Puente's Perspective

Learning to let go

2012-01-11T11:06:00.002-07:00

The following essay was originally written in November of 2003...

I was in Al-Anon for several months when I decided it was time for me to start step four. What I didn’t realize, however, was that I wasn’t ready for step four. In fact. I hadn’t really completed step three. I had not made the decision to turn my will and my life over to God. I had not yet learned to let go. I had heard the slogan “Let go and let God” countless times. I never could understand it. But I wanted to understand. Because I knew enough about myself to know that I couldn’t, or wouldn’t, let anything go. I wrap myself up in things and wallow in them. I tend to wear my heart on my sleeve. My feelings can get hurt pretty easily and I let those hurt feelings get me down. And when I get down, I get way down. I would dwell on things for days and weeks at a time. It was starting to pull down the people around me. People that I love.

When I started to realize how much my inability to let go was affecting the people around me, I knew I needed to really learn how to do it. So I prayed. I prayed every day for weeks. “God, help me to learn how to let go.” Since God helps those who help themselves, I did what I could to learn how other people let go. I asked my friends in the program. I asked my sponsor. I got some interesting pointers. Learned about visualization and breathing exercises. Those worked for a few seconds. Then I was told to pray. I tried that and still asked for a more direct answer. I guess I was hoping for the answer to my prayers to come in the form of some catchy slogan that would really work for me or something from the literature. I listened to everyone's experiences, hope and strength and I kept praying.

Then I got my answer. It was as if God said to me, "Alright, Joe. You want to know how to let things go? The only way I can teach you is to give you something... and you have to let it go." I was faced with a major emotional crisis. I was in more pain than at any other time in my life. I wanted to die. Thank God one of my best friends was with me at the time. She couldn't stay but she called my sponsor and he came and got me. For the next six hours, I hurt and I cried and I talked. I was told, "I'd be glad if this happened to me." Which I thought was crazy. Then I was told, "This is a gift." and I didn't want it. Then I realized that I was given a choice. Either I let this bring me down, all the way down to the point of ending my own life or I just let it go.

So I let it go. I got through it. I was still hurting, but I wasn’t worried. I was still crying, but they were tears of happiness. I was devastated by this emotional bomb that went off but I learned to see it as a gift. What my sponsor said started to make sense. This was a breakthrough for me. In only six hours, I was smiling and thanking God for what I had learned. Six hours instead of six days and I knew I had finally learned how to let go.

I tried to come up with an analogy that would explain it without going into the details of my crisis. I imagined myself standing on a platform while heavy objects kept falling around me and I had to catch them. It was okay to catch them, because they were mine. My problems, my crises. I wasn't supposed to hold onto them but I couldn't let go of them. I didn’t know how and it didn’t occur to me to just let my arms fall to my sides. These objects were like rocks, bowling balls and heavy chains. I stand there, afraid of being pulled down off my platform from the weight of these things and their downward momentum and I prayed to know how to let go. But for some reason, I couldn't just drop what I was holding onto. The answer to my prayer came in the form of this giant hundred pound bolder that fell right on top of me. I reached out and grabbed it because it was mine. I held onto it. It was hard and rough and it tore through the skin on my hands and arms and it started to pull me down. This on top of everything else I was holding onto. I started to lose my footing. This boulder was going to pull me off of my platform and I was going to be destroyed by it. But at the last moment, I knew I couldn't hold on anymore... and I let it fall... And everything else I was holding onto fell with it...

I got my footing. I was no longer weighed down. My hands and arms still hurt and ached but the pressure and the weight was gone. It took that one giant boulder to teach me not to hold on because holding on just pulls you down and eventually destroys you. Finally, I learned how to let go and let God.

What I wish I could have said to Steve Jobs

2011-10-06T23:22:00.000-06:00

I have often imagined that if I had ever gotten a chance to meet Steve Jobs, the first thing I would have said to him would have been, "Thank you! Thank you for coming back and saving Apple."

I remember vividly the tense debates I engaged in with PC users during "the dark times" of the mid 90s when the future of Apple was in doubt. Rolling my eyes at every poison-penned op-ed by John Dvorak–I still recall how he introduced me to the word "moribund" which sent me to the dictionary and made me even more pissed off because he had used it in reference to the company that I so loved. Oh, the frustration I felt when talking with people who thought Windows 95 was so amazing and the indifference they showed when I pointed out that I had been using all of those "amazing" features since the last decade. To say nothing of the guy who lived in the barracks room down the hall from me who wanted to show off his new version of Windows and STILL had to open the DOS prompt to move a file from one directory to another because he couldn't grasp the concept of clicking on the picture of the document and dragging it from one picture of a folder to another in order to move it.

But I fought the good fight. I joined Guy Kawasaki's "EvangeList"–I still have the teeshirt! I remember sending Guy an e-mail in which I compared Mac users to early Christians and PC users to apostates who corrupted the original concept of a truly usable GUI. Guy responded by saying that I had "a lot of fervor." In retrospect, I think I was bordering on fanatical.

I was one of those people that would go up to PCs on display on store shelves and launch the registry editor in Windows, change every reference to the "Recycle Bin" to "Trash," move the task bar to the top of the screen, rearrange the icons on the desktop to more closely resemble the default Mac OS interface and top it all off by changing "My Computer" to "My '87 Macintosh." I had to work fast so the sales clerks didn't see what I was doing. I was never caught.

Had I the opportunity to meet Steve, I would like to have told him about that as well. I would have also related to him the following true story:

It was 1999. Just a couple of years since Steve's return to Apple. I was walking through CompUSA, heading toward the Apple "Store-within-a-store." There was an interesting display of the new "fruit-flavored" iMacs–empty iMac shells actually–set on top of some iMac boxes on the floor. It wasn't easy for an adult to get a good look at them, but then I don't recall there being much in the way of product information about them either. At first, this seemed a little odd.

As I looked around, I noticed a young family walking down the aisle; just a mom, dad and their little daughter. As soon as the daughter caught sight of the iMacs–which were at the perfect eye level for her–she ran toward them and placed her arms around the "Grape" model and looked at her parents longingly. That's when I noticed that she was wearing a purple sweater. It was obviously her favorite color so, of course, she's going to want the purple iMac.

I had to smile. Sure, the kid making puppy-dog eyes to her parents for a new toy was something we've all seen before–and have probably done at one time or another–but there was more to this particular moment than that familial cliché. I witnessed in that moment, the realization of Steve Jobs' vision about making technology not just accessible to human beings but inviting and inspiring. No child ever wanted to hold IBM's PCjr in their arms. There was never anything cuddly about a product from Compaq or Hewlett Packard. The iMac brought Apple back to the core appeal of the original Macintosh; an all-in-one computer that didn't intimidate the end user. Instead, it opened up a world of creative potential and took it a step further: it invited affection.

It didn't quite sink in at first. The marketing brilliance of putting colorful computers at a child's eye-level was obvious and I remember thinking, "Only Apple would create a piece of technology that a child would want to hug."

Now that Steve is gone, I realize that it wasn't Apple. It was him. Apple has always been a special company. Innovative, iconic and with a loyal base of customers who have stuck with it through good times and bad and now great times. But it's always been Steve Jobs who really made the difference. From the time he left Apple in 1985 until the his return at the tail end of 1996 with Apple's acquisition of NeXT, Apple did release some amazing products and even invented an entire new computing platform–the MessagePad was just a little too ahead of its time to be really successful–but it lacked the style and charm that came with Steve.

There is some concern that with Steve's passing, Apple cannot maintain its success. I remain hopeful that the company has learned its lesson. They know what happened when Steve was pushed out and how it was Steve who brought them back. We can only hope that as Apple moves forward, its leadership will do everything it can to emulate his leadership, style and charm.

Yes, another 9/11 retrospective... but related to filmmaking

2011-09-10T23:23:00.001-06:00

Cross-posted in Puente's Reading Room

Almost ten years ago, I remember some people in the media talking about the September 11 attacks and speaking negatively about how some screenwriter in Hollywood was going to try and cash in on the spectacle of that tragedy and write a screenplay about it.

I don't think this observation was a fair one. Narrative films have been structured around traumatic historical events ever since the invention of the medium. Just as every other art form has been used to help individuals and entire societies process the grief associated with such events.

As I look back over the last decade, I can think of a number of films that have been produced related to 9/11 (some more directly than others) that were made–not with an eye toward exploitation–but as genuine artistic endeavors that have served to help us put that horrible day into perspective. Some did so by recreating the events of that day as in "United 93," and "World Trade Center." Others tried to help us understand the myriad factors that lead to the event and the cultural thinking behind it and our reponse–or failure to respond–like "Fahrenheit 9/11," and "Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden?"

Of the September 11 documentaries that were made that used footage and audio that was recorded on that day as well as personal stories related by the people who were there, I was moved the most by two films in particular: "9/11"–which was broadcast by CBS on the night before the 6 month anniversary of the tragedy–and "Rebirth" which follows the lives of several people who were directly affected by the events at the World Trade Center in a series of interviews conducted over several years following the event and documenting their personal growth and stories as they came to terms with their losses.

But the 9/11 themed films that have affected me the most have been those that have told fictional stories set within the context of 9/11–either with the events occurring concurrently with the story or showing the way that they affected the ongoing lives of the characters.

The first of these that I saw was, of all things, a Disney Channel Movie starring Hayden Panattiere and Bill Pullman called "Tiger Cruise." At first I avoided watching it. Not because of the 9/11 references–which I wasn't even aware of at the time–but because I'm a Navy veteran and I wasn't interested in watching what I thought could have been a Disney sponsored recruitment ad. Eventually, I relented though and I was glad I did. That's when I learned about the 9/11 references and I really liked how they were made, from the perspective of both active-duty military and their families.

"Reign Over Me"–a rare and welcome example of an Adam Sandler flick that is nothing like your standard Adam Sandler flick–tells the story of a widower who lost his family when they were flying aboard one of the highjacked airliners. An incredible representation of the tragedy affecting an individual and how his friends are in turn affected by him.

In Tamara Jenkins' film "The Savages" with Philip Seymour Hoffman and Laura Linney, a direct 9/11 reference did not come until well into the film as the story is primarily about two adult siblings dealing with the special needs of their elderly father but I remember being hooked by the story with a reference to the now defunct Homeland Security Advisory System when Linney's character calls Hoffman's on the phone in the middle of an emotional crisis. His response is to ask her to gauge the severity of her crisis using the color-codes associated with the terror alert system. This was an excellent example of how a decidedly political response to earth shattering events can influence a culture.

The sociopolitical repercussions of 9/11 also inspired some interesting storytelling set in Iraq and Afghanistan, not just during our military engagements there–as depicted in films like "Green Zone" and "The Hurt Locker"–but stories that took place in those countries many years prior to 9/11 such as "Charlie Wilson's War." I wonder if a film like "The Kite Runner" would ever have been made were it not for U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan. Would westerners have ever been aware, let alone cared, about the struggles faced by the Afghan people when the two major powers vying for control of the country were two opposite authoritarian extremes: atheistic communists and the religiously fanatical Taliban (who had an ostensibly religious objection to–of all things–kite flying).

The effects of U.S. military action in response to 9/11 on the home front was also explored. "The Lucky Ones" was a poignant look at military culture and the effects war has on comrades in arms and their families. The effects of PTSD on returning soldiers was dramatized in the fact-based film "In the Valley of Elah" starring Tommy Lee Jones, Charlize Theron, Susan Sarandon and a number of actual Iraq War veterans. The conflicted emotions of a Marine who took advantage of the opportunity not to fight and remain stationed safely in the States with his family was addressed in "Taking Chance" with Kevin Bacon, also based on a true story.

One of the most intense fictional films in any of these genres that I enjoyed very much is "Buried" with Ryan Reynolds. The story of an American contractor working in Iraq who is kidnapped for ransom. It's hard to believe that one can be so affected by a film that keeps it's audience in a box with the main character for 94 minutes without so much as a flashback to stretch one's legs. The phone call he receives from his employers while trapped in that shallow grave is especially aggravating to brilliant dramatic effect. This is the closest that any of these films has come to being a suspense story but its subject matter is addressed in a way that is not at all inappropriate or disrespectful.

There were less effective stories told that tried to address these same events and issues. "Stop Loss" and "Remember Me" come to mind. "Day Zero" addressed the fears of what could happen in a world where seemingly endless war leads to a reinstatement of conscripted service in the U.S. military.

It will be interesting to see what kinds of stories related to all of these subjects will be told in the second decade following 9/11. I'm sure a search through the Internet Movie Database will show several in various stages of production.

One exercise that I undertook in researching this article utilized an interesting feature of the IMDb. The sort of film and actor-related information that can be filtered through the use of specific dates can be enlightening. One can learn what films premiered and where. I learned that I share a birthday with a number of different actors–Jerry O'Connell and I are exactly the same age; born on the same day in the same year. One can also find out the dates on which specific actors died. While most might look up a famous name like Cary Grant or Ingrid Bergman to learn when and where they passed away; another feature on the IMDb is the ability to input a specific date and find out who–among those individuals listen in the IMDb–was born and who died on that day.

I typed in September 11, 2001.

The attacks happened on the birthdays of several well known actors and performing artists including Virginia Madsen, Harry Connick Jr., Moby and Roxann Dawson–an actor and director well known in the Star Trek franchise. Speaking of Star Trek, a person by the name of Jeffrey Coombs was onboard American Airlines Flight 11 which crashed into the World Trade Center. Many people thought that it was Jeffrey Combs (with only one "o"), another Star Trek veteran, who had died. Mr. Combs addressed the public through the official Star Trek web site to clarify that he had not died and to share his feelings surrounding the event.

Of course, I had to see if anyone on the IMDb had died on September 11, 2001. As of this writing, 31 individuals are listed in the IMDb as having died that day. 27 of those names are listed as having died in New York, New York; Shanksville, Pennsylvania or Arlington, Virginia. Most of those have the September 11 attacks listed in their bios or are directly attributed as their cause of death–described as "Homicide," "Victim of" or "Perished in."

One can only infer from the date and locations whether or not the others who died on that day were victims of the attacks.

A dozen or so of the names listed were placed on the IMDb posthumously, credited as appearing in documentaries in "archive footage"–most likely home movies–or simply had their names included in a dedication in the closing credits. These individuals were not in the film or television industries though one is said to have appeared as an audience member on "The Tonight Show." Another as a reality show contestant.

One individual who died was a regular guest on "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher." Maher left one of his panel chairs empty for a week in honor of this person.

Of the victims who were involved in the film industry, there was a composer by the name of Gerard 'Rod' Coppola. I read nothing to indicate whether or not he was related to Francis Ford Coppola. A staff writer for "Cheers," "Wings" and "Frasier" died with his wife on one of the hijacked aircraft. A camera operator who is listed as having died on 9/11/01 also has a credit for a 2003 production–perhaps that project was shelved for a couple of years.

A few names stood out to me. Chuck Margiotta was once a stunt man. It makes a certain sense that someone in that line of work might transition from film stunts to being a firefighter.

Charles McCrann was a senior vice-president of a financial-services conglomerate with offices at the World Trade Center. He was also a film buff who wrote, produced, directed, edited and acted in a horror movie called "Bloodeaters."

Of the people with film industry credits who died on September 11, very few of them were well known in the film industry, or even within their specific fields. Indeed, many of them had no more than one or two credits on their IMDb profiles. They had participated in maybe a short, a television show or independent feature in minor roles either in front of or behind the camera and then moved on with their lives. Lives that eventually lead to jobs at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon or just as passengers on those ill-fated flights.

I couldn't help but wonder as I read those names and their modest resumes if these people every talked about their experiences on those film sets. Did a conversation about favorite films start up in the break room or at lunch that prompted them to say, "Yeah, I worked on a movie once." What was the reaction of their coworkers to these revelations? Were they fascinated? Did they respond with questions like, "Did you meet anyone famous?" How long did that little spark of recognition and perhaps pride last before they had to get back to their jobs? If they had time to reflect on their lives before they died, did any of their thoughts turn to their time on a film set? Did they once consider choosing a career in that industry before moving on to something they might have thought would be a little more financially secure? A little more safe?

The Truth About the Economy

2011-06-16T19:40:00.000-06:00

On the death of Osama Bin Laden

2011-05-03T13:02:00.001-06:00

I was recently defriended on Facebook by someone I knew in the Navy because of a couple of posts I made in response to the death of Osama Bin Laden.

The first was from the blog "Journal of a Black Mormon Girl" which made the thought provoking comment, "As the world rejoices at getting once last villain of evil off the streets and in the ground I just have one question. It's the same question one of my Sista's asked: Who is going to do our lost brother's temple work?. Where do we draw the lines of our Christianity?" Referring to the Mormon practice of "redeeming the dead" which includes baptism of the dead by proxy so that people who did not have the opportunity to receive the Gospel of Christ while living may have the opportunity to do so and benefit from its saving ordinances should they choose to receive them in the afterlife.

The second post I made was a statement falsely attributed to Martin Luther King Jr. that went viral. After I learned that the attribution was most likely an attempt--obviously a successful one--to ensure that the sentiment was thoroughly propagated, I deleted the post and reposted it with the simple attribution to "Anonymous."

"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." -Anonymous

I sent the following message to my former Facebook friend to explain why I shared those remarks:

Do not confuse my refusal to celebrate the death of bin laden as an endorsement of his atrocities. As a Christian I cannot square celebrating an assassination (regardless of how just it may have been) with Christ's teachings of love and forgiveness.

Was justice served? Certainly. And I'm grateful it was. But I'm not going to dance in the streets over it. Just as I don't celebrate every execution of a cold-blooded murderer. I don't think it's Christ-like. I have my own faults and sins to atone for and I wouldn't want someone celebrating any punishment I may endure for them, I'd rather they celebrate my repentance.

UPDATE: Not so anonymous anymore: http://rawlinsview.wordpress.com/2011/05/03/“i-will-not-rejoice-in-the-death-of-one-not-even-an-enemy-”-words-of-jessica-dovey-followed-by-martin-luther-king-junior/

Fight of the Century: Keynes vs. Hayek Round Two

2011-04-29T17:12:00.000-06:00

"Fear the Boom and Bust" a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem

2010-12-17T16:24:00.000-07:00

Liberaltarianism

2010-11-09T18:15:00.006-07:00

I stumbled on an interesting portmanteau today: "Liberaltarian." As in a "liberal libertarian." In researching the origins of the term and what it's supposed to mean I found this interesting article* from 2006. It's an interesting read in light of the time in which it was written, when the Democrats took control of Congress from the GOP.

It suggests a possible fusion of libertarianism and liberalism with some very interesting ideas--compromises really--but, obviously, that didn't happen, not then anyway. Instead, libertarians floundered--as they have for decades--until we got the tea party which was subsequently hijacked by the GOP. What remains to be seen is if there will be a split within the GOP between neocons and libertarians or if there will be a fusion between the two.

Dare one speculate that in the long term a fusion between liberalism/progressivism and libertarianism would be more practical than a fusion between libertarianism and neoconservatism? Such a fusion would provide an appealing alternative to whatever comes out of the GOP/Tea Party amalgamation over the next two to four years.

The Democratic party is just as rudderless as the GOP and could lose control of both the Senate and the White House in 2012 because of their lack of leadership. Might the Democrats, when they are once again the underdogs, take a page from the tea party playbook? Might we see a spate of "Liberaltarians" running on Democratic tickets?

Ultimately, I think a fusion (or fusions) of some sort will be the only way libertarians will get anything that they want--compromise is built into our system of government after all. I seriously doubt they have the political chutzpah to pull it off on their own.

*There is one sentence in this article that stands out to me because it is patently false: "...most Americans are fully capable of saving for their own retirement needs." This was delusional even in 2006 before the recession hit since wages for working people have been flat for the past 30 years unable to keep up with inflation causing people to save less and go into debt with credit cards and home equity loans. 401Ks have also proved to be volatile.

2nd Amendment questions from a voter

2010-10-25T16:40:00.002-06:00

Mr. Puente,

Greetings. I am a Utah 3rd district voter and a gun owner. I'm trying to gather information on where all of Utah's 2010 candidates for public office stand on a couple gun issues. I would therefore like to ask for your cooperation in briefly answering the following questions:

1) To what extent do you support civilian gun ownership?

I believe in the natural right of all individuals to protect themselves and to have access to the tools that allow them to do so including firearms insomuch as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same.

2) What are your views on gun restriction laws and in particular "gun free zones"?

Such legislation does not prevent crime or deny criminals access to such weapons. They only infringe upon the natural rights of law abiding citizens to acquire and legally use such firearms however they please--again, as long as they do not use those tools to infringe on the rights of others. I do not support so-called "gun free zones" and find the very concept asinine.

3) What policies, if any, will you support to change current laws regarding conceal/carry permits?

I personally do not own any firearms so I'm not that familiar with conceal/carry laws. I have used firearms recreationally on occasion and as part of my training when I served in the U.S. Navy and, frankly, I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn if my life depended on it. I have no issue with any law abiding citizen who chooses to own a gun for their protection--including the right to carry a concealed weapon.

Campaign for Liberty Questionnaire for Federal Candidates

2010-10-13T11:23:00.005-06:00

I actually missed the Campaign for Liberty's deadline for this questionnaire but I still feel a certain obligation to answer the questions, even if it's only on my blog.

A few thoughts on the questions before I proceed: I couldn't help but notice that the options that were given me on the form were only "Yes" or "No" and I was not allowed to explain any of my answers. The wording of the questions was also peculiar in that they alternated between asking if I "support" something or if I "oppose" something. The reason for this is because "Yes" answers are preferable to "No" answers in the eyes of the Campaign for Liberty. Look at the answers given by candidates and you can see that the "Y"s are in green and the "N"s are black. This makes it easier for people to make quick--albeit superficial--judgments about where the candidates stand on the issues.

Well, I am NOT a superficial candidate and I do not believe that there are simple answers to any of the issues facing our country so I'm going to do what the Campaign for Liberty wouldn't allow me to, offer more than a simplistic, one-word answer to these questions.

1. Will you cosponsor and call for roll call votes on Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed bill, designed to bring transparency to the Federal Reserve (H.R. 1207/ S. 604 in the 111th Congress)?

Absolutely! The Federal Reserve has been given so much power that it operates practically as a fourth branch of our government and the people of the United States deserves to know what they're doing and how they do it.

2. Will you support legislation removing capital gains and sales taxes on gold and silver coinage?

Sure. Considering the concerns that more and more Americans have about our currency, I see no reason to give people such a break on investments in solid commodities like gold and other precious metals.

3. Will you vote to oppose any legislation that allows the federal government to prohibit the sale, use, or carrying of firearms?

Sure. This country has enough firearms legislation. We don't need to bog down the system with more restrictions. If people want to own a gun, let them. It's their right.

4. Will you support a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that includes hard spending limits and allows for no increase in taxes or other federal revenue enhancements?

I do NOT support a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Government needs the flexibility to run budget deficits during emergencies such as wars and times of economic crisis. Considering rates of inflation and other financial variables I can't support hard limits on spending or limiting Congress' Constitutional authority to levy taxes.

5. Will you support legislation that forbids U.S. troops from serving under United Nations command?

In principle, yes. But is legislation actually needed? The command authority for U.S. Troops lies solely with the civilian government of the United States--or am I mistaken?

6. Do you support and will you vote to protect states asserting their rights under the Tenth Amendment?

Yes. I honestly can't think of anything else to say about this. :-)

7. Will you oppose Big Labor’s Card Check bill and any other legislation designed to empower union bosses?

No. I do not buy into the belief that unions are "bad." Unions helped create the middle class in this country. My dad was a union man and his union took very good care of him, enabling him to earn a wage that allowed him to support his family and own a home. Considering the fact that union jobs have decreased considerably over the last generation--coupled with stagnant wages for working Americans--I find the idea that unions are hurting business is asinine. I discuss my position on unions in more detail in a separate blog post.

8. Do you support U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations?

No. I think there needs to be a forum for international dialogue and the U.N. serves in that capacity sufficiently enough.

9. Will you support the American Sovereignty Act to restrict the Executive’s ability to forge international agreements that lessen our sovereignty?

This is kind of a trick question because it basically repeats the last question. I could see someone reading it and simply answering "Yes" out of fear of Executive power and "lessening our sovereignty." Of course, when one actually looks up the "American Sovereignty Act," it's primary purpose is to get the United States out of the U.N. which I do not support for reasons expressed in my answer to the previous question.

10. Will you oppose using U.S. forces to occupy a foreign nation without a declaration of war?

Considering the fact that every conflict the U.S. has participated in since World War II has been with only tacet approval of the Congress without a full declaration of war, I can honestly answer this question with a yes. I also find it interesting that it specifically speaks of U.S. occupation and says nothing about air or missile strikes.

11. Will you oppose any attempt to nationalize our health care system, including any sort of public option for insurance?

I think I've been pretty clear on where I stand vis-à-vis healthcare reform. However--despite the fact that healthcare reform legislation has been passed without a public option, making the latter part of the question moot--I don't care for the wording of the question because there are different definitions, especially political ones, for "nationalizing" healthcare. Republicans are convinced that the healthcare legislation signed into law in 2010 is "socialized healthcare" when, in reality, there's very little socialization about it. Is an individual mandate and so-called health exchanges--consisting of private insurance companies--really socialistic? I don't think so. Especially when one considers that the legislation that was passed has more in common with the Republican alternative to Hilary Clinton's healthcare proposal than it does a truly nationalized system like the UK's NHS--and the US's VA healthcare system--let alone a single-payer system like Medicare or the aforementioned "public option."

This is what healthcare reform comes down to for me. The legislation signed into law by President Obama doesn't go far enough to truly reform the system that we have now. I support measures that leave healthcare in private hands but eliminates the profit motive without creating any new government programs.

However, should the U.S. government choose to implement a single-payer system in the future, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Is that a "nationalized" healthcare system? Technically, no. I already use a system that is owned and operated by the government, the VA healthcare system, and I can testify that such a program wouldn't be a good idea to implement for civilians in the U.S. I discuss the concerns of constitutional authority in regard to government action regarding healthcare but I would not object to a legal interpretation that says the federal government has the authority to implement a single-payer healthcare system--or public option--under the general welfare clause. Some self-annointed constitutional purists might object to such an interpretation, arguing that the founding fathers didn't interpret "general welfare" in such a way but that would be misleading. Even the founding fathers had differing opinions on how the general welfare clause was to be interpreted, some stating that it refers to the welfare of the states and others the welfare of the people.

12. Will you oppose so-called “Cap and Trade” legislation?

No. Considering the fact that cap and trade legislation has been implemented successfully in the past to curb sulfur-dioxide emissions, I have no problem with implementing similar legislation to curb carbon dioxide emissions. I have no issue with a carbon tax either. Curbing our nation's dependence on fossil fuels is essential to both our environmental and national security interests and the sooner we start weaning ourselves from oil, coal and gas in favor of nuclear, wind and solar energy, the better.

13. Will you vote to eliminate the IRS?

And replace it with what? There must be a means to collect taxes. Give me an alternative to the IRS and I might support eliminating it.

14. Will you vote against any budget that increases our debt?

In the middle of the worst economic crisis in generations when depleting tax revenue is going to increase the debt anyway, what sense would that make? How about pulling all our troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq immediately, shutting down overseas bases that serve only to subsidize the defenses of foreign nations and cutting our bloated defense budget instead?

15. Will you oppose federal power grabs like roving wiretaps and warrantless searches, and oppose Patriot Act renewal that includes such items?

I never liked the Patriot Act to begin with so how about we just repeal the damned thing?

16. Will you oppose any legislation that requires states and citizens to participate in a National Identification Card program?

This I can answer with a resounding YES! I already have a perfectly valid state-issued ID and a social security card. I don't need anything else cluttering up my wallet.

17. Will you oppose the so-called “NAFTA Superhighway” and any move toward a North American Union?

I'll go with a "Yes" on this question. Does anyone seriously think that we need a "NAFTA Superhighway"? We already have interstate highways that effectively connect the U.S., Canada and Mexico. Instead of making new highways, how about we just maintain and upgrade the ones we already have? As for a "North American Union," that's pretty much been taken care of with NAFTA as it is and I'm not even too crazy about how that's worked out for us. We certainly don't need a new currency, especially when one considers that the U.S. dollar is a de facto international currency as it is.

18. Will you support legislation that ensures Members of Congress have at least 72 hours to read any bill before it is allowed to come to the House floor?

Yes! Does this really need an explanation?

19. Will you oppose all tax increases?

Considering the fact that most budget items are sacred cows and even penny-ante earmark appropriations are pork in the eyes of their critics and "vital public programs" in the eyes of their sponsors, tax increases are all but inevitable. The fact that our nation is trillions of dollars in debt because GOP policies that gave tax breaks to rich people and spent money as if it grew on trees, the time is going to come where people are going to have to bite the bullet and actually PAY for the government they put into power.

20. Indicate the tax cuts you are willing to vote for:
[ ] Across the Board Income Tax Cut
[ ] Capital Gains Tax Cut
[ ] Business Tax Cut
[ ] Estate Tax Cut

Again, I was given check boxes and not allowed to explain or justify any choice I would make. So, here goes:

I do not support an across the board income tax cut. We got that in 2001 and again in 2003 and look where it got us. I'll support extending the bush tax cuts across the board for a few years but then I'd come right in with a millionaires tax because they can afford it.

I do not support capital gains tax cuts, especially for people who accept stock in leu of a salary. Why the hell should some overpaid CEO only pay 15% on his income just because it isn't in the form of cash?

I do support tax cuts for businesses but only as incentives for investing in domestic production or for corporations that choose to reorganize as mutual companies and cooperatives.

The only people who complain about estate taxes are people with actual estates--i.e., the super rich. This nation is in debt, it needs revenue and the super rich have enjoyed their wealth on the backs of the middle class for too long. Politicians like to call the estate tax a "death" tax because it's so scary and absurd sounding. Well, Benjamin Franklin said that the only certainties in life are death and taxes and no one can avoid either of them. Why should we make exceptions for millionaires?

Questions from a voter

2010-10-11T22:40:00.002-06:00

Mr. Puente,

Could you please provide me with your position and opinion on the following topics....

Abortion

For my opinion on the abortion issue, I'll direct you to the following posts on my blog:

http://puentesperspective.blogspot.com/2003/02/on-abortion.html

http://puentesperspective.blogspot.com/2010/04/decimated-generation.html

Euthanasia

I support a terminally ill patient's right to die with dignity. If there is absolutely no quality of life for an individual who is suffering from the pain and agony associated with measures taken to extend their life despite the fact that their illness is terminal, if that patient should choose not go on with treatment and put an end to their needless suffering, I see no problem with allowing them access to resources to reach that end. Let there be no misunderstanding however that the decision should be that of the patient and no one else.

Fetal Stem Cell Research

I have no issue with fetal stem cell research.

Human Cloning

I'm okay with research into therapeutic cloning where specific kinds of human tissue can be cloned to create replacement organs but I am probably just as creeped out by the concept of cloning an entire human being as most people.

Homosexual "Marriage"

I have a personal definition of marriage that is consistent with the teachings of my religion but I don't think it prudent or even legal for me or anyone else to try and force that religious definition onto other people who don't share my religious views or choose not to adhere to any religion at all. I recognize that the definition of marriage as a civil contract between two individuals is subject to evolve and include relationships that fall outside of "traditional/religious" contexts. Since the rights of religions to define marriage and its practice are protected by the First Amendment, there is no need to codify any sort of additional protections for those religions and their adherents; to do so would be redundant considering the scope of the First Amendment.

That being said, I believe in equal rights for everyone regardless of age, race, religion, creed, color, sexual orientation or gender identity. I have been a strong supporter of the Common Ground Initiative and the organization Equality Utah. I also support the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act signed into law in October of 2009 and coincidentally opposed quite vocally by my opponent, the incumbent Congressman Jason Chaffetz. I am opposed to any sort of legislation that would attempt to exclude a minority group from equal protection under the law. This would include the unfair restrictions placed on homosexual members of the U.S. armed forces under the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and any amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage based on a religious definition instead of a legal definition. I also voted against Amendment 3 to Utah's Constitution in 2004.

As I stated in a video blog post on this topic:

Hospice Patients Alliance Q&A

2010-10-11T17:06:00.002-06:00

Do you support physician-assisted suicide?

I support a terminally ill patient's right to die with dignity. If there is absolutely no quality of life for an individual who is suffering from the pain and agony associated with measures taken to extend their life despite the fact that their illness is terminal, if that patient should choose not go on with treatment and put an end to their needless suffering, I see no problem with allowing them access to resources to reach that end. Let there be no misunderstanding however that the decision should be that of the patient and no one else.

How do you plan to protect the elderly if health care is to be financed through cuts in Medicare?

That is a complicated question and I do not have the answer to it. Suffice it to say that the costs of Medicare are tied directly to the costs of healthcare in general. I think that our government owes it not only to the elderly but to all Americans to do everything it can to put into place policies that will bring down the costs of healthcare such as removing anti-trust exemptions that insurance companies have been abusing for years, passing legislation requiring that all health insurance companies operate as non profit corporations, mutual companies or cooperatives to ensure premiums are used to pay for treatment and not pad the pockets of executives or inflate share prices--I think that health insurance should NOT be a publicly traded commodity. I think the federal government should do all that it is constitutionally permitted to in order to make sure that people can be treated for their illnesses and not be financially crippled for it.

Do you favor restricting access to health care for the elderly that they presently enjoy?

Absolutely NOT.

Would you vote to change the current healthcare law to better protect terminally ill patients and the elderly?

I find this question to be somewhat vague. Protect them from what exactly?

How do you plan to protect them?

Again, if I knew what I am supposed to protect them from, I could more easily answer the question.

------------------------------------------------

I've been answering a lot of questions from a lot of people and organizations. When it comes to questions from organization that have a specific political agenda, I find a number of their questions to be leading, biased and even manipulative. I do my best to answer them all honestly but I won't allow myself to be manipulated into answering vague questions that often serve ambiguous agendas and clandestine interests. -JLP

Deseret News/KSL Candidiate Questionnaire‏

2010-10-11T14:08:00.002-06:00

1. What is your top priority for the United States?

The issue that's at the top of my priorities is bringing about publicly funded elections. Until special interests are put into check in Washington, no other issues will matter. Efforts to reform them in the current political environment will be undermined by meddling lobbyists and their corporate backers to make sure that whatever laws are past will work to their advantage and not for the public good. America has had enough of Government working for corporations and special interests at the expense of the people. There is legislation in Congress RIGHT NOW to bring this much needed reform to Washington. It's called the "Fair Elections Now Act" (H.R. 1826 & S. 752).

2. Describe your solution to the U.S. illegal immigration problem. What specifically should be done about the over 10-million illegal immigrants who are now in the United States? Do you favor or oppose some kind of pathway to legal status for the current illegal immigrants?

The solution to illegal immigration lies in enforcing existing labor and immigration laws. The first and most effective step is to crack down on U.S. companies that hire undocumented workers illegally and penalize them for it. Our government has been turning a blind eye to this--the core of the illegal immigration problem--for far too long. Once American companies stop hiring undocumented workers then the flow of illegal immigrants will simply go away. If there is no work for illegals then they will stop crossing our borders.

As for the illegal immigrants who are here now, one suggestion that I find appealing is to give illegal immigrants a year to leave the country peacefully and they can take with them any property they have acquired since being here. If the political will exists to more stringently enforce existing immigration laws to arrest, process and deport illegal aliens, I can get behind that as well. It must be understood that taking these measures will not be cheap. Part of the costs can be covered by confiscating money and property held by illegals and fines imposed on the companies that hire them but I doubt that will cover all the expenses. There will most likely need to be funding allocated by congress to shore up the resources of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to carry this out.

If Congress collectively lacks the political will to enforce these laws but can somehow get it together enough to enact legislation to provide legal status for otherwise law-abiding undocumented workers, that's something that I could get behind as well. Even Ronald Reagan supported amnesty for illegal aliens as a practical alternative.

3. Do you support the Affordable Care Act (health care reform)? If not, how would you fix America’s health care crisis?

I stand strongly against the Federal government interfering in matters it is not Constitutionally authorized to enter into. Thus far, early court challenges to the ACA have been defeated with rulings that state that the legislation is NOT unconstitutional. While the ACA is certainly flawed legislation and there are elements that I would like to see repealed--like the individual mandate--other elements I think were a long time coming and acceptable but more needs to be done to fix our healthcare system. I think that there are other solutions that the federal government can implement to make genuine healthcare reform easier to achieve such as removing anti-trust exemptions that insurance companies have been abusing for years, passing legislation requirement that all health insurance companies operate as non profit corporations, mutual companies or cooperatives to ensure premiums are used to pay for treatment and not pad the pockets of executives or inflate share prices--I think that health insurance should NOT be a publicly traded commodity. I think the federal government should do all that it is constitutionally permitted to in order to make sure that people can be treated for their illnesses and not be financially crippled for it. If anything, the federal government should do what it can to help individual states implement healthcare reform that meets the unique needs of each state and not try to implement a federal catch-all system that might work for one state, be overkill for another or fall short of the needs for a third.

4. What can be done to improve the U.S. economy? How will you help?

Short answer, put people to work. 70% of our economy is driven by consumer spending. Over the last 30 years wages for working Americans has stagnated and the only way they've been able to keep our economy going has been to go deeper and deeper into debt with credit cards and drawing on the equity in their homes. This was unsustainable. The housing bubble burst, most people can't get credit anymore and people who manage to find work are working two and three jobs just to keep their heads above water. I am not opposed to government expenditures to rebuild our nations infrastructure in oder to put people to work so they can start consuming again. Our government also needs to enact legislation that encourages the private sector to bring jobs back to the states--for example, we should amend our current trade policies to require that our foreign trading partners pay their workers better wages so that US firms don't automatically shut down American factories in order to take advantage of obscenely cheaper wages overseas. As a nation, we should also make access to higher education easier for all Americans. We've all seen the statistics: the more education a person has, the more successful that person is. Give everyone equal access to higher education and you make it possible for those people to have access to better paying jobs. Policies also need to be implemented to ensure that incomes keep pace with economic growth. One part of that equation that I'd like to see implemented would be to tie Congressional salaries to the median income of the nation. Were that to be implemented now, the salary of a freshman representative would be cut by almost two thirds. If Congress wants to give itself a pay raise, then they should enact laws that enable an increase in incomes for the average American worker. There are many other solutions to this very complicated problem and I'm willing to explore all possible solutions.

5. Utah is famous for its beautiful landscapes. What will you do to protect and promote these areas?

Everything I can to keep greedy industrialists' hands OFF of them. I was at a meet the candidates event where a candidate for public office spoke of $1 trillion in natural resources that exist under the Grand Staircase National Monument. What good is accessing those "natural resources" if, in the process, we destroy a beautiful natural formation that can bring in MORE revenue to our state over the longterm through our tourism industry? We need to remember that there are long term benefits to protecting our landscapes that are more important and ultimately more profitable for tourism than short term profits for other industries.

6. What are your views on federal funding for embryonic and adult stem cell research?

I have no problem with federal funding for such research.

7. Are you willing to work with members of other political parties to accomplish changes in Washington?

Absolutely. The behavior of party politicians over the last few years has been childish to say the least. I would personally like to see Americans giving party politicians the boot in favor of independent representatives. Party politics is destroying this nation and has destroyed the democratic process that we claim to hold dear. The duopoly of Democrats and Republicans has done everything it can to shore up their own political power at the expense of the public good. To quote the one truly independent president this country has ever had, "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism... and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty." -George Washington, 1796

8. What are your views on nuclear testing?

We don't need it. We already have enough nuclear weapons to destroy our planet several times over. We don't need to test new ones.

9. When you are forming an opinion on an issue, who do/will you ask for advice and information?

I will first request input from my constituents and follow that up with non-partisan experts in the field of that particular issue.

10. What is the one personal trait/characteristic that you want voters to know about you, and why is that important in this race?

I want voters to know that I am uncompromised by special interests. It's important because special interests are running and ruining this country and until the voters elect public servants that are committed only to the interests of the people, nothing in Washington is going to change.

Your share of the average disability payment

2010-09-29T23:41:00.003-06:00

ATTENTION: Anyone who is resentful of persons on "Disability/SSI" who receive a stipend from the government due to their inability to work after having paid into the system.

Some numbers:

There are approximately 5.18 million recipients of disability payments in the U.S.

The average disability payment is almost $500 month.

There are roughly 138 million taxpayers in the U.S.

$500 x 12 months = $6000 in disability income a year (well below the poverty line. These people are NOT exactly living high on the hog).

$6000 ÷ 138 million taxpayers = $0.00004347826087 per disabled person per taxpayer per year. That's a little over 4/1000ths of a CENT per year to keep 1 disabled person from being homeless.

Collectively it comes to about $225 a year per taxpayer (that's considerably less than the average tax refund) to support all the disabled receiving SSI (which is barely enough to keep their heads above water). One should also not forget that part of the qualifications for disability benefits is that one has to have paid into the system as well. That's the social contract. Pay into the system and it will be made available to you if you should need it.

A lot of people like to complain about the "welfare state" and how Social Security is a "burden." When times are tough, as they are now, people make use of the social safety net, when times get better, it balances itself out quite nicely.

The solution to our government's fiscal problems is not going to be found in gutting the social safety net. It's going to be found in adopting policies that make it easier for people to become more prosperous on their own. Once that is accomplished, tax revenue to the government will rise and enable the social safety net to remain in place for those who need and qualify for it when they hit hard times.

Sources:

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07databk.pdf

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-03-22-taxrefunds22_ST_N.htm

Max Blumenthal goes inside the Tea Party

2010-06-25T20:51:00.007-06:00

This program leans heavily to the left but it's kind of interesting. Blumenthal isn't the most charismatic on camera personality but I agree with his observations about the tea partiers that

"I think these people are hurting economically, a lot of them are, and they're seeking solutions in irrational ways and they're blaming forces that have nothing to do with their pain... but there is a grass roots rage. The question is, how can that rage be channelled into something positive that can bring a genuine populist movement that's multiracial and multi-political together and direct it against power?"

I would prefer it if he had said "apolitical" instead of "multi-political" as political factions are a major part of the problems this country faces and often the very obstacle that stands in the way of solving those problems.

Another observation made by Blumenthal regards the origins of the tea party movement:

"This tea party movement says that they're libertarian but they're clearly authoritarian. When they talk about getting the government out of their lives, they're just talking about lowering taxes even though it wouldn't actually benefit them--it would only benefit the rich--but they're happy to have the government in the bedroom."

Diehard tea party advocates would probably bristle at that accusation of authoritarianism but I think that Blumenthal is identifying the fact that this movement--which had libertarian roots--has been hijacked by right-wing extremists and the most conservative operatives of the GOP base who are in fact authoritarian when it comes to things like civil liberties, LGBT issues, prohibition and foreign policy. These are "values" that are embraced by Republicans, not true libertarians who don't think that it's government's place to infringe on those very rights that Republicans fight so hard to control.

That being said, I invite you to watch this program and, as my late mother would say, take it for whatever it may be worth--and as long as it's still online. I doubt there's permission to host the whole program here.

Max Blumenthal goes inside the Tea Party from Ram Bam on Vimeo.

FYI: The video file is 40 minutes long but the program itself is only 28 minutes. Then there's 12 minutes of blankness. You can skip that part. ;-)

Here's an extended scene hosted by IFC.com

Bishop brags about earmarks that he voted against

2010-06-03T12:57:00.008-06:00

So, Congressman Rob Bishop of Utah's 1st congressional district issued a statement dated May 28, 2010, in which he brags about a great deal of money that he earmarked for Utah in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 5136).

Now, I have no problem with his earmarks but he went on to say that when the bill was in committe, the "[bipartisan] process produced a decent bill, and I supported it.”

I imagine a lot of people might read right up to that point where he says, "I supported it," and infer that that equalled a "Yes" vote on the bill.

And they would be incorrect. As the entry on GovTrack.us shows: Bishop voted "No."

Bishop's web site did not make this very clear. After his declaration that he "supported it," Bishop--in the final paragraph--complained about the process on the floor of the House and said that by adding language in regard to "don't ask, don't tell" the Democratic leadership "took a bipartisan product and turned it into a partisan tool. It didn’t have to be this way.”

But he didn't say that he voted against the bill. Why? Because it would be contradictory to his earlier statement that he "supported it."

I wanted to get clarification on this little matter and, thankfully, the name and phone number of a Bishop staffer was provided right at the top of the page: Melissa Subbotin 202-225-0453

This is the gist of our conversation:

Me: Why doesn't Congressman Bishop say on his own web site that he voted no on the final bill, H.R. 5236?

Ms. Subbotin then proceeded to give me a civics lesson about the committee process and the debate on the floor and how things change. I found it a little condescending so I continued...

Me: I understand how the process works but I would like to see a statement on the Congressman's website stating that he voted NO on the bill.

Subbotin: He supported the original bill.

Me: But he voted NO on the FINAL bill.

Subbotin: You're implying that we're intentionally trying to mislead something.

Me: I feel misled.

Subbotin : Well, you shouldn't feel misled... We don't say that he didn't support the final vote.

(I had to think about that for a moment and she's right: They didn't say that he didn't support the final vote... that's the problem.)

Me: I feel it's disingenuous for you guys to brag about all this money coming to Utah and not say that he voted against it because it implies that he voted FOR the bill.

Subbotin : Okay.

Me: I'm asking that you put a statement on the web site that says that Congressman Bishop voted no on the final bill.

Subbotin : Okay... We'll take your request into consideration.

Me: (laughing) Thanks for blowing me off.

Bragging about all those earmarks certainly implies that Bishop wanted the bill to pass. That the evidence shows so clearly that he voted NO says something entirely different.

I just checked before hitting the "Publish Post" button and it appears that Congressman Bishop's staff has updated the web page to show that the Congressman voted NO on the final passage of the bill. Looks like they're going to embrace the doublethink. ;-)

I wonder if Subbotin Googled me and discovered that I'm running for Congress in district 3?

Don't ask Chaffetz if he's a bigot... He won't tell you.

2010-05-28T22:19:00.002-06:00

"The only reason they would be doing that is for pure political points. I don't think that is the way you run your military. It sends the wrong signal." -Jason Chaffetz

If the incumbent congressman Jason Chaffetz spent less time fine tuning his gaydar and more time focussing on issues that actually mattered, I wouldn't be challenging him for his seat in Congress. Jason has a proven track record of embracing institutionalized bigotry against homosexuals. He's been pissing his pants over the citizens of the District of Columbia who dared decide for themselves to recognize same-sex marriage since he was elected to represent them... No, wait a minute. That's not right. Chaffetz WASN'T elected to represent the District of Columbia, he was elected to represent Utah's District 3. So why would he stick his nose in the bedrooms of people that he DOESN'T represent? Oh yeah, because he's a self-righteous bigot.

Now Chaffetz is pretending to know how to run the military. This from a guy who never had the balls to wear the uniform of the U.S. military to begin with.

Speaking as a veteran of the U.S. Navy for five years, I have an insight into the military that Chaffetz lacks. What it all boils down to is this:

Soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are trained to follow orders. Trust me, the solution to allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military is as simple as issuing the following order: "Homosexuals may serve openly in the military and it is up to the rest of the men and women in uniform to keep doing their jobs regardless."

You'd be surprised how effectively that works... that is if you didn't already look into how allowing homosexuals to serve in the military worked out in other countries, like the U.K., France, The Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Demark, Spain, Germany, South Africa, the Czech Republic, Israel, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Austria... the list goes on.

We don't need to "study the issue" because all these other countries have allowed homosexuals to serve, studied the impact of that service and have come to the same conclusion. It doesn't matter.

Ours is a professional military and professionalism means being able to work with anybody regardless of their politics, religion, gender or even their sexual orientation. The fact that Jason Chaffetz doesn't recognize this is testament to his ignorance and lack of respect for our men and women in uniform--some of which are forced to lie about who they are because bigots like Jason Chaffetz are too self-righteous to embrace the American value that all men are created equal. In Chaffetz mind, some are obviously more equal than others. Namely wealthy heterosexual Republicans.

Counterpoint: On Utah Copycatting Arizona's attack on "Ethnic Studies."

2010-05-14T19:18:00.012-06:00

I recently subscribed to a blog called the "Voice of Deseret" written by a self-described "Utah expatriate." VoD came to my attention when they objected to me calling Jason Chaffetz--at various times--"an uninformed horse's ass" and "...a megalomaniacal, narcissistic douche bag."

I've since agreed to be less crass in my characterizations of the lying, hypocritical ignoramus that currently represents Utah's 3rd District.

VoD has written a post about legislation in Utah that mirrors a law recently passed in Arizona banning ethnic studies classes.

I'd like comment on a few of the remarks VoD made in their analysis:

On The University of Utah's ethnic studies program: "... you'll note that there's no provision for European-American ethnic studies."

That's like complaining because there's no "White Entertainment Television" to go up against Black Entertainment Television (BET). White people don't need a "W-E-T" network because white people have been dictating most television programing since Nazi Germany broadcast the 1936 Olympics. (That's not Godwin's law creeping in, that's just history)

European-American ethnic studies courses already exist. European-American ethnicity is the DE FACTO paradigm through which the American education system is filtered. Most American text books are written largely from the point of view of "European-Americans" AKA "a bunch of rich white guys."

VoD also mentions new Arizona guidelines "...prohibiting a school district or charter school from including in its program of instruction any courses or classes that:

Promote the overthrow of the United States government.
Promote resentment toward a race or class of people.
Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.
Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."

I have a question for VoD, Have you--or anyone for that matter--verified that there even exists an ethnic studies class at an accredited school that actually "Promote[s] the overthrow of the United States Government" as part of its curriculum?

When one considers the reality of racism that has existed and still exists in this country,, how can one NOT expect a certain degree of resentment toward a race--even one's own--just from taking a general studies--i.e. European-American--history class?

Has VoD ever taken an ethnic studies class? They aren't designed for a particular ethnic group. They exist for students of all backgrounds to better understand the American experience from the point of view of the many ethnic backgrounds that represent the population of the country. When one considers the rich ethnic tradition of our nation of immigrants, I can't think of anything more valuable to understanding our nation's history than to understand from the points of view of EVERYONE involved, not just the one ethnic group (European-Americans) that have had the greatest advantage over others for the past 500+ years.

And there is nothing wrong with celebrating one's ethnicity and feeling a certain solidarity with others who share a common heritage. There's nothing endemic to American culture that requires one to pretend that their ethnic roots don't exist or that they should be shunned and forgotten.

Vod goes on to say:

"This was necessitated by the fact that many ethnic studies classes had been hijacked by anti-racist white progressives and actual non-white racists who taught that the United States committed "genocide" against the American Indians... [this] trivializes and minimizes real genocide committed in Europe and Asia during the 20th century..."

I guess VoD has an issue with the definition of the word "genocide." Considering the fact that it's a relatively new word in the English lexicon, there are varying definitions--many of them legal definitions--but I say let's take it to the source.

Raphael Lemkin, the person who coined the term in 1944, defines genocide thus:

"By 'genocide' we mean the destruction of an ethnic group . . . . Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups..." (Axis Rule in Occupied Europe ix. 79)

One of the things that modern genocides all have in common is that they occurred within a relatively short period of time but Lemkin points out early on that "Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation..." When we consider the degree of territorial, cultural and populous expansion of European settlers--and the concurrent displacement and decimation of native Americans--over the first 400 years of American history, it's difficult not to couch the plight of native Americans in terms of genocide. VoD might argue that there was no "final solution" to rid the Americas of its native inhabitants. Apparently he's never heard of the Indian Removal act of 1830. No, it didn't try to legalize the deliberate murder of native Americans but it did codify an agenda of removing them from the land they called home for thousands of years and many of them did die in the process. Perhaps VoD has never heard of the Trail of Tears. How far removed from the ethnic ghettos of Nazi occupied Europe are American indian reservations? How many wars against native Americans were waged for the sole purpose of acquiring the land they occupied? Native Americans have been scapegoated and vilified as much as any other "ethnic" population by so-called European-American settlers and yet they were here first. We should also consider the cost in human lives that were the result of this treatment of native Americans. The European holocaust took the lives of approximately 6 million Jews and that is considered genocide. The destruction of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire witnessed between 1 and 1.5 million Armenian deaths and that is called a genocide. Around 800,000 people were murdered in Rwanda and that too is considered genocide. Estimates of native American deaths as a result of European colonization range in the millions. That sounds like genocide to me. It may not have been state-sponsored murder but the results were largely the same.

VoD goes on to point out that the Arizona law does "NOT" restrict "Courses or classes that include the history of any ethnic group and that are open to all students."

Has any ethnic studies class actually discouraged students from participating in said class because of their race? I doubt it. I always understood that unpopular courses get dropped from the schedule. Excluding ANYONE from attending based on anything other than a lack of required academic prerequisites would be seriously counterintuitive to anyone who wants the core message of their agenda to be available to a broad audience.

Let there be no doubt that this latest law in Arizona, like the "Papers, please" law that's garnered so much more attention, isn't based on concerns about the quality of public education, it's based on racism.

Stonewall Shooting Sports of Utah - Policy Q&A

2010-03-19T23:59:00.001-06:00

1. What would you do if you are elected to protect the equal rights of gay Utah citizens?

I believe in equal rights for everyone regardless of age, race, religion, creed, color, sexual orientation or gender identity. I am opposed to any sort of legislation that would attempt to exclude a minority group from equal protection under the law. This would include the unfair restrictions placed on homosexual members of the U.S. armed forces under the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and any Constitutional amendment to define marriage based on a religious definition instead of a legal definition.

I have a personal definition of marriage that is consistent with the teachings of my religion but I don't think it prudent or even legal for me or anyone else to try and force that religious definition onto other people who don't share my religious views or choose not to adhere to any religion at all. I recognize that the definition of marriage as a civil contract between two individuals is subject to evolve and include relationships that fall outside of "traditional/religious" contexts. Since the rights of religions to define marriage and its practice are protected by the First Amendment, there is no need to codify any sort of additional protections for those religions and their adherents; to do so would be redundant considering the scope of the First Amendment.

2. What would you do if you are elected to protect the firearm rights of Utah citizens?

I believe in the natural right of all individuals to protect themselves and to have access to the tools that allow them to do so including firearms insomuch as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. I do not support renewing the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act (AKA the Federal Assault Weapons Ban). Such legislation does not prevent crime or deny criminals access to such weapons. They only infringe upon the natural rights of law abiding citizens to acquire and legally use such firearms however they please--again, as long as they do not use those tools to infringe on the rights of others.

I personally do not own any firearms. I have used them recreationally on occasion and as part of my training when I served in the U.S. Navy and, frankly, I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn if my life depended on it. Having been diagnosed and treated for clinical depression over the years, I never thought it wise for me to own a gun but I have no issue with any law abiding citizen who chooses to own a gun for their protection and recreation and everyone that I know who owns a gun is a law abiding citizen.

3. What have you done so far to protect these rights?

For starters, when I joined the Navy in 1993 I swore an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States which includes the Bill of Rights and that oath carried with it no expiration.

Where the rights of gay Utah citizens are concerned, I have been a strong supporter of the Common Ground Initiative and the organization Equality Utah. I also support the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act signed into law last October and coincidentally opposed quite vocally by my opponent Congressman Jason Chaffetz. I also voted against Amendment 3 to Utah's Constitution in 2004 defining marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman. While I do embrace that definition of marriage personally and religiously, I think that the legal definition can be much more flexible without infringing on the rights of individuals and religions to retain their traditional and doctrinal definitions for their own purposes.

Regarding gun rights, since I do not own a gun I never considered joining any firearms organizations like the NRA or GOA and living in Utah with a long standing tradition of hunting and its pioneer heritage, I haven't felt compelled to speak out on any Utah-centric gun issues except for the recent proposal to celebrate the life of hunting rifle manufacturer John Browning concurrently with Martin Luther King Jr.--a man who was killed with a hunting rifle (not built by Browning). That struck me as just plain distasteful.

On GOP manipulation of the tea party "movement"

2010-03-09T14:24:00.003-07:00

I don't subscribe to the so-called tea party "movement." It's roots were noble and honest enough but it has since been overrun by extremists and I simply don't deal in extremes.

Another reason why I don't ally myself with the tea party is that they're allowing themselves to be manipulated by Republicans. Who's making speeches at these rallies and the so-called Tea Party Convention? Republicans. Who are the tea partiers' biggest cheer leaders? "Conservative" talk radio and Fox News--echo chambers of Republican rhetoric. This isn't what the tea party was supposed to be about.

What was started as a Libertarian demonstration has been usurped by the GOP for the sole purpose of returning control of the government into Republican hands. I can't think of a single self-respecting Libertarian that actually wants that to happen. But why has the tea party allowed itself to be so manipulated? Well, what has been absent from all of the histrionics emanating from the tea party? Answer: Any call for the election of independent candidates for Congress, the Senate or the White House.

Tea partiers are fearful, and no organization knows how to capitalize on fear like the GOP. For all their vitriol over business as usual in Washington and their distrust of government, the tea party is so desperate for leadership that they'll even turn to business-as-usual Republicans simply because they're telling the tea partiers what they want to hear.

I'm curious to see how this all plays out. Will the involvement of the tea party serve to marginalize the Republicans even further? What will the tea partiers say if the GOP regains control of the government and fails to deliver what the tea partiers want?

The pendulum has been swinging between the Republicans and Democrats for years and nobody is ever happy with what either party brings to the table. How many more times does it need to swing from one side to the other before people realize that we have the option of removing the pendulum altogether and electing individuals to public office instead of party loyalists?

Discrimination against reservists

2010-03-09T11:24:00.003-07:00

I've been talking with a gentleman by the name of Ron Hendry who's son, Chris, was the assistant manager for a store called Furniture Row. Chris recently joined the Army Reserve and informed his employers that he would be leaving for basic training in 6 weeks. A day later Chris was fired because he “Lacked focus.”

It's illegal to fire a reservist because of their military obligations. Furniture Row might be trying to skirt this law by firing Chris before he goes to basic training but the timing of their decision, so soon after Chris gave them the courtesy of letting them know that he wanted to serve his country part-time, makes it painfully obvious that reservists are not welcome as employees.

Let there be no doubt that this is discrimination.

Ron is asking that people spread the word about what his son and many reservists have to deal with and to e-mail the following members of Furniture Row's corporate staff: troy.gruchalski@furniturerow.com, barney.visser@furniturerow.com, willard.westblade@furniturerow.com, Tom.Faulkner@furniturerow.com, rich.cohn@furniturerow.com.

Ron would also appreciate being CC'd any correspondence at rhendry@biolynk.com.

On Opinion Polls

2010-03-04T15:51:00.000-07:00

People like to reference opinion polls because poll numbers carry with them a certain air of authority.

Of course an old idiom from my high school debate days was that statistics can prove anything. Place one foot in a bucket of ice water and another in the middle of a campfire and--statistically speaking--you should feel comfortable.

I also used to work for a company that conducted "research" through polling where I learned that more often than not opinion polls have leading questions to ensure that who ever is sponsoring the poll gets the results that they want.

For example, if Candidate A voted to approve the federal budget which includes funding for the National Endowment for the Arts which then gives money to a state arts council which in turn issues grants to a number of artists and one of those artists takes a picture, paints a painting or writes a novel that one person finds offensive you will see the following question in the survey:

"Candidate A voted to fund offensive art. Does this make you...

"A) More likely to vote for him

"B) Less likely to vote for him or

"C) Makes no difference to your vote."

Most people who get that question are going to pick B. It doesn't matter that the Candidate has no say in how the NEA, a state arts council or even an individual artist spends their money. The question isn't designed to rate public opinion, it's designed to manipulate it.

We see all these poll results on healthcare but we never see the questions that are being asked.

Do the polls that say Americans are against healthcare reform ask specific unbiased questions like:

"Are you in favor of a public insurance option?

"A) Yes. B) No. C.) I'm not sure"

or do they include a rhetorical label and skew the question to read:

"President Obama wants to put a government official between you and your doctor with a socialist government-run healthcare system like they have in countries like Britain and Canada. Do you support this?

"A) Yes, government-run healthcare is fine by me.

"B) No, I'm a patriot who believes in Capitalism.

"C) I don't know but it sure sounds scary."

The possible answers to the biased survey are exaggerations but the style of the question is typical of the surveys I conducted and I hated it because I knew that the people I was interviewing weren't being asked their opinion, they were being manipulated.

On Workers' Rights

2010-03-03T19:46:00.004-07:00

One thing I have never understood is the attitude among some working class people of vilifying organized labor. The arguments I keep hearing have to do with "unreasonable demands," "unfair union dues," "increased cost of goods and services," etc.

In reality though, throughout my lifetime, the power of labor unions has been severely undermined to the point that modern-day criticism of organized labor is severely misplaced. When the federal government has become so compromised by corporate interests that the federal minimum wage can't be reasonably called a living wage anymore then why shouldn't workers in any industry be given the tools to negotiate better wages, meaningful benefits and good working conditions, particularly workers in industries that can afford to treat their workers better without having an adverse effect on the costs of their products or services.

I know many small businesses owners who are uncomfortable with the idea of raising the federal minimum wage--especially in difficult economic times; but these business--many of them family operations with a small employment base with flexible working conditions--wouldn't need to concern themselves with legislation designed to work on behalf of employees for large corporations. The businesses that fight the hardest against unions and do everything they can to denigrate the proud tradition of organized labor in this country belong to the aforementioned industries that can afford to treat and pay their employees better but opt not to in the interest of padding already inflated profits--to say nothing of disproportionately large compensation packages for their executives.

Companies like Walmart, Home Depot, Loews, Office Depot, Starbucks, even Whole Foods--all Fortune 500 companies--are among the loudest detractors of organized labor and all can afford to pay and treat their employees better but choose not to.

My father was born in San Fernando, California in 1924 but only a few years later his family returned to Spain just in time for the civil war. At tender age of 11, after his father died, Dad had to quit going to school and start working to support his family. He experienced working conditions first-hand that weren't far removed from those of slave-labor as he grew up in Spain under the fascist dictator Francisco Franco. It was only the knowledge that he was an American citizen that gave Dad the courage and motivation to overcome a great deal of personal, physical and economic adversity to join the U.S. Navy during World War II so that he could just have a chance to return home to the States and bring his family back with him.

Dad wasn't a man with a particularly sophisticated skill set like that of an electrician, auto worker or meat packer. Nor did he have the skills to work in management but with only a rudimentary education and a strong work ethic he became a simple grocer working in the produce sections of grocery stores in the Los Angeles area for 34 years.

Go to your local grocery store today and talk to an employee in their teens or twenties and ask them if they can imagine working in that particular job for the majority of their adult life. I've asked them and their response is usually to roll their eyes or laugh because they know that they can't raise a family or buy a house with the wages they earn in that job. When I tell them that my dad did the same job that they did for 34 years, their jaws drop and they ask, "How could he stand it?" My answer: He belonged to a union and that union looked out for him and his co-workers to make sure that they got a wage that they could live on. A wage that they could raise a family with. A wage that allowed them to become home owners. And there's no reason why people working those same jobs today shouldn't be given the same respect, benefits and living wages that men like my dad earned for his honest labor.

It's because of Dad's experience with his union, an organization that looked out for his best interests--and by extension those of his family--that I support workers rights in this country . One's level of education or limited skill set should not preclude one's ability to earn a living wage for honest work that will enable them to raise a family and own a home.

Looking around from the center

2010-03-01T19:59:00.002-07:00

There's something to be said for the point of view held by those of us in the political middle. There's balance here. A perspective that cannot be appreciated by those who have chosen to ally themselves with a particular faction--especially those who take extreme positions within said faction.

From time to time, I've referred to something called the Nolan chart. It's a diagram attributed to David Nolan--founder of the modern Libertarian movement--in which the traditional "left/right" political spectrum is replaced by a two-dimensional plane with four corners representing four distinct areas of political and economic thought. Occupying two opposing corners are the traditional schools of American politics, "Liberalism" and "Conservatism." The other two corners are occupied by "Libertarianism" and "Statism"--though the "Statism" corner has been labeled at various times as "Populism," "Communism," "Fascism," "Socialism," "Collectivism" and many other "isms" that have been imagined to be the polar opposites of "Libertarianism."

Nolan believed that "Conservatism" focussed too much of its attention on economic freedom at the expense of personal liberty and that "Liberalism" had the opposite problem, focussing its energy on personal freedom while suffocating free enterprise. Libertarianism claims to value both economic and personal freedom. Its philosophical opponent, "Statism," valued neither, suppressing both personal and economic liberty for the sake of the "State," "Collective," "Populous," "Community," etc.

My position on the Nolan chart is in the center (though not the exact center). I value individual liberties and can appreciate the benefits that can be enjoyed within a free market system. One might conclude from this statement that I lean toward libertarianism in my political philosophy and one wouldn't be entirely wrong.

However, when it comes to economics, I do not believe in laissez-faire capitalism--a completely unfettered, unregulated economy. I'm too familiar with human nature not to expect people to do everything they can to satisfy their natural sense of greed up to and including taking unfair advantage of other people. To borrow a phrase from a libertarian friend, the government's role in the economy is not to run it but to establish the rules under which it operates. Well, rules need to be enforced--policed, if you will--and this is often referred to as "regulation." I have no problem with this. What I do have a problem with is the notion that there is something inherently noble about the free market system. That free enterprise can be counted on to solve all of our problems and police itself when unethical practices erupt. This is a foolish notion. The free market can be counted on to do only one thing and that is what's most profitable. And what's profitable isn't always what's right. Take a look at what the free market has done to healthcare in this country. People who purchased health insurance in good faith are having their coverage dropped when they try to make a claim. Why? It's not because the insurance executives want to hurt or even kill people, it's because claims hurt profits. The insurance company executives are simply looking out for the interests of their shareholders. That's their job. And as long as the rules that are in place allow them to drop coverage when a claim is made or deny it based on preexisting conditions, they will continue to do it. Healthcare legislation that is currently festering in Congress addresses these very issues because insurance company executives have made it abundantly clear that as long as the law doesn't require them to behave differently, they will continue to act in the interests of shareholders at the expense of the health--and sometimes the lives--of their customers.

Now, while this causes the blood of ethical people to boil, I want to go on the record as saying that this does not mean that the free market is "bad" or "evil." The free market is amoral. But it does lend itself to working in the interest of those whose goal in life is the acquisition of wealth and often, as has clearly been demonstrated time and time again, people will go right to the edge of the law in their quest for more and more wealth and they will always make sure that their actions are "technically legal." Some laissez-faire capitalists like to claim that it is regulation that causes unethical behavior because it presents a temptation to do what is wrong and to skirt those laws. I find that to be a ridiculous notion. Especially when one considers that laissez-faire capitalism is a purely academic concept. For as long as economies have existed, there has always been some form of regulation to keep it in check with the values of the people participating in it.

While I wouldn't call myself a statist, I don't think that government is inherently evil. The vilification of government is quite popular these days with the "tea party" movement. But, like the free market, governments are neither good nor evil, they are amoral--Merely a collection of laws and buildings. The people who run government, however, are imbued with a moral compass, whether that compass is pointing due north or running on an ethically challenged tangent determines what those people in government do with the public's trust. I don't automatically assume that government can't do anything right but in reality there are some things that the government manages without much complaint from the people. The government maintains our roads and highways. It insures that our water supply is clean and flowing. I enjoy making use of public parks and libraries. I rest easy at night knowing that there are police officers and firemen on watch to keep the peace and ensure our safety. Whenever I see these Tea Partiers on television complaining about the government, all I can think of are the government services that they probably take for granted. It's important to note that many of the services that I referred to are provided by state, county and municipal governments and a lot of vilification is being directed at the Federal government. Well, I agree that the federal government is bloated and wasteful and there are a lot of things about it that need to be fixed, privatized or dissolved but, again, I do not share the sentiment that it is inherently evil, nor do I think that those who run it are evil, regardless of which major political party is "in control." They might be wasteful, incompetent, feckless, even stupid... but not evil. And the federal government isn't entirely useless, we've just kept demanding more and more from it than it was ever intended to provide and to add insult to injury, we've all been too selfish and unwilling to pay for it. And since our government is a reflection of those who give it power then when we point at it and complain, ultimately we're pointing at ourselves. Regardless of whether or not we voted for the latest gaggle of idiots in office is irrelevant, they represent everyone, not just those who voted for them and, as such, we all need to accept the responsibility, dare I say, collectively.

One thing that I've noticed in the political discourse that I've observed and participated in is that those with the most extreme views seem either unwilling or unable to even comprehend the possibility that other factions have their good points. Extreme "conservatives" are convinced that nothing good can come from "liberalism." Extreme "liberals" look at "conservatism" and see nothing but the absolute worst in humanity. "Libertarian" extremists seem to view any form of government action as a direct attack on their personal freedom and might even consider complete anarchy as preferable to even the most rudimentary government body. Extremists are so far removed from the plane that they can't get a clear picture of just what it is they say they are against. And being unable to see clearly, they are left only with their imaginations which leaves them little more to think about the other factions than their worst possible and most paranoid nightmares.

That's why I like it here in the middle. I have a better view of all the political philosophies than I otherwise would, were I to ally myself with any one of them. I don't concern myself with the extremists in the corners--they're often completely out of touch even with their own parties--because the people that I can connect with are those who occupy sections that approach the center. It is from this perspective that I can see the value--the good points--of each of these political philosophies. The straight-talk and vehement commitment to personal liberty held by libertarianism. The practicality, caution and sobriety of genuine Conservatism (not to be confused with the paranoid, self-serving, power hungry "neoconservatism" embraced by the GOP). The optimism, sense of working for the public good and championing the downtrodden that Liberalism USED to stand for. And yes, respecting the need for a participatory government that serves the people and protects our rights.

On taxes and the redistribution of wealth

2010-02-28T10:29:00.001-07:00

Some people take an extremist view that taxation is tantamount to stealing.

This view is often justified by statements like the following: "Right now very little of anything the government spends our money on represents anything that I want."

In a participatory government, in particular a Democratic-Republic like ours, the government is a proxy of the people. As such, the government we elect represents all of us and the wants of the minority are deferred to the will of the majority but we are collectively responsible for the effects of actions taken by our government.

Whenever I hear political demagogues talking about "taking our country back," I cringe. Take it back from whom? Ourselves? Such rhetoric is little more than political sour grapes over the result of a lost election.

Another extremist view is that taxation takes money from those who work for their income and gives it to those who don't--the Robin Hood hypothesis. "Those who don't" are often defined as people on "welfare." And "welfare" is itself defined as free money for poor people who refuse to work for a living.

Speaking as an individual who was, at one time, a welfare recipient, I can assure you that for most recipients welfare is NOT a lifestyle choice. Americans are, by nature, a very proud people. The idea of turning to ANYONE for help--their family, their church or their government--is a difficult, painful and often embarrassing decision to make precisely because of the stigma associated with seeking assistance in a culture that prides itself on what is fast becoming the mythos of the "self-made man or woman."

Are there people who take unfair advantage of welfare--or Churches or their families? Yes, but they do not represent the majority of those seeking help. Often it is those that need help the most who are shamed out of seeking it. This results in increased rates of poverty, homelessness and other burdens on society that aren't as easily quantifiable as the budgets for welfare programs.

Our society also has programs for Americans with disabilities. Individuals who are unable to maintain employment because of debilitating conditions, often physical but also psychological and emotional. Are there people who take unfair advantage of those programs? Yes, but--again--they do not represent the majority of those participating in such programs. A stigma also surrounds applying for disability programs, especially for those with chronic mental illness and personality disorders simply because those individuals--while physically able-bodied--are unable to maintain steady employment because of psychological diagnoses that can only be determined by mental health professionals but aren't always obvious by simply looking at them.

Taxation in our country does not automatically take from the rich and give to the poor. If that were the case then your average tax payer would have a guaranteed tax refund that they wouldn't have to itemize or defend. This is simply not the case. There are in fact a great number of flaming bureaucratic hoops that need to be jumped through in order to qualify for government assistance.

The reality of the government's practices in the redistribution of wealth actually takes an approach that is the polar opposite of the Robin Hood hypothesis as we witnessed in October of 2008 when the financial markets were "threatened by imminent collapse" and tax money collected from the majority of Americans--the "poor" or "certainly not rich"--and was given to major American banks under the so-called Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) without so much as a memo indicating where it should be spent. The financial market didn't exactly collapse but the lending pump--which the bailout was supposed to prime--didn't exactly start flowing with credit either. But executives of those banks--many of them the architects of the financial crisis itself--received multi-million dollar bonuses to the genuine outrage of the American public and imitative political theater of politicians on the Hill, many of whom are on the take for campaign contributions from lobbyists for the financial industry. Most of that bail-out money has in fact been repaid--a detail many "conservative" critics of TARP fail to acknowledge--but the government robs from the poor and gives to the rich in other ways that no one seems to know about or at least care to acknowledge. I'm speaking of course about CORPORATE welfare. Farm subsidies, payment on government contracts long since cancelled, no-bid contracts to private corporations in war zones.

Another way that the poor are placed at a disadvantage in relation to the rich--if not specifically "robbed" by them--is simply through the many loopholes that exist within our tax laws.

Ben Stein once wrote, "...the rich pay a lot of taxes as a total percentage of taxes collected, but they don’t pay a lot of taxes as a percentage of what they can afford to pay, or as a percentage of what the government needs to close the deficit gap."

In the same article, he quotes Warren Buffett, "There’s class warfare... but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” To illustrate this, Buffett compared his income and taxes to that of his staff and "It turned out that Mr. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office. Further, in conversation it came up that Mr. Buffett doesn’t use any tax planning at all. He just pays as the Internal Revenue Code requires. 'How can this be fair?' he asked of how little he pays relative to his employees. 'How can this be right?'”

Many "conservatives" don't hide their secular worship of wealthy people like Buffett, holding them aloft as if wealth is a direct measure of wisdom, justice and one's favor in the eyes of God because they are so "blessed" with their wealth and yet there he is, one of the wealthiest men in the world pointing out the lack of fairness that his class takes advantage of over the rest of us.

Many argue that a flat tax would be "more fair" but as long as big businesses can afford to hire legions of lobbyists to influence legislation that favors Wall Street and the wealthy, even the most "fair" flat tax would be riddled with loopholes to allow the most wealthy to keep doing what they're doing now to avoid paying their "fair" share under a so-called flat tax.

I don't think a flat tax is necessarily the answer--at least not one that's flat across the board. What needs to happen first is to close a lot of loopholes that allow the wealthiest people to get away with paying less than their middle-class counterparts. For example, if a corporate executive waives a $1 million salary--taxed at 35%--in favor of $1 million worth of company stock that he sells 13 months later, instead of taxing him only 15% in capital gains, it should be taxed at 35% since he accepted that stock in exchange for his services to the company. That stock is his income thus it should be taxed as income.

Many "conservatives" like to argue that taxation is a disincentive to work and they often cite a quotation attributed to Ronald Reagan to defend their argument:

“The more government takes in taxes, the less incentive people have to work. What coalminer or assembly-line worker jumps at the offer of overtime when he knows Uncle Sam is going to take 60 percent or more of his extra pay?” -Ronald Reagan, circa 1982

Let's think about that for a minute. If the 40% left over is more than what he's already making before taxes, he just might jump at it.

A coal miner in 1982 made around $13/hour. Assuming a 40-hour week, a couple weeks vacation and a handful of sick days, that coal miner might be bringing home $25,000 in 1982 which put him in a tax bracket of 32%. The top tax bracket that year was 50% and applied only to people making more than $55,300, more than TWICE the average income of a coal miner.

In 2008, a coal miner might take home $43,000 a year. Again, around the middle of the tax bracket paying 25%. The top bracket is only 35% and it doesn't kick in for an individual until he or she clears $372,950, over EIGHT TIMES as much as our coal miner makes.

My point is, coal miners and assembly-line workers--i.e. average Americans--don't have to worry about paying 60% in federal income taxes. It never ceases to amaze me how the extremely wealthy can convince the middle-class and the poor to feel sorry for them because they live in a higher tax bracket and yet the "super-rich" pay less as a percentage of their total income because they find all sorts of interesting loopholes to keep from paying it.

Let's put the Robin Hood myth to rest once and for all: The redistribution of wealth doesn't come from taxation, it occurs prior to it. If we were to bring back the highest brackets of the 80s (45%), 70s (70%) or 50s (90%), more wealth would be made available to more people because those higher brackets would encourage the wealthiest people NOT to acquire so much wealth to begin with (seriously, there comes a point where simply having more money doesn't really affect one's quality of life or one's ability to take care of one's family). Let's say the top bracket alone was raised from 35% to 45% on individuals making $372,951 or more. The bracket right below that is 33% for $171,551-$372,950. A difference of just $1 in a person's salary can mean a 12% difference in their rate of taxation. That's a difference of nearly $45,000 in taxes one wouldn't have to pay by simply earning $1 less in income. So where does it go? Back into the company one works at, enabling said company to grow, create more jobs and offer higher wages for lower earners who would still be taxed but in lower brackets, ensuring that they retain their buying power--lower earners spend more of their income than the wealthy.

The "Greatest Generation" paid over 90% in their top bracket for decades and did so with very little complaining. The 'tax as disincentive' argument is baseless. Reagan's analogy fails for reasons illustrated above. If Rush Limbaugh had to pay 75% of his income in taxes, he'd still be worth $100 Million. Sean Hannity, $25 Million. Glenn Beck $12.5 Million. Bill O'Reilly: $2.5 Million. Would a higher tax bracket really take away the incentive these men have to work?

I'm all for tax relief, but only for those people who actually spend money and deserve a break and that's the poor and the middle-class--though lately it's getting harder and harder to distinguish the two. My solution is to take the lower brackets and flatten them to 15% across the board for anyone making $0-$9.9 Million--more accurately, $9,999,999.

You might ask, Why so much? Why that particular number?

Let's face facts, a million bucks isn't what it used to be and small business owners, the people who employ most of the work-force, are middle-class Americans--many of them paper millionaires who can do a lot more good for the economy with a tax break than Warren Buffet, Bill Gates or Michael Bloomberg who all do just fine no matter what shape the tax code takes.

Why all of those nines? Because middle-class millionaires are defined as anyone worth more than $1 million but less than $10 Million and $10 Million is where I draw the line between the "Rich" and the "Super-Rich."

As for people making $10 million and up? Tax the hell out of them. What you get won't be a disincentive to work but a disincentive to earn more than they need. Incentivizing people to earn a lower salary ($9.9 million a year hardly puts anyone in the poorhouse) keeps money out of any one person's bank account and invests it into business, job creation, the economy.

Question Time

2010-02-28T06:21:00.001-07:00

What is your political philosophy?

I'm a political centrist on the Nolan chart. I'm neither a statist nor fully libertarian in my philosophy. The terms "conservative" and "liberal" have lost nearly all meaning to me in modern political discourse since most people who apply those labels to themselves can't reconcile their rhetoric with the very meanings of those words. I have given up on political parties as I fear that George Washington's warnings about the dangers of political factions have become a reality.

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty." -George Washington, 1796

How do you interpret the Constitution?

While I have read the document, I have not gone through it line by line interpreting every article, section and clause. As matters of Constitutional importance come up, I do feel it is important to turn to history and understand the context in which the Constitution was originally written. There are some clauses that stand up better to the tests of time than others, such as the Bill of Rights. There are also sections of the Constitution that have been completely ignored in public discourse and in the passage of federal laws, such as Public Law 62-5 which limits the number of Congressmen in the House of Representatives to a completely arbitrary 435. The United State Constitution makes it clear that "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand..." With a population greater than 300 Million souls, the United States House of Representatives should be seating over 10,000 Congressmen. Utah alone should be represented by 91 delegates to the House instead of only three. This law, nearly 100 years old, has undermined that document to near-catastrophic ends and yet has been largely unchallenged. The only legal way to change the number of Representatives in the House is through a Constitutional amendment but Congress itself has bypassed this process illegally and hardly anyone is even aware of it.

The question of whether or not the Constitution is a "living" document I think is answered by the fact that it includes within its articles, instructions on how it can be changed.

What are your views on what constitutes a just war?

War should always be avoided and used only as a last resort in response to a direct attack on our nation by another nation-state and in response to a similar attack on an ally as defined by a specific international treaty such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Unfortunately, since World War Two, this definition has rarely been met in our conflicts with other countries. The two most recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been a mixed bag. I feel that the war in Iraq is illegal and we should never have entered into it. I felt that there was legal justification for the war in Afghanistan, which was entered into with support from NATO under Article 5 of that treaty. Unfortunately, the political priorities of the previous administration crippled our efforts in Afghanistan because the war that the Bush administration really wanted was with Iraq which had more to do, in my view, with a vendetta against Saddam Hussein by George W. Bush than any supposed threat posed to the U.S. by the nation of Iraq. At this point I think that our military presence in both Afghanistan and Iraq should come to an end as quickly as possible. The situation in Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan may be better suited to more clandestine tactics and operations carried out by special forces.

How do you feel about United States foreign policy?

The last eight and a half years have largely been an embarrassment. The United States has only recently begun to regain its moral standing in the world after the horrendous actions and consequences of the previous administration's "cowboy" diplomacy. While I do not support a policy of political and economic isolationism by any means, I do think the time has long past when we should have started to rethink our priorities as a nation both militarily and economically.

Do we need military bases in foreign nations anymore? How much of the deterrence afforded us by land-based military facilities can just as effectively be maintained through the use of aircraft carrier battle groups? I think this question should be asked on a case by case basis in regard to our foreign military presence. Some military facilities may be more easily replaced than others by Naval forces keeping our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines out of harms way until absolutely necessary.

On the economic front, our nation has allowed itself to be spoiled by a combination of unfettered greed and the desire to get "the best deal possible" on goods and services and the global economy has been more than willing to accommodate us. Unfortunately, our pursuit of these deals has lead to the decimation, to put it mildly, of our own economy and our ability as a nation to produce goods and services for ourselves. Again, I do not advocate an isolationist view but something must be done for our nation to regain its economic independence for the good of our population. Moving away from a model that relies on consumption for 70% of our economy would be a good start. This can be accomplished through a number of steps like tariffs on imported goods, incentivizing the retention of domestic production capacity and investing heavily in raising our education standards.

What do you consider to be the natural rights of man concerning life, liberty and property?

I think no other document than the Bill of Rights can more eloquently answer that question.

The Anglə "On Jason's 'Climate Tax' Pledge"

2010-02-27T11:02:00.001-07:00

I posted this in May of '09 but it clearly demonstrates what a sheep Chaffetz is.

"Wholly owned subsidiaries of the insurance industry."

2010-02-26T12:28:00.000-07:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I don't care for the current healthcare legislation as it's written but I'm not going to lose any sleep if it passes. Despite Weiner's passionate declaration that the GOP is "a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry," don't be fooled into thinking that the Democratic Party isn't just as compromised. The healthcare industry is playing both sides against the middle. They're bribing the GOP to kill reform at the same time that they're bribing the Democrats to make reform work in their favor.

Ms. Maddow is correct in her analysis that for-profit insurance companies can't be blamed for doing everything they can to turn a profit. That's how for-profit insurance works. I think that the profit motive should be removed from healthcare altogether. Legislation should be passed requiring health insurance companies to operate strictly as non-profit corporations, mutual companies and/or co-ops to ensure that premiums are used to treat sick people and not line the pockets or stock portfolios of insurance executives.

On Poverty

2010-02-25T21:02:00.001-07:00

The most encompassing solution to the problem of poverty is to create an environment that offers real economic opportunities to the poor. I'm not talking about minimum wage jobs, I'm talking about living wage jobs. What are some solutions to this problem? What needs to be done for the long term? Bringing manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. is a popular solution but often people have second thoughts when they realize just what that entails. Raising tariffs on imported products, higher prices for goods and services, renegotiating international trade and security treaties, etc. It can be done, but are Americans really willing to accept such a shift in priorities and the legal and bureaucratic headaches that will undoubtedly go along with it? Who among us hasn't gone out of their way to save a few bucks on the silliest of items? How addicted are we to the "good deal"? That addiction and our willingness--or unwillingness--to become rehabilitated will determine the answer to the above questions.

We should also understand that even in the best of economic times, there are always going to be those who are in need of assistance whether it's getting food on the table or keeping a roof over their head. Let us not punish those in genuine need because of a handful who abuse the system. Requiring people in assistance programs to provide some degree of service--whatever they are physically and emotionally capable of handling--as a prerequisite to getting said assistance is not only appealing to those who contribute to the safety net, but it also puts the recipient at ease. Oftentimes a person standing in line to apply for food stamps--or subsidized housing or to participate in a local food pantry program, etc.--does so with their head hanging in shame. To give them the opportunity to work, to provide some service--no matter how small--in exchange for the help they receive would not only wash away the stigma of applying for such programs but encourage more participation from those who can afford to; donating food to a local pantry, being willing to work with HUD with their rental properties, etc.

Chaffetz, his minions and the corruption of the GOP

2010-02-25T20:07:00.001-07:00

Jason Chaffetz made a post to his Facebook page in which he made a direct association between earmarks and the $12+ Trillion public debt. This is misleading--to say the least! Earmarks account for less than 1% of government spending but Chaffetz harps on it as if earmark reform is the magic bullet of fiscal discipline in Washington. And yet he says NOTHING about the cost of two wars that is quickly approaching $1 Trillion. Nor does Chaffetz say a word about the tens of billions of dollars spent every year on corporate welfare, public law that keeps getting funding every year without end and no one is saying anything about it because they keep falling for red herrings like earmarks and the stimulus which are easy targets because they scare poor people who can barely comprehend how much money they represent.

Chaffetz refuses to look at the big picture and he's convinced his fanatic followers that little scraps of waste--like earmarks--that fall through the cracks in the government floor are the problem when in reality, we need to stop spilling so much onto the floor to begin with.

If Chaffetz wants to be on bread crumb patrol and pretend that it matters, he can go right ahead and do that. I'd rather see someone in Congress who's got the balls to stand up to corporate welfare recipients and say, "The party's over. Government doesn't exist to keep you in business, that's for you to figure out."

Why isn't Chaffetz fighting against farm subsidies? The federal government has enabled corn to become so cheap that it gets used in so many processed food products that healthy food has become too expensive for average Americans. The result, people are eating crap because it's cheaper than healthy food. Why is it cheaper? Because much of it is repackaged, government subsidized corn. This leads to unhealthy lifestyles, which burdens the healthcare system, driving those costs through the roof.

I support earmark reform but if that's the only bell Chaffetz is going to ring then he needs to wake up because there are bigger and considerably more expensive fish to fry in Washington and if all he's going to do is complain about the Democrats and pontificate over chump change just so he can rile up his uninformed base then he's just as politically impotent as every other two-faced hypocrite in his party.

The real joke is that Chaffetz continues to complain about pocket change while remaining silent on real waste and his minions in his online forum are just as naive as he is to the point that they demand little more from him and think that he's actually trying to change how things work in Washington. They are being conned by a guy who pretends to believe in reform but is just another tool of the corrupt organization that is the GOP. I don't know what's scarier, the thought that he's naive enough to believe his own rhetoric or that his cheerleaders are so willing to accept his smoke and mirrors politicking as reality.

Going after small fish like earmarks while ignoring real government waste is a fool's errand. Real reform is hard work and takes a champion who's smart enough to understand that there's no single solution to a problem as complex and ingrained as government waste; that multiple angles of attack need to be engaged. What's Chaffetz' objection to "Pay as you go"--which contributed in no small part to the budget surpluses we enjoyed at the end of the last century? Why is he fighting against healthcare reform which can also bring government spending down (not to mention the cost of healthcare for every American?

Republicans claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility, values and morality and yet they have demonstrated that they are the most spend-happy, bloodthirsty and bigoted group of hypocrites that dare call themselves patriots. Serving their corporate puppet-masters and having the audacity to say they care more about regular Americans than any other party.

The GOP is only paying lip service to conservative values and that includes Chaffetz who's more interested in being a celebrity than a statesman. The GOP is a sinking ship and they're dragging the Democrats down with them. And I say: So be it! Both parties are beholden to corporate interests at the expense of what's right for the people. Chaffetz is just another political shill who does as he's told by his party handlers. If he gave a damn about changing the way Washington works, then he would support publicly funded elections and get corporations out of politics. Instead he gladly accepts money from corporate interests and embraces the lie that corporations should be treated like people instead of the legal fictions that they are. Chaffetz doesn't give a damn about his constituents. All he wants is their money and their vote and he will defer to the will of his Party and its corporate backers when he's in Washington.

Being a freshman doesn't give him a pass for the lies he has told to his own constituents or the blind loyalty he has given to his party leaders--who haven't been freshmen for a considerable time. Chaffetz is a darling among the right-wing media because he parrots the party line so well. The few positive things I give him credit for simply aren't enough to outweigh the betrayal of party politics that he has so eagerly embraced.

Chaffetz has proven himself to be as much of a pawn of the GOP as any other member. He propagates their lies as gospel truth. He ridicules the current administration while making excuses for the one that preceded it. Instead of proposing practical solutions, he riles up his base with half-truths, insinuations and regurgitation of whatever misinformation he is fed by his party handlers. Chaffetz has embraced the despicable practices of the extreme Right wing of his own free will and has become corrupted by it.

The Federal Budget Deficit & the National Debt

2010-02-25T15:23:00.004-07:00

In tough economic times, it is not un precedented to cut taxes. Even if it means short-term deficit spending. However, when the economy is doing well there's nothing wrong with raising taxes and cutting federal spending in order to balance the federal budget and keep the national debt at a manageable level.

What makes our current situation so screwed up is that during the last period of economic "growth" (i.e. the housing bubble), we didn't cut spending, we increased it without raising taxes to pay for it (again, justifiable when the economy is growing). Pile onto that two major wars--of questionable legality--without a clear exit strategy (wartime also being a justifiable reason for increasing taxes) and we compromised our ability to handle future crises.

Look at the mismanagement of the federabl budget under George W. Bush: He fulfilled his promise to cut taxes (favoring the wealthy); he saw an opportunity to go to war with Iraq after establishing a token presence in Afghanistan following 9/11; He sought MORE tax cuts during these wars (which is unprecedented) to buy more votes during a relative time of "plenty" (the housing bubble); Bush and the GOP bought the senior vote for 2004 with Medicare Part D funded solely by deficit deficit spending. By the time the current recession had hit, there would have been fewer headaches and much less anxiety over a stimulus package and tax cuts even while running a deficit over a period of years had the previous administration been true to conservative values like fiscal responsibility--the GOP claims to have seen the light as they take on the role of deficit hawks and point fingers at the Obama administration's spending but can we really trust them to balance the budget and pay down the debt were we to put them back into power in Washington? I seriously doubt it. Especially considering their opposition to PayGo and a bipartisan panel aimed at reducing the deficit. All the GOP is interested is returning to power for power's sake.

As for the national debt*, as long as it's maintained at manageable levels as a percentage of GDP (for the sake of argument, let's say around 30%) the Federal government can afford to run deficits in times of financial crisis and times of war and still be able to rebalance the budget within a decade of the end of the crisis.

At the end of World War Two the national debt was 125% of GDP. After the war the economy exploded (having blasted most foreign competition to smithereens helped) and the highest income tax bracket was over 90%. We paid off the debt within a decade--and fought an entirely new war in Korea to boot.

The current national debt has yet to hit 100% of GDP. Theoretically, we can afford borrow another trillion dollars just to pay off everyone's credit card balance and keep responsible people from losing their homes. However, this scenario presents a moral dilemma. We're supposed to be a country of do-it-your-selfers, where each individual is responsible for their own success or failure. The government stepping in to bail out individuals should be just as bitter as bailing out the banks, if not more so. The numbers make sense, sure. But one old quote I keep hearing is that the country that can give you everything you want can also take everything away. Paying off individual debts would be the ultimate form of government influence over the economy because the results would almost be instant (look how fast they got the money to the banks). I'm willing to bet that if a lot of people had their credit card balances paid, they'd waste no time racking up that debt again. It would sure get the economy moving but we would wind up exactly where we are now. Our culture has to change first.

The thing we have to be prepared to do however is that once the economy is back on its feet and people have switched from public jobs--financed by the stimulus--to private sector jobs is to have the courage and commitment to cut spending AND raise taxes in order to get back to budget surpluses so we can pay the debt back down to manageable levels and keep the economy from burning itself out in another bubble. Spending cuts alone aren't going to do it (and are unlikely to happen because they are politically unpopular, no matter what the GOP says) and raising taxes on the super rich (say $10,000,000+ yearly incomes) won't hurt the spending ability of the lower classes (I'm starting to wonder if the middle class even exists anymore).

Once we're back on even keel with a manageable debt load, we can ease the tax burden without running a deficit--helping the economy by demanding less from those who spend the most--and be in a better position to handle the fiscal demands of the next crisis.

The only problem with all of this: It's a long term, historically precedented solution but impatient Americans want it fixed NOW! ;-)

*Remember, not all debt is owned by the Chinese, Japanese and other foreign interests. It also includes savings bonds, treasury bills and other debt instruments. The social security trust (which basically means that the government owes money to itself). Not all federal debt is bad. As long as it's properly managed, foreign governments would love to keep investing in treasury bills even if we didn't ask them too because they earn interest on it. When economic times are good and the government manages our money responsibly it can benefit people around the world.

An open letter to Jason Chaffetz

2010-02-17T11:28:00.001-07:00

Congressman,

I couldn't help but notice that--once again--I am no longer able to leave comments on your Facebook page. At first I thought I would give you the benefit of a doubt and chalk it up to glitches associated with the recent changes Facebook has been implementing into its system but as the glitches have calmed down, my ability to post comments on your virtual wall has not returned. I can't even send you a direct message via Facebook as I have in the past.

Given your track record of trying to silence people who criticize you on Facebook and YouTube (most notably myself and Dave Iba), it would appear that you have decided to take some of this criticism personally and exact your revenge in the most cowardly manner possible in a free society. This is becoming quite a habit for you and not one that is becoming of a United States Congressman.

How many times have I told you that if you want to be in the public spotlight--which you seem to crave more than doing anything of substance--then you need to have a thicker skin. You can't take what I say personally any more than what might be said about you in televised or printed editorials. I haven't had the kind of exposure that would make my opinions about you matter in the eyes of voters. The largest audience I get for my criticism of you is on your "Fan" page where my remarks are clearly outnumbered by the sycophantic overtures you seem to feed off of. Have you blocked anyone from your group because all they offer you is flattery and hollow praise? No.

And yet here I am, one voice in a group of thousands of "fans" who gives you enough credit to challenge your positions, to question your stand on specific issues and while you have given very short answers to a small percentage of my questions--which I appreciate--it's all for nothing if your response to tougher criticism is to try and silence me.

There are people in your forum that call me a joke and that's fine, I don't take it personally. I have friends who have said to me, "Chaffetz probably thinks you're a joke," until I explain to them that this isn't the first time that you've tried to silence me because I said something that you didn't like to hear. Because this is behavior that you have exhibited before, we can't honestly conclude that you think I'm a joke.

Frankly, we think you feel threatened.

If I was a joke, you'd just ignore me. Maybe you would try and placate me with short, ambiguous, one-sentence answers to specific questions that your "fans" would praise you for. But, instead, you chose to silence me in the one forum that you can control--that is not the act of a man who's laughing. Perhaps you've chosen to be offended because I use strong language to illustrate my opinion of you. I have called you impotent--in reference to your political influence. I've called you a liar and backed up my assertions with facts that directly contradict your statements. I've called you out for making a big self-righteous show about how you claim to be changing things in Washington and illustrated just how much you are a part of that broken system. I'm probably the only person you know who's willing to call you out on your political failings and demand that you address them. I'm the only person who dares look past your rhetoric and ask you to reconcile it with your actions. I'm the one guy who's not going to settle for your token gestures and symbolic "reform" while you ignore the bigger problems that are destroying our country. Bottom line, I'm the best friend and "fan" that you will ever have because you can always count on me to be honest with you and NOT kiss your ass.

If you aren't already aware, I have decided to do more than just criticize the job that you're doing as Congressman. I have made the decision to challenge you in the general election in November as an independent candidate. Before you booted me, I made a conscious decision to say nothing about my campaign or answer any questions related to it on your Facebook page because I respected it as one of your tools to communicate with your constituents--even though you do more inflaming than communicating--and a place for open discourse despite the fact that most people in that forum aren't open to anything.

I'd like to formally request that I be allowed to maintain a participatory presence on your Facebook page as well as invite you to become a member of my Facebook group and participate in the discussion that occurs there. You are welcome to be as harsh and critical of my politics as I have been of yours and I promise to give honest, straight-forward responses to your questions.

Have you ever watched the movie "The Godfather"? Remember that classic line, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer"? I'm not saying that we are enemies but we certainly are opponents and it would be wise for both of us to keep tabs on the other, maintain an open dialogue and challenge each other on the issues. That is if having an open mind and thick skin are traits that you value in a public servant.

Sincerely,

Joe Puente

My Facebook group: http://bit.ly/jpofb

Quayle: 51-Vote Senate Majority 'Not What Our Founding Fathers Had In Mind'

2010-02-13T00:24:00.001-07:00

FYI: The U.S. Constitution requires a supermajority vote under ONLY THREE specific circumstances: 1) To propose a Congress-driven constitutional amendment; 2) to override a presidential veto and 3) to ratify a treaty. Any other motion before the senate can be passed with a simply majority, i.e. 51 votes. The rule currently in place requiring a supermajority for a cloture vote has no Constitutional justification.

The former Vice President's assertion that passing a bill through reconciliation would be "unprecedented" is a LIE. When the GOP controlled the Senate under George W. Bush they passed bills through reconciliation all the time--this includes Bush's tax cuts and Medicare Part D.

Is Chaffetz really this ignorant or is he just lying?

2010-02-12T19:46:00.000-07:00

In anticipation of the 1-year anniversary of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (AKA "The Stimulus Package"), Jason Chaffetz posted a link on his Facebook page to one of his "good" sources of information: GOP.gov--oh, there couldn't possibly be any bias coming from that source--which asks "Where are the jobs?" Chaffetz accompanying remark was, "A year later.....we can't spend our way out of our problems."

I threw a test question out to the forum: Tell me, what exactly was it that got the US out of the great depression?

I got the answer that I expected: "World War II"

I've had similar discussions before and every critic of the stimulus like to point out that it was World War II and NOT the New Deal spending programs that lifted America out of the Great Depression.

But what was World War II if not situation that forced America to spend money that it didn't have? And did it not result in a national debt approaching 125% of GDP but also an economic boom that helped us pay off that debt within a decade?

If World War Two had never happened and the US Government decided to build all those tanks, aircraft, rifles, ships and tools of war anyway and then just took them out into the middle of the ocean and SANK them, the effect on the economy would have been the same; a major boom in wealth and prosperity which would have resulted in increased tax revenue, budget surpluses and paying down the national debt--only no lives would have been lost.

What I struggle to understand is why so many "conservatives" seem to have no problem with ringing up a national debt in the trillions in the name of security or for the sake of war--resulting in the unnecessary loss of American and foreign lives--but somehow they have a moral objection to short term deficit spending in the interest of rebuilding infrastructure and employing Americans while providing the impetus for the private economy to reboot. Why is war politically preferable to doing right by the people of this nation? Why is it okay spend billions of dollars destroying the infrastructure--and countless lives--of a foreign nation but it isn't okay to spend billions of dollars to say upgrade the U.S. power grid so the lights don't go out just because it rains?

Deficit spending for the government is not always a bad thing. It is in fact necessary during times of war and historically precedented during times of economic turmoil. Despite what Chaffetz and his minions claim, federal spending in the short term CAN provide a boost to the economy and that boost results in increased tax revenue in the long term that can help balance the federal budget and shrink the national debt.

Chaffetz does his constituents a disservice whenever he puts the government's fiscal policy in terms of home economics. The federal budget is not analogous to a household budget and someone who's serving the U.S. Congress--in the very chamber that determines what is and isn't spent--needs to understand that. So far Chaffetz has demonstrated that he doesn't have a basic grasp of macroeconomic theory--or he's pretending not to for the sake of scoring political points with uninformed constituents. Either way, we don't need any more Congressmen who are ignorant or lie to the people for the sake of a few extra votes. Utah doesn't need another politician in Washington, we need a representative who has the ability to see beyond the short term--i.e. the next election--and do right by those he or she represents.

And if there's any one reason the stimulus didn't live up to its expectations, we can blame "conservatives" in Congress for gutting it in exchange for the empty promise of bilateral support. What resulted was a hint of a stimulus that instead of reversing the recession, merely caused it to be less painful than it could have been. And wether you want to believe it or not, jobs were created by the stimulus, unfortunately the number of jobs created by government intervention was offset by the number of jobs lost in the private sector.

It should also be noted that the cost of the stimulus doesn't just represent spending, it also takes into account the LARGEST TAX-CUT IN AMERICAN HISTORY. And Republicans STILL voted against it.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/01/26/business/economy/20090126-recessions-graphic.html

Al Qaeda Missionaries

2010-02-05T17:32:00.001-07:00

Puente for Congress

2010-02-01T23:39:00.001-07:00

Lessig on Obama's First Year: Change Congress Chronicles

2010-01-20T11:15:00.001-07:00

Right wing histrionics over the last year has been claiming that Americans are losing their civil liberties because of Barack Obama's agenda when, in reality, Congres--a Democratically controlled Congress, no less--has done everything it can to impede the efforts of the Obama administration. The video by Lawrence Lessig does an excellent job of illustrating what the real problem is and just who is to blame: Congress--and it goes beyond Republicans and Democrats. Lessig's argument also touches on some major themes in Robert Reich's book "Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy and Everyday Life."

1.6 Op-ed

2009-11-28T20:31:00.001-07:00

My 1.6 Op-ed is now online: http://bit.ly/5olmx2

Chaffetz, the President & Israel

2009-09-23T16:47:00.001-06:00

Jason Chaffetz tweeted the following on September 23, 2009:

I am outraged by the President's comments at the U.N. His approach to the Israel-Palestinian situation is wrong on many fronts.
President wants discussions "without preconditions." I disagree. We should always stand tall for Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.
Also, the President's characterization that Israel should "end the occupation that began in 1967" is offensive and wrong.
I was a little confused by this.

Ya see, Chaffetz said "I disagree. We should always stand tall for Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state."

But President Obama specifically called for "a Jewish State of Israel, with true security for all Israelis."

Where's the disagreement?

Chaffetz then says that the President is wrong to call the Israeli occupation of land it annexed (and is not legally Israeli territory) an occupation.

But the President isn't wrong. The crux of the modern conflict between Israel and Palestine has been the Israeli-occupied territories. It's called an occupation because that's what it is.

Chaffetz is obviously disagreeing with the President for the sake of being disagreeable (and to get his name in the news again) while simultaneously making himself and the state he represents look like an uninformed horse's ###.

Real Time With Bill Maher - Americans Are Stupid

2009-08-09T20:30:00.001-06:00

Moroni Resident Tracks Rep. Chaffetz on “JasonWatch” Website

2009-07-29T13:45:00.000-06:00

Moroni Resident Tracks Rep. Chaffetz on “JasonWatch” Website

Supercapitalism by Robert B. Reich

2009-07-28T00:18:00.001-06:00

I've often said that the free market can always be counted on to do what's profitable but what's profitable isn't always what's right.

Dr. Reich's examination of how Democratic Capitalism has been pushed aside by Supercapitalism illustrates my point better than I ever could. Of course he has dedicated his life to the subjects of economics, politics and society. The subtitle of the book is "The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life."

Reich discusses the circumstances surrounding the rise and fall of organizaed labor in the United States, the role that Oligopolies played in the American and world economy during the period he calls "The Not Quite Golden Age" (1950s-1970s) and the dichotomy that exists in the minds of Americans as consumers/investors and citizens who shop at Wal-Mart to get the best deals on products manufactured overseas by American-based companies who then go home and lament the downtrodden status of the American worker and the suffering of main streets and mom and pop businesses across the country.

Another fascinating point made is the anthropomorphism of corporations that has resulted in a false belief held by the public that companies are just like people and subsequent legislation that treats them as such. Corporations can be sued, taxed and accused of having agendas when, in reality, they are just "legal fictions," bundles of contracts and collectives of shareholders and employees. How often have we referred to corporations as having evil intent, "Wal-Mart hates unions," "Microsoft is a monopolist." Companies don't have intent. They can't hate or love. But by treating them as people, the executives that operate those corporations start to assume that said corporations are entitled to rights and representation in government and Supercapitalism has enabled them to buy that representation through lobbying and corporate donations to political campaigns. Divorcing ourselves from this fallacy of corporate sentience is the first step in dismantling that influence that business has over our government. Only by doing that can government get back to representing the interests of the people instead of implementing legislation designed to work for the economic advantage of big business. Summed up simply, our leaders in government seem to have forgotten that rights are guaranteed to people not corporations. Reich also makes an excellent case for eliminating the corporate income tax and replacing it with taxes withheld from shareholder dividends. Let the stockholders pay taxes on the income corporations earn on their behalf, the way the law works now, corporations simply pass their taxes onto the consumer.

This is just one of many excellent examples that Reich gives in his book about how democracy can come out from under the weight of corporate influence so that all Americans can eventually benefit from the positive aspects of Supercapitalism that we now enjoy, great deals as consumers and higher returns as investors while not compromising the greater good that can only be made possible through democracy that is unencumbered by corporate influence.

Fresh Air from WHYY - Robert Reich Looks Askance at 'Supercapitalism' - 9/11/2007 - "Fresh Air"

NPR.org's Book Tour - Robert Reich Issues a Warning in 'Supercapitalism' - 10/02/07

Official page at Random House

Fineman: GOP Has No Alternative Health Care Reform Plan

2009-07-26T20:40:00.001-06:00

Letter to the Editor - JasonWatch.org

2009-07-25T01:56:00.000-06:00

Dear Editor,

I’ve been closely following Jason Chaffetz’ as Congressman for District 3. I admired his choice to sleep in his office when in D.C. I liked that he kept in touch with his constituents through YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. I’m impressed with his commitment to fiscal discipline. At first he seemed like a good guy to have in office. Then I got a fear mongering e-mail from him about a “Cap-and-Trade Tax.” I did some research and found out it was full of lies, distortions and insinuations. I watched his videos. Some are informative but others are just as much political hot air as we ever got from Chris Cannon. I started to fact-check the things that he sends out to his constituents and I was very uncomfortable with the amount of disinformation he was spreading, much of it he gets directly from his party leadership. He also isn’t very forthcoming when it comes to providing sources for some of the things he says. I’ve managed to find these sources on my own only to discover that information has been taken out of context or lifted from outdated or even discredited documents. Of course much of his “research” is done for him by the Republican party, which is just as disappointing because instead of getting information for himself, he just passes the buck. Most people don’t go to these lengths to make sure that their Congressmen is being straight with them and that’s too bad. There are many people in District 3 who take Chaffetz at his word and have no idea that sometimes he’s misleading him. Not being one to sit idly by when someone tries to pull a fast one on me, I took it upon myself to start a web site to keep track of Chaffetz’ actions and statements as Congressman: www.JasonWatch.org. Out of fairness, I offer him both praise for the good things that he does do and criticism for when he falls short. So far, the good outnumbers the bad and I hope it stays that way. I’ve also included a message board on the site that’s open to the public so they can share their praise and criticism of their Congressman as well. I follow Mr. Chaffetz’ twitter feed, subscribe to his videos and, until recently, he and I were “friends” on Facebook. When I first watched his videos on YouTube, I left comments on them. Usually to point out a fact he might not have considered or to give him some friendly critique. His response was to disable the comments feature on his channel. This disappointed me. A Congressman needs to be open to criticism and the views of those he is elected to represent. I thought he made up for this on his Facebook page where people are free to post topics and discuss them. Chaffetz decided to remove me from that forum because of the “frequency” of my comments. Frankly, I just don’t think he liked what I had to say.

-Joe Puente
Sanpete, Utah

The Angle "On Facebook" (and Jason Chaffetz)

2009-07-24T21:18:00.001-06:00

The irony is not lost on me that this isn't exactly a short response to Jason's complaints about the "quantity" of my comments. Yeah, it's a bout 9 1/2 minutes long... but worth every second! ;-)

BILL MOYERS JOURNAL | Preview: Wendell Potter pt 2 | PBS

2009-07-10T21:02:00.001-06:00

Buy One Anyway

2009-07-09T21:06:00.000-06:00

The Birthright Citizenship Act is Unconstitutional

2009-07-09T20:29:00.001-06:00

Congressman Jason Chaffetz is cosponsoring a bill called “The Birthright Citizenship Act” (H.R.1868) which could amend the Immigration and Nationality Act by not granting citizenship to anyone born in the United States unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or national, a lawfully admitted or resident alien or is an alien serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states: "ALL persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." According to the Constitution, one's birthright as a citizen is not defined by the citizenship status of one’s parents. Denying citizenship to someone "born... in the United States" under the circumstances outlined above, would require a Constitutional amendment. The aim of this bill is to punish natural born American citizens for the crimes of their parents and in the land of “Justice for all,” I can think of few things that are more UN-American. Chaffetz’ cosponsorship is especially disappointing as he has been a strong proponent of abiding by the Constitution in regard to his work with the census and Congressional oversight of the District of Columbia. To endorse legislation as clearly unconstitutional as this is blatantly hypocritical. A lot of the furor against illegal immigrants is disproportionately aimed at those from Mexico and other Latin-American countries, not because of their numbers but because of their obvious ethnicity. Legislation such as this, while possessing a filigree of concern for the rights of American workers and accessibility to public resources by U.S. citizens, is fundamentally motivated by the racism that continues to exist in this country. One needn’t wear a swastika or a white robe to be influenced by endemic prejudice. The election of an African-American President, the recent Supreme Court ruling in favor of Connecticut firemen denied promotions on racial grounds and a backlash of bigoted resentment pent-up after years of political correctness and affirmative action have brought this country to a fragile point in its development as a cultural melting-pot. Just as a stretched elastic band will recoil to its slack position when cut, I fear a recoil in this country to racial attitudes of the past and bills like H.R.1868 is suggestive of such attitudes. To those who would claim to be unfairly characterized by referring to their “many friends who are (insert ethnicity here),” I would like to point out that it is possible to be a white, English speaking illegal immigrant to the United States but I'm willing to bet that if anyone were to try and round up all the illegals no one would pay attention to an impoverished Canadian even if he approached an INS agent saying, "I'm an illegal alien too, eh! Let me on the truck!"

Headzup: Joe Biden "Misreads" The Economy

2009-07-06T14:09:00.001-06:00

Electric sedan of the future: Tesla's 2011 Model S

2009-07-04T14:34:00.001-06:00

Hillary Breaks Her Arm

2009-06-22T11:00:00.001-06:00

This cracks me up. :-)

JasonWatch.org

2009-06-21T14:43:00.001-06:00

'Save our CEOs' Teaser for Michael Moore's New Film Hits Theaters!

2009-06-13T13:09:00.001-06:00

Yes, I'm a Michael Moore fan. No, I don't agree with everything he says. But he's a pretty damned good filmmaker.

And it begins...

2009-06-09T12:45:00.002-06:00

Well, I did it. I've launched JasonWatch.org.

Check it out at http://www.jasonwatch.org/.

Your online destination for kudos and critique of Congressman Jason Chaffetz

Because somebody has to do it!

Chaffetz Continues to Mislead his Constituents

2009-06-05T21:50:00.007-06:00

Well, Jason’s at it again. He has sent out a letter in which he criticizes the stimulus package for being both too big and ineffective. He also claims that “The President projected that his stimulus package would prevent the unemployment rate from exceeding 8%.” (emphasis added)

Oh, did he? Actually, no, he didn’t. At least I haven’t been able to find a direct quote from the President or anyone on his staff to that effect. Just third party hearsay from the blogosphere (by the way, blogs are not usually credible sources of information as they are largely used to express opinion that may or may not be based on actual facts). If any readers can find me a direct quote from a credible and verifiable source, I’d really appreciate it. Now, what did the President say?

Well, before the President even took the oath of office his transition team acknowledged that unemployment was expected to exceed 8% in 2009. Chaffetz also refers to the President’s banchmarks, offering only a link to a bitmap image on his own web site--really, Jason? A bitmap? What do you think this is, the ‘80s?--instead of the charts that are readily available from the Office of Management and Budget which rather optimistically predicted a 2009 unemployment rate of 8.1%. It should also be noted that these estimates were made back in January prior to the economic outlook getting more and more pessimistic in subsequent months, which the President's economic staff has acknowledged all along. Now one tenth of a percent may not seem like that big of a deal but in an age where accurate information is only a few mouse-clicks away, no one, especially a U.S. Congressman, can afford to distort information by even the smallest of margins.

Chaffetz goes on to say of his bitmap, "the following graph shows that the President was claiming that the impact of the stimulus package would be immediate."

First of all, I'm pretty sure that the President never claimed, in words or graphics, that the impact of the stimulus bill would be immediate. Second, where did Jason get this graph (which he also refers to as "the report") anyway? There is nothing in the image to indicate its source and the document itself is only named "stimulus graph.bmp" which tells us even less. Now, I'm sure that Jason is counting on his constituents to just take him at his word and not question his statements, numbers or motives but what he didn't count on was the fact that I live in his district, subscribe to his e-mail list and don't trust anyone. So, as usual, I did a little homework.

It turns out that the graph is from a report titled "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" (emphasis added) released on January 10 and prepared in part by Christina Romer, Chair Nominee Designate, at the time, of the then President-elect's Council of Economic Advisors. Not only does this report, and the graphic contained in it, predate the Obama administration by at least 10 days, it was written over a month before anyone even knew what the final details of the stimulus package would be. And the statistics used in it were most likely based on economic forecasts from the last quarter of 2008, when we were only just realizing that we were even in a recession. During the following month the language and fiscal details of the stimulus bill went through so many changes and adjustments that the data and the graph presented in that January 10 report were rendered completely inapplicable to the final legislation.

It's like blaming an author because the movie based on his best-selling novel has a different ending from the book. Most novelists are left out of the production loop once their work has been optioned by a movie studio. The same thing happens when the President proposes legislation to Congress. He has little if any control over how the final legislation is going to turn out even if the Legislative Branch is dominated by the same party.

As for Chaffetz' insistence that the stimulus package is both too big and ineffective, there are some reputable economists, including former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who think that the stimulus package is too small to be effective. As I have said in a previous post on "The Anglə,"(4:39) this is because the authors of the stimulus legislation kept making compromises at the request of Republican members of Congress in the interest of bipartisanship and GOP support of the stimulus when it came time for the final vote. After all that compromise, most Republicans, including Chaffetz, voted against it anyway.

Ya know, one of these days all of his lying and political bullshit is going to come back and bite Chaffetz right in his Republican ass and I plan on being there when it happens.

Former Interrogator Rebukes Cheney for Torture Speech

2009-05-29T21:35:00.002-06:00

After you watch this, check out the following post on "The Anglə":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsy-WNLRHIc

Starbucks' Health Care Policy Is Sickening

2009-05-27T20:53:00.001-06:00

Seeing stories like this makes me grateful for the crappy healthcare I get through the V.A. Because at least I've got SOMETHING.

Can Liberals and Conservatives be Fairly Compared to Socialists and Fascists?

2009-05-25T00:29:00.005-06:00

I read a blog post about "Liberalism" recently that erupted into a short thread of name-calling and insults along the lines of "Which is better? Liberalism or Conservatism?" The definitions offered of each were as broad as they were biased.

I've been thinking about this dichotomy in political thought for a while and was motivated by this exchange to finally put my observations and thoughts in writing. So, here goes.

First of all, American-Conservatism and American-Liberalism are not the same as conservatism and liberalism as it's known and practiced in other parts of the world. Most notably Europe.

Also, the political spectrum is much more complex than the idea of a line segment with a center and right & left ends. We like to think of Conservatives and Liberals as coming together in the middle on principles that they both embrace. The blog & related thread mentioned above had each side accusing the other of not respecting cherished American principles. The fact is, both American-Conservatism and American-Liberalism stand for Constitutional Law, Civil Rights, personal liberty, equal opportunity, etc. Those are American values and neither the "left" nor the "right" can claim them as solely their own.

What we need to understand is that the primary differences between Liberal and Conservative ideas of freedom, equality and opportunity can't be fairly represented by that left/right line segment because a distinction has to be made between Personal freedom and Economic freedom.

If we give each of those aspects their own left/right spectrum then we get a clearer representation of where Conservatives and Liberals stand on those two different yet connected measurements. David Nolan, who founded the Libertarian Party in 1971, placed these two scales not parallel to each other but perpendicular to each other creating a political plane as apposed to a political spectrum. There are also a number of political compasses floating around. Nolan's model, however, is basic and apropos to my thesis.

If you try and cram economic and personal liberty on the same scale you don't just get conflicts between the Conservative and Liberal schools of thought, you get inconsistencies and ideological paradoxes within each of those schools.

On a political plane which Nolan put forth in a diagram that's now called "The Nolan Chart" it's easier to see where Conservatives and Liberals are alike and where they differ. On the Personal freedom axis of the Nolan Chart, both American-Liberalism and American-Conservatism are on the side of greater freedom. On the Economic freedom axis, American-Conservatism leans toward more economic freedom and American-Liberalism leans toward less economic freedom. Where a great deal of the confusion in American politics comes from is the misguided notion that one's philosophy regarding economics is directly aligned with their philosophy on personal liberty. This is not always the case. That's why we're seeing Republicans trying to label Democrats as Socialists because, unfortunately, a lot of Americans will confuse Socialism with Communism--a philosophy based on taking away both personal and economic freedom. Modern Socialism and Civil Liberties are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

During the Bush Administration ('01-'09), it was popular amongst liberals to associate Republicans and other conservatives with Nazis and fascism. This had more to do with a blurring of the line between patriotism and nationalism in Republican rhetoric, concerns about undermining civil rights through legislation such as the USA PATRIOT ACT as well as the prosecution of a perpetual "War on Terrorism" than any relationship between American-Conservative values and those of the Nazi party. The GOP's willingness to become a rubber stamp for the Bush Administration, out of party loyalty, certainly didn't help to curtail that image.

While it can be argued that American-Liberalism, vis-à-vis its economic philosophy, when taken to an extreme would lead to socialism (which, in reality, probably wouldn't happen under the U.S. Constitution), its a bit more of a semantic stretch to say that American-Conservatism, taken to its extreme, would lead to Fascism. On the personal freedom axis, Fascism--by its very definition--is hostile toward the very concept of individual liberty. It also rejects capitalism in favor of "Corporatism" which essentially creates government mandated monopolies to exert control over the economy. It's not quite economic socialism but it certainly flies in the face of what any self-respecting American Conservative would call their core values. By the way, while history clearly says otherwise, the Nazis did not consider themselves fascists.

Even Nolan was guilty of oversimplifying American political theory arguing that American-Liberalism advocated only personal freedom and American-Conservatism advocated only economic freedom while claiming that Libertarianism was the only political philosophy that advocated both. In that respect, Libertarianism--at least on a superficial level--has more in common with traditional conservatism than it might care to admit.

Practically speaking, Liberalism and Conservatism in the United States do not occupy opposite ends of the economic axis. If anything, they both find themselves on the side of economic freedom with one (Liberalism) leaning more toward the center than the other in that traditionally the "Left" advocates government regulation and the "Right" prefers to loosen government oversight. But both Liberals and Conservatives can't deny the generally successful model of free-market Capitalism and its social benefits. The United States government presently finds itself reevaluating the role that it plays in the economy with a possible shift toward more regulation in the finance sector as well as exploring options that it can take to try and fix problems with the healthcare system. Even the infusion of public capital into the finance and automotive industries can, at best, be called "Lemon Socialism" and are not intended to be permanent situations. But even if sweeping legislation is put into place to address all of those issues, the result would not be "American Socialism." The U.S. economy will continue to operate under the rules of Capitalism. Innovation and the entrepreneurial spirit aren't going to fizzle and die; we just may find ourselves with a more regulated economy. This may slow economic growth but simultaneously reduce the risk of market collapses and prevent artificial bubbles from getting a foothold, let alone growing out of control, and subsequently bursting. These measures will also soften the blow of future recessions--which are inevitable as they are simply part of the free market economic cycle--and hopefully keep us from experiencing deep recessions like the one we're experiencing now--or mini depression as some are calling it.

All of this will also result in a major cultural shift for many Americans. I think we're going to come out of this a more pragmatic culture. There'll be less "Keeping up with the Joneses" and more consideration for what's practical and needed over what's ostentatious and simply wanted. This will also affect American political culture where concerns about the "Extremes" of political philosophies may wind up being purely academic.

Of course, in the words of Dennis Miller, "That's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

Sources:

n.b. when dealing with specific facts and figures, I try my best to turn to official sources such as major news outlets, government web sites and published articles in reputable periodicals and journals. When it comes to broader topics like political philosophies or complex issues that draw on numerous sources (like the USA PATRIOT Act), I'll refer the reader to a relevant and vetted Wikipedia article.

Sen. Inhofe (R-OK) Extols the Luxuries of the Gitmo Life

2009-05-23T00:16:00.001-06:00

Free medical care, good food, classes, gardening. I find it amusing how many Guantanamo defenders talk about how good the terrorists have it in the detention camps.

Are they forgetting that these people have been accused of committing some of the worst crimes imaginable? But instead of trying them in court, where if found guilty they'll either be incarcerated in a REAL prison or sentenced to death, we're taking better care of them than Osama Bin Laden did. All he could offer them was a cold corner of a cave to sleep in and a promise of 72 virgins that may or may not be awaiting them after they blow themselves up in an Afghan market.

But it makes an eery sort of sense. The Republicans WANT to take good care of their precious detainees. They fill a very important role in the Republican Psychodrama that is their national agenda. They are the face of the enemy. The Terrorists in Guantanamo are the Emmanuel Goldsteins to the GOP's Big Brother. Keep them out of the U.S. and perpetually awaiting trial and they retain that air of danger the Right Wing is counting on to scare the country into giving them back the power they enjoyed in the years immediately following 9/11.

To bad they don't realize that most of us have stopped buying their fear mongering.

http://www.momoy.com/2007/03/11/guantanamo-detainees-allowed-to-garden/

And the Award for Biggest Balls in Congress Goes To...

2009-05-18T13:04:00.003-06:00

GOP Representative John Duncan of Tennessee is sponsoring legislation to curb "irresponsible" federal spending. It aims to do this by limiting government spending to a specific percentage of GDP as well as making it difficult for congress to even consider legislation that might cause spending to exceed that limit.

Of course, the rule in Washington being "Do as I say, not as I do," Duncan comes to the defense of this own earmarks to the tune of $178,000,000. His reasoning?

"If the money is going to be spent, I thought it was only fair for my district and East Tennessee to get its share. If I refused to ask for any federal money at all, that money is just going to go to New York or California or one of the nation's biggest cities. I don't want my people to be left out. I wish we were spending a whole lot less up here than we're having to spend."

Oh, they HAVE to spend it. What a convenient way to shift reponsibility to the imaginary person that's holding a gun to their heads and forcing them to spend money that they don't want to.

One word: Bullshit.

Matthews, Buchanan, O'Donnell Agree America Is A Socialist Nation

2009-05-16T21:33:00.002-06:00

An interesting little tête-à-tête considering my thoughts on the subject as stated on "The Anglə."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjElAwc5R3g

Civilian Contractors Have the Water in Iraq, Aren't Sharing

2009-05-15T19:03:00.001-06:00

First it was up-armored humvees, personal armor, communications equipment. You'd think they'd at least have plenty of water to drink.

I remember watching a news report during Desert Shield showing how careful the military was to make sure the troops stayed hydrated.

Today, it's an afterthought.

"Heubener" and Utah Politics

2009-02-25T15:01:00.000-07:00

I recently watched Thomas F. Rogers’ play “Heubener,” the story of a young Mormon Elder in wartime Germany whose Branch President tries desperately to reconcile his faith with his citizenship citing the 12th Article of Faith of the LDS Church, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” However, he also tries to reconcile his beliefs with the dogma of the ruling Nazi party.

This attempt at reconciliation, in Rogers’ own words, “serves as the philosophical crux of the play,” which struck close to home for me in that I’ve seen in our own community, and by extension Utah politics in general, attempts by faithful Mormons to reconcile doctrine with political rhetoric. This attitude even has Mormons questioning each other’s morality and worthiness based on their political leanings despite statements issued by the Church that “Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties.”

It’s my hope, since we are currently between elections, that these observations will not be arbitrarily dismissed like so much political hot air. It seems that in our two party system––no matter how much the parties claim to be open to differing views––when it comes time to vote, all members of a party are expected to tow the line in accordance with the views of the party leadership (often representing the most extreme ends of the political spectrum). Such attitudes make the efforts of moderates futile.

When any one party is in control of government for an extended period of time, I’m reminded of Lord Acton’s caveat that “Power... corrupt[s] and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” In our federal government we can recall major shifts of power in Congress to check the Executive branch mid-term; most notably 1994 and 2006. But what of Utah’s political climate in which, despite a state constitution that was modeled on the Federal one, has effectively become a one-party system over the last generation largely by appealing to Mormons by implying that their party is more righteous than others? How many Utah candidates include their LDS Missions on their resumes? All this flies in the face of established Doctrine: “We do not believe it just to MINGLE religious influence with civil government...” (D&C 134:9) (emphasis added) While the Church encourages its members to participate in all aspects of government from voting to running for office, even participation in political parties, it still places a great deal of emphasis on members thinking for themselves when casting their votes. “...vote for and actively support those YOU believe will most nearly carry out YOUR ideas of good government.” (emphasis added) I think Mormons would be better served by not allying themselves with any political party. An unaffiliated voter, either in the voting booth or on the floor of a legislative body, is freer to vote their conscience and would not feel politically pressured to “tow the line.”

Homeland Insecurity

2005-09-02T10:44:00.001-06:00

Post 9/11 Paranoia used to justify Veteran Abuse

I did something kind of stupid recently. I had a 9 AM appointment here in Sanpete. I haven’t been driving since mid July for economic reasons, so I asked a friend for a ride to my appointment. He was leaving about an hour earlier for his own meeting up north so I arrived a good 45 minutes early. All I had with me was a tote bag and my dog, Phil. The office didn’t open until 9 so I decided to take my dog for a walk. I left my bag by the front door with a note that read: “Back at 9 AM - Joe Puente.” I wasn’t worried about it being stolen nor was I worried about any kind of misunderstanding because of the note.

When I returned, I was told that my bag caused a little scare among the arriving staff and they had called the police. I gladly opened my bag to expose its harmless contents and asked if anyone had read the note. The response: “Grace did.”

Grace (not her real name) was the receptionist at this particular office. Grace and I have history. The first time I had an appointment at this particular facility, I called to ask for the address. Grace gave me an address that was in the middle of an empty field causing me to be late for that particular appointment. Grace is also generally rude and condescending to me whenever I come to this office and her attitude is contagious. The previous week, Grace decided that my appointment that day was invalid. That appointment wasn’t with Grace, it was with the professional I came to see. She didn’t care, which made me angry, then Grace threatened to call the cops.

One week later, representatives of the Sanpete County Sheriffs Department arrived in response to the “suspicious bag” that was left out front. Instead of telling the officers about the misunderstanding, Grace decided to cry on their shoulders about the last disagreement she had with me.

When I came out from my appointment, eager to leave because yet another friend was going into work late so he could give me a ride back, the officers (there were two of them. At five feet, four inches, I can be very intimidating) took me into a room and started to lecture me about post 9/11 etiquette. I told them that it was a mistake on my part and it wouldn’t happen again, but their lecturing didn’t stop. They treated me as if I was a terrorist or an enemy combatant with a room at Guantanamo Bay. I was then lectured about the disagreement I had with Grace and was accused of “dropping the F-bomb” (a metaphor for saying the “F-word”) which I didn’t do. It wasn’t even “Good Cop/Bad Cop.” It was more like “Bad Cop/Worse Cop.”

Since Grace was the one who read the note that I left on my bag, which clearly had my name on it, I believe she saw this as an opportunity to get me into trouble for the little spat we had the week before. For the record, I apologized to her for having such a short fuze, but I also pointed out that she was rude to me. Of course, she didn’t own up to it and offered no apology in return.

When I was in the Navy, I took an oath to defend this country and the constitution of the United States which guarantees Grace’s rights. To be implicated as, essentially, a terrorist is insulting to say the least. But for members of the Sanpete County Sheriffs Department to respond to a call that proved to be incorrect and then stay on the premises to interrogate me, make false accusations and treat me like yet another bomber who missed his flight on 9/11 is SHAMEFUL.

It’s bad enough that our federal government has created this culture of fear and suspicion in the aftermath of 9/11. But when local law enforcement uses it as an excuse to try and intimidate the people they are supposed to be serving, acting like modern-day Gestapos and justifying their behavior and attitudes by hiding behind the convenient excuse of “homeland security,” it makes me want to give up hope that there’s any decency left in this world.

The Flaming Hoops of the V.A. Healthcare System

2005-08-26T10:32:00.000-06:00

This is why government managed healthcare WON'T work in the United States (Government Funded/Guaranteed? Maybe). An abbreviated version of this essay was published as a letter to the editor in the Deseret News, among other publications in 2005.

I'm a Veteran. I served in the United States Navy for five years. When I decided to return to the civilian community, I was told all about my “Veteran Benefits.” Principle among them, a lifetime of free medical care through the Veterans Administration. In the seven years since I was discharged, VA policy changed from one where any veteran could just walk into a VA Medical Center and receive treatment for almost any medical problem to a policy that states, if a veteran is not “in the system,” they are not entitled to treatment, regardless of the fact that they are veterans. If a veteran is “not in the system” and has no commercial medical insurance, he or she can’t even turn to Medicaid because, as veterans, they are automatically disqualified for it (Medicaid would probably give them better treatment as well). Where does this leave them? With a choice of paying for medical care out of pocket, which most can’t do, or jumping through the flaming hoops of the VA bureaucracy.

I once made the trip to the Salt Lake VA to get an ominous looking growth taken care of. At the time, I thought I was in the system. Every other time I went to the VA, I was treated. When I got there, I was told that I wasn’t “in the system.” A doctor took a look at the growth I was concerned about and said, “You should get that biopsied, but I can’t do it. You’re not in the system.”  Imagine the fear and uncertainty you feel when you hear a doctor tell you that you should get a biopsy and then hear that same doctor tell you that she can’t do it for bureaucratic reasons. I’ve often wondered how VA doctors reconcile such policies with the Hippocratic Oath. I remember leaving that day thinking, “What if it’s cancer? What if I die? Then I’ll have the words ‘He died because the VA wouldn’t treat him’ carved into my tombstone. That’ll show ‘em!” Then I thought, “Probably not.” 

I’ve since jumped through the flaming hoops of the VA, but not without being burned. I receive my treatment through a medical clinic in Sanpete County. But in order for me to receive said treatment, I am not allowed to make my own appointment at the clinic. I have to call the VA Medical Center in Salt Lake City, where I am transferred to an office in Nephi which makes the appointment on my behalf with the clinic in Sanpete. 

Since President Bush declared the war on terror, there’s been a lot of talk about our “American Heroes,” the brave men and women of the U.S. Armed forces who are paid so little, that many enlisted families, even with all their “benefits,” still qualify for food stamps and state-sponsored children’s health insurance. And when these people get out of the military, if they are unable to get civilian medical insurance, they are practically forced to accept medical coverage from an organization that is so poorly run and insufficiently funded, it makes the worst-run H.M.O. look like the Mayo Clinic. Oh, sure, the government says they’re giving more money to the VA, but take my word for it, as a VA patient, that money isn’t going toward the healthcare of our “Heroes.” I’ve seen, with my own eyes, the quality of VA health care drop from poor to pathetic. When I see ad campaigns on television for military recruiting efforts, it saddens me to think of all the hopeful young men and women who are answering the call of their country who have no idea that they’ll be treated like third-class citizens as soon as they take off the uniform and return to the civilian world.

On Abortion

2003-02-01T13:06:00.016-07:00

It was on the 30th anniversary of Roe v Wade--January 22, 2003--that I learned that the three previous Republican administrations “bravely” made telephone calls to the Pro-Life demonstrators that meet in front of the Supreme Court on the anniversary date of that landmark decision every year. The declared Democratic presidential candidates, as well as other Democratic leaders, took the opportunity to reaffirm their agreement with the "Pro-choice" position in public forums.

The Abortion debate seems to bring out the most extreme views on both sides of the issue. I’m not fond of extremists. Anyone who sits on the extreme end of any issue or philosophy makes me nervous. Fundamentalism in any cause or religion can lead to unhealthy fervor. Unhealthy fervor can lead to extreme measures. I find it interesting how the people in these causes label themselves and how they label each other. The media refers to them as “Pro-life” and “Pro-choice.” Two “Pros” in direct opposition to each other.

"Pro-life" people are, for the most part, anti-abortion and often refer to the Pro-choice movement as “Pro-Abortion.” Pro-life extremists would have Roe v. Wade overturned, outlawing the practice of abortion entirely with no exceptions. For them, it really isn’t about choice, it’s about the life of the unborn child no matter what. Rape, Incest, danger to the life of the mother, severe deformity of the fetus isn’t as important as the life of the unborn child--regardless of what that child’s quality of life would be. Pro-life extremists don’t believe that any single person has the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. “Abortion is wrong,” they say, “therefore no one should be able to have an abortion.” Pro-life can be labeled anti-abortion. It can also be labeled “Anti-choice.”

The Pro-choice movement takes into account the rights of the mother. Her legal right, since Roe v. Wade, to choose to have an abortion or to choose NOT to have one. The Pro-choicers aren't for mandatory abortions, they are for protecting a woman's right to make the decision herself of whether or not to have an abortion. By it's very definition, to be "Pro-choice" does not mean one is "Pro-abortion." It also doesn't mean that you aren't "Pro-life."

When it comes to my views on abortion, I look first to the policies and teachings of my religion. I am--without delving into specific denominations--a Christian. A major tenet of Christianity is the concept of free will. We all have a God given right to make our own choices be they for good or for ill. We can choose to do what is right or we can choose to do what is wrong. When it comes to abortion itself, in all of my studies of the official writings and statements of my Church, I have learned only that abortion is considered sinful. Nowhere in the official statements or literature of my faith have I read that abortion is "murder," as a lot of Pro-life extremists are apt to say. However, my Church has also made it clear on many occasions that abortion is understandable and acceptable--with prayerful consideration and with counsel from competent professionals--in cases where a woman has become pregnant as a result of rape or incest or if the pregnancy is determined by a qualified physician to represent a danger to the life of a mother. It has also been stated that abortion may be considered in the case of severe deformity of the fetus. So, what does this say about my religion's policy on abortion? Well, having and respecting free will, our right and ability to choose, can be interpreted as a "Pro-choice" position. That abortion is acceptable in certain circumstances--the aforementioned rape, incest, danger to the life of the mother and severe deformity of the fetus--tells us that the safe and legal practice of abortion should be available to women who find themselves in such circumstances. This too can be interpreted as a "Pro-choice" position, in that outlawing the practice would be unfair and cause even more distress to the victims of rape and incest. A complete reversal in the law would also mean a death sentence to women who might not be able to survive a pregnancy--preserving the life of a child but denying them the care that would have been offered by their biological mother--and would force new families to carry to term fetuses so severely deformed that they would either be still born or die soon after their birth. However, my religion also makes it very clear that abortion as a form of birth control is wrong. Abortion as a means of "correcting" a moral mistake is also wrong, especially when one considers the great number of young married couples that are unable to have children of their own. In the case of an unmarried couple that conceives a child, if it is not possible for the couple to get married and raise their family, the young lady is encouraged to put the child up for adoption and should not be pressured to keep the child as a form of penance for her behavior.

Some lawmakers have suggested the compromise of banning all abortions with the exception of circumstances involving rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. While the last exception can be determined by a physician, questions of rape or incest are not always so clear? If a woman is raped, would she be entitled to get an abortion based only on her accusation or would she have to wait for her alleged rapist to be arrested, or until her case is brought to trial and her rapist is convicted? I can't even begin to imagine what legal steps would need to be taken in a case involving incest, especially when once considers that court records are--for the most part--public records. What steps would need to be taken to ensure that the privacy of victims involved in such a taboo and embarrassing predicament would be protected?

Pro-life extremists might say that in a world of outlawed abortion, where a woman would have to go to an unsafe "back-ally" abortionist, that woman deserves whatever she gets as far as medical side effects from an unsafe and illegal procedure. I disagree. While I do believe that we must accept the consequences of our decisions, in this day of safe and advanced medical practices, no one deserves to die because of a botched procedure, regardless of the reasons that lead to the decision to go through with it in the first place.

I am always disturbed by the protests I see on television between Pro-life advocates and Pro-choicers. These people feel very passionately about their beliefs, which is fine, but all too often their passion leads to violence. More so from the Pro-lifers than the Pro-choicers. Oftentimes, these Pro-life advocates invoke their belief in Christianity as the basis for their anti-abortion positions. Then they go on to bomb planned parenthood clinics and murder abortion providers. Very UN-Christian behavior, to say the least.

I think the time of the Pro-life movement would be much better spent if they would work harder to educate people about alternatives to abortion instead of trying so hard to outlaw it. In the event of an "unplanned" pregnancy, encourage a young woman to give her child up for adoption. Help her to see that she can help make a young family get its start and make them happy. That something good can come out of her situation.

I remember seeing a story on television once of a family that was told their unborn child had a severe deformity and would not live long after it was born. They were advised to terminate the pregnancy but instead they opted to go through with it. The child only lived for a few hours after it was born, its brain developed on the outside of its body. But the mother and father decided that even though their child wouldn't live for long, they would still have it be a part of their lives, even if it was just for a few hours. They had a birth certificate, they took photos of the child, wrapped in a blanket, as they each took turns holding it and when the time came they said goodbye. It was a beautiful story, and while not every couple would be able to deal with such a situation in the same way, it was still inspiring.

It took me many years to come to a point when I felt that I had a clear understanding of the abortion issue. And a little longer before I felt comfortable and confident enough to articulate my feelings for others. Along the way, I've encountered many viewpoints along the entire spectrum of the abortion debate. At one point I was working for a marketing research company and interviewing people, asking them their opinions about this and many other issues. I remember one man I spoke with who was a Pro-life extremist. He felt that a woman should not have the right to have an abortion even if her life were at stake. Another woman I spoke with was 100% Pro-choice, feeling a woman should be able to have an abortion no matter what the circumstances because in her life, she wanted to have an abortion because her child had a severe deformity and she was not permitted to. Like the story related above, her child's brain developed outside of its body and died soon after it was born. But this mother was emotionally traumatized by the experience. In another interview, a man I spoke with said to me, "These questions are making me very angry." I told him that I could understand that. That these issues stir up a lot of emotions, then I reminded him that this was his opportunity to express what he thinks about it and he was able to finish the interview. When I started working at that job, I was pretty much on the fence as far as abortion was concerned. After talking with those people, I was still on the fence but I felt better informed. I had a better understanding of how people felt about the issue. I knew that I could not agree with that first interviewee, and I wasn't as sure about the Pro-choice side as the woman I spoke with, but I certainly had much more compassion for what she had gone through.

There is also the matter of my place in history in relation to Roe v Wade. I was born just over a year after that decision was made. Like many other people in my generation, Roe v Wade had a profound effect on my very existence because it empowered women all over the country--including my mother--to be informed about what all their options were in the face of being pregnant. The course they took with their lives was no longer predetermined. What did that really mean for my generation as a whole? I can sum in up in one word: "Decimation." And I'm not being hyperbolic.

In ancient Rome, it was not uncommon for the Roman Army to discipline its men through a technique known as "decimation."

"A unit selected for punishment by decimation was divided into groups of ten; each group drew lots (Sortition), and the soldier on whom the lot fell was executed by his nine comrades, often by stoning or clubbing. The remaining soldiers were given rations of barley instead of wheat and forced to sleep outside of the Roman encampment. Because the punishment fell by lot, all soldiers in the group were eligible for execution, regardless of the individual degree of fault, or rank and distinction."

I was looking at some statistics regarding my generation--Generation X--including live births between 1961 and 1981 as well as the number of abortions that were performed within that period once Roe v Wade legalized the practice in 1973.

I find these numbers to be both interesting and disturbing.

My generation was decimated at the hands of members of the generations that preceded it--the Baby Boomers, Silents and GIs--before we were even born. Our numbers are 87% of what they could have been. Not a small margin. More than one in ten--decimation.

Weighing all of these opinions and generational and historical data over the years--and knowing that, as a man, it was a decision that I would never have to make for myself--and later reading and rereading the official position of my Church, I finally found a place in the spectrum of opinions on abortion where I feel comfortable, without conflict and with a clear conscience.

I adopt a position I genuinely feel is compatible with the teachings of my faith. While I personally abhor the reckless practice of abortion outside of the aforementioned exceptions--the impact of abortion on my own generation being no small factor in my thinking--I cannot, in good conscience, adopt a position that would attempt to take away a woman's legal and God-given right to make the choice for herself of whether or not to have an abortion. Having free will gives us the ability to choose, Roe v Wade guarantees us the Constitutional right to make a choice about abortion, even if that choice is interpreted by others as "wrong."

*http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html

**http://www.christianliferesources.com/?/library/view.php&articleid=1042

***No data for '81: Average of 1980+1982

This article was revised on December 28, 2010

Schedule, appreciation and some Section One history

2000-12-31T17:00:00.000-07:00

***The following remarks are confidential and sent via e-mail only to production and management associates of Section One Entertainment and Red Light Green Light Productions who are directly involved with the production of the television series Section One TV. Said remarks are hosted on a private Blogger account for convenience and organizational purposes only and are NOT accessible by the general public. Nor are they included on any public listings, search engines or RSS feeds. Comments on the remarks contained here-in should be addressed to the author and other associates at regularly scheduled production meetings unless otherwise noted.***

Section One TV
Subject: Schedule, appreciation and some Section One history

Notes & Suggestions
Joseph L. Puente (creator/host)

I just wanted to give you all a heads up on a few appointments I have this week so we can work around them on the profiles. They've also been included on the Section One Google Calendar.

These are mostly in the evening and we've been shooting during the day so it shouldn't be too much of a conflict.

Tuesday evening at 7:00 PM, I have an audition. After that I have my bi-weekly screenwriters group at Diva's cupcakes and coffee (1560 East 3300 South). Of course, the writers among you are more than welcome to come to that. We have a lot of fun and usually wind up closing the place around 10:00 PM.

Wednesday evening at 6:00 PM, I have a photo shoot for a couple of hours downtown. I'm excited about this. I haven't had new head shots in about a year and I've lost almost 30 pounds since the last ones. This will be great for the pitch package. I'll get copies online and in Perry's hands ASAP.

Thursday I have a meeting in Provo at 6:30 PM so I'll be heading out around 5:30 PM and won't be back in town until later in the evening.

Again, since these are evening appointments, and we usually shoot during the day, I don't anticipate any problems. If we have to shoot in the evening however, I can skip the Screenwriters group after my audition on Tuesday and I can reschedule my Thursday meeting in Provo.

As we wrap up this pilot, I just want to express to everyone involved how much I appreciate the work you have all put in and the patience you've shown me as I've been learning more about your process and the way a television series like this is produced.

Thank you all for answering my questions, enduring my long-winded e-mail memos and accommodating my anxieties and even my neuroses throughout this process. I am aware that working with me can be challenging at times and I'm so grateful that you've all been willing to put up with some of my quirks and look past my idiosyncrasies to stay focussed on the more important goal of making this series happen.

Despite some occasional tension and even some heated discussions, I'm glad that there has always been open and honest communication and myriad opportunities to clear up any misunderstandings.

Brian, thank you for your enthusiasm and belief in this project to move forward with the production of the pilot so quickly. Even if at times it seemed that I was dragging behind kicking and screaming. ;-)

Ren, thank you for being such a wonderful and supportive producer and a good friend.

Perry, thank you for helping to put things into perspective for me and allowing me to bend your ear when I've had questions and concerns.

Carolyn, thank you so much for your professionalism and the way you've helped to keep things running smoothly in our meetings and on our shoots.

I wanted to tell you all about the origin of the "Section One" name. When I was in the Navy, I made my first feature film with some of the closest friends I've ever had. We were all on the same work schedule or "Duty Section"—Section One, in fact—so we were able to collaborate on our film on our days off. Since the movie was being made to entertain ourselves more than anyone else, we called our production group "Section One Entertainment." I suppose anything that has the "Section One" name I hope is something that those original guys can be proud of.

I expressed some thoughts recently on creator credit in regard to SOTV. Brian told me to relax. I needed to hear that. FYI, you are all welcome and encouraged to remind me to relax if you think I might be overreacting to anything. :-)

I gave this particular instance some thought though and I realized that I'm kind of protective of Section One and everything associated with it because, in the past, I had worked with partners on a now defunct S-Corp called, "Section One Entertainment, Inc." One particular partner went all Gordon Gekko on us and tried to wrest control of the company by trying to broker secret deals to buy out our other partners so that he could have a majority stake in the company—despite the fact that it was his responsibility to issue stock certificates and he was so busy playing with QuickBooks that he never got around to issuing them to any of our partners. In the end, he pissed off so many people with his attempted power grab that the other partners just walked away and he managed to run the company right into the ground before we were even up and running. He wanted to be in control so much, he didn't stop to consider that his actions would drive away the very talent that was needed to keep the company running.

I've been hesitant to enter into partnerships ever since. So it was a big step for me to reach out to find people to partner with on a reboot of Section One TV. I know that I have nothing to worry about with Red Light Green Light Productions in this regard, I just wanted you to understand what I've been through before to put any hesitation and doubts on my part into perspective.

We try to remind ourselves that this is a business, but we can't lose sight of the fact that businesses are run by people and people invest themselves emotionally in everything they do. Like Carolyn said, it's my baby. We wouldn't use terms like that if our feelings didn't play a factor in what we do.

Thank you all again.

-Joe Puente