Libertarians are the worst

I chose that title specifically because I have seen so many people (especially members), say "Actually I lean more libertarian." 

In context, they are saying it because they know that Trump is frothingly hateful, selfish, and in no way moral; of course they are embarrassed to support that, but they can't quite support liberals either. The emphasis on "liberty" and "choice" sounds good, though oddly most libertarians manage to remain against that choice if it relates to a woman and pregnancy. They also tend to be against civil rights legislation, which from the point of view of people who want to do racist things makes sense, but ignores how allowing racial discrimination impairs the liberty of those discriminated against.

I understand the appeal of getting to verbally distance from the sexism and the racism while still keeping it close to one's heart, but I scorn it.

I assure you I could describe many other groups as the worst - I'm pretty sure I'm going to write a poem about that soon - but because this one is so popular now, I want to spend some time focused on it.

If you haven't read it, James Fallon's The Psychopath Inside: A Neuroscientist's Personal Journey into the Dark Side of the Brain, is really fascinating, both for what the author says on purpose and for what he may not know he is saying.

Fallon was doing two studies at the same time where he was looking at brain scans. One study was of criminal brains, and the other was for heredity, so he had collected scans of family members. One scan that showed the psychopath characteristics was in the family pile. At first it seemed like a mistake, but it turned out to be Fallon's own brain. The journey was personal indeed.

To be fair, a lot of people who knew him weren't surprised, like that was the missing link that explained everything.

Fallon is a libertarian, and starts talking about that on page 161. This quote is from page 162:

(I) would prefer many situations where some people die. I don't feel responsible for individuals dying as part of a broader cause and don't think we should spend every dime we have to save one child. Such coddling will end up destroying the human race. And who adjudicates who gets coddled? I look at the distant horizon, how things will play out in a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand years. If one person croaks tomorrow for the sake of society, it's too bad, but I don't care. I wouldn't let a kid starve right in front of me – I'm not a monster – but if I ran the government I would cut out all welfare.... I don't want to encourage unproductive or irresponsible behavior because I think it will kill society. I'm more sympathetic to the species than I am to that one person or group of people.

As far as the economic policy goes, his philosophy is disputed by many people who have studied it more (Piketty, and Wilkinson and Pickett come to mind). Fallon is confident in his understanding, but a lot of people are now very confident and still very wrong about things. I think there are two other points that matter more.

First of all, the big difference between the diagnosed psychopaths in jail and the esteemed neuroscientist was a loving, nurturing home with opportunities to harness his energy productively. While Fallon has done things that are arguably antisocial (like encouraging people to behavior they later regret, and putting one cousin in a potentially fatal situation without warning him), it was all on the correct side of the law. As someone financially privileged the odds of him ending up in prison go way down. I think that makes for an argument that some "coddling" might be beneficial for society.

Also, that "not a monster" line... he will intervene when the suffering is right in front of him. Okay, it would be more monstrous to look at suffering and ignore it (or enjoy it), but here is the part for members of the church, and for people who believe in God and that we are all connected as His children: it should not be enough for us that suffering happens out of sight.

We know the penalty for not doing unto the least of these when we see them, and the reward for seeing and serving. I believe that goes with a responsibility to look and to care, beyond our line of sight.

Modern technology makes it easier to ignore and to be aware, and we all have choices to make there.

I am happy to acknowledge that there was a time when you could be a Republican in good conscience. There may well have been a time when you good be a conservative (because Republicans were not always conservative, and it's questionable whether they are now) in good conscience as well. However, when that group is essentially working on concentrating wealth into an ever smaller group and using racism to support it, there should be many things pricking your conscience constantly. If you keep ignoring those cries, it is going to be hard to re-engage with your conscience.

Fallon is agnostic; that argument is unlikely to mean anything to him. If you are religious, and if you are Christian, you need to think about what that means.

Because the other thing is that while you can be born more likely to become a psychopath, it is nonetheless something you become. It happens via greed a lot, but that is not the only path.

Our faith in the constitution

Two relevant things I finished today:

1. The book An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States by Charles A. Beard
2. I also finished reading all of the October 2020 General Conference talks.

I was impressed that there was an acknowledgment that the constitution had flaws in its initial framing; previous talks have been very reverential. There are reasons for that, but there were definite flaws.

Some of them required amendments.

Originally women could not vote. We clearly support women voting now, and we started that support early. It may not have been so much from a sense of injustice, but more due to it being politically advantageous based on early populations of the Saints. Unfortunately, that does not automatically mean that we acknowledge that there was something wrong with the chauvinism of the day, or that we see the chauvinism of this day.

It is important to think about how the Constitution not only enshrined slavery but did it without mentioning the word, as if that would make it less obvious how congressional representatives and the electoral college bolstered the slave states' influence by finding a way to count non-citizens as partial persons. Do we think about how that effects votes and representation now? There have been amendments and acts to fix that, but there have also been steady efforts to tear them down.

Do we think about how the Constitution never forced us to honor the treaties we made with the Indians?

Do we think about how the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment did not protect our people from being murdered and expelled from settlements, regardless of personal property abandoned and not resolved by the Second Amendment?

A large part of the weakness of the previous Articles of Confederation was an inability to assess taxes federally. The nation could ask states to levy taxes for national expenses, but they couldn't enforce it, and the states were not highly motivated to comply. 

Many of the men who participated in the Constitutional Convention had loaned money to the nation during the war, and without a strong federal government they were unlikely to be repaid. That is not completely selfless and elevated, but it is not unreasonable to pay debts either. Having the ability to tax makes many other things possible. However, it happened that most of the people participating and then voting were wealthier people from higher society. If our country did not officially have an aristocracy, there was something of a de facto one. There is nothing unusual about that, though you can argue it is not very revolutionary.

That doesn't make the Constitution bad or mean that it should be thrown out completely, but we should engage honestly and critically with it, and the values it supports and pretends to support.

Widespread LDS support for Trump has bothered me for many reasons, but the reason I brought up the White Horse prophecy - and I assume a lot of Trump supporters do believe in it - is that the way to save the Constitution is probably not the by supporting the guy who wants a third term, talks about delaying or contesting the election, and is in constant violation of the emoluments clause.

I wholly support the emoluments clause. It is a good thing to limit the ability of someone in office to exploit that office. You may not think that is happening, with some people being overly impressed that the current president is donating his salary. He is making much more than his salary based on increased business at his properties (that he should have given up) both from people wanting to get near him and from charging the Secret Service agents who have to accompany him. The information is out there. Is there also the will to study, and understand, and possibly change?

Do you believe that everyone should be able to vote? What will you do about voter suppression? Does it bother you less if the votes being suppressed tend to be from non-white voters? Because a lot of them are citizens; some people forget that. 

We are rapidly approaching the election; what will your role be?

I am still questioning how to be of the most help. However, I will note that I did spend about eight months studying and blogging about the Constitution (that was inspired by the Bundy's referencing it and not in a way that seemed to make any sense). That started here:

https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-constitution-getting-started.html

In addition, I will also be reading the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers soon, because I believe it is important. I want to understand the thoughts behind it, and if they were right or wrong. We should engage thoughtfully and critically. 

That seems like the least we can do.

White horsing around

I needed to post about glurge before I posted about the White Horse prophecy because so much of what makes the "prophecy" a problem is its suspicious provenance. That wasn't even what I thought would be the important part, but if it had clear provenance, it would probably look very different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Horse_Prophecy

First of all, your nutshell of "the Constitution will hang by a thread and it will be up to the Elders of the Church to save it" (or words to similar effect) comes to us from a journal entry of a guy who heard another guy say that Joseph Smith said it, almost sixty years after Smith said it, still according to the one guy.

That is a shaky basis. It doesn't mean that Smith didn't say anything; the references from Brigham Young and Orson Hyde pre-date John Roberts' journal entry. One also can't help but notice that the journal entry is much more flowery and detailed than the other references. That could be more Roberts or Rushton than Smith.

It is very interesting to me that we have Joseph F. Smith dismissing it in 1980 and Bruce R. McConkie dismissing it in 1966, but you still have Charles W. Nibley referencing it in 1922, Melvin J. Ballard referencing it in 1928, J. Reuben Clark referencing it in 1942, and Ezra Taft Benson referencing it in 1986.

That's not a slam at anyone; those are all good men. Getting back to the flowery language thing, none of them referencing the threat to the constitution seem to be mentioning a white horse. I can't rule out that Joseph Smith said something about a threat to the Constitution, or that other people heard it - besides Rushton - and that the idea was carried through.

I also have to know that without having something written down at the time - either by Joseph Smith or by someone who was in the room and then had Joseph check their transcription - it would be foolish to take it too literally.

My point so far is that we get things into our head and repeat them and they become a part of our whole view, quite frequently without thorough examination.

There is definite appeal, right? I mean it's scary - our inspired Constitution will be imperiled, so our whole country is imperiled; drama! But it will all be fine, and we will be the heroes of it. We are such good, smart people!

Then, we we don't question that, maybe we don't question other things.

We might not question our reverence for the Constitution, and if that is justified. 

We also might not question whether our actions - including voting - tend to be more for or against the Constitution. 

I'm going to let that sit for a week.

Purging glurge

I still really want to talk about the white horse prophecy, but I think first it may be helpful to talk about skepticism and replication, and things like glurge.

If you haven't heard the term, I think the first place I heard of it was on a non-official LDS web site that no longer exists. However, I was familiar with the Snopes section, and then I found the Wheat and Tares page more recently.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/category/glurge-gallery/

 https://wheatandtares.org/2016/03/15/the-mormon-urge-to-glurge-2/

I really remember my heart leaping into my chest when I saw "the birdies" there, because I remember being so moved by that the first time I had heard it. Even then, it's not that it wasn't true, but in the passing on it got altered. This happens with a lot of stories, like in a game of telephone. Of course, when we use that example for scriptures we talk about how it leads to confusing passages, twisted meanings, and apostasy. 

In this case, seeing that Christians in other denominations could take the specific LDS components out and still use it for their own purposes, thus missing a huge point of it, well, that was interesting, and maybe the most germane part of the discussion.

It is important to remember that something that makes you feel good still may not be true. 

It is very important to remember that people lie, and for lots of different reasons. 

Personally, I am disappointed that when stress and depression was getting to Angelina Jolie, that Brad Pitt did not make a point of building her up more and then see how she got her spark back. On the other hand, perhaps if it were true - and they had that kind of dynamic - then maybe they wouldn't have gotten divorced. It would be a bad basis for forming an opinion on Brad Pitt as a husband or a person. 

I mean, there may not be much point in forming deep opinions on celebrities and their relationship anyway, but if you were going to, you would want to be able to base it on accurate information. Logically, the more important something is, the more important it is to have accurate information.

While looking at the Snopes site, one of the linked, non-glurge stories was that Kamala Harris refused to prosecute Planned Parenthood for selling baby parts (which they didn't) and did prosecute the people who reported the story. 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kamala-harris-planned-parenthood/

That had multiple not true parts, but it being a story at all happened because there were people who lied, doctored footage, and lied some more to make Planned Parenthood look bad. That has been pretty well-documented, but there are still people who believe the lies. 

If you are vehemently against legal abortion, you might be more likely to believe bad things about Planned Parenthood, and more reluctant to accept the falsehoods when they are exposed. A potential result of that is supporting policies that make abortion more common. Thinking about it more deeply,  you might find conflicts and not always know the best thing to do, but there is the opportunity for growth in depth and love and spirituality... all things that we need.

One big issue with glurge is that often when we get these simple, cute stories, we lose the complexity and deeper meaning. You are likely to face times of deep pain, and you will need to find deep comfort. That will take more thought, more personalizing, and more accuracy.

If we don't believe in the importance of truth, what are we doing here?

Resilience

For context, I posted about this year's delayed gardening start on the main blog: 

https://sporkful.blogspot.com/2020/07/hope-as-seed.html

Things didn't go as planned. There is still some joy. Just like life.

I planted about two dozen each of sunflower and pumpkin seeds. Three pumpkin seeds and about ten sunflowers germinated. That was not off to a good start. 

I also planted a lot of corn. That was definitely good seed; I put a few on a wet paper towel and every single one sprouted. However, a murder of crows was seen in the garden right after that, pecking away. Only one corn stalk is coming up now, that has no hopes of being pollinated. I don't mind sharing, but that felt like overkill.

Because there were such large blank spaces, I went and randomly bought any plants still available to try and fill in, even though it was late. Celery, beets, cauliflower, catnip, lettuce, and carrots withered as soon as they got in the ground. Well, the celery looked like it was going to take, but it didn't. Also, I think I saw some crows pecking the lettuce.

I also planted three packets of seeds from a mix of flowers geared for butterflies and bees. I have gotten a total of one flower from there.

And yet, things still work out. The sunflowers kept getting taller, which is great fun to watch. I have never had so many pumpkin blossoms fertilized, and never so soon after the first blossoms appeared. There are still a lot of blank spaces, but you can kind of see what I intended, especially if you focus right.

One very low point in my mother's dementia was when I gave her some petunias to plant about two years ago. That was something she loved to do year after year, and she was at a point where I thought she could have a few minutes unsupervised. In a few minutes she had uprooted every new growing sunflower and pumpkin. (I have had this vision for years, though this year is the closest I have gotten.) 

Imagine my surprise to discover a tiny petunia among the sunflowers this year.

For all her years of planting them, we have never had any self-seed. This one feels like a gift.

I was worried about if anything would have enough time to totally mature. Most of it should have gone in the ground around June 1st, and went in between July 25th and 27th. Still, things were green and cheerful and tall, so I felt pretty good. And then a hard wind blew for over a day, uprooting three of my sunflowers, including the tallest.

Well, the second tallest shot up way higher anyway, though it did it under some pretty brown, smoky skies.

I tried standing the fallen sunflowers back up, digging deeper and firming the dirt around them. It didn't matter; it was always "Timber!" and back down they would go. I knew I should clear them out, but I didn't have the heart. Those stalks still looked so strong. Then the greatest miracle of all happened.

They bloomed. I thought the comfort was going to be that even though I lost some things, I didn't lose everything. That there was still growth to look forward to.

But actually it's not just that you can bloom where you are planted. It's that even when storms knock you completely flat, and it looks like there is nothing left to do but decay, you can bloom even then.

I didn't know they could do that.

I have been thinking about how we say that God doesn't give you anything that you can't handle, but you may not be able to handle it the way you want. You handle it short-tempered and frustrated, or neglecting your own health, or doing well externally but wanting to die on the inside. And yet, you are still blooming, just not like you hoped.

Of course, the sweet potatoes were a total wash (though I have learned from my mistakes), and only half of my potatoes are growing. I am not even sure which ones, because the seed potato packages weren't labeled. They will either be bakers or mashers.

How much do we ever really know about what's next?

Preparing to evacuate

We are not currently in a danger zone, but many people are. With the brown skies and smoky air outside, there is no way of forgetting that there are fires burning across the state.

Our family was especially moved by this article:

https://www.statesmanjournal.com/in-depth/news/2020/09/10/oregon-wildfires-santiam-fire-evacuations-leave-family-members-dead/5759101002/?cid=facebook_Statesman_Journal&fbclid=IwAR3_wOMLVMlXGr58Z-CqT11zYbPoXQiQiyPkBhVzMaRyKGwp9UNm-0by-qs

We hurt for them, but we also thought of things that could have made a difference. That is not to criticize; I'm sure they will be thinking of everything that could have been different for a long time. I have nothing but compassion for them.

It seems the biggest issue is that the fire came in the night, catching them off guard and damaging the car.

I don't know a sure solution for this; you've got to sleep sometimes. If you are in an area where you don't have to evacuate yet, but might have to soon, for your specific circumstances think about that before you go to bed. Maybe you just decide to leave that night anyway, even though you may not need to. Maybe you set the alarm to check every two hours. Maybe you take turns sleeping and watching the news. Circumstances can change really quickly.

Like I said, my family is not in danger now, but we are talking about it.

I have posted on wildfires and evacuation before (August 2018 and December 2012 respectively), and those links are at the end of the post, but because we have been thinking, I am going to go over some of those thoughts now.

Transport:

It will be terrible trying to get three adults, one dog, and four cats in carriers into one car. It will be crowded and stressful. It is probably still better than trying to keep two vehicles together, especially if everyone else is trying to leave the area at the same time.

I am nonetheless very grateful that most shelters take pets now, and they are even making allowances for livestock.

Health and nutrition:

If you are going to a shelter, they are often bringing food in, at least for the humans. It still might not hurt to have some food for the animals and humans.

Take medications. Take information about the medications, like papers with the prescription doses and doctor information. And think about how taking the medication will work out.

If I bring my insulin, but not syringes, I can't take it. It I have syringes but not sterile alcohol pads, it's less safe taking it. If I don't have somewhere to put the used syringes, that's a problem. Also, the insulin is supposed to be refrigerated. It can hold up for a while, but those are all things to think about.

Also - back on pets - if we bring our dog's pills but no peanut butter, getting her to keep taking her pills will be much more challenging.

Clothing:

I did figure out what clothes I would take, but I had to acknowledge first that I have a lot of clothes that I would not take, and do not wear, and am not ever likely to need; why they are still in the way of the things I do need? I have so many socks with holes that I have been meaning to go through and haven't yet. I could make my day-to-day life easier, let alone my semi-panicked evacuation.

Memory:

The last time I wrote about this I was thinking of physical photo albums, but most of our pictures are digital now. With the space we'd have I can't take my computer (if you are using tablets you probably can and should take it), but I should be doing regular backups, and have one of those backups on a USB drive that I do take. Remote backups are still great - I could lose that thumb drive or it could melt - but it's good to have it.

Random:

I would take the library books, because they aren't our property and so that requires a higher level of responsibility.


Of course you should have birth certificates and things like that together and take them.

Always!

Check with your neighbors and make sure they are okay. In our neighborhood, almost every home has its own transportation, and the one who doesn't has relatives close by. She might still need a ride to family, or help contacting them. Don't leave anyone behind.


The more you work out early, the less room you leave for regret.

Stay safe.


Related posts:
https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2012/12/evacuation.html

https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2018/08/making-plan-wildfires.html

Mormons and racism

I have been thinking a lot about racism and church members lately (you can probably guess why), and I wanted to go back to the issue of Black men being denied the priesthood for several years.

Yes, you can read an essay on that:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

You may also find that the essay leaves a lot to be desired, not really giving a good answer except pointing out that racism was common at the time, and bringing up any instances of things that did not look racist. These essays nonetheless disturbed several members badly, shaking their testimonies.

At the time I was among those unimpressed. I had already been pretty sure that the real issue had been racism, so I didn't explore it very much at the time. Now I am more aware that it is important that The Essays exist, and ways in which their weaknesses can be important too.

First off, let me tell you why I wasn't surprised. I graduated from the University of Oregon in 1996 with a dual major of Romance Languages and History. One of the requirements for a history degree was a Seminar. There were several options, but all of them consisted of large amounts of weekly readings (mainly from historical journals), discussions with the rest of the seminar on the readings, and a twenty-page research paper. You needed professor approval to get into a class, so it was helpful if you took one with a professor you already knew. I took African Americans in the American West, with Professor Quintard Taylor Jr (now an emeritus professor at University of Washington.) Each week of readings had a different theme, and one of the weeks was on African Americans and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

I really wish I had kept my syllabus, because I cannot find what I read then on William McCary. I am pretty sure he was instrumental in the priesthood ban.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McCary

https://www.blackpast.org/special-features/african-americans-and-church-jesus-christ-latter-day-saints-old/

To sum up, William McCary was a Black man who joined the church in 1846, got the priesthood, and then got excommunicated for claiming various powers (so the story goes; I think I remember the word 'priestcraft" from one of the journal articles) around 1847. The earliest statement on Black men being excluded from the priesthood happened about a month after McCary's excommunication.

It is entirely possible that McCary behaved in very unbecoming ways for a priesthood holder, but it is also certain that he married a white woman, and then additional white women, and that there were deeply entrenched (and hypocritical) taboos around that at the time. The essay does point out the prevalent racism at the time. 

What they don't really pick up on, though (and the essay does not mention McCary), is that many white men were excommunicated at different times, and no one ever suggested a ban on white men holding the priesthood. Sure, the ones deciding were white; it's not likely they would decide that. That's the insidious thing about white supremacy: whites are individuals, but if you are not white, then you are judged by every one else of your color. There is that "See! I knew they couldn't handle it!". Maybe there had been a belief that it wouldn't work that they were trying to bury, and then McCary becomes the excuse. That lasted for over a century, limiting growth, causing pain, and allowing racism to remain entrenched.

This is not meant to be an attack on Brigham Young or Parley P. Pratt or anyone else involved. However, it is an encouragement to take a closer look, and to understand better.

For years it was this uncomfortable thing that people didn't really want to talk about, but that meant that the people who did feel comfortable talking about it were the ones who would say things like "they were just less valiant". If we can't grapple with racism existing in exemplary church members of one hundred and fifty years ago, how are we going to grapple with the racism that exists now? I assure you, the current racism requires some grappling.

I know this is getting long, but I want to make some points from the essay itself. 

William McCary was never mentioned in it. Q. Walker Lewis is, because Brigham Young praised him once, and we will often get this tendency to try and point out all of the good things. Lots of white people in other Christian churches love to praise Simon of Cyrene and Ebed-Melech, because, see! We love Black people! (Especially when they are serving white people, and it's convenient if they are also eunuchs.) I don't have a problem with noticing the good, but let's be realistic about the bad.

Also, there is this second paragraph of the Essay:

The structure and organization of the Church encourage racial integration. Latter-day Saints attend Church services according to the geographical boundaries of their local ward, or congregation. By definition, this means that the racial, economic, and demographic composition of Latter-day Saint congregations generally mirrors that of the wider local community.

Technically true, but it ignores that at least in the United States there have been centuries of restricted covenants, redlining, and systemic destruction of communities where Black people were becoming financially successful, not to mention white flight. That means that not specifically aiming for integration leaves you segregated. That doesn't mean that wards shouldn't be arranged by geography, but if even when we are attempting to address personal racism we ignore structural racism, we continue to enable all racism.

The final point I want to make is that there are people who know about these things. Our church leaders are not experts on racism, but they can ask others and listen to others. I may have spent more time than necessary on my academic background, but my point there was that in 1996 this information was available, so there was no need for it to catch anyone off guard in 2013.

We can do better than this. We may be running out of time to do so, individually and collectively.

Let's do better.