Hijacked?

I've been a little blog-weary these days; I'll spend time coming up with stuff to post on, only to find that either my position isn't consistent enough or that the issue is too complicated to write a paltry 100 words on it. False starts aside, I've had somewhat of an crisis lately. For some reason, I've taken this election pretty seriously even though I know my vote doesn't count for much here in New York. I've done my homework too, researching issues and candidates apart from their rhetoric and making a serious attempt to choose the right candidate.

On October 19th the Church (the LDS Church) issued a statement on same-gender marriage just in time for the election and the referendum in Utah. This statement comes out only a few months after the Church re-issued a statement from the 2000 election reminding church members of its political neutrality and that we should "study the issues and candidates carefully and prayerfully and then vote for those they believe will most nearly carry out their ideas of good government. Latter-day Saints are under special obligation to seek out and then uphold leaders who will act with integrity and are "wise," "good," and "honest" (see Doctrine and Covenants 98:10)."

I feel frustrated and confused. I feel like my vote has been, in a way, hijacked. I want to make clear that I support the leadership of the Church, they are inspired men and women. But how do you reconcile political neutrality with the statement on same-gender marriage?? Can I remain honest with my beliefs and still vote for a candidate that supports same-sex unions/marriage? When the Church says it "favors" a particular stance, what does that mean?

Finish reading post.

Flat draft or free market?

That last post made me think: should enlistment be a capitalist venture or random / lottery style? By this I mean should we recruit those who will go for the least amount of incentive or should people be selected at random to serve in the military?

I’ve heard some people complain that the rich are buying the poor to defend this country. Should defense be a burden that every citizen bears or just those who will accept the compensation for the task? I understand that everyone bears the burden in taxes, but defense cost more than that for those who die in combat.

What would be the consequences of a draft? It seems unlikely that a random draft would yield soldiers that are more fit for service. Would people, upon being candidates for service, be more appreciative of those who have fought before, or would we just end up with an unwilling army?

Finish reading post.

Military recruitment for war or scholarship?

This is something that I’ve been mulling over in my mind since the beginning of the Iraq invasion, and I’m just now putting it into words. I noticed (and continue to notice) that a lot of enlisted soldiers didn’t like the idea that they were being sent into action. I wouldn’t either, but that is why I did not enlist.

I understand that there are many incentives for enlisting these days. Scholarships, benefits, even cash rewards. I wonder if all these are designed to distract the recruited from the reality of the position. Just watch the commercials on TV; they look like video games or G.I. Joe cartoons more than they resemble actual combat. As a natural result, many soldiers and families of soldiers commented that they / their son / their daughter only enlisted for a scholarship or other incentive, and didn’t expect to go to war. By the tone of these statements, I feel that they don’t think they deserve to go to war, perhaps because they didn’t anticipate it. Does this seem inconsistent to anyone else? Are the armed services recruiting campaigns to blame for the deceit?

It’s likely, however, that this represents the minority of the armed forces. For the many other soldiers and families of soldiers that I have not seen on the news, I will assume that they are proud to serve and that their sacrifice comes without regret or grudge. I certainly don’t deserve to be counted above any of them because I refused to volunteer. Most importantly, I’m grateful that such citizens make the ultimate offering for the good of all.

Finish reading post.

What Jacques Derrida and George Bush have in common.

I enjoy watching politics; but it's next to impossible for me to sit firmly on either side of the fence. For a long time, I've been frustrated with the lack of places a fence-sitter like me can go to research the issues without partisanship obfuscating things.

Jim Faulconer, one of my favorite philosophy professors, made a post over at times and seasons that seemed to speak right at my problem. Though he begins by talking about the mischaracterizations people have of Jacques Derrida, a giant of a philosopher who passed away a few days ago, he moves on to discuss political issues as well:

"As I mentioned on another thread, I do not understand the kinds of discussions that have probably always dominated in politics and at least now seem also to dominate much of the academy: We align ourselves with slogans, calling on secondary sources to justify our alignments, secondary sources that themselves usually rely only on other secondary sources. It is more important that we be in the right camp than that we understand what we are talking about. Politics and academics as fashion and anti-fashion."

"Some insist on aligning themselves with what they perceive to be a new voice. Others insist on aligning themselves against the new. But neither group actually bothers to find out what the voice in question has to say. In these discussions, explanations are not explanations, they are demands for concession, and criticisms are not criticisms, they are brickbats and clubs. "

"If we do not respect that with which we agree or disagree enough to understand it, to take it seriously, we do not to respect ourselves and we certainly do not respect those whom we engage in discussion. It is no secret that I am a partisan of Jacques Derrida and a critic of President Bush. But if I cannot read Derrida and see where I disagree nor listen to Bush and see where he is right, then I cannot claim to understand either. And I have no intellectual or moral right to either criticize or recommend what I do not understand. I have an intellectual and moral obligation to hear those who disagree with me in a way that allows me to see not only where they are wrong, but where they may be right. "

"Presumably anyone reading this blog thinks of himself or herself as an intellectual—as someone concerned with matters of the intellect—regardless of how many years he or she spent in school. In fact, whatever your claims to the contrary, by definition you are an intellectual if you read this blog more than once. Presumably almost everyone reading this blog is also a Latter-day Saint. As Latter-day Saints and as intellectuals, we ought to seek understanding rather than to glom onto whatever slogans first strike us as according with what we already believe. "

Finish reading post.

Mamma mia...what was Malthus thinking?

As the stereotype goes, Italians have big families, right? This morning NPR did a story on Italy's population problem where they quoted some surprising numbers: right now people over the age of 65 outnumber people under the age of 15, and, based on this trend, some predict that by 2050 the 57.5 million Italians will shrink by over 12 million. Italy's birth rate, among the lowest in the world, hovers at 1.3 babies per woman (compared to 2.07/woman in the US). Experts have given a few reasons for the decline:

1. Italy's increased affluence and easier access to education.
2. A delayed transition to adulthood. (You'd be amazed at how many 30 year olds I knew in Italy who were as dependant on their mom as I was at age 14)
3. A lack of child care facilities
4. An absence of state incentives to have bigger families. (Because of Italy's history of facism, a lot of politicians are reluctant to pass seemingly authoritarian policies to encourage family growth.)
5. The feminist revolution in Italy was especially strong.
6. One of the most interesting reasons I found was in a study done by demographer Letizia Mencarini. She argues that part of the decline in childbirth is due to Italian men. Because less than 6% help with household chores, women feel overly burdened by child-rearing. The men won't help with kids, so the women don't want any.

Sure these are interesting facts, but really, if Italians don't want to make babies what does it matter? It doesn't, really, unless Italy wants to hold on to the affluence that created this baby-bust. According to some experts, this growing number of old-folks (my word, not theirs) and an amazingly generous pension system could lead to the country's financial collapse.

While in the United States this problem isn't nearly as dramatic, the baby boomers retiring may presents us with similar problems about social security. And it seems that American women are waiting more to have children and having less when they do. What do you guys make of this? Do you think Italy is an exception and we don't fit that mold? (not just as LDS, but more as americans) What do you make of the fact that while birthrates in Europe are in decline, they remain astronomically high in the third-world and middle east? Assuming things stay the same, what do you imagine the demographics of the world to look like in 100 or 200 years? Any implications for LDS people? Your thoughts please.

Finish reading post.

756........

Yesterday I happened across a couple of free playoff tickets to the Yankees-Twins game. Besides being a great game, I came away with two questions: 1.) How can otherwise normal people turn into irrational psychos the minute the walk through the turnstyles of yankee staduim? One minute they berate the umpire for not calling enough strikes, and literally 3 minutes later they threaten his life for calling too many. In the 10th inning these same fans screamed (I mean screamed!!) at A-Rod, telling him to go back to Texas (in not so nice terms), but they screamed a lot differently when he hit the game tying double in the 12th. Maybe I don't feel my self-worth is attached to a game, or maybe I feel like I'll have other succeses in life besides my team winning or losing, who knows. I just don't get it. 2.) Can democracy work with these kinds of people voting? I sure had my doubts about the whole system last night.

Ok, enough ranting. Watching Gary Sheffield hit a screaming home run last night reminded me of this article I recently read about him and Bonds. The article doesn't exactly accuse Bonds of doping, but it does give a pretty good view of his incredible training regiment and his dealings with BALCO. Now let's be generous and assume Bonds isn't using steroids. Even without that, he has had an incredible advantage over the players whose records he will easily break, Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth. For example, I remember reading somewhere that baseball players until relatively recently wouldn't do weight training because they thought it hurt their reaction time. My question to you guys is this: when Barry Bonds hits home run number 756 and breaks Aaron's record, will there forever be an unofficial asterick by his name? Put more simply, if Aaron and Bonds played side by side for their whole careers would Bonds still have hit more homers?

Finish reading post.