Save the Great Salt Lake
'One, Two, Three-- What Are We Fighting For?' Joe McDonald has died. "One, two, three, what are we fighting for?" he asked in his band's biggest hit, the same question being asked with the Iran War. "Next top is Vietnam," he continued. Even so, we wonder about the next stop in our possible trajectory of wars.
Making Sense of Prop 4
It is easy—very easy—to get lost in trying to understand Prop 4. Voters approved Utah's Prop 4 by a very narrow margin in 2018, with 512,218 (50.34%) voting for the proposition, and 505,274 (49.66%) voting against it.
A razor‑thin margin, but Prop 4 won just the same.
Two federal elections have since taken place under the Legislature’s 2021 map. Both failed to use the map recommended by the Prop 4 Independent Redistricting Commission. You can't say they were illegal elections, because it is more layered than that, but you can say the map used was later found unconstitutional. The Constitution does give the Legislature the right to draw the maps, but it doesn't give it the right to gerrymander—to draw lines to accommodate one party over the other. It gives the courts the right to step in and require equity of judgment.
And that's what Judge Diane Gibson did in October 2025 when she stepped in and ruled in favor of the map drawn by the Better Boundaries commission. Now, those opposed to Prop 4 are marching door‑to‑door to get a measure on the ballot ending Prop 4.
(Blog)
Be Reasonable, Be Reasonable
Homeless People Sometimes Beg, and That Means...
There is a movement in Utah that would centralize homeless services. And the location they prefer? Out near the airport. The proposal might work or it might not work but I do see one large red flag: Sometimes, homeless people beg. If you place them out near the airport...
Trump's Gifts
Vehicle emissions will no longer be regulated. That means more gas-powered cars, fewer electric cars, and more tailpipe emissions — pollution.
The Wasatch Front, already faced with days of inversion, will only have more.
The cloud of pollution that many witness when they are high enough to see it hang over the valley will only increase.
This is because President Trump repealed the EPA’s “endangerment finding” — rules that restrict CO₂ emissions.
Unless Utah marches against federal standards instead of aligning with them, enforcement of air quality rules might falter.
As of this week, Utah has received only one-third of its normal February snowpack. Unfortunately, this climate impact could increase. Ski cities such as Park City could be financially strained. Warmer winters mean shorter seasons, and that means fewer tourists — and among the tourists who do come to enjoy Utah skiing, less satisfaction.
There will be more emergency room visits for asthma, heart disease, and heat stroke. There are already times when hospital resources are strained. It could get worse.
Premiums for homes, fire risks, and flood zones might increase.
Utility bills could rise as people use air conditioning more because of hotter weather.
To sum it up: Trump’s decision on the environment strips Utahns of the protections they need. It means more pollution, hotter summers, less snow, higher costs, and greater health risks.
.
Utah Became First State to 'Regulate' This Dangerous Drug
It's a dangerous drug, and Utah can proudly claim to be the first state to protect it.
Well, “proudly” might not be the right word, but Utah was the first state to place a comprehensive law on the books concerning the drug.
Supposedly, the law regulated kratom — which is the drug we speak of — but in fact, it enabled it.
Yes, Utah’s Kratom Consumer Protection Act of 2019 might even be said to have coddled the industry.
It enhanced it. It legitimized it.
The drug would have become everything it did — exploding on the scene in recent years — but the nudge from Utah’s legislators certainly didn’t hurt.
Indeed, the Utah law became a model for other states, and the author of the bill became a paid spokesperson, his consulting firm raking in more than a million dollars in consulting fees. The man went around the country calling for favorable legislation for the drug. This all according to a Salt Lake Tribune article.
Did I say this is the legacy of Utah?
Well, it is. So sorry.
There are at least three bills before the 2026 Legislature trying to clean up after the Kratom Consumer Protection Act of 2019.
Only SB 45 could be said — of the three — to not be at all friendly toward the kratom industry in Utah.
It would repeal the 2019 law and classify kratom alkaloids as controlled substances.
If I were a legislator, I would vote for SB 45.
(blogs)
Don't Pretend to Altruism
Utah's legislature, with the governor's signature, recently added two new judges to the State Supreme Court.
It is well known that packing the court with more favorable judges is the way to get the results you want. It is most disingenuous of the MAGA faithful to try to hide the fact.
Here's How to Pay for It
If I were a legislator, I would call for passage of a Utah Health Product Advertising Regulation Act (PARA). I will write about the features of the act in another post. At the moment, I would just like to set forth how the measure could be financed.
And to do that, we should set forth the expected expenses:
Staffing -- The program would perhaps require four to six people (investigators, legal analysts, and registry administrators). Estimated expense: $450,000.
Technology infrastructure -- Secure a database, purchase AI monitoring tools, and establish a reporting portal. Estimated expense: $150,000.
Enforcement operations -- Investigations, expert reviews, legal filings, and interagency coordination. Estimated expense: $100,000.
Public outreach and education -- Website, consumer alerts, training for retailers and platforms. Estimated expense: $50,000.
Administration and overhead -- Office space, equipment, travel, and compliance audits. Estimated expense: $75,000.
Total estimated annual expense: $825,000.
To help fund the program, each product making health claims would have to register each year. The cost of registering a single product would be $250, a product line (3-10 items) would be $1,000, and national brands would be $5,000. Revenue projected from registration: $500,000.
Penalties assessed would also contribute to the revenue. First offenses would be fined $1,000, second offenses $5,000, and each subsequent offense $10,000. Blatant, knowing, willful deceptions would be hit with $25,000 fines. Revenues projected from civil penalties: $100,000.
Federal grants would provide a third source of income. The FDA grants are projected to bring in $500,000.
Total revenue expected: $1,100,000.
(Index: Blog)
Learning Like Albert
"The man who instructs himself has a dupe for a teacher," quips an online commenter in the Deseret News.
He was responding to another commenter who said, "Learning how to 'teach oneself' is the most valuable lesson I ever learned, and served me well when finally going to the 'auditorium sized' classes of college."
Perhaps the first commenter should reflect on the case of Albert Einstein. He taught himself calculus, mastered physics classes on his own, studied Maxwell equations on his own as a teenager, and pursued experiments without being assigned them by a teacher.
Sparking such a chord in our students is perhaps the most valuable thing a teacher can do.
The Three‑Year Bachelor’s Degree
Anger All Over Again
Anger all over again—
anger—
as I learn of the Marimar Martinez story
and the danger.
Shot five times,
she drove away.
The Border Patrol
didn't attempt to haul her away.
It didn't pursue
nor try to arrest;
but that she was a “terrorist,”
they were quick to attest.
She tried to ram their car
is what they say,
but they didn't chase her down—
they just let her get away.
There's danger to our country
and the people of this land.
We have rogue Border Patrol agents
and a rogue government we should not stand.
Utahns Need Not Follow
The Ones You Want, and the Ones That Haunt
It Will Go Down in History as 'Judge Biery's Fiery Speech'
Let’s piece this together the best we can, trying to get as much of U.S. District Judge Fred Biery’s fiery “speech” before you as possible. Maybe someday the “speech” will be found in American history textbooks across the land — you know, kind of like the Gettysburg Address.
It wasn’t really a “speech,” at least not like we think of where a dignitary gets up in front of an audience and pontificates in oratorical tones. No, Judge Biery’s words simply came as he ordered the Trump administration to release 5-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos and his father, Adrian Conejo Arias, from an immigration detention center in Texas.
You will recall how agents kidnapped . . . Okay, “kidnapped” might be too strong of a word. Let’s just say you recall how agents stole . . . Okay, “stole” might be too strong of a word. Or is it? Truth be told, perhaps neither “kidnapped” nor "stole" are too strong.
Let’s just say Liam and his father were apprehended by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents during an immigration crackdown in Minnesota.
Judge Biery looked over the case and started firing. Now, here is where this article/blog swings away from its light‑minded and frivolous tone. Judge Biery had serious words to say.
Judge Biery said, “the case has its genesis in the ill‑conceived and incompetently‑implemented government pursuit of daily deportation quotas, apparently even if it requires traumatizing children.”
“Apparent also,” Biery said, “is the government’s ignorance of an American historical document called the Declaration of Independence.” Biery, suggesting the Trump administration mirrored actions of England’s King George, quoted from the Declaration: “He has sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People” and “He has excited domestic Insurrection among us.”
The judge referred to two lines from the Bible: “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” and “Jesus wept.”
Judge Biery suggested some officials are driven by a “perfidious lust for unbridled power and the imposition of cruelty in its quest (that) know no bounds and are bereft of human decency.”
He said the father was asking for “nothing more than some modicum of due process and the rule of law.”
“That pesky inconvenience called the Fourth Amendment,” Biery quipped.
I will wish schoolchildren someday will be taught the words Judge Biery offered. For now, I just wish the parents of our day would listen to them.
Count the Reasons to Think the Arrest Was Politically Charged
Go ahead and count the reasons to think the arrest of Don Lemon was politically charged:
1. Legal experts commenting on the case agree there was no legal basis for his arrest.
2. Multiple federal judges had turned down the DOJ's attempts to charge him, indicating they found insufficient evidence of a crime.
3. Despite the courts having said no, the DOJ persisted, ultimately seeking and obtaining a grand jury indictment— an unusual escalation since two courts had already ruled against the arrest.
4. There were 30-40 participants in the protest, yet most of them were not arrested -- while a journalist who did not participate in the protesting and was just there to cover it was arrested.
5. Attorney General Pam Bondi said the arrests were made at her direction. That’s uncommon language, as normally the institutional process is emphasized, not personal command.
6. Lemon has a long history of friction with President Trump, having repeatedly criticized the president, which raises the question of political retaliation.
7. The DOJ relied on a never-before tried twist, as the statute used had never been applied to a protest made inside a church. Legal scholars note it is a red flag that the DOJ stretched the statute into new territory.
Trump Called
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has said, “The individuals that we are going after are those that are violent criminals, those that are breaking our laws, and those that have final removal orders.”
ICE press releases have emphasized the arrests of violent offenders.
Border Czar Tom Homan has said ICE will “prioritize violent offenders in the country illegally.”
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has named “heinous, violent criminals” as the focus.
Attorney General Pam Bondi has placed the emphasis is on violent actors — specifically gang members and terrorists.
Yes, perhaps every one of the above have gone on to say anyone here illegally might also be detained or deported. I am concerned, though, that they think to win our support by suggesting it is the bad actors they are going after even though they will also be sweeping up everyone they can get their hands on. I do not and will not support such deportations, especially those that come without court hearings.
That Government that Governs Least Often Governs in Anarchy
That government that governs least often governs in anarchy. We shall see what happens. Perhaps we will be okay. But perhaps Donald Trump's decision to offer buyouts to 2 million federal employees is going to prove too much.
It is estimated that only 5-10 percent of the workers are going to snap up the employment buyouts, but even at that it could stretch us thin in such places as Social Security workers, the IRS, and National Parks.
Sue Donald Trump
Instead of Sorrow
Control Thine Anger
Let's Welcome a Detention Center
Word is, federal officials want to open an immigrant detention center in Salt Lake City. Okay, let's build it. Let's have a detention center in Utah. But let's make it a place where detainees are treated well and with respect. More than that, let's require that such a center be transparent, with the names, statuses, and court dates of detainees available. Don't let them build unless they agree to this. No, let's go a step further and require that they DO build a detention center here. We want the detainees to be treated humanely. We should demand a facility that so requires. Two more things: 1) The facility is to be open to daily inspections, and 2) The detainees are to be free to speak to the press.
Dreams Are Sometimes Shattered
Keep on Eating
Greenland’s People Probably Wouldn’t Meet Trump’s Criteria
If Greenland is taken over by the United States, don’t expect it to become the 51st state. No — it isn’t going to happen. Now, you might notice that when Trump spoke of taking over Canada, he suggested they could become the 51st state. We are told he was just joking, but he made the suggestion just the same. Well, when it came time to discuss Greenland, such a suggestion was not made, not even jokingly.
Greenland just doesn’t fit the mold Trump wants. Correction: not Greenland itself, but the people. Remember, this is the Trump who once spoke of Haiti and African countries as being “s---hole countries.”
And also remember that this is the Trump who has explicitly questioned why the U.S. receives immigrants from poorer nations rather than wealthier ones.
The Inuit of Greenland are hardly well‑to‑do people. Some might even call them a downtrodden people. Trump wants people who will be “assets” to America. I hardly think the fishermen of Greenland would meet his criteria.
Of course, when the U.S. has acquired new territory, it has always taken time before those territories became states. And it is Congress that grants statehood anyhow. I’m just saying: if the decision were left to Trump, I doubt he would throw his arms around them and make the people citizens.
The land just wants to be free.
The land just wants to be free.
Yes, the land just wants to be free.
The Devil Shot the Devil
Shoot
Where Is the Arrest, or the Suspension of Officer Ross?
Days and days later, where is the arrest? Suspects are often arrested at the scene or shortly afterward. Yes, they are often arrested before the investigation is complete. Not so, though, with Officer Jonathan Ross — or, if he has been arrested, it has not been reported.
Has Officer Ross even been placed on administrative leave? The FBI has not disclosed as much. It would be an appropriate action — but it apparently hasn’t happened with Officer Jonathan Ross.
These two facts should sharpen the criticism that the FBI may not be impartial. They should serve as tell‑tale signs that the FBI might conceivably spin the investigation to protect Officer Ross.
To begin with, there is a conflict of interest when a federal officer is being investigated by a federal agency.
And secondly, the boss above both agencies (that would be Donald) has provided verbal comments that could influence the investigation — as has Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Can we expect a fair investigation? You judge.
Laura Ingraham, I simply disagree. I watched the officer's video you presented during your newscast and ... well ... It seems clear the ICE officer was aside the SUV -- not in front of it -- when the shots were fired. Worse, it appears the video was doctored, perhaps not with the intent of hiding the truth, but with the same effect, the same. Try the freeze frame approach. Stop the video right before the shooting. Look at the angle of the cellphone. Judge where the officer would need to be for the angle to be as it is. He would probably be beside the SUV, not in front. But wait! Notice how narrow the video image is! On each side, the picture appears to have been cropped! If it weren't for that cropping, you would be better able to determine if he was indeed to the side of the SUV. If the FBI did doctor the video before releasing it, can we trust it to impartially investigate the case? Another thing, time after time we are hearing that Renee Good tried to run over Officer Jonathan Ross. That argument fails to recognize that Good was turning sharply to get to the right of Ross. Since when, if you are trying to hit someone, do you turn sharply away from them?
