Winter in Utah

Park City during Sundance

I found a new gallery I really liked in Park City:



The Egyptian Theater:



Classic Park City:

Christian Science Monitor

A friend asked me recently what I thought of the objectivity or fair-mindedness of The Christian Science Monitor, and I didn't know what to say other than that I had a vague notion they were somewhat conservative but didn't remember why I thought that and therefore couldn't assert it with confidence. This morning, I decided to look into it, so I read some current articles, from saving the axolotl to Obama and health care to the Prop 8 trial to the devastation in Haiti. I perused the site, read the titles of many more articles (looking for clues of bias in headings, which I did think were conservative-slanted to a small degree, but it's always hard to know if preconceived notions color that perception), and read some movie reviews. The movie reviews are what reminded me I thought it was conservative. Many of them focus on any relation to biblical values or Christian principles, but this time around, I found the reviews to be pretty normal.

I did some online searching and found forums and organizations discussing the bias of news organizations, and The Christian Science Monitor was often touted as being moderate and was often accused of being either left- or right-wing biased, which is often a sign they are either both or neither, both scenarios speaking to their balance. However, my own personal opinion, judging from the wording of their headlines and the sources with whom they speak, is that they're slightly conservatively biased but fair-minded.

Where a bias did stand out to me was in yesterday's article about the Prop 8 trial, in which the author came across as defensive of the pro-Prop 8 defense and only cited conversations with defenders, one of the two being a "Protect Marriage" leader, a staunch proponent of the amendment. The author spoke of the case against Prop 8 but seemed to side with the defense, which is no crime, but he gave the opposition no direct voice, which doesn't seem balanced.

So I thought, "Hm, maybe they're relatively politically neutral but tend to show their bias in anything touching on religion or social values?" So I read more, and I found a couple of other religion-oriented articles that didn't show much bias as far as I could tell, so I wondered if I'd simply allowed my own views to inject perceived bias into the Prop 8 article.

I wanted to find out more about Christian Science, so I went to their web site and poked around. After some digging, I found a F.A.Q. page about their beliefs and discovered something interesting: they apparently have few. That is, they claim to have very little in the way of religious creed or doctrine, only a few key principles in adherence to the Bible, such as the virgin birth, and the resurrection and ascension of Jesus (though they reject the notion that he was deity). As far as I could tell, they have some core beliefs and principles, but no exhaustive framework of doctrine and prescribed law. Suddenly, their relative "objectivity" in news reporting made more sense to me, as did something else. Their language in response to being asked about hot-button social topics, such as abortion and homosexuality, was very diplomatic but indicated an undertone of "we think it's not god's will or part of his goodness but is part of the 'unreality' along with illness and suffering (if I understand correctly, they seem to believe a kind and just god would not and did not create illness, frailty, suffering, and death, but that they are all, in some way I don't think I understand, false perceptions, or unreal constructs, deceptions grown out of not being in harmony with god and his infinite goodness and healing) and that since we all experience these things, they do not impose judgement but also do not embrace the concepts, though they embrace the people and hope and pray for their happiness and healing. This sounds good and well as they present it, but I'm skeptical of the subtexts and implications, and it also would explain the occasional bias that comes out, assuming their reporters are all also members of The Church of Christ, Scientist.

In short, I think they're mostly fair-minded and moderate in their approach, and that their bias is revealed when it touches on the few beliefs they more concretely espouse. But the process of reaching that tentative assessment was more interesting, to me, than the assessment itself, which is why I've journaled it and posted it. ...and I'm curious to hear what y'all think of The Christian Science Monitor and its objectivity.

If Only This Were Journalism

Editor's Note from the current article in National Geographic titled "The Polygamists":

"The room darkens, and Stephanie Sinclair's photographs flash on the screen. For months she has been photographing members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the FLDS. Its members are known to most of us because they believe in polygamy, but Stepahnie's photographs tell a deeper, broader story. They are able to do so because FLDS members trust her.

Stephanie has no agenda. She does not judge. There is nothing superficial or glib about her work. Her photographs are honest. They reflect her insatiable curiosity. They also reflect her compassion and sense of responsibility. The best photographers understand the obligation that comes with the privilege of access to otherwise hidden worlds and lives. Stephanie understands that others may want to pass judgment, but that is not her role. She photographs what she sees and provides the opportunity for insight. The rest is up to the reader.

In a world full of shrill voices and agendas, we at National Geographic are committed to an unbiased presentation of facts. Yes, we will cover controversial topics like the FLDS, and yes, we will devote time and resources to get the story right. It's what we've been doing for more than 120 years. Our commitment is to show the world in all its complexity--and to publish the work of photographers, like Stephanie Sinclair, who can present that complexity with compassion and fairness."

It would be foolish to fully accept any implication that all things in National Geographic are both fully correct and completely objective--in my opinion, there's no such thing--but to openly state that is the goal and to champion such efforts is more than most news organizations do in a sensational world. I appreciate the effort, at least.

And it's motivation to practice photography and writing, perhaps in a formalized environment, to join that effort, if there really are outlets for it...hm...

Snowfall at Mt. Timpanogos

The first shot was my feeble attempt at capturing the snowfall around the Mt. Timpanogos temple in American Fork, Utah. There was a little bit of glare from a nearby fence at the bottom of the frame, so I exaggerated it...I'm not entirely thrilled with the result, but I don't hate it. It's just...weird. Still, I like that you can see the falling snow, even if it does look like water droplets on the lens.

Brigham City Tabernacle

I've seen this building lighted up on the hill afar from I-15 many times, but one night, I decided I had time to kill, so I went to see what it was: the Brigham City Tabernacle (of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of course). It was worth the stop.

Defending Traditional Marriage Unjustly

CONSERVATIVE GAY RIGHTS SUPPORTERS COME OUT

Margaret Hoover recently wrote an opinion piece called "Why I'm Joining the Fight for Marriage Equality" on the Fox News web site which included the following passage:

"Some Republicans support gay rights, but prefer progress through legislative action or majority rule at the ballot box, rather than judicial action. But what if a democratic election imposes mandates that violate a citizen’s constitutional freedom? In the event that majority rule insufficiently protects individual liberty, our system of checks and balances puts forth that it is the role of the courts, to guarantee and protect the rights to individual Americans.

That’s why the Supreme Court, in 1967 Loving v. Virginia, legalized interracial marriage –six years after our current president was born to an interracial couple. At that time 73% of the population opposed 'miscegenation.' How long would it have taken to change popular opinion, for the minority to democratically win their constitutional rights? As Martin Luther King, Jr. famously asserted, 'Justice delayed is justice denied.'"

I imagine she was partially emboldened by Ted Olson's recent article, "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage", in Newsweek describing his reasons for fighting to overturn California's Prop 8. I recommend this article to all willing to hear his viewpoint. He does clearly state his opposition to the religiously-motivated view of same-sex relationships as inherently immoral, so there's probably a fundamental divide between him and many conservatives, but he is speaking from a politically conservative viewpoint. And though I take issue with a couple of his arguments, it's an interesting read with some valid arguments I think more opponents of same-sex marriage should consider, even if they don't change their ultimate position on the issue.

I think the majority of conservatives shrug and consider these people renegades (which is only attractive when they're renegading on the right side) and odd anomalies among conservatives. They're just vocal people who have been misled on an issue or don't grasp the moral profundity and ramifications of it. They lack the religious underpinnings to give them the big picture on the "real" consequences of the issue. They're no threat because true conservatives (or in other words, religiously motivated ones) will not be swayed by even the most prominent defectors from the defense of the nation's moral fiber. If I'm interpreting these voices correctly, this is very disheartening and saddening to me.


PRINCIPLES

Let me begin with a few points I want made clear:

• I do not support change for change's sake. I think blind "progress" without regard to consequence is irresponsible and haphazard.
  
• I do believe the rights and freedoms of religions are attacked by a few ill-willed anti-religion crusaders and that religions need to stand up for religious freedom.
  
• I do believe children have a right to opportunity and to be raised by loving parents who will teach them true principles of happiness, and I think the ideal family unit includes a mother and a father, all else being equal (which it never is, but for the sake of argument...).

UP FRONT: I DIDN'T AND DON'T SUPPORT PROP 8

That said, I have never supported Prop 8, nor have I actively opposed it. I've been very cautious around the issue, though if I were a Californian who had to vote, I would've voted against it to err on the side of individual and religious freedom. I admittedly was in a torn position. My church's leaders, from the very top, urged all members to do what they could to pass it. It was seen as a righteous cause to save this nation from moral deterioration and, ultimately, from its utter downfall. It was also considered by many to be a defense against an organized assault on religion and traditional values. Though the leadership made statements that support of Prop 8 was not required nor was it considered in worthiness, there was a definite sentiment in local wards (congregations) that if you spoke against it, you were on the fringe, apostate, unworthy, or otherwise sadly misguided. I believe many allowed themselves to be silenced by this social pressure, and discussions on the topic of same-sex marriage were often, in my experience, guided by champions of traditional marriage who paid little attention to their logical defense and relied on battle cries against moral degradation and calls to follow the prophet to rally the troops. Many ate up and proliferated the us-or-them fear tactics spread by ad campaigns, including one produced by a company sponsored by the church. I was disgusted, disappointed, and deeply saddened by the anger-motivated politics, the preemptive strikes based on fear, the dismissal of same-sex marriage as a farce, and the refusal to even consider compromise but to take the quick and easy road to security. I was also disappointed by many of the same things on the other side of the issue.


LEGISLATION SHOULD PROTECT FREEDOMS

My political philosophy, simple though it may be, and though its application may shift with understanding, is to defend the rights of the most while minding the welfare of the nation to the best of my understanding. But I like to think I believe in freedom before comfort, and in defending the rights of the most before protecting my own interests or defending my own values. I believe rights should be defended, and if giving everyone equal rights means someone's freedom or interests will be threatened, then that threat must be addressed and freedoms defended, but not by discrimination or by removing the rights of a select portion of the population, particularly based on traits they can't control.


THE CASE AGAINST SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

This leads to an interesting conflict in this issue: even if homosexuality is something people can't control or turn on or off (and I believe this is true in most or all cases), the kind of relationship they pursue is completely within their control, so if marriage, by definition, means "the union of a man and a woman", then gay people have every right to marriage like everyone else. It just may not bring them the happiness or fulfillment it brings the average "straight" person. So be it, they can choose not to pursue it but to seek committed relationships in other ways, such as civil unions (where they're legal). If they're not legal, then they can still choose to stay together. They don't need the government's tax benefits or recognition or insurance access to make their relationship meaningful or significant to them. Besides, those government benefits were designed around families and children, which is not what the vast majority of gay partnerships are about anyway, nor should they be because children should have the right to grow up with a mother and father where possible. And if a same-sex couple's church wants to sanctify their relationship in its eyes by marrying them, well...that's too bad because the government says the church can't do that because that's not what marriage is to begin with, and no church has the right to tell the government what it can or can't do, so the church is welcome to sanctify their relationship in some other way but without calling it marriage. Let them call it a God-sanctioned union if they want, but that shouldn't be forcing the government's hand because that would, in turn, affect all other churches and the tax system and insurance companies... The majority of the people have spoken in secular support of marriage being a heterosexual institution by definition, not just a "type" of relationship or a "contract" between any two consenting adults. It is an institution designed to foster an optimal family arrangement in which to raise children with male and female role models as mother and father, and even if many people today treat that institution like garbage and defile its original purpose, that doesn't justify changing its original definition to boot. Marriage's definition is at all vague or debatable only because it was culturally assumed to apply only to mixed-sex couples when it was instituted: there was no need for the clarification until gay people started wanting their version of it, sometimes encouraged by their churches' support.

OK, so that's a perspective I can understand. And it's not completely based on discrimination or assumptions about the motives of why gay people are seeking marriage. It's based on some pretty sound logic, I think, although I think it does make a stretch or leap here and there. Unfortunately, I don't hear much of this kind of argument, but what I do hear from opponents of same-sex marriage is that gay people are just trying to hijack marriage, or gay couples don't stay together anyway so marriage is a joke for them, or gay people don't want kids (and those who do shouldn't be allowed to have them because it's better for kids to be in orphanages or raised by single people than by a same-sex couple), or the nation will fall apart if we allow such perversion as homosexual marriages, or homosexuality will be taught in schools as a moral equivalent to mixed-sex couples, or the church will be forced to marry same-sex couples or lose its tax-exempt status, or the temples will close if we refuse to marry them, or...whatever. And yes, some of these arguments have some basis in truth, though I think most of the feared consequences would be defended and ironed out in the courts in the long run. And no, I don't consider any of them valid reasons to deny a portion of the population their rights. They are red herring. They are points to consider in working it all out, but in using these arguments to support banning same-sex marriage, what people are saying, at the root, is that it's OK to deny citizens rights as long as granting those rights makes life harder for me or goes against my religious beliefs. Shame on you! What country do you live in?! I've had to bite my tongue so many times as friends and family have stated their support for discriminatory legislation based on an "us or them" mentality: it's their rights or mine which have to go, so it's gonna be theirs. Is that freedom and democracy?

I understand much legislation has moral underpinnings, but I also believe most legislation is about defending the rights, freedoms, and safety of the nation's citizens. It's my belief that if you can't defend a law based on preserving rights, it should probably be discarded. I support laws against smoking in public places. It limits people's freedom to smoke where they choose, but it preserves the health and safety of those the smoker is forcing to breathe carcinogens. Now, perhaps I'm wrong in this. Perhaps it's the responsibility of passersby to wear a mask if they don't like inhaling second-hand smoke. But it's the smoker who is creating the hazardous situation for others by smoking in a public place, so I believe the smoker shoulders the responsibility. Perhaps the real approach should be to promote laws allowing smoking only if some sort of special filter is placed on the end of the cigarette, preserving both the smoker's freedom and that of the passersby. I'd be open to that. So I admit there are times when laws become a bit...subjective as to what rights and safety they're protecting, but I believe the arguments should at least be framed in that light rather than saying, "I think smoking is wrong, and it makes me uncomfortable to be around smokers, so I support making smoking in public illegal."


TYRANNY OF MAJORITY RULE

Please watch/listen to the following clip from 7:14 to about 8:10, which is from a speech by Ronald Reagan regarding the dangers of socialism and which contains a few gems of what I regard as sound political thought which relates to other issues:


I don't believe in "moral majority rule" in the sense it seems many conservative friends do. That, to me, is tyranny. Denying rights to some because you believe their decisions to be against God's will is shady territory, and I suspect many LDS people, for example, might change their tune if they lived in an Islamist nation, for example. If the population of the United States appeared to be tipping to a Wiccan majority, I suspect Christians everywhere would call for individual and religious freedom, not legislation of morality or religious values. I suspect they would say, "You do your thing, and I'll do mine, and as long as we're not infringing on someone else's rights, we're OK." But when you are part of the moral majority, it's a cozy place to enforce your beliefs and standards through law without considering whether you're really protecting freedoms or just letting your moral superiority call the shots to protect your own interests at the expense of truly upholding the freedoms which allowed your religion to grow in the first place.


MY PLEA

To my friends and family who actively oppose same-sex marriage (which includes most of you who read my blog, I think): I'm not saying you have to support same-sex marriage to be logical or for me to see you as fair-minded. I'm not saying opposing legalization of same-sex marriage is tantamount to tyranny. Notice I've not actually spent much time here debating the validity of each claim or making the case for same-sex marriage because that's actually beside the point for my purposes here. I'm just saying please, please make sure your reasons are just, true, and virtuous. Please make sure you're not denying your brother, mother, son, or friend his or her right to marry his or her sweetheart for reasons that are not based on true principles you would support even if you were on the other side of them, being denied what you regarded as a right but others did not. Please make sure your own feelings about the morality of same-sex partnerships aren't your only motivation for supporting legislation like Prop 8. Please consider your arguments the next time you're making them, and imagine a member of another church or an atheist making them against your church's practices or your own decisions they believe to be detrimental to the moral fiber of the country. Please express your position with love, with rationale, and with patience, and consider the possibility that if you can't do that, you're possibly not secure enough in your position to be denying an entire subset of our nation their rights over it. Please recognize the social and very personal impact of this cultural battle and be sensitive how it will affects those you love who may be granted or denied the ability to be married by either their church or state, along with its accompanying rights and responsibilities. Please consider the possibility that this is not an all-or-nothing issue and that there are compromises to be found. Just consider it? I know it won't change your mind, for most of you, but it will focus on the real issues and hopefully minimize unnecessary animosity and division.

Let's See If We May Not Eff It

I've been a fan of Douglas Adams' work for several years now. We would listen, as a family, to his books in audio form during road trips. We listened to other books as well, but the Hitchhiker's Guide and Dirk Gently series were my favorites. I recently listened to The Salmon of Doubt unabridged, borrowed from the library, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Among the many gems of thought to be found in it was the following quote which not only points out a remarkably common logical fallacy but summed up a lot of thoughts I'd been having on...well...some stuff:

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'"

Maybe I'll expound another time, but for now, I'll just include a few other quotes I enjoy from interviews and his books:

"A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.'"

"We don't have to save the world. The world is big enough to look after itself. What we have to be concerned about is whether or not the world we live in will be capable of sustaining us in it."

"If you try and take a cat apart to see how it works, the first thing you have on your hands is a non-working cat."

"Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all."

"(..) Sir Isaac Newton, renowned inventor of the milled-edge coin and the catflap!"
"The what?" said Richard.
"The catflap! A device of the utmost cunning, perspicuity and invention. It is a door within a door, you see, a ..."
"Yes," said Richard, "there was also the small matter of gravity."
"Gravity," said Dirk with a slightly dismissed shrug, "yes, there was that as well, I suppose. Though that, of course, was merely a discovery. It was there to be discovered." ...
"You see?" he said dropping his cigarette butt, "They even keep it on at weekends. Someone was bound to notice sooner or later. But the catflap ... ah, there is a very different matter. Invention, pure creative invention. It is a door within a door, you see."

"I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be."

"The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it which the merely improbable lacks."

"For Children: You will need to know the difference between Friday and a fried egg. It's quite a simple difference, but an important one. Friday comes at the end of the week, whereas a fried egg comes out of a chicken. Like most things, of course, it isn't quite that simple. The fried egg isn't properly a fried egg until it's been put in a frying pan and fried. This is something you wouldn't do to a Friday, of course, though you might do it on a Friday. You can also fry eggs on a Thursday, if you like, or on a cooker. It's all rather complicated, but it makes a kind of sense if you think about it for a while."

"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others."

"Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. Anything that's invented between when you're fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things."

"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day."

"Anything that happens, happens. Anything that, in happening, causes something else to happen, causes something else to happen. Anything that, in happening, causes itself to happen again, happens again. It doesn’t necessarily do it in chronological order, though."

"There is a theory which states that if anyone discovers just exactly what the universe is for and why we are here, that it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. Then there is a theory which states that this has already happened."

"Apparently, we need to think about the building being inhabited by dragons and look at it in terms of how a dragon would move around it. So, if a dragon wouldn’t be happy in the house, you have to put a red fish bowl here or a window there. This sounds like complete and utter nonsense, because anything involving dragons must be nonsense—there aren’t any dragons, so any theory based on how dragons behave is nonsense. What are these silly people doing, imagining that dragons can tell you how to build your house?"

"I love deadlines; I love the whooshing sound they make as they pass overhead."

"The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair."

"The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't."

"[Arthur Dent] hoped and prayed there wasn't an afterlife. Then, realizing the contradiction, he merely hoped there wasn't an afterlife."

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."

"The last time anybody made a list of the top hundred character attributes of New Yorkers, common sense snuck in at number 79."

"Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws."

"On the way back, they sang a number of tuneful and reflective songs on the subjects of peace, justice, morality, culture, sport, family life, and the obliteration of all other life forms."

"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."

"God's final message to Creation: Sorry for the inconvenience."

New Year's in Vegas

We Utah/Idaho visitors arrived in Vegas, but Anne was out of town still, so we had to find a place to stay, and the Golden Nugget was priced right. Glamorous, no?



OK, maybe not "glamorous," but we got a free upgrade to the largest suite in that tower, which was fun. We wished everyone else had been in town and available so we could have a house party.



We wandered and saw some sites, including a huge rocking horse...



...and something obviously impressive that you don't see every day in Idaho or Utah...


...and colorful fountain works...





...and the valley from atop the Stratosphere...




...and we celebrated the New Year on the strip.


...and met some new friends (the two guys in the middle who were plastered)...


...and maybe looked a little drunk. All we had was hot chocolate. I promise.



That's the short version. The end.