Submitted to a Candid World
Archive for
Is the Mormon Church Ready for Its Closeup?
South Park's primer on Mormonism
The Mormon Church has been busy recently, dramatically increasing its presence on the American political scene. With a candidate for the Republican nomination for president, a free-speech case in front of the Supreme Court, and a leading role in funding anti-gay-marriage legislation in California, the Mormons are exerting power and influence and might just get what the Church has wanted all along: acceptance into the mainstream.
What the Church gets with acceptance, though, is increased scrutiny, quite unwanted, considering the great effort the Church expends keeping its internal governance and finances secret.
Mormon leadership represents a successful blend of piety and business acumen. Where other Christian denominations pledge to turn income into charity, operating as non-profits, the Mormon Church not only provides charitable relief to the needy as part of a larger missionary program, it also invests heavily in for-profit enterprises, funded at least in part by the compulsory tithing of its members.
Current or detailed estimates of the Mormon Church’s vast wealth are difficult to find. In the early 1900s, the Mormon Church seemed interested in divesting itself of business holdings no longer needed to protect the security of its members. The current party line from the Church on financial matters professes the organization operates primarily on the generosity of its members and that for-profit interests are a negligible part of the Church’s economy.
Outside estimates of the Church’s wealth tell a different story. The Church owns significant amounts of land in the Western U.S., including water rights it leases to public utilities. It owns Beneficial Life Insurance Company and the largest cattle ranch in the country. In 1991, estimates of Church holdings exceeded $8 billion. In 1997, Time reported the Church worth at $30 billion. Based on these estimates and a 1997 membership of about 10 million people, the per capita wealth of the Mormon Church is stupefying. Unfortunately, more recent estimates of this wealth are unavailable.
Mormons under the microscope after the jump.
Charity During a Crisis: Doing a Little to Help a Lot
Closing an elementary school and relocating students and staff to another. Eliminating kindergarten. Laying off staff.
Poughkeepsie schools Superintendent Laval Wilson said some of those scenarios could play out in the city if future state education aid cuts run as deep as many fear.
I live in Poughkeepsie (New York), and our schools are up a creek right now. I am sure many of you live in communities where schools face similarly intractable financial situations. The severity of the economic crisis in the country and the bleak word coming from Albany indicate to me that Poughkeepsie’s superintendent is not bluffing. Yes, individuals are powerless to address this situation on a macro level, but the average American can do something on a micro level to help out teachers and schools.
DonorsChoose.org is an online venue connecting donors with teachers and schools looking to purchase text books and other classroom supplies or fund special projects. It is an amazingly simple way to chip away at a tremendously large problem and reminds me very much of microloan programs in developing countries.
My family isn’t exchanging gifts this Christmas: Money is tight, and even if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t feel right to go nuts on purchases. What does feel right, though, is to take some of the money we do have and use it to help others. If you are looking for a flexible charity where a little donation can do a lot of good and you choose where and how your money is used, give DonorsChoose a try.
Principled Reflection: You’re Doin’ it Wrong
Walk into any Barnes & Noble. On the front table, without fail, you’ll see any number of tell-all memoirs: Goldsmith on Bush (don’t prosecute me, bro!), Gellman on Cheney Bush, McClellan on Bush, and the list goes on. What you won’t see, anywhere, is Bush on Bush. Until now. Per “The Caucus,” Bush tells us what he’s learned. Let’s analyze.
I came to Washington with a set of values, and I’m leaving with the same set of values. And I darn sure wasn’t going to sacrifice those values.
We know. Thing is, it would have been nice to know what those values were before Bush was elected. How Bush reconciles his 2000 platform of “compassionate conservatism” with his record of narrow-minded divisiveness, I’ll never know.
I surrounded myself with good people. I carefully considered the advice of smart, capable people and made tough decisions.
No. Bush surrounded himself with good people – like Colin Powell – in his first term. But he didn’t listen to them. Because Bush’s “careful consideration” consisted, at every turn, of rejecting out of hand any facts, theories, or ideas that could not be reconciled with his worldview, they were almost all gone by term two. The history of the Bush administration is the history of attempting to tailor facts to fit a worldview. Powell. ((Left over the Iraq War catastrophe, and because he refused to support “abstinence only” as a “cure” for AIDs in Africa.)) Goldsmith. ((Left after Cheney refused to pass along legal opinions critical of the administration’s warrantless wiretapping scheme.)) Ashcroft. ((See Goldsmith.)) They were all pushed out, because they couldn’t be made to fit.
I’ve been in the Bible every day since I’ve been the President . . .
We know. To the exclusion of other books.
And the greatness of America — it really is — is that you can worship or not worship and be equally American. And it doesn’t matter how you choose to worship; you’re equally American. And it’s very important for any President to jealously protect, guard, and strengthen that freedom.
Actions speak louder than words. If Bush had legislated towards an objective, baseline, pluralist conception of morality, perhaps this stance would be credible. But from the earliest days of his presidency, George Bush left no doubt in anyone’s mind that only one religion, only one worldview, only one definition of “family values” was welcome as a basis for legislation. If Bush ever learned that no one religion has a monopoly on Truth, he never let on, until today.
George Bush can keep lying to himself. I just wish he’d stop lying to me.
How Many Holidays Have You Destroyed?
Perhaps it’s a sign of the times – of the utter paucity of novel and well-reasoned culture warriors on the right – but somewhere between launching a thousand internet memes and advising Mike Huckabee, Chuck Norris became a conservative luminary. Sadly but unsurprisingly, Chuck has little or nothing to add to American politican discourse: joining the chorus of pundits who use the holidays to stigmatize atheists, secularists, and progressives, yesterday suggesting that those damn lib’ruls want to use their first amendment to take away your Thanksgiving.
Chuck draws his unfocused rage from a Newsweek/Washington Post column that suggested, modestly, that presidential Thanksgiving proclamations present a de minimis crack in the “wall of separation” between church and state, and while secularists should balk at plugging these little holes, vigilance is required to ensure that the holes don’t widen into outright cracks. Chuck, of course, reads the article only for the conclusion that it explicitly disclaims – namely, that progressives should push back on religious messages from the government – before using the opportunity to open up a new front in the “War on Christmas,” preemptively blaming President-Elect Barack Obama for destroying Thanksgiving:
Let’s face the present Thanksgiving facts. President Bush likely will give the last explicit Judeo-Christian Thanksgiving proclamation that Americans will hear for the next four to eight years, as President-elect Obama likely will coddle a form of godliness in his Thanksgiving addresses (if he indeed gives them) that appeases the masses with a deity that fits every politically correct dress.
I truly abhor this “War on Christmas” narrative: it’s little more than an attempt by the religious right to defile the holidays by dragging them through the mud of the culture war trenches while sniping at straw men (“atheists hate Thanksgiving!”). The fact that this shouting match against the shadows has, for some elements on the right, become as ritual as cutting the turkey takes nothing away from the perversion it works on the holiday spirit. I can’t imagine that any “victory” against “the seculariasts,” gained by weaponizing holiday cheer, would be anything but Phyrrhic. Leave it to fundamentalists to find division in togetherness.
However, as surely as I’ll condemn the right’s attempts to turn Christmas (and now Thanksgiving) into just another skirmish, I’ll readily concede that there’s something to their fears. In each successive year, there’s a growing sense that the religious element of Thanksgiving and Christmas is, at least on a national level, vestigial, replaced instead by a generic and nondenominational spirit of celebration and national unity. I’m not convinced that’s entirely bad, or entirely redressable: “secularists” may be easier to stigmatize, but Chuck’s complaint lies more with the growing diversity of American religiosity than with a waning sense of the same. But I won’t expect that to hold him back.
What We Leave Behind: the History of the Great Pyramids
Per NPR’s “Science Friday,” Egyptologists now know a surprising amount about the Great Pyramid of Khufu, at Giza, from a likely theory of its construction (internal ramp), to the composition of the gangs that built it (free laborers with a team-based social structure). The Great Pyramid, then – the last of the seven wonders of the ancient world left standing – offers up proof of one of history’s stranger maxims: you can never guess what facts time will preserve, and what it will erase. Even accounting for exaggeration, more than ten thousand people marched with Alexander the Great, from his cataclysmic war against Persia to his lengthy sojourn to India, and several of his generals (also his close friends – the “Diadochi”) took extensive notes of their travels, chronicling and profiling the great man from his greatest victory to his tragic death. And yet, despite the independent fame that each of his generals would eventually earn in the subsequent wars over Alexander’s conquests, not a single first-hand account of Alexander’s travels survives. Even Ptolemy’s first-hand account of his boyhood friend, widely circulated in antiquity and relied upon by contemporary secondary sources, is gone. And yet we know the slang names of the work gangs that built the Great Pyramid. Strange, and bittersweet.
Happy Thanksgiving
Over the past eight years, America has faced some of her sorest trials in decades, including what I (at least) construe as outright assaults on the constitutional order and the separation of powers. Each time, though, after an initial period of doubt, American commitment to the rule of law emerged triumphant. No doubt this is ordinary in America, but in other areas of the world, the idea of peaceful resolution of conflict is itself revolutionary. While both sides of the political spectrum will acknowledge that tough times are ahead, I remain thankful, before all else, for a stable nation guided by the rule of law. Even in tough times,
[T]his nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth
Others are not so lucky. As you enjoy your own freedoms today, think of India, and wish them well.
“First, Kill all the Lawyers”: the Non-Parity of Conservative Talking Points
Seven years ago, America learned that President Bush would create a detention center at Guantanamo Bay for the explicit purpose of holding terror suspects beyond the reach of either the law or the Constitution. Immediately, constitutional lawyers nationwide “kicked into overdrive,” promising to assail the basis for the Bush administration’s assertion that detainees could be held indefinitely without access to either attorneys or any semblance of due process.
Just as quickly, the usual suspects on the right wing filled the airwaves, decrying the impudence of legal intervention in executive affairs. Had we no respect for the dignity of the presidential office? Trust the President; he only has our best interests at heart, and he’d never transgress beyond the bounds of the law. And at least, don’t flood his desk with legal pleadings; he has more important things to worry about.
Seven years and four ((Maybe five, if the Court takes Al-Marri’s case.)) stinging rebukes from the Supreme Court later, we know better. At the point where we’re questioning what torture “means,” and hearing pleas for mercy from outgoing Justice officials, it’s safe to say that we – the left – were right to expect abuses of power at Guantanamo, and right to do something about it. More than that, though, we were right to ignore demands that we treat the Presidency as somehow above the law, and beyond public supervision. We are a nation of laws, not of men: let’s never forget that.
Perhaps that’s why I enjoy watching the right wing affect a 180° reversal of its opinion on the nation’s chief executive. Apparently, when at least according to these people, when a Republican is in the Oval Office, the President is beyond reproach. But when a Democrat’s in office, it’s totally okay to sue him every time he issues an order until he shows you a birth certificate. Talk about paranoia and abuse of the legal process.
Let me be clear: no matter who inhabits the Oval Office, the President is never beyond reproach, and should be subject to legitimate inquiry by concerned citizens. I have always been consistent on this issue. Suing the President every time he breathes, though, until a frivolous, meritless claim dredged from Weekly World News gets its day in Court, is a different matter entirely.
Right-wing pundits can express no such principled view of the office of the Presidency. The arguments they used to insulate George W. Bush (and Dick Cheney) from the public eye were never principled expositions of the inherent majesty of the office, nor were they legitimate attempts to declare a principle of sound republican government. They were mere political convenience, couched in patriotism. And now, when the shoe’s on the other foot, that’s more clear than ever.
A Quadruple-Double = One Cool Story
Drawing for basketball patent. Cool!
There is plenty of economic news to get to after the holiday … so many people, places, and things are getting bailed out, the Fed is printing money faster than a counterfeiter with new plates and a mimeograph.
I want to think about cool, fun, feel-good stuff for a little while, and this story is a terrific place to begin …
On Sunday, November 16, the Bard College Women’s Basketball team was playing the College of New Rochelle in a tournament consolation game. To say Bard was dominating is an understatement. (They ultimately won the game, 75-28.) What is notable about this game is not the blow-out victory, it is the leadership exhibited by the coach, the teamwork by all of the players, and the historic performance of one player in particular.
Latiqua Williams was on the verge of recording a quadruple-double. She had a triple-double, but was still in single digits on assists. About halfway through the second half, Bard had essentially won the game, but the Bard coach still called a time out. No player knew Williams was about to achieve something rare and special, and in any event, the women were going to play the game all the way through, not taking anything for granted. The coach forbade Williams from taking any shots.
The players, including Williams, thought the coach’s instructions were odd, but they played the way she asked, and they played to win.
In the end, Williams got her quadruple-double. She is only the eighth woman in history to achieve such. Only one man in NCAA basketball has done it, and only four players in the NBA are in the club.
The Bard players never became cocky or lazy during the game, even though they far outmatched New Rochelle. They stayed in the moment and focused on the goal of winning. They had faith in their coach, and the Bard coach obviously cares for her team and returns their respect with a respect of her own, looking out for their interests and wanting them to excel.
All of these women came together for a common goal, and in their cooperation the individual achievement of one shone brightly. Not one bit of the team’s success — either in winning the game or in Williams’ feat — would have occurred if the women were not willing to work as a unified force.
Strong leadership, common goals, individual success — these components of the best of human interaction are symbiotic, feeding off one another, each making the others stronger. These, too, are what’s best about the American character, and they are what make me certain we will pull through the many crises currently facing us.
I suspect all of this seems very corny. I, likely, am much better at writing about politics and economics than I am about the human condition. I hope you enjoy the Bard story as much as I do, and I absolutely, positively wish you a very awesome Thanksgiving.
The Devil Went Down to Georgia…
Smile and nod.
Bad news. In the hard-fought Senate runoff between Jim Martin and incumbet Saxby Chambliss (Fail-GA), Sarah Palin has thrown her hat into the ring. America’s (least?-) favorite hockey mom will campaign for Saxby Chambliss.
The Georgia Senate race remains tight – which is itself a small miracle – but speaking plainly, I don’t have high hopes for Jim Martin, as much as I want to see Saxby receive a severe thrashing. Let’s be honest: Chambliss won the election on November 4th, falling just .2% below the 50% he needed, per Georgia law, to avoid a runoff. While Martin continues to out-raise Chambliss in dollars, Martin faces a state that (even with record African-American turnout and a long ride on Obama’s coattails) was ready to elect his opponent a month ago. It’s hard to recover from that, and while signs indicate that he is in the process of building a bigger base, election day may come too soon.
Interestingly, the post-election consensus on President-Elect Barack Obama could help the Democratic challenger. Martin has worked hard to tie himself to Barack Obama. Initially that may have seemed like a risk. After all, Georgia is a very conservative state, part of the “Deep South” that Reagan successfully “realigned” to the Republican column. Against that backdrop, praising a Democrat in Georgia starts to look risky.
But, Obama is no ordinary Democrat. In the first weeks after the election, Obama has already taken a decided turn to the right, establishing his bipartisan bona fides right off the bat by refusing to inflict victor’s justice on Joe Lieberman, and potentially retaining high-level Republicans. For sure, Obama’s rightward turn could yet go too far, potentially vindicating the jeers of the right-wing blogosphere (both traditional and closeted). But until that point, his initial bipartisan overtures do nothing more than paint a stark contrast with Bush’s Cheney’s immediate post-election move (break up the Republican “Mod Squad”) and reassure moderate voters who broke for McCain on 11/4.
For Martin’s runoff campaign, the “trickle-down” from Obama’s moderate turn is nothing but good news. And, should Martin be elected, it could brand Martin as the first of a new generation of Democratic politicians. Moderate, bipartisan, and progressive. If Martin’s message is taking hold, I can’t help but think that Palin’s won’t.
Ribbit! Rescuing the Big Three (RBT)
Endangered, and not a moment too soon
The RBT public relations war is a typical drama-producing affair of either/or … Either there is a cash bailout or there is bankruptcy. If there is a cash bailout: How much cash? When will it end? If there is bankruptcy: Liquidation! Decimation of jobs and related industry worldwide! As a taxpayer, it’s difficult to know if one should take the rock or the hard place …
Industry executives and the UAW want the bailout because they want, as best as possible, to maintain the status quo. They deny this point, referencing recent agreements between GM and UAW that significantly modify health-benefits for retirees (a gargantuan source of cost), but the denials are hollow, considering the lackluster performance of executives at last week’s hearings before House and Senate committees. The executives had no plan for restructuring; in fact, they referred to $25 billion as a bridge loan, needed to get over the current rough patch.
The Big Three, though, are at the bottom of a long slide toward ruin, accelerated by gratuitous over expansion of car brands and models; an enormous, flabby spare tire of middle and upper management; ridiculous short-sightedness when it comes to fuel efficiency; and a cohort in the UAW historically just as interested in quashing innovation as the CEOs.
Nonetheless, it isn’t entirely clear that bankruptcy, as it is perceived, is the way to go. Proponents refer to Chapter 11 (restructuring), while opponents invoke Chapter 7 (liquidation). A recent Op-Ed dares the government to force Chapter 11, arguing consumer confidence will be so low during the restructuring phase, the companies will have no choice but to move into Chapter 7.
Supporters of Chapter 11 rightly argue that restructuring is the only way the Big Three can break their contracts with dealerships, freeing the companies to eliminate brands. It will also enable the corporations to break their union contracts, freeing them to hire back non-union labor at great savings. (Japanese automakers do not employ union labor, and Americans are still begging for factories to be built in their towns.)
There is no reason why Congress cannot pass special RBT legislation outlining a carefully designed restructuring plan under the umbrella of existing bankruptcy law … Call it “Chapter 11-A”, “Creamed Corn”, “Puppies”, whatever. The point is a deal can be reached that requires neither endless handouts nor abandoning workers. The UAW does not have to be made obsolete, but it needs to reorganize its leadership and reinvent its purpose. Workers should keep their pensions. Special legislation can address this issue. (Personally, I want to see a scorched-earth policy towards existing management and management structure. The executives have got to go.)
Of all I have read regarding RBT, the most measured and inspired ideas are coming from Andrew Ross Sorkin. On Charlie Rose last week, his arguments dwarfed those of his Center for Automotive Research counterpart. Sorkin’s NYT article IS A MUST READ. He wants to minimize negative impact, but he also wants the industry to move forward. I agree with him that moving forward is going to be impossible without structured bankruptcy.
Bottom line: Don’t be sucked in by the black-and-white histrionics coming from both sides. RBT is not an either/or situation. If it is going to work, it needs to be a detailed part of Obama’s larger Economic Recovery Plan, and it can be designed in such a way to optimize utility to industry and tax payers.
