Hello everyone, I know I have talked about this before but it needs to be looked at again. With many Tea Party supporters now entering the house the GOP are all aflutter with the idea of repealing Health care reform. On the Today show this morning New Mexico's former mayor said that now is the time to cut spending by cutting social security medicare and medicaid. He said it was the responsible thing to do. Now I fully get that debt is bad, but why is it that these guys never suggest cuts to programs that help the rich? We did not cause this financial mess, but dammit we (the elderly, poor, disabled) we should clean it up. Now I have said this before so I wont go over it again, what I want to mention is his plan. He says that in the spirit of bi-partisanship the Republicans should repeal the prescription drug coverage that they helped pass in the 1990's. Isn't that a great idea? Lets get rid of a program that is working to keep people alive. The idea seems to be that we work toward getting rid of all social programs, it is sad that I have to explain this Preventative care is cheaper than after the fact care! Lets say his dream comes true. No Medicaid for any adult, sounds great, well in the short term it saves states money. But then people start to visit the emergency rooms for colds, food poisoning, body aches etc... Why are they going to the emergency room instead of to a family doctor, because they have no insurance. They make the same crap wage, their rent has gone up and food stamp benefits have been cut again. So the state starts loosing millions a year. That is the reality you cannot just cut spending without thinking.
Monday, November 22, 2010
TSA screening
I have to say something about this "controversy" that is heating up. First off I would like to point out that less than one year ago a man armed with an explosive device in his pants tried to take down a plane. Since then there have been other suspicious packages (no pun intended) intercepted by the TSA and other agencies.
So the screening has been stepped up, as a way of making people less uncomfortable they have full body scanners so that someone does not have to touch you if that makes you uncomfortable. A few well placed people complained about these machines, saying that the white body shaped blobs might be used as porn by pervs. So the media picked up on this story and people got all kinds of upset about it. So the TSA said that you could opt out of the scanner for a pat down, and what happened, a few well placed people threw fits. Sarah Palin has said that white people should not be subjected to scans or pat downs. Well okay, she said that TSA agents should "profile" people. I guess Sarah doesn't remember the uni bomber or Timothy McVeigh. She would have you believe that all terrorists are "dark skinned".
I have watched this unfold for the past few weeks,(no doubt Fox news has some theory on how it's Obama's secret plan to make us Muslim or something)
One thing that all of the complaining parties have in common is that they are all affluent, or have some kind of influence at work.
Now I hear on the Today show that people are verbally abusing TSA agents who are just doing a job. One I might add that could save lives.
Listen, getting a pat down is clinical touching nothing more. I would never accuse my doctor of rape after getting a pap smear.
Let's be reasonable, it is not okay to verbally berate anyone, least of all someone who is doing a job.
Enhanced security measures are a part of our lives now, deal with it, or don't fly.
So the screening has been stepped up, as a way of making people less uncomfortable they have full body scanners so that someone does not have to touch you if that makes you uncomfortable. A few well placed people complained about these machines, saying that the white body shaped blobs might be used as porn by pervs. So the media picked up on this story and people got all kinds of upset about it. So the TSA said that you could opt out of the scanner for a pat down, and what happened, a few well placed people threw fits. Sarah Palin has said that white people should not be subjected to scans or pat downs. Well okay, she said that TSA agents should "profile" people. I guess Sarah doesn't remember the uni bomber or Timothy McVeigh. She would have you believe that all terrorists are "dark skinned".
I have watched this unfold for the past few weeks,(no doubt Fox news has some theory on how it's Obama's secret plan to make us Muslim or something)
One thing that all of the complaining parties have in common is that they are all affluent, or have some kind of influence at work.
Now I hear on the Today show that people are verbally abusing TSA agents who are just doing a job. One I might add that could save lives.
Listen, getting a pat down is clinical touching nothing more. I would never accuse my doctor of rape after getting a pap smear.
Let's be reasonable, it is not okay to verbally berate anyone, least of all someone who is doing a job.
Enhanced security measures are a part of our lives now, deal with it, or don't fly.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Utah power plant
At a time when the West desert is fighting to keep Clarke county from taking their precious water supply, the state of Utah is planning to build a nuclear power plant. The site would be right on the Green river, and would (they say) give electricity to Salt Lake's growing edge cities. The big push for this now comes because many in Utah are out of work so the idea is to create jobs and energy for Utah. Well does anyone remember IPP? This was a project just outside of Delta Ut. that was supposed to do the exact same thing. I seem to recall that the IPP project was proposed during a bit of a recession as well. Well IPP ended up being a smaller plant, so less employees, and the best part, the electricity generated went to Nevada and California.
So what guarantee do we have that this power plant will create more than just temporary construction jobs? The answer is, none we have no way to prove that the jobs will stay or that the energy will stay with us.
So we are just supposed to hope for the best. There is a group fighting this plant, they are an environmental group who are worried about the corruption of the water supply.
So what guarantee do we have that this power plant will create more than just temporary construction jobs? The answer is, none we have no way to prove that the jobs will stay or that the energy will stay with us.
So we are just supposed to hope for the best. There is a group fighting this plant, they are an environmental group who are worried about the corruption of the water supply.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Money for schools
So the federal government authorized money to go to individual states to help keep classrooms solvent in this economic crisis. What does the state of Utah do? They first say that they don't need it. "Ah who needs well educated kids, we pay the least to help our students and that's just fine by us. "
This would have been the end of it, no money for our kids except that there is a catch. See if a state legislature refuses the money than it gets dispersed among that states schools anyway. Well our legislature couldn't let that happen so they begrudgingly took the money.
Some Republicans said that giving aid to our underfunded schools was taking away states rights, his reasoning was that the state of Utah should have had the option to refuse the money.
This to me is like a neglectful parent suing DCFS for taking their child out of the home and feeding him/her. "Hey that's my kid, and if I don't want to feed him that's my right"
Well, what about the rights of the children who are owed a decent education. With this money we could ensure that class sizes stay small, and that children with special needs get the education that they are entitled to under 504.
When the legislature slashed our budget last year they put us back in the black, good for them. But as far as I know they have no intention of raising funding for schools in the near future. To revisit my analogy, if the parents won't feed their children then someone has to make sure that they don't starve.
This would have been the end of it, no money for our kids except that there is a catch. See if a state legislature refuses the money than it gets dispersed among that states schools anyway. Well our legislature couldn't let that happen so they begrudgingly took the money.
Some Republicans said that giving aid to our underfunded schools was taking away states rights, his reasoning was that the state of Utah should have had the option to refuse the money.
This to me is like a neglectful parent suing DCFS for taking their child out of the home and feeding him/her. "Hey that's my kid, and if I don't want to feed him that's my right"
Well, what about the rights of the children who are owed a decent education. With this money we could ensure that class sizes stay small, and that children with special needs get the education that they are entitled to under 504.
When the legislature slashed our budget last year they put us back in the black, good for them. But as far as I know they have no intention of raising funding for schools in the near future. To revisit my analogy, if the parents won't feed their children then someone has to make sure that they don't starve.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Affirmative action
The state of Utah wants to get rid of affirmative action. Some legislators claim that it causes more problems between members of ethnic groups, and that it is discriminatory. There was a debate held at a Baptist church in Salt Lake yesterday. I would now like to explain what this is so that you can make an informed decision about the issue.
First of all affirmative action does not mean that an employer has to hired unqualified employees, it does mean that an employer has to hire qualified employees who are ethnically diverse. It should be noted that right now the group that benefits from affirmative action the most is women. Before affirmative action employers were rejecting resumes from women because they felt that women were not suited for certain kinds of work. We have seen that change a lot in the past few years.
Society as a whole benefits from affirmative action, studies have shown that young people do better in school if they have role models of their own ethnicity to look up to. Schools of higher learning benefit from a diverse class room. Of greatest importance is the benefit gained by the employees and students themselves' finally a smart member of a minority group can gain access to something that was beyond him/her.
We like to believe that we are a meritocratic society, we are not. As was pointed out in a recent Colorado study most jobs are filled by word of mouth not by resume and interview.
Perhaps one day we will judge potential employees or students on merit but we are not there yet. Until we get to that point we need affirmative action.
The last thing I want to say is this, in a time where people are worried about jobs why is our legislature arguing this issue.
Utah would be taking a huge step back in the civil rights movement and as human beings if they cheat others out of equality.
First of all affirmative action does not mean that an employer has to hired unqualified employees, it does mean that an employer has to hire qualified employees who are ethnically diverse. It should be noted that right now the group that benefits from affirmative action the most is women. Before affirmative action employers were rejecting resumes from women because they felt that women were not suited for certain kinds of work. We have seen that change a lot in the past few years.
Society as a whole benefits from affirmative action, studies have shown that young people do better in school if they have role models of their own ethnicity to look up to. Schools of higher learning benefit from a diverse class room. Of greatest importance is the benefit gained by the employees and students themselves' finally a smart member of a minority group can gain access to something that was beyond him/her.
We like to believe that we are a meritocratic society, we are not. As was pointed out in a recent Colorado study most jobs are filled by word of mouth not by resume and interview.
Perhaps one day we will judge potential employees or students on merit but we are not there yet. Until we get to that point we need affirmative action.
The last thing I want to say is this, in a time where people are worried about jobs why is our legislature arguing this issue.
Utah would be taking a huge step back in the civil rights movement and as human beings if they cheat others out of equality.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Brian David Mitchel
Like most people I was pleased to see that the man who held Elizabeth Smart captive for nine months was finally going to trial. The Smart family has waited almost nine years for the man who was found with their abducted daughter on a Sandy street corner to face a jury. I and many others saw her return home as a miracle, many believed her to be dead. The elation about Smith's return faded into the nightmare of prosecuting Mitchel He has disrupted every court hearing, his lawyers say that singing is a sign of insanity, and people have listened. I find it hard to believe that this trial is halted yet again because of singing in a court room. I have a theory about why this SOB has yet to face justice.
My theory is this, the state of Utah is reluctant to admit that monsters like this come out of polygamy. Since the Mormons used to practice polygamy they somehow feel defensive of those who still practice it. Mitchel knows this and so plays off of it, he sings LDS hymns even though he is not a Mormon. The Mormon church is so afraid of being associated with polygamy that they would rather pretend it does not exist rather than deal with the very real problems it causes. If an abductor was caught red handed with his victim he would be tried the same year, but not Mitchel. He has a "religion" that tells him rape is OK, so we must protect it. I am appalled that this case is still being stalled, he was found fit for trial so get on with it. The new argument is that he cannot get a fair trial in Utah. This case was a sensation if the idea is to get away from people who have heard of the case, that isn't going to happen. Someone should tell his lawyers that we have a new invention called the Internet now. What pisses me off the most about this case is that, this adult man is given all of this consideration and people are forgetting that a 14 year old girl was raped twice a day for nine months. I think that the courts of Utah want to drag this out until people forget that this case is not about religion, it is about rape and abduction. Give the Smart family a chance at justice.
My theory is this, the state of Utah is reluctant to admit that monsters like this come out of polygamy. Since the Mormons used to practice polygamy they somehow feel defensive of those who still practice it. Mitchel knows this and so plays off of it, he sings LDS hymns even though he is not a Mormon. The Mormon church is so afraid of being associated with polygamy that they would rather pretend it does not exist rather than deal with the very real problems it causes. If an abductor was caught red handed with his victim he would be tried the same year, but not Mitchel. He has a "religion" that tells him rape is OK, so we must protect it. I am appalled that this case is still being stalled, he was found fit for trial so get on with it. The new argument is that he cannot get a fair trial in Utah. This case was a sensation if the idea is to get away from people who have heard of the case, that isn't going to happen. Someone should tell his lawyers that we have a new invention called the Internet now. What pisses me off the most about this case is that, this adult man is given all of this consideration and people are forgetting that a 14 year old girl was raped twice a day for nine months. I think that the courts of Utah want to drag this out until people forget that this case is not about religion, it is about rape and abduction. Give the Smart family a chance at justice.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
County wide library system
Last night the results came in about whether we should have a county wide library system. The majority of voters said no. I was surprised at this because this is a largely Mormon county and things like education and taking care of our communities are supposed to be important here.
What shocked me to the core was the venom that came out against the idea. People didn't just disagree, they were cruel to those who thought it was a good idea. It just brings to mind an idea that I have had for a long time now, that is that the legacy of this Tea Party movement will be the break down of civil dialogue between citizens.
The county wide library system would raise property taxes by $85 a year, that is a hefty sum no question. The thing is, that just a few years ago the cost would have been the debated issue, not so now. Now the Tea Party are calling people who use libraries, Marxist, lazy, entitled, and worse. One man wrote to the "Utah statesmen" and said that we as citizens should wait for a wealthy family to "gift" us a library, he also said that we (those who don't own a library) should be deported to another country. Now clearly he was alluding here to the fact that he believed the library was to be built(or expanded) because of "illegal" immigrants.
My point is not that you should agree about the library, it is expensive, my point is what the hell happened to civil, logical discourse in America.
It breaks my heart knowing that this idea was rejected, not because of the cost, but because people have decided to label all forms of government as "bad".
But WTF do I know, after all I am just a Communist Marxist Socialist, who likes to read?
What shocked me to the core was the venom that came out against the idea. People didn't just disagree, they were cruel to those who thought it was a good idea. It just brings to mind an idea that I have had for a long time now, that is that the legacy of this Tea Party movement will be the break down of civil dialogue between citizens.
The county wide library system would raise property taxes by $85 a year, that is a hefty sum no question. The thing is, that just a few years ago the cost would have been the debated issue, not so now. Now the Tea Party are calling people who use libraries, Marxist, lazy, entitled, and worse. One man wrote to the "Utah statesmen" and said that we as citizens should wait for a wealthy family to "gift" us a library, he also said that we (those who don't own a library) should be deported to another country. Now clearly he was alluding here to the fact that he believed the library was to be built(or expanded) because of "illegal" immigrants.
My point is not that you should agree about the library, it is expensive, my point is what the hell happened to civil, logical discourse in America.
It breaks my heart knowing that this idea was rejected, not because of the cost, but because people have decided to label all forms of government as "bad".
But WTF do I know, after all I am just a Communist Marxist Socialist, who likes to read?
Religion panel at USU
Yesterday the center for women and gender hosted a religious panel to discuss same sex marriage. The panel had seven people representing seven different ideologies.
The first speaker was from the Episcopal church and she spoke very well, as did the doctor who spoke about Hinduism. Then came the LDS lawyer, who took his eight minutes and instead of talking about the Mormon stance on gay marriage he whined about his church being picked on. He spent his allotted time talking about how people were trying to keep Mormons from speaking about this issue, and how they are unfairly picked on by gay rights groups. I was shocked that the people who put this panel together would choose a lawyer instead of a bishop or someone more spiritual to come. This was a chance for everyone to hear each others beliefs, and this lawyer blew that opportunity. Instead he chose to skirt the issue and talk about the law and whether it was being followed.
On the up side, all of the other speakers were excellent and handled themselves with dignity and grace. I was impressed with the panel as a whole, I only wish that more people had asked questions.
I left feeling very impressed with everyone else, but the man that was supposed to represent the LDS view was very disappointing.
I was embarrassed for the LDS faithful who were so poorly represented.
The first speaker was from the Episcopal church and she spoke very well, as did the doctor who spoke about Hinduism. Then came the LDS lawyer, who took his eight minutes and instead of talking about the Mormon stance on gay marriage he whined about his church being picked on. He spent his allotted time talking about how people were trying to keep Mormons from speaking about this issue, and how they are unfairly picked on by gay rights groups. I was shocked that the people who put this panel together would choose a lawyer instead of a bishop or someone more spiritual to come. This was a chance for everyone to hear each others beliefs, and this lawyer blew that opportunity. Instead he chose to skirt the issue and talk about the law and whether it was being followed.
On the up side, all of the other speakers were excellent and handled themselves with dignity and grace. I was impressed with the panel as a whole, I only wish that more people had asked questions.
I left feeling very impressed with everyone else, but the man that was supposed to represent the LDS view was very disappointing.
I was embarrassed for the LDS faithful who were so poorly represented.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)