Things To Act

Some Sort of Conservation Law, Perhaps?

2005-04-20T09:44:00.000-07:00

Washington DC: Lots and lots of Starbuckses; I can't recall seeing any taco shops.

Utah Valley: No Starbuckses; you can barely throw a rock without hitting a taco shop.

House races to watch

2005-03-31T19:35:00.000-07:00

Courtesy of National Journal.

The Idles of March

2005-03-23T09:20:00.000-07:00

Between hoopla over over some sort of madness induced by some sort of ball game (and not to mention the hoopla induced over House Government Reform's hearings into some other ball game), productivity in Congressional offices seems to have taken a hit of late. The fact that Congress is now in recess means that most people don't mind, though. Blogging at work--no pajamas, though, alas.

BYUSSR

2005-03-23T09:18:00.000-07:00

This article suggests it's a good thing I decided not to bother voting in BYUSA "elections."

Organic Processes vs. Static Endpoints

2005-03-09T20:15:00.000-07:00

This is a line of thought I've been developing for a while, which is hopefully coherent enough to go somewhere by now. As good a starting point as any is last summer, when I was assigned to clean out the office I was working in, which had accumulated the standard debris that accumulates in an office in which student employees come and go. Organizing everything and throwing out the junk was a very satisfying experience. Somewhere in so doing I realized that I sometimes approach spirituality with a similar mindset or wish--if I can just throw out the bad things and organize the good, then everything will be in a nice order. Identify sins, get rid of them, and everything will fall into place.

I suspect it's not that simple, though. A better metaphor was inspired, in part, by this post. Many things relating to spirituality seem more like organic growth--we put in inputs, but we can't quite predict how they'll react, and powers we don't understand and can't control do a lot of the real work. We hope to get good fruits for our efforts, but recognize our contribution is much messier than in the previous metaphor, in which diligent work steadily approaches perfection.

This line of thought dovetailed with another one which I was playing with at the same time, in which I started thinking of goals in terms of "process goals" and "endpoint goals." A process goal involves doing a process with no defined outcome in mind, while an endpoint goal has a defined outcome in mind. Endpoint goals are things like visiting all of your home teachees once each month and delivering the 1P message, or reading scriptures for a set number of chapters or for a set amount of time. Process goals are harder to define, perhaps because of their nature.

The reason I invented this nomenclature was because I was trying to understand why I tend to struggle sometimes with routine spiritual tasks. I suspect it comes, in part, from focusing on the endpoint over the process. If I'm praying only to check it off my list, or going to church because Righteous People Are In The Church Building For Three Hours Every Sabbath, it naturally tends to become less than productive. However, my alternate strategy of ceasing to do these sorts of things is not necessarily much better.

I've found, to a degree, that thinking of these things in terms of processes rather than endpoints helps. We don't necessarily know and can't predict exactly what we may be getting from them, and probably don't even understand the real significance most of the time. However, we're not doing it to check it off a list. We're doing it because we're preparing the soil for the Gardner to do His part of the work.

Nibley

2005-02-26T17:53:00.000-07:00

The passing of Hugh Nibley, at age 94, was hardly unexpected. It's difficult to know what to say about him--his life being the source of inspiration and argumentation to so many, and his works being so prolific. I am not academically competent (and few are) to judge his scholarship, but his works are still notable in many ways.

Approaching Zion's themes of antimaterialism and consecration are life-changing. A must-read.
Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass is an excellent antidote to anti in all kinds. When I first read it, reading some of the charges he discussed was somewhat uncomfortable. Coming back to it having seem much more anti, I was struck by how much anti is simply the same tired charges, strung together over and over. It's hard to be unprepared for it if you've read TCSB.
Virtually all of the works on the Book of Mormon are interesting and give fresh perspective on familiar scripture.
Finally, virtually all of his work gives a sense of enthusiasm and intellectual joy in the gospel that I much appreciate.

Book Review

2005-02-19T21:39:00.000-07:00

Thoughts on God on the Quad: How Religious Colleges and the Missionary Generation Are Changing America, by Naomi Schaefer Riley

The book’s first six chapters profile one school each: Brigham Young University, Bob Jones, Notre Dame, Thomas Aquinas College, Yeshiva, Baylor. Later chapters look at feminism, race, student life, minority religious groups, the integration of faith and learning, and political activism at these and other religious schools.

The author declined to include interviews with graduates who had “since left the faith or decided that their education was a failure.” Two reasons are given: first, that such students will not affect culture much differently than graduates of secular schools, and second, that the book’s purpose is to explain why people do attend such schools to readers who likely can find their own reasons not to do so. This was a good choice, and I think it keeps the work from being seen as a criticism instead of a search for understanding, especially to those who have attended these schools.

It is definitely possible to read the chapter on BYU, which describes the author’s interviews and experiences with the students she met, and come away thinking that BYU students are strange or overly sheltered. But, as anyone who attended BYU will tell you, some of the students definitely are. Some of the author’s generalizations didn’t seem quite right (BYU students often keep bags of mini candy bars in their backpacks?), but the BYU she describes is, by and large, pretty close to the BYU I attended. I wouldn’t always choose the same anecdotes she does as examples of generic students, but that’s more a matter of opinion than anything else. There are students there who don’t obey the Honor Code and who don’t have the same vision of what BYU is supposed to accomplish as the administration, and pretending there aren't in a non-recruiting-poster portrayal of BYU usually doesn't work.

Unfortunately for the author’s perceptions of LDS sacrament meetings, the one she attended happened to be at the beginning of a semester in a BYU singles’ ward. She is assured that “This does not usually happen,” but probably most of us will agree that we’d rather that someone’s first impression of our church meetings did not include canceling Sunday School and RS/PH meetings for two hours of “a combination bachelor auction—beauty pageant” where everyone comes up and tells his name, major, hometown, mission, etc. She also attended a CES fireside where President Hinckley spoke, and noted how most in attendance were taking notes, but contrasted another school’s prohibition on public displays of affection with the handholding, arm-around-shoulder, etc. she saw around her in the audience at BYU. (It’s unclear whether she connected this incident with her earlier citation of 45% of the women and 55% of the men married by graduation.)

BYU’s students come off appearing motivated and hardworking, at least in the classes the author attended. This wasn’t always my experience when I taught courses as a graduate student—but I suppose that since it was the beginning of the semester when the author was there, students were still taking every class seriously, and the whining for points and not studying unless an exam was imminent hadn’t begun yet for that small but noticeable (for the instructor) group of students who engage in such things.

The author was in Provo on September 11, 2001, and attended the prayer service that replaced the usual devotional that day. I was at that meeting; everyone was trying to make sense of events, and still in shock, and it was strengthening, somehow, to sing and pray with fellow Saints, in a way that's hard to put into words. I’m glad the author was there, to balance out her experience with what should have been Sunday School and RS meeting.

In the section on proselytizing and converting others, the author’s observations are that few students “are involved in missionary work while they are enrolled in school” and that “Mormons never do their mission work in the community where they’re from”. I’m sure there are some ward mission leaders in Provo who will agree with these sentiments. She contrasts this with other religious schools, whose students do more of this and must face the possibility that they’ll “alienate the other members of the community by trying to explicitly convert them.” It's interesting to read an outsider's view, which can point out contradictions between what we say we believe, or what we're taught, and what we actually do in practice.

Interesting details picked out of the book:

The author pointing out that a girl’s long skirt and silk blouse are both tight enough to violate the Honor Code. Of course, this part of the HC is one that gets ignored a lot more than the facial hair part, I think.
Temple Square missionaries overusing the word “grateful”. Do we really, as a people, do that? I hadn't noticed.
Noting, post-church on Sunday, that “every conversation in the room is about marriage”.
"[W]hat is most conspicuously absent at BYU are protests." And, without having them, we get the same results as most of the protests that actually occur!
When discussing the "parallel spectra" of different sizes of religious and secular colleges (large university/liberal arts college/etc.), the examples given are "Harvard versus Brigham Young, Williams versus Wheaton, Claremont versus Thomas Aquinas". Those at BYU who like comparing BYU to Harvard will be happy to see that someone outside of Provo actually made this comparison.
"Students seem to invest the administration with something approaching a sense of divine mystery." I've been there. Some of them do.
The author states that the idea of “integration of faith and learning” “has become enormously popular at evangelical schools and has spread to the Mormon… institutions”. I think the idea has a different source, myself.

Newsnet story on the book here. Deseret News here.

It's Good to Be In DC!

2005-02-15T16:34:00.000-07:00

A few observations:

Working in a Congressional Office:

*It can be pretty overwhelming to be working within sight of (and occasionally within) the Capitol. Yet as with anything else one does on a daily basis, one gets used to it.

*The Capitol is an entertaining study in contrasts. Most of the public spaces have high ceilings, ornate decorations, and statuary and such everywhere. When you go down to the basement, you get exposed plumbing and a cramped catacomb feel. (You have to go to the basement to go through the Secret Tunnels back to the office buildings).

*Walking through metal detectors to get to work (and through more if going to the Capitol) is another thing one gets used to, to the point where it feels weird going to a public building without them. Not frightening, just weird--as if something is missing.

*A more paranoia-inspiring experience is opening the mail. Fortunately, it's irradiated and opened in a lab somewhere long before we see it. Unfortunately, this means physical mail is delayed for an unspecified period of time.

*Adding a sense of excitement to otherwise dull days are the periodic buzzers/bells going off indicating quorum calls/roll-call votes, etc. Even though routine staff are not particularly affected by what's going on on the floor, it still makes one feel connected to the rhythms of Congress (as well as meaning certain elevators are off-limits).

Living in DC:

*DC is a lot more urban than Provo. High population density and tall buildings give a very different feel to an area. Peak-hour metro rides make even crowded UTA busses seem spacious. However, DC-ites seem to handle themselves in pedestrian traffic much better than the average BYU-ite (the lack of impromtu mission reunions in the middle of a crowded sidewalk is not considered a Bad Thing here).

*DC also has a lot more homeless than Provo. This raises troubling theological problems, given BYU's discouragement of giving money to panhandlers near the Barlow Center.

*Speaking of the Barlow Center, the wall of the Great Room has several pictures on it, including a prominent one of the Savior and the rich young man. That seems especially fitting, in a city where so many come seeking fame, power, riches, and the things of the world.

What Part of Voluntary Don't You Understand?

2005-02-15T16:29:00.000-07:00

One of the dumbest arguments against Social Security reform that I've seen goes along the lines of "I don't want a personal account because I don't know how the stock market works/don't want to deal with another complex choice/etc." If vast majorities of Americans really feel this way, the opposition shouldn't bother trying to block reform--we could simply enact voluntary private accounts and watch as no one used them. One suspects, however, that the opponents of reform are so passionate because they realize exactly how many Americans (particularly young Americans) realize what a bad deal SS is, and how much some of us are willing to pay to even partially be able to get out and invest our retirement savings in a non-pyramid scheme.

Postblogging the BlogTalk

2005-02-15T12:28:00.000-07:00

My wife and I decided to go to a physics department seminar on chaos and complex systems for our weekly date this week. This might sound even more atypical than our "do our taxes" date.

Fortunately, this wasn't a technical lecture; instead, Ann Althouse talked about blogging and the self-organizing aspects of millions of writers forming a community. It seemed like an interesting audience to prepare a talk for--there were obviously people there who read (and write) blogs, but the talk also had to cover enough basic material that people who don't know much about blogs could get an idea of what this is all about.

The talk itself was quite interesting; there were a lot of questions about everything from why people bother writing to how blogs gain readership to the possibility of isolating oneself in a sea of similar opinions. The answer to most of the questions was (as it is with most generalizing questions) "It depends," followed by a list of possible answers. There are enough people with enough different reasons for writing that giving short answers about "blogging in general" is difficult.

It was interesting to hear how her blog went from 40 readers a day or so to its current 4500, although wide readership is not always what people want in a blog. Even though I think my coblogger's suggestions about voting should be widely discussed, improved, and eventually enacted, some of the other posts here assume a knowledge of LDS culture and practice that a wider readership is not going to have. And, as Professor Althouse pointed out in her talk, playing the "increase readership" game can make you lose sight of why you started blogging in the first place.

Contradictions in an LDS view of politics

2005-02-14T20:05:00.000-07:00

I find that I often have an emotional aversion to LDS politicians that makes it harder in some ways for me to like them compared to non-LDS politicians, all other things being equal. I think this may relate to the ecclesiastical anathema LDS feel toward campaigning for office. Seeking a Church calling is 'simply not done.' Today's candidate-centered politics, however, require office-seekers to thrust themselves forward. Given that we believe that the Gospel should affect all we do, it's hard not to bump up against contradictions. How can true humility exist in a person who considers himself the best choice for election?

This notion may explain some of the ambivalence I feel toward prominent LDS politicians such as Mitt Romney, Harry Reid, and even Michael Leavitt. I am uncomfortable with the notion that many people's primary source of information about the Church will come about because of or the prominence of these LDS politicians, rather than, say, LDS artists or even (shudder) businessmen.

Social Security Thoughts

2005-02-14T19:58:00.000-07:00

The scope of the Social Security problem is partially masked by the government's accounting practices. Currently, the money that Social Security takes in goes into the "trust fund," which essentially means the government spends it, promising to pay back SS when it needs it. This means that the total federal budget deficit has, in recent years, looked much better than it actually is. The handful of surpluses, if I recall correctly, were actually deficits when SS is removed from the equation. This implies that as SS expenditures rise and receipts decline, the budget deficit will begin to get worse, all else being equal. It's not just a case of needing to start repaying the trust fund around 2018. The government is incapable of running a budget even close to balanced without relying on the Social Security receipts. This points to an ominous picture of significant tax increases or cuts in spending as the demographic crisis gets worse.

I also find it interesting that Social Security is one of the few programs at the federal level in which the revenue source is directly linked to the spending. I wonder how much more efficiently government might operate if all programs were directly linked to the taxes that funded them, making the tradeoffs in their creation and maintanence explicit. This connection suggests several interesting ideas about looking at the problem of Social Security in the context of broader tax reform.

UPDATE: "Link" changed to "connection." I should know better than to post while tired.

More Clerkish Notes

2005-02-13T21:19:00.000-07:00

This is a rather interesting unofficial MLS FAQ.
MLS (the new Church computer financial and membership system) now requires each user of the ward's computer to have a username and password. This means that the ward clerk (me, for example) has to set up accounts for each person who will be using the computer. Most people do not want another unique username and password to remember. Especially people (like, for example, the Young Men's president in a ward with only five young men) who will, realistically, use the system once every few months, if that, but who need access just in case. And some level of security is necessary, since some membership (temple recommend expiration dates, for example, if said dates are in the past) and most financial (tithing) information is obviously sensitive. So telling someone his username is "YM1Counselor" and his password is "YM1Counselor" is not a good idea, especially since he can see that your username is "15thWardClerk".
This brings up the wider problem, noticed by many who spend time online, of how to choose usernames and passwords for the many websites or email accounts that require them. The weakest part of any security system is almost always the people using it (in the cryptography talks I've attended, "almost" is omitted), since it's a rare soul who does well at coming up with multiple passwords that are eight characters long, contain at least one number, and are easily rememberable. And even if you do, you then have to register for a site where your favorite username is already taken, or where the passwords have to contain punctuation or have to be even longer. So you have to remember which username goes with which password. And you can't just write them all down on a sticky note on your monitor at work. And if you always use the same password, guessing it once will let someone access your life in too many places. If there's a good way to deal with all of this, then whoever thought of it is probably keeping his mouth shut, since talking about it would make it that much easier to guess his passwords.
Once the new system was up and running, I gave the Relief Society a new ward list. Three days later, I was given a list of fifteen or twenty changes to make in membership information. I felt like they had done more to clean up the ward list in a weekend than I had done in a month.

Quick Links--Commentary Later

2005-02-09T20:44:00.000-07:00

Dems won't offer a Social Security plan.

Condi '08?

Article on Romney's faith.

Disturbing follow-up letters.

Cut Social Security benefits?

Of Note

2005-02-07T17:45:00.000-07:00

CSED: $85.69 per South Dakota voter.

John Fund on the Gubernator's anti-gerrymandering initiative.

The Nauvoo Forums dicuss priestcraft. The BYU religion department is mentioned.

Voting

2005-02-05T21:57:00.000-07:00

The sight of Iraqi voters celebrating their new freedom a week ago was inspiring and moving. I wonder if we would not do better to follow their example. American voting has followed trends toward absentee balloting, early balloting, easier registration, and generally making it easier and easier to vote, even as fewer eligible voters bother (2004 being an exception to this trend). The reasons for declining turnout are varied, and declining turnout in and of itself is not necessarily bad. However, I suspect our political culture would be strengthened if voting itself held more significance, and I suspect that actually going to the polls provides a more meaningful connection to the process, especially now that we've seen brave citizens of other nations risk their lives to excercise a right we take for granted.

Of course, American voting also faces significant problems with fraud. The Washington gubernatorial election had significant problems (Democrats also claim significant problems in Ohio, though they have considerably less evidence). Reports circulated before the 2004 election of high numbers of voters double-registered in two states, with no mechanism to catch cheaters. Regardless of how rarely election outcomes are actually changed by fraud, if voters see the system as easy to manipulate, confidence will decline.

I have a few suggestions:
*Require the ink. It's a quite simple method of making sure no one can vote more than once. One complaint is that this will make absentee balloting impossible, which brings me to:
*Require a physical appearance at the polls. You could still request an absentee ballot--but on Election Day, you'd have to find a polling place to drop it off at (and get your finger inked). This still enables out-of-state voters like myself to conveniently vote absentee, while ensuring that the person whose ballot it is actually filled it out. This may delay results in close elections, but that already happens anyway. Any voter in the U.S. should have little trouble finding a precinct at which to drop off an absentee ballot, and voters overseas could use embassies or military bases. States should be able to come up with an easy and secure way to ship all of the ballots dropped off to the appropriate states for counting.

Both of these suggestions would eliminate many problems, and not be too difficult to implement. We could even add same-day registration, since it would be impossible to vote twice. Democrats traditionally like same-day, but Republicans mistrust it because of the potential for easy fraud.

Eliminating gerrymandering and lifting limits on political speech would also invigorate the electoral process, but these would be more complicated to implement. Making voting more secure and more meaningful shouldn't be.

Social Security Notes

2005-02-05T21:36:00.000-07:00

To the best I can recall, I have not ever heard anyone of my age cohort say confidently that Social Security is certain to provide for his or her retirement needs. On the other hand, I've lost count of how many times someone about my age has doubted that the system would be there for him in forty years. To the best of my observation (which is admittedly biased toward the upper-middle-class and more-educated), the implications of the demographic time bomb are taken for granted among young adults--and I suspect that the open disdain most of us have toward Social Security's role in our retirement is in large part the responsibility of the Democratic party.

After all, Democrats have been campaigning on themes of fear with respect to Social Security for longer than I've been alive. I don't think my generation thinks some evil Republicans (or Democrats, or anyone) is out to gut the program--I think we just assume that the program is obviously unsustainable in its current form, and thus don't count on it. And we're also d*mn resentful that the most popular "solution" involves raising taxes on us to subsidize fat monthly checks for seniors who probably don't need them.

I thus find it ironic that many of the same Democrats who for years argued that the system must be strengthened are now passionately arguing against any changes whatsoever. It is interesting to look at where we've been. For instance, Clinton mentioned social security in his SOTUs:

1998:

Now if we balance the budget for next year, it is projected that we'll then have a sizable surplus in the years that immediately follow. What should we do with this projected surplus? I have a simple, four-word answer: Save Social Security first.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you.
Tonight I propose that we reserve 100 percent of the surplus, that's every penny of any surplus, until we have taken all the necessary measures to strengthen the Social Security system for the 21st century.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: Let us say -- let us say to all Americans watching tonight -- whether you're 70 or 50 or whether you just started paying into the system -- Social Security will be there when you need it.
(APPLAUSE)
Let us make this commitment... ... Social Security first. Let's do that -- together.
(APPLAUSE)
I also want to say that all the American people who are watching us tonight should be invited to join in this discussion. In facing these issues squarely. In forming a true consensus on how we should proceed. We'll start by conducting nonpartisan forums in every region of the country. And I hope that lawmakers of both parties will participate. We'll hold the White House conference on Social Security in December. And one year from now, I will convene the leaders of Congress to craft historic, bipartisan legislation to achieve a landmark for our generation: A Social Security system that is strong in the 21st century.

1999:

With the number of elderly Americans set to double by 2030, the baby boom will become a "senior boom." So first and above all, we must save Social Security for the 21st century. (Applause.)
Early in this century, being old meant being poor. When President Roosevelt created Social Security, thousands wrote to thank him for eliminating what one woman called the "stark terror of penniless, helpless old age." Even today, without Social Security, half our nation's elderly would be forced into poverty. Today, Social Security is strong. But by 2013, payroll taxes will no longer be sufficient to cover monthly payments. And by 2032, the trust fund will be exhausted, and Social Security will be unable to pay out the full benefits older Americans have been promised.
The best way to keep Social Security a rock-solid guarantee is not to make drastic cuts in benefits; not to raise payroll tax rates; and not to drain resources from Social Security in the name of saving it. Instead, I propose that we make the historic decision to invest the surplus to save Social Security. Specifically, I propose that we commit 60 percent of the budget surplus for the next 15 years to Social Security, investing a small portion in the private sector just as any private or state government pension would do. This will earn a higher return and keep Social Security sound for 55 years. But we must aim higher. We should put Social Security on a sound footing for the next 75 years. We should reduce poverty among elderly women, who are nearly twice as likely to be poor as our other seniors -- and we should eliminate the limits on what seniors on Social Security can earn. Now, these changes will require difficult but fully achievable choices over and above the dedication of the surplus. They must be made on a bipartisan basis. They should be made this year. So let me say to you tonight, I reach out my hand to all of you in both houses and both parties and ask that we join together in saying to the American people: We will save Social Security now. Now, last year, we wisely reserved all of the surplus until we knew what it would take to save Social Security. Again, I say, we shouldn't spend any of it, not any of it, until after Social Security is truly saved. First things first.

Bias

2005-02-02T22:45:00.000-07:00

By posting what's written below, I have probably labeled myself in (a few? lots of? how many readers do we have anymore?) minds as a Conservative, because of my attitude toward our president, my choice of sites to link, my reactions to the speech, etc. There are also probably places where I may have thought I was being neutral, but readers will not interpret me as being such, since my words almost certainly reveal more about me than I think. As most people probably do, I hope that I tend more toward the "think critically before forming opinions" camp than the "follow the leader blindly" camp in political matters. Hopefully the evidence will not prove otherwise.

My choice of reading material has definitely been skewed rightward, but I suspect that many of my opinions would be more moderate (or even more liberal) if I were exposed to the right authors making the right persuasive arguments. ("Right" here means "correct", not "conservative".) Orson Scott Card's essays (the comparatively rare non-foreign policy ones) have helped me reconsider some of my views on economic issues, as has exposure to other LDS bloggers in the last few years who have spoken passionately about causes that are more often seen as the realm of the Democratic Party. And, of course, more experience in the world (including more experiences with people of differing beliefs, both LDS and not) seems to generally moderate the sometimes extreme opinions of youth, as those opinions are forced to account for one's experiences in the real world. Fortunately for us all, the misguided foolishness sometimes included as part of youth's idealistic zeal (often encountered at the MTC?) does not usually last.

I suppose my political leanings might be described, then, as "aspiring to the openness of mind of a true independent, and currently fairly conservative."

SOTU

2005-02-02T21:45:00.000-07:00

Not live-blogging, since I was putting a two-year-old to bed and then doing ward clerk stuff at the church, but thoughts as I read the transcript:

Introductions to speeches don't have same impact when read silently that they do when heard. If I were reading Nephi with this attitude, I wouldn't be acting the part of a good reader. But, as hopefully much more than half the country would tell me (and I'd agree with them), this isn't scripture we're dealing with here, nor is it close to scripture, nor is it necessary to read/listen by the Spirit in the same way. In fact, being a skeptical listener/reader is probably desirable here.
Talk of cutting government programs is nice; we'll see how many actually disappear, once Congress goes over the budget. The same goes for talk of reducing spending. Let's see some actual reductions before we get excited. If none happen, it's probably a good sign that there won't be very many for the next four years.
Increasing Pell grants seems to challenge the spin that has been flying about how updating a 17-year-old formula with more recent information in calculations is obviously those Evil Republicans cutting education funding again, because someone's grant might be reduced, and we can't have that! (If someone is getting more than he should, isn't it fair to reduce his grant and give that money to someone who needs it more?)
Again, speaking of curtailing "needless regulation" and "irresponsible class-actions" needs to be backed up by action before I'll be very optimistic.
"Association health plans for small businesses" that actually worked would be nice. I'm sure my parents and in-laws would agree, having dealt with extremely high health insurance costs for their small businesses. How such plans would work, though, has not been explained adequately to me.
Some would argue that there's no such thing as "safe, clean nuclear energy." If their explanations contradict the principles of physics I learned in my college physics courses and my leisure reading (Hawking, Feynman et al.), I'm not going to listen very hard.
I've heard claims that the Clear Skies legislation will do the opposite of what its name implies. I have not heard coherent explanations of these claims, but I am interested in hearing such before jumping on any bandwagons. (Edit: Link.)
A bipartisan panel recommending changes to the tax code won't make it "easy to understand" unless they decrease, not increase, the length of the code. This does not seem likely without drastic overhauls or complete redesigns. (Note: Linkage does not necessarily imply approval or support.)
I'm not sure what to think on immigration. A policy that "permits temporary guest workers to fill jobs Americans will not take, that rejects amnesty, that tells us who is entering and leaving our country, and that closes the border to drug dealers and terrorists" seems like it might have self-contradictory goals.
Telling workers 55 and over that the Social Security system will not change in any way for them is a promise that had better not be broken, if the Republican Party wants to continue its recent success.
I think I agree with the basic principles President Bush outlined for SS reform; again, persuasive reasoning may convince me otherwise.
Are personal accounts a good idea? Can the government do a better job at administering such a program than they do at administering some other programs? I'm not sure yet, but the guidelines mentioned seem like a good start. Enron seems to get brought up at this point rather often when discussing personal accounts, and what the executives there did was wrong, but this doesn't change the fact that it seems foolish to have your entire retirement account (or any disproportionately large portion thereof) tied to the future of one company. Somehow I think the government wouldn't let you do that with these accounts.
Government should never undermine the values needed to "bring up responsible, moral children." I agree.
Talk of how marriage should not be redefined by "activist judges", and nominating those who will "not legislate from the bench". This should make a lot of his supporters happy, if talk translates into action.
Harsh words for Syria and Iran. Non-harsh words for Saudi Arabia. Interesting.

My overall impression is that a lot of good things were said, and if the hoped-for results actually happen, then I'll be glad. But I'm also pretty sure that we'll be far from a 100% success rate here.

Now I shall go look at others' commentary, and see whether any of my opinions get revised.

One of Life's Constants

2005-02-01T20:55:00.000-07:00

(No, not e or pi or gamma, nor G nor mu-sub-nought.)

We filed our federal tax return the other day, and were impressed with the free options available for online filing. It seems intelligent for the government not to attempt to write its own software, but to let firms fight for the privilege of letting us use their software for free in return for the chance to try to sell us extra services (which we, of course, declined.) We used TurboTax, since I had heard people talk about being satisfied with it and because I don't trust sites with names like "superEZworldsbesttaxreturns.com" as much as sites with more sensible names. We were satisfied, since the numbers we ended up with matched the numbers my wife had already figured out. (Except for rounding to the nearest dollar; our refund is 25 cents less now, but we save at least that much on stamps.) The direct deposit option for refunds/EICs is nice, as well.

Is having our date night be "filing our tax return" to be expected when we both have graduate degrees in math and have accountants as fathers?

Taking the Church Apart

2005-01-31T10:30:00.000-07:00

In October 2002 general conference, President Hinckley began his priesthood session talk by stating that the First Presidency and Twelve, in their meetings, had "in effect... taken the Church apart and then put it together again". The objective was "to see whether there might be some programs we could do away with." The policy changes announced in the talk included temple recommends being valid for two years instead of one; mention of "raising the bar" for missionaries, referring to Elder Ballard's talk from the same meeting, though what this would mean in terms of who could serve and who would be asked to wait was not yet apparent; and doing away with missionary farewells (although a similar policy had been announced, and apparently ignored by many, sometime before 1996 (scroll down)). I remember having a conversation shortly thereafter in which the thought was expressed that changing the length of recommend validity and telling us, again, to not let missionary farewells overwhelm sacrament meeting didn't seem like very many changes for the amount of work implied in "taking the Church apart."

Let's look at some of the changes since October 2002, though:

Recent developments referred to below with regards to temple work
New missionary discussions/new member discussions/missionary handbook and gospel study program (link to online copy now dead, apparently)
Bishops placed over missionary work in the ward, instead of stake missions (okay, February 2002 is before October 2002. But it's the same year.)
Fourth Sunday Priesthood/RS lessons now directly from most recent General Conference, with topics chosen locally instead of in Salt Lake
Changes in the format of stake conferences
Responsibility for prospective elders moved to high priests group
Additions to the Church websites
New software for membership and financial record-keeping
Creation of the 6th Quorum of the Seventy
Apostles serving in area presidencies outside the United States
Training meetings conducted by satellite
Downtown development in Salt Lake City, relocations of LDS Business College and the BYU Salt Lake Center
DVD's included with the Ensign
(Reminders of forgotten items will be accepted in the comments...)

I think that we have a better idea now of some of the resulting changes from the aforementioned meetings than we did in October 2002.

Inauguration Report

2005-01-29T13:43:00.000-07:00

*The worst tickets were the "gold" tickets. They were also the fanciest. Evidently the theory was that people would be fooled by the trappings, at least until they got there. We (the person I was with and myself) had yellow tickets, which were in the category of second-worst. But we decided to brave the elements and go nevertheless.

*After scoring a free breakfast in the House office buildings, we emerged from the Rayburn at about 10:20 to try to make our way to the Yellow Gate. This brings us to Major Theme One: Horrible Crowd Control. We were stuck in the crowd on the sidewalk for over an hour trying to make our way to the gate. About 11:40, we finally made it.

*Security was so-so. We were expecting metal detectors. Instead, we were told to split into male and female lines for a pat-down. Evidently the theory was that no one could hit the president with anything from as far back as we were, and bystanders didn't need protection from terror nearly as much (I suspect that most terrorists are incompetent or we'd all be a lot more terrified, but that's another story. As is the fact that I've already thought of two ways to beat routine Congressional security for the Capitol, not that I'm going to try them). Back to the lines--the men's line was quick-moving. The women's line was glacial. Some women demanded to go through the men's lines, but the guards wouldn't let them. Cheney took the oath of office (at 11:50) before our party was actually through security.

*For the next ten minutes, we busily tried to find some spot that wasn't behind The Wall. There wasn't one. Guards weren't letting any more people crowd up onto the lawn, and bystanders continually claimed that guards had been arresting people who tried to the climb The Wall to get a better view. Several people tried it anyway, but not us. Throughout the President's speech, people kept trying it. Guards didn't do much (except occasionally tell people to get down), but people standing farther back kept yelling "Get off the wall." No brawls broke out.

*For most of the speech, we could occasionally catch glimpses of the General-Conference Style Screen That Lets You See What's Going On, Despite the Fact That You Came To See The Event, Not The Televised Version, depending on how people shifted above The Wall in front of us. The speech itself seemed like a nice stating of American ideals, and I tend to think that critics are reading way too much into it.

*The weather, though cold, wasn't as cold as it had been earlier in the week. That was good. We did see two people being helped by EMTs, but didn't press closer to get details.

*The benediction was rather weird. The preacher seemed overenthusiastic in parts, to the great amusement of my companion. We agreed that "clean X, clean Y, and clean financial statements" was the highlight, as did the people in the crowd around us, who were also laughing.

*The crowds getting out after it was over were also pretty bad, despite the fact that we stayed around awhile to see what things looked like above The Wall.

*We did see a handful of protesters outside the House Office Buildings on the way out. They had a sign saying something about a mandate to leave Iraq. I inquired about how the mandate could be for that, given that Bush, not Kerry, had won the election. They said something incoherent about some poll. I thought their sign would have been improved with a footnote explaining their references.

Skepticism for Term Limits

2005-01-29T13:28:00.000-07:00

I've always been rather skeptical of the idea of federal Congressional term limits, for various reasons. The Monday edition of Roll Call, with a complete listing of seniority in both chambers of Congress, seems to provide supporting evidence. It is true that some people have been in Congress practically forever:
Date is beginning of service in the chamber.
Senate:
1. Byrd (D-WV) 1959
2. Kennedy (D-MA) 1962
3. Inouye (D-HI) 1963
4. Stevens (R-AK) 1968
5. Domenici (R-NM) 1973
House:
1. Dingell (D-MI) 1955
2. Conyers (D-MI) 1965
3. Obey (D-WI) 1969
4. Rangel (D-NY) 1971
5. Young (R-FL) 1971

However, skipping down to the middle of the lists is interesting.
Senate:
49. Santorum (R-PA) 1995
50. Frist (R-TN) 1995
51. Wyden (D-OR) 1996
House:
217. Brady (R-TX) 1997
218. Cannon (R-UT) 1997
219. Carson (D-IN) 1997

The Majority Leader in the Senate has been serving for barely over a decade, and over half the Senate has been in office that long or less. In the House, over half of the chamber has been replaced in the last 8 years or so. Only 114 Represenatives were elected before Clinton's first election, and only 76 before Bush I's. Only 24 were elected before Reagan's first election. Turnover may not be as high as some people would like, but is seems plenty high as it is.

Continuing Revelation

2005-01-29T13:18:00.000-07:00

After seeing this thread on Nauvoo, I decided to do some investigative reporting (or, a bunch of people were going to the Temple and I decided to go too, but that doesn't sound as dramatic). Collected observations:

*The Washington DC Temple has fountains in it. New and different. It's also huge.

*If the First Presidency ever decides that certain vicarious ordinances aren't being performed enough, all they have to do is start circulating rumors that the ordinances are being changed. That'll pack 'em in.

*Watching Temple workers relearn an ordinance can be interesting, but often requires patience.

*I have some thoughts on the actual changes, but, alas, this is not the forum in which to discuss them.

Boring Ward Clerk Minutiae

2005-01-28T17:55:00.000-07:00

Our ward's computer system was finally upgraded last week from the old MIS/FIS DOS-based system to the new MLS Windows-based system. It seems to be much more convenient in quite a few ways--no more filling out certificates with an ancient typewriter or by hand, for one. And the financial and membership systems are integrated into one program, so clerks don't have to switch back and forth when dealing with the random requests that are made in the hectic twenty minutes after church ends.

When the ward's data was loaded into the new program, though, I did have to spend quite a bit of time dealing with the (mistaken) assumption the system seemed to make that every member's preferred name and legal name were identical--forty-five minutes of deleting middle names from the "preferred name" field on each individual record. Or perhaps it was my own fault--the new system seems to not have the option that the old system had of making changes to the local data without changing the membership record on SLC's computers, so maybe I (and previous clerks; I was called just over half a year ago) should have been submitting "preferred name" changes to Salt Lake all along, instead of just making the changes locally.

Edit: fixed embarrassing grammatical mistake pointed out to me by my wife

Can Deacons Be Home Teachers?

2005-01-27T22:34:00.000-07:00

This webpage seems to imply that the answer is generally no. Quote: "From the time priesthood holders are ordained to the office of teacher, they have the opportunity and responsibility to serve as home teachers."

This scripture seems to imply that the answer could sometimes be yes, since deacons are to assist teachers in all their duties. That decision would be made by the bishop, of course.

The webpage is, then, most likely a case of "preach the rule, not the exception" (a reference to the story in this talk.)

Social Security Reform

2005-01-26T21:11:00.000-07:00

The President's longstanding desire to meaningfully reform the Social Security system is one of the biggest topics on the political agenda right now. I hope to write more about it later, for now I present the following links:

Club for Growth has launched a new blog about SS reform. An ungrammatical motto, but interesting stuff, including links to two Social Security calculators which allow you to compare private account options to the current system, making certain assumptions of course.

The Rules

2005-01-26T20:53:00.000-07:00

Only a matter of months after adding a guest-blogger...

Some people get by with "Do unto others..." Congress elaborates a bit, producing book-length manuals of arcane rules (and, in the House, a special Rules Committee to assign each reported bill its own special Rule, just for fun). I hope to split the difference and arrive at a reasonably-well-satisfied medium:

1. The Senate Judiciary Committee Rule: Write pseudonymously. This stems from a light-hearted fantasy about, forty years from now, being on the fast track for confirmation until some obscure Senator says "Now, about this screed you published on your weblog in 2004..." Better safe than sorry is our motto. Which is not to say that determined people couldn't figure out who we are. We just have to make them work for it. So, few to no personal asides, Old Home Week, &tc.

2. The Get Over It Already Rule: Minimal self-referentialism. Talking about stuff is fun. Talking about talking about stuff is less fun. Reading someone blog about blogging about blogging gets downright boring.

3. The Gospel Stuff Rule: Be nice, not apostate. Etc. The Nauvoo charter is a nice summary of many expectations for reasonable behavior for LDS here and, well, everywhere.

4. The Participation Rule: Anyone can comment, though we make no promises about preserving them forever, and get downright nasty about flaming and/or serious profanity and/or stupidity and/or spam. Guest-blogging is by invitation only. Though I'm not saying that sending an email asking for an invitation wouldn't work...

5. The Off-Topic Content Rule: On a blog? You're joking, right? The only hard-and-fast rule here is that It Must Be Interesting (see Instapundit's motto, which, alas, does not meet our rigorous content guidelines). By the way, I get to define Interesting.

6. The Technical Support Rule: It Must Be Free. I wouldn't say no to ad revenue, either. Helpful suggestions about free upgrades to functionality are accepted, of course, bearing in mind that I have little desire to muck around in code for more than about 90 seconds at a stretch (one reason the blogroll remains problematic...).

7. The Political Hedge: I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks in the record. [**Pause**] Without objection, so ordered. (Further rules may follow, as I think of/remember them).

Back In The 'Jams--Blogging From An Undisclosed Location

2005-01-26T20:42:00.000-07:00

...which really isn't all that hard to figure out, for those familiar with the ways of the BYU.

1. I would apologize for not having time for blogging for entirely too long, but at this point I assume no one is reading anymore. Oh well. Starting over...

2. I had an insanely busy semester last semester. As I've whined before. I may post some on my more interesting exploits at some point.

3. I hope to be blogging more regularly from here on out. Hope is a wonderful thing, isn't it. With luck, I may even catch up on four months' backlog of Bloggernacle-reading. With more luck, I may even bother finishing my still-in-progress blogroll.

4. I have moved away from Provo to participate in BYU's Washington Seminar, and thus am now DC-blogging. I intern in an undisclosed Congressional office which I most likely will not be directly writing about, for reasons which should be fairly obvious. I may have to change my blurb at some point, as BYU-blogging is becoming more and more of a stretch.

5. This is a bit more self-referential blogging than I normally tolerate, which reminds me that I've been meaning to get around to writing the rules of the blog at some point...

Unexpected Juxtaposition

2005-01-25T13:59:00.000-07:00

I was working at my desk, and heard music that I had previously encountered only in the hymnbook coming from the university bell tower. Since I left BYU some time ago for graduate work at a non-Church-owned school, this was rather surprising. Of course, I had forgotten which words went with the music, since playing the organ or piano usually keeps one from singing. So I had to sing the (wordless) music to myself and count syllables while finding it in the meters index in the online hymnbook. Result: "I Saw a Mighty Angel Fly", music by Vaughan Williams. Less surprising, then, I suppose, especially given this comment.

Survived the semester...

2004-12-28T15:17:00.000-07:00

...but too busy enjoying Christmas break to blog (as well as too busy not enjoying the parents' dial-up connection). Hopefully we'll get back to regular posting soon.

Random Comparison

2004-11-18T09:45:00.000-07:00

The math conference I am currently attending reminds me somewhat of the MTC: a day of sitting, eating, sitting some more, and eating some more. The food and wireless access are better here, though, and everything is in English. (This does not mean that I understand everything that is said; far from it.)

Update Notes

2004-11-12T01:22:00.000-07:00

Main email address has changed to Gmail. Haloscan is toast and Blogger comments enabled. Blogroll in progress.

A Quick Note: The Perils of Going to Lecture

2004-11-11T19:49:00.000-07:00

The below is the first in a series of posts that resulted from a friend and me who had more amusing things to do than listen to lectures an an Unnamed Class. A note for the humor impaired--most of this is sarcastic and intentionally ridiculous. We wouldn't actually write any of these (well, most of them...).

Titles Rejected by the Honors Thesis Committee:

2004-11-11T19:45:00.000-07:00

New Light on the Book of Revelation: The First Six Hundred Sixty-Six Days of the Clinton Presidency.

Culture of Shame: Back-Alley Abortions at BYU

“Not Just a Token”: Recollections From BYU’s Second African-American Student

Condoms or the Pill? A Quantitative Survey of Birth Control Choices at Wymount Terrace

Historical Mormons Revisited: Eliza R. Snow as a Postmodern Radical Feminazi

In Defense of Censorship: The Irrelevance of Academic Freedom

New Light on the Manifesto: Genetic Health, Rural Utah, and Inbreeding Trends

Quantifying Righteousness: A 116-Variable Model

Judging Righteous Judgment: Ten Reasons Emma Smith is Going to Hell

The Modern Mormon Romance Novel: Artless Drivel, or Soft-Core Porn?

“Give Said the Little Stream”: Wasting Water and Drought Among Utah Mormons

“Come Thou Fount” and Apostasy: The Hymnbook Committee’s Quantifiable Effect on Church Membership

Safety in Numbers: Why We Care More About Third-World Baptism Rates Than Converting Our Neighbors

Testimony Meeting as a Dying Art: Some Recent Trends

Female Sons of Perdition? Why Hillary Clinton is Not the AntiChrist

Market Failures, Monopolies, and Rent-Seeking: The BYU Bookstore as a Case Study

BYU Liberals: Tragically Misguided, or Actively Evil?

Profiles in Incompetence: The History of the Daily Universe

Mormon Eugenics? The BYU Honors Housing Program

The Book of Mormon Code Revisited: Shocking Insights From the Original Manuscript

National Election Observations II: Thanks, Edwards!

2004-11-09T10:52:00.000-07:00

Traditional CW: VP candidates are supposed to balance the ticket, pulling either ideological factions or electoral votes into the nominee's column.

Edwards: Generates media excitement for about three days. Brings no southern states to Kerry. Brings no appreciable benefit to Kerry period. Would not have been reelected Senator from North Carolina. Desperately wanted to be VP nominee. Is widely talked about as a potential candidate in 2008.

Is this failing to make sense to anyone else? Kerry shouldn't have given him the time of day after defeating him. If Dems nominate him in 2008, one will have to question their sanity. "Edwards! He Doesn't Get Results!" One has to wonder what would have happened if Kerry had picked a moderate midwestern popular Democrat--say, one who could have pulled Ohio into his column.

We Get Results

2004-11-09T10:47:00.000-07:00

The DesNews got defensive last Saturday!

Our decision toward the end of the campaign to reverse ourselves and urge
the defeat of Initiative 1 most certainly left some people with the impression
we felt otherwise. We have been accused of flip-flopping, an odd, meaningless
term that lately has turned thoughtful reconsideration into a pejorative — as if
stubborn and rigid dogmatism was a virtue.

Thoughtful reconsideration is okay, I suppose. But when your excuse for changing your mind is "Well, we hadn't actually read the thing we were endorsing," it looks pretty pathetic no matter how you try to justify it.

And is the Desnews really trying to say that flip-flopping is a meaningless term? ~71% of Utahns may disagree.

National Election Observations I: Thanks, Iowa!

2004-11-07T22:32:00.000-07:00

One of the best ironies of this election requires us to cast our minds clear back to what was supposed to be an interesting primary season. Remember the drama of the Iowa caucuses (before the Dean Scream)? It was the last real drama, as Kerry sailed through almost every state based on his Iowa Momentum (and Edwards' reluctance to attack). And why did Iowa Democrats select Kerry for frontrunner status? Supposedly, according to accounts at the time, it was all about electability. Kerry was boring, but electable, said the CW about what IA Dems were thinking.

Turns out IA Dems didn't even know their own state. Iowa went for Bush, one of 3 states to flip from 2000. Can we reform the nominating process yet?

Amusing

2004-11-07T13:02:00.000-07:00

First in what will hopefully be a series of election-related posts:

Sometime before election morning, someone had scrawled a series of 'vote for Nader' messages on the sidewalks leading to campus. You have to admire their dedication...

The Desnews is a Flip-Flopper!

2004-10-26T10:34:00.000-07:00

The Desnews opposes Initiative One, despite an earlier endorsement.

I might post more on I1 later, but my main observation about this election season lately has been that, at the end of the day, blogging about something you spend all your time studying isn't nearly as exciting as blogging on something else, and lack of free time means the end of the day usually comes too late for blogging anyway. Sigh. Seven more days.

Yesterday's Random BYU-Related Observation

2004-10-26T10:32:00.000-07:00

If you walk over the Mysterious Heat-Emitting Vent outside the SWKT, while holding an umbrella, interesting effects occur.

Textual Changes in the Book of Mormon

2004-10-22T13:25:00.000-07:00

Royal Skousen's 12 Answers at Times and Seasons brought up a lot of information about the critical text project of the Book of Mormon, some of which I had seen previously in his class on the critical text project at BYU. There is a lot of interesting data that, on many points, is quite convincing as to what the original text actually said. On other points, it is possible to disagree (after looking at the evidence, of course) with some of his conjectured emendations.

Today I spent the bus ride to my office reading 3 Nephi 18; after arriving, I pulled up the Church's website to continue looking at a few things. I noticed that the word "Disciples" has been capitalized every time it occurs in the chapter online, while such capitalization is not present in the physical book. Strangely, the word is not capitalized in the rest of 3 Nephi, or in 4 Nephi or Moroni 2 in other references to the twelve chosen Nephites. In 1 Nephi 12:8, though, the words "Twelve Disciples" have been capitalized online, while they are not in the print edition.

Now curiosity leads me to ask: Why the change? Why the inconsistent application of the change to clear references to the Nephite Twelve? The word "disciples" may also refer to non-apostolic followers of Christ later in the book; for example, perhaps in 4 Nephi 1:46. There may then be a reason for capitalizing sometimes and not other times. But making such a change in only one chapter, and then switching back, seems slightly strange. Are there supposed to be differences between the print and online editions? (This brings to mind a story from class: apparently in Mormon 8:28, the words "shall rise" were added to make some sense from a previously ungrammatical sentence--but they were added by a mission president in the eastern United States who had an edition of the Book of Mormon printed, and somehow made their way from there into all future editions printed by Salt Lake. According to Dr. Skousen, as I remember it, the people he works with in Salt Lake were very interested by this.)

If Dr. Skousen offers his BYU class again, comparing the online Book of Mormon text with the 1981 print edition would be an interesting project for a student.

Observations of a Ward Clerk

2004-10-19T08:00:00.000-07:00

When counting the number of people in the congregation each week, be prepared to lose track of your count and have to start over if you perform said count while holding a 7-month-old who is liable to suddenly spit up all over himself. Be able to smile about this, although smiling is admittedly easier if he misses your suit and your tie.
In addition, realize that you will not get an accurate count when 20-25% of the congregation is nursery-age or younger and thus liable to be out in the foyer at any given moment during sacrament meeting. Do not use this as an excuse to spend the meeting in the foyer every week, "counting", with your children, though, despite the temptation to be able to let the 2-year-old run free, which is so much easier than teaching her to be reverent.
If you go anywhere near the clerk's office on your way out to your family waiting in the car, make sure your wonderfully patient family is prepared to wait longer than expected, since you will most likely be stopped for "one quick thing" by at least one person. In other words, liberally stock the diaperbag with goldfish crackers, and raisins, and bread and cheese, and cut-up apples, and sippy cups--more or less, about the amount of food required to get a family of four across the plains in a covered wagon.

WSJ Article on the Church

2004-10-07T21:41:00.000-07:00

Link here. My question: Were there really only 112 BYU alumni in New England and 359 in the mid-Atlantic states in 1994, or was someone using not-very-well-updated alumni association address lists as the definitive record of how many graduates lived there? I get the impression that BYU's alumni association has been trying a lot harder over the past few years to keep former students in touch with the university, and it may be those efforts that make the derivative of East Coast Alumni with respect to Time seem large and positive recently. (Make the growth rate seem high, for those of you putting off learning the calculus portion of "all things".)

Meta-Navelgazing

2004-10-03T21:00:00.000-07:00

Assignment: Compare and contrast the following two actions.

Writing blog posts about the act of blogging
Speaking (say, in sacrament meeting) about the act of speaking (such as the story of how the counselor in the bishopric asked you to speak, or the amount of preparation you put into the talk you are in the act of delivering)

The 174th Semiannual General Conference

2004-10-03T20:33:00.000-07:00

Thoughts, mostly from the priesthood session, since I wasn't taking care of small children then:

I like the musical numbers better since Mack Wilberg became one of the Tabernacle Choir directors. The arrangements sound like they'd be a lot of fun to sing, and tempos don't drag. The first two hymns Saturday night ("Guide Us, O Thou Great Jehovah", and "I Need Thee Every Hour") both had the first tenors up on a B above middle C, and the arrangement of "The Spirit of God" went up to the A just below that. There are quite a few hymns in the book with alto lines that don't go that high.
President Faust got a lot of laughs by describing young men who, due to a dearth of Melchizedek Priesthood holders in their area, got to "home teach, not just be a yawning appendage to an elder making a social call."
When President Monson announces a musical number, the second line of the song often becomes part of the announced title. I like that. It's like referring to "the BYU," or speaking of one's fellow quorum members as "Brother [firstname]" instead of using last names.

Today's Random Intersection of LDS Culture and Utah Politics

2004-10-01T19:28:00.000-07:00

Hugh Nibley's lawn is currently sporting a Matheson for governor sign.

Hymnage

2004-09-17T20:12:00.000-07:00

Given this week's Heber J. Grant lesson, some thoughts about hymns seem appropriate. This is one aspect of our meetings that (theoretically, if not in practice) we all participate in together, and I wonder if the act of singing sacred texts together is comparable to the congregation "cr[ying] aloud with one voice" in Mosiah 4 and 5.

This Dallin H. Oaks October 1994 conference talk discusses worship through music, and has its share of "I wish more people had listened to that" lines, i.e. that organists and choristers (either of which I may be at any given Priesthood meeting) should set appropriate tempos, that everyone in the meeting should sing the sacrament hymn, that some music is not appropriate for Sacrament meeting, etc. [Of course, the presence of an "I wish more people had listened to that" line in a conference talk should probably alert me to be careful not to focus solely on those thoughts and forget to listen to the other points of the talk, thus falling into the same error I'm so confidently pointing out in others. This would seem to be a topic for another post, though.]

One quote from the talk, and a story: "a hymnbook’s hymn is often the most inspiring and appropriate musical selection for a choir, a vocalist, or an instrumentalist". For one with much formal musical training, though, the fact that hymns are not always the most interesting pieces to sing or play sometimes becomes even more apparent. An ideal ward choir, for me, would perform hymns fairly frequently but by no means exclusively--perhaps half of its musical numbers. But the danger of presenting a piece that detracts, rather than adds, to a meeting for a large portion of the congregation is real. One BYU devotional I attended as an undergraduate comes to mind. President Hinckley was the speaker, so the Marriott Center was packed. The meeting began, and, as with most devotionals, there was a special musical number. This one was a vocal solo--a piece written about the Prophet Joseph. The style was operatic, though, so even though it was in English, most of the audience didn't understand a word, which makes an already long piece seem even longer. While the singer was very talented, and performed admirably, I wonder if a simply-arranged hymn, known to almost everyone attending, wouldn't have been a better introduction to President Hinckley's talk. It certainly wouldn't have led to the thoughts of "Finish already, and let us hear the prophet!" that I found myself uncharitably having.

Other interesting references: Orson Scott Card has written several columns for Meridian Magazine dealing with writing hymn texts. The latest includes a set of words for Primary boys, to the music of "There Is Sunshine in My Soul Today," that "you will never hear during a Primary program in sacrament meeting". Similar thoughts by Card about the hymn-writing process have previously been seen here (scroll down), while another discussion of humorous new words to old hymns, with copious examples, was in this Nauvoo.com thread.

Developments Pending

2004-09-15T10:37:00.000-07:00

Alas, I've been hideously busy with various academic, personal, and medical crises, and have thus slacked on blogging lately. However, faithful readers who haven't given up yet (and hapless Google searchers who usually aren't going to find what they're looking for), don't panic. We're going to experiment by adding a guest blogger or two to shake things up a bit (and spread the non-posting guilt around a bit).

If I can get myself out from under a mountain of work, I may even dust off my List of Things to Blog About one of these days and write some substantive posts myself. In the meantime, stay tuned for further developments.

Unity and Division

2004-08-16T21:38:00.000-07:00

The ideas in the this post have been processing for awhile, and still may not have reached a coherent conclusion, but what the heck...

So a couple of weeks ago I was having a long discussion with a roommate about various stuff, which touched on:

*A tension in the Church between adapting to the needs of the individual and maintaining unity in the Church as a whole. For instance, the home teaching message is supposed to be individually adapted to the needs of the person being home taught, yet it is also the same message churchwide. Go too far in adapting to the individual and the unity falls apart; if I ignore the HT message on divorce as irrelevant to single students and substitute something completely different, it's easy to fall into trap of never talking about what the 1P wants us to talk about. On the other hand, if I rigidly teach the divorce message without taking into account the needs of the home teachee (who might be distressed about marriage, or concerned with his own parents' divorce, or something), it would be easy to offend someone, or just alienate him by never teaching a message that addresses any of his concerns.

*The question of what the Church could do to more fully use the internet. One idea discussed was the fact that the internet allows virtual communities to form in ways not limited by geography. The standard ward unit of geographical focus unites people along one common element--where they live. This makes some things easier (almost anything having to do with face-to-face interaction) and some things harder (many special needs can't be met by many wards). The net could allow the formation of communities along other common elements. It already does in many ways--singles looking for eternal mates, apologists looking for the latest FARMS stuff, bloggernaclers doing what we do, etc. However, none of this (except some family history stuff) really takes place under the official direction of the Church. These virtual communities allow needs to be met that weren't being met at the ward level--but the danger is that the virtual community--with its unofficial status--might start to compete with and damage the official ward community.

CS Lewis points out that an effective tactic Satan uses to keep us from living our religion is to get us to make it "Christianity and" or to form into schisms within the Church. Eugene England points out the importance of the geographic ward in forcing us to interact with, serve, and be served by those who are very different from us. Davis Bell points to what he sees as a troubling tendency of some of us in the Bloggernacle to start condescending to non-internet junkies.

This is a hard problem. I think that real benefits can come from 'subgroups' within the Church. Subgroups can help us connect with people who understand our special problems, can give us access to information not available through other means, can allow us to pursue talents in settings in which they will be appreciated, etc. Subgroups also can compete with the main group, can fall into error, and can magnify their own importance out of proportion. A big reason, in my understanding, behind the centralization and correlation movement in the mid-20th century was that the official structure of the Church had become so complicated that different auxiliaries and organizations were competing with each other, and the Church couldn't act efficiently as a whole. On the other hand, the Church has experimented with subgroups with varying degrees of official or tacit approval (the Genesis group comes to mind, and even special units such as student, singles, or language wards are in effect subgroups outside the normal pattern).

About the only idea I can come up with to keep things under control is to be careful of excessive polarization. Restated, we should try to keep our subgroup affiliations limited to positive identifications, not negative. In other words, define our interests by what we are interested in, not by what others are not. I may be interested in textual criticism of the BOM, but that doesn't imply that others have to be as well. Plenty of people with be exalted without caring that the 'feeling' in 1N8 should be 'pressing.' My interest is not bad as long as it does not turn into criticism of others' lack of interest.

The worry I have with dichotomies such as liberal v. conservative or Utah Mormon vs. Better-Than-A-Utah Mormon (or whatever the opposite is) is that they quickly seem to degenerate into us-vs-them. Instead of 'how refreshing that someone approaches some of my concerns the same way' it seems to turn into 'look what those awful [Not Us]ers are doing now,' or 'why everyone should be a [Us].' The stereotype created by the dichotomy does have limited utility, but often such utility is drowned out by the damage done by the misapplication of the stereotype.

On many key points, essential right answers exist, and on these points we must be united. On other key points, right answers probably exist, but we lack data on how we should be united. On still other points, right answers probably don't exist, and we can celebrate our differences. Only in the first category do serious differences really rise to anything more serious than 'interesting,' and only those in authority are called to do anything about those differences.

As we sort through the other categories, finding the answers (to the ambiguous issues) that work for us and celebrating the way communities can meet our needs, I think we must be careful not to elevate the less essential over the more essential.

Utah AG Candidates Oppose SSM Amendment

2004-08-09T20:50:00.000-07:00

Desnews. SLTrib.

Interesting issues raised. Given the MO 70-30 margin of victory, passage in Utah looks certain (85+ margins wouldn't be out of the question), except for the possible overreaching in the second part.

My sense at the moment, though I don't have the legal training of the candidates for AG, is that the amendment would certainly bar the Legislature from enacting full-scale civil unions, but not necessarily bar the Legislature from doing anything to make it easier to grant "hospital visitation, emergency medical decision-making and inheritance" rights. As long as a bundle of rights is associated with marriage, making some rights that were formerly part of that bundle explicitly no longer conditional on marriage should be legal. Of course, the Legislature would have to actually do it.

My sense of the candidates' position is that the amendment would cause a lot of chaos (dissolving common-law marriages, etc). My sense is that it likely would, unless the Legislature acts to mitigate such chaos. One's views of the desirability of the amendment, then, would seem to hinge on whether such chaos is necessarily bad enough to scuttle the desirability of the amendment, and the likelihood of the Legislature averting it if so.

MO SSM Amendment Passes

2004-08-04T08:30:00.000-07:00

Around 70-30.

The Monopoly of the Daily Universe Erodes...

2004-08-03T21:00:00.000-07:00

...as blogs compete to be equally ignored sources of BYU gossip. Nate Cardon has set up a BYU blog ring. Though 'ring' is perhaps too strong a term for only having two members so far. If someone else joins, we could at least get up to 'triangle.'

Age and Spiritual Dynamism

2004-08-03T19:25:00.000-07:00

Grasshopper has an interesting post on the meaning of death. In his comments, I note that Mormon often seems to take the view that death is a valuable reminder to us to be prepared to face final judgment at any time. But is this how we approach death today?

After all, society has a fairly low death rate. At least in the 'BYU student' demographic, deaths are rare enough that each one is news, though actually knowing the person is so rare that it isn't personal news. If death is supposed to be a reminder, it doesn't seem to happen often enough to be as effective as for the Nephites (who had low technology and constant war to contend with). [Of course, the logical solution, raising the death rate, is frowned upon.]

It occurs to me to wonder if this has practical consequences for the way we view sin and repentance. I find that it's easy for me to think of some spiritually admirable figure (bishop, stake president, GA, etc), 'of course, he's had decades to work on becoming that spiritually strong.' The corollary is, when viewing my own faults, is to think 'well, hopefully I'll get that resolved by the time I'm President Hinckley's age.'

Is taking such a long view a problem. Does our tendency to emphasize conversion as a long process go too far (generally, I think it far healthier to emphasize process over dramatic moment)? Or are our days prolonged to give us this time?

Other possible corollaries to this line of thought: Is one disadvantage of having primarily older church leaders that it makes it harder for us to see models of dynamic conversion in younger examples? Does the fact that so many people died relatively young in earlier eras imply that our course is fairly set when we are fairly young?

This Just In...

2004-08-03T19:21:00.000-07:00

"BYU football not in top 25"
--front page, Daily Universe, 2 August.

Favorites

2004-07-24T13:44:00.000-07:00

In all the recent discussion in the Bloggernacle, some have been making statements about the advisability (or lack thereof) of having 'favorite' General Authorities. This immediately reminded me of something Arthur Henry King said about the scriptures:

"I was once asked to give a short talk on my favorite parable. My reply was that I didn't think I had one and I doubted if I ought to have one and even if I did have one, I shouldn't talk about it because the important thing is not to dwell on our favorite things in the scriptures--that is self-indulgence--but to try to get other things in the scriptures to be as favorite as the favorite things we already have. It is important that we concentrate on those parts of the scriptures that we don't much like ... we must never run into the danger of interpreting to ourselves particular verses that happen to speak to us and ignoring other verses which don't speak to us yet perhaps have a message that we ought to have ... Be mistrustful of what you like most, and listen carefully to what you have an impulse to reject." --Arm the Children, 152-153.

The point, I think, is not that some doctrines should not sing to our souls more so than others. The point is that we can profitably learn from examining why we find some doctrines (or verses, or GA speakers) to be so appealing, and why some are less so. If the reasons point to a fault in us, we can then work to change it, and if not, we can at least understand why our perceptions are different from those around us.

In the case of GAs, reasons for different impressions could range from topics emphasized to speaking style to personal experiences with the person and so on. Some GAs impress me more than others because of biography, because of particular teachings that resonated with me at particular times, etc. Some people have speaking styles that I don't care for as much, which makes it harder for me to get as much out of their messages. In some cases, the fault is probably mine, and in other cases it may simply be one of the unavoidable consequences of the fact that individuals will see different things differently.

In any event, I don't think it's a major problem to have a 'favorite' GA. The problem would come if one stopped trying to learn from all of the Brethren, or if one failed to think about why that favoritism existed, and if it implied anything about whether other more important problems might exist in one's personal approach to receiving counsel.

Space Colonization II

2004-07-24T13:13:00.000-07:00

I've been meaning to respond to the comments on this post below for a while now.

*Near-earth colonies can probably be considered 'part of Earth' for all intents and purposes. And it is true that present technology seems unlikely to lead to easy travel to other solar systems anytime soon (though sci-fi fans are reluctant to rule it out, of course). However, this line of thought seems to imply two possibilities: A) offplanet colonization attempts will never be self-sufficient, in which case why bother (except for the technological and scientific advancement, of course), or B) we'll work out how to build self-sustaining environments off Earth, in which case there's no reason not to send out an intergenerational colonization ship (the idea is popular enough in sci-fi that it seems certain that someone would want to try as the technology became available). This leads us back to having some number of people outside the range of action when the Second Coming occurs, which seems weird to me (though several easy solutions exist).

*I would hesitate to assume that colonizing space is a 'trigger' for the Second Coming. However, if it is, this doesn't imply that we should seek it any more than it implies that we should shy away. After all, war in the Middle East is a 'trigger,' but we don't encourage that.

*I would also hesitate to assume that colonizing space is outside the bounds the Lord has set for us--at least without Him making it considerably clearer. On the whole, space colonization seems to me to be A) morally neutral without further guidance, B) from a secular perspective, an enormously good thing, and C) from a theological perspective, a probably futile endeavor. But as many other works (seeking world peace, an end of poverty, etc) are also ultimately futile though immensely important given what prophecies we have, perhaps this argument isn't as meaningful as I first thought.

Civil Unions Yet Again

2004-07-24T12:13:00.000-07:00

First a few points:

*'Civil unions' is a broad term that can mean many different things. It serves as a catchall term for legal relationships that range from nonsexual with relatively few benefits to relationships explicitly intended to be 'marriage-in-all-but-name' for same-sex couples. The very question 'what does X think about civil unions?' thus is probably not a good yes/no question, as many people or institutions may have more complex views. In addition, as state legislatures (or state courts) begin to consider the issues, they may come to a variety of conclusions--in favor of 'marriage lite,' in favor of changing certain legal rights associated with marriage in certain ways, in favor or a broad restructuring of family law, etc. Any such changes might lead to a 'civil unions' provision, but what such a union might mean might vary considerably from state to state. The degree to which such a provision seems to encourage versus being neutral with respect to immorality and/or undermining marriage might also vary considerably.

*Simply because we expect to see an official Church condemnation of civil union laws (however defined) is not sufficient evidence to assume that such a condemnation has been made [a lack of condemnation does not equal an approval either, of course]. Projecting our own assumptions onto the words of the prophets is not a good thing (though it is, to a degree, inevitable). An example is the reaction to President Hinckley's war talk of last year--it would have been amusing, if it hadn't been painful to watch, to see various people (including one BYU religion professor) twist the Prophet's plain words to support their own narrow ideologies (to various ends). In any event, since I have seen no official statement condemning civil unions (despite seeing several statements on the related-but-not-legally-identical issue of preserving the definition of marriage), I am tentatively assuming that the Church has no express position on that political question (at this time).

*My tentative take on civil unions is that some proposed forms would be unwise, and some proposed forms might be good. I am aware that other members disagree with me in both directions. If someone is wrong in a way that needs to be corrected, CHQ is quite capable of doing so without my help. In the meantime, I think it wise to remember that members can hold a wide variety of political opinions on various issues, and that our doctrines can lead different faithful members to different answers to difficult questions. I tend to be in favor of an expansive view of what odd beliefs are permissible--not because I think that odd beliefs are always good (by definition, the beliefs are odd to me; my odd beliefs are perfectly reasonable), but because A) it's difficult enough for people to join the Church without our erecting all kinds of unnecessary political and cultural barriers, and B) the GAs are quite capable of deciding how to bring us all along on the difficult issues of our day. As we need further direction, or as less important political issues become more important, CHQ is perfectly capable of issuing clearer directions, emphasizing specific doctrines, and even establishing additional requirements for worthiness.

Finally, a reader sends this account from a state on the East Coast, which I found interesting enough to pass on:

I was interested to learn, in an informal conversation with our stake president after a Saturday stake conference session, that he had been asked by the Brethren (most probably the Area Presidency) to organize a political coalition ... with the express purpose of maintaining the traditional definition of marriage. (It was subsequently organized and is chaired by the stake president's wife, who is also a former state legislator...). I asked him what he thought about civil unions and he said he had no objections to the idea (this was contextually taken as a personal opinion). The overriding concern he seemed to be expressing (on whose behalf I am uncertain) was that if the definition of marriage is "legally" altered, then all the laws and public policies referring to marriage are effectively being rewritten without careful forethought. Civil unions, on the other hand, are a new legal construction, and the laws governing what rights will be granted to such unions would (presumably) have to be defined explicitly through current legislation and/or litigation, rather than being defined implicitly by already-existing legislation and precedent which had only married couples in mind when it was created.

This may not be exactly what he meant, but that's how it seemed to me. I subsequently had the thought that maintenance of the traditional definition also allows the church to continue to use the word, while a societal redefinition of "marriage" would force the church to invent a new word to mean the same thing marriage used to mean.

What has been interesting to me is the extent to which this coalition, though it is not visibly organized as a church program, is referred to in church meetings, in counsel from the stake president on what to teach our families regarding the marriage debate, and in literature printed and distributed by the stake. While nobody has explicitly given a statement of the church's position on civil unions, the implicit message seems to be that maintaining the definition of marriage is the key issue at present. We were counseled to call our senators and tell them what we thought about the FMA, but were not explicitly counseled to support it.

It seems to me that allowing civil unions would lead to the same social effects as redefining marriage, but on a slower timescale as things filter through the courts, and with the legal terminology making it explicitly clear that such an arrangement is not exactly equivalent to marriage. In the long run, I am not sure what good this does except to delay the inevitable (and allow the church to continue to use the usual words to teach the doctrine). Maybe a delay is the best we can get?

Succession in the Twelve

2004-07-22T19:15:00.000-07:00

It's been nearly 10 years since there's been a change in the Quorum of the Twelve. In other words, the Quorum has been largely the same for my entire life, or at least the entire time in which I was conscious of such changes. Meanwhile, elsewhere in the Bloggernacle people are asking questions and spreading rumors about the succession process. I therefore figure that taking a closer look at the issue might help.

The Deseret News provides some helpful bios of current General Authorities which I'll be using as sources. First Presidency. Quorum of the Twelve. Presidents of the Seventy. Presiding Bishopric.

The last time a vacancy in the Twelve was filled was following the death of President Hunter (on 3 March 1995). Elder Eyring was "sustained to the Quorum of the Twelve April 1, 1995, and ordained an apostle April 6, 1995, at age 61." Elder Eyring had previously held callings in the Presiding Bishopric, the First Quorum of the Seventy, and was serving as Commissioner of CES when called to the Twelve.

The previous vacancy had occurred with the death of President Benson (on 30 May 1994). Elder Holland was "ordained an apostle June 23, 1994, at age 53; sustained to the Quorum of the Twelve Oct. 1, 1994." A press conference was held the day of the ordination, according to a subsequent Ensign report. Elder Holland had previously held callings as a commissioner of education, in the First Quorum of the Seventy, and president of BYU.

The previous vacancy had occurred with the death of Elder Ashton (on 24 February 1994). Elder Hales was "sustained to the Quorum of the Twelve April 2, 1994, and ordained an apostle April 7, 1994, at age 61." He had previously served in the First Quorum of the Seventy and was Presiding Bishop at the time of his call to the Twelve.

The previous vacancy had occurred with the death of President Romney (on 20 May 1988). Elder Scott was "sustained to the Quorum of the Twelve on Oct. 1, 1988, and ordained an apostle Oct. 6, 1988, at age 59." He had previously served in the First Quorum of the Seventy, and as a President of the Seventy at the time of his call to the Twelve.

The previous vacancy had occurred (I believe) with the death of President Kimball (on 5 November 1985). Elder Wirthlin, however, was not sustained until nearly a year later; "sustained to the Quorum of the Twelve Oct. 4, 1986, and ordained an apostle Oct. 9, 1986, at age 69." I believe this delay may have been because of health problems among some Church leaders, but am well before my period of conscious recollection. Elder Wirthlin was serving as a President of the Seventy when he was called to the Twelve.

By now, a few patterns seem to be apparent. A vacancy is usually filled by the next conference, though it can be filled before (as in Elder Holland's case). With conference nearly three months off, it seems like it could go either way at this point. While no hard-and-fast pattern emerges, service as a President of the Seventy or in the Presiding Bishopric seems a common theme, and being a former BYU president could mean something [Elders Oaks and Holland are BYU's only two living former presidents besides Elder Bateman]. Links to short bios of those serving in the P70 and PB are above (though Desnews doesn't seem to have updated them to take last Conference's sustainings and releasings into account, including releasing Elder Bateman from the SS general presidency, and replacing Elder Neuenschwander with Elder Groberg in the Presidents of the Seventy).

Also of possible bearing is the evident recent decision to have the Presidents of the Seventy meet with the Twelve in their weekly meeting (one report here). When I first heard about this, I thought it might be a logical way to ensure continuity in the Quorum--if Presidents of the Seventy had already been working closely with the Twelve, they would be available to fill vacancies fairly seamlessly (and given how smoothly the Twelve have been working together in recent years, it seems smart to build mechanisms to keep the momentum in that direction).

Those who obsess about symbolic representation among GAs will doubtless be interested to note that of the current Presidents of the Seventy, four were born in Utah, one in Idaho, and two in Europe. Of course, if we look beyond the current Presidents, several other international GAs are available to serve. [Personally, I think the symbolic representation arguments are sort of silly, as the Church has only just begun to be established long enough in most countries to give rise to a pool of native Church leaders with lifelong experience. I expect that over the next few decades, the trend of increasing internationalization of Church leadership will continue, but that it ultimately isn't that big a deal.]

In the end, of course, the new member of the Twelve will be picked by the Lord through the Prophet. Any number of well qualified individuals seem prepared, and while we'll miss Elder Maxwell, getting to know a new member of the Twelve should be interesting. The succession process will work smoothly, and the Church will continue to be led by inspiration.

The Politics of Losing

2004-07-20T17:53:00.000-07:00

One of the silliest criticisms leveled against supporters of the FMA is that it was a 'waste of time' with so many other pressing issues on the national agenda. Anyone seriously making that argument is likely either appallingly ignorant or deliberately deceitful. It's not as if Congress is known for being a hallmark of efficiency, and it's certainly not as if every minute spent thinking about domestic policy is a minute that Senators won't be spending working on national security--reelection fundraisers or even normal business-as-usual pork are going to take up large amounts of available discretionary time. In any event, Senators show up to vote and/or to make speeches for the C-SPAN cameras--they don't sit on the floor listening to debate, and don't expect their arguments to change the minds of their fellow Senators (changing minds is reserved for private conversations, in which wheeling and dealing can proceed without undermining everyone's reelection chances). The argument that 'we can put this off 'til later' is not only deceptive, but plays on the side of those who are trying to force change through the courts.

The only reason for anyone to be squeamish about the leadership's decision to force a vote on the FMA, and to put the issue in the headlines, is because it draws public attention to the issue. And politicians of both parties are notoriously uncomfortable with having their activities drawn to the attention of the public if said activities are out of step with public opinion (or even if said activities will be wildly unpopular with significant blocs no matter what actions are taken).

That said, public opinion does not appear to be in favor of the FMA in proportions high enough to let it pass. This doesn't seem likely to change immediately either--even if pro-FMA forces managed to organize and vote as a bloc, it would likely just promote counter-organization by FMA foes. The FMA appears unlikely to get out of Congress as long as the status quo is maintained.

The only change to the status quo likely to have much effect, then, would be further judicial overreaching. If a federal court overturns DOMA or mandates SSM, the backlash might be enough to propel the FMA (or an alternative like the Hatch proposal) over the top. A significant number of state courts taking similar action might be sufficient as well, but this seems less likely if MA alone couldn't change people's minds.

Paradoxically, the pro-SSM forces' best hope is to go slow, enjoy the fact that the courts have shifted the status quo to their favor, and let the issue simmer for a while before trying to expand into a few more states. Defeating the attempt to amend the MA constitution to restore the old status quo would help their cause as well.

For the anti-SSM forces, a win in a few state amendment battles might help, but probably won't generate enough momentum by itself (unless marginal pro-SSM Senators consistently lose, and wavering Senators are concentrated disproportionately in amending states). Ironically, a win in MA would undercut the rationale for the FMA. On the other hand, a decisive lose of an anti-SSM amendment in any state might also undercut the rationale for FMA--at a minimum, it would give a lot of strength to the federalism arguments, if the courts uphold DOMA.

In any event, my current impression is that while the state-level battles may affect things at the margins, the actors to watch at this point are the courts.

Civil Unions?

2004-07-20T17:26:00.000-07:00

Does the Church have an official position on civil unions? A few days ago I posted:

I am not aware of any official LDS position on civil unions. Nate Oman provides anecdotal evidence that the Church might not mind civil unions, which is interesting if true. It seems to me that the Church's public positions can be interpreted two different ways, either as 'opposition to all legal recognition of sodomous relationships,' or as 'wanting to preserve the traditional definition of "marriage," without caring about civil unions much.' I'd be interested if anyone can provide a definitive statement in which the Church clarified its position between these two options.

A reader email since has alerted me that I may not have been perfectly clear on my question, which dealt with the Church's political advocacy, not its internal policies. Should civil unions become legal, the Church would not ecclesiastically accept them any more than it accepts legal alcohol drinking, gambling, Sabbath-breaking, or abortion. In other words, things that are perfectly legal under the laws of the land may still bring a member under Church discipline.

However, the Church takes different positions of political advocacy on various issues. On a few key issues, the Church spends its political capital and advises members to vote certain ways (sometimes successfully, sometimes not). Thus, members are asked to vote to curtail gambling whenever the issue is on the ballot, and have been asked to work for constitutional and statutory preservation of the present legal definition of marriage.

However, other issues with moral overtones are not addressed. The Church has no detailed ideal public policy program that it asks its members to work for in every area of law. Many members disagree on how far government regulation should go, and one can find scriptural justification for various positions.

As for why the Church doesn't issue detailed policy guidelines, I can only speculate. Reasons might include that members wouldn't have enough faith to accept more detailed direction, that members should be anxiously engaged in working out obvious applications of doctrine to law without being commanded, that Church leaders have not received guidance from the Lord on various matters and thus we are left to our own wisdom, that no one answer is right or wrong for many areas of policy, or some combination of these and other reasons. While the moral consequences of these reasons differ, as long as none is given, I am forced to assume that members acting in good faith can (and do) disagree about many public policy questions, from sin taxes to no-fault divorce, from the exact role the welfare state should play to the meaning of the Establishment Clause.

Now obviously, some policy questions should be obvious from Church doctrine, regardless of whether the Church spells it out or not. But many others are ambiguous, though members may have strong (and divergent) opinions about what Church doctrine implies in a given situation.

Which brings us back to civil unions. When I first heard of the concept, I couldn't see much difference between a 'union' and a 'marriage' if both implied identical rights. The Baron of Deseret argues for this position. However, the more I look at this subject, the more complex it seems. For one thing, it seems only fair to tweak family law in some ways to make it fairer--I see no reason why any adult shouldn't be able to easily make decisions about who he wants to give medical, inheritance, or insurance rights to, whether or not it has anything to do with a romantic relationship.

In addition, looking at the few public statements Church leaders have made on the issue of Church political advocacy and SSM, I see mainly rhetoric about preserving the definition of marriage--not about barring any legal recognition of same-sex relationships. This does surprise me somewhat, but I think it serious enough that I should refrain from reading my own preconceptions into statements of Church leaders. Thus, I wonder about what the Church's position really is. I also wonder about many things relating to the lack of full explanation on these issues (why does the Church pick policy fights it will almost certainly lose? Why does the Church worry about moral problem X but not moral problem Y? Etc.). In any event, I can see how a member, after reading all recent official statements on SSM, could come away thinking that the Church's position on the legal availability of civil unions is neutral as long as 'marriage' still refers only to heterosexual unions. If the Church actually actively opposes civil unions, I hope that it clarifies its position soon.

FMA Vote

2004-07-19T21:55:00.000-07:00

Here is the roll call vote in the Senate.

Of Senators up for reelection, 11 voted yes and 15 voted no.
Of Senators retiring, 3 voted yes and 5 voted no.
This means that possible turnover this November could include 14 yes votes and/or 20 no votes.

If the FMA were a decisive voting issue one way or the other, this could flip the vote to 34-66 (if all the yesses were replaced by Senators opposed) or to 68-32 (if all the nos were replaced by Senators in favor). This is nonsense, of course, as many of these Senators are safe for reelection. In addition, nothing stops a Senator from changing his vote later (and with elections every six years, it's surprisingly easy to get away with tacking back and forth on some issues).

The real hope of those who wish to sway the issue one way or the other lies in getting momentum. If, for instance, pro-FMA forces are able to knock off two or three Senators in the fall, it might persuade some others (particularly who might be up for reelection in 2006) to switch (and vice versa if strongly pro-FMA Senators get knocked off in close contests).

Even so, pro-FMA forces would have a long climb to get to the 67 votes they need.

According to a Volokh poster, three Republicans voting yes on cloture (to close debate, 60 votes needed) would vote no on final passage (to amend, 67 votes needed).

The partisan split in the cloture vote was 45 R for, 6 R against; 3 D for, 44 D against, two D running for President and not bothering to vote.

Incumbents who will have to defend their votes include the following (though I suspect it will make a difference in only a few of these, perhaps including OR, NV, ND, SD, AR, or IN):

Alaska: Sen. Murkowski (R), voted yes.
Hawaii: Sen. Inouye (D), voted no.
California: Sen. Boxer (D), voted no.
Oregon: Sen. Wyden (D), voted no.
Washington: Sen. Murray (D), voted no.
Nevada: Sen. Reid (D), voted no.
Arizona: Sen. McCain (R), voted no.
Utah: Sen. Bennett (R), voted yes.
Idaho: Sen. Crapo (R), voted yes.
North Dakota: Sen. Dorgan (D), voted no.
South Dakota: Sen. Daschle (D), voted no.
Kansas: Sen. Brownback (R), voted yes.
Arkansas: Sen. Lincoln (D), voted no.
Alabama: Sen. Shelby (R), voted yes.
Missouri: Sen. Bond (R), voted yes.
Iowa: Sen. Grassley (R), voted yes.
Wisconsin: Sen. Feingold (D), voted no.
Indiana: Sen. Bayh (D), voted no.
Kentucky: Sen. Bunning (R), voted yes.
Ohio: Sen. Voinovich (R), voted yes.
Maryland: Sen. Mikulski (D), voted no.
Pennsylvania: Sen. Specter (R), voted yes.*
New York: Sen. Schumer (D), voted no.
Vermont: Sen. Leahy (D), voted no.
Connecticut: Sen. Dodd (D), voted no.
New Hampshire: Sen. Gregg (R), voted yes.*

*s may vote no on final passage.

Sen. Bennett update

2004-07-12T07:38:00.000-07:00

The SLTrib reports that Bennett is now in favor of the FMA. No real indications as to whether the switch was before or after the LDS announcement:

Although opposed to gay marriage, Hatch and fellow Utah Republican Sen. Bob Bennett did not rush to embrace President Bush's call in February for a constitutional amendment. Hatch said he wanted to develop alternative language to give states the right to decide what marriages they would recognize, and Bennett wanted to investigate legislative alternatives.
As Republican leaders pushed to make gay marriage a marquee issue before the Democratic National Convention in Boston this month, Hatch shelved his alternative language and Bennett has joined fellow members of Senate GOP leadership in coming out firmly in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment.

The other question the article raises is why the 'Republican opposed' quote is always from former Rep. Barr in this type of article. One would think that if significant Republican federalist opposition to the FMA exists, either current Republican members or at least different former Republican members of Congress might be found to give quotes.

Notes on the FMA

2004-07-11T14:30:00.000-07:00

The House Version, with Rep. Musgrave (R-CO) as the most prominent sponsor, is being held pending Senate action, though indications point to forcing a roll-call vote at some point before the election. The resolution has 126 cosponsors (290 votes are needed to meet the 2/3 threshold). Of Utah's representatives, only Rep. Cannon (R, UT-3) is listed as cosponsoring. Neither Matheson (D, UT-2) nor Bishop (R, UT-1) seems to have anything about the FMA, one way or the other, on either his official or his campaign website. However, I believe Matheson has said he would vote in favor (he evidently drew a protest at the state party convention over the issue). The complete list of cosponsors is available by clicking on the link above.

The House version, however, is unlikely to persist in its current form, as it has the since-amended state law provision:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article --

`SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.'.

The Senate version, as most recently introduced, carries neither bolded provision above [incidentally, SJR 40 seems to have superseded SJR 30]:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

`Article--

`SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

`This Article may be cited as the `Federal Marriage Amendment'.

`SECTION 2. MARRIAGE AMENDMENT.

`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'.

The other change, removing the recent traditional seven-year expiration date, is interesting. The most prominent recent unsuccessful Constitutional amendment, the ERA, failed to be ratified in seven years, and then failed ratification in an unprecedented three-year extension of the deadline. On the other hand, the most recent successful amendment, the XXVIIth, was originally proposed with the Bill of Rights, and languished without enough states' ratifications for 200 years before the magic 3/4 was reached.

An interesting twist that could come up is the question of whether a state can 'unratify' an amendment. A couple of states tried to rescind their ratifications of ERA, though the constitutionality of this move was never tested. Some legal scholars argue that such a move is impermissible, and that once a state has ratified, it cannot rescind. However, my suspicion is that at least some who argued for this position were strongly in favor of the ERA, and likely strongly oppose the FMA; it would be interesting to see if any change their minds if the FMA escapes Congress. Nevertheless, if we take the precedent of the 27th amendment establishing an unlimited ratification period, and the concept of once-ratified, no rescinding, the stage could be set for the FMA to be a perpetual issue in American politics, unless and until ratification is reached. Whether or not this is a good thing is open to debate.

The possibility that the sponsors of the FMA want an unlimited ratification period would answer one question I was wondering about, which involves the method of ratification. Under the Constitution, two methods of ratification exist--3/4 of state legislatures ratifying under a simple majority vote, and 3/4 of the states ratifying in special ratifying conventions called for the purpose [this latter method is less familiar, and has only been used once, with the XXIth Amendment's repeal of Prohibition]. Given that public opinion tends to slightly favor the amendment, and given the ease of blocking legislation in state legislatures, I was wondering why the sponsors chose not to seek the ratifying convention route, as special ratifying conventions called for one purpose only would presumably mirror state opinion better than legislatures. The fact that legislatures are repeat players in the process (even legislatures that meet every other year would have three chances to ratify the amendment in the standard seven-year time period) could explain the decision. Proponents may prefer a more drawn-out fight for whatever reason, be it fear of a quick decisive loss or a desire to keep the issue alive through several election cycles.

Moving on to the content of the FMA: The first statement would codify the definition of marriage to be only "the union of a man and a woman" in any jurisdiction in the U.S. The second statement would prevent judicial imposition of SSM or civil unions relying on either state or the federal constitution (and since state constitutions tend to contain broad clauses about equal protection, etc, the potential for mischief by activist judges is genuine). The second statement does appear to bar civil unions in any state constitution, but should not bar statutory enactment of such (as the earlier version of the FMA could be construed to do). If an activist judiciary tried to impose civil unions by statute, however, it would be comparatively simple for the Legislature (or a citizens' initiative) to amend and clarify the statute in question.

The second sentence, which intends to restore democratic majoritarianism to process of deciding in which direction family law ought to evolve in response to increasing societal tolerance of same-sex relations, seems less controversial than the first, which would codify a single definition of marriage into the Constitution. Senator Hatch proposed an amendment focusing on the concepts in the second sentence--restraining activist judges--but social conservative groups (and the now the Church) favored establishing a national definition.

I am aware of several broad lines of argument against the first sentence.

*"A national definition violates federalism." The FMA would prevent the states that want to from experimenting with SSM. This is the most serious argument against the FMA, in my opinion. While it's true that those in favor of SSM largely also seek to create a national definition (imposed by the courts), one could make a principled argument that as long as DOMA is upheld, states should be free to experiment if they want. I don't know that a nation half SSM and half not is quite as serious as a nation half free and half slave, but the Church seems to think it's a bad thing regardless. I don't know that I'm terribly impressed by some Republican hedging on this issue though--my inclination is that they should bite the bullet and argue more directly that it's a justifiable expansion of national power, rather than trying to paint themselves as pure federalists (and it's not as if the national media that accuses them of hypocritical federalism is itself a model of ideological purity, even on this issue, in which liberal born-again federalists are popping up left and lefter).

*"A national definition in the Constitution is bad because the people might change their minds later." This argument lacks moral seriousness when put forward by people trying to impose a definition undemocratically via judicial fiat. If the broad national consensus did change, either the legal structure would find a way to cope or another amendment would be passed. It's not as if people lie awake at night distressed over the fact that we have the 18th and 21st amendments cluttering up the beauty of an otherwise pristine Constitution.

*"A national definition is less likely to pass." Pragmatic, for those who care for such things. I personally thought a laissez-faire federalist amendment had a better shot, but what do I know? In any event, if the Church is in favor of a federal definition, then the chances of passage are less relevant than making a good try.

*"A national definition writes discrimination into the Constitution." This argument is quite silly on several levels. It is literally true--discrimination, in the technical sense, involves making distinctions, and the FMA does create legal distinctions between permissible types of marriage and impermissible types. However, every amendment to the Constitution, along with the original text itself, is technically discriminatory (whether against third-term presidents, untrustworthy Congressmen, or even the American people themselves). People who make this argument take for granted that the structure of marriage law as currently enacted is discriminatory in a bad way, as it not only discriminates against minors who want to marry or incestuous couples, but it also prevents same-sex marriages. However, very few of those making the argument that marriage as it currently exists discriminates badly are attempting to challenge current marriage statutes in the various state legislatures. Their use of nondemocratic judicial forums to force change is both cynical and somewhat effective, though it still may backfire spectacularly. A corollary to this argument is that 'past amendments have always expanded rights.' This argument is both untrue (stripping standing to protect state governments and blocking voters from voting for popular presidents unquestionably limit rights) and absurd, if carried to logical extremes. However one defines rights, one cannot endlessly expand rights without the framework of government breaking down--freedom to do anything is anarchy. Expanding rights is important, but only if rights need to be expanded, and contracting rights can be equally important (the proposed balanced budget amendment, for instance, would limit the rights of the American people to mortgage their (and their children's) future). In any event, expansion or contraction of rights should be argued on the merits, not with reference to some mystical notion of the primacy of expanding rights.

*"The proposed national definition would exclude polygamy, which is hypocritical for LDS." Surprisingly, this line of argument has popped up in a few places in the Bloggernacle recently. I'm not convinced. On the first point, the FMA defines a marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but this is not necessarily incompatible with polygamy. My polygamous multiple-great grandfather did not have a marriage with two wives, he had two marriages, each of which was the union of one man and one woman. Under the FMA, state laws could continue to bar multiple simultaneous marriages or not. In any event, the Church is extremely unlikely to return to the practice of polygamy anytime soon--arguing that the Church ought to be paving the way for its legal return seems rather silly. The current legal structure is incompatible with polygamy in any event--the FMA does little to change that political reality, as it exists as a cultural sentiment independent of laws or amendments.

*"But it's hypocritical for LDS to punish others for practicing alternative forms of marriage." This is the follow-up corollary, whether delivered in anger or pious self-righteousness to try to score political points. Nevertheless, numerous differences exist between the 19th-century polygamy persecutions and the 21st-century SSM arguments, including but not limited to scriptural justification for polygamy, geographic isolation (and practical independence) of polygamous communities, ex post facto criminalization of polygamy, punishment of belief versus punishment of action, expected societal acceptance, etc. Federal persecution of polygamous families who had already been driven out of the U.S. and largely wanted to be left alone is hardly the same as resisting an active movement to force U.S. communities to extend special legal privileges to same-sex couples. At the end of the day, the polygamous LDS families largely wanted to be left alone to practice their religion, while same-sex couples today are trying to force society to accept their beliefs, independent of legal rights (which can be granted by civil unions, if actually needed to ensure fairness).

*"The FMA is playing politics with the Constitution." While some in both camps are probably motivated by electoral gain, the general cry of "unfair wedge issue" strikes me as silly. Activists playing politics with the judiciary is just as serious, if not more so, and now that the issue is on the agenda, politicians shouldn't complain that they might be forced to take a position and vote on it. If opponents really think the FMA is deeply misguided on the merits, then they either A) don't trust the American public to notice this fact, or B) should be salivating at the prospect of electoral gains in the wake of the inevitable pro-FMA implosion.

In any event, my initial reluctance about the FMA stemmed largely from the federalist and pragmatic rationales--while I agreed that some action seemed to be necessary to prevent judicial usurpation of the democratic process, I wasn't sure it was wise to pursue a federal marriage definition, especially given pragmatic concerns. However, as the Church evidently does believe it necessary to pursue a federal definition, the FMA seems as good an option as any (particularly given that the failure of the FMA would likely be a death knell for any pro-marriage amendment).

The Politics of the State-Level Amendment Drives

2004-07-11T13:46:00.000-07:00

All eyes are on Missouri, which votes first (in about three weeks). Both sides want momentum going into the November elections. If those in favor of an amendment can point to a Missouri victory, it might help swing comparatively liberal states (such as Oregon), as well as dividing the resources of those opposed. Those opposed, meanwhile, would take an MO win as a sign that there may be hope in the Deep South or Utah (in addition, it seems unlikely that 'no' campaigns in those states could attract much cash after a MO defeat).

I could find one website run by a group actively campaigning for the amendment: Coalition to Protect Marriage in Missouri.

A fair question to ask is what effect, if any, amending state constitutions will have. Several possibilities include:
*Widespread failure of anti-SSM ballot propositions would likely hasten the day that more states recognize SSM.
*Successful amendments might keep SSM out of those states, if the DOMA is upheld as constitutional when it reaches the Supreme Court. Under this scenario, MA either does or does not enact a similar amendment in 2006. Regardless, it seems likely that at least one state would eventually legalize SSM (whether by election, legislation, or judicial fiat), and the country would go forth for a time with some states allowing SSM and some not. If public opinion trends increasingly favor SSM, more states might follow if no immediate negative consequences are evident (other than the wrath of conservatives). A watershed moment under this scenario might be the first state to repeal its anti-SSM amendment.
*On the other hand, the DOMA may be struck down. In that case, SSM would be legalized in every state (via MA), regardless of state-level amendments (unless MA banned it again, but some other state might legalize it again, and off we would go...). Striking down DOMA, as it would likely be a close vote, could lead to further Supreme Court political warfare (especially over nominations), or it could lead to increased pressure for some sort of federal amendment. However, my guess would be that if DOMA is struck down, the movement to eliminate SSM would lose momentum and, at most, fade to the sort of issue position that abortion plays in American politics today--lots of people are angry, but nothing they do makes much difference, and swing voters and the political class lack the will to make the changes they want.
*Regardless, civil unions are now widely seen as a compromise option, and it seems likely that civil unions will become widespread in at least some of the more liberal states (besides Vermont) under any scenario (except nationwide SSM, which would obviate the need). How this would play out in family law, particularly in family law disputes between states, seems a question of staggering complexity.
*Successful state-level amendment campaigns could send a signal to the political class, particularly if large numbers of people make it a voting issue in candidate races. This could increase support for the FMA, if Senators (or Senatorial candidates) feel increased pressure to support the FMA. In addition, if the FMA ever clears Congress, it would need to be ratified in 3/4 of the states to take effect. State electorates that have voted in favor of such amendments might have an easier time ratifying than those that haven't, as state legislatures might be more reluctant to go against the referendum results (or, if Congress submitted the FMA to ratifying conventions instead of legislatures, passage would seem even more likely).

In any event, the net effect is debatable, and depends on how things play out in other venues. Meanwhile, the Church's public statement in favor of the idea of amending state constitutions to preserve marriage still leaves some questions open. The Church could conceivably pick from among several different options.

Some of these options are unlikely. It seems unlikely that the Church will formally endorse the FMA, and even more unlikely that the Church would officially support or oppose any Senators for reelection, regardless of votes on the FMA (though what members unofficially do is an open question). I base this conclusion on the Church's avoidance of candidate races, and on the observation that, since the FMA vote is this week, a forthcoming endorsement in addition to the non-endorsing statement seems unlikely.

However, at the state level, the options are more flexible. The Church has involved itself officially in supporting similar ballot propositions before, in HI, AK, CA, and NV. In my understanding, the Church donated money to campaign coalitions, encouraged its members to work for the passage of the propositions, and was in general publicly officially in favor of each amendment.

With ~11 states voting on state-level amendments, the Church could take any or all of these actions again. It could formally endorse various state-level amendments (though observers would read volumes into its choices if it endorsed some and not others). The Church could donate money and/or encourage members to donate manpower and/or money (though official donations in multiple states might stretch the budget more than one-time commitments in previous years). Or the Church could take no official action from this point, leaving it to members to decide what actions are appropriate in light of the official statement of last week.

All of these actions carry possible interesting consequences. Some members feel uncomfortable with this sort of political advocacy (at least, anecdotal evidence I've heard from members in CA in 2000 seems to indicate such), and many members may have split opinions on the merits of the various state-level amendments (such as those that ban civil unions in addition to SSM). In addition, a public relations backlash from a press that largely favors SSM and doesn't care for the Church seems certain. Furthermore, any more of an endorsement in Utah, at least, seems certain to bring more cries of church-state interference with possible polarizing LDS/non-LDS consequences in Utah. And support public support elsewhere would likely be seen as equivalent to public support in Utah, even if the Church doesn't donate a dime to the efforts in Utah.

In any event, it will be interesting to observe what choices the Church makes, as well as how the issue plays out nationwide.

Does the FMA bar civil unions?

2004-07-10T22:19:00.000-07:00

The SLTrib seems to think so, unjustifiably, in my opinion.

But S.J.R. 30 continues: "Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
This language is problematic, because it may eliminate the opportunity for states to provide same-sex couples, perhaps through civil unions, some of the "legal incidents" -- read "benefits" -- now associated only with marriage. For example, the right to make health-care decisions for an ailing partner.

This simply doesn't follow, in my understanding. The FMA was specifically amended to allow for the possibility of state-level civil unions after complaints that previous wording (which included references to state law as well as state constitutions) might bar them, given the right kind of activist judge. At most, the current version might bar civil unions in state constitutions, but wouldn't prevent them in state statutes (FMA sponsors had wanted to prevent judicial imposition of civil unions with the former language referring to state law, but agreed to drop the matter to simplify the issue). The Trib seems to be either in error or deliberately deceptive (it makes me wonder how many opponents of the FMA aren't going to let the fact that the FMA was amended to specifically allow civil unions stop them from claiming that it would bar them). In any event, the subject has been discussed extensively on Volokh, though the discussions are a few months old at this point.

It is worth noting, however, that the proposed Utah state-level amendment would indeed bar civil unions in Utah (though state constitutions are always subject to being overridden by federal law). This is interesting, particularly given that I am not aware of any official LDS position on civil unions. Nate Oman provides anecdotal evidence that the Church might not mind civil unions, which is interesting if true. It seems to me that the Church's public positions can be interpreted two different ways, either as 'opposition to all legal recognition of sodomous relationships,' or as 'wanting to preserve the traditional definition of "marriage," without caring about civil unions much.' I'd be interested if anyone can provide a definitive statement in which the Church clarified its position between these two options.

FMA in the Senate

2004-07-10T20:14:00.000-07:00

Vote Count

Another Vote Count

To my knowledge, there are presently five LDS senators. Three currently support the FMA (Hatch, UT; Smith, OR; Crapo, ID), one is undecided (Bennett, R-UT), and one is opposed (Reid, NV). Note, however, that the Church did not specifically endorse the FMA, though I imagine many LDS voters wouldn't be impressed with a no vote. Also note that Reid isn't terribly popular among his LDS constituents anyway.

The FMA is highly unlikely to pass this year. Supporters must hope to either elect more Senators who support it, or convince opposed Senators to change their minds. Either seems to require the immediate goal of defeating some anti-FMA Senators. Opponents, meanwhile, might be able to kill momentum by defeating vulnerable pro-FMA Senators this fall. On the ballot:

Alaska: Sen. Murkowski (R), listed as undecided, has to survive a primary challenge (including a pro-FMA candidate) as well as a competitive general election. Alaska already enacted a state-level amendment by referendum.

Hawaii: Sen. Inouye (D), listed as undecided, is considered safe--but is running in one of the four states to enact amendments by referendum already.

California: Sen. Boxer (D), listed as opposed, is likely safe, despite California's 2000 state-level anti-SSM initiative.

Oregon: Sen. Wyden (D), listed as opposed, is favored for reelection, but Oregon is likely to be voting on a state-level amendment in November, which could influence things.

Washington: Sen. Murray (D), listed as opposed, may end up in a fairly competitive race for, among other things, praising bin Laden in 2002.

Nevada: Sen. Reid (D), listed as opposed, is up for reelection, though he hasn't attracted a strong challenger yet, evidently. However, he's been winning by thin margins in his last elections, and may end up vulnerable. Nevada passed a state-level amendment in two consecutive referenda in 2000 and 2002.

Arizona: Sen. McCain (R), listed as undecided, is likely to win reelection easily, though there is perpetually talk of a primary challenge from disgruntled conservatives. Seems unlikely this year, though.

Utah: Sen. Bennett (R), listed as undecided. Would Utah Republicans turn on him if he voted no? Could they stomach voting for his Democratic opponent?

Idaho: Sen. Crapo (R), listed as in favor, is easily favored for reelection in Red Idaho.

North Dakota: Sen. Dorgan (D), listed as undecided, may not face strong opposition in the fall, but faces a Red state regardless. In addition, ND may vote on a state-level amendment in November.

South Dakota: Sen. Daschle (D), listed as opposed, is running in what may be the most exciting race of the year, as his opponent, who lost by a razor-thin margin in 2002, now has President Bush at the top of the ticket in Red SD.

Kansas: Sen. Brownback (R), listed as in favor, is safe in Red Kansas.

Arkansas: Sen. Lincoln (D), listed as opposed, is running in another Red state. Arkansas also may be voting on a state-level amendment in November.

Alabama: Sen. Shelby (R), listed as in favor, is safe.

Missouri: Sen. Bond (R), listed as in favor, is up for reelection in the perpetual bellwether state. MO votes on a state-level amendment in August, not November.

Iowa: Sen. Grassley (R), listed as in favor, is favored for reelection.

Wisconsin: Sen. Feingold (D), listed as opposed, is up for reelection.

Indiana: Sen. Bayh (D), listed as undecided, is up for reelection in another Red state.

Kentucky: Sen. Bunning (R), listed as in favor, faces reelection as Kentucky votes on a state-level amendment.

Ohio: Sen. Voinovich (R), listed as undecided, is favored for reelection, but Ohio is a battleground state at the presidential level, and Ohio's signature drive may yet put a state-level amendment on its ballot.

Maryland: Sen. Mikulski (D), listed as undecided, is favored for reelection in Blue MD.

Pennsylvania: Sen. Specter (R), listed as opposed, barely fought off a conservative challenge and may face revolt from PA conservatives, who may decide to throw the election to the Dems to keep Specter from chairing the Judiciary Committee in 2005.

New York, Vermont, Connecticut: Sens. Schumer, Leahy, and Dodd (D all), all listed as opposed, are all easily favored for reelection in their Blue state havens.

New Hampshire: Sen. Gregg (R), listed as undecided, is considered safe, but faces a libertarian-leaning state that's also a presidential battleground.

By my count, up for reelection are six Senators in favor, nine undecided, and eleven opposed. Meanwhile, eight Senators are retiring, leaving open-seat races. These are:
Colorado: Sen. Campbell (R), listed as undecided.
Oklahoma: Sen. Nickles (R), listed as in favor.
Louisiana: Sen. Breaux (D), listed as opposed.
Illinois: Sen. Fitzgerald (R), listed as in favor.
Florida: Sen. Graham (D), listed as opposed.
Georgia: Sen. Miller (D), listed as in favor.
South Carolina: Sen. Hollings (D), listed as opposed in one source, and undecided in another.
North Carolina: Sen. Edwards (D), listed as opposed.

This leaves three in favor, one/two undecided, and three/four opposed retiring. GA and OK will vote on state-level amendments in November, and LA will in September.

I have no idea of the positions of the challengers in most of these races, so it's worth keeping in mind that a change of Senator is not necessarily a change of vote.

If you feel like trying to make a difference, contact your state's Senators. It also wouldn't hurt to research the position of any challengers. And, of course, giving even token sums to candidates you support speaks volumes louder than a simple email.

Credibility

2004-07-10T14:46:00.000-07:00

Human beings are hopelessly dependent on others to filter information for us. Various sources--mainstream media, informal media, word-of-mouth/gossip, etc, endlessly filter information and try to put it in context. We can't research everything ourselves, and inevitably must depend on the work of others. However, all sources of information are not created equally--some are far more reliable than others. How to decide which sources are worth trusting? One easy way is to see how effectively the source handles something on which you already know a fair amount. For instance, look up "Mormon" in the index of a book/encyclopedia that mentions the Church and see what it says--chances are, the factual accuracy and editorial slant on the material presented will give you some idea of how reliable the work as a whole is. Alternatively, for mainstream media, see how accurate the source is when it addresses something you already know about. I've always been amused at the following Heinlein quote:

TIME magazine probably publishes many facts ... but since its founding in the early 1920's I have been on the spot eight or nine times when something that wound up as a news story in TIME happened. Not once--not once--did the TIME magazine story match what I saw and heard.

In any event, Thursday's Daily Disappointment provides two classic examples. The first:

However, Amy Naccarato, state elections officer said the group failed to get at least 10 percent of signatures from voters in 26 of 29 counties, only making the cut in 24 counties.

The Utah initiative county-signature requirement was actually struck down two years ago as an unconstitutional violation of the one-man, one-vote rule. The law, as amended in 2003, actually calls for 10% in 26/29 state Senate districts, which other Utah media sources managed to get right with minimal difficulty. Now, the DU reporter claims to be paraphrasing a state elections official, who might herself be confused--but that seems far less likely, and doesn't excuse the reporter from doing basic fact-checking.

The second example:

The bill, Resolution 30, sponsored by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., and Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo, supports amending the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

Legislation/resolutions receive different numbers in the Senate and the House, which, after all, operate independently. In the House, the Musgrave amendment is H.J.RES.56. In the Senate, the FMA is introduced as S.J.RES.30.

In any event, it was immediately obvious to me, in reading these stories, that the reporter couldn't get basic details correct, at least in a subject I know something about. This does not give me cause to trust any of the reporting on subjects about which I am comparatively ignorant.

UPDATE: THOMAS URLs fixed, updated.

Marriage Amendments

2004-07-08T10:27:00.000-07:00

By now, it is of course old (nearly 24 hours) news that the Church issued a statement on marriage amendments:

The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued the following statement today. This is a statement of principle in anticipation of the expected debate over same-gender marriage. It is not an endorsement of any specific amendment.
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints favors a constitutional amendment preserving marriage as the lawful union of a man and a woman."

SLTrib
Desnews

Two things struck me immediately about the announcement. One is the low emphasis on the Church's website, and the other is the statement's ambiguity concerning federal versus state amendments. News accounts indicate that the Church spokesperson evidently did clarify that the statement is intended to apply to state-level amendments as well.

The Utah Legislature has referred an anti-SSM constitutional amendment to the fall ballot. The amendment, though its 60% initial support was a bit low for where a 'yes' ballot proposition campaign wants to be at this point, still looked quite likely to pass before this announcement. With the announcement, it seems close to certain, barring miracles from the 'no' campaign. The 'no' campaign's only real hope at this point is to try to play up the issue of whether the Utah amendment goes to far--ie, the issues about completely banning any civil recognition, or ending common law marriages, and so on. However, such tactics depend not only on the hope that enough LDS voters will carefully parse First Presidency messages for implications and shades of meaning, but will also be opposed to banning common-law marriages or civil unions.

Utah, however, is not the only state in which this is a ballot issue. Seven state legislatures to date have referred amendments to the ballot, and four state initiative petition drives appear to have qualified for the ballot as well (with two more initiative states with later deadlines not out of the picture either).

Issues to watch (both of general and LDS interest) include arguments for possible effects on other elections, including the Presidential election (if such ballot issues affect turnout on either the yes or no side), the question of the whether the early-voting states will influence, and to what degree, the later-voting states, the degree of support the Church lends to such efforts and where, and potential public relations effects, if any, on the Church's decisions. For fun, we'll look at 2000 election numbers and the approximate number of LDS stakes in the state (as a back-of-the-envelope rough guess of LDS strength on the ground).

Voting first will be Missouri, thanks to a state supreme court ruling that the Legislature's careful attempts to make the letter of state law force the issue to the November ballot could be overruled by the Democratic governor's desire to vote earlier (he, at least, evidently believed the higher conservative turnout theory). So Missouri will vote on the legislature-referred state consitutional anti-SSM amendment on 3 August 2004. Missouri is considered a bellweather swing state. In 2000 it went 50-47-2 for Bush (~2.3m voters). Missouri evidently has about 13 LDS stakes.

Voting next (on a legislature-referred amendment) will be Louisiania, on 18 September 2004. LA went 53-45-1 for Bush (~1.8m voters), but is considered competitive by some (though if Bush loses there, he's likely in enough trouble everywhere that it won't matter). LA evidently has about 7 LDS stakes.

Other legislative-referred states voting on the issue in the general election in November include GA, MS, KY, OK, and UT. None are presidential swing states.

GA: 55-43-1 for Bush (~2.5m voters). About 14 LDS stakes.

MS: 58-41-1 for Bush (~1m voters). About 4 LDS stakes.

KY: 57-41-2 for Bush (~1.5m voters). About 5 LDS stakes.

OK: 60-38 for Bush (~1.2m voters). About 7 LDS stakes.

UT: 67-26-5 for Bush (~700K voters). Lots and lots of LDS stakes.

Assuming all of the initiative states that have submitted signatures qualify (not necesarily a good assumption, given the determination of opponents to use legal challenges to try to keep it off the ballot, and given the high bar some states set--look at the failure of the UT open spaces initiative), the issue would go on the ballot in AR, MI, MT, and OR, of which all but Montana are considered swing states.

AR: 51-46-1 for Bush (~900K voters). About 4 LDS stakes.

MI: 46-51-2 for Gore (~4.2m voters). About 8 LDS stakes.

MT: 58-33-6 for Bush (~400K voters). About 11 LDS stakes.

OR: 47-47-5 for Gore (~1.5m voters). About 32 LDS stakes.

ND and OH are evidently still conducting signature drives, and may qualify for the ballot.

ND: 61-33-3 Bush (~300K voters). About 2 LDS stakes.

OH: 50-46-3 Bush (~4.7m voters, major swing state). About 11 LDS states.

On a first pass, it seems to me that if the Church wants to mobilize in any of those states beyond Utah, Oregon may the the one with the most potential to make much of a difference, followed by Montana.

Meanwhile, the issue of what effect such state efforts to constitutionalize DOMA may have on the federal FMA amendment is also complex and probably worthy of another post (perhaps after I get some work done).

Theological Barriers to Space Colonization?

2004-06-30T10:34:00.000-07:00

Adam Greenwood recently wrote on why he thinks LDS should be interested in space travel, giving two broad reasons along with some theological themes: 1) that a new frontier would enable us to create a politically and geographically distinct Zion, and 2) given that space colonization is inevitable, LDS should try to get in early to be able to influence those communities. I find this line of argument interesting, in part because past speculation has led me to question both of those premises.

As to the first, it seems unlikely that the Church is going to be interested in devoting any degree of resources to building a distinct Zion nation any time soon, and it tends to look with disfavor on any members who might want to try to found a separate distinct community on their own without prophetic guidance. Perhaps the only reason this is so is the lack of viable frontier, but my impression is that this is not the only determining variable—our interest in taking the gospel to all the world demands that we employ our resources to that end in every country, and many of the reasons that gathering and geographical isolation were needed in the early days of the Church no longer apply. The model of gathering to Zion (one place) has been replaced with the model of gathering to Zion (stakes spread throughout the world). Perhaps it will change again, but I’ve seen little indication thus far.

The second reason is also something I’ve wondered about for awhile. For whatever reason, the picture I have in my head of the flow of history seems incompatible with extensive space colonization. Of course, many pieces of that picture are based on CES teachings about the run-up to the Second Coming, which teachings (based on various CESers interpretations of ambiguous scriptures) I’ve become more skeptical of over the years. And I certainly don’t mean anything as banal as the “God would look on space travel as blasphemy/If God had meant men to fly, he wouldn’t have invented the automobile…” line of argument. It’s more that it seems that whatever God’s plan for the world, the end wrap-up would come before space colonization could get very far.

The picture I have is something along the lines of increased wars and tensions leading up to the Armageddon conflict, a showdown in the Middle East, and then the Second Coming, at which the wicked will be burnt and the Earth returned to ‘paradisiacal glory’ through the Millennium, following which the Earth will be celestialized. Absent from this picture are nations which don’t take part through being conveniently off-planet and out of range.

Part of the reason that space colonies don’t seem to fit stems from the fact that scripture seems to treat the planetary unit as important, for whatever reason.
Moses 1 teaches that many inhabited earths exist (29) but that we only need to worry about this one (35). D&C 130 teaches that souls seem to 'belong' to one planet (5) and about the celestialization of the Earth (9).

So the broader picture seems to encompass many inhabited worlds, but without provisions for communication between them. As to whether these worlds (as well as the already-perfected worlds further along in the cycle) are in this universe or others, we may not know for sure—but if they are in this universe, it seems unlikely that God would allow us to come in contact with them [though one semi-related case is interesting to note: the Jaredites, under a pre-Law of Moses dispensation, were for a brief period geographically and temporally contemporaneous with the Law of Moses Mulekites and Nephites, which could have led to all sorts of interesting problems if the cultures had been allowed to intersect—different commandments required, different prophets with different lines of authority, etc.]

In any event, for these reasons I can’t seem to make the idea of space colonization fit comfortably into my theological framework (as opposed to my sci-fi fan framework, from which I’m all in favor of going full speed ahead).

Bias or Incompetence?

2004-06-30T09:56:00.000-07:00

The DU front page leads today with Approval at all-time low for Bush. Unfortunately, our plucky DU reporter who's recycling the story from the NYT either didn't get the memo or doesn't care that the NYT isn't the best place to rely on for one's news. You would think that DU reporters would be capable of a few minutes of net research, but evidently, in their quest to uphold the historic standards of the Daily Universe, they can't achieve either timeliness or accuracy.

Kausfiles [standing link not available, scroll down] analyzes the NYT story:

Kerry dropped seven points in a month...
But the Times coverage isn't really that bad. It's worse! Soxblog also busts Nagourney and Elder for what appears to be dissembling. They report, in the very first sentence of their piece, that
"President Bush's job approval rating has fallen to the lowest level of his presidency, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll."
But if you look at the previous poll results listed in the Times web site, you learn that a month ago Bush's approval rating was a point lower and his disapproval rating was a point higher. Bush has actually gained in the past month. It doesn't appear to be, you know, true that his "approval rating has fallen to the lowest level of his presidency." It was worse last month. The same goes for Bush's favorability ratings, which were lower last month (36 favorable/47 unfavorable) than this month (39 favorable/45 unfavorable)...
Readers are supposed to read those charts for trends, but somehow Nagouney and Elder are allowed to ignore them in order to deceptively pluck out their anti-Bush theme.

RCP has more:

This time around ... the CBS/NYT is again one of the only polls in the most recent grouping showing Kerry leading Bush - though it shows a big move toward Bush and is considerably closer to the overall average as two other recent polls (IBD/TIPP and Rasmussen) have the race tied.

One could write the DU's story off as simple incompetence, but then how to account for the gratuitous Moore/F911 reference?

Ultimatums and Justifiable Use of Force

2004-06-29T21:24:00.000-07:00

Analyzing the ending of Brigham City (discussed below, spoilers there and here) got me thinking about the way ultimatums interact with using force.

In the scene in question, the hero has finally discovered the identity of the serial killer, and confronts him in his home, where the SK is cleaning his gun. During the course of their Heated Emotional Discussion, the SK is busy reassembling the gun, obviously not a good thing for Our Hero. The hero tells him a couple of times to stop, or to put the gun down, but the SK doesn’t (though in fairness to the hero, the conversation they were having was rather on the distracting side). The eventual resolution, of course, is quite predictable, though the gore is tastefully kept off-camera.

It’s interesting to look at the incentives here. The hero, not being particularly bloodthirsty, wants to avoid shooting the SK if at all possible. The SK, on the other hand, evidently prefers escape to death to capture. The hero doesn’t know the SK’s preferences, of course, but is strongly conditioned not to fire if it’s at all avoidable. The SK knows that the hero is extremely reluctant to shoot. The net result of these preference structures ends up being that the SK ignores the hero’s orders to put the gun away, and the hero risks his life by waiting until the last possible moment to fire. The hero makes several useless ultimatums, each less credible than the one before, before the bloody end.

This seems to have strong parallels to international relations, though the comparisons are, of course, oversimplifications, and complicated by the nature of attempting to assign moral values to collective actions. Nevertheless, suppose a ‘good’ country (or, if you prefer, the UN) knows that a ‘bad’ country is guilty of some atrocity—human rights violations, treaty violations, harming a citizen or citizens of the ‘good’ country, etc. Oversimplifying the ‘good’ country’s choices, it can either ignore the problem, issue an ultimatum, or respond with force [or perhaps apply economic or diplomatic pressure, but we’ll assume for purposes of the analysis that those have been tried and didn’t work]. The ‘bad’ country knows that the ‘good’ country doesn’t like using force. Thus, if an ultimatum is issued, the ‘bad’ country is likely to push the envelope, if not outright ignore it.

The ‘good’ country thus seems to have a few options. It can make it a policy to have an extremely lenient standard of what it chooses to complain about in other countries, preferring to ignore problems rather than getting sucked into the dilemma. It can make it a policy to issue ultimatums, but revert to the ‘ignore’ setting if the problem doesn’t go away. It can issue ultimatums, but not enforce them until the last possible moment, whatever that is defined as. Or it can either use force to stop atrocities, or issue only one ultimatum before using force.

It seems possible to construct a moral worldview to justify any of these possibilities, depending on one’s beliefs about the use of force, or about the issuance of noncredible ultimatums. One could argue for the ‘total ignore’ option by citing instances the importance of turning the other cheek, or the folly of getting involved in international affairs. One could argue for the ‘ultimatum, then ignore’ option for the same reasons, with the pragmatic (if dishonest) reasoning that the ultimatum might be obeyed, and no harm comes from trying it. Supporters of the fourth option (always follow through) would disagree, however, arguing that 100% enforcement is the only way one’s ultimatums will be believed, and the ability to issue credible ultimatums will do more to deter bad behavior and thus justify the rare uses of force the result from this policy. The third option (‘last possible minute’) can be seen as either foolhardy or self-sacrificing (‘we’ll let them get one shot in before responding’).

Many of the recent foreign policy disputes seem to stem from disagreements about which model is best, or which model describes reality. Supporters of the Iraq invasion claim that the U.S.’s previous approach was effectively policy two—16 ignored UN ultimatums that didn’t appreciably change Sadaam’s behavior. Invading Iraq, in this view, was justified because Sadaam was ‘assembling the gun’ of WMDs, and we had to stop him before he could shoot us (or innocent civilians, in practical terms). Supporters further claim that the U.S. can now make credible threats—as in the Libya situation.

Opponents of the Iraq war seem to fall into two rough camps. One camp is largely opposed to the use of force in any circumstances, and one seems to prefer the third option—wait until the last possible moment (we will ignore, for purposes of this analysis, those who vehemently oppose force by Republican presidents, but don’t seem to mind Democratic intervention). Those who prefer the ‘last possible moment’ argue that acting ‘preemptively’ is unjustifiable, and force should be avoided until the last possible moment, however defined.

I think any of these worldviews can be justified, given certain moral premises. However, there are generally high transaction costs to switch from one to another. Each course has its risks, as well. Reliance on force can lead to mistakes—issuing an ultimatum when it isn’t necessary, or being forced to carry out a foolish ultimatum, or generally abusing one’s power. It also relies on counterfactuals for justification—‘it would have been worse if we’d waited.’ Reliance on pacifism can lead to large numbers of innocents getting hurt in the name of the country feeling good about itself. Waiting until the last moment to use force may allow one to avoid some of the mistakes of the force-happy alternative, but it also treats minor violations of rights as inconsequential, and sends confusing signals about what countries can and can’t expect to get away with (as well as encouraging low levels of ‘bad’ behavior that don’t provoke a response).

I’m not entirely sure where I fall politically. Currently, I lean toward a model in which one should issue ultimatums carefully, but rigorously enforce them once issued. However, I can see why others might feel differently.

Perhaps the moral question at stake is whether violation of an ultimatum, once given, is sufficient to justify a forceful response. In BC terms, would the cop be justified in shooting once he had said ‘put down the gun or I’ll shoot,’ and the SK hadn’t put down the gun? One can argue on the one hand that refusal to comply with the ultimatum is evidence of bad intentions; one can argue on the other hand that the ultimatum itself may have been immoral or unwise, and that the immoral action (shooting before the danger materialized) is not justified simply because one promised to do it.

In any event, it seems to me that we run risks no matter what we do, but that the more we communicate our reluctance to use force, the more emboldened our enemies will feel. Thus I wonder how those who are strident in their pacifism deal with questions of enemy incentives and ultimatums.

Brigham City

2004-06-29T17:46:00.000-07:00

So I finally got around to seeing Brigham City (which might have been the last thing on my List of Things I Missed On the Mission To Get Around To Seeing, come to think of it). Some observations [Spoilers, both minor and major will likely follow]:

*Nearer My God to Thee is not a sacrament hymn.
*Bishops are married; a bishop whose wife died would almost certainly be released, particularly in a town with plenty of other worthy and capable men.
*It’s hard to figure out how the Sunday School lesson depicted related to the D&C, which was the curriculum for the year the movie was set in.

Okay, that last one was fairly nitpicky (and the first could, I suppose, be a doctrinally questionable regional variation), but I think the fact that I noticed these things (and possibly others that slip my mind) is interesting. It seems there’s been a lot of hype about making “Mormon” movies, which can mean many different things. If the particular definition we’re working with means making movies (or other forms of art) about ordinary, faithful LDS people, I think it’s probably a worthy goal. However, every mistaken detail is going to make the work ring less true for the LDS audience. Having seen few quality LDS films makes it hard for me to tell how much of a problem this might be. God’s Army had some of the same difficulties—the DL interviewing his own investigator, a strange dearth of missionary interaction with members, etc. Some of these are caused by logistical problems—not being able to use Church facilities—and some seem to be caused by plot convenience (which is where it’s more questionable, IMO). In any event, it was only a minor problem in BC.

Other implausibilities can be explained as characterization, I suppose, as it’s a time-honored tradition that Characters In Suspense Movies Are Required to Act Like Idiots At Least Part of the Time. So the town’s entire public safety force, and the overseeing FBI agents, didn’t care about the Fourth Amendment. That’s probably sadly plausible, for a small town with no real crime problem. More troubling was the fact that the hero didn’t call for help before going to the Final Confrontation. Yes, it’s in character that he would want to handle it himself, but it was profoundly stupid, as if he had gotten himself killed (and it looked close to 50-50 odds at the end), the serial killer would have likely managed to escape, possibly killing again in the process.

The movie was very effective on several points, including building suspense. Interesting, in light of previous discussion on movie violence, was how little violence and gore Dutcher chose to show. We see a few blood-splattered objects, a few photographs of bloodied victims (not in close up), and a couple of violent moments. I think the most disturbing violent image of the film is probably the convenience store sequence. Seeing the bound and gagged girl, and seeing the gloved hand bring the gun to the deputy’s head before fading on the gunshot packed the most punch of any scene in the movie in terms of the immediacy and horror of the violence. Was this necessary to the movie? On the one hand, it communicated quick clearly the lengths to which the killer would go; on the other hand, it was quite disturbing.

The misfire, I thought, in the building of suspense was the number of false leads. Not being overly familiar with the murder mystery movie genre, I’m not sure how valid this complaint is, but I tend to think that even misdirection should be plausibly important instead of blatant trickery. I want to trust that the director is going to show me what is important, and not have to put up with intentional deceit. Thus, some of the scenes, particularly toward the end, seemed wrong—all of the shots of the one suspect loading his rifle and ominously approaching the sleeping woman were irrelevant to the outcome, and seemed dishonest. Yes, misdirection has its place, but it’s a fine line between allowing the audience to come to its own conclusions and deliberately deceiving them. If I want to trust the omniscient director/narrator who’s showing me the important scenes of the story, I don’t want him throwing in irrelevant scenes or trying to manipulate me into thinking something false.

A better way to build suspense might have featured more interactions in which the townspeople clearly distrust and suspect one another. There were a couple of scenes of this nature, but probably the longest—between the FBI woman with the flat tire and the construction manager—packed less of a punch because the FBI woman is an Outsider, and suspicious of everyone anyway.

The one really effective scene of foreshadowing, though, was the target practice scene. It was also about the only moment that I actually correctly suspected the identity of the serial killer before the end, with the ironic “can such a person be forgiven” conversation. It also communicated the relative skill with guns that added to the suspense at the end.

Speaking of which, the ending confrontation raises its own interesting questions, one of which, I think, has an easy answer. One has to wonder why the hero doesn’t stop the killer from assembling the gun, but given that we know he walks with a brace, it’s entirely plausible that he doesn’t want to get within physical sparring range, which means all he can do is point his gun and threaten. This leads to a different set of moral questions, but I think I’ll address those elsewhere.

The end confrontation was also powerful, I thought, in the way it humanized, to a degree, the killer. The conversation, with its mix of contrition, self-loathing, and taunting, leaves you unsure whether to consider the killer seriously sick and in need of help or seriously evil and in need of killing—and either way, it’s highly disturbing.

But disturbing isn't necessarily bad, given that A) life is often disturbing, and B) art that helps us understand, deal with, or think about life is often useful.

Hatch Drops Proposed Laissez-Faire Marriage Amendment

2004-06-23T21:18:00.000-07:00

Also from the SLTrib article linked below:

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah has dropped plans to write his own constitutional amendment to allow state legislatures to decide if they will legally honor gay marriages performed in another state, throwing his full support behind a version drafted by Republican colleagues that forbids states from recognizing any same-sex marriage.

...

Hatch didn't specify why he shelved a plan he announced in March to write an amendment that did not include a definition of marriage as "a union of a man and woman" into the Constitution, as the Allard bill does. He had said it would be easier to win Senate passage of a resolution that did not include the definition but gave states the right to buck the "full faith and credit clause" of the Constitution and refuse to recognize marriages that may be deemed legal in other states. Allard opposed Hatch's approach, saying it could actually allow states to legalize polygamy, and Republican leadership has been working to present the image of GOP members united behind Allard's Federal Marriage Amendment.
"It's coming down to this one amendment and I'm willing to -- I'm co-sponsor of this amendment and I will vote for it," Hatch said.

Sometimes quashing a moderate alternative is necessary to get everyone on board to pass a successful policy breakthrough. Other times, the breakthrough will not pass, when a compromise proposal might have. My sense is the FMA probably resembles the former situation more than the latter.

The FMA can be framed as an extreme alternative that undercuts states' rights and (however unjust the accusation may be) prevents states from even enacting civil unions. Hatch's proposal, on the other hand, could be framed solely as a means of stopping a runaway judiciary. Hatch's proposal would be easier to use to embarrass politicians who claim that no amendment is necessary to block SSM, while the FMA gives them plenty of rhetorical cover.

In addition, the average American voter may prefer a situation such as that created by Hatch's amendment, but if forced to chose between a status quo sliding toward SSM and the FMA, may prefer the status quo. Assuming that the American voter has preferences H > SQ > FMA, and that the average marriage conservative prefers FMA > H > SQ (as H at least blocks SSM in conservative states, if allowing it in liberal ones), conservatives may be shooting themselves in the foot by holding out for FMA.

On the other hand, it could be that some of those in power prefer to complain about SSM rather than try to prevent it from spreading (similar to the cynical view of abortion politics, for instance, which holds that the last thing anti-abortion politicians want is abortion laws with teeth, as they would either be unsuccessful and unpopular or deprive the politicians of a surefire campaign issue).

Governor Romney Renounces Pioneer Forbearers?

2004-06-23T20:24:00.000-07:00

SLTrib article:

But the hearing's star witness, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, cited Utah's territorial battle with the federal government over polygamy as an example of when federal intervention in state marriage policy is warranted and necessary.
"There was a long time ago a state that considered the practice of polygamy [legal] and as I recall the federal government correctly stepped in and said, 'That is not something the state should decide,' " Romney told the committee. "We have a federal view on marriage; this should not be left to an individual state."
Later in the hearing, responding to Democratic skepticism that marriage faces an imminent threat demanding prompt constitutional countermeasures, Romney again drew a parallel with polygamy, saying if Massachusetts suddenly legalized plural marriage, he suspected Congress would recognize the need for an immediate constitutional amendment.

Desnews doesn't quite cover that quote:

Romney reminded him that the federal government outlawed polygamous marriages once permitted in Utah, and the Supreme Court upheld the ban.
"If my state had begun polygamous marriages," Romney said, "and we were providing polygamous marriages right now, I would believe we would recognize that there was a need for a constitutional amendment to prevent that. I would certainly support an immediate constitutional amendment to prevent that."
He said it makes sense to do the same to stop the spread of same-sex marriage. He added, "I think the federal government and the people of the United States have an interest in having a marriage definition that is consistent across the nation."

Transcripts of Romney's prepared remarks are available online, but I didn't come across a transcript of the Q&A, which is evidently where this came from. Romney, as quoted in the Trib, is somewhat hard to follow--after all, he confuses the sequence of events, as the state of Utah never allowed polygamy (plural marriages had been stopped before the Manifesto was issued, six years before the territory achieved statehood). I suppose it's possible that he meant (and the Trib declined to report his clarifying remarks) that the federal government was 'correct' to insist on a uniform definition of marriage, but that its actions in enforcing that definition were not 'correct.' However, that's a generous reading of his comment, and that position is not necessarily logically consistent.

Barring any sort of clarification, though, Romney appears to be on the record as considering the 19th-century federal government's actions against polygamy--including denial of voting rights based on belief, seizure of the Church's property, and imprisoning men for refusing to abandon their dependents--to be 'correct.'

One can argue about whether or not polygamy would have ended (and in what timeframe) absent federal intervention. One can argue about whether the Church's present uniform ban on polygamy is likely to change. One can argue about to what degree the Lord allowed political factors to influence the timing of the Manifesto. Members can and do, in good faith, have different ideas about these questions.

However, I find it difficult to understand how any member who thinks that the Church is led by God can question the fact the polygamy was a divine commandment taught and administered by four prophets in this dispensation. Absent the announcement of a radical doctrinal revolution from Church headquarters, the official position of the Church continues to be that the practice of entering, under proper ecclesiastical authority, into plural marriages was valid from the early days of the Church to ~1887 (and for a few years after outside the U.S.). Since the federal government at the time decided to directly oppose the inspired leadership of the Church, I find it difficult to understand how any member could say that the federal government was correct (and by implication, that the Church was incorrect).

I don't think that the Church has anything to apologize for with regards to polygamy. The same cannot be said of the federal government in the 1880s.

I suppose the generous interpretation might be that the federal government should have made it clear that Utah would not be admitted as a state until it renounced polygamy, and left it to the territory to decide. However, I don't know how tenable this position is, given that the antipolygamy persecution had been escalating steadily for decades by the time of the Manifesto. The feds were not interested in merely preventing legal plural marriages--they were interested in breaking up families and forcing people to renounce their religious beliefs. It's hard to argue for the moral example of a generation that went to such extremes in fighting against the 'relic of barbarism' that isolated Utahan polygamous marriages presented.

Of course, while many attempted analogies between polygamy and same-sex marriage are inaccurate, some superficial similarities do exist. A particularly ironic twist is evident in the latest developments. While the collected weight of the federal government in the 1880's was trying to break up existing marriages, once the Church published the Manifesto, persecution largely dried up. In exchange for renouncing future plural marriages, the feds agreed to stop trying to break up existing marriages, and many families lived in polygamous situations for years after the Manifesto. Fast-forwarding to 2004, the MA SC Runaway Four's tactical success (by refusing to stay its decision until MA had a chance to amend its Constitution to restore the intent of the majority, if necessary) has led to a situation in which legal same-sex marriages have gone forward. Gov. Romney has now gone on the record not only wrapping himself in mantle of Edmunds-Tucker, but also calling for the breakup of existing 'marriages,' which even the federal government stopped trying for after 1890. He also implicitly endorses an amendment that would end polygamous marriages in the same circumstances--circumstances that are not precisely parallel to territorial Utah ~1885, but are similar enough to be ironic. The fact that we Latter-day Saints consider the polygamous marriages to have been valid and the same-sex 'marriages' to be a sham does not dispel the irony observed by those who do not share our beliefs.

My ancestors were persecuted and imprisoned for their beliefs, including their belief in polygamy. I find it troubling that a prominent LDS public official would invoke the legacy of their persecutors to justify present political proposals, however well-intentioned.

Primary Results

2004-06-23T07:24:00.000-07:00

Huntsman, Swallow, and Cannon advance to the general.

EC PR Reform II

2004-06-20T20:42:00.000-07:00

In my post analyzing potential electoral college reform below, I conclude that switching to a PR system in initiative states likely would hurt Democrats, which obviously implies that it would help Republicans. A logical follow-up question, therefore, is to ask why Republicans don't embrace this strategy. After all, not only does it look likely to help them, but they also have fewer Blue and Blue-leaning states to target. Forcing a switch in California alone would be hugely advantageous, and even forcing national Democrats to spend money trying to fight it off might have its benefits. However, I can think of several reasons why Republicans (generally, not necessarily specific Republicans) might think this to be a bad idea.

*First of all, this year's evidence of the failure of campaign finance "reform" implies that forcing national Dems to drop a few million in California is barely scratching the surface.

*Second, Republicans may be wary about starting a process of Electoral College reform, given that the current system does advantage them slightly. A genuine movement for reform could lead to pressure for a constitutional amendment, which would diminish this advantage.

*Furthermore, Republicans ideologically are probably closer to a position that values the moderating influence of indirect institutions such as the EC. Democrats tend to affiliate more with the populist democratic government strain of thought, while Republicans tend to affiliate more with the checks and balances/limited republican government strain of thought. This is obviously a broad oversimplified generalization, but I think a compelling case can be made that Republicans are less amenable to the notion of proportional representation in the EC in general, even if it helps them in the short term.

*Fourth, PR in CA (and even possibly FL or IL) opens up the possibility of third party spoiler candidates, which could make a mess of things. Amusing as the spectacle of Nader picking off votes from the left may be for them, the threat of a libertarian or religious conservative candidate picking off votes from the right cannot be dismissed.

*Finally, the Republicans may not want to go down the same road the Democrats did. The Dems have acquired an unsavory reputation for fiddling with election rules to get around not being able to win elections--litigating in Florida in 2000, tossing out election law in New Jersey in 2002, using various tactics to keep previous redistrictings' gerrymanders in place, etc. Republicans may want to continue on the high road for now.

Pledge Nonreaction Reaction Reaction

2004-06-19T14:06:00.000-07:00

Wednesdays Wall Street Journal carried an editorial (by Samuel Huntington) arguing that "Atheists are outsiders in America." Despite not being an atheist, I disagree.

The logical fallacies start fairly quickly, in the third paragraph.

Unbelievers do not have to recite the pledge, or engage in any religiously tainted practice of which they disapprove. They also, however, do not have the right to impose their atheism on all those Americans whose beliefs now and historically have defined America as a religious nation.

"Imposing" atheism on someone would consist of forcing him to deny belief in God, or some such. Declining to give official government sponsorship to the sentiment that God exists is not the same thing. Further, the notion that one's 'beliefs' alone are sufficient to define America as a 'religious nation' is troubling. The phrase 'religious nation' can mean many different things, ranging from a theocracy to a secular democracy in which a majority of the citizens are religious (if in different traditions). Whose preferred definition of the term should govern? Are those who, like the Latter-day Saints, "do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government," also marginalized? The proper way to determine these sorts of questions is to play by the predetermined rules--in this case, the Constitution. Under the First Amendment, government can neither promote nor discourage either belief or unbelief.

The editorial goes on to make statistical arguments, basically that about 85% of the population consider themselves Christians. Here my LDS-influenced skepticism kicks into overdrive. Whose definition of Christian prevails in these statistical games? Given the vast differences between the denominations, and especially given the vast numbers of people who profess belief but do little to act on it, I don't see the relevance of this argument. Furthermore, this argument has an ugly undertone, perhaps best shown a few paragraphs later when the author refers in passing to an earlier America's rather grudging acceptance of Catholicism. I much prefer a country in which a minority is truly devout but a majority is tolerant of others' faith to a country of devout Protestants determined to make life difficult for those who believe otherwise.

The author also refers to arguments by some of the Founders that religion and morality are necessary to maintain the success of the nation. Using statements like these to defend a particular interpretation of the Constitution is troubling, though, as it allows one to cherry-pick which Founders one wants to quote. It seems wiser to start from any statements that the Founders all agreed on (such as the Constitution). But this argument is irrelevant, anyway. If we take the proposition that morality is essential for the success of democracy, it still tells us nothing about the role of the state in promoting morality. I can just as easily argue that since government-enforced morality is immoral, the churches need to do a better job promoting morality so democracy can succeed.

The rest of the editorial goes on with more arguments from statistics and some nonsensical Supreme Court references (as if we still treat the Court's nineteenth-century opinions in Dred Scott or Reynolds as founts of wisdom). The core of the argument--that the majority of Americans consider themselves Christians--is still irrelevant, though. All Americans live under the Constitution. Its provisions govern.

Friday's WSJ followed up with this editorial (by Daniel Henniger). It too is unimpressive.

The long historical truth is that God, whether He exists or not, is good for summoning national pride, communal bonds and the martial spirit--the qualities most necessary to ensuring the survival of the United States at its current level of pre-eminence.

This argument is horribly offensive, assuming that temporary utility should triumph over truth (rather than the reverse). My sense is that the truly religious should be more offended by this argument than by anything having to do with the SC's Newdow decision.

When in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance schoolchildren stand and say together that their one, indivisible, just and liberty-loving nation exists under God, they are admitting an organizing force in life other than their cute, little selves.

Replacing 'under God' with 'under the Constitution' would give the same result, of course (and have the advantage of being objectively true and Constitutional, besides).

Through the ages this at times has led to quite awful undertakings in the name of national pride, God or religion. But that's not us and likely never will be. The Founders designed our system to prevent factions from abusing state power; it is what they sought to prevent.

This argument is also problematic. American nationalism has actually led to quite a few bad results in the past, and unquestionable abuses of state power. America's strength is her ability to learn from her mistakes as well as her successes, not her ability to whip a blind fervor of religious zeal.

Henniger goes on to argue that "Wholly secularizing America's public life, as the Pledge banners wish, is dangerous." However, he fails to demonstrate this. He argues that patriotism is necessary for national survival, but fails to explain why the only way the state can teach patriotism involves violating the Constitution.

This innocuous little Pledge and its two words, "under God," has become for school children the last link joining national purpose to God--a union that is this country's best, proven hope for ensuring national strength.

Because no religions teach that American might be guided by God? Sheesh, if the religious people don't care enough about the idea to teach it themselves, why does anyone care if the government does?

I'm forced to wonder if the real motives don't have more to do with the children of the irreligious than the religious. Which puts a rather sinister spin on the motives of those who want to use the machinery of government to indoctrinate the others' children with religious views.

Or perhaps that's an overly cynical evaluation. Nevertheless, the Pledge seems to me to have two functions--to give adults an opportunity to browbeat children with patriotic messages, and to give politicians an opportunity to demonstrate how patriotic they are for their constituents. While the second function is largely harmless, in a sad sort of way, the first seems more dangerous, if only because teaching the actual values that America stands for is more important than extracting oaths from those too young to meaningfully keep (or understand) them.

And it's worth noting that the actual semantic content of the Pledge, beyond the loyalty oath aspect, consists of the following ideas:
*The nation is 'indivisible'
*The nation is 'under God'
*The nation has 'liberty and justice for all'

The first idea is leftover from the Reconstruction era (and an ugly reminder of the Pledge's original purpose). The second is unConstitutional. And the third is a nice aspiration, but is close to meaningless without a lot more discussion (rigorously defining the terms, for starters, could cause no end of disagreement). So I suppose I'd just as soon see the nation stop caring about the Pledge entirely.

Opinionjournal Weighs In On UT-3 Primary

2004-06-17T09:55:00.000-07:00

The Wall Street Journal's lead editorial today looks at the Republican party's attitudes toward immigration. Cannon is defended, while the unsavory nature of Throckmorten's backers is not.

The Electoral College Meets Direct Democracy (Meets National Partisan Politics)

2004-06-16T19:15:00.000-07:00

While this issue's been on my radar for a week or so [sometimes, at least, I get to read interesting things at work], it's starting to appear on others' radars as well, getting mentions on sources as diverse as Kausfiles, RealClearPolitics, and PoliticalWire. So I'll finally get around to posting about it.

Briefly, out-of-state financial backers are trying to put an initiative on the ballot in Colorado to switch the way the state's electoral votes are allocated to proportional representation. Colorado papers provide an article and two editorials (both opposed). Punditry therefore requires that we try to predict what happens next.

In the short term, assuming the backers get enough signatures and survive all legal challenges, the measure will have an effect on the 2004 presidential election (thanks to an ex post facto clause). Colorado is currently considered safe for Bush, who won it by 9 points in 2000. Assuming a similar spread in 2004, under the initiative, Bush would likely get 5 electoral votes to Kerry's 4. If all states voted the same as in 2000, Bush would still win (thanks to population shifts and redistricting), but if battleground states break differently in a close race, interesting things could happen (either NV or WV going Dem would leave a perfect tie in the College with a probable Bush victory in the House, for instance, but AR switching Dem would let Kerry win outright). In any event, such a scenario gives the temporary advantage to the Democrats.

Now one can argue that Colorado's voters, preferring President Bush, might be smart enough to realize that the initiative works against their interests, and vote it down. However, a surprising number of silly initiatives get passed by the voters anyway, and the rhetoric surrounding this issue combined with a slick ad campaign just might convince the voters that unilaterally disarming in the Electoral College games might be worth it. But that slick ad campaign has to come from somewhere, and unless I miss my guess, Democratic leaders might be a tad reluctant to start pouring in the cash.

The first (and obvious) reason for this is California. If this passes in Colorado (and especially if Bush loses the election because it passes in Colorado), it can certainly pass in California, and there will likely be no shortage of Republican money to assure that it's on the ballot with overwhelming "yes" campaign funds well in time for 2008 (it's already too late for 2004). Republicans' loss of 4 of Colorado's electoral votes would hit hard in a close election, but Democrats' lose of something on the order of 25 electoral votes in California would leave them in far worse shape.

But let's assume that Democratic leaders can't kill the CO campaign, and the situation escalates. Once California goes, the next logical move would be for the Democrats to put the issue on the ballot in all the other Red states with the initiative. Following which the Republicans could try the same in Blue states (we'll assume for the sake of argument that by this time state leaders won't be able to kill the issue even in states strongly dominated by one party). And if we assume that the battleground initiative states get caught up in this as well, when the dust settles (possibly by the 2012 election), we could have proportional division of electoral college votes in 24 states. Who benefits?

Running some quick back-of-the-envelope calculations, the Republicans seem to come out way ahead. Assuming that all initiative states vote the same percentages as they did for Bush and Gore in 2000, and following strict rounding, we get an approximation of how many electoral votes each party could expect under the new system. We whimsically assume that Maine and Nebraska, despite following the congressional district plan already, switch to straight proportional division, but we ignore DC (though it has the initiative) both because Gore won overwhelmingly enough to get all 3 votes even under PR, and because we're too lazy to consider how easy it would be for Congress to override any such initiative. The numbers are as follows:

11 non-initiative states are reliably Republican [TX (34), KS (6), LA (9), IN (11), KY (8), VA (13), TN (11), NC (15), SC (8), AL (9), GA (15)] for a total of 139 electoral votes.

9 non-initiative states/districts are reliably Democratic [HI (4), NY (31), VT (3), MD (10), DE (3), NJ (15), DC (3), RI (4), CT (7)] for a total of 80 electoral votes.

7 non-initiative states are battleground states [NM (5), IA (7), MN (10), WI (10), WV (5), PA (21), NH (4)] for a total of 62 electoral votes.

11 initiative states are reliably Republican [AK (3), ID (4), UT (5), MT (3), WY (3), CO (9), ND (3), SD (3), NE (5), OK (7), MS (6)] with a total of 51 electoral votes. Under PR, these would split 33 Republican and 18 Democratic (with MS and UT rounding just barely breaking for Republicans).

3 initiative states are reliably Democratic [CA (55), IL (21), MA (12)] with a total of 88 electoral votes. Under PR, these would split 37 Republican and 51 Democratic under a simplified scenario. Nader actually would have gotten two of CA's votes in 2000 (one from each party), and CA would probably be much more in play than most smaller states, so these numbers could probably swing more than the others. But we're working back-of-the-envelope.

10 initiative states are battleground states [WA (11), OR (7), NV (5), AZ (10), AK (6), MO (11), OH (20), MI (17), ME (4), FL (27)] with a total of 118 electoral votes. Under PR, these would split 59 Republican and 59 Democratic (with close rounding breaking Blue in OR and Red in FL (barely)).

Now follow the bouncing ball. Under the current setup, Republican safe states include 139 + 51 = 190 electoral votes, and Democratic safe states include 80 + 88 = 168 electoral votes. This leaves battleground states with 62 + 118 = 180 electoral votes (which gives 190 + 168 + 180 = 538 electoral votes, of which 270 are needed to win, and so our math checks). Thus, under the current setup, Republicans start with a base of 190 and need to win 80/180 (44%) of the battleground votes to win. Democrats start with a base of 168 and need to win 102/180 (57%) of the battleground votes to win.

Under a PR setup in the initiative states, following our back-of-the-envelope calculations above, Republicans would get 139 + 33 + 37 + 59 = 268 electoral votes! Democrats would get 80 + 18 + 51 + 59 = 208 electoral votes. 62 electoral votes would be left over in our 7 non-initiative battleground states (and television stations in those states would make a bundle every four years). Republicans would have to win just one of those seven states to win the election outright, while Democrats would have to hold all seven to win (of the seven, Bush carried WV and NH in 2000, but the other 5 went for Gore, so it's not totally hopeless, just quite hard). And don't forget the 2 CA votes Nader might have gotten. If he did, then our hapless Democratic candidate can only get 207 + 62 = 269 electoral votes (assuming all our other close calls broke the same way), and the election goes to the House unless he can cut a fast deal with Nader (the details of which he almost certainly won't like).

Now the fact is that some of those close calls might break the other way (with sufficient campaigning). And of course, population shifts and ideological trends will render this analysis obsolete all too soon (the post-2010 redistricting will certainly make a muddle of it). But my impression is that going down this road strongly disadvantages the Dems. In the current system, as they slug it out over a dozen and a half or so battleground states, they can afford to lose a few battles and still win the war. Under PR in initiative states, they could afford to lose far fewer battles. Given that a Republican retaliation is all but certain in CA at least, Dems would probably be wise to nip this one in the bud (and don't forget that once CA is in play, minor parties can make a credible grab for one or two electoral votes, which in an election as close as 2000 was could let them play spoiler).

Opinionjournal's Electoral College calculator and this page of 2000 election results were useful for performing above calculations. See initiative states here.

Newsnet Celebrates Flag Burning!!!

2004-06-16T18:53:00.000-07:00

And here I thought I was taking a shockingly controversial position by simply being against an anti-flag-burning Constitutional amendment, while personally disapproving of the practice of burning flags. The Daily Universe goes one farther, and runs an apparently approving article about certain interest groups burning "hundreds" of American flags. And involving children in their foul revels as well! There's also currently a picture showing from the Newsnet front page.

Anxiously Engaged?

2004-06-12T12:27:00.000-07:00

So is the viewpoint expressed in this editorial profoundly moral or profoundly immoral?

The Drought Explained

2004-06-10T21:17:00.000-07:00

This article clears up how we can still be in a drought despite having the wettest winter I've ever seen. It's quite simple--the water conservation people can't do math!

""On average, Utahns over-water their lawn [sic] by 50 percent," Julander said. "Cut the water in half and your lawn will get exactly what it needs, and we'll save a whole bunch of water. Your lawn won't know the difference.""

Of course, if what Julander says is true, his advice would lead to watering one's lawn at 75% of what it needs. Perhaps the rest of the drought math is similarly fuzzy.

In any event, I've found it hard to take the drought warnings too seriously when I've seen the city of Provo, the BYU, and average Utah residents all egregiously waste water (watering sidewalks, watering during daylight, etc).

But one thing I've wondered about U.S. water policy generally is why the incentives are so out of whack--consumers, if billed by the amount they use, generally still don't pay prices that reflect the actual cost of the water they use. If water is really a scarce resource, simply charging market prices would do much to allocating it efficiently. At the moment, none of my utility bills reflect how much water I use--and so, while I don't go out of my way to waste water, I don't try particularly hard to conserve it either, compared to, say, electricity (which I am billed for). [One could argue that I'm a selfish jerk who should be more considerate even if he likely won't be around in ten years or whenever when the reservoirs finally do run dry, except that A) permanent residents don't care either (see above), B) the conservation people have cried wolf enough times that I'm disinclined to belief them without seeing an actual disaster, and C) if faith really does have that much of an effect on rainfall (as the periodic fasting-for-rain letters from SLC would indicate), my moving from the state may be an enormous contribution to the water situation, as it will allow the remaining Saints to pray for rain unfettered by my unrighteousness in their midst diluting their petitions. Oh, and D) it's probably their own fault for praying for 'moisture' instead of 'rain.']

In any event, that wasn't quite where I was going with this, which was to anticipate the standard critique of such heartlessly economic ideas, which is that poor people have it hard enough without charging them more for water. But a simple way around that is to simply have your Central Economic Planning Board (or reasonable equivalent in our socially liberal model) figure out the minimum allotment of potable water that it is each individual's divine birthright to receive, and start charging once one hits that mark. Which should satisfy everyone, as the Deserving Poor suddenly join the ranks of us Heartless Jerks once they start wasting water, and are thus no longer deserving of quite so much sympathy.

I'll close by noting that one of my professors was quite amused to note that the local water conservation people have their local office (up on University Parkway near UVSC) surrounded by acres of lush green lawn.

Campaign Finance, Bad Reporting

2004-06-10T20:58:00.000-07:00

This article last Friday is particularly egregious, and therefore in line for savage refutation:

"The most coveted political seat in the state is being sold to the highest paying candidate, as the Republican gubernatorial primary race continues."

A) It's quite possible to argue that several other political seats (U.S. Senate, for instance) are coveted at least as much.
B) No it isn't. The gubernatorial seat in question will be determined by election. Saying otherwise is stupid. If this were an editorial, being stupid might be justified. However, since it's supposed to be news, it's just tacky.

"Quin Monson, assistant director for the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy at BYU, said it is clear higher campaign spending will give the candidate the advantage of more votes.

"Every additional dollar a candidate spends will simply provide him with more visibility," Monson said. "Definitely, more money will translate into more visibility and more votes.""

Note that the reporter does not seem to understand Dr. Monson's point, which is that spending additional money increases a candidate's performance over what he would have gotten had he not spent the additional money. It does not, as the reporter tries to twist it, mean that spending more money than his opponent gives a candidate more votes than his opponent.

""We can never outspend the Huntsman family or Jon Jr.," Starks told The Salt Lake Tribune. "We don't believe the person who spends the most money is always the best candidate or always the winner."

However, history tells the story about the candidate with the deepest pockets. For example, in the 2000 presidential election, President George W. Bush raised more than $193 million while his Democratic opponent Al Gore raised only $132 million.

Closer to home, in the 2002 Second Congressional District race, Democrat Jim Matheson won raising $400,000 more than his opponent Republican John Swallow raised."

The reporter's thesis is undermined rather badly by these examples, properly considered. Gore won more popular votes than Bush, and just barely lost the election. The 2nd District race was also quite close. Dozens of other factors could have swung either race, regardless of money spent. Further undermining this approach, plenty of other examples exist in which the higher funded candidate lost.

Ultimately, money leads to visibility, which is essential to win elections. Spending more money than one otherwise would have spent thus gives one more visibility than one otherwise would have gotten, up to a point. Eventually, diminishing returns set in, and each additional dollar spent returns less added value. Furthermore, many other variables affect a candidate's standing--preexisting impressions, news coverage, etc.

Then there's the problem of sorting out correlation and causation. Looking at any broad campaign finance trend to prove the effects of money on elections is difficult, because it's easy to hypothesize that candidates who are more popular tend to have an easier time raising money.

Finally, using the gubernatorial race to try to prove that money is everything is particularly silly given that Lampropolous didn't even make it out of convention.

Election Polls

2004-06-04T22:22:00.000-07:00

It seems worth noting what most of the media seems determined to ignore: most of the election polling going on right now is close to meaningless, at least insofar as pundits are trying to use the data. What the polls seem to show is that the electorate is fairly evenly divided. What pundits try to show (depending who you read) is that Bush/Kerry is doing better/worse in a significant way. Most of this is bogus, either because the difference is within the poll's margin of error or due to the simple fact that the election is five months off, and plenty can happen to change voters' perceptions between now and then (including but not limited to greater voter exposure to the Boston Fog Machine, developments in Iraq, other developments in international affairs, increased awareness of the strength of the economic recovery, developments in domestic politics, etc, etc).

But even putting aside those factors, we still should take polls with a grain of salt. In recent elections, polls have had limited use in predicting the outcomes. The SD special election a few days ago ended up a lot closer than most polls were showing in the preceding days, and LA governor's race faced similar problems last year. In 2002, almost every polling organization missed the Republican surge that led to Republicans retaking the Senate after winning several close races. And, perhaps most famously, the major media organizations completely blew it in trying to call the 2000 election (oscillating from "Gore won Florida" to "too close to call" to "Bush won Florida" to "too close to call" in the space of a few hours).

One of the major problems is figuring out who's going to vote in the first place. In an election that isn't terribly close, rough estimates (involving asking pollees if they voted in the last election and the like) can work to estimate likely voters. In a close election, though, this may break down. Both parties are running ever-more-sophisticated get-out-the-vote operations, and voter registration drives are a staple of election years. In years in which divisive and/or explosive factors are in play (Iraq, culture wars of various sorts, fever-swamps Bush-hatred), predicting turnout is probably much harder than in more 'normal' years.

Another problem is reaching people in the first place. Telephone surveys rely on people being A) home, and B) willing to talk to the pollster. In addition, increasing numbers of people are abandoning land lines in favor of mobile phones, while pollsters don't call, which could impact poll results in a statistically significant way.

Finally, it's worth noting that since the Electoral College vote is the one that counts, national polls between Bush/Kerry are rather useless. Polls of swing states matter more.

So the upshot of all of this is that, in my impression, any poll before the election that shows less than a 10-point gap between candidates is probably almost useless for purposes of prognostication. (And at that, some polls that purport to show huge differences may still be unreliable).

[Further note: I'm too lazy to provide links to most of this stuff, though perhaps if someone begged nicely in the comments I could be persuaded to change my mind].

Flag Burning & Politics

2004-06-04T21:46:00.000-07:00

Today's SLTrib has an article claiming that Senator Hatch is planning on pushing a flag burning amendment again this year. I personally am against this amendment, as I think that Justice Scalia got it right in Texas v. Johnson [and the weakness of the dissents is even more striking]. However, as my personal distaste for the notion that doing anything other than ignoring flag-burners is an appropriate use of the monopoly of force is evidently not shared by a significant portion of the American electorate, reviving the issue in an election year may be effective politics. Anti-amenders are probably not going to be as numerous in basing their vote choice on this issue as pro-amenders, and few Congressmen relish the thought of running for reelection while being targeted by "Senator Smith supports flag-burning" commercials. The measure has evidently passed the House before and could probably easily do so again (290/435 votes required). The Senate (67/100 votes required, 63 ayes in 2000) is another matter, as Senators face reelection less frequently and enjoy larger electorates, in which a few issue voters make less of a difference.

The principal advantage Republicans gain from pushing the measure again this year is that Senator Kerry voted against the amendment last time the Senate voted on it. This evidently didn't hurt him in blue Massachusetts, but could potentially alienate swing voters who will decide the fate of his presidential ambitions in November.

On the other hand, a few Senators may be impacted by the vote this year as well. Incumbent Senators who go before the voters this year who voted "Nay" on the amendment in 2000 include Sens. Boxer (D-CA), Dodd (D-CT), Inouye (D-HI), Mikulski (D-MD), Dorgan (D-ND), Schumer (D-NY), Wyden (D-OR), Daschle (D-SD), Bennett (R-UT), Leahy (D-VT), Murray (D-WA), and Feingold (D-WI). Admittedly, most of these Senators are favored for easy reelection. Daschle is probably in closest fight right now, while Murray and Feingold could conceivably lose if Bush wins with strong coattails. It will be interesting to see if they change their positions if this comes up for vote this year. Note also that some who were facing reelection in 2000 who voted for the amendment may conveniently change their minds this year.

Violence II--Brightline Rules

2004-06-04T20:45:00.000-07:00

The comments on my first post on violence have got me thinking further about brightline rules. The For the Strength of Youth pamphlet [**SPOILERS**] mentions four entertainment no-nos: "entertainment that is vulgar, immoral, violent, or pornographic in any way." Kevin and DP both argue that drawing an objective bright line may be impossible, which seems to make the application of 'in any way' to all four equally problematic.

Vulgar: difficult to quantify, in part because definitions [via Dictionary.com] vary from "crudely indecent" to "lacking cultivation or refinement" to "of or associated with the great masses of people." Even if we take the indecency approach, opinions and practices will vary. For instance, even in the hot-button LDS issue of profanity, different people use different standards. Levels of tolerance vary up the scale from f*tch to cr*p to d*mn to b*st*rd to even worse words. [Personally, while occasional bouts of temper may provoke me to the next level higher, I take solace in the fact that damn and hell were over-the-pulpit words in the country of my mission]. In any event, quantifying vulgarity seems quite tricky, and the stricter the definition, the greater the likelihood of excluding the vast majority of today's entertainment [opinions may vary as to the desirability of that, of course].

Immoral: complicated by the distinctions between depicting immorality and advocating immorality [if you haven't yet, immediately go read OSC's A Mormon Writer Looks at the Problem of Evil in Fiction]. Further complicated by the difficulty of deciding what advocates morality. For instance, do Robin Hobb's [**Spoilers**] Farseer books advocate fornication, because the FitzChivalry is unapologetic in it, or do they condemn it, because the harsh consequences that follow and warp the rest of his life? I don't know that anyone, even the author, can authoritatively say exactly what moral position a particular story advocates in all cases. Finally, in the case of more complex works, it's hard to tell which side of the line it will fall on before reading/watching. Perhaps in this case, the FSY standard can only help on the reread list.

Violent: the more I think about it, the worse trying to craft a brightline rule gets. Martial arts sparring, while it can be physically painful, is far less disturbing than heated words spoken in anger, which may not be strictly violent, but seem to be troubling in the same sort of way as many forms of violence. Even if the "in any way" clause doesn't apply to violence, though, it's still hard to know what 'too much' violence would be, other than by personal taste. The worry, though, is that if violence is desensitizing, one's personal taste is probably unreliable. I can remember a time in distant childhood when even the thought of one fictional character killing another was troubling. Now a death scene has to be particularly poignant to even get my attention. On the other hand, the first time I saw someone, while playing a first person shooter, shoot someone in the head at point-blank range sending a spurt of blood into the air, I was horrified enough to decide to never play FPSs myself, regardless of what others chose, due to D&C 59:6. I can easily imagine that if I'd chosen differently, my memory of first watching a FPS would have faded to the emotional distance of my childhood memory.

Pornographic: this may be the easiest brightline rule in one sense: anything which is sexually stimulating ought not be sought out. On the other hand, since what an individual finds to be sexually stimulating can vary tremendously, any hope of crafting an objective rule breaks down quickly. The 'in any way' clause appears to fit here best, though, subjective though it may be.

Objective standards, or objective bright-line rules, thus seem to be difficult to come by. While this is a good excuse to not judge the choices of others, it does not seem to be a good excuse to ignore the issue for ourselves. However, I sense a tension between the necessity of personal discretion in setting these standards and the argued desensitizing effects that wrong choices have. Is there any way around this dilemma? Part of my trouble stems from my personal impression that the members I've known who are most fastidious in their entertainment choices also seem to be the ones who are most troubled when they encounter something outside their comfort zone. Thus, I think a healthy level of desensitization might be good, given that we're going to have to interact with a fallen world at least enough to try to convert it. Perhaps I'm mistaken in this, though.

Ironically enough, while getting the link to the D&C reference above, I noticed a new section on lds.org: Wise Media Use, a section with links to a variety of articles/talks/etc.

World's Biggest Problems?

2004-06-03T10:36:00.000-07:00

Via Instapundit, here's a link to the Copenhagen Consensus website and PDF report, which summarizes the work of a panel of economists using cost-benefit analysis to try to figure out which of the world's problems most deserve our attention and resources. Read the whole report to get a feel for the methodology (some projects couldn't be ranked, etc).

In Defense of "Polarization"

2004-06-01T09:59:00.000-07:00

It seems I've been hearing/reading a lot of complaints lately about how the '50-50' division in the electorate is causing all sorts of bad things, from spam to global warming. The theory seems to be that if half the country is Republican and half Democrat, then the two halves will somehow have nothing in common and a second Civil War (or similarly catastrophic) will result if something isn't done (and the suggestions about what should be done usually seem to be comically self-interested).

Now perhaps if half the country really does have nothing in common with the other half, disaster may be brewing. However, it's quite a logical leap to go from 'electoral results are coming in close to 50-50 D/R' to 'half of the people in the country have nothing in common with the other half.' For starters, plenty of people don't bother voting in the first place, and thus can be presumed to be satisfied with either party. Next, many people vote more based on the issues of the moment (economy, Iraq, etc), regardless of long term ideological outlook (or long term rationality). Then there's the fact that American parties tend to be quite moderate compared to other countries (in part as a result of our electoral system, which rewards broad coalitions). Finally, partisan identification can be quite variable--many (the majority, probably) will never switch, but some do as circumstances change (and circumstances are always changing--the defining issues of the moment are different than those of 20, 40, or 60 years ago, and will be different still in 20 years).

So 50-50 election returns aren't by definition indication of divisive polarization. On the contrary, they may be quite good. After all, our system (in theory) is supposed to enact the will of the majority. In addition, we tend to like moderate results over extreme ones. Hence, a 50-50 split might be evidence that the system is working quite well--both parties are putting forth positions that are so competitive that swing voters are being listened to more than ever. If one party drifts away from the median voter, the other party should be able to, with minor corrections at most, amass a majority and win the next election. 50-50 elections mean that both parties are competitive enough that majority will matters--60-40 elections would mean that a good chunk of the moderate swing voters could be safely ignored, and policies that are more ideologically extreme would be enacted.

Of course, the situation may be slightly more complex than that (particularly given that median voter theory works best on single-dimension policies, while governance is depressingly multidimensional). And one may have strong objections to the resulting policy that is enacted--but that simply indicates that that person strongly disagrees with the American median voter. And the solution to that is either to mobilize like-minded nonvoters or to change the minds of a significant number of other voters (or, perhaps, to abandon the notion of majority rule in the American polity).

UT-3 Debate

2004-05-26T10:24:00.000-07:00

Desnews
SLTrib

Throckmorten doesn't seem to have abandoned his xenophobia scare tactics, or his opposition to the president on NCLB. Interestingly enough, Cannon is starting to talk about abolishing the Department of Education (do we need any more proof that a primary challenge in UT-3 from the right is highly comical?).

Cannon's use of "freakin' federal government" is moderately amusing or highly frightening. Or perhaps both.

As for the immigration issue, Tyler Cowen's series of posts (see here and here for the last couple) on the subject seem as reasonable as anything else I've read.

Violence

2004-05-25T19:48:00.000-07:00

The Baron of Deseret discusses Violent Movies and the Passion, which reminds me of an item I've had on my list of things to wonder about since the last Passion debates.

The For the Strength of Youth pamphlet (which, in my last ward at least, was held up as some sort of universal standard for BYU students as well as youth, though that debate is only of limited relevance for purposes of this post) has the following to say about violence in its "Entertainment and the Media" section:

"Do not attend, view, or participate in entertainment that is vulgar, immoral, violent, or pornographic in any way. Do not participate in entertainment that in any way presents immorality or violent behavior as acceptable.

...

"Depictions of violence often glamorize vicious behavior. They offend the Spirit and make you less able to respond to others in a sensitive, caring way. They contradict the Savior's message of love for one another."

Most of this is pretty straightforward. However, the budding lawyer in me notices the phrasing of "do not ... participate in entertainment that is ... violent ... in any way. Taken literally, wouldn't this preclude:
*watching fictional vampires get dusted on Buffy
*reading Fool's Fate, which, while not focused solely on violence, has the occasional violent scene (as does most of my reading of choice, come to think of it)
*smacking the Princess with a red shell on Mario Kart
*killing animated monsters by whacking them with a sword in Zelda
*killing animated monsters by swinging a sword in their general direction in some earlier graphics-challenged RPGs
*reading Ender’s Game (interstellar war), Saints (attempted rape), Red Prophet (massacres and mutilations), etc.
*and so on... (we can exclude the war chapters in the BOM or the Armor of God seminary video as being intended for non-entertainment purposes)

Now perhaps all of these things are wrong, and I'm just a gross sinner. But on the other hand, considering how many LDS youth (and adults) do these things, one would thing the message to not do these things would be a bit more strident if they were genuinely wrong in the same way that the vulgar, immoral, and pornographic entertainment decried in that section are. Or one could argue that perhaps the literal meaning is not intended in the above-quoted passage--but past experience has suggested to me that the Brethren do pay careful attention to word choice and literal meanings in Important Publications (the discussions, at least). Or perhaps using violence for entertainment in any way is wrong, but the mild forms aren't very wrong compared to everything else we need to repent of, so they don't get much focus.

This Ensign article from last June discusses violence, but not in a way that seems to resolve the question of where exactly the bright line is drawn (if line-drawing is even possible).

SSM on the Ballot

2004-05-22T17:41:00.000-07:00

This article discusses an interesting factor to watch in the elections this fall--the presence of SSM-related provisions on several state ballots, including in potentially critical states such as Missouri, Oregon, Georgia, Michigan, and Ohio. Pundits' first pass at the issue is to suggest that it will help Bush and Republicans, as the conservative religious vote may mobilize to defeat those measures. Since the depression of that vote by the DUI late hit in 2000 seemed to be a factor in the closeness of the 2000 election, that could be important.

Stuff Of Note

2004-05-18T09:29:00.000-07:00

Things I've Noticed Recently, But Been Too Lazy To Link To Until Now

Nauvoo has a new look, a new weekly column, and a new rant by OSC (on R-rated movies). They've also finally provided an easy link to the Charter (which hopefully will be followed better). Sadly, no new edition of Vigor yet.

lds.org has a new Church music site, which looks interesting, though I haven't had time to play around with it yet.

Grasshopper, on the other hand, appears to have far too much free time on his hands, as he is not only keeping up his frantic pace of interesting blogging, but is taking a stint as a guest-blogger on T&S.

Would that I could be that prolific, but alas, I made the horrible mistake of picking up Robin Hobb last week, and still have 2 1/2 books to go to regain my free time.

We Get Results

2004-05-17T20:18:00.000-07:00

Twelve days ago, we asked:

"suppose the silly suggestion that McCain would accept a VP slot with Kerry actually came to be, and the Senate did split 50-50. Which way would McCain cast the tiebreaking vote?"

Today Best of the Web asks:

"Suppose the Republicans, who currently have a 51-49 majority in the Senate, were to have a net loss of two Senate seats in November. A Kerry victory would hand one seat back to the GOP, since Massachusetts' Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, would appoint the president-elect's replacement. Result: a 50-50 split, just as after the 2000 election--which means that when the Senate convenes to elect a majority leader, the deciding vote would be cast by Vice President McCain. For whom would he vote, Tom Daschle or Bill Frist?"

It's also worth noting that four days before BOTW called for Kerry to resign, I more or less made the same call.

I wonder if Opinionjournal is hiring.

Troubling Commentary on Collegiate 'Journalism'

2004-05-13T19:45:00.000-07:00

Link.

UPDATE: Since I posted this, two different times I've seen someone pull up the webpage, see the story, and express shock/outrage/etc.

Libertarians On The Web

2004-05-11T10:24:00.000-07:00

Utahpolitics.org has reset their mock strawpoll with only the post-convention candidates, the current leader (winning outright in the first round, with more votes than all other candidates combined) is Richard Mack (L). This seems to say something amusing about either the Mack campaign's strategy (stack the meaningless polls!) or the prevalence of libertarians on the web, or perhaps both.

The Condescension Of Us?

2004-05-10T21:50:00.000-07:00

Now instead of moving on to Urban Planning in Zion, which I had put on my List of Things To Think About Later, writing the below post has triggered a different, lower, item on the list.

I've been thinking lately, to a degree, that in one sense our mission to Proclaim the Gospel isn't too different from our mission to Perfect the Saints. PtG, when done right, doesn't consist of shoving a BOM at a nonmember and telling him to read Moroni 10:3-5, read the whole book, and pray. Rather, it seems to consist of honestly evaluating said nonmember's spiritual state and readiness, and inviting him to consider something that will bring him closer to the restored Gospel [regardless of whether or not it brings him into the Church--we are interested in reducing every form of transgression, and in helping all understand as much of the path to happiness as they can handle]. Similarly, our duty to PtS doesn't consist mainly of prodding people until they go to the Temple, but rather of helping people (including ourselves) better understand and live the commandments and find a more enriching relationship with the Divine. Neither exercise consists only of telling someone what to do and leaving him to carry out the whole program; both involve estimating what next step the person can handle, and inviting him to take it. While both processes have quantifiable milestones, neither can be easily captured by the statistical models we use. Our interest is ultimately in conversion, not in numbers. And our actions, when done properly, reflect that higher interest.

Herein lies the problem. It's arrogant (if understandable) in one sense to solemnly proclaim that others need to be baptized, go to the Temple, etc, to be saved. Such arrogance, though, is based on a simple, quantifiable model: X is necessary for salvation. You haven't done X. Therefore, you must do X to be saved. It seems, at the next level, far more arrogant to say: Y is an attribute of perfection. You haven't achieved Y perfectly, or even sufficiently (in my opinion). Therefore, you must improve Y to be perfect.

In a sense, it seems supremely arrogant to go around telling others "You really ought to stop smoking, whether or not you ever join the Church," or "Your idleness is leading you to fritter away time you could spend anxiously engaged in some better cause," or "Your lack of charity is most disappointing and ought to be rectified at the first available opportunity." And indeed, our calling to perfect others is not mainly a call to go around pointing out their sins to them. Others are usually A) perfectly aware of their sins and working on them on their own schedule, or B) not inclined to start viewing certain actions as sins just because I said so.

However, often we aren't aware of our shortcomings, and someone can capture in words a problem we've been struggling with without being able to define (or perhaps simply haven't fixed because we weren't aware of). And often our understanding of proper behavior can be enhanced when others gently let us know why something we do may not be entirely proper (perhaps we've simply never considered it before, or were unaware of how it made others feel, or whatever, but when presented with new understanding, are perfectly willing to change our behavior for the better). So I think we often do have a duty to help those around us become better. I easily recognize my own shortcomings in this department, but cannot abandon the notion because the most Christlike people I've known have seemed to faithfully undertake this duty and help me become better, whether or not they were aware of it.

Perhaps awareness is the key--if those who really have advanced farther are humble enough to not be aware of it, then arrogance isn't a problem. Or perhaps simply remembering that different individuals have different talents is sufficient to remind us that while we can help someone in one area, he can help us in another.

But perhaps the model is better expressed in terms of autonomy. Parents have a duty to teach their children how to seek after righteousness, but once the children become adults, they become the masters of their fate; if as adults they choose to seek out ways to become better, they can, but everyone is forbidden from taking note of their obvious shortcomings and offering to help them overcome them, because we aren't called to point out the faults in others, only ourselves. We simply offer others goodness, and it's up to them to take it.

But this model doesn't seem quite right to me, if only for the problem of knowing which goodness to offer others. Deciding how to act towards others always involves judging what they want to/are prepared to accept. I treat one of my freshman students asking about something differently than I treat a senior in my major discussing the same question. Spiritually, I often find myself making judgments about whether someone is a 'freshman' or 'senior,' and tailoring my response accordingly. And as I expect others to do the same to me, I can't quite abandon the notion that we must use appropriate judgment, or at least discernment, in our dealings with others. And since we are called to help others become better, we are naturally going to have to judge areas in which they need improvement. Which seems awfully condescending.

Perhaps the reason my list of truly Christlike people that I've met is so short is because the balance is exceedingly difficult to pull off properly. But it seems worth attempting [though it's probably better to err on the side of humility, when in doubt].

Our Responsibility for Others' Impressions

2004-05-10T20:54:00.000-07:00

Kaimi at T&S posted on a pet peeve of his, when others claim:

that any statement which could be interpreted in a way potentially critical or embarrassing to the church is a violation of the member's Duty to Present the Church in a Favorable Light at All Times, Just in Case a Non-Member Happens to be Listening.

Interestingly enough, this parallels a pet peeve of mine, namely, many members' Obliviousness to the Impressions They Send Off About My Religion. Which is not to say that I don't get annoyed by overly uptight members either--but I think there's something of a tension here, and Kaimi's otherwise excellent post only addresses one side of the equation.

Kaimi's three broad points (which really should be read over at T&S before continuing, if you haven't yet):

First, it seems like a sneaky, backhanded way to foreclose any critical discussion.
...Second, this idea is incredibly condescending towards non-members (as well as members).
...My final complaint is that showing things in a favorable light only tells part of the story.

I think all of these are valid in many circumstances. However, I also think they may not apply in other situations. Foreclosing others' critical discussion simply because one doesn't oneself like critical thinking is silly, of course, But engaging in critical discussion just for the sake of being critical (negative) instead of being critical (analytical) is also silly, and potentially as destructive. For the second point, I think there's a difference between condescension and empathy. It's one thing to think "I can't possibly tell him about X, because he'd never understand." It's something else to think, "he's probably not ready for X yet, at least not without understanding V and W first." As to the final point, sometimes we only should tell part of the story, in keeping with seeking after the virtuous, lovely, &tc.

The example Kaimi uses, of discussing why sacrament meetings can be boring, is enlightening. On the one hand, it's quite liberating the first time one realizes that not every sacrament meeting is necessarily going to be a Wonderfully Uplifting Spiritual Experience, or perhaps that others don't always feel that way [perhaps I'm mistaken on this point, but if Being Bored in SM is a sin, it doesn't outrank on my Repentance List several others that I've been committing left and right lately]. On the other hand, my personality is such that I often allow others' perceptions to influence me, to a degree. If every testimony bearer talks about what a wonderful spirit has hit everyone except me over the head, it doesn't affect me much. But if someone later mentions something specific that he got out of the meeting, it helps me see things in a new light. Thus, I think I function best when those around me focus on the positive, without overdoing it. Which perhaps is the answer to the dilemma. Which is not where this post was originally going, which, I suppose, shows the value of writing this stuff down. Not that it will stop me from continuing with the rest of my scattered thoughts.

There's two other areas in which I think we need to exercise caution in the way we portray the Church, both to members and nonmembers. One deals with our actions, and one deals with the way we handle others' shortcomings.

I look back on some of my mission experiences with horror, looking at how some missionaries behaved. I'm not talking about God's Army level pranks and irreverence. Rather, there were several incidents of missionaries not respecting nonmembers--doing things like browbeating people while tracting, trying to catch people in lies, ignoring investigators' requests for no further contact, ignoring investigators' genuine questions in misguided attempts to stick to the discussion dialog, looking for opportunities to bash, etc. None of those actions seemed particularly Christlike, and all seemed likely to leave people with a negative impression of the Church and its missionaries [not that I was free from my own shortcomings, of course]. These sorts of actions--when we act in obviously unChristlike ways when representing the Church--do violate a member's duty to present the Church in a good way, I think. Other nonmission parallels that come to mind revolve around false doctrine--members saying things that are either wrong or simply misleading about important doctrinal issues. Among the times I've been most horrified at how a member portrays the Church have been when someone has said something particularly misguided or wrong about sensitive topics such as the Temple, polygamy, priesthood and race, same-sex attraction, [insert favorite hot-button topic here]. For every sensible, nuanced answer to a question about those topics is an equally unsensible, wrong, and libelous answer which will likely leave the uninformed with a very wrong impression of what the Church actually teaches. So while I don't think that the Church needs to cultivate an image of its members as being perfect (quite the opposite), I think members do have a duty to present the Church and its teachings faithfully, or, if unable, to make it clear that their words and actions do not represent the Church.

The other point of concern I have deals with the difficulties of discussing those who have wronged us. Two examples: 1) Member A says or does something thoughtless which hurts/offends me. 2) Priesthood Leader B, while exercising authority over me, does something which I feel is very wrong, and which seems to have been done deliberately.

Here, I think, our doctrine imposes barriers to being too free with our discussion. In the first place, we are commanded, when we have a problem with another, to try to resolve it in private with the person. In the second place, we are commanded to forgive regardless of the outcome (and shouting the other person's sins from the housetops has never seemed terribly compatible with the whole forgiveness notion to me, in most cases). And in the third place, we believe (or at least GAs have said that they believe) that certain categories of experiences are sacred enough that they should not be shared casually.

Given these doctrinal constraints, I think there are certain categories of public discussions which are largely off limits (regardless of any duties about presenting the Church in any sort of light). Talking about Member A's shortcomings with others rarely solves the problem, though it often turns into backbiting and gossip. Talking with one or two people in confidence may help one move to a more forgiving mindset, but it seems unlikely if one makes it a practice to discuss the incident with everyone. And finally, while the first two reasons also can apply to the case of Priesthood Leader B, it seems to me (for now, anyway), that this sort of experience may frequently fall into the third category. If God chooses to allow some to experience the sore trials of faith that may come when flawed priesthood leaders make tragically wrong decisions (either through sin or through human frailty, which in many cases we are unequipped to judge), I suspect it is because he wants the individuals involved to have the experiences necessary in working through it themselves--and very few of those experiences are fit for public discussion, just as some of life's most sacred experiences are unfit for public discussion. The experience itself is powerful enough that sharing it too casually diminishes it.

In addition to all of that reasons, I think it's possible to make a compelling case for a Duty To Not Try To Teach Calculus To Those Who Haven't Mastered Addition Yet, and a Duty To Not Have Every Mission Story Involve Some Missionary's Stupidity And/Or Apostasy, Even If It Does Make For Stories More Exciting Than Most of the Work Itself, and perhaps a Duty To Not Spread Lots of Stories For Antis To Collect and Use To Tear Down Others, but those are probably less important duties, and I'll refrain from developing them further at the moment.

Blogger's new stuff

2004-05-10T20:32:00.000-07:00

The new interface may take some getting used to, but hasn't managed to completely turn me off yet.

The new block quote feature could come in handy.

The irony of their adding comments right after I started with Haloscan is not lost on me. However, their requirement of logging in before posting comments seems troublesome enough that I'm not inclined to switch just yet. I'll watch Grasshopper's experience with the Blogger comments with interest to see what develops. I'm inclined initially to view any additional barrier to commenting negatively, at least with comments at the level they are now. In a higher traffic environment (or faced with more hostile/spammish comments) I can see the value of registration, though. There's a post brewing somewhere here about the differences between blog communities and internet bulletin board communities, but I don't think I'll develop it tonight.

Billboards

2004-05-10T20:05:00.000-07:00

One lingering political thought: I was somewhat surprised recently to see billboards for three different gubernatorial candidates--Walker, Stephens, and Lampropolous. Given that at the point those billboards were up, only the opinions of the 3500 Republican delegates mattered to any of them, and given how few of those delegates lived in Utah County where they were likely to see said billboards regularly, it seemed like an extravagantly wasteful use of campaign funds (which, admittedly, does describe many aspects of Utah's pre-convention phase). Thus, I was amused to note that none of the three made it out of convention.

Of course, now someone's going to point out some Huntsman or Karras billboard that I didn't see...