldn't find the right zinger.

When I went to Utah to visit my sister last fall, I had at least half a dozen people ask this question, people that I did not even know. I just answered as best as I could- that it is a decision to be made between us (as in my husband and me, not my home teacher or casual acquaintance), and that they will come when the time is right for us- physically, spiritually, personally. Some casual friends asked us this question a few weeks ago. As good as their intentions were I'm sure, I just couldn't help feeling very protective of the answer. It's for Mike and I to discuss, not dinner conversation. I sat there and squirmed, and squeezed Mike's hand really hard. He knows how frustrated I get. Perhaps I get overly frustrated, but I don't like people telling me what to do (I never have), and I don't like doing something simply because it is expected, and I really don't like discussing uber personal things with people I just don't know that well. And I certainly don't like my personal life or potential problems being broadcast. Pregnancy, children, and the path to getting there is simply far too intimate for casual conversation. Sometimes I just want to tell people that I can't get pregnant (I hope I can), just to remind them that some people really can't- and unsolicited questions are likely hurtful to those who can't (I know this from the experiences of my friends). My close friends & family- it's a different story. Different rules apply. I'm not talking about those people.

To top off the no-babies situation we're in, we are also DINKs. Double-income-no-kids. I'm starting my new job next week. I'm really excited. I've spent the last 2 years in New York City building up my resume & experince and making "strategic" moves so that I can get where I want to be, career wise. I'm getting there, and I am really proud of my success. Some people treat "career" for a woman like a four letter word. I've had this experience. On the same Utah trip mentioned above, every single person I was introduced to asked my husband did in the city. I never was asked. I'm sure that they assumed that I was killing time in an unimportant job until I got pregnant. When I did tell them what I did, they looked at me like I had 4 heads. Career = no babies, right? Career = self obsession and materialism, right? This is frustrating. I am driven, I have goals, and I like what I do, but I do not like that people judge my priorities without knowing me or my full story (nor knowing my plan, my problems, etc). Sigh. I'm excited to be a mom. I really, really am. But I'm also proud of my successes, proud of my professional accomplishments, and happy that I have grown for the better through my experiences at work. Mike and I are operating on our time line. I will not yield to social pressures to have a baby based on other people's timelines, or because I've been married long enough that I should. I don't like having to explain myself, but sometimes... I feel that I have to defend myself for who I am and what I am doing. I've learned to work really hard, and I hope this makes me a better mom, friend, daughter and citizen.

I respect my friends that are mothers & am happy for their happiness. I love my sisters and are so proud of their successes with their children. I know that they work just as hard, if not harder than I do. I know that their job is so important. I can't wait until I really get what they are talking about on Tangled & True. But, I do not believe that life begins only when children come. I believe that our existence is made up of puzzle pieces that when combined, create what we call life. Stages. I am in one, and will someday move to another, but that doesn't mean that I should feel incomplete where I am now, OR that I am doing something wrong. I am fulfilled and I am happy. I hope that I always am, whether 24, 40 or 70.