I didn't really feel like this book applied so much. Sure, we lack male church enthusiasm here in town, but I think that some of the things he talked about, we already do well. And I really feel that if the local church functions as the the General leadership would have it (and I think a lot of this has to do with functioning priesthood quorums and committees as outlined in the Church Handbook), it can be perfect, and men won't hate it.
On Jesse's Comments:
2. I listened to a lesson by Gene R. Cook: The Church did a study--what is the major factor in getting YM to serve missions? Personal prayer and scripture study. What are the major factors in getting YM to have personal prayer and scripture study? Family prayer and family scripture study. So if you're missing those, the Church has a lot of work to do to help YM set that habit.
3. My elder's quorum president asserts that most men don't want to be in elders quorum classes. I think that it comes down to that statement by Stephen L Richards. He said, “A quorum is three things: first, a class; second, a fraternity; and third, a service unit” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1938, 118). Often, my quorum is just a class, and sometimes it's not a very good one. I've been in quorums that have real fraternity and act as service units--it has been then that I felt most fulfilled by being at church.
I wonder if instead of listening to the oldest high priest talk about the missionary experience he had in the 1950s every month, we could leave the building and go home teaching during the Priesthood portion of the block of meetings.
5. I told a Sister at church I was reading this book--she didn't believe me--she's reading the Twilight series. It seems to me that a lot of the women in the church believe that men DO hate going to church, and a good percentage of men are all too willing to let this perception go unchecked. I really think that we need our meetings to be so packed with spirituality that men will get over their inhibitions--spiritual things aren't necessarily weepy things. We have so much truth, we don't need a go for the guys sunday" with the bishop in Camo. I . Ward basketball is also good thing--i think more things like that would help men feel more manly.
6. I listened to a tape by Diana Hasler Hoelscher, "The missionary next door". She talks about how we can invite. Of the two conversions, the easiest is the social. It is easy to invite someone to play basketball. She says, have the missionaries there-they can invite them to hear the missionary lessons. If our friends don't accept, the missionaries don't care, they're getting transferred anyway. I think the challenge in inviting someone to church is that we don't even know who will speak, let alone what it will be about. I wonder if we could announce it down in the bulletin: "Next week: an exciting perspective on David and Goliath, by Brother Arnold Young.
I think I'm up for the book for July: I propose http://www.amazon.com/State-Fear-Michael-Crichton/dp/0066214130. I'll put another post up specifically for it.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Men and the church
My thoughts:
1. This is not a well written book. I did not enjoy reading it and would not recommend it to someone else. If you gave up and didn't finish you didn't miss much---most of the book is just a rephrasing of his thesis presented in the first few pages.
2. My stake president encouraged the YM leadership in the stake to read this book. While the book is focused neither on mormons nor on the youth I think the idea has interesting applications there. Across the church there has recently been plenty of concern about the number of YM that go on missions...most of those who do not serve lose interest in the church as young men. Many of the traits Murrow identifies which drive men from the church seem from my experience to be accentuated during adolescence.
3. One recurring question in my mind as I read the book: how much should the church change to increase membership/attendance? Just because men do not attend does not mean the church should necessarily change. The church could give away money and get lots of people to attend but that obviously would not accomplish its mission. Are there things the LDS church could change to improve male interest without compromising its theology/mission? I think that's a relevant question.
4. Does the LDS church do a better job at this than the other Christian churches that are the subject of the book? Yes. Some things that came to mind as I read:
a. Lay clergy - Murrow points out that men lack respect for pastors who do not have real jobs or families. Men are more likely to view paid clergy as inauthentic or hypocrites.
b. "The great genius of this church is work" (Pres. Hinckley) - Is this not a theme often repeated in the book? The LDS church requires more of its members than most and as Murrow points out this may appeal more to men (action instead of just talk).
c. Family focus - In most congregations a woman attending without her husband is certainly less well off and happy, but for her eternal salvation it may make little difference. The eternal family in the LDS church has a very different set of incentives. This may make men feel they have greater responsibility and may also force church to become an event for families (and therefore both genders) rather than individuals
d. Priesthood - The LDS belief that individual men may have not just the power to "talk" about salvation but to act in God's name certainly lines up with some of Murrow's ideas.
e. Emphasis on works - Salvation in many churches is really about talking and feeling. Men are more interested in acts.
5. Has the LDS church also become more "feminized"? Are there changes we could make to be more inviting/interesting to men? I know this kind of question can be controversial or cause offense---certainly none is intended:
a. Dress and grooming - The dress code in the LDS church has changed over time. Formal dress is certainly a female preference (how many men want to get dressed up?). Are some men put off by this? I think so. Is it theology or tradition? I'm sure others may disagree but I don't see it as strongly theological. I worry it has become stressed too much in the church today.
b. Length/Number of meetings - Often lots of talk, not as much action. Are there more meetings today in the church than decades past? Yes. Are there reasons to have more? Maybe?
c. Education - This is a tough one for me because I so highly value education. But do less-educated men feel as welcome in the church today as in the past? I'm not sure. The active LDS members have become very well educated...that's a good thing...but if I were less educated I would feel intimidated in an LDS congregation.
6. Should I be more optimistic about inviting other men to attend church? I know plenty who are skeptical of religion...but maybe they have had very different experiences? Maybe I underestimate how attractive the LDS church is (obviously in a social sense) relative to other denominations?
All I have time for now. Looking forward to your thoughts.
1. This is not a well written book. I did not enjoy reading it and would not recommend it to someone else. If you gave up and didn't finish you didn't miss much---most of the book is just a rephrasing of his thesis presented in the first few pages.
2. My stake president encouraged the YM leadership in the stake to read this book. While the book is focused neither on mormons nor on the youth I think the idea has interesting applications there. Across the church there has recently been plenty of concern about the number of YM that go on missions...most of those who do not serve lose interest in the church as young men. Many of the traits Murrow identifies which drive men from the church seem from my experience to be accentuated during adolescence.
3. One recurring question in my mind as I read the book: how much should the church change to increase membership/attendance? Just because men do not attend does not mean the church should necessarily change. The church could give away money and get lots of people to attend but that obviously would not accomplish its mission. Are there things the LDS church could change to improve male interest without compromising its theology/mission? I think that's a relevant question.
4. Does the LDS church do a better job at this than the other Christian churches that are the subject of the book? Yes. Some things that came to mind as I read:
a. Lay clergy - Murrow points out that men lack respect for pastors who do not have real jobs or families. Men are more likely to view paid clergy as inauthentic or hypocrites.
b. "The great genius of this church is work" (Pres. Hinckley) - Is this not a theme often repeated in the book? The LDS church requires more of its members than most and as Murrow points out this may appeal more to men (action instead of just talk).
c. Family focus - In most congregations a woman attending without her husband is certainly less well off and happy, but for her eternal salvation it may make little difference. The eternal family in the LDS church has a very different set of incentives. This may make men feel they have greater responsibility and may also force church to become an event for families (and therefore both genders) rather than individuals
d. Priesthood - The LDS belief that individual men may have not just the power to "talk" about salvation but to act in God's name certainly lines up with some of Murrow's ideas.
e. Emphasis on works - Salvation in many churches is really about talking and feeling. Men are more interested in acts.
5. Has the LDS church also become more "feminized"? Are there changes we could make to be more inviting/interesting to men? I know this kind of question can be controversial or cause offense---certainly none is intended:
a. Dress and grooming - The dress code in the LDS church has changed over time. Formal dress is certainly a female preference (how many men want to get dressed up?). Are some men put off by this? I think so. Is it theology or tradition? I'm sure others may disagree but I don't see it as strongly theological. I worry it has become stressed too much in the church today.
b. Length/Number of meetings - Often lots of talk, not as much action. Are there more meetings today in the church than decades past? Yes. Are there reasons to have more? Maybe?
c. Education - This is a tough one for me because I so highly value education. But do less-educated men feel as welcome in the church today as in the past? I'm not sure. The active LDS members have become very well educated...that's a good thing...but if I were less educated I would feel intimidated in an LDS congregation.
6. Should I be more optimistic about inviting other men to attend church? I know plenty who are skeptical of religion...but maybe they have had very different experiences? Maybe I underestimate how attractive the LDS church is (obviously in a social sense) relative to other denominations?
All I have time for now. Looking forward to your thoughts.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Texans, Debt, and the Environment
This is my third attempt at posting my thoughts on politics. The first time I hit post only to find that my 10 month old had unplugged the modem. The second failed attempt was lost in cyberspace and may still show up at some point. Here's hoping the third time is the charm. First some responses to what's already been said:
Glenn, good job solving the toilet paper mystery.
Karl, I agree with Mr. Lattin that you gave up on the Texan bandwagon too soon. You should have waited for Ron Paul. More explanation below.
Scott, for me, the death penalty and abortion aren't so contradictory because they are about tying the consequence to the action. When you abort a baby, you avoid the natural consequence of what you have done, and you can argue if the death penalty is a natural consequence but there should definitely be severe consequences for certain actions. Now that being said, I am against the death penalty, though more because it costs too much to go through the legal system and does little or nothing to deter people from committing serious crimes.
If I could only have one thing from my government leaders, I would ask for a balanced budget/reduction of the deficit. Clinton got lucky that the economy was booming and balanced the budget for a while, but none of the current Presidential candidates even suggested such things (except for Ron Paul). To balance the budget, we would have to get out of Iraq and come up with a plan for Social Security. I didn't vote for Bush in the last election because he took spending to a whole new level (the war, expansion of Medicare/Medicaid, No Child Left Behind, etc.). In general, I'm in favor of lower taxes, but if higher taxes are necessary, that's fine IF you are going to spend my money wisely.
Now I don't think we need to go back to the gold standard like Ron Paul does, but can we please spend less than we take in? If we didn't spend so much on interest every year, we could have a lot more money for everything else. McCain is going to cut back on earmarks, but the real spending is in Defense, Entitlements, and Interest. That's where the cuts need to be made.
Another issue I'd like to bring up is this Cap and Trade nonsense. On NPR they had someone arguing for and against a Cap and Trade system, and it was a pretty one-sided argument. Now, I'm all for doing something for the environment (Pollution is bad regardless of its effect on global warming.), so go ahead and levy a Carbon Tax. But this Cap and Trade system is unnecessarily complex, hasn't worked a bit in Europe, and it has political corruption and bureaucracy written all over it. Someone explain this one to me because both party's candidates think this is a great idea. Also, what are your thoughts on the Democrats proposal for a 21st century Tennessee Valley Authority (aka green collar jobs) to install solar panels on everyone's house?
I read/listened to Obama's book, and I was gung ho Obama for a while (after Romney and Paul dropped out). But then the Democratic primary stretched on, and he tried to show how much more liberal he was then Hillary. And I just couldn't stomach the talk about how evil free trade agreements are and how evil it is to make lots of money. I hate listening to McCain even more, but I might vote for him simply to have the Congress and White House of opposite parties. Things tend to work better that way.
Glenn, good job solving the toilet paper mystery.
Karl, I agree with Mr. Lattin that you gave up on the Texan bandwagon too soon. You should have waited for Ron Paul. More explanation below.
Scott, for me, the death penalty and abortion aren't so contradictory because they are about tying the consequence to the action. When you abort a baby, you avoid the natural consequence of what you have done, and you can argue if the death penalty is a natural consequence but there should definitely be severe consequences for certain actions. Now that being said, I am against the death penalty, though more because it costs too much to go through the legal system and does little or nothing to deter people from committing serious crimes.
If I could only have one thing from my government leaders, I would ask for a balanced budget/reduction of the deficit. Clinton got lucky that the economy was booming and balanced the budget for a while, but none of the current Presidential candidates even suggested such things (except for Ron Paul). To balance the budget, we would have to get out of Iraq and come up with a plan for Social Security. I didn't vote for Bush in the last election because he took spending to a whole new level (the war, expansion of Medicare/Medicaid, No Child Left Behind, etc.). In general, I'm in favor of lower taxes, but if higher taxes are necessary, that's fine IF you are going to spend my money wisely.
Now I don't think we need to go back to the gold standard like Ron Paul does, but can we please spend less than we take in? If we didn't spend so much on interest every year, we could have a lot more money for everything else. McCain is going to cut back on earmarks, but the real spending is in Defense, Entitlements, and Interest. That's where the cuts need to be made.
Another issue I'd like to bring up is this Cap and Trade nonsense. On NPR they had someone arguing for and against a Cap and Trade system, and it was a pretty one-sided argument. Now, I'm all for doing something for the environment (Pollution is bad regardless of its effect on global warming.), so go ahead and levy a Carbon Tax. But this Cap and Trade system is unnecessarily complex, hasn't worked a bit in Europe, and it has political corruption and bureaucracy written all over it. Someone explain this one to me because both party's candidates think this is a great idea. Also, what are your thoughts on the Democrats proposal for a 21st century Tennessee Valley Authority (aka green collar jobs) to install solar panels on everyone's house?
I read/listened to Obama's book, and I was gung ho Obama for a while (after Romney and Paul dropped out). But then the Democratic primary stretched on, and he tried to show how much more liberal he was then Hillary. And I just couldn't stomach the talk about how evil free trade agreements are and how evil it is to make lots of money. I hate listening to McCain even more, but I might vote for him simply to have the Congress and White House of opposite parties. Things tend to work better that way.
Monday, June 23, 2008
The establishment and the 1980 primaries
I thought Karl's assertion about neither of the current POTUS candidates being establishment was interesting. I'm not sure what "establishment" means; sort of the opposite of populist, I suppose. I think both candidates are well aligned with factions within their party, but not the factions which have most recently held power.
In the case of Obama, I think the alignment is best represented by the endorsement of Ted Kennedy. Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter for the Dem nomination in 1980. His campaign was seen as an insurgence by the liberal wing against the somewhat centrist platform of Carter, and the push away from centrism which Kennedy and colleagues forced on the Dem platform probably contributed significantly to Reagan's win. The Mondale and Dukakis candidacies perpetuated the leftist insurgence within the party, while the Clinton/Gore presidency was a move back to the pragmatic center. Kerry strikes me as a leftist who wanted to appear centrist, and I view his nomination as a transition between the power of the two factions.
In the case of McCain, I see him as very much in the mode of Eisenhower/Nixon/Ford Republicans, who had little interest in domestic politics, and who adopted a realpolitik approach to foreign policy. This faction was represented in the 1980 primary by George H.W. Bush. Like the Dems, the Republican party also had an insurgence in 1980. In this case it was by the Reagan-led alliance of small-goverment Goldwater acolytes, Christian social conservatives and anti-Soviet foreign policy ideologues. Unlike the Kennedy-led Dem insurgence, the Reaganites won, and have held sway over the party up through the current presidency (including George HW Bush's single term).
So, while I think it's accurate to say both candidates are from until recently out-of-power factions within their respective parties, I wouldn't describe either of them as non-Establishment. Now Ralph Nader, on the other hand...
I see this election as very much in the mold of the 1980 election, with McCain playing the role of Carter and Obama the role of Reagan. And I think the outcome will likely be similar. On a personal level, I was pulling for Romney and then Clinton, and currently support McCain. While I was initially intrigued by Obama, I soon realized that despite his "purple" appeal to independents and his inspirational rhetoric, his policy and personality were very unappealing to me.
In the case of Obama, I think the alignment is best represented by the endorsement of Ted Kennedy. Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter for the Dem nomination in 1980. His campaign was seen as an insurgence by the liberal wing against the somewhat centrist platform of Carter, and the push away from centrism which Kennedy and colleagues forced on the Dem platform probably contributed significantly to Reagan's win. The Mondale and Dukakis candidacies perpetuated the leftist insurgence within the party, while the Clinton/Gore presidency was a move back to the pragmatic center. Kerry strikes me as a leftist who wanted to appear centrist, and I view his nomination as a transition between the power of the two factions.
In the case of McCain, I see him as very much in the mode of Eisenhower/Nixon/Ford Republicans, who had little interest in domestic politics, and who adopted a realpolitik approach to foreign policy. This faction was represented in the 1980 primary by George H.W. Bush. Like the Dems, the Republican party also had an insurgence in 1980. In this case it was by the Reagan-led alliance of small-goverment Goldwater acolytes, Christian social conservatives and anti-Soviet foreign policy ideologues. Unlike the Kennedy-led Dem insurgence, the Reaganites won, and have held sway over the party up through the current presidency (including George HW Bush's single term).
So, while I think it's accurate to say both candidates are from until recently out-of-power factions within their respective parties, I wouldn't describe either of them as non-Establishment. Now Ralph Nader, on the other hand...
I see this election as very much in the mold of the 1980 election, with McCain playing the role of Carter and Obama the role of Reagan. And I think the outcome will likely be similar. On a personal level, I was pulling for Romney and then Clinton, and currently support McCain. While I was initially intrigued by Obama, I soon realized that despite his "purple" appeal to independents and his inspirational rhetoric, his policy and personality were very unappealing to me.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Things are gonna change, I can feel it
(The title, by the way, originates from song lyrics that just popped into my head, and though I am actually for the first time in my post-Republican life "proud of my country"--er, perhaps I shouldn't quote candidates wives--rather, I mean to say optimistic that positive change in politics is possible, I by no means feel that change is inevitable).
Paul, I agree with almost everything you're saying except, particularly with regards to the increasing ineffeciency of our two-party system over the last few decades. Too many people treat politics as entertainment. Parties are like sports teams. People follow them without questioning their agendas. In fact, as you and Jesse both note, the parties seem to dictate most people's politics.
However, I don't agree with your skepticism about the parties being vehicles for change, partly because I don't see any other force capable of effecting change. But, more importantly, I believe we are currently witnessing a reclamation of the parties by the people. Both candidates are, in many ways, outsiders to their own parties. The old guards of neither party "wanted" their candidates--but the people have spoken.
Regarding your request for opinions into the judiciary, perhaps you should propose a more specific topic, because I could go on for a while. However, I should say that there two types of comments about the judiciary that bug me--(1) any comment that that includes the phrase "legislating from the bench"--if you want to say that you don't agree with an interpretation put forth by the court, that's fine, but the judiciary does not legislate; (2) any comment that suggests that any judge is somehow in the pocket of one party or another.
As for Jesse, I'm really looking forward to a good discussion about free markets.
Paul, I agree with almost everything you're saying except, particularly with regards to the increasing ineffeciency of our two-party system over the last few decades. Too many people treat politics as entertainment. Parties are like sports teams. People follow them without questioning their agendas. In fact, as you and Jesse both note, the parties seem to dictate most people's politics.
However, I don't agree with your skepticism about the parties being vehicles for change, partly because I don't see any other force capable of effecting change. But, more importantly, I believe we are currently witnessing a reclamation of the parties by the people. Both candidates are, in many ways, outsiders to their own parties. The old guards of neither party "wanted" their candidates--but the people have spoken.
Regarding your request for opinions into the judiciary, perhaps you should propose a more specific topic, because I could go on for a while. However, I should say that there two types of comments about the judiciary that bug me--(1) any comment that that includes the phrase "legislating from the bench"--if you want to say that you don't agree with an interpretation put forth by the court, that's fine, but the judiciary does not legislate; (2) any comment that suggests that any judge is somehow in the pocket of one party or another.
As for Jesse, I'm really looking forward to a good discussion about free markets.
Politics: Change we can believe in, but should we?
Spoiler: Contains the words Democrat and Republican and has candidates' names
Forgive me for specifically referring to somewhat current events—hopefully someone will be able to straighten me out—but I actually question the premise that change is likely to come from within one of the two major parties. Not that I'm counting on Ralph Nader either, I've just been disillusioned by the entire political process.
I still consider myself a republican—but I've recently come to believe that party leaders, both “Democrats” and “Republicans”, don't actually believe in a democratic republic. That is, I question the amount that the public has an impact on government . Are the people really considered at all except to what point our votes can be manipulated to achieve the voting outcomes that favor our establishment? Why are Iowa and New Hampshire first in the primaries—why not a state with a large population like Florida, New York, or California? Are they more tractable? I am in awe of how much the Republican and Democratic primaries appear to have fallen in line the way that establishment would like. The Guilliani-Romney-Huckabee-McCain media courting timeline, the superdelegates, etc.
In fact, I've begun to question how different the two parties really are—a friend of mine pointed out to me that from a global perspective (compared to other nations' parties), the two parties are very similar. “Compasionate conservativism” and “fiscal conservativism” are the new bywords of the GOP rather than just plain conservative and “social progressivism” seems to be used by the “liberal media” to describe the democratic party. I don't see as much difference in the two parties as I used to think I saw: 2 sides of same coin, keeping things going the way they are.
I do agree with Jesse in that people affiliate themselves with a party and accept the policies canned, which is why I agree that it would only make sense to me to discuss politics point by point rather than by parties.
Our NV GOP caucus was a farce, by the way:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/apr/27/ron-paul-campaign-dominates-convention/ links to this (poorly written, but amusing): http://www.dailypaul.com/node/47172
I am interested in the Judicial department. Roberts and Alito have both been interesting to me—I'd be curious to see what you Legal types would have to say.
Forgive me for specifically referring to somewhat current events—hopefully someone will be able to straighten me out—but I actually question the premise that change is likely to come from within one of the two major parties. Not that I'm counting on Ralph Nader either, I've just been disillusioned by the entire political process.
I still consider myself a republican—but I've recently come to believe that party leaders, both “Democrats” and “Republicans”, don't actually believe in a democratic republic. That is, I question the amount that the public has an impact on government . Are the people really considered at all except to what point our votes can be manipulated to achieve the voting outcomes that favor our establishment? Why are Iowa and New Hampshire first in the primaries—why not a state with a large population like Florida, New York, or California? Are they more tractable? I am in awe of how much the Republican and Democratic primaries appear to have fallen in line the way that establishment would like. The Guilliani-Romney-Huckabee-McCain media courting timeline, the superdelegates, etc.
In fact, I've begun to question how different the two parties really are—a friend of mine pointed out to me that from a global perspective (compared to other nations' parties), the two parties are very similar. “Compasionate conservativism” and “fiscal conservativism” are the new bywords of the GOP rather than just plain conservative and “social progressivism” seems to be used by the “liberal media” to describe the democratic party. I don't see as much difference in the two parties as I used to think I saw: 2 sides of same coin, keeping things going the way they are.
I do agree with Jesse in that people affiliate themselves with a party and accept the policies canned, which is why I agree that it would only make sense to me to discuss politics point by point rather than by parties.
Our NV GOP caucus was a farce, by the way:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/apr/27/ron-paul-campaign-dominates-convention/ links to this (poorly written, but amusing): http://www.dailypaul.com/node/47172
Incidentally, I did follow the Ron Paul campaign—I think that while it may result in little presently, it brings to light the growing discontent with our politics.
I am interested in the Judicial department. Roberts and Alito have both been interesting to me—I'd be curious to see what you Legal types would have to say.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Blog policies
On Jesse's point number 2:
When I created the blog, I called it "the perpetual virtual symposium" rather than "the monthly virtual book club" specifically because I hoped discussions like this would happen.
I look forward to some interesting insights.
As for comments/in-line discussion debate, I have a preference for inline discussion, just because it results in fewer click-throughs and more obvious flow. I usually will use the "comments" section for short concurrences and objections, but I feel more substantive discussion should occur in new posts. The problem with inline discussion is that if multiple discussions occur similtaneously they get interleaved, but I think that is best taken care of with conscientious tagging of posts.
When I created the blog, I called it "the perpetual virtual symposium" rather than "the monthly virtual book club" specifically because I hoped discussions like this would happen.
I look forward to some interesting insights.
As for comments/in-line discussion debate, I have a preference for inline discussion, just because it results in fewer click-throughs and more obvious flow. I usually will use the "comments" section for short concurrences and objections, but I feel more substantive discussion should occur in new posts. The problem with inline discussion is that if multiple discussions occur similtaneously they get interleaved, but I think that is best taken care of with conscientious tagging of posts.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
A few items
I suggest a comment/blog post policy: unless it is a personal reply to the individual in the post please just write a new blog post. This will certainly increase the volume of blog posts but I'm not sure why that's harmful---I'd prefer it to all be in one place. If that means Karl's reply to his own post is a new post...well...more people will get to read Karl...and that can't be a bad thing.
In that spirit I'm responding to the politics thread that originated in Scott's welcome post:
1. On ideology vs party. I agree with Scott and Karl that change is likely to come from within one of our two major parties and not from without. I didn't mean to seem to suggest otherwise. My main concern is that any political discussion here remains absolutely friendly. My experiences indicate this is not a trivial concern. I voted for Bush twice. If I were to initiate a discussion with many of my Massachusetts friends with that I think it would be harder to have a productive and friendly discussion. Does that make me a Republican? I guess if it's that or Democrat. But I've just never found it helpful to start or to focus a conversation on that.
On a related but more abstract point I've often wondered at how party affiliation reinforces and even creates ideology. Take two mostly unrelated political issues: say, for example, the Iraq war (or even foreign policy more generally) and taxes. Suppose an outsider, with no knowledge of parties or political history, were asked to guess the percentage of people supporting one position on Iraq who also held another position on taxes. Say, for example, the percentage of people who opposed the Iraq war (in whatever sense) who also supported more progressive taxes. Maybe an outsider would infer some relationship between the arguments supporting the two sides of these issues and decide that they're not totally unrelated. But I think it's likely the guess would tend toward 50%---why would opposing the Iraq war strongly coincide with favoring taxes on the rich? Yet as we all know the actual percentage is very high---and the stronger the opposition to the Iraq war in general the stronger the support for progressive taxes.
We can conclude one of at least two things: one, that I'm underestimating the relationship between these two issues and a wise observer really would guess that rich people who don't like high taxes would favor the Iraq war for some subtle reason; or two, that many people who jointly hold opinions on these issues did not arrive at those opinions strictly through reason and logic---they are led to these opinions (or at least given incentive to hold them) through their associations with others, specifically party affiliation. As you might guess, I find the second explanation more plausible. But I'd love to hear what y'all think.
2. On hijacking this blog with non-book discussion. I'm not sure everyone here is interested in the political discussion and don't want those of us who are to take over. I also don't want to have piecemeal discussions in the comments and do enjoy hearing everyone's opinion. I'm happy to limit our discussion here (somewhat) and leave it to one of us to select a book which invites discussion on these topics if others think that'd be more appropriate. I'd gladly pre-select "Free to Choose" by Milton and Rose Friedman as my next book club selection (whenever that is) if we don't exhaust this discussion on someone else's book before then.
3. On not making this post too long. I look forward to responding to Karl and Scott's arguments (in the comments) but will save that for another post pending viewpoints from others on where and how best to pursue this discussion (see point 2).
In that spirit I'm responding to the politics thread that originated in Scott's welcome post:
1. On ideology vs party. I agree with Scott and Karl that change is likely to come from within one of our two major parties and not from without. I didn't mean to seem to suggest otherwise. My main concern is that any political discussion here remains absolutely friendly. My experiences indicate this is not a trivial concern. I voted for Bush twice. If I were to initiate a discussion with many of my Massachusetts friends with that I think it would be harder to have a productive and friendly discussion. Does that make me a Republican? I guess if it's that or Democrat. But I've just never found it helpful to start or to focus a conversation on that.
On a related but more abstract point I've often wondered at how party affiliation reinforces and even creates ideology. Take two mostly unrelated political issues: say, for example, the Iraq war (or even foreign policy more generally) and taxes. Suppose an outsider, with no knowledge of parties or political history, were asked to guess the percentage of people supporting one position on Iraq who also held another position on taxes. Say, for example, the percentage of people who opposed the Iraq war (in whatever sense) who also supported more progressive taxes. Maybe an outsider would infer some relationship between the arguments supporting the two sides of these issues and decide that they're not totally unrelated. But I think it's likely the guess would tend toward 50%---why would opposing the Iraq war strongly coincide with favoring taxes on the rich? Yet as we all know the actual percentage is very high---and the stronger the opposition to the Iraq war in general the stronger the support for progressive taxes.
We can conclude one of at least two things: one, that I'm underestimating the relationship between these two issues and a wise observer really would guess that rich people who don't like high taxes would favor the Iraq war for some subtle reason; or two, that many people who jointly hold opinions on these issues did not arrive at those opinions strictly through reason and logic---they are led to these opinions (or at least given incentive to hold them) through their associations with others, specifically party affiliation. As you might guess, I find the second explanation more plausible. But I'd love to hear what y'all think.
2. On hijacking this blog with non-book discussion. I'm not sure everyone here is interested in the political discussion and don't want those of us who are to take over. I also don't want to have piecemeal discussions in the comments and do enjoy hearing everyone's opinion. I'm happy to limit our discussion here (somewhat) and leave it to one of us to select a book which invites discussion on these topics if others think that'd be more appropriate. I'd gladly pre-select "Free to Choose" by Milton and Rose Friedman as my next book club selection (whenever that is) if we don't exhaust this discussion on someone else's book before then.
3. On not making this post too long. I look forward to responding to Karl and Scott's arguments (in the comments) but will save that for another post pending viewpoints from others on where and how best to pursue this discussion (see point 2).
Politics and Ideologies
Okay, the comment thread to Scottie's post has morphed into a symposium topic, so the obsessive compulsive organization freak inside of me wants to shift it into its own blog post so that it's easier to find.
A blow-by-blow recap:
Scott mentions that he's a Democrat and supports Obama. Karl (that's me. Yes, I'm so vain I talk about myself in third person) announces that he is technically an Independent but has voted Democratic for a while, too, and is wondering where others of us have landed politically. Ryan announces that he and Linda are Democrats.
Jesse suggests that our focus should be political topics as opposed to parties/labels, which often fail to respresent one's complete set of political beliefs. Jesse also announces that he's a small-c conservative (classical liberal) whose intellectual heroes are Milton Friedman and Freidrich Hayek, and that he's unaffiliated with either party and generally depressed with politics.
Scott agrees to some extent, but suggests that for practical action, one must still choose a party from which to instigate that action, even though the party likely does not perfectly represent one's ideology. Scott then turns to policy, and expresses his concerns that government is a necessary, even if ineffecient, check against capitalism. Scott cites as examples of problems with capitalism: the industrial revolution and its exploitation of labor, as well as the search for resources and its messy exploitation of our global environment.
Discuss!
A blow-by-blow recap:
Scott mentions that he's a Democrat and supports Obama. Karl (that's me. Yes, I'm so vain I talk about myself in third person) announces that he is technically an Independent but has voted Democratic for a while, too, and is wondering where others of us have landed politically. Ryan announces that he and Linda are Democrats.
Jesse suggests that our focus should be political topics as opposed to parties/labels, which often fail to respresent one's complete set of political beliefs. Jesse also announces that he's a small-c conservative (classical liberal) whose intellectual heroes are Milton Friedman and Freidrich Hayek, and that he's unaffiliated with either party and generally depressed with politics.
Scott agrees to some extent, but suggests that for practical action, one must still choose a party from which to instigate that action, even though the party likely does not perfectly represent one's ideology. Scott then turns to policy, and expresses his concerns that government is a necessary, even if ineffecient, check against capitalism. Scott cites as examples of problems with capitalism: the industrial revolution and its exploitation of labor, as well as the search for resources and its messy exploitation of our global environment.
Discuss!
Symposium in the forefront
I've enjoyed following the discussion that's been going on "behind the scenes" with the comments to Scotty's background post (though if everyone is receiving email updates of comments, then I guess it's not really behind the scenes).
As we wait for members to digest the current reading for the bookclub, I thought I would bring the virtual symposium to the forefront of the blog.
Now I realize many of you enjoy politics and stuff, but during my moments of solitude and introspection there are usually other things that get mulled about.
During one of these recent sessions, I was at my cousin's apartment. I reached for the toilet paper only to realize with horror that there was no roll suspended from the wall's toilet paper hanger. Just as I was about to call for help in this foreign privy, I noticed an extra-large roll of two-ply quilted salvation sitting on the sink counter.
The danger was averted, but it got me to thinking, why was the TP on the counter? I looked at the hanger, which was the type that is recessed into the wall, and realized that the dimension of the box in which the toilet paper hanger was housed was no match for the diameter of the oversized roll.
Why was that? Did "they" not have big rolls of toilet paper whenever that apartment was built? Did people not use as much toilet paper way back when? Have we become so influenced by SUVs, that even our toilet paper has to be bigger (ok, so some potential political fodder is possible here)? It is very possible that this particular paper product was purchased at a membership based bulk warehouse store, where everything is, well, bulky.
Why have toilet paper rolls gotten bigger over time?
Discuss.
As we wait for members to digest the current reading for the bookclub, I thought I would bring the virtual symposium to the forefront of the blog.
Now I realize many of you enjoy politics and stuff, but during my moments of solitude and introspection there are usually other things that get mulled about.
During one of these recent sessions, I was at my cousin's apartment. I reached for the toilet paper only to realize with horror that there was no roll suspended from the wall's toilet paper hanger. Just as I was about to call for help in this foreign privy, I noticed an extra-large roll of two-ply quilted salvation sitting on the sink counter.
The danger was averted, but it got me to thinking, why was the TP on the counter? I looked at the hanger, which was the type that is recessed into the wall, and realized that the dimension of the box in which the toilet paper hanger was housed was no match for the diameter of the oversized roll.
Why was that? Did "they" not have big rolls of toilet paper whenever that apartment was built? Did people not use as much toilet paper way back when? Have we become so influenced by SUVs, that even our toilet paper has to be bigger (ok, so some potential political fodder is possible here)? It is very possible that this particular paper product was purchased at a membership based bulk warehouse store, where everything is, well, bulky.
Why have toilet paper rolls gotten bigger over time?
Discuss.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Better late than never...
Here is that little bio I should have posted ages ago --Family: Married to Mary in 1999; Max (7), Elisabeth (5), and Nathan (1)
Calling: Bishop (now you know why I've taken so long to post something)
Job: Deputy Attorney General (since 2005)
Location: San Diego, CA (since 2002)
Last 12 years: Mission to Canada, school, family, more school, and now, after studying piano and biochemistry at BYU, with more piano studies at Boston U., I find myself working as an attorney -- go figure. I'm a criminal prosecutor for the State of California and work at the appellate level. I argued a case last year in the California Supreme Court, and have two more cases pending in that court; eventually, I'll do battle in the Ninth Circuit. My wife, Mary, served a mission in Hong Kong, is an absolute jewel, and provides an incredible example to me and our children. The kids certainly keep me busy. Max and Elisabeth are wrapping up 1st grade and Kindergarten in a few weeks at a German language immersion charter school. I volunteer at the school every two weeks to help with music and German (you may recall that my mom is German). My youngest, Nathan Robert Beesley, is named after Rob Christiansen (whose middle name is Nathan), and he is a joy most of the time and a little rascal the rest of the time -- I think he takes after his namesake. Overall, the last 12 years have been wonderful; we've been richly blessed and I am truly thankful to our Father for his bounteous and tender mercies to me and my family.
Book group: I'm afraid I don't do nearly as much leisure reading as I would like. My profession demands a tremendous amount of critical and analytical reading; by the end of the day I'm pretty much spent when it come to reading. However, I was pleased to finally get around to reading Wuthering Heights three months ago. I have a list of great books I want to read before I die; unfortunately, my list is so long that at my rate of reading a book once every few years, I'll have to live to be at least 150 years old!
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Friday, May 16, 2008
Mountains Feedback
My wife surprised me yesterday when she came home from the grocery store with a bag of Marshmallow Mateys. I was so excited that I had them for lunch. Now after re-reading your posts, freshman year doesn't seem like so long ago.
It's so nice to have smart friends with similar values. I really appreciated your comments, since I'd been needing to discuss this book ever since I read it. I wanted to make a few comments in response to all of the other posts.
It's so nice to have smart friends with similar values. I really appreciated your comments, since I'd been needing to discuss this book ever since I read it. I wanted to make a few comments in response to all of the other posts.
Peter
Please thank Cami for making the virtual snacks. They're great, and I hope you don't mind if I take one for Tammy.
Good point about needing faith as well as charity. I take comfort in knowing that even if my charity isn't what it should be, at least it is proportional to my faith.
Pres. Monson is indeed more Christ-like than Farmer. (Plus, he can wiggle his ears...the video is now on YouTube!) But I still feel like Farmer is more Christlike than I am.
I saw that you only gave the book 2 stars on your goodreads list. I chose it more because I needed to discuss it than because it was great literature, but thanks for humoring me.
Jesse
I had no idea Farmer's brother was a professional wrestler. That's awesome. It's settled; my children aren't getting any sign of approval from me.
Thanks for putting this all into an equation. I'm embarrassed to say that I often have a negative beta. I love to play games, and I don't just like to win. I like to destroy my opponent. For this reason, my wife and I have stopped playing certain games together. Instead, we will work on word puzzles together or play games that don't involve hurting your opponent.
I would love to hear a debate about whether or not beta=1 is ideal or not, but I think the real point is that, as you said, I need to increase my beta.
Paul
Lots of good points. While it's not a new idea, I especially appreciated the thought that "Christ changes men, who then change their environment." I think this is the justification for serving two years as a proselytizing missionary instead of two years as a humanitarian missionary. With this perspective, there is as much meaningful work to do here in the US as there is to do in Haiti. Now, I just have to find a way to do it.
Glenn
First, thanks for doing your part to stimulate the economy. I am impressed that your career decision was influenced by wanting to have a greater impact on the world.
I loved how you included your favorite quotes. I enjoy listening to books, but this is one of the things I miss by not having the book is the ability to write down and remember good quotes. I think your quote summed up the way I felt after reading this book, "I imagine that many people would like to construct a like like Farmer's, to wake up knowing what they ought to do and feeling that they were doing it. But I can't think that many would willingly take on the difficulties, giving up their comforts and time with family."
I don't think going to Haiti is necessary, but for my life to be in line with what I wake up feeling I ought to do, it would take a great number of sacrifices that I haven't yet decided I'm willing to make. I'll keep you posted.
The next book
I am very much in favor of the idea of reading a variety of books: non-fiction and fiction, religious and secular, etc. But I'm strongly opposed to choosing a book by committee. Peter can set up a rotation, and we can each choose in our turn and everyone else can decide if they want to read it or not. If it's your turn, you can try to keep the idea of a variety of books in mind, but I don't think you should be forced to choose a certain type of book on your turn. Of course, if we read 5 of the same books in a row, we can rethink this. After reading the summaries of some of the suggested books, please note that if you choose a book you have not read yet, you are responsible for the moral content of the book.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
And the next book is ...
not for me to choose.
I know we've just recently started discussing Mountains, and perhaps I am speaking out of turn of something (don't know, never been in a book club before), but when will next month's book be announced?
I'm not the speediest reader (does anyone here remember the character Speed Reader from the TV show "The Great Space Coaster?") and it's nearly the middle of May.
BTW, I configured the email notification feature, so you should be receiving this via your inbox. If you don't want the extra clutter, let me know and I will take you off.
[edit by Peter]
I'm going to put my comments in line, rather than in the comments section, since I think things have a tendency to get lost when they have to be clicked-through to. And yes, I did just end that sentence with two prepositions; wanna make something of it?
The original post I made was that we would take turns, based on who responded to the most recent book, choosing the next book. I think the best way to do this is randomly (since that's pretty much the best way to do anything). Therefore, I'm now going to flip a four-sided coin to see if Glenn, Peter, Paul or Jesse gets the dubious distinction of choosing the next book. And the winner is...
Jesse!
So, the only book selection rule (and it's hardly a fast rule at this point) is that we want to alternate between fiction and non-fiction, and we want non-fiction to alternate between secular and religious material. So, if Jesse hasn't chosen something by the weekend, we'll fall back to a default position and solicit proposals from any interested party and try to anneal to some consensus.
I know we've just recently started discussing Mountains, and perhaps I am speaking out of turn of something (don't know, never been in a book club before), but when will next month's book be announced?
I'm not the speediest reader (does anyone here remember the character Speed Reader from the TV show "The Great Space Coaster?") and it's nearly the middle of May.
BTW, I configured the email notification feature, so you should be receiving this via your inbox. If you don't want the extra clutter, let me know and I will take you off.
[edit by Peter]
I'm going to put my comments in line, rather than in the comments section, since I think things have a tendency to get lost when they have to be clicked-through to. And yes, I did just end that sentence with two prepositions; wanna make something of it?
The original post I made was that we would take turns, based on who responded to the most recent book, choosing the next book. I think the best way to do this is randomly (since that's pretty much the best way to do anything). Therefore, I'm now going to flip a four-sided coin to see if Glenn, Peter, Paul or Jesse gets the dubious distinction of choosing the next book. And the winner is...
Jesse!
So, the only book selection rule (and it's hardly a fast rule at this point) is that we want to alternate between fiction and non-fiction, and we want non-fiction to alternate between secular and religious material. So, if Jesse hasn't chosen something by the weekend, we'll fall back to a default position and solicit proposals from any interested party and try to anneal to some consensus.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Linda and Ryan Larsen (background post)
Hi Everybody. Thanks to Peter for finding us and inviting us to join. It's good to connect to all of you.
In case you didn't know, we are one of those special inter-freshman ward marriages. We fell in love at the very end of the freshman year, and both went on missions (Ryan: Paris, France, Linda: Vienna Austria.) So we didn't see each other for over 3 years, but now we've been married for nearly 8 years.
We got Master's degrees in (Ryan: Mechanical Engineering, Linda: Composition and Rheotoric) at BYU. Then we graduated, had our first baby, Samuel, and moved across the country, and started a PhD all in the same summer. We spent 5 happy and exciting years in the Boston area where I earned a PhD in Applied Physics from Harvard. We also had our 2nd boy, Alden, during game 3 while the Red Sox were breaking the curse. (We stole the name idea from Jesse and Laura soon after they had their Alden.) Here's a picture of us at Mount Auburn Cemetery about 18 months ago.
Last summer we finished the PhD and moved to Urbana, IL, where I'm doing a post-doc in the Department of Chemical Engineering at University of Illinois, and Sam started kindergarten. We like it here but miss Boston. Hopefully before long I'll be applying for faculty jobs.
I work a lot, and Linda just got a part time job doing some tutoring at a reading center. We enjoy reading books, trying to make friends in this new place, and being outside in the springtime weather!
Global Health, from a dog's-eye-view
OK, so I just finished watching the little clip from 60 minutes that shows Dr. Paul Farmer in action. It was interesting to hear his conversation with the press and with the people in Haiti. The video made him seem less marble statue of a great historical figure than what I created in my mind while reading Mountains Beyond Mountains. I can't imagine myself doing what Farmer has done. It brings to mind all that Joseph Smith did during the relatively short period of time that he was on the earth.
The discussion on the "Farmer religion" causes me to think of the passage in the old testament (Matthew 19:16-22) where the rich young man, who has kept the commandments, asks the Savior, during what may have been a PPI, what he needs to do to gain eternal life. Jesus tells him to live the law of consecration and follow Him. The young man sorrowed because he had "great possessions." We have committed to live the law of consecration, or at least be willing to live that higher law. I still feel at times like a poor college student (though we will be getting a LCD HDTV this week to help "stimulate the economy") so though I think I would be able to give up all my material possessions, I don't think I would be able to give up so much of my time and talents as Farmer has. Especially when it comes to family time, like several of you have mentioned.
My desire to do more and have a greater impact on a larger population prompted me to walk away from private practice, where I was helping individual families by taking care of their pets and livestock, to research, where I hope my efforts can positively affect the lives of millions of people and animals. I think it is great that Farmer is able to have that world-wide influence and also still have that one-on-one interaction with his patients; I miss that.
The idea of difficult/interesting circumstances building strong families is an interesting one. Stress can certainly help strengthen an organism, though it can also kill it. I think it depends on the type and degree of stress. In general, it seems like mothers are very protective while fathers allow, often encourage, the freedom and exploring kids, or at least my brother and I, seek out and often get bumps and bruises from.
So, enough of my random thoughts. I'll close my comments by listing a few random quotes from the book that I really liked, and the page number from the paperback edition.
The discussion on the "Farmer religion" causes me to think of the passage in the old testament (Matthew 19:16-22) where the rich young man, who has kept the commandments, asks the Savior, during what may have been a PPI, what he needs to do to gain eternal life. Jesus tells him to live the law of consecration and follow Him. The young man sorrowed because he had "great possessions." We have committed to live the law of consecration, or at least be willing to live that higher law. I still feel at times like a poor college student (though we will be getting a LCD HDTV this week to help "stimulate the economy") so though I think I would be able to give up all my material possessions, I don't think I would be able to give up so much of my time and talents as Farmer has. Especially when it comes to family time, like several of you have mentioned.
My desire to do more and have a greater impact on a larger population prompted me to walk away from private practice, where I was helping individual families by taking care of their pets and livestock, to research, where I hope my efforts can positively affect the lives of millions of people and animals. I think it is great that Farmer is able to have that world-wide influence and also still have that one-on-one interaction with his patients; I miss that.
The idea of difficult/interesting circumstances building strong families is an interesting one. Stress can certainly help strengthen an organism, though it can also kill it. I think it depends on the type and degree of stress. In general, it seems like mothers are very protective while fathers allow, often encourage, the freedom and exploring kids, or at least my brother and I, seek out and often get bumps and bruises from.
So, enough of my random thoughts. I'll close my comments by listing a few random quotes from the book that I really liked, and the page number from the paperback edition.
- "We're asked to have tidy biographies that are coherent. Everyone does that. But the fact is, a perfectly discrepant version has the same ending." (p.54)
- "I imagine that many people would like to construct a like like Farmer's, to wake up knowing what they ought to do and feeling that they were doing it. But I can't think that many would willingly take on the difficulties, giving up their comforts and time with family." (p.213)
- "You know, people from our background...we're used to being on a victory team, and actually what we're really trying to do in PIH is to make a common cause with the losers. Those are two different things. We want to be on the winning team, but at the risk of turning our backs on the losers, no, it's not worth it." "I don't care if we lose, I'm gonna try to do the right thing." "But your going to try to win." "Of course! We're not, you know, masochistic."(p.288, 289)
- "the idea that some lives matter less is the root of all that's wrong with the world."(p294)
Thursday, May 8, 2008
"Give" -The little stream
This is what I liked: fighting drug resistant TB: Doing what is right regardless of the cost. "screw what's practical...it's the right thing to do, so do it." Its interesting that Peter mentioned President Monson, who has always struck me as someone who has been attentive to the one. I believe he would have a higher beta than Farmer as well, but I don't think that's the point. I think Jesse said it right. I think we all fall short of B=1. I think that's the point of the book—it should motivate us to give more (time, money, whatever).
One thing that bugged me: The author's worship of Paul Farmer—the creation of a modern Saint. Of course, I was amazed that someone could do so much, and maybe I'm just jealous because I'll never have a book written about me or save so many lives. I don't feel like what I do is trivial, but I'm obviously not doing as much good. I don't feel the need to move to Haiti, however.
On the neglected family: From my read, it sounds like he visits his family occasionally. In fact, I wished the author would have addressed this. Since I have a “hermeneutic of generosity” for Farmer (I really liked that—Margaret Miles' hermeneutic of generosity but not suspiscion), I'll assume this superman is a great family man as well, and that Farmer made his family was off limits to the author.
What the book did for me: If I feel like I need to justify how little I'm doing to help others, I'm probably not doing enough. I feel guilty when I think that over a 1/3 of the world lives on less than $2 a day. I did feel the desire to set up a microcredit establishment (you economic people, help me out), like the church's PEF.
Looking at Alvin's question:
How much are Farmer's clinics really helping when the root causes are bad governments? Is it really worth the monetary and emotional effort to save a couple lives when there are so many poor and hurting people that it is impossible to save them all? Isn't it like putting your hand up to stop a river?
Without discussing the root causes of poverty and illness, I think that the answer to the question gets at the solution to the guilt complex the book succeeds at creating: each of us should decide where we can do the most good. Forgive me for getting religious, but I believe in the statement by Ezra Taft Benson: “The Lord works from the inside out. The world works from the outside in. The world would take people out of the slums. Christ takes the slums out of people, and then they take themselves out of the slums. The world would mold men by changing their environment. Christ changes men, who then change their environment. The world would shape human behavior, but Christ can change human nature.”
So I feel that while each of us can do some temporal good for others, the real good that we can do is share the good news—I don't mean by donating to the missionary fund or by setting a good example, but by helping people come to Christ. I don't think our world is going to get any better collectively, but if I'm going to dedicate more time to others, I believe the time I have should be spent sharing the thing I have which is of most value to me—the Gospel. I know I can do more; right now we've got Strange Brew playing in the background, so obviously I have more discretionary time to make a difference.
One thing that bugged me: The author's worship of Paul Farmer—the creation of a modern Saint. Of course, I was amazed that someone could do so much, and maybe I'm just jealous because I'll never have a book written about me or save so many lives. I don't feel like what I do is trivial, but I'm obviously not doing as much good. I don't feel the need to move to Haiti, however.
On the neglected family: From my read, it sounds like he visits his family occasionally. In fact, I wished the author would have addressed this. Since I have a “hermeneutic of generosity” for Farmer (I really liked that—Margaret Miles' hermeneutic of generosity but not suspiscion), I'll assume this superman is a great family man as well, and that Farmer made his family was off limits to the author.
What the book did for me: If I feel like I need to justify how little I'm doing to help others, I'm probably not doing enough. I feel guilty when I think that over a 1/3 of the world lives on less than $2 a day. I did feel the desire to set up a microcredit establishment (you economic people, help me out), like the church's PEF.
Looking at Alvin's question:
How much are Farmer's clinics really helping when the root causes are bad governments? Is it really worth the monetary and emotional effort to save a couple lives when there are so many poor and hurting people that it is impossible to save them all? Isn't it like putting your hand up to stop a river?
Without discussing the root causes of poverty and illness, I think that the answer to the question gets at the solution to the guilt complex the book succeeds at creating: each of us should decide where we can do the most good. Forgive me for getting religious, but I believe in the statement by Ezra Taft Benson: “The Lord works from the inside out. The world works from the outside in. The world would take people out of the slums. Christ takes the slums out of people, and then they take themselves out of the slums. The world would mold men by changing their environment. Christ changes men, who then change their environment. The world would shape human behavior, but Christ can change human nature.”
So I feel that while each of us can do some temporal good for others, the real good that we can do is share the good news—I don't mean by donating to the missionary fund or by setting a good example, but by helping people come to Christ. I don't think our world is going to get any better collectively, but if I'm going to dedicate more time to others, I believe the time I have should be spent sharing the thing I have which is of most value to me—the Gospel. I know I can do more; right now we've got Strange Brew playing in the background, so obviously I have more discretionary time to make a difference.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Farmer Smackdown
How is it that no one has yet brought up Paul's brother, Jeff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Farmer_%28wrestler%29
Alvin, you think you feel like you should be doing more...can you imagine how little brother Jeff (aka nWo Sting) must feel? As to your question of parenting...maybe children desperately seeking their parents approval just end up high variance---either a selfless humanitarian or a professional wrestler?
This book raised some difficult questions for me. Fundamentally it reminds me of conversations I've had with an atheist friend of mine recently. One point we return to frequently is "loving thy neighbor as thy self." Both being trained in economics we refer to this as the "beta = 1" problem. If I read that commandment literally it means my utility (happiness) function should be U = (things that make me happy) + B * (things that make my neighbor happy), with B = 1. That is, we are commanded to care (or act as though we care) as much about others' welfare as our own. My friend claims that B = 1 is impossible, that no one ever gets anywhere near it (B much less than 1). His conclusion, that one should give up trying, does not, I contend, necessarily follow.
It's pretty clear Paul Farmer has a higher B than I do. There's just no two ways about it. As others have noted, I could do much more for others at relatively mild cost to me. Sure I can justify that I have good reasons for not running off to Haiti, but I can give more and do more than I do right now. Without question it is helpful to be reminded of that by stories such as Dr. Farmer's.
At the same time I struggle with the idea of B = 1. This precludes favoring my own welfare over my neighbor's. Does it also preclude favoring the welfare of one neighbor over another? I think it must. Then how about my wife? My children? There is no question I favor their welfare far more than others. In some instances you might argue there is an exception made here as I have a responsibility to care for them. But what does caring for them really mean? I mean, my kids will enter life with great advantages: stable home life, health, education, loving parents, etc. If I, for example, gave money I had saved for their college education to kids without these advantages, wouldn't my kids still get along just fine? Then how can I justify favoring them so much more than others? Shouldn't I give them the necessities and give the rest away? If I really think about it I probably give my kids more than they absolutely need of just about everything...material goods, my time and attention, education...
Part of me wants to believe B = 1 is not what Christ means after all. Another interpretation could be that "love thy neighbor as thyself" = empathy. The "as" here might just mean "in the same way/style" and not "in the same magnitude." Maybe that "style" is really "unconditionally", or "as naturally/permanently/instinctively as your love of self". I'm not sure whether that's very different from B = 1 or if it's just semantics.
In any case I'm certainly not "too far" toward loving others, so whether I'm expected to have B = 1 or B = .1 I have plenty of room to increase it. This actually seems to me the point to underline here. Is there any question that I should do more than I'm currently doing to help others? Do any of the other questions matter?
Alvin, you think you feel like you should be doing more...can you imagine how little brother Jeff (aka nWo Sting) must feel? As to your question of parenting...maybe children desperately seeking their parents approval just end up high variance---either a selfless humanitarian or a professional wrestler?
This book raised some difficult questions for me. Fundamentally it reminds me of conversations I've had with an atheist friend of mine recently. One point we return to frequently is "loving thy neighbor as thy self." Both being trained in economics we refer to this as the "beta = 1" problem. If I read that commandment literally it means my utility (happiness) function should be U = (things that make me happy) + B * (things that make my neighbor happy), with B = 1. That is, we are commanded to care (or act as though we care) as much about others' welfare as our own. My friend claims that B = 1 is impossible, that no one ever gets anywhere near it (B much less than 1). His conclusion, that one should give up trying, does not, I contend, necessarily follow.
It's pretty clear Paul Farmer has a higher B than I do. There's just no two ways about it. As others have noted, I could do much more for others at relatively mild cost to me. Sure I can justify that I have good reasons for not running off to Haiti, but I can give more and do more than I do right now. Without question it is helpful to be reminded of that by stories such as Dr. Farmer's.
At the same time I struggle with the idea of B = 1. This precludes favoring my own welfare over my neighbor's. Does it also preclude favoring the welfare of one neighbor over another? I think it must. Then how about my wife? My children? There is no question I favor their welfare far more than others. In some instances you might argue there is an exception made here as I have a responsibility to care for them. But what does caring for them really mean? I mean, my kids will enter life with great advantages: stable home life, health, education, loving parents, etc. If I, for example, gave money I had saved for their college education to kids without these advantages, wouldn't my kids still get along just fine? Then how can I justify favoring them so much more than others? Shouldn't I give them the necessities and give the rest away? If I really think about it I probably give my kids more than they absolutely need of just about everything...material goods, my time and attention, education...
Part of me wants to believe B = 1 is not what Christ means after all. Another interpretation could be that "love thy neighbor as thyself" = empathy. The "as" here might just mean "in the same way/style" and not "in the same magnitude." Maybe that "style" is really "unconditionally", or "as naturally/permanently/instinctively as your love of self". I'm not sure whether that's very different from B = 1 or if it's just semantics.
In any case I'm certainly not "too far" toward loving others, so whether I'm expected to have B = 1 or B = .1 I have plenty of room to increase it. This actually seems to me the point to underline here. Is there any question that I should do more than I'm currently doing to help others? Do any of the other questions matter?
My family versus the world
Sorry I'm late. *hands out snacks*
Farmer's religiosity reminds me a lot of Barack Obama's religiosity. Not coincidentally, Rev. Wright is an active voice in the "liberation theology" movement (too active, probably, if you ask Mr. Obama). I find the idea of liberation theology good as a corrective to the sort of self-centeredness that I think pervades a lot of Christianity today (including within the LDS church). However I'm leary of adherence to a morality without a professed belief in the underlying structure and principles; as in everything I suppose its a question of balance. Religion should be more than doing good; it should be belief. Faith, hope and charity.
As for WWJD, I think you're more right than wrong. I doubt Christ would spend nearly as much time watching House, MD as me. But if I think about what Christ would be doing were he on the earth today, I think a better model than Paul Farmer is Pres. Monson. And while Pres. Monson is not unconcerned with visiting the sick, the lonely, the lost, he also spends significant time in meetings. Similarly, Christ spent time teaching as well as healing, and I think we need to strive to find that balance.
The question of materialism is fascinating. After reading the book, I found myself feeling guilty about every purchase I made. I felt like Oskar Schindler at the end of Schindler's list: how many could this ring save? this new camera? Is the benefit of 10 megapixels over 2 megapixels the same as the benefit if that money was spent in Paul Farmer's clinic? When we were looking at houses, we chose an expensive town so I could be near work. What if we'd bought somewhere further away? I'd have extended my commute, but we could have donated the mortgage differential to the Church's Humanitarian Aid fund, or perpetual education fund, or fast offerings. Was it worth it?
But there is the flip side of that coin. My parents just got home from serving a two year humanitarian aid mission in Brazil. They would not have been able to go if they hadn't looked after their financial well being for the last 40 years. More interesting, Farmer's statement to his moneybags donor (forget his name) that for him to quit working would be a sin is indicative. For all of the romantic idealism of Farmer's lifestyle, it would not be possible without a significant source of financial support. If we are to do good works, we can either hope to hook up with a sugar daddy who will finance our charitable lifestyle, or we can do the work ourselves. In essence, we become both Paul Farmer and [insert donor's name here].
For me, the most interesting personal question raised by the book was how to balance my duty to my family versus larger communities (my town, my country, the whole of humanity). Alvin said that "...I know that raising a family is important, but Farmer is doing that, too." But what does that mean? The only time his family makes a cameo in the book is when he sees his daughter for one evening on her birthday; other than that, they are out of the picture. Is he "raising a family?" I mean, I would feel a huge amount of guilt if I let anything take me away from my family that much. So are all the lives Farmer saves worth the (inevitable) neglect of his wife and daughter? David O. McKay said "No success outside the home can compensate for failure in the home." What does that mean if not that the best way (in an eternal sense) for us to spend our time is to put family first? And for me I find it hard to say Paul Farmer is putting family first. But there are certainly limits, too. Perhaps putting family first sometimes means leaving them (a la the early church missionaries) to do good throughout the world. All I know is it would take a pretty obvious act of God to separate me from my family in that way. And not a whispering in my conscience like Nephi and Laban; I mean a bona fide, mouthpiece-of-God-on-earth statement that this was the right thing to do.
Farmer's religiosity reminds me a lot of Barack Obama's religiosity. Not coincidentally, Rev. Wright is an active voice in the "liberation theology" movement (too active, probably, if you ask Mr. Obama). I find the idea of liberation theology good as a corrective to the sort of self-centeredness that I think pervades a lot of Christianity today (including within the LDS church). However I'm leary of adherence to a morality without a professed belief in the underlying structure and principles; as in everything I suppose its a question of balance. Religion should be more than doing good; it should be belief. Faith, hope and charity.
As for WWJD, I think you're more right than wrong. I doubt Christ would spend nearly as much time watching House, MD as me. But if I think about what Christ would be doing were he on the earth today, I think a better model than Paul Farmer is Pres. Monson. And while Pres. Monson is not unconcerned with visiting the sick, the lonely, the lost, he also spends significant time in meetings. Similarly, Christ spent time teaching as well as healing, and I think we need to strive to find that balance.
The question of materialism is fascinating. After reading the book, I found myself feeling guilty about every purchase I made. I felt like Oskar Schindler at the end of Schindler's list: how many could this ring save? this new camera? Is the benefit of 10 megapixels over 2 megapixels the same as the benefit if that money was spent in Paul Farmer's clinic? When we were looking at houses, we chose an expensive town so I could be near work. What if we'd bought somewhere further away? I'd have extended my commute, but we could have donated the mortgage differential to the Church's Humanitarian Aid fund, or perpetual education fund, or fast offerings. Was it worth it?
But there is the flip side of that coin. My parents just got home from serving a two year humanitarian aid mission in Brazil. They would not have been able to go if they hadn't looked after their financial well being for the last 40 years. More interesting, Farmer's statement to his moneybags donor (forget his name) that for him to quit working would be a sin is indicative. For all of the romantic idealism of Farmer's lifestyle, it would not be possible without a significant source of financial support. If we are to do good works, we can either hope to hook up with a sugar daddy who will finance our charitable lifestyle, or we can do the work ourselves. In essence, we become both Paul Farmer and [insert donor's name here].
For me, the most interesting personal question raised by the book was how to balance my duty to my family versus larger communities (my town, my country, the whole of humanity). Alvin said that "...I know that raising a family is important, but Farmer is doing that, too." But what does that mean? The only time his family makes a cameo in the book is when he sees his daughter for one evening on her birthday; other than that, they are out of the picture. Is he "raising a family?" I mean, I would feel a huge amount of guilt if I let anything take me away from my family that much. So are all the lives Farmer saves worth the (inevitable) neglect of his wife and daughter? David O. McKay said "No success outside the home can compensate for failure in the home." What does that mean if not that the best way (in an eternal sense) for us to spend our time is to put family first? And for me I find it hard to say Paul Farmer is putting family first. But there are certainly limits, too. Perhaps putting family first sometimes means leaving them (a la the early church missionaries) to do good throughout the world. All I know is it would take a pretty obvious act of God to separate me from my family in that way. And not a whispering in my conscience like Nephi and Laban; I mean a bona fide, mouthpiece-of-God-on-earth statement that this was the right thing to do.
Mountains...Discuss
OK Men. Time to put your muscle tees on (with pimp shirts, if necessary). Let's get this book club started. I was waiting for the person in charge of snacks to show up, but I'll start the discussion and maybe he'll show up before we're finished.
The Real Paul Farmer
As a sign that this was the right time to read Mountains Beyond Mountains, CBS 60 Minutes did a piece on Paul Farmer last week. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/01/60minutes/main4063191.shtml
If you haven't read the book, the following video will give you the basic ideas behind Paul Farmer's life and work, but you'll miss out on the depth of how difficult his work was and the philosphy that has driven this man. If you've read the book, you'll see some updates from when the book was published. After reading the book, I expected a man that walked faster and talked faster than the Paul Farmer in this clip. While I still have no doubt about the enormous amount of energy required to do what Farmer did, he seems more real, less super-human than in the book.
The Farmer ReligionOK, so here's the part that's really been bugging me since reading this book. Paul does not seem to be religious in the traditional sense of attending church services every week, but he is extremely religious in a more practical sense. Remember the scripture in Matthew 25:
"34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
Well, Paul takes this stuff very, very seriously and spends all of his time and energy visiting the sick, the hungry, and people in prison. James called this "pure religion". Farmer is one of the few people in this world who always seems to do what his conscience tells him to do.
It's easy to come up with a lot of excuses for not being more like Paul Farmer. After all, not everyone can head off to Haiti. It takes lots and lots of donors to fund what he is doing. OK, on the subject of money, couldn't I/shouldn't I donate half my income to such causes? Paul Farmer goes to prestigious conferences in the same old black suit he wears everywhere. His concern for physical luxuries is minimal. I certainly have more money than I "need". But the budgeter in me and the dad/provider in me, won't allow for huge monetary sacrifices.
I have a family to raise. I have no skills that would be useful to the people in Haiti. I have a million other excuses. What Paul Farmer does just isn't practical, right? The whole premise of what Paul Farmer has done/is doing screams "screw what's practical...it's the right thing to do, so do it." He has spent his whole life fighting bureaucrats in the World Health Organization and other places that said is wasn't practical.
If Christ were on this earth, I imagine him acting as much like Paul Farmer as anyone else I can think of, visiting the sick and imprisoned, living on much less than he could, tirelessly working for others, though perhaps with less swearing. On the other hand, I could never see Christ in my lifestyle, working in an office for 8 hours a day, spending 5 hours on Sunday in meetings, or going camping with the Young Men and playing games around the campfire. Not that all of these things aren't good things. It's just that when put in perspective, they seem trivial.
Now, the author of the book isn't suggesting that everyone can or should be like Paul Farmer, which is nice because I couldn't be like him even if I wanted to. But I did feel like I should be doing something more "important", more world changing. Yes, I know that raising a family is important, but Farmer is doing that, too. My questions are: Given my current skill sets and circumstances, how do I find something important and meaningful to do? Why, despite giving 10% of my income and 10% of my time, do I not feel like my church contributions are important or meaningful? Or since I am unlikely to change my comfortable, lazy ways, can any of you help me justify my current lifestyle by assuring me I'm on the fast track to heaven, etc.?
Other Topics for Discussion
- What are the merits of raising large families under difficult/unusual circumstances? (Farmer was one of 8 kids and raised on a bus and then a boat.)
- As a child, Farmer yearned for his father's approval. If I keep my children always looking for my approval, will they be more or less likely to be successful? (My intuition seems to say that on average they will be less successful, but the chances of one of them becoming famous will increase.)
- How much are Farmer's clinics really helping when the root causes are bad governments? Is it really worth the monetary and emotional effort to save a couple lives when there are so many poor and hurting people that it is impossible to save them all? Isn't it like putting your hand up to stop a river?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)