Comments (0) I want to thank Daniel C. Peterson for pointing me (and you) to this video:
In turn, I’ll direct you to his blog where he discusses baptism for the dead. Petersen, by the way, is an Islamic scholar and teaches at BYU. You might be interested in his short book Muhammad: Prophet of God.
So there the Internet’s in a tizzy over an apparent scheme by someone on the globe’s a’warmin’ side of the climate debate to discredit the “denier” side. I use the word “denier” purposefully and in quotes because that’s the word of choice the other side uses routinely to, I can only assume, stifle debate about the climate science behind global warming. I mean, can you think of another reason to use that pejorative?
In any case, the argument is that if you accept the argument that global warming is happening and that man plays a big part in that warming, you’re rational and accept science and all it has to offer. If you don’t, you’re a “denier” and anti-science. You probably–indeed likely–don’t accept evolution and probably–almost certainly–will vote for Santorum this fall.
If that all makes sense to you and if you accept my premise that the pejorative “denier” is intended to stifle debate, you’ll have trouble like I did making sense of the following by a guy named Peter Gleick, “head of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security in Oakland, California and apparently until very recently, the chair of the American Geophysical Union’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics,” according to Megan Mcardle who writes today in The Atlantic about the aforementioned scheme. Quoting Mr. Gleick now (bolded emphasis mine):
I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved.
Now I’m not a climate scientist, but from my observations, I’d say that the “deniers” would love to have a debate, would love to argue their side in peer reviewed journals, would love to share the stage with global warming alarmist Al Gore. Maybe Mr. Gleick can make that happen–after he comes clean from his misguided efforts to “attack [‘deniers’] and scientists [who don’t accept the so-called global warming consensus] and prevent this debate.” Maybe. Not holding my breath, though that might help stave off global warming–if there is global warming.
Finally, and on a related note, the following quote from Mcardle’s pen should be carved in stone for all to read and re-read (people in the press, you guys and gals in Congress, Mr. President and all the candidates who are running to take their seats, I’m thinking of you):
After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.
Folks, that last quote accounts for the economic mess we are in right now. Because the people I’ve just named have lost our trust, many of the tools we need to solve/fix this mess are off the table–until trust is restored–and that’s another blog post.
Pat Buchanan is no more–at MSNBC–and Stanley Fish misses him. The left-leaning network dismissed the right-leaning commentator because, apparently, network president Phil Griffin “declared himself uncomfortable” having a man of Buchanan’s views in the mix. That’s too bad, Fish says. Buchanan offered a perspective on politics tempered by a been-there-done-that ability to put political events in their historical context.
Like Griffin, I sometimes felt uncomfortable with some of the views Buchanan expressed. Unlike Griffin, I would never have dismissed him from my network, if I owned a network. I could never put my finger on the reason why until Fish helped me.
My own disappointment at Buchanan’s departure goes in another direction — in fact in two. First, Buchanan is an extraordinarily acute observer of the political scene. His knowledge of past campaigns — including knowledge of what went on behind the scenes — is encyclopedic. No one is more skilled at contextualizing a present moment in our political drama so that viewers can understand the history informing a decision or action that appears on its surface to be inexplicable, even zany. When Buchanan offers that kind of analysis, his pugnacious junkyard-dog persona falls away and is replaced by a precision that is almost professorial. It is a pleasure to watch, just as it is a pleasure to watch some coaches-turned-analyst who can explain what is going on in an athletic contest because they have been there.
Buchanan has also been there. That is the second thing I will miss: the contributions of someone who is not only reporting on history in the making, but has been part of that history himself.
In today’s world of blow-dried, blond, and busty commentators, a world of college drop-out cum talking heads, I’ll miss Buchanan because his opinions are informed by more than his agenda, his appearance on TV a consequence of his knowledge rather than his looks.
Who wrote this:
“. . . farmers are also digging and planting corn and other crops that will be turned into ethanol that can replace gasoline in our cars. Most cars in America can’t run on ethanol, however, so who is going to install ethanol pumps at the gas station without the cars to run on it? At this point I would say to all of my hard-core conservative friends: Hold on to your hats.
“What we need is a government mandate! We need to mandate that all cars sold in the United States, starting with the 2010 model year, be ‘flex-fuel vehicles’ – that is, they should be able to run on a blend that is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline (the so-called E85 blend), or even a coal-derived methanol/gas mixture. This mandate would cost a fraction of the new fuel economy standard with the added benefit of saving barrels more oil.”
For the answer, we go to the name under the title of the piece:
So, he’s for “smart” mandates–of course. He’s just against health insurance mandates, especially if they’re mandated in Massachusetts and if Romney’s behind them. Or Obama.
HT Andrew Kacsyinski at BuzzFeed.
Patheos is one of my favorite Sunday stops on the Web. There you’ll find well-written, reasoned, and balanced articles and blog posts on many, if not most, of the world’s religions. I’ve read widely on Catholicism and Mormonism on the site and learned a lot. Try it. You’ll like it.
Hey, you can attack Mitt Romney on a number of fronts. Yes, he’s made his share of gaffs. Yes, he apparently has trouble connecting with some people (he certainly didn’t have that problem with me*). Bain. Negative ads. Pick your poison. But the SLC Olympics? Don’t bother.
To my knowledge, he’s never claimed that he, and he alone, saved the SLC Olympics. In most everything I’ve ever read on the subject, he’s been generous in his praise of all the work others did to put on the Games. And in almost everything I’ve ever read, people in the know give him great credit for his leadership in saving the games. So when I read the following petty political comments in an article in today’s Deseret News, I just shook my head:
A trio of former local government elected officials, all Democrats, held a press conference on the steps of the Salt Lake City-County Building earlier Saturday to criticize Romney’s tenure at SLOC.
Romney is guilty of “arrogance and of acting as if we couldn’t possibly do it ourselves. He had to come in to save us and ride in on his white horse,” former Salt Lake City Councilwoman Sydney Fonnesbeck said.
Former Salt Lake City Councilwoman Joanne Milner and former Salt Lake County Councilman Joe Hatch offered similar accounts based on their experiences with Romney.
“He was not the savior of the 2002 Olympics,” Milner said. “It was the people of Utah.”
Did Romney say he was the savior of the Olympics? No. You have to put the word ‘helped’ in front of the word ‘save’ to capture the credit he has taken. The following, from the same story, is typical of what he might say in a town hall meeting:
“There’s power in unity,” Romney said. “We came together as a group of people not caring about who got credit, but caring about putting on the best Games in the history of sport and you did that.”
Later, at a special “Stars on Ice” show at Energy Solutions Arena, Romney said the community’s hard work showcased “the character and the passion of the people of Utah.”
He told the arena audience that he loved them, too, and “the experience that we shared together,” noting that when he took over the Games in 1999, he feared no one would sign up to volunteer.
Instead, nearly twice as many people as needed came forward. Some gave millions to bolster the Games’ budget, he said, while others worked for 17 days straight without pay or even tickets to events.
His comments in debates are not so extended, but even there, he’s never said anything less than he “helped save the Games,” and in some cases he quickly acknowledged the help of others. In any case, the SLC three appear to be all the DNC could scrape from the bottom of the barrel of people in Utah it asked to criticize Romney’s involvement in the Games:
A video released Friday by the Democratic National Committee also accused Romney of accepting the same kind of federal bailout for the Olympics that he now criticizes on the campaign trail.
But state Democratic Party Chairman Jim Dabakis said Utah’s minority party has “no gripe with Mitt Romney’s handling of the Olympics. He did a commendable job. I don’t think it’s useful for the Utah Democratic Party to say anything other than the truth.”
The DNC reportedly lobbied hard for state party support of their national effort to discredit Romney’s claim of turning around the Salt Lake Games, a key component of his campaign, even reportedly using a top adviser of President Barack Obama.
Good for them.
*In order to write the article I referred to in an earlier post, I had to interview Romney at the SLC Olympic headquarters in Salt Lake. Romney sat at a half-moon shaped table, surrounded by something like 10 different news organizations, including someone from ESPN and a couple of guys with KFI out of, you guessed it, LA. And then there was me, representing the Marriott Alumni magazine. Each took turns asking his or her questions, until it was my turn. I began by making a crack, something about LA, snow, and cocaine–I’m sure you had to be there–catching Romney completely off guard. He laughed out loud, and won my heart as a result. What can I say? I’m easy.
As I mentioned in a previous post, my brother Jeff died on February 6, 2012. He was predeceased by his father, grandparents, various uncles and aunts, cousin-uncles and cousin-aunts (a Taggart family genealogical category that should be standard issue), and friends. All of which makes the opening choir number at his funeral even more moving.
The Cody Combined Ward Choir sang “Going Home” to open the funeral. Then I spoke. My first words were, “I’m going to pay the choir the highest compliment that can be paid a choir: I thought I was at a funeral in Cowley.” Those from or with roots in Cowley will understand. For those who don’t have those ties, here’s another comparison: The Mormon Tabernacle Choir, the Orchestra at Temple Square, and choir member Alex Boye performing Dvorak’s “Going Home.” Yes, the Cody Choir was that good:
UPDATE: This is a bit embarrassing. I was so caught up in the music “Going Home” that I misremembered. In fact, the Cody Choir sang “Homeward Bound,” an equally beautiful piece. If there’s a redeeming feature in my mistake, it’s that Jeff would have been the first to correct me–humorously, of course. Instead, it was my cousin Dana. Here’s “Homeward Bound”:
The AP’s Kasie Hunt and Jennifer Dobner go round and round before they essentially acknowledge that, yes, Romney played a big part in saving the Salt Lake Olympics, a conclusion I came to years ago. During the run-up to the Games, I wrote an extended profile on Fraser Bullock for the Marriott Alumni Magazine, a publication of BYU’s Marriott School of Management.
Bullock was Romney’s right and left hand man and the CFO of the olympian bid to save the SLC Olympics. I interviewed Bullock extensively and Romney once for the article, among a variety of other people. To quote from my article:
According to his boss, SLOC President and CEO Mitt Romney,“he is one of the best CFO/COO’s in the country, if not the best.” And Romney needed the best because when he took over on 11 February 1999, SLOC was tottering at the top of a very challenging bobsled run of its own, one littered with tawdry headlines of tarnished Olympic rings, unhappy sponsors, and financial mis-management. “I always joke that I was already living in Utah, and Mitt wanted to save the relocation expenses,” Bullock adds.
Actually, saving those expenses was a harbinger of things to come. In short order, Romney and Bullock discovered that what you don’t know can hurt you. It was no secret that the media’s new favorite target was SLOC, that the Justice Department was looking for skeletons in SLOC’s closet, and that radio talk show hosts were shouting SLOC’s name from the rooftops. Moreover, SLOC had no operations plan, they weren’t using appropriate financial systems, and they had no Paralympic organization—SLOC is the first organizing committee to do both games. Morale was nonexistent. “The organization was virtually paralyzed; it didn’t know which way to turn,” Bullock explains.
What wasn’t readily apparent at the time of the scandal was that there was a severe financial crisis. Adding up all the numbers, Bullock and Romney discovered that SLOC was headed for a projected $400 million budget shortfall. And the previous twelve months gave little reason for confidence that they could fix the problem: SLOC had raised only $13 million the year before the scandal hit the headlines. “It doesn’t take a math degree to figure out that with about three years to go, the Salt Lake Olympics were in trouble; and at that rate, we weren’t going to be able to raise the funds to close the budget deficit, ” Bullock explains.
Now imagine Santorum or Paul, Gingrich or Obama in the same situation. Hard to do, isn’t it?
So how did Romney and his crew manage? Well, according to my article:
As of the end of October, SLOC had raised $859 million dollars, $395 million more than Atlanta,the previous high. Because SLOC gives 40 percent of what it raises to the United States Olympic Committee and because some of the donations were in kind and therefore not budget relieving, the net impact of the fund raising was to reduce the budget deficit by about $200 million dollars. Add that to the $200 million Bullock and his team were able to cut, and the snake was dead. “So at this point, we believe we’re in a break-even situation, which is exactly where we want to be,” reports Bullock, who recently relinquished one of his SLOC titles, CFO.
Read the story(beginning on page 21). It tells of a turnaround effort that should cause everybody to take a second look at Romney–and then beg that he ask Bullock to be his VP.
UPDATE: On my Facebook page, BYU Professor Warner Woodruff responded to this post:
Warner Woodworth – This sounds too naive, or at least too one-sided. This guy must be a Mormon or a Republican fanatic to have such a love affair with Mitt’s Olympics. From the sources I knew who helped manage the games in 2002, it was a lot more complicated, and Mitt was made to look better than his leadership really warranted. But maybe they were all wrong back then.
And I responded:
Gregory Taggart – Warner, this guy is me, and the article was for an alumni magazine–your school’s–and written before the games even started, so yes, it is one-sided. Nevertheless, the sources I know give him great credit, even as they acknowledge that Mitt didn’t carry the Games on his back, something I don’t think he has ever claimed. Finally, I plead guilty to being Mormon–how did you guess?–and a Romney fan. Fanatic? No. Neither am I naive. Just someone pulling for a guy I like, gaffes and all.
I’ll add that I’m vaguely aware that some of the people involved in bringing the Games to SLC were put out that Romney got so much credit and they so little, due in large part to the scandal. I can understand that. My feelings at the time were that the original organizers were unfairly tarred by the so-called scandal. Not that there was no scandal, mind you. There was, but the goings on seemed to be part and parcel of the bidding process, a process–tainted as it was–that apparently had been going on for years. The unfairness was that it came to light on SLC’s watch. (I stress that these are vague memories, so don’t quote me on this.)
Interesting article by David Pimentel of Florida Coastal School of Law on overprotective parenting, the resulting laws, and the implications for so-called free-range parents (I’m probably one). From the abstract:
In the last generation, American parenting norms have shifted
strongly in favor of Intensive Parenting, placing particular emphasis
on protecting children from risks of harm. Recently, a backlash to
this trend has emerged. “Free Range” parenting is based on the
concern that coddling children through overprotection inhibits the
development of their independence and responsibility. Indeed, a
growing body of literature suggests that parental overreaction to
remote and even illusory risks of physical harm is exposing children to
far more serious risks to their well-being and development. But the
powerful influence of media has sensationalized the risks to children,
skewing popular perceptions of the genuine risks children face and of
what constitutes a reasonable or appropriate response to such risks.
Consequently, individuals who do not buy into Intensive Parenting
norms, including those from different cultural and socio-economic
backgrounds, may be subjecting themselves to criminal prosecution
for child neglect and endangerment.
It appears that I’m on the anti-nanny-state warpath this morning, what with my Tweet about Santorum’s take on gambling.
Panorama Theme by 
Themocracy
