WasatchWatcher.com :: Utah Politics - Recent Comments

Waterboarding to Motivate Workers?

Ken — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 00:06:01 GMT

This from a firm that teaches other companies how to motivate their employees? A company I once worked for must have been a client of theirs. They once suspended someone for putting up a note at his desk that read "The flogging will end when morale improves".

Prosper Inc. was the recipient of the Utah Entrepreneur of the Year Award. Maybe they are on to something?

Where is the pro-Buttars petition?

Justin — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:40:42 GMT

I checked the Utah Eagle Forum site and couldn't find any pro-Buttars petition. I would like to know who is willing to put his or her name on the record for that guy. Has the petition been scrapped? Can you post a link?

Worse than Racism

Jeremy — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:45:48 GMT

I think the idea behind this legislation is worse than Buttar's tendency to accidently say racist things in debates.

Thanks for the link!

Thanks for a great laugh

Obi wan liberali — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:55:34 GMT

That was hilarious.

Why This Blog is Relevant

jasonthe — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:18:03 GMT

I have a response for you, dhmonson. What makes Mero a bigot is that his comments are insensitive, marginalizing, and most of all, uneducated. Those are all tenets of traditional bigotry.

And for him to claim that homosexuals are not being "ostracized" is nothing short of ludicrous. It begs the question "where the hell does Paul Mero get his information?"

Furthermore, his entire premise that "we can't know" is justification for not legislating against discrimination is some of the most faulty logic I have read in years. Can't a person also just "claim" they are LDS and receive protection against religious discrimination?

I've seen Mero debate a few times, and until I read this, I respected the guy. Now I have to lump him in with the rest of the gas bags (and yes, bigots) who speak before thought.

Oh boy, where to begin?

Aramis — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 01:20:45 GMT

First of all, yes I did take time to write this, for free, because unlike Mr. Mero, I feel it's important to protect people's civil rights. I did not put words in his mouth, in fact I quoted directly from the Daily Harold piece which directly quoted him. (That's what's in that blue box in the middle of the page, in case you're new here)

As for refuting Mr. Mero's opinion on whether people are being discriminated against based on sexual preference or gender identity, I didn't feel that his opinion on the matter had any basis in reality and therefor did not warrant my attention. Besides, the Daily Herald article quoted above already discounted his claim by pointing to the Labor Commission having received 14 complaints since June, after being asked to keep track of the numbers by Equality Utah. Who knows how many cases weren't counted before that, or were never reported at all. For a larger overview of the discrimination against LGBT people, here's a comprehensive study (pdf) conducted by the Williams Institute at the UCLA school of law. The more you know, right?

To answer your question, no I have never met Mr. Mero, nor would I care to. I have heard him speak in interviews and I've read several things he's written. Most of it is quite nauseating. Mr. Mero doesn't strike me as someone who would want to discuss his views in any kind of open debate, but he's more than welcome to come post here just as you are. If he'd like to attempt to defend his indefensible views, I'd be more than happy to hear from him. Thanks for the comment.

Why is this blog relevant?

dhmonson — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:02:46 GMT

Aramis--so let me get this strait, you took time out of your day to write this blog post just so you could go off and call someone that you disagree with a bigot and complain that newspapers actually listen to his disagreeable ideas (in your opinion)? Huh, I hope you're getting paid to do this.

The funniest thing is that you don't even take the time to try and refute Mr. Mero's arguments. Instead you put words in his mouth and then refute the argument that you yourself conjured up. Mr. Mero did not say that it's okay to ostracize anyone, actually he said that he didn't think people were being ostracized based on sexual preference. What was your response to this point? Oh wait, you didn't have one.

I'm curious, do you actually know Mr. Mero? Have you met him before and discussed his views with him? If the answer is no, then it seems that the source of bigotry and ignorance is yourself, not Mr. Mero. If the answer is yes, then I would recommend a less passive aggressive approach to handling your disagreements with others. It is degrading to everyone and doesn't do any good for society.

Not only is Paul Mero a shallow bigot

marshall — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 04:32:59 GMT

he is a scam artist at best. He is president of the Sutherland Institute.

Here is a quick question - what does the Marine Toys for Tots Foundation and the Sutherland Institute have in common? They are both 501(C)(3) not-for-profit tax exempt charities.

Yep hard to believe.

This is what charitable giving means for Republicans. You know how they go around saying how the private sector gives all this money to charity. I wonder how much of that "charity" money goes into bogus organizations like the Sutherland institute so they can give bigot of the month Paul Mero a handsome salary to push their short sided view of the world.

The Sutherland Institute should have its tax exempt status yanked immediately and force Paul to go out and get a real job like the rest of us.

Some video too...

Aramis — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 17:09:16 GMT

I know it's a bit painful to go to Fox's site, but they have video and interviews from the Obama 08 headquarters on Thursday. (I found it odd that Romney's camp didn't want to talk to them...)

I've been a supporter of Sen. Obama from the beginning and it's pretty exciting to see the swelling of support from all over the nation as we move into the primaries. This could definitely be BIG. I'm going to try to make it Tuesday, at least for a while. Maybe I'll see you there.

To follow up...

CO Democrat — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 03:46:34 GMT

...Obama has won in Iowa. Details on the big orange site.

You're absolutly right, we should be discussing policy.

Aramis — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 19:11:54 GMT

But we will never hear serious policy debate in our presidential races until we can get past the pandering rhetoric. I wish the candidates would keep their personal beliefs out of the campaign and stick to the issues, but unfortunately religion has become a very powerful tool for garnering votes and money, especially for Republicans. They will continue to talk about faith and "values" instead of policy until they no longer get a free pass when it comes to openly discussing that faith.

As for Romney and his "faith of my fathers" talk, I seriously doubt that he buys into a lot of it. He will say and do anything to get elected, so to assume that he was being completely honest when he said you "can't have freedom without religion" is a big leap. Does he think darker skinned people are cursed? Maybe, maybe not, but until he's forced to confront that aspect of his faith in open discussion, he will continue to use his religious "values" as a moral qualification for office instead of talking about his policies.

Our media has a responsibility to confront candidates on what they say and what they believe. If Romney said he supported the policies of President Bush, a responsible journalist would ask that he qualify that statement by explaining which policies he supports and why. But when speaking about his religious beliefs, there is no critical follow up discussion to ask him which beliefs and why. This taboo about discussing faith is only helping to debase our political system more. If you want to start talking policy issues then take away the safe haven of "religious values" rhetoric and make them accountable for those beliefs. If they truly believe as they say, then they should have absolutely no problem defending those beliefs.

You said you aren't sure "why a belief in evolution is necessary to provide the function of the presidency." I'll tell you why I think it is. The President is the highest executive power in the nation. He makes policy decisions on how to enforce laws and oversees the departments that enact those policies and laws. If we have an Executive that doesn't believe in one of the most fundamental principles of science, then how can you expect those policies to be in line with the needs of the scientific community. The Bush administration has shown what a president with no respect for science can do. How are we to confront climate change, disease, famine, and scores of other national and global issues when we have a President who refuses heed overwhelming scientific evidence and public demand for action.

Obviously I'm not saying that a religious person cannot be an effective president. I think Sen. Obama will make a great president and he is clearly a religious man. I'm saying that a critical examination of a candidates open claims of faith and religious virtue should be discussed and examined. If they truly hold to the "faith of their fathers" as they say, then they should answer for those beliefs in public discussion. As long as we refuse to question these candidates on their beliefs they will continue to turn them into wedge issues for raising money and to further debase our political discourse.

To be honest I don't know if this is productive

marshall — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 16:46:03 GMT

as it seems to me every religion has its fair share of skeletons in the closet. I try not to judge others but live my life the best that I know how. I wish more "religious" people would also do this. I used to be very religious when I was younger but I have been more and more turned off by religious people that are more concerned with my life than their own.

Regardless of the past I respect that today overall people of the LDS faith are considerably more tolerant than those of other religions. Just try living anywhere near Colorado Springs. I call those types of "religious" people dobsonites because they do not recognize anything I associate with Christianity and seem more concerned with adopting the short sided view of their leader than following Christ.

As for the question of evolution I think the question is somewhat deceiving. I think there are two questions regarding evolution. Personally I have trouble believing that evolution is responsible for the origin of life but I would be a fool to deny that evolution is not occurring at the lower level. Do I believe in evolution? I would hate to think I would be disqualified from higher office and frankly I am not sure why a belief in evolution is necessary to provide the functions of the presidency. I don't see in the constitution where it is.

A more important question for me at least is, and I wish every candidate would be forced to answer this question, do they believe in supply side/trickle down economics. Do they believe handing the wealthy money on the backs of our children and grandchildren is sound economic policy? Any candidate that does should definitely be disqualified from the presidency. Because none of these tax cuts have paid for themselves and we are going to end up paying for all these cooked up economic theories with a lower standard of living. Now there is something to get fired up about in my book because whether evolution is or is not the origin of life generally will not impact our quality of life today. But these horrible economic policies will.

Ultimately I feel talks like these are beneficial as less dialog is not the answer. That is the purpose of sites like these.

Progressive Machine

jasonthe — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:48:48 GMT

The Prairie State Blue post was great.

It's interesting how often the progressive campaigns (like the Bush Dog effort) meet opposition from local activists who seem to want to protect their candidates, despite bad voting.

Localism sometimes clouds the principle of good leadership.

Just to let you know.

CO Democrat — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 21:36:13 GMT

Van Halen is coming to Denver and I'm going to the show!!!!!

Exactly

Aramis — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 18:27:36 GMT

I wrote about that despicable power grab back in in May. Given these new revelations from their secret memos, how should we react to a directive written in such vague and overreaching language? There's paranoia and there's legitimate concern. I think we have evidence now that definitely warrants legitimate concern.