Weird Utah: Polygamy Passes State Senate Committee

More proof that Mormonism is not Christianity:  the Utah State Senate approved a bill in committee that will decriminalize polygamy, reducing it from a felony to an infraction.  The premise behind that bill is that it will encourage people (presumably women) in polygamous relationships to come forward when reporting other crimes, and that polygamists are tired of being treated like “second-class citizens.”

Well.  The My Faith Votes post on this bill makes a compelling point against the bill:  “decriminalizing polygamy will give more power to the abusers” and “the act of categorizing it as a mere infraction, with jail time only enforced for additional crimes such as fraud or abuse, sends the message (whether intended or not) that polygamy is a legitimate lifestyle as long as the adults are consenting.”  The latter, I suspect, is the real point.

Everyone knows of Mormonism’s controversial history with polygamy.  In an older, better America, polygamy was not just frowned upon—it was illegal.  Indeed, the young Republican Party was organized to fight slavery and polygamy, which its platform proclaimed “the twin relics of barbarism.”  In order for Utah to enter the Union, it had to do away with polygamy, which was accepted practice in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  It finally did so in 1890.

But now we have an odd situation in which progressive dogma dovetails with a conservative religion.  Progressivism’s successful assaults on traditional, monogamous marriage opened a Pandora’s Box of sexual deviancy.  If gay marriage is acceptable, why not other forms of “marriage”?  At least polygamy has historical foundations, unlike gay marriage, but it’s still a destructive social arrangement.

To be clear, I am intentionally conflating politics in Utah with Mormonism.  The LDS faith dominates the State’s politics, and this bill has support from Republicans.  With the usual acknowledgment that there are always rare exceptions, my premise is that a Republican in Utah is incredibly likely to be a Mormon.

As such, it seems like this bill is old-school Mormonism making a comeback—they can finally undo the indignity (as I suspect some of them see it) the United States forced upon them in 1890, and they can revive their original acceptance of polygamous relationships.

Polygamy is a dangerous institution.  Indeed, the United States today essentially practices informal polygamy in the form of modern dating:  alpha chads dominate the sexual marketplace, while normal guys struggle.  Such is the outcome of polygamy:  wealthy, successful men in traditional polygamous societies kept multiple wives, but most men never had the opportunity to enjoy marriage.

That’s a recipe for disaster.  A stable society needs monogamous, opposite-sex marriages for the vast majority of its people.  It prevents the shiftless shuffling of legions of young, unmarried men.  It also causes the slow, demographic death of a country, and it destabilizes families, leading to a profusion of single motherhood.

Men become simpering betas and sexual mercenaries, hoping for a simulacrum of love.  Women come to expect nothing more than a series of hook-ups and flings, then find themselves pining for the alpha lover of their youths while desperately seeking a pliant beta to raise her kids.  It is a bleak, bleak scenario.

Polygamy merely formalizes a bad system.  It also strips women of dignity, forcing them to participate in harem politics, jockeying for the favor of their man for the benefit of their children.  It brings out the worst in men and women—a man domineeringly controlling his brood, and his women fighting cattily for a crumb of his affection.

Alternatively, a monogamous society creates stability and social harmony.  Children grow up with two parents in the household, gaining important elements from their fathers and their mothers, as each provide something different to their children.

I’ll give the Mormons credit:  they’ve made monogamy work extremely well, and they raise lovely families.  They should stick to it.

And vote out Mitt Romney.

Populists and Elites

This past weekend gave Americans two studies in contrasts, between President Trump and Democratic hopeful Michael Bloomberg.  Contrasting these two men and their attitudes highlights the wide divide between populists and elites.

On the one hand, President Trump made a grand entrance to the Daytona 500, where he served as the iconic race’s grand marshal.  NASCAR is a hugely popular sport among President Trump’s core supporters, so that move was good politics.  But it was also an acknowledgment of the humanity of his supporters, and an endorsement of a key event in their lives.

I’ve never understood the appeal of NASCAR personally (other than the crashes… and then you realize that a real person is inside that hunk of steel, and the thrill quickly vanishes).  But that doesn’t matter.  Millions of Americans love the sport, and my inability or unwillingness to understand or appreciate it doesn’t detract from their enjoyment.  Nor does it mean they’re wrong to enjoy the sport.

That’s the trap most elitists fall into—“if I don’t like something, then it’s the height of philistinism!”  I confess I get this way about rap music, but I can at least articulate an objective case against rap (it lacks melody, its subject matter is often foul and dehumanizing, it is often unsophisticated in its musical structure, etc.).  Nor do I seek to destroy it, even if I believe—sincerely—that it is detrimental to the health of our society.

There’s also a haughty arrogance to most elitists:  they presume that they what they like is nuanced and complex, whereas everything else is simplistic rubbish for rubes.

Such was the case of former New York City Mayor Bloomberg, who ostentatiously proclaimed that farming is a job any moron could do, while information technology work is difficult and requires more “gray matter.”  Here is the quotation from the linked Fox News article:

“You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that,” Bloomberg said during a 2016 appearance at the University of Oxford Saïd Business School. “At one point, 98 percent of the world worked in agriculture, now it’s 2 percent in the United States,” he continued.

Ask any gardener how easy it is to grow even the simplest of plants.  How many of us have killed a potted plant due to lack of watering, or overwatering?

Now, apply that to hundreds of acres of crops, many of which are complex, genetically-engineered supercrops that depend on a deep understanding of agronomy, horticulture, biology, and chemistry.  There’s a reason people go to school for four years to become farmers.

And farming is hard work.  That’s nothing against all the code monkeys out there slaving over a hot C++ compressor (that reference probably dates me, and illustrates my ignorance of coding).  But both professions require focus, attention to detail, and a degree of erudition.

If anything, coding is probably easier.  Lest I indulge in the same arrogance as Bloomberg, just consider how we’re importing Third Worlders (mostly from India) to write code for us (undercutting the ability of native-born Americans to make a good salary in tech).  Indians are bright, hardworking people, but their ability to code well is more the result of relentless focus and intense family and social pressures.  Anyone willing to apply the effort could figure it out.

And it’s not slaving away in a field, sweating every weather forecast, wondering if it will rain too much this winter, or if the late frost does or does not come.  Will a hurricane hit and wipe out an entire crop?  Will hail destroy my barn?  The code monkey’s biggest worry is when his next shipment of Mountain Dew Code Red is coming in, and if he’ll have it in time to help him meet his next deadline.

Regardless, President Trump is the model of respect for Middle America:  he respects the people that work hard, and he respects their interests and traditions.  Michael Bloomberg is an out-of-touch elitist who disdains everyone who doesn’t have enough money to buy the Democratic nomination.

When NeverTrumpers ring their hands over “decorum” and “character,” they should understand that President Trump has shown his character through his actions:  he cares about his voters, and about Americans generally.  Michael Bloomberg only cares about Michael Bloomberg.

New Hampshire Results & Analysis

What a night!  The Democrats in New Hampshire at least know how to run an election.  Those early write-in votes for Bloomberg were red herrings; instead, the old-school red ran away with the most votes and delegates from New Hampshire, with his twinky acolyte nipping at his heels.  Pete Buttigieg still leads Senator Sanders by one delegate thanks to his performance in Iowa (and the possibility of insider rigging).

With two competitions under their belts, the Democratic field is narrowing out rapidly.  Andrew Yang, the pro-math, pro-universal basic income candidate, dropped out early in the evening.  Joe Biden slunk away to South Carolina, where he will make his stand.  Elizabeth Warren, the shrill cat lady in the race, was fairly drubbed.

Amy Klobuchar, the slightly-less shrill, younger cat lady with a fiery temper, managed to come in third, putting her one delegate behind Warren and one delegate ahead of Biden.

Read More »

Red Hot Smokin’ New Hampshire Nights

Last week saw the fiasco that was the Iowa caucuses.  Today the Democratic hopefuls head into the New Hampshire primaries, with Iowa’s results still murky.  It looks like Pete Buttigieg is sitting at thirteen delegates and Bernie Sanders at twelve, per Bing! search results.

After the pandemonium last week, I expect the New Hampshire primaries will run a bit more smoothly.  For one, they’re simple primaries, not Iowa’s convoluted caucus system, which requires voters to stand in parts of a room to represent their vote, then a reshuffling for candidates who don’t reach 15% support in the first round.

Indeed, at least one precinct—a very small town in New Hampshire that votes starting at midnight saw three write-in votes for Michael Bloomberg (out of a total of five votes).  I heard on the radio this morning that another small New Hampshire town cut for Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar.

For another, the Democrats have gotsta be scrambling for a good showing after Iowa.  Of course, the Democratic Party has never been known for its sobering self-reflection, so who knows how they might screw up this round.  If the allegations that they’re trying to block Bernie are true, there’s no telling what kind of shenanigans we could see tonight.

New Hampshire’s results should make for some interesting commentary and analysis tomorrow.  It’s looking like there’s a roughly 30% chance (again, per analysis I heard on the radio) of a brokered convention for the DNC (FiveThirtyEight puts it around 24%).

Read More »

Best SOTU Ever II: Extra Most Bestest

Dang.  Trump just keeps getting better and better.  If you thought last year’s State of the Union Address was good, then listen to THIS:



President Trump turned last night’s State of the Union Address into prime time television.  It was informative, persuasive, and downright entertaining.

Indeed, I can already picture the wags at National Review and other NeverTrump and Trump-skeptical outlets tut-tutting that Trump’s address is “beneath the decorum of the office” and the like.  Talk about a bunch of scrooges.

It was a powerful speech.  Trump started detailing all of the accomplishments of the past few years, with a specific focus on the improved conditions of black America.  That’s a clever way to put the pressure on Democrats:  compared to President Obama’s abysmal economic record, President Trump—so often slandered, unfairly, as a “racist”—has done far more to improve the lives of black Americans.

Read More »

Iowa Caucuses: Disaster on the Prairie

After some uncertainty and a great deal of speculation, the results are in:  incumbent President Donald Trump has won the Iowa Republican caucuses in a landslide victory reminiscent of a Latin American dictator, clinching 97.1% of caucus-goers’ votes.  Honestly, I’m a bit disappointed to see only clinched thirty-nine of the forty available delegates (Bill Weld managed to snag one with his impressive 1.3% vote share).

Oh, wait, you wanted the Democratic caucus results?  Geeze, well, I’m afraid I can’t be of much help.  Regular readers will note that this post is hitting very late in the day for me, and there’s a reason unrelated to Democratic incompetence (and/or the Party’s attempt to rig the caucuses against Bernie).

Read More »

Election Season 2020: Iowa Caucuses

After all the anticipation, it’s finally here—the proper beginning of the 2020 presidential election.  The Iowa caucuses kick off tonight, and there’s no telling how it’s all going to shake out (although it looks like Bernie is on track to have a good night).

The Iowa caucuses work differently than the primaries in other States.  Scott Rasmussen’s Number of the Day today explains the process succinctly.  Essentially, if a candidate does not receive 15% of the votes at a precinct, his or her supporters must recast their votes for one of the remaining candidates.  That means that, while a candidate always wants to be a voter’s first choice, being the second choice can still work well.  It also makes it possible to see where support will go if a candidate drops out.

Read More »

SubscribeStar Saturday: A Banner Week for Populism

Today’s post is a SubscribeStar Saturday exclusive.  To read the full post, subscribe to my SubscribeStar page for $1 a month or more.  For a full rundown of everything your subscription gets, click here.

It was a banner week for populism and national sovereignty.  At the time of this writing, it appears that the sham impeachment trial against President Trump is headed for a speedy acquittal, with the Senate voting 51-49 against hearing any further testimony from new witnesses.  Here’s hoping that complacent Republican voters get the message:  the Democrats will concoct any whimsy necessary to destroy not only President Trump, but any Republican who dares to challenge their progressive hegemony.  We can’t afford to let these people control a local PTA chapter, much less a chamber of Congress.

Across the pond, the British quest for independence from the managerial-authoritarian clutches of the European Union is finally complete.  After three-plus years of wrangling—and progressive attempts to overturn a fair referendum—Great Britain is finally free again.

The battle is far from over—indeed, it never is—but we could be witnessing a new birth of freedom and national sovereignty around the globe.

To read the rest of this post, subscribe to my SubscribeStar page for $1 a month or more.

Independence Day

The day has finally come—after three-and-a-half years, Great Britain is finally leaving the European Union.  The British people are regaining their sovereignty and will begin their way back to enjoying their traditional English liberties.

The European Union is an overweaning, elitist, supranational tyranny.  It is a progressive dream, which is why the Leftists are melting down over Brexit, and attempted to thwart it for so many years.  Progressives today—just like progressives in the early twentieth century—are gaga for technocratic rule and elitist dominance.

It’s not about “democracy”; if it was, they would have accepted the outcome of the 2016 referendum.  Democracy only matters to progressives when it advances their ends.  That’s why progressives hold elections and referendums—repeatedly, if necessary—until they get the outcomes they want—and then the matter is settled forever.  If that doesn’t work, courts or the bureaucracy will effectively veto the voters’ “incorrect” choices.

Read More »

Lazy Sunday LXV: Techno-Weirdos II

The New Year is chugging along, with Democratic primaries and caucuses mere weeks away.  Early voting has already started, as I noted yesterday.  “Tom Steyer’s Belt” continues to drive surreal amounts of traffic, which I suppose is one metric for the ubiquity of his ads.

Perhaps the greatest ally the eventual Democratic nominee will have is Big Tech.  We’re already witnessing the preemptive deplatforming of various conservative and anti-Leftist figures.  Attempts to weed out “fake” news—which to the Left is any news not reflexively critical of Trump—and to “fact check” conservatives are going to pick up as the election approaches.

Tech censorship raises a number of thorny questions that our traditional understanding of rights and obligations struggles to answer.  The question of free speech is particularly tricky, as it does seem that the monopolistic power—and the active collusion between them!—of Big Tech companies effectively strangles dissent.

That might be constitutional in a strictly literal sense—at least it’s not the government infringing on our rights—but it certainly violates the spirit of freedom of speech.  And, seriously, who doesn’t think the apparatchiks in The Swamp aren’t eagerly working hand-in-iron-fist with Google to keep tabs on us?

Does anyone have a copy of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act sitting around?  Maybe we should dust that off.  Trump would make a good trust-buster, as would Attorney General Bill Barr.  I’d sure love to see a political cartoon of the ursiline Barr swinging a club at a computer screen.

With that, here are two recent pieces I’ve written on tech companies and censorship:

  • Free Speech in the Private Sector” – This post looked at a lengthy essay from science-fiction author Cory Doctorow, in which he argued that our traditional understanding of freedom of speech is insufficient in addressing tech censorship.  The old libertarian canard that “a private company can set whatever limits on speech it wants” is a worthy ideal, but when the “private company” dominates the public square and effectively makes some forms of expression or some ideas unspeakable, then do we really have free speech?
  • Mailchimp Monkeys with Molyneux” – As if on cue, Mailchimp obligingly proved Doctorow’s point when it deplatformed Stefan Molyneux in a Twitter-induced panic.  Mailchimp might not be monopolistic in the way, say, Google is, but it’s all part of that cabal of freedom-hating e-litists.  Molyneux is a bit grandiose, to be sure, but he’s been maligned as being all sorts of unacceptable -isms and -ists that he simply isn’t.

That’s it for this week, folks.  Here’s to another week of selling our data to faceless technocratic overlords.

Happy Sunday!

—TPP

Other Lazy Sunday Installments: