Sunday, November 9, 2008

It's the Economy, it's Stupid!

This post is partly a response and analysis to Matthew and Bradley Haupt's Allied Tax Planners Special Report. I see in a number of analyses of the economic situation, what caused it, and what might cure it that contain contradictory statements and misfired deductions. I definitely enjoyed this report, and I encourage you to read it; however, while in spirit it has a lot of really well-founded conclusions, it misses the mark in a number of important ways. It does contain some good overview information of what has happened in the last year or so financially, and it provides a great bird's eye view of the economic turmoil.

For the record, the best way to describe my own educational filter on what is happening in the economy is that I follow Mike Shedlock's views. He has consistently correctly predicted the stages of the economic fallout, and his analysis is quite understandable and educational.

I'll address the report in a non-linear fashion, so this will not be point-by-point. For best reading, I suggest reading their report, and then come back for my comments. I'll refer to the Haupt's article as the ATP from here on out, for brevity.

Are we going into a depression?

This question almost essentially relies on one additional question: will we hit at least 10% unemployment officially? If so, then we most certainly will look back on this time as a depression. If not, then we'll probably have just considered it a bad global recession. Where are we currently? The latest governmental figure for October 2008 pins us at about 6.5% unemployment. That doesn't seem high, except for the fact that we haven't seen those numbers in a while, and the announced-but-not-implemented-yet layoffs are quite high. It is not inconceivable that we'll hit 7% by the end of the year. At the current pace, we're looking at somewhere around 8-9% by the end of next year. If it doesn't slow down by late 2009, we might just cross that ill-fated depression finish line. One interesting note is that while official unemployment is 6.5%, if you count all disaffected workers such as part-timers who want full-time work, those who gave up looking, and those whose unemployment benefits ran out, we're actually at a whopping 11.8% unemployment! This figure came out of the same goverment report that had the 6.5% number. If we hit 10% official unemployment, we're probably looking at 20% real unemployment. That is very, very bad.

ATP writes, "This is, in Alan Greenspan's own words, '...a once-in-a-century credit tsunami,' which could have been prevented, but, like all other crises before it, will pass." This is totally true, it will pass. However, the speed at which is passes by us is what is interesting.

The Causes

The first problem: ATP states that,
"The lesson here is that when government appears to be operating in the best interest of “the people,” they often are not. Free markets work only when they are free from tampering, whether or not the tampering is well-intentioned."
This is 100% correct. Government intervention, except for policing criminal activity, tends to have negative unintended consequences (as well as a few negative intended consequences). It doesn't work, and we agree on that. However, they then go on to say,
"We feel that the Bailout Bill (or “Rescue Plan” as it is now being called) was a good move, IF IT WORKED THE WAY IT WAS SUPPOSED TO and here’s why: as these companies are going bankrupt, the companies and institutions that hold their stock or bonds or other securities are not sure what they are worth anymore, if they are worth anything at all. So these companies suddenly are not sure how much cash they can raise for expenses, to meet obligations, or especially, if they are a bank, how much cash they can lend. The Bailout Bill allows the government to step in as a buyer of last resort of those securities. So for the companies that hold these securities, they can suddenly sell them to the government (yes, for pennies on the dollar, but something is better than nothing) and have cash to invest in other securities, or lend to make interest on their money. Liquidity would have been restored."
But herein lies the problem. You can't advocate that tampering by the government is bad, even if well-intentioned, and then state that a taxpayer-funded bailout would work, even if the intended functioning took place. The bailout was a stupid idea on a great many fronts, but here are a few reasons why:
  • This isn't a liquidity problem. This is a solvency (capital) problem. Liquidity means there isn't enough money to go around, or that money isn't moving around. Money isn't moving around because the banks and businesses don't have enough capital anymore. The Fed has been flooding the markets with liquidity lately, and guess what? It hasn't done a dang thing. The banks are hoarding the money, because if they had to reveal their cards, they would be bankrupt immediately.
  • The bailout's intended functioning is to fleece taxpayers and consolidate power among the largest banks in order to keep the US financial hegemony over the rest of the world. In other words, this is US Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson doing his friends a giant favor, at taxpayer expense.
  • Taking money from taxpayers, either by taxes or by the potential whiplash inflation that could result, just devalues assets of the average people of the US whose savings are providing what precious capital the banks have. In other words, if you water down taxpayer's monetary power, you starve the banks of the very capital that would actually put them on firmer footing.
ATP then also states the following about what was done during the Great Depression and then more on the bailout:
"But a lot has changed since the Great Depression, and policies have been put in place so that a lot of things that happened then can never happen again. For example, the stock market crashed massively in 1929, the Dow Jones losing about 42% of its value, in large part due to margin trading (trading stocks with borrowed money). Margin trading has been amended and changed so that it doesn’t push the market down like this anymore. Short selling rules have been changed. At the time of the Great Depression, the government did not do enough to restore confidence, but this time, in order to conserve confidence in the economy, the Legislative Branch passed the Rescue Plan to buy up the assets of bankrupt institutions (such as auction-rate securities, subprime lending issues, collateralized mortgage obligations, structured investment vehicles, etc.). Later, when the market has stabilized, the government will sell these assets on the open, potentially making billions of dollars of profit; so this bailout will not end up costing the taxpayers $700 billion in the end."
Unfortunately, the basic functioning of free markets has not changed since the Great Depression. The assertion that "the government did not do enough to restore confidence" in the Great Depression is erroneous. They're blinded by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's academics (but I don't blame them, that's an easy trap to fall into), because he says the same thing. He claims he was a student of the Depression, yet he is making precisely the same mistakes the government did back then.

Here is the mistake: the Great Depression was caused by excessive debt, not a lack of liquidity. The loss of confidence, and the ensuing difficulty in restoring it was because, in a very real sense, the whole stinking world was in a giant debt hole. As long as prices kept climbing (inflationary pressures), the big ponzi-scheme party kept up and the music kept playing. It was fueled by easy money (low interest rates and large amounts of liquidity from the Fed), and as soon as one even marginally important bubble popped, the whole scheme came crashing down.

When you have a nation built on extreme debt, the only way out eventually is for the debt bubble to pop and for there to be large defaults. People think that the stock market crash of 1929 was the beginning of the Great Depression (Black Tuesday). But it wasn't. It was housing, and it started in 1928 or so when house prices started to plummet. The stock market was a symptom. During the depths of the Depression the stock market had rebounded and appeared healthy, yet the economy hobbled along for years after that. Ask Japan how that feels in a modern world. But if you hold on for very long, you'll get to see it for yourself.

But why did it hobble along? Was it that the government didn't do enough to restore confidence? Did they not provide enough liquidity? The answer is simple: they did too much. President Hoover made a number of strategic mistakes, but he was smart enough to know that he needed to not meddle too much and let it take its course. People blame him for causing it, but I think that if his policies had continued the Depression would have ended sooner (and wouldn't have taken a war to re-energize the economy). The fatal mistake that made it drag out forever was made by our beloved FDR. The government under his watch began doing exactly what our government is now doing: meddling, and trying to inflate its way out of a deflationary collapse. Another way to look at this is that debt created the Depression, and they threw more debt at it to make it go away. I believe it was Einstein that told us that insanity is applying the same wrong solution to a problem expecting a different outcome each time. Our government is obviously insane.

All these interventions did during the Depression was lengthen it out, as the much-needed correction was hobbled in its ability to take its course quickly enough. Then, the interventions didn't produce the hoped-for 'recovery,' and confidence dipped ever lower, hobbling recovery even more. Does this sound familiar? The government has had unprecedented interventions in the last 18 months in the economy, as have foreign governments. What has it bought us? Nothing, except a giant bill that our future selves and children will have to pay for. We now have a crashed stock market (43% down from peak), a crashing housing market (around 25% down from peak, and falling), crashing manufacturing, rising exports (which is deflationary), crashing commodity prices, crashing retail sector, crashing auto sector, etc. Government intervention does not work.

ATP also points out that we have successfully bailed out institutions before. I don't buy it; this does nothing but create the oft-mentioned moral hazard that will plague free markets. If the government bails anybody out, then they have less incentive to do the right thing, because they get rewarded for bad and stupid behavior. One group he mentions are the S&L institutions (the Savings and Loan crisis of the early '80s). Let it be known that the S&L bailout was hardly 'successful' as far as the taxpayer is concerned. They properly shut down the failing S&Ls, and liquidated their assets. That was good. The problem is that the very same investors who drove the S&Ls into the ground turned around and bought the fire-sale priced assets, and then made a killing off of them starting up a new set of S&Ls. The real problem? The markdown hit was taken by taxpayers. In other words, they ran things into the ground making incredible profits with risky investments, cried to the government, who had the taxpayer take his lumps, and then bought the really cheap assets back and began fleecing savers all over again. They fleeced savers on the way up, and taxpayers on the way down. Good work, if you can get it.

What do we do now?

ATP gives some advice, much of it very sage. Don't panic -- yes, panic only tightens the downward spiral. But be careful...if everyone else panics, and you don't, well, they end up with their money out and you don't. Which means you lose. So, keep your ear to the ground, and be deliberate, and watchful, but yes, don't actually panic.

The next bit of advice -- "Now is the time to buy." Hogwash. This is a form of bottom-calling. The bottom in the housing market over the last two years has been called about once per month, each time the housing data comes out. Guess what? There's no bottom in sight. Same goes for the stock market: it's very volatile, but according to many theories, there is a real chance it'll break it's supports around 8000 points in the DOW. If it does, who knows where it'll bottom out at. Buying now is like catching a falling knife. If you're not a professional and aren't properly equipped, then trying it is really not smart. Of course, the same goes for not selling: hang on to your assets long enough, and you might just finally panic and lock in your losses. You can get some gains back later, but it's hard, so be careful.

ATP notes that Warren Buffet has been buying lately, and to follow his pattern to diversify. This is good advice. However, Warren Buffet was recently heard on the media telling people to "buy now, even I'm buying!" If he says that, then don't walk, run to the exits. He is a master at this, and if he tells you to buy, he'll buy a little, and everyone will jump in the spree, and once everyone is buying, he is selling and screwing all the buyers. He isn't worth the billions he is for nothing.

ATP's subsequent 5 important lessons are spot on. Take them to heart.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Discrimination revisited

In my previous post I noted that I had observed a vocal few (that I called outliers) making some very harsh accusations against supporters of Proposition 8. My sentiment is shifting however to be that I don't think these are outliers. I am observing a surging trend among those who oppose Proposition 8 to resort to discriminatory language themselves and fear mongering against their perceived enemies.

Singling out the LDS Church

Let's start with the protests in LA at the LDS temple:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-protest7-2008nov07,0,3827549.story

First, let's correct a number of errors in what many of the protesters were saying:
  1. The LDS Church did not donate $20 million to the Yes on 8 campaign. The Church donated about $2300 or so to the Protect Marriage Coalition, to reimburse them for travel expenses when a few leaders of the Church met with leaders of the coalition. In other words, Protect Marriage paid for the travel, and the Church didn't make them foot the bill in the end. That is all the Church directly contributed, and it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Some have implied the Church donated millions of dollars, but it did not.
  2. Some have estimated that members of the Church have donated, collectively, as much as $20 million in support of Proposition 8. This could be right, but examining all the donors trying to guess at their religious affiliation sounds a little questionable. There just isn't enough information. What if the real amount is really more like $5 million, out of more than $35 million total? Does that change their attitudes towards the Church?
  3. The protesters claim that the LDS Church is really the driving force behind the direction that the Yes on 8 folks took in their ads and their strategies. Many members certainly offered their time, but there was already strong leadership in place from the Protect Marriage Coalition. From what I understand, it was well after it was gaining momentum that a Catholic bishop invited the LDS Church leadership to take an active role.
  4. The protesters claim that the LDS Church strongly encouraged or even forced members to donate their money and time. This is pure hogwash. There was an official encouragement for about 2 minutes on one Sunday, for sure, but nobody who chose not to contribute is being threatened with excommunication or any other punishment. In fact, I personally thought the encouragement was almost too soft; I expected more than what they said. They were very understanding about those who could not or did not want to donate. Anybody who asserts that members of the Church are just robots or are fearful and do whatever they're told, is wrong. I have never, ever heard leaders of the Church tell people that they should just obey, and not go find out for themselves the truth. In fact, it is quite the opposite; the Church is entirely based on people having a personal conviction, attained on their own and confirmed in their hearts and minds by God directly that what they are doing is right. This is a deeply held tenet of the Church.
With that out of the way, I'll divulge my own story regarding the issue. It is public record that I and my wife both contributed to the Yes on 8 campaign. I was not actually at church the day that the letter regarding the Church's support of traditional marriage was read (even though my wife was), but I have since read the letter. In any case, we were not asked directly by anybody to contribute at that time. My wife and I were unable to do so until around September, and then we both decided together without anybody pushing us that we should. We researched the issues, we prayed about it, and felt very strongly that supporting Proposition 8 was the right thing to do.

We decided on how much we thought we could contribute, and also decided we would go ahead and do it. That same day, our bishop independently asked us if we wanted to contribute. He didn't say we had to, nor did he ask for an amount, and he made it clear that this was not mandatory at all. But when he was asking us if we wanted to, I got that same "yes, this is right" feeling all over again, and it felt like a confirmation that it indeed was time to do it. So we did. And we did again later in October, with no urging from the Church. It was all us.

I don't regret contributing one bit, nor do I regret the content of the ads that my contributions helped produce. The opponents of Proposition 8 have called the Yes on 8 ads 'lies,' 'hate-filled,' 'bigoted,' 'wrong,' 'unfair,' and 'intolerant.' Funny thing, those terms; if you read my last post, you'll see why using those terms is, ahem, a real stretch, if not intolerant in and of itself. The Yes on 8 ads' claims were based in case law in Massachusetts, Department of Education regulations in California, laws already passed in California, and actual events that have occurred in both states. There are both things that have been noted in the media that everyone knows about, and there are parents who have told us about their own experiences with their children's schooling in the last year that give very clear creedence to what the Yes on 8 ads were saying. After reading the documentation behind the ads, I realized that not only could a reasonable person conclude that the possibilities raised in the Yes on 8 ads are real, but that in some cases the scenarios cited have already occurred. They call this 'fear mongering,' but I think it's just plain arguments based on researched data. It jives with what people are reportedly already experiencing with the schools (yes, multiple public schools) in the SF Bay Area where we live.

How the No on 8 campaign can call these 'lies' is beyond me, unless they are trying to redefine 'lie,' just like they apparently want to redefine 'tolerance,' 'discrimination,' 'bigotry,' and 'sex' (gender) as noted in the California Constitution. Again, see my previous posts for more background on these definitions, as they merit a discussion by themselves. This sort of molding words to fit a political agenda is very dangerous; double-speak only results in suppression of information and the truth.

The Protests

And now we find ourselves turning full circle. The opponents of Proposition 8 are still out in front of the Los Angeles LDS Temple as I write this, screaming epithets such as as 'bigots!' and claiming the LDS Church somehow took away their rights in a display of religious power-grab. This is demonstrably not the case (the LDS Church didn't force those 5+ million voters to pass Proposition 8!), and to lump all LDS people together as hate-filled, discriminatory bigots is a bigoted act itself. The protesters are by their very actions demonstrating their bigotry towards members of the LDS Church.

Way to go, guys. Your cause is suffering from a teensy bit of something called hypocrisy.

The Church has been on the receiving end of this kind of thing before, though; so don't worry, the members won't get scared like the protesters would like them to. In fact, I'm quite sure most members will view this singling-out of the Church as confirmation that what they are doing is right, and it will only strengthen their resolve to stick to their standards. What's even more interesting, is the protesters basically allege that the Church is what caused Proposition 8 to pass. I suppose it is probably true that if the members didn't donate as much as they did, there is some chance that the word wouldn't have gotten out as effectively, and perhaps it wouldn't have passed. But to state that as if it were conclusive, and then place all of the blame at the feet of President Thomas S. Monson and 'Mormons' everywhere and host a protest about it, well, that's just disingenuous.

Even beyond that, I don't see them protesting against the 7 out of 10 African Americans that voted for Proposition 8! Or how about the more than half of all Latinos who voted for it! Never mind that members of the Church comprise perhaps 300,000 of the voters or so, and the margin of win for the vote was more than 500,000. If all of the members of the church moved out of the state 2 months ago and didn't vote, it still probably would have passed. I'm sure that members of the LDS Church don't mind taking some credit, but please, let's spread the congratulations around a little to the other 5 million people who favored it, shall we?

Racial Discrimination

Now, the African Americans and Latinos who voted for it aren't getting protested at, but in the media they are still getting smeared some. I have seen more than one article now (one of these was from an article at cbs5.com, I can't recall which article though) as well as comments from the protesters that essentially stated that those minorities who voted for the proposition were "church-going uneducated people." Excuse me? Did they really mean that? If so, I smell true bigotry right there (unless the definition changed in the last week, in which case I apologize for sounding so...old fashioned). Hm, a teensy bit more of hypocrisy creeps in. Way to go, guys.

Me, personally, I just think that African Americans and Latinos actually have values, and are less afraid to vote their conscience. Their motivation to vote the way they did was their principles.

What's even more alarming is that the No on 8 group has tried diligently to compare their plight to that of the Civil Rights Movement, and to the interracial marriage issues of the past (which were really awful, by the way). The two are not comparable, and the comparison just muddies the waters. Homosexuality is driven by a difficult choice (an inconvenient truth for homosexuals, but truth nonetheless), the other issue was based on discrimination ultimately due to part of a group of people's actual DNA. Take the following example:
Put on one side of a line an African American man, and a white man. Put on the other side of the line an African American woman, and a white woman. Under interracial marriage rules in the past, they would only let the white man and white woman match up for marriage, and ditto for the african americans. This is clearly discriminatory, because the only substantive difference between each man is a few genes (not a whole chromosome), and the only difference between the two women is a few genes as well. There is no good reason to prohibit the matching to occur diagonally across the line, and so interracial marriage prohibitions were rightly struck down. Remember, marriage in this case is a union of the opposing sexes for the purposes of procreation and family.
Now, if a man on one side of the line is homosexual, he still has his choice to marry either one of those women (if they like him, of course). The man next to him who is not homosexual has the same choice. Neither has an advantage above the other. Same is true for the women; if one is lesbian, she can still choose a man on the other side of the divide of either race. She misses no opportunity. Marriage is about the appropriate union of the opposing sexes (genders) into a construct that makes them into something greater than the sum of their parts (this is called a family). If a homosexual doesn't want to marry someone across the line, then fine; they have their choice, and nobody is taking that away. Trying to make a match without crossing the gender line is, plain and simple, not marriage. No rights have been removed, because everyone on all sides have always had the chance to marry someone of the opposite sex. Whether they choose to do so or not is their own business.

Claiming they have the 'right' to marry someone of the same sex is an expansion of rights, and one that is clearly not welcomed by the majority of the population. Many rights are inherent to human beings and should be treated as such (right to life, right to a fair and speedy trial after being accused, right to the pursuit of property, right to free speech, right to make choices that do not impede others' liberty, etc.), but many other opportunities that some people like to call 'rights' are really 'privileges,' which are only to be granted by circumstance and approval of society. In other words, one can get married if they fulfill the conditions pertaining to it, and society blesses the action because the conditions are fulfilled. If the conditions are not fulfilled, then no amount of yelling and waving signs will make something that is not marriage suddenly become so.

A final note on discrimination: the California Constitution has several protected classes that are illegal to discriminate on the basis of each. They include race, ethnicity, sex, and religion. The CA Supreme Court extended 'sex' to include 'sexual orientation,' and that is pretty much the whole basis for overturning Proposition 22 on May 15 of this year. Hm, 'sex' in this case very clearly is just a synonym for 'gender', e.g. whether you have a Y chromosome or not. Sexual orientation or sexual preferences have absolutely nothing to do with 'sex' in this context. This wasn't even stretching a definition, this was just plain making stuff up. Supreme Court judges are not stupid, and they knew full well that they were making one monster of a leap with their decision. There is no 'sexual orientation' class protected by the constitution, and thus there is no protection under that document for striking down laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Proposition 8 simply was meant to peg that definition back to its true, historical meaning.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Proposition 8, Tolerance, and Discrimination

I have read about and discussed California's Proposition 8 quite a bit in the past few months, it being of much interest to me (since I live in Hercules, a little town in the northeastern part of the SF bay area). Along the way, I have noticed a disturbing trend: anybody who states their support of Proposition 8, even if that is all that they say, is almost immediately labeled by somebody as a bigot and as intolerant. The California Supreme Court even used discrimination as the underlying justification for striking down Proposition 22. There have been extreme instances of this type of labeling, but for this discussion we'll consider them outliers, and instead focus on the common response in a general fashion.

Tolerance

First things come first; we need a definition, instead of a label or epithet. Here are Webster's definitions for tolerance:
  1. The power or capacity of enduring; the act of enduring; endurance.
  2. The endurance of the presence or actions of objectionable persons, or of the expression of offensive opinions; toleration.
The first thing to notice is that tolerance has two fundamental parts: allowing freedom of choice, and being patient with others. Other dictionary definitions also have a strong component of respect, but I would posit this is a manifestation of the "allowing freedom of choice" aspect, in that you respect others' right to a different opinion or way of being. Just as you demand that right for yourself, and you would not want to be ridiculed for your opinion, you must provide like respect for others' views.

However, there has been an abuse of the concept of tolerance in that it has been extended to imply more than what it means. Usually, the extension takes the form of something along these lines:
If you don't agree with my opinion, then you are close-minded and too conservative. You are intolerant, because you think that what I am doing or what I say is immoral or wrong.
Now, what I wrote above was a blunt depiction of what some people imply when they call others intolerant. That was deliberate, to demonstrate a point; usually they express their view of what tolerance means in more subtle ways, but nonetheless the implications are there.

The problem, however, is fairly obvious: tolerance does not mean that one has to accept another party's opinion, or even admit or imply that their own opinion could be wrong. That is not part of tolerance at all; you can be very tolerant of others' views and very respectful, and in fact even be a very staunch supporter of others' right to have their own opinion or way of life without ever conceding that your own opinions might be wrong.

To be open-minded, however, is different from tolerance. Open-mindedness implies that you admit that you are searching for corrections and additions to your knowledge and opinions. But again, it requires only a very soft admission that you could be wrong. You can be open-minded and a critical thinker, and have an opinion presented to you, inspect it, and finally reject it without compromising your 'open-minded' status.

To be intolerant, then, is to disrespect others' right to their own opinion and way of thinking or acting. But remember: intolerance of certain items is a moral requirement: we should be intolerant of murder, rape, incest, abuse, racism, etc. That is the right thing to do. But we should be tolerant of opinions, freedom of speech, religious views, sexual orientation, and so forth.

Application to Proposition 8 Detractors

And now we come back to the disturbing trend I noted earlier. Those who decry Proposition 8 supporters as being intolerant usually do so simply for it being stated that the supporters will vote to defend traditional marriage (and an anciently-established societal norm). This brings the detractors' cry of intolerance into focus for what it is: they themselves show intolerance by belittling an opinion different than their own. They essentially use the moral pressure of being viewed as intolerant to motivate Proposition 8 supporters to back off from supporting the amendment. Boiled down, this is basic disrespect and manipulation, and thus squarely lands the detractors in the realm of hypocrisy. They quickly call Proposition 8 supporters intolerant, when they themselves demonstrate by that very statement that they are at least partially intolerant. The claim that they are seeking so-called "equality" does not help their case; that justification is only a misdirected attempt at hiding the fact that they will not tolerate the presence of another opinion.

On the flip side, there is no room for supporters of Proposition 8 to demonstrate intolerance. Respect for others' right to an opinion is not only important, but it is a direct manifestation of one's love of liberty and freedom. The right to choose an opinion and to vote accordingly is a right that should be defended even to the loss of one's life. There is no room for intolerance, and I sincerely ask that those on both sides of the debate try to internalize this principle. All involved should discuss, vote, and decide; but they should not intimidate or attempt to manipulate others' right to their own decision. Your future freedom depends on respectfully allowing others to have an opinion that differs from your own.

Discrimination

Once again we'll start with a definition, this time from the American Heritage Dictionary:
  1. The act of discriminating.
  2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
  3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.
The concept of discrimination is fairly straightforward, as long as you recognize that it has two (wildly different) flavors. The first is good in that it is the ability to see details and differences. As a synonym for discernment, it is a positive trait in that a discriminating person cannot be duped. They understand that small details can have a great effect on the net value or meaning of something.

The second flavor is nearly the opposite of the first. It is to make generalizations (often that are erroneous) of a class, and assume that individual members of the class are all subject to the conclusions of that generalization. Think of it as ignoring details and differences, and assuming uniformity. This version of discrimination has rightly earned a negative connotation. I would add that an acceptable additional restriction for our discussion is that the class is a class out of necessity; e.g. members of the class are lumped together because of an inherent trait, one that they can't choose to have or to not have. Discrimination against an individual due to something they verifiably can't change (such as race) is worse than discrimination against an individual for something they can change.

Application

Proposition 22 was struck down by the CA Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision that hinged upon discrimination. For more information on the process of judicial review, please see my earlier post On Judicial Review, and Rule by the People. Also, see More on Judicial Review for some additional insights into the In RE Marriage Cases decision and judicial activism in general. Essentially, the consenting judges claimed that the CA Constitution does not contain any provision allowing laws that discriminate against any group of people. That's a fair enough statement, but the problem is that this was applied based on an assumption that restricting marriage to be only between a man and a woman is discriminatory.

So let's take a step back, and look at marriage. At first blush, it would seem that this restriction perhaps could be discriminatory. But, if you examine the issue further you will find that this is not the case. If we use homosexuals as the class, then here are the questions we have to ask to determine if marriage as a heterosexual-only institution is discriminatory:
  • Do homosexuals constitute a class that can have (possibly erroneous) generalizations made about them?
  • Can they individually choose to be a member of this class, and choose to remove themselves from the class (e.g. is it an inherent trait, like race)?
  • Is the marriage issue ignoring individual merit or detail (e.g. does marriage fit easily for at least some homosexuals)? Or, instead, is the generalization of man-woman marriage actually correct?
Class Status

The first question is easy to answer: yes, homosexuals undoubtedly constitute an undeniable class. They represent somewhere in the neighborhood of 2% of the US population, and they have common traits.

Can they Choose?


The second question is more complicated. There appear to be two camps within the homosexual community. Some contend they are born the way they are, that their homosexuality is intrinsic. They feel they cannot change it. The other camp believes that they have chosen their sexual orientation and they are not interested in finding a genetic link or anything of the sort (or else someone might come up with some gene-therapy-type 'cure' for homosexuality).

Personally, I think the answer lies in between the two camps. Every human being has weaknesses and temptations, and many of those are evident in such a way as to indicate that the seeds of the weakness were with them at birth. However, just because we are born with weaknesses, that does not mean we have to succumb to them. I am a very strong believer in the power of human choice: that we can choose what we do, what we say, and thus for all intents and purposes what kind of person we are. We are certainly not robots who are programmed such that we just can't help but, ahem, perform sexual acts of any variation. I cannot stress this enough: we can choose our actions.

Thus, my own answer to the second question: homosexuals have a choice, even if it is a very difficult one. They are not forced to be what they claim they are, nor are they forced to do what homosexuals do. The temptation may be intrinsic, but acting upon it is most certainly not.

Generalization, and Marriage


The final question requires establishing yet again a definition. What is marriage, anyway? What is its purpose? Here are the first few (relevant) definitions listed for marriage, this time coming from the Random House dictionary:
  1. The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
  2. The state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
  3. The legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
To understand it better, I will propose a few points as integral to marriage, and then some comments about each. Here is the first:
Throughout the entire history of mankind, it has been between a man and a woman, logically due to a biological basis required to conceive and perpetuate human life.
Artificial insemination is, in programmer parlance, a hack in that it is what you try when the accepted conventional method fails. This cannot be the sole method for cases with a 100% certainty that the conventional methods of procreation won't work (e.g. lesbian couples).
Throughout history, marriage has been administered and regulated by spiritual/religious leaders.
It is only in the last 150 years or so that licenses of any kind have been required; and, even in the US before about 1920 or so they were only required for interracial marriages. Yes, I'm totally serious. Marriage is not only a societal construct, but it is closely related to religion. Sometimes those spiritual leaders were also the civic leaders, but the norm was that they had spiritual or religious charge over the people they officiated in marrying together.
Marriage is not just about love and devotion. There are many other important traits to marriage.
The traits that are necessary are love, devotion (faithfulness), sexuality, patience, sacrifice, using complementary differences to accomplish what one could not accomplish alone, commitment, and humility. There are arguably more. Marriages lacking any one of these things tend to be unhappy and rocky. Marriages lacking some of these things at first, such as arranged marriages, can over time gain these traits and become very successful; so the lack of a trait or two does not mean the marriage is not allowable. Nor does the presence of one or two of these traits mean marriage is allowable.
Marriage is ultimately about family, which means it's really about having and raising kids.
Yes, there are married couples that choose not to have kids, but they are sincerely missing the point. There are those who cannot have kids due to infertility, but there is still some possibility they can get pregnant. Case in point: we have some family friends who tried for years to have a baby, and were not successful. They subsequently adopted two kids, at different times. Around the time the second child had his first birthday the wife turned up pregnant, which was obviously a total surprise (and a very happy one, I might add). Using infertile couples as justification for homosexual marriage is extremely tenuous.
Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. This is closely related to the spiritual aspect of marriage, and the fact that it is not really (or originally) a civic right.
The state has only begun to regulate marriage en masse in the last century or so, usually for monetization like paying for a license, and for tax tracking and regulation. Neither of these are necessary for marriage or integral to it. To claim that marriage is a right is like saying it is a right that a couple be able to have six boys in a row. If the conditions are met, and the opportunity presents itself, they might just have six boys in a row. But, it would be absurd to demand that marriage be provided as a right, just as it is absurd for a couple to demand to have six boys in a row. If the conditions are met then the privilege may be taken; but if not, then that unfortunately means the person is not (or perhaps should not) be getting married.

There are potentially more integral aspects of marriage, but these will suffice. Yes, it is somewhat of a complicated contraption, but it is fairly straightforward and intuitive.

So, would it be an unfair generalization to say that a same-sex relationship could not fulfill the definition of marriage? The answer hinges on whether even some of the relationships could fulfill the conditions to call it marriage. If even some of them could, then that opens up the possibility that all of them could, and it certainly would be unfair and discriminatory to exclude them from the legally-allowed benefits of marriage.

It is obvious that it depends on how one defines marriage. To me (and most of mankind, even spanning mankind's history), all the above points I listed are obvious, logical parts of what marriage is. Same-sex marriage advocates often try to boil marriage down to one thing: "we love each other, so we should be allowed to get married." As stated above: love, devotion, sexuality, etc. are only part of the equation, and they by themselves are not justification to have parties included in the realm of marriage.

So, what is missing? First, the biological component. Homosexuals cannot reproduce with their partner. Period. It is impossible. Lesbians can claim the option of artificial insemination, but that rings hollow: it's not their partner's sperm, and it is a hack, where the real process is not even possible. Adoption is also covering up the original problem, and rings hollow (not to mention that study after study, not just case studies, show children do much better in a nuclear family with a father and a mother). Any slowdown in social research reports affirming the benefits of father-mother-children relationships is due largely to political pressure, and the fact that the research is already out there showing the obvious conclusion.

Second, most spiritual and religious leaders are often at the far opposite end of the spectrum from homosexuality. Thus, homosexuals have chosen the civic route to try to enter the marriage fray. With a legal definition and civic allowance only, that cheapens the very nature of marriage, ignoring its roots and purpose.

Third: having and raising children. Due to the biological incompatibility, their children cannot come from their partner (or else the child cannot be their own biological child; one partner definitely gets cut out). This takes away a fundamental right for a child to have a mother and a father. And yes, this is a right, because all children must have paternal and maternal DNA to be conceived, and those who conceived the child have a responsibility to the child. Parents who give their baby up for adoption can usually choose the adoptive parents, and they are doing what is best for the child, thus fulfilling their responsibility in a tangible way. Also, it is quite evident that children have more trouble on average when they are not given the opportunity to grow up in a nuclear family. Circumstances vary, and children's reactions vary, but by and large this result is quite evident. Homosexual couples cannot provide both a mother and a father, by definition. Strike three.

In consideration of these definitions, it cannot be deemed discriminatory to say that same-sex relationships should be excluded from marriage. By their very nature, homosexual relationships do not fit into what marriage is. Therefore a generalization that every one of them cannot be made into marriage is a true statement, nor is it ignoring details or the merit of the individual relationships. In other words, the generalization is completely true. Thus there is no discrimination, and the CA Supreme Court's decision was invalid, as it was based upon invalid definitions of either discrimination or marriage, or both.

Final Thoughts


Due to the foregoing discussion, marriage simply does not make sense for same-sex relationships. It would need an expanded and changed definition before that could be the case. However, a society does not suddenly start changing the definition of an institution that is thousands of years old without that change justly being described as Orwellian. If a society changes the language to suit political or minority pursuits like this, it helps wedge a door open that will lead to degradation of the language (and thus the clarity of our thoughts in general), and of common sense. Evidently, control over language yields considerable control over moral issues.

A final definition note: the word bigot and related terms are often used in connection with discrimination (and anecdotally Proposition 8), but remember that it is tightly related to the word discrimination. As such, if no discrimination is taking place, the proponent cannot be rightfully considered a bigot on the subject.

Unfortunately for many devoted same-sex couples, same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. I do not wish to belittle their relationships, as I am sure they are as sincere in their relationships as they can be, as am I. They have protections under domestic partner laws in California that give them all of the state-derived legal benefits of marriage without needing to change the definition of marriage. I see no harm in keeping it this way, and I question the motives of those who seem to think that preserving the definition of traditional marriage is discriminatory. I would ask, what are they really after? Marriage is not necessary to prove love and devotion or make a commitment. If that is all they are after, then they already have what they want.

Monday, October 20, 2008

More on Judicial Review

My brother-in-law, who is studying law at Gonzaga University (and is specializing in constitutional law) had some interesting things to say about judicial review after he read the last post. He posted his response article at

http://www.americanfreemen.org/judicialactivism

He edited his article once, and I have included his changes. The following is the text of his article, (C) Stewart Feil, and reproduced here by permission.

-----

I'm not sure exactly where to start. It would be helpful to have a question to address. Or a key subject to direct comments toward. I guess I'll start with Judicial Review:

You are quite correct that Marbury v. Madison was the first time the Supreme Court (1) had the power to interpret the constitution; and (2) declared the courts to have the power to review legislative acts signed into law. Remember that Thomas Jefferson is credited with saying that the courts are the weakest branch of government, but that it is through them that this experiment will be destroyed. Since then the Court has gone through different phases of how it goes about judicial review. One of the greatest problems with the court is that the Justices are completely politically unaccountable. This means that President X could appoint a bunch of Justices who will shape how policy is applied for thirty years or more. (Justices have a tendency towards longevity once they are appointed--See Justice Stevens for an example). Unfortunately many of the most important Supreme Court decisions passed down in the last 100 years were made by the appointees of Franklin Delanoe Roosevelt. The court he created is the epitome of judicial activism.

Now it is also of critical importance to understand that judicial activists don't believe that they are judicial activists. They think that they are judges who are not blinded by prejudice, or bound to "tradition," or the old ways. They see themselves as Progressive thinkers. And because of the renown given their office, they are truly pompous enough to believe that only they are rational enough to tell the rest of the Universe what is appropriate or what is inappropriate (having long since abandoned any pretext of a belief in Right and Wrong). Whenever anyone cries, "Judicial Activist!" those towards whom the accusation is aimed simply retort with something best summed up as, "Redneck".

Many law professors (who would themselves be judicial activists if given the chance) try to discredit the title as a mere pejorative. It is not. The difference lies in the locus of political will: if it is in the court, it is activism; if it is in the legislative branch or the people, it is constitutional. And yes, I just juxtaposed as opposites "Activism" and "Constitutional". It is an apt comparison simply for the fact that Constitutional court behavior cannot be activist in nature. The implications to that are broad, and may be somewhat startling. First, Roe v. Wade must be over turned to maintain constitutional integrity. Next Brown v. Board of Education (it has nothing to do with the constitution anyway, it just parades about as being about constitutional rights. The fact of the matter is, it is about a bad interpretation of a legislative act, and the interpretation should have been overturned as idiotic, and irrational, and the statute given its proper, original meaning rather than by fundamentally changing the definition of "Liberty" so that the court could force its will upon the people. Most judicial activism centers around maldefining words, much like FDR and his inaugural address announcing the "New Bill of Rights").

Thanks to the last 70+ years of judicial activism, coupled with the abduction of the word "liberal" by collectivists of every ilk our society has forgotten that there is a difference between a right and an entitlement. There is a difference between charity and welfare. And there is a difference between welfare and socialism. Until the court can figure out the differences between those, it will always present a threat to those who believe in true liberty. It sickens me that in the name of liberty, those of religious faith are silenced. It sickens me that in the name of liberty states are constrained from determining their own moral values with regard to human life. It sickens me that an institution as old as the written record of humanity if not older is being challenged by those who behave in a manifestly unnatural way.

The California Supreme Court would have been within its power, and in fact truly fulfilling its responsibility if it had legitimate cause to strike down proposition 22 as unconstitutional discrimination.
"The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting." CA Const. Art. 1 Sec 39(a).

Those are the constitutional words upon which the court struck down proposition 22 as unconstitutional. The court would concede that proposition 22 does not discriminate against people for race, color, ethnicity, or national origin. However, there is also no discrimination based upon sex. Sex is an objective category determined by looking at biological features. Proposition 22 applies equally to men who want to marry men and women who want to marry women. There is not discrimination based upon sex as a result of Proposition 22, and therefore it should not have been struck down. If the people of California want to protect sexual orientation as a constitutional class, the process should be amending the state constitution to include that language with the other protected class language already in Article 1 Section 39 (and repeated several other times in article 1), not by judicial fiat that there is another protected class.
How can all this be going on? Obviously national legislation has never been able to solve the question of abortion. I don't recall any clause in the constitution granting the federal government power to define morality for the states. In fact, the constitution quite clearly purports to LIMIT the powers of the federal government to those enumerated. It is not supposed to work like a well oiled machine. It is supposed to be a slow, tedious, and almost painful process. That way, the laws passed will at least have been given due consideration. But since FDR, that hasn't been good enough. The government must move faster. As such, the court greases the cogs. Congress delegates away much of its responsibility to agencies. Why? For efficiency. The system was never meant to be efficient. It was designed ensure that only the RIGHT laws passed. The problem arose when what was "right" in the eyes of 9 people wasn't being enacted quickly enough by the process, so they took it into their own hands. Of course, in doing so they paved the way to tip the scales well past the justice they sought to serve towards the tyranny that looms over use today as caused by such judicial fiat as the decision in In Re Marriage Cases. It's not about liberty. It's about the destruction of right and wrong. It's about the removal of consequences for wrongdoings. It's about dragging society down to the lowest common denominator--a process done slowly, and piece by piece until pretty soon everyone, ideally, will think that gay is normal, religion is the cause of hate, animals have more rights than humans, and some guy behind a curtain will be left holding a very large bag of wealth, redistributing it per whim. (Aside: no form of collectivism--communism, socialism, fascism--can function without extensive "community organizing" (yes, I'm jabbing at Barack with that one), and the person with the power over the plan has power over the life and death of every denizen unwilling to live [inside] the box. There is no such thing as a benevolent dictator. There is no Utopia. There is only tyranny and absolute power.)

It is one thing for the courts to overturn legislation when congress, or a state legislature lacked the political will to actually provide a functional law. The court is not supposed to make decisions of will for exactly the reason that elected representatives are: political accountability. Any time our government is to exert will over the citizenry, those officials who enacted the law must be fully accountable to the constituencies from whom they derived the power to enact the laws in the first place. The court has a proper role in overturning such laws as would shield officials from the political repercussions of their actions. The judiciary must unmask the charlatans of government. However, that is only half of the role of the judiciary. The greater duty of the judiciary is to the people themselves. The court must only exercise judgment. It must not exercise its will over the people, especially where the people have resoundingly spoken as to their will. When the Bill of Rights amended the constitution, it did not state mere truisms. It spoke of actual meaningful rights. Amendment Ten reads,
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That doesn't mean that the people and the states are the same thing. It means that the people have meaningful power in this nation. If courts can blithely overturn law duly passed by referendum to the people, then the people have no power. This I cannot accept. Government only has power so long as the governed consent to that power. When the faith of citizens in their government dwindles, or rather is extinguished in the face of manifest tyranny such as that of the California Supreme Court, then it is likely the time for the tree of liberty to be watered again with the blood of patriots and tyrants is nigh at hand.

So, we are left once again with the question of the scope of judicial review. How far is too far? Too far is when a court creates a new constitutionally protected class where there was none before. Too far is when a state supreme court acts in such a way as to effectively create law for 49 other states. Too far is where the voice of the people is squelched by the voice and will of four virtually untouchable judges. Too far is where the California Supreme Court went with the In re Marriage cases decision. If that decision is upheld either by the failure of proposition 8 or in a later challenge before the US Supreme Court, then we will know that the new tyranny has emerged and established itself. When they come to take our religion, and our liberty, pray they have not first succeeded in taking our guns, for if they have, they will freely, and happily, take your life.
Stewart Feil

Sunday, October 19, 2008

On Judicial Review, and Rule by the People

May 15, 2008 was a momentous day. Four of seven California Supreme Court justices voted to overturn the results of Proposition 22, a law passed by a 61% vote in California in November 2000. The contents of the law were strikingly simple:
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.
The result of this judicial decision was to open the floodgates of same-sex marriages. Some were cheering that day, but many were silently lamenting what had transpired. I was one of those who lamented the decision, but what is important is the framework for why I have come to that conclusion. The background and facts surrounding the issue are paramount for any individual being able to come to an informed (instead of emotionally-charged, and thus potentially erroneous) conclusion.

This post will be somewhat long, but I believe it will be helpful in understanding the discussion on the current thrust behind Proposition 8 that is currently before California for a vote in November.

Judicial Review

The concept and application of judicial review are nearly as old as the United States itself. It was shortly after the formation of the US under the Constitution that the US Supreme Court established the precedent of being able to review laws for their constitutionality, as arguably envisioned in Article III and Article VI of the US Constitution (it was Marbury v. Madison, I believe, that was the case to have that power established). It was never explicitly stated in the Constitution that the judicial had the power to review laws for their constitutionality, but it is commonly held that the 'judicial power' mentioned in the Constitution certainly included this concept.

This rather necessary function of the judicial branch has helped to curb the creation and implementation of onerous laws for two centuries. When the power is applied with care, it is a powerful and useful check against congress and immoral applications of power via the laws of the land. However, judicial review can also be used to destroy laws that are necessary and good, and the onus is on the justices first to do what is right, and barring that, the people to pass (or pressure their legislators to pass) amendments to their constitutions to reign in inappropriate decisions by judges.

Throughout this discussion, note that the California Constitution and its judicial are set up to be nearly identical to the federal level, so what applies to the federal level applies to the state level (and this is true of just about all of the states).

There are essentially two methods in which laws are interpreted for their constitutionality. (For more information on the following discussion, please see
by Christopher Wolfe, Ph.D.)

Traditional Interpretation

The first is a traditional view, where they take the literal words of the constitution and decide whether a law or parts of a law jive with that or not. This method does not presume much about what the founding fathers meant, and takes what they wrote at face value.

Within this are two variations on deciding whether a law fits within the constitutional framework. The first is a narrow view, in that if the constitution doesn't specifically mention that a type of law or concept is allowed, then the law is not constitutional. The other, a more broad view, is that if the constitution doesn't forbid it, then the clause about delegating to the people any power not mentioned in it means that the representatives of the people (e.g. the legislative branch) can pass laws to govern those issues.

The narrow-traditional view is somewhat untenable; it's very difficult to get any laws passed, even useful and necessary laws, under that interpretation. Suffice it to say that, pre-20th century, the traditional-broad view generally prevailed among judges.

Modern Interpretation

The modern view essentially only uses the wording of the Constitution to boil it down into vague concepts and principles. A judge espousing this view quite literally attempts to infer what the principles are, and then filters a law relative to what he or she thinks would jive with those principles.

While it appears at the outset that this might be a useful way to apply the principles of the Constitution to modern, changing times, it is readily apparent that it could create too much latitude for judges to 'decide' what they think constitutional principles are, and then affirm or strike down a law based upon their own agenda. Activist judges can (and do) find refuge in the modern view, under a potentially fake cloak of constitutionality.

What is perhaps the most interesting aspect of the modern view is a bit of a paradox: if the language and scope of the Constitution is not up to snuff to deal with modern problems, then the logical answer is not to detach from its language, but to instead create a newer, modern constitution. But, you would be hard pressed indeed to find a judge that would prescribe to the modern interpretation and would advocate a new constitution at the same time. This is perhaps the fatal flaw of the modern interpretation: either the Constitution is good enough for today, or it is not. You can't have it both ways, or else you are destined to end up with abusive interpretations of law as we detach from the Constitution and, in effect, have no constitution at all.

Incidentally, traction has gained in the last few years among some justices of the US Supreme Court for turning back to the traditional view, and for some circuits it is becoming more inappropriate to push any limits with a modern view. It is my opinion that this is a healthy and positive trend, one that I hope continues to gain favor in the judicial.

Application to the May 15 Decision

The In re MARRIAGE CASES decision takes a devious track with a twist through the various views to arrive at their conclusion. Indeed the dissenting opinions of the three other justices are quite blistering on this subject.

Essentially, the main thrust of the four justices that struck down the law was that there is no provision of the California Constitution to allow laws to codify intolerance or prejudice against any group as pertains to marriage. This takes a seeming combination of both the narrow-traditional view, and the modern view of interpretation of constitutionality. It takes the narrow-traditional view because the California Constitution does not state that one group can be favored over another (although it doesn't state the opposite, either); and, it takes the modern view because they infer that the California Constitution must have intended an elimination of discrimination or favoritism.

Note that, while the narrow-traditional aspect of their decision doesn't make very much sense, the modern interpretational aspect appears to be a moral and common-sense analysis of the Constitution. There are two problems with it, however:
  1. It is dangerous to use the modern interpretation, due to the likelihood of exploitation. In fact, there is plenty of suspicion going around that this was politically motivated, e.g. there are ulterior motives. If that is the case, this handily demonstrates why the modern interpretation is dangerous.
  2. It hinges on what they believe 'discrimination,' 'favoritism,' and/or 'tolerance' mean, and it is not necessarily true that they used appropriate definitions.

Rule by the People

In the wake of the May 15 decision, an already-forming movement for an amendment to the California Constitution to restrict marriage to its traditional definition gained headway. Once it had the necessary signatures verified by the counties, it became known as Proposition 8, to be voted upon in November 2008.

How to Override the Supreme Court

Interestingly, Proposition 8 contained the exact same language as Proposition 22, except was submitted as a constitutional amendment. Once again, here is the exact language:
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.
Retaining the same language was done for a very good reason: to send a clear message to the California Supreme Court that the people of the State of California do not take lightly the implications of what the Court did.

Let me explain. In a mostly representative republic such as the US, laws passed by legislatures deserve to have scrutiny by the courts to protect the people from tyrannical and inappropriate laws, through judicial review. However, I do not believe that any law passed by referendum by the people (such as was the case in Proposition 22) should be subject to the same review. This is not to say that judicial review should be forbidden for a law passed by referendum, but it should be held to a bar that is much more strict before the judicial can strike down such a law.

The terms under which the May 15 decision was made did not constitute a clear-cut consensus, nor does it seem to have adequate explanation with clear language in the California Constitution; as such, it is entirely reasonable to say that the justices who voted to overturn the law stepped out of bounds on a moral issue that was already decided by the people. It is not far-fetched or unprecedented to claim the judicial should have left this issue alone, and let the law stand.

However, reality is reality, and the 4-3 decision left the law stricken from the books. In that situation, there is only one legal recourse for the people: adopt an amendment to the constitution to restore the language, so that there is no way for a judge to skirt around it. They would need to stick it to the judges the only way the people can, and send a clear message that activist judges cannot override the people they are supposed to ultimately serve. Hence, Proposition 8 was born.

I will spend some time explaining the basis for Proposition 8 itself (the marriage issue), as well as the topics tolerance and discrimination as used by both sides of the debate. They deserve a full discussion, and can be treated independently of the In re MARRIAGE CASES decision.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Finding out for yourself

I find it interesting that a great many people I've met have never had it occur to them that they can find out the truth of life's most difficult questions all by themselves. Well, it is also true that one does need to be introduced to the concept by somebody else, but once a person has found the source, he/she can practice and get quite good at it on their own.

What I'm referring to is quite simple: asking God directly about the truth of important questions (both personal and general to humankind). It seems so simple, to ask God directly, but so many people find it very difficult or impossible, or that they can't have an answer, or that there is no God who answers.

Let's start with a little framework to understand this better. We have a few assumptions that need to be established: there is a God, He can answer and cares about us, and that He answers when we pray and ask serious questions (believing deep down that He will answer). All three of those assumptions can be validated by giving it a real, honest try.

But herein lies the challenge. Without knowing that God exists, and that He answers prayers even so, how do you muster up the faith to believe that He is there and will answer? How do you even pray? How long do you wait for an answer before throwing in the towel? What if you ask a question and get an answer you don't like or didn't expect? There are a lot of questions that arise in our minds before taking the step into the unknown.

The answer, of course, like the premise (just ask), is simple. You find someone who has a deep conviction and experience regarding answers that they can testify of, and listen to what they say. It starts with hearing someone tell you about it before you know to even try, and that your efforts could result in an answer. (A deeper question is, who told them first, and who told them, and so on until who told the first people on the earth? That's a topic for later, but is a very relevant question.) Next, with all sincerity, you swallow your pride and try to believe that they are telling the truth, even if it's a jump. Let that belief work in your heart for a while until you muster up the courage to find out for yourself. Even if you only have a desire to believe, that is enough; you have to start somewhere.

When you ask, you need to be prepared to do so alone. It's not necessary, but having the guts to talk to God without anyone else to get in the way can be a powerful thing. You'll know when you get there if you are sincere, because if so, you won't feel like you're talking to the wall, but will feel like there is someone nearby, listening intently. Speak to Him like He is your father, and talk honestly about how you feel. Ask for help, and ask for a confirmation, even if just a good feeling, that He is there and He is watching over you. Then you wait, patiently, and listen. You might need to try this a number of times, perhaps over a long period of time; some seem to get answers quickly, and some seem to have a longer test ahead of them to prove if they really are sincere. In any case, if you truly believe that you'll get an answer, you will.

To know that there is a God, and that He answers prayers, is knowledge that can't be equaled. Nobody can take that away from you. What is more, is that once you know that, you can have the confidence to ask Him if other things are right or not that are important in your life. The same process applies, and as you do this more and more you'll get better and better at it. Like all things, communication takes practice, to learn how God specifically speaks to you. You may start to recognize those same communications later when you're not praying, and you'll start to have your mind expanded and realize just how much He is involved in your life. (Hint: it's a whole lot.)

Of course, I am speaking from experience. I'm not perfect at this whole prayer thing, but I work at it. It has come to the point for me that, when I am not doing the right things in my life, I feel a very deep void when I cut myself off from that communication. I hate it so much that I feel very motivated to correct any issues and get back to where I can have that guidance again. I have learned a number of truths, and they are so burned into my heart that I could never forget nor deny them; I know them and trust these truths possibly more than I trust what I see ("seeing is believing" is somewhat of a wimpy philosophy to me these days).

Here are a few things that I know for certain. There is a God, and He is the father of our spirits. Our spirits existed before this earth life, and this is the next step in our progression. As we are the spiritual offspring of God, we are meant to become like Him if we do the right things to get there; we are not some experiment or playtoys of deity, but rather we are God's children. I know that we are not perfect, and that God is, and so to make up for the gap and allow us even a shot at becoming more like God, we need a savior who can do for us what we can't do for ourselves. That savior is Jesus Christ, the literal son of God (spiritually like us, but physically also, unlike us) who paid for our mistakes and offers the chance to bridge the gap. His conditions are repentance, belief in Him, and we must do all that we can to follow the commandments and endure to the end. It's a pretty amazing bargain, if you ask me. There is a lot more I have learned, but that's a good start.

Of course, you really ought to find out for yourself. Just ask God Himself.

Thursday, January 31, 2008

On President Gordon B. Hinckley's passing

There are a lot of people I admire. I'm a software developer, and while I have my philosophical differences with a number of prominent people in the software world, I know a good programmer when I see one and I admire them for their dedication to their work and to whatever cause they choose. I admire a lot of people, in fact, and strive to take their good examples and integrate them into my life.

But there are few people that I would call a hero, or a person that I would want to be more like in every detail. That regard tends to be reserved for exceptional people who show exemplary lives; the most obvious example being Jesus Christ. The men who comprise the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the LDS Church, or the Mormons) fit the bill quite well. They are called to the same post as the apostles of the early Christian church, and as such are considered prophets, just as prophets of old in the Bible. Preposterous, you say? It most certainly isn't, and I'll tell you about President Hinckley to show why he is a hero to me, and why I have no doubt about him as a Prophet. He passed away on January 27th (of 2008), and I'm sad to see him go.

President Hinckley was a funny man. He would stand up to speak in General Conference (where the whole church gets together to listen on TV or over satellite tranmission, etc.), and crack a joke or two that would have everyone laughing heartily. On the other hand, he always had something serious to address, and he always did so without mincing words. Captivating to listen to, he spoke with such clarity that you always went away from his talks thinking, "I want to to better. I can do better."

He inspired goodness in people, but he always directed them toward God in the process. He pleaded with people for tolerance of other religions and views, pleaded with people to serve others, and pleaded with people to avoid pornography, smut, sleaze, abuse, carnality, and all things related to them. He always showed optimism; and his optimism was contagious. There was no hint that even someone who was struggling with bad habits or problems had no hope. His teachings were nothing less than the modern-day wording of Christ's teachings in their purity, and it's obvious where he got them and who he credited with what he taught.

But a good person saying and doing good things does not mean they are a prophet. I know a lot of people who go about doing much good, and they definitely aren't prophets or anything like one. As background, some day I'll post about the first president of the LDS Church and his story, but suffice it to say that President Hinckley received his authority via the Priesthood traceable back to Christ himself, and I truly believe that. With that said, I'd like to share a personal experience regarding President Hinckley that shows my personal conviction on the matter.

For the first part of my university studies, I was at BYU (Brigham Young University); I later transferred to Utah State University to finish my CS degree. While at BYU, we had the good fortune of being able to listen to various religious leaders and faculty speak about religious matters. President Hinckley came to speak, and everybody was excited about it. We all went early to the basketball stadium to snag a seat, and it filled up pretty quick (I think it seats about 22,000 people or so). Everyone was chatting, and the general buzz in the Marriott center was quite audible. About 5 seconds before President Hinckley came in, I had this little thought in the back of my mind say "stand up." I did so, and realized as I did that everyone else was standing up at the same time, and all of the talking stopped. 20,000 people, and not a peep out of any of them. He came in right after, and everyone started singing the LDS hymn "We thank thee, O God, for a Prophet". As this was occurring, and I was looking down towards the podium at him, I had a very strong, warm feeling come over me and the clear thought in my mind saying, "This, Mike, is truly a Prophet of God."

There was no mistaking that feeling. There is no simulating it, nor is it the effect of brainwash or any other erroneous cause. It was a simple, pure manifestation of the Spirit of God teaching me a simple principle, one that I could then never deny. Having that knowledge has given me a greater desire to follow what President Hinckley has taught, and helped me to realize just how important it is to know that God has not left us without a voice in modern times, and that He didn't just stop talking to us.

President Hinckley was an amazing person, and accomplished much good in his life. I'm sure he is quite happy to be with his wife again (who passed away a couple of years ago), but we'll miss him. To sum up my regard for this man, may I quote from the Book of Mormon, speaking of captain Moroni, but cast it in terms of President Hinckley:
Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto [Gordon B. Hinckley], behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.
May you crack many jokes among those that have passed on before, and rest in peace, our dear old friend. We'll miss you.