Just An Idea

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=33097816&nid=757&title=utah-lawmakers-medicaid-gas-tax-on-tap-for-2015-session&s_cid=queue-10

1) Enjoy having that "extra money" in your pocket, becuase taxes might be going up (Income tax). They lowered it to 5% before the recession, as said in the article, but as things have been picking back up, it  appears that they're wanting to raise it back to what it was before. 

2) It also sounds like we're going to be paying more for Medicaid. Costs could be pretty heavy down the road, but hopefully our legislature can get something figured out. 

3) Currently, there are three main sites being looked at for the new state prison, but none of the residents in those area's want the prison there (I mean, who would?) There was one comment the article made that I really liked, "Davis said lawmakers should look at using government-owned land instead of the private parcels they're considering buying. If Utah buys private land to build a new prison, Davis said that land will no longer be taxed, sending less money to local governments and school districts." If that land was no longer being taxed, would that mean even higher taxes than proposed in the first two issues to compensate the loss?

What do you guys think about the new proposals/developments?

Under The Influence

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/woman-high-on-drugs-crashes-in-american-fork-after-high/article_a7547dc5-5844-5e28-bdb4-0cccfccfce03.html

It's events like this, that makes me feel even stronger about not allowing recreational marijuana. This lady was high on multiple drugs, and could have done some serious harm. I honestly wonder if the states who do allow it are experiencing more accidents due to DUI's.

This is one "freedom" I'm willing to give up for my safety. 

A Deadly Force

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865618856/Family-of-Darrien-Hunt-files-2-million-civil-suit-against-Saratoga-Springs.html

If you didn't hear about the guy who was killed while allegedly running towards a store with a sword, I would suggest looking that up before reading this story.

Two family members of the deceased filed a complaint and lawsuit saying the police shouldn't have killed Darrien. While the sword may have been fake, officers wouldn't have had a way to know that before hand. I for one would not want to let someone with a sword run into a public place with multiple people that could potentially be harmed. Though, I don't think going as far as killing the man was necessary. Just hindering his ability to continue into the store (shooting in the leg maybe?) would have been sufficient.

Do you think the police were in the right, or in the wrong? What would you have done in the officers shoes?

Je Suis Charlie

In AP french today, we took a small amount of time to discuss the recent terrorist attack near Paris, France. 12 people were killed in a terrorist gun attack, with 11 more injured, ironically committed by 2 (possibly more) islamists.

I was amazed by the numbers they had searching for these criminals. 35,000+ officers searching, with countless others on the lookout. The police force is also protecting public transit systems, and public areas where people are demonstrating in tribute to those who were killed.

While this didn't happen within or to the United States, I can just hear the judgemental comments now . . . as Americans, we are still having a hard time realizing that the islamic religion and those who practice it are not inherently evil. There are a few people within their group however, who take their views to the absolute extremes. Every religion has it's bad guys, we just don't always publicize them.

I hope that people can understand that not all muslims are bad, nor are all christians good. Each person makes their own decisions, and these men definitely made the wrong one.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/paris-terror-attack-inside-manhunt-charlie-hebdo-attackers/story?id=28087685&from=related

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30738653

Exponential Costs

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/barack-obama-free-community-college-114094.html

This article talks about President Obama's plan to give every high school graduate an opportunity to qualify for two free years at a community college. I think this is a great idea, minus some major flaws. 

1) Our country is in enough debt as it is, currently. Where does President Obama think he is going to find the money to fund this project? In the long run, yes, it may help pay some of that debt down as more American's become educated, but will we survive long enough to reap that reward?

2) This only coveres their tuition, not their living expenses, books, transportation to their campus, etc

3) He is doing it more out of competition with other countries, rather than his own countries best interest, and his citizens best interests. If he is doing this to get ahead in the ranks, different paths may be taken than the ones that would really benefit the students the most.

What do you guys think about the proposed plan? 

Fire Is NOT Catching

http://fox13now.com/2015/01/08/salt-lake-county-approves-wood-burning-ban-starting-in-2016/

I personally LOVE this. Having had breathing problems my whole life, I have come to dread the summer with all of the wild fires, inversions, neighborhood bonfires, etc. This would help to reduce some of the polution in our air.

People are arguing with the regulation, saying the county officials are abusing their power. I don't agree with them. The officials are just trying to keep our air quality at least in the yellow, if not in the green. Even people without asthma or allergies should realize how bad red air quality days are for you. This regulation doesn't prohibit all wood burning, just wood burning on the days where the air quality is in the yellow or red. Even to that extent, for those who rely on wood burning to heat their homes or cook their food, this doesn't apply. It also doesn't apply to days where there would be an emergency requiring the action of burning wood (i.e. power outage)

I hope more counties in Utah follow suit on this. I think it is a step in the right direction to helping to clean up and protect the environment in which we live. 

Little Did They Know

This kind of frightens me . . . how many people have I come across that I didn't know were registered? Any? Lots? Honestly, I don't know. There could have been multiple, because it doesn't sound like they're monitored very closely.

A parent called police when they saw a person in the parking lot to their childs school, whom they didn't think belonged there. They recognized them from high school, and recaled them being a convicted sex offender, and knew him being on an elementary school campus was crossing the lines.

What kind of rules are set for these people? I know they can't go to certain places, but it doesn't seem like there is a very good way to make them actually follow that. This guy wouldn't have been re-arrested, had it not been for his high school peer. 

To me, it sounds like we need to monitor the convicted persons within our communities, a little more closely.

http://fox13now.com/2015/01/08/sex-offender-back-behind-bars-after-parent-spots-him-near-school/

Caught On Film

http://fox13now.com/2015/01/08/man-suffers-multiple-gunshot-wounds-police-respond-to-avenues-neighborhood/

An officer was attacked by a man with a shovel, and fired his gun at the attacker killing him. The officer received several broken bones, according to the article, and due to protocol had to be placed on paid leave while they investigate. (But because his body camera was on, that shouldn't take long.)

This story gives perspective to why I agree that police be required to wear the body cameras. It's protection for them in these situations. People that fought against the cameras, really didn't understand their purpose. As long as a police officer is rightfully doing their job, they shouldn't have anything to worry about. If anything, it would help them if they were to encounter a situation like this themselves.

Cause and Effect

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=32077639&nid=157&title=ny-nj-order-ebola-quarantine-for-doctors-others&fm=home_page&s_cid=queue-2

Well folks, the U.S. is finally taking things more seriously about Ebola. New Jersey and New York have decided to quarantine anyone who "have had contact with victims of the deadly disease in West Africa." They will be quarantined for 21 days (the incubation time for the Ebola Virus) and depending on their circumstances, either receive house visits from medical personnel, or have been quarantined within a medical facility.

I think this was done primarily for the safety of the other citizens in the area, but also because of the backlash the media has been giving New York because of the way the initial case of Ebola here in the U.S. was handled. It seems a little extreme, but it may be necessary if they're going to keep everyone from getting sick.

We're Adopting!

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=32073090&nid=148&title=utah-supreme-court-lifts-stay-on-same-sex-adoption-cases&s_cid=queue-13

With all the publicity gay-marriage has been getting lately, I'm surprised I hadn't heard more about this debate. As of today, The Supreme Court of Utah lifted the stay on allowing same-sex couples to adopt children. This is another huge step for Utah in legal rights. I think it is awesome we have been able to accept gay marriage as a legal marriage, and now they can legally be parents, too! So awesome. I hope things can keep moving in this direction, so that everyone can share the same rights.

Apparently, California is putting an end to racial segregation during lock downs. But what I find interesting, is that I have never even heard of them doing that before. I knew that prisons would do lock downs if they were having problems with inmates, but separating the inmates by race? Almost seems extreme to me. Almost. I understand why they would do it, but I almost think that would aggravate the situation again once the inmates were put back into their original cells.

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=157&sid=32062983&title=ap-newsbreak-prisons-agree-to-end-race-policy is the original story.

Do you think this is a step in the right or wrong direction in removing racism? Or, do you think it is inapplicable?

A "Gun On Gun" Situation

Anita Sarkeesian was supposed to give a speech at USU recently, but canceled it last minute due to death threats threatening, “the deadliest school shooting in American history” (Deseret News). Apparently, universities have no legal right to ban fire-arms on campus. If you have a concealed weapons permit, you can carry on campus. That doesn't particularly make me want to go off to college . . . knowing any of my classmates could, legally, have a gun sitting 3 feet away from me. Especially if threats are floating around simply because a woman is going to come speak to me. University of Utah has even attempted to fight this law, in attempts to keep their students safe. But when they banned firearms in about 2004, they were sued for being "unconstitutional" in 2006. Having lost the suit, they lobbied to have the law changed, only getting as far as a law that "allows any student living in a dormitory to specify that he or she does not wish to room with a concealed weapon permit holder." Well thanks, glad to know none of the 5 people I sleep with have a gun. But does my next door neighbor?

Go to http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865613500/Utah-gun-law-that-canceled-USU-speech-is-an-embarrassment.html to read the full article. Who knows, maybe schools can get some more protective rules in place.

Racism, or Criminal Justice?

While scrolling through facebook today, I saw three news articles pertaining to the same topic. Racism. While this is still a problem in the US today, I don't think people can continue hiding behind it the way they do.

Fox13 posted this article: http://fox13now.com/2014/09/14/django-unchained-actress-claims-she-was-cuffed-for-showing-public-affection/, claiming that the woman had been detained due to her race.

In this case, racial profiling probably was a high factor. But lately, I have seen more and more people claiming that they were singled out, or mistreated, because of their race. It reminds me of a comment that Andrew made in class a few weeks back, saying that because of our history, it's okay to call white's white trash but the second someone says "yellow jap" they're in trouble. We are overcompensating for our mistake in the mistreat of the other races, but that doesn't excuse their behavior now. The second they pull the "race card" they're untouchable.

Illegal or Immoral?

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=157&sid=31468456&title=protest-over-schools-firing-of-pregnant-teacher

In Michigan, a chemistry teacher was reportedly fired after becoming pregnant. The catch? Shes lesbian.

Isn't it illegal to fire someone for becoming pregnant? Even if this is a Catholic School, they shouldn't be able to fire someone for things such as this. Was her pregnancy hurting anyone? No. Was her same-sex attraction hurting anyone? No. Was them firing her, hurting anyone? Yes; her. She has lost that source of income, and pretty soon she's going to have an extra mouth to be feeding.

Why would anyone think this was okay?

Out With the Old

While this isn't about our government in specific, I thought I would be justified in posting this, seeing as we've been discussing the ability to dissolve the government.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/08/25/french-president-dissolves-government-amid-dispute-over-economy/

Due to an economic slow down in France, the Prime Minister (Manuel Valls) "offered up his Socialist government's resignation . . ."

Okay, pausing there. The Prime Minister, offered up his governments resignation? Thank you social media, for politely sliding over the fact that the Prime Minister just "let go" an entire department. Now all these people are out of jobs simply because one man decided they were done. Did he himself resign? No. I'm sure that he isn't part of the problem either. Just all the people that have now joined the ranks of the unemployed.

"Hollande accepted the resignation and ordered Valls to form a new government by Tuesday."

Anybody else see a problem there? Seeing as the Prime Minister has the power to "resign" the first batch and pick the next, I'll bet he put together the first group. What makes anyone think he is going to do a better job the second time around?

"Hollande has promised cuts to taxes and spending as well as reforms to make it easier for businesses to open and operate."

That sounds promising, until you step back and wonder, without taxes, where are they going to get enough funding for the government to continue running?

Just within the first few paragraphs, I'm skeptical that this new government is going to be able to do anything different. When you're in such a deep hole economically, all you can do is wait until enough people start spending their money to jump start everything else.

Take the five minutes and read the article. To me, it sounds like everything in the French Economic Government is just a mess, and I'm not sure anybody knows how to, or is willing to clean it up.