Happy Birthday, Alvin

Happy Birthday, Alvin.

A few of my favorite memories of Alvin:

- The first time I met him, and the shock (and dismay) I felt when I realized that even though he was from Illinois he wasn't a Cubs fan
- Action to the Nth (that was his anticipated level of birthday action, 1995, thanks to the virtues of the pimp shirt)
- That painful mask of blisters his face became after he skiied all day in the bright sun with no sunscreen on. Ouch!
- The time he skunked me at killer UNO and I had to do 105 push-ups
- Alvin the monk, chanting and cavorting to "Give Said the Little Stream"
- Organizing Shakespeare-fest, 1999, including practicing and performing our comedic dialogue from Othello
- Struting his stuff as Mr. BYU 169th ward (or whatever our University Park ward was). Particularly, tossing the rose he had clasped in his teeth to the judges. I think I've got a video somewhere
- The huge hug he gave me in Penn station when we met up in NYC during his road trip with his sister Reta
- Standing on a bridge over the Charles River on a warm summer evening, 2002, and talking about just about everything. That was after the inebriate with an inferiority complex accosted us with a lewd joke.
- Playing lightning with him after his wedding reception, while my 4-month-old daughter gibbered happily in his new wife's arms

For these, and many others, I thank you Alvin. May your birthday be happy, and may you know that the good you do, the good you are, lives with me always.

Happy Thanksgiving to my fellow omnivores

Ironically, I finished The Omnivore's Dilemma today, the day of American gluttony. I will save most of my thoughts and discussion for another time. For now, I wish to thank Alvin for suggesting this book for the month of November, very appropriate. No doubt, my thoughts during this afternoon's meal will occasionally turn to pondering how industrial the food on the table is. Though it will not be an Omnivore's Thanksgiving as the author seemed to define such in the last part of the book, I do have much to be thankful for, including wonderfully amazing friends as all y'all.

May you have a memorable but safe holiday.

New Lattin Baby

Sorry for waxing personal, but pride won over. Greta Lattin born Sunday night.  Click here for more info than you'd ever hope for.

The subprime meltdown

Well Karl has finally baited me enough to get me to weigh in here on the subprime mess. Unfortunately what may seem to many an interesting discussion topic has been for me the cause of many many late nights and a great deal of stress recently. The financial sector is reeling though fortunately my fund has so far weathered it all just fine.

I'll ignore some of the "talking points" I've read here and try and briefly summarize what I view as the source of the problems. I think it's worth remembering that at the heart of all this is of course a huge bubble in residential real estate. It turned out to be self-reinforcing---individuals saw gains in home prices as indications of future gains and piled in---but how did it start and why did it develop? What is clear today is there was a significant increase in consumer demand largely caused by a reduction in the cost of buying a home. There were 3 main culprits here:

1. Excess liquidity provided by the Fed after the tech bubble crash (and 9/11). This kept rates much lower than they would have been without Fed intervention.

2. Securitization. This is the least understood by most people and one I'd like to highlight. I will do my best to do this briefly:

For decades mortgages in the U.S. were serviced by banks who then sold the loans to investors of some kind. Low mortgage rates as well as increased transparency and information flow to potential buyers (the internet helped here) started to increase the size of the mortgage pool held by these "investors" in the last 1990s and early 2000s.

At the same time there were large pools of capital held by "regulated" institutions. These included investment and commercial banks as well as pension funds, insurance companies, etc. Long earlier these institutions had at least partially abdicated the responsibility for risk management to the government. The government told them which assets they were allowed to own and how much of different asset types they were permitted to hold. This was accomplished through the rating agencies---various assets were given ratings by these 3rd party companies and the government regulated how much of various "rated" assets an institution could own. Once "regulated" these institutions became much less concerned about risk management---if the rating agency said it was "AAA" it must be low risk. After all, the government says I can own X% of "AAA" and I own less than that, so my investments are safe.

Some smart trader on Wall St one day figured out how to turn this into a money machine. The answer was "securitization". Here's how it worked: Take a pool of mortgages. By themselves these mortgages might have been too risky for the regulated institutions to own---the rating agencies would not give them a high enough rating. So the smart trader split them into pieces called "tranches". From each pool there would be a series of securities created each paying a particular yield and bearing some part of the losses from the pool. For example the "equity tranche" would pay a high yield but would be exposed to the first 10% of losses in the pool. A "junior tranche" might pay less but would only be exposed to losses from 10% to 30%. Eventually you'd have a "senior tranche" that paid a smaller yield but would only start to lose money once pool losses reached, say, 50%. Now you ask the rating agencies to examine the credit risk of THAT security and they might decide, given the low probability of the pool suffering such steep losses, that it was "AAA". The unregulated guys could own the risky parts while the regulated institutions could own the rest.

Effectively this is just taking advantage of stupid regulation. The government told these institutions they could own a lot of "AAA" securities. The rating agencies didn't have a direct stake in the securities' performance and were not set up to understand the risk of mortgage pool losses reaching 50% (their core competency being evaluation of credit risk in companies). The institutions were foolish to believe the rating agencies and the government. And the smart trader figured out a way to profit off the mistakes of these other institutions.

This process of securitization further reduced mortage rates. Having ready pools of capital prepared to buy securitized mortgage pools meant banks could issue mortgages at lower rates and to less credit-worthy borrowers.

3. Government support for housing. Fannie and Freddie grew their balance sheets and the government pushed an agenda of "housing for everyone". Congress threatened lenders who appeared to discriminate by race (obvious correlations with socio-economic status notwithstanding), geography (though obviously a key variable in housing value), and even income (!). There is no question the administration and congress supported and enabled an aggressive expansion in home ownership. Though I said I would ignore the "talking points" I will say that perhaps the most absurd is that the GSEs (Fannie and Freddie) could not have caused this because they've been around so long. I look forward to its use when Medicare and Social Security become officially insolvent (it must be...er...something else...I mean these programs have been around so long!)

This expansion in demand caused by the above factors set the bubble in motion and, as I mentioned, it was self-reinforcing. This bubble, like all others, eventually cannot be sustained and must pop. The painful correction we have been experiencing and all of the economic carnage derive from this housing problem.

With that, on to the recriminations! In light of the above it is worth asking anyone who points a finger of blame to put it in the context of this housing bubble.

1. Was Bush to blame? Well he did encourage home ownership, the Fed did dramatically lower rates under his administration (though I think it's grossly unfair to blame him for any of that), he did not reduce the ineffective regulation that enabled the securitization disaster. He did try to reform the GSEs which would have made a big difference here. Overall I'd say partial blame. I'd like to understand Karl's claim that the "last 8 years" were particularly culpable---beyond the vague "too little regulation" which I admit I view as empty talking points. I'd also love examples of Bush being hostile to regulation---as a conservative and fan of deregulation I'd love to hear I haven't given him credit where due!

2. Was congress to blame? It failed to reform the GSEs as Bush advocated (this was bi-partisan though certainly majority dem). It certainly encouraged aggressive lending. It failed to address the idiotic regulation of financial institutions. Partial blame.

3. Was Greenspan to blame? Yes, partially, for maintaining aggressive monetary policy longer than needed. Though hindsight is 20/20.

Overall I'd say far too much blame has been thrown around without basis here. The pieces were in place long before all this happened---the GSEs, the regulations on financial institutions, the reliance on aggressive monetary policy to solve every cycle. Those that put all those pieces in place were probably well intentioned and we've all learned much about "unintended consequences" here.

Books can and will be written about all this and I unfortunately don't have the time to mention everything I'd like to. But I would like to briefly examine the issue of regulation specifically here.

I'm afraid this issue is starting to parallel the arguments over schools in the US. Most of us would agree public schools in this country are not great. Some people believe the system is sound but just needs more money. They react to failures by advocating doing what we're doing now, but just more of it. Others argue the system itself is the problem and should be reformed.

Both sides use the failure of schools to claim vindication in their argument. I would argue failure in itself proves neither. In the same way I do not believe the subprime meltdown in any way proves deregulation to be right or wrong. What it proves is that bad regulation, like bad schools, cause problems. You can respond by further increasing regulation (adding funding to the current school system) or by throwing it out (reforming the system itself).

On both issues I obviously favor less government involvement as I view that as a more efficient outcome. Had the government not regulated these institutions as it did would they have bought as many securitized mortages as they did? Would they have actually examined the risks of what they were buying and demanded higher yields (which would have then passed down the line to ultimately higher mortgage rates)? Without government support would the mortage market have grown as dramatically as it did?

The answer is not necessarily deregulation. But one of the principles most clearly evidenced by this crisis is that regulation has unintended consequences---it distorts incentives and markets in ways we cannot foresee. We cannot know that the wave of regulation now being considered will not sow the seeds of the next crisis.

Fannie and Freddie

Comments appear not to work very well, so even though this should be more of a response to Nuttall, I'm making it a post.

I think that housing was a wise place for government to push investment (although for a contrarian view, see http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/real-estate). I think where we went wrong is in lack of oversight, first in the area of subprime loans, and second in so many other areas that tangentially related to subprime loans, such as credit default swaps. (Although in some ways, I have to hand it to American capitalism. It's amazing how some of these financial instruments have managed to spread the costs of what started as an entirely local problem across the entire world).

Put it this way. Fannie and Freddie have been around how long? And this problem occurred when? After how many years of an intensely regulation-hostile administration? In my mind, blaming Freddie and Fannie--at least the idea of Fannie and Freddie--is like blaming your car engine for going out when you haven't changed the oil in 8 years.

The American economy is an ever-evolving machine, and that machine will constantly require maintenance. But instead of providing that maintenance over the last 8 years, our approach has been to avoid maintenance at all costs. Wall Street, being filled with some of our brighter minds because that's exactly the sort of labor capitalism rewards, will always find new ways to exploit holes and cheat the system. But this is no excuse to just give up on regulation. It's the reason why we must try harder to get it right.

More on Capitalism

Hey guys, I'm still figuring out this blogging thing. Last time I used comment instead of post and it either went out into oblivion, or it was so bad that you guys politely said nothing about it.
Like Karl, I think there's a place for progressive government in business, and like Rob I'm dismayed at the outcome of most of governments' attempts to get involved.
Karl, the problem is, it is immensely difficult to come up with a system as consistently measurable as economic value. I challenge you, for example, to explain how a CEO's and a senator's pay should compare. There's no doubt the invisible hand has often led to economic surplus and steamrolled activities which people don't want aren't willing to spend time and resources on. Capitalism is not good at assigning value to things which are measured by a standard other than economic equity. I have friends who argue with me that a person should be free to sell their own organs (as I did so much blood plasma freshman year) for profit. I believe the invisible hand would lead to a repulsive outcome here.
Beyond enforcement of contracts, recognition of externalities, and planning/maintenance of infrastructure, there are precious few initiatives governments have undertaken which "grow the pie" of wealth. Programs aimed at redistribution have a distressing record of shrinking the pie--for example the policy of using Fannie and Freddy as agents of spreading home ownership. As I said in my lost comment, it is so hard to get policies right that it hardly seems appropriate to keep trying.

A Rebuttal

So "leaning to the left" caught my attention enough that I'll jump back into the fray. For some reason, anytime someone says "left" or "liberal" around me, I get all defensive and into battle mode. I think it has something to do with having lived in Utah so long. [By the way, Robert, I know that's not your intention--I'm just interested in exploring my reaction to the phrase].

By the way, I should never check my email one last time before I go to bed, and I especially shouldn't have clicked through to Robert's post, because I just spent the last 45 minutes trying to think up the best way to articulate the fundamental flaws that I believe underly Ezra Taft Benson's views on government.

And I still haven't thought of the best way to articulate things. That's understandable because Ezra Taft Benson put a lot of time and thought into his article, and one would expect that a decent rebuttal to the article would require an equivalent amount of time and thought. Back when I was in school I would have been up to the task. But now with my job and family responsibilities occupying so much time out of my life, it'll have to wait.

[Which reminds me of something I read once in The Atlantic--something about how Arafat, I think, once he got into power, decided that the best way to pacify some of his more radical terrorist supporters--whom he perceived as potential threats--was to give them wives and families. And apparently they have statistics showing that it worked. At first, I thought oh, that's a testament to the importance of families. Now I wonder if it's just because the former terrorists were so busy taking out the trash and fixing broken cabinet doors that they didn't have time to entertain radical thoughts. :)]

Anyway, I have no qualms with disagreeing with Ezra Taft Benson here. In fact, I think that many of our early church leaders would have disagreed with Ezra Taft Benson's poitical views. And no, I am no position to back that statement up right now.

Here are some of my gut responses (probably a little repetitive in light of previous blog posts, but maybe one day I'll say it the right--er, left--way):

(1) Ezra Taft Benson's ideology appears to assume that, for the most part, all "wealth" is fairly allocated to those who created it, and all "costs" are fairly allocated to those who actions resulted in those costs. But this is clearly not the case. Our markets and monetary systems have innumerous flaws that I will not list here (though I have previously tried to explain some of these flaws). I'll just use an example (perhaps even a deliberately deceptive political cheapshot) as a proxy for those flaws: is the work of a plumber who takes home 250,000 a year really 6x more valuable than your average school teacher? Or (without the political cheapshot), is the work of your average CEO really 10x more important than senator? Should our Patent and Trademark Office be filled with grossly incompetent patent examiners because law firms are able to pay anyone who would be competent for the job 4x more in salary? (In case you couldn't guess, the last rant was inspired by my day at work).

Note that I am not saying that everybody should be paid the same as everyone else, I am merely observing that markets fail to fairly reward people the value of their work. Accordingly, our incentives are often in the wrong place, and our productivity is steered in unhealthy directions, sometimes with self-destructive consequences.

(2) The government, having created the monetary system in the first place, should also be responsible for taking measures to "fix" that monetary system to correct for market failures, including taking taxes and providing certain benefits.

(3) Not all government programs that involve the "redistribution of wealth" are zero-sum. For example, keeping people healthy and off the streets pays many indirect benefits to all citizens.

(4) Concentration of wealth, particularly when it involves the means of production, is as much a threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as a despot or an invading foreign power. I believe I have blogged on this previously.

(5) Government action is necessary to initiate beneficial programs that, absent government involvement, no one person or entity would have the incentive to undertake (highway system, pollution controls, etc.) I.e., the tragedy of the commons.

(6) One thing I do agree on is that a lot of government is best left to the local level. Of course, I believe this is more true for executive and judicial branches and less true of the legislative branch. But maybe I'll save that conversation for another day.

(7) The point that I feel most adament about is that Ezra Taft Benson's political ideology distances the individual from government in a way that is unhealthy in the modern world. The people of this world become increasingly inter-connected every day, and it's time we started treating government as a forum in which we negotiate our interconnectedness, as opposed to a necessary evil.

And from this remark, let me just jump to one of my personal pedastool points. We all look forward to the day when God's kingdom will be restored to this Earth. But most of us assume that since it will take an intervening force to make that restoration possible, we should just be all doom and gloom and live in survival mode while we watch the world crumble around us. But why should we act this way? Is it not possible that a great deal of the intervening force that brings forth God's kingdom will be us taking a role in the future of the world, engaging our brothers and sisters in discourse instead of sitting firmly entrenched in our sheltered positions?

Sorry, not sure how I ended up on that pedastool. I should go to sleep.

Oh, and here are some articles that say things in a way I only wish I could:
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=119
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/7207/demosp.html

The Proper Role of Government

Admittedly, I am shocked to discover that several of you have drifted toward the political left.  I've been impressed at your attempts to justify your positions and with the respect with which you all appear to be treating each other.  Like Jefferson and Adams, we all have the same end goals and we recognize that we all learn more by the open and friendly debate than if we all came to the table with the exact same perspectives. 

I posted on my own blog the full text of Ezra Taft Benson's essay "The Proper Role of Government" and I highlighted the points that I thought most powerful (well, that most powerfully supported my position anyway).  I'd invite you all to read it and let's discuss.  

I do not hide in the coat-tails of his ethos as a former president of our church to say that I am right and you are wrong. This essay was given as his opinion, not as doctrine nor a church position. So, by all means, if you disagree with something he said in this essay, you won't go to hell by questioning it.

Welcome Rob!

So cool to hear from you.

Robert Mortensen

My heart is full of fond emotion to be directed to this blog and I'm excited to renew the fraternal bonds we had during that wonderful year at BYU in Merrill Hall.

I apologize that I wasn't in good enough communication with all of you to get in on the ground floor of this blog. I've got some catch-up reading to do. I've been blogging for a couple of years about a lot of the same topics. I'll try index my blogs by using the labels. www.robertkmortensen.blogspot.com.

My lovely bride keeps up a family blog at www.ickatoadslilypad.blogspot.com



Here's my background post:

Rosario Argentina Mission Aug 1996 - Sept 1998

Married Jessica (Davenport) from my home town of Nampa, Idaho - 22 Apr 1999

Kyle - Feb 2001 (I was a BYU baby, so I had to have my own)

BYU - Construction Management - Graduated April 2002

Las Vegas - Internship with Pulte Homes summer of 2001

Greenville, South Carolina - May 2002-July 2003 - home building superintendent for America's Home Place (Alvin stopped in at my church building one day Sunday on his way back from college football game I think. What a surprise to run into each other there.)

Anne - July 2002 (our southern belle)

Mesa, Arizona - July 2003 - March 2007 - superintendent and the purchasing manager for SunCor (Doug Larson visited me once here)

Victoria - July 2004 (our AZ baby)

Claire - Feb 2007 (2nd AZ baby, but almost a spud baby)

Star, Idaho - March 2007 - present - purchasing manager for SunCor Idaho - www.avimor.com

Current Calling: Primary Music Leader (I know you are all jealous, but it takes a certain level of celestial living to have this awesome and extremely rewarding calling!)

Having been your EQP, one might expect me to be Stake President by now, but the Lord doesn't always work that way. I served as a bishop's counselor in a BYU married student ward for two years and since then I have served in callings in young mens, sunday school, Elders Quorums, and exec secretary.

Kid wrangling at church often made me wish for inactivity, but I have remained true to the faith. With my youngest now in nursery I have had the privilege of renewing my testimony of the 3-hour block.

Although temptations to seek post-graduate education still come and go I have been too greedy to leave a good job that meets my needs and most of my wants. I hope that my mind will forever remain thirsty for knowledge. I devour books and look forward to being part of the book club. I have a goal to read all the books on the BYU honors Great Works List and I give my book reports on my blog.

I love to read and talk about religion, history, and politics. Politically, I am a Conservative with a big "C". I flirted with Libertarianism while in S.C., but I do believe in legislating morality, so I couldn't support legalizing pot. My disappointment with the Republican party recently sent me looking into the other fringe parties. The Constitutionalists seemed very interesting, but my gut tells me that some of them are the nut-jobs that bomb abortion clinics. I'll just call myself a Conservative from now on.

My secular readings of greatest political influence have been "The Law", by Frederic Bastiat and "Atlas Shrugged", by Ayn Rand. Ezra Taft Benson's "Proper Role of Government" has impressed me and J. Rueben Clark's "Stand Fast by our Constitution" is currently on my desk.

I was a founding member of Red Mountain Swing, a sixteen piece jazz big band in Mesa, AZ (I miss it more than you can imagine and my attempt to start a big band in Star, ID was like diving into a shallow pool of talent.) I play tenor sax and clarinet. We played paid gigs all the time and now they are making tons of money from what I hear. (maybe because I left?)

Birding has become a bit of an obsessive hobby. I've always loved the outdoors, so this new hobby gives me the excuse to get out there and have adventures.

I love BYU Football and I have adopted the BSU Broncos being back on my home turf. When they go head-to-head the next four years, my true loyalty is to the Cougs.

Yes we can!

Obama-mania

I stayed up to watch Obama's acceptance speech, as my wife fell asleep on the couch beside me, and it was worth the loss of sleep. I'm excited about 4 years of great presidential speeches. The big crowds, the Hollywood backgrounds, etc. I eat that stuff up. I also thought McCain gave his best speech of the campaign last night, but purely as a public figurehead, everyone has to agree that the younger, more eloquent and charismatic Obama was the better choice.

Now, I couldn't bring myself to actually vote for Obama, mostly out of a fear of any one party having too much power and because of the large uncertainty about the difference between what Obama was saying he would do and what he would actually do with a legislative branch firmly in his corner. (Note: I didn't vote for McCain either, mostly because he rubs me the wrong way. I know, it's a very issue oriented approach to voting, but hey, I wasn't in love with either man's record or lack thereof.) Still, despite my not voting for Obama, I am surprisingly excited that he won. I think the US needed a new face to represent us to the world, and for those that prefer a smaller govt. brand of Republicanism, the Bush brand of Republicanism (clearly not smaller govt.) and those that were in any way associated with it had to fail to bring about change.

I know there are a lot of ardent Democrats out there, and I fervently hope that you are right. I want Obama and all of his new pals in Washington to be just what this country needs. I'm actually quite excited to see what he'll do. It's possible I'm just excited because the world's longest political season is over, but I think it's more like Obama is a mystery novel and I want to stay up all night to find out whodunnit and how. My excitement may also have something to do with Obama's desire for a playoff in college football, but that's just me.

Book club

Peter, I enjoyed your post, especially your alternate ending. I'll just pretend that's the way it really ended. Your posts are always stimulating vocabulary lessons. I can't believe you worked Bayesian probability into a post on the plague. The one thing you neglected to mention was the book club order for the next few months. Since it is already Nov. 5th, I will go ahead and select my next book choice be it for November or some time in the future. I choose "The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals". I just started it this morning, and the first four tracks provided an interesting premise and demonstrated intelligent writing. I think that, if nothing else, it will provide good conversation material for you as you are eating your Thanksgiving feasts.

1. What lesson(s) are to be learned from this book?

The lesson I liked best (not necessarily the one Brooks' meant for us to learn) was the admirable ways in which the Mompellions faced the challenges of living in isolation. That the right way to meet adversity is through increasing how much you give.

2. why do we isolate ourselves

Trust. Sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for bad, but it's always because we don't trust others. A lot of my technical research recently has focused on how social networks are structured, and something I've noticed just recently is that two similar networks can be very different in how quickly changes in one place effect people in another (cf. homophily). As the modularity (i.e. isolation) of the network increases, so does the time it takes for things to propagate from one node to all the others. This is great if the "thing" is a disease, but less great if the "thing" is an idea or innovation.

3. freedom lost with marriage?

Riffing off my response to the previous question, we always lose freedom when we chose to trust. The more we depend on others, and allow them to depend on us, the more constrained by responsibility our actions become. For me personally, I agree with Alvin that I felt a greater loss of freedom with children than with marriage; I think that's because a parent's relationship with their children is asymmetric, while a marriage relationship is more symmetric.

Thinking about my grandparents, I'm impressed by the example of my Grandmother Jones. Grandpa became an invalid around the time he was 45 as a result of some kind of muscular dystrophy. Grandma took on the care of my Grandpa and the material support of the family. For 40 years, she gave he time and energy (and freedom) to supporting and caring for my Grandpa. So, in some circumstances a marriage can represent a huge loss of freedom. But with the added responsibility came a sense of purpose and a "gaining her own life" even to the point that when Grandpa died and Grandma lost that purpose, her quality of life deteriorated. Of course, I may be misremembering things, since they both died before I was an adult, but I would say that the loss of freedom was more than compensated by an increase in purpose and fulfillment.

4. How did your view of the rector change after you learned the secrets of his marriage?

My view of the rector had already changed so dramatically as a result of his sexualizing his relationship with Anna that the chaste marriage didn't phase me much.

5. why do some trials seem to erode faith in some people and build faith for others

The pride cycle tends to indicate that trials will generally lead to greater reliance on the Lord (interesting considering Alvin's point about none of the town inhabitants being stengthened in their faith due to the trial). But such strengthening will only persist if it is further established by the testimony of the Holy Ghost. In this way, trials are similar to miracles, and all other non-Holy Ghost-based evidences; they may lead one to greater faith, but that increased faith will dissipate rapidly with the ending of the trial (or miracle) if it isn't accompanied by the deeper spiritual evidences that the Spirit brings.

As for why some people react one way to trials, and others in another, I think it's due to models we have of the world. If we have a model that God loves us and won't allow us to suffer, trials are likely to lead to a decrease in faith. If we believe that God loves us but that suffering is part of his plan, trials may lead to an increase in faith. Having the correct model is the key (it's all about the conditional distribution in Bayes' rule).

6. what are your thoughts about the mental and spiritual unravelling of the village over the course of the year

I was actually surprised there wasn't a greater degree of unraveling. The bulk of the village continued as they had been; in a few instances, anti-social behavior increased. But by in large I think Brooks underestimated the degree to which isolation, and the hopelessness resulting from the seemingly unstoppable plague, would have led to a wholesale break-down in the social fabric of the community. I would have expected a lot more lawlessness.

7. what do you say to those who are mourning?

One of my favorite scenes in the movies I've recently watched was in Lars and the Real Girl (very nice movie, for those looking for something quirky and independent), in which after a tragedy the people of this small town (Minnesotan? North Dakotan?) come to sit with the protagonist. Here's an excerpt from the dialogue:

Hazel: Well that's how life is, Lars.
Mrs. Gruner: Everything at once.
Sally: We brought casseroles.
Lars Lindstrom: Thank you.
Lars Lindstrom: [Lars looks around the sewing circle. The three ladies are knitting and doing needlepoint] Um, is there something I should be doing right now?
Mrs. Gruner: No, dear. You eat.
Sally: We came over to sit.
Hazel: That's what people do when tragedy strikes.
Sally: They come over, and sit.

I really liked this, because I think it emphasizes that there's seldom anything to be said in times of sorrow and loss. Often, the only thing to be done is to sit, to hold a hand, to bring a casserole, and to let those who are grieving know you care through giving your time and attention.

8. why the epilogue? The story would have ended well for me with her galloping away from the village on the horse.

The story would have ended better for me if it had stopped before Anna and Mompellion's relationship became sexual. I felt that the flow of the story after that point had a very different voice than before; I think Brooks wanted to end with a message about liberation, but I don't think the message was continuous with the rest of the novel.

Charitably, I can view the novel as a metaphor for a pessimistic view (IMO) of human development. We grow upin awe of our parents (the Mompellions, in this metaphor); whatever they ask, we do (except those rebellious older siblings, the Bradfords). But eventually we awaken to our own individuality, our own desires (in this sense Elinor's death can be seen as being Freudian) and our parents' fallabiility. Eventually we make our own way in the world.

But if I were to rewrite the last 70 or so pages, I would de-sexualize the Anna/Mompellion relationship but maintain their mutual attraction, particularly following her shaking him out of her stupor. I would keep her riding away with the child, which would be truly tragic because of the nascent love between her & Mompellion. And she would still have to avoid any further contact with the village, and so would sacrifice her love to save a life. If there were an epilogue, it would be her living in Italy and unexpectedly uncountering the rector from the next village over, who doesn't recognize her but visits as two Englishmen abroad. In the course of their chatting, he would reveal that Mompellion led the town still, but that despite his faithfulness his heart seemed far away. The rector would presume it was because of the loss of Elinor, but Anna would know the truth. This is all romantic to the point of being maudlin, but I think it would have been a more satisfying ending for me personally.

S'Wonderful

I thought the book flowed well until the last 50 pages.  I thought that the author suspended a lot of deep thoughts until this point, and then I was bombarded with questions. Some of mine were similar to Glenn's.  I'm not sure, but this possibly had to do with the fact that I took Glenn's advice and skipped the sex scene at the end...

Sanctity of the Family (questions 4 and 5)
The rector committed fornication with Anna, but it didn't seem to me that he felt particularly bad about it (maybe I missed that part, maybe it was because he had lost faith). She didn't feel bad either until she learned that he had never known his wife. I could be a prude, but not only did I find this less believable in a medieval setting, I was upset that sex was so unsacred. To paraphrase, it became as her friend had mentioned earlier, like two travelers stopping for a good meal. Am I alone in my prudery? Am I unfair in my expectation for a husband to honor his wife at least a few months after her death? Or was that the point—that he had really sunk that low?

I felt like the author implied a few times that the creation of life was good, regardless of the means, and destruction of life is bad, regardless of the reason. While the plague certainly would lead a post-plaguer to believe this way, I was left with a bad taste in my mouth. We just had a stake conference where the General authority spent an hour or so on the Proclamation. My favorite line is “Children are entitled” to be born to a husband and a wife that love each other. In light of the Church's position on chastity, family, abortion, adoption, etc. how important is the creation/destruction of life?

Suffering (question 6)
What does prolonged suffering do to us? Like Glenn mentioned, we're told we won't be tempted above that which we can bear. I don't know that the same applies to temporal suffering—I mean, the duration and the intensity is limited by our mortality. We can only suffer until we die. It seems, however, that some people are capable of suffering through really hard things, others through long periods of time. The rector was capable of suffering with his town until he suffered a personal loss.

Atonement
What about atonement? Joseph Fielding Smith has some interesting things to say about Atonement in Doctrines of Salvation regarding taking a life. I gathered that the Rector had a different albeit harsh take on that. What do you think are the penalties for taking a life? I'm not planning on killing anyone, but I think its an interesting doctrinal question.

Beware the Plague (and 20th century ideas in a 17th century book)

Plagues have been a theme in my entertainment lately. First, I listened to this book. Then in the Lies My Teacher Told Me book, the author talks about the plagues that wiped out 90% of several Native American tribes. In fact, that's how the Pilgrims were able to survive. They took over the land that had already been cleared by a tribe that got wiped out, calling the destruction of the Indians a sign/blessing from God. Then, for Halloween we watched I Am Legend, where the entire planet gets wiped out by a plague.

This was a good book, and it had all of the elements (dramatic setting, likable characters, good writing) to have been a truly great book. Unfortunately, the author made what I felt were some poor choices with the characters and plot lines, as you'll see from my answers to Glenn's questions.

1. What lesson(s) are to be learned from this book?

I thought it was an interesting look at faith and why we believe.

2. why do we isolate ourselves

I was disappointed that the book didn't do more to explore the motives and problems with the agreement to isolate themselves. It seemed like that was the premise of the whole book (from reading the back), but the decision to isolate themselves was quickly dismissed as not a big deal for anyone besides the rich family because no one else had anywhere to go.

3. freedom lost with marriage?

In my experience, freedom isn't lost with marriage. It's lost with children. Not that I regret having children, but I think they restrict what I can and can't do much more than my wife.

This was all part of the feminist angle of this book. Not only does the male turn out to secretly be a scumbag, but Anna is a superwoman. The 17th century peasant woman goes from illiterate to being able to read Latin and turns out to have an incredible gift for description (as all of the lovely description is part of a 1st person narrative). Then she becomes an expert in alternative medicine, mines lead, delivers babies, rides off on a horse, travels the world, and successfully raises a child while having a career as a medical researcher. Year of wonders indeed!

4. How did your view of the rector change after you learned the secrets of his marriage?

I was disappointed in his sudden loss of faith and the quickness with which he began to go against everything he had believed in, but I don't think the secrets of his marriage made me think less of him. While I didn't agree with his approach of withholding his love from Elinor to help her repent from her sins, it showed remarkable self-discipline and ability to do what he thought was right. It showed that God was more important to him (at least in how he portrayed himself to his wife) than his love/desire for his wife. While the plague and the loss of his wife would obviously have been devastating, he did just have a spiritual experience, as he believed God told him to burn everything to get rid of the plague. As the rector was based on a historical character that was by all accounts completely good and virtuous, I thought it was unfortunate that he lost his faith and virtue in the end of the fictional account.

5. why do some trials seem to erode faith in some people and build faith for others?

I thought this was the most interesting theme. Some of the villagers became more superstitious and believing in witchcraft, while others sought answers in self-flagellation. I imagined all of these scenarios being likely and plausible in an uneducated 17th century town. I was OK with Anna's decision to believe in science instead of religion. Again, I guess I just didn't like that the pastor went astray. Thus, the book didn't portray a single rational person increasing in faith because of tragedy (as with the early Saints) but assumed that tragedy of the magnitude of the plague would erode the faith of all rational people. Life is a refiner's fire. It will weed out the weak and make the strong even stronger.

6. what are your thoughts about the mental and spiritual unravelling of the village over the course of the year

I liked the variety of reactions to the plague, and I thought this was well done.

7. what do you say to those who are mourning?

Tough to give a general answer to a personal question. Glenn, I would love to hear your wife's comments if she has some insight on the subject.

8. why the epilogue? The story would have ended well for me with her galloping away from the village on the horse.

I went to Amazon to read some reviews, as I was having trouble remembering everything that had happened in the book. (I'm only 30 and can't remember a book for a month. This is bad.) Lots of reviewers had issues with the ending of the book.

In summary, I enjoyed the book, and it gave me lots of things to ponder. However, it pushed the feminist, anti-religion angle just a bit too hard to be a great book.

A book for pessimists?

Happy Halloween, my friends.
I finished the book quite a while ago and haven't gone back to it since, though I have thought about it from time to time. I thought the author was quite skilled with her descriptive language, which made things quite enjoyable as she described the land and people, but made things almost unbearable as she described the ravages of the plague. I don't have a whole lot to say about the book, so I guess I'll list some questions that I had as I read the novel, and then I'll offer up my own answers.

1. What lesson(s) are to be learned from this book?
2. why do we isolate ourselves
3. freedom lost with marriage?
4. How did your view of the rector change after you learned the secrets of his marriage?
5. why do some trials seem to erode faith in some people and build faith for others?
6. what are your thoughts about the mental and spiritual unravelling of the village over the course of the year
7. what do you say to those who are mourning?
8. why the epilogue? The story would have ended well for me with her galloping away from the village on the horse.

1. I think the lessons I learned from the book are primarily found in the questions I listed.
2. I think that people usually isolate themselves because of fear, to protect themselves from others. Interesting that in this book the village agreed to the isolation in order to protect other villages from themselves, though there were characters that isolated themselves from others within the village.
3. One of the Gowdie ladies talked to Anna about marriage, essentially saying that she didn't want to marry because she didn't want to lose the freedoms she enjoyed. Of course, women probably had fewer freedoms in that time period; interesting though that the women characters were some of the strongest in the village. And though there may have been different reasons in the dark ages for marriage to be viewed by some as an end to certain freedoms, there are probably some people today that feel that "the ol' ball and chain" is figurative but well representative. Marriage back then probably could have potentially given women greater security, if they were wise in whom they chose to marry. Likewise, the careful choice of a spouse in our times is important, though I think patience, humility, and communication are perhaps even more important.
4. Speaking of marriage, the relationship between the rector and his wife was a surprising one. Many parts of the book gave me the impression that he truly loved his wife, while the revelation of their marriage and how he viewed her made it seem like an abusive relationship. But I had already lost most of my respect for the rector by that point in the story. I wonder if Elinor felt trapped in the marriage.
5. Trials and faith. I think a lot of how people react to trials is due to how they have unknowingly prepared themselves for the trial. I also wonder if pride or ill-formed preconceived notions (fatal optimism?) set them up for a harder fall than those who are humble and/or prepare for the worst. One last thought here: the scriptures tell us that we will not be tempted above what we are able to bear.
6. I think part of the mental and spiritual degradation of the people is related to the topic in question #5. I also think that an awful lot of fear and ignorance and paranoia poisoned the mental and spiritual health of the people.
7. This is a difficult one. My wife lost her dad while she was a senior in high school, in fact he practically died in her arms. Needless to say, I think she is better qualified to answer this question than I am. I am grateful for the knowledge of God's plan. We still mourn the loss of our loved ones, but as Joseph Smith said, "We do not mourn as those without hope."
8. I think the ending was dragged out further than it needed to. I had the same problem with the movie "Second Hand Lions." Perhaps the author had a clear purpose for the ending, but I just didn't get it.

Overall, I enjoyed the book, it had some greatly developed characters and some wonderful imagery through language. The emotion of it was a little heavy at times and had me feeling sorrowful. I think it is a good book, but I'm not sure it's one that I will plan on reading again.
Tell me what you think.

New addition to the family ... still working on the basement

Girl number 4 arrived last night. Jump over to my blog to have a look.

PVS Book Club -- Going Forward

So...

We've reached the end of the original book club rotation. I think it's been a lot of fun, and I want to continue it if others are still enjoying it.

I'm inclined to assume that all those who have been participating somewhat regularly (Paul, Alvin, Karl, Jesse, Glenn, myself) will be in the rotation for choosing the next set of books. If some of you who haven't been contributing to the book club (Eliot, James, Scott, Dave, Ron, Ryan, Christopher) want to choose one of the books, just respond and let me know, and I'll factor you in to the rotation. I'll choose the new rotation sometime in the next two weeks, though, so if you want in, let me know sooner rather than later. That counts for if you want out as well; i.e. if you're in my rotation list but don't want the responsibility of choosing a book this next time around.

If anyone has an alternate suggestion, or comments in general on the book club side of the symposium, let me know.

Meltdown

I'd like to here Jesse's thoughts on the current economic sitch, and the changes that should/shouldn't be made in the context of the debate about the role of government.  I don't understand enough to have a real opinion here

Ramblings and overdue comments

All of the following items probably should be comments on various posts (like Karl's), but I find it easier to write one post than 5 comments.

To Glenn

Congratulations is way overdue. The baby pictures were nice, but I especially enjoyed the pictures from the "Hair Raising Experience" blog entry. Today I was reading some articles by Steven Landsburg, including one called Do Daughters Cause Divorce? (Landsburg has written a series of interesting articles for slate.com about Everyday economics: How the dismal science applies to your life.) Anyway, when I read this article, I thought of you Glenn and hope that you can beat the odds.

Glenn, I also enjoyed your post on the Joseph Smith presidential candidacy. We just finished reading the D&C/History of the Church picture scriptures with our daughter, but the bid for the presidency was not a topic that was covered. I understand that it doesn't build testimonies to talk about Joseph's run for the White House, but it doesn't hurt testimonies either.

I'm listening to this book called "Lies My Teacher Told Me". Most of it deals with how our Euro-centric history text books omit or misrepresent the history of people of different races (starting with the Indians) and social classes. The author also has a section on heroification and how he thinks it does people a disservice to talk about historical figures as real people with real struggles that made mistakes. I know there is a limited time in church, so it is important to focus on the most uplifting things. Still, I can't help but feel the church does a bit of a disservice by not talking more about the whole Joseph Smith and things like his presidential bid.

Speaking of books, did anyone else volunteer to be part of the book club core or is it my turn to choose again? If it's my turn, books I have been kicking aroung include one's that I've already read "An Ordinary Man" (About the Hotel Rwanda story), books I've half read "Rough Stone Rolling", and books I plan to read in the near future "The Omnivore's Dilemma". Let me know if you have any opinions.

The Dismal Science and the Environment

So a while back I asked Jesse to post his half finished post on the environment because I wanted to comment on it. I decided that if economics and environmental science are indeed comparable, then I have been underestimating environmental scientists because I have a lot more faith in economic predictions than environmental predictions. Also, I liked Karl's point that you don't have to know when the smoker is going to die to know that smoking is bad. (Aside: I think a more apt analogy than thinking of the US as a smoker would be if the country were a '50's coal miner. Both are eventually going to suffer lung disease, but the coal miner needs the job in a different way than the smoker needs a cigarrette.)

I still feel like environmental scientists have not come up with a viable solution to the problem. Most of the "cures" are worse than the disease. I don't understand why most environmentalists aren't quicker to embrace nuclear power, as it is much more proven than wind, solar, and biofuels. If someone can explain it to me, I'll be one step closer to accepting Obama (our next president?), who often repeats the wind, solar, bio mantra, as the thoughtful person he has a reputation of being.

The Lost Cause

I still haven't come to a firm conclusion about the rightness or wrongness of Lost. In retrospect, watching 3 seasons in 3 months was probably a bit much. My wife has definitely concluded that she won't be watching it, and I definitely feel that I shouldn't spend that much time watching stuff without my wife. So by default, I guess I won't be watching the rest of Lost.

I am starting to look more into devices that can help filter out a lot of the bad stuff because, as Karl pointed out, most episodes of Lost aren't that different than the commercials or other media. Personally, I don't feel offended by most commercials or most episodes of lost, but that may be more of a reflection on me than the media. I don't know. Either way, I figure if there is technology available to help me access cleaner media, then I should try to utilize that technology. I've heard some success stories, but if any of you have had any success, let me know.

A "Lost" Cause

I know there are multiple Lost enthusiasts out there, and I need your help. My wife has been watching Lost with me (2.5 seasons in the last 2.5 months), and while she enjoys the show, she has had, from the beginning, some misgivings about the violence and sometimes the sexual innuendo in the show. Well, a combination of General Conference and an episode that was particularly bad pushed her over the edge, and she has decided to stop watching, despite the large investment of time we have already put into the show. Now I'm in a fix because I still want to find out what happens. Here's what the conversation inside my head has been like. The two participants are Good Alvin (GA) and Not-So-Good Alvin (NSGA).

NSGA: This sucks.

GA: Good thing the kids didn't hear you talk like that.

NSGA: Don't start with me.

GA: She's right, you know.

NSGA: Maybe.

GA: Maybe? Have you forgotten all those lessons on the media you received as a young man? If there is anything virtuous, lovely, of good report, praiseworthy,...

NSGA: Praiseworthy! Lost is a genius piece of work, and it's received critical acclaim.

GA: You're grasping at straws.

NSGA: What about interesting? Shouldn't interesting be in that article of faith somewhere?

GA: Nice try.

NSGA: It's not THAT bad. We fast forward through the worst parts.

GA: So you're admitting that there are bad parts.

NSGA: A few.

GA: Don't you remember the lessons on justifying 'just a little sin'.

NSGA: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

GA: Would you let your kids watch the show?

NSGA: No, but Miriam's only 3.

GA: What if they were teenagers?

NSGA: 18 is still a teenager, right?

GA:Look, if you were honest with yourself, you would admit that the show is against your principles, and you would stop watching.

NSGA: OK, Mr. Goody-Two-Shoes, you want to be honest? Tell me, do you intend to obey all of God's commandments?

GA: Naturally.

NSGA: You ready to start driving the speed limit? How about the Word of Wisdom? There's no way all of those snacks we've been eating are legal.

GA: Now, that's not fair. I never said I was a saint. Just because we're not perfect in all things doesn't mean we can't be better in some things.

NSGA: I'm just saying that not even you can avoid those chocolate mint brownies in the fridge. Eating them may not be part of treating our body like a temple, but sometimes it's OK to enjoy something that's not good for you.

GA: But TV is different, it stays in your mind longer.

NSGA: Longer than those brownies stay in your gut?

GA. Fine. You want to eat brain sugar...go ahead. Tammy never said you couldn't watch Lost on your own. You have your free agency.

NSGA: Maybe I will.

GA: Fine. [Storms off]

NSGA: [Sigh] Brownies are much more enjoyable when you have someone to share them with.