ARZM..do you know what it means?

An article in the Salt Lake Tribune (Sunday December 12, 2010) is of great interest, not only to people in Utah, but also those in South Dakota, Wyoming, and Texas; with a much broader ripple effect to the United States security and that of it’s allies. A Canadian company, Uranium One, holds title to 10,000 acres of uranium claims in those states; and in Utah that includes a town (Ticaboo), the Shootaring Canyon mine and uranium mill. While the mill is not in operation at this time, the exploration for uranium has been ongoing, and the mill is kept in a state of readiness until the price of U3O8 increases to approximately $7.50 per pound, (as of December 14, 2010 $6.80 and rising) at which time it becomes economically feasible to re-start the mill, which employees a “crushing and leaching’ method of extraction, where the raw material is mined in conventional fashion and then leached on the surface, as described below.

In Wyoming, their projects include the Willow Creek, Moore Ranch, JAB and Antelope projects. These projects ship “Loaded Resin” to Willow Creek for drying into U3O8 which is Triuranium octoxide, the base material, known commonly as “yellowcake”, for much of the world’s nuclear power plants. It can be converted to use a nuclear material for non-peaceful purposes. Uranium One’s projects and processing mills in Wyoming are in operation at this time. The properties in Texas and South Dakota are not in operation at this time, however, like their sister projects in Wyoming, these will be developed as “wells” into which a leaching solution is pumped, then the leach material and the Triuranium octoxide are pumped to the surface and processed into loaded resin and shipped for drying. This leaching process, known as ISL or in situ leaching, is a relatively “benign” process as far as current studies report. Unlike less developed nations (Kazakhstan) which use an acid as the leach material, the projects in the United States are limited to an alkaline leach, usually a mix of sodium bicarbonate and carbon dioxide. United States protocols demand test wells driven on the perimeter of the sites to monitor ground water affects from the ISL processes. If we make the presumption that the processes are as safe as U.S. government studies say they are, where is the concern?

The first concern is water supply to the mines and wells. In the western United States, water is a valuable commodity, and using it in leaching processes makes it unsuitable for consumption until properly treated, adding costs to the project. The second environmental concern is of the disposal of the overburden, or waste materials produced by conventional shaft mining, as well as “well mining”. The overburden material is radioactive, and a byproduct of the material is Radon Gas. The effects of “small amounts” of Radon Gas dispersed into the atmosphere are not currently known. In situ leaching does affect ground water, and according to Uranium One, the leaching material is maintained to a neutral value, much the value of common vinegar. Ground water monitoring “insures” the PH value of the leaching material.

So, again, what is the concern? Uranium One has been sold to a Russian mining company, Atomredmetzolo (ARZM), a wholly owned subsidiary of Rosatom, the Russian nuclear agency (similar in form to our NRC). Although four members of Congress petitioned the U.S. Treasury Department to disallow the sale of Uranium One’s assets to ARZM, Treasury has approved Uranium One’s planned sale to ARZM, as have the NRC and the Utah division of Radiation Control. The Utah DRC approval was based on “written documentation that there would be no changes in the operations.” This email –yes email- documentation said, and I quote, “ decisions with regard to the day-to-day operations of the Shootaring Mill will be made by the management of Uranium One Exploration U.S.A. Inc., in coordination with Scott Schierman as the Corporate Radiation Safety Officer for the Shootaring Canyon Mill…”

The problem is with the ultimate parent “company”, which is the Russian nuclear agency, Rosatom, which has been accused, and never cleared, of selling nuclear material (yellowcake) to Iran for its’ nuclear program.

So, we have put one of our national resources, uranium, up for sale to the Russian government, who can use the product for whatever it likes, including selling yellowcake to nations that are working not in the best interests of the United Sates. In the process, we are diverting a scarce national resource, water, into the manufacture of products that could, conceivably, be used against us in warfare.

There is something wrong with this picture!

Sweet Dream

The dream inside of me
Is of people living free
Free from hunger and want
Sheltered from the storm.

The dream inside of me
Is to see the newspaper say
There is no bad news
For us to print today.

The dream inside of me
Is a world united
Neighbors help each other
And night is not feared.

The dream inside of me
Is for streets to be safe
Children playing
No gunfire to be heard.

The dream inside of me
Is of people growing old
Knowing there is food
And warmth around them.

The dream inside of me
Is of teachers being paid
And philosophy and reason
Being the orders of the day.

The dream inside of me
Is the dream of America
As the Lady was meant to be
Why does that alarm clock keep ringing?

Common Sense?

Sixteen inches of snow in the last 24 hours, I’m driving to the train station. I had to use my 4 wheel drive, as our car could not navigate the deep snow on the unplowed roads. Driving past a small city cemetery at 6:30 AM, I see 3 city snow plows cleaning the roads in the cemetery. Thinking this might be not the best use of the equipment, given the traffic attempting to get through the roads, I called the city mangers office and was put in touch with the “head of that department.” He explained to me that the trucks were stored at the cemetery building, and it “made sense” to clean those roads while they were there. I questioned this, as it would be preferable, I thought, to make the roads safe for drivers going to work so they can pay the taxes that in turn pay the snow crew’s wages. His response? “Well, the drivers have to get the cemetery roads cleaned sometime that day and it is policy to clean the cemetery first.”

It doesn’t make common sense to me. How about you?

Letter to the Editor, November 27, 2010

Tearing pages out of the Utah Constitution on the Senate floor? That’s what Senator Chris Buttars (R-West Jordan), did to illustrate how the bill to approve Utah’s acceptance of the federal gift of funds for education shreds the Legislature’s constitutional responsibilities (“Utah lawmakers fail Constitution 101, Tribune Nov 19). I would expect this type of behavior from a spoiled 4 year old, but not from a distinguished Senator in the elevated state of Utah!


I wrote that letter, and I am very proud of it. The “argument” Senator Buttars and other republicans in the Utah Legislature gave was that this federal money came with strings attached; and they are correct, one string was attached. The string is, the money HAS to be used for education, it can not be diverted to other uses, nor can these funds be used to replace state funds currently allocated to education. (This same “string” applied to all states that applied for the funds.)

Senator Buttars and his colleagues in the Utah Senate claimed that this action, placing the money into the education system without our legislature’s ability to control it’s diversion, “destroyed” Utah’s sovereignty over education in the state. However, the Utah Constitution provides that no action may be taken by the State Legislature that runs contrary to any law passed by the Federal government.

For more information on this issue, please see my post on September 15 “Confusion at the State Capital.”

Happy Thanksgiving!

It’s a picture perfect Monday afternoon in mid-November. The weekend snow has covered my valley in a blanket of virgin-white snow, and the ski-buffs, snowmobile and tourist industry are happy and hoping to be well fed. I have, personally, a much quieter view. The snow will provide much needed early year water, which will help us through another dry season here in the desert; and the calm and peace that descends with the white powder is a welcome respite to the constant pounding of rushed-up construction jobs that have filled our ears and will again mar our roads next spring. That perennial orange and white “flower” that litters our roadscape will soon wilt into slumber, and we will be able to travel safely, if perhaps with caution, through the winter scene.

Winter to me is constantly a season of re-birth, of perhaps re-thinking where I am and where I am going. It is time spent in quiet contemplation of the mysteries of the universe, and of the earthly relationships I have today. Life is good, and life, fortunately, will continue with or without my aid and approval. This is a season I look forward to, most especially for it’s time spent in solitude, not only in my snowshoe treks through the mountains I love so much, but also for the time spent in my chair, meditating on the wonder of this world. For as much as the Almighty has seen to send the animals to winter quarters and rest, He has sent me to places of beauty and forgiveness. He is telling me to review the year just past, to forgive and forget, to grow, love and enjoy.

Relative to His design, I spent time today enjoying the glorious day, the sun on the mountains fresh with snow, even as the next storm graces the Oquirrh mountains with clouds. From a vantage point high on the East side of the Salt Lake Valley, I looked with tenderness on my home, on my life. It is time now for me to be kind to myself, as He is being kind to all His world. He is giving, through the winter snow, life itself to a high desert, and I am grateful for that. He is giving me life renewed, a chance to begin anew the journey through life, and again I am grateful.

Life, and the journey it gives us, is to be enjoyed! And today, for some peculiar reason, I am enjoying and reveling in the onset of Winter, the renewal of quiet, contemplative times; a time to remember and give thanks for all the wonders and glories that have been shown to me, that I have been allowed to enjoy.

Thanksgiving, that unusual and peculiar American holiday, is a scant few days away. What ever you are thankful for this year, celebrate it, and enjoy in your own fashion. I will be thankful for all that I am receiving, and thankful for all that is yet to occur. I wish you a Happy Thanksgiving, and a joyous year to come!

TSA (Thousands Standing Around)

So, TSA administrator John Pistole says the “new enhanced” security measures that include patting down a person’s groin and buttocks are necessary to deter terrorist bombing threats. And he can safely point to the fact that no more airplanes have been hijacked in the United States since 9/11 as proof that his agency is working in our best interest.

But that begs the question, how many bombs has TSA found? How many people have actually been threats to the safety of air travel since 9/11? Certainly, if TSA has made arrests and obtained convictions, they should be able to provide us, the traveling public, with numbers and information as to the threats they have neutralized. Oh, yeah, now I remember, if they tell us, it will aid the terrorists.

I recall, a few years ago, being in Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix, AZ, talking to a WWII navy vet who had just been to a ship’s reunion. He and I talked at length about the naval battles of WWII (I’m a history buff, ok) and I was interested to hear his stories. It’s time to board a CanAir Regional jet to SLC, only 12 passengers checked in. He was singled out for additional security check and told to remove his shoes. He replied, due to war injuries, he cannot remove his own shoes without assistance. TSA would not let me, or any other passenger, assist him. I asked TSA to call a supervisor; the reply was, “I AM the supervisor!” This ..conversation..went on for several minutes, until a bike cop stopped by to determine the reason for the confrontations. When it was explained to him, he simply removed the vet’s shoes and told TSA to let him pass, then assisted him in putting his shoes back on.

I was embarrassed; for our country, for the sailor. We expected these brave men to give up their lives, yet TSA could not show any courtesy to the vet. And now, we are expected to have our groins and buttocks fondled “for national security.” I fear this is out of hand.

Oh, and those millimeter scanners that do not store images? Check MSNBC for the latest updates regarding images being sent out on the WWW from a check point. I’m sorry, but until TSA is willing to show us how they have saved us from terrorists (and they may have, they just are not talking) I am going to put this agency up for the republicans to eliminate for cost cutting measures.

Fear, in and of itself, is not a position to build upon for public trust. The boogieman is out there, trust us, and we will protect you?????

Here’s a better idea: tell us what you have accomplished, give us names, numbers, and damage prevented, and let the American People decide if the cost/benefit ratio is acceptable. The American People are not dumb, they are not stupid, and they expect results for dollars spent. Show us what you have accomplished; let us judge you upon your merits.

The Utah Compact

A simple one page document that can set the tone for civil discourse regarding the immigration issues. If you have not done so, please go to www.utahcompact.com and read this position paper. If you feel it is a positive step in the immigration discussion, sign it!

Pledge To America

The elections are over and past, the pundits and columnists are having a right jolly good time telling us what it meant; this victory for the right, the defeat of the President’s “agenda” and the progress it represented. They certainly have to earn their pay, so they will continue to blather on for some time to come. But I’ve not heard the hard questions asked or answered.

The incoming Speaker of the House, and the Minority Leader of the Senate have both stated on Sunday morning talk shows that the most important goal they can achieve in the next two years is to be sure that President Obama is a one-term President. Funny, in the Pledge to America the Republicans were so proud of making, and that they used to help convince the American People they were the party that can make it so, that was conspicuously absent from the plans they showed us. In the Pledge, they talked about plans to: (1) create jobs, (2) cut out of control spending, (3) repeal and replace government takeover of health care, (4) reform Congress and restore trust, and (5) keep our nation secure. Not a word was used to imply the goal of making sure President Obama has only one term. Not one word.

Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words; Mr. Speaker and Mr. Minority Leader need to show the American People they can govern better than their party did during times when they had control of the House, Senate, and White House. Here is an example: on page 32 of the Pledge, a paragraph is donated to the statement that “for the first time in modern history, the House failed to pass or even debate a budget…”. Mr. Speaker and Mr. Minority Leader should study the recent history, for under Clinton in 1998, and under Bush in 2002, 2004, and 2006, no budget was passed. This is not the only statement I question in this Pledge, but it is an example. I also find it interesting that in this document, government waste is discussed; but this document is a study in waste in and of itself. It is, as printed, 49 pages long. Only 22 pages have text on them. The balance is “pretty pictures.”

Over the next several weeks, I will be posting my views on the various plans laid out in this Pledge. I will also be keeping tabs on the actions the Republicans take in the House, and the Senate, to perform the promises Pledged to America.

Christmas In November

There is a child in all of us, a child who wants that TV-picture perfect Christmas morning; amazed at the glitter and show of all the packages, so neatly wrapped and placed strategically around the tree, knowing that if the wrapping is so nice, so new, so perfect, than what is inside must be just what we have wanted, desired but dared not hope for, since the Christmas ads started to invade the Sunday papers and all the television shows. (Full disclosure: in my youth, it was the mail-order catalog Christmas “wish books” that prompted the Christmas morning dreams.)

Christmas Eve, that wonderful night of hope and anticipation! Children small and large believe that this year, the new bike, the engagement ring, the new car, will be under the tree in the morning. The expectation, that this year we will get what we most desire; and with it the nagging thought, if the bike, ring, or car is not there, we will bravely and cheerfully accept the presents offered, and begin again to wait for next Christmas.

To the child waiting the magic day, every trip to the mall for the past few months has been a glorious adventure! Santa is waiting for us to climb upon his lap and tell him our fondest dreams; the lights and decorations are even prettier than we remember. The latest fad items are on display, and we just know that they will be under the tree, that Santa Claus will not fail us. The elves have been busy, working overtime, promising delivery of the dreams and the joy that special gift will bring. We’ve been counting the days, sometimes even the hours, until we can unwrap our gifts and acclaim our pleasure at the perfect present.

Was November 2nd our electoral Christmas Eve? Americans went to the polls, expecting the Kris Kringle of our personal political dreams to deliver on the promises that have been made through the past many months of campaign rhetoric and sound-bite promises. Editorials, web-sites, position papers and pledges may have replaced the colorful wish-books of childhood, but the effect is still the same. We know what we want, this year, this cycle; we have been guided to it by the masters of political posturing and focus groups.

It’s now “December 26th”, the wrapping paper has been discarded, and the toys are scattered about in disarray. We have talked excitedly with our friends, and now secretly covet the gifts they received that we did not, much as they covet our perfect presents. In the malls, Christmas is now on sale, ½ off or more. The fad item that was so hard to find, and priced so high, is now abundant and cheap. The decorations are down, and it is back to business as usual.

As every child knows, Christmas, like the 2nd Tuesday in November, will come again.

V-Day, the First Tuesday of November

Today is V-day; the day we as a people in the United States get to voice our opinion. It is the day when the government is truly of the people; for this is the one day we can encourage our elected officials to “stay the course” if we like what they have been doing to this point, or we can “throw the scum out” should we not like their previous actions. A challenger is always a shot in the dark, we may have heard the speeches, read the position papers, etc., but until he or she is in office, we don’t have a firm idea as to what they will do.
This off year election has given us some of the loudest rhetoric, and greatest volumes of money spent, in 50 years. The number of sound bites, and the venom attached to a great majority of them, is incredible, even deafening. Candidates and their support groups, acknowledged and hidden, have chosen in the main to run not on their own records or ideas; rather, they tell us what the opponent has done, or will do, “wrong”. Fear has replaced hope; fear of those that don’t look like, or believe the same core religious doctrine, or come from a different background as “we” do. Pessimism has surpassed optimism, and left that grand ideal in the dust; a collective voice that asked the best of everybody now speaks of how bad it is and how much worse it will become. Gone, and I hope not forever, is the belief that this is the greatest country on Earth. The ideal of growing and improving, in respecting the diversity of our neighbors as a people, as a country, has been vanquished; we now fear our neighbors, our leaders, perhaps even ourselves.
Fear is not an inbred characteristic, watch a child as a prime example; they have no fear. We teach them to be afraid; it starts with the “Big Bad Wolf” of childhood and grows into the “Big Bad Other Person”, that person or group of which we have no understanding, no empathy, and certainly no sympathy. From Roosevelt through Reagan, we focused on the Soviet Union and other communist countries as “the enemy”; as our source of fear. Now that boogieman is gone, and our enemies are not countries or states, but individuals in stateless groups. Today, we focus on the music, the prayer mat, the color of the skin or the language natively spoken as we search for evil. Our politicians, and their handlers, know this; they constantly mine the data, search the demographics, and read the opinion pages to determine how in any given market to ratchet up the fear level in a particular population group in order to “drive” voters to the polls.
It does not have to be this way! You and I, fellow citizens, do have voices, we do have tools at our disposal to frustrate the pollsters and political advisors. The first tool is TODAY, the day you vote and let your own learned opinion show up at the ballot box, at the outcome of the election. Fortunately, it does not stop at close of voting tonight. We have a collective duty, a collective responsibility, to remind our elected officials on a regular basis of the promises they made, of our concerns and issues here at the kitchen table. You and I can keep up the pressure on them, we can communicate with them on a daily basis if we desire; let them know what we think. The “letter to the editor” page of your local paper is one way, phone calls and emails to their offices is yet another. Get involved today by voting, stay involved tomorrow by reminding them of the pledges they have made. It is OUR country, We The People have every right to determine how we are governed. Don’t let your country down; instead, vote, and stay involved.

Life Elevated..and Educated

In the small Colorado town where I grew up every two years the roads, both paved and dirt, would receive a new paint job..the yellow line down the center of the road. My mother would comment, “Must be election year, they are out to impress us once again.” (Full disclosure: This was a predominately Republican town in a county of Democrats; but the local county commissioner needed the town’s votes to stay in office.)
My mother was perhaps a little cynical in her comment, but it certainly comes back to me today, as the election nears and the same old platitudes and attitudes here in Utah surface from our politicians. It is frustrating, as a parent, grandparent and taxpayer, to hear “family values” and “shared values” mentioned from both sides of the spectrum, when the politicians have little or no interest in the family values of the voters, other than as a catch phrase to get elected. Were the politicians really interested in “family values” they would enforce existing laws and if needed legislate to allow our public schools to flourish, even to the drastic action of funding education first instead of last in the legislative sessions. School zone length would be increased to provide better protection for our children going and coming to schools. Bussing, K through12, would be increased, rather than decreased; this would keep our children safer and reduce traffic and air pollution at schools. Public schools would have the resources needed to attract and keep good teachers; and our class sizes would be legislated down to a workable number, perhaps in the low 20’s, with all students counted. Monies would be provided for aides in classrooms, and special needs students would have sufficient teachers and resources to provide the best education and future as possible. Our requirements for graduation would be raised to 22 or 24 core units, with an emphasis placed on the sciences, math, and reading. Advanced placement and college prep classes would be expanded to hold the number of students qualified and desiring to attend. Vending machines would be pulled from the school cafeterias, and a greater focus on physical education and proper diets would become evident. School clubs that promoted diversity, co-operation and understanding would be encouraged. Anti-bias and anti-bullying would be legislated, and enforced; before and after school programs to assist at-risk students would be enlarged to cover the effects of the current recession and high unemployment.
These are changes that Governors can promote, but it is the Legislature that must take the reins and drive this wagon-load of ideas into reality; which would require our legislators to take some hard, drastic measures. They would have to raise taxes, and or lower the dependant exemption, in order to pay for these programs. Unfortunately, in their short-sided view, getting elected or re-elected is more important to our legislators than our children’s future, more important than our states future and our economic growth. In the long view, however, the much-needed improvement in education as outlined above would make it easier for our existing employers to find qualified employees and make Utah a better place for employers to locate; these changes would elevate our life-style to make Utah a more desirable place to raise a family. This would result in a higher tax base for our state to operate with, and our legislators could then look back and say, “See, we took the hard steps and now we as a state are better off!” That would be something positive to lay before the voters come election time.

National Alzheimers?

I’m here today, away from my desk and easy chair, to visit my mother; better stated, to visit the person my mother was so many years ago. For Mom has Alzheimer’s, a crippling mental condition that takes you away from today and back into the past, a distant past; perhaps it is the Creator’s way of protecting us in our final years from the accumulated pain of life, for life can be painful.

While ruminating about this state of mind during the trip here, I wondered if perhaps our country suffers from a collective Alzheimer’s disease? Here we are, a brief decade into the 21st century, yet we hold up as a model for today the policies and practices of political leaders of the past: (post WWI isolationism vs border wars of today). The Glen Beck type popular personalities lead us in a collective, national “weeping for America;” as I will perhaps cry when I leave my Mother’s room today. Our nation’s Congress is reminiscent of children playing as if at a tea party, “If you don’t play my way, I’ll take my doll and teacup and go home.” The recent flap over the military appropriations bill comes to mind; good conservative gentlemen who would never vote against our men and women in arms lock-stepped into history as petulant children over “procedural differences.”
Only when these “children” return to adulthood will they learn to meet their life-partner halfway, to compromise and work together, so the will and plans of the collective whole becomes greater than the desires of one party to control the other.

But, isn’t that socialism, this desire to join together as one larger organism for the betterment of all? You could stretch the definition of socialism to make that statement, as the ballerina in “al seconde” stretches seemingly from one end of the stage to the next; the difference is that she then completes the move and stands tall and straight, toes to fingertips pointing heavenward. One could say marriage is socialism, for the two join together, join incomes and dreams to make a future only they can see, but a future that is as important to them as yours is to you. One could say that joining a church is socialism, for as a whole body, the churches reach out to the community around them, into the world as a whole, to make life better overall. We as a nation define these institutions as good, as promoting the American way of life; yet in definition they are very socialistic.
As members of a church may differ over the color of the Creator’s hair, or if the Creator has hair at all, they will not differ as to the goodness of the Creator. A couple may disagree for a period of time over the color of the new car, but in the end they will agree they need transportation. Our members of Congress may disagree as to the position of the period at the end of the bill; but they should agree to pay our soldiers and do the nations work.

Yes, I will weep when I leave my Mother today, for I want to remember her as the strong, willed, passionate adult person I remember; but I do not weep for America, for the Grand Lady will achieve maturity, as she is now retaking a positive place in the collective good of the world. Now is the time for our “gentlemen” in the House and Senate to return to doing the nations’ work, to making life better for all Americans, and put aside the partisan bickering of childhood.

"STD's and the US Government", or "The Dangers of Unprotected Sex"

You’re kidding me, right? Under President Harry Truman, the United States Government knowingly infected citizens of a foreign nation with STD’s? And we are just now getting around to apologizing for it? Oh, I can hardly wait; Limbaugh and Hannity will have a field day with this, after all, it was a Democratic President. They, however, miss the balance of the story; we also infected citizens of the United States; Negro males in Tuskegee, Alabama were the target group of a similar study from 1946 through 1972! One wonders if the right wing hate groups will remember that! It was started by Herbert Hoover’s administration, and backed by administrations of both parties until stopped by the Nixon administration. (I have a hard time putting that in print, but unlike Limbaugh and Co., I do believe in full disclosure.)

The larger point is again the great amount of arrogance shown by our government; both Republican and Democratic administrations have shown a complete lack of concern for the people that are affected by the “studies” undertaken in the name of science or National Defense. This particular study (U.S. Public Health Service Sexually Transmitted Disease Inoculation Study of 1946-1948) was cancelled by the Nixon administration. Sadly, this is just one of many projects that cast a great deal of shame on American government. The above-ground nuclear testing programs of the 1950’s subjected an unknown number of U.S. soldiers to the full effects of a nuclear blast. How close can they be to a nuclear bomb explosion and still be well enough to fight? Again, sadly, the vast majority of these “volunteers” were Negro. What about Project MKULTRA (1950-late 1970s), using both US and Canadian individuals; when a number of again “volunteers” from both the armed services and civilian life were injected with mind-altering drugs to examine the effects of drugs on mental telepathic abilities, again in the name of National Defense? When will it stop?

Some will claim the greater evil is the disclosure of these studies, they will claim it lays a groundwork for civil unrest and undermines the “right” of the government to use every means of defense against possible actions against our country.

I will take a side for the full disclosure of all of our nasty tricks and inhuman studies, past and current. The lives of people are more valuable than the rights of governments to conduct inhuman studies on unsuspecting persons, or persons who have little or no means of resisting participation. This type of behavior, while perhaps perfectly acceptable in some foreign countries, runs counter to the publicly-held belief in American values. Studies of this nature are perhaps “legal” but certainly violate moral values held by most American citizens. Would you vote for a president who said, well, we are going to infect some of our citizens with incurable diseases to see if new drugs can cure them? We are going to see how being up close and personable with a nuclear blast will affect a soldiers ability to fight? Think about it, this could be your son, daughter, sister or brother being affected, or being exposed to mortally high levels of radiation. Perhaps one of your parents was a “volunteer” for a government study? How would the long-term effects of the study affect your life, or your children’s lifes? Would you vote for this president or the members of Congress that endorse this behavior? I certainly would not, and I would hope you also would not.

The Machine Gun Fire & "We're Sorry"

Major General Brian Tarbet, in a news conference, when asked what he would say to those who lost homes in the Machine Gun Fire, said: “We say we’re sorry.” (SL tribune 9/21/10)

What he should have said was:
“A team of appraisers is en route to Salt Lake, with authority to arrange for complete coverage for your material losses. Starting Monday, they will contact those whose homes were lost, then continue until all claims are satisfied in full. I will personally be contacting you throughout the process to verify your satisfaction.
Further, all future actions involving live-fire will be accompanied by a fire suppression team, equipped with a pumper truck, a water truck, and full crews. We will also notify the Unified Fire Authority one week in advance of any live fire actions, giving them the GPS co-ordinates of the range in use. Additionally, we hereby promise not to conduct any live-fire actions on red flag days, notwithstanding our failure in the instance known as the Machine Gun Fire.

My staff is waiting at the desks in the rear of the room to take pertinent information from each of you; and they will also be providing you with a list of names, phone numbers and other information regarding the appraiser who will be working your claim. My number is at the top of each list, please call me if you feel any dissatisfaction whatever.

Thank you for your time, and again, we will be here to make this correct for you.

I will now take any questions you may have.”

That is saying “We’re Sorry” in a REAL way.

Politics and Money

In my high school civics course, we were taught that individuals were selected by popular vote based upon their ability to convince the majority of voters that this candidate best could represent them in the local, state, or federal office that was open for election; and that, upon being elected, the individual would perform as to the programs and ideals that endeared him/her to the electorate. Is this still the case, or was it ever?

Current events tend me to be cynical regarding this lesson, for I now find our politicians using less of their time to talk to their constituents and more time to talk with those who may be able to open big pocketbooks, or who may be able to deliver large contributions to the favored PAC of the politician under review. As an example, observe the behavior of Utah state legislator Carl Wimmer (R-Herriman, UT), who now solicits paid speaking engagements outside of his jurisdiction, and more relevant to this point, outside of the state of Utah. In return of fees ranging from $1500 to $4500, the good conservative representative will attend, participate in, or lead discussions that support the points of view of those open pocketbooks. However, should you try to obtain an interview with him, in Utah, regarding his position on matters that have or will come up in the State legislature; you will find, as I did, that his schedule does not permit such activity.

The attendees at these out of state events he is willing to participate in will not vote in a Utah election; they are not affected in the main by his political acts, or by his votes in our Legislature. The only benefits received are (1) his support of the causes being presented at these events, and (2) his war chest for the next election.

I am not saying that Rep Wimmer is unusual, or that his actions have no precedent in politics. My theory is that money has become more important than the population our elected officials who are chosen, by the voting public, to represent the public's best interests.

The study of money in politics is not new; consider the effects of groups such as “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” or “Moveon.org”. Both (and untold others) funneled large amounts of money to support/destroy candidates over and above the actual position of the candidates. In an effort to get the “right” people elected, PAC’s have been able, legally it can be stated, to push huge donations and advertising moneys into areas without declaration of their intent to impact the voters in any election.

Why? The first, largest, and most complete answer is that running for office is extremely expensive. Consider the moneys spent to elect the President of the United States. This office pays $400,00 per year (plus benefits) and yet conservatively speaking, $1 billion was spent by the major candidates in 2008.

Certainly it can be argued that money does need to be spent, that the candidates need to have a public forum to spread their point of view and convince the electorate to vote in their favor; the media, being businesses, consider this a favorable source of revenue and naturally charge whatever the market will bear in return for airing advertisements. This is the natural order of the business of politics, and it is necessary for the candidates to raise sufficient funds to get their messages out to the public. The means and methods of raising this money, however, are the core of this discussion.

Can or should we limit the amount of money that individuals, groups, businesses, and PAC’s (as well as other unknown entities) can contribute to the election of officials? One of the candidates for Governor of Utah has proposed a strict limit of $1000.00 on any campaign contribuitions coming from all groups, businesses, etc. Is this a reasonable amount? A recent Supreme Court ruling now allows corporations to donate as if they were individual voters; however, a corporation cannot cast a ballot. Is this a proper step for our Judicial Branch of the Federal Government to take? Is this "legislating from the bench, as we often hear? It will certainly be interesting to see the politicians flip-flop on this issue, as it will get a real test this election cycle.

As always, comments are appreciated.

Free insurance? not quite

An admission here. I have been very vocal about the free insurance benefit for members of Congress. But lately, doing research, I have found that the Senators and Representatives do NOT get "free" insurance; the are part of the FEHP network and pay an average of 28% of the monthly cost for health insurance. The balance, an average of $975 per month, comes from you and me. (This program is available to most federal employees, at the same premium structure.) There are still a couple of benefits Congress gets the rest of us don't; there is no waiting period or pre-existing condition clause.

So there you have it. It's not free..but it is a lot less than most of us pay!

Confusion at the State Capital

Two seemingly unrelated articles in today’s (9-14-10) SL Tribune have convinced me that (a) a person should never, under any circumstances, commence to read the paper without first having had coffee and, (b) sometimes you may need a stronger drink than coffee to get past the bullshit!

So here it goes; the dots may be a little hard to follow but please bear with me. Do you remember the $101 million (Utah’s share) in school funding that was authorized by Congress and signed into law by President Obama on August 12th? (dot 1). Now, can you recall the stuffed shirts in Utah’s capitol saying they did not want or need the federal money (dot2), and that Utah immediately joined with 6 other states to sue the federal government to allow us to refuse the money (dot3)? Even though we have a $44 Million shortfall in our education budget?

Ok, start your head scratching. Seem our “States Rights” governor could not wait to apply for the federal money; he filed on September 7th. Utah was one of the first states in the country to do so. (dot4)

That’s right, folks. Utah’s Attorney General filed to sue the US Government to keep us from taking the money (dot3) and the governor applied for the money (dot4). I’m a little confused, how about you? But..hang on..it’s gets more interesting. State Senate President Michael Waddoups, one of the senators that opposed the money and asked AG Shurtluff to file a suit, now says the legislature will be meeting in special session to decide how to spend the money (dot5)! Now, don’t misunderstand me; I am all for taking the money! Seems we have a “shortfall” of $44 million in our “balanced” budget educations funds. So how do you balance a budget when you have a $44 Million shortfall? (dot6) I also realize the State AG does what his boss tells him to do. So, his boss is the governor? Why would the governor sign off on filing this suit if he knew we were going to apply for and accept the money?

Let’s see..first we said we did not want the money, then we applied for it rather quickly; then we joined in a lawsuit (which Utah will lose) to keep the money out, then our Senate President wants a special session to decide how to spend the money. Where is my drink?

Now, to the other “unrelated” article. Seems our state awarded a bid for $1.1 BILLION contract to FOG (Friends of Gary’s) for the rebuild of I-15 in Utah County (dot7). Only problem is, the bids were not fair and not fairly applied for, so one of the other bidders filed suit. Utah, rich and magnanimous state that it is, paid $13 MILLION to settle out of court (dot 8). That’s right, we paid $13 MILLION to avoid the lawsuit; but we are still on the hook for an untold amount for the right to refuse federal aid to schools, which we have already de facto accepted!

I’m confused, I will admit it. We, as a state, are broke, revenues have fallen dramatically due to the recession, and yet we want to (a) refuse money for education and (b) want to spend money we don’t have to lose a lawsuit we should not be in to begin with?

If you can explain this to me, please do so. No amount of coffee can get this one past my mind.

It's Over, We Hope

The second longest war in the history of the United States is, at least in theory, drawing to the end. The last combat brigades have left the country of Iraq, without achieving many of the goals originally outlined, save the ouster of Saddam Hussein’s government, an act which made physical living conditions worse for the majority of the civilian population; and the protection of the oil fields. President Obama has announced the end of combat operations, sans aircraft carrier and “chauffer driven” fly in.

Originally created as the British Mandate of Mesopotamia as a result of the First World War by the League of Nations in 1921, and increased to its present geography in 1925, the Republic of Iraq was granted independence in 1932. Saddam Hussein assumed the office of President in 1979 after a coup (22 July 1979) in which he ordered the arrest and eventual execution of the “fifth column”, a group of Ba’ath party members he suspected were not loyal to him.

Until the overthrow and exile of Mohammad Reza Shah of Iran, and the return to power of Ayatollah Khomeini, (1979) the United States had supported Iran, financially and militarily, to be its ally in the Mideast strategy of containing the Soviet Union. Iraq, concurrently, had been an ally of Russia, receiving aid from the Soviets, financially and militarily. Saddam had begun the process of modernization of Iraq, while the deputy (vice-president) of Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr (whose resignation was orchestrated by Saddam and the leaders of the Ba’ath party as a result of his attempts to join with Syria to create a large Arab National state); Saddam used oil revenues created by the nationalization of the foreign business interests in 1972 to fund massive infrastructure projects and provide free education to citizens, including women. The “Energy Crisis” of 1973 greatly increased the revenues flowing into Iraq and this furthered his programs of modernization.

The shift in the Mideast balance of power in 1979 as a result of the Islamic Revolution in Iran caused the United States to re-examine its relationship with Iraq, and diplomatic overtures were successful. President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, spoke with Hussein in Iraq in 1980, telling him “we see no fundamental incompatibility between the United States and Iraq..we do not feel American-Iraq relations need to be frozen in antagonisms”, which resulted in a strategic alliance between United States and Iraq, with aid flowing from the United States to Iraq. Under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the aid exceeded $80 billion during the two president’s terms, (1) including “dual-use” chemical and biological materials.

For seven years, 4 months, and 30 days we have been involved in a foreign civil crisis of our own making. We helped put the Ba’ath party into power in 1963, following an unsuccessful CIA- backed coup in 1959, in which Saddam Hussein was a major player. His failure to wait until the President of Iraq, Abd al-Karim Qasim, was in a position to be shot- by Saddam- and Saddams’ capture thereafter, put Saddam in jail. He was released in 1962; and began his immediate rise to power in the Ba’ath party. In 1963, again in a move backed by the CIA, the Ba’ath party executed a coup, successfully, and they came to power. In exchange for CIA help and money, the United States received models of soviet MIG fighters and tanks, which we had not seen before; these models helped us develop new anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons. Abd al-Karim Qasim was dead, his senior advisors executed, and the Ba’athists were in control of the government of Iraq.

The United States, however, was more focused on its puppet, the Shah of Iran, and Iraq fell out of the window of US operations. Iraq approached the Soviet Union for aid and assistance, which Moscow was more than pleased to supply, to counter the American-friendly Iran. Until 1979, the fall of the Shah of Iran, and the return of and rise to power of Ayatollah Khomeini, the United States played the Iran card to the hilt. The game changed with the taking of hostages during the Carter administration, and we (the US) felt we needed a new ally in the Middle East. We turned our attention to Iraq; at a very fortunate time, as the USSR was in its death throes, and Iraq wanted to continue modernization, even westernization. Saddam opened his arms, and we opened our treasure chest, to the tune of $80 BILLION in aid and military supplies, which Iraq desperately needed during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988). This aid included so-called “dual-use” chemical and biological materials such as nerve gas, West Nile Virus, anthrax, bubonic plague, mustard gas, sarin and VX.(2) Meantime, in a strange, convoluted action, the United States supported the Iranians with arms in the Iran-Contra movements to support the anti-communist guerrillas in Nicaragua (3). At the end of the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq had depleted most of its financial reserves, and needed money to support itself; it looked at Kuwait and its relatively large oil reserves as an appropriate source of revenue. The US government, when made aware of Iraq’s intentions, instead of telling them NO, sent April Glaspie to meet with Saddam Hussein on April 25, 1980. Here is the pertinent portion of the official transcript of that meeting:
“Transcript from Hussein/Glaspie meeting
Saddam Hussein: As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie: What solutions would be acceptable?
Saddam Hussein: If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab, our strategic goal in our war with Iran, we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (including Kuwait) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. (Secretary of State) James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?. (Saddam smiles)”

This resulted in the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, and the first incursion of coliation forces into the Middle East (in the current time period). So why did we go to war with Iraq a second time? Was it the “possesion of weapons of mass destruction”, which was refuted by the US-led Iraq Survey group, the alleged financial support of Palestin suicide bombers, the human rights issues, to obtain the oil and gas supplies, or to install a democracy in the Middle East, or all of the above? We, the general population of the United States, are left to draw our own conclusions concerning the true cause of the invasion.

Here are some hard facts about this war:
The cost of human lives has been staggering: over 4,600 coliation servicemen/women killed as well as 1,300 plus contractors; over 42,000 soldiers and contractors were wounded. Iraq military casulities range between 68,000 and 100,000. An unknown number of civilians were killed, although estimates from various sources point to civilian death toll ranges of 95,000 to 103,000.

Why? And what have we gained or learned for this conflict? We did succeed in removing from power a dictator who abused human rights, and replaced him with a weak, ineffective, allegedly corrupt government that does not have the support of the population at large. Additionally, we secured the oil fields and put into place long term agreements with this new government that should allow US and British oil-based interests to profit for years to come. We should have learned that the Middle East is a region historically bound in conflicts of religion and tribal control; as westerners, we have no appreciation or understanding of how these important these conflicts are, how they play out in this region. In our attempt to install democracy, we have downplayed the significance of tribal and religious influence on the lives of the population, and have again made the same mistakes of the colonial rulers; we have taken populations that are not inter-related, interconnected, and imposed upon them our view of how they should relate and connect. Is this not supreme ignorance on our part, an arrogance that we know what is best for other peoples, and they should follow our example? We failed, miserably in my opinion, to learn from history: no foreign power has ever been suscessful in control or rule in the Middle East, therefore we repeated the same mistakes. I won’t deny that Saddam Hussein was a dictator, or that he should not have been removed from power, but given the ability and willingness of the population to revolt, as has occurred there many times, I have no doubt that he would have fallen without our intervention.

Saddam is gone, to be a footnote in history. I hope that our leaders, now and in the future, learn from this tragedy and never repeat this type of error in judgement. I hope..but I am not holding my breath.

Sources
1 Peter W. Galbraith ; 2006 (31 August 2006). "The true Iraq appeasers - The Boston Globe
2 New York Times, August 18, 2002
3 Tower Commission report to the President, February 1987

Welcome

To GlenDarby55, I hope you enjoy your visits here and please feel free to commnet on anything..I love a good discussion!

Immigration Follow-up

A recent news article stated that ICE had conducted raids in the Midwest and arrested 348 people who were (a) in the United States illegally and (b) had outstanding warrants or had been convicted of, and not yet picked up for, crimes committed in the United States. Note the double qualification..were in the US illegally, AND had committed crimes. GOOD! This is the type of law enforcement that needs to be taking place, and in my opinion, a proper use of the ICE officers. Now, I think they should take it one step, a major step, forward, and fine the daylights, and profits, out of those companies who had hired the undocumented workers. I believe if we make it highly unprofitable for employers to higher undocumented individuals who are here, we may in fact start to turn the tide, and allow those who are here legally to obtain a higher standard of living. The American Dream is still very worth pursuing, (even as I sit here underemployed, I still believe in it); as has been pointed out here by several before, any one of us who is not Native American has immigrant blood in them. Given that the immigration standards have changed many times over the years, and are likely to change again, still that is the law of the land at this time, and it should be followed. But this costs money, and our country is strapped financially; which I why I believe in very heavy fines on those employers who hire undocumented workers. I have heard that this will cause hikes in food prices; I agree, but feel these hikes will be only temporary, for this reason: Americans are a very inventive people, and if the cost of picking tomatoes, for example, goes high, then some bright individual will invent a better, mechanized method of harvesting that crop. It has happened before; look at cotton, potatoes, and corn; all were harvested by hand for years, until it became profitable to create machinery that does the same job, at lower cost. There is the “free market” and “American ingenuity” at work. It has worked in the past, and I believe it will work in this example.
Comments on my posts are greatly valued!

Education, and the Big Red Elephant

Shame on Governor Gary Herbert and his handlers for taking a legitimate discussion on education and spinning it into a discussion on religion (Salt Lake Tribune, August 27). The program put forth by gubernatorial candidate Carroon, to raise the requirements for graduation from high school in Utah makes sense, if we desire Utah’s graduating classes to successfully apply for higher education and well-paying jobs. I hope the citizens of Utah can see past this and vote for a new governor who will work to improve the education of Utah’s high school students. I will have more to say on this issue, trust me!

The Painful Season

Utah State Senator Daniel Liljenquist (R-Bountiful), another stuffed white shirt male, has stated that he would like to see epidurals and “some” C-sections eliminated from eligibility in the jointly-funded (State and Federal) Medicaid programs in Utah. How typical of our male, middle-to-upper class State legislature! How would he feel if it was his wife or daughter being denied pain relief during childbirth? Would he then change his mind? One can hope that he overcomes his myopic view of the people receiving Medicaid benefits before any further damage is done to this program, particularly in view of the current recession and high unemployment numbers. Given his website and Facebook pages, where he has posted being a strict conservative, one might presume he is among those who don’t want Utah to receive additional monies from the federal government provided by H.R. 1586, passed o n August 11, 2010 which would allow the state to receive more federal money to help pay for rising Medicaid costs within the state programs. Please, if you live in Utah, call your state senators and ask for their assistance in bringing the monies to Utah and keep unnecessary pain out of the delivery room!

Welcome, Lee

Lee, Sandy, glad to see you took me up on this invitation. Please comment..I love the discussions, as you know!

$26 Billion Stimulus Bill (HR 1586) for Education

An article in the Salt Lake Tribune (August 5, 2010) stated clearly that the bill HR1586, passed August 12, 2009 by the house and signed by President Obama, would stop the layoff of 1,800 teachers in Utah. Governor Gary Herbert said, through his spokesperson Angie Welling, that he would welcome the additional money for teachers. The bill also would provide money for public safety workers (police, fire, etc) whose jobs are considered on the line due to state revenue shortfalls, as well as provide more federal monies for Medicaid programs in the state; which the Governor states Utah does not need at this time. (Although Utah, in the past two sessions of the legislature, has cut Medicaid programs, such as dental work for seniors.)Two of our representatives (Bishop and Chaffetz), following party lines, voted against this aid to education. Jim Matheson, our third representative, said in support of this bill, that it would pay for an average of two additional teachers per public school in Utah, and additionally would help the state meet it’s obligations to provide health care to the poor.

Consider this fact: Utah has the highest birth rate in the nation, 83.2 per every 1000 women in the 15-50 age group gave birth in 2006, the latest available data. The national average is 54.9 per 1000 women. (Source: Deseret News, August 19, 2008) We have the largest class size, and the highest teacher/student ratio, in the nation. Couple these facts with a high state income tax break for each dependant, and you have a (realized) potential for serious underfunding for education.

Our students are our future; we need a well-educated population base to grow as a state. We need students to complete high school, to be able to compete in the world economy, in order for Utah to attract and keep good paying jobs in the state. If our education dollars do not keep up with the student growth, we will soon (if we have not already) fall behind, and other states will be able to attract the businesses we currently have here, as well as the ones we are pursuing to relocate here.

So why all the fuss and anger over this bill? Certainly, it could add to the deficit, if the savings projected are not real; and can any of us really tell if Washington math is close to correct? It does close some of the loopholes in the tax laws, insane loopholes that allow US-based companies to deduct payroll and property taxes they pay overseas from their US corporate income taxes. Companies like Levi Strauss, that close all their US plants to move the jobs overseas for cheaper labor, lower taxes. But..the price of Levi products in the US has not decreased. Companies like Wal-Mart, who dictate to their suppliers they will move the plant to China and deliver a 10% “improvement” in the cost structure each year, or they will no longer be a supplier to Wal-Mart. Yes, Wal-Mart does create “jobs” in the US; part time, low wage jobs. It is not the higher-paying manufacturing jobs that are being created, instead it is clerk and stock-boy and freight handler jobs. These are the types of companies being targeted by the tax code changes enacted by this law.

The next comment that was stated by the opposition is that this is pandering to the unions. In the United States, 22 of the 50 states are “right to work” states, with a 23rd (Pennsylvania) considering legislation this upcoming session to join the “right to work” states. That is 46% (including Pennsylvania) of the states that are “right to work” states. Therefore, in my opinion, this law is not “pandering” to the unions, but is truly in favor of the teachers, public safety officers, and others who we need to help our country grow.

The last argument presented stated that this law cut food stamp programs. It does, in 2014, reduce the amount of money allocated to food stamp programs, however, and this is the point the opposition did not press, the bill also allows the food stamp program to be re-instated to the (2014) level as further changes are enacted that bolster the economic well-being of our country.

In fine, this bill is the best we could rationally expect in the current political environment, and it is a bill that will help our students, our future, and our country.

Welcome!

To Old Army, Sandy, and Sylvia, and Ric! Glad to have you here, I hope you will read and comment! Enjoy!
Bob

On the “Right to be in the United States Legally”

This commentary is based upon Federal and Utah State law; I can reasonably believe the respective laws do not differ substantially from state to state with in the United States.

Utah State Representative Carl Sandstrom, (R-Orem) is currently proposing legislation for the upcoming Utah legislative session in 2011 that would enable/require public safety officers to, upon reasonable suspicion, ask drivers and passengers in a vehicle during a traffic stop to verify they are in the country legally, and if no such proof can be provided, then to hold them for INS officers.

To me, this is very discomforting. Although I was born in the United States (Colorado, to be exact) I have not document that “proves” I am a citizen or am legally in the state of Utah. There is no federal document that “proves” U.S. citizenship.

A Utah driver’s license, the “usual” proof of identity, can be obtained with a variety of documents. The most common for the majority of us is a birth certificate, however, a driver’s license can be obtained using a wide variety of documents. These include:
A birth certificate from any state in the United States, or any country which the United States recognizes: an unexpired visa or non-immigrant visa, or a Mexican voter registration card; all accompanied by proof of residency in Utah. Proof of residency in Utah can be two of a wide variety of documents, including but not limited to: utility bills, mortgage or rent contract, court documents, or a bank statement or “major” credit card statement (both dated within 60 days of application), or other documents deemed valid by the Department of Public Safety.

A birth certificate issued in the United States is, in fact, not proof of citizenship. Any person can renounce their U.S. citizenship at any time, for any reason; and there is no public document that confirms or denies this event. In times of turmoil in our country, some citizens move abroad and renounce their U.S. citizenship, but as long as they still have a copy of their birth certificate, they can legally obtain a drivers license. The government can disenfranchise a citizen at any time for a variety of reasons, and again, there is no document issued, and a license can be obtained. Although these are not common occurrences, they are legal and valid, and given this information it is very possible that a person no longer a citizen of the United States can obtain a valid drivers license, while not legally entitled to be in this country.

Let’s look for a moment at the visa conditions. There are, currently, at least 79 different forms of visas, some considered permanent, others that are temporary in nature. For example, a foreign student with valid forms of proof of residency in Utah can obtain a Utah drivers license. While the student’s visa may expire, he or she can continue to renew the license in the standard manner without having to again prove the validity of the right to be in the United States. The same right to automatic renewal granted to citizens of Utah applies to most of the visa types currently accepted; the major exception being diplomatic visas. How, then, can we reasonably expect public safety officers to determine if the holder of a Utah drivers license is here legally? My conclusion, given my study of the facts, is that the officers will not be able make that determination.

A visa, issued by a country with which the United States has reciprocal agreements, is proof of the right to be in this country. But, and this is a very big “but”, there are 30 countries, part of United States treaty agreements, whose citizens can be in the United States indeterminately, without a visa. These countries include: Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Is it probable that the attending officer will delay and embarrass visiting citizens from these countries, and ask for their proof of the right to be in the United States? I fear that this is not only a probability, but a possibility, particularly if the occupants of the vehicle are speaking Spanish or a derivative thereof. Is this the America, or the Utah, we want to present to visitors?

A passport, incidentally, is not proof of your right to be in this country. It is a form of identification and the right to travel from the country that issues it. It does NOT guarantee your right to be in this, or any, particular country.

It is my conclusion, given my research into the subject, that this piece of legislation is perhaps well intended, but the implications have not been completely considered. Therefore, I will be active in working to prevent it from being enacted into law.
Will you join me?

On my recent Camping trip

Musings From a WDR (west desert rat)
Why does the GP (general population) have to be so trashy? I have bags of trash, old shotgun shells, clay pidgeons, empty water bottles and beer cans from my favorite campsite. Why do I do this? So I can come back here to a clean site. But every time I return, it is the same; trash and garbage everywhere. Ok, so you had sex, carry your condoms out yourselves! Really, people! Diapers? Hello? Trash impacts animals, birds. The stuff you leave contaminants not only the scenery but also the animals. And you weren’t here long ago. I put out one of your campfires when I arrived. You left it smoking, logs overhanging the edge of your fire pit.
Don’t mistake me, I also use the desert. I enjoy coming here for peace and solitude, which the desert provides in ample abundance, particularly on the weekdays. But I don’t think my main job is to clean up after you. You who are so vocal when the government limits access to the land, why are you not so careful to take care of the land? My Goshute friend says you can always tell when “white folks" have been here. Look at the trash. It’s disgusting. Plastic plates, beer cans, etc. litter the landscape. Beer cans don’t burn, folks. They stay in the pit where you tossed them; Bud Light seems to be the flavor for this year. Oh, and don’t forget Pepsi. Why? You had enough room to bring it out with you, cannot you take it back? Your home trash removal will not cost you a dime more to empty out your crap.

Part of my reason for creating this blog is to open myself and my emotions up, to allow myself some freedom of creativity, of expression. This is a very personal poem; I wrote it on what would have been Adams 30th birthday, last May. When you are finished reading it, please comment, if you desire, but more importantly, learn the lessons it contains. Thank you for listening.

At Adam’s Funeral

I was being the strong
Husband, supporting my wife;
Father, comforting our two other children
(Adam was the middle child)
A gentleman approached me.

“May I talk with you a minute, please?”
He politely inquired.
“I know this is not a good time,
But I need to apologize to you and your son.”

I guess my questioning eyes
Permitted him to proceed.
“About a month ago, my daughter
Who was a friend of your sons’
Called him from a party.

She had gotten drunk,
Too drunk to drive
She was, I am ashamed to admit
Too frightened to call me.

She asked Adam to pick
Her up and drive her home.
She handed him her house-key,
He gently lifted her up
And proceeded to the door.

I was watching through the curtains,
Unable to control my anger,
I watched as she vomited over him.
Serves him right, I said to myself out loud.

He opened the door,
I offered no assistance
As he brought her in
Gently laying her on the couch.

Angered beyond belief,
I lashed out at him.
“How dare you!
What have you done to my daughter?

“Did you get her drunk
And violate her as well?”
I continued
To berate him.

To him, it must have been hell.
But he stood there tall,
And kept looking me in the eye.
Never saying a word.

“I stopped”, he continued.
"Adam finally spoke,
His words slow and clear.
I will never forget his courage.”

“Sir, in the morning,
After your daughter is awake and better,
I am sure she will set your fears about me to rest.
Good night, sir.”

He left, morning came,
And my daughter tearfully
Told me about the night.
Church friends invited her to the party.

She had no fear,
Sixteen, innocent, virginal
No idea of what waited for her
Alcohol was served
And she got drunk.
“I was afraid to call you, Dad;
I didn’t want the fight.
Adam I called because I knew
I could rely on him.”

I thought about calling him
Offering my apologies
For I had put him through hell
I got too busy, and it was not important.

Please know your son
Was a good man, not a boy.”
I remember that night, myself.
He had finished his first week of chemo.

Home for a rest, his mother and I went to dinner.
He told me he had taken the truck
To help a friend in trouble.
I asked if everything was ok.

“Sure, dad. I just wanted you to know
Why there were miles on the truck.”
Three weeks later, he died.
A good man, not a boy.

I went to his grave today,
Sitting, eyes closed, meditating;
When a voice whispered in my ear,
Dad, they are coming closer! Look!
Eyes slowly open; a doe and a fawn
Were 10 feet away.

And I understood.
He was here, in his chosen
Environment, a place with birds,
Trees, and deer.

I asked him then,
Would it be ok if I write this?
Show the world who you are?
Yeah, Buddy!
His voice rang loudly in my ear.
So here it is.

Do You Want Change?

TIRED

People are going
Hungry
The world can produce enough
Food.
People are sick,
Dying
We can provide
Medicine.
Wars destroy and ravage
Landscapes
Plant trees instead of
Shell casings.
Rulers, Presidents, Kings,
Clergymen
Strip our souls and values for
Themselves.
You know these things and do
Nothing
I know these things and do
Nothing.
I’m Tired of it.
I must be the change
I
Want to see.

A Child's Commentary on Adults

I am your child, yours no matter how I got here; if you adopted me, bore me, or just accepted me because someone else could not, I am yours. I cannot speak yet, not quite, but I am learning, and one day will be able to tell you how much you mean to me. For now, you have to go on my actions, on my expressions.

We are learning together, you and I. First I focus on the sound of your voice: if it is warm and loving I know I am ok. When your voice goes harsh and angry I know something is wrong, and as I only know my world I can only believe I am the “something” that is wrong. I am told that I will learn that “little pitchers have big ears.” I do have those “big ears”, for right now that is the largest input into my mind, my physic. I may not yet understand what you are saying, but I can certainly tell how you are saying it. Please be kind, speak kind of me, about me, and around me. Don’t think it does not matter, it does. What you say and how you say it, parental figures, will always matter to me. Even when I am a rebellious teenager (what is that, anyway) it will matter to me.

I watch you prepare food for me; I have learned that the presence of the bib means I am going to get fed! YES! My three favorite food groups are food, food and more food. You watch my face as you feed me, and you learn through my expressions and my actions what I like and don’t like; but don’t worry, my tastes will change. Keep trying those vegetables on me; someday I may like green peas.

When you come over to pick me up, I am watching you, studying how you move, your legs, your arms, your face. I am watching because I want that freedom, that ability to move around and not just be in this little crib you have set up for my safety. Speaking of my safety, thank you for the crib, for the gate that will keep me from falling down the stairs; for the locks you put on the cabinets to keep my curious fingers and face out of trouble. Because I am curious, that is how I learn, curiosity, and I need you to keep me safe. Safe from harm from others, safe from harming myself. When I grow up, I will have learned from all the subtle things you have done that I need to keep myself safe, but now I am relying on you to teach me, to help me, to keep me safe.

Hold my hand. It is so tiny compared to yours. Consider how my whole hand grips just one of your fingers, how tightly I hold on to your finger, your hand, your presence. For you are my safety and security, my own private TSA so to speak. I have very good senses, and when I don’t want to go to a new person, please consider that I am yours, you are what and who I know; help me to learn how to tell if a person is good or bad company. Help me to learn how to be ok in company, how to behave. But do it with words and care, please. Remember your big hand? It does not take much for you, with your strong arms and mighty hand, to hurt me, really hurt me. Remember that I am not trying to make you angry, remember that when I sense your anger I feel that it is totally my fault. I don’t know any better. Teach me, with love and kindness; I don’t want anger to be part of our relationship.
Oh, and that car seat? It’s ok; really, the main thing I am not happy about is being out of your arms. I really am not protesting the car seat manufacturing companies. I will learn, if I don’t already sense it, that the car seat is really for my own good. I will even learn to buckle my seat belt, if you take the time to teach me.

Well, there is much more I have to say, but I am tired now, so if you don’t mind, would you put me down for a nap?

An Intellegent Commentary on the Subject of Marriage

Marriage is a contractual relationship between two (or more) persons, typically sanctioned by the state and providing certain benefits, duties and responsibilities to both parties; although the benefits, duties and responsibilities have changed greatly over time. Some of these benefits (in the United States), include but are not limited to:
• Sharing with a spouse control over property, labor and sexual services.
• Giving a spouse responsibility for a spouse's debts.
• Providing a spouse visitation rights when his/her spouse is incarcerated or hospitalized.
• The ability to transfer control over the spouse's affairs when the spouse is incapacitated.
• Establishing the second legal guardian of a parent's child.
• Establishing a joint fund of property for the benefit of children.
• Establishing a relationship between the families of the spouses.

As this is a contractual relationship, it is controlled by the state in which it is initatied, and not by federal law. This is evident in the differences of requirements from state to state, as the following information details.

A Marriage License, or intention of marriage, is required in all states except Idaho, Louisiana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Wyoming, and Puerto Rico

The common age of consent in the United States is 16 however; it can be as young as 13 for females and 14 for males in some states

So-called “Common Law” marriage (no documents or religious ceremony required) is legal in 10 states. There is no age of consent for Common Law marriages.

A Medical exam (STD, and in some cases rubella and sickle cell anemia for females) is required in 24 states

If these points are controlled by the state, then it can logically be represented that marriage is a legal condition, although marriage in some cases is accompanied by religious conditions or acceptance. The validity of marriage in one state is transferred to another; that is, if the parties are married in New York, they are considered married in Oklahoma as well, notwithstanding that certain states still have statutes forbidding certain types of marriage.

Religion did not formally enter marriage until the Council of Trent in 1563, which stated in part…that a Roman Catholic marriage would only be recognized if officiated by a priest with two witnesses. "The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life”…

After the break between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England, Lord Hardawicke’s Act, 1753 (Anglican Church) was the first to require performance of a religious ceremony, with witnesses. This act, however, did not affect the marriages within the Jewish or Quaker religious sects.

From my review, briefly stated above, of marriage as both a civil and religious action, it is my contention that marriage is a civil contract, and the choice of including or excluding the religious component is left to the participants. It is also my conclusion that, as marriage is a civil contract, there is no valid arguement for refusing to allow gays and lesbians (same sex marriage) the same rights, privilages, benfits and responsibilites currently provided to hetrosexual couples under current laws and conditions.

Notes:
Source: Cornell University Law School
ibid
ibid
ibid
ibid
Witte Jr., John (1997). From Sacrament to Contract: Marriage, Religion, and Law in the Western Tradition. Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 39–40

Are you for or against Term Limits?

A Discussion on the Value of Term Limits

“Public Service is just that, a period when you serve your fellow man. I have served enough, and I am going home.”
This is attributed to George Washington when he was asked to serve again as President. I can not vouch for its accuracy, but it is a good starting point for a discussion. Currently, there is not a federal limitation to the number of terms a member of congress can serve, or a limit to his ability to serve in both houses and/or consider a run at the Oval Office. Is this really in our country’s best interest?

Certainly it can be argued that as individuals learn more about their counterparts, as well as their own roles in any given profession, they can acquire greater abilities to search out resources and fellow-thinkers, even take sage advice and counsel from those with whom they have diametrically opposed positions. It can be intuited that this advice and counsel could give a person reason and time to pause and reflect upon a point of view not previously considered within his/her own circle of advisors. Logically, in a private-sector enterprise, you are believed to have a greater knowledge of the inner workings and the most effective, productive way to receive help and support for a given project if you have a reasonable length of time in service to your enterprises. These are all arguments in favor of allowing our elected officials to remain in office as long as possible.

In the private sector, there are certainly good reasons for retaining and promoting long-term employees. They may have shown, for example, a great ability to understand the customer’s needs beyond that of a new employee; ability learned through time to rationally remove a doubt in the customer’s mind of a products ability to fulfill the current requirements. It’s often said, “call X, he is the only one who may have seen this before and he can provide you the best answer.” Certainly, as individuals, we feel more at ease when we speak to the same individual at a given company, who can remember us, can empathize with our concern, and connect us to the person or office that most easily can solve our need.

The private sector, however, is not elected. The private sector exists, at its core, for one reason, and one only: to survive and become the company of choice for customers, to drive to the bottom line ever greater profits, to hand the shareholders/owners a good return on their investment. In the main, those companies who achieve those goals become distinguished, the employees who assist the company to reach its goals are well rewarded, and the CEO’s are properly compensated. Conversely, employees at any level who fail to share in this core behavior are eliminated, from the dismissal of an employee who fails to show up on time to the removal of a CEO who does not meet shareholders expectations, or the takeover of a business by creditors when the directors and management fail to meet financial obligations. This is the “free market” at its’ most basic level.

Our federal, state, and local governments, and the elected officials who guide them, however, operate on entirely different models. Our government is required by the public to provide basic services: military protection; trade agreements; schools; public safety services; and code-enforcement, to broadly cover the spectrum. These elected officials are reasonably expected to take the very wide view, that is: to provide the greatest good to the greatest number of citizens, at the best possible price. Unlike the private sector, however, no great accolades or honors are given to officials and governments who do the best; no financial or public honors are forthcoming. In the main, sadly, most elected officials serve well and with honor and distinction, and deserve accolades for achieving the results required by the citizens, honors they rarely publicly receive.

With power, however, comes the ability of corruption; the ability to appear benign and to simultaneously destroy the public trust. Allegations of malfeasance in office are as old as our country, even before our time, and beyond our shores, these charges are not new to public service. As elected officials remain in office, the temptations to accept personal gain for this favor or that contract become more pronounced; even innocent charities can be caught up in scandals. Old and recent reports of elected officials receiving favors to push legislation that favors one business or another, or allow a developer to build a subdivision without proper safety review, fall upon elected officials without regard to party affiliation.

Is the acceptance of bribes, gifts, and contributions a just reward for “bringing home the bacon?” Is it our Pollyanna belief that “good people will not do this or that evil thing?” Or is it a symptom of the changed personality of public service? If we set term limits, if we do not allow seniority or longevity in office to become a trading post for bribes and corruption, will we be able to reduce the amount of malfeasance in office? For example, should a person running for office know in advance this was not a career assignment, but only a temporary duty post, would they be more willing to look after the common good rather than their own? It seems to be a discussion worth having, on local, state, and national levels. I for one believe term limits should be set, on and across all levels of government, Perhaps in doing so, we can rebuild the public trust, restore confidence that those we elect are actually performing public service, and are not turning responsibility and honorable discharge of their duties into personal gain and fortune. If a person is elevated to public office by their peers, with the knowledge that they shall soon return to civilian life, would they be more able to look past the possibility of large donations for the next election, for the next bill passed? Would it be possible then for our elected officials to work for the common good of the population, to have a greater understanding and compassion of the laws they pass, knowing full well that in a set time they also would be subject to those same laws and regulations?

I postulate that it would, that the knowledge of their equal footing after this term was completed, might be a stepping-stone to dismantling the continued corruption and holier-than-thou attitude currently so vividly displayed in our elected officials. Should or could we dismantle the “immunity from prosecution” that now surrounds our public officials, so they could understand that civil penalties can be annexed to crimes of malfeasance committed in office; that prosecution for acts of unfair bias will be forthcoming? I again postulate this would a major step forward in removing the temptation to self-gain from public office.

With the knowledge that this is not a new position, I would urge all citizens to seriously consider the effect this type of legislation would have; the positive effect it could produce in restoring our faith in our governments, and the larger effect it may have on our standing worldwide.

nightime ramblings

Lines in My Brows

The lines in my brows tonight
Are not of worry or pain;
They are instead expansions of the thoughts
Of Adams, Franklin, Jefferson and Washington
Who described not a static place
But a new land, a new country
Where thoughts and ideals are exchanged
And new formulas developed.

For they were not perfect men,
Each had his faults.
And his own sense of morality,
Of mortality.
All had one common goal.
The vision of a more perfect union.
Which they could only fitfully imagine.

Today, as yesterday, and tomorrow
We should work to develop and improve upon
Their fine design, the groundwork
They laid down, only a framework
A design, upon which we can build.
A more perfect union, a more perfect world

But perfect is in the eye of the beholder,
And we can agree that we are not yet perfect
For there is much to be done.

You who consider yourself to be patriots
And supporters of this country
Should look to the distress and discomfort
Of our founding fathers.

You who are dissenters,
Should look to the same,
For these were men of action,
Who would rather die than let go of liberty

Those who agree to disagree,
And to develop
New means of understanding,
And aid and comfort to all.
These are the people we need now,
Who will stand for human rights
For Liberty, for Justice
For all human beings.

Immigration

Here are my thoughts on some work to solve the immigration issues across the United States today. This is not a complete answer, nor do I really expect it ever to be complete.
Before we begin, some definitions.:
Deportation in this sense is to mean, transported to the consulate of the home country and that consulate shall arrange immediate transportation back to their native land, with given regard to those who are seeking political asylum within the United States as allowed by our current laws and treaties.
“American-born family” in this sense includes parents, sisters, brothers, children and grandchildren, in whole or part.
“United States” refers to all States, the District of Columbia, and all territories and possessions of the United States of America.
“Employer” refers to any company, entity, or person doing business within the united States, it’s possessions or territories.

First, there should be a continuous effort to stop illegal border crossings. Mobilize the National Guard to provide much needed resources to the Border Patrol. Allow Border Patrol and National Guard unfettered access into all areas around the borders, (northern, southern; and all islands and territories/possessions of the United States), working to minimize ecological damage without reducing enforcement; and maintaining at all times an adequate level of force to reduce the number of illegal crossings. In all states, territories, and possessions, use the National Guard to support INS in unannounced, random visits to those types of companies that rely on undocumented or illegally documented workers, such as hotel, agriculture, manufacturing, packing/processing rents, plants, fast-food, convenience store and construction industries.

This is not a problem confined to the American mainland. There are factories (sweatshops) operating outside of American law in our possessions and territories. Therefore, these “U.S. P. & T.” areas should also be working on the same immigration laws. (The needed discussion of the working conditions in these U.S. P & T will need to be discussed at another time.) Second, require all employers to use E-Verify beginning today; establishing fast-track Federal judicial hearings for employers found to not be using E-Verify. A set of penalties need to be established, such as removing any federal, state or local business contracts and dealings with those companies that cannot prove total compliance with E-Verify. These penalties should have levels of increasing financial hardship on those companies refusing to comply with e-verify, up to and including highest levels of management denial. These penalties should include the possibility of in-home detention of management that condones and allows illegal hiring, as well as fines based upon the number of illegal hires. While I understand the argument that E-Verify is not a perfect system, it is a good strong logical beginning; it can be improved as situations arise that show cause for improvement.

But what to do when illegal immigrants are caught? Initial, immediate steps should include fingerprinting, DNA testing/recording, and photographing those individuals. Those caught at initial illegal entry should be immediately deported after these identifying steps have been taken. Those guilty of transporting humans illegally into this country should be subjected to trials for human trafficking, with federal penalties established and enforced. Traffickers should not be deported until they have been tried and punished in accordance with American laws. Concurrent human, drug and firearm trafficking should be tried and punished simultaneously, with maximum penalties invoked. Anyone requiring medical or hospitalization should be treated then deported. Children born to pregnant women intercepted at entry should not be granted American citizenship.

For those individuals found to be in the Untied States illegally for less than 3 years, but not caught when initially crossing the borders, humane and reasonable considerations should be given. If found, through the initial fingerprinting, DNA testing and photographs to have been linked to crimes committed while in the United States illegally, they should be tried; if found guilty, the individuals should punished according to American justice; the same justice as would be applied to any American citizen. Adults found not linked to crimes committed here, and who have no American-born children, should be deported immediately; those with American-born children should be given an opportunity to choose between family deportation and the ability to become naturalized American citizens within a set time period, while being on probation until said citizenship in established.
Those caught who have been here more than 3 years should be given a probationary time to become naturalized American Citizens. Reasonable credit and allowance should be given to those who have been in the service of the Untied States while here

How do we pay for this mass mobilization of resources to cover the subject? The fines imposed and collected from businesses failing to obey the laws of our country should be allocated to this effort. The balance will have to be come from taxes; however, when you raise the level of income by not allowing sub-standard wages to be paid, (as a result of the wage-earner being undocumented) you will raise the level of taxes being legally collected. Initially, however, this effort will be very costly to the American public. But it is the American Public who is raising this hue and cry over undocumented peoples.
Fines imposed for being inside American territory illegally are a subject of further discussion.
Could this draconian type measure work? Probably not without some tweaking; however it is at least an outline of a manner to stop the flow if illegal immigration. It is not a cure-all; and it is my belief this issue will be with the United States as long as we continue to be a free country.

I am looking forward to all comments!

Small Town Childhood

Try this: for a set period of time, say 24 hours for the really brave of you, disconnect yourself. Do not use the cell phone, internet, or cable/satellite TV (one local air type stations ok, even if you do use cable/sat to receive it); no rental movies, no video games or Wii or Playstation. No I-pod, I-Phone, or crackberry; none of it. Turn it all off. If your cell phone happens to be your only phone, use it JUST as a phone.
Now, if you are fortunate enough to be employed, you may need to let your employer know you are not available, but try without notifying your "friends" on Facebook or other social websites. Just shut yourself off.
I dare you. I double-dare you. I double-dog-dare you.
Then let me know if you took me up on my challenge, and how it worked for you.
That's how I grew up; and no, I am not complaining. I can hear the excuses why you cannot do it, I use every one of them myself. My considered opinion, however, is that as a people, we have conditioned ourselves to living in a 24/7/365 world, and I am not convinced that is really good for me, for us as a people. Consider for a minute how stressed you feel, how you cannot really stop and connect with your family, friends, spouse, co-workers, and others without looking at the cell phone, without turning on the i-net to catch the very latest news or happening, how we rely on our "social networks" on the computer or cable/satellite be informed and entertained. Do we really "need" this constant feed of information?
As Jackson Browne noted, "then about evening you think, what am I going to do?" (if you know the song I am referencing, without googling it, let me know! LOL)
I'll be back on Thursday, July 29th. Or Friday, July 30th.
Bob

Prostittues in SL? No Way!

So, prostitution is back on the front page (“Dude, I’m Not a Prostitute”, SL Tribune Tuesday July 20). Here’s a relatively simple way to reduce the problem. Publish and prosecute. Publish the names and address of all men and women that are engaged in this trade, when they are caught in police conduct sweeps or “stings.” Prosecute, including fines coupled with DNA and STD testing. Let the good people of Salt Lake know that this is a crime that will be punished.

Regulation

An accquaintance of mine on facebook recently commented, “first health insurance, now financial reform--brought to you by the same people who crashed the real estate market with fanny and freddie?!”
I must disagree, the people who crashed the real estate market and fanny/freddie were in the George W. Bush administration, not the current (Obama) administration. President Obama is trying hard, without any Republican support, to revamp and re-regulate the stock market, real estate, and speculative investment companies; if he achieves any true success, it will be without the assistance of any of those previously vaulted administration officials or their minions in Congress.
If you go back in history to the “Great Depression”, President Roosevelt had to invoke Presidental Authority to close the banks for 3 days, to allow enough time to implement his plans for government authorities to control and regulate the banks and investment/insurance companies. He broke them apart, told banks they could be banks, insurance companies they could provide insurance, and investment firms they could make investments, but the three could not work together to swindle the public out of money (my take on the process).
In these plans, he used the “best and brightest” from both sides of the aisle. Eccles and Marriot, both Republicans from Utah, were very high in his administration, and played a major part in the seperation of banks, investment, and insurance companies. These companies had to operate as separate, stand-alone businesses, they could not refer one customer to another desk and take profits therefrom. He was successfull, in that he took from the bankers/investment communities the abiltiy to make over-leveraged loans from banks on real estate in order for short-sighted consumers to purchase stocks, nor could the public short-sell stocks based on property valuations of the day.
While it may be argued that it took some time for his actions to make a positive effect, it cannnot be argued from a historical persepctive that these were in fact the correct moves to bring a halt to the depression.
So it is today. Over the last three decades, our government has worked to reduce regulation and increase co-dependant banking/investment/insurance/real estate companies. These steps, one at a time, have lead us to the financial collapse of this decade. Now the public outcry is for “more regulation”, and our government is trying to put this into place. Then, sadly enough, the pendulem will swing again, and we will have cries for less regulation, and we go off for a merry ride.