The Alienated Wannabe Establishment

Civil Discourse Defended (Ethan & Micah are Wrong)

2009-01-29T20:27:00.035-07:00

Recently, Ethan Millard's SLCSPIN and Micah Bruner's DeathKnell have published blog articles critical of a recent call for "civil discourse" in a Salt Lake Tribune editorial. I respectfully disagree with both Ethan and Micah on this issue.

In the case of Micah, I believe that he is misreading the article due to the fact that he was primed to do so by first reading Ethan's blog alleging that the call represented an effort to "coerce" civil discourse. In the case of Ethan, I believe that he is misreading the intentions of the vast majority of people in and out of office who call for civil discourse, because he sees such efforts as being an attempt by public officials to "escape questions and conversations that may be uncomfortable for them."

I personally have never heard nor read of any effort to "coerce civil discourse" by anyone accused of so doing by Ethan, and I see nothing in the Tribune editorial as advocating such. In my opinion, the people who could rightfully feel targeted and insulted by the paper's call for civility are the very political officials serving in the Legislature that Ethan believes want to deflect scrutiny by issuing the said call themselves. And, what I suspect is causing the perception difference between myself, and at least Micah, concerning the issue of legislatively coercing civility is the following line from the article:

". . . From passing well-crafted laws to shrinking Utah's religious divide to making sure people of all races, ethnicities, religions, ages, incomes, political parties and physical abilities are heard and represented. . . ."

From what he has written in the comment section of his blog, I suspect that Micah is interpreting this line as being a call for the Legislature to pass well-crafted laws mandating civil conduct in the future. But, my reading of it (in context) persuades me that, far from advocating future legislation to coerce civility from the public, it is actually the Tribune criticizing the Legislature for allegedly contributing to the current culture of incivility by making the following mistakes in the past:

Passing poorly crafted laws and contributing to the religious divide. (I see this as being a reference to Utah's supposedly oppressive liquor laws, or anything else that appears to favor the Mormon majority at the expense of everyone else.)
Preventing people of all races, ethnicities, religions, ages, incomes, political parties and physical abilities from being heard and represented. (Again, I see this as being a jab at the practice of the Republican delegation of holding closed caucus meetings where the real work supposedly gets done out of the public view, or government officials allegedly meeting with the Mormon Brethren to obtain their marching orders.)

Because I am a conservative, white, male, Mormon, Republican, I am not too critical of the Legislature. I feel represented well. But, some folks at the Tribune and elsewhere seem to have another opinion, believing that the Legislature has helped to cultivate the current climate of incivility by its alleged misbehavior. Thus, that is how I interpret this particular line from the editorial.

The authors apparently believe, beyond the general need for all of us to be more civil, that the Legislature should also embrace this call by making itself more friendly to diverse views. I do not agree, necessarily, with everything the Tribune would endorse along those lines. But, I will certainly defend that paper against any accusation that its call for civil discourse is actually an attempt to shield public servants from scrutiny. (Not that Ethan is attacking the paper as much as he is attacking in broad terms the call for civil discourse.) The Tribune is in the business of providing thorn-in-the-side scrutiny. I do not believe that it now seeks to do otherwise.

In the opinion of many of us who routinely call for such, civil discourse is actually the key to increasing scrutiny of public officials. Too often in our world, too many of us try to pass off hit and run insults and accusations as political commentary and analysis. For me, a call for civility is not an attempt to muzzle tough questions, but rather a call for even more questions, more thoughtfully asked, more responsibly answered, and more objectively reported.

I feel very strongly about this issue. I hope that Ethan and Micah (two of my favorite and most respected bloggers) will reconsider their attack on this call for civil discourse. And, I praise all those who are nobly seeking to promote civility within our community.

Goodbye, Mr. President.

2009-01-16T16:10:00.001-07:00

Yesterday, the same day that President George W. Bush delivered his farewell address, it was reported in the media that his popularity in this state had finally dropped below 50%. That's too bad. For the record, I would like to say that I have only come to appreciate him more.

I love him. I consider him to be a fine man. And, I am grateful for his service to our nation.

I have been moved by the dignity with which he has conducted himself as his popularity has plummeted, his name reviled, and his character assassinated. I have learned a great deal from his example. And, I have been proud of the class he has demonstrated during the transition to the Obama administration -- providing access and support to the incoming president that has been nothing less than extraordinary. Maybe someday the world will come to truly understand who this man is, and what he had done for all of us, but I don't plan on holding my breath.

Goodbye, Mr. President. May God bless you!

Love,
A.W.

President Elect Barack Obama

2008-11-04T22:27:00.005-07:00

I was moved this evening listening to the inspiring speeches given by both Senator John McCain and President Elect Barack Obama. I was struck by the quality of the men.

They both hit the perfect chord, for me. And, in both cases, it was clearly heart felt. I was proud of them, and I was proud to be an American.

Somewhere buried in the Utah Amicus blog archives is a comment I left back in the midst of the Primaries, when the Democratic field was still fairly large. In that comment, I confessed that Barack Obama was my favorite of all the Democrats.

Since then, my admiration for the man has only increased. I love him. While I may not agree with him on every issue, I am convinced that he will be an outstanding president.

And, even though it was my honor to cast my vote for John McCain, I am proud that the American people voted for Barack Obama. God bless them for their wisdom!

Today, the People Decide

2008-11-04T08:18:00.000-07:00

Well, election day has finally come. And, by this time tomorrow, we will have a better idea of where our country is going. Good luck to all of you who have worked so hard to do what you believe is right for our country. God bless you for your noble efforts!

Love,
A.W.

Move to Canada?

2008-11-03T13:06:00.001-07:00

Stop Imperial Judges

2008-11-02T13:42:00.001-07:00

The Effect of Gay Marriage upon Traditional Families

2008-11-02T13:35:00.000-07:00

Proposition 8 in Plain English

2008-11-02T13:23:00.001-07:00

Mormon Apostle on Proposition 8

2008-11-01T16:32:00.005-06:00

Elder David A. Bednar

California Proposition 8

2008-10-31T14:02:00.001-06:00

My Dear Friends,

As you know, California's Proposition 8 seeks to amend the state Constitution so that marriage would only be legal between one man and one woman. In supporting this measure, I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is engaged in an extremely selfless act of compassion towards our homosexual brothers and sisters. I know it may not seem that way to some of you, but I am convinced that this is the case. Please allow me to illustrate why I think as I do:

During the time that I was in junior high I had two different English teachers. One was a seemingly ornery old-school-woman who insisted upon forcing her students to diagram sentences, memorize grammar rules, do homework and pass difficult tests. The other was an easy going old-hippy-man who gave us word puzzles to play all term long without much homework or testing ever. As a kid, you can imagine which teacher I liked better -- the fun one, the old-hippy-man!

But, as I have grown older I have come to better understand which one of the two really cared for me the most, worked the hardest for my best interests, and better served me as a teacher -- the one that actually taught me something, the old-school-woman.

Sadly, she was not a popular teacher. And, I remember how hurt she appeared when my friend and I asked her to sign the forms that allowed us to transfer out of her class and into the class of the old-hippy-man. Oh, how I now regret that! But, I have learned my lesson:

Today, I can clearly see the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acting in a manner similar to this dear old-school-teacher. It, among the very few, has the courage, the integrity, the wisdom and the love necessary to tell the truth to a world that would prefer to be seduced by lies.

The Church is not trying to be popular. It is not trying to hide from the painful persecution that will surely follow. Rather, it is simply doing what is right -- for society today, for our future children, and for our beloved brothers and sisters who deal with same sex attraction.

The truth is that all of us have been given issues with which to deal in life. And, the truth is that all of us would prefer to take the course of least resistance. Homosexuals are not unique in that respect. We all deal with one thing or another.

The question, then, is: "Who do we believe when trying to decide how to live our lives?"

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, just as historical Judaism, Christianity and Islam, was founded upon the belief that God reveals himself and his will to prophets who then act as his messengers. For those of us who are believers, that is why we belong to the Church -- through profound personal and spiritual experience, we have become convinced that those who lead the Church are in fact "true messengers."

Apparently, those members who now find fault with the Church's efforts seem to be saying that they no longer accept that idea. Apparently, they have become converted to another paradigm.

That, of course, is extremely sad news to folks like me who remain convinced of the Church's truthfulness. We love these back-sliding members and we wish them well. But, this kind of apostasy is not something new to us. We have been dealing with it from the very beginning. And, we know that though many of these people may choose to leave the Church, they will not leave us alone.

Like some kind of obsessed and scorned lover, they will continue to stalk the institution, its leaders, and its faithful followers. They will misrepresent who we are and what we do. They will unite with and stir up our enemies to persecute us. And, as a people, we will suffer greatly because of them -- even unto the losing of our lives.

Bank on it.

We have seen it before.

We will see it again.

But, with the help of a loving Heavenly Father, enough of the Saints will survive that the work will go forth. Joyfully, some of these prodigals will return. And, soon we'll have this tale to tell: All is well.

That is my testimony.

Love,
A.W.

"The Funniest 15 Minutes of Your Life" (McCain & Obama)

2008-10-17T08:43:00.002-06:00

After all the ugliness, I needed these belly laughs:

Thanks to Senators McCain and Obama, and the Catholic Dioceses of New York.

The John McCain I Love

2008-10-11T14:49:00.003-06:00

I read a news report today that illustrated, for me, the true character of Senator John McCain -- the character that long ago earned my respect, eventually won my support, and ultimately secured my love and loyalty.

Yesterday, according to the article, Senator McCain was at a town-hall meeting in Minnesota where a woman who had the microphone said, "I don't trust Obama. I have read about him. He's an Arab."

At that point Senator McCain took the microphone away from the woman and said, "No, ma'am. He is a decent family man with whom I happen to have some disagreements."

If John McCain only cared about winning an election -- as part of a self-serving agenda -- then he might have considered it to have been in his interest to let this woman be. He might have thought it useful to let her stoke the fearful and bigoted hysteria to which some simple folks at his party's base might respond. But, that is not who John McCain is.

John McCain is an honorable man.
John McCain is a true patriot.
John McCain cares more about his country than a political career.
John McCain is an authentic American hero.

Too often, on both the left and the right, we political activists (and bloggers) have demonstrated a propensity toward slash and burn, scorched earth campaigns. Too often we have allowed ourselves to see "the other side" as being an evil enemy that needed to be destroyed. But, that is a lie. And, that kind of thinking is bad for America.

Our nation is currently divided in an unhealthy and artificial manner. People who would normally recognize that they have a lot in common and share similar values, now find themselves despising one another and buying into extreme agendas that they would not otherwise have accepted if our country were not so polarized. Thus, I am convinced that for our nation's wellbeing we must now seek out and support true statesmen who unite rather than divide us.

Ironically, I think that is exactly what the voters where trying to do when they selected both Barak Obama and John McCain to be the presidential candidates of their respective parties. More than any of the other candidates, these two created the impression that they were the most willing to reach across the political divide in order to serve the common good.

But, apparently, the experienced hands and the big money advisors have since gotten to them and convinced them that they had to go negative in order to win. That's too bad. And, especially in the case of my candidate, John McCain, it seems to be backfiring. (As a Mitt Romney supporter during the primaries, it kind of feels like déjà vu.)

Now, I am not saying that there should not be substantive debate. No! On the contrary! I think that is exactly what we need -- respectful and frank discourse about the individual issues. It's just that I want to hear more "big idea" speeches, and less character assassinating zingers.

Let's hope that Senator McCain and Senator Obama can set a new tone going down the stretch of this election. Whoever wins the presidency is going to have a lot on his plate once he takes office, and all of us are going to need him to be successful. May God bless him, whoever it may be.

Newspaper Article: Trauma of family separations may linger for FLDS children

2008-06-05T16:29:00.002-06:00

http://www.sltrib.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=9490673&siteId=297

Newspaper Article: Texas Supreme Court: Return FLDS children to parents

2008-05-29T17:41:00.001-06:00

http://www.sltrib.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=9417661&siteId=297

Newspaper Article: FLDS custody case: Torn-up families antsy

2008-05-27T14:51:00.003-06:00

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9388887

Newspaper Article: Appeals court rules Texas acted improperly in removing FLDS children

2008-05-22T17:38:00.004-06:00

http://deseretnews.com/article/content/mobile/1,5620,700228198,00.html

Newspaper Article: Four more FLDS 'disputed minors' declared adults

2008-05-20T17:33:00.004-06:00

http://deseretnews.com/article/content/mobile/1,5620,700227609,00.html

Newspaper Article: Attorneys want FLDS children treated as individuals in court

2008-05-19T10:28:00.002-06:00

http://origin.sltrib.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=9295315&siteId=297

John McCain, My Candidate

2008-05-19T09:33:00.004-06:00

I have long admired Senator John McCain for many reasons. And, I am convinced that he is the best candidate for President of the United States. I urge my fellow citizens to support his candidacy with their time, their money, and their vote.

True, I first endorsed Mitt Romney. But, like Mitt Romney, I now fully and without reservation throw all my support behind the senior senator from Arizona. We live in perilous times; we need the experience, integrity, and wisdom of John McCain. (Not to mention his humor. Please see the following.)

Thanks to SNL and Senator McCain for the belly laughs. I loved it.

Sincerely,
A.W.

Newspaper Article: FLDS mother wins victory in court

2008-05-17T17:19:00.004-06:00

http://deseretnews.com/article/content/mobile/1,5620,700226667,00.html

Newspaper Article: Chairman says Texas CPS workers mistreated FLDS

2008-05-14T10:24:00.004-06:00

http://deseretnews.com/article/content/mobile/1,5620,700225591,00.html

The YFZ Children are Being Abused . . . by Texas

2008-04-16T20:01:00.013-06:00

I posted the following comments today on the Wake Up America blog in response to their recent article:

http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2008/04/documents-detail-abuse-at-yfz-ranch.html

I think the following newspaper article should help some of us God Fearing (Loving) Christians to be a little bit more humble:

-------

Headline: "Former pastor charged with attempted rape may be close to resolving case"

By Stephen Hunt
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 04/16/2008 12:28:30 PM MDT

Posted: 12:29 PM- The former pastor of the First Baptist Church of Salt Lake City - charged with attempting to sexually assault a woman at his Midvale home - on Tuesday waived his right to a preliminary hearing in anticipation of resolving the case.

Scott Weisser, 52, is charged with attempted rape, a first-degree felony, and class B misdemeanor assault in connection with the alleged March 16 attack.

Weisser could settle the case during a hearing scheduled for May 1, prosecutors said.

Also on Tuesday, 3rd District Judge Stephen Roth released Weisser to the supervision of Pre-Trial Services. Weisser had been held at the Salt Lake County jail in lieu of $150,000 bail.

Weisser - who resigned as pastor following his arrest - entered a bedroom in the home and attempted to have sex with an adult relative, who repeatedly told him no and fought him off, according to charges.

Weisser also dragged the woman into a door jamb, causing slight abrasions to her hip, court documents said. The Salt Lake Tribune generally does not name alleged sexual-assault victims.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8946309

Hey wannabe, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. When those cases are in the news we report it, READ THE RULES and stick to the topic or you won't be commenting for long.

Susan

Dear Susan,

Please forgive me if I have broken a site rule. I promise that it was not my intention to do so. And, just so that I do not mess up in the future, could you please tell me what rule exactly that I have broken? Because, with all due respect, I sincerely believe that the newspaper article I quoted related very much to the issue we are currently discussing -- and was actually one of the more respectful comments I had read here.

You see, the Texas authorities tell us that they found three pregnant teenage girls on that YFZ Ranch. (Only 3 out of 416 kids) If that is true, and assuming that at least half the children on that ranch are girls, then the teenage pregnancy rate in that supposedly "crazy polygamist" community is actually much lower than the teenage pregnancy rate for girls in the rest of the state of Texas! To put it bluntly -- that ranch full of "nut jobs" is actually a much safer place for protecting the virtue of teenage girls than most other places in the state.

QUESTION: So, then, why did the Texas authorities raid the YFZ Ranch and not, let's say, Grand Prairie?

ANSWER: Because, it's okay to violate the Constitutional rights of people we don't like, people of another culture, people who practice a different religion than our own. Then, suddenly, due process can simply be ignored. Parental rights can be ignored. The natural bond between a parent and child can simply be thrown out the window.

Whatever very real abuse was suffered by SOME OF THE GIRLS on that ranch by certain tyrannical jerks, it can't be too much worse than the abuse -- THE VERY REAL ABUSE -- being inflicted upon ALL OF THE CHILDREN from that community by the tyranny of the state of Texas.

SUGGESTION: Find the actual men who married and impregnated those under-aged girls. Present the evidence in a court of law. And, then, throw the bums in jail. That is the American way. But, do not rip innocent children out of the arms of their mothers and kid yourself that you are doing anything but being EXTREMELY CRUEL. You are not helping the children. Rather, you are consigning them to foster care Hell, seemingly endless nights of crying themselves to sleep, and scarring them for the rest of their lives. If there is a just God in Heaven -- and I know that there is -- then the day will come when everyone involved in this massive tragedy (on both sides) will have to give an accounting. Until then, I pray that mercy and wisdom will prevail, but I have not seen too much of that so far.

SUMMARY: So, how does the recent newspaper article that I quoted relate to this issue? It relates in this way: When the police in Utah were alerted to the fact that a local Baptist minister had attempted to rape a relative, they did not use that as a provocation for raiding all of the Baptist homes within his congregation in order to remove all the Baptist children from their parents and put them in foster care. Why? Because it would been against the law, and more importantly, doing so would have been immoral. Hopefully, enough good folks in Texas will come to this realization too.

Love, Your Friend and Brother,
Alienated Wannabe

P.S. Please do not think that I am bashing Texans or Baptists. I have strong family ties to both the state of Texas and the Southern Baptist Convention. I know of the goodness inherent in both, and I feel a love and loyalty toward both -- my mother was born in Texas and my great grand daddy was the pastor of the First Baptist Church in Dallas. It is just that I also know all too well the bigotry and ignorance that exists in the region toward Mormons in general, not to mention toward this small group of polygamists that split off from the main Mormon body a century ago. Thus, someone has to remind certain folks in Texas that, as strange as these people may seem, they are not that different from you. They love their kids, and they are usually pretty good parents. The sins of a few misguided men leading them does not justify traumatizing the entire population. Officials in Utah and Arizona learned that a long time ago. (Recently, they arrested their leader Warren Jeffs, but left the families intact.) Their counterparts in Texas still need to figure it out.

For more on this topic, and more eloquently presented, please read the most recent article posted on the website of conservative radio talk show host, Bob Lonsberry, at http://www.lonsberry.com/.

Thank you, and God bless!

School Vouchers - Part 2

2007-08-31T14:13:00.000-06:00

With regard to my previous post endorsing vouchers, please understand that just because I resent educational practices which undermine "traditional values" that does not mean I therefore want public schools to do a 180 degree turn and begin teaching Christian doctrine. That is not my position at all. I just want Secular Humanists to stop trying to impose their faith and their social agenda upon society by way of the public school system.

Please allow me to supply some examples so you can better understand where I am coming from:

While I attended public schools outside of Utah, I was forced to take numerous classes on Evolution where the ideas taught were presented as being fact instead of theory. Questioning this dogma was not tolerated, even though today many of the claims behind those theories have been revised or abandoned. So, do I now object to the teaching of the various theories of evolution? No, I just want them to be clearly taught as theories and no more.

Also, while growing up, I was forced to take more than one class on Sex Education. My personal experience was that the material covered, and the way it was presented, actually caused me more confusion and anxiety. Do I therefore object to educating children about sex? No, I just believe that parents need to play the primary role in deciding how that is to be done and what values are going to be shared during that instruction.

So, how does this relate to Utah schools?

Well, just within the past few weeks I have read a column by Rebecca Walsh in the Tribune, a column by Holly Mullen in City Weekly, a blog entry by Holly Mullen on Mullentown, a blog entry by Holly Mullen on City Weekly's website, an editorial by Planned Parenthood in the Tribune, and an editorial by the Salt Lake Tribune, itself, all calling for more sex education in Utah and/or its schools. I suspect such a call resonates with many other left leaning individuals within our state and its school system.

But, I am concerned that these individuals are so eager to instruct my children, because I have found that their beliefs are sometimes diametrically opposed to my own. I love my children more than I do my own life. I want what is best for them more than any of these good people could even come close to approaching. Thus, I want to be the one teaching my children about sex, not Planned Parenthood or its allies.

As long as I am alive, I will strive to ensure that my parental rights are preserved so that I am free to raise my children in the best way I know. I see my support of vouchers as being a way of creating options for me as a parent -- options which empower me as I perform my responsibilities.

School Vouchers

2007-08-30T18:50:00.000-06:00

I support the concept of school vouchers because I believe they may help to bring accountability to a monopolistic system that has long been out of touch with traditional values.

In the turf battles of our current culture war, much of the media and educational establishment were captured early on by the Left. The backlash to its subsequent abuse of these institutions is found in the development of such things as conservative media and school vouchers. If the Left does not like these things — and there are many reasons why it should not — it has only itself to blame.

Diversity and freedom of speech is sacrosanct to the Left, as long as diversity means “different than traditional values” and freedom of speech means “speaking against traditional values.” But, the Extreme Left shows its true colors with its visceral opposition to diversity in educational options and freedom of speech by those opposed to their counter-culture agenda. This, I believe, is the textbook definition of hypocrisy.

I wish that such unworthy behavior were limited to the Left, but, sadly, such is not the case. The Right frequently disappoints me with the stunts pulled by its extremists as well. The key, I guess, is for each of us to learn how to think clearly for ourselves, to not just go along with the lemmings running on either side of us, and to not merely regurgitate the talking points handed down by the most extreme voices on either side.

In that spirit, I repeat that I support school vouchers in concept. There may be problems with Utah's current attempt to implement them, but the experiment is appropriate, and such problems can be addressed over time by corrective adjustments as needed.

Despite claims to the contrary, the Earth is not going to end if Utah pursues its limited trial of vouchers. Let's give them a fair shot, see what happens, and then go from there. Let's not let the fear mongers dissuade us from perusing this reasonable course.

Question for Salt Lake City Mayoral Candidates

2007-08-20T20:59:00.000-06:00

According to their respective websites, the Salt Lake Tribune and KUTV are hosting a debate for the Salt Lake City mayoral candidates to be broadcast on Sunday, August 26th at 5:00 pm on Channel 2. Citizens are encouraged to record their questions on video and submit them via YouTube at the following group address: www.youtube.com/group/slcmayor. Questions may also be submitted via e-mail to webmaster@sltrib.com. All questions should be submitted by Monday, August 20th.

The following is the question I submitted:

Technorati Profile

A Mormon in the Whitehouse Song

2007-08-17T01:16:00.000-06:00

Mitt Romney, My Candidate

2007-08-06T18:04:00.000-06:00

The following video of Mitt Romney was secretly and unscrupulously taped by a Des Moines, Iowa radio host named Jan Mickelson (or, by someone associated with him) as he interviewed Governor Romney on the air. The whole thing smells like a set-up, and yet, as you can see, it clearly backfired. Simply put, Mitt dominated.

This incident reminds me of a run-in Ronald Reagan had early in his 1980 campaign when he was filmed growling at a newspaper editor who was trying to silence him by having his microphone turned off: "I'm paying for this microphone, Mr. Breen!"

For some reason, Reagan's gut level reaction hit a chord with many Americans. It was real. The people loved it. I suspect this video will do the same thing for Mitt that the Gipper's comment did for him. I could not be more pleased.

I love this video. (The truth is, I needed it.) Far better than the debates have even come close to approaching, it reveals Mitt Romney's true quality. From it, we can see that the man is clearly up to the task of being President of the United States -- he is brilliant, he is honorable, and he can kick your butt if you are an obnoxious jerk. Note to Sam Brownback: Be afraid . . . be very afraid.

Give 'em heck Mitt!

P.S. After watching the video yet another time, I find that my heart is softening somewhat for Jan Mickelson. I need to remember that sometimes sincere people make mistakes. I now choose to give him the benefit of the doubt.

It's just that the first couple times I viewed the clip, I was so irritated by Jan's constant interruptions. He was asking tough questions. If he really wanted an honest answer (as I am sure he did) then he needed to be quiet long enough for it to be given.

I am a faithful, active, practicing Mormon. Everything Mitt Romney said to both Jan Mickelson and George Stephanopoulos was accurate. But, they were both so suspicious, and so convinced they knew better, that they rudely implied he was misrepresenting his faith.

That just drives me up the wall! Do they really believe they know more about his faith than he does? Do they really believe that he would ever attempt, or that he could ever get away with, publicly misrepresenting Church doctrine? That is nuts!

All the other candidates get to talk about their campaigns in a traditional fashion, addressing policy positions, etc. But, Governor Romney is repeatedly forced into talking primarily about the doctrines of his church. You can see how he might come to feel that he must now put his foot down, give short answers, and turn the subject back to traditional politics.

If you want to know about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there are numerous official outlets for obtaining that information. Mitt Romney is not one of them. It is not fair to single out Romney among all the candidates, and force him into being the one who only gets to talk about religion -- all the time, every time.

Is it fair to ask some questions? Sure. He has said that he is a believing Mormon. All the evidence would indicate as much. Okay, let's move on. But, if you think Mormons are freaks and you want to do an expose on them, then do it on your own time. Don't waste his limited time in front of the public, trying to tell him what he does and does not believe. That is not your right.

Realistically, a candidate only has a few seconds of air-time in order to portray himself to the voters. Apparently, certain folks in the media think Mitt Romney's time must be spent trying to explain complicated religious beliefs in mere sound bites. That is wrong.

He, understandably, wants to run as a candidate who also happens to be a Mormon. But, these people are insistent on portraying him as the Mormon who also happens to be a candidate. That is not right.

But, now that we know that is the way the game is going to be played, then, perhaps, Governor Romney should take a few more opportunities to let loose with some more unscripted and emotionally charged outbursts. These, unlike all the over polished statements one typically hears on the campaign trail, have the unmistakable ring of truth to them. That is why I loved this video.

Because of that, instead of being irritated with Jan Mickelson for repeatedly talking over the top of his guest, I really should thank him for producing the most credible portrayal of Governor Romney to date. Without him, we would not have this treasure.

Thanks, Jan. Please forgive me for being irritated.

The BYU/Utah Rivalry

2007-07-31T22:36:00.000-06:00

I am a long time fan of BYU, and to a lesser degree, the University of Utah. (I know that's not supposed to be possible . . . yaddy, yaddy, yadda . . . My critics can believe what they want.) And, a few years ago, I had an experience that illustrates for me what is wrong with the BYU/Utah rivalry:

I was sitting in Rice-Eccles Stadium watching Urban Meyer, Alex Smith, Eric Weddle and Company take-on the Wyoming Cowboys. I was there to observe the Ute's outstanding execution and to cheer them on to victory. But, what struck me was how a certain group of vocal fans in front of me were there, apparently, for totally different reasons:

1) To hang out with their buddies.
2) Get drunk. (They smuggled in booze.)
3) Act rowdy. (They were throwing candy and peanuts at people below them in the stands.)
4) And, boo BYU -- who wasn’t even playing!

One of them wore a T-shirt depicting Calvin (from the comic strip "Calvin and Hobbs") urinating on the BYU logo. And, every few minutes they would stand up, toot a kazoo, and rattle off some cheer ending with the words: "BYU sucks!" In their minds, they probably liked to think of themselves as being "great Utah fans." But, the reality is that they were not even watching what was happening on the field. From what I witnessed, they could not have cared less about the University of Utah and the team that represents that fine school. Rather, what they were really all about was rebelling against the dominant Mormon culture, and using BYU as a surrogate for their expressions of bigotry.

That is what is so disgusting about the BYU/Utah rivalry -- the hatred, and the extreme incivility.

I wish that this was only a problem with a few "bad Utah fans." The truth is that there are thousands of BYU fans who behave in as equally reprehensible ways. For example, I was totally ashamed of the way some of them booed MWC Commissioner Craig Thompson when he presented the football team with its championship trophy last year. At least the small group of drunk Utah fans that I sat behind could blame alcohol for some of their boorish behavior. But, the sober BYU fans, who so poorly represented their school, can only blame their own lack of Christian ethics.

Apparently, too many of us are more concerned about watching satellite TV than we are with reading the scriptures. How embarrassing. May we all repent, regardless of the colors we wear.

A Community's True Energy

2007-07-19T14:32:00.000-06:00

Dear Glenden,

Back in our grandparent’s day, Salt Lake City was known for its extensive public transportation system — both light and commuter rail — the very kind of system we are now trying to rebuild. But, the Democrat partisan community planning you reference actually called for American cities to tear-up their rail lines in favor of building freeways, and Salt Lake City followed suit. That is an inconvenient truth that very few Democrats of today will fess up to, but it is the truth.

The lesson in that story is not that Democrats are dumb and Republicans are smart. On the contrary, what it teaches us is that partisan positions are always changing, and loyalists who staunchly advocate a policy in order to fall in with the official party line may not be acting in the best interest of a community. What we need, then, are leaders who prove themselves to be thoughtful, wise, and prudent — not merely loyal to the central party line at a particular moment in time.

Now, as for Ralph Becker’s emphasis on nightlife, I believe that this is a mistaken position. I am convinced that in order to revitalize our capitol city we need to encourage a more family friendly environment, not just to play, but to live. In short, we need to clean up the city’s neighborhoods and make them desirable, affordable, and livable for families. That is where a community’s true energy comes from — real people living in the city, engaged in real everyday activities — not just strangers who occasionally drive in to get drunk and chase tail.

So, maybe Jake Garn wasn’t so wrong after all. What do you think?

Sincerely,
A.W.

I wrote the preceding in response to an article written by Glenden Brown entitled "Jake Garn is wrong - big surprise" appearing July 19, 2007 in the blog One Utah.

Bus Stops and Babies

2007-07-05T11:42:00.000-06:00

AW: Excuse me, I couldn't help but notice that you are waiting here alone, at the bus stop, WITHOUT children.

RW: I beg your pardon.

AW: Oh, please, don't be ashamed honey. Lots of girls have your problem, but -- thanks be to heaven -- there is hope!

RW: Listen, I don't know who you are, or why you think you have the right to judge me and my life, but I will have you know that I am quite happy with my situation. The fact is that I have no problem whatsoever. So, uh, have a nice day.

AW: I see, you are still in denial. Your internal suffering is so great, subconsciously, you simply refuse to acknowledge reality.

RW: I really do not see how any of this is your business, and . . .

AW: I can't help you, sweetheart, if you keep pushing me away like this. The fact is, though, that if we change you out of those frumpy clothes, fix your hair, add a little make-up, and . . .

RW: [Gasp!] Why, I have never . . .

AW: . . . Been on a date? Trust me, we can fix that. You really are a lovely girl . . .

RW: Do you have any clue as to how incredibly rude your behavior toward me has been? My reproduction, or alleged lack thereof, is none of your business. I would thank you to please just leave me alone!

AW: Ahhhh, I see. What you need is to read an article in the local newspaper that extols the wisdom, indeed, heroism, of defending human reproduction -- regardless of the taboo associated with it.

RW: What? That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. What kind of a person would ever write . . .

AW: Did you know that the crisis of low birth rates in developed countries is so great that the French government will actually pay a French woman to stay home and have children? And, did you know that the Russian government has recently introduced a similar program for its country? Truthfully, if it weren't for the infusion of Mexican workers into the United States, we would also be in a world of hurt. What we are witnessing, my dear friend, is cultural Darwinism. The self-centered and the materialistic among us simply do not reproduce. (Thus, they have been naturally selected for extinction.) Those that do reproduce are God's people, the humble, those who actually see children as a blessing, and who would not even consider taking the life of an unborn child. Because of that, the future belongs to conservative Catholics, Evangelicals, Mormons, etc. -- you know, Republicans -- and beautiful brown poor people with lots of children hanging all over them at bus stops. I guess some find that idea offensive. I do not.

RW: Wow! Before, whenever I had seen a woman with many children, I had simply assumed they were all unwanted accidents attributable to reproductive ignorance. . . .

AW: Please, dear, don't beat yourself up for being presumptuous and condescending. You simply did not know. I can tell that you are actually a nice person . . .

RW: Presumptuous and condescending? Uh, that wasn't what I was going to say. But . . .

AW: Don't mention it. It was my pleasure to help you to think about these issues. But, ultimately, the person you should really thank is your mother, the person who gave you life -- not some racist, past or present, who wants to decrease the number of brown babies born into this world.

I wrote the preceding as a parody of the Rebecca Walsh column entitled "Birth control still touchy Utah topic" appearing July 5, 2007 in the Salt Lake Tribune:

Rebecca Walsh: Birth control still touchy Utah topic
By Rebecca Walsh
Tribune Columnist
Article Last Updated: 07/05/2007 02:42:07 AM MDT

Laura Stevens is a very imperfect, modern-day Margaret Sanger.

Like the birth-control activist of the early 20th century, Stevens believes women should have control over the number of children they have.

But unlike Sanger, Stevens apparently offered her advice to just one woman - a Latina mother of six rowdy kids climbing all over the Logan bus depot a few weeks ago. Stevens suggested the overwhelmed woman try a hormone patch.

"I didn't mean to be mean," says Stevens, a 76-year-old retired medical secretary. "Maybe this woman doesn't know how to use birth control. That was the only thing I had in mind."

It wasn't the first time Stevens and the woman had words.

She ended up charged with trespassing and was briefly banned from riding Cache Valley Transit Authority buses. Outside justice court this week, she said she'd be willing to serve time in jail to prove her point. But after a stern talking-to about appropriate bus bench conversation, the charges could be dropped.

"We need to make sure everyone feels safe and comfortable and no one feels intimidated," says Todd Beutler, transit authority general manager.

Stevens is a clumsy heroine to champion in a politically correct world. She says what most of us are thinking. She speaks out loud things that are whispered - about welfare moms and polygamists and Mormons and Catholics and immigrants - between close friends and family (the ones who won't judge us). She's easy to label racist or senile. But maybe she's just a pragmatist.

The mother of one and grandmother of none worries about the world's population. She figures America's growing immigrant population will drain the country's resources. She quotes population statistics: 6.6 billion people in the world; nearly 80 million new babies added each year. And demographic studies: the higher a parent's education and income, the smaller the family.

"It's poor people who have child after child," she says. "If we could take care of them, that's fine. But these are children born into a world of need and want. It breaks my heart."

Planned Parenthood Director Karrie Galloway cringed when she heard about Stevens. Over the years, Galloway has mastered the soft voice and gentle demeanor that will be least threatening to conservative Utahns when she says "contraception."

Despite the backlash, Galloway says, the Logan woman has started a debate about family planning that Utah desperately needs to have.

"These types of comments can spring from nobody talking about family planning as an important public health issue," Galloway says. "It's taboo. We don't want to admit that family planning is good."

So for that, thank you, Mrs. Stevens.

walsh@sltrib.com

Oppose the Fourth Seat Plan (Deseret Morning News Editorial)

2007-04-23T23:31:00.002-06:00

See article here. It was an editorial published on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 in the Deseret Morning News.

DC Seat is Unconstitutional & Unwise

2007-04-23T12:08:00.000-06:00

The current compromise plan to create new congressional seats for the District of Columbia and the state of Utah is a disastrous proposal. It is bad for America, and it is bad for Utah. Our representatives should do all in their power to oppose it.

Why is it bad for America?

The answer to this question goes to the heart of how a person believes the Constitution should be interpreted. Generally, people in Utah subscribe to the belief that this sacred document should be interpreted according to the original intent of the framers.

Others, however, believe that in order for the Constitution to be a "living document" the courts should be granted flexibility to interpret it differently according to the needs of each generation.

The problem with this last idea is that once our nation officially adopts such an approach, the words of the Constitution lose all meaning. All that would matter, then, is what some unelected group of judges happen to believe is best for the country at a particular moment in time. That kind of government is what is known as a dictatorship.

Besides, the framers of the Constitution already provided a provision to ensure that the Constitution remain a "living document." It is called the amendment process. Thus, if we truly want to secure representational justice for the District of Columbia, we should do so by seeking a Constitutional amendment.

The position of the Salt Lake Tribune on this issue represents the classic mistake of advocating the "WRONG thing for the RIGHT reasons." But, as the saying goes, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." This is true because, whether or not one claims to seek that which is right, if he does that which is wrong to get it, he is still doing that which is wrong.

Fortunately, the Deseret Morning News, former Congressman Jim Hansen, conservative syndicated columnist George Will, the Salt Lake County Republican Party, the Presidential Administration of George W. Bush, and many other responsible individuals have all come out against this terrible proposal.

Why is it bad for Utah?

In a few years, Utah will automatically obtain its rightful fourth seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, without having to grant an unconstitutional seat to the District of Columbia. Gradually, many Utahns who at first supported the DC/Utah compromise are now coming to change their mind. The lure of our state getting an additional seat in congress a few years earlier than normal is now being seen for what it is--the bait in a trap that would prove our undoing.

Without the compromise legislation, Utah gets an additional voice in Congress automatically. With the compromise, Utah's new voice would simply be nullified by a new and unconstitutional DC voice. How is that in our state's interest?

But, it gets worse. Once this terrible precedent is set, the District of Columbia would then unconstitutionally seek two new liberal Senators who would nullify Utah's existing conservative voice in that body as well. Are we really so foolish that we can't see this? Hopefully, our representatives in Congress will work tirelessly to oppose this terrible DC/Utah compromise.

Enlighted Compromises

2007-04-14T10:52:00.000-06:00

Recently, there has been a great deal of controversy generated over a proposal for the University of Utah to lease land from This Is The Place (TITP) Heritage Park so that it might construct an office building for its ARUP Laboratories. I agree that building a traditional concrete, glass and steel structure so near the park is not the ideal use for that property. I don’t think anyone, including Ellis Ivory, the chairman of the park's board of directors, prefers this option.

However, in fairness to Mr. Ivory, he has inherited certain realities on the ground at TITP that he now has to deal with--whether he likes it or not. One of those realities is that the park consistently loses money. From what I can see, Mr. Ivory is simply trying to make the park financially “sustainable.” He is trying to set-up a scenario where the park has a perpetual funding source, an endowment if you will. In short, he is trying to save the park, because it cannot continue to exist indefinitely under the current business model. I believe that Mr. Ivory is a fine man, trying to do something noble.

Perhaps, then, the resolution to the controversy lies in merging Mr. Ivory’s vision with that of his critics, such as Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson. One possibility might be for TITP to construct a lease-able office building with a facade designed to look like pioneer era businesses on Main Street. Such an edifice would not only blend-in with the current structures, but would actually enhance the park experience for visitors.

Rather than building upward vertically to three stories, it could remain two stories or less, and expand outward horizontally or downward underground in order to find the desired square footage. And, rather than being built off in the distance, away form the existing structures, the office building could actually be incorporated into the park itself.

The facades facing in toward the park could contain small kiosks, offering souvenirs, concessions, work shops, displays, etc. While the facade facing out away from the park could contain the entrances to the actual office building. The interior and basement levels could then be built so that they contain all the accoutrements of a modern office tower, including covered parking.

The icing on the cake would be for Mayor Anderson to see to it that the building was also designed as a model of environmental friendliness--a thoroughly green structure. That way, the park would be both financially and environmentally sustainable.

I think it would be fun to see what the bright minds on both sides of this debate come-up with once they put their heads together. Very often the best ideas, such as the US Constitution, come about through a compromise between two contending factions that ultimately produce an outcome far superior to what either group could have produced independently.

Interestingly, I have been pondering a similar solution to the City Creek sky bridge controversy. I agree with the developer, The Taubman Co., that the two sides of the mall need to be connected via a sky bridge. The reports I have read seem to indicate that many of the folks buying these new condominiums downtown are going to be retirees--people who’s mobility may not be the same as the yuppies we envision living downtown. Increasing accessibility for everyone not only makes sense from a commercial standpoint, but from one of compassion also.

Having said that, I also strongly agree with the Mayor and those architects who suggest that the development needs to have more street level storefronts and entrances. Beyond greatly benefiting the city, I think this is actually in the long-term commercial interest of Taubman as well. Maybe, if Taubman agrees to have more street level storefronts and entrances (and facades that help to tie the development into the surrounding business environment) then perhaps the city could grant the necessary permits for the sky bridge.

It has been my experience that we, as people, need one another. It takes effort, courage and generosity to see another's point of view. And, while we might be tempted to be lazy, cowardly, and selfish, it is in our interest to draw upon the wisdom of others. I hope the various stakeholders will come together and find enlightened compromises to the controversies facing our community. The end result is likely to be something wonderful.

"The Seat Congress Can't Offer" by George Will

2007-03-30T16:55:00.002-06:00

Read the article here. It was from a column published on March 29, 2007 in the Washington Post.

"Drop the 4th Seat Plan" (Deseret Morning News Editorial)

2007-03-12T09:44:00.002-06:00

Read this article here. It was an editorial published on March 12, 2007 in the Deseret Morning News.

100% of Aborted Children are Denied a Choice

2007-02-04T03:54:00.000-07:00

Dear Jen: If the figure you quote from the Internet is correct, and “77% of anti choice leaders are men," that statistic would be somewhat sobering to me. And, I would not have a good explanation for it; except for, perhaps, that percentage may simply be consistent with the ratio of men to women in ecclesiastical leadership, political office, corporate executive positions, etc.

But, whatever the case may be, please try to remember that the statistics game goes both ways. You see, 100% of aborted children are denied a choice in the matter. So, when certain folks speak of favoring choice in connection to abortion, what they really mean is that they favor allowing a privileged 50% of those whose bodies are directly involved to have a choice as to whether or not the other 50% get to live. (If the occurrence of twins is taken into account, these percentages obviously get even worse.) And, quite frankly, Jen, these last statistics are more sobering to me than the ones you quote.

Which brings me to the issue of nomenclature: As a courtesy, I use the expression “Pro-Choice” to describe those who believe a woman should have the right to choose, under any circumstance, whether or not to terminate the life of her unborn child. Because of the contradiction referred to above, I could quibble with the appropriateness of such a title, but I refrain out of a desire to be respectful. I call people by the names they choose for themselves.

I find it interesting to note, however, that an increasing number of those who are Pro-Choice refuse to show those of us who are Pro-Life the same courtesy. They now apparently prefer to call us “Anti-Choice” as was done in the material quoted above.

I suppose that we who are Pro-Life could take our cue from the obvious talking-point strategy of these certain individuals who happen to be Pro-Choice, and begin referring to them as being Pro-Death, Anti-Life, Baby-Killers, etc., but I think that kind of behavior is wrong and counter productive.

I believe it is very important that each camp give the other the benefit of the doubt. There are sincere and decent people on both sides of this debate. Each group is apparently advocating for something that it considers to be the moral and ethical position. In my view, that would make them good people.

That does not mean that each side is necessarily right, or equally valid, it just means that there is a basis for reasoning with one another in a civil manner while attempting to share our respective points of view. If we conduct ourselves with true compassion toward one another, we just might get through to someone on the other side of the debate and find common ground. However difficult or idealistic that might sound, please consider how dreadful the results of the alternative approach can be.

Please hang in there with me, Jen. I really do want to work my way through this issue with an intelligent and articulate speaker for the other point of view. (You!) If we do this the right way, I believe that we would be providing a great service to our respective causes and to our country. At times, in our attempts to be frank, we may irritate some nerves, but I believe that we are both capable of correcting ourselves and keeping the conversation constructive. Further, because we are both fallible, I hope that other people will join in and share their wisdom with us. What do you say? Are you still on board?

Sincerely,
Alienated Wannabe
http://www.alienatedwannabe.blogspot.com

The preceeding is a comment I posted on February 4, 2007 to the blog Jen's Green Journal in response to the proprietor's article entitled: "77%" which quotes a statement she found on the Internet claiming that "77% of anti choice leaders are men and 100% of them will never be pregnant."

Overturn Roe v. Wade!

2007-02-02T10:57:00.000-07:00

Dear Jen, Of course, I support this legislation [HB235 S1]. I believe that Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned. This may be the chance the Supreme Court needs to do just that.

I agree with you that other people should not be trying to control your body. But, when it comes to abortion, I believe that there is more than just your body involved, so the picture becomes more complicated.

I believe the unborn child has the same rights to have her body protected as you do. I do not believe that she has the right to kill the body on the outside of her (your body), just as I do not believe that you have the right to kill the body on the inside of you (her body).

Like it or not, because of the decision you made to engage in sexual activity, a human life was created. And, because of the choice you made, the two of you are stuck together for the next nine months.

That is a long time, and it may cause great inconvenience and discomfort to you, but I believe that you are the person responsible for that condition. I further believe that you do not have the right to avoid the natural consequences of your choice by robbing the unborn child of her body.

I believe that it is reasonable for society to expect fathers to provide for their children. I also believe that it is reasonable to expect mothers to do the same. No one forced you to have sex. You chose that. Now, you need to take responsibility for your choice.

You do not have the right to put your interests above the life of your unborn child. If you do not want the child, fine. There are literally thousands upon thousands of wonderful couples who would be thrilled to provide it with a loving home.

All you have to do is not kill your child before it is born. That is all. In my opinion, it comes down to simple ethics: Her right to live outweighs nine months of your life.

Sincerely,

Alienated Wannabe
http://www.alienatedwannabe.blogspot.com

The preceeding is a comment I posted on February 2, 2007 to the blog Jen's Green Journal in response to the proprietor's article entitled: Utah Taliban: Keep Your Religion Off My Body which expressed her opposition to the proposed legislation HB235 S1 seeking to outlaw elective abortion in Utah.

Nightmare Headlines 2007

2007-01-03T09:55:00.000-07:00

Inspired by the Salt Lake Tribune’s “Dream Headlines” for the upcoming year, and the supplement in Plato's Cave, what follows are my predictions for the inevitable “Nightmare Headlines” coming in 2007:

ALCOHOL GOOD FOR HEALTH

A new study published in a respected scientific journal reveals that alcoholic beverages are actually good for you because they contain water.

UTAH LIQUOR LAWS ARE BACKWARD

A justifiably disgruntled citizens group demands changes to Utah's liquor laws, citing evidence that young people under the age of twenty-one also require water to live.

UTAH LEGISLATURE FAILS TO FUND EDUCATION

A gathering of thoughtful mainstream academics from a local university explain the urgent need to distribute liquor and condoms to dehydrated high school students. They also deliver a blistering critique of the Utah legislature for failing to adequately anticipate or fund this essential program.

MORMONS ARE DUMB

Inbred conservative religious extremists from Utah County allege that water can be found in sources other than alcoholic beverages. No evidence is offered in support of this claim.

SENATORS FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

After finally gaining a seat in the House of Representatives, the District of Columbia now demands equal representation in the Senate. Analysts suggest that such a development would give the Democratic Party control over the Senate well into the foreseeable future, thus dramatically shaping national governance for a generation.

Yet, no Republican politician from Utah (fresh from unconstitutionally rushing after its own fourth congressional seat) has the moral authority to oppose this legislation. Instead, eager to live down its backward Mormon image, officials tout the state’s new liquor and condom program for high school students as evidence that Utah is as progressive and enlightened as anywhere else.

"Wait patiently for 4th House seat" By Retired Congressman Jim Hansen

2006-12-28T12:34:00.000-07:00

It seems that many of our elected officials in Utah have completely embraced the idea that whatever it takes, we go all out to get a fourth congressional seat before the next census.

The job of reapportioning the state is the responsibility of the state Legislature. I know that a job in the Legislature is difficult, having served in that body as a member and also as speaker of the House. I appreciate and compliment them on the fine work they do. If there is a chink in their armor, it is when they have taken on the task of reapportioning the federal congressional districts. Possibly it is because many of them feature themselves walking the halls of Congress in the future. There is nothing wrong with good and experienced legislators aspiring to go to Washington, and many of our best federal legislators come from state legislative bodies.

However, reapportionment should not be used to gerrymander a safe district for anyone or to give an unfair advantage. In my 22 years as a congressman, my biggest disappointment has been the cavalier approach to the congressional reapportionment. It is not what the Legislature normally does, and unfortunately, it is usually not done well.

Our sister states of Arizona and Idaho could see the problem and formed advisory councils to handle reapportionment. Both states, that I am aware of, are very satisfied with the outcome.

Frankly, Utah is being used to the detriment of the country. Legislators here told me their only job was to draw a map, give it to Congress and wash their hands of it. That is not true. By doing that map and sending it to Congress, they have pulled the trigger and started a sequence of events that could be detrimental to the country.

Many argue that the District of Columbia should have a vote, as it is taxed without representation. This small piece of ground (38,000 acres) is not a state (see the Constitution). There have been several good attempts to incorporate the District of Columbia into Maryland. Maryland would then receive an additional House member and would already have its two senators. This brings up the real issue: The District of Columbia wants not only to have a voting representative but two senators as well. How else would it have equal representation? If this bill should become law, anyone could guarantee an immediate outcry for two additional senators. No place in America is more liberal, far left and different than the District of Columbia. I don't know of a Western Democrat who subscribes to the political philosophy of those who are and have been elected in the District of Columbia. On top of all that, count on numerous lawsuits. If the District of Columbia gets a vote, what will Guam, American Samoa and Puerto Rico do? Now the final question is what advantage is there to the state of Utah to receive a seat right now instead of patiently waiting for the next census?

The answer is probably nothing. I challenge anyone who is pushing this idea to show me one piece of legislation that would benefit Utah or the country, that one more vote from Utah would affect the outcome. I can't find one over the last 10 years.

So if we continue to push this ill-conceived idea, we plow new ground, challenge the Constitution, throw the Senate to the far left, possibly a very expensive cost to the state, and really with no political benefit.

I would urge the Legislature not to be so excited about this idea and follow the normal procedure of the next census. Patience is a great virtue.

The preceding article was an op ed piece published on December 28, 2006 in the Deseret Morning News. It was written by James V. Hansen, Former US Representative from the First Congressional District of Utah.

Salt Lake County Republicans Reject Rushing New 4th Congressional Seat

2006-12-03T19:45:00.000-07:00

I am pleased to report that on Saturday, December 2, 2006, the Central Committee of the Salt Lake County Republican Party voted overwhelmingly to adopt a resolution, introduced by Jeremy and Amy Roberts, expressing OPPOSITION to the proposed federal legislation seeking to immediately create new congressional seats for Utah and the District of Columbia. Instead, the party voiced its SUPPORT for waiting until after the next census to legitimately obtain additional representation for Utah independently of the District of Columbia.

I was proud of both the party unity displayed in the lopsided vote, as well as the principled course my fellow Republicans advocated for the good of our country. It bolstered my faith in the ability of grassroots citizens to understand complicated concepts and to arrive at wise decisions. It is my hope that this act will provide additional motivation and political support for our elected representatives who seek to strengthen constitutional authority within the United States.

Thus, I hereby urge our governor, state legislators, and federal congressional delegation to do all in their power to send a clear and unmistakable message back to the nation’s capitol that Utah would rather wait until after the next census to legitimately and constitutionally obtain an additional seat in Congress. What little we would gain in the near term by rushing after the proposed fourth seat now, is not worth the damage that would be done to the nation in the long run.

The full text of the resolution follows:

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF A FOURTH AND POSSIBLE FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL SEAT FOR UTAH

Whereas, in 1911 Congress limited the House of Representatives to 435 members;

Whereas, Apportionment of the 435 Congressional seats among the states depends on the size of the population in each state,

Whereas, Current population growth in Utah will prescribe a Fourth and possibly a Fifth Congressional seat within the next 5 years;

Whereas, Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States reads: “Representation…shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers…within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct”;

Whereas, The Republican Party supports strict construction of the Constitution and believes giving representation to Washington DC is unconstitutional;

Whereas, In 1978, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would have given full congressional voting representation to residents of the District of Columbia passed through both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives;

Whereas, In 1985, when the seven year limit on ratification of the amendment set within the Congressional resolution adopting it expired, the amendment had only passed in 16 of 38 states necessary;

Whereas, This latest fiasco is clearly an attempt by Democrats to get via legislation what they could not get via a Constitutional amendment;

Whereas, This sets the precedent for Washington DC to get Senate seats and Puerto Rico, Guan, American Samoa, and citizens living abroad to get voting seats;

Whereas, The GOP would be giving up decades of population shift in our favor;

Whereas, There is no reason to give the Democrats a safe seat in Washington DC when we get our safe GOP seats for free if we just wait a bit; therefore be it:

Resolved, The Salt Lake County Republican Party does not support current efforts to immediately secure a Fourth Congressional Seat for the State of Utah;

Resolved, That the Salt Lake County Republican Party admonishes Governor Jon M. Huntsman, Jr. and the state legislature to be prudent and patient by waiting until after the 2010 census to change congressional boundaries;

Resolved, That the Salt Lake County Republican Party admonishes Senator Orrin Hatch and Senator Robert Bennett, Congressman Chris Cannon and Congressman Rob Bishop to be prudent and patient by waiting until after the 2010 census to secure a Fourth and possible Fifth seat for Utah, and,

Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be mailed to each member of our Republican state and federal delegation.

Respectfully submitted November 17, 2006 by Jeremy Roberts, Legislative District 41 Chair, and Amy Roberts, former County Party Secretary

My Reply to Senator Curt Bramble Regarding the Constitution

2006-11-28T16:25:00.000-07:00

The following is my reply to Senator Curt Bramble on The Senate Site regarding my concerns regarding the constitutionality of the current proposed legislation designed to provide Utah and the District of Columbia new seats in the US House of Representatives.

Dear Senator Bramble,

Thank you for that excellent response. I appreciate receiving all of that interesting background information. It really helps me to understand the mindset of our legislators going in to this special session. And, I find it reassuring that you are hearing both sides of the issue from legal counsel.

Further, as a former Boy Scout, I understand the value of "being prepared" for any eventuality. So, I do not fault either the Governor or the Legislature for wanting to draw-up and approve potential congressional districts "just in case."

However, I want to make the case to our state and federal leaders that there is actually a more pressing concern for which we need to be prepared:

Defending the Constitution

The current proposed legislation appears to be an attempt to achieve through federal action what had failed to be achieved through constitutional amendment. Thus, it actually weakens our system of federalism.

The amendment process gives each state a say in the matter through local legislatures that have closer ties to the people. The current proposal denies that the states have any say in the matter.

This is so, even though the proposal essentially puts the District of Columbia on the path of eventually receiving all the rights and privileges of statehood--a clear deviation from the original vision of the Constitution’s framers.

Additionally, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution declares that unless the federal government is given an explicit power in the Constitution, that power belongs to the states or the people. Thus, despite whatever court approved short-cuts have been taken in the past, it is the states that should actually be the ones making these kinds of major constitutional decisions.

In short, what I am saying is this:

You have described how you have been receiving mixed signals from primary sources in Washington. That is why it is all the more important for all of Utah's elected leaders, at both the state and federal level, to not give mixed signals themselves.

By approving new potential congressional districts, and then receiving a new seat early, we would be "approving" of this assault on the Constitution and federalism. Thus, we surrender the moral authority to defend states rights and strict constitutional interpretation.

I therefore urge our elected officials to use this special session to pass a resolution condemning the current proposal, and refusing to accept a new seat illegitimately. Such an action just might get someone's attention. It would be the talk of all the Sunday morning panel shows, and it could start an important national conversation that strengthens, rather than weakens, constitutional authority.

Nothing grants moral authority--credibility--more than a principled stance. Likewise, nothing undermines credibility more than being too opportunistic. We may outfox ourselves by being too prepared for the wrong thing.

Thank you again, Senator. I appreciate your time more than you know.

Sincerely,
Alienated Wannabe

Dear Senator Bramble,

As to the question of my identity, I am just an anonymous Republican behind-the-scenes helper. If you need to contact me, Ric has my email address.

Thank you very much!

Sincerely,
Alienated Wannabe

Senator Curt Bramble's Response to My Post

2006-11-28T15:38:00.001-07:00

The following is Senator Curt Bramble's response to my note on The Senate Site:

Dear Alienated Wannabe,

Like you, I appreciate the dialog, although some of the acerbic, partisan comments are somewhat limited in value.

I agree that there are significant constitutional issues raised with regard to Washington DC having a vote in Congress. These include many of the arguments that have been raised here and on several other blogs and email forums.

As I see it, the issue for the Utah Legislature and citizens of Utah is really not what will or will not happen in Washington, DC. Our issue is that IF it happens, what will the 4 districts look like. There are no constitutional questions regarding the Utah Legislature re-drawing boundaries that may be different than those that were passed in 2001.

Some will claim that Utah is being used as a pawn in a decades old fight, and that if we fail to act the issue is dead. Others opine that if we fail to act, given the results of November 7th, Washington DC will get its vote next year and Utah may be left behind. Here's the frustrating part - as the Senate Majority Leader-elect and Chair of the redistricting committee, I have personally discussed this with several different primary sources in DC, as have the Governor, President Valentine, Speaker Curtis and others. Our best guess is that we simply do not know what will happen in DC. In many cases, concerns expressed privately do not reconcile with public statements, staff members will privately contradict their congressional bosses, the public statements of members of Congress do not reconcile with private admonitions, the Vote DC gang make certain claims that are both reinforced and opposed by many of the policy makers (including some who both agree and oppose at the same time!). Etcetera.

There are many in the Utah Legislature that believe, as I do, that we are best served by addressing that which is within our constitutional authority, while leaving the rest to play out in Congress, the Courts, or both, which in any event are beyond our control.

Your question about Mike Christensen and Leg Research is a good one. Typically, they will do all they can to present both sides of an issue, I have never seen them advocate one position over another, and they regularly advise us regarding possible legal challenges to proposed legislation. As to redistricting, they have advised us that it is well within our constitutional legislative prerogative to convene to draw new congressional district boundaries. As to the constitutional consequences of Washington DC getting a vote, they recognize the constitutional issues raised, as well as the legal opinions expressed by legal scholars on both sides of the issue and the potential for litigation. It is my understanding that Utah would not be involved in any anticipated litigation over the DC vote, other than in the possible capacity of filing an amicus (friend of the court) brief.

Again, thanks for participating in the discussion.

Curt Bramble

By the way, who are you???

My Note Thanking Senator Curt Bramble

2006-11-28T15:38:00.000-07:00

The following is my note thanking Senator Curt Bramble for responding to comments on The Senate Site:

Dear Senator Bramble,

I appreciate you responding to concerns expressed here. I think that is wonderful.

What do you think about the constitutional concerns that many of us have? Does Mike Christensen and his staff typically present both sides of an issue to you all, or do they tend to advocate one position over the other? What have they said regarding our concerns toward this particular piece of legislation?

Thank you, in advance, for your response. I think your willingness to make yourself accessible here is great.

My Reply to an Anonymous SLCSPIN Blogger

2006-11-28T15:35:00.000-07:00

The following is my indelicate response to an anonymous blogger's challenging question on SLCSPIN:

Dear Anonymous,

Let me see if I understand you correctly: In response to most of the beltway pundit's assertions, that I have heard, claiming that a lame duck President Bush will not be able to get any major piece of legislation "THAT HE WOULD WANT" through this Congress, you come back with "passing a budget" and "renewing No Child Left Behind" as examples of things he would need to sacrifice the Constitution to achieve?

Wow! That's quite a trade off, isn't it?

I do not mean to make fun of you, my friend, but please try to remember that the Democrats also need to pass a budget. And, they already want to renew most of the provisions of No Child Left Behind. So, your argument is not persuasive.

And, in fairness to the all-wise pundit class, they are talking about LEGACY type pieces of legislation, not house cleaning items. They claim that the administration acknowledges that its legacy will be the War in Iraq. History, they say, will judge the President by what he is able to salvage from this immensely difficult situation. Thus, his administration is supposedly going to set aside any futile attempt to pass new landmark legislation, and focus its energies on stabilizing Iraq sufficiently to sustain a face saving withdrawal for the US.

These same pundits tell us that the Democrats also see such a withdrawal from Iraq as being where their mandate lies. Thus, neither will they entertain delusions of liberal grandeur in seeking to pass all kinds of Great Society type legislation.

Well, I guess we will see about that, won't we? Pundits are frequently wrong.

For me, where your argument has merit is in the fact that history demonstrates both President Clinton and the first President Bush supposedly defying conventional wisdom to compromise with hostile congresses. We remember the first President Bush being pressured into going back on his "Read my lips, no new taxes!" pledge in order to pass a budget with the Democrats. And, President Clinton ended up abandoning his socialized medicine plan, only to later pass major cuts in welfare with the Republicans. So, legislation of consequence is certainly possible for the President, but is it something "THAT HE WOULD WANT?" That is the question.

I personally hope that the President's tenacity, that you reference, is fully employed in resisting the unconstitutional piece of legislation seeking to grant both the District of Columbia and the state of Utah new seats in Congress. This horrible proposal creates precedent that is bad for America. Utah is part of America. Thus, the answer to your question is this: Utah does not need to rush to get a fourth seat in Congress so badly that it is worth sacrificing the Constitution. It would be better to simply wait until the next census in four years, and get that new seat legitimately. What little the state would gain in the short run would not be worth the damage done to our country in the long run.

Please forgive me, but your comment regarding the unfeasibility of Maryland reabsorbing the District of Columbia, demonstrates that you have very little understanding of the arguments against the proposed legislation. No one, like me, who opposes the bill on constitutional grounds, would ever make that suggestion, because such a plan would also be unconstitutional!

The framers of the Constitution had a terrible real-life experience that convinced them that the seat of national government needed to reside in a neutral zone that only it controlled, not some individual state or any other kind of local government jurisdiction. So, the Constitution provides for the creation of just such an area--the District of Columbia.

The only proper way to get around that requirement would be to amend the Constitution.

During the Carter Administration, just such an effort was attempted, but it failed. Within our system of federalism, the people spoke. The answer was "No."

Now, the current proposed legislation would try to achieve the same result, but by degree, and by going around the Constitution. First, the District of Columbia gets representation in the House. Once that precedent is established, there would be no basis for denying it representation in the Senate. Then, all the rights and privileges of statehood would eventually follow, step by step, because there ultimately would be no basis for withholding them.

But, that is not what the Constitution mandates.

And, I personally agree with the framers' original vision. The same dangers that existed in their day are also present in our own. Indeed, their provision may actually be more relevant for our day.

Remember the anarchy that manifested itself in the city of Seattle when the WTO met there several years ago? What if such a crowd came to the nation's capital, but unlike Seattle's leaders, the local authorities were actually sympathetic with the demonstrators and refused to disperse them? The nation's elected officials would then be held hostage to the whims of some local leaders over whom they had no control.

A similar thing happened to our founding fathers, and they wanted to protect the nation from that ever happening again. That is why we have a District of Columbia, instead of the capital of our nation residing in a state. It was a good idea then, and I think it is still a good idea.

Now, as for achieving some kind of representational justice for the folks living within the District of Columbia, that is another question. It may be appropriate for us to address their situation. But, we should do so only by following the proper procedures for amending the Constitution, and I further believe that we should do so without abandoning the framers original vision of having the capital located in a federally controlled district.

That is all I am saying.

I am sorry, Anonymous. I wrote the piece above in a sleep deprived state, in the middle of the night, while attending a fussy baby. I apologize for the arrogant tone I adopted, and for my proclivity for run-on sentences. I’m not sure which is more annoying, but I sincerely hope you will forgive me.

Please remain engaged in the discussion. I want to hear and understand your side of the debate. Please respond to my arguments with more of your own. Eventually, we will understand each other. Until that happens, we won’t be able to accommodate our respective concerns. Thanks, my friend.

(Originally posted to www.slcspin.com and www.senatesite.com on NOV 2006)

Don't Touch that Trojan Horse!

2006-11-18T10:00:00.000-07:00

I oppose the current effort to gain a fourth congressional seat for Utah via a compromise with the Democrats that would also grant a seat to the District of Columbia. I think that it would be better for Utah to just wait fours years and gain the new seat on its own. The current proposal is unconstitutional and further erodes federalism in this country. In many ways it is a Trojan horse, tempting us to bring-on our own destruction.

Though it is not my main consideration, as a Republican with traditional conservative values, I also believe that this proposal just does not make sense politically. In my opinion, it would lay the groundwork for the District of Columbia to eventually receive representation in the Senate. For the good of the country, I do not want two more extremely liberal Democrats in that important body.

The good news is that Jeremy Roberts and some other party activists are going to introduce a resolution at the next Salt Lake County Republican Party Central Committee meeting on December 2nd in an effort to stop this bad piece of legislation. (See related Deseret Morning News article)

I urge all like-minded individuals to show up and join in the fight. Perhaps it would even be a good idea to contact Jeremy in advance and offer to help him organize a lobbying effort directed toward both elected officials and grass roots activists. (We should each be calling our own representatives now anyway.)

He's a pretty good fund-raiser from his time on the Lincoln Club, maybe a quality mailer or something could be prepared that would explain all the problems with the current proposal. I found the following telephone number for Jeremy on the web: (801) 545-0105. I am assuming that it is still current, and that it is okay with him to distribute it. But, if not, this would not be the first time I was presumptuous.

New Congressional Seats for Utah & the District of Columbia

2006-11-15T15:10:00.000-07:00

I am concerned about the Constitutional questions raised by the District of Columbia gaining a seat in Congress. I am not convinced that it is legal without amending the Constitution.

Remember, during the Carter Administration, just such an amendment was proposed. But, it was rejected by the majority of state legislatures in this country. The people spoke through their elected representatives acting within our system of Federalism. The answer was "no."

Now, this latest effort appears to be trying to do an end-around the Constitution, robbing the individual state legislatures of their rightful voice in the matter. Thus, beyond being a short-sighted power grab for Utah and the District of Columbia, the proposed legislation is also a power grab by the Federal Government over the individual states.

The District of Columbia was created as kind of a neutral territory, fully controlled by the states together--the United States--not the local population. Inch by inch, it now appears to be gradually creeping toward all the rights and powers of statehood.

That reality would create a completely new dynamic which may not be in the best interest of the nation as a whole. We have learned from sad experience that the Law of Unintended Consequences frequently comes in to play with such things.

Have we really thought this thing through? Do we really want the seat of our national government controlled by a local government over which we have no power? That appears to be where we are going. But, that is not the vision provided by the Constitution.

Ironically, Utah, of all places, is pushing for this undermining of the Constitution, because we want a fourth seat so badly. But, why? Honestly, how much are we really going to get out of it? I personally can wait four years until the next census, if doing so helps to preserve Federalism in this country.

Granted, as a Republican, I am not eager to see such a geographically small, and extremely liberal, area gain so much power in the Senate. (Once the precedent of granting DC representation in the House is established, there ultimately will be no basis for denying it full Senate representation.) But, my position is not based upon political expediency. I am honestly concerned about the principle of Federalism in this country and the loss of a neutral seat for our national government.

My Reply to Pete Ashdown Regarding Abortion

2006-11-14T02:17:00.000-07:00

Dear Pete,

First of all, thank you very much for engaging me in this forum. I am both grateful and honored that you would take the time to do so. I think conversations such as this are vital to the wellbeing of our Republic. The fact that you would take the time to share your thoughts speaks well of you. Again, I thank you very sincerely.

Secondly, I agree with you that the topic of abortion is very polarizing.

But, I differ with your implication that it should therefore be avoided. My thinking is precisely the opposite: Abortion is polarizing because it deals with some of the most fundamentally important, soul wrenching issues of our day--issues that strike a nerve, issues that simply must be addressed.

Over a million abortions are performed in the United States every year!

To pretend that we are unaware of that 800 pound gorilla sitting in our living room would simply be ridiculous. Granted, if one believed that those million abortions merely represented the disposal of extraneous tissue, then one could more easily rationalize away the significance of the phenomenon. But, if one sincerely believed--or even recognized the possibility--that those million abortions represented the willful taking of an innocent human life, unborn children, then the act of passively remaining silent would be considerably more difficult. Indeed, to do nothing would be cowardly and immoral.

I choose not to be that kind of person. Please do not expect me to apologize.

Now, just as I choose not to be cowed into remaining silent, so too do I choose not to see my "pro-choice" brothers and sisters as being monsters. Some may actually be rather disappointing in their character, but I choose to extend the benefit of the doubt to the majority.

I choose to believe that most are motivated by a sincere compassion for those women who find themselves facing very difficult circumstances. They want to respect their supposed right to respond to these situations in private and to make the hard choices alone.

I too can conceive of difficult scenarios that defy easy answers. My heart also is filled with compassion for the women who face these situations. And, I certainly do not feel comfortable in forcing my judgments upon any of them. However, in weighing both sides of the issue in my heart and mind, the consequences seem so much greater on the side of taking a life than on the side of legally requiring a pregnancy to go to term. Thus, I am "pro-life."

I honestly believe that society has the right, indeed the responsibility, to restrain abortion in most of the situations wherein it is currently administered today. The legitimately extreme and difficult scenarios constitute a sufficiently small percentage of the abortions in this country that they cannot be used to justify a larger policy of abortion on demand.

True, rape is not always an easy crime to prove, and yet in this country we still insist upon granting a trial to the accused before we send him to jail. We don't call it "divining." We call it justice.

Likewise, I am convinced that people of goodwill are capable of developing a process that would allow a judge to discretely review evidence and testimony in private, while determining whether or not to grant an order for an abortion. Would it be a perfect system? No. Would it be preferable to abortion on demand, at the rate of over a million per year? Yes.

Further, pregnancies that result from incest can be demonstrated via prenatal genetic testing. And, there are more than enough physicians who are capable of providing expert testimony as to whether or not a woman's life is in danger because of a pregnancy.

In short, the difficulty we face is not the insurmountable obstacle that you make it out to be. But, you are correct in recognizing that we do have to address these issues. That, I suspect, is why the proposed deeper restrictions on abortion failed in South Dakota. Despite the fact that the state is dominated by people who are pro-life like me, the good folks there surely did not want to go from one unacceptable extreme to another.

May we all, then, find the right balance. Because, we are a million lives per year out of balance now. May God help us to do so, I pray.

Love, Your Friend & Brother,
Wannabe

References:
guttmacher.org
health.enotes.com

(Originally posted to www.slcspin.com on 14 NOV 2006)

Pete Ashdown's Response to My Post

2006-11-14T02:12:00.000-07:00

We all agree abortion is not a desired outcome in any case, no matter the origination of the pregnancy.

There are Republicans and Democrats alike who believe abortion and other personal decisions should not be made by the state. Only by working together instead of fighting for the polarizing extreme will we ever make a difference in reducing the number of elective abortions nationwide.

Nobody of any political stripe, who supports abortion only in the case of rape, incest, and health of the mother has been able to tell me how they expect the government to divine what is rape and what is not.

33 years of politicization of abortion and all some can do is continue to hope for the Supreme Court to overturn what they say goes against the will of the people. Did anyone watch what happened in South Dakota this election? Why has it been 17 years since Senator Hatch proposed banning abortion through amendment? Could it be because the will of the people is not for the outright banning of abortion? We might as well ban sex.

I spoke of quantitatively reducing abortions if elected. It can be done without banning because I've talked to the local leaders who are doing it through contraception and education in addition to preaching abstinence. Its happening right here in Utah and it could happen nationwide if we had leaders who didn't want to lose their political whipping post.

I ran with honor and integrity and being frank and honest about social issues was an essential part of that. I refuse to politicize abortion, but instead seek solutions that will work to address the problem. Do you think Senator Hatch has done the same during his 30 year tenure which has encompassed the entire abortion debate? I see very little evidence that he has.

(Originally posted to www.slcspin.com on NOV 2006)

My Statement that Orrin Hatch was the Best Choice

2006-11-14T01:52:00.000-07:00

Marshall, I agree that Senator Hatch was clearly the best choice. I am always confused when so-called social conservatives support a Senate candidate who is a Democrat. I doubt that such people really understand what happens to the federal bench when a Democrat controlled Senate has the power to “advise and consent” conservative judicial nominees out of the system.

One of the great achievements of Orrin Hatch, beginning in the Reagan years and stretching into the tenure of George W. Bush, has been the gradual building of a more conservative and less activist judiciary. We live in dreadful days, as it is, where unelected and unaccountable liberal judges order legislators to make laws contrary to the will of the people. Can you imagine what it would be like on the federal level if it were not for all the work of the Republican presidents and senators of the past quarter century?

This has been a major part of the quiet, but all important, struggle for the soul of our nation. Senator Hatch has been one of the heroes in this struggle. If Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, it will be because the American people elected enough Republican Presidents and enough Republican Senators to build-up a sufficiently conservative judiciary. The Democrat base seeks abortion on demand. If that offends you, then you should never vote for a Democrat senate candidate. Some are apparently tired of hearing that bit of truth, but attention fatigue does not change the facts. And, that is a fact.

(Originally posted to www.slcspin.com on NOV 2006)