Super Pac Leader’s Super Dumb Rationalization

By , March 8, 2012 6:17 pm

Jeff Goldblum utters one of the great movie lines of all time in the movie The Big Chill. He’s talking with the Tom Berenger character about rationalization:

Michael: I don’t know anyone who could get through the day without two or three juicy rationalizations. They’re more important than sex.
Sam Weber: Ah, come on. Nothing’s more important than sex.
Michael: Oh yeah? Ever gone a week without a rationalization?

Now, I have friends who would dispute Michael and agree with Sam, but that’s not my point. My point is that everybody needs to rationalize, sometime, someplace. For example, take Bill Burton, former Obama 2008 campaign press secretary now founder and head of the pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA. Today he appeared on Andrea Mitchell’s show on MSNBC and had to address the question of how Bill Maher got away with his slur against Sarah Palin (among others), yet Rush Limbaugh is being pilloried in the press for his slur against a 30-year old Georgetown Law School student.

Okay, so granted, this is the political season, and yes, the GOP has challenged Burton to give back the $1 million that Maher recently donated to his Obama super pac. But does anybody think Burton believes the rationalization he used to distinguish what Rush said (and apologized for) from what Maher said (and never apologized for)? Anybody?

On another note, from what Mr. Burton said, sounds like the Democrats think that Romney will be the Republican nominee.

Fair Questions. Difficult Answers.

By , March 8, 2012 3:31 pm

I support Romney. And I’ve tired of the ridiculous questions about his religion. Most I’ve read have betrayed more about the questioner than they ever will about Romney or his Mormonism. That said, there are legitimate questions. Sarah Posner, Senior Editor at Religion Dispatches, has an article at Salon.com where she asks some of them. What about Blacks and the Mormon priesthood? What about Mormonism and feminism, particularly in the 70s and 80s? And so on. Sarah’s tone is generally fair, as are the questions she asks. I’m interested in how Romney would answer them. Judging by what I’ve already heard about how he felt about the priesthood ban and by what I’ve read in stories like Peggy Stack’s 2008 article for the Salt Lake Tribune, I think he’d do just fine.

That said, the questions do present a problem that Posner fails to acknowledge. Responding to even these appropriate questions involves going deeper into Mormon belief than even the most interested journalist may be willing to go. And that might result in a poor, even unfair story being written by a reporter who tuned out as soon as she heard the bit she wanted to hear. To me, that’s one reason Romney may be reluctant to talk about his religion. Like me, he surely holds his beliefs sacred. Like me, he probably would rather that people understood how the Book of Mormon impacts how he deals with some of these difficult issues. Allow me to give an example of what I’m talking about.

I grew up in the 60s and served my mission in the Brazil North Mission from June 1971 to June 1973, before the 1978 so-called Revelation on the Priesthood. I supported the practice of not extending the priesthood to Blacks. Now, stop there, and I’m a racist. But that’s not even close to the truth. The truth is, I wasn’t a member of the Church because of the ban; I was a member in spite of it. And even that statement just scratches the surface of the story of me and the priesthood ban.

So imagine you’re a reporter, and you want me to go beneath that surface. Do you have the time and interest to hear me explain what I mean by what I just said? Are you ready for me to go into what the Book of Mormon means in my belief system and how it affects so much of what I do? Are you willing to listen to, then write fairly about, what the idea of living prophets means to me and why that belief would affect how I dealt with the priesthood ban? How receptive will you be to the evidence I would muster to demonstrate to you that I have always–always–treated people of color with love, that I have never condescended to them, that I’ve tried to treat everybody everywhere as equals, and so on?

If I were Romney and I could be sure that I’d get a fair hearing and that the writer would report my responses fairly, honestly, and without any mind reading, I’d jump at the chance to talk about the priesthood ban and any other Mormon questions they might have. But like Romney, I have doubts that would happen, and so I hold back. My sacred and deeply held beliefs don’t fit on bumper stickers. They aren’t made–aren’t appropriate–for 15 second sound bites. They just aren’t. Unfortunately, the political public seems to thrive on a diet of gossamer statements truncated to fit on the rear fender. And there’s the conundrum.

Where’s the Outrage? Oh, Yeah, I Forgot. Silly Me.

By , March 7, 2012 9:28 am

Warning: strong language ahead. I will not defend Rush Limbaugh’s wholly inappropriate word choices in his description of the Georgetown law student. They were wrong, offensive, and wrong-headed. But he has apologized. (Only the mind readers among us know that his apology was insincere.) What I am interested in, however, is where were all the Facebook posts, where was all the outrage, where were all the boycotts when the twits in the following story said what they said? I repeat: strong language ahead. Read at your own risk.

The Dogged Gail Collins

By , March 6, 2012 9:52 am

Well, in light of the immediately preceding post, this is pretty amazing: New York Times columnist has written about Romney’s dog on the car roof story over 50 times.

As I Remember the Story, It Was All Down Hill From Here–For The Dog

By , March 5, 2012 9:03 pm

The First Two Chords from Eroica, Again and Again and Again

By , March 4, 2012 8:05 pm

Found this at Ann Althouse’s. Thought I’d preserve it on my site. My introduction to Eroica came in Rio de Janeiro, when James Thatcher–then a missionary with me, now a studio musician in LA–helped me pick out some good classical music to listen to. Eroica was his first selection for me.

Update: For those unfamiliar with Eroica, here’s the entire first movement, first two chords and all.

Update #2: By the way, I could put all I know about classical music in a small thimble, and there would still be enough room for a big couch.

How Bright Is The Day

By , March 4, 2012 4:21 pm

I searched for, but couldn’t find, the Mormon Tabernacle’s version of this American folk hymn. But I did find it sung by the Eastview High School Concert Choir. It appears to be the same Mack Wilberg arrangement. The choir does a great job. The talent high school students have these days amazes me.

HOW BRIGHT IS THE DAY
How bright is the day when all people
receive the sweet message to come
to rise to the mansions of glory
and be there forever at home
And be there forever at home
and be there forever at home,
to rise to the mansions of glory
and be there forever at home
And be there forever at home
and be there forever at home
to rise to the mansions of glory
and be there forever at home
The angels stand ready and waiting
the moment the Spirit is come
to carry it upward to heaven
and welcome it safely at home
And be there forever at home
and be there forever at home
to rise to the mansions of glory
and be there forever at home
And be there forever at home
and be there forever at home
to rise to the mansions of glory
and be there forever at home
The Saints that have gone on before us
all raise a great shout as we come
and sing allelujah and glory
to welcome the travelers home
And be there forever at home
and be there forever at home
to rise to the mansions of glory
and be there forever at home
And be there forever at home
and be there forever at home
to rise to the mansions of glory
and be there forever at home

Slightly Informed Anti-Mormon Bigotry on Display

By , March 3, 2012 11:06 am

Okay, so I’m a Facebook friend with Bruce Bartlett, a one-time big player in D.C., still a player, largely in the economics and tax policy sandbox. He posts on Facebook a lot and has a pretty good following. I toy with de-friending him now and again because he is quite negative generally and very negative when it comes to Republicans. A former member of the party–under Reagan, IIRC–he has since left the party and cannot help himself when it comes to taking potshots at the idiotic Right (his favorite word has to be idiot).

Anyway, yesterday he linked to a story on Slate about the recent Randy Bott controversy and attendant bruhah over Blacks and the Mormon priesthood. (More on that later.) Among other things–and ironically it turns out, given the question Slate posed in the title of the article, “Is Mormonism Still Racist?”–the conversation in on Bartlett’s wall revealed some, shall we say, revealing attitudes about Mormonism:

I rarely stand silently by when people go off on my religion like that, so I entered the fray:

I have no idea where the conversation has gone since my post. I haven’t been back. If I did return, I would ask whether those disparaging Brigham Young would like to have one quote, one aspect of their lives–that part they would be most ashamed of today–paraded around as representative of their entire life. I think I know what the answer would be.

Did Brigham Young have his faults? Yes. Is his quote about interracial marriage offensive? Yes, certainly today, probably then–only much less so. (Presentism is a fallacy we should avoid, by the way.) Does it tell of the whole man? I think not, not even close. And by the way, Brigham was known for firery rhetoric, words he used to stress the importance of what he was saying, but words he never intended to follow through on. I would venture that the interracial marriage rhetoric fits that bill. Yes, he thought interracial marriage was wrong. No, he never intended to kill anybody for marrying someone of another race.

Now, about that Slate article. Therein, the author tells of an informal survey/video that went viral. Apparently a number of BYU students were pretty weak on Black history (emphasis mine):

Just this past month, the BYU campus became embroiled in a controversy concerning racism—or, at the very least, racial insensitivity and ignorance. In a satirical celebration of black history month, comedian David Ackerman dressed in a hoodie, Utah Jazz gear, and blackface, and quizzed BYU students on their knowledge of African-American history. On the video, which went viral, BYU students failed to correctly identify February as black history month and failed to name important black American figures beyond Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X. (The rapper 50 Cent was also named as a hero of black history.) And Ackerman succeeded in getting his painfully naive interviewees to imitate what they believed to be typical black behavior, with finger snapping, the “gangsta limp,” and jive talk all making appearances.

According to Darron Smith—an African-American convert to Mormonism and a BYU alum who, from 1996 to 2006, taught a course there called “The African American Experience”—Ackerman’s video reveals that problematic attitudes about race are not limited to “older generations” of Mormons. Ackerman “provided a microphone for today’s BYU students (even the few black BYU students) to voice their ignorance about the black experience in America.” And while you might very well see something similar at other “isolated, conservative” college campuses around the country, in Smith’s view, the deference of BYU students to church authority makes church leaders responsible for such ignorance—a point now driven home by Bott’s remarks. Smith places the lion’s share of the blame on BYU’s administration. (Smith’s own contract at BYU was not renewed in 2006.)

This indictment is patently unfair. Time was that BYU’s student body came largely from Utah and the intermountain west. That’s no longer the case. Today, 33% of the students are from Utah, 67% from other states. Thirty-six percent come from California (12%), Washington (5%), Texas (5%), Arizona (4%), Colorado (3%), Oregon (3%), Nevada (2%), and Virginia (2%). These students come to BYU with an average GPA of 3.82 (2011) and have SATs to match. Many of these students have served missions throughout the world. In short, they are not blindered, stupid people. They’ve been around. They are simply students, many recently graduated from high school, and they–like their white peers in virtually any and every college across the country–don’t know that much about Black history*. Is that an indictment of BYU, the Mormon Church, or our high schools? I think we all know the answer.

*Of course, this is my hunch. Challenge me, and we’ll all learn the truth. Otherwise, I’ll go with my hunch because I don’t have the time to back up my hunch with research.

JFK Speaking in the Salt Lake Tabernacle

By , March 2, 2012 9:50 am

Without comment:

Mormon Doctrine

By , March 2, 2012 12:16 am

It seems appropriate to point people to an important statement on Mormon Doctrine on the Website of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The first bullet point is especially relevant to the current controversy about Blacks and the Priesthood:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Panorama Theme by Themocracy