I am extremely tired of the argument that making some activity illegal will automatically result in people terminating said behavior. Such an idea is fundamentally contradictory to free agency, and a completely asinine approach to effectively modifying an individuals conduct.
I am not an anarchist. In contrast, I strongly advocate a government, and social oversight. The basic difference I see between the "left" and the "right" is in the degree of individual freedom and personal responsibility. The left favors personal freedom, with the belief that individual accountability and social liability will guide a person to the "correct" choice. On the other hand, the "right" favors more societal order, with the belief that generalized mandates and social regulation will guide a person to the "correct" choice. I will definitely argue that a majority of the "correct" choices actually overlap, but I disagree that both methods are equally effective.
As I drove into work I was amazed by the selfishness of many drivers around me. The speed limit says 65, but only the far right lane adheres to it; the "texters" briefly checking the road in front of them every 2 or 3 minutes; and the multiple lane changes without prior notification. Although only 2 out of 3 of the above are explicitly illegal, the third is not far behind. More importantly, I can't help but wonder, if so many people have such blatant disregard for two laws, then why not the third?
I agree with a ban on text messaging while driving, because it is put in place to protect the lives of other people. I also imagine that it will decrease the persistent use of texting behind the wheel. However, just like laws against speeding and unsafe driving, I am absolutely positive that it will not have the overwhelming result of stopping even a majority of people from texting. The fatal flaw is that people can still choose not to obey. And these are the easy and obvious laws! It is not difficult to slow down, signal, and wait 10 minutes to type ROFL. We are asked to obey these laws so as to decrease the chance that we, or other drives become one of the 120K+ deaths per year. It is the same reason that, by law, you must wear a seat belt.
If you drive a car, get in an accident as a result of careless/distracted/drunk/unsafe driving, and someone dies, it is either murder or suicide.
Another thought came to me at the pharmacy as I picked up my doctor prescribed, personalized bottle of medicine. It had my name on it, my doctors name, and the name of the pharmacy on the bottle. My wife's name wasn't there, my dog's name wasn't there, and I'm positive that Jake's name wasn't there either. It is a Class A Misdemeanor for taking medicine prescribed to someone else. It is also a Class A misdemeanor to give or sell your own prescribed medicine to someone else. That's for first time offenders. The second time one gets caught, the offense jumps to a Class D felony. Amazingly, despite the substantial consequences and clear unlawfulness of prescription drug abuse, Utah ranks number 1 in the nation by percentage.
So where exactly is the evidence that suggests that making something illegal is that great of a deterrent?
Kamis, 12 Maret 2009
Rabu, 11 Maret 2009
The Obama Budget - Ending Income Inequality
SO got the ball rolling on President Obama's budget below, and I'd like to take a look at another aspect. The gap between the rich and the poor in America is the largest it has ever been. The chart below from the Heritage Foundation begins to tell the story:
This may be hard to read (you can find it online here), but the top one-fifth of income earners in America own about one-half of the wealth. The bottom two-fifths combined own about one-eighth of the wealth. But it is even more extreme, as the following chart from Think Progress shows:
This may again be hard to read (and you can find it online here), but you will see that the top one percent of Americans own twenty percent of the wealth, those between the top five and one percent own about fifteen percent of the wealth, and those between the top ten and five percent own about twelve percent of the wealth. This is the classic example of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. The powerful are consolidating their power and the powerless are losing power. We cannot seriously call this either freedom or democracy.
The budget that President Obama proposed recently is the first major step shrinking the gap and assuring equality, opportunity, true freedom, and the American dream for every American. As SO mentioned in his post, the budget cuts taxes for 95% of Americans and allows the Bush tax cuts to expire on those making over $250,000 a year, which essentially puts the tax scheme back to Reagan-era levels.
The budget makes it easier for people to get unemployment benefits. It also temporarily increases food stamps and offers assistance to low income families to pay utility bills. Remember, over four million people have lost their jobs in the past year. We cannot simply ignore the fact that America is the wealthiest nation on earth while all around us are good, hard-working people struggling to put food on the table and pay the heating bill.
As for education, the great equalizer in America, the budget offers a new $2,500 credit to make college more affordable and replaces the old college student loan program with a new program run through the Department of Education which makes more money available for cheaper, including more Pell Grant money. My wife and I would never have made it through college with two bachelors degrees and one graduate degree without government assistance, and we are more than happy now to contribute to a system that allows expanded reach for others that are in the same situation we were in.
A substantial amount of money also goes to preschool programs, raising academic standards and test scores, and performance-based pay for teachers.
One of the greatest forces driving the separation of the rich and poor is also addressed in the budget: health care reform. Not only are the rich more wealthy (clearly) and more powerful, they are more healthy. While the poor delay medical care because of the cost and lose more work hours because of illness, the rich have ample health care opportunities. The budget lays out over $630 billion over the next ten years for the health care overhaul while suggesting guiding principles for Congress.
America can only be great if we are all great together. Opposing unchecked free market principles that only reward the elitist wealthy at the expense of the remaining 95% of the population is not socialism, it is a way to ensure freedom to all Americans in reality, not just in principle. The budget proposed by President Obama begins our progress toward more equality for all our citizens.
This may be hard to read (you can find it online here), but the top one-fifth of income earners in America own about one-half of the wealth. The bottom two-fifths combined own about one-eighth of the wealth. But it is even more extreme, as the following chart from Think Progress shows:
This may again be hard to read (and you can find it online here), but you will see that the top one percent of Americans own twenty percent of the wealth, those between the top five and one percent own about fifteen percent of the wealth, and those between the top ten and five percent own about twelve percent of the wealth. This is the classic example of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. The powerful are consolidating their power and the powerless are losing power. We cannot seriously call this either freedom or democracy.
The budget that President Obama proposed recently is the first major step shrinking the gap and assuring equality, opportunity, true freedom, and the American dream for every American. As SO mentioned in his post, the budget cuts taxes for 95% of Americans and allows the Bush tax cuts to expire on those making over $250,000 a year, which essentially puts the tax scheme back to Reagan-era levels.
The budget makes it easier for people to get unemployment benefits. It also temporarily increases food stamps and offers assistance to low income families to pay utility bills. Remember, over four million people have lost their jobs in the past year. We cannot simply ignore the fact that America is the wealthiest nation on earth while all around us are good, hard-working people struggling to put food on the table and pay the heating bill.
As for education, the great equalizer in America, the budget offers a new $2,500 credit to make college more affordable and replaces the old college student loan program with a new program run through the Department of Education which makes more money available for cheaper, including more Pell Grant money. My wife and I would never have made it through college with two bachelors degrees and one graduate degree without government assistance, and we are more than happy now to contribute to a system that allows expanded reach for others that are in the same situation we were in.
A substantial amount of money also goes to preschool programs, raising academic standards and test scores, and performance-based pay for teachers.
One of the greatest forces driving the separation of the rich and poor is also addressed in the budget: health care reform. Not only are the rich more wealthy (clearly) and more powerful, they are more healthy. While the poor delay medical care because of the cost and lose more work hours because of illness, the rich have ample health care opportunities. The budget lays out over $630 billion over the next ten years for the health care overhaul while suggesting guiding principles for Congress.
America can only be great if we are all great together. Opposing unchecked free market principles that only reward the elitist wealthy at the expense of the remaining 95% of the population is not socialism, it is a way to ensure freedom to all Americans in reality, not just in principle. The budget proposed by President Obama begins our progress toward more equality for all our citizens.
Senin, 09 Maret 2009
A Piece of Budget Pie
There are so many facets to President Obama's proposed budget that we will have to focus on each independently. First out of the gate is what common vernacular has deemed "cap and trade."
The motivation behind "cap and trade" is to reduce US emissions from carbon to well below the level set in 2005. To be precise, the goal is to drop the pollutions to 14% below former levels. As altruism is to often only the stuff of fairy tales, a more effective means of motivating businesses to reduce carbon emissions is by a system of taxation. Essentially, the government will auction off the chance to pollute. A business can purchase pollution access for some dollar amount per ton of CO2 to be released into our atmosphere. The government will limit the amount of pollution allowed (the cap part), and in the event that a company has leftover, unused pollution units, then can sell these to another company (the trade part).
The first, and most obvious, upside is the limit of CO2 pumped into Mother Nature. I don't honestly know how much of a difference this is going to make on her at this point, but everything we can do to ameliorate the disease, we must do. The second upside is what happens to the revenue. Conservative (as in cautious, not Republican) estimates suggest that the system will bring in 645 billion dollars over the next 10 years. A significant portion of this money will be used to fund research in alternative sources of energy, while some of the money will be given back to the consumer in the form of tax credits and refunds for transitioning to energy efficiency.
Oops. You caught me. I said it - "given back" to the consumer. The reality of the situation is that it is very likely that electricity, gas, and other utility costs will increase to offset the taxation of pollution. One report claims that the energy bills will jump by as much as 7%, and that the average tax will jump from 1,100 to 1,437 by 2015.
While I do concede that there will be an increase in the price of energy in the future, I want to break down these numbers to show just how dramatic they really are.
7% increase on energy bills. If you pay $50 per month throughout the year, then the bill will increase by $3.50 each month for a grand total of $42 per year.
Average tax to jump to $1,437 in 2015. Considering that inflation is hovering around 3% and will get the "average" up to $1,313, the additional $124 doesn't seem as significant. The other confounding factor that dramatic effect always omits from these kind of statements, is the definition of "average." Mathematically speaking, one takes all of the numbers in a set, adds the value together, and then divides it by the total number in the set. This analysis is great when the values are distributed equally above and below the average. For example, let's say that 10 different people pay taxes. Seven of them pay $20, one pays nothing, one pays $45 dollars, and one pays $2000. The average of the set is $218.50, but the majority of people pay $20.
The same it is with averages so often cited in reporting (by both factions). In the case of the increase in the average amount of tax is that there will be a return to the pre-Bush tax rate for the most wealthy from 33% to 36%. More later, but this return to 36% was decided on by the people that initially came up with the break. It was meant to be temporary, and thankfully it will be.
So back to the main issue. You will pay more for coal derived power in the future. Your money will be invested in developing alternative forms of energy production, and more efficient consumption of energy. The increase in rates is therefore a transient event - as alternative sources of energy become available, and as our ridiculously inefficient machines become more efficient, the cost of energy will come down. Minimal sacrifice now, maximum return later.
The alternative is to not have a cap and trade, not to invest in alternative energy, not to stop polluting, not to become more efficient, and not to save anything.
The motivation behind "cap and trade" is to reduce US emissions from carbon to well below the level set in 2005. To be precise, the goal is to drop the pollutions to 14% below former levels. As altruism is to often only the stuff of fairy tales, a more effective means of motivating businesses to reduce carbon emissions is by a system of taxation. Essentially, the government will auction off the chance to pollute. A business can purchase pollution access for some dollar amount per ton of CO2 to be released into our atmosphere. The government will limit the amount of pollution allowed (the cap part), and in the event that a company has leftover, unused pollution units, then can sell these to another company (the trade part).
The first, and most obvious, upside is the limit of CO2 pumped into Mother Nature. I don't honestly know how much of a difference this is going to make on her at this point, but everything we can do to ameliorate the disease, we must do. The second upside is what happens to the revenue. Conservative (as in cautious, not Republican) estimates suggest that the system will bring in 645 billion dollars over the next 10 years. A significant portion of this money will be used to fund research in alternative sources of energy, while some of the money will be given back to the consumer in the form of tax credits and refunds for transitioning to energy efficiency.
Oops. You caught me. I said it - "given back" to the consumer. The reality of the situation is that it is very likely that electricity, gas, and other utility costs will increase to offset the taxation of pollution. One report claims that the energy bills will jump by as much as 7%, and that the average tax will jump from 1,100 to 1,437 by 2015.
While I do concede that there will be an increase in the price of energy in the future, I want to break down these numbers to show just how dramatic they really are.
7% increase on energy bills. If you pay $50 per month throughout the year, then the bill will increase by $3.50 each month for a grand total of $42 per year.
Average tax to jump to $1,437 in 2015. Considering that inflation is hovering around 3% and will get the "average" up to $1,313, the additional $124 doesn't seem as significant. The other confounding factor that dramatic effect always omits from these kind of statements, is the definition of "average." Mathematically speaking, one takes all of the numbers in a set, adds the value together, and then divides it by the total number in the set. This analysis is great when the values are distributed equally above and below the average. For example, let's say that 10 different people pay taxes. Seven of them pay $20, one pays nothing, one pays $45 dollars, and one pays $2000. The average of the set is $218.50, but the majority of people pay $20.
The same it is with averages so often cited in reporting (by both factions). In the case of the increase in the average amount of tax is that there will be a return to the pre-Bush tax rate for the most wealthy from 33% to 36%. More later, but this return to 36% was decided on by the people that initially came up with the break. It was meant to be temporary, and thankfully it will be.
So back to the main issue. You will pay more for coal derived power in the future. Your money will be invested in developing alternative forms of energy production, and more efficient consumption of energy. The increase in rates is therefore a transient event - as alternative sources of energy become available, and as our ridiculously inefficient machines become more efficient, the cost of energy will come down. Minimal sacrifice now, maximum return later.
The alternative is to not have a cap and trade, not to invest in alternative energy, not to stop polluting, not to become more efficient, and not to save anything.
Jumat, 06 Maret 2009
Save Your Energy
This article from the most recent National Geographic has probably sent me down the path of action, instead of just scheming, in terms of energy conservation. Any headway I've made in energy conservation up until now has always been within my comfort zone. I believe it is time, though, to start conservation tactics that take us out of our comfort zone.
For instance, we have a very nice gas dryer, excepting the fact that I recently broke the selector knob and now we have to use a pair of pliers on it. I know that natural gas emits far less greenhouse gas (GHG, for the environmentally cool) than coal or oil, but I can't help but think that air-drying our clothes outside during the hot, dry Utah summers would be the better approach. Not necessarily an easier approach, in fact it may be a pain in butt, but the upside in terms of saving emissions and money in the form of lower bills could be tremendous.
I have perhaps the world's crappiest gas lawnmower. My goal was to upgrade this spring to a new one, but I have recently become aware of a rising tide of reel, or push, mowers. Yes, the old push mower, as seen here . . .
. . . is now hip again, as seen here:
He's happy because it cuts just about was well (unless you are trying to pulverize twigs and leaves), it emits zero GHG (as opposed to gas-powered mowers which emit 11 times more per hour than your average car), it is way more quiet (you can now listen to your iPod whilst mowing), and he happens to be getting in shape because it is powered by human muscle.
A huge amount of energy is wasted by appliances, no kidding, but specifically appliances that are turned off but still plugged in, or in standby mode. This is called Vampire Energy and is costing you hundreds of dollars a year and emitting, on a national level, millions of tons of GHG into the atmosphere. So the first step, of course, is to turn off those unused appliances like computers, TV's, lamps, DVD players, and Wii's. The next step is to start unplugging. This has the potential to become extremely annoying, I imagine, and I'm not sure I want my little kids to have to start plugging in the TV to watch it in the morning (though the TV is the most blood-thirsty vampire of them all), but the positives once again outweigh the negatives.
My dream, by the way, is to install a solar panel on the garage roof. There is significant headway that needs to be made first in terms of marital relations in my particular case, but this has the potential to be a big deal. There are significant tax credits on both the state and federal levels for renewable energy purchases, including solar panels. This is one that probably won't save you a ton of money, though, in the short term. Even over the long term, say 5-10 years, it may be a wash. But think of the satisfaction of not relying on the grid that is powered, depending on where you live, almost exclusively by dirty coal-fired power plants. Think of the tons and tons of GHG that you won't be emitting, instead relying on the energy provided by the great Giver of Clean and Renewable and Free to Everyone Energy, the sun. Think of being able to turn on your lamp when everyone else on the block has lost their power because some teenager threw his shoes on the powerline down the street. You probably wouldn't even have to worry about unplugging your TV at night. I can picture a time in the not-so-distant future where most houses have a solar panel for their personal use.
The whopper, though, is your car. Americans are driving less recently, but we still have some major progress to make. The average American drives around 33 miles a day, which is staggering. Most of that comes from the commute to and from work. The culprit is the desire to live farther and farther out in the suburbs and exurbs, resulting in sprawl. Factor in that a gallon of gas creates over 19 pounds of CO2, and you will find that the average vehicle (and how many vehicles do you own?) will emit somewhere around 12,000 pounds of CO2 per year.
Small changes in driving habits can save thousands of pounds of GHG every year. Driving slower, inflating tires properly, planning ahead and making mulitple errands at once, taking the train or bus, carpooling to work and school, and actually walking places (like to church!) are some ways to save gas. I know I'm not alone in considering this the most difficult area of improvement. We love the mobility and freedom that come with driving and it is nearly impossible to give it up. But if we are going to make a difference for our children, this is an area way outside our comfort zone where we can make the largest improvements.
If the proper way to understand our relationship with earth is one of stewardship, which I believe is true, then we are going to have to make sacrifices and change our lifestyles in order to be good stewards. And just like in the parable of the talents in the New Testament, I truly believe the Lord will reward our willingness to improve upon our stewardships by making the earth beautiful and healthy through our living a sustainable lifestyle.
For instance, we have a very nice gas dryer, excepting the fact that I recently broke the selector knob and now we have to use a pair of pliers on it. I know that natural gas emits far less greenhouse gas (GHG, for the environmentally cool) than coal or oil, but I can't help but think that air-drying our clothes outside during the hot, dry Utah summers would be the better approach. Not necessarily an easier approach, in fact it may be a pain in butt, but the upside in terms of saving emissions and money in the form of lower bills could be tremendous.
I have perhaps the world's crappiest gas lawnmower. My goal was to upgrade this spring to a new one, but I have recently become aware of a rising tide of reel, or push, mowers. Yes, the old push mower, as seen here . . .
. . . is now hip again, as seen here:
He's happy because it cuts just about was well (unless you are trying to pulverize twigs and leaves), it emits zero GHG (as opposed to gas-powered mowers which emit 11 times more per hour than your average car), it is way more quiet (you can now listen to your iPod whilst mowing), and he happens to be getting in shape because it is powered by human muscle.A huge amount of energy is wasted by appliances, no kidding, but specifically appliances that are turned off but still plugged in, or in standby mode. This is called Vampire Energy and is costing you hundreds of dollars a year and emitting, on a national level, millions of tons of GHG into the atmosphere. So the first step, of course, is to turn off those unused appliances like computers, TV's, lamps, DVD players, and Wii's. The next step is to start unplugging. This has the potential to become extremely annoying, I imagine, and I'm not sure I want my little kids to have to start plugging in the TV to watch it in the morning (though the TV is the most blood-thirsty vampire of them all), but the positives once again outweigh the negatives.
My dream, by the way, is to install a solar panel on the garage roof. There is significant headway that needs to be made first in terms of marital relations in my particular case, but this has the potential to be a big deal. There are significant tax credits on both the state and federal levels for renewable energy purchases, including solar panels. This is one that probably won't save you a ton of money, though, in the short term. Even over the long term, say 5-10 years, it may be a wash. But think of the satisfaction of not relying on the grid that is powered, depending on where you live, almost exclusively by dirty coal-fired power plants. Think of the tons and tons of GHG that you won't be emitting, instead relying on the energy provided by the great Giver of Clean and Renewable and Free to Everyone Energy, the sun. Think of being able to turn on your lamp when everyone else on the block has lost their power because some teenager threw his shoes on the powerline down the street. You probably wouldn't even have to worry about unplugging your TV at night. I can picture a time in the not-so-distant future where most houses have a solar panel for their personal use.
The whopper, though, is your car. Americans are driving less recently, but we still have some major progress to make. The average American drives around 33 miles a day, which is staggering. Most of that comes from the commute to and from work. The culprit is the desire to live farther and farther out in the suburbs and exurbs, resulting in sprawl. Factor in that a gallon of gas creates over 19 pounds of CO2, and you will find that the average vehicle (and how many vehicles do you own?) will emit somewhere around 12,000 pounds of CO2 per year.
Small changes in driving habits can save thousands of pounds of GHG every year. Driving slower, inflating tires properly, planning ahead and making mulitple errands at once, taking the train or bus, carpooling to work and school, and actually walking places (like to church!) are some ways to save gas. I know I'm not alone in considering this the most difficult area of improvement. We love the mobility and freedom that come with driving and it is nearly impossible to give it up. But if we are going to make a difference for our children, this is an area way outside our comfort zone where we can make the largest improvements.
If the proper way to understand our relationship with earth is one of stewardship, which I believe is true, then we are going to have to make sacrifices and change our lifestyles in order to be good stewards. And just like in the parable of the talents in the New Testament, I truly believe the Lord will reward our willingness to improve upon our stewardships by making the earth beautiful and healthy through our living a sustainable lifestyle.
Rabu, 04 Maret 2009
Morality in Politics
The question is, how do we determine which political party is more moral? If you are a Mormon trying to decide which party best fits your moral code, or any other person who considers himself of high moral caliber, how do you choose? Let's look at a few studies and statistics as a starting point.
A new nationwide study by Harvard showed that Utah, by a large margin, leads the nation in online pornography subscriptions and that eight out of the top ten states in this study voted for John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. The other top ten in order are: Alaska, Mississippi, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Arkansas, North Dakota, Louisiana, Florida, West Virginia. The ten lowest are: Montana, Idaho, Tennessee, Ohio, Oregon, New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut, Wyoming, Michigan.
There is a similar trend in divorce rates by state, with eight of the top ten being states that voted for McCain and are typically conservative: Nevada, Arkansas, Alabama, Wyoming, Idaho, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida, Mississippi. Utah is about right in the middle at number 23. The ten lowest divorce rates are: Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Illinois, Massachusetts, Georgia, Washington D.C. (obviously not a state, but I included it).
Top ten states for marijuana: Alaska, Colorado, D.C., Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, making eight of ten that went for Obama. Bottom ten: Alabama, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, Tennessee, Texas, Utah.
Top ten states for illicit drug use: Alaska, Colorado, D.C., Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, making eight of ten that went for Obama. Bottom ten: Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin.
Top ten states for alcohol consumption: Colorado, Connecticut, D.C., Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Wisconsin, making eight of ten that went for Obama. Bottom ten: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia.
Top ten states for teen pregnancies: Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Mississippi, Texas, Florida, California, North Carolina, Georgia, Hawaii, about half considered conservative states and half liberal. Bottom ten: North Dakota, Vermont, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Maine, Utah, South Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska.
So what can we learn from these facts that bears on which political ideology is more moral? Absolutely nothing. We can learn nothing at all about whether liberals or conservatives are more or less moral than the other. There is no correlation between political party or ideology and moral integrity.
This is why it makes me so upset when people imply that conservatives are more moral than liberals and why I try to point out inconsistencies, by way of examples of immorality in conservatives and liberals alike, in this way of thinking. You will find morally upstanding and morally degrading people along the entire political spectrum. But I absolutely believe that conservatives are much more derogatory towards liberal morality than the other way around.
The heart of the problem, of course, is gays and abortion. Liberals are more likely to support gay rights and even gay marriage. I do not believe that this reflects on the morality of the person. If you have two couples who are married and one set of couples supports civil unions for their gay neighbors and the other does not, does that make the first couple less moral? What if the husband of the latter couple is addicted to drugs or pornography? What if the latter couple gets a divorce because the wife committed adultery? How exactly does the support of gay rights bear on the morality of the couples? Not to mention that the percentage of gays in the nation is small, less than one in ten, making this issue so far down on the list of things that affect our morality as a nation, behind such undiscussed issues such as divorce, infidelity, pornography, drug and alcohol addiction, etc., that it is merely a wedge issue and nothing more.
As for abortion, yes I agree that it is completely immoral. I will state again that I follow the Church doctrine on this issue. One thing to keep in mind, however, is that liberals do not like abortions. You will never hear a Democratic leader state that we need more abortions, they always say that we need fewer. So this is not the case of pro-abortion v. anti-abortion, it is the case of safe and legal and rare abortions v. illegal abortions in most cases.
But if you chalk up abortion in the "immoral" category for liberals, you have to chalk up the Iraq War, torture, lack of available health care to the poor, and other issues in the "immoral" category for conservatives. Those are issues that are specifically supported by conservative leaders in America and reflect poorly on the moral standards of conservatives. But just as I am free to be a liberal and not completely support the Democratic party line on abortion, conservatives are free to not support torture and unprovoked war and the like. And this gets back to the main issue again, namely that political ideology is not a gauge for moral rectitude. There is virtue and vice in each.
Another issue that seems to define the argument that liberals are inherently less moral than conservatives is that liberalism, by definition, challenges existing institutions and emphasizes individual freedom of choice. See SO's excellent take on that here. This is used by conservatives to attack liberals as wanting to destroy traditional institutions such as marriage, religion, and the free market. While I admit that those types of people exist in the extreme minority, this is another classic example of the straw-man argument.
Instead, most use liberalism to challenge institutions which positively create harm to society. Examples of this might be the abolition of slavery, racist policies and attitudes including "Separate but Equal," the complex and broken health care system, the tyranny of monarchs and despots, and the exclusive right to vote for land-owning white males. Is there something inherently immoral about breaking those bonds?
Without opining on Joseph Smith's potential political affiliation in today's world, could there have been a more liberal religious figure than him? He challenged the very foundation of the oppressive contemporary Christian establishment by stating that God was knowable, communicated with man (as in mankind) on earth, and that man could become like him through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. He wanted nothing less than to turn the Christian institutions on their ear and reform the very way man considered his relationship with God.
So I never again want to hear the phrase "Good Mormon Republican." I don't want Mormons to be stereotyped as voting for whoever has the "R" next to their name. I don't want to overhear people in Church imply that the Republican party is the Mormon party or the moral party. I also don't want the opposite to be true. There is no predominantly moral ideology in America today. There are only political parties that contain both moral and immoral. It is time for Mormon conservatives and liberals to identify the good and bad in their ideologies and embrace the good, and I believe if they do they will find that there is still plenty to disagree and argue about.
A new nationwide study by Harvard showed that Utah, by a large margin, leads the nation in online pornography subscriptions and that eight out of the top ten states in this study voted for John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. The other top ten in order are: Alaska, Mississippi, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Arkansas, North Dakota, Louisiana, Florida, West Virginia. The ten lowest are: Montana, Idaho, Tennessee, Ohio, Oregon, New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut, Wyoming, Michigan.
There is a similar trend in divorce rates by state, with eight of the top ten being states that voted for McCain and are typically conservative: Nevada, Arkansas, Alabama, Wyoming, Idaho, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida, Mississippi. Utah is about right in the middle at number 23. The ten lowest divorce rates are: Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Illinois, Massachusetts, Georgia, Washington D.C. (obviously not a state, but I included it).
Top ten states for marijuana: Alaska, Colorado, D.C., Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, making eight of ten that went for Obama. Bottom ten: Alabama, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, Tennessee, Texas, Utah.
Top ten states for illicit drug use: Alaska, Colorado, D.C., Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, making eight of ten that went for Obama. Bottom ten: Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin.
Top ten states for alcohol consumption: Colorado, Connecticut, D.C., Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Wisconsin, making eight of ten that went for Obama. Bottom ten: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia.
Top ten states for teen pregnancies: Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Mississippi, Texas, Florida, California, North Carolina, Georgia, Hawaii, about half considered conservative states and half liberal. Bottom ten: North Dakota, Vermont, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Maine, Utah, South Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska.
So what can we learn from these facts that bears on which political ideology is more moral? Absolutely nothing. We can learn nothing at all about whether liberals or conservatives are more or less moral than the other. There is no correlation between political party or ideology and moral integrity.
This is why it makes me so upset when people imply that conservatives are more moral than liberals and why I try to point out inconsistencies, by way of examples of immorality in conservatives and liberals alike, in this way of thinking. You will find morally upstanding and morally degrading people along the entire political spectrum. But I absolutely believe that conservatives are much more derogatory towards liberal morality than the other way around.
The heart of the problem, of course, is gays and abortion. Liberals are more likely to support gay rights and even gay marriage. I do not believe that this reflects on the morality of the person. If you have two couples who are married and one set of couples supports civil unions for their gay neighbors and the other does not, does that make the first couple less moral? What if the husband of the latter couple is addicted to drugs or pornography? What if the latter couple gets a divorce because the wife committed adultery? How exactly does the support of gay rights bear on the morality of the couples? Not to mention that the percentage of gays in the nation is small, less than one in ten, making this issue so far down on the list of things that affect our morality as a nation, behind such undiscussed issues such as divorce, infidelity, pornography, drug and alcohol addiction, etc., that it is merely a wedge issue and nothing more.
As for abortion, yes I agree that it is completely immoral. I will state again that I follow the Church doctrine on this issue. One thing to keep in mind, however, is that liberals do not like abortions. You will never hear a Democratic leader state that we need more abortions, they always say that we need fewer. So this is not the case of pro-abortion v. anti-abortion, it is the case of safe and legal and rare abortions v. illegal abortions in most cases.
But if you chalk up abortion in the "immoral" category for liberals, you have to chalk up the Iraq War, torture, lack of available health care to the poor, and other issues in the "immoral" category for conservatives. Those are issues that are specifically supported by conservative leaders in America and reflect poorly on the moral standards of conservatives. But just as I am free to be a liberal and not completely support the Democratic party line on abortion, conservatives are free to not support torture and unprovoked war and the like. And this gets back to the main issue again, namely that political ideology is not a gauge for moral rectitude. There is virtue and vice in each.
Another issue that seems to define the argument that liberals are inherently less moral than conservatives is that liberalism, by definition, challenges existing institutions and emphasizes individual freedom of choice. See SO's excellent take on that here. This is used by conservatives to attack liberals as wanting to destroy traditional institutions such as marriage, religion, and the free market. While I admit that those types of people exist in the extreme minority, this is another classic example of the straw-man argument.
Instead, most use liberalism to challenge institutions which positively create harm to society. Examples of this might be the abolition of slavery, racist policies and attitudes including "Separate but Equal," the complex and broken health care system, the tyranny of monarchs and despots, and the exclusive right to vote for land-owning white males. Is there something inherently immoral about breaking those bonds?
Without opining on Joseph Smith's potential political affiliation in today's world, could there have been a more liberal religious figure than him? He challenged the very foundation of the oppressive contemporary Christian establishment by stating that God was knowable, communicated with man (as in mankind) on earth, and that man could become like him through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. He wanted nothing less than to turn the Christian institutions on their ear and reform the very way man considered his relationship with God.
So I never again want to hear the phrase "Good Mormon Republican." I don't want Mormons to be stereotyped as voting for whoever has the "R" next to their name. I don't want to overhear people in Church imply that the Republican party is the Mormon party or the moral party. I also don't want the opposite to be true. There is no predominantly moral ideology in America today. There are only political parties that contain both moral and immoral. It is time for Mormon conservatives and liberals to identify the good and bad in their ideologies and embrace the good, and I believe if they do they will find that there is still plenty to disagree and argue about.
Selasa, 03 Maret 2009
Sorry, More Utah Politics
The Senate recently voted to expand the members of the House of Representatives from 435 seats to 437, giving one seat to the District of Columbia and another to Utah. The reason for Utah's inclusion is because it was 80 human beings short of getting a new district from the 2000 census, was the fastest growing state since then, and will likely vote a Republican to fill the seat to counter the forgone conclusion that D.C. will vote in a Democrat.
There is this tantalizing possibility, though, that this could all backfire and Utah would end up voting for a Democrat, as well. The Utah legislature drew up the four districts back in 2000 when it seemed likely Utah was going to get the seat the good old fashion way. You can see the map here.
District 1 in Northern Utah is solidly conservative, and so is District 3 because even though it has Grand County and some of Summit County, both of which went for Obama, and San Juan County, which nearly went to Obama, it also contains Utah County which is big and hugely conservative. So that puts District 1, likely for Bishop, and District 3, likely for Chaffetz, solidly Republican. District 2 is a slam dunk for Democrats. It contains the north half of Salt Lake County, a little bit of Davis County (Woods Cross), a little bit of Utah County (Alta) and the real liberal part of Summit County, Park City. Then there's District 4. This little gem is the southern half of Salt Lake County and then the western counties down to Washington County.
The backfire comes where in the last ten years the southern half of Salt Lake County is more and more liberal, especially along the east bench. Republicans have lost some state seats in that area to Democrats, most notably Senate president Greg Curtis from Sandy. Also making this intriguing is that Matheson has the highest approval ratings outside of the Huntsman juggernaut and is from Iron County, which is within that District 4. So Matheson could run in that 4th District and win, with the only challenge being picking up some votes from big-ish and conservative Washington County. He also has experience running in conservative districts and a record of being a moderate. If he did that, then District 2 could run any viable Democrat and win and suddenly Utah has 2 Democrats in the House. I'm not sure if Matheson is that big a risk-taker with District 2 seemingly in the bag, but this is not that far fetched.
Which leads to another interesting little bit of politcal time-wasting. The National Journal Online (warning, slow loading) recently ranked all Congresspeople along the ideological spectrum. You will notice such things as Jim Matheson being predictably moderate, fellow Mormon Harry Reid not as liberal as conservatives think, and Bob Bennett and Orin Hatch are suprisingly moderate. These rankings are not official, by any means, and there is some criticism of it methodology, but it is probably more or less the starting point to some arguments.
The juiciest tidbit, for me, is seeing Chris Cannon, former Representative from Utah, as the 16th most conservative in the 435-seat House. This is not surprising, and Rob Bishop is just barely behind. Chris Cannon, however, lost to Jason Chaffetz in the last election, from the right. Chris Cannon, the 16th most conservative Rep in the nation, was too liberal for the good folks of Utah County, at a time when the entire rest of the nation shifted to the left.
Now I'm not saying that Utah Republicans that don't fall in line with shockingly moderate Governor Huntsman are already irrelevant, but it is quickly approaching that point. The problem with the Republican Party over the past five years is not that it is too liberal, or that it got away from it conservative roots, or that it is not listening intently enough to Rush Limbaugh, it is that the American people have moved to the left. The American people now favor more liberal policies. So either the Republican Party can gravitate toward leaders like Huntsman, or it can fade to obscurity.
And just to be clear, more liberal does not mean less moral. Is it more or less moral to torture? How about being responsible for the deaths of a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians as the result of an unprovoked war? How about letting millions go without proper medical care in the name of self-sufficiency and the free market? And so on.
There is this tantalizing possibility, though, that this could all backfire and Utah would end up voting for a Democrat, as well. The Utah legislature drew up the four districts back in 2000 when it seemed likely Utah was going to get the seat the good old fashion way. You can see the map here.
District 1 in Northern Utah is solidly conservative, and so is District 3 because even though it has Grand County and some of Summit County, both of which went for Obama, and San Juan County, which nearly went to Obama, it also contains Utah County which is big and hugely conservative. So that puts District 1, likely for Bishop, and District 3, likely for Chaffetz, solidly Republican. District 2 is a slam dunk for Democrats. It contains the north half of Salt Lake County, a little bit of Davis County (Woods Cross), a little bit of Utah County (Alta) and the real liberal part of Summit County, Park City. Then there's District 4. This little gem is the southern half of Salt Lake County and then the western counties down to Washington County.
The backfire comes where in the last ten years the southern half of Salt Lake County is more and more liberal, especially along the east bench. Republicans have lost some state seats in that area to Democrats, most notably Senate president Greg Curtis from Sandy. Also making this intriguing is that Matheson has the highest approval ratings outside of the Huntsman juggernaut and is from Iron County, which is within that District 4. So Matheson could run in that 4th District and win, with the only challenge being picking up some votes from big-ish and conservative Washington County. He also has experience running in conservative districts and a record of being a moderate. If he did that, then District 2 could run any viable Democrat and win and suddenly Utah has 2 Democrats in the House. I'm not sure if Matheson is that big a risk-taker with District 2 seemingly in the bag, but this is not that far fetched.
Which leads to another interesting little bit of politcal time-wasting. The National Journal Online (warning, slow loading) recently ranked all Congresspeople along the ideological spectrum. You will notice such things as Jim Matheson being predictably moderate, fellow Mormon Harry Reid not as liberal as conservatives think, and Bob Bennett and Orin Hatch are suprisingly moderate. These rankings are not official, by any means, and there is some criticism of it methodology, but it is probably more or less the starting point to some arguments.
The juiciest tidbit, for me, is seeing Chris Cannon, former Representative from Utah, as the 16th most conservative in the 435-seat House. This is not surprising, and Rob Bishop is just barely behind. Chris Cannon, however, lost to Jason Chaffetz in the last election, from the right. Chris Cannon, the 16th most conservative Rep in the nation, was too liberal for the good folks of Utah County, at a time when the entire rest of the nation shifted to the left.
Now I'm not saying that Utah Republicans that don't fall in line with shockingly moderate Governor Huntsman are already irrelevant, but it is quickly approaching that point. The problem with the Republican Party over the past five years is not that it is too liberal, or that it got away from it conservative roots, or that it is not listening intently enough to Rush Limbaugh, it is that the American people have moved to the left. The American people now favor more liberal policies. So either the Republican Party can gravitate toward leaders like Huntsman, or it can fade to obscurity.
And just to be clear, more liberal does not mean less moral. Is it more or less moral to torture? How about being responsible for the deaths of a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians as the result of an unprovoked war? How about letting millions go without proper medical care in the name of self-sufficiency and the free market? And so on.
Senin, 02 Maret 2009
Suck It Up
Another set of local bills that stifle the transition from coal to clean energy sources recently surfaced in the Utah State Legislature. Sponsered by Roger E. Barrus (R - District 18), these three bills are focused mainly on the dissemination of power to the state legislature and the Air Quality Board in regards to pollution. Although a restructuring of the responsibility and oversight of these government agencies may seem like a good idea, the proverbial fine print speaks otherwise.
HB 190: http://le.utah.gov/~2009/bills/hbillint/hb0190.pdf
HB 191: http://le.utah.gov/~2009/bills/hbillint/hb0191.pdf
HB 412: http://le.utah.gov/~2009/bills/hbillint/hb0412.pdf
The Air Quality Board will be limited in entering interstate agreements, preventing the Governor to work in cooperation with other States to improve air quality. Instead of the Air Quality Board having oversight in regulating pollution, the state legislature will have control to dictate who and how pollution will be monitored. My favorite line is that the legislature will be allowed to "accept, receive, and administer grants or other funds or gifts from public and private agencies.." So unless you have the money to convince the legislature otherwise, big business (i.e. big desecrating business), will have a chance to spew more filth into the air. Take a deep breath Utah!
*cough*
HB 190: http://le.utah.gov/~2009/
HB 191: http://le.utah.gov/~2009/
HB 412: http://le.utah.gov/~2009/
The Air Quality Board will be limited in entering interstate agreements, preventing the Governor to work in cooperation with other States to improve air quality. Instead of the Air Quality Board having oversight in regulating pollution, the state legislature will have control to dictate who and how pollution will be monitored. My favorite line is that the legislature will be allowed to "accept, receive, and administer grants or other funds or gifts from public and private agencies.." So unless you have the money to convince the legislature otherwise, big business (i.e. big desecrating business), will have a chance to spew more filth into the air. Take a deep breath Utah!
*cough*
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)