Monday, January 31, 2005

Can you hear me now?

If anyone would like to go to a fish fry tonight, there's going to be one in Mink, LA. You're probably asking yourself, " What's the occasion?" Well, I am proud to report that one of the last rurual communities in the United States is going to be getting landline phone service! I couldn't believe the news myself when I read it on Yahoo. I guess it's okay to spend several million on a parade and inauguration, but not to give someone the basic necessity of 911 service? I know no one is perfect, but common on, somethings are just common sense.

Would anyone like to give any insight on where the national budget disappears to or how things like this slip through the crack?!?

Finish reading post.

Saturday, January 22, 2005

What is "innate?"


The recent media blitz against Harvard's president has sparked many good conversations between my wife and me. Aside from the obvious sneers that I feel emanating from LYMA's contributors at Yale, I am curious what you think/know about a topic that has risen to the front of our conversations: is there really such a thing as "innate" anything?

I'm not talking about men vs. women, but am approaching the subject from a Mormon perspective. I take "innate" to mean traits or characteristics which are not shaped by social factors and are therefore important in the field of biological science. My questions is, if we were ever to be able to determine these kinds of traits ("non-social" if you will), can we really say they are biological, and unaffected by our interactions with others?

In the Church, we are taught that our spirits are social beings. The "Great Council in Heaven" is taught as a literal event - where we interacted with those in our heavenly society.

What kind of light do these doctrines shed on the debate, call it what you will: nature vs. nurture, individual vs. community, innate vs. social?


Finish reading post.

Is "open-mindedness" bad?


I am currently reading Jim Baker's memoir of his time as Bush 41's Secretary of State. While world events from 1988 to 1992 were impressive, the diplomatic approach taken has raised my eyebrows on more than a few occasions.

Without criticizing any particular instance, I am wondering what LYMA thinks about the following, broader question: is there a limit to the moral weight we place on standing up for what you believe in? This question reminds me of a NY Times article not so long ago about a group of Christian students that sued UNC-Chapel Hill for including books about the Quran on the required list for incoming freshman.

While so-called open-mindedness and the ability to listen and learn from others is at the root of America's liberal education system, many statesmen claim that such an approach in the "real life" of politics makes a leader weak and ineffective. Such is the argument espoused by Baker in his dealings with the Soviets where he never seems to budge an inch, but is tirelessly critical of the Russians for their unwillingness to move. (In the end, as we know, the Russians almost always give in - much to the pleasure of Baker and Bush).

In current events, we see political issues transformed into moral issues (much the same way "Operation Blue Spoon" - the secret military coup against Manuel Noriega of Panama in the late 80s - had its code name changed to "Operation Just Cause" by then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney only hours before the engagement). In the context of a moral battle, "sticking to one's guns" seems like the noble approach.

As an aspiring academic, I acknowledge that I am skeptical of those people who aren't willing to seriously engage the "other side." However, I recognize that statesmen are faced with different challenges and deadlines that may not be friendly to such an approach.

What do you all think?


Finish reading post.

Have the Democrats been taken hostage?


Recent events in the race for DNC chairperson have led me to ask this question: Have the Democrats been taken hostage by abortion rights activists? I think the answer is no, but only because the Dems have seemingly tied their own hands, so to speak.

While the fight for reproductive rights is noble, I think it is limiting the party's national appeal. There's no need to give up your position, but the Democrats need a new focus if they are going to pitch their tent wide enough to win a presidential election.

True, Kerry's platform did not revolve around abortion rights per se (but then again, did anybody know what Kerry's platform was?) It seems that the Democrats would fare much better if they focused on education (especially funding the numerous federal mandates that have come down in recent years) as well as fiscal responsibility (one of Howard Dean's issues that initially earned him a lot of popularity).

As it is, a renewed focus on the Democratic position regarding abortion rights (in the DNC chairperson race that is) will only hurt the party in the long run (in my opinion).

Any thoughts?


Finish reading post.

Tuesday, January 04, 2005

Thoughts on Prayer

The day after Christmas, I hopped on the internet to see what's happening in the world and met the now-famous Tsunami for the for the first time. The news flash that morning claimed that 4,900 people were dead. Since then, the death toll has almost become an ugly game - each morning I wake up expecting numbers to be lumped onto the count, and each morning I'm saddened and surprised at how it keeps growing.

I'm usually a pretty unemotional guy when it comes to things like this, but for some reason the news casts that keep coming in have nearly brought me to tears a few times. I've tried to pray for these people, but I'm having a bit of trouble with the theology of it all. Maybe you guys can help with some insight.

Here's my dilemma: I know prayer works in that I know God hears me and responds. Though the exact process escapes me, I think prayer works on whole bunch of levels. One, it self-revelatory. That is, in praying sincerely you learn a lot about yourself. Two, I think it is somehow intertwined with personal agency, and God's unwillingness to take that away at any cost. In other words, by asking God for something you give Him "permission" to step in and do something that might otherwise alter your own agency. But these two thoughts only relate to petitions of your immediate personal concern.

My problem is that I can't fathom the idea that because I ask God to help suffering children, He is more willing to help them. Sure, my asking may reveal to myself something new, but I don't care about that as much as I hope these people get help. So, do you have any thoughts? What good does generalized, "I ask thee for peace in the Middle East", type prayer do? As if God says to himself, "oh yeah, peace, that's not a bad idea, I think I'll try that."

Finish reading post.