Environmental Activism at Olympus Jr High Built a Park

I was sent a link to a policy paper (I think that's the right term) from Sutherland Institute about environmental activism in Utah's schools. You can read the paper here.

I read through most of it, and found several things wrong. However, I'm not an environmental expert, so I'll leave that to real environmental experts.

However, I do want to share a tale about some environmental activism that took place when I was a student at Olympus Jr High in the early 1990's. (Am I really that old?)

My eighth grade science teacher (Ms Augustyn, if memory serves me correctly) disliked the fact that school lunches were served on Styrofoam trays. So, she educated her students on the environmental impacts of Styrofoam. That lead to a petition drive that captured the attention of some of the local media, and got Granite School District to change to trays made of recycled cardboard throughout the district.

Not only that, but it also laid the groundwork the following fall for the Olympus Jr High Environmental Club.

And that year, we got the year started off right with a paper recycling program. Then, one of our members heard that an intersection near the school was going to be realigned. In realigning the streets, they were going to tear out some pioneer-era trees. So, a new petition was circulated at the school, and the response from the road people was that they didn't really care what a bunch of Jr High kids thought. So, we spent a couple of Saturdays out talking to neighbors about the trees, getting them to sign our petition.

Well, They relented, moved the road to run on the east side of the trees (vs the west side where it previously ran). They also decided that the area around the trees would become a park.



And, that is the story of Olympus Pines Park. It all started with an activist teacher.



The bush to the right of the sign is one of the few plants we planted that day that has survived the past 16 years. I planted that bush.

-Bob

Maybe I don't get the joke.....

From Jesse Fruhwirth at City Weekly:

As I reported first via my Twitter feed, the press conference calling for a ballot initiative to remove homosexuals from Utah was fake. At best, the organizers put together improv theater that punked the Utah press corps and maybe got people to think about gay rights for a moment. It's fashionable to make fools of news media folk such as myself, so, touche. But at its worst, it was an offensive attention-grabbing play on Holocaust-like imagery and language that does little to advance the argument for gay rights in Utah.

The phony press conference is a play out of the Yes Men play book. For example, The Yes Men once punked the U.S. Chamber of Commerce by announcing a press conference, then posing as representatives of that group while calling for climate change legisation. It was funny, you see, because the Chamber opposes such legislation. Ha. Zinger. Got 'em.

I'm not sure what Ha-Ha we were supposed to get from today's action, but I think the point they must have been trying to make is that it is somewhat believable that Utah could foster such a movement of concerned citizens that would openly and publicly call for Nazi-like solutions to the "homosexual problem?"

And a response from the group who held the "press conference," Patriots for a Moral Utah:

Because of the intense anti-lgbt climate in Utah, and because our voices have been silenced by recent statements and deals made on the hill, we felt a creative solution would be to highlight just how outlandish some of their claims are. It is amazing that Utah has reached a point where even something as crazy as the "Utah Fair Solution" has legitimacy and is believable.

The goal of this political satire was purely a play off of the many groups, legislators, organizations and religions who speak against the LGBT community. As a community we hear constantly from people like Paul Mero of the Sutherland Institute who tell us that our families and love are an illusion, or Senator Chris Buttars who says that we have no morality and are the biggest threat to America.

The point was not to "punk" anybody, but to push people to continue the discussion of LGBT rights, and are thrilled at the conversations and public input that flew when news of the Patriots came out.

We love our community, and hope that our political farce has helped in highlighting what we feel is the ridiculousness and cruelty of some in our legislature and groups like The Eagle Forum, the Patrick Henry Caucus and America Forever. Thank you to all those who caught the big picture of our attempt and who have supported the efforts of all those who made this a reality. Also a very special thank you to each of the protesters who attended at the capitol, who were aware of the satire and helped to make it such a great event. This was another step in our multi-faceted campaign to achieve equality, and we're all in this together.

OK, great. I still don't get it. With Sutherland, Buttars, Ruzika, and America Forever, do we really need parody? After all, the best comedy to come out of Saturday Night Live the last couple of years was Tina Fey repeating Sarah Palin's words.

And, instead of pointing out how ridiculous they are, you made some of us think "hmm, Makes Mero not seem so bad."

Yes, you got people talking. But they are talking about your stunt, not the need for more gay rights.

-Bob

An answer to Sutherland

From an email:

For years now non-profit organizations like the Sutherland Institute have advanced policies which reflect conservative values. Progressives in Utah have been largely left out in the cold, especially since the loss of fine organizations like the Utah Progressive Network (UPNet). Too often progressives have been forced to react to legislation they disapprove of instead of going on the offensive with ideas of their own. Those days are coming to an end.

The Citizens Education Project (CEP) has been in existence for more than 10 years. During that time, the grassroots organizers who formed the CEP have had some significant victories. For example, they blocked efforts to bring private prisons to Utah and worked closely with downwinders to make sure nuclear testing in Nevada never resumed. They have also been fighting the Las Vegas water grab in Snake Valley and have a long history of holding the military accountable at Dugway Proving Grounds when others wouldn't. The CEP is proud of its record of standing for openness and transparency and will continue to do so.

Now the organizers that founded the CEP are ready to take the organization to the next level. They realize it is no longer enough to simply block bad policy. They believe it's time to also start bringing good policy ideas to the table. You are receiving this message because we think you agree.

While organizations like the Sutherland Institute have enjoyed considerable corporate support and even have members of Congress like Congressman Rob Bishop raising money for them (see Paul Rolly, Jan 4, 2010 Salt Lake Tribune), progressive organizations like CEP likely won't. For one thing, the CEP won't have much corporate support because we don't intend to muddy the waters on climate change or other issues, we intend to inform and educate the public and policy makers about problems facing Utah and the West and offer real solutions.

By the end of 2010 we plan on having raised the resources needed to establish a foundation that will support a progressive think tank in Utah for years to come, but we will need your support to get things rolling. With your help, we will be a resource for the public and policymakers offering information and ideas that over time can create real positive change in the lives of people across Utah and throughout the region.

By becoming a sustaining member at $5, $10, $25, $50 or more each month, you can help us build the solid small donor support needed to sustain our organization and begin the work of both creating and critically analyzing policy choices that will effect your life and the lives of your fellow citizens for generations to come.

Our goal is at least 1,000 monthly donors by the end of 2010. We know there are far more than 1,000 citizens in Utah who want to see a strong progressive non-profit presence and understand how influential it could be in shaping our state and region's future. If you think the time has come for an organization like the CEP, we ask not only for your contribution, but that you forward this email to others who share our values and ask them to join you in supporting the CEP.

Thank you for your consideration of this request. We know these are difficult times economically. However, the most difficult times are when the need for solid progressive ideas and organizing is greatest. From poverty to climate change, what happens today has serious consequences for our future.

Sincerely,

Craig Axford
Executive Director, Citizens Education Project

LDS Church to Issue Comment on Non-Discrimination

And, from the sounds of it, Paul Mero and company aren't gonna like it....

from KTVX:

Numerous sources are now telling ABC 4 that the LDS Church is poised to extend an olive branch of sorts to the gay community.

These sources say the Church is expected to - both through spoken and written statements - to offer its support for proposed Salt Lake City ordinances extending protection to gays in the areas of employment and housing.

Reportedly, the Church has been in quiet discussion with members of Utah's gay community.

This announcement from the Church is expected sooner rather then later.

Mero: Making up history to prove his point

This is from a couple of weeks ago. I have meant to post it, but with a death in the family and a few other things, blogging has taken a back seat.

However, I just wanted to point out how the Conservative Agenda will re-write history to prove their point. From Sutherland INstitute's Paul Mero, in a comment to this post:

Utah does have Amendment 3, thank goodness. But a constitutional amendment can be repealed. What would that process look like? Well, what did that similar process look like in CA? It looked like a court amassing mountains of state and local code and ordinances and concluding 1) that a constitutional amendment could very well be unconstitutional and 2) the track record throughout the state in regards to gay rights seemed clear enough for the Justices to wonder out loud why gays shouldn’t be afforded the status of legal marriage.

There was no logical fallacy of a “slippery slope” in play. The precedents were all very logical to the Justices, so much so they were baffled why the status of marriage shouldn’t be bestowed on same-sex couples.

First, for the love of Pete, can we stop calling it "Amendment 3?" That is not it's name. It's name is Article I Section 29 of the Utah Constitution.

Secondly, California did not have a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting marriage until November 2008. In 2000, California residents passes Proposition 22 (2000) which, in the same 14 words used in Proposition 8 (2008), prohibited California from recognizing same-sex marriages.

However, Prop 22 (2000) amended California Code, not the California Constitution. So, therefore, you are wrong, Mr Mero. It was not the Constitution that was found to be unconstitutional.

Furthermore, had it been the Constitution that was unconstitutional, what difference would Prop 8 (2008) had? It, too, would be struck down by the courts, pretty quickly,too.

-Bob

source:
wikipedia: California Proposition 22 (2000)

Taking on Sutherland's Pro-disrimination Statement

I just got a press release from the Sutherland Institute about Salt Lake City's proposed non-discrimination ordinance.

Needless to say, they have some issues....

SALT LAKE CITY — October 12, 2009 — Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker recently released the details of two different ordinances designed to ban employment and housing discrimination based on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” In response, Sutherland Institute reaffirms its commitment to marriage and family as matters of public policy. We continue to draw a negative policy correlation between attempts to advance “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” and other similarly vague legal notions and all honest attempts to protect the meaning of marriage in the law.

While we commend Mayor Becker and his staff for their openness and willingness to discuss their recent proposals adding “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to Salt Lake City’s nondiscrimination ordinances – and thank him and his staff for honestly and sincerely seeking Sutherland’s input and advice as their processes have unfolded – nonetheless, we oppose the inclusion of these terms in the law anywhere in the State of Utah.

The experiences of other states, namely California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Vermont, prove that the inclusion of terms such as “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in state and local laws is used, ultimately, to denigrate the meaning of marriage. Seemingly rational and everyday concerns, along with more egregious concerns affecting the very safety and justice to be afforded every American, are manipulated and twisted by political activists and activist judges to reach beyond the limits of legal reason and the public good.

However, what Sutherland fails to mention is that the states of California, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Vermont didn't language in their state constitution defining marriage, and that's part of what led those activist judges to rule the way they did. However, Article I Section 29 of the Utah Constitution states "(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. (2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect" So, in order for their slippery slope to happen, the activist judge would have to rule the Utah Constitution unconstitutional, which is illogical.

Mayor Becker’s new anti-discrimination proposals only open the door to such legal abuses in Utah.

I separated this out and put this after my rebuke to point out Sutherland's all-out lie.

In meeting with the Mayor’s staff, Sutherland encouraged them to emulate the compromise found several years ago on the state hate crimes bill (Criminal Penalty Amendments, H.B. 90, 2006). Conservatives and liberals collaborated to craft a law that addressed all concerns without the inclusion of vague language such as “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” Furthermore, we alternatively recommended that Mayor Becker might choose to propose non-binding resolutions that could include vague language and yet do no harm to the integrity of state law.

As the current proposals stand, Sutherland opposes them.

So, in other words, Sutherland wants laws that don't mention them thar gay people. If you ignore, them, they'll just go away....

First, the proposed ordinances are legally vague. Redundancy is not clarity. To define “sexual orientation” as “heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual” is redundant. The definition does not clarify the words – it is the equivalent of stipulating that a specter is a ghost.

Funny, most laws have redundant definitions. As an example, Holladay City Code Chapter 8.01.030 defines an animal: "Animal" means every nonhuman species, both domestic and wild." Chapter 8.01.120 of the same Code differentiates the difference between a cat and a kitten.

And, how does the definition of sexual orientation not clarify the words?

Second, the proposed ordinances are dangerously broad. The inclusion of the term of legal art “perceived as” disallows any serious response to an accusation of discrimination. If an accuser simply perceives himself to be homosexual – or perceives the accused to have acted discriminatorily based on the accuser’s perception of himself – the accused has no basis for an honest defense against the charge of discrimination, and neither does the city’s appointed “Administrator” have reason to consider any defense if the ordinance allows anyone to subjectively “perceive” anything.

Discrimination claims put the burden of proof on the accuser. Otherwise, nobody would ever be fired ("I was fired because I was Mormon/White/a guy, etc").

Third, the proposed ordinances are inherently unjust to the parties they seek to regulate. Businesses that operate within the city limits of Salt Lake would be compelled to abide by “civil rights” laws that do not exist elsewhere in the state. While it is not uncommon for individual municipalities to differ in a variety of business regulations, it is uncommon – indeed, unprecedented – for businesses to comply with a variety of “civil rights” laws.

Yes, it's difficult for businesses to have to comply with a variety of laws, but that's just the cost of doing business in multiple jurisdictions.

The terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” have no place in Utah laws, especially not in employment and housing laws. Sutherland addressed these specific concerns earlier this year as the State Legislature was pressed by homosexual activists to pass similar ideas as a part of the “Common Ground Initiative.”

Why, because Sutherland says so?

No person is legally fired for who they are – although plenty of people are legally fired for inappropriate behavior, incompatible personalities, incompetency, or anything that gets in the way of personal performance or team productivity. This is the nature of at-will employment in a free society ...

Culture, not force of law, controls our workplace relationships…

The law protects men and women and children – male and female all. Only in sex professions are an employee’s sexual life relevant to the workplace. In every other work environment, the issue of workplace protections based on one’s sexual preferences is, in itself, discriminatory. It turns an otherwise irrelevant part of an employee’s work experience into something more important than the job itself – and does so through force of law.

Well, except for cases where people *have* been fired because they were gay. Yes, a person's sex life outside the workplace is not relevant, but employers make it so by asking. I've been asked by an employer if I was gay. I'm not, and answered as such, but I wonder what would have happened if I said I was, because legally they could have fired me.

No person can be legally denied housing for who they are – they can be legally denied housing for what they do as tenants, rental experiences based on prior references, or a landlord’s perceptions about how the applicant would fit into the culture of the housing project or surrounding community. These standards apply to every rental situation in a free society, regardless of someone’s private sexual behavior…

The real question for a landlord, in these cases, concerns her perceptions (visual, communicative, or intuitive) about the rental applicant. Would this applicant fit the culture of the housing unit, complex, or neighborhood? Based on hard experiences, the landlord may perceive that the applicant will have too many disruptive parties, too many strangers coming and going, or even undisciplined children. In the protection of private property rights in a free society, all landlords have this right to subjectively, but reasonably, screen all tenant. [ii]

So, in other words, if my parents, as landlords, have had probelms with Republicans who rented from the, it's OK to deny applicants based on party affiliation. Or if I wanted to move to the Marmalade district, I could legally be denied because as a Latter-Day Saint I don't "fit the culture of the housing unit, complex, or neighborhood."

Sutherland does not condone discrimination against any human being on grounds of innate and universal human traits addressed by civil rights laws. Nor does Sutherland condone irrational discrimination against any human being for chosen behaviors.

Well, that last sentence is alie, as evidenced by the rest of the press release.

-Bob

Sutherland Gets Snarky

It's not often I agree with the Sutherland Institute. However, when it comes to SB 81 (2008), we stand on the same side.

And, well, I am a fan of snarkyness.

So it was with great pleasure when I read their response to State Representative Chris Herrod's comments on their Just the facts report.

From the Senate Site (who get a lot of credit in my book for posting this):

As background, our Just the Facts report was a follow-up to a study we presented to the Immigration Interim Committee in 2008 citing, among other things, current state prison-inmate data. At that time, some supporters of SB 81 countered our findings by arguing that better data on illegal-immigrant inmates would be found in the county jail system. Sutherland took them at their word and investigated the claim.

What we discovered was reported in Just the Facts. Not to their liking, opponents then argued, as Representative Herrod has in his memo, that the better data is actually “arrest data” (i.e., the idea that the court system keeps many undocumented immigrants out of state prison). The Sutherland staff is not new to this game. We have no doubt about the insistence of some proponents of SB 81 that endless and distant data sources would one day “prove” that, indeed, Utah is awash in a sea of brown criminals intent on subverting everything godly and virtuous. Even so, this game only proves boring.

[...]



Ethnicity data cannot reasonably be used to say anything useful about the crimes of undocumented immigrants for one simple fact: the vast majority of Hispanics living in Utah are not undocumented. Using data on Hispanic ethnicity to comment on the crime rate of undocumented immigrants is like using a data-marker of “Caucasian” to represent crimes committed by freckled red-heads. Further, in its most noxious form, it assumes that all Hispanics are undocumented, which is contrary to both fact and common sense.

That's it! Sutherland must be racist against red heads! That makes two things we agree on.....

-Bob

Sutherland: LDS Church is Wrong

OK, so they didn't come right out and say that, but let's connect the dots for two seconds.

On November 5, 2008, Elder L Whitney Clayton, who headed the Church's involvement in California's Proposition 8, told the Deseret News that the church "does not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships," that involve benefits like health insurance and property rights. That stand was outlined in a statement the church posted on its Web site earlier in the campaign. Three months later, the Church has not refuted these claims.

In fact, on January 21, 2009, LDS Church leaders met with Republican Legislative Leaders. When pressed for a position on the "Common Ground" bills, the legislators were referred to prior statements issued by the Church. This version of events has not been refuted by either the Church nor by Legislative leaders.

On February 9, 2009, Governor Jon Huntsman came out in support of the Common Ground Initiative, including civil unions.

So, you would think that groups that consist primarily of members of the LDS Church that use religious arguments to defend their positions would applaud the Governor for siding with the Church, right?

As if.

Reference this message I received via Facebook tonight from Jeff Reynolds of the Sutherland Institute:

On Monday, February 9, 2009, the Salt Lake Tribune reported that Governor Huntsman, through his spokesperson, had expressed his support for the "Common Ground Initiative" and said he was in favor of civil unions for same-sex couples.

In response, Sutherland Institute issued the following statement: "We're not surprised. Public relations, not policy, is his strong suit. He had to be dragged to the altar of Amendment 3, and everyone has known, since then, that Governor Huntsman would rather be nice than right."

Responsible citizens wishing to express their disappointment to the Governor's position on this issue may contact his office at 801-538-1000 or you can simply leave a comment for him at http://governor.utah.gov/goca/form_comment.html.

The Governor needs to know it's important to be right on this issue, not nice.

Click here, and send the Governor a message thanking him for showing courage and standing up for what's right.

A PIC for tat.

Paul Rolly:

After receiving a number of complaints, the Utah Lieutenant Governor's Office says it is investigating whether the state PTA should register as a Political Issues Committee (PIC) because it apparently is spending money to defeat the voucher law in the November referendum. We're not sure whether the complainants are the same folks who refuse to reveal who is spending money for pro-voucher radio ads.

Against Utah Vouchers has information on why, if the PTA must be a PIC, then the Sutherland Institute should have to register as well.

An article that you must read

I'm a little late getting to this, but the Tribune had a great rebuttal to Sutherland's "Utah's Public Schools Killed Mormonism" essay.

Go read it here.

-Bob

$4520 rebuttal, without being a smart alack

I'm going to try really hard not to be a smart alack on this post. I may get kicked out of my family for it, but I need to do it.

Last Thursday, I posted a rebuttal to the Sutherland Institute's math on vouchers. Paul Mero of Sutherland rebutted in the comments, and the Senate Site rebutted on their blog.

Mr. Mero states that they took out schools with tuition greater than $10,000. Therefore for the press release to be honest, it would need to state that the average tuition of private schools with tuition below $10,000 is $4520. I firmly believe the purpose behind the fuzzy math was to make the pro-education people like myself look like liars for putting up the $8000 figure.

Secondly, both rebuttals speak to affordability. Assuming that a parent puts their kid in an "average" school, and that family gets the full $3000, that still puts the parent's tab at $1520. And that doesn't account for transporting the children, uniforms for the children, nor any of the other costs associated with a change in schools.

To qualify for the $3000, a family of 4 must make $30,000 or less (according to the voter information pamphlet from the Lt Governor's office). 5% of their net income would go towards tuition.

And all of this is assuming that tuition doesn't see a jump for 2008-2009. Simple supply and demand would indicate that it could. However, I'll get to that in another post.

-Bob

Sutherland's New Lies on Vouchers

The Sutherland Institute has released a new press release (Hat Tip: KVNU) regarding vouchers. This one has many tasty morsels for us this evening. To begin with:

Independent research conducted by the non-profit Sutherland Institute shows the average tuition among the majority of voucher-eligible private schools in Utah is $4,520.

"Independent" research? Are you freaking kidding me?!? The Sutherland INstitute is so far removed from being independant that it defys description. It's like asking a Hostess employeewhich tastes better: Carrots or Twinkees. It's like letting Greg Curtis be the independant arbiter in the RSL stadium debate It's like letting Bill O'Reilly moderate the Hannity/Rocky debate. It's like letting Rob Miller count the posts to see who gets to 1000 first. It's like letting Jerry Sloan be the Ref of the Finals.

("How many aalogies are you going to use? As many as it takes to convince you!")

OK, enough of that. ON to our good part:

Of the 88 voucher-eligible schools contacted, 64 responded. The responding schools reported annual tuition charges from $1,600 to $52,200. Only six private schools are clearly unaffordable for low-income families the new voucher law is primarily intended to serve. Those six were omitted from Sutherland’s results.

You gather data. then you eliminate the 10% of your data that hurts your desired result?

If we're going to play with the numbers, then we might as well post the following "independent" survey results:

*67% of regestered voters in a recent poll found vouchers to be a bad idea. (Results based on an informal survey of people named Bob Aagard taken at the Salt Lake City Library on September 27, 2007. I voted bad idea twice, and the third time I was distracted by a cute girl sitting nearby and said "sure, it's a good idea for you to ask her out." I think my answer was misinterpreted.)

*100% of the girls in the library are cute. They are also married.

*62.5% of he voices in my head are allergic to redheads.

*4/3 of Utahns are bad with fractions and/or ratios.

*57% of BYU fans think Harline is still open in the end zone. The Other 43% wish it were still that easy.

*7.11% of the population likes slurpees. I buy enough for the other 82%.

*12.5% of Democratic First Lady Candidates are Mormon. Only 10% of Republican First Lady Candidates are, however. (This one's actually true....)

*2% of Senate Republicans havea wide stance when using the men's room. The number jumps to 7% in the House.

*85% stopped reading a long time ago. The rest of you can stop now.