Paul Mero

For the past 30-something years, especially the last 18 years here in Utah, I have made freedom my business. But I guess I have not done a very good job as its advocate because even really intelligent people either do not understand it or still choose to prioritize self-interest.

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.

Are Facebook and Twitter responsible for the content of their users? Some people argue that both mega-companies are publishers, no different than a book company or a news agency. The CEOs of Facebook and Twitter argue they run tech companies, not newspapers.

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 First Amendment is many things. One thing it is not is the Second Amendment. A Unites States senator from Florida introduced legislation that would ban the publishing of instructions on how to make a 3D-printed gun. Utah’s Senator Mike Lee blocked the bill from being considered. The 3D gun is a Second Amendment issue. Instructions on how to build it are a First Amendment issue.

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.

Utah is considered a desert climate. On average, Utah receives about thirteen inches of rain every year – only Nevada receives less. Our northern back country mountains get about sixty inches while parts of southern Utah only get about five inches a year. And yet Utahns consume lots of water – the most water usage per capita in the United States.

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.

Former FBI Director James Comey recently called on voters to elect Democrats this November saying, “Policy differences don’t matter right now. History has its eyes on us.”

And just a few weeks ago, conservative George Will authored an op-ed titled, “Vote Against the GOP this November.” Will wrote, “In today’s GOP, which is the president’s plaything, he is the mainstream. So, to vote against his party’s cowering congressional caucuses is to affirm the nation’s honor while quarantining him.”

A writer for my favorite National Review slapped back that Will has lost his mind and spewed a lengthy list of reasons why voting for Democrats is not a smart idea, saying it does not make sense to destroy the GOP to save it.

Anyone who regularly listens to or reads my weekly commentaries knows I think Trump is unfit to be our president. You know, too, I unaffiliated with the state GOP when Trump was elected and when Utah’s crazies fell behind him in lockstep. So I am always interested in any attempt to get him out of office. Unfortunately, the remedy proposed by Will and Comey – both men I admire greatly – probably would do more harm than good, or at least simply trade one pack of scoundrels for another – not unlike the so-called choice voters had in November 2016.

One scenario could placate my concern: Democrats win the House but Republicans keep the Senate. If that were to happen, at least there is a strong likelihood that the Democrats would vote to impeach Trump – much like House Republicans did to Bill Clinton. True, the Senate would not vote to try his impeachment, but the mere expression of sanity by House Democrats might be enough to sway me in November.

As usual, my focus on this idea to oust Republicans – and neutralize Trump, at least in theory – concerns the underlying issue: What leads intelligent conservatives to oppose the Trump presidency? So much so, that they are willing to hand over power to deeper state opponents? These questions have nagged me since the 2016 primaries. Put another way, why would otherwise intelligent people support Trump?

For the life of me, it makes no rational sense. Trump is a buffoon and now, in light of his loyalty to Putin, possibly either a useful idiot to a foreign enemy or an unwitting traitor to his country. What about Trump makes all of this okay for Republicans?

The only answer I see are the spoils that come from political victory. It is tribal. There is nothing deeply profound happening in defense of Trump. It is about spoils. It is not about conservative policies or judges. Mindless Republican support for Trump is about negating opponents – taking from them, however able, what they cherish most.

The more interesting question remains why intelligent conservatives – many of them anyway – are willing to essentially throw the baby out with the bath water?

I, too, argued early on that a Clinton presidency would be much better for the long-term life of conservatism than Trump. But, at its core, intelligent conservative opposition to Trump rests upon a reverence for the American political tradition. This reverence was best described by conservative Allan Brownfield as he observed the 2016 campaign. He wrote,

“In the Republican presidential race, name-calling and insults have taken center-stage. If anyone thinks this represents any form of legitimate conservative discourse, they are seriously mistaken. Tearing our government down and viewing the opposition party as virtual enemy agents is hardly a formula designed to bring Americans together to confront the many challenges, foreign and domestic, which confront us.

“And the idea that men and women with no experience in government are the best people to put in charge of our increasingly complex civic enterprise is many things, none of them conservative. We need steady leadership that understands where the levers of power are and how to use them. The world around us has become an increasingly perilous place. To keep our country safe and secure, amateurs and fantasists are hardly what any traditional conservative would recommend.

“The conservative political tradition is an honorable and thoughtful one, imbued with an understanding of man’s nature, the necessity for limits on government power, and a respect for differences of opinion. That tradition is now in danger of disappearing as many who proclaim themselves “conservative” today have replaced it with something far different. What they have embraced, in fact, cannot be called a political philosophy at all.”

That is what bothers me about Trump and why many conservatives are willing to trade an idiot today for even more partisans tomorrow.

I’m Paul Mero. Thanks for listening.

Even as I slip on my brand new “Impeach 45” t-shirt, I feel prompted to use this time to remind and assure everyone that we will be okay. America will endure well because it was constructed to endure well. Our dead white fathers were many things but, above all, they understood human nature and built a nation that could withstand tremendous shocks to its system and could repair damages in due time.

My “Impeach 45” shirt displays my concern that Trump threatens systemic elements of our constitutional republic and democratic processes. That is it. Wanting him out of office has little to do with his often-insane level of ignorance about freedom. Americans have survived a whole bunch of leaders who fit that category. The real concern is threats to freedom’s support system.

Not since the Civil War has America witnessed a Trumpian level of threat inside our government. And yet, we have endured much greater hardships as a nation.

The American Revolution was not a sure thing. Our founding rested on the backs of a handful of leaders against overwhelming odds. America truly is a miracle in that sense. The Civil War redeemed the blood of earlier patriots. It was necessary. The divide threatened our system of government. If divisions rested upon disagreements alone, there would have been no war. At stake was the nation itself.

Six hundred and twenty thousand people lost their lives in our Civil War – half of all American war deaths since then. World War I witnessed the deaths of another 116,000 Americans and 18 million people worldwide. It was a world war – everybody was at war.

By 1930, America faced economic collapse. Unemployment today is just under four percent – what most economists consider full employment. That number was 25 percent in 1933. One in four Americans were out of work. On the heels of the Great Depression came another world war – the most tragic results ever felt through war in the modern age. Three percent of the world population died in World War II – 60 million human beings.

Think about that happening today. How would you feel about the state of your life and the world if tomorrow’s news announced 60 million people were just killed in war?

And the crazy just seemed to mount. Less than ten years later, we were back at war and another 33,000 Americans died in Korea. And, even before we could take a breath, more Americans were dying in some place called Vietnam – 58,000 in all. In fact, from our nation’s founding to this day, one and a half million American men and women have lost their lives in war.

Add to war extreme social unrest and the very fabric of America has survived gross injustice after gross injustice. Why do we still even exist? In a span of ten years, we witnessed the assassination of a sitting president, as well as the assassination of our attorney general of the United States and the country’s most beloved civil rights leader – only to be capped by a sitting president resigning office for corruption. As comedian Louis C.K. puts it, the president just got on a helicopter and flew away.

So why are so many Americans today bothered by an incompetent nincompoop in the White House? Yes, he is a liar and man of ill-repute. But he has kept his campaign promises. He has nominated conservative Supreme Court justices. We wanted a tax cut and he gave it to us. We needed regulatory relief, especially in the field of energy, and we got it. Yes, he is rough around the edges and disrespectful of authority, process and tradition. But aren’t these disruptions good for us once in a while? Regardless of who comprises the swamp, it really could use a regular draining.

Why are so many alarm bells going off? If you listened alone to MSNBC and congressional Democrats, you would think the world is about to end. We wring our hands over emails, trade tariffs and the latest person dismissed from the West Wing. All of a sudden the president’s tie is an issue and we wince when he is less than smooth on a teleprompter. Before my elderly dad passed away, the doctor asked him who the current president is. Dad said, “That orange guy! And I love him!”

Maybe one reason we call my dad and his peers the Greatest Generation is because they lived through much tougher times than today and they do not sweat the small stuff.

We will be fine. Meanwhile, I will wear my “Impeach 45” t-shirt with pride because that “orange guy” is still a threat to our freedom.

I’m Paul Mero. Thanks for listening.

As Salt Lake Tribune columnist Robert Gehrke laments a new poll revealing that over half of Utahns oppose a ballot initiative to raise the gas tax to increase funding for education, I wonder why Utahns fail to understand the nature of public education. A person can be pro-education and still oppose a gas tax. What a reasonable person cannot do is claim to be in favor of public schools but only the schools their children attend.

The real problem inside Utah public education is the failure to embrace all Utah children. The money is there. Utah spends more of its budget on education than any other state. The outcomes are there. Utah has higher graduation rates than states that spend as much as three times more per pupil. Utah’s middle to upper class kids do well because the entire public school system – from standardization to family structure – serves them well.

The system does not serve low-income and rural students very well.

The problem with the Our Schools Now initiative was not the new money it requested. The problem was that none of that money would have made its way down to the struggling students who really need it. The problem with the November gas tax hike initiative is not the tax hike or the method of taxing. The problem, again, is that none of the new money will impact the students needing impact.

I understand why 56 percent of Utahns oppose the tax hike for school funding – Utahns spend sufficient to educate a majority of our majority. This approach does not require huge increases in school funding. All it requires is enough money to keep up with population growth. The huge leap in funding is needed for the struggling kids – the minority of the minority.

If Utah has an education problem, it is because we have a vision problem. The majority does not see the minority and, when the minority is seen, it is objectified. The minority becomes a charitable cause, not part and parcel of the system that serves everyone else well. The minority is seen differently.

I dare anyone to challenge this conclusion.

The public school system was designed to encourage socio-economic parity. In other words, it was designed to lift the minority. Federal involvement in education has little to do with telling local schools their business, despite every handwringing right-wing conspiracy theorist. Federal involvement in education always has been about low-income and rural students getting at least as much scholastic attention as majority students. The largest federal education program, the Every Student Succeeds Act, or ESSA, is about one thing and one thing only – minority students.

So when policy makers and enlightened parents clamor for local control, all they are supporting is a public school system to benefit the majority. And when the federal government imposes programs such as ESSA, it is only seeking balance. If Utahns supporting local control want the Feds out of education, the answer is simple: Pay equal attention to Utah’s minority kids as much as you do the majority.

Our Schools Now easily could have tailored its plan for extra school funding to target minority students, such as kids living in intergenerational poverty. Likewise, advocates of local control and parental choice could have targeted school vouchers on minority students. Neither group did it when they had the chance – mostly because majority taxpayers do not want to spend money on anyone other than themselves. If minority students ever became an issue in those causes, it was simply as political fodder. When I pointed out during the voucher fight in 2007 that 44 percent of Utah’s Hispanic students failed to graduate with a traditional diploma, the head of the Utah Teachers Association looked me in the eye and told me, “Oh Paul, you know their parents don’t care.”

Utah has a public school system for its white middle-to-upper class families. The system serves them well. It has no clue how to address the desperate needs of struggling minority and rural students – not because educational leaders are stupid, but because the system we have is not now designed to serve those needs. Maybe we are subconsciously racist as many minority advocates claim? I think we are just selfish and blind to the needs of others – regardless of how much charity we claim to throw at our minorities.

The problem with Utah schools is not money. The problem is cultural, if not spiritual, failure among the white, Mormon middle-to-upper class majority who naturally pay for our, by which I mean “their,” educational system.

I’m Paul Mero. Thanks for listening.