Walker joined Difficult Run as an editor in August 2013.
He graduated from the University of North Texas with an MBA in Strategic Management and a BBA in Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management. He's currently a grad student in Government at Johns Hopkins University. He has been published in SquareTwo, BYU Studies Quarterly, Dialogue, Graziadio Business Review, and Economic Affairs. He also contributed to Julie Smith's (ed.) 'As Iron Sharpens Iron: Listening to the Various Voices of Scripture'. His other online writing can be found at Worlds Without End and Times & Seasons. He lives in Denton, Texas, with his wife.
My own writing practices are the direct opposite of that followed by…prolific and renowned writers. I write only when I have something to say. The big disadvantage of this is that it can mean a lot of down time. There are manuscripts of mine that sat around gathering dust for years without a word being added to them. – Thomas Sowell
So begins my latest post at The Slow Hunch. What I failed to consider for years about the quote above is that Sowell was talking about books, not blog posts. I was too worried about coming up with a grand, unifying theory of everything for every single post at The Slow Hunch, [ref]Any casual reader of my blog will realize that I fell woefully short of this goal.[/ref] which is probably why I’ve failed to write much over there the past few years (only a couple posts per month). Plus, blogging at Worlds Without End and Difficult Run made original posts more challenging. So, I’ve decided to try a slightly different direction: I will continue to link to non-SH posts I author (e.g. WWE, longer essays here at DR). However, I plan for most[ref]I say most because I still want the freedom to blog about whatever I want.[/ref] of my SH posts to relate to the theme of “worship through corporeality,” specifically the marriage of business and theology.[ref]Nathaniel has played a role in nudging me toward this niche.[/ref] I hope to write more frequently on this subject, from brief comments to longer essays. I will continue to link to them from DR. Hopefully, it turns into something worthwhile.
The Spring issue of the online journal SquareTwo[ref]Learn more about SquareTwo and its origins here.[/ref] was published today featuring an article by Nathaniel and me titled “‘No Poor Among Them’: Global Poverty, Free Markets, and the ‘Fourfold Mission’.” In it we argue that global markets can help fulfill the LDS Church’s latest addition to its “threefold mission” (making it “fourfold”): “to care for the poor and needy.” We analyze the impact of economic freedom on global (extreme) poverty and inequality, concluding that both are reduced when free markets are embraced.
For those unfamiliar with SquareTwo, it “is a forum for those building upon “square one,” the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints…With the Restored Gospel as a foundation, how would one articulate thought on the pressing issues of the world, the nation, the community, the family, and the individual? …The purpose of SquareTwo is to develop the finest online journal of LDS thought concerning the important issues of the world today, whether those be international issues, domestic issues, ethical issues, technological issues, etc.”[ref]In other words, it is kind of like a Mormon version of First Things.[/ref]
Nathaniel has a thoughtful post on the morality of entertainment and art, focusing specifically on Game of Thrones and even Captain America. One particular point struck me:
I was also struck by an article(again, from Vulture) called Why Captain America Is Only Interesting If He’s a Prick. The article just elaborates on the headline: Captain America is devoid of artistic merit when he’s a good guy.
In 2014, of what artistic good is a flawlessly nice soldier? Can’t we get at least a little rough and dirty with this 75-year-old warhorse?
On one level, this (and the popularity of anti-heroes in general) is just a furtherance of “a silly idea” C. S. Lewis had already noted in his lifetime:
A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is… A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later. That is why bad people, in one sense, know very little about badness. They have lived a sheltered life by always giving in.
So I just don’t buy this argument that only if we have characters who revel in immoral behavior can we have a meaningful conversation about morality.
This is an excellent insight with a portion of Mere Christianity I had long forgotten. And I think there is much to the argument for a moral hero.[ref]For example, the Doctor in Doctor Who is (in some incarnations) damn near pacifist. However, he also tends to suffer remorse for the mass genocide he (thinks he) committed in the Last Great Time War.[/ref] “Moral art does not have to be saccharine, optimistic, or “nice,”” writes Nathaniel, “any more than the actual creation made by God Himself is saccharine, optimistic, or “nice.”” However, we shouldn’t confuse (and I’m not claiming Nathaniel does) an aversion toward seemingly stale heroes for a “nihilistic” lack of moral clarity rooted in our “reptilian brains.” Since I don’t watch Game of Thrones, I’ll use examples from a show I’m currently watching.
When Once Upon a Time first came out, I wasn’t much of a fan. For one, I missed the first couple episodes (which are actually quite good). The early episodes I did see struck me as cheesy and forgettable. It wasn’t until I began watching Doctor Who and reading The Dresden Files that the idea of fairy tales as different realms became appealing once more. But I think my original disinterest in the show was largely due to the first episodes I saw being centered on Snow White and Prince Charming. As I’ve ventured into the 3rd season, I’ve understood more clearly why this was the case: they are boring characters. They shouldn’t be, but they are. If I take my cue from the TheVulture article referenced by Nathaniel, they are the Captain Americas of Once Upon a Time: annoyingly optimistic,[ref]“I choose hope”…“Happy endings always begin with hope”…gag…[/ref] always worried about doing the “right thing” even though their decisions tend to get more people killed,[ref]Apparently intentions matter more than results in the Enchanted Forest.[/ref]become bedridden from guilt after a single use of dark magic while protecting people from a murderous, power-hungry witch,[ref]This earns Snow’s first black spot on her mystical heart. I guess engaging in an extramarital affair with Charming while they were under the curse wasn’t enough to earn one.[/ref] etc. Charming is especially irritating as he self-righteously condemns anyone who disagrees with him or doesn’t fit into his mold of “goodness.”[ref]His constant reviling of Hook in season 3 was infuriating, even if he finally comes around.[/ref] Perhaps this isn’t an entirely fair assessment,[ref]Snow has her moments, but it is mainly when she’s discussing her trials bluntly without the sugarcoating. That’s when you get a glimpse of her courage.[/ref] but it generally captures my feelings as a viewer.
Who are my favorite characters then? They are—surprise, surprise—Mr. Gold/Rumpelstiltskin (“The Dark One”) and Regina (“The Evil Queen”). Why are the self-described villains my favorites? First, I should expose my biases. Mr. Gold is portrayed by Robert Carlyle, who rocked it in the hilarious British comedy The Full Monty. But even more important (for me, anyway), he was the pain-immune terrorist Renard in the James Bond film The World Is Not Enough. If an actor/actress was in a Bond film, no matter how terrible (and TWINE was not one of the best), they receive an honorary status in my book. Recognizing him in Once Upon a Time played a role in me rewatching the series.
Robert Carlyle as Renard in ‘The World Is Not Enough’
As for Regina, Lana Parrilla is hot. When it comes to “the fairest one of all,” the Evil Queen blows Snow White out of the water. And that’s all I have to say about that (and I can because my wife thinks Hook is hot, so there).
But what is it about their characters? True, there is a certain sense of badassery that they embody. Gold walks with a cane in a dark suit, condescendingly calls people “dearie” (especially those who try to threaten him), is always one step ahead of virtually everyone, makes people offers they can’t refuse, rips hearts out (including his cheating wife’s), etc. Regina also rips out hearts (lots of them…her mother was the Queen of Hearts in Wonderland…), cuts through whining and diplomacy with magical fire, and cursed the Enchanted Forest by transferring its inhabitants to an entirely different realm with brand new memories for 20+ years. There is a morbid kind of glee when I see a cool, snarky character exerting their power over others. It gratifies probably some of the baser parts of my nature. However, these traits aren’t what make them interesting. The reason I connect with them the most is because they are in need of and are seeking redemption.
Rumpelstiltskin’s transformation into the Dark One–the most powerful and feared entity in the Enchanted Forest–grew out of a desire to protect his only son, first from the Ogre Wars and then personal enemies. His wife had abandoned them both to sail with the pirate Killian Jones (Captain Hook). Furthermore, Rumpelstiltskin’s own father (who had a reputation as a coward and scoundrel) had abandoned him as a child in order to remain in Neverland and become Peter Pan. Rumpelstiltskin had even injured himself to avoid war because a magical Seer had prophesied that his actions on the battlefield would leave his newborn son fatherless. The entire reason he creates the Dark Curse (the plot of the first season) for the Evil Queen is so that he can be reunited with his son Baelfire, who was transported to this realm alone after a panicked Rumpelstiltskin refused to follow him into a portal between worlds. Many deaths, betrayals, and battles later, not only is Rumpelstiltskin/Mr. Gold reunited with his son, but he has even found love in the form of Belle (he was her “Beast”) and discovered he has a grandson. Rumpelstiltskin struggled with his “nasty habit” of self-preservation and his darker ways all the way up to the end.[ref]Well, sort of the end…[/ref] This is what made his sacrifice to save his friends and family so moving. Everything, good and bad, had been for his son.
Regina has a similar tale. Her dark path didn’t begin until after her emotionally abusive and manipulative mother Cora arranged (through a series of events) Regina’s engagement to Snow White’s father. Being in love with a stable boy, Regina planned to run away with him, while trusting the young Snow White with the information. After coaxing the information out of Snow, Cora murdered Regina’s love. Feeling betrayed by Snow, Regina’s anger boiled over the years. She began taking magic lessons from the Dark One, ridding herself of her mother and eventually plotting against Snow White. Devoured by grief and anger, trapped in a loveless marriage, and hated by the commoners, Regina’s heart grew colder. She consistently sought love and affection throughout the chaos she caused to no avail. Even after succeeding in the Dark Curse, she realized how alone she truly was. She adopted a baby (who ends up being the grandson of Snow White and Prince Charming) with hopes of filling the hole in her heart. She later struggled to win the affection of her mother once she returned to the picture. Her constant search for love leads to much destruction, but she is slowly turned by her love for her adopted son. Ultimately, she ends up being willing to sacrifice herself for her son on numerous occasions.
My point is not that these characters should have made their bad choices. My complaint isn’t even that the story of Snow White and Prince Charming are bland compared to that of Gold and Regina. Far from it. But I can connect with those who have fallen. I can root for them to repent, to be reconciled with friends and family, and to be forgiven. I personally connect with those who need redemption more than those who don’t seem to need it at all. I prefer these characters because, in some small way, I see a little of myself in them. And I need redemption as much as anyone else.
Journalism is the art of translating abysmal ignorance into execrable prose. At least, that is its purest and most minimal essence. There are, of course, practitioners of the trade who possess talents of a higher order—the rare ability, say, to produce complex sentences and coherent paragraphs—and they tend to occupy the more elevated caste of “intellectual journalists.” These, however, are rather like “whores with hearts of gold”: more misty figments of tender fantasy than concrete objects of empirical experience. Most journalism of ideas is little more than a form of empty garrulousness, incessant gossip about half-heard rumors and half-formed opinions, an intense specialization in diffuse generalizations. It is something we all do at social gatherings—creating ephemeral connections with strangers by chattering vacuously about things of which we know nothing—miraculously transformed into a vocation.
So begins philosopher David Bentley Hart’s ripping of journalist Adam Gopnik’s musings on theism. He makes it clear that his comments are “no particular reflection on Gopnik’s intelligence—he is bright enough, surely—but only on that atmosphere of complacent ignorance that seems to be the native element of so many of today’s cultured unbelievers…Not only do convinced secularists no longer understand what the issue is; they are incapable of even suspecting that they do not understand, or of caring whether they do…[T]here is now—where questions of the divine, the supernatural, or the religious are concerned—only a kind of habitual intellectual listlessness. ” Because to this, critics like Gopnik never grasp the metaphysics of “pure “classical theism,” as found in the Cappadocians, Augustine, Denys, Thomas Aquinas, Ibn Sina, Mulla Sadra, Ibn Arabi, Shankara, Ramanuja, Philo, Moses Maimonides . . . well, basically, just about every significant theistic philosopher in human history. (Not to get too recherché here, but one can find most of it in the Roman Catholic catechism.)”[ref]Speaking as a Mormon, I know many of my fellow Latter-day Saints would do well to learn and understand the classical theism of other Christian denominations.[/ref] Instead, they claim a certain kind of materialism as having “exclusive ownership of scientific knowledge” and “assert rights here denied to Galileo, Kepler, and Newton[.] Or to Arthur Eddington, Werner Heisenberg, Max Planck, Erwin Schrödinger, Paul Dirac, Anthony Zee, John Barrow, Freeman Dyson, Owen Gingerich, John Polkinghorne, Paul Davies, Stephen Barr, Francis Collins, Simon Conway Morris, and (yes) Albert Einstein[.]”
Hart’s concluding words have much to teach not only unbelievers, but believers as well:
The current vogue in atheism is probably reducible to three rather sordidly ordinary realities: the mechanistic metaphysics inherited from the seventeenth century, the banal voluntarism that is the inevitable concomitant of late capitalist consumerism, and the quiet fascism of Western cultural supremacism (that is, the assumption that all cultures that do not consent to the late modern Western vision of reality are merely retrograde, unenlightened, and in need of intellectual correction and many more Blu-ray players)…Principled unbelief was once a philosophical passion and moral adventure, with which it was worthwhile to contend. Now, perhaps, it is only so much bad intellectual journalism, which is to say, gossip, fashion, theatrics, trifling prejudice. Perhaps this really is the way the argument ends—not with a bang but a whimper.
Unfortunately, I think this captures the culture of believers and non-believers alike. This is why Terryl and Fiona Givens find that “militant atheism” and “fervent theism” are “both just as likely to serve as a dogmatic point of departure, as they are to be a thoughtful and considered end point in one’s journey toward understanding…[N]either the new believer nor the new doubter has necessarily progressed or reached enlightenment.”[ref]Terryl & Fiona Givens, The God Who Weeps: How Mormonism Makes Sense of Life (Salt Lake City: Ensign Peak, 2012), Kindle edition. “His Heart Is Set Upon Us.”[/ref] Both theists and atheists should reengage in this “philosophical passion and moral adventure” for the bettering of each other.
A recent article in the Wall Street Journal tackles the relation between family breakdown and inequality. The authors write,
The two-parent family has declined rapidly in recent decades. In 1960, more than 76% of African-Americans and nearly 97% of whites were born to married couples. Today the percentage is 30% for blacks and 70% for whites. The out-of-wedlock birthrate for Hispanics surpassed 50% in 2006. This trend, coupled with high divorce rates, means that roughly 25% of American children now live in single-parent homes, twice the percentage in Europe (12%). Roughly a third of American children live apart from their fathers.
The authors continue by pointing out that even “children in high-income households who experienced family breakups don’t fare as well emotionally, psychologically, educationally or, in the end, economically as their two-parent-family peers. Abuse, behavioral problems and psychological issues of all kinds, such as developmental behavior problems or concentration issues, are less common for children of married couples than for cohabiting or single parents, according to a 2003 Centers for Disease Control study of children’s health. The causal pathways are about as clear as those from smoking to cancer.”
The authors (both researchers in the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas) continue to list studies linking family structure to economic outcomes. Yet, academic conferences tend to denounce “free markets, the decline of unions, and “neoliberalism” generally as exacerbating economic inequality” with little attention being given to family structure. The authors suggest that ideology, the risk of the accusation of racism (“family breakup has hit minority communities the hardest”), and the lack of a “quick fix” deter academics from pursuing this line of thought.
The authors conclude, “The change must come from long-term societal transformation on this subject, led by political, educational and entertainment elites, similar to the decades-long movements against racism, sexism—and smoking. But the first step is to acknowledge the problem.”
Nobel economist Thomas Sargent gave a 2007 graduation speech using 12 economic concepts:
1. Many things that are desirable are not feasible.
2. Individuals and communities face trade-offs.
3. Other people have more information about their abilities, their efforts, and their preferences than you do.
4. Everyone responds to incentives, including people you want to help. That is why social safety nets don’t always end up working as intended.
5. There are tradeoffs between equality and efficiency.
6. In an equilibrium of a game or an economy, people are satisfied with their choices. That is why it is difficult for well-meaning outsiders to change things for better or worse.
7. In the future, you too will respond to incentives. That is why there are some promises that you’d like to make but can’t. No one will believe those promises because they know that later it will not be in your interest to deliver. The lesson here is this: before you make a promise, think about whether you will want to keep it if and when your circumstances change. This is how you earn a reputation.
8. Governments and voters respond to incentives too. That is why governments sometimes default on loans and other promises that they have made.
9. It is feasible for one generation to shift costs to subsequent ones. That is what national government debts and the U.S. social security system do (but not the social security system of Singapore).
10. When a government spends, its citizens eventually pay, either today or tomorrow, either through explicit taxes or implicit ones like inflation.
11. Most people want other people to pay for public goods and government transfers (especially transfers to themselves).
12. Because market prices aggregate traders’ information, it is difficult to forecast stock prices and interest rates and exchange rates.
This explains exactly why I find economics so valuable.
The Atlantic has an interesting historical piece on the Moynihan Report by Peter-Christian Aigner, who is writing a biography on Moynihan. The piece looks at Moynihan’s actual politics and motivations behind his now (in)famous report and reveals some surprises for both the Right and the Left:
If [the Right] knew what policies Moynihan hoped to spur with his report, they might view him as a Marxist radical to be forgotten, not a visionary martyr to remember. Moynihan stated these goals more than a few times, but new documents from his rich archive give a much fuller, clearer, and bolder illustration of his thinking and hopes.
“With a background in the labor movement and New York state government,” Moynihan “became convinced that poverty amid prosperity was not a “paradox,” as most said in the 1960s, but an inevitable result of the market’s “creative destruction.”” The author describes Moynihan as being influenced by “Catholic social doctrine and European policy thinkers,” causing him to worry “that America’s deep-seated individualism created a “values” framework that inclined the nation too easily to social Darwinism.” For Moynihan, “jobs ought to be a “right,” not a scarcity.” Moynihan was “particularly impressed by Sweden’s cradle-to-grave welfare state” as well as “the “family allowance” (cash transfers used to bolster low wages).”
But JFK and LBJ were not interested in committing large government resources to such policies, and Moynihan lost his biggest fight, to get these ideas into the War on Poverty. That’s when he decided to write “The Negro Family.” Originally, he included the two policy recommendations. But fearing Johnson would reject the memo outright, he chose in the final report to just emphasize poverty’s cultural devastation alone, using apocalyptic and occasionally controversial language. The central message of the 78-page document was that more than 200 years of the “worst” form of slavery in history, and nearly a century of Jim Crow and Great Depression levels of unemployment and poverty had nearly destroyed the black community. So great was the damage that now even the basic unit of society, the family, was coming apart.
The author notes that “years of research have confirmed his suspicion: break-up can indeed be a trigger for poverty, although it is most often a correlate, not a cause. More typically, as he suggested, the relationship is the other way around: Money problems exacerbate the difficulties of marriage and child rearing.” In conclusion, “Moynihan was genuinely concerned about family break-up and its results, but his understanding of the problem and solutions were radically different from that of the right today.”
While I think the author grossly and demonstably misinterprets the research over the past several decades on family structure and poverty,[ref]This has actually been a major area of interest and study for me. I’ve covered it here at DR many times, including here, here, here, here, and here to just name a few. A paper co-authored with Nathaniel on this very subject is currently in its earliest stage of development.[/ref] the historical context and background of the Moynihan Report is important. Check out the full article.
I totally watched All That growing up. This was back in elementary school days when I was really too young to be out very late on Saturday nights (plus, I had Mormon parents). And, of course, I couldn’t drive. SNICK @ Nite was the kid equivalent of shows like SNL. Every 90s kid has characters like Pierre Escargot, Repairman (Man, Man, Man…), Ed from “Good Burger,” and Ashley from the “Ask Ashley” segment etched in their memories. Hence, my joy and nostalgia over an article at The Atlantic titled “The Quiet Radicalism of All That,” which looks at just how different All That was compared to other kid shows (especially the teen nonsense on The WB).
My siblings and I often joke (probably a bit morbidly) that we are going to play The Animals’ “House of the Rising Sun” at Dad’s funeral. Not sure why–especially when you consider that it is about a brothel–other than the fact that he really likes that song and it has been ingrained in our memories since childhood. I shared some thoughts about a playlist a friend of mine had made for his grandfather’s funeral last year at The Slow Hunch. The choice of songs had meaning and personality and thus made the music and moments more special.
I was reminded of all this while reading about Jack Robinson, a 4-year-old of Hampshire, England who recently lost his battle with an inoperable brain tumor. “He was a huge Doctor Who fan, so when news got to Matt Smith, the 11th Doctor, the actor decided- in an act of great decency- to send his sick follower a touching video message. Jack also loved Gary Barlow’s single “Let Me Go” so the Take That front man decided to pay him a visit in hospital too.” But Jack’s parents sent him off with a loving, personalized goodbye: “an incredible Star Wars themed funeral complete with Stormtroopers; a Jedi wreath and a brass band playing John William’s Binary Sunset.”
Read this story, listen to Binary Sunsets, and try to keep from crying.
The April cover story of Christianity Today is an impressive piece on the Anglican theologian and New Testament scholar N.T. Wright. As the article’s opening explains, Wright
is the most prolific biblical scholar in a generation. Some say he is the most important apologist for the Christian faith since C. S. Lewis. He has written the most extensive series of popular commentaries on the New Testament since William Barclay. And, in case three careers sound like too few, he is also a church leader, having served as Bishop of Durham, England, before his current teaching post at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland.
The article’s author describes a story told by “a pastor friend” in which a church member walked into his office, “hands trembling as he held a copy of Wright’s Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. “If this book is true,” he said, “then my whole life has to change.”” While my initial reaction to Wright’s work wasn’t quite that dramatic, it did help shift my biblical and religious studies from mere information gathering to theological application. Studying Second Temple Judaism(s) was no longer about neat historical tidbits or mere bible bashing ammunition, but proper understanding and appropriate application. I owe Wright a lot in this regard.
Check out the article. And then check out his work.
Rumpelstiltskin’s transformation into the Dark One–the most powerful and feared entity in the Enchanted Forest–grew out of a desire to protect his only son, first from the Ogre Wars and then personal enemies. His wife had abandoned them both to sail with the pirate Killian Jones (Captain Hook). Furthermore, Rumpelstiltskin’s own father (who had a reputation as a coward and scoundrel) had abandoned him as a child in order to remain in Neverland and become Peter Pan. Rumpelstiltskin had even injured himself to avoid war because a magical Seer had prophesied that his actions on the battlefield would leave his newborn son fatherless. The entire reason he creates the Dark Curse (the plot of the first season) for the Evil Queen is so that he can be reunited with his son Baelfire, who was transported to this realm alone after a panicked Rumpelstiltskin refused to follow him into a portal between worlds. Many deaths, betrayals, and battles later, not only is Rumpelstiltskin/Mr. Gold reunited with his son, but he has even found love in the form of Belle (he was her “Beast”) and discovered he has a grandson. Rumpelstiltskin struggled with his “nasty habit” of self-preservation and his darker ways all the way up to the end.[ref]Well, sort of the end…[/ref] This is what made his sacrifice to save his friends and family so moving. Everything, good and bad, had been for his son.
