There should be no surprise the Bureau of Land Management has terminated contracts with sheriff's departments throughout the state to provide law enforcement on BLM lands.
No surprise.
You don't just refuse to provide a service you are being paid to do and then expect the client to not drop you like a brick. Not much more than two months ago, the San Juan sheriff did just that. Activists staged an ATV ride on protected BLM land in Recapture Canyon in southeastern Utah. Although the ride was on land that was closed to such riding, Sheriff Rick Edridge declined to enforce the law. He was there, and indicated his presence was to keep things from getting out of hand. But enforce the law? Eldridge said BLM officers made the law, so let them enforce it.
Well, although news that the BLM has canceled the sheriffs' contracts broke just this week, the story didn't say when the cancelations happened. Maybe it went down before Recapture Canyon. Either way, the BLM is now justified for not wanting the sheriffs to provide its law enforcement.
Friday, June 20, 2014
A Year and a Half too Long a Time for Deciding Whether to Press Charges
"Manipulated Evidence," that's what the lawyer for former West Valley Police detective Shaun Cowley calls the evidence against her client.
I wonder if the evidence she refers to includes the supposed path the car took as the victim, Danielle Willard, attempted to get away. Willard was backing up when she was shot. Cowley contents that he felt threatened that the car could hit him.
Ian Adams, spokesman for the Fraternal Order of Police, noted it took the district attorney almost 600 days to make the decision to file a charge against an officer who had only seconds to make his decision to fire at Willard.
Good point. It does seem if the case were solid, District Attorney Sim Gill would have decided to charge Cowley quicker. If we are approaching 600 days since the shooting, that should be enough time to have prosecuted the case, with time left over, to say nothing of being way too much time just to file the charge of manslaughter.
I believe in a quick and speedy trial. However can you have that, though, if it takes a year and a half just to decide to press the charge?
With all this said, though, I still question whether Cowley should have shot and killed Willard. You don't shoot to kill another person unless it is absolutely necessary. Was it necessary to kill Willard? I guess we will see in court. Hope that doesn't take another year and a half.
.
I wonder if the evidence she refers to includes the supposed path the car took as the victim, Danielle Willard, attempted to get away. Willard was backing up when she was shot. Cowley contents that he felt threatened that the car could hit him.
Ian Adams, spokesman for the Fraternal Order of Police, noted it took the district attorney almost 600 days to make the decision to file a charge against an officer who had only seconds to make his decision to fire at Willard.
Good point. It does seem if the case were solid, District Attorney Sim Gill would have decided to charge Cowley quicker. If we are approaching 600 days since the shooting, that should be enough time to have prosecuted the case, with time left over, to say nothing of being way too much time just to file the charge of manslaughter.
I believe in a quick and speedy trial. However can you have that, though, if it takes a year and a half just to decide to press the charge?
With all this said, though, I still question whether Cowley should have shot and killed Willard. You don't shoot to kill another person unless it is absolutely necessary. Was it necessary to kill Willard? I guess we will see in court. Hope that doesn't take another year and a half.
.
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Cowley: Another Case History Showing Guns Can Change Hearts?
A former West Valley police officer, Shaun Cowley, has been charged with manslaughter for shooting a woman who tried to flee. One thought cascades upon another as I first hear, and then absorb the news.
First, I think, No, don't do it. Don't charge him with manslaughter. I lament and mourn for Officer Cowley.
Then, I think of how even good people can do wrong, and about how he might have, indeed, been reckless and killed another human being when there was no need for doing so. I consider how otherwise good people end up doing something wrong and must be held accountable. As the day goes on, I remind myself that after reading stories from months ago as to how it went down, that I, myself, had concluded it was a wrongful shooting, that the woman did not endanger the officers, and her shooting was unjustified.
Finally, I think (yes, if you read my blogs much, you knew this was coming), Yes, it is true even good people can do wrong. And, well, having a gun can lead a person to error's path if care is not taken. Guns don't kill, people do, maybe. But, in some ways, guns do kill, for it seems people who aren't your 9-to-5 killers end up taking lives when they shouldn't.
So, I repeat what I've said before, as the Cowley case might serve up another example, depending on whether it was a justified killing or not. A gun is an inanimate object, yes, but we are fools if the gun being an inanimate object does not allow us to realize it can have a real and powerful influence on us. The gun can damage the heart of the person who shoots it as much as it will damage the heart of the person who is shot.
(This note added early in the morning.) My feelings are circling around, to where they began and through the whole cycle. I wonder if there is room for not charging Cowley. I wonder if he was but a police officer in pursuit of his duty, caught in a moment's decision that went awry. I hate to see his life ruined. I hate to see even the shame he is enduring. I think how humans pile on, finding fault with each other, seizing upon things and making them seem worse than they are. I wonder if this is the case with Cowley. I wonder if he was not guilty.
I fear, though, I cannot dismiss this lightly. A person is dead. He shot her. He killed her. If there were no victim, mercy would be allowable. I wonder if he truly felt threatened by her that he should have killed her.
And, finally, I wonder if there were unfortunate thoughts and things he taught himself that came into focus in that one moment. If he believed that when you shoot, you shoot to kill, it happened. That thought, alone, might have been all it took to ruin his heart, so to speak, to bring him to do what he did. Other possibilities? Did he devalue the lives of criminals, supposing it is alright to take their lives? Did he believe it was the right thing to do to shoot a fleeing person, regardless?
We must be careful the things we teach ourselves, for they can reap a whirlwind. If we do not select our values carefully, they may come back to haunt us.
First, I think, No, don't do it. Don't charge him with manslaughter. I lament and mourn for Officer Cowley.
Then, I think of how even good people can do wrong, and about how he might have, indeed, been reckless and killed another human being when there was no need for doing so. I consider how otherwise good people end up doing something wrong and must be held accountable. As the day goes on, I remind myself that after reading stories from months ago as to how it went down, that I, myself, had concluded it was a wrongful shooting, that the woman did not endanger the officers, and her shooting was unjustified.
Finally, I think (yes, if you read my blogs much, you knew this was coming), Yes, it is true even good people can do wrong. And, well, having a gun can lead a person to error's path if care is not taken. Guns don't kill, people do, maybe. But, in some ways, guns do kill, for it seems people who aren't your 9-to-5 killers end up taking lives when they shouldn't.
So, I repeat what I've said before, as the Cowley case might serve up another example, depending on whether it was a justified killing or not. A gun is an inanimate object, yes, but we are fools if the gun being an inanimate object does not allow us to realize it can have a real and powerful influence on us. The gun can damage the heart of the person who shoots it as much as it will damage the heart of the person who is shot.
(This note added early in the morning.) My feelings are circling around, to where they began and through the whole cycle. I wonder if there is room for not charging Cowley. I wonder if he was but a police officer in pursuit of his duty, caught in a moment's decision that went awry. I hate to see his life ruined. I hate to see even the shame he is enduring. I think how humans pile on, finding fault with each other, seizing upon things and making them seem worse than they are. I wonder if this is the case with Cowley. I wonder if he was not guilty.
I fear, though, I cannot dismiss this lightly. A person is dead. He shot her. He killed her. If there were no victim, mercy would be allowable. I wonder if he truly felt threatened by her that he should have killed her.
And, finally, I wonder if there were unfortunate thoughts and things he taught himself that came into focus in that one moment. If he believed that when you shoot, you shoot to kill, it happened. That thought, alone, might have been all it took to ruin his heart, so to speak, to bring him to do what he did. Other possibilities? Did he devalue the lives of criminals, supposing it is alright to take their lives? Did he believe it was the right thing to do to shoot a fleeing person, regardless?
We must be careful the things we teach ourselves, for they can reap a whirlwind. If we do not select our values carefully, they may come back to haunt us.
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Bring Back the Free Market System, or Pay $90,000 for Pills
Heed the law of supply and demand, or end up paying up to $90,000 for medicine to treat hepatitis C. Oh, hepatitis C (transmitted by contact with infected blood and sometimes through sexual activity) is deadly, killing an estimate 15,000 in 2007 (do we have figures since then?), and this new medicine is a cure, stopping the virus in 9 out of 10 patients.
But, that does not mean it should cost $90,000 in pills -- $90,000!
Now, if a person could charge whatever they wanted for something, and if the customer had the choice between dying or paying it, and if there was someone rich enough to come up with the money and pay it for the customer . . .
Well, get the picture? It's the picture of how our health system is set up. It's the way we do business (health business) these days. Pretty, pretty wise, aren't we.
Sovaldi -- that's the name of this mega high-priced medicine -- has a corner on the market. It has customers whose lives are on the line. And, even though the patients clearly cannot afford it, these days patients don't have to pay, insurance does.
Not that private insurers and Medicaid aren't balking, for they are. But, ultimately, if the product saves lives, how do they justify not covering the medicine?
America, you love your patent laws and have your licensing laws, but this should have you reconsidering that affection. If companies are going to charge extortionate rates, you have got to quietly tell them you won't stand for it. If rewriting and loosening the patent laws and changing the licensing laws is what is needed to give us free enterprise and a free market, then do it.
You've listened to lobbyists too much, America, and you've reaped the whirlwind. They are behind the patent laws and perhaps some of the other restraints upon free business. They came calling, saying allow inventors to be the sole sellers of a product, and you thought that was reasonable. If our patent and regulatory laws are to be good, they must not chase away much competition.
We have monopolies. Our laws create them. Then, when prices get exhorbitant, we throw up our hands trying to figure out why and do not understand why prices are so high. If Sovaldi is clearly a step better than the other drugs, and no one else is allowed to duplicate it, that is a type of monopoly.
A monopoly that demands as much as $90,000 for its product.
But, that does not mean it should cost $90,000 in pills -- $90,000!
Now, if a person could charge whatever they wanted for something, and if the customer had the choice between dying or paying it, and if there was someone rich enough to come up with the money and pay it for the customer . . .
Well, get the picture? It's the picture of how our health system is set up. It's the way we do business (health business) these days. Pretty, pretty wise, aren't we.
Sovaldi -- that's the name of this mega high-priced medicine -- has a corner on the market. It has customers whose lives are on the line. And, even though the patients clearly cannot afford it, these days patients don't have to pay, insurance does.
Not that private insurers and Medicaid aren't balking, for they are. But, ultimately, if the product saves lives, how do they justify not covering the medicine?
America, you love your patent laws and have your licensing laws, but this should have you reconsidering that affection. If companies are going to charge extortionate rates, you have got to quietly tell them you won't stand for it. If rewriting and loosening the patent laws and changing the licensing laws is what is needed to give us free enterprise and a free market, then do it.
You've listened to lobbyists too much, America, and you've reaped the whirlwind. They are behind the patent laws and perhaps some of the other restraints upon free business. They came calling, saying allow inventors to be the sole sellers of a product, and you thought that was reasonable. If our patent and regulatory laws are to be good, they must not chase away much competition.
We have monopolies. Our laws create them. Then, when prices get exhorbitant, we throw up our hands trying to figure out why and do not understand why prices are so high. If Sovaldi is clearly a step better than the other drugs, and no one else is allowed to duplicate it, that is a type of monopoly.
A monopoly that demands as much as $90,000 for its product.
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Shall We Seek Entertainers and Persuaders to Fill Teaching Positions?
Perhaps our greatest entertainers shouldn't be on the improv circuits, but in the classrooms. Perhaps our most powerful communicators shouldn't be on talk radio, but in those classrooms.
Let's give a little more consideration as to whether being an entertainer and a persuasive communicator are really things necessary to make a great teacher. I'm just tossing them out as possible pluses.
Now, short hours ago, I read a Facebook post from a wonderful person I know, asking for prayers on his behalf as he tries to hire on as a teacher at a certain school. It occurred to me, he might not be of the highly entertaining type. (I don't know, though. I've never seen him teach.) Still, I so want him to get the job.
That thought brought second thoughts to what I was preparing to say here. But, I write on, the same.
I'm just wondering if we could funnel some of our greatest entertainers and persuaders into the classroom would that be a plus? I think it might.
Let's give a little more consideration as to whether being an entertainer and a persuasive communicator are really things necessary to make a great teacher. I'm just tossing them out as possible pluses.
Now, short hours ago, I read a Facebook post from a wonderful person I know, asking for prayers on his behalf as he tries to hire on as a teacher at a certain school. It occurred to me, he might not be of the highly entertaining type. (I don't know, though. I've never seen him teach.) Still, I so want him to get the job.
That thought brought second thoughts to what I was preparing to say here. But, I write on, the same.
I'm just wondering if we could funnel some of our greatest entertainers and persuaders into the classroom would that be a plus? I think it might.
How Big of News is Ahmed Abu Khattala's Arrest?
I await the morning newspaper, then, wondering if this will be the lead story, complete with a screaming headline. The U.S. apprehended a key leader in the Benghazi attack, Ahmed Abu Khattala. How big of news is that?
Now, if some kind of charges were brought against President Obama, or Hillary Clinton, or Susan Rice, I'm thinking the headline would scream. And, there would be great satisfaction among those who have called for heads over how Benghazi was handled.
Seems to me, it is a bigger deal to catch someone who committed the crime than someone who stumbled trying to explain it. Isn't it just as great to see justice for the perpetrators of the crime as it would be to see it for those who might not have seen the crime coming, and failed to have the shields in place that could have saved the ambassador and three others?
I await the morning paper, to see what play the story will get. I'll assume what play it gets in my local paper is probably reflects how it plays in papers across the country.
Now, if some kind of charges were brought against President Obama, or Hillary Clinton, or Susan Rice, I'm thinking the headline would scream. And, there would be great satisfaction among those who have called for heads over how Benghazi was handled.
Seems to me, it is a bigger deal to catch someone who committed the crime than someone who stumbled trying to explain it. Isn't it just as great to see justice for the perpetrators of the crime as it would be to see it for those who might not have seen the crime coming, and failed to have the shields in place that could have saved the ambassador and three others?
I await the morning paper, to see what play the story will get. I'll assume what play it gets in my local paper is probably reflects how it plays in papers across the country.
Monday, June 16, 2014
Teacher is Key to Classroom Success More Than Expensive Administrator
Average teacher salary in Utah? Maybe $43,000. Average school superintendent pay with benefits? I don't know, but maybe $200,000. So, which one would I trust to do a better job deciding what to teach, and how to teach it?
Give me a good teacher, and if the teacher is good, let him or her set the course.
As I sat down to write this, I spotted a Deseret News report on a study out of the University of Utah suggesting companies with CEOs making more than $20 million are often not earning their keep. Their companies are losing money instead of turning profits.
I can't help but wonder if the same principle applies in education: An expensive top executive does not s successful school make.
In schools, it is the teacher doing the teaching. How great an education a child gets can depend much on the passion the teacher puts into it. Remembering the DesNews story on expensive companies CEOs, I am not suggesting we pump up the pay of educators drastically. Rather, in our hiring and training, we should seek for passionate, driven teachers.
You don't get better simply by throwing money at a problem. You get better by putting in place people who can overcome the problem, teachers who are inspired and motivated. And, when it comes to really making a difference, it is perhaps with the teacher more than the administrator that you want to make the right hire. They are at the point of impact. They are where the rubber meets the road.
Give me a good teacher, and if the teacher is good, let him or her set the course.
As I sat down to write this, I spotted a Deseret News report on a study out of the University of Utah suggesting companies with CEOs making more than $20 million are often not earning their keep. Their companies are losing money instead of turning profits.
I can't help but wonder if the same principle applies in education: An expensive top executive does not s successful school make.
In schools, it is the teacher doing the teaching. How great an education a child gets can depend much on the passion the teacher puts into it. Remembering the DesNews story on expensive companies CEOs, I am not suggesting we pump up the pay of educators drastically. Rather, in our hiring and training, we should seek for passionate, driven teachers.
You don't get better simply by throwing money at a problem. You get better by putting in place people who can overcome the problem, teachers who are inspired and motivated. And, when it comes to really making a difference, it is perhaps with the teacher more than the administrator that you want to make the right hire. They are at the point of impact. They are where the rubber meets the road.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)