McCain's Energy

This will be a continuation of my Energy Series. To see the first post in the series, click here. I am working on addressing the three major energy policy plans: Obama's, McCain's, and that of T. Boone Pickens. This post will be on McCain's plan, which he has dubbed The Lexington Project. I think that the stupid name is a response to the Pickens Plan having a name, but that is neither here nor there. Let's get to it:

John McCain's "The Lexington Project" main goals/plans/points:
• Expanding Domestic Oil And Natural Gas Exploration And Production
• Taking Action Now To Break Our Dependency On Foreign Oil By Reforming Our Transportation Sector
• Investing In Clean, Alternative Sources Of Energy
• Protecting Our Environment And Addressing Climate Change: A Sound Energy Strategy Must Include A Solid Environmental Foundation
• Promoting Energy Efficiency
• Addressing Speculative Pricing Of Oil

What is it with these guys and their six point plans? So much writing... Okay, so McCain's main points have a lot of buzz words and phrases. Let's delve deeper and see if this is all a load of crap or if McCain actually has an issue he has an articulated, consistent position on.

Bullet 1): Well, this one breaks down into the two components listed, nothing complicated. a) He wants to open up the Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling, where such practices are currently restricted by federal law. This would be the offshore drilling that we heard a little about before the economy took a crap. This is a fine and dandy proposition for helping energy independence, but it will accomplish effectively nothing.

We are using ~7.6 billion barrels of oil a year. That's 21 million barrels a day. We are producing 5.5 million barrels a day domestically. There is guessed to be about 18 billion barrels "offshore" that McCain wants to tap. Compare that number to the 96 billion barrels that are currently open for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, coastal Alaska, and coastal California. McCain doesn't really think that this new offshore oil drilling is gonna come up with 15 million barrels a day of oil, does he? Hopefully not. There simply isn't that much oil there to be had. And it will take 10 years to get oil from. Too long.

b) Natural Gas Production. Natural gas is something we have in this country. We have a lot of it. "The Outer Continental Shelf alone contains 77 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas." (from McCain's website) And that doesn't include all the other supplies we have. I am in COMPLETE agreement that natural gas is NOT the end-all solution to our problems. But it buys us time to develop the technology that will be. We can run a lot more on natural gas then we do now. It will be cheaper than oil and it will last longer than oil. I will save more of this discussion for the Pickens Plan post. That'd be a cliffhanger, people... However, McCain still doesn't give us specifics on how/where he'd use the natural gas.

Bullet 2): McCain wants to accomplish this by:
a) Giving tax credits for buying "cleaner" cars. I'm not thrilled about this. People can buy their own blasted cars; the taxpayers don't have to help them.
b) Incentivizing the private sector into developing better technology for electric cars. Again, I'm not thrilled, though I'm more okay with this then tax credits. These companies have plenty of incentive. They make a car that plugs into the wall and uses zero gasoline (i.e. the Volt), they are gonna make a lot of money selling it.
c-f) Using flex fuel vehicles, alcohol-based fuels, killing tariffs/mandates on ethanol, and increasing penalties for violating MPG standards. Flex fuel only works if you HAVE to use alternative fuels. Alcohol/Ethanol-based fuels might work, but they need to come from things other than corn. We've seen what this does to the price of food. Good, fine the people that violate the law (MPG standards). I'm okay with that.

Bullet 3): McCain outlines using clean coal, nuclear, wind, water, and solar power. He also outlines a plan to dump cash into these things to make them work. $2 billion a year for clean coal and tax credits for research into technologies. This is the kind of money we need to be using. We need to make developing these technologies a national priority and fund it like a national priority. We just "spent" $700 billion of our children's children's tax dollars to buy up some banks and bad mortgages. We spend $700 billion A YEAR on foreign oil. We should be spending at least $100 billion a year to stop using foreign oil.

Bullet 4): Environment stuff that Rick could talk better about. McCain wants a cap-and-trade system, too (like Obama).

Bullet 5): Yay, energy efficiency. McCain talks about cutting energy use across the federal government, which he claims "is the largest electricity consumer on earth". Wants to make the buildings more efficient, turn the lights off, build solar panels on rooftops, and all that good stuff. He also wants to make it easier to upgrade our 1970s era power grid to make energy transfer more efficient. I think that both of these ideas are easier said then done and are going to require people making sacrifices, monetary or otherwise, that they might not want to. These are good ideas that I would love to see happen.

Bullet 6): Regulating the futures market (if there have been cases of ill intentions). This assumes that the current laws have been violated, which I doubt that they have. This is a simple supply and demand equation. Oil is expensive cause there ain't a lot of it and people want a lot of it. And some people are smarter than me and know how to make money off of it. Good for them. This is McCain blaming people who did nothing wrong because it is politically popular to do to. It always looks better to say that it is somebody else's fault. He should man up and say "If you don't like $4 gas, quit buying it." We were doing just that before the economic world ended and made all that a moot point.

Bottom Line: I think that McCain has several junk proposals in here, but they are mixed with some good ones. If he could get these ideas implemented in a timely fashion, we could avoid complete collapse. But time frames are something that McCain leaves out. I'd like to see him take more of a stand there. Overall, C+ to B-.

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama's Energy

Despite what the worldwide economic crisis has done to the price of a barrel of oil, the United States of America needs to become energy independent. Yes, that is a trendy thing to say. Reality is that we aren't going to be energy INDEPENDENT for a very long time, if ever. We can make massive strides towards producing more of our own energy and not buying hundreds of billions of dollars of foreign oil per year.

The thing that gets me is that neither presidential candidate (yeah, sure, there are more than two...) is making this a focus of their campaign. Energy is a big deal and is a major factor of this economic crisis.

Let's look at the "Big Three" (energy plans, that is). I was going to do them all in one post, but it would be a mammoth that nobody would read. So I'll do one plan per post in a little series. Now you have something to look forward to.

Our next President, Barack Obama: His plan is outlined here. The highlights:

• Provide short-term relief to American families facing pain at the pump
• Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.
• Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.
• Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon -- on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.
• Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
• Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

Well, now we can all rest easy. There will be absolutely no transitional periods, times when things are going to be painful, nobody will be out of a job, no new taxes, and flowers will spontaneously bloom across America. In my opinion, Obama's plan is by far the most vague and useless. Obama's plan will do nothing except ensure that our economy utterly collapses.

Here are some problems: Bullet 1) NO MORE FREAKING GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION!!! It has been demonstrated quite effectively that when the price of gas gets too high, people will figure something else out. Take the bus, carpool, walk, run, bike, move closer to work, stop buying things we can't afford, etc. We can handle it. We don't need the federal government stepping in with checks to help us fuel our addiction to oil. (Sorry, I couldn't resist the pun.) Barack is in favor of taxing businesses for being overly successful and transferring that wealth to all the people that buy that businesses product. This is right up there with the dumbest things I've ever heard. Equivalent: You buy a house and live in it for several years. You sell your house for a $20,ooo profit. Barack feels you made too much money on that deal, so you are taxed and the people who bought your house get a rebate.

Bullet 2): That isn't enough money. And the vast majority of the money should be coming from the private sector. Perhaps subsidize some things to get them up and running, but let's not keep up with the government-buying-private-businesses crap.

Bullet 3): He wants to accomplish this by making fuel milage standards better. More MPG. However, he wants to do this by dumping $4 billion (with a "B") into the automakers' wallets to "help them out". C'mon. Our current MPG isn't a problem. If people don't want to buy $4 gas, they buy Priuses or Fits or Yarises or whatever. They get over 30 MPG, which I'm sure is way above whatever the dumb government fuel standard is. (And everybody knows that the MPG limits are set by CA anyways, Barack...)

Bullet 4): He wants to get 1 million plug-in hybrids on the roads within 7 years (i.e. 143,000 per year). Oh, but there is only one such vehicle that is currently going to be mass produced (Chevy Volt) and it isn't coming out until 2010. Oh, and there are more than 250 million cars on the roads. So getting 0.4% of them running on electricity in 7 years is gonna do a lot. Oh, and electricity doesn't come from thin air (well, not most of it anyways), so we are still gonna be using fossil fuels to make the power to move the Volt.

Bullet 5): Good idea, bad plan for implementation. Because there isn't one. He will "weatherize homes", build an Alaskan natural gas pipeline, and develop clean coal. I'm counting ZERO renewable energy sources there. This is the only point with promise, but also the only point with no substance at all to back it up.

Bullet 6): This gets more into the environmental issue rather than the energy issue, but this basically dittos my thoughts on 5. Sounds great (other than my being mostly dead by 2050), but he doesn't have any ideas to get it done. He proposes a cap-and-trade system; at least that leaves the innovation up to the innovators and out of the hands of the government (potentially).

Bottom line: This plan does not do nearly enough, and it does it way too slowly. Overall, F+ to D-.

Read More...

Summary only...

Sarah Palin drags down GOP ticket

This isn't really news, I suppose, since this has been the impression of many political observers for several weeks now, but it appears that Sarah Palin's perceived lack of qualification to be President is dragging John McCain to defeat. Not that he wasn't going to lose anyway, as the political and economic climate so heavily favors the Democrats, but Palin has made McCain's situation markedly worse. A new NBC/WSJ poll released today gives us numbers that back this theory:

Fifty-five percent of respondents say [Sarah Palin]’s not qualified to serve as president if the need arises, up five points from the previous poll.

In addition, for the first time, more voters have a negative opinion of her than a positive one. In the survey, 47 percent view her negatively, versus 38 percent who see her in a positive light.

That’s a striking shift since McCain chose Palin as his running mate in early September, when she held a 47 to 27 percent positive rating.

Now, Palin’s qualifications to be president rank as voters’ top concern about McCain’s candidacy - ahead of continuing President Bush’s policies, enacting economic policies that only benefit the rich and keeping too high of a troop presence in Iraq.


Not exactly what John McCain had in mind when he made the rash decision to select her, now is it? Can you imagine what a different landscape we would be looking at had McCain selected Mitt Romney? Now, I don't love Romney, and the two of them obviously dislike each other, but his business expertise and "Presidential" persona would look pretty good about right now.

Read More...

Summary only...

Apathy and the Electoral College

Before I get started, let me apologize for my absence. The Wizzle and I just spawned a third child, I've been hammered with school, and I mixed in some training for a Grand Canyon hike. So I've been a bit busy. Things have settled back down a bit, and I should be joining the fray on a more regular basis.

Back in March, Mike led a discussion of the pros and cons of the Electoral College. I have long been a critic of the Electoral College. It gives way too much influence to people who live in "swing" states - the Ohios, Floridas, and Virginias of the world. I hate that I will be voting for John McCain whether I like it or not, simply because I live in Arizona.

But I'm starting to think the Founding Fathers may have gotten it right after all. A Pew Research Center survey published last week revealed that a paltry 18% (yes, EIGHTEEN PERCENT) of Americans could correctly answer the following three questions:

1) Which party has a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives?
2) What is the name of the current U.S. Secretary of State?
3) What is the name of the current Prime Minister of Great Britain?

That is unbelievably pathetic. Even excusing the last question (how dare we be expected to know anything about a foreign country?!), only 53% could recall the Democrats as having the majority in the House, and only 42% could name Condi Rice as the Secretary of State. The goal of the survey was actually to determine how consuming different news sources affects one's ability to answer these basic questions. As it turns out, readers of highbrow publications like The New Yorker and The Atlantic and regular NPR listeners (woohoo - that's me!) were most likely to be able to correctly recall this information ... but still at only 48% and 44% success rates, respectively.

The framers of the Constitution did not trust average American citizens to directly elect the President, much less actually govern themselves, ala ancient Athens. Instead, the framers provided for citizens to elect Electors to actually choose the President. Granted, the late eighteenth century provided drastically fewer opportunities for average Americans to consume news and commentary on current events, but I'm not sure the additional information is doing anybody any good.

I suppose this is more of a rant than anything, but seriously - what is there to be done about an American voting public that is so apathetic that it doesn't even know who its leaders ARE, much less what they stand for and what policies they espouse?

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama, McCain roast each other

At the annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation dinner, Barack Obama and John McCain took some time out from a bitter, divisive campaign to make some comedic remarks - both self-deprecating and opponent-deprecating. You've gotta watch these videos. For anyone who's weary of the tenor of these campaigns, it's an absolute breath of fresh air.

McCain, part one
McCain, part two
Obama, part one
Obama, part two

I will say that if the election was based on comedic delivery, it'd be a solid McCain win. I also thought his serious comments at the end were more heartfelt than Obama's. Barack had a few good ones, too, though. Check it out! :)

Read More...

Summary only...

Frontline

I watched a superb documentary on Barack Obama and John McCain that aired last night on PBS. They laid out where the candidates had come from and how they'd gotten to this point in their careers, a step away from the world's most powerful office.

I was struck by a number of points about both candidates, but let me outline three that really stood out to me.

• Barack Obama has had his sights set on the presidency for a long time

Have you ever noticed that, although Barack Obama is by all accounts a liberal, the attacks on his record haven't really stuck? Yeah, he planned that. The Frontline documentary claimed that in the first days of his Senate career, he laid out a plan with advisers to get to the presidency which entailed involving himself in serious legislation but avoiding the truly controversial issues that could be used against him in the presidential election.

What kind of first-term Senator who just got off the bus to Washington sits down and makes a presidential plan before his first term is up? I get the impression that Obama is power-hungry. Now, you can't become president without having some serious ambition and a desire to win - after all, what kind of person do you have to be to look the world in the face and say, "I should be in charge of you"? - but for Obama, it seems clear that he must have been thinking about this even before he arrived in the U.S. Senate! Never really thought about that before...

• The John McCain of 2000 is not the same man as the John McCain of 2008

This is not news, but the documentary laid it out with great clarity. Sometimes we forget we're talking about a man who absolutely bucked the Republican establishment by winning the 2000 New Hampshire primary over the candidate with perfect conservative credentials, Gov. George W. Bush of Texas. That campaign was ultimately derailed by a Karl Rove-engineered smear campaign (read: McCain "fathered a black child out of wedlock") which left McCain so furious and so unhappy with the GOP that he considered changing sides. He stood against the Bush tax cuts and the mismanagement of the war. He was a maverick! Both the success of New Hampshire 2000 and his victories in the primaries of 2008 were motivated by strong support from moderates and independents - the very voters which appear to have deserted him in this presidential election.

Candidates have to swing away from the center for the primary season and back toward the center for the general election. McCain clearly learned the first part of this theory in 2000, where his independent streak failed to galvanize the base. So he swung hard right for the primaries of 2008, and eked out a victory over candidates with stronger conservative bona fides - Romney, Thompson, even Huckabee and Giuliani. But maybe his biggest failure has been failing to swing back. He seems paralyzed by the fear of losing his base, not realizing that he is going to win South Carolina, Utah, Idaho and Alabama in the general election by the virtue of the "R-AZ" by his name, whether they actually like him or not.

• A McCain victory remains possible

The unlikelihood of McCain's nomination is all but forgotten. He was down and out. He was way behind in the polls. He was out of money. He was flailing. He was written off. And he won. It's beyond unlikely that he'll lose, but I believe him when he says he relishes the underdog role. He won the nomination by retooling his campaign staff, and it's time to do that again. He needs to absolutely wreck Obama in tonight's debate. No Ayers stuff - whether it's a problem or not, it doesn't stick with moderate voters - and make Barack Obama defend his political positions. Grill him on his "redistribution of wealth" comment; that was a rare gaffe and he should jump all over it. Paint him as an abortion extremist. Nail him down on drilling for oil. Condemn the Bush administration on something. Then, Thursday morning, fire your campaign managers and hire new people. Retool the "Who is Barack Obama?" question away from his personal stuff and toward his policies. Announce Mitt Romney as your Secretary of the Treasury. Everyone thinks Wall Streeters are the villains, announce some economic policy that punishes them, because while people like tax cuts, nobody really thinks it's going to help their economic problems right now. Do something. Anything. Give the poor media, who is falling all over themselves to try and paint this as a tight race when it appears closer to a landslide, something to talk about.

Make it less boring, for heaven's sake!

Read More...

Summary only...

Lesser of Two Evils: This November 4th

A hearty welcome to our first guest blogger, Tim Larsen (aka "Utes"), who wrote this post. If anyone else would like to submit a post, please email one (or all) of the permabloggers. Thanks!

Propaganda

As we approach November 4, we seem to be hearing more and more frequently that individuals will be voting “The Lesser of Two Evils.” What does this phrase really mean, who profits from its’ results, and is there another choice?

When information, ideas, or rumors are being spread deliberately and widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution or nation, the method of delivery is said to be propagandistic. Ezra Taft Benson once said:

We are going through what J. Reuben Clark, Jr., once termed the greatest propaganda campaign of all time. We cannot believe all we read, and what we can believe is not all of the same value. We must sift. We must learn by study and prayer.

Two synonyms of the word propaganda are misinformation and half-truths. Misinformation implies that another is deliberately harming another through information that may not be true, relevant or pertinent. Half-truths can tend to be even more dangerous in that something that may not be as easy to swallow on its’ own is easier to ingest when coupled with something that we recognize as truth. As Mary Poppins put it so well, “A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down . . . in the most delightful way!”

Satan knows well how mortals succumb to the power of half-truths. It was in the Garden of Eden after the Lord had told Adam and Eve that they could eat of every tree of the garden except of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, because eating of that tree would lead to death. The master of half truths started working on Eve:

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes , and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

The propaganda had worked. Today, many do not realize they are being fed propaganda; much comes in the form of the 5:00 news. As J. Reuben Clark said, we must sift and learn by study and prayer. We must be wise.


The Lesser of Two Evils is Still Evil

Part of what the propagandists leave out of their argument that we must vote for the lesser of two evils is that the lesser of two evils is still evil. As a Latter-day Saints, we have been taught that the Constitution of the United States was divinely inspired. In the 98th Section of the Doctrine and Covenants we read:

And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them. And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil. I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free. Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil. And I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall forsake all evil and cleave unto all good, that ye shall live by every word which proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God.

It is interesting to note that in these first sentences of the Lord’s discussion regarding evil He is speaking specifically with the “law of the land which is constitutional.” Did the Lord tell us that we should uphold the lesser of two evils? He reminds us that we are free, but also reminds us that when the wicked rule the people mourn. He then goes on to say that we should forsake all evil and cleave unto all good. Is voting for the lesser of two evils cleaving unto good? To cleave is to adhere closely, stick, or cling. According to the website dictionary.com to cleave means to “remain faithful,” it then uses cleave in the sentence, “To cleave to one’s principles in spite of persecution.” We must cleave unto principled candidates in spite of the persecution by the “sheeple” that by doing so you will be wasting your vote.

Numerous examples of the Lord using the word cleave are found in the scriptures: Deuteronomy 13:4; Joshua 22:5; Matthew 19:5; Acts 11:23; D&C 11:19; and many others. One of the more frequently used examples of cleaving in the scriptures is found in Genesis 2:24; Mark 10:7; D&C 42:22; Moses 3:24 and Abraham 5:18 in which we learn that a man should cleave unto his wife and none else!


Fear

Part of the propaganda of voting for the lesser of two evils is that by doing anything to the contrary would be to throw away your vote. In pondering this line I have come to the conclusion that the sole purpose of such a statement is one of fear. Fear that our time and voice have been wasted. Fear is the antithesis of faith and hope. Humans tend to not want to be on the losing team—nobody wants their candidate to lose in an election but, fear of failure is not reason enough to not cleave unto all that is good.

Political polls seem to fluctuate more than gas prices these days. Are these polls simply a tool of the propaganda machine to keep us in fear of cleaving unto the good candidates? If the polls tell us that our best, principled candidate has no chance of winning, is this when it becomes apparent that our vote will be wasted in voting for them. What if 60% of the country actually would like to vote for the best candidate but the polls tell us that the best candidate only has an 8% chance of winning and that we would be throwing away our vote if we voted for them. See how the propaganda worked? Fear.

In the October 2008 General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, President Dieter F. Uchtdorf stated:

In the twilight of the Nephite Nation, Moroni wrote that without hope, we cannot receive an inheritance in the Kingdom of God. But, why then, is there despair? The scriptures say that there must be an opposition in all things. So it is with faith, hope and charity. Doubt despair and failure to care for our fellow man lead us into temptation which can cause us to forfeit choice and precious blessings.

We must not fear that our vote is wasted, but rather have hope that others will cleave unto their principles. It is only is this fashion that true change can occur: through electing principled leadership in government.


Conclusion

To those of you who feel there is no reason to get involved in the fight for freedom, a word from Ezra Taft Benson:

In spite of the scriptural evidence and the counsel of modern-day prophets during the past more than 100 years, there are still some who seem to feel we have no responsibility to safeguard and strengthen our precious God-given freedom. There are some who apparently feel that the fight for freedom is separate from the gospel. They express it in several ways but it generally boils down to this: Just live the gospel; there’s no need to get involved in trying to save freedom and the Constitution.

Of course, this is dangerous reasoning, because in reality you cannot fully live the gospel without working to save freedom and the Constitution.

In the war in heaven, what would have been your reaction if someone had told you just to do what is right—there’s no need to get involved in the fight for freedom?

The first presidency of the Church counseled its’ members in a letter dated September 11, 2008:

Latter-day Saints as citizens are to seek out and then uphold leaders who will act with integrity and are wise, good, and honest. Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties.

Therefore, in this election year, we urge you to register to vote, to study the issues and candidates carefully and prayerfully, and then to vote for and actively support those you believe will most nearly carry out your ideas of good government.

We must not take the two minute sound-bites of the candidates and base our decision on these alone. We must pray, search and sift through the propaganda. We must research, know and understand what the proper role of government is, and then look for those principles in the candidates. And finally, when we find a candidate who we believe will most nearly carry out our ideas of good government, must we vote for the lesser of two evils? NO! As our modern-day prophets counseled, we must actively support and vote for that candidate. Doctrine and Covenants section 98 continues:

For he will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept; and I will try you and prove you herewith.

Might the Lord try us in the form of seeing if we are willing to take a stand and cleave unto the principled candidates? His promises in Section 98 are fabulous:

Therefore, be not afraid of your enemies, for I have decreed in my heart, saith the Lord, that I will prove you in all things, whether you will abide in my covenant, even unto death, that you may be found worthy….Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace, and seek diligently to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children….Let not your hearts be troubled….And again I say unto you, if ye observe to do whatsoever I command you, I, the Lord, will turn away all wrath and indignation from you, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.

In this election regardless of who you see as being the lesser of two evils, vote for neither of them. Find a candidate who strictly adheres to principles of good government. There are six candidates running in the presidential election this year who will be listed on the ballots in all 50 states. Research each of them and find what they stand for! Then, fear not, and know that the Lord is God. Though others may say that you are throwing your vote away, know that the gates of hell shall not prevail against you for you have done as the Lord has commanded.

Read More...

Summary only...

My October 2008 LDS General Conference Top 10 List

When I was a kid, and even when I was in college, I thought LDS General Conference was sort of boring. Not anymore. There are so many interesting and scary things going on in the world now, that maybe that's why I'm so much more piqued by what LDS Church leaders have to say about them all.

Here are the top ten tidbits that I took away from October 2008 LDS General Conference.

President Monson - Be good citizens and neighbors and reach out to those of other faiths. So often we feel so pressed upon to be good missionaries that we don't take the time to appreciate the religious diversity that is around us, let alone the great people behind that diversity. A world with only Mormons would, I think, be kind of boring.

President Uchtdorf - Whether moving a grand piano from the chapel to the cultural hall, or serving in some other capacity, "Lift where you stand". Some people want to lead, while some people want to hide, whereas we should all be content to serve where we are called. I have a calling that I give about 75% of my effort to. I guess that makes me somewhat of a hider, because my excuse is often that I am too busy with the other things that I think are more important.

President Eyring - Skillful peacemakers search for anything on which opposing parties agree. I once served on a city council, and my overarching goal was to set an example of decorum. I have not been so successful in other areas of life, but in the council chambers I am happy to say that overall decorum improved markedly during my 5 1/2 years of service. As a blogger, I (usually) try to point out constructively and kindly how I might disagree with someone's point of view. I'm glad in some instances, however, that I have reviewed what I typed before I clicked the submit button!!

Elder Ballard - Our challenges are not any more severe than those of the early saints--they are just different. We're not required to walk across the continent for the church, but rather just across the street to share the gospel message with our neighbors. I'm getting better at "walking across the street". I find that if I imagine and pray about ways of introducing gospel topics to friends and acquaintences that those opportunities come along much more often.

Elder Hales - We should answer contention with kindness. We should communicate using such means as letters to newspaper editors and blog comments to correct errors of fact, but we should always be cordial. We should speak out to help others understand the truth, but never to score points or to defend our egos.

Elder Scott - Husbands should show respect to their wives by taking charge of Family Home Evening and other activities. We should pay them more compliments. Bishops should show more respect for the insights of women on the ward council. Priesthood leaders should respect women's opinions and perspectives as much as their husbands'. Men's condescending actions toward women, including sometimes husbands toward wives, are similar to their actions toward people of other races and cultures. They are sometimes well meaning, but they are not perceived that way. In any circumstance we should try to perceive how we would feel if we were talking like that to ourselves. If a woman is as capable as a man of doing a job, she should be paid as much as the man would be paid.

President Monson - Told the story of the father who cancelled an emergency business appointment because 'the circus keeps coming back, but childhood doesn't. Also said that the fingerprints on those things around the home that you have just cleaned will disappear all too soon, so cherish them while they're there. My wife and I, as part of being debt-free (knock on wood!!) have discovered that we have more means to make memories with our children. Our youngest will turn 9 in a couple of weeks, and we're starting to wonder how so much of it has already passed us by.

Elder Cook - With the current economic crisis, there is great concern throughout the world. There will in the future be more lean years as well as plentiful years, but if we're prepared in either event, everything will be alright for us. Along these lines, President Monson encouraged us to be self-sufficient so that we can come to the aid of those over whom we have responsibility when they are in economic hard times. Considering the current economic situation, my wife and I talked yesterday that we are so glad that we avoided the temptation to buy a bigger home, because had we done so, we would have become so preoccupied with our own situation that we would have been much less able to help and serve others.

President Packer - During July 24th, 1849 celebration, the Saints in the Salt Lake Valley celebrated their patriotism to the United States despite the fact that Congress had not come to their assistance when they were losing $2 million in property and had otherwise been been persecuted for their faith. It occurred to me like it hadn't before that in some small way we can relate to blacks, women, and other minority populations who have not always been included in the group of "all men [who] are created equal", yet we understand the genius of America's founding documents and continue to use our liberties to strive for freedom and justice for all.

Bishop McMullin - Told the story of Chinese official who visited LDS Welfare Square and was so impressed with the integrity of the Church that he paid his fast offering in a "red pocket" envelope. He said "If the world loved like this, it would be a much better place." Government diplomacy may or may not be the best solution to any adversarial situation, but it has worked very well for the Church over the years. In a plethora of circumstances, including President Monson's story of how the example of Julius Fuseg of Poland caused Polish leaders to welcome the LDS Church into that country with open arms.

Which principles and anecdotes were your favorites?

This article was published in similar form on My Two Mormon Cents.

Read More...

Summary only...

An Obama Presidency

McCain and Palin both held their own in the debates (note: the standard for holding one's own was vastly lower for P. than McC.), but at this point, they need a huge game-changer if they're going to gain the needed ground in the polls. Add in Obama's superior ground game in battleground states and it's not looking good for old Mac.

Indeed, after watching the first presidential and the only vice-presidential debate, I've determined that, barring some kind of "October Surprise", Barack Obama has an insurmountable lead over John McCain, and will be the next President of the United States.

(Man, that felt good to say.)

Of course, I could be eating my words on election night - it has certainly happened before. But it's looking good for Team Hope.

That begs the question - what will the presidency of Barack Obama actually look like?

It would start with an inauguration speech for the ages. Even his critics acknowledge the man's oratorical gifts. He's simply got a talent for delivering a mesmerizing, inspirational speech.

Obama has stated that he would direct his Attorney General to review all of George Bush's executive orders and that he would rescind those deemed unconstitutional. I expect him to follow through with this, and we'll see some (if not all - many of them are secret and if Obama wants, he can keep them around and nobody'd be the wiser) overturned. Although you wouldn't expect a new president to immediately go about weakening the power of the executive branch, I think Obama will have the confidence in Democratic control over the legislature to go through with this promise.

The bailout bill has proven that Democrats are not willing to make unilateral legislative moves - in other words, they're afraid to stick their necks out, even though they have the votes to pass whatever they want. They wait for bipartisan support; that way, if something goes bad, they don't have to shoulder all the blame. Some have expressed fear of a Democratic president and Congress moving the country to far to the left, but I don't expect this to happen. They will move slowly, working hard to ensure that they don't appear to middle America to be a bunch of rabid, crazy liberals.

Expect Wall Street regulations to come crashing back. I don't really see any effective spin in favor of deregulation these days, and "greed on Wall Street" is the new "terrorism" buzzword that everyon can rally around. The real economic test for Obama will be to see if he gets the regulation "right"- a proper balance between regulation and market freedom - or if he goes overboard, strangling the market in a PATRIOT Act-style, disproportionate response. Of course, I have no idea where the line is on this - I doubt that anyone does - but if the regulations have bipartisan compromise, we should be in good shape. In his campaign, at least, he has come off as a man possessed of that kind of restraint, but we'll see what happens when the power is actually there.

I think Barack Obama will work with congressional and military leaders to redistribute our military assets in the War on Terror and set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Given his aforementioned restraint, however, I believe that if the timeline for withdrawals resulted in the situation worsening, he'd be willing to change his mind. This would, of course, have great political cost. But Obama believes that the timetable will lead to increased Iraqi self-governance and a more stable region, and I agree with him. He can simultaneously show his strength by focusing on Afghanistan and rooting out terror cells. It's vastly important for him to do this, to flex his military muscles a little bit and prove his resolve to the world, and to put aside the image of him (and Democrats generally) as weak on terror. The best thing that could happen for Obama politically would be the capture or death of Osama bin Laden. It would instantly legitimize his War on Terror strategy whether it's legitimate or not, and it would be the premiere example of him "setting right" the major Bush failure. I don't think it's likely, but I think it's possible.

As I've mentioned in a previous blog, we can expect to see the quick retirement of one or more Supreme Court judges. This is an area where Obama and the Democrats can really push through whoever they want without worrying about political fallout or placating congressional Republicans. It'll be like the Roberts and Alito nominations, where Dems brayed on about how bad they were but ultimately couldn't do anything about it. Expect to see ideologically liberal judges on the bench. Joe Biden made it quite clear last night that he believes strongly that the ideology of judges is highly relevant to their qualifications.

Lehrer and Ifill pushed all four of them to identify what they'd be cutting from their agendas in the face of this economic turmoil and $700 billion dollar bailout, but the only real answer given when Biden said they'd have to cut foreign aid - what a non-voter-offending answer, Joe! The fact of the matter is that if Obama believes in balancing the budget, things are going to have to get chopped. Bush tax cuts will be expiring - at least those for families making $250,000 or more. If you're making that much money, you can expect to be losing some cash under Obama, there's no question about it. Joe Biden was unequivocal last night in stating that "fairness" is how they'll describe redistribution of wealth. The big question is whether or not he'll push through his sweeping middle-class tax cuts. My boss, who came across this site recently, sent me an e-mail, which said, among other things:

"I doubt you remember the entire thrust of his [Bill Clinton's] campaign that previous year was directed toward a "middle-class tax cut". Of course within days of being inaugurated, President Clinton "got religion" and declared (you can add your own Arkansas drawl here), "I guess the problem is worse than we thought, and maybe we can't do the middle-class tax cut this year". Of course that tax cut (the promise of which got him elected) never did come about, instead we all got tax increases, even the middle-class. My prediction...Sen. Obama wins the election, but again, the promise will be broken. History is on my side."

Is he right? History is on his side. The government needs cash, especially with a president who is unlikely to want to cut social programs and can't afford politically to cut the military budget. I want to believe that Obama will follow through with his Main Street tax cuts, but we'll have to wait and see.

One thing will not be changing: the federal status of same-sex marriage. Joe Biden made it clear last night that neither candidate supports same-sex marriage. I would expect an Obama presidency to mirror this paragraph from "The Divine Institution of Marriage":

"The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference."

The repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the ability for gay couples to file taxes jointly would be issues we might expect addressed by the Obama administration. A federal marriage amendment would be unlikely to pass.

Sadly, illegal immigration has totally fallen off the political radar - when was the last time you heard a candidate mention it? It's one of those toxic issues where it seems like whatever you say, you'll be alienating more voters than you gain. I am not "up" on the illegal immigration issue - though I am reading Ankarlo's book - but it appears that Arizona's employer sanctions law is working, and Obama's website says they will "remove incentives to enter the country illegally by cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants." I wouldn't bank on anything getting done in the first Obama term.

Finally, we come to health care. Barack Obama claims that the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on those making over $250,000/year will fully fund his optional universal healthcare proposal. How that will work when the plan is supposed to cost $50-65 billion annually and we just spent over ten times that on an unplanned-for bank bailout is yet to be determined.

Obviously, I'm in the tank for Obama and I want him to win, badly. I also understand that many of his lofty ideas will come crashing down to earth when faced with the reality of an economy in crisis. I would love to take a summer vacation in Europe, but I have bills to pay. The government has bills, too. We know he has it in him to be a president of great vision; we shall see if he can be a president of great practicality.

Read More...

Summary only...

Abortion (Again)

Yes, yes, I know. This is the third post on abortion. However, given the renewed interest in the issue (courtesy of Ms. Palin and her fairly extreme views) and Elder Russell M. Nelson's article, Abortion: an Assault on the Defenseless, in the October 2008 Ensign, I thought it would be an appropriate time for a review.

First, Sarah Palin's position is even more conservative than the church's position. Here is the church's official statement on abortion:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the church 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.

The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:

• Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or
• A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeapardy, or
• A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

The Church teaches its members that even these rare circumstances do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct.

The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.

Here is Palin's position:

Palin is opposed to abortion, but believes an exception should be made if the health of the mother is in danger. That's the only exception Palin would make, though . . . She doesn't make exception for rape and incest, only for the health of the mother.

So, as a member of the church, who agrees with and supports the church's position, and who is also fairly conservative, where does that leave me with regard to Palin's position? Should I support current laws? Given Elder Nelson's article, I don't think so. He seems to have some scathing statements for current abortion law.

Here are a few:

This war called abortion is a war on the defenseless and the voiceless. It is a war on the unborn. This war is being waged globally. Ironically, civilized societies that have generally placed safeguards on human life have now passed laws that sanction this practice . . .

Man-made rules have now legalized that which has been forbidden by God from the dawn of time! Human reasoning has twisted and transformed absolute truth into sound-bite slogans that promote a practice that is consummately wrong . . .

When the controversies about abortion are debated, "individual right of choice" is invoked as though it were the one supreme virtue. That could only be true if but one person were involved. The rights of any one individual do not allow the rights of another individual to be abused. In or out of marriage, abortion is not solely an individual matter. Terminating the life of a developing baby involves two individuals with separate bodies, brains, and hearts. A woman's choice for her own body does not include the right to deprive her baby of life - and a lifetime of choices that her child would make.

As Latter-Day Saints, we should stand up for choice - the right choice - not simply for choice as a method . . .

Abortion has been legalized by governing entities without regard for God and His commandments. Scriptures state repeatedly that people will prosper only if they obey the commandments of God . . .

I invite you to read the whole article. I think it is quite good, particularly the part about how

a woman is free to choose what she does with her own body . . . But once an action has been taken, we are never free from its consequences . . . So it is with people who choose to embark on a journey that leads to parenthood. They have freedom of choice - to begin or not begin that course. When conceptions does occur, that choice has already been made.

(probably because it sounds almost identical to what I said in my The Value of Human Life post:)

I am pro-choice, too. I believe women have the right to be responsible about their own reproductive choices. When you choose to have sex, you choose to accept the potential consequences, once of which is pregnancy . . . that pregnancy represents a choice that was already made . . .

Anyways, Elder Nelson does not clearly endorse one political party or one political party's platform or candidate. In the article, he does reiterate the church's position on rape and incest when he says

Another concern applies to pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. This tragedy is compounded because an innocent woman's freedom of choice was denied. In these circumstances, abortion is sometimes considered adviseable to preserve the physical and mental health of the mother. Abortions for these reasons are also rare.

So, how does this affect our own position in electing candidates and voting for laws? Palin is obviously to the right of the church, but current laws (and Obama in particular) are far left of the church on abortion. In our previous discussions, we've agreed that although we support the church's position, it would be a nightmare to enforce. Does that mean we should leave the laws as they currently stand? Personally, I took the remarks in Elder Nelson's article to mean that our current laws are not adequate in protecting the unborn. We need to do more. What do you think?

Read More...

Summary only...

Why It's Critical That We Vote Third Party

I've been very intrigued by the articles posted recently by Stephanie and Rick. In a Sunday School class last week, I had many similar observations regarding the state of our Union. It's interesting that people from opposite sides of the political spectrum agree so well on what the problems are that confront us. Stephanie's explanation of moral hazard in the financial industry is spot on. Rick's list of current national problems reads almost exactly like something I would have put together.

The fact that political opposites agree on the malaise indicates to me that it is neither a republican- nor Democrat-caused problem. It is an establishment-caused problem. Neither of the major parties, together with their knights and fair ladies in shining armor, has any idea how (or at least intent) to fix it. That's why it's critical that we vote for someone in a third party for president this year.

Please watch Ron Paul's 10-minute presentation below, and let me know what problems you see with his logic...




I don't see any holes in Congressman Paul's logic, but maybe it's because I'm as blind as the me-too Obama followers and the die-hard McCain fans. (Offense is only intended by that statement if you decide to take it.)

It's as if the Doctrine and Covenants of the LDS Church says this

10 Wherefore, [somewhat] honest men and [partially] wise men should be sought for diligently, and [the lesser of two evils] ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.

Fortunately, it doesn't say that at all.

When it comes to solving Stephanie's and Rick's list of current problems--putting a stop to unprovoked military action, stanching economic moral hazard, encouraging alternative energy, getting the media to talk about issues instead of "he said she said", breaking the fascist monopoly among government and the financial, pharmaceutical, and energy sectors, healing apathy, and fixing the education system in America-- McCain and Obama have been nibbling around the edges, and that's all they'll ever do. History has shown us that.

The two major-party candidates do not have any solutions to any of these critical problems that Stephanie and Rick have clearly and correctly identified.

Ron Paul does. Unfortunately, when he was running for President not enough people listened. But it's still not too late.

The only way we can get off of high-center vis-a-vis the same tired, worn-out slate of never-solved problems is to put people in public office whose best interest is NOT in NOT solving them.

This "NOT NOT" test disqualifies both Obama and McCain.

Break the stranglehold.

Vote third party this election.

Read More...

Summary only...

"Pride Cometh Before the Fall"

I've been trying to figure out how to write what I want to say for a long time. Stephanie's last blog about the Book of Mormon and gaddianton politics got me thinking. I just about put all of this in a response to Stephanie's post, but then I remembered, Hey, I'm a contributor to this blog, so If I have something to say, I might as well just do my own post. In talking with friends and co-workers, and on this site, I've come across a lot of alarming feelings about the USA. I'd like to take a second and take stock of what's going on. I say "we" speaking for the USA.

- We are on the eve of an unprecedented presidential election. The division is incredibly great, and the stakes are very high.
- We are actively involved in an unprovoked military action in the Middle East which has no solution, because it was jumped into without forethought.
- We have an economy that is, many would say, on the verge of collapse.
- We are almost completely dependant on fossil fuels and are paying astronomical prices for them.
- We are dealing with medical care that is ridiculously expensive and not up to par with much of the civilized world.
- We deal with a Media system that is much more interested in what a candidate's fashion sense than it is with the candidate's politics.
- We, as a people, are generally more unhealthy and overweight than the rest of the civilized world because of our diet/and exercise. - Diet-related illness is the chief killer in our country.
- We live in an age of apathy - where all of this stuff is happening, and people basically don't care, as long as it doesn't interrupt with "America's got Talent." or "Dancing With the Stars."
- Our Educational System is fundamentally flawed, and our education standards continue going down in respect to the rest of the world.
- Inner-city Life is intolerable.


I feel I've painted a clear, honest picture - at least how the situation of the US appears to me. But let me add one more.

- Despite all of the above mentioned points, many US citizens, I'd say most, still feel a sense of superiority over the rest of the world Morally, Militarily, Economically, Spiritually, and Culturally. We, as a country live in a state of indulgence, decadence, and degradence. We have built a false sense of security around us by the blanket of pride that we are all smothering in. Somehow we have gotten it into our heads that we are above the rest. That what we have is right, and what everyone else has is wrong. We are militarily enforcing pseudo-democracy onto a nation that isn't ready for it, and we've done this for years - We embrace an economic system that is based on personal acquisition. We are so far removed from actually depending on ourselves, and on God, that we have forgotten the basic tenants of being human - we've forgotten how to cook, how to make a fire, how to sew clothes - because our system assures us that this will all be available to us for next to no money. We have completely bought into the idea that, you can, indeed, buy anything in the world for money. And so our lives are squandered away in the pursuit of stuff.

I'd like to quote Helaman 4:11-12 which Stephanie quoted in her last post:

11)Now this great loss of the Nephites, and the great slaughter
which was among them, would not have happened had it not been for
their wickedness and their abomination which was among them; yea,
and it was among those also who professed to belong to the church
of God.
12) And it was because of the pride of their hearts, because of
their exceeding riches, yea, it was because of their oppression
to the poor, withholding their food from the hungry, withholding
their clothing from the naked, and smiting their humble brethren
upon the cheek, making a mock of that which was sacred...

The verse goes on with more valid points, but I want to concentrate on what we are told first (usually with ancient text, the first thing in a list is the most important): Pride. And then he describes pride and what does he make of it? that it is "making a mock of that which is sacred." For more talk on pride, I'd like to point out C.S. Lewis' chapter on the subject in Mere Christianity (he calls it the essential vice and the utmost evil), and also Ezra T. Benson's 1989 talk on the subject (I can't remember what conference issue - I think Spring).

I use the term We, and Us, because I recognize quite clearly that I am just as prideful as the rest - that is, my life is concerned with myself - my needs, my wants. Not the needs of others. To quote Peter Pan, my unconscious motto has been, "oh the wonderfulness of Me." In defining pride, C.S.Lewis states, "Pride is essentially competitive. Pride gets no pleasure out of having something, only out of having more of it than the next man. It is the comparison that makes you proud: the pleasure of being above the rest. Once the element of competition has gone, pride has gone."

The Book of Mormon was given to help us in our day. The first thing one learns about the Book of Mormon when studying it in Seminary is, "the pride cycle." The Mormon continually shows us the definition of pride, its cause, and its result. In Helaman 4:11-12, we see one example of the destruction of the Nephites because of Pride. I'd like to hit a few more examples:

Helaman 6:17
17)17 For behold, the Lord had blessed them so long with the riches
of the world that they had not been stirred up to anger, to wars,
nor to bloodshed; therefore they began to set their hearts upon
their riches; yea, they began to seek to get gain that they might
be lifted up one above another; therefore they began to commit
secret murders, and to rob and to plunder, that they might get
gain.

Remarkable how close to C.S. Lewis' definition this is. Contrast this with 4 Nephi 1:17:

17)There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanits, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ and heirs of the kingdom of God.

What is the difference? They were heirs of the Kingdom of God. The very Kingdom of God preached by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount - The same Kingdom of God that Enos would call Zion. the difference between the Kingdom of God in 4th Nephi, and the degraded Nephite society in Helaman 12 (and later in 4th Nephi) is "-ites." That is distinction, stratification, wealth, and pride.

The reason for this post wasn't to give a sermon, nor was it to elevate myself - I know I'm very guilty of pride - but it was to show the situation of the US, and beg the question what can be done? Anything? Nothing? I submit that it will never happen on a governmental level. Most countries in the world hate the US for its pride already. And its not going to get any better. But we as individuals can make changes to pull our pride down.

I might suggest one way of pulling down pride, at least on a political level. What if we altered our view point from, "how will this affect me" (a view that continues to make, "me" the most important piece of the equation.) to "how will this affect those who find themselves in circumstances less fortunate than me." I feel that if we altered our view fundamentally in that way, we'd develop compassion for others, and in the process, pull our pride down, just a bit.

What do you think? Can we pull our pride down? Can the US save face? Or, are we destined to fall like all other great world powers because we have placed ourselves squarely in the midst of the pride cycle?

Read More...

Summary only...

Politics in the Book of Mormon

In Sunday School a few weeks ago, we reviewed the first few chapters of Helaman. As I was doing my personal scripture study to prepare, it all seemed to be about politics to me. Perhaps it is just that politics is on my mind right now, but given that the study guide tells us to "Look for parallels to our day", I thought (from a non-partisan point of view), I would note key scriptures and some of the insight I gained from them. Perhaps others would like to add insight. (And I apologize if this is "old news" to some. We aren't all fluent in church doctrine. [wink])

Helaman 1:3 Now these are their names who did contend for the judgement-seat, who did also cause the people to contend: Pahoran, Paanchi, and Pacumeni.

This is clearly a Presidential election (or "Chief Judge" as they call it in the Book of Mormon). Three candidates with the population split into parties according to the candidate they support.

Helaman 1:7 [after Pahoran was elected by the voice of the people] But behold, Paanchi, and that part of the people that were desirous that he should be their governor, was exceedingly wroth; therefore, he was about to flatter away those people to rise up in rebellion against their brethren.

Seeing as how divided we are as a nation, and how deep the differences seem to go, is it feasible that instead of accepting the outcome of the election, the "losing" side will rise up in rebellion? I'd like to think that it wouldn't happen in America, but I do believe that the culture war is real and that there are fundamentally different trains of thought. Do we respect our nation enough to accept the outcome of the election, or will we rebel?

Helaman 1:11 And he went unto those that sent him, and they all entered into a covenant, yea, swearing by their everlasting Maker, that they would tell no man that Kishkumen had murdered Pahoran.

In all of my readings of the BofM, I had never caught on that the Gadianton robbers had been formed because of politics - because someone from the losing side killed the "President" and they all combined to protect him. Do we have secret combinations at work in our government?

Helaman 1:18 And it came to pass that because of so much contention and so much difficulty in the government, that they had not kept sufficient guards in the land of Zarahemla; for they had supposed that the Lamanites durst not come into the heart of their lands to attack that great city Zarahemla.

Hmm. Are we too caught up in our political campaigns and disagreements to keep watch on our nation? Are we at risk? Is this what happened with 9-11, or is it waiting to happen?

Helaman 2:5 Therefore he did flatter them, and also Kishkumen, that if they would place him in the judgement-seat he would grant unto those who belonged to his band that they should be placed in power and authority among the people; therefore Kishkumen sought to destroy Helaman.

Isn't that what it always comes down to? Power? Political favors? How many people out there campaigning for one side or the other actually have the best interests of the American people at heart, and how many are just seeking for power? How many politicians are willing to sell us out just for a little power and authority over us?

Helaman 2:13 And behold, in the end of this book ye shall see that this Gadianton did prove the overthrow, yea the entire destruction of the people of Nephi.

Isn't this the crux of it? The secret combinations are what ultimately destroyed the Nephites, and they got started because of politics. Doesn't that kind of put politics into a whole new perspective? What are our politics doing to us?

Helaman 4:4 But it came to pass in the fifty and sixth year of the reign of the judges, there were dissenters who went up from the Nephites unto the Lamanites; and they succeeded with those others in stirring them up to anger against the Nephites; and they were all that year preparing for war.

In the Book of Mormon, it is always the dissenters who stir up the enemy to anger. Do we have dissenters among us? Who is our enemy? Are our dissenters stirring the enemy up? It seems to me that American leaders who travel to other countries and badmouth our citizens, President, leaders are stirring something up.

Helaman 4:11 tells us that the slaughter among the Nephites was because of "their wickedness and their abominations", even among those who "professed to belong to the church of God". So what were their sins? See if you recognize any of these sins in America today: (Helaman 4:12)

• And it was because of the pride of their hearts, because of their
  exceeding riches
• Yea, it was because of their oppression to the poor, withholding their food from the hungry, withholding their clothing from the naked, and smiting their humble brethren upon the cheek
• Making a mock of that which was sacred
• Denying the spirit of prophecy and of revelation
• Murdering
• Plundering, lying, stealing
• Committing adultery
• Rising up in great contentions
• And deserting away into the land of Nephi, among the Lamanites

Honestly, I can see a lot of sin going on in both parties.

Helaman 4:22 And that they had altered and trampled under their feet the laws of Mosiah, or that which the Lord commanded him to give unto the people; and they saw that their laws had become corrupted . . .

Are our laws being corrupted?

Helaman 6:8 And it came to pass that the Lamanites did also go whithersoever they would, whether it were among the Lamanites or among the Nephites; and thus they did have free intercourse one with another, to buy and to sell, and to get gain, according to their desire.

I wonder what this means for free trade and open borders?

Helaman 6: 9 And it came to pass that they became exceedingly rich, both the Lamanites and the Nephites; and they did have an exceedingly plenty of gold, and of silver, and of all manner of precious metals, both in the land south and in the land north.

6:11 And behold, there was all manner of gold in both these lands, and of silver, and of precious ore of every kind; and there were also curious workmen, who did work all kinds of ore and did refine it; and thus they did become rich.

Could this be a parallel to the United States and Mexico? Or to North America and South America?

Helaman 6:17 For behold, the Lord had blessed them so long with the riches of the world that they had not been stirred up to anger, to ward, nor to bloodshed; therefore they began to set their hearts upon their riches; yea, they began to seek to get gain that they might be lifted up one above another; therefore they began to commit secret murders, and to rob and to plunder, that they might get gain.

Doesn't this describe the state of the U.S. to a "T"? (or at least before the past few years?)

Helaman 6: 21 But behold, Satan did stir up the hearts of the more part of the Nephites, insomuch that they did unite with those bands of robbers, and did enter into their covenants and their oaths, that they would protect and preserve one another in whatsoever difficult circumstances they should be placed, that they should not suffer for their murders, and their plunderings, and their stealings.

I think this may be one of the verses that scares me the most. So, the secret combination was formed by a political party that lost, and the leader was supported by people who wanted to gain power and authority. Now, we know that most of the Nephites united with the robbers to support each other in murder and stealing. Verses 21-22 say that

they had become exceedingly wicked; yea, the more part of them had turned out of the way of righteousness, and did trample under their feet the commandments of God, and did turn unto their own ways, and did build up unto themselves idols of their gold and their silver. And it came to pass that all these iniquities did come unto them in the space of not many years . . .

Which brings us to the final verse I will cite today:

Helaman 6:39 And thus they did obtain the sole management of the government, insomuch that they did trample under their feet and smite and rend and turn their backs upon the poor and the meek, and the humble followers of God.

So, is this coming? Or has it happened? What are your thoughts?

Part of the reason I love a site where we can combine politics and Mormonism is that the Book of Mormon is relevant to the discussion! As the cornerstone of our religion, it brings us together. What can we learn that will help us as we elect our leaders and vote for propositions? What other parallels do you draw between the Book of Mormon and our day with regard to politics?

Read More...

Summary only...

The Perfect Storm

Grab your pocketbooks. We are in for it. First the bail out of Bear Stearns earlier this year, then the assumed conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac last week, and finally the government is saying "no more" to a bail out of Lehman Brothers. Of course I agree with this decision. Taxpayer dollars should not be used to bail out individuals and companies who make bad decisions. Bush is doing his best to try and maintain confidence in our economy and financial sector, but the cracks are long past beginning to show. So, why isn't the government bailing out Lehman Brothers? I think they realize this is just the beginning.

Even with my limited knowledge as a business student, I predicted this back in 2000. I had to do an analysis of the economy, and what I saw looked pretty dark. Why? Debt. It's that simple. I've been saying for a couple of years now that I won't even bat an eye until the Dow Jones Industrial Average falls below 11,000. It did today.

Let's stop for a brief history lesson. During the roaring 20s, capital was easy to come by. American consumers relied on cheap credit to finance consumer goods, and businesses relied on cheap capital to expand. This fueled strong short-term growth but led to deep debt. Eventually, both individuals and companies had to cut back on spending to cover debt payments. This lowered demand for new goods, which caused companies to cut back or fail, leading to massive layoffs. The unemployment rate shot to 25%. As debtors began to default, some banks began to fail. As banks began to fail, depositors got scared and began to withdraw, causing a "run on the banks". To cover the deposits, banks called loans they couldn't collect. More banks failed. Others stopped lending. This caused the economy to contract and was known as The Great Depression.

Some blame it on the government because the government didn't do "enough" about it after it happened (Greenspan appears to fall into this group). I blame it on the government for not doing enough about it before it happened. Roosevelt felt the same way (yes, I am in agreement with a Democrat, but wait - it gets even better). Part of his New Deal was the Glass-Steagall Act that included reforms designed to protect depositors, control speculation (by separating investment and commercial banking), and, in general, prevent the conditions that would lead to another Great Depression. It worked for about 50 years.

In the 1980's, (under Reagan) congress passed a series of acts to begin deregulating the banking industry. Guess what happened? Well, because Savings & Loans (S&Ls) could now compete on the rates they offered depositors, they made risky investments, including speculative real estate deals they didn't know much about, through brokers. The net result was the Savings & Loan Crisis. A lot of S&Ls started to go under. The government bailed them out. The Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, which insured S&Ls like the FDIC insures bank accounts, paid all depositors whose money was lost. And who paid the FSLIC? You got it! Taxpayers. (Many other banks failed as well - bailed out by the FDIC).

How did this differ from the Great Depression? Both were caused by an unregulated financial market, but only the Saving & Loan crisis was mitigated by government involvement. Sure, the government involvement may have mitigated the crisis to individuals, but it also set up a "moral hazard".

Moral hazard is the prospect that a party insulated from risk may behave differently from the way it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk. Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not bear the full consequences of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to bear some responsibility for the consequences of those actions . . . Financial bail-outs of lending institutions by governments, central banks or other institutions can encourage risky lending in the future, if those that take the risks come to believe that they will not have to carry the full burden of losses.

So, what did the government do after that? Well, they deregulated again, of course! In 1999, President Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that effectively removed all of the regulations left over from the Glass-Steagall Act. What else was going on at this time? The dot com bubble was still growing, growing, growing, sending the stock market soaring until it burst in 2001 (same time that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act became effective). Venture capitalists, day traders, speculators had all poured money into dot coms and now either lost it or needed to put it elsewhere. Conveniently, most lending regulations had been removed, so bankers could start making risky loans again.

Here is the housing bubble in a nutshell (see if it sounds familiar): mortgage brokers act as salesmen to "sell" the loan (developers/builders frequently act as brokers). They are supposed to gather all the information, make sure it is accurate, and give it to the underwriter. They have incentive to fudge the numbers or overlook risks or overextend the borrower because they only make money on the sale - they are not responsible if the loans default.

The underwriter is the actual lender. They assess the information and determine if they want to lend money to the borrower. The information they have is only as good as the information they get from the broker. Although they theoretically assume the risk, most lenders then bundle the mortgages and sell them to investors.

The investor could be an investment firm either here or abroad, or it could be Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (who hold about half of all mortgages in the U.S.). Fannie and Freddie operate on the secondary mortgage market to buy mortgages from banks, savings and loans, mortgage companies, etc. and either hold or repackage them into mortgage-backed securities to sell. This provides liquidity in the mortgage industry. Although there was no actual government guarantee on Fannie and Freddie securities, it was widely assumed that they had an implicit guarantee. In an attempt to give confidence to the world markets, the government has taken conservatorship of Fannie and Freddie to turn an implied guarantee into an actual guarantee. The result is that the federal government is taking on their debt and adding it to the national deficit. Guess who gets to pay for that? Yup, the taxpayers AGAIN.

Not surprisingly, this was all very predictable. In 1999, as deregulation was ending and the dot com bubble was growing, the World Socialist Website (see? I told you it would get better. How is that for shocking?) published an article that said:

Legislation first adopted to save American capitalism from the consequences of the 1929 Wall Street Crash is being abolished just at the point where the conditions are emerging for an even greater speculative financial collapse. The enormous volatility in the stock exchange in recent months has been accompanied by repeated warnings that stocks are grossly overvalued, with some computer and Internet stocks selling at prices 100 times earnings or even greater.

And there is much more recent experience than 1929 to serve as a cautionary tale. A financial deregulation bill was passed in the early 1980s under the Reagan Administration, lifting many restrictions on the activities of savings and loan associations, which had previously been limited primarily to the home-loan market. The result was an orgy of speculation, profiteering, and outright plundering of assets, culminating in collapse and the biggest financial bailout in U.S. history, costing the federal government more than $500 billion. The repetition of such events in the much larger banking and securities market would be beyond the scope of any federal bailout.

Scared yet? When the speculators left the housing market, where did they go? Ding, ding, ding if you guessed oil! Lax regulation over speculation in the oil futures market allowed for manipulation of the market, and it has affected nearly every other industry: airline, shipping, food, etc. The average American is suffering because of this manipulation. After oil, where did speculators move to next? My guess is commodities. Wonder why gold is so high right now?

Look, I have nothing against lending, investing, providing capital for small businesses to grow or mortgages so people can purchase homes. I have nothing against capitalism in general (in fact, I am a big proponent!). Our capitalistic system fosters economic growth and prosperity. In its purest form, speculation allows risk-takers to use their own capital to bet on movements in the market. They stand to lose a lot, or they stand to gain a lot, but if they are playing with their own money, it doesn't bother me. However, it's when they have the ability to manipulate the markets that I have a problem with. Speculation can (and does) cause economic crisis. Is it fair to subject the entire population (world even) to the risk of economic collapse? In my opinion, NO.

The government didn't necessarily "create" this crisis. Average people are in too much debt and took out bigger mortgages then they could afford. Banks made risky investment decisions. Speculators have been moving the markets. However, it has been government's complete laissez-faire approach to the financial sector, along with setting up moral hazard in the 80s, that has allowed this crisis to happen. So what should they do now?

For one, the federal government should NOT bail out banks or individuals. Taxpayers should not be responsible for paying for the irresponsibility of others. We are already going to hurt enough through the crisis as we deal with the economy contracting (far too big of a problem for government to effectively deal with). Please don't tax us anymore.

For two, please, for the love of Pete, REGULATE!!! We are deep into our third cycle. The pattern is the same every time: lax regulation and easy credit lead to overextended borrowers and speculators who drive up prices. When the cracks start to show, lenders pull out, leaving borrowers with assets worth less than they owe. The market contracts, and we are left with economic crisis.

I am pleased that both Obama and McCain agree to no more bailouts. However, I think Obama is misguided in his attacks on McCain over the issue.

"This country cannot afford four more years of this failed philosophy", Obama . . . told a cheering outdoor rally in western Colorado . . . Obama chided McCain for a new commercial that promises "change we need". "Sound familiar?" said Obama, who has made change the central theme of his campaign. "Let me tell you. Instead of borrowing my lines, he needs to borrow some of my ideas. Change isn't about slogans. It's about substance . . . I certainly don't fault Sen. McCain for these problems . . . but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to. It's the same philosophy we've had for the past eight years, one that said we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. It's a philosophy that says even common regulations are unnecessary, unwise".

Let's see. Deregulation is what got us into this mess, and Bill Clinton is the one who signed the final bill that went into effect while Bush was in office. What ideas has Obama put forth that McCain should "borrow" that would address this crisis? What failed "philosophy" is Obama referring to? Capitalism? It is true that in theory capitalism rejects "even common regulations", but the U.S. currently operates under a mixed economy. What change of "philosophy" is Obama promising? Socialism? Yeah, we need change, but not that kind of change.

McCain also spoke today. In a statement issued this morning, he said

"I am glad to see that the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department have said no to using taxpayer money to bailout Lehman Brothers . . . major reform must be made in Washington and on Wall Street. We cannot tolerate a system that handicaps our markets and our banks and places at-risk the savings of hard-working Americans and investors. The McCain-Palin Administration will replace the outdated and ineffective patchwork quilt of regulatory oversight in Washington and bring transparency and accountability to Wall Street".

At a speech given this morning, McCain promised to "never put America in this position again . . . We believe the time has come and gone where the taxpayers should be viewed as the solution to the problems that are not of their making. We will reform the regulatory bodies of government".

Yeah, that sounds about right to me. So, what's the bottom line? The bottom line is that it is going to get ugly - very, very ugly. The blame goes individuals, corporations, banks, investors, etc. who made stupid decisions AND to politicians on both sides of the aisle who removed necessary regulation from the financial industry. The economy will contract, and there is nothing the government can do to stop it. It is going to hurt. We're going to have to suffer through it this time and put regulations in place to prevent it from happening a fourth time. Sure, Obama wants that (in addition to much more government oversight and interference and taxation that looks an awful lot like socialism), but McCain wants that in the context of maintaining a mixed economy closer to capitalism. And THAT is change I can believe in.

Read More...

Summary only...

Willard Mitt Romney, will you please go now?

I feel the need to preface this post by pointing out that I'm generally a pretty moderate guy. I primarily like politics from an observational standpoint. I believe the two-party system keeps extremism in check. I expect (and enjoy) scathing rhetoric from both sides.

What I don't care for is rank hypocrisy.

This brings me to Mitt Romney's RNC speech.

More disclaimers - hey, I'm a Democrat, how can I help but try to be as P.C. as possible? :) - I'm sure there were speeches that were equally bad at the DNC. I thought Palin's speech was pitch-perfect, McCain's was rousing, and Obama's didn't live up to the high standard he's set for himself. I haven't watched Biden's yet.

Romney's speech was awful. It totally contradicted McCain's message of reaching across the aisle. It could not have been more unattractive to independents. Mitt is setting himself up for 2012; he has four more years to shore up his shiny, new conservative credentials. After this speech, however, I don't think I could ever vote for him.

Here it is, in all it's glory:


And here's the text, with my thoughts interspersed in italics. You should be able to tell them apart, though (warning - it's Tolstoy length):

"For decades now, the Washington sun has been rising in the east. You see, Washington has been looking to the eastern elites, to the editorial pages of the Times and the Post, and to the broadcasters from the coast.

If America really wants to change, it's time to look for the sun in the west, cause it's about to rise and shine from Arizona and Alaska!

Oh, that’s worth a giggle. Mitt Romney throwing a jab at “eastern elites”? He’s the epitome of that group. Born into wealth and power, Harvard MBA, founded a successful private equity firm, ran for the Senate in and was Governor of which state? MASSACHUSETTS. News for ya, Guv: you don’t get to be a half-billionaire Bostonian and not be an eastern elite.

Last week, the Democratic convention talked about change. But, what do you think, is Washington now liberal or conservative? Let me ask you some questions: is a Supreme Court decision liberal or conservative that awards Guantanamo terrorists with constitutional rights? It's liberal! Is a government liberal or conservative that puts the interests of the teachers union ahead of the needs of our children? -- It's liberal!

Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and John Roberts are conservative judges by nearly every standard, and the swing vote – Anthony Kennedy – is significantly more conservative than Sandra Day O’Connor, whom Alito replaced. Bush has appointed two Supremes. Just because you don’t agree with a decision that hampers a president who believes we should be able to detain people forever without lawyers or trials doesn’t mean you get to call the Court liberal. That’s preposterous. (I don’t know what he’s talking about regarding the teachers union, so I’ll refrain from addressing it.)

Is a Congress liberal or conservative that stops nuclear power plants and off-shore drilling, making us more and more dependent on Middle East tyrants? -- It's liberal!

While I agree that we need nuclear power plants and off-shore drilling, it’s fairly ignorant to believe the drilling will save us from Middle East tyrants. OPEC’s production is always going to dwarf ours. If we start producing, they can reduce their production accordingly, keeping supply and, ostensibly, prices constant. New technology and decreased consumption is the only thing that’s going to save us.

Is government spending – putting aside inflation - liberal or conservative if it doubles since 1980? -- It's liberal!

Oh, this is HILARIOUS. Just because the Republican party embodies no semblance of true fiscal conservatism doesn’t mean you get to go blame it all on the Democrats! Bill Clinton left office with a SURPLUS; under Bush, the deficit is over $400,000,000,000.

We need change all right - change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington -- throw out the big government liberals and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin!

McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time. But add Palin to the ticket and all of a sudden, he’s grabbing the “Change” platform away from Obama! Utterly brilliant and could possibly win him the election.

It's the same prescription for a stronger economy. I spent 25 years in the private sector. I've done business in many foreign countries. I know why jobs come and why they go away. And I know that liberals don't have a clue.

This is about where the speech stopped being funny. This is a guy who made his money through leveraged buyouts and not caring for a moment what happened to people’s jobs, as long as he could create cash out of them.

They think we have the biggest and strongest economy in the world because of our government. They're wrong. America is strong because of the ingenuity and entrepreneurship and hard work of the American people.

The American people have always been the source of our nation's strength and they always will be!

We strengthen our people and our economy when we preserve and promote opportunity.

Opportunity is what lets hope become reality.

Opportunity expands when there is excellence and choice in education, when taxes are lowered, when every citizen has affordable, portable health insurance, and when constitutional freedoms are preserved.

Opportunity rises when children are raised in homes and schools that are free from pornography, promiscuity and drugs; in homes that are blessed with family values and the presence of a mom and a dad.

America cannot long lead the family of nations if we fail the family here at home!

That’s all pretty good stuff…

You see, liberals would replace opportunity with dependency on government largesse. They grow government and raise taxes to put more people on Medicaid, to take work requirements out of welfare, and to grow the ranks of those who pay no taxes at all. Dependency is death to initiative, to risk-taking and opportunity.

It is time to stop the spread of government dependency and fight it like the poison it is!

That’s the most reasonable argument against liberal social programs. It’s a concern, and a fine line has to be walked – just as, on the other side, there’s a fine line between cutting out waste and failing to help those who can’t help themselves.

You know, it's time for the party of big ideas, not the party of Big Brother!

Oh good, it’s funny again! When I think of Big Brother, I think of the following: Warrantless wiretaps! The PATRIOT Act! FISA! Permanent war! Thought Police! (anyone remember John Ashcroft?)

Our economy is under attack. China is acting like Adam Smith on steroids, buying oil from the world's worst, and selling nuclear technology. Russia and the oil states are siphoning more than 500 billion dollars a year from us in what could become the greatest transfer of economic wealth in the history of the world. This is no time for timid, liberal empty gestures.

Our economy slowed down this year; a lot of people are hurting. What happened? Mortgage money was handed out like candy and speculators bought homes for free. And when this mortgage mania finally broke, it slammed the economy. And stratospheric gas prices made things even worse.

OK…

Democrats want to use the slowdown as an excuse to do what their special interests are always begging for: higher taxes, bigger government and less trade with other nations.

…nope! Democrats don’t want to raise taxes; we want to cut taxes on over 95% of American families! Republicans want to spend forever without paying for it because you can’t take rich people’s money!

It's the same path Europe took a few decades ago. It leads to moribund growth and double-digit unemployment.

How’s the euro looking against the dollar these days?

The right course is the one championed by Ronald Reagan 30 years ago, and by John McCain and Sarah Palin today. The right course is to rein in government spending, lower taxes, take a weed-whacker to excessive regulation and mandates, put a stop to tort windfalls, and to stand up to the Tyrannosaurus appetite of government unions!

You lost me at 'rein in government spending'! Your party has no claim to this!

The right course is to pursue every source of energy security, from new efficiencies to renewables, from coal to non-CO2 producing nuclear, and the immediate drilling for more oil off of our shores! And I have one more recommendation for energy conservation -- let's keep Al Gore's private jet on the ground!

And between you and McCain there’s nearly a dozen houses! Let’s deride a whole group of people based on one member’s hypocrisy!

Last week, did you hear any Democrats talk about the threat from radical, violent Jihad? No. You see, Republicans believe that there is good and evil in the world. Ronald Reagan called out the Evil Empire. George Bush labeled the terror-sponsor states exactly what they are: the Axis of Evil.

And at Saddleback, after Barack Obama dodged and ducked every direct question, John McCain hit the nail on the head: radical, violent Islam is evil, and he will defeat it!

You see in this party, in this room tonight, and all over America, people in our party prefer straight talk to politically correct talk!

Ahh, yes. Straight talk - because nuance is for America-haters. AMERICA AMERICA AMERICA PALIN PITBULL MCCAIN P.O.W. P.O.W. VICTORY GODLESS LIBERALS WIN U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A.!

Republicans, led by John McCain and Sarah Palin, will fight to preserve the values that have preserved the nation. We’ll strengthen our economy and keep us from being held hostage by Putin, Chavez and Ahmadinejad.

And we will never allow America to retreat in the face of evil extremism!

Just like you, there has never been a day when I was not proud to be an American.

And he smirks and takes in the crowds “ooohs” and “aaahs” as he says it. It’s a jab at Michelle Obama. But don’t forget that families are off-limits, y’all.

Just like you, there has never been a day when I was a drug addict who stole drugs from my own nonprofit medical relief organization.

See, I can throw little jabs at people’s wives when they make mistakes, too!

We Americans inherited the greatest nation in the history of the earth.

It’s our burden and privilege to preserve it, to renew its spirit so that its noble past is prologue to its glorious future.

To this we’re all dedicated and I firmly believe, by the providence of the Almighty, that we will succeed.

President McCain and Vice President Palin will keep America as it has always been -- the hope of the earth. Thank you, and God bless America."
____________

I’m beginning to think he did exactly that, Mitt, when he kept you out of the White House.

Read More...

Summary only...