Contemplation

Sunday, June 18, 2017, 5:08 AM, MDT. I woke early this morning to the sound of coyotes, singing good night to the moon and good morning to the sun. A simple act, one they have repeated since time immemorial.

Living as I do in suburbia, it is an unusual alarm clock for me; one that brings a needed reminder that life does not always follow our manmade rhythms of nine-to-five. Perhaps, more importantly, it reminds me that my life form and style is only one of a multitude on this planet that we call Earth, the planet we call home.  

Putting on the coffee, I step outside and open my ears, eyes, and mind to nature. Perhaps you would call this a spiritual moment, a period of meditation; for there is no sense of myself now. I am immersed and engaged, yet invisible, in the landscape that surrounds me. There is nothing I need attend to right now, nothing that requires my action or presence. Instead, my attention is caught by the jackrabbits, nibbling on the prairie grasses as they eye the sky for airborne predators. Fortunately, not the drones that catch our attention on the 6 PM news, but eagles and hawks soaring on thermals as they also search for breakfast. Meadowlarks and a host of other birds, whose calls I do not recognize as easily, chip their wakeup calls and greetings; a lizard scamper past the fire pit, and swallows a small, evidently tasty bug. Well, at least he thinks it is tasty!

Kathleen has joined me now, and we sip our coffee, talking quietly. We discuss how the landscape to the west of us, which was so brilliantly outlined last night by the setting sun, has a palette of greens, blues, browns and reds becoming visible to the eye as the sun illuminates the landscape, a landscape defined eons ago by ice and geologic shifts. We trace where water, a resource so precious to all life-forms, is still present beneath the ground, making itself known to us by the presence of trees; pathways of life, if you will.

Howie, our yellow lab/greyhound companion, came out of the trailer with Kathleen and is now cautiously exploring these surroundings, he is an urban dog; therefore, the scents and sounds available are unusual to him. He carefully extends his exploration of our campsite, going a little further with each trek, carefully eyeing his surroundings and keeping a watchful eye on us. He is, after all, our self-appointed protector!

My tranquility is momentarily disturbed as I reflect on the current attempts, not only in Utah but in most western states, to “take back” lands owned and managed by the federal government and put them under state control. Utah, and other states west of the Mississippi river, contain large portions of land ceded to the U.S. government in our respective state constitutions. These lands are now locked in the sights of state legislators as potential revenue sources; they could, the argument goes, be “privatized” and thereby generate short-term revenues to state budgets; budgets strapped by the on-going demand for government services. Legislators feel the need to increase revenues, and, cowards that they are, remain fearful that any attempts to raise taxes on those that demand services would be detrimental to their re-election. Does this movement affect me personally? You can bet the farm on that, I am camped on BLM land at this moment.

However, I push those thoughts out of my mind for now; Kathleen and I came here to enjoy ourselves; I can deal with this nasty subject at a later date and time.

This trip has been a weekend-long period of meditation for me, a period of reflection. I have experienced many changes and upheavals in my life over the past several weeks, and needed time to think and talk about these changes and how they have affected me, and those people near and dear to me. These changes were inevitable, and in retrospect, necessary for my continuance as a person; change, however, is often painful and difficult. Some of you are aware of these changes, and for your love and support, I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

In particular, I cannot find the words to thank you enough, Kathleen. You are my life-long companion, and even through these events of late, you have supported and loved me, as difficult as these events and changes been for both of us. I am eagerly anticipating our new adventures and escapades as life continues to unfold.  (Poorly worded, but it’s the best I can do!)

Thank you for reading; your comments, as always, are appreciated.

 R.M. “Bob Hartman

Spring, hopefully.

The sun has risen, shining through the light broken clouds surrounding the mountain tops that make up my beloved Wasatch Front. Birds are singing outside my window, and I have a cup of hot coffee and a pipe. Everything is well in my world. Spring, I believe, is finally trying to arrive in the Salt Lake Valley.

It seems to have been a long time arriving, this spring. The winter, while not rough in the valley, has been good to the mountains; we experienced a very good snowfall, with lots of moisture content. Given the past several years of below-average moisture, this is a good sign of things to come!


It has also been a long time since I have felt the desire to write here. The whirlwind that pretended to be the election cycle has severely shaken my faith in our electoral process with the constant tweets, interruptions and unfounded allegations rapidly, and repeatedly, overtaking substance and fact. The rude, crude, obnoxious, and insulting behavior of the field of candidates left me with the feeling of being in a bad dream. Unlike a dream, however, it continued past dawn, and even continues to this day.


Not since the days of “yellow journalism” (mid to late 1800’s) have the people of our country been exposed to such inane behavior and rude attacks by the candidates on each other. But this was not a matter of difference in policies, or a debate of the kind that causes serious reflection on the part of the electorate; rather this was nothing more than a cheap, shoddy effort to rally the base (whatever that may be) while demonizing the opponent.


Personally, I was ashamed of the behavior and demeanor of our candidates. “The whole dern lot of them”, as grandmother would have said.  No one seemed willing, even for a moment, to step above the fray.


Was this what the American public wanted, or more to the point, was it what we needed? Was it what the American voters deserved? Sadly, we have become a nation that is fixated on 30 second sound bites, 24 hour or less news cycles, and reality TV. (Which, frankly, is not reality.) You can pick any discussion point, pick a side, and find a talk radio or a TV commentator willing to bolster your opinion. Easy, isn’t it? No thinking required.


No thinking required. The same held true of the rallies each candidate held. There was little or no discussion about “this is what I want to do, and this is how I will achieve it.” Rather, we sat through month after tedious month of “the other side said this” “the other side wants to take your _________ away.” Scare tactics, creating fear of the boogieman, seemed to be the best the politicians could achieve. If fear was what the politicians wanted to achieve, they succeeded, all too well. Fear of the angry, disenchanted white males; of the liberal eastern elitists, the mainstream (or lamestream) media, the tree-huggers, big business, real or imaginary terrorists, people of other races or origins, other faiths. Plenty of fear to go around. And little or no uplifting messages, no spirit of “can do”, the type of spirit that propelled us to victory in WWII, and put an American on the moon in a decade.


But, who is to blame for this? Certainly, blame can be laid on the politicians and pollsters, the pundits, the media. But more to the fact, I am afraid, the blame is on us. You and me. The voting (I hope) public. We allowed the powers behind the politicians to tell us what they wanted us to hear. In the main, we refused to exercise our duty to say, “hold on, this is not what we signed up for.” We-you and I-refused to hold our politicians accountable to us, the American people.


Fortunately, we are allowed a do-over. Elections for the House are held every two years, and the Senate and President, every four. We can, and should, start now to hold our elected officials responsible for their behavior and actions. We have voices; we have email, petitions, and letters to our officials, as well as potential, untried politicians waiting to enter public service and help us overcome the morass we have created. We do not have to settle for the status quo, we do not have to re-elect the incumbents.


Read, follow, and study your elected officials. Let them know what you think, and don’t be shy about it. Support those who are working to make America a better place, a more civilized society, and work to replace those who spread hate and fear.


I am remembering the words attributed to Colin Powell: “You break it, you own it.” Well, in my opinion, we broke it, now let’s fix it. We, the United States of America, are better than this.


As always, your comments of agreement or opposition are appreciated.


Thanks for reading,

RMH   

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.

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

Sagebrush(Fire) Rebellion

KY       25,084               LA   17,883                  MA       879                        MD         182

One of the many reasons people in a given location come together and form a government is for protection; protection not only from outside attacks but also from predators within our society. This protection within society gives rise to the rule of law, and the regulators (armies, politicians, police, etc) that are rightfully expected to enforce the regulations. Of course, this protection that we rightfully expect our governments to provide comes at an expense, in the form of taxes. We also reasonably expect that expense (taxes) to be basically uniform across the adult population.
In the very recent past, some western politicians, seeking attention from a disgruntled public, have raised the idea of limiting federal government by taking federal lands, administered by the BLM, USFS, BIA, and other federal agencies, away from the national government and administering the lands by state control. While this may have some very short-term economic benefit to state governments, nothing could be in the worst interest of the citizens in particular and the various states economic condition in general.

Let’s examine a western-states specific item: Wildfires. These are generally fought with a combination of local, state and federal agencies. In 2013, there were 47,579 wildfires; the majority of those in the western states. The total area burned was 4.3 Million Acres! Sadly, that is not the worst of the news. The FEDERAL government spent a total of $1,740,934,000 (1.74 Billion, billion with a capital B dollars) in suppression (put out the fire) costs. As an average, that is $405 per acre. (Source: National Interagency Fire Center http://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_documents/SuppCosts.pdf) 

This does NOT include the amount spent by any local or state agencies, nor does it include any remediation, property lost, or human costs. Forty-seven firefighters lost their lives in fire suppression efforts in the western United States in 2013. I thank them for their sacrifice; I have been on wildfire fire lines more times than I want to remember. If you have never been there, thank your lucky stars, but don’t discount those brave people in my presence. They are all volunteers for the duty; yes, they are paid for their efforts, but they are not forced to protect your property.
Here is the breakdown of wildfire acreage burned by state:

AK  1,316,876    AL   25,623     AR 14,733         AZ 105,281
CA     577,675    CO 195,145     CT      238         DE          17
FL         7,660     GA     6,736     HI           0        IA     14,704
ID      722,204     IL           55     IN        806        KS      7,137

ME            743    MI        940     MN  22,107      MO      1,660

MS              33    MT 124,209    NC   24,547      ND     16,116
NE               63    NH       137     NJ      1,430      NM   221,957
NV     162,907    NY   1,073      OH        152      OK      26,490
OR     350,786    PA    1,788      PR      4,716      RI               27
SC          7,082    SD     4,475     TN     7,080      TX        10,743
UT        70,282   VA     4,418     VT        281     WA      152,603
WI         8,577    WY  44,016

The states I have underlined are in one method or another asking/demanding the federal government relinquish control of federal lands to the states. So my question is, how will the states make up this additional expense to their budgets/and or cut other costs to cover the suppression costs? Here is the per-state cost. (All figures in this article are based on the 2013 wildfires, which was the third most costly in the last 20 years.)

Arizona will need another            $  42,638,805
Idaho will require another            $292,492,620
Montana will need another          $  50,304,645
New Mexico needs another        $  89,892,585
Nevada will require another        $  65,977,335
Texas will require another           $       424,035
Utah will need another                $  28,464,210
Wyoming needs another             $   17,826,480
Not so Grand of A Total!!         $ 588,020,715
(Breakdown by state source: (http://www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/intelligence/2013_Statssumm/fires_acres13.pdf)) 

In plain English, the eight states that want to take state control of federal land will reduce the federal wildfire cost by 33.78%. That is a win-win for the feds (which these states dislike), a win-win for the states, but a lose-lose-lose-lose for the people living in those eight states. Yes, you the taxpayers will lose “4 ways from Sunday”, as mother used to say.

Here’s why:
The amount of federal taxes each of us pays is equal across the country: if you make X amount, you pay Y amount in taxes. The federal tax rate does not change if you have 1+ million acres on fire (Alaska) or only 27 (Rhode Island). Your federal taxes are NOT going down.( Feds win; people in the eight states lose.)
The drop of 33.78% in expenses on the federal level will allow the various federal agencies to increase the amount that is allocated to various branches, without a tax increase. (Feds win; people in the eight states lose.)

Your state taxes will increase to cover the costs of fighting wildfires, as all state governments are required to operate on a break-even or better basis. (States wins, people lose.)
If there are higher than predicted fire costs, your state tax rate will go up again to cover the expense; and once state rates go up, they don’t ever go back down. (States wins, people lose.)

That’s right, readers. In the case of wildfire control and costs in the budgets, if the states take control of the federally-administrated lands in each state, the feds win twice, the states win twice, and WE, the people, lose, four times.

And you want to vote these “State Control” politicians back into office? Against the better judgment of your own wallet?I don’t think so. Your comments and thoughts are all welcome! Agree with me, or disagree, let me know what you think!

The Vernal Equinox

Yesterday, March 20, 2014, at 16:57 GMT, was the annual occurrence of the Vernal Equinox. That is the day and time that the sun illuminates both the southern and northern hemispheres equally, the advent of spring in the north, and fall in the south. I live, fortunately, in the Northern Hemisphere, and it is Spring! The lilac tree outside my office window has tiny green leaves opening up, and this weekend will be the beginning of my lawn and garden season.

It’s time to trim the roses, and encourage the vines growing on the fence, to water the native plants in our front garden. Time, now, to shake off the doldrums of a cold winter, to clean the windows and drapes, remove the dirt and debris from the rain gutters. Put a new coat of wax on the truck, and imagine the possibilities of new adventures. It is time.

It is also a fitting time to remember who I am, and the ideas, inspirations, and causes that form and shape me. The time to wake up, so to speak, from my hibernation. In the days, weeks, and months ahead, I plan to enjoy bike rides, hikes, picnics, and canoeing, all with my spouse of 30+ years. From the old masters, I can learn that it is time to stop and smell the roses; to avoid becoming so caught up in the business of life that I forget the peace that exists in nature. In fine, it is time to get on with my life.

What are your plans for this spring, and where will it take you?

Comments and thoughts are always welcome!

Sunrise on the Wasatch

This morning, I was greeted by a beautiful vista, the clouds at the apex of a canyon backlight by a glorious sunrise. This seemingly common daily occurrence, that of the sun rising, set me to pondering the recent actions of the populace in general, and of the rancor and disharmony that seems to overshadow our daily lives. In the words of the poet:
“Brave Helios, wake up your steeds
Bring the warmth the countryside needs”-Graeme Edge, 1967

Personal beliefs in the creation of the universe don’t matter; the sun rises and sets regardless of our opinion. Our status in life, our possessions, wealth, influence or power, all are without meaning or importance to the sun. This all-important luminary gives light and warmth to all, without qualification or reservation.

Compare that state of equanimity to our present situation. Men argue and fight to impose one set of wills or values upon others; based upon perceived differences or avarice, to the final good of no one.

There will always be differences among us; circumstances of birth, property, social standing, etc. But in our dealings with each other, regardless of our differences, can we not be more akin to the sun and treat everyone equally?

Think about it.

(Published in the Salt Lake Tribune March 4, 2014. However, the Tribune removed the quote from G. Edge, and that negatively affected the tone of the letter, in my opinion)

Opinions Do Matter-Both Yours and Mine.

“Someone’s drawing conclusions
On the wall of destiny
Someone’s getting louder
And that someone is me.”-
Melissa Etheridge.

I did not grow up, planning to be loud. Never thought I would have any influence on anyone else, and I still don’t know if I do. Nevertheless, life happens, regardless of our best intentions. Someone asked me, a few days ago, why I write this blog, why it has turned out so political. That set me to thinking, and some of those thoughts, I would like to share with you now.
.
I grew up in a small town. I mean a very small town; there were 14 children in my first grade class and the same 14 in my ninth grade class. The town consisted of white, conservative, “Christian” Americans. There was a Baptist Church, a Catholic Church, and a Methodist Church. Everybody knew who went to church, and who went to each church. Those who did not go to church, well, they were unsaved. And you know, those who are unsaved, well, they go to hell.

My best friend died of the effects of Agent Orange, way too young. His family was probably the least affluent in the town; but he was the only person I knew who could ride a 10-speed bicycle through the town while reading a book. (Seriously, he did, and often.) Ok, so we did not have a lot of traffic!

My father was a bigot, he did not like (insert your slang terms here); those of different cultures or races. And boy, he knew all the slang terms. I will not insult all of those people by listing the names he called them. Better dead than Red, when we were watching the news and the talk turned to the “conflict” in Southeast Asia. My mother, in typical fashion of the day, agreed with him. Dad, however, walked out when times got hard; from him, I learned that a real man does not run from his problems. One saving grace I had was my grandmother, who tried subtly to convince me that there was no reason to hate people because of their skin, or religion, or their ideas. Surprisingly, grandmother was more liberal than my parents ever thought about being; however, she was very strict about education. And I do mean strict! You did not bring home a bad report card, and you never addressed an adult by their first name. And, she was Grandmother, not any other term. Unless you were talking about President Franklin Roosevelt, you did not swear (long story there).

High school-500+ students- as opposed to the 14 I knew; racial unrest, Vietnam and the draft, rock and roll, drugs, the pill. What is that saying, if you remember the sixties, you weren’t really there? Life changed for this boy from the sticks. It changed, big time. And, I changed, slowly, with those times. Without really thinking about it, I became political. In retrospect, it started with Vietnam, when I, and a lot of other people, realized the President could send us to die, but we couldn’t vote for or against him. The only brush I had with the law was when I decided to sit down. I learned that you and your friends don’t sit down on the street where the President is going to be, when he visits the newest group of flyboy graduates at the Air Force Academy. I have voted, and worked for candidates, in every election since then; I am proud of that fact, and I do not intend to stop.

So, now I am 60, an “old man” according to my grandchildren. I’m willing to put my experience up against any young whippersnapper that comes along. But, that experience has come with a very high price tag; a price that includes standing up for what is right, for what I think is proper, regardless of the popular opinion.

When I create an article, I do research; I look for hard data to back up my thoughts. I have, at times, had my opinion changed by the facts. But, that is result of study, of research, and I welcome that change, that education.

And, I hope that is the same for you. I hope, by creating this blog, by putting my ideas out to you, I can encourage in you a desire to find out the truth, regardless of the sound bites. I hope you will be willing to enter into an honest discussion, to think beyond the right now, to think what is good for the future, for you and I.

Grandmother always had Reader’s Digest, Arizona, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News and World Report, and Family Circle on her coffee table. She would often tell me there was an interesting article in one or the other magazine, ask me to read it and then discuss. She never discounted my opinion, but was more than willing to offer her viewpoint. And, my readers, I ask you to do the same. Read what I post, comment, offer your opinion, and discuss the issues I raise. If you have an issue in mind that you would like me to research and discuss, just drop me an email at robertmhartman29@gmail.com and I will look into it.
Thanks for reading! To leave a comment, simply click on the "comment" below.

Amazed, But Not Amused

Wow, where do I begin? The State of Utah filed its brief, outlining the State’s position on denying same-sex marriage rights in Utah, on Monday, February 3rd at 11:30 PM. (A scant 30 minutes before deadline.) I’ve spent a good part of yesterday and today reading the brief, looking up references, making notes; and I must admit my amazement. I’ve listed the major points, as I see them, here; and I have added my own comments. If you want to download the brief, it is available here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/204554071/State-of-Utah-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-brief#download, you do have to create a sign in for Scribd.com, but it is free. All page references made refer to the brief as submitted to the court.

What happens if Utah allows same-sex marriage, on an equal footing with opposite-sex marriage?
“Same sex marriage creates. . .(2) a risk of increased fatherlessness (and motherlessness), with all the emotional, social, and economic damage that has been shown to create.
(3) A risk of reduced birthrates, with the demographic and economic crises that could bring.” (Pages 2-3)
These are certainly interesting viewpoints. I would like to see the peer-reviewed papers that create both of these positions; none were cited in the brief. I fail to see how the presence of two loving committed adults in a relationship creates an increased risk of fatherlessness or motherlessness for the children. How will allowing same-sex marriage reduce the birthrate? If same-sex marriage is allowed, will opposite-sex couples stop creating children? That is an extremely doubtful outcome! Should same-sex marriages be denied, it is highly unlikely that the individuals involved will decide to engage in opposite-sex marriage and procreate. It is much more likely the participants will simply choose to cohabitate, without the legal benefit and protection of marriage. The two terms, fatherlessness and motherlessness, really? Who created those terms?

The voters in the general election held in November of 2004 passed Utah Amendment 3. Article 1, Section 29 of the Utah State Constitution now reads:
“(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
(2) No other domestic unions, however denominated, shall be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.”
I have covered this, in depth, in a previous article. Suffice it to say, due to all of the uproar and rhetoric on both sides, our Governor and some in the legislature are now openly talking about allowing “civil unions” for same-sex couples, which they would not consider before. It’s too late for that, Governor. The horse has left the barn, at a gallop. The point the Governor and his supporters are not accepting is that civil unions do not provide all of the benefits accorded to married couples, as per existing federal and state laws. Separate but equal has been tried before, it failed then and it will fail now. Additionally, providing now for civil unions would invalidate paragraph 2 of this section, and as that is a constitutional change, it would have to come before the voters.

Under a section titled “Summary of Argument”, the State argues, among other things, that:
“. . . maintaining the man-woman definition increases the likelihood that children will be raised by their biological mothers and fathers-or at least a mother and father in intact families.” (Page 26)
I cannot follow that argument; if a heterosexual couple is raising their children now, how will allowing same-sex marriage decrease the likelihood they will continue to do so? Is the State saying, if we allow same-sex marriage, fathers or mothers in existing marriages will run off to be with a same-sex partner? Personally, I do not think so. I do not think it will matter to the parents at all, I cannot see same-sex marriage destroying any existing marriages/relationships. Characteristically, Utah is again tilting at windmills.

“. . . maintaining the man-woman definition helps to insure adequate reproduction by parents willing and able to raise their children in stable homes. . .The state has a compelling interest in ensuring adequate reproduction. . . ” (Page 27)
It is a biological fact that procreation requires involvement of opposite sexes. However, I do not understand how allowing same-sex marriage will reduce adequate reproduction by opposite-sex parents. Furthermore, what is the “compelling interest” the State has in ensuring adequate reproduction? The decision to reproduce, or not, belongs to the prospective parents, not to the State. Is this a behind the back maneuver to outlaw birth control in Utah? Could the State be saying, you must reproduce or your marriage is not valid?

“And although sex between men and women naturally- and often accidentally-produces children, it does not necessarily produce stable families dedicated to protecting and nurturing those children” (Page 52)
Well, here is a statement I can understand and agree with. Producing children does not mean a stable relationship, not by a long shot. Given the current number of single parent households in Utah, either because of divorce, desertion, or lack of commitment on the part of either parent, I think this statement is a no-brainer. My real question is, what does this statement have to do with the issue at hand, that is, same-sex marriage?

“Because of its critical social functions, marriage is also one of our most important social institutions.” (Page 53)
“Marriage (n): the state of being united to another person as a usual contractually relationship according to law or custom” (Merriam-Webster) It is indeed one of our most important social institutions, and as such, how would the State benefit by not allowing individuals to marry the person they wish to contract with? When two people decide to marry, to form that contract, they are formalizing their joint desire to enter into a long- term commitment to each other, for better or for worse, as the saying goes.

“. . . the law often supports social institutions, in order to give them formal recognition, bring legal and administrative arrangements into line with them, facilitate their use by members of the community who wish to do so, and encourage the transmission of belief in their value to future generations.” (Pages 55-56)
Let us then allow formal recognition of same sex marriages. Let those who wish to marry, to make a contract with another person, do so without segregation by race, creed, national origin, language, or sexual orientation. Provide all marriages the same legal and administrative arrangements currently enjoyed by opposite sex marriages. As I understand it, that is at the crux of the argument for same-sex marriage.

Utah has listed seven arguments against “redefining” marriage as the union of two people (as opposed to the current wording, one man and one woman.) The State refers to this as genderless marriage. Here are Utah’s seven arguments:

“First, redefining marriage in genderless terms would break the critical conceptual link between marriage and procreation. . . the redefinition ordered by the district court would tend to encourage more parents to raise their existing biological children without the other biological parent.” (Pages 72-73)
This argument has some serious flaws. What is the critical conceptual link between marriage and procreation? Many couples enter into marriage knowingly without the ability or desire to procreate. Further, the State offers no peer-reviewed documentation or studies that conclude allowing same sex marriage would encourage more parents to raise children without the other biological parent involved. Is the State trying to blame a shadow-figure for the incidence of single-parent households? That bucket doesn’t hold water, we already have children being raised in single-parent households and we currently do not have genderless marriage.

“Second . . . the loss of the State’s clear message in favor of biological mother-father parenting within marriage would likely result in a higher percentage of couples conceiving children without the stability that marriage would otherwise bring.” (Page 73)
I agree that the ideal situation for raising children is a two-parent, financially secure, loving household. The State does not explain how allowing same-sex marriage will cause that “clear message” to be lost. Nor does, or can, the State demonstrate how same-sex marriage will encourage couples to conceive children without marriage. Where did they come up with this argument?

“Third. . . would undermine the existing social norm that often leads parents in acceptable but not ideal marriages to make self-sacrifices and remain married to the parents of their children.” (Page 73)
Ok, sadly, I have heard this one before. The State is encouraging parents to stay married for the sake of the children. It wants parents to remain in a perhaps loveless or tumultuous relationship for the sake of a theoretically existing social norm. To keep up the (false) appearance of Utah as a family-centered state, the State expects and desires parents to remain in a relationship that may be damaging to their mental or physical well-being. This is not just a bucket-load of cattle by-product; instead, it is a whole trainload! All of which having been said, how does this social norm bear on the subject at hand, which is the recognition of same-sex marriage? I cannot make that connection, no matter how hard I try.

“Fourth . . . would also undermine the current social norm (weakened though it may be) that those who wish to have children-or engage in conduct that could lead to children-should get married. “ (Page 75)
Let us remember what this lawsuit is about, the validity of same-sex marriage. These same sex couples want to get married. They want to raise children, if any are involved, in a two-parent, loving household. If anything, they want to strengthen the social norm of being married when raising children. I am beginning to wonder about the validity, and appropriateness, of the State’s arguments.

“Fifth, and most obviously, a genderless definition of marriage would likely increase the number of children being raised by same-sex parents. That could happen because the couple decides to raise together an existing child of one of the partners. Or it could be the result of the conception of a new child through surrogacy or sperm donation.” (Page 76)
For this to be a valid argument against same-sex marriage, the State needs to demonstrate (which they haven’t) how this arrangement would be detrimental to the State, or to the children involved. Previously, the State has argued that is it important for children to be raised in a two-parent household; a two-parent household provides a better environment for the children. Why, then, does the State not want to support marriage? This sounds like circular reasoning, and not very good reasoning at that.

“Sixth. . . it would likely lead to other innovations. . . for starters, if homosexual marriage is OK, why not group marriage?” (Page 77)
Ah, the good old slippery slope again. Let’s all go out to the slide in the playground. Polygamous marriage is not legal under current Federal law, although that law is currently being challenged in federal courts. Polygamy, however, is not the question here. Is the State creating a diversion because they don’t feel they have a strong enough argument in this case? If so, Utah should remember that it had to renounce and outlaw polygamy in order to gain admission into the Union.

“Seventh. . . a court-ordered redefinition of marriage could well lead to its wholesale “privatization”-for example by enactment of a civil union regime for all couples, with religious and other organizations being free to offer the title of “marriage” as they see fit.” (Page78)
The individual(s) responsible for this paragraph needs to go back to law school! In order to be legally married, the couple-opposite-sex or same-sex- must first obtain a marriage license from the state. This license creates a legal, binding contract between the two people; if they wish a religious component to the marriage, they can be wed in a ceremony by a faith that allows that marriage. Conversely, they can be wed by the county clerk, or by a justice of the peace, even Elvis, if they wish to go to Las Vegas. Is the State, not too subtly, suggesting that marriage require a religious component? Given this is Utah we are talking about, that is not a big stretch of the imagination.

The State continues to focus on the fertility rates, arguing that:
“By implicating endorsing the adult-centric model of marriage, a genderless redefinition would send a powerful message that it is entirely appropriate-even expected-for adults to forgo or severely limit the number of their children based upon concerns for their own convenience. “ (Page 88)
This argument shows arrogance, sheer unadulterated arrogance on the part of the State. It is altogether appropriate for adults to consider their own circumstances in the decision to have children, and how many children to have. Career, financial, health, and lifestyle choices can and should be an important part in the educated decision to have, or not have children, and in the decision of how many children to have. It is my observation, having lived in this state for almost 40 years, that many people feel it is their (religious) duty to have children quickly, and frequently, regardless of their ability to support the children, or their personal desire or physical/mental condition to have children. This “duty” can, and in some cases does, cause severe social/economic stress on the parents, and on society as a whole. Our overcrowded, under-funded educational system comes to mind, but that is a discussion for another day.

“Preserving Utah’s marriage definition furthers the State’s vital interest in accommodating religious freedom and reducing the potential for civic strife.” (Page 90)
I believe we have finally arrived at the core of the State’s position. The very predominant religion in the state of Utah is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; the Church does not accept or condone same-sex relationships or marriages. Its position is that homosexuality is a sin, and a choice; a choice that can be “corrected” by faith, prayer, fasting, and marriage to a person of the opposite sex, with procreation following. The Church maintains this position regardless of the mounting scientific evidence that homosexuality is a biological factor that is decided while the child is in utero; that it is not the “fault” of the mother or the father, and that it is not genetically related.
No logical, thinking individual could or should deny the Church its right to its beliefs. Nor will that same individual deny the members of the Church their right to practice their religion, insofar as that practice does not conflict with the rights of those who do not believe the same.
In reference to the quote above, the State does have a vital interest in promoting religious freedom and reducing civil strife. That religious freedom, however, is a double-edged sword. The sword does protect the right of a church, and its members, to believe and practice as they wish. It also protects others in the same fashion; that is, they have the right to believe and practice, according to their own personal dictates and conscience.

The narrow issue in this matter before the court is civil rights, or equality. There are no less than 15 Supreme Court decisions that have delineated marriage as a civil right, beginning in 1888; the latest decision was US vs. Windsor. (The following quote is from Lawrence vs. Texas., 2003)
“[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”(Lawrence vs. Texas)
The majority of Utah’s citizens are members of the LDS church, and support and participate in the Church to varying degrees. That is fine, but majorities do not decide or control civil rights. The laws and courts of our nation are there to protect the civil rights of minorities as well as majorities. In this particular matter, it is the civil right of homosexual persons to be married, the same as heterosexual persons, and to enjoy the rights, benefits, and responsibilities of marriage, that is under discussion. This case is not a discussion of procreation, though the State would like to make it that. Nor is it a discussion of morals, because morals are as individual as you and I are. It is a matter of the rights of individuals to marry as they choose, and to enjoy the protection and benefit of marriage.

After reading and studying this brief, I have several opinions. (Surprise!)
First, the State has failed to show why or how same-sex marriage will harm the State, its citizens, or the children. In constructing this document, the State refers to the incidence of single-parent families, and attempts but miserably fails to connect same-sex marriage to single-parent households.
Second, the State has raised the specter of same-sex marriage causing a decrease in the number of children born in Utah, without demonstrating causation. This thinking flies into the wall of reason, and falls hard to the ground. I hope that it will stay there. It certainly does not deserve reincarnation.
Third, the State has claimed, without justification, that same-sex marriage will increase the number of children born of causal, non-committed sexual congress. Excuse me, how did the “crack legal team” hired by the Attorney General come up with this idea? Marriage will lead to an increase in childbearing casual sex? Anyone following that road deserves to drive off the cliff.
Fourth, and in my opinion most dangerously, the State has tried, however subtly, to inject majority religious opinion into secular law. I know this is Utah, but come on; we are in the 21st century, not the dark ages. Religion –any religion-does not belong in secular law!

Finally, patient reader (I know this has been a long document, even for me), I believe the State has wasted good money on this brief, and indeed is wasting money on this entire case. That is money that should go to education, for education is the best defense of civil rights, and of liberty. I also believe that while this case is about Utah law, the decisions reached will, long-term, effect the entire United States of America.

I hope you have enjoyed this discussion, I know you have opinions that may agree or disagree with mine. However, that is the beauty of America, we are all entitled to our opinions, and I would like to hear yours. Please leave your comments below.
Thanks for reading, as always!

One final housekeeping item: In this article, when I use the term marriage, I am referring to the arrangement between two consenting adults, of legal age to enter marriage.

Sources:
For Utah’s brief: http://www.scribd.com/doc/204554071/State-of-Utah-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-brief#download

For Lawrence vs. Texas: http://www.scribd.com/doc/79449919/Lawrence-vs-Texas

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.)

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.

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!