The Enumerated Powers

I wish I could be a libertarian.  I really do.  In fact, I think we all do.  Nobody loves paying taxes, nobody loves a big bloated government, nobody loves politicians who are almost universally slimy and packaged and plastic.  I think we all have our own certain ideal for a government-light society.  But there is where the problem comes in: everyone's ideal is different.  Not only that, but those with the most money tend to force their ideals upon the rest of us until we can't take it anymore and turn to government to try to inject some sort of counter-balance.  The rich and powerful then try to game the new system, and away we go.

That is a basic back and forth we have in America today.  We are presented with a choice of who we hate more: corporations or government.  Both are big and ugly and powerful and inhuman and seemingly untouchable and, to our horror, actually really so intertwined as to be almost the same thing.  The financial reform legislation process highlights this fact nicely.  On the one hand you have Democrats trying to reform the system and put some regulations on how Wall Street functions in order to avoid another Great Recession, on the other hand you have Wall Street there every step of the way trying, and succeeding, to make the new reform as painless to themselves as possible, and with as many loopholes as possible.  The majority of Americans could not possibly be more confused about who to hate more.

Those that hate the government more have tended recently to question the constitutionality of federal government action, particularly as big reforms are being enacted to rein in the the insurance and financial industries' excesses.

The Constitution is a document in which "We the people" give certain powers to the federal government in some instances and explicitly deny it powers to act in other instances.  For instance, we have given the federal government, specifically Congress, the power to declare war, but we explicitly deny the federal government the power to quarter soldiers in our houses.  The former are called enumerated powers and they are what are at issue more and more these days.  Does the Constitution give the federal government power to regulate the insurance companies and require every American to purchase health insurance?  Does the Constitution give the federal government the power to regulate the derivatives market?

Explicitly, no.  Implicitly, yes.  And here is where Constitutional interpretation becomes a big effing deal.  Article II I Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."  This is called the General Welfare Clause.  It also gives Congress power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States."  This is called the Commerce Clause.  Finally, for our purposes here, the Constitution gives Congress power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers."  This is called the Necessary and Proper Clause.

What we have here are three incredibly broad and vague statements that can be interpreted pretty much any way you want.  The only restriction would seem to be the Bill of Rights and other protections found elsewhere in the Constitution.  Since they are so open to interpretation, what some people want to know is what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote those clauses.  In fact, the Necessary and Proper Clause was one of the most hotly debated items in the Constitutional Convention.  Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry opposed it because they thought it would lead to a limitless federal government that trampled civil liberties.  Alexander Hamilton and James Madison argued for its inclusion, and George Washington agreed, and laid out their argument in the Federalist Papers, the main thrust of which was that a strong central government was necessary and desirable.  It was on the authority of this clause that the Founding Fathers created the early National Bank, which was a contentious issue, to say the least.

Two things.  First, we see that trying to divine the capital-I "Intent" of the Founding Fathers for purposes of Constitutional interpretation is a red herring because just as today we have a great diversity of political thought and opinion, so did they.  They rarely, if ever, agreed completely on what a certain clause or section meant.  Many will attempt to turn to the Federalist Papers as definitive proof of what the FFs meant when they wrote certain words, but this is only the opinion of a certain few.  There were many others that opposed the viewpoints of the Federalist Papers for many different reasons.  Simply, there is not single "Intent."

Second, as I pointed out in the previous post, there is no overwhelming reason to even give their opinions and writings any more value than our own.  We have the actual words they wrote, and that should be enough.  We are now free to use those words to solve our problems in which way we deem best.  They simply could not have imagined the complexities and problems we face, and therefore are not in a position to dictate to us how to solve those problems beyond the framework they gave us in the Constitution.

So I can understand and respect the argument that the Constitution should be interpreted strictly to limit the federal government to a very small mass that stays out of our lives almost completely.  I disagree, but I respect.  But I cannot understand and respect the argument that this is the only way to interpret the Constitution.  It is too vague and broad in some areas, and the FFs were too sharply divided on their meanings, to be limited to a single interpretation.

It is therefore altogether reasonable, in my mind, to oppose the actions of the federal government regarding health care reform and financial reform on public policy grounds, but not on Constitutional grounds.  There is plenty of space in the broad language of the enumerated powers laid out above to find that those actions, and others like them, are for the general welfare of the United States, are transactions in interstate commerce, the passage of which are necessary and proper in the carrying out of the duties of Congress, and do not conflict with other protections found in elsewhere in the Constitution.

What Would the Founding Fathers Have Thought About Ebay?

So let's pretend that you discovered a new continent with seemingly limitless natural resources, fertile soil, and a varied climate.  It began to be populated by people from every nation, religion, and walk of life and was thus tolerant and dynamic.  Essentially, the potential for growth and progress was boundless.  And let's pretend that those people turned to you and your colleagues to establish a government that would endure and upon which they could rely for generations to come.  What would you do?

Remember that this Constitution could endure for hundreds of years and see changes in the world that you cannot possibly imagine. Would you write a short document that gave a basic framework and allowed for a variety of interpretations to fit the needs of future generations?  Would you write a document that that had some broad language but a strict interpretation to be followed by all future generations?  Would you create essentially a large volume of specific statutes to be followed for all time?  Would you be confident that your wisdom should be followed explicitly by the progeny of your generation hundreds of years down the line?  Or would you want them to be able to adapt to a changing world while holding on to a few key principles of freedom that you hold dear?

These are, in essence, the issues that America's Founding Fathers faced while creating our new nation and producing a Constitution.  For a little context, here's a real rough sketch of America in 1790, just a couple of years after the Constitutional Convention.  America had about four million inhabitants, including about 700,000 slaves.  New York City was the largest city with about 33,000 people, Philadelphia was next with about 28,000, which means that the nation was overwhelmingly rural.  Most people were self-sufficient to the extreme, meaning they produced their own food and made their own clothes and built their own houses and bred their own horses.

Items not in existence when our Constitution was written: the computer and thus the internet, the lightbulb (still more than a hundred years off), harnessed electricity of any kind, the automobile, the airplane, refrigerators and freezers, the cotton gin, plastic, the Industrial Revolution, the telephone, the ballpoint pen, television and radio, the internal combustion engine, trains . . . should I go on?  The FFs simply could not have imagined even the world of 1910, let alone the world of today.

Can you imagine writing a document that would contemplate the changes that will occur over the next couple hundred years for our pretend new nation?  Do you feel confident enough to dictate to those future people the specifics on how they should run their country?  I know I don't.

So how would the FFs have dealt with interstate highways and railways?  How would they have dealt with the internet?  How would they have dealt with the rising cost of health care?  Who cares?  Seriously, why would we possibly care what they had to say about these issues?  They could not have even fathomed them, let alone anticipated them in our Constitution.  When I hear people today go on about how important it is stick as close as possible to the original vision of the FFs I can only disagree.  They left us an amazing Constitution which lays out the most basic and cherished ideals of our nation (and some repugnant ideas which we have cast off), and I hope we cling to those forever.  But to suggest that we should use our time to decipher their inner-most thoughts about every word they wrote strains the issue, in my mind.  We should be free to use the Constitution to solve our problems today without having to rely on the opinions of men that lived over 200 years ago.

That's not to say their thoughts and opinions are not useful, they did write the thing and some of them were exceptionally brilliant, but they purposely wrote a Constitution that is broad in scope, often using vague language, and open to interpretation and reinterpretation as our needs require.

Over the next little while I want to talk about Constitutional interpretation.  I want to look at what the Constitution actually says, take a look at what the FFs thought about their magnum opus, and look at how we are treating that document today.  I hope it becomes clear that the Constitution is open to interpretation and that it is a living document that we can adapt to our own specific issues and problems.

Earth Day

And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me.  Moses 6:63

The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.  Alma 30:44

If all creation testifies of God, then perhaps we can utilize Earth Day as a sort of testimony meeting.  A chance to look around and remember that not only was the Earth created for the temporal benefit of man and woman but also for man and woman to gain a testimony of the Supreme Creator.  I think that this balance has been skewed far to the former at the expense of the latter, and Earth Day is a chance to try to reset our way of valuing creation.

As an example of this conflict, consider the sage grouse.  This little fella makes his home in, if you can believe it, sagebrush habitat.  It just so happens that much of the United States' sagebrush habitat is also oilman habitat, and the more oil wells we sink the less habitat the sage grouse can call home, and the more threatened it becomes.  The Interior Department was petitioned to protect the sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act and recently made its dissonant decision: the sage grouse deserves protection, but we aren't giving it.  Jason Chaffetz showed his lack of imagination in reaction to this decision--"The only good place for a sage grouse to be listed is on the menu of a French bistro"--a variation on a common theme among the anti-environmentalism crowd.  (Why would the French eat a bird native to the American West?  How about: "I get enough grouse at home from my wife and kids, I don't need it in my oil production facilities," or something?)

So anyway, is the sage grouse just an annoyance to brush aside in our thirst for more fossil fuels, or is it possible that this quirky bird that attracts potential mates by making a rubber-ball-bouncing sound with its chest is something to be valued as bearing record of a Creator?  Is it fundamentally ridiculous to put so much emphasis on any single species, such as quirky bird which, seriously, attracts potential mates by making a rubber-ball-bouncing sound with its chest, which is, let's be honest, bizarre and a little gross?

First of all, let me state that the choice between humans and the environment is a false one.  Humans can live in happiness and prosperity while at the same time protecting the environment.  We would certainly have to live differently than we do now, we'd have to make some changes, but it is not either-or.  We would have to dramatically reduce our consumption of just about everything and shift away from fossil fuels to renewable energy, which would increase costs, at least at first.  We would have to decide as a society that just because some thing that we want, be it a huge SUV or a sprawling McMansion or a private jet or bananas from South America off season or big piece of beef for every meal, is theoretically available and a potential market exists to provide that thing, doesn't mean that we should sate that desire.  It's called self-control and it's something we are not good at.

But we, as Mormons, profess self-control all over the place, and the goal is to elevate the spiritual over the temporal because true happiness, eternal happiness, comes with the spiritual.  We forgo intoxicants which many people seem to really enjoy, we channel our sexual appetites in a way that the world finds increasingly quaint, we fast once a month, we give ten percent of our income to tithing, we generally give up a little of the temporal, what the scriptures call denying the flesh, to fully develop our spiritual selves.

We should transfer this way of thinking to the environment.  If we truly believe that all things were created spiritually before physically and that all units of creation, from the universe itself to the disgustingly-chested sage grouse, are testaments to a divine Creator, then we should be willing to make sacrifices to protect them.  All of them, no matter how weird or inconsequential or remote they seem.  And who knows, maybe we will find more happiness in a simpler way of life, find more pleasure in the clean and biologically diverse world around us, and increase the number of people who believe in God.

So we should start making those decisions now, and Earth Day is as good a day as any to think through what are some practical first steps, or next steps, to achieve a goal of harmony and balance with creation.

Opposing Nuclear Weapons

In 1981 the First Presidency, in a statement opposing the storage of nuclear weapons in Utah and Nevada, made the following statement:

First, by way of general observation we repeat our warnings against the terrifying arms race in which the nations of the earth are presently engaged. We deplore in particular the building of vast arsenals of nuclear weaponry. We are advised that there is already enough such weaponry to destroy in large measure our civilization, with consequent suffering and misery of incalculable extent.

It is my feeling that nuclear weapons are evil, and that part of the responsibility of bearing the Gospel of Peace is speaking out against them.  I would love for members of the church to take the lead in opposing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and encouraging the nations of the world to disarm.  This goal can only be achieved through full international cooperation, and since the church is an international entity preaching peace we should have a strong and loud voice.

And there is a lot going on in the world of nuclear weapons these days.  President Obama recently signed a new START Treaty and Protocol with the Russians which will significantly reduce the number of weaponized nuclear warheads in both countries and increase monitoring of the progress of that reduction.

This is important for two reasons.  First, we want to live in a world with fewer nuclear weapons, not more.  We want to live in a world that values and engenders peaceful conflict resolution, not saber-rattling and faux macho-ism.  We want to live in a world where there is a lesser chance of nuclear weapons and materials falling into the hands of terrorists than a greater chance.  Since the United States and Russia possess more than 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons, this treaty and those that will follow are crucial.

Second, it is necessary in our efforts to restrain the spread of nuclear weapons in other parts of the world.  The United States and other signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty are in the business not only of not proliferating themselves but of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons to currently non-nuclear states.  We can only ask for the latter of other countries with a straight face if we are doing the former.  Non-nuclear states have no incentive not to pursue nuclear weapons if we are not offering to disarm ourselves.

On that note, the Obama Administration has called a nuclear security summit next week which will bring leaders from 46 nations to Washington to discuss how to protect and secure the world's nuclear material and punish those nations like Iran and North Korea that refuse to cooperate.  But, as the invaluable Foreign Policy Magazine points out, all 46 visiting nations have their own agendas and the issues are varied.  It is not as easy and just everyone agreeing to the reduction and securing of nuclear weapons, everyone wants something different in return for cooperation and it is almost unimaginable complex.

Which brings us to the appropriate foil in this whole nuclear story.  As part of the administrations emphasis on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, it recently released a new Nuclear Posture Review.  One of the very sensible things it does is, again in an effort to create a more peaceful world and gain the cooperation of non-nuclear nations, declare that the United States will not use nuclear weapons against conforming NPT nations.  It says the fundamental use for nukes is deterrence.

Our foil -- you guessed it, Sarah Palin -- had this to say in response:

It's unbelievable. Unbelievable. No administration in America's history would, I think, ever have considered such a step that we just found out President Obama is supporting today. It's kinda like getting out there on a playground, a bunch of kids, getting ready to fight, and one of the kids saying, "Go ahead, punch me in the face and I'm not going to retaliate. Go ahead and do what you want to with me."

It goes without saying that she got the facts wrong.  But more embarrassing, she has managed to reduce this entire complex and downright scary issue to a childishly simplistic playground fight analogy.  I don't think we can overstate how dangerous she could be to America, and let me say here that I am becoming absolutely convinced that Palin is the 2012 Republican frontrunner.  She gets the biggest crowds by far, she gets the most media attention by far, she is the preferred candidate among the vocal and energized TPN.  And her response to Pres. Obama trying to get the world to reduce and retard the number of nuclear weapons to a comparison of a couple kids fighting during recess.

I don't know if I'm mortified at the prospect of her leading the nation, not to mention a major political party, or giddy at the thought of an Obama-Palin matchup in 2012 which would likely end in a Reagan-esque 1984.  I guess both.

Urban Sprawl and the Utah Lake Bridge

A group of groups, led by the Sierra Club, recently offered their idea regarding a potential bridge that would span Utah Lake: Don't build it.  The Daily Herald, in typical fashion, offered a poorly thought-out rebuttal to the rebuttal, on which I would like to comment.

They were first offended that Marc Heileson of the Sierra Club called it a bridge to nowhere, saying:

Bridge to nowhere? That's quite a slam. Utah Valley is nowhere?  One end of the bridge would land near 800 North in Orem. That's not only at the heart of the valley, it's likely to be even more bustling in the future. Close by is the planned transportation hub for the Frontrunner train line and the Bus Rapid Transit project.

He didn't say a bridge from nowhere, he said a bridge to nowhere.  Clearly Orem is somewhere.  A lot of people live there.  The other side of the proposed bridge, however, is nowhere, and that is a good thing, and it should stay that way.  Unfortunately, there are developers eying the west side of the Utah Lake like Utah Republican lawmakers eye fifteen year old girls in hot tubs (too soon? low blow? I couldn't resist.  I take it back).

It's a reminder, however, that the region has plenty of assets that draw people and keep them here. Those people need places to live and work, and the west side of the lake is a prime spot for growth. Growing numbers will need to get over to the lake's east side.  What all this means is that it's certain the Utah Lake boundary area is going to be developed, as is land farther west. The only question is how.

Why is it certain?  It does not have to be certain.  We can actually choose where we want growth to go, it is not some uncontrollable beast from which we cower.  Urban sprawl is a real problem for many reasons.  The more we sprawl, the farther we have to drive to work and church and school and the grocery store.  The more we drive the more oil we consume and pollution we spew into the air, and the less time we have to spend with family and friends and hobbies and helping others.  The more we sprawl the more we lose that sense of community that our pioneer ancestors cherished.  The more we sprawl the more we put pressure on natural ecosystems.  The more we sprawl the less open space we have nearby to enjoy and in which to decompress from our city lives.

The west side of Utah Lake where one end of the proposed bridge is located is largely undeveloped and if we want to keep it that way and avoid urban sprawl we can absolutely do it.  We can not build the bridge and not let the developers develop the land.  We can choose that, and we'd have good reason to do so.  We can choose to create higher density, mixed use neighborhoods on the east side of the lake.  We can choose the direction our growth takes.

Opposing citizens groups seem to be afflicted with a common attitude among the green crowd. It's worse than NIMBY -- not in my backyard. Their take is: "Not here, not there, not now, not then, not ever."  That's short-sighted. They'd do better to work to see that the inevitable development isn't just the haphazard growth that has plagued other communities.

The Daily Herald completely misses the point.  First, it is actually far-sighted to say that we are going to protect some of the last open spaces we have near urban centers.  We would surely regret the short-sighted action of low-density development far from the places we work just to enrich a few developers.  It is also far-sighted to engage in urban planning that keeps people close to the places they frequent to reduce traffic and pollution in the long-term.

Second, opposing the bridge and urban sprawl is making sure that growth is not haphazard.  It is forcing our urban planners to actually plan as opposed to just allowing more tract housing in previously undeveloped areas.  There is nothing inevitable about urban sprawl, as the Daily Herald wants us to believe.  Growth may be inevitable, but how we deal with it is up to us.

And that doesn't even touch on the environmental damage the bridge would cause to the lake, which is another issue altogether.

Re: Worth the read "I'm 63 and I'm Tired"

Following the lead of Jacob S., I decided to also post an e-mail that I received. The original e-mail has been circulating recently, but the responses come from a friend of mine who gave me permission to post it here:

I normally don't respond to these and I usually dislike getting political emails. But in light of all the lies and hatred going around these days, I took my lunch break to read and respond this time. For me, there was just a line or 2 that I DO agree with. Here are my rebuttals to the rest. My comments are in blue.

I'm 63. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I've worked, hard, since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven't called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn't inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there's no retirement in sight, and I'm tired. Very tired.

I'm 43. Except for a period of time when I needed to leave a company and hadn't found a new job yet, I've worked, hard, since I was 13. I don't put in 50-hour weeks because my family is more important than spending time at an organization that doesn't value families. I don't make a good salary, but I make enough to provide for my family while still having time to spend with them. I'm hoping someday I can manage an early retirement, but that's not in the works yet.

I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it.

I'm tired of greedy wealthy corporations controlling everything in this country. I'm tired of being forced to pay money to industries to enrich their shareholders, just so I can buy basic goods or provide basic services for my family. Corporations make hundreds of billions of dollars yet still pay their employees poor wages. These wealthy multinational corporations cringe whenever they're asked to stop polluting or have to pay to clean up messes they made that destroy our environment and kill our children.

I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to "keep people in their homes." Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I'm willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the left-wing Congress-critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them with their own money.

I'm tired of the right-wing Congress-critters who refused to regulate the financial industry and allowed the economy of the entire world to go to the toilet and caused the Great Recession. I'm tired of the wealthy greedy banking industry who lent money to people even though it was obvious they couldn't afford to repay it.

I'm tired of being told how bad America is by left-wing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood Entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the economy of Zimbabwe , the freedom of the press of China , the crime and violence of Mexico , the tolerance for Christian people of Iran , and the freedom of speech of Venezuela .

I'm tired of people who sit behind the flag of this great country and use our military predominance to bomb another country because of some perceived made-up threat. The right-wing "go USA!" crowd was more than happy to spend hundreds of billions of dollars destroying Iraq, and left us with no money to prop up our own economy when their own fiscal irresponsibility led us into recession.

I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor"; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells them to.

I'm tired of so-called "Christians" who go on national talk shows and encourage people to leave their Christian religion if it tells them to act Christ-like. (I'm talking to you Glen Beck.) I'm tired of people who look at the bad actions of a few people in another religion and automatically determine that all people in that religion must be evil.

I'm tired of being told that "race doesn't matter" in the post-racial world of Obama, when it's all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of U.S. Senators from Illinois. I think it's very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less arrogantly of an all-knowing government.

I'm tired of the overt racism in this country, led by right-wing talk radio, where anyone with brown skin is automatically perceived as an illegal immigrant. I'm proud we live in a country where people of all colors and faiths can live and work side by side, but I'm sick of the people who pretend to not be racist, when that's exactly what they are.

I'm tired of a news media that thinks Bush's fundraising and inaugural expenses were obscene, but that think Obama's, at triple the cost, were wonderful; that thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to control weight and stress; that picked over every line of Bush's military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his; that slammed Palin, with two years as governor, for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever. Wonder why people are dropping their subscriptions or switching to Fox News? Get a clue. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but the media and Kerry drove me to his camp in 2004.

I'm sick of organizations like Fox News and the entire talk show industry that's raking in billions of dollars by spreading hatred, distrust, intolerance, racism, paranoia and fear. There's a simple fact of psychology that says if you create an enemy then vilify that enemy, you'll be come the hero. Hitler did it. Joe McCarthy did it. The religious extremists around the world are doing it. And talk radio is doing an expert job of this by making enemies of immigrants, non-English speakers, and anyone they can label as a "socialist". Fox News made a conscious decision to go far to the right because they knew they could make money by getting people all worked up over non-issues. It was totally a business decision, not a moral one. If Fox really had morals, would their broadcast division be producing so many trashy anti-Christian shows?

I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America , while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.

I'm tired of people who forgot the lesson of the Good Samaritan. When's the last time your so-called "christian" church preached love for others?

I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore's, and if you're greener than Gore, you're green enough.

I'm tired of people who can't open their eyes to what's happening to our planet. I don't care if the globe is warming or not. I don't care if it's human caused or part of a natural cycle. The fact is, if the environment goes bad, we all die. Even republicans will die. It's not like you have the ability to spread lamb's blood on your door posts and pollution won't enter your home. Why is it you have to be anti-environment to be a good Republican? What does your political party have to do with polluted air and water? You don't need to embrace the whole environmental movement to take whatever steps you can to protect our environment. Our country is way behind other developed countries when it comes to protecting our environment.

I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don't think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I damn sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I'm tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.

I'll have to say I agree with this one.

I'm tired of illegal aliens being called "undocumented workers," especially the ones who aren't working, but are living on welfare or crime. What's next? Calling drug dealers, "Undocumented Pharmacists"? And, no, I'm not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic, and it's been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I'm willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person, who can speak English, doesn't have a criminal record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military.... Those are the citizens we need.

I think you already know my response here. Illegal immigration has been a problem since this country was founded. And it'll always be a problem. The only reason it made its way into the news several years ago was because the talk show industry and others were trying to draw attention away from the failed war in Iraq. Remember, create an enemy, vilify that enemy, then you become the hero. To prove my point, A few years ago, George W. Bush came up with a good solution to the problem by proposing a guest worker program and a way to attain legal status. Probably the only good idea he had, and it would have helped all those big republican corporate donor industries who have been employing the illegal immigrants. But unfortunately, that would have solved the problem and the talk shows wouldn't have an enemy any more, so they quickly shot down the whole proposal. And what does serving in the military have to do with being a good citizen?

I'm tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people than themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years and still are? Not even close. So here's the deal. I'll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims, who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian. Then we'll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.

I'm tired of people who confuse "anti war" with "anti soldier". Just because you criticize the war doesn't mean you criticize the military. We have one of the best trained militaries in history, but that doesn't mean we should make up excuses to send them to war. When people say "support our troops", I ask how they are supporting our troops. What do they do, send them cookies?" The best support we could ever have for our troops is to keep them out of harms way. If we're attacked, then by all means, let's defend ourselves. We were very justified in going into Afghanistan. But war should always be the last resort.

I'm tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers; bums are bipartisan. And I'm tired of people telling me we need bipartisanship. I live in Illinois , where the "Illinois Combine" of Democrats has worked to loot the public for years. Not to mention the tax cheats in Obama's cabinet.

I'm tired of the right wing Christian conservatives who claim to be so Christ-like but are the exact opposite. When the lawyers brought the accused adulteress to Christ to accuse her, what did he say? It's one of the most famous lines in the whole bible: let he who is without sin cast the first stone. The Christian conservatives do the exact opposite. If you're gay, you must be a sinner; it doesn't matter all the good stuff you do, you're still a sinner. One of the biggest problems with the republicans today is their focus on silly social issues that don't matter to most people.

I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.

I agree. "Both parties" is the key phrase here, along with "rich or poor".

Speaking of poor, I'm tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn't have that in 1970, but we didn't know we were "poor." The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing.

I don't know what you're talking about here, but let's see how well you'd live on the federal poverty level. For my family of six, in 2009, that would have been $29,530. I would consider myself poor at that level. I make much more than that, and I still consider myself poor. See: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml

I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination or big-whatever for their problems.

I agree, and maybe we should start by regulating attorneys. Oh wait, regulation would be a left-wing idea.

Yes, I'm damn tired. But I'm also glad to be 63. Because, mostly, I'm not going to have to see the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for my granddaughter.

Me too, but what I'm mostly tired of is people who sit around and complain and freak out whenever somebody tries fixing things by changing the status quo. And more than anything, I'm tired of people who listen to hate-filled talk shows all day and aren't willing to think for themselves or to do any research.

The Unhealthy Mingling of Politics in Mormonism

I received the below email today from a person I don't know.  It seems to be making the rounds:

Dear friends,

In light of the recent Gallop Poll which calculates that 60% of active Mormons self-identify as Conservative or Republican and that over 60% of inactive Mormons who still consider themselves Mormonism [sic] are self-identified "Liberals or Moderates" suggesting that the more liberal you are the more likely you are to go inactive; in light of Glenn Beck's recent public comments where the prominent Mormon declared that social justice was a code word for Communism and Nazism; and in light of the recent invitation by a Nevada Stake to Democratic Senator Harry Reid to speak at a fireside which was met by threats of violence and cancelled [sic]. 

As moderate, liberal or radical Mormons, it is time to make our voices heard WITHIN Mormonism. I for one am weary of hearing Republican talking points pass for Gospel truths. The Gospel is for everyone, not just Republicans; guided by the spirit, liberal and radical interpretations of the Gospel and scriptures are just as valid as those made by Conservatives.

The Idea:

• On May 1st 2010, International Workers’ Day, or May Day, we will participate in local May Day festivities and organize 'Social Justice and the Gospel' Teach-ins/Firesides all across the country. 

• On Sunday May 2nd, during Fast and Testimony Meeting, we will hold a special fast for those who are working all over the world to advance the causes of the Gospel, social justice, environmental sustainability and fighting the root causes of poverty. Then, we will attend our local Wards and, guided by the spirit, bare strong, sincere and non-confrontational testimonies on these themes.

  

Please pass the word along and start organizing events. Respond with ideas and comments.

Will you help me make the Mormon Church hospitable for all of God's Children? Even Liberals and Radicals?

In Solidarity,

Jason M. Brown
 
Master of Forestry (M.F.), Master of Art and Religion (M.A.R.), 2011
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies & Yale Divinity School
  
(714) 261-5616
Jason.brown@yale.edu

If anyone out there wants to participate, feel free, but I think this is a problem and a mistake.  One of the main goals we were trying to achieve with this blog was to show that Mormonism and liberalism are compatible, just like Mormonism and conservatism are compatible.  The implication is that there is no inherent political bias in our religion.  The doctrines, principles, and ordinances are pure, they are Truth.  They are not created by man.  Politics and government, on the other hand, are man-made institutions and deeply flawed.  The two should not be conflated.

In one of the first posts I wrote I made a point of showing that there are good and faithful Latter-day Saints in hundreds of nations on the Earth, each with a slightly different government and political scheme.  A good member of the church is encouraged in the twelfth Article of Faith to support the government and laws of their respective nations.  In that sense, I agree with the letter writer that the Gospel is for all.

Where I hated the letter is the implication that liberals and conservatives can have different interpretations of the Gospel and scriptures, and that they are all valid.  The implication here is that the Gospel and scriptures should be interpreted through your political perspective.  Some Mormon conservatives see the Gospel as an arm of their politics, and apparently some Mormon liberals do as well, and this is a big, big problem.  It means that we are placing our politics in first position and our Gospel in second position.  It reminds me of this scripture from Nephi:

For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.

Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.

In this contentious political environment, I fear that people are putting their trust in the arm of flesh, or man-made political institutions.  I love politics, I like talking about it, but the moment I realize that my politics are coloring my religion, I am out.  The moment I start judging a person's spirituality or relationship of God through a political perspective, I am out.  The moment I start thinking that I have a different interpretation of the Gospel and scriptures than someone with a different political point of view, I am out.

They are not the same thing, they are not equal, and they should not be mingled.  We shouldn't bring politics into a fast and testimony meeting, as this letter suggests.  If anyone did that from any political perspective I think I'd walk out of the meeting.  In fact, we shouldn't bring dirty, short-sided, flesh-created politics into our pure, eternal, God-given Gospel at all.  We should live our religion fully and be free to have differing opinions on government and politics.  I hate that some Mormons think they have to justify their politics through their religion.  It is an indication that politics are becoming too important and I think it portends a serious problem in the church.  I hope the ideas in this letter don't gain any traction.