Human decency

I am taking an online class that requires that students address current political issues. This week's topic was gay marriage as a public policy issue, this is what one of my class mates wrote.
His name is Tom

I think what the City Council in Salt Lake City did was based merely on a standard of feeling sorry for people who have sexual orientations that are not traditional so to say. Recently I got a job doing work in Salt Lake City helping clients with medical benefits mainly for retired people. One of my supervisors was a homosexual and had a disease that made his skin peel a lot. Unfortunately I was forced to have this person train me at his office desk and it was really scary for me to just be around him. He always looked really sick and had a huge pile of dead skin on his desk that he would constantly peel away because he had a sexual disease. I understand people like this need to work but I think what they do if they have problems like this should be limited if it is offensive to others. I quit this job within a matter of about three weeks because I just didn't want to be in this type of environment. I'm sure this cost the company money by training me and having me leave. I just think people that have these kinds of problems should be limited to what they do. I also worked at eBay in their billing department in Salt Lake and they had some homosexuals there. They thought it would be a good idea to put them next to each other so they wouldn't be a burden on others and unfortunately they became very loud and obnoxious. They would always talk about dirty sexual things with each other and what gay clubs they were going to hit for the weekends. I couldn't stand that job for much longer either but at least I had the choice of not sitting near them. Currently I think the population of homosexuals in Salt Lake is pretty large and it can be difficult sometimes to know how to manage them with HR means so I think this is something that can be very difficult to really come up with a definite answer with. I think banning gay marriage in the future will become more difficult to pass. I think the gay population is booming in many areas of the country, especially in places like New York City and even Salt Lake. I think that while there are many problems with homosexuals such as that they can have bad habits, live in poor conditions, and often try making people to take part in their ways so they can satisfy themselves that people may try having gay marriage just to see if this can help with the problems of spreading diseases, unethical behaviors, and so forth. I think when people are married they have committed to stay with their partner and not go off on their own to prey on others so this could have a potential for being more beneficial to society. Personally however, I don't approve of this and the outcome may be a little difficult to predict. I think there is much validity to the factors in the fivethirtyeight analysis are pretty accurate. The recent publicity alone for gay marriage seems to have gone up a lot with media such as CNN or other major publications and it doesn't really seem to ever slow down so I think their predictions could be at least in the right direction and this also includes Utah as well. For some reason I think Gay's in Utah are getting larger in population and they really don't seem to be slowing down too much in their popular ideals.

I was stunned by the ignorant and cruel assertions made by this man, but what shocked me more was that only one person besides myself said anything about it. Another student pointed out the incorrect statements made by Tom, but the rest of the class stayed silent. I am aware that the first amendment allows us to speak freely, and in his defense Tom said that he felt he had to keep these opinions to himself and so vented them online. He further defends himself by saying that he should be able to express his true feelings, I agree with that, but where does free expression end and the need for decency begin?
This man could have said "I don't like gay people", or "On religious grounds I appose gay marriage." but he did not. Instead he refers to all gay people as "the homosexuals," or "the gays". he makes unfair judgements about all gay people, and accuses them of rape and other criminal actions. I am grateful that even here in conservative Utah that this kind of language is not tolerated in public, but I know that Tom's statement in this regard is not entirely true. I am grateful that he has enough tact and a sense of shame to know that these words should not be spoken. My goal then is to make the Internet, or pockets of it such a place. A place where ideas can be shared, and differing opinions respected without allowing for the use of hate filled inflamed language. This was posted on a school bulletin board, this is the online equivalent to saying this in a class room. We must treat online discussions with the same degree of thoughtfulness as we treat face to face interactions. This is especially true in an academic setting. We must speak out, we must make the world an uncomfortable place for people like this to speak so hatefully in. There are far kinder ways to share your opinion without resorting to this horrid language.

A loss of compassion

Those of you who read my blog, know that I have spoken about the Tea Party as well as the new role religion seems to play in the post Tea party world.
Well I was recently witness to two events that made me realize that in this new order of things compassion has been set aside in lieu of an individualistic "personal accountability" narrative.
In my philosophy class a student needed a note taker. The person who volunteered would receive a gift certificate to the USU (Utah state University) bookstore at the end of the semester. So at the beginning of class our professor sent the sign up sheet around. When class ended 50 min later the sheet was empty. Not a single person was willing to share their notes with a student in need.
The other event was a tweet by Bill Maher talking about the fact that Jerry Lewis was no longer the face of the MDA (Muscular Dystrophy Association), someone made this comment. "I can't believe they are still doing charity shows, why are hard working people always asked to give money to people."
What these two stories illustrate is a radical shift in thinking in the last three years. It used to be that people could not say such things for fear of being seen as having a cold heart, or being selfish. Now these kinds of statements are nothing to run from, in fact to a certain group of people these statements are seen as bold and patriotic.
My first semester at USU I watched professors solicit not takers for their classes, and saw many students rise up and take on the task. Three years later, and the tides have turned. This is not okay with me , and it should not be okay with you. We risk our human dignity if we allow ourselves to believe that helping others is wrong.   

When things come too easy

As I listen to the discussion that surrounds the issue of gay marriage, a few things always come to mind.

It has long been obvious that straight people take their access to marriage for granted. Getting married is cheap, if you are marrying a member of the opposite sex. Also you can do it anywhere, because of this I feel that straight couples have become like Mormons who live near the temple. When there is a temple right in your city, it becomes so easy to forget how sacred and special a trip to the temple is. So people pop in for a quick session before picking up groceries. This would be great except that people who live to close to temples have started taking cell phones into endowment sessions. The special sacredness flies away when your texting in the celestial room. It is the very same with marriage, when you can have one cheaply and at any county clerks office the special sacredness of that act is dulled. My evidence is the number of marriages that end in divorce, also the rapidity with which some couples get married.

When a gay couple wants to get married, they have to pay three times the cost to change their names (if the state they live in does not recognize the marriage) They must put a great deal of thought into the marriage because in most cases they do not get any financial security. The idea that gay couples are less committed to each other is nonsense when you examine what they must endure to marry. A straight man who marries multiple times is not more committed to marriage, not necessarily, it's just far easier for him. In the same vein, a member of the Mormon church who takes her cell phone with her to the temple once a week, is not more devoted than the woman who drives 300 miles to visit the temple twice a year. When you have to traverse more obstacles in order to reach your goal, it is harder to take it for granted.

I believe that most religious people do not want to legalize gay marriage because they do not want to acknowledge that they have taken the sacred act of marriage for granted.

Terrorism

When it was released that the shooter in Norway was a Christian fundamentalist, Fox news responded by playing the martyr. Poor Christians being attacked by the "liberal" media, this should sicken you like it sickens me. The fact is, he was a Christian fundamentalist. Bill O'Reillly says that you can only be a Christian if somebody else says you are. He claims that declaring yourself a Christian does not count. I would like to remind him that Evangelicals, most of whom make up his audience, become "saved' by declaring that Christ is their savior and died for their sins. Most of the time in Christianity a personal declaration is not only all that is required, it is necessary to prove that you have indeed been "saved". Fox news can't' spend ten years spreading Islamaphobia by linking the actions of radical Muslims to the religion of Islam, and then get mad when someone says that the Norway terror attacks were linked to a radical Christian. The media are not in any way trying to link this guy with all Christians, they are simply reporting his motives. His motives which were set down in his own manifesto.

the other reason this bothers me is this. The Tea Party represent themselves as Christians, yet at a rally held Wednesday, I saw a sign that read "By ballot or by bullet". Hmm, Bill O'Reillly said that true Christians don't promote violence. So either these Tea Party members are not Christian or Christians do sometimes go to far.

Debt ceiling press conference.

While John Boehnner and Barack Obama spoke to the nation about the unprecedented debt ceiling fight, I was celebrating the pioneers entrance into Utah.

The Mormon pioneers had been blamed for causing problems in every state they lived in, so they wanted to be free. In much the same way, the poor in this country are being blamed for causing problems in regard to the debt. The vast majority of us just want to be allowed to live in peace. It seems that no matter what we give, it is not enough. The Mormons attempted to make peace by agreeing to certain rules established for them. In the end it was not enough, and they were driven out of Ohio, and later Illinois. In 1996 congress set up rules for the poor in an attempt to make peace with Republicans. Since then we have lived under these rules, rules written by Republicans. Now, as happened with the Mormons, we are being asked for more. We are being asked to give up our homes so that other people can have them. Any debt deal that takes away from those who can least afford it, and asks for no revenue, is asking for an entire class of people to give up on ever rising above poverty. This is too high a price, the common sense solution is simple, we need both revenue and some intelligent spending cuts. No job was ever created by taking food and shelter away from needy families.

I have said this before, but it bears repeating. At the time that our social safety nets were established, we had more revenue. Since then, the need for these programs has not decreased, but the tax rates have plummeted. If you stop bringing in money it is impossible to sustain any program. As Obama said, we need a balanced approach.

Cut Cap and unbalance

Last night the house voted on the cut cap and balance measure. This measure has the support of most members of the Tea Party, and wannabe members such as Orin Hatch.

This amendment is the dumbest thing that has ever come out of the house.

The idea behind this proposal is the flawed thinking that American families live within their means. This of course is not the case, a majority of families don't have enough revenue to live within their means. So they are in debt. See Republicans want us to believe that if we stop spending the money, the need will go away. Perhaps they are hoping that the baby boomers that are starting to retire will disappear once they find out that congress doesn't want to pay them the benefits they earned. Look the truth is, that we need revenue. Even if we cut spending we still have rent to pay so to speak.

Americans need jobs (revenue) just like the nation does. We used to pay our bills, back when the tax rates for the rich were higher. At that time the life of the working class was better, the job site was safer and pay was enough to have a home. When congress took down tax rates jobs started to be outsources, and pay stalled.

Come on guys. We are smarter than this, we can see through what the Republicans are saying.

Since they love imagery, here's some.

Imagine a family is expecting a baby. They tell their children, and everyone is excited. then they inform the children that in order to pay for the baby, dad will have to work more hours. Well dad says he doesn't want to work longer hours. The plan, cut cap and balance. Dad says things are going to be different, no more new school clothes, or shoes. Instead that money will go to the baby, that way dad doesn't have to generate more revenue, and the family doesn't go into debt.

See, do you see how stupid and selfish this is. This is the Republican plan.

The playboy club? Not here.

NBC has been on a whirlwind advertising campaign this summer. They are trying to drum up interest in their upcoming fall shows. One of those shows is called "The playboy club", this show is set in the 60's around Hugh Heffner and his first club. But Heff himself takes a backseat to the crime drama that forms the basis of the story behind the main characters.

This is a mob drama that has the playboy club as it's backdrop. The costumes are far more sedate than the outfits of today, yet KSL refuses to air the show on it's NBC affiliate in Utah.

They claim that because of the title of the show, that ties to pornography would be offensive to viewers and go against their standards of decency.

I would like to remind them that KSL is currently showing a reality based program called "love in the wild" On this show unmarried men and women spend copious amounts of time together in next to nothing. The point of the program is for these virtual strangers to preform tasks together and find "love". i find it odd that this program is somehow right in line with their strict decency standards. KSL claims that since they are embarking on a campaign to end pornography addiction airing this program would be a conflict of interest. Since the program is about the mob in Chicago, I fail to see the connection. If they were striving to end addiction to crime shows I could see their point.

What this comes down to is simple ignorance, rather than seek out more information about the shows content, management at KSL chose to ban the show based on it's title. this is not a new concept for Utah, Larry Miller banned a comedy called "Zach and Meeri make a porno" Because his audience were afraid of the word Porno.

In this day and age, when cable boxes have parental controls, and most Mormon families have DVR: it seems stunningly ridiculous to ban a show from prime time. All this does is lose advertising dollars for KSL and make it harder for people to access entertainment.

Orin hatch

Recently Senator Hatch spoke in congress about the poor needing jobs, he then said that the poor need to do more to pay off the debt. Well Hatch, I wonder if you have proposed any ideas for how to create jobs. The answer is no, you have been to busy expanding the role of government by stripping women of their rights. You are right the poor do need jobs, but tax spending for the rich has not created them. I wanted people to know that the poor have been paying for this bad economy since 2007.
In 2008 persons receiving SSI, or SSDI, were denied a cost of living increase. This increase has still not been given back. What this means is that as bills get bigger our ability to pay them shrinks. Starting in 2007 the state of Utah tried to cut food stamp and cash aid benefits to disabled adults. They have only partially succeeded. Funding for section 8 has been cut so severely that some families cannot find affordable housing in their communities. Medicaid benefits have been cut to disabled adults, this affects veterans as well as those "drug addicts" Hatch spoke of last year.
We have paid for a debt crisis that we did not start. We continue to pay, in cuts to education health care, housing, food, clothing, and on and on. Where does it stop, when will the Republican party decide that we have paid enough? Right now the budget plan calls for 85% reduction of spending and 15% raise in revenue. Now I am no math genius, but that does not look fair. Our social programs are sustainable if we collect revenue, if we continue to cut revenue than of course these programs become unsustainable. We have already made the sacrifice, it is time to raise some money.

Sad day for America.

Like most people, I hold many distorted beliefs. When one of these beliefs is shattered, it can be a painful process.
I believed that U.S. veterans fought for the rights of ALL people. Not just white, middle class America, but for all of us. I also believed that they fought for our allies, and respected and upheld the constitution.
This is not true. Yesterday, several veterans paid the court costs of a woman who broke the law. She released thousands of names, along with personal information, to the media. She claimed that all of the people on "the list" were illegal immigrants, who were receiving services from the state. This woman had no way of backing her claims, she didn't work for ICE, she worked for DWS.
To me this is not about immigration, it is about the law. The same people who call these criminals "heroes", are the ones who also call this "a nation of laws". Well, if your last name is Velasquez, the law that protects your privacy, well doesn't.

I would like to remind those vets, that we are not at war with Mexico. They are in fact our allies. You swore an oath to protect ALL of us, not just the white ones. You swore an oath to protect our allies, ALL of them, not just the white ones. You swore an oath to protect our laws, ALL of them. You swore an oath to protect the constitution, ALL of it, not just the amendments you like.

By taking the side of a criminal, over your oaths, you have brought shame on the U.S. military.
Ask yourselves how many of your fellow servicemen were on that list. Quite a few Mexican,and Hispanic people serve this country. Many of their families receive food stamps and cash aid from DWS.

I don't know what to do with these feelings. Clearly I must support the troops. I do so now, with a heart that is heavier than yesterday.

CNN Republican debate

It is 8:00 MST, I have just finished watching the live Republican debate.
so lets get right to it.
What I liked
1. I liked that Herman Cain said that states should decide the gay marriage issue. He was the only person among a seven member panel, who all say they are for more states' rights, to actually stand up for states rights. His comment proves that he is willing to stand on his principles even if it means that states do something that to his mind is not right.
2. I liked that Ron Paul took a strong stance on ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What I didn't like
Well I was not surprised by anything, except the statements above.
1. Pawlenty didn't stand by his "Google test". When a question was asked about NASA Pawlenty, and all of the others, wanted to save it in some form. Does he not know about Virgin airlines?

I am not going to write a whole lot more, except to say the following.
These candidates are essentially the same person. There is nothing for anyone to get excited about. There is plenty for independent, and moderate Republican voters to be concerned about. Without exception the entire panel (if you'll pardon my language) masturbated the radical right, and the Tea Party. They were unwilling to depart from the die hard lines that have been drawn for them .
As I watched, I could not help but think of the line from Dante. "Abandon all hope ye who enter here."

How hypocrisy aims to destroy a congressman

I truly did not think that I would be talking about this.
When Anthony Wiener gave his press conference, I figured that the news networks would run with the story. This happened as I predicted. What I didn't think would happen, was that Democrats would so quickly and willingly join in.
We truly have a problem in this country, a problem with political hypocrisy. Now I am not totally naive, I have seen proof of it again and again. What shocks me, is how it is being manifest in the case of Wiener.
Wiener admitted to having sent lewd pictures to women over the internet. When Andrew Breitbart released one of those pictures, everyone acted shocked and horrified. Why? It isn't like they hadn't been told about the picture, they had.
Despite what the media is saying, Wiener is not the first congressman to be caught sexting. Am I the only one who remembers transcripts being read of lewd texts sent to male interns?
I am going to lay all of that aside for now. The GOP and those Democrats who are calling for Wiener to resign; say that it is not because of his amorous activity. They say it is because he lied.
Lying in congress simply cannot be tolerated, they say. Well, if that is the case why are any of them still in congress. Every member of congress has either told an outright lie, or have stretched the truth to get their political agenda across.
Every congressman who has been involved in a sex scandal has lied about it. Some even broke the law to lie about it. What Wiener did is not so unique as to be the deplorable act of deception that the media and politicians are making it out to be.
We are fallible imperfect creatures, who because of the puritanical/overstimulated society that we live in, are naturally confused and embarrassed by sex. I am not excusing Wiener's behavior. What I am doing, is saying that getting caught sending pics of your privates is embarrassing. It is a perfectly normal reaction to lie about it.
The idea that lying can destroy a political career is ludicrous.

Now back to the actual lewd acts at hand.
The idea that cyber sex can destroy a political career, and that buying prostitutes did not is equally ludicrous. One is perfectly legal, the other is not.
I stand by congressman Wiener, he is a good man who gives voice to people who have no high paid lobbyists.

An unholy union

If a new law in Florida is not contested, all welfare recipients will be subjected to drug tests. The idea is to make sure that people on welfare are not buying drugs. This law is the direct result of statements by members of congress, such as Orin Hatch. Hatch said that all people on food stamps were drug addicts, he went on to say that there were plenty of jobs to be had. He said this mere months ago, when the unemployment rate was at 9.8%.
It is a long standing myth, that the majority of persons on welfare do not need to be there. this myth is easy to perpetuate because people in lower income brackets are arrested more often. Also many of us are people of color, or have a disability.
Ever since I was young, I was aware of the unholy marriage of money and morality. This union has collected some cache among groups like the Tea Party, who see wealth as a sign of moral character.
In the book "The secret" one of the lessons is about how God wants you to be rich, only when wealth is achieved should you turn your thoughts to the needs of others. This book spread like fire through the LDS community, in a matter of months it changed how lessons were taught. This book gave people further permission to judge those around them.
This thought has so corrupted religious thinking, that the LDS church is having trouble retaining converts.
So, how does this faulty reasoning manifest?
1. It perpetuates the belief that social programs are wrong.
People believe that money equals morality, so clearly those of us who benefit from social programs are of unrighteous character.
2. It frees landlords from the responsibilities of maintaining rental properties.
I heard a contractor who was working on our home say that if people wanted nice homes they should buy them. This belief that if we were better people we would live better is deeply entrenched in society.
3. It allows bishops to ask personal questions to people who need aid from the church.
My bishop was very upset to find that my job didn't pay enough for me to eat. He made it very clear to me that I needed to change my situation all on my own.

We simply cannot allow this to continue. The idea that a hard working person is not good enough. The idea that kindness, generosity, loving care, are not admirable qualities in and of themselves. The idea that the size of your home is equal to the strength of your character. These ideas have no place in the real world. It is up to us to do away with this way of thinking. If our religious leaders allow this to be taught as doctrine, it is time to find new ones.

Disecting Pawlenty's plan

Tim Pawlenty has come out with his budget plan. I wanted to take the time and walk you through it, hopefully explaining where he goes wrong.

"Between 1983 and 1987 --- the Reagan recovery grew at 4.9%. Between 1996 and 1999 ---- under President Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress. The economy grew at more than 4.7%. In each case millions of new jobs were created --- incomes rose --- and unemployment fell to historic lows. The same can happen again. "

This statement does not take into account the fact that both Regan and Clinton raised taxes. There can be no real growth without revenue.

"American businesses today pay the second highest tax rates in the world. That's a recipe for failure --- not adding jobs and economic growth. We should cut the business tax rate by more than half. I propose reducing the current rate from 35% to 15%. "

All of the countries that are part of the EU had to agree to strict tax cuts for businesses. This led to economic failure. It would be wise to make sure that companies actually paid their taxes before giving them yet another tax break.

"A balanced federal budget shouldn't be a political sound bite. It should be the law of the land."

this is downright ridiculous. The federal government cannot balance it's budget every year. Add on your new policies, and it becomes even harder. How can we balance a budget if we are cutting revenue from all revenue sources?

"For example --- I've proposed capping and block-granting Medicaid to the states"

By sending each state money for Medicaid you ensure that disabled adults have no access to care. By capping the amount you send, you ensure that families and individuals who fall on hard times cannot get access to health care.

"There's some obvious targets. We can start by applying what I call "The Google Test." If you can find a good or service on the Internet. Then the federal government probably doesn't need to be doing it. "

This has to be the most ridiculous statement I have ever read.
Here are his examples of things we should not do any more.
"The post office --- the government printing office --- Amtrak --- Fannie and Freddie were all built for a different time in our country. When the private sector did not adequately provide those services. That's no longer the case."

Let me take these one at a time.
1. The post office. Though it is true that companies like Fed ex and others allow you to send packages, they do not have access to mail boxes. If we gave these private companies access to mail boxes, people in rural areas would lose mail service. It is simply not worth it to a private company to send trucks out to rural areas. The cost they would have to pass on to the customer would be so much that people in rural areas would not be able to afford it.
2. The government printing office. If we sent all government printing to a private firm, that would be the only account they could have. Thus creating the same thing we have now.
3. Amtrak. Without light rail Amtrak is the only passenger train. Greyhound buses are not wheelchair accessible so millions of passengers would not be allowed to travel.
4. Fannie, and Freddie. Pawlenty is simply wrong when he says that a person can get an affordable guaranteed loan from a private lender.

The private sector cannot and does not provide these services.

Republican candidates

Ron Paul

1 says that he would do away with the ADA, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid,

2 believes that a business owner can choose to discriminate against any kind of person he does not like.

3 believes that public schools should be closed. School is a privilege not a right.

Newt Gingrich

Same as above with a few exceptions

1 if you hold public office, having an affair is "Patriotic"

2 As far as I can gather he believes in public schools.

Mitt Romney

1. Passed health care reform that is exactly the same as the affordable care act. He says that it was a good idea for his state, but the rest of the country doesn't need insurance. Did not mention his reform when he rolled out his new website.

2. Believes that giving money to small businesses is the same as socialism.

3. After saying that the auto bailout worked, he said that Obama was "the worst president".

Tim Pawlenty

1.Wants to eliminate ethanol subsidies while keeping them for big oil.

2. Wants Medicare doctors to be paid not just by volume but based on patient outcome. I like this idea actually. Those of us who have Medicare, or Medicaid know that quality of care is sometimes non existent. This idea at least tries to tackle the problem of fraud in the system.

Michelle Bachman

1. Repeal the affordable care act.

2. Amend the constitution so that it defines marriage as one man one woman.

3. Create jobs. (I guess)

4. De fund planned parenthood

Herman Cain

1. End all social programs, so that churches can take care of the poor.

2. Repeal the affordable care act.

3. End regulation of businesses, they will make the air and working conditions safer on their own.

Rick Santorum

1. End all regulation.

2. Repeal the affordable care act.

So there you have it. God help die hard Republicans if they don't field a better set of candidates than this.

All of these candidates are Tea Party suck ups. Where is the real Republican.

Married too soon

Yesterday the Utah Statesman ran a front page article about a man who had stolen 44 books and sold 40 of them back. When he was arrested he said that times were hard for his family, and that they had just had another child.
This got me thinking, and I believe that the LDS church is complicit in this crime. For years the state of Utah has seen it's age at first marriage be the lowest in the nation. For years the LDS church claimed that it was not doctrine that people marry so young, but this is simply not true. This year during April conference there was an emphasis on marriage. The priesthood session was about men needing to "buck up" and marry. If it is coming from the priesthood itself, that is doctrine.
The man in this story was 24 married with children and a recent graduate of USU. I do not think that anyone would claim that stealing is a decision made by a rational or reasonable mind. I have seen the church stance on marriage change, as well as the church stance on self sufficiency become more extreme. This young man had other options, but if he was raised to think that using public assistance was a sign of moral weakness, he would not avail himself of it.
The simple fact is this.
The LDS church's leadership are engaging in reckless and irresponsible behavior by telling young people to marry while they are too young. We are still in a recession, and to tell college age kids to marry and start having children in this weak economy is terrible advice. Nothing is lost if you let these young people grow up and start a family a little later in life, but so much could be gained. The divorce rate within the church would go down, and these couples would have a chance at bringing children into a more financially stable home.
I am not absolving this young man of his guilt, but the religious and societal pressures to marry and start having kids no doubt played a part in his desperate decision to steal for his family.

Food shortage

Fox news is famous for fear mongering, Glenn Beck has been doing it for a year now. The new tactic, is the idea that there is a food shortage. The truth is that this "shortage" is nothing more than a play on the commodities market. The market creates what it wants in order to make money. So even though there is plenty of rice, they say there is a shortage and people begin to stockpile food. This talk serves to help members of the LDS church increase there amount of food storage, and feel justified in the belief that food storage is a good idea.
I am not here to say that food storage is bad, I actually think that if done in a state of calm, it can be a good idea. What I object to, is the idea of hoarding food. I also find it a bit frightening that the same people who hoard food, are hoarding guns. This seems backward to me. If the point is to take care of your family, and if we are all family, why would you need weapons.
Let's back up a bit.
If there is a situation where you are cut off from the food supply, would you really feel good sitting in your home full of food and guns, while your greater "family" is hungry?
It is essential that we take care of ourselves, so that we can take care of each other. That does not include the hoarding of food. If you come across someone who is in need, and you leave them there, knowing that you have a full pantry, what is the point?
I see the need for a 72hr kit, I even see the need for lots of water, and some freeze dried food. I do not see the point in stockpiling things like hamburger helper and mac and cheese. these items will be of no use if you do not have access to milk or meat, so you are saving this just to save it. That seems backwards and selfish.

Strict constitution

I was not going to give this man any consideration at all. Yesterday I went to a lecture given by a man who called himself a constitutional expert. He received his degree from BYU (Brigham Young University), the same place that Sen. Mike Lee graduated from. This makes his degree illegitimate in my view, because they are taught that God helped write the constitution. They are also taught that this country is founded on Christian values, which it is not.
The guy was a conspiracy theorist who had no ideas of his own, so I was not going to write about him. What made me change my mind, was the thought that his popularity might grow if I didn't say something.
So one by one, I will take apart (or attempt to) his ridiculous claims.
1. The constitution is not a living document.
FALSE: written into the document itself is the means by which it can be amended. If the founding fathers had wanted the document to stay the same for time and eternity, it wouldn't be difficult to amend, it would be impossible.
2. The 3/4ths clause was established so that slaves could be free by 1808.
FALSE: This clause was written into the constitution to ensure that the southern states did not gain an unfair advantage when it came to representation. There were many people at the national conventions that wanted to end slavery, but they did not intend to do so via the 3/4ths clause.
3. If we raise the debt ceiling the constitution will become void and we will have to write a new one.
FALSE: Raising the debt ceiling allows us to continue to borrow money. There is no horrible tragedy to follow, beyond accruing debt.
4. The Illuminati want us destroyed so that the French can take over.
You know I'm not going to touch this one. If you want to read about them here is a link. FYI they are not French, and did not morph into the communist party.Or did they?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati
5. It is cheaper for uninsured people to go to the emergency room than it is to provide Medicaid and Medicare.
FALSE: The cost of one emergency room visit is much higher than the cost of preventative care. I cannot believe that I have to explain this. It is cheaper to let someone visit a primary care physician and get a prescription for his high blood pressure, than it is to admit him after he has had a heart attack and needs major surgery.
6. Global climate change is an unproven theory.
FALSE: Glaciers are melting, strange weather patterns are developing, the fact is the evidence is overwhelming.
7. If corporations could do what they want without regulation, they would bring jobs back to America.
PROBABLE: I would like to just point out that the cost would be great. The health of our food, water, air, would be greatly depleted. Also safety standards would revert to the days of the industrial revolution, so great I have a job, but I work 16 hours a day for $2. Wow that sounds great.
8. Without social programs there would be no need for taxes.
FALSE: We would still need roads, bridges and other infrastructure. We would still need public schools. Also, since this guy claims to be a constitutional expert; our government has the right to tax.
To be fair I will present his hypothesis.
His idea for getting revenue for all the items mentioned above is this. Increase taxes and terr-ifs on imported goods. Also we would have to repeal NAFTA so that we can tax our allies. The other plan is sell all public land for development. So no more wilderness areas, no more national parks. Just a bleak dystopia. A place polluted and overdeveloped where we enjoy 100% employment in the sweatshops owned by GE, LEVI'S and WAL MART.
When I suggested giving everyone access to health care he said I was living in a dream world. I would rather live in my "dream world" where there is clean water, than is his nightmare republic.

Reaction to GOP budget

First of all, as the economist I quoted previously has said, Ryan's idea is not new. It is called privatizing Medicare, and has been tried before. My first problem with this idea of changing Medicare is this. People who now benefit will still get "old' Medicare, meaning those my mothers age and older would still receive medical treatment. For everyone else Medicare would change from a provider of health care to nothing more than a rebate program. People would have to find their own insurance carrier when they retire, and the federal government would give them a rebate on care the individual finds and pays for. Now keep in mind that the GOP want a full repeal of the new health care law which does away with pre existing conditions. So this private insurance that you have to find at retirement, if the GOP has their way, could reject you based on your health. Since that hasn't happened yet lets ignore that for now. Okay so you are ready to retire and you have to find a provider for yourself. That provider could deny any care that you might need because they are a private insurance company. The next problem is finding a doctor. See Medicare is excepted everywhere, this would not be the case with a private insurance. So it puts a lot more stress on the individual to find insurance that they can afford, and that will be excepted by their doctor. Ryan says that this will save money. Well of course it will, not paying for things saves money. This is not a fix to a broken program, this is breaking a program that has a few flaws. With the new health care law costs to individuals and states decreases over time. The problem with Ryan is that he is short sighted. If I can refer to an analogy I made before, if you don't pay your rent you save money. The problem is you end up homeless. By not supporting Medicare more people will end up without insurance. Ryan is not a genius, he's a shortsighted entitled child.

Now on to giving states block grants for Medicaid. This sounds like a reasonable idea right. Why not let states customize Medicaid, they know what their people need right? Well yes and no. States have already cut essential health care to disabled and low income adults. The only thing that keeps them from doing the same to children is Federal mandate. By giving Medicaid as a block grant that Federal mandate would be void. So states could, and no doubt would, cut services to children. Why would they do such an awful thing you ask. Because many people in Republican led states are under the impression that nearly all Medicaid dollars go to illegal immigrants. So to satisfy their voters Republicans will cut dollars to "criminals". I could go on, but perhaps this post is long enough.

Paul Ryan budget.

First let's start with a quote about the budget

I want to join those in commending Representative Paul Ryan, but for a slightly different reason. Representative Ryan has provided a valuable service to the country by tossing out a piece of warmed-over dreck that calls for a massive upward redistribution from the nation's workers to the rich. This is clear to anyone who reads it.

The reason why this is so useful is that there is nothing in the Ryan plan that has not been circulated in policy circles for decades. Almost everything in the plan has been tried and failed. The plan ignores obvious economic realities, such as the bubble-induced recession that has left 25 million people unemployed or underemployed. It doesn't lay a glove on the rich and powerful, while threatening to undermine the limited economic security enjoyed by tens of millions of middle class families.

Yet many pundits will applaud the plan as brave, innovative and creative. In making these pronouncements these pundits will immediately reveal themselves as worthless hacks who either lack the ability or desire to do their own thinking. Their endorsement of the Ryan plan will be like a scarlet letter permanently marking them as someone who has no place in a serious policy discussion. For this reason we owe Mr. Ryan a real debt of gratitude. [Center for Economic and Policy Research, 4/5/11]

Now a link to the budget.

http://paulryan.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf
Now let's read it and then I will come back and talk about it.

Utah says “no” to alcohol.

.The state of Utah has decided that in order to save the state 2.2 million dollars, they have to close seven liquor stores. This proposal is being heralded as a cost saving measure. Although many of us here in Utah are finding that a little hard to swallow; especially when these stores bring in a profit that dwarfs the cost it takes to run them. On Thursday March 31, 2011, the first of these seven stores closed. This store made 20 thousand dollars for the state last year. This is the revenue from just one store. When you consider that the total cost of running these stores is a combined 22 million it is hard to imagine that any state claiming economic hardship would turn away profit. It is estimated that these seven stores bring in ten times their cost in revenue from the state. This revenue isn’t the only potential loss for the state either. Utah is a big skiing destination, and many seem to think that making alcohol harder to come by will cause people to ski elsewhere. This could have a huge impact on the Sundance film festival also. One of the stores that are closing is in Park City, what will Utah have to offer a group of partying celebrities in place of liquor?

So now that we have established that this has nothing to do with money; let’s look at the real reason behind this move.

Like many Republican led states Utah is gearing up for the presidential election. They are continuing to pander to their ultra conservative base. In an attempt to show them that they embody the Christian ideal. They have to attack anything that is perceived as anti-family

If you put this “budget cut” in perspective it fits with the Republican plan, at the national level Republicans are fighting abortion, sex education and immigration. They are fighting the demon liquor at the state level. A similar “budget cut” passed in New Jersey.

As an Utahan who values freedom of choice I am first appalled at the idea that my right to engage in a legal activity is being infringed upon.. Since getting mad has no real impact, I will instead ask a question.

Will the LDS churches give the state the 18 million dollars it is set to lose with this “cost cutting” measure?

What Donald Trump said

Earlier in the week Donald Trump appeared on the view and stated that he has doubts about whether Barack Obama is a citizen.
He seems to think that it is perfectly reasonable to demand that the president carry his birth certificate around with him everywhere he goes. Aside from being incredibly stupid this is an invasion of privacy that Mr. Trump would never allow to be perpetrated on himself.
As someone who constantly has to prove myself to the GOP I completely understand why Obama refuses this ludicrous request. See in America if you don't look white you must be hiding something. Also if you spent any time outside of the United States you are clearly un-American.
Look so many people have requested to see the president's birth certificate that Hawaii is overwhelmed. Yet this birther movement persists, why? I will tell you. When a group of people want something to be true they will ignore all evidence and reason. If the president came on television tonight with his birth certificate and the little foot print thing from his hospital; these people would claim it was a fake. The guy can't catch a break from these people. Why should he have to play their games.

A budget story

This feels a bit like beating a dead horse, but people still don't seem to get it. So I hope this will set them straight.

A family finds out that one of them is going to lose their job. They have poor credit so they cannot ask for more. They outline what they spend each month, and discover that rent accounts for 40% of their budget.
They decide that making little cuts here and there. Such as downsizing their cable and cell phone plans, will not save them very much. So the father decides to stop paying rent. The whole family agrees, without rent they have way more money in their wallets.
Three months later the landlord has finished the eviction process, the family is out on the street.
They did indeed save in the short term, but now they have no idea how to get out of the trouble they are in. Without a home the other members lose their jobs and health benefits.

This sounds ridiculous right?
Yet this is exactly what the Republican party wants us to do. When this family stopped paying rent they negatively affected people who were depending on them. Without the rent their landlord could not pay his mortgage. They saved themselves money for awhile, but did so at great cost to other people who counted on them. I think we can all agree that the actions of this family were rash, selfish, and irresponsible.

Making many small cuts in non essential programs will make a difference. Don't let pundits fool you into believing it won't. The damage done by ending, or severely slashing essential programs will be severe and long lasting. It is the middle class that build this economy. It is middle class and lower class Americans that spend the money they earn. Those receiving the tax breaks are the same people who are sending their money, and our jobs over seas.

Republican budget. A vidio depiction

This is more of an anti war song, but it hits on the issue of budget a little.
It should be noted that this was directed at president Bush. I would dedicate it to both our current president and everyone in congress.

Higher education

Recently Howard Stephenson R-Draper, said that degrees in psychology, Sociology history and philosophy were useless. He called them degrees to nowhere. He went on to say that applied technology schools were better for students and that graduates were more prepared for employment. (Utah Statesman, March, 14, 2011)
Though I feel that applied technology schools are great for some students, they are certainly not the only good educational option. One of the biggest problems with AP schools is that they flood the market with graduates who have a small set of very specific skills. A graduate from Stephan's Hennager's oral hygienist program is going to end up competing for jobs with all of her graduating class. That degree, though useful, is non transferable.
Someone who graduates with a degree in History or Philosophy can go into several different fields.
The most important thing to remember is that we are all unique and we all have something to contribute to society. The educational opportunities in any state should reflect the diverse nature of humankind.
For those who want the facts, here are some statistics.
according to the 2010 Bureau of Labor the unemployment rate for persons holding a bathelors degree was 4.8% Those who had an associates degree, the category that covers applied technology degrees had an unemployment rate of 8.1%.(Statesman,pg 1)
Today the one quality that employers say is lacking in students is the ability to communicate well. That includes e mail memo's and face to face interactions.
So don't make the mistake of thinking that there is only one reason to go to school. Education is far more than quick and dirty money. It is becoming a better citizen and a better communicator.

Why God and government don't mix

Lately there have been a lot of my FB friends posting one of those chain messages. It says something about wanting God back in schools and government.
As a Political Science major and the wife of a history major, I could not let this stand.
Our founding fathers did not intend for this nation to be a theocracy. They put provisions in place so that no church would dominate the government of the country. So God was never in government.
My other problem with this statement is this, which God do they want. If you are LDS you don't want the baptist god, because he doesn't believe you are a Christian church. See the idea of God's law sounds nice, it sounds reasonable even preferable to a secular set of rules. The problem is, that nobody would be able to agree on who's version of God to follow. If it is Jehovah Witness God, then say good bye to birthdays and all other holidays.
It's more than just disagreement over rules though. The idea of God centered government completely does away with personal choice. It also leaves out the needs of those who's religious or spiritual beliefs do not include a God. Would you force the children of free thinkers or atheists to pray in school? If you want a look at what God centered government is look at Iran. The people there thought that a return to God's law sounded wonderful, but when it didn't turn out that way they voted their leaders out. Their leaders threw out the vote of the people and didn't go anywhere.
I can think of nothing so frightening as religious rule.
If this nation were ruled by Evangelicals for example, there would be no sex education, no science, and no history that did not agree with biblical stories.
George W Bush spoke weekly to Ted Haggert and when these weekly chats were made public it severely damaged his reputation, and the reputation of the U.S.
If your goal is to cultivate a social awareness, do so in a way that does not force others to conform to your reality.

HUD programs

There has been a lot of talk about the GOP spending bill. All of it is bad, from cutting PBS and NPR, to Planned Parenthood. Now it is revealed that the GOP plan would cut section 811 housing funding.
This is important for people to know, because this type of housing assistance helps those with permanent disabilities. This includes veterans. Yes there are non profits that help wounded vets get homes, but that accounts for a minuscule amount of our vets living in poverty and with a disability. The short sightedness of this cut is obvious, the GOP is not even thinking about where these people will go.
People who receive SSI have not been given a cost of living increase since 2008. The cost of living increase was one of the first things Obama cut in order to gain support for the stimulus programs.
But this isn't just about a group of people on a fixed income paying higher rent. This is about the fact that most wheelchair accessible housing is part of this voucher program. Even though the ADA says that multi-unit housing has to include one or two accessible apartments, there are many that do not. The other item to consider is that the waiting lists for accessible housing are as much as two years long in some communities. This means that even if a person could fix it so that they could pay higher rent, there may not be housing available.
Without this government aid most landlords will simply let the bank foreclose on the properties, or open it up to college students. Why let my husband and I live here for say 650 dollars when they can get quadruple that by renting to four students.
The GOP are not thinking (or maybe they are) about the pure capitalist mindset of land lords. Do they really think that these LLC's will show restraint or concern for their current tenants.
Gloria Steinem said that to the GOP life begins at conception and ends at birth. What she meant by this is that women must give birth to every baby, and take care of them all on her own.
I have heard the arguments before, "my tax dollars shouldn't go to the poor".
My answer to that is two fold, some of those poor fought for your freedom, and my tax dollars go to fund unethical wars. We all pay for things we don't use or programs we don't agree with. At some point we have to decide what kind of people are we going to be. Do we let the disabled and the vet die on the street or locked up in institutions, or do we stand up for each other and treat every person with dignity.
I know what kind of person I am. What kind of person are you?

Balancing the budget

It is of great interest to me how Republicans can continue to justify cutting programs that benefit society and create jobs. Not only that, these programs protect the planet from destruction and make sure that the water we drink and the air we breath is clean. Well as clean as it can be given the sheer number of pollutants out there. It is painfully clear to me that the choices they are making have nothing to do with budgets at all. When the Republicans lost the white house in ,08 they made a deal with several devils. Get us back into office and we will extend to you great favors. So the Rupert Murdock Tea Party was born. Now lest you think I am going a little Glenn Beck on you, look at the facts. The Koch brothers huge backers of the Republican party for many years, are set to receive huge energy contracts in Wisconsin. At the national level the Republican leadership wants to ban the EPA. When Sharon Angle said it we all waved it off, but when members of the house say it we have to take it more seriously.
Now, this isn't completely new tactics. What is new is the unapologetic, dare I say balls out warfare. Taken individually these tactics are signature Republican. But they are hitting us from all sides. Abortion, environment, education, social programs, continued tax breaks for the wealthy. I will admit that I am young so I could be wrong, but during the Clinton era Republicans were willing to compromise on their contract with America. Now there is simply no way to please them, their tactics border on tyrannical.

So with that in mind, what would help to balance the budget?
1. end the Bush tax cuts
2. end oil subsidies to the oil industry
3. stop paying farmers to leave land fallow, let them grow food
4. cut military spending for things like NASCAR sponsorships, they can use a much cheaper recruiting booth
5. cut duplicate programs as long as they truly are clones of each other
6. repeal DOMA and save millions
7. doing #3 and #6 will increase revenue to local economies
8. stop spending money on outdated military machines
9. tap into our oil reserves so that gas prices don't stall our economy
10. leave health care reform in place so that more people will be insurable and therefore more desirable as employees
Surely more can be done, this is just a starting point.

War on women

While most of us were sleeping Republicans in the house of representatives were hard at work. Under the guise of balancing the budget they passed legislation that will cut all funding to planned parenthood and would further impede on a woman's reproductive rights and safety.
The Republicans did not pass this obscene piece of legislation strictly to save money, oh no, it was passed because they want to send a clear message that abortion is wrong. The three and a half hour "budget" debate focused not on saving money but on attacking women and reproductive rights and safety.
John Boehner called it democracy in action,yes that's right stripping women of health care and family planning is something he thinks we should be proud of.
What they fail, or don't care, to realize is that planned parenthood has prevented unwanted pregnancy, not through abortion, but through education and contraception.
Without planned parenthood millions of sexually active people will have no place to go for STI screenings and tests. Millions of women will go without gynecologic exams. Millions of preventable pregnancies will drain other state programs and cash strapped families.
It is an outrage to me that in this decade men are climbing over each other to take away my right to protect myself from unwanted disease and pregnancy.
In the interest of full disclosure, I cannot imagine ever getting an abortion. That said I cannot imagine living in an America where I don't have the choice.
This legislation is sending a clear message to women that their health safety and well being do not matter at all to the Republican party.
I am shocked and horrified by this behavior, and whether you believe in abortion or not, whether you are religious or not, the thought that your rights as a woman can be cast aside so thoughtlessly should horrify you to.
This is the link to the article about the vote.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/19/AR2011021900503.html?hpid=topnews
This is a link to an earlier article about the debate that happened Thursday, this article has video of the bill's sponsor as well as quotes from both sides of the isle. Please read.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/02/house-debate-on-defunding-plan.html

Revolutions don't work-- Glenn Beck

I will not take up a lot of space on this.
I will just say, Glenn we had a revolution and we are doing okay. Maybe instead of digging in your founding father costume box you should read a little history.
I told you it was short.

Closing USDB schools

Well, the Utah legislature wants to close down the schools for the deaf and blind. The reason, they say, is that most students would do fine if left to their own school districts. This is not only a false statement it is a dangerous one. Most USDB students do go to school within their respective districts, but they are not well served by them. These students receive equipment and training from the USDB schools. They have special teachers that help them with work and these teachers help the school to be more accommodating to the student's special needs. For children with multiple disabilities mainstreaming is not possible or would be far to difficult for either the child the district or both, for these children the school for the deaf and blind is essential. Closing these schools would place an undue burden on cash strapped districts, it also could lead to students being denied their legal right to a quality education. I for example would have had a much harder time in school without my resource teacher, during eighth and ninth grade when I didn't have her the school forced me into resource and remedial classes with the profoundly disabled rather than give me printed material that I could read. The truth is, we live in a state that undervalues it's disabled community and this is a tactic to take education away from students who deserve it. In 1973 it was determined that all children deserved an education, this is Utah's way of superseding federal law.
Without doing any research to find out what it would cost for individual districts to provide for these new students they assume this measure will save them $19 million. With some common sense they would realize that either individual districts would end up expending this same amount of money to educated these children, or these children would get an inferior education.
Undoubtedly some of you are thinking, "Aaron, this is just a proposal." My answer to that is look back to two weeks ago when the legislative budget committee said that Utah was doing great but might need to cut 7% from every department. The Utah Statesman reported what that could mean to USU, and Gov. Herbert told us not to worry it probably wouldn't happen. Well now that the session has begun everyone is talking like that cut is a forgone conclusion. In Utah every time the legislature mentions a cut it almost always happens. The chance that this state could lose it's schools for the deaf and blind is real. I did not go to the school, but I did benefit from it, this isn't some unimportant program, this isn't frivolous wasteful spending. This is about educating peoples children.

My response to the state of the union address

First of all the overall tone of the speech was good, I felt that the mixed seating gave it a good bi-partisan feel.
There was a lot that I liked, I thought it was important to bring up education and to talk about alternative energy.
I have to say though that Obama in my view made a big mistake by not coming out with a more detailed description of the spending freeze and how much it would reduce the deficit by. A lot of people wanted to hear it and by not putting it out there he has just encouraged a new herd of Tea Party "patriots" to run for office. That is not good for anyone.
I thought it was ill timed to ask for more spending, first of all it's not going to happen, and secondly it puts the new health care reforms in jeopardy. The way he asked for money for infrastructure and then effectively threw Medicaid under the bus was uncalled for. You cant tell me that a 5% spending freeze is only a cut to Medicaid. If Obama thinks that by leaving the under-insured high and dry is going to help reign in these Tea Parties he is mistaken. The Tea Party rallies will continue because they only want two things, for him to fail and to keep health care in the hands of the privileged.
As for the Republican response. What can I say Paul Ryan is a douche box. This guy spent the whole rebuttal talking about repealing health care reform and comparing us to Greece. Someone should explain to him that Greece has twice the social program spending as we do and a retirement age that is lower than ours. He said that the private sector has historically done more for the poor than government. I don't think even he could believe this bull shit. I would ask him to look at Ireland, who adopted the U.S. free trade system when the ecconomy went south the poor there had nothing. Maybe I shouldn't have been so hard on the president, after all the only thing these Republicans want to hear is a repeal of health care.
The Tea Party response was weird and of course made reference to WWII but it was to the point and short.

Arizona health plan

Some of you may have heard about those 98 people on a waiting list for organ transplants in Arizona. If you haven't let me explain. The state of Arizona had a program that helped people who needed organ transplants and could not afford them. I say had because Jan Brewer recently cut all funding to the program. After the story broke on national news a Republican from Illinois went through the Arizona state budget to see what could be done to save the program, he found 27 possible solutions. Jan Brewer didn't use any of them. Instead she unveiled her own plan.
She would cut all Medicaid benefits to 280,000 childless adults in her state, some of whom are severely mentally ill.
She says that the money saved would go to fund the transplant program and save the lives of the now 96 people on the list.
I think this is the most disgusting display of robbing Peter to pay Paul. As if the concept of stealing health benefits from half a million people were not horrid enough, the money would not benefit those on the transplant list until July.
Another major flaw in this plan is that the Medicaid money would not be enough to pay for all of the surgeries and the likelihood of finding a doctor willing to do surgery for pennies on the dollar is slim. The other major flaw is this. Under the old program the government gave the state a grant of three million dollars to help pay for the transplants, now that it is gone so is that money.
Finally Governor Brewer seems to be counting on the fact that none of these 280,000 people who would now have no insurance will get sick. Does she think that these people will remain healthy because they can no longer see a doctor?
So, why be concerned? For one thing this plan is horribly misguided, there are some who are saying that Brewer is using the transplants as an excuse to cut benefits that she would have cut anyway. That doesn't seem to be a bad assumption.
I care because these are people who are the most vulnerable, adults who don't have children and persons who are mentally ill have very few resources that they can count on for help.
The other reason is that as of last year, the state of Utah has looked to Arizona for guidance. I shudder to think that our legislature might pick up on this idea and write a bill of their own just like it. Make sure you know how to contact your representatives this is one idea that fails everyone.

And Lo Glenn Beck did speak in parables.

It has been awhile since I have spoken of our Lord Beck. The truth is I have discovered that not only does his logic defy reason, reason cannot be applied to him. I just happened to flip to Fox this afternoon and heard a lovely parable that Beck was preaching to the conservative, or is that converted?
Beck's story begins with a tree, and a very close neighborhood. See there is this cottonwood that grows near a river in the back yard of this family, and everyone in the neighborhood sits under this tree. See that is the first problem with the story, who is going to let all the people in town hang out in their back yard, but I digress.
I will skip the flowery language, no doubt it will be taken down in an illuminated manuscript for you to buy on his web site.
The end of the story is this; the tree falls down in a horrible storm because it lived by a river and the owners of the tree cared for it so it's roots were just beneath the surface of the earth.
As Glenn sums up, the tree didn't have to go far to find water, it had life to easy so when the storm came it died.
The tree is of coarse America and the roots are us the citizens and the water is "social programs"
So if we follow Glenn's logic, countries that take good care of their people fail because they have nothing to cling to.
Well lets see if this bears out. According to Beck countries that fell did so because their citizens had access to "life giving water". Yeah that sounds like Sierra Leon, oh wait it doesn't. Okay how about France, oh wait people were out of work and starving, well that doesn't make any sense. Beck said that if we have to struggle to survive we become stronger. I beg of you Beck, name one nation that has fallen as a direct result of taking care of it's people. Name one rebellion caused by people who had good jobs.
Aside from being a perfectly lovely story Becks parable simply does not make sense. If giving citizens access to food, shelter and health care causes collapse than why is Canada doing all right. The housing collapse of 2007 hurt many countries, but none of them are gone. Finland and Sweden are still here, and they(gasp) give workers lots of vacation time.
So sorry Beck Jesus you are not.

Clearfield rep proposes killing cats

There is a bill to be discussed in the Utah legislature that would exempt people from prosecution if they "humanely" kill a "feral" animal. This was sponsored by the Republican representative of Clearfield UT. Apparently there are massive groups of feral dogs and cats in his district.
What this bill means is that if any citizen in Utah sees a cat or dog they have the right to shoot it and claim that they thought it was feral. Is this a stupid idea? Hell yes it is. Look I have a cat who likes to go outside in the spring and summer if this passes I could never let him out. In Utah most landlords have a negative attitude about pets, a law like this gives them permission to shoot that annoying dog or pesky cat. This is the worst act of animal cruelty that I have ever heard of. The idea that shooting an animal can be thought of as humane, depending on where that animal is shot it could take hours for them to die.

The right to bear arms

Any time there is a mass shooting the country reexamines gun laws. This is normal, after Virginia tech and Columbine it happened. My views have changed over the years but not much. When the media was content to blame Columbine on video games and guns, I was pissed. Those children were the victims of relentless bullying by classmates. This idea that we can pick one cause for something and that if we changed one thing shootings would never happen again is untrue. Having said that, there is no reason that we need magazines that hold 30 bullets. It has been said before and it still holds true, the only reason for that kind of firepower is to kill as many people as possible. I find it hard to believe that any person needs to protect his family from a mob of attackers.
In countries where owning a gun is a privilege that you have to earn less people die. In Germany an angry student attacked his classmates, he couldn't get a gun so he used a hatchet. Not one person died.
Rights should come with some restrictions and certainly some responsibilities. if you are unwilling to secure your weapons you shouldn't have them. If you are a parent and you refuse to teach your children about gun safety you shouldn't have that gun.
The argument that the NRA and their ilk use is that car's are dangerous as well. This is true, but cars have a lot of restrictions on them also. Everyone would agree that someone with several DUI' s shouldn't be allowed to drive, but these same people stay silent while citizens stockpile military grade weapons. Nobody buys a gun that can fire 30 times unless he plans to use it.

Civil debate

Like most people I was horrified by what happened in Tuscan Arizona. The fact that someone would feel so afraid for either themselves or for others that they would feel killing people was the only solution. It cannot be denied that with the rise of the tea party movement civility has all but left the political debate. Although I do not wish to place blame, I cannot forget that Sharon Angle said that if the election did not go your way that you should use "second amendment solutions". In our fervor to protect free speech I think that we forget just how powerful words are.
Words can change the way a person sees themselves, they can raise people up. They can also be the catalyst that drives an angry or unstable person to commit horrible acts of violence.
During the recent health care debate my husband was the victim of death threats from people who called themselves Christians. These same "God fearing" men posted slogans such as "they can have their change, I'll cling to my God and my guns" Statements like these are not "non violent" in nature, in fact they can have frightening costs.
So I have come up with a simple list of things not to do when you are discussing politics or campaigning for office.
1. Stay away from gun references, for example "re-load" "second amendment solutions" "take out" "target" exc.
2. Avoid using violent imagery such as riffle cross hairs
3. Avoid statements such as "someone should take out/kill so and so"
4. Make sure that your arguments are well thought out and include sound reasoning.
5. Never forget that people are involved, all government programs involve real human beings who use them. Do not make the mistake of thinking that this is not so.
6. Speak out, but be nice.
7. Just to reiterate STAY AWAY from gun and or hunting references, there are people in this world with more fire power than sense.
And finally Love one another, we may not agree but we are all family.

Tea Party bash

Well here they are the new Tea Party Conservatives. They came to Washington to stop "out of control" spending, but wait, they needed to have a party first. A private concert with Leanne Rhymes the seating was $50,000 per 8 people So by cutting spending they did not mean for themselves. When asked about this Louis XVI behavior they responded that it was fine no big deal and a great way to raise money. Someone should tell them that the election is over, its time to stop throwing "fund raisers" and do some work. Or better yet, keep throwing lavish parties and leave the politics to those who know something about it.