o no its a political post

.

I had a realization the other day while driving in Utah. I figured out something that’s been troubling me about Trump’s 2024 vote, particularly how he cleans up with low-information voters. To explain this, I’ll need to return to 2015. But before that, let’s go all the way back to 1987.

I’m a tween and I hear about Trump for the first time. I think he was in some toolonglist of potential presidential candidates published by a for-the-classroom newspaper, but I would have been more aware of him because I always read the bestseller lists and Art of the Deal was all over that baby.

I wasn’t a voter, but I was certainly low-information. This was all I had on him. And yet I developed a deep dislike of him. Nothing I saw or heard or read in the decades that followed changed my initial impression.

In February 2016, I wrote an essay about all the presidential elections of my lifetime. It got locked up in an opaque editorial process and, by the time it emerged unpublished, it was worthless because I had not seriously considered that Trump might be a possibility in the essay’s finale, the upcoming election.

Needless to say, before November 2016 rolled around, Trump was a possibility, hard as it still was for me to believe.

But I was also heavily biased against Hillary Clinton. This wasn’t because of some childhood instinct, however; this was because I spent most of the Clinton years in Tehachapi, California. In the 1992 mock election my high school held, Bill Clinton was a distant third behind Bush and Perot. It was that kind of town. And so you can imagine the Hillary rhetoric I was surrounded by.

But here came 2016 and those were my choices.

(Aside: My 2000 vote for Nader still haunts me ever so slightly. No way I could consider a third party in 2016.)

I was not raised to particular party loyalty. Although I vote mostly Democrat these days, I always hold the door open. So being a twice-Obama voter didn’t guarantee a vote for Hillary Clinton.

Thus, as a high-information voter, I started researching Trump and Clinton. Big time. All summer and fall I read everything. And the more I read, the more I realized how unfairly I had judged Ms Clinton. She was actually a decent human being and a moral politician.

And the more I realized how correctly Lil Tween Me had judged Mr Trump.

The man is a monster.

This summer, in the one political conversation I had with family, I was told Trump isn’t all that bad, not really, because once he pulled over to help someone who had car troubles and without them knowing who he was he paid for—

Hang on. That story’s about Frank Sinatra. Or Sammy Davis, Jr. Or Nat King Cole. Or Elvis Presley. Or Mrs Nat King Cole. I’ve heard this story a dozen times. It is, in a phrase, a folk tale. It never happened. Certainly, if it did happen, it wasn’t one Donald Trump starting the trend.

Anyway, my point is: as a low-information person I knew Trump was bad news. As a child, I knew. Lady Steed made the same decision around the same time thanks to an episode of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. I suspect, if kids were the only voters in 2024, Trump would have lost. Kids ain’t fools.

And this is what’s so upsetting. Low-information voters broke for Trump—and in a big way?

Why?

How?

And what does this say about us?

It makes me wonder if Mosiah was talking about low-information voters when he observed,

“It is not common that the voice of the people desires anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.”

Maybe the majority has always been poorly read and easily swayed. If so, bad news for us in 2025, because that means we might get presidents based not on available information but on the American character—and that character, at present, may not be like a child’s.

Which should worry us because of what Mosiah said next:

“And if the time comes that the voice of the people choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.”

I don’t know how to solve the low-information problem.

I don’t know how to solve the character problem.

But if low-information voters represent who we really are—and mightn’t they?—then we are in real trouble.

Nature’s Semaphore as Election Metaphor

.

We stand on the porch of our beachside Carolina home
and see the black mountain range of cloud race toward us
at 140 miles per hour—though it looks still—

flashing with lightning and slowly swirling
like a childhood nightmare
or a missile
falling on someone else’s children.

The future always is far far away

until it isn’t

and we’ve either
battened down our whatevers

or we haven’t....

Either way:

the wind will blow.

One for the locals(Caro for CC Board of Education)

.

First, other than giving his campaign fifty bucks and planning to vote for him, I'm not associated with Anthony Caro's campaign.

.

This is Anthony Caro candidate for Contra Costa County's Board of Education:

Speaking as a person tragically and suddenly deep into middle-age, Caro is young. And he really wants to do political things. This isn't a pro or con, just something to note.

Anyway, I represent my colleagues as a rep on our union's rep council, which is sort of like being a representative sent to the House. And yes, I voted to endorse Caro—and endorse him we have.

And while Caro's a good kid with the right intentions, I'll admit that a vote for him is just as much a vote against county superintendent Lynn Mackey

If you're local, you well know that our school district is famously bad at money. But this badness is enabled by Lynn Mackey.

Consider!

WCCUSD is require by state law to put 55% of its "current cost of education" into classroom compensation. Last year, it only spent 52.36%—$11,391,200 less that 55%—which is a lot of money. ("Current cost of education," incidentally, includes teacher and aide salaries/benefits. And we are having a desperately difficult time keeping educators.)

WCCUSD has fallen short of this legal requirement four years running. How?? one might reasonably ask.

Because Superintendent Mackey gives the district a waiver year after year after year.

Incidentally, and this is fun, school districts in California are only legally required to tell the truth about how much money they have once a year. The rest of the time, they talk about "projections" which can basically be whatever they want.

My favorite example of how this works in practice is from a couple years ago when I was trying to get the new Norton of English poetry for my AP Lit classes. That year, WCCUSD projected $75,000,000 for textbooks and other classroom supplies (like science labs). That money was sacred and couldn't be moved to any other line item. But $75,000,000 didn't go as far as you might expect. Not enough for my Nortons, for instance.

But in the report where they had to tell the truth? They'd spent $16,000,000 on textbooks etc. I know the Nortons are expensive, but $75,000,000 – $16,000,000 is still a lot > 150 Nortons. A lot >.

Anyway, Mackey currently has a 3–2 majority on the board and voting for Cato helps fix that problem.

So vote for Cato.

Hey! Do you want more funny money facts?

A lot has been made of the teachers getting a raise the last couple years.

HOWEVER,

as you can see, although we are getting paid more dollars, as a percentage of WCCUSD's entire budget, we are less and less and less:

Anyway, there are lots more fun graphs out there showing the nonsense of WCCUSD's money management, but the important thing here is that Mackey enables this malfeasance and we can't vote her out until 2026.

So this election, what we can do, it break up her board majority and deny her the power to do whatever she wants. Like screw WCCUSD.

Vote Caro for Board.
 

It would be politically and morally reprehensible to force all conservatives into one party and all liberals into another.

 

This is so alien to my entire adult life as an American. It’s so far away that even though I like much of what is said in this article, I’m not sure I even fully comprehend it.

What are political parties fighting over if not politics? Is it just a matter of inheriting party from your parents? Which political machine has the best cupcakes? Your feelings on Strom Thurmond?

It’s weird to know so much about this history and yet to read this half-century-old essay and to find it utterly perplexing.

Yet the predictions of this article seem to have largely come true.

How, one is compelled to ask, does one undo this alignment? Dr. Durham, tell us!

Orange Shovel, 2018.04.25

.

He never required a birthday or a promotion to spew his congratulations
in the form of booze and stomach acid and underchewed peanuts on-to
the pavement or a girlfriend’s lap. Tonight he’s wearing a shirt of Republican
red and waxing wise on the Card’s playoff chances while me and Debbie
sip white wine and eye better options. At midnight, he stumbles to his feet and slurs, “Lesko.”
Debbie sighs and gives me that look she’s always saved for his benders and puts on
an old high-school-boyfriend-esque letterman jacket she’d picked up during her
most recent thrift-store binge—the same one where she went and got me a big
-ass stuffed tiger, pink, blue-eyed. She handed it to me, acting like she was a carnival win
-ner and the woo-woo paragon of tossing rings onto bottles and baseballs in
-to stacked milk bottles. I don’t care to remember anymore how he became our problem, and the
truth is, I don’t need it anymore. Maybe once his grade-A suck helped me feel special,
like I was doing good things in this world, like it wasn’t too late for my election
by God’s finger. I don’t know why being good should be requisite for heaven or for
hell—as far as I can tell, it doesn’t make much difference anyhow. But this is Arizona
and no matter where I drive pretty much every single goddamn suburban house
looks like the one my parents raised me in. Over by the door, I can hear him yelling “’Seat!”
and I know they’ll soon be at a Denny’s or somewhere eating ham and eggs, and Debbie
will have to order his food while trying to get him to order hers because he will
make her swap after three bites anyway. The question is am I ready to switch from wine to do,
I don’t know, a strawberry milkshake or something. I would hate that this question is a
likely candidate for weekend’s-most-important-issue, but what if life were filled with actual great
and compelling matters of concern? Stress. More opportunities to watch folks vomit. I’m not Job,
after all. I got a job, a 401(k), a paid-off car and three payments left on a 4K tv. Try not to im-press
anybody else and all that’s left is yourself. And as far as I can tell, all anybody wants is
enough to go out now and then and somewhere else to stay in. That’s enough. So
let them go. I’ll finish this off and pay my bill and go to my top-floor apartment and be silent.

- - - - -

I'm thinking about beginning a series of golden shovels born of Trump tweets.... This is the first.

On RINOs (and other small political epiphanies)

.

I despise The PBS NewsHour, largely because it's a tv show so why the heck is it on the radio, KQED? It's a tv show! It's designed for tv and not the radio. Put it on the tv and not the radio. KQED. Gah.

Anyway, I've been reduced to listening to NewsHour a couple times this week and remarkable bits of politics came up a couple times.

For instance, following Jeff Flake bombing the Senate floor, NewsHour interviewed Senator Thune who said, essentially, Jeff Flake is a moral guy but the rest of us have more pressing concerns than morality. I'm barely exaggerating. Go to the transcript and ctrl+f moral.

Then today (transcript not up yet), either Shields or Brooks pointed out that, compared to European political parties, American political parties don't have clear identities of themselves. They take their identity from their presidential candidate. This is clearly true. Parties don't even decide on a platform until a candidate is selected.

It also explains the bizarre comment someone left me on Facebook recently. (Here's the OP on Twitter.) The comment I refer to was something about yeehaw let's get all those establishment RINOs out of there! to which the kindest thing I could say was Huh? (although that is not what I said). It's a dumb comment, I thought. The idea that Flake is a Republican in name only is pretty mind-boggling (to say nothing of the fact that it was a bit of a nonsequitur). But only if you consider the Republican Party as a party of ideas---and policies and goals associated with those ideas. If, instead, you consider the Republican Party as the expanded body of Donald Trump, then hell yeah he's a RINO. Good riddance.

This theory can also explain the last eight years of the Republican Party in the negative in which their entire raison d'être was to be anti-the Democratic president.

Which raises the question: are the Democrats now merely anti-the Republican president?

It's hard to tell. Certainly, I mean, they are. They don't have a very coherent set of thinking on display outside that point. However, Trump does seem to be a special exception and so it's hard to say. But for the last eight years were they the party of Obama? They certainly tried to be, I would say.

Whether this is a vote for the American system or for a parliamentary system, I'm not sure. I've spent my life railing for the need for multiple parties, but unless we enormously change our political system, that won't happen. Weirdly, as our system gets more and more polarized and, frankly, crazy, I'm less certain we should change it. I'm still working out all the reasons I feel that way.

ps: betcha i haven't ever written so much about politics in an october that wasn't a presidential year before; thanks trump!

Preliminary notes toward a perhaps-never-to-be-written monograph defining American liberalism and American conservatism, both their individual goals and how these should work together

.

One of the great thing about reading Jeff Flake's recent book was hearing conservatism defined by a thoughtful person for whom conservatism is a philosophically grounded means to thought rather than, you know, code for hating Obama or something. One of my complaints about American politics is that conservative and liberal are no longer words with clearly defined meanings but labels we proudly apply to what we like and viciously sling at things we don't like. I identify as a conservative (or a liberal) and therefore what I hate I will label liberal (conservative). It's childish thinking and grotesquely unhelpful.

Which is one of Flake's misfires. He does a good job defining conservatism and makes a strong argument for working with liberals, suggesting America is healthiest when ideas from both sides arrive, in compromise, to conclusions. However! The best definition he can come up with for liberalism is that it's about freedom-limiting big government and handouts. Not sure why that's a valuable viewpoint that deserves balance with your own carefully reasoned positions, Jeff.

Also, I've always felt that American conservatism is simply a form of liberalism. If you go back to classical liberalism---the Enlightenment, the birth of liberal thought--then we find that democracy is a liberal concept; the Constitution is a liberal document; freedom is liberalism. Until the alt-right, no American conservatives called for a return to feudalism or monarchy. Conservatism and liberalism, it seems to me, are not opposites. At least, certainly not in America. Other nations can define these words however they like.

And so, as I read Flake's book, I desired to find an Occam-like definition of these American political movements. Something simple, but something more fundamentally true than conservatives want a small government and liberals want a big government (it's nonsense to consider these goals rather than means to whatever the goal actually is) or liberals want to help people while conservatives want people to help themselves.

And I've found the solution. And the solution is simple because this is America. American liberals and American conservatives share the same goal: Freedom.

Americans desire freedom.

And here's the difference between American liberalism and American conservatism:

American liberalism works to increase access to freedom
American conservatism works to prevent barriers to freedom

From these basic stands, we can extrapolate everything else in American politics. We can see why liberals and conservatives gravitate toward types of solutions to classes of problems. (E.g., the stereotype that liberals want more laws and conservatives fewer.) We can also discover why liberals are prone to certain intellectual errors and why conservatives are prone to their own set of intellectual errors.

But, fundamentally, we can see why it's not just lip service to say we need both parties working together to arrive at the best solutions for our people. Because increasing access to freedom and preventing barriers to freedom are not identical, but they are both massively important.

Before I get to examples of how this plays out, I want to make two corollaries which are rather obvious is we accept my axioms but which need to be stated clearly.

First, no one's political feelings will be purely liberal or conservative. I'll have plenty of examples of this should I write the monograph, but considering health care should be enough to show how a simple antithesis can still lead to complicated arguments.

If you have health issues, your freedoms are necessarily restricted. If you have asthma, you can't run a marathon. Therefore increasing access to health care increases people's access to their Creator-bestowed rights. It's a liberal cause. But making people pay for insurance decreases people's on-hand money which decreases their freedom to spend that money as they damn well please. Conservatism. Thus we see the way health care is currently portrayed.

However, so-called Obamacare's entire structure was created by conservative thinkers (largely). How can this be? Because having health removes barriers to people's freedoms. That's why.

Anything that increases freedom can be pitched as a liberal or conservative cause. One might argue this makes my axioms useless, but no. What it means is that when we call ourselves a liberal or a conservative, we are pitching our tent with our cultural crew. Plenty of policies from both parties betray their key beliefs. But this is why the axioms are so important. When we talk not about liberal or conservative persons but liberal or conservative policies or principles or, most importantly, actions, then we can really stick to the point instead of getting distracted yelling about God or Russians.

It will also help us judge whether our parties are on the right track or not. Are the Republicans on the right track as of October 12, 2017? I dunno. Seems to me they're more about winning and supporting a president with authoritarian leanings than preventing barriers to freedom. I give them a D.

The Democrats? They're doing better, but I think reacting against a party that swore to make Obama one-term and denied him his rightful Supreme Court pick has made them crazy. Calls for single-payer health care seem a lot less about increasing freedom through health and therefore at least equally about distinguishing themselves from self-destructive Republicans. C.

A couple more notes on this before I go back to principles again.

First, their good intentions (freedom, whether increasing access or preventing barriers) lead both parties to predictable sins. Democrats might work to increase access to freedom even if it takes freedom away somewhere else. Republicans might desire to prevent barriers to freedom even if it places barriers to another freedom.

That these outcomes are possible is a fundamental thing to understand about the American experiment. And navigating conflicting freedoms is a fundamental job of the Supreme Court. I could pick a less controversial example, but let's rip something from the headlines, shall we?

The evil slaughter we experienced in Las Vegas must change the way we think about the Second Amendment. I'm not going to pick gun-control sides in this embryonic essay, but we at the very least need to admit that gun rights do not exist independently of our other rights. Today, it is reasonable to consider that any peacable assembly may be the target of someone who used their Second Amendment rights to prepare for an evil action. This is, in principle, the same as my freedom of speech conflicting with your right not be trampled, or any other weighing of rights. It's a free country because freedoms are curtailed in freedom-biased ways. Your freedom to not get stabbed is a more important freedom than my freedom to stab.

Gun control is an appropriate example of how liberal and conservative thought can work together to arrive at the best solution. But this is a longer argument and I'm already over 1200 words---way too long for a blog post.

So too more things I want to talk about come monograph time, and I'm out.

First, the ACLU. By my math, the ACLU sounds extremely conservative, working overtime to prevent barriers to rights. But the actions they take are proactive barrier-destroying which, to me, still sounds more liberal.

Second, one place Flake deliberately broke with Goldwater is with what Goldwater is best remembered for today, outside conservative intellectuals: his failure to support the Civil Rights Act.

This, I think is a healthful viewpoint. But it also opens a difficult problem. Because racist laws cast a much bigger shadow than most of us realize. For instance, my the city my in-laws grew up in was underwritten by the federal government to provide housing. If you were a veteran, you didn't even have to put down a down payment. And everyone got interest help. Business boomed and people had homes. This is why the American dream blossomed mid-century---the feds footed the bill.

But! All across America---yes, even here in the Bay Area---suburban areas like this were monetarily supported by the government of the United States of America if and only if those areas were explicitly white only. Which boggles my mind, but is a fact.

In other words, the reason white families have been building wealth at record rates since World War Two while black families have been stuck in aging prospects (#grossoversimplificationwarning) is because of, well, the government. It doesn't take much imagination to see that almost every crisis in America is no more than two degrees of separation away from this decades-long policy. It might be, in fact, too late not to involve government in almost anything, by Flake's estimation. In which case, perhaps conservatism's goals should be evening the playing field---refairifying America---in order to return to minimal interference? I dunno.

This as well needs more development, but I'm done for now.* This is enough to chew over. Please chew and help me improve my thinking.

American liberalism works to increase access to freedom
American conservatism works to prevent barriers to freedom

We all agree on freedom. Where do we go from here?

Historical reasons most American Mormons are conservative
Sex and law
Libertarianism
The Constitution is both liberal (defining a government) and conservative (the First Amendment / preventing ex post facto laws)

A book from a sitting Senator a book from one of America's great figures and an extremely popular piece of crap

.

116) Conscience of a Conservative: A Rejection of Destructive Politics and a Return to Principle by Jeff Flake, finished October 11

Jeff Flake came to the House before the Tea Party, but I've always associated him with that crowd. And it wasn't until the last couple years that I became aware of him as anything other than [generic Republican]. Then he pushed back---firmly---against Trump. And I started looking around and paying attention and listening to him. Now I have an appreciation for the man and, having recently read and enjoyed Al Franken's new book, I decided to balance my diet with Flake's.

It was hard to imagine me, Theric,
reading two full books by two sitting senators in one year, but at least I would start it. But then it arrived and, hey, it's under 150 pages and, hey, it's well written. Compelling. Interesting. Largely fair and insightful. I ate it up.

Of course, having written a book about why being fair and insightful---honest---is part of the reason he will almost certainly lose his primary next year. But he's doing the right thing and I hope that keeps him warm at night.

Flake's book is modeled after one with a near-identical title by Barry Goldwater, Flake's Arizonan progenitor. Goldwater of course is remembered very differently by different people. Flake is a fan, but a clear-eyed fan. As part of his demonstration in favor of truth, he calls Goldwater on his sins---and calls himself on his own sins as well.

In fact, one thing that Flake and Franken have in common---at least according to their books---is a desire to state the truth and find political compromise honestly through a path paved with truth. I can't tell you how refreshing it was to read this from both sides of the aisle. In a world which seems cast from venomous polemic,
hearing people in positions of authority, both Democrat and Republican, call their own party out (while, granted, hinting the other side's even worse) and to call for more bipartisan work, warms the ol' heart cockles.

It's hard to look at 2017's Senate and think "functional," but for all the Garland-shaped horrors, there are bright spots of hope.

At least until Bannon's Senate is seated, I suppose.

In the meantime, we can share our faith in American priciples and idealism and move forward.

under two weeks



===========================================================



115) Stickeen by John Muir, finished October 4

My eight-year-old read and enjoyed this very much. So did I. This is a much more impressive read than most of the stuff he's picking up. It helps that we went to Muir Woods than the Muir House (where he let me buy this for him). It also helps that this edition is beautifully designed and illustrated.

Get your kids to read something a hundred years old with a philosophical bent and a cute dog. Pick up Stickeen.

fourish days



===========================================================



114) Ready Player One by Ernest Cline, finished October 3

According to the acknowledgments page in the back, this novel went through a plurality of drafts with much professional help to get it into its mussy final form. I almost wish I hadn't forced myself to finish the book and read this depressing fact.

Look: the plot's dandy and the worldbuilding is excellent. It's everything else that's crap. Here's a couple examples so you know what kind of blonkey goes on in this trash heap.

1. Two thirds of the way through the book, the protagonist needs to be able to play guitar well. He can! Guitar is never never mentioned anywhere else in the entire book.

2. The first time we meet the hero's best friend, Aech, we learn the hero usually calls him a random name beginning in H such as Hugh or Humphrey. This literally never happens again over the next 300+ pages.

These are egregious examples, but the book is rife with laziness and sloppiness and ugliness. It's astonishing to me that this is from a major press.

Sigh....

Anyway, Hitchcock said he would never make a film of Crime and Punishment because it was already perfect so why bother. But a good book? Or a mediocre book? That's where you find the source material for a great movie.

Which is just a way to say that I have a lot of faith in Spielberg. And his willingness to improve on this subject matter.



Okay, one more thing. You know what would have helped a lot? Ditching the first-person p-o-v. That's not a law of nature when writing a teenaged protag. And it would have forced Cline to solve a lot of the book's most pervasive problems.

Okay, done.

two weeks

Previously in 2017

Books I finished, mostly today

.

090) The Man Who Folded Himself by David Gerrold, finished August 15

This is, according to its cover, a CLASSIC TIME-TRAVEL NOVEL. And I've read some good one in my days. My trifecta of excellence is To Say Nothing of the Dog, The Time-Traveler's Wife, and Replay. It's too soon to say if this novel will stick with me the way those have, but it was definitely good.

Curiously, even when I realized where this essentially plotless book was headed, the arrival of that destination still managed to be strange and satisfying and even surprising. And isn't that part of what a good time-travel novel should do?

Maybe it's necessary that a time-travel novel will have a curious relationship with time, but this one takes is a step further. It claims a 1973 copyright, but it talks about buying Apple stock and Fox having an unusually successful film in 1977.

Poorly aging aspects of this novel can be explained away by its own conceit. But the most obvious "out-of-date"
aspect is its take on sexuality.

Let's keep going with this disjointed and chaotic review, shall we?

I like the way this novel full-up embraces paradox as the story its telling rather than trying to explain it or work through or around it. I like how a seeming error in the first sentence is the key to the whole thing. I like how it dismisses its largeness in small paragraphs to instead embrace its smallness. I'm intrigued how I was much more involved by the heterosexual sex when the author is gay. I like how its plotless solipsism hid what was going on for most of the novel. I like how much the book just doesn't care.

But only time will tell if it is great.

six days



===========================================================



089) Mormonism for Beginners by Stephen Carter, finished August 15

This was sent to me by the publisher and I thought about comparing it to a similar book coming out about the same time, but I never got around to requesting it from the publisher. And then I misplaced this book for several months. So, you know, very professional.

Anyway, I'll admit I was a little leery coming into this. No knock against our author whom, generally, I trust. But I always get nervous when things sacred to me are presented for an audience who may not appreciate that. And I'm not convinced there are always two sides to a story. (For an obvious now example, cf.) So I can be jumpy.

The great news is that Stephen Carter's light touch and generous spirit makes his presentation of even extremely touchy topics like gay restrictions and polygamy and Book of Mormon historicity and racial priesthood restrictions understandable and open---we are free to judge, but we are also free not to judge. I not only enjoyed this book myself, but would give it to my kids to read or a neighbor curious about the Church or a longtimer knocked off balance by Recent Information.
Which isn't to say I view the book as a missionary tool per se, but that I feel its presentation is fair and detailed and respectful and daring.

And, frankly, pretty darn funny at times.

Speaking of funny, Jett Atwood's illustrations are often, essentially, standalone gags. Sometimes they're truly illustrative. And, in that latter category, they often add another layer to what Stephen is saying---as good illustrations can. And sometimes, as in the temple section, they move from her better known style to something more abstract.
Appropriately, I would say.

In short, this is a thoughtful book. Yes, it's funny. Yes, it spends some time among the weeds. Yes, it's filled with cartoons. But it's thoughtful and very well constructed.

The top-level topics in the table of contents are Mormon History, LDS Scripture, Mormon Life, Hot-button Issues,
and This Mormon Life. Each of those is broken down into multiple subtopics.

By the end of this book, the uninitiated will be well prepared to have intelligent conversations on the faith; and the initiated will likely end up with a few new facts they didn't know. For instance, did you know clips of Fantasia were used in the first version of the temple film? Or that the true order of prayer was practices in wards and stakes outside the temple clear into the 1970s? I didn't.

I suppose I should mention if I found any errors. I did, but they were minor and few. For instance, on the same spread as those last two facts, Carter claims that outside live sessions, those doing endowment sessions never move room to room.
Not quite. I submit Los Angeles for your consideration. But none of the vanishingly few errors I saw merit much attention.

In short, the book is well constructed. Friendly and easy to access while providing surprising depth and breadth in its pages. You could do a lot worse than assigning this to an Intro to Mormonism class.

most of the damn year



===========================================================



088) Ben, in the World by Doris Lessing, finished August 15

This novel offers a different set of complexities from its forebear, The Fifth Child. Ben, here, is an adult. And he becomes a much more sympathetic charactr, even as understanding him remains largely impossible.

The narrative voice pulls no punches---Ben may be strange and animal, but it is US and OUR WORLD that is evil.

It's interesting though---the much bigger canvas this novel plays with is ultimately less compelling than the very intimate and domestic story told in the first novel.

a small number of weeks



===========================================================



087) Al Franken, Giant of the Senate by Al Franken, finished August 9

I'm not sure what possessed me to look-inside-the-book on Amazon before this was even released, but I did and I wanted to read more and so I put on hold at the library. I didn't really expect to read it. I mean, skim, sure. The takedown chapter of Ted Cruz, you betcha. And when I got it from the library and saw how thick it was, I knew no way would I finish it before it was due (it's new! no way I'll be renewing it!). But surprise surprise. Read it I did.

My main impression of Al Franken before he ran for Senate was from the titles of his books. And so I rather assumed he was a blowhard evenly balanced with blowhards on the right: a joker who pretended at reality, just with a different set of "facts." And so when he entered the Senate,
my main hope was that entertaining news would come out of it. (Minnesota had not disappointed with Jesse Ventura, after all.) That didn't happen, but when he did show up in the news,
he was acquitting himself pretty well.

Anyway, I learned a lot from this book. And Franken does a fine job establishing ethos that makes me trust him. Were his previous books more current, I might well read them for the facts (though jokes certainly help---how many other senatorial memoirs has Theric read?).

Reading this book also pushed me forward in recognizing the real nature and purpose of politics. Notwithstanding appearances, in fact, politics is the art of getting along.

The book has also pushed me further away from ever desiring to seek office. For all the reasons I would have said it's a bad idea last week.

In short, Franken is an intelligent and amusing guide through his life and the Senate. I hope people outside his normal sphere of influence / politics give him a shot.

under a week (unless you include reading the intro literally months ago)

Previously in 2017

Should Obama pull a Reagan here?

.

So Scalia is dead, darn it. And now President Obama has the Constitutional responsibility to nominate a replacement and the Senate has the constitutional responsibility to advise and consent. Shockingly, Republicans are promoting a bonkers notion that Obama should just let the next president make the nomination. Cruz at the debate claimed that it's been eighty years since the Senate's confirmed a Supreme Court nomination during an election year---which will make his next Reagan Cult meeting pretty embarrassing when they remind him about 1988.

I was not a SCOTUS fanboy in 1988, but I imagine that no one suggested Reagan should just wait for the next president to nominate someone. The last Justice who died while still serving on the Court was Rehnquist, and Bush made a nomination and saw it consented upon in, like, a month. But let's pretend the Senate didn't want Reagan to nominate someone before he left.

I don't think that's true, but it's easy to pretend because before the Court voted in Kennedy, they voted down Bork. This is where we get to Obama's opportunity to go full Reagan (although, given what we know now about Reagan's mental state during his waning presidency, if this was anyone's actual plan, it maybe wasn't his).

Obama could this Tuesday nominate a wildly unconsentable candidate like Pam Karlan. She will get eaten up and spat out then run over a few times with an old garbage truck. Then Obama can nominate someone like Sri Srinivasan or Jane Kelly who were, at their previous Senate advise-and-consents, voted in with 97-0 and 96-0, respectively. Maybe it's not putting someone as liberal on the court as Scalia was conservative, but it's likely enough to tip the Court and hard to imagine the Senate being able to call that second nominee unacceptable after beating Obama down publicly the first time.

Anyway. It's an idea.

Why I oppose gay marriage

.

In our discussion as to whether or not women should receive the vote, we have generally agreed that, really, a vote is not to the man but to the marriage. And doubling the number of votes per marriage creates one primary effect only: accounting difficulties and opportunities for abuse at the ballot box. Besides, save in the rare case where a husband and wife might cancel each other's vote, the only true change to results will be the doubling of votes needed to be counted. A reasonable counterargument to these simple facts has yet to be made.

Intrasex marriage would throw this one-vote-per-marriage system, which has served our nation so well these many generations, upon its end (if you'll excuse the expression). In the case of men marrying, those marriages will receive a disproportional allotment of representation in our system of governance, while sapphic marriages will be utterly unrepresented. The former issue is unjust to Americans generally and the latter is unjust to the ladies themselves. In either case, it is clear that marriage of those intrasexually inclined will result in violations of the most basic liberties we as Americans hold dear.

Protect duly elected representation!

Oppose legally sanctioned intrasexual marital relationships!

The Orson Scott Card Stigma Part one: Fighting the Man

.

Andrew Hall's recent post on the latest flareup in the ongoing OSC/gayrights controversy has alerted me to something I had not known. Not only are people peeved over OSC's very public political stance (and, let's be honest, his not so politic manner of discourse), they are blisteringly frothy in their anger.

Not everyone, of course. Spencer Ellsworth is on the can't-be-associated-no-mo' side of things, but comes off reasonable. (Though he does admit that his decision has as much to do with others' perceptions of and projections onto Card as his actual political [or artistic] disagreements with the man.)

James Goldberg made what I thought were reasonable comparisons to the OSC hunt and McCarthyism, but even if I'm right about him being reasonable, it doesn't matter. The lines are drawn and OSC is the enemy and these quasidefense has now marked Goldberg as an enemy colluder. Sucks to be you, Jimmy m'boy.

Let me pause for a moment and say I understand how OSC gets on people's nerves. He writes his opinions as absolute facts. Some of his more recent fiction is getting similarly didactic. He is decidedly against gay people having equal rights to the word marriage because he's certain such semantic equality will be destructive to society. His political opinions fail to fit into any simple box.

That last one seems confusing and almost as if it should inoculate him from kneejerk attacks of the sort this petition exemplifies.

But I think the opposite may be true.

When something is complicated in unusual ways, it's all the more necessary to fixate on the one issue that drives you bananas and then assume the rest. I think if you read this article you'll get a sense of what I mean. The author is interviewing Card and suffering from extended stereotype disconnect. OSC keeps yanking her out of her assumptions. And, in the end, she's forced to make a compromise. But her compromise isn't to draw a complex human being, but to narrow her subject down to two stereotypes and call it good enough.

Look: I think OSC's gay-stuff rhetoric is damaging not just to people's feelings but to the dialogue as a whole. But tarring him with slurs utterly fails to put anyone on high ground. And to do so with only the vaguest sense of what Card's fuller argument is (and failing to engage on said argument) only gives power when it's accompanied by volume.

Really, if you want to fight OSC's rhetoric, you have two options. You can ignore him or you can engage with him. Just yelling Homophobe! as loudly as you can makes you look like what you claim he looks like. And sure, maybe you WILL scare DC Comics away from working with him, but reigns of terror don't actually make new friends.

I know. What he says hurts, and when we're hurt we want to lash out.

In the words of another three-initial man, "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."


Tomorrow, this link will lead somewhere.

Waiting for Mitt Romney to Lead

.

I used to be a Romney booster. I was excited about his candidacy in 2008. Largely this was because I lived in Utah in 2002 and the way he swept in and saved the state from embarrassment and disaster was wondrous. Then he became a Republican governor of Massachusettes (!) which creates the sort of Venn diagram wherein a moderate might find a desireable presidential candidate.

Besides that, other than the superrich thing, he seems of a type I know very well and tend to like very much. I'm not saying I would be bosom friends with him, but I'm sure I would get along well with the man.

In the last few years however, Romney's made a real effort to alienate moderates such as myself. (Sorta like McCain did, come to think of it. I voted for McCain in the 2000 primary. Voted Nader in the 2000 general, Obama in the 2008 general.) As a moderate, I have my issues with Obama. And I learned my lesson in 2004 when I voted for Bush: Abe's seitching-horses-midriver argument is fallible. (Although the Democrats could have tried harder to find a candidate I could vote for.)

Anyway. Back to Romney. He has the Republican nomination now and no one can take it away from him. The time for pandering to the far right has passed. Now Romney can decide whether he will continue through November as their puppet or if he will lead. Last night was not promising. You have a crowd who will cheer just about whatever you say. You can slip in a few hints that you're still your own man. Instead we get things like this:

President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans.

(LAUGHTER)

And to heal the planet. My promises to help you and your family.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, it makes a nice soundbite. Obama is lost in grandiose windmill hunts while I will help you. But, on the other hand, this was an easy time to make a slight shift. Remember when moderates could pretend Huntsman might win the GOP nom? You know, the guy who said that when Republicans "take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Science has said about what is causing climate change and man's contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing position." Almost everyone (outside those who will vote red no matter what) agree with this statement. And the GOP's ignorant stance on climate impact forces many in the middle to view their whole gameplan as askew.

Maybe we'll see Mitt act like a leader between now and November, but little words will never have the symbolic weight they could have had last night.

======================================================================


Of course, living in California, it doesn't matter whether I vote blue or red until a few more states convert to the popular vote.

Because of this, I'm thinking of lodging a protest vote for a third-party candidate this year. Another bonus of such a vote is I can keep alive my record of never voting for the same party twice in presidential races.

An open letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein on this issue of SOPA/PIPA

.

I know you're just sending form letter replies and thus your letter had NOTHING to do with mine, but I said nothing about copyright etc etc. But since you brought it up, now I will.

Copyright as currently constituted is a far stretch from the Constitutional phrasing. Allow me to quote:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

A LIMITED TIME

Congress has been lengthening and lengthening copyright. Part of copyright is to protect creators. Part of copyright is to insure that works enter the public domain and become part of the Great Corpus of Human Thought.

You, as my representative (as well as Hollywood's), need to work on this.

As someone who makes a living through copyrighted work myself, I'm not suggesting we screw the artist. I'm suggesting we don't screw the future.

Looking forward to getting the same form letter a third time,

I am,

-------------th-

It’s nice to get thoughtful replies from my elected representatives when I write them about, for example, SOPA

.

Dear Mr. Thteed:

Thank you for taking the time to write and share your views with me. Your comments will help me continue to represent you and other Californians to the best of my ability. Be assured that I will keep your views in mind as the Senate considers legislation on this or similar issues.

If you would like additional information about my work in the U.S. Senate, I invite you to visit my website, http://boxer.senate.gov. From this site, you can access my statements and press releases about current events and pending legislation, request copies of legislation and government reports, and receive detailed information about the many services that I am privileged to provide for my constituents. You may also wish to visit http://thomas.loc.gov to track current and past federal legislation.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I appreciate hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

Please do not respond to this message. If you would like to comment on legislation, please visit my website and use the correspondence form at https://www.boxer.senate.gov/en/contact/policycomments.cfm.

Light So Shine (part two)an elders quorum lesson (svithe)

.


[last week I shared what my eq lesson would be about; this week I'm sharing the death-of-discussion-prevention quotes I handed out (not that that's ever a problem) (because it's not)]


.

ROBERT D HALES on Being a Lighthouse

Growing up on Long Island, in New York, I understood how vital light was to those traveling in the darkness on the open sea. How dangerous is a fallen lighthouse! How devastating is a lighthouse whose light has failed!

We who have the gift of the Holy Ghost must be true to its promptings so we can be a light to others.

“Let your light so shine before men,” said the Lord, “that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”

We never know who may be depending on us. And, as the Savior said, we “know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them.”  

RUSSELL M NELSON on Using Our Laserbeam Eyes for Good

Each member can be an example of the believers. Brethren, as followers of Jesus Christ, each of you can live in accord with His teachings. You can have “a pure heart and clean hands”; you can have “the image of God engraven upon your [countenance].” Your good works will be evident to others. The light of the Lord can beam from your eyes. With that radiance, you had better prepare for questions. The Apostle Peter so counseled, “Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.” 

Let your response be warm and joyful. And let your response be relevant to that individual. Remember, he or she is also a child of God, that very God who dearly wants that person to qualify for eternal life and return to Him one day. You may be the very one to open the door to his or her salvation and understanding of the doctrine of Christ.

After your initial response, be ready to take the next step.

ELAINE S DALTON on Why the All the Boys Like Mormon Girls

I can see a day when the world will look to you and say: “Who are you? Who are these young women who radiate this light? Why are you so happy? Why do you know your direction in such a confusing world?” And you will arise and stand on your feet and say with conviction: “We are daughters of our Heavenly Father, who loves us, and we love Him. We will ‘stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places.’ ”

GORDON B HINCKLEY on How Cool Is the Priesthood?

God has bestowed upon us a gift [the priesthood] most precious and wonderful. It carries with it the authority to govern the Church, to administer in its affairs, to speak with authority in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to act as His dedicated servants, to bless the sick, to bless our families and many others. It serves as a guide by which to live our lives. In its fulness, its authority reaches beyond the veil of death into the eternities God has bestowed upon us a gift most precious and wonderful. It carries with it the authority to govern the Church, to administer in its affairs, to speak with authority in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to act as His dedicated servants, to bless the sick, to bless our families and many others. It serves as a guide by which to live our lives. In its fulness, its authority reaches beyond the veil of death into the eternities that lie ahead.

There is nothing else to compare with it in all this world. Safeguard it, cherish it, love it, live worthy of it.There is nothing else to compare with it in all this world. Safeguard it, cherish it, love it, live worthy of it.

QUENTIN L COOK on Everything’s Great, So Be Very Afraid!

Our day has been described as “a time of plenty and an age of doubt.” [Roger B. Porter] Basic belief in the power and authority of God is not only questioned but also denigrated. How under these circumstances can we promote values in a way that will resonate with the nonbelievers and the apathetic and help abate the spiraling descent into violence and evil?

This question is of monumental importance. . . .

My personal experience of living and interacting with people all over the world has caused me to be optimistic. I believe that light and truth will be preserved in our time. . . . As Church leaders, we have met with leaders of other faiths and have found that there is a common moral foundation that transcends theological differences and unites us in our aspirations for a better society.

We also find the majority of people are still respectful of basic moral values. But make no mistake: there are also people who are determined to both destroy faith and reject any religious influence in society. Other evil people exploit, manipulate, and tear down society with drugs, pornography, sexual exploitation, human trafficking, robbery, and dishonest business practices. The power and influence of these people is very large even if they are relatively small in number.

D&C 88:11-13 on How Our Eyeballs Engender Photosynthesis

And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings; which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—the light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

GORDON B HINCKLEY on All the Money We Spend Printing Pamphlets

“The most effective tract we will carry will be the goodness of our own lives.

THE HANDBOOK on Why We Have Callings Anyway

Leaders can best teach others how to be “true followers” by their personal example. This pattern—being a faithful disciple in order to help others become faithful disciples—is the purpose behind every calling in the Church.

THE HANDBOOK on What We Ought to Be Like—at Least, According to Jesus

Because Church leaders have been called by the Lord through His appointed servants, they represent Him and His Church. As representatives of the Savior, leaders look to Him as their example. He said: “What manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am” (3 Nephi 27:27).

THE HANDBOOK on the Proper Manners of Ministration

The purpose of ministering is to help others become true followers of Jesus Christ. Ministering to others includes:

◼ Remembering their names and becoming acquainted with them (see Moroni 6:4).

◼ Loving them without judging them (see John 13:34–35).

◼ Watching over them and strengthening their faith “one by one,” as the Savior did (3 Nephi 11:15; 17:21).

◼ Establishing sincere friendship with them and visiting them in their homes and elsewhere (see D&C 20:47).

THE HANDBOOK on How One Person Can Work Up a Riot of Reverence

Leaders can help cultivate a reverent atmosphere at Church gatherings. In sacrament meetings, stake conferences, and similar meetings, leaders set an example of reverence as they sit on the stand. Leaders also encourage reverence by arranging for worshipful music and inspiring talks. Teachers can encourage reverence in classrooms by preparing inspiring lessons, arranging the rooms in advance, using appropriate pictures and music, and greeting class members in a peaceful, loving way. Worship services and Church classes are enhanced when the entire ward makes an effort to be reverent.

THE HANDBOOK on How Much Exactly the Church Wants You Online

Members are encouraged to be examples of their faith at all times and in all places, including on the Internet. If they use blogs, social networks, and other Internet technologies, they are encouraged to strengthen others and help them become aware of that which is useful, good, and praiseworthy. When appropriate, members are encouraged to mention the Church and to link to and share approved Church materials.

When members use the Internet for purposes other than Church callings, they should understand that the message they give is personal. They should not give the impression that they represent or are sponsored by the Church.

THE HANDBOOK on How Your Job Affects Your Temple Worthiness

Members’ Occupations, Professions, and Affiliations

Baptism into the Church, priesthood ordinations, and the issuing of temple recommends are based on the personal worthiness of each individual as established by a careful interview by that person’s local priesthood leaders. Members of the Church should endeavor to be involved in activities and employment upon which they can in good conscience ask the blessings of the Lord and which are consistent with the principles of the gospel and the teachings of the Savior.\

THE HANDBOOK on How We’ll Hang Out with the Amish

Much that is inspiring, noble, and worthy of the highest respect is found in many other faiths. Missionaries and other members must be sensitive and respectful toward the beliefs of others and avoid giving offense. Stake and mission presidents who have questions about relationships with non-Christian faiths should contact a member of the Presidency of the Seventy or the Area Presidency. Other local leaders who have such questions should contact the stake or mission president.

THE HANDBOOK on Taking Over the Government

As citizens, Church members are encouraged to participate in political and governmental affairs, including involvement in the political party of their choice. Members are also urged to be actively engaged in worthy causes to improve their communities and make them wholesome places in which to live and rear families.

In accordance with the laws of their respective governments, members are encouraged to register to vote, to study issues and candidates carefully, and to vote for individuals whom they believe will act with integrity and sound judgment. Latter-day Saints have a special obligation to seek out, vote for, and uphold leaders who are honest, good, and wise (see D&C 98:10).

While affirming the right of expression on political and social issues, the Church is neutral regarding political parties, political platforms, and candidates for political office. The Church does not endorse any political party or candidate. Nor does it advise members how to vote. However, in some exceptional instances the Church will take a position on specific legislation, particularly when it concludes that moral issues are involved. Only the First Presidency can speak for the Church or commit the Church to support or oppose specific legislation or to seek to intervene in judicial matters. Otherwise, stake presidents and other local leaders should not organize members to participate in political matters or attempt to influence how they participate.

Church members are encouraged to consider serving in elected or appointed public offices in local and national government. Candidates for public office should not imply that their candidacy is endorsed by the Church or its leaders. Church leaders and members should also avoid statements or conduct that might be interpreted as Church endorsement of any political party, platform, policy, or candidate.

Members are encouraged to support measures that strengthen the moral fabric of society, particularly those designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

THE HANDBOOK on “Don’t Call Me Shirley”

As the Church grows across boundaries, cultures, and languages, the use of its revealed name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (see D&C 115:4), is increasingly important in the responsibility of the Church and its members to proclaim the name of the Savior throughout all the world. Accordingly, references to the Church should include its full name whenever possible. Following an initial reference to the full name of the Church, the contractions “the Church” or “the Church of Jesus Christ” are acceptable.

THE HANDBOOK on the Asking of Questions

The only authorized research agency of the Church is the Research Information Division of the Correlation Department. Representatives of this department use questionnaires and interviews to obtain information on issues of concern to General Authorities. When Church-authorized researchers contact members, they provide the Church’s toll-free number and a contact name at headquarters. In addition, they always allow the respondent the option of not answering any or all of the questions on a survey.

BRIGHAM YOUNG on How Much We Need to Worry about Learning Things from Gentiles

Our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. You may take geology, for instance, and it is true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its professors are true, but its leading principles are; they are facts—they are eternal; and to assert that the Lord made this earth out of nothing is preposterous and impossible [see Abraham 3:24; D&C 131:7]. God never made something out of nothing; it is not in the economy or law by which the worlds were, are, or will exist. There is an eternity before us, and it is full of matter; and if we but understand enough of the Lord and his ways we would say that he took of this matter and organized this earth from it. How long it has been organized it is not for me to say, and I do not care anything about it. … If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant. This we know by what we have learned naturally since we have had a being on the earth.

WILLARD RICHARDS on Pending World Healing

I attended by request, the Female Relief Society, whose object is the relief of the poor, the destitute, the widow and the orphan, and for the exercise of all benevolent purposes. … There was a very numerous attendance at the organization of the society, and also at the subsequent meetings, of some of our most intelligent, humane, philanthropic and respectable ladies; and we are well assured from a knowledge of those pure principles of benevolence that flow spontaneously from their humane and philanthropic bosoms, that with the resources they will have at command, they will fly to the relief of the stranger; they will pour in oil and wine to the wounded heart of the distressed; they will dry up the tears of the orphan and make the widow’s heart to rejoice.

Our women have always been signalized for their acts of benevolence and kindness; … in the midst of their persecution, when the bread has been torn from their helpless offspring by their cruel oppressors, they have always been ready to open their doors to the weary traveler, to divide their scant pittance with the hungry, and from their robbed and impoverished wardrobes, to divide with the more needy and destitute; and now that they are living upon a more genial soil, and among a less barbarous people, and possess facilities that they have not heretofore enjoyed, we feel convinced that with their concentrated efforts, the condition of the suffering poor, of the stranger and the fatherless will be ameliorated.

last week's svithe