Year: 2007

Categories
life

Answering A Call

Bob Burney claims to be an informed non-expert as he offers Mormons A Plea for Candid Truth Telling. (Funny, leaders of the LDS church are encouraging the same thing.) The charge seems simple and fair-enough – “You can believe anything you want. . . But tell the truth! If you believe it, be proud of it—don’t try to hide it.” He takes exception to church statements that seem to borrow the language of evangelicals. I would contend that there is a simple explanation for such borrowed language and it’s not so sinister as the deception he seems to infer from those statements. Basically I would ask Mr. Burney if he would expect to be more effective communicating in Moscow by speaking Russian or by speaking Cantonese.

He claims that the church has made a concerted effort to remake its image since 2002 – before which:

I remember a time when it was common for Mormons to be offended if you called them Christian.

Admittedly my public memory only goes back a couple of decades (not counting my childhood when I was blissfully unaware of much outside my immediate world), but that is well before 2002 and I don’t ever recall a time when members of the church would be offended at being called Christian. A more accurate assessment of this very real effort by the LDS church to refine its public image stems from two factors. One, church leaders became aware/concerned with the fact that there were altogether too many members of the church who mistakenly identified more with Joseph Smith than with Jesus Christ. This led people outside our faith to naturally conclude that we worshiped our first prophet.

The second factor was that in 1995 Gordon B. Hinckley became our new prophet and brought with him a lifetime of experience in public affairs. Under his direction the church organization became much more media savvy and conscious of how other people perceived the church. Under his direction they used the publicity of the Olympics as a platform to correct misconceptions. With the current interest in the church stemming from Mitt Romney’s candidacy they are once again trying to make the most of the moment.

As for the specific doctrine in question – the answer given by the church to the charge that Mormons view Satan and Jesus as brothers was apparently unsatisfactory because rather than stating “Yes we do, what of it,” the response was meant to indicate that this apparently heretical idea is not inconsistent with Protestant scripture. Christ repeatedly called himself the Son of God. Isaiah says that Satan had fallen from heaven.

As far as I can tell, the idea that men can become like God is the most radical doctrine of the church (at least from an evangelical perspective – I couldn’t say about other perspectives) but members of the LDS church are not alone in thinking this. C.S. Lewis made this same statement in Mere Christianity (p. 205-6) and he had no connection with the church. (By the way, the idea is not the we make ourselves into gods or that it just comes with time, it is that God has the power and interest to make us into beings like Himself through the Atonement of Christ. Whether you agree or not, it is not so self-aggrandizing as some people make it sound.)

I don’t mean to suggest that the leaders and other public figures in the church handle all these inquiries perfectly – they’re only human – but it would be nice if all the theological pundits out there could ascribe less-than-sinister motives to their every effort.

Categories
National politics State

Why We Need A Tax Debate

If anyone wonders why I think we need a tax debate here’s a good example. Congress passed their omnibus spending bill and today Senator Bennett announces that he got $290 Million for Utah in the bill. The assumption underlying his announcement is that any money he brings to the state from the federal government is a good thing.

Obviously if I leave near the Moab Atlas Mill Tailing site I’m happy for the $24 Million dollars. If I work at the Space Dynamics Lab in Logan (which I used to) then I’m pleased as punch that we got nearly $400,000. On the other hand I’m not excited about the golf course in Pennsylvania that the government paid for and the people of Pennsylvania are probably not too thrilled that they have to clean up the tailings mess in Moab so we can all complain that the government is wasting money. Besides that, when the $24 Million is gone will I be satisfied with the tailings cleanup myself?

We need to make federal spending more transparent and start to talk about what we believe is the proper place for government intervention – in other words, what things are appropriate to receive government funding Is government in charge of health care? defense? border security? my retirement? education? my transportation options? the cost of my groceries? what religion I practice (or get exposed to)? the speed of my internet access?

I think that anyone who says’s yes to all of the above, or no to all of the above is extreme.

Categories
life meta technology

Unseen Rhythm

For some time I have been wishing that my posts from my earlier blogs could be included in my archives here. There were some specific posts that I felt should be included so that I could refer back to them as appropriate. I finally went and added those old posts on Monday from archives I saved before I pulled my blog. I had been forced to pull it because of excessive spam which brought the server to its knees (which is obviously unacceptable on a shared server). Thankfully WordPress is not as vulnerable to the spam attacks I suffered back then with b2Evolution (and I would not be surprised to learn that my new host – HostMonster – has better defenses than my old host).

Yesterday I found one final post that was not included in the other archives. This was the last post on my old site and it explained why I was pulling the blog. What I found very interesting is that the date on that final post was December 17, 2005 – exactly 2 years prior to the day I restored those old posts.

I wonder if there’s something about December 17th that I should be wary of. 😉

Categories
politics

Wrinkles In Iowa

I have read two stories now from the New York Times about questionable practices in the Iowa Caucuses. One on Iowa’s Student Vote and another on the reporting of the Democratic Caucus results. In regard to the student vote I was disappointed to learn that:

. . . political operatives often try to suppress the student vote . . . [using] a variety of tactics over the years to keep students from voting. There are often too few voting machines, so lines stretch for hours. Sometimes, students are falsely told that they will lose financial aid, health care or even car insurance if they vote while attending school.

In Iowa, the suppression has been rhetorical. With Barack Obama’s campaign, in particular, urging students to come out for him, other campaigns have tried to put up roadblocks. . . Clinton said during a campaign stop that the process should be reserved for “people who live here, people who pay taxes here.” Chris Dodd seemed to imply that people who were “paying out-of-state tuition” and participating in the process were somehow being deceptive and unfairly casting themselves as Iowan.

Student are rightly up in arms about these statements. The law in Iowa is crystal clear: students who attend school in the state are entitled to register to vote in the state as long they are not registered anywhere else.

For myself, I would be happy with any vote where voter turnout was above 70% even if I absolutely hated the person who got elected. At least I would know that the person who got elected was elected by an active electorate who disagreed with me.

With regard to the results of the Democratic Caucuses I was surprised to learn that the actual vote count was never made public. In the words of the article:

Under the formulas used to apportion delegates, it is possible that the candidate with the highest percentage of delegate equivalents — that is, the headline “winner” — did not really lead in the “popular vote” at the caucuses. Further, it is possible that a second or third-tier candidate could garner a surprising 10 percent or 12 percent of the popular vote statewide and get zero delegates. . .

The press invests months in covering the caucuses. It and the public it serves are entitled at the end of the exercise to an unambiguous vote count, instead of delegate numbers that camouflage how much popular support each candidate earned.

Such practices serve as extra fodder for those who argue that Iowa is not representative of the nation and does not deserve to always take the lead in the process of selecting our president.

Categories
politics State

Merit Pay and Other Ideas

With Governor Huntsman seeking more money to raise pay levels for public school teachers the Daily Herald calls for something better than a pay-raise across the board. They suggest using the money for merit-based pay increases. I agree completely as I had already suggested that merit-pay might be a good first step to build momentum and consensus in improving our public schools.

Devising an effective merit pay system for a job as subjective as teaching is a challenge, but not impossible. Business managers evaluate subjective factors all the time when reviewing employee performance. What is needed in the public schools is performance evaluation based on some combination of elements, with an accounting for differences in groups of students. The teacher’s job is to drive progress, regardless of the starting point of students. . .

Principals, the front-line managers, should have greater latitude to evaluate performance. They know who their best people are. An evaluation of a teacher might include such things as creating a positive environment for children (perhaps including feedback from parents), innovation, creativity, knowledge of subject matter and communication. If a principal is also subject to merit pay based on overall performance of the school, fears of favoritism should be minimized.

The only group that would oppose merit pay would be the NEA because merit pay could have a negative effect on below average teachers (which would likely be a positive effect on our public schools).

Unfortunately our current system is not set up to encourage teachers to excel. Many teachers come in with high hopes of making a difference in the lives of students only to be worn down within a few years until they quit teaching in public schools. Others may soon abandon their high ideals and rely instead on the job security of a perpetual teacher shortage combined with a large union protecting them from being fired for mediocrity. Few people have the mental and emotional reserves to continue to perform at a high level for an extended number of years in a system that does not reward outstanding achievement. An across-the-board pay raise would not improve that aspect of our school system.

In addition to promoting merit-pay, the Daily Herald suggested some other changes that are worth consideration:

But merit pay is not the only innovation that ought to be evaluated. What would have happened this year, for instance, if the $349 million that went to teachers had been poured into lower-priced staff support? If teachers could be freed from the time-consuming routine of grading and other rote work, perhaps they would have more time to plan, more time to energize, more time to inspire.

Nor should teachers be drawn exclusively from education programs at universities. A great candidate for a teacher is one who is alive with the excitement of a subject and wants to transmit that to others. A wide range of graduates is needed to populate the teaching ranks in Utah’s future schools, and barriers to entry should be minimized.

Those suggestions are too broad to really support without some specifics, but we need to get creative about improving our system. The problems are not going to just go away nor is the cost going to go down over time unless we abandon our ideals or else make some significant changes.

Categories
life meta

One More Dimension

As I search for things to write here I always hope to convey a perspective that is broad enough to invite discussion. One of my major goals in writing is to receive feedback on my positions and ideas that will help me to refine my positions and my thinking process. Of course I strive to create a profile of myself here that is consistent with my own values. Part of that has been that I try to put away most thoughts that are primarily political in nature on Sundays so that I may focus y attentions on more spiritual/religious/family oriented topics. This has often put me in a bind because I don’t want to dilute the focus of my writings. That is why the day of the week most likely to not have anything written is Sunday.

When I do write on Sundays it has generally been generic in nature and not specific to my own Latter-day Saint background. Today I read the commencement address given by Elder M. Russell Ballard at Brigham Young University – Hawaii. He invites the graduates, and all church members, to make their voices heard in the many discussions about the church that are taking place online.

There are conversations going on about the Church constantly. Those conversations will continue whether or not we choose to participate in them. But we cannot stand on the sidelines while others, including our critics, attempt to define what the Church teaches. While some conversations have audiences in the thousands or even millions, most are much, much smaller.  But all conversations have an impact on those who participate in them. Perceptions of the Church are established one conversation at a time.

As I read that I realized that my efforts to keep my writing more broadly appealing had resulted in me stunting my voice online by whitewashing a key component of my perspective from the voice I have projected. Many (possibly all) of my readers are aware of my firm convictions of the Book of Mormon and the LDS church but I have decided that leaving that part of my character and life in the background projects an incomplete perspective on what I am thinking which denies people the opportunity to comment on whatever part of my thinking is based on my theological perspective.

I have no intention of turning this into a Mormon blog about politics but I expect that my LDS perspective will be more transparent and might be altogether naked in Sunday posts that are non-political in nature. It also means that I will be more likely to comment on religiously themed posts that I read elsewhere which I have sometimes avoided rather than “dilute my focus” online.

Categories
National politics

A Tax Debate Would Be Wise

Apparently the New York Times would like to have a public debate about taxes. The editorial board expresses their despair that none of the presidential candidates talk about taxes. I think that they are completely right that such a debate is necessary. Beyond that it seems that there is hardly anything that we agree about on this subject. When they turn to discussing their views as opposed to the positions and rhetoric of the candidates they start by saying:

Still, going forward, competent governance, let alone achieving great things, will require more revenue, period.

I consider it to be a very safe bet that they mean that on an perpetual basis. As a proponent of fiscal responsibility I could be sold on the idea that we need more revenue for the time being (meaning the next few decades) to help us dig ourselves out of the financial pit we are in (as a result of our spending in the last few decades). But I think that part of the solution will have to include reducing the spending on some government programs this should include increased efficiency in such programs, but wisdom dictates that it also include a reduction in some programs or services.

The editorial board suggests three opportunities that we can address in the necessary tax debate. Of those three, only one really strikes me as a real opportunity rather than empty dialog:

  • To create a system that does not disproportionately favor investment income over income from work.

I think we agree that the idea that the Democrats gave lip-service to when they gained the majority of both houses of Congress – paying for new programs with reductions elsewhere or new taxes – is a nice idea. The problem is that it really makes little difference if they do that without also making sure that they are actually paying for existing services as well, rather than allowing for deficit spending where it already exists.

The bias of the New York Times is irrefutable when they make statements such as:

. . . the exorbitant cost of the flat tax would likely be paid by cutting Medicare, Social Security and other bedrock government services.

If Medicare and Social Security are “bedrock government services” then I wonder how our nation survived its first 150 years without those services. Though I may easily be accused of being willing to punish poor people for being poor by cutting these government programs, I promise that I would happily support any such program if we did not have debts in the Trillions and if Congress were not deficit spending to implement the programs. Though I believe that these programs are not necessary for government, I am not one to believe that government can never do any good with such programs. The problem I see is in allowing our federal government to use illusory tricks such as deficit spending that even state governments (let alone private individuals) are not allowed to do. The fact is that if a business operated like the government the leaders of that business would be prosecuted and jailed in a truly just society.

More difficult than tax reform itself may be the search for a candidate with the political courage to speak frankly to the American people about the nation’s budget problems and the leadership skills to solve them.

There is a candidate with the political courage to speak frankly about our budget problems – his name is Ron Paul. They might decide to argue that he lacks the leadership skills to solve the problem but nobody can credibly argue that he lacks the political courage to speak frankly about it. I think that this is a debate we should have. Perhaps the New York Times could start it by hosting a debate or forum in which they could invite Dr. Paul to participate. They could also invite David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, who is also anything but timid in speaking about this subject. They can invite whoever they want to defend their positions where they obviously differ from these two men, but with their influence the debate would be hard to ignore once they got the ball rolling. We might even get all the candidates talking about it like they should be.

Categories
culture politics

Liberty is the Priority

Much of what has gone wrong in Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam is a result of a culture that is very different from ours. As I thought about that recently it occurred to me that Iraq is typical of all (or virtually all) of the fighting that the U.S. has engaged in since the end of World War II in that our goal has been to establish or protect democracy. It would seem that democracy is our standard for measuring the relative liberty found in various nations.

The problem that we generate when we confuse democracy with liberty is that we get so focused on the structure that we forget the fundamental principle. The truth is that I would much rather live under a dictator who enforced law with consistency and equity than vote regularly to determine who would take the lead in telling me what to do and suppressing my freedoms as they deemed appropriate.

I believe that the last half century has offered conclusive proof that we cannot enforce liberty by the installation of democracy. Instead we should be spending out resources of time and energy towards the perfecting and perpetuating of liberty here so that our nation can stand as an example of liberty to the world. Rather than going out and policing other nations we would find that by policing ourselves, other nations would seek our counsel when necessary after they were able to support a free society.

Right now China, which is a fully communist country, seems more prepared to sustain a free society than Iraq even since we toppled their dictator. In fact, Iran might already be more prepared than Iraq is currently. Liberty cannot be imposed from outside. Our nation would not have survived its own founding if the society in the 13 colonies had not already been prepared to maintain the principle of freedom upon which our country was founded.

The question for each succeeding generation will always be – are they still prepared to maintain the freedom they inherited?

It is a question without a pre-determined answer.

Categories
National politics

A Lame Duck Can Bite Harder

As illustrated by the current budget standoff, an unpopular lame duck president has powers that often elude presidents earlier in their tenure. Prior to 2006 Bush never vetoed anything. Now he has no re-election to worry about so he has nothing to lose by vetoing every bill Congress sends that is not in line with what he wants. Eventually they have to override the veto or fall in line with his request.

Because his popularity is already low he does not have to worry about disappointing anyone by sticking to his favored position. By standing firm he takes the chance of raising his popularity. If that fails the other members of his party are already prepared to keep their distance from him. The odds are highly against this coming out good for the Democrats.

Categories
culture National politics

Media Outlets Are Focused On Future Business

I’m not big on conspiracy theories nor do I subscribe to the belief that our elections are largely determined by the media so I don’t generally pay much attention to things like the dust-up between Huckabee and Romney. On the other hand I recognize that the media does have a good deal of influence on our culture and political discourse so I thought it would be worth posting this insight from when I was reading some of the recent Huckabee/Romney commentary.

Contrary to the beliefs of some, the media does not care who wins the election. All they care about is having profitable stories to run during the campaign and for the months between presidential election cycles. To prove my point let me run through some stories about each of the front runners in both major parties that would be written if they win in November. (Notice that all but one of them were among the front runners last year.)

Rudy Giuliani –

    • Mr. 9/11
    • Where Did All the Social Conservatives Go (even cross-dressing and 3 messy marriages couldn’t stop him)

Hillary Clinton –

    • Wife of Bill Clinton (gives 8 years of history against which to compare her every move)
    • First Female President
    • The Dynasty (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton) storyline

John McCain –

    • The Comback Kid
    • The Maverick

Barack Obama –

    • First Black President (this is even easier to peddle with the public support of Oprah)
    • New Kid in Politics

Mitt Romney –

    • First Mormon President (overcame the anti-Mormon sentiment in the country)
    • The Real Executive President (as opposed to GWB)

John Edwards –

    • Five Years of Campaigning Paid Off

    (notice that this weak storyline goes with the weakest of the 7 candidates)

Mike Huckabee –

    • The Baptist Minister
    • Second Man From Hope (just like Bill Clinton but they will focus more on the minister than the former governor because the former governor is just like Clinton, Bush, and Reagan before him)
    • Anti-Mormons Control the GOP (that’s why they play up every religion question whether Huckabee or Romney believe they’re on the record or off)

If anyone thinks I’ve forgotten Fred Thompson among the front runners they should notice that almost nothing is said about him anymore outside of his schedule and where he sits in the polls. They thought he’d make a good story as the evangelicals flocked to him, then they discovered that there was not much real interest in him. This made Huckabee all the more attractive to write about once he started making a mark on the race.