Whipped Cream - The War on Drugs (Whipped Cream Recipe For NY Teens)

 After Trump was elected and embraced by Republicans, I changed affiliations from GOP to Libertarian in UT. I'll admit it is a pointless political affiliation - especially in Utah. I want to see a 3+ party system, or a no party system. I tried to believe in Libertarianism and their party, but their hyper focus on dropping all vice (and sometimes safety) related laws makes them unelectable. Legalizing prostitution, drugs, and no seat belts will never be a winning platform. Abolishing all (we mean ALL) taxes sounds nice, until you consider the things for which taxes are necessary and helpful.

However, this article in the Deseret News made the Libertarian inside me scream, laugh, and cry a little. The war on drugs is like most government programs, well-intentioned ideas with poorly executed operations, and potentially unattainable objectives. People like to get high, drunk, gorked, or jacked. They have sought ways to alter consciousness since time began, and will do so until the end of time.

Some aspects of the war on drugs may be helpful. Educational campaigns like DARE have helped many kids make smarter decisions about drugs. However, enforcement has done little but increase prison populations, empower and enrich cartels, and led to more inventive, less indictable, but potentially dangerous ways to get high.

The article provides the example of the approach NY state has taken to keep kids from getting high from legally obtainable items. NY has banned canned whipped cream for people under the age of 21. Some teens have been using the nitrous oxide in whipped cream cans to get high, and it is potentially lethal if excessive amounts are inhaled (although I would be surprised if a can of whipped cream has enough NOS to be lethal).

What are we doing? 

To be straight, I think it makes more sense to legalize and tax less harmful drugs like marijuana. If whipped cream cans need to be banned - I think the war on drugs may have been lost. 

For NY state teens that just want whipped cream for non-drug reasons, here is a quick recipe from All Recipes

Mike Lee - My Issues

 Between his election and now, I have been able to find commonality with him on a few items. For example, financial responsibility, health care, and defense. He has made (maybe rash) but right moves to prevent excess Federal debt and excessive spending. Affordable Care Act was a mistake on many levels, and he has shown commitment on working to get out (and stay out) of foreign wars. These are aspects of his career that I support.

There are many aspects of Mr. Lee that give me pause.  In addressing my concerns, I guess I should start with the small stuff and build to the items that raise my blood pressure. 

Back when he was elected in 2010, I was annoyed with the primary-less ousting of Senator Bennett. To be fair, this issue alone is more to blame on the Utah GOPs control over the state than Mike Lee. He said the things that the Tea Partiers at the time wanted to hear and beat an incumbent in convention. In a GOP state, that was a sure path to victory.

I believe his campaign promise to pursue term limits was a wholly disingenuous that was clearly going to popular at the convention that would have tossed Senator Hatch if he had been on the ballot at that time. From what I can see, his legal capabilities are not as stellar as he would have people believe. He only lasted a few years in each firm or in various judicial clerkships, and his most notable case was a failed attempt to use the commerce clause to get EnergySolutions around the contract they signed with the state of Utah regarding the storage of foreign nuclear waste. He had to short sale a home in the financial collapse of 2008-2009. He needed a long-term stable career move, and what can be more long term and stable than a US Senator in what has often been the most Republican state in the union. The path was reasonably sure – he could ride the coattails of his former BYU president and US Solicitor General father, and (largely on account of his father’s credibility) he styled himself as a “constitutional scholar”. 

His early rhetoric regarding immigration was at times offensive. He was fond of the term anchor babies – meaning babies who are born to noncitizens that “anchor” a family in the US with a citizen baby. Ironically, for a “constitutional originalist scholar”, the fact that this is a specifically legal provision of the constitution seems to have troubled him. I get that he was trying to express an issue he saw as a problem, but the term “anchor babies” seemed more like an attempt to demonize immigrants and their children. Should people come legally? Yes, but the demonization of immigrant families was ugly and hateful. 

Under the Trump White House, he often showed no integrity in politically difficult situations. In the beginning of Trump’s candidacy, he (like many in the party) would express his discomfort “as a father” at Trump’s p@$$y comment – but that was as far as he dared to go. During the presidency he seems to have backed Trump either whole heartedly, or quietly refused to speak out when things were dicey. There is one exception: he did vote to prevent military action against Iran after Trump killed a Iranian general under circumstances of questionable legality.

During the 2020 campaign, he crossed the Rubicon and descended into full blown sycophancy. In an AZ rally he made the inappropriate comparison of Book of Mormon warrior hero Captain Moroni as an archetype of Donald Trump. The many ways the comparison falls flat on its face are numerous and do not need full attention here. To summarize the biggest issue with this comparison, Moroni was said to have been a man “that if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever”. A better comparison would be King Noah (the indolent, petty, Nephite provincial king) or Moroni’s archnemesis Amalikiah (a wannabe autocrat who raised an insurrection to overthrow a popularly elected government, that led to 14+ years of war). Although this gaffe was foolish, he compounded his apparent sycophancy after the election.

After the election and to this day, he embraced the conspiracy theories and lies. As shown by text messages, he brought John Eastman and Sidney Powell into the White House orbit (https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/15/politics/read-mark-meadows-texts-mike-lee-chip-roy/index.html) he worked “13-14” hour days evaluating paths to overthrow the election and trying to pursue alternate slates of electors from states that were being challenged, and seems to have only relented after the president made a comment that seems to have wounded his pride. However, even after experiencing the events of 1/6 he still voted no on conviction, and as of a few months ago touted merits of the 2000 Mules documentary as evidence that the election was stolen. Last week he joined other GOPers in questioning the legitimacy of the FBI search warrant on Mar-a-Lago.

I believe Mike Lee to be an average attorney from a Utah family with dignitas. His initial election was fueled by Tea Party disdain for lifetime politicians under the false banner of championing term limits, he has chosen to appeal to the more racist inclinations of the party from his election until today in regards to immigration (he could have focused solely on drug smuggling as more legitimate border concern) and he willing participated and tried to lend a veneer of constitutional legitimacy to the effort to overturn the constitution he claims to adore. These are my biggest issues with Mr. Lee.

Lee v. McMullin - Bio Comparison

 Now that Mike Lee has managed to keep the GOP Senate nomination, it is time to compare and contrast Mr. Lee with Mr. McMullin. 

For today, let's stick to two biographical aspects: net worth and careers:

There is available net worth information on Lee from 2010 to 2018 from opensecrets.com. In 2010, his net worth was 16,000 dollars. Not surprising since he had to short sale his Alpine home before running for Senate - I assumed he was overly leveraged at that time. Since that time, his net worth has risen to a high of 539,000 in 2016, and from there down to 414,000 in 2018. His net worth has multiplied exponentially as a senator, but it is still smaller than the average net worth of most senators. If he is profiting from his office, he is not as bad as many other members of Congress or members of the Senate.

Evan McMullin's net worth information is less available. I found a few generic hits, the top result came from a website called celebritynetworth.com (reliable?) with a net worth of 1 million dollars. Not sure if that should be considered high or not. The largest chunk of his career is in public service. He may have been a good saver, he may have made a large chuck on cash working for Goldman Sachs, not sure what to make of a net worth figure of that amount.

Mike Lee's education and career. He is a graduate of BYU for both his BA in Political Science, and his Juris Doctorate. He attended BYU while his father was president of the university. His career has included multiple clerkships, first for a year under Judge Dee Benson in Utah right out of school, and two stints as Samuel Alito's clerk, once early in his career while Alito was an appeals court judge for a year, and then before he was elected to the senate while Alito was a new member of the Supreme Court. He also served for three years as an Assistant US Attorney in Utah, and as general counsel to Governor Huntsman for one year. Looks like he spent roughly 6 years in private practice. His most notable case I can see is when he represented Energy Solutions in its quest to accept Italian nuclear waste in violation of agreements the company signed with the state of Utah.  Yes this is from Wikipedia.

Evan McMullin's education includes a Bachelors from BYU in international law and diplomacy, and a MBA from Wharton at the University of Pennsylvania. His career seemed heavily geared towards the CIA. While at BYU he interned with the CIA each summer, his degree is focused internationally, and that was the first job he took. He worked from the CIA as an operations officer from 2001-2010. He attended Wharton after the CIA and worked for Goldman Sachs for a year and half, worked for the Romney campaign in 2012 and then was recruited for the House Committee on  Foreign Affairs where he worked from 2013-2015. His highest position was chief policy director for the House Republican Conference when he resigned to start his 2016 presidential campaign. After the elections, it appears that the 501(c)(4) he created "Stand Up Republic" has been his primary occupation. Again a Wikipedia article.

Observations:

Mike Lee has had a very (let's say) mobile career - spending 3-4 years at a maximum in any job besides senator. In his non-elected career, he does not seem to have enjoyed much upward mobility seeming to move laterally through most job changes. I am not sure on his success as a student - could not obtain class rankings. He graduated from a major university, but he was also the son of the university president and a former US solicitor general. It would be hard to deny that he likely benefited from some privilege as a student at BYU. Did that play into his success at school? Maybe, maybe not. 

Evan McMullin's CIA career is not exactly a negative or a positive. He apparently was at least adequate at his job - staying in the CIA for 9+ years. However, of government jobs, CIA is not one of the most respected agencies in my view - just a step higher than the IRS. However, after the time in the CIA he has had a few decent career moves. Apparently, Goldman Sachs did not suit him, but he was well suited to serve the US Congress as an international affairs advisor (rising to the level of chief policy director of the House Republican Conference). In regards to education, I would assume he must have had an impressive transcript to be given CIA internships every year of his education. While the CIA (as an agency) is a little smarmy, they are (from my understanding) generally picky on their recruits and he must have proved himself to be given a position.

Evan McMullin - 2022 Campaign Priorities

 Let’s look at Evan McMullin’s priorities if elected:

1. Strengthen our democracy and stand up to extremist - This included a few specific items. These are as follows:

a. Ensuring voting rights for all eligible Americans

b. Ending partisan gerrymandering, and other election corruption

c. Toughen transparency and ethics laws

d. Reducing the influence of money in politics

e. Uniting Americans on common ground.

Ensuring voting rights is (on its face) a sentiment that most people would obviously agree with. However, given the current election conspiratorial beliefs of the Trumpists in the GOP, this is likely a position that may be viewed with suspicion by those pseudo-conservatives. I cannot fault this position. If an individual meets the requirements of citizenship and legality to vote, government has the responsibility to make voting accessible.

Ending partisan gerrymandering is wishful thinking. Defining voting boundaries is a state’s right, and this right benefits Republicans in red states as much as it benefits Democrats in blue states. Would stiffer rules be a good thing? Sure. However, he will be hard pressed to win a vote on this issue. The other portion of the second item is vaguely defined, and I assume it is up to individual voter interpretation. Yes, ending election corruption is ideal.

Toughening ethics and transparency rules (especially with members of Congress) should be pursued. From the 1/6 committee hearings, it has been revealed that a gaggle of Senators and Representatives requested pardons for their participation in Trump’s post-2020 election strategy. This could be a sign that there are not clear boundaries for elected officials on things they can and cannot do within the bounds of propriety. Ideally, we would elect individuals that have internal ethical compasses – but in post-Clinton and post-Trump America, we cannot rely on this.

Democrats would likely support controls on money in politics more than McConnell’s GOP Senate, but this is something I would have to say I support. It is good centrist policy, policy that John McCain and Mitch McConnell parted ways over many years ago.

Uniting Americans on common ground is flowery language without substance. How will you accomplish this Mr McMullin?   

2. Lower health care costs – The McMullin campaign are fans of bullet points. On this subject, there are six items

a. Negotiating lower drug prices

b. Promoting competition in the prescription drug market

c. Improving patient choice in insurance and care providers

d. Requiring hospital price and quality transparency

e. Cutting administrative waste

f. Expanding telemedicine

His healthcare priorities seem to be a smorgasbord of ideas from the right and the left that have been offered in the past. Of these suggestions, negotiating lower drug costs and promoting competition in the drug market are two popular items. However, both items are difficult to accomplish without stifling innovation. If drug innovators are not allowed just profits for the pricy R&D they put into new drugs, how can we expect the medical innovations of the last century to continue? These two items are a tough quandary to solve. I hope he would support capitalistic models to accomplish this, but time would likely tell.

There is not really a clear view on how he would improve choice in insurance options. Some would argue that ACA has accomplished that feat, but those same people would need accept the fact that the cost has been very high to try and do so with the Obamacare model. Health insurance across state lines or other forms of health care cost sharing might be more innovative, but the website doesn’t expound on these ideas.

It is my understanding that a recent bipartisan law that has come into effect has already accomplished much of the goal of hospital price and quality transparency. I’m sure improvements can be made, but this new change is a leap forward.

Cutting administrative waste sounds good, but again no real substantive explanations of how he would accomplish it and he is not clear on where the waste is coming from – hospitals and doctors, or the government?

     Not sure how I feel on whether telemedicine is as helpful as the McMullin campaign believes. I cannot believe that it accomplishes qualify healthcare better than an office visit and it seems like it is more of a band aid to make healthcare seem more efficient. 

3. Reduce Reckless Government Spending and Inflation – 5 more bullet points:

a. Finding consensus solutions to overcome the pandemic

b. Supporting Americans return to work

c. Encouraging the return of critical manufacturing to America

d. Passing balanced budget legislation

e. Avoiding unnecessary wars.

  To start, the McMullin campaign started with a blurb that the national debt tripling since 2010 to 30 trillion. Clearly a not too subtle jab at one of Lee’s core appeals to conservative Utah voters – mildly amusing.

  Finding consensus solutions to overcome the pandemic seems like a priority that may have outlived its relevance. It seems that the consensus has been achieved organically, Americans will live with the virus in all its ever-changing forms. However, I suppose the campaign could mean establishing consistent plans for future pandemic control we could do better on establishing laws that require states to follow CDC and NIH guidance with less politics?

  The idea of supporting American’s returning to work sounds great. I would love more details on how he plans to achieve this goal. This was one of the strong suits of Bernie Sanders’ campaigns – very clear details on how he would run an administration. This sounds great, but what will he do about it?

  Encouraging the return of manufacturing has been a long-time goal of politicians on the left and the right. Again, it would be wonderful if there was clearer information on how he hopes to accomplish the goal.

  He would support balanced budget legislation. This is something I think the right still generally supports. One of the main arguments against it, is that it would prevent the government from using spending as an anti-recession tool and that the government could not intervene in markets unless the budget balanced. Personally, I am not sure market intercessions by the federal government have really been wise. All of us experiencing the pains of inflation are enduring a side effect of the stimuluses of 2020 and 2021. Pumping 900 billion dollars (payments to individuals alone) into the money supply has economic consequences.

  Avoiding unnecessary wars. I think this priority may have been written pre-Ukraine war. McMullin seems to have a lot of issues with Putin, and I wonder if this priority holds water if things heat up on that front. War with Russia would be horrible. Putin has tried to play the mad man for years regarding his nukes, and calling his bluff is not something I hope we try. However, if there has been any worthy causes for the US to go to war over the past 50 years (save for the initial invasion of Afghanistan) the invasion of Ukraine may actually be one of those worthy causes. 

4. Protect Our Air and Water. There are 5 more bullet points here, but I am only going to comment on one.

a. Improving western forest management

b. Developing water conservation practices and infrastructure

c. Investing in innovations that decrease harmful emissions

d. Encouraging job-friendly conservation in industry

e. Strengthening diversified economic development in rural areas

    All these items sound good and important, but only one item is critical. Improving western forest management is needed to reduce the wildfires that seem to plague the mountain west every year. Increasing spending on solar and (dare I say it) nuclear energy would be solid investments in clean energy (yes, nuclear energy can be a great source of clean power). Finally, diversified economic development in rural areas and business friendly conservation sound good (but not a lot in the details). 

   The critical item is water conservation. This is my third or fourth straight year where we have gone several months without a good rainstorm (even a hard short cloud burst) in St. George. Yet, there is not one single water restriction in place (that I know of). Golf courses and lawns are all still green. Jon Oliver put out an arguably fair (but extremely offensive) critique of the situation a few weeks ago. He targeted Utah, and he has a point. The Colorado River Compact needs to be fixed to accurately handle water usage, and states need to take action to deal with water shortages. How Mr. McMullin will affect change on this front is another question.

5. Keep America Safe. Last 5 bullet points

a. Modernizing and reforming the military

b. Strengthening alliances with other free nations

c. Protecting funding for police funding, accountability, and safety

d. Countering violent extremism

e. Securing borders and treating immigrants humanely

f. Improving digital safety for children

The first bullet does strike an important chord. China has surpassed the US in the size of its Navy, and it may be surpassing the US in some of our technological superiority as well. It has been most of a century since there has been a major war between large powers, and there is more saber rattling every year between NATO bloc countries, Russia, and between Pacific Asian nations. The US and, now that our NATO seem to be awaking to Russian dangers, our allies need to make sure the military edge is held by liberal democracies and not the autocratic nations who seem to grow more confrontational each year.

Trump made a lot of problematic moves in relation to allies during his tenure. However, the largest gripe of his may be remedying itself due to Putin’s Ukrainian aggression. Strengthening our alliances with NATO in Europe and Japan, South Korea, and other free nations in Asia is crucial. Russia and China have been seemingly flexing martial muscle, a weak alliance between the NATO alliance is a weaker deterrent to keep China from following Russia’s lead in its desire to annex Taiwan. 

The police bullet point is oddly phrased. You could read it as a call to protect police funding, or as a call to devote funding to increase police accountability. Meant to appeal to voters on both sides of the political spectrum. I think it leans more towards protecting police funding, but it also may call for some desired reforms to help reduce shootings.

Countering violent extremism is a large grab bag of things that can be included. In the first part of the century thus far, we would have mainly considered Islamic extremism. Post-Trump era, I think most would agree we should include political extremism of all kinds. Pre-January 6th right wingers would point to BLM/ANTIFA protesters as the real political extremist problem in America now. Sure, it can be granted that the instances of arson and vandalism were damaging to the cities where they occurred. Post-insurrection, I would have to say the BLM protests don’t hold a candle to damage that January 6th did. That extremism had the potential to end free and fair elections as we know them forever, and it did become the poster event for autocrats for how liberal democracies are failing. All violent extremism needs to be countered, but we need to be vigilant of the kind of extremism that seeks to overthrow the constitution.

On some level, I would say the 4th bullet point is a good contrast (as well as can be with short bullet points) to Mike Lee’s view of immigration. Securing the border is a good thing, but so are reasonable immigration statutes. I could almost have supported a wall, if the wall was coupled with simplified immigration procedures – immigration that doesn’t cost a fortune and exclude the poorest and most needy. The worst part about excessively harsh immigration is that is leaves the poorest at the mercy of exploitive profiteers who often lead them to their death (as we saw in San Antonio a few weeks ago). 

Mike Lee - 2010 Campaign Promises and Execution

Today, considering Mike Lee's campaign promise fulfillment from 2010. The campaign seems to have maintained the same campaign website between 2016-2022, however they stopped making promises – and just talk results. That website – maybe next time.

(2010 Campaign Site)

(Voting record)

2010 - Fulfilled or at least attempted:

Ending deficit spending - I think he has tried to do what he can to end deficit spending. The only blemishes I can see, is the 2014 vote to kill the Ryan budget and the vote against the No Budget, No Pay Act. From what I understand the reasoning for killing the Ryan budget was a resistance to any tax hikes on the wealthy to achieve the goal of deficit reduction (I’m not sure that is really an issue, there are better deficit options other than tax hikes). 

I find the vote against the “No Budget, No Pay” act more problematic. Sure, the bill may have been childish, but so is Congressional stonewalling and bickering. Decreasing Congressional pay with maybe a reduction in Congressional sessions (to a month or two) could do wonders to reducing the Federal deficit. 

Strengthening National Security – For me, this one is more difficult to define as succeed or failed so I will leave it in the tried category. There are some national security paths he has taken that I find distasteful (his approach to immigration for one) but there are some items that I can applaud (like voting to stop Trump from acting against Iran without Congressional sanction). I cannot say I believe he has pursued any policies that are prone to damage national security. 

I may caveat here, that I think his alignment with Trump (and I’ll be honest I have no tolerance here) 2020 election conspiracy theorists is arguably one path he took that either damaged, or had the potential to damage, national security. He (at least initially) sanctioned Eastman’s wildly unconstitutional January 6th plan – which is unforgivable for a “constitutional scholar”. 

Reform the tax system – Whether or not he can be credited (in any manner) with the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, that tax change was a reformation of the tax system. There are some things I think may bite taxpayers in future years (like the loss of exemption deductions) but it was a positive tax change for now. I could see it being costly under a wrong president who has a firm and amicable congressional majority.

Reduce government regulations – This is a mixed bag. Economic regulation (which, to be fair, seems to be the focus of this promise) he has arguably succeeded. There are other types of regulation where his votes are a mixed and sometimes Putin-esque bag. In 2013, he voted against a Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (have not read the bill, but it reminds me of the Kremlin legalizing wife-beating a few years ago). He voted for a 20-week abortion ban; this Federal bill would be unconstitutional under the recent overturn of Roe. He also voted for the border fence. 

Illegal Immigration – Although I disagree with his approach and much of his rhetoric (the fondness he has for the term “anchor babies” comes to mind) I would have to say he has pursued the policies that he promised to pursue. 

2010 – Failed, or no effort

End the era of the lifetime politician – One of Mike Lee’s 2010 pitches was that Bob Bennett had been in office too long, and that lifetime members of Congress (like Utah’s two senators at the time) was a problem that needed to be rectified. 

The runaway growth of the federal government will continue as long as we retain a system that assures the existence of lifetime politicians. A career member of Congress inevitably will come to believe that that body has the answer to all social problems. The Constitution should be amended to limit service in each house of Congress to 12 years.

I agreed with him then, it was one of the only things that made the ousting of Bennett (a centrist like me) more palatable. I still agree with that sentiment now. 

It seems like he has sense changed his mind on that. This was noticeably absent from his current campaign website is the assertion that there should be 12 year or 2 term limits for senators.  

2010 – Items not addressed by me.

The 2010 issues page listed an additional 11 items. Most of them, I have not covered. The list includes illegal immigration, health care, US-Israeli relations, Afghanistan, entitlements, education, fiscal responsibility, abortion, gun rights, public lands, and energy. I addressed the illegal immigration item earlier. 

Some items were simply right-wing window dressing. You will not go anywhere as a GOP candidate if you don’t support Israel, overturning Roe, gun rights, and cheap oil policies. I did not feel the urge to analyze Lee’s influence on most of these items.

One item I agreed with him on here was his position of Social Security. He seems to have been advocating social security means testing or phase out of Social Security. I have not seen much success on this type of reform or if he has really tried to push it.

The 5 main campaign promises have had successes on all but term limits. Term limits seem like it may have been a bait and switch promise (at worst) or just a concession he made because no one in their right mind would ever try to limit their ability to hold power. He could never get it to pass, so why try. From what I can see, it looks like he made this assessment very early.