Conflict and Resolution Over GAP

The Agency—The Arab League

As a member of the Arab League, I have been assigned to prepare this white paper on behalf of an exploratory committee regarding the intricacies and nuance of what has become of GAP-the Southeastern Anatolia Project-since its inception over 45 years ago. This multi-national project is of the utmost importance to the region in terms of providing hydro-electric power and potable water, bringing unity to the area, and showing Europe and the West of the Middle East’s ability to bring about progress in a peaceful, responsible manner. Many peoples and nations (Turkey, the Kurdish people, Syria, Iraq) have a vested interest in the successful completion of the project. The Arab League, therefore, holds an important role in maintaining open dialogue and fair outcomes to all parties involved.

The River Basin—The Origin of the Fertile Crescent

Southeastern Anatolia is a hotspot of politico-cultural conflict. The current conflict is best understood in the context of the region’s history—specifically Turk-Kurd relations and actions taken by both sides to achieve their respective goals. The two nations have been fighting each other since the 1920s, most of the effort coming from Turkey trying to assimilate the Kurds into their country. It has picked up especially severely since the late 1970s, when the Kurdistan Workers Party started committing violent acts in retaliation to Turkey’s actions.

Unfortunately for the Kurds, 4.3 million of them live in area (Harris). The flood zone of the largest dam included in GAP is home to 170,000 Kurds (Soffer 91). Hence, in context of a violent history of conflict with the government, the Kurds see the project as simply another attempt to clear them out of their own land (Ayboga).

Turkey is interested in the Southeastern Anatolia basin for its irrigation and hydroelectric power potential (Izady). The proposed agricultural benefits of GAP are substantial; with an estimated 2 million ha increase in irrigation land, quadrupling the current agricultural output. This is not only crucial in handling the rising population and the food requirements that come with it; but it also comes into play when considering trade potential with other countries in the region (Harris).

However, the Kurds are suspicious of the Turks; and rightly so based on past violence.

Therefore, there is trepidation on the part of the Kurds that they will not see much of the economic benefit from this state-run project. The fact that international support from the World Bank has been waning because of shortcomings on Turkey’s part for not “consulting with downstream states on water allocation” (Soffer 91) has further strengthened the Kurds argument that Turkey will divert the power from the hydroelectric dams away from the area, and use the agriculture from the irrigation to feed or pay those people not native to the area (Ayboga).

Turkey also claims to bring important advancements to the area in terms of health education, potable drinking water, and family planning to help curb the swelling population (Harris). From a developmental and sustainability standpoint, these are useful and important tasks to undertake as the country moves into the 21st century. A rapidly growing, yet poor lower class has huge potential to drain the state entitlement programs; becoming an unnecessary burden if the state is able to first foresee and stem it off. However, put in context of past conflict between the Kurdish nation and the Turkish state, attempts to improve health and family life are seen as a new strategy to undermine the Kurds from more control of the area (Ayboga).

Problematic Eminent Domain

Another problematic area is that of compensation for the more than 200,000 Kurds who have already moved out of the region (Soffer 91). Many of them are being relocated under precedent of eminent domain. Eminent domain states that when public works are planned, the government executing those plans has the right to offer the residents whom that project would displace current market value for their land would the public works not take place, but require them off of the property. For instance, in the United States, this precedent is often invoked for the building of a new freeway or the expansion of a city street. Houses and property privately held before the road is built would consequently be destroyed in the road-building process.

Eminent domain is challenging to the Anatolian Kurds for two main reasons. The first is that many Kurds do not have official paperwork proving their ownership of the land they are on—a sort of common law property right. They therefore are not eligible to receive compensation for land that is not theirs, which they have been living on and off of for hundreds of years. Turkey could potentially give them nothing in terms of compensation. Current practice dictates a “land-for-land” compensation model—simply giving the common law property owners different land than what they currently “own.” However, Turkey is offering old farms elsewhere in the country in return for the rich soils of the various dams’ flood areas. And whatever land outside of GAP that is suitable for productive use is already occupied (Ayboga).

Secondly, according to some accounts, those Kurds who are compensated for their land are not being paid enough for the new living arrangements that are provided by the Turkish government, (Ayboga). Two of the more popular relocation sites include Diyarbakir and Batman. Both are urbanized cities and do not reward the agrarian skills that the displaced Kurds have developed. Not only are they not paid fairly for their land, they are moved into an alien way of living without necessary skills to succeed (Ayboga). And so, through not making adequate compensation for those most seriously affected, Turkey and GAP do not bode well with international observers, effectively lowering their influence as evidenced by the World Bank’s withdrawal of support (Soffer).

Conflict with Downstream States

Unlike the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates, the challenges associated with GAP are not halted at the border. This massive, $21 billion undertaking is causing problems with the downstream states of Syria and Iraq. While never threatening full stoppage and containment of the waters within her borders, Turkey has dammed up the flow without first asking permission. In early 1990, Turkey stopped the flow of the Euphrates behind the flagship dam of the 22, the Ataturk. For one month, the reservoir grew by 1.5 billion cubic meters of water. They did increase the water flow in the months leading up to the stoppage and warned Syria and Iraq that they wouldn’t have any water for a month. This allotment was not enough and the economies of both states suffered greatly because of it. Even after pleas from the Syrian and Iraqi governments, Turkey refused to open the spillways before their plans dictated and threatened a longer stoppage time. Luckily, the few years following the water halt brought heavier rains and snows than normal, mitigating some of the international anxiety. Actions such as these have violated the funding agreement that Turkey had with the World Bank and forced the state to cover more of the cost of the project than they had previously planned, delaying the operational status of many of the dams. (Soffer 91-3).

Solutions

Any widespread project that involves land, damming of rivers, and relocation of hundreds of thousands of native residents will naturally invite criticism and conflict. Unfortunately for Turkey and the Arab League, the economic benefits to Turkey do not completely off-set the injustices done to the Kurds and downstream states. Such a large project requires a cooperative effort for which Turkey, by herself, cannot compensate.

There is much room for out-reach on Turkey’s part. The country has done well to not further threaten cutting off water to Syria and Iraq. However, with such a lucrative project at stake, further efforts at sharing the resultant water and power with other groups and nations to ensure GAP’s success should be high among Turkey’s priorities. This would improve trade relationships with oil- and resource-rich Syria and Iraq. It would also allow support from the World Bank to be reinstated and get the various dams and power plants back on track.

In addition to economic advantages, Turkey should stay well aware of the recent changes in power in many of the countries of the Middle-East. With a violent population within her own border, the time is relatively right for such an uprising to take place. Providing better compensation and extending confirmed property rights to the Kurds would greatly decrease the chance of similar conflict to other countries happening inside Turkey’s borders.

With such a controversial and complicated series of events which have stemmed from GAP, the Arab League would do well to take this opportunity to resolve whatever problems exist. While there have been shortcomings in the execution of GAP, the overall outcome can still be salvaged for the good of all parties involved.

Works Cited
Ayboga, Ercan. "Turkey’s GAP and Its Impact in the Region." Kurdish Herald - The Independent Gateway to Kurdish News and Analyses. Web. 14 Feb. 2011. .
Harris, Leila M. "Water and Conflict Geographies of the Southeastern Anatolia Project." Society and Natural Resources 15 (2002): 743-59. Web.
Izady, Mehrdad R. The Kurds: a Concise Handbook. Washington: Crane Russak, 1992. Print. As summarized on kurdistanica.com.
Soffer, Arnon. Rivers of Fire: the Conflict over Water in the Middle East. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999. Print.


I read 100% of the book.

Why do we make it hard for ourselves?

The following is a response to an op-ed in the Times written by Mormon poet Nicole Hardy. It may be helpful to read the article that she posted. Thanks to Kaneischa Johnson for posting the article on her blog.

There are a lot of weird, confusing things going on with us single people. We're all pretty amazing people. K, maybe not ALL, but many of... you guys are. You have grand ambitions and are loyal, trustworthy friends. You are faithful members of the Church who want the right things. You take care of yourselves and are very pretty or handsome, whatever the case may be. How is it that more of you aren't together? Because all women are independent feminists and all dudes are closet gays or porn addicts? Are we THAT judgmental and short-sighted of each other?

Does anyone else feel that the opposite sex has too high of expectations for a particular personal relationship? I hear of some girls who don't accept a first date, but with no reason given. I hear of some guys who don't ask for a first date because they don't want the girl to think that it's anything more than one person trying to get to know another person more. I hear bishops and their respective wives telling stories of getting engaged on their first date. That's not even dating! Do they want us to feel an hopelessly high expectation? Or be so ridiculously selective in whom we ask out that all the hard work, cooperation and discovery of having a successful dating life has already magically happened by the time we go to lunch for the first time?

Answers

I don't have any answers, hence this post. If I did, then I would be married and make all you single people figure it for yourselves. (Suckas!) But I AM a sucka. If a missing link even exists, I don't know what it is. "Just being oneself" is making for a lot of people who really should be what someone ELSE wants them to be--a process that comes naturally to some, and painfully to others. After all, I don't WANT to be who I am for my future wife. I want to be a gazillion times better than who I am now--for her!

Another non-answer: maybe there IS value in hanging-out? To lighten the pressure of getting to know someone in a private, one-on-one setting? To offer some kind of filter or buffer for our first impressions? If we're supposed to marry our best friend, maybe we should be dating our best friends; rather than the cute girl in church we asked out simply because she looks nice or the strange boy whom we were obligated to say "yes" to because Young Women class told us we have to.

Blink

I've been listening to the audiobook Blink by the Malcolm Gladwell. In it, he makes an argument against long, methodical reasoning sessions that some revert to every time a decision must be made. He says that while there are some situations when this drawn-out process is useful, there are many circumstances that are resolved better when left to snap judgments--made in the blink of an eye. Is a first date just such a case? Should a first date never last longer than 20 or 30 minutes? Just long enough to go for a drive or have a hot chocolate and find out if this person is compatible? What do guys need to do differently? What do girls need to do differently?

Questions and Non-Answers

I usually find questions more interesting than answers. It's exciting to think of a possible answer and just be proven wrong. I love trying a new technique in racquetball, only to realize that it was wrong. Exploration and discovery is fascinating to me. But this preference I have toward questions usually does not involve personal, intimate, eternal decisions. Of the many areas of my life, dating/marriage may be the only one that I would like an answer that works. At least every once in a while. Of course, if you have 20-30 minutes to give me some answers during, say, a drive or over some hot chocolate, I'll probably say yes. Cuz that's what I learned from Young Womens.

Come Unto Christ through Repentance

My topic today is “Come unto Christ through repentance.” I feel like the world’s leading authority on the subject. However, I feel this way because of how the Lord has blessed my life when I repent. I would hope that we all feel that we are each experts on the topic of repentance.
I want to repent so that I can enjoy the companionship of the Spirit, and therefore be close to God. Sometimes, I am asked the question: “Oh, you went to Taiwan on you mission! How was that?” I don’t know how it was. I’ve never been anywhere else on a mission. “How is being a member of the Church?” I don’t know. I’ve never not been a member. But, I can ask “Oh, you have the Spirit with you! How’s that?” Well, let me tell you... I’ve been without the Spirit before, and it is not pleasant. When I don’t have the Spirit, I feel lost and empty. I feel without purpose and apathetic. I feel disconcertingly content. I feel like I’ve done enough and now the universe owes me.
But when the Spirit is with me, I feel comfortable, as Enos did when testified of the following: “Whatsoever thing ye shall ask in faith, believing that ye shall receive in the name of Christ, ye shall receive it. And I [Enos] had faith... And I knew [the preservation and coming forth of the scriptures] would be according to the covenant which [God] had made; wherefore my soul did rest.” When I have the Spirit, I am clear about what the Lord wants me to do. I remember my covenants and the protection and peace they bring, like Enos did. I realize my responsibility to other people. That responsibility, though, is filtered through my relationship with my Savior: my foremost responsibility is to the Savior. When I have the Spirit, I am close to God.
President Packer shares with us his testimony of repentance: “I would find no peace, neither happiness, nor safety, in a world without repentance. I do not know what I should do if there were no way for me to erase my mistakes. The agony would be more than I could bear.” I invite you to ask yourself: Should I feel this way? If yes, (and, by the way, you should feel this way.) then do I feel this way? How can you appreciate and respect your sins as much as President Packer does? Are you afraid to not repent? Does the thought of unforgiveable sin bring thoughts of unbearable agony? Would you feel lost and hopeless without repentance? Do you currently find peace, happiness, and safety when you haven’t repented? What if you took your own sins that seriously? How would you be changed?
I want to emphasize the passiveness of that change; I emphasize that it is not us who changes ourselves. We can change only through the grace and gift of the Atonement. We change only when we completely, 100% rely on the Lord to carry us through. And He will do just that, as long as we allow Him through our obedience. He won’t lose. Doctrine and Covenants 3:3 states: “Remember, remember that it is not the work of God that is frustrated, but the work of men.” Remember, also, that God cannot excuse my sin, but He knows I am willing to follow him, so He will forgive my sin.
Sometimes we try to take back control of our lives; of our sins; which ironically, yet not surprisingly, leads us to lose control. We may say “Oh, I can handle it. It’s not that big of a deal. I can be rude to others or cheat or flirt with the edge of morality because I already have a strong testimony. After all, I go to church and read scriptures and pray. I’m entitled to a little fun and excitement.” If you have ever felt this way, Elder Maxwell gave you the following guidance: “Our reluctance to give away all our sins, thinking, instead, that a down payment will do keeps us from knowing and love God more. (Fall Conf. 2002)”
Can you see how we may let our temptations get out of hand, literally the most capable of hands—Christ’s hands? The poetic irony is that the holes in those hands are exactly what make them so capable to hold our pains and temptations at bay. Those holes make it possible for Christ to ‘bear our griefs and carry our sorrows.’ But, do we see those holes as something else—signs of him being stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted (Isaiah 53:4)? I hope, Hope, brothers and sisters, that we don’t see His majestic state as our Savior in the garden and on the cross and therefore pity Him, nor pity ourselves. I testify that Christ is the conqueror, and in no measure the coward. If He truly suffered and bled the way that the scriptures say he did, then we have the opportunity to say “yes” to the question: “Will we trust the Lord amid a perplexing trial for which we have no easy explanation? Do we understand—really comprehend—that Jesus knows and understands when we are stressed and perplexed? (Maxwell, Fall ’95)”
II.
Christ means “Savior.” His most important trait is the Atonement, itself. When we think of Christ, our thoughts and hearts should immediately turn toward those last few precious hours of His life: in the garden, and on the cross.
What does it mean to truly know a person? Are you defined and encapsulated by your preferences? If I know your major in school or your favorite color, your favorite food or movie or sports team or defensive scheme; or even your favorite passage of scripture, will I know who you are? What about shared experiences? Will that give me a clear insight to your individualized human nature? How many of us have not just walked one mile in the pioneers shoes, but 10 or 15 or 25 miles on handcart treks, yet we still seem to learn more about our ancestors through genealogy and reading their journals and the journals of their loved ones?
I have believed for a long time that our selves, our individual beings, the fabric of who we are, are comprised of that which the Lord deems the most important: our relationship with other people. Is that not the central focus of the Plan of Salvation, our family relationships? Preach My Gospel states that “Because families are ordained of God, they are the most important social unit in time and eternity.” The Savior invites the rich ruler, someone who has kept all the commandments and desires to have eternal life, to leave his possessions and follow Jesus Christ, his elder brother and Redeemer. Here, the Savior is de-emphasizing the man’s relationship with his riches and possessions, and emphasizing the man’s relationship with Christ. Eternal life is to know Christ and to follow Christ.
Following Christ is relatively simple and straight forward. From each of our home teaching visits this month, we know that obedience is the way that we follow Christ. I have been blessed with a strong testimony of obedience, in large part because of the home teaching my companion and I have done and the home teaching that I have received this month.
However, compared to following Him, knowing Christ can be a bit more elusive. We have a classic first impression model of getting to know someone for the first time by asking the person’s name, preferences, major in school, perhaps and plans for the future. What if we asked God these questions?
We don’t know what His favorite food is. We don’t know his favorite color, or what his major in school was. But do we care? The questions that we typically ask of each other when we first meet would have a different connotation all together with the Savior. What if we asked the Lord his name? After all, he has many, and each name is descriptive of His relationship with us: Prince of Peace, our peace; The Life, the Light, and the Way, our life, our light, our way; even ‘Savior’ is reflexive of our own salvation. Where are you from? (pause) How many brothers and sister do you have? (pause) What’s new in your life? (pause) How did your weekend go? (Could you imagine Mary Magdalene asking that question the morning after the Resurrection?)
Everything Jesus Christ has done is for us. We are his number-one priority. Therefore, to know Him is to do the same as he did: make our fellow brothers and sisters our number-one priority. Serve others with unbound charity. Help them find the peace that you have through honest introspection of their lives; which, if done with real intent, will undoubtedly lead them to repent.

Personal Essay For My Juv. Delinquency Class

TJ was the one that all the leaders were worried about. Well, I had good leaders. Hopefully they were worried about all of us. But TJ, apparently, was ‘on the margin,’ whatever that means. He would come to church, fairly regularly. He would even wear a white shirt and tie—with the sagging blue jeans and skater shoes to round out the ensemble. His hair, not to be out done, made its own statement in a way not completely dissimilar to the statement being made just below it. It was long, but not too long. It was brushed over to one side in a way that could not have been styled passively, yet didn’t scream “I obsess about how I look.” TJ made me think that he cared enough to give the impression that he doesn’t care. But I knew better. I knew enough that I didn’t worry about him very much. Chalk it up to naiveté or sophomoric apathy on my part if you want; but looking back on my interactions with TJ, he was one who did not make me feel like I was being judged or that certain expectations were not being met. I saw that he was an OK kid wanting to be trusted with his own life. I saw that through how he treated me. It was almost a case of one social misfit sympathizing with another social misfit.
To describe my high-school self as a social misfit may be the most irresponsible and ridiculous way to use the word—from an outsider’s point of view, anyway. In retrospect, I was just fine and lacked a real reason to be disappointed in my high school experience. But I felt on the bubble. I felt like a misfit. I bring my own experience up in order to set a kind of perspective on what kind of guy I saw TJ to be. He may have been marginalized, but he wore it well. I fit in that ever-broadening, ever-redefined margin along with TJ, but I didn’t like it like he did. I didn’t embrace it like he did. I was friends, acquaintances really, with the popular, rich, funny kids during school. But Friday afternoon hit, and there was only one, very residential place to find me until Sunday morning when church beckoned, and then Monday morning, when early-morning seminary summoned. What’s more? My high school had release time, but I still went to the early-morning section! Why? Because choir and orchestra met at specific times of the day; not leaving my English, Math, and Social Studies classes much wiggle room. Yeah, I could have worked it out so that I did not force myself into a bleak situation that left me with but one option. But early-morning seminary kids build a connection unlike other early-morning classes could. I wanted to fit in somewhere, and nothing secures you a niche like have a sob story about early seminary to whine about; drawing attention to yourself in the process, of course.
Really, TJ and I were not all that different, we just had different interests. He had drugs. I had the cello. You may or may not see immediately the similarity between the two. His drugs were fulfilling the same social need that my cello was. (‘K, they were just cigarettes. But I was going for the shock value. Did it work?) We were both acting out, just in a little different of ways. He most likely never did any of the hard stuff. Sure, a pack of cigs and a forty of beer were completely outside my realm of acceptable behavior. But even though he had plenty of opportunities to go farther, (the people he hung around certainly did go farther) his delinquency seemed to hold steady at the cigarettes and beer culture. He would step outside of that every once in a while to come to church and play teachers basketball. He still came on our Young Men’s lake trips; even the occasional Wednesday night activity. He was never that bad.
On the other, yet similar hand, I played the cello. I associated with the upper-echelons of high school-aged musicians in Arizona. I can’t say high school musicians because some of them were so good, they didn’t have time for high school. They were too busy with music. Even though I was around them a lot, I never was truly one of them. I was the worst of the best; while TJ was the best of the worst. We both wanted to be extreme, but we just could not commit ourselves to our respective extremity. Ours was a kind of reluctant delinquency. “I’ll show you,” we both seemed to say to the moderate middle. “I’ll show you that I can be hard core if I wanted to, but I choose to not be.” Hard core? Really? Sure. But hardcore in name, and just barely enough effort to secure that name, only.
My group looked down on his group, and his group resented my group. Yet when we were around each other and had reason to talk to each other, we could connect. Here I was, the preppy kid without a cause; and there he was, the rebel without a cause. Why did I get dressed up for church and go to mutual every week and participate in a lot of different activities like sports and music without ever really sinking my teeth into them? I don’t know. Maybe I will just revert to the cliché answer that I was looking for acceptance, and convenient acceptance, nonetheless. I was trying to do just the bare minimum to gain the title “preppy.” On the other hand, why did TJ come to church often and wear a shirt and tie and stay involved with school, but only among the punk, skater group; all the while putting out the impression that he could fall off the cliff any time, but never quite going all the way? Further establishing the cliché, he may have also been looking for acceptance, among a myriad of other possible reasons. Funny how, even about yourself, you never know 100% why someone did something.
II. Background
TJ lived down the street from me. We both lived in the same neighborhood for a while; maybe five or six years. It’s not like he got transplanted into a foster family to stay for a while, or that he was an outsider; our neighborhoods were literally the same. So you can’t say that we were coming from completely separate worlds or something. This leads me to wonder why we did act so differently. It may have been partly because Heritage Street couldn’t hold us. If we revisit the “extreme” theme, we see that the neighborhood actually did not have a huge impact on either of us. Heritage Street didn’t need to hold me. I was content being a good kid at home. My parents moved our family to that neighborhood to cut out any distraction to their parenting; actually quite a good move on their part. But I probably would not have been much different in any other neighborhood. As for TJ, Heritage Street had no interest in keeping him around. We on Heritage Street prided ourselves on being so tight-knit despite our lack of gated-communityness. (Again I include as a resident of the neighborhood rather than a part of the neighborhood.) Because TJ was not an asset to the tight-knit nature of the neighborhood, he couldn’t strengthen it. Therefore, the neighborhood didn’t need him, so it didn’t do anything for him. Or so he felt. I don’t really believe that Heritage Street residents were so stratifying. But I believe that’s how it was perceived, especially by TJ.
Because we really did have leaders who were not overly judgmental, and in an effort to not be too extreme, TJ was not a stranger. We had one leader, Richard, who was especially welcoming and forgiving, but not in a Young-Women kind of way. No cookies changed hands, but heart-felt talks about what was going on certainly took place. Of course Richard’s experience with Anasazi only helped us. Anasazi is a high-adventure survival camp for troubled youth, and Richard had been a counselor. He didn’t coddle us, but he didn’t just let us go, either. Although he told us from the beginning, “When Bishop gave me this calling, he just wanted me to keep you guys the same. I don’t need to save any of you;” he still cared about us. The fact that I’m talking about Richard now is something of a tribute to his very positive influence on all of us; from the kid that everyone else worried (TJ), to the preppy kid who never got into trouble (me).
I remember Richard saying things about TJ like “I really like that kid,” or “TJ is so cool.” TJ was a huge fan of the band Metallica, and Richard had been to a bunch of Metallica concerts and knew all about the band. Richard, apparently, had something of a delinquent past, same as TJ. But he had turned around. They even had similar body-types. They had a lot in common. One sight that will stay with me for a long time is that of Richard and TJ sitting on folding chairs in the sand bank on Lake Powell during a Young Men’s boating trip. TJ had blown up at one of the other boys and stormed off after an f-word or two. Having built a strong relationship with him already, Richard went immediately over and spoke with him for a while. I don’t know what was said, of course. But I do remember their demeanor. I hadn’t seen TJ quite so calm and open as when I saw him and Richard talk it out. That scene is among a very few that I feel has really influenced my attitude toward other people. I don’t freak out about a member whom I home-teach not coming to church; and I didn’t take it personally when an investigator didn’t come to a meeting. These are silly things to be upset about, I feel. There are other problems that are more of an issue when someone doesn’t come to Family Home Evening than simply not coming to Family Home Evening. In TJ’s case, the “problem” or “issue” or “challenge” or whatever was something other than his long hair or skater shoes at church. And Richard realized that.
III. Recommendations
I can’t say much about TJ’s home life. His parents were active in the church and they provided a safe living environment. TJ’s father was in the piano business. He restored and tuned pianos, and TJ helped out with that. I never saw them fight with each other. From what I saw, there wasn’t much more for TJ’s parents to do. However, I saw how my leaders treated him, and I do not feel regretful about it. I think they did a fantastic job. We had a few boys in my Young Men’s group who were not model church members. They kept their hair long or wore their pants sagging a bit, but that did not make them bad people. I have seen, however, undue pressure put on similar boys in other wards. Their leaders guilted them into fitting the stereotypical bill of an LDS adolescent. Thankfully, my leaders never expected one of us to show up on the latest “For the Strength of Youth” pamphlet. That relieved them of undue, unfitting expectations. We had pressure enough, TJ included, to do better. Richard and the other leaders were truly on our side and gave us whatever support we needed.
TJ moved into the ward when he was about 13 or 14 from a much more delinquent-prone neighborhood. I’m sure that’s how his behavior got started. But it really didn’t get worse once he moved. He just hovered around the same level of disobedience. Perhaps, though, the single greatest part of the LDS Church’s organization is the positive male presence. TJ had a dad who was fulfilling his divine appointment as father. He had a caring bishop, an understanding Young Men’s leader, two home teachers at his disposal, a faithful Sunday School teachers, and a handful of friends’ fathers. TJ’s weekly involvement in the church networked him to half a dozen grown male mentors.
This masculine resource can be made available through other means besides just church programs. Male public school teachers should have training and helped to realize their role as model examples of responsibility. Boys PE in junior high comes with benefits far surpassing physical fitness. It is a perfect opportunity for coaches to teach skills and principles beyond push-ups and dodge ball to boys who are just coming to realize the emotional differences between men and women. I would hope that all male teachers realize similar opportunities, no matter the prescribed curriculum of their discipline. I would hope they realize that “learning across the curriculum” does not simply mean writing essays for math class. While it wasn’t public school teachers who helped TJ, the principle of example can be extended to anyone with prolonged exposure with juveniles.

Berger and Bauman's Gardener

I see the Gardener model of Modernity and the Game Keeper model of Pre-Modernity as similar to Berger’s idea of construction. That is, we seek to create a patterned consistency out of a life that we do not control. Yet we cannot know that such a pattern or routine is our own construct. Such a realization would allow us to change the pattern since we made it to begin with. Changing it would demean and undermine it. If we really did come up with the rules, then we came up with the meanings, also. We would have shaped and formed the rules to align with the meaning; to align with what we think is right or true or good or moral.
The difference between the Gardener Model and Berger’s model is the element of our own state of meaning and knowing. That is, the Gardener Model assumes individuals’ and groups’ autonomy and freedom to create a reality of their own design and preference; and Berger states that we are to accept what is given, and explain and classify it ways that are in harmony with what is good or moral. Berger claims that we cannot know that we create our own worlds and realities. But as far as we have discussed so far in class, Bauman makes no such claim in his Gardener Model. According to Bauman, we do not need to fool ourselves into thinking that we have no control over our respective realities. In fact, this is counter to the argument behind the design and planned nature to the Garden. We are supposed to come up with a plan. Designing our own societies and cultures is not only expected, but it is the responsible thing to do. Without a plan or a design, we would not be able to differentiate between what is acceptable and helpful to our goals and preferences, and what is detrimental and harmful to our goals and preferences. Such plans and designs give us direction and guidance. They give us freedom to accept or reject new variables that arise during our experience while interacting with others’ “gardens.” Moreover, they force us to make decisions when we do come across something new. We much choose whether that new thing should be a part of our design.
For example, it is very hard to be ambivalent or dismissive of the war in the Middle East. Not necessarily because everyone is forced to decide on the issue of war and violence and its legitimacy in a cultured, refined society. Nor is everyone forced to decide on the merits of this war in particular and the complicated and intricate elements of the war, such as the assumed legitimacy of the Sunnis or Shiites in the region, or the control over oil in the region, or even the conspiracy theories that include the United States long-standing desire to take over the area. The reason that we are forced to choose whether or not the war fits our design may include these. But does someone like Paris Hilton need to make such a decision. With as self-centered a plan as she has, what interest does she have in the war? Perhaps the media is the lowest-common denominator in this case. The war is constantly talked about and reflected on among the media conglomerate. Hilton is also a central figure among the same cohort. If she wants to keep her status and popularity, she should probably know to some extent what her competition is.
The difference is that the Garden has a Game Keeper with which it may contrast itself, while Bauman makes no mention of such a change or dichotomy. I don’t remember studying Berger as a modernist who made the distinction between current and pre-modern societies. Therefore, I don’t know for sure that he would really accept that people can realize their own roles in creating their own realities. However, fooling ourselves into believing that we are more made than makers is explained in the Game Keeper Model, which Berger would be able to accept.

Take What God Gives You

In true modernist fashion, I hereby state that we are better now than we were before. The present is an improvement upon the past, and to make changes to our current society that would make us more like past people and cultures from how we are now would be a regression and the opposite of improvement. Examples would be how we no longer believe that the cause of a valcano eruption is a god expressing his wrath. We don't believe that rain is angels' tears, and an outbreak of malaria is simply a lot of mosquitoes who spread the disease and a lack of prevention on the part of those affected. Really, these risks that are indicative of and associated with pre-modernity are still risks today. The big difference is the perceived causes of such natural risks. We have positive, natural science to thank for that. It is still being refined, of course. But we can certainly receive such knowledge without betraying God. If we believe that God created everything, we must believe that includes science. Therefore, a study of science is, in part, a study of God.
This modernization of knowledge and science also helps our understanding of God; and in more indirect ways than just another facet of Him, those facets including natural science. The modernization of social science has also opened up a valuation of reflexivity and reopened, some might even say 'restored,' past ideologies that were unnaturally extinguished. Such reflexivity can only be a good thing; well, honest reflexivity can only be a good thing. Like any responsible scientist, we won't say that stepping back out of the context and thinking objectively reveals truth. But such processes will sift out that which is not accurate. This leaves more plausible possibilities to be tested and eventually substituted for further, more acceptable possibilities.
The Reformers all came out of the modernist tradition. They thought critically about what they saw. They questioned. They second-guessed. They asked “What if?” and “Why?” The effectiveness and accuracy of religion is tough to be measured, however. There are no exogenous checks or tests of the root system by which we may know whether such changes are improvements. The only tests available to us are the ones given by the source of such an ideology as a belief in the non-testable. Such tests would include a feeling “in the mind and in the heart,” and a “burning in the bosom,” and “by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.” These tests have a heavy assumption, of course. This assumption is that we accept God to be a literal Heavenly Father who shows His patriarchal care for us by providing a way to live with Him and our loved ones again. The Reformers held such an assumption, and modified their theologies to most closely resemble and reflect that assumption.
The ultimate and most extreme of the Reformers would be those whom claim a knowledge and truth which they received; not by reasoning themselves to a point of logic security, nor by forming a hypothesis and dismissing all other options. Their ideas, through a rational process according to the traditional theological assumption, came straight from the source, and therefore are not tainted by terrestrial factors. It is a wonder to me that more people didn’t see this logical path to a divine claim. All we have; in mainstream theology, anyway; are Mohammed, Joseph Smith, and Reverend Moon, who is more on the fringe. They all claim direct revelation from the source of all theology: Heavenly Father. If this one great assumption is accepted, then there isn’t really a way out of believing any one of these men; before, that is, we read their works for ourselves and receive a witness in our own souls that what they put forward is true. What is more reflexive than returning straight to the very foundation of your baseline assumptions as these men did?

The Force of the Better Argument-April 06

The force of the better argument that Habbermas provides us seems like kind of a downer philosophy. Stated, it provides for any alternative; limited, however, to the alternatives brought up by the participants. So we can pick from anything we want, as long as someone has already thought of it. It’s almost like a cop-out excuse for why something did or did not happen. I especially feel that way during election time. At one point, I was asking how we have Obama, Hillary, and McCain to choose from out of three hundred million Americans. How in the world did we limit ourselves so drastically? Are these three our only alternatives? We have a man who alienates everyone he meets in J Mack; a woman in H-Dawg who is either willing to turn a blind eye to adultery or who is too obtuse to realize its existence in her own house; and a community organizer/Ivory Tower resident turned CEO in Chief who uses money which is not his to buy toxic investments that he does not plan on capitalizing. (On a side note: does that make him all that different from the irresponsible lenders who handed out fixed-rate mortgages like bobble-heads at the ballpark? Did they, and he, ever think that they were actually going to be able to recover the loans?)
Of course I do not wish to come across as negative or with a defeatist attitude. Moreover, I realize that I do not fully understand or comprehend the burden and responsibility of the Presidency; or even a candidacy for the Presidency. Therefore, in judging these actors’ decisions, my judgment cannot be completely clear. But this circles back around to Habbermas’ point. When a group of people assemble to explore alternatives in a decision-making process, they are forced to submit to the force of the better argument. And for the sake of review: they yield to what is rational to create the ideal speech situation. However, politics really does not lend itself to rational choices: If rationality is based on incentives (a la: which decision will best help us meet our goals), and if politics has subjective incentives whose variation from person to person or group to group is so high, then politics cannot have a very strong rationality. Or at least, when brought to the public sphere, the validity claims run rampant to the point of trampling the Benefit of the Doubt. (Funny how the Benefit of the Doubt will benefit the Doubtful, yet Benefit itself is doubted.) This stampede occurs before Empathy sets in. But Empathy is the wild card when it comes to decision-making and contesting multiple alternatives. We cannot count on it actually making an appearance, especially when it is threatened by hard-nosed talking heads that do not have much incentive to offer it a seat at the discussion table. National politics, therefore, often are reduced down to a decision of the lesser of two evils.
Yet, what more is there than these two ‘evils’? What can we choose from? Who else can provide an idea? Maybe America is simply too complicated and diverse too be able to benefit from any one person or ideology. Maybe there is no such thing as the better argument; much less its force. Well, not maybe. Actually, such an absence can be clearly observed. Even among those participants who are able to stay level-headed, soften their nose a bit, offer benefit to the doubters and skeptics; these folk still come up with some very convincing arguments going both ways. Even if there is a force to the better argument, we cannot award the Better Argument ribbon because we honestly cannot tell which is better or more rational. Even if B.O., H-Dawg and J-Mack were the most brilliant, capable, and liked individuals in the country; we still wouldn’t be able to agree on one because the choices are all relative to the other choices. When all the alternatives are present, and we may choose only from those, then there is no standard by which we may judge. Like marriage: if you include it to mean anything, then it means nothing. So really, I have no qualms about Obama being president. If all I had to choose from really was those three, and I really like or really do not like them all the same, then it does not make a difference which one is elected. (My defeatism creeps back in now and we see that I basically gave up on presidential politics. Which, honestly, I have.)
But our choices MUST be limited, right? So even in exploring alternative explanations to the fact that we are limited to alternative explanations, we see a limitation to the alternative explanations: a kind of meta-alternative?