Gettin a Piggyback

Gary Herbert, Utah's governor (our left) is getting as close as he can to Jon M. Huntsman (pictured here) with the intent to capitalize on his friendship with the popular ex-governor.

First of all this picture is just so funny. Huntsman is not even looking at Herbert, yet the two are holding hands. Perfect Photo-op. But Herbert doesn't have much of a choice

Herbert needs all the help he can get because his chances of re-election appear slim as many Utahs wouldn't mind seeing Herbert go. And considering popular Utah state representative Jim Matheson has entertained running against Herbert in the upcoming gubernatorial election, Herbert may have some more things to worry about.

Matheson, comes from a family of politicians: Son of Scott M. Matheson (ex Utah governor), brother to Jim Matheson (Utah state representative), and brother to Scott Matheson (Utah politician. Scott lost to Hunstman in the governor's race).

Not only would it be a big win for his family, but also a big win for Utah Democrats. Considering the fact that Matheson is a Democrat, were Matheson to unseat Herbert, not only would he be just the sixth democrat to hold the governor's seat in Utah's history, but also he would be the first democrat governor in over twenty-six years -- the last of which was Matheson's father Scott. M. Matheson.

Let's hope he runs.

Bread or Clean Air?

Is making money more important than clean air or water?? It is according to one of the justices of a case I read today. He said the following.

"One’s bread is more important that landscape or clear skies."

This argument is usually made by huge corporate entities who are trying to continue their unbridled polluting for the sake of profit and social efficiency. Their reasoning is that some pollution is necessary in order to ensure economic efficiency and growth. If the government were to prohibit all pollution emission, the economy would slow down. That scares market capitalists.

What is fundamentally flawed about the argument is that it fails to address two important points. First, the fact that pollution imposes an incredible health risk to people. To what extent is it okay to harm individuals in order to secure progress and capital? And the second is the earth's limited resources. If corporations are able to pollute in excess, the earth won't be able to produce any bread to buy.

It is ridiculous for people to consider economic efficiency as more important than sustaining the earth's resources and people's overall health.

I think the government should impose strict regulations on how much companies can pollute. If the regulations curb economic efficiency -- so what -- the regulation creates an incentive for the company to innovate and create new, sustainable solutions, which is exactly the type of thing of which America needs more. And if they can't innovate, they die.

We gotta say NO!

Utah's governor is leading a multi-state initiative to push back the deadline one year for implementing new federal pollution regulations.

This attack on the environment just adds to the litany of setbacks in environmental regulations we've experienced this year. So I guess it shouldn't come as a big surprise, but I wonder when we're going to learn that protecting the earth's resources should be concomitant with protecting profits. That's sustainability.

As of now, corporations are depleting resources to protect profits and things are getting ugly.

Two-faced Politics

Obama's fundraising juggernaut is dauntless. During the third quarter of 2011, Obama's team pulled in just over $70 million.

The campaign touted their grassroots movement, which has grown to over 980,000 individual donors most of which are giving upwards of $50 each. This early in the campaign that is impressive.

But what's not impressive is Obama's two-faced politics. He woos the American people claiming to be their savior from this economic mess while he simultaneously gets in bed with the corporate giants on Wall Street that ultimately got us in this mess to begin with.

Romney v. Obama: Does it even matter?

After watching the debate last night it would appear Romney has the GOP nomination all sealed up. Not like the field has produced formidable opponents.

Perry sounded like an idiot. Cain's 999 plan is ridiculous, not to mention he was the president of a pizza company. Sure, that's something of which to speak, but not in comparison to the president of the United States, you know? I actually like Huntsman only because he says whatever he wants. Did you hear about his comment about how he thought 999 was the price of a pizza??!! Awesome. But, of course, Huntsman has no chance. Pawlenty is a none factor as well as he goes around taunting his gay-hating ways. Bachmann (and Perry) is trying hard to be the next Palin, which just makes me shake my head in disbelief. She, like all the others, is a none factor. I like Paul and his views and plans to put the federal government on a serious financial diet, but all things considered, America under Paul would be a disaster. Therefore, he, too, is a non-factor.

So, yeah, Romney. The question is: Can he beat Obama?

He's a formidable debater. He knows his shit. He's an incredible leader. In some ways I think he's more equipped to solve major problems than Obama. But let's get real and remember it's all politics.

Even if Romney beats Obama, what's the chance he'll be able get anything done? America's political system is so broken that however skillful the president may be, s/he still faces the morass we call the house and senate. These days, even if a certain plan or bill has doubtless merit, the political system strips away the merits, replaces them with earmarks, and calls it progressive legislation.

My ass.

Shoes & Hot Dogs

Remember when someone threw a shoe at Bush during a press conference? Well, today someone threw a hot dog at Tiger Woods.

That's gotta be some kind of biblical sign Armageddon is imminent.

Death of American Innovation

What the hell is going on?

A number of bills that will unbuckle years of environmental protections are currently waiting for Senate approval. The two main bills include the TRAIN act, which would require cost considerations to trump health and science concerns for new rules, and the REINS Act, which essentially allows congress to veto all new regulations the executive branch proposes.

The underlying premise for the bills is that environmental regulation curbs job creation, and with the American economy in the toilet, America can't afford to keep a tight belt on regulation.

But why can't America invest in sustainable innovation? Why must we continually rely on the easy, dirty way of doing things to create jobs? Is the only way to create jobs to tap more oil reserves and allow American industries to pollute unbridled?

Congress is lazy and dangerously tethered to the industries that refuse to change their business model to a more sustainable and environmentally friendly model. Therefore, America is missing an incredible opportunity to lead the world in sustainability innovation.

The opportunity is now. America needs to stop relying on an outdated economic model that relentlessly depletes the world's resources and that pollutes the air we breath and the water we drink. Instead of looking back America needs to look forward and develop a model that will sustain us not for decades but centuries to come.

Perhaps the death of Steve Jobs, one of America's greatest innovators, symbolizes the death of American innovation.

It's not a stretch considering the way things are going.

Mormons & Christians

This weekend, Baptist pastors insisted Mormons are not Christians at the Values Voter Summit, a high profile, right-wing political conference in Washington, D.C.

This rhetoric, however, is nothing more than a spurious onslaught stemming from years of contempt and discrimination.

Mormons are Christian, and I think it's about time other Christian denominations accept it. The official title of the Mormon church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I mean the name of Jesus appears in the name for god's sake (no pun intended).

The preachers argue that because Mormons don't believe in the traditional conception of the trinity they aren't Christian. The traditional conception of the trinity is that god, Jesus, and the spirit are three pieces of one unit. In other words god is god, Jesus, and the spirit all in one. Mormons, on the other hand, believe that God, Jesus, and the spirit are three separate entities working as one team.

So, it's not like Mormons don't believe in God, Jesus, or the spirit. They do, but they have a different perspective regarding the composition. Is that difference in belief sufficient to say they aren't Christian? Not at all. Jesus is still the cornerstone.

Preachers also argue that because Mormons have a supplemental book of scripture -- The Book of Mormon -- they aren't christian. What's ultimately ridiculous about that argument is that the Book of Mormon is just some more teachings of Jesus. The bible constitutes two books: the old testament and the new testament. Mormons believe the BOM is just another addition pushing the same ideas.

The entire idea of Mormonism is founded on the belief that Jesus Christ is the son of god, and that he suffered on the cross so that every one can be saved. Doesn't that sound like prima facie christian to you?

People are just scared of Mormons because they are different. People fear what they don't understand.

And don't get me wrong, the Mormon religion is strange to a fault. But that shouldn't discredit the fact that they're still a Christian religion.

The Joy of Thinking

In torts we have been discussing the problem with identifying causation. Technically causation goes back until the beginning of time, so where does the law draw the line? It's not always an easy question.

But the subject of original causation got me thinking about original thoughts -- more specifically -- the first thought ever.

What was the first thought ever? What was it about? Who had it? What was the nature of it? I don't know, but it's something to think about.

The Change of Seasons

It's fun to see all the pictures people are posting on Facebook of the changing seasons. I have seen some pictures of leaves changing and even snow! It's crazy.

The change reminds me of what I was doing when the season changed last year. It's amazing how much things can change -- or not change -- in one year, and how quickly time flies. Often we have goals in mind for the coming year such as, by next fall I'll be doing this or that. And we go about the year working toward those goals.

And sometimes things happen that throw a big wrench in your plans rendering the coming year entirely different than what you expected. It can be hard to say the least, but change, like the change of season, is inevitable, and as humans we have to find a way to accept and move on. It's easy to write about, but a lot harder to actually put into practice.

The Funny thing about Attempt

Punishing criminals that commit crimes make sense to me. The process is pretty simple. The legislature enacts criminal statutes to punish certain behavior that it deems dangerous to the greater society. The idea is that if you impose criminal sanctions on certain behavior the sanction acts as a deterrent.

Hopefully everyone feels safer because we live in a society where criminals are punished (well some of them). But what about criminalizing attempted crimes? That just seems wrong to me. I think it's bad not in the least because the crime of attempt encroaches upon a fundamental principle of criminal law, which is to punish defendants that actually committed a crime. It's bad policy to send innocent folks to the slammer. So, if the criminal has not committed a crime, it would be wrong to punish him.

But mostly, I question the efficacy and overall necessity of attempt because it's goal, like all criminal sanctions, is to deter the criminal from engaging in criminal conduct that is potentially harmful to the greater society. However, punishment for attempt is far less severe than the punishment imposed for actually committing crimes. What makes the government think attempt will deter any more criminals?

Look at it from the criminal's perspective. Mr. criminal is about to rob a bank. He goes to the store and buys all the necessary items one needs to rob a bank (e.g., a bandana). At this point the severe punishment for robbing banks isn't deterring him; obviously the punishment for attempt won't either.

Therefore, the crime of attempt shakes the foundations of criminal law without offering value.

Psychology: Gestalt v. Stucturalism

Is the whole better than the sum of its parts? Is it better to perceive something by its parts or as a whole?

This binary can be further analyzed through the comparison of two types of thinking: (1) the west (and law school), and (2) the east.

Western history has chronicled the western man's affinity to compartmentalize and analyze facts. Consider how Darwin meticulously examined individual characteristics of certain species. As westerners, we are more interested in the specific facts than the whole picture. I think the pervasive individuality across society is in part attributable to this type of component, fact-based thinking. We are so focused on ourselves that we struggle to grasp the understanding of the whole.

Easterners, on the other hand, naturally see the whole. They are less interested in the factual items or the components that comprise the whole. Easterners generally have a stronger group identity within the society than westerners.

So what. Well, is one better than another? More effective? I think the only way to answer that question is on a case-by-case basis. Like everything in the world, it's relative.

Although recent announcements in the physics world call that theory into question.