Media Bias Reaching Comical Levels

Like many of you, I have been following all of the Obama scandals and other debacles that have been plaguing this country of late.  Conservative news precincts can't keep up with all of the breaking stories, whether they be the latest twists in the IRS scandal to Iraq falling apart before our very eyes to the border becoming a nightmare with thousands and soon to be hundreds of thousands of unaccompanied children crossing our southern border and then being crammed into warehouses to the economy shockingly shrinking 3%, which is a 5 year record.  Did you catch all of that?  Four major separate stories directly relating to the Obama Administration: IRS scandal, Iraq, border, economy.

This of course does not include the ongoing investigation of what happened the night of the Benghazi attack or the fact that the Supreme Court, by a 9-0 decision, once again chastised the president for his abuse of executive power, in this case his "recess" appointments that attempted to bypass Senate approval.  Shall I go on?  I am sure I am forgetting something but I think the point has been made.  It would not be an exaggeration to call this a bonanza of major stories breaking all at once.  With all of that in mind, here is the only story about President Obama or any of the negative stories related to him that appeared among Yahoo's 100 revolving front page stories:

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-cuts-line-at-famed-texas-bbq-joint--but-pays-for-lunch-215617354.html

You couldn't make this up if you tried.  THAT is the only story you could come up with to report on?  The president cutting in line at a BBQ joint?  Those who defend the media against accusations of left leaning bias will say this is coincidental and that the actions of one media outlet are no reflection on the media at large.  But that is not true.  There are few industries as competitive as the news business.  Each media outlet is competing for eyeballs over the same stories.  Outlets that can report faster and better on the same issues win the day.  So if Yahoo feels at ease ignoring every major negative story that could hurt the Obama Administration, you already know what other media outlets are reporting and not reporting.

Just for fun, I switched over to CNN's homepage.  CNN touts itself as fair and objective, being above the political slants seen on Fox News and MSNBC.  CNN had one article relating to President Obama.  The first paragraph talked about the Republicans suing the president and stated the reasoning behind this move is because they despise the fact that President Obama passed health care reform.  Not only is this factually untrue (Republicans are suing over repeated abuses of executive power, the kind that the Supreme Court keeps unanimously slapping down the president for) but this story obviously ignores the bigger and much more damning stories related to the Obama Administration.  That is it.  No other negative stories that could be traced back to the Obama Administration are to be found on CNN's website this morning.  Oh, I'm sorry, there is also a video of the president silencing a heckler.

The only major media outlets that can truly afford to have a grotesquely blatant liberal slant even in the face of all other media coverage being fair minded would be MSNBC and the New York Times, at least from a business standpoint.  All other media outlets are taking a large financial hit by constantly covering for the president.  But there is one thing that trumps money and that is religion.  To those who are deeply passionate about politics, and you almost certainly have to be to choose journalism as a career choice, choosing sides between political parties and politicians is more than just having favorites.  For journalists, political leanings are all too often more akin to religious views.  People will pass up money when blindly following their religious beliefs.  And covering for President Obama has become a religion for the mainstream media.

The Terrifying Concerns Regarding Our Country's Future (Hobby Lobby Ruling)

Those of you who know me well understand that I am not a "doom and gloom" guy when it comes to politics.  I believe in the American people figuring out what is right and what is wrong.  I believe in healthy debate and letting the winning side prevail.  I do not prescribe to a single ideology.  I am a true independent whose political leanings are a mix of liberalism, conservatism, and libertarianism.  However, for a democracy to function, the general public must have access to accurate information.  Otherwise, it's not a democracy at all.  The reactions to the Hobby Lobby case have left me extremely fearful for our country moving forward.  The general public simply does not have access to accurate information.  Allow me to write a long but worthwhile article outlining the facts surrounding the Hobby Lobby ruling.

1. The law of the land as it stands now is that, of the 20 different birth control methods available in the United States, companies have to cover all 20 in their health care plans according to the Affordable Care Act.  Hobby Lobby is willing to cover 16 of those birth controls but they find moral objection to 4 of them because they are considered to be akin to abortion.  Right now, the general public is being told that the Supreme Court's ruling means women employed by Hobby Lobby and other businesses with religious leanings will not have their birth control covered anymore.  This is patently false.  Exactly 80% of the available birth control methods are covered by Hobby Lobby even after the ruling.

2. The phrase "denying access" has been thrown about constantly when discussing this case.  But even referring to the 4 birth control methods that are not going to be covered by Hobby Lobby, no woman's access is being denied.  She simply has to pay for those forms of birth control out of her pocket if she so chooses.  Access is still available.  To say women are denied access to birth control that is not free or nearly free to them is akin to saying that I am being denied access to a $10 steak, which I am willing to pay for, when the price jumps to $20 per steak, which I am not willing to pay for.  My access to the steak after the price hike has not been denied.  I simply am choosing to spend my money in other ways.

3. It should be noted that until very very very recently, women's birth control has not been universally covered like it is now.  I know this personally as Wendy's preferred method of birth control was not covered by her insurance in the past and we had to pay out of pocket.  Now that all birth control is covered, liberals have declared that women have a "right" to have their birth control covered by insurance and anyone who thinks otherwise is at war with women and wants to deny them their God given rights.  This is an insane position.  I am wholeheartedly in support of universal coverage of birth control for all females.  I think it's an excellent policy.  But I would never call this someone's right.

4. What is most ironic about the outrage over the Hobby Lobby ruling is that the women who are employed at Hobby Lobby will still receive the same birth control coverage as everyone else!  I repeat, the women who work at Hobby Lobby will have all 20 birth control methods covered just the same as women working at other companies.  Sorry, this bears repeating once more, there will be no difference whatsoever between the birth control methods covered by employees of Hobby Lobby compared to everyone else.  As shocking as this revelation may be to some of you, the facts are crystal clear.  There is already an exception over birth control carved out for non-profit organizations and the health insurance they provide for their employees.  In these instances, the government asks that the private health insurance companies provide the coverage anyway at no additional cost.  And if that failed, the government would directly provide the coverage if needs be.  In practical terms, this ruling has no effect whatsoever on employees of Hobby Lobby.

5. There has been concern raised about whether this ruling opens the flood gates in terms of other things not being covered in health insurance.  For example, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in receiving blood transfusions.  Does this now mean that employees of a company run by Jehovah's Witnesses will not have their blood transfusions covered by their company health insurance policy?  For starters, it should be noted that this was the case prior to the recently enacted Affordable Care Act.  In other words, this so called problem already existed.  Yet, have we ever talked about this being a problem for a single person in our entire history as a country?  The answer is no.  It's important to remind everyone that the only reason this court ruling on the Hobby Lobby case was necessary is because of the demands of the Affordable Care Act.  So it sounds like this doomsday scenario does not apply as we have never heard of problematic cases in the past.  Furthermore, there is a difference between not believing in doing something for yourself (i.e. receiving a blood transfusion) and believing that an act is inherently evil (i.e. participating in an abortion procedure).  To assume that Jehovah's Witnesses would wish to deny their employees the ability to receive blood transfusions simply because they choose to not receive them for themselves may be a stretch.  This is similar to Mormons not wanting to drink coffee or alcohol.  That does not mean Mormons wish to deny others the ability to make that choice for themselves.  Finally, as pointed out in Point #4, even if other companies decided to deny health coverage of blood transfusions, the government would simply find another way to cover those employees.  Essentially, no harm no foul.

6. An important fact not being reported is that the law requiring companies to cover all 20 types of birth control was not passed by Congress.  This should strike you all as odd since, you know, Congress is supposed to pass laws in this country.  Yet, a regulatory agency decided that company health insurance plans had to cover all 20 types of birth control.  Why is a regulatory agency of the government passing laws that have to be challenged in the Supreme Court?  That's a darn good question.  Under the Obama Administration in particular, regulatory agencies have expanded tremendously in power to the point that they act as a 4th branch of government.  Have an objection with the coal industry?  Simply have the appropriate regulatory agency pass new regulations making it financially impossible to run a profitable coal plant.  Want education reform?  Have the appropriate regulatory agency pass decrees from on high instead of having to pass bills in Congress.  The rise of a 4th branch of government is troubling in and of itself, even before we take into account the fact that these regulatory bodies are under the direction of the executive branch.  Our government is designed to keep all 3 branches of government in check.  However, this 4th branch of government shifts power decidedly in favor of one man: the president.  This was never intended but that is what has taken place.

7. It should be noted that there is a genuine debate to be had over whether the Supreme Court made an accurate ruling.  The premise by the majority is that closely held companies, basically companies who are controlled by 5 people or less, can have the same rights as individuals.  In other words, family owned companies like Hobby Lobby can have religious rights much the same as an individual.  The other side finds this absurd as a for-profit company is in the business of making money, period.  Therefore, they are not like individuals at all.  This is a fascinating debate.  Unfortunately, we are not having this debate and never will.  The reason is simple: the American public is not being told anything remotely close to the actual facts.  Instead, outright lies are being perpetuated in order to sway the masses toward one political viewpoint.  Our democracy literally cannot stand if this continues at such an alarming rate.  Without accurate reporting by the media, the portion that is supposed to be unbiased and looking out for us, America will crumble.  Let us hope a fair and trustworthy news source will rise sooner rather than later.

An Argument For Being a Mormon Vegetarian

The following article is written by Nicole Loumeau

I get asked “Why are you a vegetarian?” almost every time I attend an LDS church function with food involved.  In order to avoid a long debate, I usually respond” “I have found many reasons to not eat meat and not one reason to eat it.”  And almost always the questioner will humorously respond, "Because it tastes good" and then I fake a laugh and change the subject.  

Six years of being asked the same question has given me time to articulate my thoughts on the matter. In this gospel, there are what I like to call "black and white commandments”.  With these we are very clearly told what is right and wrong without having to debate it (i.e. gay marriage, abortions, murder, adultery, etc.).  And then there are issues where God hasn't given us a direct commandment from the pulpit because He wants us to use our own discernment and judgment to help us grow.   I would say eating meat is one of these issues.

I always say, “Every reason to be a vegetarian is a good one.”  The one reason that no one will argue is my personal taste; I find eating dead flesh disgusting.  It’s all those other reasons that seem to be an issue.  I believe being vegetarian makes me a healthy person with strong moral and religious convictions.

1. Health Reasons - I've read many studies on the subject.  Everything I've read (including the Word of Wisdom) has drawn me to conclude that the optimal diet is plant based and that animal products are not essential.  All research I’ve seen that says otherwise has been countered by more recent discoveries. 

2. Moral Reasons - I do not believe that the spirit resides in today’s meat market.  I am opposed to the gluttonous abuse and murder of artificially manufactured animals.  Not all, but most of the meat we eat comes from a corrupt industry.  I cannot witness what goes on in these places and pretend that's how God "ordained" man to treat His creatures.

3.  Religious Reasons – I believe abstaining from meat is a higher law.  In the Garden of Eden, God commanded, “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat”(Genesis 2:16).  Since there was no death in the Garden, we know they ate a vegetarian diet. Likewise, we are told in the millennium, lion will lie down next to lamb. If the lion won’t need to eat meat, neither will we.  Will we eat anything in the Celestial Kingdom? We will not need food for survival, but neither did Christ after His resurrection and He still ate. There will be no death/ meat in the next life.  Therefore, eating meat is only a temporal thing of this world.

One of the blessings of this gospel is modern day revelation.  We are not always asked to decipher the ancient Bible to explain our modern lives. God does not change, but the world changes and He gives us commandments to help us along the way.  Our most recent health code, the Word of Wisdom, is organized like this: First he says things we shouldn't have (alcohol, tobacco, etc.).  Then he talks about meat.  And then he talks about things we should eat (grains and plants).  Meat is that weird vague thing in the middle. 

He mentions meat three times; "Flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly”.  He continues, “And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine". And then again when he's talking about how grain is meant for man and animals, he reminds us that animals "hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger."  (Doctrine and Covenants 89: 12-13, 15)

So, are animals ordained for the use of man? Yes.  But only when we need them.  Do I need to eat meat in my sunny home in San Diego just blocks away from the store? No.  

There are a few other scriptures that say animals are for the use of man. These should be read with perspective and in conjunction with all the revelation we have. The Doctrine and Covenants was given in a time with different challenges from what we face today. With the pioneers dying of sickness and starvation, would it be right for them to reject food God provided? Of course not. The scriptures say that man is God's greatest creation. No person should risk their own life to spare that of an animal. If I were in a situation where eating meat would save my life, I would. But right now, that is not the case. So I choose to not eat meat.

How Much Pleasure is Too Much Pleasure?

"It's a freaking punch in the face," said Joe McPherson, the founder of ZenKimchi, a Korean food blog, and an eventual devotee of the fish. "Like everyone else, I gagged the first time."

The mysterious quote above came from an AP article I read today about skate (a type of fish similar to a stingray) that in South Korea is fermented for so long, the aroma smells like rotting garbage...........and that is according to those who enjoy this dish!  As you can tell from the quote above, even enthusiasts experienced a constricting of the throat and severe gagging reflex when they initially tried this food.

By now you are wondering why on earth I am sharing this with all of you.  This story illustrated a point I have been thinking about regarding pleasure.  Despite how horrific this rotting fish may be, there are thousands of people in South Korea who are borderline addicted to the substance because of the rush they get from eating it.  That "rush" of adrenaline comes from the bodies strong reaction to try to combat the assault on the body.  Hence the phrase "it's a freaking punch to the face."

The same concept is true of people who, for example, engage in brutal hand-to-hand combat for entertainment.  Scientists discovered long ago that there is a curious link between pleasure and pain.  Some people consume spicier and spicier foods, not for the flavor but to chase that adrenaline that comes from the body reacting to heat levels above one's tolerance.  There are adrenaline junkies who engage in continuous extreme sports, double marathons, or simply push themselves during ever more dangerous activities.  I used to think that there was something deeply wrong with people who watch dark horror movie after dark horror movie.  Most of these films seem so evil to me.  And yet, when I have met on occasion individuals who spend their free time repeatedly watching various horror movies, I have found them to be pleasant people by and large.  They just enjoy chasing the rush.

This need to chase a rush for pleasure is an impediment to our spiritual well-being.  Not only does it dull our sensitivity to spiritual promptings but it also promotes a lifestyle that cannot stay still and that is looking for the next "high", not too dissimilar to a drug addict.  Obviously, this is milder than drug addiction but the concept is the same.  One of the biggest blessings of living the gospel is a quiet sense of peace.  That can be much harder to achieve if we are chasing these endorphin rushes.

On the other hand, so much of this life is about trying new things and new ideas.  Most human beings tend to play life safe and pay a big price as a result.  Some of the most enjoyable experiences a person can have come from challenging our comfort zones and pushing ourselves past our limits.  Perhaps not in an extreme way but pushing ourselves nonetheless.  However, this isn't necessarily a pursuit of new for the sake of being new or chasing adrenaline.  This is about growing and experiencing all of the many wonderful things God put on this earth for us to enjoy.

So what is the balance?  That can sometimes be a tricky question.  As is the case with almost everything in life, the answer comes from the age old missionary dilemma of how to teach investigators.  How much do you adhere to the strict outline that is given by our wisest leaders?  How much do you "teach by the spirit" and rely on inspiration and the mood of the moment?  Life always needs a balance.  But recognizing that there is a balance is important.  On my mission, teaching by the spirit had a bad wrap to a certain degree.  You could say the same thing about seeking pleasure in life.  It's important to understand why these things get bad names because neither one is inherently bad.  It takes level-headed decision making to ensure the best course.

LDS General Conference Theme

I've missed a lot of this general conference (April 2014) because I had to work on Saturday.  But I have noticed a continuing theme over the last several years of diversity.  Elder Wirthlin gave a talk not too long ago about how members of the church are like various instruments in an orchestra, each unique and perhaps serving different purposes and roles.  His talk was about embracing differences.  President Uchtdorf gave a talk recently about how we perpetuate false stereotypes about why people leave the church and that there are many reasons why this may happen.  Rarely do people leave the church simply because they are wicked or weak.  Today, Elder Perry talked about how rarely are there one-size-fits-all solutions in life and that there is necessary trial-and-error.

This theme seems to be in conjunction with the theme of needing to have Christ-like love above all else.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is above else a church that looks to embrace others.  Sometimes, members of the LDS church need reminders of this because we are all human.  Our nature is to be tribal and thus, we are blessed to have modern prophets and apostles that pull us away from our natural man tendencies and towards loving others, despite the high tensions we see in politics and society at large among differing groups.

Denying Women the Priesthood: A Strange Sacred Cow

Due to the recent protests by the Mormon women's group OW, which has requested the opportunity to attend the priesthood session of General Conference among other things, the topic of women and the priesthood has come up quite a bit.  I had a few thoughts I wanted to share.

This subject reminds me a lot of gay marriage, another topic in which I have felt very dissatisfied with the common responses I heard from Mormons.  Whenever gay marriage comes up, it seems like the entire discussion reduces down to gay bashing.  Likewise, whenever the topic of women holding the priesthood comes up, it seems like the entire discussion revolves around why women must be denied the priesthood.  I think in both instances, this type of approach is off base.

For starters, let's get one thing straight.  We should not treat the subject of denying women the priesthood as some sort of religious "sacred cow" as the saying goes.  If for some reason all women were allowed to hold the priesthood starting tomorrow, Joseph Smith would still be a prophet.  The Book of Mormon would still be true.  The Plan of Salvation would remain unchanged.  Let's all take a deep breath and just.........relax.

There is no need to be defensive.  Instead, why don't we discuss exactly what the priesthood is.  The definition of the priesthood, more or less, is the power and authority to act in God's name.  But I like to talk about spiritual concepts in pragmatic, real life terms.  The priesthood is used to perform miracles and saving ordinances alike but in a more day-to-day aspect, the priesthood is about spiritual leadership.  The man is the priesthood holder in the home and thus the spiritual leader of the home.  The major spiritual leaders on the local level, be it the ward or the stake, are also exclusively priesthood holders.  The same is true as you move up the spiritual leadership chain.

To those on the outside (and apparently some women on the inside as well), this leadership structure raises a lot of eyebrows.  However, men and women by and large are happier when serving different functions.  Empirical research has shown that husbands and wives are happier when they specialize in the home rather than equally splitting all marriage duties as many feminists have suggested in the past.  We know that men and women are different and certain roles tend to fit each gender best.  The church has done a great job recently of stating that there are certainly allowances for individual circumstances.  But for the most part, men are not as naturally in tune with spirituality as women.  They tend to respond well, however, when they are challenged to step up and be the spiritual leaders in the home via the power and responsibility of being the only adult priesthood holder in the home.

And there is the key point.  Far too many men need the responsibility of carrying the torch of being the only adult priesthood holder to help them stay focused on what they ought to be doing.  If women held the priesthood as well, this would have a negative spiritual impact on the men.  Men tend to be task oriented.  If given a specific task, they can and often do step up.  As a result, the entire family unit is blessed.

Unfortunately, as is so often the case in life and therefore in the church as well, we can't have our cake and eat it too.  We have to make trade offs.  By limiting the priesthood to only men, we inevitably deny many worthy women of leadership roles that they are not only capable of fulfilling but in some instances, would be better at fulfilling on a local level than men.  By continuously propping up the importance of having the priesthood, church members too often give half-hearted lip service to the notion of "unrighteous dominion" in the home.  This is a huge problem and these women who want the priesthood have probably seen their fair share of unrighteous dominion practiced and go unpunished.  They logically infer from their personal experiences that the priesthood is about having power over others and they no longer want to be on the wrong end of that power struggle.

In conclusion, there are both scriptural examples and church history examples that insinuate women have held the priesthood or at least conducted priesthood activities in certain specific instances.  Furthermore, there are many underlying women's issues that don't get voiced enough and end up bubbling to the surface in the form of women protesting for their "right" to hold the priesthood.  Ultimately, the world would go on if women did hold the priesthood.  It's just not the best way to build the Kingdom of God.  Hopefully we can listen to dissenting voices on the role and place of women in the church with an open mind and come to a better understanding and more compassionate understanding of how to meet everyone's spiritual needs the best way possible.

This Is My First Time Blogging

At the urging of someone who I am close to, I have decided to finally start my own blog.  I've been slow to join the 21st century as I know everyone in the world has their own blog.  For me, my outlet for sharing my thoughts has always been among a more intimate group, namely email discussions with my family and a few close friends.  I enjoy the debate and learning from the valuable perspectives of others.

However, it would be nice to take some of those email thoughts and share them with a broader audience as well.  My posts will largely be re-posts of things I have said before in an email discussion.  Hopefully, what my family and friends value is of worth to others as well.


-Adam Loumeau