Commentary From Bruce Wilson

Obama's Mortgage Bailout Rewrites The Rules

2009-03-14T21:47:00.000-07:00

(Published by the Salt Lake Tribune March 2009)

During the run-up to approval for his mortgage bailout plan, President Obama frequently claimed it provided necessary and justifiable aid for those who “played by the rules” and “through no fault of their own” were being forced out of “their homes.”

Like all of Obama’s rhetoric, it was delivered well, sounded great and tugged at compassionate heart strings everywhere. But like too much of his rhetoric, what he read so convincingly from his teleprompter was a solution for a situation that doesn’t really exist. And unlike many of the clever but dishonest straw men that Obama has created to sell his programs, this is one most Americans will see through.

That’s because the rules of homeownership have been around for a very long time. It’s almost certain that the ninety-two percent of homeowners who are making their mortgage payments and the millions of renters who are saving up for a future home purchase understand them as follows:

1) Enter into a mortgage agreement only if you can afford the payments, including any increase that might occur because you chose to accept a variable interest rate.
2) The home has no fixed intrinsic value. It’s worth only what someone else is willing to pay for it at a given point in time. Its value can go up or down.
3) You don’t really own the home. The mortgage holder owns it until the mortgage balance is paid off.

It’s clear to anyone who is willing to be honest about the situation that most of those who will qualify for Obama’s bailout didn’t play by the rules. They agreed to mortgages they couldn’t possibly afford, some right from the start, others when higher interest rates they agreed to kicked-in at a later date. Still others would have been fine with their original mortgage payment, but when the perceived value of the home skyrocketed they took out second mortgages to fund home improvements and all sorts of other things—things they couldn’t really afford unless they continued to suck additional artificial equity out of the home.

The root causes of the problem are so obvious and so different from the straw man created by Obama that it makes one wonder whether his life experiences have been so different from life in suburban and rural America—where most home ownership is concentrated—that he never learned the rules of homeownership.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter why Obama mischaracterized the problem. The fact is he did and we will all live with the consequences. Some are immediate. Everyone who has been playing by the rules—or their children or grandchildren—will pay hundreds of billions of dollars in additional taxes to cover the bailout of delinquent homeowners who broke every rule in the book. Many of those paying the bills and living within their means remain in homes of less value and comfort than those whose mortgages they will subsidize. It’s an even more pronounced injustice for those who lived within their means, rented instead of bought, and will now pay for someone else’s home while they continue to rent.

But the short term consequences pale in comparison to the long term consequences. It’s likely that many will conclude they were chumps for playing by the conventional home ownership rules. Then when the next housing bubble grows and bursts—and it surely will—so many will be playing by Obama’s straw man rules that it just might put all of us in foreclosure.

Urquhart Joins Powell Pipeline Liar's Club

2008-10-13T07:09:00.000-07:00

(Published by The Salt Lake Tribune Oct 2008)

Do you remember the Liar’s Club, a TV game show that appeared in several different incarnations over the years? If so, and you’re feeling a bit nostalgic, you might want to get tuned-in to politics in Washington County. We’ve got our own incarnation of the show going on, known locally as the Lake Powell Pipeline Liar’s Club.

Recently, Rep. Steve Urquhart of St. George joined the club, stating in a local magazine that “The residents in Southern Utah aren’t going to have to take this on by themselves. The state will pay for a big chunk of this pipeline.”

Either Urquhart had a case of temporary amnesia or he wasn’t paying attention in 2006 when he voted for legislation authorizing the pipeline project. The Lake Powell Pipeline Organization created by the legislation clearly states on its website: “ALL costs of the project will then be repaid by the three subscribing water districts…..through a balance of impact fees, property taxes and fees.”

It isn’t a shock to anyone who follows Washington County politics that Urquhart—now running for state Senate—is a member of the club. Several of Urquhart’s political associates—including all three members of the Washington County Commission—are already members, having previously made their own misleading statements concerning the pipeline, as in the following examples:

“The pipeline will only cost 500 million dollars.” That’s not even close to true. The state recently re-estimated construction costs, concluding it would require nearly 1 billion dollars to build the pipeline and nearly another billion in interest payments to finance it. The state will issue bonds to build it—in essence take out a mortgage for 30 or 40 years—and the entire 2 billion dollars of cost—principal and interest—will be repaid by the local water districts. And is there anyone who really believes the current 2 billion dollar estimate is high enough when it’s already doubled in just the past year?

“The pipeline will be a redundant water supply.” That’s impossible when you understand that the only way to pay for the pipeline is through fees paid by newcomers who will move to Washington County and consume the pipeline water. To add insult to injury, if newcomers fail to come in sufficient numbers the residents of southern Utah will be stuck with the balance of the 2 billion dollar bill.

“We have to build it because they are coming.” This is the biggest scam of all. The truth is that Washington County will certainly run out of water for newcomers at some point and they will have to stop coming. Nobody is stupid enough to come if there isn’t sufficient access to water. With finite water supplies the question is when southern Utah shuts off the growth, not if they shut off the growth. And there are only two possible growth scenarios. Washington County officials can manage growth within the existing water supplies—enough for 500,000 people if reasonable conservation practices are put in place—or they can spend 2 billion dollars to build a pipeline that will accommodate 785,000 people.

Personally, I think more than tripling the current Washington County population to 500,000 is more than enough and we ought to forget about the pipeline. Spending 2 billion dollars to pack 785,000 people into the county would make it a pretty lousy place to live.

I’ve been a pretty reliable Republican voter over the years but this time around in local elections I’m going against my party where necessary and voting for honesty on the pipeline. I hope many of my neighbors in Washington County will do the same.

I also hope that many of you from around the state who enjoy visiting Washington County and have friends and relatives living here will encourage them to do the same. It might help preserve Washington County as both a great place to live and to visit.

Grassroots Effort Brought Needed Revisions To Land Bill

2008-04-21T10:05:00.000-07:00

(Published by the Salt Lake Tribune April 2008)

If you’re cynical about the effectiveness of grassroots political activism, you ought to consider what has transpired in Washington County in the past two years. It might change your mind.

In mid 2006, Senator Bennett and Representative Matheson jointly sponsored the Washington County Growth and Conservation Act of 2006 in the United States Congress. The substance of the legislation was developed under the direction of the then three elected commissioners of Washington County and was primarily the work of the commissioners and a small group of participants—an assemblage heavily tilted toward those who benefited from and favored growth. The resulting bill did include improved conservation of significant tracts of public land, but counterbalancing growth aspects of the bill—in particular the forced sell-off of 25,000 acres of public land to developers and the acquisition of utility corridors and future roadways through other currently protected public lands—ignited a firestorm of local protest. So much so that the commissioners bowed to public pressure and reluctantly agreed to sponsor a grassroots planning process—known as Vision Dixie—that would involve many local citizens.

In the meantime, Bennett and Matheson tried to push the bill through Congress, ignoring pleas from many to delay consideration of the bill until the Vision Dixie process completed and could be factored into the legislation. Their efforts failed and the bill died in committee, at least in part because colleagues in the Senate and House recognized it would be wise to wait for the Vision Dixie recommendations before considering how much public land to free-up in Washington County.

When the Vision Dixie process concluded in late 2007, it was immediately obvious that tabling the original legislation was the right thing to do. Several thousand citizens participated in exercises that produced a future vision of Washington County that protected scenic public lands and managed growth in a much more restrained manner than would have been possible had the land bill passed. Instead of auctioning off 25,000 acres of public land to developers, the vast majority of participants favored scenarios that limited disposal of public lands to less than 5,000 acres. Likewise, utility corridors and highways through protected and scenic lands were not part of the desired future for the county,.

The obvious disconnect between the commissioner’s land bill and the grassroots vision was stunning even in Utah, a state that recently overwhelmingly overturned the state legislature’s school voucher bill by a 62% majority. By way of comparison, the Vision Dixie margin of rejection of the county commissioner’s vision was a whopping 85% majority. The county commission wasn’t just out of touch. It was more like they were living on another planet.

Just last week, Senator Bennett and Representative Matheson introduced a revised land bill, this time reflecting the will of the people as expressed through the Vision Dixie process. Gone are the utility corridors and highways through protected and scenic habitats. Public land disposal has been reduced from 25,000 acres to 9,052 acres, with only 4,052 acres certain to happen and an additional 5,000 acres contingent upon an approval process consistent with Vision Dixie principles and BLM guidelines.

From my perspective, Bennett and Matheson deserve tremendous credit for taking a step back, listening to the citizens of Washington County and trying their best to produce a bill that is true to the Vision Dixie principles. It’s a great example of how representative government should work and a success story that would not have been possible without the grassroots organizations and thousands of individual citizens of Washington County who interjected themselves in the process, created at least the opportunity for a better future for the county and perhaps restored some faith in grassroots activism in the process.

Romney Got Rolled By Deceitful McCain And Shoddy Journalism

2008-02-14T14:57:00.000-08:00

(Published by The Spectrum Feb. 2008)

Most everyone agrees that the primary reason Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign expired was an alarming loss of authenticity brought on by the almost always fatal flip-flop disease.

I agree. But the more interesting question to me is how his competitors—primarily Senator McCain—managed to make the flip-flop charge stick so indelibly to Romney.

It’s indisputable that Romney changed positions on two issues—abortion and gun rights. Romney readily admits to the reversal on abortion. On gun rights, instead of calling it a flip-flop, it would be more accurate to say that Romney is guilty of exaggerating his relationship with guns and the gun crowd. From a policy perspective nothing changed. He supported and continues to support controls like the Brady Bill and bans on unnecessarily powerful assault weapons.

And that’s it for Romney’s flip-flops, making a grand total of one-and-one-half.

Charges of Romney reversals on other issues are either flat-out lies—like McCain’s claim that Romney supported a public timeline for withdrawal from Iraq—or exaggerations that stretch the truth beyond recognition. For example, the oft-repeated charge that he once supported gay-marriage is absolutely false. What Romney has consistently stated throughout his public life is that every human being deserves dignity and respect regardless of sexual orientation, that gays should not be subject to workplace or other forms of discrimination, but he would draw the line at any effort to change the institution of marriage. And that’s not at all inconsistent with the statement Romney made in an earlier senatorial campaign that he would be better for the gay community than Ted Kennedy. His point was that gaining an ally in the Republican Party on most (not all) issues of concern to gays would be of more help to them than having another Democrat preaching to the choir in an already entirely sympathetic Democratic Party.

On the other hand, an accurate count of flip-flops would have revealed that John McCain has changed positions more frequently and more recently than Romney. Last year he was the most adamant supporter of amnesty for illegal aliens. Now McCain pretends his amnesty bill never existed. How about the Bush tax cuts? McCain opposed them twice but now wants to make them permanent. How about the influence of evangelical leaders on the Republican Party? McCain used to describe them as agents of intolerance but now embraces them. How about subsidies for ethanol production? Chalk that up as a McCain flip-flop-flip.

There are undoubtedly others, but that’s enough to make the point. In terms of sheer numbers, McCain makes Romney look like a flip-flop novice.

So why did the charge stick to Romney? First, one has to admit the abortion issue is important and carries a lot of weight. But the primary reason the charge stuck was that McCain and his campaign staff flooded the internet, airwaves, debates and campaign appearances with lies and exaggerations about the extent of Romney’s wavering. A day didn’t go by without another YouTube video of Romney taken out of context and McCain himself declaring with obvious disdain that Romney had changed positions on “every major issue.”

Given the limited extent of Romney’s changing views, McCain’s charges were outrageous. His deceitful branding of Romney should have been exposed but wasn’t. To the contrary, most “journalists” joined-in, repeating and amplifying the charges from the man they almost always referred to on-air and in-print as the “straight talking John McCain.” Such favorable media branding for McCain left the impression that if it came from St. John’s mouth it must be true.

The press did get one thing right though. There is a Republican candidate who would say or do anything to get elected. And he’s now the presumptive nominee. Too bad the press fingered the wrong guy.

'Bob Dole' Rides Again

2008-02-02T21:35:00.000-08:00

(Published by WorldNetDaily Feb. 2008)

Albert Einstein once said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. With that in mind, if John McCain wins the Republican presidential nomination, it might be appropriate to temporarily designate the site of the 2008 Republican convention an insane asylum.

Why?

Well, a Republican doesn’t need to spend much time on a political analyst’s couch before depressing memories of the 1996 presidential election—also known as the Bob Dole debacle—are dredged up. If you’re old enough to remember that frightening experience, but still too traumatized to recall it, perhaps a brief history of those times will ease you into a more reflective state of mind.

Bob Dole lost a bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 1988. Like most Republicans before him, he patiently bided his time as the next nominee-in-waiting. In 1996 Dole faltered badly in early primaries, but thanks to favorable media coverage, the desire of many to reward a former soldier for his heroic service to country, and polls showing Dole the strongest Republican candidate in a general election, his campaign was resurrected. Dole went on to win the Republican nomination.

Already past his 70th birthday, Dole would have been the oldest first term president in the history of the country. He looked and sounded even older when juxtaposed on debate platforms next to a much younger and culturally in-tune Democrat. Age wasn’t the only debate deficiency. Acerbic, poorly delivered quips endeared Dole to reporters and close associates but bombed outside the Washington D.C. beltway. Most often he was the only one awkwardly laughing at his own one-liners. His general communication skills and television presence paled in comparison to those of the Democratic candidate. He lost every debate.

His supposed greatest asset—military experience—was probably more of a liability than an asset. He acquired it more than four decades before the nomination. Military tactics, weaponry and threats in the 90’s—primarily defending against terrorist attacks inspired by militant Islamists—were light-years removed from anything Dole experienced during his time in the military.

And though national security was a concern, voters were more worried about the economy—something Dole showed little interest in and was ill prepared to deal with. After leaving military service Dole was soon elected to public office. He had virtually no adult experience in the private business sector. Instead, his resume offered decades of experience hanging with lobbyists and cutting deals with politicians in Washington D.C.

Unfortunately for Dole and the Republican Party, voters were more interested in electing a president who clearly communicated an energetic vision of the future with a particular emphasis on growing the U.S. economy in a rapidly changing world economy. They had little interest in electing a man who was mired in the past and whose entire professional experience was acquired in Washington D.C.

Dole’s pre-nomination favorability in national polls plummeted as voters came to know the real Bob Dole and not the fictional Dole created by pundits and zealous supporters. In the end, Dole was clobbered by almost ten percentage points and retired quietly to other pursuits, including a stint as a spokesman for Viagra.

In retrospect, there couldn’t have been a more fitting summation of the impotent 1996 campaign than a Viagra gig for Dole.

If you haven’t already figured out what this rehash of the Dole debacle has to do with Republican insanity, in the preceding paragraphs replace the name Dole with the name McCain and update the dates to the current election cycle. The Dole facts when applied to McCain aren’t just similar—they are identical. So why would anyone expect a different result?

That’s why Republicans should honor McCain’s service in some manner other than a presidential nomination. Maybe we could name a bridge to somewhere after him. But let’s not waste another election opportunity like we did in 1996. Repeating that mistake would truly be insane.

Unintended Consequences Of A Vote For Huckabee

2008-01-26T21:35:00.000-08:00

(Published by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel & WorldNetDaily January 2008)

I like Mike Huckabee. He is the candidate whose values are most like mine. His communication skills and ability to think on his feet are remarkable. His ascendance from truly humble beginnings is compelling and inspiring. And, unlike most conservatives, I even agree with Huckabee’s charge that Republicans in recent years have been overly kind to Wall Street while turning a tin ear to Main Street.

But I won’t be voting for Huckabee and I hope that most evangelical voters in Florida and beyond reach the same politically pragmatic decision.

Why?

First, even the most ardent supporter has to face the reality that Huckabee will not win the Republican nomination. His marginal victory in Iowa and close second in South Carolina were only possible because 60% of the voters in those two states were evangelicals who voted heavily in his favor. Nationwide, only around one third of all Republicans are evangelicals. The proportion of evangelicals participating in upcoming primaries will average about half of the Iowa and South Carolina levels. More tellingly, Huckabee’s level of support from non-evangelical Republicans has been almost miniscule, averaging less than 9% in all primaries to date. Huckabee may score well in the few remaining states where evangelicals exist in large numbers, but in most states it’s not mathematically likely that Huckabee will finish any better than third or fourth.

And if you think Huckabee can significantly increase his proportion of non-evangelical support, think again. Primary results to date prove that he can’t seriously compete with McCain or Giuliani for voters most concerned with national security, and because of his somewhat populist economic views, cannot compete with Romney, McCain or Giuliani for voters most concerned with economic issues.

Secondly, one has to recognize that a vote for Huckabee is likely a vote that would otherwise have gone to Romney. It’s true that many evangelicals have significant heartburn over Romney’s religion and his recent pro-life conversion, but any concerns evangelicals have with Romney pale in comparison with the heartburn caused by Giuliani and McCain. Giuliani openly supports abortion and gay marriage. McCain has refused to support constitutional amendments to ban abortion and gay marriage, is the author of the infamous McCain-Feingold Act that stifles evangelical political advocacy and not so long ago repeatedly expressed his extreme displeasure with the influence certain evangelical leaders have in the Republican party.

Conversely, though many evangelicals reject Mormon theology, they recognize the Christian values Romney tries to live by are the same Christian values they try to live by. And though many in the pro-life movement—including this writer—have taken Romney to task for not being pro-life from the start, they recognize it’s better to work with a convert than someone who ignores or even works against the cause. Romney’s 100% pro-life record as governor of Massachusetts is a good indication that it’s highly unlikely he would revert to his former position. It’s probably more likely that Romney will be like many converts to new causes who are anxious to prove their fidelity and make amends for past mistakes.

And finally—and most importantly—if Romney can’t significantly increase his share of the evangelical vote, the survivor between McCain and Giuliani will consolidate the national security vote and pick up enough support from the fiscal conservative faction to win the Republican nomination.

Many Huckabee supporters will conversely argue that Republicans should coalesce around Huckabee and not Romney. But that idealistic argument doesn’t align with reality. Huckabee has been and will continue to be soundly rejected by fiscal conservatives. If Romney recedes, those votes go to McCain or Giuliani, not Huckabee.

That’s why evangelicals who vote for Huckabee are almost certainly aiding the nomination of either McCain or Giuliani. Hopefully, evangelicals will pragmatically recognize the very real danger of such an unintended and undesirable outcome and coalesce around Romney before it’s too late.

McCain's "Straight Talk" Is Media Fiction

2008-01-16T19:53:00.000-08:00

(Published by WorldNetDaily January 2008)

Here we go again.

John McCain’s “straight talk express” is miraculously out of the ditch and back on the road to the White House, thanks primarily to liberal and moderate non-Republican voters in New Hampshire, who apparently can’t resist the “straight talk” Kool-Aid dispensed by McCain and served by sympathetic members of mainstream media.

Mainstream media’s unwillingness to challenge McCain’s veracity was on full display in New Hampshire. Consider for example just a few of the many questionable but unchallenged statements made by McCain in debates and campaign appearances in recent weeks.

When asked why he was one of only two Republican senators who voted against the Bush tax cuts, McCain said he voted “no” because the tax cuts were not accompanied by corresponding spending reductions . He went on to say he was proud of his record as a tax-cutting foot-soldier in the “Reagan Revolution,” voting “yes” on Reagan’s tax cuts in the 1980s because they were balanced with spending cuts.

For McCain to say that Reagan’s tax cuts were offset by spending cuts is a whopper of considerable proportions. Any honest assessment of Reagan’s management of taxes and spending would conclude that both spending and deficits increased dramatically throughout Reagan’s two terms. And it was clear to everyone from the start that Reagan believed tax cuts would eventually increase revenues enough to offset government growth. In fact, Reagan was the first president to adopt supply-side economics and Bush’s tax cuts were a mirror image of Reagan’s approach. McCain’s position on the Bush tax cuts is clearly a flip-flop from his previous position and more in line with the “pay-go” philosophy of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid than it is with Reagan and Bush.

On the foreign policy front, McCain deserves credit for being right on the surge in Iraq but he shouldn’t be allowed to take sole credit for what is ultimately a George Bush policy promoted and supported by nearly every other Republican in Congress and every one of McCain’s primary competitors for the Republican nomination. And he certainly should be held accountable for channeling John Kerry when he makes the oft-repeated claim that “I know how to get Osama Bin Laden and I will get him,” implying that the only reason the best military and intelligence assets in the history of the world haven’t found Bin Laden is that John McCain doesn’t occupy the White House. It’s an example of McCain’s unbridled ego and an implicit defamation of President Bush and the military. It should be challenged every time it passes McCain’s lips.

To prove his bona fides as a change agent, McCain often states that he led the charge to pass the line item veto, assuring voters that he would use it to veto every pork barrel bill that comes across his desk as president. That’s quite an interesting fantasy given the fact that the president has no authority to exercise a line item veto and likely never will.

And of course, with McCain there’s always the need to pretend that he is on the right side of the illegal immigration debate, despite the fact that he and Ted Kennedy were the co-sponsors and primary advocates for last year’s failed legislation that would have granted amnesty to more than ten million illegal immigrants. McCain tries to deflect the issue by saying he heard the resounding public rejection of his legislation and now understands the need to secure the borders first before dealing with the millions of illegal immigrants already here.

That change in priorities would be a concession in the right direction, but how can anyone believe McCain is truly converted when he continues to claim “I have never ever supported amnesty and never will?” McCain justifies this supposed “straight talk” by claiming his recent proposal was not technically amnesty because it required that illegal immigrants purchase American citizenship for the relatively modest sum of five thousand dollars—an amount that would likely be paid by illegal employers who would find it a good investment to retain cheap labor.

His “truth by technicality” argument brings to mind Bill Clinton’s “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” claim. If what the McCain-Kennedy bill would have provided isn’t amnesty, Webster should change the definition.

And once the border is secure what would McCain do with the millions of illegal immigrants already here? Good luck trying to find that out from mainstream media. They know better than to aggressively pursue that question because they know the answer—amnesty—would be very unpopular.

That’s why mainstream media will do everything it can to preserve the fiction that McCain is the “straight talk” candidate. A little honesty might put their favorite Republican candidate’s “straight talk express” back in the ditch and off the road to the White House.

Is Romney’s Business Background A Blessing Or A Curse?

2007-11-25T13:49:00.000-08:00

(Published by the Des Moines Register & Salt Lake Tribune Nov 2007)

Mitt Romney’s road to the White House looks like one of those roads most of us have traveled at one time or another. It starts out straight, paved and comfortable but later degenerates into sharp turns, untenable sand and jarring washboards. Quite often one either ends up in the ditch or concedes defeat and turns tail for home.

Fortunately for Romney, a better road is available. But to find it, he needs to accomplish two objectives. First, he must convince social conservatives his flip-flop on abortion is sincere and complete. And, second, he must gracefully illuminate the religious intolerance of those who disparage his Mormon faith. Unfortunately for Romney—perhaps especially for Romney—it might be a very difficult challenge.

It’s often true that our greatest strengths are also are greatest weaknesses. And so it is with Romney. His admirable record of accomplishment in the business world was enabled by the application of analytical skills and business acumen he acquired as a consultant and executive of Bain Consulting and later Bain Capital.

But something else Romney acquired from Bain—dispassionate detachment—makes for a rough campaign road. Anyone who has worked with consultancies and investors like Bain would likely acknowledge they are hired primarily for their minds, analytical skills and access to capital—not their hearts.

Don’t get me wrong. They aren’t heartless. It’s just that the job requires them to keep their hearts in check so tough business decisions—even painful layoffs—are considered.

Dispassionate detachment is necessary in the consulting and investment worlds, but it can be a fatal liability in the political world. In fact, the opposite approach —passionate authenticity—is often more attractive to voters.

There are many examples of this phenomenon, but Ronald Reagan is probably the best case in point. Many voters disliked some of what Reagan stood for but voted for him anyway because they liked the fact that he actually stood for something. They believed Reagan not only because of what he said and did, but also because of how he said it. To many it seemed Reagan’s heart, mind, words and actions were all in-sync.

For example, when Reagan was angry—like the time he scuttled an attempt to shut off a debate microphone because he “paid for this microphone!”—most viewers felt his anger. Or when he grieved—as in delivering the eulogy for those who perished in the unfortunate explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger—most viewers felt his grief.

The list of authentic Reagan moments could go on and on. Opponents claimed it was good acting. Voters overwhelmingly decided it was authenticity.

That’s the kind of connection Romney needs to make with voters. If he isn’t able to authentically communicate genuine remorse for his previous support of abortion rights and rock-solid conviction to his pro-life conversion he won’t overcome the fear of pandering on abortion. His oft delivered dispassionate statement that other pro-life Republicans reversed field on abortion is true but unconvincing.

Likewise, when his Mormon faith is questioned, it isn’t enough to stoically deflect the subject. I think most Americans expect that Romney should be deeply disappointed by such religious intolerance and even angered by those who characterize a substantial and legitimate Christian denomination as an unworthy non-Christian cult. An expression of true disappointment and anger from Romney would clearly be in order and would do much to turn the tables on those who denigrate his faith.

Is Romney capable of making that kind of connection with voters? Only Romney can answer that question. But if he can’t make the transformation from talking about Reagan to talking like Reagan his campaign could end up conceding defeat to a rough road and turning tail for home.

Real Choice For A Change In St. George City Council Race

2007-11-20T12:47:00.000-08:00

(Published by the Salt Lake Tribune & the Spectrum October 2007)

For the first time in a long time, the St. George city council race is just that—a real race.

In recent elections the powers of incumbency and name recognition ensured the nearly automatic reelection of long-serving council members or designated replacements. But this time around, not one current council member will appear on the ballot.

Though no incumbent is running, three candidates—Jon Pike, Gilbert Almquist and Gloria Shakespeare—are pressed from the same mold as nearly every council member elected in recent memory. All are involved in businesses that benefit financially from growth. Pike is an executive with mega-employer Intermountain Healthcare. Almquist owns a local landscaping business. Shakespeare’s maiden name is Hurst. Her extended family owns the Hurst Ace Hardware chain.

The three are also deeply entrenched in the good old boys and girls club that has enjoyed a long-time hold on local offices. The mayor and council have kept this stranglehold in place by appointing members of the club to visible and important city committees, endowing them with name recognition that helps tremendously when they later seek election to the council. Pike is the appointed chairman of the city’s Arts Commission and former chair of the Chamber of Commerce. Almquist is the current chairman and sixteen year member of the city’s pervasively influential Planning Commission. Shakespeare is the volunteer head of the neighborhood enhancement committee. Her brother and sister-in-law are appointed members of the Water and Power Board.

The other three candidates— Benjamin Nickle, Ed Baca and Steven Swann—are certainly not members of the club. None of the three are involved in businesses that benefit from growth. Nickle is a manager at a youth crisis center. Baca is a retired law enforcement officer. Swann is an information technology consultant whose clients are primarily far from St. George. None have received appointments to city committees.

Given these differences it’s not difficult to understand why the two trios are on opposite sides of the two primary issues of concern in St. George—growth and illegal immigration.

Pike, Almquist and Shakespeare give lip service to doing a better job of managing growth and illegal immigration. Business associates have filled their campaign coffers with contributions to ensure this arguably disingenuous message gets out via radio and print. The trio has collectively amassed a financial war chest more than 3.5 times that of their three opponents. At least 75% of the contributions are from businesses that profit from growth and business leaders who personally share in those profits.

Ironically, this growth-funded advertising blitz is the best evidence the three won’t do anything that upsets the status quo. Their own businesses and those of many of their contributors are accustomed to the fruits of rapid growth—and in too many instances that growth is fueled by illegal laborers. And true to their “development at all costs” roots, they predictably and conveniently hide behind the slogans that “growth is inevitable” and illegal immigration is a problem “only politicians in Washington D.C. can solve.”

On the other hand, Nickle, Baca and Swann have nothing to gain personally by growth, and aren’t beholden to the local business coalition. All three have taken a pledge to implement local immigration policies similar to those recently implemented in Arizona and Oklahoma that punish local employers who hire illegal laborers—which we all know is the root cause of the illegal immigration problem.

So will St. George voters choose to keep the good old boys and girls club in charge? I don’t know, but I’m glad they have a clear choice for a change.

A Mortgage Bailout Would Send All The Wrong Messages

2007-10-01T07:22:00.000-07:00

(Published by TCS Daily & Deseret News September 2007)

One of the marvels of the American way of life is its foundation in common sense. American principles are such a universal part of the human experience that it doesn’t take much in the way of communication to remind us of those principles. In fact, over the years, much of what we believe as Americans has been codified in easy to understand admonitions.

For example, in light of the recent news of many homeowners across the country falling into default on their home mortgages, admonitions like “live within your means,” “buyer beware” and “what goes up must come down” come to mind.

These particular admonitions are known to most Americans and it’s likely nearly every mortgage holder now in default not only heard them often but probably even thought of all three principles before blatantly ignoring them and signing up for a very risky mortgage.

Under the circumstances, it’s not entirely surprising that President Bush and many members of Congress are floating possibilities of a bailout. After all, everyone makes mistakes and mortgage default is a very painful and far-reaching one for those involved.

But America would be much better off in the long run if the free market is allowed to run its course instead of circumventing it through a government bailout that would only compound the problem.

Why?

How do you think a bailout would be received by the millions of Americans who actually bought into the philosophy that they ought to live within their means—and did?

Or what would it say to those who bought into the philosophy that buyers should be wary of promises from sellers who have a tendency to gloss over or even purposely understate potential risk?

And consider the message a bailout would send to those who understood that housing markets are known to take off like a rocket before plummeting back to earth—almost always leaving many risk-taking mortgage holders with more debt than equity.

It should be clear to everyone—including President Bush and members of Congress—that a bailout would be a real slap in the face to millions of Americans who resigned themselves to staying in their current rental units or existing homes because they understood that a variable rate mortgage is often a financial time bomb waiting to blow up in the holder’s face—especially when starting interest rates are lower than common sense can explain and housing prices are headed for the stratosphere faster than a space shuttle.

It’s undoubtedly true that some unscrupulous lenders lied about terms and tricked borrowers into loans they would not have signed had they known the truth. And most Americans would agree that government agencies have a responsibility to prosecute lenders who have broken the law and obtain restitution to the extent possible from the assets of the lawbreakers.

But a government bailout of mortgage holders who knowingly and willingly entered into perfectly legal but obviously risky agreements would be a bitter pill to swallow for anyone who played by the rules and thereby lost out on an opportunity to substantially upgrade their circumstances through a government handout. And, to add insult to injury, taxes collected from those who actually had income to tax because they lived within their means would fund the bailout. How’s that for a double whammy? It’s kind of like getting slapped in the face and then kicked in the rear for doing what’s right.

I hope some sanity prevails in this debate. Intervention of any type is unwarranted, but if President Bush and Congress insist on spending our tax dollars to provide subsidized housing—and perhaps buy some votes in the process—we would all be better off if they sent the subsidy as a reward to those who played by the rules and not to those who ignored them.

Washington County's Vision Dixie Exposes A Great Divide

2007-07-23T07:53:00.000-07:00

(Published by the Salt Lake Tribune July 2007)

The Vision Dixie process—primarily a series of public workshops designed to engage citizens of Washington County in a dialogue about managing future population growth in the county—is nearing completion. Workshop recommendations were recently announced and the resulting vision will certainly be a welcome sight to county residents who have grown weary of the recent pace of development and the many negative side effects that accompany such rapid growth. Other county residents and public officials who favor and enable current growth patterns will undoubtedly hope this vision soon fades into obscurity.

Why? Because the results make it abundantly clear a chasm of enormous proportions has opened up between most residents and the current pro-growth policies and practices promoted by many local and state officials.

For example, participants in the workshops were asked to select from four different future visions. Scenario A envisioned low-density growth outside of current city limits—a vision that would generate even more sprawl than current practice. Scenario B was a baseline reflecting current policy and practice. Scenario C envisioned growth around mixed-use centers or villages, along with greater preservation of scenic vistas and open-space, and improvements in public transportation. Scenario D envisioned downtown centers, tightly consolidated development, vista and open-space preservation and major investments in public transportation.

In a stunningly strong repudiation of current practice, only 11% of participants aligned themselves with Scenario B. A whopping 85% rejected current growth patterns and selected either Scenario C (52%) or Scenario D (33%).

Some public officials who favor facilitating rapid growth will undoubtedly claim there is little difference between current practice and the dominant future vision, but it should be clear to anyone who honestly analyzes the results that a super-majority of residents who participated in the process are pleading for leadership that does a better job of protecting scenic vistas, provides more open-space for both recreation and conservation, avoids the current practice of scattered development by building walkable communities, and invests in public transportation, including more bike trails and bus lines.

Disappointingly, the pro-growth spin machine is already in motion. Even before the results were officially released, a few local officials were quoted in a newspaper article characterizing the upcoming results as merely a confirmation of policy and practices already understood and in place. It’s true that some cities in Washington County have dabbled in some of the desired outcomes, but not anywhere near the extent envisioned by the Vision Dixie participants. Continuing with the status quo is clearly not what most residents had in mind.

It would be a shame if city, county and state officials attempt to minimize the divide, rationalize their pro-growth policies as concessions to inevitability and continue to plow full speed ahead with little or no change. After all, they are public servants and though many obviously disagree with the public they serve on issues related to growth, they have a duty to represent the public interest, not their personal interests, or the interests of only the business community. I suspect that most are well intended and honestly believe they have been representing the public interest. Unfortunately, they have failed to recognize that the tens of thousands of newcomers who have moved here in recent years have aspirations for the community far different from the aspirations that prevailed only a few years ago. And these out-of-synch views are reinforced by the fact that many local public servants continue to associate with a relatively small circle of longtime friends and business associates who think just as they do.

The Vision Dixie process should be taken as a real wakeup call by every public servant in Washington County. It’s clear that most residents want a change in course before the county is transformed into a sprawling mess. It’s time for every public servant in the county to do what they were elected to do and represent the public they were elected to serve.

The Lake Powell Pipeline Redundancy Myth

2007-07-15T22:37:00.000-07:00

(Published by the Deseret Morning News and the Spectrum July 2007)

A healthy public debate is underway in Washington County concerning the proposed construction of a water delivery pipeline from Lake Powell to St. George. Given the nature of such a large scale project—it will take several years to develop a viable engineering plan, obtain rights of way and solidify funding—this is a debate that will be waged over a long period of time. Long enough that oft repeated statements, whether true or not, can be transformed into misleading myths.

One such potential myth is already in the making. Advocates for the project, including state water officials and Washington County commissioners, have repeatedly claimed the pipeline is necessary to provide a redundant water source that would minimize the impact of drought and water shortages in southern Utah.

It’s a claim with great appeal in a region where many residents maintain redundant supplies of food and other necessities as insurance against either personal or public disasters. But such claims of redundancy for the pipeline are highly debatable. It’s an almost certain conclusion that every drop of water from Lake Powell would be allocated to supply new homes, not as a backup or redundant water supply for current homes or businesses. Why am I so certain of that conclusion? First, because according to state officials the pipeline would be financed almost entirely by impact fees assessed on new construction. Washington County officials will have an enormous incentive to encourage rapid growth to pay off the billion dollar debt that will be incurred in building the pipeline. And second, we know from experience local city and county officials in southern Utah already have a track record of encouraging growth. Imagine the growth they might encourage if they were on the hook to pay off a billion dollar debt that could only be paid off by filling a massive quota of 200,000-250,000 newcomers. It would make the current pace of growth seem like slow-motion.

Even though every drop from Lake Powell would be consumed by newcomers, you might think it’s still a good idea to have another water source. Then, if local sources were low and Lake Powell wasn’t—or vice versa—there would be another source to make up the shortfall. That would ordinarily make sense, but not in the unique case of Lake Powell. You see, Lake Powell is already a significant water source for several gargantuan metropolitan areas located far downstream: Los Angeles, San Diego, Las Vegas, Phoenix and Tucson. So if drought conditions arise in California, Arizona or Nevada, affected cities need to get more water from Lake Powell to make up the deficit. Thus any city that relies on Lake Powell is vulnerable to drought conditions not only in the Rocky Mountain region but throughout the entire southwest, greatly enhancing the probability of drought related water shortages.

There are constraints on how much water each region may take from Lake Powell, but if rationing becomes necessary it’s pretty obvious who would have priority. Washington County wouldn’t garner much sympathy competing for sustenance with Los Angeles, San Diego, Las Vegas, Phoenix or Tucson. Besides the disparity in size and economic contribution, each of these cities is already dependent on Lake Powell and would undoubtedly expect and likely be granted priority because they got their buckets in the Lake Powell well first.

At that point, if Washington County had a bucket in Lake Powell that came up less than full, where would the water come from to support the 200,000-250,000 new residents brought in to pay for pipeline construction, who then require a full Lake Powell bucket to meet their water needs?

I hope this risky pipeline project is defeated so our children and grandchildren are not put in the unenviable position of having to answer that difficult question.

Guns Everywhere? There's Got To Be A Better Way.

2007-06-10T17:17:00.000-07:00

(Published by OpEd News and RenewAmerica June 2007)

It’s sad to say, but mass public shootings like the recent Virginia Tech massacre are an all too common American experience. The Associated Press recently reported that at least 100 Americans have gone on public shooting sprees since August 1, 1966, when sniper Charles Whitman hunkered down atop a tower on the University of Texas campus and started picking people off.

To put that in perspective, in the last forty years the number of mass firearm murders in the United States rivals the combined total of Super Bowls played, NBA champions crowned, and Olympics—summer and winter—held. If you’re not in the habit of marking time by the passage of major sporting events, perhaps it’s more relevant for you to consider that public shooting sprees in that time period outnumber the combined total of Miss Americas crowned, Oscars for best picture presented and nominees for President of the United States selected by both major political parties.

Any way you look at the numbers, the apparent inability of government at all levels to prevent mass slaughter is frightening. That’s why it’s not surprising that many concerned gun owners would like to take matters into their own hands, suggesting, for example, that some of the victims of the Virginia Tech massacre might have been spared if students and professors had been allowed to carry guns on campus.

There is certainly truth in the claim that armed citizens have on occasion averted crime and saved lives. But given the nature of a firearm encounter and the variety of potential outcomes, it’s very difficult to know if return fire from an armed citizen would turn out to be a good thing or a bad thing.

Even well trained law enforcement professionals occasionally make mistakes in the chaos of a shootout. It’s uncommon but not unheard of that threatening but unarmed individuals are mistakenly shot when deadly force wasn’t even necessary. And when guns are blazing from both sides, there is always the chance that victims who would have otherwise avoided danger are caught in the crossfire. The chances of such unintended consequences increase considerably when the crossfire is initiated by a shooter who doesn’t have the experience or training that might minimize deadly mistakes.

Some have argued that even the possibility of armed response would be enough to deter many would-be killers. That seems overly optimistic to me. Nearly every one of these episodes has a very predictable and violent ending—the murderer is killed by either external or self-inflected gunfire. These murderers are obviously not afraid of facing the business end of a gun. It’s even likely that some would prepare for and enjoy the challenge of a shootout against a relatively under-equipped and less prepared opponent.

Ultimately, it’s impossible to mathematically determine if the possibility of return fire from potential victims is a net positive or a net negative. Historical data is non-existent and projections of lives saved and lost would be entirely subjective. But this is a decision that shouldn’t be determined by that mathematical calculation anyway. That question—how many lives are saved by return fire from potential victims—isn’t even the right question to ask. The question that ought to be asked is this: Is return fire from armed civilians the best we can do to prevent or impede mass shootings?

Unfortunately, that’s a question our leaders in Washington have decided to ignore. There are a variety of reasons for their silence. Many believe government intervention would do more harm than good. Others believe it’s a problem that should be dealt with at state and local levels. But too many have made the political calculation that it’s a topic too hot to handle in the run-up to a presidential election.

That’s too bad. I don’t know if serious debate and discussion in Washington would make a difference. But I do know that there’s got to be a better way than every man for himself.

Lake Powell Pipeline: Delivering A Less Than Desirable Future

2007-05-29T06:12:00.000-07:00

(Published by the Salt Lake Tribune and the Spectrum May 2007)

I find telemarketing annoying not only because it’s an uninvited interruption, but because someone’s trying to sell me something I don’t really need. About the only thing that could be more annoying is if telemarketing calls were collect and I had to accept the charges.

Well, that’s pretty much analogous to what the Washington County Water Conservancy District is up to these days. They won’t be dialing your number, but they have hired Vanguard Media Group to sell you something you don’t really need—the proposed Lake Powell Pipeline—and Vanguard’s fees will be covered by lifting tax revenue from your wallet.

If you think about it, just the fact that the District has determined that an expensive spin campaign is necessary speaks volumes about how unnecessary the Lake Powell Pipeline must be.

A little math is even more convincing. State water officials calculate that Washington County has enough water to provide for a population of at least 270,000 without the pipeline. That’s more than double the current population of 130,000. And despite the local District’s use of scare tactics in asserting it’s needed much sooner, State planners say the pipeline isn’t needed until around 2023.

But even the State’s pro-pipeline spin should be seriously questioned. The projections are based on 2005 per-capita water use. Consumption rates are already trending down and will certainly be significantly reduced by new technologies and rate incentives in coming years. If you think I’m overly optimistic, consider the fact that current per-capita consumption rates in most communities in the southwestern United States are significantly lower than Washington County’s. Several communities—Albuquerque and Tucson for example—have per-capita use rates half ours, serving the same number of people using half the water. If already proven levels of efficiency are achieved, Washington County can support 500,000 residents without the pipeline—a population we won’t reach until around 2040.

I don’t point out this per-capita use discrepancy to disparage anyone. The District has done well in providing Washington County with a more than adequate supply of water and therefore efficiency hasn’t been a high priority. But if 30 years rolls by and they haven’t figured out how to apply tomorrow’s technologies to match what other comparable communities are already doing with today’s technologies, somebody’s going to have some real explaining to do. And I don’t think it will be very satisfying to hear that it was a lot more fun building billion dollar engineering monuments in the desert than applying relatively cheap and unglamorous technologies to make our water system at least as efficient as what others achieved 30 years previously.

If you’ve already heard the marketing spin that the pipeline would “only” cost around $500 million, you might think I’m exaggerating to describe it as a billion dollar project. I’m not. Pro-pipeline spin-doctors conveniently neglect to disclose that cash required for construction would be raised through interest bearing State bonds. The State estimates more than $500 million in interest would be paid out, pushing the real cost past the $1 billion threshold. To repay this loan from the State, everyone in Washington County would pay more for water. And new home prices would soar ever higher as impact fees are significantly increased over time. The resulting increase in new home prices would be a double-whammy—many would not be able to afford homes and property taxes for everyone would be lifted up by inflated property values.

So what kind of future would a Lake Powell Pipeline deliver? To help you visualize it, the current population of Utah County is less than 500,000. Imagine Washington County with more congestion and sprawl than exists today in the Draper-Orem-Provo-Springville-Spanish Fork corridor. That’s without the pipeline. With the pipeline we could pack in another 285,000 residents. That total population of 785,000 would put us at about 80% of the congestion, sprawl and smog that exists today in Salt Lake County.

That’s a future that’s both unnecessary and undesirable. It’s bad enough we already have enough water available to become Utah County. Let’s not spend a billion dollars to build a pipeline that transforms Washington County into Salt Lake County and in the process destroys everything we love about southern Utah.

Violence In America Is Shocking But Not Surprising

2007-05-23T07:08:00.000-07:00

(Published by the Deseret News May 20, 2007)

It’s impossible to find words that adequately describe something as evil and dispiriting as the recent Virginia Tech massacre. Virginia Tech President Charles Steger was one of many who acknowledged this inadequacy when he stated, “I am really at a loss to explain or understand the carnage that has visited our campus.”

As inadequate as they are, many words have been appropriately used to describe such public massacres—words like unthinkable, tragic, horrific, evil and shocking. But one word that should not be used to describe these tragedies is the word “surprising.” If anyone is surprised, they haven’t been paying attention to the forces of violence, alienation and selfishness that have become all too common in this generation of American culture.

One thing that is surprising about this most recent spate of public violence is how quickly public outrage has dissipated. It’s partly because public shootings are sadly no longer a novelty, but also because our representatives in Washington almost universally decided to stick their heads in the sand, refusing to engage in a discussion of the broader issues exposed by the massacre. It’s true that mass murders of this type are easy to dismiss as the random, unavoidable acts of sick and evil individuals. But those who have been elected to lead should recognize that mass murders represent just the visible tip of a very deep iceberg of violence. Every year, around 25,000 Americans die at the point of a gun. By way of comparison, it’s disheartening to all of us—and outrageous to many—that more than 3,300 American lives have been lost in the Iraq War in the last four years. But where’s the outrage that more than 100,000 Americans have been shot dead right here in America in the same time period?

Perhaps politicians on both the left and right are more willing to express outrage at American lives lost in distant lands than lives lost at home because both political parties have contributed to the development of this culture of violence. It’s hard to imagine a more combustible culture than one in which the ACLU, Hollywood and the liberal-left insist that grotesque expressions of violence in movies, TV shows, music and video games are manifestations of free speech that cannot be restricted, while on the other hand, the National Rifle Association and the doctrinaire-right insist that frighteningly powerful automatic weapons should be available to every member of American society.

It’s true that violent people will emerge from any culture. But why in the world would we provide those with a predisposition to violence with fuel to stoke their evil intentions and powerful firearms to carry them out?

Of course many of our political leaders have a ready answer to that question. They claim it’s the price of freedom. I disagree. I think it’s the price we pay for electing politicians who are overly concerned with ideology. Ideologues in both parties seem to be more interested in promoting their black and white political ideologies than in dealing with the world of gray we actually live in.

I’m not naïve enough to think there are any easy solutions to this problem. But just because it’s difficult doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Would concessions from the left to reasonably restrict the availability of violence in media and concessions from the right to reasonably restrict the availability of absurdly powerful firearms make a difference? I don’t know. But I do know that if our leaders stick their heads in the sand and ignore the root causes of violence in America nothing will change—25,000 Americans will die from gunfire in the next year and it won’t be long before we are mourning the victims of another massacre. And until our leaders in Washington decide that violence on that scale is embarrassing and unacceptable, you should be prepared to be shocked—but not surprised.

Giuliani Hates Abortion - But Not Enough To Win

2007-05-10T07:34:00.000-07:00

(Published by WorldNetDaily May 2007)

You’ve got to hand it to Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani when it comes to his ability to stay on message. His response to the abortion question in the recent MSNBC-sponsored Republican presidential debate is a good example. In the debate Giuliani repeated the two primary points he always manages to make concerning his position on abortion:

“In my case, I hate abortion…..but ultimately, because it is an issue of conscience, I would respect a woman’s right to make a different choice.”

Mr. Giuliani’s honesty and consistency on this topic are admirable but will almost certainly cost him the Republican nomination. Encouraged by early polls, many Giuliani supporters believe otherwise, contending that his strength on other issues important to Republicans will outweigh the fact that he is at odds with the Republican base on abortion. But early polls always reflect an incomplete understanding of any candidate’s position on the full range of issues and as word continues to filter out about Giuliani’s position on abortion, Republican voters will predictably drift away. To believe otherwise is an indulgence in wishful thinking that represents a deep misunderstanding of why most Republicans are against abortion.

Simply put, most of us who oppose abortion do so because we believe an abortion is either a clear-cut case of taking a human life, or a close enough cousin to the taking of a human life to merit the same level of opposition. That’s why Mr. Giuliani’s position on abortion is so unacceptable to most members of the pro-life community. To us, it’s the equivalent of saying, “I hate it when someone takes another person’s life, but ultimately homicide is a matter of personal conscience and I would respect their decision.”

If you are pro-abortion, you will certainly find that analogy inflammatory and overboard. But it’s an accurate reflection of the depth of conviction and despair felt by most pro-lifers. To us it seems like we’re living in an upside down world where it’s acceptable to enact and enforce thousands of laws that prevent people from following their personal conscience on things as mundane as how fast they can drive a car and yet it’s unacceptable to enact any law that would prevent any person from following their personal conscience in determining whether or not a human fetus lives or dies.

This depth of conviction explains why it’s highly unlikely Giuliani’s political assets will outweigh this one glaring liability. Relatively speaking, when it comes to issues of life and death, nothing comes close to the overwhelming impact of abortion. To put it in perspective, in the first four years of the current conflict in Iraq, weapons of war terminated 3,300 American lives. In that same four year period, instruments of abortion terminated more than 4 million American embryos. Even more dramatically, the total number of American war casualties in the entire 230 year history of our nation is less than the current average of 1.2 million abortions performed in the United States each and every year. A mind-numbing total of more than 40 million embryos have been terminated by abortion since the Supreme Court voided all state restrictions on abortion in 1973. If you are pro-life and believe that abortion is a life and death issue, no other life and death issue is even in the same ballpark.

That’s why it’s extremely unlikely Giuliani will get the Republican nomination. There are other Republicans in the presidential race who are not very far behind Giuliani on the issues that are his greatest strengths and are light-years ahead of him on what many Republicans consider the most important issue of all. I don’t doubt that Giuliani really hates abortion. But when pro-life Republicans are fully informed about his “hate but tolerate” position on this issue he is likely to find out that he doesn’t hate abortion enough to win.

Why Romney Should Openly Discuss His Religion

2007-03-26T06:55:00.000-07:00

(Published by The Baltimore Sun Mar. 22, 2007)

You’ve probably heard by now that Mitt Romney has a Mormon problem. It seems every pollster of note has published a poll showing that many Americans consider Romney’s membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—commonly called the Mormon Church—a potential deal-breaker.

John Kennedy faced a similar challenge as he campaigned to become the first president who was a member of the Catholic Church. Many are encouraging Romney to borrow several pages from the JFK playbook, especially the speech he delivered to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in September 1960.

If you haven’t read the speech, you should. It’s a timeless masterpiece. But like many great works of art, its overarching brilliance masks a flaw or two in its background. Romney would be well served by echoing most of what Kennedy had to say in the speech, but one line of reasoning advanced by JFK seems so absurd to me that I’m surprised he got away with it.

Consider what Kennedy had to say about his personal views on religion and church affiliation:

“So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again -- not what kind of church I believe in for that should be important only to me…I believe in a president whose views on religion are his own private affair..”

Common sense alone should lead us to conclude that exactly the opposite is necessary. If a candidate truly believes in a church, its principles are likely to be the most fundamental building blocks of that person’s character. And personal character is always one of the key attributes voters should consider when electing a president. Thus it seems obvious that voters should try to ascertain both the depth of a candidate’s faith and the primary principles of that faith.

Times have changed, and in more recent presidential campaigns, the press has done a pretty good job of providing insight into each candidate’s depth of faith. Imposters who are not active in their faith or whose actions are not in harmony with the faith they profess are usually exposed over the course of a campaign.

Unfortunately, the press has not been very good at providing insight into the primary principles of any candidate’s faith. It’s understandable. Reporters are not theologians and naturally shy away from the topic. But as Kennedy discovered in 1960, members of other faiths who have an axe to grind are more than willing to fill the vacuum, turning theological mole hills into mountains of misconception. Romney’s faith is more susceptible than most to this problem because only 2% of Americans are Latter-day Saints (LDS). To put that in perspective, around 25% of Americans are Catholic and 50% are Protestant. So unless you are LDS, or you’ve invited the door-knocking LDS missionaries into your home for a chat, it’s not very likely that you know much about the principle beliefs of the Latter-day Saints.

Romney should guard against his faith being defined by misinformation by speaking openly about it when asked. As someone who was once Protestant and is now LDS, I’m confident that most Americans would find the primary principles of Romney’s faith compatible with their own. There are certainly some aspects that voters will find unusual and unorthodox. But that’s no big deal. Most church-goers don’t even agree with some aspects of their own faith. And on matters of personal spirituality, Americans cut the sincerely faithful a lot of slack. After all, America was initially a haven for those whose faith was ridiculed and condemned elsewhere. Too many bigoted Americans have forsaken their roots, but tolerance and respect for sincere but unorthodox spirituality are still dominant traits in the DNA of most Americans.

That’s why Romney should borrow most, but not all, of Kennedy’s Houston speech. If he hopes to overcome the Mormon problem, Romney would be best served by not hiding his religion behind a cloak of privacy.

Lake Powell Pipeline: Is It Inevitable Too?

2007-03-19T07:36:00.000-07:00

(Published by The Salt Lake Tribune Mar. 18, 2007)

If you have fond memories of the way things used to be in the St. George area, you would enjoy “Delivering the Future,” a marketing video for the proposed Lake Powell Pipeline. It can be found online at www.lakepowellpipeline.org. You’ll be impressed with the beautiful images of southern Utah at its best: Irrigated ranches, open spaces, red-rock beauty and plenty of solitude.

But if you’ve visited St. George recently you might find the images alarmingly out of sync with today’s reality and certainly not an accurate prediction of the future if the Lake Powell Pipeline is built. Water from the pipeline is only necessary to prolong the rampant urban sprawl that is consuming the ranches, open space, red-rock beauty and solitude featured in the video. Many Utahans think images of the smog, traffic, sprawl and urban ugliness of Las Vegas would have been a more accurate visualization of what the pipeline would deliver to southern Utah.

Many residents of Washington County—perhaps even a majority—are not interested in delivering that future. The State of Utah is going to great lengths to convert or wear-down the naysayers, even fronting the entire $500 million required to build the pipeline. That might sound too good to be true—because it is. Residents of southern Utah would eventually reimburse the state the full amount—plus interest—through hikes in local property taxes, water bills and impact fees.

The pipeline would serve three southern Utah counties: Iron, Kane and Washington. But 70 percent of the water—and the bill—would end up in Washington County. It’s safe to say the pipeline wouldn’t even be a pipe dream without the allure of extending the lucrative population boom in the St. George area.

Many Washington County residents believe there is more than enough boom left without the pipeline. The county has104,000 acre feet of water available—72,000 now and an additional 32,000 scheduled to come on-line before the pipeline is built. For planning purposes, state water officials assume 2.6 residents can be supported by one acre foot of water. Therefore, there is enough water without the pipeline to reach a minimum population of 270,000.

In addition, per capita water consumption in the county decreased 16 percent in the last nine years. It’s reasonable to assume that improvements in technology and smarter utilization will continue, pushing the pre-pipeline population total well beyond 300,000.

There are around 130,000 residents of Washington County today. So, even without the pipeline, residents can look forward to more than double the sprawl, double the bumper-to-bumper traffic and double the number of rooftops, strip malls and fast food joints.

But just imagine what could be accomplished with the water from Lake Powell. Using the same planning assumptions, the annual allotment of 70,000 acre feet of water would enable an additional 200,000 residents. A fully utilized pipeline would therefore provide for a population of more than 500,000. That’s nearly quadruple the current population. At that point Utahans would likely need to describe the St. George area as roof-top country instead of red-rock country to avoid running afoul of truth-in-advertising rules.

Of course there are many who would like to deliver that future to Washington County—primarily because it would make them very wealthy. Developers, builders and real estate agents would share in the billions of dollars flowing from the wallets of so many newcomers. And state and local politicians are probably already planning how they might spend the windfall tax revenue that would flow from the pipeline.

Public servants in Washington County have convinced too many residents that rampant uncontrollable growth is inevitable. It’s not. Growth is a choice made every time a request to rezone and develop property is approved and any time growth-facilitating infrastructure is built. The Lake Powell Pipeline is not inevitable. It’s a choice—a choice so important to the future of Washington County that it should be the subject of a countywide referendum.

If state and local politicians are going to lower the Washington County quality of life to hell in a handbasket, we should first verify that at least half the residents want to go along for the ride.

Mitt Romney's Abortion Flip-Flop: Like Father, Like Son

2007-03-05T07:21:00.000-08:00

(Published by WorldNetDaily Feb. 2007)

Is the following fictional press release a flashback to actual events that occurred in 1968 or a prediction of events that will yet occur in 2008?

Governor Romney’s once promising presidential campaign ended badly today. Romney showed tremendous promise early in the race but lost ground after admitting to a change of heart on one of the most important moral issues of our day. Romney never recovered from the setback and he stumbled across the Republican finish line in sixth place.

If you recognized it as a flashback, you’re right. It’s a press release that could have been written in 1968 when George Romney, a former governor of Michigan, competed for the Republican presidential nomination. Romney was an early favorite, but his campaign crashed and burned when he changed his position on the Vietnam War. The campaign might have survived the fact that the once hawkish Romney turned against the war, but his lame explanation for the reversal was even more troubling than the reversal itself. Romney’s statement that his original support for the war was the result of “brainwashing” by pro-war generals doomed his campaign. Not many voters were comfortable with the possibility that their president might be susceptible to brainwashing.

On the other hand, if you thought the fictional press release was a prediction of what might yet occur in 2008, you might also be right. Mitt Romney, the son of George Romney, is following in his father’s political footsteps. He recently completed a term as governor of Massachusetts and has launched a campaign for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.

There is certainly much in the distinguished father’s life that should be emulated by his son. But it should be clear to anyone—even a son—that the senior Romney’s flip-flop was one misstep any presidential candidate should avoid, not emulate. Yet Mitt’s recent reversal of position on abortion reminds us once again that sons often seem destined to repeat the mistakes of their fathers.

Mitt Romney’s change of position on abortion has been well-documented and acknowledged by Romney himself. In his two Massachusetts campaigns—a failed 1994 U.S Senate bid and a victorious 2002 gubernatorial effort—Romney unabashedly presented himself as a pro-choice candidate. For example, in response to a 2002 campaign questionnaire, Romney wrote:

“I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose…Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government’s.”

But in late 2004, Romney had a change of heart on abortion. It was triggered by a meeting with experts to help him better understand stem cell research. He explained it in a recent National Review Online interview:

“At one point, the experts pointed out that embryonic-stem-cell research should not be a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days…..it just hit us hard just how much the sanctity of life had been cheapened by virtue of the Roe v. Wade mentality.”

It’s a very troubling conversion story. If Mr. Romney was shocked by the fact that a 14 day old embryo created in a test tube might be destroyed, what in the world had he been thinking while millions of naturally created embryos were destroyed through abortion in the years between 1994 and 2004? In that decade, Romney openly supported the legal destruction of more than 10 million embryos that had advanced well beyond 14 days of life. Most were 45 to 90 days old, but some had advanced to nearly six months, and a rare few even beyond that.

Romney arrived at his pro-life decision in such a backwards manner that it’s difficult to take his explanation seriously.

So what does this conversion story tell us about Mitt Romney?

Is he a political opportunist willing to take one side of a life and death issue when seeking liberal votes and quite willing to take the other side of the same issue when seeking conservative votes?

Or is he someone who adopted a political position on a moral issue without giving any serious thought of his own to the life and death implications of the position he adopted?

Sound familiar? It should. It’s the same two possibilities voters pondered about George Romney back in 1968. Either way, it’s a pretty damning mistake for a presidential candidate to make.

And a very interesting example of like father, like son.

Blame Greedy CEOs, Not Liberal Democrats, For Upcoming Tax Hikes

2007-02-11T13:42:00.000-08:00

(Published by the Deseret News Feb. 11, 2007)

Conservative pundits—most notably Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity—warned before the November midterm elections that if Democrats regained control of Congress they would certainly raise taxes. Democrats are now firmly in control of Congress and conservative pundits were right. It’s only a matter of time before the tax debate begins in earnest.

Rush and Sean are already gearing up for the battle, rallying the troops on a regular basis. They should save their energy because this battle is already lost. Instead of wringing their hands they should start wringing the necks of their outrageously greedy CEO and corporate board friends who are the main reason why most Americans will support higher tax rates for highly compensated individuals.

There are plenty of greedy necks to wring, but Rush and Sean should probably start with the most recent poster boy for CEO greed, Bob Nardelli, the recently fired CEO of Home Depot.

You are probably familiar with Home Depot’s marketing slogan: “You can do it. We can help.” In Nardelli’s case, “it” must have been a personal project to rob the shareholders of Home Depot blind. He did it and Home Depot’s board of directors did indeed help.

They granted Nardelli a $210 million severance package despite job performance that was so lousy he needed to be fired. Add to that the $190 million in compensation Nardelli received from the board during his six years with the company and the end result is that $400 million that once belonged to the shareholders of Home Depot now belongs to Bob Nardelli.

Such outrageous greed is almost incomprehensible to the average American family, which somehow manages to get by on only $45,000 in compensation per year. It’s enough to provide for a comfortable life by most standards, including the ability to accumulate enough wealth to purchase one $200,000 house in thirty years and one $20,000 automobile every six years or so.

But contrast that with Nardelli’s purchasing power. Nardelli’s six year after-tax income from Home Depot was around $240 million. With that much money Nardelli could purchase 1,200 average American homes. If he wanted to spend it on transportation instead, he could buy 12,000 automobiles. That’s purchase. Free and clear. No mortgage and no car payments. The differential in purchasing power is both mind boggling and disgusting.

Nardelli is the CEO poster boy of the month, but he is far from unique. The most recent Forbes magazine report on CEO compensation concluded that CEOs of the largest 500 companies in America received an average annual paycheck of $10.9 million in 2005. And CEO looting of corporate coffers would not be possible without the thousands of similarly greedy corporate board members who serve on compensation committees that approve these outrageous CEO compensation packages.

Most Americans will support a tax increase on the wealthy not because they are against individuals making a lot of money. Quite the contrary. If CEOs were risking their own money and creating personal wealth because of their own individual skills, knowledge and effort it would be a different story. But they are not. CEOs are risking shareholder money and relying on the skills, knowledge and effort of thousands of employees to generate shareholder wealth. CEOs often contribute substantially to the success of the companies they run, but their level of contribution can’t possibly justify the disproportionate level of reward they receive. Americans are quick to applaud and reward individual financial success but not at the expense of fair play, teamwork and integrity.

Democrats shouldn’t assume that widespread support for a tax increase is vindication for their tax-and-spend tendencies. It isn’t. Most Americans are genetically predisposed to abhor taxes. The spirit of the Boston Tea Party is alive and well. But given the choice between government redistributing shareholder wealth or greedy CEOs redistributing it to their own wallets, most of us have concluded that government is the lesser of two evils.

A Harvest of Violence: We Reap What We Sow

2007-01-21T18:44:00.000-08:00

(published by The Salt Lake Tribune Jan. 21, 2007)

During my childhood years, I often heard the old adage “tragedies come in threes.” Because it was sometimes true, a single tragic occurrence would cause me to wonder when the next shoe or two might drop. I stopped thinking that way many years ago, but a series of three tragedies this past fall brought it to mind again.

On September 26th in Bailey, Colorado, an armed fifty-three year old man entered the local high school, sexually assaulted six young female hostages, murdered one, and then committed suicide.

Three days later, a fifteen year old student in Cazenovia, Wisconsin, entered the local high school with two firearms. He shot and killed the school principal.

Four days later, a thirty-two year old husband and father of three entered the Amish school in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania, locked-down ten young girls and prepared to sexually molest or rape them. Local authorities arrived before the sexual attacks were carried out. The gunmen shot all ten hostages at point-blank range. Five died at the scene. The gunman committed suicide.

This week of unthinkable violence and sexual perversion also brought to mind another old adage from my childhood: “we reap what we sow.”

If you fail to see the connection, let me remind you of what has been planted in the minds of too many Americans over the course of the last forty years or so. All you need to do is turn on your television, radio, or electronic game machine. If that’s not evidence enough, access the internet or go see a movie.

If you prefer to skip the research, I’ll remind you of a few examples of the “progress” in entertainment we’ve experienced in my lifetime. On TV we’ve gone from “Leave it to Beaver” to “Sex and the City,” and on radio from “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” to “Can U Control Yo Hoe.” Video games have progressed from “Pong” to “God of War,” and sleazy, obscure porno shops are now only a mouse click away.

The producers and distributors of this “entertainment” are quick to claim there is no proven link between watching violence and acting violent or watching sexual perversion and seeking it out. I think they are wrong. While it can’t be proven in a court of law, it certainly can be proven in the court of common sense. Anything that enters our minds can leave a permanent trail whether we want it to or not.

Promiscuity and violence are not the only damaging outcomes. Even those who control sexual appetites and refrain from violence pay a steep personal price for exposure to violence and perversion. It can’t be good to have violent and promiscuous images burned into our memory cells. It’s a total waste of mental capacity and energy to have a portion of our mind processing such things while another portion works overtime to suppress and control them.

I realize this is a difficult, multi-faceted problem, and evil people will emerge from any environment. But there is one thing many of us could do that would certainly have a significant impact in the long run. And it’s simple. Just stop consuming the trash that passes for entertainment. Don’t turn it on, don’t buy it and don’t teach your children the meaning of hypocrisy by consuming it yourself while preaching avoidance to them.

If we continue to consume it, media companies will continue to produce it, and the law of the harvest will certainly apply. There is no way around it. We will “reap what we sow.”

If we hope for better harvests ahead, the planting season should begin with an honest look in the mirror.

Are Democrats Ready To Embrace The Center In The Culture War?

2006-12-17T12:17:00.000-08:00

(Published by the Salt Lake Tribune Dec. 17, 2006)

Everyone agrees the Iraq War was the primary stumbling block for Republicans in the recent midterm elections. In addition to the Iraq problem, Republican strategists appear to have settled on corruption, arrogance and incompetence as secondary factors that require corrective action.

This diagnosis is accurate but incomplete. Democrats won in Republican territory only because they were willing to change strategy in the Culture War—a war that has been as damaging to Democratic prospects in recent elections as the Iraq War was to Republican prospects this time around.

If you haven’t heard about the change in strategy you are not alone. Republicans are blinded by the enormity of the Iraq issue and Democrats are reluctant to shine a spotlight on a localized strategy that conflicts with the national party platform. But many values-voters who switched allegiance from Republican to Democratic candidates this election cycle are well aware of the shift in strategy. In many cases it was the first time in decades that voters could vote for a Democrat who was pro-life, against legalization of same-sex marriage, supported responsible firearm ownership, was comfortable talking about his or her own personal faith and willing to allow everyone—including Christians—the opportunity to express their own faith in the public square.

One can only wonder why it took the Democrats so long to figure out that a change in strategy was necessary. The handwriting—in the form of public opinion polls—has been on the wall for everyone to read for a very long time. And what is written on the wall? It might surprise you to know that America isn’t really equally divided on these cultural issues. It’s true that loyal Democrats and Republicans are equally divided on these issues, but independent voters—often referred to as the silent majority—are not. The dirty little secret of the Culture War is that it’s an artificial stalemate created by extremists on the right and left and perpetuated by a media environment that thrives on conflict and whose members often sympathize with one side or the other.

The evidence supporting this claim can be found in a wide variety of polls and several books published in recent years. For example, a national survey conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life in mid 2006 found that “despite talk of culture wars and the high visibility of activist groups on both sides of the cultural divide, there has been no polarization of the public into liberal and conservative camps.”

Specifically, the Pew study found that 66% of Americans think that abortion should not be generally available. There isn’t complete agreement on what restrictions should be in place, but there is agreement that current abortion law is not restrictive enough. The study also found that 56% of Americans oppose gay marriage and only 35% favor it.

The Pew study didn’t cover the other Culture War issues I’ve mentioned—gun control and church-state issues— but Harris, Gallup and other polling organizations have. Harris consistently reports that 60% of Americans favor stricter gun control and an even larger 70% majority favors stricter control of assault weapons. And on church-state issues, Gallup found that 54% of Americans think that state sponsorship of religion is harmful, but 58% support the right of any religion to exercise free speech in the public square.

This fledgling foothold in the political center is a good start, but Democrats will need a more substantial effort to win in 2008. The Iraq War will certainly be a greatly diminished issue by then, and the other war—the Culture War—will return to prominence. Will the liberal base of the party swallow its ideological pride and embrace a more extensive alliance with the silent majority? I hope so. It could be an important first step in putting this divisive Culture War behind us.

Playing Politics As Usual With The Land Bill

2006-12-08T10:10:00.000-08:00

(Published by The Spectrum Dec. 5, 2006)

Voters in nearly every region of the country delivered a very unmistakable message to politicians of all stripes in the recent midterm election. In addition to overwhelming displeasure with the lack of progress in Iraq, Americans are clearly tired of arrogant politicians who fudge the truth and fatten their own wallets while in public service—practices otherwise known as politics as usual.

Utah did not add its voice to the choir of discontent, primarily because a majority of Utahans believe the long-term possibilities in Iraq are worth the short-term pain, and secondarily, because most of us assume that our elected officials come fully equipped with Utah ethics.

It’s an admirable extension of trust, but one that should be questioned in light of the recent political maneuvering associated with the Washington County land bill. Sen. Bob Bennett and Washington County Commissioner Alan Gardner are utilizing nearly every trick in the book to sneak the bill through the current lame-duck session of Congress.

Pushing any bill through a lame-duck Congress is border-line behavior to begin with. But Sen. Bennett really stepped over the line when he realized the land bill could not pass on its own merits. Instead, Bennett will lurk in the shadows of the Senate hoping to attach it as a late night “rider” to a funding bill. It’s exactly the kind of political gamesmanship that gives politics a bad name. If Senators vote the land bill down, the funding bill also bites the dust and government programs could be shut down. A vote against the combined bill would be the equivalent of turning down a gift automobile that you really need only because there is a box of stuff in the trunk you don’t want. Nearly everyone would take the gift car in spite of the undesirable cargo in the trunk. And if Bennett has his way, that’s what the Senate will do—pass the funding vehicle and then hand Bennett the land bill he slipped in the trunk. This less-than-honest political trick is not something we should expect or tolerate from a Senator from Utah.

Bennett also appears to have contracted a case of Washington D.C. arrogance. When asked in a Senate committee meeting why he won’t withdraw the bill and resubmit it next year—after the citizen-based Vision Dixie planning process is complete—this is what he said:

“There is nothing we will learn next year that we don't already know."

His arrogant statement offers quite an insight into what Bennett really thinks of the Vision Dixie process, and by extension, what he thinks of input in general from common citizens like you and me.

Commissioner Gardner also testified in the same Senate committee meeting and had this to say about how the bill was developed:

“We wanted all the stakeholders to be involved and their issues to be heard, and they were. We were very sensitive to the fact that if we were to err, we should err in favor of too much public participation rather than not enough.....To summarize, this has been a truly grassroots project.”

You might think Gardner was actually describing the grassroots Vision Dixie process. But the bill was drafted and submitted long before Vision Dixie was even a thought, let alone a reality. Public outrage with the bill, not a new-found respect for citizen involvement, forced the county commission into sponsoring the Vision Dixie process.

In reality, the bill was developed by a committee of 16 who were selected and directed by the Washington County Commission—a trio with a track record of promoting growth-on-steroids. In a county of 130,000 residents, the process doesn’t come close to qualifying as a grassroots project or as a process that involved all stakeholders. A few of the 16 members were so frustrated with the pro-growth committee that they dropped out and now actively oppose the bill.

Finally, with Commissioner Gardner it’s always difficult to distinguish between what’s good for the county and what’s good for Mr. Gardner. Gardner already stands to make millions on the Ledges development project. Is he angling to obtain a portion of the 25,000 acres of public land the bill promises to developers in order to extend the real life game of monopoly he is playing with county land? His current project is high rent real estate overlooking Snow Canyon State Park and might appropriately have been designated Park Place instead of The Ledges. Maybe he has his eyes on Boardwalk too.

I hope the questionable political tactics of Bennett and Gardner fail. And if they succeed, we can ensure their shameful tactics are not a part of Utah’s future by voting them out of office. Unfortunately, their land bill legacy would enable a future of urban sprawl, traffic jams and endless vistas of rooftops for residents of Washington County. That would be a real shame for all Utahans.

Is Brad Pitt Promoting Polygamy?

2006-11-27T16:32:00.000-08:00

(Published by WorldNetDaily September 19, 2006)

I live in southern Utah, only a few miles from Hildale, Utah and Colorado City, Arizona. Recently I thought I heard shouts of joy coming from the direction of these two polygamist communities. It sounded something like “Hosanna! Praise the Lord! And thank God for Brad Pitt.”

I wasn’t surprised to hear praise for the Lord. Polygamists in general are very religious folks. However, I didn’t understand why Brad Pitt was suddenly worthy of polygamist praise. In fact, I was surprised they knew anything about Mr. Pitt. I thought his movies were probably on the list of sinful things that good polygamists avoid. But when I found the latest news concerning Pitt and Angelina Joile’s relationship, I fully understood why polygamists would embrace Brad Pitt.

I found that Pitt had this to say in a recent Esquire magazine interview:

"Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able."

Unfortunately for my neighbors, I don’t think Brad really meant “everyone.” I think he meant to say that he supports the extension of marriage rights to only one minority—the gay minority.

I could be wrong. If I am, I hope Pitt will publicly correct my error. Perhaps he could visit Colorado City to demonstrate his support for another marriage-deprived minority—the polygamist minority.

I doubt Brad will accept the challenge. I have yet to meet anyone who supports legal recognition of both gay marriage and polygamy, despite the fact that it should be clear to everyone that an argument for gay marriage is also an argument for polygamy.

Perhaps the best evidence of this linkage is found in the wording of the decision issued by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in 2003 when it determined that gay marriage could not be prohibited in Massachusetts:

“The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens.”

I think there is no getting around the fact that when a court of law uses the legal terminology “equality of all individuals” and “forbids the creation of second-class citizens,” the court is establishing law that applies to all Americans, not just heterosexual and gay couples.

You might think that laws could be written to restrict marriage only to heterosexual or gay couples. But remember, courts are not writing marriage law. They are only determining if marriage law is consistent with a state constitution, or ultimately with the Constitution of the United States. I’m not going to belabor the point. But it seems incomprehensible to me that polygamy, or any other form of marriage between consenting adults, could be banned if marriage must pass an “equality of all individuals” test.

So, is Brad Pitt promoting polygamy? I don’t think so. In fact, most advocates for gay marriage go out of their way to condemn polygamy. I agree with them. Polygamy should not be legal in America.

If you agree that polygamy or other forms of multi-partner marriage between consenting adults should not be legal, I hope you recognize that it would be illogical and hypocritical to conversely support legal recognition of gay marriage. Though it’s difficult to predict the unintended consequences of most decisions, in the case of gay marriage, the unintended consequences that would follow legalization are obvious.

I hope Brad and Angie have a change of heart about “tying the knot.” Traditional marriage has been the bedrock of civil society for thousands of years. And it’s best we keep it that way. Let’s not tweak it and mess it up beyond repair.

Whose Interests Are Served By The Washington County Land Bill?

2006-11-15T10:53:00.000-08:00

(Published by the Salt Lake Tribune Nov. 12, 2006)

Sen. Bob Bennett and Rep. Jim Matheson are working overtime to sneak the Washington County Growth and Conservation Act through the current lame-duck session of Congress. If their efforts go unrewarded, the bill will almost certainly die in committee when Democrats take control in January.

The architects of the bill — the Washington County Commission of James Eardley, Alan Gardner and Jay Ence — are hoping for quick passage. It’s the only way to get some relief from the firestorm of local opposition ignited by the bill.

The chief concern is a provision that paves the way — pun intended — to quickly shift 4,300 acres of public land to private ownership. It also specifies that an additional 20,000 acres of public land eventually would be sold to private interests at a later date. That’s enough land to easily accommodate 80,000 new homes. With average home prices exceeding $325,000 in Washington County, the bill represents a bonanza of many billions of dollars for land investors, developers and home builders. For those who oppose the potential land-grab, it represents traffic jams, urban sprawl and serious degradation in the quality of their lives.

The commissioners have been their own worst enemies in this debate. Consider what Commissioner Eardley said about the bill in a Los Angeles Times article:

"One of the problems in the West is that the federal government owns most of the land. I say 'He who owns the land, holds the power.' "

To many, Eardley seems out of touch. Many long-time residents abhor federal land ownership, but a more diverse population of newcomers is more concerned with quality of life than who holds the power.

The career choices of commissioners Ence and Gardner are even more problematic. Ence co-founded Ence Homes, the largest-volume homebuilder in southern Utah. He retired and turned the business over to three nephews before running for office. But retirement doesn’t shield Mr. Ence from the fact that his extended family derives great financial benefit from development within the county.

Profiting from growth is also a family affair for Commissioner Gardner. He and his brother, Larry, are managers in three companies with significant land holdings in a beautiful area east of Snow Canyon State Park known as the Ledges. In 2001, the St. George City Council — with Larry Gardner a member — voted to annex the Ledges. Three years later, the same council voted to rezone more than 1,000 acres of Ledges property, converting it from low-value grazing land to high-value real estate.

The city council decisions had a stunning financial impact on Ledges land. According to Washington County property records, the several hundred acres owned or partly owned by the Gardner-related business entities increased in value by many millions of dollars.

Such entanglements make it difficult to determine if the land bill is good for the county, the commissioners, or both.

For example, the bill clears the way for a potential east-west highway north of St. George. The highway would connect I-15 with State Road 18 either very close to the Ledges or, at most, a few miles away. Direct access from the freeway — thereby avoiding the perpetual traffic jam through St. George — would further enhance the value of the Ledges. One can only speculate how many of the 24,300 acres of public land liberated by the bill might end up in the Gardner land portfolio.

To their credit, Ence and the Gardners seem to have scrupulously followed Utah law concerning conflicts of interest while in public service. They’ve certainly done some good as public servants and undoubtedly feel that election to office is a mandate for their pro-growth agenda.

But voters have not had the opportunity to make truly informed choices. Campaigns in Washington County consist of street signs adorned with short slogans and sparsely attended candidate forums. When it comes time to vote, most of us don’t know much beyond the candidates’ party affiliations. (Washington County votes about 70 percent Republican.) This has created a serious disconnect between elected officials and public sentiment on the issue of growth.

Despite persistent and intense lobbying by Gardner and Eardley, only 36 percent of the city councils in the county voted in favor of a resolution to support the bill. The magnitude of that repudiation should give pause to Bennett and Matheson. And their characterization of the opposition as outside interference from extreme environmentalists is either disingenuous or uninformed. The strong opposition primarily concerns quality-of-life issues, not hugging trees and protecting turtles.

Bennett and Matheson should withdraw the bill and await the outcome of the citizen-based planning process that is belatedly under way. It’s the only way to ensure that the public interest — not private or special interests — is served.

Author Interview - KVNU Talk Radio

2006-11-10T15:13:00.000-08:00

Author Bruce Wilson was a recent guest on the KVNU Talk Radio program, For The People, with hosts Tom Grover and Ryan Yonk. You can listen to the three seperate segments by clicking on segment titles below. There is also a link to Tom and Ryan's For The People blog.

Book Interview: Disarming the Culture War

Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Mitt Romney's Presidential Campaign

KVNU's For The People

Author Interview on Inside Utah Program

2006-11-02T22:31:00.000-08:00

Author Bruce Wilson was recently interviewed by award winning journalist Jennifer Napier-Pearce who produces the program Inside Utah. Click on the speaker icon to hear the discussion of Disarming the Culture War. It lasts approximately 10 minutes.

The Boston Globe's Romney/Mormon Church Conspiracy Theory: Journalism or Politics?

2006-10-30T21:28:00.000-08:00

(Published by the Deseret News Oct 30, 2006)

I live in Utah and write political commentary. I’m also a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints—commonly known as the Mormon Church. So it shouldn’t be surprising that recent reports in The Boston Globe caught my attention. Allegations of Mitt Romney’s political action committee and Mormon Church leaders collaborating in a sinister plot to drum-up support for Romney’s unannounced presidential campaign sounded interesting.

But my interest soon shifted from alleged campaign infractions to obvious journalistic infractions. Theoretically, news is published only if it’s factual, balanced and fair. I guess in this case The Globe thought one out of three was close enough.

I’ll give The Globe credit for printing the facts, though I had to wade through a lot of innuendo to find them. What’s the factual bottom line buried in the more than 3000 words that comprise the two stories? It’s that the dean and associate dean of a Mormon Church-owned business school sent an e-mail to 150 graduates and friends of the school. The e-mail asked recipients to respond if they were interested in participating in Romney’s campaign. The school is part of the Church’s nonprofit, tax-exempt business structure and such political engagement can invalidate tax-exempt status. School management was informed of the potential violation, admitted the mistake, vowed it would not be repeated, and agreed to ignore all responses to the e-mail.

It’s also factual that before the e-mail was distributed, Don Stirling—a consultant for Romney’s political action committee—was in a group who met with Jeffrey Holland—a high ranking official of the Mormon Church. A few days later, Stirling was in a dinner group that included the associate dean of the business school. Stirling also wrote an e-mail of his own to the chief executive of the Church-owned publishing company, and in that e-mail, implied that Holland supported using the business school mailing list to enlist support for Romney.

It’s with this second group of facts that unbalanced Globe innuendo comes into play. When you read the account, you can’t escape the impression that Holland was orchestrating a sinister plot on behalf of the Church, despite the fact that Holland emphatically denies it. Romney’s political action committee agrees with Holland, attributing the mistaken impression to the fact that political consultant Stirling “got over enthusiastic and overstepped his bounds.”

The Globe neglected to point out that a political consultant might have a tendency to “spin” a meeting as something more than it really was. And there was no mention of the fact that nearly everyone has had a meeting experience where every participant left with a different opinion of what was said in the meeting. The Globe’s failure to provide this context makes it a very unbalanced account.

As to the fairness of the reporting, consider that The Globe ran an Associated Press report on July 11, 2004 that opened with this sentence:

“NAACP chairman Julian Bond condemned Bush administration policies…. imploring members of the nation's oldest civil rights organization to increase voter turnout to oust the president from office.”

The NAACP enjoys the same nonprofit, tax-exempt status as the Mormon Church. It has more than 500,000 members. Chairman Bond’s comments were made in a heavily attended NAACP meeting and were widely distributed through the media to millions of Americans.

So, if The Globe thought a politically oriented e-mail sent to 150 Mormons was a significant violation of tax-exempt status, how did The Globe react when the NAACP communicated its political agenda to millions? I think you know the answer. Let’s just politely say that the response to the Mormon e-mail was disproportionate and unfair.

I hope it’s as clear to you as it is to me that The Globe only objects to political engagement by nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations when the political ideology engaged in is not acceptable to The Globe. So the next time you read something about Mitt Romney in The Boston Globe check to see if it’s factual, balanced and fair. You’ll need to, because The Globe has proven that sometimes journalistic standards mean nothing when political ideology is at stake.

Rapid Growth Is Inevitable Only If It's Encouraged

2006-10-16T22:08:00.000-07:00

(Published by The Spectrum Oct 8, 2006)

Several weeks ago I decided to write a series of columns expressing my opinion that growth in Washington County is close to being out of control, and if it continues unabated, it will soon turn this red rock haven into an unsightly and unaccommodating corridor of strip malls, fast food joints and rooftops.

This project has given me the opportunity to ask many of my friends and neighbors what they think about growth. The most often expressed opinion can best be summarized as follows:

“I don’t like it, but growth is inevitable. It’s a function of supply and demand. As long as land is available and newcomers are willing to pay the asking price, there is nothing we can do about it but manage it wisely.”

It’s probably true that some reasonable level of growth is inevitable and even desirable. But I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the kind of growth we are experiencing is inevitable and is strictly a function of supply and demand. Growth is actually a function of three variables: supply, demand and the attitude of local government. There are many communities around the country that have managed to restrict growth despite tremendous demand for development. To think otherwise seems either uninformed or disingenuous to me. Developers, builders and residents who have experienced this elsewhere know that certain communities are unfriendly to development and others roll out the red carpet and encourage it.

I’ve also learned there are residents who not only think rapid growth is inevitable, they think it’s wonderful. It shouldn’t be surprising that developers, builders and real estate agents dominate this group. I’m not cynical about their motives. I don’t think it’s only about earning a living to them. I think they are good men and women who believe that rapid growth is a good thing for all of us. We just have an honest difference of opinion on this issue.

Of course, I hope you are in my camp and agree that rapid growth is inevitable only if it is tolerated or encouraged by elected officials. And with elections just around the corner, we have the opportunity to put this claim to the test. We can either elect candidates who are willing to apply the brakes or we can elect candidates who are certain to push the accelerator.

Unfortunately, I’ve found it nearly impossible to determine where local candidates stand on growth. I need more information to make truly informed choices. For example, I would like every candidate for local office to answer the following four questions:

Do you think rapid growth is inevitable or do you think it can and ought to be reigned in by elected officials?

Are you or members of your family involved in development? If not, do you or members of your family own land that might be sold to developers?

Are you or members of your family involved in construction or property sales?

I don’t know if The Spectrum or other local publications have the time and resources to put these questions and others of importance to each candidate and then publish the responses. I hope they do. If not, perhaps you will have an opportunity to personally question candidates as they participate in public forums in the next few weeks.

It could very well be that my own desire to significantly slow the rate of growth is a minority opinion. I can live with that. That’s how democracy works. But I do hope that you have access to information that will allow you to select candidates who represent your views. And remember. If you vote for candidates who think that growth is inevitable, it will be.

Washington County Residents Should Vote on Growth and Conservation Act

2006-10-05T09:38:00.000-07:00

(Published by the Deseret News Oct 3, 2006)

Senator Bennett and Congressman Matheson are sponsors of a bill now wending its way through the Congress of the United States. It’s called the Washington County Growth and Conservation Act. Soon, all 535 members of Congress will have the opportunity to vote on the proposal.

I understand why Congressional action is required. Uncle Sam is a major landlord in southern Utah. But as a resident of Washington County, I’m disappointed that I didn’t hear about the proposal before it made its way to Washington, D.C.

At first I was disappointed in myself. But then I took a look at the process that produced the bill. Alan Gardner, a Washington County Commissioner, described it in a recent editorial:

“The original committee of 20 represented a broad spectrum of interest groups and stakeholders. The county was divided into geographic areas, and open public meetings were advertised and held to discuss each area in detail.”

I believe that Sen. Bennett and Rep. Matheson hoped to include as many residents as possible in the process. But how many do you think actually participated? Was it a few hundred or a few thousand? I don’t know, but I’m willing to bet it was a very small sampling of the 130,000 residents of the county.

I’ll accept my share of the blame, but let’s also be realistic. Experience has shown that public commissions and hearings bring out only the most vocal and active in the community. I’m sure the two protagonists—environmentalists and developers—were well represented. But people like me were not engaged, and never will be, in that kind of process. My fellow members of the silent majority only show up when it’s time to cast a vote that actually gets counted.

Is that lazy? Is it wrong? Maybe, but that’s the way it is.

Commissions and public hearings are inadequate for an issue of this magnitude. The quality of life of every resident of Washington County is at stake and the voice of every resident should be heard.

So, let’s put the proposal to a countywide vote.

We should also unwind the unwieldy conglomeration of proposals in the current bill. It’s a typical political ploy. Some of the proposals have no chance of passing unless they are attached to other proposals in the bill which are very popular. We should require that each component stand on its own merits.

For example, the two primary proposals might look something like this:

Proposition A. Add 219,725 acres of land to the National Wilderness Preservation System. No new public lands will be created. Every acre in question is already managed by the federal government. This designation does ensure the land in question will be maintained in its natural state and not be significantly altered. This is pretty much a vote for the status quo, but it can’t hurt.

Proposition B. Sell 25,000 acres of public land to developers. The specific land is unknown at this point, but rest assured it will be prime real estate. Most likely it will be in, on or very near the most scenic parts of the county. Why else would a developer buy it? The land will easily accommodate 80,000 new homes and 160,000 new residents who will more than double the current population of 130,000. A handful of developers will get very rich. Everyone else will be much poorer as spectacular and irreplaceable wilderness is converted into urban sprawl and strip malls.

You’ve probably figured out by now that I won’t be asked to write any ballot initiatives. But at least you know where I stand on the Growth and Conservation Act. Unfortunately, 535 members of Congress don’t have a clue where the other 129,999 residents of Washington County stand. And that doesn’t seem right to me. When the future of Washington County is at stake, votes in Washington County should be counted before votes in Washington, D.C. are cast.

Mitt Romney's Mormon faith is an asset, not a liability, in 2008 presidential sweepstakes

2006-09-30T23:24:00.000-07:00

(Published by The Salt Lake Tribune October 1, 2006)

A recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll found that thirty-seven percent of those questioned would not vote for a Mormon presidential candidate. On the surface this might seem like very bad news for Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney—a Mormon who is obviously preparing for a run at the presidency in 2008.

That would be true if participants in the poll were actually passing judgment on Mormon theology. I don’t believe that is the case at all. Though most Americans consider themselves Christian, few concern themselves with the intricacies of Christian theology. The vast majority could not accurately describe any difference between their personal Christian theology and the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints—commonly referred to as the Mormon Church. No, this poll isn’t about Mormon theology. It’s about the political views held by the vast majority of Mormons. And that’s actually very good news for Governor Romney.

How’s that?

Well, consider what the result would have been if the Los Angeles Times asked respondents if they would vote for a conservative Republican presidential candidate who thought abortion should be illegal and same-sex marriage banned. I’m willing to bet that around thirty-seven percent of respondents would never vote for such a candidate no matter what the religious affiliation of the candidate might be. It’s a safe bet because approximately thirty-seven percent of the voters in America are liberals who would rather move to Canada than support a conservative who is against abortion and same-sex marriage.

The pollster might as well have asked that question. Americans don’t know a lot about Mormon theology but they do know a lot about the political ideology of most Mormons. Nearly every voter in America recognizes that the state of Utah, with its overwhelming Mormon majority, is the reddest state of all. Most Americans also recognize that nationally known Mormon politicians are almost universally conservative Republicans like senators Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett. And, if they have Mormon friends, they have found most of them to be right of center on the political spectrum, especially with respect to abortion and same-sex marriage.

Think about it. Can you name any other religious denomination that is as cohesive and predictable in its political ideology as the Mormon community seems to be? For example, there are many Catholic and Protestant politicians on both the right and the left of the political spectrum, but try and name one Mormon exception to this brand image. Probably the only prominent Mormon Democrat who comes to mind is Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid who opposes abortion and same-sex marriage. Reid’s maverick status in the Democratic party actually strengthens the perception that all Mormon politicians are cut from the same cloth.

This Mormon political brand is an asset of considerable worth to Gov. Romney. His two primary competitors, Senator John McCain of Arizona and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, will spend a lot of time and money either trying to paper-over their relatively liberal histories on abortion and same-sex marriage, or trying to find a way to win the Republican nomination without the support of the predominant traditional-values wing of the party. In a Republican party dominated by social conservatives, describing the plight of McCain and Giuliani as “caught between a rock and a hard place” is an understatement.

Meanwhile, Romney can spend his time and money aiming a spotlight on his significant record of accomplishment in the business world, his role in saving the 2002 Winter Olympics and an impressive record of accomplishment as the conservative Republican governor of a very liberal Democratic state.

So, though it’s true that thirty-seven percent of Americans will not vote for a Mormon presidential candidate, it’s also true that those same liberal voters would never have voted for Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush. Membership in that exclusive club is the goal of every Republican presidential candidate. That’s why the Mormon political brand Mitt Romney inherits is a real godsend to his likely presidential campaign.

Washington County Growth: Good Intentions Going Awry

2006-09-10T16:43:00.000-07:00

(Published by the Salt Lake Tribune September 10, 2006)

For nearly twenty years I lived in one of the fastest growing suburbs of Los Angeles. Two years ago I retired and moved to Washington, Utah. I thought I was well prepared to deal with the projected population growth of Washington County because of my experience in southern California.

Boy was I wrong.

My surfer friends in California have developed a rating system to describe wave conditions. A really nice wave is “sweet.” A monster wave that is too big to safely surf is “insane.” I’ve come to the conclusion that the growth wave rolling over Washington County isn’t sweet. It’s insane.

In 2000 the population of Washington County was 90,000. Today, less than six years later, it exceeds 130,000. According to the St. George Area Chamber of Commerce, the area is now growing at the average rate of 1,000 new residents per month. If current trends continue, the population will exceed 180,000 in 2010, packing double the number of people into the scenic southwestern desert of Utah in just ten years.

I have yet to meet a resident of the area who thinks such rapid growth is a good thing. Why would anyone think that replacing red rock beauty with ostentatious hillside mansions is a good thing? Who enjoys barely-moving bumper-to-bumper traffic on recently expanded roads that are five lanes wide instead of the two lanes that were sufficient just two years ago? And is the convenience of another strip mall of retail stores and fast food joints really more valuable than the sense of community and local culture it inevitably displaces?

It’s probably obvious to you that I haven’t met every resident of the area. Such growth could not occur unless many residents were rolling out the red carpet and inviting one and all to move to Washington County. I haven’t met them, but I do know who they are. The welcoming committee is headed by elected and appointed officials of the county and the cities within its boundaries. Major land owners, developers, builders and real estate agents round out the committee.

Why is this pro-growth coalition so enthusiastically and effectively trying to turn a desert oasis into a congested corridor of strip malls and suburban uniformity? A cynic who has experienced this kind of growth elsewhere might conclude that civic leaders are enriching themselves through participation in development and construction deals. That’s usually the case. But I don’t think it applies here. Oh, there are probably a few bad apples who have placed their own financial interests above the interests of the community as a whole, but not many. No, from what I can tell pro-growth advocates are good men and women trying to do what is right for the community.

Why do they think that rolling out the welcome mat instead of putting up the stop sign is a good thing for Washington County? I think there are two primary reasons.

First, to have thousands of people moving into the community is a vindication of sorts for those who have lived here for a long time. Let’s not forget that for decades St. George was considered nothing more than an inhospitable gas stop on the way to or from southern California. We all know how good it feels when the rest of the world finally comes around to something we figured out first.

Second, nobody wants to get in the way of a long-suffering resident’s opportunity to make a killing in the hyper-inflated real estate market. After many decades of barely getting by, how can local leaders block the path to instant prosperity for neighbors and friends? Especially when so many long-time residents have already participated in the boom.

You see, I think it’s accurate to say that those who favor growth in Washington County have their hearts in the right place. And therein lies the problem.

Growth in an oasis like the red rock country of southwestern Utah needs to be managed by tough minds, not soft hearts. Now that the word is out to retiring baby boomers all over the country, Washington County will not be able to soft-heartedly satisfy the demand without completely destroying everything that made it so attractive in the first place.

I’m sure the leadership of Washington County is tough minded enough to do what needs to be done. After all, they managed to eke out a living in a barren desert and turn it into an oasis now coveted by more people than can be accommodated. I hope they make the transition from heart to mind soon. Otherwise, good intentions are sure to go awry and this red rock haven will be lost forever.

That would truly be insane.

I Hate To Admit It, But Al Gore Is Right About Global Warming

2006-08-14T09:34:00.000-07:00

(Published by the Deseret News August 7, 2006)

I am not an Al Gore fan. Twenty years ago I thought I might be. When Gore launched his first campaign for the presidency in 1988 he was commonly thought to be a “new Democrat,” with an impressive intellect, a centrist ideology and an acceptable level of political pragmatism.

That description certainly seemed to fit the voting record of Senator Al Gore from Tennessee. But it was another Al Gore who stepped into the national spotlight. This Al Gore went beyond pragmatism to pandering. For example, his centrist pro-life ideology was conveniently ditched when it was clear that he needed to be pro-abortion in order to win the Democratic nomination.

Gore’s miraculous conversion was not enough to secure the nomination in 1988, but over the course of the next twelve years—the last eight under the expert tutelage of Bill and Hillary Clinton—he shamelessly shifted from the center of the political spectrum to the left. His youthful flirtation with centrist ideology was forgiven and forgotten. Gore’s conversion was so complete that he was easily nominated to represent a very left-leaning Democratic party in the 2000 presidential election.

I also found that Gore was not the intellectual he wanted to be known as. Pseudo-intellectual would be more accurate. He plays the role of an intellectual quite well. He employs a serious demeanor, speaks slowly—as if every word is important—and even looks and sounds like a professor. His act fools many people who are easy to fool, but impressing Barbara Striesand and the rest of the Hollywood crowd does not qualify Gore as an intellectual. My impression is that Gore is a good student. He does his homework and memorizes the required material, but tries too hard to impress everyone with his intellect. He is the prototypical teacher’s pet. His intellectual achievements are more the product of effort than of natural brilliance. After all, this is a guy who lost two of the three debates he had with George W. Bush. Al Gore the intellectual giant? I think not.

But in spite of my dislike for Al Gore’s politics and his pseudo-intellectual posturing, I give him tremendous credit for his persistent crusade to raise awareness of global warming. Of course he is overstating the case. This is the same Al Gore who once famously claimed to have invented the internet. But his propensity to exaggerate should not obscure the fact that Gore’s contention that the earth is in a period of gradual warming, caused at least in part by human activity, is essentially right.

I realize that many of you will disagree. Especially because it’s a cause championed by Al Gore, supported by many Democrats you dislike, and opposed by many Republicans you trust. But I would ask that you please put aside partisan ideology and consider the case for global warming.

First, I urge you to study what the scientific community has to say about global warming. You will find some dissent, but I am confident that you will find an overwhelming majority of the scientific community are in agreement that global warming exists and that it is at least partially caused by human activity.

Second, check out Gore’s movie or book. Even if you discount the evidence because of Gore’s propensity to exaggerate, the discounted evidence is still compelling.

Third, use a little common sense. Three hundred years ago America was inhabited by a relative handful of humans living a pre-industrial life style. Today it is inhabited by 300 million of us who consume massive amounts of energy that is produced by processes that release carbon dioxide and other chemicals into the atmosphere. It’s silly to think that it doesn’t have some impact on the atmosphere and therefore earth’s temperature and weather patterns.

So despite my many differences with Al Gore, I applaud him for his persistence and dedication to this cause. It is an inconvenient message delivered by an inconvenient spokesman. But let’s not let inconvenience and partisanship get in the way of admitting we have a problem that needs attention now. If we do our grandchildren will almost certainly have a very inconvenient future.

The Slippery Slope of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

2006-07-25T06:48:00.000-07:00

(Published by The Salt Lake Tribune July 23, 2006)

Most of us are familiar with the slippery slope metaphor. The image of a person deciding it’s safe to take only one small step down a slippery slope and then finding there is inadequate traction to travel back up the slope is used by parents and teachers alike to make the point that a short-sighted decision taken today could lead to a series of undesirable choices and consequences in the future.

Unfortunately for the pro-life movement, sixteen pro-life senators were apparently absent from class when this lesson was taught. By voting in favor of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research these sixteen senators took a step off a very steep and slippery slope that could be next to impossible to retake.

How does a pro-life senator conclude that no human embryo should be destroyed while in a mother’s womb, but it’s perfectly OK to destroy human embryos created in a test tube? The rationale was best summarized by Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah who strongly supports the legislation:

"I do not question that an embryo is a living cell. But I do not believe that a frozen embryo in a fertility clinic freezer constitutes human life."

To say that an embryo in a woman’s womb is human life and a human embryo in a freezer is not might seem like a rationale to Sen. Hatch and his colleagues, but it sounds more like a rationalization to me. Either way, it’s a very risky step on the wrong side of the pro-life slope.

Why?

First, it undermines the black and white clarity that is the great strength of the anti-abortion argument: Abortion is wrong because it destroys an embryo that is human life. Sen. Hatch and his colleagues have now reversed field and are in agreement with the pro-abortion argument that embryos are not initially human life. The only difference between the Hatch camp and the pro-abortion camp is the point in time when a human embryo should be considered “life enough” to be protected. If an embryo in a test tube is not protected, why then is a one week old embryo in the womb protected? What’s the difference? Not much. Don’t underestimate the significance of this shift in the debate. It substantially weakens the anti-abortion argument.

Second, the Hatch legislation limits testing to only those embryos that were prepared for in vitro fertilization and are now scheduled for disposal. But consider what is sure to happen if embryonic stem cell research leads to effective cures for otherwise incurable diseases. Surely, that is the goal. But our sixteen pro-life senators should be careful of what they wish for. Their wish might come true. And then they have a real problem.

Why?

Because it’s certain that the throw-away embryos from in vitro fertilization will not be sufficient in number to cure everyone who needs curing. What then? It should be obvious that the same sixteen senators will not be able to resist legislation that will allow the test tube creation of human embryos for the sole purpose of harvesting stem cells to treat patients. It’s silly to think they are committing to only research today without the surety that if cures are found they will be provided to everyone in need.

I truly sympathize with those who hope that embryonic stem cells will provide a cure for a crippling or life-shortening disease. And I understand how sixteen compassionate pro-life senators decided to support this legislation. But in my opinion compassion blinds both groups to the long term consequences of this decision.

I’m grateful that President Bush vetoed the legislation. It was both a courageous example of standing up for principle and yet another reminder that Mr. Bush’s intellectual capabilities are greatly underrated. Thanks Mr. President for having the wisdom to look beyond the first step of a journey down the wrong side of the slope and the courage to say no.

Is Mainstream Media Guilty of Bias or Incompetence?

2006-07-09T17:40:00.000-07:00

(Published by RenewAmerica.com and Daley Times-Post July 2006)

Critics of mainstream media have lost their favorite poster boy. The king of liberal bias has left the building. Sadly, we won’t have Dan Rather to kick around anymore.

So what’s a mainstream media critic to do? Well, there’s no need for any of us to join Rather in the unemployment line. The poster boys and girls of media bias are really only a very small part of the story. I think we should be more concerned with the vast army of journalists who feed the teleprompters read by TV newsreaders like Rather and fill the pages of liberal newspapers like the New York Times. Media bias is not a problem confined to a few well known personalities. It’s an institutional problem that taints journalism in general and dominates the newsrooms of ABC, CBS, NBC and a significant number of influential newspapers.

Personally, I struggle with whether biased reporting is the result of intentional bias—twisting the facts to tell the story the journalist wants to tell—or incompetence.

Consider this example. Just before the start of the Senate confirmation hearings for pro-life Supreme Court appointee Samuel Alito, NBC News excitedly reported that Alito was out of step with a clear majority of Americans who support a woman’s right to an abortion. The conclusion was based on an NBC News poll that asked the following question:

“The Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe versus Wade decision established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?”

Anyone who has done their homework realizes that Roe v. Wade legalized abortion without restriction in the first six months of pregnancy and provided a loophole that makes it almost impossible to restrict abortion even in the last three months of pregnancy.

So why would NBC News falsely imply that Roe v. Wade legalized abortion only in the first three months of pregnancy? Could it be that NBC News wanted to make Roe v. Wade sound more benign than it really is in order to elicit the desired answer? Or were NBC journalists incapable of understanding the implications of Roe v. Wade? Was it bias or incompetence?

A more subtle recent example from ABC News further illustrates my dilemma. This recently appeared on the ABC News website:

“Has your life been directly affected by global warming? We want to hear and see your stories. Have you noticed changes in your own backyard or hometown?”

It’s clear from the request that ABC News believes global warming is a proven phenomenon. You might take issue with that. I don’t. I believe there is evidence enough to conclude that Earth’s average temperature has risen in the past century. I further believe that our lifestyle is likely responsible for a portion of that increase. So I don’t find bias per se in the request.

What bothers me is ABC’s method of fact gathering. The case for global warming should be made by qualified scientists employing scientific methods to prove the hypothesis. Asking everyone to look in their own backyards for evidence of global warming is the equivalent of asking citizens who are untrained in the methods of science to observe the relative positions of the sun, moon and stars from our backyard observatories in order to prove that the earth is the center of the universe. It’s enough to cause Copernicus to roll over so rapidly in his grave that he might spontaneously combust.

So is mainstream media guilty of bias or incompetence? Unfortunately, both. And at the end of the day it doesn’t really matter whether inaccurate reporting is the result of intentional bias or incompetence. One way or the other, the American public is too often poorly served by mainstream media.

Author Interview on Changing Worldviews Talk Radio

2006-06-19T09:29:00.000-07:00

If you missed the live broadcast on KDIA radio of my interview on Changing Worldviews Talk Radio with Sharon Hughes, you can now listen to an MP3 recording of the interview. Just click on the speaker icon. The interview is approximately 30 minutes long. The primary topic was my book, Disarming the Culture War, but we also discussed Al Gore's movie and his political future, The Da Vinci Code and the domestic political climate as we enter the fall elections.

Marriage Amendment: We Don't Need Senate Approval

2006-06-19T09:11:00.000-07:00

(Published by WorldNetDaily.com June 14, 2006)

Forty-five states — fully 90 percent of the United States — have enacted legislation or amended state constitutions to ensure that marriage is defined only as the union of one man and one woman.

In spite of this overwhelming national consensus, the U.S. Senate recently rejected the federal Marriage Protection Amendment, falling far short of the two-thirds supermajority required to amend the Constitution. The vote was 49 to 48, eighteen votes short of passage and light-years short of accurately reflecting the will of the American public on this issue

I think it’s time to do an end run on our out of touch senators. The framers of the Constitution wisely recognized that an alternative process to amend the Constitution might be necessary in order to bypass an unresponsive Senate. Specifically, the Constitution states that a two-thirds vote in the Senate can initiate an amendment, “or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments…”

Thus if thirty-four states support a constitutional amendment, the Senate is obligated to call a convention in which the amendment would be approved by convention delegates, essentially bypassing the Senate in the process.

Could a federal defense of marriage amendment garner the support of thirty-four states? Yes, it’s not only possible, it’s highly likely. It might not be a slam-dunk but it’s certainly a high percentage shot.

It’s a reasonably safe bet that every one of the thirty-one red states would support the amendment. After all, every one of them has implemented legislation or amendments at the state level to preserve traditional marriage. Perhaps one or two would be reluctant to make this a federal issue, but we could certainly count on around thirty votes from this group.

More importantly, fourteen blue states have also enacted either legislation or state amendments to preserve traditional marriage. Even California, among the bluest of blue states, voted convincingly to preserve traditional marriage as recently as six years ago. Doesn’t it seem likely to you that far more than the required three or four blue states would therefore support the federal amendment?

To me, this amendment process looks like a cakewalk when compared to the nearly impossible task of converting or replacing eighteen senators.

This journey to a constitutional amendment would be quite an adventure. There is no precedent to follow because the process has never been successfully invoked. Why? Primarily because elitist senators and journalists don’t want you to know that it’s possible to push them aside. They therefore avoid acknowledging that this process even exists. When forced to acknowledge it, they almost always dismiss it as a risky maneuver that would lead to a constitutional crisis. That argument is self-serving hogwash. American citizens selected as delegates would be faithful to their appointed duty. Only a group of Washington elitists would consider a state appointed delegation of American citizens a threat to American democracy.

In spite of the lack of precedent, it wouldn’t take much to pull this off. Competent leadership and management are all that is necessary. Foot soldiers are already on duty, or in reserve and ready to return to duty, in nearly every state. This dedicated army of concerned citizens has already won the battle at the state level. They would be more than willing to do it one more time in support of a national amendment that would ensure their previous efforts were not overturned by activist judges and out of touch legislators.

All this army needs is leadership and structure. The leaders of the various organizations that are dedicated to the promotion of traditional marriage in Washington need to recognize that it’s time for plan B. Stop the futile lobbying of Washington elitists and take this campaign to the people. When American citizens are allowed to vote, preservation of traditional marriage always wins.

The Proposed Border Wall: A Monument to Our Hypocrisy

2006-06-05T10:54:00.000-07:00

(Published by the Salt Lake Tribune, June 4, 2006)

Illegal immigration, like so many things in American life, is governed by the calculus of supply and demand. It’s not a perfect correlation, but it is true that the number of illegal immigrants entering the United States is largely determined by the number of jobs available for immigrants to fill. You don’t have to be a genius to realize that there are two ways to limit the flow of illegal immigration. We can build a wall to keep the illegal workers from the available jobs or we can stop giving jobs to illegal workers.

Imagine that. Illegal immigration could be substantially reduced by simply requiring that employers not hire illegal workers. In fact, if you look at it from the demand perspective, we don’t have an illegal immigration problem, we have an illegal employer problem.

Who are the law-breaking employers who have created this immigration mess? Well, it’s not the usual band of suspects and that’s what makes this such an intractable problem. It would be so much easier if we could blame the usual handful of large corporations, punish them for the crimes committed and then monitor their hiring practices to prevent them from hiring illegal workers.

It is true that some large corporations participate in hiring illegal workers, but the vast majority of illegal workers are not finding jobs in the corporate world. It doesn’t take more than a little bit of common sense to track down the law-breaking employers. In fact we all know where illegal workers are finding illegally offered jobs. We just don’t want to face up to it. The answer hits a little too close to home.

The crime in most cases is being committed by a small business owner who lives in our neighborhood and is an otherwise law-abiding citizen. He or she is a farmer hiring illegal workers to harvest crops, a construction foreman hiring illegal workers to build houses, the manager of a local motel hiring illegal workers to clean rooms, or our neighbor hiring illegal workers to take care of the lawn.

Most law-breaking employers are nice people, working hard to maintain a middle class life style. And the illegal behavior is easy to rationalize away. The employers can rightly say that it’s difficult to find legal workers to do this kind of work. They can also say that with 11 million illegal workers in the country, no harm is done by hiring two or three of them. It’s only a drop in the bucket.

Such rationalization might sound convincing but it shouldn’t be confused with justification. It is difficult to find legal workers to do these jobs because the pay and benefits are inadequate to attract legal workers. It’s easier and cheaper to hire illegal workers instead of facing up to the fact that wages need to be increased and benefits improved. And hiring two or three illegal workers might be just a drop in the bucket, but this is a bucket that has reached enormous proportions in precisely that manner: one drop at a time.

So, should we build the wall, punish the illegal employers, or some combination that manages both supply and demand? I have concluded that we should get busy building the wall. I’m a reluctant convert, but a convert nonetheless. It should be abundantly clear to everyone that we don’t have the national self-control to stop offering jobs to illegal workers. Therefore, attacking the demand side of this equation is sure to fail.

It’s too bad that we have to do it this way. Building the wall and patrolling it properly will cost a bundle and perpetuate the misconception that this is a problem only of illegal immigration. The truth is that the wall will not only serve as a barrier to illegal immigration but as a monument to our hypocrisy.

America is Restricted (Not Addicted) to Oil

2006-05-15T18:59:00.000-07:00

(Published by The Chicago Tribune May 12, 2006)

When President Bush first declared that “America is addicted to oil” it sounded about right to me. But after months of repetition, the once clever analogy now strikes me as the wrong diagnosis. We aren’t addicted to oil. We’re restricted to oil.

There is a significant difference between the two conditions. Addiction is a compulsive need for a habit-forming, harmful substance. Our need for energy is neither compulsive nor harmful to us. We require energy to heat our homes, to cook our food, to power the industries that employ us and to move us between home and work. These activities are habit-forming only in the sense that we are in the habit of staying alive and making a living. It’s true that we could and should be more efficient in our use of energy, but energy consumption is not an addiction, it’s a necessity.

It might seem like meaningless word-parsing to point out that we are not technically addicted to oil. But we can’t get beyond this recurring crisis until we clearly understand how we got into this mess in the first place. In retrospect, it’s obviously shortsighted that any country would allow itself to become so dependent on one source of energy. And it’s downright suicidal to rely on foreign governments who are openly hostile to American interests for our primary source of energy. Year after year, we willingly transfer a significant portion of our national wealth to dictators and otherwise corrupt governments who in turn use our money to enrich themselves, perpetuate their corruption and oppose our interests at every opportunity. If that isn’t the official definition of stupid it should be.

Our strategy of letting free market forces determine the most cost effective sources of energy is seriously flawed. The oil market is not a free market. It’s dominated by cartels that manipulate supply. They cleverly raise and lower supply to ensure maximum profits while at the same time taking care that the price of gasoline doesn’t go so high that alternative energy sources would be an attractive investment for private enterprise.

Though we are not addicted to oil, there are two underlying national addictions that perpetuate the energy crisis. One is our addiction to living for today at the expense of economic health and security tomorrow. The other is an addiction to pandering that afflicts our elected officials. We are short-sighted pocketbook junkies and our leaders keep passing us the needle loaded with another feel-good dose of flawed energy policy.

The President and Congress need to stop pandering and start leading. This is an opportunity made-to-order for a President who wants to be remembered for taking on the big problems. Mr. President, it’s time to stop bunting the runners along and start swinging for the fences — and the only fence within our homerun range is ethanol. So let’s get on with it. Ford and General Motors already manufacture automobiles that run on either gas or ethanol. We should require this flex-fuel capability in every new car sold in America, including imports. If we need to provide subsidies for domestic automobile manufacturers, ethanol producers and fuel distributors to make the ethanol alternative cost effective, do it. As the price of gas decreases in response to declining demand created by the ethanol alternative, increase taxes on gasoline to keep it from undercutting ethanol sales. The new gas tax revenue would easily pay for the initial investment required to force ethanol into the energy marketplace.

Most of us wish that government intervention in the marketplace could be avoided. But it’s time we face up to the fact that there are times when it’s necessary. And this is surely one of them. Let’s hope our pandering leaders find the backbone needed to end America’s restriction to oil.

CEO Compensation: A Shameful Conspiracy of Greed

2006-05-01T08:50:00.000-07:00

(Published by The Salt Lake Tribune Apr. 29, 2006 and The Baltimore Sun May 9, 2006)

The trial of former Enron executives Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling is the latest reminder that government oversight of unscrupulous executive behavior is unfortunately necessary. But only a relative handful of executives participate in illegal behavior. We should be more concerned with the legal pillaging of corporate coffers by CEOs and other corporate officers that occurs every day. Illegally cooking the corporate books is a rarity. Excessive executive compensation is anything but rare.

From the annual Forbes CEO compensation report we learn that Terry Semel of Yahoo landed the top spot in 2005, earning $230.6 million. John Hammergren of McKesson is Semel’s bookend in the top 100, with compensation of $13.4 million.

A simple list of very large numbers can numb the mind and obscure the enormity of the problem. To illustrate how grossly excessive CEO compensation is, I’m going to pick on Richard Fairbank, CEO of Capital One Financial, and number ten on the Forbes list. You’ve probably heard Capital One’s commercial slogan, “What’s in your wallet?” Well, I don’t know what’s in your wallet, but thanks to Forbes I do know what’s in Mr. Fairbank’s. And I’m sure you’ve never owned a wallet like his. His compensation in 2005 was $56.7 million and over the past five years it totaled $226.3 million.

If we assume that Fairbank paid his fair share of taxes, his disposable income last year was around $31.2 million, and over the past five years it totaled $124.5 million. Contrast that with a median U. S. household income of approximately $45,000. If the discrepancy doesn’t immediately offend you, perhaps a little real world perspective will.

Every American household has three primary expenses: food, shelter and transportation. At $45,000 per year the average American has income sufficient to purchase food, but must acquire shelter and transportation on credit. For most Americans it will take 30 years to purchase a home and five years to purchase a car.

Contrast that with the purchasing power of our representative CEO. How many homes or cars could Mr. Fairbank purchase with the $31.2 million he “earned” last year? If we assume the average home price is around $200 thousand, even if we reserve an excessive amount for food, Fairbank can purchase 155 average homes. If Fairbank prefers to spend his money on transportation, assuming the average automobile costs around $20,000, he could buy 1550 automobiles. That’s purchase. Free and clear. No mortgage and no car payments.

And that’s only one year of compensation. It’s even more shocking when you consider that the $124.5 million he accepted over the past five years translates into 620 homes or 6200 automobiles.

Such greed is not only shocking, it’s disgusting. Nobody needs that kind of wealth and certainly no public company can justify the transfer of corporate assets of this value to one individual. Every dollar that goes into a CEO’s wallet is money that could have gone to employees, shareholders or investment in the business.

How is this legal pillaging of corporate assets accomplished? It’s simple. The fox is guarding the henhouse. Boards of directors determine CEO compensation and boards are mostly composed of CEOs or former CEOs of other businesses. Every time a board votes to increase a CEO’s compensation, the compensation bar is raised for every CEO. Board members return to their day jobs as CEOs and wait for their own boards to recognize it’s time for another raise for their CEO. This self-serving escalation of executive compensation is nothing less than a shameful conspiracy of greed.

The recent Securities and Exchange Commission proposal to require additional disclosure of executive compensation in annual reports will do nothing to curb the pillaging. The only people who actually read the fine print in such documents are wealthy investors who are quite willing to go along with this conspiracy. I’m not sure what ought to be done about it, but it might be a good start to require that every CEO hold an annual company meeting of all employees. The only topic of discussion would be executive compensation. The CEO and each member of the board would stand up and state how many average homes or cars could be purchased with his or her compensation of the past year. Maybe a little bit of shame could go a long way toward curbing this shameful conspiracy of greed.

Gay Marriage: Ambivalence Could Be A Tragic Mistake

2006-04-02T21:57:00.000-07:00

(Published by WorldNetDaily.com and the Salt Lake Tribune April 2, 2006)

As a resident of southern Utah, just a short drive from the polygamist enclaves of Hildale, Utah and Colorado City, Arizona, I read Charles Krauthammer’s recent Washington Post column “Pandora and Polygamy” with great interest.

As is usually the case with a Krauthammer column, it was both thoughtful and well written. He is absolutely right that the line of reasoning one has to take in order to justify legal recognition of gay marriage is the same line of reasoning that has long been used by my southern Utah neighbors in defense of polygamy. The old saying, “politics makes strange bedfellows,” certainly applies in this case. No doubt, my neighbors would never have guessed that the gay rights movement would be the source of legal salvation for polygamy. God does move in mysterious ways.

But there was something Krauthammer said in his column that bothered me. Explaining his ambivalence to the prospect of legalized gay marriage, he said the following:

“I'm not one of those who see gay marriage or polygamy as a threat to, or assault on, traditional marriage…..The minting of these new forms of marriage is a symptom of our culture's contemporary radical individualism — as is the decline of traditional marriage — and not its cause.”

Krauthammer is obviously correct in his assertion that the decline of traditional marriage is a symptom of deeper problems in our culture. But it is a mistake to make the leap from that fact to a conclusion that gay marriage and polygamy are not threats to traditional marriage. It’s the equivalent of saying that when someone is very sick it’s okay to ignore additional symptoms that might develop. And never mind treating symptoms, only the root cause of the illness matters.

You most likely know from your own medical history that treating symptoms, not ignoring them, is an important aspect of medical care. In fact medical treatment almost always consists of two parallel tracks: mitigating the symptoms and eradicating the root causes of the disease. And if the root causes are stubborn, symptom mitigation is even more important. In fact, symptom mitigation can be necessary to keep the patient alive long enough to affect a permanent cure. And that’s exactly the situation we are in with traditional marriage. I’m afraid the ultimate cure for the decline of traditional marriage is either a long way off or will never be found.

Therefore, we certainly should not abandon treating the symptoms of the decline of traditional marriage. We need to do everything possible to prevent additional complications that could weaken this patient beyond the point of recovery. And it should be clear to everyone that marriage is in very tough shape already. In this politically correct era nobody likes to talk openly about it, but it is indisputable that single-parenthood and high divorce rates are primary contributors to the obvious deterioration of American culture in recent years.

Selfishness, promiscuity, lack of accountability and disregard for life are just a few of the many root causes of this tragic disease. They are personality traits that are now deeply ingrained in the personalities of too many Americans. These traits will not be rooted out of the personalities of those who already possess them. Unfortunately, the root causes will therefore not be cured in our lifetime. Saving traditional marriage is a project that will take generations.

And that’s why it is so important that we not fall prey to the idea that traditional marriage is already so ill that we shouldn’t worry about adding gay marriage to the laundry list of symptoms afflicting it. Legalizing gay marriage would be a life threatening blow to traditional marriage because it would further dilute the value of traditional marriage in the eyes of the public. If there are additional alternatives to traditional marriage, there will be less emphasis on the importance of traditional marriage.

We should spend more time devising ways to strengthen and encourage traditional marriage, not finding more ways to destroy it. If we don’t mitigate the symptoms while we work on the ultimate cure, traditional marriage, the most essential building block of the American way of life, could expire before the cure is found.

A Surprising Katrina Legacy: Just Say No to Public Service

2006-03-26T21:55:00.000-08:00

(Published by RenewAmerica.com and Daley Times-Post March 19, 2006)

The brutal fury of Hurricane Katrina will be remembered for generations. But the destructive power unleashed by the mighty storm is already overshadowed by the ripples that Katrina left in its wake. Loss of life, property damage, dislocation, crumbling infrastructure and exposure of inexcusable poverty are a few of the obvious ripples of Katrina that will have long lasting impact. I’m very confident in the ability of our country to appropriately mitigate the effects of the obvious ripples. No country in the world can match our responsiveness and resiliency in the face of disaster.

However, I’m not so confident we will even recognize the more subtle ripples of Katrina. I’m as blind as anyone when it comes to recognizing subtlety, but I am aware of one ripple that has serious long term consequences that will be very difficult to mitigate. It’s the ripple of blame that continues to flow from Katrina.

The blame game has been underway for more than six months. The original scapegoat for Katrina, Michael Brown, the publicly disgraced former head of FEMA, was recently given the opportunity to spread the blame around. His testimony in congressional hearings, amplified and embellished by the media, cast the spotlight of blame on his former boss, Michael Chertoff, head of the Department of Homeland Security. By all accounts, Chertoff now has his head on the chopping block and will likely be out of a job by the time this commentary is published.

It’s obvious to everyone that the response to Katrina was inadequate. But an inadequate response is not necessarily a willfully negligent response or even an incompetent response. The difference is a matter of context and perspective.

It’s not surprising that politicians have ignored the context to score political points. As shameful as it is, we’ve learned to expect that of politicians. But shame on broadcast and cable news programs for not putting the Katrina response in perspective. By any measure, this was a storm of biblical proportions. No government in the world has stand-by capability at the ready to deal with something like Katrina. No government should even be expected to have such resources in reserve and deployable anywhere along a very extensive coastline within the few days of warning available before a hurricane lands.

The truth is that our government and its employees have the assets and skills appropriate to manage the risk presented by hurricanes and other natural disasters. Just look at the track record. Year in and year out, federal, state and local agencies professionally and heroically assist communities preparing for and recovering from natural disasters. But once in a great while there is going to be a monster storm or event that no government is fully prepared to handle. Hurricane Katrina was just such an event.

Brown and Chertoff certainly made mistakes. And we should identify and learn from those mistakes. But such lessons can and should be learned through a thoughtful and professional review of the response in light of the unusual challenges presented by Katrina. The broadcast and cable news frenzy unleashed by Katrina is anything but thoughtful and professional. It is nothing more than an endless series of self-serving commercials to convince us that the media has our back when it comes to protecting us from politicians and government incompetence. Forget about fair and balanced reporting. Finding scapegoats is far more entertaining than reporting context and providing accurate and thoughtful perspective.

It might be great entertainment in the short run, but it will play out as a tragedy in the long run. It’s sad enough that a few public servants are publicly humiliated and will lose their jobs. It’s even sadder still that thousands of men and women who worked heroically in the face of insurmountable Katrina odds are also indirectly implicated as incompetent public servants. But the saddest legacy of all is that in the future good men and women who are desperately needed in public service will not heed the call to serve. When Uncle Sam comes calling, anyone who has witnessed this blame game would be well advised to just say no.

A House Divided: South Dakota Abortion Ban Exposes Pro-Life Rift

2006-03-16T21:33:00.000-08:00

(Published by The American Enterprise March 14, 2006)

The pro-life movement is clearly on a roll. Months of kicking and screaming from pro-abortion forces could not prevent presumably pro-life justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito from joining the ranks of the Supreme Court. Of course nobody knows for sure how the two will vote when an abortion case comes before them, but South Dakota wasted no time in starting a ball rolling that will eventually put the pro-life credentials of Roberts and Alito to the test.

The South Dakota state legislature recently passed legislation that will eliminate all abortions in the state except those required to save the life of the mother. The legislators know full well that this legislation is in outright conflict with the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that allowed abortion for virtually any reason in the first six months of pregnancy. If the governor signs the legislation, its legality will be immediately challenged and the stalking horse will begin its long journey to an almost inevitable appearance on the docket of the Supreme Court.

I ought to be ecstatic. Anyone who reads my commentary knows that nobody is more pro-life and anti-abortion than I. I am thrilled that the process is underway, but I am also apprehensive about the outcome. And it’s not because I fear the Court will overturn the ban. In fact, I think it’s likely. We are still at least one vote short of a pro-life majority on the Court. But even if it gets shot down, the public debate generated will be good for the country in the long run.

However, my enthusiasm is somewhat short of ecstatic because the whole country is about to find out that the pro-life movement is seriously divided. One camp supports the South Dakota ban which only allows abortions to preserve the life of the mother. The other camp supports an abortion ban that allows exceptions for cases of rape and incest, as well as to preserve the life of the mother. I’m personally in the South Dakota camp, but the camp supporting exceptions for rape and incest is substantial. If you follow abortion polls you already know that an abortion ban reaches majority support only if exceptions for rape and incest are allowed.

This division is serious in the long run. Neither pro-life camp on its own represents a majority. And majority support for pro-life legislation is important. If Roe v. Wade is eventually overturned, each individual state will determine its own legislative course on abortion. I hate to say it, but if those of us who do not support exceptions for rape and incest don’t concede and join with our pro-life colleagues who do, we will soon be engaged in a family argument that will delay or even torpedo pro-life progress. We got a small glimpse of the family struggle ahead of us when President Bush announced this week that he does not support the South Dakota ban, but would be in favor of a ban that includes exceptions for rape and incest. His comments ignited quite an uproar in the pro-life community. You can imagine how uproarious it will be when this debate gets serious and both branches of the family are fully engaged.

That would be a real tragedy for the more than 1 million babies that are aborted in this country each and every year. Personally, I’m willing to compromise on this point because only a relative handful of abortions are performed because of rape or incest. We ought to get together now as a united pro-life movement and agree to support bans on abortion that allow for exceptions in the cases of rape and incest. With a united front, we will be able to move more quickly. And the sooner the better. An abortion ban that includes exceptions for rape and incest would save over 1 million lives each and every year. Then those of us who don’t support abortion in cases of rape and incest can continue that fight, knowing that in the meantime we have already done our part to save millions of lives that would have otherwise been lost while we were wasting precious time participating in a family debate.

Rare: Another Entry in the Clinton Dictionary

2006-03-01T07:54:00.000-08:00

(Published by Daley Times-Post and RenewAmerica.com on Feb. 28, 2006)

During President Clinton’s political career it was obvious he was using a different dictionary than the rest of America. You might recall two of the most memorable entries in the Clinton Dictionary:

sex-ual rela-tions, n. 1. as in “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky…”
is, v. 1. as in “it depends on what the meaning of the word is, is….”

Recent events lead me to believe that Bill isn’t the only one studying the pages of the Clinton Dictionary. I think it has become a family heirloom.

Sen. Hillary Clinton has been widely quoted in the past few months stating that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” Most political observers believe that Hillary has shrewdly modified her pro-abortion record, reaching out to red voters as she prepares for a run at the presidency in 2008. Well, there is no doubt she is shrewd and is attempting to reach out to red voters. But red voters should be wary of accepting the extended hand. They are sure to find that sleight-of-hand is what Hillary really offers them.

Why am I so cynical? Well, let’s count just a few of the many reasons we all ought to be cynical about the likelihood that Sen. Clinton means rare in the sense that the word is defined in the dictionaries we rely on.

First, Hillary has been outspoken in her support of abortion throughout her entire adult life. One quote among many will serve as a representative example of her true feelings:

“I am and always have been pro-choice, and that is not a right any of us should take for granted. There are a number of forces at work in our society that would try to turn back the clock and undermine a woman’s right to chose, and [we] must remain vigilant.” (New York Times, Jan 22, 2000)

Next, there is her voting record. In five years in the Senate, Sen. Clinton has voted for every pro-abortion bill and against every pro-life bill that crossed her desk. Her Senate report card is 100 percent pro-abortion. Valedictorian. Top of the class. She even voted to preserve the practice of partial-birth abortion.

And finally, the methods she proposes — sex education, counseling and contraception — won’t even come close to making abortion rare. Hillary and other proponents of this approach argue that it will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and therefore the need for abortion. Theoretically it makes sense, but unfortunately theory doesn’t stand a chance against raging hormones. Don’t get me wrong. I think we should do everything we can in the way of education and contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancy. But I don’t believe such efforts are going to significantly decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies in America.

We’ve been teaching sex education in our schools, even handing out free condoms in many of them, for decades. I’m sure these important efforts have prevented many unwanted pregnancies. However, approximately 1.3 million abortions are still performed each and every year in this country. Can sex education courses be improved enough to make a significant dent in the number of unwanted pregnancies? Can condoms and other forms of birth control be any more accessible than they are today? I think we have likely gained nearly all of the benefits these programs have to offer. And even if we made some improvement, how much more impact would it have? It would take nearly a 25 percent improvement to drop the number of abortions to 1 million per year. I don’t think a 25 percent improvement is likely, and even if achieved, 1 million abortions is not a number most of us would classify as rare.

I believe that as long as the safety net of abortion is available, attention in sex education class and rigorous adherence to birth control will be considered optional. Sure, it is inconvenient to have an abortion, but apparently, when hormones are raging, the inconvenience of abortion is unfortunately forgotten in the pleasure of the moment. The only way to truly make abortion rare is to make it unavailable for purposes of convenience. If abortion was limited to cases of preserving the mother’s life, rape, and incest, it truly would be rare. And the risk of an unwanted pregnancy with no safety net to break the fall would certainly focus greater attention on sex education and the need for contraception.

But that isn’t what Hillary has in mind. Next time you hear her say that abortion should be safe, legal and rare, remember she’s getting her definitions from the Clinton Dictionary. What she really has in mind is that abortion should be available anytime, anyplace, for any reason. That might be rare in her book, but not mine.

Abortion Polls and Senator Feinstein's Theory of Relativity

2006-01-27T08:10:00.000-08:00

(Published by Christian News Service - AgapePress on 2/7/2006)

I really couldn’t believe what I heard Sen. Feinstein say one recent Sunday morning on Fox News. In fact, her comments were so startling, I didn’t trust my ears. I had to go to the instant-replay to confirm it. My ears were fine. Her comments were not.

Sen. Feinstein said, “The American people, according to the latest ABC poll are 60 percent supportive of Roe.” I couldn’t believe my ears because I recently analyzed a number of abortion polls, including the same ABC News/Washington Post poll (published Dec. 21, 2005) referenced by the senator. The poll asked respondents when abortion should be legal:

· 17%, legal in all cases
· 40%, legal in most cases
· 27%, illegal in most cases
· 13%, illegal in all cases
· 3%, unsure

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to find the 60 percent Sen. Feinstein was referring to:

“legal in all cases” + “legal in most cases” + “unsure” = 60 percent

The addition might be simple, but the logic is fatally flawed. The answer derived is flat out wrong. And it isn’t just the obvious stretch of including the “unsure” category in the equation. The real whopper is that Roe v. Wade did not make abortion “legal in most cases.” It legalized abortion in essentially all cases.

Feinstein’s math is based on the principle that even though “legal in most cases” isn’t exactly Roe, it is support for some form of abortion. In a figurative sense, it’s a relative of Roe. Though not technically the same, the two are related. Though obviously flawed, this creative form of math is so frequently used it deserves an official title. In honor of one of its most ardent practitioners, I propose we name it “Feinstein’s Theory of Relativity.”

I know some of you are gnashing your teeth at this point. You think “legal in most cases” should be counted as support for Roe because you actually believe that Roe, in theory, restricts some cases of second and third trimester abortion. I believe it can be proven that theory and practice are two different things when it comes to Roe. However, I’m willing to go along with the illusion of Roe actually restricting abortion because it doesn’t change the fact that Roe lacks majority support even when presented in this most favorable light.

Here’s the proof. The “legal in most cases” category is ambiguous enough that respondents could interpret it to mean anything from almost always legal to legal only under very tight restrictions. When a more discerning set of questions was asked in another recent poll conducted by the Los Angeles Times (Jan. 2005), the following results were recorded:

24%, legal in all cases
19%, legal in most cases
41%, illegal with a few exceptions (specifically, cases of rape, incest and to save a mother’s life)
12%, illegal in all cases
4%, unsure

Isn’t the difference interesting and enlightening? If we take the most liberal interpretation of the data possible and assume that everyone in the “legal in most cases” category supports Roe, then 43 percent of Americans support Roe, 53 percent do not and 4 percent are undecided. Moreover, the 53 percent who don’t support Roe would change it radically if given the opportunity—abortion would only be legal in cases of rape, incest and to save the mother’s life.

These two polls are not anomalies. I’ve reviewed every abortion poll I could find and the results are always the same. Don’t take my word for it. You can check it out for yourself. You will find that on average approximately 40 percent support Roe, 40 percent support abortion only in cases of rape, incest and protection of the mother’s life, and 15 percent would not allow an abortion under any circumstances. Thus a majority of approximately 55 percent would change Roe significantly if given the chance at the ballot box.

I hope you are now wondering why you’ve never read or heard a report from mainstream media that begins with the headline “Poll Finds a Majority of Americans Oppose Roe v. Wade.” Do you think it’s possible that reporters and editors consistently ask misleading questions and then apply Feinstein’s Theory of Relativity to the data collected? I’ll leave that up to you. But the next time you hear someone say that a majority of Americans support Roe I hope it’s as shocking to your ears as it is to mine.

Senator Specter's Super-Duper Litmus Test

2006-01-07T13:53:00.000-08:00

(Published by the Salt Lake Tribune Jan. 8, 2006)

If you watch news reports this week of the Senate’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Samuel Alito you are likely to catch a performance of Sen. Arlen Specter’s “Super-Duper Precedent” show. The pilot aired during similar hearings held last September for John Roberts. If you are old enough to remember Johnny Carson playing the role of Art Fern with his pointer and tripod charts, Specter’s routine will be like a flashback. In the pilot, Specter’s tripod held an immense chart highlighting the handful of opportunities the Supreme Court had in the last 33 years to overturn Roe v. Wade but didn’t. Specter used his pointer and chart to tutor Roberts and the nation on the principle of “stare decisis,” or legal precedent. However, after impressing us with his grasp of complex Latin, Specter resorted to “valley girl” English, asking Roberts, “Would you think that Roe might be a super-duper precedent?” That’s right. In his effort to ensure that Chief Justice Roberts would not vote to overturn the legal practice of abortion, a well-trained lawyer and distinguished senator invented a new legal term: the “super-duper precedent.”

Sen. Specter graciously handled the humor his remarks generated. But the principle he espoused—that once the Supreme Court decides something it should never be debated again—is not a laughing matter. If Specter truly believes that once the Supreme Court decides something it becomes untouchable, imagine what he would have been arguing in the Senate of 1860. Imagine the chart he could have constructed to show the stare decisis foundation for the practice of slavery. After all, it had been the recognized law of the land for more than 70 years. Or imagine the senator’s chart to deny women the right to vote in 1920. With more than 130 years of precedent, his staff would have been burning the midnight oil to prepare a chart for his civics lesson to the nation. Would a time traveling Sen. Specter have done such a thing? Of course not.

Specter and his pro-abortion colleagues know that we should respect decisions of the Supreme Court, but we should not be under the illusion that every decision made by the Court is morally sound, or for that matter, even legally correct. The Supreme Court is an assemblage of nine legal experts who have the difficult task of determining the constitutionality of issues that are by definition complex and difficult to reconcile with the Constitution. It should not be surprising that more often than not the Court is divided in its opinions. Many of the most important decisions of the Court have been decided by a vote of 5 to 4. Does that mean the four dissenting justices were legally incorrect, less intellectually capable or morally inferior to their five colleagues? No. What it really indicates is that men and women of great legal skill, considerable intellect and a sincere desire to do what is right can reach different conclusions when considering complex legal issues. And therefore, decisions of the Supreme Court are far from infallible.

Sen. Specter and his colleagues who insist that Roe v. Wade should be upheld because of legal precedent are doing it out of political expediency, not legal principle. In fact, nearly all of them have openly condemned Court decisions not in harmony with their own political philosophies. Would Sen. Specter and his colleagues who are pro-abortion show the same unanimous support for legal precedent as applied to the Supreme Court’s decision in 2000 that stopped the recount in Florida and upheld the election of President Bush? Who do they think they are kidding? Stare decisis is nothing more than a political litmus test to ensure that any candidate to the Supreme Court will agree to uphold Roe v. Wade. And we’ve been told by the same group of senators that any litmus test used to identify and appoint judges who might be anti-abortion is unacceptable. I guess what Sen. Specter and his pro-abortion colleagues really mean to say is that when an abortion litmus test is performed a blue result is acceptable and a red result is not. I don’t know about you, but it sounds like super-duper hypocrisy to me.

The Story Behind "Disarming the Culture War"

2005-12-17T18:40:00.000-08:00

Though I have long had both a desire to write and a deep interest in the moral issues of our day, any pursuit of these interests was rightfully placed on the back burner many years ago. Such interests were relegated to the lower levels of a priority list that has been dominated by an even stronger desire and interest in properly providing for and raising a family of six children. “Struggling author” and “adequate provider” seemed to be incompatible objectives, so I concentrated on the latter, knowing that priorities would quite naturally change someday. Someday arrived in November of 2004 as my wife and I, recent early retirees, watched election returns in our empty nest, as our six adult children likely watched the same coverage in their own homes and apartments many miles away. As I flipped from channel to channel to hear commentator after commentator express utter amazement that exit polls identified moral values as the preeminent election issue—the one issue that certainly determined that the United States would be led for the next four years by President Bush and not President Kerry—I determined that it was time to pursue the personal interests that had long been simmering on the back burner.

It was a relatively easy process to decide on the format for “Disarming the Culture War.” The sections of the book follow a natural progression through each of the main issues of the Culture War—abortion, gun control, separation of church and state and same-sex marriage. These sections are sandwiched between an introduction to the Culture War and a concluding chapter with recommendations on how concerned citizens can become active participants in the effort to move beyond this divisive stalemate.

The content of “Disarming the Culture War” was also easy to determine. I have felt for many years that hard-core Republicans and Democrats have hijacked their respective party platforms and staked out inflexible positions on these moral issues that do not represent the true sentiments of the majority of Americans. I know for certain that the two major parties do not represent my positions on these issues. I also believe it is clear from the many polls that have been taken concerning these issues that I am far from alone. One of the primary objectives of the book is to show that the stalemate of the Culture War is the product of our two political parties and not the product of an equally divided country. There is no doubt that serious division exists on these four issues, but the nearly equal division that was made manifest in the two most recent presidential elections is not an accurate representation of how the entire electorate feels about these issues. I believe “Disarming the Culture War” will more than adequately make that case.

As a first time author, I readily acknowledge that my credentials will be a significant hurdle to overcome in attracting readers to the book. It would of course be an easier sell if I were an author with an already established media platform or an academic background that seemed relevant to the topic. My reply to any such concerns is to strongly emphasize that this is not an academic topic. As citizens, each of us is expected to reach our own conclusions on the four moral issues of the Culture War. Text books and professors are not consulted as ordinary citizens determine for themselves where they stand on abortion, gun control, gay marriage and separation of church and state. The conclusions reached are quite often based on faith, emotion or intuition and not necessarily supported by a comprehensive logical framework. The success of political commentary is at least partially based on the author’s ability to articulate clearly what his or her audience might already believe but has not had the time or desire to fully articulate. The author is essentially providing a framework of thought for an existing but, perhaps, incomplete belief. In “Disarming the Culture War,” I believe that I have developed a logical and common sense articulation of what many others are already thinking on this subject. The proof of such an assertion can only be determined by readers who pass judgment on the ideas and the manner in which they are expressed in the book.

Clearly not every reader will agree with the conclusions reached in “Disarming the Culture War.” These are difficult and divisive issues. I will consider the book a success if like-minded readers appreciate the common sense framework that can perhaps supplement and support already existing views, and if readers who disagree with the conclusions are motivated to explore their own opinions to more fully understand why we disagree. A more rational dialogue would be good for both sides. Finally, if there are any readers whose opinions on these issues are still malleable, it would be a great privilege to have influenced them to the point of taking a stand, one way or the other.

Aiding and Abetting the Grinch: How the Underdogs Are Stealing Christmas

2005-12-17T18:35:00.000-08:00

(Published by the Salt Lake Tribune on 12/18/2005)

This Christmas season many Christians are seething over secular attacks on Christmas. The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, has enlisted 800 attorneys to handle complaints about “improper attempts to censor the celebration of Christmas in schools and on public property.” The topic is also the subject of a best-seller by the Fox News Channel’s John Gibson: “The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought.” Gibson indicates that Christian forces fighting to preserve Christmas will battle an opposing army of “secularists, so-called humanists, trial lawyers, cultural relativists and liberal, guilt-wracked Christians.”

The Christian army should easily win this battle. After all, 85 percent of us are Christian, and with hundreds of lawyers manning the trenches, how can non-Christians and secularists possibly prevail? An 85 to 15 margin should ensure certain victory. But in this case, if I were a betting man, I would bet the secular lions once again defeat the Christians in the lion’s den. How? Secularist passion alone doesn’t fully explain how the massive Christian majority goes down in flames every year on this issue. Gibson hit the nail on the head when he enumerated the forces arrayed against Christmas. The last group he enumerated, “liberal, guilt-wracked Christians,” is really the key to understanding the strength of the anti-Christmas forces. Christians have no one to blame but themselves for this relentless march against Christmas. An old and familiar line perfectly describes the situation Christians are in: “We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us.”

Why are many Christians so “guilt-wracked?” The source of the guilt is primarily a concern that anything the Christian majority might say or do could offend any of a number of non-Christian minorities. This heightened sensitivity to non-Christian minorities is the product of more than 20 years of national emphasis on diversity in the workplace and the celebration of diversity in all forms of media. I’m not complaining. I think this emphasis on diversity is not only good business, but good, period. However, one of the side effects created by this effort to ensure equality is over-sensitivity to diversity. At times I even get the impression that it’s more than over-sensitivity. It’s more like fear. Conversely, while the majority of the country is retreating out of sensitivity or fear, minorities have been further emboldened to assert their minority causes. The collision of emboldened minorities with an extremely sympathetic and apologetic majority has resulted in strained relations and some unnecessary retreats from common sense.

The stories of retreat are piling up in record numbers and the absurdity of much of the back-pedaling is more than humorous — it’s downright silly. Your local school’s annual Christmas program has likely been replaced by the annual Holiday program. Your local Wal-Mart greeter probably won’t be acknowledging Christmas when you enter the store this year. And the National Christmas Tree has been transformed into the National Holiday Tree. None of these changes are necessary or even advisable. We have allowed them to happen because we are so busy being politically correct that we haven’t thought enough about whether or not it even makes sense.

The current practice of almost always giving-in to a non-Christian minority is often wrong. We can’t promote diversity as long as it comes from the minority on the one hand and then with the other hand suppress the diversity represented by the majority. American principles and law are designed to protect minority rights, but not at the expense of the rights of the majority. The situation is unfortunate because we would all benefit greatly from a more open and honest expression, not only of faith, but of other fundamental beliefs as well. Encouraging free speech is in fact the best way to preserve diversity. The current solution — suppressing the voice of the majority — has exactly the opposite effect. It creates a false sense that diversity is being celebrated, while beneath the surface the majority viewpoint is resentfully suppressed. I hope the Christian majority finds the will to prevail in the battle over Christmas. It would be an indication that both minorities and majorities are respected in America.