Month: April 2008

Categories
politics technology

Bob Barr

Unless you are an active participant in the Libertarian Party, this is probably the first and last time you will hear that Bob Barr is exploring a run for President in 2008. Why do I bother to mention it – because I was bored.

I got an email as part of an email list I didn’t know existed with the announcement about Mr. Barr. As soon as I located the way to unsubscribe I visited the campaign website. I decided to write about it because of how familiar some of the features were – they looked like they had been lifted off of the Ron Paul website. Some of the widgets he had looked like leftovers from the Mike Huckabee website. It turns out that the firm that designed Bob Barr’s site also designed Ron Paul’s site. (I have no information on who designed the Huckabee website.)

Unless Obama is convicted in October of having McCain assassinated in September there is no way we will be hearing about Barr in November. If he, or any other third party candidate, gets into any debates he will be largely ignored as every minor candidate is (as determined by the media) during each debate where they are allowed a backstage pass – I mean a place at the debate.

Categories
politics State

Health Care Task Force

I’m ready to start focusing on the issue of health care for Utah citizens. The legislature created a task force to study it. The Deseret News addressed the issue in an editorial today. I would like to know who is on the task force. So far I know the following:

All of those listed above are Republicans. According to the bill, at least one senator and two representatives on the committee must be Democrats (unless we have any independent or 3rd party elected officials that I don’t know of).

Citizens are already likely to be shortchanged by the task force when, as Bob Huefner notes from reviewing the bill, “The burden is being put on the patients and the enrollees and the insurance protection is being given to the industry.” That does not bode well. I will be looking at the bill myself and see what else I can glean from it’s text in the next few days.

Categories
politics

Federalist No. 4

Federalist No. 4 continues largely the same argument as Federalist No. 3. Number 3 was about how a unified government could best prevent other nations from justly coming to war against us. Number 4 focuses on the fact that a unified national government is more likely to discourage other nations from manufacturing excuses to come to war against us – something akin to “peace through strength.”

The best part of number 4 comes in the final paragraph:

But whatever may be our situation, whether firmly united under one national government, or split into a number of confederacies, certain it is, that foreign nations will know and view it exactly as it is; and they will act toward us accordingly. If they see that our national government is efficient and well administered, our trade prudently regulated, our militia properly organized and disciplined, our resources and finances discreetly managed, our credit re-established, our people free, contented, and united, they will be much more disposed to cultivate our friendship than provoke our resentment. If, on the other hand, they find us either destitute of an effectual government . . . or split into three or four . . . discordant republics or confederacies, . . . what a poor, pitiful figure will America make in their eyes! How liable would she become not only to their contempt but to their outrage.

Our last few years have proven this true, for although we are still a nation under a single government we are nationally split into discordant confederacies politically and other nations are seeing less and less to respect among us.

Categories
politics technology

Have Your Say

At the blogger briefing this morning with Mark Shurtleff I was reminded of why I believe that every public official ought to have a blog of some sort. Mark started by talking about how important he things that transparency in government is and how he has used his time in office to try to make more information available to citizens and help citizens work with their government – specifically with law enforcement (he is the AG after all).

Later, the discussion began to focus on blogs and media and I realized that running a blog as an elected official amounts to a certain degree of personal transparency. It indicates a willingness to put yourself out there on record where others can challenge you through comments and other responses. It also provides original source information about your positions where you can explain yourself without a media filter. This can prove very beneficial to any honest public official because anyone who is taking the time to look will be able to see how well you do at sticking to principles or how thoughtful you are in correcting a mistaken opinion as you gain more information.

For those who would say anything to get elected, that inconsistency would become apparent quickly when they blatantly ignore the positions they espoused on the campaign trail or else offer up lame excuses for changing their positions.

Of course blogging politicians will not solve all our problems, and those who do blog are not all perfect, but that willingness to leave a lasting trail and be held accountable is definitely suggestive of a good candidate and a good public servant.

Categories
politics

Federalist No. 3

Federalist No. 3 continues the discussion as to why a unified national government would be better than thirteen sovereign states or any number of weaker confederacies of the states. Once again the logic is sound, but it exposes how we have strayed from the government envisioned by the founders.

It is of high importance to the peace of America that she observe the laws of nations towards all these powers, and to me it appears evident that this will be more perfectly and punctually done by one national government than it could be either by thirteen separate States or by three or four distinct confederacies.

Because when once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also will generally be appointed to manage it; for, although town or country, or other contracted influence, may place men in State assemblies, or senates, or courts of justice, or executive departments, yet more general and extensive reputation for talents and other qualifications will be necessary to recommend men to offices under the national government,–especially as it will have the widest field for choice, and never experience that want of proper persons which is not uncommon in some of the States. Hence, it will result that the administration, the political counsels, and the judicial decisions of the national government will be more wise, systematical, and judicious than those of individual States, and consequently more satisfactory with respect to other nations, as well as more SAFE with respect to us. (emphasis mine)

Is there any person in this nation today that would argue that our federal government is efficient in any sense?

Nations and individuals around the world who would fight against us are unlikely to fear a bloated national government that would take the time to bail out a financial investment firm like Bear Stearns when they have not managed to secure our own borders (and I’m not talking about immigration as an economic and social issue here, I’m talking smuggling as a national security issue).

A federal government as confused and confusing as ours has become does not invite the most capable to manage it – instead it invites those most comfortable with the vagaries of the bloated system regardless of their capability to lead and/or manage it.

Such a daunting system does not encourage a society of people who dare to risk and dream, rather it encourages people to seek any kind of personal security that another person is willing to offer them, making them reliant upon and susceptible to those who would take advantage of insecurity.

The federal government has grown large enough that the individual states are no longer cooperating within the federal government, but competing to influence it. It’s time that we worked to return to a more efficient government and remind our citizens that:

. . . a cordial Union, under an efficient national government, affords them the best security that can be devised . . .

Categories
Local politics

Making Logical Rules

I’m sure that Leaders of the Utah County Republican Party hoped that their policy reversal would put this stupid move on delegate email distribution behind them. They have done the right thing now and released the delegate email lists to all Republican candidates but their excuse for the original action lies somewhere between lame and pathetic.

Monnahan had promised delegates she would keep their e-mail addresses private. At the caucus meetings, leaders declared the e-mail lists would be used only for internal party business.

That was a new policy. The party had provided delegate e-mail addresses to candidates in the past. Two longtime legislative district chairmen forgot the new rule when they got the delegate e-mail lists and handed them over to the Republican candidates in their district.

I will give them the benefit of the doubt and accept it as lame, but the cynic in me still holds out the possibility that it was a pathetic excuse for an underhanded attempt to swamp the challengers in the Republican primary.

Next time they want to try to save the delegates from unwanted solicitations they should write a policy that goes something like this:

  • If you are a delegate to the county convention your email address will only be given to candidates you will be choosing among at the county convention, and it will not be passed to the state party by us. If you are elected as a state delegate we will pass your email address to the state party, but not to the RNC.
  • We trust our candidates not to engage in shady practices against faithful party members whose votes they are trying to win, and we trust our delegates to be smart enough to recognize when a candidate is not fit to represent our party.
Categories
politics

Federalist No. 2

Federalist No. 2 has been a really interesting read, and I look forward to Nos. 3-5 which continue discussion of this issue of union vs separation. One of the things I find so fascinating is that I agree with the argument, that union is preferable to a looser confederation of the states such as regionalism, some of the premises are not as true in our nation today as they were in the 1780’s

. . . notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs . . .

Rather than a people that are united in the ways described above, more and more of our nation descends from ancestors that were not common to the Americans of the 18th century, there is a growing schizm in our language as immigrants – especially latino immigrants – cling to their native tongue rather than join in the conformance to a common language, while the majority of our citizens profess some Christian belief system that majority continues to shrink and we have expanding proportions of many belief systems even outside the Abrahamic traditions that are dominant in nearly all the world.

The lack of unity in these things is not nearly as worrisome as the recitation of what naturally happened after the First Continental Congress convened and made recommendations to the various states:

. . .the memorable Congress of 1774 . . . recommended certain measures to their constituents, and the event proved their wisdom; yet it is fresh in our memories how soon the press began to teem with pamphlets and weekly papers against those very measures. Not only many of the officers of government, who obeyed the dictates of personal interest, but others, from a mistaken estimate of consequences, or the undue influence of former attachments, or whose ambition aimed at objects which did not correspond with the public good, were indefatigable in their efforts to pursuade the people to reject the advice of that patriotic Congress.

This degradation of officers of government from being servants of the people to beginning to serve their own interests was noticed within a few years. How ready are we for a cleansing when there has been over two centuries for such attitudes and actions to become ingrained in the psyche of our officers of government.

Before our nation was founded, the American people were confronted with politicians advocating division:

. . . politicians now appear, who insist that this opinion is erroneous (that the prosperity of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united), and that instead of looking for safety and happiness in union, we ought to seek it in a division of the States into distinct confederacies or sovereignties.

Today we have no such politicians professing that division is preferable to unity, but we have two very powerful parties that encourage us to take sides in a war against our fellow Americans. They have in common the trait of offering an us-against-them mentality to all who would enter their respective parties.

Is unity preferable to division among the people? Yes, but it need not be a union of universally held beliefs and perspectives. What we really need is a union of universally applied civility and a common striving for the good of the nation and the defense of the constitution upon which our nation is based rather than slipping to the baser instinct to pursue personal gain in the public arena and victory at all costs through the politics of division.

Categories
politics

Defining “Rights”

I liked this very succinct argument about why health care is not a right.

With one exception, the right to representation in court and a trial by jury, {the rights safeguarded in our Constitution} require nothing of any other citizen but that they recognize your rights and not interfere with them.

Your “right to health care” would require some other person to give up a portion of their life or their property to either treat you or to provide you with drugs or medical implements. The Constitution does not provide for another individual to be indentured to you in this manner.

Therefore, you have no “right” to health care.

What I really like is that this argument provides a plausible framework for distinguishing between fundamental rights and the manufactured “rights” that make for such good campaign promises. Does anyone else have any perspective on this argument (in general or specific to health care)?

Categories
life

Six Months to Digest

For the first time in years I got to sit through an entire general session of conference with almost no interruption. It was exciting to actually be able to listen to each speaker rather than simply catching bits and pieces (up to a whole talk) while answering the needs of the kids.  Isaac was sleeping and the girls pretty well took care of themselves with games (and a movie I think).

I also found the perfect way to take notes. I got the new embedded video stream on lds.org (we don’t have cable or reception of KSL on our TV) and shrunk the window down so that all I could see was the video. Then I opened a second window and sized it to fill the rest of the screen so I could take notes on my General Conference wiki (I love being able to link between talks and look up a list of every talk I have notes on by speaker, session, or year) on one side of the screen while watching the speaker on the other side of the screen. no more wondering for days if I spelled a speaker’s name wrong in my notes.

While I enjoyed the technical aspects of being able to take notes and listen more effectively, the best part was all the thoughts of how to do better. There were thoughts of comfort, and thoughts of prodding. I succeeded in my goal after last conference to review all the talks. Hopefully I can do even better than that in the next six months.

Categories
politics

Federalist No. 1

Starting on my goal to read the federalist papers and glean a greater understanding of the logic of the founders, today I tackled Federalist No. 1 – the introduction. I like the way that the topic is opened with the admission that noble intent may lead to the wrong side of a great question just as base intent may lead to the right side of the same question and we must therefore look to the truth, and not merely the intent of those who make the argument.

I also enjoyed the predictions of how the public discussion would play out – it sounded very familiar:

. . . we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives.

I also really liked that despite the goal to lead people to the truth so that they could make up their own mind the bias of the author is freely given:

Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt it (the constitution). I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I affect not reserves which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. (emphasis added)

It seems to me a mark of a strong character (and probably a strong position as well) that an author would openly admit their bias on the subject of their writing so that it can be openly challenged. It reminds me of one of my favorite quips if someone says I’m biased about my wife being pretty or my children being smart:

Just because I’m biased does not mean I’m wrong.