2016: My Political Endgame

I have been trying to coalesce my thoughts on the current election I have found it difficult to do in discussion - There is just too much emotion, FUD (an old geek term. Stands for Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. Refers especially to rhetoric or propaganda designed to instill those feeling in people in order to control their choices by keeping them off-balance, in fight-or-flight mode, unable to employ critical thinking.)

So, I am going to try here.


In 1971, Philip Zimbardo performed a human behavior experiment now famously known as the Stanford Prison Experiment. The purpose was to study the psychological effects of prison on prisoners. A group of volunteer students were separated into two groups- prisoners and guards. The experiment was terminated early, when things got out of hand.

The Dr. Zimbardo later published a book, chronicling the events, and drawing comparisons to some of the most heinous acts of human mistreatment by other humans at Darfur, Abu Ghraib,  The byline for the book is "Understanding how good people turn evil". And it shares frightening examples of American soldiers with excellent records - good, decent people - engaging in dehumanization and torture.

You see, there are some characteristics we humans have.
1) We organize and classify. We place things into buckets. Black, White, Male, Female, Old, Young, Spanish, German, Muslim, Christian, Jew, Atheist...
2) We inherently seek our own personal self-interest. "People don't do things to others, they do thing for themselves".
3) We form groups. We associate with others, we are essential herd/pack animals (yes, even us social anxiety suffering introverts have an innate need for human connection).
4) We build filters through which we evaluate all information. Those filters are constructed from personal experience, from information provided by peers and parent figures, and from repetition (which is why advertisers pay so much to keep their brand in front of your face).

Because of these characteristics, it is incredibly hard for us to avoid classifying one or more groups as us vs. them. good vs. evil. (And yes, as a christian, I do believe in evil, and "them:.To me evil is the absence of good, just as dark is the absence of light. And them are those who chose to fight against God and became The devil and his angels, who seek to  lead humanity away from Love, peace, and joy).

But the simple reality is this world is imperfect, we are imperfect, we make mistakes we try our best. Most people are just trying to do the right thing, to the best of their knowledge - That is why we were given the planet and placed here. To learn, to experience to improve...

Okay, enough back story. To the current election:

Disclosure: I am  not a Democrat. I am Not a Republican. I am not a Libertarian. I don't like political parties. I believe they are a natural outgrowth of the aforementioned human characteristics. I believe they put us at risk of creating the precise conditions which lead to "The Lucifer Effect".

The two main parties are becoming increasingly polarized. Continuing on this path will inevitably lead to violence in the name of "the greater good". History is replete with examples of this.

Liberals - Conservatives are not evil incarnate. I know many good conservatives who are just trying to make sure our governmental system is fair for everyone, corruption is prevented.

Conservatives - Liberal are not evil incarnate. I know many good Liberals who are just trying to make sure our governmental system is fair for everyone, corruption is prevented.

Yes, there are differences of opinion, but they are not nearly so enormous as you have been lead to believe. You have been misled by FUD, by propaganda. You have been led to believe that "They" are inferior, selfish, self-serving, greedy, lazy, manipulative.... evil. "They" - mostly - aren't.

The world won't end if the other side wins. Every thing they can do can be undone.  Laws can be revoked. Supreme Court Justices can be impeached (not easy, not impossible). Any political leader can be removed from office by the united will of the people, should the united people find said leaders behavior not in accordance with the ideals for which we strive.

The real threat to America is continuing on this path of divisiveness. of allowing the relatively few, angry outliers to dictate our policy, our mores.

So, my endgame for this election - my hope is that enough people will vote for neither party. In doing so, a clear message will be sent that we the people don't approve of their behavior. That we the people will no longer continue to live the current status quo. That we the people want to come together, to understand one another, and find compromise - a choice which respects everyone, to the extent possible.

I believe most people are good. I believe most people want peace, I believe most people want their neighbor to live in peace. I believe we just need to find a way to overcome those human characteristics. I believe this is true of  Americans, Chinese, Russians, Syrians.... I believe we, the people of the world, can be better then this. I don't think it will happen until we can set aside the artificial gangs we create. I believe it can happen.

My endgame looks beyond the next year, the next 4 years, the next 30 years...


"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."
- John 13:34-35

The dangerous power of PC

So a while ago - maybe two months - I was involved in a discussion around the term white privilege. In the course of the conversation, I mentioned the potential role epigenetics and genetic memory might play in some of the issues we see between races, particularly relating to violent interactions.

I was immediately told to "tread carefully".

Well, my anxiety kicked in then, as it tends to do whenever I am afraid I might have hurt someones feelings, and I started rambling and trying to be clever and witty with my response (and as usual was probably neither). Then I got labeled as ignorant and immature, which more or less confirmed my anxieties, and that is pretty much where the conversation ended.

But of course, as is always the case for me. I continued to play the event over and over in my mind, torturing myself with every word. How could I have worded it differently?

This afternoon I was going through another round of that for an hour as me and puppy went for a long walk (an aside, that was also an interesting adventure. Rogue has never been fond of cars, I thought I would try taking her in the car with the windows rolled down, to someplace new and fun - see if that wold help. For her the walk was great fun, the car, pure torture both ways)

But today I had a moment of clarity as I was torturing myself. Political Correctness has the potential to be very dangerous to intellectual progress.

A brief anecdote: A few years ago, I was at a training conference for a week. While there, a group of attendees, including myself became acquainted, and at one point several in this group started making plans to go for drinks one evening. The roughest, toughest looking of the group (Keeping in mind this was a technology training, not a biker rally) quickly declined, saying he doesn't drink.

Later I asked him if he was Mormon. He informed me he was not even particularly religious - agnostic. As a youth he had observed and learned of members of his heritage who had experienced considerable unpleasantness related to alcoholism. He concluded that there must be a genetic predisposition to  alcoholism in has ancestry, so he made the choice, as a pre-teen, to never use alcohol. "Why take the chance?" he said. He observed a potential genetic pitfall and made the choice to avoid any circumstance which might trigger alcoholism.

Now, in this previous conversation, I wasn't talking about genetics - inherited traits. I was referring to epigenetics - trait variations caused by environmental factors (one proposed theory is that violence in many inner city areas may be due to mild lead poisoning, due to old lead pipes in old plumbing), and genetic memory - a newer theory that some memories are subtly transferred genetically - think of the behaviors we call instinct as an example of this). But now I am including genetics generally in this thought.

I understand that in the past there were people who proclaimed the notion that some races were genetically inferior and others were genetically superior. I am aware of eugenics and some of the horrible atrocities which sprang from it (mentioned them in a prior post, in fact).

But, when you avoid ideas or theories, or general science, based on the fact that previous misuse might lead to uncomfortable feelings, you may very well prevent people from obtaining valuable knowledge which may improve - even save lives.

Let me throw a what-if. out. Talking of blacks and police violence as a specific example. I have read of several studies showing police of any race are more likely to use force and/or shoot a black person. I have also read an analysis concluding that Black police officers are more likely to use force. Now it is fairly obvious why someone would wish to avoid talking about this. Some would choose to imply that black people are more violent (genetically inferior/savages/...). Others would fear someone might think they are implying this.

But what if, for some genetic (less likely), epigenetic or genetic memory reason, Black Americans are genetically more aggressive? To be clear aggressiveness is NOT a negative trait. Aggressiveness is a key trait for success in any extroverted fields of endeavor. Acting, performing, sports, business, sales, politics,... Aggressiveness - reaching for the stars significantly aids in success. Yes, there can be negative consequences  depending on when, where and how aggressiveness is applied. That is true of almost every good thing.

Now, what if, knowing this is a common trait, people (especially law enforcement in this case) are trained with specific techniques allowing for the avoidance of triggers - just like my acquaintance avoiding alcohol? What if?

But, we don't know 'what if'. We are afraid of offending someone, or of giving some idiot ammunition to support his racist rhetoric. In essence we choose to remain ignorant and suffer the resulting consequences because of the stupid, or because of a fear of being labeled as not PC, or ignorant, or immature.

Our company brought in some personality expert to do a personality interaction training. Based on our answers two a battery of questions, a color wheel was filled out which to a certain degree identified our personality - how we would likely behave in certain conditions. Many people have kept their result on their desk. One of the HR guys commented to me how much he likes that. When he goes to talk to someone, he can glance at their color wheel and tailor his conversation to them. His specific example was that one pattern favors small talk, so he initiates conversations with them by asking about family, friends, etc... (that is his pattern by the way).  Another pattern hates small talk, and prefers quick concise information, so for them he get right down to business. The result for him are his interactions are almost always perceived positively.

Political Correctness - Word policing, thought policing can be very detrimental to this.Fear of words, of ideas, because they have a checkered past, or because they are vaguely related to some bad event... very.... counterproductive.

Health adventures: Just when you thought it was over...

So after years of dealing with abdominal pain, thinking it was Crohn's, dealing with side effects of Crohn's medication, and not really getting significant relief from symptoms. We finally chased my problem down to a physical manifestation of anxiety disorder. I was put on  Lexapro and voila! symptoms gone! I was feeling better, I was starting to regain physical fitness. My wife noted that I was less wound up... all was good, well minor side effects; a little more insomnia than normal for me (which was hardly a blip, since I was always pretty bad there), and an unpleasant cotton-headedness - just a kind of dull ringing sound in the background, and a sort of... fuzzy brain... Not pleasant, but livable.

Then, months later, another side-effect popped up. They call it SSRI induced apathy. I started reading up on it, after I became suspicious of a behavior change which started several months ago. First, I found myself really struggling to do... stuff. Anything really from work around the house to work at work. Even if it was something I wanted to do... I'd find myself sitting there and hour or two later, still not doing it. The real shocker, which got me to start doing research is when in the course of two months I ran up an absurd credit card debt. I mean BAD debt! Just a snap of the fingers.

I have always been very cautions about credit card debt. Since about 2000, when I recovered from the debt which resulted from illness (probably also anxiety induce, in retrospect). I have adamantly refused to carry a credit card balance. Then, as if overnight, boom!

Now, it isn't the end of thew world. It won't require bankruptcy or selling our house or children to resolve, but it will require some belt tightening.

Next week I go to talk to the Dr. about alternatives - Several professional journals recommond 3 options; 1) Lower the dose of the SSRI (already onthe lowest dose). 2) Augment with Buproprion (a little nervous about adding a drug to remedy the effects of a drug. Also the recommendation is based on anecdotal evidence rather then a full study.). 3) Switch to an SNRI (a whole new world of side effects to discover. hooray! :) ) Related to the last alternate were several anecdotals of successful treatment with a very low, regular dose of Tramadol, which is an opioid that appears to have some SNRI behavior. That is an interesting alternative to consider, lower side effect risk etc, but concerns about addiction. Not sure if it would be permitted as a treatment in the US either.

At any rate, it continues to be an adventure. But a goo lesson learned as well. Don't be too quick to judge people for the choices they make. In some cases, they may not have had full, conscious control of those choices. It also makes think a bit differently about the concept of possession in scriptural stories, and medieval history.

Let Me Tell You About a Most Amazing Woman.

Let me tell you about a most amazing woman. There is this woman I know, who decided to marry this guy, even though it meant she would have to move almost a thousand miles from her friends, her family her burgeoning career (which undoubtedly would have been wildly successful, and lucrative), to a culture very different from the one she was accustomed to.

Then mere weeks before they were to marry, she drove through the night to be with him, after he was involved in a life threatening accident. She began preparing herself to marry a potential invalid, with all the sacrifices that would entail. Fortunately he recovered, but not before the wedding, so she sacrificed much of what she had dreamed her wedding to be.

Then she sacrificed again by taking on greater home burdens as, late in life, he returned to school to finish a degree, the result of which was no change in position or compensation (she did not complain).

And now she sacrifices clothes for her, make-up for her, fun for her... to instead by food and snacks for her kids, and for all their friends. She sacrifices her time every week to participate in PTA, to go to school and help out in her children's classrooms, and sometimes in classrooms where none of her children are present, because nobody else has volunteered.

She loves the children in the neighborhood, and is a second mom to many, always ready to be a friend, adviser, and confidant.

This woman, my wife. is truly amazing. Happy Anniversary my love.

Mormon Misconceptions: "Cry Repentance"

This is another one that applies to more than just Mormons.The scripture talk about Crying repentance, but what does that really mean?

I have always envisioned some guy standing on top of a city wall, yelling down to the people to mend their wicked ways - Certainly, there have been cases where God has very specifically instructed individuals to do just that: Jonah was sent to Nineveh, Samuel the Lamonite was sent to the Nephites... There are many other cases.

But... That kind of crying repentance was always initiated by a very specific, personal directive form God. What about the rest of the time? And how do you reconcile the seeming dichotomy between "Cry repentance" and "Judge not...".

Because after all, while you are lecturing that adulterer regarding his/her final resting place for their most heinous sin, you are equally damning yourself by driving 5 miles over the speed limit, or 'borrowing' a pencil form work, or possibly watching you favorite TV series, or by saying something mean on twitter/facebook/etc...  ("I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.",  "Whosover looketh upon a woman to lust after her...", "Whosoever shall say unto his brother 'Thou fool...'")

"But those aren't as bad..."

Who says? Re-read the previous scriptural quotes. Seems to me God made it clear we're all doomed, but for the Atonement, (Which is infinite, so...).

So, looking to the Savior again as the example, how did he "cry repentance"?

"Come, follow me." He invited people to "Be better",

"Neither do I condemn thee..." He knew their mistakes, he knew they knew. He didn't cluck his tongue, roll his eyes, or whisper to the apostles. He was frank, honest, nonjudgmental, and encouraging.

He invited through example, he was honest, patient and sincere. He spoke softly. He was consistent.

Repentance isn't about confessing how horrible you were to everyone - How you were wrong and they were right. Often I think that is really what repentance criers are seeking - That smug self-satisfaction, that sense of  'justice' the opportunity to say "I told you so" (Hey, even Jonah struggled with that, he Finished up in Nineveh, and went outside to wait and watch the fireworks when God dropped the bomb, which  didn't drop, because the Ninevites did repent.

Repentance is continual improvement. Crying repentance is encouraging those who are struggling to improve.

Moming is hard

My wife is out of town, and I have three of the Kids. This morning, I lost track of time (as did the older two kids), and had to scramble and drive them to school. In the meantime, number three was to be picked up by a carpool. He was up earlier than the older two and seemed to be on top of things, so I left him with instructions to watch out the window for his ride.

I dropped the older two off at school, after some debate as to where their school actually was, then returned home to find number three sitting on the computer, watching videos, at this point 5 minutes after he was supposed to have been picked up.

I sent him out to the car so I could drive him, just as the carpool showed up, then he tells me that he is going to wear sandals, because he can't find his shoes! "Aaack! I tell you to get ready and watch for your ride, and you are playing on the computer with no idea where your shoes are?!"

An hour later, I get a call at work, from the school, my son wishes to speak to me. 

"Dad? I forgot my homework folder".

Mom-ing is hard!

I am not one to take my wife for granted, I know she works hard and has much to do and keep track of. I also understand that I am disadvantaged in this role, because I don't do it often enough to develop the 'muscle memory'.

In spite of that, I am actually glad I get this opportunity every so often to remind me just how much she does do. That whole "Walk in another's shoes thing" is good for the soul.

Mormon Misconceptions

At church today during a discussion on the topic of service in the community it was mentioned that many people who are not LDS but familiar with members of the church are of the opinion that "Mormons are good friends so long as you listen to their missionary lessons."

I have also occasionally heard the complaint that Mormons engaged in "Doublespeak", meaning deliberately ambiguous, or euphemistic (replacing a harsh word with a mild or less embarrassing  word, a non-controversial example would be saying "he passed away", instead of "he died", a less kind example would be "A few brick shy of a full load" instead of "stupid").

While it occurs to me that some of this is due to cultural differences, and many more come from the common difficulty we humans have of accurately expressing our thoughts through word transmission ("Your lips look like rubies", "Who's Ruby? And how is it you are so acquainted with her lips?!").

But there are a few misconceptions about Mormonism that trip people up - both in the church and out of the church.

Yep, you guessed it. I am probably going to ramble about them for a bit.



"In the World, not of the world"/"Love the sinner, hate the sin"

This isn't uniquely a Mormonism - It shows up in all of Christianity, and probably in other religions as well. The application of this is, I believe, a source of much of the ill will I mentioned at the start of this post. I think this is due to those who apply this term misunderstanding its meaning. It is interpreted to be a very pessimistic phrase. In LDS culture, this is perhaps exacerbated by the notion that we are a "Peculiar people". In essence "Just because you are stuck in a pit of losers doesn't mean you have to be a loser".

This misinterpretation of these phrases leads people in the church to believe that they must be better -and better off than everyone else. (That "must" is both "must" - meaning a logical conclusion, and "must" - meaning an expression of necessity, see what I mean about communicating with words? Two entirely different meanings from the same four letters said in exactly the same way!).

But the phrase is not meant to be interpreted with pessimism. It is not meant to be a comparison of "non-members" and "members". Since it is the "Church of Jesus Christ", it is his interpretation of the phrase which we should look to, which he demonstrated through his example. He did not avoid "sinners", he did not withhold blessings form those who were not of "the faith", he did not turn his back on those who didn't hang on his every word. Jesus was sent specifically to the Jews, yet he still healed the servant of a Roman centurion (Luke 7:1-10),  and a group of (or at least one) Samaritans (Luke 17:11-16). His help was available to any who asked for it.

In fact there were really only two groups which Christ spoke, or behaved unkindly toward. The first were the money-changers in the temple (Mathew 21:12-13), which he chased out with a whip he fashioned from the leather of his sandals. These would have been members of the church who were exploiting the religion for personal gain.

The second group were the Scribes, Sadducees and Pharisees (Matthew 23) - These three groups represented positions of power in the Jewish world. The Saducees were the Aristrocratic leaders, the Pharisees were Middle-class leaders, and the Scribes were the Lawyers and Judges. (Note that Jewish culture was deeply religious, so all of these religious as well as secular in nature). Pharisees could also be considered somewhat equivalent politically to Liberals -progressive in thought, whereas the Sadducees were the Conservatives - adhering to strict scriptural doctrine.

You will notice the one key commonality among these three groups is power. Political, Financial and Religious influence. They were leaders, celebrities, people whose voice held considerable influence. Christ had a few unkind things to say about these groups, all dealing with their hypocrisy. His beef with them was that they sought for their own self-interest, they used their positions for personal gain, rather than to serve the people. He pronounced doom on them.

But....

Also take note of Matthew 23:3 - He told the multitude, and his disciples to "Observe and do whatsoever they bid", but to "do ye not after their works". He didn't tell the people to ostracize them, to speak ill of them to look down on them. In fact, he told the people to listen to them and follow their words (They were after all teaching the commandments).

So how does this apply to a "good" Christian today? Look for the good in everyone, listen to and take positive benefit from the good things that people say, even if they are otherwise despicable people. Just don't follow their bad example. But while you are gleaning as much good as you can, and avoiding bad examples, remember, you are not called to be judge or jury. In other words, a true Christian is a kind, critical thinker with a general leaning toward optimism.

And for those who are in positions of leadership, consider your behavior carefully. Your role as a leader is to serve. Failure to do so will have dire consequences when you one day stand before your maker.

Remember also, that Christ spent much of his time among sinners, even Dining with them (Matt 9:10). But hie did not engage in sinful behavior

So, being "In but not of the world" means to be actively engaged with the world, to be friends with your neighbors, to help and "Love thy neighbor" (who is anyone, even - those who are a different religion, different race, different gender, different nationality...). It means to be part of the community in which you live. To  be involved in and in service to your neighborhood, City, County, State, Nation... (Which implies you are making an effort to get along with them).  Just remember while you are being with them, working with them, playing with them, etc.. to live to the standards set by Christ.