Seriously Representative Ray...?

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11591862

You know this just kills me and is yet another reason our State Legislature drives me nuts. In a year when there is going to have to be major budget cuts, and hard choices to be made, Rep. Paul Ray, R-Clearfield, apparently has introduced an anti-abortion bill into the State Legislature that would make illegal abortions a second-degree felony. Come on. Seriously Rep. Ray?! Allow me to shoot your bill full of holes.

-First off, all of our prisons are already over-crowded, and will probably become more so due to budget cuts, and you want MORE people imprisoned for something that is ENTIRELY the woman's choice? Not to mention filling up the courts.

-Secondly, in order for this bill to even be enforced you have to: A) monitor all health records for pregnant women, and B) force doctors to violate patient-doctor confidentiality; both of which are illegal under today's personal privacy laws.

-Thirdly, I find it very interesting how the Republican party as a whole prides itself in its ideal of smaller government equals better government. The less government there is, the better people will be. Well just a minute...HELLO! By legislating things that are strictly personal choices and are strictly private choices of those involved, such as gay marriage or abortions, you are making government BIGGER! It is IMPOSSIBLE to legislate "morality" without BIG GOVERNMENT!

-Finally, I find it very asinine when the same people who say abortions should be banned because "life is sacred" are often the very same people who promote the death penalty as capital punishment. You honestly think that revenge killing is better or more politically correct, than terminating a pregnancy as a way to save a mother, escape the responsibilities or consequences of unprotected sex, or any other reasons why abortions are performed? It is a complete contradiction in terms. If you think "life is sacred" then you MUST think ALL of it is regardless of what people do with their lives.


The other bill mentioned being introduced by Rep. Wimmer, R-Herriman, is just as bad and makes no sense to me. Granted I'm not a doctor so I don't know how everything works in a pregnancy but to me anesthetizing the fetus before performing an abortion is just asking for trouble. You can't anesthetize a fatally sick patient to ease his or her suffering and yet you want to do that to a fetus that is joined to its mother? What happens if something goes wrong and the mother is anesthetized, or her health put in some other danger, in addition to the fetus? If the mother dies or is affected by the procedure then is the doctor then guilty of murder? If you value life are you willing for this bill to set a precedent that makes an adult anesthetizing bill more likely to be passed?

44th Presidential Inaugural

After watching the Inauguration of President Obama and seeing the sea of people there, I thought I would share my thoughts on what I saw and how I felt about it.

I thought his speech was excellent as his almost always are. It was full of images and words that I think this nation needed to hear. If he succeeds as President, I think it will be a speech that is long remembered. He has defined what he wants the country to do to help itself and the world. He has set the bar high for himself and the country and I look forward to seeing how close we come to doing it.

I also thought the sea of people who were there was also a very powerful image in itself. If I was an opponent or enemy of this country, that image alone would cause me pause and send shivers down my spine. Not from fear of arms, but fear that when this country is united as one we can be a force of ideals so powerful that NOTHING can stop us.

Admiral Yamamoto of the Japanese Imperial Navy said in 1941 after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor: "I fear that all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill it with a terrible resolve." I think that if this new attitude in America holds, and the President succeeds, that our opponents and enemies will shudder as this giant fully awakens anduses ALL of its power to make the world a better place for everyone

Middle East thoughts

I'm going to apologize in advance if this is hard to follow. Its one of those where you know what you want to say but you can't always do it in a clear and orderly sentence. Its probably really two separate blogs but I wasn't sure how to separate them cleanly since it all pertains to the Middle East.

Right now we have three religions fighting each other in the Middle East because they all feel that their way is the right way and the right cause. To me all of this conflict is pointless, helps no one, advances nothing, and proves nothing. Christians, Jews, and Muslims have all been fighting over the "holy land" since their religions were founded. Right now its the Jews and Muslims (Israelis and Palestinians), in the past it was the Christians and Muslims (the Crusades), and tomorrow who knows. With so much bloodshed and constant attempts for sole control of it, can it truly even be called the "holy land" anymore? I think not.

War and blatant killing violates the belief system of every single religion. How can a religion fight to solely "claim" the "holy land" when by doing so involves the taking of life? Why should anyone follow a religion, or any god look upon a religion favorably, that can't even follow its own rules? How can a religion claim that abortions are murder on one hand, and involve itself in "holy wars" on the other?

The way I see it is either all religions are wrong, or they all are right (including the beliefs of Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, etc) and there is no single "true religion." It would be pointless for multiple religions to exist if only one was "true" because it would create precisely the conflict we see today. Each religion claiming and fighting that they are the one "true religion". If all religions are right, then fighting (I include trying to gain converts under this) and slaughtering each other only condemns everyone rather than prove who is right and who is wrong.

Israelis and Palestinians have been fighting each other for centuries and this most recent spat made me wonder. Do they even know or remember who or what started their war? For all anyone knows it could be petty as one man stealing another man's wife! This latest fighting only makes things worse and continues the cycle. Each side blames the other for atrocities that the other committed, and yet can't admit to their own. Israel accuses the Palestinians of fighting out of schools, mosques, etc and yet who is to say that Israel isn't, or hasn't in the past, done the same thing. Palestinians accuse Israel of committing atrocities and yet often commit the same ones against Israel. Both sides are only making things worse for themselves the more they fight. If both have forgotten what truly caused the war, how can either side claim victory? Both sides are wrong and until BOTH sides are condemned and have action taken against them in the international community it will just go on, and on, and on. Yes, the Palestinians may have started this most recent fight but Israel can't be free of blame either. The whole thing has devolved into a disgusting and seemingly endless war of retribution. If their land is truly as holy as they claim they believe then they should be willing to release their claim on it. If it is holy then that land should belong to everyone and to no one.

Again, it all comes down to what I feel is the simple truth: 1) either every religion is wrong and is something created by society to cope with the world; 2) all religions are right and all this fighting to prove which religion is "true" is pointless; or 3) the answer is something else entirely that no one knows or understands.

Suggestions for additions to the President-Elect’s Economic Stimulus plan

I'm not an expert on economics and I don't claim or pretend to be. That being said I have come up with a few things that I think would help the economy and that should be implemented by the President-Elect when he takes office. I believe, from what I have read, heard, and what I know that could greatly help although the effects would take time to be visible.

1) Executive Orders that would be retro active (once signed they are immediately applicable)
a) Require ALL lending institutions to allow anyone with an adjustable rate mortgage to refinance to a 1.5-2% fixed rate mortgage. Fee free
b) Require that all management yearly salaries in any company that has received government assistance be capped at a maximum of $300,000. With all bonuses, perks, corporate jets, corporate cars, etc banned and immediately discontinued. All overseen by either the IRS or similar agency.
c) All credit card companies restricted to a maximum chargeable interest rate of 10% on ALL credit cards.
d) Interest rates on all personal loans, student loans, and home equity loans dropped to a maximum of 3%
2) Congress immediately passes legislation that gives tax breaks/incentives to companies who operate entirely within the U.S. Meaning that a company would greatly benefit by moving its manufacturing, headquarters, etc back to the U.S.

The Scar of America

This is a bit old in terms of news but I wasn't quite sure how to fully argue my point on it until now. The President-Elect has stated in the past that he would look at and consider closing the prison for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. I truly believe that prison should be closed and closed as soon as possible. Here's why:

First off, let me point out that ANY and ALL U.S. military bases are considered U.S. territory. Which means that they fall under U.S. law and anyone born on a base is an automatic U.S. citizen. That being said, I believe that Guantanamo Bay is in direct violation of the 5th, 6th, and perhaps even the 8th amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America. Now, for those who say the suspected terrorists are not U.S. citizens, therefore they don't receive any protection from the Constitution; I say you are dead wrong. It does not matter if they are citizens or not, they are in U.S. custody and are therefore under the protection of U.S. law. Want proof? Have you ever heard of an "illegal alien" committing a crime (murder, drugs, etc), being booked, taken to a prison, and promptly being shot by prison officials without justification (attacking the officer, attacking another inmate, etc)? I don't think so because it would be ILLEGAL for them to do that despite the fact the perpetrator is not a citizen of the United States.

This country was founded on fairness and equality and to me Guantanamo Bay flies in the the very face of this country. When you look back at the history of this country, the only difference between the Japanese Internment camps of WWII and Guantanamo Bay is numbers of people being held. The fact that the prison there even exists and operates the way it does, causes the same image problems as torture. If the U.S. can do it, then why shouldn't we? It is extremely difficult to try and be a "moral beacon" for the rest of the world when you are at the same time being blatantly immoral. If we are willing to throw parts of the Constitution away that we don't agree with because they "complicate things", then we are no better than the people who we are fighting against! The United States that I love FOLLOWS its Constitution even at the hardest of times.



Amendment 5: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
-Constitution of the United States of America

Amendment 6: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and fair trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."
-Constitution of the United States of America

Amendment 8: "Excessive bail shall not be required, not excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
-Constitution of the United States of America

Corruption

I find it interesting that this corruption case in Illinois is getting so much heated attention. People constantly say that politicians are corrupt and yet they act SURPRISED when there is a scandal.

I mean lets be honest people, EVERY elected or appointed official in government is corrupt in one way or another. Anyone who thinks that his/her representative, senator, councilmember, president, etc is NOT corrupt is extremely naive. If they truly were not corrupt then every "special interest", from religions to war-profiteers, would have ZERO power to influence policy. The simple existence of organized "special interests" that "petition" the government and contribute to campaigns PROVE corruption is everywhere.

Illinois's governor was wrong in what he did, should be removed, and is a total idiot. The stupid corrupt people are the ones who always get caught but they aren't always the worst or most influential. The politicians that really affect things are the ones who are smart enough to know how to hide it, get reelected, and as a result often have enormous influence on policy.

Corruption is one of those things that is good and bad, depending entirely on opinion. It all depends on who benefits and who gets shafted in the end. Yes, when laws are violated by politicians doing corrupt acts, it is illegal. But you have to remember who investigates corruption allegations in the government; the Judicial Branch of the GOVERNMENT. If you know the "right" people in the "right" places its possible to have things "overlooked". Again, good or bad, corruption comes down to the opinions of those who win, versus those who lose. Realistically, the only way to come close to preventing it, is the constant changing of the people in power, and never reelecting the incumbent, but even then it will still exist in some form.

Can we have an early inauguration?

Once again, the lame duck that is President Bush has repealed a law that should not have been repealed...

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_11148763

The President has decided to eliminate the rule that bans all firearms in national parks. People who have conceal/carry permits for firearms can now legally take them, loaded, into any national park as long as the state that the park is in has no law banning them, which is all but two. This is just ASKING for trouble in my mind.

First off, why in the hell do you need, or even feel the need, to have a firearm in a national park in the first place??? If you feel THAT unsafe, then go lock yourself in your basement and keep to yourself. I can already see that one day some idiot is going to get pissed off at someone else for something stupid, pull out his gun, and thats all she wrote. It also opens the door for people to go "Oh, I like that bird" or whatever "I'm going to shoot it and mount it on my wall at home."

Orin Hatch was quoted in the Trib article saying that he believe that the second amendment should not stop at national park boundaries. Well Senator Hatch guess what, if you think that then you are implying that ALL of the monuments AND buildings in Washington, DC that fall under the park service should have the change in law apply to them as well. Which would make security pointless.

Look, I have no problem with people owning guns BUT I don't think they need to be carried EVERYWHERE by who ever wants to. Or that people should be allowed to have assault weapons like an AK-47. If EVERYONE was 100% responsible with their guns then I would say get rid of all gun laws, but since they aren't we need these type of laws to prevent people from being stupid.