Elizabeth Smart

So, like many Utahns I am attempting to follow the Elizabeth Smart trial. What I find intriguing is seeing how many people are finally willing to steam-roll Brian David Mitchell...mostly noticeably Wanda Barzee. Now, I am not one to judge, well... just-kidding, I actually judge far too often. Anyway, Wanda Barzee, who is Mitchell's wife, just finished testifying against him in exchange for a plea. Now, in my mind there is no doubt that Mitchell is guilty, and will/should be convicted. However, I do have a problem with the justice system, and Ms. Barzee's testimony, and I'll tell you why. For years Wanda was deemed incompetent to stand trial, and then somehow she was eventually found competent, which prompted her to rollover and take the plea. Now, I am admittedly a skeptical person by nature, but her testimony sounds too awfully good for the prosecution to be completely accurate, expecially given the fact that she was originally not competent to stand trial. Here are a couple of things that were said by Wanda during day two of her testimony: quoting Mitchell, "they were given a command by God to take young girls ages 10-14 and it was definitely a 14 year old girl Mitchell was after"; "he spent five months planning the kid-napping"; and she claimed she was manipulated by him. Now, as you can tell, this looks like some pretty strong evidence to fit the prosecution's plan. I just do not understand how a woman who has been married to him for twenty-five years, been through so many odd things with him, goes through therapy, takes some meds, and is now credible enough to present so much evidence that could potentially imprison him for life. I personally think that if you are that close to someone that crazy for twenty-five years you are probably not he most sane yourself, so trying to place blame on one person just seems too convenient and well timed to be completely accurate. Well, at least that is how this cynic sees it.

Vibram Five Finger

So, tonight I went for my first run in my Vibram Bikilas. Stacy and I each bought a pair a month ago, so we could see what all the craze is about. There is a new movement of barefoot runners, and the five finger is meant to give a little support, while replicating the feel of being barefoot. I felt this subject was apropos for the time period, and want to look back on this post in five to ten years and see if barefoot running is a fad, or it revolutionized the running world. Earlier this year I read the book "Born to Run", which is about one man's quest to find the solution to running injury free. The author learns of a tribe in Mexico called the Tarahumara that has the uncanny ability to run fifty plus miles at a time over mountains while wearing what looks like pieces of leather lassoed to their feet. He ultimately finds the tribe and convinces them to run in races in America against some of the greatest trail runners in the world...specifically in the Leadville 100. If you have not heard of Leadville, it is the most difficult 100 mile race in the U.S. It takes place at altitudes of 10,000 feet and above, and I believe the cumulative feet ascended during the race is apprroximately 27,000 feet, which equates to running from the Salt Lake Valley to Park City nine times. Believe it or not, a member from the Tarahumara tribe wound up winning the race in shoes similar to the ones posted above. Why did I tell this drawn out story? One, because the book was fantastic and a "must read" for anyone interested in running, and two, because I find it interesting to see how far technology has come in the running shoe department, and some little tribal man can beat professional trail runners that have access to all the gear and equipment anyone could want. Maybe this means barefoot running does have some staying power...I guess we will have to wait and see. All I know now is that every year people spend millions of dollars on shoes to help for ailing problems with their backs or knees, and I am now curious, could the real solution be not wearing any shoes at all?

Food Matters

On Saturday we signed up for Netflix, so we could watch movies through our Wii. I searched through the documentary section and noticed quite a few that I would like to watch, so last night I began viewing "Food Matters." This documentary focuses on how our nutrition and the food choices we make affect our health and the diseases we get. It focused a lot on cancer, and claimed that even with the billions spent yearly on various types of cancer the incidence rates have not been declining, and instead the medical community considers somone "cured" if they go 5 years cancer free. Ultimately this show is just promoting a healthy diet of primarily raw vegetables and a high dose of vitamins, and claims that the medical community, i.e. doctors and pharmaceutical companies are not advocating for diet changes because there is no money in it, and instead spend all their efforts trying to medicate a problem instead of taking a preventative approach by limiting the amount of processed foods. While I am sure this documentary is not without its biased research, I am quite certain the advocates for this type of living are on to something. If you look at the insidence of cancer in other parts of the world, specifically Asian countries, you will see that they have much lower cancer rates than the U.S. and Western Europe. Since we're all humans and are pretty much made the same way the most logical reason for the discrepancy is diet. Thus, my question to everyone is, do you think the medical profession is really concerned about curing these diseases like cancer and heart disease? I am now skeptical because I personally feel that if people were to eat a raw vegetable diet and exercise regularly the rates of diseases would decrease tremendously. Whether they become obsolete...probably not.

"The Donald"

While many people do not like Donald Trump because he is arrogant, and likes to talk about how great his buildings or casinos are; I tend to look passed his pompous nature and listen to his message. I figure, if someone can make billions, lose it, and make billions again, they probably know a little more about business than I. Anyway, I was listening to an interview with him this morning, and he was opining on how to fix the economy. Basically, it really is not to difficult, and makes sense. Many pundits have mentioned this approach, but neither congress or any president thus far have been willing to do anything about it. So, what is the simple solution? Stop shipping U.S. jobs oversees!!! Illegall immigration is not the cause of the economy going the wrong direction. Granted, there are some jobs that immigrants are taking that could have gone to U.S. citizens, but by and large, if the U.S. still had all of the jobs that have been shipped oversees there would be enough employment for all that are willing to work. I say willing to work because there will always be those unmotivated people to mooch off the government as long as it is allowed. So, my question to everyone, how do we convince the U.S. Government to stop proving tax incentives to companies shipping jobs oversees? I don't know about anyone else, but I am quite concerned about the increased power and money being generated in China, and as Trump points out, China could very well be the richest, most powerful country within the next 10-15 years, and the U.S. is the country subsidizing their growth.

Here is the link to the Trump interview: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/transcript/donald-trump-039on-record039-part-1

Voter disatisfaction

So, last night was election night, and most everything turned out the way that I hoped...Democrats lost the majority in the house, so Pelosi is no longer the speaker, which is the best politcal news I have heard in awhile. I am not here to speak my political views though, but what I am here about is how frustrated I am with politicians that try to trick Americans into thinking an amendment is for a purpose other than what it is really for, and Americans that are too lazy to take the time to really understand what the amendment is about. Last night there were 4 amendments on the ballot, all of which were phrased in a sneaky way to confuse the general public about what they were really approving. While some of the amendments could go either way based on whether you approve large government, the amendment I am most upset about, is the passing of water rights. The water rights amendment was written so cleverly that I had to read it a few times to understand what it was really changing, but I was determined to grasp the concept before casting my ballot. Basically, the amendment allows more tax breaks to individuals and businesses, and not just non-profits, which it tried to highlight. What upset me the most is that this amendment now will give a tax break to people just because they share a common border with non-profit land, or land that was awarded the tax bread. I could be cynical, but this sound like large business paying off a politician for a tax break. Thus, we, as Utahn's just allowed more rich people to pay less tax on their land for providing no benefit to society. Way to go Utah!

Are you a bigot?

Imagine this...thousands of people are on "The Oasis of the Seas", which is currently the largest cruise ship. On board there are eight men wearing traditional clerical garb, so the passengers assume there must be a Catholic meeting taking place. However, these eight men ultimately blow up the ship and kill most of the passengers on board. Wow...what a depressing way to initiate a post. Now ponder this, if you were getting on a cruise ship after this event and saw men who appeared to be priests, would you be apprehensive?

The reason posed this example is because a political commentator, Juan Williams, was fired by NPR because he stated that he still feels uneasy when he gets on a plane and sees people wearing the traditional muslim clothing. The rationale behind his firing is that his comments were offensive. Thus, this got me thinking. Is it irrational to be nervous or apprehensive because something or someone reminds you of an extremely traumatic event? Juan did not state that muslim made him apprehensive or that he had any problem with muslims, just merely that he felt uneasy in the abovementioned situation. Now, I am not sure if many/any of my 2 readers know who Juan Williams is, but he is a left leaning commentator who also appears on Foxnews, primarily on the O'Reilly Factor. If you have any history of watching him, you would realize that he is about as open-minded as a person could be. So, my question to you, was NPR justified in firing Juan? Were his comments hateful and inappropriate? Or, was he putting forth an opinion that millions of people share, but are not willing to admit?