Incongruities

The University of Utah is under fire for suspending two police officers who released internal protocols for handling people seen openly carrying guns on campus. The problem is that the two didn’t do anything wrong and it was university officials who should be punished for attempting to thwart the law.

Utah law generally allows the open carry of firearms. In other words if someone wants to strap an unloaded pistol on each hip and walk around downtown Salt Lake City like Wyatt Earp, it is perfectly legal. A person openly carrying a weapon does not need to possess a concealed weapons permit.

Apparently there are officials at the university (including President Michael Young) who do not like the law as established by the Utah Legislature. So they set a policy that university police were to arrest anyone openly carrying a weapon on campus if the individual did not have a concealed weapons permit. If the person possessed a permit, police were told to instruct him or her to conceal the weapon.

As state employees, U of U officials do not have the right to supersede or circumvent state laws with which they might not agree. When it comes to gun rights, however, they seem to have a difficult time grasping this concept. They claim that they have the right to regulate weapons on campus, just as they do anything else that could threaten campus security.

And they are so certain about the strength and ultimate correctness of their position that they elected to keep it secret and to punish the policemen who made it public.

If this battle sounds familiar it could be because in years past the university tried to prohibit concealed weapons permit holders from legally carrying guns on campus. That ultimately led to the state legislature passing a law that prohibits universities from establishing policies that “in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms.”

That language seems straightforward and unambiguous–enough that even a university official should be able to understand it. And apparently they did, which is why they tried to conceal their latest effort at an end run around the legislature.

Once the matter became public, school officials reversed their secret, illegal retribution. The two officers were reinstated and no disciplinary action is being pursued, according to the university. Instead of punishment, the two officers should receive commendations for their efforts at protecting basic freedoms.

If the legal carrying of weapons on campus truly represents a safety threat, university officials who object to the state law should be able to make a compelling case to the legislature. All they need to do is cite the rapes, robberies, assaults, etc., committed on campus by law-abiding gun owners. The problem is they can’t make that case because such incidents don’t exist.

Guns on campus are only a problem in the small mindedness of select university officials who can’t accept the fact that there are limits to their authoritarian ideals.

Given the repeated attempts to circumvent the law on this matter, it’s time that the legislature sends an even stronger message to U of U officials. Perhaps they could pass a secret law that requires university administrators to become members of the National Rifle Association and to spend several hours volunteering at a community gun range.

You generally find them hanging around busy street corners or in other areas that get lots of traffic. Their intent is to attract attention and apparently some community officials feel that they pose a serious threat.

They usually represent a small, visual shout with messages like:

“We hang Christmas lights.”

“Aeration and rototilling.”

“Earn money working from home!”

Perhaps the most insidious of all state:

“Lost kitten” or “Enrichment night tonight.”

The evil people who post these signs are perpetrating a criminal act and apparently some localities take it so seriously that they categorize it as a Class B Misdemeanor. That puts in on the level of crimes like shoplifting or vandalism. It is punishable by a fine of up to six months in jail or $1,000.

I have a family member who recently ran afoul of this law. He works in the construction industry and during these difficult economic times it has been a struggle to provide for his family. Lacking funds to do any major marketing, he thought he would try to generate some business by posting small signs on some street corners.

In the process of putting up the signs, he was spotted by a policeman who informed him his actions were a violation and told him to take the signs back down. In retracing his steps and removing the signs, he missed one. As a result, he was cited and called into court.

When he appeared, the prosecutor asked that he be put in jail for 10 days and given a substantial fine for his belligerent attitude toward the police officer. If you knew this person, you would understand the ridiculous of such a charge. He is totally non-confrontational. Gandhi was a violent tyrant by comparison.

I can only speculate that the policemen must have confused him with someone else.

Fortunately after hearing both sides, the judge reduced the crime to a Class C misdemeanor and levied a small fine.

I understand that city officials don’t want every utility pole or corner fence covered with signs for garage sales that never get taken down. But to seek jail time or a hefty fine for something that causes little public harm seems over the top. People who talk on cell phones or who text while driving create a more serious societal hazard.

Perhaps some local communities see enforcement of this ordinance as primarily a revenue source. In that case, maybe they need to crack down on young children who sell lemonade on the roadside without a business license.

Sometimes I put bath salts in my Jacuzzi tub. A two-pound box of salts usually costs three or four dollars and it is available in several different scents. Even though the salts smell nice, I have never felt an urge to stuff my nose into the box and snort the salts into my nasal passages.

Apparently I am unusual, because other people are snorting bath salts.

According to recent media stories, the Utah Poison Control Center is reporting a growing trend of people using a specific brand of bath salt to get high. The effect is reportedly like an amphetamine rush.

These are obviously not the same bath salts I use because the going price is $30 for 200 milligrams (less than one one-hundredth of an ounce). If my math is correct, sniffing powdered silver would be less expensive.

I wonder how people discover these things. Are there people who randomly snort every substance they encounter to see if they can find one that gets them high? I suppose it is possible that one could get quite a buzz from snorting ground up chicken dung, but I will never find out.

Although I’ve never intentionally tried it, inhaling black pepper dust produces quite a sensation and the price is much more reasonable.

As a result of the abuse of this product, law enforcement officials are asking for a ban on its sale during the next session of the Utah Legislature. I just hope my bath salts escape the ban.

I love college football. I grew up in Ohio back when the Buckeyes were coached by Woody Hayes. In spite of his many coaching victories, Woody is probably most remembered for assaulting an opposing player during a game. That act cost him his job, his livelihood and his dignity.

There was definitely fanaticism among OSU supporters, but some of the incidents involving college football fans in Utah the past couple of years are in bad taste and border on clinically cuckoo.

I’ll admit up front that I have never been to a Ute home game. I have two degrees from BYU so fall Saturday football forays are usually to Lavell Edwards Stadium. In fairness to Utah, through the years I’ve seen some poor behavior and incidents of bad sportsmanship at the home of the Cougars.

Last season the annual Utah/BYU rivalry game had plenty of drama. Both teams were highly ranked and eager to prove themselves. BYU won, but some comments after the game by quarterback Max Hall tainted the celebration. He said he hated Utah and he called Ute fans classless. He referenced an incident the previous year at Rice Eccles where members of his family were ridiculed and drenched in beer.

After last year’s game as LES, members of Kyle Whitingham’s family were allegedly berated and one member reportedly knocked to the ground.

This past week late in the Utah/TCU game a female Utah fan reportedly paraded around the north end zone shirtless. After the loss another Ute supported was ticketed because he vented his frustration by shooting his lawn with a gun.

I understand emotion and enthusiasm. But when I hear of these kinds of incidents, I always have a question I want to ask the perpetrators:

WHAT THE HECK WERE YOU THINKING?

College football is a game. It is supposed to be fun—for the people in the stands, for the players, for the fans watching on television or listening on the radio. Win or lose, afterward everyone needs to feel good that they were a witness to the sporting event. When a supporter of either team feels a need to degrade another person’s enjoyment of the experience that is an indicator that he is crossing the line of propriety.

There are rude, boisterous and obnoxious people at almost any sporting event from Little League games to professional competitions. Most of us have learned to ignore the dad at the soccer game who verbally berates a 12-year-old linesman for what he thinks is a bad call. We give the benefit of the doubt to the person at the Jazz game who yells vulgarities and profanity at the top of his lungs because we assume his parents never loved him.

I took all of my children to BYU football, basketball, soccer, baseball, etc. We went to the Winter Olympics, Jazz and Real games. I wanted them to experience competition and pageantry. I wanted them to see examples of sportsmanship. Although I did not plan for it, sporting events also proved to be a good means of letting them learn that there are idiots in the world.

I spent the weekend in Las Vegas visiting family and was surprised at the ferocity of the campaigning for the state’s U.S. Senate seat. The bickering between Utah gubernatorial candidates Corroon and Herbert seems mild in comparison.

Most people are aware that Nevada incumbent and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) is facing a tough race from GOP challenger Sharron Angle. Perhaps the most bizarre character attack of this race did not come from either of the candidates and had nothing to do with politics. Instead, John Reed, pastor of Angle’s former church in Reno, berated Reid because he is a Mormon.

Here is a quote from Pastor Reed’s statement made during an interview with the Reno News & Review:

“The Christian community—all the Christians, theologians and scholars, all recognize that, that Mormonism is a cult. I have books in my library on cults, and it lists Mormonism right there with all these bizarre cults. Well, there must be a reason. I mean, here a member of a cult is one of the most powerful people in the United States. Doesn’t that alarm you? And his allegiance is to Salt Lake City. Something is up with that. Something’s weird. But nobody touches that. …

“Harry Reid’s allegiance is to Salt Lake City. The Mormon Church is rich, powerful, they do illegal things. They do secretive things. They’ve got all this money. They own American businesses. There’s weirdness going on there. Churches are not multi-millionaire organizations like the Mormon Church. You know, there’s some weirdness with that, but nobody questions it, nobody asks one question to Harry Reid and says, ‘Tell us about your faith. What does a Mormon believe?’

“Ask him about the holy garments that he wears that protect him from evil. Isn’t that kooky? Ask him about getting his body parts anointed by oil. Isn’t that kooky? Ask him about when he goes to the temple and he gets baptized for dead people. Isn’t that kooky?

“Ask him about the hit squad of the Mormon Church and why they need people to kill Mormons that go against them. Isn’t that controlling? Ask him how they shun people, then they get their family members to disown them and divorce them if they dare leave the Mormon Church. Isn’t that cultish? I mean, I could go on and on. The Mormon Church is a cult, and Harry Reid is a powerful person in a cult, and nobody even questions it.”

Wow.

It’s tough to even comprehend such bigotry and ignorance.

Pastor Reed might be shocked to learn that Senator Reid’s political views are at odds with many members of the LDS Church.

Perhaps he should also be a little more careful about his comments because there are quite a few Mormons in Nevada. If he gets them riled up with such remarks, members of the Mormon hit squad might come after him.

As a matter of fact, I’d like to have a conversation with Pastor Reed.

It was a brief news story—just seven sentences. On Sept. 15, The Associated Press reported that the executive director of the Utah Department of Transportation apologized to state lawmakers for not letting them know he agreed to a $13 million settlement with a losing bidder for a $1.1 billion construction project.

John Njord told a legislative committee he should have informed lawmakers and Gov. Gary Herbert about the settlement he agreed to after a losing consortium complained about the winning bidder received favoritism. What he failed to do after the admission was announce his resignation.

He also said it is not unusual for a contractor protest a bid and it is something that UDOT deals with regularly. But according to an article in the Salt Lake Tribune, of nine companies filing bid protests with UDOT since 2005, this was the only time such a payment was made. So that seems to make a $13 million payout to a losing bidder highly unusual.

The situation has caused problems for Herbert, because it turns out the company that won the bid donated $87,500 to his campaign. Of course he claims he knew nothing about the payment or about any impropriety in awarding the bid.

I’m a simple guy, but secretly awarding a $13 million payoff makes it seem like someone was trying to cover up a big mistake.

Whether or not the governor knew anything about this situation might never be known. But if he wants to avoid the appearance of impropriety, he might want to think about dismissing the person responsible for the unauthorized expenditure of $13 million in taxpayer funds. Not doing so could send the wrong message ahead of Herbert’s first attempt at being elected governor.

Even if no procedures were violated in making the $13 million payment, doing so without informing anyone in the legislature or the governor demonstrates either a lack of good judgment or an outright attempt at deceit.

Recently a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that memorial crosses erected and displayed along Utah public roads to honor fallen state highway troopers must be removed as unconstitutional.

In their ruling, the judges said: “We hold that these memorials have the impermissible effect of conveying to the reasonable observer the message that the state prefers or otherwise endorses a certain religion.”

It is important to note that the memorial crosses were placed along Utah public roads by a private — not public — organization, the Utah Highway Patrol Association. The association also maintains the crosses. In other words, no public funds are used for this purpose.

The alleged Constitutional infraction is that the roadways along which the markers were placed are public. So apparently the court felt that passing motorists might assume that because the crosses were on public roadways that meant the government was endorsing Christianity.

I like a comment from columnist David Limbaugh about this matter: “Our politically correct-intoxicated culture is so allergic to expressions and symbols of Christianity that our courts leap to absurd conclusions to cordon off the chief allergen: Christianity.”

Does this mean that all cross-shaped grave markers in publicly owned cemeteries must also be removed?

Does anyone else believe that this is ridiculous?