This editorial has that Ukrainian Easter Doll quality, for it is an editorial comment on an editorial comment.
First the credits where credits are due:
The Never, Never Land of denial
© 2011 Deseret News Publishing Company | All rights reserved
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705375545/The-Never-Never-Land-of-denial.html
By Timothy R. Clark Deseret News
Published: Monday, July 4, 2011 9:13 a.m. MDT
Timothy R. Clark, Ph.D., is an author, international management consultant, former two-time CEO, Fulbright Scholar at Oxford University and Academic all-American football player at BYU. His latest two books are The Leadership Test and Epic Change.
“After civil war and the beheading of Charles I, Oliver Cromwell rose to power and became Lord Protector of England. As a leader and reformer, Cromwell commands intense controversy concerning his legacy. Some have castigated him as a ruthless dictator. Others have enshrined him as a founding father of England’s commonwealth and parliamentary democracy. Regardless of the view you take, it’s impossible to dismiss the power of the speech he made when he dismissed the Rump Parliament on April 20, 1653. It cuts to the heart of leadership intent and the tension between stewardship and self-interest.”
RIGHT ASCENSION COMMENTARY
Clark then quoted only parts of it. I prefer to quote for my editorial all of Cromwell’s dismissal of the Rump Parliament, since it is THE classic denunciation in the whole history of classic denunciations. It is the type of public address, depending on one’s political view point, that one wishes President Obama or one of his political adversaries, say Jon Huntsman, would blow in and say right to the collective pusses of the current House of Representatives, and then the Senate.
Oliver Cromwell's speech dissolving the Rump Parliament
delivered at London, England, April 20, 1653.
“It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice.
Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government.
Ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.
Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess?
Ye have no more religion than my horse. Gold is your God. Which of you have not bartered your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?
Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defiled this sacred place, and turned the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?
Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. You were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance.
Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God's help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do.
I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place.
Go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.
In the name of God, go!”
Clark comments on the tone of this dismissive.
“Now resist the temptation to dismiss the speech as puritanical nonsense, moralistic high-mindedness or pious rhetoric. Even if you think it’s sanctimonious and even if Cromwell was a hypocrite, ask yourself this question, “Does this man have a point? Is the point relevant in our society, in our organizations, in our families?"
“I had finally stopped reeling from Anthony Weiner’s mockery of public service when I had to endure yet another episode of embarrassment, courtesy of Rod Blagojevich, the former governor of Illinois. Blagojevich has just been convicted on 17 counts of corruption, including attempted fraud, extortion, bribery and conspiracy. That’s not a surprise to anyone; the evidence was overwhelming. But then came his unchastened response: “Frankly, I’m stunned.” Then came the even more fantastic response: “Among the many lessons that I’ve learned from this whole experience is to try to speak a little bit less.” It made me think of a phrase by George Eliot from her novel, "Middlemarch": “Taking the world as an udder to feed our supreme selves.”
RIGHT ASCENSION COMMENTARY
It is fascinating how many conservatives get utterly indignant at Anthony Weiner’s . . . Well, Anthony Weiner’s weenie. It is not a crime for a married man to flirt. Nor is it a crime to lie to tabloid journalists. Many if not most find the climate in Washington – whether meteorological, political , or sexual -- poisonous these days. Whether the members of Congress live as single or married, monogamous, or adventuresome persons, Washington’s sexual climate has been of the kinky variety for a decades. Washington’s climate remains a perk or hazard of the federal public service profession.
Clark Continues:
“Isn’t it interesting that the human mind has an infinite capacity to rationalize? When reality doesn’t meet our expectations, we can escape to Never, Never Land. We can accept or deny. We can embrace reality or fashion a new version. Because humans hate discord between ourselves and reality, we always do one or the other, or perhaps a little of both. We can change ourselves or pretend to change reality. We can tell ourselves a soothing story. We have become very good at telling ourselves soothing stories, and we tend to spend an enormously long time doing it. In fact, we often wait for the impending crisis to hit before we are ready to throw away our soothing story. Public policy is the place where soothing stories abound.”
RIGHT ASCENSION COMMENTARY
I refuse to be intimidated by "reality." What is reality? It is nothing more than a collective hunch.
Inevitably when someone tells us, “You have to face reality!” What someone is really saying to us is that we have to believe his view of reality, or better put, his fantasy world view.
Clark continues
“How long did it take us to admit that smoking is a bad idea? How long will we persist in the denial that violent video games are harmful to children? How long will we contend that pornography is benign? How long will we argue that lotteries are not a regressive tax that preys on the poor? “We may each be entitled to our own set of opinions,” as the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, “but we are not entitled to our own set of facts.”
RIGHT ASCENSION COMMENTARY
Countless people can prove Facts accurate through their five senses. Humans, however, always interpret the facts. Many places, Washington for example, do believe they have a right to their own collection of factual evidence.
I find Clark’s paragraph on the problems interesting, but arbitrary. He wrote a short article, so I expect that. If I had written it, I would have an arbitrary list as well, but I would include denial of the growing problems of
Ignoring the problems of alcohol.
Classifying prescription drug abuse as good and all other drug abuse as bad.
Continuing to burn fossil fuels at cheap prices
Spending trillions of dollars on the illusions of national and personal security
Relying on the Second Amendment and collecting guns to re-enforce the illusion of personal safety
Continuing to ship in foods, vegetables, and fruits from around the world at cheap prices.
Thinking that just because one has a job and makes money one is productive.
Believing that the American dream means self reliance, when in fact Americans have always purchased the American Dream on borrowed money and sent the debt two generations down the line for payment.
Clark concludes his editorial this way:
“Let me quote two men who were fast friends, then adversaries and friends again because they finally threw away the soothing stories that justified the bitterness that separated them for so long. Thomas Jefferson said, “In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.” His colleague and friend, John Adams, offered these words, “I sleep well, appetite is good, work hard, conscience is neat and easy. Content to live and willing to die. Hoping to do a little good.”
Let's try to spend less time in the Never, Never Land of denial.”
Monday, July 4, 2011
Saturday, June 25, 2011
NEW YORK, CALIFORNIA, UTAH: MARRIAGE IN MODERN TIMES
We start this editorial with an article, in its entirety, culled from the headlines.
Gay marriage backers: New York vote has national impact
Yahoo! News
AP
Saturday evening, 25 June 2011, 8:40 p.m. MDT
By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer
NEW YORK – Many obstacles still lie ahead for supporters of same-sex marriage, and eventually they will need Congress or the Supreme Court to embrace their goal. For the moment, though, they are jubilantly channeling the lyrics of "New York, New York."
"Now that we've made it here, we'll make it everywhere," said prominent activist Evan Wolfson, who took up the cause of marriage equality as a law student three decades ago.
With a historic vote by its Legislature late Friday, New York became the sixth — and by far the most populous — state to legalize same-sex marriage since Massachusetts led the way, under court order, in 2004.
With the new law, which takes effect after 30 days, the number of Americans in same-sex marriage states more than doubles. New York's population of 19 million surpasses the combined total of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Iowa, plus the District of Columbia.
The outcome — a product of intensive lobbying by Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo — will have nationwide repercussions. Activists hope the New York vote will help convince judges and politicians across the country, including a hesitant President Barack Obama, that support of same-sex marriage is now a mainstream viewpoint and a winning political stance.
"New York sends the message that marriage equality across the country is a question of `when,' not `if,'" said Fred Sainz, a vice president of the Human Rights Campaign.
Wolfson, president of the advocacy group Freedom to Marry, said the goal is attainable by 2020, or sooner, "if we do the work and keep making the case."
The work — as envisioned by leading activists — is a three-pronged strategy unfolding at the state level, in dealings with Congress and the Obama administration, and in the courts where several challenges to the federal ban on gay marriage are pending.
"This will be a big boost to our efforts nationally," said Richard Socarides, a former Clinton White House adviser on gay rights. "It will help in the pending court cases to show that more states are adopting same-sex marriage, and it will help in the court of public opinion."
The New York bill cleared the Republican-controlled Senate by a 33-29 margin, thanks to crucial support from four GOP senators who joined all but one Democrat in voting yes. The Democratic-led Assembly, which previously approved the bill, passed the Senate's stronger religious exemptions in the measure, and Cuomo swiftly signed it into law.
Gay rights activists have been heaping praise on Cuomo for leading the push for the bill, seizing on an issue that many politicians of both parties have skirted. Yet the Senate vote marked the first time a Republican-controlled legislative chamber in any state has supported same-sex marriage, and several prominent Republican donors contributed to the lobbying campaign on behalf of the bill.
For those engaged in the marriage debate nationally, recent months have been a political rollercoaster.
Bills to legalize same-sex marriage failed in Maryland and Rhode Island despite gay rights activists' high hopes. However, Illinois, Hawaii and Delaware approved civil unions, joining five other states — California, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington — that provide gay couples with extensive marriage-like rights.
Adding those eight states to the six that allow gay marriage, more than 35 percent of Americans now live in states where gay couples can effectively attain the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Just 11 years ago, no states offered such rights.
For now, gay couples cannot get married in 44 states, and 30 of them have taken the extra step of passing constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Minnesota's Republican-controlled Legislature has placed such an amendment on the 2012 ballot.
Brian Brown, president of the conservative National Organization for Marriage, vowed to seek defeat of the New York Republicans who helped the marriage bill pass. He also predicted victory for the amendment to ban gay marriage next year in Minnesota, and said this would belie the claims that the same-sex marriage campaign would inevitably prevail nationwide.
"We've won every free, fair vote of the people," Brown said Saturday. "Backroom deals in Albany are not an indication of what people in this country think about marriage."
Efforts may surface in some states to repeal the existing marriage bans, but the prospect of dismantling all of them on a state-by-state basis is dim. In Mississippi, for example, a ban won support of 86 percent of the voters in 2004.
Thus, looking long term, gay marriage advocates see nationwide victory coming in one of two ways — either congressional legislation or a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that would require all states to recognize same-sex marriages.
"The way you do that is creating a critical mass of states and a critical mass of public opinion — some combination that will encourage Congress and the Supreme Court," Wolfson said. "By winning New York, we add tremendous energy to the national conversation that grows the majority."
Shorter term, gay rights activists and their allies in Congress would like to repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal recognition to same-sex marriages. The act is being challenged in several court cases, and Obama ordered his administration in February to stop defending the law on the grounds it is unconstitutional.
Democrats in Congress have introduced a bill to repeal the law, while the Republican leadership in the House has pledged to defend it.
Obama, when elected, said he supported broadening rights for gay couples but opposed legalizing same-sex marriage. More recently, he has said his position is "evolving," and he asked gay activists at a New York City fundraiser Thursday for patience.
Nonetheless, frustrations are mounting. Freedom to Marry says more than 112,000 people have signed its "Say I Do" appeal to the president, and gay marriage supporters have launched an EvolveAlready campaign on Twitter.
"We hope that, through this public pressure, we'll be able to move the president to understand that he's falling behind the majority of Americans who see marriage equality as a key civil right," said Robin McGehee of the advocacy group GetEqual.
Several recent opinion polls — by Gallup and The Associated Press, among others — have shown that a majority of Americans now approve of same-sex marriage, which a decade ago lagged below 40 percent support. Particularly strong backing for gay marriage among young people, who've grown up watching gay friendly films and TV programs, has prompted many analysts across the political spectrum to suggest the trend is irreversible.
Some conservatives, however, say the opinion polls are belied in the voting booth and point to the steady stream of approvals of state-level bans on same-sex marriage.
"The opposition has created an illusion of momentum but not a real base of support or track record of victory in the courts," said Brian Raum, senior counsel with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund.
Mary Bonauto would disagree.
An attorney with Boston-based Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, she has spent two decades battling for legal recognition of same-sex relationships. She helped win the landmark court rulings that led to civil unions in Vermont in 2000 and same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in 2004.
Even in the 1990s, she recalled thinking the cause eventually would prevail nationwide.
"I could see attitudes change," she said. "Eventually we have to have one standard of justice in this country and establish that sexual orientation is not a basis for discrimination."
She recalled setbacks just a few years ago in New York — a 2006 Court of Appeals ruling that there was no constitutional right to same-sex marriage in the state, and the decisive defeat of a same-sex marriage bill in the state Senate in 2009.
"The switch this time tells us there's a lot of momentum pointing toward marriage equality," Bonauto said.
Vermont lawyer Beth Robinson, now counsel for Gov. Peter Shumlin, worked with Bonauto in the late 1990s on the case that led to the state's pioneering civil union law. She expects the move toward nationwide same-sex marriage will be bumpy but inexorable.
"As people get to know their gay and lesbian neighbors, friends and family, the notion of denying those families equal rights becomes untenable," she said. "For New York to go there, on a vote rather that a court order, is huge ... It's a victory not just for New York, but for the whole country."
Robinson said Vermont, which legalized same-sex marriage in 2009, offered a lesson to wary Americans in other states.
"It isn't that the sky isn't falling — it's more positive than that," she said. "Vermont is a better place for it. Each of us has the opportunity to be our best selves."
Among the New Yorkers who will now get that opportunity are Richard Dorr, 84, and John Mace, 91, who have been partners for 61 years while pursuing successful careers as voice teachers in Manhattan.
"We thought about getting married in Massachusetts, but it just didn't seem to jibe right," said Dorr. "It should be in the state where you live."
They plan to seek a marriage license as swiftly as possible but don't envision a lavish ceremony.
"Just a couple of witnesses and a justice of the peace," Dorr said.
When they fell in love, back in 1950, "marriage never crossed our mind," he added. "It was just that we had to be together. We could not stay away."
Copyright © 2011 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
RIGHT ASCENSION COMMENTARY
On 25 June, the New York legislature legalized gay marriage. It won’t be long before California finds a way to legalize in finality the concept. The logic, such as it was, used in both states seems along the lines of what’s sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose, and in the 21st century we cannot go around following the foolish old traditions of our fathers.
Some bigots tried to make an issue of the sexual preferences of California Judge Walker, who made the central ruling. Few associated with the case cared to do so. American culture for years allowed heterosexual married judges make rulings about marriages, and who exactly cried out conflict of interest then
Meanwhile in Salt Lake City, the public communications department of the Church of Jesus Christ has in the past few years issued a number of statements expressing regrets at the legalization of gay marriage. We would hope the brethren of public affairs and public communications departments would find a line more sophisticated than [paraphrase here] God ordained marriage between a man and a woman and that’s the way it has always been and that is the way it just has to be sort of stuff. The P C department always does a fine job making God look like some sort of bigot. They did the same sort of job for God back in the days when it publicly endorsed withholding priesthood from the blacks and decried mixed racial marriage.
For Mormons with parents or children who prefer same gender relationships, this current situation resolves itself by whom do they list best – the Brethren or their gay relatives and their gay friends. If the gay crowd has more charming people, there goes the Church’s influence.
Marriage is not a domestic arrangement between two people. Marriage is a covenant among four entities, not two:
one man
one woman
children of the culture
the culture in which the covenant takes place.
Children have a personal stake in the definitions of marriage. Children’s interest always gets lost in heterosexual – homosexual marriage controversies.
A child has a right to the love, respect, nurturing, and care of both a mother and a father. Fathers are not just a biological act or an afterthought.
Companionship and domestic arrangements are one's own business between Consenting Adults. A child, however, has a right to the loving influence of both a man and a woman.
RIGHT ASCENSION CALL TO ACTION
Politicians in California, Utah, and elsewhere mouth platitudes about protecting the sanctity of marriage, but most of them possess vague notions and definitions of marriage. Congress and the states should spell out the covenant relationship of marriage among the four entities of a man, a woman, American culture and American children in a black-letter law Constitutional amendment. Politicians should not banter marriage about for electioneering points.
And now, yet another article culled from the headlines:
New York becomes largest state to approve gay marriage
Deseret News
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/print/700146923/NY-becomes-largest-state-to-approve-gay-marriage.html
By Michael Gormley Associated Press
Published: Friday, June 24, 2011 11:58 p.m. MDT
ALBANY, New York — New York lawmakers narrowly voted to legalize same-sex marriage Friday, handing activists a breakthrough victory in the state where the American gay rights movement was born.
New York will become the sixth state where gay couples can wed and the biggest by far.
"We are leaders and we join other proud states that recognize our families and the battle will now go on in other states," said Sen. Thomas Duane, a Democrat.
Gay rights advocates are hoping the vote will galvanize the movement around the United States and help it regain momentum after an almost identical bill was defeated here in 2009 and similar measures failed in 2010 in New Jersey and this year in Maryland and Rhode Island.
Though New York is a relative latecomer in allowing gay marriage, it is considered an important prize for advocates, given the state's size and New York City's international stature and its role as the birthplace of the gay rights movement, which is considered to have started with the Stonewall riots in Greenwich Village in 1969.
The New York bill cleared the Republican-controlled state Senate on a 33-29 vote. The Democrat-led Assembly, which passed a different version last week, is expected to pass the new version with stronger religious exemptions and Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who campaigned on the issue last year, has promised to sign it. Same-sex couples can begin marrying begin 30 days after that.
The effects of the law could be felt well beyond New York: Unlike Massachusetts, which pioneered gay marriage in 2004, New York has no residency requirement for obtaining a marriage license, meaning the state could become a magnet for gay couples across the country who want to have a wedding in Central Park, the Hamptons, the romantic Hudson Valley or that honeymoon hot spot of yore, Niagara Falls.
New York, the nation's third most populous state, will join Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and the Washington capital district in allowing same-sex couples to wed.
For five months in 2008, gay marriage was legal in California, the biggest state in population, and 18,000 same-sex couples rushed to tie the knot there before voters overturned the state Supreme Court ruling that allowed the practice. The constitutionality of California's ban is now before a federal appeals court.
The passage of New York's legislation was made possible by two Republican senators who had been undecided.
Sen. Stephen Saland pledged the deciding vote. He voted against a similar bill in 2009, helping kill the measure and dealing a blow to the national gay rights movement.
"While I understand that my vote will disappoint many, I also know my vote is a vote of conscience," Saland said in a statement to The Associated Press before the vote. "I am doing the right thing in voting to support marriage equality."
Gay couples in gallery wept during Saland's speech.
While court challenges in New York are all but certain, the state — unlike California — makes it difficult for the voters to repeal laws at the ballot box. Changing the law would require a constitutional convention, a long, drawn-out process.
The sticking point over the past few days: Republican demands for stronger legal protections for religious groups that fear they will be hit with discrimination lawsuits if they refuse to allow their facilities to be used for gay weddings.
The climactic vote came after more than a week of stop-and-start negotiations, rumors, closed-door meetings and frustration on the part of advocates. Online discussions took on a nasty turn with insults and vulgarities peppering the screens of opponents and supporters alike and security was beefed up in the capitol to give senators easier passage to and from their conference room.
The night before, President Barack Obama encouraged lawmakers to support gay rights during a fundraiser with New York City's gay community. The vote also is sure to charge up annual gay pride events this weekend, culminating with parades Sunday in New York City, San Francisco and other cities.
Despite New York City's liberal Democratic politics and large and vocal gay community, previous efforts to legalize same-sex marriage failed over the past several years, in part because the rest of the state is more conservative than the city.
The bill's success this time reflected the powerful support of Cuomo and perhaps a change in public attitudes. Opinion polls for the first time are showing majority support for same-sex marriage, and Congress recently repealed the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that barred gays from serving openly in the military.
In the week leading up to the vote in New York, some Republicans who opposed the bill in 2009 came forward to say they were supporting it for reasons of conscience and a duty to ensure civil rights.
Pressure to vote for gay marriage also came from celebrities, athletes and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the Republican-turned-independent who has long used his own fortune to help bankroll Republican campaigns and who personally lobbied some undecided lawmakers. Lady Gaga has been urging her 11 million Twitter followers to call New York senators in support of the bill.
While the support of the Assembly was never in doubt, it took days of furious deal-making to secure two Republican votes needed for passage in the closely divided Senate.
Representatives of the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox rabbis and other conservative religious leaders fought the measure, and their Republican allies pressed hard for stronger legal protections for religious organizations.
Each side of the debate was funded by more than $1 million from national and state advocates who waged media blitzes and promised campaign cash for lawmakers who sided with them.
But Republican senators said it was Cuomo's passionate appeals in the governor's mansion on Monday night and in closed-door, individual meetings that were perhaps most persuasive.
The bill makes New York only the third state, after Vermont and New Hampshire, to legalize marriage through a legislative act and without being forced to do so by a court.
Associated Press writer Michael Virtanen contributed to this report.
© 2011 Deseret News Publishing Company | All rights reserved
ANOTHER RIGHT ASCENSION CALL TO ACTION.
I can only imagine the orthodox conservatives in Utah drawing a fake line in the sand to protect the divine institution of marriage. Most of them do not have a very clear concept of the concept of marriage, divine or otherwise. They and their members in the legislature will undoubtedly make life for Utahns rather unpleasant until the day when the rest of the nation views Utah in much the same way the rest of the nation viewed Mississippi, Georgia, and Alabama in the 1960s.
Heterosexuals damaged marriage more than any other group. They, after all, created marriage definitions / traditions / laws to include polygamy, mistresses, doweries, la casa grande and la casa bonita, quick divorces, institutional acceptance of violence against women and children. Their liberalized marriage laws allowing people of different cultures, classes, nations, and races to marry in fact made successful marriages harder to achieve. Men and women of different cultures, classes, nations, and races do have a moral and legal right to marry each other. It does not follow, though, that they have created marriage that will be inherently more successful,
After we accept many of these bogus assumptions, marriage between same-gender couples is just another small leap. Backwards.
We should allow and accept the companionship legalities and domestic arrangements that consenting adults want. Marriage God invented; companionship mankind invented. The law should accept both gay and straight domestic partnerships with unblinking legal equality and objectivity.
A child, however, deserves both a father and a mother in a family. This means that adoption laws need careful attention everywhere.
Gay marriage backers: New York vote has national impact
Yahoo! News
AP
Saturday evening, 25 June 2011, 8:40 p.m. MDT
By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer
NEW YORK – Many obstacles still lie ahead for supporters of same-sex marriage, and eventually they will need Congress or the Supreme Court to embrace their goal. For the moment, though, they are jubilantly channeling the lyrics of "New York, New York."
"Now that we've made it here, we'll make it everywhere," said prominent activist Evan Wolfson, who took up the cause of marriage equality as a law student three decades ago.
With a historic vote by its Legislature late Friday, New York became the sixth — and by far the most populous — state to legalize same-sex marriage since Massachusetts led the way, under court order, in 2004.
With the new law, which takes effect after 30 days, the number of Americans in same-sex marriage states more than doubles. New York's population of 19 million surpasses the combined total of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Iowa, plus the District of Columbia.
The outcome — a product of intensive lobbying by Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo — will have nationwide repercussions. Activists hope the New York vote will help convince judges and politicians across the country, including a hesitant President Barack Obama, that support of same-sex marriage is now a mainstream viewpoint and a winning political stance.
"New York sends the message that marriage equality across the country is a question of `when,' not `if,'" said Fred Sainz, a vice president of the Human Rights Campaign.
Wolfson, president of the advocacy group Freedom to Marry, said the goal is attainable by 2020, or sooner, "if we do the work and keep making the case."
The work — as envisioned by leading activists — is a three-pronged strategy unfolding at the state level, in dealings with Congress and the Obama administration, and in the courts where several challenges to the federal ban on gay marriage are pending.
"This will be a big boost to our efforts nationally," said Richard Socarides, a former Clinton White House adviser on gay rights. "It will help in the pending court cases to show that more states are adopting same-sex marriage, and it will help in the court of public opinion."
The New York bill cleared the Republican-controlled Senate by a 33-29 margin, thanks to crucial support from four GOP senators who joined all but one Democrat in voting yes. The Democratic-led Assembly, which previously approved the bill, passed the Senate's stronger religious exemptions in the measure, and Cuomo swiftly signed it into law.
Gay rights activists have been heaping praise on Cuomo for leading the push for the bill, seizing on an issue that many politicians of both parties have skirted. Yet the Senate vote marked the first time a Republican-controlled legislative chamber in any state has supported same-sex marriage, and several prominent Republican donors contributed to the lobbying campaign on behalf of the bill.
For those engaged in the marriage debate nationally, recent months have been a political rollercoaster.
Bills to legalize same-sex marriage failed in Maryland and Rhode Island despite gay rights activists' high hopes. However, Illinois, Hawaii and Delaware approved civil unions, joining five other states — California, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington — that provide gay couples with extensive marriage-like rights.
Adding those eight states to the six that allow gay marriage, more than 35 percent of Americans now live in states where gay couples can effectively attain the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Just 11 years ago, no states offered such rights.
For now, gay couples cannot get married in 44 states, and 30 of them have taken the extra step of passing constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Minnesota's Republican-controlled Legislature has placed such an amendment on the 2012 ballot.
Brian Brown, president of the conservative National Organization for Marriage, vowed to seek defeat of the New York Republicans who helped the marriage bill pass. He also predicted victory for the amendment to ban gay marriage next year in Minnesota, and said this would belie the claims that the same-sex marriage campaign would inevitably prevail nationwide.
"We've won every free, fair vote of the people," Brown said Saturday. "Backroom deals in Albany are not an indication of what people in this country think about marriage."
Efforts may surface in some states to repeal the existing marriage bans, but the prospect of dismantling all of them on a state-by-state basis is dim. In Mississippi, for example, a ban won support of 86 percent of the voters in 2004.
Thus, looking long term, gay marriage advocates see nationwide victory coming in one of two ways — either congressional legislation or a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that would require all states to recognize same-sex marriages.
"The way you do that is creating a critical mass of states and a critical mass of public opinion — some combination that will encourage Congress and the Supreme Court," Wolfson said. "By winning New York, we add tremendous energy to the national conversation that grows the majority."
Shorter term, gay rights activists and their allies in Congress would like to repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal recognition to same-sex marriages. The act is being challenged in several court cases, and Obama ordered his administration in February to stop defending the law on the grounds it is unconstitutional.
Democrats in Congress have introduced a bill to repeal the law, while the Republican leadership in the House has pledged to defend it.
Obama, when elected, said he supported broadening rights for gay couples but opposed legalizing same-sex marriage. More recently, he has said his position is "evolving," and he asked gay activists at a New York City fundraiser Thursday for patience.
Nonetheless, frustrations are mounting. Freedom to Marry says more than 112,000 people have signed its "Say I Do" appeal to the president, and gay marriage supporters have launched an EvolveAlready campaign on Twitter.
"We hope that, through this public pressure, we'll be able to move the president to understand that he's falling behind the majority of Americans who see marriage equality as a key civil right," said Robin McGehee of the advocacy group GetEqual.
Several recent opinion polls — by Gallup and The Associated Press, among others — have shown that a majority of Americans now approve of same-sex marriage, which a decade ago lagged below 40 percent support. Particularly strong backing for gay marriage among young people, who've grown up watching gay friendly films and TV programs, has prompted many analysts across the political spectrum to suggest the trend is irreversible.
Some conservatives, however, say the opinion polls are belied in the voting booth and point to the steady stream of approvals of state-level bans on same-sex marriage.
"The opposition has created an illusion of momentum but not a real base of support or track record of victory in the courts," said Brian Raum, senior counsel with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund.
Mary Bonauto would disagree.
An attorney with Boston-based Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, she has spent two decades battling for legal recognition of same-sex relationships. She helped win the landmark court rulings that led to civil unions in Vermont in 2000 and same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in 2004.
Even in the 1990s, she recalled thinking the cause eventually would prevail nationwide.
"I could see attitudes change," she said. "Eventually we have to have one standard of justice in this country and establish that sexual orientation is not a basis for discrimination."
She recalled setbacks just a few years ago in New York — a 2006 Court of Appeals ruling that there was no constitutional right to same-sex marriage in the state, and the decisive defeat of a same-sex marriage bill in the state Senate in 2009.
"The switch this time tells us there's a lot of momentum pointing toward marriage equality," Bonauto said.
Vermont lawyer Beth Robinson, now counsel for Gov. Peter Shumlin, worked with Bonauto in the late 1990s on the case that led to the state's pioneering civil union law. She expects the move toward nationwide same-sex marriage will be bumpy but inexorable.
"As people get to know their gay and lesbian neighbors, friends and family, the notion of denying those families equal rights becomes untenable," she said. "For New York to go there, on a vote rather that a court order, is huge ... It's a victory not just for New York, but for the whole country."
Robinson said Vermont, which legalized same-sex marriage in 2009, offered a lesson to wary Americans in other states.
"It isn't that the sky isn't falling — it's more positive than that," she said. "Vermont is a better place for it. Each of us has the opportunity to be our best selves."
Among the New Yorkers who will now get that opportunity are Richard Dorr, 84, and John Mace, 91, who have been partners for 61 years while pursuing successful careers as voice teachers in Manhattan.
"We thought about getting married in Massachusetts, but it just didn't seem to jibe right," said Dorr. "It should be in the state where you live."
They plan to seek a marriage license as swiftly as possible but don't envision a lavish ceremony.
"Just a couple of witnesses and a justice of the peace," Dorr said.
When they fell in love, back in 1950, "marriage never crossed our mind," he added. "It was just that we had to be together. We could not stay away."
Copyright © 2011 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
RIGHT ASCENSION COMMENTARY
On 25 June, the New York legislature legalized gay marriage. It won’t be long before California finds a way to legalize in finality the concept. The logic, such as it was, used in both states seems along the lines of what’s sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose, and in the 21st century we cannot go around following the foolish old traditions of our fathers.
Some bigots tried to make an issue of the sexual preferences of California Judge Walker, who made the central ruling. Few associated with the case cared to do so. American culture for years allowed heterosexual married judges make rulings about marriages, and who exactly cried out conflict of interest then
Meanwhile in Salt Lake City, the public communications department of the Church of Jesus Christ has in the past few years issued a number of statements expressing regrets at the legalization of gay marriage. We would hope the brethren of public affairs and public communications departments would find a line more sophisticated than [paraphrase here] God ordained marriage between a man and a woman and that’s the way it has always been and that is the way it just has to be sort of stuff. The P C department always does a fine job making God look like some sort of bigot. They did the same sort of job for God back in the days when it publicly endorsed withholding priesthood from the blacks and decried mixed racial marriage.
For Mormons with parents or children who prefer same gender relationships, this current situation resolves itself by whom do they list best – the Brethren or their gay relatives and their gay friends. If the gay crowd has more charming people, there goes the Church’s influence.
Marriage is not a domestic arrangement between two people. Marriage is a covenant among four entities, not two:
one man
one woman
children of the culture
the culture in which the covenant takes place.
Children have a personal stake in the definitions of marriage. Children’s interest always gets lost in heterosexual – homosexual marriage controversies.
A child has a right to the love, respect, nurturing, and care of both a mother and a father. Fathers are not just a biological act or an afterthought.
Companionship and domestic arrangements are one's own business between Consenting Adults. A child, however, has a right to the loving influence of both a man and a woman.
RIGHT ASCENSION CALL TO ACTION
Politicians in California, Utah, and elsewhere mouth platitudes about protecting the sanctity of marriage, but most of them possess vague notions and definitions of marriage. Congress and the states should spell out the covenant relationship of marriage among the four entities of a man, a woman, American culture and American children in a black-letter law Constitutional amendment. Politicians should not banter marriage about for electioneering points.
And now, yet another article culled from the headlines:
New York becomes largest state to approve gay marriage
Deseret News
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/print/700146923/NY-becomes-largest-state-to-approve-gay-marriage.html
By Michael Gormley Associated Press
Published: Friday, June 24, 2011 11:58 p.m. MDT
ALBANY, New York — New York lawmakers narrowly voted to legalize same-sex marriage Friday, handing activists a breakthrough victory in the state where the American gay rights movement was born.
New York will become the sixth state where gay couples can wed and the biggest by far.
"We are leaders and we join other proud states that recognize our families and the battle will now go on in other states," said Sen. Thomas Duane, a Democrat.
Gay rights advocates are hoping the vote will galvanize the movement around the United States and help it regain momentum after an almost identical bill was defeated here in 2009 and similar measures failed in 2010 in New Jersey and this year in Maryland and Rhode Island.
Though New York is a relative latecomer in allowing gay marriage, it is considered an important prize for advocates, given the state's size and New York City's international stature and its role as the birthplace of the gay rights movement, which is considered to have started with the Stonewall riots in Greenwich Village in 1969.
The New York bill cleared the Republican-controlled state Senate on a 33-29 vote. The Democrat-led Assembly, which passed a different version last week, is expected to pass the new version with stronger religious exemptions and Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who campaigned on the issue last year, has promised to sign it. Same-sex couples can begin marrying begin 30 days after that.
The effects of the law could be felt well beyond New York: Unlike Massachusetts, which pioneered gay marriage in 2004, New York has no residency requirement for obtaining a marriage license, meaning the state could become a magnet for gay couples across the country who want to have a wedding in Central Park, the Hamptons, the romantic Hudson Valley or that honeymoon hot spot of yore, Niagara Falls.
New York, the nation's third most populous state, will join Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and the Washington capital district in allowing same-sex couples to wed.
For five months in 2008, gay marriage was legal in California, the biggest state in population, and 18,000 same-sex couples rushed to tie the knot there before voters overturned the state Supreme Court ruling that allowed the practice. The constitutionality of California's ban is now before a federal appeals court.
The passage of New York's legislation was made possible by two Republican senators who had been undecided.
Sen. Stephen Saland pledged the deciding vote. He voted against a similar bill in 2009, helping kill the measure and dealing a blow to the national gay rights movement.
"While I understand that my vote will disappoint many, I also know my vote is a vote of conscience," Saland said in a statement to The Associated Press before the vote. "I am doing the right thing in voting to support marriage equality."
Gay couples in gallery wept during Saland's speech.
While court challenges in New York are all but certain, the state — unlike California — makes it difficult for the voters to repeal laws at the ballot box. Changing the law would require a constitutional convention, a long, drawn-out process.
The sticking point over the past few days: Republican demands for stronger legal protections for religious groups that fear they will be hit with discrimination lawsuits if they refuse to allow their facilities to be used for gay weddings.
The climactic vote came after more than a week of stop-and-start negotiations, rumors, closed-door meetings and frustration on the part of advocates. Online discussions took on a nasty turn with insults and vulgarities peppering the screens of opponents and supporters alike and security was beefed up in the capitol to give senators easier passage to and from their conference room.
The night before, President Barack Obama encouraged lawmakers to support gay rights during a fundraiser with New York City's gay community. The vote also is sure to charge up annual gay pride events this weekend, culminating with parades Sunday in New York City, San Francisco and other cities.
Despite New York City's liberal Democratic politics and large and vocal gay community, previous efforts to legalize same-sex marriage failed over the past several years, in part because the rest of the state is more conservative than the city.
The bill's success this time reflected the powerful support of Cuomo and perhaps a change in public attitudes. Opinion polls for the first time are showing majority support for same-sex marriage, and Congress recently repealed the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that barred gays from serving openly in the military.
In the week leading up to the vote in New York, some Republicans who opposed the bill in 2009 came forward to say they were supporting it for reasons of conscience and a duty to ensure civil rights.
Pressure to vote for gay marriage also came from celebrities, athletes and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the Republican-turned-independent who has long used his own fortune to help bankroll Republican campaigns and who personally lobbied some undecided lawmakers. Lady Gaga has been urging her 11 million Twitter followers to call New York senators in support of the bill.
While the support of the Assembly was never in doubt, it took days of furious deal-making to secure two Republican votes needed for passage in the closely divided Senate.
Representatives of the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox rabbis and other conservative religious leaders fought the measure, and their Republican allies pressed hard for stronger legal protections for religious organizations.
Each side of the debate was funded by more than $1 million from national and state advocates who waged media blitzes and promised campaign cash for lawmakers who sided with them.
But Republican senators said it was Cuomo's passionate appeals in the governor's mansion on Monday night and in closed-door, individual meetings that were perhaps most persuasive.
The bill makes New York only the third state, after Vermont and New Hampshire, to legalize marriage through a legislative act and without being forced to do so by a court.
Associated Press writer Michael Virtanen contributed to this report.
© 2011 Deseret News Publishing Company | All rights reserved
ANOTHER RIGHT ASCENSION CALL TO ACTION.
I can only imagine the orthodox conservatives in Utah drawing a fake line in the sand to protect the divine institution of marriage. Most of them do not have a very clear concept of the concept of marriage, divine or otherwise. They and their members in the legislature will undoubtedly make life for Utahns rather unpleasant until the day when the rest of the nation views Utah in much the same way the rest of the nation viewed Mississippi, Georgia, and Alabama in the 1960s.
Heterosexuals damaged marriage more than any other group. They, after all, created marriage definitions / traditions / laws to include polygamy, mistresses, doweries, la casa grande and la casa bonita, quick divorces, institutional acceptance of violence against women and children. Their liberalized marriage laws allowing people of different cultures, classes, nations, and races to marry in fact made successful marriages harder to achieve. Men and women of different cultures, classes, nations, and races do have a moral and legal right to marry each other. It does not follow, though, that they have created marriage that will be inherently more successful,
After we accept many of these bogus assumptions, marriage between same-gender couples is just another small leap. Backwards.
We should allow and accept the companionship legalities and domestic arrangements that consenting adults want. Marriage God invented; companionship mankind invented. The law should accept both gay and straight domestic partnerships with unblinking legal equality and objectivity.
A child, however, deserves both a father and a mother in a family. This means that adoption laws need careful attention everywhere.
CONTEMPLATIONS ON "GOSPEL PRINCIPLES" LESSON 35
On Sunday 19 June, my high priests’ priesthood group discussed lesson 35 of Gospel Principles: obedience.
The instructor did bring up the question of blind obedience; the high priests dutifully danced around the positive aspects of doing what they are told to do. There is a big irony in The Worldly Mocking the Saints of God for blind obedience. Everyone will at one time or another believe something or do something with no factual evidence at all to back up the belief or action. The big question in our lives is What WILL we do without factual evidence?
The same Worldly types who mock the Saints of God for obedience will gladly and blindly do whatever their bosses tell them to do if the bosses promise big cash payments. Wall Street in the last decade was this particular scenario in action. Who exactly among the Moneyed Classes really understood negative derivatives speculation? However, the Wall Street geniuses told their minions there was money to be made, and off we went to the poor house.
One of the more interesting lines in the obedience lesson was this observation from the text.
“It is better to obey the commandments because we fear punishment than not to obey them at all. But we will be much happier if we obey God because we love Him and want to obey Him.”
This thought runs completely counter to the way much if not most of politics on this planet works. A population self-motivated by inner strength of purpose, high ideals, and emotions greater and purer than hate and fear would constitute the last thing despots the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot -- to say nothing of all the little tin Gods we see and hear so much of these days on cable news – really and truly want. If people become self-motivated, they could start taking independent actions independent of The Beloved Leader, and no despot wants that possibility. Therefore, today as always most governments revolve around One Great Ego and Fearing One Great Ego.
I find it interesting that the lesson writes the thought
“It is better to obey the commandments because we fear punishment than not to obey them at all. But we will be much happier if we obey God because we love Him and want to obey Him.”
Instead of
We would be better off if we obey commandments not because we fear punishment but because we see and understand the good and safety in obeying commandments.
Apparently even God prefers people who will worship him and ask his advise on everything instead of people who are self motivated by higher ideals.
The entire lesson 35 did revolve around personal revelation and doing what God wants us to do. In reality, the typical LDS priesthood holder has to deal most often with obedience in terms of what his priesthood leader wants him to do. If God through the spirit tells a priesthood holder to do this, and his human priesthood leader says do that, obviously God holds seniority in the issue. We will see how often this did happen in day to day life.
The instructor did bring up the question of blind obedience; the high priests dutifully danced around the positive aspects of doing what they are told to do. There is a big irony in The Worldly Mocking the Saints of God for blind obedience. Everyone will at one time or another believe something or do something with no factual evidence at all to back up the belief or action. The big question in our lives is What WILL we do without factual evidence?
The same Worldly types who mock the Saints of God for obedience will gladly and blindly do whatever their bosses tell them to do if the bosses promise big cash payments. Wall Street in the last decade was this particular scenario in action. Who exactly among the Moneyed Classes really understood negative derivatives speculation? However, the Wall Street geniuses told their minions there was money to be made, and off we went to the poor house.
One of the more interesting lines in the obedience lesson was this observation from the text.
“It is better to obey the commandments because we fear punishment than not to obey them at all. But we will be much happier if we obey God because we love Him and want to obey Him.”
This thought runs completely counter to the way much if not most of politics on this planet works. A population self-motivated by inner strength of purpose, high ideals, and emotions greater and purer than hate and fear would constitute the last thing despots the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot -- to say nothing of all the little tin Gods we see and hear so much of these days on cable news – really and truly want. If people become self-motivated, they could start taking independent actions independent of The Beloved Leader, and no despot wants that possibility. Therefore, today as always most governments revolve around One Great Ego and Fearing One Great Ego.
I find it interesting that the lesson writes the thought
“It is better to obey the commandments because we fear punishment than not to obey them at all. But we will be much happier if we obey God because we love Him and want to obey Him.”
Instead of
We would be better off if we obey commandments not because we fear punishment but because we see and understand the good and safety in obeying commandments.
Apparently even God prefers people who will worship him and ask his advise on everything instead of people who are self motivated by higher ideals.
The entire lesson 35 did revolve around personal revelation and doing what God wants us to do. In reality, the typical LDS priesthood holder has to deal most often with obedience in terms of what his priesthood leader wants him to do. If God through the spirit tells a priesthood holder to do this, and his human priesthood leader says do that, obviously God holds seniority in the issue. We will see how often this did happen in day to day life.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
JUSTICE OR REVENGE ON BIN LADEN: A MODERN NOTE OF TRIUMPH
Federal authorities and the U S Military found that seeking justice or taking revenge for the 11 September 2001 atrocities posed something of a major problem. To start, all the terrorists responsible for crashing the planes died in the disasters. Taking revenge on corpses is hard, but possible as witnessed by Oliver Cromwell’s remain after the restoration of the English monarchy. The bodies of the terrorist pilots got burned and blasted; therefore, the Bush administration focused on plans to get the planners of 9-11, particularly the head of Al-Quada Osama bin Laden.
Bin Laden proves yet again that in societies which emphasize the role of collective teamwork, one person can indeed change a big chunk of the world. In his case, bin Laden left his chunk a worse place than he found it. His death last Sunday constituted something of an anticlimax in the War on Terror, so-called, even though he still had a major leadership role.
Even in death, Osama bin Laden manages to create problems both in Washington and in the various international capitols.
It has always been a problem that the Bush / Cheney Administration and the Pentagon military complex in the Rumsfeld / Cheney era did not capture bin Laden alive back in 2003. Ideally, our troops should have captured him early on and sent him to trial at a willing international court for crimes against humanity. Instead the whole administration got bogged down in fighting an Iraq war where none of the locals were involved in planning, executive or financing the 9-11 atrocity.
It would have also been ideal if the Seal Six had taken bin Laden alive for the same scenario in an international court. Better late than never, they say. It would also been better if bin Laden had been armed with some sort of standard military weapon when shot dead.
A few days after the bin Laden dispatch, I thought about a radio broadcast I have heard on Old Time Radio called “On a Note of Triumph.” Written, produced and directed by Norman Corwin with music by Bernard Herrmann, CBS Radio broadcast it live the evening of Victory in Europe, 8 May 1945. I listened to the recording again a few days ago. Several sections of it relevant even today. Corwin’s everyman character in this broadcast asks four questions, one of which is “What have we learned from our fighting World War II?” Corwin’s answers to that question still seem remarkably modern, even if they require a little updating. I have placed Corwin’s script is in courier type. My update is in arial italics.
The lessons out of World War II is that – We learned nothing out of World War I.
The lesson of the Second Iraq War is that we did not learn anything from the First Iraq War.
Nations that do not know what they want will soon get what they do not want.
The east coast of the United States is the west bank of the Rhine.
The east coast of the United States is the west bank of the Jordan, Euphrates. Tigris, Kabul and/or Indus.
The defense of Seattle starts in Shanghai.
The Defense of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle and Vancouver
starts in Beijing.
A soft answer does not turn away wrath. If you offer your other cheek to a Nazi, he will blow your head off.
If we offer the other cheek to a terrorist, he will blow your head off.
Local newspapers with big circulations right at home can lie with a straight face seven days a week and be as filthy and fascist as pamphlets on the streets of Berlin.
Local cable news networks with big ratings can lie with a straight face seven days a week and be as filthy, corrupt and reactionary as pamphlets on the streets of Tehran, Islamabad, and Kabul.
Those who say they wanted to make the world safe from communism really made the world safe for fascism.
Those who say they want to make the world safe from terrorism somehow will wind up making the world safe for Authoritarian totalitarianism, whether of American or International varieties.
We learned that women can fight and work not just look pretty and cook
We learned the value of allies where any local conflict sooner or later escalates into a world war.
We learned the problems of having allies who harbored Osama bin Laden right under their noses and probably with at least their knowledge if not their indulgence.
Some men fight for power. Most will fight to be free.
Freedom is not something to be won. It is to be renewed, like soil after a good crop. Freedom must be wound like a faithful clock. It must be exercised like muscles after a marathon.
Today, we find that American security, Local Security constitues more than just the question of Mexican immigration: it concerns international collectivist morality and whether nations have the will, stamina, and rectitude to stand up for it.
Bin Laden proves yet again that in societies which emphasize the role of collective teamwork, one person can indeed change a big chunk of the world. In his case, bin Laden left his chunk a worse place than he found it. His death last Sunday constituted something of an anticlimax in the War on Terror, so-called, even though he still had a major leadership role.
Even in death, Osama bin Laden manages to create problems both in Washington and in the various international capitols.
It has always been a problem that the Bush / Cheney Administration and the Pentagon military complex in the Rumsfeld / Cheney era did not capture bin Laden alive back in 2003. Ideally, our troops should have captured him early on and sent him to trial at a willing international court for crimes against humanity. Instead the whole administration got bogged down in fighting an Iraq war where none of the locals were involved in planning, executive or financing the 9-11 atrocity.
It would have also been ideal if the Seal Six had taken bin Laden alive for the same scenario in an international court. Better late than never, they say. It would also been better if bin Laden had been armed with some sort of standard military weapon when shot dead.
A few days after the bin Laden dispatch, I thought about a radio broadcast I have heard on Old Time Radio called “On a Note of Triumph.” Written, produced and directed by Norman Corwin with music by Bernard Herrmann, CBS Radio broadcast it live the evening of Victory in Europe, 8 May 1945. I listened to the recording again a few days ago. Several sections of it relevant even today. Corwin’s everyman character in this broadcast asks four questions, one of which is “What have we learned from our fighting World War II?” Corwin’s answers to that question still seem remarkably modern, even if they require a little updating. I have placed Corwin’s script is in courier type. My update is in arial italics.
The lessons out of World War II is that – We learned nothing out of World War I.
The lesson of the Second Iraq War is that we did not learn anything from the First Iraq War.
Nations that do not know what they want will soon get what they do not want.
The east coast of the United States is the west bank of the Rhine.
The east coast of the United States is the west bank of the Jordan, Euphrates. Tigris, Kabul and/or Indus.
The defense of Seattle starts in Shanghai.
The Defense of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle and Vancouver
starts in Beijing.
A soft answer does not turn away wrath. If you offer your other cheek to a Nazi, he will blow your head off.
If we offer the other cheek to a terrorist, he will blow your head off.
Local newspapers with big circulations right at home can lie with a straight face seven days a week and be as filthy and fascist as pamphlets on the streets of Berlin.
Local cable news networks with big ratings can lie with a straight face seven days a week and be as filthy, corrupt and reactionary as pamphlets on the streets of Tehran, Islamabad, and Kabul.
Those who say they wanted to make the world safe from communism really made the world safe for fascism.
Those who say they want to make the world safe from terrorism somehow will wind up making the world safe for Authoritarian totalitarianism, whether of American or International varieties.
We learned that women can fight and work not just look pretty and cook
We learned the value of allies where any local conflict sooner or later escalates into a world war.
We learned the problems of having allies who harbored Osama bin Laden right under their noses and probably with at least their knowledge if not their indulgence.
Some men fight for power. Most will fight to be free.
Freedom is not something to be won. It is to be renewed, like soil after a good crop. Freedom must be wound like a faithful clock. It must be exercised like muscles after a marathon.
Today, we find that American security, Local Security constitues more than just the question of Mexican immigration: it concerns international collectivist morality and whether nations have the will, stamina, and rectitude to stand up for it.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
IN MEMORY OF GERALDINE FERRARO: AN EDITORIAL ABOUT WOMEN ELECTED TO FEDERAL OFFICE
Utah Women received the vote in 1870. Utah’s Constitution gave women the vote in 1896. The USA finally gave women the vote nation wide through a Constitutional amendment at the late date of 1920.
The voters of the USA have been notoriously slow in electing women to government. Montana elected the first female rep in 1916.
Georgia appointed a woman senator for a full day in 1922.
Arkansas appointed a woman senator in 1931, then elected that woman the first female elected senator in 1932. Senator Hattie Caraway served in that seat from 1931 to 1944.
President Franklin Roosevelt appointed Frances Perkins as the first female cabinet secretary in 1933. In 1940, Wendell Willkie was the Republican sacrificial lamb against Roosevelt’s third term. Roosevelt was so popular that he could have and should have nominated Perkins for vice president in 1940. She would have, in the long view, probably proved less problematical politically to Roosevelt than his almost socialist Vice President Henry Wallace.
In 1944, the Democratic convention might have replaced her with Harry Truman anyway. The delegates that year assumed that the vice president nominee would soon become president either through the death of or resignation of Roosevelt: the typical political men of that era might have balked at a women vice president when she had an even chance of becoming president. Still Roosevelt could have made the historic selection in 1940.
Ike appointed the next female cabinet secretary in 1953.
In 1960 or in 1968, Nixon could have selected Senator Margaret Smith as his VP running mate. Johnson could have selected Senator Neuberger in 1964. But no. We got Humphrey and we got Agnew, and we find it hard to fathom how Smith or Neuberger could have been worse.
Gerald Ford appointed the third female cabinet secretary in 1975.
Walter Mondale became the Democratic sacrificial lamb candidate against Ronald Reagan’s reelection in 1984. He selected Geraldine Ferraro Zaccaro as his vice president running mate in 1984, despite her minimal experience as a representative from Queens, New York. He had few options for this gimmick. At that time, both women senators were Republican, and the one Democrat woman governor of Kentucky had less experience that Mrs. Zaccaro.
It took 24 full years for a presidential candidate to choose another female vice president candidate. This time, a Republican candidate selected a female vice presidential candidate. Heaven only knows if a female veep candidate would have really improved John McCain’s chances as a presidential candidate, especially if he had selected a female veep of substance, someone like Senators Kay Bailey-Hutchinson or Olympia Snowe or a Republican female governor with more than a year and a half of experience. Instead he decided to select a gimmick: she can be best described as a inexperienced loose canon from Alaska by the named Sarah Palin.
In 220 years, major parties selected only 2 women VP nominees. It’s a pathetic historical record.
Utah may have given the vote to women in 1870, and elected its first woman state senator in 1896, but its record of female office holders remains substandard in other ways.
A woman lieutenant governor assumed the governorship in November 2003, and the Republican old boys network went to some length to get rid of her. Years later when a male lieutenant governor named Gary Herbert assumed the governorship from retiring Jon Huntsman, he got renominated and reelected. Not Olene Walker. Wrong gender apparently for the Republican convention.
Utah elected a woman to the U S House of Representatives as early as 1948, but has in total elected only 3 women to the House since 1896. It has elected no female U S senator.
THE CALL TO ACTION
Utah should amend its state Constitution requiring one male U S senator and one female U S senator.
The voters of the USA have been notoriously slow in electing women to government. Montana elected the first female rep in 1916.
Georgia appointed a woman senator for a full day in 1922.
Arkansas appointed a woman senator in 1931, then elected that woman the first female elected senator in 1932. Senator Hattie Caraway served in that seat from 1931 to 1944.
President Franklin Roosevelt appointed Frances Perkins as the first female cabinet secretary in 1933. In 1940, Wendell Willkie was the Republican sacrificial lamb against Roosevelt’s third term. Roosevelt was so popular that he could have and should have nominated Perkins for vice president in 1940. She would have, in the long view, probably proved less problematical politically to Roosevelt than his almost socialist Vice President Henry Wallace.
In 1944, the Democratic convention might have replaced her with Harry Truman anyway. The delegates that year assumed that the vice president nominee would soon become president either through the death of or resignation of Roosevelt: the typical political men of that era might have balked at a women vice president when she had an even chance of becoming president. Still Roosevelt could have made the historic selection in 1940.
Ike appointed the next female cabinet secretary in 1953.
In 1960 or in 1968, Nixon could have selected Senator Margaret Smith as his VP running mate. Johnson could have selected Senator Neuberger in 1964. But no. We got Humphrey and we got Agnew, and we find it hard to fathom how Smith or Neuberger could have been worse.
Gerald Ford appointed the third female cabinet secretary in 1975.
Walter Mondale became the Democratic sacrificial lamb candidate against Ronald Reagan’s reelection in 1984. He selected Geraldine Ferraro Zaccaro as his vice president running mate in 1984, despite her minimal experience as a representative from Queens, New York. He had few options for this gimmick. At that time, both women senators were Republican, and the one Democrat woman governor of Kentucky had less experience that Mrs. Zaccaro.
It took 24 full years for a presidential candidate to choose another female vice president candidate. This time, a Republican candidate selected a female vice presidential candidate. Heaven only knows if a female veep candidate would have really improved John McCain’s chances as a presidential candidate, especially if he had selected a female veep of substance, someone like Senators Kay Bailey-Hutchinson or Olympia Snowe or a Republican female governor with more than a year and a half of experience. Instead he decided to select a gimmick: she can be best described as a inexperienced loose canon from Alaska by the named Sarah Palin.
In 220 years, major parties selected only 2 women VP nominees. It’s a pathetic historical record.
Utah may have given the vote to women in 1870, and elected its first woman state senator in 1896, but its record of female office holders remains substandard in other ways.
A woman lieutenant governor assumed the governorship in November 2003, and the Republican old boys network went to some length to get rid of her. Years later when a male lieutenant governor named Gary Herbert assumed the governorship from retiring Jon Huntsman, he got renominated and reelected. Not Olene Walker. Wrong gender apparently for the Republican convention.
Utah elected a woman to the U S House of Representatives as early as 1948, but has in total elected only 3 women to the House since 1896. It has elected no female U S senator.
THE CALL TO ACTION
Utah should amend its state Constitution requiring one male U S senator and one female U S senator.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
BYU BASKETBALL: FEET OF CLAY
The history of BYU Sports pain is a very special type of pain: the splendid agony of blowing it big time just when it looks like the team is finally bound for nationally recognized greatness.
Brandon Davies came as a bolt out of the blue, but the timing of his dereliction hardly comes as a real surprise.
Dick Harmon tried to justify BYU's official reaction to the Davies situation, but wound up making it sound as if Brandon had been caught wearing explosive underwear at an airport:
News of Brandon Davies' dismissal comes at dramatic time for Cougars
Deseret News
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700114716/News-of-Brandon-Davies-dismissal-comes-at-dramatic-time-for-Cougars.html
Published: Wednesday, March 2, 2011 12:41 a.m. MST
Dick Harmon, Deseret News
PROVO — Brandon Davies and BYU basketball separated for the season Tuesday.
And it has been a dandy of a season.
The shocking news couldn't have come at a more dramatic time for Dave Rose and his basketball program. It came one day after the Cougars attained a lofty No. 3 national ranking and the week BYU could win the Mountain West Conference title outright. It comes just when the national media declared the Cougars are in the hunt for a No. 1 seed in the NCAA tournament — the Davies news landed like a bomb.
Tonight, when the Cougars host the only league team that has defeated them, New Mexico, we will see how Rose, his staff and the team respond, both emotionally and strategically.
Make no mistake about it; the loss of Davies is a huge blow. His skill set, the tremendous impact he's had this late in the season in rebounding, blocks and scoring points will be missed.
The quickness to which BYU officials reacted to its investigation of Davies and his issue with the school's honor code means this wasn't a trivial issue. It wasn't probation; it was not an item that could be put off for a few weeks; it was a violation that required decisive and immediate action.
Yet again, the Honor Code Office has taken a major public stand against sloppy morals at BYU at the worst possible moment for all concerned.
The Cougar boys found themselves playing a major game on the very day the bombshell dropped. They rose to the occasion by falling apart. Completely. Even the Deseret News had trouble gilding the fast fading lily:
BYU basketball:
Lobos thrash Cougars, 82-64
Deseret News
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700115004/BYU-basketball-Lobos-thrash-Cougars-82-64.html
Jeff Call Deseret News
Published: Wednesday, March 2, 2011 10:05 p.m. MST
BYU-UNM boxscore
PROVO — This wasn't the way BYU wanted to show the NCAA Selection Committee how it plays without Brandon Davies.
In the No. 3 Cougars' first game without their sophomore forward, who was suspended for the remainder of the season on Tuesday, they were trounced by New Mexico, 82-64, Wednesday night at the Marriott Center.
PROVO — This wasn't the way BYU wanted to show the NCAA Selection Committee how it could play without Brandon Davies.
In the No. 3 Cougars' first game without their sophomore forward, who was suspended for the remainder of the season on Tuesday for violating the University's Honor Code, they were trounced by New Mexico, 82-64, Wednesday night at the Marriott Center.
BYU (27-3, 13-2) opened the week as a strong contender to receive a No. 1 seed in the NCAA Tournament while earning its highest ranking in 23 years.
Since losing Davies for the season, BYU is 0-1. Against the hot-shooting Lobos, the Cougars looked nothing like a third-ranked team in the nation and nothing like a No. 1 seed.
The Cougars, who have lost for straight to the Lobos, also squandered an opportunity to clinch a share of the Mountain West Conference championship.
BYU and San Diego State, which defeated Wyoming Tuesday, are tied for first-place once again in the league standings, just days after the Cougars knocked off the Aztecs in San Diego.
BYU was never really in the game Wednesday, shooting a miserable 26 percent in the first half. The Lobos came out on fire, grabbing an early 15-4 advantage. They led by as many as 19 in the first half and took a 42-26 lead at the half.
In the second half, UNM didn't let up and built a 24-point lead.
Jimmer Fredette scored a game-high 33 points for BYU, while UNM's Phillip McDonald poured in a team-high 26 points.
© 2011 Deseret News Publishing Company | All rights reserved
As a result of the 2 March developments, the coaches, the boosters, the dyed-in-the-wool Cougars will now heap up more pressure on The Jimmer's broad shoulders. He must uphold the image of clean-cut, virtuous Mormon youth and to restore the Cougar-brand winning streak. Now. It will be fascinating to see what will happen first.
Will the Cougar season end first?
Or will The Jimmer snap emotionally and start ranting -- Charlie-Sheen-like -- on radio talk shows that he is a an F-15E?
The BYU Honor Code claims another victim. The Cougar Basketball Community -- not so much Brandon -- will suffer the most in the final analysis.
I suspect BYU authorities and administration believe it is in the best interest of their power for the BYU teams to have losing seasons. After all, BYU administrators, coaches, bishops, and stake presidents cannot exhort us that sterling character comes from enduring tribulation and losing gracefully like gentlemen --- if we win consistently and to the triumphant end.
Speculation for a stormy night: if Jimmer had warned his coaches and his team that he would resign from the team if the Honor bureaucracy removed any of his basketball star teammates -- Brandon's troubles would have been miraculously discovered after the season. If at all. However, that sort of determination and honor hardly gets a mention in the BYU Honor Code.
Brandon Davies came as a bolt out of the blue, but the timing of his dereliction hardly comes as a real surprise.
Dick Harmon tried to justify BYU's official reaction to the Davies situation, but wound up making it sound as if Brandon had been caught wearing explosive underwear at an airport:
News of Brandon Davies' dismissal comes at dramatic time for Cougars
Deseret News
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700114716/News-of-Brandon-Davies-dismissal-comes-at-dramatic-time-for-Cougars.html
Published: Wednesday, March 2, 2011 12:41 a.m. MST
Dick Harmon, Deseret News
PROVO — Brandon Davies and BYU basketball separated for the season Tuesday.
And it has been a dandy of a season.
The shocking news couldn't have come at a more dramatic time for Dave Rose and his basketball program. It came one day after the Cougars attained a lofty No. 3 national ranking and the week BYU could win the Mountain West Conference title outright. It comes just when the national media declared the Cougars are in the hunt for a No. 1 seed in the NCAA tournament — the Davies news landed like a bomb.
Tonight, when the Cougars host the only league team that has defeated them, New Mexico, we will see how Rose, his staff and the team respond, both emotionally and strategically.
Make no mistake about it; the loss of Davies is a huge blow. His skill set, the tremendous impact he's had this late in the season in rebounding, blocks and scoring points will be missed.
The quickness to which BYU officials reacted to its investigation of Davies and his issue with the school's honor code means this wasn't a trivial issue. It wasn't probation; it was not an item that could be put off for a few weeks; it was a violation that required decisive and immediate action.
Yet again, the Honor Code Office has taken a major public stand against sloppy morals at BYU at the worst possible moment for all concerned.
The Cougar boys found themselves playing a major game on the very day the bombshell dropped. They rose to the occasion by falling apart. Completely. Even the Deseret News had trouble gilding the fast fading lily:
BYU basketball:
Lobos thrash Cougars, 82-64
Deseret News
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700115004/BYU-basketball-Lobos-thrash-Cougars-82-64.html
Jeff Call Deseret News
Published: Wednesday, March 2, 2011 10:05 p.m. MST
BYU-UNM boxscore
PROVO — This wasn't the way BYU wanted to show the NCAA Selection Committee how it plays without Brandon Davies.
In the No. 3 Cougars' first game without their sophomore forward, who was suspended for the remainder of the season on Tuesday, they were trounced by New Mexico, 82-64, Wednesday night at the Marriott Center.
PROVO — This wasn't the way BYU wanted to show the NCAA Selection Committee how it could play without Brandon Davies.
In the No. 3 Cougars' first game without their sophomore forward, who was suspended for the remainder of the season on Tuesday for violating the University's Honor Code, they were trounced by New Mexico, 82-64, Wednesday night at the Marriott Center.
BYU (27-3, 13-2) opened the week as a strong contender to receive a No. 1 seed in the NCAA Tournament while earning its highest ranking in 23 years.
Since losing Davies for the season, BYU is 0-1. Against the hot-shooting Lobos, the Cougars looked nothing like a third-ranked team in the nation and nothing like a No. 1 seed.
The Cougars, who have lost for straight to the Lobos, also squandered an opportunity to clinch a share of the Mountain West Conference championship.
BYU and San Diego State, which defeated Wyoming Tuesday, are tied for first-place once again in the league standings, just days after the Cougars knocked off the Aztecs in San Diego.
BYU was never really in the game Wednesday, shooting a miserable 26 percent in the first half. The Lobos came out on fire, grabbing an early 15-4 advantage. They led by as many as 19 in the first half and took a 42-26 lead at the half.
In the second half, UNM didn't let up and built a 24-point lead.
Jimmer Fredette scored a game-high 33 points for BYU, while UNM's Phillip McDonald poured in a team-high 26 points.
© 2011 Deseret News Publishing Company | All rights reserved
As a result of the 2 March developments, the coaches, the boosters, the dyed-in-the-wool Cougars will now heap up more pressure on The Jimmer's broad shoulders. He must uphold the image of clean-cut, virtuous Mormon youth and to restore the Cougar-brand winning streak. Now. It will be fascinating to see what will happen first.
Will the Cougar season end first?
Or will The Jimmer snap emotionally and start ranting -- Charlie-Sheen-like -- on radio talk shows that he is a an F-15E?
The BYU Honor Code claims another victim. The Cougar Basketball Community -- not so much Brandon -- will suffer the most in the final analysis.
I suspect BYU authorities and administration believe it is in the best interest of their power for the BYU teams to have losing seasons. After all, BYU administrators, coaches, bishops, and stake presidents cannot exhort us that sterling character comes from enduring tribulation and losing gracefully like gentlemen --- if we win consistently and to the triumphant end.
Speculation for a stormy night: if Jimmer had warned his coaches and his team that he would resign from the team if the Honor bureaucracy removed any of his basketball star teammates -- Brandon's troubles would have been miraculously discovered after the season. If at all. However, that sort of determination and honor hardly gets a mention in the BYU Honor Code.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
AN EDITORIAL ABOUT WHAT CENSUS POPULATION FIGURES SUGGEST ABOUT "STATE'S RIGHTS" AND INTERNAL BOUNDARIES
INTRODUCTION
I worked for the 2010 Census Local Census Office 3147 Provo last year. I have studied with interest the latest census information released on 24 February. I am writing this editorial to report some of the facts and make some recommendations based on them.
NATIONALITY
13 percent of Utah is Hispanic. KUER News reported on 25 February that when we add those Hispanics who describe themselves as white, the percentage is 20. That does not surprise me. At LCO 3147, I did a lot of double checking of documents, and the south of the border names lay pretty thick on the tables no matter what people listed as nationalistic or racial distinctions. This should give the Republicans pause in enacting any heavy handed immigration legislation. The US - Mexico boundary was drawn back in 1853 and hardly reflects current demographic reality any more. But that's another editorial.
THE CALL TO ACTION
The only difference between you and me and an “illegal alien” happens to be bureaucratic paper work. the federal government make acquiring that paperwork too complicated and too expensive. Congress should reform that particular process and quickly.
2010 POPULATION NUMBERS
Utah has 2,764,000 residents.
1,030,000 people reside in Salt Lake County.
516,564 reside in Utah County.
306,500 reside in Davis County, that narrow strip of land between the Wasatch, the Great Salt Lake, Salt Lake City, and Ogden.
232,000 reside in Weber County.
138,000 residents call Washington County their first home, not including the people who have second homes in the county. The Census did not count second-home owners in Washington County. Nearly 185,000 reside in Washington-Iron Counties.
Barely a 1000 people live in Daggett County. 1500 residents live in Piute County. Not quite 2800 people reside in Wayne County.
ANOTHER CALL TO ACTION
These numbers suggest to me the Utah legislature should address these items next year -- if not this year.
1) Utah now has 4 representatives to the United State House of Representatives. One district should be a completely rural district centering on Logan and Saint George. One district should center on Utah County. One district should center on an undivided Salt Lake City. The legislature should not divide West Jordan and West Valley City into multiple districts.
The legislature will have to divide Salt Lake County between 2 house districts – but it should not divide it between more than 2 districts. All of Salt Lake City should be in one house district. All of West Valley City should be in one house district. All of West Jordan should be in one house district.
Dividing Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County into three or four districts - - again - - will not do. If Republicans cannot defeat Jim Matheson on the issues, they should not try to defeat him by drawing Gerrymandering lines on the Utah map.
2) The population of Utah’s counties suggest to me that Utah’s internal boundaries have become completely outdated. Utah subdivides 2,764,000 Utahns among 29 counties. Not 25. Not 30. 29. The population is not srpread out evenly among the counties. The legislature should modernize the county structure by creating 10 to 15 counties with populations of 150,000 to 300,000. 10 - 15 counties of roughly comparable population would have larger tax bases to fund and do more services currently done federally or by Utah state.
THE PROBLEM OF OUTDATED INTERNAL BOUNDARIES IS NOT EXCLUSIVE TO UTAH
Utah is not alone in having internal boundaries that are now completely out of date with modern demographics.
Nevada
The Census website illustrates with population facts that Nevada’s counties lines hardly reflect current reality. Nevada has over 2,700,000 residents, which means Nevada and Utah now have roughly the same population. However, almost 2,000,000 of Nevada’s residents live in one county – Clark County – at the very southern tip of Nevada. Over 400,000 people live at the very western end of Nevada. And that leaves the remaining 300,000 citizens plus or minus spread out through the middle of rural Nevada. Clark County has nearly 2,000,000 residents and nearly Esmeralda County has just under 800 residents. Esmeralda County is somewhat smaller than Clark County, but it is not a small county.
Colorado
Colorado also has an internal structure that does not reflect current reality. Metropolitan Denver is divided up among 5 counties, ranging in populations from 400,000 to 600,000. Colorado also has two adjoining counties in San Juan mountain country that both have under 900 residents each.
Texas
Texas illustrates better than most states how Americans have let most of our internal boundaries become obsolete. For starters, Texas is the second largest state both in terms of population and in size. It also has the most counties of any state in the union as well – 254. 4,000,000 people live in Harris County. And no fewer than 5 counties have less than a thousand residents: A little more than 900 people live in Roberts County. 700 residents live in McMullen County, 416 people live in Kennedy County, whopping 286 people live in King County. A whopping 82 people live in Loving County, Texas – the least populated county anywhere in the USA.
Texas has 25,000,000 million residents – represented in Washington by just two senators. What we now call "Texas" would have better representation and would be more efficiently managed if it were multiple states of say 5,000,000 to 7,000,000 residents.
Houston-Harris County and a few counties around it should be a city-state.
Dallas - Fort Worth - Arlington - and some of the counties surrounding that metroplex should be another city state.
San Antonio and surrounding counties should be a state of 7,000,000 population.
El Paso-Cuidad Juarez, the biggest double city along the Mexican-Texas boundary, should be some sort of consolidated city state, affiliated either with Mexico or the USA. The boundary running through the two lobes of the city only encourages crime to festering and flourish.
As to what the 2010 Census reveals about Texas counties: 4,000,000 plus in a county on the high end. 82 on the other. If Texans are serious about “states rights,” Texas for a start should consolidate the remaining counties into roughly equal units of 200,000 to 300,000, so they all have a solid tax base to fund county services.
THE CALL TO ACTION
I discussed in this editorial the outdated boundaries of Utah because I live in Utah. I discussed the outdated boundaries of Nevada, Colorado, and Texas because the Census 2010 released demographic and population facts about those states.
These days, many politicians who resent federal “intrusion” and federal taxation tout respecting the states rights of the 50 internal divisions of the USA. However, leadership both state and federal have not updated the internal boundaries to reflect current reality, and thus many of the counties are either too big or too small to provide services efficiently. The legislatures should act to divide up their citizens into better counties of about 150,000, 200,000 or 300,000 populations.
I worked for the 2010 Census Local Census Office 3147 Provo last year. I have studied with interest the latest census information released on 24 February. I am writing this editorial to report some of the facts and make some recommendations based on them.
NATIONALITY
13 percent of Utah is Hispanic. KUER News reported on 25 February that when we add those Hispanics who describe themselves as white, the percentage is 20. That does not surprise me. At LCO 3147, I did a lot of double checking of documents, and the south of the border names lay pretty thick on the tables no matter what people listed as nationalistic or racial distinctions. This should give the Republicans pause in enacting any heavy handed immigration legislation. The US - Mexico boundary was drawn back in 1853 and hardly reflects current demographic reality any more. But that's another editorial.
THE CALL TO ACTION
The only difference between you and me and an “illegal alien” happens to be bureaucratic paper work. the federal government make acquiring that paperwork too complicated and too expensive. Congress should reform that particular process and quickly.
2010 POPULATION NUMBERS
Utah has 2,764,000 residents.
1,030,000 people reside in Salt Lake County.
516,564 reside in Utah County.
306,500 reside in Davis County, that narrow strip of land between the Wasatch, the Great Salt Lake, Salt Lake City, and Ogden.
232,000 reside in Weber County.
138,000 residents call Washington County their first home, not including the people who have second homes in the county. The Census did not count second-home owners in Washington County. Nearly 185,000 reside in Washington-Iron Counties.
Barely a 1000 people live in Daggett County. 1500 residents live in Piute County. Not quite 2800 people reside in Wayne County.
ANOTHER CALL TO ACTION
These numbers suggest to me the Utah legislature should address these items next year -- if not this year.
1) Utah now has 4 representatives to the United State House of Representatives. One district should be a completely rural district centering on Logan and Saint George. One district should center on Utah County. One district should center on an undivided Salt Lake City. The legislature should not divide West Jordan and West Valley City into multiple districts.
The legislature will have to divide Salt Lake County between 2 house districts – but it should not divide it between more than 2 districts. All of Salt Lake City should be in one house district. All of West Valley City should be in one house district. All of West Jordan should be in one house district.
Dividing Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County into three or four districts - - again - - will not do. If Republicans cannot defeat Jim Matheson on the issues, they should not try to defeat him by drawing Gerrymandering lines on the Utah map.
2) The population of Utah’s counties suggest to me that Utah’s internal boundaries have become completely outdated. Utah subdivides 2,764,000 Utahns among 29 counties. Not 25. Not 30. 29. The population is not srpread out evenly among the counties. The legislature should modernize the county structure by creating 10 to 15 counties with populations of 150,000 to 300,000. 10 - 15 counties of roughly comparable population would have larger tax bases to fund and do more services currently done federally or by Utah state.
THE PROBLEM OF OUTDATED INTERNAL BOUNDARIES IS NOT EXCLUSIVE TO UTAH
Utah is not alone in having internal boundaries that are now completely out of date with modern demographics.
Nevada
The Census website illustrates with population facts that Nevada’s counties lines hardly reflect current reality. Nevada has over 2,700,000 residents, which means Nevada and Utah now have roughly the same population. However, almost 2,000,000 of Nevada’s residents live in one county – Clark County – at the very southern tip of Nevada. Over 400,000 people live at the very western end of Nevada. And that leaves the remaining 300,000 citizens plus or minus spread out through the middle of rural Nevada. Clark County has nearly 2,000,000 residents and nearly Esmeralda County has just under 800 residents. Esmeralda County is somewhat smaller than Clark County, but it is not a small county.
Colorado
Colorado also has an internal structure that does not reflect current reality. Metropolitan Denver is divided up among 5 counties, ranging in populations from 400,000 to 600,000. Colorado also has two adjoining counties in San Juan mountain country that both have under 900 residents each.
Texas
Texas illustrates better than most states how Americans have let most of our internal boundaries become obsolete. For starters, Texas is the second largest state both in terms of population and in size. It also has the most counties of any state in the union as well – 254. 4,000,000 people live in Harris County. And no fewer than 5 counties have less than a thousand residents: A little more than 900 people live in Roberts County. 700 residents live in McMullen County, 416 people live in Kennedy County, whopping 286 people live in King County. A whopping 82 people live in Loving County, Texas – the least populated county anywhere in the USA.
Texas has 25,000,000 million residents – represented in Washington by just two senators. What we now call "Texas" would have better representation and would be more efficiently managed if it were multiple states of say 5,000,000 to 7,000,000 residents.
Houston-Harris County and a few counties around it should be a city-state.
Dallas - Fort Worth - Arlington - and some of the counties surrounding that metroplex should be another city state.
San Antonio and surrounding counties should be a state of 7,000,000 population.
El Paso-Cuidad Juarez, the biggest double city along the Mexican-Texas boundary, should be some sort of consolidated city state, affiliated either with Mexico or the USA. The boundary running through the two lobes of the city only encourages crime to festering and flourish.
As to what the 2010 Census reveals about Texas counties: 4,000,000 plus in a county on the high end. 82 on the other. If Texans are serious about “states rights,” Texas for a start should consolidate the remaining counties into roughly equal units of 200,000 to 300,000, so they all have a solid tax base to fund county services.
THE CALL TO ACTION
I discussed in this editorial the outdated boundaries of Utah because I live in Utah. I discussed the outdated boundaries of Nevada, Colorado, and Texas because the Census 2010 released demographic and population facts about those states.
These days, many politicians who resent federal “intrusion” and federal taxation tout respecting the states rights of the 50 internal divisions of the USA. However, leadership both state and federal have not updated the internal boundaries to reflect current reality, and thus many of the counties are either too big or too small to provide services efficiently. The legislatures should act to divide up their citizens into better counties of about 150,000, 200,000 or 300,000 populations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
