A One-Sided Mocking of BYU

An article in today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer (the PI) by sports columnist Jim Moore was attempting to poke fun of Brigham Young University's football program. To be fair, Mr. Moore usually writes insightful, humorous pieces that help his readers to see another side to whatever subject he is illustrating. However, his article today fell way short of the mark; instead falling into a chasm of ignorance and ridicule. The article follows:

"Steve Sarkisian and I don't have anything in common -- he's a young and successful rich guy who bleeds purple. I'm the polar opposite -- a poor old crimson-bleeder who doesn't have T-shirts that say: "I bark for the Go 2 Guy." Though we're both Cougs, Coach Sark went to BYU, and I went to WSU. At BYU, students are required to follow an Honor Code or risk being expelled from school.

At WSU, if we had a code, I was either not aware of it or not following it very well, preoccupied with chasing coeds and playing countless games of losers-chug foosball at the Billiard Den in Moscow, Idaho. How I graduated is one of life's mysteries on a par with Jim McMahon, the beer-swilling and hell-raising quarterback, being a BYU alum.

The topic of the Honor Code came up at Sarkisian's news conference Monday afternoon as the Huskies prepare for their season opener at BYU on Saturday. I should have asked him football questions relating to the game, but I was more curious to find out if Coach Sark had trouble complying with the Honor Code when he played there in 1995-96."I didn't get kicked out," he said.

If you're properly following the Honor Code at BYU, you're not drinking alcohol, coffee or tea. You're not smoking tobacco or marijuana. You're not carrying a gun on campus. You're not swearing or having pre-marital sex. You're not cheating on tests or breaking the law.

You are also required to follow dress and grooming standards. For men, this means that shorts must be knee-length or longer. Hairstyles must leave the ears uncovered. Sideburns can't go below the earlobes nor onto the cheeks. Moustaches are allowed but must be neatly trimmed and cannot extend below the corners of the mouth. Beards are prohibited.

In April, Harvey Unga, BYU's all-time leading rusher, left school after violating the Honor Code by having pre-marital sex with his girlfriend, who was six months pregnant. Unga was drafted in the seventh round of the NFL's supplemental draft by the Chicago Bears.

Asked for the rule that he had the biggest problem with, Sarkisian mentioned the one about facial hair, saying: "I'm not a big shaver."

Sarkisian was a JC transfer who went to BYU because he was a quarterback who wanted to fill the air with footballs and a student who wanted a degree. "I wasn't there to have a good time," Sarkisian said. He was also a Catholic at a Mormon school."Initially that was a little challenge," Sarkisian said. They tried to get him to convert, but Sarkisian wouldn't do it because he was "a happy Catholic." "It took some time, but then there was a great deal of respect (for me and my decision)," Coach Sark said.

When Sarkisian said he had "plenty" of players who could abide by the rules at BYU, I went searching for some.

Strong safety Nate Williams thought he could follow the Honor Code, saying: "If I went to that school and knew what I was getting into, I could handle it. … At the U Dub, we don't have all those rules. We just have to be smart about what we do and who we hang out with."

But Williams has a mini-beard that would be an Honor Code violation, and it's one he plans to keep. "I think I look better with it," he said. "It gets me more girls."

Outside linebacker Mason Foster said he'd be good to go at BYU. "I don't indulge in any of those activities," he said. "I'm a pretty straight-and-narrow guy. If I had to deal with the Honor Code, I'd be completely eligible." "But they wouldn't let you keep your dreads and your beard," I told him. And just like that, the prim-and-proper Foster disappeared. "I'd have to get outta there then," he said. "I couldn't do that." (Jim Moore, Seattle PI 8/31/10)

On the surface one might think, "Yeah; so what? No big deal." However, looking at the article closer, I found it to be a one-sided, un-humorous, offensive piece because Mr. Moore did nothing to avoid stereotyping both BYU and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I wrote to him with the following response:

"Thanks Jim, for writing ANOTHER article that does nothing but perpetuate the "oddness" of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints amongst the general populace. (Just look at the comments on this piece.)

This type of ignorance and slighted view is exactly the slanderous, ignorant media that constantly demeans and disrespects a membership that seeks to live by a better moral standard every day of the year.

Not once in your story did you ask any players (former or current), aside from Sarkisian, who are church members what they thought of the school's Honor Code, and whether or not they had a difficult time accepting or following it. Instead, you highlight only athletes that have had trouble with, or violated the much [media] maligned Honor Code.

I've got an idea for you--Instead of highlighting this personal Code of Conduct for its oddness, why not ask what makes living by it so desirable to the 30,000 plus students who attend BYU every year? Or, how might the Honor Code make BYU athletes better players? Did you even ask coach Sark if he enjoyed attending BYU?

Try writing a story that actually presents a balanced view; instead of reinforcing a stereotype that only furthers prejudices and biases against a singular group that has does nothing but promote a higher standard of living that extends beyond a Sunday service.

I have to ask you, if the University of Notre Dame had a similar Honor Code, would you be making light of it? Or is BYU an easy target just because they’re “Mormons?”

The following are comments left on the article by PI readers (I've omitted screen names or personal references):

-"I've visited Provo several times, and even though I was never the type at risk of getting arrested for anything, I sure as hell know I couldn't live there. It's like nowhere else on Earth- like a theme park where the theme is not having fun."

-"I take it...not many Starbucks stockholders in Utah?"

-"like a theme park where the theme is not having fun."Great line, captures the feel of the place perfectly.I still can't imagine many red-blooded 18 year old boys thinking this is where they want to go when they leave home..."

-"Mormon girls are closet freaks. And they're hot! They're not supposed to engage in premarital sex, but there's quite a few that do. They just have to keep it on the low. But yes, it's still worlds apart from most other Universities."

When a supposedly humorous article, supposedly intended to poke fun at a football rival, elicits such negative comments about a singular group, then the aim was way off. Personally, I came away from reading this article offended by the ignorance that Mr. Moore displayed in his attempts to be light-hearted and funny. That's not to mention the ignorant respondents who fell directly into the ever-present anti-Mormon rhetoric. Sorry Mr. Moore--it wasn't funny... just offensive.

Evolution vs. Creation Debate Continues

Today, a study by Rice University professor Marek Kimmel was reported which stated that the mitochondrial DNA commonality of life (the so-called mitochondrial Eve) lived 200,000 years ago. I'll not reiterate the science here; but suffice it to say that the claim "assumes" the model for "estimating" the first matriarchal woman is correct. I responded to the article (and some very opinionated responses) with the following:

One thing I love about the scientists in this whole creation vs evolution debate is how they state evidence as "empirical," yet have little concrete proof--just speculation, guesswork and tidbits of so-called 'scientific data' that shows what might have been (sound familiar?). They talk about evolution in absolutes, yet always steep their comments with qualifiers such as 'might have been; could have; maybe; possibly; theoretically; probably, etc.'

Just like the creationists who rely on faith as their basis , neither side can absolutely prove anything one way or the other. Both sides will yell their point of view at the top of their lungs, yet get no closer to truth.

I have an idea...Instead of each side trying to constantly disprove the other, why not go from the angle that BOTH are valid? It would certainly make for an interesting debate! Founding Father Ben Franklin stated, "Science and religion go hand in hand. One cannot exist without the other." How valid is his point?

Let's also remember that the scientific view of life was sparked by the Darwinian theory of evolution just 150 years ago--a thesis that many scientists and academics acknowledge is incredibly flawed. Until that time, all of human history (generally speaking) viewed the beginning of life from a creationist-type point of view. Is the bulk of human history plain wrong in their thinking? Is it a reality that hundreds of [initially] isolated cultures from around the world all somehow, inexplicably deluded themselves with creationism?

Just set aside any preconceptions and really consider the debate from both points of view. What makes you right? How might you be wrong? Can both sides have common ground? The thought does bring about some fascinating questions for future debate.

As to which side is right, we'll find out some day...maybe...possibly...well, at least theoretically.


(The following is a respondents reply to my post, as well as my response)


(Respondent) xxxxx00000

"What makes you right? How might you be wrong?"

That is the essence of science. We predict things based on our theories, and then we test our predictions. That is the "scientific method." It works best when we look for the things that would prove our theories wrong as well as those that would prove them right.

(My reply)

Thank you (Respondent), for illustrating my point in the debate. By taking eight words out of context [from my comment], you have demonstrated how science looks at what they see and don't see, without considering the rest.

Scientific method has its place--no doubt. It's an invaluable tool.

However, just because what you see appears to be truth, is it necessarily the whole truth? It's like an accountant who looks at numbers and tells you you have to alter this or that in your business, without ever stepping foot in your business. The accountant will say "Numbers don't lie." The businessman counters with, "Numbers don't show you the whole truth, either." The accountant based his remarks on what the numbers tell him. The businessman bases his counter-remarks on what is happening in-store every day--two very different, divergent points of view. Instead of butting heads, the two find the common ground that benefits both sides.

So, who is right? How might you be wrong? Can both sides have common ground?

I am simply advocating an all possibilities approach. After all, both sides have merit; just as both sides have their flaws. So why not consider both?

Why is one side the absolute truth, and the other side completely wrong? Answer that from an objective, rational, non-scientific point of view.

(I got no response.)

Prop 8: A Base Issue Discussed Again

(I wrote the following response to an opinion by Dr. Pepper Schwarz on the SeattlePI.com. Her article sought to sway the reading public that politics should play no part in deciding the issue of gay marriage. She (inexplicably) even went so far as to equate the efforts of the gay community [to get marriage approved] to the 19th century fight against slavery...I didn't touch that part. No sense in legitimizing what is clearly a poor correlative attempt)

Personally, I think that the approval of gay marriages is an inevitability. However, American society as a whole is not yet ready to accept this. Over time this will change.

Unfortunately, the gay community is seeking to literally force society to accept the idea of gay marriage. Therefore, the issue becomes a small minority of the citizenry imposing their will over the vast majority.

Founding Father, and our nation's first President, George Washington said, "Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals."

With the recent ruling in California, this very thing has happened. The people voted, the losing side didn't like it, and got the courts to overturn the common consent of the people, thereby imposing their minority will over that of the vast majority.

A society, not ready to accept change, will inevitably push back against that change; and the fight for equality will take longer than simply allowing for the natural progression of societal acceptance. Give the issue time.

Thoughts and ideas will change and progress, and everything the gay community seeks--equality, in all its various applications--will be achieved.

**As a side note: The reader responses to the article were many, and quite varied. Different responses challenged most every other response by just about every reader. However, of the three dozen + responses that have appeared after my response, there was not a single dissenting opinion to what I wrote.

Prop 8 Follow-up: Overriding The Will of The People

Another strike against the majority of United States Citizens.

In news just released, a Federal Judge has overturned California's Proposition 8. Here's the story as reported on MSNBC:

SAN FRANCISCO — In a major victory for gay rights advocates, a federal judge on Wednesday struck down a California ban on same-sex marriage.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's decision to overturn the voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8, came in response to a lawsuit brought by two same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco seeking to invalidate the law as an unlawful infringement on the civil rights of gay men and lesbians.
Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriages in California five months after the state Supreme Court legalized them, passed with 52 percent of the vote in November 2008 following the most expensive campaign on a social issue in U.S. history.

Attorneys on both sides have said an appeal was certain if Walker did not rule in their favor. The case would go first to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, then the Supreme Court if the high court justices agree to review it.
Anticipating such a scenario, lawyers for the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored Proposition 8 in 2008 filed a legal brief Tuesday asking Walker to stay his decision if he overturns the ban so same-sex couples could not marry while an appeal was pending.

"Same-sex marriages would be licensed under a cloud of uncertainty, and should proponents succeed on appeal, any such marriages would be invalid," they wrote.

Walker presided over a 13-day trial earlier this year that was the first in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married without violating the constitutional guarantee of equality.
Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.

Opponents said that tradition or fears of harm to heterosexual unions were legally insufficient grounds to discriminate against gay couples. (MSNBC 04 Aug. 2010)

Here is yet another example of a vast minority imposing their will over the vast majority. The proponents of gay marriage put the issue to a vote; they lost. Instead of continuing their efforts to sway the majority, these folks went to the courts to solve the problem. Now, with appeals pending, the majority of California voters no longer have a say as to what they want. The gay community is seeking to literally force their agenda on everyone else.

I'm not against the gay community from receiving equal rights. I am against them imposing their singular will over the objections of the majority of citizens. The will of the people is supposed to rule the day. The people have spoken; and now the gay community is stomping and crying their way to getting what they want. This is what I don't agree with in their fight.

Thirty years ago the gay community was reviled, ridiculed and harassed. In the years since, people have become more accepting. Over time, the perceptions and fears will ease, and the gay community will end up getting everything they're after.

But, like whining, cry-baby children, they are stomping their collective feet [by way of the Courts] and demanding that everyone else accept them for who and what they are RIGHT NOW! They rail against anyone who thinks otherwise, calling them disgusting names, and spreading words of hatred towards those who oppose them. They cry "Equality!", yet fail to allow open discussion from their opponents. They asked the voters of California to have their say on the issue; then threw a harassing, destructive, demeaning, hate-filled tantrum when they lost.

What's wrong with this picture? If your children acted this way, they'd be put in time out, have extra chores to do, be grounded, etc. Yet the Courts are allowing this childish behavior to continue. So much so, that it's now looking more and more likely that the tantrum of the gay community will result in the forcing of their will upon everyone else. This is just wrong!

Federal Judge Walker has chosen to side with the minority over the will of the people. Because of this, every heterosexual American will soon be forced to accept a thing they are not yet ready to accept. And to the gay community, that is just fine! So long as they stomp their feet in a whining, temper tantrum, childish way, and they've gotten what they want, then everything is just fine. They'll have their equality, in the eyes of the law; but it will be decades before they have their equality, in the eyes of the people.

Civil Rights For Air Travelers--Follow Up

Just about an hour ago, MSNBC released a story about the images from airport body scanners being saved by federal agencies. This policy by the agencies involved goes directly against what the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has been telling the citizens of the United States. The following is the story:

"Despite claims by the TSA that electronic body scan images "cannot be stored or recorded," some federal police agencies are in fact saving tens of thousands of images, according to a report by CNET News.

The body scanners, increasingly found in airports, courthouses and other places where security is high, use an assortment of technologies. These include millimeter wave scanners in which the subject is harmlessly pelted with extremely high frequency radio waves which reflect a picture back to the device — and backscatter X-ray which measures low-powered reflective X-rays to produce clearer body shots, shots that can reveal alarmingly precise anatomical detail.

According to CNET, the U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had saved thousands of images that had been recorded from a security checkpoint in a Florida courthouse.

The revelation comes at a tense time. Two weeks ago, when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said such scanners would appear in every major airport, privacy advocates such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington D.C. filed a lawsuit to stop the device rollout.

The reason? Because the devices were "designed and deployed in a way that allows the images to be routinely stored and recorded," EPIC executive director Marc Rotenberg told CNET, adding that this "is exactly what the Marshals Service is doing."

As CNET's Declan McCullagh explains, it's the mystery of the devices' potential that is most unnerving: "This trickle of disclosures about the true capabilities of body scanners — and how they're being used in practice — is probably what alarms privacy advocates more than anything else," he wrote.

The TSA maintains that body scanning is "constitutional" and the CNET report notes that while the machines are built to "allow exporting of image data in real time" and provide networked "high-speed transfer of image data," the system are built with filters to "protect the identity, modesty, and privacy of the passenger."
(by Wilson Rothman, MSNBC.com 08/04/10)

The following is my brief response to the article:

"Why is Congress allowing this to happen? Why is the President NOT putting a stop to this? Why is the ACLU NOT suing the TSA over this? Our Civil Rights, as guaranteed under the provisio of the Constitution of our United States, are being attacked by a Federal Agency--and no one is asking "Why?" Write your Senator and House Rep! Write the President! This HAS to stop!"

Is this alarming to anyone? Are you reading this and say to yourself something like, "I can't believe this is actually going on?" If it is to you, please, please, PLEASE, write to your elected Congressional leaders and let them know how you feel. If the majority stay silent, then we will lose our liberties as guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States. Please, Make your voice heard!