Tyrants must answer to the United States

Right before President Bush announced that the U.S. would be invading Iraq, I had a dream. I can't say for sure if it was an inspired dream or not, but it was a very clear dream and it felt spiritual. In the dream, I was in Baghdad talking with some Iraqi students who were discussing a new day for Iraq, and a possible overthrow of the Hussein regime. The students seemed extremely intelligent and articulate. I remember feeling like I could identify with those students and I wanted to help them to be free. During our conversation, we were spotted by a member of Saddam's royal guard and were taken by gunpoint to a room without a roof. Although I was an American, I was guilty by association and would share the fate of the students. We were told that our conversation was illegal and that we would be punished for our crimes. Saddam himself then entered the room and I was filled with enormous fear! I had never before felt such intense oppression as I did in this dream. I remember a feeling of helplessness and my heart cried out to God. I thought to myself how unjust this was...that there was no court to appeal to, no lawyer to represent me. This man, Saddam Hussein, had complete power over me...and it seemed that there was no righteous force to oppose him. The dictator would deal with us and I expected the worst. Who could save us? How can such absolute power be unchecked?
It was at this low point that I remember hearing the roar of a formation of f-16s and f-15s. At first, I was confused, but could tell that something good was happening. As bombs began to fall, Saddam and his men left the scene...and it was then that I realized that it was our guys! The United States came as a rescuer. I shouted for joy almost like at a sporting event. The precision and efficacy of the fighter pilots were impressive! I was so proud to belong to the country that not only was able to stand up against Saddam's regime, but could do so with such technology and skill.

The dream gave me a small taste of the fear and intimidation that a tyrant rules with. I am sure that the actual experience is much worse.

Who but the United States could have delivered the Iraqis? Saddam was a Hitler wanna-be. Fortunately, he was contained and then dealt with before he left an even darker legacy. But consider his past:

Hussein's regime killed, tortured, raped and terrorized the Iraqi people and its neighbors for over two decades.

Hundreds of thousands of people died as a result of Hussein's actions.

Hussein has had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered.

1980-88: Iran-Iraq war left 150,000 to 340,000 Iraqis and 450,000 to 730,000 Iranians dead.

1983-1988: Documented chemical attacks by Iraqi regime caused some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths.

1988: Chemical attack on Kurdish village of Halabja killed approximately 5,000 people.

1987-1988: Iraqi regime used chemical agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages.

1990-91: 1,000 Kuwaitis were killed in Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

1991: bloody suppression of Kurdish and Shi'a uprisings in northern and southern Iraq killed at least 30,000 to 60,000.

*Sources: Office of the White House Press Secretary: Life Under Saddam Hussein: Past Repression and Atrocities by Saddam Hussein's Regime; April 4, 2003, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/iraq/20030404-1.html; "Iraq: Crimes Against Humanity," State Department, May 7, 2002, http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/crimes; "Iraq: U.S. Alleges Role in Bush Death Plot," Facts on File May 20, 1993; http: www.2facts.com; http://www.2facts.com/stories/temp/10882temp1993053677.asp)

History has had many tyrants. There have been and there will be many Hitler wanna-bes. But ever since the 18th century, the United States has taken on several of them and won! We may have to play this role in the world for decades to come. Our strength has been the strength of our religion and our values. May we continue to protect our families and strengthen our morality here at home. The Holy One of Israel has His eye on our country and if we remember Him and keep His commandments, He will continue to protect us and strengthen us. Always the defenders, never the aggressors, the United States will continue to promote freedom throughout the earth. And God willing, Tyrants will have to answer to the United States.

Hussein Obama? A Little too Ironic

Let's not jinx ourselves!

I am truly sorry! We really could have forgiven the similarity of "Obama" to "Usama". And "Barack"? I don't know any Baracks...but that would have been okay too. But your middle name is HUSSEIN? Barack Hussein Obama? It's just a little too ironic!

-

In Alanis Morrisette's song "Isn't it Ironic", she seems to have a hard time actually citing any examples of irony. For example: "It's a black fly in your Chardonnay". That isn't actually ironic...it would have been ironic if the person with the bug in his drink was an Orkin man.

Or, "it's like rain...on your wedding day". Again, only truly ironic if the person is a weatherman and had forcast clear skies.

-

Yet, we forgive you Alanis! What can I say, it was a catchy song. We even forgive your weird name "Alanis". It's the lost city of Atlantis, spoken by a person with a numb tongue (trust me, I know what that sounds like).

But let me get this straight. The next president of the United States, the man who will take over as commander-in-chief for the war on terror, has a name that resembles not one...but both of the central figures of that war!

-

So the man who is going to get Usama is Obama?

The man who will fix the problems started by Hussein is Hussein?

The Same guy who wants to get us back on "t'rack is Barack?

-

There is an irony-threshold that we as Americans can handle. If that threshold was ever crossed it would unleash all kinds of chaos and conspiracy theories. Barack would be such a historical oddity that I worry that textbooks would spontaneously light on fire! If Hussein Obama actually got Usama, it would nessesitate that congress mandate a new word for irony be intoduced to represent this new super-irony. It would be so difficult to describe this second level of irony that there would have to be graduate courses devoted to it. Only Stephen Hawking could actually understand it.

-

So let's not jinx ourselves out of getting Usama!

-

"and isn't it ironic...don't ya think? A little too ironic...and yea, I really do think!"

Mitt Romney: Please just admit he has a chance!

Hello my LDS friends. I have found it strange that the people who have the most pessimism about Mitt Romney's chances as a Mormon candidate are Mormons themselves! Why is that?

It may have to do with the fact that many members of the LDS faith have served missions, or are married to those who have. As missionaries we have had doors slammed in our faces, have been ridiculed, and have had to endure more rejection than acceptance. Even though many do accept our faith, most reject it. We are used to being rejected. I think that it is this psychology that could be the cause for so many of my friends and associates to have such a grim outlook...when it comes to not only Mitt, but any LDS candidate.

But to vote for a leader, one doesn't have to accept the testimony of the prophet Joseph. He doesn't have to pay 10% of his income. He doesn't have to convert to Mormonism at all.

I think that we may be mistaking religious rejection for political rejection. After all, today's highest-ranking member of the United States Senate is, well, a Mormon. Harry Reid may be a democrat, but he is also a Mormon. His kids attended BYU, and he happens to be pro-life. That is a strange selection for the top post among the democrats...a pro-life Mormon. But there he is.

It's really not all that strange. If you think about it, the LDS people are natural-born leaders. We dress up every Sunday, give talks, and attend loads of meetings. We have faced opposition and rejection throughout our lives. We don't drink, smoke, or gamble...and most of us would bleed on the flag just to make sure it's stripes stay red (MI3).

Some may cite recent polls that suggest that the majority of Americans would not vote for a Mormon. While there may be a few who would never vote for a Mormon, I think that many may have cast their opinion in ignorance. There was another survey a few years ago that asked if people would vote for a "heterosexual" for president. Surprisingly about 1/4 said No to that question. It was ignorance that caused that response...and it is probably ignorance that has caused the Mormon polls to look like they did. A person may not want a polygamist in the White House, or an Amish-type president (these are some common misconceptions of mainstream Mormonism). But they may be okay with a family-man, with one wife, from Massachusetts...who just happens to belong to the LDS church...as long as their taxes stay low, and they think that the candidate is a man of integrity.

There is no doubt that Mitt's candidacy will require educating many Americans about the LDS faith. He will need to clear up many misconceptions about the chruch. But he won't be doing it alone. The Media will churn out piles of stories about all of the candidates...and Mitt will not be an exception. In fact, there is such a fascination with Mormonism that it could turn to Mitt's advantage. Mitt may be talked about more than other candidates BECAUSE of his religion.

Some advantages that Mitt Romney has:

1) Strong support of many LDS throughout the country. Do not underestimate the influence of the members of the church...we have influenced many elections in years past. For example, we recently helped defeat a gay marriage amendment in California. We also may have given the ERA the decisive blow in the 80s.

2) Strong support in Michigan. His father was a beloved Governor and is still remembered. 17 electoral votes.

3) A very successful term as Governor in Massachusetts. He balanced the budget without raising taxes. He also provided health care to every person in the state, again without raising taxes!

4) Mitt has raised the most money. His PAC tops them all.

5) In Tennessee, a presidential straw poll put him in second place among republicans. The only person with more votes was Frist (who announced last week that he will not run for president).

6) Governor Schwarzenegger was just reelected in California. A republican in California! With a goofy name! An immigrant! He defends Bush! He was an actor! A meat-head! Despite these obstacles, the "governator" was reelected. No doubt, he is a huge star...but he also ran as a fiscal conservative and pro-environment. California will forgive a multitude of sins if you will be for the environment. If Mitt can be a pro-environment Republican...he may have a shot at those tasty 55 electoral votes in California. And guess which church is the second largest in California? Hint: it's the true one.

7) Mitt is the most conservative of the known possible '08 candidates. John McCain has ticked off too many of us...also he has that grouchy-old-man thing going. He made a fool of himself on SNL. All that McCain's opponents need to do is play those SNL tapes during the primaries. It will be "so" over! Rudy is pro-abortion. He better start whistling a new pro-life tune or he will not get the republican nomination. Period. Newt Gingrich is awesome! But I am the only one who thinks so. Whoever wins ought to consider putting Newt in some kind of advisory role. He just isn't "presidential" enough (whatever than means). Among conservatives, Mitt fits the bill almost perfectly.

8) This is America. Anything can happen here. A tall, ugly, and awkward Republican from Illinois can get elected, free the slaves, then guide us through a civil war. A divorced actor from California can lead us against a communist super-power, and win...without a shot being fired. A fellow from Virginia can lead a rag-tag army against the largest military of it's time and successfully achieve independence for our country.

I do not say that Mitt will win the presidency, but I do say that he has a chance. If you believe that our leaders can be foreordained (and I do), then we may likely see a Mormon president. We may see several of them! I don't know if Mitt will achieve the presidency or if he will pave the way for one who will.

But would you just do one thing for me?

Would you just admit that he has a chance!

By the way...there are some smart political analysts who agree:

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_4753190

Thanksgiving...the thanks be to God

This Thanksgiving, let us remember the true meaning of the holiday by reading the words of our first president, George Washington: Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor -- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness." Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be -- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks -- for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation -- for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the tranquility [sic], union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed -- for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted -- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions -- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually -- to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed -- to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness onto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord -- To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us -- and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best. Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789. George Washington

Tax cuts still grow the economy

With the Democrats in power, I hope that there are lessons that they will take from "the Gipper". One such lesson is that tax cuts grow the economy.

In his article*, George Will cites some numbers that you will find interesting. He wrote:

...since the Bush tax cuts went into effect in 2003, the economy's growth rate (3.5%) has been better than the average for the 1980s (3.1) and 1990s (3.3). Today's unemployment rate (4.6 percent) is lower than the average for the 1990s (5.8) -- lower, in fact, than the average for the last 40 years (6.0).

In 2004 alone, the economy grew by 3.9 %.

So why haven't these numbers been more obvious to us? I think that it has a lot to do with the public perception that the economy is directly related to the Dow and the NASDAQ. The Dow is doing much better for the last few months...but I believe that Americans have been putting their dollars into housing instead of stocks. We have had a red-hot economy but haven't seen it reflected in the stock market.

And good heavens! A 4.6% unemployment rate?! That number is almost as staggering as the 2.5% unemployment that Utah currently enjoys. Europe would kill to even approach these numbers!

What Reagan knew, Bush knows.

When Nancy Pelosi said that she has always been in favor of cutting taxes, President Bush joked that based on her record she "must be a secret admirer". Well, Nancy, I am one who hopes that you take your secret admiration out of the closet and lead your party by making the Bush tax cuts permanent!

*Democrats suffering from economic hypochondria, George Will 2006

Mitt Romney and the LDS church

So I spent a few hours over the weekend watching some YouTube videos of Mitt Romney. I have to say that I was impressed by 1)how sharp he is and 2) how conservative he is. I had the false assumption that his election in Massachusetts meant that he was a little bit liberal. Yet, I found that his comments during interviews show him to be very conservative, and that his views are perfectly in line with most latter-day saints.
My hopes for Mitt's presidential run used to be motivated by the fact that he is a Mormon. Now I have another reason to like him; he is a good conservative! If elected, he could be another Reagan. These reasons are enough for me to give my whole-hearted endorsement of Mr. Romney and my commitment to do anything I can to get him elected.

I hope you feel the same way.

But it was Mitt's handling when questioned about the church that I would like to address in this post.
During many interviews, Mitt is asked about his religion. His response has been: (and I saw him say this in several interviews) "I think that what the American people really want is a person of faith, who shares their values". And then he goes on to say: "... and that people don't really care what particular church that person belongs to".
I think that he has a good approach. By emphasizing the common values he may be able to distinguish himself from other candidates. He also implies that Americans aren't bigots...which I think will resonate with most Americans.
But I was more impressed by his handling of other harder questions. For example, one reporter directly asked him about the LDS doctrine of God having a body of flesh and bones, and Jesus Christ appearing in the U.S. His response was brilliant. He said (I am paraphrasing) "you know what one of our most amazing doctrines is? It's that a man took a boat and put into it two animals of every kind and the whole earth was flooded with water". He then went on to say how every faith has things that are amazing and that we are no different from any other faith in that respect.
His Noah example was ingenious because so many religions share that story. He had the Christians, the Jews, and possibly the Muslims covered when he reminded the reporter of that event. When compared to the flood, some LDS doctrines aren't so hard to swallow. But his answer was also smart because he called the belief of Noah's ark "an LDS doctrine". He was again able show that many of our beliefs are in line with Christianity and that we have more in common with Christians than some want to believe.

I believe Mitt should be watched and emulated when dealing with questions about the church. Mitt will probably need to address the issue head on at some point. But until then He is making some good moves and our prayers are with him.

Can the Book of Mormon tell us how to deal with terror?

Okay, so let me know what you think about my idea for the terrorists in Iraq and other places.

Background: President Hinckley compared the terrorists we are fighting to the gadianton robbers spoken of in the Book of Mormon. So we all remember how the Nephites at one point dealt with those terrorists. They gathered themselves into one body which starved them out and forced them into an open confrontation which the Nephites easily won.

So we need to do the same. That is: force the terrorists into an open confrontation which we should easily win. Now, our strategy might be a bit different...because we can't just starve them out. But what I propose is that we:

1) empower the Iraqi police force: give them lots of cool weapons and technology

2) withdrawal of our physical troop presence into a central location: Kuwait or Baghdad

3) intelligence gather through spies and satellite surveillance

4) commit our support to the political parties that support democracy in Iraq

5) enforce that support through our air superiority

6) Prepare for a frontal attack

Whenever the terrorists organize themselves into a militia...or try to overtake a city...we bomb them. How can they ever get any real power? Every time they do anything to secure any real power, we can easily identify who the enemy is and send down a missile! Its like terrorism in reverse. The extreme terror organisations wouldn't be able to do anything about it but launch a frontal attack...that is, come out in open warfare against our guys who are clustered together and have superior weapons, training, and air superiority.

I admit that my idea relies a lot on the Iraqi police force. We'd have to trust that they'd stay unified and that they could maintain order in their cities. And my idea also needs some strong Iraqi leaders to stick their necks out and take leadership at their own personal risk. I think that the Iraqi president is afraid to let the US out of Iraq because he is thinking of his own personal safety...and the safety of his family. But George Washington risked his own name and fortune for our country...and we need to find the Washingtons of Iraq...maybe they are already there and we need to get out of their way!

But these Iraqi leaders will have something that Washington never had: F18s, F15s and stealth bombers ready to sweep in and hit targets as accurate as 1meter diameter...just a phone call away.

So I propose a withdrawal of our army troops...but a continued air presence. We will support democracy and freedom of religion in the country.

And if it works in Iraq, we park a few aircraft carriers near Iran and do the same...starting with their nuclear development sites.

Some thoughts on stem cell research

Dear Friends,

Every month I pay a large sum of money towards my student loans. I often wonder why, as a dentist, I was required to go through "mini"-medical school. I took embryology, biochemistry, microbiology, anatomy, physiology, pathology, and cell biology...oh yeah and some classes on teeth too! Maybe the reason a dentist needs to know so much medicine is to be able to speak authoritatively on some of the moral issues of our day. (After all, people can't talk back while we are working on the mouth!)

If you have a minute, I will make the case that stem cell research is not all it's promised to be.

Stem Cell research uses human embryos. Many feel that these are human beings in their most fundelmental form...so I believe that stem cell research ought to have clear uses before making a human sacrafice (if at all).

I have taken much text from the National Institutes of Health (Bold and Italics)

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics6.asp

STEM CELLS ...WHAT THEY ARE:

From the NIH:
Stem cells have the remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body. Serving as a sort of repair system for the body, they can theoretically divide without limit to replenish other cells as long as the person or animal is still alive. When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential to either remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a muscle cell, a red blood cell, or a brain cell.

So, we can think of stem cells as building blocks. They can become a more specialized type of cell. When our bodies were embryos we didn't have a liver, or a brain, or a pancreas...we only had cells that would later divide and become that liver, brain, or pancreas.

THE PROMISE

Again from the NIH:
Stem cells, directed to differentiate into specific cell types, offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat diseases including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis.

For example, it may become possible to generate healthy heart muscle cells in the laboratory and then transplant those cells into patients with chronic heart disease.

In people who suffer from type I diabetes, the cells of the pancreas that normally produce insulin are destroyed by the patient's own immune system. New studies indicate that it may be possible to direct the differentiation of human embryonic stem cells in cell culture to form insulin-producing cells that eventually could be used in transplantation therapy for diabetics.

Replacement cells. All of the fuss over making replacement cells! The problem is that we are dealing with people that have disease! Throwing cells at the site of disease isn't necessarily going to fix the problem.

As you know, I am a dentist. I deal mainly with one type of disease: tooth decay. Now, a person is born with healthy enamel, healthy dentin, etc. Then, a bacterium is introduced into the mouth: usually strep mutans. The bacteria combined with sugar produces an acid which destroys the tooth. Now imagine through a ridiculously expensive procedure I take a living embryo, harvest some stem cells, create new ameloblasts and odontoblasts (the cells that produce dentin and enamel) in a test-tube...and then through an even more expensive procedure (cha-ching) I inject those cells into the area of tooth decay. What's going to happen? The same bacteria that destroyed the mature tooth structure are going to gobble up the fresh "baby enamel" for breakfast.

Ok, so we won't try stem cell therapy in dentistry (although I must say I like the cha-ching factor). Tooth decay is a very simple and well known ailment...and I have already demonstrated that it wouldn't be useful in dentistry. For you science fiction folks, YES I have considered the prospect of growing a new tooth in some freaky petrie dish somewhere...but then there's the challenge of implantation and can you say CHA-CHING CHA-CHING CHA-CHING?!!!

Alright...so the pro-stem people don't emphasize the benefit to dentistry. Instead they have talked about much "simpler" diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and MS.

And this gets me to our biggest problem: WE DON"T KNOW THE CAUSES OF THESE DISEASES!!!

As many of you know, Michael J. Fox has Parkinson's disease. Parkinson's is caused by the cells of the substantia nigra (part of the brain) becoming destroyed (unknown cause) and as a result dopamine (an important neurotransmitter) levels drop.

So the hope is that stem cells could grow into Substantia Nigra cells and then we squirt them into MJFs brain and voila: no more Parkinson's! But Mr. Fox was born with plenty of his own cells...that were somehow destroyed...and chances are they will be destroyed again. You see, there was a reason his cells were destroyed. It could have been a blood flow problem. It could have been a virus. It could be his immune system. But it is likely that the same process that killed his original cells will kill the new ones.

We have to get at what is causing the disease first! Besides, we already have replacement cells. They can be harvested from cadavers. Go ahead and squirt some substantia nigra cells into a brain and see what happens. My guess is that they have already tried and failed.

The hope is that while doing the research on the stem cells they will be able to unlock the mysteries of the universe and become so knowledgeable that they will uncover the mysteries of all of the aforementioned diseases. But going back to my dentistry example: by studying how enamel is formed will not tell me how it decays. You have to see the bacteria in action...and the sugar...then the light turns on!

Stem cell research will focus on how things are formed...not why they go wrong. It is the wrong approach. If you have a tire that is wearing on one side...you'd be better off checking your alignment not going to the Goodyear manufacturer.

It is irresponsible to promise to find a cure to so many diseases...when most of them have an unknown cause.

Only when we discover the causes of those diseases will we be any closer to finding a cure.


Thanks for reading.



David Alvord DDS