Thoughts on this day

 1. I am so glad that I am not a full time teacher. I have been doing a lot of Zoom sessions over the past few days, and I acquired a sore throat and a headache from all that talking! I am a pretty quiet person, and honestly, I am so grateful that I do not have to talk THAT MUCH all the time.

2. I am the person in charge of hiring a new department assistant for myself, and honestly, 70 candidates is about 60 too many!! What a difficult, time-consuming task we have before us. And, hiring is juggling people's lives a bit, too, and that feels like a big responsibility.

3. I have been making Zoom videos for my grandkids, and that is actually really fun! (Though it does involve talking...)

Small bits of remodeling that make a big difference

 New bathroom floor, New white kitchen

We replaced the carpet in the master bathroom with tile. So that is nice!

And we had the kitchen cabinets painted white. It really brightens up the room!

There is a trash compactor which is not white. I am getting some vinyl to go on it to make it white, and then it will look better, I think. (I do not really like or even care about trash compactors, but Bruce likes it, so we will keep it. The only alternative would be building something in its place, and we don’t need to do that right now.)

From Robert A. Rees article

 Robert A. Rees is a professor at Berkeley. He gave an address in honor of Eugene England at UVU in 2017, which was then published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. Some excerpts:

"When Utah was vying for statehood, in an attempt to prevent the majority of Mormons from gravitating en masse to the Democratic Party, which had been much more sympathetic to the saints than the Republicans, Church leaders divided towns and congregations right down the middle, with half going to the Republicans and half to the Democrats. That most Mormons identified with the Democratic Party can be seen by the fact that eighty-two percent of Utah citizens voted for Democratic candidate William Jennings Bryan in the 1896 presidential election.

What we have today in the intermountain area is almost a complete reversal, with Utah and Idaho leading the nation in voting Republican. This is why Gene England argued that some Utah Mormons should consider becoming Democrats. As a life-long Republican, he was serious, because he knew that supermajorities inevitably infringe upon the rights of minorities. Lest you think Gene was being unfair or unreasonable, he also proposed that more Mormons on the coasts should become Republican.

Nevertheless, it isn’t the shift to the right among their fellow Mormons that many liberals find disturbing, but rather a shift of many Latter-day Saints to the far right, even to a fundamentalist ideology… that sees the Democratic Party as Socialist (without fully understanding what that word means); that bemoans so called “welfare queens” while increasing corporate welfare; and that sees capitalism as the greatest economic system the world has ever known (which would be news to Jesus, the people of Enoch, and those who practiced the United Order in early Utah).

It is far too easy to confuse partisan political ideologies with gospel principles. Such confusion, I contend, is destructive to Mormonism’s ultimate mission. The extent to which a dominant far-right ideology is identified in the public mind with Mormonism undermines Church growth and status, leading many outside the Church to regard Mormonism as rigid and regressive, as anti-science and anti-intellectual,  as insular and narrow-minded, and as favoring the rich over the poor. Such individuals are likely to hold the worst stereotypes of Mormons, thus leaving them blind to the truly remarkable truths of the Restoration and the very substantial gifts of Mormonism. Separating right wing (or left wing) politics from the gospel could aid us in a more expansive reimagined Restoration."

And the ending...

"I said earlier that Gene England’s good, thoughtful, and faithful heart was a little to the left. That is also true of all of us. It is where, in shaping our bodies and our spirits our Heavenly parents placed this powerful organ of light and love. They also have hearts, real beating and feeling hearts, and since we are made in their image, we can say with confidence and joy that their hearts too are a little to the left."

NYT Opinion from June 26, 2019

Copied here in case I lose access to the original, which is here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html 

What Happened to America’s Political Center of Gravity?

By Sahil Chinoy

JUNE 26, 2019

The Republican Party leans much farther right than most traditional conservative parties in Western Europe and Canada, according to an analysis of their election manifestos. It is more extreme than Britain’s Independence Party and France’s National Rally (formerly the National Front), which some consider far-right populist parties. The Democratic Party, in contrast, is positioned closer to mainstream liberal parties.

Note: Circles sized by the percentage of the vote won by the party in the latest election in this data. Only parties that won more than 1 percent of the vote and are still in existence are shown. We analyzed parties in a selection of Western European countries, Canada and the United States.

These findings are based on data from the Manifesto Project, which reviews and categorizes each line in party manifestos, the documents that lay out a group’s goals and policy ideas. We used the topics that the platforms emphasize, like market regulation and multiculturalism, to put them on a common scale.

The resulting scores capture how the groups represent themselves, not necessarily their actual policies. They are one way to answer a difficult question: If we could put every political party on the same continuum from left to right, where would the American parties fall?

According to its 2016 manifesto, the Republican Party lies far from the Conservative Party in Britain and the Christian Democratic Union in Germany — mainstream right-leaning parties — and closer to far-right parties like Alternative for Germany, whose platform contains plainly xenophobic, anti-Muslim statements.

The Republican platform does not include the same bigoted policies, and its score is pushed to the right because of its emphasis on traditional morality and a “national way of life.” Still, the party shares a “nativist, working-class populism” with the European far right, said Thomas Greven, a political scientist at the Free University of Berlin who has studied right-wing populism. These parties position themselves as defenders of the “traditional” people from globalization and immigration, he said.

The Republican Party vs. Other Right-Wing Parties

Changed name to distance

from links to racism.

Wants ban on wearing

burqas in public.

Committed to “Western

Christian culture.”

Has roots in white

nationalism.

4

2

8

6

5

7

1

9

3

Republican

Party

Proposed

Muslim-only prisons.

Ties with a far-right

extremist group.

Campaigned against

climate action.

Does not accept a

“multiethnic society.”

Wants to shut down

mosques.

1. U.K. Independence Party (Britain), 2. National Rally (France), 3. Freedom Party (Austria), 4. Sweden Democrats (Sweden), 5. Finns Party (Finland), 6. Alternative for Germany (Germany), 7. Danish People’s Party (Denmark), 8. Swiss People’s Party (Switzerland), 9. Party for Freedom (Netherlands)

The difference is that in Europe, far-right populist parties are often an alternative to the mainstream. In the United States, the Republican Party is the mainstream.

“That’s the tragedy of the American two-party system,” Mr. Greven said. In a multiparty government, white working-class populists might have been shunted into a smaller faction, and the Republicans might have continued as a “big tent” conservative party. Instead, the Republican Party has allowed its more extreme elements to dominate. “Nowhere in Europe do you have that phenomenon,” he said.

The situation predates the current administration, Mr. Greven said. While we could analyze Republican manifestos only through the 2016 election, since then, President Trump has openly expressed approval for politicians like Marine Le Pen, the far-right leader of France’s National Rally, who was recently ordered to stand trial for posting pictures on Twitter of killings by the Islamic State.

The Democrats fall closer to mainstream left and center-left parties in other countries, like the Social Democratic Party in Germany and Britain’s Labour Party, according to their manifestos’ scores.

And the United States’ political center of gravity is to the right of other countries’, partly because of the lack of a serious left-wing party. Between 2000 and 2012, the Democratic manifestos were to the right of the median party platform. The party has moved left but is still much closer to the center than the Republicans.

Republican

Party

Democratic

Party

2016

2016

Labour

(Britain)

Conservatives

(Britain)

2012

2012

In 2012 and 2016, the Democratic manifesto moved left, placing greater emphasis on labor groups, equality and market regulation.

In 2008, the Democratic and Republican manifestos emphasized many of the same topics, including international cooperation and the need for a strong, stable government.

2008

2008

2004

2004

Median party

2000

2000

To calculate these scores, we used a statistical technique called correspondence analysis, analyzing how frequently the party platforms mention each topic coded by the Manifesto Project. Each mention of a particular category pushes the party’s score to the left or the right.

To see how it works, here’s part of the Republican platform, which lauds free enterprise and traditional morality:

                    An Excerpt from the 2016 Republican Party Platform

Pushes score leftPushes score right

Democracy

This platform is many things: A handbook for returning decision-making to the people. 

Constitutionalism

A guide to the constitutional rights of every American. 

Social justice

And a manual for the kind of sustained growth that will bring opportunity to all those on the sidelines of our society. 

Traditional morality

Every time we sing, "God Bless America,” we are asking for help. 

Traditional morality

We ask for divine help that our country can fulfill its promise. 

National way of life

We earn that help by recommitting ourselves to the ideas and ideals that are the true greatness of America. 

Productivity

We are the party of a growing economy that gives everyone a chance in life, an opportunity to learn, work, and realize the prosperity freedom makes possible. 

Free enterprise

Government cannot create prosperity, though government can limit or destroy it. 

Free enterprise

Prosperity is the product of self-discipline, enterprise, saving and investment by individuals, but it is not an end in itself. 

Left and right roughly map onto today’s notions of progressive and conservative, though newer issues like climate change don’t always fit neatly into those buckets, and the meaning of left and right can shift from country to country. In our study, the categories that contributed most to the left-right scores were both economic, like Marxist analysis, and social, like references to a “national way of life.”

Categories that push a manifesto’s score farthest …

… to the right

Traditional morality

Multiculturalism (–)

Welfare state limitation

Education limitation

National way of life

Free enterprise

Internationalism (–)

Labor groups (–)

European community (–)

Military

… to the left

Peace

Keynesian demand management

Constitutionalism (–)

Traditional morality (–)

Controlled economy

Nationalization

Anti-imperialism

National way of life (–)

Military (–)

Marxist analysis

(–) corresponds to a negative reference

The Republican Party’s position among the European far right is especially striking because of the United States’ two-party system, which leaves less room for fringe groups. As a result, parties are “forced to deal in platitudes, usually in competing for the center,” said Richard Bensel, a professor of political science at Cornell.

But, he added, there’s “something very strange happening in recent American politics”: Theory says that two-party systems generate “moderate, unprincipled parties,” but the Republicans and Democrats have grown more distinct.

“Democracy doesn’t work with that kind of polarization,” he said.

(Sahil Chinoy is a graphics editor for The New York Times Opinion section.)

Sharlee Mullins Glenn of MWEG, September 5 plus Dr. Val Hemmings Sept. 8

Saved, for when I need it. I really admire Sharlee, one of the founders of Mormon Women for Ethical Government. After Sharlee's bit is a letter from Dr. Val G. Hemmings to his children about the medical situation and this particular election. Also shared on MWEG, by his daughter Julie Savage.

First, Sharlee, quoted here:
I've seen this post (below) copied and pasted on many people's profiles here on Facebook. I'd like to provide a reasoned point-by-point response. 

The copied and pasted post that many people are sharing:

"To answer all of those of you who would say “I can't believe you would vote for Trump." Well folks listen up! I'm not just voting for him. I'm voting for the second Amendment. I'm voting for the next supreme court justice. I'm voting for the electoral college, and the Republic we live in. I'm voting for the Police and law and order. I'm voting for the military, and the veterans who fought for and died for this Country. I'm voting for the Flag that is always missing from the Democratic background. I'm voting for the right to speak my opinion and not be censored. I’m voting for secure borders. I’m voting for the right to praise my God without fear. I’m voting for every unborn soul the Democrats want to murder. I’m voting for freedom and the American Dream. I’m voting for good and against evil. I'm not just voting for one person, I'm voting for the future of my Country! What are you voting for?"

My response (and let me preface this by saying that I am not a Democrat. I am a moderate with classical conservative leanings who is currently unaffiliated.):

1. "I'm voting for the second Amendment."
The second amendment is an important part of the Constitution, but it's but one small part. And the truth is that none of the candidates for president want to take away everyone's guns. None of them. Putting in place some common sense regulations that will save innocent lives and which the vast majority of Americans agree are needed in no way violates the second amendment. The second amendment is safe no matter who wins in November.
What's much more concerning to me is the utter disregard for other critical parts of the Constitution exhibited by our current president. Important things like the separation of powers, the emoluments clause, the right to peaceful assembly, and freedom of the press have all been flouted by President Trump.

2. "I'm voting for the next supreme court justice."
I hope we're all concerned about who our next supreme court justice will be. Hopefully it will be a justice who is not a political pawn. We need justices who are impartial and nonpartisan and we need a good balance of those who are by nature a little more progressive and those who are a little more conservative in their approaches. 

3. I'm voting for the electoral college."
I'm not sure the electoral college is really on the line in this election. Changing the way a president is elected would take an amendment to the Constitution which would require a 2/3 affirmative vote in the House, 2/3 in the Senate, and 3/4 of the states. It is interesting to note, though, that 65% of Americans across the board think the president should be determined by popular vote (see 2019 Atlantic/PRRI poll). 

4. "I'm voting for the police and law and order."
This statement concerns me a lot because as Greg Sargent so succinctly points out:
"'Law and order' without the rule of law is neither 'law' nor 'order.' Law and order without the rule of law is the wielding of power and violence (both state violence and private vigilante violence) unshackled from law-and rules-bound processes."
The truth is that as much as Trump likes to call himself the candidate of law and order, he has shown over and over again that he has no respect at all for the rule of law. Law and order without rule of law = authoritarianism.
It's also highly ironic that Trump keeps pointing to the riots and looting that are accompanying some of the protests across the country and saying: "This is Biden's America. I will be the president of law and order."--apparently forgetting that, well, he *is* the president. What he is pointing to is actually Trump's America.

5. "I'm voting for the military, and the veterans who fought for and died for this country."
Me too. Which is why I cannot vote for Trump. President Trump knew about and ignored the fact that Russia was offering bounties to Taliban militants to kill U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. Trump has treated Gold Star families with deep disdain and repeatedly attacked the record and integrity of war hero, Senator John McCain. And the most recent allegations regarding his calloused comments about our soldiers killed in battle should be deeply concerning to every American. 

6. "I'm voting for the Flag that is always missing from the Democratic background."
A simple fact check and/or google search of images will show that this statement is blatantly false. The Democrats display the flag at their events with the same regularity that Republicans do.

7. "I'm voting for the right to speak my opinion and not be censored."
Yes, freedom of speech is a vital part of our democracy. Which, again, is why I could never vote for Trump. He has repeatedly tried to suppress the voices of those who disagree with him, including at his own rallies. 

8. "I’m voting for secure borders."
Again, every single viable candidate from both major parties during this election cycle wanted secure borders. Does anyone want insecure borders? Of course not. This statement is a prime example of a straw man argument--one of the most common logical fallacies employed in political discussions.

9. "I’m voting for the right to praise my God without fear."
Again, straw man. Is anyone planning to take away anyone's right to praise their God without fear? No. Although Trump came as close as any U.S. president ever has by threatening to shut down mosques. Freedom of religion must extend to all religions.

10. "I’m voting for every unborn soul the Democrats want to murder."
It's difficult to even know how to respond rationally to such an irrational statement. I am not a Democrat, but I know many, and I don't know a single Democrat who wants to murder unborn souls. What a terribly unhelpful way to approach the very complex and nuanced topic of abortion.
I get how problematic the issue of abortion is. It's hugely problematic for me too. I am staunchly pro-life. But it's a complicated issue (as my own church's position on abortion acknowledges (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints))--and sensationalist, inflammatory, and reductive statements like the one above should offend the intelligence of every single one of us.

11. "I’m voting for freedom and the American Dream. I’m voting for good and against evil."
Me too. Which is why I cannot under any circumstances vote for someone like Donald Trump, the very antithesis of our Savior and of everything that He taught.

And now Dr. Hemmings via his daughter Julie:

Awhile back I posted a letter from my physician dad to our family about COVID and many of you found it useful. He recently wrote us another letter about medical issues in this election, so I thought I would share this one as well. In a world where we are concerned about sources, there is no one I trust more than my dad. Not only is he my dad and a wise man, he has great medical credentials to back his thoughts. So I offer another letter from my dad, Dr. Val G. Hemming, to our family, offering his thoughts on "socialized medicine" and the current election. I'm grateful he has taken the time to thoughtfully reflect on this time and offer his words of wisdom to his kids and grand kids. I'll put his credentials in the comments.

Dear family:
2020 is perhaps the most consequential election of my lifetime. Given how important this election is, I wanted my community to know how I feel about an issue that touches the lives of each of us: health care.

I wish to counter many politicians’ claims that the government seeks to take over our health care system. The specious claims are ignorant of the huge beneficial role government has played, and plays, in improving human health. Our collective good health and longevity derives from a hundred years of federally funded research in public health, human physiology, genetics, surgery, pharmacology, immunology, microbiology, virology, and engineering, to name a few. Research that occurs at universities and medical schools exists because of government support. Few realize the largest share of funds for training physicians come indirectly or directly from the government.

Millions of American citizens receive health care through Medicare, Medicaid, veteran’s hospitals, Indian Health Service, Public Health Service, the Uniformed Services (Department of Defense) and others. The government subsidizes health care insurance premiums for thousands of United States civil servants. Without government support our present healthcare system would implode.

In their polemics some politicians call this government involvement “socialism” or “socialized medicine." I would rather call it informed self-interest by an enlightened democratic (little “d”) government.

I practiced medicine and government medicine, including nearly thirty years as a United States Air Force pediatrician, for over fifty years. I witnessed massive growth in medical knowledge, the introduction of incredible new technologies, and evolving new technical skills. We now have hundreds of new drugs, biologics, surgical techniques, vaccines, enhanced genetic knowledge, approaches to mental health, with remarkable benefits: They allow us to improve diagnosis, provide real time monitoring, temporarily replace or transplant hearts, lungs, and kidneys. Americans now survive cancers far oftener and longer than was ever possible in history.

These technologies are only possible because citizens of this country invested in the acquisition of medical knowledge, tools, and services the research enterprise has produced. Yet we fail to equitably distribute these advances to all citizens. We presently ration care, based on the ability to pay. We often spend large sums to treat patients with complex and life-threatening diseases while basic preventive care is unavailable to many families and children.

I believe the United States must redress modern healthcare inequities. There is much debate about how this might be done. But it seems to me that the fairest solution is a countrywide insurance program, or programs, that provides access to care, education in public health and protection from catastrophic illness for every person and family in the land. This is not “government takeover”. It is the responsibility of government to provide “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” for all Americans, not just those who can pay.

I urge each of you to consider how you will vote with an eye to making the basics of our wealth of health care resources accessible to improve the lives of each American.

Books Read August 2020

 1. By reason and by faith: The life of Henry S. Tanner. (Non-fiction)

I had to buy this book, since the only library copy was in Special Collections, and I needed to use it at length since I am writing an article about two of Tanner's daughters. One is Mildred Tanner Pettit, the composer of the music to the very well-known LDS hymn "I am a child of God." The other is her younger sister (by 20 years) Virginia Tanner, who is pretty famous in the dance world. My article is about the possible influence of Mildred on Virginia--Mildred was also a dancer, choreographer and teacher of dance to children, which became Virginia's main line of work. They were part of a large polygamist family, but it was very strange (at least to me) because they were main-stream Mormon (like, not an offshoot of any kind) but he married all four of the subsequent wives after Lauretta (Mildred's mother) AFTER the manifesto. Like, he was not the only person who did not "get" it. But then, he married the last woman (younger sister to wife #2) after the SECOND manifesto, then that was when he ended up being disfellowshipped. Which he was very hurt by, but he taught his children to follow the prophet, and all of his 23 living children (6 died as babies) were very stalwart in the faith. Anyway. Super interesting family, if a bit incomprehensible to me. Like, his wives were totally fine with each other and with each other's children, and they were raised to be one family. 

2. Joy in Every Song by Robert D. Christensen (Non-fiction)

This is another Tanner family book. Robert is the son of the youngest Tanner daughter, Roselyn, who was born in 1927. (To put this in perspective, Mildred was born in 1895 and Virginia in 1915.) Dr Christensen was (is?) a professor of pediatric medicine at the University of South Florida College of Medicine. This is his first non-medical book. He tells stories about his life using songs as a spin-off. It was a fun read. I especially liked his "I am a child of God" chapter, since that tied into my Mildred research.

3. Cross my heart and hope to spy by Ally Carter (Teen fiction)

4. Don't judge a girl by her cover by Ally Carter (Teen fiction)

5. Only the good spy young by Ally Carter (Teen fiction)

6. Out of sight, out of mind by Ally Carter (Teen fiction)

7. United we spy by Ally Carter (Teen fiction)

Okay--I was reading all of these while also reading my last book of the month, but I lumped them all together here because what can I say? Light, fun though sometimes intense reading, the last five books in the Gallagher Girls series. I read the first one about a year ago, maybe. Since I read the other Ally Carter books, I thought I should finish this series. It took me awhile to get into, but then I got kind of hooked on the series. Ally Carter is a good story teller.

8. Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men by Caroline Criado Perez

Super good read! Daily life, the workplace, car design, the medical system, public life, human rights, you name it, Perez notes the lack of data about women. So many things are tested on men that what might work for women remains invisible. Highly recommended! I borrowed it through ILL and it isn't due until November so I might actually read it again. Well researched, very thoroughly annotated. 

In other news, we moved, and there were several casualties: I cut my pointer finger, right hand, on a cardboard box. And I probably should have gotten stitches, but stitches for a cardboard cut? So, it is finally healing, but I am going to have a scar for sure. And where, oh where, is my box of sheets that also has most of my dress pants in it? It seems to be NOWHERE. I had to go and buy new sheets, which is ridiculous, since I have (had?) so many!!! And I really liked some of those pants!! 

Do you think that, when the movers were inside the truck placing things where they needed to go, that someone came along and stole a box? I am sure, if they did, that they were not super happy to find all my pants. I hope they like the sheets at least!  Sheets FOUND!!!!