Kimberly Keyes Stark's Personal Site

Political Beliefs: I'm a registered Democrat but I'm getting pretty disenchanted with both parties to be honest. Both parties are essentially similar, except for their positions on abortion, the environment, and the capital gaines tax. I was thrilled when the people of Minnesota elected Reform Party candidate Jesse Ventura as their governor. (While I don't agree with everything Governor Ventura has said, I do admire his common-sense pragmatic approach to politics.) I believe that there should be the creation of new parties that are better tuned in to what the people are saying, instead of what corporations and the Religious Right are saying. I believe that the reason why most voters stay home on Election Day in the United States is because they view both parties as being so similar that they might as well be one party and they stay home because of it. I believe that there should be a "None of the Above" option on the ballot so that people won't be forced into choosing the lesser of the two evils if both candidates are so mediocre and similar that a voter can't bear to vote for either one.

On Abortion, the Death Penalty, the Drug Laws, Legalised Prostitution, and Other Similar Moral Issues: I really believe that you can't legislate people into being moral. While religious institutions can teach people what is morally right or wrong, it's the individual who must take responsibility for all of his/her own actions. If the individual wants to hurt him or herself or live a lifestyle that you don't personally approve of, then they should be allowed to do so. I know it sounds callous, but I've discovered that if someone is hell-bent on doing actions that could harm him or her, then that person will do so no matter how many laws are passed.

If you make abortion illegal, women will still have them but they will be forced into dangerous back alley abortions where their health is threatened. I would love to see the abortion rate decrease myself but I don't think passing laws will make it happen. The only way you can reduce the number of abortions is to make birth control easy to obtain and encourge people to use them if they want to have sex without having children. I know that abstinence is a great way to avoid pregnancy, but I also understand human nature, especially when you're alone with someone you are attracted to and your hormones kick into gear and it's not always easy to resist the temptation. Also, people should be educated about sexuality in general. This includes both abstinence and using contraceptives. Also people should be encouraged to engage in sex only if they are ready to engage in it and not being forced or pressured into it.

As for the death penalty, it should only be used under extreme circumstances, such as the terrorists who bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. (Around 168 people died in that blast, including children who were at a day care center housed in that building.) I think it's okay to execute a political terrorist because I know that such people rarely repent and there is always the danger that other like-minded people will conduct more terrorist acts in an effort to pressure the government to free the political terrorist currently behind bars. However, I am very uneasy with how often the death penalty is used, especially for non-terrorist crimes. If you're a wealthy person who committed murder, you'll have access to the best lawyers money can buy and that lawyer will be able to give you a lesser sentence that doesn't include death. But if you're a poor person, you'll have access to a public defender who may or may not be a good lawyer depending on how lucky you are when one is assigned to you. If you are unlucky enough to have an overworked or lousy defender, then your chances of getting the death penalty increases because that lawyer won't do the work needed to get you a sentence that doesn't include death. This doesn't mean that I don't sympathize with those who lost loved ones to criminals. I think that if you commit murder, you should spend the rest of your natural life behind bars. However, relatives of murder victims must realize that executing their killer won't bring their loved ones back to life. Nor will it deter others from a life of crime. After all, if the death penalty really deters crime, then Texas, which executes more people in the United States than any other state, should be the most crime-free place on Earth.

My biggest beef with the pro-lifers who are also pro-death penalty is this: They believe that life is sacred and it begins at the moment of conception so you shouldn't abort a fetus because he/she is a human being. Aborting a fetus is putting a person to death. Yet if that same fetus is born and grows up to be someone who--let's say--kills someone while committing a robbery, that person should be put to death. Why is it that it's considered to be horrible to kill a fetus who is a person yet it is okay to kill a prisoner who is a person? The anti-abortion people say that killing a fetus before it is born is like playing God. Well, one can also argue that putting a prisoner to death before his/her natural life ends is also like playing God.

As for the drug laws, I don't believe that people should go to jail for hurting themselves. After all, cigarette smokers aren't thrown into prison for abusing their bodies like that. The big problem is that when people are thrown into jail for hurting themselves with drugs, the jails become overcrowded and frequently a violent offender like a rapist or murderer is let out early because the jails are full of drug abusers. I think drug abuse is a medical problem, not a criminal one. A drug abuser should be encouraged to seek treatment instead of locking them up in a place that doesn't offer drug rehabilitation treatment (like a jail). I would only be in favor of a drug abuser going to prison is if he or she committed a violent act while being high (like rape or murder).

As for prostitution, while I personally believe that it exploits women, I don't think she should be jailed for engaging in it. In addition, there should be counseling and job training programs available for any hooker who is tired of her lifestyle and wants to make a career change into something less exploitative.

As for same-sex marriages, I think they should be legalised. I know of two same-sex couples (one gay and one lesbian) who are active members of my church. Both couples have been in long-term relationships for several years. While both relationships have been sanctified as marriages within my church, neither relationships are recognized by this country as legally married. The Religious Right says that same-sex marriages harm the family. I fail to see how my friends' long-term same-sex relationships are having any kind of effect on my own marriage.

As for sex in general, I believe that whatever two or more consenting adults do behind closed doors is their own business, not the government's. A group of mature adults who choose polyamory among themselves is not a threat to my marriage or anyone else's, for that matter.

As for raising children, parents have the right to choose what kind of beliefs they want to pass on to their children. While I personally disapprove of parents who want to raise their children to be members of the Ku Klux Klan, the government should not remove the children from the home unless they are being physically, sexually, or verbally abused. Likewise, I supported the right of Juan Miguel Gonzalez to raise his son Elian as a Communist Party member in Cuba instead of having the entire family live permanently in the United States, even though I am not a big fan of Fidel Castro.

The bottom line is that the individual should be allowed to pursue any kind of lifestyle he or she wants--no matter how degrading or immoral--without fear of being imprisoned as long that that lifestyle does not harm others physically.

On Personal Responsibility: People must learn to take responsibility for all of their actions--both good and bad. If you're someone who is constantly short of cash because you keep on spending most of your paycheck at the shopping mall, then it's your fault and you either have to change your behavior or learn to live with being constantly cash-poor. In other words, don't openly complain about it all of the time.

Most religions preach that we are our brother's (or sister's) keeper and we must try to save someone who is ruining his or her life. I believe if an alcoholic wants to stop drinking and asks for help, then the alcoholic's family and friends have a moral obligation to help him or her seek treatment. If an alcoholic doesn't want to stop drinking then I think that others in the alcoholic's life should move on in their own lives and stop trying to save someone who doesn't want to be saved. Likewise, I believe that the parents have an obligation to teach a child right from wrong but it's the child who will choose whether to be a good kid, a mischevious kid, or a really bad kid. Whatever choices the child makes, he or she must be held responsible for all of his or her actions.

The bottom line is that the only person you can completely control is yourself. You will never be able to control your children, your spouse, your relatives, or your friends. You can only control yourself.

On Religion: I am a Unitarian Universalist. Unitarian Universalism is a faith with no creed or dogma yet holds an emphasis on spirituality. UU-ism places a stong emphasis on people discovering their own spirituality. If a person wants to believe in God, that's fine. If a person wants to believe in an Earth-centered (or pagan) theology, that's fine as well. And if a person wants to be an atheist, then that's also fine. UU-ism also believes in the inherent worth and dignity of all persons and many UU's have been active in the abolitionist, anti-war, feminist, and gay rights movements. In fact there is a trend among the faith to make our congregations more diverse in terms of personal religious beliefs, race, ethnic, and sexual orientation.

UU-ism is also unique in terms of how children are raised in the faith. Most faiths generally set up their religious education program towards actively indoctrinating children in their parents' faith. (In other words, creating little Catholics, little Jews, little Muslims, little Methodists, etc.) A UU religious education program exposes children not only to Unitarian Universalism, but also to Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Paganism, Humanism, Islam, and other faiths. The philosophy is that a child should choose his or her own faith, not the parents. The one big advantage of this method comes when the child is an adult and decides that he or she would rather convert to another faith. The child has knowledge of what faith he or she wants to convert to so there are no surprises. Parents are taught that if their child chooses a different faith than UU-ism as an adult, they shouldn't take it personally because a child is choosing a faith just like his/her parents did when they originally chose to be Unitarian Universalists. (This is why the UU faith is made up of more converts than people who were raised in the faith.)

Some on the Religious Right denounce this faith as a cult. I don't see how a faith that encourages people to think for themselves, live the life that they want to live without undergoing societal disapproval, and to take personal responsibity for their actions to be a cult. In fact I've seen too many so-called "mainstream" religions proscribe rigid rules for their members on things like what to believe, what kinds of meals they should eat, how many times a day they must pray, who they should marry, and--in some cases--actively encourage others to convert to their faith.

If you are someone who is looking for a faith to call their own, here are a few links to check out. If you live in Maryland near Washington, DC, then check out my congregation's site (which I helped to design, by the way). If you live too far to visit my congregation, then check out the continental Unitarian Universalist Association's site, which has links to congregations in the United States and Canada. If you live outside North America, check out the International Council of Unitarians and Universalists. If you're satisified in your current faith and have no desire to change, then that's fine. My religion does not require its members to actively seek new members among family, friends, and co-workers.

On Materialism: I think there is too much emphasis on getting stuff as a way of obtaining status. For one thing, it forces people to work at jobs that they despise just so they can pay off their bills that came as a result of using credit cards to obtain so much stuff that they don't really need. People seem to think that having lots of things will give them happiness but its not true. I know from personal experience that when you work a job that you hate and you buy something nice, it produces a nice feeling that your paycheck can afford this luxury item. Unfortunately the nice feeling is short-lived, especially when you go to work next day at that job that you really hate.

It's one thing if you work at a job that you hate because you are a single parent with mouths to feed and if you didn't work your family would be living in a homeless shelter. But if you're a single person who's working at a job that you hate so you can buy expensive stuff at Nordstrom's or Sak's Fifth Avenue, then you really need to re-evaluate your priorities in life. You need to learn that material goods cannot make up for suffering at a job that you hate. In fact, if buying all of your clothes at Nordstrom's is leading you to live a miserable life because you are putting up with your dreadful job, then your current lifestyle is not really worth it.

There is also the issue of whether wearing a La Croix outfit really indicates that you're a more ethical human being or if you're just a wolf in sheep's clothing. I've seen so many people who wear expenisve outfits who are totally insufferable as human beings while I've seen people who wear Wal-Mart threads who are the best people in the world.

What's even more troubling is how parents teach their children that materialism is good. That's wrong. I know that parents mean well when they think that showering their children with expensive stuff will make them happy, but I know from personal experience that having more stuff does not equal happiness. As someone who grew up with a mother who spent many years at a job that she hated because she was totally obsessed with buying me department store clothes that I would quickly outgrow, I know first hand that materialism can warp family ties really bad. I still have memories of being a five-, six-, and seven-year-old child being constantly asked after spending literally hours going to numerous department stores trying on clothes, "Did you appreciate the clothes that I bought you?" If I said "No," then my mother used to be extremely upset with me and she would make me feel guilty for not fully appreciating the stuff that she has just bought for me (never mind the fact that I was in elementary school and I was at the age where as long as I wasn't being sent to school naked, any clothes would do and I wasn't mature enough to fully appreciate fancy clothes). So I used to lie and say "yes," even though I could've cared less about the frilly dresses that she bought me at the now-defunct department stores like Hoschild Kohn's and Hutzler's.

I also have bad memories of my mother frequently telling me that having lots of nice stuff was more important than having friends yet she took me to a Roman Catholic church every Sunday where I learned that having material goods was bad. It left me so conflicted for several years. Unfortunately I began to acquire my mother's habit of spending all of my paycheck and charging everything on credit cards that put a strain on my marriage until my husband encouraged me to learn how to live within my means. After following in her footsteps by working the same kind of administrative job that she did that I also hated for several years, I began to rebel against this imprisoning lifestyle. I also began to attend a Unitarian Universalist church and I began to meet many new friends who are much more interesting than my souveniers from Walt Disney World. Also many UU's are staunch environmentalists and I began to learn from my fellow congregation members on the environmental costs of excess materialism. (For example, the United States only has 5% of the world's population yet churns out 25% of the garbage in the world's landfills.) In addition, I really wanted to use my artistic and writing potential in a career that I liked. I knew that being an artist doesn't pay quite as well so I had to downshift my spending. I don't buy new clothes unless I really and truly have to. I now know that even though most ads will say "Buy this and save money," it's a total oxymoron because not buying anything at all will save you money.

I still cringe when I read stories in The Washington Post about upper-class parents who shower their children with every kind of material goods imaginable in an effort to make up for the long hours that they frequently work away from home. These parents seem to believe that having tons of toys will automatically make their children happy just like what my mother believed decades earlier. The parents won't realize the truth about material goods: A thing can't ask a person how his or her day went. If a child is having problems, a thing can't try to soothe the child or give advice on how to solve a problem. A thing can't tell a child bedtime stories. A thing can't cuddle a child who needs some affection.

Some people may argue that raising children is very expensive and there is no way that one can avoid the costs except to not have children. In the early 1990's Amy Dacyczyn started her own newsletter called The Tightwad Gazette where she published her own tips on how to be as frugal as possible. She wrote extensively on how she raised her six children while being frugal at the same time. She did it by buying all of her children's clothes and toys at yard sales, using cloth diapers instead of disposable ones, making all of the meals at home instead of taking her brood to McDonald's, repairing broken toys and clothes instead of buying new ones, and even making children's toys from common household items (such as making a royal crown out of an empty egg carton). She briefly became a celebrity because of her newsletter and she even compiled three books based on her newsletter before deciding to discontinue the newsletter altogether because she wanted to spend more time with her family. (The three-volume Tightwad Gazette books have been since republished as one large single volume. If you are interested, I highly recommend looking for it in your favorite bookstore or through Amazon.com or Barnes and Noble.)

I know that some of you who are familiar with my work on The Fabulous Furby and Poo-Chi Fan Site will be startled to read what I've just wrote here. I know that, on the surface, owning Furbys and Poo-Chis mean that I must be materialistic to some extent. Well, I'm not saying that we should sell everything and take a vow of poverty. I know that having some material goods can enhance a person's life. However, there is such a thing as having too much stuff and that too much stuff can be harmful to your wallet as well as cramming every available space in your house or apartment with stuff that you really don't need.

On Individualism vs. Community: Some of you reading this probably think that I must be at least Libertarian. Well I am to some extent. I do believe strongly that everyone must take responsibility for his or her own actions instead of blaming parents, neighbors, siblings, co-workers, and other people all of the time. (For example, instead of blaming Jews, blacks, gays, and/or immigrants for the reason why you can't get ahead in your career, take a long hard look at yourself and ask yourself what education/training/personality changes/job changes you need to do to get your career back on track.)

I've read Ayn Rand's writings on her Objectivist theory and while I agree with portions of them (such as personal responsibity), I think she takes her theories on individualism way too far. For example she dismisses the notion that people can be genuinely altruistic saying that people are only altruistic because it pleases themselves to help others. Yes doing good can make you feel good but she doesn't take into consideration the notion that some people are more compassionate towards helping others and they are genuinely empathetic towards the suffering of others. Even though I've met other people who are Objectivists who love Ayn Rand's books, I generally find Objectivism too alienating and devoid of all emotion for my tastes.

This country tends to believe more in Individualism in terms of people should be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps with little or no help from others. This notion of Individualism extends to the point where people don't walk around their neighborhoods and they confine their socializing to within the nuclear family. It also extends to the point where people at work will willingly befriend then backstab their co-workers so they can get ahead in the company instead of willingly cooperate with others. While I'm in favor of Individualism in general, I think this idea can be taken in its extreme.

The only reason why I haven't been completely alienated by this society is because I had the luck to visit a Unitarian Universalist congregation when I was still a relatively young adult. (I was raised Roman Catholic but the parish I belonged to as a child was very cold. I remember that the minute mass ended every Sunday, most adults drove away in their cars and the church rarely encouraged parish members to socialize with each other.) I immeidately became impressed with how this particular congregation went out of its way to encourage members to be friendly with one another after each Sunday service (mainly by serving coffee).

The one thing that UU-ism preaches is the value of community, which I agree with. The big advantage of a community is that you get to meet others who hold the same or similar beliefs as you. In a community people are more willing to help each other, which is especially valuable in times of crisis. It feels very nice to be able to go somewhere every Sunday where you can openly talk to other people about a variety of issues.

I know that the dark side of community is that some communities tend to be restrictive where people are told what to do and if they disobey the will of the community they could be obtracized. I think that as long as the members of the community tolerate the diverse viewpoints of its members then this shouldn't be a problem.

While I mentioned religion as a source of forming community ties, religion is not the only source of community. For example, I am a member of the Washington Apple Pi, which is a DC area Macintosh users group. The Pi is made of active volunteers and they are always willing to provide services such as offering training classes, meetings where new products are discussed, and free troubleshooting help in a variety of hardware and software issues. The Pi even has a special interest group of people who still own the older Apple II models and are loyal to those computers even though Apple hasn't manufactured them in years.

On Feminism: I think the feminist movement has done much good in terms of providing better access to birth control, increasing job opportunities for women, and encouraging women to pursue athletic careers. I believe in the traditional feminist idea that a woman should pursue whatever lifestyle she wants to live. If she wants to be a career woman and mother at the same time, then that's fine. If she wants to be a housewife, then that's fine. If she wants to be a blue collar worker like a plumber, then that's fine. If she wants to pursue a career as a sex worker even though it can exploit her, that's fine as well. (In the case of the latter, I believe that feminists should set up counseling and job training programs for any sex worker who is tired of her occupation so she can make a career change into something legitimate and put her past behind her.)

Unfortunately there seems to be an unneccessary division between those who want to work outside the home and those who want to be full-time wife and mothers. There was a time when a mother who wants to pursue a career outside the home was looked down on as being a neglectful mother. Now it seems like the pendulum has shifted towards the other extreme where a woman who chooses to stay home with her children is looked down on as squandering the best years of her life.

People forget that feminism is supposed to be about choices. Not all women are suited to be both workers and mothers at the same time. Likewise, not all women are suited to be full-time stay-at-home mothers either. (That's not to mention some mothers who choose to start their own home-based businesses so they can work and stay home with their children at the same time.)

I see plenty of writings about women working for corporations who complain about hitting the glass ceiling. While the womens rights groups are concerned about this and for good reason. (Mainly because a woman who isn't promoted isn't being permitted to reach her fullest potential as a worker and her company is deprived of the talents that she could offer that company.) Unfortunately there is a bigger barrier to women who want to pursue blue collar occupations like auto mechanics, plumbing, and other similar jobs. I've never seen a female contruction worker or a female auto mechanic. Unfortunately I've never heard any of the mainstream feminist groups address that issue very much. They seem to be more concerned about women in white collar occupations than women in blue collar occupations. These groups don't seem to realize that some women are better suited to working with their hands at doing manual labor and they tend to chafe at working in a stuffy corporate environment.

Like I said earlier, feminism is supposed to be about increasing women's choices instead of expecting all women to be mothers who work outside of the home as white-collar corporate climbers.

Final Words: Those are my personal beliefs. I could write more but then this page would be extremely long to read on the screen. I know that some of you may not agree with some or all of what I've written and I think that's okay. In fact, I could care less whether you approve of my beliefs or not. For too many years I had to live up to other people's expectations and I felt so constricted. Now I'm at the point in my life where I think that if you don't like what I've said, then you can just simply fuck off.

Kimberly Keyes Stark's Personal Site

Part 1: Vital Stats

Part 2: Personal Beliefs