chronicles of unemployment

I'm unemployed. This happened at a bad time, or more accurately, a confluence of bad times. First of all, the job market sucks. As you may know, unemployment in the US is over 10%, and even in Utah with its modest 6% or so unemployment, it's effing hard to get a job. Example: I didn't even get called for an interview for a part-time job at Whole Foods. I have a college degree. They really don't trust me to handle produce? As for grown-up jobs, which I spent all summer applying for, I lost out on one particular job that was advertised for people with 1+ years experience to someone with 8 years of experience working in the exact field that they were hiring for. I can't compete with that nonsense. I didn't even get a final interview for an organizing job here in Utah. In Utah! There are no organizers here.

Another reason this is bad timing is because I am done working for people. I was done last spring. I'm actually kind of frightened at this point of getting a job. I can't decide if I should partly blame the free unemployment money I got for 5 months. I know for certain that I blame the ultra-specialization and centralization of capital that comes with capitalism that causes the preponderance of menial jobs that require no imagination or responsibility.

Since unemployment ran out (and even before), I've been getting by by charging what expenses I can to my Visa and using savings to pay off that and other bills. Also, somebody crashed into my car, and while they didn't leave a note, they allowed me to collect a sizable sum from my auto insurance. Blessing in disguise? As for income, I've done some catering here and there, I've done odd jobs, I did a medical study.

I was also learning to retouch photos, but two days I realized my prospects for getting Photoshop for free were slim, and this bummed me out so bad that I spent the day doing what you'd imagine an unemployed person doing--watching TV. I realized that without some kind of focus, I'd turn into a turd pile on a couch.

So I decided that the next day I would record the drum tracks for a batch of songs that I've had laying around for years. My roommate has a kit that I'd been practicing on, and the only things preventing me from recording the parts were my lack of skill, the harsh acoustics of our basement, and a missing piece of hardware on the hi-hat stand. Those are actually good reasons not to record drums, but I figured I might as well do it.

It actually went great, and I got through the basic guitar parts as well. For 10 songs! The plan for today is: bass, vocals, and a couple extra guitar parts. And then I'll have another album's worth of music that I'll never release. I'm calling it Hot Shit, and I'm going to try to recruit a band at some point to play it live.

These are the kinds of things I've been doing to keep myself busy and to keep my sanity. I've recorded/written a decent amount of Straight Up stuff since I've been idle, and I've also studied for and taken two standardized tests, as well as put together an application for Ph.D. programs. I play in 5 bands, most of which I've recorded for, and I've produced one album. I've done a bunch of great outdoorsy stuff, and I've honed my cooking skills.

I know it's un-American of me, but I can't help but resent the system. I'm an educated person with a breadth of talents and specialized skills who wants to put his knowledge to use. There simply are a dearth of opportunities. People might criticize me for wanting too much for too little. But isn't that the American way? Our economy went to the crapper because of a lack of personal responsibility. I'm not just talking about Wall Street; everyone in America wanted (and was getting) money for nothing, whether it was from real estate or the 401(k)s that were growing thanks to bundled real estate investments (and porn and tobacco and...). The crooked bankers on Wall St. were more than happy to provide our hunger for infinite growth. I'm not trying to defend the atrocious TARP program (or the fact that Wall St. cut in line for scarce swine flu vaccines), but rather to put it in perspective that if we collectively feel entitled to growth that we don't work for, we screw less fortunate people out of limited resources. What made last year significant is that we screwed ourselves over--old reliable greed finally failed us.

Meanwhile, both major political parties in our country are continuing in a futile debate--entitlement programs vs. no entitlement programs. Whether or not health care legislation passes, the Republicans have won, because they are the ones who sidetracked us 30 years ago from the entirely germane discussion of the proper role of government in the economy by vehemently asserting, with the dubious backing of vulgar economics, that government has NO role in the economy. Instead of trying to steer us into an economy where we actually produce things, we've let ourselves as a country lapse into consumerism (you're welcome, China), indebtedness, and a GDP that's composed 40% of finance. So we bail out bankers that ruined us, completely fail to restructure the risky architecture of our system, and musicians and organizers go unemployed. And go to grad school.

To put this in perspective, I'm glad I don't have a family. My brother got laid off last week from his job at Wells Fargo. What is he going to do? I don't know.

experience: alpine loop

Avid FIMY readers, you may remember a few posts back about unmediated experiences in which I mentioned chronicling such experiences on this blog. I promptly forgot about it (similar to how I forgot about posting Speaking Up day ideas every month), but I think it's a good idea, and I'm going to try to pick it back up.

One of the top experiences of the summer for me was biking the Alpine Loop. The route is 40 miles long, with a total elevation gain of 4,385 feet. I still don't know entirely what that means, but it's a pretty rigorous bike ride, and I'm not much of a cyclist. I ride to the store and to the library, and that's about it. Plus, I have an old steel frame red Schwinn named Reba, who's thankfully not stolen like her older sister Tracy. Nevertheless, I decided to take a stab at it. Nate, Austin, Cam, and I suited up and drove to Provo one Saturday morning. I was in basketball shorts, and they were in fancy shit that is no different but more expensive than basketball shorts. I tied my hair in a ponytail, put on a borrowed helmet, and hit the trail.

They lost me pretty much immediately, even on a flat surface. It didn't help that a gear of mine was having a bit of trouble. Once I got to Vivian Park, I wasn't sure where to go, but a fellow biker who sneered at Reba told me I could take the highway to Sundance. I knew I wanted that, so I hit it.

Riding up to Sundance was ridiculous. I had to stop and rest after creeping up about a mile and a half. I told myself that I might not make it the whole way, so I would get to Sundance and see what I thought about turning around and going back to the car. Once I made it to Sundance, though, it became a) easier and b) more scenic. And it became really damn scenic. We went as the leaves were starting to change color, and the higher I got past Sundance, the more of the valley I could see, and it was beautiful.

A couple miles past Sundance, I took another breather. I was getting hungry. As I was sitting on a rock next to some rich person's driveway, I saw Nate coming around a bend below me. I was puzzled. Turns out they had stopped and got water and rested a minute at Sundance. When they all got to where I was resting, they thought I hitched a ride with someone up there. Sorry, fellas, Reba's got more spunk in her than even I thought. I got my Clif bar out of Nate's fancy jersey pocket, had a swallow or two of water, and we were back on the road.

They lost me again, but the ride was pleasant. A few more miles, and I realized the buzz coming from my back tire was the tire rubbing against the fork. I got nervous that coming down the 6+% grade of American Fork canyon, my tire would rub through, I would get a flat, and die. I tried in vain to true it a little bit with my bare hands, and decided I would try to take it easy on the way down.

Despite being exhausted, I got to where it seemed I was reaching the top. Less than a mile from the summit, I realized that I was actually going to make it. Riding that high, I spotted my friends at the summit. They had been resting there about ten minutes. While I was getting a drink of water, I asked some mountain bikers if they had a wrench. They did, and I was able to fix the problem with my rear tire in a quick minute.

Cam asked if my vintage brakes were going to hold out on the way down. As if he hadn't already learned not to doubt Reba. We started the descent, and while I thought at first that I would get nervous about going 40 mph down a concrete hill with nothing but a t-shirt to protect me if I fell, it felt so damn good to move without colossal effort. We cruised around cars, some of whom were oblivious/not so courteous. The canyon was beautiful, and the sensation of speed made me so happy at one point I started singing gospel songs.

We rode downhill, reaching 38 at one point, according to Cam's speedometer, for probably 20 minutes. Once at the bottom, we had to start riding our way back to the mouth of Provo canyon. I was still so elated from the ride down that I didn't really mind the thought of riding State St. through Orem.

Once I got to about Lindon, I was toast. My body was starved of energy, and I barely made it up a hill. I kept pedaling though, begrudgingly mounting my bike after every red light. When I finally made it back to Will's Canyon Stop, I was really happy to see my friends, and also really happy to be able to buy a Gatorade and some trail mix.

We stopped on the way back at Taco Town or something in Orem, and I got a fresh peach milkshake and a bean burrito. It was just to tide me over. I was starving and the burrito was bad, so don't go to Taco Town or whatever.

Once we made it back, I felt pretty good about myself. I went running two days later, and my legs crapped out after 3 miles, but still, it felt pretty good to have conquered the Alpine Loop. Lesson learned? You don't need expensive shit to have a good experience.

kings mountain

New song, ft. Emma Gilman.

Map

Working on a new track:

http://sites.google.com/site/fridayismyweekend/valeria.mp3

what is this shit?

http://stereogum.com/archives/video/new_jemina_pearl_feat_iggy_pop_thurston_moore_video__i_hate_people_stereogum_p_095711.html

The question, after watching this video, is which record company does Jemina Pearl's daddy work for? This song is terrible. The lyrics are not clever, the melody is trying so hard to be catchy that it's hard to listen to, and her voice is annoying, not to mention her "I'm a hipster" dance moves. WE GET IT. And Iggy Pop's on this song?? And Thurston Moore's in the video??? Am I missing something?

No, I'm not missing something. The people who are missing something are the bloggers who haven't figured out yet that they're the target for the same execs who inflicted upon us the likes of LFO. Same tactics, different style--build up the hype enough, and the musically illiterate will jump on the bandwagon (that ironically didn't exist until they composed it).

I felt I haven't adequately expressed my dislike for this song/video--it's pure shit, and it ruined my day.

GRE Literature in English subject test

I took that. In case you're wondering, this test is basically a literature trivia test. If you know one piece of trivia about every author and work they ask you about, you would be able to rule out the multiple choices and at least guess, and maybe get it right.

That being said, I'll let you know how well I did when I get my score back in 6 weeks. Yikes!

the priesthood, or why the inmates are running the asylum

I feel like God is not as involved as we Mormons sometimes pretend. In response to criticisms that the God of the Bible seems to change personalities throughout its history, I used to think that he changed to meet the needs of a changing people. Now I just think that he leaves his prophets in charge. When he comes off as capricious, vengeful, and petty, I think it's because he has capricious, vengeful, petty people representing him. Jehovah says to Moses, referring to his spokesman Aaron, "Thou shalt be to him instead of God" (Exodus 4:16). In the Book of Mormon he tells Nephi (the third one) "Ye shall have power over this people, and shall smite the earth with famine, and with pestilence, and destruction, according to the wickedness of this people" (Helaman 10:6). God is not one to renege on his word, even when Elijah orders a massacre of children through the Priesthood as punishment for their mocking his bald head: "[He] cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them" (2 Kings 2:24).

Why would God allow his prophets to act out of turn in that way? Isn't he a just God who loves his children? How could he give people power knowing that they would abuse it?

The answer lies in the fact that abuse is practically inevitable. When you put a toddler on a bike, you expect her or him to fall over a couple of times. When you give a man authority, as Joseph Smith pointed out, he is inclined to abuse it. But one can't learn how to not abuse power without actually having that power. If you never get on the bike, you'll never learn how to ride.

Additionally, the Priesthood is given with an oath and covenant. God can't rescind that covenant capriciously and expect to still be a just God, nor is that an effective way of teaching someone responsibility. If I tell you you're in charge of running my alarm company but then correct your every mistake, you will hate me, for one, but you will also never learn how to run an alarm company.

This seems like a rather Randian view of LDS doctrine, doesn't it? A select few are given extraordinary power for the benefit of their incremental climb up the ladder toward godhood at the expense of the unfortunate masses. Maybe it's not so ethical. But at least those to whom God gives power must meet a minimum standard of righteousness and are warned that when that privilege is used to increase one's own power without regard for the stated purpose of the Priesthood that the power vanishes. There is also the promise that where much is given, much is required. Sure, taking the oath and covenant of the Priesthood results in greater power, but it's my feeling that those with the most responsibility are going to be doing a proportional share of repenting in the end.

God tells us in the D&C why it's so important why the Priesthood is given to us imperfect people: "This greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God" (D&C 84:19). I've said it before--knowledge in the scriptures is linked to action. Priesthood is the key to the knowledge of God, because in exercising responsibility for other people, one is acting to a certain degree like God, as Moses was God to Aaron.

So our modern-day prophets are allowed to make mistakes, just as any other man makes mistakes. The Priesthood ban was a big one. I think the Church's quasi-official endorsement of the conservative culture war is another one. Ezra Taft Benson was a member of the John Birch Society, an organization infamous for its crackpot unveilings of furtive communist plots. Brigham Young thought the sun was inhabited. My point with this is not to discredit everything prophets have ever said or done. On the contrary, I believe that through the responsibility that these selfless men carry at much personal sacrifice, they communicate the mysteries and knowledge of God to us, in teachings and in example. Their modest efforts are blessed and made to be more than they should be. I can testify that I had more success on my mission than I deserved. I can also testify that, given the caliber of reader the average Mormon is, that the average Mormon understands more than she has any business understanding, on a kind of intuitive level. I believe that through the Priesthood our best efforts are blessed.

On another point, treating these men like demi-gods is not doing them a service. If we want to support our imperfect prophets, we need to take more responsibility for our own spirituality and not hole up in our insular Mormon communities and demand that our leaders delineate every way that we can sin. Their job is to give us guidance in our decisions, not make our decisions for us. That's dumping more responsibility on them than they deserve and creates an unsustainable relationship, especially considering the rate at which the Church is expanding across nations and cultures. The more time they spend telling us in Utah how many earrings we can wear or what kind of movies we can watch or how bad energy drinks are for us, the less time they have to supervise the teaching of principles like faith, repentance and baptism to the lost tribes of Israel.

orson scott card v. leo tolstoy... hm, yeah i'll go with tolstoy. or, the difference between sci-fi and literature and why it matters for your soul

For those of you who don't know, Orson Scott Card, the prominent LDS author of the sci-fi classic Ender's Game (which I've heard is actually really good), writes a column in the Mormon Times section (I'm serious) of the Deseret News, which is one of the two major newspapers in the Salt Lake valley. Several months ago, I came across a column of his in which he compares Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy, one of the great works of Russian literature, to 17 Again, that recent Disney non-blockbuster starring the High School Musical boy (I'm serious). If you're already disgusted, quit this post right now. Because by Card's standards, 17 Again wins out.

"No offense, but Tolstoy was an idiot." That's a direct quote. "There is more truth about happiness in life in 17 Again than there is in Anna Karenina." That's another one.

Card may know a thing about escapist entertainment--I'll give him the benefit of a doubt, as I've generally been too busy reading actual literature to pick up Ender's Game--but I believe the idiot when it comes to art and (yes, I'm going to extrapolate the hell out of this) morality is Orson Scott Card.

Before we continue, you should probably go here and read his column. But we both know you're not going to, so I'll run down his argument. Happy families, contrary to Tolstoy's famous opening statement that all happy families are alike, require a great deal of selflessness and ingenuity to maintain their happiness throughout life's trials. He runs through a set of circumstances that are not at all related to Anna Karenina and talks about how happy families overcome them.

At this point in the column, it becomes clear that Card has not actually read Anna Karenina. For his benefit--and for yours, because let's face it, you're not going to read it either--(SPOILER ALERT) Anna Karenina is an aristocratic woman who begins an affair with a charismatic military officer. She contemplates staying in her loveless marriage for the sake of her son, whom she dearly loves, but can't in light of her husband's cold and merciless treatment of her once the affair becomes public. She lives with her lover in Europe for a time, but her sense of insecurity leads her to doubt his commitment to her. Devoid of all hope, she throws herself under a train at the end of the book.

Let's be generous and say that Card actually has read Anna Karenina. He did so with an entirely deaf ear to Tolstoy's critique of patriarchy. If he hadn't, he would have been more sensitive in his dismissal of the book. Referring to the fantastic premise of 17 Again, he says "There isn't one thing he achieves through his magical opportunity that he could not have been achieving all along by overcoming his own selfishness and focusing on his family." Card doesn't come out and say it, but the implication is that Anna's family could have been one of the happy ones had she simply overcome her selfishness and devoted herself to her family (of course, Card would be ignoring, had he read the book, how devoted Anna is to her son). Of course, that's what the rest of the Russian high society thought as well, even as they declined to indict Vronsky in the affair or to encourage Anna's husband to forgive her and make it easier for her to keep the family together. The sexist double standard is very clear to someone who's read the book.

More than that, Anna was a victim of a society in which girls were supposed to marry young and suppress their wills under that of their husbands'. Her initial crime was wanting more from life than the confines of an empty estate could provide.

All of this is oversimplification, and I'm partly guilty of what I'm accusing Card of doing; i.e., distilling the nuance and complexity of a great work of literature into an epigrammatic lesson on morality. In fact, I feel there is no moral lesson to be learned without wading through the drama and emotion of Anna's experience. I could join Card in spouting off platitudes about how a happy marriage should be, but that is immoral.

I repeat, that is immoral. Here is the difference between mine and Card's morality: the Gospel of Jesus Christ for me is NOT a set of rules that, if lived, will produce a "happy" life. Yes, those rules exist, and yes, they usually are helpful. The Gospel, however, to me is the knowledge that Jesus gets down into the irrational, fallible, emotional, human muck alongside you and helps you through it. If you aren't in a position to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, he doesn't preach rules at you and make you feel as if you're the author of your own misery. If you're desperate and contradictory and distraught, as Anna often is in the novel, I for one am not going to point out every error you're making, even if you're breaking some rather valuable rules. What is moral in such a situation is to understand and encourage, to dismiss the crippling judgment and rule-spouting of the self-righteous, and to communicate the truth that every person is valuable.

Can you tell a person, Anna Karenina, for instance, that she is valuable, while making your feel responsible for the dissolution of her family? Maybe you actually can, if you're extremely gifted, but I wouldn't encourage anyone to do so, because you would probably end up doing more harm than good. Blaming the victim only ever makes the blamer feel good.

Card, the Mormon purveyor of escapism, would probably disagree, saying that it's immoral to cast everyone as a victim, as a person who doesn't have the agency to overcome her or his unfortunate circumstances. But this isn't my argument, and if Card knew anything about literature, we might be on the same page. Great literature exists on the fringes, on the thresholds of infinity, where experience is so rich and complex that it can't be articulated in morality plays like 17 Again. That's what makes great literature true and mawkish Disney movies false. 17 Again may fit nicely with one's definitions of reality, but it's an impoverished reality that can fit snugly within our imperfect definitions and proverbs. Pop culture media like science fiction can accommodate our desire to reinforce and dictate onto such stories the rules we like to live by, but we read literature when we want to learn something, when we want to engage in a conversation, when we want to have our worldview challenged. (By the way, I had a tenured English professor at BYU dismiss my interpretation of a short story because it led to an unacceptable moral lesson. WTF)

At some point Mormons will have to move outside our (figurative) insular Mountain West, and when that happens, we won't be able to inscribe our worldview onto reality. It's already happening, in fact. I think it's a big reason why young single Mormons are trending away from the Church. Twenty-somethings grew up on multiculturalism, tolerance, and diversity. Traditional Church thinking has viewed these concepts as trojan horses of moral relativist Others, so instead of integrating these principles into Mormon discourse, we've stood our black-and-white ground, to the detriment of a dynamic new generation, a generation that is nimble-minded enough to shape a worldview around reality rather than the other way around.

Contrary to Card's fears, you don't have to lose all moral bearing to get down into the muck with Anna Karenina. You won't lose your soul by admitting that Anna got a raw deal. In fact, the path to understanding her situation and learning empathy gives a person increased moral clarity, because every soul, including our own, deserves empathy and understanding. Without that, we become bitter, hardened souls obsessed with blind justice. Or we become blowhards with columns in the Deseret News who wax sagacious and backhandedly judgmental about the nature of happy families.

autumnal equinox mix 2009

Hey kiddos, you know what today is? It's the first day of fall. To celebrate, here is the Fall Mix '09.

http://8tracks.com/natehousley/kicked-it-in-the-sun-fall-2009

I have to admit, Fall snuck up on me a little bit, so this mix is slightly rushed, but it's still pretty good. Give it a good listen, and try to remember the good times from your summer as you dust off your jackets.

why i'm not a democrat

The dominance of the American system by two parties makes those two parties sometimes appear like polar opposites. But Democrats and Republicans share a fundamental view of political economy.

Both believe that an ever-expanding economy is a top governmental priority and that America's economic prosperity is an inherently just end. This emphasis leads to policies that allow, in fact profit off of, exploitation and abuse. Social issues aside, Democrats are Republicans with a Marxist sheen--they support labor unions, affirmative action, environmental protection, fair trade, but promote the same system of state-sponsored capitalism, financial voodoo, and forcibly imposing our economic agenda on other sovereign nations that Republicans do. If they are not addressing the inherent tendency of capitalism to exploit and oppress, Democrats really do just want to tax the rich to provide handouts for their constituencies.

Which is not Marxism, despite the vulgarizations of some on the right. In his critique of capitalism, Marx wrote that profit comes from exploiting labor. The haves control the means of production and are therefore in a position of power to force the have-nots into working for less than what their labor is "worth." Of course, this theory of value is problematic, but no less problematic than the capitalist leap of faith that because value can be created through exchange that value is ALWAYS created through exchange. The last few decades have shown us that gains can be made not through created wealth but through gaming the financial system, going to war, exploiting the natural environment, and especially through private industry's cozy relationship with government. Rather than benefiting from capitalism, as Democrats do, Marxism would overthrow capitalism with the hope of a more equitable distribution of resources.

Am I advocating armed revolution? Definitely not, especially if such is based only on the naive hope that people will automatically become more generous and noble simply because they live under a new economic system. What I am advocating is the end to the belief that economic gain comes from one or the other--miracle of exchange or exploitation--and a new perspective that acknowledges the role of exploitation in profit and steers our economy away from that.

No matter the party affiliation of the president, America has long followed the idea that the government should take responsibility for the well-being of the private sector. In practice, this means providing tax breaks, subsidies, and government contracts to private industry. At its best, this has led to things like the FDIC's guarantee of private banks, something that benefits the country at large. At its worst, this is lemon socialism, the privatization of profit with the socialization of risk. The recent financial collapse is a perfect example of this, from the industry-requested deregulation of complex financial products to the collapse of the unmonitored bubble to the extravagant Wall St. bailout.

I'm not opposed to government promoting business in the abstract world that economists often live in, but I don't believe in reality that government should be on the same team as industry. This mentality has led to our current state of policy which works for only a select few (health insurance companies, polluters, Wall St., and defense contractors) at the expense of most Americans. When you give a handout, as Republicans like to point out in reference to disadvantaged citizens, you create a dependency, and doubly so if those dependents are able to fund lobbyists and make lavish campaign donations. As a democracy, we're cannibalizing ourselves by continuing to choose between two options that both believe that government should be in bed with private industry.

Furthermore, the idea of infinite growth is a fantasy. We live in a world of rather finite resources. While capitalism does have a genius for creating the most value out of a given set of resources, we don't have anything near an "infinite pie." The demand for infinite growth, rather than the solution to a Malthusian problem, is actually based on the greed of the wealthy and an appeasement from government officials who are desperate to please those who are in a position to get them elected. The wealth of the top 1% of earners has ballooned decadently over the last three decades while real wages for the middle class have stagnated or dipped. While it's true that the rich have been hurt (finally) by the economic collapse, many of those were bankers who were responsible for the collapse, and so it's not only just but central to the theory of capitalism that people are responsible for their own decisions. What is unjust and also contrary to capitalism is that many people around the world with nothing to do with the decision to commoditize and profit off of American mortgages have suffered from Wall St.'s hit and run tactics which President Obama continues to enable by leaving Geithner in charge of Treasury and failing to reform financial practices. It's telling that proposed executive pay caps made news but not regulating the very practices that led to the meltdown and that will inevitably lead to another meltdown in 15 years. What's especially telling is that we solved the boom and bust cycle through regulation, but thanks to Wall St. influence, such an option is off the table.

To hell with corporate welfare. To hell with robbing justice for luxury. If you really want to throw away your vote in 2010, vote for a Democrat or a Republican, and you'll continue to cede your voice in Washington to industry lobbyists.

why the church isn't (and shouldn't be) a democracy

It's a simple enough concept--let people govern themselves. Of course, notwithstanding the reverence with which the concept is taught here in America, it's a tricky thing to suss out in practice, with everyone from anarchists to socialists claiming it.

Provided you can even agree on just how people govern themselves, there is still the matter--as you may have considered given this summer's political discourse full of hysteria, disinformation, and latent racism--of determining if letting people govern themselves is truly the best idea we've come up with.

As with all things, democracy wasn't invented in a vacuum, and the political order against which it was designed was monarchy. The propulsive idea behind modern Western democracy is that power should never be concentrated in too few hands. Enough unjust monarchies had taken their toll on Enlightenment thinkers that they reasoned the only surefire way to prevent such abuse would be to limit the power of any one person or group.

Thus the American Constitution builds in checks and balances at every turn. Not only is the power of government checked by a voting body, but the branches of government are checked against themselves. Institutions such as the media and religion are guaranteed an existence outside state control.

So we've perfected government, right? Any organization that isn't based on these democratic principles must be rife with abuse and inequality, right?

Therein lies the logical fallacy of democratic culture; power and authority do not necessarily equal abuse. The mistrust of power is likely a holdover from the polemic used to incite democratic revolutions.

Religion is based on authority. The truly democratic society (in the historically situated sense that we're talking about) has an obligation to check, if not entirely bring down, that authority. So there's a fundamental tension between religion and democracy, something that isn't lost on the modern liberals who thoroughly buy into classical liberalism.

But why can't religion be more democratic? After all, isn't any mortal, regardless of whether he or she is called of God, prone to the abuse of power? The strongest answer I can think of, in the context of LDS doctrine, is that power is something valuable, and the proper exercise of it is something to celebrate. Instead of having one's power able to be questioned by any person who happens to be around, power in God's scheme is entrusted to the people who meet certain worthiness requirements as determined by an all-powerful, perfectly benevolent God.

Additionally, democracy is philosophically tied to the other defining Enlightenment products--capitalism and reason. Democracy, like capitalism, depends on perfect information and rational choices made in one's self-interest. The model for such a world lies in contrast to that of the Bible--people are blinded by all sorts of sins and follies (see Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, etc.) and self-interest is something that separates a person from her community and from God.

Rationalism presupposes the equitable availability of all relevant information and belittles and marginalizes esoteric or experiential knowledge. Religion requires ritual, prayer, and meditation. Scripture is text against which one critiques oneself, not the other way around.

Injecting democracy into religion would strip it of its defining characteristics and virtues. It would take authority out of the realm of the external and transcendental and place it within oneself. While that may make for great government, it makes for very cheap and inconsequential religion.

At the same time, what makes the LDS Church stand out to me is the acknowledgment that many religions abuse the power they have; an absent, metaphysical God makes for a powerful ally. There is no demand to blindly follow whoever makes a truth claim, as the LDS God is as egalitarian as any Enlightenment ideal and will speak to whomever wants His input. Anyone who discourages individual inquiry and defers to an authority figure that is accepted a priori (the Bible, Jesus, the Prophet, etc.) deserves more than suspicion.

But at the same time, it's a good idea to realize the limits of the wisdom of crowds and acknowledge the detrimental spiritual effects of assuming that one already has all the wisdom one needs to govern oneself.

Very Most remix

http://fridayismyweekend.googlepages.com/YoureInLoveWiththeSunStraightUpremix.mp3

Here is my latest remix. This one is pretty cool for me because it was commissioned by Indiecater, the European internet home of Adam and Darcie's California Trail. The band is the Very Most, from Boise, and they're not too damn shabby.

The song is "You're in Love with the Sun." You can hear the original here.

in search of an unmediated experience

I may have been waking up from a drowsy, road-hypnotic nap on the way to Havasupai (sorry, no pictures), but I started thinking about pictures from co-workers' vacations--invariably culled from some resort stay, some guided snorkeling trip, some tour guide-led tourist route. I felt contempt for their "mediated" experiences with the world. So much of our lives is mediated by others, do we need mediated vacations as well?

When I was a little more cogent, though, I had to wrestle with the idea of what a mediated experience really is, and if my trip to Havasupai was any different. A 10-mile hike in a desert canyon is a far cry from a taxi ride to Sandals Jamaica, but aside from the difference in the comfort level, is there really an appreciable difference?

I entertained briefly the idea of experiencing the world without any introduction from a middleman. But as fun as it is to discover cool things, it's also time-consuming. And I don't know if I'm more interested in finding say, a bike jump than I am in actually going off a bike jump.

So I'm okay with letting people introduce me to things, and I even think there's a virtue in being part of the oral tradition of adventurers, passing along tips and recommendations. Is this really so different from what wealthier, more boring people pay for when they go on vacation?

I'm still inclined to think so. A non-profit and a business both take in money, but there is an appreciable difference in the motivation behind the two and the experience one would have with them. Similarly, when your vacation (or meal or concert or church attendance or...) is being mediated by someone who's there for profit, it loses a bit of soul. The experience will always trend towards comfort, safety, sterilization. And you will miss out on the feeling that the middleman is giving you something, because she or he will be selling you something.

So. I think I'll use this weblog to chronicle my unmediated experiences for the rest of the year. Or whatever.

the new sexual revolution

The sexual revolution of the 60's and 70's needed to happen. The people and institutions who were wielding societal power to enforce particular sexual practices were in no position to do so, and something as personal as one's sexuality does not deserve to be so strictly regulated by politicians and hypocrites.

In the wake of the sexual revolution, however, a new group of people realized they could also profit off of sexuality, if only the other side of the coin. These people--advertisers, fashion moguls, entertainers, and pornographers--seized onto the anything-goes reaction to strict control. If during the 50's our sexuality was dictated to us, we are now having our sexuality sold to us.

The result is the notion that sexuality in any form is something to be celebrated, that it is inherently meaningful, that a person isn't fulfilled or experiencing life if they are not fully sexually active. The message from TV shows and movies and ads is that having sex should be the most desirable activity any of us could be doing at any given time.

While one's sexuality is personal, that is not to say that one's personal decisions don't have societal consequences. Casual sex treats other people as objects for one's own pleasure. It erodes the social bonds that make us empathize with and look out for other humans. (For the record, I'm not pretending that I've never casually made out with a girl, and I'm not trying to say that that's okay while casual sex isn't. There is a difference of degree, but my point is that we should be wary of the idea that casual sex is preferable to physical expressions of mutual love and respect. This is augmented by the notion that it's masculine to fear commitment, and since men have historically enjoyed a position of power, eschewing commitment can be seen as empowering to both genders.)

But by far the most dangerous and harmful message being pushed, most notably by pornographers and advertisers, is the sexualization of vulnerability. Girls are often portrayed more attractively when they are helpless. This feeds into a culture of rape and pedophilia because it feeds on a sexual feeling connected to a feeling of domination.

Speaking of pornography, it is increasingly seen as a legitimate expression of sexuality. Pornography is the ultimate form of sexuality abstracted from personal relationships. The anonymous viewer is witness to whatever he or she chooses, lending an element of power to the experience. While this positive (or at least permissive) view of pornography definitely stems from the sexual revolution, its prevalence is also mighty convenient for the billion-dollar porn industry.

So what am I arguing for? I am not trying to say that we return to the puritanical sex-is-bad mode that existed prior to the sexual revolution. In fact, the taboo of pornography and promiscuity probably feeds into its appeal. What I am saying is that our ideas of sexuality are necessarily informed from some external source, and we should be aware that there is a lot of money riding on our acceptance of particular attitudes. We should also keep an eye on the younger generation and try to set a good example for the teens who are considering becoming sexually active at a very impressionable time in their life.

Because we're not about to trust the institutions who historically have preached chastity, the new sexual revolution needs to be a bottom-up reclaiming of our sexuality from the advertisers and pornographers.

Speaking up Day XV: Helping someone in need

This is for my cousin, Camille Call-Garcia, a mother of two who has been having grand mal seizures for a few years now, the same kind of seizures that killed her older sister. Luckily she has been able to find very good treatment, but it has been very expensive.

In 2005, at age 27, Camille started having absence and grand mal seizures when she
became pregnant with her first son. The seizures have been debilitating and have not
stopped with medications.
• In 2006 Camille's older sister, Ashley, died at age 29 as a result of "status epilepticus"
which is basically a seizure that wouldn't stop. Ashley had not had seizures before.
• In July, 2009, at age 30, Camille started having "status epilepticus" seizures. So far
they have not claimed her life like her sister. The doctors predict the medications to
bring her out of the "status" state will become less effective over time.
• She must undergo six months of testing, culminating in an open-skull probing test to
determine if brain surgery can save her life.
• Her monthly medications are costly and medical bills from 18 ambulance rides and
hospitalizations are putting financial strain on the family and extended family members.
• Please help this family with their mounting medical and prescription bills.
Helping to take the financial stress off them could help prolong her life, and
prolong her two young boys having their mother, and her husband a wife.


If you are in a position to help, please donate to this PayPal link:

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_donations&business=CXQFZ8PAUXT2E&lc=US&item_name=Camille%20Call%2dGarcia%20Family%20Fund&currency_code=USD&bn=PP%2dDonationsBF%3abtn_donateCC_LG%2egif%3aNonHosted

Thank you!

(Sorry, but I can't help but make this political. If you are going to donate, but feel uncomfortable with the fact that 1/3 of your hard-earned money will go to the administration of our private-insurance run health care system instead of going to my cousin, consider supporting Pres. Obama's health care reform plan, as it will start to take some of the waste and inefficiency out of our bloated system.)