Merry Christmas and/or Happy Holidays

Americans love war analogies.  It probably stems from our love of actual war, which I think is an actual collective sin we are committing.  So analogies between war and other non-war things are pretty unsettling and off-putting for me.  In the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance, there are over 100,000 dead civilians, tens of thousands of dead combat troops, and millions of wounded.  So when we use frequent war allusions in sports and politics and the like I think we're being rather callous and glib.  If we paid more attention to our language and how we use it we might end up making different and better political choices in America.

That was all a slight tangent I started pondering as I considered this most special time of year when we can come together and debate whether or not there is a War on Christmas.  The weapons in this war are not missiles, bombs, drone attacks, and machine guns, but phrases like "Happy Holidays," the removal of nativity scenes from government-owned public places, and "X-mas."  The casualties are not human lives lost or permanent physical or psychological injuries and disfigurement, but . . . what?  I'm not sure.  Hurt pride, I guess.

What we have are some very conservative Christians who object to the de-Christianizing of Christmas.  Which makes some intuitive sense, I guess.  After all, this is a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ.  Put aside for a moment that the holiday was started in part as a way to co-opt pre-Christian winter festivals, and that even before the supposed "War on Christmas" was launched by supposed atheists and statists we Christians did a pretty great job mucking it up on our own with our Santa Clauses and elves and red-nosed reindeers and general commercialism that has wrung any meaningful Christ-centered moisture from the public face of the Christmas cloth.  Put that aside and I can at least see a glimmer of what these staunchly pro-Christ-in-Christmas conservative Christians are getting at.

But as I've alluded to a couple of times so far I think this is a matter of public v. private observance, and I think the Defenders in the War on Christmas are on the wrong side of this one.  We live in a country that is multi-cultural, multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-everything.  We Americans aspire to the ideal of tolerance and civility.  We have created this pretty rare country where ethnic and religious tensions have been historically pretty low key.  Only we're moving away from that recently.  There is a very vocal contingent of Americans that are creating tension with Hispanics.  The Christian right is continuing to gain power to push its anti-differences agenda and have swept Mormons into their net.  Muslims are have seen a steady deterioration in their public standing culminating in the embarrassingly bigoted "Ground Zero Mosque" fiasco.  And the list could continue.

The backdrop of all this, of course, is that we live in an increasingly heterogeneous society, so there is more and more bumping into each other causing the inevitable building of friction.  Whereas before you could walk down the streets of most small- to mid-sized towns in America and feel pretty certain that you were only going to pass by other white Protestants, now you're bound to encounter more diversity.  Whereas before any small- to mid-sized town in America could safely put up a nativity scene on the grounds of county courthouse because everyone that would see it was Christian and no one would care or complain, now you've got many more people of different faiths and backgrounds that might not share those Christian sensitivities.

The Constitution reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  There are two different things there.  The second part, known as the Free Exercise Clause, is not really at issue here.  Having public displays of Christianity on government property doesn't prohibit anyone from exercising their own religion differently.  It is that first part, known as the Establishment Clause, is a little more tricky.  Does having a nativity, something overtly Christian, on government property constitute an establishment of Christianity as the de facto government-sanctioned official religion?  Would we allow overtly Muslim scenes during Ramadan?  Jewish scenes for Passover?  Hindu, Sikh, atheist, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Scientologist, etc. scenes at other times?  Should the government be in the business of doing anything overtly religious at all?

These are difficult legal issues that are being sorted out constantly in the courts.  But if we remove for a moment the legal issues and just focus on the human side, I think the ideas get more clear.  Christmas is a great time of year.  More volunteerism occurs, more charitable donations, more goodwill.  For Christians there is (hopefully) more of a focus on Christ, which is excellent, but for people of all faiths Christmas is becoming a time to focus on family and giving and, yes, presents and decorations and everything else.  Why would we choose to be less inclusive?  Why would we try to force only the extreme Christian view on others instead of something many more people can embrace?  What could we possibly gain by pressuring businesses and public entities to say "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays" or something that more people can identify with?

I just don't understand when people want to force their religion on others and into the public square.  This isn't missionary work and glorifying Christ and expressing our faith, those sorts of things are done in humility and personally and one-on-one, this is about xenophobia and pride.  I think it does absolutely no good to worry about some nebulous "war" on Christmas, but it does all the good in the world to celebrate Christmas privately as a religious holiday and publicly as an all-inclusively holiday.  So, Merry Christmas and/or Happy Holidays, whichever suits you best.

Awkward Introduction Time

So it's high time that I make my first post here. It's been a while since I was added to be a contributor, yet I have been silent. At least I have a good reason, I'm about 70% done with a Masters degree in Computer Engineering, and seeing as how it will have taken me about 15 years since my high school graduation when I complete this thing I don't let too many distractions get in the way of my progress.

As you can probably derive from my above paragraph, I generally view things in terms of science or math, basically I try to over simplify any problem into some sort of equation that I can manipulate to confirm my preconceptions. The fact that I use math makes me feel both elitist and confident in my correctness, so it's a win-win. Doesn't qualify for the Michael Scott conflict resolution status of win-win-win, but two out of three ain't bad.

Here's the problem I've run into when I've attempted to write this first post in the past: I don't know what I should write about. With the title of the blog being Mormon Left, I find myself only half qualified. I've got the Mormon part down, but the left? Not so much. So let me introduce myself in the form of attempting to pigeon hole my political leanings. I don't really lean right or left, it's more down than anything. In fact, I once took a political test online and since it was on the Internet it was very accurate, that divided people's political leanings into a standard Cartesian Plane. I guess blogging etiquette would be for me to link that to Wikipedia, but sorry, not happening right now because I'm currently in a race against my laptop battery. So, for those that don't remember high school math and are too lazy to Google the Cartesian Plane is the standard four quadrant graphing system. Back to the quiz, my quiz results left me in quadrant four, the lower right as you look at it, with esteemed company as people like Milton Friedman. If you don't recognize the name, once again, Google it.

Now that you've Google'd his name, you probably think that I think economics is pretty important politically. You're right. In fact, in terms of the Federal Government, I don't believe they should be serving much purpose apart from national defense and economic development. I'm a Jeffersonian. I believe strongly in a limited Federal government, and strong, centralized local governments. I believe the closer you can keep the money to the people, the more honest the politicians will remain. Ironically, I don't live too far from D.C., which is a local government rife with corruption, embezzlement and outright fraud. Don't judge me.

Politically I'm old school. When I think in terms of conservative and progressive, I think about it in terms of government size and reach, not in social terms. I realize that I'm in the minority, but it's one of my biggest pet peeves on the planet that the term "conservative" has become synonymous with "social conservative". Pedantic? Yes. Irrational? Maybe. Impactful? Most definitely. Turns out when you make social conservative and conservative synonymous terms, people start to lose all grip on reality and believe things like "Mitt Romney is too liberal to be President." and "Sarah Palin would be a great leader for our country." I apologize to all the potential readers that may have pre-ordered their Palin 2012 bumper stickers, but I think she's one of the least relevant people in our country in terms of Presidential abilities and I find it amazing that there's anyone with an IQ north of the average temperature of Hawaii that believes she would be a solid executive. She does have her own reality show though, and I suppose she's probably more qualified than Snookie or that lady that got a show because she and her husband don't understand how to use a prophylactic and had 30 kids.

Okay, end of rant.

I thought of something left I can post about!

I'm in full support of Dennis Kucinich's NEED_ACT. Apart from ending the largest theft, embezzlement and fraud scheme of the last century (fractional reserve banking), it implements some really smart changes to our banking system.

That's the largest thing that our country has gotten wrong in the last 2-5 years. They believed the swindlers that told us we need specific banks in the form of bailouts. We don't need banks. We need a strong banking system. What makes a stronger banking system than forcing those banks to stop using depositor's savings accounts for financial speculation? Thus forcing any high-risk investments out in the open where the depositor knows that if they put their money into a certain investment vehicle that there's a chance they could lose their shirt?

If you haven't checked it out, don't worry about doing that. Just take my word for it, it's good legislation for our country's long term economic health. Call your congressman before it's too late and get them supporting it. After all, with the gerrymandering that's sure to happen after the census data, Kucinich may not be around much longer.

Let's make this his swan song. Thanks for the time, next time there will be more links, less rant, and more political stuff.

Bomb Repeat Bomb

I had a post all ready to go about the procrastination around ratifying the New Start Treaty between the US and Russia. I've been blown away (pun intended) by the wavering Republicans that wanted to amend the treaty. The New Start Treaty is based on a previous treaty with Russia that is set to expire this month. As such, any amendment would require both countries to go back to negotiations.

I was going to write about Russia's response to the proposed amendments, "I can only underscore that the strategic nuclear arms treaty, worked out on the strict basis of parity, in our view fully answers to the national interests of Russia and the United States,” (Sergey V. Lavrov - Russian foreign minister) “It cannot be opened up and become the subject of new negotiations.”

I had a bunch written about how Senator McCain was pushing for a clause to be inserted that would maintain the US's ability to stockpile missiles in Germany and other European countries. As I wrote, I kept thinking about how completely asinine the GOP's arguments were, and how ridiculous the comment from Mr McConnell was accusing Obama of trying to force the treaty forward for political gain, "Our top concern should be the safety and security of our nation, not some politician’s desire to declare a political victory and host a press conference before the end of the year."

Then, just before clicking on the "Publish Post" button, this news was released. I can't express how delighted (and surprised) I am that congress has managed to approve a little bit of common sense. I'm glad that an the publishing of an explosive post was averted. Oh, and I'm pretty happy that congress came to their senses before we had to face the possibility of heating up a Cold War.

Judicial Activism at Work

Another example of an activist conservative judge legislating from the bench:

Virginia judge rules health care mandate unconstitutional

I fully expect Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Orrin Hatch and the gang to rebuke this affront to our Constitutional system of checks and balances.

You Are the Government: Wikileaks and Transparency

So Julian Assange of Wikileaks recently released about 250,000 secret documents from the State Department.  The very best thing you could possibly read about Wikileaks is Glenn Greenwald.  Here is a smattering, the tip o' the iceberg, of new information that we learned about our government's illegal and immoral activity from these documents that Greenwald  put together:

(1) the U.S. military formally adopted a policy of turning a blind eye to systematic, pervasive torture and other abuses by Iraqi forces;

(2) the State Department threatened Germany not to criminally investigate the CIA's kidnapping of one of its citizens who turned out to be completely innocent;

(3) the State Department under Bush and Obama applied continuous pressure on the Spanish Government to suppress investigations of the CIA's torture of its citizens and the 2003 killing of a Spanish photojournalist when the U.S. military fired on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad (see The Philadelphia Inquirer's Will Bunch today about this: "The day Barack Obama Lied to me");

(4) the British Government privately promised to shield Bush officials from embarrassment as part of its Iraq War "investigation";

(5) there were at least 15,000 people killed in Iraq that were previously uncounted;

(6) "American leaders lied, knowingly, to the American public, to American troops, and to the world" about the Iraq war as it was prosecuted, a conclusion the Post's own former Baghdad Bureau Chief wrote was proven by the WikiLeaks documents;

(7) the U.S.'s own Ambassador concluded that the July, 2009 removal of the Honduran President was illegal -- a coup -- but the State Department did not want to conclude that and thus ignored it until it was too late to matter;

(8) U.S. and British officials colluded to allow the U.S. to keep cluster bombs on British soil even though Britain had signed the treaty banning such weapons, and,

(9) Hillary Clinton's State Department ordered diplomats to collect passwords, emails, and biometric data on U.N. and other foreign officials, almost certainly in violation of the Vienna Treaty of 1961.

And there are many others.  In response, Newt Gingrich joined other conservatives in calling for Assange to be considered an enemy combatant.  There is a swelling chorus of conservatives and political insiders calling for Assange to be killed and physical, military force to be used to stop Wikileaks, endorsed by Sarah Palin.

I support Wikileaks.  Wholeheartedly.  If we are going to live in a healthy democracy, if we are going to protect our individual rights against powerful institutions, if we are going to exist in a peaceful world, we have to -- have to -- have transparency.  There is no other way.  And I don't care if some short term U.S. interests are hurt.  We are only safe and empowered over the long term as a citizenry if we have access to full information and we can make decisions based on complete transparency.

We at the Mormon Left have spend a lot of time arguing for increasing the role of government in providing a safety net for Americans.  We've supported public welfare, single payer health insurance and the public option, progressive taxation, Social Security, aggressive regulation of the market, and the like.  So I can imagine a person thinking that supporting Wikileaks as a check against government and supporting government programs as intellectually dissonant.  But it's not.

A government that is transparent, accountable, and honest with its citizens can be incredibly effective at ameliorating social injustices.  What other organization has the resources and power to make sure that affordable health care is available to all Americans, or that all the elderly are taken care of?  None.  But that desire to allow government into our lives is based on the assumption that the government is being honest and accountable and not hiding material information from us.  If we find government unresponsive we have two major choices.  We can either demand that government stop providing those services that millions rely on in difficult times, or we can keep the services and make government more transparent and open.  I choose the latter, and that's why Wikileaks is to be applauded.

I've beaten this drum a few times, but there are certain fairly simple things we can do to improve our government and make it a useful tool in our hands instead of cutting off the social safety net and harming millions of everyday Americans.  We can reform campaign finance laws to limit the sway of special interests, enact term limits on all elected politicians, dramatically increase the size of the House of Representatives, reform the broken Senate and its anti-democratic rules, and the like.  Now lets add to the list "increase transparency."  I want full information in all but the most sensitive situations because when government, or any other institution, becomes secretive it means it is or will soon be doing something wrong.  And the Wikileaks documents prove conclusively that the American government, cloaked in secrecy, has been immoral and breaking every law it can get its hands on.  The proper response is to reform the way our government works in making it commit to more transparency.

I am so appalled and angered by the violent reaction to Wikileaks, such as those that want to use the military to forcefully destroy their organization and even kill them.  I think it could not reflect more poorly on those that want to combat transparency with violence and more secrecy.  Ultraconservatives rail against Pres. Obama and his radical and dangerous anti-American ideology, but they recoil in disgust when someone sheds light on how the American government actually works.  The tea party shrieks in horror when the government passes a stimulus bill to inject life into the economy as an unconstitutional intrusion into our private lives but whistles nonchalantly and turns the other way when someone reveals the extent to which our government breaks laws and acts immorally and then hides it from its people.  That is intellectual dissonance, and it is dangerous for the fate of our country.

Bad Religion has a song called You Are the Government:



That is exactly spot on.  We the People.  We are the government.  The government doesn't have a right to keep its actions hidden because we are the government.  We empower the government to do all sorts of good for us, the very least we should receive in return is true transparency and accountability.  Wikileaks helps us achieve that.  If you don't agree perhaps you'd feel more at home politically in China.

The "White Horse" meets Eric Cantor

A quickie: all those folks worried about the Constitution "hanging by a thread" have a new enemy -- Eric Cantor:

Eric Cantor supports destroying the Constitution

This is Tea Party delusion at its greatest -- destroy the Constitution in order to save it. Since I'm a self-declared Millennial Positivist, my belief is antics like this will doom these guys to irrelevancy. They might try and succeed in one or two states (maybe. And that's if everything goes exactly the way they planned), but it won't take long for people to realize how ideas like this run strongly counter to their interests.

Baseball and Politics: Expansion

I desperately want a major league baseball team in Salt Lake.  I could see myself going to a few dozen games every season.  As a lifelong Red Sox fan I would have no problem switching allegiances to a new, local team (especially after the Sox have won a couple World Series recently).  The only way I see this happening is through expansion.

There are currently 30 major league teams.  There are 16 teams in the National League and 14 in the American League.  The reason they are unbalanced is because in baseball every team plays just about every day, and teams play in (typically) three game sets, so you need an even number of teams in each league to avoid scheduling problems.  This means that the NL Central has six teams while the AL West only has four.  It would be ideal to add a couple of western teams to even out the leagues and enfranchise some disenfranchised parts of the country (I think Portland would be perfect for a second team).

The common argument against expansion is dilution of talent.  You take the same number of major league players and spread them across two more teams, and it means you have to now have inferior players on major league rosters.  That's 50 players who weren't good enough to play in the majors yesterday now playing in the majors.  The response is the fact that there is a larger and larger talent pool from which to draw players, both from population increases in the US and the every increasing influx of talent from outside the US, which means the borderline players now were likely talented enough to be big leaguers in less diluted times.

The chart below shows how many Americans per team there have been since 1960, the last year of pre-expansion MLB:

Year    Tms   Popuation      Pop per Tm
1960    16    180,671,158    11,291,947
1961    18    183,691,481    10,205,082
1962    20    186,537,737    9,326,887
1963    20    189,241,798    9,462,090
1964    20    191,888,791    9,594,440
1965    20    194,302,963    9,715,148
1966    20    196,560,338    9,828,017
1967    20    198,712,056    9,935,603
1968    20    200,706,052    10,035,303
1969    24    202,676,946    8,444,873
1970    24    205,052,174    8,543,841
1971    24    207,660,677    8,652,528
1972    24    209,896,021    8,745,668
1973    24    211,908,788    8,829,533
1974    24    213,853,928    8,910,580
1975    24    215,973,199    8,998,883
1976    24    218,035,164    9,084,799
1977    26    220,239,425    8,470,747
1978    26    222,584,545    8,560,944
1979    26    225,055,487    8,655,980
1980    26    227,224,681    8,739,411
1981    26    229,465,714    8,825,604
1982    26    231,664,458    8,910,171
1983    26    233,791,994    8,992,000
1984    26    235,824,902    9,070,189
1985    26    237,923,795    9,150,915
1986    26    240,132,887    9,235,880
1987    26    242,288,918    9,318,805
1988    26    244,498,982    9,403,807
1989    26    246,819,230    9,493,047
1990    26    249,464,396    9,594,784
1991    26    252,153,092    9,698,196
1992    26    255,029,699    9,808,835
1993    28    257,782,608    9,206,522
1994    28    260,327,021    9,297,394
1995    28    262,803,276    9,385,831
1996    28    265,228,572    9,472,449
1997    28    267,783,607    9,563,700
1998    30    270,248,003    9,008,267
1999    30    272,690,813    9,089,694
2000    30    282,171,936    9,405,731
2001    30    285,039,803    9,501,327
2002    30    287,726,647    9,590,888
2003    30    290,210,914    9,673,697
2004    30    292,892,127    9,763,071
2005    30    295,560,549    9,852,018
2006    30    298,362,973    9,945,432
2007    30    301,290,332    10,043,011
2008    30    304,059,724    10,135,324
2009    30    307,006,550    10,233,552
2010    30    308,400,408    10,280,014

Every time the population per team gets around ten million, MLB has expanded.  As you can see, we live in a time now where there is a greater population per team since any time before expansion began in 1961.  It is time for expansion in MLB, and I think Salt Lake City is a fine potential spot for a team.  I won't go into the details, but I think the Salt Lake metropolitan area has a lot of positive attributes that could make it attractive to Major League Baseball.

Expansion brings the teams and league closer to Americans, balances power more evenly throughout the country, and improves the brand generally by making the game more accessible.  I would suggest naming the team the Utah Reds, but that nickname is already taken.  Maybe the Utah Smog?  I'm just brainstorming.

The United States House of Representatives could benefit from the idea of expansion, as well.  For reference, first, I'm taking my information from the Wiki page for the HofR and the Google fusion table for population.  In 1776 there were about 2.5 million Americans and 65 Representatives, for a ration of one Representative for every 38,462 citizens.  Below is a rundown of all the years the House has been expanded and the new ratio:

1776:  38,462
1791:  58,684
1793:  40,956
1803:  41,322
1813:  43,345
1815:  45,648
1817:  47,814
1819:  50,089
1821:  46,577
1833:  58,520
1835:  61,237
1843:  83,917
1845:  88,429
1847:  93,191
1851:  102,612
1853:  108,587
1857:  121,094
1861-1868 is the Civil War and Reconstruction, so it got all screwy and I'm not going to figure it out.  I think the numbers get normal again in 1869.
1869:  155,472
1873:  142,429
1883:  165,312
1889:  186,564
1891:  192,740
1893:  186,714
1901:  200,995
1911:  240,059
1913:  223,506
1959:  407,866
1961:  420,347
1963:  435,039

Today the population is about 310,232,863 and we still have only 435 seats, making 713,179 Americans for every Representative, or about 18.5 times the original ratio 1776.  This is a big problem.  Reducing the ratio would help in a few of ways, I think.

First, it would bring our representatives closer to us.  This would make each individual voice more important and more powerful.  It would allow us easier access to our representatives, and make them more accountable to us.  It would perhaps open up lines of communication between the electorate and the representatives that cannot exist with such a large ratio as we have today.

Second, I think it would affect campaign funding positively.  I recently heard on NPR, and I can't find a link to back this up so take it with a grain of salt, that something like 20% of all winning Representatives received less than 10% of their total campaign funding from their actual constituents.  And something like 75% received less than half from their constituents.  The rest of the money came from political action committees and corporations and labor unions and the like.  This is incredibly disconcerting to me.  Every single Representative has been bought by big interest groups.  If we expanded the House significantly that money would get watered down and the local constituent money might become more important.

Third, it could serve to weaken the political parties.  Because Representatives would be more concerned with their actual constituents they might be more likely to think independently and not just get sucked into the cogs of the machines.  They would have less fear of going against party leadership to serve their constituents because they would be closer to their constituents than to the party.  There would be more districts that were idiosyncratic in one way or another because of their smaller sizes, making it harder to fit in neatly with either party.  A dramatically larger House might even create enough room for a third party or regional parties that doesn't seem to exist now.

So, in the same way that expanding the MLB would strengthen its brand and increase its popularity with little to no effect on the overall quality of the product, so would expanding the House of Representatives be good for democracy.  There are plenty of good men and women who would make excellent political leaders if only the system were not so corrupt and distant from the People.  If we combined an expanded House with things like campaign finance reform and term limits, we might actually improve the government brand and make it function better.

Rant Time: Pres. Obama is No Liberal

And he's certainly no socialist, despite the popular conservative argument otherwise.  Here's what we have seen so far:

1. He gave away the public option before the debate even began.  Health care reform ended up being a huge win for the health care industry which will soon be flooded with new customers thanks to the mandate.
2. The stimulus was too small and included too many tax cuts for corporations at the Republicans' behest.
3. He has failed to follow up on, pursue, and prosecute Bush Administration illegal activities such as torture and illegal wiretapping.
4. The war in Afghanistan, which pretty much everyone agrees we can't "win" militarily, has been escalated instead of ended.
5. The financial reform bill was watered down in the face of the powerful financial lobby to the point of likely being completely ineffectual to prevent the sort of the economic meltdown we are currently working our way out of, over two years later and with no end in sight.
6. He is now backing down from his stance of letting the tax cuts for the super-wealthy expire and extending the tax cuts for the vast majority of Americans permanently.
7. And now, reports are that the administration is stepping up covert attacks in Yemen.

What makes these items so infuriating for liberals is that public polling shows that Americans supported the liberal position in nearly ever single one of this issues.  Americans wanted a public option, at the time a big stimulus was popular to drag us out of the recession.  Americans hate torture and our Middle Eastern wars.  Americans wanted tough new regulations for Wall Street to avoid another economic meltdown.  Americans want the tax cuts for the wealthy to expire.  They want Pres. Obama to deliver on his promises, but he appears to be politically gutless.  I can't think of an issue where he has drawn a line in the sand and stood up for what he believes is best for America.

Compromise is inevitable, of course, and I'm glad we have a president who is willing to compromise to get things done.  The problem is he never seems to compromise from a position of strength and vigor.  When he was elected America had given Democrats complete control of the government because they didn't like where Republicans were taking them.  Instead of taking that mandate and arguing with strong voices for the policies that got them elected, Democrats capitulated and seems to retreat at every possible occasion.  As Pres. Obama is the leader of the Democratic party it was up to him to set the agenda and the tone.  He has so far failed.

I don't expect or even necessarily want a victory on every major point above, but certainly a few victories would be encouraging for liberals.  A few moments of inspiring leadership would be much appreciated.  A mere occasional reason to gloat wouldn't be the worst thing on earth.  If the President and Democrats had managed just a couple big wins in those issues they may have had a base that was more energized for the election and more willing to work hard to defeat the tea party surge.  But since there does not seem to be either 1) any real and deeply-held liberal convictions by Democrats or, worse, 2) any real difference between the two parties and thus no real choice, liberals largely stayed home on election day.

Pres. Obama has two more years to show some real leadership, but I'm not convinced he has it in him.  And I know Congressional Democrats don't.  The liberal renaissance we thought was coming in 2006 and 2008 has flatlined.

Skalestial Music Station

With liberals being betrayed by our elected Democrats on a daily basis now (more on this soon), I need to cleanse my palate, and that is often accomplished by the soothing and rolling sounds of ska music.  I've decided to share my Pandora ska station with all of you, for you listening pleasure:  Skalestial Music.

It's not perfect, by any means.  I still get a little too much pure reggae on the one side and punk on the other (I have a separate punk station I'm working on, but I'm rarely in a mood where I want the two to mix), but it's nonetheless pretty awesome.  I've put a lot of time into it, more than I'd care to admit, so please enjoy.  If anyone out there wants to share their favorite Pandora station with the rest of us, please feel free.  And if you want to learn too much about my affection for ska music, click here.

Millenial Positivism: Jacob Chapter 5 -- Breeding Out the Bad Fruit

As promised, here is the first installment of my series on "Millennial Positivism", or a version of pre-Millennial events that doesn't sound like something out of Mad Max.

The fifth chapter of Jacob offers a unique take on pre-Millennial events. Most other revelations on the subject tend to jump around and talk about various "signs" without presenting a coherent narrative. The fifth chapter of Jacob, on the other hand, runs straight through starting from some time after the exodus and ending with the burning of the earth following the Millennium and the great final battle between good and evil. It sticks to a single allegorical model -- olive trees in a vineyard -- throughout. It skips over many of the usual touchstones found in similar revelations; no talk of great tribulation, cataclysmic natural and man-made disasters, armageddon, or any of the other hallmarks of apocalyptic writing. Instead it focuses on the overall process of ridding the world of evil, and how that is to be accomplished in the "last days". The resulting tone is much more upbeat than one usually encounters in these sorts of revelations.

The story starts by setting the scene; we are presented with a vineyard wherein are found "wild" olive trees and a single "natural" olive tree. The vineyard represents the world, and the natural olive tree represents the House of Israel.

The focus is on producing fruit fit for consumption, and two people (the Master of the vineyard and his Servant) are the main human actors who attempt to manipulate the trees to achieve that objective. In the beginning the "natural" tree is old and decaying. The Master, who doesn't want to lose the tree, embarks on a series of schemes to try and obtain good fruit from the tree again.

The story thus progresses, with the Master and Servant working to manipulate the trees of the vineyard so they'll produce good fruit. By about half-way through the narrative, there is no longer any tree in the vineyard producing good fruit. At this point the Master unveils a new plan for saving all the trees of his vineyard:

62 Wherefore, let us go to and labor with our might this last time, for behold the end draweth nigh, and this is for the last time that I shall prune my vineyard.
63 Graft in the branches; begin at the last that they may be first, and that the first may be last, and dig about the trees, both old and young, the first and the last; and the last and the first, that all may be nourished once again for the last time.
64 Wherefore, dig about them, and prune them, and dung them once more, for the last time, for the end draweth nigh. And if it be so that these last grafts shall grow, and bring forth the natural fruit, then shall ye prepare the way for them, that they may grow.
65 And as they begin to grow ye shall clear away the branches which bring forth bitter fruit, according to the strength of the good and the size thereof; and ye shall not clear away the bad thereof all at once, lest the roots thereof should be too strong for the graft, and the graft thereof shall perish, and I lose the trees of my vineyard.
66 For it grieveth me that I should lose the trees of my vineyard; wherefore ye shall clear away the bad according as the good shall grow, that the root and the top may be equal in strength, until the good shall overcome the bad, and the bad be hewn down and cast into the fire, that they cumber not the ground of my vineyard; and thus will I sweep away the bad out of my vineyard.
67 And the branches of the natural tree will I graft in again into the natural tree;
68 And the branches of the natural tree will I graft into the natural branches of the tree; and thus will I bring them together again, that they shall bring forth the natural fruit, and they shall be one.
69 And the bad shall be cast away, yea, even out of all the land of my vineyard; for behold, only this once will I prune my vineyard. (source: Jacob 5:62-69)

There is much to discuss here, but most of the action centers around verse 66. The bad is to be removed, not all at once, but as the good gains strength. This process is to continue until all of the bad is cast out of the vineyard. The vineyard, remember, is the world and the House of Israel is a single tree in the middle of it. Thus the process of preparing the Earth in the last days includes a gradual cleansing, one that is now taking place.

This runs counter to much of the cultural belief about the Millennium in the Church. Many people believe that the bad in the world will continue to grow and gain strength, that the believers will be few, and that we will only be saved at the last minute by the return of Christ and a mass destruction of the wicked. That is the "Mad Max" version of the last days narrative, it envisions a world covered by sin and ripe for destruction. Hence our job in the last days is to scrounge up the few worthy individuals that we can find in the world and hunker down in preparation for Christ's return.

Jacob 5 does say that the "servants" will be few, but it is explicit about where this process of gradual cleansing ends:

70 And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard sent his servant; and the servant went and did as the Lord had commanded him, and brought other servants; and they were few.
71 And the Lord of the vineyard said unto them: Go to, and labor in the vineyard, with your might. For behold, this is the blast time that I shall nourish my vineyard; for the end is nigh at hand, and the season speedily cometh; and if ye labor with your might with me ye shall have joy in the fruit which I shall lay up unto myself against the time which will soon come.
72 And it came to pass that the servants did go and labor with their mights; and the Lord of the vineyard labored also with them; and they did obey the commandments of the Lord of the vineyard in all things.
73 And there began to be the natural fruit again in the vineyard; and the natural branches began to grow and thrive exceedingly; and the wild branches began to be plucked off and to be cast away; and they did keep the root and the top thereof equal, according to the strength thereof.
74 And thus they labored, with all diligence, according to the commandments of the Lord of the vineyard, even until the bad had been cast away out of the vineyard, and the Lord had preserved unto himself that the trees had become again the natural fruit; and they became like unto one body; and the fruits were equal; and the Lord of the vineyard had preserved unto himself the natural fruit, which was most precious unto him from the beginning. (source: Jacob 5:70-74)

This presents a much more positive picture of the influence of good in the world. The world begins as a corrupted vineyard, but through the diligent labor of the servants it is gradually cleansed. And, as the cleansing progresses the trees get stronger until the day comes that all of the bad has been removed from the vineyard.

Incidentally, this isn't the only narrative to present the struggle of good and evil as a progressive struggle ending with the triumph of good:

44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure. (source: Daniel 2:44-45)

Here again there is no great event where the wicked are destroyed in an instant. Rather, as the stone rolls it gains strength (I'll have more to say about this in a later post) and eventually consumes all of the kingdoms of the Earth.

So, to sum up, here are the main points that I take from these scriptures. Our job, as members of the Church, is not to hunker down and await the coming of Christ while watching the world waste away. Rather, our mission is to spread the good far and wide. Thankfully, that's exactly what is prophesied in these verses, and this mission will be successful. The bad in society won't go quietly, but it will be removed by degrees as history progresses. Ultimately good will prevail and the world will enjoy a thousand years of peace:

75 And it came to pass that when the Lord of the vineyard saw that his fruit was good, and that his vineyard was no more corrupt, he called up his servants, and said unto them: Behold, for this last time have we nourished my vineyard; and thou beholdest that I have done according to my will; and I have preserved the natural fruit, that it is good, even like as it was in the beginning. And blessed art thou; for because ye have been diligent in laboring with me in my vineyard, and have kept my commandments, and have brought unto me again the natural fruit, that my vineyard is no more corrupted, and the bad is cast away, behold ye shall have joy with me because of the fruit of my vineyard.
76 For behold, for a along time will I lay up of the fruit of my vineyard unto mine own self against the season, which speedily cometh; and for the last time have I nourished my vineyard, and pruned it, and dug about it, and dunged it; wherefore I will lay up unto mine own self of the fruit, for a long time, according to that which I have spoken. (source: Jacob 5:75-76)

It is interesting to note that, at the beginning of the story, the Master was primarily concerned with a single tree, that which once bore the "natural" fruit. However, by end of the story the Master has reclaimed the whole vineyard. I believe that a similar process is at work in the Church; as we begin to gain strength and better understand our mission, our focus has shifted from our own salvation to spreading good throughout the world in whatever way we can. My next post, "The Day Dawn is Breaking", will discuss how this is happening today.

Utah's Republican Hegemony

Utah again elected a Republican as governor and a Republican as United States Senator.  Both Gov. Herbert and Sen.-elect Lee won by wide 2-1 margins against moderate-to-conservative Democrats.  These are perhaps the least surprising election results since racist Democrats owned the South from Reconstruction to the Civil Rights Era.  In Utah, Republicans win and they win big, particularly for governor and United States Senate, which are the big, important statewide elections.

It got me wondering when the last time was that Utahns elected a Democrat to statewide office.  It turns out that Utah has not had a Democrat in statewide office since Scott Matheson (father of current Rep. Matheson) left the governor's office in January of 1985.  That's about 26 years.  Utah has not had a Democrat in the United State Senate since Frank Moss was defeated by Sen. Hatch and left office in January of 1977.  Sen. Hatch, ironically, made a big deal that Sen. Moss' 16 years in office were too many and that he had lost touch with Utahns.  Sen. Hatch has now been a senator for about 34 years.

I then began to wonder how this Republican hegemony stacked up against other states that are perceived to be dominated by one political party.  The results were not good for Utah.  No other state has gone as long as Utah voting for a single party in the major statewide elections of governor and senator.  The results follow.

I first looked at governors.  Out of all the states in the Union, 42 have elected governors from both parties in the last 16 years (since the 1994 elections).  Those that haven't, with the last year of opposite-party control in parentheses, are:  South Dakota (last Democrat in 1978), Utah (last Democrat in 1984), Washington (Republican 1984), Oregon (Republican 1986), Delaware (Republican 1992), North Dakota (Democrat 1992), and North Carolina (Republican 1993).  Connecticut last had a non-Republican Independent governor in office in 1994, and a Democrat in 1990.  Every other state has voted for both Republicans and Democrats for governor in the past 16 years.

So I took those eight states that showed a lack of diversity in governorships and compared the last time they elected a United States Senator from the opposite party.  Connecticut was easy because while they have been voting for Republican governors for the past few years they have also been voting for Democratic senators.  Both current Connecticut senators are Democrats, and the last time they had a Republican senator in office was 1998.  So hegemony is not a problem there.

North Carolina was similarly easy in the opposite direction.  That is a conservative state but has been voting for Democratic governors consistently for years.  They have a healthy mix of both Republican and Democrat senators over the past few years and currently have one of each.

The Dakotas, I would have thought, would have been the conservative states to challenge Utah in terms of hegemony, but I was wrong.  North Dakota currently has two Democratic senators and South Dakota has one.

Delaware and Washington, a couple of liberal states, both last had Republican senators in 2000, and Oregon, another liberal state, last had a Republican senator in 2008.  That last Republican Oregon senator was Gordon Smith, a Mormon, who was defeated in the Democratic surge that year.

And that leaves Utah, who, as I mentioned earlier, last had a Democratic senator in 1976.  That means it has been 26 years since Utah last had a non-Republican hold major statewide office.  No other state comes close to that record of hegemony.  The closest competitors for this ignominious distinction are Idaho and Texas, both practicing hegemony for 16 years.  Idaho last had a Democratic governor in 1994 and last had a Democratic senator in 1980.  Texas last had a Democratic governor in 1994 (the election that George W. Bush won) and last had a Democratic senator in 1993.  Delaware and Washington, as outlined above, have seen ten years of hegemony.

This is a bad thing, as I've written about before.  It detaches the controlling party from reality in that they are not really accountable to voters and there is never a threat that their bad choices will be reflected in election results.  Most importantly, though, is that one-party hegemony suffocates opposing points of view, healthy debate, and thus democracy itself.  As the Deseret News reported recently, it also suppresses voter turnout at elections.  Utah has seen voter turnout decline for decades to go from one of the highest voter turnouts in the country to 48th out of 50 states.  Many Utahns feel that our elections are foregone conclusions, which in essence they are.  I doubt Utah has had a surprise election result in decades.

I'm sure we could dig deeper and look at state legislature control, party identification, and how close elections have been, and I'm sure they would all show that Utah is far more one-party oriented than any state in the country.  It is not hard to see why people believe that many, many Utah Republicans blindly vote for the party without studying the candidates and issues and voting with an independent mind.  If voters never knew which parties Herbert and Corroon, Lee and Granato belonged to and simply voted based on their characters and stances on the issues, I think this election would have gone much differently.  Herbert and Lee hold extreme positions on many issues whereas Corroon and Granato hold moderate positions on just about every issue.  The latter two, in my opinion, more closely represent the beliefs and positions of a majority of Utahs, unfortunately they both had a D next to their names and never stood a chance.

I've been saying for a long time that the time will come when Utahns will take a turn toward the left (or at least more towards the center) and start voting in a more balanced way.  I'm beginning to doubt myself, to be honest.  It may be that this rut will last for another 30 years, or it may be that some big scandal or decision will cause a sudden course change.  Or maybe we need some sort of Huntsman-esque Manchurian candidate type who gets elected as a popular moderate Republican and then reveals that s/he will switch parties to become a Democrat, broadening many horizons along the way.  In the meantime, the current hegemony that prevails in Utah is harmful to our state.

The Economy, Mitigated by the Tea Party

. . . unfortunately.

This was certainly a drubbing for Democrats, no doubt about it.  After making six years of gains they have lost the House in resounding fashion, lost a bunch of governorships, and lost a handful of Senate seats.  I have no problem with fluidity in political power, but when you take a look at the underlying factors in the Republican landslide last night, the picture isn't so neat and clear as it might seem.

Take a look at the polling that asks Americans which issues are most important to them.  The economy is always the most important by a wide margin.  In the most recent CNN poll 52% of respondents said it was the most important issue while only eight percent thought issues such as the deficit, health care, our lame wars, etc., respectively were the most important.  In a recent Pew poll 39% thought the economy was the most pressing issue, 25% said health care was, and 17% said the deficit was.  In a recent Bloomberg poll 49% listed the economy as problem number one, compared to 27% for the deficit and ten percent for health care.  In a recent CBS poll it was 57% for the economy, seven percent for health care, three percent for things like immigration and the deficit.  Exit polls from last night show the same thing.

When the economy is bad and jobs are scarce, the party in power loses.  When the economy is really bad, the party in power loses really badly (and when the American public gets upset . . . people DIE!).  It happens to both parties.  And since neither party is very adept at actually solving problems, voters are fluctuating randomly and widely, trying to find the right combination of people to get the country back on track.  I think we'll flop around between Democratic and Republican control of the various political institutions for a few years, to be honest.

But, in any case, the objective data show that this election had precious little to do with health care reform, or the budget deficit, or taxes, or anything else other than the health of the economy.  This was not a fundamental repudiation of liberalism or a fundamental acceptance of conservatism, just like the opposite wasn't true for the last few years.  This is an American public feeling lost and injured, trying to wend our way through the wilderness.  There are lots of liberals and lots of conservatives and even more moderates and it will be that way for a long time.

The election was also colored by the Tea Party.  Last night MSNBC was running a graphic showing how Tea Party candidates fared.  The last one I saw showed that about 35 had won and about 60 had lost.  I can't find anything on this today, if you can please put it in the comments.  So while they generally raised Republican enthusiasm during the election, they were at best a mixed bag.  In the Senate, specifically, they might have cost Republicans control.  It looks like the new Senate will have 51 Democrats, 47 Republicans, and two independents that caucus with the Democrats (giving them essentially 53).  The Republicans threw away three seats because of the Tea Party: Nevada, Colorado, and Delaware.  The thought is that if they had picked up those seats and brought the Senate to 50-50 they could have persuaded someone like Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson to switch and caucus with Republicans, giving them a majority.

In the end, Republicans can feel pretty good about this election, but they should stop with all the rhetoric about the American people finally waking up, repudiating Pres. Obama (who still has okay poll numbers, all things considered), or giving them some sweeping mandate.  We're actually totally depressed about our country and you are depressing, the Democrats are depressing, and we seem to be just randomly picking candidates at this point.

Divided we Stand, United we Fall

Election Day 2010. 19 Seats are in play for the Senate with the Democrats currently holding 46 and the Republicans holding 35. 111 Seats are in play for the House with the Democrats currently holding 150 and the Republicans holding 174.

I have a feeling that no matter what the final roll call is at the end of the day, there will be no satisfaction and there will be no progress. Why? Because the willingness to accept differences, concede changes, or invoke cooperation in the our delightful partisan government is as rare as rocking horse poo.

Along with my major frustration with political campaigning are the empty promises. Take Sharron Angle from Nevada for example. Set aside the fact that Mrs. Angle is as dirty and manipulative as they come, and focus only on her promise that her first act as senator would be to submit legislation to repeal "Obamacare". Fair enough, she's not alone in wanting to draft such legislation (Minority leader Jim DeMint and Colorado candidate Ken Buck, among many others). What bothers me is that there is almost no chance that they can repeal the healthcare bill. Let's assume that the predicted becomes reality and Republicans gain control of the House. This doesn't help any of the senators cause, because their legislation has to first be approved in the Senate. Let's assume that all craziness is realized and Republicans gain power in both the House and the Senate. Maybe under these conditions they could get legislation pushed through - right onto President Obama's desk, and next to his Veto pen.

So, we are going to have a new congress, with the same old problems. Despite what all the candidates are promising, and until enough of those that (ostensibly) represent us mature to the point that they can cooperate, there will be no revolutions. Maybe we should turn to the punks for advice:

"I'm tired politicians, of patriots and nots. I'm tired of deeper knowledge...It's hard to know the right choice to be made, and harder still to keep....Be not afraid to hold out your hand. Be not ashamed, to not understand." - Crazy Arm, Still to Keep

"Unity, as one we stand together. Unity, revolution's gonna come." - Operation Ivy, Unity

"Constant entertainment for our restless minds. Constant stimulation for epic appetites. Is there something wrong with these songs? Maybe there's something wrong with the audience." Against Me!, Don't Lose Touch

Context is Everything

Like Jacob S. I'm not a huge fan of politics during election time. Most of all I don't like the misrepresentation of candidates and policies through "news" and paid advertisements. Although some of them kind be pretty funny, like this one from our friends to the north.



I've never heard of this guy before. I don't really know if he goes around kicking the random 14 year old in the face, but my gut says that the video of him in full soccer drag, swinging at a ball, is a bit out of context in terms of representing his political ideology. Sure, his attempt at trapping the ball looked more like something from MMA, but it would be nice to see the before and after to know this politicians intention and response.

Likewise, the media is adept at spinning benign comments into dangerous political fodder. In a recent interview with RollingStone magazine, President Obama was asked about his current taste in music. Fox picked up his response in full, but spun the headlines just so to make it, em, intriguing.

"President of the United States Loves Gangsta Rap"

Fox has since taken down the heading, and brushed it away as editorial privilege under the claim that Fox Nation is not the same as Fox News, and is therefore not responsible to the same level of truth in reporting. Obama's full answer:

My iPod now has about 2,000 songs, and it is a source of great pleasure to me. I am probably still more heavily weighted toward the music of my childhood than I am the new stuff. There's still a lot of Stevie Wonder, a lot of Bob Dylan, a lot of Rolling Stones, a lot of R&B, a lot of Miles Davis and John Coltrane. Those are the old standards.
A lot of classical music. I'm not a big opera buff in terms of going to opera, but there are days where Maria Callas is exactly what I need.
Thanks to Reggie [Love, the president's personal aide], my rap palate has greatly improved. Jay-Z used to be sort of what predominated, but now I've got a little Nas and a little Lil Wayne and some other stuff, but I would not claim to be an expert. Malia and Sasha are now getting old enough to where they start hipping me to things. Music is still a great source of joy and occasional solace in the midst of what can be some difficult days.
So, while we can indeed see that Obama admits to having some Rap in his collection (Lil Wayne and Nas), I don't know that I would go so far as to say that he LOVES rap. It would be like saying that likes a California roll every now and then LOVES sushi. The point is, a half truth can be as misleading and detrimental as a full lie.
I haven't visited Utah for a while now. I wasn't present at the recent protests regarding President Boyd K Packer's remarks on homosexuality. I did hear the remarks, in context, and definitely didn't take them as anti-gay. The LDS Church's stance on homosexuality is clear, and we have hashed through it many times before. I feel that one of the fundamental reasons that so many people were so distraught by the speech is because of the way the statements were taken out of context. Read the entire speech for yourself and make your own decision. More of that talk is on the importance of strengthening families than anything else.

Score another one for the misrepresentation of taking things out of context. Check the primary source, especially when it comes to important issues, be it political or otherwise.

I Hate Election Season

It's been a little slow around here and I can blame life being busy and tumultuous and, ironically, election season.  A political blog should be hoppin' during election season but I find that elections make me disillusioned and sad for America.  While we don't practice the most honorable politics in non-election seasons, during elections the level of political discourse on all sides plummets and candidates compete in a race to the bottom.  Perhaps the worst aspect of democracy is the elections.

The candidates believe, correctly, that Americans care more about wedge issues and digestible soundbites than substantive discussions of the issues.  They know by now that Americans like to be reaffirmed in what they believe as opposed to being challenged by new and novel ideas.  They know that Americans are tribalistic and like to think in terms of "us v. them" as opposed to finding ways to come together for the common good.  They are more interested in not making a gaffe than in saying or doing something truly memorable and inspiring and taking chances, because any little gaffe in this era of 24-hour cable news and the internet will be magnified beyond all reasonable limits of logic and decency.

From a partisan point of view this election season is also frustrating because of articles like this from Slate:

A. Recent polls have found that the economy is uppermost in the minds of voters ahead of the midterm elections. They have also found that many more Americans attribute the dismal economy to the former Bush administration than to the Obama administration. Gallup tells us that 71 percent of all Americans blame Republican policies for the bad economy, while only 48 percent blame the Obama administration.

B. Americans dislike congressional Republicans more than congressional Democrats. A recent Washington Post-ABC poll shows that while disapproval of congressional Democrats stands at 61 percent, disapproval of congressional Republicans stands at 67 percent.

C. Republicans are heavily tipped to wrest control of one or both houses of Congress from the Democrats in the upcoming midterms.

What's the explanation?  The article suggests that maybe Americans are just trying to get to divided government, which they like.  Or that Democrats are in office, the economy stinks, so vote out the Democrats.  Both are reasonable explanations, but my theory is that Republicans are better at talking to the Americans in paragraph two above than Democrats are.  Democrats are trying, don't get me wrong, they just aren't good at it.  For them, it takes something akin to George W. Bush trashing our country to find the right message and win some elections, which is a rare occurrence indeed.

Perhaps the most depressing thing you could do during this election season is browse through politifact.com.  Here you have a non-partisan look at the truthfulness of political commercials (now funded largely by anonymous groups and donors; so much for accountability and open governance), statements, and arguments.  The results aren't pretty and serve to reconfirm our suspicions that most politicians are liars.  But Americans aren't really interested in facts, they're interested truthiness.  Take it away, Mr. Colbert:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Truthiness
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election March to Keep Fear Alive