Professor of False Doctrine

A BYU-I religion professor's "Documents List."  Holy crap.  And the ratemyprofessor reviews confirm the crazy.  I was under the impression that BYU got rid of this kind of religion professor with the retirement of Joseph Fielding McConkie and Randy Bott, having replaced them with very excellent, doctrinally-sound professors who actually aren't total idiots.  Apparently BYU-I has a bit of keeping up to do.

A bit worried, I dug up a course list of BYU-I's Biology Department, and a list of required courses for Biology majors.  Whew.  At least their Biology Department is on the right track, teaching real science even if some members of the religion department can't handle it.  If only that religion professor knew as much about biology as those biology professors know about religion...

In any case, here's hoping BYU-I can get rid of the CES-type religion professors and hire religion professors with a bit more credibility.

A fun side-note--my wife actually took a class from this guy.  This class permanently soured her on religion courses, and not because of the false doctrine, but because of the poor teaching method.

What in the World Happened in the 1940's?

Directly from the church website at https://www.lds.org/callings/young-women/leader-resources/history/history-of-young-women-recognition?lang=eng

"History of Young Women Recognition:

Requirements of 1915 included:

• Care successfully for a hive of bees for one season and know their habits.
• Cover 25 miles on snowshoes on any six days.
• During two weeks, keep the house free from flies, or destroy at least 25 flies daily.
• Without help or advice, care for and harness a team at least five times [and] drive 50 miles during one season.
• Clear sagebrush off of one-half acre of land.

From the 1940s to the 1960s, Beehives earned emblems to sew onto a Beehive bandalo. Some of those requirements included:

• Strive to get your full nine hours’ beauty sleep each night this month. Make it a habit.
• Increase your self-confidence by acquiring a good posture (sitting, standing, and walking).
• Politeness in all things is the mark of a lady. Practice at home being considerate and polite. Learn to accept directions graciously.
• Make the dinner hour joyous by improving table manners of the entire family.
• Look for something beautiful every day for two months."

I'd love to say this is a joke.  It sure sounds like one.  But unless someone's hacked the church website and is having some major fun, it's sadly not a joke.

What happened in the 1940's?  Seriously.

Also, no woman spoke in the regular sessions of General Conference between 1946 and 1984.  http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/we-shall-now-call-on-some-of-our-sisters-lds-women-and-general-conference-participation/

Again, what happened in the 1940's?  Thank goodness those days are over...

Harvard Religion

In which the most prestigious (and probably the coolest) former bishopric gets even more prestigious:

http://www.hds.harvard.edu/news-events/articles/2013/03/27/david-f-holland-scholar-of-american-religious-history-appointed-to-h

This is cool for a couple of reasons.  First, it's freaking Harvard, and it's safe to say no member of the church has ever been in the religion department here (or in any other truly top-tier school, unless you include Vanderbilt).

Second, Duff David Holland is just a cool dude.  A bit quiet, unassuming, yet still friendly.  The obligatory young married member of the Singles Ward Bishopric.  The kind of guy who wasn't afraid to ditch Sunday School with a couple of guys in the singles ward to go visit someone in the hospital (and yes, we made it back before church ended).  Who showed up to singles ward picnics and made a point of talking to the new kid.  Who shied away from talk of his famous father.

Congrats, Duff.  Good to see you making a name for yourself.

Will Led Zeppelin Finally be Inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame prides itself in recognizing " the contributions of those who have had a significant impact on the evolution, development and perpetuation of rock and roll by inducting them into the Hall of Fame."

And yet critics have noted that many of the most important bands in rock and roll have been ignored by the Hall of Fame.  Most notably, Led Zeppelin, who pioneered hard rock and metal and sold hundreds of millions of albums.

Vocalist Robert Plant admits his disappointment at being ignored so long by the Hall of Fame.  "Sure, it's a bit of a surprise we haven't been inducted yet.  It's a bit of a shame.  But we're proud of our music, and our record speaks for itself.  And we're not alone in being ignored for so long--Rush and Heart were only just inducted last year, and Deep Purple, among other great bands, hasn't been inducted yet either."

Rush drummer Neil Peart, at last year's Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony, stated that he was "deeply influenced by Led Zeppelin's music.  They really deserve to be here with us."  In 2009 Metallica band members expressed similar feelings towards Rush.  Perhaps in another three years Led Zeppelin will finally be recognized by the Hall. 

The list of bands not yet inducted is surprising.  Besides Led Zeppelin and the highly influential Deep Purple, bands like Kiss, Jethro Tull, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, King Crimson (the pioneers of progressive rock), Yes, Boston, Styx, Foreigner, The Moody Blues, Bon Jovi, Peter Gabriel, and ELP are not a part of the Hall of Fame.  Meanwhile, plenty of inducted artists aren't even close to rock.  Many pop artists, blues artists, R&B artists, etc. are somehow part of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.  The list includes all sorts of non-rock names no one's ever heard of, along with bigger non-rock names like Madonna and Aretha Franklin.  Names that have nothing to do with rock and roll. 

So why has a band like Led Zeppelin been shunned for so long?  Perhaps the executives who run the Hall don't like the music.  Perhaps they don't like Jimmy Page or Robert Plant.  Perhaps they don't like the nonconformist sound.  Perhaps they don't believe the band fits their image of an MTV world.  Perhaps they want the Hall of Fame to have a more American and less British flavor.  Who knows.  The business executives in charge of the induction process aren't telling.  In any case, the failure of the Hall of Fame to induct Led Zeppelin, as well as pioneering bands like Deep Purple and King Crimson, leave many people believing the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a joke.

And as long as bands like Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple aren't a part of the Hall of Fame, rock fans will continue to mock it.

Microsoft Office Issues

So a few months ago I bought Microsoft Office 2010.  I bought it specifically because it promised me an upgrade to Office 365 once 365 came out.  When that happened several weeks ago, I created a Microsoft account (using my work email as user name) and signed up for it.

Problem is, Microsoft insists on verifying my email address before I can upgrade.  I try to verify, and I'm told there's a "temporary" problem with the service.  Except it's not exactly temporary.  I used a Godaddy email address (my work one, attached to my website) and apparently Microsoft discriminates against Godaddy and refuses to allow those email addresses to work.  Microsoft also won't allow me to change my email address/user name (in fact, they won't allow anyone to change it--a "temporary" problem that's been going on for several months now).  I try to create a new user name for Microsoft and install Office 365, and I'm told I'm out of luck because I've already installed Office 365.

I'm sure all that made perfect sense...

In any case:

I hate Microsoft.  Maybe it's time to make the change to Google Docs.

Mental Illness Follow-up

Just saw this article at Deseret News (the Church newspaper).  It's great for a few reasons--it mentions a General Authority's book on the subject, it mentions George Albert Smith's struggle with mental illness, and it makes clear that members of the church have issues understanding mental illnesses.

Given my experience a few weeks ago, this topic is one that needs to be discussed in much more depth.  It's good to see some of that discussion happening.

Happiness and Depression

And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?  Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents.

So I had the wonderful opportunity today to attend my parents' ward, the ward I grew up in--and the even more wonderful opportunity to attend actual classes that weren't aimed at 3-year-olds.  I didn't realize until today how much I actually missed those classes.

The EQ lesson was on being happy.  Things were going well, and then someone noticed a bit of a problem--Abraham Lincoln was by most accounts a great guy, and yet he wasn't often very happy.  I should have brought up George Albert Smith's apparent depression and anxiety disorders at this point--the poor man spent literal years in bed suffering from it, and it affected him quite tremendously when doing missionary work.  Of course, he then went on to be the prophet, although I imagine he probably still struggled with his mental health issues.

Prior to that point, the lesson had been on how to be happy--it's a choice, and our choice in how to behave (be productive, choose the right, etc.) combined with a decision to be happy leads to happiness.

I'm fine with that, as a general idea.  But once Lincoln was brought up, I thought it essential to bring up depression (the mental illness, not the phase).  Essentially, I stated that happiness is difficult for some not because of sin or other issues like that, but because of genetics--mental illnesses are just as real as physical illnesses, and they can affect happiness.

I was disappointed by the response, to say the least.  Basically, it was this: people who are depressed can get out of it and become happy by turning their lives around and by stopping their sinful ways.

I was a lone voice.  And a visitor.  When I was EQ President that idea would've died a quick death--I would have killed it quickly and firmly--but I wasn't in a position to deal with it like that here.

I think there are three things that determine how happy we are.  First, our choices.  Second, our genes.  And third, our environment.  We have full control over our choices, no control over our genes, and no control over the part of our environment that's not controllable by our choices (and much of our environment we have no control over).

Mental illness, whether depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety, or whatever, is largely hereditary.  Anxiety and probably other disorders run on my mother's side of the family, and many of us have varying degrees of these illnesses.  I should also mention that those with these illnesses often seem to suffer from higher IQs.  Genes largely control this (although the genes may be triggered by environmental factors).  Someone with untreated depression--not just the phase, but the mental illness--is going to have an extremely difficult time being happy, regardless of how righteous they are.  I'm not going to say it's always impossible, but often it may be.  And if you have the mental illness, it's not like alcoholism (which some well-meaning soul brought up in the class to try to prove that we always have a choice, even if we're depressed).  With alcoholism, there's no huge desire for it unless you actually become addicted to it, and you don't become addicted to it if you never try it.  How is that at all comparable to a mental illness?  If you have a mental illness and you're ever conscious, you're going to suffer from that mental illness.  Not at all like alcoholism.

Our environment also makes a huge difference.  I take that word from my biology background, but I could also call it our situation and surroundings.  I've been unemployed and very worried about ever finding work, and I've been self-employed and very worried about making enough money to pay the bills.  Being unemployed was the worse of the two, but both are very difficult places to be at.  And, at least for me, it's a lot more difficult for me to be happy in those situations.  Last month I wasn't getting business and I was very worried about paying the bills.  This month I've gotten three new clients and I'm not so worried anymore, although continuing to get new business is always a concern.  Am I happier this month?  Oh yeah.  Because it looks like my family's basic needs will be taken care of, and so a huge amount of stress has largely disappeared.  I'm not any more righteous now than I was last month--I'm just having better luck with how the business is going.

I think many church members who aren't unhappy like to attribute any happiness they have to their personal righteousness, and any unhappiness others have to those individuals' wickedness.  And here enters pride, in one of its many forms.
    
The blind man wasn't to blame for his blindness, and unhappy people are often not to blame for their unhappiness.  Happiness has never been a marker of righteousness, at least not in this life.

The International Church

The LDS Church prides itself in being an international church, with stakes and temples in many countries.  With large numbers of members in Latin America, the Pacific Islands, and the Philippines, and with stakes, temples, wards, and branches throughout most of Africa, Europe, Australia, and the rest of Asia, we are indeed an international church.  But the message sometimes has trouble getting through.

Being an international church requires adaptation.  Scouts is strongly touted as an important arm of the Young Men's program in the church.  But only in the U.S.  As this is an international church, how will the church deal with this?  I don't see enough interest internationally in young men joining their countries' version of the BSA.  Clearly they have working programs without involving the scouting program.  So why is it continued here in the U.S.?  How much longer will the international church continue its strong ties with the Boy Scouts of America?  Couldn't the church create its own program for both Young Men and Young Women that stresses life skills (cooking, first aid, etc.), outdoor experiences (camping, hiking, rafting, etc.), and introductions to different career paths?  Frankly, I'm not convinced the BSA is doing a great job here.  I think the church could create a better program and involve all young members of the church, regardless of their gender or country, in that program.  It would be great if young members in every country could have access to those same resources, tailored of course to the individual country.

Release time seminary is another issue.  Go a couple hundred miles outside the Mormon Corridor and no one does release time seminary.  So the question is, why does the church do it here?  In Cincinnati, seminary teacher was just another demanding calling, the seminary teacher was unpaid, and kids got up bright and early in order to attend before school.  There was no issue with potential priestcraft, no paid want-to-be-clergy.  (Well, excluding potentially-paid CES professionals, and I've only met one of those outside of Utah, and most of his students knew more about the gospel and about real life than he did).  Here in the Mormon Corridor, vast amounts of tithing money pays for teachers to teach your kids gospel subjects.  And quite honestly, professional seminary teachers don't have any more special gospel knowledge than unpaid seminary teachers in Cincinnati do.  The international church does things one way, and the Utah church does things another.  It would be incredibly easy to call volunteer seminary teachers from each ward and have them teach early morning seminary in a church building each morning before school.  Why the discrepancy? 

The other growing pain issue I've noticed is that those who speak to an international church often forget their audience and start to think that everyone they're speaking to grew up in small-town Idaho.  (For the record, my kids are growing up in small-town Idaho.)  Concepts like American football are referred to with the expectation that everyone knows what football is, and without even thinking of the fact that many listeners will become confused because many English speakers understand "football" to mean "soccer" and the speaker doesn't make himself clear by referring specifically to "American football."  Listeners are told to not delay marriage or lobby for women's rights when some of the listeners live in or come from countries where women typically get married before age 18 or where women don't have many rights.  Granted, remarks made in General Conference are more likely to make it to a wide international audience, but even university-level devotionals will include as their audience many international students, and in this information age devotionals can just as easily be listened to in Pakistan as in Provo.  Those speaking to a world-wide church need to remember they're speaking to a world-wide church.  Discussion of scouting and many other issues should be done at the local, and not the world-wide, level.  And if they're done at the world-wide level, by all means they need to be qualified by a statement like, "Here in the United States..."

We're an international church.  We're experiencing some growing pains.  But we need to get used to our new position and adapt if we truly want to be seen as an international church.

Hometeaching. And how things have changed.

So, I'm officially part of the most liberal hometeaching companionship in Shelley, and possibly all of Eastern Idaho (or at least north of Pocatello).

I suspected as much when I found out my hometeaching companion works for the Idaho Falls Arts Council, and when he continued to show up to church with a non-conformist color of shirt (non-conformist in Idaho, at least).  But he's confirmed it.

Now, if I can only get out of primary so I can attend some of more ridiculous classes that sometimes happen in our ridiculously conservative small town, if only to support him and his wife.  Like today, where the subject in joint PH/RS was "how is today different than 90 years ago."  His wife answered "women can vote."  Apparently many in the class grumbled about that answer (most likely because it was a positive answer and they just wanted to spew negative ones).  Me?  I would have asked, right out of the gate, "Are you asking how are things better or how are things worse?"  Because honestly, there's a lot of both.  My second question would have been "why 90 years instead of 80?"  I'm glad I wasn't a young man during World War I, the Great Depression, or World War II.  Or for any of the other wars with a draft.  And a number like 90 is, quite frankly, cherry-picking.  In fact, according to Wikipedia, for the U.S. the 1920's, 1950's, and 1990's were the three decades with the most economic prosperity in the U.S. in the last 100 years.

Had I responded with actual answers, to combat the wave of negative answers (all except "women can vote" were negative), I would have discussed the plummeting of childhood diseases and death rates.  Or I could have talked about how horrible conditions were in Germany.  My great-grandfather (effectively my fifth grandparent, as I was one of the oldest great-grandchildren and he lived a long life, with a healthy mind until the end) was serving a mission in Germany in 1923, 90 years ago.  Let's just say the end of WWI had not left Germany in a very good state, and things were entirely miserable.  Far worse than the Great Depression here.  Had things been half-decent there, it's unlikely Hitler would've been able to gain the popularity to rise to power.

Or I could have mentioned all kinds of other things.

In any case, it's good to have an ally (with his wife, two). 

Pants

So, there's apparently a movement to get LDS women to wear pants (dress pants) to church on Sunday.  This Sunday.  And for men to wear something purple (such as a tie).

Why?

I've heard all kinds of reasons for it, from supporters and detractors.  The most extreme being that it shows slack-wearing women want to be just like men, hold the priesthood, etc.

The most mild being that women are tired of being frowned on for showing up in dress slacks, and sometimes even told that nice dress pants are inappropriate.

And the conversation gets lost, as people incorrectly assume one or the other, and incorrectly assume that everyone behind the movement supports the extreme, or everyone against the movement opposes the mild.

It's true.  A few women are apparently doing it because of the extreme.  And plenty of people are doing it because the cultural norm of no pants is just stupid.  (For the record, so is the cultural norm of only white shirts, a norm which I plan on "protesting," like I've done a few times in the past two or three months, on Sunday).

And those many, many men and women who aren't doing it because of the extreme, but believe the pants are just a symbol--they're asking for the right to have a woman give a prayer in General Conference, for women to be in Sunday School Presidencies (unlike just a few years ago, they can't even be the secretary any more) and other entirely non-doctrinal changes in rights and responsibilities.  None of which require that women hold the priesthood.

And of course I'm sure there will be many women wearing pants and many men wearing purple who are doing so for reasons entirely unrelated to this whole drama.

So don't assume you know people's reasons for wearing slacks, purple, or a colored shirt.  Because if you do there's a good chance you're assuming too much.  And we always know what happens when you assume...

One Potential Side Effect of Decrease of European Missions

I served a mission in Germany from 1999-2001.  My mission was one of six German missions; there was another one in Austria and possibly one in the Swiss-speaking part of Switzerland. 

The number of missions there started to drop almost immediately after I returned home.  In 2001, the mission just north of us closed, sending half their missionaries to us and half to Hamburg. 

Now, where there were seven or eight missions, there are just three.  Frankfurt (my mission), Berlin, and a mission encompassing parts of Switzerland, parts of southern Germany, and all of Austria.

I'm not sure of other numbers in Western Europe, but I believe there has been a tremendous drop in the number of missionaries throughout Great Britain and Scandinavia as well as France, Germany, and other smaller neighboring countries.

Part of this probably has to do with the fact that lots of missionaries were getting sent to Europe without a lot of results.  I served in small branches with five other missionaries and very little success; I also served in decent-sized wards with eight missionaries and lots of baptisms.  But success, as far as numbers went, was the exception rather than the rule, and six missionaries in a tiny branch was just overkill.

So I don't disagree with the movement to close down many of these missions.

However, I think the movement will have some unforeseen consequences.

I've noticed that a large percentage of my more liberal LDS friends served missions in Europe.  Germany, France, Scandinavia.  For example, all of my LDS friends who "like" Obama on Facebook have either spent significant time in Western Europe or are married to someone who did.  And thinking of my friends who served in Europe (with the exception of Italy), I believe all of them are either liberal or, in one or two cases, moderate.  (Interestingly enough, the two who served in Italy and have made their political views know to me are severely conservative).

Sure, I had a lot of missionary companions who were quite conservative.  I'm not arguing that everyone that serves in Europe comes back liberal.  But I do notice a pattern, especially among my friends.

Is this a coincidence?  Or are they chosen to go to Europe because they are already a bit more liberal and so would fit in better there?

Or, more likely, did their experience in seeing how another technologically advanced society successfully addressed poverty, and then seeing poverty here in the U.S., lead them to believe that there is, indeed, a better way?

I returned from my mission a conservative.  Sure, I was pro-science and pro-environment, but I also didn't do a whole lot of thinking about politics.  When the Iraq war was starting up I was uneasy about it but after Colin Powell told us there were weapons of mass destruction there, I told myself that it was okay if we fought there because they'd broken their treaty with us.  I was a hesitant supporter, but a supporter anyway, at least until the truth came out.

But a Bioethics course at BYU, where I discussed ethical issues with other students, many of them pre-meds and pre-dentals, ultimately changed my way of thinking.  I went into that class already thinking differently than most of those conservative students, and I came out realizing that my different views on ethics probably meant I had different views on politics as well.  My life experiences--including my time in Germany--gave me different perspectives, even if I didn't realize until several years later how that impacted my politics.

I'm afraid with the closing down of European missions that fewer and fewer members of the church will get to experience Europe, and having not experienced Europe, will continue to mistakenly believe that the U.S. does everything better than everyone else.  I don't know what the demographics will look like in the future--if the number of liberal church members will decrease or increase--but I'm fairly certain that the decrease in the number of LDS missions and missionaries in Western Europe will have a negative effect on the number of liberals in the church.

10 Days

Elections are in ten days.

I've already voted.  Some of my votes may matter (local issues, etc.)  Some don't (any vote where the candidate has an "R" next to his name--heck, even if it's a future General Authority like Larry EchoHawk, voters in the Eastern Idaho section of the Mormon Corridor won't vote for a Democrat).

I like getting involved in politics, but the radical stance people take on issues--and how uninformed they are about the issues they're fighting for--has always bothered me.  This goes for ultra-liberals as well as ultra-conservatives.  The other guy running for president isn't ever as bad as he's made out to be.

But the thing that bothers me the most this year is how convinced many members of the church are that God wants Mitt Romney to win.

Email petitions go around asking people to fast and pray for Romney, with the unsaid assumption that fasting and prayer will help him win, because that's what God wants.

I hear people make comments like "You're not voting for Romney?  You better pray about that," with the assumption that, of course, God will tell them to vote for Romney.

We're told, repeatedly, by the leadership of the church, that the church takes no stance on which candidate should win, and that good can be found in both major political parties.  If only the members would listen...

There have been some attacks made on Mormonism--initially, in the primaries, by conservatives who didn't want Romney to win the primaries, and now, primarily, by liberals who don't want him to win.  Most of these attacks are silly and misinformed.

But there is one attack that would be both valid and potent.  "Look at how many Mormons "know" that God wants Mitt Romney to win the presidency.  See, they really are fanatical crazies."

Time to humble ourselves (as a people) and stop putting words in God's mouth. 

Teaching Primary

I have lived in four different wards in Idaho.

The first was our first year of marriage.  We were called to teach the Sunbeams.

Second was right after law school.  I was called to teach 10 and 11 year olds (mostly boys).

Third was after that stake was reorganized and we were assigned to a different ward.  I had three different callings in this ward (all at the same time), including one where April and I taught 9 and 10 year olds, although we only did that calling for our last month or two.

Fourth is now.  We've been in our house for almost two months, and we finally get callings.  5 year olds.

I accepted the calling, but it's frustrating.  I don't know anyone in this ward.  We don't have hometeachers assigned to us (as far as I know), and I don't have a hometeaching assignment.  And now that I'm being placed into primary, I won't get much chance to interact with other men in the ward.

What is it that makes Idaho bishops throw the new guy into primary, where he'll be isolated from other men, and as a result will have difficulty making friends?  You can tell me that every calling is inspired of God, but I've spent enough time in leadership positions to know that's not the case (unless things operate differently in Idaho).  Sometimes you have a need and a potential person to fill that need, and inspiration plays no part.  And sometimes the calling is just wrong.  (I spent six months of my mission in a ward where most of the leadership--Bishop, RS Pres, EQ Pres, etc--had, ten years before I got there, been excommunicated or disfellowshipped--do we really want to say that their callings were inspired?) 

But smart bishops should realize that isolating men by placing them in the primary is a good idea only if the man already has friends in the ward.

For the record, the only ward in Idaho where I've truly made friends is the last ward, where I had two other callings.  Being an EQ teacher, even if it was just once a month, allowed me to get to know other guys in the ward.  And having time to wander the halls due to a very active pre-nursery kid didn't hurt either, as it gave me a chance to talk to other hall wanderers.

So I'm dreading this calling.  Not the part about teaching the class, because I'm sure that will be fine.  But the part about not getting to know any other guys in the ward.  I've been there before, and it sucks.

Happy Conference Weekend!

I've always wondered if President Uchtdorf had the same politics as just about every other German member of the church I've ever met--in other words, if he could vote in the U.S., if he'd regularly vote Democrat.  (And yes, having served a mission in Germany, I've met a ton of German members of the church).

Elder Jensen, who was church historian and is now being released as an active member of the 70 (having aged out), is well known as being a Democrat.  He's received pressure from several people to run for political office in Utah.  A Salt Lake Tribune article on Elder Jensen (an excellent article, by the way), originally stated that even President Uchtdorf had encouraged him to run, according to Elder Jensen's wife.

If that's true, that makes it even more likely Elder Jensen and President Uchtdorf share political views.

Interestingly, I just returned to the article in order to link to it, and the language has been changed from "President Uchtdorf encouraged" to "First Presidency greenlighted."

Elder Jensen isn't planning on a life of politics.  But it's nice there's political diversity at the top.  (And the political diversity hasn't decreased with the retirement of Elder Jensen--Elder EchoHawk, who recently became a Seventy, served in a prominent position under President Obama, and ran for governor of Idaho as a Democrat.  Of course the Mormons in Eastern Idaho chose to vote for a non-Mormon Republican than a future General Authority, but that's a topic for another day).

Has TV really gotten worse?

Quantum Leap: A TV series about a man who travels in time.  The first season was in 1989.

Journeyman: A TV series about a man who travels in time.  First (and only) season was in 2007, and it's based in San Francisco.

Which is more family friendly?

I watched a couple of episodes of Quantum Leap because I liked Journeyman and I'd heard that Quantum Leap was similar.  I wasn't terribly impressed by the quality of the show.  But what surprised me the most was how un-family-friendly the show was.  Journeyman was something you could actually watch as a family.  The supporting actor in Quantum Leap has a sex addiction, and various episodes (I only watch a couple) feature a stripper, a female streaker, a professor who has sex with students, and...you get the idea.

Don't be under the false illusion that older TV is family friendly and newer TV isn't.  It's not true.

By the way, you can check out Journeyman on Hulu for free.  I'd say it's probably a PG.

Fair and Balanced

I had a client come in last week.  Our discussion got sidetracked a little bit and he told me he didn't like the newspaper in Idaho Falls.  I asked him why, and he told me it was because the paper wasn't at all balanced.

This is NOT a liberal paper.  This is Idaho Falls, after all.  And the city's biggest newspaper, operating in a town where almost everyone is a Republican, can't afford to be liberal.

And yet it was too liberal for his taste.  That's fine.  I accept that.  I realize people like reading stuff they agree with, even if it distorts one's view of reality to only read stuff one agrees with.  But how is "moderately conservative" not balanced enough because it's too liberal?

People here are so convinced that Romney will win the election by a landslide because they know very few people not voting for him.  Lack of political diversity has contributed to the creation of an environment where anyone who believes differently is heavily stigmatized. 

A non-LDS friend, now serving the military abroad, was recently invited to an LDS picnic.  He asked on Facebook if he should wear an Obama t-shirt.  In Cincinnati, friends of ours showed up to the annual trunk-or-treat in the church parking lot with a Hillary Clinton bumper sticker.  We had a tiny ward, but a handful of members there (including some in leadership positions) were openly Democrat.  Like in Cincinnati, I don't think my friend would've had any problems showing up to the picnic in the t-shirt (his wife ultimately talked him out of it).  Unfortunately, in my Idaho county, about 90% of registered voters are Republicans.  Showing up--anywhere--with an Obama t-shirt or bumper sticker is not advisable unless you want your car keyed or public shunning.  And so "balanced" now means "far-right," and "liberal" means evil, at least here.

I'm sure conservatives living in San Francisco have the same problem.

No good comes out of demonizing the other side.  Your political foe should not be your mortal enemy.

The best current British detective story

The best current British detective story...

is not Sherlock Holmes.

I don't mean to say that the modern reincarnation of Sherlock Holmes is poor quality TV.  But it's much harder to like a TV show when the main character is so unsympathetic.

However, those who know the wonders of PBS/BBC Masterpiece Theater should know about another series, available for free (for a couple of weeks, at least) on the PBS website.  It's called "Endeavour."  Excellent detective story, sympathetic main characters.  One of the better Masterpiece shows out there (and Masterpiece shows are usually pretty high quality, so that's saying something).  Of course, I'm judging it entirely off the first episode.  We'll see what next week brings.

Check it out.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/watch/endeavour.html

Health Care and Supreme Court

So, the Supreme Court upheld what some refer to as "Obamacare."  It certainly will be Obama's biggest legacy in his first term.  Many people thought it went way too far, and many thought it didn't go far enough.  It takes the U.S. one step closer to being more like the rest of the first world.

Initially, the law was assumed to be constitutional.  The experts agreed on that point.  But over time, conservatives started attacking the individual mandate--the portion of the law that penalized people for not having health insurance.  A conservative Supreme Court, and recent decisions by that Supreme Court that seem overly partisan in nature (as well as recent political attacks coming from Justices like Scalia, who usually have the good sense to stay out of partisan politics) have cast doubt on the "constitutionality" of the law.  (For the record, the Supreme Court determines whether something is constitutional or not, regardless of what the Founders may or may not have intended).

As I expected, the four liberal Justices all favored the law, and Thomas and Scalia, the far-right-wing Justices, opposed it.  Kennedy is the moderate conservative, and is usually the deciding vote in cases like this (making him a contender for the most powerful man in the U.S.).  Alito (another conservative) and Kennedy both opposed the law.  I actually expected Kennedy to support it, but I wouldn't have been surprised either way.

What is surprising is that Roberts--who is firmly in the conservative camp--voted to uphold the law, including the individual mandate.  His rationale for upholding the law had to do with classifying the penalty as a tax--a rationale I agree with (even if it may not be popular to call it a tax).  Because Roberts saw it as a tax, he saw the law as being constitutional.

The Supreme Court has started to lose credibility in the past twelve years or so.  Many have started to see them as being purely political--ruling based on their political preferences rather on the constitution and previous case law.  Roberts' move here brings the court a bit more credibility, as it was clearly not politically partisan.

So what can we expect now?  As of January 1, 2014, all Americans will be required to have health insurance, or they will have to pay a (rather small) penalty.  The upside is that a family of four making under $88,000 a year will be able to receive some help on insurance payments (and on an intelligent sliding scale, meaning families making $40,000 will receive a lot more help than families making $80,000). 

It also means that families of four who make less than $30,000 will be placed on Medicaid (right now, many children in these families have Medicaid, but, at least in Idaho, their parents can't get it unless the parents are making basically nothing--I think the cutoff is $200/month, or something ridiculous like that, and there is no sliding pay scale).

Next step--how to reduce costs to match the rest of the first world (in other words, cut them in half).  End-of-life care equals 1/3 of all healthcare costs in the U.S., and often the people receiving the care didn't actually want it, but aren't in a mental position to say no when the time comes.  Hopefully Congress can now get started on fixing that without people like Palin crying out "DEATH PANELS" every chance they get.  We need to start cutting the costs, now.

My view of Government

My view of government:

1. Government should allow more freedoms.  Our prisons are overrun and enormously expensive when compared to other first-world countries, largely because we imprison people, sometimes for long periods of time, for things like possession of marijuana.  I'm not necessarily saying that marijuana should be made legal, but perhaps we should make the consequences involve community service and/or fines, instead of serious jail time.

2. The Constitution supports religious freedoms, but our current Supreme Court doesn't quite buy into it.  Religious practices, and not just religious beliefs, that don't harm 3rd parties need to be protected.  And the government needs to continue to keep its hands out of religion, and not provide special privileges or even subtle endorsements to its favorite religions.  All religions, no matter how small, should have an equal playing field with regards to the government.

3. People should continue to have plenty of freedoms of speech.  I don't believe corporations deserve quite so much protection, and I don't believe speech that functions merely to sell something deserves quite that high level of freedom of speech.

4. I believe in an adequate safety net.  The U.S. pays twice as much per person as other first-world countries for healthcare, and yet many in the U.S. are without health insurance.  Both those facts need to change, and they can with a single-payer system.  Employer-based health insurance may have worked when it was cheap and people stuck with the same job their whole lives.  It doesn't work any more.  If everyone had access to free or cheap healthcare, people would be more willing to take the risk of starting their own businesses, thus fueling creativity and innovation.  Major health issues could be resolved before a trip to the expensive E.R.  I also believe in an adequate safety net with concern to food and basic housing.

5. I believe that in times of low unemployment, the government should cut costs, raise taxes, and save up money, and that in times of high unemployment, the government should create low-income job opportunities.  My grandfather was forever grateful that FDR did this during the Great Depression.  Many of the projects that my grandfather and others like him worked on still stand today.  The U.S. decided to pay for a cheap labor force instead of letting that potential go to waste.  If only they had done the same this time around.

6. I believe it's ridiculous for the U.S. to have a military far, far, far greater than any other military currently existing.  Based on my father's brief time working as a civilian for an air force base, I also believe there is a tremendous amount of waste in the military.

7. I believe every child has a right to a good education.  Teachers should be well-compensated based on skill and field, and not just experience, and they should be easy to fire.  Classroom sizes should be small. 

8. Most tax loopholes and breaks should be eliminated, including the mortgage interest and health insurance loopholes.  Loopholes distort the market and, although they may help the middle class in some cases, the ones who profit the most from these are those who don't need them--the rich.

9. Health care for old people on the verge of death (Medicare) should not be significantly better than health care for children (Medicaid).

10. Everyone should pay the same percentage of their income to social security--rich people should not get major breaks on this like they do now.

11. The U.S. should work towards paying off its debt--but perhaps it should wait to do so until it's no longer in the greatest Recession since the Great Depression.

Another great TV show canceled prematurely

Anyone else seen "Awake"?  It's an intelligent, well-written and well-acted show about a cop that survives a car accident only to arrive in two different realities--one where his son died in the accident, and one where his wife died in the accident.  Every time he goes to sleep he wakes up in the other reality.

It's great TV.  I highly recommend it.  Unfortunately, it was recently canceled.  13 episodes.

I'm not trying to say this is as good as Firefly, or anything like that.  Still, though, it's a great show, canceled prematurely.  The best network TV currently has to offer.

Any other shows worth watching?