Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion

Welcome to the Irregular Times Diaries, your chance to write and be read on issues of the day, let us know about upcoming events in your neck of the woods, or share your own brand of creative genius. After registering and then logging in (upper left-hand corner), you can write, edit and compile your own series of diaries to be published on Irregular Times. Others will surf in and read what you’ve written, comment on your ideas and, after they sign up, rate your posts. Our hope is that this will mark the chance for Irregular Times to become an even more participatory community of thought, one in which we all have a say.

After you’ve registered, check out the community reference pages in the left-hand bar to review the rules of the road, learn about posting a diary, get some help, or report abusive behavior on the diaries.

This space will be what we make of it. Let’s get started!

The House of Representatives went and gave the final congressional vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act, and in so doing, assured that the Patriot Act will continue. I’m left asking why.

It’s been made clear that the intelligence community knew of the threat of Al Qaeda crashing airplanes into big buildings. They knew of Al Quaeda terrorists in the US. They knew, they knew, they had the information necessary to put the puzzle together. I’m not saying they had the time or date, like a conspiracy theory, but the problem with September 11 happening was not lack of adequate intelligence. It was lack of competence and coordination.

Little bits of the Patriot Act deal with that, and that can be put in another bill. The rest of the Patriot Act just isn’t necessary, especially not the parts that give the federal government new powers to spy on American citizens.

Yet, Democrats and Republicans alike voted for this terrible law AGAIN.

I’m telling you, I’m feeling like our Congress is living behind a wall of peanut butter, and they just don’t see or hear or feel what the rest of America is feeling. They’re incapable of it, it seems. Even the obvious signs, the clear public rejection of the whole Bush agenda, doesn’t get through to them.

Our current strategy to persuade Congress isn’t working. How can we make it work? How can we make, in particular the stiff and dense Democratic leadership wake up?

Bruce Schneier over at Wired has written a long, involved article entitled “Why Data Mining Won’t Stop Terror.” (link) I found it hard to read but it contained an interesting point which I’ll try to summarize here.

Schneier argues that the government’s data mining program won’t work because of a dilemma in statistics. When you are devising a test to discover a condition in a large population, and you apply that test to people in the population, you run the risk of two possible errors:

Type I Error: Identifying a person as having the condition when they actually don’t
Type II Error: Identifying the person as not having the condition when they actually do

Type I Error is a “false positive” result, and Type II Error is a “false negative result.”

The data mining activities engaged in by the government involve shuffling through trillions and trillions of pieces of different sorts of information and trying to identify patterns in those pieces of information that suggest terrorist activity. One problem Schneier identifies is that there is no rock-solid, error-free model for predicting what sort of activity by a person (besides a terrorist attack itself) indicates terrorist activity. There will be times when a data miner’s model will prove wrong. Maybe Aunt Matilda is not in an Al Qaeda cell. Maybe she’s just contacting Middle Eastern countries and arranging a one-way trip because she wants to visit the artificial islands of Dubai and take a cruise ship back.

In other words, sometimes you’re bound to make a mistake in predicting terrorist activity. But out in the real world, you don’t know if you have an error in a particular case or not (because if you did, then by definition you’d have an error-free model) — you just get iffy cases that straddle the border between clearly signifying terrorist activity and clearly signifying non-terrorist actvity.

The question is, what to do with those iffy cases. What to do with Aunt Matilda? One alternative is to let people go free whenever they have something close to an iffy case, in the interest of not harming the innocent. This involves a Type II error. Sometimes you’ll get it right, but the risk of this approach is that you’ll let actual terrorists go free a good amount of the time. The alternative is to arrest iffy suspects like Aunt Matilda on the strength of a predictive profile alone. This involves a Type I error. Sometimes you’ll get it right, but the risk of this second approach is that you’ll put innocent people behind bars.

To express it graphically (borrowing from the tabular approach of Intuitor’s discussion of the justice system):

Data Mining Dilemma
	Questionable Subject Is Not a Terrorist	Questionable Subject Is a Terrorist
Arrest Questionable Subject	Type I Error: Innocent Person Jailed	Justice: Correct Decision
Let Questionable Subject Go Free	Justice: Correct Decision	Type II Error: Terrorist Goes Free

Keep in mind that there are no follow-up trials, since the people being watched haven’t committed any crime. No, the question is whether to detain people for (in the vocabulary of Majority Report) Pre-Crime. In a system where your predictions won’t be perfect, depending upon how authoritarian you are you’ll either let terrorists slip through your fingers or you’ll let innocent people go to jail. Schneier argues that if we choose the former, to let terrorists slip through our fingers when they are engaged in questionable activities, we will have a terrorist detection system that costs a whole lot of money yet doesn’t work. If we choose the latter approach to deal with error, jailing people who not only have done nothing wrong but are not even planning to do wrong, our country will lose its moral bearings and become a police state.

---

By the way, hello to everyone. This looks like it might be fun. I hope it stays up longer than the bulletin board did.

– freenut

In response to my first irregular diary entry, Jim asks the question:

“…perhaps it’s time to stop voting Democrat.
Gall, what do you have in mind?”

Oh, good question.

Yes, and no. I think it’s time to stop accepting the partisan frame of politics. We need to stop looking at politicians according to whether they are Democrats or Republicans, and look at them according to how they vote.

Imagine if we could group politicians according to their votes, right wing or progressive, and then give those groups our own labels, and identify ourselves according which group we feel most affinity with - then work with politicians in that group, whether they’re Democrats or Republicans.

This would have to be a totally grassroots effort to reject the dominant political party framework - going even more alternative than the third party efforts by groups like the Greens.

So, we vote with the group of politicians who votes our interest, and whether they’re Democrats or not is as irrelevant as whether they’re members of the Rotary Club.

What do you think?

I was thinking that you could use something like the resource you’ve developed with your progressive scorecard for the House to do this.

It had to happen of course. Last September the college decided I’d been around long enough to deserve a raise and regular hours. This meant, according to the wonderful woman who has guided me through the maddening administrative details of my job, that I would now be under the union. “Great,” I said. “Just watch, in six months time they’ll have me on strike.”

That was six months ago and in about ten minutes I have to leave so I can go to the campus, pick up my sign, and start my third day on the picket line.

I always choose the same sign: “Faculty care about quality education.” I like it because as an English teacher I enjoy the irony. First is the irony of caring so much about education that we are willing to strip it away from the students at the very end of their academic year, and second is the irony of the grammatical mistake in a sign proclaiming concern over quality education. Each evening I correct my own sign to read: “Faculty cares about quality education.”

When dealing with mass idiocy it is important to amuse yourself in little ways.

Gotta go. I’m due on the line.

This week, George W. Bush gave a speech urging a new campaign of patronage for religious organizations, to “reach beyond the norm”. I cannot argue that Bush’s efforts to funnel taxpayer money to religious interest groups is a reach beyond the norm. Unfortunately, it’s become all too normal to engage in unconstitutional efforts to buy influence.

George W. Bush proudly announced that, last year alone, he gave 2.1 billion dollars in taxpayer money as political patronage to religious organizations. Where did Bush get all that money? It’s being paid for with cuts to Medicaid, food stamps, student loans, and science programs.

Bush and his followers think that’s something to be proud of.

I’ll be the first to admit that I was a bit naive in my expectations of what goes on at a strike — although I didn’t really believe Pete Seger would show up to sing interminable songs about worker oppression, or that we would be set upon by management goons wielding lead pipes.

But I neither did I expect it to be a football game.

We have the Defensive Tackle¹, a very large man whose self-important mission in life presently consists of blocking cars from driving into the campus parking lot. Then there’s the Equipment Manager, a short, stocky union rep with a clipboard who checks our names off his list and hands out signs and bottles of water. We even have the Cheerleader, a woman who gleefully walks with her dog from group to group keeping up our spirits by smiling and shouting “Solidarity!”to everyone.

And let’s not forget the all-important Merchandising Franchise. For $65 you can buy a black, microfibre clubhouse jacket. A handpainted mug goes for $20. And an attractive blue polycarbonate water bottle can be yours for only $10. (All prices in Canadian dollars.)

The atmosphere itself is jovial and upbeat as they all reassure each other that we are bound to defeat the opposition. Victory is guaranteed. The field will be ours. Go-o-o-o Team!

Several years ago my wife and I saw the Super Dogs show at the Canadian National Exhibition.

It was held in a long stadium-like room with bleachers on either side and a dirt floor in the middle. Two dogs, one wearing a blue bandana, the other red, would enter the field and race each other through an obstacle course. When the race was over two more dogs would be introduced and the whole shebang would start again. On its own, it was quite entertaining, especially since the Super Dogs are really just normal dogs whose owners have spent some time training them.

But in order to make it more entertaining, the MC informed us that those of us on the east were to root for the “blue team” while those on the west were to root for the “red team.” By the end of the third race I was witnessing a phenomenon the importance of which has stayed with me ever since.

What began as good-natured cheering soon became serious involvement. Those on the losing side banged their fists on their legs while those on the winning side jumped out of their seats with their hands above their heads. A young girl sitting a couple of rows down from us began crying when several of “her” dogs lost their races.

I’ll admit I’ve never fully understood sports fandom. When the Toronto Blue Jays won the World Series back in 1994 the entire city erupted into a giant party (during which a young pregnant woman sitting in her car was blinded in one eye when an exuberant fan smashed her windshield with a baseball bat). And yet, when I checked the roster of the two opposing teams I discovered that the “Toronto” Blue Jays didn’t have a single player from Toronto. In fact, they only had player who was even Canadian.

So what was the excitement? Why did an entire city take to the streets to celebrate the victory of one team of Americans and Dominican Republicans over another team of Americans and Dominican Republicans?

Watching the Super Dogs competition offered a valuable clue.

It isn’t a matter of real involvement: it’s an inborn instinct: a genetic predisposition to align ourselves with something. This isn’t necessarily bad. When Neil Armstrong took the first step on the moon it made sense that the whole world celebrated: it was a true victory for the human race. Einstein’s application of Poincare’s formula (E-MC²) was posted in store windows all across the nation where people who couldn’t pronounce “quadratic equation,” much less solve one, stared at it in awe and pride.

In its best form, this instinct reminds us of our underlying connections. In its worst — when it is applied more or less randomly, when the connections are imposed by accident of birth, occupation, or seating arrangement at a dog competition — it divides us into warring tribes. Our identification with our “team” becomes so strong we lose all sight of our connections with those not on our team: we lose sight of the fact that in many cases there are no “teams” in the first place.

Abraham Maslow once famously said: “To the man who only has a hammer, every problem is a nail.” Likewise, when your only tool is a “team,” every problem is a competition.

- - - - - - -

1 Being virtually knowledge-free concerning the positions, rules, or even point of football I rely on About.com’s Football 101. Should there be any errors in my post on this regard, I take full blame.

The Bush administration won’t tell you this, but March 12-18 is Sunshine Week, a period of time dedicated to celebrating and advocating free access by American citizens to government information. Thomas Jefferson did not say, “An informed citizenry is the bulwark of a democracy,” but he should have. Unless citizens can know what’s going on in their government, there is no hope that they will be able to fully advocate for well-supported positions, as is their right and responsibility. And, as George Orwell pointed out in 1984, a state which is able to shove inconvenient information down a memory hole is a state that controls its citizens rather than the other way ’round.

Visit sunshineweek.org for links to websites promoting open government, resources for journalists and free information activists on college campuses, a discussion blog and a toolkit of resources to help spread the word about this woefully under-publicized week. Let the sunshine in!

With just a few days of winter left, it’s nearly official: Canada has had its hottest winter ever on record. The hot Canadian winter left many northern communities unable to travel or work in their traditional ways, and bled down into the northern United States, which has experienced an unusually warm winter as well, and appears to be moving into a very warm spring as well, with temperatures already climbing up to 80 degrees fahrenheit in some places far to the north of the Mason-Dixon line.

Of course, one hot winter, no matter how extreme, does not make a trend. Canada’s winters have been warmer than normal for the last eight years though. That does make a trend.

Those Canadian mounties may soon be wearing new uniforms with short sleeves.

Yesterday, I wrote about the embarassing fawning of Republican John McCain over George W. Bush last weekend, and McCain’s increasingly weird support for the scheme to hand over operations of American ports to a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates. John McCain’s recent actions, I concluded, suggest that he may not be a moderate after all.

Then I took a look at Senator McCain’s broader legislative record, and what I found astonished me. In our legislative scorecard of the US Senate, Senator McCain is shown to have supported progressive legislation only 8 percent of the time, while McCain supported right wing legislation 75 percent of the time. That’s not a moderate record. It’s a record of right wing extremism.

It turns out that we’re not the only ones catching on to the fraud behing the John McCain moderate hype. Over at the Down With Tyranny Blog, there’s a good discussion of the issue of McCain’s false moderation, which is then amended by a comment carrying an op-ed column by Paul Krugman published in the New York Times yesterday, coming to the same conclusion. Krugman calls McCain The Right’s Man.

It’s a coincidence that three separate people came to the same conclusion about John Mccain on the same day, but it shouldn’t come as a surprise. Just a tiny bit of digging into the substance of John McCain’s political career makes it clear that McCain is every bit as much the right winger that George W. Bush is.

For that reason, we’ve added a new section to our No Republicans for President in 2008 political shop. It’s called, simply, Not John McCain for President in 2008. We’ve just started adding to our selection there this morning, but it’s growing fast, so check back soon for more anti-McCain items.

Thanks to Irregular Times for printing Russ Feingold’s resolution to censure Bush.

To the Senate Democrats, thanks for nothing. All the promises the Democrats have given us that, if we just compromise here and there, the Democrats will stand up for us, were just plain lies.

George W. Bush does not have the support of the American people. Why won’t the Democrats respond when he breaks the law?

Bush has declared that he has the right to overrule the law whenever he thinks it’s necessary, but that’s not what the Constitution says. What Bush is trying to do is throw the Constitution out the window, and make the power of the Congress irrelevant.

Only Russ Feingold has the decency and strength of moral character to do the right thing and take a firm stand against Bush’s crimes. Only Feingold has the courage to say NO when Bush breaks the law to use the power of the government against the American people.

No other Senator is coming to Feingold’s side. Not one single Democrat.

John Kerry promised to serve us, but he has failed us. Barack Obama made a pretty speech in 2004, but he is failing us in 2006. Hillary Clinton is failing us. Barbara Boxer is failing us.

Every single member of the United States Senate is taking sides with George W. Bush against the American people.

Why? Because they’re afraid. These Democrats are afraid that if they actually stand for something, they might lose an election. And to them, that’s the worst thing of all. They’re happy to let American liberty wither, just so long as they can keep winning elections.

They’re creeps. These Democrats are out and out creeps, and I’m not going to stand for it any longer.

I will work like hell for Russ Feingold for President in 2008, but any other Democrat who failed to stand up when called to duty? They might as well be Republicans, and they will not get my support.

To: Senator Barack Obama, Senator Richard J. Durbin
Subj: Censure of President
Cc: Irregular Times

Dear Sir,

The President of the United States has violated the Constitution, the law and his oath of office. The prompt condemnation of his illegal wiretapping of American citizens can send a message to him and the world that the American people find such actions intolerable.

I urge you to censure President George W. Bush through your support of S RES 398.

---

I finished with time to spare. How about you?    

Today was the day. I found out my wife has been assigned to a hospital in Columbus, Ohio for her medical residency. We’ll be making the move in June, which leaves us relatively little time to learn more about Columbus, find a place to live, get our son enrolled in an elementary school, move and unpack.

I sure could use your help. What do you know about Columbus, OH? What are your favorite hip Columbus neighborhoods? What are the most affordable places to live? Which neighborhoods combine the two? Which are the great public elementary schools, and which ones are poorly run?

This is a chance for Columbus lovers, Columbus haters, and those who just know a lot about Columbus to share their strong feelings or knowledge about the city. I’ll listen intently to what you have to say; since I’ve never been into the city itself, your knowledge will be a strong guide.

Thanks.

P.S. Can you say “swing state”? Boy, that part is definitely going to be fun.

Progressive America, we have been been putting up with fools in the Democratic leadership for too long. It’s time to fight back, and take back the Democratic Party from the right wing, Bush-loving, namby pamby, spineless, career politicians.

Here’s a quick test: When I say Bush-loving, namby pamby, spineless Democrat, who is the first person that pops into your head?

Recent medical research has shown that 9 out of 10 Democrats will give the following response: Senator Joseph Lieberman.

Admit it. Joe Lieberman makes your skin crawl. From the minute that George W. Bush took office, Lieberman has played lap dog to the Republicans. Roll over, Joe! they say. And Joe Lieberman rolls over, happy, with his tail wagging, hoping for a little doggie treat from Bill Frist. You know who has endorsed Joe Lieberman for re-election to the Senate this year? Republicans!

What would you give to see Joseph Lieberman out of office at the end of this year? That’s not a rhetorical question.

There is a genuine progressive Democrat running a very strong campaign to take the Democratic nomination for Senate away from Joseph Lieberman this year. His name is Ned Lamont.

The first thing you’ll read when you get to the Ned Lamont web site is this: “I am running for the US Senate because Connecticut deserves a Senator who will stand up to the Bush administration” Have you ever heard words like those coming out of the mouth of Joseph Lieberman? No, not once.

When Joseph Lieberman heard about Bush’s program to spy against American citizens without any search warrants or any legal restraint, he did nothing. Lieberman has declared that he will never sign Russ Feingold’s resolution to censure President Bush for breaking the law. Lieberman is more interested in defending George W. Bush than he is interested in defending the American people.

Ned Lamont won’t betray us in that way. In his announcement speech, Ned Lamont made it clear what he thinks of the NSA spy program against Americans. He referred to it with the phrase “President George Bush’s illegal wiretaps”.

If you’re sick and tired of Joseph Lieberman betraying the progressive base of the Democratic Party, then do something about it. Go and visit Ned Lamont’s campaign web site and volunteer or make a donation. He’s running against an incumbent with powerful friends in the Republican Party, and he needs our help. Then, get yourself a Ned Lamont for Senate bumper sticker to show that you’re in solidarity with the movement to stop Joseph Lieberman from wrecking the Democratic Party.

Two rallies were held today in Toronto concerning the continuing provincial college strike. Professors marched on the Ministry of Colleges with signs and placards proclaiming their demands for smaller classrooms, fewer hours, and more money (both for themselves and for the colleges). Meanwhile, outside the provincial government buildings at Queen’s Park, students held their own demonstration during which they dramatised their anger at being treated like pawns in the ongoing dispute by wearing large chess pieces on their heads. While the issues being raised by the teachers are undoubtedly important and cannot be dismissed, I think it was the students’ rally which raised the more pertinent question: “Where the heck does one buy giant chess-hats?”

As it turns out, the biggest source of giant chess-hats is MegaChess, which claims to provide the largest collection of big chess sets, chessboards and chess-hats in the world.

Their prices are a bit steep — king and queen hats cost $49 apiece and even a lowly pawn will put you out $13 (US) — but you really can’t put a price on the pleasure of seeing people wearing giant horse heads, can you?

Of course MegaChess, as its name implies, is not merely about gigantic chess fashion; its mandate concerns chess in any of its gargantuan forms including fiberglass, plastic, plaster, foam and even balloons (not recommended for windy days).

The real issue, however, is not the chess-hats themselves, but rather the use to which the Toronto college students put them, and whether or not other unusual fashion accessories could be similarly employed in political protest.

Naturally your first thought, like my own, is probably: “Clown shoes!” Their very nature makes them tailor-made for expressing certain kinds of civic discontent. Jolly Walkers, for instance, offers several styles of Jester shoes which couldn’t help but send the right message at any rally decrying political buffoonery, while for protests against increased taxes or decreased budgets, the Fancy Dress Costume Shop has a pair of raggedy oversized clown shoes complete with oversized toes sticking out through the front.

Meanwhile, with mad cow disease and the bird flu making the rounds, what better way to protest government action or inaction than by wearing hats made of meat? Unlike chess-hats or clown shoes, these can be made at home using little more than a pound of ground beef. Instructions are available from Hats of Meat.

Ultimately, of course, the most versatile, and relevant accessory is a white bandana. The purity of the protest is represented by its colour, the simplicity of the protest is represented by its plainness, and the futility of the protest is represented by tying it on a stick and waving it.

Yesterday, Peregrin Wood noted a growing controversy in an Upstate New York congressional race. On Friday, the incumbent Republican there, Sherwood Boehlert, announced his retirement. The district, which reaches from the Adirondacks all the way down into the Finer Lakes region, is now open and up for grabs - Bush/Cheney only won the district with 53 percent of the votes in 2004. So, national attention is rivetted on the race.

Peregrin noted that Democrats in the district are beginning to become concerned that one of the three Democratic candidates in that district, Michael Arcuri, is not answering questions about his position on abortion. Many are beginning to speculate that Michael Arcuri identifies himself as Pro-Life (or as some would have it, anti-choice). So, discussions on the controversy seem to be popping up all over the web - even among Republicans.

However, there seems to be another big controversy brewing in the 24th District. Is the national Democratic Party inappropriately trying to interfere with the Democratic primary there? Some local Democrats think so.

The controversy began with an unwise slip of the tongue by Rahm Emanuel, an Illinois Democrat who is chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Emanuel quipped that one of the three Democratic candidates for the congressional seat, Michael Arcuri, was his recruit. It seems that some Democrats in the 24th district have the quaint notion that they should be recruiting their own candidates.

In the 24th District, as in most places across America, there were numerous pro-peace marches yesterday. At these various marches, more than one speech was given denouncing Rahm Emanuel’s move to appoint Michael Arcuri to be the official pick.

Was it wrong for Emanuel to have moved so fast to push Arcuri over the other two Democratic candidates - both of whom seem to be making a strong effort? Well, functionally speaking, the maneuver did not create the positive reaction Emanuel and Arcuri were both hoping for.

Many people are noting that Michael Arcuri has only been campaigning for a little over one week at this point, and has not articulated his positions on the issues in any kind of detail. It does seem to me unwise for the DCCC to try to pre-empt an open Democratic primary in the district when Arcuri remains such a mystery.

The abortion issue is just one that could derail the Arcuri campaign. Arcuri’s position on the Iraq War is suspiciously close to the position promoted by George W. Bush. I’d like to know if Michael Arcuri did anything to oppose the Iraq War before it began back in 2003, if he remained silent on the issue, or if he went along with the pro-war bandwagon. He’s a public official, so he must have made some statement on the war at the time.

Of course, Rahm Emanuel and the DCCC cannot legally do anything to force the other Democratic candidates, Les Roberts and Bruce Tytler, to drop out of the race. In fact, if Roberts or Tytler were to drop out of the race in reaction to the “recruit” comment, angry Democratic voters would have no one to blame but Roberts and Tytler. These candidates have announced their intention to run for the Democratic nomination, and they owe it to their supporters to stay in the race until the primary election is over.

Some Democrats are so eager to win against Republicans these days that it has become fashionable to say that primary elections are a problem, a trouble, a burden that must be overcome. Certainly, democracy is not the most direct approach to government. As George W. Bush has mentioned, dictatorship would be easier.

For me, the issue is not what is easy. The issue is what’s right. The right thing to do is to allow the Democrats in Boehlert’s old district make their own choice for a nominee. Let the DCCC and Rahm Emanuel come in after the primary - which is still six months away. The last thing we need is for the national Democratic Party to spend its money to help Democrats fight other Democrats. The candidates can do that very well on their own.

The LDS conception of God
I apologize for any ambiguities or inaccuracies in this essay. I wrote it in one draft. If you catch any problems, note them in the comments and I’ll happily comment or revise the entry. A quick point–I am deliberately eschewing the term “Mormon” because for some it carries pejorative connotations. The Church is called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Saints, so instead of the term “Mormon” I’ll use the common abbreviation LDS.
What follows is certainly not intended to be anti-Mormon in any sense. I have no intention of misrepresenting the LDS conception of God. And I will not stoop to “straw-men” nor hyperbolic science fiction allusions à la Erich von Däniken as some anti-Mormon literature is wont to do. Furthermore, I’m not arguing that the LDS view is wrong because it is inconsistent with classical theism. I reject the view that the LDS church is not Christian, and though there are non-trivial differences in the different conceptions of the nature of God, I don’t think this speaks to the question of whether “Mormons” are true Christians.
In a post a few days ago I made a comment something like “The LDS conception of God is that He is somewhat less infinite and eternal than the God of classical theism.” My purpose in writing this diary entry is to explain what I meant by that comment.
1. I’ll start by very briefly comparing and contrasting the definitions of God as found in LDS theology and classical theology. I certainly understand there will be subtle differences between theological traditions, so I’m trying to leave the definition open enough to include the Catholic and Protestant conceptions (and probably Muslim and Jewish interpretations too
One of the most important things to understand about LDS theology is that humans have the potential to become Gods. We are gods in embryo, so to speak. If we live faithfully, then in the next life we will be in the same position that our God is now. Lorenzo Snow (5th President/Prophet of the Church) put it succinctly: “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.”
This first part of the couplet indicates that God has not always been God. God was once mortal, and became God in much the same way we can. This indicates that there was a God that was our God’s God, and so on.
Joseph Smith (founder of the LDS church), in his first vision (contained in “The Pearl of Great Price,” considered scripture along with the Bible and Book of Mormon) learned that God the Father and Jesus the Son, two distinct persons, have physical bodies.
1.1 God is one. I find this to be the least controversial differences. The LDS church rejects the notion of the trinity, and understands God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Ghost to be three distinct personalities.
1.2 God is an omni-God
1.2.1 Omnipotent. Simply, this means that God can anything except the logically impossible. Having become God, God gained His power somehow. On some interpretations of the Book of Mormon (e.g. Alma 42:13), some LDS believe that God is in a precarious position, and if He were to make any mistakes, He would cease to be God. i.e. God’s power is not “omni” but contingent.
1.2.2 Omniscient. God knows everything that is true–past, present and future. His knowledge is not contingent on anything. The LDS God, having become God, was not always “omniscient.” His knowledge is contingent in that (i) it was accumulated, and (ii) may also depend on the nature of the planet on which he resides.
1.2.3 Omnipresent. The LDS God resides in a particular physical space and time.
2. My next point is about a crucial ambiguity in LDS theology. Just how much does our God have jurisdiction over? If our God lived a mortal existence prior to His exaltation, then there were, we’d assume, others that were also faithful and were likewise exalted to God-hood. Is the universe sliced up for generations of Gods? Perhaps each solar system, galaxy, or cluster of galaxies each has their own God? More reasonably, perhaps there is a multi-verse—multiple Big Bangs, and each has their own deity? Regardless of which option one prefers, our God is omni, or our God is supreme only relative to us. God is merely relatively supreme.
3. Finally, there are some very interesting and potentially convincing arguments for the existence of God that arise from the philosophers and theologians of classical theism. I’m thinking specifically of the Cosmological argument from St. Thomas Aquinas and the Ontological argument from St. Anselm (and Descartes). Because of the limited nature of the LDS, these arguments cannot apply the LDS God—leading me that the God of the LDS faith and the God of Classical theism are not one and the same.
3.1. Aquinas’ cosmological argument. Aquinas offered five cosmological arguments, I am going to consider only the first two—in fact, because of their similarity, I’m going to conflate them and treat them like they are one.
Aquinas argued that nothing happens without a cause. Nothing moves without an efficient cause. So for something to happen now (at time t) something must have happened before it (at time t-1). For something to have happened at t-1, something must have happened at t-2, and so on.
If we follow the sequence, it cannot go back into infinity; we HAVE TO find a first cause. If we find no first cause, then there was no second cause, no third cause, etc, and there can be no current events.
So there must be a first cause, a first event. God is that uncaused cause—the first event.
Now the question—what does this tell us about the LDS conception of God? Nothing at all. The LDS conception of God is not that He is the first cause, the unmoved mover. “Our” God is simply one in that sequence of events and causes. The cosmological argument might convince us that there was a first God in the generations of Gods, but that’s not a question that is seriously discussed in LDS theology.
3.2. Anselm’s ontological argument. One can simply examine the contents of one’s mind and find a priori proof of God’s existence.
The argument asks you to imagine the greatest possible being. Imagine that which nothing greater can be imagined. Such a being has all attributes to an infinite degree. Not just the smartest, most powerful, tallest and handsomest, but having the relevant attributes to infinity.
Now, in the same way that it would be logically impossible to imagine infinity minus one (try, you can’t), you cannot imagine God lacking any of those attributes. Anselm holds that existence is one of those characteristics, so it is logically impossible to conceive of God not existing.
(if you don’t understand, sorry, my intention is not really to adequately explain St. Anselm’s argument, but to emphasize it’s important characteristics.)
So again—to compare the proof to the LDS God. When one imagines the LDS God, He is not the greatest possible being. There are the prior generations of Gods. He is not omniscient nor omnipotent, as His knowledge and power are both contingent. “Our” God may be the greatest relative to our jurisdiction, but is not the greatest possible being.
3.3. The arguments of Aquinas and Anselm do not negate the possibility that the LDS God exists, but they do not offer any support for Him either. Arguments for the existence of God as found in classical theism simply refer to a different being than the LDS God.

Despite the incontrovertible evidence that there is no government to petition, you and many others continue to advocate “calling” or “writing” to these fictional characters.
There exists today, not a scintilla of evidence that such acts have any consequence, good or bad, yet you continue to do this. This constitutes irrational behavior making such people suspect of some form of dementia.
Clearly the Republicrats will not sign on to a resolution to censure George Bush, and the Republicans certainly won’t. Yet, on you go. I suppose if it makes you feel better, and does no harm, then enjoy yourselves.
The sad aspect of this behavior is that it distracts people from the facts they desperately need to face. Soon, if not already, the US will reach a point where it cannot be saved. Most certainly not in the eyes of the world.
The US is one of Three World Superpowers. The US absolutely cannot defeat them, on the field of battle, or in the boardroom. The days of US bullying other countries, especially small defenseless ones are over.
The US is taking a thrashing from a small, poor, third world country after spending nearly a trillion dollars, employing 20,000 mercenaries, using Iraqis against Iraqis, and other forms of absurd activities.
Some eight billion dollars has vanished into thin air. Can’t be accounted for. Certainly this doesn’t sound like a force anywhere in the vicinity of victory.
Despite this, the US continues to throw threats around as shells from sunflower seeds. The US economy, or at least the one that most of us live with, is in the toilet. Countries world wide are dumping the US dollar as a reserve currency in favor of the Euro. A country becomes worthless when it’s currency dies.
Despite all this and much, MUCH more, People continue to engage in clearly fruitless endeavors shown by history to be ineffective unless backed by the sure knowledge that should the opposition refuse to a