joshhansen.net

Category: the world

“[T]hings both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms—” Doctrine and Covenants 88:79

  • Pandemonium

    You know, it’s kind of easy to get freaked out about a possibly approaching tidal wave of global fatalities when every day brings so much news about the “swine flu pandemic”. While that does seem to be frighteningly real possibility, I liked this:

    While the infected need access to medical care and anti-viral drugs, the rest of the world needs an inoculation against scary statistics and misinformation. [A Vaccine Needed for Bad Statistics]

    In other words, yes, this could be a global catastrophe. But, unlike what a scan of recent headlines will make you think, that is still just a possibility. Maybe it will be 1918 all over again. Then again, maybe it will be forgotten like SARS. Whichever way it goes, I’m going to try to keep my panic level proportional to the body count.

    By the way, here are two cool maps: 1 2

  • Ideologue-y

    Do you ever feel that the previous generation just sees you as another potential acolyte to be indoctrinated and enlisted to fight the next big ideological war? In several situations I have felt like that. These were in linguistics, in economics, and—of course—in politics.

    In linguistics the philosophical divide basically shakes out as the rationalist, pro-Chomsky forces vs. empiricist, post-Chomsky linguists. The core classes in the BYU linguistics program teach Chomsky, plain and simple. But, in the senior seminar class we learned about the First and Second Linguistics Wars. These were bitter ideological struggles that tore the discipline in half twice in as many decades. It was Chomsky vs. the World, and Chomsky won… sort of. He won rhetorical victory at the cost of turning linguistics into a no-man’s land. When we in the linguistics major learned that the minimalist grammars, the autosegmental theory, all of it that we had learned and had confidence in, were essentially the victors writing the history books, the attack plan of true believers in the reigning theory-as-doctrine to scorch earth in the battlefield of undergraduate minds, we lost faith in it. It was disillusioning. And so did the more reasonable part of the field of linguistics: people turned to other things, like corpus linguistics or statistical modeling.

    Economics is in a lot of ways more empirically grounded than at least Chomskyan linguistics. Yet it, too, suffers from the distortions of ideology. Reading about the current economic crisis, I see one group blame excessive regulation, and another group blame insufficient regulation. Same discipline. Same data. Opposite stories. Was Keynes a hero, or a villain? An awful lot of name-calling goes on on some econ blogs. I’d like to see less ad hominem and more thoughtful analysis.

    And, of course, politics. The ideological problems afflicting economics are but one front in a multifarious war that’s been raging for generations. I’m really tired of trying to figure out what position to take on a given issue, only to realize that the two sides (how come things always get reduced to two sides? why not three, or a hundred?) have been totally co-opted by the belligerents. So, if I think any policy protecting the environment is a good idea, I’m a sinister agent of the Left? If I think government should balance its budget, I’m a Republican hack? No. I’m just this guy who got thrown into this complex and wonderful world where everyone wants him to join their side, everyone wants to be right, but nobody really seems to care about discovering what’s really going on. With so much spin, it’s easy to get dizzy.

    I know I get sucked into taking sides in ideological disputes all the time. My opposition to the bailout is a good example. But there’s a better way.

    So what can we do to keep from oppressing the next generation with our own ideological obsessions? Well, if you ever find yourself defending or attacking an idea or plan or program, stop. Attack and defense are for fighting wars. Discovery and explanation are for truth-seekers. Seek truth.

  • The Public Square Segregated

    I read and then replied to some comments on somebody’s note on Facebook regarding the LDS Church’s involvement in the Proposition 8 campaign. I feel it is worthwhile to share that discussion with a broader audience. Here’s how it went:

    Brian wrote:

    I do not, however, agree that the Mormon church played only a minor role in the passing of Prop 8. While it’s true that the LDS church did not donate money directly, they pretty much rallied up any member who could to donate both time and money to the cause. They held firesides and commissioned their members to do whatever they could to assist in the passing of Prop 8. Many members donated only because it was a “commandment” from the prophet. The quorum of the 12 even personally called a few rich members of the church and told them it was their “priesthood obligation” to donate money to the cause.

    The church itself was involved in virtually every way. It’s BECAUSE of what the leaders had been doing, and how they were pushing their members to donate, how they egged people in Utah to donate money to support a ballot in a state that they didn’t live in, and how they made the entire church body feel like it was a commandment to support Prop 8, that people are so incredibly upset.

    Brian also quoted his friend Rob as saying:

    I am disgusted with the LDS Church. In light of their blatant disregard for the separation of church and state… I wish I could take BYU off my resume.

    To have had ANY association with the LDS Church or its educational institutions is now an embarrassment.

    My reply:

    Brian,
    I’m still baffled by what the problem with the church supporting prop 8 is supposed to be. Members did not donate “only because it was a ‘commandment’ from the prophet.” Mormons have brains, they think for themselves, and they spend their money how they want and vote how they want. They supported proposition 8 because they agreed with it. If you read the letter that the church’s leaders used in encouraging the measure ( http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage ) it’s clear that it falls quite short of being a “commandment.”

    I live in Utah and saw how the California residents in my area mobilized to support proposition 8. There was no compulsion, no “egging on.” Non-Californians were told not to get involved, though of course some still did anyway. Mormons are just good at making things happen, and they are willing to put their money where their mouth (and heart) is. Is that against the law somehow?

    To Rob: I’m sorry that you are ashamed of your association with BYU because of the church’s supposed “blatant disregard for the separation of church and state.” Perhaps you should have paid better attention in your American Heritage class, because you are forgetting some key points about the meaning of the First Amendment. In particular, there is no prohibition of religiously-minded people participating in public debate. Both sides of the Prop 8 debate are founded on moral value judgments. Just because Yes on 8 people’s value judgments were informed by their religious beliefs does not make their value judgments less valid than those whose views were not religiously-founded. Were the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.’s efforts to promote blacks’ civil rights invalid because he was a Baptist minister? Where do we draw the line between Dr. King taking one stand and the LDS church taking another? It seems that the only line is an arbitrary one based on whether those stands coincide with your particular political views or not.

    Indeed, this arbitrary and conveniently agenda-promoting distinction between some religious people supporting one cause and others another strikes me as a profound injustice. Feel free to disagree with whether Proposition 8 was a good idea or not. But please do not vent your disappointment at its passing by claiming that prop 8’s proponents did not deserve to participate in the public debate simply because they are religious people and organizations. To segregate the public square into arbitrary “approved” and “unapproved” segments—especially when these labels are little more than code for the more typical terms “us” and “them”—is not appropriate and does our society a great disservice. In the end we let voters evaluate a measure based on the various arguments put forth for and against, but there is not and there should not be a restriction on who can make those arguments.

    For anybody who has lingering doubts on this issue, please read my posting of a speech entitled “Religious Values and Public Policy” which discusses these matters in greater detail.