“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”
― Franklin D. Roosevelt
This blog contains some of my personal, political, moral, and social views of our society today. All of the posts here are copyrighted, and may not be used, copied, etc. without the permission of the author. Comments are welcome! All comments must be in a family-acceptable verbiage. Feel free to share this blog with anyone that might be interested in reading and/or discussing the material I present. Thanks for visiting. R.M. "Bob" Hartman
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Thursday, September 20, 2012
President George Washington
In his farewell address to the United States of America, President George Washington made comments that allow me to think he had vision that extended to the present day, even to the rancorous, bitter politics of the recent past and the current election:
“…Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection…” (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp)
Before I continue, let me remind everyone that the President of The United States of America can not write legislation. He can request, support, sign or veto laws, but the legislation itself comes from Congress. Therefore, it is in the President’s, and Congress’s, best interest to work together for the good of the American people.
The immature and disrespectful attitude displayed by Congress toward the American people shows that no member of either party is deserving of re-election. We, the people, hire our Representatives and Senators to “do the Nation’s business.” They are expected, at a minimum, to provide for the nation’s defense, promote the general good, properly regulate commerce and industry, engage in treaties and agreements in America’s favor; and keep the promise of America alive for our youth.
In my opinion, they have failed miserably over the past 12 years. The loud rabble on the extreme right and left have caused the Congress to sway precipitously left and then right, never to establish a comfortable center-stage, where the majority of Americans wish them to be. The art of compromise, upon which this country was founded, has been discarded for “victory at all costs” for one party or faction over the other. This is not what the American mainstream wants from Congress. Polls of the American people conducted by Gallup, Newsweek, Rasmussen, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal consistently point to a low level of credibility and job performance of Congress. The first question is, why; the second, what can be done?
Here are some of my musings on this issue.
First and foremost, as pointed out by President Washington in his address, is party ideology. We have become so saturated by “The Republicans stand for this” and “The Democrats stand for this” to the point we no longer look at the person running for office, just which party he or she belongs to. No longer do we hear enough about what the candidate running for office believes or thinks, we just hear that he or she is a Democrat or a Republican. Rather than run on their individual accomplishments, goals or visions, they campaign on their own party line or against the other party. This party ideology denies us as citizens the privilege to choose the candidates who express thoughts and opinions that best reflect the majority of any specific voter’s ideas.
Second, our legislators are running for office again the day they take office. The cost of running a campaign has hit historical and ridiculously high figures. Politicians are constantly fundraising in one form or another. They are busy meeting with prospective high dollar donors, lobbyists, and “special interest groups.” With the advent of Pacs, SuperPacs, 527, 501c4’s and legislative Pacs, they are now beholden to money, not to the people. So busy fundraising are they, in fact, they don’t have time to construct, read or consider legislation; those functions are now delegated to staffers, or worse, to lobbyists who have staff to construct, read and provide the Congressman the condensed version of the bill.
Third, and perhaps most insidiously, is power. “I will be the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee next term, think what that will do for Utah”, claimed one of our Senators. (The only effect I saw was the further de-regulation of the banking community, to the citizen’s peril.) Power in Washington is derived from longevity, and from trading favors (votes in session) one legislator to another.
So, what do I propose?
First, term limits, including limits on a politician’s ability to move from one house of Congress to the other.
Second, effective and enforced campaign finance reform is far overdue. Eliminate the use of PACS, SUPERPACS, 527’s, 501c4’s, bundling, and any other forms of special interest money, including corporation and union money. This includes re-writing the tax code to prohibit these types of “corporations” and overturning the Citizens United judgment of the Supreme Court.
Third, eliminate or control the lobbyists. Don’t allow them to write or suggest legislation; eliminate all the money and perks they bring to the Congressmen. Enact ethics legislation that prohibits Congressmen, and their families, from accepting jobs from lobbyists for a reasonable time after the Congressman leaves his/her office.
Fourth, ethics reform needs to be in place. Make sure Congressmen understand they may lose the position they have been elected to for violation of ethics. Put in place strong regulation, refine it as time and necessity require, and make it stick.
My conclusion: if the American citizens desire to bring Congress back to “doing the Nation’s business”, we need to act individually and collectively to bring reform to Congress. We need to remind them, by all means proper, they work for us. If reforms of the type I here suggest, and others of a like mind, were to be enacted, Congress would have time and willpower to work for the American people. Candidates for office would have to present to the voters reasons to elect them; they would not be able to flood our airwaves with negative advertisements and would perhaps be reduced to publishing position papers available and understandable to the majority of the voting public.
There is much more to be said and written about these pressing subjects. I hope I have provided some food for thought and discussion, as always your comments and opinions are welcome.
Robert M. “Bob” Hartman
“…Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection…” (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp)
Before I continue, let me remind everyone that the President of The United States of America can not write legislation. He can request, support, sign or veto laws, but the legislation itself comes from Congress. Therefore, it is in the President’s, and Congress’s, best interest to work together for the good of the American people.
The immature and disrespectful attitude displayed by Congress toward the American people shows that no member of either party is deserving of re-election. We, the people, hire our Representatives and Senators to “do the Nation’s business.” They are expected, at a minimum, to provide for the nation’s defense, promote the general good, properly regulate commerce and industry, engage in treaties and agreements in America’s favor; and keep the promise of America alive for our youth.
In my opinion, they have failed miserably over the past 12 years. The loud rabble on the extreme right and left have caused the Congress to sway precipitously left and then right, never to establish a comfortable center-stage, where the majority of Americans wish them to be. The art of compromise, upon which this country was founded, has been discarded for “victory at all costs” for one party or faction over the other. This is not what the American mainstream wants from Congress. Polls of the American people conducted by Gallup, Newsweek, Rasmussen, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal consistently point to a low level of credibility and job performance of Congress. The first question is, why; the second, what can be done?
Here are some of my musings on this issue.
First and foremost, as pointed out by President Washington in his address, is party ideology. We have become so saturated by “The Republicans stand for this” and “The Democrats stand for this” to the point we no longer look at the person running for office, just which party he or she belongs to. No longer do we hear enough about what the candidate running for office believes or thinks, we just hear that he or she is a Democrat or a Republican. Rather than run on their individual accomplishments, goals or visions, they campaign on their own party line or against the other party. This party ideology denies us as citizens the privilege to choose the candidates who express thoughts and opinions that best reflect the majority of any specific voter’s ideas.
Second, our legislators are running for office again the day they take office. The cost of running a campaign has hit historical and ridiculously high figures. Politicians are constantly fundraising in one form or another. They are busy meeting with prospective high dollar donors, lobbyists, and “special interest groups.” With the advent of Pacs, SuperPacs, 527, 501c4’s and legislative Pacs, they are now beholden to money, not to the people. So busy fundraising are they, in fact, they don’t have time to construct, read or consider legislation; those functions are now delegated to staffers, or worse, to lobbyists who have staff to construct, read and provide the Congressman the condensed version of the bill.
Third, and perhaps most insidiously, is power. “I will be the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee next term, think what that will do for Utah”, claimed one of our Senators. (The only effect I saw was the further de-regulation of the banking community, to the citizen’s peril.) Power in Washington is derived from longevity, and from trading favors (votes in session) one legislator to another.
So, what do I propose?
First, term limits, including limits on a politician’s ability to move from one house of Congress to the other.
Second, effective and enforced campaign finance reform is far overdue. Eliminate the use of PACS, SUPERPACS, 527’s, 501c4’s, bundling, and any other forms of special interest money, including corporation and union money. This includes re-writing the tax code to prohibit these types of “corporations” and overturning the Citizens United judgment of the Supreme Court.
Third, eliminate or control the lobbyists. Don’t allow them to write or suggest legislation; eliminate all the money and perks they bring to the Congressmen. Enact ethics legislation that prohibits Congressmen, and their families, from accepting jobs from lobbyists for a reasonable time after the Congressman leaves his/her office.
Fourth, ethics reform needs to be in place. Make sure Congressmen understand they may lose the position they have been elected to for violation of ethics. Put in place strong regulation, refine it as time and necessity require, and make it stick.
My conclusion: if the American citizens desire to bring Congress back to “doing the Nation’s business”, we need to act individually and collectively to bring reform to Congress. We need to remind them, by all means proper, they work for us. If reforms of the type I here suggest, and others of a like mind, were to be enacted, Congress would have time and willpower to work for the American people. Candidates for office would have to present to the voters reasons to elect them; they would not be able to flood our airwaves with negative advertisements and would perhaps be reduced to publishing position papers available and understandable to the majority of the voting public.
There is much more to be said and written about these pressing subjects. I hope I have provided some food for thought and discussion, as always your comments and opinions are welcome.
Robert M. “Bob” Hartman
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
The 800 pound Gorilla
While doing campaign work (knocking on doors) for a Democratic candidate in the last election, I stopped by a young family doing yard work. I offered my pamphlet to the father, and one of his children asked, “Dad, who are Democrats?” His reply still rings in my ears. “They are the ones who want abortion and gun control, not good for us.”
This article is about the 800 pound gorilla in the room, abortion. (I promise to talk about gun control later.)
I am sorry that this oft-spoken position is the (incorrect) opinion of Democrats as a whole. The candidate in question was very much pro-life. But it begs the bigger question, what about abortion? This has been a controversial subject for many years, on all sides of the political spectrum, and it has come up again with the rise of Willard “Mitt” Romney, who is now the Republican candidate for the office of President of the United States of America.
October 25, 1994: In Senate election debate in Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy accuses Romney of being "multiple choice" on abortion. Romney denies the charge, saying that he has supported abortion rights consistently since 1970 when his mother Lenore ran as a pro abortion rights candidate for the U.S. Senate candidate in Michigan. He linked his support for abortion rights to the death "many years ago" of a "dear, close family relative" following a botched illegal abortion. "You will not see me wavering on that," he adds.
October 29, 2002 "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose."
— Mitt Romney, Massachusetts Governor election debate.
December 8, 2005: Romney reverses an earlier decision on the advice of his counsel and orders all hospitals in the state to make the "morning after" pill available to rape victims, over the protests of Catholic hospitals, who argue that this goes against their religious beliefs. A Boston Herald editorial says that Romney has "executed an Olympic-caliber double flip-flop with a gold medal-performance twist-and-a-half on the issue of emergency contraception."
June 15, 2007: Addresses National Right to Life convention. Says that even though he was "always personally opposed to abortion," he decided to support "the law as it was in place" as governor of Massachusetts. "I was wrong."
August 5, 2007 "Every action I have taken as governor of Massachusetts has been pro-life."
— Mitt Romney, Republican Debate
October 8, 2011. (Value Voter Summit, Washington DC.) Mr. Romney took the opportunity to talk about some of his positions on social issues.
“Now, the foundation needed for a strong economy and a strong military is a people of strong values,” Mr. Romney said, recalling that he was blessed to be raised by happily married parents whose example “led me to marry and have children, and now to bask in the joy of 16 grandchildren.”
He promised to support the Defense of Marriage Act and to appoint Supreme Court justices who would help overturn Roe v. Wade.
“We know that marriage is more than a personally rewarding social custom — it’s also critical for the well-being of a civilization,” Mr. Romney said. “That’s why it’s so important to preserve traditional marriage, the joining together of one man and one woman.”
On abortion, he said, “Our values must encompass the life of an unborn child.”
“The law may call it a right, but no one ever called it a good, and in the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year can’t be squared with the good heart of America,” he said. “And I will nominate judges who know the difference between personal opinion and law. It is long past time for the Supreme Court to return the issue of abortion back to the states by overturning Roe v. Wade.”
Mr. Romney, I respectively disagree with your side-swapping. It begs the larger question of what you would do as president of the United States of America. Will you be a man of principle, or of political gain?
This issue, abortion, is a charged issue, no doubt. I would rather that my wife, child, or grandchild never had to make this weighty decision. But I would rather that she could make it knowing it would be safe, unfettered, and made between her, her doctor, and her conscious, rather than made in Washington by men who do not know her reasons. Mr. Romney, get the politicians out of this discussion. The privilege to use, or not use birth control is a personal decision. A right to the availability of birth control should not be made by you, or any other politician. The right to have, or not have, an abortion does not need to be made by individuals not involved in the choice. This is not a decision to be made by you, by any president, or by any person aspiring to that office. It is a decision that needs to be made by the persons involved.
Your comments are welcome, as always.
RMH
This article is about the 800 pound gorilla in the room, abortion. (I promise to talk about gun control later.)
I am sorry that this oft-spoken position is the (incorrect) opinion of Democrats as a whole. The candidate in question was very much pro-life. But it begs the bigger question, what about abortion? This has been a controversial subject for many years, on all sides of the political spectrum, and it has come up again with the rise of Willard “Mitt” Romney, who is now the Republican candidate for the office of President of the United States of America.
October 25, 1994: In Senate election debate in Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy accuses Romney of being "multiple choice" on abortion. Romney denies the charge, saying that he has supported abortion rights consistently since 1970 when his mother Lenore ran as a pro abortion rights candidate for the U.S. Senate candidate in Michigan. He linked his support for abortion rights to the death "many years ago" of a "dear, close family relative" following a botched illegal abortion. "You will not see me wavering on that," he adds.
October 29, 2002 "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose."
— Mitt Romney, Massachusetts Governor election debate.
December 8, 2005: Romney reverses an earlier decision on the advice of his counsel and orders all hospitals in the state to make the "morning after" pill available to rape victims, over the protests of Catholic hospitals, who argue that this goes against their religious beliefs. A Boston Herald editorial says that Romney has "executed an Olympic-caliber double flip-flop with a gold medal-performance twist-and-a-half on the issue of emergency contraception."
June 15, 2007: Addresses National Right to Life convention. Says that even though he was "always personally opposed to abortion," he decided to support "the law as it was in place" as governor of Massachusetts. "I was wrong."
August 5, 2007 "Every action I have taken as governor of Massachusetts has been pro-life."
— Mitt Romney, Republican Debate
October 8, 2011. (Value Voter Summit, Washington DC.) Mr. Romney took the opportunity to talk about some of his positions on social issues.
“Now, the foundation needed for a strong economy and a strong military is a people of strong values,” Mr. Romney said, recalling that he was blessed to be raised by happily married parents whose example “led me to marry and have children, and now to bask in the joy of 16 grandchildren.”
He promised to support the Defense of Marriage Act and to appoint Supreme Court justices who would help overturn Roe v. Wade.
“We know that marriage is more than a personally rewarding social custom — it’s also critical for the well-being of a civilization,” Mr. Romney said. “That’s why it’s so important to preserve traditional marriage, the joining together of one man and one woman.”
On abortion, he said, “Our values must encompass the life of an unborn child.”
“The law may call it a right, but no one ever called it a good, and in the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year can’t be squared with the good heart of America,” he said. “And I will nominate judges who know the difference between personal opinion and law. It is long past time for the Supreme Court to return the issue of abortion back to the states by overturning Roe v. Wade.”
Mr. Romney, I respectively disagree with your side-swapping. It begs the larger question of what you would do as president of the United States of America. Will you be a man of principle, or of political gain?
This issue, abortion, is a charged issue, no doubt. I would rather that my wife, child, or grandchild never had to make this weighty decision. But I would rather that she could make it knowing it would be safe, unfettered, and made between her, her doctor, and her conscious, rather than made in Washington by men who do not know her reasons. Mr. Romney, get the politicians out of this discussion. The privilege to use, or not use birth control is a personal decision. A right to the availability of birth control should not be made by you, or any other politician. The right to have, or not have, an abortion does not need to be made by individuals not involved in the choice. This is not a decision to be made by you, by any president, or by any person aspiring to that office. It is a decision that needs to be made by the persons involved.
Your comments are welcome, as always.
RMH
Sunday, September 2, 2012
I wrote this early on August 14, 2012. Mom passed late that day.
It has taken me a while to put it up, as I am still trying to understand everything that her life, and her death, mean to me.
Mother
It’s 0300 in my world
Don’t have a clue about yours
I’m wide awake and enjoying
The aches and pains of age.
Loud crickets, circling bats
Neighbors with restless pets
Fire trucks, police cars
Fill the empty night.
I know what’s coming,
I see the headlamp
Of the approaching train
No way to stop it, slow it down.
It’s on a schedule
No man wrote
Our time is determined
By another, not by us.
In His grace,
We are born
With His grace, we live
By His order, we die.
Restless, you roll the halls
Looking for salvation
As I study Holy Script
Looking for a reason.
I come up empty
Like so many years ago
When you thought you had the power
To call His wrath down on me.
When the train pulls
Into your station
And you climb aboard
No backward glance.
That’s your style
Tight lips, no wave
No long sorrowful goodbye
Turn away from me.
Go, ride away in peace
And leave me here
Our short time together
Always left me wondering
Was there something else
Something you tried to say?
Could not find the words?
I love you, with meaning
Would have been sufficient.
But those words
Did not fall
From your lips
Take your journey
Enjoy your trip
Knowing I am here
Wishing for you, peace.
Rest in Peace, Mother. Sylvia Eleanor (Hunter) Hartman passed August 14th, 2012. She was 90 years old.
It has taken me a while to put it up, as I am still trying to understand everything that her life, and her death, mean to me.
Mother
It’s 0300 in my world
Don’t have a clue about yours
I’m wide awake and enjoying
The aches and pains of age.
Loud crickets, circling bats
Neighbors with restless pets
Fire trucks, police cars
Fill the empty night.
I know what’s coming,
I see the headlamp
Of the approaching train
No way to stop it, slow it down.
It’s on a schedule
No man wrote
Our time is determined
By another, not by us.
In His grace,
We are born
With His grace, we live
By His order, we die.
Restless, you roll the halls
Looking for salvation
As I study Holy Script
Looking for a reason.
I come up empty
Like so many years ago
When you thought you had the power
To call His wrath down on me.
When the train pulls
Into your station
And you climb aboard
No backward glance.
That’s your style
Tight lips, no wave
No long sorrowful goodbye
Turn away from me.
Go, ride away in peace
And leave me here
Our short time together
Always left me wondering
Was there something else
Something you tried to say?
Could not find the words?
I love you, with meaning
Would have been sufficient.
But those words
Did not fall
From your lips
Take your journey
Enjoy your trip
Knowing I am here
Wishing for you, peace.
Rest in Peace, Mother. Sylvia Eleanor (Hunter) Hartman passed August 14th, 2012. She was 90 years old.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Father's Day 2012
It’s Father’s Day, 2012. I’m sitting on my deck, cold glass of wine and a pipe at hand. Today has been quiet, and good; I had a wonderful hike with my wife and our dog, at a little known canyon on the east side of the Salt Lake Valley. The hike was in lush, green country, filled with ferns and deciduous trees; oaks, cottonwoods, and maples fill this canyon. In a very short time, we had reached a point where you could not hear any sounds of “civilization.” While it was not an easy hike (we gained 1600 feet in 1 hour); it was well worth the trip.
Perhaps what I enjoyed most about this particular hike was how quickly it brought me back to similar hikes with my children, who are both adults with spouses and children of their own. In the brief time we were the “controlling parents” Kathleen and I tried, with a good degree of success, to instill in our children a love of nature, all its beauty, and the values of being a family, enjoying and understanding life and its rewards. The reward, now achieved, is watching our children now do the same entertainments with their own children, and listening with joy to our grandchildren explaining with happiness the various walks, trips and family camaraderie enjoyed and remembered by all.
More than all of that, however, is the positive feeling I have for the success of our children. They have found love, companionship, and comfort with a person they are comfortable with. Our children have enjoyed becoming adults, spouses, and parents; and really, what more can a father ask for?
Being a parent is not easy! There really are no “guidebooks” for the role we play as parents. We can only try, with greater or lesser success, to bring forth the best we had as youth, and use our best skills to improve on what our own parents taught us. In this process, we analyze what the experiences of our own youth gave us, and selectively use the positive and discard the negative. Certainly, I have watched with pleasure as our children matured and eventually became parents in their own right. They will, I am sure, choose different paths for their families that we did, and I am also certain they will be very successful in their decision.
It’s good to be a father, and even better to be a grandfather! To all of the fathers that read this post, congratulations! I raise a glass in a toast to all of us! (Oh, yes, mothers also, but this is Fathers Day!)
Enjoy!
Perhaps what I enjoyed most about this particular hike was how quickly it brought me back to similar hikes with my children, who are both adults with spouses and children of their own. In the brief time we were the “controlling parents” Kathleen and I tried, with a good degree of success, to instill in our children a love of nature, all its beauty, and the values of being a family, enjoying and understanding life and its rewards. The reward, now achieved, is watching our children now do the same entertainments with their own children, and listening with joy to our grandchildren explaining with happiness the various walks, trips and family camaraderie enjoyed and remembered by all.
More than all of that, however, is the positive feeling I have for the success of our children. They have found love, companionship, and comfort with a person they are comfortable with. Our children have enjoyed becoming adults, spouses, and parents; and really, what more can a father ask for?
Being a parent is not easy! There really are no “guidebooks” for the role we play as parents. We can only try, with greater or lesser success, to bring forth the best we had as youth, and use our best skills to improve on what our own parents taught us. In this process, we analyze what the experiences of our own youth gave us, and selectively use the positive and discard the negative. Certainly, I have watched with pleasure as our children matured and eventually became parents in their own right. They will, I am sure, choose different paths for their families that we did, and I am also certain they will be very successful in their decision.
It’s good to be a father, and even better to be a grandfather! To all of the fathers that read this post, congratulations! I raise a glass in a toast to all of us! (Oh, yes, mothers also, but this is Fathers Day!)
Enjoy!
Thursday, June 14, 2012
An "Administrative Rule Change" with bad effects
An administrative rule change to a recent Utah law will have a negative impact on the children of a household receiving TANF or “welfare” funds. This rule change, in plain English, allows the Department of Workforce Services to deny funds to the entire household if one or more members of the household fails to comply with the mandatory drug testing/rehabilitation requirements of Utah law. The intent of the rule change is, perhaps, admirable; it requires all the adults in the household to be clean from illegal substances in order to receive TANF assistance. The effect of the law is not so honorable; in fact, it goes against the oft-stated “family values” of Utah.
In brief, the law requires all adults who file for TANF assistance to complete a questionnaire that will determine if the individual is potentially using illegal substances. If the answers indicate a potential drug abuse issue, the person must then submit to a drug screening; failure to pass the screening results in one of two outcomes: the individual must enter rehab and successfully pass subsequent drug screenings, or the funds are denied to the entire household. “Individuals in the household who have been disqualified from the receipt of assistance because of an IPV are also required to complete a substance abuse questionnaire and otherwise comply with this section.” (R986-200-221. Drug Testing Requirements, Section 1)
The rule, as stated, does not specify the ages of those “required to complete…” etc. one can only (naively) hope that the questionnaire would not be administrated to minors unable to comprehend the implications of the questionnaire; however, that is not germane to my opposition of this rule.
This unforeseen (?) “rule change” to the law that was passed by the legislature would deny ALL benefits to a household if ANY member of the household is not in compliance with the illegal substance issues. To deny children food, medical care, etc. based upon one or more adult’s addiction is inhumane, if not cruel; and it will have long-reaching, negative social-economic effects. To wit: when Johnny goes to school, and the teacher observes unusual behavior; upon discussion she finds the family cannot feed the children and, as required by Utah law, she informs the Division of Family Services. The children are subsequently removed from the home and become wards of the court. Thereafter, they may or may not be placed in foster homes, or adopted (together or separately); they may stay “in the system” until adulthood. The “state” -you and I- will be paying for the cost associated with this “care” including but not limited to the attorneys, court costs, DFS workers, medical care, etc.
Alternatively, the parents may decide to take other negative directions, perhaps to crime to support the children (and, yes their own habits); they may decide to abuse or abandon the children and/or each other. Again, there are negative social-economic results.
I support the intent of the law passed by our governing body; an adult that uses illegal drugs should not receive the benefit of our society’s generosity to the deserving unemployed/underemployed. However, I do not support, nor will I stand by idle, while an agency changes the rules to have a negative impact on children who have no voice.
To Kristen Cox, Executive Director Division of Workforce Services, do NOT implement this “rule change!”
To the citizens of Utah, please contact your legislative representatives, and let them know you do not approve of the agency’s changes to the law.
To those of you outside of Utah who may read this article: be very aware of what is happening in your own state.
Thank you for reading, please feel free to respond.
In brief, the law requires all adults who file for TANF assistance to complete a questionnaire that will determine if the individual is potentially using illegal substances. If the answers indicate a potential drug abuse issue, the person must then submit to a drug screening; failure to pass the screening results in one of two outcomes: the individual must enter rehab and successfully pass subsequent drug screenings, or the funds are denied to the entire household. “Individuals in the household who have been disqualified from the receipt of assistance because of an IPV are also required to complete a substance abuse questionnaire and otherwise comply with this section.” (R986-200-221. Drug Testing Requirements, Section 1)
The rule, as stated, does not specify the ages of those “required to complete…” etc. one can only (naively) hope that the questionnaire would not be administrated to minors unable to comprehend the implications of the questionnaire; however, that is not germane to my opposition of this rule.
This unforeseen (?) “rule change” to the law that was passed by the legislature would deny ALL benefits to a household if ANY member of the household is not in compliance with the illegal substance issues. To deny children food, medical care, etc. based upon one or more adult’s addiction is inhumane, if not cruel; and it will have long-reaching, negative social-economic effects. To wit: when Johnny goes to school, and the teacher observes unusual behavior; upon discussion she finds the family cannot feed the children and, as required by Utah law, she informs the Division of Family Services. The children are subsequently removed from the home and become wards of the court. Thereafter, they may or may not be placed in foster homes, or adopted (together or separately); they may stay “in the system” until adulthood. The “state” -you and I- will be paying for the cost associated with this “care” including but not limited to the attorneys, court costs, DFS workers, medical care, etc.
Alternatively, the parents may decide to take other negative directions, perhaps to crime to support the children (and, yes their own habits); they may decide to abuse or abandon the children and/or each other. Again, there are negative social-economic results.
I support the intent of the law passed by our governing body; an adult that uses illegal drugs should not receive the benefit of our society’s generosity to the deserving unemployed/underemployed. However, I do not support, nor will I stand by idle, while an agency changes the rules to have a negative impact on children who have no voice.
To Kristen Cox, Executive Director Division of Workforce Services, do NOT implement this “rule change!”
To the citizens of Utah, please contact your legislative representatives, and let them know you do not approve of the agency’s changes to the law.
To those of you outside of Utah who may read this article: be very aware of what is happening in your own state.
Thank you for reading, please feel free to respond.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Easter morning
“Some men, they drink up their whiskey
Some men, they drink up their wine
They drink till their eyes are red with hate
For those of a different kind”
Today is April 8, 2012. It is Easter Sunday, for those who follow the Christian religion. (Disclaimer: I am one.) It is a “High Holy Day.” On this day, with its particular significance, I woke with the quote above ringing loud and clear in my head.
We have become a nation divided, rather than a nation united. For reasons I do not understand, we seek to point out how one group or another is “different” than we are; perhaps they worship in a different manner (or not at all), dress differently, have a different political/social view, skin color, or have affections we don’t share. Our politicians currently seek, not unsuccessfully, to divide us with these differences and fuel distrust -even hatred- of those “not like us.”
Rather than work on the many serious issues that face our country and our world at this time of severe economic and social change, they loudly proclaim their indignation at those of a different kind. Our elected, or want to be elected, representatives seek to draw our attention away from major problems and focus us instead on scapegoats they easily find in our society. As a model of government, they are adopting Hitler’s Reichstagsgebäude, rather than a democratic solution to the real problems we face.
This is wrong. The American people do not want, or need, to hear how this or that group is “causing” our problems. Rather, the real Americans want to hear and discuss how we can work together to resolve the issues we face, be they economic, social, or environmental.
Americans today face very real problems. We have a troubled economy, wars for reasons we are unsure of, social unrest fueled by 24/7 media coverage, and a populus rift with societal differences. The last things we need are arguments over a woman’s right to her own body, a candidate’s religion, or the right of adults to love their chosen partners.
America is a young, vibrant country. We are the worlds first true democracy, and as such, we can reasonably expect changes in how our democracy is defined, how it works for all of us. What we need are politicians who lead, social discourse that is inclusive rather than exclusive, and an acceptance of facts rather than fears.
My prayer this Easter morning is from Mark 12, verse 31: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”.
Some men, they drink up their wine
They drink till their eyes are red with hate
For those of a different kind”
Today is April 8, 2012. It is Easter Sunday, for those who follow the Christian religion. (Disclaimer: I am one.) It is a “High Holy Day.” On this day, with its particular significance, I woke with the quote above ringing loud and clear in my head.
We have become a nation divided, rather than a nation united. For reasons I do not understand, we seek to point out how one group or another is “different” than we are; perhaps they worship in a different manner (or not at all), dress differently, have a different political/social view, skin color, or have affections we don’t share. Our politicians currently seek, not unsuccessfully, to divide us with these differences and fuel distrust -even hatred- of those “not like us.”
Rather than work on the many serious issues that face our country and our world at this time of severe economic and social change, they loudly proclaim their indignation at those of a different kind. Our elected, or want to be elected, representatives seek to draw our attention away from major problems and focus us instead on scapegoats they easily find in our society. As a model of government, they are adopting Hitler’s Reichstagsgebäude, rather than a democratic solution to the real problems we face.
This is wrong. The American people do not want, or need, to hear how this or that group is “causing” our problems. Rather, the real Americans want to hear and discuss how we can work together to resolve the issues we face, be they economic, social, or environmental.
Americans today face very real problems. We have a troubled economy, wars for reasons we are unsure of, social unrest fueled by 24/7 media coverage, and a populus rift with societal differences. The last things we need are arguments over a woman’s right to her own body, a candidate’s religion, or the right of adults to love their chosen partners.
America is a young, vibrant country. We are the worlds first true democracy, and as such, we can reasonably expect changes in how our democracy is defined, how it works for all of us. What we need are politicians who lead, social discourse that is inclusive rather than exclusive, and an acceptance of facts rather than fears.
My prayer this Easter morning is from Mark 12, verse 31: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Another Sailor Slides Beneath the Waves
I’ve spent the greater part of today looking at pictures, sorting out memories. Memories of a person, not known outside of his own family and small circle of friends and acquaintances; a person who tried, and in my opinion succeeded, to get past a rough childhood and became a viable part of society.
He was born in post-WWII America, perhaps one of those “War’s over” babies, to a couple with some baggage and not a lot of resources. When the marriage faltered, then broke, he was placed in an orphanage because neither parent had the means to take care of him and his step-brother. After the father remarried, he took the young boy and his step-brother to live with his new wife and baby in a small town where hopefully they could become a family. It didn’t quiet work out like the picture-perfect 1950’s family.
There was not a lot of financial stability, and “back then” there were no social workers to check on the children and oversee the blending process. Mistakes were made by all involved, mistakes that would surface much later in revolt, distrust, and violence.
Time, in it’s normal fashion, passed, and two more children were added to the family, and the step-brother left. The young boy became a teen-ager, and typical for rural families, worked on a ranch, raising cattle and hogs, driving a tractor and baling hay. He was not enchanted with high school, and ditched classes to spend time with friends. Those events generally ended with a “strapping” by his father, who in his own way wanted the boy to be a better person then he had himself been. (The father had never entered a high school.) As a teenager, he engaged in “pranks” of minor or major importance, and again, those that were caught ended with sad consequences. He had developed a few close friends, and they became, over time, inseparable in good and bad.
War had broken out in Korea, and the family’s nightly ritual was the evening news during dinner. “Better dead than red” was the father’s motto. The young man had gone to work for a local timber company, cutting trees to feed an ever-growing demand for wood to build homes for the post-WWII families. Fast-forward to the Vietnam conflict, and the draft. Certain he would be found 4-F during his physical, he and his two best friends went for the physical. All three passed, and all three joined up in the US Navy to avoid (they hoped) ground duty in Vietnam.
His father deserted the family in 1964, leaving the mother with four children, a stack of bills, and no money. The sailor sent a portion of his pay home each month to help with the family. His tours of duty saw a violence he could not imagine, and could not escape. Leave was at times difficult; he had learned to sleep with a k-bar under his pillow. The family was cautioned never to touch him while he slept, as he would react in an aggressive manner. He didn’t talk a lot about what he had seen, but he tried, during leaves, to be sure his siblings understood the world was not as safe as it seemed.
After his discharge from the navy, he drifted in and out of relationships, and in and out of his adopted family, never seeming able to create for himself a safe place. He finally settled in Florida, with a person that felt good, and established himself. He worked in several different industries, hampered by a lack of education, and always haunted by his past. His constant connection with his family was his step-mothers sister, she had long-before married the rancher he worked for as a youth.
I re-connected with my brother during a business trip to Florida in 2004. Over several trips, he told me of his life, and of his struggles. While I accept that his was only one side of the story, I came to understand him better. He gave me insight into the life he had, and I can only be grateful for his time on earth.
Harry Edward Hartman, Jr. passed on March 23, 2012, to a better life. May he rest in peace.
He was born in post-WWII America, perhaps one of those “War’s over” babies, to a couple with some baggage and not a lot of resources. When the marriage faltered, then broke, he was placed in an orphanage because neither parent had the means to take care of him and his step-brother. After the father remarried, he took the young boy and his step-brother to live with his new wife and baby in a small town where hopefully they could become a family. It didn’t quiet work out like the picture-perfect 1950’s family.
There was not a lot of financial stability, and “back then” there were no social workers to check on the children and oversee the blending process. Mistakes were made by all involved, mistakes that would surface much later in revolt, distrust, and violence.
Time, in it’s normal fashion, passed, and two more children were added to the family, and the step-brother left. The young boy became a teen-ager, and typical for rural families, worked on a ranch, raising cattle and hogs, driving a tractor and baling hay. He was not enchanted with high school, and ditched classes to spend time with friends. Those events generally ended with a “strapping” by his father, who in his own way wanted the boy to be a better person then he had himself been. (The father had never entered a high school.) As a teenager, he engaged in “pranks” of minor or major importance, and again, those that were caught ended with sad consequences. He had developed a few close friends, and they became, over time, inseparable in good and bad.
War had broken out in Korea, and the family’s nightly ritual was the evening news during dinner. “Better dead than red” was the father’s motto. The young man had gone to work for a local timber company, cutting trees to feed an ever-growing demand for wood to build homes for the post-WWII families. Fast-forward to the Vietnam conflict, and the draft. Certain he would be found 4-F during his physical, he and his two best friends went for the physical. All three passed, and all three joined up in the US Navy to avoid (they hoped) ground duty in Vietnam.
His father deserted the family in 1964, leaving the mother with four children, a stack of bills, and no money. The sailor sent a portion of his pay home each month to help with the family. His tours of duty saw a violence he could not imagine, and could not escape. Leave was at times difficult; he had learned to sleep with a k-bar under his pillow. The family was cautioned never to touch him while he slept, as he would react in an aggressive manner. He didn’t talk a lot about what he had seen, but he tried, during leaves, to be sure his siblings understood the world was not as safe as it seemed.
After his discharge from the navy, he drifted in and out of relationships, and in and out of his adopted family, never seeming able to create for himself a safe place. He finally settled in Florida, with a person that felt good, and established himself. He worked in several different industries, hampered by a lack of education, and always haunted by his past. His constant connection with his family was his step-mothers sister, she had long-before married the rancher he worked for as a youth.
I re-connected with my brother during a business trip to Florida in 2004. Over several trips, he told me of his life, and of his struggles. While I accept that his was only one side of the story, I came to understand him better. He gave me insight into the life he had, and I can only be grateful for his time on earth.
Harry Edward Hartman, Jr. passed on March 23, 2012, to a better life. May he rest in peace.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
About Last Night
It was great, really great! I can’t recall feeling so excited, renewed, and so positive after just a couple short hours. The attention was incredible! And just think: all without food or drink being used to get us together. You could legitimately state that it was even influenced by a Higher Power, as it was in part due to words spoken last Sunday.
No, “that” is not what I am referring to. I am referring to the larger-than-normal turnout at the Democratic Caucuses on Tuesday, March 13th, in Utah. The Salt Lake Tribune reported this morning that a room designed to hold 300 had over 500 in attendance. In the caucus I attended, the numbers were more than 4 times larger than any of the past decade’s turnouts. My precinct alone had 4 times its normal attendance. What factors could possibly have caused such a turnout? Being more than a little curious, I asked several of the new attendees why they had chosen to attend this year. There were two common responses; first, to be expected, is that the individual was tired of not having a voice in the selection of candidates; second, that there had been a letter, read in each of the last three Sundays, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints wished its members to take a more active role in the caucus of the party of their choice.
Of the former reason, one could reasonably predict people would more concerned than in the past regarding the political process in Utah. The past several years have seen an increase in disconnect between what the people want, and what our elected officials have passed into law. (The much ballyhooed open records law (GRAMA) that passed, was signed, then withdrawn after a huge public outcry; the argument over tuition “vouchers” for private schools, paid for by public school money; and the “no sex sex-ed” bill all come to mind.) Our state was redistricted without any attempt to listen to the voluminous, boisterous public input, by a legislature catering to the needs of the majority political party rather than the desires of the populace for local representation. Senator Bob Bennett was forced out by a group whose only desire was for a hard right-leaning senator rather than looking at the good moderate Senator Bennett had done for all of Utah. These are all good reasons for people to attend the caucus of their choice, and take active part in the selection of delegates to the county and state conventions, followed by active voter participation come Election Day.
The second group had different reasons and concerns. I heard from several people that “the Church says we need to get more involved, so that is why I am here.” One person commented, “I have always been a Democrat, but now I am told it’s ok if we participate. We need to move away from a 1-party state.” One wonders why it is “now” ok to participate, why “now” we need to move away from one-party control. The selection, and election, of our state and local law-makers needs the input of all citizens if the policies and laws are to be truly what is in the best interest of the governed. In my opinion, this is not something new, something that “now” needs to be addressed; this process should have been at the fore-front of the religious leaders since the state was created. Rule in any place by a single party only having token participation by a loyal opposition, is not rule of the peoples; it is rule by fiat, by ideology rather than rule by democracy. If in fact it was the statements from the Church leaders that induced these newcomers to take part in the process, I say thank you (to the Church) for making a point that was obviously heard regarding a citizen’s right & duty to participate. I also say, what took the Church so long to arrive at this point? What kept this life-long Democrat from participating before? I have no known answers to these questions.
As grandmother used to say, “The proof is in the pudding.” If these newly-enfranchised individuals follow through on last nights actions, and continue to grow the ranks and activities of the political parties in Utah, then a major good has been achieved. I can only hope that holds true.
No, “that” is not what I am referring to. I am referring to the larger-than-normal turnout at the Democratic Caucuses on Tuesday, March 13th, in Utah. The Salt Lake Tribune reported this morning that a room designed to hold 300 had over 500 in attendance. In the caucus I attended, the numbers were more than 4 times larger than any of the past decade’s turnouts. My precinct alone had 4 times its normal attendance. What factors could possibly have caused such a turnout? Being more than a little curious, I asked several of the new attendees why they had chosen to attend this year. There were two common responses; first, to be expected, is that the individual was tired of not having a voice in the selection of candidates; second, that there had been a letter, read in each of the last three Sundays, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints wished its members to take a more active role in the caucus of the party of their choice.
Of the former reason, one could reasonably predict people would more concerned than in the past regarding the political process in Utah. The past several years have seen an increase in disconnect between what the people want, and what our elected officials have passed into law. (The much ballyhooed open records law (GRAMA) that passed, was signed, then withdrawn after a huge public outcry; the argument over tuition “vouchers” for private schools, paid for by public school money; and the “no sex sex-ed” bill all come to mind.) Our state was redistricted without any attempt to listen to the voluminous, boisterous public input, by a legislature catering to the needs of the majority political party rather than the desires of the populace for local representation. Senator Bob Bennett was forced out by a group whose only desire was for a hard right-leaning senator rather than looking at the good moderate Senator Bennett had done for all of Utah. These are all good reasons for people to attend the caucus of their choice, and take active part in the selection of delegates to the county and state conventions, followed by active voter participation come Election Day.
The second group had different reasons and concerns. I heard from several people that “the Church says we need to get more involved, so that is why I am here.” One person commented, “I have always been a Democrat, but now I am told it’s ok if we participate. We need to move away from a 1-party state.” One wonders why it is “now” ok to participate, why “now” we need to move away from one-party control. The selection, and election, of our state and local law-makers needs the input of all citizens if the policies and laws are to be truly what is in the best interest of the governed. In my opinion, this is not something new, something that “now” needs to be addressed; this process should have been at the fore-front of the religious leaders since the state was created. Rule in any place by a single party only having token participation by a loyal opposition, is not rule of the peoples; it is rule by fiat, by ideology rather than rule by democracy. If in fact it was the statements from the Church leaders that induced these newcomers to take part in the process, I say thank you (to the Church) for making a point that was obviously heard regarding a citizen’s right & duty to participate. I also say, what took the Church so long to arrive at this point? What kept this life-long Democrat from participating before? I have no known answers to these questions.
As grandmother used to say, “The proof is in the pudding.” If these newly-enfranchised individuals follow through on last nights actions, and continue to grow the ranks and activities of the political parties in Utah, then a major good has been achieved. I can only hope that holds true.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
"My Voice Doesn't Count"
For those who say “my voice doesn’t count”, here’s a new flash.: Forty-three (43) advertisers (as of 3/7/12) have pulled their advertisements off “The Rush Limbaugh Show” because of consumer demands.
AccuQuote Life Insurance, Allstate Insurance, AOL, Aquarium of the Pacific, Bare Escentuals, Bethesda Sedation Dentistry, Bonobos, Capital One, Carbonite, Cascades Dental, Citrix, Consolidated Credit Counseling Services, Constant Contact, Cunningham Security, Freedom Debt Relief, Geico, Girl Scouts, Goodwill Industries, Hadeed Carpet, JCPenney, Legal Zoom, Matrix Direct, Netflix, Norway Savings Bank, O’Reilly Auto Parts, Philadelphia Orchestra, PolyCom, Portland Ovations, ProFlowers, Quicken Loans, Regal Assets, Reputation Rhino, RSVP Discount Beverage, Sears, Sensa, Service Magic, Sleep Train, Sleep Number, St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Tax Resolution, Thompson Creek Windows, TurboTax and Vitacost.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73675.html#ixzz1oXS5Nhgf
We all have heard of Mr. Limbaugh’s comments, and thousands of consumers have reacted by asking/demanding that the companies who were his financial support stop advertising on his program, or they would take their business elsewhere. You may, or may not, have been one of the consumers that complained; that really does not matter for this discussion. What does matter, in my opinion, is that this power-the power to rapidly affect large, multi-national corporations- is much bigger than most of us accept. A “consumer voice” which, if you will, could be used for other salutory effects. Letters, emails, phone calls, social media- all were part of this rejection of nasty, gutter-level politics.
This overwhelming vocalization was the effect of non-organized, grass-roots action.
Imagine now if “we the people” would get as fired up and start letting our so-called “elected officials” in federal, state and local governments know we are dissatisfied with the decisions they make while in office. People got upset, angry, and decided by damn to let their voices be heard, loud and clear.
Can we as citizens get as fired up, as angry about what is being done to us, to our country, our freedoms? Will we? More importantly, will you? You can make a difference, you can let your voice be heard. The time is now, and the need is urgent. This is OUR country, it is OUR government, and we need to make OUR voices heard.
Unless, of course, you are totally satisfied with the status quo.
AccuQuote Life Insurance, Allstate Insurance, AOL, Aquarium of the Pacific, Bare Escentuals, Bethesda Sedation Dentistry, Bonobos, Capital One, Carbonite, Cascades Dental, Citrix, Consolidated Credit Counseling Services, Constant Contact, Cunningham Security, Freedom Debt Relief, Geico, Girl Scouts, Goodwill Industries, Hadeed Carpet, JCPenney, Legal Zoom, Matrix Direct, Netflix, Norway Savings Bank, O’Reilly Auto Parts, Philadelphia Orchestra, PolyCom, Portland Ovations, ProFlowers, Quicken Loans, Regal Assets, Reputation Rhino, RSVP Discount Beverage, Sears, Sensa, Service Magic, Sleep Train, Sleep Number, St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Tax Resolution, Thompson Creek Windows, TurboTax and Vitacost.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73675.html#ixzz1oXS5Nhgf
We all have heard of Mr. Limbaugh’s comments, and thousands of consumers have reacted by asking/demanding that the companies who were his financial support stop advertising on his program, or they would take their business elsewhere. You may, or may not, have been one of the consumers that complained; that really does not matter for this discussion. What does matter, in my opinion, is that this power-the power to rapidly affect large, multi-national corporations- is much bigger than most of us accept. A “consumer voice” which, if you will, could be used for other salutory effects. Letters, emails, phone calls, social media- all were part of this rejection of nasty, gutter-level politics.
This overwhelming vocalization was the effect of non-organized, grass-roots action.
Imagine now if “we the people” would get as fired up and start letting our so-called “elected officials” in federal, state and local governments know we are dissatisfied with the decisions they make while in office. People got upset, angry, and decided by damn to let their voices be heard, loud and clear.
Can we as citizens get as fired up, as angry about what is being done to us, to our country, our freedoms? Will we? More importantly, will you? You can make a difference, you can let your voice be heard. The time is now, and the need is urgent. This is OUR country, it is OUR government, and we need to make OUR voices heard.
Unless, of course, you are totally satisfied with the status quo.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Education vs Coal
My latest “Letter to the Editor” published in the Sale Lake Tribune March 3, 2012.
-SB31, which would have reduced class size in grades K-3 in our public schools, was killed in committee because, “It’s a good program, but it’s an unfunded mandate and in the future they’ll be back here asking us for money or there will be multitude of problems,” said Rep. Wayne Harper, R-West Jordan.
Well, here’s a possible solution: Fund the bill, using the money we will otherwise be throwing away to “take back” federal property in Utah. -
“This week, the Utah House passed a package of bills that demands that the federal government surrender ownership to the state of more than 30 million acres of federal land. If Congress fails to act on the demand, money has been set aside to initiate a lawsuit and permission granted to take other, undefined sovereign actions. The measures are intended to dismantle a national monument, free up trillions of dollars in oil, gas and coal reserves, and give the state authority to set conditions for the use of national parks.” (Salt lake Tribune, March 3, 2012) In a state strapped for cash, where is this money that has been “set aside” coming from? (My comment, not published)
Here’s some background information. Utah consists of, in round numbers, 54 million acres; more 30 million are owned by the United States Government, which pays no state property taxes. The most notable sections of US Government land are: Arches, Bryce, Canyonlands, Capital Reef and Zion National Parks (a total of 837,910 acres); National Forest properties including: Ashley, Cache, Dixie, Fishlake, Manti-La Sal, Sawtooth, Uinta, and Wasatch-Cache National Forests (a total of 8.2 million acres). Utah is home to Hill Air Force Base, Dugway Proving Ground, the Toole Army Depot, and Utah Test and Training Range, numerous government buildings (including an IRS complex); additionally the BLM administers 29.9 million acres which includes the Grand Staircase National Monument (1.9 million Acres). In my opinion, it is this 1.9 million acres in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument that creates the largest heartache for Utah legislatures.
In September 1996, President Bill Clinton (not well-liked in Utah), citing the Antiquities Act, established the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (as well as the Vermillion Cliffs National Monument, in Arizona) while visiting Grand Canyon National Park. The Utah congressional delegation and the Utah Governor were only given 24 hours advance notice of President Clinton’s plan. At the heart of the issue was a planned exploration of coal resources (The Andalex Coal Mine) which would have created jobs and business in an economically distressed part of Utah. Environmentalists were concerned that many sites of value would be destroyed by the mining operations. Additionally, there was concern that air pollution created by the mining operations would sacrifice air quality over the Arches, Bryce, Canyonlands and Zion National Parks. (Since 2000, numerous dinosaur fossils have been found in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument; one a new species Gryposaurus monumentensis and two ceratopsid (horned) species. All of these were found in the area that would have been impacted by the proposed Andalex mine.)
The arguments from both sides are understandable to the thinking individual. Environmentalists are concerned about the damage created by a strip mining operation (such as Andalex proposed); the deterioration of air quality over our National Parks, and the collateral damage of heavy equipment rolling over roads not designed for such use. The Andalex plan had not discussed recovery of the land after mining, the disposition of overburden, or the damage to roads. Neither the state or the proposed mine had put into place any plans for infrastructure improvements, such as housing, schools, water and waste facilities, or noise and pollution abatements. Having lived and worked in a “boom town” environment (Rock Springs, Wyoming); and having studied and seen firsthand the damage done to “boom town” areas, I do understand the concerns raised by the environmental side.
I also understand the economic issues. My family has visited these areas many times, and I have worked with utilities in the area. The promise of good-paying jobs, the lure of new businesses, new opportunities, and increased property values, does have a high luster to people in the area. The proposed Andalex mine would definitely create a great, fast wealth for the communities in the area. Additional oil and gas exploration in the areas would only expand the growth, and the potential revenues, from both personal and taxation-value positions. Certainly, there are arguments on both sides that need to be discussed. Definitely, the mineral resources on the Kaiparowits Plateau should be open for discussion. Without a doubt, there are items of antiquity on the plateau that should be preserved. But, these need to be items of discussion, learned discourse, not unwinable lawsuits that only damage our State’s reputation and economic viability.
But here is the problem for this latest group of “bills” from the Utah Legislature: The U.S. Constitution, the Utah State Constitution, and the Utah State Enabling Act -all three- forbid the state from seeking control of federal lands and all three protect the right of the federal government to hold land it has claimed. If these bills pass the Utah Senate, the State of Utah (that’s you and I, fellow tax-payers of Utah) will pay to defend these message bills until they are thrown out by at least two courts of proper jurisdiction. Additionally, the United States Government will spend money (That’s you and I, fellow tax-payers of the United States), to defeat Utah’s claim. The legal advice to the Utah House and Senate said, in so many words, don’t do this. We are wasting money, money that should be spent on education. This is very short-sighted, irresponsible, and ridiculous legislation. If our state legislature wants to open a discussion about these issues with “Washington,” by all means do so, in a proper manner, through open, proper channels. Don’t waste our limited financial resources on lawsuits Utah will ineveitably lose.
This has the appearance of ”bought and paid for” legislation. Big money interests, namely coal and oil developers, would love to have these areas open to exploration. Our legislature is bowing down to the money, the greed of these developers. They are doing so without regard to the potential impact on the environment, to the children and grandchildren of those people living in the area, and without regard to long-stand federal laws. In doing this, they are making a desperate, sad plea for the coal and oil developers to keep money coming into their campaign funds, perhaps into their own pockets. It’s wrong, in my opinion, and it will cost the taxpayers of Utah dearly over the next several years. The money we will waste would be put to much better use if funneled into education, such as reducing class size.
Your comments and opinions are welcome, as always.
-SB31, which would have reduced class size in grades K-3 in our public schools, was killed in committee because, “It’s a good program, but it’s an unfunded mandate and in the future they’ll be back here asking us for money or there will be multitude of problems,” said Rep. Wayne Harper, R-West Jordan.
Well, here’s a possible solution: Fund the bill, using the money we will otherwise be throwing away to “take back” federal property in Utah. -
“This week, the Utah House passed a package of bills that demands that the federal government surrender ownership to the state of more than 30 million acres of federal land. If Congress fails to act on the demand, money has been set aside to initiate a lawsuit and permission granted to take other, undefined sovereign actions. The measures are intended to dismantle a national monument, free up trillions of dollars in oil, gas and coal reserves, and give the state authority to set conditions for the use of national parks.” (Salt lake Tribune, March 3, 2012) In a state strapped for cash, where is this money that has been “set aside” coming from? (My comment, not published)
Here’s some background information. Utah consists of, in round numbers, 54 million acres; more 30 million are owned by the United States Government, which pays no state property taxes. The most notable sections of US Government land are: Arches, Bryce, Canyonlands, Capital Reef and Zion National Parks (a total of 837,910 acres); National Forest properties including: Ashley, Cache, Dixie, Fishlake, Manti-La Sal, Sawtooth, Uinta, and Wasatch-Cache National Forests (a total of 8.2 million acres). Utah is home to Hill Air Force Base, Dugway Proving Ground, the Toole Army Depot, and Utah Test and Training Range, numerous government buildings (including an IRS complex); additionally the BLM administers 29.9 million acres which includes the Grand Staircase National Monument (1.9 million Acres). In my opinion, it is this 1.9 million acres in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument that creates the largest heartache for Utah legislatures.
In September 1996, President Bill Clinton (not well-liked in Utah), citing the Antiquities Act, established the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (as well as the Vermillion Cliffs National Monument, in Arizona) while visiting Grand Canyon National Park. The Utah congressional delegation and the Utah Governor were only given 24 hours advance notice of President Clinton’s plan. At the heart of the issue was a planned exploration of coal resources (The Andalex Coal Mine) which would have created jobs and business in an economically distressed part of Utah. Environmentalists were concerned that many sites of value would be destroyed by the mining operations. Additionally, there was concern that air pollution created by the mining operations would sacrifice air quality over the Arches, Bryce, Canyonlands and Zion National Parks. (Since 2000, numerous dinosaur fossils have been found in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument; one a new species Gryposaurus monumentensis and two ceratopsid (horned) species. All of these were found in the area that would have been impacted by the proposed Andalex mine.)
The arguments from both sides are understandable to the thinking individual. Environmentalists are concerned about the damage created by a strip mining operation (such as Andalex proposed); the deterioration of air quality over our National Parks, and the collateral damage of heavy equipment rolling over roads not designed for such use. The Andalex plan had not discussed recovery of the land after mining, the disposition of overburden, or the damage to roads. Neither the state or the proposed mine had put into place any plans for infrastructure improvements, such as housing, schools, water and waste facilities, or noise and pollution abatements. Having lived and worked in a “boom town” environment (Rock Springs, Wyoming); and having studied and seen firsthand the damage done to “boom town” areas, I do understand the concerns raised by the environmental side.
I also understand the economic issues. My family has visited these areas many times, and I have worked with utilities in the area. The promise of good-paying jobs, the lure of new businesses, new opportunities, and increased property values, does have a high luster to people in the area. The proposed Andalex mine would definitely create a great, fast wealth for the communities in the area. Additional oil and gas exploration in the areas would only expand the growth, and the potential revenues, from both personal and taxation-value positions. Certainly, there are arguments on both sides that need to be discussed. Definitely, the mineral resources on the Kaiparowits Plateau should be open for discussion. Without a doubt, there are items of antiquity on the plateau that should be preserved. But, these need to be items of discussion, learned discourse, not unwinable lawsuits that only damage our State’s reputation and economic viability.
But here is the problem for this latest group of “bills” from the Utah Legislature: The U.S. Constitution, the Utah State Constitution, and the Utah State Enabling Act -all three- forbid the state from seeking control of federal lands and all three protect the right of the federal government to hold land it has claimed. If these bills pass the Utah Senate, the State of Utah (that’s you and I, fellow tax-payers of Utah) will pay to defend these message bills until they are thrown out by at least two courts of proper jurisdiction. Additionally, the United States Government will spend money (That’s you and I, fellow tax-payers of the United States), to defeat Utah’s claim. The legal advice to the Utah House and Senate said, in so many words, don’t do this. We are wasting money, money that should be spent on education. This is very short-sighted, irresponsible, and ridiculous legislation. If our state legislature wants to open a discussion about these issues with “Washington,” by all means do so, in a proper manner, through open, proper channels. Don’t waste our limited financial resources on lawsuits Utah will ineveitably lose.
This has the appearance of ”bought and paid for” legislation. Big money interests, namely coal and oil developers, would love to have these areas open to exploration. Our legislature is bowing down to the money, the greed of these developers. They are doing so without regard to the potential impact on the environment, to the children and grandchildren of those people living in the area, and without regard to long-stand federal laws. In doing this, they are making a desperate, sad plea for the coal and oil developers to keep money coming into their campaign funds, perhaps into their own pockets. It’s wrong, in my opinion, and it will cost the taxpayers of Utah dearly over the next several years. The money we will waste would be put to much better use if funneled into education, such as reducing class size.
Your comments and opinions are welcome, as always.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
America the Great
When the people in our lives change, particularly without our permission, we can feel challenged, even threatened. The person you thought you knew has new ideas, new habits and/or hobbies, new concerns. Perhaps they have chosen to start exercising more and dining out less; they start bicycling and join a riding club; and you miss seeing them as often. Changing times can influence an individual to begin a new course of study, learn a different language, perhaps seek out a new philosophical direction. Certainly as we mature, we develop new perspectives, a broader world view. This is the normal course of growth in the human experience, and as individuals we should not take affront at the changes, instead we should encourage the growth of the individual. Certainly we do not expect anyone (even ourselves) to stay static, to remain in status quo. In the quiet space that exists between true friends, you ask why, what has excited them about this new idea, this new thought? Your concern regarding a friend’s new behavior is real; you want to understand the thought process underlying the paradigm shift he or she is expressing. Perhaps, in the discussion, you will find that the doctor has given them good medical reason for making changes; conditions beyond your foreknowledge may have dictated the study of a new language or a particular lifestyle. You listen, offering words of good counsel, encouragement, and positive emotion. Both of you are the better for the exchange; you now understand the reasoning for the new direction, and your friend still knows you are a true and trusted companion.
As it is with friends, so it is with countries, even ours. The United States of America has always been, is now, and will forever be, a work in progress. Over the past several decades, America has rightfully developed into arguably the worlds’ foremost, if not only, superpower. Our economic and military strengths have been on display for all the people to see. We may not “control” the world, but it cannot be said that we do not have a huge, and generally beneficial, effect on world events large and small. This time period, this military and economic “superiority” began with President Ronald Reagan and continued though President George W. Bush.
But, the time for “war” or “spreading democracy” is now passed. The powerful engine of American growth is struggling, groaning under the weight of 10 years of war, a major world-wide recession, and now near-jobless economic growth. It is more than necessary for our elected officials to return to the work of America, creating jobs and building our economy. Our President wants to take our country in a new, America-centered direction, and a percentage of the population is not comfortable with this change. Some, most notably the Republican Presidential candidates, have gone so far as to adopt “remove this President from office” as the standard response to any question such as: If you are elected President, what will you do to secure America’s border with Mexico? If you are elected President, how will you create jobs? To say, “remove this President from office,” is to not answer the question!
No, it is time for America to come together again, to unite in her common ideals and strengths; celebrate her growing diversity, and work hard to re-gain our ability to be a world leader in all aspects of national appearance. It is time for our Congressmen to reach across the isle, to work together in a bi-partisan manner, develop and pass legislation that will be in America’s, and American’s, best interest. As America has demonstrated time and again in our past, we can come together in times of war and national disaster; now it is time to come together in this era of economic stress. There is much to be done, we need an energy program that focuses on reducing our dependence on fossil fuels; a national platform and program that encourages our youth to stay in school, to become the scientists, engineers, teachers, professionals and executives; a real and workable plan to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure; in fine, a national program to improve the lives and existence of all Americans.
It has been said that the American people are not interested in voting. Why should we be, when all candidates do is tear each other down, slinging lies, half-truths, and fictions? If you wish my vote for President, Senator, Representative, State or Local office, then explain to me, and to all the citizens, how you are going to accomplish goals. Don’t give me sound-bites or platitudes; rather explain to me your ideas, your vision for America the Great. Permit me to study your platform, and allow me to understand what you will do to change America for the better. Let us have a discussion of visions, ideas and plans, rather than a Super-PAC funded mudfest. Then the American people can rationally decide who can best lead us, the Greatest Country on Earth!
(As always, comments are welcome and appreciated.)
As it is with friends, so it is with countries, even ours. The United States of America has always been, is now, and will forever be, a work in progress. Over the past several decades, America has rightfully developed into arguably the worlds’ foremost, if not only, superpower. Our economic and military strengths have been on display for all the people to see. We may not “control” the world, but it cannot be said that we do not have a huge, and generally beneficial, effect on world events large and small. This time period, this military and economic “superiority” began with President Ronald Reagan and continued though President George W. Bush.
But, the time for “war” or “spreading democracy” is now passed. The powerful engine of American growth is struggling, groaning under the weight of 10 years of war, a major world-wide recession, and now near-jobless economic growth. It is more than necessary for our elected officials to return to the work of America, creating jobs and building our economy. Our President wants to take our country in a new, America-centered direction, and a percentage of the population is not comfortable with this change. Some, most notably the Republican Presidential candidates, have gone so far as to adopt “remove this President from office” as the standard response to any question such as: If you are elected President, what will you do to secure America’s border with Mexico? If you are elected President, how will you create jobs? To say, “remove this President from office,” is to not answer the question!
No, it is time for America to come together again, to unite in her common ideals and strengths; celebrate her growing diversity, and work hard to re-gain our ability to be a world leader in all aspects of national appearance. It is time for our Congressmen to reach across the isle, to work together in a bi-partisan manner, develop and pass legislation that will be in America’s, and American’s, best interest. As America has demonstrated time and again in our past, we can come together in times of war and national disaster; now it is time to come together in this era of economic stress. There is much to be done, we need an energy program that focuses on reducing our dependence on fossil fuels; a national platform and program that encourages our youth to stay in school, to become the scientists, engineers, teachers, professionals and executives; a real and workable plan to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure; in fine, a national program to improve the lives and existence of all Americans.
It has been said that the American people are not interested in voting. Why should we be, when all candidates do is tear each other down, slinging lies, half-truths, and fictions? If you wish my vote for President, Senator, Representative, State or Local office, then explain to me, and to all the citizens, how you are going to accomplish goals. Don’t give me sound-bites or platitudes; rather explain to me your ideas, your vision for America the Great. Permit me to study your platform, and allow me to understand what you will do to change America for the better. Let us have a discussion of visions, ideas and plans, rather than a Super-PAC funded mudfest. Then the American people can rationally decide who can best lead us, the Greatest Country on Earth!
(As always, comments are welcome and appreciated.)
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Breast Exams, Birth Control, and Republicans
Two recent news articles have me very concerned relative to health care for American women. Both of these situations revolve around women’s rights, particularly the right to reasonably priced and available reproductive health care. I realize I am stepping into very volatile territory here. It is my belief that, in America, women should enjoy the same rights, freedoms, and protections that men enjoy. Your comments and criticisms are welcome, as always.
First, the Susan G. Komen Foundation announced they would no longer provide funds to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, citing a potential congressional review of Planned Parenthood’s financial practices. This review is headed by Representative Cliff Stearns, R-FL, and is encouraged by anti-abortion groups. Planned Parenthood provides, among other services, free or low-cost breast examinations, and ob-gyn examinations, for women without insurance or the ability to pay “full price” for this service. The funding Susan G. Komen Foundation provides is earmarked for these service, and its’ monies cannot be used for abortion. The question being raised in the review runs along the lines of determining if monies given to Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services are being used to provide abortions. In my opinion, this is a red herring, as Planned Parenthood's financial and operational practices were investigated in 2005 by the Bush Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services. The investigation found no irregularities in the organization’s finances or practices. In fact, Planned Parenthood Federation of America serves 3 million people annually, and only 3% of its services are abortions. After a huge public outcry, Komen reversed the decision and the funding will stay in place, for now.
Second, a policy from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requires all employers who provide employee health insurance to cover contraceptive methods, including but not limited to birth control pills, Plan-B and permanent contraceptive procedures such as sterilization, effective August 1, 2012. Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have both come out against this policy, saying it is unfair to require employers (citing the Catholic Church as an example) to be “forced” to provide insurance for items that, if used, violate religious beliefs on birth control for women. For example, if a (non-Catholic) employee of a Catholic-operated hospital, covered by employer-provided health care, wishes to purchase birth control, it is not covered by insurance. The new regulation simply mandates that this coverage be included in the health care policy. It does not demand that anyone use birth control. Bowing to political pressure, the Administration has granted a waiver to religious-based organizations (such as Catholic-operated hospitals). This waiver, in my opinion, is a step backward for the Obama Administration and a major defeat for women wishing to control their reproductive lives.
So why am I concerned about these news items? I fear that these two examples illustrate a Republican party out of touch with America, and indeed with itself. In 1970, President Richard Nixon (a Republican) signed into law the the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act. Title X of that law provides funding for family planning services, including contraception and family planning. This was passed in Congress with wide-spread bipartisan support. Liberals saw it as increasing families’ control of their lives, and conservatives saw it as a way to reduce the number of people on welfare. President Nixon stated “no American woman should be denied access to family planning because of her economic condition.” In a scant 40 years, Republicans have gone from supporting policies that would reduce the number of people on welfare to arguing that women should not have the right to determine when or if they bear children.
It is commonly accepted that proper health care, including screenings for cancer, is much less expensive that treatments for medical conditions gone unchecked. Cancer of any type is a devastating condition, physically, mentally and financially. At it’s “best”, it causes severe emotional and financial stress, at it’s worst, a painful death. It is also true that preventing unwanted pregnancies is much less expensive than having children born into families that cannot support them, or the mental, physical, and financial price of abortions. In framing the decision (to include birth control in employer-provided health care) as “forcing” women to use birth control, and “forcing” employers to include contraception in insurance polices, the Republicans are spinning this regulation as government interference with business. In doing so, they are implying that women cannot make a decision (to use birth control or not) regarding their own physical and religious beliefs. There is nothing-nothing at all- that says a woman must use birth control. The regulation does require businesses that provide insurance to include birth control in the policies. The choice-to use birth control or not-is left to the individual.
During 1999–2008, the reported abortion numbers, rates, and ratios decreased 3%, 4%, and 10%, respectively. (Source: CDC Reproductive Health, data and statistics, Jan 12, 2012). In 2008 (latest complete data year) 825,564 medically-induced abortions were performed in the United States. Slightly less than 300,000 were at Planned Parenthood clinics nation-wide. (Planned parenthood is the only nation-wide provider of abortion.) I will argue that there were 825,564 abortions that should have been prevented by availability and proper use of birth control methods. However, Republicans and “religious right”, you cannot have it both ways. Either you allow women the right to low- or no-cost birth control, or you have abortions. If you have abortions, you can choose safe, legal abortions, or we can regress in time to the “back-alley” abortions.
In the final analysis, this is one more Republican attempt to “play to the base”, to argue that the current administration, and Planned Parenthood, is pro-abortion. Nothing can be further from the truth. No one is “forcing” women to use birth control, and no one, including Planned Parenthood, is promoting abortion. All that is being done is to require employer-based plans to include the availability of birth control, and for women to have the right to a safe abortion, if that is necessary.
On a very personal basis, I would hope that if my daughter, or granddaughters, were “sexually active”, they would have access to good, truthful information regarding birth control, and if they decided that an abortion was necessary, it would be available in a safe, legal, and accepting environment.
Thank you for reading and understanding.
First, the Susan G. Komen Foundation announced they would no longer provide funds to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, citing a potential congressional review of Planned Parenthood’s financial practices. This review is headed by Representative Cliff Stearns, R-FL, and is encouraged by anti-abortion groups. Planned Parenthood provides, among other services, free or low-cost breast examinations, and ob-gyn examinations, for women without insurance or the ability to pay “full price” for this service. The funding Susan G. Komen Foundation provides is earmarked for these service, and its’ monies cannot be used for abortion. The question being raised in the review runs along the lines of determining if monies given to Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services are being used to provide abortions. In my opinion, this is a red herring, as Planned Parenthood's financial and operational practices were investigated in 2005 by the Bush Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services. The investigation found no irregularities in the organization’s finances or practices. In fact, Planned Parenthood Federation of America serves 3 million people annually, and only 3% of its services are abortions. After a huge public outcry, Komen reversed the decision and the funding will stay in place, for now.
Second, a policy from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requires all employers who provide employee health insurance to cover contraceptive methods, including but not limited to birth control pills, Plan-B and permanent contraceptive procedures such as sterilization, effective August 1, 2012. Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have both come out against this policy, saying it is unfair to require employers (citing the Catholic Church as an example) to be “forced” to provide insurance for items that, if used, violate religious beliefs on birth control for women. For example, if a (non-Catholic) employee of a Catholic-operated hospital, covered by employer-provided health care, wishes to purchase birth control, it is not covered by insurance. The new regulation simply mandates that this coverage be included in the health care policy. It does not demand that anyone use birth control. Bowing to political pressure, the Administration has granted a waiver to religious-based organizations (such as Catholic-operated hospitals). This waiver, in my opinion, is a step backward for the Obama Administration and a major defeat for women wishing to control their reproductive lives.
So why am I concerned about these news items? I fear that these two examples illustrate a Republican party out of touch with America, and indeed with itself. In 1970, President Richard Nixon (a Republican) signed into law the the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act. Title X of that law provides funding for family planning services, including contraception and family planning. This was passed in Congress with wide-spread bipartisan support. Liberals saw it as increasing families’ control of their lives, and conservatives saw it as a way to reduce the number of people on welfare. President Nixon stated “no American woman should be denied access to family planning because of her economic condition.” In a scant 40 years, Republicans have gone from supporting policies that would reduce the number of people on welfare to arguing that women should not have the right to determine when or if they bear children.
It is commonly accepted that proper health care, including screenings for cancer, is much less expensive that treatments for medical conditions gone unchecked. Cancer of any type is a devastating condition, physically, mentally and financially. At it’s “best”, it causes severe emotional and financial stress, at it’s worst, a painful death. It is also true that preventing unwanted pregnancies is much less expensive than having children born into families that cannot support them, or the mental, physical, and financial price of abortions. In framing the decision (to include birth control in employer-provided health care) as “forcing” women to use birth control, and “forcing” employers to include contraception in insurance polices, the Republicans are spinning this regulation as government interference with business. In doing so, they are implying that women cannot make a decision (to use birth control or not) regarding their own physical and religious beliefs. There is nothing-nothing at all- that says a woman must use birth control. The regulation does require businesses that provide insurance to include birth control in the policies. The choice-to use birth control or not-is left to the individual.
During 1999–2008, the reported abortion numbers, rates, and ratios decreased 3%, 4%, and 10%, respectively. (Source: CDC Reproductive Health, data and statistics, Jan 12, 2012). In 2008 (latest complete data year) 825,564 medically-induced abortions were performed in the United States. Slightly less than 300,000 were at Planned Parenthood clinics nation-wide. (Planned parenthood is the only nation-wide provider of abortion.) I will argue that there were 825,564 abortions that should have been prevented by availability and proper use of birth control methods. However, Republicans and “religious right”, you cannot have it both ways. Either you allow women the right to low- or no-cost birth control, or you have abortions. If you have abortions, you can choose safe, legal abortions, or we can regress in time to the “back-alley” abortions.
In the final analysis, this is one more Republican attempt to “play to the base”, to argue that the current administration, and Planned Parenthood, is pro-abortion. Nothing can be further from the truth. No one is “forcing” women to use birth control, and no one, including Planned Parenthood, is promoting abortion. All that is being done is to require employer-based plans to include the availability of birth control, and for women to have the right to a safe abortion, if that is necessary.
On a very personal basis, I would hope that if my daughter, or granddaughters, were “sexually active”, they would have access to good, truthful information regarding birth control, and if they decided that an abortion was necessary, it would be available in a safe, legal, and accepting environment.
Thank you for reading and understanding.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Monday, January 30, 2012
A Dominant Religion
I live in a society that has a dominant religion, of which I choose not to be a member. These are my choices, both to live here, and to not join the dominant faith. But, as do many, I have opinions on the dominant religion, and its’ relationship to those who choose for what ever reason not to become members (of the dominant faith). This is a discussion of those differences of opinion.
The first amendment to the United States Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
In the society in which I live, it is not at all unusual for someone (of the dominant faith) to say, “Well, that is the way we belive (dress, act, pray, socialize) and if you don’t like it, you can leave.” Perhaps-but I do not want to leave or be forced out; I enjoy the land, the outdoor experience, the varieties of cultures, foods and dance that exist here. This section of the country was first populated by Native Americans, then Spanish explorers, trappers, fur traders, gold and silver miners, and finally the Mormons (members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints). Along the way, we had immigrants from the “old world”; Greece, Italy, France, Germany, England, Russia, Yugoslavia, Poland, and yes, China and Japan. Now we have peoples from every land here, and I am grateful. I can eat food from Native America, Africa, France, Germany, Lebanon, Vietnam, Korea, Russia, Poland, and various Baltic states; and if I wish, I can observe/participate in (open) ceremonies of those countries. But, back to my point, please.
Yes, you are dominant. You, and your fellows, hold most of the elected offices, most of the appointed posts, and indeed are a major factor in the daily lives of all of the citizens here. But, that does not give you a blank check to discriminate against those who do not have the same beliefs and lifestyles as yours. Nor do I believe the vast majority of individuals –within and without the dominant faith- wish this discrimination to continue.
I will readily grant that you have every right to live a lifestyle that agrees with you, and your beliefs. You deserve the right to worship, eat, dress, study, and live close to those whom you agree with. You have the right to love who you want, and to participate in those relationships you feel are good, worthy, and fair; insomuch as those practices do not cause harm or undue mental duress to anyone, including those who have different religious or social beliefs.
So do I. I, and my family and friends, have every right to live a lifestyle that agrees with us, and our individual beliefs. All Americans deserve the right to worship, eat, dress, study, and live close to those whom we agree with. We have the right to love who we want, and to participate in those relationships we feel are good, worthy, and fair, again insomuch as those practices do not cause harm or undue mental duress to anyone, including those who have different religious or social beliefs.
To make clear a certain point. This freedom I believe in-the freedom I am proposing- does not include those who claim their beliefs entitle them to cause harm to any person or groups of people, i.e., that which is deemed illegal by the laws of this country or state.
We share many factors, you and I. Together, we need to educate all children, provide for our families, and see to the general welfare of the populace. The functions of government should be blind to all mentions of race, religion, national origin, sexual politics, and age. These common needs should not be discussed in language of “us or them,” who “deserves” these items more, or any other manner of separation or division.
It is time-nay, past time-to put divisions of religion and the sad bias it creates, behind us, and work for the good of all the population, the estimable good that will be beneficial for you, I, and all of the peoples of this state. It is time to stand up and say, “I care for all people.” It is time, and this is an election year, for all of us to say to our so-called elected representatives “We ALL deserve your care, your embrace, your consideration. Do not make decisions based upon bias, be it religious, national, sexual, or age-based. Make your decisions instead on what is right for all of the people, decisions based on knowledge not myth; fact not fiction; people not politics.”
It is OUR call, citizens, our call to make. Will you accept and tolerate another election of division and distortion, or will you and I demand better of our politicians?
I will. And I hope you will join me in making the same demands of our officials. It is OUR call.
The first amendment to the United States Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
In the society in which I live, it is not at all unusual for someone (of the dominant faith) to say, “Well, that is the way we belive (dress, act, pray, socialize) and if you don’t like it, you can leave.” Perhaps-but I do not want to leave or be forced out; I enjoy the land, the outdoor experience, the varieties of cultures, foods and dance that exist here. This section of the country was first populated by Native Americans, then Spanish explorers, trappers, fur traders, gold and silver miners, and finally the Mormons (members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints). Along the way, we had immigrants from the “old world”; Greece, Italy, France, Germany, England, Russia, Yugoslavia, Poland, and yes, China and Japan. Now we have peoples from every land here, and I am grateful. I can eat food from Native America, Africa, France, Germany, Lebanon, Vietnam, Korea, Russia, Poland, and various Baltic states; and if I wish, I can observe/participate in (open) ceremonies of those countries. But, back to my point, please.
Yes, you are dominant. You, and your fellows, hold most of the elected offices, most of the appointed posts, and indeed are a major factor in the daily lives of all of the citizens here. But, that does not give you a blank check to discriminate against those who do not have the same beliefs and lifestyles as yours. Nor do I believe the vast majority of individuals –within and without the dominant faith- wish this discrimination to continue.
I will readily grant that you have every right to live a lifestyle that agrees with you, and your beliefs. You deserve the right to worship, eat, dress, study, and live close to those whom you agree with. You have the right to love who you want, and to participate in those relationships you feel are good, worthy, and fair; insomuch as those practices do not cause harm or undue mental duress to anyone, including those who have different religious or social beliefs.
So do I. I, and my family and friends, have every right to live a lifestyle that agrees with us, and our individual beliefs. All Americans deserve the right to worship, eat, dress, study, and live close to those whom we agree with. We have the right to love who we want, and to participate in those relationships we feel are good, worthy, and fair, again insomuch as those practices do not cause harm or undue mental duress to anyone, including those who have different religious or social beliefs.
To make clear a certain point. This freedom I believe in-the freedom I am proposing- does not include those who claim their beliefs entitle them to cause harm to any person or groups of people, i.e., that which is deemed illegal by the laws of this country or state.
We share many factors, you and I. Together, we need to educate all children, provide for our families, and see to the general welfare of the populace. The functions of government should be blind to all mentions of race, religion, national origin, sexual politics, and age. These common needs should not be discussed in language of “us or them,” who “deserves” these items more, or any other manner of separation or division.
It is time-nay, past time-to put divisions of religion and the sad bias it creates, behind us, and work for the good of all the population, the estimable good that will be beneficial for you, I, and all of the peoples of this state. It is time to stand up and say, “I care for all people.” It is time, and this is an election year, for all of us to say to our so-called elected representatives “We ALL deserve your care, your embrace, your consideration. Do not make decisions based upon bias, be it religious, national, sexual, or age-based. Make your decisions instead on what is right for all of the people, decisions based on knowledge not myth; fact not fiction; people not politics.”
It is OUR call, citizens, our call to make. Will you accept and tolerate another election of division and distortion, or will you and I demand better of our politicians?
I will. And I hope you will join me in making the same demands of our officials. It is OUR call.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Education for Senators Madsen and Stephenson
Class, today we are going to focus on facts, myth, and opinion in the area of public debate; especially politics and education in Utah.
Fact, according to Webster is: 1: DEED; esp CRIME 2: the quality of being actual 3: something that exists or occurs 4: a piece of information
Myth, according to Webster is: 1: a usually legendary narrative that presents part of the beliefs of a people, or explains a practice or natural phenomenon. 2: an imaginable or unverifiable person or thing.
Opinion, according to Webster is: 1: JUDGEMENT 2: a belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge 3: a formal statement by an expert after careful study
Aldous Huxley wrote, “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
Our case study today involves education in the State of Utah. As we can expect, in any endeavor spending public monies; rhetoric, “data” and “facts” are thrown about more to confuse the masses than to disclose truth. It is critical that the learned mind be able to research, explore, and discuss facts vs myth or opinion.
State Senator Madsen (R-Lehi): "I don’t think we just accept because people say it, that we under-fund education. I think that’s a myth." (SL Tribune, Jan 13, 2012)
Well, Senator, here are the facts. Please remember the definition of a fact, in particular section 2 of Webster’s dictionary 2: the quality of being actual
The state of Utah funds education in the annual session. Utah, the “family values state” is dead last in per-pupil funding. It is a FACT, Senator, not a myth.
Utah’s expenditure per K-12 student is $7,056. Dead Last. The United States average, sir, is $11,099. Facts, Senator, not myths.
And Senator, to use another of section 2 definitions from Webster: Myth: 2: an imaginable or unverifiable person or thing. It is a myth, Senator, that Utah admires education of our youth. Look at the facts, Senator.
The per-capita income in the United States is $40,584; the per-capita income in Utah is $32,585. (80.2% of US average.) Utah is at 63% of the national average on per-pupil expenditure. Where do you and your colleagues spend Utah’s money, Senator? Oh, now I remember…a payment to a contractor who threatened to file a well-deserved lawsuit for the rebuild contract of I-15 through Utah County. Lehi, isn’t that in Utah County, Senator?
Senator, our teachers are not overpaid, in fact they are underpaid. Utah teachers, on average, earn $46, 571. This takes into account the teacher that started this year, and the teacher that started 40 years ago. The average teacher’s salary in the United States of America is $56,069. Only two states average pay is lower than Utah: North Dakota and Missouri. There is not an overabundance of administration, in fact the citizens of Utah should be proud that the state is within the leanest of administrative costs, being 40th in administrative costs per student enrolled. And Senator, do not talk to me about ‘efficiencies,” Utah has a student/teacher ration of 22.4/1. But Senator, this “S/TR” is NOT a good method of measurement. Consider this fact:
This ratio of students to teachers
must not be confused with “Average Class Size,”
which is the number of students assigned to a
classroom for instructional purposes. Class size and
student-teacher ratio are very different concepts and
cannot be used interchangeably. According to recent
studies, the difference between student-teacher ratio
and average class size in K–3 is 9 or 10 students
(Sharp 2002).
Senator Madsen, you and your fellow elected “representatives” of the citizens of the State of Utah should be at worst, embarrassed and at best pilloried, for the travesty that is education funding in this state. You, sir, and your comrades (known implication intended) are nothing but puppets for private schools, vouchers, and lack of full education. Public education, provided for, and paid for by, the citizens, is the best defense of liberty, according to Thomas Jefferson. You, sir, insult the citizens of this state with your lack of total support of public education.
Source for all educational statistics:
Rankings and Estimates
National Education Association
December 2010
Source for population and income statistics U.S. census 2010
Fact, according to Webster is: 1: DEED; esp CRIME
Myth, according to Webster is: 1: a usually legendary narrative that presents part of the beliefs of a people, or explains a practice or natural phenomenon. 2: an imaginable or unverifiable person or thing.
Opinion, according to Webster is: 1: JUDGEMENT 2: a belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge 3: a formal statement by an expert after careful study
Aldous Huxley wrote, “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
Our case study today involves education in the State of Utah. As we can expect, in any endeavor spending public monies; rhetoric, “data” and “facts” are thrown about more to confuse the masses than to disclose truth. It is critical that the learned mind be able to research, explore, and discuss facts vs myth or opinion.
State Senator Madsen (R-Lehi): "I don’t think we just accept because people say it, that we under-fund education. I think that’s a myth." (SL Tribune, Jan 13, 2012)
Well, Senator, here are the facts. Please remember the definition of a fact, in particular section 2 of Webster’s dictionary 2: the quality of being actual
The state of Utah funds education in the annual session. Utah, the “family values state” is dead last in per-pupil funding. It is a FACT, Senator, not a myth.
Utah’s expenditure per K-12 student is $7,056. Dead Last. The United States average, sir, is $11,099. Facts, Senator, not myths.
And Senator, to use another of section 2 definitions from Webster: Myth: 2: an imaginable or unverifiable person or thing. It is a myth, Senator, that Utah admires education of our youth. Look at the facts, Senator.
The per-capita income in the United States is $40,584; the per-capita income in Utah is $32,585. (80.2% of US average.) Utah is at 63% of the national average on per-pupil expenditure. Where do you and your colleagues spend Utah’s money, Senator? Oh, now I remember…a payment to a contractor who threatened to file a well-deserved lawsuit for the rebuild contract of I-15 through Utah County. Lehi, isn’t that in Utah County, Senator?
Senator, our teachers are not overpaid, in fact they are underpaid. Utah teachers, on average, earn $46, 571. This takes into account the teacher that started this year, and the teacher that started 40 years ago. The average teacher’s salary in the United States of America is $56,069. Only two states average pay is lower than Utah: North Dakota and Missouri. There is not an overabundance of administration, in fact the citizens of Utah should be proud that the state is within the leanest of administrative costs, being 40th in administrative costs per student enrolled. And Senator, do not talk to me about ‘efficiencies,” Utah has a student/teacher ration of 22.4/1. But Senator, this “S/TR” is NOT a good method of measurement. Consider this fact:
This ratio of students to teachers
must not be confused with “Average Class Size,”
which is the number of students assigned to a
classroom for instructional purposes. Class size and
student-teacher ratio are very different concepts and
cannot be used interchangeably. According to recent
studies, the difference between student-teacher ratio
and average class size in K–3 is 9 or 10 students
(Sharp 2002).
Senator Madsen, you and your fellow elected “representatives” of the citizens of the State of Utah should be at worst, embarrassed and at best pilloried, for the travesty that is education funding in this state. You, sir, and your comrades (known implication intended) are nothing but puppets for private schools, vouchers, and lack of full education. Public education, provided for, and paid for by, the citizens, is the best defense of liberty, according to Thomas Jefferson. You, sir, insult the citizens of this state with your lack of total support of public education.
Source for all educational statistics:
Rankings and Estimates
National Education Association
December 2010
Source for population and income statistics U.S. census 2010
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Government Programs
I wrote this while on a camping trip last year. With apologies for the delay in posting it, here are some thoughts relevant to the current debate on "government programs."
I woke this morning to no site or sound of man, no jet planes, no cell phones, no semis jake braking, and no power plants. Strangely, this made me think of Ron Paul, and others of his ilk, and the current movement to “cut” government spending. I thought, as I sat out last night and looked at the stars and satellites, how much the world has changed in my lifetime. In 1953, there were no satellites, phones had to be cranked to connect you to the operator, and the stores closed at 6 PM. Nothing was open on Sunday. Dinner was always cooked, as there were no “convenience” foods, and microwaves were figments of some mad scientist’s imagination.
In the midst of this current recession/depression, many are calling for the total elimination of government projects. I’d like to focus today on one or two, and although my focus is limited, perhaps you can think with me and explore in your mind other similar programs.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt created the Rural Electrification Program (REA) to bring power to the farmers and “rural” people of the United States. In doing this, not only did he create meaningful, paying jobs, he brought the nation together. By bringing electric power to the masses, they could then participate in the national conversation by listening to the radio; news began to travel faster, and the population as a whole benefited. Large groups of people were united into co-operatives to plan and build the electric system that, even today, provides a major part of the power grid into people’s homes, enabling them to use the myriad devices we all now take for granted. Without cell phones and video cameras, a lot of our “political thinkers” would be nothing but dried ink.
John Fitzgerald Kennedy wanted the United States of America to put a man on the moon in 1 decade, a short ten years. Think about it! No method of communication over this vast a distance had yet been created; we had no idea of spacesuits, or how to deal with human waste products in a space environment. How would the space pilots cook their food? If rock is destroyed coming into our atmosphere, how can we protect metal from destruction?
Microwaves, Corelle, disposable diapers, Tang, and Velcro all sprang from the space programs. Many more, but my memory is short, came from all of this. So-why the rush to destroy this, and other, avenues of creative thinking? Yes, businesses took over after the patents were issued, and some people (a small few) became very rich, but-the nucleus, the core of the idea, (microwaves for example) was how do we cook in space? How can we make money off this idea?
When politicians play to the press, and say they are against government spending in research and development, they are playing with a damaged fiddle. How many jobs are they willing to destroy in the “public interest” of cutting programs?
How long will YOU continue to enable these people to control your income?
Think about it... and post your comments. I love a good discussion!
I woke this morning to no site or sound of man, no jet planes, no cell phones, no semis jake braking, and no power plants. Strangely, this made me think of Ron Paul, and others of his ilk, and the current movement to “cut” government spending. I thought, as I sat out last night and looked at the stars and satellites, how much the world has changed in my lifetime. In 1953, there were no satellites, phones had to be cranked to connect you to the operator, and the stores closed at 6 PM. Nothing was open on Sunday. Dinner was always cooked, as there were no “convenience” foods, and microwaves were figments of some mad scientist’s imagination.
In the midst of this current recession/depression, many are calling for the total elimination of government projects. I’d like to focus today on one or two, and although my focus is limited, perhaps you can think with me and explore in your mind other similar programs.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt created the Rural Electrification Program (REA) to bring power to the farmers and “rural” people of the United States. In doing this, not only did he create meaningful, paying jobs, he brought the nation together. By bringing electric power to the masses, they could then participate in the national conversation by listening to the radio; news began to travel faster, and the population as a whole benefited. Large groups of people were united into co-operatives to plan and build the electric system that, even today, provides a major part of the power grid into people’s homes, enabling them to use the myriad devices we all now take for granted. Without cell phones and video cameras, a lot of our “political thinkers” would be nothing but dried ink.
John Fitzgerald Kennedy wanted the United States of America to put a man on the moon in 1 decade, a short ten years. Think about it! No method of communication over this vast a distance had yet been created; we had no idea of spacesuits, or how to deal with human waste products in a space environment. How would the space pilots cook their food? If rock is destroyed coming into our atmosphere, how can we protect metal from destruction?
Microwaves, Corelle, disposable diapers, Tang, and Velcro all sprang from the space programs. Many more, but my memory is short, came from all of this. So-why the rush to destroy this, and other, avenues of creative thinking? Yes, businesses took over after the patents were issued, and some people (a small few) became very rich, but-the nucleus, the core of the idea, (microwaves for example) was how do we cook in space? How can we make money off this idea?
When politicians play to the press, and say they are against government spending in research and development, they are playing with a damaged fiddle. How many jobs are they willing to destroy in the “public interest” of cutting programs?
How long will YOU continue to enable these people to control your income?
Think about it... and post your comments. I love a good discussion!
Saturday, January 7, 2012
My Vote Doesn't Count-Right?
“My vote doesn’t count.” How many times have you heard, or worse yet, used, that phrase? Allow me to say, Bullsh**! Allow me to say it very loudly, very clearly. BULLSH**!
In Utah, we hear often how the state is run by “The Church”, or controlled by “The Republican Party”. The real numbers don’t bear that out.
The State of Utah was ranked 46th - out of 50- in the 2008 (1)presidential election in voter turnout of eligible voters. Only 56% of us cared enough to vote. Fifty six percent! (As you probably are curious, Hawaii was 48.8%, Texas 54.1%, and Oklahoma 55.8%.) How much worse that 56% can it get? Much worse. Pathetically worse, actually.
In the 2010 elections, we elected a Governor (Herbert), a Senator (Lee), and 3 representatives (Bishop, Matheson, and Chaffetz). I say “we”, because I voted. The hard fact -the one you don’t want to recognize or admit- is these elected officials were voted into office by a very small minority of the eligible voters. Utah has a potential voter count of 1.94 million, according to the 2010 census. Only 30.2% of those eligible to vote turned out and cast a ballot.
Our Governor was elected by only 594,007 voters. Our Senator was elected by 582,230 votes. Together, Thirty point two percent of the potential voters in Utah elected “our” Governor and Senator. 30.2% (2)This-30.2%- is not government by the majority. It is government by apathy.
But back to the original arguments for “my vote doesn’t count.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints claims 1.8 million members (including children) in Utah. The Republican party has 40.6% (596,000) of the registered voters. Democrats are only 9.1% (133,770) of the registered voters. But- and it is a very big BUT- only 594,007 voters turned out to elect the Governor. So, if “The Church” or “The Republican Party”, ran the state, you would expect much higher turnouts. It didn’t happen.
The reality is this, dear reader. It’s your fault, my fault. We don’t collectively work for voter registration; we don’t ask if our neighbors, family or friends need a ride to the polls. If you are in the 30.2% who voted, thank you, and get off your backside and help others to register and vote. If you happen to be in the 69.8% who are not registered, or worse, don’t vote, SHAME ON YOU!
The 2012 elections are upon us, with all the rhetoric and nasty campaign tactics. But the truth is, your vote DOES count, your neighbors’ vote counts. Let’s get past ourselves, past our divides, and make this an election year when every person votes, when the will of the people is done. Hold your elected officials accountable, and let them know you vote! Let them know you vote for those who best represent YOU, the people of the United States of America.
To borrow a phrase, “Good Night, and Good Luck.”
(1)Source: Dr Michael McDonald,
George Mellon University, Fairfax, VA.
(http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html)
(2)Source: Salt Lake Tribune, Jan 5, 2012
In Utah, we hear often how the state is run by “The Church”, or controlled by “The Republican Party”. The real numbers don’t bear that out.
The State of Utah was ranked 46th - out of 50- in the 2008 (1)presidential election in voter turnout of eligible voters. Only 56% of us cared enough to vote. Fifty six percent! (As you probably are curious, Hawaii was 48.8%, Texas 54.1%, and Oklahoma 55.8%.) How much worse that 56% can it get? Much worse. Pathetically worse, actually.
In the 2010 elections, we elected a Governor (Herbert), a Senator (Lee), and 3 representatives (Bishop, Matheson, and Chaffetz). I say “we”, because I voted. The hard fact -the one you don’t want to recognize or admit- is these elected officials were voted into office by a very small minority of the eligible voters. Utah has a potential voter count of 1.94 million, according to the 2010 census. Only 30.2% of those eligible to vote turned out and cast a ballot.
Our Governor was elected by only 594,007 voters. Our Senator was elected by 582,230 votes. Together, Thirty point two percent of the potential voters in Utah elected “our” Governor and Senator. 30.2% (2)This-30.2%- is not government by the majority. It is government by apathy.
But back to the original arguments for “my vote doesn’t count.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints claims 1.8 million members (including children) in Utah. The Republican party has 40.6% (596,000) of the registered voters. Democrats are only 9.1% (133,770) of the registered voters. But- and it is a very big BUT- only 594,007 voters turned out to elect the Governor. So, if “The Church” or “The Republican Party”, ran the state, you would expect much higher turnouts. It didn’t happen.
The reality is this, dear reader. It’s your fault, my fault. We don’t collectively work for voter registration; we don’t ask if our neighbors, family or friends need a ride to the polls. If you are in the 30.2% who voted, thank you, and get off your backside and help others to register and vote. If you happen to be in the 69.8% who are not registered, or worse, don’t vote, SHAME ON YOU!
The 2012 elections are upon us, with all the rhetoric and nasty campaign tactics. But the truth is, your vote DOES count, your neighbors’ vote counts. Let’s get past ourselves, past our divides, and make this an election year when every person votes, when the will of the people is done. Hold your elected officials accountable, and let them know you vote! Let them know you vote for those who best represent YOU, the people of the United States of America.
To borrow a phrase, “Good Night, and Good Luck.”
(1)Source: Dr Michael McDonald,
George Mellon University, Fairfax, VA.
(http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html)
(2)Source: Salt Lake Tribune, Jan 5, 2012
Sunday, January 1, 2012
It’s very early, 2012, and it feels that I’ve left something unsaid. Oh, yes, my wishes for the New Year, for you, your family, your friends, and for my family, my friends, and myself.
So many years ago, fueled by the idealism of youth, I protested for Peace. Tonight, much older, perhaps no wiser, I prayed for Peace. A peace that will envelope you, your neighbors, your friends, your countrymen, the world, and selfishly, yes, myself and mine.
You and I are not that different, my friend; or my imagined foe. We have ideals, goals, and dreams. In the long term, even those ideals, goals and dreams are not so unique to you, or to me. I desire, and I believe you do also, to see our children grow and thrive, to watch from our well-deserved vantage point as our grandchildren become adults, see them espouse the real good and truths in life.
I pray and I hope, and I think you do as well, for our children and our grand-children, even our great-grand-children, to not have war as the focus of their lives. Too many of our families and friends have died, given the ultimate sacrifice, for an ideal that slipped through bloody hands.
It does not have to be this way. We, you and I together, have the power within us, the ability, to loudly say NO to those who lead us to the paths of separation, destruction and devastation.
We can accept, or better reject, the people and policies that fuel acrimonious racial, political, sexual, or ethnic division. Yes, there is a need, in fact a demand, for civil discussion on these matters. As I said, a civil discussion. There are differences in what we believe, how we worship, what we eat, who we spend our lives with, what we wear. But, long-term, are these differences worth killing and dying for?
I think not. Governments and ideologies that fuel hatred of someone different are not good, for you or for I. They only serve to divide, to separate, good peoples, good families.
We share, literally, a common ground. All of us have been given this planet, and its resources, for our use. We, you and I, need to be concerned about the best use of this world; how best to feed growing populations, how we can move people from one space to another, how to best dispose of our rubbish, how to provide water and power. These are discussions, ideas, that need to be held in a common meeting place, a place that addresses the concerns of all the peoples and all the ramifications of the decisions that are made.
No one idea, no one theory, no one ideology, no one religion, will make this happen. But you and I together, working, talking, considering each other and our diverse viewpoints, WE can make this world good, we can make this world great and peaceful. Working together, we can achieve great goals, great dreams.
This is my prayer; this is my desire, for you and for I, on this New Years Day.
So many years ago, fueled by the idealism of youth, I protested for Peace. Tonight, much older, perhaps no wiser, I prayed for Peace. A peace that will envelope you, your neighbors, your friends, your countrymen, the world, and selfishly, yes, myself and mine.
You and I are not that different, my friend; or my imagined foe. We have ideals, goals, and dreams. In the long term, even those ideals, goals and dreams are not so unique to you, or to me. I desire, and I believe you do also, to see our children grow and thrive, to watch from our well-deserved vantage point as our grandchildren become adults, see them espouse the real good and truths in life.
I pray and I hope, and I think you do as well, for our children and our grand-children, even our great-grand-children, to not have war as the focus of their lives. Too many of our families and friends have died, given the ultimate sacrifice, for an ideal that slipped through bloody hands.
It does not have to be this way. We, you and I together, have the power within us, the ability, to loudly say NO to those who lead us to the paths of separation, destruction and devastation.
We can accept, or better reject, the people and policies that fuel acrimonious racial, political, sexual, or ethnic division. Yes, there is a need, in fact a demand, for civil discussion on these matters. As I said, a civil discussion. There are differences in what we believe, how we worship, what we eat, who we spend our lives with, what we wear. But, long-term, are these differences worth killing and dying for?
I think not. Governments and ideologies that fuel hatred of someone different are not good, for you or for I. They only serve to divide, to separate, good peoples, good families.
We share, literally, a common ground. All of us have been given this planet, and its resources, for our use. We, you and I, need to be concerned about the best use of this world; how best to feed growing populations, how we can move people from one space to another, how to best dispose of our rubbish, how to provide water and power. These are discussions, ideas, that need to be held in a common meeting place, a place that addresses the concerns of all the peoples and all the ramifications of the decisions that are made.
No one idea, no one theory, no one ideology, no one religion, will make this happen. But you and I together, working, talking, considering each other and our diverse viewpoints, WE can make this world good, we can make this world great and peaceful. Working together, we can achieve great goals, great dreams.
This is my prayer; this is my desire, for you and for I, on this New Years Day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)