"Official" Religion

Utah’s charter member of the Senator for Life Club, Republican Orrin Hatch, recently was quoted as saying that states and municipalities have the right to, can and should, establish official religions. What the He** was he thinking? (On second thought, does Orrin ever think before he speaks?)

Really, Senator?

What if one of the southern states, let’s say Mississippi, establishes the Southern Baptists as the state’s official religion. They could then pass legislation that, for example, dictates mandatory bible study, as they see fit, in school. And they could also mandate prayer, complete with fire and brimstone, before school lunch. How would the thousands of children, whose families are members of The Church of Latter Day Saints in Mississippi, feel about that? Do you think it would make them uncomfortable, or shunned? Think about it, Senator. How would the parents explain it to their children?

In Boston, the school children could be mandated to recite the (Catholic) Rosary before entering high school. Would that have made your children happy, Senator? Would you have been able to explain this to your children?

Senator Hatch, I know you are old enough to remember the terrors of the cold war, when Russia and China banned religion; how many people were persecuted for trying to follow their religious beliefs; and the backlash that was created in many countries because of that persecution. That backlash inserted the words “under God” into the American Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, thank you (?), Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon.

On a global scale, Senator, you have seen, heard, and rightfully decried the atrocities carried out in the name of state-sanctioned religions around the world. Can you believe, for one moment that would not happen here if we had states and municipalities establishing official religions?

Senator, I am sorry. I am sorry that you feel you have to pander to the religious right in order to raise campaign contributions and get re-elected, and use your “war chest” to fund other people’s campaigns for office.

More importantly, Senator, in the face of the current economic and social stress facing our great country, I am sorry that you want to focus the discussion, not on matters that affect our overall well-being as a country, but on matters that can only divide us further. I expect better from you.

Respectfully,

R.M. “Bob” Hartman- an active voter in Utah.

Comments are welcome, as always.

(City Weekly, December 10, 2015, page 8)

Massacre in San Bernadino

Another day, another public massacre, more mass hysteria.

“Round them all up.” “Get search warrants for every Muslim living in the United States and search all their homes for guns and bombs.” These were the comments I heard in the lunch room at work today. (The day after the San Bernadio Massacre.)

Well, people, guess again. Syed Farook was born in the United States, in Chicago; and his wife, Tashfeen Malik was born in Pakistan and as a child moved to Saudi Arbia, with her father, then back to Pakistan, where she obtained a college degree. We don’t know yet what radicalized them and led them to conduct the action, this massacre. As they are dead, we probably will never really know.

But mass discrimination, based on place of birth, is nothing new to America. In the 1830’s, help wanted signs stated “no Irish need apply.” It was disgusting then, and it is just as vile today. We should not discriminate against a person based upon birthplace.

Nor should we, as some have suggested, discriminate on the basis of religion. Not everyone who follows Catholicism is a child molester, nor is every follower of Islam a terrorist. Yes, the ISIS/ISIL group has declared war on the United Kingdom, the United States, Russia and now China. It is ISIS that we need to defeat. It is ISIS that is radicalizing these so called lone-wolf terrorists. It is also ISIS that is using social media to spread its agenda around the world.

ISIS needs money to operate. That is a fact we need to address. Recent news coverage from France shows French fighter jets destroying row after row of tanker trucks at oil facilities, oil that is sold on the open market to fund ISIS’s operations. As a world hopefully united in stopping the spread of ISIS terrorism, we should concentrate on destroying their ability to refine and move oil, and also to stop companies and countries from purchasing that oil. There is a coalition of countries, lead by the United States, which is making some progress in achieving that step.  Great Britain has now committed to air strikes against ISIS targets.

ISIS also needs its social media. There are people, in the United States and abroad, who are geniuses with social media. Perhaps it is time to bring them together, to charge them with the duty of shutting down the social media sites ISIS uses, both on the common internet and the deep web. In doing so, they can also trace back to the source of the ISIS media, and then use ground forces, or air strikes, to shutter these physical sites. They can also trace who is looking at this social media, and then determine if they are casual viewers or more dangerous in their intent.

Yes, we need to take action regarding ISIS/ISIL. We need to defeat them, to deny them the ability to radicalize people and encourage those radicalized to commit murders for ISIS’s sake, in ISIS’s name.

But we shouldn’t, and don’t need to, discriminate against an entire religion because of the crimes of a few.

Of course, this is just my opinion, and I am open to discussion regarding this issue!

Thanks for reading.

R.M. “Bob” Hartman

Politics and Religion

I’ve watched, at times fascinated and at other times sickened, as the various segments of our American politicians and society debate religion, its place in our great country, and in our laws and behavior.

The Declaration of Independence, which took our country away from the dominion of Great Briton, does state: . . . that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among them are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. . .

Note that it states, all men are created equal. It does not state that only those of a certain religious belief have these rights, more rights than others. Nor does it say you must have a belief in any one particular, if any, Creator.

It states that all men are created equal. We can argue the statement about “all men,” but at this point, I believe the reference was to all people. Therefore, it includes women as well as men (historical introspection is mine).

The Constitution of the United States of America does not define any religious belief, or any set rules of religious behavior, or belief.

In fact, the 1^st amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America (part of the Bill of Rights) states: 
      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof; 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."

Well, hello freedom! This gives each of us the right to believe what we want about the existence of a Creator, or not. It gives us the freedom to worship or not as we desire. It removes from the discussion the right or privilege to say, the United States was founded as a Christian nation. It does give us the right to practice our religions, or not; to believe or not as we wish, to attend church or not as we wish; however, and this is a BIG however, it does not give us the right to force our beliefs on others, or to use that belief to divide us. We are bigger that that as a nation, as a people. 

Politics in the United States has become a dirty, nasty business. To entice votes, politicians are trying hard to divide and conquer the voters. They are trying, and to a large point succeeding, to divide us upon religious grounds. The rhetoric has become evil, nasty, even putrefying. It is no wonder that the majority of Americans turn away from the debate.  

The American people deserve, and should demand, better. We need to know, politicians, what you plan to do to improve our economy, our health care, our standard of life. We don’t care about where or how often you worship. My belief, or non-belief, in a Creator is “none of your damn business,” as Grandmother would have said. 

Politicians, let’s take your religious belief out of the discussion, for this moment. Do not tell me what your “God” wants us to do. Tell me what you are going to do. Are you going to support health care for all people; are you going to say those who are outside of your comfort zone they have no right in their decision; are you going to allow women to decide how and when they decide to bring new life into the world, or would you prefer to tell them what they have to do? Will you feed the hungry children, provide them education, will you provide daytime child care so mom and dad can earn a living, or would you prefer they end up on welfare for the rest of their lives? Are you going to allow me to make my own end-of-life decisions? Are you willing to allow medical marijuana to ease my discomfort from chemo? Or would you prefer I suffer when the pain can be relieved? Are you going to pay the bills, or would you prefer my family goes hungry?

Or, let’s put your “God” back into the discussion, for the moment. What would He say, what would He do? Would He heal the sick, feed the hungry, comfort the afflicted? Would He say, “Provide for them, and their families?” Would He be there, or would He say, “Well, too bad for you?”

Perhaps more importantly, it is time for the American voters to wake up, to say, Hello! We need our governing bodies to work for us, for the greater good of America. It is time for us to no longer accept the R or the D in the voting booth. It is time for us to look the politicians in the eye and ask, what are you going to do for us, for our nation? The time is now to ask for answers. It is time for us to look beyond their business connections, beyond their religious affiliations, read beyond the sound bites, to look at what they have done, to ask them what they are willing to do for us as a country.

It is time to ask our politicians what they are going to do for greater good of America. 

As always, your comments are welcome! Thanks for reading. 

RMH

The Donald

I’ve been quite for far too long, but now I feel the need to speak out. Donald Trump, the obvious, or oblivious, leader of the Republican candidates, has now said that all Muslims in America should be put in a data-base, and forced to carry an ID card that identifies them as a Muslim. Why? Because Muslims, in the main, are members of the Islamic religion, and Islamic terrorists are causing mayhem and havoc around the world.

So “The Donald” wants to stigmatize an entire population because of the crimes of a few.  Would he be in favor of making all Catholics register in a data base and carry ID cards as a result of a few priests being pedophiles? The Catholic Church does not teach people to become pedophiles, and Islam does not teach people to become terrorists. Yes, I know, there are a few leaders in the Islamic religion who preach hate against infidels, but does that make every member of the faith a terrorist? The Wellsboro Baptist church teaches hate against “gays”, does that make every Baptist a gay-hater?

I don’t think so. And if I am making you uncomfortable with these comparisons, so be it. If you are uncomfortable with this, you need to press re-set and think again.

Wake up, America! There is not, should not, and cannot be a litmus test of religion to be in America. Yes, we are, like the rest of the world, trying to handle the refugee crisis from the Syrian civil war. These refugees are, in the main, women and children whose husbands and fathers have been killed in the name of religion. Is this the time we turn our back on them? Is this what America is known for?

Yes, this situation makes us all uncomfortable. How do we know which child or mother is in fact a terrorist? I don’t have the answer, and I won’t pretend to.   

“

As all of you know, I am not a fan of Representative Jason Chaffetz, (R-Utah) but he put it well:

“As an American, that’s nuts,” said Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and who is so far neutral in the GOP presidential race. “The whole foundation of our nation was to allow for religious liberties and I have no interest in shutting down churches. That’s ridiculous. . . if there are individuals engaged in nefarious activities, then go arrest them. I don’t care of (sic) they’re Mormons, Muslims or Jews. But places of worship should be encouraged.” (Salt Lake Tribune, 11/20/2015)

He is correct; go arrest the individual, but don’t use a broad brush and paint an entire group as evil. This is Karl Rove at his worst, this is divide and conquer politics at it’s worst.

Mr. Trump, your comments are not helping America. Go back to your reality show, go back to your casinos. Get out of politics, and stop trying to destroy America.  

Your thoughts and comments are welcome, as always. 

RMH

Alcohol, Utah Style

What is a State supposed to do with its biggest cash cow? If you or I had a private business, which had a monopoly on its’ customers, and this business was dropping 39.46% to the bottom line, we would have Wall Street investors clamoring for a piece of the action. And that 39.46% is not just hundreds of dollars, no; it represents $144,903,967!!! Yes, you read it correctly: 144 MILLION dollars of PROFIT. (OK, round it up to145 Million. What is 96$ thousand among friends?)

Utah is very proud of the fact that “drinkers” pay for the school lunch programs, to the tune of $38,343,822 in FY 2014. And that is all well and good; well, we will let it go as such for now, anyway.

Utah has a drinking problem; it is known as the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control. DABC controls all alcohol within the state’s borders, from how many clubs, restaurants and bars have liquor licenses to what products are available on the shelf for consumer purchase. In Utah, restaurants, clubs, and bars purchase alcohol from the State at retail (the same price you and I pay) and then mark it up when they sell it to the consumer. A $38 bottle of wine becomes a $60 bottle of wine at the restaurant.

Now, just so you don’t think DABC is uncontrolled, let me advise you that it is in fact very controlled, by the Utah State government. A state government that cut $500,000 out of the operating budget for the DABC in 2015.

Out here in the real world, if you or I had a business that was dropping almost 40% to the bottom line, would we cut its operating budget? Hell, no, we would be trying to increase sales!

Would we be happy with an employee turnover rate of 75%? No, we would try to keep employees, not repeatedly go through the expense of training new ones over and over again.

In this mythical business, would we turn a deaf ear to our customers when they complain about stock-outs and long waiting lines? I doubt it.

Would we tell our largest customers, sorry, we don’t have all of your order at this location; you need to drive across town to pick up the rest of it? No, we wouldn’t. We would demand our supplier fix their logistics problem.

Would we tell our store managers they had to run two or three stores instead of focusing on one? Really? That would not be in the business’s best interest, would it?

If we went to the annual stockholders’ meeting, and this was the situation, we would be ready to fire the CEO/Director and electing a new board of officers. But this is Utah, and we don’t get that choice.

Utah’s Governor, Gary Herbert, in a news conference two months back, declared everything was fine at DABC, except for a “few” disgruntled employees. Now, after numerous op-ed pieces and “letters to the editor,” the governor, or at least his office, is changing its tune. The governor’s office announced they are undertaking a review of DABC, and hiring an out-of-state consultant to see what can be done to “improve” DABC.

I have no idea how much we, as taxpayers, are paying for this consultant. But, Governor Herbert, here is some free advice.

First, put all of the employees at the state-owned liquor stores on as full time employees, with benefits. A turnover rate of 75%, coupled with the fact that these state employees are only considered part time, and therefore not eligible for benefits, should have you concerned. As any retailer can tell you, happy employees directly correspond to happier customers.

Second, address your inventory problems. When you have a monopoly, it is easy to say, “Too bad” when you are out of stock. But say “too bad” often enough, and the customers will go to Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, and Colorado instead of visiting your store. Your large customers-the restaurants, clubs and bars-should not have to drive across town to fill their orders. The data from your cash registers can help you plan for the “busy seasons,” like Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year’s Day, and the 4^th of July. Be sure you have enough inventory, and employees, ready for those huge volume days.

Third, take care of your customers, your profit-makers, also known as consumers. Be sure the cash registers are fully staffed during your busy times. Remember the grocery chain that said “if three people are waiting in line, we will open another register?” Have staff trained in wines, liquor, and beer, so they can answer questions customers may have about the products. Instead of having a neon sign light up when DABC outlets are closed, think like a retailer (which you are) and have a neon sign that says “open.”

Fourth, have one manager and two assistant managers assigned to each store. Empower them to make the schedules needed to serve the customers, and to modify the orders to insure there are no stock-out conditions.

Lastly, change the make-up of the Liquor Commission to include members of the hospitality community, and community members at large. The majority of the members should have experience in alcohol use and consumption!

Governor Herbert, I hope these suggestions can help you improve the image of the DABC with your customers and your employees. Feel free to use them, you can even claim them as your own ideas if you so desire.

One last thought, Governor, lower all your prices by 10%! That would really go a long way to making customers happy.

R. M. Hartman

As always, your comments are welcome.

Data from 79^th annual report, DABC FY 2014. http://abc.utah.gov/about/documents/79th_annual.pdf retrieved July 8 2014.

An open letter to Utah State Senator Jim Debakis

Senator Debakis,

I read with pleasure, and in the main agree with, your op-ed in the July 5^th SL Tribune. Education in Utah is in terrible shape, and the largest single contributor to the condition is the lack of funding. I’d like to discuss your article and share my thoughts with you.

As you pointed out, teacher salaries in Utah are an embarrassment to any thinking individual. Utah colleges and universities turn out very well qualified teachers, but they cannot afford to stay in Utah and teach. We are losing this valuable resource to 49 other states. Our teachers should be paid, at the least, the average salary for teachers in the United States; $56,069 is the national average, as opposed to Utah’s average of $46,571. Our teachers, even at beginning salaries, should not be eligible for welfare.

Our class sizes are another point of discussion. Please consider this statement:

The ration 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 ration and average class sizes in K-3 is 9 or 10 students. (Sharp, 2002)

Utah’s S/TR is set at 22.4; so this gives an average class size of 31.4 to 32.4 students per class. This is absurd, to say the least. Not even the most talented K-12 teacher can educate 30 children in a classroom effectively. One of our primary goals should be to reduce actual class size. The average S/TR in the United States is 16/1, which yields a class size of 26/1. This would be a good starting point for Utah to achieve. 

You mentioned Wyoming’s educational funding in your op-ed, I would like to expand upon that. One of the (major) reasons Wyoming can put so much more into education than Utah is willing to afford, is the extractive tax. Wyoming views it’s minerals as a resource owned by all the people, and therefore taxes extraction to benefit all the citizens. Utah can, and should, increase the mineral extraction tax; for example, coal in Wyoming is taxed at 3.75% (underground) or 7% surface, while Utah has no tax on coal extraction. (Source: The Council of State Governments, http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/system/files/7.15_2013.pdf, retrieved July 6, 2015)

This money could be used to offset the effect of returning 100% of the state income tax to funding public education, and in fact could be used to increase our educational funding to national averages.

I do admit, Senator, establishing this tax would be a very hard sell, given the mind-set of most of Utah’s legislators.

Charter schools, in my opinion, are another drag on our educational system. While I realize they are very popular with our legislature, I feel (and on this subject I have only anecdotal information) charter schools serve no educational purpose that is not met by the public system. Charter schools can reject any student, and send them back to the public schools, but they get to keep the funding for that student for the school year. This, in effect, boosts the revenue per student in the charter school, while cutting the revenue per student in the public system, thereby exasperating the public school funding issue. Charter schools exist, in my opinion, only so “my” child does not have to be in a classroom with “those” children. My solution is simplistic: close the charter schools; if parents want to pay for private school education, certainly that is their option.

To address the matter of accountability, I would propose that the State Board of Education consist of educators, not only on the K-12 level, but also college/university educators. They should be advised by members of the business community, who can use their knowledge to drive education to the curriculum needed to prepare students for college, and to compete for good, well-paying jobs. In this vein, we also need a robust trade school sector that can offer good careers for those who do not want college, or would not be successful in obtaining a college degree. The State Superintendent of Education should be held personally responsible for the success or failure of the school system.

Given the above, I would like to see the Utah legislature commit to a 5-year plan to achieve the following goals:

1)     Increase per-pupil funding to the national average;

2)     Increase teacher pay to the national average;

3)     Reduce class sizes to the national average.

Senator Debakis, I appreciate your progressive stance on education, and your willingness to open the much-needed discussion on our educational system.  I wish you the best in reforming our current educational system.

Respectfully,

Robert M. Hartman

Your comments are welcome, as always.

It’s July 4, 2015. Independence Day in the United States of America.

It has not been an easy year; some of us have cried tears of joy, others among us have gnashed their teeth. We have seen changes in our country this year, changes that have taken years to occur yet seemingly happened overnight. People have died, churches have been burned; all in the name of (a) God. But God is not in charge of our secular laws, which are the basis of our freedoms.

Its important today, I think, to remember our founding fathers; who wanted to establish a country free from the 16^th century boundaries of god and country. The founding fathers, in my study of history, wanted America to be a country ruled by the laws of reason, of equal rights, of fair play.

The founders could not imagine the tools and abilities we have now. They had to rely on post by horseback, of letters written by hand, using quill and ink. Today, we have the internet, IM, email; all unfettered by officials and accident of riders. I think, personally, they would have enjoyed the instant communication; the ability to reach out through blogs and social media.

I will agree, that the founders did not envision publicly a country where women and those of color had the right to vote, the right to be equal. I think those ideas were beyond the scope of their vision; but not for the reasons so many think. They were trying (and I think they succeeded well) to establish the original ideas of freedom, they were caught up in the moment of trying to have freedom for white middle class men, they did not dare to dream of the same freedom for women and people of color. It was not an error of omission; rather they were doing, in my opinion, to achieve the best they could at the time. Remember where, and when, they were. Remember what they were trying to achieve. In all of the documents, papers, and letters I have researched from those brave men, there was not any mention of denying those same freedoms to all of the American people; they were simply trying to establish some basic firm ground, a ground from which we could expand and grow.

And grow we have, far beyond even the most fertile imagination of the founding fathers. We have a world-class economy, a growing but frustrated middle class, and an over-expanded military, even as we work to understand our own internal struggles. From their initial work, we have seen women and people of color achieve the right to work, and to be accepted as equals. Is it perfect? Far from it! But we must now continue the work of our founding fathers.

America always has been, is now, and forever (I hope) will be a work in progress. America was, at the time of its creation, the most democratic of nations. We have been an example to other nations trying to work to independence. Many other nations have used our declaration of independence, our methods of laws, and our systems of governance, to establish their own countries. Of that, we should be proud! We, as a nation, are looking for ways to improve, to be more inclusive. That work is hard, difficult, and fraught with peril. We may at times, lean more right, or more left. But it is a work we should always embrace. It is our duty, our debt to the founding fathers, to examine our relationships and to grow; if needed, to change how we deal with the challenges of our times.

It is time, my fellow Americans (thank you LBJ) for all of us to look hard at what we believe, to look at the big picture. It is time to overlook the sins of the few, and look for the good that is present in all our fellow people. Past time, I think, to remember we (America) are the best of what the world has to offer. It is time for us to put that to work, to develop the best that is in us, to allow others to develop their best, to push America forward again to our rightful position as the beacon of democracy and freedom.

Freedom, and democracy, are not easy. It takes guts, willpower, and willingness. It’s easy to sit on our couches and moan. It’s harder to reach out and shake hands with a neighbor. But, it can be done. It’s hard, I know, to have discussions about uncomfortable subjects. But don’t we owe the founding fathers that discussion? They were willing to die for their freedom; can you and I not at the least open lines of communication with our neighbors?

It’s July 4^th! Let Freedom Ring!

As always, your comments and thoughts are welcome.

RM “Bob” Hartman

Senator Lee again, but not what you think!

It is not often I feel the need to admit that a member of the Republican delegation from Utah has done something I can applaud. Usually, the delegation from Utah follows tea-party lines, policies that I cannot accept.

Yesterday, however, I learned that the junior Senator from Utah, Mike Lee (R), has co-sponsored a bill with  a (gasp) Democrat; Patrick Leahy of Vermont that would reign in the National Security Agency, the agency charged with collecting metadata from all Americans that use email, cell phones, and landlines.

Metadata- the information about we use our communication devices- can be used to trace who we call (or email) and where our devices are located. That information allows the NSA to listen to our private discussions. There is a huge, brand new, data center in Bluffdale, Utah that operates 24/7/365 to follow your calls and emails. The NSA currently traces who we talk to, and what we say. This is the information that the “USA Freedom Act” will not allow the government to have.

Your calls to a grandparent in Europe, or in Topeka, are recorded. Did you mention how you feel about the laws and legislation that affect you and your family? It’s all recorded for future use, under the current law. It can be used to brand you, or your grandmother, as a terrorist. Would my grandmother be a terrorist, under today’s vision? She had strong feelings about Democrats, going back to Roosevelt. God forbid the NSA had listened to those conversations; she referred to him as a dictator! (The only time I heard her use a cuss word was about Roosevelt! That Damned Democrat!)

I grew up in rural Colorado, and we had party lines. Agnes listened to every conversation my family had. We knew that, ok? Mrs. Thompson (also on the party line) subscribed to the Wall Street Journal, and sent a letter off to our congressmen almost every day! (Ok, the postmaster had loose lips.) “Everybody knew” she was a communist because of that.

But for the Government of the United States of America to listen into, record, and more importantly judge, the conversations I now have with my sister, brother, and friends? WHY? I don’t think it is necessary for “national security.”

In the early days of America, groups of people met in bars and taverns to discuss how to birth our country. They were careful as to how they spoke, and if a stranger entered into the room, they became quiet and circumspectfull in their speech. It was illegal to speak wrongly of the King and the Empire. Is it illegal today? Some would say no. I disagree.

Today, we don’t know who is entering into, or listening to, our conversation.

Today, under the current NSA policies, those discussions will be recorded. What happened, friends, to free speech?

When I was younger, I read and studied Ayn Rand. I agreed with a lot of what she said and proposed. Over the years, I have moved away from that philosophy. Does that label me as a terrorist? I don’t think so, but. . . what does the NSA think?

It is my opinion that discussion among friends and co-workers, family, etc., helps us form our opinions, our beliefs. It is the open dialogue about where our country is, and where it should be going, that will propel our country forward. We are a diverse country, and in our diversity, we can form common opinion.

Let me repeat that: We are a diverse country, and in our diversity, we can form common opinion. It is not easy, it is not comfortable, but it is what this country was founded upon. We may have to accept people who do not believe as we do, who do not worship as we do, who form alliances we disagree with.

But, this is what America was founded upon! It took, what?, 10 years, to develop our current constitution and its system of laws and regulation is still being improved upon! It is indeed a moving goal; freedom is not easy nor is it free. In the immediate aftermath of September 11 2001, the so-called “Patriot Act” was passed. Now, 14 years later, Senators Lee and Leahy are acting to correct some of its most obvious mistakes.  

Senator Lee, while I am opposed to a great majority of what you have done in the past, and continue to do so today, I applaud you for this surprisingly liberal stance.

Your opinions and comments are welcome, as always.

R. M. Bob Hartman

The Question Is. . .

Republican Senator Mike Lee, the junior senator from Utah, posted an op-ed in the Deseret News (4/27/2015), in which he purports to discuss the question before the Supreme Court; namely, should same-sex marriage be legal and honored throughout the United States of America?

However, the good Senator misstated the question. To quote his article:

“Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case involving four separate lawsuits, each dealing with the same question: does the U.S. Constitution require the redefinition of marriage?”

Sorry, Senator, but you misstated the question. The question is not redefining marriage, rather it is "should same sex marriage be given equality with opposite sex marriage?" In America, the civil contract known as marriage grants the individuals participating certain rights, privileges, prerogatives, and responsibilities. These include, but are not limited to, such rights and privileges as visitation at hospitals, end of life decisions, joint ownership of property, right of survivorship, filing taxes jointly; and should include having your marriage recognized as legal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

To further quote you, Senator:

“And unless it’s an issue of specifically national or interstate consequence, the Constitution directs this decision-making process to occur at the state level, to create the space for the greatest diversity of opinions to be expressed.”

Your own sentence, Senator Lee. I suggest you read, and re-read it, carefully. It is one of the best arguments for equality of same sex marriage.

Today, SSM is legal and recognized in 36 states and the District of Columbia. If a same-sex couple is legally wed in Utah, should they not also have the same rights, privileges, prerogatives and responsibilities if they move to Texas?

Marriage has already been defined as a civil right by the United States Supreme Court. Civil rights should not be limited to the current state of residence; rather, they should be recognized throughout the land.

Therefore, Senator, this is an issue of specific national consequence. Thank you for making the case for equality of same sex marriage in the United States of America.

As always, your comments and opinions are welcome.  

R.M. Bob Hartman

Source: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865627365/Let-people-not-courts-define-marriage.html retrieved April 28, 2015

Missed Opportunities

Republican senator Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz, the junior senator from Texas, participated in a forum at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Summit; a summit called to allow presidential candidates and potential contenders to present their points of view regarding religious liberties in America.

In his comments, Senator Cruz said "there is no room for Christians in today's Democratic Party." He continued, stating “There is a liberal fascism that is dedicated to going after believing Christians who follow the biblical teaching on marriage."

Wow. This from an attorney who graduated cum laude from Princeton University, and continued on to receive his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1995. While at Harvard, he was the principal editor of the Harvard Law Review. One would be inclined to believe, with his education, he would know that liberal and fascism have opposite meanings.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines liberal as “not narrow in opinion or judgment.” The same source defines fascism as “a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation, and often race and stands for a centralized autocratic, often militaristic government.” The two terms are polar opposites on both political and social scales. For Senator Cruz to use these two terms, together, to describe the Democratic Party is akin to his defying the existence of gravity while his feet are buried in quicksand.

Every individual I have met, who self-aligns with the Democratic Party, as well as the party itself, defines the Democratic Party as being a “big tent” party; that is to say no litmus test exists for membership or active participation as a candidate within the party.  There are those within the party who are strongly pro-life, even as the party defines itself as pro-choice; there are those who are against any form of gun control, even as the party works for stronger gun control legislation. From my own hands-on experiences, I have met and worked with Democrats who held no religious belief, as well as those who have very strongly-held religious convictions, be they Christian, Eastern, Middle Eastern, or Deist.

In my lifetime, I do not remember ever hearing, or reading about, any organized group “going after believing Christians who follow the biblical teachings on marriage.” I wonder, is Senator Cruz trying to form a wedge issue using the current events circulating around the hot-button issue of same sex marriage? Is he creating a boogie man to take the focus off the important issues facing our nation; issues such as stagnant wages, a Congress with the lowest approval rating in decades, a complete lack of compromise between the two major political parties, and much-needed immigration reform?

Presidential candidate Cruz missed a golden opportunity. He could have used his time at this summit to explain how a Cruz administration would work with Congress to ensure that all Americans would enjoy religious freedom while simultaneously guaranteeing the civil rights of all.  He could have explained how discrimination, in any form, goes against not only the constitution, but also the 2nd great commandment, “Thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself.”  Senator Cruz could have spoken to the value of diversity in both public and private arenas, and the need for acceptance of diverse religions and lifestyles.

But he didn’t.

You opinion and comments are always welcome. Thanks for reading!
R.M. Bob Hartman

Sources:

CNN http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/26/politics/ted-cruz-liberal-fascism-iowa-speech/index.html ,   retrieved April 26, 2015.

Immigration

Well, the President has done it again. He managed to get several Republican members of Congress mad at him, at least for the sound bites. But why are they mad?

President Obama had made it clear, in his various State of the Union Addresses, that he wanted immigration reform. The Senate passed a bill (in June of 2013), with bi-partisan agreement, that would have pushed some immigration reform forward. House Speaker Boehner has refused to allow the bill to come up for vote in the House of Representatives (the “People’s House”, as he likes to remind us). The bill is still languishing on Speaker Boehner’s desk. . . in November of 2014. The American people want immigration reform; Speaker Boehner, why won’t you do it?

I will grant you that no bill ever before Congress is perfect. It takes months, sometimes years of wrangling before all the kinks are worked out and everything goes as planned. But, and this is a large but, if you don’t do something, nothing changes. Nothing changes.

Speaker Boehner said, when this bill passed the Senate in June of 2013, that he intended for the House to pursue its own immigration reform approach, rather than taking up the Senate bill.
But is has been what? 18 months since the bill passed, and there has been no action –zero- on the part of the House of Representatives to submit a bill or to take the existing Senate bill to committee to work out the differences. Why? Because Speaker Boehner wanted to make President Obama a “one and done”? To tarnish the President’s legacy? That hasn’t work out so well, Speaker Boehner. President Obama beat Mitt “on his white horse” Romney fair and square.

So the President of The United States of America took matters into his own hands, and he issued an Executive Order to impact immigration laws. He did not make a new law; rather he directed ICE and other enforcement agencies on how to enforce the existing laws. That is his right, as President of The United States of America. A right that has been exercised by American presidents for a long time. . . at least back to Eisenhower, and the uprooting of Japanese-American citizens. The President said, focus on the felons, and those who have been here less than 5 years. Why did Speaker Boehner and the Republicans object to that? It makes good sense to this taxpayer, this citizen.

The House of Representatives had an opportunity in the summer of 2013, when they rejected the Senate immigration bill via speaker Boehner, to work with the Senate to resolve differences and create a bill that would address and solve some of the immigration conflicts. But, they chose instead to do nothing. To Do NOTHING.

Why not do something the American people want? In my (certainly anecdotal) discussions with people, American citizens, they want action on immigration, on illegal immigration, on jobs. But the HOR does nothing. So nothing changes, and the American people feel Washington is disconnected with main street, with their homes. Surprised? Sadly, I’m not surprised at all.

So what can be done? I’m no “constitutional scholar” but I have some thoughts to share with you. First, make E-verify the law of the land. E-verify should be strengthened, to make it mandatory that all employers verify the legal status of anyone applying for work. Yes, it takes a few minutes, per employee, to run the check. No, it is not perfect; it is designed to find out if social security numbers submitted are valid. If the SS number comes up in a cross-check, the employee is given time to verify if it is him/her or someone who has stolen a SS number. In doing so, it will weed out those who have stolen SS numbers to gain employment. If you haven’t stolen a SS number, what do you have to fear? Loosing some time, to protect your SS benefits? (Disclaimer: I have been a victim of ID theft; yes it takes some time to straighten it out.) If an employer is found to be in violation of E-verify, fine the living daylights, and profits, out of him, and his corporation. After all, corporations are people too. Put the owner/CEO in prison. We confiscate the property of drug users, and drug dealers, how about confiscating the property of those who hire undocumented workers? Make it public knowledge, first page of the papers. And, yes, jail the person who stole the ID. If he/she is an illegal immigrant, deport them. No questions asked. No Excuse. Fingerprint, DNA Swab, deport and done.

A few years ago, the most expensive, luxurious ski resort in Utah (Deer Valley) was raided by ICE, 40+ undocumented immigrants were taken into custody, and the resort was fined the equivalent of one day’s revenue. One day’s revenue? A drop in the bucket, and it’s a large bucket at that. That accomplishes nothing. Book some more rooms, and we are good.

A meat processing plant in Kansas was raided; same result. Until we hit the “job creators” HARD in the pocketbook, they will continue the practice of hiring undocumented, or illegally documented, workers.

It’s past time to make E-verify the law of the land, and to enforce it with heavy fines and penalties. Don’t fine the head of HR, fine the owner, and put him/her in prison. Not just for overnight, make it 12 months minimum. After all, we have federally-directed minimum sentences for drug users, why not for employers who hire undocumented workers?

That’s the first step.
Second, close the border. Stop dilly-dallying around, Congress. Stop building a fence, because anyone can build a taller ladder. Intercept, jail, and deport. Put enough National Guard, Border Patrol and DEA troops, as well as drones, on the border 24/7 to stop the flow. Don’t haggle about the costs, we had two unfunded wars for no reason. Congress didn’t worry about those costs. Use the money from the fines of those who hire undocumented workers to fund the border control efforts. Stop the flow of people, and stop the flow of drugs. Blow up the tunnels. Don’t worry about prison space, CCA and MTA will build and man the prisons faster than you can arrest the criminals. Those corporations love full prisons. And they make huge campaign donations.

Yes, if the “job creators” have to hire documented workers, pay taxes, etc., the costs of finished products will probably rise. McDonalds will have to call it the $2 menu. But Americans will be working, at least for minimum wages, and life will go on. As competition for labor increases, wages will go up, and unemployment will go down. People will be able to purchase goods. The economy will improve.

I know, readers, that this is a step back for a liberal (as I am described) to take. But it’s time, no, it’s past time for Congress to do something for the American people, for the American worker. I know the “job creators” will raise bloody hell if Congress does this, they will threaten to cut off the large campaign donations. But corporations and campaign donations don’t vote, the American people do. And the American people are frustrated and angry.

We elected you, Congress. Do what is right this time. Do it for America.

As always, your comments are more than welcome.

Shadows and Straws

It never ceases to amaze me, the deep shadows and thin straws used by those who would project their version of morality and life-style choices upon others in order to deny the constitutional right of marriage to same-sex couples.

Attorney Gene Schaerr authored a commentary, posted on the website of the Heritage Foundation’s The Daily Signal, outlining an amicus brief he had filed with the Supreme Court, wherein he claims that allowing same sex marriage will (a) devalue heterosexual marriage, (b) reduce the percentage of women who are married, and (c) increase the number of induced abortions.

Mr. Schaerr is best known as the lead attorney hired by the State of Utah to defend Amendment 3 of the Utah Constitution, which defined marriage as existing only between one man and one woman. The State of Utah, not surprisingly, lost the appeal, and same sex marriage is now legal in Utah. (I posted my reply to Utah’s court filing on this blog.)

Certainly Mr. Schaerr is entitled to his personal and religious beliefs. He is very well known for his membership in, and support of, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which opposes SSM on religious grounds. However, he is not entitled to his own facts, nor should he be allowed to use those beliefs to deny any American his or her constitutional rights.

To quote Attorney Schaerr:

“For example, an “any-two-adults” model of marriage implicitly tells men (and women) that a child doesn’t need a father (or mother), thereby weakening the norm of gender-diverse parenting. Other norms, such as the value of biological bonding, partner exclusivity, and reproductive postponement until marriage, will likewise crumble.”

Unfortunately for Mr. Schaerr’s opinion and amicus brief, that train left the station a long time ago. The Pew Research Center has studied census data from 1960 to 2013; here are the numbers: In 1960, only 9% of children were living in a single parent household; in 1980, 19% were in single parent households; and 2013, the figure was 34%. From this data, I conclude that the “norms” Mr. Schaerr speaks to have already crumbled. Traditional marriage was the norm in 1960, but it is certainly not the norm in 2015. For Mr. Schaerr to conclude that same sex marriage will devalue traditional heterosexual marriage seems to fly into the face of facts; traditional marriage has been declining (devaluing?) for decades.

As quoted by The Washington Post, the PRC analysis of Americans age 25 and older who have never been married details the following facts. In 1960, 8% of women and 10% of men in this group have never married. The number of never married men and women dropped slightly in 1970, to 8.5% and 9%, respectively, and has increased since; the rate in 2012 was 17% of women and 23% of men. On the surface, this increase of unmarried women and men would seem to support Mr. Schaerr’s arguments, but the details seem to have escaped him. In the PRC analysis, those who are same-sex married (in those states that allow SSM) are considered as married, and therefore are not part of the increased number of those who have never married. I therefore respectfully disagree with Mr. Schaerr regarding the supposed effect of same-sex marriage on the percentage of women who never marry. 

Regarding abortion, Mr. Schaerr stated in his brief that allowing SSM will increase the number of abortions. He is statistically incorrect; the Guttmacher Institute reports the number abortions performed in the United States has declined from a peak in 1981 of 29.3 per 1000 women of child-bearing age to 12.3 per 1000 in 2013. Same sex marriage was not legal in anywhere in the U.S. in 1981, when SSM did not exist; by 2013, 37 states and the District of Columbia legally allowed SSM. And yet the number of abortions has fallen to historic lows. Perhaps Mr. Schaerr should go back to school?

I think that a majority of us have longed, at one point or another, for “the good old days,” when Mom stayed home and raised the children, Dad worked one good-paying job, and everybody was June and Ward Cleaver happy. Reality, however, was not always that sunny. People of color were regarded as inferior; many women (and some men) stayed in abusive, destructive relationships because divorce for any reason was frowned upon by society, or not a legal option; family planning and reliable birth control were not discussed, and women could not apply for credit without their spouse’s approval.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the rise of social knowledge of (and disgust for) spousal and child abuse, the availability of higher education to both men and women, the availability of reliable birth control, and the acceptance of women as men’s equal in the workplace and the home allowed society to move forward and, albeit slowly, accept changes in the mores of American life. (These are just a few of the changes, used only as examples.) The actual acceptance of these changes has taken, and will continue to take, time to become a true reality for all Americans. But as a nation, as a people, we are moving in the right direction.

Now, as a society, we are on the cusp of another major paradigm shift; one which I view as a positive change in America’s social network. When the Supreme Court rules on same sex marriage in June, it is my hope, and my belief, that the constitutional right of all couples to marry as they desire will become the law of the land. 

As always, your opinions and comments are valued.

R.M. Hartman

Sources:

The Daily Signal http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/17/forcing-states-to-recognize-gay-marriage-could-increase-number-of-abortions/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social retrieved April 23, 2015

Pew Research Center:http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/22/less-than-half-of-u-s-kids-today-live-in-a-traditional-family/

The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/24/i-do-no-thanks-the-economics-behind-americas-marriage-decline/ 

Guttmacher Instutite: https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Through the Eyes of a Child

As adults, we rise up and power through our days, focusing on the concerns and employments that affect our own existence, and the affairs of the world. We forget, sometimes, how the simple things can provide immense pleasure to our lives. . .

This morning, as I was at my desk ruminating on world and local events (courtesy of the internet and the local paper), a small sound came to my ears. My youngest granddaughter slowly and carefully opened the door of my office, peered around it, and very quietly said “Good morning, Grandpa.”

She looked out the window. “The sun woked up. And I woked up. Does the sun eat breakfast, Grandpa?” I smiled, and said, “I don’t know, but I bet you would like some breakfast.” So we went to the kitchen, and I prepared her a bowl of cereal (colored circles, please, Grandpa, and orange juice). I fixed a cup of coffee, and listened to her chatter on about how dogs have four feet, but they are called paws, and people don’t have paws, people have only two feet, but we have hands; the reflection of her bowl of cereal on her glass of juice, and so forth, as she ate her cereal and drank her juice. I reflected on how much she enjoys life, enjoys taking each minute of life and finding wonder in it. How much she revels in sharing her thoughts, openly, without worrying if she is talking too much or making a fool of herself.

On our kitchen wall, we have an impressionist painting of a street scene that my wife and I purchased some time back; it reminds us of Seville, and a wonderful trip we had taken to that ancient Andalusian city. She looked up at it, as if seeing it for the first time, and asked me about it. How do you explain the emotions of a trip down memory lane to a four year old? I did my best, and then she looked at our dog, and commented about how he had so much hair, and never had to wear clothes. On to the next subject!

Now she is joined by her older sister, and I am treated to a continuous litany of (to me) unconnected thoughts running rampant through their minds.
How today was a no school day. They like to play outside, but it was raining, so they would stay inside. But they can’t go outside unless an adult is with them. Jonathan can’t walk yet, ‘cause he is a baby. And on and on.
I lost track of the events I was studying so hard a half hour ago, and become entranced by their view of the world and life in it.

I forgot, for that brief moment in time, about the tragic plane crash, the terrorist attack on a college in Kenya, the letters and bills on my desk that demand attention. My arthritis drifted to the back of my mind, as I watched them toss their hair around, smile and giggle at each other.

“With the eyes of a child
You must come out and see
That your world’s spinning round
And through life you will be
A small part of a hope of a love that exists
In the eyes of a child you will see.”
(John Lodge, 1969. The Moody Blues: To Our Children’s Children’s Children)

Yes, it is cloudy and misty today in the Salt Lake valley. The yard needs the moisture. . . etc., etc. Today, however, my world is full of springtime, sunshine and life!

Thank you, Esther and Martha, for bringing my feet back to the ground, and lifting my mind to the sky.

RM Hartman

Your thoughts and comments are, as always, welcome.

The state of Education in Utah

Brad Smith, the Utah State Superintendent of Public Education, is quoted as saying, during the closing sessions of the 2015 Utah legislative session, "It reminded me of when my kid was 3 years old and they started crying on Christmas morning because they didn't get one more thing," (SL Tribune, March 24, 2015). He has since retracted this statement in “An open letter to all Utah educators”, posted not in a public forum, but instead on the Utah Public Education website. (http://utahpubliceducation.org/2015/03/23/an-open-letter-to-all-utah-educators/#.VRFN8_nF_ng)
I am calling him out on both his statement at the legislature and his “apology.” Utah is dead last in the United States for per-pupil education. We have the largest class sizes in the Union, and a teacher in our state can qualify for welfare based upon wages paid. Both of these FACTS should shame the Utah State Superintendent of Public Education into advocating for more money for public education. . . and to do away with charter schools.

Like most parents in Utah, I have raised children who benefited from public education. I have listened to well-trained, qualified teachers as they gave advice to us regarding ways to help our children to gain as much knowledge as possible from their education; and also how to provide opportunities outside of school to assist in their education. Teachers work hard; they are unfortunately paid very poorly in Utah, and yet they continue to give it their all. To have the State superintendent accuse them of behaving poorly is a slap in their faces.

The rally to which you were referring, sir, consisted of not only teachers, but included parents concerned about their children’s education, and the level of funding given to the public schools. We, as a State, spent time this legislative session commemorating a device dedicated to killing, and spent money to have non-existing wolf-packs delisted from the endangered species act. We have, as a State, funneled money into charter schools that can pick and choose the students they want, to the detriment of public education.

I am sure you are familiar with Thomas Jefferson, the founder (and first major financial supporter) of the University of Virginia. Here is one of his comments regarding education:
“The tax that will be paid for the purpose of education is not more that the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance.”

You, sir, should have been begging, cajoling, and lobbying on behalf of Utah public schools and educators. You should have been crying foul on every attempt to limit or control money spent on public education. You should have been supporting the public schools, and the educators.

Instead, you chose to compare those advocating for education to the bleating of 3-year old offspring of goats.
My children, grandchildren, indeed all the children in Utah, deserve better from the State Superintendent of Education.

You, sir, owe an apology -not only to Utah public education teachers- but to all the parents, children, and children’s advocates in Utah. Perhaps you even owe them your resignation from office, as your very public comment indicates a distain for public education.

Your comments upon my thoughts are welcome.
RM “Bob” Hartman 3/24/15

An open letter to Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah

An open letter to Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah

Senator, to say that I was disappointed to see your signature applied to Senator Cotton’s “Open Letter to Iran” would be a severe understatement. I am one of your voting constituents, and feel you could have served me, and the citizens of Utah, better.

First, I find it interesting that the Junior Senator from Arkansas (and, by your signature, you, the senior Republican member of the Senate) feels the need, or is qualified, to educate the Iranian government on the process of treaty ratification in the United States (or other countries). A simple Google search can yield information on the number of treaties that have been proposed and never ratified by the Congress of the United States. While the reasons for non-ratification may vary, the process has been in place for years and continues to work for our government, for our people, and for the betterment of our Union. The government of Iran, and of other countries, understand our system, of that I am positive. If the treaty obtained is acceptable, then ratify it; if it is not, then vote against the treaty. It’s that simple, Senator. Advance the goals of the United States of America. Don’t throw the treaty under the bus before we have a chance to discuss it.

Second, I find Senator Cotton’s attempt to inform the Government of Iran on our system of elections and constitutional processes to be child-like and very immature. He may be, in fact a lawyer, but he must be too young to remember the Iran Hostage Crises of 1979-1981, when the government of Iran released the hostages the day after Ronald Reagan was sworn into office. Not the day of his election, Senator, but the day after he officially took office. (In fact, Senator Cotton was less than 5 years old when the hostages were released.) You, Senator Hatch, are not too young to remember that event, and in fact you were in your Senate office throughout that entire period of history.

To further progress the argument, a thinly-veiled threat about the potential strength of the treaty (as regards the United State’s commitment to the treaty) serves only to undermine the progress, albeit slow, in bringing Iran to the table for honest, verifiable discussions regarding their nuclear ambitions, and their ability to move to a nuclear arsenal. This process, as you are aware, Senator, has been ongoing for many years; it has involved world-wide sanctions and criticisms of Iran’s goal of obtaining nuclear weapons. Those sanctions and criticisms have had the desired effect of bringing Iran to the table to talk, which is the first of many steps the world’s various governments have taken to control the ability of non-nuclear States, such as Iran, to obtain nuclear weapons.

Senator Hatch, you are, for better or worse, the senior Republican in the Senate. You should be a voice of reason, of patience, of understanding. For someone of your standing to denigrate yourself to the lower level exhibited by Senator Cottons reflects poorly on your statesmanship, and your leadership. I would, and do, expect much better of you.

This is a time for America to heal some of her conflicts in the Middle East. Frankly, we need them, and they need us. We made a mess of Iran when we propped up the Shaw, and we bungled again in Iraq (both pre-and post-Saddam). Now we need senior statesmen to step up and work, with our elected President and within the channels of diplomacy, to correct our past mistakes, to work towards a more peaceful world, and to end the threat of nuclear annihilation.

With all due regards to your office, and to the service you have given to our country, I ask you to move into more positive steps regarding the on-going negotiations with Iran.

I am posting this to my blog, Senator, and if you respond, I will also post your response.

Readers- if you missed the Republican's letter to the leaders of Iran, here is a link: http://go.bloomberg.com/assets/content/uploads/sites/2/150309-Cotton-Open-Letter-to-Iranian-Leaders.pdf

As always, your comments are welcome.
Bob Hartman

Some of my readers have asked why I targeted Senator Hatch and not Mike Lee, the junior senator from Utah, who also signed this letter. Frankly, in my opinion, Mike Lee is still a baby senator, he has no clue about what is happening. He will do, or say, anything to prove his right wing tea party allegiance. I will not waste time on him. From Senator hatch, I expected better.
RMH