The (GOP-Court-Majority-Sized) Elephant in the Room

Unless you've been living under a rock the past few days, you probably heard that a leaked Supreme Court decision shows a majority on the Court are supporting an overturn of the precedential case Roe v. Wade, which provided a constitutional right to abortion in certain cases. While most observers expected this conservative majority to chip away at abortion rights, the main shocking thing seems to be that Roe is being completely thrown away (and under reasoning I find very suspect, but that's probably a separate post). 

I believe that one of the reasons many Mormons are so Republican/conservative is that there is a strong anti-abortion sentiment among most members. In case you haven't already guessed this from the title of my blog, I'm pro-choice (and I did another blog post on this topic back in 2013). That doesn't mean I necessarily think abortion is great. If I found myself with an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy, I know I would really struggle with what to do - but I think it should be my choice, not the government's. It seems like the height of government overreach to say that government should control the private medical decisions about what happens inside a woman's body. So, I thought I would lay out the "moral" and "practical" reasons I feel that abortion should still be legal here in America.

The Moral Argument for Legal Abortion

If someone needs a kidney transplant, I cannot be forced to give him/her my kidney - even if I *can* do so without causing my own death, the law of the land respects my bodily autonomy enough to say that I cannot be forced to save another's life. Is this a morally complicated issue? Absolutely! But I have control over how my body is used - that is the essence of personal liberty. The same argument applies to abortion. Not even a mother can be forced to save the life of her child by giving up a kidney - similarly, I don't believe a woman should be forced to carry a baby to term.

There are many circumstances where a woman may consider an abortion - when her own life is at stake, when the baby's life is at stake, when the pregnancy is the result of rape/incest, or many other situations too numerous to mention. My point here is that the woman is an adult, capable of making mature ethical and medical decisions. You may not agree with those decisions (just like you might not agree with me eating junk food) but you don't get to make those decisions on behalf of another person. 

Of course, pro-life individuals will argue that it is the woman who is making a decision on behalf of another person by "murdering" a fetus. To me, the question of when life begins is a complicated one - is a fertilized egg sitting in a petri dish, waiting to be implanted in a woman, a life? I don't think so, and most people would agree that it's not. On the other hand, I don't believe that abortion should be allowed "up to conception" - at some point, that fetus becomes a baby, and I'm not sure when that is, to be honest. BUT, I know that I am much more comfortable with women making a decision on abortion, than with a court mandating that women be forced to give birth.

Practical Arguments for Legal Abortion 

Setting aside the moral arguments for and against legal abortion, let's look at the practical arguments.

Research shows that rates of abortion are similar across the world in countries where abortion is legal and where it is illegal. Outlawing abortion doesn't decrease the number of abortions, it decreases the number of safe abortions. One of the consequences of overturning Roe will be women seeking unsafe abortions, and likely dying as a result. How can you claim to be pro-life if the policy you are pursuing results in more death?

The majority of Americans think that abortion should be legal in some or all circumstances. The most recent poll I could find showed that 32% of Americans think abortion should be legal in all circumstances while 48% said it should be legal in some circumstances - only 19% of Americans think it should be illegal in all circumstances (poll info along with lots of other polls available here). How are we going to craft laws that allow abortion in the cases where most people believe it should be legal (i.e. mother's health at stake, or as the result of rape) while disallowing it in cases we think it shouldn't be legal? It's really hard to draft a law considering all situations, and it's also going to be really hard to enforce that law. Are we willing to lock up women seeking abortions? Send doctors and medical professionals to jail? Do we think that these actions are the right answer here? 

Final Thoughts

Look, you may agree with none of what I said (in which case, kudos for reading this far). That is okay - there are lots of different views on abortion, and it's a complicated moral issue, so there should be lots of different views. But, I would ask you to step into the shoes of women contemplating abortion - think about the 11-year old victim of rape, the mother of 3 who finds out her baby has a non-survivable medical condition, the woman finding out that a longed-for pregnancy is dangerous to her health, the abuse victim who can't bear to raise a baby with her abuser. There are a lot of these stories out there. You may not think that these situations represent the majority of those seeking abortions, but there are a non-zero number of stories like this. Please have compassion on the women in any situation where they are contemplating abortion, and consider them as people, as human beings with thoughts and emotions and their own unique circumstances. I think they are able to make this difficult decision best for themselves, rather than having it made for them by the government.

There is lots more I can say on this topic - all the ways we can reduce "demand" for abortions without outlawing "supply," etc. But for now, I'll leave you with this clip from the movie "After Tiller" about late term abortions - this clip is about a fetus developing without part of its brain, and the difficult decision facing the doctor and parents at a late stage of pregnancy. I think about this clip a lot when abortion is discussed. I hope that no one has to go through this agonizing decision, but the only thing that could make it worse is if the government intervened and made the decision for you.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/l9-tTrbjmyw" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BIG Government

Well hello there! It's been a while since I blogged about politics, and in related news:

Hahahahaha, but seriously. I don't really feel like blogging about the dumpster fire that is the current administration. So this post is of a more general nature about the role of government.

In one episode of The West Wing, Toby Ziegler, President Bartlet's communications director and chief speechwriter, rages against a phrase that some people want to include in the State of the Union address: "The era of big government is over." He makes one of my favorite speech-lets of the series after President Barlet asks if he wants to cut the line:

I want to change the sentiment. We're running away from ourselves, and I know we can score points that way. I was the principle architect in that campaign strategy...But we're here now. Tomorrow night, we do an immense thing. We have to say what we feel. That government, no matter what its failures are in the past, and in times to come, for that matter, the government can be a place where people come together and where no one gets left behind. No one gets left behind, an instrument of good. I have no trouble understanding why the line tested well... but I don't think that means we should say it. I think that means we should change it. (From The West Wing, Season 1, Episode 12, "He Shall, From Time to Time")
One of the things that makes me a liberal is a belief in government. I really struggle when I see people posting on social media things like the Ronald Reagan quote "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." What they are really saying with that quote is that they don't trust themselves. In a democracy, "we the people" are the government. I believe that government can and should be a place for us as a people to come together - to "self-rule."

There is, of course, such a thing as too much government - I'm by no means suggesting that every aspect of government is perfect (or needed!). But I do think that a government that reflects the best of us, and our popular will, is an important part of society.

When he accepted the position to serve as Energy Secretary, Rick Perry took some ribbing, considering that he famously wanted to abolish the Energy Department but couldn't remember it during a Republican primary debate (okay, I guess this is a *little* bit about the current administration). But he came to see why it was an important government agency once he learned about what they do. I think there-in is a kernel of wisdom - everyone is against government until they learn about the important functions it serves.

I saw a bumper sticker today with a quote of PJ O'Rourke that said "Republicans say government doesn't work & then they get elected and prove it." Democrats can be just as bad at making government effective, but the special disdain Republicans have for government makes it more than a bit ironic that they continue to seek to run for office. So, yes, I am a fan of "big" government - a government big enough for all the people to come together and work towards making our society a better place.

History. Made.

On Monday, November 3, 2008, I attended a rally with then-candidate Barack Obama. His voice was hoarse - it had been a long campaign, and you could tell he was worn out. It was the night before the presidential election and he had been crisscrossing the country rallying voters and pouring energy into his campaign.

That night, I was thrilled by the words Obama hoarsely shouted, which I could hear even at the end of the huge crowd: "Fired Up? Ready to Go!" It was an historic moment and I was proud to be there. While I had not personally experienced racism, it was marvelous to me that America elected an African-American president just a few decades after desegregation. That experience, coupled with attending the first inauguration in Washington, D.C. reminded me of the joy and optimism of the American story. Those experiences inspired me to start this blog.

It's no secret from the title of this blog that I was probably going to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. I can't stand her opponent, and I probably would have voted for any Democrat running against him. Yet I was unexpectedly touched while in my car on Tuesday night - as I was listening to the radio, Hillary Clinton hit the number of delegates necessary to win the Democratic nomination.

The outcome wasn't a surprise, after all, but I was so moved that I got to see the first woman presidential candidate from a major U.S. political party. I wrote a book report about the book: "Madam President: Shattering the Last Glass Ceiling" while in high school. The book walked through the possible women who might be President. While I joked with my friends that some day *I* would be President, I don't think I really believed it possible.

Listening to the radio on Tuesday, it got real. To me, it was a wonderful moment, and it's been fantastic to read about 100 year old women who were born before women could vote and get to see this day, about the woman Senator who handed Hillary the sledgehammer to break the class ceiling, and see the momentum that women are building in politics. It's hard to believe that the idea of a woman President was so offensive that Walmart banned a T-shirt with that idea. In 1995.

You may not be wild about Hillary, and I get that. But can we all appreciate that it is awesome to see a woman Presidential candidate? As she herself said tonight in her speech, "when the ceiling is broken, the sky is the limit." Tonight, and this week, I've been reminded of our nation's history of optimism and progress. Truly, the sky is the limit, and we ARE stronger together, standing as Americans first, and Democrats (or Republicans) second.


"What the World Needs Now" performed by Broadway stars at the DNC

A Tale of Two Politicians

Let me introduce you to two politicians, and see who you would choose to represent you. Because this is 2016 and one of the major party candidates is a woman (!), I'm going to use non-gender specific pronouns.

Politician #1 spent their pre-political career participating in non-profit work to aid children and rape victims and establish rural health clinics. They served on hospital boards and non-profits aiding children. They authored numerous scholarly articles about children's issues. Once in politics, Politician #1 pursued educational reforms to ensure teachers had necessary skills to teach and limit class sizes in public schools. They worked to expand children's access to health care with bi-partisan support. Politician #1 also worked to increase funding for immunization programs, asthma research, and cancer screenings. Additionally, they have experience in domestic and foreign affairs, and have developed personal relationships with national and international leaders. They've spoken many times about their faith in God and its influence on their life, and help in getting through tough times.

Politician #2 was an attorney who failed the bar exam the first time. Their first case involved getting a man accused of raping a 12 year old girl off the hook on lesser charges. Through work at their law firm, they mixed business and politics, and they were involved in dubious commercial transactions with people of questionable integrity. They served on corporate boards of companies accused of poor labor practices. Upon entering politics, numerous allegations were made of double-dealing, corruption, and fraud, and although nothing was ever proved, this Politician has been at the edges of numerous scandals throughout the years. They have used personal relationships for political gain.

Now, reading these descriptions, I think most of us would choose Politician #1, and would think that Politician #2 is an nonredeemable scumbag. Some of you may have already guessed this, but both politicians are Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton is the Presidential candidate that everyone knows about and has already decided how they feel about her. Most people have made up their mind that she is a shrewd and savvy advocate or a corrupt and conniving politician. We all then view her through our pre-conceived notions and aren't willing to admit that our view of her may be biased.

I'm just as guilty of this as everyone else - I tend to discount the accusations surrounding Whitewater, Benghazi, and the emails as Republican smear tactics, but there's no doubt that Hillary has been involved in a few questionable things.

Just like most career politicians (and Hillary has been in the public eye for over 35 years, so I think we can unquestionably call her a career politician), Hillary has done good things and bad things. She's a human being with faults and foibles. However, if we look at her career over the years, I think we can point to things that she has done well and faithfully. When I hear her speak, I honestly do believe she does care about our country and its direction.

If you've dismissed her in the past as a criminal or phony, I urge you to take a second look and read up on her. You may not agree with everything she says or has done, but at least do yourself the favor of being informed. Don't let your surface knowledge be a barrier to further investigation.

I'll try to blog in the next few months a few of the reasons "I'm With Her," but I urge you to consider her with fresh eyes, and be open to acknowledging both her faults and her accomplishments.

Grinding the Faces of the Poor, and Other American Political Bloodsports

What mean ye that ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the 

faces of the poor? saith the Lord God of Hosts. (Isaiah 3:15)

Nothing makes me angrier than politicians who disparage poor people. It's an easy target, because poor people don't often vote, protest, or communicate with their elected officials. It's a simple way to show you are using government funds sparingly - making sure "undeserving" poor aren't using welfare funds to buy lobster or go a cruise.

The latest example is Kansas, which has recently enacted a law limiting the amount of cash which welfare recipients can withdraw from ATMs and forbidding welfare recipients from spending money on "exotic" entertainment, swimming pools, tattoos, or movies. Even more states are moving to drug test welfare recipients, even though the evidence shows these groups are not more likely to abuse drugs than the population at large. Similarly, government assistance with housing costs disproportionately goes to the mortgage interest deduction for the upper/middle class instead of housing vouchers for those in a lower socioeconomic status.

So, here are my reasons why we need to stop abusing the poor for using government benefits:
1) People using government benefits don't actually spend a large portion of their money on extravagances. Their spending habits aren't actually all that different from the rich or the middle class.
2) There's a myth that the poor are sponging off the rest of us taxpayers, but the truth is that poor people pay taxes too - in some cases more taxes than the rich. Further, government benefits do not allow you to live the high life, as reading this article will show you, people receiving welfare are hardly rich, and often only need temporary assistance to get through the lean times. They're you and me, not some "second class" of citizens who we can mock and disparage.
3) We all receive government benefits, and that doesn't give the government the right to tell us how to live our lives. Should the hedge fund manager be required to stop visiting a strip joint because he claims the mortgage interest deduction on his tax return? (In some cases for both his primary residence and vacation home?) What about the student who receives a low interest loan yet gets a tattoo? These are government benefits, just like food stamps, yet apparently it's okay for Kansas to tell welfare recipients how to spend their money, or for states to invade these people's privacy through requiring drug testing, but the government makes no similar provisions for the other benefactors of government largess.

Isaiah uses strong imagery to condemn those who trample the poor - they "grind their faces" - can you imagine if someone literally did that?  That's assault! Yet it's okay for politicians to condemn these people and figuratively grind their faces into the dust. This is political bloodsport, and IT IS WRONG. It makes me so very sad to think that this is acceptable behavior by politicians, who should be seeking to help these people lift themselves out of poverty, instead of stereotyping them and making life more difficult for them.

In the Abstract

Today is Labor Day, where we celebrate the working men and women who have made America great!  It is somewhat ironic that many of my politically conservative friends love the movie Newsies, which celebrates unionization. For some reason, it's kind of a Mormon movie - probably has something to do with the upbeat singing and family friendly feel. Yet the movie has an undeniable progressive bent - the whole movie is about a working class union formed to fight evil capitalists. The fact that many of my friends like this movie gives me hope that we could someday discuss politics amicably. I think sometimes we have discussions about things like SNAP or Medicaid or Social Security in the abstract, and when that happens, it's very easy to distance ourselves from the problems of others. But when a movie (or book, or newspaper article) humanizes the real people who face these problems, I think it's easier to have a real conversation about them without demonizing (or overly lionizing) the people who face really tough situations. Maybe, deep down, my conservative friends can sympathize with and understand why unions might be a good idea for our society. Doesn't mean we won't still disagree, but I hope we can see each other's point of view. Go, unions!


BYU Vocal Point, Newsies Medley

Cooperation is the Dirtiest Word

As the title of my blog probably makes clear, I'm no supporter of Eric Cantor. He and I disagree about many, many things. Still, when I contemplate the fact that Representative Cantor lost his primary race to a little known Tea Party challenger, I'm reminded of a scene from "Remember the Titans:"

"Boy, You Must Be Outside Your Mind" - Denzel Washington

Republican primary voters, you must be outside your minds! Reading and listening to the news coverage this morning, it appears that Cantor didn't work hard enough to win hearts and minds in his district. However, it is MIND BOGGLING to me that one of the reasons he lost is that he contemplated a bi-partisan immigration solution. CONTEMPLATED, mind you. Note that he didn't even actually achieve anything, but the mere fact that he considered cooperating with Democrats to craft a national solution to immigration problems was a factor in his defeat.

Cantor supported a Republican version of the DREAM act, which allows children brought to the U.S. by their parents illegally to go to college and become citizens. This bill was never even brought for a vote, but Cantor's support for it seems to have contributed to his undoing.

Why does cooperation have to be a dirty word? We all have principles, but we live in a divided and pluralistic country, and we can't always get what we want. To think otherwise is to have the obstinate mindset of a 5 year old child who must always get what they want. Compromise and cooperation have served this country well for over 200, and I shudder to think what the future holds if we continue to paint the other side as demons with whom no compromise or cooperation can even be contemplated.

Wouldn't it be Nice?

The first concert I ever went to was a Beach Boys concert (yeah I'm that cool). One of their best songs, in my opinion, "Wouldn't it be nice?" I think about that a lot when I think about politics. Wouldn't it be nice if we all just got a long.  Today is a reminder that we don't all get along - JFK's assassination is a reminder of terrible evil that exists in the world.  Wouldn't it be nice if we all (Democrat and Republican) lived his words and asked "What can I do for my country?"

United, there is little we cannot do, but divided...I don't want us to be divided.

John F. Kennedy, "Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You," Inaugural Address

Thank a Teacher!

One day, when I was on time (aka early) to early morning Seminary, my very conservative teacher asked me what I would do if I was elected President. By this time, I think he had probably realized I was a crazy liberal. Without much thought, I responded that I would defund the Defense Department and put all the money into Head Start. For those of you not familiar with Head Start, it's a program to help educate low income children before kindergarten.

Now that I've had a lot more time to reflect on my answer, I think the principles remains the same. Most of America's discretionary spending is devoted to the machinery of warfare and destruction. Wouldn't it be great if we spent that money instead on educating children and investing in their future? Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying we should stop spending any money on defense or national security, merely that we spend too much on these things. We could reduce the amount spent on defense and use that money to provide good schools to every child, not just the children who live in rich areas with good public schools.

Right now, public education is a very unequal system because it gives a really good education to the few, a moderately useful education to some, and a really bad education to too many. Part of the reason for this has to do with taxes. Property taxes are a big source of funding for local and state government spending on education. This means that areas where rich people live, which have high property values, have more money to spend on education, while poor areas with low property values become part of a reinforcing cycle of poverty. Money isn't the only factor determining education outcomes, but spent wisely I think it can certainly have an impact.

If we had a nationalized school system, we could even out some of the disparities in spending and help low income students achieve better. Ideally, public education can be (and should be!) the great equalizer - it can teach children how to read and how to love learning. In high school I took a calculus course. Now I can't remember any calculus, but I think that class and other well taught classes taught me how to learn, and I can apply those skills to learn the things I want to as an adult. Today I had to read through some IRS guidance to get an answer for a client and I think that part of the reason I'm able to do that is thanks to the work of good public servants who taught me to read and process information.

So, to quote a bumper sticker, if you can read this, thank a teacher! And for no other reason than that I once watched this in school, here's a great Schoolhouse Rock video:

"Conjunction Junction," Schoolhouse Rock

Prayer & Schools

Let's get one thing straight.  I hate Country Music.  Sorry, y'all, but even though I was raised in the (nominal) south, the twanginess irks my soul.  Admittedly, there are few songs that remind me of hilarious times with former roommates but I don't enjoy the actual sound of the songs so much as the memories they invoke. But, sometimes I can bear listening to the local bluegrass station if it doesn't get too twangy - it's mellower than country somehow. This morning I listened to a song that basically said the country was going to rot because we could burn flags but we couldn't pray in schools (actually, the song specifically said we were headed towards communism, but I'll save my loathing of that particular straw man argument for another time).

Now, I went to 13 years of public school, and I was never told I couldn't pray.  I must have missed this particular memo, because I do remember praying in school - before tests, during periods of social isolation and general awkwardness (aka Middle School), and any time I choose.  Just because I didn't recite a formulaic prayer that some bureaucrat wrote didn't mean that I didn't pray.  Nothing that I have found prevents you from praying in school, or anyplace else for that matter.  Recently, many of my most meaningful prayers occur in my car.

I've never had a problem with the Supreme Court decision which barred mandatory prayer in public schools. These decisions are still deeply unpopular in the U.S., as many people seem to view them as an affront to their religious beliefs.  However, if you're Mormon, would you want to recite a Lutheran prayer or have that endorsed by the state?  If you're Catholic, would you feel comfortable having your children read a Muslim prayer?  If you're Hindu, do you want your children to have to pray about Jesus?  Any prayer general enough to please everybody would end up pleasing nobody.

Which brings me to my point: formal prayer in public schools would have to be so watered down in our pluralistic society that it would become meaningless form.  And I believe religion should be personal and integral in our lives, not just a token prayer at school, but a communion with the divine.  Government should give everyone's beliefs respect and protection of law, but it should not force belief on people - to do so corrupts government and religion.

To close, here's my favorite hymn that's also a prayer - it has a lot of meaning to me personally, so I hope you enjoy this beautiful arrangement courtesy of the internet:

"I Need Thee Every Hour," Sam Robson

Stop N' Not Go

I don't know why I haven't been aware of New York City's "Stop and Frisk" policy until recently.  It probably has a lot to do with me not being black or Latino and not living in NYC.  If you don't know what this program is, you can read the Wikipedia article about it here.

This program is appalling.  The idea that it's okay to stop people on the street just on suspicion that they're doing something wrong is a violation of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Apparently the Supreme Court disagrees with me and says that this is constitutional, but I don't care.  If a disproportionate number of people of color are being stopped, there's something really really wrong here. This program is not being applied fairly and even if it was, it's still an unreasonable search of someone. Where are all the Republicans who are complaining about Obamacare being a violation of liberty while this is going on?

So, I say to this program: Do not Pass Go, Do Not Collect Taxpayer Dollars.  Hopefully the new mayor will put an end to this program, because I think it's wrong.

The Daily Show, "Frisky Business"

Criminal Tragedy

Per the most reliable source available to me as a non-lawyer (Wikipedia), second degree murder is a murder that is not premeditated.  Murder is further defined as the unlawful intentional killing of another human being.  However, in the US we have chosen to add a secondary category of "manslaughter" which, when referring to "voluntary manslaughter" is killing without premeditation.  The biggest news story this weekend was the Zimmerman trial verdict.  George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin on February 26, 2012 in Sanford, Florida.  Zimmerman had called 911 and was told to NOT follow the suspicious person he reported to police.  Martin was unarmed.  These facts are not in dispute.  What was hotly contested over the course of the trial was whether Zimmerman was guilty of murder or manslaughter, or whether he acted in self-defense.

In the US, we have laws requiring that a suspect's guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  In my mind, there's no doubt that George Zimmerman was an idiot.  And while I can't judge his motivations, it's certainly possible that the only reason Zimmerman viewed Martin as a threat was the fact that Martin was black and wore a hoodie (and IF that's the case, it's despicable).  But to focus on this one case overlooks a larger important point.  Since the events of February 26, 2012, over 30,000 people in the U.S. have died at the hands of a gun.*  That's an average of 3 per hour.  The rate of death in the U.S. by gun is exponentially higher than every other industrialized nation.  In the category of industrialized nations, America's gun death rate of 10.6 per 100,000 is followed by Finland at 4.6 - less than half!  It's no coincidence that the U.S. has 88.9 guns per 100 people.  The next closest country, India, has FOUR per person.

It's a tragedy that Trayvon Martin is dead, but it is CRIMINAL that we are not doing anything to reduce gun violence in this country.  George Zimmerman successfully argued self-defense and was declared not guilty.  But whether or not he spent time in jail, the truth is that gun violence is a preventable problem.  We can blame politics, blame the media, or blame George Zimmerman,  but it's a colossal problem that is bigger than any one case.  We need to explore "stand your ground" laws, "concealed carry" gun laws, and other laws on the books that contribute to this problem.  We need to examine our hearts, and banish any latent racism we find therein.  It's going to take all of us.

*We don't have published statistics yet for 2012 or 2013, but as over 30,000 people were killed with guns in 2010 and 2011, I feel like this is a rational assumption.

Check Yourself, Before You...

Two simple words: Background Checks.  Why do we think it's a good idea for people to be able to buy a lethal weapon without undergoing a simple background check?  Is it really a sensible idea for people to buy guns without restraint?  I don't think so, and I haven't yet heard a cogent argument against background checks.  As always, I am open to being convinced if such an argument exists!

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

As a wise poet once said, "You better check yo self before you wreck yo self."  Checking people out is just common sense - you have to do it on every job application you will fill out!  Why is there a higher bar for a job at a fast food joint than purchasing a weapon that can KILL?

The second amendment to our constitution does allow individuals to own firearms.  Yet this is not a universal right - we restrict the right of felons to own guns and most states limit access by the mentally ill.  These limitations suggest to me that gun ownership is a right that can have reasonable restrictions placed upon it.  A simple background check seems like a reasonable restriction.  Of course, this step is not going to stop all gun crimes.  I realize that criminals can have other people buy weapons for them.  Which is why we need additional laws to punish gun traffickers and provide funding for such investigations.

I think of weapons as a continuum - suppose at one end is a pocketknife, and the other end is a nuclear weapon.  Now, think about what weapons individuals should be able to own.  We do not allow individuals to own tanks or nuclear weapons.  Such an idea would be ridiculous and dangerous to public safety.  So gun control is also about drawing a line somewhere on that continuum and saying that individuals cannot own certain weapons.  My position is that machine guns, high capacity magazines, and other HIGHLY lethal weapons used in mass shootings should be illegal.

For America, I think it is important to discuss where the line on the continuum should be drawn.  We have many thousands of people in this country who die every year at the hands of a gun.  We need to thoughtfully examine what policies can prevent this.  The dead could be your brother, your sister, your mom, or your dad.  All of the victims are your neighbors.  Gun violence is a horrific problem, and we owe it to the many innocent victims to do all we can to stop these tragedies from occurring!

Memorial to the victims of the mass shooting in Newtown, CT

I've linked to one episode of The Daily Show's series on Australian gun control above, you can watch the other two parts of the series here.   .  

Both and Neither

If I had to bet on the most prevalent reason that Mormons are Republicans instead of Democrats, my wager could be summed up in one word: Abortion.  It's a lightening rod, black and white issue for most Mormons.  On this matter, Mormons may think that Democrats are the evil party of "abortions on demand," while Republicans virtuously defend the rights of the unborn.  Some Democrats, on the other hand, vilify those who are pro-life as forcing women to endure the psychological torture of carrying a baby which is the product of rape or incest.
For that reason, I've never done a post on abortion before. The extremists on both sides are wrong in many ways.   My brothers have a tried and true rhetorical technique which I'm going to use in this situation.  If someone asks me "Are you pro-life or pro-choice?"  I will respond with "yes."  The black and white categories don't adequately capture my views.  I am both and neither at the same time.

I am pro-life because I believe that we should value life, and the unborn should have advocates because they cannot speak for themselves.  I am pro-choice because I don't think the government should invade my body, or the body of any woman, like that.  And yes, I am not pro-life because I believe that a cluster of cells is different than a human being (I acknowledge this leaves me vulnerable to slippery slope arguments).  I am not pro-choice because I think that abortion should be regulated and restricted in some ways.

My 8th grade science teacher (who tried, bless him, to make health class for teenagers less awkward), had some wise words that I'm hoping we can all get behind.  Speaking about abortion, he said "the one thing both sides can agree on is that there should be fewer abortions."  Basically this captures my position.  Abortion should be legal, and rare.  We should create a world where women don't feel they have to get an abortion, but if they do, it should be done safely instead of in a back alley by a black market doctor.

Ironically enough, it's the position of 1994 Mitt Romney.  Then-candidate Romney discussed how someone he knew had died from an illegal botched abortion in the 1960's before Roe v. Wade.  More recently, Savita Halappanavar, a woman who was allegedly denied an abortion under Ireland's very strict anti-abortion laws, may have died as a result (the case is still being investigated).  The Mormon church's statement is that abortion is only allowed in cases of rape, incest, when the mother's life is at stake, or when the baby has severe mental defects which would not allow it to live beyond birth.  That is my own personal position, but...I still think abortion should be legal in this country.

Suppose in 2016 that Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, or another pro-life Republican is elected and manages to stack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges.  Suppose further that in a few years after that, the court gets an abortion case and overturns Roe v. Wade so that abortion is illegal again in this country.  To me, the result of this would be that rich women go to other countries and get abortions anyway, and poor women die as a result of illegal abortions.  This does not actually reduce the number of abortions, but just compounds the misery by resulting in needless deaths of women.  What will reduce the number of abortions?  This is the subject of another post.  For now, I am both and neither in the abortion debate.  I want a better and less extreme position.

Here are some better written posts on this subject that have got me thinking about this topic:
- By a former supporter of abortion who is now pro-life
- By a former pro-lifer who is now pro-choice (sorta?)

I encourage you to read *both* pieces no matter where you have a position on abortion.  They are both thoughtful explanations of a topic that for too long has been reduced to shouted slogans and nasty exchanges.

When is the Time?

A quote from West Wing has been running through my head yesterday and today.  Josh Lyman, a member of fake-President Bartlet's staff, is trying to negotiate with protesters who are trying to get the government to stop doing ammunition drills in an area of Puerto Rico.  He is arguing with another member of the President's staff who wants the protesters to suspend their protest temporarily.  In essence, this staffer's argument is: "Now is not the time" for protest.  

Josh replies: "When is the time to be protesting? Tell me. I’ll tell them. They’ll do it."

The senseless horror of Sandy Hook, Connecticut is still on everyone's minds. Some say that it's "not the time" to be talking about gun control. If now is not the time, then tell me when is, and I'll do it. We need to talk about a culture of violence in this country and see if there is anything we can do to prevent tragedies like this. I urge you to sign the petition to President Obama to immediately consider gun control legislation. The U.S. has some of the loosest laws in the world on possessing firearms, and it's time to reconsider that policy.

Here's the petition.

If you don't believe in gun control, what would you advocate to prevent horrors like the events of yesterday? We can't do nothing.

What Kind of Country Do We Want?

Over the past week, I visited Texas, and got a glimpse of the Alamo, the bats of Congress bridge, and even a buffalo.  The highlight for my staunchly Democratic family was a visit to the ranch of Lyndon B. Johnson.  It was really neat, and if I was a picture taker I would post pictures.  But I'm not.  So I'll just tell you what I liked about LBJ.  He was not afraid to dream big and imagine our country better than it is.  Visiting his ranch made me think about what kind of country I want to live in.  Here's the kind of country I want, in President Johnson's words:

"In a land of great wealth, families must not live in hopeless poverty.  In a land rich in harvest, children must not go hungry.  In a land of healing miracles, neighbors must not suffer and die untended.  In a great land of learning and scholars, young people must be taught to read and write."  - Lyndon B. Johnson, Inaugural Address, January 20, 1965

True, I don't yet know how to achieve it, or what my role in bringing it to pass will be.  But at least I know where I want to go!

Watch President Johnson's inaugural speech in 1965 here:



(Note that I haven't yet watched the whole thing - looks like his speech starts after about 14 minutes of video.  Also I love the look his wife gives him right after he's sworn in, a kind of "now you better know what you're doing" look - right before the 14 minute mark)

The Vocal Stylings of Mitt Romney

So I finally had to do it.  Had to watch an entire speech by Mitt Romney.  I realized I had only heard the little sound bites that they throw out on the news, but I had never listened to an entire speech from him.  Here's the one I listened to:


Things I liked:
- We will stop the unfairness of politicians giving taxpayer money to their friend's businesses.
- The part where he talks about getting to know us and what we care about (I genuinely thought this sounded  genuine).
- Being American means something different to each of us, but it means something special to all of us.

Things I didn't like (note that Democrats can be just as guilty of these):
- The implication that as president he could control the economy.  I generally don't think the president can control the economy - he (or she, someday!) can tinker at the margins, but a lot of the economy depends on larger trends beyond the President's reach.
- He spent most of his time bashing President Obama instead of expounding his own ideas.  A subset of this is that he continually implied that President Obama's views were anti-American.  It really really REALLY bothers me when politicians of any stripe accuse the other side of anti-American views.
- Running for government office while disparaging the role of government!  I mean, you are going to be the most visible member of the Federal government, yet you don't think it can do anything good?

All in all, I didn't think he was as stilted and stuffy as the media make him out to be - sure, he's not the most charismatic guy EVER, but I thought he did a pretty decent job of getting his points across without sounding like a robot.  So, have you all watched an entire speech of someone who you disagree with?

(Note: I realize this speech was short, only 15 minutes.  But, it's better than a 30-second sound bite.  I'm baby-stepping it to a full blown speech someday, maybe)

What Do We Care About?

What is important to you?  What do you think about, day in and day out?  I watched part of one my favorite TV shows this morning and during work it was all I could think about!  "How will it end?" I wondered.  Yet if you asked me about the conference talk or scriptures I read this morning, I would have trouble remembering whose talk it was or any of the salient points.

When people look at Mormon society, what is it they think that we care about?  Do we care about goodness, mercy, justice?  Do we value those who are spurned by society as outcasts?  Do we realize that the whole need no physician, but they that are sick do?

When citizens of other countries look at America, what do they see?  Do they see a nation of selfish, self-serving mercenaries, looking out for number one?  What do we want them to see?

But after all, it's not about what we want to "look like" - because appearances can be faked, and surfaces can be polished to hide horrible things.  This is about what kind of nation we want to BE on the inside - deep down in our soul.  Do we want to be a nation and society that spends money on bombs, bullets, and bastions?  Or do we want to be a society that spends money on building - building people up and building something better?

World Defense Spending during 2010 (courtesy of thinkprogress.org)

How can we build people up?  By choosing to put our public dollars not into expensive weaponry systems, but into programs that serve the "least among us" - those programs that feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and liberate the captive.  We need to serve those who are physically hungry for nourishment or emotionally hungry for companionship.  We should clothe the naked who are without clothes and the naked who are without dignity or a way to provide for themselves.  We can liberate the captive in a prison built of stone or of ignorance.

WE can do this - as a society, if we choose to.  Some people think that it is forcing charity for a government to participate in programs that seek to alleviate poverty and ignorance.  But I think how we spend our public dollars says a lot about the public - what do we care about?  Do we care about the abused, forgotten, and downtrodden?  Or do we care about feeding the beast known as the defense industrial complex by throwing more and more money into defense spending?  I believe we can come together as a community and as a country to say that we want to help the poor.

Mitt Romney caught a lot of flak for saying that he didn't care about poor people.  But do you?  Do you vote for politicians and policies which build bombs or which build bridges?

One of the few things I learned in my class on Isaiah (true confession: I had a bad attitude about the teacher) was that one of the groups that Isaiah regards with the most contempt is those who do not care for the widows, the fatherless, and the poor.  Here's just one example of Isaiah's description of those who have turned their backs on God:

"Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed;  To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless!  And what will ye do in the day of visitation, and in the desolation which shall come from far? to whom will ye flee for help? and where will ye leave your glory?" (Isaiah 10:1-3)
Or in other words, the extra money that you save by paying lower taxes will perish with you.  We should labor together to build a society that is kinder to those who are inevitably left behind by the steamroller of capitalism instead of using so much money on machines that destroy.  Well, at least that is this woman's opinion.

Romney, Show Mother Some Love

And by Mother, I mean Mother Earth.  Yesterday was Earth Day, in case you missed it.

Google's 2012 Earth Day Doodle

I'm a big fan of the earth, and I'm operating under the assumption that you are also a fan.  I mean, we all like to breathe, right?  Simply put, I think that we need to take good care of our Mother Earth.  It's a precious place, and from a religious point of view I believe it's a sacred trust.  We need to leave this earth clean and healthy for all the generations that will follow ours.

That is why I find it sad that Governor Romney literally has no environmental policy on his website.  He doesn't even have time to devote to policies that safeguard our Mother Earth!  The closest thing that he has is to an environmental policy is an energy policy.

So let me start by saying, I think it's extremely sad that Romney is only looking at the earth with a "what's in it for me?" mentality.  D&C 59:18 states that one of the primary purposes for which God created the earth is "...to please the eye and gladden the heart..."  In other words, earth is not just here for us to exploit and pillage - we should be in the business of conserving and caring for Mother Earth, and keeping it beautiful.

So, because he lacks an environmental policy, let's examine Romney's energy policy.  It has three main prongs.

Significant Regulatory Reform
Romney wants to streamline energy regulations.  I actually have no problem with this.  Too often projects that will create jobs and be good for our country are hampered by regulations.  I think this is a good and smart thing to do, with the caveat that we don't use this as excuse to weaken environmental regulations.  These rules are there to prevent market forces from doing something that may make money in the short term, but in the long term is bad for the earth.  Too often, "regulatory reform" is used as code for "no regulations."  I think we need sensible regulations, so I'm with Romney on this, I would just like to see more specifics.

Increasing Production
This part of the plan is all about increasing production of gas and oil.  Again, this is emphasizing only the "me" in environment.  And, as constant online ads have been reminding me, under President Obama we have increased oil and gas production every year.  I have two problems with Romney's policy (which, to be fair, isn't laid out in much detail, so maybe he has plans to mitigate the negatives here).
#1: Romney's website states that he would "open America's energy reserves for development."  To me, this means opening up ecologically sensitive areas to drilling, which would harm wildlife, landscapes, and leave behind chemicals for generations.  I believe that we have a duty to protect God's creations, even if that means we pay higher prices for gas.  There are reasons that certain areas are off-limits - it's because they would harm this amazingly beautiful world we live in!
#2: Under this header, Romney's website also contains a bullet point that he would "prevent overregulation of shale gas development and extraction."  What the what?  Actually, shale gas development is very LIGHTLY regulated right now.  I'm not a huge fan of "fracking" - which is basically pumping water with chemicals into the ground in order to get gas.  I think if you're doing this, you should be subject to some regulations.  This is an activity that can pollute groundwater - THAT IS THE STUFF YOU DRINK, PEOPLE!  So, I am not a fan of this policy either.

Research and Development
This prong of Romney's plans has some innocuous sounding bullet points, and a subtle jab at Obama for seeking to fund specific energy alternatives like wind and solar.  I'm happy to see, however, that Romney does believe that government can be a helpful force in energy policy, so I'll give him a few points for that.  BUT, I really do believe that if we're going to beat China (which is heavily investing in alternative energy sources) then, we will need government investment in making energy alternatives like wind and solar more cost effective.

Bottom Line: Romney has some good ideas in this area, but when I read here (on Fox News, no less!) that Romney opposes stricter emission standards for cars, I realized once again that I will be voting for President Obama in November.  I'll save the greenhouse debate for another day, but I'll state here that I believe in man made global warming, and I believe it will destroy the delicate balance of earth if we let it continue.  If you're curious, you can read President Obama's policy on energy AND the environment here.

Just for fun, here's a beautiful hymn about the earth (you deserve it if you've read this far).

Crushing the DREAM

"What happens to a dream deferred?" asked Langston Hughes in his famous poem.  He theorized that it could "sag like a heavy load" or "explode."  The immigration issue in American politics seems to be a hot-button one. Many people feel strongly that illegal immigrants should be given a chance to come out of the shadows and pursue their dreams.  Others have a strong "Americans First" policy and oppose all forms of amnesty, instead focusing on deportation of illegal immigrants and border security.

This post is the first in the "Why I'm Not Voting for Mitt Romney" series (see the ground rules here in my original post).  I'd like to talk about why I disagree with Governor Romney on immigration.  Governor Romney opposes the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act (aka the DREAM Act).  You can read about the details of this proposed bill here.  This bill would allow children, whose parents brought them here illegally when they were children, to attend college or join the military in the U.S. and put them on a path towards citizenship.  An aside here, I think for once, a cause I support has hit upon an apt name for this bill that makes it difficult for opponents to speak against it.  Who wants to crush dreams?  Yet, Governor Romney opposes the DREAM Act, saying it would increase illegal immigration and be an amnesty.

First of all, the DREAM Act would apply only to those illegal immigrants who have been in the U.S. for five years already.  I don't see how we can encourage illegal immigration when these people are already here.  Secondly, as Mormons, "[w]e believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression" (Articles of Faith 2).  Not supporting the DREAM Act seems to be punishing children for the sins of their parents.  The DREAM Act applies to illegal immigrants who were brought here when they were minors.  Do you really think that a three year old is culpable for the transgressions of his or her parents? 

Some of the stated reasons that people have opposed this bill include that it will require states to grant instate tuition to illegal aliens or require taxpayers to fund the education of these students.  However, the latest versions of the bill have not included provisions regarding in-state tuition.  Also, the program would stipulate that these students would not be eligible for federal grants.

More broadly, opposition to "amnesty" for illegal immigrants seems wrong to me.  Do you really think these people are just going to go away?  Many of them have lived in the United States for years, and see it as their home.  They are not simply going to leave.  People who oppose bills to grant illegal immigrants citizenship seem to think that these people had some kind of choice between coming here legally and coming here illegally.  The simple truth is that many more people want to come to America than are allowed to come legally by the current immigration system.  If you were living in poverty with no opportunities for education or jobs, wouldn't you want to come to America, even if it meant breaking the law?  It's a dangerous thing to do, but wouldn't you risk it for your family?

We Mormons believe in obeying the law.  However, giving these people a chance at citizenship does not have to mean that they are not punished for breaking the law - they should pay a fine, pay back taxes, and get in line behind those who followed the rules.  I believe that the punishment should be commensurate with the crime, and exporting people to a life of crushing poverty and zero opportunity seems a heavy price to pay for crossing a man-made border to improve one's life.  

Increasing border security, while it may seem like a good goal, is somewhat of a red herring.  We will never be able to fully secure our borders from anyone - there's just too much territory to cover, and too many ways that people can come here legally and stay illegally.

To be fair, Governor Romney does support increasingly legal immigration, which is laudable.  However, I just can't support his position on the DREAM Act.  This is a chance for innocent people to become educated or support our armed forces.  For this among many reasons, Governor Romney will not be getting my support this November.