On May 3, 2007 "The Spectrum" published one of those glass ceiling reports.  "New labor statistics demonstrate that American women are only paid cents on the dollar to their male counter-parts."

The story told by the data in the report and the stories drawn and reported about the report are so different as to leave only the conclusion that the real story is the politics embodied by a pay-gap more than a pay-gap itself. There was a interesting piece in the Chicago Tribune (with a general reputation of being slightly more politically liberal than the late Chairman Mao). In its reporting of the AAUW study, the following "under-reported" facts were mentioned:

-- The report recognizes that women with college degrees tend to go into such fields as education, humanities, and sociology, etc. These career fields typically pay significantly less than the sectors preferred by men; engineering, business, mathematics, and the so-called hard sciences. They are also more likely than men to work for nonprofit groups and local governments, which do not offer the most competitive salaries.

-- As women get older, it was reported that many elect to work less so they can spend time with their children. A decade after graduation, 39% of women are out of the work force or working part time -- compared with only 3% of men. When these mothers return to full-time jobs, it should not be surprising that they earn less than those who did not.

-- Even before they have kids, men and women often do different things that may affect earnings. A year out of college, the report noted women in full-time jobs work an average of 42 hours a week, compared to 45 for men. Far more often than women, men were reported to work +50 hours a week.

-- Buried in the report is an incredible admission: "After accounting for ALL factors known to affect wages, about one-quarter of the gap REMAINS UNEXPLAINED and may be attributed to discrimination." [emphasis added]

In other words: wage difference are often due to a comparison between apples & oranges. There IS data showing that engineers make more money than psychologists. There IS data that there are more male engineers than females engineers; and, there ARE more female psychologists than male. The study FOUND NO DATA demonstrating female engineers, with like education & experience, make any less money than male engineers...The study found that there are differences in pay BETWEEN professional fields, but the study DID NOT FIND there to be differences in pay WITHIN professional fields amongst equally qualified employees.

The AAUW report found data to suggest that a woman interrupts her career 60% more often than a man will. Women, in the aggregate, work fewer hours than male employees. In instances where the employees are hourly workers, there OUGHT to be a difference in wages. In instances where the employees are salaried, the extra hours spent working COULD justifiably an existence in salary differences.

On the last point, 75% of the gap had demonstrably innocent causes -- and AAUW researchers, without ANY data or evidence, are make a conjecture that wage discrimination is responsible for ALL of the remaining 25% of UNKNOWN reasons for wage differences.

Given the survey was conducted by the "Association of UNIVERSITY WOMEN in Washington," [emphasis added] I’m sure that the TOTAL absence of ANY evidence of wage discrimination was not caused by a lack of due diligence in seeking economic data to demonstrate its existence.

When the topic of gender based salary discrimination is addressed based on facts and statistics, the objective conclusions are a LOT different than when this subject is viewed subjectively through the lenses of emotion and politics. I guess the cold analysis of data isn’t nearly as interesting as are stories about victimized women being preyed upon in the workplace.

I responded to the article with a letter to the editor. I was very much surprised a week later to be called with a request to publish my rebuttal.

Below are both my editorial rebuttal and the original article by Mr. Fulton as was published by City Weekly.

by Doug Van Duker – 7 April 2006

Laws against a polyamorous lifestyle seem to become at issue within the general community of Utah only when the topic of recognition of polygyny by FLDS groups is discussed. Having sex with multiple partners or even illegitimate children doesn’t seem to raise much concern outside of the religious sector of our society.

In 2001, the Rev. Jesse Jackson admitted to having fathered children by his mistress of many years, Karin Stanford [subsequently former President Bill Clinton’s selection of the Rev. Jackson as his "spiritual advisor, " during the Monica affair. Under the circumstances, the President’s selection seemed...sardonic]. No one has suggested censure of the good Reverend based upon his infidelity, and certainly no one has suggested that his relationship constituted bigamy. Is there a significant difference or moral hierarchy in non-traditional sexual relationships? If an individual has a long term sexual relationship with a partner, unbeknownst to the individual’s spouse, why is that less morally offensive than if the spouse is aware of it? Why does it become still more reprehensible if the spouse approves?

Other than the religious community, has anyone in the last 20 years objected to someone else’s lifestyle because the person is "sexually active;" gay, straight or bi-sexual (I think that’s PC speak for what used to be called "promiscuous")?

Gay-marriage is founded in the Court's interpretation of a constitutional right to privacy. In recent years, the courts have consistently held that an individual's personal sexual preferences are a privacy issue. The ruling on Lawrence v. Texas was predicated upon this foundation.

The argument for the recognition of gay relationships, gay-unions, and gay marriage is that the state should have no say as to who an individual may select as a "partner" to love...or just enjoy a little recreational sex with. It is logically ridiculous to then assert that somehow this argument holds an inherent exception against long-term heterosexual relationships or with multiple heterosexual partners.

The nation's courts have ceded the argument that what one does sexually, and with whom one does it, is strictly a matter of privacy and not the business or either the government or the community. The few exceptions appear to be statutory rape (and only sometimes), incest, bigamy, and of course...polygamy. If who one chooses as a sexual partner is not a state or societal interest, then how many partners one has should be of no greater interest, irrespect of the relationships being heterosexual or gay.

The ONLY real difference we, as a society, are making between polygamous sexual relationships and gay relationships is that one involves the knowing assent of more than two people. If sex and relationships are taken totally outside the discussion of morality, what secular basis does anyone retain to object to them...as long as all parties are adults and consent? Or, perhaps the major objection and grievance with polygamy is based upon the fact that these people are "religious," and that is offensive to the gay-advocate community’s sense of "morality?"

How ironic.

*******************

One Love by Ben Fulton – Editorial • April 6, 2006

Don't fall for the conservative canard that if gay marriage comes, polygamy must follow.

The fact that Democrats had a heyday over the Dubai ports deal recently proves one point above all: Like conservatives, Democrats have unfortunately mastered the art of the diversionary tactic.

The Dubai ports deal was a fearful ruse of little consequence to the war on terror. Unfortunately, it may have far-reaching consequences to our role in international trade.

Conservatives are masters of the diversionary tactic. With the national debt and government spending soaring out of control, they instead waste our time over silly issues like the Pledge of Allegiance and the Flag Desecration Amendment. Our policies regarding abortion and birth control in developing nations keep millions on the verge of death, yet they manage to focus everyone's attention on one bed-ridden woman's feeding tube. In what was surely the conservative movement's crowning achievement, they cast a decorated Vietnam War veteran and presidential candidate as a traitor deserving of national contempt, all the while defending the honor of someone who's never seen battle.

Now, with the national conscience seemingly saturated in all things polygamy with the HBO series Big Love, conservative shock troops are about to launch another diversionary tactic in perhaps their most important battle ever. That is, of course, the battle against gay marriage, and with election time fast approaching, we won't have to look far for more anti-gay rhetoric.

You've no doubt heard their argument somewhere before, perhaps in a recent column by conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer. Open the door for gay marriage, the argument says, and legalized polygamy will surely follow. Or, as Krauthammer wrote in his column "Pandora and Polygamy," if the gender requirement of a marriage partner is "nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices in love," as gay-marriage advocates argue, then the restriction on the number of spouses "is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice."

Sounds reasonable, right? Sure does. In fact, loads of self-confessed liberals fall for it just as hard, even waving the 2003 Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas, a ruling that said much about private sexual conduct but little about marriage. Only after you consider more serious questions about human nature and the role of marriage in society do the cracks show.

Living in Utah makes it easy to remember several key points about the practice of polygamy, and the first point worth remembering is that it's religiously motivated. Married atheists abound, but I've yet to meet a polygamous relationship that doesn't point to Section 132 of Doctrine & Covenants, the Old Testament, or spout the usual hokum about how hitching your train to more than one female boxcar is "required for exaltation and eternal salvation in the hereafter." Hard not to snicker whenever you hear that line, isn't it? That's because reason takes a holiday when it vacations in religious resorts. Remember, too, that while the First Amendment gives us freedom to observe virtually any religion imaginable, it nonetheless limits certain practices. Killing Christian converts may pass as religious freedom in Afghanistan but not here. Human sacrifices? Animal sacrifices? Denying medical care to your children in the name of religious faith? No, no and no.

Prohibiting polygamy is but a small price to pay for maintaining balance in civilized society. Think about it. Whether polyandry (many husbands, one wife) or polygamy, more than one spouse per person will eventually lead to a shortage of spouses for others and eventually more unmarried people. This has already played out in southern Utah and northern Arizona, where men young and old have been kicked out of polygamous communities. "Sorry pal, we're short a few women." Those in favor of legalizing polygamy argue that government has "no compelling interest" to prohibit the practice. Really? Not if people value the stabilizing force of monogamy, the only arrangement most people can afford in contrast to the huge financial responsibility of several spouses. Liberals in favor of legalizing polygamy probably won't care about an increasing number of unmarried people. Conservatives certainly will. That's why, contrary to the conservative scare tactic, legalizing marriage for millions of gay people will not lead to legal recognition for the 40,000 to 50,000 people who practice plural marriage. A scare tactic is just that, a scare tactic.

Which leads to my next point. Why does society boast millions of gay people but only a few hundred thousand practicing polygamists? Because sexual orientation is not a choice, while polygamy is. It takes lots of religious indoctrination, not to mention women with low self-esteem or an allergy to sexual jealousy, to get modern-day polygamy off the ground. Not so with gay men and lesbian women, who've been with us throughout the ages. Conservatives will probably forever insist that homosexuality is "a lifestyle choice," not a character trait. Most people in the real world know differently, so let conservatives talk all they want. All we need keep in mind is the crucial distinction between homosexuality and polygamy, the distinction between who people are sexually and what they might choose for themselves sexually.

All sorts of sexual arrangements are possible in the privacy of one's home and behind closed doors, including polyamory (polygamy without the religious baggage) but presumably all the sexual fun. There are open marriages, rare as they are. What's not possible now under law is the privilege and legal advantages of recognized monogamous relationships between gay people.

Conservatives want it that way, of course, because the continued prohibition against gay marriage lets conservatives cast gay people as philandering sinners incapable of commitment. If gay people could marry, they'd lose much of that card. There's little need for that now, though, as long as they can keep everyone frightened of legalized polygamy. Don't fall for it.

The island’s initial importance was as a port and reprovisioning site for sailing vessels engaged in the seal trade of the 1800's. Since the international fashion market for seal-skins vanished; and the opening of the Panama Canal, fishing and sheep herding have been the island’s only industries.

By the time the current boundaries had been drawn for the present day Argentina, and the first native-born Argentine was elected to government office, the British had ruled the islands for over 80 years. These facts have never been taught in Argentina’s textbooks. If presented with such information, over 90% of the Argentine public would immediately dismiss them as foreign propaganda, clinging instead to the romanticized myths of history passed dutifully from one generation to the next.

In the 1980's, government socialist market "reforms" induced a series of shortages in oil and essential consumer goods throughout Argentina. Inflation was in triple digits. In response to growing popular dissatisfaction with the government, the Argentine political leadership whipped up anti-British sentiment native nationalism, demanded the "return" of the Malvinas, and invaded the islands in 1982.

In support of the invasion, it was widely rumored that just off the coast of these islands were vast oil reserves that would make Argentina rich. This adding some legitimacy and plausibility for the government’s sudden national imperative for reclaiming islands after 150 years in British possession. Twenty-five years and a generation have gone by, and yet not one successful test drilling of the fabled oil and natural gases has been discovered.

The only mitigation to the disastrous Argentine invasion decision was the British government opting NOT to attack Argentina’s military staging, naval facilities or supporting infrastructure targets on the mainland. In the end, thousand of Argentine lives were lost in an failed attempt to divert public attention from unemployment, empty grocery shelves, and the abysmal underlying economic policies driving the recession. Following the war, the economy got a lot worse before it got better and the corrupt politicians largely avoided public retribution by escaped to foreign soil.

Once more the economy is being driven to the brink of failure by socialist economic "reform" policies. Once more, public dissent is being thuggishly quashed by agents of the government. Once more the answer to popular marches, protests and strikes is the trotting out of the sun-crested war flag, speeches decrying the British violation of Argentine sovereignty. Once more calls for Argentine patriotism and nationalism are being used as a political fig-leaf to draw attention away from the consequences of failed domestic policies.

The only open questions for the current government of Cristina Kirchner: To what extent will she risk the lives and treasure of Argentina in her efforts to maintain political control, after her government’s socialist meddling has all but destroyed the country’s financial and economic institutions? Will she, as her predecessors did, generate an international incident to divert the Argentine public’s attention away from issues of employment, inflation, and food shortages? Once the flags are waving, the protesters are marching, and the rhetoric gets to a fevered pitch, can Presidente Kirchner maintain control and avoid precipitating this diversion into another war that Argentina has no possibility of winning?

There are several types of federal procurements. Currently the two main types of procurements are: free and open competition and directed source. The directed source procurement is often incorporated into an appropriation bill, and is commonly referred to as an ear-mark. In an ear-mark appropriation, Congress directs a department or agency to ignore the prior Congressional legislation governing federal acquisitions and is directed to use a portion of the approved budget for the purchase for goods &/or services, or directs certain construction projects (and often specific contractor(s)) outside of the mandated budgeting and acquisition processes.

In the recent instance of the KC-45A procurement, the Air Force tankers were initially directed to be leased as a sole-source acquisition from the Boeing Company by a Pentagon official, who subsequently retired and was immediately hired as a senior Boeing corporate executive...before the ink had dried on the tanker lease. The scandal was compounded by the fact that the acquisition official had arranged for her daughter to also be hired by Boeing as a "personal favor."

It was the wide level of publicity generated by these ethical lapses at both the Pentagon and Boeing that made it politically untenable for the prior lease to go forward or for the tanker purchase to be ear-marked as a directed acquisition to the Boeing Company.

Accordingly, the Air Force issued a request for proposal under its normal acquisition processes for full and open competition. While the contract was Boeing’s to lose, the solicitation was open to all "qualified, responsive and responsible bidders...those able to demonstrate a capability to meets all of the defined product and delivery specifications.

A specific set of general acquisition requirements were published and potential bidders were all allowed to ask questions and receive clarification on any aspect of the procurement. Included in the request for proposal was a specific set of evaluation criteria along with the relative weighting of each requirement to be evaluated. Cost, while important, was only one of many factors to be considered.

The legacy companies of both Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman have been competing for the manufacture of fighter aircraft for the US government from the earliest days of military aviation to the present. During the last 50 years, the Boeing Company has had an ABSOLUTE lock on ALL tankers and cargo aircraft in the current US inventory.

The major reason for Boeing ALWAYS winning cargo and tanker programs has been...because no other American company could demonstrate relevant experience in the recent manufacture of cargo or tanker air-frames. A Boeing favorable catch-22 situation that led to complacent Boeing management.

This time, another US aircraft company, Northrop Grumman Corporation, teamed with Airbus as it’s air-frame subcontractor, to overcome the Boeing marketing argument on air-frame experience. The tanker proposal requires Airbus & Northrop to jointly build co-production facilities within the US. While not all of the aircraft will be built in the US, the vast majority of production sub-assemblies, the air-frame, and aircraft finaly assembly will all be built or performed domestically.

The "BUY AMERICAN" argument is actually a red-herring. Is a Toyota produced in Kentucky with US steel and assembled by US plant workers less of an American car than a Dodge, where everything from the engine to the rocker panels were imported from either Asia or Mexico, and the assembled is in Detroit? Congressmen in Illinois and the auto-worker’s unions say yes; auto-assemblers in Kentucky and the public appear to disagree.

Is an KC-45A assembled by US worker in Mobile, Alabama less American than a KC-767A (200ER) assembled by US workers in Wichita, Kansas? Apparently the Congressional delegations of Washington and Kansas and pro-Boeing lobbyists do.

Perhaps the difference in the definition is found in the fact that the Alabama facilities are non-union and Boeing’s Wichita, Kansas facility has long been a closed union shop?

But a loss of the tanker program is only the tip of the ice-berg from a Boeing marketing perspective. The real reason many Boeing "supporters" in Congress want to see this baby smothered in its crib is because once the Northrop/Airbus production facilities are constructed, there will be TWO viable US contractors able to bid on the next generation of US conventional bombers, cargo planes and tankers; one encumbered by union inefficiencies and another, not so constrained.

While the C-17 is replacing the 1960's designed C-141, the Vietnam era C-5, fielded in the late 1970s, will soon require a lower maintenance and more efficient replacement. So too, the venerable B-52 has patches on it’s patches and there is nothing in the current inventory with an equivalent payload and range. I’m sure a price competitive alternative supplier is the LAST thing the Boeing lobbyists want to see. If Boeing lobbyists can’t kill Northrop’s venture into the hither private sandbox of major air-frames, the specter and headache of running into full and open competition for each of the aircraft replacement, maintenance, and ground-support acquisitions looms VERY large. What is at stake for Boeing is significantly larger marketing issue than the tanker program.

But for the Boeing ethics and public-relations fiasco, there never would have been a tanker solicitation issued. The acquisition would have been simply, "business as usual," with a Pentagon or Congressional sole-source directive for the Air Force to lease or buy from Boeing whatever Boeing chose to sell. The tanker solicitation clearly demonstrates that the Air Force would have paid at LEAST an extra $6B for the honor of purchasing an out-dated 1970's aircraft design with an equally obsolete avionics package. Boeing presented an offer based upon the 767 design–because it didn’t think it would need to offer anything better to win the Air Force contract.

The selected Northrop Grumman offering is acknowledged as the best of modern tanker aircraft and being sold at a substantially lower price than the converted Boeing 767. Because it is based upon the latest commercial aircraft design, it has up to date Northrop avionics, Honeywell communications, a current production commercial & fuel-efficient GE engine, and a modern computer generated aerodynamic air-frame design. Because other western countries (including Australia and Canada) have also committed to purchase the Airbus A330-200 tanker variant, the projected life-cycle maintenance and ground support costs are being shared by a significantly larger base of buyers.

From all the hue and cry, there appears to be a clear lack of consistency when it comes to Congressmen renouncing the evil of ear-marks. Some have now qualified that all ear-marks are bad–unless they are supported by well-funded union lobbyists. Others appear to oppose ear-marks, right up until the time that such political posturing on ethics could impact aircraft construction in their congressional district.

   In the early years of this nation, there were two parties. Liberals were Democrats and conservatives were Wigs (later to become Republican). In the 1800's there was a migration between parties as the Republican party became more liberal and pro-centralized big government. Democrats pushed for the conservative values of strict construction of the constitution and maintenance of the constitutional protections of governmental checks and balances.

   By the turn of the 1900s, the roles once more reversed. Wilson and later FDR were Democrats drawing more and more towards a strong central government engaged in overseeing all aspects of public live. Constitutional checks were often ignored in a slow but steady march towards a Soviet-styled socialist model...just easing into the concept one small program & government agency at a time.

   Currently, it appears that hard-line socialist and ultra-liberal wing are still control and are driving the Democrat party. While the two remaining Democrat candidates may be angering the vocal fringe by "triangulating" towards the center for the purpose of winning the national election--Both candidates share a Senate voting record that would do Stalin proud.

   The Republican party historically has offered Americans a conservative alternative to the Democrat's socialist policy initiatives. Unfortunately, the last few weeks have proved that a strongly liberal influence is definitely in a power ascendency within the Republican party.

   Just four years ago, Senator McCain, shortly considered switching party affiliation and running with John Kerry on the Democrat’s national presidential ticket. Notwithstanding this, with the right political organization, a straight-faced denial of almost 50 years of liberal Senate voting, Senator McCain has become the Republican party’s national candidate.

   The values and core-beliefs of the majority of the Republican Party-faithful certainly didn't change--so what is going on?

   With this shift we've seen, I'm concluding that there are only a few things left for the majority conservative wing of the Republican party to keep from becoming the party of socialist-lite:

1) Abandon the caucus concept.

   For years, activists have used the caucus process to distort & influence candidate selection . . . which is counter productive when the intent is to choose a candidate that reflects the values, issues, and priorities of the general party membership.

2) A closed national Republican primary.

   The early "primary" states: New Hampshire, Iowa, Michigan, and North Carolina are generally more liberal. In past national elections, these states and have either gone Democrat or the Republican margin of victory has been extremely small. Is it surprising then that a liberal Republican candidate does well with this electorate? The liberal influence is compounded by many of the early states holding "open primaries" where non-conservatives have an even greater sway in picking the Republican "front-runner" and choosing our candidate. Would the Democrats agree to an open Utah primary being their first primary state; with conservative cross-over voters having a similar influence on their candidate selection? Of course not. Why then should Republicans continue to acquiesce and allow a few traditional non-Republican/marginal Republican states to significantly sway our selection of a national candidate?

   While California, New York, Ohio & Florida will have a significantly greater influence in a closed national primary, at least they would have the virtue of representing the will of a larger and more representative body of our party membership. An easy answer to those state parties that object to a closed national Republican primary–take a page from the Democrat play-book, don’t seat any delegates from states that refuse to comply.

3) Standardize primary polling times

   To preclude the influence on early poll reporting, have a fixed national time for poll opening and closing. Polls open at 9:00 AM EDT and close at 9:00 PM PDT; with the reporting of poll results held until after closure. Most states already permit early voting for those that would find poll times inconvenient. We’ll still have networks breathlessly proclaiming trends via exit polls; but, recent spectacular failures has tempered broadcasters willingness to stake their reputations on early pronouncements.

   A side advantage is that this change would refocus time spent at the national convention from reporting on old news --where states report on the results of their primary vote–-that everyone already knows about, building the national party platform.

4) Standardize the party’s delegate allotment process

   To emphasis the change to a national primary, another needed change is to move away from the practice of state winner-take-all delegate allotments. The rationale for winner-take-all is to increase the political influence of a particular state. Simply put, its an ego and power-play thing. If the intent is to take a more accurate pulse on who the party membership wants to represent them in a national election, then this kind of gamesmanship is counter productive. An argument that the current electoral-college practice is primarily a states’ winner-take-all process, that does NOT need to drive the way our party selects its national candidate. Using the current primary as a base-line for analysis, an state allotment based on a popular vote, or the California-style allotment by congressional district, really wouldn't’t have a significant impact or sway the selection of a national party candidate.

   These changes won’t make the process perfect, but they will go a long ways toward mitigating the current situation, were the many conservatives in the party are being unwillingly drug by a minority of RINOs. Our party is on the cusp of selecting a candidate who does not reflect our grass-root values and has been historically on the wrong side of most issues important to conservatives. The current process has forced upon the Republican party a liberal candidate that has no chance of winning – no chance of winning either the support of the dominate party majority of conservatives, nor a national election.

   With the withdrawal of Mitt Romney, the last remaining candidate who had any claim of representing our party’s conservative values, its too late to avoid a debacle in 2008. Perhaps we’ll learn from 2008 and implement the changes needed to retake the party nominating process in time to right the ship for the election in 2012.

Loophole keeps guns in hands of people served protective orders

  The catalyst for this story is the recent and tragic death of Mrs. Ragsdale who was shot to death in the Church parking lot by her estranged husband who was under a court domestic protective order. The article goes on to say that 19 states have provisions for confiscation of all guns (not just handguns) of anyone served with a court protect/restraining order.

  "While federal law bars anyone under a protection order from having, possessing or buying a firearm, it does not set up a mechanism for states to confiscate weapons. Utah relies on an honor system that assumes a person under a protection order will stay away from firearms - even when there is a record of a threat to use one . . . . [‘The Utah protective] order doesn't say we have to take it away from you, it just says you can't have it,’ said Jaroscak, which highlights the loophole between federal law and state practice."

  The article goes on to paint the picture that, "if only Utah had a mandatory gun confiscation law for circumstances such as this . . . and maybe a gun registration database, then Mrs. Ragsdale might be alive today!

  Once more, logic loses out to emotion on the anti-gun media.

  How is a law, requiring a person under a protective order to surrender his/her gun, going to make a difference to someone who is bent on pre-meditated murder as was Mr. Ragsdale?

  I'm not sure the victim or the victim’s family will feel MUCH better knowing the police could also slap a fire-arms violation onto existing homicide charge.

  There are between 2.8 and 3.0 million people now living in the state of Utah. There were about 50 homicides in 2007. About half of these were shooting related deaths. Of the reported 5,850 protective orders issued in 2007, there is one identified instance of a related handgun homicide. In 2006 there were slightly fewer protective orders issued, and no shooting homicides identified as being related.

  Before we all jump on the legislative-fix band-wagon, a few questions need to be soberly considered:

1) Is the problem a real problem or is it simple public perception of a problem based upon news reporting/editorials? In Utah, is there a statical relationship between handguns homicides of victims under court protective or restraining orders?

2) Can a REAL fix be legislated? That is to say in this kind of situation, can passing a law be relied upon to ACTUAL result in the hoped for outcome -- fewer shooting deaths perpetrated by individuals being limited by judicial restraining orders?

3) Has a law banning possession of a fire-arm ever statically been shown as a successful deterrent in precluding pre-meditated homicides?

4) Has a gun ban or gun confiscation ever proved effective in reducing crime of ANY type, irrespect of the criminal activity targeted by the law?

5) If we REALLY think (or at least hope) that a court ordered gun confiscation will reduce related homicides, how would we measure success given only one identified instance of homicide associated with roughly 11,700 protective orders in the last two years?

If we can come up with a way to reasonably measure a success criteria, wouldn't a limited "Test program" be appropriate to see reality follows the untested theory? Perhaps we could simply try the theory against 19 states with provisions for seizing guns: Would implementation of a gun confiscation provision have significantly reduced the possibility of the murderer from both a) obtaining a gun; AND/OR b) substantially reduced the risk of the perpetrator carrying out the homicide by some other means?

  Sadly, in the most recent news story, the answer is clearly no. The assailant could just as easily attacked the victim in the parking lot with a kitchen knife with the same outcome. Even if we look to other states with gun confiscation practices, I doubt that we’d find any objectively supported evidence to show a better out come.

  I do note, that the assailant chose to execute his victim in a church parking lot where personal concealed gun carry was banned – and timely help of any kind was unlikely to be available. As I understand that the first shots fired missed the victim, perhaps an armed Mrs. Ragsdale or fellow parishioner with a concealed weapons permit would have rendered a different outcome. After all, the protective order ignored by Mr. Ragsdale had prohibitions in it against approaching, or harming his estranged wife–if he ignored those, would he have radically changed his plans if the police had come by a month earlier and confiscated the gun when they issued the original notice?

  We could all hope so, but I think our hopes would have been hollow and unfounded. Mr. Ragsdale was angry and wanted his wife dead. I reasonably think that if Mr. Ragsdale had lacked a gun, he would have shown up that same morning with a knife or ball-bat. . . but he would have shown up all the same–with the very same outcome

  As a related aside, something just doesn’t seem to add up for me. A couple of parts of the recent Salt Lake Tribune story seem to not be ringing true without some clarification (which I’ve asked Representative Fowlke for).

In the article it stated that:

  "A month earlier, Ragsdale had threatened to use a gun to ‘take care of things’ during an altercation. A judge issued a protection order that noted Ragsdale, who kept a 9 mm Glock firearm in the trunk of his BMW, was not to have, possess or transport a weapon.

Kristy Ragsdale's family assumed the gun had been taken away, but Lorie Fowlke, Kristy's attorney, said she and her client knew it had not."

  A few paragraphs further on the newspaper reports:

  "Lehi Police Lt. Harold Terry said a family member or friend is usually put in charge of making sure a restricted person doesn't have access to a gun. ‘If a restricted person is later found to be in possession of a weapon, he or she can be arrested. If you violate the protective order, you go to jail,’ Terry said."

  If attorney and state legislator Ms. Fowlke and Mrs. Ragsdale KNEW that Mr. Ragsdale was armed with the handgun, in direct violation of his court restraining order, one would be reasonable in assuming that violation of the court order was promptly reported to the Lehi police department?

  Did the Lehi police ignore the reported violation of the court order and just decide not enforce the related requirement to arrest Mr. Ragsdale for its violation?

  As a result of this incident, Rep. Fowlke said " . . . she is ‘ . . . mulling legislation to balance the right to be free from violence versus Second Amendment rights. [In the Ragsdale case], the only thing I can think of that might have made a difference is actually confiscating the gun. Maybe we need to look at that. . . .’ "

  Bad reporting? A politician putting herself the best possible light in a newspaper article? A grossly negligent police department? As the old saying goes, "Something smells fishy in the ports of Denmark."