3daysCourteously

Image v. Substance

2010-10-27T22:01:00.000-07:00

I gave this talk to a group of incoming freshmen a few years ago at BYU. I was thinking about it tonight and thought it was worthy of sharing on this blog (Really though, what isn't worthy of being shared on a blog?). My mind tends to get stuck on one topic for long periods of time, and this one occupied my thoughts for the better part of a year. This is the result. I should thank Kitt Tanner for bringing the idea to my attention while serving our LDS missions in France and even giving one of the examples I use at the beginning. I should also apologize for the lack of photos on this post. Let's be honest though. Anyone visiting my blog isn't coming for its design features.

*************************************************************************************

Aug. 21, 2007

I have one thought tonight. It is not as focused as I would like, but by and large it is all part of this same thought. My thought is that we can only be (emphasis on “be”) a true disciple of Christ—what I consider to be the highest mark of distinction— when we learn to emulate Him with all our heart, might, mind and strength and when we learn to do, think and desire the same things that He does.

We live in a world that puts a premium on image. We learn at any early age that appearing to be something often works when we feel that actually being that thing is asking a little too much.

Example, I am not a morning person. When I was young, my mother would have to constantly monitor me to make sure that I was right on schedule to make the bus. If my hair wasn’t combed and my shoes not on by 7:00, she would get after me — not a pleasant experience coming from my angel mother. I soon learned that by combing my hair and getting dressed long before I had eaten breakfast and brushed my teeth – things she couldn’t notice – I could trick her into thinking that I was further along than I really was. I was trying to have the image of something, when the substance wasn’t all that appealing to me.

But I am not the only one who struggles with this.

Americans spend thousands of dollars traveling to explore the intricacies of a foreign country and then when we get there, we stay in American hotels, speak English at the train station and eat at McDonalds. And when we return to the states, we tell our friends all about our “cultural experience.” It doesn’t matter that we missed the essence of the people and their culture; we got the image of being cultured when the substance of it all seemed less than comfortable.

The problem is that this doesn’t just apply to getting ready in the morning and travel plans; it has penetrated into the way we live the Gospel. We too, as Saints, have sometimes learned (from which source I am unsure) that the image will do when the substance of the matter is a little too demanding and stretches us a little too far.

Living the Gospel of Jesus Christ and becoming one of His disciples is not an activity, nor an event in which we temporarily or half-heartedly engage. The Savior wants and needs commitment. Indeed, it is the only way it can work. In a Gospel where the human soul is the only project on the Master’s mind, our going through the motions void of substance, becoming and consecration can never reach His desired ends.

As Elder Bednar said,

“In our customary Church vocabulary, we often speak of going to Church, going to the temple, and going on a mission. Let me be so bold as to suggest that our rather routine emphasis on going misses the mark. The issue is not going to church; rather it is worshipping and renewing covenants as we attend church. The issue is not going to or through the temple, rather, the issue is having in our hearts the spirit, the covenants, and the ordinances of the Lord’s house. The issue is not going on a mission, rather the issue is becoming a missionary and serving throughout our entire life with all of our heart might mind and strength. It is possible for a young man to go on a mission and not become a missionary, and this is not what the Lord requires or what the Church needs.”

My guess is that we have not fully realized this. We become so concerned with what others think about us that we forget that the only accountability that matters is the one held between us and God.

You see, there is no salvation in empty sacrifices, meaningless images and the opinion of others—either for those that we would have otherwise blessed had we sought to become who the Lord would have us be – or for ourselves individually.

Elder Bednar rightly places the issue on the substance of the matter rather than the image or going through the motions. It is the state of our heart, in many cases, that makes our offering acceptable to the Lord.

In the end, this problem of image and substance proved to be the major problem with ancient Saints in living the Law of Moses and especially the Law of Sacrifice.

As Elder Holland said,

“A fine man, a high priest, would teach his morning seminary class, and remember that it was the hour of sacrifice, and go up to the alter and offer his lamb and come down and scream at his wife and kick his kids and say, ‘I fulfilled my obligation. I stand before God with my hands clean and my lambs at the ready.’ And God in His heaven surely must have wept and shook His head one more time.”

“‘I desire mercy,’ says Jehovah, ‘not sacrifice. I am not really all that interested in dead little animals, but you somehow seem to forget the meaning behind the meaning; when I really wanted knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. Don’t sing. Don’t dance. Don’t do any more that you’re doing. You have not understood.”

And so the Lord tried a new sacrifice. The meaning is the same, but a new symbol is used.Instead of asking for the fat of lamb, He asks for a broken heart and a contrite spirit. This is the meaning of discipleship. It is submission and consecration. It means becoming. How do we do this? Yes, it is through partaking the sacrament, but as it was with the lambs, going through the motions cannot bring salvation.

Continuing from Elder Holland, “Cain was the first to learn this lesson. Abel sacrifices his lamb and Cain says, “You can have these tomatoes and bananas, but I’m not going to offer any lambs. I don’t have a lamb. They are going to have to be good enough.”

And the Lord patiently said, “It isn’t the tomatoes and the bananas. It isn’t even the lambs. What I need Cain is submissiveness and obedience. And in this case, symbolic remembrance of my gift.’ Cain says, ‘That’s tough. You can have these tomatoes and that banana or forget it.’

And he did not understand that tomatoes and a banana would not bleed and die for him. He didn’t understand that a lamb, going like a sheep to the shearer, would silently, sweetly, respectfully, bear Cain’s stripes and shoulder his burdens. You know what became of Cain. The danger is that some portion of that is what can come to so many of the human family, I suppose including us, if we do not understand any better.”

When the Savior asks us “Come follow me,” it is not only call to do things similar to the things He did. It is a call to follow Him in thought, word, deed and most importantly substance. Ultimately it is a call to become.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks said

“The gospel challenges us to be "converted," which requires us to do and to become.”

The gospel doesn’t just challenge us to believe. It asks us to act; and even then it does not merely ask us to act, it asks us to consecrate and become converted. Someone who has become and is becoming a disciple of Christ lives for the substance of all things. He does his home teaching to watch over and care for the Saints the Lord has placed in His care, He goes to the temple to tie his heart to those past on, renew his own covenants, and perform saving ordinances for the deceased. He takes the sacrament to once again promise a broken heart and contrite Spirit to He who bought him with a price.

Becoming is a process. It happens little by little until the realization of the baptismal and sacrament promise — that they may always have His Spirit to be with them. Persons striving to become disciples analyze their own heart and the substance of what they are doing. As they follow Christ — in the true sense — the Holy Ghost will become a natural part of their being. It becomes wired into their system. That which is inspired of God becomes intuitive to them.

Indeed the challenge to become is a tall order — one that might make you feel like shrinking because of your own inadequacy. I assure you that you are surrounded by people just like you who all too often fall asleep during Church, pray a little too routinely and fail to fully remember the Savior’s atonement each week when partaking the sacrament.

The Lord knows and understands this – and yet He graciously continues to love and bless us for the times we do get it right. The key to becoming is not perfection. It is getting the substance of it all right more often than we have before. It is sacrifice. That is all that He asks of us.

I bear you my testimony that there is power in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but I bear you my witness that it is a power that comes in living the substance of salvation. There is no power in flimsy wishes and thoughtless rituals. The power of discipleship comes in becoming like the Savior—in short, doing the right things for the right reasons. As we become, the Gospel and the Holy Spirit promised by the Gospel, becomes intricately woven in our being.

Utah Caucuses or Cauci?

2010-03-26T01:20:00.000-07:00

Does anyone know the plural for caucus? Let's see if we can work our way through this one.

Octopus--> Octopi

Syllabus--> Syllabi

Cactus--> Cacti

Bus --> Bi

It would seem that caucus' plural would naturally be cauci, but apparently journalists don't see things my way. I still think logic is strongly on my side, even if the AP Stylebook isn't.

Anyway, on to more important things.

I've had an extremely cynical view of Utah's Republican caucus/convention system ever since I was introduced to it. Utah is admired by other state Republican parties because of the immense control it has over which candidates it puts up in elections. In years past, any semi-well-organized candidate could flood caucuses and then the convention and win the Republican nomination without ever facing the public — essentially locking up the entire race.

Every precinct in Utah forms a caucus which can nominate three delegates to the state convention. Many potential delegates head into the caucus meetings knowing who they are going to vote to for at the convention — this was how Rep. Jason Chaffetz won his seat in 2008 — but, in the case they have not, they will be hounded by candidates seeking their support in the couple months leading up to the convention. Simply put, a lot of what happens at the convention is decided before the convention, if not the caucuses.

In past years, most precincts typically averaged between 7-20 people at their caucus meetings. With such low turnout, it is extremely easy to bring along five of your friends to vote for you and seal the deal. Well-organized campaigns do. You pack your guys into caucus meetings and make sure they have enough people to outvote grandma and grandpa who don't have anything better to do on a Tuesday night.

I'd even prepared the speech I was planning on giving at a future caucus meeting instead of telling other precinct members why they should vote for me as their delegate:

"I've won. That's right, I've won. There's nothing you can do about it. Not because I care so much about this state or about (insert air quotes) conservative values. Not because I'm a better candidate or because I am more informed than you, though I do think it's cute you showed up tonight. I'm just going to win. So, let's go ahead and wrap this up and take this vote so I can get home to my Cosby re-runs."

Then I'd have my 8 friends get up and give speeches saying, "I don't care about politics. I'm just here to vote for this guy." Eight times over. We take the vote and then go home. Everyone is happy.

I didn't like the system because it was too easy for the few to manipulate the election's outcome. These delegates from these caucuses then go to the state convention where if they get a 60 percent supermajority for one candidate (we're talking about the governorship and US House and Senate seats), the party doesn't even need to have a primary. The GOP candidate can essentially lock up the race and avoid general voters by effectively attacking these caucus meetings.

Admittedly, my fears were a bit overblown. Still, something always bothered me about the process. This wasn't how people were supposed to choose their leaders. I wanted deliberation, sincerity and reason to win political positions, not muscling through the system. I still do.

I got a refreshing perspective, however, when I talked to my mom Wednesday about her experience at her precinct's meeting. This was her first time going. My dad went in 2008, and that was the first time for our family. She said there were more than 100 people there. There were 10-15 in '08. They talked about issues that concerned them without yelling or fighting. Everyone knew one another and what kind of values they had. They gave sincere speeches about what they were looking for in candidates and to what kind of person they would support. Then, they opened it up for everyone to ask question of the potential delegates. It was open, sincere and deliberative. Everything I could want.

Listening to my mom, I was reminded about Tocqueville's visit to early 19th Century New England. In Democracy in America, he spoke of the enormous sense of community that existed in the area and how deeply it shaped its politics. The people were engaged with each other and with their politicians. They came together and reasoned together and then made sure their politicians heard their voices. The Americans were making an unprecedented experiment in republican constitutional government work — and it was working because they didn't trifle with their newfound freedoms.

Shortly after speaking with my mom, I thought of this quote from Thomas Jefferson:

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

While this quote has its natural limitations, I think Jefferson strikes at the heart of what makes republics work. Jefferson was committed to education of the youth because he knew that only an educated citizenry would know and care enough about their rights to stand up and fight for them against government encroachment. Just like the caucus system, republics only work when people are engaged, when they care enough to make their voices heard. Unfortunately, this level of involvement is often to limited to when people are "mad as hell" and decide they "aren't gonna take it anymore."

Tuesday night was one of those times for Utahns.

But, I'm naive enough to think it doesn't have to be this way.

To Pass or Not to Pass

2010-03-16T12:14:00.000-07:00

There is no rest for the weary, and there is no Spring Break for ... well, people like me. Between March Madness and the Health Care vote, I'm not sure this week could handle any more drama.

I keep checking out this page to see the latest vote count for the health care "bill." I put bill in quotation marks because nothing is finalized.

All House Republicans have said they will vote against the bill, which means 38 Democrats will need to defect to stop the bill. Right now, there are 37 reps in the firm no, leaning no and likely no categories. If all these votes break against the current bill, Obamacare opposition will only need one of the 55 undecided members to go against the president. As much as Democrats would like to make this bill not about abortion, it looks like that might be what kills it.

I'm more optimistic than I was two weeks ago, but I'm far from celebrating. Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she has the votes to pass the bill, though she did throw in this odd possibility yesterday, which makes me wonder how many votes she really has.

****

March 17 9:oo EST We are actually moving in the wrong direction. One no moved to yes today.

Understanding Unemployment

2010-03-11T01:13:00.000-08:00

You know you're becoming a nerd when you come up with a title like the one above and think that it's a good one. It's clear, concise and let's you know what I'm going to do. Who could want more?

This is admittedly late, but I wanted to address it because I keep hearing people pointing to the recent decrease in unemployment as evidence that the economy is improving.

Does anyone have a wet blanket?

A lot of the confusion comes from a misunderstanding and even misuse of the different unemployment indicators. When many people think of the unemployment rate, they think it's simply the percentage of people who aren't working. Unemployment, however, has a technical definition limited to those who want and are actively seeking work. It does not include people who have become discouraged by the bad economy and thrown up their hands. It doesn't include those who have gone back to school, hoping the economy will be better by the time they graduate. These people are not a part of the labor force and are therefore excluded from the unemployment rate.

This difference becomes important when you see puzzling headlines that claim a net 36k jobs were lost in February and yet the unemployment rate went down. This is only possible if people have given up looking for work. This decrease in unemployment should not be celebrated as it adds nothing to the economy.

Economists use an alternative gauge of unemployment which includes discouraged workers and those who have been forced to accept part-time work. The gauge is useful in circumstances such as this when we see that the economy is still losing jobs, but the unemployment rate is going down. This lets us know what is happening to those workers.

February's alternative gauge of unemployment was at 16.8 percent, up .3 percent from last month.

Obviously, politicians will quote the indicators that place them in the best light, even if it is misleading or exploitive. Journalists, however, should be more careful in pointing out what is really going on.

*********

Also, can someone explain to me how February snowstorms caused the loss in jobs? I guess mother nature snuck up on the White House with these winter storms (bizarre, I know). Admittedly, I have never run a business on my own, but it would seem that the snow experienced by the East coast would not have caused actual full-time positions to be cut. Sure, it delays production and the transportation of goods, but I can't see how an employer says "Well Bill, it's snowing today; you're fired."

Maybe I'm missing something.

Health Care: Die Debatte ist fertig

2010-03-03T13:34:00.000-08:00

My American presidency professor says that if you ever feel uncomfortable with a political proposition, repeat it loudly in a German accent to reveal its true character.

For example, take the recent example of Obama's declaring the health care debate over. Said calmly the statement may not ruffle too many feathers. Said loudly, throwing in an extra "Ach" or "mein" and a heavily pronounced "v" and you have the makings of something truly troublesome.

The test nearly always works.

Admittedly, this is supposed to be funny and can certainly be misleading. It is odd how often it works though.

It seems to me that Obama's downfall (and Progressivism's blindspot) is their unwillingness to challenge the surety of their own course. Obviously, the idea that the debate is over presumes that there has been a debate and that an acceptable conclusion has been reached. As I chronicled a month ago, the discussions surrounding health care have been largely closed to the input of Republicans and the public at large. Where input was sought, you'd be hard pressed for evidence that it was seriously considered.

I had this notion confirmed when Obama welcomed Republicans for their input on budget issues, including health care, in the State of the Union. While seemingly bipartisan and open, he followed that invitation with this biting warning to those with opposing viewpoints:

"From some on the right, I expect we’ll hear a different argument – that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts for wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, and maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is, that’s what we did for eight years. That’s what helped lead us into this crisis. It’s what helped lead to these deficits. And we cannot do it again."

The condescension is overwhelming. It's hard to see how such a statement made its way into a State of the Union address. This backhanded mischaracterization is not that of someone seriously interested in welcoming conservative ideas. Something closer to the true message would have been revealed slowly in a German accent.

And so, Obama is now set on using a rare budgetary device to implement a plan Americans have repeatedly said they do not want. Reconciliation (sidestepping the filibuster so that only a majority in the senate is needed) has mostly been used in the last 60 years to enact legislation that has bipartisan support. In rare occasions, it was used in situations like this, such as when President Clinton used it to enact the largest tax hike in American history.

Conservatives should, however, take solace in that fact that voters rewarded Clinton's bold leadership by ushering in the Gingrich Revolution and giving the president a Republican Congressional majority that would give Clinton headaches the rest of his administration and make it one of the most fiscally conservative eras of recent memory.

So, while it appears likely that the Democrats will be able to achieve some kind of health care reform, they should do so remembering that forcing this on Americans comes with serious electoral consequences.

As a postscript, I should say that the bill is not a done deal. There a still many things that need to be worked out. It appears, however, that it will happen in one form or another.

Mark of Sincerity: Tiger Woods' Apology

2010-02-19T14:34:00.000-08:00

Consider me among one those who were impressed with Tiger Woods' apology this morning.

The key thing I look for in people's apologies (and my own) is the degree to which they are willing to confess and forsake what they've done rather than explain and justify their actions. Many apologies come with addendums that scream, “I know you think it is wrong, and I know I am supposed to think it is wrong, but I don’t think it is completely wrong, and here is why…”

What struck me is what he didn't say. He didn't try to explain or justify why he was unfaithful. He didn't try to blame his wife or his career or point to mitigating circumstances. He said he was wrong and left it at that.

He even went a step further when he described how had begun to stray from his core values, developing a sense of entitlement and an idea that moral restraints no longer applied to him because of his success as an athlete.

At a time when most athletes and entertainers would like to pretend they can refuse to be role models (think Britney Spears, Eminem and Charles Barkley. Mostly anyone but Kanye West: "We rappas is role models. We rap, we don't think."), it was nice to hear Tiger admit that he had failed as example for kids and that he was working to get help.

It was refreshing to hear an athlete be so humble and forthcoming in accepting responsibility, to be more interested in clearing his wife's name than his own. I have no idea where this will lead for Tiger, but today was a sign he is moving in the right direction.

Honoring Calvin Coolidge

2010-02-15T19:01:00.000-08:00

It seems odd to celebrate Presidents' Day. Why would we honor the cowardly James Buchanan in the same breath as the indispensable George Washington, the figure in whom the holiday is rooted?

At some level, it is disappointing that the holiday has become a celebration of all the stewards of the presidency. Instead of taking the time to honor and study Washington or Abraham Lincoln, this move only increases Americans' tendency to brush them aside with the other occupants of the Oval Office — the magnanimous and base swept off and forgotten together.

Surely I am naive to think that the change in our holidays is wholly responsible for the tendency to look beyond the Founding in Washington or the Refounding in Lincoln, but I'm guessing that it hasn't helped.

One of the benefits of the current holiday (I’m trying to convince myself here), however, is that it gives us an opportunity to look at some of the other figures who sometimes get looked over in the shadows of Washington and Lincoln. One of those men, for me, is Calvin Coolidge.

In 1920, the United States faced an economic depression that was, in many ways, worse than the Great Depression of the 1930s and early 40s. The actions taken by Presidents William Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, however, are the key reasons why most Americans have never even heard of the recession of 1920. It was a blip on the radar on the way to the unprecedented growth of the 1920s.

During Harding’s short presidency, nearly ten percent of workers lost their job. The president believed, however, that American business and not the government should take the lead in helping the economy bounce back. Mellon, in particular, thought that the 73 percent marginal tax rate on the country’s top earners decreased the likelihood that their businesses would be able to reinvest their money into hiring new workers. Coolidge said that “the wise and correct course to follow in taxation and all other economic legislation is not to destroy those who have already secured success but to create conditions under which every one will have a better chance to be successful.”

In short, he got out of the way. By 1923, the unemployment rate had fallen to an effective zero percent and the national debt decreased from $24 billion to $16 billion by the next year. Americans’ earnings (controlled for inflation) increased by 16 percent from 1923 to 1929. By cutting taxes, Coolidge not only spurred economic growth and helped people gain employment, he also increased the amount of money taken in by the government. Just as has happened every other time taxes have been cut in the past 100 years (See Ronald Reagan reference in post).

It was a time of prosperity for nearly all Americans. With this economic expansion, blacks actually had an unemployment rate lower than that of whites and black illiteracy had fallen from 45 percent in 1900 to 16.4 percent in 1930.

Harding and Coolidge’s reactions to the economic downturn were the exact opposite of his successors Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt, who tried to facilitate economic growth through restricting trade and increasing taxes. At one point, Roosevelt even proposed a 100 percent marginal tax rate on the country's top earners. It is hard to see why anyone would be motivated to work under such conditions.

The results of the two policies are largely clear. While the average college graduate hasn't even heard of the recession of 1920, the Great Depression became the painful mark of a generation.

And so, without taking away from Washington and Lincoln, I’m thinking back on Calvin Coolidge today and hoping the best for the future of our country.

****************

A lot of the information in this post is from Amity Shlaes' The Forgotten Man. It is a fantastic read on economics and the personal toll of presidential politics.

The Truth Behind Valentine's Day

2010-02-14T01:01:00.000-08:00

I just want to get it out there.

I hate Valentine’s Day.

Ah, it feels good to speak the truth.

No, this isn’t a rant about how I don’t need love or how the Bible clearly shows that women only bring men down.

I save those for my mother.

No, I don’t like Valentine’s Day because I see through the cute candy hearts and the soon-to-be wilted flowers to the core this vile holiday, and if you give a few minutes, you too will be disgusted with this day.

Despite the word “saint” in its very name, Valentine’s Day’s origins are anything but holy.

Well, let me temper my criticism. I should be fair to Saint Valentine himself, as it would seem that he was, after all, a priest and a martyr for love. That's got to be worth something.

Here are the four possible origins of Valentine’s Day, in order of cheesiest to most horrifying, with one truly heroic in between:

1) One legend says that Valentine was a 3rd century Roman priest who refused to obey Emperor Claudius II’s mandate outlawing marriage for young men. Claudius realized that marriage killed men's warrior spirit (this is what I tell Mother) and made them altogether unsuitable for battle. Claudius later had Valentine put to death for continuing to marry couples.

How romantic.

2) According to the history channel, Valentine may have been killed while helping early Christians escape Roman prisons, where they were being beaten and tortured.

3) Valentine was the first person to ever send a Valentine, doing so while he was in jail. The legend says he fell in love with the jailor’s daughter and wrote her a letter before his death, signing it, “From your Valentine.”

Have you noticed that all of these end in death?

4) Regardless of the accuracy of these stories, the Catholic Church does recognize three Saint Valentines or saints who have names close to that. Some say that the holiday is celebrated Feb. 14 to commemorate either his birth or his death. The more likely reason is that the church chose mid-February in an effort to Christianize the pagan festival of fertility, Lupercalia, which took place Feb. 15.

From what we know of Lupercalia, it would have shamed even Brazil’s Carnival or New Orleans' Mardi Gras. The holiday was meant to cleanse the city of evil spirits and promote fertility.

The ancient Greek historian Plutarch described the festivities as such,

"At this time many of the noble youths and of the magistrates run up and down through the city naked, for sport and laughter striking those they meet with shaggy thongs. And many women of rank also purposely get in their way, and like children at school present their hands to be struck, believing that the pregnant will thus be helped in delivery, and the barren to pregnancy."

Nice.

The festival was gradually stripped of its more overtly sexual rituals and eventually ended in the fifth century with the help of Pope Felix III.

How's that for a history lesson?

Okay, so maybe I went overboard in my wholesale disdain for this holiday’s origins. Maybe I can choose which history I want to celebrate. So, while you and yours get lost in each others’ eyes on this the most romantic of all days, I will be honoring Saint Valentine’s heroic efforts to free early Christians from jail, all while secretly wishing that the memory of Lupercalia hangs over your candlelit dinner.

And to everyone else, here’s to hoping your Valentine’s Day was more than just an awkward time to go on a first date.

Happy Valentine's Day.

Je l'aime a mourir

2010-02-08T00:34:00.000-08:00

I've been working on a personal history lately (a Sunday project) and have been looking through some of my old journal entries, files and emails.

I came across one of my favorite songs and some of the things I wrote about it a while back. It's always meant a lot to me, but I spent about a full month last year listening to it on my daily drive down to Provo, trying to figure out what every word meant. I'm like a kid in some ways. I can listen to the same thing over and over again without getting sick of it. The meaning is rich. I like the kind of art you can really sink your teeth into and keep getting meat. This is one of those songs.

I looked all over the internet for anything the artist had written about its meaning, but I didn't find anything. I was glad I didn't. Have you ever thought about how deep some song, book or poem was only to later hear the artist give some lame account of what was really going on? My analysis is usually so much better.

Anyway, here is the song. It is by the French artist Francis Cabrel and is called "Je l'aime a mourir." I threw in a translation I knocked off a while ago for any anglophones willing to dive into the depths of Cabrel's soul. My translation isn't as beautiful as the original. I tried to stay as close to the actual words and meaning as possible, with the exception of the title, which literally means "I love her to death."

I know what I think the song is about. What do you think?

By the way, I love listening to the crowd sing along at the beginning.

Je l’aime a mourir

By Francis Cabrel

Me, I was nothing

But here I am today

I am the guardian of the sleep of her nights

Oh, how I love her

You can destroy anything you please

But she only needs to open the space of her arms

To rebuild everything

Oh, how I love her

She erased the numbers off the clocks of my world

She made of my life paper animals and outbursts of laughter

She built bridges between us and heaven

And we make their passage each time

She doesn’t want to sleep

Oh, how I love her

She had to go through all the wars

To be so strong today

She had to go through all the wars of life

And love too

She gives her best to live her opaline dream

She dances through the forests she draws

Oh, how I love her

She carries ribbons and then lets them go

And sings to me often how I’m wrong

To hold them back

Oh, how I love her

To enter her cave, hidden under the roof

I nail some notes to my old wooden shoes

Oh, how I love her

I just sit myself down

I must not speak

I must not want anything

But to try to belong to her

Belong to her

Oh, how I love her

She went through all the wars

To be so strong today

She went through all the wars of life

And love too

Me, I was nothing

But, here I am today

I am the guardian of the sleep of her nights

Oh, how I love her

You can destroy anything you please

She will only have to open the space of her arms

To rebuild everything

Oh, how I love her

Translated into English from French

*****

For the lovers of the French language:

Je l'aime a mourir

Moi je n'étais rien 

Et voilà qu'aujourd'hui 

Je suis le gardien du sommeil de ses nuits 

Je l'aime à mourir 

Vous pouvez détruire tout ce qu'il vous plaira 

Elle n'a qu'à ouvrir l'espace de ses bras 

Pour tout reconstruire 

Je l'aime à mourir

  Elle a gommé les chiffres des horloges du quartier 

Elle a fait de ma vie des cocottes en papier 

Des éclats de rire 

Elle a bâti des ponts entre nous et le ciel 

Et nous les traversons à chaque fois qu'elle 

Ne veut pas dormir

Je l'aime à mourir

  Elle a dû faire toutes les guerres 

Pour être si forte aujourd'hui 

Elle a dû faire toutes les guerres 

De la vie,

et l'amour aussi 

Elle vit de son mieux son rêve d'opaline 

Elle danse au milieu des forêts qu'elle dessine 

Je l'aime à mourir  

Elle porte des rubans qu'elle laisse s'envoler 

Elle me chante souvent que j'ai tort d'essayer 

De les retenir 

 Je l'aime à mourir 

Pour monter dans sa grotte cachée sous les toits 

Je dois clouer des notes à mes sabots de bois 

Je l'aime à mourir

  Je dois juste m'asseoir 

Je ne dois pas parler 

Je ne dois rien vouloir 

Je dois juste essayer 

De lui appartenir 

Je l'aime à mourir  

Elle a dû faire toutes les guerres 

Pour être si forte aujourd'hui 

Elle a dû faire toutes les guerres 

De la vie,

et l'amour aussi  

Moi je n'étais rien 

Et voilà qu'aujourd'hui 

Je suis le gardien du sommeil de ses nuits 

Je l'aime à mourir 

Vous pouvez détruire tout ce qu'il vous plaira 

Elle n'aura qu'à ouvrir l'espace de ses bras 

Pour tout reconstruire

Je l'aime à mourir

Scott Brown's Health Care Referendum

2010-01-20T12:09:00.000-08:00

Even after a little known candidate candidate defeated Massachusett's Democratic Attorney General in a state that voted 64 percent for Obama only 14 months ago, national Democrats still don't understand why a state who elected the premier champion of health care reform for nearly 50 years would now turn against that legacy to elect a Republican whose main promise was to fight against that health care reform.

This is Massachusetts, and this was an election where only 15 percent of voters were Republicans. The take home for Democrats from this election should be that they are hemorrhaging all but the most strident party loyalists, and it has nothing to do with electoral trends or what happened over the past decade. It is about health care.

Take a look at this poll the American Research Group conducted two days before the election, which proved to be pretty accurate on election night. Unfortunately, there aren't any exit polls from Tuesday's election.

42 percent of those surveyed were Democrats, but 23 percent of these were going to vote for Scott Brown, the Republican, while 97 percent of the Republicans were for Brown.
64 percent of the independents (43 percent of the voters) were for Brown.

Perhaps the most stunning thing is how much ground Brown made up and how quickly he did so. As of of the first week of November, the Democrat, Martha Coakley, was polling with a 30 point lead. At the beginning of January, Coakley had 9 point lead. All this unravelled as disenchantment with health care grew. During this same time, nationwide voters went from being slightly against current health care reform efforts (+2 percent Against/Oppose in Rasmussen) to +18 Against/Oppose, and Massachusetts voters went to being 52 percent against current reform efforts and 47 percent against.

This election should have been a breeze for Democrats, but it wasn't. They should have able to find another liberal lion to fill "Ted Kennedy's seat," but they couldn't. The truth is that national angst against the health care reform has even spread to Massachusetts.

What should Democrats and politicians take away from this election?

This election was about health care reform and the way it has been handled in Washington. Massachusetts reflects America in that it supports health care reform, but if the current measures are the best our government can do, we are not interested. Many Democrat apologists are saying that Coakley was just a bad candidate (I will not argue against this. She did, however, handily win the primary, so a fair amount of people seemed to disagree) and that mid-term elections usually go against the incumbent party. I do not buy this. Polling data from Tuesday night shows that health care reform was the key issue. While incumbent parties may tend to lose mid-term elections, I believe that trend has more to do with politicians' hubris than inevitability. I said the same thing in 2006 when Republicans tried to justify their losses by citing historical trends. That election was about the mishandling of Iraq (I did support the surge), pages and the budget. This election was about health care. People do not vote based on historical trends. They vote based on issues and the candidates who espouse them.

To this point, health care reform has been secretive, filled with backroom deals, payoffs and a sense of urgency and timing that defies the logic of transparent government. This is a health care reform bill (Senate) that was introduced the Saturday before Christmas and then voted on 1 o'clock the next Monday morning. Newspapers had almost zero time to cover the actual bill, and constituents had no time to interact with their representatives. This bill was purposefully shoved through in a manner that would minimize the amount of backlash from voters by minimizing the amount of information they received before the vote. Democrats may complain that those against health care reform are only getting information from talk radio or FoxNews, but when 2,000+ page bills are introduced the weekend before Christmas (when talk radio and cable news hosts are off the air and people are more interested in being with their families than checking up on their government), where should they get their information?

If nothing else, politicians should take this as a warning that any effort to reform the health care system should be done in the open. Americans may want health care reform, but they at least want to know what they are getting.

What next?

President Obama said this morning that Congress should not try to jam anything through before Brown is seated. Sen. Reid said the same thing. So, it appears the Democrats are not going to try to pass the Senate version in the House or have a vote in the next few days.

This leaves a few options open to them:

The first is to go after Republican Olympia Snowe, who voted for the health care reform package at the committee level, but voted against it on the final vote. This, of course, means that there could not be any senate Dems who defect after seeing how poisonous health care reform is to re-election. This would also mean the the House would have to swallow the senate's 40 percent tax on all upper echelon health care plans, which Pelosi says she will not do. Health care passed with only 2 votes to spare in the House the first time. Democrats don't have very much room to work with and House Democrats facing re-election in 10 months may be more willing to pay attention to constituents now after Tuesday's results.
Senate Budgetary Chairman, Sen. Kent Conrad, said Wednesday that he was willing to consider reconciliation to push through health care reform. Reconciliation is a budgetary procedure that sidesteps the filibuster (60 votes to invoke cloture and pass a bill) to let the senate pass bills (traditionally budgets) with a simple majority. This would force Democrats to scale back the current bill and would certainly ensure more losses in November. The fact that Obama, Reid and Pelosi are not trying to force an immediate vote after the great lengths they've been through to get the bill to this stage (Christmas Eve votes, paying Nebraska's Medicaid, etc), tells me they may be open to this option, however. That, or they've finally realized that they need to listen to constituents. I'm still skeptical.
The final one is to have a transparent process that involves finally letting CSPAN cover the full debates and proceedings. It involves keeping campaign promises to put the bill online at least five days before the vote, and it involves having bipartisan conversations on the best way to move forward. This doesn't mean starting from scratch (though that definitely is an option Massachusetts voters supported), but it does mean considering Republicans' ideas.

Photo Credit: Cnn.com

Martin Luther King Jr: The Drum Major Instinct

2010-01-18T15:19:00.000-08:00

I apologize to those who may have heard me talk about the drum-major instinct, and I apologize for not using the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday to focus on the main thrust of his life's work.

In high school, I went on a Martin Luther King kick that consumed a couple of those years. I read all of his speeches, picked up his autobiography and found a few biographies I thought I could trust and tried to learn everything I could about the man. I found in MLK a sensible alternative to some of the more radical writings of the era, namely my odd early obsession with Malcolm X. Suffice it to say (for now anyway) that I love MLK because his celebrated speeches are deeply grounded in God and natural right and largely provide a sturdy sense of honor, respect and equality that is compatible with the greater American project.

I found MLK's drum major instinct speech nearly four years ago. I think it struck me because it spoke to my premature sense of grandeur and taught me that I could bridle it into something productive.

Before going into the speech, let me ask if it's wrong to seek glory or want to be great? I think this is an honest and important question for all people, and especially Christians, to consider. Does the commandment to be humble leave any room for the quest for greatness?

Think on.

Here is the setup to the speech: MLK gives this speech two months before his assasination at the Ebeneezer Church in Atlanta. He begins by giving us a set of scriptures in Mark 10, beginning with verse 35.

"And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came unto him saying, ‘Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire.’ And he said unto them, ‘What would ye that I should do for you?’ And they said unto him, ‘Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.’ But Jesus said unto them, ‘Ye know not what ye ask: Can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?’ And they said unto him, ‘We can.’ And Jesus said unto them, ‘Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of, and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized: but to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared.’"

The setting is clear. James and John are making a specific request of the master. They had dreamed, as most of the Hebrews dreamed, of a coming king of Israel who would set Jerusalem free and establish his kingdom on Mount Zion, and in righteousness rule the world. And they thought of Jesus as this kind of king. And they were thinking of that day when Jesus would reign supreme as this new king of Israel. And they were saying, "Now when you establish your kingdom, let one of us sit on the right hand and the other on the left hand of your throne."

As MLK sees it, and as I see it, this scripture is about greatness, even glory. James and John come to the Savior and tell Him they want to be leaders; they want to be at the head. They want to be great. Here, where many of us would condemn these apostles, Jesus doesn't chastise but tells them that such an honor can only be earned.

And then the final great tragedy of the distorted personality is the fact that when one fails to harness this instinct... . Now the other problem is, when you don't harness the drum major instinct—this uncontrolled aspect of it—is that it leads to snobbish exclusivism. It leads to snobbish exclusivism. ... And you know, that can happen with the church; I know churches get in that bind sometimes. (Amen, Make it plain) I've been to churches, you know, and they say, "We have so many doctors, and so many school teachers, and so many lawyers, and so many businessmen in our church." And that's fine, because doctors need to go to church, and lawyers, and businessmen, teachers—they ought to be in church. But they say that—even the preacher sometimes will go all through that—they say that as if the other people don't count. (Amen)
And the church is the one place where a doctor ought to forget that he's a doctor. The church is the one place where a Ph.D. ought to forget that he's a Ph.D. (Yes) The church is the one place that the school teacher ought to forget the degree she has behind her name. The church is the one place where the lawyer ought to forget that he's a lawyer. And any church that violates the "whosoever will, let him come" doctrine is a dead, cold church, (Yes) and nothing but a little social club with a thin veneer of religiosity.
When the church is true to its nature, (Whoo) it says, "Whosoever will, let him come." (Yes) And it does not supposed to satisfy the perverted uses of the drum major instinct. It's the one place where everybody should be the same, standing before a common master and Savior. (Yes, sir) And a recognition grows out of this—that all men are brothers because they are children (Yes) of a common father.

It is natural to want to be great, to want to be important. It can even be good. But this natural desire is easily perverted. MLK even thought that much of the race problem had to do with the fact that many whites had let this desire become so perverted that they were willing to degrade another race so that they could feel superior. This is a perversion of the drum major instinct.

But let me rush on to my conclusion, because I want you to see what Jesus was really saying. What was the answer that Jesus gave these men? It's very interesting. One would have thought that Jesus would have condemned them. One would have thought that Jesus would have said, "You are out of your place. You are selfish. Why would you raise such a question?"
But that isn't what Jesus did; he did something altogether different. He said in substance, "Oh, I see, you want to be first. You want to be great. You want to be important. You want to be significant. Well, you ought to be. If you're going to be my disciple, you must be." But he reordered priorities. And he said, "Yes, don't give up this instinct. It's a good instinct if you use it right. (Yes) It's a good instinct if you don't distort it and pervert it. Don't give it up. Keep feeling the need for being important. Keep feeling the need for being first. But I want you to be first in love. (Amen) I want you to be first in moral excellence. I want you to be first in generosity. That is what I want you to do."
And he transformed the situation by giving a new definition of greatness. And you know how he said it? He said, "Now brethren, I can't give you greatness. And really, I can't make you first." This is what Jesus said to James and John. "You must earn it.... . And so Jesus gave us a new norm of greatness. If you want to be important—wonderful. If you want to be recognized—wonderful. If you want to be great—wonderful. But recognize that he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. (Amen) That's a new definition of greatness.
And this morning, the thing that I like about it: by giving that definition of greatness, it means that everybody can be great, (Everybody) because everybody can serve. (Amen) You don't have to have a college degree to serve. (All right) You don't have to make your subject and your verb agree to serve. You don't have to know about Plato and Aristotle to serve. You don't have to know Einstein's theory of relativity to serve. You don't have to know the second theory of thermodynamics in physics to serve. (Amen) You only need a heart full of grace, (Yes, sir, Amen) a soul generated by love. (Yes) And you can be that servant.
Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice. (Amen) Say that I was a drum major for peace. (Yes) I was a drum major for righteousness. And all of the other shallow things will not matter. (Yes) I won't have any money to leave behind. I won't have the fine and luxurious things of life to leave behind. But I just want to leave a committed life behind. (Amen) And that's all I want to say. ...
Yes, Jesus, I want to be on your right or your left side, (Yes) not for any selfish reason. I want to be on your right or your left side, not in terms of some political kingdom or ambition. But I just want to be there in love and in justice and in truth and in commitment to others, so that we can make of this old world a new world.

I submit that the question of greatness must be subsumed into what we will be great for. There is surely a difference in the man who seeks glory only to point it all back on himself and the man who uses it show something far greater and nobler. This is the purpose of great men and women. Man wants to be great. The key is to channel this desire into being great for God. If you do not believe in God, be great in love, mercy, generosity and virtue. Be great for something that transcends the limited reach of passing fame. Be great for something higher than yourself.

Understood this way, glory has a certain humbling element that places man in his proper place. It shows man his potential, but reminds him that he is not great on his own. It is a glory that doesn't come from the adoration of others, but the glory of the Truth for which we live. It is the proper understanding of the drum major instinct.

Photo Credit: Americaslibrary.gov

A Very Merry (sterile) Christmas

2010-01-01T21:05:00.000-08:00

I've tried to convince myself that as long as the Christmas lights are still up around the neighborhood I have good reason to be writing about Christmas. Unfortunately, despite my journalism training, timeliness doesn't appear to be my strongsuit when it comes to this blog.

I try to read A Christmas Carol every Christmas, and I've done so every year since my European history teacher, Mr. Rice, recommended it. Now that I think about, I'm sure he must have given extra credit for it, because I was far too lazy in high school to read something for enjoyment — during vacation nonetheless. Not too much has changed since then.

As I read the book this time, one thought was pounded into my mind. Let me preface this thought by saying that Charles Dickens was a deeply Christian man, and his deeply-rooted faith is evident in A Christmas Carol's first pages. While we may read A Christmas Carol every year, he wrote a history of Jesus Christ's life and teachings and read it to his children every Christmas. It's clear what Dickens wanted his children to celebrate in Christmas.

Perhaps this is why I find it ironic that some of the most richest and most Christ-oriented elements in A Christmas Carol are often sterilized in modern portrayals of the story as to transform the book into nothing more than an advocate for basic notions of humanitarian goodness. Of course, these things are an important of the book and essential parts of being a Christian, but it is not the only or even core lesson Dickens intended for his work.

From the beginning, Marley is the antithesis of "someone who knew how to keep Christmas well." He was "good man of business," but he neglected the needs of those around him and closed his heart to humanity and life's highest gifts. In explicit terms (which are often left out of modern versions), Marley tells Scrooge that he suffers most at Christmas and rhetorically asks Scrooge "Why did I walk through crowds of fellow-beings with my eyes turned down, and never raise them to that blessed Star (Dickens' emphasis) which led the Wise Men to a poor abode! Were there no poor homes to which its light would have conducted me!"

Dickens is in control of his work. The reference to Christ as the solution to Marley's miserable life and subsequent suffering is not by accident, and its omission from modern portrayals risks misunderstanding the story as a whole. If Marley represents what Scrooge's suffering will be, then Christ is the only way to escape it. If Marley is a life of misery looks like, Christ is the source of Scrooge's rebirth to into the life of happiness that we see at the end of the book. Dickens sets up the dichotomy from the beginning. Christ on one hand, misery on the other.

The remainder of the book is equally remarkable in its subtle references to Christ, and I'll perhaps take the time to write about them later — or maybe let you figure them out. The book is a rich read, and I highly suggest it for Christmas (or anytime) reading, and especially the kind of reading that doesn't mind being interrupted by reflection from time to time.

My favorite version was put out a few years ago. The illustrations are by P.J. Lynch and the words are Dickens', in their entirety. Lynch's work is beautiful and gives the story the added grace of a children's book, all while maintaining the depth and feel of the original. Here's a link to Lynch's work.

Christmas Gifts

2009-12-13T17:58:00.000-08:00

I haven't been able to update my blog in a little while, and I'm afraid this one won't have much original thought. It's been harder to get into the Christmas spirit living in Southern California. As fun as it is to still be playing football in 70 degree weather, I miss the snow and all the fun things that come along with it.

I've been thinking about Christmas, however, and I hope I'll be able to put some of my thoughts down after I finish up with loose ends with school. Until then, I thought I'd share something I wrote a couple years for BYU's newspaper because it is still something I've been thinking about lately. And I'm sorry this post is sooo textual (as Tim would say). I'm just too lazy and too much of a dude to find any cute pictures.

After reading this article, my roommate Jamie's sister told him, "Wow, Brandon's heart must have grown three sizes this year." Here's to hoping it at least means something to you. But if you are still looking for a more refined soul's take on Christmas, my friend Laura's piece was published the same day and adds that certain feminine touch I still (thankfully) lack.

Christmas Gifts: The Ones We Remember

I was talking to my dad a couple Sundays ago about the most memorable Christmas presents he'd received in his lifetime. After thinking for a moment, he told me there were two things that stood out in his memory — and as much as we've fostered a manly bond, neither of them were the John Wayne movies I'd given him throughout the years.

I was interested in what he had to say because I've never been able to nail down the perfect gift for my father, and chances are I'll fail again this year. My dad is not an easy person to shop for. If you ask him what he wants for Christmas, he just smiles and says "Oh, you don't have to worry about getting me anything. I've got everything I need." And while that's probably true, it's not much help when you're perusing the isles at Barnes and Noble. Even if by some odd chance he did think of something he wanted, he'd just thank me for reminding him and then go out and buy it himself.

The most meaningful presents, he told me, are the ones that had meaning attached to them. My dad figures he's received at least 600 presents in his lifetime (10 a year and you do the math), and yet only two have stayed in his heart: a photo album my sister gave him and a scrapbook from when he and my mom were dating — mementos and post-date thoughts and all.

I wasn't surprised these were the gifts that meant the most to my dad. I've known him long enough to know he has a soft side. I was just disappointed one of my gifts didn't make the list — not because I thought he never like my presents, but because I'd never put enough thought into his gift.

He's right though. Thinking back on the gifts I remember, they've all been the ones that in some way represented love and sacrifice on behalf of the giver. The one gift I remember in particular is a homemade blanket my mother gave me seven years ago. Later that Christmas, my dad took me aside and told me how much my mom put into that present, and how she'd stayed up late the past two months making me the blanket. I was only a teenager then, but I knew her sacrifice made that blanket special.

There's another reason we give gifts on Christmas and it has something to do with tying our hearts to those to whom we give our presents. Last year, I realized this for the first time.

Christmas shopping during college is always interesting — trying to see how far I can make my textbook sellback money go and still afford gas to get home. I remember walking through the store last year thinking of all the people I wanted to buy presents for yet knowing I wouldn't be able to get them anything they really wanted.

That thought didn't last long though. I began thinking of the individual people for whom I was buying presents. I couldn't help but smile as I remembered all the crazy times my brothers and I had playing baseball in the basement or trying to cook hot dogs in the bathroom sink — neither one of those ever turned out very well.

As I thought about these people individually, a funny thing happened. I began thinking of them and what they meant to me, instead of just another present to buy. I knew I was getting them something because I loved them. For the moment, it tied me to them — even if it didn't get them a better present.

I think these two stories of my dad and my shopping last year have a lot in common. As simple as it is, the best Christmas gifts come from the heart. They have the ability to tie us to someone in a way something from the store or even the words "I love you" never could.

In a way, my dad said as we finished talking that day, the most meaningful presents we could ever give or receive are all born of the same elements that tied us to that Ultimate gift — love and sacrifice.

I couldn't agree with him more.

Rethinking Health Care Reform

2009-11-20T14:12:00.000-08:00

I haven't used this blog so far to comment on current political issues. This isn't so much b/c I don't care about them, but b/c I am far too erudite to meddle in the fray of low-brow politics. Honestly, I'm getting a Ph.D.

There are, however, a few things I think are being overlooked in this debate — a debate that has been so burdened with partisanship and a general intellectual laziness that most people (including members of both houses of Congress) don't realize the bill of goods they are being sold — that I should mention.

A few quick points about the bill:

*The White House and other advocates of health care reform have received a lot of mileage out of the notion that the bill will be "budget-neutral." Essentially this new terminology doesn't mean anything other than the government will bring in more money to match that which it will spend. In previous eras, we called this a tax hike. Of course, this would be a direct violation of the president's most well-known campaign promise — a promise he first broke 15 days into office.

Here are a few of the taxes that are included in either the House or Senate versions of the bill:

*5 percent excise tax on cosmetic procedures — traditionally linked to the rich, but more commonplace than you might think. (House)

*$750 tax on non-elderly citizens without insurance. (House)

*Taxes for Americans making more than $250,000 (remember that many small businesses file as individuals) would be increased to 45 percent. For every last dollar this person makes, the government will take 45 cents. That's a 10 percent hike from the current rate. (House Version)

*$50,000 tax on charitable hospitals if they fail to meet new standards set not by the legislature but the Secretray of Health and Human Services. (Page 2001/Sec. 9007 Senate)

*$6.7 billion annual tax on the health insurance industry. Taxes will be on revenue from collect premiums (Page 2026/Sec. 9010 Senate Bill). A tax this high on the health insurance industry will surely make it harder for these companies to compete, making the presence of a government option (or not so optional) more likely in the future.

Beyond the numbers, you have to understand what taxes do to an economy. The best way to think about it is in terms of how taxes affect individual decisions and then to apply this on a large scale. Ronald Reagan famously demonstrated the burden of taxes when he explained that as an actor he and fellow actors refused to make more than a certain number of movies a year because they knew that once they made more than $200,000, the government would take 70 percent of their earnings. Why work when you only get 30 cents on the dollar? (It was 90 percent before JFK lowered it). They had a huge incentive to not work so they could fall in a lower tax bracket. Well, not too many people shed tears over Ronald Reagan's not making more money, but you have to see how this affects the economy as a whole. This means fewer movies made, which means fewer jobs for directors all the way down the grunts on the set. It means less revenue for those who own theaters and the pimple-face teenager who dishes out the popcorn. Apply this string of events in every industry and you'll begin to understand why taxes kill wealth. It is a horrible mistake when the government creates incentives to now work. This is exactly what the government would be doing with the exorbitant taxes it is now proposing with health care reform.

*We can't afford this. Sen. Harry Reid has advertised the bill as coming in at $850 billion. Well, it's a sad day when we celebrate a bill b/c it barely comes in under a trillion, but that is only the beginning. In reality, the bill would cost closer to $2.5 trillion, as the Congressional Budget Office estimated and Sen. Orrin Hatch explains in this clip.

The idea that it would only cost $850 billion is an accounting trick, and I hope representatives realize this and have the foresight to understand that given our current national debt of $12 trillion ($110,570/taxpayer), we cannot afford to add to this.

* The bill is devastatingly long. 2,074 pages to be exact. At this length, I have to think the bill has become more about making sure the bill has a little something for everyone than delivering health care to those who need it the most. In the least, the bill's length has become an obstacle to having a reasonable Senate debate — how can you have a debate when each side only has 36 hours to get their mind around a document this large — and it most assuredly makes it impossible for most Americans to sit down and read the bill. No one has a firm understanding of what is going on.

Is it responsible to vote to place a fifth of the American economy so tightly under government's control without a thorough debate of the structures and mechanisms that would be put in place — not just abstract ideas about whether people have a right to health care, but an actual debate on how everything will be implemented?

There are ways to address health care reform that are more effective and far less costly. Tort reform and making it so insurances can compete across state lines would go a long way in bringing the cost of health care and health insurance down. I only hope that good sense will resettle in Washington in time for us to explore some of these less draconian options.

Happy Anniversary Mom and Dad

2009-11-14T20:30:00.000-08:00

To my Mom and Dad on their 40th wedding anniversary:

For giving me confidence in the future and showing me how marriage is supposed to be.

Oh yeah, congratulations Mom on still making that dress look good.

Argument for Marriage

2009-11-02T08:24:00.000-08:00

I entered a contest last summer, articulating the case for traditional marriage. The essay is worth the rather lengthy read, if I do say so myself. I don't even think the judges read it all the way through. That's the only reason I can figure out for not getting first — that or the judges were radical feminists.

Why I Now Understand Love

2009-11-01T00:32:00.000-07:00

I told my friend the other day that I knew why he loved his wife. Having been married for a few years, he didn't seem to be too impressed with my discovery, but I continued anyway.

"You love her because of your shared genes," I persisted.

"That's gross, dude. We're not incest."

He clearly wasn't following, and wasn't showing the gratitude I'd expected either.

"No, it's in your genetic makeup. Besides, she just emits oxytocin and your heart doesn't stand a chance."

Oh, the romance.

A prominent neuroscientist lectured in one of my classes last week. It was a fascinating couple of hours. The man is brilliant, and many think he will win the Nobel Prize for the work he's done linking oxytocin to why people trust and even love others. Why did President George W. Bush have a great relationship with PM Tony Blair while he never could trust Jacques Chirac? Why do certain people fall in love while others are natural enemies? The presenter showed that all this can be attributed to our physical constitution. It has nothing to do with political alliances of interests or fidelity; it's in our genes. This raised a few questions and a few students asked what role human choice played in these things. Isn't it possible, after all, that I align myself with someone because they share my values?

He answered that neuroscientists begin from the premise that human will is a farce, something made-up when less-enlightened societies didn't have the scientific tools to understand what was really driving the human interactions.

He had compelling evidence. He showed us how he manipulated the levels of oxytocin in people's brains, and how this changed how much they acted toward other people. Naturally, if you can change oxytocin levels in a person's brain, and that changes their behavior, what role does agency play? If my biological constitution is stronger than any moral or logical pretension, why bother with all this talk of doing the right thing?

I'm not a neurologist. I don't pretend to understand the ins and outs of this science. But surely this does not preclude me from raising some troubling issues about this new wave that is regularly in the papers, continually giving us reasons why we are liberated from all responsible choice. How could you condemn someone for immoral behavior when they really just lack oxytocin?

The lecture was interesting, but it did not compare to the show playing out off to the side. The lecturer brought his little girl to the class that night. She was about 8 years old. She didn't care about what her dad was saying. She was too busy playing on his iPhone. And yet her being there is what I can't get out of my mind. She didn't do or say anything to the class, but I watched the looks she shared with dad, how he talked to her before the lecture and how they smiled and laughed together afterward. I could tell they loved each other.

How does this neuroscientist worldview that we as humans are slaves to our biological constitutions make any sense out of the relationship between this dad and his daughter? Does the joy of family come down to their sharing the right oxytocin emitters and receptors? Does a husband look at his wife after fifty years of marriage and say "I'm sure glad our biological chemicals are still working after all these years? I'd sure hate to lose that chemical interaction." These formulations seem particularly empty and troubling to me, and I think most people of common sense morality should be able to reject them, even if they don't quite know why.

How do you explain the joy of human experiences without including virtue, love and choice? Undoubtedly, there are physiological manifestations of every choice we make, but humans are distinct from other members of the animal kingdom because they have the moral reasoning capacity to be other than their raw instinct or passions. We can look down the road and see how our actions will play out, whether it be a month from now or into eternity. We can learn from experience and project into the future. We can choose our own path.

Mostly, this type of science is troubling because its end result is the complete liberation of choice from moral responsibility. I've said before that choice is a central American principle, some arguing its preeminence because the choice doesn't matter and others because it allows room for virtue. Now there is a third category: the choice is illusory.

The problem in all of this is that while we may wish to prosper science that blames our shortcomings on biology, we can't divorce this from the reality that choices do matter. While we may explain away that the difference between Mother Teresa and Mao Tse Tung in terms of brain chemical levels, the explanation falls short of any reasonable standard and holds dangerous implications for the future. Are we really to the point that we are debating whether life provides people have the ability to choose? Where is room for virtue in such a worldview? LDS, in particular, should know the answer to this question.

Moral discipline as a political principle

2009-10-10T23:40:00.001-07:00

There is perhaps no more controversial political topic than the role (if any at all) morality should play in politics. It's particularly difficult for people to understand how government can even claim the right to set any sort incentive, standard or outright prohibition regarding behaviors in a free society. Many cannot see how morality issues have any bearing on how people want the government run. Many cannot even see how morality issues have any relation to other governing factors. After all, what does same-sex marriage have to do with the tax rate?

LDS leader and member of the Quorum of the Twelve Elder D. Todd Christopherson gave an excellent talk on moral discipline last week during general conference. The talk was rich on many levels, but I want to look at it for what it says on morality as a political principle. Before going further, let me state the obvious in that he did not take his points to the extents I will. I speak for myself alone.

Elder Christopherson decried that much of society has fostered a culture of moral relativism that makes it increasingly difficult to condemn any sort of value judgement.

"As a consequence, self discipline has eroded and societies are left to try to maintain order and civility by compulsion. The lack of internal control by individuals breeds external control by governments."

This point could not be simpler, but likewise cannot be over-emphasized. People need government b/c they cannot govern themselves. As Thomas Paine said, "Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness."

Think of it in terms of speed limits. In a perfect world, we'd be able to drive safely without causing any harm to others. Some people would naturally drive fast and some slowly. We'd all drive according to our ability. Sad experience teaches us, however, that this is not the case. We want to go too fast, beat trains, graze pedestrians and soon the government must step in. The same principle holds true with most laws.

Elder Christopherson goes on to quote the famous columnist Walter Williams in saying,

"Gentlemanly behavior used [for example, once] protected women from coarse behavior. Today, we expect sexual harassment laws to restrain coarse behavior.... Policemen and laws can never replace customs, traditions and moral values as a means for regulating human behavior. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Our increased reliance on laws to regulate behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we've become."

In another powerful phrase, he quotes Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, who said "We would not accept the yoke of Christ; so now we must tremble at the yoke of Caesar."

Whenever people fail to govern themselves, it hurts society and inevitably leads to calls for "someone" to fix it. This someone is usually the government. When fathers leave children, this not only comes at a tremendous cost to their family, but to society at large. With some things, society is willing to absorb the costs (such as most free speech). In others, such as the disintegration of the family, the costs are simply too widespread and too deep to sit back and not step in. It affects crime, education, economic productivity, not to mention the damning toll it takes on the human soul. In these cases, government could never hope to do of necessity that which the family could not do for love. The most it can hope for is to minimize the damage to these people and to society. Likewise, what lady would suggest that the vague protection of sexual harassment laws is superior to a man who knows his boundaries and lives with honor?

The reason morality issues cannot be altogether ignored is because the private and the public run together. This is a complicated topic and the fact that government cannot ignore morality issues is temptation to the statist who would want to seize more control. This is why conservatives try to inculcate morality, most of the time not through government at all. When it does take a political form, it is usually through subsidiary roles such as tax exemption for churches, non-profits, charities, incentives to marry (tax cuts) etc. It is done by getting out of people's way, not the reverse.

Society is willing to bear the costs of most moral depravity simply b/c of the high value we place on liberty. However, while many may wish that government never interfered with morality issues, let me suggest that it is naive to think that the things most important (ie family) in "the laws of nature and nature's God" would not have any bearing in the here and now. It is nothing less than the tyranny of a strangling ideology to say "Who are we to tell others how to live?" and then, by necessity, ask society to forget yet remedy the consequences of this moral relativism. It is a tenuous order of liberty to say the least.

Photo Credits: Sodahead.com, lds.org and ceu.edu

You know, you know, no

2009-10-10T22:31:00.000-07:00

I called up my five-year-old niece Baylee Grace today to try to use her against her mom. You see, my brother and I have been working to get everyone in the family webcams, especially for the little ones. Baylee is my secret weapon because she is old enough to follow directions and young enough to still take me seriously. I called her last week and gave her some new tactics, and her mom finally just told her that it was too expensive. We make a pretty good team.

Anyway, this is our conversation from last week when I asked her about school:

Me: Do you have fun at recess?

Baylee: Yeah, but most of all you have to remember, "No touching."

Me, who used to trip the kids running down the handicap ramp: What? Why no touching?

Baylee: Because they don't want us to get hurt

Me: Oh, well I guess you should listen to your teachers. What do you do then?

Baylee (in a sad voice): Shadow tag. It's not very fun.

Me: It'd probably be more fun if you could touch the other kids, huh?

Baylee: Yeah, I don't like shadow tag.

There you have it. Proof, once and for all, that manliness and a healthy aversion to nanny-state over-protection runs deep in the family blood.

When I called her back today I asked her if shadow tag was any better.

Baylee: You know, you know (pause) No.

Classic. I love this girl.

I then told her to draw a picture of a camera and to write webcam at the bottom, with a little note that said, "I love you, Mom." We only got "cam" b/c she couldn't remember how to do a "w," but I think her mom got the message.

By the way, her little sister Ella Ray is pretty cute too.

Photo Credits: My sister Jamie's awesome blog.

Deciding when God intervenes

2009-10-07T00:48:00.001-07:00

Some of the natural questions and comments (from A. Collie himself) connected to my last post -- why was Elizabeth Smart so miraculously spared when so many (probably just as good) go missing and never return? -- have led me to resurrect this piece from my days at The Daily Universe that is sure to drive Utah fans crazy and give Cougars some hope that righteousness will soon (seven or so weeks) be restored to it's proper place. I hope it also gives some starting place for discussion.

I ask all readers to consider the piece's implications outside the realm of football and to see it in the context of understanding how God blesses His children.

Here is the link to the piece, but I'll go ahead and post it in its entirety.

No Place for God in Football

27 Nov 2007

At a university that teaches students to not divorce the spiritual from the secular, it's sometimes hard to articulate God's role in everyday activities in a way acceptable to the general public. BYU receiver Austin Collie is now learning this lesson.

Just minutes after Austin Collie made reference to God playing a part in his 49-yard fourth-down, game-saving reception against Utah, the airwaves and message boards were buzzing with fans and journalists condemning Collie for implying that God helped BYU win because it is more righteous than the University of Utah.

Deseret Morning News columnist Mike Sorenson called out Collie for his "unfortunate" comments, saying, "That implies a higher power favors one team over another and that his team is favored for being more righteous. Seems to me [sic] the Lord cared so much about BYU winning, the Cougars would beat the Utes 100-0 every year and not lose games to UCLA and Tulsa."

Likewise, columnist Brad Rock criticized Collie, asking all of us to "just play football and let God take the day off," and then adding, "That may have made sense to Collie, but it doesn't explain ... what happened to the 27 LDS returned missionaries - as well as those of other faiths - on Utah's team who might have been trying to do what's right, too."

All this would make sense had Collie actually said or implied what they say he did. In reality, Collie's comments were narrowly confined to him on that particular play and broadly in the sense he believes God blesses all his children - a seemingly harmless belief.

He was not saying BYU won because they were more righteous than Utah. He was not saying Ute defensive backs Kurt Johnson and Brice McCain blew their coverage because they were unrighteous. He wasn't taking his argument to that extreme. The media and oversensitive fans did that for him.

So what did he actually say? In a radio interview following the game, KFAN radio reporter Pat Kinahan asked Collie if his 49-yard reception was just a lucky break. Collie responded saying, "I wouldn't say it was lucky. We executed the play well. We should have had another one [touchdown]. Obviously, if you do what's right on and off the field, I think the Lord steps in and plays a part in it. Magic happens."

The comment is clearer when viewed in the full context, but the fact remains that he did say that God helped him. There's no way around it, and Collie's OK with that.

"It's true," Collie said in a recent interview with the Deseret Morning News. "You can see that around the world. God cares about his children and he's going to bless them whether it's on the football field or any other area of their lives. I think if you're doing the things you should do on and off the field, things are going to come together for you."

Collie could have easily said he misspoke - that he didn't really mean it. Politicians do it all the time. It was just something he said in the excitement of the moment. After all, he had just helped lift his team to victory and emotions were high and the tongue was loose.

But there was none of that. He knew what he said and he stood by it. And who can disagree with him without reading into his comments?

This doesn't mean Collie or anyone else living righteously will always win, just like a righteous father won't always receive the wanted job promotion or the righteous student won't always get into Harvard. It doesn't mean BYU will always win, and it sure doesn't mean the losing team is unrighteous - just like the guy who wasn't chosen for a job promotion wasn't necessarily living unrighteously. Living righteously isn't always reducible to a capitalistic system of benefits.

What it does mean is, as Collie said, "things come together for you." Whatever that means is not up to our discretion, but for Collie and on that play it meant him playing at his best, getting past the defender and making a the game-saving reception.

He went on to defend his point in the Morning News in nearly a testimony bearing fashion.

"To tell you I got here on my own and the Lord hasn't had a hand in my success and our team's success and every other athlete's success in this world is just [not true] because he's had hand in every person's life."

While his comments may not have been politically correct, he is still right. His comments have been blown way out of proportion and would not be a big deal in most other communities.

"I just think it's absolutely ridiculous that people take something like that and blow it up. I really think it's just because I'm a Mormon white kid from Brigham Young University," Collie said in the same interview. "Anybody else says that from any other team and it's just 'how spiritual that guy is.'"

But not in a community and in a rivalry where religious hypersensitivity and political correctness sometimes trump the basic desire to thank God.

It has almost become tradition for athletes get down on one knee, cross themselves, mutter a quick prayer or point to heaven when they score. How many athletes praise God for their success in any sporting event without drawing public criticism? Indianapolis Colts head coach Tony Dungy filled a few minutes with his thanks to God after winning the Super Bowl. Most people didn't read into it then and they shouldn't do so now.

This editorial represents the opinion of The Daily Universe editorial board. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of BYU, its administration or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I wish the context for the articulation of these principles would have been something other than the BYU-Utah football game, but it was nevertheless a starting point for what I think are some important ideas. The reasons it is important is b/c the reason people were uncomfortable with Collie's comments have nothing to do with football, but with the fact that God does bless His children and this distribution of blessings is messy and beyond their understanding. People can't understand divine intervention in a way that doesn't reward one person at the expense of another. How can one person's prayers to receive a job promotion to better provide for his family be met without someone else's not receiving that same promotion? How can so many dudes (some dirtbags, trust me) be getting married to the girls of my dreams without my remaining single (oh, sad)? In other words, how can Collie be blessed without McCain (the defense) being punished?

Of course, results are always a melange of our own doings and grace. It is easy to get off-balance on either extreme of this formula. Nevertheless, this basic equation creates a system in which people choose to be offended (Are you saying I'm unrighteous because I wasn't afforded grace?), or where blessings can only be acknowledged when human deeds cannot possibly be credited. How dare God take credit for my hard work? Collie will always be wrong unless we see the angel tripping the DB -- unless we see no other way to explain the phenomena.

To be honest, I think most of the debate surrounding this issue is knee-jerk and juvenile (ie. the comments from the columnists quoted in the editorial). Saying that if God blessed the righteous, BYU would win 100-0 every game is condescending and overly simplistic, if not disingenuous. Perhaps the argument is more accurately framed in the terms, "If God blessed the righteous, they would never get sick." Most people of faith know why this is absurd.

May I suggest that we do not know how God chooses to bless His children, only that He does. Of course, these blessings are not without rhyme or reason, but tied to God's goodness and principles of righteousness. This doesn't make explaining why individual situations fall the way they do any easier. I do know, however, that the way out of this difficult question of who God blesses is not to pretend that everything is solely our own doing. I also refuse to believe that blessings are a zero-sum game, and that a seeming denial of something is not meant for our overall betterment and instruction.

Elizabeth Smart, Family and Miracles

2009-10-04T17:44:00.000-07:00

Elizabeth Smart's testimony against her kidnapper this week was nothing short of powerful and inspiring. She demonstrated strength that proved even harder to comprehend as she unfolded the details of the account. Most people assumed that horrible things happened to her, but there was some sort of odd protection in leaving them unspoken.

I love her story for what it represents: that miracles still happen and that a family's love can be unadulterated (think back to the days when Salt Lake Tribune reporters

were literally peddling the story that Ed Smart was involved in the crime).

I couldn't help but think about the events that led to Elizabeth's being found. For those of you who don't remember, it is an amazing story that is worth remembering:

Four months after Smart was kidnapped, her nine-year-old sister, Mary Katherine, told her dad that she knew who had taken Elizabeth. Mary Katherine had been reading in her room that night when she saw an unrelated picture and suddenly matched the voice of her sister's kidnapper to that of a man and she had met for just moments nearly a year earlier. Not only this, she remembered his name, Emmanuel.

I don't know about you, but I can't remember half the names of people I've known for years, let alone someone I met for a few minutes nearly a year ago. I think of all the people I've met for a few seconds at work or at school and the chances of me remembering their name and voice? Not good.

That's what makes the story all the more amazing to me.

The Smarts pushed the police to consider the man, but the investigation's unit was reluctant to put much trust in the lead. The Smarts pushed some more, this time exploring other avenues. Eventually America's Most Wanted aired the story and Emmanuel's family called in with his real name, Brian David Mitchell. Even more importantly, one couple watched the story on TV and saw Elizabeth and her kidnapper the next day walking on State Street in Sandy.

Is it all a remarkable coincidence? I don't see how that's possible.

Maybe I'm simplistic, but I can't explain how a nine-year-old remembers such specific details in terms that don't flatly include God's putting it into her mind. I think of the bond the two sisters share today, and I'm sure it is indescribable -- a bond only deeper because of the divine influence that undoubtedly helped reunite them.

This story tells me that God looks out for His children, and He still works miracles among us. I'm at a loss for another way to see it.

Photo Credit: Deseret Morning News

Eco-Friendly

2009-09-28T22:32:00.000-07:00

I have had a remarkable change of heart since coming to California. I'll admit, I was one of those people who ran a few empty cycles of laundry every Earth Day just b/c the thought of a weeping Al Gore gave me some sadistic pleasure.

I see clearer now, and this is mostly because much of the progress in recent technology I have seen here that let's me think we can save the environment without any major drawbacks for people.

Take this swanky urinal on campus.

It kind of freaked me out at first, but it works really well. It's almost like you just wish it away. I didn't even really see a stain around the bowl.

Don't believe such a thing is possible? Check out this nifty picture.

But don't worry. Ladies need not feel guilty for wasting water. My school also plays host to a toilet that only uses 1 gallon of water per flush. I had the chance to visit it my first day here, and it felt like stepping into the future.

It may not be the most powerful toilet I've ever used, but it got the job done. Who needs power when you can just flush three times?

Last, but not least. I went down to Santa Monica a little while ago to visit a friend. While there we got some yogurt (apparently ice cream isn't a big thing in Southern Cal). A few minutes into it, I realized that my hand was wet and freezing and my cup was soggy. I call that the price of freedom. Confirmation of a sacrifice well-received.

Okay, maybe I wished then that styrofoam wasn't illegal in Santa Monica, but that would be selfish. You have to think of your children and consider how a soggy cup could lower the Earth's temperature .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 degree.

As further evidence of my change of heart, check out this cool new sticker I just bought for my car.

Thanks Laura

2009-09-24T02:57:00.000-07:00

In the spirit of the recent Kanye post and Laura's ongoing contributions to the blog:

Ode to Laurizzle

La rizzle dizzle

Who make da blog

Shimmer and shinizzle

Ain't it tight

It look so nice?

I like chicken and fried rice.

Mr. West

2009-09-24T00:56:00.000-07:00

I know my timing isn't exactly impressive, but I figure that as long as I continue to get hilarious emails about Kanye West interrupting Plato and my country station introduces every Taylor Swift song with Yeezy making a fool of himself, I still have some reason to give my thoughts on the situation and the popular uproar surrounding it. My take focuses not so much on Kanye, but on how people have reacted to it -- and quite honestly, why we even care.

I really have two ways of looking at this, and I look forward to reading some of your takes.

My first thought is wrapped up in a long fascination I've had with why people (especially women -- dudes have sports and various assortments of meats) seem to be so interested in pop culture. I quickly realized that if I stood any chance of getting a girlfriend, I had to learn to talk about something other than different ideas I had to reduce costs for prescription drugs. It seemed to me that pop culture was often a good topic on which most ladies had an opinion. If any women have other conversation starters, let me know. Perez is wearing thin on me, and my idea still seems to be a theory left unproved.

I remember a few girls during my undergrad who were completely enveloped in the celebrity world and loved to talk about the latest dirtbag in the news. I eventually asked one girl why she loved pop culture, and she told me that it was inspiring to see people who look amazing and are great at what they do. Having Tocquevillian affinities, I understood what she was saying (some sort of low-grade moral analogy), but having talked with several others, I couldn't help but think that part of the reason people love celebrities is because it is so easy to shake a stick at the base. Celebrities provide an endless tour of real life Jerry Springer shows where even the world's biggest moral reprobate can look like Henry David Thoreau because he admits that making a child porn video à la R. Kelly is probably a bad, if not disgusting, idea.

The prevalence of celebrity stupidity gives society the opportunity to unite in some common (and rudimentary) way and say with moral certitude that something is not right -- like how could anyone ever cheat on Sara Evans? No really, what was that idiot thinking?

On to Kanye

When I first heard the public outrage, I couldn't help but wonder what the difference was between the Taylor Swift incident and the time he charged the stage when U2 won video of the year, expressing his disbelief that a million bucks and Pamela Lee couldn't win him the award.

I think the look on Taylor Swift's face after Kanye left the stage gives us some suggestions.

Society doesn't care too much if arrogant men fight among each other and tear each other down, but we are still protective of those who represent some standard of innocence, can't fight back and wouldn't want to if they could. I take some solace in that, even if it's not much. Maybe gentlemanliness isn't altogether an extinct virtue.

While I'd prefer that people show the same unity and indignation over more serious moral breaches as well, I'll take it at as a much needed reassurance that society is still capable and willing to make moral judgments. Now, only if we could do it when something was on the line.

As a tasty postscript, I find it fitting that Kanye recorded a song called "Ego" with Beyonce -- the clear hero of the evening -- on her last album. Enjoy. If you're not familiar with lala, it lets you listen to complete songs before buying it. Just press play.

Nothing Fancy

2009-09-19T21:34:00.000-07:00

I like to think that if John Wayne had a blog it'd look something like this. Nothing fancy, just raw manliness hitting you in the face. Who needs cute pictures and creative formatting when you have the power of truth smoking foes and leaving the ladies breathless?

Not me.

I'll accept this reasoning as providing a working (if not convincing) foundation until Laura (aka Laurizzle) follows through and makes this blog look fabulous. With that, the pressure is on.

Remember Laura, we're going after this:

Not this:

In advance, thank you, and you're welcome.