Incongruities

Normally, spring is the busiest season for me. As soon as winter weather gives the tiniest hint of breaking, I’m outside fixing fences, building walls, turning over soil, cleaning corrals, brushing out horses, etc.

As the weather warms, I begin planting garden areas, cleaning poultry pens and raising chicks. Whenever possible, I try to get my children and grandchildren involved. All the activity provides me with information and ideas for newspaper stories, blogs, magazine articles and more.

This year knee replacement surgery on Feb. 27 set me far behind schedule. The first four weeks post-surgery were terrible. The pain was awful and it took all my strength and effort to do simple tasks like taking a shower or going to the dining room to eat.

Thankfully, for most of those early weeks my sweet wife completely catered to me. She even did all of my daily animal chores and never complained. I also had supplemental help from other family members. I owe a lot of thanks to many different people.

After 10 weeks, I am walking without crutches or a cane. I can go up and down stairs. I can even carefully walk up and down the hill in my backyard to take care of my horses and poultry. I still get gimpy and sore at the end of the day and daily therapy to regain my strength and flexibility will be necessary for many more weeks.

Next week I was supposed to be leaving on a fishing trip to Canada. I had to back out because I am still icing my knee several times a day to control swelling.

I learned some important lessons from this experience. I saw some obvious problems with the health care system. Yet it is difficult to complain because I have an artificial knee that should carry me through the rest of my life much better than the old one could have. It might be the only joint in my body where I no longer have to worry about the degeneration and pain from arthritis.

Through the course of therapy and treatment I met dozens of wonderful people who were also dealing with significant medical issues. I was impressed with their optimism and fortitude in spite of painful and debilitating conditions for most.

Thankfully, spring did not totally pass me by. Cold weather delayed many early blooms. The lilacs are at their peak right now—about two weeks behind the typical schedule. Last week I was able to take engagement photos for my youngest son and my soon-to-be daughter-in-law. The tulips and fruit trees blossoms were glorious and we were able to incorporate them into many of the photos.

My backyard is a jungle because it hasn’t been mowed yet. I hope I can finally get to it by this weekend. And even though I won’t be in Canada next week, I hope I can make it out fishing for the first time this year. I’m not ready to put the boat in the water, but I could probably sit in a camp chair for an hour or two and catch bluegills from the harbor docks.

On multiple occasions in recent weeks, Vice President Joe Biden advised people who want to defend their homes against intruders to purchase a double-barrel shotgun. He alleged no villain would be foolish enough to confront someone armed with such a weapon and no civilian would need more for protection.

In attempting to defend the administration’s stance against guns labeled as assault weapons, he demonstrated ignorance about guns, about mass shootings and about the Second Amendment.

There is no question that a properly outfitted shotgun can be a superb defensive weapon and a devastating assault weapon. In fact, they have the potential to be far deadlier than the weapons listed in proposed bans.

Instead of the double-barreled version Biden suggests, a better alternative would be a pump action that holds up to eight rounds. A 12-gauge, 3 ½ inch shotshell with number 4 buckshot holds up to 54 .24 caliber pellets. That means eight shots would deliver 432 projectiles. With an effective range out to about 45 yards, such a weapon could create a massive swath of destruction.

In short-range conditions, this shotgun would probably be a much more effective weapon than the AR-15-type assault weapons that have drawn attention from anti-gun groups and left-wing politicians. These military-type weapons are singled out because of their firepower and lethality. Yet an AR-15 with two 30-round clips would deliver just 60 projectiles of .223 caliber and would likely take longer to fire than the shotgun mentioned above.

The selection of AR-15-type weapons by some crazed shooters is likely as much about availability as it is about an intentional desire for lethality.

AR-15s and other similar rifles are popular for several reasons:

• Their small caliber and relatively light loads means they offer little recoil;
• They are easy to operate and shoot;
• Their design easily adapts to different configurations and accessories;
• Ammunition is relatively cheap and readily available;
• They closely resemble the M16 used by the U.S. military since 1963.

That last point is important, because Americans have long had an affinity for the weapons selected for our military usage. And in many cases throughout our history, civilians owned weapons superior to those issued to the military.

During the Revolutionary War, the personal rifles militiamen brought to battle were far more accurate and deadly at longer ranges than standard military muskets. During and after the Civil War the U.S. government provided troops cumbersome, single-shot rifles long after many civilians switched to repeating rifles that offered greater firepower.

In World War II and the Korean War the U.S. military provided troops with variations of the M1, a semi-automatic rifle that fired a 30.06 round. Not coincidently, the 30.06 became the most popular caliber in the world. A vast array of civilian rifles use the 30.06 round.

A 30.06 bullet is much bigger and heavier than the current military .223 bullet. The 30.06 is far more lethal and accurate at longer ranges than the .223. In fact, when the military first adopted the M-16 in .223 caliber many experts criticized it as too light and small to be an effective killing round. Its practical effective range is generally limited to 300 yards or less.

For those reasons, the .223 caliber is rarely used for hunting big game animals like deer or elk. Many states ban its use for hunting large animals. Utah law allows big game hunters to use a .223 round with an expanding bullet, but most hunters opt for larger calibers and more power.

The pro-gun control argument that people don’t need assault-style weapons for self protection or hunting presumes that those are the only legitimate reasons for owning guns. There are, however, million of Americans who enjoy shooting as a recreational activity. People don’t need to drink alcohol. People don’t need cars that go 100 miles per hour. People don’t need downhill skiing. The Bill of Rights does not specifically protect any of those activities. Each is dangerous. Yet they are permitted because this is a nation that respects all kinds of freedoms. Our government is founded upon a belief that the majority of people are inherently good.

The terms “amok” and “berserk” are used in English to describe situations or individuals out of control. The words have Malaysian and Norse origins and originally referred to people who went on killing sprees. Both words have been around for centuries.

England has strict laws that severely limit gun access. Yet in the 1987 Hungerford massacre Michael Ryan killed 16 people and wounded 15 others before committing suicide. Australia also has rigorous gun control laws, but in 1996 Martin Bryant killed 35 people and wounded 21 before police stopped him.

The first mass school shooting in the United States occurred on July 26, 1764. Four American Indians in Greencastle, Pennsylvania shot a teacher and 10 students. Given the date, the weapons were likely single shot muzzle-loading muskets.

The recent shooting in Connecticut occurred in spite of a state ban on assault weapons. A national ban on assault weapons did not prevent the Columbine massacre. The shooter in the Trolley Square spree killings in Utah used a shotgun and handgun.

Proximity to specific types of weapons is not an inducement to murder. Banning a class of weapons will not deter crazy people who go berserk or amok. Men with explosives, men with swords, and even men using vehicles have committed mass killings.

Restricting specific weapons will not stop violence any more than Prohibition eliminated the consumption of alcohol.

The cartridge in the middle of this image is a .223, the round fired by most assault-type weapons that gun control advocates want to ban. The shell at left is a 30.06, the round used by the U.S. in WWII and probably the most common round used for big game hunting worldwide. At right is a 2 3/4-inch 12-gauge shotgun round loaded with buckshot.

My high school was filled with guns and no one was ever shot.

I lived in a rural area in Ohio and graduated from high school in 1976. On any given day, there would be students with guns in their lockers and guns in their vehicles parked on school grounds. Usually these were kids going hunting before or after school. Students also brought guns to work on in wood shop or metal shop classes.

Based on current hype, one would expect that the mere presence of so many guns would have resulted in OK Corral-type shootouts on a regular basis. That never happened. My high school had its share of bullies and crazy people, but no one chose to release pent-up frustration by murder.

Although the weapons were mainly shotguns and rifles, if someone had decided to go on a spree and kill multiple students, he probably could have easily done so. Small-town police response was slow. There were no cell phones, so anyone reporting the crime would need to make it to the office—a daunting task when confronted by an armed killer.

The lack of mass murder had nothing to do with guns. The reality is that crazy people who want to kill others have been successful in doing so throughout recorded history. Guns are often a convenient weapon of choice. But in reality, a determined assassin will find a suitable weapon.

If there had been a killing rampage, it would not have attracted the level of attention that such events bring today. There was no Internet. There were three television networks and the closest local news affiliates were some distance away. There was a weekly newspaper. By the time word got out about a deranged lunatic who went on a rampage it would have been old news and coverage would have been sparse or non-existent.

Although random mass shootings get more attention today, those who research the subject note that spree shootings are not becoming more common. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/rise-mass-killings-impact-huge-article-1.1221062

The terms “amok” and “berserk” are used in English to describe situations or individuals out of control. The words have Mayan and Norse origins and originally referred to people who went on killing sprees. Both words have been around for centuries. This is obviously not a modern or American phenomenon.

England has strict laws that severely limit gun access. Yet in the 1987 Hungerford massacre Michael Ryan killed 16 people and wounded 15 others before committing suicide. Australia also has rigorous gun control laws, but in 1996 Martin Bryant killed 35 people and wounded 21 before police stopped him.

The first mass school shooting in the United States occurred on July 26, 1764. Four American Indians in Greencastle, Pennsylvania shot a teacher and 10 students. Apparently groups of unarmed children have long been viewed as easy targets. Given the date, I suspect the weapons were single shot muzzle-loading muskets. Those were the assault weapons of that era and apparently they were effective.

The shooting in Connecticut occurred in spite of a state ban on assault weapons. The Columbine massacre was not prevented by a national ban on assault weapons. The shooter in the Trolley Square spree killings in Utah used a shotgun and handgun.

Proximity to specific types of weapons is not an inducement to murder. Banning a class of weapons will not deter a crazy man who goes berserk or amok. Men with explosives, men with swords, and even men using vehicles have committed mass killings.

There are abundant studies and research that shows stricter gun control does little to prevent spree killings or to reduce other types of violent crimes. Focusing prevention efforts on gun control will never work.

Many in the Beehive State were surprised on Nov. 27 when the U.S. Department of Education released statistics that show Utah ranks 32nd in overall high school graduation rates.

One simple change by the Utah Legislature could dramatically improve graduation rates and reduce education costs.

Lawmakers should pass a bill that requires school districts to award a diploma to any student who meets state graduation requirements. Currently, many school districts impose graduation standards that are much stricter than those mandated by the Utah Department of Education. In other words, the low graduation rate is largely a self-inflicted wound.

The state requires students to complete 24 credits of coursework to graduate from high school. Many school districts, however, require up to 28 credits for graduation. While that might not seem like a big difference, it amounts to an extra half year of classes.

The 24 credits required by the state include:

— Four credits of English

— Three credits of math, including one credit of Algebra 1, one of geometry, and one of advanced, applied, or supplemental math

— Three credits of science, including two from earth systems, biology, chemistry or physics, and one from the foundation courses, or the applied or advanced science core list

— Two-and-a-half credits of social studies, including one of U.S. history, one-half of geography, one-half of world civilization, and one-half of U.S. government and citizenship

— Three-and-a-half credits of directed coursework, including one-and-a-half credits of fine arts, one CTE credit, one-half credit of computer technology and one-half of general financial literacy

— Two credits of physical education and health

— Six elective credits

It certainly seems like a comprehensive list.

Allowing districts to set stricter graduation rules is unfair to Utah’s students. The current situation means that students in some districts fail to graduate even though they complete the same coursework as students who graduate in a different district that sticks with the state requirements.

Districts justify the requirement for additional credits by arguing the extra courses ensure students receive a better education and are more prepared for college. Districts should provide the supporting data and a detailed analysis of how much those additional classes cost and how student scores and graduation rates improve as a result of requiring those extra hours.

The proposal to award a diploma to any student who meets the state requirements does not dumb down graduation to make it easier. Districts would not need to make any changes to curriculum and students would be free to complete more than the required 24 hours of coursework. But it would be at a student’s discretion and not that of the school district.

Most Utah high school graduates that continue their higher education will do so at a Utah college or university. Very few will go to Ivy League schools, Stanford, or similar academically rigorous institutions. Students who complete the courses required by the state and who excel, are still qualified to attend those schools. Beyond grades, it is what those students do outside the classroom and their personal commitment that determines whether or not they will be accepted and succeed at any institution of higher learning.

Consider a hypothetical example:

Student X graduates from a Utah high school that requires 24 credits. He plans to attend college and takes appropriate coursework. He graduates with a 3.8 GPA. He scores 25 on the ACT test. During school he competed in tennis and was a member of the jazz band. He was class secretary his junior year.

Student Z graduates from a Utah high school requiring 28 credits. He takes the most challenging classes available. He finishes with a 3.4 GPA. He gets a 29 ACT score. He earned his Eagle Scout award.

Both students apply to the University of Utah. Both will likely be accepted. Which one will be more successful in college or after college? It is impossible to predict! The traits that will ultimately define their future success will not be determined by those additional four elective credits in high school.

In many cases, those extra classes might actually hurt a student’s performance. Over four years, those extra credits mean additional class work and homework. Instead of being able to concentrate on core classes, a student’s efforts and time are more divided. If a student gets a poor grade in an elective class, it still has a negative impact on his overall grade point average.

Requiring credits that exceed the state requirement increases costs in several ways. Those additional four credits amount to an extra half year of classes. Extra teachers, classrooms and materials are all obvious costs. There are also less obvious expenses.

In many districts requiring 28 credits, a student who opts to take released time LDS Seminary can never have an open class period in his schedule during all four years. That means no study time during a school day. All assigned work must be completed outside of school hours. That creates a stressful situation if the student is also trying to participate in extracurricular events like sports, music, drama, or even holding a part-time after-school-job. In many cases, it leaves very little time for homework or study. The end result is that the student doesn’t do as well academically.

Here is where a less obvious extra cost comes in: What if that harried student who has a full day of classes followed by hours of practice for a school play ends up failing English one semester? The state requires four credits of English to graduate and after the failure the student will be a semester short. He will not graduate unless he makes up the deficit credit. He has no opening in his schedule, so he must find a way to make up that English credit after school, on weekends, or during the summer. And the district must provide a way to facilitate that student’s need.

This is not an unusual situation. It happens to thousands of students each year. As a result, districts have the expense of special make-up programs, including the costs of materials, teachers, classrooms, and in some cases, entire schools. It would be difficult to calculate the total cost statewide because it varies from district to district. But it could easily be many millions of dollars. All this occurs because some districts choose to exceed the state education requirement of 24 credits.

Worst of all, many students who fail a class or two simply give up trying to graduate because it can be so cumbersome to make up the lost credit.

Utah’s abysmal graduation rate is obviously a problem that needs addressing. Granting a diploma to any student who completes state graduation requirements would be a good first step.

During many years as a journalist, one of the things I found most surprising was how at any level of government, elected officials would completely disregard the will of the people who put them in office. A recent incident in Highland is a great example.

City council members voted to raise taxes by 58% (about $900,000). This occurred in spite of an overwhelming response from local citizens who oppose the tax hike.

The proposed increased is slated for road repairs and maintenance and council members who approved the hike justified it by saying that it will be cheaper to do the work now.

That makes sense. A bad economy means that construction costs are relatively low. That is exactly why I would like to undertake some major repair and remodeling costs on my home. Unfortunately, I don’t have the money to do it. And unlike Highland city officials, I have no way to compel someone else to pay for my pet project.

I’m sure city council members will argue that roads are necessary and benefit everyone. But I can counter that improving the appearance of my property could also benefit all those who live in my neighborhood or who drive past.

In fact, the value might be equal to the benefit derived from the expensive meandering sidewalks and landscaped medians recently added throughout the city.

Not long ago the city spent a fortune building new city offices, a library, and a splash park. If the road infrastructure work is so important, it seems like it would have made sense to pay for the road work first and delay some of the luxuries until the economy strengthed.

Some city officials who approved the recent tax increase as well as these other expensive projects ran their campaigns on promises of fiscal restraint. Apparently restraint is a 58% tax bump rather than a 100% increase or more.

While it is likely that some officials who voted for the increase will be out of office after the next municipal election, it will be too late to mitigate the economic damage to the citizens of Highland. The roads will be fixed and built, and the increase will never be repealed.

Did you hear the joke about the man who picked up an old lamp he found on the street? When he rubbed it a genie came out and said he could have three wishes. “There is just one catch,” the genie explained. “Whatever you wish for, your mother-in-law will receive two fold.”

The man’s first wish was for a 20,000-square-foot palace. At the genie’s command it appeared, and so did a 40,000-square-foot palace for his mother-in-law.

“For my second wish,” the man said, “I want 10 billion dollars.”

“It is done,” said the genie. “There is 10 billion dollars in your new palace and 20 billion in your mother-in-law’s palace. Now, what is your final wish?”

“For my last wish,” the man replied, “I want you to beat me half to death.”

Admittedly, it’s kind of a dark joke. But so is an elected official raising taxes in opposition to the people he promised to fiscally protect.

Perhaps, however, the joke can be the genesis of a great idea. I’d like to see a law that said anytime city council members vote for a tax increase that it would apply to them 10 fold.

This isn’t a usual post for me, but I finished a big project and had to tell someone.

About 15 years ago Anette and I bought an unfinished wood kitchen table, eight chairs and four barstools. We finished the top of the table and and the seats of the chairs in a cherry stain and painted the legs and backs blue.

After the blue, at one point the table and chairs were partially repainted with cream-colored legs and backs.

After raising four children and starting on some grandchildren, the old set needed a new look. My daughter, Jenine, has a furniture refinishing business. She had done some stuff Anette really liked, so we decided to copy some of her style. She uses lots of French words on her stuff. So we decided to use Icelandic instead, because I served a mission there and it is unique.

We had to remove most of the old finish, which was a major undertaking–especially on the chairs because of all the spindles and round areas. We literally worked on it all of last summer with Anette doing the majority of the sanding.

We had a goal to finish the project before Creed got home from his mission in November and before the holidays. We made it, but just barely. Literally within a week after finishing, I was at DI and found another table with the exact same style. Since we are always short of table space at big family gatherings like Thanksgiving, I called Anette and asked me if she wanted me to get it. She said to go for it.

At the time, I could not bear the thought of another refinishing project so soon. So the table sat on my deck until a couple weeks ago. Yesterday I finished the last coat of polyurethane so the project is officially complete.

The original table has two leaves that extend it so it can actually seat 12 people. The second table does not have any leaves. I also added two high-backed stools in the process because we needed more seating for younger children.

I didn’t take any before pictures, but I got a shot of my son-in-law helping me sand the table top.