Tag: media

Categories
culture National politics State technology

The Government Hammer

My father-in-law is known for saying, “When you have a hammer everything looks like a nail.” Thomas Sowell talks about political crises created by Political “Solutions.”

Government laws and policies, especially the Community Reinvestment Act, pressured lenders to invest in people and places where they would not invest otherwise. Government also created the temporarily very low interest rates that made the mortgages seem affordable for the moment. . .

As for the flames sweeping across southern California, tragic as that is, this has happened time and again before — in the very same places in the very same time of year, just like hurricanes.

Why would people risk building million-dollar homes in the known paths of wildfires? For the same reason that people choose to live in the known paths of hurricanes. Because the government — that is, the taxpayers — will get stuck with a lot of the costs of dealing with those dangers and the costs of rebuilding.

Why is there such a huge amount of inflammable vegetation over such a wide area that fires can reach unstoppable proportions by the time they get to places where people live? Because “open space” has become a political sacred cow beyond rational discussion. . .

In other words, government preserves all the conditions for wildfires and subsidizes people who live in their path.

As for water shortages . . . The federal government’s water projects supply much of the water used in California that enables agriculture to flourish in what would otherwise be a desert.

We have created a culture where government is the solution to every every social “problem” (many time government is used to address preferences like open space which are not actually problems) just as technology is the solution to every technical problem. Lawmakers don’t intend to create crises, but crisis is the natural result when government gets involved in things that it was not designed to address (things like the cost of water or the price of home loans). In other words, if you have a hammer everything may look like a nail, but no matter how skillfully you hammer on a screw it won’t work like a screw – you need a screw driver to succeed with screws.

Categories
politics State

Missing the Mark

I was gone for most of yesterday so today I saw the mail I got yesterday including a voucher mailing “Who’s opinion do you trust?” On the pro-voucher side they list four prominent state and national Republicans and on the anti-voucher side they list four prominent national Democrats.

I looked at the list of Republicans and 3 of the 4 I completely don’t trust (nor do they represent my values). Not much better than the 4 out of 4 that I don’t trust of the Democrats they showed. That’s hardly going to make me vote for vouchers.

Categories
National politics

What is Our Narrative?

I found it interesting to read what Michael Barone had to say about politicians who were successful as they presented a narrative of where the country was an what it needed to move forward. Of our current parties and candidates he says:

Neither party is presenting a narrative, as the Roosevelts and Reagan did, that takes due note of America’s great strengths and achievements. Each seems to take the course, easier in a time of polarized politics, of lambasting the opposition.

That got me wondering, what kind of a narrative would be successful today – and will any candidate present such a narrative? I think I might take a look at the various candidates again for myself to see if there are narratives from their campaigns that Mr. Barone is missing. Does anyone see a candidate who is presenting what they feel is a compelling narrative?

Categories
politics State

Get Vouchers Right Next Time

It’s not often that I get to see Utah featured in a nationally syndicated column about a positive policy debate. Usually when Utah makes the national news it’s for things like a mine disaster, raging wildfires, or polygamy. Today John Stossel wrote about the voucher issue in Utah. Naturally he is in favor of vouchers – like I am, but the Utah legislature was kind enough to give us such a bad proposal that it’s a no-win situation for those who favor parental choice. It’s easy for people outside of Utah to say “take the leap and give parents more options” but those of us inside Utah who have studied the issue know that it’s not that clear-cut.

If we get vouchers (which does not look very likely right now) we will have a poor implementation that will be used to ridicule the idea elsewhere while we pay the price for our mistakes. If we vote against Referendum 1 – as I plan to – our votes will be painted as opposition to parental choice.

Let me clear up the message of the vote I will cast next week on this. I am in favor of parental choice and I think that vouchers can be a useful vehicle to encourage parental choice but HB148 and HB174 do not make for a good implementation of vouchers. I hope that their defeat next week will not discourage those who want more parental choice. I hope instead that it will force them to come up with a much better solution. Besides learning something about crafting good law, they can also learn something about engaging in shady politics. Parents for Choice in Education should clean up their act or be shunned. They need to do a much better job at defending the issue if they are involved and they need to avoid the political trickery that is more a smear on them than a strategy for changing public opinion.

Categories
culture politics

Put Virtual Politics on the Ground

I have been thinking about the words of Tom Friedman when he wrote about what he calls Generation Q.

I am impressed because they are so much more optimistic and idealistic than they should be. I am baffled because they are so much less radical and politically engaged than they need to be. . .

The Iraq war may be a mess, but I noticed at Auburn and Ole Miss more than a few young men and women proudly wearing their R.O.T.C. uniforms. Many of those not going abroad have channeled their national service impulses into increasingly popular programs at home like “Teach for America,” which has become to this generation what the Peace Corps was to mine.

It’s for all these reasons that I’ve been calling them “Generation Q” — the Quiet Americans, in the best sense of that term, quietly pursuing their idealism, at home and abroad.

But Generation Q may be too quiet, too online, for its own good, and for the country’s own good. . .

America needs a jolt of the idealism, activism and outrage (it must be in there) of Generation Q. That’s what twentysomethings are for — to light a fire under the country. But they can’t e-mail it in, and an online petition or a mouse click for carbon neutrality won’t cut it. They have to get organized in a way that will force politicians to pay attention rather than just patronize them.

Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy didn’t change the world by asking people to join their Facebook crusades or to download their platforms. Activism can only be uploaded, the old-fashioned way — by young voters speaking truth to power, face to face, in big numbers, on campuses or the Washington Mall. Virtual politics is just that — virtual.

I am among those who feels right at home in the world of the internet whether I am pursuing my political interests, searching for some bit of information or trying to decide about my next major purchase. I see lots of political dialog on the internet, but I also realize that all the blog posts in the world don’t have the same power as a meeting with candidates or elected officials to discuss an issue. I know that talking about liking one candidate or position will never have the same reach of influence that speaking with my wallet has.

The main stream media is spending more and more time talking about the power of internet based politics and the parties and candidates are getting better at engaging within this new medium of communication. Perhaps it is easy for us “digital natives” to mistake this as evidence that this has become the primary mode for political action. We put ourselves and our views in danger unless we take time to remember that the primary means of achieving political influence is and always will be the same as it was when our country was founded. Writing posts may have replaced writing tracts or pamphlets, but the real power to make things happen comes in gathering together to share ideas so that people will be energized to go out and vote at the ballot box and also lend their resources (time, energy, and money) to bring about the goals that they had previously only talked about.

Categories
National politics

Congress – Do Something

A month into the fiscal year and Congress has not presented an appropriations bill for the President to sign because they don’t care enough about making things work when there are accusations to be flung, fights to pick (like SCHIP), and post offices to be named. The New York Times takes issue with the fact that they are putting the 2010 census at risk by failing to fund it.

The sad part of all this dithering in Congress is that there are more funding issues like the census, where there is little disagreement about how much funding it should receive, than there are like SCHIP where there is much disagreement about funding. The other sad thing is that the things where there is little disagreement are generally more important for keeping the government functioning than the bills where there is contention. The New York Times suggests that Congress should fund the census with their emergency appropriations bill for the California fires. They also offer a decent reason to explain the combination.

I agree and I think that Congress should also set about submitting an appropriations bill on all the other issues where there is little disagreement on the funding – at least we could ensure that parts of the government are funded while issues such as SCHIP are being “discussed.”

Categories
culture

Julie Beck Knows

Let me start off by saying that I absolutely loved Sister Beck’s talk. I was almost as excited about it as Laura was about President Eyring in the First Presidency (she cheered out loud at that announcement). I don’t try to push my thoughts on those subjects here but I heard about a RadioWest show discussing the talk and I had to comment.

My basic impression of the show was that it was the typical dithering that we find whenever we try to tackle a spiritual topic from a secular viewpoint. The discussion rings hollow in many places. My favorite comment from the participants came from Julie Smith who pointed out that this talk was pointed specifically at mothers and that despite all the emphasis in the church on being mothers there is very little counsel directed specifically at mothers. On the other hand there was commentary such as the statement by Marie Cornwall (sp?) that the option to stay at home is not an economic reality for most people. She states that in Utah a family must have a minimum household income of $70,000 to purchase a median home. This is blatantly untrue. It is based on some economic assumptions that run counter to the counsel that has been given repeatedly to church members so those who live in that economic reality are undermining their own ability to follow this counsel being given now. The fact is that I purchased a very decent house less than 2 years ago and I could afford this house on just over half of the income that she cited. (To afford my house now with my current debt would require more than that, but I could still afford it at it’s current value on much less than $70K.)

The last caller, Reina (sp?) from Pocatello, expressed the same sentiments that I have and that Laura has as someone who has chosen to stay at home that the talk was right on. She nailed the truth with “if the talk is taken in the spirit that she delivered it there is no way that anyone can be offended mom or not, stay-at-home mom or working mom.”

I not only listened to the show, but I tracked down some of the blogosphere discussion that was referenced in the show (Julie Smith, Kristine, TftCarrie, fMhLisa). I found that most discussion seemed to miss the point of the talk that our focus in parenting (mothering specifically) needs to change. There was plenty of discussion about how the high standards illustrated in the talk make some people feel guilty. I have long been concerned as I looked at the mothers in my neighborhood that even those who are following all the counsel of staying at home to raise their children are doing too much. They engage in so many activities that their children do not get the highest level of mother’s attention that they need. Those who have tried to avoid the pull of a society that tells the lie that you can do everything found this talk very validating because it made it much easier to let go of the pull of the world that wants us to tear ourselves apart having it all.

Sister Beck was telling us to make a choice and quit trying to be everything to everyone all the time. We have to accept that a woman can’t be a great employee, and a great mother, and a great community activist, and everything else which she might want to do well all at the same time. (In the same vein a father can’t be a great father, and a great breadwinner, and a great activist, and a pursue every hobby to which he is inclined at the same time.) I believe that women can “have it all” if they choose, but not all at once nor should they feel pressured into choosing to “have it all.” My mother-in-law is a great example of this. She chose to postpone her education when she started having children. She eventually finished her college degree after three of her children had finished theirs and she now works because she feels the desire to work. I guarantee that she is happier to have raised her children by giving them her undivided attention than she would have been if she had tried to do all of that at once.

Categories
culture

Real Life Choose Your Own Adventure

I was surprised by the news that JK Rowling announced that Dumbledore was gay. At first I was annoyed that she would take the time to insert something into the story that was never apparent in any of the books. It sounded like she was going back and writing an alternate ending after everyone had already purchased the book. If she were going to write more books I would be more open to such amove, but with the series over it seemed rather tactless.

As my annoyance festered I looked closer into the news and found that the story is not quite what the headlines made it out to be. Rowling always thought of Dumbledore as being gay – that’s fine, she’s the author and is entitled to think of her characters as she chooses. It was not enough of an issue as she wrote the books to make her write that into the stories so it should not be made an issue after they are done. I suspect that it would not have become an issue if she had not encountered questions related to Dumbledore. Apparently there was reference in some of the screen writing for the movies that have not yet been made in the series to a female romantic interest in Dumbledore’s past. That was not in the book anymore than his being gay and she is perfectly welcome to make sure that it is not inserted into the movies. The fact that it almost was put in the movie proves that his being gay really was not in the books.

She revealed her inner view of Dumbledore in response to a question from the audience where she was speaking. I have no problems with whatever her personal view was on Dumbledore but I hope that they don’t make it more of an issue in the movies than she did in the books.

Categories
culture

Doing the Impossible

I thought it interesting to learn about the blog post from Bobby Calvan – the blog no longer exists – which proves that nothing is impossible. (Hat tip Steve Urquhart) For those who are interested the entire post – and the 197 comments that were generated in just over 3 hours – has been preserved by Doc Weasle.

A brief summary would go like this – Bobby, a reporter, is in a hurry in Baghdad and is delayed by an American soldier because of insufficient identification at a checkpoint. He is feels superior to the soldier because this particular soldier has not heard of Knight Ridder (and pronounces the name wrong to boot). He then takes to time to blog about the incident as evidence that the American soldiers, “are the absolute worst.”

In feeling so intellectually superior to this soldier he demonstrates that one bit of trivia is not proof of a great body of knowledge. Apparently he is unaware that Knight Ridder is not a household name (like the Associated Press, or ever Reuters might be) because they don’t publish anything with their name. In other words, they are exactly one step further up the money chain than most readers ever dig into their news sources.

The post proves that even in Baghdad Bobby Calvan felt safe enough to cop an attitude with a soldier and that it doesn’t take long to have almost 200 people tell him off for it.

I’m not sure which is harder – uniting the internet (like Bobby Calvan did) or enforcing democracy as an outsider (like the soldier in Baghdad is trying to do). Hopefully the soldiers will eventually be as successful as Mr. Calvan has been.

Categories
culture politics

Speak Up

I loved seeing How to Get Involved in Political Process at KSL. It talks about how to go beyond voting and pontificating to actually making a difference politically. There are many ways to be involved between the voting and serving in an elected capacity. If you really want to make things happen you can look into being a delegate or a lobbyist. (I know – lobbyists have a bad reputation among some groups.)

Other than primary elections, political analysts say it’s one of the simplest ways to effect politics on the ground level, where anyone can help determine who gets a party’s nomination for president.”Anybody can file to become a delegate,” said Craig Axford, Democratic National Committee party organization director for Utah.

. . . To become a delegate that goes to the national convention, first you have be chosen as a county delegate at party caucus meetings or neighborhood precincts, then get elected as a state delegate. . .

Both parties will hold their caucus meetings March 25. The only difference between the two parties is the Republicans will pick county and state delegates at the same time.

If a particular bill is more important to you than a specific candidate, then maybe becoming a lobbyist is more for you.

I also learned a lot from a presentation at the American Solutions conference by Stephen Goldsmith titled Citizenship and Local Government: You Can (and Must) Make a Difference. (download his presentation and the transcript of the Q&A portion of the session.)

The overall lesson from these seems to be that we have to speak up to affect change. Anyone who tells you to pipe down does not trust democracy. Just remember that speaking up does not mean shouting down those who disagree with you. People should express their diverse opinions. If you think the prevailing message is not accurate then track down the facts and learn how to make yourself heard. If after you do that people vote differently than you, they are only exercising the very freedom that made this country great.