Tag: Deseret News

Categories
culture Education

U.S. Schools start too early

4203875886_b9a93ed8d7_o
Photo by jenni_froedrick

That title could be taken two ways: we shouldn’t start kids in school as young as we do; or we shouldn’t start the school day as early as we do. Both statements are completely true. Here I would like to address the latter claim and take the unscientific position of disagreeing with the conclusions being reported from the sleep-cycle research (which forms the basis of the recommendation to start school later) while completely agreeing with the CDC recommendation for when school should start. I take my position based on my experience as a parent and my experience as a teenager and as an adult.

This idea is one I’ve read about before and each time I read more about it my conclusion remains the same. I’m writing today after reading this article in the Deseret News.

Continue reading “U.S. Schools start too early”
Categories
culture

Saving Marriage

wedding ceremony Photo by Tom James

An article in the Deseret News about various efforts to make it harder to divorce led me to an article in Bloomberg View by Megan McArdle. The whole thing is worth reading but the part that got me thinking and writing was this:

The divorce laws of an earlier era were one part of a complex social institution with mutually reinforcing norms and a fairly elaborate system of punishments and rewards. People were encouraged to stay in marriages because divorce was difficult — but it is at least as important that divorce was heavily stigmatized. Even more important is the energy society spent encouraging people to get married in the first place — not just with the gauzy dreams of wedding gowns and perfect babies that help sustain the institution today, but also with a complicated system of carrots and sticks that have now completely vanished. Old maids were stigmatized; women who had babies out of wedlock were shunned. Marriage was the only socially permitted way to cohabit and, for that matter, often the only legal way to do so: Landlords didn’t like renting to people who were shacking up, and hotels that rented rooms to openly unmarried couples risked being indicted as brothels. On the positive side, getting married often meant a raise for a man, and for both parties, it constituted instant admission to adulthood. In short, the legal system of yesteryear didn’t have to worry that harsh divorce laws would discourage marriage entirely; any marriages that they did discourage probably shouldn’t have happened. But people would continue to get married, because there wasn’t any viable alternative for the majority of people who wanted to live on their own and raise a family without the neighbors talking — or calling the vice squad.

McArdle may be right in suggesting that making divorce harder could have unintended consequences but she has clearly identified many of the social supports we’ve kicked out that were never intended to bring the consequences that we are dealing with now.

Continue reading “Saving Marriage”
Categories
culture politics

Public vs Private Companies

Blessed 2 Scrapbook
Photo by Paul Riismandel

Coverage of the Hobby Lobby case seems to be consistent in saying that the U.S. Supreme Court is essentially deciding the question of whether not-specifically-religious corporations can exercise religious rights. The issue in this case is requiring insurance coverage for federally determined forms of contraception but if the decision is based on the ability of companies to exercise religious rights then it could also extend to whether companies can choose under what circumstances they will offer their services.

It struck me this morning that the question isn’t really whether corporations can exercise religious rights. The real question is: at what point in the pursuit of profit do individuals diminish or forego their right to religious expression? Those siding with the government in this case are afraid that companies will be able to use the guise of religious belief to get around the expense of some legal mandates. After all, if the Green family (Hobby Lobby) can claim religious belief avoid paying for some expensive forms of birth control for their employees why can’t the Walton family (Walmart) do the same?

Continue reading “Public vs Private Companies”
Categories
National pictures

Confusing the Point

Edward Snowden
Image by: DonkeyHotey

This may be the most obtuse argument I’ve read regarding Edward Snowden. I don’t want to be too hard on Jay Evensen but the logic he uses here is terrible. A conspiracy theorist could come up with many sinister motives for such a poor argument against Snowden but I’m sure it’s something much more mundane like trying to meet a publishing deadline.

Let’s break it down.

First we have an attempt to discredit Snowden based on his connection with Russia.

{Snowden} chose exile {in Russia} because he faces charges of espionage in the United States for revealing things he felt were so egregious he no longer could keep quiet about them. And yet neither he nor his friend, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, seem concerned enough about the blatant abuses in Russia or other countries to dig deeper and expose more.
…
But it’s no longer convincing, or even noble, to claim a sort of relativistic neutrality while hiding in Russia.

There are two parts to this. The first is that Snowden had a choice of where he took exile. This argument requires that we ignore the fact that while Snowden chose exile because of the charges of espionage in the U.S. he was unable to fly to any of the other locations that offered him exile. Russia was functionally his only option. The second is that Snowden should be exposing Russian digital espionage. This argument relies on ignoring the fact that Snowden’s revelations about the NSA are not based on some super hacker skill on Snowden’s part. Snowden’s information was based on him holding a position of privileged access within the NSA which he would never have within Russian intelligence.

Then we have an effort to defend the NSA by saying it does necessary work.

The U.S. government spies on people. We get it. The NSA is a huge agency with the resources to build a profile on just about anybody it chooses. We get that, too.

But why does the NSA do it? Could there be noble reasons, even if the methods aren’t the best?

Does Snowden care at all about the security of the nation he fled? Does he think the NSA should stop spying altogether, or can he imagine a reason why a spy agency might be important in a dangerous world? What would he consider proper spying?

Again this comes in two parts. The questions for Snowden can’t be asked sincerely unless you have only listened to the non-Snowden side of the story. He has been very clear that he recognizes the necessity of espionage activities and that the reasons behind his actions were the systemic abuses whereby the agency overstepped their constitutional authority (which someone might argue is occasionally necessary) and hid their actions not only from the American public at large (which is certainly necessary to some degree where espionage is concerned) but also from the very congressional committees with oversight over their actions (which is a red flag of the first order in all cases).

Using “Could there be noble reasons, even if the methods aren’t the best?” as an argument here would be like saying of the John Swallow case that raising money is necessary to run a campaign so even if he got money from payday lenders it really shouldn’t be a big deal. That argument completely misses the point of the outrage which isn’t that Swallow got money from payday lenders and that the NSA was spying. The reason for people to be upset in both cases is the way John Swallow and the NSA both went to great lengths to hide their activities from the very people they were supposed to be working for and the organizations that were authorized to provide oversight for their operations.

It occurred to me as I reviewed the article that the point Mr. Evensen wanted to make was that Russia was a greater threat to liberty than the NSA. If so, this was not the way to try making that argument.

Categories
culture

A Desperate Defense

Apparently (but not really surprisingly) the defense team for Brian David Mitchell has decided to stand up as a prime example of exactly what is wrong with our justice system today.

They started this case by trying to get a change of venue. That was understandable although I don’t think we have an extradition agreement with Antarctica – the only place on the globe where there would be zero bias against their client. When that failed they said in their opening statement that they did not dispute the facts of the case. Now, after the prosecution has rested their case and the defense has had a day to call their own witnesses they are apparently desperate because their first witnesses have already shown that the insanity defense they had intended to argue is absurd. (Their client being certifiably insane is not absurd but the idea that he is not fully responsible for his actions is absurd.)

Three weeks into the trial they have suddenly discovered that one of the charges against their client may not be technically accurate.

This is not the action of a legal team seeking to ensure that justice is done but rather the action of a legal team who is willing to do anything to win their case.

In a healthy justice system both the prosecution and the defense legal teams would be working for the same goal—namely the goal of finding the true criminal(s) in the case and ensuring that they receive the appropriate consequences for their criminal behavior.

Unfortunately in our win-at-all-costs justice system the defense team is hoping that their client, who is obviously guilty and who has repeatedly shown that he has the dangerous attitude of thinking that he is above the law, will be able to get out of this with nothing more than a very badly damaged reputation.

Categories
thoughts

Judging on the Wrong Metric

I have been reading the series of articles published by the Deseret News about the consequences of pornography addiction. It has been pleasing to see the problem explored publicly. One of the things that has interested me is in reading through the comments from readers. Some are obviously still in denial about how serious, dangerous, and pervasive the problem of pornography is in our society. One comment in particular caught my attention as it highlighted the kind of attitude that can completely hobble a discussion of how to address this issue. I’ll save my readers the trouble of trying to wade through the poor grammar and rambling thoughts of the actual text of the comment. Here is the idea it was conveying:

“who has never thought about, or done, from birth onward till today, any activity that results in erotic stimulation. Even after you read or heard about the Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children.”

The comment implies two things: 1) that anyone who who has ever done anything that could cause them to answer “yes” to the above query is unqualified to speak out against pornography, and 2) that virtually everyone has to answer yes to that query. The problem with that metric is that even if the second implication were 100% accurate the first implication is completely wrong. I suspect that the comment author considers it hypocritical of someone to answer yes to that question and then publicly speak against pornography. If a person is willfully and unrepentantly indulging in pornography then that is undoubtedly hypocrisy. On the other hand, The metric of that question ignores the option of repentance. It wrongly eliminates from the discussion those who have to answer yes who have subsequently rejected the legitimacy of whatever forces them to answer yes. That kind of thinking would reject the opportunity of an ex-gang member speaking out against gangs when the truth is that ex-gang members can provide an authority on the subject that others never could.

That comment reminded me of how dangerous quick and thoughtless judgments can be in hampering our efforts to seek truth and in hampering the process of repentance for ourselves and those we interact with.

Categories
politics State

Selective History

Perhaps it’s just me, but if I were Michael Otterson I would find it irksome that the same position I had represented for the church for more than a year was suddenly newsworthy as if something had changed.

It looked like a stunning reversal: the same church that helped defeat gay marriage in California standing with gay-rights activists on an anti-discrimination law in its own backyard.

. . .

The ordinances passed and history was made: It marked the first time the Salt Lake City-based church had supported gay-rights legislation.

More than a year ago – months before the votes started coming in for California’s Proposition 8 the LDS Church stated its official position that they were supportive of the basic rights of all people, including homosexuals, such as probate rights and housing rights. They stated that they were amenable in theory to the Common Ground Initiative but could not take a public position on bills that had not yet been drafted.

The position of the church never changed. Some people claim this is a PR move to blunt the backlash over their role in defeating Prop. 8, but the only thing that changed is that unlike the theoretical five bills of the common ground initiative, the Salt Lake City council actually drafted two bills. The church publicly supported the bills – in keeping with the position they had already taken.

Sadly some people still don’t get it and are suggesting that the church should take a further step by actually writing bill proposals for the state legislature to consider which would extend these same benefits statewide that were just passed within Salt Lake City. The fact is that the church will do just have they have done up to this point – they will not write legislation and they will take no position on theoretical bills that have not been written. When bills are written that are acceptable the church will support them. Bills they can’t quite support will get no comment. In the Utah Legislature they don’t even have to worry about addressing bills that are worthy of their opposition.

Categories
culture thoughts

What Does It Mean to Forgive?

When Elizabeth Smart testified last week there was a renewed flurry of media coverage of that infamous case. While the contents of her testimony were shocking (as expected) there was nothing in her testimony that actually surprised me. I remember a couple of weeks after she disappeared when I thought that I hoped she was dead because if she was still alive at that point the nature of her ordeal was all too easy to guess. I’ll just have to say that all the evidence I have seen since her return (including the way she has stayed largely out of the spotlight) has proven that fleeting wish to be completely misguided.

As I saw the coverage of her testimony a scripture crossed my mind and got me thinking.

I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. (D&C 64:10)

This includes Miss Smart despite her horrific ideal. I don’t mean to imply that I can or should judge whether she has or will forgive Mitchell – her ordeal just happened to be the subject at hand when I had the thought. The reason that I bring it up is that her situation, including her giving testimony, specifically apply to my thoughts on the nature of forgiveness.

First, the Lord is not required to forgive Mitchell – that’s between the two of them and Elizabeth has no say in the matter – that’s the crux of my realization. Second, no matter how heinous his crimes against her the Lord expects her to pursue that path of forgiveness with regards to her captor. So again the question – what does it mean to forgive – especially in a case such as this?

I believe that what Miss Smart has done since returning to her family in 2003 is perfectly compatible with the proper forgiveness that the Lord expects of her. She has helped to write a book on survival for abductees, she has testified very forcefully against her abductor, but perhaps more importantly she gives no evidence of defining her life by that experience. Of course I have never met or talked to her – I give this strictly as an unconnected observer – but considering her apparent poise and maturity I believe she must have personally forgiven the man she testified against even as she seeks to ensure that justice is done. I don’t believe that she could move on with her life so successfully as she appears to have done if she were dwelling on the crimes committed against her. Dwelling on that past would be a hallmark of non-forgiveness. Doing everything she can to protect herself and others from the person who committed a crime against her is not at all incompatible with the path of forgiveness. In fact, holding Mitchell accountable for what he did is the kindest thing she could do for him. If he ever wants to repent of his actions he will have to take responsibility for what he has done – that’s a necessary component to repentance.

As Elizabeth appears to have forgiven and set herself firmly on the path of healing, I think the saddest part of this whole case is that the chances of justice being served are so low. I would guess that Wanda Barzee – who is as much victim as criminal – is more likely to be found competent to stand trial than Brian David Mitchell – who is all criminal in this case (meaning he is absolutely culpable) but who is intelligent enough and disciplined enough to live off of taxpayers while successfully avoiding real consequences for his criminal behavior by successfully playing the part of being insane. Even if he were somehow to be found competent he would spend the rest of his life with society paying for his crimes while he lives a life that is no more meaningless and irresponsible than the one he was living while perpetrating this crime.

Categories
culture

Living a Statistical Anomaly

It seems that our more recent history (the last 50 years) has clouded our perceptions of immigration, integration, and what it means to be an American. Though we still talk about our nation being a melting pot, we seem to be treating those of other ethnicities as if their presence is a handout from those of us who are “real Americans.” We have come to think of our country as a white society, generally of Western European descent, where we allow minority groups to live among us (or at least vaguely near us) without fear of physical violence (generally). In discussing the fact that whites are soon to become nothing more than the largest plurality in our nation, we get a dose of historical perspective to digest:

“They (baby boomers) grew up during the whitest, most homogenous period racially and ethnically in our country in the last century,” said University of Utah research economist Pam Perlich.

“It will not be the same experience growing up in Utah now as it was 50, 40 or even 30 years ago. It never will be again.”

While whites have always been the largest single ethnicity among our population, this nation was founded on the principle that everyone was welcome to be here, even if we seemed to be a bit clannish.

Throughout American history we have always had large groups of “outsiders” joining in the American experiment. Catholics were outside the mainstream of American life for many years. The Irish were frowned upon as they started immigrating in large numbers, same with the Germans. Though we publicly shut our eyes for centuries to the realities of blacks being mistreated (and worse), we have always had a significant portion of our population who were of African descent. We had sizable populations of Oriental people and other various ethnicities before we started implementing immigration quotas and before we started persecuting and segregating those of Japanese descent in reaction to the beginning of WWII.

For the last couple of decades we have struggled with and often opposed the immigration of Hispanics as if such an immigration tendency were a new challenge to our nation. We forget that Hispanics were a much larger portion of our citizenry before the Mexican Repatriation of the 1930’s. We also ignore the fact that immigration is the oldest pattern in our cultural heritage and though it does include some challenges it is a pattern that defines who we are and keeps us from becoming like the Kurds, the Nazis, the Arabs, or the Hutus – unable to live in a culture of mixed ethnicities.

Natural-born Americans need to recognize that the consistent mixture and remixture of cultures is not only natural and unavoidable, but that it is even desireable. On the other hand, the immigrants of today need to look to the lessons of history and realize that segregating themselves by refusing to adopt a common language is a recipe for disaster. Even worse is obviously or even subtly insisting on substituting their native language for the common language of their adopted country.

If we are to once again become the melting pot that we have always claimed to be we must insist on an open immigration policy and those who enter our country must either acknowledge that they are guests (meaning that they leave after the purpose of their visit is met) or else they must adopt their new country and become a part of the great American family – that means actively seeking integration and citizenship so that they may become a part of “us” no matter what differences they may bring with them.

Categories
politics State

An Informed View of Congestion-Pricing

I always like to see when someone with lots more information and better credentials than me comes to the same conclusion on an issue that I have come to. In this case it is Michael R. Brown stating that Congestion-pricing positives outweigh negatives. Mr. Brown is a Certified Transportation Planner and he has been participating in a study on the issue of implementing congestion pricing along the Wasatch Front. One thing he does that I have never thought about is to define the fundamental difference between standard tolls and congestion pricing:

The purpose of tolls is to provide revenue to pay off construction bonds. You pay even when there is no congestion. It amounts to unfair taxation. The purpose of congestion pricing is primarily to ensure the freeways do not fall below 60 mph. At times or places where that wouldn’t be an issue, then the price can be free. (emphasis added)

Secondly he provides his personal top 10 list for the advantages of using congestion-pricing:

  • (10) More use of off-peak capacity
  • (9) Increased transit usage
  • (8) Increased capacity
  • (7) Reduction of side-street spill-over
  • (6) Point A becomes closer to point B
  • (5) Fuel is saved, air quality improved and carbon dioxide reduced
  • (4) Economic competitiveness
  • (3) “Tragedy of commons” is avoided
  • (2) Generates revenue.
  • (1) More productivity

I like the list he presents except that  #6 seems a bit ethereal to me. (This comment seems to be a good clarification of #6.) If you don’t like his list I would recommend reading his version (which includes some explanations) before settling on an opinion.