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.

"Facts" of the matter

Sometimes I wonder why I write this silly little blog. I think it annoys a lot of people and probably changes no minds. But then something like this happens, and I have to mentally throw up somewhere. A friend of mine sent me and a whole group of people he knows a link to a story about how in the era of Taxed Enough Already, Americans are paying the lowest taxes in over half a century. I had seen the story already, but I always appreciate being included in anything that demonstrates the inanity of the TEA Party. Then a new message showed up in my Facebook inbox, from a name I did not recognize. It confused me at first, but then I realized it was a reply to the tax story. I'll let you soak it up for yourselves:

[D]o you really know anything about what's going on in government right now, or are you relying on the propaganda press of this administration? Have you ever been to a TEA party rally? Also, have you every actually watched an entire show of Glenn Beck? When was the last time you read the Book of Mormon, or Doctrine and Covenants? We are in the midst of the war in Heaven, being replayed her on the earth. Until you have actually hard evidence to "factually" refute the claims of either Glenn Beck, or the TEA parties, please don't think you will persuade me... The times we are currently in, are TERRIFYING!!!!

I don't think the quotes around "factually" are a symptom of the bad grammar and punctuation that pepper this reply. I think she is looking for "facts" and not facts, which, to quote Ronald Reagan, are stupid things. "Facts" are things like "we are in the midst of a war in Heaven", which are really strong assertions of things that are wildly speculative with no evidence to back them up. Facts are boring things like reports from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, derived from empirical measure. Factually refuting Glenn Beck is easy, just let him speak then compare what he says to the actual data. "Factually" refuting him is trickier because it requires an appeal to a supernatural force for which one has no reason to believe exists. The old adage "you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts" does not apply to "facts". You can get "facts" from radio hosts, friends, your bishop, or simply make them up yourselves. and they are equally valid.
I know the woman who wrote that reply will not read this and see the gross errors in her thinking. I realize that nodding their head in agreement right now doesn't feel any different now than they did when they started reading this post, but I feel like any little chip in the monumental misguidedness that gives rise to this kind of thinking is worth trying for, so I'll keep chipping away.

Reports of right thinking and progress in Utah are greatly exaggerated

Sex education in Utah is miserable, but the Utah PTA wants to assure you it's not getting any better.
It seems some conservative groups were spreading some misinformation about an education bill, which was killed six weeks ago, and the PTA wants to set the record straight. Utah State PTA Health Commissioner Liz Zentner said this:

It should not have given the PTA a black eye, but through the erroneous information that went out from some groups, it made us look really bad.

What were these awful things the PTA were accused of trying to do? Talking about contraception and the fact that gay people exist! Utah's approach to sex education can be summed up in one word: "don't". Former PTA member Becky English's comment says it all:

I just really disagreed with, especially in Utah, the PTA taking a stand of pro-sex education.

How disgusting. Making an effort to prevent kids from getting pregnant or contracting diseases. No sir, not here in Zion. Here the pants stay sealed until the people are sealed for all eternity. That's the story and they're sticking to it. No matter what the stats say.

Democracy: a good thing, right? Not in Utah County

A group of parents in Utah County are protesting their children's school district for promoting democracy. True, the U.S. is not a true one-person-one-vote democracy. And maybe schools should stay out of political ideology. They almost have a point. But then their leader, a guy by the name of Oak Norton, goes and says this:

"Karl Marx said, 'Democracy is the road to socialism,' " Norton said. A true democracy, he said, relies solely on majority rule and inevitably devolves into anarchy, which then sprouts socialist dictators.

Waaaaaaaaait...what? In what universe does that follow? On what are you basing this? That progression is completely made up, but it has the dreaded S-word in it, so you have to pay attention. I imagine a boardroom table full of capitalists voting on whether or not to acquire another company. The vote is a tie and everyone abruptly resigns their spot on the board and begins running around the room aimlessly until one old man fires a pistol in the air and says "All right! Everyone sit down! We're not going to buy the compnay, we're going to share with them!"
If you thought that was stupid, you are right. The whole thing is very, very stupid.

Idiocy in your tea? One lump or two?

The Tea Party Express rolled its way through Utah yesterday and brought with it piles and piles of lies, ignorance and outright bigotry. A Florida radio host complemented her "birther" nonsense with - what would one call it? - "college degree-er" nonsense?

Andrea Shay King, a Florida radio host traveling with the Tea Party Express, said she might need to see proof of the president's college education and "your birthplace in Hawaii -- or wherever it is."

The same fountain of wisdom claimed the spiritual high ground:

We have God on our side and we are righteous.

So she believes God allowed a foreign national without an education to steal the Presidency while successfully masquerading as a natural-born American with a degree from Harvard Law School, but now he's not going to put up with that kinda crap anymore? Was he asleep during the election? Oh, wait. I'm expecting consistent logic from a wingnut.
Another genius who drove down from Idaho to wave his flag in the rally bemoaned the notion that his seven children know more about Martin Luther King Jr. than about Paul Revere. If it were an actual choice between the two of them, which it is of course not, children should indeed know more about a man who spent his life, and ultimately gave it, fighting so an entire class of people could have the same rights as their countrymen than an 18th Century folk hero who gave up a night's sleep to sound the alarm.
A trio of hopefuls for the seat of Sen. Bob Bennett spoke regarding the divine inspiration of the U.S.'s founding documents. Anyone who thinks the U.S. Constitution is a religious document either hasn't read it or is incapable of doing so. These people want to be one of our 100 Senators.  Think about that. If I pointed to a sign that said "This is a sign." and said "That is not a sign. I wish to be your leader." would you give me the green light?
My message to these whack jobs is this: Keep it up. The more crazy you spew out, the more moderate, good people who have somehow gotten sucked into this movement will realize it is irrational, deceitful, dangerous hysteria and they don't really belong there after all.

**edit**
I got so caught up I forgot the best part from radio host Mark Williams:

Socialism, progressivism, whatever you want to call it, invariably results in hundreds of millions of dead, innocent bodies.

Yeah Mark. I've been to Sweden. Barely got out with my life. All those Scandinavian shock troops combing the streets and bayonetting anyone who wouldn't take all the free money they were handing out. Real nightmare.
I call bullshit.

God and the dreaded Mainstream Media

First of all, I'm a veteran of the media. I was a news photographer in New Mexico for a few years, and still have many friends and loved ones in the business, including my girlfriend. I know what it's like trying to grind out content day after day and try to get it right. I also know how much certain segments of the public delight in finding fault in what they cover in the blanket term of "the Mainstream Media". It's right up there with "Big Pharma", "Big Oil" and "the Government" in the club of nearly omnipotent yet woefully incompetent entities conspiring to rule the world. Journalists are like everyone else. There are good ones, and there are also bad ones. I'm the first to defend the unfairly maligned, but I'll also not hesitate to shoot down those who are lowering the bar, particularly in subjects important to me.
For instance, this little number from Florida:
Anti-God billboard finally up
This is just a brief about an ongoing story in Jacksonville, where, like in many other cities around the world, non-religious groups are erecting billboards aimed at alienated non-believers. Starting with the headline, it's a steaming pile of crap. The billboard is no more anti-God than a billboard reading "Like sandwiches?" is anti-pizza. It is not aimed at believers, it is outreach for non-believers who feel they are alone in a sea of religionists. The theist should stop reading after the question mark and keep driving. To add to the fervor, the station posted an online poll, asking viewers if they were offended by the billboard. There is nothing offensive about this billboard. By even suggesting that there could be, the station lends credibility to the notion that not being persuaded by religious ideas is somehow an attack on those who are.
In another piece, the station directly pits the non-religious group against a nearby church, saying the sign "will question [the church's] mission and that of other churches." Again, the billboard does not aim to persuade people or attack religion, just to reach out to those without it. The reporter goes on to quote the pastor of the church, who says he

"thought it was interesting that they capitalized "God." Just by that mere fact they are in some way acknowledging that there is a God."

Wrong. That's just good grammar and respect. I, like Freddie Mercury, do not believe in Peter Pan, Frankenstein or Superman. Not being real does not stop them from being proper nouns.
I do not take issue with the journalism regarding that quote, though. People should most certainly be allowed to have their foolish statements made public.

The second media issue on my mind has less to do with actual journalists as those who would influence them. As I mentioned my girlfriend is a journalist. Recently she received mail regarding writing awards from the Amy Foundation. I had never heard of the Amy Foundation, so I looked it up. It seems they are a religious organization with some deep pockets, as they can offer a cash prizes totaling $34,000 for including "biblical truth" in the mainstream media, with a first place prize of $10,000. All the journalist has to do in exchange is toss out their objectivity and try to slip some good old-fashioned evangelism past their editors (provided they aren't in on the scheme).
Let's take a look at what's going on here. Here we have an organization with an agenda offering substantial cash sums to journalists willing to not just report on but clearly promote their agenda using direct quotes from the organizations approved source material. Does the fact it's labeled a prize stop it from being bribery? If so, it's genius. Why bother paying off unscrupulous reporters to pass your message when you can make them compete against each other for the money? More message with less payout. It's true that most of what results from this is op-ed pieces. It's still unethical. Offering a $10,000 carrot to turn a column into a pulpit for a week is enough to tempt many Christmas and Easter Christians into pretending they are St. Paul. Imagine any other organization offering so much money to publish their message. If the Beef Council had a $10,000 prize I'd be tempted to write about all the benefits and wonders of steak, and I don't even eat the stuff.

The perfect Dad.

I don't have any children, but I have often wondered what kind of father I would be. How would I act as a parent to raise the best possible offspring? I decided I would take a cue from the greatest father figure of all time. So I studied his strategy and put together my own. I will father a child and leave before it's born. Absentee father, you say? A deadbeat? Oh no no, I'm going to leave a note!

Dear Child.

I am your one true father. You will never see me in your lifetime, but I am always watching you. Always. Having such a great father will be a burden on your life. Your friends and family may ridicule you for having faith in me. They may tell you I am a 'deadbeat' or a 'bad example'. They are simply wicked people who reject my majesty and wish to turn you against me so you may suffer without me. Child, do not let them do this to you, for I am the most important person who will ever be in your life, and I am always there, even though you don't see me. Never forget that I brought you into existence, and you owe everything to me. If your friends tell you to turn away from me, turn away from them. If your mother tries to bring another father into your life, reject them both, for you shall have no other fathers before me.

You are a failure. You haven't even taken your first breath as I write this, but I already know you are doomed to stumble and fall time and time again. No matter how hard you try, you will never be perfect like me, but you must try, because I demand perfection! You are such a failure that you deserve to die. But I am merciful and I love you, so I will sire another child, one far greater than you, and I will give it the death you so deserve. That is how merciful I am. Never forget what I have done for you.

If you live in accordance with my wishes, building buildings to honor me, singing songs to praise me, granting me material offerings to sustain me and devoting your entire life to me, I shall grant you a great reward: When you die, I shall see to it you continue living and be given the great privilege of my company, forever.

If you choose to reject my wishes and be tempted by others into turning from me, I shall also see that you continue living after you die and I shall light you on fire. over and over again. Forever.

Believe every word I say, because I love you.

Father

The missionaries

Note: I started writing this a while back.

I just got back from meeting with a missionary pair at their meeting house. I ran into one of them, who was temporarily with another companion, yesterday after eating lunch with my girlfriend at her workplace. I had fun bantering with them and I told them exactly what I believed (or didn't) and they were good sports. I agreed to meet them today to further the discussion. When I got to their building I was greeted by one of the men I met yesterday and another, let's say traditional Mormon (white American guy). This guy was a tougher nut. Either that or it's practice to allow you to have the conversation on your terms when you're on the street and free to walk away, then once you're pinned down in a room call new rules. He told me he can't speak about anything involving "proof" or "the scientific method" because they don't pertain to "spiritual truth".
I did learn a few things about how they operate, though.
First of all, this is not a conversation, this is a sales pitch. These boys are taught to establish a need - your need to be saved - and sell it to you. Not all at once, of course, that would be a very tough sell. I believe the analogy they are taught in training is "you don't give meat when milk will do." The implication is the listener is a spiritual baby and needs nourishment, but would choke on fully-formed doctrine. The reality is no right-thinking person would buy in if everything was on the table.
They also don't believe they are obligated to answer any questions regarding the institution they are representing. I told them outright I thought their church acted deceitfully and immorally in regard to California Proposition 8. They told me they weren't there to talk about "religion" or "church", just to talk about God and how he wants me to open my heart to Him. Never mind the name badges, I guess.
What frustrated me the most was the smug certainty of the believer. In any other situation, someone offering claims they admit cannot be proved with any evidence yet assert they are true beyond question would be laughed at. In religious matters it is thought to be virtuous, and appeals are made to "higher" standards of proof. These notions are not higher than anything, they are simply outside of reality and should carry no weight.

Why Reed Cowan is wrong.

Earlier this week we went to a screening of 8: The Mormon Proposition at the Sundance Film festival in Park City. Overall I thought the film was well-done and it renewed my anger about this massive injustice and the pivotal role the LDS church had in bringing it about, which is what it was supposed to do.
At the screening, filmmaker Reed Cowan called for the resignation of famed bigot and Utah State Senator Chris Buttars, calling him a liar. Buttars, who was seen making a grand ass of himself in the film, claims he was decieved by Cowan and his crew wearing BYU t shirts and talking about serving LDS missions, which made him feel "pretty comfortable talking to them." Cowan shot back that he was wearing no such thing and released pictures to prove it - although he soon admitted his photographer (a BYU grad) was wearing a BYU jacket (I'm assuming the same one he had on that night).
I'm not one to jump to the defense of Chris Buttars. I think he's a standard bearer for religious bigotry and should step down, but I think in this case his rotten brain is just confused. I do not believe that Cowan and his crew were dishonest or deceptive in their interview. I also do not believe they went out of their way to disclose their intentions for the film. Several, including Cowan, are LDS or former LDS, and co-director Steven Greenstreet spoke honestly and positively about his experience as a missionary to the audience, so it's no stretch to think he would answer honestly and positively if asked about it. By standing on neutral ground, they allowed Sen. Buttars to believe what he wanted to believe about them - that they were good Mormon boys and he could candidly talk to them about how the gays are "probably the greatest threat to America".
By calling for Buttars' resignation on account of his lie, Cowan has shifted focus to a battle of who-said-what-and-what-were-they-wearing, rather than where it should be: Chris Buttars thinks it's okay to be a bigot if he's surrounded by fellow churchmembers.
I'm fully on Reed Cowan's side on this issue, but I think a more cool-handed approach to the hot-headed Buttars would serve him better.

How many are there?

The 2010 Sundance Film Festival has begun here in Utah, along with all the craziness it produces. One of the most talked-about films is 8: The Mormon Proposition, a documentary about the LDS church's involvement in the passing of Proposition 8 in California. I'm going to see it tomorrow in Park City, so I'll be able to comment on it soon.
I work in the same building as the Sundance Main Box Office. On Friday morning someone dropped off a flier at our business condemning the makers of this film for "promoting hate" against the LDS church and Utah Sen. Chris Buttars, who has been an outspoken critic of gay rights. It was a fallacy-ridden screed lamenting the "homosexual agenda" and their desire to turn our nation against God. At the bottom of the page was a invitation to watch the Obama Killer Song at the organization's website. I couldn't resist, so I looked it up after I got home. It's a mangling of Simon and Garfunkle's The Sound of Silence. To give you a taste of the level it's operating on, it refers to President Obama as "darkness" and a "donkey god", while portraying him stabbing a pregnant woman's belly as she sleeps with a Bible on her chest and taking aim at political enemies with an assault rifle.
Of course I rolled my eyes at its absurd hyperbole. But then I started to wonder: how many people that I encounter don't? This little think tank is located just down the road in Sandy, UT. I am somewhat buffered from the rest of this state's stridently-red politics by living in the relatively tolerant Salt Lake City, but how far do I have to ride the train before things like the Obama Killer Song pass for valid commentary? I would like to think trash like this would be laughed at anywhere, but this is Glenn Beck country.

I have a special place of contempt in my heart for this kind of stuff.

As I'm sure you know, a massive earthquake struck near Port au Prince Haiti yesterday, killing thousands. Whenever something like this happens, an outpouring of sympathy and aid comes forth to help the victims. This is a wonderful thing. Modern technology makes helping even easier. I was able to make a small donation by sending a text message to Wyclef Jean's foundation. I understand the American Red Cross has enabled the same type of donation channel.
Amid this spirit of helping, something uglier comes to the surface. Those who claim to be crusaders for morality open up their mouths and give you a glimpse of what goes on in their rotten brains.
Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson's exchange after 9/11 lives in infamy. Falwell doesn't live in any sense anymore, but his stalwart partner spoke up with enough asininity for both of them, suggesting that the Haitian people had it coming because of their 1804 deal with the Devil. "True story," Robertson insists. These hateful old men and their head-bobbing followers just can't resist. Extending the hand of charity in the time of crisis, yet pulling it back for  just long enough to whisper "you deserved this" before handing it over and applauding their own Christian love.
I would say I hope Robertson lives to regret his foolish words, but he's amassed quite a collection of them over the years and shows no sign of letting up. His website has issued a press release, stating that "Dr. Robertson never stated that the earthquake was God’s wrath." Not in so many words. He said the island was "cursed", which would indicate its misfortune arrived either through God's wrath, or the Devil's evil, while God sits by idly, presumably because he's still angry at those poor people's great grandparents.