Hello, everyone, and welcome to The Dancing Housewife Blog!

It’s been a while since I’ve posted, largely because I spend most of my time these days producing weekly episodes for The Dancing Housewife Podcast, which celebrates the joy, artistry, friendships, and community that ballroom dancing brings to our lives.

Earlier this fall, I released a three-part podcast series entitled Meet the Candidates for President of USA Dance as a service to the voting members of USA Dance. The series was intended to provide a platform for the candidates to engage directly with the membership by answering member-submitted questions in order to help them make informed decisions when casting their ballots in this year’s election. The episodes aired on October, 14, 21, and 28.

After careful consideration, I publicly endorsed Chuck Garrett for President of USA Dance on November 18. I posted the following to my newsfeed along with links to the referenced podcast episodes:

Ep. 52 Operation Dance: The Role of Dance in Transitioning from Military Combat to Civilian Life

This decision to endorse Chuck was based on my personal values, observations throughout the campaign and  my alignment with the his vision and leadership style. Unfortunately, my endorsement prompted harsh criticism from incumbent candidate, Ken Richards, who wrote:

“Ouch! Impartial journalist turns to candidate endorser. While you are entitled to your personal opinion and belief that Chuck has answers, that I didn’t hear, that will fix all – your comment would imply the other two candidates are not honest and do not have integrity. Please edit my responses out of your podcast.”

I want to address this comment directly—not out of a need to defend myself or my actions, but because it offers an opportunity to demonstrate how we can manage our impulses and approach disagreements in a constructive manner. Let me begin with a fable.

Dirty Laundry

There was a married couple who enjoyed sharing conversation each morning over their coffee. One morning the wife looked out the window and noticed her neighbor hanging laundry on the clothesline in her yard. The laundry was grey and dingy and the wife commented to her husband, “Look at our neighbor. I’ve seen her hang her laundry to dry before, but I never noticed how dingy and dirty it was. Our neighbor does not know how to do laundry properly.” The husband remained silent. The next morning, it happened again, and the wife commented, “She’s at it again! Hanging filthy laundry! She must not use soap when she washes he laundry.” . The next morning, it happened again, and the wife commented, “Oh. My goodness! Dirty laundry again. She’s a slob! I can’t imagine how filthy her house must be!” Again, the husband remained silent. This went on for weeks until one morning, over coffee the wife looked out the window like she always did and noticed her neighbor once again hanging Landry out to dry only this time it was pristine and clean. The wife commented, “Well look at that! Our neighbor finally learned how to properly launder her clothes,” to which her husband replied, “No my dear wife, I washed the windows. The moral of this story: Before judging others, judge yourself.

This fable reminds us that truth isn’t always what we  perceive. This is because perceptions tend to be influenced  by our own biases or limitations, leading us to believe something as “truth” when it’s actually distorted. To know the truth, to see things as they truly are requires clarity, humility and self-awareness. Let me break it down.

Perception vs. Reality

The wife’s judgment about her neighbor’s laundry was based on what she saw through her window. However, her view was skewed because the windows were dirty. Similarly, our understanding of the world, other people and even ourselves can be distorted by the “windows” we look through—our biases, core values, beliefs and even a lack of information. What we perceive is not always the objective truth.

Belief Does Not Equal Truth

The wife believed her neighbor didn’t know how to wash clothes, but that belief was based on incomplete and incorrect information.  Still, it led her to draw conclusions about her neighbor…she must not use soap…she’s a slob… her house must be filthy. The surprise ending from her husband, “No my dear wife, I washed the windows,” demonstrates that just because we believe something strongly doesn’t make it true. Truth exists independently of our opinions or perceptions.

Truth is Not Relative

Truth is not relative. There is no MY truth or YOUR truth. There is only THE truth comprised of  OBJECTIVE facts. The cleanliness of the laundry was an objective fact—either the clothes were clean, or they were not. The wife’s initial perception that the clothes were dirty was a result of her dirty window, not the actual condition of the clothes. The truth is not “relative” to her perspective; the laundry didn’t change—her clarity did.

Takeaway

This story invites us to examine the “windows” through which we view the world, ourselves and others. This includes our core beliefs and values, our biases, etc. which we collectively refer to as our mindset. The quality of our mindset has a tremendous impact on the assumptions we make and the meanings we assign to situations which in turn influences our viewpoints in the context of a given situation. The truth itself remains unchanging and independent regardless of our individual viewpoints. In order to see things as they truly are we must seek clarity and question our assumptions.

What does all of this have to do with harsh criticism I received after endorsing my candidate of choice? Let’s unpack Ken’s comment to find out.

“Ouch! Impartial journalist turns to candidate endorser.”

Let’s clarify: I am not a journalist and have never claimed to be. In fact, I declined an invitation to moderate the Scalora DanceSport September 19 live-streamed Presidential Debate for that very reason among others: I am not a journalist and lack the qualifications and experience required to effectively moderate a debate.

I am podcaster and blogger.

While I aim to provide a platform for all voices, my role also includes sharing my perspective when appropriate. My endorsement came weeks after the final episode of the Meet the Candidates series aired and was not a summary of the series, but a personal reflection based on my values and insights.

Additionally, during the podcast series, I remained impartial by giving all candidates the same opportunity to engage with USA Dance membership by responding to the same set of member-submitted questions. Their responses were presented unedited, ensuring fairness. I stand by the integrity of that process and the final product.

“While you are entitled to your personal opinion and belief that Chuck has answers, that I didn’t hear, that will fix all – your comment would imply the other two candidates are not honest and do not have integrity.”

Mr. RIchards’ comment suggests my endorsement implied the other candidates lacked honesty or integrity. I want to make it clear: highlighting one candidate’s strengths does not diminish others. The very nature of an endorsing something or someone is to highlight strengths, skills, values and abilities. Endorsements are inherently subjective and reflect personal judgment—not an attack on anyone else.

Here’s why endorsements matter:

• They Reflect Personal Judgment: Endorsements are based on the endorser’s values and priorities, which naturally vary from person to person.
• They Foster Healthy Dialogue: They encourage discussion and provide additional perspectives for voters to consider.
• They Aren’t Attacks on Others: Supporting one candidate by articulating why they’re a good choice, is not tearing down the competition.
• They Inform, Not Dictate: While endorsements carry influence, voters ultimately decide for themselves.

Ironically, many of Mr. Richards’ supporters endorsed him on social media, yet I never saw him make a similar comment admonishing them for implying that his opponents lack the skills, abilities, or character strengths that led to their endorsement of him. It makes one wonder if this inconsistency in behavior suggests a double standard, where public endorsements are tolerated as long as they serve his election objective.

“Please edit my responses out of your podcast.”

Mr. Richards also requested his responses be removed from the podcast. As previously stated, the purpose of Meet the Candidates for President of USA Dance was to give all candidates a platform to speak directly to the membership. While I believe editing out any candidate’s responses denies listeners the opportunity to hear all perspectives and make their own informed decisions, I honored his request. The Meet the Candidates episodes no longer containMr. Richards’ responses.

It’s worth noting that upon its airing, Mr. Richards expressed gratitude and high praise for the final cuts of Meet the Candidates for President of USA Dance, as well as for my efforts in producing it. However, it was only after I endorsed one of his opponents that he chose to withdraw his participation.

Connectng the Dots

Much like the wife in the fable hastily judged her neighbor, Ken Richards judged my endorsement through the lens of a fixed mindset. His conclusions about my intentions were shaped by his own values, beliefs, and biases, rather than by objective facts. Such judgments are unreliable, as they rest on a fragile foundation of assumptions rather than the solid cornerstone of truth.

The truth of my endorsement stands, regardless of how Ken Richards or anyone else chooses to interpret it. To seek truth we must clear  own “windows” by understanding  context and setting aside bias. Before judging, pause to examine your perspective. Are you seeing the full picture or just a distorted view? Truth isn’t subjective—it requires clarity, curiosity, and humility.

Every Situation Brings An Opportunity to Learn

This episode isn’t about dwelling on criticism, rather it is opportunity to reflect on how we, as dancers and members of the ballroom community, can handle challenges with respect, integrity, and grace.

Ballroom dancing teaches us balance, teamwork, and resilience—qualities that can guide us in moments of tension. Just as we adapt to missteps on the dance floor, we can learn to engage in disagreements constructively.

To anyone facing criticism or to those who are easily offended, here’s my advice:

1. Stick to the Facts: Address claims calmly and clearly, relying on truth over emotion. Remember, simply believing something doesn’t make it inherehntly true. Focus on the indisputable facts.
2. Focus on Your Values: When you act with integrity, your values will keep you grounded.
3. Take the High Road: Retaliation escalates conflict. Responding respectfully sets a positive example.

Thank you for allowing me to address this matter. Let’s continue celebrating the artistry and joy of ballroom dance—and strive to uphold the respect and community spirit it represents. As always, Happy Dancing.