Our national government approves budgets year after year with huge deficits. It looks like the next few years will be no exception. Perhaps we should consider a proposal that deficit spending never be permitted without simultaneously proposing partial budgets 10 years into the future which show what programs will be cut or what revenues will be raised which will pay off the debt. There must be a plan to pay off all such debts within the ten year window.
Right now, there is no negative consequence for a congressman to support deficit spending other than the vague statement that they are "spending our grandchildren's inheritance." It is too easy to wave away such nebulous statements. They should be forced to say what, specifically, they are going to take away from the next generation to allow for the present largess.
Think of them as Debt Horizons. A distant point, but a visible one, where we know that the debts will be paid off, and how.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
October surprise?
Report: Iranian president has fallen ill
NKorea's Kim Jong Il sick...
That George Bush! He's going to wipe out the axis of evil one way or another. Maybe he sent them "special" fruit baskets as a going-away present. We'll see if the next headline is "Sources: Osama bin Laden, Confined to "Hospital" Cave.
NKorea's Kim Jong Il sick...
That George Bush! He's going to wipe out the axis of evil one way or another. Maybe he sent them "special" fruit baskets as a going-away present. We'll see if the next headline is "Sources: Osama bin Laden, Confined to "Hospital" Cave.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Part II: Chaffetz vs. Spencer, Q&A
I was lucky enough to attend the blogger-only debate between Jason Chaffetz (R) and Bennion Spencer (D), held at the Sutherland Institute on Tuesday morning. I've broken my posts on this event into two parts--my general impressions and thoughts for the first post, and specific questions and answers for the second.
The debate's questions were garnered from various bloggers ahead of time, and given to the candidates in advance. I was very interested in the questions that focused on situations a (very junior) congressman might have some control over. (It's fine to ask them when we should pull the troops out of Iraq, but that is not an issue that our Congressman will have a whole heck of a lot of say in.) (All in my own words, as I did not record the debate.)
Question: Define excess profits/windfall profits and what industry is next after the oil companies?
Chaffetz: Opposed to the windfall profit tax, it is not a solution to our current problems. Transportation decisions should be in the hands of the states, not funded through earmarks and gas taxes. "We don't have a revenue problem in this country, we have a spending problem."
Spencer: Agreed that the windfall profit tax is not the solution, because how much profit is too much? The oil industry has shareholders, who expect the company to grow responsibly. However, these companies get tax breaks to spend money on alternative fuels, and instead gave the money back to their shareholders. We shouldn't tax them more, but we do need to "hold their feet to the fire" to make sure they do what they should.
My response: I dislike the windfall profit tax, so I'm with Chaffetz on this one. Spencer mentions that the oil industry gets tax breaks specifically intended for alternative fuel development, but then gave the money to their shareholders. If this is true, then the oil companies should have to give the tax break back. I'm not sure, however, how you "hold their feet to the fire". Is the threat of a windfall tax an empty one? I don't get that impression.
Question: What steps will you take to lead as an American and not as a Democrat/Republican?
Chaffetz: We need to stop worrying about who gets the credit for a good idea, and support it anyway. He mentioned that he would be happy to be co-sponsor on Jim Matheson's (D-UT) bill against Yucca Mountain and the importation of nuclear waste.
Spencer: He believes that term limits are a good solution to this problem. We need to take a stand even when there is no political benefit, even when it goes against the party. He mentioned the off-shore drilling bill being discussed in Congress right now, and said it was pointless because it is the governors of the various states who get to make that decision, not the federal government.
My response: Well, despite being from Las Vegas, I actually support Yucca Mountain, so I'm against Chaffetz and Matheson on that one. And as far as the off-shore drilling bill goes, it is my understanding that until the federal government lifts the ban, the governors cannot make any decision to drill at all.
Question: What are the biggest threats we face, domestically and internationally?
Spencer: Illegal immigration, the national debt and dollar value, and Russia, Iran, and Pakistan
Chaffetz: Driving down the debt (dollar value again), illegal immigration, and energy policy (giving money to extremists)
My response: Agree, except I think the War on Terror should be in there somewhere.
Question: When does life begin?
Spencer and Chaffetz: At conception. Both anti-abortion.
My response: Ditto
Question: Is health care a constitutional right?
Spencer: It's not in the constitution, but our founders were divinely inspired and moral people. We do have a moral obligation to help our community have a certain standard of living, it's just the right thing to do. Health care is a right--the government provides so many of the services that we can't discriminate.
Chaffetz: No, health care is not a right. This isn't a question for the federal government, it should be more in the hands of the private sector and the state. We can't just stop subsidizing it, though, because we have an obligation to people dependent upon the entitlements. No socialized medicine.
My response: Yes, yes, but what specifically should we do about it? I know that wasn't the question, though.
Question: What should be done about transparency in the government?
Spencer: The Fourth Estate (media) needs to step up. Sen. Obama has suggested that more things be put on C-Span, but Spencer isn't sure how compelling that will be. Press needs to do a better job, the public needs to demand they do so.
Chaffetz: Open up the books so that everyone can see where all the money is coming from--even in small donations. He's done this in his own campaign. Everything should be online--everything. No more blind earmarks (he's signed the pledge) and more daylight on large bills so they can be examined thoroughly.
My response: Spencer has a point, but I'm at a loss at how the government proposes to do anything about it. I definitely (positively, adamantly) don't want the Fairness Doctrine, nor do I want the government to force the press to do anything more than they already have to do. I love the idea of everything online, though...obviously!
The debate's questions were garnered from various bloggers ahead of time, and given to the candidates in advance. I was very interested in the questions that focused on situations a (very junior) congressman might have some control over. (It's fine to ask them when we should pull the troops out of Iraq, but that is not an issue that our Congressman will have a whole heck of a lot of say in.) (All in my own words, as I did not record the debate.)
Question: Define excess profits/windfall profits and what industry is next after the oil companies?
Chaffetz: Opposed to the windfall profit tax, it is not a solution to our current problems. Transportation decisions should be in the hands of the states, not funded through earmarks and gas taxes. "We don't have a revenue problem in this country, we have a spending problem."
Spencer: Agreed that the windfall profit tax is not the solution, because how much profit is too much? The oil industry has shareholders, who expect the company to grow responsibly. However, these companies get tax breaks to spend money on alternative fuels, and instead gave the money back to their shareholders. We shouldn't tax them more, but we do need to "hold their feet to the fire" to make sure they do what they should.
My response: I dislike the windfall profit tax, so I'm with Chaffetz on this one. Spencer mentions that the oil industry gets tax breaks specifically intended for alternative fuel development, but then gave the money to their shareholders. If this is true, then the oil companies should have to give the tax break back. I'm not sure, however, how you "hold their feet to the fire". Is the threat of a windfall tax an empty one? I don't get that impression.
Question: What steps will you take to lead as an American and not as a Democrat/Republican?
Chaffetz: We need to stop worrying about who gets the credit for a good idea, and support it anyway. He mentioned that he would be happy to be co-sponsor on Jim Matheson's (D-UT) bill against Yucca Mountain and the importation of nuclear waste.
Spencer: He believes that term limits are a good solution to this problem. We need to take a stand even when there is no political benefit, even when it goes against the party. He mentioned the off-shore drilling bill being discussed in Congress right now, and said it was pointless because it is the governors of the various states who get to make that decision, not the federal government.
My response: Well, despite being from Las Vegas, I actually support Yucca Mountain, so I'm against Chaffetz and Matheson on that one. And as far as the off-shore drilling bill goes, it is my understanding that until the federal government lifts the ban, the governors cannot make any decision to drill at all.
Question: What are the biggest threats we face, domestically and internationally?
Spencer: Illegal immigration, the national debt and dollar value, and Russia, Iran, and Pakistan
Chaffetz: Driving down the debt (dollar value again), illegal immigration, and energy policy (giving money to extremists)
My response: Agree, except I think the War on Terror should be in there somewhere.
Question: When does life begin?
Spencer and Chaffetz: At conception. Both anti-abortion.
My response: Ditto
Question: Is health care a constitutional right?
Spencer: It's not in the constitution, but our founders were divinely inspired and moral people. We do have a moral obligation to help our community have a certain standard of living, it's just the right thing to do. Health care is a right--the government provides so many of the services that we can't discriminate.
Chaffetz: No, health care is not a right. This isn't a question for the federal government, it should be more in the hands of the private sector and the state. We can't just stop subsidizing it, though, because we have an obligation to people dependent upon the entitlements. No socialized medicine.
My response: Yes, yes, but what specifically should we do about it? I know that wasn't the question, though.
Question: What should be done about transparency in the government?
Spencer: The Fourth Estate (media) needs to step up. Sen. Obama has suggested that more things be put on C-Span, but Spencer isn't sure how compelling that will be. Press needs to do a better job, the public needs to demand they do so.
Chaffetz: Open up the books so that everyone can see where all the money is coming from--even in small donations. He's done this in his own campaign. Everything should be online--everything. No more blind earmarks (he's signed the pledge) and more daylight on large bills so they can be examined thoroughly.
My response: Spencer has a point, but I'm at a loss at how the government proposes to do anything about it. I definitely (positively, adamantly) don't want the Fairness Doctrine, nor do I want the government to force the press to do anything more than they already have to do. I love the idea of everything online, though...obviously!
Part I: Chaffetz vs. Spencer, Impressions
I was lucky enough to attend the blogger-only debate between Jason Chaffetz (R) and Bennion Spencer (D), held at the Sutherland Institute on Tuesday morning. (I apologize for the delay in getting this posted; my excuse is a sudden, crippling bout of the flu.) I've broken my posts on this event into two parts--my general impressions and thoughts for the first post, and specific questions and answers for the second.
There are numerous policy (and other) differences between the two candidates. The difference that struck me the most? Jason Chaffetz benefited greatly from his hard-fought primary race. Going up against a long-term incumbent (Chris Cannon), as well as another determined opponent (David Leavitt) forced Chaffetz to refine his positions, formulate specific solutions, and practice talking about them. This was very obvious as he spoke about his plans for energy, budgets, earmarks, education, windfall profits...most of the major issues of this election. On the other hand, Bennion Spencer (who did not have to go through the wringer in the same way during his primary run; did he have an opponent?) had far fewer specifics, and more platitudes--long on vision, short on specifics. Vision is great, but in contrast with Chaffetz, Spencer at times seemed that he was just going through the motions, reading off the expected boilerplate.
In his opening remarks, Chaffetz mentioned that he is running a debt-free campaign, an idea that is very attractive to me. I don't, however, expect or demand that everyone do the same--unless EVERY everybody did the same, to level the playing field. You often have to play the game by the current rules to be able to do anything about changing said rules. Likewise, Spencer is firmly in favor of term limits--another idea that I support, but only when everyone does it. Term limiting only yourself in a seniority-favored House doesn't make a lot of sense.
I had more issues with Spencer's remarks than with Chaffetz's--I don't think it was because I agree with Chaffetz's positions, but I will readily admit that bias is hard to identify in yourself. Spencer mentioned that perhaps the Iraqi war could have been avoided if the US had actively supported Akbar Rafsanjani for the Iranian presidency, because he is more pro-US than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Rafsanjani could have prevailed on Iraq to be more reasonable.
I have a hard time crediting this statement. First of all, in my recollection Spencer said we wouldn't have had to invade Iraq if Rafsanjani had been president--but the Ahmadinejad-Rafsanjani presidential race didn't happen until 2005, two years after the invasion. If I misheard, and Spencer said something about things being easier with the war if Rafsanjani were president, I still don't know that I can believe it. Iranians aren't really super-fond of US "meddling", and if we had supported Rafsanjani, couldn't that have hurt him as likely as helping?
When speaking of energy independence in his opening remarks, Spencer said he didn't believe that drilling in ANWR would help our current crisis, because we couldn't guarantee that the oil would stay in the US. In my understanding, this is a non-issue. We don't expect to fill all our oil needs with ANWR. But by having that extra oil on the world market, it would ease prices, and allow the world to have another source that doesn't support radical causes. The actual oil doesn't have to stay in the US for this to happen.
Despite my distrust of a few statements, I came away with good impressions of both men--we are truly lucky that the 3rd Congressional District will have an honorable representative, no matter who wins. It was a good debate--friendly, informative, short (a big plus in my book). Thanks to the Sutherland Institute for sponsoring it, and for inviting me!
There are numerous policy (and other) differences between the two candidates. The difference that struck me the most? Jason Chaffetz benefited greatly from his hard-fought primary race. Going up against a long-term incumbent (Chris Cannon), as well as another determined opponent (David Leavitt) forced Chaffetz to refine his positions, formulate specific solutions, and practice talking about them. This was very obvious as he spoke about his plans for energy, budgets, earmarks, education, windfall profits...most of the major issues of this election. On the other hand, Bennion Spencer (who did not have to go through the wringer in the same way during his primary run; did he have an opponent?) had far fewer specifics, and more platitudes--long on vision, short on specifics. Vision is great, but in contrast with Chaffetz, Spencer at times seemed that he was just going through the motions, reading off the expected boilerplate.
In his opening remarks, Chaffetz mentioned that he is running a debt-free campaign, an idea that is very attractive to me. I don't, however, expect or demand that everyone do the same--unless EVERY everybody did the same, to level the playing field. You often have to play the game by the current rules to be able to do anything about changing said rules. Likewise, Spencer is firmly in favor of term limits--another idea that I support, but only when everyone does it. Term limiting only yourself in a seniority-favored House doesn't make a lot of sense.
I had more issues with Spencer's remarks than with Chaffetz's--I don't think it was because I agree with Chaffetz's positions, but I will readily admit that bias is hard to identify in yourself. Spencer mentioned that perhaps the Iraqi war could have been avoided if the US had actively supported Akbar Rafsanjani for the Iranian presidency, because he is more pro-US than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Rafsanjani could have prevailed on Iraq to be more reasonable.
I have a hard time crediting this statement. First of all, in my recollection Spencer said we wouldn't have had to invade Iraq if Rafsanjani had been president--but the Ahmadinejad-Rafsanjani presidential race didn't happen until 2005, two years after the invasion. If I misheard, and Spencer said something about things being easier with the war if Rafsanjani were president, I still don't know that I can believe it. Iranians aren't really super-fond of US "meddling", and if we had supported Rafsanjani, couldn't that have hurt him as likely as helping?
When speaking of energy independence in his opening remarks, Spencer said he didn't believe that drilling in ANWR would help our current crisis, because we couldn't guarantee that the oil would stay in the US. In my understanding, this is a non-issue. We don't expect to fill all our oil needs with ANWR. But by having that extra oil on the world market, it would ease prices, and allow the world to have another source that doesn't support radical causes. The actual oil doesn't have to stay in the US for this to happen.
Despite my distrust of a few statements, I came away with good impressions of both men--we are truly lucky that the 3rd Congressional District will have an honorable representative, no matter who wins. It was a good debate--friendly, informative, short (a big plus in my book). Thanks to the Sutherland Institute for sponsoring it, and for inviting me!
Friday, September 05, 2008
Let's go fly a kite...
Just a quick note...This afternoon my three kids and I went to Spanish Fork's 1st Annual Sky Spectacular (or, as my four-year-old calls it, the Kite Festival). (If I was more on top of things, I would have cute pictures to show. Alas, I forgot to take my camera.) We had a marvelous time. If you are in the area, I highly recommend checking it out on Saturday.
Whether or not you agree with our windmills here in Spanish Fork (I happen to like them), I think you'll have a great time if you come to the festival. Enjoy the weather and the weekend!
(This almost sounds like a paid advertisement. It isn't, promise! We just had a great time, and wanted to share.)
- It's free
- It's outside (up at the Spanish Fork Reservoir, above the Spanish Oaks Golf Course), and the forecast for tomorrow doesn't even hit 80 degrees! Gorgeous.
- Several (free) kids' activities--make your own kites, decorate tiles, a new playground by the pavilion, public kite-flying
- Amazing professional kite-flying (Seriously, this stuff was awesome. HUGE kites, being towed behind jet-skis on the reservoir, doing tricks)
- Vendors and sponsors tents--many with environmentally-friendly tips and products, candy for the kiddos, and interesting conversations. Plus not-so-terribly-expensive hot dogs and BBQ (or just bring your own food)
Whether or not you agree with our windmills here in Spanish Fork (I happen to like them), I think you'll have a great time if you come to the festival. Enjoy the weather and the weekend!
(This almost sounds like a paid advertisement. It isn't, promise! We just had a great time, and wanted to share.)
Monday, September 01, 2008
Glass Ceilings
I just read something that...well, ticked me off. Don't ask me why this of all things set me off, but it did:
ARGHHHHHH.
It's[the Palin VP pick] a cornucopia of paradox: Her candidacy is somehow supposed to be a glass-ceiling-shattering inspiration, even though she actively opposes feminist causes like equal pay and reproductive choice. (Dana Stevens, Slate's XX Factor blog)As if the glass ceiling and the excitement of a woman's accomplishment only exists for those who support reproductive "choice" (let's not be cute over what Ms. Stevens means by that, okay?).
ARGHHHHHH.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Governor Sarah Palin
Talk about getting perspective in unusual ways. Who would have thought that the Republican vice-presidential pick would help me understand of some of the Barack Obama phenomenon?
I've never been able to identify very closely with the personal histories of presidential candidates. I may agree or disagree with their policies, but the biographies have never really moved me to vote one way or another--or even consider it. I've never felt any connection with Hillary Clinton--a woman, a mother--perhaps because she was defined for me during the Clinton presidency, perhaps because she's older than my mother, perhaps because her daughter is older than me.
So I've often looked down on "identity" politics--the idea that because Hillary Clinton is a woman, or Barack Obama is black, then someone would give them a more favorable look in an election. I make my choices based on actual ideas, not superficial things.
Well. John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin for his running mate has forced me to change my snooty attitude a bit. When I heard it was to be Governor Palin, I got all excited. (I haven't been excited for anything McCain-related for weeks and weeks.) A mom! Someone I can really relate to! Gov. Palin is older than me, but only by a decade or so. She has five children (I have three and three-quarters), her youngest is a baby (ditto me, see also three-quarters), and she is dealing with one child with a disability (ditto me too!). She's not rich (her husband is a commercial fisherman), and she's from a small (population and political) Western state like me (Alaska vs Nevada).
(Of course, she also is the governor, politically savvy, tough-as-nails (apparently), has teenage children, and a son ready to deploy to Iraq. So obviously we are not twins separated at birth.)
Don't get me wrong, I still believe in voting for issues, not for skin color or gender. And I'm voting for the top of the ticket, not the veep. But the excitement I feel over this selection has instructed me, a little, in the way so many have felt (and feel) about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. A little humbling, to be sure (I'm not always right? What??), but good to learn.
Go Sarah!
I've never been able to identify very closely with the personal histories of presidential candidates. I may agree or disagree with their policies, but the biographies have never really moved me to vote one way or another--or even consider it. I've never felt any connection with Hillary Clinton--a woman, a mother--perhaps because she was defined for me during the Clinton presidency, perhaps because she's older than my mother, perhaps because her daughter is older than me.
So I've often looked down on "identity" politics--the idea that because Hillary Clinton is a woman, or Barack Obama is black, then someone would give them a more favorable look in an election. I make my choices based on actual ideas, not superficial things.
Well. John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin for his running mate has forced me to change my snooty attitude a bit. When I heard it was to be Governor Palin, I got all excited. (I haven't been excited for anything McCain-related for weeks and weeks.) A mom! Someone I can really relate to! Gov. Palin is older than me, but only by a decade or so. She has five children (I have three and three-quarters), her youngest is a baby (ditto me, see also three-quarters), and she is dealing with one child with a disability (ditto me too!). She's not rich (her husband is a commercial fisherman), and she's from a small (population and political) Western state like me (Alaska vs Nevada).
(Of course, she also is the governor, politically savvy, tough-as-nails (apparently), has teenage children, and a son ready to deploy to Iraq. So obviously we are not twins separated at birth.)
Don't get me wrong, I still believe in voting for issues, not for skin color or gender. And I'm voting for the top of the ticket, not the veep. But the excitement I feel over this selection has instructed me, a little, in the way so many have felt (and feel) about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. A little humbling, to be sure (I'm not always right? What??), but good to learn.
Go Sarah!
Thursday, August 28, 2008
What an awful place to live...
NPR had a portion of "Talk of the Nation" yesterday devoted to callers impressions of the Democratic National Convention. Although I couldn't call in (I didn't listen to it until last night), I thought of what I might say. (Please bear in mind that I (along with most of the country, apparently) have NOT been watching very much of the speeches. Mostly I've been reading and watching news summaries, with video clips of the "greatest hits".)
But my impression of the DNC? America is a terrible place to live! Everyone is worried about putting food on their tables. Stressed about paying for health care. Frightened and horrified by climate change. Concerned they can't pay the mortgage next month, or college for their kids. No one is happy, content, relaxed.
How completely, utterly depressing. And not my experience at all--I might live in Happy Valley, but I live in a lower-middle-class neighborhood where many of my friends do not own the houses in which they live. And most of us are pretty happy with life most of the time.
The Democratic view I'm getting doesn't jive with my reality at all (thank goodness!) I'm telling you, the Republicans better have a more uplifting message next week, or else I'm writing in my father-in-law for president.
But my impression of the DNC? America is a terrible place to live! Everyone is worried about putting food on their tables. Stressed about paying for health care. Frightened and horrified by climate change. Concerned they can't pay the mortgage next month, or college for their kids. No one is happy, content, relaxed.
How completely, utterly depressing. And not my experience at all--I might live in Happy Valley, but I live in a lower-middle-class neighborhood where many of my friends do not own the houses in which they live. And most of us are pretty happy with life most of the time.
The Democratic view I'm getting doesn't jive with my reality at all (thank goodness!) I'm telling you, the Republicans better have a more uplifting message next week, or else I'm writing in my father-in-law for president.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Curse of Knowledge
In their book, Made To Stick, Chip and Dan Heath discuss the "curse of knowledge." We have a hard time explaining things to people if we know too much about the subject. Their example is a tapping game. Try to tap the rhythm of a popular song and see if other people can guess what song it is. You'll be amazed at how easy it will seem to you and how hard it will seem to others. You hear the song in your head; they just hear a bunch of tapping.
This is a principle for teachers to remember!
I saw a great illustration of this in a couple of comments over at Connor Boyack's blog. Cliff Lyon, a non-Mormon, was the first respondent. He started by quoting something Connor had written in the post.
If you are Mormon, perhaps your first reaction was just to think that Cliff is being cantankerous. Allie, the next commenter responded this way:
Cliff replied:
Okay, Mormons. Now go back and read Cliff's original comment and you can see what he was really objecting to. Without that theological premise, Cliff was perfectly right to point our the logical absurdity of Connor's point. Allie was assuming that Cliff already had that information, so she came to the wrong concluion about Cliff's meaning.
Cliff ends this thread in the comments with a simple statement that shows he, too, just fit all the pieces together.
This is a principle for teachers to remember!
I saw a great illustration of this in a couple of comments over at Connor Boyack's blog. Cliff Lyon, a non-Mormon, was the first respondent. He started by quoting something Connor had written in the post.
The very fact that we are alive today is an indication of our decision to accept God’s plan.
Thats pretty bad logic.
I am SURE there is NO God, and I’m alive? Are you SURE about that statement?
If you are Mormon, perhaps your first reaction was just to think that Cliff is being cantankerous. Allie, the next commenter responded this way:
Oh come on Cliff!
“According to Connor’s religion, the fact that we are alive today is an indication of our decision to accept God’s plan”.
Cliff replied:
Allie replied:Oh Come on Allie.:)
It’s illogical.
You can see by the smilies, that each party seems to believe that the other party is being merely cheeky. They assume that their correspondent has the same information in mind and so they continue to rib each other. It wasn't until Jeff T. posted that everything snapped into focus for me.Illogical to you.
Cliff,
Do you realize he is talking about before we are born? In our religion, we believe that no one is born without accepting God’s plan prior to birth, even if they subsequently reject it on earth. Thus, based on this premise (if you believe it to be true), it is perfectly logical to suppose that every person alive accepted God’s plan prior to birth, even if they do not believe it now.
Okay, Mormons. Now go back and read Cliff's original comment and you can see what he was really objecting to. Without that theological premise, Cliff was perfectly right to point our the logical absurdity of Connor's point. Allie was assuming that Cliff already had that information, so she came to the wrong concluion about Cliff's meaning.
Cliff ends this thread in the comments with a simple statement that shows he, too, just fit all the pieces together.
Ah. Got it.Spotting fun little exchanges like these while reading blogs helps me justify the time I spend doing it since I'll be able to use them in training sessions at work. :)
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Obama Implictly Defends President Bush's Faith
President Bush has taken a lot of heat in some quarters for his comments that he continually prayed that he would be doing God's will. Ranters complained that Bush was trying to lead a theocracy.
Candidate Obama gave an interview to Newsweek where he discussed his faith. When asked what he prays for, he said, "Forgiveness for my sins and flaws, which are many, the protection of my family, and that I'm carrying out God's will, and not in a grandiose way, but simply that there is an alignment between my actions and what he would want. And then I find myself sometimes praying for people who need a lift, need a hand."
Presumably, a man who believes that God will guide the actions of his personal life also believes that guidance would carry over into every facet of existence. If my presumption is accurate, then Obama would probably also defend President Bush from the spiteful remarks about his faith.
I hope we'll see more of this side of Senator Obama. Odds are that he's going to be our next president and I think our nation needs leaders who will honestly seek to do the right thing under the inspiration of heaven. The humility to ask for help is a great sign.
Candidate Obama gave an interview to Newsweek where he discussed his faith. When asked what he prays for, he said, "Forgiveness for my sins and flaws, which are many, the protection of my family, and that I'm carrying out God's will, and not in a grandiose way, but simply that there is an alignment between my actions and what he would want. And then I find myself sometimes praying for people who need a lift, need a hand."
Presumably, a man who believes that God will guide the actions of his personal life also believes that guidance would carry over into every facet of existence. If my presumption is accurate, then Obama would probably also defend President Bush from the spiteful remarks about his faith.
I hope we'll see more of this side of Senator Obama. Odds are that he's going to be our next president and I think our nation needs leaders who will honestly seek to do the right thing under the inspiration of heaven. The humility to ask for help is a great sign.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Vitriolic Partisanship Forbidden for Obama Supporters
It occurred to me today that Obama supporters are in a unique situation. They are supporting a candidate who promises to change the tone in Washington. He promises to bridge the partisan divide. Presumably, they support him because of this view, rather than in spite of it.
If he and his followers are to accomplish this goal of increased civility (which I heartily support) they'll have to prove they don't hate people that disagree with them on policy matters. After all, hating someone isn't a great way to build bridges. Some of Obama's most vocal supporters in the blogosphere are going to have a hard time convincing me they've jumped that hurdle.
It was a good reminder for me that I can't get so blinded by Obama's poor choices and policy positions that I start to consider him "the enemy." If he wins the election, I'll support him as the president. I hope that those on the left will extend the same courtesy to Senator McCain.
If he and his followers are to accomplish this goal of increased civility (which I heartily support) they'll have to prove they don't hate people that disagree with them on policy matters. After all, hating someone isn't a great way to build bridges. Some of Obama's most vocal supporters in the blogosphere are going to have a hard time convincing me they've jumped that hurdle.
It was a good reminder for me that I can't get so blinded by Obama's poor choices and policy positions that I start to consider him "the enemy." If he wins the election, I'll support him as the president. I hope that those on the left will extend the same courtesy to Senator McCain.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Poll Giddy
I always feel so cool when I get called to participate in an opinion poll. There is something so satisfying about a total stranger calling you and asking you about things that you're actually conversant with; as opposed to people asking me sports questions which leave me clueless.
I was asked about the Cannon v. Chaffetz race. I'm currently leaning towards Cannon. I'm not aware of any votes he's taken on major issues that I disagree with. He seems to have a reasonable and thoughtful position on immigration issues.
I don't have anything against Chaffetz, but I don't have any reason to throw Cannon out since I feel he's doing well.
I was asked about the Cannon v. Chaffetz race. I'm currently leaning towards Cannon. I'm not aware of any votes he's taken on major issues that I disagree with. He seems to have a reasonable and thoughtful position on immigration issues.
I don't have anything against Chaffetz, but I don't have any reason to throw Cannon out since I feel he's doing well.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
The Gore Effect
I noticed the weather report for early tomorrow morning, June 12:
A frost advisory remains in effect from 3 am to 8 am MDT Thursday. This advisory is for the Cache Valley... southern Wasatch front... western Uinta Basin... west central and southwest Utah... and the Sanpete and Sevier valleys...I wonder if Al Gore is visiting Utah.
(from NOAA via wunderground)
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Chris Cannon and NOPEC
NOPEC (H.R. 6074), a bill passed by the US House on May 21, 2008, is essentially an attempt to sue OPEC for operating a cartel or monopoly. (Official summary: To amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal and for other purposes.) It passed 324 to 84 (with 26 no-votes).
My feelings about this bill can be summarized by quoting Rep. Nick Lampson (D-Tx): "Americans are facing real economic hardships that cannot be overcome with symbolic legislation. This bill would do little more than create another layer of bureaucracy at the taxpayer's expense."
The Republican leadership (Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) specifically) defended the more than 100 Republicans who voted for this bill by saying the bill was "meaningless" and "They [the "yea" voters] don't want to explain why they didn't." That particular sentiment ticked me off a little. Please treat me like an adult, Congress, and try explaining things to me. There have been a few too many times lately when Republican House members have done things that I disagree with, and occasionally I feel like voting ALL of the "bums" out would maybe send the right message.
Right now we are in a heated primary race (3rd District) between Chris Cannon and Jason Chaffetz, and my research has shown very little different between the two, policy-wise. (I haven't yet decided how I'm voting in the late-June primary.) I'm trying to balance "throw the bums out" with Cannon's seniority in D.C., what little differences the two candidates have, and how they are conducting their campaigns.
So I researched how Chris Cannon voted in the NOPEC bill. Imagine my (pleased) surprise when I discovered that he is one of the 84 who voted "Nay" (scroll down for Utah). Good for you, Rep. Cannon. Thanks for sticking to principles and not treating your constituents as too stupid to understand world energy issues. I still haven't decided whom I'm voting for, but that is a definite point in the Cannon column.
(For other Utah districts, Rob Bishop (1st District) voted "Nay" as well, and Jim Matheson (2nd District) did not cast a vote.)
My feelings about this bill can be summarized by quoting Rep. Nick Lampson (D-Tx): "Americans are facing real economic hardships that cannot be overcome with symbolic legislation. This bill would do little more than create another layer of bureaucracy at the taxpayer's expense."
The Republican leadership (Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) specifically) defended the more than 100 Republicans who voted for this bill by saying the bill was "meaningless" and "They [the "yea" voters] don't want to explain why they didn't." That particular sentiment ticked me off a little. Please treat me like an adult, Congress, and try explaining things to me. There have been a few too many times lately when Republican House members have done things that I disagree with, and occasionally I feel like voting ALL of the "bums" out would maybe send the right message.
Right now we are in a heated primary race (3rd District) between Chris Cannon and Jason Chaffetz, and my research has shown very little different between the two, policy-wise. (I haven't yet decided how I'm voting in the late-June primary.) I'm trying to balance "throw the bums out" with Cannon's seniority in D.C., what little differences the two candidates have, and how they are conducting their campaigns.
So I researched how Chris Cannon voted in the NOPEC bill. Imagine my (pleased) surprise when I discovered that he is one of the 84 who voted "Nay" (scroll down for Utah). Good for you, Rep. Cannon. Thanks for sticking to principles and not treating your constituents as too stupid to understand world energy issues. I still haven't decided whom I'm voting for, but that is a definite point in the Cannon column.
(For other Utah districts, Rob Bishop (1st District) voted "Nay" as well, and Jim Matheson (2nd District) did not cast a vote.)
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Using 9/11 (Erronously) to Denote Disaster
On NPR's All Things Considered broadcast on May 19th, Robert Siegel and Melissa Block report on the one-week anniversary of the 7.9 magnitude earthquake that hit Sichuan province in China. With alarms and sirens to mark the time, China is starting three days of mourning of the tragic loss of life (although the death toll will probably continue to rise, right now CNN.com pegs it at over 40,000). The loss of life is truly mind-boggling, and the amount of rebuilding and resettling will occupy China for years.
In the first 30 seconds of the NPR broadcast linked above, Melissa Block states that "5/12 is now China's 9/11". This is not an unusual comparison, as it has been used numerous times before to denote a nation-altering disaster--usually terrorism related, such as Spain's 3/11 and London's 7/5 bombings. Those events, for those countries, are comparable to 9/11 for the United States. But large natural disasters, however huge the loss of life, aren't necessarily nation-altering. They also don't necessarily sear themselves into the psyche of those who didn't immediately experience them.
An event like the 2004 tsunami was a nation-altering--perhaps in some ways a world-altering--event. It was huge, unexpected, and unusual--something that hasn't happened in generations. An earthquake in the United States that killed over 40,000 people would be a huge, unusual event.
Unfortunately, in China, earthquakes with massive loss of life aren't unusual events. In fact, within living memory, an magnitude 7.5 earthquake in northeastern China had a death toll of over 240,000 people (which is actually a little higher than the official death toll for the tsunami). In 1974, a Chinese earthquake killed 20,000. Farther back, but still less than 100 years ago, an earthquake in 1927 killed more than 40,900 Chinese; an earthquake in 1920 killed more than 200,000 Chinese.
The tragedy of 9/11 was not the loss of life alone--although that was heartrending and horrifying. Rather, it was the fact that the United States had been attacked on our mainland, by an enemy almost completely unknown to the general public, out of a clear blue sky. It radically changed our society, our foreign policy, and our political landscape. We have declared war against terrorism, which is a generational battle if there ever was one. Comparing it to huge natural disasters is like comparing apples and lima beans.
This does not lessen the tragedy of the May 12, 2008 earthquake. But I don't foresee huge changes in Chinese politics or society based on it, if past earthquakes are any indication. Maybe I'm wrong--maybe the global connected age will make a bigger difference in this event than in previous ones. Only time will tell.
In the first 30 seconds of the NPR broadcast linked above, Melissa Block states that "5/12 is now China's 9/11". This is not an unusual comparison, as it has been used numerous times before to denote a nation-altering disaster--usually terrorism related, such as Spain's 3/11 and London's 7/5 bombings. Those events, for those countries, are comparable to 9/11 for the United States. But large natural disasters, however huge the loss of life, aren't necessarily nation-altering. They also don't necessarily sear themselves into the psyche of those who didn't immediately experience them.
An event like the 2004 tsunami was a nation-altering--perhaps in some ways a world-altering--event. It was huge, unexpected, and unusual--something that hasn't happened in generations. An earthquake in the United States that killed over 40,000 people would be a huge, unusual event.
Unfortunately, in China, earthquakes with massive loss of life aren't unusual events. In fact, within living memory, an magnitude 7.5 earthquake in northeastern China had a death toll of over 240,000 people (which is actually a little higher than the official death toll for the tsunami). In 1974, a Chinese earthquake killed 20,000. Farther back, but still less than 100 years ago, an earthquake in 1927 killed more than 40,900 Chinese; an earthquake in 1920 killed more than 200,000 Chinese.
The tragedy of 9/11 was not the loss of life alone--although that was heartrending and horrifying. Rather, it was the fact that the United States had been attacked on our mainland, by an enemy almost completely unknown to the general public, out of a clear blue sky. It radically changed our society, our foreign policy, and our political landscape. We have declared war against terrorism, which is a generational battle if there ever was one. Comparing it to huge natural disasters is like comparing apples and lima beans.
This does not lessen the tragedy of the May 12, 2008 earthquake. But I don't foresee huge changes in Chinese politics or society based on it, if past earthquakes are any indication. Maybe I'm wrong--maybe the global connected age will make a bigger difference in this event than in previous ones. Only time will tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)