Picture
Sheldon Killpack’s recent DUI arrest created a lot a buzz on Utah talk radio shows these last few days. On January 15th a Utah Highway patrolman spotted Killpack driving in an erratic fashion in the Millcreek area. Killpack was pulled over, failed a field sobriety test, refused a breathalyzer test, and was booked into the Salt Lake County Jail.

What is so shocking about this arrest?

Killpack is Utah’s Republican Senate Majority leader (he has since resigned).

Killpack is a member of the LDS church.

Killpack is a married man with 4 kids, ages 11 to 20.

Killpack’s father was killed by a drunk driver several years ago.

Killpack has been an advocate for Mother’s Against Drunk Driving

People are scratching their heads and asking, “Why!?”

As a psychologist and someone who has studied the characteristics of addiction, I’ll give an answer.

Addiction (or dependence as it is often called in clinical circles) has two dimensions. There is (a) physical dependence and (b) psychological dependence. Most people who become addicted to a substance, food, lifestyle, and behavior must learn to cope with these two facets of dependence. 

Physical dependence is short-lived, in most cases lasting only a few days to a few weeks. In the case of alcohol/ethanol dependence, physical dependence is short-lived, usually ending after the ethanol has completely left the body. If Killpack wasn’t drinking on a frequent basis, then I doubt that physical dependence was his problem.

It is more likely that Killpack has a serious problem with psychological dependence. Psychological dependence is a strong emotional attachment to a substance or activity. Psychological dependence can last a very long time, sometimes years and even a lifetime. Its length and severity varies significantly from one person to another. This type of dependence is what causes people to relapse into old habits. 

They say, “Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic.” This saying is a stark warning of the dangers of psychological dependence. In the case of Killpack, it was apparently strong enough to make a politically successful conservative LDS family man screw up in a major way. 

I wish him all the best in overcoming his problem.
 
 
Picture
There is a man who once had a drinking problem and a foul mouth problem. But he has two redeeming values that made up for his personal shortcomings – he believes in the sanctity of marriage and he believes in living within your means. It was the latter, his commitment to fiscal conservatism, that catapulted him from a local news reporter to one of the most successful provincial premiers Canada has ever known. 

(For those unfamiliar with Canadian politics, a province is the equivalent of a state, and a provincial premier is the equivalent of a state’s governor.)

During the early 1990s when most Canadian provinces where growing their provincial debts with massive deficit spending, a different kind of politician ascended to the premier’s office in Alberta. His name is Ralph Klein. “Ralph”, as he preferred to be called, campaigned on the promises of cutting deficit spending and repaying Alberta’s 23 billion dollar debt. 

After he was elected premier in 1992, Ralph quickly went to work cutting wasteful government programs. He reduced spending on the arts and on burgeoning social programs for welfare recipients. He even offered to buy bus passes for welfare recipients who wanted to move to other provinces with more generous welfare programs. Ralph closed expensive and outdated medical facilities, laid off unneeded health care workers, and even rolled back the salaries of all government funded employees a few percentage points, including his own. 

I was a student in Alberta when all this was happening. I saw an old hospital in Lethbridge, Alberta named St. Marks get torn down because it was an old building and services could be absorbed by a newer medical facility nearby. I worked in social services with handicapped adults to pay my bills, and heard many people at work gripe about Ralph’s policies of fiscal restraint. Ralph got on a lot of people’s nerves with his unusual ways, but I sensed that what he was doing was good for Alberta, and history has shown this to be true.

True to his campaign promises, Ralph eliminated deficit spending and, in 2005, paid off Alberta’s 23 billion dollar debt. Thanks to Ralph’s fiscal conservatism, Alberta is now one of the most prosperous provinces in Canada. It is the only province without a provincial sales tax. His brand of fiscal conservatism has spread to other provinces that are trying to come to terms with deficit spending and massive debts.

Finally, rather than becoming a life long politician, Ralph voluntarily stepped down as premier in 2006. He went to the premier’s office to bring fiscal responsibility to Alberta. Once that mission was accomplished, he resigned.

Ralph Klein was an unusual politician. I wish there were more like him, especially during these times of life-long politicians and out-of-control deficit spending.
 
 
When we were kids we all learned that it is wrong to speak half truths you’re caught with your hand in the cookie jar, well, all of us that is except for the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano.

On December 25, 2009 a Nigerian terrorist boarded a Northwest airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. He paid cash, did not check in luggage, and apparently did not have a valid passport (a required document for travel on all US bound flights). As the plane approached Detroit, the terrorist tried to ignite a bomb hidden in his underwear. Thankfully his ignition source (a syringe full of acid) failed. The bomb simply smoldered. A quick thinking Dutch passenger subdued the terrorist and thwarted additional attempts to ignite the bomb. If the bomb had gone off, experts say it could have blown a hole in the fuselage or ignited the plane’s fuel tank, killing everyone on board. 

Letting a known Nigerian terrorist suspect onto a US bound flight without a passport is bad enough. Seeing our Homeland Security Secretary hum and haw about what happened makes everything worse. 

On CNN Napolitano claimed that disaster was averted because “the system worked.” In Napolitano’s mind the working system is a failed ignition source and a brave passenger. If the Homeland Security Secretary’s system is a failed ignition source and a brave passenger then we are all in trouble. I assume that when she stated that the system worked she was not referring to the failure to locate the bomb during screening, to allowing a suspected terrorist onto the plane, and to allowing someone without a passport onto the plane. 

Napolitano mislead the American people while a crisis was unfolding. In a way her actions are akin to a child telling her mom that she is not taking a cookie while her hand is in the cookie jar. 

Friends, psychological science has shown that people are surprisingly resilient during crises and catastrophes. During tragic moments like Pearl Harbor and 9-11, people pull together and try to make things better. Such behavior is a testament to the values of hope and prosperity underlying the American collective psyche.  

However, there is no greater threat to hope and prosperity in a time of crisis than poor leadership. During times of crisis we look to our leaders for guidance and inspiration, but when someone like Napolitano “reads” a crisis completely wrong, there is no guidance and inspiration; rather there is frustration and fear. 

The Secretary of Homeland Security should have publicly thanked the Dutchman, declared that something went wrong, and then reassured the American public that she is going to find out what went wrong and fix it! This is the kind of leadership the American public deserves in a time of crisis.
 
 
Harmonizing scientific and religious truths is a noble pursuit. Harmonization is fairly straight forward when scientific theories and gospel doctrines are in relative agreement. Challenges to harmonization arise when gospel truths and current scientific theories disagree. Disagreements will always exist for the simple fact that science is an imperfect and changing endeavor. Progress in science means that our best scientific theories are never 100% consistent with gospel truths. Science changes – gospel truths do not. 

When differences arise, should we trust religion or should we trust science? It depends. If religious truth claims come through direct revelation such as scripture and revelation, then we should definitely go with religion. On the other hand, if religious truth claims come from theological conjecturing, of which there is plenty, then science may be right and religion may be wrong. In any event, properly interpreted revealed truth always trumps science. 

Here are some examples.

If science claims that the sun will expand and eventually destroy the earth, we know that they are wrong because modern day revelation tells us that the earth will not be completely destroyed. Rather it will be celestialized and receive a paradisiacal glory.    

If science claims that we need to restrict population growth or else we will overpopulate the earth and exhaust our resources, we know that they are wrong because the Lord has declared otherwise. Elder Russell M. Nelson recently reminded Mormon military surgeons and students in Bethesda, Maryland of this revelation when he responded to concerns about overpopulation by saying that “there is room and enough to spare.” (Church News, Nov. 18, 2009)

And if science claims that Adam and Eve’s immortal bodies were created through macroevolutionary processes, we know that it’s wrong. If macroevolution was indeed used to create Adam and Eve’s bodies, then their bodies were created by two processes, namely natural selection and random mutation in the genome. Yet revelation tells us that the creation of the first man and woman was purposeful and directed. It was not left to the vicissitudes of undirected, random processes as orthodox neo-darwinism supposes. 

Should we throw out scientific theories that disagree with revealed truth? No. As mentioned above, science is an imperfect and changing endeavor. What is important is that scientists shake off the shackles of theoretical dogma and earnestly seek truth. If they do, science will self-correct and steer toward the absolute truth of things as found in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.
 
 
There are a wide variety of scientific beliefs among LDS scholars. Generally this is a good thing. A variety of perspectives on scientific-doctrinal issues for which the truth has not been revealed facilitates discussion and discovery. A true scholar entertains diverse viewpoints.

When Paul was teaching the Greeks on Mars Hill, many left the theatre when he taught them doctrines that they disagreed with. Do you remember who stayed behind to hear the rest of Paul’s sermon? Those who felt the spirit in Paul’s teachings stayed, and philosophers who were curious about Paul’s “new” ideas stayed. 

In any mormon scholarly debate, we should be willing to listen to credible diverse viewpoints. We should be less like the people who left the stadium in a huff when Paul said something they disagreed with, and more like the philosophers who were willing to hear Paul because he had something new to offer. 

Intellectual debate is the essential to scientific-theological discovery. Scholarship is a social activity. Progress is made when credible viewpoints are freely exchanged in the marketplace of ideas. Viewpoints that are founded on facts, reason, and a sound interpretation of scripture should be welcomed in the marketplace of ideas, even if we disagree with them.

Nothing kills a vigorous debate faster than hostile language. Name calling and insults like “You do not know what you are talking about” have one thing in common: they are attacks on personal character. Attempting to discredit people's viewpoints by assailing their character or personal beliefs is called an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem attacks usually result when people respond in haste or when they feel frustration over not being able to persuade people to think differently. An ad hominem attack is not a legitimate argument. 

In scholarly debates it is not appropriate to call people jerks, idiots, or intellectual midgets etc. just because they hold different viewpoints. Even if we believe someone is a jerk, we should refrain from using such language for the simple fact that it stifles debate. 

I am not perfect when it comes to communicating in a scholarly manner. On a few occasions I have written something in haste and later changed my text when I realized the language was too harsh. (Posting a harsh comment on someone else’s blog and not being able to take it back is a real bummer – it’s up there for the whole world to read over and over again.) 

Here’s a thought that helps me stay cool in lively exchanges. It is that a scholarly debate is more about exchanging ideas than it is about changing ideas.
 
 
Picture
Somebody screwed up.

On November 29th, 2009 an Arkansas parolee with a long criminal history walked into a coffee shop near Lakewood, Washington, pulled a gun, and killed four police officers. 

Dead are officers Mark Renninger (39 years), Tina Griswold (40 years), Ron Owens (37 years), and Greg Richards (42 years). The Police chief said that “They were good people. They were great cops, [and] they will truly be missed.” Why did they die? 

Somebody screwed up.

They also had families – spouses and children. This woman is now a widow, and the little boy in her arms is without a dad. He no longer has a father who will teach him to work, learn, love, play, and to be a man. Why has this family been devastated?
Picture
Somebody screwed up.

The murderer, Maurice Clemmons, should never have been on the street. In 1989 when he was 17 years old, Clemmons was convicted in Little Rock for aggravated robbery and other charges. He was sentenced to 108 years. While in prison, he broke prison rules more than 24 times – sometimes violently. Shortly after being paroled in 2000, he was convicted of robbery in Ouachita County in 2001. He was paroled again in 2004. He should have been in prison.

Who screwed up?

In my opinion, Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, is largely to blame. Huckabee commuted Clemmons’ sentence in 2000.  County Prosecutor Larry Jegley opposed Clemmons' parole in 2000 and 2004, but pressure from Huckabee won Clemmons’ release. Said Jegley: “[If Clemmons] had stayed locked up like the jury wanted him, we wouldn't even be having this discussion."
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/01/huckabees-clemmons-pardon_n_375020.html).

It appears that Huckabee has demonstrated poor judgment when offering clemency.  Huckabee pardoned or reduced sentences for 1033 convicted criminals during his 10.5 years as governor of Arkansas - that is 2 times more pardons and sentence reductions granted by all three previous governors combined (Bill Clinton, Frank White and Jim Guy Tucker) over a 17.5 year period! In one famous case, Huckabee commuted the sentence of Wayne DuMond, a man arrested for murder in 1972, sexual assault in 1973, rape in 1976, and rape in 1984. In the late 1990s, Huckabee commuted DuMond’s prison sentence and DuMond was released in 1999. Two years later he raped and killed Sarah Andrasek who was pregnant.  

Prosecutors in Arkansas claim that Huckabee “was more inclined to release or reduce the sentences of prisoners if he had direct contact with them or was lobbied by those close to him.”  Furthermore, convicts like Clemmons who appealed to Huckabee's Christian sensitivities were more likely to be released. It appears that convicts who demonstrated a “change of heart” and involvement with religious ministers in prison won sympathy from Huckabee, even if their crimes were violent.
(http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2009/11/30/mike_huckabee/index.html).

Why did Huckabee screw up?

It may be that Huckabee, a southern Baptist minister, screwed up because he does not understand Christian forgiveness. Forgiveness is a spiritual phenomenon, not a behavioral phenomenon. Forgiveness is sincerely letting go of the animosity and anger. It is a willingness to accept the offender as a child of God, as someone who is loved by the Creator. Notice that there is no action or doing in this definition of forgiveness. The actions and behaviors that ensue from forgiveness are not forgiveness in and of themselves; they are the byproducts of forgiveness that may or may not arise. 

My guess is that Huckabee thinks that forgiveness is defined by action. He probably thinks that forgiveness is releasing and making free again, before the price of sin is paid. If he does, he is wrong. It is possible to forgive while demanding justice. This is how God works. He is merciful and extends forgiveness to all of us, yet His mercy and forgiveness always satisfy the demands of justice. In other words, a price is paid for every sin. There is no free lunch in heaven and mercy is not allowed to rob justice.

In a manner of speaking, Huckabee has offered free lunches (prison releases) without satisfying the demands of justice (requiring convicts to pay their debts to society). Perhaps he fails to realize that it is possible to forgive while, at the same time, keeping dangerous criminals off the streets until their debt to society is paid in full. 

I may be wrong about Huckabee's understanding of forgiveness and mercy - I hope I am. Whatever the case may be, releasing violent criminals like Clemmons was wrong.
 
 
Picture
Recently I was doing some Christmas shopping in the toy section at a department store. A two-year-old girl was riding a tricycle that she found in the nearby bike isle. Her mom had finished shopping for toys and was ready to leave. 

The mother told her daughter to get off the bike. The girl did not want to get off; she was having too much fun. The mom calmly told her to get off a couple more times, but the girl would not. Then the mom told her daughter that if she did not get off the bike, the sales associate who was coming down the isle would get mad at her because she was on the bike. (The sales associate did not hear the mom’s warning, nor did the associate care that the child was on the bike.) When the associate got closer the girl screamed, got off the bike, and ran to her mom. Mission accomplished for mom.

I applaud the mother’s patience; she calmly asked her child to get off the bike at least 2-3 times. But I am not sure that I can applaud her for creating a false fear to get her child off the bike. 

Have you seen this sort of thing before? I think the worst example is when parents tell their kids that the cops are going to get them if they do not obey, particularly when the cops could not care less about the kids’ disobedience. Such idle threats create an irrational fear toward police officers. Children should view police as people who protect and help, not people who punish kids for being disobedient toward their parents. I am sure police officers don’t want parents telling their kids things like: “You better get off the swing and into the mini van before that policeman comes over here and arrests you.”

Generally speaking, I think it is wrong to create an irrational fear in kids. As Nephi teaches in the Book of Mormon, young children have tender hearts and minds. While creating a little irrational fear may not seem like a big deal to adults, to a child it may be a big deal. That is why, as a parent, I avoid creating irrational fear in my kids to promote obedience, but it sure gets tricky around Christmas time.

My guess is that most parents have used the old “You better be good or you might get nothing from Santa" at Christmastime. Just last week when my oldest daughter was being disobedient, I started singing the familiar tune, “I’m getting nothing for Christmas, ‘cause  I have been nothing but bad.” She got the message, in an indirect sort of way.

The problem is that when we say it, we never mean it. Kids always get gifts from Santa, even if they’ve been horrible! So does that make “you better be good or you’re getting nothing for Christmas” an idle threat that may induce irrational fear?
 
 
Picture
We live in perilous times. America is under attack from foreign and domestic enemies that want to overthrow the Constitution of the United States. If these enemies had their way they would replace the government with a punitive theocracy and turn back the clock on basic human liberties.

It seems that our military and government are unsure about how to deal with radical Islamic terrorists. May I suggest that we follow the example of Captain Moroni?

Moroni was a Nephite commander who lived around 100 BC. He inspired his troops by telling them that they were fighting for their lands and liberties. Interestingly those are the same things we are fighting for today, but that is where the similarities end.

When it comes to dealing with those who would take away our liberties, the military has adopted an approach very different from the one Moroni adopted.

You see, during a lull in a pivotal battle when Moroni’s forces encircled the insurgents, he told them to put down their weapons and take an oath to never take up arms again. Moroni warned them by saying: “If ye do not this, behold ye are in our hands and I will command my men that they shall fall upon you and inflict the wounds of death in your bodies that ye may become extinct.” He followed it up by saying that when you are dead, “then we will see who shall have power over this people; yea, we will see who shall be brought into bondage.” Kerching!

Did you read that carefully? He did not enroll his troops in sensitivity training so that they could understand the insurgents’ culture. Instead he threatened the insurgents with death if they would not enter into a pact of non-aggression.

A little while later when the leader of the insurgents became angry with Moroni, he rushed forward, sword high in the air, to kill Moroni. One of Moroni’s soldiers stepped forward and swung his sword at the leader’s sword, breaking it off at the hilt. After the leader was disarmed and detained, the Nephite soldier didn’t read him his rights and gently put on handcuffs. No! He scalped the leader, put the scalp on the end of his sword and yelled at the insurgents: “Even as this scalp has fallen to the earth . . . so shall ye fall to the earth except ye will deliver up your weapons of war and depart with a covenant of peace.” By the way, Moroni didn’t court martial the soldier for harming the murderous detainee.

And when an enemy within, a Nephite traitor named Amalickiah, threatened to overthrow the government and liberties of the Nephites, what did Moroni do? He didn’t ask for leniency toward Amalickiah and his followers in the name of cultural diversity. And he didn’t give them a lawyer and a trial. No, Moroni’s men hunted down that traitor and 86’ed him while he was sleeping in his tent. And what happened to the followers of the traitor Amalickiah? Those who “would not enter into a covenant to support the cause of freedom . . . he caused to be put to death.”

If a Moroni-like commander were in charge of the US military today, I wonder if charges would have ever been brought against those 3 navy seals for punching the insurgent who killed and mutilated the bodies of 4 private American contractors in Falluja back in 2004. Probably not.

And if a Moroni-like commander were in charge of the US military today, I wonder if the traitor jihadist who massacred 13 of brave soldiers and wounded several others at Fort Hood would have been given 3 square meals, a lawyer, and the right to an insanity defense. Probably not. I think a Moroni-like commander would have already given him a speedy military trial and sent him to the firing range.

Now I am not suggesting that we should act harshly toward all captured enemy combatants. In many cases compassion and leniency are warranted, but sometimes it is not. It seemed that Moroni knew when to be harsh; it seems that our military commanders do not.

That harsh actions came from a man who was “of perfect understanding,” a man “who did not delight in bloodshed,” and a man who was “firm in the faith of Christ” should cause us to reflect for a moment. Perhaps, under certain circumstances, harshness towards those who would destroy our liberties is warranted.
 
 
Picture
The only thing worse than mass murder at a US military base is mass murder at a US military base followed by unwise comments from the nation’s top general. In my opinion, General Casey’s comments following the tragic events at Fort Hood made the situation worse, not better.

General Casey said: “As horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.” In other words, taking action against potentially hostile members of the military because of their radical religious beliefs and extreme ideologies is worse than mass murder at Fort Hood. 

It appears the nation’s top general has jumped aboard the runaway diversity bandwagon. The diversity bandwagon is the belief that we must be tolerant of all races, ideologies, and religions even if it means putting our own nation’s security and morality at risk. Enough already. Has Casey forgotten his history? Desperate times call for desperate measures.

During the early stages of WWII thousands of Japanese Americans were rounded up and put into camps. Sounds extreme, doesn’t it? But for many Americans living back then it wasn’t extreme. Were we living back then? Were we old enough to remember the fear the Japanese nation caused in America? If not, then perhaps we should not pass judgment on the government’s decision. Today we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight which is that the camps were not needed. Yet we cannot fault the US government for taking what it saw as appropriate action against Japanese Americans during a time of national crisis. 

During the mid 1800’s the US government sent thousands of soldiers to Utah to prevent Mormon uprisings. Johnson’s army settled in a valley southwest of Lehi called Camp Floyd. 20/20 hindsight says that the army was not needed, yet we cannot fault the US government for taking action. The government thought the Mormons presented a national security risk. I’ve visited Camp Floyd several times. When I look at the graves of the soldiers who died there during their stay at the camp, I harbor no resentment as a Mormon. They were doing what they felt was needed given the circumstances. 

Today there are radical factions of Islam that are hostile toward the US government and the US Constitution. Given current circumstance, I think it appropriate to seek out members of the US military who might be sympathetic toward these radical factions. Those who harbor hostile feelings or actively affiliate with groups that are hostile toward the US should be retained until they are no longer a threat. Let history decided whether such actions were necessary. For now we’ll act in the interest of national security.

Anytime members of a particular race, religion, nationality, and ideology repeatedly demonstrate hostility toward the US government and the Constitution, it has given up freedoms and must subject itself to closer scrutiny. However, rather than take such tough measures, General Casey wants to move forward with the blinders on as if there are no problems. According to Casey’s bandwagon diversity, searching out potentially seditious soldiers is worse than the slaughter of American soldiers at a military base.   
 
 
I had a sports psychologist professor in university who specialized in sports aggression. I wonder what he would say about the BYU ladies’ soccer game against the University of New Mexico on Nov. 5, 2009.

I played a lot of high school sports and college basketball. I’ve seen a lot of aggressive play, but nothing I experienced comes close to what happened during this soccer game.  

BYU’s Carly Payne had a slugfest with NM’s Elizabeth Lambert. During the game Lambert moved in close behind Payne. Payne did not take kindly to Lambert being on her back so she gave Lambert a subtle no-look, reverse Bruce Lee elbow punch. Lambert responded with a Karate blow to the back.  
Picture
During another play while Payne was chasing the ball, Lambert came in from behind with a “You’re going down, sucker!” slide check.
Picture
During another play Lambert delivered a Kung Fu sideways punch to Payne’s face. Nasty.
Picture
And just to prove that Lambert was taking on all comers, she took down BYU’s Cassidy Shumway by yanking on her pony tail.
Picture
Picture
I know what my sports psychology professor would say. He would invoke the Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis, which is that people get aggressive when they are frustrated from reaching a goal (BYU was winning during all this). Then he would say, “Where was the referee?!” The ref made no calls during these rough plays. Fortunately the league did not miss the rough play. It suspended Lambert indefinitely. Hopefully she will learn her lesson and return a better player.

Now that you’ve seen the still shots, watch the full video.
 
Google Analytics