The invisible benevolent hand.

We're hearing a lot of talk about the free market these days. It's a touchstone for the tea party movement and is trotted out as the solution to all the monetary woes this country faces. Far right candidates like Sharron Angle think it is the fix for everything. As she said in her recent debate with Harry Reid: "The solutions to the health care cost of insurance – are free market."
Free marketeers like Angle and Rand Paul differ from the old Ayn Rand-style libertarian free marketeers in one important aspect. They are also religious extremists. This might seem inconsequential, but one informs the other. Randians (not to be confused with Raelians) see the market as the vehicle in which the cream will rise to its deserved position at the top of society and the milk remains just to hold it up. The religious free marketeer cannot help but feel Adam Smith's invisible hand is attached to the all-loving arm of Almighty God, who will ensure his faithful will be rewarded. It's the starry-eyed idealism of those who believe in a free market anyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and become a tycoon. They forget there is not much real estate at the top and the path up is littered with corpses.
The fact is the market does not have a mind. There is no intent behind it and it is brutal. It rewards ruthlessness and punishes selflessness. It might give you the keys to the Bentley, but it might leave you battered and bloody on the side of the road. And when that happens in a world ruled by the free market, don't expect to hear any sirens coming your way.
The middle-class hoards waving flags and unread Constitutions at tea party rallies shout for free market because they think if the government would just get their hands off of everything they'll all be much richer. They can't fathom the idea that they would be left unprotected and at the mercy of the oligarchs who are funding their little movement. One only need to look at the social structure of the gilded age to see what unbridled capitalism looks like.
The market will take care of it? Oh yes it will. It always has. It's just a violent game and most of us are bound to lose.

Please, let's nip this in the bud

I just saw this video for the first time and I hope it does not catch on.

While anyone reading this blog for more than four seconds will know my position on gay marriage, I think this is an incredibly stupid tactic. Almost to the point that it seems like it could be a reverse tactic from the right. At least I wish it was.
The whole point of this movement is to show people that gays are not after all degenerates polluting society with their immoral ways. That they are fully capable of raising good upstanding children. That gay marriage is good for society. This video portrays gays and their supporters as snotty pricks who are fully aware their existence is offensive and relish rubbing it in your face. People who raise children to think 'fuck you you fucking fuck' is a good way to win an argument.
I understand the frustration. I'm frustrated myself. But this low-road approach is not only a poor way to win hearts and minds, but an excellent fundraising tool for the culture warriors. I realize by embedding this video I'm (very slightly) upping its hit count, but I hope I can at least neutralize it with my condemnation of it. Vinegar and honey people. You can do better.

There's only one catch...

An LDS friend from high school recently posted this article from an LDS PR site. In light of the recent debacle starring Elder Packer with his embarrassingly anti-gay talk - and subsequent backpeddaling- during General Conference last week, this seems like a desperate swipe at saving face. Michael Otterson, representing the LDS church in response to a petition from the Human Rights Campaign, summed up the church's position:

As a church, our doctrinal position is clear: any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong, and we define marriage as between a man and a woman. However, that should never, ever be used as justification for unkindness

and:

The Church recognizes that those of its members who are attracted to others of the same sex experience deep emotional, social and physical feelings. The Church distinguishes between feelings or inclinations on the one hand and behavior on the other. It’s not a sin to have feelings, only in yielding to temptation.

The PR statement is a response to anti-gay bullying and attempts to paint the church as the good guy, admonishing such behavior. Admirable as that may be, the press release stands in opposition to Elder Packers own recent and past statments, and one is left with a quandry: Should one adhere to the advice of a public relations specialist, charged with making the church look good to the general populace, or one of the twelve men at the very top of the hierarchy, purportedly on the receiving end of God's own broadband connection?
Even the warm, fuzzy, what-would-Jesus-do option is not as friendly as it claims to be. According to Otterson, the church fully believes that gay people are just that and cannot help the way they are born, yet still must pay a price for it. Like the airmen in Joseph Heller's iconic novel, homosexual Mormons are trapped in a cruel Catch-22: The only way to fulfill their desires without sin is to be married, but by the church's definition they cannot be married to those they love. This circular dictate is far worse than Packer's old school demonization. At least with the latter young gay Mormons have cold hard bigotry as a solid rock to push away from the religion's swirling undercurrent. The former's false embrace draws them back as they try to swim away, only to  bash them again and again against the jagged rocks beneath the placid surface.

Hateful old men

This weekend was General Conference, the quarterly gathering of Mormons to listen to the church elders here in Salt Lake City. What did God say through his starched-collared, flappy-skinned mouthpieces on Earth? We still hate those gays.  Boyd K. Packer, President of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, informed the gathered faithful that

“There are those today who not only tolerate but advocate voting to change laws that would legalize immorality, as if a vote would somehow alter the designs of God’s laws and nature,”

Packer, like the Pope, speaks with all the authority of a man who has no true authority.  He and his fellow Mr. Mac clones are doing their best to keep the LDS church an active hate organization and a tax-dodging Political Action Commitee. He's not a scientist, psychologist or a contributor to a better society. Yet he claims to know with certainty that all the people in the world who are attracted to members of their own sex are just faking it.

Some argue that “they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural,” he said. “Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember he is our father.”

Indeed, Boyd, why would your Heavenly Father do that to anyone? While we're at it, why would he give anyone cancer, cerebral palsy or cleft pallets? Why would he cause earthquakes, hurricanes and Justin Bieber? It's almost as if he's not really paying attention, or is not really there at all, or, to quote a man far wiser than me and certainly wiser than all twelve of you put together, a malign thug.

Packer may be a hateful old man, but his co-apostle Dallin H. Oaks would be hilariously inept if he wasn't at the top of a culture of lock-step authoritarianism. He advised the gathered Saints how to make personal decisions:

“Some seek to have their priesthood leaders make personal decisions for them,” said Elder Dallin H. Oaks, also of the quorum. Instead, when it comes to personal decisions, individuals should be praying for answers themselves.

However, if the response to prayer they’re getting is in opposition to the statements of church leaders, their answer is not coming from God, he said.

Brilliant! Don't do what I tell you, do what God tells you. But if God disagrees with me, he's not God. World class delusional arrogance.

I rode the train downtown this weekend and saw all the white shirts and dresses filing into the Conference Center. I wished I could grab the three young brothers on the seats in front of me by their ties and say "You know they are going to lie to you in there, right?" Of course I said nothing to them. Maybe they are lucky enough not to be gay in the ranks of the psychologically abusive Mormon church. Maybe they aren't.

It's a long way down to the conservative high ground

This letter the editor appeared in today's Tribune

There are two main objections to same-sex marriage. One is the conservative objection: The concept of marriage applies only to man and woman, but that doesn’t mean that same-sex couples shouldn’t have equivalent civil and legal rights as committed couples. Marriage is much more than a mere legal institution, but the legal part of it should be available to gays.

The other is the mean-spirited objection: Same-sex couples should not share the same civil and legal rights as married couples, because only opposite-sex couples should have those rights. Homosexuality is wicked and disgusting. Gays should have no rights at all.

I hold the first view. How many of us hold the second?

Bangs Tapscott

Salt Lake City

 Very sweet of you to show how warm-hearted and open-minded a conservative such as yourself is, Bangs, but there are a couple problems with your reasoning. The concept applies only to a man and a woman? Says who? Are you on the marriage board? Can the public just not conceptualize  two people of the same gender marrying one another, and therefore it cannot happen? Is this an argument from tradition? Traditions are not justice. Traditions are not law. Breaking from tradition is not a legal infraction.
Let me review your ideas on the topic. Marriage is  "much more than a mere legal institution" but "the legal part of it should be available to gays". This would seem to imply that you believe the parts of marriage that you think exist outside of the legal system should remain illegal for homosexuals. This is of course a problem. Every part of marriage, including the word itself, that can be governed by the law is within "the legal part of it" and, by your own reasoning, should be available to gays. Any part that is outside the law is of course not subject to it and cannot be included in a policy debate.
What it comes down to is you think heterosexuals own the semantic part of marriage and should not share it with the lower-class homosexuals. They should have their own institution, seperate but equal to the dominant culture and religious views. How very gracious of you.

Just ignore it and it'll go away

So it seems Pastor Terry Jones has cancelled his plans to burn a big pile of Qurans on Saturday. I'm happy about this, because it was just an example of American Evangelical dumbassity, but I really don't care that much. The best thing that could have been done, in my opinion, would be to ignore him. Let him spend his and all his followers' money on Qurans, stack them up into a big ol' pile, cover it with gas and set it on fire. They can even roast marshmallows. If nobody shows up to watch, it's just a bunch of backward losers in Florida doing something stupid; nothing really new. It only becomes dangerous or meaningful if the press and everyone else falls for this ploy for attention.
Should anyone build an Islamic culture center or mosque in lower Manhattan? No. Should they build it anywhere else? No. Should anyone build temples, cathedrals or megachurches? No, in my opinion, they are a waste of resources better spent on things that benefit everyone.
Should people burn Qurans? No. Should they burn Bibles? No. Should they burn flags? No, no more than they should worship them. But can they? Yes, yes, you bet your ass yes. In this country, everyone is entitled to free expression. That doesn't obligate you to give two craps about it. If someone came to me and and said "I'm going to burn a big pile of Qurans on September 11." I would say "You are pretty stupid. It would be much better to recycle them and print copies of Candide or the telephone directory on them." I would then walk away and and pay no mind to what they did after that.
The  mere fact that I know Terry Jones' name means too much attention has been paid him. Like an annoying sibling or mosquito bite, just ignore it and it'll go away.

A free lesson on religious freedom for those who have a hard time understanding it

As you've no doubt heard, California's Proposition 8 has finally been struck down as the unconstitutional piece of garbage it is.
This makes Bill Duncan of the Marriage Law Foundation very upset indeed. According to the Salt Lake Tribune:

The courts need to understand how religious groups think about Prop 8, said Bill Duncan, director of Marriage Law Foundation, based in Lehi. Many religions still view marriage as set out in their doctrinal teachings, that is, between a man and a woman, he said.

Mr. Duncan, the courts already know your religious views, and they don't care. Why? Because they don't matter. Everyone knows this is a religious issue, but the reason no one is talking about that in court is because that would be the easiest way to get it tossed out because of the First Amendment. You see, right before the part of the Constitution that allows you to practice whatever religion you want is a part that says no one can make anyone else follow their religion.
Bill, you can think in your head all day that God thinks gay people are icky and never ever wants them to get married. You can even say it out loud. That's you using your religious freedom. At the very same time, other people are allowed to think or say that God thinks gay people are just fine, or even that there might not be a God at all. That's them using their religious freedom.
The thing about religious freedom is that everybody gets it. If I were to say "My religion says that everyone has to follow my religion, so there must be a law that says so," that would not be me using my religious freedom because it would take away other peoples' religious freedom. It would not be allowed because of the First Amendment, even if I had lots and lots of friends who thought the same thing.
If you think my tone is a little condescending, you are right. I am talking to you like you are a child, and for good reason. This is not a hard concept. Your statements indicate you do not understand it. I feel if I present it on a more elementary level, you might understand it better.
You might be thinking now: "This guy sure doesn't respect my religious freedom." You are wrong about that. I fully respect your religious freedom, I simply do not respect your religion. If you had kept your religion to yourself, there would be no problem. But you decided to make your religious views part of a public policy issue, which means I can say I think your religious views are false, archaic, have no place in the legal system, are counterproductive, unrealistic and stupid. That's me using my freedom of speech.