IDEAologue

I thought I knew this guy…

2006-01-10T01:18:00.000-07:00

Larry Miller has always struck me as a no-nonsense kind of guy. I was surprised and disappointed to hear of the nonsense that went on at Jordan Commons on Friday.

The last second decision to pull “Brokeback Mountain” was a poor one, and no good reason for it has been offered up by Miller. Refusing to carry the film in the first place demonstrates closed-mindedness; agreeing to do so before then violating that agreement couples closed-mindedness with bad business sense. I had never before suspected Miller to be possessed of either.

As for the film, my wife and I had the privilege to see it on Friday night. The story is not unfamiliar: Two people are thrown together by circumstance and fall deeply and sincerely in love. They find (or already knew, in this case) that the world in which they live will not accept them and their feelings for one another, and they try their best to conform. But their love is undying, and they spend year after tortured year trying to express it while hiding it from those around them. Formulaic, really—only the two people are men, and not just men but cowboys, and real ones.

“Brokeback Mountain” is a well-made, high quality film. The sex scenes between the protagonists are far less explicit than in some PG-13 fare that I have been unfortunate enough to see. But, they are between men, and that fact did make me squirm. Nevertheless, the scenes are much more moving and sincere than most.

The story itself cuts through stereotypes about homosexuality and poses difficult questions through brilliant directing and Oscar-worthy acting. The men in the film are in love, despite their best efforts not to be. Their love causes them grief and despair, ultimately wreaking havoc on their lives. But such is love’s power, a power as strong between these two men as between any couple.

Now, if thinking about the way in which our society either stigmatizes or altogether refuses to deal with homosexuality makes you uncomfortable, perhaps you could spend your movie dollar on another of the fine films currently playing at Miller’s establishment. Jordan Commons is proudly carrying the number one film in the country, “Hostel”, which includes scenes of torture so graphic that many moviegoers have grown ill and left theaters, a fact that the moviemakers have heralded proudly. And if you are not in the mood for torture, you might try another high class Jordan Commons feature, “Grandma’s Boy,” a “comedy” in which elderly women and young men spend time doing drugs together in between scenes of “strong crude and sexual humor.”

Apparently, in Miller’s view, not only do these films deserve a screen at Jordan Commons more than “Brokeback Mountain” does, but pulling the film is justified despite the fact that doing so violates a business agreement made in good faith. I thought I knew this guy…

It's not that simple, Mr. Bush...

2005-11-14T08:24:00.000-07:00

Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

--September 2001

And so long as I'm the President, we will be determined, steadfast, and strong as we pursue those people who kill innocent lives because they hate freedom.

And, of course, al Qaeda looks for any excuse. But the truth of the matter is, they hate us, and they hate freedom, and they hate people who embrace freedom. And they're willing to kill innocent Iraqis because Iraqis are willing to be free. Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilize their country. And we will help them rid Iraq of these killers.

--May 2004

The Salt Lake Tribune had an excellent article the other day about the insurgency in Iraq.

It seems, unsurprisingly, that the war in general, and the insurgency more specifically, is much more complicated than the Bush Administration has made it sound.

It appears as though there are a number of insurgencies going on, and that few, if any, of those insurgencies are based on motivations as simple as "hatred of freedom."

While all of the insurgents are not members or supporters of al-Qaeda, it seems as though al-Qaeda has been responsible for a good number of the deadliest attacks.
As a result, an increasing number of Iraqis resent the fact that the U.S. presence in Iraq has served as a magnet for al-Qaeda.

Last year, on Veteran's Day, the University of Utah had an event in which veterans of the Iraq War spoke. I skipped classes that day, headed up to the Union, got some Chik-fil-A, and then went to hear them speak.

The room seemed to be full of two main groups of people: Older Korean War and WWII veterans and their spouses, and young ROTC students and their families.

And me.

The panel of veterans from the current war consisted of three men--one was very young, maybe around 22 or 23, the next must have been in his thirties, and the oldest was about mid to late forties.

The panelists were asked a few questions about the environment in Iraq--a couple of old veterans were very interested in the effect that sand and heat had on tanks and artillery.

After a question about their opinion of the "liberal media" and its portrayal of what was happening in Iraq, I thought it was time for me to raise my hand.

I asked the following question: "What would you say to those of us who feel uncomfortable about the reasons we have been given for why we are in Iraq, in particular those of us who don't think what we are doing in Iraq has anything to do with the war on terror."

The soldiers responded in order. The young soldier gave a brief non-response response, and I thought I sensed that he was holding back a bit, that he wanted to say more.
The thirties-ish soldier responded angrily. He was a hypermasculine, loud, blindly loyal soldier--the kind whose image Hollywood likes to exploit, but who is actually the exception, not the rule. His response was substanceless, and served as cover for berating me for disloyalty and calling me stupid for not believing that Iraq had to do with al-Qaeda. After all, he said, look at all of the al-Qaeda bombings.

The older soldier outranked the other two by a longshot (though I don't remember exactly what his rank was). He was thoughtful and measured, a humble man who commanded respect, and the kind of person that you feel that you can trust almost immediately.
He said that he could understand why some would have a hard time making the connection to the war on terror. He then said something that shocked me.
He paused, looked up toward the ceiling for a second, and said, "there's one thing that I can see as a success in Iraq with respect to the war on terror, and that is that we have provided a target for al-Qaeda over there, and now they have less of a reason and are less likely to go through the effort to attack over here."

Then, he sat down. And the questions shifted back to the heat and the sand.

Afterward, I approached the stage despite the evil eye I was being given by GI Joe. I thanked the older soldier for answering my question, and then I leaned a little closer and said "is that really the only thing that you can think of that it has to do with the war on terror?" He said, "well...yes, probably."

I walked back down to the Law School with a knot in my stomach. Besides being such a hollow victory, the soldier had all but admitted that Iraq had had nothing to do with al-Qaeda before the invasion--which was one of the many "reasons" the American public was given for the necessity of the war. Instead, any connection to the war on terror had come after we arrived, as a consequence of our presence.

Since that time, that line has oft been repeated--that it is better that they attack us there than over here.

What we seem to be forgetting is that the Iraqi death toll at the hands of insurgents is much, much higher than the U.S. death toll.

It's no surprise that the Iraqis have a hard time agreeing that the fact that their country is now a magnet for al-Qaeda is a "victory."

Carter For Party Chair!

2005-11-04T10:49:00.000-07:00

"I never have felt that any abortion should be committed -- I think each abortion is the result of a series of errors."

Jimmy Carter is my kind of Democrat. We ought to identify the errors that lead up to what often becomes a final and dramatic error--abortion--and try and correct them.

The Democratic Party has doggedly and dogmatically supported abortion in all its forms for far too long.
Abortion should be safe, legal under certain circumstances, and rare.

While some in the Democratic Party have recently begun espousing that point of view, too many are so reflexive and inflexible in their rhetoric that they sound like they are defending abortion itself and not just the "right to choose."

Abortion, particularly the later term forms, are abhorrent. You need not seek out shocking photographs or read inflammatory literature to see what I mean--just check out the 2000 Supreme Court case of Stenberg v. Carhart, where the most well known and utilized forms of late term abortion are described in horrifying detail. Scroll down to the actual opinion, and then check out section I. Troubling.

As the opinion points out, only about 10% of abortions are performed in the second trimester, which because of the development and size of fetus necessitates the use of one of these disgusting methods. Democrats should have no compunction about standing up and saying that the practice described in that opinion is horrible.

Abortion should be safe, and it order to be safe, it needs to be legal. That is my stance as a Democrat.
But not every form has to be legal, there ought to be reasonable limitations on the exercise of the right, and, most importantly, I can abhor the practice while understanding the need for it to be a decision left up to a woman and her loved ones.

To Torture, or Not To Torture?

2005-11-02T08:53:00.000-07:00

Very interesting article in today's NY Times.

The Bush Administration has characterized the way in which we are dealing with terrorism as a "war." Calling what we are doing a "war" changes the rules of the game in our favor. We should not dodge the obligations of that designation while reaping the benefits.

If it is a "war," then detainees are prisoners of that war, and therefore ought to be accorded the protection of the Geneva Conventions.
However, I cast my lot with Senator McCain, a man who, unlike most in the Bush Administration, has had actual experience with the military and torture. Even if we call them "detainees," they are still entitled to protection.

The quote in the third-to-last paragraph speaks volumes. In 2002, after deeming detainees to be outside the scope of the Geneva Conventions:

Bush ordered that military detainees "be treated humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva."

This turns Geneva on its head. Whereas Geneva guarantees human rights and limits military power, Bush's philosophy increases military power and makes human rights conditional. The Administration subjugates human rights to "military necessity," empowering the military to violate Geneva when it views doing so as necessary. This turns the protections of the Geneva Convention into privileges granted according to military whim.

The events at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere should instruct us that soldiers and their superiors have a limited definition of "humane," which may fairly be attributed to an expansive view of "military necessity."

The question is, given the Bush Administration's philosophy, should we really be shocked about what went on at Abu Ghraib?

Come On Drudge--This is Below Even You...

2005-10-31T09:53:00.000-07:00

President Bush has nominated Judge Sam Alito for the vacant position at the Supreme Court.

Judge Alito has been nicknamed "Scalito" because the mainstream media and/or liberal establishment (which are the same thing to some) is "anti-Italian."

Or so Matt Drudge would have you believe.

He speciously argues that the nickname "Scalito" is "ethnically insensitive." He writes that the Democratic National Committee is "anti-Italian," and as evidence of this fact he uses the following quote from the DNC:

"Alito is often referred to as ‘Judge Scalito’ because of his adherence to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s right-wing judicial philosophy.”

Wow. That statement obviously just reeks of ethnic insensitivity. It couldn't possibly be that the fact that their names lend themselves well to the nickname. Give me a break, Drudge--"Scalia" and "Alito" combine to form "Scalito" so easily that the nickname is barely even witty.

Drudge even quotes a Republican strategist that calls the nickname a "derogatory racial slur."

The only thing even remotely "ethnic" about the nickname is that both names happen to be Italian.
Hyper-reactive political correctness is a liberal failing according to conservatives, but when there's political capital to be amassed, principles seem to matter a bit less.

I have a hard time understanding why intelligent people respect Matt Drudge.

But I'll take a shot and perhaps give him more credit than he deserves.

Perhaps Drudge is more wily and clever than I thought. There is an implicit syllogism underlying his argument.

The first evidence of this comes right from the headline "Media/DNC nickname..."

Drudge goes on to argue that it is both the mainstream media and the DNC/liberals that are referring to Alito as "Scalito."

Finally, the Republican strategist that calls the nickname a "derogatory racial slur."

The syllogism?

Liberals call Alito "Scalito."

The mainstream media calls Alito "Scalito."

Conservatives don't call him "Scalito."

Ergo,

Liberals and the mainstream media are the same. Conservatives and the mainstream media are different.

Now, I am probably giving Drudge too much credit for being clever. But the syllogism is there. That the mainstream media is synonymous with the liberal establishment is a mantra that Drudge has repeated to himself daily for more than ten years. It is a proposition that he unconsciously sows into all of his arguments.

I seriously doubt that liberal media bias is as pervasive as Drudge and many others make it sound. And I am convinced that many who doggedly argue that the mainstream media is just a liberal mouthpiece know that they are mischaracterizing the issue. But, like the Republican strategist in the Drudge piece, no principle is so important as to be immune from compromise when there are political points to be scored. And the "media is liberal" line has played well, plays well now, and will likely continue to play well in mobilizing the conservative base. So, the exaggeration, if not myth, goes on.

That's not to say that liberal reporters don't exist--I think most reporters are liberal. But I don't think that their views color their reporting as much as some argue.
That's also not to say that liberals/Democrats don't also compromise their principles to score political points. Only one word is needed to all but prove that point, and that word is Iraq.

Cute as a (swastika emblazoned) Button

2005-10-23T23:45:00.000-06:00

Let's be honest. Is there anything Cuter than Hate?

ABC News is running an article on a couple of adorable little racist twins named Mary-Kate and Ashley Goebbels, er, I mean, Lynx and Lamb Gaede.
They call themselves "Prussian Blue" and they sing songs of white nationalism and racial purity--you know, stuff appropriate for their thirteen years of age.

Here's a pic of the little darlings sporting adorable matching T-Shirts. See, Hitler was really just a nice guy, like the "have a nice day" smiley face, only instead of "have a nice day" he liked to say "Jews must be exterminated."

The Gaede girls have their own website. If you doubt the depth and sincerity of their hate, go to their site, and check out the photo in the upper-lefthand corner. Look into those eyes. Now look at this shot of Hitler.

Creepy.

It seems as though the White Supremacist movement has been keeping these national(ist) treasures all to themselves.
No less an authority than "National Vanguard" wrote an article about the duo last year.

Here is an excerpt from the article--and I am not making this up:

IS THERE ANYTHING CUTER than two identical twin twelve-year-old girls who have a band together? How about if they dress in matching plaid skirts—that ups the cuteness quotient, right? And what if they perform folky versions of classic racist songs by bands like Skrewdriver and Rahowa? Whoa! Now we are heading into the cute danger zone.

(bolding mine)

Thank heavens for Freedom of Speech. I'm glad that we live in a country where people like this are allowed to run their mouths, so that the rest of us can ask "are you serious?"

Well, they are. But as frightening as ideology if this nature can be, it is mostly just pathetic. Where it once elicited fear and awe, it now seems to produce a mixture of revulsion and pity.

Why is Florida even inhabited?

2005-10-19T00:52:00.000-06:00

Why does anyone live in Florida?

Seriously, when you combine regularly occurring catastrophic hurricanes with strange gun laws that make even Utah seem tame by comparison, with former pet pythons that are released into the wild where they reproduce at an alarming rate, regularly fight with alligators (check out this pic to see what I mean) and snatch animals of all sorts, including turkeys...after a while it makes one wonder. And this list is by no means exhaustive.
And given that Florida sounds like a place where only the strongest survive, a place that we might send Aron Ralston or Lance Armstrong or Paris Hilton, why is it populated by retirees? Are kids trying to get rid of their parents?

Maybe someone who has been there, or maybe someone who grew up in Florida, can tell me why the whole place should not be declared a federal disaster area, or a nature preserve, or given to Cuba, etc.

Anyone?

Last Wishes

2005-10-12T22:23:00.000-06:00

The least, I mean the very least, we can do to show our appreciation to a World War II veteran who then reenlisted in the National Guard is honor what seem to have been his last wishes.

If you need any ideas for content, let me know.

Interview with President Hinckley

2005-10-09T14:01:00.000-06:00

'Solid, Strong, True' - Newsweek Society - MSNBC.com

This interview with President Gordon B. Hinckley both supplements and complements the main article very well (see previous post "Ruminations on Odysseus").

One question really leapt out at me--

Joseph Smith the Prophet seems a lot different than Gordon B. Hinckley the Prophet.

And President Hinckley's response was excellent. Each has been the right man for the right time, and it is within that context that each ought to be judged.

Ruminations on Odysseus

2005-10-09T00:25:00.000-06:00

The Mormon Odyssey - Newsweek Society - MSNBC.com

Interesting and timely article.

We Mormons seem to remain a "peculiar people" to those around us, and with the advent of the internet and the loosening of the reigns on information on Church history, I can see why.

I remember a conversation that I had with an employee of the Utah State Legislature three years ago, while I was interning for a state legislator.
I was studying Political Science at Brigham Young University at the time. I had returned about eight months prior from a mission to Buenos Aires, Argentina, and I had been married for about a month or so.
So far, so good--I fit the mold of a return missionary in Utah. BYU student, quickly married...
However, what made me different, and what drew the attention of the employee with whom I had shared the conversation, was that I was interning with the House Minority Leader.
That's right--a Democrat.

I wasn't the only Democrat at BYU (BYU has a surprisingly large number of students and faculty that are Democrats, and the BYU chapter of College Democrats is the biggest in Utah, though this is due in large part to the nature of BYU's student body), and I certainly was not the most liberal.

But I was interning with the House Minority Leader, and this employee found that fascinating.

Internet pornography, a perennial issue not unique to the Utah State Legislature, had come up during the session. The House had been debating a measure aimed at protecting minors from online pornography, and had taken a break.

During the lull in action on the House floor, the employee, a nice woman in her early forties, began to tell me about how she had caught her son looking at pornography online, had tried to close a number of pop-up windows, and had eventually just unplugged the computer in desperation.
She quickly explained how her son had inadvertently run into the porn, and was trying desperately to close the windows himself when she walked in to the room.
I might have laughed incredulously, but she was too sincere and too nice; I might have sensitively told her that finding oneself in such a predicament was usually the result of at least some voluntary action, and that she might want to talk to her son about it, but I did not know her well enough. So I just nodded and muttered something about how "those pop-up windows are annoying."

She moved on to tell me of another bad online experience. She expressed her frustration with "all of the anti-Mormon stuff out there." She gave me a specific example of something she had seen, and how terrible she thought it was that such lies were online.

She was shocked when I told her that what she had read was, indeed, true. I don't remember exactly what it was, but it had something to do with Joseph Smith, and was not unlike some of the information that appears in this Newsweek article.

I remember telling her that what she had heard, while true, did not necessarily mean what I could tell she thought it meant.
And then I said "you know, while a lot of what you find on the Internet about Church [shorthand in Utah for the LDS Church] History is either not true or distorted, a lot of it is true, even though the conclusions drawn from the information are sometimes shaky."
I remember that she stared at me blankly. I went on to say "the Church does not deny a lot of the stuff you'll find, including what you mentioned, even though it is not exactly openly taught. Don't be surprised when a lot of this is discussed openly in the next few years, especially now that you can find so much on the internet. If it's true, we may as well deal with it instead of pretending it didn't happen."

She nodded, things livened up on the House floor, and I don't think I spoke with her again during the Session.

Things seem to have panned out just as I expected. It turns out that not only was Joseph Smith not perfect, and I don't remember ever being taught that he was, but he was also kind of a knucklehead at times.

So, the question is, does such knuckleheaded behavior matter?

To me, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on two ideas--Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

As reported in the Newsweek article, shortly before his death Smith said, "I don't blame anyone for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I could not have believed it myself."

I can't help but agree with Smith--his story is hard to believe.

As far as the Book of Mormon goes, the book itself challenges the reader to find out for herself whether it is true by asking God through prayer. This exchange need not have anything to do with Joseph Smith.

These two ideas--Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon--are related in an interesting way for me.

There was a time when I thought it might be possible that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, that he did not translate it as claimed. If such were the case, then the ideas on which the Church is built would both be much, much harder to believe, if not false. It would be difficult or impossible for me to believe that Joseph Smith had really seen God the Father and Jesus Christ if it turned out that he had written the Book of Mormon. And if he didn't see them, as he claims, then, as Church President Gordon B. Hinckley has said, "this work is a fraud."

As I mentioned, there was a time when I thought that Joseph Smith might have written the Book of Mormon. I no longer think that he could have done so.
The more I learn about Joseph Smith's faults and failings, his weaknesses and deficiencies, the less I believe him capable of having written the Book of Mormon.
And the more I learn, the more real Joseph becomes to me, and therefore more believable.

The moral of the story is that I still believe that Joseph Smith saw what he said he saw, and that he translated the Book of Mormon. Neither the strength nor the precision of these beliefs remains constant in my mind and heart, and while this fact used to be a source of great dischord for me, it no longer is. Learning about Joseph Smith, warts and all, has actually strengthened my belief in the end.

So, read the article, and the Book of Mormon, if you haven't. And if you have, do it again.

It's late, and I still have to prepare a lesson for tomorrow's services. The lesson topic? Faith.

Guardian Unlimited Technology | Technology | Breaking America's grip on the net

2005-10-08T17:52:00.000-06:00

Very interesting article about who should control the Internet.

The Internet may not have been invented by Al Gore, but it was invented by the American government. The U.S. Department of Defense developed something called the ARPANET which laid the groundwork for and in some ways became the Internet as we know it today (as far as I understand, that is--not my area of expertise, just something I'm interested in).

While the Internet is an American creation, it has become a global enterprise. Besides the hundreds of millions of private Internet users, many countries rely heavily on the Internet for the operation of their respective governments.

So, who should call the shots about how it works? The U.S. alone as the creator, or a consortium of nations?

This is certainly not the last we've heard of this debate.

Mormon stores stock 'Diary of a Porn Star'

2005-10-07T12:17:00.000-06:00

I'll tell you what I want to know about the info in this article--How many of those discs were returned as opposed to those that were not returned? :-)

Withdraw This Nominee

2005-10-07T12:07:00.000-06:00

Charles Krauthammer is brilliant. A true conservative, Krauthammer represents the small but stalwart cadre of principled conservatives who have not sold their souls for a mess of BushCo's pottage.
While I don't always agree with him, I respect Krauthammer's ability to call a spade a spade.

This article is a scathing and well-reasoned critique of President Bush's choice for the next Supreme Court Justice. Harriet Miers seems like a competent, even excellent, attorney. President Bush obviously has great confidence in her ability; otherwise he would not have appointed her as White House Counsel and retained her as his personal attorney.
But do the skill sets required for those two jobs match up closely enough with those of a Supreme Court Justice?

Townhall.com :: Columns :: Romney’s Other Mormon Problem by Joel Mowbray

2005-10-07T12:01:00.000-06:00

Wow. I think Mr. Mowbray waxes a little bit conspiratorial here in trying to make the connection between Bonneville International's actions and the LDS Church in general.

Mowbray has, however, identified what is likely to become an issue in Romney's candidacy, and that is the fact that blacks were not allowed to hold the Priesthood until 1978. I don't think that there will be any issues beyond that with Romney's candidacy with respect to perceived racism in the LDS Church.

Hurricane Shays hits Brownsville, also does damage to Bushtown

2005-09-27T22:07:00.000-06:00

The House Select Committee on Hurricane Katrina questioned Mike Brown yesterday.

Here’s a quote from the hearings, from Christopher Shays, a Republican representative from Connecticut:

"I have come to the conclusion that this administration values loyalty more than anything else," Shays said, "more than competence or, frankly, more than the truth. And you have reinforced that view. . . . I'm left with the feeling [that] the administration feels they have to protect you."

My opinion? Kudos to Mr. Shays. It is heartening to see a public figure stand up like this.

The above quote is dead on. I agree wholeheartedly with Shays’ conclusion.

It isn’t hard to imagine who Shays had in mind in coming to the conclusion that Brown “reinforced”—Rumsfeld, Rove, Tenet, Wolfowitz, Bremer, etc.

It’s just too bad for Brown that Congress had to ruin the BushCo modus operandi. If there hadn’t been a hearing, Brown probably would have received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, like Tenet and Bremer before him.

The Observer | International | Armed and dangerous - Flipper the firing dolphin let loose by Katrina

2005-09-26T08:10:00.000-06:00

Oh, boy…

Cruel and unusual treatment or

Awesome, Fantastical Armament!

I think you know where I stand—what do you think?

P.S. I think we ought to take a serious look at the possibility of training an army of monkeys for highly specialized counter-terrorism activities (and general zaniness—maybe that could be the name of their leader).

The Emperor Has No Clothes

2005-08-29T10:13:00.000-06:00

This is really not anything new to anyone who has followed Salt Lake City Politics for longer than about, oh, six months or so.
It turns out that Mayor Ross "Rocky" Anderson is sort of a difficult guy to deal with at work.

The most telling part, for me at least, is near the end of the article:

Seed also described Anderson as "bored" with being mayor. Anderson has stepped out on what are traditionally viewed as national issues, including environmental work and protesting the president. "He's said he's bored. He's said he's not using his full intellectual capacity as mayor," she said.
Anderson said he is "absolutely not" bored. "I love being mayor."
Anderson - who hasn't decided whether to seek a third term - has said he wants to work on human rights issues when he is out of office. Seed scoffed at the idea.
"He doesn't have the capacity to be empathetic," she said. "He cares about Sudanese refugees. When it comes to people in his life on a daily basis, he says he cares but his actions don't demonstrate any kind of real caring.

I think there are a lot of liberal-leaning people like this who care about people in the abstract, while those closest to them suffer.

When Mother Teresa received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979, she was asked "What can we do to promote world peace?"

Her response? "Go home and love your family."

That's right--even world peace starts at home.

The Nation prints a defense of Pat Robertson

2005-08-27T11:40:00.000-06:00

Richard Kim of The Nation provides an interesting pseudo-defense of Pat Robertson's comments.

Kim is right about one thing--the media did a poor job of exploring Robertson's claim that the U.S. may be trying to assassinate Chavez.

It's not as if we have not tried such things before, particularly in Latin America. Instead of causing a national debate on the topic, most of the media got religion and sanctimoniously castigated Robertson for his comments.

I have heard rumors of repeated attempts at assassinating Castro followed by official U.S. Policy against political assassinations.
That we tried to overthrow Castro by force is not disputed.

I wonder what would have happened if we had decided to assassinate Saddam Hussein instead of invading Iraq...not something I'm advocating, just something that I think it might be interesting to explore.

ACLU to bring suit on behalf of Mormon prisoner in Alabama

2005-08-26T14:33:00.000-06:00

Very interesting story about a Mormon inmate in Alabama who is being represented by the ACLU in a suit alleging that he has been denied the opportunity to obtain Mormon literature or participate in services.

My Grandpa once told me "the ACLU is ruining America," and then remarked with a chuckle "they need to get A CLUe!"

I think I'll tell him about this and see what he thinks of it.

KTVX adds a coat of lacquer to the bubble

2005-08-21T01:05:00.000-06:00

Way to go KTVX (Utah's ABC affiliate, channel 4)--you've made the U.S. National News, Al-Jazeera, and everything in between with your asinine refusal to air an anti-War commercial featuring Cindy Sheehan.

Boy am I glad that KTVX is protecting me from such material. After all, "the viewpoints reflected in the spot are incompatible with our marketplace and will not be well received by our viewers."

I sure hope KTVX replaces the spot with an Enzyte, Viagra or Levitra ad. Those are much better, and much less problematically thought provoking.

Oh, oh, and more Access Hollywood. I respect those hard hitting viewpoints, and I passionately agree that Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are a cute couple.

Mormon heeds prophet's call to leave Harvard - U.S. Life - MSNBC.com

2005-08-20T11:16:00.000-06:00

This has been getting a lot of play in the press, and I think that is both interesting and really cool.
It is interesting to see how it just shocks people to see sacrifice these days. To go from head of Harvard's Business School to BYU-Idaho is just insane to many.
It's really cool that Mr. Clark is willing to do it. I think it shows that his priorities are antithetical to a lot of what our society celebrates--duty and loyalty over wealth, privilege and power. Nice.

Mormon heeds prophet's call to leave Harvard - U.S. Life - MSNBC.com

BBC NEWS | World | Africa | Secret film of Zimbabwe 'squalor'

2005-08-20T11:12:00.000-06:00

This kind of thing seems to be the new genocide--you can still get rid of 'em, but without raising the ire of the rest of the world. Though we probably ought to check our "ire" meter given what went on in the Darfur region of the Sudan and our no-action policy.

It makes me wonder--if the Iraq War was really waged for human rights issues, then why not Sudan?
If it was really waged for WMD, then why not North Korea?
If it was really waged against al Qaeda, then why not Saudi Arabia, or better yet why not commit troop strength to hunting down Bin Laden?

Maybe there is a good reason, but I haven't seen it. A good reason isn't necessary if people will accept a mediocre one. Less work.

BBC NEWS | World | Africa | Secret film of Zimbabwe 'squalor'

Salt Lake Tribune - Faith

2005-08-20T09:42:00.000-06:00

This is pretty heavy from Kirby--he's usually a lot lighter. But it is as dead on as most of the things he writes.

http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_2958100

Sarah McLachlan - World On Fire

2005-08-19T22:42:00.000-06:00

Check out this video if you need a little perspective.

The existence of these situations and what we do about them is a moral question. It is every bit as moral a question as abortion or gay marriage, but you won't catch very many on the right talking about it much.
Don't get me wrong--you won't catch many on the left talking about it, either--they're too busy straining to find something wrong with John Roberts and reflexively defending abortion rights (nice job Demos on saying nothing about that horrible, distorted NARAL ad).
We will be held accountable for what we have done about situations such as this.

Sarah McLachlan - World On Fire

USATODAY.com - Salt Lake reveals its street smarts

2005-08-19T22:25:00.000-06:00

Very interesting USA Today article about Salt Lake's plan for revitalization.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-18-salt-lake_x.htm

deseretnews.com | Goal: 52 races in 52 weeks

2005-08-17T11:02:00.000-06:00

Pretty amazing guy...I'm just hoping to finish one!

deseretnews.com | Goal: 52 races in 52 weeks

Has society become too feminine?

2005-08-15T19:40:00.000-06:00

Really interesting article, and complaint that I have heard here in the U.S. as well.

Has the pendulum swung too far?

Independent Online Edition > Media : app3

My Way News

2005-07-28T15:23:00.000-06:00

I am testing the Blogger button on my new Firefox Google toolbar.

While I am not certain a judicial opinion is the proper place to make such a statement, I agree entirely with Judge Coughenour's opinion.
We can't allow our country to become something other than we want it to be because of fear.

My Way News

Thoughts on the drive home tonight

2005-05-27T22:57:00.000-06:00

I was thinking about ideology, philosophy, etc. on the way home tonight.

I thought about a having a hypothetical conversation with a libertarian. It probably came as a result of an interview on the Lars Larsen show the other night. I don't often listen to Mr. Larsen, and I didn't listen more that ten or so minutes the other night. But anyway, he was interviewing a libertarian.

It may also have stemmed from Sean Hannity's commentary today about how public schools are just deplorable. You know, the standard broken record stuff. Complaints without solutions. Maybe I linked what he was saying to the libertarian's comments because I can feel an undercurrent in Hannity's and others' rhetoric that makes me think that they would not mind getting rid of public education altogether.

So, anyway, I was thinking about a having a hypothetical conversation about the things that the government should and should not provide.
And as I asked the hypothetical libertarian about specific services, I found that the hypothetical libertarian's argument began to get less and less consistent. Now, this is not a commentary on libertarianism specifically, but instead ideology in general.

I moved on to other ideologies, and thought them through to the extent that my knowledge would allow, and came to what I thought is an interesting conclusion. That is, that eventually each ideology breaks down and reaches a point where the assumptions are questioned and the theories dismantle. And it is that point that I found interesting.

It is at that dark point that the poets and painters replace the politicians and pundits. It is then that people are inspired by preachers and philosophers instead of by ideologues. At that point, the darkness is filled with the light of art and spirituality, and rather than being convinced we do and perhaps ought to respond to how we feel.

I'll have to expand on this idea later, but for now it feels good to have it down on paper.

2005-05-22T20:10:00.000-06:00

This was taken at Lake Powell, which sits on the Utah-Arizona border.

The BuCannon fires again

2005-05-11T22:36:00.000-06:00

Patrick J. Buchanan. You'll never be able to claim that he doesn't speak his mind.

Buchanan's latest batch of fresh commentary comes to us courtesy of WorldNetDaily, one of myriad antidotes to the "Liberal Media" (don't forget--"fair" means to Fox and its ilk what it means to Michael Corleone, and "balanced" doesn't mean actually balanced but instead balanced against the liberal media, which means very conservative).

Just in case you don't feel up to contending with annoying gif ads (you really ought to use Firefox if you aren't already, and download the Adblock extension--best thing in browsing) I've copied and pasted the text of the article below my post. You ought to go there for at least a second to check out Buchanan's mug shot. The ability to produce that level of earnestness while staring at a camera lens is nothing short of remarkable.

What is it, this time, that Buchanan is being earnest about? What is it that he really wants you to know? Well, he wants you to know that World War II just may not have been "worth it."

I have two bones to pick with Buchanan; a smallish, semi-bendable poultry bone first, followed by a brontosaurus femur.

First, I am not convinced that Stalinism was a "tyranny even more odious" than Nazism. I'm no historian, and I know that semi-reasonable minds might disagree, but I think that Hitler and the Nazis would beat out Stalin and the Commies on an evilness index, by at least a few degrees.

Second, and more importantly, I am dumbfounded by Buchanan's exhaustive list of the West's "objectives" in becoming involved in World War II. Buchanan writes:

"If the objective of the West was the destruction of Nazi Germany, it was a 'smashing' success. But why destroy Hitler? If to liberate Germans, it was not worth it. After all, the Germans voted Hitler in.
If it was to keep Hitler out of Western Europe, why declare war on him and draw him into Western Europe? If it was to keep Hitler out of Central and Eastern Europe, then, inevitably, Stalin would inherit Central and Eastern Europe.
Was that worth fighting a world war – with 50 million dead?"

"Um...what about the Jews (and the gypsies, homosexuals, etc.)?
You might remember them, Mr. Buchanan, um, they were the ones that were rounded up and killed by Hitler and the Nazis...right, right, I understand that "After all, the Germans voted Hitler in" and all, but that didn't give him the right to...oh, it did? Well I guess we disagree, then."

Seriously, go to the article and run an "Edit:Find" on the words "Jew" or "Holocaust" in Buchanan's article. Not once.

I understand that the Holocaust was not the primary, secondary, or probably even the tertiary (love that word, use it whenever I can) reason for which we became involved in World War II--so I'll head that retort off at the pass.
From what I understand, it wasn't until near the end of the war that the appalling images of gas chambers, piles of bodies, and walking skeletons made their way to newsreels and newspapers in the United States. But these images shocked our great nation, strengthened our resolve, and further validated the noble cause in which we had involved ourselves.
Even if fighting to end the Holocaust was not one of the West's "objectives" in becoming involved in World War II, it certainly ended up being part of what made fighting the war "worth it."

It is unworkable and illogical to require that what makes something worth doing always fit within an initial objective.
The Bush administration (with whom Buchanan disagrees, a credit to his consistency) has tried to justify the Iraq War by using just such reasoning, by saying that even though we were wrong about WMD we have liberated the country, which has made the war "worth it." While I disagree with the Iraq War on other grounds, I don't disagree that Bush and Company have a right to accentuate the great deal of good that is happening in Iraq as a result of the War and our presence there (though I wish it were just accentuation and not distraction).

In short, Buchanan is wrong. World War II was "worth it." It was worth it to stop a ruthless dictator bent on world domination. It was worth it to stop the mechanical killing of millions in the name of "racial purity." In short it was a dignified fight for human dignity, and even if the consequences were not perfect they were still better than the alternative. And even though millions died, many of them died fighting for a just cause, which is a better fate than that of a timid and cowardly man who dies at 95.

I am surprised that Buchanan, and so many men like him, have replaced the Christian beliefs they claim to have and which they espouse when convenient but ignore when not, with the Godless, valueless, amoral economic theories that have captured the thinking of the West. Why does Buchanan think it wasn't worth it? Well, 50 million people died! Need he say more?
Yes. He does need to say more. Tossing out a couple of caricaturized objectives while conveniently leaving out the most obvious success does not a cogent argument make.

P.S. We may look upon those who lived during World War II, those who fought as well as those who contributed in other ways, as the Greatest Generation of Americans, as (notorious liberal) Tom Brokaw does. But there are problems facing us today that give us the opportunity for Greatness, if we choose it. One such issue that I hope to discuss in this blog is the genocide occurring in the Darfur region of the Sudan. We said "never again" after the Holocaust. Then we said it after Rwanda--how many times will we force ourselves to say "never again?"

The following is the text of Buchanan's article.

WND Commentary Was World War II worth it?
Posted: May 11, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 Creators Syndicate Inc.

In the Bush vs. Putin debate on World War II, Putin had far the more difficult assignment. Defending Russia's record in the "Great Patriotic War," the Russian president declared, "Our people not only defended their homeland, they liberated 11 European countries."

Those countries are, presumably: Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Finland.

To ascertain whether Moscow truly liberated those lands, we might survey the sons and daughters of the generation that survived liberation by a Red Army that pillaged, raped and murdered its way westward across Europe. As at Katyn Forest, that army eradicated the real heroes who fought to retain the national and Christian character of their countries.

To Bush, these nations were not liberated. "As we mark a victory of six decades ago, we are mindful of a paradox," he said:

For much of Eastern and Central Europe, victory brought the iron rule of another empire. V-E day marked the end of fascism, but it did not end the oppression. The agreement in Yalta followed in the unjust tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable. ... The captivity of millions in Central and Eastern Europe will be remembered as one of the greatest wrongs in history.

Bush told the awful truth about what really triumphed in World War II east of the Elbe. And it was not freedom. It was Stalin, the most odious tyrant of the century. Where Hitler killed his millions, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot and Castro murdered their tens of millions.

Leninism was the Black Death of the 20th Century.

The truths bravely declared by Bush at Riga, Latvia, raise questions that too long remained hidden, buried or ignored.

If Yalta was a betrayal of small nations as immoral as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, why do we venerate Churchill and FDR? At Yalta, this pair secretly ceded those small nations to Stalin, co-signing a cynical "Declaration on Liberated Europe" that was a monstrous lie.

As FDR and Churchill consigned these peoples to a Stalinist hell run by a monster they alternately and affectionately called "Uncle Joe" and "Old Bear," why are they not in the history books alongside Neville Chamberlain, who sold out the Czechs at Munich by handing the Sudetenland over to Germany? At least the Sudeten Germans wanted to be with Germany. No Christian peoples of Europe ever embraced their Soviet captors or Stalinist quislings.

Other questions arise. If Britain endured six years of war and hundreds of thousands of dead in a war she declared to defend Polish freedom, and Polish freedom was lost to communism, how can we say Britain won the war?

If the West went to war to stop Hitler from dominating Eastern and Central Europe, and Eastern and Central Europe ended up under a tyranny even more odious, as Bush implies, did Western Civilization win the war?

In 1938, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain refused. In 1939, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Poland. Chamberlain agreed. At the end of the war Churchill wanted and got, Czechoslovakia and Poland were in Stalin's empire.

How, then, can men proclaim Churchill "Man of the Century"?

True, U.S. and British troops liberated France, Holland and Belgium from Nazi occupation. But before Britain declared war on Germany, France, Holland and Belgium did not need to be liberated. They were free. They were only invaded and occupied after Britain and France declared war on Germany – on behalf of Poland.

When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France – hundreds of thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires – was World War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of the Elbe were lost anyway?

If the objective of the West was the destruction of Nazi Germany, it was a "smashing" success. But why destroy Hitler? If to liberate Germans, it was not worth it. After all, the Germans voted Hitler in.

If it was to keep Hitler out of Western Europe, why declare war on him and draw him into Western Europe? If it was to keep Hitler out of Central and Eastern Europe, then, inevitably, Stalin would inherit Central and Eastern Europe.

Was that worth fighting a world war – with 50 million dead?

The war Britain and France declared to defend Polish freedom ended up making Poland and all of Eastern and Central Europe safe for Stalinism. And at the festivities in Moscow, Americans and Russians were front and center, smiling – not British and French. Understandably.

Yes, Bush has opened up quite a can of worms.

Welcome to my new blog

2005-05-10T02:50:00.000-06:00

Well, this is pretty cool. I attempted to make a comment on a post from another blog, and it said that I couldn't do so without signing up. So, I signed up.
I have yet to respond to the post on the BYU Law blog site that initially caught my attention. Some watchdog with a keen sense of liberal media-dar pointed out the Guardian UK's mention of Jay Bybee (attorney who authored memo that outlined legal basis for torturing prisoners at Gitmo) as a "devout Mormon and a keen kazoo player" as an obvious example of liberal media bias. Why, you may ask, as I did, is the mention of such admittedly parenthetical but arguably interesting information proof of liberal media bias? No explanation. It just is. And if you don't agree, you may just be branded with the Scarlet L yourself.

What a perfect introduction for this blog. I've actually thought of starting one o'these for a while, but never had the impetus. I hope we can think things through a bit more than the poster (postperson?) on BYU Law's website.

Not much more to say, truth be told. At least not tonight.