Nothing like adding a little technology to "Enhance" the State of the Union.

As part of Black History Month, we are posting the text of a great article from the Journal of Mormon History by James B. Allen[ref]James B. Allen, a past president of the Mormon History Association, has been on the faculty of Brigham Young University since 1963, and currently holds the Lemuel H. Redd Chair in Western American History. He is also a former Assistant Church Historian and is the author or co-author of numerous books and articles, among them The Story of the Latter-day Saints, with Glen M. Leonard. He is married to Renee Jones; they have five children and twelve grandchildren. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Mormon History Association annual meeting, 13 May 1989, at Omaha, Nebraska. Sources from the Historical Department Archives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (hereafter cited as LDS Church Archives) are copyright by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; courtesy of the Church Historical Department; used by permission.[/ref], which can be found here as a pdf.

 

 

Read more

KSL News reported recently that Northern Utah's air is the worst in the nation. We believe that Mormonism naturally lends itself to environmentalism for many reasons, but partially relevant in this case is the direct effect our pollution has on God's children. From the article:

 

Read more

Those of us with a moderate to progressive worldview have many things in our modern world to be concerned about. Possibly the one thing that tops the list is the disturbing trend the last thirty years of seeing all the fruits of an expanding economy go to a select few, while the bulk of America’s citizens are falling behind. This doesn’t only offend our sense of fairness and justice (especially for honest readers of the Book of Mormon). Utah’s native son Marriner Eccles (and his modern disciples Paul Krugman, Robert Reich and others) teaches us that it’s this very economic imbalance that causes the type of severe financial crises we saw in 1929 and 2008.

If you want to understand the causes of this New Gilded Age in the developed world, I heartily recommend the recently published book by respected international affairs author Chrystia Freeland, which carries the title of this blog post.

It would be impossible to convey the depth of analysis that Ms. Freeland accomplishes in a short blog post, but hopefully a few highlights will pique your interest.

One intriguing insight is this: A big difference between the first Gilded Age of the late 19^th Century in America and the New Gilded Age is the difference in who the super-rich are. It is no longer the owners of capital that are capturing all the wealth. Today’s super-rich are the highly educated, Ivy League knowledge workers. If you look at those pulling in the bulk of the nation’s annual wealth, it’s not owners of capital, but hedge fund managers, investment bankers, corporate CEO’s, highly compensated top tier entertainers, and high-tech entrepreneurs.  This is a fundamentally new phenomenon in human history. And with globalization, it has become a world-wide phenomenon.

An important and new characteristic of these modern super-rich is that they are true citizens of the world, rather than of any individual nation. Regardless of their ethnic background or place of birth, they identify with the fellow members of their class and their work much more than with their country. Gov. Romney was criticized during the presidential campaign for all his overseas financial interests, but that is a characteristic of his class. Globalization has not just affected normal trade, but has created this new global elite, where American sports teams are just as likely to be owned by a Russian oligarch as an American. An interesting example is Chrysler/Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne. He was born of an Italian father and Croatian mother, spent his teenage years and early professional career in Canada, and later worked as an accountant in several European countries before taking the reins of Fiat. He currently holds dual Italian and Canadian citizenship.

Another important principle Ms. Freeland highlights is the difference between “rent-seeking” and wealth creation. Some of the super-rich, like Steve Jobs, clearly earned their riches by creating things. This type of wealth-creating activity is beneficial to society (as long as there are no damaging side effects). However, Freeland argues that many of today’s highly educated super-rich earn their money through “rent –seeking”, which is the opposite of creativity; you are using your education and skills to take money out of someone else’s pocket and transferring it to your own. The most obvious example of this is modern investment banking, which has been transformed from being the servant of productive business to its master the last thirty years. Much of the economic angst in the world today results from an economic system that has been too generous to rent-seekers in contrast with those who actually create.

Here is the personal epiphany I gained from this book: The world’s economy is in uncharted waters; many authors beside Chrystia Freeland have commented we are in an economic revolution at least as great as that which occurred during the Gilded Age. And as leaders like both Roosevelts did during the original Gilded Age, we must come up with solutions to the excesses created by the New Gilded Age, but without stifling the benefits of the new economy. Like the previous Gilded Age, not every American will be able to be a plutocrat. We will still need checkers at the grocery store, mechanics to fix our cars, people to cut our hair and serve us at restaurants. Like that earlier era, we need to find a way that average Americans can share in the American dream. And since we are in completely unchartered territory, it is crazy to think that old, hidebound political ideologies grounded in the mid-20^th century will have the answers to the future. Dealing with the modern economic world will take creativity and the willingness to be influenced by facts and data.

This is the fourth in our five-part series titled "Mormonism, Agency, and Politics." In the first post we discussed the importance of agency in Mormon doctrine. In the second we addressed Satan's strategy of limiting our agency. In the third, we addressed the view that agency can be restricted simply by restricting freedom. In the fourth, we will examine the idea that agency can be restricted by removing differences between good and evil and explore its political implications.

Like we've said before, we don't believe that force in any way restricts agency. As one person put it,

The way I understand agency, you could put me in a dungeon in a straightjacket and blindfold/gag me, and I'd still have agency. I wouldn't have a lot of freedom, but I would still be able to choose between good and evil.

So, if force doesn't limit or restrict our agency, how was Satan going to go about limiting our agency while here on earth? His plan was to remove agency by erasing the difference between good and evil: if we don't have moral alternatives, we don't have agency. There are certainly many ways to do this, but we'll just look at two possibilities:

Read more

Last night NBC posted a leaked copy of the Obama Administration's 16-page white paper (PDF) laying out a defense of its controversial practice of using drones to kill American citizens suspected of terrorism. This is not really a new revelation--we knew the Obama Administration had compiled a secret kill list, and that there have been Americans on that list. But, this white paper does shed some light on how that list is justified. And there are some big changes: whereas previous doctrine held that such killings could take place in the case of clear knowledge of a specific terrorist plot, the memo says differently:

[A]n “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”

In other words, if someone high enough in the U.S. government has any reason to believe that you might have engaged in some activity, at one time in the recent past, that may potentially pose a threat of violence, they can order your death. Unsurprisingly, this document is worrisome to experts on civil liberties:

“This is a chilling document,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, which is suing to obtain administration memos about the targeted killing of Americans. “Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated.”

The 16-page white paper is likely the tip of the iceberg, with many suspecting a host of legal documents outlining the Obama Administration's justification for killing American citizens. A bipartisan group of senators (led by Ron Wyden, D-OR) wants to know more about the Administration's policy, and has written a letter requesting a more full explanation. Michael Isikoff, who originally obtained the white paper, summarizes the letter:

While accepting that “there will clearly be circumstances in which the president has the authority to use lethal force” against Americans who take up arms against the country, it said, “It is vitally important ... for Congress and the American public to have a full understanding of how the executive branch interprets the limits and boundaries of this authority.”

War is never a simple situation. We understand that. And if someone poses an imminent threat to American citizens, that person obviously needs to be stopped. But, we echo the worries of others who are shocked that stripping American citizens of due process of law (innocent until proven guilty? right to a speedy trial?) can be accepted by so many Americans--Obama's opponents and his supporters. Glenn Greenwald makes a compelling case that Obama supporters should think twice about this policy:

If you’re going to ... argue that this is all justified [if an American] is an Evil, Violent, Murdering Terrorist Trying to Kill Americans, you should say how you know that. Generally, guilt is determined by having a trial where the evidence is presented and the accused has an opportunity to defend himself — not by putting blind authoritarian faith in the unchecked accusations of government leaders, even if it happens to be Barack Obama. That’s especially true given how many times accusations of Terrorism by the U.S. Government have proven to be false.

We have written before about our disappointment in the warmongering accepted by this administration. We repeat President Joseph F. Smith's caution about becoming distracted by war's false promises of peace (posted on our Foreign Policy page):

One thing is certain, the doctrine of peace by armed force, … is a failure, and should without question forever be abandoned. It has been wrong from the beginning. That we get what we prepare for is literally true in this case.

Note: this post kicks off a new series titled "Think of the Family," in which we explore ways to strengthen (or at least stop hurting) the family.

Yesterday's Super Bowl blackout drew attention to the nation's less-than-stellar energy infrastructure. We'd like to draw some attention to a different problem in the same state: Louisiana recently announced that they would be cutting aid money to its poor, sick, and elderly. While some might blame the poor for their circumstance, we disagree: as we've argued before, the free market does not always reward hard work. Some might say argue these families will just get those services from the free market. We wish this were the case, but the politicians who made this decision even admit this will not happen in every circumstance:

Health and Hospitals Secretary Bruce Greenstein said he targeted programs that were duplicative, costly and optional under the state’s participation in the state-federal Medicaid program.

Greenstein said in many instances, people can get the care they’re losing through other government-funded programs. But he acknowledged that won’t happen in every case, meaning some people will simply lose the services or receive reduced services. [...]

Jan Moller heads the Louisiana Budget Project, which advocates for low- to moderate-income families. Moller said he’s most distressed by the cut to the Nurse-Family Partnership Program.

The health department is eliminating the portion of the program that offers at-home visits to low-income women who are pregnant with their first child. Registered nurses visit the women early in their pregnancy and until their children’s second birthday, offering advice on preventive health care, diet and nutrition, smoking cessation and other child developmental issues. [...]

“What the Nurse-Family Partnership does goes above and beyond what a good obstetrician does,” Moller said. “It’s really about teaching life-skills to at-risk moms to make them better parents and make them better able to care for their children, and it’s been proven to work.”

As Sy Mukherjee at ThinkProgress points out, this means that families will be left high and dry in the state.

The cuts — as well as Jindal’s proposals to raise taxes on the poor while slashing public education and other health care funding — are meant to plug a midyear budget deficit. But they are more likely to raise health care costs and poverty levels in a state that already ranks among America’s least-insured and poorest locales by pushing people poor people into finding services that they will no longer be able to afford.

I’m writing this as a concerned citizen regarding recent media coverage and events in Utah since the Newtown tragedy.

Briefly, here is a little background behind my feelings on this matter. I am proud to say that our son Chris, after his mission and college, enrolled in Officer Candidate School and became a commissioned officer in the Navy. Lieutenant Olsen is current serving as the navigation officer aboard the USS Dallas (familiar to Tom Clancy fans), a fast-attack nuclear sub based in Connecticut.

Chris’s experience in the military has been an education for us. One of the things we’ve learned about is part of the code of conduct in the military: Our men and women in uniform are allowed to have political opinions, and they do, but military ethics do not allow them to speak publicly about their opinions. They understand that in our democracy, it’s the civilians who make policy and enact laws, and it’s their job to serve and protect.

An interesting example is the recent decision to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military and allow openly gay people to serve. In polling leading up to the decision, Marines were probably the most opposed to the change. With this in mind, I was talking with Chris right after the decision was announced, and expressed my thoughts that the Marines would have a problem with it. Chris’s reply was surprising:  He said, “Dad, of all the services, the Marines will be the first to accept and implement this decision. The Marines get it. They understand their role in our nation. Part of the culture of ‘Semper Fi’ is respect for authority and following orders. A Marine may hate the guts of his squad leader and question his judgment, but he will still put his life on the line to carry out that leader’s orders without complaint.”

Another heart-wrenching example: In 2007, 1^st Lieutenant Andrew Bacevich was killed in Iraq. His father, retired Col.  Andrew Bacevich, has been one of the most outspoken and eloquent opponents of American militarism in general, and President Bush and the Iraq War in particular. But despite this, Col. Bacevich supported his son’s responsibility to his nation and the commander-in-chief.

The parallel between our men and women in the military, and our men and women in law enforcement, seems obvious. In both cases, those in uniform have been entrusted with the overwhelming responsibility to use deadly force in defense of our laws. In both cases, it seems to me that those at the “point of the spear” should understand what their role is – and is not.

I’ve read a lot of comments in the media recently from some of Utah’s law enforcement officers about their concern for the Constitution. The most important principle in that sacred document is separation of powers. I understand – and even empathize – with the strong feelings many of our local law enforcement officers have towards the Second Amendment. However, I must frankly state: When you accepted the uniform and the badge, you accepted the role that goes with it, and that role does not include interpreting the Constitution. Other functions of government have that role. Some of the comments I have read from Utah sheriffs would be grounds for court martial for a military officer. That fact should give you pause.

Does this mean you should not voice your concerns to elected officials? Not at all; but it should be done in the way military officers do it; privately, not publicly, with the proper respect and deference due to our democratically elected officials (whether you agree with them or not), and always with the understanding that those at the tip of the spear take orders from civilians. I can think of no other Constitutional principle more important than this. The alternative is despotism and anarchy.

This is not about the substance of the gun control debate. We live in the West, so even many Democrats are opposed to more gun control laws. This is about who should be making those arguments publicly. There are many eloquent voices in this state to make arguments on Second Amendment issues. I don’t see the need for law enforcement officers to weigh in on this or any other political dispute. I believe it conflicts with the Constitutional principle of separation of powers, and erodes the legitimate authority of law enforcement. That principle is more important than any one individual’s view on one particular section of the Bill of Rights. Law enforcement should follow the example of our dedicated soldiers, sailors and airmen and should leave arguing political issues to others.

This is the third in our five-part series titled "Mormonism, Agency, and Politics." In the first post we discussed the importance of agency in Mormon doctrine. In the second we addressed Satan's strategy of limiting our agency. In the third, we addressed the view that agency can be restricted simply by restricting freedom. In the fourth, we will examine the idea that agency can be restricted by removing differences between good and evil and explore its political implications.

As we discussed previously, one popular view of agency is that it can be decreased any time freedom is restricted. As Mormon liberals, we are frequently presented with the argument that a particular government intervention is bad because it limits our agency. This is most frequently repeated when dealing with taxes: "if I want to help the poor, let me exercise my agency and do it. Don't force me to be charitable, because that's Satan's plan." While we obviously don't appreciate being told that our political ideals are the spawn of the devil, we also disagree for doctrinal reasons.

Read more

This is the second in our five-part series titled "Mormonism, Agency, and Politics." In the first post we discussed the importance of agency in Mormon doctrine. In the second we will address Satan's strategy of limiting our agency. In the third, we will address the view that agency can be restricted simply by restricting freedom. In the fourth, we will examine the idea that agency can be restricted by removing differences between good and evil and explore its political implications.

Agency was one of the principal issues to arise in the premortal Council in Heaven. It was one of the main causes of the conflict between the followers of Christ and the followers of Satan. Satan said, “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor” (Moses 4:1). In saying this, he “rebelled against [God] and sought to destroy the agency of man” (Moses 4:3). His offer was rejected, and he was cast out of heaven with his followers (see D&C 29:36–37). -Gospel Principles, Chapter 4: Freedom to Choose

There are at least two ways to understand Satan's proposal. The first is the most widely held and oft repeated. This understanding says that Satan's proposal to remove our agency would be enforced by making us choose the right. He would remove our freedom to choose by forcing us to make correct choices.

Read more