Boner Candidate -- Mayor of Stockton

I miss X96 and boner awards. In homage to the X96 boner awards, I would like to nominate and award the mayor of Stockton Utah with the Green Jello Boner.

Officer Josh Rowell, who paid his own way through Utah Police Officer training, was running a DUI checkpoint last Tuesday night when he noticed a car appeared to try and evade his checkpoint. He tracked the car down pulled the driver over and ticketed the driver for not having a license.

"About 20 minutes later, Rowell found the police chief in the mayor's pickup. "You could tell just the way the mayor's hands were flying, the mayor was upset," Rowell said. When the officer approached the pair, Rowell said the mayor fired him. "Are you the one that gave my son a ticket?" Rowell recalled of the conversation. "I want your badge tomorrow morning."

The mayor apparently renigged on the full firing, but suspended Officer Rowell without pay.

When I first heard this story I thought of the Dead Milkmen song "Bitchin' Camaro".

My folks bought me a bitchin' Camaro
With no insurance to match
So if I happen to run you down
Please don't leave a scratch

I ran over some old lady
One night at the county fair
And I didn't get arrested
Because my dad's the mayor

This is one of those stories that make you cringe. What a moron that mayor must be, his son gets a ticket and he has the unmitigated gal to to fire the officer who did it? Now that the town knows how much respect he has for the law and his own police department -- I'm sure his next reelection bid has gotten much, much more interesting.

Come on, Dems! Try working in UK Parliment.

So Democratic house leadership is now going forward with a resolution to rebuke Joe Wilson for having the audacity to shout at President Obama during his health care address. I'm sorry folks, the Dem leadership is wasting time and (I hope the majority of the nation's patience) my patience with crap like this. President Obama is a big boy, he already accepted Wilson's apology -- so why waste time with floor debates about a resolution to rebuke someone when there is so much more important work that needs to be done. The Democrats are making themselves look feeble-minded and petty, and they are again demonstrating why congressional term limits are necessary -- senior congressional leaders become far less concerned about representing their constituents over their party. Seniority and power on the hill need to be decoupled.

Compared to UK Parliament, Congress is an old woman's tea party. Heckling is a regular and (for me personally) cherished part of the English Parliament. Congress could use more passionate questioning of ideas in debate, maybe heckling would wake up Congress enough to actually make sure 700 billion "stimulus" bills are actually read before enacting them into law.

UPDATE -- Congressional Democrats are a bunch of Wankers. They passed the resolution rebuking Rep. Wilson 240-179. I think I want to run for Congress one day on a Heckler platform -- we need more heckling in Congress, not less. Props to Rep. Wilson, speak out!

American Indians take the Washingon Redskins to SCOTUS

I'm surprised that this hasn't gone to the high court sooner. Many will remember the NCAA's attempt to crack down on possibly offensive Native American mascots during the 2004-2005 athletic year by banning offending schools from championships (I believe). The NCAA targeted everyone, even if the teams used accurate tribal names as an homage to local tribes -- like Utes, Seminoles, and the Illini.

Redskins has always been like a circa-1940 racist characture from Cowboy and Indian folklore. For it to last unchallenged in the enlightened politically correct east coast is astounding.

My prediction -- Washington Redskins will become the Washington Red Storm in the 2011-2012 season. However, the conservative majority on the court may hold for the NFL team.

William Wilberforce -- Healthcare Reform

I have been going through a bit of a refiners fire for several months -- and things have come to what appears to be a rather serious head. This has led to some awakenings -- and I have come to think on William Wilberforce.

William Wilberforce was a British politician & activists that the fight to end the slave trade and to abolish slavery in the British Empire in the early half of the 18th century. He was called a seditionists and struggled to abolish the slave trade for 26 years, and slavery wasn't ultimately abolished until 1833 -- days before his death. I enjoy the account in the movie "Amazing Grace" Wilberforce is portrayed as a politician firm in his convictions and willing to fight for them until they are accomplished. I am great admirer or his strentgh as a politician, and as an advocate for those with no voice.

The are paraleles to Wilberforce's battle, and the healthcare reform fight. It is a kind of oppression in that 46 million American's don't have affrodable access to basic healthcare, and it is wrong that 46 million Americans cannot afford the peace of mind that health insurance coverage provides, it is wrong that 46 million Americans face financial disaster while convalecing from serious injury or illness. This argument is about right and wrong! In most things I believe the market should be left alone, however in the matter of the health care the market hand is and has been to icy.

I was impressed with what I heard from the President the other night (however vauge it was). The fact of this debate is that affordable and available healthcare for all is the right move. I hope that our leaders on the right and left sides of the isle do all that they can to pass health care reform this year or early next year -- this is not something that should be delayed.

The part of the president's plan that was most appealing was the pooling of uninsured small businesses and indivduals in his proposed "National Health Insurance Exchange". Using a public option for the most hard-luck cases seems like a reasonable plan.

I'll admit my bias. Over the past few months my own health deteriorated, and the probable diagnoses that doctors are pursuing go from scary to terrifying. I am also the uninsured controller of a small local company. The fear of where my health problems may lead, and the stress of knowing the financial ruin that will come with it is agonizing. My children and I are high risk and virtually uninsurable because of a rare genetic disorder that pre-disposes us to cancers and various benign tumors. Even before we discovered genetic disorder insurance was unaffordable for my small family of 4 then 5. The last quote for comprehensive insurance that came close to rivalling the insurance provided by large employers was 2X more than my monthly rent payment at the time and nearly as much as my mortgage payment now. Quotes for HSA insurance was as much as car a car payment, and that didn't even include money tucked away in the savings plan. Federal and state guidelines for SCHIP and Medicaid qualifying gross earnings have always been barely too low for me and my family to qualify. We need (at least a type of) the major reforms that are being proposed, and we need to have the moral honesty to admit that this is the right thing to do.

Healthcare Reform -- The Income Tax circa-1913

I am for health care being made available and affordable to all Americans, and I'm (very cautiously) in favor (at least not completely opposed) to a nationalized health care option. However, I think caution is needed in accepting Congress' current plan and the guarantees the president and congressional leaders make regarding the a fore mentioned Act. I thought I would bring up something from our past to illustrate -- the income tax.

The first tax return was required to be filed by those that made 3,000 dollars+ during the tax year -- over 64,000 dollars adjusted for inflation. The top rate for the uber-rich was a big fat 6%. A minute 1% tax was owed if an individual had net income less that 20,000 dollars -- 430,406 dollars inflated to 2008 value. The income tax promised when it was enacted was supposed to small and painless to We the People, but the tax system promised has turned into a monstrous beast of government influence. The rates are high, it is used as welfare vehicle, and it is incredibly complex, a gross mutation from the simplistic tax system enacted in 1913.

The President and Congressional leaders are promising that the public option (using the Social Security/Medicare system -- the largest ponzi scheme ever) will provide a flowery fix to the problem of ever booming health care costs. We the people need to have our voices heard on this issue. Given the problems that Social Security already has, it gives me pause to think that our leaders want to put the entire health care in the hands of this same agency. It may be that using Social Security is the best option to provide insurance to everyone, but Congress needs to put a little more caution into creating (what may become) one of the most intrusive government programs in American history.

While I yearn to feel confident that my family and I can afford to see doctors when necessary, I am scared to death to think of Social Security-esque bureaucracy becoming a part of the health care system. I have nightmares of taking my kids to the doctors and the offices resembling the stark white, inefficient Social Security offices I have had to misfortune of visiting on a few occasions.

There may be other options.

y-intercept had an interesting post, about the perverse incentives that insurers have in rising health care costs. He suggested that health cost should flow through individual accounts in Medical Savings and Loans, laws of supply and demand would be better able to regulate skyrocketing health care costs.


I hope that our leaders step back before they take us down a road that will be irreversible. I fear that we will soon tie ourselves to a system that our children will curse for generations to come. Everyone needs to be able to see a physician without worrying about bankruptcy, but we should be able to do it without possibly bankrupting the nation or burdening future generations with an even more grievous tax burden.

Madoff -- He has a Projected Release Date

I found this to be rather interesting. Bernie Madoff received a 150-year sentence for his Ponzi scam. You would think a sentence of 150 years would be treated as a life sentence without the possibility of parole -- the end. However, the Federal Prison Bureau has calculated a projected release date for Madoff and the date is Nov. 14, 2139. The good news for Madoff is he has already knocked 20 years off of his sentence.

I wonder why have a release date for him. There is the obvious answer of federal agencies just following policies and procedures, but there is also a demoralizing factor for a prisoner like Madoff of puting a date to the end of his sentence. "You can get out in 2139" is a lot more vivid than, "you are sentenced to 150 years in prison." Point is -- Madoff is going to die in there.

The LDS Church and the Kiss Heard Round the Salt Lake Valley

Before I write anything I want to express that I am a Mormon, and I support my church's teachings. However, too many Church members view the Church's opposition to homosexuality as a lifestyle as a reason and excuse to discriminate and oppress gays and lesbians individually and as a group. For this I am sorry and embarrassed. The second great commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself -- there is no caveat in this commandment for color, religion, or sexual orientation.

Last week a gay couple was asked to leave the church owned Main Street Plaza for kissing, and was subsequently arrested when they refused. This led to a minor firestorm of criticism and protests directed at the LDS church. While I agree that some on that LDS Church security crew handled the confrontation in a bigoted circa-1963 Alabama-esque manner, I think the subsequent rage, and protests are counter-productive and somewhat misguided.

First, it is disingenuous of the arrested gay couple to claim that the kiss on the LDS Church owned plaza was just an innocent display of affection. The LDS church is often made to be the main oppressor of the gay and lesbian community in Utah. I would assume that a gay couple living downtown would know this. However, this couple expects the public to believe they were somehow shocked when they were confronted for publicly displaying affection amongst homophobic Mormons on private LDS Church property. Come on! This couple was looking to raise eyebrows, even if they didn't expect they would be arrested and treated so brutally.

Second, the LDS church and the gay and lesbian community will never see eye to eye on this issue. The LDS church (unless this ends up being a major church policy shift caused by a visit from the Deity in person) will never support gay marriage or openly support anything resembling gay marriage. The LDS church will fight gay marriage on all fronts, until the idea is completely rejected in this country, or it becomes institutionalized. I believe the biggest reason the church fights gay marriage so openly is due to our nations civil rights laws, if this was institutionalized nationally our country's civil rights laws would possibly become very cumbersome to any Christian-church that doesn't perform, solemnize, or recognize gay marriages by way of anti-discrimination lawsuits and by other legal issues that face organizations that are viewed as discriminatory. So the point is this, the battle for gay rights should be fought on other fronts (i.e. against political groups like Eagle Forum, and legislators like Chris Buttars), compromises may be needed, and most of all level headed civil political discourse should be maintained. The rage and protests against the LDS church last week seemed a little like childish-pouting. This doesn't excuse the security guards behavior, but targeting the LDS church as an organization is not going to lead gay and lesbian activists to their end goal.

Having said all that. More needs to be done to teach local LDS church members, how be more tolerant of others in this state. The backwardness of many Latter-Day Saints in Zion is somewhat appalling -- tolerance of those who drink alcohol can be a stretch for some members. For a religion that wants members to proselyte to all people, it is interesting that one of the most powerful tools (loving all men as brothers) completely eludes so many of the local Saints.

Personally, I support civil unions (that are treated exactly like marriage) as the best compromise in the gay marriage debate. Civil unions don't seem to be as problematic for Christian churches, and they provide marital benefits and protections to homosexual partners. Most of all I hope that a spirit of peace and compromise may one day lead to a resolution of this issue.

Civil Political Discourse -- Southern Utah Style

How marvelous! St. Georgians exercised their freedom to assemble this 4th of July by having one of many National "Tea" Parties. Unfortunately, due to my camping trip to Lake Powell, I was unable to attend. Thankfully the crack squad of reporters from the Daily Spectrum were there to cover the meaningful, civil discourse between angry conservatives and a snarky Washington County Democratic Party Chair.

Washington County Democratic Party Chairman Cyril Noble braved a hostile crowd when he stood at the microphone and said, "Repeat after me, 'Obama - a two-term president.'"

Amid a growing chorus of boos and shouts of "Traitor!" and "Go home!" Noble said, "He is doing the best he can."

Noble noted his own accent, saying, "I am an American. ... I am an immigrant, which you don't like."

Someone in the crowd called, "Sounds like he's trying to be a victim, to me."

I don't know if it is the snarky liberal, or the bitter, angry, and phobic conservatives -- but events like this are so obnoxious. The liberal used ad hominem arguments, and baiting tactics and the local conservatives were simply parroting conservative talk radio pundits. It is the same old story -- too many Americans have political myopia.

This was my favorite:

Seven-year-old Fox Barrett was one of the speakers to raise his voice against the president from the microphone.

"I'm a conservative, and I just want to say to Obama, 'Stop stealing my future,'" he said.

"He's been wanting to do this since April," said his father, Brett Barrett, while the pair waited in line.

"So he's going to exercise his First Amendment rights, then we're going to go home and exercise our Second Amendment rights," he said, indicating they were going to go shooting at the local firing range.

All right, way to push political ideology on your seven year old! What kid wouldn't want to spend his 4th of July hanging out with awnry old farts?

I am sorry if this offends any of the attendees, but the lack of civil, intelligent political discourse is one of the greatest stumbling blocks for our state and nation. We need to open our eyes, pay a little less attention to pundits, give a little more consideration to what problems need to be addressed, and figure out which elected officials are most likely to present real solutions to those problems.

Bravo Supreme Court

The Supreme Court released a decision yesterday regarding reverse discrimination. The "ruling that New Haven, Conn., wrongly discriminated against a group of mostly white firefighters who lost out when a promotion exam was scrapped because no blacks scored well enough to advance". Interestingly enough, there seems to be a great deal of debate on whether this ruling creates new problems for businesses or whether the new ruling provides clarity in relation to civil rights practices by employers. The decision shows that employers must be on solid ground before they make a decisions that discriminate against a certain group of employees irregardless of whether the group is a protected minority.

In the opinion of this author, Monday's ruling is a clear indicator that race cannot be the trump card in making employment decisions -- even in regards to protected groups. I hope that this ruling remedies some of the perceived and in certain cases actual perverse results of affirmative action laws. Since affirmative action was enacted there has been legitimate gripes that affirmative actions mandates reverse discrimination in order to counter-balance the history of gross racial inequality in the US. Affirmative action has major problems; it has left reverse-discriminated individuals with racially charged grievances, and it has added an unnecessary concern for businesses in employment matters. This ruling seems to say, as long as the business is doing all it can to make sure employment and advancement policies are fair to all employees, businesses should hire and advance employees by the employers normal policies irregardless of whether or not targeted/protected minorities are among those who qualify for employment and advancement. This is a ruling that clarifies affirmative action, and says it is okay for businesses to hire based of merit and qualification, and (should overtime) remove the incorrect perception that companies must reverse-discriminate in order to be compliant with Civil Rights statutes.

There is one problem. This ruling says that a company can ignore race as an employment factor if the company can show that it made sufficient effort to ensure employment decisions and policies are fair to all groups and races. How does a company prove that their employment policies and practices are fair to all races and groups? I think many employers will have to review their hiring and advancement practices to make sure they have policies in place that not only are fair to protected minorities, but policies that promote and hire qualified employees without using race as the determining factor. This will be difficult for for many entities that have history of reverse discrimination policies as a fail safe method to maintain the appearance of being compliant with affirmative action.