Author Archives: ptmadmin

Throughout these ten years of commentaries, I have described freedom in minute detail – from its essence to its processes – and, regardless of the angle, I am convinced most people (even guardians elected to serve and protect it) do not really get it.

Historically speaking, it’s to be expected. Frankly, our founding fathers were shocked at what they had achieved and most figured it would not last. They predicted every possible failure ahead when they created a system of freedom knowing full well that it could not survive people of diminishing virtue – a good point at which to pick up the current narrative over Utah’s marijuana initiative.

Whether the direction of the current debate be substantive or procedural, both sides – proponents and opponents of the initiative – have abandoned freedom.

Zealous political proponents of the initiative, who should know better, miss the whole point of the problem. The problem is not pain relief. The problem is addressing one kind of pain without creating other kinds of pain. Setting aside end-of-life and life-debilitating physical scenarios wherein no potential solution is as worse as the problem, pot is not the answer. In fact, if you really believe in freedom, it creates new problems.

The process of freedom is slow and deliberative. A pot initiative is neither and neither are lawsuits to stop it. I suppose opponents of the pot initiative feel justified in filing lawsuits because proponents of the initiative bypassed primary constitutional processes through the Legislature. Pure democracy is not freedom and neither is government by judiciary.

I oppose the pot initiative because it is bad public policy and it undermines the common good essential to true freedom. The idea of “chronic pain” as legal justification to do anything is ludicrous and only minds obsessed with equating freedom with license could be so blind not to see it.

But I also oppose the strategy of the initiative’s opponents to quash the effort by lawsuit. I get that government by judiciary is the new means for victory in modern America. If you do not like something, sue. But reliance on the judiciary is hardly the epitome of freedom. And it bugs me most that my church – the LDS Church – does not see the harm in government by judiciary. Hell, the entire Book of Mormon is one eternal witness of the harm done to freedom by lawyers when we let lawyers define our existence! How can they not see that?

Quit filing lawsuits! Try winning over the hearts of the people not the interests of judges and lawyers. And understand this – your lawsuits are not justified because proponents of the pot initiative pursued an end run around the Legislature. Part of your problem has been how you work the Legislature – thinking a stealthy but heavy hand serves your interests more than an open and robust debate. That behavior is anti-freedom and gives rise to frustrations that lead to misguided political efforts like a lame pot initiative.

Likewise, for proponents, the legal initiative process in this case is hardly an act of a confident cause. It is intellectual cowardice. You who pride yourself on reason and objectivism are betraying your values. You think the legislative process broke down in your cause. It did not. You broke. You broke faith with reason. You quit making an argument. You are behaving in ways you claim to loathe. And for what? To legalize pot. And you wonder why I call your libertarian thinking juvenile. The politics of tantrum are unbecoming of a self-proclaimed enlightened movement.

A pox on it all. I am so sick and tired of rearguard actions to save face and winning as strategy. If you believe in freedom, virtue is the prize – virtue in substance and virtue in process. Both sides of this pot initiative are making a mockery of freedom.

I’m Paul Mero. Thanks for listening.

Of course, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos runs both! Should Bezos apply the same content standards to Amazon that he does at The Washington Post? Should every non-fiction book on Amazon be held to the Post’s standard of journalistic integrity or be banned? Bezos would fire a Post reporter who lied in a story or who fudged the truth a bit. Should he also insist on dumping disreputable books from Amazon’s web site?

The only way to really answer this question intelligently is to set aside the product and look at the brand. The Washington Post is a newspaper. That is the product. That is what people purchase. But the brand of the Post is not the paper. Its brand is the words on the paper. Its brand is journalistic integrity.

Likewise, Amazon sells all sorts of products, books included. But its brand is a combination of broad selection, ease of purchase and efficient fulfillment. Does it matter to consumers that Amazon’s range of products is seemingly endless, including all sorts of things a consumer would not buy for whatever reason? No, it does not matter. Does an Amazon consumer of clothing care that the company also sells erotica? Probably not.

And yet, Amazon bans books from Holocaust deniers. It does not ban other books. In fact, Amazon markets books banned elsewhere. It just bans the ones denying the Holocaust. Only Holocaust deniers have a problem with that. Reasonable people do not give it a second thought. We get it.

So let us turn back to Facebook and Twitter and ask these same questions. Should these two companies ban participation by truly offensive people or subjects?

The current controversy is over Alex Jones – Donald Trump’s favorite conspiracy theorist. Despite some pretty loud complaints, Facebook and Twitter are choosing to not censor Jones. Yes, Jones is the same guy who said that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a fraud and that everyone was acting. Everyone else on Planet Earth is aware that 20 students and six teachers were killed. So, Jones is an idiot, a troublemaker or both. But should he be banned from social media?

If I had the power to ban every idiot from social media, social media would disappear overnight. Are some matters beyond the pale? Yes. Criminal activity is beyond the pale and no social media outlet should permit criminal activity. But a difference of opinion – even a difference wherein reality is dismissed? No. Even if I wanted to, I would not have the energy to sift through every word on social media and decide what makes the world a better place and what does not.

Of course, I ban all sorts of things on my personal social media, by conscious choice and by omission. I block people on both Facebook and Twitter. What I control, I take care of because I can and the scope of my interference affects nobody but me. I am dealing with my personal preferences, not a corporate brand affecting billions of people.

If you do not like Alex Jones, ignore him. If his influence on the president troubles you, fire the president. The problem is Jones, not the medium by which he spews his nonsense. If he existed during America’s founding, I am quite sure our forefathers would not throw out the First Amendment just to silence him. Neither should we.

I’m Paul Mero. Thanks for listening.

The differences are so clear that I need to invoke a tag line of the cartoon dog, Droopy: “What’s all the hubbub, bub?”

Many progressives and anti-gun advocates are going nuts. Senator Lee’s office phones are ringing off the hook with complaints. “What? Is he stupid? Doesn’t he know that sharing instructions on the Internet about how to build a plastic gun is extremely dangerous?” But, is it?

Plastic guns already exist and they are heavily regulated and criminalized in certain instances, such as trying to get on an airplane with one. But this controversy is not about the gun. The controversy is about instructions on how to make the gun. The instructions are not a “thing.” The instructions are words. So the real question is this: Do you want to regulate words?

In some cases we do regulate words. Shouting fire in a crowded theater when no fire exists is a crime. As are the many printed forms of child exploitation and abuse. And this very short list would include highly sensitive government documents that, if published, could jeopardize our national security or the lives of Americans around the world. But, beyond those special cases, the First Amendment allows pretty much everything else.

If you can learn how to make a bomb on the Internet, why are we so upset about publishing instructions to make a 3D-printed gun? That is one argument. Another argument is equally sane: Why are instructions about how to make a bomb legal?

And then the Internet presents its own complications. Ban something in the United States and somebody will just produce it from another country.

Senator Lee is right. Legislation to ban the publishing of instructions to build a 3D-printed gun is unwise. The downside could tear apart the First Amendment. And the upside is what? No 3D-printed plastic guns? Good luck with that effort. Banning guns does not work for commonly manufactured guns. Do you really think it will work for 3D guns? Weird.

But let’s wander down that road. For something to be banned legally under the First Amendment, it must meet certain legal criteria. First, the government must show a compelling state interest. Second, if there is a compelling state interest, the ban must be tailored narrowly to avoid excesses under the law. And, third, any ban must utilize the least restrictive means possible to implement the ban.

What is the compelling state interest? That someone might get shot with a 3D-printed gun? In other words, it is constitutional for a person to get shot with a Smith and Wesson but not with Pete’s Printing and Publishing? That is crazy.

If words used to create 3D-printed guns are banned we might as well ban any word that hurts someone. And, of course, that is where all of this snowflake-driven censorship on college campuses is headed.

So let’s just stop it right now. We can loathe lots of bad behavior through the spoken and printed word and still allow it because one day your vocal opinion could be deemed harmful and then criminal.

I’m Paul Mero. Thanks for listening.

Combine low rainfall totals with the highest usage in the nation and it is no surprise many people ring the alarm bell of water shortages this time of year. Many alarmists often pick one point in time as if that moment represents the entire picture – like a warm winter being evidence of global warming or a cold one proving the theory all wrong or how some people measure air quality during the couple of weeks of inversions every winter.

In response to claimed water shortages, Utah officials typically impose regulations on consumers to slow the flow. Water district officials will enforce strict measures such as the times when you can water your lawn. But there is another way to regulate water usage – charge more for water.

Utah has some of the lowest priced water in the nation – not real smart for a desert state. Consumers care way more about the price of something than the rules surrounding its use. If water officials are truly concerned about shortages, raise the prices. Transportation officials worried about road congestion do not tell you when you can drive your car. They create toll lanes and raise prices during peak use hours. Water officials should follow suit.

But first off, we need to keep the water supply in perspective. Several years ago I visited Hoover Dam and took its public tour. I asked our guide how long water users downstream from the dam – such as Las Vegas, Arizona and Southern California – would last on the current water supply if not one more drop were added? His answer: Seven years. I was blown away. I expected him to say seven days, not seven years.

Water is measured by acre-feet. An acre-foot of water contains 325,851 gallons. Utah’s current water supply, as of July 1, is 20,404,146 acre-feet. That is a 14-digit number of gallons of water – just over six trillion gallons of Utah water. A lot of that water resides in Flaming Gorge and Lake Powell. Excluding those two sources, Utah’s current water supply is 4,195,167 acre-feet. That is still a 13-digit number – about 1.4 trillion gallons of water supply.

Utahns consume, on average, about 240 gallons of water per person per day – or 262 billion gallons a year based on our current entire population. In other words, Utahns consume about 19 percent of available water supply every year. Nineteen percent! That means that after Utahns consume their 262 billion gallons of water for the year, four times that amount still remains.

That figure does not sound like a water shortage.

The alarmists will tell us that we need to plan for the future – and, of course, we do. As Utah’s population grows, water consumption will increase. In 40 years, Utah’s population is expected to almost double, from three million people to just under six million people. So, double the people, double the usage – still leaving us 60 percent of our water supply.

Yes, droughts will continue to occur and, yes, the water supply could dwindle dramatically. But Utah’s population has gone from a pioneer wagon to three million people today. We have a water usage track record we can look to confidently.

I am a conservative and believe in conserving good things such as water. My message is not that of a water shortage skeptic. Water comes and goes on its own schedule according to its times and seasons. Our forefathers planned for water conservation so that we would have an abundance of it today. We need to do for our rising generations what our ancestors did for us.

But as a conservative who believes in market principles, I think Utahns will learn to conserve water better through the amount they pay rather than through the harping of government regulators. I like my lawn and I like it green and healthy. I am willing to pay to have it that way. Raise the price of water enough and I will have to reconsider how much green I like my lawn – or if I have a lawn at all.

Farmers pay less for water and that is okay by me, especially if their products stay in Utah. Low-income households pay less because they use less. I do not mind paying more if I use more. So maybe water officials could try a new approach to water conservation – quit nagging people and just raise the price.

I’m Paul Mero. Thanks for listening.