The Church Supports Common Sense Principles of Immigration Reform

Unfortunately, I'm still mired in a ridiculous amount of school work, so this will be a short post. I wanted to highlight the following press release from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which demonstrates the Church's support for principles of reasonable immigration reform in the "Utah Compact." As you will notice, the Church's position is clearly divergent from the knee-jerk "deport them all" and "place landmines on the border" viewpoints of too many of our extremely conservative fellow citizens (ironically including many Latter-Day Saints). To me, the content of the Utah Compact is an adherence to the LDS principle of "moderation in all things." Extreme positions on immigration from both the far left and far right are unacceptable. One of the very few policy positions of our former president, George W. Bush, that I actually supported was his failed attempt at reforming our country's immigration system, which would have balanced the need for better enforcement while recognizing the reality on the ground, which is that millions of illegal or undocumented immigrants have truly assimilated into our society and are productive and valuable members thereof. Without further pontification on my part, here is the Church's press release and here is the official text of the Utah Compact.

Go Cougars!

According to a recent Wall Street Journal post, BYU ranked 11th in the eyes of recruiters, even ahead of prestigious schools like Cornell, MIT, and UCLA. (Harvard and Yale were not even on the top 25!) I've always felt that BYU was underrated in the U.S. News and World Report rankings, in part because of a higher drop out rate (due to a lot of women getting married, having babies, and quitting school). Go Cougars! BYU was also rated as America's most popular university, with popular being defined as the percentage of accepted students who actually enroll.

The September 23rd Health Care Milestone

September 23rd marked six months since President Barack Obama signed the new health care reform bill into law. The new law contains a plethora of measures that aim to reform and improve the overall quality and availability of health care in America. However, most of the law's measures did not go into effect immediately upon the bill's passage. The first major milestone occurred yesterday, on September 23rd, when several key measures were implemented, some affecting almost everyone, others only initially affecting those with new and heavily revised insurance plans (with similar changes affecting all plans a little further in the future). Here are some of the ones I believe are most important:

* The lifetime limit or cap on what an insurance company will pay to cover an individual's medical costs is being eliminated for plans issued or renewed on or after September 23rd. So if you get very sick and require extensive, lengthy, and costly treatment, you no longer have to worry about your insurance "capping out" when you need it the most.

* Free preventative care for those with plans issued or renewed on or after September 23rd.

* Annual limits can no longer be lower than $750,000 for plans issued or renewed on or after September 23rd. By 2014 annual limits will be entirely eliminated.

* Insurers can no longer deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.

* Parents can keep their adult children on their health plans until age 26.

* Insurers can no longer cancel policies retroactively when a person becomes ill.

An Associated Press article has more details about these and other changes. Perhaps most significantly to some, health insurance benefit consulting companies have estimated that the cost impact of the new benefits from the health care law on insurance premiums will be relatively small. Some of the worst practices of health insurance companies, that have ruined the lives of many Americans, are coming to an end with these changes.

Seven Percent of Republicans Are Not Completely Out of Their Minds

A recent nationwide survey found that a majority of Republicans believe that Obama "sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic law around the world."

According to the poll, 14 percent of Republicans said that from what they knew of Obama, they thought such allegations were "definitely true"; 38 percent thought the allegations were "probably true." Meanwhile, 33 percent of Republicans thought they were "probably not true" and 7 percent thought they were "definitely not true."

Never mind the legitimate ideological differences over economic, education, immigration, and health care policy between conservatives and liberals. This polling, along with the whole right-wing narrative of President Barack Obama being a closet Islamic extremist (who wasn't born in the U.S.), who wants to destroy the U.S. from the inside out, goes a long way in showing that in much of today's electorate, there really is no basis for rational debate of the current issues. How can you hold a calm, rational, fact-based discussion about Obama's policies with someone who believes that Obama sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists (and for many Republicans, this term is synonymous with al-Qaeda)? The answer is you can't.

And the crazed theories do not stop with Islamic extremism. A few minutes of FOX News will often teach you that Obama is a blood-thirsty communist-socialist whose policies are equal to those of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. No one on FOX News has been more diligent in making those comparisons to Obama than Glenn Beck. (Anyone who has studied political science and understands the actual definition of socialism realizes the vast differences between Obama's policies and socialism. That's a long story and perhaps will be the subject of another post. Nonetheless, in making these socialism comparisons, I love how the most brutal dictators of the last century are invoked. FOX News pundits would not arouse the conservative base if they compared Obama to say, Chancellor Merkel, Former Prime Minister Brown, or President Berlusconi, whose countries' policies are much closer to the true definition of socialism (but still not that close) than the U.S.)

The 93 percent of Republicans who believe that it is "definitely true," "probably true," or even "probably not true" (meaning there is still a chance) that President Obama sympathizes with Muslim extremists who want to impose Shari'a law globally, need to find a way to connect with reality, or they are guilty of some severe intellectual dishonesty.

It is one thing to question the President's policies based on one's political ideals. We all should be encouraged to develop our own informed view of our President's policies. And contrary to what I was told by many conservatives during the Bush years, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with our President (they always invoked "Commander-in-Chief" in explaining why it was inappropriate to disagree with Bush). It is an entirely different thing to question his loyalty to and love of our country. There is absolutely no basis for these kinds of crazed theories being attached to President Obama. In many cases, it is nothing more than veiled bigotry or racism.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich recently stated that the best way to understand President Obama, as the president “is so outside our comprehension” that you can only understand him “if you understand Kenyan, anticolonial behavior.” Gingrich was commenting on an article written by right-wing extremist Dinesh D’Souza, who compared Obama to his Kenyan father in an article in Forbes Magazine, stating, “incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation’s agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son.” Never mind that Obama never really knew his father as his father left him and his mother when Obama was age two. Gingrich and D'Souza have descended into baseless, deceitful, fear-mongering.

A recent article in the New York Times, which explored conservatives' ongoing efforts to create and define Obama's "otherness," pointed out that, per these efforts, "Mr. Obama’s alleged sympathy for so-called Muslim extremists who would desecrate the World Trade Center site, his socialist African ancestry and his early years in Indonesia — all of this creates a shadowy archetype that every conservative enclave, fiscal, foreign policy and religious, can find a reason to fear."

So in considering all of this, it is no wonder why only 7% of Republicans believe it is definitely not true that Obama sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic law throughout the world. This kind narrative of President Obama's "otherness" is being supported by some of the most prominent conservatives politicians and has the backing of many conservative special interest groups. From the accusations that Obama was not born in the U.S., and the assertions that he is (or was) secretly a Muslim, to Gingrich's latest pontification about Obama's "Kenyan anticolonial behavior," conservatives are doing anything but focusing on the issues that matter most to Americans. So if you are part of that 7%, I urge you to help ground the other 93% in some semblance of reality when it comes to these attacks. Teach them the difference between attacking the dignity of our President through the spread of these rumors (which is an unpatriotic thing to do) verses critiquing his policies.

An Act with a Vision for the Future

Even prior to its enactment, there has been much heated opposition to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, a.k.a. President Obama's economic stimulus plan. Opponents have tried to smear it as a bill laden with earmarks (which is not true) that wasted money on pointless projects. Opponents have also (correctly) pointed out that it is mostly paid with borrowed money (I'll come to that later). However, the Recovery Act has gone further than any prior piece of legislation in the past half century in revolutionizing antiquated areas of our economy. And it truly has kept the economy from the brink of depression.

Perhaps the keystone effort of the stimulus plan was its investment in a variety of projects that will make America more energy efficient and less dependent on carbon fuels (and the despotic regimes that supply us with them.) One of my key concerns in the 2008 Presidential Election was selecting a candidate who would make energy independence their priority. This act was a big step in the right direction for a green energy economy and the investments it makes in new technologies has the potential to create tens of millions of jobs.

The notion that private corporations are primarily interested in the short term (to satisfy shareholders) and do not invest nearly enough in research and development that would primarily provide benefits in the long run is a well-established economic idea. Some of the most important inventions of the past 100 years, that are the backbone of today's economy, have been supported by government-funded research. The cellular phone, computers, the Internet, and GPS are but a few of the most important inventions that have come about in large part due to research performed by U.S. taxpayer-funded scientists and engineers. Corporate America's fiercest foreign competition significantly benefits from foreign government-sponsored research and development. A good example of this is Airbus, which is a consortium of French, British, German, and Spanish aerospace companies, that have received very heavy investment from their respective governments. As a result of all of the R&D and other investment European taxpayers made into Airbus, that company has now surpassed Boeing as the world's largest supplier of commercial airliners and has provided an incredible amount of high tech jobs to those countries. Perhaps the most important idea I learned in studying economics is the fact that more than anything else, new technology drives economic growth. Many if not most of the jobs lost during the Great Recession are not coming back. The way to get America back on its feet is to develop the technologies that will be the backbone of the future economy. We have plenty of tough competition. Europe, China, and India all invest a significant amount of money in research and development in support of their key industries. If America wants to lead in and reap the benefits of the future global economy, we must ensure we invest money into today's research that will be tomorrow's must-have technology. I cannot think of a better use of my tax dollars.

So in returning to the Recovery Act, a recent TIME Magazine article gave an impressive summary of what types of energy investments the Recovery Act is making.

The investments extend all along the food chain. A brave new world of electric cars powered by coal plants could be dirtier than the oil-soaked status quo, so the stimulus includes an unheard-of $3.4 billion for clean-coal projects aiming to sequester or reuse carbon. There are also lucrative loan guarantees for constructing the first American nuclear plants in three decades. And after the credit crunch froze financing for green energy, stimulus cash has fueled a comeback, putting the U.S. on track to exceed Obama's goal of doubling renewable power by 2012. The wind industry added a record 10,000 megawatts in 2009. The stimulus is also supporting the nation's largest photovoltaic solar plant, in Florida, and what will be the world's two largest solar thermal plants, in Arizona and California, plus thousands of solar installations on homes and buildings.

The stimulus is helping scores of manufacturers of wind turbines and solar products expand as well, but today's grid can only handle so much wind and solar. A key problem is connecting remote wind farms to population centers, so there are billions of dollars for new transmission lines. Then there is the need to find storage capacity for when it isn't windy or sunny outside. The current grid is like a phone system without voice mail, a just-in-time network where power is wasted if it doesn't reach a user the moment it's generated. That's why the Recovery Act is funding dozens of smart-grid approaches.

The Recovery Act's clean-energy push is designed not only to reduce our old economy dependence on fossil fuels that broil the planet, blacken the Gulf and strengthen foreign petro-thugs but also to avoid replacing it with a new economy that is just as dependent on foreign countries for technology and manufacturing. Last year, exactly two U.S. factories made advanced batteries for electric vehicles. The stimulus will create 30 new ones, expanding U.S. production capacity from 1% of the global market to 20%, supporting half a million plug-ins and hybrids. The idea is as old as land-grant colleges: to use tax dollars as an engine of innovation.

Recovery Act money was also used as follows:

- Tax cuts for 95% of working Americans (Federal taxes now are at the lowest rates they've been in over 50 years for middle class Americans, so please remind me what Tea Partiers are complaining about again?)
- Bailed out most state governments to avoid laying off hundreds of thousands of school teachers, police officers, fire fighters, and other state and local officials.
- Provided record amounts of unemployment benefits to record numbers of unemployed workers.
- Funded upgrades to roads, bridges (recall the Minneapolis I-35 bridge collapse), schools, airports (ever flown through JFK?), military bases (recall reports about the decrepit Fort Bragg barracks, among others).
- Computerized paper health care records system (to reduce redundant tests and errors caused by doctors with bad handwriting).
- Invested in public transportation, including high speed rails.

This act provided for a smart balance of near-term projects to help prevent the economy from suffering a complete and utter collapse while assisting those most vulnerable in the Great Recession (the unemployed) along with long-term investment that would lay the groundwork for our future economy. As Kristin Mayes, the Republican chair of Arizona's utility commission stated, "It will leverage a very different energy future... it really moves us toward a tipping point." As an older post pointed out, there are key economic indicators that indicate we have stepped back from the brink and are moving in the right direction.

Despite all of the carping by the Tea Party types about the federal deficit and its contribution from the Recovery Act, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has indicated that the Bush tax cuts are the single biggest contributor to the structural deficit. (Extending the Bush tax cuts would add $2.3 trillion to the 2018 debt. I really hate the term "Bush tax cut" because they really were not tax cuts, but tax deferrals as they were paid for with credit. Congress and former President Bush essentially extended America a loan that would need to be paid for by our children.) The next biggest contributor to the long-term deficit are the two current wars. While the Bush Administration initially estimated that the Iraq War's cost would be less than $100 billion, latest estimates are that it will be over $3 trillion. Has the Recovery Act contributed to the deficit? Of course it has. However, a concept that was taught to me by multiple economics professors at the not-at-all-liberal Brigham Young University was that truly the only time deficit spending by a government is warranted is in the case of a severe economic recession (which we were in), in order to stimulate the economy. These not-at-all-liberal BYU economics professors also supported a volume of economic data and research that indicates such stimulus spending helped the economy recover during the Great Depression.

So the next time a FOX News pundit laments how your tax dollars were completely wasted in the "stimulus act" and that it had no net affect, you'll know their argument is hogwash.

"Ground Zero" Mosque

The Eleventh Article of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints states, "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." [emphasis added]

It is frankly shocking and disappointing that about 70 percent of Americans apparently oppose the building of an Islamic center that will include a mosque in Lower Manhattan, according to a new poll. This opposition is rooted in bigotry and in ignorance. First a few facts - the proposed Islamic center is to be build on private property located a few blocks away from the World Trade Center site. It is not going to be built on the World Trade Center site. There are two other mosques located in Lower Manhattan very close to the WTC site. They have been there for decades and have not caused any controversy.

Prominent conservatives such as Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich have publicly opposed the mosque. They argue that it is "insensitive" to families of 9/11 victims. Palin called it an "unnecessary provocation." Some conservatives have gone so far as to call it a "9/11 victory mosque." It is as if the opponents of this mosque believe that the individuals who would like to construct it had something to do with 9/11, an incredibly ridiculous and blatantly false notion. Though some 9/11 families have publicly opposed the construction of the mosque, other 9/11 families have supported it. I find it rather despicable when politicians use 9/11 as a political football. Palin and her ilk have selectively chosen to highlight the opinion of only some 9/11 families, while ignoring other 9/11 families to support their own intolerant beliefs.

Opposing the construction of this mosque because of its proximity to Ground Zero would be akin to opposing the construction of an LDS chapel in Enterprise, Utah because of its proximity to Mountain Meadow, where the 1857 massacre occurred. Enterprise is the closest town to the massacre site. The point is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints holds just as much responsibility for the Mountain Meadow Massacre as does the religion of Islam for 9/11 - that is to say, none. In both cases, members of those particular religions committed heinous crimes in the name of their religion, even while their acts were not sanctioned by their religion. Americans need to stop thinking myopically that all Muslims are terrorists. There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. Only a nano-fraction of them are involved with terrorist groups.

Latter-Day Saints are particularly familiar with this type of discrimination as we have encountered bigoted opposition to the construction of our temples all over the country, including in New York. The plan to construct a temple in White Plains, NY was eventually abandoned after opposition stopped progress at the zoning laws phase. The temple in Boston was nearly prevented from including a spire with the Angel Moroni statue on top due to local opposition, even though another church across the street has a comparably tall spire with a cross on top.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was absolutely right when he said that government has no place in saying where a house of worship should be located. Yesterday, President Barack Obama threw his support behind the construction of the mosque. At a White House dinner honoring the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, a function that has been held since Thomas Jefferson was in the White House, President Obama stated:

This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are... Al Qaeda’s cause is not Islam — it is a gross distortion of Islam. In fact, Al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion, and that list includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11.

Muslims serve honorably in all parts of our government - in the military, in Congress, in our intelligence services, in police departments, etc. Why would we show such disrespect and intolerance for individuals who are just as much citizens of this country as anyone else? The Eleventh Article of Faith summarizes this issue better than anything else. We should truly allow our fellow citizens the right to worship "how, where, or what they may." Those who are trying to prevent the new Lower Manhattan mosque's construction are abandoning the principles of liberty and freedom upon which our country was founded.

Climate Change is Happening

Last February, I experienced "snowmageddon" on the East Coast. I recall during that time reading a news article about some conservative politicians' gleeful mocking of former Vice President Al Gore and the concept of global warming; they claimed that the blizzards and record snowfalls were evidence that global warming does not exist. Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma and his family built an igloo on the Washington Mall and placed in front of it a cardboard sign that read, "Al Gore's new home," and "honk if you [heart] global warming." Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina tweeted that day, "it's going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries 'uncle.'" However, ignorance must truly be bliss for these senators. As Think Progress pointed out, "scientists have been warning for decades that global warming would increase the severity of winter storms." These Republican senators' actions further demonstrate their myopia in their focus on a single weather event (or 2 weather events) and slightly colder than normal temperatures over a short period for a very small geographic area (compared to the entire planet).

The bottom line is that no single weather event, including a hot spell or a cold spell are evidence supporting or contradicting the theory of global warming. Global warming adherents would be making a similarly flawed argument if they indicated that the recent heat wave in the East Coast, by itself, was evidence of the existence of global warming.

However, scientists have just reported that the first six months of 2010 have been the warmest on record, and that 2010 is on track to become the hottest year since global average temperature records were kept. In seeking evidence for or against global warming, scientists look at trends, not single data points. They examine global temperatures, not just the weather in the U.S. (as ethnocentrists Inhofe and DeMint apparently enjoy doing). The science of greenhouse gases is very well established, especially with respect to carbon dioxide. There is no significant dissent within the relevant scientific community of carbon dioxide's property as a heat-trapping gas.

Since I am not a climate scientist, or any type of scientist, I kindly refer you to the official statements and consensus opinions of the most distinguished and relevant scientific bodies in America:

Most US climate scientists belong to the American Geophysical Union. Their statement indicates that "the Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and warming..." and that the warming is "best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century."

The American Meteorological Society's statement also affirms that global warming is occurring and that it is due to human activity.

The US National Academy of Science, which was established by Congress to provide scientific advice to Congress and is comprised of the most distinguished scientists in the country, also published a statement affirming the existence of climate change. It concludes that "emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels have ushered in a new epoch where human activities will largely determine the evolution of Earth's climate," and that "emissions reductions larger than about 80 [percent]... are required to approximately stabilize carbon dioxide concentrations for a century or so."

The American Association for the Advancement of Science has issued a number of statements, including this one, which indicates that,

The concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide-- derived mostly from the human activities of fossil-fuel burning and deforestation... is higher than it has been for at least the past 650,000 years... Thousands of respected scientists at an array of institutions worldwide agree that major health and economic impacts are likely unless we act now to slow greenhouse gas emissions.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, a joint statement of 18 different American scientific societies, whose scientists are involved in research relevant to climate change and its effects, produced this consensus statement, that "observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."

Virtually every relevant authoritative scientific organization in the country has demonstrated its consensus with the global climate science community that global warming is occurring, that it is due to human activity, and that if we do not curtail our greenhouse gas emissions, we will probably experience drastic changes in our environment with adverse impacts on human health and prosperity. The mainstream media, which generally seeks to capitalize on any controversy by inflating it in order to increase their ratings, gives climate skeptics ample opportunity to confuse the public by allowing them to make statements unsubstantiated by climate scientists. The result has been a confounded and divided public on the issue, with politicians using it as a political football rather than focusing on the facts.

For those who are interested in seeing some of the data with their own eyes, the following are links to measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature:

Carbon Dioxide Measurements (the ice core records are particularly interesting)

Global Temperature Data

FAQ on Global Warming by the National Climate Data Center

Illegals Offer Their Jobs Back to Real Americans

I'm sure we've all heard conservatives lament about how illegal immigrants are stealing American jobs. Well here is an incredible opportunity for real Americans to take back the jobs illegals have taken from us. According to United Farm Workers, a labor union for agricultural laborers, over 50% of farm laborers in the US are undocumented (a.k.a. illegal) immigrants. The UFA has created a website devoted to helping legal Americans find work in the agriculture sector as laborers. So please tell all of your unemployed family members and friends to visit this website so they can take back an American job from an illegal immigrant.

The website is not a joke. Here is the UFA's statement on the issue:

There are two issues facing our nation--high unemployment and undocumented people in the workforce--that many Americans believe are related.

Missing from the debate on both issues is an honest recognition that the food we all eat - at home, in restaurants and workplace cafeterias (including those in the Capitol) - comes to us from the labor of undocumented farm workers.

Agriculture in the United States is dependent on an immigrant workforce. Three-quarters of all crop workers working in American agriculture were born outside the United States. According to government statistics, since the late 1990s, at least 50% of the crop workers have not been authorized to work legally in the United States.

We are a nation in denial about our food supply. As a result the UFW has initiated the "Take Our Jobs" campaign.

Farm workers are ready to welcome citizens and legal residents who wish to replace them in the field. We will use our knowledge and staff to help connect the unemployed with farm employers. Just fill out the form to the right and continue on to the request for job application.

Pregnant Rape Victims Should Turn Lemons into Lemonade- Sharron Angle

Tea Party extraordinaire and Nevada Republican candidate for US Senate Sharron Angle recently told a reporter that she thinks teenage rape victims should make "a lemon situation into lemonade" by carrying their pregnancies to term. This radical does not think that there should be a legal abortion exception for rape or incest. Instead, she thinks these situations should be left solely to Divine Providence.

Questioner: What do you say then to a young girl... when a young girl is raped by her father, let's say, and she is pregnant. How do you explain this to her in terms of wanting her to go through the process of having the baby?

Angle: I think that two wrongs don't make a right. And I have been in the situation of counseling young girls, not 13 but 15, who have had very at risk, difficult pregnancies. And my counsel was to look for some alternatives, which they did. And they found that they had made what was really a lemon situation into lemonade.

Her interview with radio talk show host Bill Manders goes even further:



I can respect someone's view when they feel that the government should prevent elective abortions (though I may not agree with it- as I stated in my Culture of Life posts, I am neither Pro-Choice, nor Pro-Life as I have not completely decided my view of the government's role in regulating elective abortion). But to say that a girl who has been raped by her father cannot have the option to an abortion, that the government and society will compel that girl to carry her pregnancy to term, is truly cruel and unusual punishment. (Of course a pregnancy resulting from a rape should not automatically result in an abortion. The point is that especially in such a scenario, the decision should lie with the victim, not with the government.) Sharon Angle is nut to espouse such a view. But I'm grateful she's being honest about what she believes. A simple examination of some of her public statements shows she is absolutely a far right-wing radical. She's in favor of abolishing Social Security. She recently said that the unemployed were "spoiled," and that as senator, she would do nothing to help with unemployment.



The good news is that Sen. Harry Reid is now leading in the polls, because of a recent focus on Angle's extreme policy positions.

"No Matter What Happens During the Obama Administration, There's the Perfect Bush Screw Up for the Occasion"

Over the past 16 months, I have thoroughly enjoyed conservatives' attempts to pin every one of our country's problems on President Barack Obama. Of late, they've been calling the BP gulf oil spill "Obama's Katrina." This is such a non-sequitur that I can't help letting out a little laugh each time I hear it. Oh yeah, because providing timely emergency response to a natural disaster threatening thousands of human lives, which IS the government's duty (think FEMA and the numerous major hurricanes that our government has promptly responded to prior to Katrina), is so very much like plugging a deep sea oil well leak, which the government has no expertise in. Can anyone say 'Apples to Oranges'? However, this spill should certainly cause any reasonable person to ponder the wisdom of doing more off-shore drilling and the adequacy of the current deep-sea drilling regulations regime.

Then there is the "Obama's recession" refrain. This gets me laughing even harder because of the audacity of the revisionist history. Did not the real estate bubble both inflate and burst while Bush was still in office? The recession officially started in 2008. Obama did not take office until January 2009. (This isn't to say that it is entirely the Bush Administration's fault. It's much more complicated than that.) Given how deep economists have told us this recession is (the largest since the Depression), I think the turn around has been impressive. Within 2 months of Obama's inauguration, the economy was shrinking at about 6%. However, as of January 2010, the economy was GROWING at 6%. That is a 12% GDP turn-around in less than one year! Any macro-economist will tell you that the unemployment rate is the last economic indicator to recover after a recession. It always follows a stock market and GDP growth rate recovery. We've also seen a significant turn around in the stock market from its low in March 2009. It seems as though critics have expected an immediate and complete economic turn around within months; obviously they are using an entirely false standard. While there is ample evidence that things are getting much better, the economy still has a ways to go. An examination of the job loss rate over the past couple of years shows how things are improving. The graph below, from January 2010, shows a marked improvement from 2008. Between January and April of this year, the economy has created 573,000 jobs. While that pales in comparison to the over 8 million jobs lost during this recession, it is a very positive indicator given the trend in the graph below. The proof is in the numbers; we are in a cyclical recovery. What we all need is a little patience as we pull out of the Great Recession.

Jon Stewart captured the irony of conservatives' use of various events from the Bush Administration as comparisons to alleged failures of the Obama Administration:

"No matter what happens during the Obama Administration, there's the perfect Bush f*** up for the occasion.... The crazy part is, its conservatives and Republicans that are in the biggest rush to make the comparisons. 'Remember that terrible thing Bush did, that we fought for 8 years to convince you wasn't bad, but actually good? Well now we use those very incidents as the low watermark for your guy!' And they are not just interested in comparing Obama's new problems to Bush's old problems. They're also seeking to bequeath all that Bush oversaw, like some kind of cancerous heirloom... It's like these guys treat the country as a sleazy used car salesman. 'Ah, I gotta tell you this is a beautiful country, runs like a dream. We have kept it totally tuned for 8 years. Its cherry. You're not gonna have a problem with it at all. Oh, you'll take it? It's your piece of sh*t now!' ... The best part is that they can't even recognize their own tacit admission of the previous administration's failure."

(Skip ahead to 4:50 in the clip below for the relevant segment.)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Release the Kagan
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Culture of Life Part 3- Stem Cell Research

Embryonic stem cell research is one of the hotly contested issues of the contemporary culture wars. Even within the Republican Party, a division exists over this issue. Prominent Republicans such as Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah support federal funding of embryonic stem cell research while others, such as former President George W. Bush and former Governor Mitt Romney, oppose embryonic stem cell research on ethical grounds. Before exploring the ethics of embryonic stem cell research, it is important to define it and highlight some of its potential and remarkable benefits. A great deal of misinformation exists about stem cell research. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has a stem cell information Web page that provides extensive information on this type of research. The following are some excerpts from the NIH Web page:

(If you are already familiar with stem cell research, skip down past the italicized paragraphs to The Ethical Debate section.)

What Are Stem Cells?

Stem cells have the remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body during early life and growth... When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential either to remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a muscle cell, a red blood cell, or a brain cell. Stem cells are important for living organisms for many reasons. In the 3- to 5-day-old embryo, called a blastocyst, the inner cells give rise to the entire body of the organism, including all of the many specialized cell types and organs such as the heart, lung, skin, sperm, eggs and other tissues.

The Healing Potential of Stem Cell Research

Given their unique regenerative abilities, stem cells offer new potentials for treating diseases such as diabetes, and heart disease. However, much work remains to be done in the laboratory and the clinic to understand how to use these cells for cell-based therapies to treat disease. Perhaps the most important potential application of human stem cells is the generation of cells and tissues that could be used for cell-based therapies. Today, donated organs and tissues are often used to replace ailing or destroyed tissue, but the need for transplantable tissues and organs far outweighs the available supply. Stem cells, directed to differentiate into specific cell types, offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat diseases including Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis. A primary goal of this work is to identify how undifferentiated stem cells become the differentiated cells that form the tissues and organs. Scientists know that turning genes on and off is central to this process. Some of the most serious medical conditions, such as cancer and birth defects, are due to abnormal cell division and differentiation. A more complete understanding of the genetic and molecular controls of these processes may yield information about how such diseases arise and suggest new strategies for therapy. Scientists are already using stem cells in the laboratory to screen new drugs and to develop model systems to study normal growth and identify the causes of birth defects.

Why Are Embryonic Stem Cells Needed?

One major difference between adult and embryonic stem cells is their different abilities in the number and type of differentiated cell types they can become. Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Adult stem cells are thought to be limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin. Embryonic stem cells can be grown relatively easily in culture. Adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues, so isolating these cells from an adult tissue is challenging, and methods to expand their numbers in cell culture have not yet been worked out. This is an important distinction, as large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell replacement therapies.

Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) are adult cells that have been genetically reprogrammed to an embryonic stem cell–like state by being forced to express genes and factors important for maintaining the defining properties of embryonic stem cells. Although these cells meet the defining criteria for pluripotent stem cells, it is not known if iPSCs and embryonic stem cells differ in clinically significant ways. This is a breakthrough discovery; however, further research is needed to determine whether iPSCs and embryonic stem cells differ in clinically significant ways... Viruses are currently used to introduce the reprogramming factors into adult cells, and this process must be carefully controlled and tested before the technique can lead to useful treatments for humans. In animal studies, the virus used to introduce the stem cell factors sometimes causes cancers.

The Ethical Debate

There is one final fact to point out before discussing the political debate over embryonic stem cell research. It is absolutely crucial to note that embryonic stem cells used in this research are derived from the vitro fertilization process. The NIH website explains:

The embryos used in these studies were created for reproductive purposes through in vitro fertilization procedures. When they were no longer needed for that purpose, they were donated for research with the informed consent of the donor... They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body.

In vitro fertilization has enabled tens of thousands of couples to have children each year in the United States. In the vitro fertilization process, doctors harvest multiple eggs from the woman, invariably more than will be implanted back into her uterus after laboratory fertilization. The reasons for the retrieval of extra eggs are that some eggs will not develop or fertilize after harvest and/or implantation, the high cost for the surgical procedure of harvesting eggs, and the trauma and relative risk the harvest process poses to the woman's body. In vitro fertilization almost always results in extra, unneeded embryos. These extra embryos, still in the undifferentiated stage, are the source for embryonic stem cell research. They are only donated for research with the consent of the donors. If the embryos are not donated for research, they are usually discarded.

Those who oppose stem cell research on ethical grounds should understand that the embryonic stem cells used for research would otherwise have been destroyed after the in vitro fertilization process. Thus, if one opposes this research on "pro-life" grounds, they should also oppose in vitro fertilization because it ends with the same result, the destruction of fertilized embryos. Of course, this would not be a popular political position because in vitro fertilization has helped so many Americans longing to be parents. However, it is the only logically consistent position for someone who opposes stem cell research. I can respect someone who holds the consistent position of opposing both embryonic stem cell research and in vitro fertilization. Both of these processes deal with the question of when and how life begins. For me, I do not believe that life begins at conception; I believe that life begins at some point after differentiation. Thus I fully and vehemently support all forms of stem cell research because of the incredible potential it has at treating and curing diseases and improving the quality of life for millions of people. And, if these left over laboratory embryos with stem cells are going to be discarded anyway, why not use them for a noble and important purpose? Supporting stem cell research ought to be considered a "pro-life" position because of its potential to improve and save millions of lives.

Like with most political issues, the Church has adopted a position of strict neutrality on embryonic stem cell research. The Church's website states, "The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not taken a position regarding the use of embryonic stem cells for research purposes. The absence of a position should not be interpreted as support for or opposition to any other statement made by Church members, whether they are for or against embryonic stem cell research." Thus it is important for all individuals, and particularly Church members, to become fully informed before taking a strong stand on this or any political issue.

A Renewed Call for Civility from LDS Church Leadership

During the most recent LDS General Conference, we heard yet another call for civility in our public dialogue. Elder Quentin L. Cook of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles stated, “many in this world are afraid and angry with one another. While we understand these feelings, we need to be civil in our discourse and respectful in our interactions. This is especially true when we disagree. The Savior taught us to love even our enemies. The vast majority of our members heed this counsel. Yet there are some who feel that venting their personal anger or deeply held opinions is more important than conducting themselves as Jesus Christ lived and taught. I invite each one of us individually to recognize that how we disagree is a real measure of who we are and whether we truly follow the Savior. It is appropriate to disagree, but it is not appropriate to be disagreeable. Violence and vandalism are not the answer to our disagreements.” (emphasis added)

This renewed call for civility is, in my view, very timely, given the current deluge of violence and angry rhetoric. In a previous post, I explored some of the recent violence and threatening language that came to a boiling point with the passage of the health care reform bill. In a response to a reader comment, I highlighted some of the specific incidents of inappropriate, violence-inciting rhetoric coming from prominent conservative leaders and conservative media:

When you have people like Glenn Beck and GOP Rep. Ron Paul going on national TV and starting rumors that Democrats are creating FEMA concentration camps for conservatives, you are inciting violence. When on FOX news, you regularly compare Obama to Stalin and Hitler, you are inciting hatred. When you have prominent conservative Christian preachers pray for Obama's death and then have one of their congregants show up at an Obama rally with an assault rifle, you are inciting violence. When the core leadership of your grass roots organization (the Tea Party) is comprised of "birthers" and individuals who believe that Obama is the Muslim anti-Christ, you are inciting fear and hatred. When you have the House Minority Leader warn that a Democratic Congressman "may be a dead man" if he voted for the health care bill, he is using violent rhetoric, even if he was only speaking metaphorically. When Michelle Bachman, GOP Rep from MN says she wants her constituents "armed and dangerous," in their opposition to the health care bill, she is encouraging violence, regardless of her true intent, which was likely metaphorical. When GOP Rep. George Peterson, in quoting a fellow activist, states that their movement is calling for a "complete and forceable overthrow" of Congress, during a anti-health care bill rally, he is inciting violence. The examples go on and on.

To me, it seemed like Elder Cook was speaking directly to those who have been using the type of violence-inciting, angry rhetoric we’ve seen and heard over the past year. We’ve see them at town hall meetings last summer where their shouts drowned out the ability of others to engage in a respectful dialogue with their elected representatives. We’ve heard them at Tea Party protests. We’ve heard them on the television and on the radio, where talk show hosts and pundits, as former Bush speechwriter David Frum noted, whipped their base into “a frenzy.” Though I think the recent widespread violence and threats of violence have been a much bigger phenomenon on the right than on the left, in part because conservatives are in the minority in our government, this call for civility applies to everyone regardless of political ideology or affiliation. Some day, as during the Bush Presidency, moderates and progressives will be in the minority again and they also must be a respectful, loyal opposition.

LDS Church Going Green

Lest one thinks being environmentally-conscious is only a "liberal" idea, the Church recently announced a pilot program where the roofs of new chapels are fitted with solar panels. In announcing the program, Bishop H. David Burton of the Presiding Bishopric stated, “for decades we have looked for innovative ways to use natural resources in our meetinghouses that reflect our commitment as wise stewards of God’s creations.” Furthermore, the Church has indicated their estimation that this program will save money in the long run, proving that being environmentally conscious is also in our economic interest. In addition to the solar panels, the new earth-friendly design includes, "high efficiency heating and cooling system that can interface with the solar power equipment, landscaping designs and plumbing fixtures that cut water use by more than 50 percent, and Low-E Solarban 70 windows that block 78 percent of the sun’s heat energy. "

I've always felt that being good stewards of the environment was a Christian duty, and particularly an LDS duty. I recall one particular conservative friend from BYU who would always point to Doctrine and Covenants Section 59, verses 18-20 as evidence that humans could do whatever they wanted to the earth and to support his belief that environmental protection laws were not appropriate. The funny thing is that verse 20 states that our use of the earth must be done "with judgment, not to excess, neither by extortion," a point my conservative friend conveniently glossed over.

In speaking about our stewardship over our planet, President Gordon B. Hinckley once stated, "This earth is [God's] creation. When we make it ugly, we offend Him."

Culture of Life Part 2

In the previous post, Culture of Life Part 1, I demonstrated the LDS Church’s political neutrality on the debate over the government’s role in regulating and criminalizing abortion, even as the Church emphasizes the sanctity of life and counsels its members not to obtain elective abortions. Those who believe in criminalization of elective abortion (the pro-life position) should consider the repercussions of such a law. What are some of the costs and unintended consequences of compelling a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term? I don’t intend the following as an argument against the pro-life position. I simply hope that by exploring of some of the underlying implications of criminalizing elective abortion, we will realize that abortion policy cannot be viewed in a vacuum. The implementation of ethical pro-life laws would require a significant amount of social welfare programs, which most pro-life advocates vehemently oppose.

Medical Care for Poor Children and Expecting Mothers

Those who have given birth to a child understand that a tremendous amount of care is required both before and after a child is born and that the diet and health of the mother is invariably linked to that of the unborn child. Even though not all of those who obtain elective abortions are poor or are teenagers, tens of thousands of those who do obtain elective abortion each year do not have the financial resources to cope with the medical costs of pregnancy. The medical costs for those without insurance are excessive. Furthermore, there are additional costs for working women who have to take time away from their jobs, or perhaps loose their jobs completely, depending on how smoothly the pregnancy progresses. If a single woman with an unwanted pregnancy is compelled to carry the pregnancy to term, and ends up having to take a few months off without pay while she is on bed rest, who will pay for her living expenses? What if she looses her job? Since conservatives are typically opposed to government social assistance programs, how does the financial need of a woman who is being compelled to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term sync with the conservative view on eliminating these welfare programs? Are we as taxpayers willing to have some of our tax dollars assist the ultimately tens of thousands of poor women each year who would be compelled to carry unwanted pregnancies to term under pro-life laws?

Additionally, costly medical care is required for children and mothers after they are born. If a poor woman decides to keep the child rather than give it up for adoption, financial assistance would be necessary to pay for post-partum medical care. The pro-life position can be very myopic if it does not include assurances for the proper medical care of a newborn resulting from an unwanted pregnancy. How “pro-life” can we really be if all we care about is that the baby is born, but once the child arrives in the world, we are not equally passionate about ensuring they have a fair shot at a healthy life through proper care? If one opposes programs like SCHIP and Medicaid, which provide health insurance to poor children and children of the working poor, can that person accurately claim that he or she is “pro-life”?

Another unintended consequence of criminalization of elective abortion is the risky behavior of some women with unwanted pregnancies. If women who have no desire to be pregnant are compelled to carry the pregnancy to term, some would unfortunately have little or no incentive to make changes in their lifestyle to ensure that the fetus is properly nourished and protected from harmful substances. Women who smoke or drink alcohol may have difficulty in abstaining during the pregnancy. A large volume of research has clearly shown that tobacco and alcohol can often have severe adverse affects on a fetus, causing serious deformities and diseases. Deformed and chronically ill infants resulting from such unwanted pregnancies where the mother did not observe a proper lifestyle, require expensive medical care. There may be fewer who are willing to adopt such children with expensive health problems. Again, are those who are pro-life willing to have their tax dollars pay for the expensive care of children with such diseases as fetal alcohol syndrome?

Black Market Abortions

Inevitably, by prohibiting elective abortions, there will always be some women who will seek to end their unwanted pregnancy at any cost, rather than carrying it to term as required by law. In an America where elective abortions are banned, such women would pursue abortions on the black market. As has been the experience in societies where abortion is prohibited, many such black market abortions are unsafe and can easily result in severe and permanent injury or even death to the women.

Some may argue that such a woman has only herself to blame for being careless about protection while being promiscuous. If the woman is injured or dies as a result of a black market or illegal abortion, I have heard some argue that although that would be unfortunate, it is the woman’s fault for seeking an elective abortion in the first place. However, as one of the reader comments in Culture of Life Part I states, why does all the responsibility lie with the woman? What are the ethics of creating a black market situation where we know some women with unwanted pregnancies will die? By prohibiting elective abortion, a black market for elective abortions will certainly be created. But by removing elective abortion from the realm of regulated and standardized medicine, the procedure ultimately ends up in an unregulated and non-standardized state where no license, quality control, or professional standard is required.

Perhaps those who are on both sides of the debate can at least agree to work together on preventing unwanted pregnancies. Sustained efforts at reducing the overall number of unwanted pregnancies will reduce the number of abortions performed in this country. Studies have shown that publicly-funded family planning clinics have prevented 20 million unwanted pregnancies over the past 20 years, 9 million of which would have resulted in abortions.

So even while vying for pro-choice or pro-life positions on government regulation of abortion, those on both sides who believe in the sanctity of life should seek to educate the public on methods of reducing unwanted pregnancies, including comprehensive birth control education, which could include abstinence. However, any sex education curriculum that does not include comprehensive birth control instruction is woefully inadequate for preventing unwanted pregnancies. Though we may not like the fact of rampant sexual promiscuity, to neglect to educate our population on the methods of preventing pregnancies is only an invitation to more unwanted pregnancies.

The criminalization of elective abortion would result in other unintended consequences that need to be addressed by those who are proponents of prohibition. The above is not meant to counter pro-life arguments, but only to show that a comprehensive pro-life position must include consideration of many other factors, including some social welfare programs.

In upcoming posts in this series, I will explore emergency contraceptives, also known as the morning after pill, stem-cell research, and in vitro fertilization.

For James- Jon Stewart Slams Keith Olbermann

This was a great clip from Jon Stewart showing how over the top liberal MSNBC pundit Keith Olbermann went in his tirade against Massachusetts Republican Senator Scott Brown.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Special Comment - Keith Olbermann's Name-Calling
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Reform

Culture of Life Part 1

While a student at BYU, I encountered an incredible amount of misconceptions on the political issue of abortion. It seemed that anyone who spoke to me of the issue assumed that Democrats and liberals "believed in" abortion, meaning that those who were pro-choice thought abortions were good things, and not something to be avoided. Over the next few posts, I aim to explore various aspects concerning the political issues of abortion, stem cell research, and as President George W. Bush termed it, "the culture of life." To be clear, this is not an effort on my part to support the pro-choice position as I do not define myself as pro-choice, nor do I define myself as pro-life. I hope to establish a framework for thoughtful people to have rational discussions about these issues.

Since this is an LDS-related blog, I want to start this series of posts with the Church's positions on abortion. Yes, that's right, positions. On moral and ethical grounds, the Church has clearly articulated its expectations of its members. The Church "believes in the sanctity of human life... and opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions." It only allows for possible exceptions in cases of (1) rape/incest, (2) where the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, and (3) where the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. Additionally, these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. It is clear that the Church considers elective abortion to be sinful. I would never personally support or encourage someone to have an elective abortion because of my personal view on the sanctity of life.

However, the Church's position on what the government's role should be in regulating abortion is entirely different. On the Church's official newsroom webpage, it states that "the Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion." Clearly, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has been politically neutral on what laws related to abortion should be adopted by our legislatures.

So to kick off my series of posts about the political issues of life, it needs to be clear, at least within LDS circles, that there is room within official LDS orthodoxy on what should be the law of the land. The pro-choice position basically articulates the belief that our government has little or no role in regulating abortions in our country. The pro-life position conversely believes that the government should have a heavy hand in regulating abortion, criminalizing it in most cases. I believe there are earnest, moral, and thoughtful people who are in both camps and in between.

Sean Hannity Scams Injured Vets, Children

Conservative blogger Debbie Schlussel revealed that Sean Hannity's "Freedom Concerts," which are ostensibly for raising money to pay for college tuition of the children of fallen soldiers and to assist wounded military veterans, spent less than "20%–and in two recent years, less than 7% and 4%, respectively" for these causes. This is based on information obtained from a Fox News source and from publicly available tax return information on Hannity's charity, Freedom Alliance.

According to the Fox News source, "there’d be a lot more money every concert to go to the cause if Hannity didn’t demand–and get–use of a Gulfstream 5 plane to fly him and his family/entourage to the concerts; a “fleet”... of either Cadillac or Lincoln SUVs for him and his family/entourage; and several suites at really expensive hotels for him and his family/entourage. The promoter apparently values Hannity’s star demands at well over $200,000 per event."

"The Rage is Not About Health Care"

Frank Rich stated what I was trying to point out in my previous post, "Right-Wing Terrorism," in a much more eloquent and straightforward fashion than I did. (That's probably why he's a NYT columnist and I'm not.) Here are some of the best parts:

In fact, the current surge of anger — and the accompanying rise in right-wing extremism — predates the entire health care debate. The first signs were the shrieks of “traitor” and “off with his head” at Palin rallies as Obama’s election became more likely in October 2008. Those passions have spiraled ever since — from Gov. Rick Perry’s kowtowing to secessionists at a Tea Party rally in Texas to the gratuitous brandishing of assault weapons at Obama health care rallies last summer to “You lie!” piercing the president’s address to Congress last fall like an ominous shot... If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory.

...As no less a conservative authority than The Wall Street Journal editorial page observed last week, the bill’s prototype is the health care legislation Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts. It contains what used to be considered Republican ideas.
Yet it’s this bill that inspired G.O.P. congressmen on the House floor to egg on disruptive protesters even as they were being evicted from the gallery by the Capitol Police last Sunday. It’s this bill that prompted a congressman to shout “baby killer” at Bart Stupak, a staunch anti-abortion Democrat. It’s this bill that drove a demonstrator to spit on Emanuel Cleaver, a black representative from Missouri. And it’s this “middle-of-the-road” bill, as Obama accurately calls it, that has incited an unglued firestorm of homicidal rhetoric, from “Kill the bill!” to Sarah Palin’s cry for her followers to “reload.” At least four of the House members hit with death threats or vandalism are among the 20 political targets Palin marks with rifle crosshairs on a map on her Facebook page.

Texas Textbooks- Don't Let Your Kids Read 'Em!

Recently the Texas Board of Education undertook efforts to significantly revise Texas' history, social studies, and economics curriculum along unapologetically ideological lines. No historians, sociologists, economists, or other experts were consulted at the meetings in which the revisions were debated and approved. Here's a humorous look at the way the changes were made.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Don't Mess With Textbooks
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Reform

"A well regulated Militia"- A Common Sense Approach to Arms Control

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There is probably no other section of our constitution that is currently more controversial than this one. In my own opinion, the above text guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms only in the context of a well-regulated militia. I invite any old English grammar experts to render an honest opinion of the literal meaning of that sentence. I am not one, but I cannot interpret it in any other way that does not link the right of the people to "keep and bear Arms" to a "well regulated Militia." Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Number 29, "If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security." Of course, the body he was referring to was the federal government.

However, the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 in District of Columbia vs. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" and "that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." This ruling clearly articulated the Court's view that individuals have a right to bear arms.

Though I am not convinced that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was to allow the individual right to bear arms outside of well-regulated militias, for practical purposes, that is the law of the land today. Even President Barack Obama supports an individual right to bear arms. In one of the 2008 Democratic Primary debates, he said, "As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it."

Despite my view that the text of the 2nd Amendment does not provide for an individual right to bear arms, I do agree that there should be such a right and I applaud the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling. I think the D.C. law on handguns was overly restrictive. Please note that the dictionary definition of the word "arms" is weapons, not just guns/firearms. I think a better label for this conversation is weapons or arms control rather than gun control, because there are other types of deadly weapons beyond guns (i.e. nukes) that should be regulated in the interest of public safety.

No other objective is more important for the federal government than public safety. President Bush stated as much several times in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. In the interest of public safety, we do not allow individuals to purchase weapons of mass destruction. If you set out to create your own anthrax, or VX gas, and you are discovered, you will go to jail. Similarly, individuals are not allowed to own rocket propelled grenade launchers and mortars. They cannot even own heavy machine guns like the mounted, fully-automatic 50 caliber variety. Who in their right mind believes it is a good idea for these types of deadly, mass casualty-causing weapons to be legal for the general public? The point is that while current law supports the notion of an individual right to bear arms, the government clearly regulates what types of weapons individuals can own, and what types of weapons should be banned in the interest of public safety. In United States vs. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court rejected a 2nd Amendment challenge, ruling that it was permissible for the State of Arkansas to prohibit sawed-off double barrel shotguns with barrels shorter than 18 inches. An informed debate on arms control and the 2nd Amendment should center around a discussion of what types of weapons are too dangerous for ownership by the general population. It's all about where we draw the line.

The federal government should ensure that there is a baseline law governing what types of weapons are too deadly for public ownership, and then allow states and local governments to be more restrictive up to a certain point. It is perfectly reasonable for rural Montana to have less restrictive arms control laws than, say, urban Los Angeles. I believe it to be acceptable for individuals to be able to own handguns and hunting rifles. Handguns make sense for personal protection in the home, and hunting is a valued American tradition.

However, automatic weapons like assault rifles (i.e. sub-machine guns, M4s, AK-47s, and other high-powered automatic and semi-automatic rifles) are not necessary for protection in the home or for hunting. They are designed for causing mass human casualties in a short amount of time and are appropriate only for law enforcement and the military. In the interest of public safety, the recently expired assault weapons ban should be reinstated and made permanent. The 1997 North Hollywood Shootout and the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre are good examples of the danger of allowing public ownership of assault weapons. The AR 15 assault rifle that was used in the Hollywood Shootout was not illegal at the time. (However, the AR 15 used by one of the shooters had been illegally modified to turn it into a fully-automatic weapon.)

We also now have and should maintain reasonable laws to prevent dangerous criminals and mentally unstable criminals from owning any deadly weapons, especially firearms. Prior to the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (which was fiercely opposed by Republicans), there was no requirement for any sort of criminal or mental health background check individuals seeking to purchase a handgun.

In the aftermath of the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, it became known that the shooter's history of serious mental health illness was properly reported to Virginia authorities; however, because of inadequate laws, Virginia did not report Seung-Hui Cho's status to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which would have barred Cho from purchasing the guns he ultimately used to slaughter 32 people.

Most people know about the elephant-sized loophole in federal and state gun control laws through gun shows. Individuals can purchase weapons at gun shows without any sort of background check. This renders the Brady Bill and other laws requiring criminal and mental health background checks on gun purchases meaningless because criminals and the dangerously mentally ill have a very easy way of legally purchasing weapons. There is simply no rational explanation for this. It is an affront to one's conscience with respect to proper public safety laws and should be legally addressed by the Congress as soon as possible.

Glenn Beck Called Out By Mormon Leaders

Glenn Beck, who recently demonized churches that preach social and economic justice as communist and fascist, caused some LDS church leaders to become so uncomfortable that they personally apologized to a reverend whom Beck had attacked. More specifically, Glenn Beck said, "I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!" He went on to compare organizations that practice social and economic justice with communism and fascism.

Perhaps Mr. Beck does not know that his own church preaches social justice. According to a recent New York Times article, "Philip Barlow, the Arrington professor of Mormon history and culture at Utah State University, said, 'One way to read the Book of Mormon is that it’s a vast tract on social justice. A lot of Latter-day Saints would think that Beck was asking them to leave their own church.' Mr. Barlow said that just this year, the church’s highest authority, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, issued a new 'Handbook of Instructions' in which they revised the church’s 'threefold mission' and added a fourth mission statement: Care for the poor."

Mr. Beck is really creating bad publicity for the Church. He is anything but a peacemaker and certainly does not heed any of the recent counsel from LDS Church leaders in having calm and thoughtful dialogue. It seems that Elder Robert S. Wood, as referenced in an earlier post, was speaking specifically of Beck when he said, "whether they be false friends or unrighteous teachers, artists or entertainers, commentators or letter writers to local newspapers, seekers of power or wealth, beware of those who stir us up to such anger that calm reflection and charitable feelings are suppressed."

Right-Wing Terrorism

The news over the past few days has demonstrated that elements of the Tea Party and others on the far right have resorted to blatant bigotry and threats of violence in the run up to and in the aftermath of Sunday's House vote on the landmark heath care reform bill. As some Democratic lawmakers were making their way up to Capital Hill on Sunday, Tea Party protesters hurled racial and other epithets, like ni***r and fa***t to a few black congressman and one gay congressman. One black congressman was even spat upon.

After the bill passed, several Democrats received death threats and Democratic congressional offices were vandalized. The campaign office of Rep. Louise Slaughter from Niagara Falls, New York received a call that threatened a sniper attack. And the district congressional offices of Rep. Slaughter and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona were vandalized. Pro-life Michigan Democrat Rep. Bart Stupack received death threats after voting for the bill. A Tea Party activist posted on his blog what he thought was the home address of Virgina Democrat Rep. Tom Perriello and encouraged fellow activists to "drop by" Rep. Perriello's home for a "face to face" chat. It turns out that it was actually the address of Perriello's brother. The Tea Party nut who posted the wrong address refuses to take it down. Now the FBI is investigating a line to a propane tank on a gas grill that was cut at Perriello's brother's house. Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, the House's highest-ranking African-American received a fax with an image of a noose. At least 10 House Democrats have raised concerns about their security since Sunday's vote.

If that isn't enough, the GOP is using provocative imagery in its opposition. For example, Sarah Palin, on her Facebook page, used gun sights to highlight the Democrats her lobbying group is targeting in the next elections. This is the same Palin that incited virulence and threats at her campaign rallies in 2008. The official GOP website has an image of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the midst of flames.

A look at actual acts of right-wing violence over the past couple of years shows that there is a body count to all of this. These latest incidents are mostly just words, but extremist movements are capitalizing on anger and despair over a difficult economic situation. Here are a few of the most well-known cases:

* July 27, 2008- Motivated by desire to "kill liberals and Democrats," gunman Jim David Adkisson fired a shotgun at members of the congregation during a youth performance of a musical, killing two people and wounding seven others.
* Two white supremacists planned a murder spree of 88 African Americans in Tennessee, as well as planned to assassinate candidate Obama in October 2008. The Secret Service has investigated a large number of threats against Obama both during and after the campaign.
* January 21, 2009- White supremacist Keith Luke killed 2 people, raped and attempted to kill a 3rd, and planned to continue on a killing spree targeting Jews and non-whites but was thwarted from doing so after he was arrested.
* April 4, 2009- Richard Poplawski, a white supremacist with strong anti-government ideology ambushed and killed 3 Pittsburgh police officers. Poplawski had reportedly posted a link to his website of a YouTube video of Republican Congressman Ron Paul discussing with Fox News host Glenn Beck the rumored existence of FEMA-managed concentration camps.
* May 31, 2009- Scott Roeder murdered an abortion doctor while he was in church in Kansas. Fox News' right-wing commentator Bill O'Reilly helped to incite anger and violence against Dr. George Tiller.
* June 10, 2009- James Von Brunn, an anti-government ideologue, attacked the Holocaust museum in DC, killing a guard before he was wounded.
* February 18, 2010, Joseph Stack III, angry at the IRS, crashed a small airplane into the Austin, Texas IRS building, killing 1 IRS employee. And how is this different from one of the 9/11 hijackers?

The DHS report on the threat of right-wing violence was spot-on correct, despite it being viciously attacked by many conservatives as a political move. Extremists on the right are taking advantage of a severe recession and the election of the nation's first black president to incite hatred and violence.

I hope that in the future, cooler heads will prevail. The GOP leadership and conservative talk show hosts have a moral responsibility to keep the dialogue civil. While they are not necessarily responsible for every lone wolf nut job out there that goes on a killing rampage, GOP leaders and conservative pundits must know that their words are heeded, and when they use the rhetoric of fear, violence, and hatred, those at the fringe of their following will use their words to justify almost anything. Scaring their voting base by claiming that Stalin and Hitler have been resurrected in the form of Obama and his health care bill is simply unethical and untruthful. As I pointed out on my last post regarding conservative pundit David Frum's analysis of the GOP's health care defeat, conservative talkers had "whipped the Republican voting base" into a "frenzy" where calm and rational dialogue was impossible.

Of course there are extremists at both ends of the political spectrum. But we did not see this kind of violence and virulent rhetoric from the far left during the Bush years.

The Conservatives' Waterloo

David Frum, President George W. Bush's former speechwriter and a conservative political pundit posted the following on his website yesterday. I highly recommend the entire article, but here are some key points:

Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s... A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves. At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994...

But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994...

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat... There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?