Defense of Truth

Italy has a new emerging Leftist superstar they're calling the Italian Obama. He's gay, he's Catholic, and he's the governor of the southern region of Puglia. Despite all this, Nichola Vendola only caught my attention because of a short quote the BBC captured to give a sense of the flavor of his popular appeal: "Today we have a globalisation of oligarchic and financial interests, but no globalisation of human rights and social rights. "We have to fight for a globalisation of the people." Of course, anyone with any sense of the history of human rights and social rights would find this statement completely ludicrous. Since the beginning of the American experiment of limited government where all are equal under the law, slavery has been abolished, almost all of the world's states have moved to democratic models for the selection of leaders, and the standard of living of even the poor in industrialized countries has been immeasurably advanced. Italy

So a friend of mine gave an example of something unrelated to my post at church the other day. It was the story of her attitude as she drives her school bus every day. She likes to take care to note if a student looks sad or upset or anything out of the ordinary positive she expects, then she makes an effort to get them to talk about it and deal with it before they arrive at school, if possible. In her description of her attitude, she mentioned that she had the power to potentially make or break a student's day. I turned back to her to make the compliment, then: I'm glad it's you with that power. She got flustered, embarrassed, and felt the need to corner me afterwards and clarify, backing down from the very word "power", as if it somehow automatically suggested its own abuse. Why can't people think of power as ability, as potential to do, as a neutral tool to be used, like any other tool, for good or ill? "Absolute power corrupts absolutely," objec

Here's another Facebook conversation I shouldn't have stuck my nose into today. Please note what passes for objectivity. Also Liberal Friend B presents an interesting assumption. Apparently, conservatives have evil intentions and no other explanation for their actions is possible, or even really thinkable. It couldn't possibly be that they have an actual logical disagreement on the merits of the issue at hand... Liberal Friend A: So we don't want to pass a treaty with Russia because... the Republicans don't want to comply with international law? We'll hunt you down if you have nukes, but don't ask us to get rid of ours. Right? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/world/europe/17start.html?pagewanted=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a2 G.O.P. Opposition Dims Hope for Arms Treaty With Russia www.nytimes.com The chief Senate Republican negotiator dealt a setback to President Obama’s effort to pass a treaty with Russia. Me: Thanks for the read. It reminds me why I

My family and heart have ties back to Saskatchewan where I grew up. Currently there is some discussion of privatizing some of the current provincial government monopolies (called "Crown corporations") of which one--Sasktel, the province's only phone carrier, wired and wireless--is the employer of one of my good friends. Here is our conversation: Me: I hate to sound callous, but we don't make buggy whips anymore for a reason: there's cars now. I hope I can make a contrary opinion without seeming harsh, but I really don't understand much of this thinking. It's sounding a lot to me like you guys have lived under a monopoly for so long you've forgotten how detrimental they can be. If a competitor comes in to SK it won't destroy anything Sasktel does well, it will just force it to demonstrate what that is, via competition. Its talent pool will come from the same industry, so full-time/part-time won't really be an issue (can't get the hours you w

Article My response: I am a Mormon. To the extent the report on these local leaders is true, I condemn their lack of Christian spirit. The report is obviously not even close to even-handed, so I suspect there's a context we'll never get here. On the other hand, it IS obviously trying to make a point about MormonISM in general, and NOT just the local leaders. The Church in general has a good track record, and an especially good one in disaster areas, where local units are able to mobilize boots on the ground faster than the Red Cross in most cases. And even more importantly, I reject the premise that somehow prioritizing where to place one's charitable resources is somehow evil and un-Christian. It seems like these local leaders took the general rule a little too far, but it is NOT wrong to want to take care of one's family first, one's congregation next, and one's fellow community members after that if there's room/resources left to spare. In fact, it would

The scientific process of hypothesis testing and experimentation to arrive at knowledge describes exactly the process of faith building, because faith is "the evidence of things not seen". Atheists and the like interpret Paul's words to mean somehow blind belief stands in for evidence, but that's just backwards from his plain meaning. The thing is that in this world there are some things so difficult to prove fully, even though there's plenty of evidence for them, that people can go a long way in their ongoing process of faithful experimentation before they are brought to a point where the evidence no longer supports their hypothesis. I daresay the vast majority of humankind has died without understanding basic truths about God, about His requirements for Celestial life, etc. LDS doctrine makes room for these. The Book of Mormon conceives of life as a testing period, just as the Bible obviously does. And it talks plainly of a waiting place, a time between death a

A quick internet search to see if there's an "Edited for TV" version of Back to the Future available to show Everett anywhere, and...nope. There's legit versions everywhere, bootleg versions everywhere, but evidently no one would rather hear Marty McFly say "Jeez Louise" instead of something profane. Actually, there ARE tons of us out here, but copyright laws have been interpreted in court decisions that make it darn near impossible to get one. You can own the movie and edit it yourself. You can't own the movie and pay someone else to edit it. You can buy software that edits language out on the fly. You can't buy software that permanently creates an edited copy for you to enjoy and re-use at your leisure. It's nuts! But the thing I hate worst about it is the sanctimonious tripe about the Director's artistic purity that they claim is the reason for such idiotic legal "protections". And this is coming from an art CRITIC (me), who sho

The double-speak never ceases. Politicians on both sides can't seem to avoid talking about regulation and capitalism. Democrats afraid of appearing too socialist claim to uphold free enterprise principles but allow for safety nets and programs that take the excesses out of business cycles of boom and bust. Republicans afraid of appearing pro-greed claim to want to reduce only the onerous regulations, and keep only the "common sense" statutes. I've always disliked the very term "common sense". It usually just means "I'm too lazy to actually think through the principles involved." So on the subject of "regulation" let me quote the immortal Mandy Patinkin of Princess Bride fame: "Jhoo keep useen that wohrd. I donna think eet means whahtchew think eet means." The problem is that when Conservatives talk about regulation, they mean the rules of order we need to keep competition fair in business. The laws that make cheating on

Inevitably we are all going to "friend" someone on Facebook who posts lots of bolstering material for their chosen political ideology on their wall. I don't like to respond there. The wall is for person to person contact, and it's public. I'm not going to start a big ole word fight over things there, unless I feel compelled by the nature of the post. But it would be fruitful to think some of them through here. Latest case in point: the Tea Party and the supposed hypocrisy of some of its candidates, Joe Miller of AK to be specific in this article (I haven't read the Rolling Stone in AGES--ever since they knocked Metallica for writing "Don't Tread on Me" because it didn't fit their idea of how anti-war the band was somehow supposed to be). Fair warning the article is mildly salacious and is not opposed to harsh language and imagery. Can I enjoy the wit in an opponent's sarcasm? Absolutely. But he's still fallacious. First off, Ca

Pres. Monson on Choice : "Although in our journey we will encounter forks and turnings in the road, we simply cannot afford the luxury of a detour from which we may never return." "I plead with you to make a determination right here, right now, not to deviate from the path which will lead to our goal: eternal life with our Father in Heaven." "Ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. Ye shall walk in all the ways which the Lord your God hath commanded you." (citing Moses in Deuteronomy) Detours, deviations, turning to the right or left. The metaphor of the path chosen, and the consequences which inevitably accompany the choice can't be stressed enough. You pick up one end of a stick, you've also got the other end. The problem is that with the veil in place (LDS terminology for necessary forgetting an immortal spirit goes through as part of the process of its coming to a test in mortality) all paths are necessarily blind ones.

Pres. Monson's opening remarks asked the Church to pay special attention to the need for full-time missionaries. The LDS have always asked all their members to be ambassadors of Christ, and to always be on the lookout for people who might be prepared to receive our invitation to come learn more of Him, and join us through baptism. The call for missionaries to leave their homes and go actively preparing people for just such invitations is anchored in equally longstanding tradition and commandment. But let me throw out the question... We're all asked to be missionaries. I have more experience teaching than the average missionary. I have developed a closeness with the Spirit for longer than most missionaries. Through longer study I know the doctrines of the Church better than most missionaries. If I meet someone I know who is interested, I have the added advantage of knowing the person about to be taught. Why should I need a missionary's help at all? Why shouldn't I