Gates Arrest

I'd be interested in your comments on the Gates arrest in the Socialist Republic of Cambridge. Here's the police report (see link below), which Gates says is the figment of the officer's imagination, though he does say he asked for the officer's name and badge number. Personally, I have some sympathy for the police in investigating a possible break-in, and I think it was appropriate for the neighbor to call the police (which Gates also seems to be OK with). The police never know if someone is armed etc., whether black or white. i think the key here is when Gates showed them identification that he lived there. if right away, they should have just let the whole thing go. But if he refused to do so immediately, then started yelling at them for being racist, I don't have too much sympathy for him, though 4 hours in jail seems a bit much. He strikes me as a little arrogant (not that people from Harvard are ever arrogant) and I think I've heard that before.

What do you guys think?

Dad


Story from Boston.com

The Five Love Languages

Originally posted on my own blog.


I think I'm just a johnny-come-lately, but I only yesterday found out about the Five Love Languages (pay no mind to the cheesy website design, they're actually pretty cool--read on!) by Gary Chapman. Basically, he posits that there are five basic "love languages"--ways to express and receive love. The five languages are (in no particular order):

• Quality Time - You find it really important to spend time with people and be together.
  
• Acts of Service - Small acts of service really communicate love.
  
• Words of Affirmation - It's important to have love and compliments expressed verbally.
  
• Gift Giving - Giving gifts is a major way of communicating love.
  
• Physical Touch - A hand on the arm, a back-scratch, an arm around the shoulder, a kiss--these are the best ways to communicate love.
  

It's important to remember that everyone experiences love in all of these ways, but Chapman contends that everyone has one that is more important than all the others, and that they can be (more or less) ranked for each person--think "good, better, best." Also, although for most people they are the same, it is possible to prefer to give love in one language, and receive it in another.

For me, it was kind of hard to pick my dominant language. I can definitely rule out gift-giving since gifts don't mean much at all to me, and service (while of course nice) is also not very high on my list. But the remaining three were harder. I finally decided on quality time being my number one--I really love to talk to people one-on-one and spend time with friends and loved ones. Words of affirmation are also very important to me--I sometimes can crave verbal praise and recognition, and when I hear them it just feels really, really good. Physical touch is also important for me. I love hugging, back-scratches, holding hands, etc., though PDA is gross. All that was validated by this quiz (no scientificity guaranteed), where I scored 11 on quality time, 8 on words of affirmation, and 7 on physical touch (service was 4, gift giving 0 :) ).

Like I said, I just yesterday found out about this way of looking at ways of communicating love, but I think it's a very useful tool. Just talking to Alisha about it helped me recognize a source of what had been some concern for me (that she's not a "words of affirmation" kind of girl) but also helped me realize that she expresses love through physical touch and quality time. It was also good to find out that we're both not very into gifts--phew! (but don't worry, I still give flowers or whatever on special occasions).

Overall I think it's very useful to recognize how family, friends, and significant others give and receive love so that you're not talking past each other. If one person constantly says "I love you" but the recipient of those words thinks talk is cheap and would prefer the other person just pitch in with the chores, you can see how problems could develop and both sides feel hurt. Apparently, you can also work on improving your fluency in love languages that don't come as naturally to you, which is a great goal, and one I'll be working on.

So, were you already familiar with the five love languages? Which one(s) is (are) your primary language(s)? Did you like all those parentheses I needed to make that last sentence exactly tolerant of whether or not you had multiple love languages? Have you ever been in a situation where two people had their relationship damaged by using two different love languages without realizing it? I'm anxious to hear your thoughts!

Covenants

Time to dust off the family blog (again). Today I was given an assignment to speak in church next week on the topic of "The Purpose, Power, Strength and Blessings of Covenants." I was also given a conference talk, by Elder D. Todd Christofferson, to focus on - "The Power of Covenants" from April 2009. I've read it (it's a really good talk, I think) and I'd be interested to hear the family's thoughts and ideas. I will shamelessly steal them and use them in my own talk, hopefully remembering to attribute them to you.

Also, the talk assignment included the following question: "Consider/research that only two ordinances are the ordinances sealed in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. One is the ordinance of baptism. What is the other(s)?" I have no clue what the answer is to this question, so let me know if you know!

Some other questions that ocurred to me as I was reading scriptures related to covenants:
- How can a covenant be "new" and "everlasting"?
- How do we covenant with God? With one another? Are the ideas of covenanting with God inherently connected to covenants with others?
- By what means are covenants brought to pass? By our faith? By Christ's sacrifice? By our sacrifices? By a combination of forces?
- Why does God set the terms of the covenant with us? Are covenants one-size-fits-all or individualized according to our abilities?

An Elder Wirthlin Sampler

(Shamelessly cross-posted from my personal blog)

I think Elder Wirthlin was my favorite apostle, so I was shocked and saddened to hear it announced in my Computer Science 404 class on Tuesday that he had passed away Monday. I figured I'd do a little sampler of some of the talks that he's given that I've enjoyed a lot.

• This one really spoke to me: even though I'm a weird freak, I belong. I often think of his symphony of piccolos analogy.
  Concern for the One: "Tied to this misconception is the erroneous belief that all members of the Church should look, talk, and be alike. The Lord did not people the earth with a vibrant orchestra of personalities only to value the piccolos of the world. Every instrument is precious and adds to the complex beauty of the symphony. All of Heavenly Father’s children are different in some degree, yet each has his own beautiful sound that adds depth and richness to the whole."
  
  
• This talk pretty much sums up my philosophy of life and the importance of humor.
  Come What May, and Love It: "Have you ever seen an angry driver who, when someone else makes a mistake, reacts as though that person has insulted his honor, his family, his dog, and his ancestors all the way back to Adam? Or have you had an encounter with an overhanging cupboard door left open at the wrong place and the wrong time which has been cursed, condemned, and avenged by a sore-headed victim?
  
  There is an antidote for times such as these: learn to laugh."
  
  
• A great charity talk, and it was the backdrop for the indelible Conference moment when he started shaking during his talk (apparently due to locked knees) and Elder Nelson got up to support him so that he was able to finish it. A beautiful example of charity in action.
  The Great Commandment: "True love lasts forever. It is eternally patient and forgiving. It believes, hopes, and endures all things. That is the love our Heavenly Father bears for us. We all yearn to experience love like this. Even when we make mistakes, we hope others will love us in spite of our shortcomings—even if we don’t deserve it. Oh, it is wonderful to know that our Heavenly Father loves us—even with all our flaws! His love is such that even should we give up on ourselves, He never will."
  
  
  
• I remember my mission president speaking on this topic when I was on my mission, and I really enjoyed the idea, and this Conference Address from Elder Wirthlin had a lot of the same thoughts (and now I can't remember which came first!). Either way, great stuff.
  The Abundant Life: "The gospel of Jesus Christ is not a religion of mourning and gloom. The faith of our fathers is one of hope and joy. It is not a gospel of chains but a gospel of wings.
  
  To embrace it fully is to be filled with wonder and to walk with an inner fire. Our Savior proclaimed, “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.”"
  

Also, I'd recommend this post of reminiscences of Elder Wirthlin. I'll miss his awesome spirit, but now he can be with his wife, and the church will move on and we'll get even more great new leaders.

Did you guys like his talks? Any special memories of him?

The White Album Turns 40

Only a bit older than mom and dad, there's the "The Beatles" a.k.a. "The White Album", which turned 40 on November 22. NPR had a great program commemorating it that I found fascinating. They include a bunch of outtakes, songs that didn't make it onto the record, and rough versions of the final songs we know and love so well.

My guess is that Dad and Benjamin will also appreciate the interview, mom maybe a little, and Diana, maybe you shouldn't even bother. But here's the link to the mp3. Mom, you should pay particular attention to the discussion of your least favorite Beatles song: Revolution 9 (the word song there, of course, is used in the loose sense); it starts a little after the 22 minute mark.

The White Album is my favorite Beatles album so this was quite a treat for me. Let me know what you think? Learn anything new? Gain any more appreciation for Revolution 9?

A Tortured Nation

Here's a link to an article I co-wrote with a guy from my ward in California when I was working with Palm last summer. It came out in the Political Review today, a BYU political newsletter thing. Let me know what ya think!

Ruling on Guns Elicits Rebuke From the Right

Guys: I thought this was pretty interesting comment on judicial philosophy, and from an unusual source.

Dad



October 21, 2008

ADAM LIPTAK

WASHINGTON — Four months after the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess guns, its decision is under assault — from the right.

Two prominent federal appeals court judges say that Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in the case, District of Columbia v. Heller, is illegitimate, activist, poorly reasoned and fueled by politics rather than principle. The 5-to-4 decision in Heller struck down parts of a District of Columbia gun control law.

The judges used what in conservative legal circles are the ultimate fighting words: They said the gun ruling was a right-wing version of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that identified a constitutional right to abortion. Justice Scalia has said that Roe had no basis in the Constitution and amounted to a judicial imposition of a value judgment that should have been left to state legislatures.

Comparisons of the two decisions, then, seemed calculated to sting.

“The Roe and Heller courts are guilty of the same sins,” one of the two appeals court judges, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, wrote in an article to be published in the spring in The Virginia Law Review.

Similarly, Judge Richard A. Posner, in an article in The New Republic in August, wrote that Heller’s failure to allow the political process to work out varying approaches to gun control that were suited to local conditions “was the mistake that the Supreme Court made when it nationalized abortion rights in Roe v. Wade.”

Sharp criticism of a recent Supreme Court decision by federal appeals court judges is quite unusual, though these two judges — both Reagan appointees — are more outspoken than most.

Judge Wilkinson, who sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., was recently considered for a spot on the Supreme Court. Judge Posner, of the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, is perhaps the most influential judge not on the Supreme Court.

Not all conservatives agree with the critics, of course. Robert A. Levy, a libertarian lawyer who was a principal architect of the victorious strategy in the Heller case, rejected the comparison to Roe.

The two sides in the Heller case claimed to rely on the original meaning of the Second Amendment, based on analysis of its text in light of historical materials. The amendment says, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The more liberal justices said the amendment protected only a collective right tied to state militias, thus allowing most gun control laws. The more conservative justices found an individual right and struck down parts of a District of Columbia gun control law.

In Judge Wilkinson’s view, the upshot of the court’s extensive historical analysis was that “both sides fought into overtime to a draw.”

Others said the quality of the combat was low. “Neither of the two main opinions in Heller would pass muster as serious historical writing,” Jack Rakove, a historian at Stanford, wrote on the blog Balkinization soon after the decision was issued.

The strong reaction from the right after Heller was preceded, with a sort of symmetry, by liberal support for an individual-rights reading of the Second Amendment. For much of the 20th century, the conventional view of the amendment had been that it only protects a collective right. (Warren E. Burger, after retiring as chief justice in 1986, called the individual rights view “one of the greatest pieces of fraud — I repeat the word ‘fraud’ — on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen.”)

But some prominent liberal law professors, including Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard, Akhil Reed Amar of Yale and Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas, have concluded, sometimes reluctantly, that the amendment in fact protects an individual right. Professor Levinson’s seminal 1989 article in The Yale Law Journal captured the tone of the enterprise. It was called “The Embarrassing Second Amendment.”

In an interview, Professor Levinson said, “The result in Heller is eminently respectable.” But he added that he understood why some conservatives were upset. “People say the Roe court was too interventionist,” he said. “So is the Heller court from that perspective.”

Judge Wilkinson’s basic critique is that the majority, like that in Roe, used an ambiguous text to impose its policy preference on the nation, at great cost to the democratic process and to local values. He assumed, as most experts do, that the decision would apply to the states.

“In both Roe and Heller,” Judge Wilkinson wrote, “the court claimed to find in the Constitution the authority to overrule the wishes of the people’s representatives. In both cases, the constitutional text did not clearly mandate the result, and the court had discretion to decide the case either way.”

Judge Posner built on themes in his recent book “How Judges Think,” which argued that constitutional adjudication by the Supreme Court is largely and necessarily political. The Heller decision, he wrote in The New Republic, “is evidence that the Supreme Court, in deciding constitutional cases, exercises a freewheeling discretion strongly flavored with ideology.”

Indeed, Judge Wilkinson wrote, “Some observers may be tempted to view Heller as a revenge of sorts for Roe” or “a sort of judicial tit-for-tat.” As Judge Posner put it, “The idea behind the decision” in Heller “may simply be that turnabout is fair play.”

Mr. Levy, who helped win Heller, said some conservatives wanted almost all decisions to be made by the political branches rather than the courts.

“But these are constitutional rights,” Mr. Levy, now chairman of the Cato Institute, a libertarian research group, said of the rights protected by the Second Amendment. “They are not rights consigned to the legislature.”

The analogy to Roe, he went on, is misguided. There is no reference to abortion in the Constitution.

The Second Amendment, by contrast, indisputably protects a right to keep and bear arms, though there is sharp disagreement about the scope of the right. Mr. Levy said the natural reading of the amendment, one supported by historical materials, was that it protected an individual right.

In his article, Judge Wilkinson wrote that he “readily agreed” that Roe “involved the more brazen assertion of judicial authority.” But he added that the Roe and Heller cases shared a number of common flaws, including “a failure to respect legislative judgments,” “a rejection of the principles of federalism” and “a willingness to embark on a complex endeavor that will require fine-tuning over many years of litigation.”

Judge Wilkinson saved particular scorn for a brief passage in Justice Scalia’s opinion that seemed to endorse a variety of restrictions on gun ownership. “Nothing in our opinion,” Justice Scalia wrote, “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Whatever else may be said about the Second Amendment, Judge Wilkinson wrote, those presumptions have no basis in the Constitution. “The Constitution’s text,” he wrote, “has as little to say about restrictions on firearm ownership by felons as it does about the trimesters of pregnancy.”

Mr. Levy, too, said he was not a fan of the passage. “I would have preferred that that not have been there,” he said. “It created more confusion than light.”

It is too soon to say much about the legacy of Heller. But Judge Wilkinson said that Heller, at a minimum, represented “the worst of missed opportunities — the chance to ground conservative jurisprudence in enduring and consistent principles of restraint.” At worst, he warned, “There is now a real risk that the Second Amendment will damage conservative judicial philosophy” as much as Roe “damaged its liberal counterpart.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: October 23, 2008
An article on Tuesday about conservative criticism of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the application of the Second Amendment to gun control in the District of Columbia omitted two words from a passage in the decision concerning gun regulations that remained presumptively lawful. “Nothing in our opinion,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” The words “felons and” were omitted.