Friends in High Places

We have yet to figure out why, but my little office somehow made it onto the Obama Christmas card mailing list.  We gloat about it to the other Department employees, who are not cool enough to correspond with the White House.

Securing the vote of the rapist demographic?

My husband and I discussed the news this morning and he shared with me that the GOP platform would prohibit abortion even for rape and incest victims.  "Is the GOP pro-rapist now?" I asked.

"No," he responded, "Just anti-woman."

Caucuses: Democracy for unemployed, childless, healthy people with cars‏

Elections have become more accessible to citizens, thanks to alternative voting dates and polling locations and the wonderful option of voting by mail from the privacy of home.

However, here in Utah, we let delegates choose most of our election candidates, instead of holding primary elections.  You can become a delegate or help choose a delegate only if you can be physically present at a caucus meeting, which is only offered at one specific location and on one hour of one specific night of the year.   If you have to work that night, or you can’t find a babysitter for your kids, or you’re sick, or you don’t have a car to get yourself to the meeting, your rights as a citizen are essentially revoked.

Proponents of the caucus system claim that delegates are more informed than the general population.  Maybe that is true.  But perhaps they are just more likely to be unemployed, childless, healthy, car owners than the rest of us. 
 

Unfortunately, the Utah legislators who got their positions through the caucus system have no incentive whatsoever to replace it with a more accessible, and therefore, more democratic system, so we Utahns are likely stuck with this mess for the long-term.

However, Doug Wright, a local radio personality who doesn’t appear to like the caucus system any more than I do, has been challenging Utahns to try to make it slightly less awful by turning out in large numbers so extremists aren’t almost  the only ones there (like last time).

In an attempt to do my part toward this end, I called his show and expressed my concerns about parents being excluded from the process, and was rewarded with assurance from Jim Dabakis, the president of the Democratic party, that people with children in tow would be welcome at their meetings.

Caucus meetings are not child-friendly, but they are short and noisy, so while this system is problematic for parents, suffering through this meeting with your kids is feasible.  It is more feasible than suffering through the rule of un-parent-friendly legislation sponsored by the Eagles Forum, an extremist lobbying organization that claims to speak on behalf of parents while supporting such anti-parent bills as the recent sex ed bill, which, if signed, will take away parents’ rights to choose whether their kids receive sex education in their health education classes.   (For those not in the know, current Utah law requires parental permission for teens to take sex ed and the vast majority of Utah parents opt for their kids to receive this instruction.  The Eagles Forum and the legislators they control, since so many of them are delegates, do not like this decision Utah parents have been making, so they have passed a law that would virtually or completely eliminate sex ed.)

I didn't talk to the Republican party president--he appears on the Doug Wright show today--but I hope that I can urge my Republican friends to try to attend caucus meetings tonight, even if it means dragging your kids along.

Utah Republican Leadership Hates Democracy

One might look at the title of my post and say, "That is just a resentful, whiny insult from a Utah Democrat."  Yes, it is both resentful and whiny, no doubt in reflection of my current mood. However, Utah Republicans themselves first declared their hatred for democracy.  Earlier this year, the Republican majority legislatively micromanaged Utah school curricula, requiring schools to indoctrinate children by teaching them that our country is a "republic," and not a "democracy." (In their defense, they did not go so far as forbidding former American presidents from using the D-word, so people like George W. Bush, whose rhetoric indicates that he is under the impression that we live in a democracy and that he believes that is a good thing, can feel free to continue to say so.)

Still, actions say more than words.  Are Utah Republicans doing anything now to demonstrate the disdain for democracy they bragged about while passing that ridiculous bill?  Merriam Webster defines democracy as, "government by the people, especially rule of the majority."

The majority of Utahns, about 3/4 of us, live in urban areas.  However, Utah Republican leadership has proposed a redistricting plan that makes urban Utah residents a minority in every district except one.  They say they are doing this to ensure that all Congresspersons consider rural issues.  "Rural" is simply code for "Republican," because rural Utah consistently votes Republican.  Only urban Salt Lake County, which is chopped into 3 different districts by the proposed map, has competitive races occasionally won by Democrats instead of Republicans.

In spite of all the talk about the importance of including rural areas in all districts, they did make one all-urban district.  It is dominated by Utah County, where Republicans are safe.

Are Republicans in Utah county really the only urban Utahns who deserve representation?  It is obvious that the need to keep rural Utahns dominant in all other districts is an effort to make sure urban Utahns, the majority of our state population, are ruled by rural, Republican Utahns. That is rule of the minority, which is clearly not democracy.

Help Us Pass a Bill to Fix the Utah Work Week Law

I met with my state senator today, Aaron Osmond, R-West Jordan, to discuss the Utah work week law. (For more info, see my previous posts here and here.) He is willing to sponsor a bill to offer employees more flexibility, such as either removing the work week law or changing it to match the wording Governor Herbert included in his executive order, which limits the requirement to critical, public-facing services and allows these services to be offered either by Internet, phone or in-person. He also supports removing the definition of "agency" that makes small units including "offices" subject to this law.

He asked for my help in finding state employees who are willing to contact him and describe the hardships the work week law imposes on their organizations so that he can use this information to support his bill. He is willing to accept anonymous feedback if necessary.

I would appreciate anyone who would be willing to share this information with other state employees. Feel free to share this post with others.

Senator Osmond's contact information is here.  If you would like to leave comments here, I could also share that information with Sen. Osmond.  (Please let me know whether it is okay to use your name or if you would prefer to be anonymous.)

Turning State Employees into Outlaws (and other side effects of the new Utah Work Week law)

I have prepared these talking points for a meeting this week with my local state senator, Aaron Osmond, who has kindly and responsively agreed to meet with me about the new work week law (explained previously here).  Did I miss anything in my talking points?  (My local state representative, Merlynn Newbold, has so far ignored my emails and voice mail.)


The work week law will cost Utah taxpayers at least $800,000 annually, in energy, janitorial, overtime and transportation expenses (Reference 1).  Of course, this number was derived by comparing costs of the 4-day work week to previous costs under the non-mandated 5-day system.  I predict the overtime costs will be even higher because of new demands on employees to work overtime to maintain legal compliance.

The work week law adds at least 10,000 annual metric tons of pollution to Utah air, by requiring buildings to operate heating and cooling systems on Fridays and requiring employees to commute 20% more often (Reference 1). Again, I predict that the effect on pollution will be even greater, since my agency is helping to pay for the extra workload by eliminating employee public transit passes.

The work week law turns state employees into outlaws.  Here is the text of a letter I recently wrote to the Deseret News describing the ludicrous difficulties of complying with this law:

Here's another side effect of the new five-day work week law, besides the annual $800,000 price and the 10,000 annual tons of new pollution. This legislative management requires state agencies, including "offices," to operate in at least one physical location nine hours per day, Monday through Friday. 

My office employs two and a half full-time employees and does research and web design. We do not do any customer service like issuing licenses, accepting applications or collecting fines. However, this new law forces us to guarantee an employee is present at the office every day, all day, all week.

Here are just a few ways our tiny office could break this new law:

Two employees could eat lunch together, leaving the office empty for an hour.

One employee could get sick on a day when another employee is on vacation.

One employee could quit or go on maternity leave. The remaining employee could continue to take her required lunch break (Reference 2).

Of course, I only spoke to my personal situation in the letter. Other state "offices" have only one employee. They will always be out of compliance with this law, unless that one employee works overtime every day and never gets sick or takes a vacation.

The work week law prevents state employees from doing their jobs. The legislators who wrote the law were apparently under the impression that all state employees are receptionists; people whose top work function is to be available at their desks to greet visitors.  In fact, the state employs about 17,000 people, very few of whom do direct customer service.  The vast majority of state employees need flexibility to conduct business away from their desks, just like any other business person.  During the nine years I have worked for the state, I have frequently worked late or on weekends to meet with people in different areas of the state, participate in special events or meet pressing deadlines.  I avoided unnecessary overtime by taking time off on a different day of the pay period.  Now that I am legally required to man my desk from 8 to 5 every day, I do not have these options. 

The work week law is anti-progress.  Who really wants to travel to a state building to pay a fee or process an application in person? Instead of forcing state employees to be available in person for such tasks, legislators should be encouraging employees to make services available online or by phone, so people can conduct state business in the privacy of their own homes at any hour of the day.

The work week law prevents state agencies from fulfilling their missions. Take this example. I have been invited by a national organization to travel to Washington, DC at their expense to participate in a policy planning meeting with important implications for my agency and the state of Utah. However, the meeting coincides with another employee's previously scheduled annual leave in which she will be traveling out of the country. The only remaining employee in the office has been coerced to work 45 hours that week to keep us in compliance with the work week law. Next time, I will think twice before accepting such an invitation, no matter how beneficial to our agency mission. 

The work week law is anti-family. The co-worker I just mentioned, who is being required to work a 45 hour work week to comply with this law, is a mother who will have to make special arrangements for her children so she can work overtime. 

The work week law is bad for customer service.  In a survey of Utah citizens, only 20% wanted to return to the 5-day schedule and lose the extended hours Monday-Thursday (Reference 1).  I have spoken with state employees who actually do work in customer service and they have said that their busiest time of day is after 4:OO pm until 6:00 pm. People like to be able to do state business after they finish working at their own job.

The work week law makes Utah look bad.  Legislators recently “normalized” Utah liquor laws so Utah could stop being so weird, just to turn around and become possibly the only state to legislate employee work hours and legally glue state employees to their desks.  The 4-day work week experiment had been generating good PR for Utah, with flattering articles in such national venues as Time (Reference 3) and the New York Times (Reference 4).  But just when the founder of the successful program, Jon Huntsman,  began officially running for president, the Utah legislature scrapped his program.

References

1. http://www.dhrm.utah.gov/Working4Utah_FinalReport_Dec2009.pdf
2. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700169390/Five-day-work-week.html
3. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1919162,00.html
4. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/nyregion/12workweek.html

Honk if you love smog and hate state employees

During his tenure as Utah governor, Jon Huntsman changed state government office hours to ten hours per day, four days per week. This simple change saved tax payers about $800,000 annually by reducing energy, janitorial, overtime and transportation expenses. Additionally, the 4-day workweek eliminated over 10,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions by eliminating one weekly commute for 18,000 state employees and reducing heating and cooling of state buildings on Fridays. Surveys revealed that both employees and the general public preferred the new schedule.

The Utah state legislature recently passed a law, overriding the Governor's veto, which will eliminate the 4-day workweek and force all state offices to open on Fridays beginning this September.

Many Utah legislators will proudly boast that they don't care one particulate about air pollution. The disgusting smog around here is evidence of our leadership's indifference to the pollution problem. So it is not terribly surprising that the state legislature likes the idea of increasing carbon emissions by state-employed commuters by 20%.

However, these same legislators claim to care deeply about saving money and reducing taxes. Opening state offices on Fridays will cost taxpayers an additional $800,000 annually. How many Utah taxpayers want to front that check just so they can visit state offices on Friday instead of some other day of the week?

The Utah Department of Health told its employees last week that it will eliminate employee bus passes in an effort to save money. Employees who never contributed to Utah traffic congestion or air pollution while commuting in the past will now be forced to get into cars and emit some carbon. And they will do that five days a week instead of four.

The clear losers here, besides state employees, are Utahns who suffer from heart or lung disease like my husband, who becomes sick whenever the air quality gets bad (which is often). If you live in or visit Utah and like to breathe, you're being punished, too.

I have a great idea that will save a lot more money than cutting bus passes for state employees. Legislators, how about voting again on the state workweek? This time, why don't you vote to save money by keeping state offices closed on Fridays.

I promise not to mention the good you would be doing for the environment.  It would be our little secret.


http://www.dhrm.utah.gov/Working4Utah_FinalReport_Dec2009.pdf

New Utah Flag: More Accurate, Equally Ugly

During the most recent legislative session, our lawmakers changed the Utah state flag, correcting a mistake on it that has been wrong for the last eighty-eight years.

Unfortunately, they left the rest of the flag alone.  Our flag is still the state seal copied and pasted onto a navy blue background.  Or perhaps I should say cut and sewn, since our pioneer forbearers put that ugly thing together without the aid of computers.

I do not blame the pioneers. Pioneers had rough lives.  They had to walk across the plains, grow their own food, and defecate outdoors.  As if all of that weren't bad enough, they also had to design a state flag without the aid of Photoshop. It's perfectly understandable that when flag design was added to their long list of chores, they did a rather shoddy job of it and ignored basic design principles.

I have been thinking about design principles a lot this week.  During that same recent legislative session, Utah lawmakers decided to change the name of the state office I work for, so I have been madly building a new logo, with a new web template and graphics to match.

It is coming along pretty well.  If they had ordered me to make them a new Utah state flag too, I'll bet I could have pulled off something better than the current flag.  I'm not boasting when I say that.  I also believe that any 13 year-old could make a better flag.  In fact, a 13 year-old did design the Alaskan flag, and it is a thousand times better than Utah's.

I worked for a summer at the United States Capitol, where I frequently traveled through a hall which proudly displays a flag from each state.  Actually, flags like Alaska wave proudly.  Utah hangs there like wallflower.  Why would such a beautiful state choose such a drab rag to represent it?

Next session, I think our state legislature should focus its efforts on flag design.  It would be a fun project and might distract them from more damaging legislative endeavors.  Maybe they could be inspired by some of our better state symbols.  The beehive, representing our state slogan of industry, is already incorporated into our current, awful flag, but it is too tiny to see and is surrounded by a busy mess of other items, including pictures of flags, raising two questions:

1.) Didn’t the pioneers anticipate that the flag might be raised aloft and therefore need to have a simple pattern large enough to see from the ground?

2.) Why would you decorate a flag with pictures of flags?

So one solution might be to erase all that other junk and have one large beehive on the flag, with no other distractions.  Or maybe take the bee idea one step further, and just go with a black and yellow striped flag.  In addition to bees, Utahns like sea gulls, our state bird.  How about a nice bird sillouette?  Or what about inspiration from some of our natural wonders?  You can choose a Utah license plate promoting either Delicate Arch or the Greatest Snow on Earth.  A big, red arch or white dots representing snowflakes could look great on a flag, too. 

Of course, not all state symbols are equally inspired.  Also during the most recent legislative session, our delightful lawmakers made Utah the first state to designate an official state gun.  How would that look on a flag? 

About a Rather Stupid Facebook Chain-Post

Okay, I just have to respond to the silly (and admit it, childish) status update my Republican friends have been copying and reposting on Facebook urging everyone to credit the military, and not President Obama, for the successful mission on Sunday.  Of course the military deserves credit, including its commander-in-chief Pres. Obama, who made the executive decision authorizing the mission.

I'm a Democrat, but I have no problem also crediting former Pres. Bush for groundwork that led to this successful conclusion.  If any of you are listening to the news, you will note that Bush himself congratulated Obama.

I understand that you are naturally jealous that a Democrat was in power at the time of this victory, but please try not to be so petty.

Trouble with Tumors

My husband had some suspicious tumors removed from his leg this past week at Hunstman Cancer Center.  He has since been released from the hospital.  He checked into the hospital looking normal, came out of surgery looking like he had been mugged (and suspiciously resembling a cancer patient), and he is now still bedridden but improving daily.

I am on family medical leave from work to take care of him and the household while he recovers.

We have not received the biopsy results back yet to find out if the tumors were malignant, but during the operation the oncologist said that based on what he saw during surgery, he can tell that even if it is cancer, it is not aggressive/high-grade, so that is good news.

He was born with neurofibromatosis (NF), which causes painful but usually benign tumors to grow all over his body.  We are fortunate to live in a location where we can get excellent quality care for him.  He goes to one of the only NF clinics in the country for care, which happens to be at the U of U.  This clinic is affiliated with an oncologist (cancer doctor) at Huntsman Cancer Center who specializes in NF patients. 

(By the way, here is a note to all you people who hate healthcare reform and want to return to the status quo.   Even though we live near all of these specialists, the only reason we can access them is because I am a state employee with a public employee health insurance plan.  My husband is a small business owner, and until health reform goes into full effect,  he is ineligible to buy insurance for himself because of his preexisting conditions. If I ever lose my state job, it could kill my husband, who is less healthy than some of you tea-party-jerks through no fault of his own.)

Okay, moving away from politics, for those of you who missed the Facebook play-by-play during surgery, here it is:

2/23/11

7:33 am
I'm at Huntsman Cancer today, where my husband is getting surgery on a suspicious tumor. Not fun, but it is comforting to have such experts helping him and to be in such a beautiful facility. I love this building.

7:51 am
Now we're in the hospital room. That gorgeous lobby was a ruse. This room is tiny and painted dingy off-white floor to ceiling. Who likes this color?

8:14 am
They are so flexible and spontaneous here. Maybe they'll do a biopsy, maybe they'll do a complete resection. Maybe they'll send him home after surgery, maybe they'll keep him here. They will decide after they cut into him. Unless they change their minds.

8:18 am
He is wondering if he can ask to keep his nasty little tumor after they chop it out of him, after all, he grew it all by himself. Should he ask? Would they say yes? If they did say yes, how would we incorporate it into our decorating scheme?

8:41 am
The doctor has just presented his plan. He is going to cut out pieces of the tumor at a time and biopsy them. If he finds aggressive cancer, he will stop proceeding today. If not, he will keep going. So cross your fingers that I am here for a long time.

9:43 am
My sisters just joined me in the lobby of the cancer center. They brought tunes to combat the melancholy. (There is lots of crying in a cancer center lobby.) Cool discovery: the chairs here are in his and her sizes.

10:45 am
The nurse called to update me. They don't have any biopsy results yet, but he is doing well in surgery.

1:04 pm
He is out of surgery. The doc says they have not completely finished labs, but things look good. They did not see anything too scary.

1:57 pm
We're not going to keep the tumor after all. Another doctor just called and begged us to let her have it for science. It is just as well. I haven't seen it, but I doubt it would have matched the living room furniture.

3:20 pm
Out of surgery. Hard to see, but he has two black eyes. He looked much better this morning.

5:45 pm
Upright! Not dancing yet...

Get $300 to make your worksite nursing mom-friendly

The Utah Breastfeeding Coalition is offering Utah worksites up to $300 to set up rooms for breastfeeding employees to pump milk. The funds can be used to buy the pump, a fridge, a door lock, or furniture for the room. Just fill out and return this simple application. The deadline is Sept. 30, but apply ASAP because the funding is awarded on a first-come, first-serve basis.

This funding comes at an ideal time to help employers comply with one of the lesser-known components of the new health care reform law, requiring most employers to accommodate the lactation needs of the nursing moms they employ by allowing them reasonable time to pump in a private, non-bathroom environment. You can learn more about the new federal law and about state laws protecting nursing moms at http://www.usbreastfeeding.org/Workplace/WorkplaceSupport/WorkplaceSupportinHealthCareReform/tabid/175/Default.aspx.  (When I went to this website, I learned that the jerks in Flagstaff who kicked me out of a movie theater for nursing were in violation of Arizona law. It is good to know your rights.)

I am a nursing mom, now nursing my third child, and I work for the health department, a very enlightened place about the merits of breastfeeding. At my worksite, private rooms, heavy duty community pumps, and paid pumping breaks are available to me to facilitate a healthy environment for me and my baby.

However, every now and then, I spend a workday away from my office for a conference or training or something and experience a glimpse of the less-enlightened outside world. I pack my not-so-heavy-duty personal pump and must seek out accommodations for this important ritual.

Such was the case this past week when I spent a day at a computer training facility. I did a training at the same place about two years ago, when I was breastfeeding my second child. During that first visit, I sheepishly asked the woman at the front desk where I could pump. She looked at me like I had just vomited on her and ordered me to go to the restroom. "Isn't there any other room I could use?" I blushingly whispered. "This is a computer training facility," she informed me, in case I hadn't noticed. "We keep computers in all the rooms." I meekly reported to the restroom. The only electrical outlet there was located directly over the only sink. I stood there with my exposed breasts reflecting in the mirror and I tried to duck whenever someone needed to wash their hands.

A few weeks later, I attended a conference at a different location, where I received a similar response from another receptionist. This time, however, another health department employee, who happens to be one of the state's greatest breastfeeding advocates, was also in attendance. When she heard about my banishment to the restroom, she took matters into her own hands and politely but firmly insisted on access to a room with a lock other than the restroom for nursing mothers at the conference.

Since that time, my approach towards seeking accommodation for nursing or pumping has changed. I am no longer embarrassed. I am proud that I am protecting both my own and my child's health. It doesn't even bother me to ask men about a place to pump any more. It is good for men to know what female breasts are actually for. I see myself as an advocate. I am not ashamed that I lactate and anyone else who is embarrassed by that or thinks I should pump in a restroom stall needs education.

As my confidence has improved, the response has improved, too. Now that the sheepishness is missing from my requests, it is very rare that they are dismissed by grouchy receptionists.  When I do get such a response, I just politely ask to speak to their manager instead.

At that same computer training center last week, I confidently requested a private room for pumping and while they had to check around to find an available room, they did find one and I was spared from another bathroom pumping experience.  I noticed that the employee who helped me happened to be pregnant, so I am sending them notice of this funding opportunity.  Maybe someday, as more employers set up designated nursing/pumping areas in compliance with the new law, and more moms gain confidence about educating the world about the need to accommodate nursing and pumping, no such scrambling will be necessary.

McCarthy Tactics in Our Modern Times

I thought it was bad enough that some hyper-conservative Utah lawmakers, who crave negative attention like toddlers, started screaming, "We can be fascist, too!  We'll do the same thing!" as soon as Arizona stole the spotlight from them by creating their immigrant round-up law.  Why would anyone want to copy a move that immediately created so many legal, financial and ethical problems?  Are they so afraid of people who are completely powerless in comparison to themselves that they can't rationally look at the bad consequences  presently unfolding in Arizona?  Even if you do believe, as they apparently do, that poor, brown-skinned, Spanish-speakers who build or clean houses are the root of all societal problems, it seems that it would still be obvious that copying tactics that are causing so many new problems in the state next-door is not the solution.

But this week, the anti-immigrant people stepped it up and copied a tactic that has been universally vilified since the 1950's:  McCarthy-style blacklisting.  While this person or group of people had no problem sharing the names and personal information of 1,300 of their neighbors, he/she/they wimped out when it came time to sign his/her/their own name(s), and instead signed the letter, "Concerned Citizens of the United States."  So for blogging purposes, I'll just call him/her/them, "Paranoid, Unethical List-maker(s) whose Citizenship Status Cannot be Verified because the Coward(s) Failed to Identify Him/Her/Themselves" or "Cowards" for short.

The Cowards, who are probably state employees like myself, pulled the names from a state database of applicants for various social services such as Medicaid and CHIP and claimed that they were illegal immigrants.  They sent the list to political leaders, news organizations and probably their equally bigoted friends and demanded that the people listed be run out of the state. News organizations have interviewed people on the list and some do admit to being here without visas but others are legal residents targeted because of their Spanish surnames.

To his credit, the misleading headlines such as "Utah Governor Herbert Investigates List" actually refer to the fact that the governor is investigating who created the list, not the victims whose names are on it. Kudos to the governor for doing the right thing (not that I recommend doing anything drastic like voting for Herbert in the upcoming election).

In the meantime, I will send my message to the Cowards through cyberspace, since they failed to leave their own mailing address (unlike the addresses of all the other people on their list, which were clearly printed).  Cowards, I am one of your colleagues in state employment. (Also, I should mention that I am a white person with an English surname born in the United States, since I know that sort of thing is important to you Cowards).  My job is to gather data about Utah minority health so that it can be used to address health problems, bring grant funding to Utah, and save healthcare dollars. How am I supposed to get accurate data when people are too scared to share information with the state government because we employ criminals like yourselves?  I hope you Cowards get caught, fired, and prosecuted.  But fortunately for you, Cowards, I am too big a person to wish for you to be blacklisted.

Asking Parents about Asking Teens about Sex

Utah is the only state that chooses to skip all the sex questions on its youth health surveys.

Of course, even without asking them, we already know Utah teens are having sex. Barring an immaculate conception epidemic, the skyrocketing teen pregnancy rate here is pretty strong evidence to that effect.  But if we asked questions, we might learn information to help us combat this problem.

Some people argue that asking teens if they have had intercourse puts ideas into their heads. They're wrong, of course. Numerous scientific studies have confirmed that asking teens if they have sex does nothing to motivate them to start.

This is one case where common sense supports the literature. Surveys have included questions asking teens about tobacco and alcohol use for years without motivating teens to use these substances. Disappointingly, our persistent inclusion of survey questions about eating fruits and vegetables has not motivated teens to use these substances, either. Many people have had similar experiences asking teens questions about their behavior in day-to-day life, with equally little effect:
"Did you clean your room?"
"Did you finish your homework?"
"If your friends jumped off a cliff, would you?"

Health Department workers are not afraid that they will motivate teen sex by administering uncensored health surveys. Nearly all of us know what the literature says about that and a fair proportion of us also have a reasonable degree of common sense. However, we are afraid of the people who are afraid of the questions. Every year at the annual health surveys advisory meeting, someone points out how lame it is that we omit such an important part of the survey.  Then someone else argues that we have to skip the sex questions or we'll "endanger the whole survey," meaning that a nasty parents' rights group will get some law passed forbidding teen health surveys.

This year, some innovative colleagues of mine have proposed a clever plan. They want to add questions to the adult survey asking parents if they oppose or support sex questions on teen surveys.

We may learn that Utah parents really do hate such questions. Even if we learn that the vast majority of Utah parents want youth surveys to include questions about sex, we still may not be able to make it happen--it wouldn't be the first time a loud and powerful minority squashed the will of a more complacent majority. But either way, at least we would be informing our decisions about our survey questions with actual data instead of frightened speculations.

I like data. That is why I like surveys (the uncensored ones).

Thank you, Senator Bennett

I would like to acknowledge and thank Senator Bob Bennett for his years of service to our country.  I am not related to him in any way, but I did work as an intern for him ten years ago, when I was single and fresh out of college. At the time, I was undecided about my political persuasion.  I have since come to the certain conclusion that I prefer the values of the Democratic party, but that does not prevent me from respecting Senator Bennett for his intelligence, diligence and patriotism.

While I was working in his office, I had to hold my tongue when my coworkers sang praises to the likes of Charlton Heston.  However, the Senator was also involved in many efforts that can be admired from either side of the aisle.  At that time, cyber terrorism  was a new and emerging issue, and his colleagues relied on Senator Bennett to develop legislation to address this new kind of crime. 

He is extremely intelligent.  Occasionally, he would gather his staff and we would pepper him with questions.  Without prior preparation, he would answer with details from history and economic theory. 

Not too long ago, his fellow Utah Republicans bashed the Senator for agreeing with President Obama that Sarah Palin’s “death panels” comment was an irresponsible lie.  He should be more loyal to his party, they argued.  His voting record is loyal to his party (too loyal, from my perspective as a Democrat) but he believes that the people should get accurate information, even about bills he does not support.

His party voted him out of office last weekend.  Many Utah Republicans claimed that he is too liberal.  I am a registered Democrat and I assure you that he is in no way liberal enough for my taste.  However, the “tea party” heretics who are now dominating Utah politics accuse people of socialism whenever they exercise common civility, are willing to compromise to get things done, or make choices based on the needs of the country rather than ideology. 

These dominant Republicans want someone more like them: less effective, less smart, but louder, meaner, and even more right-wing (as if Bennett wasn’t right-wing enough!)  Since most Utahns vote straight Republican ticket in the general election, I am sorry to say that the heretics will probably get their way.

Health Reform on My Island

I live in a little island of reformers surrounded by the much more conservative sea of Utah. I work in public health and my husband works in health care. For myself, most of my colleagues, and my spouse, the need for health care reform is quite obvious. Right-wing terms like "socialized medicine" are always spoken very sarcastically, with the quotation marks audible. To me, there are quite a few very obvious symptoms of the need for reform in the American health care system:

• If you become too sick or injured to work, you lose your health insurance coverage and can't get health care, so you become even sicker or die.
  
• If you are born with a genetic illness and therefore depend on health care to help you lead a healthy, normal life, you are uninsurable and can't get health care.
  
• If you can't afford preventive health care to keep you well, you get really sick and go to the emergency room, where you get much more expensive care that is passed on to everyone else in the form of skyrocketing health care costs.

Most of the people I work with also see these things as bad and would like reform. But, living in Utah, every now and then I am still exposed to the more mainstream local views.

For example, a loud guy on a cell phone was expressing his fears about health reform on the bus the other day. He can't afford health insurance. I would say that is evidence of the need for reform, but he saw that as no big deal because he just pays cash for his care. Lucky for him, his whole family is healthy and has not yet been run over by an SUV, so paying cash has not been a big deal. But he is scared to death that this health care reform thing will go through and something will change his blissful status quo. Even with all his noisy whining, I couldn't figure out what that dreaded something could be. I think he should be more worried about that SUV and hope that reform goes through before he actually needs to try to use the broken health care system.