Actually, after I receive payment from Amazon for reselling the copy I purchased, my total out of pocket expense will be about 1/2 that. Reading your comments on the book has actually been more valuable than reading the book itself. I understand that it was the author's first book, and I did enjoy the end (for multiple reasons), but when I finished reading it I wanted to write my own book: Why Men Hate Reading Books about Why Men Hate Going to Church. The premise will be stated on the first page, but I will spend a few chapters quoting some people and rehashing my beginning statements.
But now on to productive matters, I will respond to some of your comments and add a few of my own.
Peter: I too saw Murrow's insinuation that all "masculine behaviors" should be welcomed/encouraged was an absurdity.
Your comment that no one should be comfortable spiritually brought to mind a couple of quotes that I have heard: "We as leaders are to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable." "A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has the power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation."
Jesse: Did your stake president read the book? What kind of commentary did he offer on it?
Paul: I got to thinking why it is that I am still active in the church. It was an interesting mental exercise. I believe what has made a difference for me is the caring leaders (men and women) that I had as a youth, along with a great group of friends that had strong values; I can also recall family prayer and scripture study leading to personal spiritual experiences that still serve as a personal anchor.
Ryan: I briefly shared a few things from the book with my elders quorum when we discussed Elder Ballard's recent talk about women and the Church. They didn't have much to say regarding a possible feminization of religion. It was interesting to discuss how many people outside the Church view LDS women as being oppressed by some great patriarchal order. That is not the case. In an article on fairlds.org titled "The Place of Mormon Women: Perceptions, Prozac, Polygamy, Priesthood, Patriarchy, and Peace" the author points out that "LDS women have had early access to suffrage, healing, religious ceremonies, autonomous leadership in Relief Society, and access to coeducation at a time when much of the nation still struggled to accept the idea."
A couple of observations related to some other comments that have been made: Most of the recent converts I know are of middle to low income/education status. Most of the less active members in the Church are middle to low income/education status. A friend of mine who was baptized last summer commented on the high percentage of highly educated men and women in the church and in the church leadership. He is a college drop-out so he felt a little uncomfortable about it at first.
Another member, this one inactive, is put off by most efforts to fellowship him. His wife said to me a few weeks ago that if I want to fellowship him there's going to have to be a service project involved. He likes work, he avoids social events.
Summary: unenjoyable book, highly enjoyable discussion
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
On progressive taxes
So many political topics have been mentioned here...so little time to respond. I'll start by recommending Mr. Friedman once again, this time in video form. At http://www.ideachannel.tv/ you can now watch the original PBS specials "Free to Choose" which help with background I don't have time to write here.
I was hoping to write a significant preface to introduce some of the core principles which guide my views on specific topics but, well, I honestly just don't have time to think it all through. So here's my cliff notes version:
1. People are selfish
2. Governments, corporations, non-profits, etc. are just entities through which some group of people act---they are not therefore exempt from #1.
3. Government is unique among these entities in that it acts by compulsion---it acts with the ultimate threat of force.
I find these useful in mentally translating many ideas about the role of government. For example, "we should help the poor" is hard to disagree with, but "some subset of people (the government) should force some other subset of people to help some third subset of people" is more complicated (in every sense). You may certainly still agree with it---the subset of people represented by the government may have legitimate claim to take from one group and give to another---but I think it's unfair to avoid thinking the question through by clever use of semantics.
As an aside to this point I'll briefly mention how important I think "compulsion" is to think about here. At the risk of citing scripture in a political discussion, I note the Lord speaks of compulsory means several times. For example, in D&C 121:46. The united order has frequently been compared to "communism" of some sort but had this important difference---no one was compelled to give. I'm not saying all compulsion is therefore unholy or something, and don't want to dwell on this point. But I think my semantic argument above is not as trivial as it might first appear.
Ok, feel free to ignore all the above if you'd like. I don't mean to make this an abstract philosophy discussion. But I figure I may make use of all that as we go along.
Ok on to a specific topic. I figure I might as well start with Karl on progressive taxes.
Let's start with point 2. Karl argues here, and elsewhere, that taxation is a tool to correct externalities---actions a person takes which affect other people but for which he/she is not fully compensated (positively or negatively). I could not agree more---this is a basic and fundamental principle of economics. Correcting for externalities is certainly not contrary to economic conservatism. Often externalities are simply the result of incompletely specified property rights---the air I breathe is not owned by anyone so there is no market mechanism to compensate me for the pollution you put into it. Karl argues that one role of government is to tax actions which generate negative externalities (pollution), and I would add subsidizing actions which generate positive externalities (education).
I would add several externalities to the list. First, saving money. When you or I save money, we lower interest rates by reducing the demand for debt (and/or increasing the supply). As others have noted, Americans in general and our federal government in particular carry large debts. My saving lowers the cost of other individuals' debts as well as the federal government's. Not to mention that my savings act as "insurance" against needing other taxpayers to bail me out later on. How might policies "internalize" (to use an economist term---meaning to cause the cost/benefit of the externality to be reflected in the individual decision maker's utility function) saving as a positive externality?
1. Lower capital gains taxes. My wages are taxed, if I then spend everything I pay no additional federal taxes. If I save my money it will be taxed again. This distorts the save/consume decision toward consuming and away from saving.
2. Tax consumption, not income. This would directly tax the negative externality (consumption) and not the positive one.
Which of these policies are favored by any single democrat holding federal office?
Another externality to add: productive businesses and people. Productive businesses employ people and create wealth. I would argue this is as significant a positive externality as you will find as it enables all others. How much better off are you because great people and businesses made this country as wealthy as it is today? As a positive externality this should then be subsidized, yet it is taxed. If my business is productive I pay higher taxes than if my business is not.
You may argue the cost-benefit implies that taxing productivity (in both businesses and individuals) is worthwhile, but you cannot ignore the cost. If I were to argue that taxing pollution is a bad idea because it will be harmful to the economy (a cost-benefit analysis) how much sympathy would I find from the left? Yet our tax code in effect subsidizes pollution (by taxing productivity) and this fact is inadmissable in most debates I've had with leftists on taxation. You just can't have it both ways.
As I mentioned, I view this positive externality as large and worth encouraging. Why is the U.S. the richest nation in the world today? Why is unemployment in the U.S. 4-5% while it is 10-14% in Europe? Why have so many of the products we use today come from the U.S., and so few from elsewhere? I believe it is because we have maintained a strong incentive to be productive and am very cautious about policies which would discourage it.
This applies as well to Karl's last two points: overthrowing the tyranny of wealth and ensuring a land of opportunity. What country exceeds the U.S. in this regard? Isn't this part of the reason immigrants have come here for centuries? Does Europe afford greater opportunity? Less tyranny of one social class over others? My experience and study of macroeconomics indicates those countries with less regulation, smaller government and less redistribution of income have greater upward mobility than those with more progressive policies. I just see no evidence of the contention in point #4.
As for point 1, income seems a noisy proxy here. I know lots of folks at Harvard who will go on to make little money but have spent 12 years gaining a world class education. Shouldn't many of us (Ryan and I for example) have been taxed a lot for the opportunity to work toward at PhD which is certainly not necessary for us to make a living? How about those born wealthy who squander it? How about those born with little who just work really hard? How about those who emigrate and manage to make something for themselves? How about those who save their money?
And if you're going to tax based on what they've received shouldn't you also consider what they've contributed? Here income seems a noisy proxy as well.
Ok this is getting too long. I believe government should encourage positive externalities and discourage negative ones. Progressive income taxes are exactly the opposite.
I was hoping to write a significant preface to introduce some of the core principles which guide my views on specific topics but, well, I honestly just don't have time to think it all through. So here's my cliff notes version:
1. People are selfish
2. Governments, corporations, non-profits, etc. are just entities through which some group of people act---they are not therefore exempt from #1.
3. Government is unique among these entities in that it acts by compulsion---it acts with the ultimate threat of force.
I find these useful in mentally translating many ideas about the role of government. For example, "we should help the poor" is hard to disagree with, but "some subset of people (the government) should force some other subset of people to help some third subset of people" is more complicated (in every sense). You may certainly still agree with it---the subset of people represented by the government may have legitimate claim to take from one group and give to another---but I think it's unfair to avoid thinking the question through by clever use of semantics.
As an aside to this point I'll briefly mention how important I think "compulsion" is to think about here. At the risk of citing scripture in a political discussion, I note the Lord speaks of compulsory means several times. For example, in D&C 121:46. The united order has frequently been compared to "communism" of some sort but had this important difference---no one was compelled to give. I'm not saying all compulsion is therefore unholy or something, and don't want to dwell on this point. But I think my semantic argument above is not as trivial as it might first appear.
Ok, feel free to ignore all the above if you'd like. I don't mean to make this an abstract philosophy discussion. But I figure I may make use of all that as we go along.
Ok on to a specific topic. I figure I might as well start with Karl on progressive taxes.
Let's start with point 2. Karl argues here, and elsewhere, that taxation is a tool to correct externalities---actions a person takes which affect other people but for which he/she is not fully compensated (positively or negatively). I could not agree more---this is a basic and fundamental principle of economics. Correcting for externalities is certainly not contrary to economic conservatism. Often externalities are simply the result of incompletely specified property rights---the air I breathe is not owned by anyone so there is no market mechanism to compensate me for the pollution you put into it. Karl argues that one role of government is to tax actions which generate negative externalities (pollution), and I would add subsidizing actions which generate positive externalities (education).
I would add several externalities to the list. First, saving money. When you or I save money, we lower interest rates by reducing the demand for debt (and/or increasing the supply). As others have noted, Americans in general and our federal government in particular carry large debts. My saving lowers the cost of other individuals' debts as well as the federal government's. Not to mention that my savings act as "insurance" against needing other taxpayers to bail me out later on. How might policies "internalize" (to use an economist term---meaning to cause the cost/benefit of the externality to be reflected in the individual decision maker's utility function) saving as a positive externality?
1. Lower capital gains taxes. My wages are taxed, if I then spend everything I pay no additional federal taxes. If I save my money it will be taxed again. This distorts the save/consume decision toward consuming and away from saving.
2. Tax consumption, not income. This would directly tax the negative externality (consumption) and not the positive one.
Which of these policies are favored by any single democrat holding federal office?
Another externality to add: productive businesses and people. Productive businesses employ people and create wealth. I would argue this is as significant a positive externality as you will find as it enables all others. How much better off are you because great people and businesses made this country as wealthy as it is today? As a positive externality this should then be subsidized, yet it is taxed. If my business is productive I pay higher taxes than if my business is not.
You may argue the cost-benefit implies that taxing productivity (in both businesses and individuals) is worthwhile, but you cannot ignore the cost. If I were to argue that taxing pollution is a bad idea because it will be harmful to the economy (a cost-benefit analysis) how much sympathy would I find from the left? Yet our tax code in effect subsidizes pollution (by taxing productivity) and this fact is inadmissable in most debates I've had with leftists on taxation. You just can't have it both ways.
As I mentioned, I view this positive externality as large and worth encouraging. Why is the U.S. the richest nation in the world today? Why is unemployment in the U.S. 4-5% while it is 10-14% in Europe? Why have so many of the products we use today come from the U.S., and so few from elsewhere? I believe it is because we have maintained a strong incentive to be productive and am very cautious about policies which would discourage it.
This applies as well to Karl's last two points: overthrowing the tyranny of wealth and ensuring a land of opportunity. What country exceeds the U.S. in this regard? Isn't this part of the reason immigrants have come here for centuries? Does Europe afford greater opportunity? Less tyranny of one social class over others? My experience and study of macroeconomics indicates those countries with less regulation, smaller government and less redistribution of income have greater upward mobility than those with more progressive policies. I just see no evidence of the contention in point #4.
As for point 1, income seems a noisy proxy here. I know lots of folks at Harvard who will go on to make little money but have spent 12 years gaining a world class education. Shouldn't many of us (Ryan and I for example) have been taxed a lot for the opportunity to work toward at PhD which is certainly not necessary for us to make a living? How about those born wealthy who squander it? How about those born with little who just work really hard? How about those who emigrate and manage to make something for themselves? How about those who save their money?
And if you're going to tax based on what they've received shouldn't you also consider what they've contributed? Here income seems a noisy proxy as well.
Ok this is getting too long. I believe government should encourage positive externalities and discourage negative ones. Progressive income taxes are exactly the opposite.
Books Past, Present and Future
Greetings from IL. I'm currently visiting my parents in the Land of Lincoln. Ryan, if you want to get together for lunch on Monday. I'll be driving through Champaign on my way back to MD, though you may want to read this post before you decide if you're busy or not. I've been very intrigued by the comments here, and I've been wanting to post for a while. It's funny how hard it can be to find time for something when you're on vacation.
Books past:
Yesterday my wife was trying to decide between two pairs of shoes, and she finally decided on the less expensive pair because she simply couldn't justify spending $90 (pre-discount) on a pair of shoes, even if she only gets new shoes once every 3 years. This is why I love her. I, however, felt that I wasn't being a very good provider if my wife didn't feel like she could get the slightly more comfortable shoes, so I convinced her to get the more expensive ones. While I felt like a good provider, I was later haunted by the ghosts of Paul Farmer.
Books present:
I'm surprised by how much commentary there has been about this book by people that haven't read it. I haven't read it either, but I have read most of the bibliography that Paul referred to. (I was at a Polka concert in our library, and I saw the book on the shelf next to me and read it while I listened. It's not that long, and it's better documented than Al (I should have been President.) Gore's documentary.) I think everyone can/should at least read the bibliography.) I thought it was funny that the anti-Crichton faction chose to call his book "Heresy" because Crichton has an interesting article about environmentalism as a religion.
I don't want to spoil the bibliography but for those of you have never read it, let me clarify a few things for you. (Hopefully, I won't misrepresent anything because I actually haven't read it for a year.) But from what I remember, Crichton doesn't deny that global warming is happening, and he doesn't claim that carbon dioxide has nothing to do with it. He thinks carbon dioxide has less to do with it then other things, such as the way we use land, but the focus is always on carbon emissions instead of bigger problems. He also gets annoyed with how some weather predictions get presented as facts when they are just scientific guesses, and environmentalists often cause as much harm as good.
Chrichton doesn't use this example, but I think biofuels is a good example. Studies are now showing that the carbon emitted to process biofuels plus the forests that are being destroyed so that we can plant more corn, sugar, etc. to create biofuels has had a net negative effect on the environment. The center to predict hurricanes underpredicted the year of Katrina and has overpredicted every year since. (Note: I'm not saying that all environmental models are useless. In statistics we say, all models are wrong, but some are useful.)
I believe that we do need to be very concerned about the environment. I think we have a moral responsibility to take care of the earth. I believe that global warming is happening, though I am unsure of all of the causes, what is the most important cause, or what we can realistically do to prevent it. I have visited Karl's suggested website for global warming doubters, and if you make it down to the scientific reasons for doubting global warming, I think there are still reasonable reasons to think that there may be other more important causes to global warming than carbon emissions. If you can lead me to sources that prove otherwise, please do. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Books past:
Yesterday my wife was trying to decide between two pairs of shoes, and she finally decided on the less expensive pair because she simply couldn't justify spending $90 (pre-discount) on a pair of shoes, even if she only gets new shoes once every 3 years. This is why I love her. I, however, felt that I wasn't being a very good provider if my wife didn't feel like she could get the slightly more comfortable shoes, so I convinced her to get the more expensive ones. While I felt like a good provider, I was later haunted by the ghosts of Paul Farmer.
Books present:
I finally got the
On a tangential note, I was called to the Young Men's Organization about a year ago, and I was very surprised because I didn't think they called people with my personality type to Young Men's. It's typically the more popular, manly men. For example, we had an activity this year where we built potato cannons. The majority of the YM's leaders and youth were very excited about this activity. It's very manly/cool to shoot things, start them on fire, etc. However, I was not at all interested in such things as a youth, and I have not acquired these tastes as I've grown older. I guess, according to this book, I've become too "feminized" for the YM's program. Now, I realize there is still a way for me to be helpful in YM, as not every youth is into guns, archery, and fire, but we are certainly not in the majority.
Books future:I'm surprised by how much commentary there has been about this book by people that haven't read it. I haven't read it either, but I have read most of the bibliography that Paul referred to. (I was at a Polka concert in our library, and I saw the book on the shelf next to me and read it while I listened. It's not that long, and it's better documented than Al (I should have been President.) Gore's documentary.) I think everyone can/should at least read the bibliography.) I thought it was funny that the anti-Crichton faction chose to call his book "Heresy" because Crichton has an interesting article about environmentalism as a religion.
I don't want to spoil the bibliography but for those of you have never read it, let me clarify a few things for you. (Hopefully, I won't misrepresent anything because I actually haven't read it for a year.) But from what I remember, Crichton doesn't deny that global warming is happening, and he doesn't claim that carbon dioxide has nothing to do with it. He thinks carbon dioxide has less to do with it then other things, such as the way we use land, but the focus is always on carbon emissions instead of bigger problems. He also gets annoyed with how some weather predictions get presented as facts when they are just scientific guesses, and environmentalists often cause as much harm as good.
Chrichton doesn't use this example, but I think biofuels is a good example. Studies are now showing that the carbon emitted to process biofuels plus the forests that are being destroyed so that we can plant more corn, sugar, etc. to create biofuels has had a net negative effect on the environment. The center to predict hurricanes underpredicted the year of Katrina and has overpredicted every year since. (Note: I'm not saying that all environmental models are useless. In statistics we say, all models are wrong, but some are useful.)
I believe that we do need to be very concerned about the environment. I think we have a moral responsibility to take care of the earth. I believe that global warming is happening, though I am unsure of all of the causes, what is the most important cause, or what we can realistically do to prevent it. I have visited Karl's suggested website for global warming doubters, and if you make it down to the scientific reasons for doubting global warming, I think there are still reasonable reasons to think that there may be other more important causes to global warming than carbon emissions. If you can lead me to sources that prove otherwise, please do. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Progressive Taxes
As I promised Alvin, here’s my explanation of what I don’t like about Ron Paul’s platform. As I have already explained, I believe that there are a large number of roles that government should serve, in aggregate requiring a much larger government than Ron Paul would like. I won’t bore everyone with another discussion of that.
In addition to the issue of the role of government, I also disagree with his position on how the costs of government should be apportioned—i.e. taxes. So, for the rest of this post, I’ll make the case for highly progressive taxes (not so much that there’s a complete redistribution of wealth, mind you).
1. The greater your wealth, the more you’ve benefitted from the American system
I believe people should be taxed in proportion to the benefit they’ve received from the American system. But wait, you may argue, don’t the poor receive more welfare services, and therefore don’t they benefit more? I disagree. This argument first of all characterizes benefits as zero-sum. But I believe that every American benefits from such services—e.g. businesses benefit by having healthy, effective workers who aren’t constantly worrying about paying doctors bills or having a roof over their heads, markets benefit consumers who can spend money buying goods instead of on basic necessities, motorists benefit from mass-transit programs by having less crowded roads, land values benefit because the homeless have somewhere to go so where they don’t create a public nuisance, and so on.
Or, put another way, to determine the benefit each American receives from the American system, one must ask how much of their wealth would exist but for the American system. Think about the impact of stable markets, police forces, protected property rights, intellectual property rights, military forces, freedom of choice (particularly from a consumption standpoint), freedom of speech, and so on in creating an environment in which Americans may accrue wealth. Clearly, all Americans benefit from this system, but a wealthy person has likely benefitted much more from the system than a homeless person.
2. Some wealth must be redistributed to correct deficiencies of free markets
Just a short point, but still important. Employers should have to pay for hidden costs, such as pollution, healthcare and other necessities that keep their workforce alive and so on. Yet, so few do. See my discussion of free markets.
3. Some wealth must be redistributed to overthrow the tyranny of wealth
Obviously, wealth confers great economic power. Nor would I doubt that anyone would argue that economic power translates into political power. Is there any difference between having that kind of power vested in a monarchy and having that kind of power vested in an upper class smaller than it has been in who knows how long? Or, perhaps even more applicable to today’s world, should we allow large global corporations to govern over us? Take, for example, the power of global oil corporations, which, in the interests of preserving their own wealth/power, have for decades now translated their wealth into a political force for unnaturally suppressing the demand for clean, renewable energy, even though clean, renewable energy clearly would bring great benefit to the American people.
4. Some wealth must be redistributed to ensure that America remains a land of opportunity
I believe that the highly progressive taxes present in the middle of the last century served a purpose that “free land” once served for America—giving people a chance to build wealth from scratch. But now, with the wealth increasingly concentrated in the hands of the few, it is becoming increasingly hard for certain segments of the population to create wealth.
Though America is still a system where those born into poverty can escape it, it is a system where increasingly few actually do escape it because escape is just so difficult. We watch movies like "The Pursuit of Happyness" and feel good inside that we live in a land where people can pull themselves up by the bootstrap, but we deceive ourselves into thinking that everyone can do what Will Smith (I mean the character played by Will Smith, of course) did. Personally, I don't know if I'd be able to do what he did, if I were in the same shoes.
Taxing the wealthy to provide services to make it easier to escape poverty would ensure that America does not cease to be a land of opportunity for those who are in poverty. And as I stated before, this is not a zero-sum proposition. When we increase the standard of living for the least of us, we benefit all Americans.
In addition to the issue of the role of government, I also disagree with his position on how the costs of government should be apportioned—i.e. taxes. So, for the rest of this post, I’ll make the case for highly progressive taxes (not so much that there’s a complete redistribution of wealth, mind you).
1. The greater your wealth, the more you’ve benefitted from the American system
I believe people should be taxed in proportion to the benefit they’ve received from the American system. But wait, you may argue, don’t the poor receive more welfare services, and therefore don’t they benefit more? I disagree. This argument first of all characterizes benefits as zero-sum. But I believe that every American benefits from such services—e.g. businesses benefit by having healthy, effective workers who aren’t constantly worrying about paying doctors bills or having a roof over their heads, markets benefit consumers who can spend money buying goods instead of on basic necessities, motorists benefit from mass-transit programs by having less crowded roads, land values benefit because the homeless have somewhere to go so where they don’t create a public nuisance, and so on.
Or, put another way, to determine the benefit each American receives from the American system, one must ask how much of their wealth would exist but for the American system. Think about the impact of stable markets, police forces, protected property rights, intellectual property rights, military forces, freedom of choice (particularly from a consumption standpoint), freedom of speech, and so on in creating an environment in which Americans may accrue wealth. Clearly, all Americans benefit from this system, but a wealthy person has likely benefitted much more from the system than a homeless person.
2. Some wealth must be redistributed to correct deficiencies of free markets
Just a short point, but still important. Employers should have to pay for hidden costs, such as pollution, healthcare and other necessities that keep their workforce alive and so on. Yet, so few do. See my discussion of free markets.
3. Some wealth must be redistributed to overthrow the tyranny of wealth
Obviously, wealth confers great economic power. Nor would I doubt that anyone would argue that economic power translates into political power. Is there any difference between having that kind of power vested in a monarchy and having that kind of power vested in an upper class smaller than it has been in who knows how long? Or, perhaps even more applicable to today’s world, should we allow large global corporations to govern over us? Take, for example, the power of global oil corporations, which, in the interests of preserving their own wealth/power, have for decades now translated their wealth into a political force for unnaturally suppressing the demand for clean, renewable energy, even though clean, renewable energy clearly would bring great benefit to the American people.
4. Some wealth must be redistributed to ensure that America remains a land of opportunity
I believe that the highly progressive taxes present in the middle of the last century served a purpose that “free land” once served for America—giving people a chance to build wealth from scratch. But now, with the wealth increasingly concentrated in the hands of the few, it is becoming increasingly hard for certain segments of the population to create wealth.
Though America is still a system where those born into poverty can escape it, it is a system where increasingly few actually do escape it because escape is just so difficult. We watch movies like "The Pursuit of Happyness" and feel good inside that we live in a land where people can pull themselves up by the bootstrap, but we deceive ourselves into thinking that everyone can do what Will Smith (I mean the character played by Will Smith, of course) did. Personally, I don't know if I'd be able to do what he did, if I were in the same shoes.
Taxing the wealthy to provide services to make it easier to escape poverty would ensure that America does not cease to be a land of opportunity for those who are in poverty. And as I stated before, this is not a zero-sum proposition. When we increase the standard of living for the least of us, we benefit all Americans.
Chrichton in the time of cholera
Though the word heresy may now be tainted by your modern 'enlightened' perspective, it was once a perfectly nobel specious accusation.
Maybe the thesis of this book has merit—elites manipulating the fear of the masses for profit—but i might stick it to Haliburton before Greenpeace. I do think its irresponsible to deny climate-change though. In the 19th century, the Michael Chrichton types were telling us that the microscopic germs causing cholera epidemics were a fantasy of fear-mongering scientists—no need to dig up London and put in a sewage system.
At this point in time the science is pretty clear: If we put sewage in the water, people will get sick, if we put CO2 in the air, energy will be trapped.
Maybe the thesis of this book has merit—elites manipulating the fear of the masses for profit—but i might stick it to Haliburton before Greenpeace. I do think its irresponsible to deny climate-change though. In the 19th century, the Michael Chrichton types were telling us that the microscopic germs causing cholera epidemics were a fantasy of fear-mongering scientists—no need to dig up London and put in a sewage system.
At this point in time the science is pretty clear: If we put sewage in the water, people will get sick, if we put CO2 in the air, energy will be trapped.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Virtues and Vices and Understanding the Difference
First off the recent Pew Center survey of religious feeling, particularly the gender demographics details, seem to be somewhat relevant. Looking at the data, what we see about a 45/55 male/female split in affiliation with Christian religions and the opposite in non-Christian religions (eg Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Unitarianism). We also see dramatically more men than women identifying as atheist (70/30) or agnostic (64/36). Also, if you look at more of the Pew data, there is a definite correlation between religions with high male representation and less frequent church attendance. This would seem to support the basic premise of the book that man tend to favor belief systems that don't rely on frequent meetings. (Also, interestingly, there is a high correlation between high male identification and high average educational levels, which might indicate that men favor intellectual, rather than emotional or charismatic, approaches to belief).
I think that Murrow repeatedly conflated two things in his book: "masculine" spiritual virtues, such as bravery, sacrifice, etc. and natural (in the Mosiah 3:19 sense) male behaviors, such as slovenliness, rowdiness, competitiveness, etc. He seems to argue that we need to embrace all these behaviors at once, which I think is absurd. His focus on making men "comfortable" by turning the spiritual thermostat of our churches (at the expense of a little discomfort from the women) seems antithetical, to me, of the whole purpose of church. No one should be comfortable, spiritually. We should all be spurred on to overcome those aspects of our personalities which are not in tune with God. Whether those aspects are typically male or female.
So some of his suggestions I think would result in a positive corrective to femininization (if that's a real trend, and some of his anecdotes particularly regarding "praise" sessions seem somewhat persuasive) of religion, and some of his suggestions I think would amount to destroying the religion in order to increase church attendance.
On a personal level, I have noticed as a result of reading this book that I've begun to focus my personal prayers and study on what Murrow (and society, I suppose) considers more masculine virtues. Rather than solely praying for more kindness, compassion, and patience, I've also been praying for greater strength, bravery, and willingness to sacrifice. I don't know whether the church is systemically unbalanced in this area (I tend to doubt it) but I believe that I personally can learn something from this lesson.
I particularly found Murrow's suggestion to encourage spiritual apprenticeship or mentoring between male generations to be interesting. One of the things I find difficult in life is that I live so far away from my father, and am unable to turn to him for advice and teaching on a lot of subjects. One of the things I've appreciated in church is the example of older men who can give me advice on the issues that a 30-year-old husband, young father, second counselor, home owner typically face. I don't know if a more formalized relationship would be even better (Murrow's "discipleship"), but I know that it's one of the greatest blessings I can identify of my church attendance.
As for the question of young men, I don't really know. In our ward I know that the YM and YW programs are dramatically different: the YM get together to play sports, or go hiking, or learn a new skill (largely through the Boy Scouts program). The YW get together to talk and watch movies and eat ice cream. Our girls tend to be much sillier and goofier and funnier than our boys (an aspect that I think Murrow mistakenly attributes as "masculine") . I think our YMs program is doing a much better job with the less significant portion of Murrow's conflation: we're making boys feel more comfortable, but we're failing in teaching them the important spiritual aspects of what it takes to be a man. We're pandering to their nature and not appealing to their spirits. And I think its the spiritual aspects that will push them to missionary service and lifetime dedication to the church.
So, to conclude my rambling rant, while I think the book was completely misguided, terribly written, annoyingly repetitive and full of mischaracterizations, weak generalizations, and ideological conflations, I'm glad to learn some good lessons from it. My takeaway will be to be more observant regarding balance within the spiritual focus of myself, my family and my ward.
I think that Murrow repeatedly conflated two things in his book: "masculine" spiritual virtues, such as bravery, sacrifice, etc. and natural (in the Mosiah 3:19 sense) male behaviors, such as slovenliness, rowdiness, competitiveness, etc. He seems to argue that we need to embrace all these behaviors at once, which I think is absurd. His focus on making men "comfortable" by turning the spiritual thermostat of our churches (at the expense of a little discomfort from the women) seems antithetical, to me, of the whole purpose of church. No one should be comfortable, spiritually. We should all be spurred on to overcome those aspects of our personalities which are not in tune with God. Whether those aspects are typically male or female.
So some of his suggestions I think would result in a positive corrective to femininization (if that's a real trend, and some of his anecdotes particularly regarding "praise" sessions seem somewhat persuasive) of religion, and some of his suggestions I think would amount to destroying the religion in order to increase church attendance.
On a personal level, I have noticed as a result of reading this book that I've begun to focus my personal prayers and study on what Murrow (and society, I suppose) considers more masculine virtues. Rather than solely praying for more kindness, compassion, and patience, I've also been praying for greater strength, bravery, and willingness to sacrifice. I don't know whether the church is systemically unbalanced in this area (I tend to doubt it) but I believe that I personally can learn something from this lesson.
I particularly found Murrow's suggestion to encourage spiritual apprenticeship or mentoring between male generations to be interesting. One of the things I find difficult in life is that I live so far away from my father, and am unable to turn to him for advice and teaching on a lot of subjects. One of the things I've appreciated in church is the example of older men who can give me advice on the issues that a 30-year-old husband, young father, second counselor, home owner typically face. I don't know if a more formalized relationship would be even better (Murrow's "discipleship"), but I know that it's one of the greatest blessings I can identify of my church attendance.
As for the question of young men, I don't really know. In our ward I know that the YM and YW programs are dramatically different: the YM get together to play sports, or go hiking, or learn a new skill (largely through the Boy Scouts program). The YW get together to talk and watch movies and eat ice cream. Our girls tend to be much sillier and goofier and funnier than our boys (an aspect that I think Murrow mistakenly attributes as "masculine") . I think our YMs program is doing a much better job with the less significant portion of Murrow's conflation: we're making boys feel more comfortable, but we're failing in teaching them the important spiritual aspects of what it takes to be a man. We're pandering to their nature and not appealing to their spirits. And I think its the spiritual aspects that will push them to missionary service and lifetime dedication to the church.
So, to conclude my rambling rant, while I think the book was completely misguided, terribly written, annoyingly repetitive and full of mischaracterizations, weak generalizations, and ideological conflations, I'm glad to learn some good lessons from it. My takeaway will be to be more observant regarding balance within the spiritual focus of myself, my family and my ward.
Heresy
I may not strongly disagree with Elliott's view on the science of global warming---but isn't "dissing" without reading and the use of the word "heresy" pretty supportive of Crichton's argument (as I understand it from the summary on Amazon) here?
I figure some will enjoy the political/environmentalism commentary, others will enjoy a thrilling (I assume given the author) bit of pure fiction.
I figure some will enjoy the political/environmentalism commentary, others will enjoy a thrilling (I assume given the author) bit of pure fiction.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Not into it
So, State of Fear? I guess I'm gonna dis on this book without reading it— just for the climate change heresy.
July's Book-State of Fear
http://www.amazon.com/State-Fear-Michael-Crichton/dp/0066214130
State of Fear by Michael Crichton. Since I am morally responsible for the content of this book, I have to recommend that you skip the first Chapter-it is not essential, and the rest of the book is clean(er). While I did check out Milton Friedman from the library, I felt obliged to pick a novel--if nothing else, the Bibliography is good (honest!).
I hate reading about hating Church
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.
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.
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)