Prologue
My father was born in 1912. If on the winters day he was born someone, say his father, had written an essay contemplating what his new baby’s whole life would be like – just how accurate would that prediction have been?
Consider what goes through a father’s mind the first time he sees his new son after his birth. What sort of man will this boy become?
A new Jesus?
A new Stalin?
A new Gandhi?
A new Hitler?
How would the fathers of Joseph Smith, of George Dewey, of Prescott Bush, of Bill Gates reacted if they had seen their sons's futures on their birth days?
Many things that shaped my father’s life had been invented in 1912, but who could contemplate in 1912 things that influenced his life – things like atomic power and television and the Internet? Or bananas available year round anywhere in America or mass-produced soap, automobiles, and canned spaghetti.
In January1912, it would be easy to believe that the baby boy’s whole life would be influenced and overshadowed by the powers of the time – the imperial empires of Germany, Great Britain, Ottoman, and Russia. The Powers of Austria and of France and of America. Within a short seven years, a number of those political entities more or less disappeared into the wreckage of The Great War. A whole new set of empires went into motion.
I contemplated today the life of a little boy born on 28 April 2013.
Those now involved in human genetic engineering, cyborg technology and global health initiatives like to talk about the possibilities that the future human could possibly live routinely to 125 years, given the right conditions. If that child did indeed achieve that prediction, he would die in the year 2138. It is anybody's guess what kind of humans and human civilization will surround him then.
Will the Federal United States still be around as a superpower or even a power in the twilight of the boy’s lifetime. When this boy becomes an old man, will the political structure of the World even closely resemble the World political map today?
A week before the boy was born, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom observed her 87th birthday. Two months after the boy was born, the Queen will celebrate the 60th anniversary of her coronation. If the Queen lives to be 90 and if her son lives to be 90 and if her grandson lives to be 90, then King George VII will rule from 2016 to 2038 and King William V will rule from 2038 to 2062. In the same year that the boy was born, a new heir to the Windsor Dynasty will be born. If the United Kingdom continues to have a monarchy – a big if – and if King William lives to a ripe old age and if his first born also lives to be 90, then this new heir born in 2013 will reign from 2062 to 2103.
If the boy is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he will be baptized in 2021, ordained a deacon in 2025, serve a mission in 2031. If he gets sealed at the age of, say, 24, that will happen in 2037. All of this speculating presupposes that a boy in the Mormon church of the future will still go on missions as a youth and as a retired person, which presupposes that people will retire from careers and have time for full time proclaiming the gospel. If he and his spouse serve a mission as a mature person that could come in the year 2083.
When he is in his 20s and 30, say from 2031 to 2041, will the world be peaceful or will armies at war want to recruit him or even conscript him? Will the USA military still be volunteer or will it go back to its old ways of forcing boys to flight other people’s struggles? Will the leaders of human society finally rise to the occasion to face the decisions that need to be made – peacefully?
We humans really have too. The possibilities of 21st Century War are too hideous to contemplate, but the boy born today may in fact see one. Or them. The wars of the 19th century were significantly more deadly than the wars of the 18th century, thanks to advances or improvements (both words seem wrong) in weapons and in an increased willingness to use deadly force to force a nation’s way on others. The wars of the 20th century were infinitely worse than the wars of the 19th century. Will atomic weaponry be common in the boy’s lifetime? And automatic weaponry become common household implements? Will the boy grow up to have his own drone for protection? Or will humans finally be sensible and ban such weapons in favor of non-lethal protection?
Among The Big Questions to answer in the 21st Century that this boy may see –
Will humans evolve into creatures that can live peacefully on a warmer planet with fewer resources?
Will we humans discover major unknown life forms in the oceans in his lifetime?
Will we humans discover extraterrestrial life in his lifetime?
Will alien life visit Earth in his lifetime?
Will humans travel back into space in his lifetime?
Will humans do anything on the Moon or Mars?
Will we make enough advances technology in his lifetime to travel – Star Trek-like – faster than the speed of light?
Will humans be traveling through time when this boy becomes an old man?
In 2013, the more apocalyptic of the futurists – looking at the simmering nationality hatreds and all the atomic weapons and the issues of global climate change coupled with dwindling resources – predict the destruction of technological civilization. Will the boy live in a large technological house? Or a hut? During the majority of his lifetime, will he urinate in plumbing or pee pee in thickets? Will he get his food from a supermarket? Or a private ranch? Or garden? Or hunting-gathering?
If he goes to college and earns a Ph.D in physics or British Literature, he will be in the class of c. 2045. Will the prestigious ivy league American colleges still be prestigious and expensive? Will this child do a job or a career that we have even heard of in 2013 or will his career be in a technology uninvented as of yet. Furthermore, if humans indeed will live way into their 100s, this will have an enormous effect on work and retirement – or work, retirement, work, retirement. A boy who grows up to be a man could conceivably have a number of different careers, requiring not one university experience but two. Or three. It is quite possible that the boy’s last career will being doing something that we have never heard of today because it does not exist today.
Today in 2013, we think of American retirement in terms of Social Security. If that survives to the boy’s retirement age, that means the boy as a mature man will retire maybe at 75 years of age. If people will live healthy lives into their 110s and 120s, retirement may be later than that. For even though we humans like to talk about nothing but leisure, we by and large define ourselves by work.
Six weeks before the boy was born, the Catholic Church cardinals elected a new Pope, the first from the Americas, the first Pope named Francisco. This Pope is the last one described by Saint Malachy of Armagh, a Roman Catholic bishop who died in 1148, was said to have had a vision while on a pilgrimage to Rome wherein he learned the exact number of all the popes who would rule from his time to the Apocalypse. Francisco is “Peter the Roman” – an Argentina with Italian roots but nothing in his birth name to suggest the predicted moniker. Will Catholicism continue into the future?
Will the LDS Church also continue into the future? Currently it looks as though Elders Dallin Oaks, Jeffrey Holland, and David Bednar will be the next three church presidents. However, who knows what tomorrow brings in a leadership based on seniority. Will it always be based on absolute seniority. Will the boys wife hold the priesthood in the sense of an ordained priesthood office?
FUTURE RELATIONSHIPS
The Sunday the boy was born I walked to Church and saw two of the boys who live in the neighborhood and attend Church in my Ward. They are both 15. As they walked down the street together close, they tugged at and wrestled each other on the way. I mention this as a way of introducing the topic of boys friendships / male friendship and writing my hope that in this little boy’s relationship world the culture will allow male friends to hold hands if they want to just to express friendship and to kiss if they want to for friendship and have intense bromances if they want to. When this boy grows up, will the culture will allow him to have emotions other than lust, violence, and irony?
I hope that American culture will allow the boy born today and his friends to have more of an emotional life than boys of my generation were allowed by the adults. We boys of my generation were allowed and got violence and humor. The culture allowed us to think in terms of sexual activity, but not in terms of romance, bromance, or friendship. Hopefully the 21st century boy and man can have an emotional, spiritual side
I hope that a boy born today would finally be able to avoid the traps that his grandfathers and fathers fell into: Grueling work for survival. Corporate hookup for prestige, survival, and glamour. Being tough – violent and uncaring – for the sake of survival toughness. Defining ourselves by work. Competing constantly with men instead of enjoying friendship.
Will this boy father children of his own some day? And grandchildren? In a world that will have 7 billion people . . . 8 billion ... 9 billion. .. . 10 billion . . . 11 billion, in a world where the commandment to “multiply and replenish The Earth” has been fulfilled several billion times over and over, will the boy have a moral reason to reproduce at all?
On the day the boy is born, Americans discussed, contemplated, argued over “reforms” in marriage to allow men to marry. This proposal would affect only a certain number of 3 to 5 percent of the American population – those men who prefer men for intimate companionship. Furthermore in the year the boy is born, fewer and fewer Americans actually get married. So it is a discussion that ultimately will really affect a small number of marriages. Will marriage continue to be “The Norm?” for regular people when the newborn is an old man?
When gazing a newborn boy for the first time, it is a little hard to look into the future and contemplate, well relationships. Romance. Sex. Despite all the current talk about traditional marriage and traditional family values, traditional family values have always had any number of people attached to the family. Accountants. Lawyers. Bankers. Ministers. Counselors. The wife’s girl friends. The husband’s guy friends. Mistresses. Lovers. The children’s friends. Considering the death of spouses, divorcing spouses, "la casa grande -- la casa bonita," and outright polygamy in many modern cultures – the majority of men in the world are not monogamous either through time or in eternity. The odds are the boy will in his lifetime in this epoch of mankind have multiple relationships.
Currently the world has 7 billion people, give or take, and a number that vast makes us wonder how any of us can make a name for ourselves or leave a record of ourselves in a world when one person seems so utterly outnumbered?
Hard to know how to end an essay like this, where I am trying to gaze into a crystal darkly.
Many of this boy’s relatives and neighbors anticipate the Second Coming of Christ in his lifetime, but since we crucified him the last time he was here, I bet he is in no real hurry to come back. Most of those hopes are wish fulfillment that someone can just by supernatural force turn the World into Their Kind of Place. The problem with supernatural intervention is that we humans will have to like what we get. One way or another, The New Order will require a very huge bureaucracy – bigger and more complicated than the bureaucracies we now have on a smaller scale.
MY BIRTHDAY BLESSING
Whatever happens to the boy, whatever he becomes, I hope that the world will treat him well and that plenty of people around him with love him and nurture him and not just exploit him.
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
THE RIGHT TO BEARS ARMS VS THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE
On 10 April 2013, the Guardian of London online newspaper featured 13 photos of U S Senators who oppose any gun control legislation. Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, was in the group. The montage reminded me how much of current gun control debate focuses on a number of irrelevant issues.
We citizens should not to get distracted by them.
People on both sides of the gun control debate can agree on our right to self defense.
However, the right to self defense does not necessary require a gun. What gets lost in the current post Newtown massacre debate is this: under most circumstances, self defense does not require automatic weapons with large ammunition clips.
The right to self defense is an obvious right.
Furthermore, Book of Mormon and Bible scriptures guarantee it.
The Common Law guaranteed it. However ---
Using the Second Amendment as a right to personal defense is to misread it and its original intent. The second amendment is about community militias, which means it is really about power maintenance on a community level.
Automatic weapons have made civilian life more dangerous; they have made warfare even more awful all the way around. Automatic weapons are offensive in all senses of the term. In the days when a man armed himself with a sharpened stick, he could do only as much damage as his strength allowed or the strength of his opponents allowed. Today, automatic weapon means that any weakling with a trigger finger can do quite a lot of damage to civilians with relatively little effort.
THE CALLS TO ACTION
I urge members of Congress to work for abolition of at least two weapons that have made the whole world unsafe: atomic weaponry and the automatic firearm.
Now, as to proposed gun control legislation in Congress: I suppose the popular proposals are better than nothing. Marginally. Congress, however, refuses to address two issues that it must address.
One: profits from firearm manufacturing, particularly the profitably of automatic weapons, keeps us from developing, finding, and using non-lethal self-defense protection.
Two: the Second Amendment is out of date and needs replacing with a modern amendment guaranteeing explicitly the right to self defense.
Remember please this basic point: we should not put 21st century public safety ahead of a misreading of a 220-year-old sentence.
We citizens should not to get distracted by them.
People on both sides of the gun control debate can agree on our right to self defense.
However, the right to self defense does not necessary require a gun. What gets lost in the current post Newtown massacre debate is this: under most circumstances, self defense does not require automatic weapons with large ammunition clips.
The right to self defense is an obvious right.
Furthermore, Book of Mormon and Bible scriptures guarantee it.
The Common Law guaranteed it. However ---
Using the Second Amendment as a right to personal defense is to misread it and its original intent. The second amendment is about community militias, which means it is really about power maintenance on a community level.
Automatic weapons have made civilian life more dangerous; they have made warfare even more awful all the way around. Automatic weapons are offensive in all senses of the term. In the days when a man armed himself with a sharpened stick, he could do only as much damage as his strength allowed or the strength of his opponents allowed. Today, automatic weapon means that any weakling with a trigger finger can do quite a lot of damage to civilians with relatively little effort.
THE CALLS TO ACTION
I urge members of Congress to work for abolition of at least two weapons that have made the whole world unsafe: atomic weaponry and the automatic firearm.
Now, as to proposed gun control legislation in Congress: I suppose the popular proposals are better than nothing. Marginally. Congress, however, refuses to address two issues that it must address.
One: profits from firearm manufacturing, particularly the profitably of automatic weapons, keeps us from developing, finding, and using non-lethal self-defense protection.
Two: the Second Amendment is out of date and needs replacing with a modern amendment guaranteeing explicitly the right to self defense.
Remember please this basic point: we should not put 21st century public safety ahead of a misreading of a 220-year-old sentence.
Friday, April 5, 2013
IN MEMORIAM -- ELDRED G SMITH: "PRESIDING PATRIARCH" VS "PATRIARCH TO THE CHURCH"
Eldred G Smith: Presiding Patriarch vs. Patriarch of the Church
The John Smith family line in the LDS Church managed to secure for themselves a permanent lifetime job in the Church called Patriarch. Sometimes it was called the “Patriarch to the Church” and sometimes it was called Presiding Patriarch. As Michael Quinn observed about the occupants of the jobs – only one made a reasonably successful ministry of it. The others ran afoul of their prophet/presidents for either wanting to do too much with the job or doing too little.
Most of the time Patriarch John Smith acted as if he did not want either the church or the Patriarch position. At one time or another, all the presidents of the LDS Church who supervised Patriarch John Smith tried to get rid of him – and could not or did not. One president famously complained that John Smith had two wives but only lived with one of them.
John Smith’s half brother Joseph F. Smith became president of the Church in 1901. At that time, John Smith had been a general authority since 1855 and Joseph F had been a member of the Quorum of the Twelve since 1868. This meant that if John Smith had authority equal to that of an apostle, he might have been a contender for the leadership of the Mormon Church. As it was, President Lorenzo Snow had made it clear that only apostles could attain the presidency, and the seniority was based on unbroken service in the Quorum of the Twelve. That cut John Smith out of the loop of seniority authority.
Still Joseph F Smith had John Smith ordain him President of the Church, which presupposed and assumed that the patriarch’s authority was equal to the president’s authority. At the conference that sustained Joseph F Smith president, he mused out loud that the True Order of the Priesthood would sustain the Presiding Patriarch of the Church first, the First Presidency second, then the apostles third. None of the apostles would agree to this, and so that arrangement never happened in practice. However President Smith transformed John Smith into a full scale Presiding Patriarch, sat him at President Smith’s right hand in public church meetings, and had him sustained before the apostles at general conferences.
When John Smith died in 1911 and his grandson Hyrum G Smith became the next Presiding Patriarch, President Smith continued that pattern with him. Hyrum G was an activist Patriarch with President Smith’s supervision and blessing.
In the weeks before President Smith died, his counselors and three apostles who all later became presidents of the Church – namely Heber J Grant, David O McKay, and Joseph Fielding Smith – conferred together about the issue of whether or not Presiding Patriarch Smith would have seniority before them when President Smith passed away. They all adroitly decided not to even bring up the subject with dying President Smith. Thus when President Smith died in November 1918, the apostolic seniority tradition stayed neatly in place and continued. Heber J Grant became the next President without any issue of Hyrum Smith’s seniority standing before the apostles.
President Grant had Hyrum G Smith as Patriarch sustained after the apostles and seated him after the apostles. When he died unexpectedly in 1932, his youngish son Eldred G Smith was the obvious successor. Grant, however, was never really impressed by anyone in that family and wanted to make a change so that someone from the Hyrum Smith / Joseph F Smith family would become the next Presiding Patriarch. In particular, President Grant had in mind a son of Joseph F Smith by the name of Willard Smith, who happened to be married to one of Heber J Grant’s daughters. This meant that the next Presiding Patriarch would have the dynastic genetics of both Heber J Grant and of Joseph F Smith.
The Quorum of the Twelve would not propose the idea nor sustain it. From 1932 to 1942, the impasse over the next Presiding Patriarch == Eldred G Smith (supported by the Twelve) vs Willard Smith (supported by President Grant and by extension the First Presidency) damaged the Patriarch office in three ways. First, it went unfilled for years without much problem for the overall church. Next, President Grant filled it with some men who were not Smiths, designated “acting patriarchs” for years with little noticeable side effects. Third, the leaders eventually decided to make the position “Patriarch to the Church” instead of Presiding Patriarch. The First presidency allowed the Patriarch to be listed as a prophet seer and revelator, but he was listed after the Quorum of the Twelve and did not have a right to be included in the seniority listing.
By 1942, the apostles and the First Presidency decided to change the lineage of the office to that of Joseph F Smith but to ordain another member of that family not tied to Heber J. Grant. That person was The Other Joseph Fielding Smith, grandson of Joseph F. Smith, son of the late apostle Hyrum Mack Smith. The arrangement lasted 4 years. The year after Heber J Grant died, President George Albert Smith (a third Smith line in church history) released Joseph F Smith as Patriarch for ill health reasons. He did have severe back pain; that was true at the time. However, fairly well-substantiated rumors persist to this day that the problem was that Heber J Grant did not vet Joseph F Smith carefully enough. Homosexual relationships came to light.
In 1947, Eldred G Smith became Patriarch to the Church but unlike his father, he was not called a Presiding Patriarch, and his place came after the apostles, not before. By 1979, the whole issue of an priesthood office that came to someone by family inheritance was just too complicated for the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve to accept. Eldred G Smith became an emeritus general authority and became the longest serving emeritus general authority in history. He served as Patriarch 32 years; he held emeritus standing for 34 years. No new Patriarch to the Church replaced him in the years since.
So in that sense Eldred G Smith had the last laugh. The Church had to keep him on a living allowance for 34 years.
The John Smith family line in the LDS Church managed to secure for themselves a permanent lifetime job in the Church called Patriarch. Sometimes it was called the “Patriarch to the Church” and sometimes it was called Presiding Patriarch. As Michael Quinn observed about the occupants of the jobs – only one made a reasonably successful ministry of it. The others ran afoul of their prophet/presidents for either wanting to do too much with the job or doing too little.
Most of the time Patriarch John Smith acted as if he did not want either the church or the Patriarch position. At one time or another, all the presidents of the LDS Church who supervised Patriarch John Smith tried to get rid of him – and could not or did not. One president famously complained that John Smith had two wives but only lived with one of them.
John Smith’s half brother Joseph F. Smith became president of the Church in 1901. At that time, John Smith had been a general authority since 1855 and Joseph F had been a member of the Quorum of the Twelve since 1868. This meant that if John Smith had authority equal to that of an apostle, he might have been a contender for the leadership of the Mormon Church. As it was, President Lorenzo Snow had made it clear that only apostles could attain the presidency, and the seniority was based on unbroken service in the Quorum of the Twelve. That cut John Smith out of the loop of seniority authority.
Still Joseph F Smith had John Smith ordain him President of the Church, which presupposed and assumed that the patriarch’s authority was equal to the president’s authority. At the conference that sustained Joseph F Smith president, he mused out loud that the True Order of the Priesthood would sustain the Presiding Patriarch of the Church first, the First Presidency second, then the apostles third. None of the apostles would agree to this, and so that arrangement never happened in practice. However President Smith transformed John Smith into a full scale Presiding Patriarch, sat him at President Smith’s right hand in public church meetings, and had him sustained before the apostles at general conferences.
When John Smith died in 1911 and his grandson Hyrum G Smith became the next Presiding Patriarch, President Smith continued that pattern with him. Hyrum G was an activist Patriarch with President Smith’s supervision and blessing.
In the weeks before President Smith died, his counselors and three apostles who all later became presidents of the Church – namely Heber J Grant, David O McKay, and Joseph Fielding Smith – conferred together about the issue of whether or not Presiding Patriarch Smith would have seniority before them when President Smith passed away. They all adroitly decided not to even bring up the subject with dying President Smith. Thus when President Smith died in November 1918, the apostolic seniority tradition stayed neatly in place and continued. Heber J Grant became the next President without any issue of Hyrum Smith’s seniority standing before the apostles.
President Grant had Hyrum G Smith as Patriarch sustained after the apostles and seated him after the apostles. When he died unexpectedly in 1932, his youngish son Eldred G Smith was the obvious successor. Grant, however, was never really impressed by anyone in that family and wanted to make a change so that someone from the Hyrum Smith / Joseph F Smith family would become the next Presiding Patriarch. In particular, President Grant had in mind a son of Joseph F Smith by the name of Willard Smith, who happened to be married to one of Heber J Grant’s daughters. This meant that the next Presiding Patriarch would have the dynastic genetics of both Heber J Grant and of Joseph F Smith.
The Quorum of the Twelve would not propose the idea nor sustain it. From 1932 to 1942, the impasse over the next Presiding Patriarch == Eldred G Smith (supported by the Twelve) vs Willard Smith (supported by President Grant and by extension the First Presidency) damaged the Patriarch office in three ways. First, it went unfilled for years without much problem for the overall church. Next, President Grant filled it with some men who were not Smiths, designated “acting patriarchs” for years with little noticeable side effects. Third, the leaders eventually decided to make the position “Patriarch to the Church” instead of Presiding Patriarch. The First presidency allowed the Patriarch to be listed as a prophet seer and revelator, but he was listed after the Quorum of the Twelve and did not have a right to be included in the seniority listing.
By 1942, the apostles and the First Presidency decided to change the lineage of the office to that of Joseph F Smith but to ordain another member of that family not tied to Heber J. Grant. That person was The Other Joseph Fielding Smith, grandson of Joseph F. Smith, son of the late apostle Hyrum Mack Smith. The arrangement lasted 4 years. The year after Heber J Grant died, President George Albert Smith (a third Smith line in church history) released Joseph F Smith as Patriarch for ill health reasons. He did have severe back pain; that was true at the time. However, fairly well-substantiated rumors persist to this day that the problem was that Heber J Grant did not vet Joseph F Smith carefully enough. Homosexual relationships came to light.
In 1947, Eldred G Smith became Patriarch to the Church but unlike his father, he was not called a Presiding Patriarch, and his place came after the apostles, not before. By 1979, the whole issue of an priesthood office that came to someone by family inheritance was just too complicated for the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve to accept. Eldred G Smith became an emeritus general authority and became the longest serving emeritus general authority in history. He served as Patriarch 32 years; he held emeritus standing for 34 years. No new Patriarch to the Church replaced him in the years since.
So in that sense Eldred G Smith had the last laugh. The Church had to keep him on a living allowance for 34 years.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
COMMENTARY ON THE 2013 LDS SCRIPTURE HEADINGS OF THE DECLARATIONS
On 1 March 2013, the LDS Church released its 2013 edition of the LDS scriptures. It has new study guides and some rewritten chapter headings. The editors did their most interesting and comprehensive rewriting to the introductions to The Declarations. I present them with commentary, and with some rewriting for clarity. These headings do not lie technically, but they do not tell the full truth. They do illustrate how leadership can use selective historical facts,word choice, punctuation, sentence structure, and word order to influence how a reader will interpret them.
Official Declaration 1
The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise (see 2 Samuel 12:7–8 and Jacob 2:27, 30). Following a revelation to Joseph Smith [the wording implies that the revelation came in the 1840s by playing it front of the next phrase], the practice of plural marriage was instituted among Church members in the early 1840s (see section 132). From the 1860s to the 1880s, the United States government passed laws to make this religious practice illegal. These laws were eventually upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. After receiving revelation [the most noticeable of which in 1880 and 1889 seemed to uphold the practice], President Wilford Woodruff issued the following Manifesto [the wording and word order implies but does not necessarily mean the Manifesto was a revelation], which was accepted by the Church as authoritative and binding on October 6, 1890. This led to the end [my emphasis] of the practice of plural marriage in the Church. [if you compare the wording here to the wording in the second declaration, this heading implies President Woodruff acted unilaterally.]
This paragraph explains the situation in active voice and more clarity. It is, I admit, marginally more candid.
The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise (see 2 Samuel 12:7–8 and Jacob 2:27, 30). Following a revelation to Joseph Smith in 1831, the First Presidency instituted the practice of plural marriage among Church members in 1841. From the 1860s to the 1880s, the United States government passed laws to make this religious practice illegal The U S Supreme Court upheld these laws. President Wilford Woodruff issued the following Manifesto; a general conference sustained it on 6 October 1890. President Joseph F Smith later issued a Second Manifesto, which promised to excommunicate people who entered into plural marriage; a general conference sustained it in April 1904. This ended the practice of plural marriage in the Church, but not in the culture.
Official Declaration 2
The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few [2?] [free black members] black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. [Comment: history seems clear enough. In 1852, President Brigham Young stopped conferring priesthood on any and all black males of African descent.] [the next line is a bombshell in the history of LDS Church scripture honesty --] Church leaders believed [my emphasis] that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. [making the verbs compound tends to suggest that the leaders were interested and prayed for a long time, when that was not necessarily the timing case.] [this is not the same thing as saying that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice.] The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.
This rewrite makes the situation more clear. I admit it also has a selective sense of history, what with its being short.
The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33).
The Old Testament has slave imagery and references throughout.
Throughout Church history, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church.
During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, 2 free black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. In 1852, President Brigham Young stopped conferring priesthood on any and all black males of African descent, regardless of legal status.
Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice. They prayerfully sought guidance, particularly in the mid -twentieth century. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood. A general conference sustained it in September 1978.
COMMENTARY
Bible translations show how word choice, grammar and sentence structure can make meanings ambiguously unclear.
Translators of the Old Testament used euphemisms like "The Groves" and "the Poles" to mask from readers references to alters of a female heathen deity that certain modern Biblical scholars now suspect scriptures once presented as God's wife.
The King James Bible translators used the word "murmur" when the ancient word used really was closer to the modern Yiddish "Kevetch" which implies loud complaining.
Thus, in the 2013 scripture edition, God yet again get the blame for the black priesthood ban.
The thing to remember about that ban is that it never actually worked. Leaders, going way back in church history, ordained men of mixed black genetics without knowing it. Had Brigham Young worded the ban along the lines of “no man with a black parent or grandparent back 4 generations can be ordained to the priesthood,” the ban would have worked better. It would have also been more clear than the prohibition worded “one drop of Negro blood.” That wording turned out to be "not measurable" and eventually bogged the ban down under its own ambiguity.
Official Declaration 1
The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise (see 2 Samuel 12:7–8 and Jacob 2:27, 30). Following a revelation to Joseph Smith [the wording implies that the revelation came in the 1840s by playing it front of the next phrase], the practice of plural marriage was instituted among Church members in the early 1840s (see section 132). From the 1860s to the 1880s, the United States government passed laws to make this religious practice illegal. These laws were eventually upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. After receiving revelation [the most noticeable of which in 1880 and 1889 seemed to uphold the practice], President Wilford Woodruff issued the following Manifesto [the wording and word order implies but does not necessarily mean the Manifesto was a revelation], which was accepted by the Church as authoritative and binding on October 6, 1890. This led to the end [my emphasis] of the practice of plural marriage in the Church. [if you compare the wording here to the wording in the second declaration, this heading implies President Woodruff acted unilaterally.]
This paragraph explains the situation in active voice and more clarity. It is, I admit, marginally more candid.
The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise (see 2 Samuel 12:7–8 and Jacob 2:27, 30). Following a revelation to Joseph Smith in 1831, the First Presidency instituted the practice of plural marriage among Church members in 1841. From the 1860s to the 1880s, the United States government passed laws to make this religious practice illegal The U S Supreme Court upheld these laws. President Wilford Woodruff issued the following Manifesto; a general conference sustained it on 6 October 1890. President Joseph F Smith later issued a Second Manifesto, which promised to excommunicate people who entered into plural marriage; a general conference sustained it in April 1904. This ended the practice of plural marriage in the Church, but not in the culture.
Official Declaration 2
The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few [2?] [free black members] black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. [Comment: history seems clear enough. In 1852, President Brigham Young stopped conferring priesthood on any and all black males of African descent.] [the next line is a bombshell in the history of LDS Church scripture honesty --] Church leaders believed [my emphasis] that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. [making the verbs compound tends to suggest that the leaders were interested and prayed for a long time, when that was not necessarily the timing case.] [this is not the same thing as saying that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice.] The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.
This rewrite makes the situation more clear. I admit it also has a selective sense of history, what with its being short.
The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33).
The Old Testament has slave imagery and references throughout.
Throughout Church history, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church.
During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, 2 free black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. In 1852, President Brigham Young stopped conferring priesthood on any and all black males of African descent, regardless of legal status.
Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice. They prayerfully sought guidance, particularly in the mid -twentieth century. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood. A general conference sustained it in September 1978.
COMMENTARY
Bible translations show how word choice, grammar and sentence structure can make meanings ambiguously unclear.
Translators of the Old Testament used euphemisms like "The Groves" and "the Poles" to mask from readers references to alters of a female heathen deity that certain modern Biblical scholars now suspect scriptures once presented as God's wife.
The King James Bible translators used the word "murmur" when the ancient word used really was closer to the modern Yiddish "Kevetch" which implies loud complaining.
Thus, in the 2013 scripture edition, God yet again get the blame for the black priesthood ban.
The thing to remember about that ban is that it never actually worked. Leaders, going way back in church history, ordained men of mixed black genetics without knowing it. Had Brigham Young worded the ban along the lines of “no man with a black parent or grandparent back 4 generations can be ordained to the priesthood,” the ban would have worked better. It would have also been more clear than the prohibition worded “one drop of Negro blood.” That wording turned out to be "not measurable" and eventually bogged the ban down under its own ambiguity.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
BAN MANUFACTURING OF AUTOMATIC WEAPONS: AN EDITORIAL ON THE SUBJECT OF GUN CONTROL:
In reference to the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre:
We need to first remember hat in the days when a man armed himself with a sharp stick, a rock, club, or sword, he had to do his killing up close and personal. Furthermore, a man could do only as much carnage as his strength – and the strength and skill of his indented victims – would allow.
Eventually humans invented the cross bow. Battle deaths escalated. Eventually, humans invented firearms. Battle deaths escalated. Humans invented automatic firearms. Casualties in America’s wars skyrocketed. We can only speculate on how many lives could have been spared had the American Civil War been fought with swords and if the American army had defeated the rebels quickly instead of dragging out the war for 4 years. Union generals could drag the war out for years thanks in part to mass manufacturing of firearms. The Vietnam War illustrated that point with even more clarity. The French, the Americans, the Vietnamese, the Russians, The Chinese could not have dragged that war out from 1954 to 1975 if they did not have mass production of weapons, particularly automatic weapons.
COMMENT ON PRO-GUN PROPAGANDA
Since the Sandy Hook massacre, pro-gun lobbyiests have used various Internet methods to publish testimony supposedly given by Darrell Scott — the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado — before House Judiciary subcommittee on crime on May 27, 1999.
I will comment on two of its supposed quotes.
QUOTE: “ The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used, neither was it the NCA - the National Club Association - the true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in his heart. In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA.”
REPLY: From a strict text point of view, Scott had the doctrine wrong here in equating the Columbine high school killers with Cain. Cain discovered the great secret of how he could get rich by killing someone. Harris and Klebold did not kill for gain: they killed to kill, including themselves. The architect of this sort of strategy was (not Cain) Satan.
QUOTE: “Erik and Dylan would not have been stopped by more gun laws or metal detectors. No amount of laws can stop someone who spends months of planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.”
With due respect, Scott got this point wrong. Metal detectors could have detected the weapons at the doors. The laws could have stopped Klebold and Harris in the use of automatic weapons if the laws had outlawed the manufacture of automatic weapons. Harris and Klebold’s effectiveness would have been reduced by some quantum factor if the laws had restricted the sophistication of weapons they could access.
In the history of human weaponry, automatic weapons are mankind’s truly barbaric weapon. Any untrained weakling can kill dozens of people as long as his trigger finger holds up and as long as he has a supply of bullets. Weapons designers made these weapons not for sport or hunting game. Their purpose is mass killing of humans.
The automatic weapon has succeeded in making both war and civilian life more bloody and dangerous.
It should be obvious that merchants should not sell automatic-weapons to mentally unbalanced people. The problem is mentally ill people do not walk around with labels on them. It should also be obvious that manufacturers and merchants of automatic weapons make a lot of money in this business – whether the buyers are crazed or not. They will try to convince us that the weapons are not the problem, that people are the problem. And they will sell all the weapons they can to the problem.
Both the weapons and the people are the problems.
THE POINT
In the 1960s, one out of two Americans owned guns. Today, one of three Americans own guns. However, that 33 percent has stockpiled the largest number of weapons ever collected in the whole history of the country. Many of that 33 percent of Americans own multiple weapons or cashes of weapons. Federal law should not allow a minority of people to stockpile themselves as private armies.
THE CALL TO ACTION
We Americans have reached a point where both American and international law should outlaw the sale of automatic firearm weapons. Certainly civilians should not be able to buy them. Obviously unbalanced violent mentally ill people should not buy them.
Ultimately, outlawing manufacture of these weapons should be our real goal. May the 21st century be the age when atomic bombs and automatic weapon came to an end.
We need to first remember hat in the days when a man armed himself with a sharp stick, a rock, club, or sword, he had to do his killing up close and personal. Furthermore, a man could do only as much carnage as his strength – and the strength and skill of his indented victims – would allow.
Eventually humans invented the cross bow. Battle deaths escalated. Eventually, humans invented firearms. Battle deaths escalated. Humans invented automatic firearms. Casualties in America’s wars skyrocketed. We can only speculate on how many lives could have been spared had the American Civil War been fought with swords and if the American army had defeated the rebels quickly instead of dragging out the war for 4 years. Union generals could drag the war out for years thanks in part to mass manufacturing of firearms. The Vietnam War illustrated that point with even more clarity. The French, the Americans, the Vietnamese, the Russians, The Chinese could not have dragged that war out from 1954 to 1975 if they did not have mass production of weapons, particularly automatic weapons.
COMMENT ON PRO-GUN PROPAGANDA
Since the Sandy Hook massacre, pro-gun lobbyiests have used various Internet methods to publish testimony supposedly given by Darrell Scott — the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado — before House Judiciary subcommittee on crime on May 27, 1999.
I will comment on two of its supposed quotes.
QUOTE: “ The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used, neither was it the NCA - the National Club Association - the true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in his heart. In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA.”
REPLY: From a strict text point of view, Scott had the doctrine wrong here in equating the Columbine high school killers with Cain. Cain discovered the great secret of how he could get rich by killing someone. Harris and Klebold did not kill for gain: they killed to kill, including themselves. The architect of this sort of strategy was (not Cain) Satan.
QUOTE: “Erik and Dylan would not have been stopped by more gun laws or metal detectors. No amount of laws can stop someone who spends months of planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.”
With due respect, Scott got this point wrong. Metal detectors could have detected the weapons at the doors. The laws could have stopped Klebold and Harris in the use of automatic weapons if the laws had outlawed the manufacture of automatic weapons. Harris and Klebold’s effectiveness would have been reduced by some quantum factor if the laws had restricted the sophistication of weapons they could access.
In the history of human weaponry, automatic weapons are mankind’s truly barbaric weapon. Any untrained weakling can kill dozens of people as long as his trigger finger holds up and as long as he has a supply of bullets. Weapons designers made these weapons not for sport or hunting game. Their purpose is mass killing of humans.
The automatic weapon has succeeded in making both war and civilian life more bloody and dangerous.
It should be obvious that merchants should not sell automatic-weapons to mentally unbalanced people. The problem is mentally ill people do not walk around with labels on them. It should also be obvious that manufacturers and merchants of automatic weapons make a lot of money in this business – whether the buyers are crazed or not. They will try to convince us that the weapons are not the problem, that people are the problem. And they will sell all the weapons they can to the problem.
Both the weapons and the people are the problems.
THE POINT
In the 1960s, one out of two Americans owned guns. Today, one of three Americans own guns. However, that 33 percent has stockpiled the largest number of weapons ever collected in the whole history of the country. Many of that 33 percent of Americans own multiple weapons or cashes of weapons. Federal law should not allow a minority of people to stockpile themselves as private armies.
THE CALL TO ACTION
We Americans have reached a point where both American and international law should outlaw the sale of automatic firearm weapons. Certainly civilians should not be able to buy them. Obviously unbalanced violent mentally ill people should not buy them.
Ultimately, outlawing manufacture of these weapons should be our real goal. May the 21st century be the age when atomic bombs and automatic weapon came to an end.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
AN ESSAY ON SCHOOL DESIGN AND HOW IT CAN IMPROVE STUDENT SAFETY
Parents of school children, I have this question for you to consider in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. In case your child's school got a terrorist attack, would your child’s school design help the children survive or trap them, putting them more at risk?In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, this essay will contemplate the topic of school architecture.
BACKGROUND YOU MAY HAVE NOT HAVE HEARD IN SCHOOL HISTORY CLASSES
In 1915, a private school in Peabody Massachusetts caught fire killing no fewer than twenty young women students.
In 1958, Our Lady of the Angels, a large, somewhat-overcrowded multistory Catholic private school in Chicago, caught fire at the height of the school day. 92 children and 3 nuns died in the inferno.
Today, I really cannot remember any school fires in America. This is because after these disasters, superintendents of schools and city planning commissions implemented ideas to make schools safer. Governments put these in place by law.
In March 1937, a large, fairly-new consolidated school in New London, Texas experienced the most horrific school disaster in American history. To be fair to the school board, we will note that the community was rolling in oil revenue wealth and built what was for the time a well-designed school for their children. However, something went wrong in the heating plant. The school used natural gas as its heat fuel in the days when companies did not add the smell to the fuel. Natural gas got loose and filled the crawl space, then filled some of the school. Someone in a shop classroom ignited a spark; the resulting blast reduced the whole school in one second to a pile of kindling. The scale of the misery broke down documentation of this disaster, so the best estimate is 300 children and teachers dead. Because of that accident, the government requires natural gas companies to add a smell to natural gas.
In May 1927, the most infamous terrorist attack on a school occurred at a consolidated school in Bath Township Michigan. A disgruntled citizen unbalanced by unmanageable tax debt, managed to booby-trap the school with dynamite. After the explosion, when crowds gathered at the disaster, the man set off a shrapnel device in his automobile. It killed and maimed even more people, including himself and some of his enemies. 44 children and adults died in that outrage.
In 1999, two heavy-armed students attacked Columbine High School in Littleton Colorado, killing 13 students and adults. They were amateurs compared with the vindictive scope of the terrorist in Bath, Michigan. So were the young men who shot up the University of Texas, the Virginia Technical University, and the Sandy Hook School.
WHAT NOT TO DO
After the Columbine Massacre, after another large massacre at Virginia Technical University, and on 14 December after the Sandy Hook Elementary Massacre, some people were hardened enough to recommend for the public record that school leaders place more armed people in schools.
The simple people of America must first understand that they will get, in the long view, little if any security from clutching their guns tight and praying to their wooden idols.
Armed schools are, I suppose, a fine idea if one likes educating children in an atmosphere of distrust and prison. We should, however, first understand weapons do not constitute the first and best solution to weapons.
After the massacre, I contemplated my grade school – the Grandview School in Provo, opened for business back in the late 1940s. On Founder's Days, our principals told us students that Grandview was the first post modern one level school built in Utah. The sunny comfortable classrooms had walls of glass and a private door leading outside. This school architecture idea never quite caught on, probably because private doors could let people in as well as out. However, if teachers carefully managed, the doors, they provided more advantages than problems.
In the ideal world, schools should be small and one story. In the real world, we would install the best technologies and the best ideas into schools no matter what the cost. The best ideas and technologies face compromises with what is currently available and how much citizens are willing to spend on them.
CALLING PARENTS TO ACTION
Parents should study their children’s school plan to decide if the building will protect children during an attack — or trap them.
Many schools make a point of announcing that they have an emergency procedure in place whereby leaders will send text messages announcing attacks or emergencies. That plan has definite problems, starting with the fact that only people who read text messages will find it useful. Many teachers insist that students turn off their devices during lectures. Many teachers don’t monitor their devices while teaching. This is how it should be in the classroom.
We must build some safety solutions into school architecture. School leaders can use systems of dropping movable walls, a system of electronic doors that close and lock by signal to isolate dangerous intruders with evil intentions. Furthermore, the time has probably arrived that schools should use security systems that involve large lobbies with double-door entrances on both sides
where the students pass through metal detectors
and students wear magnetized coded badges to activate, open, and close locked security doors.
IN CONCLUSION
For the foreseeable future, this is The Way of the 21st Century. Eventually retina scanning and other identity devices yet invented will make security less intrusive.
We will admit that no plan is foolproof, for the fools are ingenious. However, some school districts do not have a plan or a clue. The key to remember is this: security features do children no good unless we invest in them and build them into school architecture.
BACKGROUND YOU MAY HAVE NOT HAVE HEARD IN SCHOOL HISTORY CLASSES
In 1915, a private school in Peabody Massachusetts caught fire killing no fewer than twenty young women students.
In 1958, Our Lady of the Angels, a large, somewhat-overcrowded multistory Catholic private school in Chicago, caught fire at the height of the school day. 92 children and 3 nuns died in the inferno.
Today, I really cannot remember any school fires in America. This is because after these disasters, superintendents of schools and city planning commissions implemented ideas to make schools safer. Governments put these in place by law.
In March 1937, a large, fairly-new consolidated school in New London, Texas experienced the most horrific school disaster in American history. To be fair to the school board, we will note that the community was rolling in oil revenue wealth and built what was for the time a well-designed school for their children. However, something went wrong in the heating plant. The school used natural gas as its heat fuel in the days when companies did not add the smell to the fuel. Natural gas got loose and filled the crawl space, then filled some of the school. Someone in a shop classroom ignited a spark; the resulting blast reduced the whole school in one second to a pile of kindling. The scale of the misery broke down documentation of this disaster, so the best estimate is 300 children and teachers dead. Because of that accident, the government requires natural gas companies to add a smell to natural gas.
In May 1927, the most infamous terrorist attack on a school occurred at a consolidated school in Bath Township Michigan. A disgruntled citizen unbalanced by unmanageable tax debt, managed to booby-trap the school with dynamite. After the explosion, when crowds gathered at the disaster, the man set off a shrapnel device in his automobile. It killed and maimed even more people, including himself and some of his enemies. 44 children and adults died in that outrage.
In 1999, two heavy-armed students attacked Columbine High School in Littleton Colorado, killing 13 students and adults. They were amateurs compared with the vindictive scope of the terrorist in Bath, Michigan. So were the young men who shot up the University of Texas, the Virginia Technical University, and the Sandy Hook School.
WHAT NOT TO DO
After the Columbine Massacre, after another large massacre at Virginia Technical University, and on 14 December after the Sandy Hook Elementary Massacre, some people were hardened enough to recommend for the public record that school leaders place more armed people in schools.
The simple people of America must first understand that they will get, in the long view, little if any security from clutching their guns tight and praying to their wooden idols.
Armed schools are, I suppose, a fine idea if one likes educating children in an atmosphere of distrust and prison. We should, however, first understand weapons do not constitute the first and best solution to weapons.
After the massacre, I contemplated my grade school – the Grandview School in Provo, opened for business back in the late 1940s. On Founder's Days, our principals told us students that Grandview was the first post modern one level school built in Utah. The sunny comfortable classrooms had walls of glass and a private door leading outside. This school architecture idea never quite caught on, probably because private doors could let people in as well as out. However, if teachers carefully managed, the doors, they provided more advantages than problems.
In the ideal world, schools should be small and one story. In the real world, we would install the best technologies and the best ideas into schools no matter what the cost. The best ideas and technologies face compromises with what is currently available and how much citizens are willing to spend on them.
CALLING PARENTS TO ACTION
Parents should study their children’s school plan to decide if the building will protect children during an attack — or trap them.
Many schools make a point of announcing that they have an emergency procedure in place whereby leaders will send text messages announcing attacks or emergencies. That plan has definite problems, starting with the fact that only people who read text messages will find it useful. Many teachers insist that students turn off their devices during lectures. Many teachers don’t monitor their devices while teaching. This is how it should be in the classroom.
We must build some safety solutions into school architecture. School leaders can use systems of dropping movable walls, a system of electronic doors that close and lock by signal to isolate dangerous intruders with evil intentions. Furthermore, the time has probably arrived that schools should use security systems that involve large lobbies with double-door entrances on both sides
where the students pass through metal detectors
and students wear magnetized coded badges to activate, open, and close locked security doors.
IN CONCLUSION
For the foreseeable future, this is The Way of the 21st Century. Eventually retina scanning and other identity devices yet invented will make security less intrusive.
We will admit that no plan is foolproof, for the fools are ingenious. However, some school districts do not have a plan or a clue. The key to remember is this: security features do children no good unless we invest in them and build them into school architecture.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Message to Republican True Believers: Romney will be President; Ryan will be Vice President
Years ago, Vice President John Nance Garner, who knew from first-hand painful experience, said that the Vice Presidency was not worth a pitcher of fresh urination – or words to that effect. Garner came from Texas; Texans have colorful ways of putting things.
Some things have changed in the vice presidency since Garner left it in 1941 and retired to Uvade, Texas. However, the dog’s body quality remains around the office of the Vice Presidency to this day.
Some things have changed in the vice presidency since Garner left it in 1941 and retired to Uvade, Texas. However, the dog’s body quality remains around the office of the Vice Presidency to this day.
THE VICE PRESIDENCY COULD HAVE AMOUNTED TO A HILL OF BEANS.
Way back in 1896, candidate William McKinley selected for his vice president a Republican party official and New Jersey state legislator by the name of Garret Hobart. Among other things, Hobart is credited with saying “What this country needs is a good five cent cigar.” He got that right: we can make bigger fortunes selling many things for a nickel than a few things for 50 cents. However, to get back on point, McKinley set out to make Vice President Hobart a sort of executive assistant president. Heaven knows what would have happened if Hobart had not suddenly died two years into the experiment. McKinley replaced Hobart in 1900 with the huge ego of Governor Theodore Roosevelt. McKinley died a few months later. Roosevelt became president. When the Great Ego finally got himself a vice president in 1905, he did not want any powerful assistant blocking his limelight. So much for an executive assistant president.
More than a hundred years later . . .
Romney decided to select as his vice president candidate a U S Representative from Wisconsin who had a nationwide reputation for fiscal conservatism of the hardest, coldest order. Paul Ryan of Janesville Wisconsin also had gone on record with plans to reduce the dreaded national fiscal deficit. Among so called Tea Party people (whomever and whatever they are) and among True Blue Conservatives of both fiscal and social varieties, Ryan was The Brilliant Star in the Midwest, The Rising Hope of the Generation.
In the weeks since Romney took Ryan to the mountaintop and showed him the Kingdoms of the World, news programs have broadcast many stories featuring people who now find themselves excited about the Republican ticket. People willingly state for the record they really did not like Romney much or did not agree with him wholeheartedly. Now they will work hard for the ticket.
Their enthusiasm, while admirable in its purity, is completely misplaced.
Romney is the presidential candidate. He is the same man who –
● was the son of a Rockefeller Republican
● labeled in the 1960s as as part of the rising generation of The New Liberal Modernized Mormons
● went from riches to richer
● created his own state health insurance requirement.
The Romney Ego will eventually notice if crowds like his veep candidate better than himself. I seriously doubt it will like it.
Ryan can say what he wants. Will Romney consult him if the voters elect them to highest offices? The Vice Presidency never did evolve into an executive assistant president: it has only a few real constitutional duties from the beginning to now. The Constitution does not specify that the President has to take his vice president seriously in fiscal consultation.
RYAN MISSED HIS CHANCE
Representative Paul Ryan should have held out for a cabinet position in a department with a lot of entitlements. Or he should have held out for director of budget. Then he would have been in a better position to actually put his ideas into effect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
