Context [l33t]

Some Food Thoughts

2010-10-11T13:44:00.000-07:00

I have two motivations for this post.

1) The Gilmore Girls have been the front page of my blog for far too long.

2) I want to make a record of a few interesting food experiences I've had lately.

So, here are those food experiences.

Experience A: Figs

I had fresh figs for the first time that I can recall this weekend. I don't like them. There are too many seeds, and the flavor isn't sharp enough for my liking. I actually ate them with goat cheese, which has a very sharp flavor, but the flavors didn't mix well enough to improve the pungent fig taste for me.

Despite this bad experience with fresh figs, Fig Newtons are still awesome.

Experience B: Naan Bread

Normally, I like Indian food when it's there, but I never crave it. I have a newfound respect for Tikki Masala, but that would be a tangent. And I'm not a man who tolerates tangents. In any case, Naan bread is one of the greatest things to come out of India since the Just So Stories. I realize that the bread was probably around before Rudyard Kipling.

Experience C: The Cheese Shop

So, this past Thursday, we went to help Annie's mom paint in a place called Ridgefield, CT. It's rather a rich person's town. We saw one of these on the road:

NOTE: It's an Aston Martin DB9. I knew this because I've started watching Top Gear, one of the funniest television shows ever. It's a show about cars, which may make it inaccessible for some of you who read this blog, but when I make Annie watch clips of it, she always laughs a lot. Yet she still won't watch full episodes with me. Odd? I think so, but I'm sure she has her reasons. Anyway, writing any more about this would be another tangent. And again, I'm not a man who tolerates tangents.

In any case, while in Ridgefield, CT, I had the opportunity to walk into a cheese shop. It was all I could do not to launch into the Monty Python cheese shop sketch the moment I walked in the door. Still, I was able to control myself, and after a conversation with the extraordinarily helpful shop owner, I bought two kinds of cheese.

First, Brebirousse D'Argental.

Artisancheesegallery.wordpress.com has this to say about Brebirousse: "A ewe’s milk cheese from the Lyon region, France, the Brebirousse is a lovely soft and creamy aromatic cheese. It spreads wonderfully on a sliced baguette and pairs with both a crisp dry white and a sweet ice wine."

Second, Tallegio

Tallegio, according to artisanalcheese.com, is "a semi-soft, washed-rind cheese from the Valtaleggio region in northern Italy, near Lombardy. It is characteristically aromatic yet mild in flavor and features tangy, meaty notes with a fruity finish."

I absolutely loved both of these things. I may be a little bit of a food snob, and I'm absolutely a nerd, but I really love good cheese. I could have spent an hour in that cheese shop, and I can hardly stand to spend an hour in any store.

I'm not going to back off of my stance on tangents, but I'm going to go on a bit of a sidebar here. One of the troubles with the view that we should all give away everything we have above subsistence level until everyone in the world reaches subsistence level is that most of the things that really make life interesting and sweet would not longer be economically viable to produce. There would be no Brebirousse, no Tallegio, no Aston Martin DB9's, no television shows--probably no televisions, for that matter--no internet, etc. I'm not saying that this makes economic equality an undesirable goal, but I'm saying that there's something important against which to balance the goal.

That's about the whole of it. I'll end with a gratuitous picture of my wife. Because I love her.

What I Learned from the Gilmore Girls

2010-08-06T11:05:00.000-07:00

Annie loves Gilmore Girls--as, I've found, do a lot of women I know. I'm generally not so fond of the show. My main quarrel with it is that many of the "conversations"--especially those between the two main characters--seem to be races to see how fast they can get the lines out. They sound like they're just saying lines really fast rather than actually talking to each other, and the frenetic pace gets under my skin a little.

So the other night, I was wanting to do something that Annie likes to do. Usually, in order to do this, I have to think of something that she would want to do, propose that we do it, and then convince Annie that I actually want to do it. Otherwise she won't do it and we have to do something that I like. Few men have to suffer so much to do things for their wives :)

On this particular night, I proposed that we watch Gilmore Girls and managed to convince Annie that I wanted to do it. So we did. In the first episode we watched, Rory was having a hot affair with a former boyfriend (Dean) who had since married Lindsay (I think), who appeared to be a lovely girl.

Immediately I wondered why so many women that I know and admire, including my wife, talk about loving Rory so much. Rory's a tramp who breaks up a marriage that the wife was clearly trying desperately to save! Seeing later episodes only made it worse--yeah, Rory feels bad about it for a while, but ultimately she and Dean establish that he would have left his wife for Rory even if the wife hadn't kicked Dean out, and he and Rory date.

So my opinion of Rory was quite low.

To my astonishment, Annie had forgotten that the affair even occurred. She had an "oh, yeah..." moment as we began watching and were immediately confronted with Rory's adultery. How could something so big as a flagrant violation of the seventh commandment escape her memory?

My conclusion was that Annie had seen all seven seasons of Gilmore Girls multiple times, and thus she knew Rory a lot better than I did. Maybe Rory learns, at some point, that adultery is still a horrible thing no matter how much you happen to love the other person. Or, more likely, maybe Annie, knowing more of Rory, was able to balance everything out and still love her.

That would have some comforting implications. I tend to look at my mistakes one by one and internally castigate myself for each mistake relative to its severity. Because I make a lot of mistakes, some of them quite serious, I'm almost always mad at myself about something. This is extremely frustrating to Annie, who frequently has to assure me that I am a good person and that she loves me even though I keep screwing up. She looks at me as a whole, and miraculously is able to see good.

For God, who can look on the totality of my existence, perhaps that ability is eternally magnified. Perhaps that is why He can have billions of children who rape, murder, steal, and commit senseless acts of cruelty, and still love each of them more than we can comprehend. And perhaps that is why every time I pray saying "Father, I messed up again," He's there to help me pick up the pieces.

A Room With A View (Part II)

2010-04-29T10:09:00.000-07:00

Better now?

A Room with a View

2010-02-22T13:09:00.001-08:00

Boston's kind of a pretty place. People should come visit us.

The Non-Super Bowl Party

2010-02-08T15:08:00.000-08:00

As much as I love football, I've never watched a Super Bowl. That's just how my parents raised me. In what probably amounts to a case of ignorance being bliss, it's never bothered me too much that I don't get to see the game. However, as I grew older and came to know the wonders of good party fare/appetizers, I became extremely envious of Super Bowl parties, where apparently such things are had in abundance. I explained my frustrations to Annie last year around this time. We decided that there was no reason we couldn't have a party celebrating the joys of finger food even if we didn't partake of the pinnacle of commercial glamor and American sport that usually accompanies such parties. Thus, in what we hoped would become a tradition, we held our inaugural Non-Super Bowl Party.

We continued the tradition this year. We made a fruit salad, bought some wings, and procured a bag of tater tots that really should only have been purchased by a day care or a mother of twelve. We invited a few other couples, who brought other fantastic appetizers, including homemade meatballs that just made the world better and the greatest cheese dip ever (they mail ordered the ingredients). It was great fun, and we may have made some friends, which would be a first for us as a couple.

I would have posted pictures, but the following happened: part of our massive grocery shopping trip for the party (3 grocery stores! None of them had Lil' Smokies!) included a trip to BJ's--a sort of east coast Costco. There, we got batteries for my camera. As we were heading out, I realized that the cashier hadn't rung up the batteries, so I went back and paid for them. The guy who checks your receipt at the door was very impressed. He was adamant that I should receive a medal. Well, however much integrity I have, I make up for it with stupidity. I left the batteries in the shopping cart in the parking lot. So we don't have any pictures.

...and then I found five bucks!

The Rest of My Day

2010-02-01T19:46:00.001-08:00

1:30- I start working again. My lunch breaks are always longer than I want them to be because I'm easily distracted. ESPN.com, realclearpolitics.com, drudgereport.com, hulu.com, and my netflix account constantly beg for my attention, and I give it to them much more often than I should. Incidentally, all of the stories about Peyton Manning paint him as a great guy, extremely hard worker. It's a sad product of today's sports that I'm just waiting for him to make the inevitable mistake that will assassinate his character.

I start working on the Natural Resources homework for tomorrow. The assignments usually range between 40-50 pages per night. A lot of students here are probably faster, but it usually takes me three or four hours to get through all of it. Today, by 3:00, my head is about to explode. I decide that now would be a good time to go back to the gym, but Annie gets off at 3, and I want to see her before I go. So I start doing research for the Environmental Law Clinic, which I'm doing this semester.

3:00-4:30 research. Reading statutes and cases, figuring how how they apply to the facts of our case. I like doing this, which bodes well for my career. I often don't like law school, but I like doing litigation work. I hope I'm actually good at it, but I don't know. I wrote a brief for a really easy appellate case last summer, and we won that case. But it was the legal equivalent of a layup. I spend about 30 minutes a day torturing myself by wondering whether I'll really be a good lawyer or not.

4:45- out the door to the gym. Spent a few minutes just talking and goofing off with Annie before I left. Best part of my day so far.

5:00-6:30- basketball. Spent most of the time waiting to get on the court. I'm slower than I used to be, I can't shoot anymore, and I don't jump as high as I used to. I shouldn't feel old at 25. But gosh, do I love playing sports. You know how some people just feel at home in the water, swimming? I feel at home on the soccer field and the basketball court.

On the way home, I pick up parsley for the pesto we're going to make for dinner. Annie ends up making it while I continue reading my Natural Resources assignment.

8:00- FHE. We sing before we study, which Annie originally hated (and may still hate), but I love and think is important. Her voice is really good; I wish I could get her to sing louder so that I could hear it :)

8:30- a couple episodes of Seinfeld. Sometimes this space is filled with Friends (Annie cannot live without Friends, and it turns out I like the show), Alias, or the Dick Van Dyke Show.

9:30- back to work. Still have to read for Theories About Law, tomorrow's assignment for Federal Civil Litigation, and the scriptures. Still, I'll put a cap on it around 11. I've learned over the years that you can get away without doing all of the reading.

My Day

2010-02-01T19:07:00.000-08:00

Many of you may not be aware of the kind of person I've become. I think that most everyone who ever looks at this thing has spent some period of time in which they were pretty closely involved in my life--knew what I did most of the time. But not anymore. So, this is how things go now.

Woke up at 7:45. That's a good morning--3 mornings per week I go prepare breakfast for a lesbian couple and "their" son, and then I take the little boy to school. Those mornings, I have to wake up at 6:15. Even waking up at 7:45 today, I seriously contemplated going back to sleep until I absolutely had to wake up.

Annie did that morning job this morning, and she gets home from it at about 8:25. Just in time for me to kiss her as I'm walking out the door. We make fruit smoothies every morning--I left it on the counter for her, where I also tragically left my part of it.

Class at 8:40- Federal Civil Litigation. My group and I, along with all of the other groups, had submitted a drafts of a Complaint last Friday, and the professor spent today telling us how terribly we'd done. He thinks that we should be so dedicated to our jobs that we should be up every night reading laws and treatises between midnight and 2 a.m. He tells us that every day of class.

Class at 10:20, right after the first one ended--Natural Resources Law and Policy. I have a visiting professor for this one, and my experience with those that they're fairly low quality. If this guy's tasteful clothes and impeccably styled hair are any indication, he plays for the other team. He also has stlyishly long stubble, which he sometimes plays with absently as he's trying to get through another sentence, which doesn't come easily to him. The concepts in the class are interesting, but I prefer to get them from the book.

11:50- walking home for lunch. I had planned to play basketball at the campus gym before going home, but my gym clothes are sitting, perfectly packed, next to my smoothie. It's a 15 minute walk. Winds in Harvard Square average around 12 mph, which combined with the habitually sub-freezing winter temperatures makes for a cold walk. Deciding whether or not to call Annie or a family member on the walk home is a question of how much I love my hand that day.

I guess I have a lot to say about my day :) So I'll split it into another post.

Natural Resources Law and Policy

2010-01-24T08:53:00.001-08:00

That's one of my classes this semester. And I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I think the way we treat the non-human parts of our world is important, for a couple of reasons. Oh, incidentally, for those of you who may have thought about this a lot more than I have, I'd like to point out that I know that everything I'm about to write over-simplifies the issues, but you have to start somewhere.

First, how I treat the environment affects other people. After all, what I pour into the river upstream is what you're drinking downstream. So, in some ways, how I treat the environment is part of how I treat other people. There's also the bit about preserving the environment for future generations.

Second, how I treat the environment is important in itself. I draw this from Genesis 1:28, among other scriptures. That's the one about multiplying and replenishing the earth, subduing it and having dominion over it, etc. I read this to mean "stewardship."

So those are the reasons that I think it's important to think about and try to preserve/improve/whatever the non-human parts of the world (it's been pointed out to me that "nature" is kind of a hard term to pin down).

On the other hand, to study Natural Resources Law and Policy at Harvard Law School, you have to deal with a lot of ideologies that I find kind of strange. For instance, some people believe in "deep ecology," which has among its tenets that "all organisms and entities in the ecosphere, as parts of the interrelated whole, are equal in intrinsic worth" and that "the flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease."

These other ideologies are, of course, very popular in Cambridge, MA. Indeed, for many of the modern residents here, environmentalism is religion. That can make it difficult for someone like me, who cares about the environment in a more utilitarian fashion.

So how can you study and care about the environment today without going to extremes? I'm open for suggestions.

P.S.- My wife thinks it's really funny when I'm frustrated. Yesterday we were driving to the nearest Sears Auto Center to get new tires--a good 25 minutes, if you know where you're going. That last bit was important: if you know where you're going. My lovely wife often knows generally where she's going, but not exactly where she's going. So on occasions like yesterday, when I forgot to ask whether she knew exactly where she was going, we sometimes get to the general area and then have to drive around kind of hoping we happen upon the right street. We did, eventually, but while we were just kind of driving around, my frustration started to build a little bit, and my wife thought it was hilarious.

Now that the moment has passed, I can look back and laugh, too. But does anyone else's wife have trouble taking him seriously when he's frustrated? Is this normal? Should I just get used to it? There may not be easy answers to these questions.

Our First Christmas Tree

2009-12-01T11:03:00.000-08:00

Total cost: about $10. And it's artificial, and therefore reusable.

Some Stories

2009-11-22T12:20:00.000-08:00

So, I didn't really intend for this to be a political blog. I made it when I was single as a place to just pour out thoughts about different things. It's been getting too political lately, so now I'm just going to put up a couple of stories about my life (and....PICTURES!).

Story 1

I met my wife thanks to my turkey-cooking skillz. I cooked my first turkey on my mission, then cooked several more while I was at BYU. Anyway, soon after I got to Cambridge, I got a call from this girl I'd seen before in the ward, Annie Siddoway. I found it quite flattering that she'd call me, since I thought she was quite pretty. Well, she was actually calling because she needed to cook a turkey for a dinner she was putting on for the guys that had helped her move, but her oven was broken. Since she knew my roommates (in fact, she had dated one of them) and we lived only a couple of blocks from her new apartment, she called my roommates to ask if she could use our oven. But only I was home.

So, soon enough there was a knock at the door, and when I opened it there stood Annie, holding a raw turkey. I showed her to the oven. Soon, however, it became apparent that she (and her roommate that was with her. Of course she never would have come alone) had never cooked a turkey before. Well. I showed her how to cook a turkey. I think she was especially impressed when I momentarily disappeared into my room, reappearing moments later with a baster. Her version of what she was thinking at the time: "Ok, this guy is either incredibly weird or incredibly cute." She has since determined that the former is always true, while the latter is only occasionally true.

To make a long story short, it takes a few hours to cook a turkey, so I had a captive audience. And the rest is history.

Story 2

I have a very odd sense of humor. I'm the kind of man who loves the Muppets, Ask a Ninja, and videos about blenders powered by v8 engines. I also love unintentional comedy--when actors are very much trying to be serious but only succeed in being ridiculous.

This is what makes it so wonderful that Annie and I have so much fun together. There are not that many people that understand or enjoy my sense of humor--most people can enjoy certain parts of it, but Annie enjoys almost all of it. As demonstrated by the gifts she has gotten me so far.

Our first holiday as a couple (not yet a married couple) was Christmas of last year. As she thought of what to get me for Christmas, Annie remembered that one of the most memorable of our early dates was the time we went to see High School Musical 3. As far as unintentional comedy goes, it doesn't get much better than Zac Efron sings and dances out his teenage angst in a high school gym as hundreds of computer-animated basketballs fall around him and lightning flashes in the background. So, for Christmas, Annie got me a Zac Efron t-shirt. There was a lot of laughter at the time...we're still not quite sure what to do with it. I won't wear it in public and she won't let me hang it above her side of the bed.

Valentine's Day brought another fun gift from Annie. Earlier we had discussed one of the kinds of gifts that I loved seeing on Valentine's Day in high school--stuffed animals inside of balloons. To me, there just aren't many more ridiculous looking things. Well. Annie got me socks (Smart Wool socks. Awesome), but had the nerve to go to a gift place and ask them to put the socks into a balloon with confetti and the whole bit. While she definitely got some weird looks from everyone at the store, I absolutely loved it.

Conclusion

That's probably enough stories for one post. I do want to leave everyone with a couple more pictures, just in case you're one day called upon to recognize me or Annie in a crowd and it's been years since you've seen either of us.

An Account of Democratic Self-Government

2009-11-10T09:02:00.000-08:00

The following is from Ronald Dworkin:

To achieve that sense of a national partnership in self-government, it is not enough for a community to treat citizens only as if they were shareholders in a company, giving them votes only in periodic elections of officials. It must design institutions, practices, and conventions that allow them to be more engaged in public life, and to make a contribution to it, even when their views do not prevail. Two conditions are necessary for this:

a) First, each citizen must have a fair and reasonably equal opportunity not only to hear the views of others as these are published or broadcast, but to command attention for his own views, either as a candidate for office or as a member of a politically active group committed to some program or conviction.

b) Second, the tone of public discourse must be appropriate to the deliberations of a partnership or joint venture rather than the selfish negotiations of commercial rivals or military enemies.

If we embraced that attractive account of the conditions of self-government, we would have to accept that democracy—self-government by the people as a whole—is always a matter of degree. It will never be perfectly fulfilled, because it seems incredible that the politics of a pluralistic contemporary society could ever become as egalitarian in access and as deliberative in tone as the standards I just described demand. We would then understand democracy not as a pedigree a nation earns just by adopting some constitutional structure of free elections, but as an ideal toward which any would-be democratic society must continually strive.

We would also have to accept not only that America falls short of important democratic ideals, but that in the age of television politics the shortfall has steadily become worse. The influence of wealth unequally distributed is greater, and its consequences more profound, than at any time in the past, and our politics seem daily more rancorous, ill-spirited, and divisive.

So this analysis of democracy as self-government confirms—and helps to explain—the growing sense of despair about American politics that I began this essay by trying to describe. How should we respond to that despair? We must understand the First Amendment as a challenge, not a barrier to improvement. We must reject the blanket principle the Supreme Court relied on in Buckley, that government should never attempt to regulate the public political discourse in any way, in favor of a more discriminating principle that condemns the constraints that do violate genuine principles of democracy—that deny citizens information they need for political judgment or that deny equality of citizenship for people with unpopular beliefs or tastes, for example—but that nevertheless permits us to try to reverse our democracy's decline.

Risk/Reward Question

2009-03-02T13:15:00.000-08:00

So, it's unprecedented for me to post twice in a single day, but I have a question now.

I just read this.

Among other societal/economic problems right now, we have a lack of risk taking and a dearth of effective leadership. If we want to increase risk, do we have to decrease scrutiny and criticism? If so, how can we do it w/o unconstitutionally abrogating speech?

We need more warrior/adventurer spirit. How can we get it?

A Political Thought or Two

2009-03-02T08:31:00.001-08:00

It's probably pointless to post this here, since most (if not all) the people who read this blog usually vote Republican. But in any case.

Here's a recurring theme in present day politics. The President (a liberal Democrat) or the Congress (majority Democrat, with liberal Democrats in the highest leadership positions) proposes a governmental solution to some problem--be it the economic/financial crisis, health care, whatever. Republicans, and especially conservatives, decry the solution as one that a) likely won't work, and b) involves too great an expansion of government power. The Democrats' rejoinder, at least in large part, is often "all you're doing is criticizing. You haven't offered another solution."

While that may be true (the Republicans/conservatives who offer the criticism may not have been thinking of a solution), there seems to be an obvious counterpoint that at least the Democrats are missing. That is, that the alternative "solution" may not be that the government do something else. It may be that the government do less, if not nothing. To assume that this is the equivalent of "do nothing" is to assume that the government is the only possible actor in the situation.

Republicans'/conservatives' preference--and perhaps mine, though I just don't think I know enough to make strong claims about what will and won't work--might be that private individuals, private groups of individuals, and private business entities work for themselves, stimulating the economy through their own economic activity. The idea is that you work for yourself; don't ask government to work for you. It won't do a good job.

This leads to other questions, such as whether the distribution of wealth and power in the market has become such that a small number of powerful actors working in their own self-interest make it impossible to achieve everyone's self interest (I feel like game theory should come into this, somehow, but I don't know enough about game theory). If that is the case, maybe the government does need to level the playing field somehow? But I don't know that I'm quite ready to believe that.

On a related note, I tire of the argument that Republicans' failed policies got us into this mess, so their proposed solutions have no merit. The ability to see mistakes in hindsight says nothing about the merits of proposed solutions to current problems. It means neither a) that Republicans proposals won't work for current problems, nor b) that Democrats' proposed solutions will. Yes, the Democrats have an electoral mandate to try their solutions, but that doesn't mean they can assume the Republicans' solutions to current problems are wrong just because some Republican policies arguably led to undesirable consequences.

In the end, I don't know the future any more than the people that are making these arguments. And really, I hope their solutions work, because they're the only solutions we're likely to get for a long time, given who's in power right now. But I hate bad argumentation.

My Thoughts on Punishment

2009-02-08T11:29:00.000-08:00

Thanks to everyone who posted a comment about punishment. I'm going to try to explain the difficulties I see with punishment, and then I'll go into what I think a good system of punishment might be. I should stipulate at the outset that I'm mostly talking about societal punishment of criminals. A couple of the comments on the last post were about punishing children, which I hadn't really thought about before, but is a really important arena in which to understand punishment as well. Since the comments on that topic came from actual mothers, I probably won't go into that topic very deeply here for fear of sounding like an idiot.

Difficulties with Punishment
1. Punishment is returning harm for harm. The old adage says that two wrongs don't make a right. On its face this argument is too simplistic, but it's one I've heard. After all, the physical acts themselves--both the criminal's and society's--are harms (say for example, robbing and confining a robber to prison). But the difference between the acts is at a metaphysical level. As we conceptualize it, the robber steals to enrich himself and takes what is not rightfully his (or hers). But confining the robber to prison is done to satisfy justice, deter future crime, rehabilitate the criminal (teach him/her to be a productive member of society), or incapacitate the criminal so that he/she can do no more harm.

But what about the robber who steals food to avoid starvation? What about criminals who were tricked or coerced into committing crime? We still punish these people, reasoning that such people make criminal errors in judgment. But if what justifies society in imposing a harm is its motive, then why can't many crimes be justified because of the criminals' good motives?

2. Problems with Retributivism- I think everyone has a sense of justice. And my heart, my gut, my moral sense--whatever you want to call it--tells me that wrongdoers deserve punishment simply because of their acts and without reference to any future outcome. As Immanuel Kant says, "Juridical punishment can never be administered merely as a means of promoting another good either with regard to the criminal himself or to civil society, but must in all cases be imposed only because the individual on whom it is inflicted has committed a crime. For one man ought never to be dealt with merely as a means subservient to the purpose of another...He must first be found guilty and punishable, before there can be any thought of drawing from his punishment any benefit for himself or his fellow-citizens. The penal law is a categorical imperative; and woe to him who creeps through the serpent-windings of utilitarianism to discover some advantage that may discharge him from the justice of punishment, or even from the due measure of it, according to the Pharisaic maxim: 'it is better that one man should die than that the whole people should perish.' For if justice and righteousness perish, human life would no longer have any value in the world."

Now, I don't fully agree with Kant here, and that's the trouble: Kant's view is pure retributivism. As he says, retributive punishment is punishment because of guilt, and only because of guilt. When asked "Why do we punish the criminal?", the retributivist replies "Because he is guilty." But I don't believe that guilt is the only purpose of punishment. After all, Kant's "Pharisaic maxim" is actually divine reasoning: "it is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief" (1 Ne. 4:13).

3. Problems with Utilitarianism- in their pure form, utilitarian justifications for punishment don't work either. Utilitarians hold that punishment can have three purposes, all of which are net positive consequences. First, punishment can serve to deter future crime, both by the criminal punished and by others who would otherwise commit the same crime. Second, punishment can rehabilitate the criminal, helping him/her become a productive member of society. Rehabilitation also serves to deter any future crime the rehabilitated would have committed. Third, punishment can incapacitate the criminal, keeping him/her from committing any future crime.

Theoretically, these are good ideas. But do they work practically? America's efforts at rehabilitation (it was a prominent theory in the 70's) proved costly and ineffective. Also, what if someone commits a crime, then realizes the wrongness of her actions and reforms herself so that she will never commit crime again, and all this without punishment. Then, according to rehabilitation theory, there would be no reason to punish the criminal. But that seems wrong because of the reasons for retributivism. Incapacitation only works if you keep the criminal in custody until he/she can no longer commit crime, which may be until either infirmity or death. Deterrence is more interesting, but leads to questions about what level of severity is necessary to effectively deter. The level of severity required to deter may exceed the level of severity that is proportional to the crime committed. Furthermore, there may be many crimes that no punishment will deter, such as crimes of passion or crimes committed by those who have nothing to lose. In many cases, such crimes are the most violent and most harmful of all. What good is punishment if it cannot deter those crimes?

Beginnings of a Theory
The feeling I've gotten in discussions on punishment in the past is that retributivism and utilitarianism are mutually exclusive, just as deontology and utilitarianism are alternative moral theories that cannot be easily combined. But I see good things in both of them, and I think parts of both are necessary to a good theory of punishment.

I'm tempted to say that utilitarian punishment is good for this life, and we should leave retributive punishment to God, who knows both who deserves punishment and how much punishment is deserved. But isn't there something dangerous about leaving one's moral sense unsatisfied?

There's a lot more to say about this, but I feel like I've said enough that some of you may have thoughts about it that will be valuable to hear before I write any more. Then again, you may all be bored with this by now and ready to move on to something else. But, as you can tell, I'm still not out of the woods on this one, and I would still appreciate your help.

Why Do We Punish?

2009-01-29T18:20:00.000-08:00

I'm back! But I'm back with a purpose. I've been trying to figure out why we punish, both as a society and in a religious context. And I can't figure it out, so I need your input. Here's a brief note from my Criminal Law casebook describing the two basic theories:

"Broadly speaking, the justifications for punishment fall into two large categories, retributive and utilitarian. A retributivist claims that punishment is justified because people deserve it; a utilitarian believes that justification lies in the useful purposes that punishment serves. Retributive rationales are essentially backward looking, as they seek to justify punishment on the basis of the offender's behavior in the past. Utilitarian rationales are essentially forward looking, as they seek to justify punishment on the basis of the good consequences it is expected to produce in the future."

What do you think? How do we justify punishment?

Acadia

2008-10-19T14:01:00.001-07:00

I thought I might show you all a few pictures from my recent travels. Please note: I will write nothing thoughtful or profound in this post.

There's really not too much to say about it other than that Acadia National Park is one of the most beautiful places I've ever seen. I can't imagine a place that I would find more beautiful.

Also, the people that I went with weren't all that normal.

Finally, there's picture of me, just to let you know that I'm still alive (cue music).

I Like Law School

2008-09-21T15:04:00.000-07:00

And I didn't capitalize the first letter of every word in that title just because it's grammatically correct. This is a big deal.

I honestly hated the first two weeks of it. I was working desperately just to finish normal homework assignments, feeling lost in some classes, and watching as my classmates came up with great arguments I had trouble following. Every time I opened my mouth in class, I was wrong about something (except for that one time when I correctly informed the class that state courts can hear diversity cases and cases arising out of federal law. But I only knew that because I'd screwed up on a question about jurisdiction on my first day of Civil Procedure). I wasn't making friends among my classmates or even networking effectively. I missed the bus to school on my second day.

But then, last night, a wonderful thing happened. I had been working on my first legal memo all day (except for a couple hours of TF2 in which Adam burned lots and lots of bad guys), and I was skipping a major social event to do it. Once I was done with 10 hours of research for the paper, I couldn't work on it any more. So instead I picked up my books for class on Monday and started reading the assignments. And, at about 11:30 p.m., I finished my homework for Monday. As I sat on the couch, my eyes burning from having stared at a computer screen for too long, my head numb from thinking about attorney-client privilege, remedies for breach of contract, and canons of statutory interpretation, a weird feeling came over me. I was happy.

I liked the weird facts in the cases I had read. I liked figuring out why attorney-client privilege is important and why/how applying it to the facts of a case makes people more free. It's still not easy, but I like what I'm doing. And that's important to me.

Beware--Random Thoughts

2008-09-16T20:15:00.001-07:00

In a feat of extraordinary extraordinariness, I finished my daily quota of schoolwork before midnight. And so, I thought, what to do with a few minutes of free time, late at night? "Blog" seemed like the sensible answer.

So I learned a couple of interesting things today. State courts have to have personal jurisdiction in order to serve complaints to potential defendants--or in English, if you don't live in a state but someone who does wants to sue you in that state, they can't unless you're also in the state. Interestingly enough, though, "in the state" means "anywhere in the state." That includes if you're in a plane flying over it. There was actually a case where this guy who wanted to sue someone in Arkansas got onto a plane with him (the plane was going to fly over Arkansas). As the plane was over Arkansas, the guy served notice on the person he wanted to sue, and the courts upheld it.

It feels bad when you're waiting for the bus, and it comes, and then just keeps going by without stopping for you.

Sometimes I cover up the fact that I don't know what to say to my classmates outside of class by studying. Instead of talking to people between classes, I just read and reread the cases.

They have free coffee on campus, and my classmates drink it all the time. I don't understand how you can want a hot drink in summer. Now, they do also have free hot water. So, come winter, I may bring hot chocolate powder or cider to drink during class. But will that be giving the appearance of evil?

My computer is pretty. I love seeing all the moving (and apparently non-moving) parts working together fluidly. I get a lasting sense of accomplishment from having built it. It's similar to the feeling I get reading a well-written paper that I wrote. Of course, the beauty here is different than a tree's beauty, a painting's beauty, etc. But there is a beauty to mechanism that too few people appreciate, I think. I should stop talking about this, though, aesthetics never was my strong point.

Of all the topics I like to talk about (religion, philosophy, sports, politics, law, games, writing), the thing I most love to hear is the good that other people think of each other. It feels so good to hear someone talk about how they love someone else, or to hear/see someone show kindness through words.

Creating Truth

2008-09-11T09:17:00.000-07:00

Is truth created or discovered?

I eat a tomato, and I don't like it. "I don't like tomatoes" is a true proposition.
However, my mother continues to serve tomatoes, twice a week throughout my childhood. She forces me to eat them. Over time, I acquire a taste for tomatoes. Now, "I like tomatoes" is a true proposition, and "I don't like tomatoes" is not. Have I discovered the truth that I like tomatoes, or have I created it?

The Dark Knight, part II

2008-08-31T15:42:00.000-07:00

As promised, here is a follow up post.

First, a response to the (im)poster, who says the following:

"Quoting Batman, 'Sometimes the truth isn't enough. Sometimes people deserve more than the truth.' The Church agrees with Batman here; it teaches that some things are more important than the truth:

Elder Packer has said, 'There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not...Some things that are true are not very useful.' ("The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect")

I gather from this statement that the truth is not always the ultimate reward for someone's faith. That's why the Church teaches 'faith-promoting' history as opposed to true history. I am not saying I agree with this, just that that's how it is."

My response:

It seems inaccurate to call what President Packer describes "more than the truth." Revealing truth "line upon line, precept upon precept" is not the same as lying, which is what Batman referred to when he spoke of "more than the truth." Consider two examples:

First, we teach kindergarten students that 1+1=2. All well and good, but the truth of the proposition "1+1=2" depends on what base number system you're using, as well as on certain postulates of linear algebra. Even that truth that seems most basic is only conditionally true.

Second, let's turn to that great source of wisdom: Return of the Jedi. In it, we have the following conversation:

Luke: Why didn't you tell me? You told me Vader betrayed and murdered my father.

Obi-Wan: Vader was seduced by the dark side of the force. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So what I told you was true, from a certain point of view.

Luke: A certain point of view?

Obi-wan: Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

Earlier, speaking with Yoda about the same thing (that Luke learned that Vader was his father), we have:

Yoda: Unexpected this is, and unfortunate.

Luke: Unfortunate that I know the truth?

Yoda: No! Unfortunate that you rushed to face him, that incomplete was your training, that not ready for the burden were you.

I remain convinced that to some degree, we have to choose to believe something before we can know anything. And I remain steadfast in the faith that, as the hymn says, "all now mysterious shall be bright at last."

This post also having gotten long, my final point will have to wait for part III.

The Dark Knight

2008-08-24T20:25:00.000-07:00

Through no fault of my own, I saw this movie thrice in theaters. Having seen it that many times, I've formed some thoughts on it. Having shared those thoughts with others and thus encountered their thoughts, and finding some interest in those thoughts, I thought I'd share some here.

Being that it's me writing, these thoughts are almost all about the ideas and the dialogue. You'll find very little here about the visual effects, hot girls, general scariness, etc. Yes, I am a dull and dry man, and yes, I think that might have affected my success with the ladies.

THE GOOD

Here are the ideas I liked from The Dark Knight.

1) There remains a general spark of goodness in humanity. This was what Batman put his faith in in Batman Begins. The Joker failed to extinguish that spark in The Dark Knight.

2) Good guys can make extremely difficult decisions and emerge not only unscathed, but transcendent in their goodness. Both Batman and Gordon found a way to do this. Harvey Dent did not, and thus failed to meet his test. He wasn't the best of the good guys, as Batman painted him in an attempt to appeal to Dent's better nature. Dent was the weakest.

3) There are evil people. It's difficult and dangerous to judge whether or not another person is evil, and such judgment must be undertaken with caution. But there are, in fact, people that are not to be reasoned with, but fought against.

THE BAD

The following ideas I find erroneous and/or just plain bad.

a) The Joker isn't a schemer--he's just a mad dog chasing cars. Why do we assume that the Joker is telling the truth? In fact, his entire discourse to Dent in the hospital was part of a scheme to push Dent to evil. Everything the Joker carried out required meticulous scheming. He avows himself, in his final conversation with Batman, to be engaged in a battle for Gotham's soul. It's foolhardy to take statements from evil people as truth without thoroughly examining them. Among other wrong things the Joker says that we shouldn't take at face value are the following: the bit about morality and rules being a game that people will throw away at the first sign of trouble, and "you won't kill me through some misguided sense of self-righteousness" (he calls it that because he can't understand it. To those who do not understand righteousness, it is always self-righteousness. Unsurprisingly enough, such people are often selfish).

b) Harvey Dent: "You wouldn't dare try to justify yourself if you knew what I'd lost." Just because you suffered doesn't mean there wasn't a reason for the suffering or for the actions of others that somehow connect to that suffering. Sympathy and suffering should not forestall all counterargument.

c) Batman: "Sometimes the truth isn't enough. Sometimes people deserve more than the truth. Sometimes they deserve to have their faith rewarded." Maybe I'm being picky, but does that mean that the truth cannot be a sufficient reward for people's faith? Of course, it depends on the objects of people's faith, but that seems like an awfully cynical sentiment, especially coming from the fellow who just acted in the firm belief that two shiploads of people--one of which was full of criminals--would refrain from blowing up other people so that they would not be blown up themselves. And had his faith rewarded without having to be lied to.

NOTE: there's more, but this is already a long post. I'll do a part II. Anticipate please.

Humoresque

2008-08-17T13:07:00.000-07:00

For those of you who might have trouble appreciating/loving classical music, and for those who just want to listen to something beautiful: observe!

This is Antonin Dvorak's Humoresque. Violin/cello duet by Itzhak Perlman and Yo Yo Ma.
I think this is one of the most beautiful musical performances I've ever heard.

Also, some of the faces they make are really funny.

Ratings and Media Choices

2008-07-19T23:42:00.000-07:00

Our media choices affect the spirit we carry with us on a personal level. Perhaps even more importantly, they affect the spirit that can and will be present in the home wherein we make them. I submit these premises at the outset, appealing to my own experience for evidence of their truth.

I broach the subject only to point out two apparent incongruities in both my own choices and my friends' choices.

First: we avoid rated R movies to comply with prophetic counsel (well, some of us do). However, especially in the realm of comedy, many movies that are not rated R are, morally, significantly worse than most rated R movies I have seen. To take a metaphor, mirth acts as a lubricant: with it, we are willing to let a lot more slide than we otherwise would. Humor is just one of several considerations leading to the result that sometimes actions don't match up with intentions in media choices.

Second: We actively and carefully avoid sexual content in movies and games. As we have been warned against pornography, so we avoid it. This is good and proper. However, while we are careful against the temptation to misuse or be too casual with our power to grant life, we are not so careful to avoid becoming too casual about the power to take it. For example:

We like this game. Yet I don't see how, even granting that movies/games that remind us to fight evil are good to some extent, it's proper to seek after things like this.

These incongruities lead to my question: how can I change my taste so as to improve my media choices, thereby improving the spirit I carry with me?

Unmasking an (im)poster

2008-07-01T08:18:00.000-07:00

So Damien always brings up interesting things on his blog. Recently he posted about situational ethics. I wondered about his position and a small conversation has ensued. Here's his latest:

"On my post, With All Your Getting, Get Understanding, B. Zeller sought a clarification of my belief in not making decisions until I must:

'Also, just to give a counterpoint, how similar is not carrying around convictions to not deciding whether or not to drink until someone offers you a beer?'

My position is not just similar to your example, that is exactly what I'm saying. I think that creating blanket statements (I will never do x or y) is a bad idea. Here's how my decision-making philosophy works: I gather obligations/devotions/desires through the course of life and when it comes time to decide, I weigh them against each other."

And I decided I'd like to have the glory of posting a reply on my own blog rather than on his comments. So here we go.

I guess I'm not too sure we disagree here; the argument may be simply semantic.

You call the religious obligation a consideration--one of many that enters into any decision. But how is that different from a conviction you carry around? After all, aren't your religious obligations based on a conviction you carry around?

If people have "pre-made" a decision not to drink, isn't that just a very strong consideration--one of many--when the moment of decision actually comes? Their having "pre-made" the decision doesn't destroy any other considerations, it simply strengthens the religious obligation.

I see how you're arguing for open-mindedness here, I'm just not sure that "pre-making" decisions in the way you describe is as closed-minded as one might think.

Random Texts

2008-05-24T11:37:00.000-07:00

So last night I was sitting around with my friends...there may or may not have been a movie playing...and I got a random text from a number I didn't recognize:

"Hey you whats up"

In days of yore, when I used to use AIM, sometimes I would get messages from people I didn't know. The game then was to just make conversation until the other person provides enough inadvertent hints to reveal his/her identity. So I went for the same thing here. I text back:

"I'm crossing my legs." (I was). "How are you?"

I figured this was a strange enough reply that how the mystery texter replied to it would reveal whether or not I knew him/her well. Most people I know well would take that kind of reply in stride. The mystery texter replies:

"There a reason they need crossed. . Lol and i'm wet"

This told me a few things: first, the mystery texter does not share my commitment to proper grammar inasmuch as it is possible in a text message. No big deal, but it eliminates everyone I know who texts with proper grammar. Also, the mystery texter didn't seem to take the strangeness in stride. Further, either the mystery texter had just gotten out of the shower--an odd time to be texting me, especially without drying off first--or they got in a water fight, or...well, it's anyone's guess as to how the mystery texter got wet. But I took the wetness as a bad sign. Anyway, I decided to continue with the strangeness approach. I text back:

"Popular demand. How come you're wet?"

Thus far, the mystery texter has not yet replied. I'll give further details as they become available.

Ouch! for Obama

2008-04-14T14:16:00.000-07:00

In the NYT, no less!

Is it really the professors?

2008-03-30T21:10:00.000-07:00

So Adam has the opinion (via Dennis) that liberal professors and universities go a long way towards creating and perpetuating a lot of the really silly misconceptions that have so damaged modern society (for a list of these, either ask Adam or listen to the Dennis Prager show. Some people would hold that the two activities amount to the same thing sometimes).

Right now I work as a writing fellow for a Sociology of Gender class; I teach the sociology students how to write effectively. Having read several of their papers and talked extensively with the professor that teaches the class, I've come to two conclusions. First, there are a whole lot of silly misconceptions among sociology students, and perhaps there is a big one in the sociology field (more on that later). Second, the professor isn't teaching a lot of these misconceptions. A lot of the things the students say in their papers are ridiculous, though unfortunately I can't post them for confidentiality's sake. But the professor doesn't share those same misconceptions. Her views seem a lot more plausible and nuanced. While that may be just because she's better at expressing them, the other possibility is that it is often the students, not the field at large or the professors, that hold and perpetuate silly misconceptions.

National Anthems: Israel

2008-03-19T11:31:00.000-07:00

I'll admit some partiality to Israel's national anthem. Ok, it's my favorite. The music is fantastic and the words express the unity of a people that has transcended the political existence of their country for thousands of years.

What makes me a fellow countryman of, say, a child of illegal immigrants in California? For argument's sake, let's also suppose that this child of illegal immigrants is a far-left liberal who believes that America's net influence on the world has been decidedly bad. I can think of two ways in which we might be considered countrymen.

First, we might be considered countrymen based on politico-geographical borders and the law that rules within them. We were both born within the borders of the United States, and so are both U.S. citizens under law. Because we both subscribe to that law and accept the rights, privileges, and responsibilities it offers, we are countrymen. There seem to be a couple of problems with this view. First, the fact the other person's parents are illegal immigrants makes the common legal ideology seem like a strange commonality. Of course, that has no bearing on what the other person thinks of or reacts to the law, so that point is moot. Second, given the other's political ideology, we disagree significantly about the law. We disagree both about what the current content and purpose of the law is and about what the content and purpose of the law should be. The disagreement is strongest on the law's most fundamental and important points. So that commonality with respect to the law seems problematic.

Second, we might be considered countrymen because we share a national heritage. Given, my ancestors were Mayflower pilgrims (arriving in Plymouth in 1620) and Swiss Huguenots (arriving in Pennsylvania in the 18th century), and the other's are Latin Americans who had little to do with this country until the other's parents illegally entered it. They likely did not enter the country with an aim to be good citizens of it, but to capitalize on the economic situation here to build a more comfortable life for themselves. Of course, my ancestors also came with the intent to build a better life for themselves, but I feel like the two are different somehow. Regardless, the idea is that the other, as a U.S. citizen, inherits the common heritage of U.S. citizens. It's a diverse heritage, but from their diversity our forbears united behind common ideals and forged a national identity--E Pluribus Unum. But I have neither common ideals nor a common national identity with the other here; the other's ideals are radically different from mine, and the other rejects or is ashamed of the national identity that came with U.S. citizenship.

So what makes us countrymen?

The Israelis do not have this problem. They are bound together by a common heritage and belief that has withstood the worst this world has been able to give it. They are passionate about it and, since Moses, have been willing to fight for it.

Observe.

Finally, here are the words:

As long as in the heart, within,
A Jewish soul is yearning,
And to the edges of the East, forward,
An eye gazes towards Zion,

Our hope is not yet lost,
The hope of two thousand years,
To be a free nation in our land,
The land of Zion and Jerusalem.

My True Talent

2008-03-13T09:12:00.000-07:00

With a little help from my friends, I've discovered it:

Michelle: well mr. sunshine...

you've managed to make what was already a dreary day all the drearier.

thank you

me: it's my strong suit

take what was happiness, and by pure force of association turn it into oppressive boredom and melancholy

So, there you have it, folks. That's why I'm here.

Principles of Agency

2008-03-09T11:33:00.000-07:00

President Kearl gives an interesting talk on principles of agency. Some of his principles run counter to traditional LDS culture or are counterintuitive. He gave the talk again in stake conference today, and again I enjoyed it and learned from it. I thought I might share his principles here.

1- We can have absolute confidence in choices related to salvation; these are matters of obedience, not prayer.

Examples: Thou shalt not kill, pay your tithing, etc.

2- Relatively few of the decisions we face each day are "thou shalt" or "thou shalt not" decisions. Many choices are eternally significant, but not related to salvation. In making those choices, we should remember that they are ours to make. The Lord will not make them for us--He will not choose for us among a variety of good options.

Examples: Where should I live? What career should I pursue? Whom should I marry?

Related notes: Choices have consequences, but these are not always punishments. We should recognize and embrace consequences, not trying to shield ourselves or others from them. Also, we should not try to make decisions for others or let others make decisions for us; the one who makes the decision should be the one who will most directly bear the consequences.

3- A choice delayed is a choice made.

4- Choices often have to be made with incomplete information.

We should not second-guess ourselves when the information becomes more complete later. This is not to say that we shouldn't be careful to gather all the information we can before choosing. We should not be willfully ignorant. However, we can only act on what we know and in whatever circumstances we find ourselves.

5- With the exception of repentance, we cannot change the past.

So don't spend life wishing you had a different past--that is an unconscionable mistake.

6- Not all dumb choices are wrong.

Example: Riding a motorcycle without a helmet is not morally wrong. It is also not smart. We should spend a lot more time worrying about making smart choices and a little less time worrying about making right/wrong choices.

7- Given identical circumstances, different people will make different and equally good choices.

We ought to be less judgmental and more supportive of others' life choices.

8- We don't need to see, and don't get to see, the future.

Remember the hymn "Lead, Kindly Light." We need to be open to being pleasantly surprised by opportunities; we should be prepared to embrace opportunities as they come.

9- We need to frame our prayers so that God can answer them. He will not answer prayers that abridge our agency.

10- Often, decisions become right.

They become right based on the choices we make in relation to them afterwards.

Sad example: Couples who divorce after twenty years of marriage did not make a mistake choosing to marry each other twenty years ago. It's foolish to think that. They made a mistake yesterday, or the day before, but not twenty years ago.

Many of these principles are not widely practiced. I think that is due in part to their being misconstrued. It would be easy to think that these principles mean you should pray less or about fewer decisions. Perhaps that is true, to some extent. But largely they only mean you should pray differently. You should be willing to take responsibility for choices that are yours to make. Be willing to choose your own life. The Lord does help us avoid mistakes, but He will not take away our agency by telling us which is the right choice.

USSR/Russia

2008-03-05T13:32:00.000-08:00

This is installment 1 in a weekly feature on national anthems.

A NOTE ON THE FEATURE

Recently, I have been considering doing a weekly feature on national anthems. I wanted to include a little bit of history, the lyrics to the song, and an evaluation of the ideals it expresses, among other things. As with many of my ideas, this one is sadly not new: Wikipedia beat me to it.

That being said, while the information I give on the anthems may not be original or groundbreaking, I can still bring attention to them. And the evaluation of the ideals each nation expresses in its anthem might still be enlightening. So, with that somewhat depressing prelude, I proceed to the first anthem!

USSR/RUSSIA

This week BYUSA is holding its annual elections. As in years past, campus has become a virtual minefield: nearly every path through campus is littered with campaign booths and representatives. If you're not careful, they'll tag you with yet another circular, ribbon, or other humiliating bit of paraphernalia.

How did I approach this minefield on Monday? Easy--I walked straight into it with my eyes open. Predictably, I was approached by a candidate who had lived on my hall freshman year. We were not great friends that year and barely spoke in the five intervening years between then and now, but still he approached me fully expecting that I would support his campaign because we knew each other.

The most interesting thing about the experience was the campaign paraphernalia he bestowed upon me: a bit of red cloth he tied to my backpack. I have since seen several of his supporters wearing such ribbons as armbands. It's amazing that now, roughly eighteen years after the Berlin wall crumbled, red armbands no longer produce stigma. Yes, my friends, now again it is safe to be a Red.

Parenthetically, here's another interesting story: last year I visited my uncle in Georgia. In his ward on Sunday, a young man gave a farewell address; he was leaving on a mission to Russia. A member of the stake presidency in attendance took a moment to speak to the congregation. He asked everyone who remembered praying that the Gospel would go forth to those behind the Iron Curtain to stand up. Nearly all the adults rose to their feet. Most of them prayed for that the same way we might pray that the Gospel might go forth to the Middle East. Miracles do happen, the Lord's work does go forward, and prayers are answered in ways small and great.

Anyway, let's get to the anthem already.

Musically, it's one of the best national anthems the world has ever known. In fact, it's so good that post-Communist Russia re-adopted the tune in 2000. You can hear an instrumental version here and a version with USSR lyrics here.

The words have changed several times. The song was first written in 1939 as the Anthem of the Bolshevik Party. Originally, the lyrics mentioned Stalin, but after his death in 1953 references to him were removed in accordance with the process of Destalinization. From 1953 to 1977 the anthem was played without lyrics. In the latter year, Robert Doucet, a Canadian, composed lyrics for the song so that it could be sung at the inaugural Canada Cup tournament (hockey, of course). The Soviet Union noticed and adopted the new lyrics; the song remained in that form until the nation's collapse. Below you'll find all four versions of the lyrics. Since this has already gotten so long and most of you have certainly lost interest, I'll talk about the lyrics in a later post.

Anthem of the Bolshevik Party

Free children of a state unprecedented [until now],

Today we sing our proud song

About the most powerful party in the world,

About our greatest man ever.

CHORUS

Surrounded with glory, soldered by [our] will,

Grow stronger and live for eternity

The party of Lenin, the party of Stalin

Wise party of Bolsheviks!

You have created a country on our land [starting] from the Kremlin,

The able Motherland of free people.

Our Soviet state stands as rock

Born by your power and truth.

CHORUS

Rotten breeds of lowly treachers

You wipe from your way with a formidable hand

You are the pride of the people, the wisdom of people,

the heart of the people and their conscience.

CHORUS

The sparking genius of Marx and Engels

Envisioned the future rise of the commune.

Lenin has outlined us the road to the freedom

And great Stalin is leading us through it.

CHORUS

1944 Version

United forever in friendship and labour,

Our mighty republics will ever endure.

The great Soviet Union will live through the ages.

The dream of a people their fortress secure.

CHORUS:

Long live our Soviet Motherland, built by the people's mighty hand.

Long live our People, united and free.

Strong in our friendship tried by fire. Long may our crimson flag inspire,

Shining in glory for all men to see.

Through days dark and stormy where Great Lenin led us

Our eyes saw the bright sun of freedom above

and Stalin our Leader with faith in the People,

Inspired us to build up the land that we love.

CHORUS:

Long live our Soviet Motherland, built by the people's mighty hand.

Long live our People, united and free.

Strong in our friendship tried by fire. Long may our crimson flag inspire,

Shining in glory for all men to see.

We fought for the future, destroyed the invader,

and brought to our homeland the Laurels of Fame.

Our glory will live in the memory of nations

and all generations will honour her name.

CHORUS:

Long live our Soviet Motherland, built by the people's mighty hand.

Long live our People, united and free.

Strong in our friendship tried by fire. Long may our crimson flag inspire,

Shining in glory for all men to see.

1977 Version

Unbreakable Union of freeborn Republics,

Great Russia has welded forever to stand.

Created in struggle by will of the people,

United and mighty, our Soviet land!

CHORUS:

Sing to the Motherland, home of the free,

Bulwark of peoples in brotherhood strong.

O Party of Lenin, the strength of the people,

To Communism's triumph lead us on!

Through tempests the sunrays of freedom have cheered us,

Along the new path where great Lenin did lead.

To a righteous cause he raised up the peoples,

Inspired them to labour and valourous deed.

CHORUS

In the victory of Communism's deathless ideal,

We see the future of our dear land.

And to her fluttering scarlet banner,

Selflessly true we always shall stand!

CHORUS

2000 Version

Russia - our sacred stronghold,
Russia - our beloved country.
A mighty will, a great glory
Are your inheritance for all time!

Chorus:
Be glorious, our free Motherland,
Ancient union of brotherly peoples,
Ancestor given wisdom of the people!
Be glorious, country! We take pride in you!

From the southern seas to the polar region
Spread our forests and our fields.
You are one in the world! You are one of a kind,
Native land protected by God!

Chorus

A broad expanse for dreams and for lives
Is opened to us by the coming years.
Our faith in our Motherland gives us strength.
So it was, so it is, and so it will always be!

Chorus

The Right to Self-Esteem

2008-02-22T16:12:00.000-08:00

Now, granted, the Daily Universe (BYU's student newspaper) is not the most intellectually astute publication. Of course, I'm not sure that the category "our best and brightest" ever was meant to apply to journalists. So, it may be that no newspaper can properly be called an intellectually astute publication. The point is, the editorial board at the Daily Universe may have gotten what I'm about to bring up completely wrong.

In their editorial from the February 22, 2008 issue, the board talks about political correctness. They make this incredible assertion: "political correctness has among its central objectives to affirm the right to self-esteem."

Please, please, please tell me that no one actually believes that we should have a right to self-esteem. Even if it were just an uncommon belief...if anyone can show me that this is a highly uncommon belief, please do it. Quickly!

I'm sure all of you who will read this have already thought of these things, but just to be clear, let me point out a couple of problems with a right to self-esteem: sports, as we know them, would be rendered unconstitutional. You might actually see this lawsuit: "Patriots Sue Giants, Claim Right to Self-Esteem Violated in Super Bowl Loss." Comedy Central, all late night talk show hosts, and Bill O'Reilly would be in a great deal of trouble. Middle schoolers the country over would never talk.

I think political correctness has its place, though I think it's rather a small one. Certainly it's proper for me to alter my natural speech so as not to grossly affront ethnic groups, minorities, homosexuals, etc. But that alteration is not proper because those groups/people have a right to self-esteem. It is proper because it is respectful and kind. Asserting a right to self-esteem cheapens other rights that our fathers fought and died for. Those who do so should be ashamed of themselves.

Obama's Source of Power

2008-02-19T15:06:00.001-08:00

Can anyone beat Barack Obama? He's so motivating, so hopeful, and so eloquent. While most of the nation sees the multitude of problems our nation faces and despairs, or at least is entirely confused, Barack Obama stands strong, telling us that "Yes, we can!"

Observe (fast forward to the 10:00 mark):

Well. A word about that slogan.

As it turns out, Obama isn't the first to champion the "Yes, we can!" mantra. Nor is he the first to bask in the euphoria that mantra creates. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Barack Obama's inspiration: Bob the Builder.

Conservatives are Irrelevant?

2008-02-06T21:18:00.000-08:00

On CNN today, in the "Situation Room" (I'm sure the name was originally intended to make the program sound serious, but when you spend a good part of every day in the "Situation Room," doesn't it become the living room? The den maybe?), a panel of experts was discussing recent developments in the presidential race.

The panel noted that 14.4 million Democrats voted in the Super Tuesday primaries yesterday, while only 8.7 million Republicans came out to vote. Further, they pointed out that John McCain has all but secured the Republican nomination despite conservative pundits' best efforts to convince Republicans that McCain is not their man.

One of the experts offered the following analysis: "Conservatives are simply not relevant to what's happening in the United States today."

I thought I might examine that claim.

If Republicans = Conservatives, it seems odd to say they are irrelevant. After all, Republicans comprised 38% of those who voted on Super Tuesday. Certainly they were not the majority, but I was under the impression that the minority was not irrelevant in America. At least not to Democrats, right? Perhaps that's not the case when you disagree with the minority, or when the minority doesn't vote for you?

On the other hand, McCain's success in the Republican primaries despite conservative pundits' militancy against him seems to indicate either that Republican does not mean conservative or that conservatives are not heeding the advice of conservative pundits in this case.

If Republican does not mean conservative, then the CNN analyst could, but need not be, correct. It could be that there simply aren't many conservatives anymore, even among Republicans. In that case, they have become irrelevant in the sense that they are no longer a powerful political voice (although even then, the above comments about minorities still apply). However, it could also be that many conservatives simply did not vote in the Super Tuesday primaries, discouraged by the lack of a candidate that compels them. If that is true, it remains to be seen whether they will be irrelevant or not; conservatives would then be an untapped force in politics, still potent enough to affect the results of the primaries still to come, not to mention the general election.

Unless there are other plausible alternatives I have failed to consider, it seems the CNN analyst must have assumed that there are no longer many conservatives out there. He assumes that Republicans have become something other than conservatives--a new base, a different party with different priorities. These new Republicans are choosing John McCain.

What, then, are new Republicans' priorities? Are there enough new Republicans to effectively oppose the Democrats? Where will the remaining conservatives cast their voice? If the analyst was wrong, all of these questions are more irrelevant than conservatives. If he wasn't, what does the future hold for American politics?

2008-02-05T13:36:00.000-08:00

I've experienced some great triumphs in my life. I've scored spectacular goals in soccer games. I got an A in my Metalogic class. I beat Becki Johnson at Rummikub (twice).

Today I experienced the antithesis of triumph. I began the morning by leaving my phone and keys in my room. My roommate was going snowboarding, so no one would be home for the day. I realized this while walking to school, but wasn't overly perturbed because I had all the books I'd need for the day. By the time I walked home at 5 pm, there would be someone there.

A marketing class and a devotional later, at noon, I was walking home. Yes, five hours early. No, I didn't remember that I didn't have my keys. After the twenty minute walk, I tried to walk in the door, and as my shoulder hit the wood, my mind cleared. And I bowed my head in shame.

All the way back up to campus, I tried to think of something that made it ok--something I could appreciate about the extra walking. The mountains are pretty, I guess. Whatever. I'm just lucky I didn't let my mind wander so much that I stepped in front of a car.

Battle at Kruger

2008-02-04T15:43:00.000-08:00

Occasionally, there will be exciting things in this blog, like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM

Life is good when you're a water buffalo.