Month: June 2008

Categories
National politics

Original Intent

While I fully agree that the Electoral College was not an arbitrary decision and should not be abolished, I also think that we need to articulate the arguments in favor of the Electoral College better than simply stating:

Our Forefathers specifically wanted the STATES to elect the President and Vice President, not the general public.

That argument is about as compelling as the argument often used by those who want to abolish the Electoral College that we have the means to count every vote today (as if addition had not been invented back in 1789). Our Founding Fathers did want the states to elect the President and Vice President, but they also wanted the states to elect Senators. We passed the 17th Amendment to change that for Senators so reading history books may tell us that the Electoral College was a conscious choice by the founders, but those same history books also remind us that we have ignored the founders in the past and we could do so again in the 28th Amendment.

Categories
culture

Stability

As I have been exploring the issues of an ideal living environment I have come to the conclusion that there is a factor which I had not noticed before which can probably exist in almost any of the categories of places (large city, suburban, rural, etc.) which seems to have more influence over desirability of the location than size or amenities. That factor is stability of the area. In a city there are likely to be areas which have it and areas which don’t which means that looking at a whole city might be virtually useless in this search for an illusive ideal.

When I talk about stability I do not equate a static community environment with a stable community environment. Static indicates a lack of change to me where stable indicates sustainability. The two are largely independent of each other. A stable community would be one where residents are invested in the whole community and not simply their own household. It is one where there is likely to be less turnover because of that investment. I believe that this is the reason that our government tends to promote homeownership – the assumption is that ownership would tend towards becoming invested in the community.

I recognize that stability is not nearly as important at some stages of life (single college student for example) as it is at others (when you are trying to raise kids). I am basing my search for an ideal on the child-rearing situation partly because that is the stage I am at, but mostly because I believe that strong homes where children are being raised form the foundation of a strong society.

In a future post I will be exploring how to get into a stable community considering that they tend to have lower turnover. I’m sure that there are a variety of ways. I’ll be looking for insights both before and after I write that post.

So, critique me. Is stability as important as I have suggested? Have I defined it correctly? Are there factors that I have failed to notice? Besides resident buy-in to the community, what else contributes to stability in a community?

Categories
politics

Articles of Confederation

In the midst of my efforts to evaluate all the Federalist Papers, I realized that I had never read the Articles of Confederation which was the basis against which the Constitution was written and against which the Federalist Papers were generally basing their arguments.

The Articles of Confederation were the first attempt by the states at an independent and unified central government. As I have watched the rise of the European Union I have often thought that Europe was trying to recreate the structure of the United States government among their member states. As I read the Articles of Confederation I realize that what they have built looks much more like the Unites States from 1777 to 1788 under those articles than the United States after 1788 under the Constitution.

I will probably do more evaluation in a comparative fashion while reviewing the Federalist Papers and the Constitution, but a few points of interest that struck me as I read include:

    • Article 5 – The states determine the size of their congressional delegation (from 2 to 7) but each state has a single vote. Even more interesting were the term limits placed on each delegate – they could serve no more than 3 years out of any 6.
    • Article 9 – The congress of the united states, besides being the legislative body of the nation, served as the executive power for the nation (insofar as there was any executive power), and was charged with adjudicating, or establishing a temporary court to adjudicate, any dispute between two states – thus serving as (or controlling) the judicial branch of government.
    • Article 11 – Canada was explicitly invited to join the united states if it desired to but any other colony could join without the consent of 9 of the states.
Categories
National politics

Signs of Change

I was excited by the news that Obama Declares DNC Won’t Take PAC Money. I think that Lyall shares a good point from a letter to the WSJ editor that the way to really rein in lobbyists is to rein in government. (I wish Lyall provided a link.) If Obama can understand that truth then I have hope that he can effect such a change of culture in Washington if he becomes president. For that matter, if he does not become president he still might be able to make a positive change from the Senate since he has shown his obvious commitment to do things differently and he has some influence that might be used to convince others to follow his lead.

I hope that Democratic lawmakers will follow the lead of the DNC (it may be too much to hope, but while we’re at it the Republicans should do the same thing). Maybe Obama could accept McCain’s offer to do townhall style discussions around the country on the condition that McCain put the GOP on the path of refusing PAC money.

Categories
National politics

Primary Season is Finally Over

With the official end of the primary season I can finally end my self-imposed ban on posting about the primaries. Of course Maureen Dowd has already said everything that needs to be said about the current situation. So there are three options for my vote in November (in order of my preference):

  1. Obama keeps his promise to work out a deal with the republican nominee to stick with public financing for the general election and I vote for Obama.
  2. Obama breaks his promise on public financing but does not put Clinton on the ticket and I am free to vote for someone else.
  3. Obama takes Clinton on as his running-mate (which would almost certainly include opting out of public financing) and I vote for McCain (even McCain would have a better chance at uniting the country that Obama with Clinton on the ticket).

I did not start out in the Anyone But Clinton (ABC) camp but these last two months of the primary campaign have convinced me that ABC is the best course for this country.

I admit that it’s very easy for me to announce how I would vote my conscience far in advance because no matter what I do my vote in the Electoral College is 5 votes for McCain – like it or not.

Categories
politics State

Toll Roads and MVC

Nobody should be surprised that some west-side cities don’t like the idea of tolling on the Mountain View Corridor. Some are suggesting that it is unfair. I think tolling generally is not a bad idea but I think I would agree that tolling on MVC while leaving I-15 free would be unfair to the growing west-side.

A state study found the tolls would pay for about $1.1 billion of Mountain View’s $1.8 billion price tag. But council members worry about long-term costs.

They fear some residents may have to cough up $200 a month to use the road. They also worry about fee-dodging commuters bypassing the highway altogether, clogging up and wearing down other routes.

While the Utah Department of Transportation has not selected a toll road as its preferred funding option – it’s being considered along with sales or gas taxes and car-registration fees – the council members want to kill the idea for good.

It would make more sense to me to toll I-15 if we wanted to toll only one of those roads. It is the more direct route for the majority of commuters and would be likely to generate higher revenue and have fewer people trying to go around the toll road. Personally, I think the best plan would be to add congestion pricing to both roads. That would be fair to both sides of the valley and revenue would be more reflective of actual usage on the roads because the higher usage roads would generate the most revenue for maintenance and future expansion.

Categories
politics

Popular Misconceptions

In arguing that the appellate court was wrong on the FLDS Sunny Hostin perpetuates some very popular myths that help CPS and many people following the story to assuage their guilt about the hostile actions being heaped upon this fringe community. Here we will debunk some of those myths. Thanks to the format of Ms. Hostin’s commentary it will be easy to take it a point at a time.

Isn’t this a polygamist ranch we are talking about? Under Texas law, it’s illegal to be married to more than one person. Weren’t all of these children living on a ranch purchased in 2003 and built by Warren Jeffs, the self-proclaimed prophet of the group, who was convicted last year in Utah of being an accomplice to rape?

Yes they were.

This is guilt by association using Warren Jeffs as a convenient Straw Man. The argument would be much stronger if Jeffs had stepped foot on the ranch in the past two years.

Weren’t there 20 girls living at the ranch who had become pregnant between the ages of 13 and 17 and “spiritually married” to old men picked for them by Jeffs or his followers?

Yes there were.

Um, no, there weren’t. The original estimate was 26 and was later upwardly revised to 31. Of those 31 fifteen were proven to be over 17 and one was 14 but was not and never had been pregnant. So only 15 might fit the description but of those 15 we have no data on how old any of them were within the 13 – 17 range and it is possible for any 16 or 17 year-old to be legally married and thus legitimately pregnant. No evidence has been put forth to prove that any of those 15 were married against their will or illegally “married”. We may speculate that some or all of them were, but in a court of law speculation carries no weight.

And if you live on this ranch, don’t you believe in polygamy, arranged marriages between young girls and old men, and that Jeffs is a prophet?

I would think so.

And yet we know of families living on the ranch who did not believe in those things. Probability is high for any family believing in those things but CPS made no distinctions and last I checked we don’t discriminate against belief in this country so they need something more solid than that.

And if you are a young girl that lives on this ranch, isn’t it true you will also be “spiritually married” to an old man chosen for you? Yes to that too. And isn’t this dangerous for the children? What do you think?

Dangerous for which children – note that the standard in Texas for removing children from their parents is “immediate danger.” What is the immediate danger to a five year-old?

There are some fundamental problems with the court’s opinion. The court states that because not all FLDS families are polygamous or allow their female children to marry as minors, the entire ranch community does not subscribe to polygamy. Wrong.

So the entire ranch does subscribe to polygamy – just not the entire ranch . . . I must be missing something.

The court even reasoned that under Texas law, “it is not sexual assault to have consensual intercourse with a minor spouse to whom one is legally married” and that Texas law “allows minor to marry — as young as age 16 with parental consent and younger than 16 if pursuant to court order.” Wrong again.

So the argument here is that it is sexual assault to have consensual intercourse with a minor spouse. This implies that Texas condones sexual assault since it explicitly allows minors to get married as stated above.

The polygamists are not “legally married” to anyone since it is illegal to marry more than one person. They are “spiritually married” and abusing young girls. Finally, the court also states there “was no evidence that …. the female children who had not reached puberty, were victims of sexual or other physical abuse or in danger of being victims if sexual or other physical abuse.”

Oh, I get it. The Department should wait until the kids are actually abused before doing anything.

Actually, these older men are legally married to one of their wives – only the other wives may be cause for abuse charges if they are underage. (If they are not underage then this is just a publicly recognized extra-marital affair – have we started prosecuting those in Texas?) Ms. Hostin is ignoring a huge loophole in the opinion of the appelate court – they recognize that girls who have reached puberty may be deemed to be in immediate danger so CPS can act before they are abused. Of the 450 kids taken, half were under 5 – definitely not in immediate danger. Of the remaining 225 the boys under 16 and the girls under 10 are not in immediate danger of abuse.

Whatever number of children that leaves (let’s generously estimate that it was 100), CPS would have a legitimate reason to take into state custody while they investigate and prosecute any abuse. By taking all 450 children CPS overstepped their bounds and that is why the appellate court was right – as the Texas Supreme Court ruled last week.

Categories
culture

Big Cities

Large cities (I mean those with populations exceeding half a million people) seem to be ideal from a commercial and industrial perspective with a large number of people in one area to supply a workforce and a large body of consumers. With the exception of businesses that require open space (ranching/farming for example) large cities would seem to be equal or superior to any other population arrangement.

When it comes to the question of what is best for individuals though, I don’t think that such close proximity to so many other people is desirable for some people (certainly not for me). I believe that there are great advantages such as access to cultural and entertainment options that are more available in large cities than they are in other settings but I can’t see those outweighing the noise and crowding of the city to make living there preferable to living close enough to access the amenities.

I admit to a lack of experience with large cities. I have visited Chicago, Orlando, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., Denver, and Albuquerque (and Phoenix, but that was long enough ago that I don’t think it would have counted), but the largest city I have lived in is St. Louis which is not quite that large. Does anyone see any advantages or disadvantages of living in large cities that I may have missed?