Values Pundit

How Wide the Divide: Will Catholics Become Protestant? Wither the Mormons...

2005-10-12T14:20:00.000-07:00

On an interesting NPR program the other day, two "dissident"/reform-minded Catholics from "Voice of the Faithful," a Philadelphia group of upset Catholics, suggested that:

1. Since the laity provided over 90% of the Catholic Church's operating income, they should have a say on how the Church is run; and
2. Since the U.S. has a "democratic bent," in the population, that the Catholic Church in the U.S. should be more open to letting the laity make decisions.

The biggest complaints seem to be that folks are angry about cover-ing up abuse allegations in the Philadelphia Archdiocese and that funds are often used to build new churches, gymnasiums, schools, etc. rather than to help the poor.

So, my question: If the Catholic church bowed to these types of "reform" demands...would they be much more than uber-Protestants?

Wither the Mormons?

I also laughed because similar arguments have been made about the LDS Church, i.e. that we should be more democratic, should open the finance books of the church to auditing, etc.

To which I say:

I'm Mormon, not Catholic or Protestant. When God wants the books open...they'll be opened. When he wants the laity, as opposed to his chosen Servants making more decisions...the changes will be made. Until then...I'm happy that crazy arguments about who provides the money and "corporate" reform don't have traction in our religious culture.

Justice Withdrawn: Who bowed out???

2005-10-12T09:41:00.000-07:00

It now appears that Bush was going to nominate someone other than Miers, but that the intended nominee withdrew their name from consideration. WOW!!! Now this is a bombshell. Bush caught with his pants down, so he went with Miers, because he didn't have the time to go with anyone else. Hm...

From the Dobson confession re: his chat with Rove:

"But we also talked about something else, and I think this is the first time this has been disclosed. Some of the other candidates who had been on that short list, and that many conservatives are now upset about were highly qualified individuals that had been passed over. Well, what Karl told me is that some of those individuals took themselves off that list and they would not allow their names to be considered, because the process has become so vicious and so vitriolic and so bitter, that they didn't want to subject themselves or the members of their families to it."

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2005/10/what_rove_said.html

And from an email sent to Confirmthem.com (Oct 11 "What did Andy do Entry"):

Those who mentioned Roberts praised Miers handling of Roberts and commented that Miers went to bat for Roberts right out of the gate with a game plan in place, but no one was there to do the same for Miers. An independent source tells me that Miers begged for more time, but the White House demanded that Monday be the day. Interestingly, there is a credible rumor out there that the White House insisted on Monday because the intended nominee to be announced backed out over the weekend. Yes, it is a very credible rumor.

Advertising for the Adversary: Google Ads in the Bloggernacle

2005-09-19T23:33:00.000-07:00

So, without naming names, I ran across the following in a google ad in a prominent bloggernacle site:

Out of MormonismTools for reaching LDS (Mormons) with the true Christian Gospel.www.watchman.org/ldstools.htm

Now, I have no idea whether bloggers are making any cash out of the ads, and some folks feel that being an equal opportunity advertiser is a good thing (i.e. no discrimination _against_ pro-Mormon sites), I don't agree. If I did do ads, I certainly wouldn't deal with a site that requires all ads to be accepted. The one above is just simply wrong (nor is it the only one, I'm just providing a sampling).

How does one feel about advertising wolves to the flock?
My guess is that folks don't care and feel that "their" readers are more sophisticated and can deal with such. Maybe so, but it certainly doesn't look right.

Soft on White Collar Crime: Why punish physical, and not economic, violence?

2005-09-19T22:14:00.000-07:00

Today, two former executives of Tyco were found guilt of 2/3 of the 33 criminal charges against them, ranging from outright theft, to deception, to manipulating securities prices. They were sentenced to serve between 8 to 25 years in state prison and are eligible for parole. Together, they stole $150 MILLION from Tyco and inflated the stock value by over $400 million.

Yet...apparently even some prosecuters think that this sentence is too harsh; as "violent" criminals often get shorter sentences. Wow...what a non sequitor.

Is there something special about "violent" crimes that makes them more worthy of punishment? Frankly, the _violence_ done to Tyco investors and the company is far more appalling to me than if the two had killed a few members of the board of directors in order to get the money they stole. When grandma & grandpa's retirement fund gets wiped out by Corporate Criminals...why do we want to soft-pedal the culprits merely because they didn't _physically_ hurt anyone?

The truth is, they did physically hurt people. Think of the folks who lost their jobs, or didn't get jobs because Tyco didn't hire more, due to the monetary theft and stock drop after the theft and manipulation became public. Isn't causing people to lack money, who then often resort to violence, a physical hurt?

Sum: Monetary violence is just as much, if not more, damaging to society than physical violence. Spreading out the pain among thousands, rather than concentrating it on a few, doesn't make the criminals any less worthy of being locked up...permanently.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/19/business/19cnd-tyco.html?hp&ex=1127188800&en=e973f8852e727c2c&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Impeach Nagin!

2005-09-06T23:59:00.000-07:00

Yes, that's right. Impeach Nagin. The man has proved he is incompetent to lead a U.S. city, let alone a fairly populous one.

Let's start with facts:

1. The New Orleans disaster plan was a complete failure.
2. Nagin knew the poor wouldn't/couldn't leave.
3. Nagin knew it was his responsibility to get his constituents out of the city.
4. Nagin only made the evactuation "manadatory" after a phone call from Blanco; who herself only made the call after Pres. Bush got on her case.
5. Nagin had enough buses to evacute everyone; and didn't.
6. His police department fell apart on his watch. Wow.

The man has failed. Kick him out before it gets worse. If only he the decency to resign and let someone with some real management skills take over; rather than throwing a tantrum and blaming others to cover his own rear.

Is your Home Open to Katrina's Homeless? The Church isn't doing this Churchwide, so Contact Your Stake Pres. to Offer your home

2005-09-01T23:05:00.000-07:00

Will you open your home to Katrina's homeless? I'm going to see if I can't get ahold of a stake president down in Louisiana or someone so that they can offer folks down there the empty rooms in my home. You can also do so via Craigslist: where some have already done so.

Donating money is great. Donating your living space is better.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/09/01/Katrina.SpareRooms.ap/index.html

Higher Gas Prices: The Silver Lining of Horrid Disaster

2005-09-01T21:32:00.000-07:00

So, folks are freaking out about higher gas prices. However, this isn't a bad thing. Gas prices are currently about $3/gallon on average. However, this is distorted by $4-5 prices in areas with serious shortages; i.e. Atlanta, LA, MS, etc.

Frankly, higher gas prices are a good thing. Consumers respond to prices for the most part, not ideology. Higher prices will mean lower consumption and other "substitute" moves to compensate for the price increases. These will include:

1. Buying a vehicle with better mileage;
2. Increased car-pooling;
3. Increased use of public transportation; etc.

We also hear alot about "price gouging" and lots of political attention to this. Frankly, I ask why? It seems like officials in NJ will be wasting alot of time & tax dollars by "inspecting" pump prices. Gasoline is a commodity product; and folks should have to pay based on supply & demand just like any other product. There is no such thing as price gouging. If the price is too high; folks won't buy it. There is no "right" to gasoline. Sorry.

HS Kids Need Sex Ed? In what world?

2005-09-01T19:07:00.000-07:00

So, some absurd # of HS students in this HS are pregnant. Towards the end of the article is a gratuitous swipe at the Bush Administration for supporting Abstinence only (i.e. ABC, Abstinence first, Condoms last) sex education.

Let's get real. Kids don't need sex ed classes. They get all the sex ed they need by the time they are 12 from movies, TV, their friends, etc; or at least enough to know what a condom is and how to use it.

If kids get pregnant, its a choice. Not lack of education. Get real. Maybe in Africa, but not in America does this type of claim make any sense.

The real debate is about whether we should condone/promote sexual activity amongst unmarried teenagers or support sex only after marriage. Only one of these options ensures kids get a two parent family with parents who don't have STDs/AIDS. To me, that ends the debate.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Teen-Pregnancies.html

Clueless Dean & Gas Prices: Redux

2005-09-01T16:23:00.000-07:00

Who do you trust to run your country? Well, not Democrats, at least not today. DNC Chairman Dean suggested that "Big Oil" companies should stop "gouging" Americans at the gas pumps. Sr. Dean doesn't seem to understand how gasoline is sold in this country. Sr. Dean seems to think that Oil Companies "own" the gas stations simply because they happen to have the same name as the oil company. Sr. Dean is ignorant of the fact that most of these gas stations are leased from the oil company in question and are de facto independent dealers who make profits on the gas they sell. True, the wholesale price is often dictated to them by the oil company in question, but it isn't as if Chevron or Shell could simply say "OK, we are only going to sell gas at $2/gallon at all our branded stations for the next month." They simply don't have the power to do so. Earth calling Dean. Go take your medicial continuing education classes and go back to being a doctor.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/01/MTFH46447_2005-09-01_20-33-54_DIT140857.html

Asked in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America" if U.S. oil companies should forfeit profits during the crisis, Bush said instead American corporations should contribute cash to hurricane relief funds.

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, seized on that comment. He said that while Bush was "asking ordinary Americans to do more, he ought to show some real leadership, and call on his friends in Big Oil to join in the sacrifice and stop gouging American families at the gas pump."

CAFE, Hybrids & Gas: Economic Sins Against the Poor always suffer most?

2005-08-25T22:51:00.000-07:00

Sum: Minimum "efficiency" regulations act like a minimum wage and hurt those that are the most vulnerable in our society. Efficiency regulations should be abandoned, letting those that care and can afford higher efficiency to pay for such on the market without government interference.

No, CAFE is not a new hip type of Coffee; nor place to imbibe such. However, it is an acronym for the gas mileage regulations car makers must abide by. Given RTs recent post, along with the recent spike in gas costs, and a recent NYT article about the increasing role economists play amongst environmental groups, I thought a short article was in order. Disclaimer: I'm not an economist and I'm sure my reasoning has been written about, with better evidence and detail, in other places.

CAFE requires cars and "light trucks" (i.e. vans, SUVs, non-18 wheeler trucks) to meet certain minimum mile per gallon gas requirements. Great idea, right? Save the environment, right? Well...maybe, although it certainly doesn't help the poor. Why?

Rich folks can afford more expensive gas and/or more expensive vehicles that get better gas mileage much more effectively than poor people can. CAFE standards effectively increase the overall price of a given vehicle by a set amount [Note: following numbers are representative only, not meant to be realistic]. This is an upfront cost that most poor folks are least well equipped to deal with. If Car A would cost 10k w/o CAFE regulations, and get 25mpg, it would cost (for example) 12k in order to meet the 30mpg cost. Poor man Joe will find it much easier to pay the extra cost for gas on a monthly basis than paying an increased amount to buy outright, or borrow, for the car upfront. In an unregulated world, those that care about MPG can also choose to buy Car B, which costs 25k and gets 50mpg (my Toyota Prius).

Theoretically, the government could set a car CAFE level of 50mpg. This would effectively force all car makers to license Toyota hybrid technology and force all car buyers to pay 25k (instead of 10-12k, for example) for vehicles. Again, the poor get the short end of a very heavy stick.

This was recently highlight by the NYT, where they talk of how a "green" group convinced Congress to require higher energy efficiency standards in air conditioners. The increased cost per unit? $300. However, consumers would save slightly over $300 over the life of the air conditioner (at current prices). Congress of course bought it. Sad. Frankly, the folks in my congregation who are poor would probably much rather pay a few extra dollars a month in air conditioning costs in the summer than pay $300 extra up front.

When will Congress learn to let the market make these decisions rather than imposing harsh de jure taxes on the poor?

Whose Killing Whom?: Rejoinding Gilliam

2005-08-24T12:13:00.000-07:00

Mssr. Gilliam wrote:

"Who's life and liberty are we protecting? The Iraqiis who we are taking over and killing? That's
an interesting perspective."

The answer to his question is found in today's NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq.html

1. We aren't taking over anything. These folks are creating their own constitution and government.
2. We aren't killing Iraqi civilians. Most of the killing going on is that of those who have chosen to be terrorists, killing their own countrymen and innocent civilians, in order to make a power grab.

The U.S. is abdicating power. Terrorists seek for it. Interesting Perspective indeed.

Soldiers are the last line of Liberty's defense: Defending Cpt. Moroni

2005-08-17T23:54:00.000-07:00

Recently, Ronan has questioned Cpt. Moroni's righteousness and propensity towards anger, violence and capital punishment.

While the debate is fairly well hashed out, today's WSJ and the anti-troops behavior of Ms. Sheehan have brought new insight to the discussion I believe.

In today's world, U.S. soldiers function as "the last line of defense for the rights of life and liberty" who are "morally obliged" to use lethal force to defend the innocent.

While anachronistic, I don't have a problem projecting this description of our troops onto Cpt. Moroni, his "troops" and the actions he took in putting down the Kingman revolt.

Killing another (is/should be) the most shocking act that one member of God's family can do to another. When it isn't justified, God calls it murder; an unforgivable sin. Since God condones killing, apparently there are some situations (but haven't we been warned against situational ethics? Hm...) where justified. Nephi carried out a justified killing, obeying a 'lawful order' from God.

What about Cpt. Moroni? He has the death of 4,000 Kingman dissenters to answer for. Was he justified? Absolutely, because "killing is morally acceptable when the enemy poses a threat to values worth fighting for, such as life or liberty, and there are no nonlethal options to avoid the threat." We can kibbutz about whether there were nonlethal options available to Cpt. Moroni, but given that _the_ Prophet that God choose to edit the BoM records, Mormon, named his son after the man/general/inspired leader and possibly prophet, I give him the benefit of any doubt that might exist.

Viva Cpt. Moroni. Viva the U.S. Soldiers, fighting for liberty. Shame on those that would seek to throw guilt upon them by claiming their actions were wrong or unjustified.

How Anti-War Protestors (Mothers or Not) Harm Soldiers: The "BS" behind "supporting the troops"

2005-08-17T22:39:00.000-07:00

Part I: Anti-War Protestors Harm Soldiers

Ms. Sheehan: Go home. Your grief is causing grief and harm to your son's battle buddies. You are failing them when your son didn't. Don't dishonor his memory.

Recently, there has been a public discussion about the Iraqi war due to the actions of a mother of a soldier who died. Today, I saw a sign by a soldier's brother asking Pres. Bush to bring his brother back home. Anti-war activists are strident in stating that they "support the troops." However, the evidence is clear that they actually harm the troops. What evidence?

Namely, a nice story in todays WSJ; along with several pieces in the MSM that talk about how so many soldiers coming home are having trouble adjusting/need mental health counseling.

Why do they need counseling? Why do they have post-traumatic stress syndrome?

The answer is also fairly simple: Killing or witnessing killing is _the_ most traumatic event that can occur during life. There is a reason that _murder_ is the unforgivable sin after all. Murder consists of taking away the agency of another of God's children from them.

Soldiers kill. But do they murder? Absolutely not. However, anti-war protestors, such as Ms. Sheehan, et al., claim to support the troops while simulataneously undermining the reasons why the Iraqi War is just.

Bush lied people died. Ok, maybe so. However, when you say that, you need to accept responsibility for creating a climate of guilt for returning soldiers who have killed and witnessed killings. While we lack "scientific" studies to this effect, returning troops from Iraq verify that it is very troubling, psychologically, to see holes in bodies and body parts blown off of bodies.

Soldiers who have witnessed deaths, or killed, are more prone to develop Post-traumatic stress syndrome than those that did not while in a "war zone". To paraphrase Maj. Kilner, who is the subject of the WSJ story:

[We, society, the media, the American people] need to help soldiers who are carrying otu lawful orders know that feelings of guilt after combat are natural, are not "a sign of moral culpability or mental weakness" and that there actions were justified.

Sum: Soldiers aren't murderers, and telling them that the war isn't justified only increases their latent guilt for having to take human life in order to: obey orders, save their own, save the lives of Iraqi civilians, and protect the fragile Iraqi democracy.

I'm a Poser, Not a Skater

2005-08-11T11:10:00.000-07:00

Which puts me in good company, aka Tony Hawk. Ok, even that doesn't 'fly' becuase he would drop in from 65'. The largest I've ever done was 18' (I think, although to a teen, it might have appeared larger and only been 12'). Personally, I don't understand 65', let along 80'.

When I was a kid, I enjoyed skating; except for the fact that my younger brother was 10x better than me; and was actually sponsored at one time. I often wonder how good I would have become if sibling envy hadn't sidelined me. I'll let my bro speak for himself.

http://www.slate.com/id/2124309/

Open Discussion: Are U.S. Politics Becoming More Russian?

2005-08-10T23:28:00.000-07:00

Today on NPR, several Russian (Russian) political analyists insisted that "the core" of Russian politics now centers around who will succeed Putin when his term expires in 2008.

This really gave me pause. Russia has basically ceased to be a democratic country under Putin's leadership. His recent steps to create a youth corp (loyal to him & his party) and establish dominance in the media, investigage and charge potential political rivals, etc., have all the hallmarks of classic Soviet dictatorship.

Yet, it also made me wonder if the U.S. is becoming more "Russian," i.e. dictatorial and a weakened democracy, given the hype over who will run for President in 2008. It seems that the 2008 election, still 3 years away, is becoming "the core" of U.S. politics as well. Media reports are all keen on reporting on which politician's actions are likely to help/hurt their 2008 prospects, i.e. Frist on Stem Cells, Pataki & Romney on the Abortion Pill, etc.

Should we be concerned about the increasing politization of "who" is the President? Granted, we still have separation of powers, politically and civilly, that Russia has lost. However...IMO, very disturbing.

Are the Home & Visiting Teaching Programs Failures? Candid &/or Anonymous Answers Requested

2005-08-02T23:46:00.000-07:00

Ok, I'll admit it. I'm sick and tired of hearing the weekly exhortation to do your home teaching. I'm sick of the reminders, I'm sick of "people" not doing it.

WAIT!!!

"People" don't do home & visiting teaching...do they?

Individual saints do, Jane and John Doe Saints around the world.

So, why...why...why...don't Jane and John just DO IT!?!?!?!?!

If individual's aren't doing it...doesn't that make the program a failure. Given currently membership retention rates...it certainly seems like it.

Here is my answer. Will you please provide yours? Anonymously or not, Please answer. My only requirement is that you don't parrot the Ensign on the importance of home teaching.

Answers:

1. Lyle Stamps: [Start excuse] I'm quasi-exempt, because my ward hasn't assigned me yet. However, this doesn't excuse me from getting to know and visiting people on my own initiative. [End excuse]. Except while at BYU, where I had more than 100% home teaching (at least two visits a month w/assigned companions), I generally have had to do home teaching on my own. I suspect that I'm either a hard person to get along with and/or don't like to coordinate with others and tend to do visit people (in general) on short notice, w/o alot of planning. So, my solution is probably to learn to love my HT companion first and show more respect for those that are allowing me into their home to visit them.

If I was answering for others, I suspect [please disabuse me of this notion], that most individual Saints harbor a deep dislike for the program and find that it is largely useless. Hence, they don't do it because they don't believe in in. I'm not sure I believe in it either...I just do it...kinda.
2...
3...
4...
5...

Mormons in the WSJ: What is up?

2005-08-02T12:39:00.000-07:00

Is it just me, or are Mormons overrepresented in the pages of the WSJ?

Today's story is about John & Laurel Larsen. John is a 30 year old Jr. Ford Exec working in China. His wife and three young children also live with him. They live in a big, yet less developed city, ChongQuing, of 32 million people. He served a Mandarin speaking mission in Taiwan.

Mostly, the story focuses on how MNCs are sending expats overseas, esp. China, to expand their businesses and the culture shock that families have when adjusting to life overseas.

Say, how would you feel if you were the only English speaker for every 400,000 people?
If you couldn't speak the language?
Lived in a hotel?
Had a chauffer and a company car?
Had a child who couldn't tolerate wheat glutten or other dietary restrictions?

In the end...they say that it has brought them closer together as a family. What better payoff can there be?

Link below, subscription required.
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB112293595169501981,00.html?mod=home%5Fpage%5Fone%5Fus

Recess Appointments: Historical Artifact & Modern Need

2005-07-29T15:58:00.000-07:00

Today, the NYT insinuated that recess appointments were inappropriate because the supposed rationale for allowing them no longer existed.

"The Constitution's provision allowing for recess appointments harkens back to an era when lawmakers took days to get to the national capital and when recesses routinely stretched for months -- conditions that, of course, no longer apply."

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-UN-Ambassador.html

This is a problematic, and journalistically inappropriate, comment to make.

1. They are offering this as the _only_ rationale for why recess appointments were allowed. This is simply not the case. This is the justification used to explain why the Founders allowed for recess appointments, but frankly, we really don't know.
2. Regardless of "why," this was enacted, the Constitution allows for recess appointments. Frankly, it doesn't matter that the justification, if any, has changed. If you don't like it...amend it. Period.
3. While pre-tech Congresses might have had to travel, making recess appointments necessary, pre-tech Congresses certainly didn't have a record of holding up appointments (the Midnight Judges [aka Marbury] excepted) during the "regular" term of the President (i.e. before he became an official lame duck, i.e. after the election results for the next President were already known).

Sum: It doesn't matter why the Constitution says what it does, the President has the power to make such an appointment, and the need for this power (and the Founders Wisdom) is even greater now that Minority parties have to respect for the Executive Branch's constitutional power; nor respect for their own role in voting (yea or nea) on each appointed official.

U.S. Constition:

Article I, Section 3
Clause 2: Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Harold Bloom, Walt Whitman & Mormonism: 150 Years of Leaves of Grass

2005-07-29T11:35:00.000-07:00

I'm not the most literary or poetic figure, but today's op-ed by Prof. Harold Bloom is noteworthy for two reasons:

1. Comments on Mormonism.
2. Leaves of Grass is really an interesting & rare work. It was required reading for the students in American Heritage (Multicultural & Honors sections) where I was the TA at BYU. Any other classes y'all took that required/encouraged its reading?

re: #1

Bloom's comments include:

"Walt Whitman was the crucial celebrant of what I think we yet will call the American Religion, the momentary fusion of all denominations in an amalgam of Enthusiasm and Gnosticism that marked the beginning of the end of European Protestantism in America, and which began in the Cane Ridge Revival of 1800. The Southern Baptists, Pentecostalists, Mormons, Adventists, and other native strains are ongoing emanations of what began there."

Hm...so Mormonism is a "native strain" emmanating from a religious revival? The intellectual etmoloygies and stream of thought come from this event seem to be pretty powerful stuff.

"Our theologians and prophets of the American Religion include Emerson, Joseph Smith, and Horace Bushnell, among others."

[Note to Kaimi: Yes, this usage is covered by fair use and my subscription agreement with the WSJ.]

40 goats & 20 Camels...Joke or Slight? You decide....

2005-07-28T21:27:00.000-07:00

A National Security Intelligence Service officer told the Standard the letter probably never made it out of the office.

"We gathered that this man was a teetotaler and a staunch Christian who seemed to have been struck by Chelsea, and I thought maybe he just took the joke too far," he said.

So...

The NSA has decided that you have to drink alcohol and can't be a Christian if you are going to write a letter to the U.S. President that will actually be delivered?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/07/27/clinton.kenya.ap/index.html

Fisking Krugman's Racism & Rongness: Whither Jobs?

2005-07-26T23:03:00.000-07:00

Prof. Krugman says jobs are going to Canada because employers don't have to pay for their workers health insurance; and that the U.S. should do the same.

First, he claims Southern workers are so illiterate that Toyota has to use pictures to train them to do their job. That is just plain racist, in the worst way. An indefensible comment.

Second, he says that the "good" jobs are going to Canada; and that U.S. taxpayers end up picking up the tab because the jobs "left" in the U.S. don't provide benefits.

Ironic that he should have placed his article a day before Intel's announcement of a major new plant. Where? Surely in Canada, per Krugman's advice. Rong...

Arizona. Yes, Intel will build a plant to employ 1,000 workers with good pay and benefits. They aren't alone either. Infineon and Dell have also announced and/or built large U.S. plants. (Details at http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinvestor/corporatenews/2005-07-25-factory-usat_x.htm ).

Sum: So much for Krugman's theories on jobs; and that you don't have to be liberal to understand that the welfare state is the only solution to globalization. Pleazzzz!

Krugman's Krass Trash:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/25/opinion/25krugman.html?incamp=article_popular_2

Instapundit, The Atlantic, and NRO: Mitt Romney "lives"; and so does Liberal Religious Bigotry

2005-07-26T22:21:00.000-07:00

So, what do you think of President Romney? No, I'm not talking about the 1980s counselor in the First Presidency. Personally, after a great president nicknamed "Dutch," I'm ready for another one with by the name of Mitt. Very American that...baseball mitts, etc.

Ok, so the most recent news is the story in The Atlantic Magazine. You can read about it at the link below (no registration required).

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200509/pappu

Also, NRO has had some great discussion on the article. See:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_07_24_corner-archive.asp#070780

Or Glenn Reynolds take (the 7:58 AM post from this morning).

www.instapundit.com

Oh, and don't forget:

http://www.dartblog.com/data/003251.html

Who really takes Sen. Kennedy to task...

Calling all LDS Missionaries who speak "Obscure Mayan" Dialects: Casting Call for Mel Gibson's Next Movie

2005-07-25T22:23:00.000-07:00

Ok, not exactly a casting call; but...if you speak whatever "obscure Mayan" Dialect that Gibson is going to use in Apocalypto, you might have just the right combo to score work with Sr. Mel himself. He probably already has some translators I presume; but...chances are, they aren't native English speakers. Just a guess, but this could me a window for some aspiring BYU type.

http://www.variety.com/VR1117926430.html

Justice Roberts: One small step for Conservatives, One huge, deterministic, Step towards Remaking the Supreme Court

2005-07-20T23:13:00.000-07:00

So, is this nomination a big deal? You bet.

Here is a very likely scenario:

1. Rehnquist spends the next term tutoring and mentoring Roberts.
2. Rehnquist retires next summer; having assured his legacy.
3. Bush nominates Roberts to succeed Rehnquist.
4. Bush nominates Judge Edith Jones to replace Roberts.
5. Rove et al. get Bush to follow the above strategy (possibly after a game of Tennis with Rehnquist), to excite the base and ensure heavy turnout in '06 to protect GOP congressional majorities.
6. This strategy also succeeds in '08, as conservatives believe that Stevens (now what, 89?) or Ruth Bader (reportedly in quasi-poor health) retire. Smelling the potential to have a six judge majority of solid conservatives, the base turns out like never before, '08 is a complete political bloodbath, and the GOP nominee, wins and goes on to appoint 1-2 more conservative justices.

Sum: Rove is a genius & Roberts confirmation will literally remake Supreme Court history and ensure GOP dominance into the next decade.

What does Judge Roberts have to Do with Miguel Estrada? ALOT!!!

2005-07-20T11:11:00.000-07:00

I have one very important implication that most folks haven't commented on as of yet:

If Judge Roberts becomes Justice Roberts, then Democrats would be unable to filibuster Miguel Estrada if he was patient and humble enough to accept a re-nomination from President Bush to the D.C. Circuit to replace Judge Roberts. Patient, because he was already filibustered and prevented from serving. Humble, because if he would have been promptly confirmed, it very well might have been him being nominated instead of Judge Roberts.

Why do I make this somewhat daring prediction? Simple.

1. Given Judge Roberts fairly non-controversial decisions while on the D.C. Circuit, the only dirt that liberals and Democrats can throw at him come from his time while working in the Department of Justice as a Special Assistant and as the Principal Deputy Assistant Solicitor General (i.e. the PDAS in any other Department, i.e. the highest politically appointed position without needing Senate confirmation). Libs/Dems have already started down this track. Seehttp://media.pfaw.org/roberts.pdf (attributing positions he took while an advocate for the National Government to himself) & statements by Sens. Schumer & Leahy that he would have to answer questions re: his work while at the DOJ and turn over memos from his DOJ work.

2. The Administrations refusal to turn over the memos and work product of Miguel Estrada while working for the DOJ (in substantially the same positions), was the primary reason given by Senate Democrats for not allowing a vote on his nomination.

3. Democrats will/will not demand Robert's work product while at the DOJ.

Result:

A. If Democrats demand Robert's DOJ memos, and they are not turned over, and he is confirmed, Dems will be unable to use this rationale to block Estrada again (or anyone else for that matter).

B. If Democrats don't demand the DOJ memos, then they essentially have to concede the Roberts nomination.

Either way...a win for those who wish to depoliticize the nomination process.

Making "needed" or "wanted" Ends Meet?: Looking at the WSJ story on family income

2005-07-19T23:32:00.000-07:00

Today's WSJ has a story on how some families are finding it hard to stay financially "afloat". They profile a two income, 2 parent family (Annual income of 63.2k, U.S. Median is 62.4k), which just changed from 1.5 income, 2 parents (Annual income of 60k), in order to cope with rising expenses. Without judging these folks; let's look at some of the choices they have made and see if they seem reasonable for others to follow and/or avoid.

Family Facts:

1. Husband works for Comcast, earns $19.10 an hour. Is unionized, and hasn't had a pay raise in three years due to contract dispute between Union and Comcast.
2. Wife works as a secretary for an eye doctor at $10/hour. Was working 24 hours a week, just moved to 38 hours a week. Only benefit is free in-house vision care "insurance".
3. Two teenage boys.

Ok, so now onto the trade offs. + or - given, with commentary after.

A. Mother has turned to coupon clipping. +
B. Mother balances savings from coupons & driving shorter distances vs. longer drive & gas milage of driving to nearest Walmart. +
C. Family sold its camping trailer and currently uses a tent. +, although what were they doing with a camping trailer to begin with?
D. Father remains unionized. If he weren't unionized, he would have received wage increase averaging between 6-12% over the last three years. -, albeit he might not have a choice as to whether to leave the union or not. Some states effectively force one to stay in a union; other states allow you to opt out. If I remember correctly, PA (where these folks live) is a Union state and has no right to work laws.
E. Family raided their 401(k) plan for $5k to pay bills. Generally, this a big -. Individuall cases vary, but this will really hurt their retirement.
F. Mother urges family members to take shorter showers to save on water bill. +, although the water bill really isn't that much, I guess every penny counts. I like the conservation/environmentalism though.
G. Family has started a garden in their backyard to cut on grocery expenses. +++. Hm...this doesn't sound like familiar advice, does it?
H. Family tries to drive vehicles less; and sold 1 of their two vehicles. +.
I. Family carries 6k in credit card debt. -.

Sum: The story talks about how inflation hurts those htat have a more or less "fixed" income. With Gasone prices up 55%, bread 10%, meat 18%, milk 14% and electricity 11%...static wages are problematic.

Is there a solution for this family? What say ye? What would/wouldn't you do in this situation?

When is lying justified?: Moving beyond the Nazi example

2005-07-18T23:51:00.000-07:00

So, I'm having this fascinating chat with Sr. Gillam at Issues in Mormon Doctrine. [Sorry, I'm not savy enough to figure out backtracks, etc]. See http://mormondoctrine.blogspot.com/2005/07/should-we-support-our-troops.html

Anyway, Sr. Gillam is upset re: the Iraqi liberation/invasion. Ok, I buy that. He isn't alone, nor universally agreed with. On to the good stuff.

The main point of debate seems to be:

"Bush lied, people died"

To which I reply:

"Bush (might have) lied, but people live in freedom now"

Hold on. This post is to explore the nature of justifying dishonesty; not the current state of safety in Iraq. This post IS NOT about debating current safety. It is about justification. Ok? Thanks.

So, y'all probably familiar with the Nazi justification for lying; i.e. if there were Nazi's at your door, would you lie to them about harboring Jews in your basement? If you lie, they live. If you tell the truth, they die.

Let's move beyond that. Let's talk about genocide & liberty; in the context of the Plan of Salvation.

If the Rwandan Genocide could have been prevented by Pres. Clinton lying to the country and inventing an excuse that it threatened our national security in order to for action to have been taken to prevent the Genocide; would it have been justified?

Feel free to insert your own example. Mine is Iraq. Frankly, the capacity of Iraqi's to exercise their God given freedom, have a real probationary mortal estate, rather than one cheapened by the threat of death for opposing Saddam or his corrupt cronies, is worth having lied about WMDs. While I don't think Bush lied, I don't really care. If he did, if it would lead to the liberation of millions to have a better probationary mortal experience...sounds good to me.

So, what say ye? Do you support preventing Genocide and increasing liberty via dishonesty? Or not? Why? Please be civil; no insults.

Iraq Barometer: Military enlistment

2005-07-18T23:43:00.000-07:00

So, how is the U.S. Military doing in Iraq?

One measure often floated is the dropping enlistment rate and failure to meet enlistment goals. However, this is a functionally flawed method for determining progress in Iraq. Why? Because those that are _enlisting_, as opposed to re-enlisting, have never been in Iraq and their only sources of information are: (1) the media and (2) soldiers who have been there.

Source #1 provides mainly negative news, i.e. # of dead, # of suicide bombers, havok wrecked, how bad things are, etc. The only counterpoint is the blogosphere, where many folks, incld. a large number from source #2, try to highlight all the positive progress being made in Iraq.

Source #2 provide more positive news, as shown by blogging, but just as importantly, by the rate of _re-inlistment_. If military soldiers are _re-enlisting_, after having served 1 or more tours of duty in Iraq, then that should be the _best_ indicator of how the war is doing. Why? Because if you want to know how a war is doing, you should ask those that are actually fighting it. For more details, see the story below.

Oh, and for those doubters and those whom would say "they are _bribed_ to re-enlist," I call your very weak hand. First, bonuses would be available to soldiers regardless of whether there was a war on or not. Military bonus policy for re-enlistments has stayed the same for the last decade, with the only exception being that the amounts have increased and that more soldiers are eligible. The 100k bonuses you will read about is for a special forces warrior; not PFC Joe Blow, who can only get about 10k. And 10k isn't much more than the 5k that was available previous to the start of the War on Terrorism/Iraqi liberation. Second, and even more telling: only 60% of those enlisting have qualified for any type of bonus to begin with. Sum: Go GI Joe, Go Freedom.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-17-soldiers-re-enlist_x.htm

Statistics, Damn Lies & Truth: Polling, Presidential Support and Voters

2005-07-14T23:38:00.000-07:00

Let's not talk about statistics as lies or truth, but I wanted to highlight a few interesting quotes I've been told of late in the MSM:

1. Bush currently has 45% popular support (WSJ/NBC poll).
2. Chirac (Pres. of France) has 20% popular support (NPR Morning Edition)
3. Bush won 51% of the popular vote, making him more popular than Clinton who never received majority approval (Clinton won with 49% and 43% of the popular vote, respectively), and thus has more popular than any president since Bush 41' and does have a mandate. (Misc.)
4. Bush won with the lowest percentage of the popular vote of any Republican president; hence he lacks a mandate (Slate).

What do any of these figures tell us? I'm not entirely sure, but my insights:

A. Bush cemented his re-election with a majority vote win, while his first win lacked majority approval. Bush still got more of the vote than Clinton in either of his elections.
B. That Bush is more popular than Chirac, given that the MSM tells us how much the French hate the US, is telling. Apparently, Chriac hating the enemy of the French People (Bush) doesn't translate into support. Sounds like Kerry all over again.
C. MSM/liberal pundits are desperate to invent any figure they can to explain away that Bush won 2004 with a majority vote; which in our system gives him the presidency and the right to claim majority support. That he had a lower percentage than other Republican Presidential winners is...frankly, pointless and says nothing about his mandate.

Treason & the Times: MSM editors fail again...NY Senator Lautenberg

2005-07-11T23:47:00.000-07:00

While the MSM try to create new dirt on Karl Rove, feel free to be skeptical. How can they connect the dots of complex political plots when they can't even get people's identities straight?

I'm sure the August Senator below, and the state he represents, are thrilled at the NYTs failure. It must have been one of those "F" slips. lol...

Senator Frank Lautenberg of New York said the intentional disclosure of a covert agency's identity amounted to an "act of treason,"

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/11/politics/11cnd-rove.html?ei=5094&en=5040c3f3cc9a86d2&hp=&ex=1121140800&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1121118412-NEaNBE7Eg4OBGwD2v0NiNQ

NYT Bias Update: Since when is Hillary Clinton a "Star"?

2005-07-05T23:11:00.000-07:00

So, you wondered if the NYT was biased? Well, consider this headline and the first line of the article; and decide for yourself. Note, the first line is _the_ most important in a news article; with the 1st paragraph overall being _the_ focus of the story.

New York Olympics Bid Unleashes the Star Power

By JIM RUTENBERG and LYNN ZINSER 2:49 PM ET

The last day before the voting brought a new buzz, with New York welcoming Senator Hillary Clinton to the delegation.

What have France, New London and U.S. Eminent Domain law have to do with each other? Or...Why the U.S. is suddenly alot more like Zimbabwe

2005-06-23T23:51:00.000-07:00

Lots. Today, the Supreme Court decided that governments may condemn privately owned land and transfer that land to another private party. Basically, you no longer own your own home. Am I being alarmist? Yes. But, then again, the farmers in Zimbabwe who have lost their land and seen their country turned from the brightest economic star in Africa into a pot of decay and poverty were probably seen as alarmist also. Since when is profit-making private re-development a "public use"? Only in Africa...

I plead with you to take action to get your state government to amend its state constitution to prohibit private takings now that the Supreme Court has surrendered the rights to our homes to anyone who can write out enough contribution checks to local government and come up with a fake "public purpose."

What has New London got to do with it? The case name. Kelo v. New London

The Court commented: "Those who govern the city [of New London] were not confronted with the need to remove blight..., but their determination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to our deference....Clearly, there is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose."

Put in easy to understand language: Since the local government decided it was ok, and even though it wasn't taking the land for government purposes, since they had a good reason to do so, i.e. a private re-developer would bull-doze everything and put up more expense housing which would increase the tax base for the local government deciding it was ok...it's ok.

What has France got to do with it?

The principal dissent, by Justice O'Connor, was based around an axiom made popular by the short book "The Law" by Frederick Bastiat. Basically, that when government has power, people will try to seize control of government to get the government's power exercised in their behalf. Madison sought to diffuse this by creating competing factions who would fight and prevent this from happening. Sadly, at the local level, it is often the easiest to bribe/control the local government when you are dealing with a real estate developer with deep pockets.

In her words:

Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded–i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public–in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings “for public use” is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property–and thereby effectively to delete the words “for public use” from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent.

Money quote: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result. '[T]hat alone is a just government,' wrote James Madison, “which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.”

Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, Pennsylvania Fundraising, and Mormons

2005-06-23T23:41:00.000-07:00

So, what is the AZ Governor (Democrat) doing in a PA law firm talking about Mormons?

The answer is simple: Fundraising. Politicians, mainly Democrats, go to law firms for large political contributions. Republicans do the same thing; they just tend to go to groups other than law firms.

Anyway, today my firm hosted the AZ Governor. No clue what her takehome was, but here are a few interesting tidbits from the event:

1. She took a trip to SLC to meet the leaders of the LDS Church. Why? Someone on her staff is LDS, and she recognized that if she was going to be the governor of the State, she needed to understand the Mormons because they are a numerous and politically powerful minority. In her words, "Most of the leaders of the state legislature are Mormons." Hm...why are there no cries that the LDS Church runs AZ politics like there are in Utah? She shared in this in the context of answering how to reach out to "Values Voters." Of course, she then turned around and said she veteod parental consent for abortion laws, etc. Doesn't sound like she learned much in her trip to SLC if the purpose was to gain LDS votes.

Indian Games: Abramoff, Scandal or Business?

2005-06-23T22:13:00.000-07:00

Let's talk about Indian (not Reindeer) Games.

Some folks are having a tizzy fit that some Washington Lobbyists charged 7.7 million for their services, and pocketed 6.5 million in profit, having only spent 1.2 million. To this, I say...

So what? Have you got something against the free market? Or are you just trying to smear folks who you think will bring political advantage to your side of the fence? Shame on the New York Times and those trying to make a scandal out of this. The answer lies in the free market, not scandal. You think your lobbyist is too expensive? Get another one. The Choctaws didn't have to hire Abramoff et al. And if the margins are really that great in the lobbying industry (i.e. a 500% return is pretty good after all), then maybe more folks should start lobbying businesses. Or maybe...government should have less power, so that there isn't such a large incentive to try and get the stick of government on your side.

Article exerpt:

In 2001 alone, the Choctaws paid $7.7 million to Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Scanlon for lobbying work. But the pair spent just $1.2 million on the designated projects, keeping the remaining $6.5 million for "gimme five" - themselves - according to the e-mail and witnesses.
The tribe ultimately paid Mr. Scanlon as much as $15 million, and he gave Mr. Abramoff $5 million in kickbacks, said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and the chairman of the Senate committee. "Mr. Abramoff betrayed a longstanding client, betrayed his colleagues, betrayed his friend," Mr. McCain said.

Lyle's exerpt:

Typical McCain grandstanding. Mr. Abramoff didn't betray a client, he charged alot of money. So what. McCain does the same thing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/politics/23indian.html

After Action Review: Following, not crossing, Jordan

2005-06-22T23:56:00.000-07:00

So, I guess I've started a trend. I asked for advice re: talks, and now over at BCC, they are trying to get folks to write their talks for them. Go figure.

Anyway, I followed both Jordan and RTs advice. Although, the true failure of the talk is all on me and inadequate preparation.

I didn't talk about fathers; except for holding up a small doll called "the perfect husband," who speaks 6-7 phrases like "We can watch whatever you want honey, here, have the remote." I played 3 of these phrases. Needless to say, my attempt at humor was only caught by a few. I guess sacrament isn't the place for stand-up; oh well.

The main points of the talk were thus:

1. Father's day has been commercialized like Christmas; and we should avoid giving Father's days gifts, esp. when they are purchased on Father's day at some special "sale". To emphasize my point, I even offered to sell copies of my doll after sacrament for those that had forgotten a gift.
2. That parents have a special responsibility to their children, because they are modeling diety to their children, who because of the veil, can't remember what our Heavenly Parents are like.

So, I did talk about Father's some; in the context that they didn't need gifts, I never wanted to get a tie on Father's day, and that parents who fail to provide their children with the right to a loving mother and father like they had in their heavenly home are going to be held accountable; per the PoF. Belated thanks to Kaimi for that point.

the joy of blogging...all can now comment

2005-06-22T23:54:00.000-07:00

my thanks to Geoff J & Jonathan S. for helping me get my comments set up so everyone can comment. and i wondered why i had no discussion here. :(

What is a missionary doing on the front page of the NYT???

2005-06-22T23:48:00.000-07:00

And is he a 'real' missionary? Not exactly the one I would have chosen to be the public image of the Church. OH well. check it out!!!

Direct link brought to you by Geoff J:
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/multimedia/index.html

It is a multimedia presentation by the NYT as part of the Tribes of NY series.

What to say this Father's Day: I.e. What do you _NOT_ want to hear in Sacrament Mtg?

2005-06-17T23:49:00.000-07:00

I ask because I've been preparing a talk (my wife also), on Fathers, for Father's day. So, what canards, stereotypes, etc. do _NOT_ belong in a Father's day talk?

Sudan, Darfur & the U.S.: What's the ICC Got to Do With It? [Apologies to Tina Turner]

2005-06-16T23:21:00.000-07:00

What's the ICC Got to Do With it? What's the ICC but a 2nd rate treaty? What's the ICC Got to do with it? What does the United States need with a treaty it hasn't ratified?

Apparently, quiet alot. Some of you know that for several years, I helped litigate a case against the Government of Sudan & Talisman Energy of Canada for human rights abuses. The case is far from dead, although having lost class certification, it will cost Talisman alot less to settle. However, on 13 June, the Southern District of New York gave a base hit to the Plaintiff's team I used to work for. (For a copy of the complaint, see www.bergermontague.com).

The issue was whether or not international law, and by extension, U.S. law, will allow a corporation to be held liable for human rights abuses, either directly, or indirectly as an accomplice. The answer? Yes, at least at first blush, i.e. enough to go to trial most likely.

Judge Cote (who previously denied class certification), found that corporate liability can exist, as a matter of law, for human rights violations. Talisman claimed that since no international treaty declared corporations _could_ be liable, then they could not. While I won't try to explain further the legal argument, her analogy in denying Talisman's claim is poetic and pithy:

"Such an argument is akin to claiming that a rule governing the law of the sea has not reached the status of customary international law because a number of landlocked States have not adopted it." Strike one!

Also of interest was Talisman's claim that the International Criminal Tribuanls (for Yugoslavia and Rwanda), along with the International Criminal Court (Treaty of Rome), were not appropriate sources to look for whether an international human rights norm exists.

The Flores court (2nd Cir. case) decided that the European Court of Human Rights could not create new norms of international law because it was a regional body. Talisman argued, by analogy, that the ICTY and ICTR were also regional bodies incapable of norm creation. However, Judge Cote pointed out that they differ from the ECHR because they were created by UN Security Council resolutions; not a regional treaty, and that this was done for the express purpose of interpreting international law. Strike two!

Finally, Judge Cote rejected that the ICC was not a source of international norms. As a treaty that was ratified by two or more states, it provided "some" evidence of the custom and practices of nations; and while "on its own" it was insufficient to prove the existence of a new international law norm, it could be used, in context with other treaties, to prove the existence of such. Strike three!

[Disclosure: Nothing I have discussed here relies upon any inside knowledge of the current litigation; of which I have none, having left the legal team over 1 year ago. ]

The opinion can be found below:

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?601348025577453-L_238_0-1

Romney Opposses Gay Marriage & Civil Unions: Go Mitt!

2005-06-16T23:19:00.000-07:00

Gov. Mitt Romney will support a state constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage & civil unions. Now, this is what I like to see...an LDS politician who serves as a leader on an issue that his church has championed. Let it not be said that LDS politicians are like far too many Catholic politicians; i.e. in open opposition to the religious leaders they claim to follow.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Gay-Marriage.html

Stem Cell Research: My brother's disease and the Opportunity Cost of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

2005-06-15T23:55:00.000-07:00

How high is the Opportunity Cost of Embryonic Stem Cell Research? I say it is just too high; and we aren't even going to discuss the ethical problems with destroying human life. My brother was just diagnosed (waiting for 2nd opinion) w/Chron's Disease (Autoimmune disorder). The disorder is characterized by an immune system that attacks the sufferer's digestive system. Embryonic stem cell research holds out hope for him. Adult Stem cell research provides not just hope, but proven results.

Two studies using Adult Stem Cells have shown results already.

First, in one study, a patient, a 22-year-old female who had suffered from it for more than ten years, was treated with her own blood stem cells. Within three months of the operation, her health had dramatically improved, she could eat comfortably, and her acute abdominal discomfort was no longer present. Sherman, Debra, "Adult Stem Cells Hold Hope for Autoimmune Patients," Gene, August 11, 2001. Accessed at: www.gene.ch/gentech/2001/Aug/msg00088.htm

Second, another clinical study presents the case of two Crohn's patients who received their own hematopoietic (i.e., stem cells derived from bone marrow) adult stem cells. They have been in remission for a year following the transplant. Burt RK et al., "High-dose immune suppression and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in refractory Crohn disease," Blood 101 (March 2003) 2064-2066.

Opportunity cost is an economic term of art. Basically, it represents the road not taken; i.e. if you take the right hand turn, you get the benefits of making that turn...and the loss of having not taken the left hand turn. So, if the Federal Government funds $100 million worth of embryonic stem cell research, that is $100 million that could instead have gone into adult stem cell research.

I ask you, would you invest your own money into research of an unproven technology or one already set up and established? Why throw money into research that has _NO_ guarantee of success, when Adult stem cell research has already produced results. You want to stop human suffering? Avoid the ethics of embryo stem cells and invest in Adult Stem Cell research.

Want a list of recent research along these lines and other Adult Stem cell advances?

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04I01

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04J01

I hope that folks will care about the living more than science fiction potential cures for various diseases when there are medically and scientifically viable cures and treatments already available. Frankly, I'm ashamed of the LDS politicians who would turn the Federal Governments back on research that would benefit my brother in favor of research that may not benefit anyone ever [even proponents admit there will be at least an 8-10 year lag time on embryonic stem cell research].

The Last "Laff" & Voodoo Economics: Bush Tax _CUTS_ Produce _MORE_ Revenue

2005-06-13T23:15:00.000-07:00

Remember all the whining about Bush's tax cuts? How the Democrats have said we are creating a huge deficit problem, effectively shackling our children into tax slavery? Yes, LOL. Well, the last "laugh" as in the "Laffer Curve." Basically, the Laffer Curve predicts that there is an optimal taxation level to maximize tax revenue; i.e. if you make the tax rate too high, you will create a disincentive for individuals and companies to earn additional revenue. Liberals laughed this to scorn...calling it "voodoo" economics.

However, the 1980s and the economic growth we experienced due to Reagon/Bush (41') tax policies prove this out. Recent results on the Bush (43') tax cuts reinforce this.

Reagan cut the top income tax rate from 70% to 28%. The result? Tax revenue doubled; from $517 to $1,032 billion dollars.

Bush (43') cut reduced dividend and capital gains tax rates to 15%. The result? According to the CBO (mostly non-partisan; and certainly not overly friendly to the Administration):

Federal tax revenues have increased by $187 billion so far this fiscal year alone, a 15.4% increase in federal tax receits vis-a-vis 2004. Individual and corporate tax rates have increased (overall) 30% since the tax cuts went into effect. Net result? Lower tax rates, but _MORE_ tax dollars. You know that something is going well when perpetually bankrupt New York City goes from red ink to $3 billion in the black.

Do we still have a deficit? Yes, because power corrupts and the GOP has gone from being a small government party to the party of Pork; just like the Democrats before them. However, that doesn't cut against the effectiveness of President Bush's tax policies.

Where is your black magic now my lefty friends? It certainly doesn't like in increasing taxes; so please, leave your "progressive" tax increase proposals in fantasyland; cuz they only produce fake monopoly money; not real federal revenue.

How Adam Smith (and maybe Joseph too) would deal with the "Beggar" Question: Thoughts on Working Toward Zion, Pt. I

2005-06-07T23:35:00.000-07:00

I'm reading Working Toward ZIon: Principles of the United Order for the Modern World by Lucas & Woodworth (forward by Nibley).

Adam Smith said:

"All the members of the human society stand in need of each other's assistance, and are likewise wexposed to mutual injuries. Where the necessary assistance is reciprocally afforded from love, from gratitude, from friendship, and esteem, the society flourishes and is happy. All the different members of it are bound together by the agreeable bonds of love and affection, and are, as it were, drawn to one common centre of mutual good offices."

To paraphrase, "By encouraging free human interaction" service affords "more opportunity for people to develop the spirit of sympathy and other virtues." WTZ, 63.

This is a post re: the proverbial question of what to do with the Beggar. However, it isn't begging the question because I think that an individual who has consecrated their time, talents & efforts to building up the Kingdom of God can come up with a better answer than the four stock answers. I suggest that the principal failure of these four is that they allow for only limited, one shot, non-recurring interaction, with the needy individual(s). The four are:

1. Give them money
2. Give them food
3. Give them nothing cuz they are probably just lazy and/or making more money begging that working; and
4. Direct them to a local shelter or just plain ignore them.

Why are these inadequate responses?

1. Giving the beggar money is great; it avoids pre-judging the individual asking for help and is a charitable act. However, it could be self-defeating, i.e. sometimes in our efforts to help folks in the "worst" way, we do exactly that...helping them in _the worst_ way possible.
2. Giving them food is thus probably a better solution, esp. as they sometimes are just asking for food. Except sometimes they don't need food, but money for bus fare, transportation, rent, a night at the local shelter (many of which do charge a small fee), etc.
3. This option was well condemned by King Benjamin. Ignore a prophet at your own risk. Further, don't think that your (hopefully) "generous" fast offering got you off the hook. Sorry, not enough when there is a direct need in front of your face.
4. Ok, directing them to groups that are qualified and dedicated to this is a solution; but...will they do it? You can say that it is their choice...but you are assuming they just don't know about the local helping agencies. Maybe they already do and/or can't get help there for whatever reason. Obviously ignoring has the same problem as #3.

Also, each of these tends to take a short-run solution to an immediate problem. For example, feeding the hungry is dandy; but it doesn't solve the hunger of tomorrow; hence the teach a person to fish story. What is needed is a more comprehensive, long run answer to the beggar/needy person's explicit/implicit request/need.

Where does this leave us? With the solution that so few of us are willing to take. A recent discussion at T&S focused on whether to pick up hitch-hikers. Many said "no," because it wasn't safe to do so. However, for those that feel this is a valid concern, I have a solution "minor" that won't violate their safety ethic so much.

Do you have a "greater desire to give than to take, a stronger desire to share than to receive"? If so, then I hope this appeals to you:

First, introduce yourself to the beggar (or an individual you know needs economic help; this could be a member of your ward or neighborhood you are only slightly acquainted with, but feel safer helping). Do the BRT, get to know them...for real.
Second, determine how you can help them. Do they need a place to stay? food? a job? substance abuse help?
Third, determine how you can be part of the solution. Don't you have a guest bedroom? Food storage/a full fridge? Some yard work you could let the individual do? Perhaps the beggar/needy person has some talents/job skills? Perhaps you own a business and could employ them?

Many of you will object that it isn't safe to bring a homeless person into your home. Fine. While this reminds me alot of Les Miserables, and I'd hate to think a fictional Priest is more Christlike than a living Latter-day Saint, Fine. However, there are less invasive/secure steps you could take; i.e. yard work, taking your (consecrated) time to take the individual to a shelter where they can get help, helping them apply for a job, helping them to find alternative lodging, transporation, etc. Don't make your (absolute) security the enemy of your consecrated efforts to Build Zion.

Zion have one heart and one mind; with no poor among them. Can we perhaps start with our own and one other individual in need? Rather than fulfilling a short term need, or giving into your pride and doing nothing, why not consider a longer-term solution?

While I won't go into details (this isn't about extolling my efforts), I have employed this model with some success in the city of Philadelphia over the last year plus. I hope ye will consider it also.

Church, State & Bill Signing in Texas: A retrospective

2005-06-06T05:51:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, the Governor of Texas signed a bill into law requiring parental consent for anyone under the age of 18 to get an abortion.

Yet, the signing wasn't news because of the Abortion Consent bill; but because he "signed" the bill into law in the Gym of the Calvary Christian Academy. One thousand + people celebrated; about 100 outside demonstrated. Sounds like about the right number.

The protestors "denouncing the unusual signing as breaching the constitutional separation between church and state." Yet...is this so? Was it unusual? Perhaps in the last decade or two, but not in the early days of the country. And it certainly isn't a breach of the separation of Church & State; a widely & hugely misunderstood constitutional doctrine.

First, perhaps those protestors should consider the role of the clergy in winning the War of Independence. Without independence preaching clergymen and their adherents, we wouldn't have won the war. Or perhaps the fact that many government meetings were held in Churches in the early days of the country.

Second, the separation of Church & State, properly understood, only prohibits the _Federal Government_ from _establishing_, i.e. proclaiming, that one Church or many churches are the _Official_ Churches of the country. Any restrictions beyond that are pure judicial activism unfounded by history or intent.

Good on Gov. Perry. I hope he continues to invite people into the political process, and signs bills in other locations. Religion is a part of our society. It shouldn't be discriminated against...anymore that the military, sports, etc.

note: One of the protestors apparently had a sign that said "The Soul Has No Gender." While I have no idea what that has to do with abortion or church-state issues; as a matter of (revealed) fact, it is wrong. The Proclamation on the Family clearly states that the soul has a gender and has had such since our spiritual conception by Heavenly Parents.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/national/06texas.html

An Open Letter to the Editors of the WSJ

2005-06-06T05:01:00.000-07:00

Dear Editors:

A discussion at one of the main Mormon [You know, Stephen Covey, John Huntsman, etc] blogs, Times & Seasons, re: photographs, gender & appropriate tasks caused me to wonder if the WSJ has a gender bias. Does it? To see the T&S discussion, the link is here:

http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php?p=2318#comment-78963

Basically, the graphic in Monday's "The Journal Report" on Financial Planners focusing on baby boomer retirment planning, only has 2 women and 7 men. One of the women is sipmly staring forward. Is this the type of image the WSJ has of business? The other woman is in 2nd place, behind a man who is at the very front of the ship of "financial planning." Are you trying to imply that women are genetically risk-adverse and/or always going to be in 2nd place? In todays PC world, you could have put the woman in front and never had to face complaints such as this.

Also, all 9 individuals are wearing glasses? Do you have something against foks with 20/20 vision?

Sincerely,

W. Lyle Stamps, Esq.

Last day! My comment to the FEC re: regulating Blogs/political internet activity

2005-06-03T23:02:00.000-07:00

Dear FEC:

I support the FEC's proposal to apply a level playing field to all electioneering/campaigning, whether done via the internet or otherwise.

The proposed definition of "public communication" is narrowly tailored to avoid infringing upon the rights of individual citizens to express and share their political views over the internet while assuring that all paid advertising is accounted for, regardless of its ultimate medium of expression. Paid internet advertisements, whether in the form of websites, blogs or email/spam, should carry appropriate disclaimers and self-identifying statements that will allow for correct attribution.

However, I oppose any and all attempts to regulate internet speech undertaken by private citizens where they are not being paid or subsidized by candidates, groups, parties or other entities. Further, and most importantly, under no circumstances should the privately undertaken internet activities of individuals be attributed as a contribution to a party or candidate simply because they promote that candidate or party or attack that candidate's or party's opponents.

Sincerely,
W. Lyle Stamps, Esq.
32 Springton Road
Upper Darby, PA 19082

Is China the Next (Holy) Roman Empire?

2005-06-02T12:31:00.000-07:00

No, this is not another speculative post regarding when LDS missionaries will be allowed into China. While "those in the know" will tell you that such approval was almost granted until an errant U.S. bomb hit a certain Chinese Embassy...who really knows? Yes, this thread is about religious liberty in China and the possibility that China could become the largest "Christian" nation in the world in the next 10-20 years. We can only hope that LDS missionaries are allowed into China so we can "compete" with Catholics and Protestants for converts. No, I have no inside knowledge (my cousin, former Taipei Mission President Stamps, and I haven’t talked for about a year...about time to call him up again!).

As any newsreader knows, China is becoming an economic superpower. Heck, as any buyer knows...plenty of U.S. purchases are "Made in China," whether we are talking Hong Kong or China (but not Taiwan of course). China has recently bought up portions of companies with oil reserves in Alberta Canada, is working to create an Alberta-Pacific Ocean oil pipeline, and bought up Canadian interests in Oil reserves in the Sudan when they became politically too hot for the Canadian oil company Talisman Energy.

But...did you know that China may become a "Christian" superpower? While America has been at the forefront of the Christian missionary movement for years (some of my cousins were Protestant missionaries in China in the pre-WWI days), other countries have begun sending missionaries to the United States (mostly Hispanic speaking missionaries). What if China started sending missionaries into the world rather than the other way around? Sound far fetched? Read on true believer...

In 1950, there were 2.7 million Catholics and 700,000 Protestants in China. In 2004, estimates place those numbers at 5.3 million Catholics and 16 million Protestants...and that is only those attending "State" churches. State Churches, or "Patriotic" Churches, are those run by the Communist government; i.e. they choose who can be the priest/pastor and who will be priest/pastor where. In contrast, there are an estimated 12 million Catholic believers, and as many as 35 million Protestant believers, who attend "street" or "underground" churches which are not under government control.

So, the question is thus:

1. Large growth in Christians in China in the last 50 odd years.
2. Increasing acceptance of religion in public life by the Communist party; as it transitions to a market economy, personal liberties, such as religious liberty, appear to be slowly winning ground.
3. Will this growth continue? While Stark’s wildly optimist LDS projections are not turning out, similar growth in China could result in as many as 100 million Catholics and 500 million Protestants in the China of 2050. Granted, this is only 600 million out of 6 billion (assuming no further Chinese population growth), or 10%...but that is a huge number of believers.
4. Rome used to be a large empire which persecuted Christians as the Chinese now persecute "underground/street" Christians. Could the tables be turned? Could China eventually become a massive Christianizing force in the world? Hm...

Also, whither the LDS faith in China? As an "American" Church...we certainly face an uphill battle. One, as "law abiding" we won’t send in unauthorized/illegal missionaries to set up street churches. Two, because we aren’t about to let China appoint and choose who the Bishops/Stake Presidents would be...we aren’t going to be considered a "Patriotic" church.

News & Notes at T&S: Kaimi = bored, or doesn't like Matt's abortion link?

2005-06-01T15:18:00.000-07:00

Folks, what think ye? Is Kaimi bored? Or did he just dislike Matt Evan's links to posts/news stories contradicting the infamous, and false, Bush-Abortion increase? Hm...maybe he is just going for the record of my consecutive news link postings?

Ultimate Elder's Quorum Teaching: What say ye?

2005-06-01T07:29:00.000-07:00

I've been asked to teach Lesson 9 on "Resisting Temptation" in Elder's Quorum in two weeks. So far, my preparation has consisted of: praying for guidance and reading the lesson manual twice. I've a number of ideas; but wanted to throw this open for discussion:

What makes the Ultimate Elder's Quorum Lesson? Is it the teacher? The class? The preparation? Snacks? Video games?

The bloggernacle seems full of threads either praising/complaining about Sunday School; but I haven't seen much on Elder's Quorum. Please provide your thoughts. What say ye?

re: snacks. They are deemed permissible; but then the Quorum has to move to the cultural hall and out of the Sacrament meeting room. Too much disruption?

re: video games. Ok, this was more of a pun to play on Ultimate Fighting than a serious suggestion.

re: preparation. We've been exhorted to read the manual before the lesson. What more should an Elder-participant do?

re: Teaching. The manual says outside resources aren't necessary. Yet, Sunday School complaints seem to be that they are too banal and scripture based. What more, if anything, should the the Elder-teaching do?

re:

Utah & the Wall Street Journal

2005-05-31T15:23:00.000-07:00

So, what is it with the WSJ and Utah? Last week, they ran a story on bankruptcy with their signature bio focusing on Utahns. This week, they’ve chosen another Utahn to discuss individuals who want to buy health insurance and aren’t covered by their employers. The story starts:

“John Craig, a 46-year-old software consultant in Orem, Utah, plays racquetball twice a week, doesn’t smoke or drink and isn’t overweight. But when he tried to get an individual health-insurance policy three years ago, he was rejected.”

Apparently, because he takes anti-depression medication and had allergy problems (which ceased after he stopped eating wheat!), insurance companies won’t touch him. Maybe it is just because he seems to have near perfect health, i.e. no drinking or smoking. However, it seems clear the man is Mormon, right?

New home, New child(ren), New lawsuit???

2005-05-27T09:26:00.000-07:00

I'm proud to announce that Evelin and I will be welcoming our first Child into the family in December 05/January 06. We just found out and are rather excited. While we would like twins, we will be happy with whatever the Lord blesses us with; boy, girl or multiples thereof. Happily, we found out before we move this weekend into our new home; so Evelin will not be doing any heavy lifting or painting. Thanks to various Bloggernacle posts, I've learned that the first few months of a pregnancy can can be crucial and we don't want her taking any risks.

This has raised up alot of questions in my mind; including some of the following:

1. Has the Spirit of our child(ren) already entered into their new mortal home? LDS teachings do not speak to this issue. While I know that our child(ren) were previously living with our Heavenly Parents...when is their "departure" date from that heavenly home? Was it at conception? Implantation? Birth?

Because I reject the last, I choose to believe in the first. Any other possibilities just don't make any sense to me. However, if I truly believe that our child(ren) are already alive, as a loving and responsible (mortal) father, I wonder what steps I could/should take in order to secure their rights. I am encouraged by laws which allow for the prosecution of individuals who attack pregnant women and harm the expecting mother and/or their babies in the womb. I wonder how I could help encourage this trend; or create another.

Specifically, I haven't done the legal search to find out if this has already been done, but it seems to me that my child(ren) should already be eligible to receive a social security number. I'm also similarly sure that the government would refuse such a request. Given that possibility, I am contemplating filing a lawsuit for declaratory relief. Anyone else out there consider this or have any advice (legal or otherwise)?

Funerals: A Celebration & Spiritual Reunion

2005-05-27T09:10:00.000-07:00

Why am I talking about Funerals today? Because for reasons I'll post later, I'm newly aware of the entire life cycle and have been thinking of my deceased grandmother of late. Also, because I saw an article about the upcoming funeral/celebration of Hunter S. Thompson. Warning: this thread is _not_ to the place to discuss suicide; and anysuch comments will be deleted. While I'm not sure about the more flamboyant details of Thompson's proposed "funeral," nor do I encourage cremation (which many view as desecration of the mortal, bodily, temple), Thompson's widow, Anita Thompson, said "the event will be a celebration."

Her use of the term "celebration" really struck a chord in me. For those that are humble enough to set aside their own sadness and personal loss of assocation, there is much to be celebrated when one of Heavenly Father's children returns to him.

Funerals should be a celebration; yet historically, they tend to be rather sad, morose affairs will folks clad in black. The only net benefit usually is that it becomes an impromptu family reunion. Now, I'm not saying that death doesn't bring sadness to the deceased's family, or that they won't miss the deceased. However, I am saying that there is great cause for celebration when someone returns to their heavenly home.

Why?

1. Only our physical bodies are mortal; the Spirit is immortal.
2. Before we came to this earth and a mortal existence, we lived with our Heavenly Parents as their spirit children in our previously heavenly home.
3. When the Spirit leaves the body, it returns to its Heavenly Parents from which it originally left.

So, rather than feeling saddened by the loss that we personally feel at the, temporary, loss of a loved one; why not celebrate:

1. The deceased's reunion with our Heavenly Parents?
2. The deceased's reunion with their loved ones who died before them?

While I was saddened when my grandmother passed away (almost 2 years ago today), I was cheered to know that she was now with her parents, with whom she was very close, and hadn't seen in so many years. While I was very close with my grandmother, I don't think that my, temporary, sorrow, would even come close to dampening the great joy that my grandmother must have felt to be with her mortal parents again. I was also recently cheered by my mother telling me that my grandmother's temple work was done for her. While I do not know if she will accept the vicarious ordinances or not (she was very devoutly Catholic, and while she read the Book of Mormon at my request, and liked it, she never brought herself to pray and ask God directly about its truth), I can at least hope and rest easy knowing that she was reunited with both her Heavenly, and mortal, Parents.

I love you Grandma. While I'm not eager to join you just quite yet, I know that I will see you again.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2005-05-27-Depp-to-help-honor-Thompson_x.htm

Conflicting Church Missions?

2005-05-26T05:14:00.000-07:00

Ok, this is more about my inability to plan more in advance than the Ward Calendar than anything else. However, the quasi-purpose is thus: What to do when Church Missions get out of bounds [apologies to the B-52s]?

Today, me and my wife are moving. Our ward has known about the move for several weeks. However, the Ward Temple trip has been on the calendar for...oh, say 6 months. Consequently...we are getting Zero, zilch, i.e. no help moving.

Just goes to show you that church service is not a quid pro quo; if it was, I'd have lots of help because I've been a regular when it comes to helping others move in/out of the ward over the last year. Oh well, I'm sure that vicarious ordinance work is more important than serving your fellow (living) Saints; esp. when one of them is pregnant and can't help out with the moving.

End rant.

I bought a home through Blogger. Did you?

2005-05-09T14:56:00.000-07:00

When Blogger talks, I listen. At least when it involved a tip from my sister in OK that her visiting teacher's friends were graduating from Temple Dental School, moving to OK, and needed to sell their home. Interesting enough, they decided to market their home via Blogger.

So, without further ado...I give you, the new Stamps Family Residence. At least, as of 23 May 2005.

http://upperdarbyhouse.blogspot.com/

Translating Talent into Talents

2005-05-09T14:50:00.000-07:00

How do you Translate Talent into Talents?

Have you ever had the hankering to start your own business, take up a musical instrument, or invent something? Anecdotal evidence suggests that the high bankruptcy rate in Utah may be attributed to a high percentage of families that try to start a business and fail. Demographic & Doctrinal evidence suggests that a higher percentage of Utah families than normal might try this route because they want to provide a two-income equivalent earning potential without requiring the Mother to work outside of the home.

So, what is the hang up? My MBA acquaintances alternate between preaching the need for a business plan to uttering "location, location, location." Personally, my experience says that it has alot more to do with up front investing capital. I can think of at least three different businesses that I'd like to start up. However, as an attorney, I have a good revenue stream that I am very hesitant to endanger or become distracted from.

So...what say ye? Tips anyone? How does one translate 'talent' into 'talents'?

Sunday School & Liquidity

2005-05-09T14:43:00.000-07:00

Sunday School this last week was interesting. We talked about debt. It was a ward conference & they assigned a member of the Stake Presidency to talk about debt, i.e. getting out of it. Thankfully, he didn't feel obliged to throw in the quasi-tired J. Reuben Clark quote about debt never sleeping & being a crushing burden. However, he did suggest the following:

"If you have to choose between paying down your consumer debt or building up a liquid savings account...

Pay down your consumer debt."

This put to rest a fairly long-running Stamps family discussion. For those of you that haven't met us; imagine an Ettin with a pretty female face & a very Polish/Jewish/Joseph Smith nosed male face. The female head of the family said we needed to open an Orange ING savings account & earn 3% interest. The male head of the family said we needed to pay off credit card debt, thereby "saving" more money in decreased interest payments than could be achieved by the 3% offered by ING.

Result? We are now happily paying off consumer debt. Perhaps more interesting, Round II was also solved before it really began. The obnoxious male wanted to take out a big auto loan to buy a 2006 Hybrid Toyota Highlander...to match the family's cute black 2004 Toyota Prius. The savy female said she could wait to have a "baby mobile." So, while we will continue to pollute at a slightly higher rate for another year or so...at least it will keep our financial environment greener.

Cheerio...

"What is a Values Pundit?"

2005-05-09T14:37:00.000-07:00

Today, Steve Evans asked a very interesting question:

"What is a Values Pundit?" (misspelling ignored)

Answer: A blog, otherwise known as a blawg. Currently one without much content, because I've discovered that it is incredibly hard to come up with good, original content. Why? Because either I'll have a good quasi-original idea, but no time to do anything with it or good ideas only seem to come to light & life in the fire of conversation/controversy with others; esp. if there name is Steve Evans.

Were in the World is Maslow? A Tale for Prospective Homebuyers

2005-04-11T12:08:00.000-07:00

Where was Maslow when I needed him? Last weekend, I went house hunting. My wife & I currently live in the equivalent of a 1 bedroom apartment and are feeling more than a tad constricted; esp. when considering our desire to have a kid or two. So, we set out on a merry chase to find a house in the Philadelphia area.

One problem that quickly arose was "where" to buy a house? Without disclosing which side favored which value, a duel quickly ensued. One side focused on the security & environment of the neighborhood a home purchase must have. Another side framed the issue as a matter of financial responsibility & affordability. Yes, where was Maslow indeed? His hierarchy, while powerful & concise, while placing values atop the pyramid...didn't further subdivide which values reside at the pinacle, and which at the base, of the top of the hierarchy's pyramid.

How does a couple reconcile conflicting values? Is living in a 'safe' neighborhood important? Sure. Is buying a home that you can afford important? Yup...yet, what if these seem to be mutually exclusive because the only "affordable" homes are located in "less" desirable neighborhoods. Yes, the law of supply & demand is alive & healthy here in Philadelphia.

Where & how do you negotiate seemingly conflicting values? Is there a "unified" theory of values that will subdivide Maslow's hierarchy? I'm still looking...

Sandy Berger: Abuse of Trust & the Sentencing Guidelines

2005-04-05T15:39:00.000-07:00

Like many, I am outraged over the utterly lenient plea bargain given to Sandy Berger. Not only did he steal classified documents regarding national security estimates, but he destroyed said documents & knowingly lied regarding his theft & destruction of said documents. Below, I compare Mr. Berger with Earl Edwin Pitts, the convicted FBI, turned Soviet, Spy. Mr. Pitts wanted a lighter sentence because he didn't believe he held a position of "special trust." This was of course rejected. However, what is truly interesting to me is the special position of trust that Sandy Berger held as a former National Security Advisor to the President of the United States. Shouldn't such an individual be held to a higher standard & subject to greater scrutiny & accountability than a mere FBI agent?

By agreeing to plead guilty to the charge of "unauthorized removal and retention of classified material" a misdemeanor, Berger will serve no jail time and only pay a $10,000 fine, in addition to surrendering his security clearance for three years (i.e. the rest of the Bush Administration). However, the crime carries a possible maximum sentence of a year in prison and up to a $100,000, fine in addition to permanent loss of the security clearance.

What justification for this "downward" departure from the maximum sentence exists? I have seen none to date, except for rumors that perhaps his plea bargain is part of an on-going investigation. In fact, it appears that due to Mr. Berger's "special" position of trust, he actually qualifies for an "upward" departure in the sentencing guidelines (which I readily admit probably don't apply to this misdemeanor; however, the analogy still applies).

While Mr. Berger is not a spy, he did take & destroy classified documents. Many of you probably remember the case of Mr. Pitts, the FBI agent who decided to work for the Soviet Union. Mr. Pitts disagreed with his sentence, which was "increased" due to his abuse of trust, under Section 3B1.3 of the Sentencing Guidelines. Citing numerous other espionage cases where the abuse of trust upward departure wasn't applied, and where the harm of the disclosure of confidential documents was greater than his own, he believed he should get a lighter sentence.

This section provides that sentencing courts may consider: (1) whether the defendant had special duties or "special access to information not available to other employees;" (2) "the defendant's level of supervision or 'degree of managerial discretion'"; and (3) whether an examination of the acts committed establishes that this defendant is "'more culpable' than others who hold similar positions and who may commit crimes."

The 4th Circuit rejected Mr. Pitt's appeal, finding that "The harm resulting from the actual offense conduct is irrelevant to a decision to depart based upon an extraordinary abuse of trust." 176 F. 3d 239 (4th Cir. 1999)

So...I leave it to you; and hopefully the judge who will decide whether the plea bargain is appropriate, to decide whether Mr. Berger held a position of "special trust," and if anything, should qualify for an enhanced sentence, or at least the maximum allowed by the charge.