Freedom [Waffle] Fries

In high school I was voted one of two seniors to most likely be president. I was involved in government, politics, and my dream was to become an attorney. 

That stayed the same until one day I realized that no matter what I learned, politics were mostly about opinion. So, I decided I'd keep my opinion and focus my professional pursuits somewhere else. 

On various occasions, I do take a political stance, and yesterday was one of those days. 

---

One of the defining attributes of being an American is that we have freedom of speech.

What that means is that we can express our thoughts, feelings, and beliefs (both religious and political) without being persecuted (i.e., "subject someone to hostility or ill-treatment, esp. because of their race or political or religious beliefs." 

A few days ago, Chick-fil-A CEO, Dan Cathy said about the company: "We are very much supportive of the family, the biblical definition of the family." 

What is that definition? That marriage is between a man and a woman. 

This is where things become sticky... 

Gay activists called Cathy's comments anti-gay, labeled Cathy a bigot, and called for a boycott of Chick-fil-A. 

Cathy never mentioned the gay community. He was not refusing to serve them. He was not throwing discriminatory slurs their way. He was expressing that his organization was founded on Christian principles. 

But, having politicians step in and dis-allow an organization in their community because of opinion is a violation of the First Amendment. 

---

Here's where I make things messy... 

Cathy did absolutely nothing wrong. Things were blown out of proportion because activists often wear their emotions on their sleeves. 

Cathy's comments were not anti-gay.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti-gay. I believe in treating everyone kindly, with respect, as equal sons and daughters of God--that is in fact what each of us are. 

I am however pro-Traditional Family. But I am also pro-civil unions. 

Why do I feel like I can openly share my opinion on Cathy's comments? 

Because I believe that bigotry is awful. And because I believe that while bigotry is based on personal belief, to be a bigot means to have acted on an intolerable believe. It's in the action.

But, with freedom of speech, we are entitled to our opinion. 

Entitled. I hate that word, because we shouldn't be entitled to anything. But there are certain inalienable rights that have been granted us by God and protected by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. 

But, the First Amendment means that we have to develop a thick skin and realize that we can't be offended when others don't share our thoughts, values or beliefs. 

I have had to do this.

Cathy and many other Evangelicals have labeled my faith as a cult. Those words are very hurtful and un-Christlike, especially because if they were to put aside their tainted views and ask if I believe in Jesus Christ, Jehovah, the God of the Old and New Testament I would give a firm yes. I would love to talk of Christ and teach them about the particulars of my faith while at the same time learning more about the particulars of theirs.

But, I don't hate or boycott Cathy because of his views of my faith. If I did, I would be the intolerant one. It's in the action. 

---

This is where we come full circle... 

If indeed bigotry is in the action (which is what I believe to be true), intolerance was in the boycott. 

But something really amazing happened in spite of the intolerance. 

Yesterday, hundreds of thousands of Americans stood in line to demonstrate that despite the opinion, one should not be persecuted for it. 

I was one of those supporters. 

At 5:33pm I stepped in a very long line. I started chatting with the people in line. People were friendly, positive, you would never have known that we were in a two-hour line. 

I took pictures along the way, realizing that I was taking part in history, energized by a visual representation of what my Founding Fathers had fought for. 

I will admit that not all customers were there in support of First Amendment rights. Many were there to support the traditional definition of family or Cathy himself. 

But for me it was about speech. 

A few minutes after 7:00pm I walked up to the counter to order. They were out of what I wanted. It didn't matter. 

It was about my rights. 

My speech. 

---

Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day - August 1, 2012 - Orem, UT 

---

On a tangential note, my dad requested (via text) that I order "7-12 pack of nuggets and a diet lemonade and 2 waffle fries." 

I came home with one 12-pack of nuggets, a diet lemonade, and two waffle fries. 

Note to self: "7-12 pack of nuggets" = "7, 12-pack of nuggets" not "one [between 7-12] pack of nuggets" 

Epic Chick-fil-A fail. Ce la vie.

Primary Elections | Today!

Today is primary election day in Utah, and I voted! I chose to vote for Dan Liljenquist because he is eloquent, bright and brings a new perspective to "the Old Boys club". 

Here's what Brooke Liljenquist, Dan's wife has to say about him: 

1. Dan has a unique set of skills and abilities that I feel are crucial for this particular moment in our nation's history. He graduated with high honors in Economics from BYU then received his law degree from the University of Chicago. Then, instead of practicing law, he joined Bain Consulting (yes, the same as Mitt Romney) with their Dallas office. At Bain he received invaluable training in fixing broken companies by studying the data, identifying core problems and coming up with innovative solutions to make those companies profitable again, usually within a matter of months. If ever our country needed a corporate turnaround team, it is NOW.


2. Dan has already put those skills to use in the Utah Legislature. Dan was elected to the Utah State Senate in 2008 and during his time there he tackled the state's two biggest bankruptcy risks with pension reform and Medicaid reform. I won't go into detail on the reforms (write me back if you want me to) but I will highlight a few takeaways from these reforms. First, he takes on the tough issues and makes hard choices even when it's not popular (and pension reform was NOT popular). He doesn't do what it takes to get re-elected, he does what it takes to keep our state on sustainable financial footing. Second, he makes his case with data and logic and without name-calling or blaming others for the problem. This is why the 2011 Medicaid reforms were unanimous- every Republican and every Democrat voted for them.


3. Dan understands the role of a US Senator. When our nation was founded, the "Great Compromise" of the Constitution was the creation of the US Senate. The founders understood that, to avoid the centralization of power in one branch or the capital, that the states needed to be represented equally. That is the role of a US senator- to represent their individual state. Dan, because he did serve in Utah's legislature and has good relationships with those still there, will take with him an understanding of the unique issues Utah faces and will fight for those issues. He will represent Utah to Washington, not the other way around.


4. He is a GOOD man. I know I may be a little biased, but I feel very blessed and grateful that I can say I respect my husband and know him to be a man of integrity and kindness. He is great at building bridges instead of driving wedges, which is something I think Washington needs desperately right now. In saying this I am not saying Senator Hatch is not a good man. I believe he is. I also believe he has been there too long to be able to see things differently and to make a change in the direction of our country. We need fresh perspective in Washington if we want to change course.

If you haven't voted, or are still deciding--definitely take a look at Dan (www.danforutah.com), it is well worth your time!

I'm a Republican... oh dear!

When I was in high school, I knew I was going to major in Political Science. I had written state legislation, shadowed local elected officials, and even been voted most likely to become president.

It was all I had ever wanted.

I started down that path and repeatedly ignored comments about how often college students change their major. I even tried to ignore a comment my dad made: that no matter what you do or learn when it comes to political theory, everyone, every. single. person. will have an opinion and think they know just as much as you. 

I tried to ignore that one, but when I studied abroad in Spain in 2006 and interned in the Senate in 2007, I experienced the truth to his comment and it was really difficult for me to handle.

So, I changed my major. 

Now, looking back, it was one of the best decisions I made during my education. I sometimes look back and wonder about whether or not I regret it. Sometimes I do, but more often than not, I don't. 

Especially in an election cycle. People have opinions. Strong opinions.

This year, one of the Senate seats here in Utah is up for re-election and it has been an interesting twist of events. Many people thought this would be a repeat of the 2010 Senate election, but 2010 was a shock and a warning for many. And unlike 2010, in 2012 the Tea Party is relatively weak. Either way, for the first time since 1976 we have a primary between an incumbent Senator (Orrin Hatch) and a new contender (Dan Liljenquist) for this seat. We are living history.

Some people are excited. Some people are angry. Ev-er-y-body has an opinion (Republicans at least). 

I have tried to remain neutral and I'm grateful that to this point I have been a declared independent. But, I have taken an interest in the race and have changed my party affiliation to be able to cast my vote on June 26th.

I want to participate in this exciting race! (:

I encourage you to become an educated voter (get to know the candidates, Hatch and Liljenquist), to register to vote, and to change your affiliation if necessary to exercise your right to vote in this important and exciting election.

The deadlines for registering are 30 days before via mail or 15 days via Internet or in person, time is running out!

Regardless of who you support, I think we can all agree that we need a Senator who understands what is best for his constituency and who will lead his party to effectuate changes that are in our best interest.

Let's exercise our Constitutional rights, Vote! 

Disney on Politics

"Tomorrow will be better for as long as America keeps alive the ideals of freedom and a better life."

"Direct and easy communications — freedom of speech in all forms and in its broadest sense — has become vital to the very survival of a civilized humanity."

"I have watched constantly that in our work the highest moral and spiritual standards are upheld, whether my productions deal with fable or with stories of living action."

"Why be a governor or senator when you can be king of Disneyland?"

Bin Laden

I am a mean spirit. I saw this Facebook status and had to make a ridiculous comment.


My comment?


And to add some context, this was after observing several statements by this digi-friend condemning the U.S. and any relief that came from Osama Bin Laden's death. So you can understand why I was frankly surprised by their status today.

I completely agree that celebrating a death is inappropriate, even of a person whose actions and intentions have been arguably evil.

"Now, they were sorry to take up arms against [their enemies], because they did not delight in the shedding of blood; yea, and this was not all—they were sorry to be the means of sending so many of their brethren out of this world into an eternal world, unprepared to meet their God." ~Alma 48:23

I did not live in the U.S. during the September 11th attacks -- I saw them on t.v. from thousands of miles away. I did not live through the horror of anthrax threats either. I do not completely understand what my homeland suffered, but I experience the consequences of those attacks daily. Unfortunately, the whole world has.

I view Bin Laden's death as a type of closure for the country, and a symbol that our nation through diligence, persistence, and coordinated intelligence has emerged victorious. Efforts and sacrifices of so many to combat terror have not been in vain.

Was this vengeance? I hope not.

Do I rejoice? No.

Did I breathe a sigh of relief? Yes.

One more leader of a radical ideology that hates me because of my beliefs, nationality, race or whatever it may be, is gone. Bin Laden and his followers have demonstrated through actions of terror that they have no intention of peaceful resolution of differences. And through all this, I hope that we remember that as he was to us, we should never be to anyone else.

Naughty and Nice List

I had big plans for this post, but I have come to the harsh reality that if I'm ever going to post it, it won't be what I had envisioned it to be. Let's blame it on final exams, Christmas festivities, getting sick twice -- once before finals and the other Christmas week and following with a Quasimodo eye an ear infection and productive cough (gotta love that euphemism). So, I am settling and hoping that I will do better in the future. This list is lacking primarily in comprehensiveness with more references and argument. So, here it goes and let me know who is on your naughty and nice list for this past year.

Naughty and Nice List

Nice
+ President Obama: for swallowing some pride and recognizing what the Midterm Elections meant in terms of American approval of his agenda, and finally recognizing there is need for compromise.
+ Senator Bob Bennett: for dedicated, educated service to the country and Utah.
+ State Senator Luz Robles: for tackling Immigration in Utah - her plan is worth consideration because it is both practical and compassionate.
+ The University of Utah: awesome institution, great research opportunities and did I mention that classes don't start until Jan. 10?!?!
+ The Roomba: we got one for Christmas and not only does it keep our floors clean, it is almost as good as a babysitter -- the baby loves watching, chasing, and running away from it.

Naughty
+ Joy from The View: she couldn't embody the antithesis of her name any more than she does, I can't think of a more miserable ogre if I tried. I recommend Prozac.
+ Rush Limbaugh: Self absorbed in excess and to the point where what he says should be scrutinized to the utmost degree to filter egotism and then diluted to be somewhat rational and reasonable.
+ Former House Speaker, Representative Nancy Pelosi: okay, I thought of a more miserable ogre.
+ BYU MPA Career Placement: over-embellished placement numbers, including summer internships and placement of non-alumni as permanent placement among other things. Shame
on this program's administration that prides itself in ethics of all things.

So there it is, a short list for this past year. When I started it, I was obviously in a political funk. Hopefully yours is better, and mine already looks much more promising for next year.

The Big Bank Theory

Okay, so I'm not a huge Jon Stewart fan, but this is great. I think he makes some laughable points that are worth some serious consideration.


Check the video out here.

TSA Traveling

I'll keep it to a few brief points:

1. I enjoy making TSA the new scapegoat for anything that could go wrong with well, anything. For example, I could easily blame TSA for giving me a body image complex with their disfiguring naked body scans. TSA is the reason the economy has not recovered, can be blamed for some type of involvement (or lack of involvement - why weren't these guys created before?) in 9/11, and probably linked somehow to the JFK assassination. See how easy this is?


2. If I were to protest TSA's policies, I would not do so by contradicting my argument. Let me explain. You've probably heard about or seen the speedo protester. Yeah, protesting TSA's naked body scan of you by removing your clothes so that all can see you pretty much naked really defeats the argument of privacy. If you're taking your clothes off in public, some TSA officer behind the scanner image shouldn't bother you much.


If privacy is what you're worried about, I would try a more non-exhibitionist approach such as these new anti-TSA underwear. But this is for sure going to land you in the pat-down zone.


3. In all seriousness, new technologies not using x-rays could be considered to do the same job. Check out this possibility that uses radio waves. Why does the wave difference matter? Well, in breaking chemical bonds (such as those present in our DNA), or causing an electron to move from a lower orbital to a higher orbital, it is the energy of the wave that matters, not how much. X-rays are higher in energy, have higher frequencies and longer wavelengths than radio waves do. It's the energy of a photon that causes the jump, so check out the image below and take note of energies in the electromagnetic spectrum.


4. I honestly don't think TSA officers are all perverts, but I also don't think they're all the brightest bulbs in the box in the way they are dealing with sensitive situations.


That said, TSA was much better to work with than the front desk guy at Delta who freaked out and caused a scene when I went under the little ribbon thing to get in line with Kenz. First, there was no line behind her, so I wasn't cutting. Second, I didn't cause any damage to the ribbon thing. Third, he freaked out about it enough for the other Delta employees and other witnessing passengers to take my side. One of the passengers actually approached me after TSA screening and offered a few sympathetic words. And fourth, I already had my boarding passes and so I was not going to create any more work for anyone.

But that said, when he offered to let me pass (after being reprimanded by a coworker) I declined. That really made him mad. I really should have been more mature and graciously accepted, but I didn't. I also told him he was freaking out about something inconsequential when he came over to confront me about my illicit act of underpassing the ribbon thing.

I really seem to have bad luck flying Delta.

Freedom or Security?

What does a flight passenger in the U.S. have in common with an inmate? Well, they're both subjected to invasive search techniques (although I do concede that the techniques used on passengers are not the same as those used to search inmates, at least not yet).

John Tyner was flying out of San Diego and refused to be scanned in airport security, so he was subjected to a pat down. This now involves using the palms instead of the back of the hand and they touch more than they used to, and I'll leave it at that. Tyner agreed to the procedure, only objecting to the potential risk that the TSA officer would touch his "junk". I'm sure this has happened before -- my favorite (sarcastic tone) congressman, Jason Chaffetz, is actually known for his belligerent refusal to be subjected to the full-body scan -- but what makes Tyner's story different?

He audio recorded the whole thing on his phone and then posted it to YouTube.

Frankly, I'm a little suspicious that the whole thing may not have been an excuse to not go pheasant hunting with his father-in-law. But, beside my postulations, I think this brings up a very relevant issue in terms of what freedoms we are ready to give up in the name of security. This is worth thinking about seriously, because I think that it's at the heart of political movements and simply put, the idea of being governed and having government in general.

Of course there are ridiculous examples, such as Pelosi's famous "Crocodile Tears" she shed as a result of comparing political rhetoric of peaceful protesters to political murders, and perhaps even Tyner getting out of a pheasant hunting trip. But in all seriousness, where does the balance lie? How much freedom or responsibility should citizens take on, and what should they turn over to elected (or non-elected bureaucrats) officials?

This issue defines nations.

Well, what about the question, "If you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?" I have asked this question, and have used it to justify security policies in the past. But in retort to that question, what about another: "If you have nothing to hide, why should you be publicly humiliated for having spent your money on a flight?" Are TSA's security policies/procedures becoming too invasive? What areas of our life are we going to allow the government to get its hands on to check?


Consider how our legal mindset in America is set up: innocent until proven guilty. We do not refer to Elizabeth Smart's kidnapper, Brian David Mitchell, as guilty but rather as "the accused." Then why should all passengers be assumed guilty of terrorist plotting until proven innocent through search techniques using palms to feel sensitive areas in public, or revealing your body image to a stranger while being exposed to radiation that could cause irreparable damage to your DNA, and increase your risk for cancer. (Going through once or twice is probably not going to do it, but if you travel frequently and are exposed to high energy waves at home or work, it's not the best thing to expose yourself to. There's a threshold to how much DNA your cells can repair daily, and this can be reached by simply being outside in the sun for an hour or two in Dallas, and less in SLC, UT, due to altitude and less atmosphere. Also, when it comes to causing electrons in an atom to jump from one energy level to another, it's the wave energy or frequency that matters, not necessarily how much exposure you have. High frequency = High Energy = Short Wavelength = Not Good. See the spectrum here for an idea.)

In this case, I do not necessarily object to the idea of using dignified means to prevent terrorist attacks. I do object to having two humiliating choices - public groin check or revealing body scan that also exposes me to radiation - for choosing to travel by air. And yes, to me palms are different than the back of the hand. The back of the hand I would consider a brush, the palm I would consider a feel. I don't care if this can be done in private or public, the process induces thoughts of stranger danger.

I'm just a little too uncomfortable letting Big Brother get borderline-frisky with me.

A Few Quick Comments

Between baby updates and political rantings, I don't know who even would keep reading this (good thing I write for primarily selfish reasons). Good thing there's an intermittent post on public transportation here and there to keep things interesting.

But, here I go again with 10 quick thoughts on yesterday's midterm election results:

1. Thank goodness O'Donnell didn't win, and that we won't see Pelosi as Speaker. Although, these articles almost make me feel bad for the lady (Pelosi, not O'Donnell): Nancy Pelosi Keeps Low Profile, and The Rise and Fall of Nancy Pelosi. With the loss of the House, I hope Obama takes a more moderate Clinton-esque approach in modifying his agenda.
2. Unfortunately, I think that Harry Reid was probably the best choice of the two candidates. But, wow, Angle's website is crazy interesting, while Reid takes a more mature approach.
3. Apathy amongst Utah voters contributes to the single-party system, although I feel that we did get a good mix of Dems in various state positions. It would just be nice to make some candidates like Lee and Chaffetz work a little (or a lot) for their seat.
4. Is it bad that I will stay up to watch election results, yet I usually change the channel when it comes to sports?
5. The Tea Party cranked out some crazies despite what I hope are good intentions on their part. I hope they can consolidate with mainstream GOP in 2012 to produce refined, qualified, and sane candidates that we can all feel good about voting for. Please GOP (and Tea Party-ists), we need better candidates and we have a year or so to figure it out.
6. Mike Lee skirted around simple questions and spat out Tea Party rhetoric. It's obvious he has no concrete plans, unlike Granato. But, I knew that when we called his office to ask some questions. I sigh with disappointment.
7. It's ridiculous to vote for the only candidate running on the ballot. I understand that County Assessor isn't everyone's dream job, but come on, someone else must have thought about running.
8. I checked out Philpot on CNN, and I would not list a tier 4 law school education when running against Matheson, who graduated from both Harvard and UCLA.
9. Watched Bennett on KSL last night and thought he could have one more good term in him. Glad to hear he still has plans to be working on issues in Washington, though.
10. I'm glad some people care about voting and take some time to research what they're voting for to vote according to their conscience.

I believe that our political process, although messy and imperfect, is important to understand. We as citizens of the United States give our consent to be governed, and we should not take that consent lightly. Apathy should not have its hand in our society, as we are those who ultimately have the power to direct it in theory. And this is where I get all conservative, but I believe that people are agents unto themselves, and that society should provide the freedoms and opportunity (through proper incentives - yeah, that's loaded, I know) so that people can make what they want of their lives through effort and hard work.


I heard a call on the Dave Ramsey show one night in which Dave condemned what he called "income envy." Income envy leads to entitlement and income redistribution which act as deterrents to work hard, save, achieve, and maybe even take some calculated risks. I believe these actions are behind innovation and progress we enjoy in America. I know that there are varying factors, and I do not want to come across as insensitive to unfortunate circumstances in which people find themselves, but I believe that anyone with effort can better their situation. I think that it is unfortunate for the government to provide incentive not to work under the current welfare system, which only perpetuates a culture of underachievement - this is not the American Dream. I prefer the idea of local solutions to relieve suffering and poverty to federal solutions.


I believe the American Dream is still alive, even though it may have taken some hits in the past couple of years. I listened briefly to Amanda Dixon on KSL radio Sunday(?) night who was talking with a few other women about how the upcoming generation does not aspire to home ownership due to current issues caused by the recession. I disagree. I think we still aspire to own property, even though currently it appears less appealing and more risky and complicated.

America will come out of this if we do it together, and I hope that's what we get out of these elections. What I do not want is continued polarization in Washington, and partisan bickering.

So, what do I think I can do to be more involved and try to make things better?

Here are a few challenges I have given myself:

1. Become involved in caucus meetings
2. Go to a city council meeting, state house meeting, and U.S. Congress meeting (can be committee meetings)
3. Talk to people with different views to understand them
4. Volunteer for a campaign or initiative I believe in/or for a nonprofit in the community
5. Go to both the Democratic and Republican Party offices (after primary contact, of course) to get an idea of what happens there

What will you do?

Tea Parties and Hugging Porcupines

I decided the best way to get my feelings out in this post would be to begin with a few confessions, and then delve into them a little. (Don't worry, these are not the type of confessions I tend to overhear unwillingly on a typical day on the bus.)

Confession 1: I am a registered Republican
Confession 2: The Tea Party Movement makes me cringe

Confession 1: The Registered Republican


Let's face it, Utah is notoriously red and we run under a one-party system. I believe the one-party system is detrimental because like any good system, it should be subject to revision and scrutiny in order to work out the kinks. When one party has a monopoly, they can push and pass bad legislation (not unlike the current U.S. Congress - but that's personal opinion), and ignore other viable options under the pretenses of partisanship.

I'm not a huge reader of the Salt Lake Tribune, nor do I agree with all of the opinions expressed by this author, but I believe that there are points in this article that are worth considering and thinking about: "The Fruits of Single-Party Government in Utah"

I consider myself a moderate conservative and an independent voter. So why am I a registered Republican? Yet another product of the single-party system. If I want to have any say the process, I can't stand by and wait until the candidates have been chosen for me to then vote for the candidate I believe will do the best job. By then it's already over because let's face it, we know the Republican will win 9 times out of 10 in Utah. I learned this the hard way this past year in the caucus that would oust Bennett and choose Lee as the republican candidate for the U.S. Senate race. Since I did not participate in caucus voting, others chose candidates for me.

To sum it up, I am a registered Republican because I want to have a say in Utah politics and I adhere to traditionally conservative principles. To be fair and not assume that my values would only be embodied by republican candidates, I considered both Granato and Lee and decided to write in Bennett. To Granato's credit, he provided real plans as opposed to Lee's limited government rhetoric and proposed legislation ...cough cough*term limits*cough cough...that I dare say would not pass in any Congress.

Personal Opinion: The check for term limits is the people, let's not forget that. I believe that the time and effort to pass a piece of legislation to determine and enforce term limits is a waste of efforts that need to be focused on more urgent problems. These midterm elections provide a good example of what a disgruntled constituency can do to end terms quickly. In all reality, what member of Congress in their right mind, or with any desire for a continued future in public service as a member of Congress, would actually vote for the end of their term?

And, I feel that I should note that when Kenz and I called Lee's office - since setting term limits is one of his positions, 2 terms for Senators and 6 for members of the House - we found that Lee had no plans for setting a timeline for his own time in the Senate. It makes me believe that we are just sending a new group of lifetime politicians to Washington based on empty rhetoric, and it disgusts me.

Don't worry, I won't go into immigration because I think any comments I have are too lengthy to add to this post. But let's just leave it at the fact that building a large wall is not going to solve our problems.

Confession 2: Tea Parties and Porcupines

Does anyone remember the tea party in Alice in Wonderland? To tell you the truth, I never liked Alice in Wonderland and my recollection of that tea party is based solely on Disney's version of the movie, which involved singing about everyone's unbirthday.


Even though I'm all for having unbirthdays, the song drove me nuts. And so here goes the comparison of how the tea party with the Mad Hatter and the Tea Party going around the country are similar:

1. They involve crazies
2. The can drive you nuts

If you have been following any sort of news that mentions politics, I have said enough or these pictures are enough.


Honestly, who picks these people???!!?? O'Donnell, a Christian zealot who has "dabbled in witchcraft", and Palin who is nice enough but I sure wouldn't want her experience (or lack of it - I don't think anyone will be forgetting this interview anytime soon) or backyard view of Russia influencing any policy in Washington. And to clear things up for us all, you will recall the O'Donnell campaign add stating that she did not graduate from Yale, is not a witch, but is "you."

But I can't help but wonder if she is us, then maybe we should be asking ourselves this question.

I guess where I part in ideology from tea party-ists is where it gets to the crazy point (ie. getting rid of the Federal Reserve, the Department of Education, the IRS...). But, saying this I have to acknowledge a general truth: As smart, ethical, or right I think I am, there are at least 10,000 people who disagree and/or think I'm crazy.

So, here's to throwing things out there, which is what I actually like about the Tea Party. I appreciate freedom of speech even though it may drive me as nuts as the unbirthday song does, and this goes for both the right and left extremists. Government should be held under scrutiny by the governed, and freedom of speech is one way to provide the essential criticism that will lead us where we should go. I have a hard time believing that all of the answers are in the extremes. I would hope that Americans are moderate in the sense that they will consider both sides and determine that the real solution lies somewhere in the middle.

I think that the fact that there is a far-right reaction to what has turned out to be somewhat of a far-left administration and congress goes to show that America does not lie in the extremes. A movement such as the Tea Party would not exist unless there were a general attitude of disillusionment with the current administration, and there wouldn't be such a backlash against the Tea Party unless there were a popular consensus that they're a little too extreme, too.

Extremes cause us to think, and I think that the Obama Administration, democratic Congress, and Tea Party have done a great service to America because these extremes make us reevaluate what we believe and what our values are. There must be opposition in all things, and I think the opposition created by the Tea Party is a good thing.

I also admire people for standing up for what they believe in, as was the case in the first Tea Party. And yes, it was in 1773 as Palin referenced correctly.

So, the Tea Party movement is kinda like hugging a porcupine - and I'm referring to how sensitive it can be and not alluding to any potential consequences of hugging a porcupine. It can be uncomfortable, some people go in for the hug without thinking much about it, others stay away from it, and some kinda dance around it without going in for a real hug. I think I'm still dancing.

image from paulabecker.com

And while I'm throwing things out there, can I share another popular candidate with the Tea Party?

Jason Chaffetz
House Representative for Utah's 3rd District

Is it bad that one of the reasons I do not like Chaffetz is because he bears too much resemblance to the Grinch? It's uncanny. Also, the fact that Squaw Peak looks like the mountain where the Grinch's sled sits tipping as his dog hangs from the harness in its reindeer antlers, doesn't help me think otherwise.


Yeah, that's what I thought. But there are other reasons including his declared opposition to earmarks. Yet he doesn't have a problem going to other offices to ask Senators to earmark for him. The fact that he has only sponsored legislation that renamed a post office after his friend, Mike Lee's father (nothing against Rex Lee, he was awesome), after he went into Congress with the slogan that he was there to "legislate, not decorate" is a little ridiculous, as is his media stunt of sleeping in a cot in his office. I won't even go into what I think about his Colbert interviews.

Okay, I'm done now. Educate yourself, and get out and vote tomorrow! If you're in Utah, check out the issues and candidates here.

Conservative Talk

So, it's been a while since I last went off on a political rant, or some opinion on an issue like the fact that most English speakers don't know that not all r's in Spanish are rolled - that's for Doug Wright today. We've been busy blogging about the baby and other events - aka school. (Which will continue - sorry to those who don't care, but if you don't care, don't read. Really, it's simple. Skip over what you don't care about and read what you want, it's your choice.) I don't know if it really matters to anyone, but commenting on issues helps me form an opinion and I often find myself understanding both sides.

Anyway, back to good ol' Doug Wright and conservative talk radio. They're all starting to bug BIG time.

Not only did Doug use the lame excuse that he can't roll his r's after failing to pronounce El Observador correctly (Really, he should have simply admitted he didn't speak Spanish, it's okay.), his little rant today on HB113 was agonizing to listen to. It was a good 10 minutes into the rant when he actually got to any sort of point rather than enumerate every single minute detail of what insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, children, cats, and puppies must think about how terrible it is to not put your child in a booster seat. Now, I am not well versed in the changes to the bill which are currently being presented on Utah's Capitol Hill, and I do agree that children's safety should be a concern for regulation. But really. Do I need to listen for half an hour for Doug to get to some sort of point, and then listen to the same scripted crap all morning? Doug needs to fill his time with meaningful dialogue rather than enumerating who else could possibly care about booster seats before further weakening his argument by actually making one.

I switched stations, only to listen to this guy...

Glenn Beck.

Okay, I can handle Glenn sometimes, more than I can Limbaugh or Hannity anytime. Glenn is a little over emotional, which is just plain weird and comes across as being insincere and ridiculous. But really, what has happened to these people? Did I miss the psychotic transformation of these somewhat rational representatives of conservative issues into crazy talking heads who fight over every little discrepancy in opinion as they criticize, otherize, and demonize anyone with a slightly different view point? Even Dr. Laura is getting a little too nasty. It reminds me of the Democrats when Bush was president.

Really, we all need to work together and talk about the issues if anything productive is going to happen. That means bipartisan efforts, and getting past party politics. Yes, Republicans and Democrats have both abused power when they had it, and everyone has hurt feelings. But get over it. What hope do we really have for our nation if we can't even talk to each other or work together?

Nothing Noble About the Nobel

Just a little story to convey my feelings of how the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded in the past, and how serious we should really take this prize.


There recently was a death of a 98 year-old lady named Irena. During WWII, Irena, got permission to work in the Warsaw Ghetto as a plumbing/sewer specialist. She had an ulterior motive - she KNEW what the Nazi's plans were for the Jews (as she was German).

Irena smuggled infants out in the bottom of the tool box she carried and she carried in the back of her truck a burlap sack, (for larger kids). She also had a dog in the back that she trained to bark when the Nazi soldiers let her in and out of the ghetto. The soldiers of course wanted nothing to do with the dog and the barking covered the kids/infants noises. During her time of doing this, she managed to smuggle out and save 2500 kids/infants. She was caught, and the Nazi's broke both her legs, arms and beat her severely. Irena kept a record of the names of all the kids she smuggled out and kept them in a glass jar, buried under a tree in her back yard. After the war, she tried to locate any parents that may have survived it and reunited the family. Most had been gassed. Those kids she helped got placed into foster family homes or adopted.

In 2007 Irena was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize but was not selected.

Al Gore won - for a slide show on Global Warming.

I think the WSJ makes some valid points. Check it out here.

The Nobel What Prize!?

Out of the six billion people in the world, I would argue that half, if not more of these individuals have plans for promoting and achieving all kinds of good in the world. But wait, they didn't win the Noble Peace Prize. So how is it that this guy did?

I thought the point of the Nobel Peace Prize was to acknowledge those individuals with a lifetime achievement award for promoting peace, decreasing world hunger, and sacrificing essentially everything for the improvement of world conditions. The issue here? I thought you actually had to promote and achieve something before you could win. Apparently not.

From all of the comments I've heard, Greg put it best, "the line between high school student body elections and the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize just got thinner... a LOT thinner."

Honduras' Lesson to the World on Democracy and the Rule of Law

Waking up a president, stripping him of his office, and shipping him off to Costa Rica in his pajamas is not often thought of as a model for democracy. In fact, it’s more reminiscent of the Nixon era, where military coups and dictators ran amuck in the hemisphere. The superficial facts of the Honduran crisis have led the world to condemn what they are calling a military coup. But, does the crisis in Honduras represent a "step back" into the brutality of dictatorial rule and end of democracy in the region? The answer is simple: No.

After being removed from office, ex-President Mel Zelaya of Honduras appealed before his friends at the UN to be reinstated to his office, as their “humble servant” in his small corner of the world. Nations in the UN's General Assembly were aghast that a ruler could possibly be removed from office by the military, congress, and supreme court. (Poor picked on Zelaya!) There was no explanation to accept other than crying Zelaya's claims that he was wrongfully removed from office, and that his desires to take back the presidency were only to preserve democracy and the rule of law in Honduras. (He promised that he was playing nice and it wasn't his fault.) He knew that those buzz words would perk the ears and tug the heart strings of many, including the U.S.

In order to see through the dense foliage of Zelaya and Chavez’s rhetoric, we need to evaluate it for what it is, and underneath all of those flowers is a lot of funk.

The Facts:

• Zelaya sought re-election which is prohibited by the Honduran Constitution (Article 239).
  
• Zelaya decided that in order to get around this obstacle, he would conduct an illegal vote on a referendum to call a Constitutional Convention.
  
• When the military said they would not participate, Zelaya fired the Army General.
  
• After he fired the Army General, Zelaya provoked and gathered a mob that marched into the military base to retrieve the illegal ballots that had arrived from Venezuela.
  
• There is evidence that the referendum results were already in…before the vote took place.

*In addition, 18 other crimes were brought against Zelaya by the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court.
By insisting on backing Zelaya, the U.S. has finds itself among such company as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Ecuador's Correa, and the ex-Sandanista, Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega. The company should tell us a lot about the flowery rhetoric echoing through the OAS and the UN. Yet the world seems to have set Zelaya on a pedestal as the new poster child for democracy.

The New Defenders of Democracy!

Raul Castro, Manuel Zelaya, Hugo Chavez

The interim government’s only illegal action was to actually take Zelaya to Costa Rica. (But who wouldn’t want a free trip to Costa Rica? And you get to fly in your pajamas!) They took what their constitution admonished seriously, that all citizens “have the obligation to collaborate in the maintenance or reestablishment of the [constitutions’ validity] (Article 375).” The leaders and citizens who abided by their constitutional duties in Honduras should be lauded for their actions to enforce their law by removing Zelaya from office.

Arguably, the interim government that enforces the rule of law and their constitution stands to be the martyr for the cause of democracy and liberty. This small government had the courage to take a stand against a rogue president, who overstepped his constitutional rights and broke the law.

While Zelaya continues to do the Hokey Pokey at the Honduran-Nicaraguan border and meeting with other state leaders, the interim government continues to stand alone against the pressure of the world. Rather than dancing along to the tune of Latin American neo-populism with Zelaya, the “free world” should be taking a few steps back.

Cuban Beach Vacation

The Castros have made more progress in gaining influence in the hemisphere during recent months than they have in decades. In efforts to repair relations, the Obama Administration has bent over backwards while Cuba comfortably retains their communist stance. While Cuba is making headway in U.S.-funded regional organizations without even being a part of them – the OAS – the United States is being pressured to tolerate and compromise our standards for the sake of cooperation. Who is really cooperating with whom?

Last Tuesday, U.S. talks with Cuba were considered “fructiferous” by the Cuban delegation. This was said without mentioning the fact that while the U.S. Congress considers lifting travel restrictions, Cuba continues to retain U.S. Visa-holders. There are currently an estimated 600 Cubans waiting for Castro’s permission to leave the island. Although, the Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation (CCDHRN) calculates this number to be more than 800. These Cubans could wait three to ten years for permission, and some may never see a green light to visit family outside of the country as a form of state castigation.

As the U.S. continues to turn a blind eye to human rights violations in Cuba as part of “cooperation efforts”, Cuba is running with the ball and scoring political points. Before we lose too much ground, it’s time for the U.S to grab the ball and take charge of the game again.

Freedom!!!

The recent crisis in Honduras could prove to share a lot with a nearly two-month strike in Peru, especially considering the future of US foreign relations with Latin America. They are the signs of the ever-swinging political pendulum, and clearly allude to the direction in which it is favoring. Or rather, who is controlling the swing of things.

Hugo Chavez, the vocal and irritating Venezuelan President, does not hide his anti-American motives. Hours of ramblings on his talk show, Alo Presidente, are used to "divulge" the injustices of capitalism, US imperialism and the ever present CIA, and give accolades to the glorious Bolivarian socialist revolution. He often is seen parading with his autocratic posse – Nicaragua’s Ortega, Ecuador’s Correa, Honduras’ Zelaya, Iran’s Ahmadinejad, and the original political celebrity bad boys, the Castro brothers – in well-publicized political arenas. They even have their own exclusive BFF club, formerly known as ALBA, which now has a new and improved name…"The something something of our peoples of our Americas something something.” Hugo Chavez could very well be the Paris Hilton of the international political community.

Striking similarities.

As it seems with Paris (bless her heart, and soul - she needs all the blessing she can get), Chavez has a polarizing effect. You either love him, or you hate him. Chavismo may be appealing on the outside, but you would never let it take care of the kids – it’s simply trouble. Only Brazil’s Lula has seemed to be Chavez’s long-term, fence-sitting BFF.

It’s not surprising then, that in both Peru and Honduras the Chavista influence has come to the forefront of arguments and concerns, as it well should. In the past, Peru has suspended diplomatic relations with Venezuela over suspected meddling in elections. Recent indigenous strikes, also suspected as having Chavista influence, have tarnished the US-friendly government’s reputation. This will allow Humala, a Venezuelan-funded puppet, to make good headway in the 2010 presidential elections.

In Honduras, citizens have been leery of how much influence Chavez has had in new legislation, including the proposed illegal referendum to change the Honduran Constitution that ended with Zelaya pleading before the UN to be reinstated as President.

Despite the outcries of the Honduran population and interim government declaring that ousting their unlawful president was in fact lawful and democratic, the world seems to differ. The UN General Assembly unanimously supported a declaration condemning the coup, lining up the world’s nations behind Chavez in the attempt to force the exiled Zelaya back into office.

So, what do the mentioned events have in common? That’s right, major headway for the Bolivarian revolution, headed by Hugo Chavez and his petro-dollars. The pendulum is swinging and we're all swinging with Chavez. It's like a bad commercial: "I swing, you swing, we all swing for.."well, you get the point.

What consequence does this have for the future? Well, the US will find itself losing influence in the hemisphere, soon catering to the whims of a heard of populist dictators in the south if we wish to keep alliances and trade agreements. The governments for the people, but not of the people have historically proven to create suffering for many. The train of thought seems to go along these lines: to bring a few poor up, all must be brought down. It levels the playing field, and makes all equal. The real question is if it will make them free, because "equality" in theory cannot be obtained. Different people simply desire different things. The main goal should be to allow people to pursue what they desire, aka freedom!

The US needs to stand for transparent democracy, not simply a pseudo-democracy that proclaims itself to be a democracy simply because it allows it’s citizens to cast a vote. (Yes, I said democracy a lot.) If a simple election, where ordinary people cast votes constitutes a democracy, then let’s let Cuba back in the Organization of American States (OAS) without such foolish notions that they need to adhere to democratic principles! Cuba has let their citizens vote for decades! (And of course Castro has always won. Even with such unanimity as 98% of the votes!) What’s all the fuss about making Cuba adhere to democratic ideals embraced by the OAS if they are already abiding by them? There is obviously a disconnect between what we say we stand for, and what we actually stand for.

The people in both Honduras and Peru share adverse feelings toward the encroaching Chavista plague. They must feel the anguish that those who lost friends and risked their lives in Iran to protest against corrupt elections felt when the Free World rhetorically turned their back on them. By siding with Chavez in the matter of Honduras, we are also turning our back on these people who desire democracy and liberty as we do.