Keeping my balance in an off-kilter world

The deacon who preached the homily at Mass this weekend used a story told by the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin to make his point. It was the story of a prophet who, of course, preached what people needed to hear but what they didn't always like to hear -- repentance and reformation and righteousness -- and little by little his audience disappeared. Some even turned on him.

One day someone asked the prophet why he continued to preach when it was clear that no one was listening. He replied that although at first he preached in hopes that he would change others, now he preached in hopes that others would not change him.

Whammo! That got my attention. That's exactly where I feel I am these days. Much of my "preaching" feels like nothing more than the conversations I have with myself in my own head or, on many occasions, in my own office or kitchen as I'm padding around checking emails or washing dishes.

I try to share my journey here whenever I can. Sometimes that means photos of kids doing silly things or close-ups of my latest cooking creations, but often it means divulging a little piece of my soul, which is never easy and always scary. I feel a bit like that fuzzy caterpillar in the photo at the top of this post, inching his way along the gravel road of a horse farm. Talk about putting yourself out there. But sometimes that's what you've got to do.

Like over the past two weeks. Several times I inched my way out into a sometimes-hostile world to talk about my political position of "independent" and what it means to me, to discuss the obvious connection between vegetarianism and being pro-life, and to "let my pro-life freak flag fly," the most scary of all my posts because I knew how much some would hate it. I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop. Squish.

And I have to admit there was part of me that wondered why I would do that to myself. Why open myself up for the inevitable backlash -- whether through nasty comments or the silent treatment? What's the point?

When I heard our deacon tell the story about the the prophet (And, trust me, I know full well I'm not a prophet, so, please, no nasty comments about that!), it really hit me like a ton of bricks because I think that's exactly what I've been doing lately. I've been preaching my message, letting my freak flag fly in order to keep myself from being changed by the world around me. Even if I am preaching for no one but myself, I guess that's enough.

So I'm willing to take the occasional criticism, silence, or outright unfriending if that's what it means to be true to myself and to remember what it is that guides my core and keeps me centered in a world increasingly off balance.

"The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." -- John 1:5

An independent voter weighs in

So, I'm independent -- politically speaking -- for lots of reasons, mainly because I don't want to be aligned with or beholden to either major party. I chalk it up, in part, to my libra-esque personality. Always weighing, always considering both sides, never wanting to give any side unequivocal anything.

As an independent, I find the goings on related to the current election season beyond comprehension. Although I have strong opinions on this or that policy, I can readily acknowledge that both candidates, even when they don't agree with me, are smart men, good people, politicians with the best interest of our country at heart. Is it really possible that so many people on the extremes of this conversation -- and from what I can see there are lots of people firmly planted on the extremes, at least on Facebook -- are unable to look at the opposition and see decency, common humanity, differences in opinion but sameness at the core? I find it mind boggling, really, that we have come to this place of total disregard and disrespect for those who don't share our exact opinions.

I'm saddened by the fact that I now dread signing onto my Facebook news feed because I know it will be filled with name calling, angry rhetoric, and outright insults. Good people seem to think nothing of pronouncing friends on the opposing side idiots or worse simply for looking at things from a different perspective. How did we get here? Was it social media that led us down this path of intolerance or something else? What does it take to return us to a place where good people can respectfully agree to disagree? Can we ever go back?

I find I refrain from all political commentary, on Facebook in particular, not because I don't have political opinions but because I have come to understand that if I don't hold the "right" political opinions I will be demonized by one side or the other. And, to be honest, I just don't have the energy to waste in an argument with someone who will never see my point of view anyway. So I have opted to keep quiet, even when I have something to say, and that's a very sad commentary on the free speech we hold so dear. Or should hold so dear, even for those who don't agree with us.

I know who I'm voting for in November. That doesn't mean I hate the opposition. It doesn't mean I think everyone who votes for him is an idiot or some other unmentionable name. Every one of us has the power to direct our future. That's the beauty of the voting booth. Go in, pull the lever (or whatever it is we push or pull now), and vote for the candidate of your choice. And, if by some chance your guy loses, have the decency to give the new president the respect he deserves, no matter what his party.

But whatever you do, between now and then, stop assuming everyone who doesn't plan to vote with you is a moron. Tolerance is an empty word if it only applies to people who think like you.

Cardinal Dolan's closing prayer

In case you  missed it (as I did because I just couldn't stay up that late), here is Cardinal Timothy Dolan's prayer to close the Democratic National Convention (this link will take you to written version, if you prefer that over the video).

Judging a candidate by her clothes. What year is it again?

Show of hands, please? Who here votes for a candidate based on what he or she is wearing? Didn't think so. You can put your hands down.

Why -- WHY? -- does the NY Times feel the need to devote a giant feature story in today's Style section to what the candidates -- wait, let me correct that -- what the FEMALE candidates are wearing on the campaign trail this season? Have we really not moved forward at all? Are women still going to be judged on their hair, their glasses, their pant suits, or lack therof?

Apparently we have not made one inch of progress when it comes to judging women candidates based on what they say or do. We're all still back in the high school lunch room, checking out the cool girls and wishing we could be like them, or risking a date to the prom -- or the general election -- if we're not.

First of all, why is there a story about this at all? And when will the feature on the fashion sense of male candidates be making its way to print. (Although I wouldn't be surprised if that doesn't eventually show up given what I'm sure will be the outrage the Times will hear from fed-up female readers.) Second, are they saying it's impossible for someone to look like Sarah Palin but think like Hillary Clinton, and vice versa. Do we still think someone has to look like a man to think like a man, and why do we want someone to look and think like a man? Look what that's gotten us so far. But I digress...

A clip from the story, with the voice of reason coming from the editor of Vogue:

Indeed, there is much to suggest that women who aspire to office continue to dress defensively. Frightened, even terrified, of committing a wardrobe gaffe on national airwaves, most adhere to a rigid, patently dated style that has all the allure of a milk carton.

The prevailing look, modeled on corporate executives, with an occasional nod to the astringent style of female news anchors, is anathema to professional style-watchers. When, during her presidential campaign, Mrs. Clinton declined an invitation to appear in Vogue magazine for fear, her handlers said, of appearing “too feminine,” Anna Wintour fired off a scathing editor’s letter.

“The notion that a contemporary woman must look mannish in order to be taken seriously is frankly dismaying,” Ms. Wintour chided. “I do think Americans have moved on from the power suit mentality. Political campaigns that do not recognize this are making a serious misjudgment.”

Thank you, Anna Wintour, for saying what needs to be said. Is anyone listening? Are any man-tailored suits being packed into Hefty bags and put out by the curb?

I just don't get it. Then again, when I was managing editor of Catholic New York, my work "uniform" of choice was this: Pier One dresses imported from India, men's black cowboy boots transported from Texas, and a vintage military jacket purchased at the closest second-hand shop. That might explain why I'm not a CEO -- or a politician. Or why I've chosen to work in my basement where it's always casual Friday.

I'm voting for the first person to show up in a tie-dye skirt and a fringed leather jacket. I happen to have one you can borrow if you're running for office.