tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7497890299156955632024-03-13T20:28:10.873-06:00The Mormon Left"The Liberal Soul Shall Be Made Fat"Jacob S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16519032754947817876noreply@blogger.comBlogger227125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-37676571885245556142012-01-12T17:02:00.000-07:002012-01-12T17:02:52.133-07:00Patrick Henry or Gideon?<a href="http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html">Patrick Henry's famous quote</a>:<br />
<br />
"Is
life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me
liberty or give me death!"<br />
<br />
<a href="http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/20?lang=eng">Gideon's famous quote</a>:<br />
<br />
"For it is better that we should be in bondage than that we should lose our lives; therefore, let us put a stop to the shedding of so much blood."<br />
<br />
Where do you come down?Jacob S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16519032754947817876noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-62143771013686978522011-10-14T12:59:00.003-06:002011-10-14T13:05:45.337-06:00The perils of scripture and politicsRead this and tell me what you think it means:<br /><br /> 4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.<br /><br /> 5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.<br /><br /> 6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;<br /><br /> 7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.<br /><br />[<a href="http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/98?lang=eng">D&C 98:4-7</a>]<br /><br /><br />Do you think that <br /><br />a.) This means the Lord supports the U.S. Constitution as the only law of the land, and that anything more or less than the Constitution "cometh of evil", or<br /><br />b.) This means the Lord supports his followers in upholding the law, and that he generally approves of the Constitution (but doesn't explicitly rule out other forms of government) because it allows his followers the freedom to follow Him, or<br /><br />c.) None of the above?<br /><br />Operators are standing by...Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-91980740025378539732011-09-20T14:38:00.000-06:002011-09-20T14:39:09.008-06:00A Scriptural Basis For Mormon Environmentalism<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst">
As a Mormon and an environmentalist I believe that
ensuring healthy air, water, and ecosystems is our moral and religious duty. My own Mormon environmentalism is based on
three important principles found in the scriptures.</div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
First, all of creation is imbued with a soul, and thus has value. We are taught that all things, both animate
and inanimate, were created “spiritually, before they were naturally upon the
face of the earth” (<a href="http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/3.5?lang=eng#4">Moses 3:5</a>), therefore they all have a “living soul”
(<a href="http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/3.9?lang=eng#4">Moses 3:9</a>), and the “worth of souls is great in the sight of God”
(<a href="http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/18.10?lang=eng#9">Doctrine and Covenants 18:10</a>). We are
even taught that our mother earth herself has a soul and is conscious of our “filthiness” (<a href="http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/7.48?lang=eng#47">Moses 7:48</a>).</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
Second, all of creation is meant to bear record of
God. The prophet Alma taught that “the earth,
and all things that are upon the face of it . . . do witness that there is a
Supreme Creator” (<a href="http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/30.44?lang=eng#43">Alma 30:44</a>). The Lord taught Adam from the beginning that
“all things bear record of [Him],” including “things which are on the earth,
and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth” (<a href="http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/6.63?lang=eng#61">Moses 6:63</a>).</div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Third, polluting the
earth is a sin. In Moroni’s vision of
our day he gave many examples of the types of sins we would commit. He mentions wars, murders, robbing, and
lying. In that list he notes that
another sign of moral decay will be “great pollutions upon the face of the
earth” (<a href="http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/morm/8.31?lang=eng#30">Mormon 8:31</a>).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Given these principles, I think it is sad that members of the church are not generally the strongest voices in protecting our environment. We put up with polluted and unhealthy air and water in order to protect corporations, we have much stronger voices for the slaughter of wolves, bears, coyotes, and cougars than for finding ways to peacefully coexist with wildlife, and we treat our last few truly wild places as commodities for our enjoyment rather than as having intrinsic value worth protecting at all costs.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">I believe we have lost touch with the spiritual aspect of creation in our errant quest for perpetual economic expansion. In our rush to "subdue" and exercise "dominion" over the earth we have forgotten that we are stewards only and will be held accountable for our stewardship. When we report how we took care of the world which we were given will we be able to say we cared for it, nourished it, and protected it? Or will we have nothing to show but a polluted world whose plant and animal life we destroyed for temporal gain?</span>Jacob S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16519032754947817876noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-14779317290856386432011-09-13T15:05:00.000-06:002011-09-13T15:10:04.535-06:00Pro-Death Bona FidesIn a strange twist, Republican candidates now must seemingly prove their pro-death bona fides to the Tea Party extremist base. In the last two Republican debates the crowd has made it clear that death is preferable to life, eye-for-an-eye-tooth-for-a-tooth is preferable to love thy neighbor and blessed-are-the-peacemakers and good-samaritanism and so forth. (Videos below)<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
First, last week, the crowd erupted in cheers when Rick Perry's record of over two hundred executions was brought up (including at least one <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0412090169dec09,0,1173806.story">innocent man</a>, and probably others):<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MZlDF9VCbrg" width="420"></iframe><br />
<br />
Next, this week, the crowd yelled out in favor of and cheered the idea of letting an uninsured man die:<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/irx_QXsJiao" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
Add to this list the generally hawkish, pro-war Republican stances and suddenly the pro-life, anti-abortion wing of the Republican party seems oddly out of place. After years of sowing the seeds of fear-mongering politics, the Republican strategy has worked: I am scared for America.Jacob S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16519032754947817876noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-27377208508656113672011-09-01T15:55:00.000-06:002011-09-01T15:55:20.452-06:00Social Justice in Book of Mormon-Era Governments<div id="primary">I recently came across the following verse in the Book of Mormon, Helaman 6:39:</div><blockquote><div id="primary">And thus they did obtain the sole management of the government, insomuch that they did trample under their feet and smite and rend and turn their backs upon the poor and the meek, and the humble followers of God.</div></blockquote><div id="primary">At this time in the history of the Book of Mormon, the Lamanites are righteous and the Nephites are not, so much so that the Nephites have allowed the Gadianton robbers to take control of the government. Upon taking control the Gadianton folks immediately started harassing and making life miserable for the poor.</div><div id="primary"> </div><div id="primary">There are various ways to interpret this verse, we don't really know for sure exactly what was going on, but it struck me that this verse may be evidence of social justice in Book of Mormon-era government. The assumption of the verse seems to me to be that previous to the robbers taking over the government, the government was in the business, to some unknown degree, of helping the poor. Following the take-over the policy is reversed and the robbers used the government as described. Why else would the author describe of the oppression of the poor and meek in the same sentence he states that the Gadianton's took over the government if not to draw that contrast?<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
Many moderate Mormon conservatives contend that the government should not be running programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare because those are properly the the domain of the private sector, and maybe charities in particular. I have no problem with the argument, I happen to disagree strongly but understand the reasoning behind it. The problem is that they often use the gospel or Book of Mormon as the basis for their arguments, which I do have a problem with.<br />
<br />
I think a righteous people, or even people just trying to do their best, as the pre-Gadianton Nephites were, could have, and indeed did, view the government as an efficient and justifiable means to helping the poor and meek, perfectly in line with their gospel beliefs. Perhaps their beliefs even required that they use every means and institution available to them to aid the poor and underprivileged, as that is a basic requirement that God gives to all his covenant people. I think this verse may give us a glimpse of that in the Book of Mormon.<br />
<ul class="results-list"></ul></div>Jacob S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16519032754947817876noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-31275797103136494532011-08-17T14:03:00.000-06:002011-08-17T14:03:56.123-06:00Down With the Two-Party System<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJM09SDFEg_9_jRj_IjhlhqiuPKaHWznPTQE2WkK7me7QfxO9ibXQkHVy3uI9eAxSjbzu48ADXMMdfk5fGKadqG4kQ5ycknS6HZWOW4S7fguDRVfv5a0lLgeufc2C_dxUkYANFT38uB2FJ/s1600/your_vote_counts_button_3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="176" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJM09SDFEg_9_jRj_IjhlhqiuPKaHWznPTQE2WkK7me7QfxO9ibXQkHVy3uI9eAxSjbzu48ADXMMdfk5fGKadqG4kQ5ycknS6HZWOW4S7fguDRVfv5a0lLgeufc2C_dxUkYANFT38uB2FJ/s200/your_vote_counts_button_3.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">. . . kind of.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>As it stands now, there are two major political parties that are supposed to somehow represent the infinitely more complex political views of hundreds of millions of Americans. It's a political duopoly. Our two political parties, meanwhile, are failing us spectacularly.<br />
<br />
Not only are the two parties failing us, but the two-party system itself, regardless of which parties are in control, <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/09/lind_two_party/index.html">is failing us</a>. It is a system which actively suppresses diverse ideas and candidates and thinking-outside-the-box, which results is less choice and less democratic representation for Americans.<br />
<br />
The 2000 presidential election is an apt illustration of this problem. More people voted for Al Gore than George W. Bush, but Bush became president of the United States. So you have a situation where the president of the United States did not garner a majority vote of Americans. This might be attributed to two major factors. First, the electoral college and, second, the presence of Ralph Nader.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
As to the <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/08/california-dreaming-an-end-to-the-wretched-electoral-college/243468/">electoral college</a>, there's not much else to add. It is archaic and anti-democratic and nonsensical and needs to be done away with.<br />
<br />
As to the presence of Ralph Nader, he actually did end up taking enough votes away from Al Gore in Florida to flip the state in Bush's favor, thereby turning the election. I imagine that most of the people that voted for Ralph Nader would have had Al Gore as their second choice, but by voting their conscience and refusing to vote strategically (which I applaud), they showed how a multi-party system fails. Many people were afraid to vote for Nader because of how it might have skewed the election in favor of Bush. The two-party system, then, suppressed the valid concerns of Nader-ites, and any other potential third party, because there is only room for two parties. So how to fix it?<br />
<br />
There are actually <a href="http://www.gp.org/committees/platform/2010/democracy.php#316100">different and better ways</a> to run an election than simply marking an "X" next to the name of the person you are voting for, often referred to as Plurality Voting. This is the system that punishes third party candidates and skews the entire process like what happened with Bush, Gore, and Nader. It seems weird to conceive of a different way to elect our government at first, given that we have voted in a certain way for so long, but it is nonetheless true that better ways exist. Much better ways.<br />
<br />
One better way to run an election for an executive office is called <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/what-is-irv/">Instant Runoff Vote</a>. Under this system voters rank their preferences one through however many candidates are on the ballot. If no candidate receives a majority vote right off the bat the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and the second choices from that ballot are distributed amongst the remaining candidates. This process is followed until one candidate has a majority. Under instant runoff voting, the person elected always has a majority and there is no punishment for third-parties (or fourth, fifth, etc.)<br />
<br />
That's simple enough, but the more difficult issue is the problem with voting for legislatures, councils, and the like. Imagine a state where 40% of the people vote for candidates from Party A, 35% vote for candidates from Party B, and 25% vote for candidates from Party C. Also imagine that the party makeup is the same in each individual district. In this case even though Party A only makes up 40% of the electorate, they get 100% of the power in the legislature. The dominant party, then, generally gets greater representation in government, and thus more power, than they proportionally receive among the electorate.<br />
<br />
There are several methods used in different American cities and states, and federal elections in different countries, that fix this problem, all of which try to attain the most fair way to achieve <a href="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/howprwor.htm">Proportional Representation</a>. They are all more complicated than the system we use now, but much more fair and representative of the electorate. <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/what-is-choice-voting">Choice Voting</a> is similar to IRV in that voters rank their preference of candidates, and second and third preferences are redistributed until all the seats are filled. This requires that the seats be at-large and that candidates obtain a threshold of votes to be elected according to the Droop Formula, which is the number of votes cast, divided by the number of seats available, plus one.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_member_proportional_representation">Mixed Member Voting</a> has the voters cast two votes: one for a specific candidate and one for a party. In this method, the party receives the number of seats proportional to the number of party votes it gets. The seats are filled first by those that win the specific candidate vote and the rest filled by the party.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://archive.fairvote.org/factshts/partylst.htm">Party List Voting</a> is where parties order a list of candidates and voters just vote for their favorite parties. The seats are filled by the parties according to how the proportion of the vote they receive in the order the party ranked the candidates.<br />
<br />
These are very basic overviews of the systems, and there are different variants for each one, but the overriding concept is that they all do a better job of representing the diverse and complex political characteristics of the public than our current Plurality Vote system. They allow for more voices and more ideas, which inevitably leads to less political stagnation and fewer stale ideas to fix problems.<br />
<br />
As an example of how this might change things, let's take a look at good old Utah. To get an idea of the general proportion of Democrats to Republicans in the state, I took the results of the 2010 governor's race between Peter Corroon and Gary Herbert. <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/governor/ut/utah_governor_special_election_herbert_vs_corroon-1454.html">Herbert won 64-32</a>. A two to one margin is probably about right. The state senate, meanwhile, is made up of 22 Republicans and seven Democrats, which is a 76-24 split. The state house of representatives is made up of 58 Republicans and 17 Democrats, which is a 77-23 split. In both cases Republicans are over-represented compared to the electorate. A Proportional Representation system would correct this problem and lead to something like a 19-10 split in the state senate (a pickup of three seats for Democrats) and a 51-24 split in the state house (a pickup of seven seats for Democrats).<br />
<br />
This isn't even factoring in the increased opportunity for third parties, which would change the political landscape even more. And this is just a liberal whining about Utah and the 2000 elections, there are plenty of conservatives that would embrace a Constitution Party or Libertarian Party if they had the chance, and I would welcome that. More parties, more ideas, more choices, more democracy.<br />
<br />
The last few years have made it clear that democracy in America is weakening drastically. There are many good ideas for how strengthen it again, and changing the way we elect our officials is perhaps one of the most important. It is also the least likely to happen because it would mean that the parties in control would voluntarily weaken themselves and give away power, and as we know, "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."Jacob S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16519032754947817876noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-44967594043441263712011-08-03T10:18:00.001-06:002011-08-03T10:26:14.175-06:00Huntsman the EnvironmentalistI think Jon Huntsman might be campaigning for my specific vote. I'm not sure he even cares if he becomes president, as long as I vote for him. Because, really, I can't see who his constituency might otherwise be.<br />
<br />
Huntsman recently had dinner with a bunch of environmentalists and declared that "<a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/huntsman/52284062-188/huntsman-environmental-president-utah.html.csp">conservation is conservative</a>." Add this to a list of other <a href="http://mormonleft.blogspot.com/2011/05/dont-you-make-this-difficult-for-me-jon.html">moderate-to-liberal stances</a>, and I'm not sure Huntsman has a firm grasp on today's Republican Party. This is not a party of moderation, generally, and certainly not a party hospitable to even inklings of environmentalism.<br />
<br />
I've already expressed a little political crush on him, so if he keeps reaching out to me personally like this I'm in trouble because my steamy new political partner is the Green Party and I don't want them getting jealous. But a moderate Mormon environmentalist as President of the United States? That's hot.Jacob S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16519032754947817876noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-3797373741778606242011-07-27T22:21:00.004-06:002011-07-29T09:03:28.694-06:00Two More Debt Ceiling Facepalms<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtiMncoriM_K4yotBd4dXtwQ28SakNpl4F5cWV24_RMTwp2tsNM_MW4jbF777XAASaX897IeflBlGPZwjv0ObjaFaiJWVl5QG0PnJ3Wt9LITMMz9e0wlLo_YJDxbMeopsyb1OMIFEQlapw/s1600/Facepalm.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="209" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtiMncoriM_K4yotBd4dXtwQ28SakNpl4F5cWV24_RMTwp2tsNM_MW4jbF777XAASaX897IeflBlGPZwjv0ObjaFaiJWVl5QG0PnJ3Wt9LITMMz9e0wlLo_YJDxbMeopsyb1OMIFEQlapw/s320/Facepalm.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>1. If one didn't know any better, one might conclude that our elected officials don't care whatsoever about the American people. I know it may sound shocking, but I have this sneaking suspicion. As evidence, I give you this <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_071711.html">Washington Post-ABC poll</a> which asked people, among other things, if they would oppose or support certain items in an effort to reduce the national debt. Here's a summary:<br />
<br />
Cut spending on Medicaid: 26% support, 72% oppose<br />
<br />
Cut military spending: 43% support, 56% oppose<br />
<br />
Raising taxes on Americans earning over $250,000 a year: 72% support, 27% oppose<br />
<br />
Gradually raising Medicare age from 65 to 67: 46% support, 54% oppose<br />
<br />
Changing the way SS benefits are calculated so they increase slower: 42% support, 53% oppose<br />
<br />
Raising taxes on oil and gas companies: 59% support, 39% oppose<br />
<br />
Means testing Medicare: 61% support, 36% oppose<br />
<br />
Removing SS tax income cap currently at $107,000: 66% support, 33% oppose<br />
<br />
Raising taxes on hedge fund managers (essentially changing capital gains taxes to income taxes): 64% support, 25% oppose<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
In sum, Americans support raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations to match recent historical levels and only making very small changes to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security (such as means-testing, which I'm okay with) to help fix the national debt problem. The only quibble I personally have with the majority of Americans is that I think military spending needs to be cut dramatically.<br />
<br />
Yet, in the debt ceiling negotiations in Washington the exact opposite is being considered. Tax increases for the wealthy and corporations are off the table and big changes to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are a near certainty. Up is down, left is right, sane is insanity, and what the American people want is irrelevant.<br />
<br />
2. The House recently passed their pie-in-the-sky <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/18/house-gop-readies-cut-cap-balance-plan/">Cut, Cap, and Balance bill</a>. The bill was so draconian that it had no chance, absolutely zero chance, of passing the Senate or not being vetoed by the President. It was a waste of time and Harry Reid, bless his soul, <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/21/harry_reid_cap_cap_and_balance_worst_piece_of_legislation_ever.html">called it</a> "some of the worst legislation in the history of this country." <strike>the worst piece of legislation every passed by the House</strike>.<br />
<br />
It worked by first making massive cuts to government spending starting next year and going into the future. Second, it capped government spending at around 18% of GDP per year and required 2/3 vote in Congress to ever raise taxes. Third, it required the passage of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution before the debt ceiling was raised.<br />
<br />
All three of those ideas are bad. The first because the cuts come at the expense of the poor and elderly almost exclusively. The second because it gives no flexibility to respond to crises like the one from which we are still recovering. The third because it gives even less flexibility than the second and degrades the beauty of our Constitution. It would ruin our economy, I have no doubts about that.<br />
<br />
It was, then, seen as a way for the please-don't-compare-yourselves-to-the-real-Tea-Party Congresspersons to show their ultra-conservative chops. It was a political stunt, nothing more and nothing less. They knew it didn't have a chance for passage because it was <i>so</i> conservative, they knew it was just to satisfy their base.<br />
<br />
But the Republicans control the House and it is their right to pass whatever they want. I think it is a dangerous bill and a waste of time when we are so close to an economic meltdown, but they've earned the right to be irresponsible I guess by winning elections and anyway everyone knew it never had any chance to become law. So it is not the mere passage of the bill that I consider a facepalm.<br />
<br />
What really bothers me is that <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/52221809-90/bill-matheson-budget-rep.html.csp">Utah Democrat Jim Matheson voted for it</a>. JIM MATHESON VOTED FOR CUT, CAP, AND BALANCE! Are your *&%#^@ kidding me? Even all of his Blue Dog Conservative Democrat associates called it a horrible bill just meant to give ultra-conservatives a message vote. I would rather, much much rather, have a Republican in that seat than Matheson. He's an embarrassment. He is the worst Congressperson in the country. I hope the state legislature redistricts him right out of office, I really do.Jacob S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16519032754947817876noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-86531659812492045442011-07-26T09:51:00.000-06:002011-07-26T09:51:59.140-06:00The Debt Ceiling Drama Makes Everyone Look IncompetentThe debt ceiling stuff makes me sick to my stomach. Despite the fact that the warnings about default are clear and dire, our elected leaders seem to be only interested in political showmanship and not actually solving the problem.<br />
<br />
On the one hand you have the Republicans who are the party much more responsible for our unwieldy debt, refusing to raise the debt ceiling unless all of their suddenly austere measures are met without any inkling of desire to compromise on any issue. They are the major cause of the problem, are completely hypocritical about government debt and size now that they believe it is politically advantageous, and are unwilling to negotiate like responsible adults to avoid the catastrophe they precipitated. They are more interested, it seems, in pleasing their corporate overlords than doing what is right for the American people. Here is one graph, among many many many, that illustrates the level to which Republicans are at fault for the debt:<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimjSkuwGSmcDBu7-ULbBbvs-i6xj7b3FrJ983HHPEYP6_a3qE4mtonh7yiV_rPyQ83wbYSDAyL19ZaRzhm7ihCdCoshge3AhOvTafS708swMlLxSyZOogb9gAj39MsFrjpSh44YN3elOE8/s1600/Debt+Graph.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimjSkuwGSmcDBu7-ULbBbvs-i6xj7b3FrJ983HHPEYP6_a3qE4mtonh7yiV_rPyQ83wbYSDAyL19ZaRzhm7ihCdCoshge3AhOvTafS708swMlLxSyZOogb9gAj39MsFrjpSh44YN3elOE8/s320/Debt+Graph.gif" width="288" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">From the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=1">New York Times</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
On the other hand you have the Democrats who seem to only care about reelection, not solving problems, caving on almost every issue because they think the more they move to the right the more electable they will become. Every time they make a move towards a compromise, without anything offered in return, the Republicans pull the chair out from under them and move it a little further to the right. The Democrats get up, brush themselves off, offer fresh cuts to Social Security or offer trillions in cuts without any increases in revenue (e.g. raising taxes on the wealthy), without any compromises from Republicans in return, and go to sit back down again only to come crashing to the ground as the chair is pulled out from under them yet again. Too stupid to learn, I guess.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the public is overwhelmingly in favor of raising taxes on the rich; closing huge tax loopholes for corporations; keeping Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid intact; and raising the debt ceiling to avoid another economic downturn. Somehow the Democrats have turned all that into a losing hand and seem destined to weaken the liberal legacy in return for some non-existent political victory.<br />
<br />
I am all for big cuts in spending in order to get the debt under control. I'm all for cutting out some of the enormous amount of fat in government. But it has to be done responsibly, and that means raising taxes on the rich and corporations and not gutting the social safety net for millions of poor and elderly Americans. It mostly means doing everything we can to make the economy strong again, which hinges mostly on creating local and sustainable jobs for average Americans and not showering the wealthy and corporations with more tax breaks and kickbacks.<br />
<br />
No one wins no matter what happens in the next few days. What a miserable time to be a political partisan.Jacob S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16519032754947817876noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-11892552868240244462011-07-18T11:04:00.000-06:002011-07-18T11:04:53.715-06:00Good News Everyone: Corporations Are Doing GreatThe economic recovery isn't going so well for Americans. The <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/07/jobs-stagnant-as-unemployment-rate-ticks-up-to-92-in-june/241608/">unemployment rate</a> is still over nine percent and hiring is actually slowing down again. Home foreclosures are still occurring at an alarmingly high rate. Regular people are not doing well. In short, as the <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304760604576425793342142396.html">Wall Street Journal</a> notes: "Across a wide range of measures—employment growth, unemployment levels, bank lending, economic output, income growth, home prices and household expectations for financial well-being—the economy's improvement since the recession's end in June 2009 has been the worst, or one of the worst, since the government started tracking these trends after World War II." <br />
<br />
In contrast--stark, ugly contrast--corporations are doing great. Corporate profits are at an <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/25/corporate-profits-2011-all-time-high_n_840538.html">all-time high</a>. Corporations are holding onto a <a href="http://www.suntimes.com/business/4251618-418/businesses-stockpile-record-1.9-trillion-in-cash">record amount of cash</a>, around $2 trillion. The GDP is higher now than it was pre-recession, but virtually all increased income was <a href="http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/index.html?story=/tech/htww/2011/07/06/the_final_nail_in_the_supply_side_coffin">captured as profits by corporations</a>. Stocks are the <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EDJI+Interactive#symbol=%5Edji;range=2y;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=;">highest</a> they've been since the recession began. Taxes on the wealthiest Americans are at <a href="http://visualizingeconomics.com/2010/02/04/historical-marginal-income-tax-rates/">all-time lows</a>. The <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304760604576426153929429820.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories">Wall Street Journal</a> astutely noted that there is a "dichotomy between corporate performance and the overall health of the economy."<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
It is time to stop babying corporate America and the ultra-wealthy, and to stop pretending that their successes or failures equate to general success and failure of everyday Americans. They are not in the business of creating jobs, protecting the environment, or generally improving economy and the lives of regular Americans. They are in the business of making profits, and that does not necessarily, or even regularly, translate to better lives for regular people. Our 30 year experiment in supply-side, trickle down economics should now come to an end.<br />
<br />
So what sorts of things should we be doing to take our economy back from corporations? The first is to skew the tension between the pure profit motive and social responsibility <a href="http://www.gp.org/committees/platform/2010/economic-justice.php#241646">way towards the latter</a>.<br />
<blockquote>Greens believe the legal structure of the corporation is obsolete. At present, corporations are designed solely to generate profit. This legal imperative -- profit above all else -- is damaging our country and our planet in countless ways. We must change the legal design of corporations so that they generate profits, but not at the expense of the environment, human rights, public health, workers, or the communities in which the corporation operates.</blockquote>The practical solution is "federal chartering of corporations that includes comprehensive, strict and enforceable social responsibility requirements." <br />
<br />
Second is for our economy to <a href="http://www.gp.org/committees/platform/2010/economic-justice.php#241820">focus more locally</a>: "Greens support decentralization, and call for a community-based economics whose aim is local prosperity and self-sufficiency."<br />
<br />
The overall idea is to shift power from corporations to people, from national or international to local. This is a more sustainable way to run an economy. I also really appreciate the focus on self-sufficiency. One of the important purposes of self-sufficiency is to be able to help other people. In our civic lives, we are self-sufficient as individuals and families so that we are stable and comfortable, to be sure, but also so that we can help our neighbors and create a self-sufficient community. Greens care about self-sufficiency and community welfare because they are tied together. And large, unwieldy corporations play virtually no part in that scheme.<br />
<br />
The current painfully slow recovery for average Americans while corporate America and the wealthiest thrive is further evidence that it is time to reevaluate our economic structure. It is time to demand social responsibility from corporations and time to stop pretending that that "trickle-down" economics is sound policy.Jacob S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16519032754947817876noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-85704411057845354572011-06-30T21:58:00.001-06:002011-06-30T22:00:33.148-06:00Mormon and Green<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRSEDJOqr8UDcg7nLYXNuMrNZNvP32RJTM-0WcafrMqxAmP1Jgb2f9erKoFDUT6g0j4PCDkgiqH2eJJdxRn1JX8ivGT1sZAsxg7ilEIIopgYcra308rrZUo59vgp0UL72ijBjnMU6ZHLQ9/s1600/green_party_utah.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRSEDJOqr8UDcg7nLYXNuMrNZNvP32RJTM-0WcafrMqxAmP1Jgb2f9erKoFDUT6g0j4PCDkgiqH2eJJdxRn1JX8ivGT1sZAsxg7ilEIIopgYcra308rrZUo59vgp0UL72ijBjnMU6ZHLQ9/s320/green_party_utah.jpg" width="304" /></a>It seems to me that every instinct that the current American political class has is wrong. The economy is faltering badly after banks and insurance firms drove it to disaster with too many risks and bad investments? Let's deregulate, cut programs to the poor and those most vulnerable, and lower taxes on the rich. The western forests are unhealthy and in bad shape because of decades of mismanagement? Let's manage them with an <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/52109509-90/gov-governors-herbert-trees.html.csp">even heavier hand</a>. The debt ceiling is about to be reached, and default by the government could have dire consequences for an already weak economy? Let's play political games with it. Climate change problem? <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/01/27/207409/denier-harrison-schmitt-holdren-communists/">Scientists are communists</a>. No one seems to have the gumption or desire to stand up for something better.<br />
<br />
As I looked over and contemplated <a href="http://mormonleft.blogspot.com/2011/06/whats-wrong-with-us-some-ideas.html">my glib list of problems</a>, politically, with America, it became glaringly clear that the Democrats and Republicans don't have the solutions. They are too entrenched and powerful to come up with big, new ideas to fix big, new problems. I've known this for quite a while, of course, on some level I think we all do, but the idea is continually sharpening in my mind. As a Mormon with the political convictions that I have, I feel more and more compelled to cast my lot with the <a href="http://www.gp.org/index.php">Green Party</a>.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The Green Party is best known for running Ralph Nader in the 2000 presidential election and siphoning off a small but substantial number of votes that may or may not have given the election to George W. Bush over Al Gore. Nader argued, though, essentially, that this is no big loss because there were no major differences between Bush and Gore: "Both parties are selling our government to big business paymasters. . . That's a pretty serious similarity". In retrospect, with Pres. Bush turning out to be one of the worst presidents in American history, the difference between Bush and Gore might have been more pronounced, but in general terms I'm with Nader on this.<br />
<br />
Nader never actually joined the Green Party, however, and generally runs as an independent, and that was probably the peak of the party's influence. But the Green Party is still one of the largest third parties in America and offers real choice to Americans who don't get it in a D v. R election. But I'm not naive enough to think that we'll start getting Green Party candidates elected in any real numbers any time soon. No, this is about ideas and starting conversations that we're generally not having.<br />
<br />
The Green Party is based on <a href="http://www.gp.org/committees/platform/2010/introduction.php#998247">10 Key Values</a>:<br />
<ol><li>Grassroots Democracy</li>
<li>Social Justice and Equal Opportunity</li>
<li>Ecological Wisdom</li>
<li>Non-violence</li>
<li>Decentralization</li>
<li>Community Based Economics</li>
<li>Feminism and Gender Equality</li>
<li>Respect for Diversity</li>
<li>Personal and Global Responsibility</li>
<li>Future Focus and Sustainability</li>
</ol><div>There's a lot packed in there, as you will see if you want to follow that link, and of course as a thinking adult I can't get behind everything the Green Party stands for, but this lines up more with my political and religious convictions than anything else out there.</div><div><br />
</div><div>The economic ideas remind me of the early days of the church, and especially the early church in Utah: economies based on local communities and the idea of local self-sufficiency and sustainability.</div><div><br />
</div><div>The social ideas are closer to the principles taught by Christ than what we see in our political parties today: non-violence, respect for diversity, personal responsibility, and intense caring for the poor and vulnerable.</div><div><br />
</div><div>And as an ardent <a href="http://mormonleft.blogspot.com/search/label/Environment">environmentalist</a>, and someone who thinks ecological wisdom is a proper fit with Mormonism, the Green Party is a natural fit.</div><div><br />
</div><div>I haven't lost all hope for America, but I'm not enamored with how things are going. I think the Green Party offers ideas that deserve serious consideration and I want to try to express some of them on this blog and show how they are fully compatible with Mormonism. It's time to explore the union of Mormon and Green.</div>Jacob S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16519032754947817876noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-63432378163416807082011-06-24T10:42:00.000-06:002011-06-24T10:42:10.074-06:00What's Wrong With Us? Some ideas.Perhaps I'm just in a bad mood, politically, but I made a list of what's wrong with America right now. Enjoy: <br />
<ol><li>Pointless, horrible wars that we won't end.</li>
<li>An assault on our civil liberties, mostly due to the Patriot Act.</li>
<li>A complete lack of initiative and desire to do something about climate change and out-of-control consumption of fossil fuels.</li>
<li>The deterioration of our public school system.</li>
<li>The ever-growing income disparity chasm between the rich and poor.</li>
<li>A broken health care system and no universal health care on the horizon to fix it.</li>
<li>Underregulated crony corporatism.</li>
<li>Insulated, unaccountable politicians.</li>
<li>Incivility and bigotry.</li>
<li>The New York Yankees. </li>
</ol>To sum it up: we have a bipartisan assault on peace, liberty, niceness, the poor, and the environment. Am I missing anything?Jacob S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16519032754947817876noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-3253696976012386572011-06-22T07:00:00.002-06:002011-06-22T07:09:53.540-06:00So long Medicaid and thanks for all the CHIPsAs part of the economic recovery/stimulus package of 2009, Congress approved in increase in federal funding levels for Medicaid. Unlike Medicare, which is funded entirely by the federal government, Medicaid is jointly funded by the federal and state governments. The increased levels provided bumped the federal portion of payments up to ~65% of the total burden. It's hard to pinpoint the numbers because it varies from state to state with wealthy states receiving less support and poor states receiving more.<br /><br />These increased levels drop back down to the pre-stimulus levels at the end of the June forcing states to adjust. The extra aid was originally scheduled to end last December, but Congress extended it for six months after being petitioned by both the White house <span style="font-style: italic;">and</span> state officials. Now that the extra ~10% is ending thanks to political posturing and focus on national debt, individual state's must now find a way to compensate.<br /><br />One method for California is to cut payments to recipients and physicians. Of course, these beneficiaries took the American way and sued the state to block the cuts. The case made it to the Supreme Court, but the <a href="http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2011/06/13/gvsb0613.htm">Justices sided with the state</a>. The 10% nibble might just be the beginning with enormous deficits (and incumbents' seats) causing turmoil. The long-term implications from such cuts are much more frightening. More physicians will likely refuse service to medicaid patients, forcing the latter to visit the ER as a sole means of care. By law, an ER can't refuse a patient <span style="font-style: italic;">even if they have no insurance or means to pay</span>. Likely the shift from visiting general practitioners to showing up at the hospital means a couple of things: longer lines in the ER and in increase in hospital premiums to compensate for the costs (losses) associated with an overrun ER.<br /><br />In addition to, or instead of, reducing Medicaid payments to providers, some states are finding other options. <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/25/us-ny-state-cap-medicaid-costs-151-billi-idUSTRE71O5DP20110225">New York</a> is imposing a cap on Medicaid spending. <a href="http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/State-s-tax-on-hospitals-not-as-great-as-feared-1418852.php">Connecticut</a> is proposing more precise cuts and is only setting limits on vision and dental coverage. The rest of the states are reporting some combination of truncating payments to providers, reducing beneficiaries services while increasing co-payments, and shifting funds from other state-funding programs (like education) to offset the changes.<br /><br />As a result of political impotence, combined with the alleged public outcry, there is no universal health care, nor is there any legitimate replacement for Medicaid anywhere on the horizon. Like Senator Rockefeller IV said about the beneficiaries, "Seniors vote. But if you are poor or disabled, you might not vote, and if you are a child, you do not vote - that's a lot of Medicaid's population. They don't have money to do lobbying." I'm concerned that this is the beginning of the end for Medicaid. My advice? Don't get born, don't get poor, and don't get old.<br /><br />That, or you can go <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/06/21/benzinga1188971.DTL">rob $1</a> from a bank to get a better life.Shawn O.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06143174881794845427noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-91553613768673327502011-05-27T11:08:00.003-06:002011-08-18T09:47:10.793-06:00Don't You Make This Difficult For Me, Jon Huntsman<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEij8MHLi8yTNKc3pltU_RWeggjlnLinUaRC8gzusDKBVdQDSY2QL6FnN3eNs3TDO6dPCOtHb7-AC5PUgfvh3DzGbHL1EdnWadm8PQnr1c8yKQ6ScqRtvPLYjtegcuQpuAgzt4_DDLwh60hZ/s1600/Jon-Huntsman.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEij8MHLi8yTNKc3pltU_RWeggjlnLinUaRC8gzusDKBVdQDSY2QL6FnN3eNs3TDO6dPCOtHb7-AC5PUgfvh3DzGbHL1EdnWadm8PQnr1c8yKQ6ScqRtvPLYjtegcuQpuAgzt4_DDLwh60hZ/s200/Jon-Huntsman.jpg" width="160" /></a></div>It's early, and my feelings are confused right now, but I think I'm starting to really like Jon Huntsman. I mean, I liked him a lot when he was governor because we just never had governors like him in Utah. He <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNpkUa8B-RM">supported cap-and-trade</a> legislation, he moved us forward on civil rights by supporting gay rights and <a href="http://www.abc4.com/content/news/watercooler/story/Huntsman-supports-same-sex-civil-unions/dxyasQMd3Uqe9Lvo4uADEg.cspx">civil unions</a>, he supported <a href="http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=798008">immigrant rights</a>, he <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/24/utah-governor-ignores-top-gop-legislators/">called out those ridiculous congressional Republicans</a> for being useless (his word was "inconsequential"), and he generally talked and acted like a moderate in a state where Republican politicians are almost universally crazies. I even started to like that <a href="http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/Americas/July-08/Utah-State-Employees-Moving-to-a-Four-Day-Workweek.html">weird thing</a> he <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/03/12/tl_jon_huntsman.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/toplists/the_faces_of_the_new_gop_leadership/the_faces_of_the_new_gop_leadership.html&usg=__webAFAXWIHugMG8-9bn8OkAcu60=&h=250&w=350&sz=23&hl=en&start=42&sig2=W3V47pRfbBQeWH3l7lLCyA&zoom=1&tbnid=j6R48C3FeQeilM:&tbnh=153&tbnw=191&ei=Fq_eTYziA6rkiAKg2YjLCg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Djon%2Bhuntsman%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3De91%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1157%26bih%3D838%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=850&vpy=456&dur=5239&hovh=190&hovw=266&tx=149&ty=111&page=3&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:17,s:42&biw=1157&bih=838">does with</a> his <a href="http://blogs.sltrib.com/slcrawler/uploaded_images/huntsmanpaline-798859.jpg">eyebrows</a>. He wasn't perfect, but he was pretty good.<br />
<br />
Then he praised Obama and Clinton and went to work as the ambassador to China in the Obama administration, even when everyone knew he had national aspirations.<br />
<br />
Now it is clear that he's running for president and he continues to talk like a moderate, reasonable conservative and, frankly, it's jarring. Take a look at this <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700137034/I-am-Mormon-Huntsman-tells-Good-Morning-America.html?pg=3">article by the Deseret News</a> and in particular the transcript of the interview he did with CNN's John King.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
When asked about the praise he has given Pres. Obama and Sec. Clinton he said:<br />
<blockquote>"Well, occasionally you write thank you notes, which I think is, for a lot of people, an important tradition. I also believe in civility. I believe that we ought to have a civil discourse in this country. You're -- and you're not going to agree with people 100 percent of the time, but when they succeed and do things that are good, you can compliment them on it. I think we need to come together more on the issues that really do matter. I believe in civility and I believe in complimenting people when they do a good job."</blockquote>When asked about his support for gay rights he said:<br />
<blockquote>"Well, I'm for civil unions. I believe in traditional marriage. But I think subordinate to that, we don't do an adequate job when it comes to equality and fairness. And I'm going to say take a look at my total record. And like every person who's been elected to office and tried to do things, some things you'll like, some things you won't. On balance, we hope you like us. But if you don't, there are always other alternatives."</blockquote>When asked about his support for cap-and-trade and whether climate change is human-caused he said:<br />
<blockquote>"Well, I think the science of the community would -- would suggest that to be the case. And I think in a world like we have, we should be deferring to the scientific community and not the political community to make decisions that are best left in the hands of scientists. . . . So by the time that, you know, in the years to come, people want to have this conversation in a serious way, because people care about their environment, they care about air quality, I think we're going to face a whole lot more in the way of options other than just a tax on carbon and a cap and trade proposal."</blockquote>He also opposed sending our military to Libya. He likes the idea of privatizing Medicare, which I think is a disastrous idea, but that's not ever going to happen anyway (knock on wood) so I'll overlook it. <br />
<br />
These are not the types of things Republican nominees for POTUS say, though. They typically stick with catchy soundbites and heated rhetoric (also, some Democrats, but we're talking about the current Republican field here). They don't praise Pres. Obama for his successes, they call him a communist, anti-American, Muslim outsider who is hell-bent on destroying our nation (note: not exaggerations at all . . . for real). They don't support civil unions and say we aren't doing a good job with equity and fairness (socialist buzzwords, people!), they say that gays are destroying traditional marriage and the very moral fiber of America and will bring our downfall as a Christian nation. They don't admit that climate change is human caused and leave the door open to cap-and-trade and talk about love for our environment, they <a href="http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/05/pawlenty-im-sorry-i-once-cared-about-climate">apologize profusely</a> for ever admitting something so awful and talk about how scientists are just in a power grab to drag us down in a socialist plot.<br />
<br />
But here is Huntsman being a mature, thoughtful adult addressing issues seriously and acknowledging that the other side has good ideas. Which raises some conflicting feelings within me.<br />
<br />
First, I don't consider myself particularly moderate in a lot of areas. I'm pretty well fully liberal. So your average moderate conservative isn't all that appealing to me in normal circumstances.<br />
<br />
But second, I'm not particularly enamored with Pres. Obama, as I have written a few times before, for the reason that I'm fully liberal and the president doesn't seem interested in sticking his neck out for liberal positions. I like that he plays the adult and compromises and gets things done, but I also want him to make strong cases for liberal causes along the way, which he doesn't seem to want to do. If you're a Democratic president, you have to do both to impress me.<br />
<br />
So, third, if you are going to have a president that is moderate and practical that isn't really interested in being a strong voice for liberal issues, what does it matter if she or he is a Democrat or Republican? And who knows, Huntsman may well be even better than Pres. Obama on some key issues, in particular civil rights. Maybe he'll support repealing the <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110527/ap_on_go_co/us_patriot_act">Patriot Act</a>, ending indefinite imprisonment of detainees without a civil trial, and getting us out of wars we have no business fighting. <br />
<br />
Finally, <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700137034/I-am-Mormon-Huntsman-tells-Good-Morning-America.html?pg=1">Jon Huntsman is Mormon</a>. I know he's been a little <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54846.html">evasive</a> about his Mormonism, but he is Mormon, saying "I believe in God. I'm a good Christian. I'm very proud of my Mormon heritage. I am Mormon." I like how he describes the religion as "a very diverse and heterogeneous cross-section of people," which I believe is absolutely true.<br />
<br />
Now, I'm on record as saying that I would never vote for a person just because of religion. That is a very, very poor way to choose political leaders. But at a time when the Democratic president isn't scratching my liberal itch, and when there is a very good Republican candidate who is somewhat iconoclastic and says some things I agree with on issues I think are important, I find that Huntsman being a Mormon I can be proud of adds a little extra luster. It's a point, a single point, in his favor. Tipping the scales, if I may mix my metaphors, in his direction just a bit.<br />
<br />
But my potential enthusiasm is tempered by the fact that there used to be this other Mormon Republican ex-governor who took decidedly moderate or liberal stands on issues like gay rights and health care who all of the sudden when he wanted to become president started changing his positions and pandering to the please-don't-compare-yourselves-to-the-real-Tea-Party and became as unlikeable as possible. His name, of course, is Mitt Romney.<br />
<br />
So, if you want me to love you, Jon Huntsman, and I'm vulnerable right now and just might be able to, don't become another Mitt Romney.Jacob S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16519032754947817876noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-8493622264024274322011-05-25T11:01:00.001-06:002011-05-27T11:09:02.911-06:00Liberal States' RightsMy visceral opposition to strong states' rights comes from a variety of sources. First, I don't like the way my state generally does things. Utah is a drag. This is an intellectually shallow argument against states' rights, but its real for many people.<br />
<br />
Second, I think the constitutional arguments behind it are pretty weak, or have become weaker in a changing world that the Founding Fathers could not possibly have foreseen. I went into detail about this <a href="http://mormonleft.blogspot.com/2011/01/constitutional-over-correction-extreme.html">here</a>. <br />
<br />
Third, I think there are certain basic privileges and protections that the federal government should ensure that many states are hostile to, such as health care, which we'll discuss more below. I support the federal government setting minimum standards for health care, the financial sector, etc. that are binding on states and put all Americans on a more equal footing. As long as we are the <i>United</i> States of America, what's bad for one of us is bad for all of us.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Fourth, I distrust corporations more than government and think corporations have too much power, and decentralizing their main counterweight, the federal government, strikes me as a way to strengthen corporations and allow them to run amok (think Gilded Age abuses and oppression, and go read <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Jungle-Enriched-Classics-Upton-Sinclair/dp/0743487621/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1305137537&sr=8-3"><i>The Jungle</i></a> by Upton Sinclair).<br />
<br />
Fifth, and related to the previous two points, is the threat of a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom">race to the bottom</a>. This occurs where, in economic competition, competing political entities will race to deregulate and dismantle consumer protections in an effort to attract businesses. Wal-mart, for instance, is not going to be relocating its headquarters to a state with strong union laws on the books.<br />
<br />
Sixth, the history of states' rights isn't exactly inspiring. States' rights has been synonymous with slavery, Jim Crow, anti-segregation, and a whole slew of civil rights atrocities. The latest incarnation is for certain states to take an incredibly hostile view towards immigrants, which I find despicable and not very Christian. Certain states don't seem to be able to mind themselves when it comes to civil rights and it just won't due for them to drag us all down to their level.<br />
<br />
Finally, conservatives have ruined the issue for me by attaching it to their social agenda and supporting states' rights when it suits them (abortion, immigration) and opposing it when it doesn't (drug control, gay marriage). There are actually hardly any people anywhere on the political spectrum with a consistent stance on states' rights and I therefore find it hard to get on board.<br />
<br />
Despite all of this, I can't help but agree with the <a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/285/262/case.html">famous line from Justice Brandeis</a> that, "It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." The individual states as laboratories of democracy is an appealing metaphor that works on many levels. I like the idea of states being courageous and searching for new, progressive solutions to our problems. But it only works if states find themselves out ahead of nation as a whole as opposed to falling behind, and if the state doesn't have an elevated stature above the others in a certain area.<br />
<br />
For example, New York and Delaware hold the keys to the corporate and financial engine of the nation. If they aren't out ahead of rest of us in governing corporations and banks and protecting consumers, then the whole nation suffers. So when they dropped the ball and the nation slunk into the Great Recession, the federal government had to step in and try to fix things. It would have been better if those states had taken the lead and reformed the financial system before disaster struck, but they didn't and that's why we have the feds to step in and clean up their mess.<br />
<br />
It became clear many years ago that there was a serious problem with the health care industry. Tens of millions of Americans couldn't get coverage, coverage wasn't portable which tied people to their crappy jobs, and those with coverage were facing rising premiums greatly outpacing inflation with benefits falling by the wayside. If various states had taken this seriously and fired up their bunsen burners and tried to find real solutions perhaps the federal government would not have had to play such a heavy hand. The one state that did, Massachusetts, became the basis for the federal reform. But otherwise they didn't. But now they are.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/12/ap/health/main20062195.shtml">Vermont</a> is about to create a <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2293634/">single-payer system</a>. California and Oregon have progressive systems aimed and covering all residents. This is good, and could be the beginning of real health reform in the country. The states should be out in front, and when they are the whole federalism system works better. Unfortunately, that race to the bottom almost always means that they are not, and that is why it is too risky to put too much faith in states' rights, for now anyway.Jacob S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16519032754947817876noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-59358794511465190612011-05-23T12:04:00.001-06:002011-05-23T12:46:35.405-06:00Second Greatest Mormon Baseball Player (Pitcher Division)Our quest to identify the second greatest Mormon baseball player brings us to the pitchers. I'm proud to say that this is a pretty good crop. There seem to be more very good Mormon pitchers than Mormon position players, and if anyone has a theory as to why I'd like to hear it. But this analysis comes down to five pitchers: Roy Halladay, Jack Morris, Dennis Eckersley, Bruce Hurst, and Vernon Law.<br />
<br />
I'll just note here that my search for the second greatest Mormon baseball players is not contingent on church activity or faithfulness. First, I have no way of knowing and second it's not my place to make those judgment calls anyway. Eckersley, for instance, is only known to have been active for a few years as a youth and has had some well publicized trials and struggles and as far as I can tell does not identify as a Mormon, but he was baptized and so we consider him. I'm not sure if this is the best way to do it or not, but I'm a big-tent Mormon kind of guy and so we push on.<br />
<br />
This is going to get a little long so let me just dispense with the suspense right now for those that don't want to read the whole thing: Roy Halladay, with even a partially completed career, is the greatest Mormon pitcher of all time and by the time it's all said and done it won't even be close. There, you know how it ends, now lets enjoy the journey, in alphabetical order.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<b>Dennis Eckersley</b><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTleCu35vEGiJshcddKb6QUP2nqc-IDffTrSCAD4ZmE14aBCaMUmQT1nMspYdcfSpKc-DkwIpE8IfwJxF9sT7LsEXURYEIfYPaDLXpcy4fDG4mF5f8ynljUac3xcYEp16fzN_VHy0X4xr7/s1600/eck.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTleCu35vEGiJshcddKb6QUP2nqc-IDffTrSCAD4ZmE14aBCaMUmQT1nMspYdcfSpKc-DkwIpE8IfwJxF9sT7LsEXURYEIfYPaDLXpcy4fDG4mF5f8ynljUac3xcYEp16fzN_VHy0X4xr7/s200/eck.jpg" width="145" /></a>Eck is a first ballot Hall of Famer, elected in 2004. We noted last time that Dale Murphy had two careers, one as perhaps the best player in baseball and one where he fell off a cliff was barely average. Eck has three careers, one at the very beginning of his career as an excellent starter, one in the middle as a merely average starter, and one at the end as one of the best relievers of all time. I think his HoF credentials are built mostly for being the most dominant reliever this side of Mariano Rivera.<br />
<br />
In 1992 Eckersley won both the Cy Young and MVP. This is the year he saved 51 games with a 1.91 ERA and 10.5 strikeouts per nine innings against only 1.2 walks per nine innings and a 197 ERA+. His A's finished first in the AL West at 96-66 and lost in the ALCS to the eventual World Series Champion Blue Jays. That ALCS featured another pitcher on this list at the end of his career, Jack Morris, who had a forgettable ALCS and World Series despite his team winning both. Eck didn't fare so hot himself in that ALCS with a 6.00 ERA. He finished in the top ten Cy Young balloting five other times, three top six MVP votes, and was a six time all-star.<br />
<br />
Over his entire career, Eckersley was awesome. He finished with 197 wins (I will quote pitcher wins and saves in this piece for posterity's sake even though I disdain both), .535 winning percentage, and 390 saves. He has a 3.50 career ERA and 116 ERA+. He has 2401 strikeouts which puts him at 36th all time. His advanced stats are awesome, as well, with 67.1 WAR and 30.97 WPA.<br />
<br />
Since he had a run as both a starter and reliever he has two distinct peaks. His first five years in the league, 1975-1979, he went 77-50 with a 3.12 ERA, 128 ERA+, and averaged 171 strikeouts per year. He muddled around for a while and then was then made a closer and he had an epic six year peak from 1987-1992 where he had a 2.18 ERA, 178 ERA+, 9.3 K/9, and 8.93 K/BB. This is as good as it gets if your name is not Mariano Rivera. It is only marred by giving up <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3644345">one of the most famous home runs</a> in baseball history.<br />
<br />
Eckersley is one of two players to have both a 20-win season and a 50-save season (the other being John Smoltz), and he threw a no-hitter on May 30, 1977 against the Cleveland Indians. He had exactly 100 complete games and 20 shutouts, numbers which most pitchers just don't achieve anymore. Eck lived a party lifestyle and was brash and cocky, but he managed to harness it all and become an all-time great. <br />
<br />
<b>Roy Halladay</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaZwb3bKkz4JrR0zp5X7P2HMhYOXcX4M4HxIATyZMG7RMgCT0MqBgAJ0H_yLu4CfNurD9U4051W7dZbuIa3L7IQ94p4N7qKNszHN3EXVgsjiJIW3S4XQGEXe_SYSMU1rCS6K31ziq8lb8p/s1600/Halladay.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaZwb3bKkz4JrR0zp5X7P2HMhYOXcX4M4HxIATyZMG7RMgCT0MqBgAJ0H_yLu4CfNurD9U4051W7dZbuIa3L7IQ94p4N7qKNszHN3EXVgsjiJIW3S4XQGEXe_SYSMU1rCS6K31ziq8lb8p/s200/Halladay.JPG" width="144" /></a></div>Essentially, Halladay's entire career has been a peak so far. For the past 11 seasons he has been a force of nature, and most of that was spent in the difficult conditions of the AL East. He seemingly mowed through the high-priced Red Sox and Yankee lineups with ease. Now that he is in the weaker hitting National League his numbers are starting to look silly. All this after an ignominious start where he struggled as a young pitcher and was demoted back down to the minors to work things out. In 2000 his ERA was over 10 in 67.2 innings, which is about the worst season in baseball history. Really. But work things out, he did, and came back at age 24 with a vengeance and new mechanics and began his reign as the best pitcher in baseball. There's a lesson, there, kids: don't let disappointments get you down, work through your problems, make lemonade out of lemons, etc.<br />
<br />
Doc has won two Cy Youngs (2003 in the AL and 2010 in the NL), with five other top five finishes, and is a seven time all-star. So far. Remember, this is going to look like a complete career run down but he is still at the top of his game, so everything is "so far." In fact, this season is starting out as his best yet with a 2.21 ERA, 171 ERA+, 9.3 K/9, and he is the odds-on favorite to win another Cy Young award. So far, then, in his career, he is 175-89 (his .663 winning percentage puts him top 20 all time with at least 1000 innings pitched) with a 3.29 ERA, 137 ERA+, 2.85 FIP with 1787 Ks, 6.8 K/9, and a ridiculous 3.6 K/BB. He strikes people out and he doesn't hand out walks. He already has 64.6 WAR and 36.36 WPA.<br />
<br />
On May 29, 2010, Halladay threw only the 20th perfect game in baseball history, and then followed it up later that year by throwing only the 2nd no-hitter in postseason history in his first career playoff start. Election to the hall of fame takes two parts raw, objective stats and one part legend, and Halladay already has both of those locked up. If his career ended today he would be a hall of famer, no doubt in my mind.<br />
<br />
<b>Bruce Hurst</b><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBCQ7tyit67ek8QNfyVsqQItZty2pSHfRHVbBrqzggeoznmefBhUeKVdwiBDmm00O3LRou6SK_msjPbVSDeyAnfIzVEP13Y-UAiKg6j5LZgcJQl4yWFCrGpdN7iZSBHSZnbEvQm5hkoOIi/s1600/Hurst.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBCQ7tyit67ek8QNfyVsqQItZty2pSHfRHVbBrqzggeoznmefBhUeKVdwiBDmm00O3LRou6SK_msjPbVSDeyAnfIzVEP13Y-UAiKg6j5LZgcJQl4yWFCrGpdN7iZSBHSZnbEvQm5hkoOIi/s200/Hurst.jpg" width="143" /></a>Bruce Hurst is a step down from Eckersley and Halladay, but was a very good pitcher and, like Wally Joyner in the non-pitcher post, should be recognized. He is originally from St. George, UT, making us beehive-staters proud. Over his career he was 145-113 with a 3.92 ERA and 104 ERA+. He finished with 1689 Ks and 41.2 WAR. He had one top five Cy Young Award vote and one all-star appearance.<br />
<br />
He had a very good six year peak from 1986-1991 where he had a 3.38 ERA, 119 ERA+, went 87-55 and averaged 168 K per year. He best season was probably 1989 when he went 15-11 with a 2.69 ERA, 132 ERA+, and 179 K. He was a very good pitcher.<br />
<br />
I guess I should mention, against my better judgment, the 1986 World Series one more time. Hurst was awesome. He won game one by pitching eight scoreless innings with eight Ks. He won game five by pitching a complete game (two runs and six Ks). Right before the tragic (in every sense of the word) collapse in game six, the Shea Stadium scoreboard congratulated the Sox on winning their first WS since 1918 and named Hurst the series MVP. But you know what? The Red Sox won two world series in the past few years and so you can all stuff it. Anyway, this is still about Hurst still, I believe.<br />
<br />
I shouldn't do this because again I have no personal knowledge and I have no right to judge, but Hurst was known for being <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/1989-03-04/sports/sp-277_1_bruce-hurst">devout</a> and <a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1068101/2/index.htm">clean</a> throughout his career. They even had <a href="http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/47545/Mormon-night-at-Fenway.html">Mormon Night at Fenway Park</a> in 2005 when he threw out the first pitch after being elected to the Red Sox Hall of Fame. Another great lesson for the kids.<br />
<br />
<b>Vernon Law</b><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0XYzkcgSeGgKa38-Xl57bDLNSoqmNfUUy2Ikx9qRcpkr35mmeSphamQDerOE0J00pXt2vItq3d7H8bGRBbUn1f83uvyE7wjLjEeCkjnK3b62rCC_7LNbyfUtTYE6x8Tku9Xr2pyyWqpCr/s1600/Law.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="141" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0XYzkcgSeGgKa38-Xl57bDLNSoqmNfUUy2Ikx9qRcpkr35mmeSphamQDerOE0J00pXt2vItq3d7H8bGRBbUn1f83uvyE7wjLjEeCkjnK3b62rCC_7LNbyfUtTYE6x8Tku9Xr2pyyWqpCr/s200/Law.jpg" width="200" /></a>Vernon Law, like Hurst, is a step down from the others but had a very solid career. He won the Cy Young award and was an all-star in 1960, but his 1959 year was probably better having gone 18-9 with a 2.89 ERA, 130 ERA+, and 110K. That was in the midst of a six year peak from 1955 to 1960 where he went 80-60 with a 3.47 ERA, 111 ERA+, and averaged 80 K per year. Law was not a big strikeout guy, but he got the job done. Over his career he went 162-147 with a 3.77 ERA and 102 ERA+.<br />
<br />
You can't talk about Vern Law without talking about the 1960 World Series. This is where the mighty New York Yankees outplayed the Pittsburgh Pirates, outscoring them 55-27 in the series, and lost in seven games. This is where Bill Mazeroski hit one of the top five most famous home runs in world series history, becoming the first player ever to hit a walk-off home run to win the world series (Joe Carter would become the second in 1993). Law, though, was sensational. He won game one by pitching seven innings and giving up only two runs. He won game four by giving up only two runs over six and a third. He then went out on short rest and pitched five innings of three-run ball in game 7 to keep his team in the game before Maz's famous home run. Law was as responsible for the Pirates winning one of the most remarkable world series in history as anyone else.<br />
<br />
Law was known as Deacon (also, Preacher) for living a devout and religious life as a Mormon during his career. He as been living in Provo since he retired (due in part to ankle problems), and <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700041596/Pittsburgh-to-honor-Provos-Vernon-Law.html">helps coach</a> the Provo High baseball team.<br />
<br />
<b>Jack Morris</b> <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYBzNuOwPnaEnxsvuG0miveWFnSbvzG3gPfybbOhLwCnpKTBLF51xpITxRR0qH22esqoRA3rRj4O_bcASQulomYBT4OoenC8JR1X4zZQZ62MevBvHcSgKLQ6_q4BRkfzxqHldOKd5gtp6Y/s1600/morris.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYBzNuOwPnaEnxsvuG0miveWFnSbvzG3gPfybbOhLwCnpKTBLF51xpITxRR0qH22esqoRA3rRj4O_bcASQulomYBT4OoenC8JR1X4zZQZ62MevBvHcSgKLQ6_q4BRkfzxqHldOKd5gtp6Y/s200/morris.jpg" width="141" /></a></div>Jack Morris is the very personification of the tension between advanced stats vs. traditional stats. He has been inching closer and closer to the Hall of Fame and as he has the arguments for and against his election have gotten heated (as far as sports arguments go). On the one hand Jack Morris won 254 games and pitched 10 shutout innings in game seven of the 1991 World Series to propel the Twins to victory over the Braves. He has 2478 Ks which puts him 31st all time. He won 20 or more games three times and was remembered as a winner, pure and simple.<br />
<br />
On the other hand he only has a career 3.90 ERA and 105 ERA+, compiled a lot of Ks over many years but only had 5.8 K/9 and pedestrian 1.78 K/BB. He benefited greatly from pitching for some high-scoring teams that helped him win a lot of games despite a mediocre (by all-time great standards) ERA. His seven year peak from 1981-1987 featured only a 117 ERA+ and 3.34 ERA, with 176 K/yr, yet he won 125 games.<br />
<br />
I guess I'll take a moment to explain the stat wars going on in baseball. For many decades the most important stat for a pitcher was wins. Pitcher wins told you just about everything you needed to know, and for many years 300 career wins was an automatic ticket to the Hall of Fame (that number is dropping for a number of reasons). Only, now that people are giving it some hard thought it is clear that pitcher wins is absurdly overrated. It depends too much on things like your offense, your defense, your relief pitching, and other factors to give you an accurate idea of how well the pitcher actually pitched. A pitcher could have a day where they pitched nine innings with two hits and 10 Ks and lost 1-0. The next start they could pitch five innings, give up 10 runs, and still win the game 15-10. Which day did he pitcher better? The first, obviously, but wins don't reflect that.<br />
<br />
The same goes for other traditional stats which are flawed like RBI (function of how many people get on base in front of you) and batting average (doesn't take into account walks or power numbers). These are okay as far as they go, but don't give you as much information as other newer stats. That is why there are things like WAR, WPA, OPS, OPS+, ERA+, and the like. And this is the reason why Jack Morris is such a controversial case for the Hall of Fame. His traditional stats are great, but looking deeper shows some major flaws. No one would argue that he is not a great, great pitcher, but lots of people are arguing that he is not a Hall of Famer. So Morris is the flashpoint. You can read about it <a href="http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/12/29/hall-of-fame-the-second-round/">here</a>, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/sports/baseball/04kepner.html">here</a>, <a href="http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/6713/jack-morris-just-doesnt-pass-muster">here</a>, and <a href="http://bleacherreport.com/articles/224568-jack-morris-should-be-in-the-hall-of-fame">here</a>.<br />
<br />
Morris never won a Cy Young, but he was in the top five in voting five times, and two other times in the top ten. He was a five-time all-star. He was 56.9 WAR and 14.8 WPA. His best year was probably 1986 when he went 21-8 with a 3.27 ERA, 223 K, and a 127 ERA+.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
So I think the rankings go like this: Halladay, Eckersley, Morris, Hurst, Law. The last two are close to a toss-up, but Hurst had a better peak so he gets the nod. That is a pretty fantastic list, fellow Mormons, and we can be proud of it.<br />
<br />
In the end, I'm not going to try to choose between Halladay and Murphy as the second greatest Mormon baseball player behind Harmon Killebrew (Okay, gun to my head I take Halladay). The point is there have been some really, really great Mormon baseball players over the years who did memorable things over their careers and in big moments. It's inspiring in a way that sports can be inspiring.<br />
<br />
We talk almost exclusively politics on this blog, which can be heavy-handed and depressing. Those are real issues that effect real people in intimate ways that our elected officials tend to screw up pretty badly. Sports gives us a chance to see people screw up pretty badly and have it not effect our lives (lastingly, anyways) and then perhaps turn around the next day and do something great and memorable and still have it not effect our lives (lastingly, anyways). That gives us hope that the really important people can redeem themselves from time to time as well. Maybe some of those really important people will be Mormons, too.Jacob S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16519032754947817876noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-59269774804818269112011-05-18T19:51:00.000-06:002011-05-18T19:51:33.566-06:00Second Greatest Mormon Baseball Player (Non-Pitcher Division)If Harmon Killebrew is the obvious greatest Mormon baseball player of all time, and I think he is, then it behooves us to identify the second greatest Mormon baseball player of all time. This is a bit of a closer call, so we'll break it down into two posts with this first one focusing on everyday players and the next one on pitchers.<br />
<br />
This really comes down to Dale Murphy and Jeff Kent, though we'll throw Wally Joyner in there because he was pretty good, as well. We'll start with a couple WAR chart comparisons from <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/">Fangraphs </a>and then break 'em down individually.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh04dbb3qMI5HGo4yDSxWKKjNRINQIluv1j505Y5JJqovzHxlCKmJlludmVSVLiKlfZ9VZKaQ4vhqcO921s3COlg1GC1YFy0hGnZ6wcTfZzwUlZZvuTfTQg8bwsWN77MEBUeBKzCW8LLfie/s1600/WAR+nth+best.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="168" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh04dbb3qMI5HGo4yDSxWKKjNRINQIluv1j505Y5JJqovzHxlCKmJlludmVSVLiKlfZ9VZKaQ4vhqcO921s3COlg1GC1YFy0hGnZ6wcTfZzwUlZZvuTfTQg8bwsWN77MEBUeBKzCW8LLfie/s320/WAR+nth+best.png" width="320" /></a></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2hxJOQB1FimZWHyE5G2TFLgvc81PWvRLKU05z07B6k9koKphtn_WkrW_ezzBFPFlDrQKl8mVX6cOz8JwWBWI1AkXnU0MyNUiixIspjdv0Uz_wCjvLClOh4o6NegB5tVs9nOPX20Vy1FqD/s1600/WAR+age.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="168" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2hxJOQB1FimZWHyE5G2TFLgvc81PWvRLKU05z07B6k9koKphtn_WkrW_ezzBFPFlDrQKl8mVX6cOz8JwWBWI1AkXnU0MyNUiixIspjdv0Uz_wCjvLClOh4o6NegB5tVs9nOPX20Vy1FqD/s320/WAR+age.png" width="320" /></a></div><br />
<br />
So from the charts you'll see that Kent's and Murphy's two best seasons were about the same and pretty spectacular. Murphy's next three best seasons were significantly better than Kent's, but Kent had the more sustained career. Joyner didn't really have that eye-popping peak but he did have a long, consistent career.<br />
<br />
<b>Dale Murphy</b><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgf3gBRkRZgxYVsTkYUv9dDGjp0T7ZkhCMc_gNEIggdmQR9WjnA0YVCARuMAtFK9qPSraCANfJ9tqf7Pos7Oqu3ZqBOCuysaDgVIYJ9nyzeVhqix2KQMsXzmiVt0k-7_J7SUu0IqBuLtTKB/s1600/murphy-83f.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgf3gBRkRZgxYVsTkYUv9dDGjp0T7ZkhCMc_gNEIggdmQR9WjnA0YVCARuMAtFK9qPSraCANfJ9tqf7Pos7Oqu3ZqBOCuysaDgVIYJ9nyzeVhqix2KQMsXzmiVt0k-7_J7SUu0IqBuLtTKB/s200/murphy-83f.jpg" width="139" /></a>Murphy's is a tale of two careers. From 1982 to 1987, as <a href="http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/1599/why-dale-murphys-still-waiting">Rob Neyer</a> points out, Murphy was absolutely dominant and in the discussion as the best player in baseball. During those years he either led the league or was in the top three in home runs, games played, runs, RBI, and runs created. He won back-to-back MVPs in 1982 and 1983 (with two more top ten finishes), earned five gold gloves, and was a six-time all-star (with a seventh in 1980). His OPS was .913, good for an OPS+ 145, with an average of 36 home runs and 28 doubles a year. He was awesome and might very well have been the all around best player in the game.<br />
<br />
It was clear that he was on his way to the Hall of Fame fairly easily, he just needed to age gracefully. He did not age gracefully. As <a href="http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2010/12/hall-of-fame-borderline-five.html">Joe Posnanski</a> puts it, "And then ... he fell off a cliff. He didn't just fall a cliff, he did a Wile E. Coyote fall off a cliff and then had a big chunk of rock fall on top of him. After his decent 1988, he hit .236/.304/.388 the rest of his career was was just barely above replacement level."<br />
<br />
His overall career numbers are pretty great, even adding in six or seven pretty bad years: .265/.346/.469, 121 OPS+, 398 home runs, 29.37 WPA, 47.3 WAR. Don't forget that he played his peak at CF, one of the most important and demanding defensive positions on the field and so a position that does not usually lend itself to offensive greatness. Centerfield is also, in my humble opinion, the awesomest position, like being lead singer in a band.<br />
<br />
If you value peak performance, watching somebody do something about as good as it could possibly done, even if only fleeting, then Murphy is your guy. He was on top of the baseball world for six years, breathing that rarefied air of greatness that few achieve. <br />
<br />
Murphy also gets some bonus points on this blog for his life off the field, as well. He is considered one of the all time good guys to play the game. He spent hours signing autographs and interacting with the fans. He was the face of baseball generally and in the South specifically, especially because he played for those Braves teams that were nationally televised on the Turner network in the fledgling days of cable TV.<br />
<br />
He has also been an active and devout member his whole life. I imagine living a professional athlete life makes being a Mormon extra difficult, but all indications are that the Murph was not fazed. After his baseball career he served in a stake presidency and then as a mission president. Here is the epitome of a role model.<br />
<br />
<b>Jeff Kent</b><br />
<br />
On the other hand you have Jeff Kent. Digging into this has been fun because of the beautiful contrast between these two players. Where Dale Murphy was kind and universally lauded as a great ambassador to the game, Jeff Kent is <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=crasnick_jerry&id=3851390">well known</a> for being surly, egotistical, and complicated. Though the reputation is not fully deserved, he certainly was no Murphy when it came to personality. Which fine, because it takes all sorts and all that, but more importantly because he was apparently the one person who could <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/giants/2002-06-26-bonds-kent.htm">put Barry Bonds in his place</a>.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiz9lOXVNzqQFe60gvwbo2vP25zHZtK_NZ5CoVzZTL15LJUVLRaKGjyutmvwWCzeStubpnxqcklKCergwAzmHW-6Hp3deiZzTU-17teFAg0bMBjPNrg77xNKSfkqdeeXT9fzSdvj6CGPEGj/s1600/Kent.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiz9lOXVNzqQFe60gvwbo2vP25zHZtK_NZ5CoVzZTL15LJUVLRaKGjyutmvwWCzeStubpnxqcklKCergwAzmHW-6Hp3deiZzTU-17teFAg0bMBjPNrg77xNKSfkqdeeXT9fzSdvj6CGPEGj/s200/Kent.JPG" width="150" /></a></div><br />
Jeff Kent was your classic late bloomer. He was more or less an average player through his 20s, but at age 30 started an eight to ten year run as the best second baseman in the game. His best season was undoubtedly 2000 when he hit an incredible .334/.424/.596 with 33 home runs, 41 doubles, 162 OPS+ and won the MVP. He finished in the top ten in MVP voting three other times and was a five-time all-star. In his eight-year prime from 1998 to 2005 his OPS was .908, he averaged 28 home runs a year and 40 doubles.<br />
<br />
He is the all-time leading home run hitter for second baseman with 377 and finished his career batting .276/.340/.500 with a 123 OPS+, 24.34 WPA, 61.9 WAR. Defense is likely Kent's biggest weakness. The numbers say he was <a href="http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/2/21/2005190/the-value-of-defense-jeff-kent-and-his-hatred-of-the-leather">well below average</a>, while others maintain he was <a href="http://bleacherreport.com/articles/115243-jeff-kent-and-the-mlb-hall-of-fame-not-a-question-of-if-but-when">merely pedestrian</a>. Either way, playing an important defensive position poorly can be a problem, but he more than made up for it with his bat. He had a very good year at age 39 and a mediocre one at 40 in 2008 and then retired. He'll be eligible for the Hall of Fame in 2014 and has a pretty decent case, in fact I'd be surprised if he didn't get elected eventually.<br />
<br />
If you value consistency and longevity then Kent is you guy. <br />
<br />
<b>Wally Joyner</b><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidFFGAyyEwJnBMI2FKlkJCjyiirKYUTmj6T4kIDeqBxT3G3QKYPT7HENyW7M60wWYWk_Gz5kxnCSpY8JKmZpdFHZQCDFC5_fYHXDIO7OJb7w6f8xoDxtBkuPWAaMh4H7qfs42YN_z2zmqV/s1600/Joyner.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidFFGAyyEwJnBMI2FKlkJCjyiirKYUTmj6T4kIDeqBxT3G3QKYPT7HENyW7M60wWYWk_Gz5kxnCSpY8JKmZpdFHZQCDFC5_fYHXDIO7OJb7w6f8xoDxtBkuPWAaMh4H7qfs42YN_z2zmqV/s200/Joyner.jpg" width="200" /></a>Wally Joyner is known for breaking into the big leagues in a big way and then having a solid career that never lived up to that initial hype. He hit 20 home runs in that first half season and was named an all-star as a write-in. He subsequently slowed way down in the second half of his rookie season, with only seven home runs. He came in second in the Rookie of the Year voting, losing to Miss Congeniality, Jose Canseco. Joyner was having a fantastic series against Boston in the ALCS before being forced to leave because of an infection in his injured shin. Boston won that ALCS dramatically and lost the World Series dramatically and we're not going to discuss it further.<br />
<br />
Anyway, his second season was even better, .285/.366/.528 with 34 home runs. The problem, as implied above, was that he was never a power hitter in the minors and<a href="http://www.halosheaven.com/2006/2/8/32353/36909"> insisted he was a gap hitter</a>, not a power hitter, and eventually that came true. He only hit more than 20 or more home runs once (21) in a season after that. But Joyner had a very good, long career. His career line was .289/.362/.440, 204 home runs and 409 doubles, 34.2 bWAR, 40.4 fWAR, 23.36 WPA, and 117 OPS+. He never made another all-star game or top ten in MVP voting, but he was a good player and known as an excellent fielding 1B.<br />
<br />
He's no Dale Murphy or Jeff Kent, but few are and he was good and should be recognized as such.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
So who is the second greatest Mormon baseball player of all time? That is a tough call. You should probably go with Kent for having a better overall career, but I guess I'm more the type that likes high peaks, even if they are short. I would take Pedro at his shorter, spectacular peak over Pettitte and his longevity. I would take three seasons of "Arrested Development" over however many of "Two and a Half Men" (disclosure: I've never seen a single minute of "Two and a Half Men", but you get the point).<br />
<br />
So, I'm going to officially make Dale Murphy the second greatest Mormon baseball player of all time (non-pitcher division) and not look back. Kent you could consider a 2b. Congrats, Murph, you'll get your plaque in the mail.Jacob S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16519032754947817876noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-10720833335025068642011-05-17T10:51:00.007-06:002011-05-17T16:04:04.032-06:00Harmon Killebrew, Greatest Mormon Baseball Player, Dies<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6U_hBEZ9e4uC4_mUoFieuYKQaahS1QwwMgeaEr4o9-4UDlPcuR2kkNe9Y3MbQkfvrFa0v9kQOfBwBrLo7FkAzYdO6vs3e5UJMCktMFLte_o7TtjPVWe6obyLoYA1YoLENMi2OK0kK_cSa/s1600/killebrew.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6U_hBEZ9e4uC4_mUoFieuYKQaahS1QwwMgeaEr4o9-4UDlPcuR2kkNe9Y3MbQkfvrFa0v9kQOfBwBrLo7FkAzYdO6vs3e5UJMCktMFLte_o7TtjPVWe6obyLoYA1YoLENMi2OK0kK_cSa/s320/killebrew.png" width="212" /></a></div>Harmon Killebrew <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=6559023">died of esophageal cancer</a> yesterday. He is the <a href="http://famousmormons.net/baseball3.html">greatest Mormon baseball player</a> to ever live. Let's explore.<br />
<br />
They called him Killer because his name was Killebrew but his personality was the <a href="http://mlb.sbnation.com/2011/5/17/2175531/harmon-killebrew-dead">exact opposite</a>. There are hundreds of stories out there about how kind and gentle and approachable Killer was. But at the plate the man lived up to the name. As the incomparable <a href="http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2011/05/gentleman-called-killer.html">Joe Posnanski</a> points out, he was inhumanly strong and hit home runs at a pace greater than Mickey Mantle, Ted Williams, and Sammy Sosa. He was born to rake.<br />
<br />
In his career he hit 573 home runs, including eight 40 homer seasons (and one 39 homer season), which is good for 11th all time. Though the list is now polluted with steroid users, at the time he retired he was <strike>in the top five or six</strike> fifth all time. His career slash stats are .256/.376/.509, which means that while he wasn't a high average guy, he did the things which are actually important really well, i.e. get on base and hit with power. In his MVP year of 1969 he had a 1.011 OPS, led the league in on-base percentage, hit 49 home runs, and led the league in intentional walks. He was voted to the Hall of Fame in 1984 (it inexplicably took four tries to get voted into the Hall, which is more evidence that the BBWAA should not be solely in charge of that process). He did all this in an era of depressed offense, which is reflected in his <i>career</i> OPS+ of 143, which is about the same as A-Rod, Vlad Guerrero, Willy McCovey, and Mike Schmidt.<br />
<br />
There has always been a rumor that Killer was the model for the MLB logo, though it is not entirely clear. You can read up about it <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=lukas/081118">here</a>. Killebrew always maintained that it was him, and the man that supposedly designed it maintained that was just a composite of a lot of different batters. In any case, he is an iconic figure in baseball, the face of Minnesota Twins, and, in my opinion, one of the mythical "inner circle" Hall of Famers.<br />
<br />
Dale Murphy was a pretty great centerfielder and has a good case for the Hall of Fame, Jacoby Ellsbury is a Red Sox which automatically makes him capital-G Great, Jeff Kent is one of the great offensive second basemen of all time, Bryce Harper is quickly gaining legend as perhaps the <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/bryce-harper-best-prospect-ever/">greatest prospect ever</a>, and when all is said and done, Roy Halladay may end up taking the title of greatest Mormon baseball player of all time from Killebrew and leave Killer just as the greatest Mormon hitter of all time, but for now Harmon Killebrew stands alone, and baseball and Mormons have lost a great one.Jacob S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16519032754947817876noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-46304934279962267832011-05-06T14:22:00.000-06:002011-05-06T14:22:50.573-06:00He's Dead<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhntJm82e5vwgZd3j8zHxBGnYwolq-fij64O3t7HUcLui0GD3vSQhy2XGk63D0Ti4Cpuz8hIMSvHzVsfsIZXjaYYBylRAQ_aj7Ua-zzCROpeIWi938WR6bueD8dEUhXFYKEjKypJsQifMZT/s1600/jV6aC.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhntJm82e5vwgZd3j8zHxBGnYwolq-fij64O3t7HUcLui0GD3vSQhy2XGk63D0Ti4Cpuz8hIMSvHzVsfsIZXjaYYBylRAQ_aj7Ua-zzCROpeIWi938WR6bueD8dEUhXFYKEjKypJsQifMZT/s1600/jV6aC.gif" /></a></div><br />
This is a follow up to Andrew's great picture earlier. I laugh every time.<br />
<br />
Also, if you that initial thrill has worn off the bin Laden situation and you want to think a little more about it, here are a couple good things to read.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
First, <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/osama_bin_laden/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2011/05/06/bin_laden">Greenwald</a> is asking some important and difficult questions that I think need to be answered:<br />
<blockquote>But what has surprised me somewhat is how little interest there seems to be in finding out what actually happened here. We know very little about the circumstances of bin Laden's killing, because the U.S. government has issued so many contradictory claims, which in turn contradict the reported claims of those at the scene.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
Beyond the apparent indifference to how this killing took place, what has also surprised me somewhat is the lack of interest in trying to figure out how the bin Laden killing fits into broader principles and viewpoints about state power and the War on Terror. I've seen people who have spent the last decade insisting that the U.S. must accord due process to accused Terrorists before punishing them suddenly mock the notion that bin Laden should have been arrested and tried.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
Then there's the strange indifference to finding out whether bin Laden was actually captured before executed. . . . How can that not matter? Hasn't the entire debate about torture centered on the proposition that states have a moral and legal obligation not to abuse helpless detainees, given that their captivity means they have been rendered harmless? Shouldn't we want to know if bin Laden was captured before being killed, and wouldn't that make some difference in assessing one's views of his killing?</blockquote>In response, <a href="http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/05/05/not-helping-2/">Balloon Juice</a> agrees but still refuses to get too nuanced about it all (Warning, offensive language, i.e. swears):<br />
<blockquote>I’m the hypocrite here. I’m stridently against extrajudicial killings, the death penalty, targeted assassination, etc. I’d wager most of you are, too. But when I heard that Osama had been killed, I’ll be damned if I didn’t think “Thank God that monster is gone.” Sure, in my ideal world he’d be brought back to the US, tried, and then imprisoned for the rest of his life. But you know what? I can not honestly say I give a damned that he took a double tap to the skull. Sorry. And I’d be also willing to bet that is where most of you all are- this may or may not have been legal, but you don’t give a shit, because that scumbag is at the bottom of an ocean somewhere and got what he deserved. I’d be lying if I didn’t admit that a primitive part of me was sort of sad he didn’t experience any pain.</blockquote>I am still trying to sort out how much I care about how this was carried out, which is really a question about justice. On the one hand, one exception to the rules (the bin Laden exception, we'll call it) might open the door to increasingly lawless government acting outside of what we consider open and moral bounds for what could at best be considered a ephemeral notion of justice, on the other it was <i>Osama bin Laden</i>, and he got what he deserved and we all know it. Not easy . . .Jacob S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16519032754947817876noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-60358093398726581842011-05-02T00:33:00.004-06:002011-05-02T09:50:30.008-06:00Osama Bin Laden is deadI think this image sums up the last couple of years quite nicely:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://i.imgur.com/KDssc.jpg">http://i.imgur.com/KDssc.jpg</a><br />
<br />
OBL's death may be largely symbolic, but the symbolism is powerful. The thugs that are Al-Qaeda have stolen the focus for too many years from the billions of peaceful Muslims in the world. If nothing else, I'm hoping his death will undo that supreme injustice.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-20441693833941966832011-04-26T09:47:00.001-06:002011-04-26T09:49:00.032-06:00Nearly Half of Americans Aren't Paying Income Taxes: Bad But Maybe Not in the Way You SupposeIt has recently exploded all over the internet that nearly half of American households <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index.htm">do not pay income taxes</a>. There are enough deductions and credits for families making around $50,000 and less to avoid the income tax completely, though they still are paying federal payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and others.<br />
<br />
While some see this as a broken tax system, I see it as a broken economy. While some gripe that half of Americans aren't pulling their weight, I see it as nearly half of Americans are not making enough money to pay income taxes. They live below the line where we have decided that a person is only making enough to cover basic expenses and should not bear the weight of income taxes on top of it. Instead of trying to figure out how to get those people to start paying income taxes at their current salary, lets instead focus on how to get these people making enough money to be able to afford taxes after their basic needs are met.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
If we want to broaden the tax base, and I agree that that should be one of our goals, we need to narrow the gap of income inequality. We are more free as a nation, and have increased agency as individuals, when the wealth and income gap is narrow. That is perhaps part of why <a href="http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/78.6?lang=eng#5">the Lord said</a>, "For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things." Here is a site, called <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#the-gap-between-the-top-1-and-everyone-else-hasnt-been-this-bad-since-the-roaring-twenties-1">Business Insider</a>, with all the charts you will ever need to help understand just how serious an issue this is. Here is an example:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKSCuCi9VaydGe6HXld3x-cwSyGksQRk4lLR2rG58P1Kj00Bngmg1GUTssKlHaCNPWZHfQRk8DOpPQyjENnk8ZwGK25JB_AEQAjxtPJVPbdFvkgEFqX2wHzC3Q90TyEgy_o9cxsf7eWdtq/s1600/plutocracy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="612" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKSCuCi9VaydGe6HXld3x-cwSyGksQRk4lLR2rG58P1Kj00Bngmg1GUTssKlHaCNPWZHfQRk8DOpPQyjENnk8ZwGK25JB_AEQAjxtPJVPbdFvkgEFqX2wHzC3Q90TyEgy_o9cxsf7eWdtq/s640/plutocracy.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>Jacob S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16519032754947817876noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-77907678185946076492011-04-22T09:30:00.003-06:002011-04-22T12:01:16.475-06:00Earth Day and Consumption<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisYXOjte0zkxGi4PmW9Tbjgaltz4auUqcdw_u_YvgONF8vDoc5UIZ3161GCntHOPR39ngc217kMKJ7UKXzbznxZ1kZHmUmQGnZnm1qzw_9UJqN_Ru36VRbmf2MNVeVDjN3oLXMK7SDkSaK/s1600/earth_day2010_0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisYXOjte0zkxGi4PmW9Tbjgaltz4auUqcdw_u_YvgONF8vDoc5UIZ3161GCntHOPR39ngc217kMKJ7UKXzbznxZ1kZHmUmQGnZnm1qzw_9UJqN_Ru36VRbmf2MNVeVDjN3oLXMK7SDkSaK/s200/earth_day2010_0.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>I think the most important thing we can do to be good stewards over the Earth is to consume less. This year we hit the seven billion mark in world population and the numbers will grow to nine billion in the next few decades before leveling off. This means overwhelming stress on our environments, which we can mitigate by being wise stewards over the Earth. Here are some prophet warning against over-consumption:<br />
<br />
Jacob 2: 11-13<br />
<div class=""><span class="verse"></span>And now behold, my brethren, this is the word which I declare unto you, that many of you have begun to search for gold, and for silver, and for all manner of precious ores, in the which this land, which is a land of promise unto you and to your seed, doth abound most plentifully. And the hand of providence hath smiled upon you most pleasingly, that you have obtained many riches; <b>and because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are lifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads</b> because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they.</div><a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="">D&C 49: 19-21</div><div class=""><span class="verse"></span>For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance. <b>But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.</b> And wo be unto man that sheddeth blood or that wasteth flesh and hath no need.</div><div class=""><br />
</div><div class=""> D&C 59: 18-20</div><div class=""><span class="verse"></span>Yea, all things which come of the earth, in the season thereof, are made for the benefit and the use of man, <b>both to please the eye and to gladden the heart</b>; Yea, for food and for raiment, for taste and for smell, to strengthen the body and to enliven the soul. And it pleaseth God that he hath given all these things unto man; for unto this end were they made <b>to be used, with judgment, not to excess, neither by extortion</b>.</div><div class=""><br />
</div><div class="">Pres. Monson, in "Duty Calls" from the November 1996 Ensign, wrote, "<b>We live in a world of waste. Too often our natural resources are squandered.</b> We live in a world of want. Some enjoy the lap of luxury, yet others stare starvation in the face. Food, shelter, clothing, and love are not found by all. Unrelieved suffering, unnecessary illness, and premature death stalk too many."</div><div class=""><br />
</div><div class="">Elder Nelson, "The Creation" from the May 2000 Ensign, wrote, "Jesus is the Christ and Creator! He is<br />
Lord over all the earth. As beneficiaries of the divine Creation, what shall we do? <b>We should care for the earth, be wise stewards over it, and preserve it for future generations.</b>"</div><div class=""><br />
</div><div class="">Finally (for now), Elder Maxwell in his book <i>A Wonderful Flood of Light</i>, wrote, "<b>True disciples . . . would be consistent environmentalists</b> – caring both about maintaining the spiritual health of a marriage and preserving a rain forest; caring about preserving the nutrient capacity of a family as well as providing a healthy supply of air and water."</div><div class=""><br />
</div><div class="">There are many other such exhortations from prophets throughout time which warn against over-consumption. The detrimental consequences (or perhaps the driving forces) of this sin are pride, inequality, and harm to the Earth itself, which Enoch taught us <a href="http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/7.48-62?lang=eng#48">has a Spirit and is a living thing</a>.</div><div class=""><br />
</div><div class="">You may not want to call yourself an environmentalist, and you may not agree with all the goals and methods environmentalists use, but you can be a good steward over the Earth by consuming less. Drive less, use fewer electronics, use less water, eat more locally grown fruits and vegetables and less meat, grow a garden, buy second-hand items, don't concern yourself with name brands and ephemeral trends. In short, live more simply. Happy Earth Day.<br />
<br />
* <i>I should give credit to <a href="http://mormon-chronicles.blogspot.com/2010/04/lds-perspectives-on-environmental.html">Craig Galli</a> who has done a lot of work regarding Mormonism and Environmentalism.</i> </div><div class=""></div><div class=""></div>Jacob S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16519032754947817876noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-40491466508160938832011-04-18T14:15:00.003-06:002011-04-18T16:11:04.247-06:00Uh oh, here we go again......Who will be next to put forth a LDS political philosophy? This guy:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.latterdayliberty.com/">http://www.latterdayliberty.com</a><br />
<br />
I will be straightforwards and call this bunk. I really don't care what sort of politics people propose; I fundamentally oppose any argument for/against any political system based on scripture and/or the Gospel. All of these arguments squeeze a subject as large as the universe itself into something the size of an elephant (or donkey, or eagle, or whatever). The Gospel is far larger, far more organic, and far more contradictory (if you only examine the surface, much like the rest of the natural world) than any one political theory can reasonably contain. All of them -- from Liberalism to Conservatism to Anarchy to Theocracy fail to really represent the Gospel in all of its power and glory. <br />
<br />
Until the time comes when Christ himself reigns, we are stuck with imperfect people making imperfect decisions. And that's just within the Church; outside of the Church we must deal with the cultural mishmash that is the modern world. Politics in such a world are, by definition and of necessity, boisterous and rowdy and messy. People are strikingly different, so finding common ground can be a difficult business. In America we've managed to eke out an uneasy but largely peaceful existence by sheer force of will to move forward despite huge differences. All reformers must come face-to-face with this reality if they get so lucky as to attain positions of leadership. The current "Tea Party" types are learning this the hard way, the survival of their movement will depend far more on their ability to pave roads and take out the trash than their quest to defund Planned Parenthood or forcing the U.S. to default on its financial obligations. They are a perfect example of the imperfect people with whom we have to work. And, because they've won elections, those of us who think they're crazy have to work with them. We have to put up with their birtherism and looniness because at some point in time they will vote on bills. With the current composition of the House, and the Republican primary climate (witness the meteorotic rise (and let me be the first to predict the fall) of Donald Trump's political ambitions), they wield undue leverage. I hate it. But I live with it because that's the price of admission for living in our Democracy. And I love our system; all its messiness notwithstanding we are somehow able to hold this crazy ship together and move forwards. That, to me, is a modern miracle that is every bit as complex and contradictory as nature (and the Gospel), and well worth our time to understand and appreciate.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-3808898343077922192011-04-12T08:43:00.000-06:002011-04-12T08:43:43.333-06:00Health Care and the BudgetOn the one hand I tip my hat to Republican Paul Ryan for actually <a href="http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/">submitting a proposal</a> for the federal budget which addresses some of the important issues that are looming. On the other hand he did a really bad job. So it's a mixed bag.<br />
<br />
The fundamental problem is that he puts fiscal responsibility squarely on the backs of the poor and elderly, mostly by slashing Medicare and Medicaid and lowering taxes on the rich. Nor does his plan address "defense" spending, which is a subject <a href="http://mormonleft.blogspot.com/2011/02/military-industrial-complex-or-balanced.html">we've addressed before here</a>.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
We pretty much <a href="http://mormonleft.blogspot.com/search/label/health%20care">exhausted the health care debate</a> here last year, but it bears mentioning once again that there is a very good argument that a single payer system would do more to solve our entitlement-budget problems than anything else. A single-payer system would save costs in a few of ways. <a href="http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Argument:_Universal_health_care_reduces_administrative_costs_%28i.e._paper_work%29">First</a>, you would immediately slash most of the administrative overhead that is currently a massive drag on the system. Second, you remove the perverse profit motive that skews the system and leads to appalling results. <a href="http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2009/03/cost_shift.html">Third</a>, by covering everyone the risks are spread evenly and fairly amongst all Americans and the uninsured can no longer crash the party without paying in. <a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq#costs_down">Fourth</a>, since everyone is covered preventive care is universally available. <a href="http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/health/bankruptcy.medical.bills_1_medical-bills-bankruptcies-health-insurance?_s=PM:HEALTH">Fifth</a>, bankruptcies as a result of medical emergencies no longer exist.<br />
<br />
There are <a href="http://www.democraticwarrior.com/forum/showthread.php?112756-Brewer-makes-the-case-for-universal-single-payer-health-ins">other</a> <a href="http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/12/singlepayer_hea.html">points</a>, and counterpoints, but that gives a pretty good idea of where health care savings might come from in a single payers system.<br />
<br />
The United States currently <a href="http://www.visualeconomics.com/healthcare-costs-around-the-world_2010-03-01/">pays more per capita</a> for health care than developed countries which have a single payer system, without the benefits of actually better health. We should have no problem studying those systems and creating one that works for us. I understand that there trade-offs for universal health care, but none I'm not willing to pay.<br />
<br />
A single payer health care system is a nice, elegant way of both fixing the broken health care system and taking a huge step towards fixing the federal budget.Jacob S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16519032754947817876noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-3558284046744548072011-04-07T15:33:00.001-06:002011-04-07T16:44:41.973-06:00Speedy and Public Trial by Jury<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6TU8tzS5kGpvYoGTCwDWxkpqgciU12CrXPNcQlmsgBVqtgySktZw9cUU-mmNxktHLX7rj3izowkMGf3RD6C1EzgG4j2Lc2ySB7tx0lYXpAxUJ6oI4Pjn-8TAo-Au4SiOEBDHUpItviGK0/s1600/alg_khalid_mohammed-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="151" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6TU8tzS5kGpvYoGTCwDWxkpqgciU12CrXPNcQlmsgBVqtgySktZw9cUU-mmNxktHLX7rj3izowkMGf3RD6C1EzgG4j2Lc2ySB7tx0lYXpAxUJ6oI4Pjn-8TAo-Au4SiOEBDHUpItviGK0/s200/alg_khalid_mohammed-2.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, from The Economist</td></tr>
</tbody></table>"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." -- 6th Amendment<br />
<br />
This seems pretty straightforward, right? I believe the historical impetus for this addition to the Bill of Rights was the fact that kings and rulers were accusing the people of crimes and convicting them without a trial by jury, without witnesses, without due process of law, essentially without any safeguards or protections whatsoever against corruption and unchecked power. The founders wisely ensured that if government has the ability to deprive a person of property, freedom, or life (which it does) then the Constitution should require that the government has to submit to certain safeguards against the abuse of that power. I believe those on both the political right and left can feel good about that.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Of course, America isn't alone in guaranteeing a public jury trial for criminals. Other countries have such requirements, and stick to them even in cases of terrorist attacks, as <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/11/14/terrorism/index.html">Glenn Greenwald outlined</a>:<br />
<blockquote>People in capitals all over the world have hosted trials of high-level terrorist suspects using their normal justice system. They didn't allow fear to drive them to build island-prisons or create special commissions to depart from their rules of justice. Spain held an open trial in Madrid for the individuals accused of that country's 2004 train bombings. The British put those accused of perpetrating the London subway bombings on trial right in their normal courthouse in London. Indonesia gave public trials using standard court procedures to the individuals who bombed a nightclub in Bali. India used a Mumbai courtroom to try the sole surviving terrorist who participated in the 2008 massacre of hundreds of residents. In Argentina, the Israelis captured Adolf Eichmann, one of the most notorious Nazi war criminals, and brought him to Jerusalem to stand trial for his crimes. </blockquote><a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2290359/">But not in America</a>. In America we are stricken with fear that our criminal justice system is suddenly inadequate and that the safeguards found in the Constitution regarding trials of criminals, which have served us well for a couple hundred years, fall short. So we have a Democratic administration, which is daily showing itself to be nothing like liberal as to civil liberties, reversing its promise to close Guantanamo Bay and hold criminal trials for Khalid Sheik Mohammad and the 9/11 plotters. Instead, the administration has <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/opinion/05tue1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion">decided to hold military tribunals</a> (straight news story <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20050405-503544.html?tag=cbsContent;cbsCarousel">here</a>) and eschew our time-tested criminal court system. Tribunals without a jury, behind closed doors, in a different country.<br />
<br />
We are allowing, some even demanding, that the government brush aside the important Constitutional safeguards against abuse for merely political considerations. We are also setting up a system where different classes of criminals receive different levels of Constitutional protection. All out of fear, and all backed by "liberal" Pres. Obama. I like the guy, but his record on civil liberties is appalling.Jacob S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16519032754947817876noreply@blogger.com0