The first autistic I ever knew didn't speak, but loved to feel the stubble on my chin, on anyone's chin really. He liked bread, and once bit through plastic to get a taste of bagel. My sister babysat him sometimes. His brother, one of my friends, was the first to recognize the similarities we had, noting how I stimmed and suggesting that I might be on the autistic spectrum as well because my nervous twitches didn't just come while talking to girls but were essentially all the time.
A few years later I was emailing his brother explaining that his playful suggestion held more weight than he may have realized. I was indeed on the autism spectrum and the process of finding out was being both a blessing and a curse. I suddenly understood myself and my past like never before, but knowing also involved telling, opening me to stigmatization and discrimination. I was not allowed to perform the basic milestones that marked adulthood in my culture… But I moved on…
Eventually autism colored many more parts of my life, if that could be said to be possible. Autism colors virtually every perception and experience, making it a core part of personal identity. However, more of my friends or their family members were diagnosed, my own child was diagnosed. Some among my nieces and nephews were diagnosed. Our lives are marked. But I've moved on, and lived life as fully as I could...
Recently this first autistic that I knew suffocated during a seizure. Though I don't have them, seizures are common among autistics. It's a fate that could easily have happened to me or to my children if they had seizures. He's moved on as I will someday as well. Since I am verbal I have the privilege of being better understood through my life and my children will have even better. It's sad to say farewell to one whose identity as an autistic came to be defined in the wave of understanding just before the revolutions in understanding that allowed me to be diagnosed as well. I can only say farewell pioneer, I hope I can be part of the ongoing revolution of better understanding and care that will make the world a better place for people like you and me, and my own children.
Friday, April 8, 2016
Friday, January 29, 2016
Federal Land... its not First Gun First Serve
With the militia takeover in Oregon and a more recent protest in Utah by others sympathetic to their views I've seen a consistent theme of ranchers claiming that the Federal Government doesn't have valid rights to its lands and that as a result the land should belong to the people who work it. As a result, these people feel justified in refusing to pay the grazing fees, ignoring environmental rules, and in the case the Oregon militia they feel entitled to seize federal property for their own use or for the use of anyone nearby they feel might naturally benefit from it. Having grown up as an ultra conservative I think I understand a where they are coming from, but I've learned so much more since then that from my perspective now, these protesters sound like wannabe Marxist revolutionaries.
If these protesters and anti government militias were trained in the same brand of conservative thinking I was raised with, the idea goes something like this- Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution includes the clause that congress has the power
As you'll notice in the sections I bolded, the Federal Government only is described as having lands if it purchases them from the states for the intent to put buildings on them. So the thinking goes that obviously all the land should have been state land originally and that any federal purchase of land for any use other than for building plots is unconstitutional. So obviously by that reasoning national forests, national parks, monuments, or general multi use public lands owned by the federal government are all unconstitutional. If you start from the assumption that the federal government has no valid property right to begin with, its pretty easy to justify not having to obey federal laws regarding that property. But of course this doesn't answer the question of who should get to have the land if not the government. For this, John Locke provides a very convenient answer:
So in essence, the public lands should be redistributed to anyone who has and can use them without wasting any of it as a result of having too much. So grazing land should belong to ranchers, mining land should belong to mining companies, and nothing should belong to land users who don't do something productive with the land- such as owners who might use land for scenic or conservation values since they would only hold land to allow its productive values go to waste.
Before I go on to discuss why this argument actually feels downright marxist, lets take a few moments to take apart these arguments. First off, the constitution is actually no where near as narrow regarding land use as section 8 makes it sound. Article 4 section 3 states:
Or in other words, Congress can do whatever it so pleases with federal land and the Constitution can't be read to automatically judge property claims. So the argument that Federal Land other than for buildings is automatically invalid is absurd on its face and I'm embarrassed to say this was the interpretation I grew up believing was true and the interpretation believed by many of my former associates. At the most narrow reading I can imagine as a lay person, the federal government might be restricted in what it can do with lands it purchases from states, but those restrictions wouldn't apply to land that had always belonged to the Federal government in the first place. And that is making an extremely narrow reading of the text. I believe some would accept that reading, but argue that all federal lands originally belonged to the states originally anyways so how could there be any valid federal land from any other source? Well, there is a lot of complicated legal history that would go into answering that fully, but the biggest part of the answer is actually from Article 2, section 2 which includes that the President
Most of the territory of the United States was obtained by treaty, either by outright purchase and/or as the conclusion of a war. Such lands weren't state lands to begin with, they were federal. Later states were created and state lands were granted to the states according to whatever deal was written into the enabling act allowing the creation of that state and according to whatever legislation congress passed to dispose of or keep federal lands in that state. Early in history the attitude was to give away lands as much as possible. Later congress and the country changed their minds and the default position was to keep federal lands federal. Due to many factors including the relative fertility of the land and absurd assumptions about how rainwater worked this meant that the western United States is mostly made up of federal land. While this might feel unfair, it isn't unconstitutional and it isn't a land grab conspiracy. As much as anything, its an accident of history.
As long as I'm tearing apart the constitutional theory about why Federal land is supposedly unconstitutional, I might as well give a side note regarding John Locke's property theories. The anti government militia in Oregon provide an excellent example as to why John Locke's theory might sound nice on paper but have less to say about real life. The ability to use property throughout history has not been limited by the possibility that excess property would go to waste. Instead the ability to use property is largely determined by your or your ancestors ability to use force to capture and defend that land. Thus, American Indians don't have many land rights even though in a perfect world most of the USA might still belong to them. So while the Oregon militia might have been thinking in terms of high flying theories, in practice they claimed the ability to use the land by force of arms and have lost that ability because they don't have the political or military power to keep what they seized. A labor theory of property ignores the messy history and by default awards property to whoever had more guns in the past.
In any case, why does it feel like to me as if these protesters are wannabe Marxists? Well, lets trade roles for a moment and see what would happen if I tried to make similar claims about situations in my own life. Lets just say that I decide that the property of my employer should be jointly owned by the sum total of the employees to have made the business productive over the years. So I grab all my weapons and a group of friends and coordinate attacks to seize control of the buildings and property. Because don't you know, the means of production should be owned by the workers not some fat capitalist whose money comes from an unjust system of taxation designed to benefit the rich at the expense of normal people (which is just about as twisted of a half truth as the idea that federal lands are unconstitutional). Then I put out claims on social media asking all of my friends to take over all the local businesses in their area to do the same. Then I start threatening the lives of any local government officer whose official duties might involve disagreeing with me. You wouldn't call me a freedom fighter, you'd call me a communist rebel. But somehow because these protesters talk about the constitution a lot and are scared about how their ranching livelihoods might disappear in a changing economy they portray themselves as freedom fighters fighting for the right to seize government property. Even though I understand a lot of where they are probably coming from, they still sound like wannabe Marxists to me, trying to force ownership of the means of production into the hands of the working class. If they care so much about the constitution, then they need to follow the constitutional process for how changes in government land management are done, that is, through congress. If congress so wishes to gift or sell these lands to them, so be it the Constitution was followed. Refusing to obey the laws regarding your grazing lease, seizing property with guns while wandering around town threatening to burn down the homes of BLM employees, threatening the life of the sheriff's wife and parents, or threatening that all your militia buddies are going to come mow down anyone who opposes you just doesn't count as pro-constitution freedom fighting. It's domestic terrorism.
If these protesters and anti government militias were trained in the same brand of conservative thinking I was raised with, the idea goes something like this- Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution includes the clause that congress has the power
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
As you'll notice in the sections I bolded, the Federal Government only is described as having lands if it purchases them from the states for the intent to put buildings on them. So the thinking goes that obviously all the land should have been state land originally and that any federal purchase of land for any use other than for building plots is unconstitutional. So obviously by that reasoning national forests, national parks, monuments, or general multi use public lands owned by the federal government are all unconstitutional. If you start from the assumption that the federal government has no valid property right to begin with, its pretty easy to justify not having to obey federal laws regarding that property. But of course this doesn't answer the question of who should get to have the land if not the government. For this, John Locke provides a very convenient answer:
Sec. 30. Thus this law of reason makes the deer that Indian's who hath killed it; it is allowed to be his goods, who hath bestowed his labour upon it, though before it was the common right of every one. ... And even amongst us, the hare that any one is hunting, is thought his who pursues her during the chase: for being a beast that is still looked upon as common, and no man's private possession; whoever has employed so much labour about any of that kind, as to find and pursue her, has thereby removed her from the state of nature, wherein she was common, and hath begun a property.
Sec. 31. It will perhaps be objected to this, that if gathering the acorns, or other fruits of the earth, &c. makes a right to them, then any one may ingross as much as he will. To which I answer, Not so.... But how far has he given it us? To enjoy. As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his Tabour fix a property in: whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy.
So in essence, the public lands should be redistributed to anyone who has and can use them without wasting any of it as a result of having too much. So grazing land should belong to ranchers, mining land should belong to mining companies, and nothing should belong to land users who don't do something productive with the land- such as owners who might use land for scenic or conservation values since they would only hold land to allow its productive values go to waste.
Before I go on to discuss why this argument actually feels downright marxist, lets take a few moments to take apart these arguments. First off, the constitution is actually no where near as narrow regarding land use as section 8 makes it sound. Article 4 section 3 states:
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
Or in other words, Congress can do whatever it so pleases with federal land and the Constitution can't be read to automatically judge property claims. So the argument that Federal Land other than for buildings is automatically invalid is absurd on its face and I'm embarrassed to say this was the interpretation I grew up believing was true and the interpretation believed by many of my former associates. At the most narrow reading I can imagine as a lay person, the federal government might be restricted in what it can do with lands it purchases from states, but those restrictions wouldn't apply to land that had always belonged to the Federal government in the first place. And that is making an extremely narrow reading of the text. I believe some would accept that reading, but argue that all federal lands originally belonged to the states originally anyways so how could there be any valid federal land from any other source? Well, there is a lot of complicated legal history that would go into answering that fully, but the biggest part of the answer is actually from Article 2, section 2 which includes that the President
...shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...
Most of the territory of the United States was obtained by treaty, either by outright purchase and/or as the conclusion of a war. Such lands weren't state lands to begin with, they were federal. Later states were created and state lands were granted to the states according to whatever deal was written into the enabling act allowing the creation of that state and according to whatever legislation congress passed to dispose of or keep federal lands in that state. Early in history the attitude was to give away lands as much as possible. Later congress and the country changed their minds and the default position was to keep federal lands federal. Due to many factors including the relative fertility of the land and absurd assumptions about how rainwater worked this meant that the western United States is mostly made up of federal land. While this might feel unfair, it isn't unconstitutional and it isn't a land grab conspiracy. As much as anything, its an accident of history.
As long as I'm tearing apart the constitutional theory about why Federal land is supposedly unconstitutional, I might as well give a side note regarding John Locke's property theories. The anti government militia in Oregon provide an excellent example as to why John Locke's theory might sound nice on paper but have less to say about real life. The ability to use property throughout history has not been limited by the possibility that excess property would go to waste. Instead the ability to use property is largely determined by your or your ancestors ability to use force to capture and defend that land. Thus, American Indians don't have many land rights even though in a perfect world most of the USA might still belong to them. So while the Oregon militia might have been thinking in terms of high flying theories, in practice they claimed the ability to use the land by force of arms and have lost that ability because they don't have the political or military power to keep what they seized. A labor theory of property ignores the messy history and by default awards property to whoever had more guns in the past.
In any case, why does it feel like to me as if these protesters are wannabe Marxists? Well, lets trade roles for a moment and see what would happen if I tried to make similar claims about situations in my own life. Lets just say that I decide that the property of my employer should be jointly owned by the sum total of the employees to have made the business productive over the years. So I grab all my weapons and a group of friends and coordinate attacks to seize control of the buildings and property. Because don't you know, the means of production should be owned by the workers not some fat capitalist whose money comes from an unjust system of taxation designed to benefit the rich at the expense of normal people (which is just about as twisted of a half truth as the idea that federal lands are unconstitutional). Then I put out claims on social media asking all of my friends to take over all the local businesses in their area to do the same. Then I start threatening the lives of any local government officer whose official duties might involve disagreeing with me. You wouldn't call me a freedom fighter, you'd call me a communist rebel. But somehow because these protesters talk about the constitution a lot and are scared about how their ranching livelihoods might disappear in a changing economy they portray themselves as freedom fighters fighting for the right to seize government property. Even though I understand a lot of where they are probably coming from, they still sound like wannabe Marxists to me, trying to force ownership of the means of production into the hands of the working class. If they care so much about the constitution, then they need to follow the constitutional process for how changes in government land management are done, that is, through congress. If congress so wishes to gift or sell these lands to them, so be it the Constitution was followed. Refusing to obey the laws regarding your grazing lease, seizing property with guns while wandering around town threatening to burn down the homes of BLM employees, threatening the life of the sheriff's wife and parents, or threatening that all your militia buddies are going to come mow down anyone who opposes you just doesn't count as pro-constitution freedom fighting. It's domestic terrorism.
Monday, November 9, 2015
Neurotribes
I've been reading the book Neurotribes. I haven't finished it yet, but I've enjoyed it. Or maybe enjoyed isn't quite the word. I've been haunted by it. I've been frightened by it. I've been powerfully reminded of everything about myself that I grew up being ashamed of. I've been reminded of my strengths. To explain why this book has so much power to me, lets imagine you are reading a choose your own adventure book, where you choose when and where to go in a time machine and learn what kind of life you would have lived in a different time and place.
Imagine for just a moment, that you choose the time machine switch to learn how it would have been like to have lived several hundred years ago in Colonial America. You step off the time machine, and discover the alternate you who lives in this time line invariably ends up being imprisoned and tortured on the presumption of being demonically possessed. Wow, that ending is scary. Flip back a few pages and now instead turn the dial and try out about 75 years ago in many places in the United States. That should be safer right? Well, instead of being tortured to drive out demons, instead you are imprisoned in a home for the feeble minded and are forcibly castrated to prevent you from spreading mental degeneracy through your presumed sexual perversion which would presumably lead you to father more degenerate perverts like you. Wait, who is defining perversion here? Ok, 75 years can't be all that crazy maybe lets try Europe this time. Oops, landed in Germany. One day your mom drops you off at the local hospital because you're sick and the doctor determines you are life not worthy of life and human ballast to be thrown off the ship of state to allow the noble Aryan workers to have a higher average standard of living. You die of starvation and exposure outside the back of the clinic, are secretly cremated along with hundreds of other "defectives" and then a note is sent home to your parents explaining you died of natural causes and a bill is given to them for your cremation. Ok, so this time machine trip is getting kind of scary. Try again and again and again. Over and over, you are institutionalized, forced to endure absurd medical treatments like an experimental rat, and are abandoned by parents who presume somehow its all their fault and they need to let you go to move on with their lives. Had enough with the choose your own adventure story? Lets zoom back to the present.
But, you ask, how could that possibly happen to someone as bright and as accomplished as you? Easy. I was a very late talker. Apparently I had such a need for perfection that I practiced talking in normal phrases in what I thought was secret and managed to keep the secret so well that I shocked my parents by moving from speaking no more than one or two words at a time to speaking in full sentences all at once. I was a late reader, not independently reading much of any of the normal children's literature until the 3rd grade, when I immediately picked up the Hobbit, Asimov's Foundation Series, Lloyd Alexander, and C. S. Lewis. I read compulsively from then on. I had strong sensory needs, throwing tantrums if my clothes still had the tags attached, unable to eat foods with mixed textures, or pay attention in class if anything was wrong about my sensory environment such as being too hot or cold or too loud. My special ed instructors and school counselors knew there was something wrong that made it almost impossible for me to hold normal conversations and that my ability to instinctively see things from other points of view was limited. I was the little kid who sat in the same exact spot in the lunchroom every day even if the table was completely empty, which it often was, because I had few or no friends and changing my routine to sit somewhere else would break my established routine. So yeah, the insane asylums with their unique loving brands of torture, castration, experimentation, or, in the case of Germany, euthanasia would have been waiting for me if I had been born in most of the past.
In the grand scheme of history, the science of autism is only more recently emerging from being a speculative endeavor filled with fads promoted by over sized personalities. It is still semi normal for advocacy organizations supposedly working in my interest to spend time talking about how much better the world would be without people like me because I'm supposedly such a heavy a burden on everyone around me. It's still semi normal to hear of religious leaders trying exorcise the autism out kids It's only recently that I could receive a diagnosis that was terribly specific to my situation at all. It's only recently that technology allowed robust communities to be formed for people like me. It's only recently that those communities have fostered support networks that make it easier to develop any kind of positive self image.
As I'm getting further into Neruotribes the story keeps becoming more and more positive, with more emphasis of now society has improved. But if a story like what I've ready read through doesn't leave you haunted and at least a little emotionally exhausted, you might not have read it the first time.
Imagine for just a moment, that you choose the time machine switch to learn how it would have been like to have lived several hundred years ago in Colonial America. You step off the time machine, and discover the alternate you who lives in this time line invariably ends up being imprisoned and tortured on the presumption of being demonically possessed. Wow, that ending is scary. Flip back a few pages and now instead turn the dial and try out about 75 years ago in many places in the United States. That should be safer right? Well, instead of being tortured to drive out demons, instead you are imprisoned in a home for the feeble minded and are forcibly castrated to prevent you from spreading mental degeneracy through your presumed sexual perversion which would presumably lead you to father more degenerate perverts like you. Wait, who is defining perversion here? Ok, 75 years can't be all that crazy maybe lets try Europe this time. Oops, landed in Germany. One day your mom drops you off at the local hospital because you're sick and the doctor determines you are life not worthy of life and human ballast to be thrown off the ship of state to allow the noble Aryan workers to have a higher average standard of living. You die of starvation and exposure outside the back of the clinic, are secretly cremated along with hundreds of other "defectives" and then a note is sent home to your parents explaining you died of natural causes and a bill is given to them for your cremation. Ok, so this time machine trip is getting kind of scary. Try again and again and again. Over and over, you are institutionalized, forced to endure absurd medical treatments like an experimental rat, and are abandoned by parents who presume somehow its all their fault and they need to let you go to move on with their lives. Had enough with the choose your own adventure story? Lets zoom back to the present.
But, you ask, how could that possibly happen to someone as bright and as accomplished as you? Easy. I was a very late talker. Apparently I had such a need for perfection that I practiced talking in normal phrases in what I thought was secret and managed to keep the secret so well that I shocked my parents by moving from speaking no more than one or two words at a time to speaking in full sentences all at once. I was a late reader, not independently reading much of any of the normal children's literature until the 3rd grade, when I immediately picked up the Hobbit, Asimov's Foundation Series, Lloyd Alexander, and C. S. Lewis. I read compulsively from then on. I had strong sensory needs, throwing tantrums if my clothes still had the tags attached, unable to eat foods with mixed textures, or pay attention in class if anything was wrong about my sensory environment such as being too hot or cold or too loud. My special ed instructors and school counselors knew there was something wrong that made it almost impossible for me to hold normal conversations and that my ability to instinctively see things from other points of view was limited. I was the little kid who sat in the same exact spot in the lunchroom every day even if the table was completely empty, which it often was, because I had few or no friends and changing my routine to sit somewhere else would break my established routine. So yeah, the insane asylums with their unique loving brands of torture, castration, experimentation, or, in the case of Germany, euthanasia would have been waiting for me if I had been born in most of the past.
In the grand scheme of history, the science of autism is only more recently emerging from being a speculative endeavor filled with fads promoted by over sized personalities. It is still semi normal for advocacy organizations supposedly working in my interest to spend time talking about how much better the world would be without people like me because I'm supposedly such a heavy a burden on everyone around me. It's still semi normal to hear of religious leaders trying exorcise the autism out kids It's only recently that I could receive a diagnosis that was terribly specific to my situation at all. It's only recently that technology allowed robust communities to be formed for people like me. It's only recently that those communities have fostered support networks that make it easier to develop any kind of positive self image.
As I'm getting further into Neruotribes the story keeps becoming more and more positive, with more emphasis of now society has improved. But if a story like what I've ready read through doesn't leave you haunted and at least a little emotionally exhausted, you might not have read it the first time.
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
Alma Mater
People who only knew more recently just would know of me as a student and graduate of Utah State University. Those who know me longer or more closely know I am also a graduate of George Wythe University. It is with mixed sadness and a sense of good riddance that I saw the announcement today in the paper that George Wythe University is closing. George Wythe was an amazing experience engaging with big ideas, big ideals, and big dreams. It was a deep dive immersion in Clean Skousen branded Mormonism, as much Christian Kabbalah mysticism as the DeMille's could push on everyone, and many good books. It is also well described by Connor Boyack in the article above as "in essence, a glorified book club." I might also describe it as almost a survivalist cult that focused on politics instead of on camping and food storage- building leaders not for today, but for after the coming global collapse of the current political order.
Attending George Wythe University for a time in my life represented the best way I could imagine to pursue the idealism I formed as a teenager. Studying a broad range of subjects including history allowed me to challenge the political and social radicalism I had formed at home. The thoroughness of how ideas were pursued gave me a foundation to re evaluate other beliefs later on in life as well. Although I understand the school often moderated people's political opinions, mine swung from radical conservative to moderate liberal. Truly I can call George Wythe my Alma Mater, or my nourishing mother.
But in a sense, George Wythe was an abusive mother to my soul as well. If I had known how much they were lying when they claimed accreditation was close I would probably never have attended. My freshman year they claimed all they needed for accreditation was a bigger endowment and that supposedly they had all the donors lined up but the money simply evaporated when the financial crisis hit the nation. Later I found out they weren't even fundraising and hadn't been actively fundraising for quite a long time. I also discovered that the math, science, and language programs were nowhere near the standards for accreditation. The math and science lectures I attended were generally not allowed to even assign homework so as to avoid distracting from other coursework and the language classes, while very intense, even in several years of study didn't make it past what would be considered first semester material in a normal college course. Dr. DeMille once said he didn't even care if we learned the languages we studied, expecting us to become smarter just from trying to learn them. I also discovered they didn't even bother applying for accreditation until my senior year and after applying, failed to continue pursuing the application.
George Wythe also was abusive in misrepresenting the credentials of their professors and graduates. Oliver DeMille only ever received a bachelors degree that wasn't a life experience or diploma mill degree, despite claiming to have a masters, JD, and PhD. While I was there he represented those credentials as being valid. The school also represented a notable politician as being their graduate when in reality he took no course work from them whatsoever and paid for a diploma mill degree from George Wythe as part of an agreement to promote the school.
The school was also abusive by engaging in a culture of extreme academic irresponsibility- both in sloppiness and dishonesty on their own part and in failing to teach me the basic academic expectations by which one avoids plagiarism. One of my first experiences with Oliver DeMille was a taped lecture he gave at a homeschooling convention wherein he promoted his concepts of numerology and Kabbalic mysticism. To avoid the embarrassment of saying such things on his own authority he attributed them all to Einstein. As a naive teenager I assumed he was telling the truth; now I know he was telling absurd lies to promote his numerology. Other professors occasionally incorrectly attributed their own ideas to other authors. Once a professor even claimed a book was mistranslated when the text contradicted the professor's beliefs about an idea. Some of these incidents I believe were intentional "white lies" meant to bolster the authority of the professor. Some I think were simply mistakes that are easy to make when there is no expectation to cite your sources in any kind of rigorous manner. When I presented my senior thesis for defense it was one of the only papers I bothered to cite sources because it had never been required of me before. I didn't even know which style guide to use. When I was before the board and I apologized for unintentional sloppiness in my many citations the President of the school told me he wouldn't have bothered with citing sources so much if it were his own paper.
I'll always remember George Wythe fondly and also with regret. It was the place where I grew incredibly in a very broad but shallow study of an incredible array of subjects and became a much more well balanced person. It was also a school that ate about ten years of my life which I was willing to give them based on extremely misleading claims about who they were and how likely it was that they would have finished the accreditation process by the time I graduated. With how much dishonesty and illegality were commonplace at the institution I believe the school deserved to end this way. But on the other hand, I don't regret the growth I experienced and wish it had truly been the school of statesmen it claimed.
Attending George Wythe University for a time in my life represented the best way I could imagine to pursue the idealism I formed as a teenager. Studying a broad range of subjects including history allowed me to challenge the political and social radicalism I had formed at home. The thoroughness of how ideas were pursued gave me a foundation to re evaluate other beliefs later on in life as well. Although I understand the school often moderated people's political opinions, mine swung from radical conservative to moderate liberal. Truly I can call George Wythe my Alma Mater, or my nourishing mother.
But in a sense, George Wythe was an abusive mother to my soul as well. If I had known how much they were lying when they claimed accreditation was close I would probably never have attended. My freshman year they claimed all they needed for accreditation was a bigger endowment and that supposedly they had all the donors lined up but the money simply evaporated when the financial crisis hit the nation. Later I found out they weren't even fundraising and hadn't been actively fundraising for quite a long time. I also discovered that the math, science, and language programs were nowhere near the standards for accreditation. The math and science lectures I attended were generally not allowed to even assign homework so as to avoid distracting from other coursework and the language classes, while very intense, even in several years of study didn't make it past what would be considered first semester material in a normal college course. Dr. DeMille once said he didn't even care if we learned the languages we studied, expecting us to become smarter just from trying to learn them. I also discovered they didn't even bother applying for accreditation until my senior year and after applying, failed to continue pursuing the application.
George Wythe also was abusive in misrepresenting the credentials of their professors and graduates. Oliver DeMille only ever received a bachelors degree that wasn't a life experience or diploma mill degree, despite claiming to have a masters, JD, and PhD. While I was there he represented those credentials as being valid. The school also represented a notable politician as being their graduate when in reality he took no course work from them whatsoever and paid for a diploma mill degree from George Wythe as part of an agreement to promote the school.
The school was also abusive by engaging in a culture of extreme academic irresponsibility- both in sloppiness and dishonesty on their own part and in failing to teach me the basic academic expectations by which one avoids plagiarism. One of my first experiences with Oliver DeMille was a taped lecture he gave at a homeschooling convention wherein he promoted his concepts of numerology and Kabbalic mysticism. To avoid the embarrassment of saying such things on his own authority he attributed them all to Einstein. As a naive teenager I assumed he was telling the truth; now I know he was telling absurd lies to promote his numerology. Other professors occasionally incorrectly attributed their own ideas to other authors. Once a professor even claimed a book was mistranslated when the text contradicted the professor's beliefs about an idea. Some of these incidents I believe were intentional "white lies" meant to bolster the authority of the professor. Some I think were simply mistakes that are easy to make when there is no expectation to cite your sources in any kind of rigorous manner. When I presented my senior thesis for defense it was one of the only papers I bothered to cite sources because it had never been required of me before. I didn't even know which style guide to use. When I was before the board and I apologized for unintentional sloppiness in my many citations the President of the school told me he wouldn't have bothered with citing sources so much if it were his own paper.
I'll always remember George Wythe fondly and also with regret. It was the place where I grew incredibly in a very broad but shallow study of an incredible array of subjects and became a much more well balanced person. It was also a school that ate about ten years of my life which I was willing to give them based on extremely misleading claims about who they were and how likely it was that they would have finished the accreditation process by the time I graduated. With how much dishonesty and illegality were commonplace at the institution I believe the school deserved to end this way. But on the other hand, I don't regret the growth I experienced and wish it had truly been the school of statesmen it claimed.
Friday, August 7, 2015
What is hardest about being down to one good leg?
My recent leg surgery is the first time in my life that I've gone for a prolonged period without being able to walk normally. Before that the longest I'd ever gone was about 3 days- once after my first 10 mile hike and once after my first 20 mile hike. So I'd never had a reason to use crutches or wheelchairs or anything of that sort before. Around the house I've had to use crutches, though while out and about I might use the courtesy provided powered wheelchair at Walmart or a knee scooter. I thought I'd record some of what were the hardest things for me.
First- clearing my own walkways. With kids at home- there are always toys and childrens books strewn everywhere. At first I felt I spent about as much time using the crutches to push things out of my way as I did walking anywhere with them.
Second- getting up in the middle of the night. If I turned on the light, I'd wake up my wife. If I didn't- you don't know what on obstacle course is until you try to hobble to the bathroom in the dark past a variety of laundry baskets, children's toys and books, fallen pillows, dropped or folded clothing, power cords, etc... It might be a small miracle I didn't injure myself trying to go to the bathroom. Looking back I should have just turned on a light- I just didn't want to be a burden in one more way if I could do it myself.
Third- carrying anything. If your arms are busy holding onto the crutches, carrying anything while walking becomes difficult and depending on the object, impossible. Just the simple act of making a peanut butter sandwich requires getting up from the table, fetching a plate and a knife (if I'm confident enough to carry them both at once), then going back to the counter and getting the peanut butter which I grab carefully with all fingers of one hand except the thumb which is hooked around the crutches handle. Then I repeat the process even more carefully with the jelly jar. Hopefully either the trip for the peanut butter or the jelly also involved grabbing the bread, which I can dangle from the other hand that isn't holding a jar. By then I've hobbled the distance between the table and the cupboard 6 times and it will require another 6 times to put all the items back away again afterwards on my own. By that time I'd just as soon sit down and wait for help.
Forth- exhaustion. Walking with crutches is very difficult work when your muscles aren't used to it. The twelve trips between the table and the cupboard are exhausting. Much of what I couldn't easily do on my own wasn't I couldn't do it, but because the amount of effort involved was so high. Of course, being tired and dizzy from taking prescription pain medications probably didn't help in this regard.
Fifth- little boy pounces. My kids feel that a daddy lying down is an open invitation to pounce and play. So all that time I tried to spend lying down to elevate my leg or to recover from walking around the room was largely eaten up being jumped on by little boys. Given how difficult it was to stand up or to move to a new location, it was difficult to make them stop by just getting up and going away like I might normally do if they were being unmanageable. So often I just had to put up with their antics, even if it meant I got very little rest compared to the amount of time I tried to spend resting.
Sixth- anything that requires standing. Any optional standing becomes easy to throw out the window. Taking a shower? No, too much work if not impossible. How about shaving? Again too much work. Brushing teeth? When I get around to it. When all you really want to do is lie down and elevate your leg, basic hygiene is a lot harder to maintain.
There were a host of other issues as well. How do you go shopping on your own? Can you fit as much groceries in a powered wheel chair as in a normal shopping cart? How do you drive when every bump in the road causes a sharp pain in the leg? How to make the children hold still in church if they just want to play with the knee scooter in the aisle? But those six issues are probably the worst. Even though I'm still very restricted, I'm glad I have a walking cast now that I can use to move around. The end is in sight.
First- clearing my own walkways. With kids at home- there are always toys and childrens books strewn everywhere. At first I felt I spent about as much time using the crutches to push things out of my way as I did walking anywhere with them.
Second- getting up in the middle of the night. If I turned on the light, I'd wake up my wife. If I didn't- you don't know what on obstacle course is until you try to hobble to the bathroom in the dark past a variety of laundry baskets, children's toys and books, fallen pillows, dropped or folded clothing, power cords, etc... It might be a small miracle I didn't injure myself trying to go to the bathroom. Looking back I should have just turned on a light- I just didn't want to be a burden in one more way if I could do it myself.
Third- carrying anything. If your arms are busy holding onto the crutches, carrying anything while walking becomes difficult and depending on the object, impossible. Just the simple act of making a peanut butter sandwich requires getting up from the table, fetching a plate and a knife (if I'm confident enough to carry them both at once), then going back to the counter and getting the peanut butter which I grab carefully with all fingers of one hand except the thumb which is hooked around the crutches handle. Then I repeat the process even more carefully with the jelly jar. Hopefully either the trip for the peanut butter or the jelly also involved grabbing the bread, which I can dangle from the other hand that isn't holding a jar. By then I've hobbled the distance between the table and the cupboard 6 times and it will require another 6 times to put all the items back away again afterwards on my own. By that time I'd just as soon sit down and wait for help.
Forth- exhaustion. Walking with crutches is very difficult work when your muscles aren't used to it. The twelve trips between the table and the cupboard are exhausting. Much of what I couldn't easily do on my own wasn't I couldn't do it, but because the amount of effort involved was so high. Of course, being tired and dizzy from taking prescription pain medications probably didn't help in this regard.
Fifth- little boy pounces. My kids feel that a daddy lying down is an open invitation to pounce and play. So all that time I tried to spend lying down to elevate my leg or to recover from walking around the room was largely eaten up being jumped on by little boys. Given how difficult it was to stand up or to move to a new location, it was difficult to make them stop by just getting up and going away like I might normally do if they were being unmanageable. So often I just had to put up with their antics, even if it meant I got very little rest compared to the amount of time I tried to spend resting.
Sixth- anything that requires standing. Any optional standing becomes easy to throw out the window. Taking a shower? No, too much work if not impossible. How about shaving? Again too much work. Brushing teeth? When I get around to it. When all you really want to do is lie down and elevate your leg, basic hygiene is a lot harder to maintain.
There were a host of other issues as well. How do you go shopping on your own? Can you fit as much groceries in a powered wheel chair as in a normal shopping cart? How do you drive when every bump in the road causes a sharp pain in the leg? How to make the children hold still in church if they just want to play with the knee scooter in the aisle? But those six issues are probably the worst. Even though I'm still very restricted, I'm glad I have a walking cast now that I can use to move around. The end is in sight.
Friday, May 22, 2015
Killing For Conservation
Just the other day, I killed a fish. Not because it was going to be anybody's dinner or because it was an inevitable consequence of something else I needed or wanted. In fact, keeping it for dinner would have violated the permit I was operating under. I killed it because it was a human mistake that led to the fish existing in the first place. I killed it as one small act in an larger effort to keep the Bonneville Cutthroat Trout from going extinct.
It's an uncomfortable act killing just because it is scientifically desirable. People who go into environmental careers do it because at some level, they love wildlife and the outdoors. They want to see nature abound with life. If we considered the fish as an individual with rights, killing an animal to save another just seems by itself like a hollow moral calculus, because western societies have generally decided that the rights of individuals are more fundamental than the rights of the culture you belong to. However, in the pursuit of the preservation of species diversity, scientists value the species over the individual. Killing for conservation is actually quite common. In New Zealand entire islands have all their rats exterminated to allow the reintroduction of native birds and reptiles. In Alaska entire islands have all of their non native foxes exterminated to preserve birds. In South America, entire islands have all of their goats exterminated to halt erosion and favor native plants. If the United States could find a way, it would exterminate all the Brown Tree Snakes in Guam, even if it meant parachuting in poisoned mice by the thousands.
Knowing all about it doesn't make it feel any more cozy. I had been excited, it was my first day catching three fish in the trap at the top of the fish ladder instead of just one or even none. I had been taking pictures to show my kids all the fun fish I was working with. The first one I pulled out of my bucket had a reddish stripe on its midline. It was a rainbow-cuthroat hybrid, descended from the short sighted government policy of stocking fertile rainbow trout in areas where they weren't native. Generations and generations of forcing fertile contact between two species which don't interbreed in nature often forces one of them to extinction, its genetic identity swamped out of existence. So, I told the fish that despite the heroic journey swimming upstream to the top of my fish ladder, its journey was at an end. I walked with it to the opening of the fish ladder, squeezed it to death, smashed its head against a metal railing in case it was only stunned, and threw it back in the river. Watching the silvery arc it made against the sky, I wished I didn't have to. It was a mistake the fish ever existed in the first place.
It's an uncomfortable act killing just because it is scientifically desirable. People who go into environmental careers do it because at some level, they love wildlife and the outdoors. They want to see nature abound with life. If we considered the fish as an individual with rights, killing an animal to save another just seems by itself like a hollow moral calculus, because western societies have generally decided that the rights of individuals are more fundamental than the rights of the culture you belong to. However, in the pursuit of the preservation of species diversity, scientists value the species over the individual. Killing for conservation is actually quite common. In New Zealand entire islands have all their rats exterminated to allow the reintroduction of native birds and reptiles. In Alaska entire islands have all of their non native foxes exterminated to preserve birds. In South America, entire islands have all of their goats exterminated to halt erosion and favor native plants. If the United States could find a way, it would exterminate all the Brown Tree Snakes in Guam, even if it meant parachuting in poisoned mice by the thousands.
Knowing all about it doesn't make it feel any more cozy. I had been excited, it was my first day catching three fish in the trap at the top of the fish ladder instead of just one or even none. I had been taking pictures to show my kids all the fun fish I was working with. The first one I pulled out of my bucket had a reddish stripe on its midline. It was a rainbow-cuthroat hybrid, descended from the short sighted government policy of stocking fertile rainbow trout in areas where they weren't native. Generations and generations of forcing fertile contact between two species which don't interbreed in nature often forces one of them to extinction, its genetic identity swamped out of existence. So, I told the fish that despite the heroic journey swimming upstream to the top of my fish ladder, its journey was at an end. I walked with it to the opening of the fish ladder, squeezed it to death, smashed its head against a metal railing in case it was only stunned, and threw it back in the river. Watching the silvery arc it made against the sky, I wished I didn't have to. It was a mistake the fish ever existed in the first place.
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
An Ecological Reading of the Sermon on the Mount
As I have completed my degree in Conservation and Restoration Ecology, some things in life I can simply never see the same way. When I look at forests and fields I typically don't see wilderness. Most often, I see a managed landscape. When I look at a farm, I see the competing social priorities water can be devoted to. When I see a bird, I think about transcontinental migrations. When I see roads and concrete, I think about altered patterns of runoff water. Unsurprisingly, when I read the Sermon on the Mount, I see something different as well. One passage in Matthew Chapter 6 reads:
“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?
“And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
Growing up, I was taught that this passage suggested that those called by God to live without caring for their financial well being could expect to do so at no ultimate personal sacrifice to their physical well being. As such, the passage was beautiful but mostly irrelevant since I had no expectation that I would ever be called upon to ignore my basic needs. Taking care of my needs was something I viewed as an almost a spiritual obligation. Early in my marriage even I viewed paying off my debts as fulfilling a divine commandment. The whole idea of ignoring my well being while being miraculously and totally supported as I supposed this passage suggested had nothing to do with me.
Now when I read this passage, I can't help but think about actual birds and actual flowers. The passage reads "Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them." Clark's Nutcracker actually does sow, reap, and store. They eat the seeds of trees like the Limber pine, storing for the future in seed cache's. If the bird forgets the seed cache or dies before eating it, the seeds are planted. Many of the Limber pines you see were planted by a Clark's Nutcracker. Similarly, the Acorn Woodpecker also stores acorns to eat later, although they couldn't be said to plant them. So, although it may be poetical to consider birds as living an easy going lifestyle with manna from heaven supplying their every want, it is common for birds to participate in the stresses of gathering and storing food- even if only as a fat layer for migration.
There is a darker side to the comparison with birds and flowers. It is common among many birds that the parents will drive the young away from their breeding territory to prevent the offspring from competing with the parents for food. Young birds who have not yet learned how to forage often die at this stage of life. Many species drive away their young when the survival rate of those young on their own for the first time is only 50%. Those who survive the withdrawal of parental care may live a long time, considering their small body size, but generally their chance of death is about equal every year as they age until they are much older. As for flowers, you can't learn about the effectiveness of techniques used for reseeding landscapes without realizing that most of the viable seeds you put on a landscape will never survive. They will be eaten by ants, rodents, and fungi and sometimes seedlings are trampled or grow in poor soil. Once they establish they must compete with other plants for light and nutrients. While flowers might look pretty, most seeds never survive to be an adult plant. And while plants may not make clothing for themselves their pretty forms have a cost. Plants must balance their carbon and nutrient budgets in order to both grow and reproduce. In poor conditions, the carbon and nutrient budget available to a plant may be too small for survival. Similarly dark realities could be pointed out in any life form. Such findings prompted Darwin's famous words:
“Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”Christ's words seem to take this into account such natural destruction with the comment the grass is "tomorrow is thrown into the fire." If our model of God caring for the living things in the world includes the possibility of sudden and seemingly meaningless death just like burned grass, then it makes no sense to argue that this passage means that those authorized by God to neglect their personal well being will suffer little want. While I respect the claims of those who feel they received divine support in a ministry, I don't believe anyone is guaranteed an easy life serving God while neglecting their personal needs. Instead, these verses seem to suggest that followers of Christ should take a philosophical view towards their own deprivations. Despite all the nestlings and fledglings that die every year, there is no lack of beautiful birds provided for in the world. Despite all the seeds which never become adult plants, the world has no lack of plants. God cares and knows the needs of all of us, including the hungry and the well fed. We can believe that God loves all of creation in all its endless cycle of destruction and rebirth, wishing and striving to redeem it in rebirth. Even if our own needs fall short, the general order of life continues. We should seek first to be part of the Kingdom of God, considering it a priority even over life itself, which will continue (or end) no matter how much we worry about it. Living the good life is more than just having our physical needs met.
The imperative to seek first the Kingdom of God instead of consuming our lives with worrying about our physical needs does not inherently make a virtue of self denial or self care, but rather gives us priorities. We should be willing to lose our life for Christ, in order to gain a life which is meaningful and full of striving for goodness in the world. Worrying about the consequences of choosing to live to make a better world doesn't typically change anything- so don't worry about it and just enjoy living life as you can. This is true no matter how brief or long your life is or how well or poorly fed you are. Believing God loves all of us and wishes our well being but for some reason does not or cannot ensure it perfectly for all of us, we can still carry out that wish of love through our life. Even if life is short and impoverished, in our own way and place we can live to help preserve and beautiful the natural world, care for the sick, feed the hungry, and restore the dignity of the oppressed. Otherwise we risk saving our lives, only to find we lost living the good life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
