Concerning H.R. 2998 (Waxman-Markley comprehensive energy bill, known for short as "ACES," which included Cap and Trade)

I am so tired of the misdirection and force-feeding going on by the Congress and the Obama Administration. As a result, I sent a letter to my Congressman, Harry Mitchell, begging him to vote no on this bill simply because of the way it is being done. I'm am asking everyone to do the same. Contact your "representatives" in any way you can and tell them this is not the way to make law. Only harm can come from such rushed legislation.

Congressman,

I support energy independence, and I am in favor of developing alternative, less destructive and more efficient sources energy.

I believe most Arizonans and probably most Americans have similar desires, although our ideas of arriving at those goals may differ.

What I think we can all agree on is that it is not helpful to anyone when measures are passed with little or no time for consideration by those being represented. Even less so for those who have been chosen to represent us, such as yourself. Indeed, how can the peoples will be represented at all if the information is not in hand for the people to even have a will?

Committees may debate, delete and add points and amendments ad nausium but that is to be able to have something to present to the representatives and by proxy to the people that an opinion may be formed and debate ensue.

Instead, It seems measures are decided upon and the requisite votes obtained long before these measures are presented on the House floor, and before those outside committees have an opportunity to understand any of the details and possible implications on how these measures will be implemented, even when the general intent of the bill is known.

It seems to me to be unconscionable then, for any person who considers themselves a representative of the people's will, to vote in favor of any measure without a reasonable amount of time understand and grasp it implications, regardless if one agrees or disagrees with it's intent.

As a registered voter in the 5th district of Arizona, I beg you then to not vote in favor of H.R. 2998, or any bill, unless a reasonable amount of time be given the general assembly of the House to read and discuss this measure.

If then this bill passes, it will with eyes wide open by leaders and not with eyes shut from blind followers.

Sincerely,
Cory Brown

Update: I got a response back from Harry Mitchell regarding my email to him. I am pleased to hear that he did not vote for this bill (I suppose I could have checked that on my own) and that he had some of the same concerns as I had. Despite his vote on other bills that I disapprove of, I am glad to see that he is not a strict party line Democrat and can at least stand against of his own party when he feels it necessary. Here is his response in full:

Dear Mr. Brown,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the H.R., 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me on this important issue.

One of my chief priorities in Congress is to improve our nation's energy policy. I strongly support an energy policy that fosters the development of clean, alternative domestic sources of energy. This will improve our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, boost our economy by creating jobs and spurring economic development while combating global climate change by reducing carbon emissions.

In considering how to vote on H.R. 2454, I focused on two key questions: First, will this bill fight global climate change and make the investments to deliver the results we need? Secondly, will this bill provide Arizona with the opportunity to develop our burgeoning green economy?

Unfortunately, the answer to both of these questions is no.

Despite my no vote, the measure passed by a vote of 219 to 212.

In my view, this legislation is an example of Washington at its worst. Instead of working to implement a transformative, forward-looking energy policy, this bill turned into a partisan political game, with concession after concession granted simply to round up votes for passage rather than strengthen the bill.

If enacted, the bill will literally re-commit the United States to coal. This is a step backwards at a time when it is so vitally important for us to move forward. Clean, renewable energy should be our chief priority, not fossil fuels.

H.R. 2454 would invest $60 billion in an attempt to develop technology to capture coal carbon emissions and bury them underground or in the ocean. The process known as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), raises many troubling questions. First, we do not even know if such technology is possible. More disturbing, however, we do not know what the environmental consequences of burying all that carbon would be. The idea reminds me of the Yucca Mountain project in Nevada, which was supposed to become a repository for our nation's nuclear waste. It sounded like a good idea at first, but after billions of tax dollars spent, it raised serious safety and environmental questions.

I believe that investments in carbon-neutral energies like solar are ultimately a better use of our precious research and development dollars.

On this and other fronts, I believe that the bill is a bad deal for Arizona. It asks us to pay more for our energy, but fails to deliver what we need to help us grow our emerging solar industry.

Solar energy is an abundant and free energy source that generates energy during the hours of the day that electricity costs are the highest. Moreover, large-scale solar projects will stimulate our economy by creating jobs and boosting commercial development.

In Arizona, Abengoa Solar and Arizona Public Service are developing the world's largest solar energy plant outside of Gila Bend. The Solana solar generating station will create 1,500 to 2,000 jobs and provide clean, emission-free energy for 70,000 homes. Solana is expected to ultimately spur $1 billion in economic development.

Finding financing for large-scale projects like these is difficult, especially in the current economic environment. I introduced an amendment to H.R. 2454 to make financing more available for solar energy, by allowing private and non-profit investors to participate in a grant program that assists with the financing of these kind of projects. Unfortunately, my amendment was blocked, did not receive a vote, and was left out of the final bill.

I am also deeply concerned by a provision stuck into this bill that would give the federal government the power to overrule Arizona's decisions about where we choose to place our power lines. The Arizona Corporation Commission should retain control of these decisions, not regulators in Washington.

Finally, I am also concerned about the impact this legislation could have on our utility bills. I realize that addressing global warming will likely require an investment. However, I do not believe that Arizonans should be asked to pay more to double-down on coal, and leave its emerging solar industry without the help it needs.

I believe we can do better, and I am committed to working with my colleagues to achieve a better bill.

Since joining Congress, I have been proud to help move our country toward energy independence and build a green economy. I voted for the American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which will create more than 500,000 green jobs through alternative energy tax incentives and investments. I have also supported renewing solar investment tax credits, which are critical for the solar industry. Furthermore, I voted for the Energy Independence and Security Act, which increases fuel efficiency standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. This law will cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 24 percent by 2030.

Once again, thank you for contacting me on this important issue. If you have additional questions or concerns on this or any other issue, please do not hesitate to contact me in the future.

If you would like to receive email updates about how I am working on behalf of Arizona's 5th Congressional District, I invite you to sign up for my newsletter at http://www.mitchell.house.gov.


Sincerely,

Harry E. Mitchell
Member of Congress

Just made an appointment for tomorrow to activate my iPhone.

Is not amused by the ubiquity of the snow effect on many websites. I feel like I have floaters in my eyes.

A letter to friends and family about the marriage amendments

Here, I am quoting in full, an email I wrote to all my friends and family about the proposed Marriage Amendment, Prop 8, in California, and by extension, any marriage amendment also going on ballots around the country. This I consider to be the defining issue. It is a deal breaker for anyone that professes religious freedom and tolerance (don't forget that door swings both ways) and who understands that the family it the cornerstone of society. I have always acknowledged that people can be good and faithful Christians and member of the church from all sides of the political spectrum. This transcends politics. There are black and white issues absolutes. This is one of them. Moral courage is needed to act with clarity on this issue. Not with hate or blame, but with clarity and love.

Dear all,

As discussion of Proposition 8 in California has increased, better known as the "Protect Marriage Amendment," I have become increasingly convinced that this issue is of paramount importance. For those that know me well, you will know that I am not one for conspiracies, nor do claim that such-and-such thing or person will "destroy" our country/society/culture or whatever. You will also know that I am not a racist, bigot, hatemonger, or homophobe.I hope you will also notice that I NEVER send along, or forward mass emails. This is an obvious exception and is written by my hand. I hope you will appreciate why I have broken track record for this.

My reasons for feeling as strongly as I do are based on what is actually happening in Massachusetts as a result of their "legalizing" homosexual marriage, not necessarily what could happen.

As a result of allowing same-sex marriages, since 2005 Massachusetts hospitals have been advised to cross out "Father" and write in "Second Parent" for lesbian couples (I could not find any instance of either one of a male gay couple bearing a child so the issue of male-male "parent" birth certificates has not come up...yet). For reasons why this has a substantial impact beyond the need to reprint a batch of birth certificates I will refer you to this article from 2005.

In 2006, The Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities discontinued it's very successful adoption program inside Massachusetts because the new state law made it illegal to refuse to adopt to same-sex couples. In this article the Rev. J. Bryan Hehir, president of Catholic Charities explained that the state law infringed on their religious freedom and concluded that they must withdraw from the state in order to continue practicing their faith.

After Governor Romney's failed attempts to prevent the adoption of same-sex "marriage" in the state of Massachusetts, the Governor began enforcing the states long standing residency requirements for marriage to ensure that Massachusetts did not become "the Las Vegas of gay marriages." This prevented gay couples from outside the state to come in, get married and go back home where they could then have a claim that their "marriage" was valid. On July 15th 2008, the Massachusetts Sate Senate voted to repeal those residency requirement sections of the Massachusetts State marriage code, "The Senate acted by voice vote, allowing the senators to avoid putting their individual positions on record during this election year". The bill then went to the house and on July 30th, in an emergency session, they adopted and immediately enacted the bill, opening the flood gates to all same-sex couples in the country to get married in Massachusetts and claim validity in other states.

No such provision was offered with the California Supreme Court overruled the vast majority (61% of the population) in the 2000 Prop 22 ballot and, being elected to no office, and accountable to no one with out a state wide recall, by the slimest of margins created law that will force a minority's opinion in one state upon the entire country.

This is what HAS happened, and the problems will only grow from here. Attached is a pdf from Family Leader Network, an organization committed to the preservation of the family with marriage between a man and a woman as its central tenant. If you are not 100% convinced that getting involved is the right thing to do, read it. If you are looking for good arguments to counter those who seek to undermine the family, read it.

I will be posting this letter on my blog and I would love your comments there. Thank you for your friendship and your support in any way you can on this vital matter.

Cory

Please leave your comments below.

Melchizedek as a name title

I was asked recently to substitute for Gospel Doctrine (Sunday School/Scripture Study for all you no-mo's, that's non-Mormons). The lesson was on Alma 13-16 in the Book of Mormon. It was some of the most fun I have ever had teaching. There is so much to learn in these chapters. I was only able to get through chapter 13 and a brief synopsis of 14-16. As much as I learned (and it was a lot) I am still left with a lot of questions. I plan on having a mini-series of posts on the topics that relate to chapter 13 specifically. This I will consider the first of them.

While this was not the first thing in the chapter that caused me to go searching for answers, I think it is the most appropriate one to start with. In this chapter, we are given a little bit more information on the prophet/priest/king we call Melchizedek than we have in other canonical places such as the Bible and the Doctrine and Covenants. In Genesis all we learn is that Melchizedek was king of Salem and that Abram paid tithes to him. In Psalms simply that there is a priesthood "after the order of Melchizedek" and that the Messiah was to be a priest after that order.

The Doctrine and Covenants has a lot to say about the Melchizedek Priesthood, but of the man himself it says only that he was a great high priest of that order and it was so named "out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name" (D&C 107:1-4).

The New Testament in the Book of Hebrews gives us (the average reader without a background in the Hebrew language) our first clue that the name Melchizedek may be more significant than just that his parents wanted to call him Mel.

The author of Hebrews says that the name Melchizedek is "first being by interpretation King of righteousness" (Heb 7:2). Melchizedek (which is the OT spelling or "Melchisedec" which is the NT spelling) is the Latinized/Anglicanized word of the conjugated Hebrew words Melek, which means King; and Tzedeq which means Righteousness. So Melchizedek literally means "King of Righteousness." The author of Hebrews then says that Melchizedek was "King of Salem, which is, King of peace." Salem, in Hebrew means "peace."

This then begs the question as to whether "Melchizedek" is just simply another title like the second "King of Salem" is, whether it is a divinely appointed name (like Abram to Abraham) or whether it truly was his given name (there was, after all, a city by the name of Salem that Melchizedek was king of, that is were the name Jerusalem comes from).

The Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis adds significantly to our understanding of what type of person Melchizedek was. It says he was;

[a] man of faith, who wrought righteousness; and when a child he feared God, and stopped the mouths of lions, and quenched the violence of fire. And thus, having been approved of God, he was ordained an high priest after the order of the covenant which God made with Enoch.(JST Gen 14:26,27)

Has there been someone who has so perfectly exemplified their name? (My name means "helmet" so I'm even sure how I could do that). This leads me to think that the name was more of a title, or at least divinely appointed.

This is not the first time I have come across this idea, nor probably many of you. In the Midrash for instance, which are Jewish rabbinical traditions and teachings on the Tanakh (Jewish Bible), Melchizedek is equated or associated with Shem, presuming Melchizedek to be Shem's name title during Abraham's time. The Midrah even suggests that Melchizedek (Shem) handed down the coat of skins the Lord made for Adam to Abraham (His endowment?).

Shem lived 502 years after the flood (Gen. 11: 10-11) which ends up being just a few short years after Sarah dies. So the time-line works. This fits nicely with the Book of Abraham account that says he,

became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers. It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me. (Abr 1:1,2)

In Abraham, I get the since when he speaks of "the Fathers" he is speaking of the great patriarchs before him. We know he could not have acquired the High Priesthood from his literal father for,

My fathers, having turned from their righteousness, and from the holy commandments which the Lord their God had given unto them, unto the worshiping of the gods of the heathen, utterly refused to hearken to my voice;(Abr 1:5)

He states even more clearly that he, "sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood...unto the fathers."(Abr 1:4)

These verses could easily fit into a Melchizedek = Shem model. Any thoughts?

From a small and simple beginning

Introducing, The Pressure Valve.

A place for me explore questions I have about things that interest me. Life, politics, religion, LDS doctrine, family.

As I am surrounded by these things, they are on my mind a lot. I like to think and to hear points of views that I may not have considered. I hope to solicit responses from everyone on my posts whether they agree with my opinions or not.