Utah Gun Laws and the Blame Game.

As you may know, feminist activist and lecturer, Anita Sarkeesian, was scheduled to address the students at Utah State University (USU) about sexism and the way woman are portrayed in video games. Several email threats were sent to USU regarding her visit, including a very disturbing one threatening violence and death on a scale to rival the school massacres of recent years. As a student at USU, I received several emails from the school about the subject, as events unfolded. Extra security was put in place and the campus officials felt confident in allowing the event to go on. Ms. Sarkeesian was not satisfied with the level of security, however, and decided to cancel her lecture. I was curious to hear her take on things, and I'm sorry she decided to cancel. I understand and respect her decision, even if I don't agree with her reasoning.

Someone has now posted a statement to various places on the web, along with her picture, stating that, "Because of lax gun control laws in Utah, the police were unable to ensure that weapons wold be brought into the venue, forcing her to cancel." I have no idea if  these were Ms. Sarkeesian's actual words or not. What they are referring to is Utah's concealed carry law, which allows those with concealed carry permits to carry a weapon in public and on government property. Because USU is a state owned school, people with a Utah concealed carry permit would be allowed to bring their weapons.

Where the pundits, and Ms. Sarkeesian, get it wrong is that the bad guys don't care about the law. First, open carry is not only discouraged on campus but will get you arrested. Concealed carry is only legal if you have been trained and have a permit. The bad guys don't like to get permits because then they get fingerprinted and are know to carry a gun. It is likely that those packing either have permits, or are the bad guys, If the police can't tell if you're carrying a weapon or not, they're not going to be able to tell if you have a permit or not. If they figure out you're carrying, they'll approach you and ask for a permit. If don't have one, they'll haul you away and now you are no longer a threat, anyway.

Second, most of the student population here doesn't carry a weapon. As I said, open carry isn't allowed on campus, and those living on campus are forbidden from having weapons in their apartments.

Third, in order for the death toll to have been as catastrophic as the emails were threatening, it would likely be a team with larger weapons, such as rifles, or a bomb. These are not allowed on campus, no matter what kind of permit you may have. The possibility of their presence is no greater on USU campus than in any other state in the U.S that Ms. Sarkeesian may have chosen to speak at.

Still, it's the person with the concealed carry permit, that has been fingerprinted, is known, is trained in the safe handling of a weapon, and knows when deadly force is, and is not, appropriate, that the pundits feel is the real threat. Not the criminal nutjob terrorists who don't care what the laws are, anyway.  Oh no. The law abiding citizenry are the problem according to these people.

And now, because Ms. Sarkeesian canceled her lecture, complying with the terrorist's threat, she's allowed them to win. Freedom of speech has given way to fear. And so in the spirit of college athletics, let me give you the score, at least as far as this case goes: Terrorists 1, Freedom of Speech 0.

What a lousy game.

Hobby Lobby and Delusion of Corporate Personhood

The recent supreme court ruling regarding Hobby Lobby has a lot of people up on arms. Including me. I'm not sure how many of these people are upset for the same reasons, though. To me, this has less to do with religious rights than with the political fiction that corporations are people.

This legal fiction began back in the early 1800's so, it's nothing new. It's a convenient way of justifying making corporations pay taxes and protects their owners from some kinds of lawsuits and other legal matters. But things have gone a little crazy in the last several years. Corporations have the right to donate money to political campaigns, and are now exempt from the requirement to provide certain kinds of medical coverage demanded by the Affordable Care Act. What I believe we really need to do is sit back and evaluate just what corporations are, and what they are supposed to be.

In one very clear way, a corporation is a legally recognized group of people, acting in concert. The original idea of corporate personhood was intended to protect the constitutional rights of individual shareholders, when they acted collectively. Sounds all well and good, on the surface. The problem, as I see it, comes in two forms:

1. When a shareholder is allowed to act as himself, and as the corporation, the shareholder effectively becomes more than one person.
2. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution is being used to protect the rights of corporations, but not their employees.

Let me explain. When it comes to political campaigns, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has decided that donating money to a cause is the same as political speech. Therefore, to protect the First Amendments rights of shareholders, corporations must be allowed to donate to political campaigns. In effect, then, a shareholder may donate twice, once as himself, and once as part of his corporation.

Political campaigns can only accept a certain amount of money from an individual, or corporation. Accordingthe Federal Election Commission, an individual may give up to $2,600 to each candidate of their choice. That money, however, is not counted against the additional $2,6000 that can be given through a PAC. Nor does it count the other multitude of ways a person can donate funds, as long as the individual donates through various corporations.

Many corporate shareholders own more than one company. Large corporations own smaller corporations and each corporation may be considered yet another “person,” even if, in the final measure, it is only one or two actual human beings. To put it simply, an individual can extend their political power and influence by owning more and more corporations. Why? Because each one of them is a legal “person” on paper. In effect, they are able to exercise certain rights more than other individuals because the law considers them to be more than one person. I can only guess at the other abuses this legal fiction enables.

Let's move on to my second point, and use Hobby Lobby as an example. For this to make sense, let's revisit the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

When we apply corporate personhood to this portion, “ No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...” it becomes clear why the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby denying coverage of “morning after” birth control measures to their employees. If the shareholders of Hobby Lobby are acting as a “person,” they cannot be denied their right to exercise their religious beliefs regarding appropriate birth control measures. But here's the part the court's seem to have ignored, “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” If the Affordable Care Act is a legal protection for employees, then ANY exception, if not specifically written into the law, would violate the Constitution. By that reading, any corporation seeking an exception to the Affordable Care Act would be violating the Constitutional rights of its employees.

All of this stems from the simple delusion that corporations are people.

If you want to help fight the legal fiction of corporate personhood, visit Move To Amend for more information.

Governor Herbert Vetoes HB 76 – Concealed Carry Without a Permit

Governor Gary Herbert has vetoed Utah House Bill 76, a modification to Utah’s concealed carry laws for fire arms, and I’m glad. This bill would allow anyone in Utah to carry concealed weapons, without a concealed carry permit. Some of my friends will likely be upset with me, but I can’t imagine why it would have passed in the first place.

I am a firm believer in the right of American citizens to bear arms. Indeed, when I joined the USMC I took an oath to defend the U.S Constitution and, although that was many years ago and I no longer actively serve, I till take that oath very seriously. I prefer to think of myself as an “inactive Marine,” not a former one. As such, I have the honor of having belonged to a warrior culture. Being part of a warrior culture is very different from being part of a gun culture.

Most members of a warrior culture prefer peace over violence; we’re just not above using violence to protect ourselves, our friends, our family, our community or our country’s lawful interests. NOTE: that’s LAWFUL interests. We’re trained in the appropriate use of deadly force, weapons use and safety. We are NOT trained to kill indiscriminately. Accidents involving “friendly fire” are common enough to make us nervous. Such accidents can lead to the death of civilians, or members of our units. As you can imagine, we wouldn’t be very happy about any of those things happening. Such things are taken very seriously by “higher ups” in the chain of command, regardless of what the media shows.

Currently, in Utah people with a concealed weapon permit have to go through gun safety training. They are given information about the appropriate use of deadly force. In short, they may not be warriors, but they know when to, and when not to, use a firearm. They can be trusted to carry a gun.

Most people who participate in gun culture share the same goals and concerns that members of a warrior culture do. Most of them are intelligent people who take gun ownership and use very seriously. Not all of them have taken the time to be trained, however. Not all of them understand the fine points of gun safety or the appropriate use of deadly force. Not all of them know not to fire into a crowd. Many do, but not all. So called “common-sense” is far from common. Someone with a loaded gun, who doesn't know the proper and safe use of it, is a danger to himself and others every time he draws it.

Changing the laws so that anyone can carry a concealed firearm, training or not, means that we will have more people who are untrained carrying weapons that they may, or may not, know how to properly use, and there is no way for anyone around them to figure out if they are packing or not. From the perspective of a bad guy, that might be a good thing. Bad guys are less likely to act badly if someone might be packing. But they don’t know who’s got a concealed carry permit or not so, from that standpoint, the impact is minimal at best.

It would pose a problem for law enforcement, however. Right now, if you’re packing a concealed weapon without a permit, you’re breaking the law. Pretty cut and dried. If not, the officer has to make a call as to your intent. The wording of “intent” is pretty vague. Even if the officer decides that you may have criminal intent in carrying the firearm, if he can’t prove it, later, this opens the state to lawsuit after lawsuit.

If the governor’s veto of HB 76 is overturned, we can expect an increased number of both trained, and untrained, gun wielders running around, as well as a waste if more state tax dollars on frivolous lawsuits. Why would anyone think this a good idea?

Obama Abandons the Defense of Marriage Act

President Barack Obama has decided that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and has directed the Department of Justice to quit defending it.

Supporters of gay marriage are declaring a victory. Detractors are up in arms.

There's one problem that only a few people seem to get, President Obama doesn't have the authority to do that. Only the Judicial Branch, and ultimately the Supreme Court, can declare an existing federal law unconstitutional and stop it's enforcement. It can be repealed, but only by Congress. The Executive Branch has no say in the matter until such a move passes both the House and the Senate. Representative Feinstein, as much I am not a fan of her, at least understands that and has decided to put forth a bill calling for it's repeal.

I personally believe she won't be able to get it to pass in the House of Representatives. At least I hope she won't.

This is just one more move by this administration to spit on the Constitution and try and take more authority that it actually has. I used to shake my head in disbelief at the people calling for President Obama's impeachment. Now I'm not so sure they're wrong.

My own feeling is that, regardless of the bogus rhetoric, marriage, at it's core, is about having children. It's a sacred institution and should only be between a man and a woman. Putting religious differences aside, there are many compelling secular reasons as well. If you don't think same sex marriage hurt anyone, you may need to take a second look.

Free Speech Dies in Austria

In Austria, a free speech activist has been charged with inciting religious hatred and faces three years in prison after criticizing Islam and Shariah law. Don't think it can happen here in America? With "political correctness" protecting everyone except those who agree with the current left-wing agenda through vilification of opposing ideas, I suspect it won't be long before jail time for peaceful dissent becomes real here, too.

Defending Sarah Palin's Blood Libel Comment

There are a ton of left-wing bloggers, vloggers, so-called journalists, and media moguls that are trying to call Sarah Palin stupid because she used the term “blood libel” in a video she recently posted to the web. The video was done in response to a cry from the media to respond to criticism that she was somehow connected to the events of the recent shootings in Tucson, Arizona.

The accusations were that the cross-hair symbols that used to appear on her website, “targeting” Democrat political leaders that she, and the Tea Party movement considered to be bad leaders they wanted to replace through the election cycle, were directly or indirectly responsible for pushing Jared Loughner into a shooting frenzy, killing a Federal Judge and a 9-year old girl, among others, as well wounding more than a dozen people including Representative Gabrielle Giffords (a Decmocrat). Such pundits have gone on, sometimes back-peddling and sometimes not, to include other right-wing celebrities as part of a “group of terrorists” that, these left-wing pundits claim, are spewing hate speech and inciting riots and violence.

Of course, the Democrats and the rest of the “left” never do that.

This is all nonsense, of course. Let's review some of the facts surrounding these accusations, even though the term “facts” may turn off a few liberal-leaning people in America these days.

• Jared Loughner, the man accused in the shooting, is a registered Independent, not a Republican.
• His own political leanings aligned more with the Zeitgeist movement than the Tea Party movement.
• Jared Loughner's problems with Representative Giffords started as early, or earlier, than 2007, before the Tea Party movement, shortly after Sarah Palin became the governor of Alaska and before she became prominent in the national political scene.
• It is likely that he suffered from schizophrenia and possibly paranoid psychosis.
• His friends say he did not watch television, listen to the radio, or take sides with any major political party.

How in heaven's name does an otherwise rational person get a picture of a guy who's gone off the deep end because of Sarah Palin and right-wing talk show hosts from that? It's ludicrous.

Now let's look that the timeline involved in the shootings, and Palin's response:

January 8: A tragic shooting in Tuscon takes place. Within minutes, some people in the media begin blaming Sarah Palin and demanding she respond.

January 9: Evidence about Jared Loughner begins to be revealed, showing that he had nothing to do with Sarah Palin or the Tea Party movement. The media continues to demand a response from her.

January 10: More evidence about the shooter is revealed, showing him to be mentally ill. The media continues to cry for a response from Palin.

January 11: Evidence comes out to show that the shooter didn't care about politics. The media continues to call for a response from Palin.

January 12: Sarah Palin responds via video posted at YouTube and her Facebook page. NBC Nightly News pulls out her “target map,” ties it to Gifford, and then focuses on two words of her response video, “blood libel,” and then accuses her of being anti-Semitic because of it. The rest of the media, and the blogosphere, go wild with continuing accusations and nonsense.

What kind of story is the media trying to create? Note that I said CREATE, not REPORT. There are no facts here linking any of Palin's activities to Loughner.

In other words, in order to attack Palin and the Tea Party movement, they're making shit up.

Are you still with me? Here's the part of Palin's response so many seem to have trouble with:

“But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn.”

Blood libel (also called blood accusation) refers to a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, usually Jews, murder children to use their blood in religious rituals and holidays.

In other words, in order to attack Jews and other religious/cultural groups, they're making shit up.

Her analogy is spot on. In this case, it's not an unfounded attack on a religion. It's an unfounded attack on a political ideology.

How many of you recognized the next step, already being taken by at least one government official, attacking free speech and the first amendment?

In the words of Arsenio Hall, “Just something to make you go, Hmmm ...”

The Oath Movie - Documentary of a Terrorist

Yesterday, I watched an astonishing film on POV, a PBS series of independent documentaries, called The Oath. It chronicles the rise of a “reformed” Al Qaeda operative Abu Jandal a.k.a. Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s former bodyguard. After leaving bin Laden's service, he was captured at the Pakistani border and became a prisoner at Guantánamo Bay facing war crimes charges. It's a little hard to follow, because it's not presented in exactly chronological order, but it ultimately leads to Osama bin Laden, the 9/11 attacks, and even the US Constitution.

Although the filmmaker was trying to show why American foreign policy creates hatred and uprisings in the middle east, and gain sympathy for them, she was much better at painting an accurate picture of why we need to take so-called “Islamic Extremists” seriously. She reveals what their thinking is, the lies they are told, and how they have no regard for anyone who doesn't think, live or believe as they do. There are also sections showing some of Al Qaeda's recruiting practices, and communications tactics.

What is most telling is the conversations Hamdan has with young militant Muslims. He acts like a mentor, or minor Imam, subtly giving them a philosophy of hatred for “infidels” and a mindset of action, all the while denying that he has ever asked them to kill Americans. What is most interesting is when he tells them to be careful, or cuts them off when they start asking questions that may be “too sensitive” and reveal these young men's connections, or aspirations, to terrorism.

While some who have seen the movie focus on the side of the story trying to humanize Salim Hamdan, and thus dismiss the film, they shouldn't. This is likely the most terrifying, and brutally truthful, look inside Al Qaeda I have ever seen. It reveals the actual war we are waging with them and other related militant groups. They see themselves as freedom fighters, as Holy Warriors. Make no mistake, there sole mission is to kill us. If the events portrayed, and the conversations recorded in this documentary doesn't wake you up to the real danger we are facing as a country, nothing will.

US to Give $50 Million for Cookstoves

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced that the US is poised to donate $50 million to the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves. They area non-profit group dedicated to clean-burning cookstoves to under-developed countries that currently use open fires within their homes.
Such cooking practices create large amounts of carbon monoxide and black carbon soot that can significantly compromise a person's health. As a “foodie” and home cook, this problem is of great concern to me. What I'm confused about is why the U.S. Should be donating such a large amount of money in this down economy.

I'm also concerned about why we are donating to this specific organization in this way. It turns out that there are already many US government agencies and private companies that support this group. Why are we giving $50 million in addition to the money US taxpayers and corporations are already giving them? Other countries have pledged much less.

According to the New York Times:

Reid Detchon, vice president for energy and climate at the United Nations Foundation, one of the founding partners of the alliance, said that the plan was not simply to use donations to buy millions of new stoves and ship them out to the developing world.

Rather, he said, the group hopes to create an entrepreneurial model in which small companies manufacture or buy the stoves close to their markets, taking into account local fuel choices, food consumption patterns and methods of cooking.

There's a problem with this ideal. It turns out that one of the major manufacturers of these stoves is China. How is large scale manufacturing groups in China, who shamelessly belch out tons of greenhouse gasses, a small company model, in practice?

It also turns out that this “solution” has a built it replacement date. It's actually designed to be cheap, and break down, so it has to be replaced every few years:

“The idea is how to create a thriving global industry in cookstoves, driven by consumers’ desire to have these products at a price they can afford,” Mr. Detchon said.

“These stoves don’t have a long lifetime,” he said. “To produce low cost and high volume, you’ll have to replace them relatively frequently, perhaps every two, three or five years. You’ll need a supply chain and business model that delivers them, not on a one-time basis, but as a continuing enterprise.”

How is selling sub-standard equipment to a developing nation a good idea? This group positions itself as highly moral, wanting to help poor people. This sounds like they're taking advantage of them.

The solutions to carbon smoke and soot in the house was fixed hundreds of years ago with much simply, and in some cases less expensive, technologies and practices. While this may be a worthy cause, there are other things that can be done and many of them don't require any money at all.

Move the Stove Outside. An open flam in a closed space not only creates breathing problems, it's a major fire hazard.

Use a Chimney. Even a simple hole in the roof can help direct smoke upwards, and out of the home.

Use a Solar Oven. You can build an effective solar oven for next to nothing. Sure, there are fancy models that cost hundreds of dollars, but you can actually buy/build a cheap, but very effective ovens for much less. Solar ovens have a zero-carbon footprint, where the other cookers do not. Here's the other kicker – Secretary Clinton has known about it, and supported them, for over a year. Why change gears, now?

Photo by Sunil Lal

Friday is Constitution Day! Just Don't Try to Celebrate in Ohio

This Friday, September 17, is the anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution. That's quite a reason to celebrate, if you ask me.  According to this news article, you better not try doing it in Andover, Ohio.

Members of the recently formed Andover Tea Party had petitioned the city to allow them to hold a rally commemorating the signing of the Constitution. They were denied due to, get this, their group's political affiliation. The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, a nonpartisan law center in Ohio, has filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of the Tea Party group, claiming a violation of their First Amendment rights.

Apparently, the Andover City Council is citing a local resolution that prohibits any for-profit advertising or political signs on the Andover Square.  The problem, it seems, is that the trustees believe celebrating the signing of the Constitution is a political event.

Okay. I can buy that. Under that standard, though, so is celebrating Memorial Day, Veteran's Day, and Independence Day, all of which have had events cleared by the Andover City Council. There's supposed to be a ruling on a restraining order against the Council before Friday.

File this under, “More Evidence that the World has Turned Upside Down.”

Photo from the National Archives.

9/11 - 9 Years - Never Forget

Never forget what they did to us.

Never allow them to do it again.

Never surrender your American Values and Freedoms because of fear or politics.

"These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed; our country is strong. A great people has been moved to defend a great nation. Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shattered steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve. America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining. - President George W. Bush, from his 9/11 address."

Burning the Koran - Distractions and Double Standards

By now you've heard the plans of a Florida pastor to burn a copy of the Koran on 9/11. You've probably also seen the insane about of outrage in the media over it. Actors, senators, you name it - they're all pontificating about how stupid and terrible it is.

It is stupid. It's also well within the rights of this pastor and his congregation to burn them. Here's where I see another example of a double standard in our society. It's okay to spread elephant feces on a picture of the Virgin Mary in the name of art. It's okay to burn the American flag in protest over American foreign policy. Just try and burn the Koran, though, and the political pundits will call for your head.

The person I see that has the right attitude about this is Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, "Any issue that takes peoples eye off of unemployment, job creation, economic growth, taxes, spending, deficits, debts is taking your idea off the ball."

Well said, Governor.

Ground Zero Mosque Shows Religious Intolerance, but Not Against Islam

The media chest thumping about the proposed Cordoba mosque to be built 2 blocks from Ground Zero in New York City is reaching a fever pitch. Most articles I've found show a clear support for allowing the mosque to be built. I have to agree. It's on private property. It's being funded privately. There is no legal reason I can see for stopping it from being built. Indeed, plans have been approved by New York City already.

These same New York officials seem to feel differently about Greek Orthodox Catholics, though. What is barely being covered by the mass media is the fiasco surrounding the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox church, destroyed when the south tower fell on it in 2001. The St. Nicholas parish council has been trying to get permission to rebuild it ever since. For some reason, the New York Port Authority has said no.

So, YES to Muslims, NO to Greek Orthodox Catholics.

Do you sense religious discrimination here? I do.

To be fair, there are other issues involved. Reading between the rhetoric, it seems like an issue of land use. It was originally proposed to move the site one block over because the Port Authority wanted to use the land, or at least the land underneath it, as part of a security screening point to be installed as part of the area rebuild. Now, the Port Authority is back-pedaling. A Port Authority spokesperson told Fox News, “The church continues to have the right to rebuild at their original site, and we will pay fair market value for the underground space beneath that building.”

My suspicion is that with the costs of the rebuild, and the current economic crisis, the city has decided to play hardball. I wouldn't be surprised to find an eminent domain clause being used to force the sale of the land at a rock-bottom price in the very near future, leaving the parish without a church or land to build it on.

So much for the First Amendment.

Somehow, given our “politically correct” climate, I doubt this nonsense would have happened if it had been a mosque that was destroyed instead of a Greek Orthodox church.

You can read more about it from both Fox News and the New York Times.

Michelle Obama's Spain Trip – Smoke and Mirrors

By now, you've probably heard many of the Right Wing pundits on radio and the web thumping their chests and pontificating about how terrible our First Lady Michelle Obama is being for taking a trip to Spain. “How dare she!” they rant, “When our economy is so terrible.” Sorry folks. I don't buy it. I don't even care. If I had the money to travel to take a vacation with my kids to Spain right now, and the First Lady has the money, the last thing you'd see of me for the next week is my backside as it enters the plane.

Was it smart, from a PR perspective? No way. Was it intolerable and, dare I say it, un-American? Same answer. No way.

Many Left Wing pundits and followers may be screaming, “Who's to blame for feeding it to the media, this way?” Outside of the European press, who first reported it, I'd say nobody. What I wonder, though, is if someone within the White House administration, or the upper-ups of the Democratic party, didn't leak it, first.

Now that I've got you totally confused, let me tell what the rants about her trip have amounted to: smoke and mirrors. However it got leaked, the Far-Right has bought into it, hook, line and sinker. They've been screaming about Michelle Obama going to Spain and completely lost two much more important things that happened at the exact same time: unemployment rose in July, and the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) downgraded the forthcoming economic outlook for America

U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis released a statement on the July 2010 Employment figures. Her report stated that the monthly unemployment rate has not changed — remaining at 9.5% — while the economy has had a net job gain of 71,000 in the private sector. Overall, employment declined by 131,000. How that big of a change doesn't effect the reported unemployment rate I can only guess. What we need to keep in mind is that the unemployment rate only reports the number of American's filing for unemployment benefits, not those that have lost their benefits because they've been out of work for too long, and are still unemployed.

I believe these figures has quite a bit to do with the FOMC lowering their economic outlook. I admit, the way the FOMC announced this bad news was hard to follow. They came out and and told people they were reinvesting certain funds to cope with the problem, rather than just say, “There's a problem.” To fully understand what they are doing to fix the situation may require a degree with at least a minor in economics. In one of the most interesting “spin doctoring” I've seen, the FOMC's statement said, “the pace of economic recovery is likely to be more modest in the near term than had been anticipated.” That's PollyAnna-speak for, “Things aren't going as well as we thought.”

To read more about un-employment rates, go to: Democracy Now and My Bank  Tracker.

You can find more about the Fed's actions at Business Week, NPR, and The Washington Post.

Return of the American Whiner

Hey everyone! It's been a long time, hasn't it? Sorry about that. Of course, it's been so long I'm probably just talking to my computer. Or rather typing to it. I doubt very many of my original readers will be finding this post anytime soon.

Of course, that's never been anything different, has it? Bloggers really aren't “talking” to people. They're writing stuff and hoping people will read it. Just like I am right now. It's kind of twisted if you think about it.

After two years of silence on the socio-political front, I've decided to come back. Part of it is that I find myself in a position to start kibitzing about the current local and national socio-political scene again.  For a long time I've simply not had the time or energy to publicly vent my spleen. My life situation has changed a bit now so, I should be able to write again.

The other reason I'm back is that I'm not sure how much longer I can keep silent. I'm seeing a lot of really stupid things going on in the world. I'm seeing as many threats to what I consider the “American way of life,” and the U.S. Constitution coming from within our own government as we've seen foreign terrorists threaten us from without. I don't think there's some huge conspiracy behind everything that's going on, mind you. I just think that we're entering a perfect storm of events and legislation that could undermine our way of life and freedoms.

How do people threaten the Constitution without changing it? By passing laws that ignore or undermine it's original intent. Remember, laws are only as effective as the people who are in charge of enforcing them. If the people in power choose to ignore them, and we as American citizens allow them to by continuing to vote for them, it doesn't matter what's written down. Only governments and political leaders that are held to the standards of the law by the people they govern will act in accordance with those laws. If we let the law be twisted or ignored by our own government, either through inaction or silence, we will be as guilty as they are.

The time to be silent if over. The time for action is now.

Happy 4th of July!

I love Independence Day. I don't do a lot to celebrate, outside of watching fireworks, but I always take time to remind my family, and myself, of the freedoms we enjoy as Americans.

For example, I can blog about my government and not have to worry about being harassed, arrested or killed for my words.

Sadly, not everyone in the world can do that.

Protecting Parent's Rights

Over the years I've held a lot of different jobs. Some were better than others. All of them taught me something. One of the most disturbing was the year I spent as a tracker for the Child Protective Services system her in Utah.

One the one hand, I worked closely with children whose parents were downright abusive. It really opened my eyes as to just how much better my own upbringing had been. My parents weren't perfect, but they weren't raving lunatics, either.

On the other hand, I saw plenty of abuse within the system itself: private organizations being contracted for services by CPS worried more about their upper management and paperwork than about the kids in their charge, case workers who talked a lot about caring, and taking action, and then sitting on their duffs and doing nothing, foster parents that were in it solely for the money and creating equally abusive situations in their home, and so on.

Honestly? I was glad to get out.

Over the last year or two I've become more and more aware of the abuses, and potential abuses, of power within the CPS system. Children being removed from their homes on trumped up charges that are discovered to be false only years after the children have already been psychologically damaged by being torn from their families. Young teens being given into foster care because they complained to a school councilor that their parents grounded them after discovering the teen was using drugs and being sexually promiscuous and, worse yet, the parents even suggesting that their kids should attend church with the family.

All of this is being done through policies that being enacted on a whim in board rooms and are given the full weight of law without a single lawmaker in site.

It's crazy. It's like there's an entire movement that believes the government can raise our children better than their parents.

Our rights as parents are getting harder and harder to defend. Some people seem to think we have no rights when it comes to our children, only responsibilities. With what's going on in Texas with the FLDS polygamous sect, it's getting harder and harder for the rest of us parents to defend our rights, as well.

One organization aims to change that. ParentalRights.org is a group of people who would like to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that spells out in very clear terms what a parent's rights are in regards to their children. They've got a new video out that I thought I'd share with you.

Why is Violence Increasing in Utah?

I've noticed a horrible trend of increasing incidents of violence within my home state of Utah, and across the rest of the United States as well. The latest victim in the news is 7-year old Hser Nay Moo, a beautiful young girl from Burma. She had been abducted a couple of days ago and was found dead, late last night. Reports say that the police already have a man in custody and that he has admitted to causing her death.

This seems to be happening more and more. Why? All I could think of, as I listened to the formal press conference, was of my own children. This young, innocent, girl was described as being very bright and out going. Why would someone abduct her? Why would someone want to hurt or destroy such a beautiful life?

This isn't the only case that caught my attention, though. There have been allegations that a group of 3rd graders in Georgia were planning on killing their school teacher. Their actual intent is in doubt, because of their age. Most premeditated acts of violence don't occur until children get to be 12 years old, or so. It's quite likely that the students were involved in an elaborate form of play, in order to act tough around each other and vent their frustrations, rather than actually hurting their teacher.

What's gets to me, though, is they brought together everything they needed to do it. They brought weapons, handcuffs, and other supplies they would need, to school. That's what got them caught. One of their peers told a school official that one of the other students had a knife. Even if they were just "playing," where did they get the idea that plotting someone's murder was an acceptable form of play?

How do we defend our kids? What happened to the halcyon days of my youth, when playing outside in the neighborhood for hours at a time was considered safe? What happened to showing basic respect for adults, especially teachers, whether they were your parents or not?

On the other hand, how come we haven't prepared our children better? When I was a kid, strangers were potentially scary people to avoid at all costs, and yet my kids think nothing of engaging an unknown adult in conversation. Have I failed them? We've talked about "stranger danger" and all that, and yet sometimes they still don't get it. How can we teach our kids to be safe without making them paranoid of everything and robbing them of their innocence?

I'm so disturbed by all of this that I just don't know, anymore.

Questar Gas Makes Utahans Pay

Questar Gas, which really holds a monopoly for natural gas delivery in Utah, has made a mistake and wants Utahans to pay for it. They screwed up calibrating some of their meters, and now say that about 500 customers owe them more money, about $600,000 more.

Interestingly enough, they didn't tell anyone. They just billed them for a "correction." Bob and Ann Slattery's natural gas bill jumped from $112.00 a month to $400.00 in their February bill, because of a $370.00 "correction."

This is on the low end, it turns out. The average "correction" billed to make up for Questar's mistake was $1,200.00.

If Questar, and some other public utilities, didn't have a government sanctioned monopoly on services, this wouldn't be happening. Any other company would be apologizing profusely and then eating the cost themselves in an effort to keep the customer. Questar doesn't have to do that. There is no competition for them. They know they've got a hold of the customer by their heating elements.

The whole thing has, thankfully, sparked an investigation. There is going to be a hearing by the Public Service Commission (PSC) on the matter because 34 of the 500 affected customers have filed complaints.

If you're one of the affected customers, I recommend you contact the PSC to file a complaint, as well. Don't just "roll over" for this. We can't allow our public utility companies to take advantage of us because they made a mistake. They are privately held companies and need to be held accountable for their own actions.

For more information, see this KSL article.

Utah Man Wants to be Reimbursed For Scam Operations

Jack Daggs of Heber Utah was convicted of running several fraudulent business scams for over a decade. He was sentenced to six months in jail, and reimbursement of all the money he scammed his victims out of, at a rate of $2,000 a month, only covering out-of-pocket losses. Nothing for pain and suffering.

Get this. Daggs wants to be reimbursed for the phone calls and drive time he spent on the victim's projects.

What's he doing? Trying to scam the courts?

It might be working. The restitution hearing is set for April to determine just how much he actually has to pay back. You can read more about it at KSL.

Obama on Race in America

Mitt Romney was forced to talk about religion; I suppose it was inevitable that Barack Obama would have to talk about race.

It was an interesting, and powerful speech. I didn't get to hear all of it but, after reading the whole of it on Senator Obama's campaign website I've got to say, I'm impressed. I'm beginning to better understand why people are being inspired by him. Many pundits have tried to demean the idea of Obama as an inspirational speaker, saying there is no substance behind him. I think we need to quit being ashamed of being inspired. What is a national leader if not someone who can inspire us, as American citizens, to better action?

I believe that this speech was a direct result of attacks on Obama's character because he attended a church run by Reverend Jeremiah Wright, no stranger to controversial speeches. Reverend Wright has been, as Obama freely admits, a "fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy" to say the least.

What I love about Obama's speech is that he doesn't side step the issue. He doesn't try to dismiss his relationship with Reverend Wright. He certainly tells us that He doesn't always agree with Reverend Wright, and that some of the comments the Reverend said across the pulpit bothered him. But Obama also tells us about the things that kept him in the pews.

It's funny. He talked about race, but he really talked about religion, too. And he did in a way that drives home one of the messages Senator Obama seems to be trying to give us: strength as united Americans, all the while celebrating our diversity.

Here's an example from the speech, where Obama talks about Reverend Wright:

"But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

"As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all."

There it is. I've said this a hundred times to just as many people. Race is not the issue. It provides a back drop to the real issues, but it's not the issue. Economics, health care, foreign policy - yes. Not race. Race doesn't matter. The only point where race matters is where people continue to buy into ethnic stereotypes, including the very people are stereotyped by them.

There is an entire sociology tied to poverty and the other economic factors that have been created by racial prejudice. To ignore that is to ignore the history of this nation. But, it doesn't have to stay that way. We all want to be able to create the best lives for ourselves and our families. We all can take advantage of the opportunities afforded us, and quit buying into the parts of our personal histories that tie us down. We have a choice to work, and move forward, or flounder and die. Once we can accept that fact, we can move on to what the best solutions to those problems will be.

"Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding. "

Let me leave you now with another quote from Obama's speech.

"This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

"But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union."