"What's Wrong with the People of Utah?"

Reid asks 'What's wrong with Utahns?
By Thomas Burr
The Salt Lake Tribune

DENVER - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in an interview Thursday he takes pride in the inroads Democrats have made in the West, but is confounded by Utah's loyalty to Republicans.
"What is wrong with the people of Utah? They like where this president has taken this country?" asked the Nevada senator, who is LDS. "People in Utah need to wake up."
Reid, meeting with other Western officials noted the gains Democrats have made in Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and Arizona. But Utah and Idaho remain firmly entrenched in their Republican devotion, which perplexes him.
He said Utahns should be upset about the Bush wiretap program, torture record and government spending.
"I was thinking Idaho and Utah are very much like we were [in Nevada] 10 years ago," he said. "It's hard for me to understand why [Utah is] such a Republican state. Utah should be a state that believes in what we stand for."

Seeking answers to Senator Reid's question is not an easy one. I have asked myself the same questions over the years and have found no simple answers. Maybe the answers can be gleaned from the neighbor's stockpiles of grain and food stuffs while preaching millennialism to all who would hear.

When I saw Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" and bought psychologist's Barry Glassner's, "Culture of Fear," I think I began to understand the motivational power it has. Many Americans looked to anyone non white or with an accent in the aftermath of 911 as persons not to be trusted or even as potential terrorists. In the release interview from serving my mission with my then Stake President Joseph Kjar, the conversation was dominated by the very real fear of the Black Panther Party and its founders Bobby Seale and Hughey Newton coming to Salt Lake, specifically to the temple, and causing mayhem, destruction, and death. Such never happened and as Utahns we moved on to other threats and concerns.

Others have suggested the Equal Rights Amendment was something to be feared in the Mormon cultural fabric. I have heard over the pulpit, perhaps motivated from fear, sermons on godless secularism and materialism. Family and friends have spoken to me about their fears of the gay and lesbian agendas. I am not sure what that agenda is other than some Americans trying to enjoy what the rest of us take for granted. As Senator Obama spoke of last night, something as simple as being able to visit a friend or partner in the hospital is and has been denied here in the country.

I am reading the "Massacre at Mountain Meadows". Anyone familiar with the event has been hard pressed to explain how such a thing could happen. I believe the two are tied together, the massacre of a hundred and fifty one years ago and the face of fear in Utah Mormon culture today. I think fear and distrust, unintentionally, is being propagated and continues today in the monuments honoring our past including the Legacy Theatre of the Joseph Smith Building. As much as our leaders have encouraged us to "move on" and forget the sorry deed of the Mormon militias in Southern Utah, we relive over and over again on the big screen the actions of the Missourians at Haun's Mill and Carthage Jail. It underlines the 'us and them' attitude. This diferentness has and seemingly must always exist between Utah Mormons and the world.

The authors of "Massacre" do their very best to answer this question of how good people can do something as horrible as the atrocities in the meadow near Cedar City. Let me quote a couple lines. First, the authors say there must be, "an atmosphere of authority and obedience, which allows errant leaders to trump the moral instincts of their followers." Further, they explain, "Episodes of violence often begin when one people classify another as "the other," stripping them of any humanity and mentally transforming them into enemies. Once this process of devaluing and demonizing occurs, stereotypes take over, rumors circulate, and pressure builds to conform to group action against the perceived threat. Those classified as the enemy are often seen as transgressors, even as steps are being taken against them." The authors conclude that when these conditions exist a "single incident, small or ordinary in usual circumstances may spark violence..."

Karl Rove and the White House aides of George W. Bush have mastered this understanding of fear and its motivational power in holding power for these past eight years. In Utah they have found a willing and eager audience, aided by fear monger Orrin Hatch and others. So Senator Reid, in Utah we are sadly what you have observed. We do indeed need to wake up. Aptly, we like the elephant are frightened by the mouse of social and cultural change. We opposed civil rights for Blacks because Elder Ezra Taft Benson taught us it was a tool of the Communists to bring down America. We opposed the ERA amendment to protect the virtue of our young women. We support Prop. 8 in California and oppose gay marriage. Do we shrink in fear of the gay and lesbian 'agenda', thinking our Mormon weddings will end?

Maybe we need to retire the Legacy Theatre or change the feature, forget the persecution of the past, and embrace the world as easily as our young men and women learn the languages and cultures of the many places they are sent. The enemies we have created through our demonizing, these "transgressors", might well be our own family and ward members we drive off. Truly it is time for Utah and Mormons to wake up.

More on Caffeine...

RA told me this morning she was having uncontrollable twitches in her eyelid, kept her awake last night. I used to have them as well as other muscle twitches. They have all gone away now for more than the two months since I stopped caffeine consumption. This article appeared in National Geographic about the addiction to our favorite drinks. I have to admit I was wishing for a cold Coke the other day when the temperature was 99° here.

"Caffeine Addiction Is a Mental Disorder, Doctors Say
by George Studeville
January 19, 2005

Question: What do heroin addicts who receive a daily dose of methadone have in common with people who feel they cannot function without that morning cup of caffeine?

Answer: They are tending to their addiction—keeping the physical devils of drug withdrawal at bay.

As writer T.R. Reid pointed out in his January 2005 National Geographic article, "Caffeine," researchers agree that regular caffeine use triggers a physical dependence, a mild form of addiction.

The article describes how some heavy caffeine users grow irritable, get headaches, or feel lethargic when they can't get that coffee, soft drink, energy drink, or cup of tea. (See a photo gallery of the many forms of caffeine.)

But should those effects of caffeine withdrawal be classified as a definite psychological disorder?

Yes, contends Roland Griffiths, a professor of behavioral biology and neuroscience at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

Griffiths, who helped review the caffeine article in National Geographic, is a principal author of a comprehensive caffeine-withdrawal study. He hopes the report presents a strong case to include caffeine withdrawal in the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Known as the DSM, the manual is published by the American Psychiatric Association. Mental-health practitioners use it to help identify conditions and treatment strategies. The next edition will be published in 2010.

In addition, Griffiths believes that the diagnosis criteria for caffeine withdrawal should be updated in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, a medical manual used by the World Health Organization.

His conclusions are based on a review of more than 170 years' worth of scientific research and published medical observations on the physiological affects of caffeine and its withdrawal symptoms.

The researchers cited 57 experimental studies and 9 survey studies to support their recommendations for including caffeine withdrawal in the DSM. Their study was reported in the October 2004 issue of the journal Psychopharmacology.

"Doctors and other health professionals have had no scientifically based framework for diagnosing the syndrome," said Griffiths, explaining why he undertook the research project.

In an interview, Griffiths said that the studies had demonstrated that people who take in as little as a hundred milligrams of caffeine per day—about the amount in half a cup of coffee—can acquire a physical dependence that would trigger withdrawal symptoms.

"Although most regular caffeine users know that caffeine is a mild stimulant, many are not aware that abrupt cessation can sometimes produce unpleasant withdrawal symptoms," Griffiths said.

The studies suggested five clusters of common withdrawal symptoms:
• Headache
• Fatigue or drowsiness
• Depression or irritability
• Difficulty in concentrating
• Flulike symptoms including nausea, muscle pain, and stiffness

Griffiths said that the studies consistently indicated that at least half of regular caffeine consumers would experience withdrawal symptoms if they abstained. And, he added, that the research showed that symptoms could flare up regardless of what type of caffeine product was used.

"With regard to severity, 13 percent of people had clinically significant distress or functional impairment," Griffiths added. "At its worst, caffeine withdrawal involved missing work, canceling social functions, and going to bed with the belief that they had the flu."

The onset of symptoms, research indicated, occurred within 12 to 24 hours after stopping caffeine intake. Peak unpleasantness occurred within the first two days, but other symptoms could continue for as long as nine days.

An interesting finding of the research, Griffiths said, is that regular caffeine consumers may use it more to stave off withdrawal symptoms than to simply enjoy the product."

Best new thinker I have discovered...

What Bush Hath Wrought
By Andrew J. Bacevich
July 1, 2008 Boston Globe Op-Ed piece

FEW AMERICANS, whatever their political persuasion, will mourn George W. Bush's departure from office. Democrats and Republicans alike are counting the days until the inauguration of a new president will wipe the slate clean.

Yet in crucial respects, the Bush era will not end Jan. 20, 2009. The administration's many failures, especially those related to Iraq, mask a considerable legacy. Among other things, the Bush team has accomplished the following:

Defined the contemporary era as an "age of terror" with an open-ended "global war" as the necessary, indeed the only logical, response;
Promulgated and implemented a doctrine of preventive war, thereby creating a far more permissive rationale for employing armed force;
Affirmed - despite the catastrophe of Sept. 11, 2001 - that the primary role of the Department of Defense is not defense, but power projection;
Removed constraints on military spending so that once more, as Ronald Reagan used to declare, "defense is not a budget item";
Enhanced the prerogatives of the imperial presidency on all matters pertaining to national security, effectively eviscerating the system of checks and balances;
Preserved and even expanded the national security state, despite the manifest shortcomings of institutions such as the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff;
Preempted any inclination to question the wisdom of the post-Cold War foreign policy consensus, founded on expectations of a sole superpower exercising "global leadership";
Completed the shift of US strategic priorities away from Europe and toward the Greater Middle East, the defense of Israel having now supplanted the defense of Berlin as the cause to which presidents and would-be presidents ritually declare their fealty.
By almost any measure, this constitutes a record of substantial, if almost entirely malignant, achievement.

Bush's harshest critics, left liberals as well as traditional conservatives, have repeatedly called attention to this record. That criticism has yet to garner mainstream political traction. Throughout the long primary season, even as various contenders in both parties argued endlessly about Iraq, they seemed oblivious to the more fundamental questions raised by the Bush years: whether global war makes sense as an antidote to terror, whether preventive war works, whether the costs of "global leadership" are sustainable, and whether events in Asia rather than the Middle East just might determine the course of the 21st century.

Now only two candidates remain standing. Senators John McCain and Barack Obama both insist that the presidential contest will mark a historic turning point. Yet, absent a willingness to assess in full all that Bush has wrought, the general election won't signify a real break from the past.

The burden of identifying and confronting the Bush legacy necessarily falls on Obama. Although for tactical reasons McCain will distance himself from the president's record, he largely subscribes to the principles informing Bush's post-9/11 policies. McCain's determination to stay the course in Iraq expresses his commitment not simply to the ongoing conflict there, but to the ideas that gave rise to that war in the first place. While McCain may differ with the president on certain particulars, his election will affirm the main thrust of Bush's approach to national security.

The challenge facing Obama is clear: he must go beyond merely pointing out the folly of the Iraq war; he must demonstrate that Iraq represents the truest manifestation of an approach to national security that is fundamentally flawed, thereby helping Americans discern the correct lessons of that misbegotten conflict.

By showing that Bush has put the country on a path pointing to permanent war, ever increasing debt and dependency, and further abuses of executive authority, Obama can transform the election into a referendum on the current administration's entire national security legacy. By articulating a set of principles that will safeguard the country's vital interests, both today and in the long run, at a price we can afford while preserving rather than distorting the Constitution, Obama can persuade Americans to repudiate the Bush legacy and to choose another course.

This is a stiff test, not the work of a speech or two, but of an entire campaign. Whether or not Obama passes the test will determine his fitness for the presidency.

Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University. His new book is "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism." He is a retired Army Colonel and graduated from West Point. Bill Moyers recently interviewed him and the interview is available from Itunes -- Podcast.

I have followed and enjoyed the writing of Carol Lynn Pearson including her opinion piece in today's Tribune. I have copied and pasted it here.


We can change history for gay LDS
Carol Lynn Pearson
Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated:08/16/2008 09:22:18 AM MDT
Reading the various reviews of the new LDS Church-authorized book, Massacre at Mountain Meadows, prompts me to stand as witness for another tragic killing of a group of people in our community for which - when we have the benefit of history - we will be deeply ashamed.
The insidious thing about this killing is that we manage - though it would break our hearts to know it - to get the unfortunate ones to pick up the gun and kill themselves. I speak of the suicides of our LDS gay brothers (occasionally sisters) in a number that far exceeds the 120 members of the Fancher party.
Each victim at Mountain Meadows had walking beside him a man poised to raise his gun and shoot. History will show that the gay men of whom I speak had walking beside them a dark shadow impersonating God, a shadow that gave them misinformation about who they were, misinformation that most of us now acknowledge was both dead wrong and deadly: "Homosexuality is often caused by masturbation . . . may lead to bestiality . . . caused by selfishness . . . electric shock will set you right . . . a good woman . . . reparative therapy . . . fasting and prayer . . . you would be better off at the bottom of the Great Salt Lake with a millstone around your neck . . ."
Our current discussion of this issue reflects better science and a more generous spirit, but too many deaths continue. Gay youth attempt suicide three times more often than their straight peers. According to an article in the Deseret Morning News of April 23, 2006, Utah leads the nation in suicides of men age 15-24.
I recently received an e-mail (quoted with permission) from a woman in Utah who said, "I'm in agony over the suicide death two months ago of my youngest son, Marshall, age 25, a gay student who was a senior in chemical engineering at the U. of U. He knew all about spreading love but didn't feel enough in return to keep him going. On my refrigerator I have a package of flower seeds marked, in his writing, '5/1.' That was the day he was going to plant them. He didn't make it that long, so I'll plant them for him - next spring."
The stories keep coming: A woman in my ward just told me of two gay nephews who both took their lives; a woman in the airport recently told me of three LDS gay boys who killed themselves in her neighborhood in Bountiful.
The dozens of stories I personally know are the tip of the awful iceberg. I think of Stuart Matis, an LDS celibate gay man who shot himself on the steps of the stake center in Los Altos, Calif., as a direct result of the intense religious rhetoric around a "protection of marriage" initiative similar to the one proposed in California today.
One of the historians of Mountain Meadows, Ron Walker, says that he's "come to see the massacre as a cautionary tale in making judgments about those who are different" and that the story "is a case study in how not to apply religion and how one should apply true religion in one's own life."
I believe, with these historians, that we LDS people are hungry for the truth and that we want to apply true religion in our lives. I believe with Anne Frank that people are really good at heart and I know that there is no better heart than the Mormon heart, leader and member alike.
I believe that if the rider had reached Salt Lake in time, Brigham Young would have done what he could to avert the massacre in southern Utah. Many messengers today, of which I am one, have ridden in with reports and pleas for help regarding the ongoing self-slaughter of so many of our best and beautiful young men.
For many it is too late. For others - if you and I care enough - we can change history.
---
* CAROL LYNN PEARSON is a native Utahn who lives and writes in California. She is the author of the stage play, "Facing East," the story of an LDS couple dealing with the suicide of their gay son. Her most recent book is "No More Goodbyes: Circling the Wagons around Our Gay Loved Ones."

I wrote a comment to the online discussion: WPLyon: 8/17/2008 9:47:00 AM
+32

As a Mormon bishop I saw first hand the pain of families and young men discovering their sexuality different than the standard. I counseled with several who viewed suicide as an option. I saw the wounds on wrists, the knife cuts. I for a time wrongly embraced Evergreen and faithfully supported their efforts with reparative therapy. It is a failure and destructive to families and individuals.

Thank you Carol for all that you have done for those who carry such burdens and how you represent those of us who care. We must end the phobia, fear of and ostracism in our Mormon culture. It is alive and well as jmm36 illustrates. Pray that you never have a son or daughter that lives with this challenge.

I wholeheartedly agree that when we have the benefit of history we will be deeply ashamed. Consider Elder Harold B. Lee who questioned the American Red Cross to ascertain if the blood bank in Utah had any blood donated by Negroes so the priesthood might remain pure and untouched by the Curse of Cain when they checked in to LDS Hospital for surgery.

Shame on us all for not doing more and doing better with what we have. Jesus was wounded for us. It is not for us to wound and hurt those who are different than the Mormon cultural ideal.