The Baron of Deseret

Questions to Ask Before Marriage:

From the NY Times: Questions that couples should ask before they get married.

Is it just me, or does one of these questions seem...different than the other 14?  Or maybe this is something that couples commonly fight about that I'm unaware.  (I'm assuming you'll be able to tell which question I'm talking about...)

What would an LDS Questions that couples should ask before they get married list look like?  (Hmmm...future article idea)

Thought Experiment #2: Poverty

Suppose you have N poor people (however you define the term) living in society.  Suppose also that it has been decided that direct handouts are not good policy and the key to ending poverty is creating opportunities for the poor to raise themselves out of poverty through education and work programs.

Given the existence of free will--and, oftentimes, the preexisting habits or circumstances that led to being in poverty in the first place--equal opportunity will not create equal results.  Some of the poor will take advantage of the opportunities given (call them group X), and others will not (group Y).

After some time T after implementing said social programs, let's suppose Group X has successfully used those given opportunities and are no longer impoverished.  Group Y, by definition, has not, and remain poor even after the anti-poverty programs have been implemented. 

This would seem to indicate that as long as Group Y (and free will) exists, poverty can NEVER be completely abolished.  Even the most optimal social policy to end poverty will at most reduce N by X, since Y will remain in poverty regardless of the opportunities presented.

Here's the problem: how do we know this has not already happened?  What if the quantity of people in poverty today are already just the Group Y people who remained after the Group X people left.  I'm not suggesting this is the case, but if it was, how would we know?  What if current policies were already the most optimal anti-poverty measures one could create?  Could we prove otherwise?

Some people seem to say the existence of people in poverty shows that current social anti-poverty policies are inadequate.  The inadequacy part is no doubt true, but the mere existence of poor people is not evidence of it.  Since we can't tell by looking at someone whether they are Group X or Group Y (and people can change from one to the other through time as well...) how would we know if we already had the most optimal anti-poverty measures in place possible?  How would we know if we had already done all we could?

How do you judge the success or failure of an anti-poverty measure, anyway?  Raw numbers?  Percentages?  Either measure fails to take into account the difference between groups X and Y--if Group Y happens to be increasing for whatever reason, the ranks of the poor will increase percentage-wise even if you had the best anti-poverty program in the world in place already...

Important factors to consider in the debate about poverty and 'income inequality': what defines success or failure?  How do you help Group Y people get out of poverty?  (Or can you?)  What metric can you use to determine if existing programs are already as successful as possible, or if change is needed?  Without going through individuals case-by-case, how can you tell whether someone has already been given ample opportunity to escape poverty and thus current policies are adequate?

Thought Experiment #1: Minimum Wage

With a Democratic congress, there's a large possibility that the minimum wage could be raised (see T&S thread here)

What would a likely new minimum wage be?  Over $6.00 certainly, perhaps $7.00.  Why would we raise the minimum wage?  To 'help the poor', of course.

But...if raising the minimum wage from $5 to $7 'helps the poor', wouldn't it help them even more to raise it to $10, or $20, or $40?  Why stop at $7?  Who wouldn't benefit from getting $20 an hour instead of $5?

Let's suppose a $20 minimum wage goes into effect tomorrow.  What would happen?  The most obvious effect is that companies with minimum wage employees will suddenly discover their payroll has quadrupled...but, unfortunately, their gross income has not magically quadrupled to go along with it.  Thus, a $20 minimum wage would lead to a huge amount of layoffs, as companies are forced to find a equilibrium between productivity and expense.   This seems inarguable...

Here's the point: how can anyone argue that raising the minimum wage to $7 will have no impact on unemployment, if it's blinding obvious that raising it to $20 would?  Obviously, the layoff effect itself will be exponentially greater at $20 than at $7, but if it's clear that (higher minimum wage == layoffs) in large cases, wouldn't it be proportionally just as true in small cases as well? 

There's undoubtedly still a policy argument in favor of a higher minimum wage even accepting a result of higher unemployment, but using an 'extreme case' thought experiment should make it clear that if large changes have certain consequences, then small changes will also have (proportionally smaller, yet undeniably present) consequences as well...

More Political Musings: Judgment and Accountability

"It's funny that those hypocritical Republicans oppose abortion, yet support the death penalty..."

One of the more common, yet nonsensical comments heard from the left.  I mean, I can think of at least a couple of differences between innocent children and convicted criminals, can't you?

This statement only makes sense if, in the liberal mindset, there is no difference between a convicted criminal and a newborn child--thus making it truly inconsistent to say one has a 'right-to-life' while the other doesn't.  The mindset that, fundamentally, one's rights are never affected by one's choices.

The conservative view, obviously, is different. Someone on the inside of a jail cell does not have the same rights as someone on the outside, due to the choices that led to being put in the jail cell in the first place.  In other words, human rights can change due to actions.

It is not inconsistent to say person A does not have the same right that person B does, because of different choices person A and B made.  Killing someone else (for example) can be considered to be forfeiting your own 'right-to-life'...and there's nothing fundamentally inconsistent about that line of thinking, unless you maintain that personal decisions have no relevance whatsoever to one's rights.

(Much of the liberal discussion of the death penalty and the rights of criminals centers around innocents being falsely accused and convicted--which is fair--but generally ducks the discussion of how to deal with the vast majority of convicted criminals that really are guilty...)

In the vein of last week's article, what does the Book of Mormon have to say on the subject?  Does it support the liberal or conservative view of human rights--that one can lose his/her 'right-to-life' due to personal choices, or that individual decisions and actions don't matter?

During the war between the Nephites and Lamanites chronicled in the Book of Alma, we read that:

13 And it came to pass that when the men who were called king-men had heard that the Lamanites were coming down to battle against them, they were glad in their hearts; and they refused to take up arms, for they were so wroth with the chief judge, and also with the people of liberty, that they would not take up arms to defend their country.
14 And it came to pass that when Moroni saw this, and also saw that the Lamanites were coming into the borders of the land, he was exceedingly wroth because of the stubbornness of those people whom he had labored with so much diligence to preserve; yea, he was exceedingly wroth; his soul was filled with anger against them.
15 And it came to pass that he sent a petition, with the voice of the people, unto the governor of the land, desiring that he should read it, and give him (Moroni) power to compel those dissenters to defend their country or to put them to death.
16 For it was his first care to put an end to such contentions and dissensions among the people; for behold, this had been hitherto a cause of all their destruction. And it came to pass that it was granted according to the voice of the people.
17 And it came to pass that Moroni commanded that his army should go against those king-men, to pull down their pride and their nobility and level them with the earth, or they should take up arms and support the cause of liberty.
18 And it came to pass that the armies did march forth against them; and they did pull down their pride and their nobility, insomuch that as they did lift their weapons of war to fight against the men of Moroni they were hewn down and leveled to the earth.
19 And it came to pass that there were four thousand of those dissenters who were hewn down by the sword; and those of their leaders who were not slain in battle were taken and cast into prison, for there was no time for their trials at this period.
20 And the remainder of those dissenters, rather than be smitten down to the earth by the sword, yielded to the standard of liberty, and were compelled to hoist the title of liberty upon their towers, and in their cities, and to take up arms in defence of their country.  (Alma 51:13-20)

Later on, we read:

    9  And the men of Pachus received their trial, according to the law, and also those king-men who had been taken and cast into prison; and they were executed according to the law; yea, those men of Pachus and those king-men, whosoever would not take up arms in the defence of their country, but would fight against it, were put to death.
  10 And thus it became expedient that this law should be strictly observed for the safety of their country; yea, and whosoever was found denying their freedom was speedily executed according to the law.
  11 And thus ended the thirtieth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi; Moroni and Pahoran having restored peace to the land of Zarahemla, among their own people, having inflicted death upon all those who were not true to the cause of freedom.

So, we read that the Nephites were seemingly very willing to put to death those that had forfeited their 'right-to-life' by not being "true to the cause of freedom"  (which, depending on your interpretation, could mean active treason, or simply apathy)

One can still take issue with the Nephite policy, of course, but Alma makes it clear that--if the Book of Mormon text is to be used to justify voting for one party or the other as people claim it does--it would seem to support the death penalty in this instance.  And, furthermore, support the more general idea that one's personal rights can change depending on one's actions, including the forfeiture of one's life.   

From D&C 88:

All kingdoms have a law given...And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions. All beings who abide not in those conditions are not justified.  For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory. And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory. (D&C 88:36,38-39,22-23)

From a general plan of salvation perspective, we can see that one's rights in terms of eternal destiny or reward are not set in stone and inalterable from birth.  Both the celestial and terrestrial kingdoms are those who are redeemed by the Savior's Atonement, yet this does not make all of those spirits inherently equal.  Those that can follow and keep the celestial law can receive the celestial reward.  Those that cannot keep the celestial law do not have the 'right' to celestial glory, and it is not 'unfair' that person A obtains a celestial glory and person B does not if, in fact, person A kept the law and person B did not.  (In fact, I would argue the opposite...)

In the gospel, rights change due to action.  It is unfair to block someone from voting because they are black, but not unfair to block someone from voting because they are a convicted felon...even a black convicted felon.  By the same measure, it is not inherently unfair to ascribe capitol punishment to someone who has killed someone else--because one's rights are influenced by one's actions, including the right to live.  In this instance, I think you'd have to score one for the Republican/conservative side...

Who *Should* Mormons Vote For?

So, who *should* Mormons vote for?

Everyone should know that, as Nephi phrases it:

"There are save two political parties only; the one is the party of the Lamb of God, and the other is the party of the devil; wherefore, whoso voteth not for the party of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great political party, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

And which political party is the party of the Lamb of God, and which is the party of the devil?  Um...well, there's a little disagreement on that matter.

This guy seems to have it figured out: clearly, any intelligent Mormon who's read the Book of Mormon will vote Democrat.  By an astonishing coincidence, the author just so happens to be a Democrat himself!  (How about that?)  Funny how people can always objectively read scriptures...and miraculously find support for everything he/she happened to believe already.

(Just once, I'd like to hear a Democrat say: "I've thought about it and, you know, Mormons should really vote Republican.  I just can't see how the values of my party match up with theirs..."  Or vice versa.)

Why *should* Mormons vote Democrat?  Let's see what liberals/Democrats believe in...courtesy of the above article (see also this article in the Chicago Tribune):

1. Renouncing war and embrace peace.
2. Helping the less fortunate.
3. Respecting differences
4. Protecting individual liberties
5. Protecting the safety and security of the people.

Why, I do believe the Book of Mormon supports all of these principles.  Score one for the Democrats!

Now, let's compare to what conservatives/Republicans believe, courtesy of "Jane Galt":

1. Conservatives believe that people should take responsibility for their actions.
2. Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity, not in equality of result. Conservatives do not want to punish people for the crime of being successful.
3. Conservatives believe in protecting the lives of the helpless, even when their lives inconvenience other people.
4. Conservatives believe that the government should treat everyone equally, regardless of their race or gender.
5. Conservatives believe that people should be allowed to express their faith, and their views on other controversial topics, even when those views make others uncomfortable.
6. Conservatives believe that each individual is unique and special, and cannot be treated simply as a member of a group. Individuals are only available individually.
7. Conservatives believe that well intentioned changes often have unintended consequences.
8. Conservatives believe that people respond to incentives.
9. Conservatives believe that America is a special nation, not perfect, but with a proud history. People who come to America should feel that that history is theirs, and celebrate their citizenship. They should not have loyalties to foreign powers.
10. Conservatives believe that victims of crime are more worthy of our concern than the criminals who prey on them.

Why, I do believe the Book of Mormon supports all of these principles as well!  Score one for the Republicans!

Uh, oh...now who are we supposed to vote for?

Perhaps reciting general platitudes isn't very helpful.  Perhaps, as Jane herself puts it:

Such lists are either a good-faith attempt to draw a broad tent that everyone agrees with . . . in which case they generally fail because they degenerate into useless platitudes that no one could possibly disagree with, and therefore do nothing at all to set you apart from your opponents. . . or they are a tendentious attempt to claim the moral high ground for your side through semantic chicanery. In which case they fail because no one is that stupid.

Perhaps in the end we're stuck voting for the political party that's corrupt, beholden to special interests, and talks a good game, but whose actions aren't in harmony with the teachings of the gospel...or the other political party that's corrupt, beholden to special interests, and talks a good game but whose actions aren't in harmony with the teachings of the gospel.

So, who *should* Mormons vote for?

Anyone you blankety-blank want to...

The Baron's 2006 Election Primer

[Note: BoD is not a political blog...still, let's look at some of the issues related to the upcoming election]

In Chinese, there’s a word called “tanwu”—loosely translated, it means “corruption”

In Taiwan—as in the US--the political system is composed of differing political parties with opposing ideologies, which produce candidates for local and national elections. Campaign funds, however, are generally not raised and distributed by the political parties themselves—rather, each candidate in Taiwan is more or less responsible for their own campaign expenditures out of their own pocket. This tends to limit candidates—even more so than in the US—to strictly the rich, as it is fairly certain that a candidate will have to spend large quantities of his/her own money in order to compete and win.

“Tanwu” in relation to Taiwanese politics, refers to the common practice of elected officials skimming portions of federal funds allocated to their district for government purposes directly into their own bank accounts. This is excused, in a sense, because it is seen as ‘making up’ for the funds they spend out of their own account to get elected in the first place. This practice—while illegal, of course—is fairly ubiquitous within Taiwanese politics.

Suppose we have Candidate A who’s running against Incumbent Candidate B in a local election. Candidate A researches and then presents attack ads outlining all the “tanwu” that Candidate B has committed during his time in office. On election day, Candidate A even goes so far as to stand outside the polling areas and personally talk to each voter on their way in. Voter X walks up:

Candidate A: “You believe elected officials should not “tanwu”, right?”

Voter X: “Absolutely.”

Candidate A: “You are aware that Candidate B has been proved to have committed serious ‘tanwu’ since the beginning of his term, right?”

Voter X: “Yes.”

Candidate A: “Therefore, you certainly wouldn’t want to vote for a candidate that ‘tanwu’s, right?

Voter X: “Not at all”

Voter X then goes inside and votes for Incumbent B. Confused, Candidate A turns his attention to Voter Y.

Candidate A: “You believe ‘tanwu’ is wrong, right?”

Voter Y: “Yes”

Candidate A: “And you know Candidate B has lots and lots of confirmed, documented 'tanwu', right?”

Voter Y: “Yes”

Candidate A: “…which you don’t want in an elected official, right?”

Voter Y: “Right.”

Candidate A: “…and you wouldn’t want to vote for someone who does, right?”

Voter Y: “Absolutely.”

Voter Y then goes inside and votes for Incumbent B. Candidate A loses the election…and is mystified. What’s going on? Why didn’t people vote for me?

Candidate A has missed an important point…which the Democrats in the 2006 may be in danger of missing also: ‘anti-‘ arguments have limited effectiveness without the ‘pro-’ side of the equation.

Nobody likes ‘tanwu’ in Taiwan…but virtually everyone does it. Candidate A reminded voters that Incumbent B is corrupt…but gave no argument that he would be any different if he was elected. The burden of proof is on him to demonstrate why he would be preferable to the current guy.  So, Voters X and Y may know very well that Incumbent B is corrupt…but if they believe Candidate A is just going to ‘tanwu’ as well if he gets elected, then ‘tanwu’ ceases entirely to be a factor in the voters’ decision.

Making a choice depends not only on how much you like or dislike the one you choose, but what the alternative is. Doesn’t matter if you hate everything about Incumbent B, if you don’t believe Candidate A provides anything better, then you’re just as likely to choose B anyway in the end.

It will be interesting to see in the 2006 elections whether the Dems have learned this simple lesson: do they have anything to offer, other than just ‘Bush-hatred’? Granted, it may very well turn out to be enough by itself, but it is also likely a lot of voters are going to think “I hate the current Republican government…but the alternative isn’t any better.”, and may just vote for the Republican anyway.  After all, if the Democrat candidate hasn’t made the ‘pro’ case as to why people should vote for him or her, not just vote against the other guy, they may be standing around mystified next week wondering why no one voted for them.

(Much has been made of conservative disillusionment towards the Bush Administration, particularly in regards to spending.  But, when those disillusioned conservatives go to the polls they may very well think: 'The Republicans are spending too much money...but are the Democrats really going to spend less, or still more?  Hmmm...'  Who are they going to end up voting for?  Again, why should annoyed conservatives vote Democrat?)

Frankly, if the Democrats can’t pull off an election victory in 2006 with virtually everything working in their favor, I would legitimately question whether they will ever be a meaningful force in American politics again…

Next: Who should Mormons vote for?

Unintentionally Hilarious Article of the Day...

BYU ranks dead last among public and private universities in the Sexual Health Report Card (sponsored by Trojan condoms!)

BYU strangely has NO place on campus to go to get free condoms, and their campus newspaper stubbornly refuses to start a sex advice column like many other enlightened universities--leading to the  embarrassingly bad grade.

BYU students "may be at risk for sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancies because of a lack of access to information about sexual health and availability of condoms" according to the survey, without noting whether BYU students in actuality have higher rates of STDs and unwanted pregancies compared to the higher-ranked schools on the list.  (Hint: they don't...)

More amusingly, the University of Utah is ranked 98th (out of 100), only 2 above BYU--a fact that should probably be a little more disturbing to those up in SLC, since their student population has, *ahem*, slightly more frequent need for sexual health information and testing.

(Obligatory joke:  What's the difference between BYU coeds and Utah coeds?  One walks around campus looking for a husband, one walks around campus looking for the father...)

Low, Low Prices and High, High Controversy

I have a confession to make...

[fighting back tears...]

My family...(*choke*)...occasionally shops at Walmart.

I'm confessing this, if only because apparantly Walmart is the Anti-Christ incarnate in a corporation, and shopping there is the moral equivalent of sending cash donations to al-Qaida.  Apparantly, I'm supposed to feel guilty that I'm supporting a company that (from what I hear) is the single greatest contributor to American poverty since slavery.

I find the anti-Walmart rhetoric amusing sometimes, and often intellectually dishonest.  Take this article from "Walmart Watch", for example, which purports to shine the light of truth on Walmart's "spin".  If this is the best the anti-Walmart crowd can come up with, Walmart has nothing to worry about--I have done exactly zero research in the matter, and it took exactly five minutes to find all the flaws...

Walmart says:  US shoppers save $50 billion a year on food and other items by shopping at Walmart
This is 'false' because:  The survey was from a company hired by Walmart and is thus 'tainted'.  The numbers are not verifiable since only the surveying company has access to Walmart's internal records.
What's missing:  Walmart Watch produces no argument nor any other statistics showing that the survey was actually wrong, only that the numbers used aren't public and verifiable (thus could be wrong...but could just as easily be right). 

So, if you're going to make this argument show us the 'real' numbers, then...  Does WW contend Walmart customers save no money by shopping there?  Or that the savings are, say, only $40 billion instead of $50?  Isn't customer savings an important factor in judging the worth of Walmart across the country?

Walmart says:  Walmart shoppers have annual incomes tens of thousands of dollars less than the average Target or Costco customer, therefore the importance of cost savings is increased.
This is 'false' because:  Walmart is actually trying to attract higher-income customers (?)
What's missing: Note that WW ducks the actual argument entirely.  The data that shows that Walmart customers are much lower-income than other retailers is fairly well established, and WW shows nothing that contradicts this, but instead tries to cloud the issue by going off on a tangent about Walmart trying to attract more customers with higher incomes.  (And this is wrong...why?)

If Walmart customers are, in fact, poorer than Target customers, doesn't the fact that they save money shopping at Walmart matter?  Address the real issue, please...

Walmart says: Our jobs can't be that bad, since we receive thousands of applicants for every hundred openings.
This is 'false' because: Walmart pays less ($9.68/hr) than other retail stores, pays less than the poverty line for a family of three, and their CEO earns $17.5 million.(?)

What's missing:  By my math, paying $9.68 an hour is almost twice the minimum wage.  There are a lot of people who would love to be making $9 an hour--and the number of Walmart job applicants seems to bear this out.  Why compare different retail stores?  If Costco is paying $16 an hour, great!  But since I'm guessing the applicants to Walmart are not people who are currently working at Costco (and would thus be taking a pay cut), the comparison is meaningless.  Not everyone who needs a job can work at Costco (and if they did, you can bet the $16-an-hour rate would come down really fast...)  $9 is higher than a minimum wage fast food job...and much higher than not working at all.

WW notes further that "the average pay of a sales clerk at Wal-Mart was $8.50 per hour or about $14,000 per year - $1,000 below the government’s definition of the poverty level for a family of three."  My math says $8.50 an hour equals annual wages of over $17,000.  If WW is attempting to calculate income after taxes, they're cheating...because the official poverty level calculations use pre-tax income, and (inconveniently) this family of three under this situation would not actually be impoverished.

Not to mention, we're still missing a fundamental statistic:  How many of those clerks earning $8.50 an hour are actually the sole provider for a family of three?  The 'family of three' metric appears to be grabbed out of the air, since WW provides no data showing that a significant percentage of $8.50/hr clerks have to support anyone other than themselves.  It makes a big difference if a guy is trying to support a wife and two kids on $8.50, versus college students or retired persons who have no needs beyond what a low-level retail job can provide...

CEO compensation is a big issue in the business world--but totally irrelevant to whether Walmart is being unfair to its workers.  Walmart's CEO isn't even in the top 150 for monetary compensation.  Since the pay and benefits of a CEO at any company in America will always "dwarf" the pay of the low-level guys, what's the point of making this comparision, if not in a dishonest attempt to poison the well further against the big, bad Walmart brain trust?

Hey, "Walmart Watch", did you happen to look up how much Target's CEO makes, by chance? ($23 million, #55)  How does that compare to Target's hourly workers?

Walmart says: Their benefits are 'comparable' to most other companies
This is 'false' because: Walmart's benefits leave a greater percentage of employees under-insured than comparable retail stores.
What's missing: How about considering Walmart's context within the rest of the country.  Health insurance (Iike CEO compensation) is a national issue that faces every company.  Walmart, like most companies, can certainly do more to provide health insurance to employees.  Is Walmart 'evil' in terms of health insurance compared to the rest of the country, though?  WW notes that Walmart provides insurance to 'only' 44% of its employees compared to a national average of 68%. (I have not researched these numbers and do not know if the percentage of Walmart workers that are part-time influences this...)   If Walmart started providing insurance to 68% of employees (bringing them up to 'average'), they'd be 'acceptable', then?  What about the remaining 32% who still have no insurance?

Health insurance is a national problem facing all companies, and it's grasping at straws to suggest that insuring that middle 22% is somehow key to Walmart becoming 'good' versus 'evil' in the eyes of liberals, without regard to how virtually every company is struggling with the same problem of ensuring a large percentage of its employees.

It is also ironic that WW notes that 5% of Walmart employees' children are on Medicare, versus a 4% national average, and phrases it as if this higher percentage is another one of Walmart's 'problems'.  Since most liberals push for nationalized health care provided by the government (like Medicare) rather than employer-based plans, then wouldn't having a greater percentage of employees being taken care of by the government compared to average be a good thing?  After all, isn't the ultimate goal that 100% of Walmart employees rely on the government for health insurance?

Walmart says: Raising wages (and thus prices) will result in a net loss for the poor.
This is 'false' because: Employees will have more purchasing power and thus will be better off
What's missing:  Well, duh--if you raise wages, Walmart employees of course will have more purchasing power.  At least, those employees that still work there after wages are raised...and the employee force is cut down as a result.  What about the poor who shop at Walmart after prices are raised--what happens to their purchasing power?

Even more confusingly, WW notes in its argument against Walmart that Sam's Club and Costco are more productive with fewer (better paid) employees.  So, wait...Walmart should switch to hiring a smaller pool of employees, pay them more...and then layoff the rest?  This is better than Walmart offering some form of employment to hundreds of thousands more people than Costco and Sam's Club?

Question: if employees can get a better paying job with better benefits than at Walmart, why don't they? ("Because they can't..." comes the liberal left's reply...)  Well, then...in other words, Walmart is the only thing standing between thousands and thousands of people and unemployment?  And this is bad?  What are the hourly wages and health benefits of the average unemployed person, in your experience? 

I have a hard time understanding how the complaints against Walmart fit within the context of traditional liberal ideology:  Usually, it's the few (the rich and the powerful) who are obligated to make sacrifices to benefit the many (read any articles about 'income inequality' lately?)

Yet, here the liberal thought seems to be instead of many people having a modest but stable employment, Walmart should switch to a system where a few have higher paying jobs and great benefits...and the rest have nothing.  Or, that the 'many' (the lower-income Walmart customers) should accept higher prices so that the 'few' (Walmart employees) can receive better benefits.  This strikes me as exactly the opposite of what liberal philosophy generally entails. 

In general, "Walmart Watch"--and the anti-Walmart left in general--gloss over the important point of why exactly Walmart customers should pay more for the same products simply to further the interests of its employees.

Do Walmart customers, in fact, save billions of dollars shopping there?  ("Unverifiable data..." says WW).

Are Walmart customers quantifiably poorer than those at other retail stores? ("<silence>...Did you hear Walmart is starting to sell high-priced jewelry?" says WW)

What are the social costs of raising prices, then?  And If Walmart jobs are so undesirable, why do thousands of people apply for them?  What's the income/benefits situation of employees who aren't working at Walmart?

Like George Will, I think this is a loser of an issue for the Democrats if they continue to pursue it.  It seems to be based more from union pressure than a genuine concern for the poor--whom, of course, will be paying more for groceries if the left gets their way.  Would society in general be better off without Walmart than with it?  I don't see that to be the case.  Encouraging Walmart to be more generous is one thing (virtually any company has room to be more generous), but calling them 'evil' and a blight on society is a little far-fetched.  I don't think my wife or anyone else needs to feel guilty about saving a dollar on toilet paper by shopping at the 'evil empire'...

Random Links and Questions

Clark reflects on 9/11 here.

Quick stat:

• Fatalities in 2001 due to 9/11 attacks: 3000+
• Fatalities in 2001 due to alcohol-related traffic accidents: 17,000+

Question:  If God 'should' have prevented 9/11 (assuming He existed), shouldn't He also be preventing people from drinking alcohol?  If not, why not?

***

Interesting thread here, which takes an odd tangent into a discussion of Dungeons & Dragons.  If anyone is going to start worrying about the effects of RPG-playing on today's youth, D&D is certainly not the problem, this is (from an email I received recently):

My 24 yr. old son seems to be developing a mild obsession ( oxymoron?) with the game World of Warcraft.  I can't think of any other interests of late but Warcraft. He spends from 4-6 hrs a day on it.

My response: 4-6 hours is, in fact, fairly 'mild' compared to others out there...

Fantasy roleplaying (in moderation) is harmless.  Most 'serious' D&D players play maybe a three hour session once a week.  Online RPGs are completely different--this is where the obsessive behavior can easily start.  Question: how many more General Conferences will there be, before someone (like this mother above) writes to a General Authority and we hear a conference talk which mentions online RPG addiction by name?  I think it will be within a year...

***

Question: Is a "For-profit charity" a contradiction in terms?  (via MR)  Is it just normal business activities with better window-dressing?

***

You've all heard tithing stories before and you're probably tired of them, but here's a good one.   Question: how badly do we need a post-baptismal 'church orientation' class for new members, to explain all the little things that aren't in the missionary discussions:  what's home/visiting teaching, how and where to pay tithing, how do we sign up for a bishop's interview, what do we need a bishop's interview for, anyway?  Etc...

The Solution to the CleanFlix Problem...

Former Mystery Science Theater 3000 comic Mike Nelson has a new idea: RiffTrax, custom commentary tracks to popular movies (not just old sci-fi B movies) which you can download to an IPod.  Then, while you're watching the real DVD, you can add in MST3K style commentary, like the regular DVD commentary tracks...only less serious.

The best part: no worries about copyrights.  Since the commentary track is a completely separate entity from the DVD (which you have to provide on your own) there's no copyright violation.

Which suggests a simple solution to the CleanFlix copyright debate: CleanFlix commentary tracks!

You download the track to an IPod, put your headphones on, and start the movie.  For the most part, the track is silent, but when there's instances of profanity in the movie, the CleanFlix track has a loud ***BEEEEEEEEEP***, blocking out the bad word.  When scenes with sex or violence are about to occur, the track will warn you to "CLOSE YOUR EYES NOW!"  and then when the scene has passed, it will give you the "all clear" signal so you can open your eyes again.

The best part: no more copyright problems!

What?  You don't think this would work...?  :)

CleanFlix and Clean Flicks

Once upon a time, back in February 2004, I started a weblog.  (Why, here's a link!)

I knew that in addition to general LDS issues, I wanted to focus on movies--and to that end I created a special movie section on the site which, despite not being read by very many people has been a rewarding experience and has generally been updated consistently with two or three new articles every month.  At the time, CleanFlix and other such movie cleaning services and technology were in their infancy, and I figured it would only be a matter of weeks before a comprehensive article on them would see the light of day on my new website.

Never happened...  The CleanFlix blog article remained on the back-burner for the last two and a half years and has never materialized...mostly because in those two and a half years I've never once used CleanFlix, ClearPlay, or any movie editing service.  Surprising, in a sense, because (a) we don't happen to watch R-rated movies, and (b) we live in Utah County where opportunities to rent edited videos are rampant.  Seemed like the perfect alignment of stars to make us regular customers.... 

And yet, everytime I think, 'You know, it might be nice to check out "Lost in Translation" or "Sideways"' and drive by a CleanFlix, I just keep on driving, and have never really developed any serious interest in trying out edited movies.  Since CleanFlix and the like have been hot discussion topics lately (see here also) I figured it's probably time I attempt to figure out why I'm not part of the edited movie craze when it seemed inevitable back in 2004.

The key issues from my perspective:

(1) Purism:  As a movie purist, I want to see the real movie, not just some arbitrary subset of it.  If the movie is supposed to be dark, ugly, and violent--then perhaps it should be seen in its dark, ugly, and violent fullness...or not seen at all. As a commenter in the M* thread remarked, editing movies away from their original intent is a little like buying a copy of Playboy with the pictures cut out just to read the articles.  If you care about objectionable content (and I submit you should) it's probably more appropriate to just find some other movie to watch.  There's plenty of clean(er) ones out there...

(2) Funding the Enemy:  Buying an unedited DVD, and buying an edited DVD from a place that had to buy an unedited DVD first looks exactly the same on the movie studios' income reports.  While this fact is a good argument why the studios shouldn't be complaining about edited video places as much as they have, it is also an argument why you might not want to buy edited videos in the first place.  Like that pictureless copy of Playboy, you may feel morally superior for finding a way to get some value out of it without wading through the smut, but the purveyors of that smut got just as much of your money with which to line their pockets regardless.   You still become one more name on the list of Playboy 'consumers' who keep them running.

If the goal is to encourage the production of better and cleaner entertainment, directly supporting the production of 'bad' forms of entertainment financially, even through a sanitizing middleman, seems to be the exact opposite of what you'd want to do...

(3) The Appearance of Evil:  Suppose your bishop is having a casual conversation at a ward activity and says, "Oh, yeah--I read about that in an article in last month's Playboy..."  What would your first reaction be?  Does that bishop have the luxury of saying to himself: "Of course I only read the 'sanitized' version of Playboy.  If everyone else ignorantly jumps to the conclusion that I read the unedited version without first finding out the facts, that's their problem..."  But it's not just their problem...  Appearances matter.

Many scoff at the idea of "the appearance of evil", and act as if you can take a can of Coors Light, dump it into the sink, fill it with orange juice, and then drink it in public all you like without any harm being done.  ("Hey, if people ignorantly assume without finding out the truth, that's their problem...")  Lack of credibility or the appearance of unworthiness can have many devastating effects on other people (and yourself), and knowing that people will jump to conclusions without all the evidence, wise people will actively avoid circumstances where they could be misunderstood.  The 'truth' doesn't matter much when one or more members have already gone inactive out of disgust for the seeming low standards of their current bishop...

Likewise, if you're on a date and casually start quoting lines from "Sin City" or  "Pulp Fiction"--do you have the luxury of assuming your companion won't assume you've just revealed something about your standards in entertainment?   Protesting later that you had only seen the clean versions won't matter much if your potential boyfriend/girlfriend has already presumptively crossed you off of the partner suitability list in their head...

(This fact forces some people I know to speak defensively all the time--"I was watching the TV-edited version of "Braveheart" the other day...", "We rented an edited version of "Goodfellas" with all the profanity and violence removed and..."   This may help avoid misunderstandings, but at the cost of sounding awkward and/or self-righteous instead.)

Basically, if you're going to maintain standards inwardly, it's frequently beneficial to make sure they are reflected outwardly as well, without attempting to be 'in' the R-rated world but not 'of' the R-rated world amongst people who might not be able to tell the difference...

(4) "Hey, they're just movies...":  Both "The Baroness" and I like movies...but they're just a casual, unimportant form of entertainment.

Back in '99 (pre-CleanFlix), when I was at BYU and "The Matrix" came out, it quickly became the hot controversy around campus, with a lot of students who felt they probably shouldn't see it, but couldn't resist, simply because (a) it was supposed to be a 'light' R, and (b) it was the "It" movie of the year, which you just HAD to see if you were anyone.  I never did see "The Matrix" (or its 2003 sequels) part because my standards had already been determined, and part because no movie is "must-see".  Big name movies come and go every year and no movie--even "The Passion of the Christ" (also unseen by me)--is 'important' and 'life-changing' enough to be worth losing sleep over not seeing.  We liked all three "Lord of the Rings" movies, but had we not seen them (as with our friends who don't watch PG-13 movies) it would be no more tragic than going through life not having read "Pride & Prejudice" or not having tasted Rocky Road ice cream.  Movies just aren't that important...

This isn't to say CleanFlix and the like shouldn't exist--I think the movie studios' case against them lacks merit especially since (a) they still make the same amount of money and (b) they have little credibility from an 'artistic' standpoint since they edit movies for content on airplanes and TV all the time.

(Tangent: We saw the TV-edited version of an originally R-rated movie last year.  After watching it, I glanced at some of the online articles about it, and discovered most of the discussion revolved around the full-frontal nude scene of the lead actress.  This nude scene was not in the TV version of course, but more oddly, looking back, "The Baroness" and I couldn't figure out for the life of us where in the movie the scene would have been, as a nude scene from this actress's character had no relationship with anything that happened in the movie.  This is significant only to show that oftentimes the R-rated material has no artistic value whatsoever, and is often completely superfluous to the underlying story...)

Due to the technicalities of copyright law, CleanFlix themselves may be in trouble, but ClearPlay seems to be completely legal, so regardless of the outcome of recent court cases there will always be some outlet for those who wish to partake of sanitized films.  And yet, for all the reasons above, I don't think we'll be joining them.  Edited films seem to present just as many concerns as solutions to the problem of finding clean entertainment, and for the time being it looks like my rendezvous with Scarlett Johansson and Virginia Madsen will just have to wait...

Finding the Middle Ground...

Believe it or not--and you almost certainly won't if you've checked out the abortion thread from last week--but I'm not a Hillary Clinton hater.

I wouldn't call myself a fan, mind you, but I'd consider voting for her sooner than Kerry, Gore, Howard Dean, or virtually anyone else on the Democrat side other than Joe Liebermann or (maybe) John Edwards.

Why?  For the most part, Hillary (like her husband) is adept at avoiding extreme positions, instead staking out the middle ground--the 'compromise' position, between the two ends.  Being largely a middle ground person myself, I can respect the effort to at least make some attempt to understand and bridge the gap between the two extremes, since very few things are black and white.  I think more moderate policies would do a lot to solve any number of societal issues.

The problem comes, however, when staking out a 'middle ground' position for the sake of compromise  does not have a solid logical foundation--when it is merely drawing a line between two points and putting a marker in the middle, just to be in the middle, regardless of whether that point has a rational basis.

An example:
Side 1: Polygamy is okay and should be legal
Side 2: Polygamy is wrong and should NOT be legal.
The "Compromise":  Allow polygamy, but in a limited capacity.  A man can have up to three wives legally, but no more.

This middle ground position attempts to find that point between the extremes that both sides can accept...however it has no logical basis: if polygamy is really okay, with no harmful effects on society or the men or women who participate in it, then why the restriction at three? What makes having three wives okay, but four wives not okay?  (Beard Principle alert!)  If polygamy is not 'okay'--if it's oppressive or hamrful, then why should it be allowed in the case of two or three?

Some issues require a value judgment: is X okay or not?  Rather than resolve the issue by finding common ground everyone can agree on, you've created a solution that avoids and muddles the issue instead--a solution that probably NO one will be happy with, because it's essentially trying to say X is both okay AND not okay in the same breath.  Some issues require taking a stand on a principle, and middle ground solutions with no rational basis aren't going to satisfy anyone.

(Imagine a 'compromise' solution to marijuana legalization that says marijuana can be bought, sold, and smoked on Thursdays of every week--but was illegal every other day.  The same fundamental questions apply: if marijuana use is bad, why should it be legal any time?  If it is not, why should it be restricted it at all?)

Granted, it is frequently impossible to make a case for one side or the other conclusive or persuasive enough that people will switch sides and everyone will agree.  But that doesn't mean you should accept a 'compromise' answer that fails to resolve any of the key questions--it means you just continue talking and/or arguing about it. Or you put it up to a majority vote, and the larger group gets their way.  Middle ground answers may have a use in shutting people up (and if you've ever grown very, very weary about the constant debate on abortion, immigration, etc, this may be an attractive proposition) but many issues involve questions that require straight answers.  And if the answers aren't immediately available, then we should wait until they are, instead of trying to accept an illogical compromise that no one likes.

As discussed in the previous thread, I believe someone who attempts to find middle ground in the abortion issue by simultaneously saying abortions are 'bad' (to appease one side) but should still be legal (to appease the other) are on a very shaky foundation, because the reasons why abortions would be bad, but should still be legal don't line up with one another.  Whether this is just politicking to sound more moderate in a run-up to a potential presidential candicacy, or if Sen.Clinton is genuinely conflicted on the issue remains to be seen, but in this case I don't think the middle ground is going to cut it...

Finding the Middle Ground...

Believe it or not--and you almost certainly won't if you've checked out the abortion thread from last week--but I'm not a Hillary Clinton hater.

I wouldn't call myself a fan, mind you, but I'd consider voting for her sooner than Kerry, Gore, Howard Dean, or virtually anyone else on the Democrat side other than Joe Liebermann or (maybe) John Edwards.

Why?  For the most part, Hillary (like her husband) is adept at avoiding extreme positions, instead staking out the middle ground--the 'compromise' position, between the two ends.  Being largely a middle ground person myself, I can respect the effort to at least make some attempt to understand and bridge the gap between the two extremes, since very few things are black and white.  I think more moderate policies would do a lot to solve any number of societal issues.

The problem comes, however, when staking out a 'middle ground' position for the sake of compromise  does not have a solid logical foundation--when it is merely drawing a line between two points and putting a marker in the middle, just to be in the middle, regardless of whether that point has a rational basis.

An example:
Side 1: Polygamy is okay and should be legal
Side 2: Polygamy is wrong and should NOT be legal.
The "Compromise":  Allow polygamy, but in a limited capacity.  A man can have up to three wives legally, but no more.

This middle ground position attempts to find that point between the extremes that both sides can accept...however it has no logical basis: if polygamy is really okay, with no harmful effects on society or the men or women who participate in it, then why the restriction at three? What makes having three wives okay, but four wives not okay?  (Beard Principle alert!)  If polygamy is not 'okay'--if it's oppressive or hamrful, then why should it be allowed in the case of two or three?

Some issues require a value judgment: is X okay or not?  Rather than resolve the issue by finding common ground everyone can agree on, you've created a solution that avoids and muddles the issue instead--a solution that probably NO one will be happy with, because it's essentially trying to say X is both okay AND not okay in the same breath.  Some issues require taking a stand on a principle, and middle ground solutions with no rational basis aren't going to satisfy anyone.

(Imagine a 'compromise' solution to marijuana legalization that says marijuana can be bought, sold, and smoked on Thursdays of every week--but was illegal every other day.  The same fundamental questions apply: if marijuana use is bad, why should it be legal any time?  If it is not, why should it be restricted it at all?)

Granted, it is frequently impossible to make a case for one side or the other conclusive or persuasive enough that people will switch sides and everyone will agree.  But that doesn't mean you should accept a 'compromise' answer that fails to resolve any of the key questions--it means you just continue talking and/or arguing about it. Or you put it up to a majority vote, and the larger group gets their way.  Middle ground answers may have a use in shutting people up (and if you've ever grown very, very weary about the constant debate on abortion, immigration, etc, this may be an attractive proposition) but many issues involve questions that require straight answers.  And if the answers aren't immediately available, then we should wait until they are, instead of trying to accept an illogical compromise that no one likes.

As discussed in the previous thread, I believe someone who attempts to find middle ground in the abortion issue by simultaneously saying abortions are 'bad' (to appease one side) but should still be legal (to appease the other) are on a very shaky foundation, because the reasons why abortions would be bad, but should still be legal don't line up with one another.  Whether this is just politicking to sound more moderate in a run-up to a potential presidential candicacy, or if Sen.Clinton is genuinely conflicted on the issue remains to be seen, but in this case I don't think the middle ground is going to cut it...

"Thou art neither cold nor hot..."

"...then, because thou art lukewarm...I will spue thee out of my mouth."  (Rev 3:15-16)

Pat Riley, whose Miami Heat just won the NBA title, shared a motivational story about a wheelbarrow with his team earlier in the season:

In 1859 the Great Blondin...announced to the world that he intended to cross Niagara Falls on a tightrope. As the story goes, 5,000 people gathered to watch. Halfway across, Blondin suddenly stopped, steadied himself, backflipped into the air, landed squarely on the rope, and then continued safely to the other side. Just as he was about to begin yet another crossing, this time pushing a wheelbarrow, he turned to the crowd and shouted, "Who believes that I can cross pushing this wheelbarrow?" Every hand in the crowd went up.
Blondin pointed at one man. "Do you believe that I can do it?" he asked.
"Yes, I believe you can," said the man.
"Are you certain?" Blondin asked.
"Yes," said the man.
"Absolutely certain?"
"Yes, absolutely certain."
"Thank you," said Blondin. "Then, sir, get into the wheelbarrow."

The popular phrase among pro-choice Democrats--used by both Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Ted Kennedy among others--is that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare".

Sounds like a very politically feasible mantra...but one question: why should abortion be rare?

After all, from the pro-choice standpoint:

1. A fetus is not a living human being, but only an inanimate clump of organic cells.  No big loss...
   
2. The mother of an unwanted fetus--poor mothers, especially--are much better off financially without the burdens of a child in their life.
3. The (future) child is much better off, too, because children from unwanted pregnancies tend to lead lives of isolation, poverty and suffering anyway.  They're better off dead...but, of course, since no one supports child euthanasia (at the moment) better to mercifully ease those future children's suffering before they are born.
4. Society is better off because it has fewer poor mouths to feed, not to mention those unwanted children will probably just grow up to be criminals and/or welfare recipients anyway...

It seems, then, that with abortion, mothers win, children win, and society wins, right?  So, why should abortion be RARE, then?  Since there's still many, many unwanted pregnancies in the world, and no reasonable way of preventing them from happening, shouldn't we want more of them to be terminated before they are born and become a drain on society?

If pro-choice Democrats were really convinced of the rightness of their cause, they'd be pushing for MORE abortions, not less.  They should be not just allowing, but actively encouraging poor mothers to get abortions for unplanned pregnancies, both for society's benefit and their own.  There should be large public movements afoot by well-known Democrats to donate money to sponsor abortions for poor mothers in impoverished areas. 

The fact that they don't says to me that in their hearts they are not truly convinced of the rightness of their cause. They are not convinced that that clump of organic cells--with brain activity and a heartbeat--isn't really something that can morally be abandoned at will.  If they were, why the constant and illogical hedging about abortion being perfectly okay...but still better if it didn't happen?

(In a recent speech, Hillary referred to abortion as a "sad, even tragic choice".  Interesting choice of words...if it's "tragic", why should it be legal, then?)

Basically, most pro-choicers (at least the politicians) seem to be standing there saying they're "absolutely certain"... but won't get in the wheelbarrow in the end.  They won't go all the way and actually demonstrate their faith in promoting a lifestyle choice that supposedly has so many benefits to society.  If their cause is so right, why isn't anyone acting like it?  What's with all the lamenting, the hedging, the looking-the-other-way-and-changing-the-subject talk instead of clear, bold statements that abortion is good for America and more people should do it?

Perhaps it's a deep internal fear that in the end their argument has no merit and they're afraid of falling...

(Additional reading: William Saletan's experience at a pro-choice meeting here)

Free Money & Free Agency

Meet "David", my imaginary neighbor...

"David" and his family have been going through a real rough time lately.  One day, in a great spirit of benevolence and charity, I hand David $500 in cash in the hopes that the extra money will help take care of things in his family.  Both David and I understand that this is a one-time gift that will not need to be paid back, and will not be repeated.

What responsibility does David have in spending that money?   Should I care how David spends the money after it leaves my hands?  Sure, my gift was ostensibly for the purpose of taking care of his family through these tough times, but what happens if he spends $100 on food...and $400 on a new flat-screen TV for his living room?   From my perspective:

1. The money is gone from my budget regardless of how David uses it, and how it gets spent does not affect my finances at all.  I gave the money in the first place knowing that it would not be paid back, therefore once it leaves my hands its ultimate fate is meaningless...
    
2. Since I gave cash, with no means of enforcing any such requirements as to what to buy with it, I knew (or should have known) from the very beginning that there was absolutely no promise or guarantee that David would spend it on things I felt 'appropriate', and the possibility of 'misuse' was inherent in the gift in the first place.

After the gift has been given, David has complete stewardship over how the money is spent.  He can spend it on his family, or on alcohol or gambling.  Sure, I might be annoyed at any such misuse, but under the terms of our transaction, there's nothing blocking him from spending the money any way he wants.  I granted him the agency to use the money however he wished, therefore I can't realistically complain if he uses that agency to make choices I consider improper.  (I can refuse to give him anything in the future, of course--part of my agency)

Recent articles have outlined some of the ways the free debit cards handed out after Hurricane Katrina have been used...or abused, according to some. Everything from alcohol, to visits to strip clubs, to $800 handbags were purchased with the $2000 debit cards.  Some are outraged...although I have to ask--when you get a cash gift with no restrictions, why not buy whatever you want?  After all, you've been given complete stewardship over that money, given to you by the government.

Anyone could have figured out that given unrestricted agency over $2000 in cash--many will use it to take care of their families, and many others will buy various 'luxuries' (before or after necessities)--the same thing they do with any other source of cash that comes into their hands.   Once the gift is given, and agency without restrictions is bestowed...then don't you have to accept that some people are always going to spend it on things you feel inappropriate?  Instead of an 'outrage', you might consider that a small price to pay to make sure the majority has the resources to take care of themselves.  Was there a more optimal solution that would both get money to people to meet needs as quickly as possible, while simutaneously restricting them from spending it on 'inappropriate' things?  I'm not sure there was...

Why are people poor?  The extreme right answer says poverty is universally caused by poor choices--if you're poor, it's entirely because of some personal 'sin'.  The extreme left answer says poverty has no relationship to personal choice--if you're poor, it is entirely because heartless, oppressive people above you have stolen your rightful place in society and/or blocked your opportunity to succeed.

As in most things, the answer lies somewhere in the middle...

Consider, though, a more radical solution to governmental aid as proposed by Charles Murray's book "In Your Hands".   His suggestion (more analysis here) involves eliminating most forms of government assistance including welfare, Social Security, and unemployment...and replacing it with a $10,000 check that every citizen 21 or over would receive every year. (Some restrictions--a percentage would be earmarked to cover health insurance, and perhaps forced retirement savings as well...)

This libertarian idea is, as you can figure out with a few minutes of consideration, completely unworkable, but does present some interesting ideas as to free agency and stewardship as mentioned above.  What happens when you give the general population more agency and control over the aid they receive from the government?   What would they spend it on?  And would the net effect on national poverty be better or worse than the current system?  That depends, of course, on what you think the cause of poverty truly is.

What this plan would do--and this is the most interesting part of it--is demonstrate once and for all where along the left-right scale discussed above the cause of poverty truly lies.  A number of comments about the book say it's a "terrific" plan that would "end poverty as we know it".  (Implied--the cause of poverty is because we don't give the poor enough money...)

Um, no.  As the Katrina debit card incidents indicate, when you give mankind free agency--over money, or over anything--some will use it effectively, and others will not.  Give everyone a $10,000 check every year, and some will take care of basic needs, and invest for the future--lifting themselves out of the ranks of the poor.  And some will blow it on yearly orgies of drugs, gambling, and fancy items and still wind up with nothing.

In essence, this plan would not "end poverty"--there will ALWAYS be poor people regardless of how much you increased the yearly grant--but it would end many of the excuses for poverty.  This plan would demonstrate, once and for all, how much personal choices do matter and I believe many who idealistically hold the far-left mindset on why poverty exists will probably be forced by statistical evidence to revise their opinion right-ward, once it becomes obvious that giving large handouts to people without the mindset to properly use it does not improve their present or their future...

Thus, is the eternal question of free agency:  do you give people the right to choose, knowing that many of them will choose poorly, or do you make their choices for them in an effort to protect people from themselves?  While Murray's plan isn't workable as a replacement for the welfare system in the US, we might ponder that God's plan for us involves many of the same ideas:  giving us complete free agency to do good, or bad, and accept the inherently unequal consequences of those decisions...

Porn: Good for America?

[Let's see...what have I written about lately?  Gay marriage? Check.  Polygamy?  Check.  Hmmm, what else is there...  Pornography!]

Glenn Reynolds notes that the rapes per capita rate in the U.S. has dropped over 85% in the last thirty years, and wonders aloud whether that might be due to the increased prevalence of pornography over that same time period.

This does seem to pass a common sense test, considering a certain percentage of men who might have become rapists may now be satisfied with the wider variety (and more convenient) forms of  female flesh available in print and digital form...

This would not be a defense of pornography, however, (Reynolds' header: "Porn: Good for America!" seems to be tongue-in-cheek) since you would have to consider all other effects of pornography on men, women, and society before we start praising the heavens for the existence of X-rated videos.  What effect does it have on men's tendency to commit adultery or have stable marriages, for example?  What effect does the spread of pornography have on the women who debase themselves (often unwillingly) to create it?

The effects of pornography may be less serious than rape in terms of the men who commit it and the women who are victimized by it, but it's certainly more widespread--and the key question is whether any such (as yet unproven) gain in softening the rough edges of deviant behavior among a few is worth the general loss or virtue and respect for sexuality among the many by its existence...

Since correlation != causation, we might speculate about other possible reasons for the decline in rapes over the past few decades.  What if the more liberal attitudes towards sexuality throughout society play a part as well?  After all, in order for a 'rape' to occur, you not only have to have a guy who doesn't take 'no' for an answer, but a girl who says 'no' in the first place.  If more and more girls are saying 'yes', even on first dates, then it doesn't matter whether the guy might have forced himself upon her or not...

This might be the reason reported rapes in Utah have often been higher than average, compared to Utah's national ranking in other types of crime.  If, culturally, Utah girls are on average less inclined to consent to sexual activity on dates, then that would present proportionally more opportunites for a date rape to occur, compared to states where girls were on average more permissive.  I have no statistics to back this up, but it's an interesting theory...

The Definition of Marriage

Just like the discussion of gay marriage won't die, the discussion of polygamy as it relates to gay marriage doesn't want to go away either.  (Of course, I encourage this by writing about it so often, but there you go...)

Many around the web have viewed the recent Church support for an official 'marriage = one man and one woman' policy as "putting the final nail in the coffin of polygamy".  (In fact, one former member has publically accused recently remarried Elder Nelson of violating that official 'one man + one woman' policy.)

Hmmm...I'm not so sure.  This depends entirely on how we choose to define 'a marriage'...

Is a polygamous relationship with one man and two women defined as:

Or:

The fundamental question is whether there is a 'relationship' between the two women in this case--some bond inherent to the marriage, apart from the relationships to their common husband.  In the second case, all parties are tied together, in the first case the women only have ties to their husband, not to each other.

What, then, is a 'marriage'?  In the second diagram, we can say all three people are participants in ONE marriage, but in the first diagram, there's two separate relationships.  Is a marriage a triangle or a line?  In other words, does the husband in this case have ONE marriage to two wives, or TWO marriages to one wife each?

All evidence points to the first diagram being the more accurate depiction of what a polygamous relationship was like.  The two wives have no direct relationship with each other--should the husband die, there is no bond that would tie them together afterwards.  If one wife died after the husband died, the remaining wife would have no claim on her inheritance, nor her kids.  There is no line between F1 and F2, because strictly speaking there's no 'relationship' between them.

This means that a 'marriage' can still be defined as 'one man and one woman' even within a polygamous family--and thus the Church's current position is not, in fact, contradictory to its polygamous past (nor in theory precludes polygamy in the future).

A man can participate in TWO (or more) separate and distinct marriages, each between one man (himself) and one (different) woman, just like one guy can be the drummer for two rock bands at the same time.  Therefore, to those that interpret the current position as shutting the door on polygamy completely, we might say, with Inigo Montoya in "Princess Bride":  "I do not think that means what you think it means..."

Remember, polygamy is not coming back, and men don't want it to, anyway.  But official Church support for marriage being one man + one woman from a semantics standpoint has no bearing on whether polygamy is acceptable or not.

Many church members have interpreted sections of the Doctrine & Covenants as implying polygamy is required to attain celestial glory.  The diagram above is an argument against that interpretation as well:  saying polygamy is required (and thus a man having only one wife is not enough) implies that a woman, in essence, needs more than just a husband to be exalted--she needs another woman as well.

In other words, the idea of required polygamy implies that there must be a line between F1 and F2 as in the second diagram--some kind of official relationship between the two women, an element of the temple sealing that's present between them different and distinct from the relationship with their common husband.  However, the history of marriage has shown that not to be the case, and the argument that a husband must have more than one wife for any of them to be exalted does not appear to have any logical basis.

The Most Absurd Thing I Saw Today...

My cable bill was late, so instead of mailing it I drove over to the local Comcast office to pay in person.

The Comcast parking lot (remember...this is a cable company parking lot, not a Walmart or something) has not one, not two but SEVEN handicapped parking spots.

The TOTAL number of parking spots, counting those seven: 20

It's good to be cognisant of and helpful to those less fortunate, but there are extremes.  What are the chances that SEVEN handicapped customers are going to come in to pay their cable bills at the same time?  And in the meantime, those parking spots remain empty, day after day...

Unless 35% of the population of Utah Country is handicapped without me being aware, I think this is overkill...

The Baron's Q&A on the Gay Marriage Amendment

Q: What's the First Presidency's statement on the matter?

Here it is (original link here):

We are informed that the United States Senate will on June 6, 2006, vote on an amendment to the Federal constitution designed to protect the traditional institution of marriage. 

We, as the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, have repeatedly set forth our position that the marriage of a man and a woman is the only acceptable marriage relationship.

In 1995 we issued a Proclamation to the World on this matter, and have repeatedly reaffirmed that position. 

In that proclamation we said: "We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society." 

We urge our members to express themselves on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate.

Q: Okay...I've read it three times now and am still not clear: does this statement SUPPORT the marriage amendment that's coming up for vote in June?

Like all First Presidency statements, it has been VERY carefully worded.  What the Church supports is 'maintaining and strengthening the family'--whether THIS amendment is the best way to do that is not specifically stated.  The statement has been carefully phrased so that those who support amending the Constitution will immediately read into it support for their position, but does not tie the Church inseparably to a position that says the Constitution MUST be amended using the exact words in the current proposal (or amended at all) in order to accomplish the goal of 'strengthening the family'.

Q: So, SHOULD the Constitution be amended to disallow gay marriage?

In my opinion, no.  I don't support gay marriage, but the Constitution is not the proper place to fight against it.  Note that the FP statement allows completely for this position.  It conforms completely to the First Presidency's admonition to members to call up my senator and say, "I don't believe gay marriage should be legal, but we should not amend the Constitution to disallow something for which the Constitution never expressly allows in the first place, not to mention takes power away from the states and is redundant considering the Defense of Marriage Act which has already passed.  This amendment as currently phrased is not the most optimal way to protect the family."   Which is the point of the careful wording...

Q:  What has the LDS bloggernacle response to the statement been so far?

Predictable, based on the 200+ comments on the Times & Seasons thread:  Some say "Follow the Prophet!" and support the amendment without question.  (Does the FP statement say that?)  Some say the statement is "TOTALLY-inappropriate-and-I'm-never-going-to-church-again..."  Some have thread-jacked it into an irrelevant discussion of gay parenting and adoption.  Usual stuff for LDS blog discussion...  (UPDATE:  M* got to the party late because of technical issues, but their thread is here)

Q: So, why does any discussion of 'strengthening the family' ALWAYS seem to focus completely on outlawing gay marriage?

Because that's the only battleground left...  There are lots of things that weaken families--quickie divorces, pornography, drugs, infidelity, casual attitudes towards sexuality, and general trends towards selfishness and self-gratification in relationships, etc...  The problem is the battle has already been lost on most of these counts--gay marriage is, at the very least, something that hasn't been legalized and absorbed into the general fabric of society as of yet, so there's still something to fight over.  There's really nothing any 'pro-family' group including the Church can do on any large-scale level to overcome most of the other problems that plague families today.

The problem, of course, is that this fact tends to greatly overexaggerate the importance of outlawing gay marriage within the greater whole of pro-family positions.  The arch-conservative "gay marriage = blood horror chaos" side of the debate tries to frame things as if legalized gay marriage would be the WORST thing to happen to families in thousands of years.  Not just the straw that breaks the camel's back--it's an ANVIL dropped on the camel that crushes him to the ground, fatally broken, never to rise again.

In reality, gay marriage is only one small part of a larger trend (ongoing for decades) away from individuals and families obtaining their full eternal potential.  The exaggerated emphasis on gay marriage is not because it's objectively worse than pornography or anything else that hurts families, but because it's just the only battleground left that's still undecided.  Everything else has already been lost...

Q: So, how exactly DOES legalized gay marriage 'hurt families'?

Gay marriage hurts individuals by creating a simulacrum of a family which does not have the same eternal potential.  A 'regular' marriage (man + woman) has the potential within the LDS Plan of Salvation to become an eternal unit, whether they have any particular religious beliefs or goals to begin with.  A gay marriage has no such potential, and the 'family' that's hurt is the potential family that one or both of the gay partners might have created (or, sometimes, had already and broke apart) had they not locked themselves into a relationship that's basically a dead end. 

Note that from this view, most of the 'hurt' caused by legalized gay marriage falls upon the heads of gays themselves, not the conservative straights who are crying "Save us!  Save us from the horrors of legalized gay marriage".  Essentially, it amounts to gays blocking themselves off further from obtaining eternal blessings. 

Q: So?

Well, you're right...so what?  Since gays are free to create partnerships (which they do) with or without a legal marriage component, and for the most part could probably care less about their 'eternal potential', then why not--in essence--just give them the rope to hang themselves upon?  If they don't want eternal blessings, then fine, they don't have to take them...  At least with legalized marriage they'd get a tax break and a few secular benefits out of it, even if they give up of their own free will some greater things in the long run...

The bigger issue is the larger disconnect legalized gay marriage would create between the secular and the spiritual societies.  Joining a church and attempting to cast off worldly things in favor of spiritual things is difficult enough as it is--and it only becomes more difficult to do the greater the distance between the 'world' and the 'spirit'.  The more generally accepted societal norms differ from spiritual principles, the harder it is to step away from them and begin anew.  (Example: consider the basic 'no sex before marriage' principle, both a century or so ago--when it was generally accepted, although not always followed--and today where most people don't follow it at all and, in fact, would think upon hearing the suggestion, "Wow...that's weird!")

It always helps when society accepts and supports (even indirectly) the principles you believe in.  Having society accept both gay partnerships and straight partnerships as 'equal'--when they're not--makes it more difficult to bridge that gap between secular and spiritual.  Existing marriages created by a judge with no religious basis at all can still fit within the religious view of the higher purpose of marriage without needing much adjusting.  Gay marriages have no such luxury--the more accepting society is of gay marriages being the 'same' as any other makes it more likely that the spirit side--which knows they are not the same--will be discounted as being 'out of touch'.  A gay person who feels the desire to learn more about the spirit is less likely to do so when they are bound by law and penalty to stay with their same-sex partner, even though by doing so they are prevented from obtaining their full potential as part of a living, eternal family.

Basically, no one wants to be marginalized by the society they live in.  Gays have been saying that for years, but it applies to religious people too.  Unfortunately, as currently constituted, the conflict seems to be zero-sum--either gays or religion gets marginalized with little middle ground.   Many churches will have to choose (and many already have) whether to relax standards and view homosexual behavior and relationships with a more liberal eye to remain 'in-touch' with society, or be firm to their view of eternal doctrine and find themselves more and more isolated as the trends of society move away from them.

Q: How does the fight over gay marriage affect gay Mormons?

This is an interesting question:  without gay marriage the largely secular gay community isn't likely to start using God's commandments as a guide to their lives anyway, so the difference from an eternal perspective is minimal.

Yet there are a small but significant group of gay Mormons in the world who have not rejected their religion in favor of a same-sex-orientation-based lifestyle, but seek to reconcile them together.  There are Church members who feel same-sex attraction but still obey the law of chastity and are active, believing members in every respect.  The hope is that one day gay relationships will be a part of the Church in some capacity, and were gay marriage to become legal it would essentially encourage and embolden those members to pair up, sign the marriage papers, and......wait.   Wait for the Church to make some adjustment to meet them.  Wait for the time where Church leaders acknowledge their relationship and come to some form of acceptance for them within LDS culture as a whole.

Many gay members have said it is their hope that one day they'll be able to marry within the temple and obtain the fullness of blessings God has prepared for them, that essentially gay relationships will become equal to regular relationships in Church terms.

There's a problem:  what evidence is there that gay couples have a place in the Plan of Salvation?

I'm going to state this again, and ask these hopeful gay members directly:

What evidence do you have that gay couples have a place in the Plan of Salvation?

Notice I said gay couples, not gay persons...

Seriously, what evidence is there that a same-sex partnership is inherently equal in all capacities from an eternal perspective, and thus has a chance of being recognized through temple marriages and the like?  Arguing from purely a secular perspective is easier, because the secular definition of the purpose of marriage has changed over time. But maintaining a hope that, somehow, in contradiction to many scriptures and prophetic statements, that a gay spirit couple will be just as able to create an eternal family as a man-woman couple strikes me as extremely wishful thinking.

The reality is: for those members legalized gay marriage will present a roadblock to their eternal progress.  It will encourage them to dig a foxhole and wait--and hope that eventually Church doctrine changes to meet them, instead of them finding a way to obtain their eternal potential through alternate (read: opposite-sex marriage) means.  It is too ba