"That's Not Nice"

Timely comments from Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal columnist...

I think the atmosphere of political correctness is now experienced by normal people--not people who speak on TV, but normal people--as so oppressive, so demanding of constant self-policing, that when someone says something in public that is truly not nice, not nice at all, they can't help but feel that they are witnessing a prison break.

As long as political correctness reigns, the more antic among us will try to break out with great streams of Tourette's-like forbidden words and ideas.

We should forbid less and demand more. We should exert less pressure from without and encourage more discipline from within. We should ask people to be dignified, hope they'll be generous, expect them to be fair. When they're not, we should correct them. But we shouldn't beat them to a pulp. Because that's not nice.

Public Ads: For Girls Only

You may have seen this online.

The banner next to the Deseret News column reads, "Encourage girls to see the world through math and science." There's a background picture of a roller coaster, overwritten with a bunch of undecipherable physics notations. It links to a web page entitled girlsgotech.org, which has since transformed itself into a Girl Scouts program.

Why should that be a message directed specifically at girls? I suppose the world is the same, whether girls or boys are looking. And science is equally applicable from the perspective of either.

Some suggest that the issue is "representation". To me the idea of "representation" seems apropos to political ideals, but how does it apply to academic studies, professions, and career choices? Why should anyone believe that girls or boys are "underrepresented" in anything in particular, or that any kind of parity is even warranted?

I observe that right now, for example, it seems boys are "underrepresented" in every college-level academic discipline, because the girls, for some reason, attend college in disproportionate numbers. Is there anything wrong with that?

We also hear complaints about historic discrimination against women, and the assertion that today's imbalance is simply a correction for past inequity. I don't necessarily find references to what happened "a century ago" to be all that instructive, unless we establish significant parallel to what goes on today. I might as well assert that a century ago, girls were not permitted to ride in an airplane. They were excluded simply because no such opportunity existed for anyone.

In particular, this excuse is frequently offered in the context of higher education opportunities. I don't know anything about who was permitted to take college classes a hundred years ago, but of my fourth and fifth-generation ancestors, I only find a single one, Alexander Neibaur (#20 on my ancestry chart) out of twenty four men and women who received any advanced education of note, between 1860 and 1910.

Perhaps there are some other indicators of superior privilege represented in such data. To me it appears that exclusion from academic careers was nearly universal during that period. Secondary education or academic degrees were vanishingly rare, I suspect more for reasons of practicality than discrimination.

I find it passing strange, as well, that inclusion in academics by "being married to a man in the field" is sometimes looked down on, a distinction to be denigrated. I suspect not a few women of that day partnered with educated spouses to share their husband's interests and skills. Perhaps it was a different way of doing things, but I think not necessarily of lesser merit or effectiveness.

Freedom in Israel

I have had some disagreement of late with a friend who maintains that the nation-state of Israel curtails religious freedom by certain laws and policies which favor Judaism and exclude other religions, particularly Christians, and specifically, proselyting Mormon missionaries.

My observation was that Israel is remarkably progressive in such matters, in light of circumstances.

I admit I'm arguing based on what some Israelis have to say about themselves and their nation. Maybe they are lying.

Excerpted from Freedom of Religion in Israel ...

Israel protects the freedom of Jews and non-Jews alike to engage in their chosen form of religious practice or worship. Likewise, in most cases the application of religious precepts by institutions of the State, such as in the prohibition of work on religious days of rest, does not compel Jews or non-Jews to violate the precepts of their chosen faith. However, freedom of religion is not an absolute right, but rather is subject to limitations and derogation. Thus, freedom of religion must be balanced with other rights and interests, and may be restricted for reasons of public order and security. In practice, however, Israeli authorities have exercised their power with great caution.

 The article further asserts...

The "Basic Law: Human Liberty and Dignity" (the foundational statement of constitutional law in Israel) refers to a "Jewish and democratic State". However, Judaism has not been proclaimed the official religion of Israel. Rather, the law and practice in Israel regarding religious freedom may best be understood as a sort of hybrid between non-intervention in religious affairs, on the one hand, and the inter-involvement of religion and government in several forms on the other, most notably by legislation establishing the jurisdiction of religious courts of the different faiths in specified matters of "personal status" by government funding of authorities which provide religious services to several of the religious communities; and by a series of legal institutions and practices which apply Jewish religious norms to the Jewish population.

On the proselyting issue -- from what I have been able to sort out from the explanations about how such things are regulated in Israel, I understand that certain religious groups have received some level of bureaucratic recognition in Israel, as referenced at the end of the above cite, and these officially recognized groups are granted more latitude that those not afforded such status. Apparently the Greek Orthodox Church is the most prominent among officially recognized Christian sects. The LDS Church is not currently among the recognized groups, and is subject to such restrictions as the Israeli government uniformly imposes on all such groups. I suppose that situation could change at any time. I know that similar impositions have been suddenly and surprisingly removed, in many other countries.

I'd admit that from our perspective it certainly seems like a heavy-handed restriction, but the general policy seems to be nothing specifically directed at the LDS Church.

Firefighting: Public service pandemonium

Tonight I'm listening to the local public service radio channel, the station operated by the county sheriff's office.

Half dozen serious auto accidents with injuries have been reported within the last few minutes. Six ambulances and four sheriff units are in the process of dispatch.

Three fire departments were deployed with multiple rescue and emergency firefighting units. Only one dispatch operator is trying to coordinate all this, and he started getting a bit flustered. One unit complained that they didn't receive a timely call-up on their pagers, to which he replied, "I'll get to it as soon as I have time!"

I can imagine how this whole channel for handling such incidents would be just overwhelmed in a sustained wide-scale event. Sometimes it is a bit frightening to uncover the man behind the curtain, and come to realize that he is as human as us all.

Respect for God

Our respect for Heavenly Father encompasses two aspects. One derives from charity and love, associated with righteousness. The other is the dread and fear that go along with wickedness.

I suspect we all warrant some appropriate balance of both.

I've always been fascinated by the dreadful and apparently violent aspect of so many Old Testament stories, relating the wrathful and vindictive nature of Jehovah, punishing the wicked. Especially in juxtaposition with the New Testament character of Jesus Christ. Interestingly enough, despite the seeming disparity, there is no conflict between the two persona's -- just different aspects of the same character.

In my view, it seems entirely appropriate for certain graven images to be overturned and broken, while others are upheld as respected symbols.

Alpaca

I was hiking over the top of the ridge of an evening high above Snail Hollow, and came face to face with this weird animal, bizarre long necked and small headed, tall pointy ears, about as big as a hefty dog but with long slight legs and silky brown fur. We both kinda said "YIKES!" in our own language, and backed off a few startled steps. I hung around for a while, watching him, but he didn't like the looks of me at all, I guess -- wouldn't let me come closer than about ten feet.

He was obviously lost. Wearing a manufactured halter of nylon webbing, but no other distinguishing features. Thought I oughta try taking him outta there, because I figured the coyotes tend to claim such undefended critters pretty quick. I tried entreating with apples, hanks of grass, luring with soft banter and baby talk, sitting down, standing up, sneaking up, quick rushes, head fakes, and everything I could think of, but wily critter managed to keep out of grabbing distance. I sat there for a while in the dark, just keeping company, then gave up and went home.

I went back up next morning with my friend Michael Golden, and he just kind of scooped the animal up in his arms. We carried him off the mountain and put him in my mom's garden.

Mom promptly fell in love with the animal, and decided the animal is named "Dolly". (He turns out to be "she".)   Dolly loves mom's strawberry plants.

Anyway, here it is. What do you do with an alpaca?

Biological basis for sin

What if there is a biological basis for certain behavioral habits we refer to as sinful? Does that make any difference? Why should it?

I've had some fun discussing this elsewhere. It is a controversial idea. Some of the more liberal advocates seem to feel that a biological predisposition in some way cancels out any basis for proscribing certain kinds of behavior. I tend to want to ask if that means anything goes and nothing is ever right or wrong, when I'm compelled by my "biology".

Of course, when I suggest that some anti-social behaviors like murder and theft may just as well have compelling biological components, they get all huffy and accuse me of being a bigot.

The only good answer I've been able to come up with is that there must be a compelling biological component for bigotry. I was born this way, so I can't help but say such things.

Petition: Let Cheney speak at BYU

Dear Friends,

I have just read and signed the petition: "Please don't prohibit Dick Cheney from speaking at BYU"

Please take a moment to read about this important issue, and join me in signing the petition. It takes just 30 seconds, but can truly make a difference. We are trying to reach 1,000 signatures - please sign here.

Once you have signed, you can help even more by asking your friends and family to sign as well.

Thank you!

Jim Cobabe


www.thePetitionSite.com

Vice President Cheney to speak at BYU

Media sources have announced that Dick Cheney will deliver a public address at the BYU Commencement ceremonies in April 2007. Here's a link to a Deseret News article.

Just below the radar is a muttering growl of outrage. Too many people personally project hatred and loathing for President George W. Bush. Cheney gets the benefit of some of the overflow that spills past the edges.

To me, this ferocious mounting antipathy that focuses on Bush and spills over to Cheney is beyond all reason. I cannot fathom why anyone would object to Cheney's speaking engagements. From my experience, Cheney is an accomplished public speaker. The speaking circuit is a common enough occupation for Vice Presidents, has-been and otherwise, honored or infamous.

As to the spewing of pejoratives and unsubstantiated accusations, let those who embrace such vile practices validate their claims in the court of justice. You need to progress somewhere beyond your mock impeachment proceedings and actually do something more than just slander and threaten in hysterical public demonstrations. Otherwise it is just more of the endless unsubstantiated "Bush lied" mantra that amounts to a public propaganda campaign.

Personally, I find far less reason to believe these than Bush and company. Sad to say that the general level of credibility is so compromised by the current tone of public discussion. The only sure premise is that when everyone lies, there is no source of public information that can be trusted.

In fine illustration of this point, a current Deseret News article quotes comments from BYU political science professor Darren Hawkins.

Hawkins believes Cheney has changed in the past four years from a moderate pragmatist to an extremist driven by the Iraq war and has appeared willing to do anything to create his version of a secure country.

Ironically, it is people like Hawkins that are the pivot of change. These fickle people started out as embracing the concept of opposing the sources of global terrorism, and have gradually transformed into caricatures of screaming anti-war protesters of the 60's.

Hawkins goes on to say of Cheney,

"He may be the most unpopular vice president in history and he may be the most unpopular person in America right now, so, yes, where else could he go?" Hawkins said. "It doesn't surprise me the White House called back and wondered if BYU would take him. I seriously doubt he'd be welcome at a lot of other universities."

What does popularity have to do with it? Are we now supposed to begin censoring speakers with unpopular causes?

Boy Scouts -- a great tradition

Fine article in today's Salt Lake Tribune. Boy Scouts collect tons of food results of the annual "Scouting for Food" drive in Utah this weekend.

In spite of occasional efforts to discredit and defame the reputation of the Boy Scouts of America, this organization continues to reflect the strongest belief in teaching high moral values to young people. It has long been plain to me that Scouting fills some of the most vital roles in perpetuating the ideals that make us strong and successful.