Tax Talk

A few days ago, October 19, there was a debate, unrelated to a candidate campaign, between Senators Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders on CNN. [Transcript here.]They had one a while back on Obamacare. This one was specifically about taxes, concurrent with a tax plan working through the legislative process right now.

screen shot from here

Ted Cruz started with this summary:

This debate is very, very simple. Bernie and the Democrats want every one of you watching today to pay more taxes. And Republicans want to lower the taxes for each and every person watching this debate.

Now, tonight I'm going to make a prediction. Bernie is going to suggest in just a few seconds that this is not really about you, this is about, "taxing the rich." That's what the Democrats always say. But here's what you need to know. Every time Bernie says the rich, what he means is taxpayers. And so if you pay taxes, he's talking about you.

And Bernie Sanders begins with, wouldn’t you know, coveting the rich and hating on those evil Koch brothers:

Let me make a prediction:

In two minutes, Senator Cruz is going to tell you that if we give tax breaks to the billionaires like George W. Bush did, like Ronald Reagan did, we're going to create zillions of jobs and you're all going to become very, very rich, that we have a trickle-down economic theory, tax breaks for the wealthiest people, the largest corporations, and, whoa, everything is good.

That is a totally fraudulent theory. Here is the reality of American society today. For 40 years, the middle class of this country, the great middle class has been shrinking. And what we have seen is a massive transfer of wealth from working families to the top 0.1 percent, trillions of dollars because of cooperate greed and an unfair tax system.

Now, the Trump Republican tax proposal that's before us today, this proposal is being pushed by Senator Cruz's campaign contributors, some of the wealthiest people in this country, by the Koch brothers, who are worth $90 billion. Why are they pushing this agenda? Because 80 percent of the tax breaks in this proposal will go to the top 1 percent.

In fact, 30 percent of the middle class will end up paying more in taxes. Forty percent of the tax benefits will go to the top 0.1 percent. This is massive tax breaks for the wealthy.

So it took one minute, just 163 words, to get to the Koch brothers, who are virtually never mentioned at Republican meetings (I attend many), or at tea party meetings (I attend even more of those), or on conservative radio, or in conservative articles. In fact, the first time I ever heard of them, it was in a left-wing pro-socialist article, claiming they had a stranglehold over all conservative thought—so I, a conservative thinker, looked them up just to know who they were. I wrote about them in May 2011.

There are, of course, exaggerations in Sanders’ prediction about what Cruz would claim: “zillions of jobs,” everybody becomes “very, very rich,” etc. So that even saying “more than zero jobs will be created” would sound like something to be flippantly dismissed. But I thought I’d look at some of the data. 

Sanders says the middle class has been shrinking for 40 years. Not sure that’s essential knowledge, but it seems measurable. So I looked it up. I think the data probably comes from a Pew Research Study. 

Screen shot from here

Today the middle class is about 49.9%. That means that’s the percentage earning a middle income. Pew Research defines that as “two-thirds to two times the national median income for your household size” or about $46,000 to $141,000 for a 4-person household. Roughly 29% make a lower-class income, which includes entry-level workers, full-time students, retirees—not simply full-time workers who can’t make ends meet, although they are among this level. Another 21% make upper incomes.

The change has been happening over 40 years. But Bernie would have you believe this is all bad news. There has been a slight growth in lower-income households: from 25.2% in 1971 to 29% in 2015, so, over about 4 ½ decades—coinciding, incidentally, with the “War on Poverty.” Hmm.

But, most of the dwindling middle class has come at the upper end: from 14% in 1971 to 21.1% in 2015. So the middle class lost 3.8% to the lower class, and 7.1% to the upper class. In other words, more people are moving up. That’s not a bad thing.

Here’s another detail: “Upper-class Americans have seen their incomes rise 47 percent, while lower-class families have gained only 28 percent.” This is not a bad thing either, if you realize the good stuff is happening to more people. Unless you’d rather see bad happen to everyone if good isn’t happening to you.

And here’s another thing to note: while lower income families aren’t gaining as fast as we’d like, it’s not mostly the same families staying in poverty over those decades. Mostly those are newcomers—new young adults, new students, new entry-level workers. Most of those people gain experience and move up.

But Bernie’s view is that those poor families are specific people losing out because specific rich people are getting their gains.

That’s what you call covetousness. And “Thou shalt not covet.”

If we needed to summarize the difference between Sander’s view and Cruz’s view, it would be that Sanders thinks it’s unfair for anyone to rise; anyone who succeeds should have their rise taken away and given to someone who didn’t rise. Regardless of difference in effort. Using the force of government.

There was a significant portion of the debate talking about Denmark. A man from Denmark posed a question:

And, you know, these are countries which—where the government spends—taxes and spends approximately twice the level of the United States. And while I am very sympathetic to many of your spending proposals, especially on the things you mention on early childhood and single-payer and the like, I also know that these are countries that heavily tax everybody, not just the rich people, middle classes. They have consumption taxes on everything of 20 percent.

So while I'm very sympathetic to what you're saying, my sense is still that you would like to spend as a Scandinavian but not tax as one, is that right?

Since Bernie talked about how we need “free” health care and “free” child care—that these are “rights” we are born with and therefore the government is obligated to provide—let’s look at the cost of “free.” I wrote about Denmark a while ago. [  2-11-2016   ] Using data that a young Danish writer offered, an ordinary working class Dane who makes $25,000 DKK a month (about $4,000, which would be $48,000/year) ends up with 9,848.71 DKK before he can start making choices about how to spend it. Here’s what I said:

That is 39.39% of your original. You have paid 60.61% of your income. If you were wealthier, you would add 15% [in taxes] earlier in the process. Not far off from what Bernie Sanders thinks those terrible rich people ought to be paying here. But note that in Denmark everybody pays, no matter how little they make.

Socialism isn’t about getting free stuff; it’s about spending 60% or more of your income on those “free” things, without market choice. Everyone pays it. There’s no getting away from it. If you’re healthy and would rather pay for minimal health care, so you can save up for a down payment on a house, you don’t get that choice. If you want faster internet or more media options than the single media company offers, you don’t get that choice.

But for all the lack of choice, you work until mid-July or later for the government and can only use what you make the rest of the year to support your food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and entertainment choices.

Meanwhile, the government is telling you how happy you must be, because of the good way the government takes care of you.

To translate the numbers in our US experience, a single person makes $48,000 a year, which feels pretty good just out of college. But the government takes $29,092.80, leaving you $18,907.20.

But your healthcare is minimal; isn’t that worth it? If you’re a young, healthy person, do you think $2,424.40 is a good deal for you? Let’s throw in child care—not quite free; the Dane says it’s about $300 a month, depending on region. So, let’s take away $3,600 from your $18,907.20, which leaves you $15,307.20 for your discretionary spending like food, housing, transportation, or travel.

Do you feel better, earning $44,000, but getting to spend only $15,307.20 the way you choose, in exchange for “free” stuff?

Bernie made the false claim that the average Dane has a better standard of living than the average American. But 70% of Americans, according to the data he used, are middle class or above, so they can buy a home, one or two cars, high-speed internet, a big screen TV, and save up for vacations, open their own businesses, prepare for their retirement, and in every other way “pursue happiness.”

Meanwhile, their Danish counterpart is less likely to own a home, more likely to live in an urban setting (in an apartment, without land), and more likely to work for the government (1 in 4).

Ted Cruz brought in statistics about socialized medicine in Denmark:

If you look at socialized medicine, there are waiting periods. There's rationing. The government says, if you're an elderly person and you need a hip replacement, it says, well, you may not get a hip replacement. We were talking about Denmark. The average wait time in 2014 for cataract surgery was 83 days...

And the average time in Denmark, which he brought up, for hip replacement was 55 days, 59 days for knee replacement.

The man asking the question believed these statistics were more negative than the reality. Anecdotally, he reported that his mother was treated for cancer within a couple of days of her diagnosis. However, I don’t know exactly where Cruz got his statistics, but he’s not haphazard about gathering and memorizing that kind of thing. My own familiarity with socialized medicine, Canada’s, involves a former neighbor’s father. He was told they couldn’t do anything to treat his cancer, and he should plan to die soon. He studied, changed his diet, and came to the US for some necessary care. No thanks to Canada’s socialized health care system, he lived six more important years while his grandchildren were growing.

The health care discussion was a side issue for this debate. But what it did was clarify the two vastly different philosophies on taxation. Despite some early dissembling, Bernie Sanders was really in favor of raising everyone’s taxes, significantly—up to Denmark’s levels, which are the highest in the world.

Bernie finally admitted that, but he believed promising all the free stuff would persuade voters:

If we can explain to people, yeah, you're going to be paying more in taxes, it's going to be a progressive tax system. The wealthy are going to pay their fair share, not the middle class, not the working class, but everybody will pay some more.

Cruz pointed out that admission moments later, and Bernie interrupted to tell him not to put words in his mouth. He forgot (or maybe didn’t pay enough attention to know) that Cruz remembers what he’s heard verbatim; it’s his superpower. And he’s better at math:

Bernie's tax plan cost over $13 trillion. That's what he's proposed raising in new taxes. And who pays for it? Well, the Democrats always talk about the millionaires and billionaires, but here's a simple fact. We could take every single person making $1 million a year or more and confiscate 100 percent of their income, everything they make, every penny, and it would raise about $1 trillion, about 8 percent of the cost of Bernie's tax plan.

That means if you want tax revenue, you don't get it from the millionaires and billionaires. You get it from the middle class. You get it from the working men and women in this country.

One of Cruz’s better points was that higher taxes slow growth, and lower taxes lead to more growth. Cruz had charts. Growth is important, because we’ll never get Congress to cut enough spending to cut the deficit. Here’s Cruz’s summary:

Obama versus Reagan, under Obama, median income increased 6 percent. Under Reagan, 17 percent. How about African-Americans? Under Obama, median income increased 8 percent. Under Reagan, 12 percent. How about women? Under Obama, median income increased 6 percent. Under Reagan, 25 percent. Young people, under Obama, 9 percent, under Reagan, 55 percent. Young women, under Obama, 8 percent, under Reagan, 73 percent. And, finally, the bottom 20 percent, those struggling, under Obama, 12 percent, under Reagan, 40 percent.

What I don’t know is whether the current tax plan is as good as we need it. But what I do know is that we Americans make better decisions about how to spend the money we earn than the government does.

Texas Ballot Propositions 2017

Today’s post is for Texans. We have seven propositions on the November ballot—and almost nothing else in this off-year election. Propositions on the ballot are for altering the Texas Constitution, which is the basic law of the state—much more specific and inclusive than the US Constitution. The way this works is, the proposition goes through the state legislature, as a House Joint Resolution or a Senate Joint Resolution. If it passes both houses, it goes before the people during the election following the legislative session—so, November elections during odd-numbered years.

The sample ballot for my precinct,
only propositions and school board races.

Sometimes the legal language makes it challenging to know how to vote, if you see it for the first time in the voting booth. So I’m offering some background today.

I’ll be providing the legislative information; you can use this to look up the actual bill on the Texas Legislature site online, and to see how the vote went. Then I’ll include the ballot language, followed by the Explanatory Statement provided by the Secretary of State. Plus, I’ll add an explanation from my son Political Sphere, who, as a lawyer, understands legal language better than I do

.

If you’re still looking for more information on any of these propositions, you might want to refer to the analyses by the Texas Legislative Council, which includes a summary of comments by proponents and opponents: fullversion, condensed version.

I hope this helps all of us make an informed decision on each issue.

PROPOSITION 1

Bill Number: HJR 21

Bill Author: Bell     House Vote: 143-0 (3 Present, Not Voting); Senate Vote: 31-0

Ballot Language: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of part of the market value of the residence homestead of a partially disabled veteran or the surviving spouse of a partially disabled veteran if the residence homestead was donated to the disabled veteran by a charitable organization for less than the market value of the residence homestead and harmonizing certain related provisions of the Texas Constitution."

Explanatory Statement: HJR 21 proposes a constitutional amendment that would permit the Texas legislature to expand the circumstances under which a partially disabled veteran or their spouse may qualify for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of part of the market value of the veteran’s residence homestead. Currently, the Texas legislature may provide that a partially disabled veteran or their spouse is entitled to an exemption from ad valorem taxation of a percentage of the market value of the disabled veteran’s residence homestead only if the residence homestead was donated to the disabled veteran by a charitable organization at no cost to the veteran. The amendment would allow the Texas legislature to provide that the exemption also may be taken when the residence homestead was donated, sold, or transferred to the disabled veteran by a charitable organization for less than the market value of the residence homestead. The amendment also harmonizes certain related provisions of the Texas Constitution.

Political Sphere’s Assessment: This is a simple amendment which amends a provision providing a specific exemption to partially disabled veterans, adding an additional requirement to qualify for the exemption that they receive the real estate from at less than market value.

Honestly, it looks like a lot of things have to go right already to qualify for this particular exemption: you have to be a veteran; you have to be disabled, but you cannot be designated as 100% disabled; you have to have the property donated to you, and the donor must be a charitable organization. So an additional requirement that it also be donated for less than market value is not a significant change, and I have no particular opinion for or against.

PROPOSITION 2

Bill Number: SJR 60

Bill Author: Hancock     House Votes: 143-0 (2 Present, Not Voting); Senate Votes: 30-0 (1 Absent)

Ballot Language: "The constitutional amendment to establish a lower amount for expenses that can be charged to a borrower and removing certain financing expense limitations for a home equity loan, establishing certain authorized lenders to make a home equity loan, changing certain options for the refinancing of home equity loans, changing the threshold for an advance of a home equity line of credit, and allowing home equity loans on agricultural homesteads."

Explanatory Statement: SJR 60 proposes a constitutional amendment to require that certain conditions be met for the refinancing of a home equity loan to be secured by a voluntary lien on a homestead. The amendment also would: redefine what is excluded in the calculation of the cap on fees associated with a home equity loan, lower the cap from 3% to 2% of the original principal amount of the extension of credit, and specify that such fees are in addition to any bona fide discount points used to buy down the interest rate. The amendment would further specify the list of authorized lenders to make home equity loans, change the threshold for an advance of a home equity line of credit, allow agricultural property owners to acquire home equity loans, and update technical terminology in the Texas Constitution. The amendment would be effective on January 1, 2018, and applicable only to a home equity loan made or refinanced on or after that date.

Political Sphere’s Assessment: This is a very convoluted amendment to a very convoluted section of the constitution. The bill itself spans 20 pages (SJR 60). The section of the constitution deals with homestead protections against forced sale (foreclosure). It adds, to the liens homesteads are protected against forced sale, an extension of credit that includes bona fide points toward the rate. It also takes away protection against forced sale of loans on homesteads with agriculture exemptions. There are several other changes. There are definitely some positive changes, but this whole section should probably be pared down. As it stands now, it probably adds to quite a bit of paperwork on the part of mortgage and lending companies to ensure that they can foreclose on the property. Lending companies are never going to agree to a loan that they will not be able to foreclose on if you fail to pay.

PROPOSITION 3

Bill Number: SJR 34

Bill Author: Birdwell      House Votes: 142-4 (Craddick, Isaac, Murr, and Raney voted Nay) (2 Present, Not Voting); Senate Vote: 31-0

Ballot Language: "The constitutional amendment limiting the service of certain officeholders appointed by the governor and confirmed by the senate after the expiration of the person's term of office."

Explanatory Statement: SJR 34 proposes a constitutional amendment that would prevent certain office holders from serving indefinitely beyond the expiration of their term. Office holders who are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate and receive no salary would only be able to serve until the last day of the first regular session of the Texas legislature that begins after their term expires.

Political Sphere’s Assessment: The first thing this amendment does is fix a language issue from a previous constitutional amendment. Then it fixes a functionality problem of that same amendment. The constitution previously terminated all officers “within” the state upon the completion of the Governor’s term. It now terminates all officers “of” the state upon the completion of the Governor’s term, unless their position requires advice and consent of the Senate, in which case they will continue until the first day of the legislature. The first change prevents reading the section to mean that local officials terms also end upon completion of the Governor’s term. The second takes away the gap of leadership that currently exists. I am in favor of this amendment.

PROPOSITION 4

Bill Number: SJR 6

Bill Author: Zaffirini      House Votes: 136-9 (Anchia, Cain, Collier, Cook, Israel, Rinaldi, Stickland, Tinderholt, and Wu voted Nay); Senate Vote: 30-1 (Hall voted Nay)

Ballot Language: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to require a court to provide notice to the attorney general of a challenge to the constitutionality of a state statute and authorizing the legislature to prescribe a waiting period before the court may enter a judgment holding the statute unconstitutional."

Explanatory Statement: SJR 6 proposes a constitutional amendment that would allow the Texas legislature to require any court that is hearing a challenge to the constitutionality of a state statute to notify the attorney general of that challenge, if the party raising the challenge notifies the court that the party is challenging the constitutionality of such statute. Additionally, the amendment would allow the Texas legislature to set a period of not more than 45 days following the notification to the attorney general that the court must wait before rendering a judgment that a state statute is unconstitutional.

Political Sphere’s Assessment: This amendment prohibits courts from ruling that any law is unconstitutional without first notifying the AG and giving a chance to respond. Obviously, this will only protect the statute in State Courts, not federal, and will only apply to state law, not federal. This was probably done as a reaction to the many federal courts intervening in things like HB2 from the prior session and voter id laws, but will do nothing to those particular suits. However, it does prevent state courts from effectively performing a Scopes monkey trial without allowing the AG’s office an opportunity to develop the best evidence for appeal. I am in favor of this amendment.

PROPOSITION 5

Bill Number: HJR 100

Bill Author: Kuempel      House Votes: 110-12 (Biedermann, Cain, Isaac, Lang, Leach, Rinaldi, Schaefer, Shaheen, Stickland, Swanson, Tinderholt, and Zedler voted Nay) (2 Present, Not Voting); Senate Votes: 24-6 (Birdwell, Burton, Hall, Hancock, Huffines, Van Taylor voted Nay) (1 Absent)

Ballot Language: "The constitutional amendment on professional sports team charitable foundations conducting charitable raffles."

Explanatory Statement: HJR 100 proposes a constitutional amendment to provide a more detailed definition of “professional sports team” for purposes of their charitable foundations, which the Texas legislature may permit to hold charitable raffles. The amendment also deletes a requirement that an eligible professional sports team charitable foundation permitted by the Texas legislature to hold charitable raffles had to be in existence on January 1, 2016.

Political Sphere’s Assessment: Currently, charitable organizations set up by MLB, MLS, NBA, NFL, and NHL teams may hold charitable raffles, but may only receive cash for those raffle tickets. This amendment expands the sports leagues eligible, and allows to collect funds from debit cards as well as cash. It will probably pass, but since I am generally against gambling, I will likely vote no.

PROPOSITION 6

Bill Number: SJR 1

Bill Author: Campbell     House Votes: 147-0 (2 Present, Not Voting); Senate Votes: 30-0 (1 Absent)

Ballot Language: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a first responder who is killed or fatally injured in the line of duty."

Explanatory Statement: SJR 1 proposes a constitutional amendment that would allow the Texas legislature by general law to provide that a surviving spouse of a first responder who is killed or fatally injured in the line of duty is entitled to receive an exemption from ad valorem taxation from all or part of the market value on the surviving spouse’s residence homestead, as long as the surviving spouse has not remarried since the death of the first responder. It would also allow the Texas legislature to provide that the surviving spouse, who qualifies and receives the exemption and then qualifies a different property as the surviving spouse’s residence homestead, receive an exemption from ad valorem taxation of the different homestead in an amount equal to the dollar amount of the exemption of the first homestead for which the exemption was received in the last year in which the surviving spouse received the exemption for that first homestead. Like the initial exemption, this benefit will only remain available if the surviving spouse has not remarried since the death of the first responder. The proposed amendment would apply only to ad valorem taxes imposed for a tax year beginning on or after January 1, 2018.

Political Sphere’s Assessment: This amendment simply allows the legislature to create an exemption for surviving spouses of first responders that die in the line of duty. I will likely vote in favor of this amendment, but I have a mixed opinion, because, while it does allow for additional limits (like limiting the number of years a surviving spouse is eligible), it does not require it. And it allows for the exemption to be up to a 100% exemption. I agree that we should take care of surviving spouses of first responders killed in the line of duty, but we should not expect that they will be unable to get themselves in a better position within a few years of their spouse’s passing.

PROPOSITION 7

Bill Number: HJR 37

Bill Author: Johnson, Eric      House Votes: 141-0 (1 Present, Not Voting); Senate Votes: 30-1 (Burton voted Nay)

Ballot Language: "The constitutional amendment relating to legislative authority to permit credit unions and other financial institutions to award prizes by lot to promote savings."

Explanatory Statement: HJR 37 proposes a constitutional amendment that would allow the Texas legislature to make an exception to the law regarding the award of certain prizes. Currently, the Texas Constitution requires the Texas legislature to pass laws prohibiting lotteries, raffles, and other programs where the award of gifts is based on luck or chance. The proposed amendment would make an exception to this general rule to allow the Texas legislature to authorize credit unions and other financial institutions to institute programs which, in order to encourage savings, would award prizes based on luck or chance to the credit union’s or financial institution’s customers.

Political Sphere’s Assessment: This is a simple amendment which allows the legislature to authorize financial institutions to have promotional giveaways promoting savings among depositors at the institution. I will probably vote in favor of this amendment.

Freedom Is Endangered But Not Extinct

In the last post I talked about the sci-fi series Extinct, created by Orson  Scott Card for BYU TV. There’s another theme I’d like to look at from that series—about freedom, or free will.

There are, among the few people who have been brought back to life 400 years after the extinction of humans, who are different from the handful who are the protagonists. This other group is called skin riders. There is a parasite, appearing as a glowing lump on the back of the neck, that joins with the human body. Ezra’s brother (from earlier earth days) is one of them; in fact, Silas is their leader.

The skin riders search out the humans, capture them, and try to make them join up.

In episode 2, Ezra has evaded the larger group of skin riders, and ambushes Silas alone. He overpowers Silas, and checks the glowing thing on the back of his neck. Here’s their first conversation [Ep2 40:58]:

Ezra tries to find out what has happened to his brother.
Screen shot from Season 1 Episode 2

Ezra: What is that?

Silas: Don’t hurt it. I’ll die if you do.

Ezra: What have they done to you?

Silas: Opened my mind. [others arrive] Don’t kill him!

Jaz: I won’t. [strikes Ezra, scene goes black. Ezra wakes at night near a campfire.]

Silas: If you try to run, I’ll call the others. You wouldn’t get far. I sent Jax to find your friend. (Ezra checks his own neck) We haven’t injected you. Jax wanted to, but…  I think it’s best if you choose to join us.

Ezra: I’ll pass.

Silas: Four hundred years and you haven’t changed. Nobody can teach you anything.

Ezra: Did the Sparks remake you?

Silas: The Sparks? Fascinating, aren’t they? How they can make anything—humans, clothing, a bologna sandwich, albeit a soggy one.

Ezra: That thing on the back of your neck—It’s alive, isn’t it?

Silas: A companion. It teaches me, comforts me, connects me to my brothers and sisters.

Ezra: I’m your brother, Silas.

Silas: You were. Join us and you will be again.

Ezra: It controls you.

Silas: Does knowledge control you? That’s what the companion provides. If I need to know how to start a fire, it shows me. It’s a gift!

Ezra: Can you remove it?

Silas: Why would I want to?

Ezra: Because it’s turned you into someone else.

Silas: Someone better, yes. What was I to you before, other than a disappointment? Now look at me. A leader. A spiritual advisor. I’m worth something now.

[flashback scene]

Ezra: You weren’t a disappointment, Silas.

Silas: Bankrupt at 20?

Ezra: Because you hired all those people, and you didn’t have the heart to let ‘em go when you should have. It makes you a bad businessman, not a bad person.

Silas: Doesn’t matter. I’m the person I want to be now.

Ezra: A slave?

Silas: A servant.

Ezra: Let me take you to the Sparks. They can heal you.

Silas: And go back to what I was?

Ezra: What you were was a better man, Silas.

Silas: My companion is very tired. (signals for Ezra to escape)

It appears, in a moment of weakness, the real Silas was able to come through, and that’s why he lets Ezra escape.

In Episode 4, Ezra’s wife, Lynn, is reconstituted (brought back to life as a human), but is quickly taken captive by the skin riders. She escapes but is eventually retaken. Somewhere in the sequence, one of the skin riders was killed by one of the other humans. At the moment Lynn is brought to Silas, he is going through a ritual about the dead man, removing his parasite (crystal in his neck), so his memories can be preserved. Anyway, Silas gives us this description of what that “Companion” does for them:

Silas: The humans kill our brother with one touch of their weapon. We offer them a companion to choose for them, to remove from them the burden of discipline and self-mastery, guilt, and shame. We offer them guaranteed joy, and they give us this.

He’s not, apparently, interested in the life and memories of the human, but of the parasite that inhabited him.

In episode 5, Silas is trying to persuade Lynn to voluntarily become injected with the parasite/companion. He starts out gently telling her how normal and improved they are. But when she asks what happens if she refuses to join them, the answer is pretty threatening.

Later he brings in a red drone, and produces a hologram of Lynn and Ezra’s daughter, but the hologram quickly disappears [Ep 5 12:38]:

Lynn: Is this what you’ve become? Cruel?

Silas: Death is cruel, Lynn. It rips us from those we care about, and buries them away forever. But what if I told you there was a way to connect with the dead? To see and feel their memories and knowledge whenever you needed them? Not with a machine, but with your mind?

Lynn: The crystal in your neck—

Silas: Always so smart. The crystal is the mind of an organism we call “a Companion.” It’s a friend, a counselor. But the human brain keeps getting in the way. Reactions are slower, decisions are muddled. There’s resistance.

Lynn: What do you want from me?

Silas: The drone and the Sparks wove the neural pathways in our brains. I want to block some of them, to give greater control to the Companion.

Lynn: I’m not a brain surgeon. I can’t help you.

Silas: I don’t need a surgeon, Lynn. I need a test subject. [pulls out a vial with a sharp end meant for injecting] You prick yourself. The companion does the rest. Once it’s taken root and you’re one of us, we can begin with the drone.

Jax: You should just stick her and get on with it.

Silas: You underestimate Lynn, Jax. She always makes the right choice.

But it’s not much later, a day or less, when he comes back and tries more persuasion [Ep5 23:26]:

Silas has Lynn captive.
Screen shot from Season 1 Episode 5

Silas: You still haven’t chosen to join us.

Lynn: Still weighing the pros and cons.

Silas: You haven’t changed, Lynn.

Lynn: Wish I could say the same for you.

Silas: You don’t know what you’re rejecting. You could be one with the Community.

Lynn: I’m one with my husband. That’s enough for me.

Silas: Technically, he’s no longer your husband. You were married “until death do you part,” remember?

Lynn: I remember. I remember you were his best man. And I remember the toast you gave. That you had everybody laughing one moment, and most of us crying the next. Because everyone knew you loved your brother. That’s what I remember. Do you?

Silas: I remember my knees shaking, my voice almost cracking, my heart pounding. Because I was weak and fragile. Now I’m not. I’m beginning to think you’re not going to make the right choice here, Lynn.

Lynn: I’m never going to join you, Silas. I’ll never give up who I am.

[he stabs her in the arm with the vile]

Silas: I didn’t want to have to do that. You’re angry right now, but when you have your Companion, we’ll have a good laugh about this. About how much fuss you made. Sleep well.

There’s a line in The Princess Bride where the Grandpa interrupts the story to say, “She doesn’t get eaten by eels at this time.” So, like that, I’ll say, she doesn’t become a skin rider at this time.

What I’m interested in, in these interchanges, are the enticements from the skin riders, through Silas. He offers freedom from error, freedom from weakness, freedom from “the burden of discipline and self-mastery, guilt, and shame.”

This is very much like the choice from the Council in Heaven—Lucifer’s plan. “I will take away your ability to make bad choices.” But that takes away humanness, and with it the ability to choose to be a good human being, leaving something far inferior.

Silas makes a show of offering a “choice,” but the choice isn’t really there; give in to having your self taken, or your self will be taken.

So, I was thinking of this “choice,” when I read an opinion piece from the New York Times called “WhyAre Millennials Wary of Freedom?” by Clay Routledge.

There are some disturbing statistics from the World Values Survey, the Pew Research Center, and other surveys:

·         Only 30% of Americans born after 1980 believe democracy (rule by the people) is essential, compared to 72% of older Americans.

·         In 2011 24% of young adults think democracy is a bad idea; they would prefer to be ruled over.

·         40% of millennials believe government should control speech they find offensive (not profanity, but rather ideas they disagree with).

·         20% or more of students of either party believed it was acceptable for student groups to use violence to prevent speech on a college campus that they disapprove of.

Routledge offers an explanation for why young adults have so little respect for freedom: “I propose that the answer is fear—the ultimate enemy of freedom.”

The Spherical Model can give us some perspective here. People who have not been brought up to understand the blessings of freedom live in the southern hemisphere, oscillating between chaotic tyranny and statist tyranny, unaware of the entire northern hemisphere of freedom. Those who seek power create, or at least point out, the chaos, accentuate its danger, and then promise to make everything calm. “Allow us to rule over you, and we’ll make what you’re scared of go away. But, if you don’t choose to be ruled by us, we’ll force you to.” That last part gets left unsaid, but it’s there in every tyranny.

As Reagan once said,

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

Freedom isn’t extinct yet, here in our world. But if those statistics are an indicator, it’s on the endangered list.

If you have any influence over a young person, let them know that real freedom is not freedom from financial concerns, interpersonal challenges, or “the burden of discipline and self-mastery, guilt, and shame.” Let them know what real freedom is for: to thrive, grow, and live a fully human, happy and sometimes painful but meaningful life.

Family Isn't Extinct

I’ve been watching a new sci-fi series on BYU-TV called Extinct. One of the creators is Orson Scott Card, who wrote Ender’s Game, it’s sequels, and many other sci-fi fiction books and series. Even with those high expectations, I’m surprised at the quality of this show. I don’t know how they do it out of a college campus media program.

It was introduced October 1^st, with two opening episodes. But BYU-TV did something I’m really appreciating. Besides showing one episode a week for the next month and a half, followed by a season finale, they put the first eight episodes online right away, for streaming at your convenience.

So I binge-watched that first week, up through episode 5. And then I decided to slow down, because I didn’t want to have a huge gap between those eight episodes and the finale. Anyway, I recommend the series, if you like sci-fi at all.

There was a moment in episode 5, “Broken,” that I want to highlight.

The premise of the show is that aliens came and wiped out the human race 400 years ago. But those aliens or others (not sure) recorded the DNA and memories of a number of the humans, and then they try to have the human race repopulate centuries later.

The humans wake up, one at a time, in a lake, with their memories from their previous life intact. They are at the age of their prime (mid-20s to mid-30s), regardless of the age at which they died. One character, Abram, was a psychologist near retirement age in his previous life.

I don’t want to give away too many surprises, but Abram has been trying to decode messages from a mysterious obelisk in their fortress, where there used to be a settlement. Rummaging around the place, he finds a notebook with shorthand notes—in a type of shorthand he invented for himself, back when he was a therapist. So it’s not possible that someone else wrote that notebook; he had been there before, trying to decode those very same things.

In episode 5, we get a flashback of the old Abram visiting his wife, Tasha, in the hospital before she dies. Then we see the new, younger Abram, in the fortress, talking with the drone (a floating metal robot about the size of a basketball) as he’s looking for something. If you watch the full episode, this two-minute clip comes at 18 minutes in.

Embed:

Here’s the dialogue from the essential part:

Drone: Looking for something?

Abram: My notebook proves that I was here before. Maybe there’s proof Tasha was too.

Drone: What makes you think your wife may have been reborn?

Abram: Ezra and Lynn. Feena and Duncan. There’s a pattern of restoring couples.

Drone: I’d hardly call four people a reliable statistical sample.

Abram: Not statistics. Sociology. If you want to start a community and generate offspring, you need strong, monogamous relationships.

Drone: You don’t need monogamy to create offspring.

Abram: No, but you need it to create stable families. And you won’t have much of a civilization without those.

This isn’t the only time Orson Scott Card has his characters mention how important family is. I wrote about one place here.

The alien attack, when these Extinct people’s original bodies died, was approximately our day. It’s interesting that it’s an older character who understands, both intuitively and scientifically, the importance of family for building civilization, because in our day, especially among younger generations, that’s not always common knowledge.

For example, there’s this guy whose presentation came up through Mindvalley (a self-help organization, providing information on things as diverse as meditation, healthy eating, breaking through mental blocks, how the brain works, and other informative and sometimes weird things) on Facebook. The guy, Dan Savage, does a longer presentation called “The 3 things we get wrong about love, sex, and monogamy.” I apologize for the bleeped profanity; the subject itself is profane, but in the two-and-a-half-minute promo video [https://www.facebook.com/mindvalley/  October 4, 2017], Savage says,

Every monogamous relationship is a disaster waiting to happen. If you are with someone for 50 or 60 years, and you cheated on them one time, you are terrible at monogamy. It’s an impossible standard of perfection, and it’s why we all fail at it. Those who attempt it almost all fail at it. Those who attempt it almost all fail at it.

And we tell people, and people believe, that if someone touches someone else, someone who’s committed to you, made a monogamous commitment to you, touches someone else with their genitals even once, they didn’t love you. They never loved you. That your entire relationship was a lie, and your…the only corrective is divorce. You must leave that person. We define it as an unforgivable betrayal, and then we experience it as an unforgivable betrayal.

And we sit around with our thumbs in our a—s wondering why the divorce rate is as high as it is, when what we should be telling people is that you will grow up, you will fall in love. Perhaps if monogamy is right for you or what you think you want—a lot of people think they want it and actually don’t—you will make a monogamous commitment. And, asterisk, that doesn’t mean because you’re in love, you’re not going to want to f— other people. You’re still going to want to f— other people; so does your spouse. What monogamy means is you will refrain from f—ing other people, hopefully.

And if you make it through 50 years, and they cheated once or twice, and you cheated once or twice, you were good at mono… you get a monogamy gold medal, like the snowboarder who fell down that day. You should have a monogamy gold medal around your neck, not a noose around your neck.

I’ve been with my husband for 23-ish, 24-ish years, I can’t remember, but a long time. And for 18 of the last years, we have been non-monogamous. I have had conversations with people in monogamous… who are appalled by the fact that we’re public about it, that I’ve talked about it, the fact that we’re parents and we’ve talked about it publicly, and this is how these conversations have gone. I’ve had people look at me and say to me, “I could never do what you and Terry have done, because I value commitment and loyalty too highly.” And I look at them like…  I don’t say anything, but I’m thinking, “You don’t think I’m…  What?”  And the next thing out of the m—f—‘s mouth is, “All three of my marriages have been monogamous.” And I’m like, “Oh, what you’re committed to and loyal to is monogamy, not these a—s you keep marrying and divorcing, but monogamy.” We are committed and loyal to monogamy to such an extent that we are not committed and disloyal to the people we’ve married.

Let’s unpack this, because he’s making a living telling quite a number of untruths.

He’s not in an actual marriage; he’s in a same-sex relationship that cannot produce children (yet they got children from someone who did produce children). He says he’s married, but this doesn’t include the essential sexual relationship that leads to reproduction. And it does not include exclusivity as a marriage contract requires. He calls what he has a non-monogamous committed marriage. And the problem, he says, on his authority, is that the rest of the world thinks marriage should require monogamy.

He claims that nearly all marriages include infidelity, because fidelity is an impossible standard. That is, he thinks it’s hard, and therefore you should give up on the very idea. The social science shows that essentially all long-term same-sex relationships include infidelity—more so for gay men and for lesbians. So if he’s going by his limited experience, that’s about right. But their numbers don’t reflect what is normal for heterosexuals.

Among real marriages—between men and women, married for life, with exclusivity, or in other words monogamous—well beyond half, 70% or more continue without divorce. Of those, 78% of men are never unfaithful, and 86% of women are never unfaithful. Compared to the numbers for gays, those statistics are a sharp night-day contrast.

Heterosexual marriages that face infidelity are severely strained. Often they end in divorce. But where the straying spouse is repentant and willing to do whatever it takes to make amends—and this often takes professional counseling for both spouses—there is no requirement that the marriage ends. Savage is saying the goal is no divorce, which you get if you are willing to stay in a marriage with unrepentant infidelity. He’s not clear on the concept if he thinks that makes for a better actual marriage.

I’m raising an eyebrow at his casual reference to sex, like it’s a typo. If the person committed to you “touches someone else with their genitals even once,” like that could so easily happen. It doesn’t happen accidentally; we don’t walk around in public places with those body parts uncovered, where they could just accidentally bump into someone else’s. No, it happens when you make a number of decisions, a number of steps toward having sex with a person. If that’s with a person you are not committed to, then you did indeed commit betrayal. You lied. Maybe you thought you loved your partner, but apparently not enough to control your lust.

This guy holds himself up as an expert when he has no idea what an actual marriage is like. He doesn’t know that huge numbers of people are happy in their marriages—the vast majority of them with total fidelity. It means something when sex is an expression of love in marriage. It means something else entirely when sex is just about self-gratification within or without a relationship. It matters. Because when it’s about self-gratification, it isn’t an expression of love.

People are happier when sex is an expression of love. And that love grows when the two committed parents bring children into their forever family. Maybe, just maybe, God knew how we were most likely to be happy when he required us to limit sex to within marriage.

Because that’s the only way you get civilization. Without civilization we have savagery. There’s been plenty of that in the news this week. Consider: would it be better for us to slake our lusts wherever and whenever we want—so that whatever Harvey Weinstein and others like him do, we just shrug our shoulders and give them a pass? We don’t even think it’s wrong?

Weinstein’s defense? “Everybody makes mistakes.” Not big, felonious ones. Not dozens or hundreds of times. Not endlessly until caught and finally held accountable.

Who is happier when no one considers sex under any conditions wrong? Not those he has used.

Family--with a man and woman married and faithful, raising their children--is still necessary for civilization.

Columbus--Restoring after the Revisionists

There were certain historical stories told when I was growing up, many decades ago, that gave us heroes: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Christopher Columbus. Yes, Columbus was one of those. And we had a day to celebrate his story. This was before holidays all got shifted to Mondays, so mostly they were school days, and we learned about that person on their day—and maybe for the week or two of surrounding days.

Christopher Columbus, screenshot from
The History Channel; I found it here.

Then, in my adulthood, there’s been this movement to disillusion us about these heroes. And others. We could add Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. And probably others.

But what I’m learning is that the disillusionment is based on fake “facts.” There wasn’t really a cabal of historians for centuries secretly hiding facts in order to sanitize and glorify the heroes. While human, with the sensibilities of their times, our American heroes were really extraordinarily good men who accomplished great things for mankind.

I don’t know why the lies are there. It seems perverse to tear down, with lies, someone we should admire and honor—someone who isn’t here to defend himself or set the record straight. It seems related, in most cases, to hating America. I’m not certain whether this weird hero destruction goes on in other countries as it does here.

But why would it be considered a “good” thing to hate your country, and the iconic figures who helped make it? That seems cynical, pseudo-intellectual, and just plain ugly.

Dinesh D’Souza has done a good job debunking some of this anti-American fake history, with America—Imagine a World without Her and other books and documentaries. I’ve also turned to a series of history books by various authors: The Real Benjamin Franklin, and The Real Thomas Jefferson, for example.

Today is Columbus Day. I’ve written about Columbus a couple of times (here and here). I believe the real historical record is in his favor.

This past weekend I heard the best debunking of the Columbus maligning I’ve heard in some time. This was Michael Knowles, in his Daily Wire podcast on Friday. You can get the audio here, or you can see it, with some extra visuals, by scrolling down to last Friday on his Facebook page.

Later I found much of that 20-minute segment written as an article by Knowles. There’s extra humor in the podcast, and I recommend that. But for now I’d like to share a few of his points. This first is an example of what we truth seekers are up against.

The typical mainstream media anti-Columbus hit piece goes as follows: cite a well- known passage from the Admiral’s diary out of context, juxtapose it next to the testimony of his chief political rivals, and pretend that all of this information has only recently been uncovered.

Vox’s Dylan Matthews follows this strategy with his outlet’s typical sobriety in his 2015 article, “9 reasons Christopher Columbus was a murderer, tyrant, and scoundrel.” Perhaps the worst charge Matthews alleges is that “Settlers under Columbus sold 9- and 10-year-old girls into sexual slavery.” Matthews asserts, “This one he admitted himself in a letter to Doña Juana de la Torre, a friend of the Spanish queen: ‘There are plenty of dealers who go about looking for girls; those from nine to ten are now in demand, and for all ages a good price must be paid.’”

One might conclude from Vox’s article that Columbus devised the plan or at least approved of it. But the opposite is true. Columbus doesn’t brag about selling those girls into slavery or even defend the action. On the contrary, in the very next sentence, Columbus writes, “I assert that the violence of the calumny of turbulent persons has injured me more than my services have profited me; which is a bad example for the present and for the future. I take my oath that a number of men have gone to the Indies who did not deserve water in the sight of God and of the world.”

There are attacks that quote Columbus’s contemporary rivals, who maligned him at the time, and he spent energy refuting. Knowles makes this comparison:

The report’s author is none other than Francisco Bobadilla, Christopher Columbus’s chief political rival and the man who successfully usurped power from him in the West Indies. A modern analog would be to say that a document written by Walter Mondale proves Ronald Reagan was a terrible president.

Columbus’s behavior, as testified by those who knew him and saw how he acted, debunked those accusations then, and they should not be picked up as pseudo-fact again in our day. Among the accusations are ways the natives were treated.

Columbus spent years of his life refuting the document as a vicious libel and turned down as a matter of principle lucrative agreements with the Spanish crown that did not correct for history what he regarded as calumny. This is not to say that Columbus is guiltless in the Spanish treatment of natives. But the Left’s claims of Columbus’s special monstrosity are without foundation. Even Bartolomé de Las Casas, the first resident Bishop of the Americas and most vociferous defender of the indigenous islanders against Spanish slavery and brutality admired Christopher Columbus to the end and expressed as much in his History of the Indies.

Stanford professor emerita Carol Delaney marvels at the ignorance. “They are blaming Columbus for the things he didn’t do,” she explains. “It was mostly the people who came after, the settlers. I just think he’s been terribly maligned.” Delaney points out that in the man’s own writings and the writings of those who knew him, Columbus seems to be “very much on the side of the Indians” and even adopted the son of an American Indian leader he had befriended.

Columbus was devout, which may irk modern-day cynics. He believed he was led by God, and reports several miraculous details that led him forward fortuitously. And he believed he was sharing both Christianity and civilization with poor people who lacked these sources of happiness. He was respectful and gentle with the natives.

Columbus land in the New World
Hulton Archive/Getty Images
I found it here.

Possibly he was not a strong enough leader as a colonial island governor—for which there was no precedent—although he managed to overcome multiple mutinies through sheer force of will during the original voyage. But he was not a tyrant. In a letter to the Spanish crown, his Lettera Rarissima, he wrote these self-defending words:

“Let those who are fond of blaming and finding fault, while they sit safely at home, ask, ‘Why did you not do thus and so?’ I wish they were on this voyage; I well believe that another voyage of a different kind awaits them, or our faith is naught.”

I like Knowles’s accusation against the ungrateful and ignorant, who are willing to believe any word against an American hero, but fail to consider the documentation we’ve had for centuries:

The modern left-wing revisionist sits comfortably in the freest, most prosperous, most charitable country in the history of the world and from a position of wholly unmerited luxury slanders the man who made it all possible.

A few days ago I suggested asking the question, sincerely, “What makes you think that?” That’s a good question to ask about Columbus. If you think he was an evil tyrant who ruined the entire “New World,” what makes you think that? What are your sources? Why do you believe those sources instead of more positive, historical records?

And, if you weren’t being taught to believe that America is evil, would you think that solely from your own experience and evidence?

As for me, I flew my American flag today, in celebration of Christopher Columbus and his intrepid voyage that led to the eventual founding of America.

Start with Ourselves

During weeks like this, when the news is covering mainly one horrible event, it can wear on a person.

One response is, as Mr. Rogers’ mother advised, to look for the helpers. And there have been many. Stories of heroes, in Las Vegas, who acted instinctively to do what would help others—those are the stories that really tell who we are as a people. Here’s one.

Johnathan Smith, hero
image from CNN

The less helpful response is to insist that anyone who doesn’t believe in taking all the guns from all the law-abiding citizens lacks compassion. And I feel the urge to respond. If pinned down, these gun haters aren’t against all guns; they’re against anyone but the government having them. Because they won’t be against police and military having them—unless they’re in favor of dying defenseless. So, they’re really just against non-government citizens having weapons to defend themselves. I’d like to know why they suddenly trust the government so much.

There’s talk of outlawing the bump stock, apparently used in the Las Vegas shooting to make a semi-automatic rifle fire almost like an automatic rifle. Fully automatic weapons are already outlawed. The NRA is not against outlawing the bump stock. Most shooting ranges already forbid them. If a person isn’t trained in rapid fire—the kind of training you might get in the military—it’s easy to lose control and shoot the ceiling or anything (or possibly anyone) within range.

So there’s a good chance there will be some agreement on this. At the very least there may be some control over where such items can be owned or used, since they make a legal weapon into what is essentially an illegal weapon.

I don’t know how the debate will go. What I expect, though, is that when a murderer doesn’t have access to one way of killing, he will find another.

What we really need is a better way to identify the kind of mind and heart willing to mass murder. I don’t know if that’s possible. Isn’t that the idea of the Tom Cruise movie Minority Report? I don’t think things went well when interventions pre-empted actions.

Even better would be creating minds and hearts that don’t go so far awry.

Scarlett Lewis, the mom of one of the Sandy Hook Elementary victims, says that gun control isn’t the answer; misuse of guns is a symptom of a larger societal problem. She suggests teaching young people social and emotional learning. A program she promotes focuses on five points: how to have positive and healthy relationships, deep connections, coping skills, resilience and compassion.

Lewis believes we can see the end of these killings, if we teach every child how to cope with anger, how to be compassionate, and how to love.

Getting out of savagery and up to civilization is a simple but not easy process. We live in a fallen world, with too much evil. A lot will still go wrong. But we can start with ourselves, and with helping and encouraging those around us. The basics include those things that get us beyond our selfishness, the things we get from the Ten Commandments: honor God, life, family, property, and truth. A person who follows this path doesn’t plan and carry out savage atrocities.

During the LDS General Conference last weekend, Elder M.Russell Ballard said this:

We need to embrace God’s children compassionately and eliminate any prejudice, including racism, sexism, and nationalism. Let it be said that we truly believe the blessings of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ are for every child of God.

I testify that “the trek continues,” and I invite you to stay on the gospel path as you continue pressing forward by reaching out to all of God’s children in love and compassion, that we may unitedly make our hearts pure and our hands clean to receive the “multiplicity of blessings” awaiting all who truly love our Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son.

Good and Evil Are Both Real

Darkness is the absence of light. Evil is the absence of good. If good exists, then evil also exists wherever there is not enough good.

Late last night a man took aim from a 32^nd story window in Las Vegas, shooting into a crowd of concert goers, killing 50 or more, injuring hundreds, maybe as many as 500 (estimates are still fluctuating). The perpetrator killed himself as a SWAT team entered his hotel room. Multiple rifles were found. Video footage from people in the crowd sounds like machine-gun fire; i.e., fully automatic weaponry, which is not available for sale. Eventually information should come out about where the murderer was able to obtain such weapons.

Image from BBC News

This was an act of terrorism. It was designed to kill as many innocents as possible. While ISIS claimed credit, there is no evidence of any connection, so that seems unlikely at this time. We don’t know if we will uncover a motive for such an evil act. What we do know is that murdering innocents is evil.

Graphic from BBC News

This morning, while covering this atrocity, Ben Shapiro was talking about evil. He referred to a book:  Evil: Inside Human Cruelty and Violence, by Roy F. Baumeister. In this book, the author talks about four types of evil, or motivations to do violence (I’m summarizing from Ben Shapiro’s explanation):

·         Instrumental: This is the idea that you have an object in mind, and you don’t care what means are used in order to gain that end. You want money; you don’t care that it’s not your money; you go to the bank and rob it, and if don’t care if you shoot somebody in the process. That is instrumental evil. Violence is just an instrument you’re willing to use to get what you want.

·         Ego-driven: Quoting Baumeister, “Violence is perpetrated by a subset of people who think well of themselves. And indeed it mainly occurs when they believe that their favorable images of self have been threatened or attacked.” This is what we’re seeing on college campuses where protesters commit actual violence because they think someone might say words they find offensive. They even call speech that disagrees with their views violence, to justify actual violence against those who disagree.

·         Ideological: This is the people who believe, for example, that communism justifies the murder of a hundred million people, because you’re creating utopia. If people would just succumb to your vision, they wouldn’t need to be wiped out of your way. It’s also what we see with Islamic terrorism, although that can also come under instrumental or ego-driven evil.

·         Sadistic: This is the idea that you enjoy violence, that you grew up from a kid who tortured puppies, and now you go out and you murder human beings.

Often we think of evil in that fourth category. Evil seems inexplicable. The Las Vegas shooting might turn out to be in that category. But this type is actually the least common.

Sadism requires a mind that has released a person from sensing guilt, allowing unfettered “enjoyment” of inflicting pain. Most of us aren’t likely to embody this type of evil. It’s rare, because most of us feel guilt when we do wrong; guilt, or conscience, stops us from committing evil. Shapiro also says it’s the only one of the four types we can profile against.

The other three are evils all of us mostly sane people are susceptible to. And the only solution to these first three types of evil--the only way to civilization--is moral education. We need to learn that the only justification for violence against human beings is self-defense.

Moral education teaches you that your desire for money, or some treasure, or some outcome must be subordinate to the safety of fellow human beings.

Moral education teaches you that your concerns about your identity, or your beliefs, are not that important. Disagreement isn’t an attack. As Shapiro says, “We have to stop feeling offended when we are disagreed with politically. We have to stop attributing evil motives to people who disagree with us, because then we’re more likely to become evil ourselves.”

Moral education teaches that your ideology isn’t worth killing people for. You want communism? Go to someplace people have already chosen that, or set up your commune on a private island somewhere. Don’t impose it by force on anyone. You want Sharia law? There are places you can live under that law; go there. You want your ideologies to win? Try expressing your reasons in a persuasive way. Imposing your ideologies on others is tyranny, and tyranny is evil.

We’re seeing evil in people’s reactions to the atrocity.

CBS legal executive Hayley Geftman-Gold tweeted that she felt no sympathy for the victims. Calling them “Repugs,” she said, “I’m actually not even sympathetic bc country music fans are often republican gun toters.” That’s evil. I don’t know whether you’d categorize it as ego-driven or ideological, or some combination. It was recognized as unacceptable, and she was fired for her comments. This person didn’t commit the atrocity, but she thinks people she judges as inferior (because country music = non-Democrat voter) are therefore worthy of being mowed down by machine gun. That way of thinking is evil. And evil thought comes before evil action.

Hillary Clinton and Tom Brokaw both claimed that the shooting was because of gun sales, which should therefore be denied to sane, law-abiding US citizens, since the shooter used guns that were ILLEGAL ALREADY. In fact, legal automatic weapons have been used in a total of three crimes since 1934. And atheist Richard Dawkins mocked, in a tweet, “Durn tootin’, great shootin’. Cool dude sertin’ he’s 2nd Mendment rahts. Hell yeah! / Every country has its psychopaths. In US they have guns.”  In other words, they used this sadistic violence to support their political ideology. While that is clearly multiple steps less evil than committing mass murder, it is using the murder—as though it is a good thing, because we should “never let a crisis go to waste.”

Not related to this incident, but while the rains were still coming down following Hurricane Harvey, a Florida sociology professor tweeted that the people of Texas deserved the death and destruction because they are evil GOP voters. (Note to the professor: Harris County, where the majority of flooding happened, went for Hillary Clinton.) He added later that Floridians who voted for Trump deserved any disaster that Hurricane Irma inflicted. That’s hate speech. It reveals that he thinks people’s lives are worthless if they do not agree with his politics. The professor did, by the way, get fired.

What do good people do when they see others going through tragic circumstances? They send love, prayers, and help—just like you saw in Houston following Hurricane Harvey. Here’s a suggestion of how to help the suffering in Las Vegas. And this:

What do evil people do when they see others going through tragic circumstances? Decide whether or not the sufferers are people they hate, and if so rejoice in their suffering. If there’s room in your heart for that much darkness/evil, you really need to fill yourself with more light/goodness.

Ben Shapiro concluded:

All I would suggest for everybody is that we focus in on how we cleanse our own hearts of the tendency to do evil things, how we look at the world. And that we think a little bit more about the fact that we’re all brothers and sisters in this fight against evil people. And we really need to focus together on how we can make our country a better place across the board without tearing each other apart over simple political disagreements.

The how-to for cleansing our hearts of the tendency to do evil would fill another entire post. But for now, let me suggest some of the goodness I filled my life with this past weekend. It was the semi-annual General Conference for my church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with hours of one good, uplifting talk after another. Here are a couple that share the good:

·         Jean B. Bingham, General President of the Relief Society

·         Elder W. Craig Zwick, of the Quorum of the Seventy