When is an abuse of power for personal gain by an elected official not an abuse of power for personal gain? When it’s committed in West Valley City by and I quote the Salt Lake Tribune “a GOP star” whose “a political force” City Councilmen as he “ponders his next big move”.
When West Valley City Councilman at large Mike Winder recently used the city’s email system to promote his new book, solicit city employees to buy it and forward the email to family and friends he committed an abuse of power for personal gain. An excuse of youthful exuberance may have pacified Paul Rolly of the Tribune but not me.
This blatant misuse of power which barely got mentioned in the Tribune’s recent glowing article along with the exaggerated picture of Winder on the front page of the paper is the real story, not the punch and cookies of said article. When the Tribune chooses to showcase a political figure as though it’s a paid political announcement or advertisement instead of doing some in depth investigation into the actions of the political figure, one must ask, “What is the intention of the Paper?” It apparently was not the reporting of a misuse of public trust by a public official.
But I guess when you are driving in the motorcade of the Vice President of the United States to take him to a meeting of political secrecy, attended by unnamed political figures without any media coverage using a city’s email system for personal gain is small potatoes.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Monday, July 23, 2007
Candidacy Announcement
Over the last few years I have steadily increased my telephone and written comments to elected and appointed government officials. Most of the comments I have made have been in disagreement with a policy or action of those officials. I have also contacted elected officials when their actions, words or political philosophy are ones with which I am more in agreement, however admittedly fewer of them. I have suggested courses of action and involvement to some of the younger as well as mature people I know. I have written a blog to express some of my thoughts and opinions. I have now involved myself in the elected political process and announce my candidacy for the Third District Seat on the West Valley City Council.
I am a candidate for elected office because one person can sow the seeds of change. One person can start the discussion, which leads to a change of opinion or stance. One person can toss the pebble into the pond, which starts the ripples of progress. One person can make a difference. Each of us is that one. When we stand as one with each other we become many. As many, each of us effects and has responsibility for the world in which we live.
I am aware there are very few of you who read this who can vote in this particular election. If you can, I ask for your voter support. Any volunteer or campaign financial assistance you may offer would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Have a great day.
I am a candidate for elected office because one person can sow the seeds of change. One person can start the discussion, which leads to a change of opinion or stance. One person can toss the pebble into the pond, which starts the ripples of progress. One person can make a difference. Each of us is that one. When we stand as one with each other we become many. As many, each of us effects and has responsibility for the world in which we live.
I am aware there are very few of you who read this who can vote in this particular election. If you can, I ask for your voter support. Any volunteer or campaign financial assistance you may offer would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Have a great day.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Liberal Utah Judges
Once again liberal Utah judges are legislating from the bench. Recently the Utah Supreme Court ruled that the 120,000 Utahns who signed the petition for a referendum regarding Utah’s school voucher law would get their day in court. Not only would they get their day in court but they would also be allowed to have the second, yet totally separate voucher bill, be included in the referendum decision. How dare this minuscule group of experienced legal minds have an opinion, which calls into question the wisdom and integrity of the Utah Legislature? Where does this tiny group get their audacity? How dare they question the Legislature’s intention of funding private and secular schools with public tax paid funds?
I could go on but by now I hope you’ve realized I’m being facetious. I have intentionally avoided being facetious in this blog before now. I wanted you, the readers, to know where I was coming from and what my opinions about things were. Today however, I thought I might catch some members of the other side unaware and get them to start reading. Maybe I could entice a few of them into reading further on.
What the Utah Supreme Court did was an excellent example of the constitution’s intentional separation of powers within the three branches of our government. This brilliantly conceived structure of three separate branches of government and the specific checks and balances it creates is one of the most significant features of our form of government. It provides for the rule of law interpreted by non-partisan evaluators, judges and the system used by those judges, the courts. Our adversarial court system is presided over by these judges.
The two sides, the adversaries, the pro-voucher proponents and the anti-voucher opponents brought their different opinions regarding the issue of a one vote referendum on both bills passed by the Legislature to the court. The court heard legal arguments about the law from each side’s interpretation and then decided one argument had greater standing under the law. Their decision was for one vote for either up or down, tying both of the Legislature’s two laws together in the referendum vote. I totally agree with the court’s decision. I believe the referendum vote outcome will show a significantly larger number of Utahns are against school vouchers paid for with tax dollars.
Some members of our Legislature have suggested the Court overstepped its authority with its decision. Some suggested additional legislation, which would circumvent the court’s decision. How dare those non-elected judges think their opinion took precedence over the opinion of elected officials? What do you call a group of little boys who take their ball home when the umpire rules against their desires? Spoiled comes to mind.
I could go on but by now I hope you’ve realized I’m being facetious. I have intentionally avoided being facetious in this blog before now. I wanted you, the readers, to know where I was coming from and what my opinions about things were. Today however, I thought I might catch some members of the other side unaware and get them to start reading. Maybe I could entice a few of them into reading further on.
What the Utah Supreme Court did was an excellent example of the constitution’s intentional separation of powers within the three branches of our government. This brilliantly conceived structure of three separate branches of government and the specific checks and balances it creates is one of the most significant features of our form of government. It provides for the rule of law interpreted by non-partisan evaluators, judges and the system used by those judges, the courts. Our adversarial court system is presided over by these judges.
The two sides, the adversaries, the pro-voucher proponents and the anti-voucher opponents brought their different opinions regarding the issue of a one vote referendum on both bills passed by the Legislature to the court. The court heard legal arguments about the law from each side’s interpretation and then decided one argument had greater standing under the law. Their decision was for one vote for either up or down, tying both of the Legislature’s two laws together in the referendum vote. I totally agree with the court’s decision. I believe the referendum vote outcome will show a significantly larger number of Utahns are against school vouchers paid for with tax dollars.
Some members of our Legislature have suggested the Court overstepped its authority with its decision. Some suggested additional legislation, which would circumvent the court’s decision. How dare those non-elected judges think their opinion took precedence over the opinion of elected officials? What do you call a group of little boys who take their ball home when the umpire rules against their desires? Spoiled comes to mind.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Your Guy?
I have previously mentioned in this blog former President Bill Clinton’s indiscretion with a woman during his tenure in office. The entire country witnessed the GOP led charge to investigate this matter. The president made statements under oath. He used selective specific language during his testimony. Interpretation of parts of the selective specific language testimony by mostly GOP members of congress led to charges of lying under oath. All of which led to the formal charges for his impeachment by the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives impeached the president, a constitutional event trigger by a majority vote of its’ membership. The Senate did not find him guilty, a constitutional process terminated by a vote which fall short of the necessary two thirds majority of its’ membership. Both of these two votes coming down to expressions of political party lines. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the constitutional process and an equally rudimentary mathematical capability would have come to the inescapable conclusion of ultimate failure of the process. Therefore the entire sequence of events must have had a different ultimate goal. I suggest the embarrassment of the president and theatre for the ultra right wing of the Republican Party as the real reasons.
President George W. Bush has said he fulfilled his commitment to the Texas National Guard. He said he would hunt down those responsible for the events of 9/11. He said we would get Osama bin Laden. He said Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda. He said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, both chemical and biological. He said Hussein was attempting to build atom weapons with the aluminum rods from Niger. He said he had nothing to do with the outing of a CIA operative. He said the war with Iraq would cost less than 50 billion dollars. He said Iraqi oil production would pay for the war. He said there would be less than 5000 American troops left in Iraq five years after the invasion. He said our troops would be welcomed with flowers in Iraq. He said the mission was successful and complete from the deck of an aircraft carrier. He had no plan for occupation of his conquered country. He has continually said the U. S. was winning the war in Iraq. He has been saying there is no civil war going on in Iraq. He has told our all-volunteer armed forces their tours of duty in Iraq would be twelve months. He has told them they would be allowed to stay home for at least one year in between tours of duty. If you have any questions regarding any of these assertions, I would suggest you watch Bill Moyers’ recently aired PBS special. Unless you believe everything you see on the documentary is smoke and mirrors, in which case I have some swamp land in Florida for sale…a facetious statement, I believe you’ll come away from the documentary with a different perspective.
The war in Iraq, which has still not been formally declared by vote of the Congress under constitutional mandate, is in its sixth year. More than 154,000 troops remain there. More than 3,200 Americans have died there. More than 16,000 have been wounded. Many of those include amputees and others who will suffer the effects of their wounds for the rest of their lives. Their deserved medical treatment and benefits will effect the national treasury and budget for the next seventy-five years or so. The Iraqi war has already cost in excess of one trillion dollars, $1,000,000,000,000.00. This figure does not include the necessary funds to replenish and repair the military hardware already used.
Which one of these two presidents is your guy?
President George W. Bush has said he fulfilled his commitment to the Texas National Guard. He said he would hunt down those responsible for the events of 9/11. He said we would get Osama bin Laden. He said Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda. He said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, both chemical and biological. He said Hussein was attempting to build atom weapons with the aluminum rods from Niger. He said he had nothing to do with the outing of a CIA operative. He said the war with Iraq would cost less than 50 billion dollars. He said Iraqi oil production would pay for the war. He said there would be less than 5000 American troops left in Iraq five years after the invasion. He said our troops would be welcomed with flowers in Iraq. He said the mission was successful and complete from the deck of an aircraft carrier. He had no plan for occupation of his conquered country. He has continually said the U. S. was winning the war in Iraq. He has been saying there is no civil war going on in Iraq. He has told our all-volunteer armed forces their tours of duty in Iraq would be twelve months. He has told them they would be allowed to stay home for at least one year in between tours of duty. If you have any questions regarding any of these assertions, I would suggest you watch Bill Moyers’ recently aired PBS special. Unless you believe everything you see on the documentary is smoke and mirrors, in which case I have some swamp land in Florida for sale…a facetious statement, I believe you’ll come away from the documentary with a different perspective.
The war in Iraq, which has still not been formally declared by vote of the Congress under constitutional mandate, is in its sixth year. More than 154,000 troops remain there. More than 3,200 Americans have died there. More than 16,000 have been wounded. Many of those include amputees and others who will suffer the effects of their wounds for the rest of their lives. Their deserved medical treatment and benefits will effect the national treasury and budget for the next seventy-five years or so. The Iraqi war has already cost in excess of one trillion dollars, $1,000,000,000,000.00. This figure does not include the necessary funds to replenish and repair the military hardware already used.
Which one of these two presidents is your guy?
Friday, April 13, 2007
What Price?
The United States government as opposed to the Bush administration is now telling American Fighting men and women that their tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan are going to be lengthened to 15 months from the now stated 12 months. This length increase traded for a guarantee of 12 months at home in between tours. I was under the impression and so were a lot of soldiers they already got to stay home for twelve months between tours. Was the Bush administration lying then or now?
Who cares? I’m of the opinion that not enough of you do. You’re not volunteering for service so you don’t give a damn if other young men and women get to spend an extra three months in a combat zone. You’re not going over there, you have nothing to worry about, and you don’t have to dodge bullets or IEDs. You just keep putting three-dollar a gallon gas into your car and drive off to the movies.
How can you keep letting a small, dedicated group of people risk their lives in combat as you play video games in the safety of your living rooms? How do you justify that inequity to yourselves? How do you sleep at night? Apparently you can without any qualms and visions of sugarplums dancing in your head.
Last year in the U S approximately 45,000 people died in car accidents. Another 45,000 to 50,000 died as a result of a gunshot wound. 200,000 or so died from the effects of cancer. About that same number died from heart disease. Where are the wars to stop these killers of Americans? Far greater numbers die each year from these causes than died in the attacks of 911. Why have we the people let 3,200 and counting young Americans die in Iraq and Afghanistan?
What are you afraid of America? How did you get to this state? What are you willing to change in order for the betterment of all? Please, starting right now, require more personal involvement from yourselves and demand greater integrity from our government.
Who cares? I’m of the opinion that not enough of you do. You’re not volunteering for service so you don’t give a damn if other young men and women get to spend an extra three months in a combat zone. You’re not going over there, you have nothing to worry about, and you don’t have to dodge bullets or IEDs. You just keep putting three-dollar a gallon gas into your car and drive off to the movies.
How can you keep letting a small, dedicated group of people risk their lives in combat as you play video games in the safety of your living rooms? How do you justify that inequity to yourselves? How do you sleep at night? Apparently you can without any qualms and visions of sugarplums dancing in your head.
Last year in the U S approximately 45,000 people died in car accidents. Another 45,000 to 50,000 died as a result of a gunshot wound. 200,000 or so died from the effects of cancer. About that same number died from heart disease. Where are the wars to stop these killers of Americans? Far greater numbers die each year from these causes than died in the attacks of 911. Why have we the people let 3,200 and counting young Americans die in Iraq and Afghanistan?
What are you afraid of America? How did you get to this state? What are you willing to change in order for the betterment of all? Please, starting right now, require more personal involvement from yourselves and demand greater integrity from our government.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Choices
Congratulations to the Utahns for Public Schools political information committee on their success in gaining 130,000 signatures from Utahns who feel the School Voucher program passed by the legislature should be voted upon by the public. This grass roots, all volunteer group has passed the first hurdle the legislature placed in their path on the road to undoing the voucher bill. It seems to me that when the legislative body which is supposed to represent the people of the state puts roadblocks up to impede the democratic will of those people then maybe it’s time for new members of the legislative body.
Along those tines, I would like to paraphrase Mr. Lewis Black again, as I ask the internet commentator to the article in the Salt Lake Tribune this morning regarding this issue when he stated he was sure the measure would be passed in a referendum vote. “Where do you go to get the drugs which make you so delusional?” A vote on this issue will surely come down on the side of not spending taxpayer monies on private schools.
To the Parents for Choice in Education, the political action committee on the other side of this issue, you already have a choice. You can have your children attend public schools or send them to private ones. The choice is yours. The rest of us ARE NOT going to pay for your choice. Your arrogance in suggesting we do is staggering.
During my life I have made a number of choices that have had some high costs associated with the consequences of those choices. I have never asked any of you Parents for Choice in Education to help pay for any of my choices. Where do you find the nerve?
Along those tines, I would like to paraphrase Mr. Lewis Black again, as I ask the internet commentator to the article in the Salt Lake Tribune this morning regarding this issue when he stated he was sure the measure would be passed in a referendum vote. “Where do you go to get the drugs which make you so delusional?” A vote on this issue will surely come down on the side of not spending taxpayer monies on private schools.
To the Parents for Choice in Education, the political action committee on the other side of this issue, you already have a choice. You can have your children attend public schools or send them to private ones. The choice is yours. The rest of us ARE NOT going to pay for your choice. Your arrogance in suggesting we do is staggering.
During my life I have made a number of choices that have had some high costs associated with the consequences of those choices. I have never asked any of you Parents for Choice in Education to help pay for any of my choices. Where do you find the nerve?
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Miscellaneous Ramblings
I have been under the weather lately; that is, I somehow managed to lock my right shoulder while stretching out to pet one of our dogs. The pain, which started to manifest itself the next day, reached up into the 8.5 on a ten-point scale for me. I’ve visited my chiropractor twice and a pain management therapist trying to ease the pain and regain control of body movements. One of the things it literally hurt to do was type and move a computer mouse. The pain management therapist inquired about some of my habits and I mentioned this blog. She asked if I wrote with passion and I said I thought there was some of that in here. She then asked if it was passion with tension. I had to think about that for a moment and then realized she was correct. Therefore I will attempt to continue with logical passion minus any tension. But I am becoming aware of a tightening in my right shoulder trying to make me notice it.
First off, can’t thinking adults admit there is nothing wrong with the word Merlot? The recent flap over one man’s personal license plate using the word and another’s self righteous object is beyond me. In the opinions of both Lewis Black and George Carlin there are no dirty words. By the by, after tens years of use of said license plate hasn’t some sort of legal precedent be made? How does the State Tax Commission decide one plate’s worthiness and another’s non-worthiness? Is it at least two out of three votes against or does one person yield all that power? My brother indicates to me, based upon his professional professor status that his students have a completely different understanding of the term “milk shake” than you and I do. Do the students understand the meaning of these two harmless words in the context I think they do? If so, where are the word police?
To the Utahn with the under developed math skills who attempted to justify President Bush’s mid term removal of several federal prosecutors with President Clinton’s “mid term” removal of all sitting federal prosecutors on March 23 1993, my I remind mister wizard that President Clinton’s term started on January 20, 1993. Sixty days into his term, President Clinton cleaned house just like most Presidents have after taking office. This can hardly be deemed mid term. The real trouble here is not the firing of the prosecutors, but the reasons for the actions and any attempts to undermine the U S Justice Department by turning prosecution into a politically partisan exercise. By the way, isn’t lying about all of this under oath a federal offense? Isn’t that the reason they impeached President Clinton? Will you all take a closer look at this one?
How many of you have noticed George and Tony’s latest adventure. Two U S aircraft carrier groups off the coast of Iran are playing war games. Iran is holding fifteen British soldiers as captives. We have dueling GPS units establishing where said troops were when Iran detained them. I’ve always thought one of the military’s main goals was not to get captured by the bad guys. Not to be flip, but the report I saw of the detainees showed a group of young folks that looked like they were at a Friday night social. Where were the hard core military operatives who should have been tasked with this mission? Is it just me or is there something wrong with this picture?
That’s all for now. My back is indicating I’m not completely back in form.
First off, can’t thinking adults admit there is nothing wrong with the word Merlot? The recent flap over one man’s personal license plate using the word and another’s self righteous object is beyond me. In the opinions of both Lewis Black and George Carlin there are no dirty words. By the by, after tens years of use of said license plate hasn’t some sort of legal precedent be made? How does the State Tax Commission decide one plate’s worthiness and another’s non-worthiness? Is it at least two out of three votes against or does one person yield all that power? My brother indicates to me, based upon his professional professor status that his students have a completely different understanding of the term “milk shake” than you and I do. Do the students understand the meaning of these two harmless words in the context I think they do? If so, where are the word police?
To the Utahn with the under developed math skills who attempted to justify President Bush’s mid term removal of several federal prosecutors with President Clinton’s “mid term” removal of all sitting federal prosecutors on March 23 1993, my I remind mister wizard that President Clinton’s term started on January 20, 1993. Sixty days into his term, President Clinton cleaned house just like most Presidents have after taking office. This can hardly be deemed mid term. The real trouble here is not the firing of the prosecutors, but the reasons for the actions and any attempts to undermine the U S Justice Department by turning prosecution into a politically partisan exercise. By the way, isn’t lying about all of this under oath a federal offense? Isn’t that the reason they impeached President Clinton? Will you all take a closer look at this one?
How many of you have noticed George and Tony’s latest adventure. Two U S aircraft carrier groups off the coast of Iran are playing war games. Iran is holding fifteen British soldiers as captives. We have dueling GPS units establishing where said troops were when Iran detained them. I’ve always thought one of the military’s main goals was not to get captured by the bad guys. Not to be flip, but the report I saw of the detainees showed a group of young folks that looked like they were at a Friday night social. Where were the hard core military operatives who should have been tasked with this mission? Is it just me or is there something wrong with this picture?
That’s all for now. My back is indicating I’m not completely back in form.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Votes Count
Webster defines hypocrite as 1. A person who pretends to have a moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., he does hot actually possess. 2. A person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude. I give you Newt Gingrich. The former Speaker of the House of Representatives this past week has publicly stated that at the same time he was leading the Republican charge to impeach President Bill Clinton for lying about the President’s involvement with a woman outside of his marriage, he himself was at the time involved with a woman outside of his marriage. Do you think charges of lying about his digression would have followed Newt, (I just love that name) had a special prosecutor looking into his affairs spent $100 million dollars doing so? It appears Newt has accomplished this feat twice as evidenced by his third wife, twenty years his junior and his public statements. As if testing the waters of wrath that might befall upon him from the far right Evangelic Christians towards a possible presidential campaign, Newt made his announcement. I say, “Come on down.”
The use of the word “whore” implies the act of doing something for money or gratuity. “Payback” implies a similar set of acts. “Spineless” implies a lack of character or personal deficiencies of ethics or integrity. I give you Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. The governor's spineless non-action of allowing Energy Solution’s bill to become law without his signature is matched only by his whorish and payback actions of signing the bills which targets the Gay Straight Alliance Clubs at our high schools and the one which allowed the government vouchers for private schools. I don’t think a governor by the name of Matheson or his son, Scott Jr., as governor would have committed any of these cowardly acts.
This brings me to Speaker of the Utah House of Representatives Greg Curtis. Is the Salt Lake City Tribune Sunday headline of “Friends of Curtis fare well with ‘07 bills” a ringing endorsement of the “good old boy network” or “the beholding to special interests” of the Utah legislature? Or is it a searing indictment of an abuse of power for the enrichment of a select few? Think about that as you read the article in the Tribune. Even the authors of the Tribune article acknowledge the re-election of Curtis by a mere 20 votes. I suggest the formulation of the committee to find 21 more votes against him in the next election. Or how about the committee to find the 11 folks who voted for him in the last election who have had enough of his votes for abuses of power and will now vote against him in the next election. How about considering these names for the committees, The Magnificent Eleven or The Knights of the Twenty-One? If I were the speaker I would be extremely aware of the tenuous nature of my power. A small grassroots group could have a major impact on Utah politics and negate one of the largest campaign expenditures of the last state elections. Food for thought?
What are you going to do with your vote in the next election? Are you going to go to the polls this time or keep making excuses about your vote not counting?
The use of the word “whore” implies the act of doing something for money or gratuity. “Payback” implies a similar set of acts. “Spineless” implies a lack of character or personal deficiencies of ethics or integrity. I give you Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. The governor's spineless non-action of allowing Energy Solution’s bill to become law without his signature is matched only by his whorish and payback actions of signing the bills which targets the Gay Straight Alliance Clubs at our high schools and the one which allowed the government vouchers for private schools. I don’t think a governor by the name of Matheson or his son, Scott Jr., as governor would have committed any of these cowardly acts.
This brings me to Speaker of the Utah House of Representatives Greg Curtis. Is the Salt Lake City Tribune Sunday headline of “Friends of Curtis fare well with ‘07 bills” a ringing endorsement of the “good old boy network” or “the beholding to special interests” of the Utah legislature? Or is it a searing indictment of an abuse of power for the enrichment of a select few? Think about that as you read the article in the Tribune. Even the authors of the Tribune article acknowledge the re-election of Curtis by a mere 20 votes. I suggest the formulation of the committee to find 21 more votes against him in the next election. Or how about the committee to find the 11 folks who voted for him in the last election who have had enough of his votes for abuses of power and will now vote against him in the next election. How about considering these names for the committees, The Magnificent Eleven or The Knights of the Twenty-One? If I were the speaker I would be extremely aware of the tenuous nature of my power. A small grassroots group could have a major impact on Utah politics and negate one of the largest campaign expenditures of the last state elections. Food for thought?
What are you going to do with your vote in the next election? Are you going to go to the polls this time or keep making excuses about your vote not counting?
Monday, March 5, 2007
With respect, Mrs. Galvez
I have just finished reading Mrs. Galvez’s piece in the Sunday Morning Editorial section of the Salt Lake Tribune and I’m complied to reply.
First let my say that I have great sympathy for the loss of your son’s life which he gave in ultimate sacrifice to this country. He was following orders, doing what a soldier does. The closest I have been to the Iraq war is the recent safe return to the states of my nephew from the horror and chaos of Iraq. I served in the Utah National Guard 19th Special Forces Group Airborne during the Vietnam War years. Before any of you say I was taking the easy way out of that war you need to stand in the door of a perfectly good moving military aircraft at 1000 feet above the ground preparing to exit. Seventeen successful parachute landing falls and six years of commitment to this country allow me the opportunity to speak.
Those of us who have opposed the Iraqi War since before the preemptive invasion, along with the majority of the citizens of this country who now believe we should not be there and Mayor Rocky Anderson as part of either group have the right as well as the responsibility to speak out against a war we believe to be illegal and ill-conceived. Osama Bin Ladin, the real planner of the attacks of 911 is still alive somewhere in Afghanistan or hiding somewhere nearby. What happened to President Bush’s pledge to bring to justice the perpetrators of this horrific deed? Al Quaida is in the mist of resurgence and growing stronger there as we speak. Asking questions and raising our voices in protest of this war in no way diminishes our support for the young men and women who are now in Iraq following orders. To suggest otherwise is both naïve and a distortion of logic. The Uniform Code of Military Justice speaks of unlawful orders. It provides guidelines and consequences for actions taken by soldiers in regard to such orders. It places responsibility on a soldier for actions and decisions he makes while being part of the military. If the code holds a soldier accountable, why then should the electorate be held any less accountable? The code provides for decisions and actions not taken through blind obedience. Why then are we, who have questions and speak out about this war, being castigated as non-supportive of troops or non-patriotic for not blindly falling into step with this administration?
Over 56,000 Americans died in Vietnam. The number of wounded must have been near the number now serving in Iraq 154,000. Over 3170 troops have been killed in Iraq, including Mrs. Galvez’s son. More than 23,000 troops have been wounded. A term which in no way does justice to the pain, suffering and the continued long term effects or consequences of being wounded. I believe I give much more support to my nephew and his fellow soldiers with whom he serves by speaking out against this war than by blindly accepting President Bush's decisions. Especially decisions made with “faulty intelligence”, “intelligence skewed with intent” or “intelligence filtered with bias”. Have we forgotten the inability to find WMD’s or the lack of Iraqi throngs throwing flowers as our troops entered their country?
Does Mrs. Galvez really believe she pays a higher price or more justified tribute to her fallen son by asking another mother to pay an equally high price with yet another son’s death without the people asking why? Do you truly believe that those of us, who call for a stop to the bloodshed before another falls, fail to pay grateful thanks or respectful homage to those who all ready have? I strongly suggest this is neither the case nor are we ungrateful or unpatriotic. To even hint at this is contemptible, void of logic and worse yet, an attempt to deny us of rights and guarantees afforded by the constitution.
First let my say that I have great sympathy for the loss of your son’s life which he gave in ultimate sacrifice to this country. He was following orders, doing what a soldier does. The closest I have been to the Iraq war is the recent safe return to the states of my nephew from the horror and chaos of Iraq. I served in the Utah National Guard 19th Special Forces Group Airborne during the Vietnam War years. Before any of you say I was taking the easy way out of that war you need to stand in the door of a perfectly good moving military aircraft at 1000 feet above the ground preparing to exit. Seventeen successful parachute landing falls and six years of commitment to this country allow me the opportunity to speak.
Those of us who have opposed the Iraqi War since before the preemptive invasion, along with the majority of the citizens of this country who now believe we should not be there and Mayor Rocky Anderson as part of either group have the right as well as the responsibility to speak out against a war we believe to be illegal and ill-conceived. Osama Bin Ladin, the real planner of the attacks of 911 is still alive somewhere in Afghanistan or hiding somewhere nearby. What happened to President Bush’s pledge to bring to justice the perpetrators of this horrific deed? Al Quaida is in the mist of resurgence and growing stronger there as we speak. Asking questions and raising our voices in protest of this war in no way diminishes our support for the young men and women who are now in Iraq following orders. To suggest otherwise is both naïve and a distortion of logic. The Uniform Code of Military Justice speaks of unlawful orders. It provides guidelines and consequences for actions taken by soldiers in regard to such orders. It places responsibility on a soldier for actions and decisions he makes while being part of the military. If the code holds a soldier accountable, why then should the electorate be held any less accountable? The code provides for decisions and actions not taken through blind obedience. Why then are we, who have questions and speak out about this war, being castigated as non-supportive of troops or non-patriotic for not blindly falling into step with this administration?
Over 56,000 Americans died in Vietnam. The number of wounded must have been near the number now serving in Iraq 154,000. Over 3170 troops have been killed in Iraq, including Mrs. Galvez’s son. More than 23,000 troops have been wounded. A term which in no way does justice to the pain, suffering and the continued long term effects or consequences of being wounded. I believe I give much more support to my nephew and his fellow soldiers with whom he serves by speaking out against this war than by blindly accepting President Bush's decisions. Especially decisions made with “faulty intelligence”, “intelligence skewed with intent” or “intelligence filtered with bias”. Have we forgotten the inability to find WMD’s or the lack of Iraqi throngs throwing flowers as our troops entered their country?
Does Mrs. Galvez really believe she pays a higher price or more justified tribute to her fallen son by asking another mother to pay an equally high price with yet another son’s death without the people asking why? Do you truly believe that those of us, who call for a stop to the bloodshed before another falls, fail to pay grateful thanks or respectful homage to those who all ready have? I strongly suggest this is neither the case nor are we ungrateful or unpatriotic. To even hint at this is contemptible, void of logic and worse yet, an attempt to deny us of rights and guarantees afforded by the constitution.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Damn Yankees
What will you sell your vote for? How many of you will go to the voting booths in the next general election and vote your straight Republican ticket again? When will you wake up and smell the coffee? I know what it is, they, the Republicans keep a secret stash of liquor and on election day with the correct password and counter sign you can enter their secret spot. There in hiding you can drink you fill so that you can then vote for them under the influence of diminished cognitive ability. Thereby relieving yourself of any sense of responsibility for your vote and that accompanying feeling of hypocrisy.
Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. does not veto Energy Solutions’ bill to do away with local and state over sight responsibility for nuclear waste deposal in the state. He lets it become law without his signature to “show his disapproval of the law” according to his spokesman. What is he saying to the seventy percent of you who did not want this bill to pass? Did he listen to the 1,000 telephone calls against the bill or the five favorable calls he received, according to local television news coverage? Who did he represent? Not me, but then I didn’t vote for him in the first place.
Seventy percent of us did not want to spend taxpayer dollars on Real Salt Lake. They decide to spend $35 million on the project anyway. Did they represent you, the average constituent or special big money interests? Who gave them the most campaign contributions?
The Republican dominated legislature passed a tax cut. Your state income tax liability will decrease approximately two hundred dollars. If you buy a $20,000 car your sales tax on the purchase will decrease twenty dollars. The lowering of the sales tax rate on food will save you about seventy-eight dollars. These figures all brought to you from local television news coverage. I do the math and for about three hundred dollars they bought your vote. Oh, I forgot, they threw in a little self-righteousness and throttled the Gay Straight Alliances in our high schools.
By the by, how large was your health insurance premium increase this year? How much more money did you spent on prescription drugs? How many gallons of gas did you buy at the inflated price of an extra dollar per gallon so big oil could make record profits this year. What was your personal portion of the federal deficit this year? Remember each and every member of your family gets to pay that one, even the newest baby. I do the math for an average Utah family of five with two vehicles and come up with about $10,000.
Which way does that scale weighing $300 less on one side or $10,000 more on the other tip? In Damn Yankees the tragic lead character at least got to keep the Yankees out of the World Series in exchange for his soul.
Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. does not veto Energy Solutions’ bill to do away with local and state over sight responsibility for nuclear waste deposal in the state. He lets it become law without his signature to “show his disapproval of the law” according to his spokesman. What is he saying to the seventy percent of you who did not want this bill to pass? Did he listen to the 1,000 telephone calls against the bill or the five favorable calls he received, according to local television news coverage? Who did he represent? Not me, but then I didn’t vote for him in the first place.
Seventy percent of us did not want to spend taxpayer dollars on Real Salt Lake. They decide to spend $35 million on the project anyway. Did they represent you, the average constituent or special big money interests? Who gave them the most campaign contributions?
The Republican dominated legislature passed a tax cut. Your state income tax liability will decrease approximately two hundred dollars. If you buy a $20,000 car your sales tax on the purchase will decrease twenty dollars. The lowering of the sales tax rate on food will save you about seventy-eight dollars. These figures all brought to you from local television news coverage. I do the math and for about three hundred dollars they bought your vote. Oh, I forgot, they threw in a little self-righteousness and throttled the Gay Straight Alliances in our high schools.
By the by, how large was your health insurance premium increase this year? How much more money did you spent on prescription drugs? How many gallons of gas did you buy at the inflated price of an extra dollar per gallon so big oil could make record profits this year. What was your personal portion of the federal deficit this year? Remember each and every member of your family gets to pay that one, even the newest baby. I do the math for an average Utah family of five with two vehicles and come up with about $10,000.
Which way does that scale weighing $300 less on one side or $10,000 more on the other tip? In Damn Yankees the tragic lead character at least got to keep the Yankees out of the World Series in exchange for his soul.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
High School Clubs
Utah State House of Representatives legislature Arron Tilton, R-Springville and State Senator Chris Buttars want all of the citizens of Utah to pay for any legal defenses their bias and bigoted HR235 may cause. Through the use of our tax dollars, these two want to make it, and I quote Representative Scott Wyatt, R-Logan, “easier to start a corporation than to create a high school club” here in Utah. Buttars and Tilton want to give school administrations the ability to reject any school club which is, in their opinion, outside the “boundaries of socially appropriate behavior” without fear of needing to pay for legal defenses arising out of the rejection of a club’ application.
In legislation clearly aimed at high school clubs of Gay Straight Alliances these two elected officials want to pass legislation which would curtail the rights of a select group of people just because they are part of the group. Which “group of people” are you part of which could find itself the target of legislation intent upon limiting your rights? I suggest you think about that long and hard. Do you only get involved when your club or group is singled out? As I recall, it was a number of such proclamations from a king, which stirred men of integrity to start a revolution around 1776.
Buttars’ and Tilton’s self righteousness attempt to limit the rights of a select group is both an affront to the U S Constitution as well as a denial of human sexuality. The constitution prohibits legislation targeted for select constituents based upon criteria of membership. Part of human sexuality is homosexuality. Homosexuality is displayed in countless species on earth. Mother Nature and men far wiser that these two elected officials strongly disagree with the premise of this bill.
Perhaps a closer look at the suicide rate among young people in this state, which rants near the top in the nation, and the correlation of the pressures brought to bear by a ultra conservative majority would give cause to review the intent of HR236. Certainly the lives of our young people are more important than with whom they decide to share their sexuality. Curtailing the rights of these young constituents by denying them the opportunity to openly gather and discuss issues of great importance to their lives with their peers is a great injustice. The clubs’ name suggests a coming together of two different groups for the purpose of understanding and support rather than recruitment of one group by the other. The supposed moral superiority of Buttars and Tilton falls well short of the integrity and understanding of the young members of these alliances.
In legislation clearly aimed at high school clubs of Gay Straight Alliances these two elected officials want to pass legislation which would curtail the rights of a select group of people just because they are part of the group. Which “group of people” are you part of which could find itself the target of legislation intent upon limiting your rights? I suggest you think about that long and hard. Do you only get involved when your club or group is singled out? As I recall, it was a number of such proclamations from a king, which stirred men of integrity to start a revolution around 1776.
Buttars’ and Tilton’s self righteousness attempt to limit the rights of a select group is both an affront to the U S Constitution as well as a denial of human sexuality. The constitution prohibits legislation targeted for select constituents based upon criteria of membership. Part of human sexuality is homosexuality. Homosexuality is displayed in countless species on earth. Mother Nature and men far wiser that these two elected officials strongly disagree with the premise of this bill.
Perhaps a closer look at the suicide rate among young people in this state, which rants near the top in the nation, and the correlation of the pressures brought to bear by a ultra conservative majority would give cause to review the intent of HR236. Certainly the lives of our young people are more important than with whom they decide to share their sexuality. Curtailing the rights of these young constituents by denying them the opportunity to openly gather and discuss issues of great importance to their lives with their peers is a great injustice. The clubs’ name suggests a coming together of two different groups for the purpose of understanding and support rather than recruitment of one group by the other. The supposed moral superiority of Buttars and Tilton falls well short of the integrity and understanding of the young members of these alliances.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Rights Denied
I have submitted to the Salt Lake Tribune Public Forum the balance of this post which starts with the new paragraph. I have approximated the word count at 210. I realize this is still ten words over their 200 limit but I am finding it difficult to say anything of substance with so few words. What do you think? We will have to wait and see about the Tribune's editorial staff's opinion.
The signers of the Declaration of Independence, the creators of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights all understood the value and the need to protect the rights of the people to choose. Many had left homelands ruled by monarchies influenced by religious dogmas in search of a land where government would be less influenced by such sources. They understood the concept of separation of church and state having more to do with undue influence of the state by the church rather than government’s limiting of religious practice. They also understood the need for checks and balances within their new government and provided for it with the three branches of our government, administrative, legislative and judiciary.
None of us who support a woman’s right to choose have ever attempted to infringe upon the individual rights and freedoms or the religiously influenced beliefs of those of you are against the right to choose.
Those of you who would deny a woman’s right to choose should take pause for a moment from your emotional stance and consider what your position would undo in the documents which frame this country. Your rights do not supercede ours nor vice versa.
The signers of the Declaration of Independence, the creators of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights all understood the value and the need to protect the rights of the people to choose. Many had left homelands ruled by monarchies influenced by religious dogmas in search of a land where government would be less influenced by such sources. They understood the concept of separation of church and state having more to do with undue influence of the state by the church rather than government’s limiting of religious practice. They also understood the need for checks and balances within their new government and provided for it with the three branches of our government, administrative, legislative and judiciary.
None of us who support a woman’s right to choose have ever attempted to infringe upon the individual rights and freedoms or the religiously influenced beliefs of those of you are against the right to choose.
Those of you who would deny a woman’s right to choose should take pause for a moment from your emotional stance and consider what your position would undo in the documents which frame this country. Your rights do not supercede ours nor vice versa.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Do You Remember
How many of you remember where you where were and what you were doing when you heard the news about President John F. Kennedy’s assassination? Right now every one of you is having one of three thoughts. The first group of you who remember are running through you mind the exact time, place and event as it was unfolding. The second group of you is saying I was to young to remember the assassination. The last group of you is saying I wasn’t even born yet.
I am a member of the first group. I was in eighth grade at Kearns Junior High School. It was near the end of fourth period gym class because I was just getting out of the shower and getting dressed when the first announcement about the shooting came over the intercom system. About fifteen or twenty minutes later during first lunch I was standing next to my locker, and this is a stranger part, alone in an empty hall, when the announcement came over the intercom about President Kennedy’s death. I remember holding onto the door of my locker and starting to cry. I suggest to you, one of the reasons there aren’t more liberals around today is because to many of you are in the second and third groups.
You see those of us who were around when the assassination occurred also remember his invigorating words of what was possible and the stimulating words of challenge he presented. We remember his “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country”, the proposal to start the Peace Corps and encouraging words of what was possible to accomplish. We remember his passionate plea to end racial equality in the United States and the challenge to put a man of the moon by the end of decade. We also remember the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
In the fall of 1962 the world was on the brink of nuclear war. The United States had placed a naval blockade around Cuba preventing the former USSR, the United Soviet Socialist Republic, from placing any more ICBMs, inter-continental ballistic missiles, in Cuba and demanding the removal of those already installed. ICBM’s launched from Cuba had the capability of reaching Washington, DC within about ten minutes and Salt Lake City within about twenty minutes.
Those of you in groups two and three do not have the experience of these events to help shape your attitudes and ideals of today. You have neither the sense of what is possible the liberal movement brought into focus or the realization of what real terror is in the form of world wide nuclear destruction.
We who remember the Kennedy assassination were raised by parents who lived through World War Two and they remember the Great Depression. Both of these major world events influenced them and their ideals. This in turn impacted how they imparted that knowledge and wisdom to us, their children. I suggest to those of you who have been raised in the era of no draft and the advent of the computer that you take a closer look at history before you decide if liberal is a dirty word or not. Perhaps more of you will come to the realization that there is much more to the world than your video games. Perhaps you will find a reason to put the controller down, turn the monitor off and get involved in shaping the events of today which will effect the quality of the rest of you life as well as the lives of your children.
I am a member of the first group. I was in eighth grade at Kearns Junior High School. It was near the end of fourth period gym class because I was just getting out of the shower and getting dressed when the first announcement about the shooting came over the intercom system. About fifteen or twenty minutes later during first lunch I was standing next to my locker, and this is a stranger part, alone in an empty hall, when the announcement came over the intercom about President Kennedy’s death. I remember holding onto the door of my locker and starting to cry. I suggest to you, one of the reasons there aren’t more liberals around today is because to many of you are in the second and third groups.
You see those of us who were around when the assassination occurred also remember his invigorating words of what was possible and the stimulating words of challenge he presented. We remember his “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country”, the proposal to start the Peace Corps and encouraging words of what was possible to accomplish. We remember his passionate plea to end racial equality in the United States and the challenge to put a man of the moon by the end of decade. We also remember the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
In the fall of 1962 the world was on the brink of nuclear war. The United States had placed a naval blockade around Cuba preventing the former USSR, the United Soviet Socialist Republic, from placing any more ICBMs, inter-continental ballistic missiles, in Cuba and demanding the removal of those already installed. ICBM’s launched from Cuba had the capability of reaching Washington, DC within about ten minutes and Salt Lake City within about twenty minutes.
Those of you in groups two and three do not have the experience of these events to help shape your attitudes and ideals of today. You have neither the sense of what is possible the liberal movement brought into focus or the realization of what real terror is in the form of world wide nuclear destruction.
We who remember the Kennedy assassination were raised by parents who lived through World War Two and they remember the Great Depression. Both of these major world events influenced them and their ideals. This in turn impacted how they imparted that knowledge and wisdom to us, their children. I suggest to those of you who have been raised in the era of no draft and the advent of the computer that you take a closer look at history before you decide if liberal is a dirty word or not. Perhaps more of you will come to the realization that there is much more to the world than your video games. Perhaps you will find a reason to put the controller down, turn the monitor off and get involved in shaping the events of today which will effect the quality of the rest of you life as well as the lives of your children.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Happening too Fast
In the words of Lewis Black, “This shit is happening to fast and I just can’t keep up”. He is a comedian and if you haven't heard or seen him check him out. He was in reference to the national scene and making a joke. I’m referencing both national and state events of the past week when I say, “This shit is happening so fast I just can’t keep up”. I'm hoping you get my point and then maybe we can do something about it.
First, Governor Jon Huntsman has scene fit to quietly and under the cover of darkness to sign into law the school voucher bill. I had hoped the governor would recognize this legislation for the gift to the very small minority elitist members of our state and the payoff to the national lobbyist group for the advancement of schools for profit that it is. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, February 10, 2007 this group contributed $750,000 to last year’s election campaigns. I was hoping he would recognize that had he vetoed the legislation, his veto would not have been over ridden because of the 38-37 vote in the House. But I guess he felt more beholden to an out of state lobbyist group than he did to the 90 percent of his constituents who send their children to public school. How much of the $750,000 did you receive governor?
The time and money spent discussing HB235, the bill to put Utah in the lead to challenging the Roe v. Wade decision, was completely wasted. The bill was modified back to a trigger position after a majority of the Republican representatives decided they didn’t want to put their, the taxpayers, money where their mouths were. Is this an example of money over ethically right decision making? But this way they can go back to their constituents with the plausible implication of being on the ultra conservative side of this issue. Never mind the constitutional review, which has already happened and the legal precedent it represents. Or, dare I say in this patriarchal environment, the tromping upon the rights of women to choose and make decisions regarding their own bodies.
The House has brought out of committee and sent to the floor, the bill regarding loco parentis, which is a wolf in sheep’s clothing regarding gay rights. This bill would be a slap in the face to gay parents of the state by giving preferential treatment to biological parents without regard to their actual abilities or past influence in a child’s life. This bill is an example of legislation to curtail the rights of a select group of people. The United States constitution seeks to deny just this type of “selective group” legislation.
Last, but not least, we have the outburst of Tim Hardeway, former NBA player. His homophobic rant is an example of bigotry and bias, which is beyond me. How any African-American can look at a select group of people and then want to deny that group of rights or liberties based upon a definition or description of who they are is indefensible to me. He need only look at black history to understand the hypocrisy of his statement.
In closing remember Mr. Black’s statement that “This is the same government which says you can protect yourself from a chemical BLANK attack with duck tape”.
First, Governor Jon Huntsman has scene fit to quietly and under the cover of darkness to sign into law the school voucher bill. I had hoped the governor would recognize this legislation for the gift to the very small minority elitist members of our state and the payoff to the national lobbyist group for the advancement of schools for profit that it is. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, February 10, 2007 this group contributed $750,000 to last year’s election campaigns. I was hoping he would recognize that had he vetoed the legislation, his veto would not have been over ridden because of the 38-37 vote in the House. But I guess he felt more beholden to an out of state lobbyist group than he did to the 90 percent of his constituents who send their children to public school. How much of the $750,000 did you receive governor?
The time and money spent discussing HB235, the bill to put Utah in the lead to challenging the Roe v. Wade decision, was completely wasted. The bill was modified back to a trigger position after a majority of the Republican representatives decided they didn’t want to put their, the taxpayers, money where their mouths were. Is this an example of money over ethically right decision making? But this way they can go back to their constituents with the plausible implication of being on the ultra conservative side of this issue. Never mind the constitutional review, which has already happened and the legal precedent it represents. Or, dare I say in this patriarchal environment, the tromping upon the rights of women to choose and make decisions regarding their own bodies.
The House has brought out of committee and sent to the floor, the bill regarding loco parentis, which is a wolf in sheep’s clothing regarding gay rights. This bill would be a slap in the face to gay parents of the state by giving preferential treatment to biological parents without regard to their actual abilities or past influence in a child’s life. This bill is an example of legislation to curtail the rights of a select group of people. The United States constitution seeks to deny just this type of “selective group” legislation.
Last, but not least, we have the outburst of Tim Hardeway, former NBA player. His homophobic rant is an example of bigotry and bias, which is beyond me. How any African-American can look at a select group of people and then want to deny that group of rights or liberties based upon a definition or description of who they are is indefensible to me. He need only look at black history to understand the hypocrisy of his statement.
In closing remember Mr. Black’s statement that “This is the same government which says you can protect yourself from a chemical BLANK attack with duck tape”.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Part Three
Sound Bite World
The recent presidential decisions to extended the tour of duty length and recall to the battlefield with only one year between tours of duty mad me so angry I wrote my first letter to the editor. It was a concise one page typed written essay. You remember those from high school. I sent it in via fax. The next morning I noticed the “Tips for publication of letters to the editor”. The two hundred word limit sent mine crashing to the ground under the burden of its’ 594 words. I edited the essay, losing much of its’ needed background information and content but alas it was still 335 words long. Since it was still more than fifty percent over the word limit I didn’t bother to resubmit it.
Does the Tribune feel its’ readership is incapable of maintaining their attention span for longer than thirty seconds? Is it the comprehension skills or intellectual abilities of their readers the editors question? Or is it the sound bite world we’ve become that leaves us, the United States of America with the mess of Iraq?
Including title, name and address 198 words.
Frank Pedroza
West Valley City, Utah
The recent presidential decisions to extended the tour of duty length and recall to the battlefield with only one year between tours of duty mad me so angry I wrote my first letter to the editor. It was a concise one page typed written essay. You remember those from high school. I sent it in via fax. The next morning I noticed the “Tips for publication of letters to the editor”. The two hundred word limit sent mine crashing to the ground under the burden of its’ 594 words. I edited the essay, losing much of its’ needed background information and content but alas it was still 335 words long. Since it was still more than fifty percent over the word limit I didn’t bother to resubmit it.
Does the Tribune feel its’ readership is incapable of maintaining their attention span for longer than thirty seconds? Is it the comprehension skills or intellectual abilities of their readers the editors question? Or is it the sound bite world we’ve become that leaves us, the United States of America with the mess of Iraq?
Including title, name and address 198 words.
Frank Pedroza
West Valley City, Utah
Part Two
Whether or not you agree with or disagree with President Bush’s recent decision to sent an additional 21,000 U. S. troops into Iraq there is something in this decision that every single American should find reprehensible. The change of policies, which permits the length of tour in the combat area to be extended and the recall to a combat area with only one year in between tours of duty, is that thing.
I am a former Utah National Guard member who served with the 19th Special Forces Group Airborne during the Vietnam War years. Through out these years, each and every young American male knew his options regarding the United States’ involvement in Vietnam. You knew the length of time of commitment and risks associated with those options. You calculated your odds and the ramifications of those various choices. You looked inwards at your beliefs and values. Then you made a decision you hoped you could live with for the rest of your life. Your family lived with those results as well.
If you found yourself in Vietnam as a result of your decision, you knew your tour of duty in Vietnam was 365 days and a wake up. You knew that if you survived the 365 days the only way you were going back was if you volunteered to go back.
By changing the current rotation and tour of duty time periods the Bush administration is saying, to the all-volunteer members of the armed forces and their families, you can not hold us to our word. Only those few of you who have volunteered must pay the price for our decisions, over and over again. I do not believe any American can be okay with these policies unless they are willing to be and or have their sons and daughters be, at a very minimum, subject to a lottery system of induction into the armed services of these United States.
Rise up your voices and let this administration know you do not believe their actions to be just or honorable.
Frank V. Pedroza
West Valley City
I am a former Utah National Guard member who served with the 19th Special Forces Group Airborne during the Vietnam War years. Through out these years, each and every young American male knew his options regarding the United States’ involvement in Vietnam. You knew the length of time of commitment and risks associated with those options. You calculated your odds and the ramifications of those various choices. You looked inwards at your beliefs and values. Then you made a decision you hoped you could live with for the rest of your life. Your family lived with those results as well.
If you found yourself in Vietnam as a result of your decision, you knew your tour of duty in Vietnam was 365 days and a wake up. You knew that if you survived the 365 days the only way you were going back was if you volunteered to go back.
By changing the current rotation and tour of duty time periods the Bush administration is saying, to the all-volunteer members of the armed forces and their families, you can not hold us to our word. Only those few of you who have volunteered must pay the price for our decisions, over and over again. I do not believe any American can be okay with these policies unless they are willing to be and or have their sons and daughters be, at a very minimum, subject to a lottery system of induction into the armed services of these United States.
Rise up your voices and let this administration know you do not believe their actions to be just or honorable.
Frank V. Pedroza
West Valley City
Part One
Whether or not you agree with or disagree with President Bush’s recent decision to sent an additional 21,000 U. S. troops into Iraq there is something in this decision that every single American should find reprehensible. The change of policies, which permits the length of tour in the combat area to be extended and the recall to a combat area with only one year in between tours of duty, is that thing.
I am a former Utah National Guard member who served with the 19th Special Forces Group Airborne during the Vietnam War years. I have Silver Wings and seventeen successful parachute landing falls, however the unit was never called to combat duty during my six-year commitment therefore I do not have a Combat Infantry Badge.
At the time of my enlistment into the Guard, every single young American male had one of five options or choices to make regarding the United States involvement in Vietnam One was to get some type of deferment, I had a student deferment for a time. Two was to leave the country and go to Canada or Mexico to evade the draft. Joining the National Guard was number three. To voluntarily enlist into one of the services was option four. The final option was to take your chances of being drafted. Deferments only lasted for specific periods of time, i.e. until you finished college or returned from your LDS mission. Leaving the country either took great courage and commitment or lack there of. If you joined the Guard you understood there was a possibility, however slim that your unit could be called to active duty and sent where ever. At that time probably Vietnam. If you enlisted you were probably headed to Vietnam after training. If you were drafted there was a high probability you were going to Vietnam.
Here now is the great shame of the current administration's decisions. Back then, to the best of my recollection, if you joined the Guard you knew you had six years to serve, an active duty commitment to complete your military training, two weeks summer camp each year and one weekend a month with your unit. If you were drafted you had a total six year commitment, two years active duty and probably a tour in Vietnam and then four years of inactive duty. If you enlisted you served on active duty for four years with a high probability of a tour of duty in Vietnam and then had two additional years of inactive duty commitment. Your tour of duty in Vietnam was 365 days and a wake up, either as a volunteer enlistee or as a draftee. You knew that if you survived the 365 days the only way you were going back was if you volunteered to go back. By changing the current rotation and tour of duty time periods the Bush administration is saying, to the all-volunteer members of the armed forces and their families, you can not hold us to our word. Only those few of you who have volunteered must pay the price for our decisions, over and over again. I do not believe any American can be okay with these policies unless they are willing to be and or have their sons and daughters be, at a minimum, subject to a lottery system of induction into the armed services of these United States.
Rise up your voices and let this administration know you do not believe their actions to be just or honorable.
Frank V. Pedroza
West Valley City
I am a former Utah National Guard member who served with the 19th Special Forces Group Airborne during the Vietnam War years. I have Silver Wings and seventeen successful parachute landing falls, however the unit was never called to combat duty during my six-year commitment therefore I do not have a Combat Infantry Badge.
At the time of my enlistment into the Guard, every single young American male had one of five options or choices to make regarding the United States involvement in Vietnam One was to get some type of deferment, I had a student deferment for a time. Two was to leave the country and go to Canada or Mexico to evade the draft. Joining the National Guard was number three. To voluntarily enlist into one of the services was option four. The final option was to take your chances of being drafted. Deferments only lasted for specific periods of time, i.e. until you finished college or returned from your LDS mission. Leaving the country either took great courage and commitment or lack there of. If you joined the Guard you understood there was a possibility, however slim that your unit could be called to active duty and sent where ever. At that time probably Vietnam. If you enlisted you were probably headed to Vietnam after training. If you were drafted there was a high probability you were going to Vietnam.
Here now is the great shame of the current administration's decisions. Back then, to the best of my recollection, if you joined the Guard you knew you had six years to serve, an active duty commitment to complete your military training, two weeks summer camp each year and one weekend a month with your unit. If you were drafted you had a total six year commitment, two years active duty and probably a tour in Vietnam and then four years of inactive duty. If you enlisted you served on active duty for four years with a high probability of a tour of duty in Vietnam and then had two additional years of inactive duty commitment. Your tour of duty in Vietnam was 365 days and a wake up, either as a volunteer enlistee or as a draftee. You knew that if you survived the 365 days the only way you were going back was if you volunteered to go back. By changing the current rotation and tour of duty time periods the Bush administration is saying, to the all-volunteer members of the armed forces and their families, you can not hold us to our word. Only those few of you who have volunteered must pay the price for our decisions, over and over again. I do not believe any American can be okay with these policies unless they are willing to be and or have their sons and daughters be, at a minimum, subject to a lottery system of induction into the armed services of these United States.
Rise up your voices and let this administration know you do not believe their actions to be just or honorable.
Frank V. Pedroza
West Valley City
Three Parts
In Who, What, & Why I attempted to give you some insight into who I was, what I believe I am and why I was putting words into print. I had reached the point where I could stand it no longer. I had to say out loud something about what I was seeing happening at the state and federal levels. The straw that broke the camel’s back, President Bush’s plan for implementing a troop surge in Iraq, had just occurred. The Salt Lake Tribune had rejected my letter to the editor as not print worthy in their Public Forum section. My expression of dismay and frustration over the president’s plan was not printed. However, I had to do or say something. This led me to a second and third letters to the editor. Part One; Part Two and Part Three are the successive letters, which have led me to here. The letters explain why I only submitted letters one and three. The third was rejected also, hooray for the Internet and blogs. Give them a read and learn more about this Utah Liberal.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Private school vouchers
I know there are special needs children. Public support to meet the educational needs of these children is not in question. It is the correct and just responsibility of society and it's representative government.
The concept of private schools has, in many cases, evolved from one of education with sectarian religious overtones to one of education for profit. I have fewer reservations about education for profit than I do of education instilled with sectarian religious views. I do have a big problem when education for profit twists the concept of private schools into a cause to facilitate the government funding of either. This is the result of the recent legislation passed by the Utah House and Senate.
If you choose to send your children to either of these options to public school and can afford the associated costs then fine. I believe those of you who opt out of the public school system and then want the rest of us to help you pay the costs associated with your decision are spoiled and delusional. In a state which all ready ranks next to last in the country in per pupil funding of public school, it is a misuse of public trust and a pay off to the special interests who have made campaign contributions to the legislators who have voted for the school voucher bill.
I would guess, and after verification with the UEA I will edit this, that less than ten percent of the children of the state are educated privately. The ninety percent of the rest of us should be out raged. Using tax dollars to help increase the profits of "private schools" is a miss use of those tax dollars. Using tax dollars to enhance private schools oozing religious doctrines blurs the separation of church and state principles held within the constitutions of both the State of Utah and the United States of America. Expecting the ninety percent of us who send our children to public school to then pay more tax dollars to legally defend this ill conceive venture is the height of arrogance.
Think of this you 38 members of Utah's Hose of Representatives and 19 Senators who voted for this measure. If the all the members of the senior class of the public high schools within your district all registered to vote and then did so as a block against you, I doubt if any of you could be re=elected. This very notion is now in a grass roots stage of development. I believe that you, Governor Huntsman should also take a moment to contemplate this notion. By the way, how do you members of government think most of the parents of those seniors feel about this issue?
The education of our young people is of major importance to all the members of our society. But legislation which benefits such a select few to the detriment of the vast majority is unjust and should be stopped with the Governor's pen through veto before more tax dollars are spent defending a law which will sure be struck down at judicial review.
Post Script
The UEA was unable to provide the numbers necessary to substantiate my claim therefore I had to go to different factual sources. According to the National Center for Educational Statistic’s and their U. S. Dept. of Education Private School Universe Survey "Private school students represented approximately 10 percent of the total elementary and secondary enrollment in the United States in 2003 & 2004". According to numbers provided by the State of Utah, as of October 1, 2006 there were 506,449 students in public education, 19,290 students in charter schools and 16,386 in private schools. The mathematics works out to be .0658 percent of the students of the state attend private or charter schools. Utah’s rate of less than seven-percent is a bit lower than the national rate of approximately ten-percent. I’ve always liked how math can provide such a unique view of things.
The concept of private schools has, in many cases, evolved from one of education with sectarian religious overtones to one of education for profit. I have fewer reservations about education for profit than I do of education instilled with sectarian religious views. I do have a big problem when education for profit twists the concept of private schools into a cause to facilitate the government funding of either. This is the result of the recent legislation passed by the Utah House and Senate.
If you choose to send your children to either of these options to public school and can afford the associated costs then fine. I believe those of you who opt out of the public school system and then want the rest of us to help you pay the costs associated with your decision are spoiled and delusional. In a state which all ready ranks next to last in the country in per pupil funding of public school, it is a misuse of public trust and a pay off to the special interests who have made campaign contributions to the legislators who have voted for the school voucher bill.
I would guess, and after verification with the UEA I will edit this, that less than ten percent of the children of the state are educated privately. The ninety percent of the rest of us should be out raged. Using tax dollars to help increase the profits of "private schools" is a miss use of those tax dollars. Using tax dollars to enhance private schools oozing religious doctrines blurs the separation of church and state principles held within the constitutions of both the State of Utah and the United States of America. Expecting the ninety percent of us who send our children to public school to then pay more tax dollars to legally defend this ill conceive venture is the height of arrogance.
Think of this you 38 members of Utah's Hose of Representatives and 19 Senators who voted for this measure. If the all the members of the senior class of the public high schools within your district all registered to vote and then did so as a block against you, I doubt if any of you could be re=elected. This very notion is now in a grass roots stage of development. I believe that you, Governor Huntsman should also take a moment to contemplate this notion. By the way, how do you members of government think most of the parents of those seniors feel about this issue?
The education of our young people is of major importance to all the members of our society. But legislation which benefits such a select few to the detriment of the vast majority is unjust and should be stopped with the Governor's pen through veto before more tax dollars are spent defending a law which will sure be struck down at judicial review.
Post Script
The UEA was unable to provide the numbers necessary to substantiate my claim therefore I had to go to different factual sources. According to the National Center for Educational Statistic’s and their U. S. Dept. of Education Private School Universe Survey "Private school students represented approximately 10 percent of the total elementary and secondary enrollment in the United States in 2003 & 2004". According to numbers provided by the State of Utah, as of October 1, 2006 there were 506,449 students in public education, 19,290 students in charter schools and 16,386 in private schools. The mathematics works out to be .0658 percent of the students of the state attend private or charter schools. Utah’s rate of less than seven-percent is a bit lower than the national rate of approximately ten-percent. I’ve always liked how math can provide such a unique view of things.
Friday, February 9, 2007
Who, What & Why
My name is Frank V. Pedroza and I am a Utah Liberal. I grew up in a middle class family. I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church, but now refer to myself as a Jack Catholic. My parents voted for both Dwight D. Eisenhower and John Fitzgerald Kennedy. I remember where I was the day President Kennedy was assassinated, fourth period gym class as an eight grader at Kearns Junior High School. I attended the University of Utah however I did not graduate. I was a member of the Utah National Guard 19th Special Forces Group Airborne United States Army during the Vietnam War years. I have been married and divorced. I have two fine grown sons of whom I am very proud. I voted mostly Democratic but not a straight ticket. I regret a vote for Richard M. Nixon as a young man. I have been in the sales field most of my adult life and have owned and operated a few small businesses.
I was born in Utah and have lived here most of my life. But since I am not of the predominate faith here and have lived in California for six years I am not your typical Utahn. My live experiences have led me to become a Liberal. This is not a dirty word in my opinion and in fact I am proud to say I am a Liberal. This means I am for most social programs, Pro Choice, a woman's right to chose and make decisions regarding her own body. I vastly prefer Democratic over Republican leaders. I am for the preservation and protection of the Constitution of the United States of America. I am for a independent judiciary as provided for in said constitution. I favor a balance federal budget, something which I've been told was a conservative virtue but they seem to have forgotten on the federal level. I was never for the invasion of Iraq. President George W. Bush's administration's handling of the Iraq war is appalling at best and rises to high crimes and misdemeanors at worst.
Because all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men do nothing I must speak out. Because the Salt Lake City Tribune believes a sound bite, 200 word maximum Letter to the Editor, that probably won't be published, is all it's readership can comprehend and digest at a time I must write these words. Because a bigoted, opinionated group and their loud obnoxious leader is given credence and television news time and newspaper print space I must stand up and say loudly there is another opinion. Because every year when the state legislature convenes I cringe at the thought and consequences of some of their proposed legislation. Because every time I have to go to a special store hidden away from public view, to stand in line to pay over priced and double taxed amounts for the spirited drink of my choice I must say something. Because the mostly Republican leadership at all levels of government here can see public polls which show seventy percent of their constituents do not want to spend tax dollars for a private business venture and spend the money anyway I will ask why. Because those same representatives are in the legislative process of using tax dollars for private school businesses while Utah's public school funding per pupil is close to last in the nation I will rise up to challenge such folly. Because legislation targeting a select group of people for fewer rights is not what the founding fathers of the United States of America intended when they declared their independence I will speak my peace.
I was born in Utah and have lived here most of my life. But since I am not of the predominate faith here and have lived in California for six years I am not your typical Utahn. My live experiences have led me to become a Liberal. This is not a dirty word in my opinion and in fact I am proud to say I am a Liberal. This means I am for most social programs, Pro Choice, a woman's right to chose and make decisions regarding her own body. I vastly prefer Democratic over Republican leaders. I am for the preservation and protection of the Constitution of the United States of America. I am for a independent judiciary as provided for in said constitution. I favor a balance federal budget, something which I've been told was a conservative virtue but they seem to have forgotten on the federal level. I was never for the invasion of Iraq. President George W. Bush's administration's handling of the Iraq war is appalling at best and rises to high crimes and misdemeanors at worst.
Because all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men do nothing I must speak out. Because the Salt Lake City Tribune believes a sound bite, 200 word maximum Letter to the Editor, that probably won't be published, is all it's readership can comprehend and digest at a time I must write these words. Because a bigoted, opinionated group and their loud obnoxious leader is given credence and television news time and newspaper print space I must stand up and say loudly there is another opinion. Because every year when the state legislature convenes I cringe at the thought and consequences of some of their proposed legislation. Because every time I have to go to a special store hidden away from public view, to stand in line to pay over priced and double taxed amounts for the spirited drink of my choice I must say something. Because the mostly Republican leadership at all levels of government here can see public polls which show seventy percent of their constituents do not want to spend tax dollars for a private business venture and spend the money anyway I will ask why. Because those same representatives are in the legislative process of using tax dollars for private school businesses while Utah's public school funding per pupil is close to last in the nation I will rise up to challenge such folly. Because legislation targeting a select group of people for fewer rights is not what the founding fathers of the United States of America intended when they declared their independence I will speak my peace.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)