FreeWhat!?

This is the official “Thank You” to those that recognize potential and encourage it to grow.

I have been lucky enough to work with KUED channel 7 PBS at the University of Utah for the last three years.

Recently the door was opened for me to receive more training and working opportunity.

The reason I must acknowledge this right now is that I have been enabled to BE AVAILABLE for the lucky but rare opportunities to work at KUED.

Thanks to my family, Ryan McEuen of ieconcerts.com (Incandescent Entertainment) and my webmaster Taylor Chirillo, the last three years have allowed me to pursue my dreams.

If you ever have the chance to take up opportunity or to give it to someone with potential, please take it…

To believe in yourself is free.  To believe in someone else is worth the investment.

FreeWhat?

Music, Friends, and Nature collide on the most epic weekend of the summer at Utah’s headiest independent festival.  Confirmed for August 08, 2008 at the Wind Walker Ranch, one and a half miles south of Salt Lake City, Utah.  Early bird discounts are still available.

Playing God

By: Ryan McEuen

Recently I have learned that “playing God” is one act that no one can follow. On Wednesday November 22^nd around 3:30 pm someone decided that it was her duty to do just that in my life. She stole my fourteen year Labrador, Hank. Yes he was taken… hard for me to believe too, it’s not like Hank is going to fetch any game, or anything else. He’s just living out his fourteen years with his family, and all of us are enjoying each last moment.

Not understanding why my dog is not with me I discover that this person had made judgments toward me in remarks such as “this animal is abused”, and her parting last words “I’m taking this animal because of animal cruelty”. Cruelty! How does a dog such as Hank make it FOURTEEN years with me… many people say “he must have had a good life to still be holding on”?! Now let me ask you this. How many of you would find yourself driving down the street, see an elderly dog, stop and proclaim to another that you are going to take this dog because of animal cruelty? My thoughts are not many if any… This was planned! Someone or someONES have taken it upon them selves to ‘play god’ in my life. Figuring it just right to pick him up in a very timely fashion, while letting him out for an afternoon bathroom break, now if you think that doesn’t sound planned then you may be someone involved. WHO TAKES SOMEONES DOG!?!?!?!

Why don’t we look at the concept of playing God, making decision based upon your belief system that directly influence someone or something else’s existence. How has this played it self out in the past? The best examples I can think of are: Napoleon, Hitler, President Bush, Government, people that THINK they know best. The thing is, God is and act that doesn’t have to be played. Everything that is aligned with God or God like energy… people, animals, experiences, life, don’t act. IT JUST IS! It is, it is.

Imagine for a moment that you are PERFECT just the way you are, and all the weight loss, diet, “your broken take this”, you need to look like this; information wasn’t coming at you 24/7… or even at all. How free does that feel? Then imagine for a moment that I was playing God in your life, based on my belief system. And you happen to be over weight. You go to open your fridge and find only what I think you should eat. Or you go to your car and I choose what you drive. How about you don’t get to work where you work just based on how I feel that it’s not right for the environment. No wait, I am going to take your dog, based on my uneducated opinion, I feel that you are abusing it because I see him limping in his old age.

If you or anyone you know has information about Hank, Please contact me at 801.483.1977

Thank you for your time

Ryan McEuen

**This article previously posted on freewhat.org in 2007**

If We’re Stuck in a Hole, Maybe We Should Quit Digging

By Regie Thompson

Over the past two weeks, the world has been watching tragic events unfold at a coal mine in central Utah. So far, three rescuers have been killed in their effort to reach six trapped miners. Stories of the trapped men, their families, community support efforts, the mine owners, federal regulators among other things, have dominated the local media lately to the point of over saturation.

The fact that they are trapped arises from a desire for cheap fossil fuel-based energy. Most of the energy consumed in Utah is generated by burning coal, which is a huge industry for Carbon and Emery counties. Each time you turn on a light, open your refrigerator, charge your cell phone/iPod/laptop, ride Trax, watch TV, et al, ad nauseum, you likely use power generated by a coal fired power plant located somewhere in Utah. The coal may have come from the mine in which the men are trapped, or one nearby.

Coal mining and power plants provide a significant number of jobs to the people who live in central Utah, directly and indirectly. The miner buys his groceries at the market in town which is owned by his neighbor who deposits his receipts at the bank which finances the equipment that the miner might use, and the circle goes on and on. Communities like Huntington and Castle Dale owe their prosperity to one thing: coal and consumption of energy generated by it.

So what happens when the coal, better yet the demand for it, runs out and the power plant must cut jobs or eventually close? What happens to the grocery store, the bank, and the mining equipment dealer? What about the residents of Salt Lake City, who suddenly are faced with no more cheap, easy to produce energy? This day is coming whether we like it or not.

I, for one, don’t think we are ready to answer these questions. The answers are not easy to swallow. Nor do I think we will experience any sort of grand calamity, chaos, or war over the last of the supply. But if we don’t get our priorities in line with reality, the future holds some real challenges.

Now is the time to address these issues, and there are discussions taking place on a grand scale, but the people making policy in this state are not listening. They are too busy worrying about school vouchers and soccer stadiums to be bothered with issues as puny as clean, renewable energy. Our state legislature needs to hear one collective voice demanding change. Action must be taken. It is our responsibility to our selves, our friends and families, and our communities to make our voices heard and incite this change. We can begin in our own homes by implementing the many available technologies to reduce our energy consumption. For example, replacing incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent lighting, or setting the thermostat just two degrees higher in summertime can show real savings from month to month. Compare the power bills from before and after making a change. Keep track of the savings, and show it to friends and neighbors. Tell them what you did and how they can do the same. Give them a compact fluorescent light as an introduction. Let them know that they can be part of a massive shift in consciousness that will make this transition easier on all of us. Encourage them to become part of a neighborhood group discussing the change, and give them contact information for local leaders.

I believe it is our responsibility to make efforts not only to reduce the amount of energy we consume, but to encourage local officials to put certain mandates on how that energy is produced. I suggest it be made mandatory that any new building be fitted with a solar power system large enough to produce the energy needed to sustain itself, through the heat of summer and dark winter nights. There are solar panels on the market today that are non-obtrusive and made to look like and act as part of the roof material. If the amount of energy produced is greater than the need, that energy is fed back into the grid to help power dwellings that use traditional sources. If the energy demand cannot be met by the solar system, they may use power from the grid. I also propose that all new dwellings with attics be fitted with solar powered fans that remove hot air from the attic, reducing the need for air conditioning. These fans are optional on most new homes, but not yet mandatory. If such measures are taken in older dwellings, a tax break should be generous enough to provide real incentive and offset part of the cost of retrofitting. Currently, Utah does not offer a tax incentive for a solar retrofit the electrical system of a home. Legislation has been introduced but has never made it out of committee. The legal monopoly of Pacific Power does offer rebate incentives to purchase energy efficient appliances and building materials, as well as blocks of wind power to offset coal-produced consumption. But they also continue to donate campaign cash to legislators who set energy policy in this state, lobby state regulators who set ceilings for energy pricing, and they also keep buying more and more cheap, coal-generated electricity and selling it for huge profits.

These changes in habit and consciousness will be easier for some than for others. Initially, it will cost more for consumers, but as the easily accessed coal runs out, the price for the energy it provides will rise as supply fails to meet demand. Eventually, we will be using cleaner, renewable sources of energy out of necessity, rather than choice. Then, perhaps we will be at the point where men don’t need to go into a hole they may never come out of.

**This article previously posted in 2007**

Elections are FUBAR By Regie Thompson

My French brother-in-law and I like to talk about politics. I consider myself left-leaning, Jean Marc is a full on Communist. Red to the core. We both detest Bush and oppose the Iraq war. On a recent visit, he asked me who I felt would make a good president after W is finished with his ruin.

I began by telling him that since I live in Utah, my presidential vote really does not count because the Electoral College delegates from Utah will always vote Republican. However, I continued, I liked Bill Richardson’s ideas, but knew he had no chance to go past Super Tuesday, if that far. Beyond that, I explained that I prefer the Democratic Party to the Republicans, and whomever they sent would probably get my vote. He asked why Richardson would not stay in the race. When I told him it was money, he understood but knew it to be as wrong as I do. The process to choose our American President needs to be tweaked from beginning to end.

In the 18^th & 19^th centuries, most communication was written or spoken, until the invention of the telegraph. Before the telegraph, the speed of communication depended on the transportation method. Horses and trains were most reliable. If one lived far in the wilderness, news rarely came. As electric items emerged, communication became more rapid and widespread. Now, it is possible to watch what is happening on the other side of the planet, as it happens. This immediacy of communication makes it easier to get your voice heard. As the election nears, this immediacy can have a major impact on voter opinion.

It is obviously necessary to promote your product in order to get people to buy it. A huge corporation enjoys a powerful promotional advantage over a small business. To communicate to the most people, television seems to be the medium of choice, and networks will happily sell anyone a block of time to get their message out. A national 30-second block of time during the late, late night programs might run a couple of thousand dollars. The same amount of time during the first quarter of a Super Bowl broadcast costs millions, because millions of viewers are watching. Thirty seconds of regular prime time programming time will set you back five, maybe six figures. This system of buying and selling media time has made many men very wealthy and impacts us each time we catch that Must See TV show, the latest big game, or whatever neo-reality garbage we are being spoon fed by the networks. The ones with the money fill in the two minute gaps in television programs with their message. Buy our car. Eat our food. Take our pill. Watch our show. Drink our beer. Use our gadget. Vote for me. That other guy is bad. We’ll be right back after these messages. Keep watching. And we sit there and fucking do it.

One of our oldest methods of communication, the printed word, can also be effective. Space in newspapers, magazines, flyers, billboards, etc., can reach a more specific audience. Radio and internet can also be useful media tools. But like television, the price depends on the number of people who might be reached by the message. It costs a lot of money to get a message to all of the people.

As we approach our next presidential election, candidates will be spending millions of dollars to have their message heard. Each party will produce messages touting their candidate as the best choice for America and we will watch them during our television viewing. Candidates will say that they “approved” the message and we will nod our heads in agreement or shake our heads in resistance of their message. Some candidates or like-minded citizens with money will attack the virtues of the opposition. They will certainly have a need to defend their voting record, their leadership credentials, perhaps their religion or background. These 30-second tidbits may play a huge role in our decision for whom to vote.

Cha-ching.

So, where does this money come from? Corporations, religions, individuals each donate millions of dollars to candidates. Candidates spend this money for travel to the states with the next caucus or primary election, where they make an hour-long appearance that supporters organized and sold at $500 per plate. The appearance is followed by television ads and billboards, reminding us of the glorious time THE CANDIDATE graced our fair town.

So when I explained it to Jean Marc, he sat back amazed that Americans would allow it to happen. He quickly deduced that the candidate with the most money can use it to buy more access to voters than the others in the race. He believes that each candidate should have equal access to campaign funds and spend them how they wish. They could spend it on a steady media campaign or a Super Bowl commercial. The money would be provided by the state. That’s the Communist in him. And he’s right.

There is an Equal Time rule that broadcasters must follow when allowing political advertisements to be aired. But this rule includes only ads that are “approved” by the candidates, not ones that are produced by others is support of the candidate. But, all candidates do not have the same amount of money, therefore giving wealthy candidates more opportunity to buy advertising, or campaign travel.

But, what would the benefit be if each candidate had the same amount of money to spend on the primary campaign? The obvious benefit would be restricting the obscene amount of money spent on political campaigns by candidates such as Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton. By allowing voters to see who handled the budget best and putting the money where it could work most efficiently, candidates’ financial skills would be under a microscope. This would give voters a view on the economic policy of the candidate. Once that money had been used up, there would be no more. Instead, we hear reports of Barack Obama raising more money in January 2008 than his opponent. Mitt Romney has more money than his opponent. Money for what, exactly? Does the amount of money a person has or is capable of raising during a given time give any indication to voters how the candidate will spend it? No. If they are given a budget, voters would get a better look at the fiscal thinking of the future office holders, at all levels of government.

After the primary election, the remaining candidate for each party would be given equal access to more funds to continue the campaign. But at no time during the process, would any candidate be able to take any contribution of any kind from any individual, group, corporation, organization, etc. If another entity paid for advertising on behalf of any candidate, the amount of money spent on the promotion would be deducted from that candidate’s taxpayer generated campaign funds.

Equalizing the campaign war chests of candidates would level the playing field during elections. Instead of being bombarded by ads from two major candidates, voters would be able to see advertising from every candidate. However, if one candidate decides to spend more money on a slick production, perhaps their ads would run less frequent or at times when fewer are watching. If the candidate spent less on production, they would have more to spend on ad time and space, and could concentrate on getting their message out.

Another benefit would be that the candidates would need to focus on the message and be effective in delivering it. They would need to be good public speakers, knowledgeable, attractive in idea before appearance, organized, and well staffed with volunteers. This could potentially draw more people into the process at the grass roots level, which is where it should be most important. We are not nearly enough involved in choosing our leaders, mostly due to voter apathy and the communication power of money.

Solving the campaign funding discrepancy will not take care of all the problems in the American election process. The Electoral College is obsolete and should be abolished.

When our founding fathers organized the election process, they took care to equalize the vote, keeping the people living in cities and near the news sources from dominating the process. The Electoral College was born. Each state sent delegates to represent the vote of the people. As the country dramatically grew over the first 100 years, the process remained adequate. But, times have changed, as have the population centers, the issues facing more demographic groups, and the ways we communicate. If one looks at the “red and blue states” from the 2000 election, it is amazing. Almost the entire country is red, with the West Coast and Northeast dominating the blue. Before the debacle in Florida, Bush held 29 of 51 states (District of Columbia is included in the 51) with only 246 electoral college delegates. Gore only took 20 states but had 260 delegates, mostly from population centers such as the northeast US and California. Florida and Oregon were decided after election night. Gore eventually lost the election because Bush’s team pressed Florida’s leaders to declare him the winner there, and the matter went to the Supreme Court, which appointed Bush as president. However, Gore received more overall votes than Bush. In a true democracy, this would have never happened. Each vote would have counted. Instead, one state decided the election, based on delegates rather than the actual votes cast nationwide.

The system is not fully broken, but it does need repair. As a minority party voter in my state, my vote is effectively erased by the electoral college. My vote for a nationwide leader should count the same as someone in another state. My vote for president does not count equal to my Colorado neighbor because Utah always votes Republican for president and the delegates vote in step with the majority. In a national election, for the one leader who represents each of us on the world stage, every vote should be equal in value, across state lines, joining our collective voices. If there is a delegate system, then instead of a “winner take all” election, there should be a percentage of the delegates given to each candidate. This would more accurately represent the will of the voters, and votes in one-party dominated states like Utah would increase in value.

With the political divide between parties growing wider each election, the debate is getting nastier and money is having a greater influence than ever before. Candidates are raking in record amounts of funds from sources with an agenda. With those huge sums of money being used by candidates, these sources can influence a politician’s decision on issues critical to the source of the funds. This is not the America I believe our founding fathers envisioned, and there must be change. However, politicians will continue to accept the funds without limit on the amount they can spend to campaign. An ordinary citizen has little chance of influencing a politician without a check in hand, and that check needs have many zeroes at the end of it. Money buys influence and power, and few politicians will ever vote to limit that pipeline of cash. It’s job security.

So, what do we do? Our first act might be to begin a dialogue with your representative. Let them know how you feel, and that you are politically active. Ask them about the issues. Find out how they are inclined to vote, and why. Do it on a local, state, and federal level. These people work for you. Of course, this might be close to impossible to do with a presidential candidate, but the representative you have a dialogue with might feel the same about presidential campaign finance.

Next, we would need to watch the media and how they react to it. News outlets might further commentary in favor of one candidate, hoping to sway viewers. By doing so, they are exercising their right to free speech. They are also labeling themselves as right or left or red or blue or whatever label comes next. But, they would continue to be required to provide equal time for each candidate and bill the candidates’ campaigns for additional ads they did not approve or produce.

Jean Marc looked at me long and hard when we finished the conversation. He understands, as Communists in France are certainly also a minority party and money poses the same problem. This is not an easy issue to solve, and a solution will not come without serious debate, in which we need to be engaged. We must demand a better system to choose our leaders, more equality for them to be heard and seen, and a more transparent budget-based campaign funding process. At the very least, we might realize that we have given up the reins of control not to our representatives, but to the ones who give them money. We might want that power back. One thing we stand to gain is the realization that together we are one, yet also individual, equal in voice.

**This article first published on a previous version of Freewhat.org in 2007**

Come On In, The Water Is Boiling

By Regie Thompson

I’ve been hearing rumblings of a new revolution in America.

Right on. And… yeah, right.

On one hand, nothing would make me happier than to be a witness to a complete changing out of our elected officials. The right claims to be on the side of citizen’s freedoms and liberties, yet when push comes to shove, they take those same freedoms away in the name of security. Ben Franklin had it right when he said that those willing to give up liberty in the name of security deserve neither. The left claims to be standing up for the rights of the little guy, yet they are in the same corporate beds as the right. You can compare apples and oranges, but to me, they’re both still fruit. Thanks, I’ll have a mango.

On the other hand, a complete makeover might have our country looking more like Tammy Faye than a supermodel. There’s a bunch of candidates stumping for the space soon to be vacated by Bush, and from what I’ve seen, I’m not sure any of them are in touch with the rest of us. Neither side seems to have a cohesive clue of what most of us go through on a daily basis.

That brings me to the question: Is a revolution what our nation needs, or just an evolution?

A revolution is less likely than a comet hitting downtown Salt Lake City in the next week. Sure, the idea of revolution is romantic. But we are too damned comfortable as a people. We have everything at our fingertips, comparatively cheap energy, food is plentiful, unemployment lower than most nations. We sit in our air-conditioned homes, dumbing ourselves down with the latest news of Paris or Lindsey, while enjoying a cold beer. Life is cushy for many Americans, if not downright good. The last major revolution in western Europe wasn’t a revolution as much as it was a nation held down, collectively saying “We’ve had enough. This system is NOT working.” They had trouble getting food, work was scarce, travel was severely restricted, and the government controlled everything except thought. Then the wall fell, and change began to occur. We’re not even close to that point, but we’re heading that way with our current corporate-controlled media and special-interest influenced government. If we don’t stay on our toes, we’ll find ourselves in hot water.

Evolution, while not as quick as revolution, seems more likely to me, mainly due to our comfort level as a nation. As we discover flaws in our current system, we adapt to them, or we change the system. Each time I travel by air, I ask, “why must I put my three ounce bottle of shampoo in a plastic bag? What if I have five bottles of the same product? Will I be pulled aside?” But, I bag it up to get through security without hassle And be on my way. I evolved, rolling my eyes all the way through the process.

Revolution requires a great deal of discomfort to begin. Consider the last revolution in America. Taxation without representation, crown control of everything, etc. Life in early America was not fair in the least. We’re not at that point, yet. Evolution happens to each of us every day, but the question I pose is, what are we evolving in reaction to? If you put a frog in a pot and gradually increase the temperature, the frog will evolve to that environment and live, even in boiling water. But put him directly into the boiling pot, and you’ve got boiled frog for dinner. Or the frog jumps out and says, “No fucking way, man.” Now, that’s revolting.