Gun control, peace and safety

Obviously there are two sides to this argument. So many things happening in the world that add information to the discussion. More to know than I can process effectively. The news tends to magnify the proportions. Extreme violence is remarkably rare, so when it happens it is all the more shocking.

Today I look at the reports of seemingly routine violence in places like Iraq. Yesterday's news showed the human remains of blood and gore splashed all over the place. It would seem that the average Iraqi citizen has dozens of automatic weapons and a supply of ammo that would stagger Arnold Schwarzenegger - before his heart attack. Apparently there are enough explosives in country to launch a shuttle mission.

I review the news about a berserk college student in Virginia murdering dozens of helpless people whose only imaginable offense against him was that they happened to be there. This is not Iraq. Why did this person have available resources to wield such destructive power? What could have prevented such a senseless outrageous act of wanton killing? Do we need to have battle armor ready in case of such incidents to protect ourselves?

An editorial in today's SLTrib says

Laws don't deter people with criminal intent; otherwise our prisons would be empty. A criminal is one who violates the law. How does the gun-control lobby propose to make lawbreakers into law-abiders? If lawbreakers are not deterred from criminal pursuits by laws currently in place, why should more laws deter them?

I well understand those who look for means to stop such awful things. But it does not appear that the answer lies in keeping everyone from having guns. The ones who do the damage here were able to obtain the weapons and ammo in spite of the laws. Thus the laws apparently just make it impossible for the innocent to defend themselves. Instead of being subject to return fire, attackers know they may slaughter at will for an interminable period, while we summon out the select few who supposedly defend us from this kind of predation.

April 2007 General Conference : Divorce

Elder Dallin Oaks delivered the only comprehensive overview of this subject that I have ever heard from church authorities. To me, this is an indication that divorce as an issue has now reached a level of general concern among the brethren. Divorce is no longer a personal or private matter, over whether we each choose to maintain our marriages and families. As Elder Oaks asserts, it touches most all of us in some way.

The wide incidence of divorce is evidence of failure of the option of an essential "escape hatch" from marriage. It touches most families in the church

The very concept of marriage is in peril, because divorce is so commonplace.

In our culture, one popular idea is that marriage is only a private relationship between consenting adults, terminable by either. It seems easier to sever a marriage relationship with an unwanted spouse than a job with an unwanted employee.

Today some young people shun marriage. Some withhold full commitment.

Modern prophets warn that looking at marriage as a mere contract is an evil meriting severe condemnation.

Under the Law of Moses, remarriage for the divorced was considered adultery. Because of the hardness of our hearts, the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of this Celestial standard.

Many of those divorced are innocent victims, with firsthand experience of circumstances worse than marriage. Victims of desertion otherwise may have no way of looking forward and getting on with their lives.

The remedy for this problem is not divorce, but repentance. Often the cause is not incompatibility but selfishness. Divorce is not an all-purpose solution. It creates long-term heartache.

We do not give up on a marriage. If there is any hope of recovery, we seek help, again and again.

There are times when one spouse falls short, and the other is wounded. We must balance current disappointments against the good of the past, and the brighter prospects of the future. Don't treasure up past wrongs, reprocessing them again and again. Festering is destructive, forgiving is divine. Forgive wrongs.

Consider these observations of a wise bishop with extensive experience in counselling. Every couple recognized that divorce was not a good thing, but they all insisted that their situation was different. Worried about the children, but said it's worse for them to have us stay together and fighting.

We should be aware that there are three parties to our marriage -- the two spouses, and the Lord. If two of us could hang in there...

Love the Lord, keep his commandments, and just do the best you can.

He shall consecrate thine afflictions for thy gain.

Irreconcilable Differences: on Domestic Violence

Consider a feature series on Domestic Violence in the Deseret News...

The several stories aim to report on different aspects of this problem.

Family war zones: Research shows increasing physical and psychological impacts on kids
Silent victims: Kids who witness abuse face psychological woes
The abusers — They usually find blame hard to accept
Gaps in system put families in jeopardy
Domestic violence: Facts and resources

What kind of images characterize this concern about domestic violence?

The Deseret News articles provide a perfect icon.



Lots of other gratuitous hints let us know that domestic violence is always something done by men, husbands, fathers, boyfriends. Always "perpetrated" against females, wifes, girlfriends, women. And of course, children. "Compassion" and protective actions in behalf of children can justify almost anything.

• According to 2005 data, 5,891 Utahns made their way to local domestic violence shelters that year — 3,173 were children, 2,686 were women and 32 were men. There was no room for thousands of others who were turned away.

From another point of view, we find information of a different sort...

A quote from "The Politics of Family Destruction,"Stephen Baskerville, November 4 , 2002.

Domestic violence has now been federalized in a legislative agenda whose conscious aim is to promote easy divorce. Donna Laframboise of Canada’s National Post wrote that federally funded battered women’s shelters in the United States and Canada constituted "one-stop divorce shops" whose purpose was not to shelter women but to secure custody for divorcing mothers. The Violence Against Women Act, renewed by Congress in 2000, "offers abundant rewards" for making false accusations, writes Professor Susan Sarnoff of Ohio State University, "including the ‘rights’ to refuse custody and even visitation to accused fathers, with virtually no requirements of proof." The law’s definition of domestic violence is so broad that "it does not even require that the violence be physical."

Child Custody Statistics

"Ninety percent of divorced fathers have less than full custody of their children." Jonathan M. Honeycutt, Ph.D.(c), M.P.A., M.A., I.P.C. Director of Research, Clinical & Consulting Psychotherapist, National Institute for Divorce Research, Panama City, Florida.

37.9% of fathers have no access/visitation rights. (Source: p.6, col.II, para. 6, lines 4 & 5, Census Bureau P-60, #173, Sept 1991.)

"40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the non-custodial father's visitation on at least one occasion, to punish the ex-spouse." (Source: p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing Fulton) Frequency of visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in Reports by Fathers and Mothers. Sanford Braver et al, Am. J. of Orthopsychiatry, 1991.)

"Very few of the children were satisfied with the amount of contact with their fathers, after divorce." (Source: Visitation and the Noncustodial Father, Koch & Lowery, Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 50, Winter 1984.)

In a study: "Visitational Interference - A National Study" by Ms. J Annette Vanini, M.S.W. and Edward Nichols, M.S.W., it was found that 77% of non-custodial fathers are NOT able to "visit" their children, as ordered by the court, as a result of "visitation interference" perpetuated by the custodial parent. In other words, non-compliance with court ordered visitation is three times the problem of non-compliance with court ordered child support and impacts the children of divorce even more. Originally published Sept. 1992

Domestic violence: Not Always One Sided, Harvard Medical School

Mention of domestic violence immediately brings to mind an intimidating male batterer. But a 2007 article shows that the problem — also called intimate partner violence — is often more complicated and may involve both women and men as perpetrators.

April 2007 General Conference: Favorites

Some of the addresses from this conference really stand out.

Elder David A. Bednar's talk about the born again transition was one of the most unusual metaphors I have ever heard. He called it the "Pickle Parable".

President James E. Faust's talk on forgiveness was the most moving of the conference. At several points during delivery of the talk, he was overcome by the poignancy of expression, and had to pause to regain control of his emotions. I thought it was a rare and exemplary moment of spiritual insight and inspiration.

Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin's football anecdotes were unexpected and delightful.

President Gordon B. Hinckley's good humor was threaded throughout the conference. He has such indomitable spirit and good will.

BYU trustees and Cheney invitation

I would find it interesting to read discussion about how those signing petitions and demonstrating think their actions reconcile with the initial approval of the Cheney invitation by BYU trustees. After all, “BYU trustees” is just another way of referring to a group of church general authorities, isn’t it?

So, will you also go demonstrate and picket around the Church office building?

This question seems of particular interest to me during this week, when church members gather to hear counsel from general church leaders. Should we feel so inclined, would we also protest the selection of speakers in the conference?

I confess, as a borderline misogynist, I am sometimes mildly offended by the regular inclusion of women speakers in the general conference agenda. But instead of protesting or signing a petition against, I personally find it more than sufficient to nap through their talks.

…zzzz…

;-)

Cheney at BYU: In the news, blogs

I seldom find anything to agree with in SLTrib editorials, but this one seems to hold the grasp of one essential idea...

...protests, boycotts, issues brought to the forefront - it's all good. It's all part of the participatory process.
So let Cheney speak. Be appalled, or enthralled. He may posture and prevaricate, but he will be speaking to a class of college graduates who presumably are capable of weighing his words against his record.

I don't find anything else of merit in the thoughts expressed, but at least they got one foundational idea right.

Then there's this article from one of the regular columnists, which hews close to the traditional SLTrib line of enthusiastically misrepresenting and slandering the church and anything related to it.

Actually, the SLTrib did better than DesNews on this. The DN article could only find controversy as the point of discussion.

LDS Blogs are more-or-less dominated by outrage that Cheney is not already caged up in chains. Few seem to recognize that the federal prosecutor labored for more than a year to convict Bush and Cheney and company on all kinds of charges, but failed to deliver. Anyway, sentiments in the Bloggernacle are strikingly similar to something from MoveOn.org these days. Typical fare at a couple of representative blogs: Times and Seasons author says Cheney deserves a fair trial, oblivious to the fact that it already happened. Guy Murray's Messenger and Advocate follows the crowd with a rather disappointing anti-war posture that pretty much obscures all reasonable considerations. Others are far less even-handed in their discussion and rhetoric.

More stories in the Deseret News

BYU OKs Cheney protest
LDS Church statement concerning Cheney visit to BYU
LDS Church fires back at criticism over Cheney
Readers on Cheney — with a 'Y'
Protests not new at Y.


And in the Salt Lake Tribune

BYU allows students' Cheney protest
LDS Church responds to Tribune columnist
BYU allows Cheney protest
Chilly for Cheney at BYU?

R-rated films?

I think the boundary of real standard advocated by Church leaders has never really drawn an arbitrary line at R-rated films, though the criteria of the ratings board probably intersects in most areas of concern. The bar is actually much higher, and this is obvious when we consider the actual words of counsel on this issue. The real standard is driven by the ideals enumerated in Article of Faith 13 -- seeking that which is lovely, or praiseworthy, or of good report. Of course, abjuring the antithesis is clearly implicit here.

Elder Ballard's address of 2003 October conference is a good case in point. (Elder Russell M. Ballard, "Let Our Voices Be Heard")  He asserts unequivocally that the influence of media depictions of evil can be a corrupting influence on families. He counsels the saints to take steps that will help protect our families from this degrading influence. No place in his address does he use the term "R-rated". But in fact, the problems he suggests that we avoid are to be found in many contemporary films with R-ratings, and often even with lesser ratings.

Obviously, just avoiding R-rated films is not sufficient anymore. Anyone who is too smug about their own righteousness because they don't watch films with the "wrong rating" has simply missed the point.

I think perhaps the effectiveness of such a half-measure is somewhat analogous to carefully guarding our doors from the passage of axe-murderers, but allowing the kidnappers and child molesters to enter unimpeded. Or perhaps, more appropriately, we might be said to strain at a gnat, but swallow a camel.

SLTrib articles make me angry...

So, what else is new?

Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson continues his ACLU antics...

Rocky rips Bush at "impeachment" rally

Apparently about fifty people showed up to hear the speech. This guy is just a clown and an embarrassment. He is testifying at a sham "impeachment" trial in Washington state -- probably because he would fear assassination if he tried such antics in Utah.

The other editorial article was so full of ironic twisted perversions it still makes me angry just to think of.

School clubs: Gov. Huntsman should veto anti-gay bill

Opens up with traditional slandering of conservative Utah lawmakers.

It is amazing the lengths to which homophobic Utah legislators will go...

This is the standard label for homosexual advocates to use, attempting to discredit those who uphold traditional standards of morality and decency.

Moves right along to...

What we do believe, and hope, is that when Gov. Jon Huntsman reads it, he will have the good sense, the compassion and, yes, the common decency to veto it.

This notwithstanding the fact that the ideals embodied in this editorial reflect the very antithesis of good sense, compassion, and in particular, common decency.

This great example of high-minded critical thinking closes with what amounts to a bit of coarse locker-room humor, which we might expect from dumb football players, but seems out of place in editorials from supposedly responsible journalists. Then again, this is editorial content from the Salt Lake Tribune -- they have a tradition to maintain.

Voting for Nixon

I guess I coulda voted for him, but I missed out. I was serving an LDS mission in Missouri at the time, did not have residence established there, and never found out how to request an absentee ballot.

My mom and dad said they both voted for Nixon, both times. First time he ran against Humphrey and Wallace, second time against McGovern.

I really don't remember the first election, but I do recall in '72 Nixon was re-elected by a "landslide" margin.

As I recall, there was some kind of pre-election scandal regarding the VP running-mate for McGovern which basically poisoned his campaign late in the game, which was why everyone voted Nixon.

Some of Nixon's problems were certainly of his own making, but I think the Vietnam finale was engineered by others. By that time, there were so many people marching around shouting "Hell, no, we won't go!" and burning their bras that anything resembling pro-war sentiments simply got lost in the noise.

Interesting parallels to present-day circumstances. Imagine a country polarized by opinions regarding military involvement in an unpopular war that has gone on for too long. And political leaders suffering from failed support because they have become so entangled in their own excesses that they can no longer hide their sins from constituents. Along with a media troupe that scents scandal like sharks following a blood trail.

Someone else pointed out that the VP candidate who left the ticket did so because it was revealed that he had undergone psychiatric treatment - the nature of his treatment was not widely disclosed (if at all).

Apparently he didn't tell McGovern either.

A story in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Global climate prognostication -- getting it right

There's just not enough reading between the lines going on in the global climate debate. It seems plain to me that liberal advocates of drastic measures to prevent "global warming" are simply manifesting a willful

desire to be in control -- of everything. They don't really care specifically about the environment. It's just yet another aspect of existence that they are grasping for control over.

As long as I have been keeping track, social liberals have believed they should be in control of society. They know in their heart of hearts that they are the only ones competent and wise and benevolent enough to manage everything in an equitable fashion. Just give them all your money and property, and your children and pets, just submit to their comprehensive plans and management systems, and everyone will be blissfully happy. And if you don't, there will be disastrous and dire consequences, because nobody else is qualified to do the job.

Now all the fear-mongering regarding global warming is another act in the play for control and power. If you are not smart enough to manage your own carbon budget, the liberals will just have to do it for you. Hillary and Algore are ready to step up and do the job. If you won't stop polluting the earth's environment, wise stewards from the liberal camp will manage your life for you so that you are prevented from further damaging the ecosystem. All the wise choices will be made for you, by those who are smarter and better at understanding "science". Because these all-wise and benevolent folks are in charge of your life, they'll make sure that you no longer have any need to make all those difficult choices.

You might notice that this program has somewhat of a familiar ring to it.