NPR.org:

The vacancy will give President Obama his first chance to name a member of the high court and begin to shape its future direction.

At 69, Souter is nowhere near the oldest member of the court. In fact, he is in the younger half of the court’s age range, with five justices older and just three younger. So far as anyone knows, he is in good health. But he has made clear to friends for some time that he wanted to leave Washington, a city he has never liked, and return to his native New Hampshire. Now, according to reliable sources, he has decided to take the plunge and has informed the White House of his decision.

Factors in his decision no doubt include the election of President Obama, who would be more likely to appoint a successor attuned to the principles Souter has followed as a moderate-to-liberal member of the court’s more liberal bloc over the past two decades.

This of course screws up my Predictify.com “expert” rating in politics, as I predicted he wouldn’t announce until the end of the year.  Thanks, David.

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Officials from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints say they’ve canceled church services in Mexico City until further notice because of the swine flu outbreak.

The Church is also delaying sending new missionaries to that country.

In statements issued Thursday, spokeswoman Kim Farah says officials are monitoring news, security and medical reports regarding the swine flu.

More than two dozen cases of the flu have been detected in Mexico.

Farah says the Church is following recommendations from the Mexican government to suspend public gatherings in its capital city and other affected areas.

She says new missionaries assigned to Mexico are staying stateside at the training center in Provo for now. Mexico-based Church missionaries are reported to be safe.

The Standard’s Doug Gibson.

The number are in, and paleo-capitalist Ayn Rand’s hot again.  “Atlas Shrugged” is selling at a pace not seen since the novel was published in 1957. Sales of her other major novel, “The Fountainhead,” are up as well. It’s clear that the recession and a very liberal political leadership have caused the renewed interest.

Economist Stephen Moore recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal that the Obama strategy mirrors the plot of “Atlas Shrugged. “The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you,” Moore said.

[...] Rand’s novels — in 1991 “Atlas Shrugged” was judged the second-most influential novel in America — are very seductive and demagogic. Her ideas appeal to so many because the characters she creates are polar opposites. They are either perfect examples of reason and competence or corrupt, shallow, even homicidal parasites. As a writer, Rand deserves no censure for creating powerful polemics, but real life is more complex.

I am amused by the Rand adoration from many social — read religious — conservatives. Rand, and “objectivism,” detests religion and its call for individual sacrifice. In “Fountainhead,” the reader is urged to run away from any organization that urges sacrifice for others. When it comes to faith, Rand is more Bill Maher or Christopher Hitchens than Mitt Romney.

Normally, quoting Dougey makes me feel dirty.  I avoid relying on he or the Trib’s Rebecca Walsh, as both lean too often on oversimlifications and convenient rendition in order to make their points.  We’ve got politicians for that, we don’t need pundits perpetuating the same.

But Gibson makes a couple of interesting points in this colum.  One, the impracticality of Rand’s economic “objectivism,” and Two, the irony of Atlas Shrugged’s popularity with social (religious) conservatives.

Point One interests me.  In going “Galt,” many Bush Republicans turned born again convservatives are finding a cause du jour in opposition to a liberal White House, and a liberal majority in House and Senate.  It’s similar to a child who, when frightened or scolded will return to a room or other familiar place, with a favorite toy to seek comfort.  Rand provides a recluce from lost elections and increasing lack of influence.  But will it help conservatives return from the wilderness?

My assumption is that this is a reaction to lost elections more than a reaction to complex policy.  To apply Rand’s economics to Obama requires a willing suspension of disbelief to an extent cannot be sustained for long periods of time.  To make an argument that capitalism (or a perceived loss of it, in this case) should be our only focus and solution in our current crisis(s) not only requires a rewritting of how we got here (i.e. pinning the subprime meltdown and recession on a President that has been in office for 101-ish days), but also, as Gibson writes, does not address the complexities of our economy.

It speaks to a populist “tea-party-esque” outrage to decry the bailouts that began in Bush’s final few months, for sure, and there is plenty of room for criticism in the details (some oversight would have been nice, to make sure the banks were lending the money, not reinvesting it in their own future and not ours).  But Randian ideals ignore the fact that through deregulation (a Randian principle in itself), the banks we propped up had become “too big to fail.”  If they sink, the economy goes with them.  The potential of extending or even deepening our recession increases with each closing door in the financial industry.  So there is the hypocrisy of Rand.  Unfettered capitalism is the solution, and markets will self correct.  Except when it isn’t, and they don’t.

But more immediately, and outside of subscription or disagreement with Rand’s economics, the question remains: will going “Galt” return the Republican Party and conservative ideology to favor?

It’s my feeling that voters have “been there, done that” and the GOP will have to be a bit more creative than that.  But I have a suspicion many of you are about to disagree…

Today’s guest (@ 5:10):

How Safe is MySpace?

Concerned Mom Creates New Social Networking Site for Kids

After Discovering 90,000 Predators Lurk Online

Mary Kay Hoal tried everything she could to keep her daughter off of myspace.

She forbade her from using the site, put password locks on the computer and even blocked the site. Still, her daughter found ways to access the popular social networking site. Hoal’s concerns stemmed from information and statistics that show 90,000 registered sex offenders were on myspace, one out of every five kids are sexually solicited online, and nine out of ten children are exposed to pornography online.

When she looked for alternatives for parents worried about the dangers lurking in the cyber-shadows, she found none, so she decided to do something about it.

The result is www.yoursphere.com, the only social networking site for kids and teens that’s backed by the Federal Trade Commission through the site’s Privacy Vaults approval. The site’s Chief Technology officer worked at the California Department of Justice tracking anonymous online sex offenders, as well as the Megan’s Law database. Moreover, it requires verified parental consent for a minor to join.

Yoursphere.com has taken the bull by the horns, put a stake in the ground and is saying to the world: what’s happening to kids online is NOT OKAY. Kids need to be protected, deserve to be protected and we’re the only site that’s actually doing something about it in a tangible and meaningful way.

The fact is that the dangers of the Internet for kids are very real, despite the safeguards in place in many homes. According to recent statistics, one out of every five kids is sexually solicited online. Even though it’s a crime for sex offenders to work with children, or live near schools, online sexual predators are interacting with kids online and the anonymity available to them online eliminates offline barriers. Nine out of ten children are exposed to pornography online.

When was the last time a parent or teacher didn’t get involved offline when their child was being bullied, but online almost half of kids 12 – 17 that are bullied only tell a parent 10% of the time. At yoursphere no one is anonymous.  Yoursphere is the only online community that:

• Requires verifiable parental consent
• Confirms the identity of the parent providing consent
• Confirms that the parent or guardian providing consent is not a registered sex offender
• Is exclusively for kids and teens through age 18.
• Exceeds COPPA (Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidelines for protecting kids online through our approval by Privacy Vaults Inc.
• Whose policy is “no creepers allowed”: predator, sex offender or pornographer targeting youth; any person setting up a profile with the intention to exploit, harass or solicit?
• No fake profiles. No one is anonymous on Yoursphere.com
• Offers our members monthly contests and a rewards program.
• Provides a platform for our members to engage in activities of shared interest – in “spheres” (sports, academics, music, fashion, moves & TV, art & photo, gaming, notebook).

About Mary Kay Hoal

A proud wife and mother of five children (both biological and adopted, ranging in age from 4-17 years old), Mary Kay faces the same challenges every parent does. While Mary Kay readily admits that she didn’t “get” the whole online social networking phenomenon at first, she quickly recognized its importance in her kids’ lives. After researching the disturbing landscape of social networking sites—including endless inappropriate content and thousands of predators targeting youth—Mary Kay’s mission became clear: raise the bar. Conceived and founded by Mary Kay, Yoursphere is the first social networking service for youth that parents can embrace. Drawing on her corporate entrepreneurial experience as a media strategist, advertising, marketing and publishing VP formerly with CMP Media LLC, Mary Kay built the Yoursphere team.

Please Refer Listener Inquiries to www.YourSphere.com

HuffPo is calling it a RNC Civil War. I think the term is perfect. People inside the RNC are criticizing RNC Chair Michael Steele, trying to put restrictions on how much he controls the purse strings, but today GOP hero Newt Gingrich stepped up to bat for The Real The Real Michael Steele.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvw4rlEy19M&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

The GOP needs to have this kind of infighting so it can achieve a real identity. Bill Maher, love him or hate him, made a great point on his show last week when he pointed out that the GOP keeps making issue out of things like Obama’s teleprompter, the gifts Obama gave to foreign leaders, the fact that Obama may have bowed to Saudi royalty, that Obama shook Hugo Chavez’s hand and accepted a book from him, that Michelle Obama wore a sleeveless dress and now, the airplane over NYC while the rest of the country is concerned about the economy, two wars and the environment.

He had a point. The infighting in the RNC is a microcosm of a GOP that doesn’t have an identity right now other than to be the group that bitches about everything Obama and the Democrats do. They need to have a little “civil war” within themselves so that, hopefully, a viable alternative with real arguments and solutions can evolve.

Gov. Jon Huntsman, Jr. will be speaking to the media at 12:30 regarding the Swine Flu issue and the closure of Park City schools. We will be carrying the press conference live on 610 KVNU and online at http://610kvnu.com or http://kvnuforthepeople.com

Speaking on the Today Show with Matt Lauer today, VP Foot in Mouth Biden basically advised Americans to stay off planes and subways because of the risk of swine flu.

You can read all about the comments by clicking here.

I’ve generally wanted to give Foot in Mouth Biden the benefit of the doubt on his idiotic statements, but come on man, you’re the vice president of the United States, you can’t be saying off the cuff things like this. Maybe Barry O. needs to let Biden borrow his teleprompter once in an always.

Here’s a fun/interesting/for entertainment list for the Obama haters out there.

The New York Post compiled a list of 100 mistakes Obama has made in 100 days. Liberal media, indeed.

h/t: Blake Altom (Sneaker)

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, HR 1913, passed the U.S. House today. The summary of the legislation from OpenCongress:

Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 – Authorizes the Attorney General to provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or other assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that:
(1) constitutes a crime of violence under federal law or a felony under state, local, or Indian tribal law; and
(2) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the state, local, or tribal hate crime laws. Directs the Attorney General to give priority for assistance to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one state and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary investigation or prosecution expenses. Authorizes the Attorney General to award grants to assist state, local, and Indian law enforcement agencies with such extraordinary expenses. Directs the Office of Justice Programs to:
(1) work closely with funded jurisdictions to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties are addressed; and
(2) award grants to state and local programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles. Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit willfully causing bodily injury to any person because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of such person. Amends the Hate Crimes Statistics Act to expand data collection and reporting requirements under such Act to include:
(1) crimes manifesting prejudice based on gender and gender identity; and
(2) hate crimes committed by and against juveniles. Declares that nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit the exercise of constitutionally-protected free speech.

The passage was by a vote of 249-175, mostly down party lines, with 17 Dems voting no and 18 Repubs voting aye. I think the summary of the bill sounds like something we need. Could someone tell me why there’s so much opposition to this? I was reading the comments on the OpenCongress page, and also reading some of the conservative blogs about this, but it all sounds very, very, very irrational. This act preventing an evangelical preacher from speaking in front of his congregation? Are you kidding me?

Please, someone present a rational “opposition” argument for me.

From: Erik Milligan

To: KVNU’s For the People

This is pretty good it puts the whole global warming argument in perspective only read it if you arent afraid of shaking your global warming ideals a bit.  It is verry well written you can skip the first page it is just an add for Questar gas.  Of corse I belive you said on air that the debate is over so it may be a waste of time for you to read it.

Erik

Click here to read the speech

Subject: Fwd: UDOH Daily Situation Report

You’re not allowed to have cell phones in courtrooms in Utah unless you’re a court official or attorney. Anytime you enter a courthouse, there are signs telling you this.

Still, a Tooele woman who was sent to the court by her husband to represent him in a debt collection case is in jail now, and will be there for a 30-day sentence, because she took a cell phone into the courtroom and used it to send text message updates to her husband.

She was arrested on charges of being in contempt of court.

Now, she broke a rule, but it’s a rule that many break. During my days as a court reporter for the paper, I’d see people with cell phones in the courtroom all the time, and on a few occasions I’d even sneak mine in. As long as you made sure (this is very important) that the phone was on silent and wouldn’t ring, you’d generally be OK.

I can understand the disruption that can come from having a cell phone in the courtroom, especially if it rings. It is a completely avoidable nuisance, but I just have a hard time seeing a 30-day sentence for this. What do you all think about this case?

h/t: “Hurricane” John Newbold

Source: ksl.com – Woman sent to jail for texting in court.

Commemorating the 100 days mark of the Obama Administration, Media Matters put together their own recap of media headlines, aptly titled “Obama Derangement Syndrome.”  A sample of some of the most entertaining bits:

• Black helicopter alert! Conservative media suggest Obama supporting one-world government

• Conservative media freak-out: claim Obama DHS targeting conservatives in report on right-wing extremists

• Media conservatives fearmongering: Obama will “take away your gun”

• Conservative media unleash violent, revolutionary rhetoric

• Morris again falsely claimed Obama “gave away our economic sovereignty to Europe” by agreeing to international financial regulation

• Savage declares emerging “dictator[]” Obama to be “out of control” and says “I think it is time to start talking about impeachment”

• Beck: “You can’t convince me that the founding fathers wouldn’t allow you to secede”

• Rush defends Texas Gov. Perry’s secession comments “because this guy is not a fringe kook”

• On Hannity, radio host Bill “Bubba” Bussey says “it’s time for a revolution”

• Beck praises TX Gov. Perry for reportedly backing resolution supporting states’ rights; invites him to appear on Beck’s “tea party” show

• Newsbusters’ Sheppard defends Limbaugh by pointing to patriotism of secessionists

• Beck: “This is what’s coming, America: Depression and revolution”

• Conservative media claim prosecution of Bush administration officials will turn U.S. into “banana republic”

• Hannity declares today “Day number 52 of the socialism that you’ve been waiting for”

• Jonah Goldberg on auto bailout: “You can call it corporatism, you can call it socialism, you can call it fascism, what it is not is liberal democratic capitalism”

• In CNBC host Cramer’s “U.S.S.A.”: “Comrade[]” Obama is a “Bolshevik” who is “taking cues from Lenin”

• Scarborough on America “moving closer toward European-style socialism:” “That’s not a right-wing claim it’s the truth”

• Cut and paste: “FOXfact[s]” about GOP budget nearly identical to GOP Rep. Ryan’s op-ed

• Fox discusses cap-and-trade under caption: “Pres’ Plan to Clean up Earth; Create Second Tax Day in U.S.?”

• Beck on O’Reilly Factor: “We are really truly stepping beyond socialism and starting to look at fascism”; compares proposals to Nazi Germany

That’s a lot of crazy in just 100 days.

I don’t know about you, but this just makes me furious!

Most taxpayers qualify for a tax credit of up to $400 this year and next — $800 for married couples filing jointly.

But taxpayers won’t have to wait until they file their returns before they get their money. This benefit is being coordinated with employers, who are delivering the incentive by withholding less money from paychecks — to the tune of about $45 to $65 more per month for some people.

The credit, based on 6.2 percent of earned income, phases out for higher-income taxpayers.

To compensate for the reduced amount being withheld, employees will take a tax credit when filing 2009 and 2010 returns. So, even though less money is being taken out of paychecks, employees won’t owe more in taxes or get less of a refund.

Those Democrats are at it again!  On top of this, incentive breaks for home and car buyers?!  The sheer hubris!  I’m outraged!  SOCIALISM! Now where’s my angry sign…

Kevin Smith, Tooele Transcript Bulletin (Op-Ed):

About $2 billion has been spent or is committed to being spent on TRAX and Frontrunner even though in Salt Lake City freeways are a whopping 88 percent more cost-effective, according to Owen Courreges of the Urban Futures Program at the Reason Foundation. Randy O’Toole wrote in “Rails to Nowhere: The Utah Transit Tax” that even if UTA tripled transit ridership it would still carry less than a 1.3 percent of all passenger miles in the region.

Do we in Tooele County really want to spend billions for that kind of return on investment? Cline’s assertion that “it helps keep pollution in check” is erroneous. In “The Great Rail Disaster,” O’Toole states, “Since automobiles pollute most in congested traffic, rail transit often leads to more … air pollution. Even where [rail] can reduce air pollution, the cost is exorbitant — roughly $1 million per ton of reduced emissions, compared to $10,000 per ton for many other air-quality measures.”

Another myth Transcript-Bulletin staff writer Jamie Belnap’s piece perpetuates is that mass transit will relieve congestion. Of two dozen U.S. urban areas with rail transit, 16 have the fastest rising congestion. Ted Balaker of the Reason Public Policy Institute states that one proposed rail system in North Carolina would reduce regional congestion by about one-tenth of 1 percent. Not impressive.

One of the primary reasons I support mass transit in general is the possible reduction it does/will/might one day have on carbon emissions in metropolitan areas.  And those results have yet to be seen on any sweeping scale.  The Reason article cited in this op-ed does conveniently ignore certain success stories of increased, substantial usage in New Mexico, New York, New Hampshire, and other large cities.

I’ve found little tangible proof to back up Smith’s opening statement that “most” mass transit systems are “incredible costly failures.”   I don’t think the success of mass transit can be measured by accounting ledgers.  They are an investment.  But admittedly, the ridership “boom” promised for many systems currently in place has yet to materialize.

Will it, or is this just a hopeful ideal, destined for failure?

Occasionally I’ve been criticized for being openly skeptical of protests and other events intended to “raise awareness.” While I enthusiastically support the first amendment and frequently exercise that right, I can’t help but feel jaded when I see others zealously champion an impotent cause.

Recently, five US Congressmen were arrested while demonstrating in front of the Sudanese Embassy; they were protesting the “crimes against humanity” taking place in Darfur.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) explained her participation in the protest: “I hope that is very clear to our administration and to international communities that violence in Darfur must end… [they] must allow the NGOs back into the country and admit he has only worsened the crisis in Darfur.”

Jerry Fowler, president of the Save Darfur Coalition, offered a similar motivation: “American leadership can make a difference, but it will take a tenacious and determined effort.”

The passion that these individuals have is commendable, and their desire for peace is equally admirable. Notwithstanding, the cause itself is futile.

I have been actively interested in the events taking place in the Darfur region of Sudan, and as long as I have studied the issue, I haven’t been able to identify one feasible solution to the atrocities taking place. Please don’t misinterpret what I am saying, I too feel embittered towards the Janjaweed and would like to see Darfurians protected… but no matter how stronly I feel, it doesn’t change the fact that this country has little ability to change things in Sudan.

Here in Utah, similar causes are constantly being pushed by students and activists. Last Saturday, a group of “500 students and activists” assembled at the Gallivan Center in order to “bring awareness and encourage changes in international policy.” The protest did succeed in attracting the attention of Sen. Bob Bennett, but aside from that, most Utahns couldn’t have cared less.

Lauren Cyzras, a high-school student, described the purpose of the demonstration: “That’s why we’re here, because we want peace for those who are being forced to fight. We’re sending a message that what’s happening isn’t right and it needs to stop.”

Despite the vigor of these youth and thousands of others throughout the country, it is highly unlikely that the United States or any other influential world nation will intervene. First, the international community experiences enough difficulty mounting multi-lateral actions, much less a real intervention. Second, major powers have little incentive for devoting themselves to a cause which cannot be “solved.” Not to mention, countries are tightly connected together through economic and political relationships (i.e. China and the US), and any action in a region like Darfur will affect those relationships. Third, these conflicts cannot be resolved merely by sending aid, pressuring their government (i.e. Sudan), or heaven forbid, a lenghty peacekeeping operation. Fourth, sadly enough, peace in Africa is not a national priority.

Saving Darfur or Ugandan children sounds great, but for all the time and money some people invest in such causes, they hardly make a dent in the actual situation. It makes me wonder if many of these individuals are sincere. I mean no disrespect, but I don’t see this movement as pragmatic. Instead, I wonder if many of the activists are impelled by other motives, such as status, identity, and/or attention.

I think it’s safe to say that we would all like to sacrifice for a meaningful cause, but actually finding a real solution is another matter. And I have yet to hear one of these advocates offer a real solution.

- Marc

Here at KVNU, we are instructed to observe how the FCC defines “appropriate” and “inappropriate” language. And the failure to do so may result in a fine. Therefore, I found the latest case before the Supreme Court of particular interest.

The Supreme Court recently voted in a 5-4 decision supporting the FCC’s policy on restricting spoken words.

From the Associated Press:

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, said the FCC policy, adopted in 2004, is “neither arbitrary nor capricious.”

Acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps called the decision “a big win for America’s families.” Copps said the “decision should reassure parents that their children can still be protected from indecent material on the nation’s airwaves. ”

Fox expressed disappointment with the decision, but said it is “optimistic that we will ultimately prevail when the First Amendment issues are fully aired before the courts.”

The FCC changed its long-standing policy after it concluded that a one-free-expletive rule did not make sense in the context of keeping the air waves free of indecency when children are likely to be watching television.

The precipitating events were live broadcasts of awards shows in which Bono, Cher and Nicole Richie let slip or perhaps purposely said variations of what Scalia called Tuesday “the F- and S-words.”

Under the new FCC rule, some words are so offensive that they always evoke sexual or excretory images. So-called fleeting expletives were not treated as indecent before then.

In its last major broadcast indecency case, the court ruled 31 years ago that the FCC could keep curse words off the airwaves between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

Justice Clarence Thomas sided with the majority Tuesday, but nevertheless noted that the previous decision and an even earlier case “were unconvincing when they were issued, and the passage of time has only increased doubt regarding their continued validity.”

When the court upheld the FCC regulation in 1978, television broadcasts were the only source of images available to most Americans.

Today, the Internet, cable and satellite television are in millions of homes, yet the FCC’s authority extends only to broadcast television and radio, as Thomas noted.

“For most consumers, traditional broadcast media programming is now bundled with cable or satellite services,” he said.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who dissented Tuesday along with the other three liberal justices, similarly raised constitutional concerns. Ginsburg said that in a case that turns on government restriction of spoken words, “there is no way to hide the long shadow the First Amendment casts over what the commission has done.”

The nub of Tuesday’s ruling was whether the FCC took a reasonable course in changing its policy and concluding that curse words referring to sex and excrement are always indecent.

Scalia, joined by his four conservative colleagues, said the FCC “could reasonably conclude that the pervasiveness of foul language, and the coarsening of public entertainment in other media” justified a stricter policy “so as to give conscientious parents a relatively safe haven for their children.”

Do you agree with Justice Scalia that today’s entertainment environment merits stricter policies regarding inappropriate language? Or do you see the restictions as Justice Ginsberg, as a violation of the 1st Amendment?

Or perhaps you agree with me that the FCC is quickly becoming irrelevant as society turns to different forms of entertainment, such as the internet. Here is an interesting perspective on that discussion.

- Marc

From the Salt Lake Tribune:

About 200 supporters rallied in support of accused monkey-wrencher Tim DeChristopher today on the streets of Salt Lake City as the 27-year-old University of Utah student faced arraignment on federal charges.

Speaking in Washington Square outside City Hall this morning before marching to the courthouse, DeChristopher thanked the crowd for their backing and urged them to stay involved and politically active.

From Dictionary.com:

Martyr – mar-tyr:

–noun

1.	a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.

2.	a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause: a martyr to the cause of social justice.

Source: Scores of supporters rally around monkey wrencher – Salt Lake Tribune.

The issue of illegal immigration has once again become a heated topic with Utah legislators. This article caught my attention and made me think a little.

From the Salt Lake Tribune:

The arrest of an undocumented immigrant returning last week from his LDS mission has sparked discussion at the highest levels of the church about how to limit such exposure in the future.

“With the known realization that those risks exist, then we want to do better, or at least learn more,” LDS apostle Jeffrey R. Holland, said Friday during an interview with The Salt Lake Tribune . “We want to be more precise, if we can, about how to help, how to make [a mission] the calmest, most spiritually rewarding experience for everybody.”

Early last week, a missionary was detained at the Cincinnati airport for “lacking necessary documentation to board his flight home,” according to Michael Purdy, LDS Church spokesman.

That triggered fears in the undocumented LDS community in Utah, and already prompted a change in how one Utah missionary returned home. The young man, a Salt Lake Valley resident, completed a mission in Oklahoma and was scheduled to return home two days after church leaders heard of the unrelated arrest in Ohio. The mission president contacted local Utah church leaders, and it was decided the missionary’s uncle would drive out to Oklahoma to bring the missionary home, which he did.

“The travel department of the church has to rethink everything. Things have changed, and they need a whole new policy,” said a local church official who was aware of the situation. “With ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] hitting them at he bus terminals and airports, this opens a whole new discussion. I don’t know how many undocumented immigrants we have serving missions, but I’m sure this is going to repeat itself.”

Not all conservative Utahns are hardliners when it comes to immigration. And I personally believe that most Church leaders are a lot more compassionate towards these individuals than some would give them credit for.

What does this article mean to you?

- Marc

A new strain of a virus is always scary and make for great headlines. The potential for a pandemic is great because of we may not have built immunities against it.  I hope this new scare will go the way of SARS and the Avian flu.  As of this writing
Mexico: 26 confirmed deaths (Mexico puts suspected deaths at 149)
United States: 40 confirmed cases
Canada: 6 confirmed cases
Spain: 1 confirmed case
UK: Scotland says tests confirm 2 cases
Israel, Brazil, Guatemala, Peru, Australia and New Zealand: Suspected cases being tested (BBC)

It is a drop in the bucket compared to the regular old flu we encounter every year.

According to the CDC this latest flu season from week 40 of 2008 through the present resulted in 25,407 specimens testing positive for influenza Type A and B.  In America.  To clarify, that is not reported cases of the flu but laboratory verified cases.

I couldn’t find how many deaths were caused the flu but Pediatric Deaths (ages 0-4) was 53 for the current flu season to date.  The 2006-2007 season reported 78 deaths and the 2007-2008 season reported 88 pediatric deaths.

From the NAID:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 5 to 20 percent of Americans come down with the flu during each flu season, which typically lasts from November to March. Children are two to three times more likely than adults to get sick with the flu, and children frequently spread the virus to others. Although most people recover from the illness, CDC estimates that in the United States more than 200,000 people are hospitalized and about 36,000 people die from the flu and its complications every year.