tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-69648383098301061242024-03-13T20:35:02.332-06:00Nate in Salt Lake CityWherein <strike>twice a week</strike> increasingly rarely, I bloviate about politics, religion, and all manner of other impolite dinner conversation—and from time to time, I post a LOLcat.Nate W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03346853295987719998noreply@blogger.comBlogger145125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964838309830106124.post-90557426653402945432011-01-05T23:18:00.003-07:002011-01-05T23:23:00.701-07:00A Mess of Pottage<div style="text-align: justify;"><p>Let me get two points out of the way off the bat:</p><ul><li>I think that Proposition 8 should be invalidated.</li><li>I am not confident that there are five votes on the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional. </li></ul><p>Because of both of these points, you would think that I would be rooting for the argument in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that the proponents of Proposition 8 have no standing to appeal the decision. After all, deciding that the proponents have no standing to appeal kills Prop 8 without getting into the sticky Constitutional questions. Judge Walker’s ruling would not be binding on future cases, but it would give an extra 12% of Americans the right to marry a person of their choosing, and it would allow the issue to remain undecided until we have a less hostile Supreme Court on the bench. While all of this is true, I believe that the proponents of Proposition 8 should be allowed to appeal Judge Walker’s decision in Perry.</p><p>On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court whether</p><blockquote>the official proponents of an initiative measure possess . . . the authority to assert the State’s interest in the initiative’s validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.<sup>1</sup></blockquote><p>This comes as no big surprise, as the court strongly hinted that they would do that in oral argument last month. The doctrine of standing, is based on the following language in Article III, of the Constitution: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution . . . .” The Supreme Court has decided that the term cases in the previous sentence restricts federal courts to deciding only those matters brought by a party who has an actual and particularized injury that could be redressed by the court. Therefore, not just anyone can sue to challenge the constitutionality of a law that they don’t like; they have to be directly affected by the law before they can bring an action. Likewise, only a party that was directly affected by the judgment can appeal that judgment.</p> <p>By this standard, I think it is obvious that the proponents just don’t have an interest in enforcement of Proposition 8 that is any different than that of any random person—stopping enforcement of Proposition 8 will not cause the proponents any particular injury or impose any obligations upon them. If the “injury-in-fact” test were the proponents’ only grounds supporting standing, I would have no problem with Perry being decided on those grounds. </p> <p>However, the proponents have a better argument. It is uncontested that the government has a particularized interest in defending the constitutionality of its laws. Under traditional separation of powers doctrine, it is the responsibility of the executive branch to defend the laws, and consequently, it has standing. But what happens when the executive disagrees with the law it is being asked to defend? Allowing the executive to simply refuse to defend a law that was duly passed by the legislative branch raises serious concerns with separation of powers—the executive would be able to veto legislation by inaction, bypassing the process outlined in the Constitution. In order to counteract this problem, most courts have allowed the legislature to represent the state’s interest in defending the constitutionality of laws when the executive refused to do so through a doctrine called legislative standing.</p> <p>But what happens when the legislature did not pass the law in question? Twenty-four states currently allow laws to be passed by means of citizens’ initiatives. This process avoids the legislature completely, allowing the people of the state to approve the measure by direct vote. In this situation, no branch of government would have a personal stake in defending the law. While the people of the state voted for the initiative, “the people” is not an entity that can sue or be sued, and individual persons cannot claim to represent the people of the state. Without some other entity to defend the law, the constitutional order is subverted. </p> <p>The adversarial system only works if there are passionate and strong advocates on both sides of the issue. To ensure the development of good constitutional doctrine, competing points of view must be presented so that a true weighing can take place. While we might be tempted to ignore that principle to gain a favorable outcome in a particular case, such a position would only lead to more problems down the road. Every law should be defended by someone who really believes in it—otherwise it perverts constitutional precedents and makes a mockery of the legislative process. Gays, Lesbians and other minority groups should be especially wary of establishing a precedent that could easily be turned against us.</p> <p>In the end, I think that the proponents should be given authority to represent the state’s interest if no one else will do it. As much as I would like to see Prop 8 struck down, win I don’t want that victory to have the consequence of slamming the courtroom door shut in the faces of future litigants. Also, remember that if Judge Walker’s ruling is upheld because of lack of standing, no precedent will be set, and there will be no effects beyond California. The ruling would not even prohibit a similar initiative from being passed in the future. While I think that there’s a really good chance that Prop 8 will be struck down on the merits, I would rather lose this case than to win at the cost of the long-term health of our judicial system.</p> <p>1. The Ninth Circuit also asked whether California law gave the proponents a particularized interest in the initiative’s validity, but for reasons tangential to this post, I think this is so unlikely as to not be worth addressing.<br /></p></div>Nate W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03346853295987719998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964838309830106124.post-68754320545501749592010-08-04T13:15:00.001-06:002010-08-04T13:17:01.599-06:00My Open Letter to Senators Hatch and Bennett<div style="text-align: justify;"><p>I am writing to strongly encourage the Senator to announce his support of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. START is an important step toward increasing US legitimacy and soft power in the realm of Non-Proliferation. This soft power will be key to resurrecting the Non-Proliferation Treaty and increasing international pressure on Iran. </p> <p>While I recognize the need for efforts such as the Stockpile Stewardship Program and other efforts to modernize and maintain our stockpile and delivery systems, ratification of START cannot wait until the funds for those projects are appropriated as Senator Kyl is proposing. Each day that the Senate dithers, the perception grows stronger that the United States cannot or will not lead on this issue. If we do not lead, no one else will follow. </p> <p>The non-proliferation regime is the easiest, most effective, and cheapest way for the US to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue states. Growing up in southern Utah, I have seen the disastrous effects of the pursuit of nuclear weapons on what the US Government called a "low-use" segment of the population. I hope you share my commitment to the ultimate goal of a nuclear weapon free world so that the people of our state, our nation, and our world will not have to suffer as my family and neighbors did. </p> <p>So, Senator, there is no time to delay. I urge you to announce your intent to vote in favor of ratifying START--not after certain funds have been appropriated, not after the next Congress, but now. Do it in honor of your constituents that felt the effects of nuclear weapons first-hand. </p></div>Nate W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03346853295987719998noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964838309830106124.post-91513402605385517582010-01-08T09:23:00.000-07:002010-01-08T09:23:00.318-07:00Friday Music Post: Found Music Edition<div style="text-align: justify;"><p>Amazing what you can do with a bass line and video editing:</p><object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JVxe5NIABsI&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JVxe5NIABsI&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object></div>Nate W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03346853295987719998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964838309830106124.post-79970806588784077012010-01-07T09:55:00.000-07:002010-01-07T09:55:00.664-07:00A grand conspiracy<div style="text-align: justify;"><p>Apparently, the global warming conspiracy isn't limited to Al Gore--LBJ, Frank Capra, Charlton Heston were all inon it:</p><object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XB3S0fnOr0M&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XB3S0fnOr0M&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object><p>(but seriously, can someone tell me--where is the profit in this plan of "manufacturing a climate change conspiracy for fun and profit"? Whenever I hear someone talk about how this is a big conspiracy, I can't help but think of this diagram:</p></div><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.blindfiveyearold.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/underpants-gnomes.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 442px; height: 334px;" src="http://www.blindfiveyearold.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/underpants-gnomes.png" border="0" alt="" /></a>Nate W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03346853295987719998noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964838309830106124.post-10354804887388992612010-01-06T09:18:00.000-07:002010-01-06T09:18:00.222-07:00This made me laugh<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z86V_ICUCD4&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z86V_ICUCD4&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Nate W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03346853295987719998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964838309830106124.post-10980690485619580382010-01-05T09:37:00.001-07:002010-01-05T09:37:00.420-07:00Beginning of the End for DOMA, Part III: Inside Baseball Edition<div style="text-align: justify;"><p>So, I earlier blogged about the orders by Judges Kozinski and Reinhardt ordering that same-sex spouses of employees of the Ninth Circuit be granted employment benefits <a href="http://nateinslc.blogspot.com/2009/02/beginning-of-end-for-doma.html">here</a>and <a href="http://nateinslc.blogspot.com/2009/12/beginning-of-end-for-doma-part-2.html">here</a>. It turns out that the Obama Administration has <a href="http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2009/12/18/Federal_Agency_Denies_Spousal_Benefits_Claim/">refused</a> to follow the order, stating that this was an administrative decision that is not binding on the Office of Personnel Management, and that until the courts issue a judicial ruling on the constitutionality of DOMA, the executive branch has an independent obligation to follow the law as interpreted by the justice department. The <a href="http://gay.americablog.com/2009/12/this-just-in-advocate-obama-admin.html">usual suspects</a> are predictably outraged:</p><blockquote>You can just smell that the administration did everything they could, twisted every word, to find an excuse for not providing the benefits. After all, if they give the partners of gay employees health benefits, then someone might accuse Barack Obama of being just a bit too friendly with the gays. And as we've learned over the last year, Obama doesn't do "controversial."<sup>1</sup></blockquote> <p>The statement I just quoted is an excellent example of what happens when you're more interested in pushing a certain narrative rather than understanding what is really happening. The quote asks you to believe, despite the fact that the press release from the OPM calls for the legislative repeal of DOMA, that the administration really wants to keep DOMA around just so it can use gays as a punching bag. This conclusion does not fit the data and requires the use of conspiracy theories to be coherent. A much simpler explanation is that the administration does not want to set the precedent that an administrative tribunal from a different branch of government can give orders the executive branch. In short, this is a turf battle.<sup>2</sup> </p> <p>Separation of powers is an incredibly technical and boring issue; it doesn't arouse passions the way that equal protection and civil rights issues do. It is a classic "inside baseball" topic that few care about and even fewer understand, including reporters and commentators. However, if you want to understand why the administration will fight a ruling that they agree with as a matter of policy, you have to get into the more arcane details. </p><p>This clip is another example of the inside baseball principle:</p><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eMdlcnK_MI4&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eMdlcnK_MI4&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><p>To look at it, it looks like Republicans are shouting down their Democratic colleagues. That is how it was reported in the media. The reality is more complex: the Democrats had lined up all the female members of their caucus to give what amounted to one-sentence speeches in the guise of unanimous consent requests. The GOP wanted to stop it, but wasn't quite sure how. While the actions of Rep. King et al. that you see here are not smart politics, they aren't malevolent and obstructionist like they appear to be if you don't know what's going on. </p> <p>I am not taking a position on whether Kozinski or the OPM is in the right here--that's an obscure issue that I'm not incredibly interested in.<sup>3</sup> I just wanted to point out what the real issue is here. Occam's razor posits that the simplest explanation tends to be the best one. In politics, the mundane explanation may not sell newspapers, but it tends to be correct. </p> <hr><ol><li>I struggled mightily on whether to include this link, as the idea of increasing John Aravosis's traffic even a little bit nauseates me. But for you, dear readers, I will swallow the bile and give you the full context. </li><li>As further proof that this is a turf war, consider that Judge Reinhardt's order in <i>In Re Levenson</i>, decided at the same time as Judge Kozinski's case, did not direct the OPM to cover Mr. Levenson's spouse, but rather awarded him back pay to cover the denial of the benefit. The Obama administration did not challenge this, and Levenson <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/11/judge-orders-compensation-for-gay-couple-denied-benefits.html">is currently getting his benefits</a>.</li> <li>If anyone wants to look up whether the hearing officers for the Congressional Accountability Office of Compliance have the authority to direct the OPM to take a certain action, do so and report back to me.</li></ol></div>Nate W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03346853295987719998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964838309830106124.post-32710466517768729452010-01-04T09:50:00.000-07:002010-01-04T09:50:00.534-07:00Veteran's Day 2009<div style="text-align: justify;"><p>Salt Lake Men's Choir sings the Star-Spangled Banner:</p><object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0dC1mHe-1Y4&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0dC1mHe-1Y4&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object><p>I'm three rows up, directly above the guy in camo pants. Sound is a little muddled, but that's what comes of singing in a rotunda--listen to it ring for about two seconds after we finish.</p></div>Nate W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03346853295987719998noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964838309830106124.post-116625949911176472009-12-24T21:22:00.001-07:002009-12-24T21:28:02.839-07:00Merry Christmas<div style="text-align: justify;"><p>Here's my present to you all:</p><object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mqVlukSIQUo&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mqVlukSIQUo&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object></div>Nate W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03346853295987719998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964838309830106124.post-15473121693507205332009-12-22T10:27:00.000-07:002009-12-22T10:27:00.265-07:00Why the "Kill the Bill" people have no sense<div style="text-align: justify;"><p>OK--This is my last post of the year (besides a Christmas video I just set on auto-post) So I'm gonna rant about something that has been making me absolutely crazy: Reading all of these lefty bloggers like Jane Hamsher trying to say that instead of passing the bill without a public option, they should just kill it and start over. This is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have heard since, well, shoot, I just remembered <a href="http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/12/does-ben-nelson-know-what-war-bonds-are.php">this</a>, so I guess it's been the past two weeks or so.</p> <p>In evaluating whether to pass any policy, there are three questions to ask:</p><ol><li>What are the benefits of the proposed policy compared to the status quo?</li><li>what are the costs of the proposed policy compared to the status quo?</li><li>Do the benefits of number 1 outweigh the costs of number 2?</li></ol><p>Any other question is irrelevant and should not be considered. The questions to not be considered include the question "could the policy be better?"* That may be a good question when it is time to craft or amend legislation, but is totally irrelevant when asking whether the policy should be passed or not. Advocating that a bill be defeated because it is not as good as the best option, even though it's better than the status quo is not progressive or idealistic--it's petulant and naive. </p><p>For those of you who would argue that it is the "progressives'" way of trying to make the senate accede to their demands as they do with conservative democrats, I have news for you--these sorts of threats only work if they're rational. Conservative democrats have leverage on this issue because based on their interests, their objections are rational. No amount of wailing about the lack of a public option would give you leverage because at the end of the day, if you are rational, everyone knows you'll vote for the bill. What's more, If you're the kind of progressive who would cut off his nose to spite his face, the conservative faction won't hesitate to give you a knife.</p> <p>While no one would argue that this is an ideal bill, the bill goes a long way to fixing what is wrong with out insurance system. That's pretty amazing. Now is the time to celebrate and encourage the conferees to make the final bill as good as it can be, rather than throwing rocks at the Democratic leadership because they didn't make a perfect bill.<br /><hr/><p>* There is one important exception to this--if passing the policy now would make it harder for a better policy to pass in the future than it would be if we didn't pass the policy, that is a valid consideration in determining the costs and benefits of the policy. Since this is a bill that comes once in a generation and progressive reforms tend to lead to more progressive reforms being passed, this argument does not apply to the health care debate.</p></div>Nate W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03346853295987719998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964838309830106124.post-37984678327835266992009-12-16T09:04:00.000-07:002009-12-16T09:04:00.242-07:00Payback<div style="text-align: justify;"><p>Max Weinberg <a href="http://www.hulu.com/watch/115218/the-tonight-show-with-conan-obrien-a-song-for-the-mormons">repays</a> Orrin Hatch for the Hanukkah Song he inflicted upon the world. </p></div>Nate W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03346853295987719998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964838309830106124.post-20139351561280116652009-12-15T09:56:00.001-07:002009-12-15T09:56:00.317-07:00The Church and the Gays: A Modest Proposal<div style="text-align: justify;"><p>This will likely be my last post on this topic for a while, as I have managed to say everything that's been floating around in my head. I believe I have said on this blog earlier that I am in an uncomfortable position. Being gay and in a lover of the LDS Church and its members, I have a foot in two worlds that seem diametrically opposed to each other. However, I firmly believe that there are far too many good people on both sides to keep us apart forever. </p> <p>But what would a rapproachment look like? I think it has to take into account the core concerns of both communities. The LDS Church's core interest is in protecting their ability to preach, congregate, and worship as they please. The gay community's core concern is making sure that their relationships are on an equal footing with straight relationships in the eyes of the State. Any compromise would have to guarantee religious freedom and civil equality. I have written on this issue quite a bit, and have come to the conclusion that same-sex marriage <a href="http://nateinslc.blogspot.com/2008/11/religious-freedom.html">does not</a> infringe on <a href="http://nateinslc.blogspot.com/2008/11/religious-freedom-part-ii.html">religious freedom</a>, while creating marriage-like statuses that are called something other than marriage <a href="http://nateinslc.blogspot.com/2008/12/footnote-11-for-21st-century.html">does not</a> lead to <a href="http://nateinslc.blogspot.com/2008/12/bathrooms-v-fountains-or-when-is.html">civil equality</a>.</p> <p>With that in mind, here is my idea of a compromise that would cover each side's core concerns:</p> <p>1. The Church reiterates its religious opinion that “marriage is between a man and a woman,” and that they will continue to only recognize and perform temple and non-temple marriages for opposite sex couples.</p> <p>2. The Church also notes that marriage is both a secular institution and a religious institution. To the extent that the State would attempt to impose upon the Church the obligation to accept practices that are against its doctrines, the state would be committing a grievous violation of the “sacred freedom of conscience” and the Church would actively resist any efforts to have such an obligation imposed on them.</p> <p>3. However, the Church also notes that marriage is the institution that the government has chosen to regulate and organize secular society. The Church admits that, even though they may not believe that homosexual behavior is consistent with God’s will, as a matter of good policy and fairness, these relationships should be equal under the law. While the Church had hoped that a parallel institution would protect the rights of same-sex couples wile recognizing the religious importance of marriage, if the civil authorities, including the legislature, electorate, or the judiciary, decide that such a parallel institution cannot be equal, the Church will not oppose the use of the term marriage to describe these relationships for governmental purposes. </p> <p>4. The Church issues this statement with the full cooperation with Joe Solmonese or some other mucky-muck from a prominent gay-rights group. Said person will make some appropriate conciliatory gesture, including apologies for intemperate rhetoric and lack of civility, the importance of the freedom of conscience, which protects both the Church and the gay community (explicit reference to the 11th article of faith would be appropriate), the mutual commitment to protecting the integrity of all families, and the commitment to work together in unity.</p> <p>This is just off the top of my head and may be far too weak and capitulatory as far as the Church is concerned. I admit that this may look as though they are bowing to outside pressure, so any and all adjustments to this hypothetical scenario are welcome. </p></div>Nate W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03346853295987719998noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964838309830106124.post-13135697863621900462009-12-14T09:23:00.003-07:002009-12-14T09:23:00.352-07:00It's the most wonderful time of the year<div style="text-align: justify;"><p><a href="http://nateinslc.blogspot.com/2008/12/happy-holidays.html">The War on Christmas</a>, ably illustrated by one of my favorite <a href="http://www.shortpacked.com/">webcomics</a>:</p></div><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.shortpacked.com/comics/20091207standforchristmas.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 500px; height: 750px;" src="http://www.shortpacked.com/comics/20091207standforchristmas.png" border="0" alt="" /></a>Nate W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03346853295987719998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964838309830106124.post-86763057168853267642009-12-11T09:25:00.000-07:002009-12-11T09:25:00.172-07:00Shameless Advertising, Part 3<div style="text-align: justify;"><p>One final reminder: the Christmas Concert is tonight and tomorrow night--hope to see you there.</p><object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZsDMN9NVGSI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZsDMN9NVGSI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object><br><br><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9evMtW916ss/Swb-BcQrEbI/AAAAAAAAACI/tRevj8n5NPE/s1600/SLMCWeb.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 253px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9evMtW916ss/Swb-BcQrEbI/AAAAAAAAACI/tRevj8n5NPE/s400/SLMCWeb.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5406287703424307634" border="0" /></a></div>Nate W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03346853295987719998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964838309830106124.post-13985407553749629042009-12-10T09:30:00.000-07:002009-12-10T09:30:01.483-07:00If you're always this grumpy, why would you ever need them?<div style="text-align: justify;"><p>I've never denied the charge of being a bit persnickety about <a href="http://nateinslc.blogspot.com/2009/01/notes-from-unrepentant-grammar-nazi.html">grammar</a> and <a href="http://nateinslc.blogspot.com/2009/01/notes-from-unrepentant-grammar-nazi_28.html">punctuation</a>. But this polemic against emoticons takes the cake:</p> <blockquote><a href="http://www.salon.com/life/feature/story/index.html?story=/mwt/feature/2009/11/30/death_to_smiley">Mary Elizabeth Williams, Death to Smiley: Why Emoticons Need to Die*</a></blockquote><p>I think the appropriate response is as follows:</p><img src="http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/funny/2/finger.gif"/> <img src="http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/funny/2/finger.gif"/> <img src="http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/funny/2/finger.gif"/> <img src="http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/funny/2/finger.gif"/> <img src="http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/funny/2/finger.gif"/></div>Nate W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03346853295987719998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964838309830106124.post-28337399766049314602009-12-09T09:22:00.001-07:002009-12-09T09:22:00.543-07:00Shameless Advertising, Part 2<div style="text-align: justify;"><p>More of what you'll be missing out on if you don't show up Friday or Saturday:</p><object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4Uh4U0VPASE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4Uh4U0VPASE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9evMtW916ss/Swb-BcQrEbI/AAAAAAAAACI/tRevj8n5NPE/s1600/SLMCWeb.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 253px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9evMtW916ss/Swb-BcQrEbI/AAAAAAAAACI/tRevj8n5NPE/s400/SLMCWeb.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5406287703424307634" border="0" /></a></div>Nate W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03346853295987719998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964838309830106124.post-65740469225951528422009-12-08T09:58:00.001-07:002009-12-08T11:47:30.863-07:00Beginning of the end for DOMA part 2<div style="text-align: justify;"><p>I previously <a href="http://nateinslc.blogspot.com/2009/02/beginning-of-end-for-doma.html">blogged</a> about a very interesting pair of cases in the Ninth Circuit refusing to apply Federal DOMA. It turns out that the Office of Personnel Management <a href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1942791,00.html">has refused to comply with the order</a>, leading Chief Judge Kozinski to issue the following <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/11/19/09-80173o.pdf">memorandum decision</a>. Judge Reinhardt issued a similar decision <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/11/18/0980172o.pdf">here</a>.</p> <p>I'm not sure what the Obama administration's motives are here. If this is an attempt to to set up an appeal over federal DOMA, it seems that it would have been better to appeal the case in the first instance rather than just refuse to follow the court's order. I suppose we'll find out within a few days, however. The OPM has until December 18 to file an appeal.</p> </div>Nate W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03346853295987719998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964838309830106124.post-24996057791419266482009-12-07T09:18:00.000-07:002009-12-07T09:18:00.758-07:00Shameless Advertising, Part 1<div style="text-align: justify;"><p>More music from the concert on the 11th and 12th--If you're in the SLC area, come. Tickets are $10 at the door, or get a hold of me if you need a discount...</p><object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FKSM4kmpX9s&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FKSM4kmpX9s&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object><br><br><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9evMtW916ss/Swb-BcQrEbI/AAAAAAAAACI/tRevj8n5NPE/s1600/SLMCWeb.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 253px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9evMtW916ss/Swb-BcQrEbI/AAAAAAAAACI/tRevj8n5NPE/s400/SLMCWeb.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5406287703424307634" border="0" /></a></div>Nate W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03346853295987719998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964838309830106124.post-16483760852853046072009-12-04T09:11:00.000-07:002009-12-04T09:11:00.696-07:00Friday Music Post: Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas<div style="text-align: justify;"><p>Something to get you in the Christmas Spirit. </p><object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5g4lY8Y3eoo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5g4lY8Y3eoo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object></div><p>Oh, and don't forget the Christmas concert:</p><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9evMtW916ss/Swb-BcQrEbI/AAAAAAAAACI/tRevj8n5NPE/s1600/SLMCWeb.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 253px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9evMtW916ss/Swb-BcQrEbI/AAAAAAAAACI/tRevj8n5NPE/s400/SLMCWeb.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5406287703424307634" border="0" /></a>Nate W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03346853295987719998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964838309830106124.post-63966604463623009042009-12-03T09:21:00.000-07:002009-12-03T09:21:00.422-07:00On the supernatural<div style="text-align: justify;"><p>This is the most evenhanded illustration of the difference between science and the supernatural I've ever seen. Would that we all had such a measured and logical way of communicating:</p><object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/T69TOuqaqXI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/T69TOuqaqXI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object><p></p></div>Nate W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03346853295987719998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964838309830106124.post-76925588242778464422009-12-02T09:16:00.000-07:002009-12-02T09:16:00.424-07:00It's December!<div style="text-align: justify;"><p>Let's get the holiday season started off right:</p><img src="http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/funny-pictures-my-happy-christmas-face.jpg"/></div>Nate W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03346853295987719998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964838309830106124.post-43996379122852007152009-12-01T09:40:00.000-07:002009-12-01T09:40:00.351-07:00The LDS Church and Gays--The Long and Winding Road<div style="text-align: justify;"><p>As I stated <a href="http://nateinslc.blogspot.com/2009/11/history-of-lds-churchs-position-on.html">before Thanksgiving</a>, it seems that the Church's about-face on housing and employment rights is indicative of a wider change of attitude toward recognizing that sexual orientation actually exists. The following is from a paper I wrote while I was in law school that documents some of the changes:</p> <hr/><p>The present attitude toward homosexuality seemed to begin in about the late 1950s. Before this, it had been common practice to simply “drop them from positions they held,”<sup>1</sup> to use J. Reuben Clark’s words. Elders Spencer W. Kimball and Mark E. Petersen were called to counsel homosexual members in about 1961,<sup>2</sup> and Brigham Young University began electroshock aversive therapy to “cure” homosexuality.<sup>3</sup> In 1962, the Church issued a directive that “no one will be admitted as a student at the B.Y.U. whom we have convincing evidence is a homosexual.”<sup>4</sup></p> <p>The rhetoric of Church leaders became harsher as well. President David O. McKay declared homosexuality in his view to be “worse than [heterosexual] immorality . . . , a filthy and unnatural habit.”<sup>5</sup> Spencer W. Kimball called homosexuality a habit based on selfishness and caused by masturbation,<sup>6</sup> declared that it was contrary to the nature of God and therefore unnatural,<sup>7</sup> and concluded that no real love could spring from homosexual coupling.<sup>8</sup> He also believed it could be cured, and suggested that those who had failed had simply not tried hard enough: “How can you say the door cannot be opened until your knuckles are bloody, till your head is bruised, till your muscles are sore? It can be done.”<sup>9</sup> Boyd K. Packer, in a talk in a 1976 general conference, cited with approval the assault of a homosexual by his missionary companion for “self-protection.”<sup>10</sup> </p> <p>Church leaders’ abhorrence of homosexuality is not all that surprising given the dominant paradigm of homosexual culture at the time. In the late 1960s and -70s, the sexual revolution was just gaining momentum, and gay culture was at the forefront of a movement that seemed to have abandoned any semblance of morality in favor of a hedonistic existence. Gay journalist and scholar Jonathan Rauch recounts: “The master narrative for gay life was: come out, leave home, gorge at the banquet of sexual liberation. Gay men celebrated their image as sexual rebels; straight America was happy to consign them to that role.”<sup>11</sup> Is it any wonder that Spencer W. Kimball questioned gay members of the church that he counseled: “what would [your homosexual partner] do for you . . . should you suddenly fall victim to a dread disease, an incurable disease? Suppose your body shriveled; suppose you could no longer satisfy or get satisfaction sexually; suppose you could no longer be ‘used.’ How long would the alleged friendship or friendly ties last?”<sup>12</sup> </p> <p>Kimball’s words were prescient. The dread disease did come; the AIDS epidemic changed the narrative of gay culture “from ubiquitous sex to ubiquitous death . . . . For the stricken there were lesions, chills, wasting, death; for friends and lovers, there was grief compounded by despair.”<sup>13</sup> But this culture of death provided a crucible out of which was forged a culture of life. “Lovers, friends and AIDS ‘buddies’ were spooning food, emptying bedpans, holding wracked bodies through the night.”<sup>14</sup> Many gay couples proved that same-sex love was more than the pursuit of pleasure; it was love and community as real as that found in traditional society. This shift in gay culture has not gone unnoticed by Church leaders, who have more recently softened their rhetoric regarding homosexuality. The focus of many general authorities when discussing the subject has tended to emphasize the difference between orientation and behavior and admitting that for many, homosexuality may be a lifetime condition.<sup>15</sup> </p> <hr/> <ol> <li><span style="font-variant: small-caps;">D. Michael Quinn, Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example 376 (1996).</span> </li> <li><span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Edward L. Kimball, Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball 85–86 (2005).</span> Kimball and Petersen reported counseling almost one thousand individuals between 1961 and 1968. <i>Id.</i> at 86 n.4.</li> <li><span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Quinn</span>, <i>supra</i> note 1, at 379. While some documentation suggests that this practice was ended in the late 1960s, see <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Gary James Bergera & Ronald Priddis, Brigham Young University: A House of Faith 82 (1985),</span> there is evidence of these practices continuing on well after that time, <i>see</i> Rocky O’Donovan, <i>“The Abominable and Detestable Crime Against Nature”: A Brief History of Homosexuality and Mormonism, 1840-1980</i>, in <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Multiply and Replenish</span> 123, 157 (Brent Corcoran, ed. 1994) (citing several doctrinal dissertations from BYU students on electroshock therapy conducted in the 1970s).</li> <li><span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Quinn</span>, <i>supra</i> note 1, at 379.</li> <li><i>Id.</i> at 376.</li> <li><span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness 78 (1969)</span> [hereinafter <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Miracle of Forgiveness</span>]; <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball 275</span> (Edward L. Kimball, ed. 1982) [hereinafter <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Teachings</span>].</li> <li><span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Teachings</span>, <i>supra</i> note 6, at 276 (“‘God made me that way,’ some say . . . . This is blasphemy. Is man not made in the image of God, and does he think God to be ‘that way’?”).</li> <li><i>Id.</i> at 274.</li> <li><span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Miracle of Forgiveness</span>, <i>supra</i> note 6, at 82.</li> <li><span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Boyd K Packer, To Young Men Only</span> (1976) (“There are some men who entice young men to join them in these immoral acts. If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that, it is time to vigorously resist . . . .While I was in a mission on one occasion, a missionary said he had something to confess . . . . After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, “I hit my companion.” . . . After learning a little more, my response was “Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way.”). This talk has been excluded from the Ensign and Conference reports, but is produced as a pamphlet and published by the Church.</li> <li>Jonathan Rauch, <i>Families Forged by Illness</i>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">N.Y. Times</span>, June 4, 2006, § 4, at 15.</li> <li><span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Spencer W. Kimball, New Horizons for Homosexuals</span> 28 (1974).</li> <li>Rauch, <i>supra</i> note 11, at 15.</li> <li><i>Id.</i></li> <li><i>See</i> Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Issues Resources: Same-Gender Attraction (Aug. 14, 2006), <a href="http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-attraction">http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-attraction</a> (the 2006 interview with Elders Oaks and Wickman).</li></ol> </div>Nate W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03346853295987719998noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964838309830106124.post-76357142508863907512009-11-30T09:13:00.000-07:002009-11-30T09:13:00.875-07:00I love the [insert decade here]'s<div style="text-align: justify;"><p>Boy, I can't wait for the next ten minutes to be over with <a href="http://youaughttoremember.blogspot.com/">so I can be nostalgic</a> about it.</p><p>Please check out #44, which is just <a href="http://youaughttoremember.blogspot.com/2009/11/44-star-wars-and-indiana-jones-nuked.html">pure awesomeness</a>:</p> <blockquote> Dear Mr. Lucas: <br class=""/> <br class=""/>It has come to our attention that your actions over the past decade in the production of the films Star Wars Episode 2: Attack of the Clones and Star Wars Episode 3: Return of the Sith (hereafter referred to as "Star Bores") as well as Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (hereafter referred to as "Grandpa Jones") infringes upon the rights of millions of moviegoers to preserve their childhood memories unscathed. This is a clear violation of your contract with the public to create films worthy of the legacy that you, yourself, began in 1977. Your recent actions have been grossly negligent, displaying a complete lack of regard for taste and artistic merit. Star Bores and Grandpa Jones represent a failure to satisfy the duty of care mandated for a filmmaker of your status.</blockquote> <img src="http://atlmalcontent.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/south-park-indy21.jpg"/><br /> </div>Nate W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03346853295987719998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964838309830106124.post-35290810068425850762009-11-24T09:15:00.000-07:002009-11-24T09:15:00.189-07:00Happy Thanksgiving<div style="text-align: justify;"><p>I'll be back next week with more posts, but for now, let me plug the concert again and give you another preview:</p><object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sjjqP_xtEdE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sjjqP_xtEdE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object></div> <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9evMtW916ss/Swb-BcQrEbI/AAAAAAAAACI/tRevj8n5NPE/s1600/SLMCWeb.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 253px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9evMtW916ss/Swb-BcQrEbI/AAAAAAAAACI/tRevj8n5NPE/s400/SLMCWeb.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5406287703424307634" border="0" /></a>Nate W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03346853295987719998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964838309830106124.post-24189278364599659102009-11-23T09:06:00.001-07:002009-11-23T09:06:00.314-07:00Pure awesome<div style="text-align: justify;"><p>This is the coolest thing I've seen in a while:</p><object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2raQgmg0UxU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2raQgmg0UxU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object></div>Nate W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03346853295987719998noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964838309830106124.post-42894913685903251262009-11-20T09:21:00.001-07:002009-11-20T13:37:50.372-07:00Friday music post: Ave Maria<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9evMtW916ss/Swb-BcQrEbI/AAAAAAAAACI/tRevj8n5NPE/s1600/SLMCWeb.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 253px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9evMtW916ss/Swb-BcQrEbI/AAAAAAAAACI/tRevj8n5NPE/s400/SLMCWeb.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5406287703424307634" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><p>Come to the Salt Lake Men's Choir's Christmas Concert. We will be singing some great numbers, including this one:</p><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9WSbq3TCcd0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9WSbq3TCcd0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></embed></object></div>Nate W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03346853295987719998noreply@blogger.com1