The "Social Security offset" in unemployment compensation for Utah seniors is set to expire in 2010, and battle lines are being drawn between employers and seniors as a result. Full story published September 7th, 2009 in the Salt Lake Tribune.
The Situation: During the past five years, working Utahns over age 65 laid off through no fault of their own have been able to collect some unemployment benefits in addition to their Social Security retirement checks. But Utah is one of only seven states that cuts unemployment benefits for those receiving Social Security retirement benefits. Right now, the Beehive State offsets jobless checks of seniors by only half their retirement cash. If the break is allowed to expire, those unemployment benefits will go back to being cut by the full Social Security payment. The law is set to expire halfway through 2010.
Seniors: Oppose any change. Many seniors are working past retirement age or have been forced to return to work after seeing their savings drained by the recession, in many cases through no fault of their own. The powerful group AARP Utah, which lobbies on behalf of about 220,000 Utahns over 50, takes the following position: "The fact that you have a Social Security benefit should not affect your ability to get a benefit you've earned through working", said Laura Polacheck, AARP Utah's associate director.
And they have a key legislative ally in District 47 Rep. Steve Mascaro (R-West Jordan), who posits that unemployment insurance is just as much a rightful benefit to those older workers as younger ones, regardless of whether they draw Social Security. "Is there something about turning 65 that says you are not entitled to the benefits you were when you were 40 years old or 50 years old?", Mascaro asked. "Not to my mind. I thought age discrimination was against the law in this country".
Employers: Support eliminating the Social Security offset. They fear that if it continues, they will be paying more in unemployment insurance. A complex state formula mandates that when the state's unemployment trust fund drops below certain thresholds, it triggers automatic hikes in employer-paid premiums. Because of an unprecedented spike in jobless claims, the trust fund is projected to dwindle from $640 million to $122 million during the next two years before recovering to $144 million (this graphic shows the maximum adequate balance to be just under $800 million, and the minimum adequate balance to be just under $600 million). In addition, long term projections show a significant increase in Utah's senior population. The number of over-65 Utahns still working, which has risen from 192,000 in 2000 to 247,000 today, is expected to swell to 389,000 in 10 years. So one can easily understand the concerns of Utah employers.
State legislators are preparing to address the issue when they convene in January 2010. However, the opening shots of the future battle were fired last month when members of a key state advisory council split 5-5 on the offset, and lobbyists for both sides are already working the Capitol.
The obvious solution to satisfy both sides is to eliminate the automatic premium increase triggers for employers. Great, except the state as a whole is facing a projected $700 million deficit, unless it wants to start draining the rainy day fund. Easier said than done. And Governor Gary Herbert does not want to raise taxes. But the failure to resolve this problem could discourage employers from hiring seniors, which in turn could pose a threat of age discrimination litigation.
This problem is simply too complex to be solved in a single blog post. But it's a good time to explode the popular myth of the "rich seniors". Many subscribe to the notion that all seniors are "rich". Not so. Not all seniors were CEOs. Many spent some of their intended nest eggs providing extra assistance to children or grandchildren; many adult children have moved back in with their aging parents because of adverse economic circumstances. Others picked careers or professions that never warranted "superstar" compensation. Some picked professions that became redundant either by automation, plant outsourcing, or illegal immigration. Still others picked investment strategies that, through no fault of their own, did not pan out. Are we to classify people as sluggards and slackers simply because they didn't get rich?
As our seniors live longer, the likelihood of their nest eggs becoming insufficient increases. This means many will need to work longer. We should avoid any public policy which would hinder the employability of seniors.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Utah's Conservative Governor Gary Herbert Finds No Harm In Barack Obama's September 8th Speech To Students, Recommends They Listen
Utah's Governor Gary Herbert is about as conservative as one can get. His credentials are unimpeachable. And on September 5th, 2009, he told the media that he finds no particular harm in kids watching Barack Obama's speech on September 8th. Stories from the Deseret News, the Salt Lake Tribune, and KSL Channel 5 (137 comments already).
As a matter of fact, Gov. Herbert actually spoke out in favor of letting children listen to Obama's planned broadcast on Tuesday. "I think it's great. To hear from the president of the United States is an important thing," Herbert said. "I'd like to hear what he has to say."
The governor further said he believes Obama's words will foster excellent discussion. "I hope parents will take the opportunity to discuss the issues with their children, hear what the president's views are and what his vision is for the future of America," Herbert said. "If they agree, then explain that. If they disagree, explain to their children why. I see nothing but good coming out of this," he said. And he's putting his money where his mouth is, since he has grandchildren in the Utah public school system.
On Friday, a psychologically battered and bruised White House fired back against critics of the speech. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed complaints from parents, school districts and political opponents about President Obama’s upcoming back-to-school speech to students as much ado about nothing. “We’ve reached a little bit of the silly season when the president of the United States can’t tell kids to study hard and stay in school,” said Gibbs. Asked about those who call the speech political indoctrination, he said, “Boy, if staying in school is a political message, somebody should tell the N.B.A.” Gibbs also pointed out that President Ronald Reagan gave a similar speech to school children in 1988 and President George H. Bush did so in 1991.
A KSL Channel 5 poll begun on September 3rd still shows that a hard core of 22 percent of 2,329 respondents would keep their kids home from school on that day. A second poll begun by the Tribune asking if students should watch the video now shows a nearly even split between Yes and No votes from 3,937 respondents, an increase in the percentage of No votes from September 3rd.
Because of Governor Herbert's conservative reputation, opposition to letting students listen to the speech is likely to soften somewhat. Many who oppose it are actually more concerned about the student activities surrounding the speech rather than the speech itself. The full agenda can be viewed on the Department of Education website. But in the final analysis, I wouldn't be surprised if at least 10 percent of parents statewide hold their kids out on Tuesday, even though nearly every Utah school district allows an opt-out option.
I think we can find better ways to manifest our opposition to Obama's agenda rather than hold kids out of school and risk costing them an unexcused absence. Do we really want to drag kids into this battle?
Utah Federal Judge Dee Benson Corrects Injustice, Shortens Eric Egbert's Sentence In Proportion To Those Of Shaun Walker And Travis Massey
On Tuesday September 1st, 2009, U.S. District Judge Dee Benson corrected a small injustice when he ordered Eric Egbert's 42-month sentence reduced to 33 months. The reduction was not opposed by prosecutors, and was intended to correct a disparity between Egbert's sentence and those of his co-defendants, Shaun Walker and Travis Massey. The three are former members of the National Alliance who were convicted in April 2007 of conspiracy to interfere with civil rights and interference with a federally protected activity in connection with alleged attacks upon two non-whites in late 2002 and 2003. Full stories published by the Salt Lake Tribune, the Deseret News, and KSL Channel 5.
The disparity was created on July 22nd, 2009 when, in response to a 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling issued on April 14th, 2009 ordering a review of sentencing, U.S. District Judge Dee Benson re-sentenced Shaun Walker (originally 87 months) and Travis Massey (originally 57 months) to shorter terms of 37 months and 30 months, respectively. Walker and Massey had appealed the previously sentences as grossly disproportionate. Since Eric Egbert was not covered by the 10th Circuit ruling, his original term of 42 months remained in effect, although he was considered to be the least culpable. In response, Egbert filed a motion to get his sentenced reduced. And now it's been granted - he should be out by the Dec-Jan time frame.
The trial and conviction of Walker, Massey and Egbert is considered by those in the know who have done their homework to have been a major miscarriage of justice (Walker was the Feds' real target, since he was the Chairman of the National Alliance at the time). All three were charged and prosecuted primarily on the testimony of two snitches, Keith Cotter and Brad Callahan. Cotter sang like a canary to get leniency for another crime, and Callahan may have been threatened with prosecution for an undisclosed crime to induce his "cooperation". Both minimized their own roles in the crime and maximized the roles of the accused. According to Shaun Walker himself, Cotter lied outright; Walker wasn't even present for either bar fight. Read Walker's own account of events HERE.
This was just one of the reasons why the State of Utah never preferred assault charges against the three. If the Feds' version of events was true, the State of Utah would have preferred charges, because there would have been a prosecutable case. Utah doesn't put up with people brawling in public. But the Feds decided to try Walker, Massey, and Egbert for their politics, and unfortunately, they convinced an all-white jury to go along with it.
But we shouldn't be too hard on the jury. Most of what they knew about the National Alliance and so-called "white supremacism" most likely came from T.V. shows like American Skinheads, or from the ADL and the SPLC. The anti-racist racket is a sweet deal for these two groups, who rake in millions of dollars in donations from suckers every year in the name of "anti-racism". Many of those posting comments to the KSL story are steeped in the same ignorance.
However, some commenters obviously did their homework in advance, and post some intelligent insight:
They were guilty of nothing more than a bar fight
by Mel G. @ 1:01pm - Fri Sep 4th, 2009
One of the supposed victims was never identified and the other wasn't even hurt. They were convicted for their ideology pure and simple. The key witnesses were looking at long jail time for an unrelated crime and were offered a deal to testify. If that ain't a conflict of interest. The federal prosecutor was hispanic and they got 3x the maximum sentence. If the roles were reversed it would not even be on the news. 3 white guys get in a fight and it's a race war, 3 black guys gang rape and murder and it's silence. Don't be so quick to assume because it could easily be you.
who's the Skraeling who disagreed with me?
by Mel G. @ 1:32pm - Fri Sep 4th, 2009
Read up on the trial! It's tainted with bias. Look if these men had actually done what the media claimed that's one thing but the whole case relied on the testimony of 2 convicted criminals looking at long prison sentences. One of the incidents they were convicted of, they never had a victim, it was all hearsay. The second instance was a mutual bar fight with a mexican and 2 white guys. Now can you imagine not only getting convicted but being sentenced to 84 months [actually 87 months] in federal prison. Point your fingers but all Americans are in trouble if it's that easy to get convicted.
wait
by JA927 @ 11:51am - Fri Sep 4th, 2009
the article said they were charged with "interference with a federally protected activity." so being a minority is a federally protected activity? did I miss something?
They were convicted of 2 incidents and neither
Mel G. @ 2:03pm - Fri Sep 4th, 2009
had anything to do with walking on the street. It's a made up charge and it turned it into a federal crime. I'm not interest in defending white supremacist just in finding truth and justice. You are not a white supremacist for concerning yourself with the interest of white America and pointing out the double standards.
I guess it's just too difficult to understand how the Feds could convict three guys of a crime over an event considered to be non-prosecutable by the state. The clinically bureaucratic term "interfering in a federally-protected activity" just doesn't provoke the same degree of outrage as the term "assault and battery", unless you're a Fed-worshipper.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
How Utah's Public School Districts Are Handling The September 8th Barack Obama Speech; KSL Poll Shows Only 20 Percent Will Keep Kids Home So Far
President Barack Obama is set to speak to directly address students across the country on September 8th at 12 P.M. Eastern Time by video link on the importance of staying in school, but school districts across the state are notifying parents and giving them the choice to have their child opt out of watching the speech.
The proposed speech, which is discussed on the Department of Education website, continues to generate controversy, with opposition coalescing in particular along Utah's Wasatch Front, where many were adversely sensitized by the decision of an elementary school principle to show the "I Pledge" video, widely considered to be an orgy of Obama-worship by a bunch of trashy, reprobate Hollywood celebrities. However, a considerable number of parents are now disclosing that they will allow their kids to attend school that day, but then closely question them about Obama's address at the end of the school day.
An unscientific poll appended to the KSL Channel 5 story on this speech shows that, out of 1,070 respondents so far, 57 percent say let them watch it, 23 percent will opt their kids out if possible, and only 20 percent will keep their kids home. A separate Salt Lake Tribune poll, available HERE, asks "Should Utah students watch President Barack Obama's education speech at school?", and out of 2,974 voted so far, 52.65 percent say Yes, 47.34 percent say No. KSL news video embedded below:
KSL has compiled and provided a list of how Utah's school districts intend to handle the situation. The list is current as of this post, and could change:
Typifying reaction are the following statements by people. Some parents are concerned what will be said may be offensive or too liberal for their children and are even vowing to keep their kids away, like a commenter who says, "I don't think it's appropriate (that Obama) speak to our kids. It's like someone calling my child on the phone and speaking to them without my permission."
But others say as long as there is nothing political about it, they're fine with it. "As long as he doesn't have a political agenda and just wants to get kids excited about learning and going to college and all that good stuff," says a parent. Parents KSL spoke to at West High School were more open and apathetic to the address. "I think [kids] have to listen to all things and make their own decisions," Rebecca said as she dropped her son off at school. "I think it's OK if they want to listen."
Holding students out of school for political reasons is a tactic best used selectively - and sparingly, for maximum effect. For example, holding students out of school on the Day of Silence is valid, since the only real purpose of the Day of Silence is the promotion and protection of the homosexual agenda. However, holding students out of school to avoid a Presidential address, even by one as disliked as Barack Obama, is overkill. I think that knowing the controversy involved, Obama will try to keep the speech as apolitical as possible.
The proposed speech, which is discussed on the Department of Education website, continues to generate controversy, with opposition coalescing in particular along Utah's Wasatch Front, where many were adversely sensitized by the decision of an elementary school principle to show the "I Pledge" video, widely considered to be an orgy of Obama-worship by a bunch of trashy, reprobate Hollywood celebrities. However, a considerable number of parents are now disclosing that they will allow their kids to attend school that day, but then closely question them about Obama's address at the end of the school day.
An unscientific poll appended to the KSL Channel 5 story on this speech shows that, out of 1,070 respondents so far, 57 percent say let them watch it, 23 percent will opt their kids out if possible, and only 20 percent will keep their kids home. A separate Salt Lake Tribune poll, available HERE, asks "Should Utah students watch President Barack Obama's education speech at school?", and out of 2,974 voted so far, 52.65 percent say Yes, 47.34 percent say No. KSL news video embedded below:
Video Courtesy of KSL.com
KSL has compiled and provided a list of how Utah's school districts intend to handle the situation. The list is current as of this post, and could change:
Handling of Pres. Obama speech by district
County Showing Obama Speech? Opt out option? Salt Lake Canyons Jordan Granite Davis Alpine Nebo Beaver Carbon Daggett Emery Iron Box Elder Kane Millard Murray North Sanpete Tintic Morgan Wayne Wasatch
Typifying reaction are the following statements by people. Some parents are concerned what will be said may be offensive or too liberal for their children and are even vowing to keep their kids away, like a commenter who says, "I don't think it's appropriate (that Obama) speak to our kids. It's like someone calling my child on the phone and speaking to them without my permission."
But others say as long as there is nothing political about it, they're fine with it. "As long as he doesn't have a political agenda and just wants to get kids excited about learning and going to college and all that good stuff," says a parent. Parents KSL spoke to at West High School were more open and apathetic to the address. "I think [kids] have to listen to all things and make their own decisions," Rebecca said as she dropped her son off at school. "I think it's OK if they want to listen."
Holding students out of school for political reasons is a tactic best used selectively - and sparingly, for maximum effect. For example, holding students out of school on the Day of Silence is valid, since the only real purpose of the Day of Silence is the promotion and protection of the homosexual agenda. However, holding students out of school to avoid a Presidential address, even by one as disliked as Barack Obama, is overkill. I think that knowing the controversy involved, Obama will try to keep the speech as apolitical as possible.
Barack Obama's September 8th Address To Schoolchildren: A Socialist Plot, Or Sound Advice?
Update September 3rd: Updated post HERE shows how each Utah school district will be handling Obama's proposed speech.
The screening of the now-infamous "I Pledge" video at Eagle Bay Elementary School in Farmington, Utah, described in this previous post, unleashed a firestorm of controversy along the Wasatch Front. The original KSL story attracted 777 comments, and an accompanying poll of 4,684 respondents showed that 63 percent disapproved of the video being shown to kids. The controversy became so great that the school's principal, Ofelia Wade, felt it necessary to issue an apology for the showing. KSL video embedded below:
Showing the video was actually the brainchild of Jennifer Maxwell, who is Eagle Bay Elementary's PTA President. She first saw the video on the Oprah Winfrey show and thought it would be perfect to introduce the school year's theme of service. She and other PTA members viewed it before making the decision. She said there was no political agenda intended, and is reportedly "brokenhearted" over the backlash.
But Ofelia Wade's apology has not silenced the backlash. A proposed Presidential address by Barack Obama, to be delivered directly to schoolchildren nationwide on September 8th, continues to fan the embers. According to the Deseret News, a number of local parents intend to boycott it by holding their kids out of school on that day. One father, Michael Roloff of Vernal, who has four children in the Uintah School District, says he will pull his kids out of school rather than have them watch the Obama broadcast. "We will go on a picnic and read the Constitution — learn something useful," Roloff said. And this has actually gone national; on his radio program, Glenn Beck heartily endorsed what is now being called a Parentally Approved Skip School (PASS) day. Audio, which was found on Political Buzz Examiner, embedded below:
As a matter of fact, a proposed model absence excuse has been posted on Free Republic for parents to use:
School districts are varying their approach to this issue. In Utah, the Granite, Jordan, Salt Lake City and Davis districts are sending letters to principals saying that if they plan to broadcast the speech, they should warn parents and provide alternate activities for students who don't want to watch it. Canyons is sending home letters to parents today along with waivers they can sign if they don't want their children to watch the speech. The Uintah School District plans to leave the decision in the hands of principals and teachers.
So what's so troublesome about Obama's speech? The agenda has actually been posted on the Department of Education website. According to the fact sheet, Obama's 20-minute speech will focus on persisting and succeeding in school. Obama will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning. Suggested classroom activities have also been compiled (K-6 HERE, 7-12 HERE)
That doesn't sound very troublesome to me. In fact, that's the type of guidance provided to me by my parents, extended family, teachers, and bishops when I was growing up. It seems like it's more sound advice rather than a "socialist plot".
Here's a more mature way of dealing with Obama's speech. On Free Republic was posted the following: “Instead of keeping the kids at home parents should go to school WITH their children and make sure that the indoctrination doesn’t happen. That is exactly what I will be doing. I’ll sit in my child’s classroom during the address and any discussion and I will be prepared with facts and information to better inform the teacher and students as needed. Why run away when you can meet this head on. I’ll correct all of the misinformation given during the address and I’ll reach more than just my kid, I’ll reach the whole class. Bring it on.”
While not many parents will be in a position to visit their child's classroom because of work obligations, it would only take a few to keep things on the straight and narrow. There is a clear-cut difference between a video filled with trashy Hollywood celebrities engaging in Obama-worship and an actual Presidential speech. Barack Obama will not be speaking to these students as a partisan candidate, but as President of the United States. Do parents lack such confidence in their abilities that they won't risk their kids hearing what Obama has to say? We don't help our kids become effective adults by "airlifting them over the Valley of the Shadow", but by "walking with them through the Valley of the Shadow".
The screening of the now-infamous "I Pledge" video at Eagle Bay Elementary School in Farmington, Utah, described in this previous post, unleashed a firestorm of controversy along the Wasatch Front. The original KSL story attracted 777 comments, and an accompanying poll of 4,684 respondents showed that 63 percent disapproved of the video being shown to kids. The controversy became so great that the school's principal, Ofelia Wade, felt it necessary to issue an apology for the showing. KSL video embedded below:
Video Courtesy of KSL.com
Showing the video was actually the brainchild of Jennifer Maxwell, who is Eagle Bay Elementary's PTA President. She first saw the video on the Oprah Winfrey show and thought it would be perfect to introduce the school year's theme of service. She and other PTA members viewed it before making the decision. She said there was no political agenda intended, and is reportedly "brokenhearted" over the backlash.
But Ofelia Wade's apology has not silenced the backlash. A proposed Presidential address by Barack Obama, to be delivered directly to schoolchildren nationwide on September 8th, continues to fan the embers. According to the Deseret News, a number of local parents intend to boycott it by holding their kids out of school on that day. One father, Michael Roloff of Vernal, who has four children in the Uintah School District, says he will pull his kids out of school rather than have them watch the Obama broadcast. "We will go on a picnic and read the Constitution — learn something useful," Roloff said. And this has actually gone national; on his radio program, Glenn Beck heartily endorsed what is now being called a Parentally Approved Skip School (PASS) day. Audio, which was found on Political Buzz Examiner, embedded below:
As a matter of fact, a proposed model absence excuse has been posted on Free Republic for parents to use:
Absence Excuse Suggestion:
To Whom it May Concern:
When it comes to teaching my child about personal responsibility and life goals, I have determined that I am a far better teacher of those objectives than a President who has chosen to surround himself with known anarchists and terrorists.
Therefore, (insert child's name) will be at home on Sept 8th in order not to be corrupted by the propaganda that will be shown in his class room.
Respectfully Yours,
School districts are varying their approach to this issue. In Utah, the Granite, Jordan, Salt Lake City and Davis districts are sending letters to principals saying that if they plan to broadcast the speech, they should warn parents and provide alternate activities for students who don't want to watch it. Canyons is sending home letters to parents today along with waivers they can sign if they don't want their children to watch the speech. The Uintah School District plans to leave the decision in the hands of principals and teachers.
So what's so troublesome about Obama's speech? The agenda has actually been posted on the Department of Education website. According to the fact sheet, Obama's 20-minute speech will focus on persisting and succeeding in school. Obama will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning. Suggested classroom activities have also been compiled (K-6 HERE, 7-12 HERE)
That doesn't sound very troublesome to me. In fact, that's the type of guidance provided to me by my parents, extended family, teachers, and bishops when I was growing up. It seems like it's more sound advice rather than a "socialist plot".
Here's a more mature way of dealing with Obama's speech. On Free Republic was posted the following: “Instead of keeping the kids at home parents should go to school WITH their children and make sure that the indoctrination doesn’t happen. That is exactly what I will be doing. I’ll sit in my child’s classroom during the address and any discussion and I will be prepared with facts and information to better inform the teacher and students as needed. Why run away when you can meet this head on. I’ll correct all of the misinformation given during the address and I’ll reach more than just my kid, I’ll reach the whole class. Bring it on.”
While not many parents will be in a position to visit their child's classroom because of work obligations, it would only take a few to keep things on the straight and narrow. There is a clear-cut difference between a video filled with trashy Hollywood celebrities engaging in Obama-worship and an actual Presidential speech. Barack Obama will not be speaking to these students as a partisan candidate, but as President of the United States. Do parents lack such confidence in their abilities that they won't risk their kids hearing what Obama has to say? We don't help our kids become effective adults by "airlifting them over the Valley of the Shadow", but by "walking with them through the Valley of the Shadow".
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Firefighters Make Progress On Both The Mill Flat (10 Percent Contained) And West Scofield Fires (20 Percent Contained) In Utah
Thanks in part to more favorable weather conditions, firefighter are making progress towards containing both the Mill Flat wildfire in southwestern Utah and the West Scofield wildfire in central Utah. Up-to-the-minute information on all of Utah's fires continues to be available on the UtahFireInfo website
According to the St. George Spectrum, the 647 firefighters on the scene of the Mill Flat fire were able to raise the containment level from 5 percent to 10 percent late on Tuesday September 1st, although the fire swelled to encompass 11,180 acres. With slower winds, higher relative humidity, and reduced temperatures, firefighters built upon a containment line along the north and northeast perimeters of the fire, according to Vince Mazzier, a public information officer for the Mill Flat Fire. "We're feeling very confident that the New Harmony town and the surrounding structures are very secure," Mazzier said. But full containment may be as much as 12 days away. An estimated $2 million have been spent on this fire alone already.
Smoke from the local fire, which has been accumulating near the Cedar City area, is also becoming a concern. This issue, along with recommended precautions, is addressed in another Spectrum article.
Utah's Second District Congressman Jim Matheson, in whose district New Harmony lies, was also present to get briefed on containment efforts and to find out if any additional intervention was needed. Matheson said he met with fire officials on Monday to ensure they have received adequate resources to combat the spreading flames. "I want to make sure they have everything they need," Matheson said Tuesday, but fire officials said they have the necessary personnel and equipment to control the blaze. "This is dangerous business and we want to do our best." Matheson then went off to speak at the St. George Area Chamber of Commerce luncheon.
Containment progress on what is now officially called the West Schofield wildfire has been faster, not only because the fire was smaller at just 251 acres, but a rainshower helped dampen the blaze. Jason Curry of the state Division of Forestry, Fire and Public Lands said the fire is now 20 percent contained, and crews hope for full containment of the West Scofield wildfire by Thursday. The evacuation order could be lifted as early as Thursday night. No lives or structures were lost in this fire, although it did creep to within 520 feet of a subdivision. A total 180 firefighters were detailed to fight this blaze.
But the common denominator remains - both fires started as controlled or prescribed burns that were allowed to burn for a lengthy period of time. The methodology behind prescribed burns must be re-visited. We cannot guarantee 100 percent safety, but when two controlled burns in one week break their bounds, well, "Houston, we have a PROBLEM", as they said in the movie.
According to the St. George Spectrum, the 647 firefighters on the scene of the Mill Flat fire were able to raise the containment level from 5 percent to 10 percent late on Tuesday September 1st, although the fire swelled to encompass 11,180 acres. With slower winds, higher relative humidity, and reduced temperatures, firefighters built upon a containment line along the north and northeast perimeters of the fire, according to Vince Mazzier, a public information officer for the Mill Flat Fire. "We're feeling very confident that the New Harmony town and the surrounding structures are very secure," Mazzier said. But full containment may be as much as 12 days away. An estimated $2 million have been spent on this fire alone already.
Smoke from the local fire, which has been accumulating near the Cedar City area, is also becoming a concern. This issue, along with recommended precautions, is addressed in another Spectrum article.
Utah's Second District Congressman Jim Matheson, in whose district New Harmony lies, was also present to get briefed on containment efforts and to find out if any additional intervention was needed. Matheson said he met with fire officials on Monday to ensure they have received adequate resources to combat the spreading flames. "I want to make sure they have everything they need," Matheson said Tuesday, but fire officials said they have the necessary personnel and equipment to control the blaze. "This is dangerous business and we want to do our best." Matheson then went off to speak at the St. George Area Chamber of Commerce luncheon.
Containment progress on what is now officially called the West Schofield wildfire has been faster, not only because the fire was smaller at just 251 acres, but a rainshower helped dampen the blaze. Jason Curry of the state Division of Forestry, Fire and Public Lands said the fire is now 20 percent contained, and crews hope for full containment of the West Scofield wildfire by Thursday. The evacuation order could be lifted as early as Thursday night. No lives or structures were lost in this fire, although it did creep to within 520 feet of a subdivision. A total 180 firefighters were detailed to fight this blaze.
But the common denominator remains - both fires started as controlled or prescribed burns that were allowed to burn for a lengthy period of time. The methodology behind prescribed burns must be re-visited. We cannot guarantee 100 percent safety, but when two controlled burns in one week break their bounds, well, "Houston, we have a PROBLEM", as they said in the movie.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Obama Worship: Utah Eagle Forum Objects To "I Pledge" Barack Obama Propaganda Video Shown To Eagle Bay Elementary School Students In Farmington, Utah
Update September 3rd: Updated post HERE shows how each Utah school district will be handling Obama's proposed speech.
Eagle Forum Utah is upset over a Barack Obama propaganda video shown to students at a Farmington, Utah elementary school - and rightfully so. Full story by KSL Channel 5. Additional stories now published by the Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune. Watch KSL news video embedded below:
The video was originally produced in January 2009 by MySpace and Katalyst Media, a production company co-founded by Ashton Kutcher and Jason Goldberg. They teamed up with various Hollywood celebrities to record their personal pledges of service. The video was directed by Demi Moore, and was presented to Barack Obama on his inauguration day.
While there is some praiseworthy counsel presented on the video, there is clearly a leftist political agenda being promoted. In addition, there's evidence of "Obama worship" embedded here and there throughout the video. For example, some tattooed circus freak kisses his biceps and pledges to be "a servant to Barack Obama". Watch the disgusting, sappy video for yourself below:
Eagle Forum Utah President Gayle Ruzicka objects to much of the content, saying that it showcases "well-known celebrities pledging and asking viewers to support stem cell research, not flushing the toilet after urinating, not using plastic grocery bags, ‘to sell my obnoxious car and buy a hybrid,' etc." But what she objects even more to is the fact that the video was shown to students at Eagle Bay Elementary School in Farmington, Utah on August 28th. Angered parents brought it to Eagle Forum's attention. The decision to show the video was made by the PTA president and school principal without parental consent. You can read Ruzicka's full press release HERE.
The principal of Eagle Bay, Ofelia Wade (spelling confirmed - KSL misspelled it), has overruled a decision made by the PTA to show the video to parents on Thursday, September 3rd at Back-to-School Night, because Wade, who is listed HERE as making an annual salary of $80,641, has now decided that it would cause too much controversy. Gayle Ruzicka is asking the district superintendent to require the principal to send all the parents a link to the video before Back-to-School Night and then give them the opportunity to voice their opinion. Meanwhile, Wade has apologized to parents and says she hopes the incident doesn't overshadow the school's effort to motivate students to serve the community.
Many people have already voiced their opinion in the form of 444 comments to the KSL story as of this post. In addition, KSL is running an unscientific opinion poll on the same page as the story, in which they ask the question, "Should this video have been shown at an elementary school assembly without parental consent?" So far, out of 863 votes cast, 63 percent of respondents say No.
At least two-thirds of the commenters oppose the showing of the video, for one reason or another. Here's a sampling of some of the 444 comments posted on KSL:
What ruins the video are the personal expressions of "Obama worship". This type of partisan political propaganda promoting one particular politician has no place in an elementary school classroom.
Eagle Forum Utah is upset over a Barack Obama propaganda video shown to students at a Farmington, Utah elementary school - and rightfully so. Full story by KSL Channel 5. Additional stories now published by the Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune. Watch KSL news video embedded below:
Video Courtesy of KSL.com
The video was originally produced in January 2009 by MySpace and Katalyst Media, a production company co-founded by Ashton Kutcher and Jason Goldberg. They teamed up with various Hollywood celebrities to record their personal pledges of service. The video was directed by Demi Moore, and was presented to Barack Obama on his inauguration day.
While there is some praiseworthy counsel presented on the video, there is clearly a leftist political agenda being promoted. In addition, there's evidence of "Obama worship" embedded here and there throughout the video. For example, some tattooed circus freak kisses his biceps and pledges to be "a servant to Barack Obama". Watch the disgusting, sappy video for yourself below:
Eagle Forum Utah President Gayle Ruzicka objects to much of the content, saying that it showcases "well-known celebrities pledging and asking viewers to support stem cell research, not flushing the toilet after urinating, not using plastic grocery bags, ‘to sell my obnoxious car and buy a hybrid,' etc." But what she objects even more to is the fact that the video was shown to students at Eagle Bay Elementary School in Farmington, Utah on August 28th. Angered parents brought it to Eagle Forum's attention. The decision to show the video was made by the PTA president and school principal without parental consent. You can read Ruzicka's full press release HERE.
The principal of Eagle Bay, Ofelia Wade (spelling confirmed - KSL misspelled it), has overruled a decision made by the PTA to show the video to parents on Thursday, September 3rd at Back-to-School Night, because Wade, who is listed HERE as making an annual salary of $80,641, has now decided that it would cause too much controversy. Gayle Ruzicka is asking the district superintendent to require the principal to send all the parents a link to the video before Back-to-School Night and then give them the opportunity to voice their opinion. Meanwhile, Wade has apologized to parents and says she hopes the incident doesn't overshadow the school's effort to motivate students to serve the community.
Many people have already voiced their opinion in the form of 444 comments to the KSL story as of this post. In addition, KSL is running an unscientific opinion poll on the same page as the story, in which they ask the question, "Should this video have been shown at an elementary school assembly without parental consent?" So far, out of 863 votes cast, 63 percent of respondents say No.
At least two-thirds of the commenters oppose the showing of the video, for one reason or another. Here's a sampling of some of the 444 comments posted on KSL:
That last line...
by AI @ 5:15pm - Tue Sep 1st, 2009
That last line about being a servant to our president made me almost throw up!
Our president is supposed to be a servant of the people and all he does is ignore our requests and push forward with his liberal/socialist agenda to shred the Constitution, with his self-avowed communists czars and advisors...and enamored liberal media. If Bush did this all liberals would be up in arms about it. This is SO two-faced.
I'm sorry, but I draw the line at having my children be the servant to a dictator/communist/socialist president.
This is ridiculous...and I don't even have anything to do with Eagle Forum...I am just a regular parent who thinks this is so Nazi-like that it scares me.
Chris...
by Wake-up-and-smell-the-coffee @ 4:36pm - Tue Sep 1st, 2009
The video has nothing to do with respecting the President. It has everything to do with using left-wing extremists in the environmental movement, riding on the 'coat tails' of their socialist president, to get their message across to a group if young impressionable kids who don't recognize the propaganda for what it is.
If you or I saw the video, as adults, we could keep it in perspective. When these young children are exposed to this sort of biased opinionated material, presented NOT by their President, but by Hollywood idols and actors, it has NOTHING to do with respecting the president.
And as for RESPECT, I was taught that respect is something you have to EARN, not something you were forced to give away as if it were deserved like some sort of entitlement. But of course, "entitlement" is precisely what the new left-wing socialists, like Obama, are trying to teach our children!
Funny how we miss the topic
by Denzel E. @ 5:04pm - Tue Sep 1st, 2009
So first I really want someone to tell me who provided the video to the school? Was it part of a classroom presentation, if so on what topic? Was it shown in an assembly to all students? Was it followed with information on how to get involved in community projects?
I do think it is very typical of propaganda, you would never hear of the school presenting something telling kids to support stem cell research on its own, probably never really hear them talk about the options of plastic vs. paper and which costs more and does more damage to the environment, but when you slide in these types of issues with things like be a better neighbor or smile more. Well then you get the win, you have just convinced children that supporting stem cell research (heck most kids won’t know what it is) but it must be good because it is like smiling.
Anyone who doesn’t see or understand the subtle nature of propaganda and how this is a clear example of it, well there isn’t much that can be said to you, but look close not at if you agree with what is said or not but rather look at how complex issues with opposing viewpoints are simply made to look like easy decisions like caring more, learning your neighbors name, and such. It is a very nasty trick but done by professionals who knew exactly what they were doing.
This video is subtle but pernicious to a free society
by Politico @ 5:09pm - Tue Sep 1st, 2009
Pledge to be a servant to the President? This is indoctrination whether the President be 'Republican' or 'Democrat' and the pledge itself is subtly reminiscient of the pledge officials took to Hitler. "I swear: I will be faithful and obedient to Adolf Hitler". Ours is a softer version ("I pledge to be a servant to our President") but the same idea is present. We as a citizenry should never be beholden to a man but to the ideals of liberty. Our support should be to the Constitution which grants us our freedoms, not to a man who can take them away. Most of this video is fluff - every so often green indoctrination surfaces in the video (Caring for the planet, not using plastics, supporting stem cells) which is bad enough that our tax dollars again go towards political indoctrination. These most destructive idea though is the last - fidelity to our glorious leader. Who is serving whom after all?
What ruins the video are the personal expressions of "Obama worship". This type of partisan political propaganda promoting one particular politician has no place in an elementary school classroom.
Tired Of $200 Textbooks? Weber State Graduate Alan Martin Starts College Textbook Rental Service; Students Routinely Save 50 Percent On Textbooks
While visiting the KSL Channel 5 website today, I spotted, out of the corner of my eye, a cryptic reference to $200 textbooks by talk show host Doug Wright on Twitter. No additional details were provided.
Obviously, I couldn't pass this up, since the idea of a college student being forced to spend $200 on a single textbook is utterly outrageous. So I hit the research trail to find out more about this problem. This first led me to an April 10th, 2008 post by the New York Times editorial board. While a bit dated, the information is still relevant. They revealed an organized campaign to bring down the prices of textbooks, further described on the MakeTextbooksAffordable.org website. But the Times also believes Congressional action is called for, and was promoting a U.S. House measure on textbooks pushed by two California Congressmen– Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, a Republican, and Rep. George Miller, a Democrat. The textbook provisions — contained in House bill H.R. 4137 (Section 112) levied the following requirements:
(1). Require publishers to tell faculty how much their choices for textbooks will really cost the students.
(2). Require publishers to “unbundle” textbooks (too many texts now come shrinkwrapped with CDs and other extras, driving up the cost).
(3). Require schools to post the list of required and recommended books long before students need to buy them.
H.R. 4137 was passed on February 7th, 2008. Rob Bishop and Jim Matheson voted Yes, while then-Rep. Chris Cannon voted No. After U.S. Senate concurrence, President George W. Bush signed it on August 14th, 2008, and became Public Law No. 110-315.
Menawhile, market-based solutions have emerged. On August 13th, 2009, KSL aired a story about Alan Martin, a Weber State University graduate who founded a textbook rental business. The business website is located at CampusBookRentals.com, and the headquarters is physically located in Ogden, Utah. This is a serious endeavor; there are two million book titles in their system.
Here's how it works. Students order the books online, and Martin's customer service team then processes the orders and sends them out as fast as possible. The requested book is accompanied by a prepaid mailer to encourage and facilitate return, much like Netflix does with movies.
In the first six months of operation, CampusBookRentals.com was serving students primarily in Utah. But word of mouth spread, and now orders are coming in from 4,000 campuses and thousands of students from across the country. Martin estimates they spend 20 hours per day filling orders prior to the beginning of a typical fall semester. And Martin explained the benefits to customers. "Students come to the website and they can save at least 50 to 60 percent all the time, that's consistent. Sometimes up to 85 percent," Martin said. "Use the book for as long as you need it and give it back to us, let us rent it to another student; keeps the money in their pocket upfront."
But Alan Martin is hardly one-of-a-kind. A follow-up AP story posted by KSL on August 14th identifies some other enterpreneurs around the country also offering textbook rentals.
A list of reasons why the prices of textbooks are so high is given on About.com. They include
* Sheer number of books required - Compared to high school, a semester of college uses a lot more books. You'll have longer reading assignments and many courses will assign readings from more than one book.
* Copyright - The publishers of large anthologies of recent writings need to pay copyright fees to every author in the book. A poetry anthology for a literature class, for example, may involve clearing hundreds of copyrights.
* Highly specialized material - Many college textbooks are highly specialized and the material is unavailable in any other book. The low volume of published books and the lack of market competition drive publishers to jack up prices.
* Online companions - Many textbooks are complimented by online resources. The subscription fee is built in to the cost of the book.
* Supplies - For art, lab and science classes, the estimated cost of books often includes supplies, lab necessities and calculators
* Lack of used textbooks - Publishers make no money when too many used books are in circulation. As a consequence, they will often release new editions every few years in order to make the used books obsolete.
* Review and desk copies - Book publishers make money only when college professors adopt their books. This often means that they send free review copies to potential instructors. The cost of this practice is offset by the high price students pay for books.
* Faculty control - In high school, the choice of books if often decided by a department or committee. Price and negotiations with publishers may be part of this process. In college, individual faculty members usually have complete control over their choice of books. Not all professors are sensitive to cost, and some will even assign expensive books they authored themselves (sometimes collecting royalties in the process).
Alan Martin at least tries to solve one of those problems by increasing the supply of used textbooks. And that's a start.
Obviously, I couldn't pass this up, since the idea of a college student being forced to spend $200 on a single textbook is utterly outrageous. So I hit the research trail to find out more about this problem. This first led me to an April 10th, 2008 post by the New York Times editorial board. While a bit dated, the information is still relevant. They revealed an organized campaign to bring down the prices of textbooks, further described on the MakeTextbooksAffordable.org website. But the Times also believes Congressional action is called for, and was promoting a U.S. House measure on textbooks pushed by two California Congressmen– Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, a Republican, and Rep. George Miller, a Democrat. The textbook provisions — contained in House bill H.R. 4137 (Section 112) levied the following requirements:
(1). Require publishers to tell faculty how much their choices for textbooks will really cost the students.
(2). Require publishers to “unbundle” textbooks (too many texts now come shrinkwrapped with CDs and other extras, driving up the cost).
(3). Require schools to post the list of required and recommended books long before students need to buy them.
H.R. 4137 was passed on February 7th, 2008. Rob Bishop and Jim Matheson voted Yes, while then-Rep. Chris Cannon voted No. After U.S. Senate concurrence, President George W. Bush signed it on August 14th, 2008, and became Public Law No. 110-315.
Menawhile, market-based solutions have emerged. On August 13th, 2009, KSL aired a story about Alan Martin, a Weber State University graduate who founded a textbook rental business. The business website is located at CampusBookRentals.com, and the headquarters is physically located in Ogden, Utah. This is a serious endeavor; there are two million book titles in their system.
Here's how it works. Students order the books online, and Martin's customer service team then processes the orders and sends them out as fast as possible. The requested book is accompanied by a prepaid mailer to encourage and facilitate return, much like Netflix does with movies.
In the first six months of operation, CampusBookRentals.com was serving students primarily in Utah. But word of mouth spread, and now orders are coming in from 4,000 campuses and thousands of students from across the country. Martin estimates they spend 20 hours per day filling orders prior to the beginning of a typical fall semester. And Martin explained the benefits to customers. "Students come to the website and they can save at least 50 to 60 percent all the time, that's consistent. Sometimes up to 85 percent," Martin said. "Use the book for as long as you need it and give it back to us, let us rent it to another student; keeps the money in their pocket upfront."
But Alan Martin is hardly one-of-a-kind. A follow-up AP story posted by KSL on August 14th identifies some other enterpreneurs around the country also offering textbook rentals.
A list of reasons why the prices of textbooks are so high is given on About.com. They include
* Sheer number of books required - Compared to high school, a semester of college uses a lot more books. You'll have longer reading assignments and many courses will assign readings from more than one book.
* Copyright - The publishers of large anthologies of recent writings need to pay copyright fees to every author in the book. A poetry anthology for a literature class, for example, may involve clearing hundreds of copyrights.
* Highly specialized material - Many college textbooks are highly specialized and the material is unavailable in any other book. The low volume of published books and the lack of market competition drive publishers to jack up prices.
* Online companions - Many textbooks are complimented by online resources. The subscription fee is built in to the cost of the book.
* Supplies - For art, lab and science classes, the estimated cost of books often includes supplies, lab necessities and calculators
* Lack of used textbooks - Publishers make no money when too many used books are in circulation. As a consequence, they will often release new editions every few years in order to make the used books obsolete.
* Review and desk copies - Book publishers make money only when college professors adopt their books. This often means that they send free review copies to potential instructors. The cost of this practice is offset by the high price students pay for books.
* Faculty control - In high school, the choice of books if often decided by a department or committee. Price and negotiations with publishers may be part of this process. In college, individual faculty members usually have complete control over their choice of books. Not all professors are sensitive to cost, and some will even assign expensive books they authored themselves (sometimes collecting royalties in the process).
Alan Martin at least tries to solve one of those problems by increasing the supply of used textbooks. And that's a start.
U.S. Senator Bob Bennett Comes In Last In Unofficial Straw Poll In Orem, Utah; Karl Rove's Involvement In The Bennett Campaign May Be Backfiring
Via Salt Lake Crawlmeister Glen Warchol, I found out that a bunch of local Republican bigwigs held a powwow in Orem, Utah on August 31st, 2009, and that incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Bob Bennett finished last in an unofficial straw poll of Republican Senate candidates.
The "gory" details are actually posted by a first-rate Utah political blogger, HollyOnTheHill. It was a Utah County Republican party barbecue and family party with hundreds of people present. Notables included Congressman Jason Chaffetz, Governor Gary Herbert, U.S. Senator Bob Bennett, and three of Bennett's Republican opponents: Mark Shurtleff, Cherilyn Eagar, and James Williams. Many other Utah County representatives and senators were also there for the mass grip-and-grin.
But perhaps the political highlight of the evening was an "unscientific" straw poll for three Senate candidates. Mark Shurtleff received 42 percent, Cherilyn Eagar 32 percent, and three-term incumbent Bob Bennett straggled home last with 26 percent. Neither James Williams nor Tim Bridgewater were considered. Holly seems to think the poll reflects the growing dissatisfaction with Washington DC and incumbent federal legislators.
And Holly is indeed correct - but like so many other Utah political observers (except for the Provo Daily Herald), she failed to account for an absolutely inexplicable move by Senator Bennett. Bennett has allowed former Bush hatchetman Karl Rove to unofficially join his campaign. Now think about that for a moment. Rove is associated with the most controversial excesses of the Bush Administration. He is almost universally hated by the left, and derided by much of the paleoconservative right. Karl Rove is a centerfold for neo-conservatism, and regular readers of this blog should know by now that neocons trace their political ancestry back to Leon Trotsky. The godfather of modern neoconservatism, Irving Kristol, was a fan of Trotskyite Communism in his youth.
Yet Bob Bennett has allowed Rove to stump for him - and actually expects to get re-elected.
Karl Rove, who is actually a graduate of Olympus High School, may be an honorable man on a personal level. But his political reputation as a Bush operative is so odious that association with him is politically damning. Don't forget, Rove was implicated in the involuntary outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent. By accepting public support from Rove, Bob Bennett shows how disconnected he is from the Utah constituency. It may prove fatal to his re-election chances.
NewsHive had this to say about the straw poll:
This is a definite win for AG Shurtleff, but a bigger win for Eagar and a major loss for Sen. Bennett. The three-term incumbent should have taken 75-80%, and would have, if he’d been representing his constituents properly. Dissatisfaction in the ranks, if it continues at this level, means his career will end at next year’s Republican convention, where only two contenders will continue to the primary (unless one gets 60% of the delegate votes).
{snip}
It is far too early to make any realistic predictions, but if Senator Bennett thinks he’s going to skate back into the Senate on his record, or a claim that he’s the conservative many voters are seeking, he’s going to need a realtor for that DC mansion very soon.
I consider this a reasonably sound assessment, but it must be noted that so far, it only reflects Utah County, the "reddest" county in the state. Bennett undoubtedly would do better in Salt Lake, Davis, and Weber Counties, as well as in Obama County...oops, I meant Summit County.
Also covering the Orem event was the Provo Daily Herald, which published a story HERE. Karl Rove was to appear in Orem, but bowed out at the last moment. He was in town primarily for his 40th high school reunion at Olympus High.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)