It’s true, all sex acts are a choice. Many people reserve the act for marriage in the first place (mostly a heterosexual situation actually). Many take vows of celibacy for life (Catholic Priests, even Gay Cardinals).

It may also reign true that humans come out of the womb as non-sexual beings. Yes, it’s possible that we are ALL born with a mind for molding on the matter and, thus, choices to make accordingly.

Perhaps parenting causes certain reactions among children to the opposite gender later in life. Being abused might cause gender identity confusion. Treatments on the playground may cause one to believe he/she must be gay because ‘I just can’t identify with the opposite gender’. Maybe it’s simple shyness that causes it sometimes. Sometimes imprisonment or isolation with extended time exposed only to the same gender might cause homosexuality. Drug habits might lead to a tendency to ‘get off one’s rocks’ anyway one can. I’m not laying claim to any specific scientific proof, yet I believe theoretically some of this probably happens.

Likewise I’d bet sometimes we ARE talking about born tendency. Geneticists claim to have isolated some evidence for this among homosexuals … even alcoholics.

So, two things:

First, being ‘born gay’ is at least similar to being ‘born an alcoholic’. In the future, some parents, given such information at or before the birth of their children, might choose to affect the fruition of certain tendencies through environmental nudging or nurturing. Perhaps someday genetic solutions will be made available and some parents will choose to medically eliminate such tendencies altogether. And, on the other hand some of these parents might choose to put beer in their children’s lunch box.

Second, often Prop 8 opposers represent a hypocritical stance that gay is ALWAYS a born trait and NEVER choice. Of course that is the norm among the Prop 8 opposition because it’s the only way to lay claim to a MLK style Civil Rights piggyback ride. So, sometimes the argument is made (because I for one often argue a link to governmental interest in marriage intended to affect responsible child rearing) that only people who intend to or even CAN make babies should be afforded a marriage license. Fine then. Since the ‘Gay Marriage’ movement is pushed solely as a Civil Rights issue, ONLY gays who are proven BORN ‘that way’ should get marriage certs. Bi’s and Trannies are out lest they choose opposite gender commitments.

So you’re a Christian …

There has been some talk of late about mostly ALL Americans coming from immigrants and that public speech (Prayer as it were in Hyrum on Independence Day) in Spanish should be a welcome celebration of our American culture and Independent Sovereignty.

I was pondering the Tower of Babel from the Book of Genesis. Babel translates to ‘the Gate of God’. One of Noah’s great grandsons (the people we truly come from if you believe in that sort of thing) is thought to have lead a charge to build a tower so high they could just walk right up to Heaven and forgo God’s commanded law of righteousness on Earth. The people thought they could ignore the Law and simply and passively invade Heaven. Sound familiar?

God didn’t like the attitude so he confused their tongues (invented other languages) making communication very difficult.

So what happened next? Unity or segregation?

There is no need for pride in the color of one’s skin or one’s cultural heritage. If you’re a Christian such pride simply means you are proud of the changes on Earth brought on by Nimrod’s spirited charge to Heaven.

For Americans, especially on July 4th, pride belongs with one’s allegiance to the Red, White and Blue. Language isn’t a matter of pride, it’s about communication. In America we speak English whether our dialect be the Lingo associated with Jive, Yankee, Southern Drawl, Chicano or Valley Girl. If you move here, learn and use English when addressing strangers.

Those who move here and use pride as an excuse NOT to learn or use English are influencing segregation that will find us falling in division rather than standing proudly united.

Tonight Armando Galarraga threw 8 2/3 perfect baseball innings for the Detroit Tigers. The next batter, the 27th of the game hit a grounder to first. The first baseman fields the ball cleanly and tosses it to a covering would-be perfect Galarraga who made an imperfect catch of the throw. The snow-cone appearance of a nearly dropped ball prompted a call of safe though replay shows the runner was out.

Travesty? Do we need official instant-replay review in baseball? Should replay be used just this once to grant perfection to Galarraga?

I say no. If replay is to be used on this one play, then replay should be used on every play (maybe every pitch) of the game to ensure every call was solid. In fact, review should be made of each of the 20 games currently listed as ‘perfect’ (where available as these date back pre 1890).

There is a lot of talk that THIS PLAY justifies review and little talk of what REALLY goes into a perfect game. Great pitching is only part of the equation. Outstanding plays in the field and at least one run scored before the pitcher leaves the game are also required.

Perhaps MOST important to a perfect game isn’t perfect umpiring, but, in its absence, for all bad calls to go the pitcher’s way.

Life is a privilege you lose by attempting suicide no matter how slow the pace.

There is much to discuss, debate and argue with Sunday’s passing of a Health Care Reform Bill. How does one eat an elephant? One bite at a time. My first bite follows:

Two elements of the Health Care reform package must go hand in hand, requirement of citizens to carry coverage and requirement of providers to offer ‘affordable’ coverage regardless of pre-existing condition.

With the signing of the current Health Care Reform Bill, the US Government will require private insurance providers to accept as clients patients with existing conditions. The US Government will also now impose a ‘fine’/'tax’ (actually an important distinction) on people who do not purchase some minimum of insurance.

If the Government does not make such a requirement of citizens, they render the insurance business impotent with coverage requirements as users of these services will hold incentive to simply await expensive conditions of injury or illness before buying insurance only to drop said insurance once well.

You can’t have one without the other so I believe current strategy to regard the recent Bill as unConstitutional based on the notion that the government has never required a citizen to buy a privately supplied good or service misses a mark and serves a pervasive slippery slope. One argument commonly used to support this claim is that the government already requires one to buy a minimum of automobile liability insurance. This argument is quickly marginalized by the counter that one is not mandated to drive at all let alone on public roads.

So the distinction between auto insurance and health insurance becomes that one is being required to spend money for simply living. To make that last statement accurate one must add to it the words ‘in the USA’. We’ve already a precedent from which to draw acceptance of such a statement. We must pay taxes simply for living in the USA. No American is immune nor are any visitors.

UnConstitutional? I guess to the extent paying taxes fits the bill. But you can’t really argue against a tax for not carrying insurance without arguing against requirements of insurance companies to cover existing conditions. It would be like requiring Auto insurers to allow the purchase of comprehensive coverage of a vehicle that’s already been totaled. It would be like requiring providers to accept a new fire-insurance policy on a home already burned to the ground.

One might argue they should retain the right to choose out of the insurance scheme altogether. I agree so long as one can prove enough resource to handle a certain medical burden financially and is willing to forfeit his/her rights under Acts such as “The federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act” or EMTALA which take away a Dr.’s right to refuse care based on inability to pay for it. Ahhh, but now I’m nibbling on yet another piece of pachyderm.

More to follow.

Marijuana: From Reefer Madness to Fast Times at Ridgemont High, it is imbedded in our culture and has come to mean different things to different people. However most treatment of Marijuana, Hemp or just plain THC seems at least loosely entrenched in myth and emotion.

Probably the most notable and oft sited myth stems from the notion that Marijuana is particularly and unreasonably harmful to one’s health and to society in general. By comparison to alcohol (black marketing aside) the harm Pot causes to society, the physical body or state of mind is minimal.

Reefer even holds real medicinal value. This is not a myth revealed by a grassroots movement to pervasively bring about legalization through some backdoor. Marijuana truly IS useful in treating side-effects associated with certain cancer or tumor treatments. It holds value as a pain killer. As a non-physically addictive psychotropic it can be used as a treatment for depression or anxiety disorders. It reduces symptoms of conditions such as Glaucoma. In fact, evidence exists that Pot smokers tend not to get cancers of ANY kind.

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/142271/smoking_marijuana_does_not_cause_lung_cancer/

One common myth-based argument against its legalization is the consideration of Marijuana as a ‘gateway’ drug that leads to other MORE harmful behaviors. While there is truth that Pot can lead to other behaviors, I postulate that it’s only a ‘gateway’ drug BECAUSE it’s illegal. Once one crosses the line into illicit drug activity, the barriers to cocaine, meth, LSD and heroin break down. If MJ were off the list of illicit drugs, the gateway effect would largely subside.  The ‘gateway drug’ myth is hardly a legitimate argument for keeping Weed illegal.

On the other hand, advocates often perpetuate the myth that legalization of Marijuana will alleviate society of all ills associated with the substance.  I think hasty legalization would bring with it a certain set of societal ills some old and some new. I think we are far from prepared for the consequences of all out legalization.

Perhaps the greatest burden to our society brought on by Marijuana stems from black market sales and all obvious associated pitfalls therein. One hurdle to overcome before legalization can realistically occur is the handling of Pot as a free-market competition and tax issue. Marijuana is very easy to grow. It would be relatively easy for a Weed farmer to grow enough Pot to supply the entire neighborhood whereas  a brewer of beer would have to set up quite an operation to supply large portions of a population. By comparison to sharing one’s latest crop of tomatoes and peppers from the garden for a pittance at the Gardner’s Market, one could make a decent living growing only Weed in a small room or back yard lending allure to black market tax evasion made easier by society-wide acceptance of use.

Legit entrepreneurs would have to face regulations and liabilities similar to those faced by distillers of alcoholic beverages but bootleggers might undermine the finer points of free-market treatment for THC with little effort. If growing Weed is legalized without complicated regulation, the market remains underground and this is a bad thing.

Perhaps regulation could involve offering grow permits for a fee per plant, per year. To reduce the enticement for bootlegging, stiff penalties for growing without a permit and for black market sales are in order.

Regardless, with legalization the ATF becomes the ATMF or some such acronym inclusive of  THC representation and none of it will happen until the challenges associated with sobriety measurement are met. It’s difficult now to chemically detect how much time has passed since THC ingestion by an individual though technology is getting better. This has relevance to DUI enforcement and workplace management.

In conclusion, my experience has been that realism lacks from the perspectives of each side of the Marijuana legalization movement.  Once the true value associated with this plant is realized and once the true pitfalls associated with a Libertarian-style free-for-all on the substance are acknowledged, Prohibition of THC and Hemp as marketable products might find its end.

A former and respected USU classmate of mine, Reed Cowan, is enjoying sell-out crowds at Sundance for his documentary unveiling concerns about the LDS Church’s financial involvement in funding a campaign against California’s Prop 8. 

I have to say that I am horrified at the notion that tax-exempt entities can spend money on campaigns of any kind.  I hope it’s just not true that the LDS Church funded a campaign against Cali’s Prop 8 … but I’m guessing my hopes are thin.

So I’d rather present my position on the concept of Same-Gender Monogamy:

What interest would a collective people have in promoting monogamy?  I’d say the reasons are two.  One: To promote responsible baby making. Two: To quell the spread of contagious disease.  

It doesn’t take a stretch of the imagination to see that only 50% of my equation applies to same-sex relationships yet 100% applies to those of opposite gender.

This isn’t about celebrating love. You can do that without a Government endorsement.  I see no reason for the Government to give one hoot about love … but commitment?  There might be some meat to go with them taters.

I reiterate my concern: there is no reason to collectively perpetuate equal value represented by incentive for same and opposite gender monogamous relationships. They do not carry the same responsibilities.

I am also perplexed by the concern to drop gender when we talk about ‘marriage’ yet it’s VERY important we incorporate sex-specific, discerning terms in conversation for Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals or Transexuals. 

We must offer the GLBTA categorical terminology, but when it comes to the make up of a monogamous relationship one word is to fit all whether it be man-woman, man-man, woman-woman, or a plethora of possible gender-specifics associated with people in monogamous relationships who’ve had their gender ‘altered’ or ‘fixed’.

One final concern:  Those concerned (As am I) about divorced people who fight against ‘Gay Marriage’  might also question those who support it who never intend to remain monogamous.

Though many variations find their way into our conversations (especially since 9/11), Franklin once wrote in quotes in his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

A paraphrased version inevitably pops up in virtually every conversation involving airport security crackdowns. I find this a misuse of the phrase. Often when it’s applied, the user is really complaining about inconvenience rather than poetically citing an unjust sacrifice of Essential Liberty.

When you strap on your seat belt, what Essential Liberty is being taken from you? Driving isn’t a right to begin with. You are still free to choose whether or not to buckle up or whether to drive in the first place.  I say it’s an inconvenience worth the sacrifice.

What about Child-Proof caps and safety seals on meds? Is this a sacrifice of Essential Liberty or an inconvenience that saves lives from being taken by those with sinister minds?

Sure an all-out ban on guns would suit Franklin’s terminology. But, when we talk about full-body scanners (The most recent heat applied to the topic of Airport Security), we  talk about inconvenience not Essential Liberty.  What freedom is one sacrificing to wait an extra hour to board a trans-Atlantic flight? How much time would it have taken Franklin to cross an ocean?  I fear he would not sympathize for or empathize with those using his immortal phrase to justify disdain for inconvenience.

I’m not convinced pride is the best argument against using full Body Scanners at airport security check points, though I understand why passengers sporting colostomy appliances, catheter tubes, penile implants or evidence of mastectomies might strongly support alternative measures (arguments the ACLU has made).

My concerns stem from ignorance more than anything.  First I wonder to what extent this type of radiation might prove less than healthy in the long-run for frequent fliers.  Second, I wonder if a device like this would even detect explosives such as those sewn into the underwear of our latest would-be mass murderer. Even if it would, do we know it will  make apparent EVERY explosive that can be made into clothing?

Are we just chasing our own tails with this stuff?  What are the unintended consequences associated with total reliance on this type of expenditure?  When ‘The Club’ came out as an anti-theft device, car-thieves became car-jackers, a far more sinister plot.

Those who intend to harm us will find another way. They will adapt even evolve like the Swine Flu.  They are not going to make attempts they know will fail which might explain why we don’t hear too many (if any) stories of airport security foiling a terror plot.

Alternatives?  Do we even need any? Any alternative will be met with the evolution of our enemies. I’m not suggesting we make it easier for terrorists to bring down an airliner, but it seems airport security is doing fairly well given the history of flight into and out of the USA.  I fear a full body scan might actually do harm by leading to complacency and a very narrow focus on only  things the eye can see with the aid of scanner technology.

Police Check Points: They put us all off. No one likes to be stopped for any reason. But do Police Check Points violate our rights? I don’t think they do. They rain on our parade of privileges maybe, but probably do not move us by the way of Nazi Germany any more than do Weigh Stations and Points of Entry. We don’t HAVE to drive. Out West thems fightin’ words while back East people are comfortable in cabs.

BUT, what is the reasoning behind these Check Points? Recently we were told by the UHP that the stop in Sardine Canyon was aimed at educating the public about proper slick road equipment. So they embarked on this resource expenditure in order to stop something like 900 of us to receive ‘education’. What about the rest of us, though? There are over 100,000 of us in CV and as yet I have not read an article in our local paper, seen a piece on our local TV stations or heard an interview on our very own KVNU spelling out to us the ins and outs of compliance. Do all-season tires fit the bill? How about 4-wheel-drive with ordinary old tires?

It seems to me if education is the aim, far less could have been done to educate far more.