My General Conference Talk

So, watching general conference a few months ago, I thought of what I might have to say in my own talk. I've been drafting this in bits and pieces since then, and finally got too bored by the possibility of reading for class decided to finish it tonight. Hopefully without being too sacrilegious, here we go:

Brothers and sisters, it's an honor to speak to you today. I've thought long and hard about what I can talk to you about, and with the inspiration of the Lord, I realized... I got nothin'. I'm not really what you could call a "smart guy". I'm not exactly a masterful commentator on doctrine. In fact, I'm pretty average - or a bit below average - in all of these areas. Just kind of an average guy, you know? Still, I think I've spent enough time here on this good earth to learn a thing or two. So, here's what I have to say:

1) If you read it in an e-mail sent to you by a friend, it's wrong.

No missionaries were scheduled to be in the WTC on 9/11.

The Three Nephites did not help that person.

No one will be baptized because you send an e-mail along to anyone else.

Your friend's e-mail is wrong.

2) You can be a Democrat

Yup.

You can be.

It's OK. I promise. Heck, be a Green. A Constitutionalist. Even a Republican or a Libertarian. With few exceptions (Communism among them), it's all good. Just don't vote for Ron Paul. Ok, that last one is purely a personal opinion. But a pretty strongly held one. And I just wanted to get that in there so folks could later say, "you know, it was said over the pulpit once..."

3) BYU is not the best school in the world

Is it cheap? Yes. No out of state tuition, costs similar to a public university, etc. - it is undeniably cheap.

My 1996 Mercury Mystique is also cheap; but, if I could've afforded it, I would've gotten something better. Something that doesn't seem to function strictly on the power of prayer which is, incidentally, the same fuel as BYU's bureaucracy.

Look, BYU's a pretty good school. It's more academically diverse than it's made out to be. It's well-respected in the region. It's got a huge alumni network. You can meet people from all over the world there - I've worked closely with people from each (inhabited) continent. It offers a lot to students. I'm not knocking it.

But, if you got into, say, Harvard, Stanford, or your local state university or college, it's A-OK to go there, too. Just as good if not better. Actually, if you got into the Ivy League, it's likely quite a bit better depending on how you think you'd fit in there and if it's what you want.

Yes, you can still get married at another school. That's why there are institutes and singles wards. Or, you know, you just might meet someone outside of a church setting. It does actually happen, you know.

No, BYU is not the Harvard of the West. It's not now, and is unlikely to ever be. No, it is not particularly world-renowned for much. Does it have some great programs? Definitely. But just because you hold it in high esteem yourself doesn't mean it's held in the same high esteem by everyone else. And there will be those who give you weird looks when they see "BYU" on your résumé - it calls a bit more attention than, say Boise State. That can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on what you like. Coming from an area myself where most folks are cool with Mormons but you'd find the occasional nut who hated them violently, it would probably have served a good filtering purpose.

The long and short of it is that when you reach those pearly-gates, "where did you go to school" ain't a question on the list. Don't act like it is.

4) People who talk about having gone to BYU aren't snobs

Dude. It's where they went to school. When alumni get together, they compare experiences to bond. You may not have had those experiences, and that's cool. But this isn't the time to pipe in with the random "I heard a BYU student did X, so you're all obviously UNCLEAN!" anecdote. That's not going to make you any friends. Just let folks bond and chill. Ask a question or two. It's always awkward when a group of people are talking about experiences you didn't have. It can feel exclusive. Try steering the conversation elsewhere. Don't freak out.

5) If you went to BYU, don't be a snob

Just don't be. Don't assume your kids have to go there. If your kids don't get in, it's not the end of the world. If your kids don't want to go there, don't freak out (unless they want you to pay their tuition at an Ivy League school - then, by all means, get your freak out on). Don't act like it's the end all be all. It's a good university - a good place to go, for sure, but don't look down your nose at others for their choice to go to other schools. It's just a school, not a divine body. You don't get extra points on the other side for going there. Don't pat peoples' heads and say, "oh, it's OK, you went to an institute." It's not just "OK". It's not a substitute. It's equal, if not a better. Personally speaking, I can count on one hand the time I talked with a religion professor one-to-one at BYU, but institute teachers are much more readily accessible. On top of that, their school probably had a functioning bureaucracy - a feature not yet implemented at BYU.

6) Stop whining so much about "Utah Mormons"

Yeah, folks from Utah seem pretty odd to those of us from outside of Utah. And I seemed pretty odd when I got to Utah and had no idea what a swamp cooler was, could not walk on snow, and believed that snow-covered mountains in the distance (viewed at night, in my defense) were actually low-flying clouds.

People from different places seem odd to locals. They dress funny, talk funny, and are just a bit off tempo. They tend to talk positively of their homeland - perhaps even to the point of idealizing it. That's probably because they liked where they used to live and where you live is different and they haven't adapted yet. Give them time, and don't be condescending.

It's true, there are differences. They're adapting from a majority LDS world to a place where they're not the main group. They're acclimating to the weather and local food. There are differences. But that's not a reason to categorize and disregard them without a second thought.

I don't like being referred to as a person who came from the "mission field", or a "mission field Mormon" in Utah. I think I've heard these terms, at most, twice in my nearly seven years here. "Utah Mormons" probably hear them on at least a monthly basis outside of the state, often in the most flippant terms. "Oh, you're a Utah Mormon," with a condescending stare, "clearly, you just can't understand our totally different life here." That's rude. Just as rude as when people refer to your home outside of Utah as "the field" (which, incidentally, is fairly rare in my experience in Utah).

"Utah Mormons" aren't a class. They're not a monolith. They're just as diverse, just as normal, and just as weird as people from your home ward. Is there a certain cultural sprinkling? Yes. Guess what - there is in your state, too. In Florida, many of us thought that Alabama Mormons were a bit weird. For that matter, we thought the same thing of Mormons from Bristol or Panama City. Why? No clue. I guess it's because they were just different. It happens everywhere. Deal.

7) Stop trying to "out Utah" so-called "Utah Mormons"

Don't try to make your home a slice of Utah - or, to be more accurate, a caricature of what Utah supposedly is. The home is a temple, yes. But it doesn't have to be the Salt Lake Temple. Nor does it have to be a recreation of those terrible art stores in a Deseret Book. And your kids don't like EFY music. No one does. Missionaries listen to it strictly for a break from MoTab. Your kids listen to it because it's all you'll let them listen to on Sunday. But you've got to admit it's junk. Stop that. Assisting the perpetuation of bad art helps no one.

8) If you're from Utah or went to BYU, please be cool about it

So here's where I make a confession - as a Mormon from the south, I looked up to the so-called "Utah Mormons". I didn't have a strong family background, and there was no true foundation to build on there. Culturally, I was sort of an amorphous southerner, which left me with uncertain goals and little structure.

It might sound dumb, but the so-called "Utah Mormons" ("multi-generation" may be a better description, although a good plenty of the "first generation" members were certainly on the list) gave me a bit of structure. They showed me how things should work - be a good kid, go on a mission, get an education, get married in the temple, keep your nose clean, etc.. What I didn't see in my own home, I could see in theirs: photos of temple weddings, missionary plaques, whatever. They were an example.

Later on in life, I found out that I had become one of "them". While I was in Chile, I had the opportunity to become very good friends with a young married couple - Henry and Paola (both Chilean, in spite of how the names sound). Henry and I were about the same age, he had served a mission, and was a fantastic member of the church, serving in many leadership positions, sealed to his wife, and living life right. On top of this, he was an MBA student (well, the Chilean equivalent), bright, funny had a fantastic future ahead of him, and had certainly accomplished more than I had in my short life. I remember one night we were chatting, and the matter of BYU came up. "You know that marks you," he told me. I asked him how that was the case. "Look, you went to BYU. Members will respect you for that. You're here among new converts or people without family in the church. You've got to be the example to us. We expect that of you. You're special."

To say I was taken aback by Henry's comments would be an understatement. Me? An example? Of what? The dangers of a sedentary lifestyle combined with a diet high in carbohydrates? But there I was, shivering in a thin-walled mini-house a geographic stone's throw from the tip of Antarctica being lectured on exactly how I was supposed to act as an example to him, a guy who had a whole heck of a lot more experience and education, all because of my alma mater. Told I was special because I'd lived in Utah, "the factory" as it's called throughout South America. It was suddenly my turn to keep my nose clean, to show others the way, and not be a jerk. It was odd. But the message slowly sank in and now, years later, I think I see what he meant.

For better or for worse, "Utah", "BYU", "returned missionary" and other terms identify a "true" Mormon in the eyes of many who are relatively new to the faith. These folks represent a sort of ideal to many - like a younger me - who are really looking for someone to serve as an anchor or a model. Folks look up to you. Especially folks who lack a solid foundation. Don't let them down, but don't hold yourself out as perfect, either. Be yourself. Be an example of what it's really all about, not a caricature. But don't forget that, for many, you are a model - and make sure they understand that they don't need to go to BYU or get married in the Salt Lake Temple to be a "true" Mormon.

9) Michael McLean's music is not scripture, nor is it art

It's not even good. It's the very antithesis of good.

There is a cottage industry of substandard musicians, authors, speakers, pianists, filmmakers and artists who make their living on the basis that they are Mormons who happen to do X. They can't stand on their own otherwise because of their poor quality work. Stop buying their stuff just because they're Mormons. It's junk. A lot of it is false doctrine, and when you support teachers of false doctrine, that's bad.

Worst of all, it can pigeonhole good artists who happen to be Mormons into the "Mormon market", where they are often unappreciated, underpaid, and receive far too little exposure to the wider world. There is more to art than painting non-existent English gardens around pictures of the Salt Lake Temple from different angles and painting random mid 1800's-esque pioneer scenes. There is good - great, fantastic - religious art in the world. And not all of it looks like what you see hanging up in your chapel. (And to the snobs out there, the art you see hanging up in your chapel is not horrible - it's designed for an instructive purpose rather than strictly for its artistic merit, so please stop whining about how unimaginative it is, capice?)

10) Stop buying stuff from those commercials that come on after conference

If you stop buying it, they'll stop making it and advertising it. Understood?

11) A year's supply of essentials does not include a year's supply of ammunition

Look, we all like guns. They go bang and make us (or at least me) feel manly. And maybe you'd like to keep a weapon around the house for defense, hunting, or to look pretty. That's fine. But you don't need ammunition for an extended firefight lasting twelve months. Want to stock up on ammunition? Cool. Please take me with you when you decide to burn through your stock. But you're not following any doctrine when you do so, and please don't tell others that it's doctrine.

12) Wood blocks with words carved into them teach nothing

I have seen many large, wooden displays of the word "live". What does this mean? Is it an adjective, implying that your life is not recorded and simply being played back on time delay (whoa... come to think of it, that is kind of deep...)? Is it a verb? If so, what is its purpose? On what is it acting? Is the sign alive? Is it encouraging you to live? If the latter, is it then simply an anti-suicide message? Why do you feel you need a garish sign in your home reminding you not to commit suicide?

Look, we all like to live. It's kind of what we do. We don't need overpriced, cheaply made wood blocks to tell us to do so.

13) Stop hyphenating "Mormon"

You're not a "Conservative-Mormon", "Orthodox-Mormon", "Liberal-Mormon", or whatever. You're a Mormon.

The church doesn't dictate your political party. It doesn't dictate strict capitalist economics nor socialism (if anything, it dictates the United Order, an economic system acknowledged to be impossible at the moment). It doesn't dictate a pro or anti-war position. Politically speaking, your choices are pretty broad - my reading of D&C 134 allows almost anything but Anarchism and Communism, and even the former may be possible. Tyranny is, of course, bad, regardless of the system. Basically, liberty in general and religious liberty in particular are the main requirements.

But unity is kind of a big deal. Theological unity. We've all got to agree on the basics here - structure, doctrine, behavioral expectations, etc. There must be a single core from which we draw. Division is bad. There is no "Liberal Church of Jesus Christ of LDS" any more than there is a conservative one. There is a single church, filled with diverse membership who agree on a central core. Mormons do not come from a mold, but across a wide spectrum of beliefs and opinions with a strong tie to a single, central core of undisputed beliefs. The doors are just as open to the Democrat as they are to the Republican. It is a dangerous thing to divide membership into groups, and a travesty to divide the people based on their beliefs regarding temporal topics when we are all there for theological unity. Of course, absolute theological unity is not always possible, which brings me to:

14) Gray areas

Are there gray areas? You betcha. Lots. Fill those in as study and prayer dictate, but please don't teach them as doctrine. Save your revelations regarding the flora and fauna of Kolob for your own time. And if you really want to talk about them, do so outside of Sunday School, OK?

To use the Word of Wisdom as an example: there is no exception to prohibitions on tobacco or alcohol for celebrations. That said, the Word of Wisdom is full of gray areas. For example, is it OK to cook with alcohol? Well, the alcohol doesn't really "burn off," which means it's still in the food to a certain degree. But, is this truly the same as drinking it straight? After all, I've never met anyone who has become even a little buzzed after some really good fondue. Is it an issue of mens rea or one of strict liability? I don't know. It's not spelled out specifically in scripture, and I know of no particular statement by a general authority going one way or the other on the issue. From one point of view, it can easily be argued that many common food additives already contain alcohol - vanilla, for example - and that, generally speaking, the amount of alcohol ingested with a meal when it is cooked in wine is similarly small, inconsequential, will not result in intoxication, nor is it consumed for intoxicating purposes. On the other hand, we have "appearance of evil" issues, as well as the strict liability argument. Personally speaking - and, once again, this is purely personal - I lean towards the latter. That said, I cannot, in good conscience, hold a negative view of the actions of those who believe the former without a firm statement one way or the other. To my meager knowledge, this is a legitimate gray area, and it is one that I could not teach to others or hold out as objectively true. Debate and persuade in private conversation, outside of a classroom setting? Sure. But it's not something that can be used to legitimately determine any sort of judgment of a person or his actions. This is a gray area.

It is also foolish to cling to gray areas when they are established as black and white. If you are firmly of the belief that there are no daisies on Kolob and only tulips there, don't freak out if a statement comes down from authorities that states the opposite. It doesn't mean you were entirely out of tune with the spirit - you just happened to be wrong here. The true test of whether you are "in tune" is how quickly you adapt to what is revealed to be true.

But please, please don't make areas that are obviously black and white into supposed gray zones. Once the prophet has spoken on a matter, the debate has ended, and it is black and white. And please don't attempt to turn black into white or vice versa through a torturous reading of a statement - that's bad.

15) The Church teaches ideals. You may not meet them all, and that's OK.

I'll admit, growing up in a family where the parents were divorced - and the largely absent (thankfully) father was an excommunicated adulterous drunk - made singing "I am a Child of God" and "I'm so Glad when Daddy Comes Home" a bit awkward. I wasn't glad. My parents were divorced, and when he came to my home, it meant drama. A lot of drama. I was frightened that yet another month's child support would be pulled out from underneath us or some other drama would come into the home. It sucked. Hard. And I understood the irony from a very young age.

However, the point of these songs isn't simply to make a statement of fact. It's to demonstrate an ideal. Children should be glad when daddy comes home. Young men should grow up to be that sort of father, and young women should seek to marry a man with those attributes. Does it always happen? It's plainly obvious that it doesn't - believe me, I know. But just because it doesn't always happen certainly does not mean that the Church as an institution should stop teaching it.

Look, we've all heard the arguments that we should be "inclusive" of other family structures, particularly single and step-parents. And you know what, I certainly can't argue with those who say that, as a culture, we tend to drop the ball when it comes to these parents - we often do. But this doesn't mean we should stop putting forward the true ideal of the traditional family, of husband and wife, sealed in the temple, with a reasonable amount of kiddos. Of course there will be those who fall outside of this ideal range. Plenty of them. And we should certainly be tolerant of that fact and accept these folks as the equals they are. But we also should not simply lay aside our ideals and say, "oh, fiddly-dee, any family is good enough!" Nope. There is an ideal environment, and it should be taught. Children must learn that they can overcome their parents' screw-ups in this area.

The good news, of course, is that we need not meet temporal ideals to receive the same eternal rewards as those who do. A failing in a cultural area - even a divorce - is certainly not always a bar from the same reward as someone who checked all the boxes on the way up. But even so, the ideal should be encouraged.

Ultimately, we all need to grasp two things: 1) there is an ideal to be sought after and 2) we should be kind to those who don't quite make it. If we can understand this, we're doing alright.

And in conclusion, let's all play nice. We're all just folks trying to get by. Don't skirt the doctrine. Don't be a jerk. Be an example. Be a good guy.

The end...

Even MORE Obsessive Planning!

(FYI - "we" refers to the Scritchy One and I - I'm not trying to rope the whole extended family into these shenanigans!)

Me? Plan? Obsessively?

Never.

This is a plan that may never actually happen, of course. And if it does happen, it will probably be at least 10 and more likely 15 to 20 (or 25...) years down the road. But hey, it's fun to think about it, right?

So, here is what I want:



Well, not that exact plan - at over 3,000 sq. ft., that's much too big.

But the general idea is there. A cabin. Some sort of familial gathering place out of the city, with a fair amount of land for privacy and snowball fights. A place to spend Thanksgiving, Christmas, the 4th of July weekend, birthdays, family reunions, you name it.

The requirements for such a place? Well, it should be able to accommodate at least two full families at a time. In my mind, this would require 4 bedrooms - two set up as master bedrooms with private baths, and two additional bedrooms for guys and gals, each with a few bunk beds. Naturally, of course, little ones would spill out into living areas, lofts, game rooms, roofs, etc. but what are big cabins for if not to have various relatives sprawled about them? Just keep a stock of sleeping bags and blankets on hand and you're set.

The next requirement is a large, central living space. Something with enough space to gather a whole lot of people for extended Uno tournaments and the retelling of stale family stories that make children's eyes roll. A place to kick up your feet after a massive snowball battle in which no prisoners were taken. Following a large living space in priority will come a game room of some sort, and a lot of storage space. We'll see.

And, on the side, there would need to be some sort of hookup for additional campers. Probably not too many - I can't imagine the HOA would like it if I started running a trailer park - but some accommodations should be prepared.

Basically, the plan I prefer the most for this sort of venture would be something along these lines. Granted, the plan needs some modifications. And at 2269 square feet, it's a big place - bigger, when one considers that it is likely to have a basement. But, it's not truly monstrously huge, and if it is to serve its purpose of being a family gathering place, it would need to be fairly big. Additionally, a garage of some sort would be needed. Depending on the size and layout of the lot, it may make sense to simply tuck the garage into the basement or, preferably, have a separate garage with a small loft apartment above it for additional space for guests/dumb teenagers who don't want to hang out with OLD people. A few examples of such a setup can be seen here, of which my favorite is probably something along these lines (although the design needs a few modifications).

So that's the plan. But what are the obstacles?

Well first, we'd need to buy land. Luckily, there are a lot of developments in the Mount Pleasant area with decent sized plots of land in nice locations for less than or just a bit over $100k. (See here and here for examples, although I imagine these will be sold out before we get to the point of buying land.) With a decent down payment - let's say 30% - the mortgage payment on such a piece of land should be manageable, and we would certainly want to pay it off ASAP. Obviously saving that 30% would be a big barrier, but with concentrated effort, it would be possible in a period of a few years. Purchasing land - even if it must be mortgaged - is a first priority for me. The simple fact is that they ain't making any more of it, and good cabin lots in Utah are becoming more and more scarce.

Second, of course, is the cost of construction. Saving for construction cost will, of course, take longer than for the land itself. (Construction may occur in two phases - perhaps the construction of a garage with a loft apartment first, followed by the main house in several years? This would depend on the CC&Rs of the land, but it's a possibility.) But a decent down payment - again in the 30% range, at least - is a must in order to get financing at all and in order to still feel good about such a purchase.

Personally, I hope to cut into the cost of construction by cutting down as much as possible on labor cost. My plan would be to have workers construct the frame and the exterior as well as the installation of the roof and windows (of course), essentially creating a shell with the HVAC and basic wiring, plumbing, and other necessities installed, but with "bare floors", as it were. At this point, we could beg and plead for help from far-handier-than-I relatives to complete the interior (and I imagine a bit of the exterior) of the home over a period of a few weeks. This would include jobs like putting in cabinets, doors, sinks, flooring, tile, easily accessible lighting, as well as tasks like painting, etc. (but I'm not going to make anyone help with a bathtub - that's just cruel). I have zero construction experience, but I figure that with a full week's time, a crew of relatives could at least make a significant dent towards full habitability.

Obviously, simply stating, "oh, I'll just have all of my relatives show up and build it for me!," is a bit dismissive. But other than the cost savings for us, I see a few big advantages to it. First, this truly would make it a "family cabin". (Every time someone saw crooked baseboards, they could just chuckle and say, "oh, that uncle Shallow Man, he never could measure anything properly...) Second, it could be considered a loose form of "payment" for future access - a way to share the load, if you will.

Which takes me to the third and most perplexing issue - the legal issue of shared ownership and who this place would go to in the long run. Personally, I would really prefer to avoid any sort of shared deed arrangement. I can't think of any way that's faster to start a family feud than to have a piece of real estate worth several hundred thousand dollars shared between a handful of families. When it comes to saving up the funds, I would strongly prefer that it be a strictly in-house venture, as mixing money in the pot is a quick and easy way to sour relationships. However, it's also only fair to have some sort of arrangement that would allow the cabin to be shared among those who put labor and time into building it. It would also obviously be a de facto shared family facility of sorts, free to use by any member of the family (perhaps we would ask for a small utility charge of some sort to defray costs, we'd have to see) even if we didn't set it up that way with deeds. I'm not sure how this would work out yet - I imagine we'd cross this road when we came to it. All I know is that I'd like everything to be agreed to up front to avoid any unpleasant surprises or angry misunderstandings ("but you said we could have exclusive rights to the cabin on Thanksgiving in perpetuity if we helped install the baseboards!").

And then, of course, the question is what would happen to the place after we kicked the bucket. To me, the purpose of such a cabin is to serve as a gathering place for the family for generations to come, and it should be shared by all the various descendants of the Scritchy One's folks, as well as their associated cousins, uncles, aunts, etc., for years to come. The problem is that arranging for something like that is more than a wee bit complex - assuming, for example, that all of the couples have 4 children, that would leave the place with 20 "owners" after one generation, and assuming they all have the same amount of kids, it would then be 80 after two. You just can't split a house that many ways. We would have to work out some sort of trust or something, but even that gets complex. Oh well - I shouldn't put too much thought into what will happen to a place I haven't even built yet after I'm dead.

So... those are my cabin thoughts. What do you, the few family members who still might read my blog, think?

I leave you with more enticing photos of cabin-y goodness. Imagine generations to come shooting Nerf guns at each other in settings like these:





All photos available at Summit Handcrafted Log Homes - a great website from what looks to be a pretty sweet company.

To those Mormons who opposed Prop 8

Meet your new friends:











Such nice people. I can already feel the tolerance.

I've been tagged!

I really ought to blog more often. Of course, by more often, I mean "at all" (it's a careful distinction, I know).

It would appear that a certain "Mrs. Pants" has tagged me to describe six quirks about myself. These I shall describe below:

1) As noted previously, I plan a lot. I mean a whole lot. Probably too much - as a certain someone would say, it can "detract from the now". On top of planning obsessively, I also plan along multiple tracks - one for staying in Salt Lake, another for pursuing a federal job in D.C., etc. Ultimately, few of these plans will go forward, but I learn a lot by doing the planning itself.

2) If it is humanly possible, I will wear sandals to any place or event in any weather conditions. This is how I show my Florida heritage to the people of Utah!

3) On the rare occasions I wear shoes, I have worn the same brand and model of shoe since roughly September 2000 - Dr. Martens 8053 series Flex Link 5 hole shoes. I purchased a pair for my mission and I really liked them, so I stuck with them when I got home. I wore a hole in the soles of my mission pair with only a week left in Argentina (not bad, I'd say), and immediately purchased replacement shoes when I could afford them in the states. Those wore out around late 2005/early 2006, and I then purchased my third pair. Sadly, this will likely be my last pair of 8053s - and possibly Dr. Martens in general. While the first two paris were made in England and of fantastic quality, the pair I have had for the last three years or so was made in Thailand and has really failed to impress - the quality of the leather has declined a great deal (heck, some of it's just cheap vinyl now), I wore a hole in the left sole in less than a year and a half, and it's just not the same shoe - or worth $90 for that matter.. The only problem is that changing shoes means I have to shop for shoes (yuck) and find another style that is both sufficiently bland and comfortable to suit my taste. Meanwhile, Dr. Martens has gone back to producing a few styles, like these, in England, which means I may switch styles but stay with my preferred brand for the time being. Then again, I'm not sure if I want to spend a whopping $130 on a pair of shoes, even if it will last me for 3 years or so - that is a lot of green.

4) I have an absurd luggage fetish. I love luggage. This could well have something to do with my love of travel - go figure. But I seriously love the stuff. And I'm on the lookout for more...

5) Continuing on with the footwear trend, I tend to only have one of each basic thing I need. I only have one pair of sandals (my beloved Birks, which are overpriced, but sooooo comfortable and nice), one pair of "everyday" shoes (the aforementioned 8053s), one pair of dress shoes (which are also coming up for replacement in the next year or so) and one pair of athletic shoes. That's it. Rather than buying a variety and rotating things out, I tend to buy one of whatever I'm using and wear it out completely before I move on again. The average lifespan for each shoe this way tends to be 3+ years, though, because I buy quality. Additionally, I only have three types of socks - dress, everyday thick black, and white athletic - all of the same brand, model, etc.

6) I'm much more interested in visiting places outside of the U.S. than inside the U.S. I live less than 8 hours from two amazing masterpieces of natural beauty - the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone - but neither has really piqued my interest. Now, let's say, the Colca Canyon in Peru? Take me there!

Thanks for the tag, Mrs. Pants!

Things that would never happen in Florida

Exhibit #1

On the urge to travel

It's almost been three whole years since I've left the country - and that has really been eating at me.

It's not that I'm not a patriotic person - quite the opposite, as a matter of fact. It's not that I don't like living in the United States, either - I love it here. The U.S. is, among other things, the land of cutthroat capitalism, where if I want to go out and buy a carbon monoxide detector at 3 AM on a Friday night in the middle of summer, then by golly I can (and have)! Life in the U.S. is amazingly convenient, and as a citizen of the U.S. I certainly have a lot to be proud of. So I have no real problem with the states. I just like to get out from time to time.

Above all, I love the challenge of living overseas. I love how every little thing is suddenly an obstacle to be overcome, whether it is simply a matter of the language barrier or something else. Dumb things - like finding bacon that resembles real bacon, figuring out how to get a hot water heater going, getting to a local shopping center, or finally hunting down ice cube trays - suddenly become herculean tasks, requiring circumlocution, bargaining skills, and some risk taking (especially with the bacon, and I guess the gas powered hot water heater, too). I love the chance it gives me to meet new people, to see new places, and to learn about a different way of life. It's also an affirmation, however, that people everywhere are really just people - they're folks, working, playing, trying to get through their lives and have a little fun as well. Far too often, I have seen American tourists act as if they are at Disneyland when they travel, as if the locals were there merely as "cast members" for their entertainment. That's just not how it is, folks - people live, eat, and work on this great planet of ours with or without your notice.

Traveling is still a fairly new thing for me. The furthest north I had ever been as a young man was a brief trip to North Carolina, and the furthest west I had ever been was a short trip to Texas to visit some relatives whose names I can't even recall now (they did have a pool table, though, that much I do recall vividly). Finally, when I was 18, the Aaronic priesthood of my ward took a trip up the eastern seaboard, all the way up to Niagara falls. It was a great two weeks, and also marked my first time out of the country - I briefly passed into Canada to see the falls, of course. We also (briefly) visited Washington, D.C. and New York City - to date, my only voyages to these cities were those I made as an 18 year old.

And then I went on my mission. I came into the country during a hard time in Argentina's history, and the economic crisis had turned most people to petty crime. The midpoint of my mission was marked by the December 2001 riots, a tumultuous period in Argentine history. To make matters worse, some of the worst violence and looting occurred just after I had picked up a fresh "greenie" - a recently arrived missionary - from the offices. The poor kid spent the first week of his mission running from groups of people that wanted to rob and beat us and hunkered down in our apartment, where we armed ourselves with broomsticks and fireworks and took turns taking the night watch to make sure looters didn't burst in while we were unawares. If you've ever wondered why I seem so paranoid, it's because, well, I learned it there. It's an odd feeling to have society crumble and fall entirely around you - to suddenly have stores refuse to accept your money because no one knows its worth, to find no stores open for fear of looters, to hear gunfire pop up everywhere around you for no reason, and to see the police immediately turn on those they are charged to protect when given the opportunity. I learned to appreciate stability in an entirely new way that week.

Yet, for all of that, there was also the thrill of a pure adrenaline rush. I don't know that I've ever felt more alive, awake, and alert, than when I was screaming orders to a taxi driver to get us to safety, or preparing my home to be ransacked (luckily it was untouched in the end and even more luckily it would turn out that much of the talk of looting homes was simply rumor in any case). The careful planning of escape routes, the efforts to stay in communication, and the preparation of dumb things - quick "disguises" to make us look less gringo in the streets (mostly souvenir soccer jerseys and sweat pants), caches for things we didn't want stolen, and other details suddenly became very important matters. Although It was an exciting week, I certainly would not cry if I never had the chance to relive it - once was more than enough, thank you. But I learned the excitement of crisis, and the immediate, powerful effect it has on those caught in the midst of terrible events.

Since I came back from Argentina, I've traveled all over Europe and to Chile. Luckily I've never fallen into the middle of a coup of sorts again, but each time the excitement is the same - the challenge of figuring out where the grocery store happens to be is, of course, the first order of business. After that, it's trying to figure out the other basics: ATMs, taxis, etc. Nothing too exciting, but it's always fun to figure it out for the first time and enjoy that strange thrill of excitement from doing something simple.

So now it's Peru. My clockwise tour of South America continues. Peru offers its own unique challenges and advantages: life there is much cheaper than it was in Chile, but government officials are much less trustworthy and although I do speak Spanish, I don't speak Quechua - the most popular language in the Andes where we will be going. On the other hand, Peru is politically stable with a steady currency over the past several years and improving economic situation generally.

What will make this particularly interesting is that I've never actually lived alone before - I've always had family, mission companions, roommates, or my wife around to keep me on the straight and narrow and, overseas, watch my back at the ATM or as I swap lenses. It's going to be tough to be alone, and even worse leaving others behind, but the internship will be a great experience and important stepping stone in the long run, and, perhaps most important to me, I need to get out for a while. It's about time I got out, brushed up on my Spanish, and broke with monotony.

So, if anybody wants a cool alpaca poncho, let me know! 'cause I am getting out of here and heading to Peru!

Where the Hell is Matt

I love this guy:



(Follow the link to watch in High quality - it looks much better in high quality)

Check out his other videos as well, and his website.

This guy's got it made.

Hanging on in Quiet Desperation is the English Way

It has been much, much too long since I've listened to the greatest album known to man.



So, I decided to remedy that situation. And I am oh so glad I did. There's nothing quite like sitting back, closing your eyes, and hearing The Great Gig in the Sky. Nope, nothing.

I usually get my music off of iTunes, but for this I made an exception. One must enjoy Floyd in as close to its natural state as possible.

Well, I'm off to grab that cash with both hands and make a stash - just keep your hands off of my stack.

Much too long.

(Both the time periods involved and this post, I'm afraid.)

I just realized that I have not been overseas since I started this blog. That's almost three years my poor passport has sat unused, unloved, unstamped. The shame is almost unbearable!

It's also funny to think, however, that since I left Florida in January 2003, I have been to more foreign countries than I have spent days in the south. And that's a shame as well!

Well, at least the first of these problems is about to be remedied. In less than three weeks, I'll be taking my third trip to Latin America. (I never have visited the same country twice, though.) I'm looking forward to a chance to brush up on my Spanish and to get more work experience overseas. Looking back, if you count my time in the mission office as "full-time" work (and I sure do), I've actually worked more as a full-time employee in South America more than I have in the states by quite a large margin.

Right now, we soon-to-be-2Ls are on the hunt for jobs. Basically, for law students, this is how it works: you find a firm that will hire you for your "second summer" (having just finished my first year, I am in my "first summer"). This involves an initial screening interview and then a callback interview, where you are scrutinized for all of your manners, speech, and ability to get along with others for a 48 hour period (it's as fun as it sounds). Hopefully, you get a job from one of these firms that gave you a call back. Then, you work your tail off during this second summer job, schmoozing and trying to impress everyone at that firm as the firm schmoozes and tries to impress you right back. At the end of the summer, if you're lucky, you have an offer in hand and your post-law school employer has been decided. If you're not lucky, you walk away with a lot of "experience", "perspective", and "networking"... and no firm job. Which would be bad.

So, this second summer is vital, and the competition for jobs begins the day second-year classes begin, so I'm a bit stressed out at the moment. After all, it would be a bit of a waste to go to three years of law school to never get a job with that J.D., and Uncle Sam would probably like his money back sooner rather than later.

Further complicating matters is not just the "if" I will find a job, but the "where". It is most likely that I will end up in Utah. But, just to complicate matters, there is a large, well-respected (read: pays well) firm with offices throughout Florida, including my hometown, coming to do On Campus Interviews as well. This firm specifically wants to know what ties each applicant has the cities where its offices are as well. Now I'm faced with a small dilemma - should I apply?

I simply don't have the resources or the connections to head back home and line up a bunch of interviews - I don't know that many other lawyers and even if I did I just don't have the cash on hand to make it happen. This is my one shot. Further, this is the only firm offering a private-sector legal job in the Florida/Alabama/Georgia area.

I haven't even been scheduled for an interview yet and I'm freaking out about this one. To make it work, the firm would have to hire both the Scritchy One and me for next summer to work out of the same office (I imagine the Scritchy one would also like to be employed). Further, we would both have to be willing to move down to Florida. The Scritchy one is understandably hesitant. I'm divided on the matter.

I was 19 years old the last time I lived in Florida,, and almost 9 years will have passed if I return next summer. That's a long time. I've changed, other folks have changed, and I can accept that academically, but I don't want to drop back into social patterns I was a part of in high school as I begin my professional career. Also, I don't know too many folks my age in Florida any more and to complicate matters I have only been able to maintain peace with my relatives based on a 1,000 mile rule - so long as we have a great distance between us and rarely talk, we seem to get along just fine! I won't lie - it would also be nice to never again see a crazy ex-girlfriend or be reminded of the dumb stuff I did in high school.

On the plus side, however, is a chance to return to my beautiful south, have my very own swimming pool (how I miss that!) and to be closer to my grandparents, to whom the 1,000 mile rule does not apply. I'm getting bored with Utah myself. It would also be nice to catch up with some old frirends from back home that I haven't seen in years. It would also be nice to be in a non-Utah ward for a change - no offense to you Utahans!

The Scritchy One, however, isn't a huge fan of the plan. She has a LOT of family here in Utah, and she is not a fan of the humid, sticky south. (Of course I hate the dry, skin-peeling desert here.) Still, she might follow along for a few years.

This may all be a big to do about nothing, though. Like I said, I haven't even been offered an interview yet, Still, the fact that I'm interested shows an odd lingering love for the south, and I am hopeful!

I'll be sure to keep my imaginary readers posted!

Yup. I've been working on this too long.

As you may well know, many website ads are based on what you as a user have been looking up lately in your cookies.

I, for example, have been working on a project on Islamic terrorism for more than a week. This involves a lot of searches using the word "Muslim" "Islamic" or other variations on that theme. So, the computers of the world think I'm interested in Muslims.

Very interested.

Therefore, with all that searching, this young lady has been following me around everywhere I go:



Well, at least she's there for matrimony, I guess.

Other important issues

After the hard-hitting reporting below, it's time talk about even more issues. Like cutlery and sneakers.

The Left and its hunger for faux science

From threats of a new ice age to the present global warming "crisis", and now, the faux science of handwriting analysis.

Actual excerpts:

Republican John McCain's signature shows a proud, idealistic but impulsive, if not uncontrollable man, according to the experts.

Lowe saw impulsiveness and a "short fuse" in McCain's variable writing style.

New York graphologist Roger Rubin agreed, and also saw a powerful ego at play in the senator from Arizona.

"The unevenness of the rhythm reflects the unevenness of his temperament," Rubin said.

"The capital J is the largest letter, which shows his strong belief in his own ego. The size of 'John' overwhelms the size of 'McCain' -- this shows how distant he is from his family roots."

[...]

"He draws that circle and a line through it, and it's really like he has two different worlds," said Paula Sassi, who has been interpreting handwriting for 28 years.

"I think it shows his black and white heritage."

The fluidity of Obama's signature is a sign of high intelligence, while its illegibility shows he is protecting his privacy.

[...]

The fluid letter forms reveal that he can form a coalition, be diplomatic and get along with both sides of the aisle," she added. "He's the type of guy who could tell you to go to hell and you'd enjoy the trip."

[...]

Clinton's legible, balanced signature shows a woman of great intelligence.

It's simplicity portrays a "what-you-see-is-what-you-get" personality, said Lowe.

Her straight-up-and-down writing indicates that she "thinks with her head, not with her heart," said Sassi.

"But there is enough roundness in her writing to show that she cares about people," said Imberman.

So shocking. The Republican appears nuts, while the other two appear to be brilliant. Boy, I sure didn't see that one coming.

An astrologist could not be reached for comment, and the tea leaves and Tarot cards did not immediately return phone calls.

Oh So Just

Yeah, this is going to be a long one. Silly posting will continue at a later date, don't worry.

The website begins:

MESJ - Mormons for Equality and Social Justice
 adopted a Resolution on The War in Iraq
 at her annual Conference in Salt Lake

"Her" is likely a typo, although it likely is indicative of the group's size. The fact that no newsletters have been published for over a year would lend additional credence to this thought. The Facebook group has a whopping 13 members in Salt Lake and no scheduled meetings.

"Mormons for Equality and Social Justice". Let's dissect that name a bit. I'm pretty sure we can all understand what the term "Mormons" means. As for "Equality" and "Social Justice", well, let's just say they're a bit more amorphous.

"Social Justice", of course, is the hard left's favorite catch-all term for virtually any cause it espouses. No one ever bothers to truly define what this "justice" is. Generally, however, the focus of social justice is on a "just" outcome, and on income redistribution in particular. How it is "just" to forcibly take from those who have worked hard and invested great time, effort, and treasure in appropriate training - or even from those who have, say, made a few lucky investments, or simply walked into money - and hand this over to those who have failed to adequately prepare themselves for the market, failed to find good jobs, failed to make sufficient effort to work, or even, yes, simply fallen on bad times is entirely beyond me.

Where I stand, vaguely.

That said, I must qualify the above statement by noting that I am not entirely against all government-operated welfare. Modest unemployment benefits, for example, help to oil the machinery of a free market and in the end provide a net benefit to society by providing those who are laid off or otherwise find themselves without employment with both the means and incentive to get back on their feet again - enough money to get by and pay the bills, but not enough to encourage living that way for long. Accordingly, the U.S. has enjoyed remarkably low time between jobs statistics and unemployment among developed nations. I also have some sympathy for those who wish to support those who simply cannot support themselves due to physical infirmity or a lack of mental capacity, and for the provision of necessary medical care to those who cannot provide it for themselves. I support these benefits for a variety of reasons: first, because they simply make the market work better (people are more willing to take the risks that make a free market flourish when they perform with a safety net) and second out of basic human decency (people should not be left to die or go hungry when care can reasonably be provided).

The question, however, is one of degrees. A support for basic decency means just that - basic decency. Not a desire to make everyone an economic equal. Not even a desire to help "shrink the gap" between rich and poor. Only a desire to allow people to live in basic dignity and to keep the economy running, not to reward unproductive activities. While the 14th Amendment guarantees equal treatment under law, as well it should, it does not contain a hidden caveat that demands the government favor those who have lacked other advantages in life or who have a more socially acceptable creed.

In any case, a desire to make people economic equals may be easy to quantify, but fails ultimately to provide. Even assuming a world where we all bring home the same paycheck, we will all spend it differently. Some will be wise with their money. Some will not be. Not all will have the same skill, and surely not all skills will be or could be equally weighted. "Equality" in an economic sense is a fleeting, impossible goal.

I am not concerned with disparities between the rich and poor in America. First, of course, one must understand that the American "poor" are objectively different than most of the rest of the world's poor. The greatest health problems facing the American poor stem not from a lack of food but an overabundance of inexpensive, calorie-rich varieties of it. The housing of the poor, be it as it may, is far superior to that of the shanty towns I have visited in my day. Most importantly, the opportunities available to these poor are far and away superior those of the third world. There is little reason for a poor American to not seek an education - government assistance, once again in support of the free market, can provide grants and loans not just for the cost of tuition but for all living and related expenses. Other than a lack of inclination or failure to make effort, there is no reason for an American to not receive at least some basic training or technical education. College is certainly not for everyone, but training - even on the job training - is a necessary part of any successful career from which a person can expect to make a living.

Additionally, I should note that America enjoys an extremely high rate of social mobility. The poor can and often do become "wealthy" (or at least "comfortable") in a single generation. The rich can easily piddle away their fortunes and become the poor. People move up and down the ladder all the time in America, and that's as it should be. As a case in point, I grew up in a single parent home with a mother who worked as a teacher. Not to put too fine a point on it, her maximum salary was probably somewhere around $30-35k/year. From this, I went to school and presently attend law school. I have no idea quite what I'll actually end up making, but statistics indicate it should be a healthy, and much more than comfortable (for me, at least) salary.

An aside: Justice should also not favor those who have decided to play against society's rules. A society's basic right to self-defense outweighs any claim a criminal can make against it. I support entirely a suspect, or even a known and confessed criminal's right to legal counsel. The adversarial system requires an adversary, and although I find their clients distasteful, I have nothing but respect for the criminal defense attorneys who stand up for that system and provide zealous representation to their clients. The police make mistakes, and without representation for the accused, society cannot adequately protect itself against these errors.

MESJ more specifically

The visitor to the MESJ website is visited, at present, with a photograph of a woman holding a large sign that bears the slogan "Mormon for Peace". The sign appears to come from a protest on the outskirts of BYU's campus, most likely during the visit of Vice President Dick Cheney last year.

I think that this is a message most reasonable people can get behind. I personally don't know anyone who is inspired by the idea of perpetual war. The problem with this sign, however, lays in how this peace is to be achieved.

For example, the group's August 2007 Resolution on the Iraq War demonstrates a desire to do anything but promote peace. Following the typical talking point justifications for their opinion at the beginning which, of course, over-simplify an extremely difficult portion of American history, the justifications given simply fail to measure up. I will respond to each below:

As Latter-day Saints we call upon the United States government to work out an exit strategy from Iraq that withdraws United States armed forces from Iraq as soon as possible;

As a matter of style, it is interesting first of all to note that they begin by describing themselves "as Latter-day Saints". I don't doubt their faith, but take issue with their choice of language. This could easy be interpreted as a general call from the membership of the church. As a Latter-day Saint myself, I call for no such thing. "As members of MESJ" would be a far better opening.

Enough style, on to substance. First of all, what, precisely, does "as soon as possible" mean? As soon as it is humanly possible to move the men and materiel from the zone? As soon as the security situation is improved? As soon as it becomes politically feasible? The use of vague standards like this really means absolutely nothing. Either set a date, set a marker, or get out of the game.

The United States should declare through the UN an all Arab international peace keeping stabilization force in Iraq;

Here is where the typically vague statement becomes indefensibly ignorant and naive. I'm not even sure where to start on this one.

"[D]eclare through the UN an all Arab [force]." What? Who gave the U.S. this unilateral power over the military and government of sovereign nations to direct them to field their militaries? Just where should the U.S. make this declaration, the Security Council? Let's assume the U.S. does make such a declaration - will the other 4 main powers go along? What of the others? Let's assume there is a unanimous vote in the Security Council in support of this magical Arab force - what teeth will this resolution have? How will it force these Arab nations who, up through now, have demonstrated little desire to install what meager militaries they have into Iraq, to ultimately do so? And if it comes from the General Assembly? Don't make me laugh. No "declaration" from the U.S. will result in the creation of an Arab international peace keeping force.

"[A]ll Arab"?. Let us begin here by noting the blatant racism of this qualification - only Arabs are allowed. Those of other races simply are not capable/clean enough to achieve the objective, one must assume. If that isn't racist, I don't know what is. Moving beyond the prima facie racism, the author's astounding ignorance of the region and apparent assumption that it can only or at least best be fixed along racial lines is simply beyond the pale. But even if racism was the answer, surely even the most basically informed person understands that Iraq is not an "Arab" nation by any stretch of the imagination. The Kurds, generally reliable allies to the U.S., are not Arabs and would take great offense at being mixed in with them, not to mention being brought under their boot once again in a "peacekeeping" mission. Further complicating the matter, the predominantly Shi'ite Arab population of Iraq - over 60% according to most figures I've seen - would likely not mix well with the "all Arab" international force as the overwhelming majority of Arabs outside of Iraq are Sunnis. Remember that whole "sectarian violence" thing going on in Iraq? Do you really want that to spread into a regional war? Even this is an oversimplification - an average Saudi Muslim and an average Egyptian Muslim serving in the military are not likely to share many religious views. Not to even mention the disagreements between various Arab countries and how unlikely it is that their militaries would ever mesh.

Let us assume, however, that this "all Arab international ... force" magically appears in Iraq at the behest of the U.S. Would it actually stop violence? Probably not.

First of all, peacekeeping experience is rare among Arab militaries. The only predominantly Muslim military I can think of that has actively participated in peacekeeping operations is Pakistan's, and the Pakistanis are not Arabs and thus automatically excluded by MESJ's standards. A lack of experience carrying out such missions does not bode well for Arab militaries whose command structures rather strongly discourage dissent, ensuring slow adaptability to the rapidly changing scene of a peacekeeping mission.

Second, these militaries lack basic equipment needed for the fight. They generally do not have all of the high-tech gizmos used by the American military to minimize collateral damage, which will inevitably lead to yet more deaths, and it must be remembered that not even the U.S., whose military spending alone eclipses Egypt's GDP, could field sufficient vehicles with armor to protect its troops in the beginning. How do we expect the Arabs to put up sufficient armor for their forces? Field a large enough military to perform its intended function? Supply themselves logistically? Continuously train new soldiers? I simply don't see it happening without a massive increase in military expenditures that is likely to make many friends in the population of the affected countries.

Third, will the Iraqis actually cooperate with them? As the saying, modified for the writer, goes, "In Florida, I am a north-Floridian. In America, I am a Floridian. In the world, I am an American". Iraqis do retain nationalist feelings, and are not terribly fond of the idea of having foreigners rule over them. I would think that anti-war groups would have realized that by now, but sadly, no. Bringing in a force of neighboring countries who will come in with their own motivations to form Iraq will not be well received.

Fourth, there is not a single Arab country governed by a functioning liberal democracy that respects human rights in place. This does not put them in a good position to help create a pluralistic society, and Abu Ghraib would be a walk in the park compared to what would happen in Iraqi prisons. This is not "peace" by any means.

Fifth, the most troublesome and perhaps the most murderous force presently in Iraq - Arab foreign fighters - are also sworn enemies of the regimes that this suggestion would put into Iraq. It would be naive to expect any reduction in violence from these groups. The remaining major opposition parties are largely Shi'ite with Iranian backing. Which brings me to...

Sixth, and perhaps most important of all, is a failure to consider the Iranian response. Iran, a Shi'ite, predominantly Persian and Azeri nation, is not likely to take the de facto creation of a Sunni Arab country next door lightly. Increased support for local militia will undoubtedly occur, as will more bloodshed.

Quite frankly, MESJ's entire suggestion is stupid. There's no better way to put it. It is not feasible, and even were it feasible, its the simplistic, child-like assumption that if we throw together a bunch of people who look similiar, they'll all get along. Assuming the author actually intends for any level of peace to be restored by this Arab force, he or she obviously has concluded that the population of the middle east is a religious, ethnic, and ideological monolith or close to it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Does this belief stem from a subset of Marxist thought and find the root of violence to ultimately be racial warfare by Arabs against the evil "white" invaders a requirement for Arabs? Is it based on the assumption that all the world is - and should be - racist? Is it based simply on the racism of the author, who views all "brown people" as one and the same? Is it a strange and horribly misinformed/uninformed adaptation of Huntington's clash of civilizations?

Whatever it is, it's stupid and racist. It's utterly childish, but sadly the reader is expected to take it seriously. It would be to laugh if it weren't for the fact that the author really, truly believes what he or she writes.

The Iraqi government must promote national reconciliation among all the country’s indigenous ethnic factions and their affiliated armed groups and/or militias;

How does this goal mesh with the one above? What with the "all Arab" force of peacekeepers, where is the motivation to do this?

The best part is "reconciliation" among the various militias. Armed, angry people rarely seek reconciliation. They seek combat. They do not want a chair at the table - they want the table, the chairs, and all of the guns in the room. Diplomacy is an excellent tool, but is not useful in all situations. Armed groups who would seek to disrupt the national government should either a) lay down their arms, renounce violence, and take a seat or b) be destroyed. Period.

We call on the United States government to return total control of Iraqi natural resources to the hands of the Iraqi government.

Which has largely been done - and the Iraqis have just as quickly handed the contracts to manage these resources over to foreign companies, including large American firms, for extraction and distribution.

Once again, is this some sort of socialist ideal? Must these resources be in the hands of some ethereal "people"?

We call on the United States Government to provide financial support to an independent Iraqi government to rebuild the country's infrastructure and create jobs so as to somewhat alleviate the economic destruction brought on by U.S. military involvement in Iraq.

Iraq's infrastructure has not been in great shape since the first Gulf War - the author's beloved UN helped to ensure that with the sanctions program. Returning to style, this sentence is written confusingly - should the U.S. only alleviate the damage it directly caused through military involvement? What about any civilian damages? The damage caused when it was enforcing a UN mandate against the Hussein regime? We may never know.

Also, what strings would be attached to this money? Surely the U.S. would demand, and the author agree, that the funds should actually be spent for their intended purpose. Ensuring this, however, would require oversight and control by the U.S., and the U.S. most certainly has a right to see how its own money is spent.

Most importantly, a steady economy requires security. Basic security - something which the MESJ has no effective plan for providing.


No Peace

As I have discussed at length above, the MESJ plan is not a road to peace. In fact, it is a road that would almost certainly lead to additional bloodshed and human rights violations on a magnitude rarely seen in human history. Peace is not their goal - the removal of U.S. influence is. They are not motivated by a love for the Iraqi people, but a hatred for the U.S.

MESJ and others can make these proclamations of their moral superiority because they know that ultimately they will not bear the burden of the cost of their decisions. If their recommendations were to go through, they could enjoy the smug feeling of having clean hands as thousands die to salve their fragile little minds. Peace cannot be achieved simply by the removal of American soldiers. Peace is, most often, the fruit of long, bloody, decisive conflict. I wish the world were different, I really do, but it is how it is.

"Good intentions" do not make up for bad consequences and have been responsible for innumerable mass graves in the past century. It is no coincidence that a moratorium on the use of DDT to "protect the environment" has contributed to a vast increase in Malaria cases leading in no small part to untold death and suffering as well as economic malaise throughout Africa. The appeasement of Nazi Germany, with only "good intentions" of peace did not avoid war. The desire to achieve emotional catharsis and regain so-called "moral authority" by refusing to fund the South Vietnamese after the war may have been based on "good intentions", but millions of others paid the price for this need to heal the tender psyche of some with their lives. "Good intentions" often kill on a grand scale. Do not speak to me of your intentions - speak to me of results.

Just because something is not "legal" (a term with very little weight in the international realm in any case) does not mean it is not right or best. The international system is an anarchist one - there is no court with teeth to enforce its judgment. There is reciprocity - and, in many cases, reciprocity alone.

The same attitude is found in the MESJ's resolution on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well. Lending moral support to HAMAS, a racist, murderous organization and the chosen government of a large portion of the Palestinian people, simply because of a "legal" argument is absurd. There is no meaningful courtroom to actually decide the matter, after all. The ability of a group like MESJ and others to proudly proclaim their desire of "equality" for women, homosexuals and others, as found in their numerous resolutions, while simultaneously lending moral support to the HAMAS government is beyond absurd. One would think that a group promoting "equality" would side with the country whose policies allow for much more equal treatment between, for example, the sexes. Instead, MESJ throws its meager weight behind those who would see all of those rights rolled back and women kept in abject subjugation, unable to learn or to work. This, however, is OK in their minds - they have the "good intention" of "peace". Well, sometimes peace comes at too high a cost.

Heads in the clouds - Healthcare

It's not just foreign policy, either. Take a look at MESJ's healthcare plan, which states:

No increase in revenue, either out-of-pocket or tax payments, is required to provide universal health care services to people living in the U.S.: Eh-hem - "ha ha!" Seriously, they predict absolutely no increases in tax payments if the government takes over a portion of the economy on which Americans spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Seriously. They do this with a straight face.

Administrative overhead for financing health care services should be held below 5%. I don't know of any government agency that even approaches a less than 5% total administrative cost, let alone the nigh impossibility of implementing this in the healthcare industry which has a herculean set of regulations to work on and often requires specialized administrative personnel for something as simple as a bill. This is a pipe dream.

All revenues for health services, whether of federal, state, or private origin, should be combined together and should be managed in a manner responsive to the public. Yes, because government, rather than citizens, is best at managing money for vital personal needs. Right. It's worked great in the past, let's do it now!

The lack of source citations, and even basic common sense, makes one wonder just what thought, exactly, has gone into this organization. Is it pure idealism?

Working backwards

I imagine that it truly is pure idealism, and the idealism of a small, fringe group.

Perhaps most interesting of all is that MESJ's site is peppered with vague quotations from scriptures and general authorities. Some, in my opinion, have been misinterpreted. Others taken out of context. Almost all, however, I imagine were researched and found to support an existing ideology that had already been set. This is backwards - scripture should inform the ideologies we adopt, not be researched after the fact to provide support. I understand the temptation to do otherwise and to try to find words of God to hang your hat on, and I'd be a liar if I said I'd never done it myself. Nevertheless, this is not how it should work.

I've tried to avoid citing scripture in this post. I see no need to do so when the basic principles are so clear. I also fear the inevitable wresting that occurs in such situations. My religion does inform my politics, to be sure, but I do not believe it wise to share personal spiritual insights with others as if they were gospel (I do not wish to accuse MESJ of doing this, to be clear), nor do I believe that my politics should be anywhere as immovable as my faith.

And I'm tired

I want to state quite firmly that this is not a broadside attack on the left or at Democrats in general. Yes, I believe you can be a "good Mormon" and a Democrat. I have personally known numerous outstanding members of the church of this persuasion, including peers, professors, friends, and, yes, even leaders. I am, frankly, concerned with the extent to which members of the church have adopted the Republican party - a party whose base, in part, is virulently anti-Mormon. The same can be said, however, for the anti-religious portion of the Democratic party base as well. Loyalty, at least for me, rests first with God, followed by family and then country. A particular political party falls quite low on my list.

MESJ, however, is obviously the target here, as with other so-called "social justice" movements. MESJ has displayed a shocking lack of knowledge on the topics it discusses and has allowed "good intentions" to outweigh the importance of real-life effects of its proposed policies. Policies should not be adopted on a "wouldn't it be nice if" or "if only something utterly opposed to human nature and unlikely to happen would happen, then all would be grand, so let's just act like it will happen" basis. They should be informed by common sense, feasible, and likely to succeed, not just make people feel better, more "equal", or that "justice" has been served. A solemn apology to the dead after a few decades of rest in their graves certainly does not improve their lot.

I'm likely flailing at a paper tiger here - MESJ appears to have, for all intents and purposes, disbanded. This is a good thing - the less damage they and groups like them can do, the better. Should it still be around, however, I certainly hope that it considers adopting more mature and feasible goals in the near future.

Finally.

It's about time they choose the right.

A special Mother's Day message

If you had brothers, you understand.



Via Xavier Thoughts.