People who care about global warming should start an immediate campaign to end hyper-partisanship in national politics and encourage civil debate. A culture has been fostered that encourages the demonizing of one's political opponents. If an "evil" person makes a valid point, many are still loathe to recognize it as such for fear of granting credibility to an enemy.
If you believe that global warming is a man-made disaster that will destroy our planet and way of life, you have an obligation to cease and desist from hyper-partisanship. The old saying is true that you attract a lot more flies with honey than vinegar.
Tim Thorstenson recently commented about the problem with accepting or rejecting alleged facts about climate because they are moral or immoral. Facts, he argues, have no moral component. We use our moral lens to help us interpret and act on facts, not to determine the verity of a factual assertion.
If global warming is a problem that we have power to address (which I doubt), then we should makes laws to address the problem. If the good of arresting global warming outweighs the bad caused to people in the developing world (which I doubt), then we should act.
If you treat me as the spawn of Satan for contesting your assertions, you lose the ability to persuade me. And if you think global warming is a looming Armageddon, it is in your best interest to persuade me rather than demean me.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Ken Burns at BYU
I attended the BYU Forum address (and the following Q&A session) by famed documentarian Ken Burns yesterday. He exceeded every expectation. BYU was not, unfortunately, able to broadcast the forum because Burns showed clips from an upcoming documentary on WWII that will not be released until this fall. I'm bummed, because I was hoping to link to some video clips of the event here. Maybe in September.
He told us how he had actively resisted efforts over the years to get him to do another war documentary after the smashing success of his Civil War film. He talked to us about the emotional difficulty of spending years involved in the study of something so terrible as war. But he finally felt compelled to approach this topic because he recognized that it would be criminal to let the thousands of veterans die before their story could be told.
In the Q&A session, Burns clarified his point a bit. It wasn't that there were not enough documentaries on WWII. He seemed to indicate a distaste for the History Channel's approach to the war. Too many swastikas everywhere you turned and not enough of the human story of the war. Burns set out to make a "bottom up" documentary that focused on the lives of the people rather than the affairs of the generals and presidents.
Burns claimed that WWII was not "the good war" but "the necessary war."
This is the point that seems to escape so many people who oppose our contemporary military conflicts. They see war not as a necessary evil, but as an absolute evil. In my view, war is a yucky, horrible thing. I look forward to the reign of the Prince of Peace when all war will end. But until that time comes, it simply will not do to allow evil men to rampage unmolested simply because we demand "peace." Peace at any price is not peace, but prison.
Burns told us that there is a sizable portion of the graduating high school seniors in our country that believe that we fought in WWII alongside the Germans against the Soviets. Many people are going to see films like "Saving Private Ryan" and are feeling the powerful emotion of the event without understanding the greater significance. Why were they landing on that beach? What was the strategy? What were the goals? Did it work?
He acknowledged that it is impossible to tell a story without any bias. He hopes that as he tells a story that he paints a fair picture that conveys the emotion he feels about the subject. I can tell you that the clips of the documentary that he showed certainly conveyed powerful emotions. It will be interesting to see how he lives up to his stated goal of also placing the events in the larger picture while being true to his bottom-up approach.
One person raised the question during the Q&A session about the exclusion of Latinos in the upcoming documentary. The question was asked in respect and Burns responded in kind. He didn't duck the issue at all, but provided a very compelling answer that I probably can't do justice in summary. In essence, he explained that he was trying to tell individual stories rather than provide a "phone book" treatment of the war. They chose, essentially at random, four cities and put out the call to veterans. They didn't seek out individuals, but put out the word that they were in town and took all comers. They did hundreds of on-camera interviews, only a fraction of which could be used in the film. They obviously couldn't use footage of people who didn't show up. He pointed out that other important segments were also underrepresented in the film, like sailors, submariners, and so forth. He decided that he must be doing a good job if he can make a 14 hour movie and still get complaints it isn't long enough. :)
Interestingly, there are about 100 other documentaries in production that are meant to springboard off the release of Burns's film. They will be aired in local markets and focus on the local population of WWII veterans. In this aspect, it looks like the film will succeed in creating a lot of dialog rather than being a soliloquy. Burns also hopes these other, local films will help fill in the gaps in coverage that people have already noted about his upcoming film.
I hope that you will watch the new documentary when it comes out on PBS this fall. In the meantime, you might check out two podcasts from the San Francisco Chronicle which feature an interview with Burns. I haven't listened to them myself yet, but they are now on my list!
He told us how he had actively resisted efforts over the years to get him to do another war documentary after the smashing success of his Civil War film. He talked to us about the emotional difficulty of spending years involved in the study of something so terrible as war. But he finally felt compelled to approach this topic because he recognized that it would be criminal to let the thousands of veterans die before their story could be told.
In the Q&A session, Burns clarified his point a bit. It wasn't that there were not enough documentaries on WWII. He seemed to indicate a distaste for the History Channel's approach to the war. Too many swastikas everywhere you turned and not enough of the human story of the war. Burns set out to make a "bottom up" documentary that focused on the lives of the people rather than the affairs of the generals and presidents.
Burns claimed that WWII was not "the good war" but "the necessary war."
This is the point that seems to escape so many people who oppose our contemporary military conflicts. They see war not as a necessary evil, but as an absolute evil. In my view, war is a yucky, horrible thing. I look forward to the reign of the Prince of Peace when all war will end. But until that time comes, it simply will not do to allow evil men to rampage unmolested simply because we demand "peace." Peace at any price is not peace, but prison.
Burns told us that there is a sizable portion of the graduating high school seniors in our country that believe that we fought in WWII alongside the Germans against the Soviets. Many people are going to see films like "Saving Private Ryan" and are feeling the powerful emotion of the event without understanding the greater significance. Why were they landing on that beach? What was the strategy? What were the goals? Did it work?
He acknowledged that it is impossible to tell a story without any bias. He hopes that as he tells a story that he paints a fair picture that conveys the emotion he feels about the subject. I can tell you that the clips of the documentary that he showed certainly conveyed powerful emotions. It will be interesting to see how he lives up to his stated goal of also placing the events in the larger picture while being true to his bottom-up approach.
One person raised the question during the Q&A session about the exclusion of Latinos in the upcoming documentary. The question was asked in respect and Burns responded in kind. He didn't duck the issue at all, but provided a very compelling answer that I probably can't do justice in summary. In essence, he explained that he was trying to tell individual stories rather than provide a "phone book" treatment of the war. They chose, essentially at random, four cities and put out the call to veterans. They didn't seek out individuals, but put out the word that they were in town and took all comers. They did hundreds of on-camera interviews, only a fraction of which could be used in the film. They obviously couldn't use footage of people who didn't show up. He pointed out that other important segments were also underrepresented in the film, like sailors, submariners, and so forth. He decided that he must be doing a good job if he can make a 14 hour movie and still get complaints it isn't long enough. :)
Interestingly, there are about 100 other documentaries in production that are meant to springboard off the release of Burns's film. They will be aired in local markets and focus on the local population of WWII veterans. In this aspect, it looks like the film will succeed in creating a lot of dialog rather than being a soliloquy. Burns also hopes these other, local films will help fill in the gaps in coverage that people have already noted about his upcoming film.
I hope that you will watch the new documentary when it comes out on PBS this fall. In the meantime, you might check out two podcasts from the San Francisco Chronicle which feature an interview with Burns. I haven't listened to them myself yet, but they are now on my list!
Monday, March 12, 2007
Leisure Redistribution?
An article by Steven E Landsburg on Slate Magazine looks at the gap in number of leisure hours between the rich and the poor. Poorly paid workers have far more leisure hours than highly paid workers. While this is an interesting concept, the final paragraph really caught my attention:
Second, a certain class of pundits and politicians are quick to see any increase in income inequality as a problem that needs fixing—usually through some form of redistributive taxation. Applying the same philosophy to leisure, you could conclude that something must be done to reverse the trends of the past 40 years—say, by rounding up all those folks with extra time on their hands and putting them to (unpaid) work in the kitchens of their "less fortunate" neighbors. If you think it's OK to redistribute income but repellent to redistribute leisure, you might want to ask yourself what—if anything—is the fundamental difference.Forcing people to pay more in taxes is one thing, but forcing people to work for free (slave labor?) is quite another. Or is it? By taking away a percentage of the money the marketplace is willing to pay someone for their work--higher taxes for higher salaries--aren't we essentially forcing them to work some number of hours for free? Is it really that different?
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Help the Kids at Primary Children's
Yesterday and today is the KSL Radiothon to raise money for Primary Children's Medical Center. I hope that you will consider making a donation to this wonderful facility.
My little boy, now two and a half months old, was born with spina bifida. He is doing great thanks to a generous Heavenly Father and His helpers on earth: the doctors, nurses, and staff at Primary Children's Medical Center and the University of Utah Hospital. The people at both hospitals were truly wonderful to us. It is hard to imagine how difficult it must be to deal with so many people at the most distressing times of their lives. Yet they treated my boy with compassion and competence.
In our visits to the hospital, a quick survey of the waiting room makes it fairly obvious that we're not dealing with lots of affluent people. Good medical help isn't cheap. But no one is turned away. It sounds like generous contributions from the community make this possible. I hope you can join in to help those kids without the means to help themselves.
My little boy, now two and a half months old, was born with spina bifida. He is doing great thanks to a generous Heavenly Father and His helpers on earth: the doctors, nurses, and staff at Primary Children's Medical Center and the University of Utah Hospital. The people at both hospitals were truly wonderful to us. It is hard to imagine how difficult it must be to deal with so many people at the most distressing times of their lives. Yet they treated my boy with compassion and competence.
In our visits to the hospital, a quick survey of the waiting room makes it fairly obvious that we're not dealing with lots of affluent people. Good medical help isn't cheap. But no one is turned away. It sounds like generous contributions from the community make this possible. I hope you can join in to help those kids without the means to help themselves.
Monday, February 19, 2007
A Better Way to Vote
A post over at Utah Amicus, repeating a Trib editorial by Rep. Roz McGee, talks about her beef with the current districting process in Utah. I wrote the following comment as a follow up to that post.
I've written about Instant Runoff Voting before on this blog. For a succinct and convincing explanation of how IRV can eliminate the "spoiler effect" in elections and give a greater voice to third parties, check out this short animation from the folks at FairVote.org.
I agree with the district boundary principles you have set forth here. However, if the 42% of voters who prefer Democrats were evenly distributed throughout the state, our current system of winner-take-all voting would not allow ANY seats for Democrats.
I think we should improve the process of creating voting districts. We should also look at other solutions such as instant-runoff elections that can elect multiple people in proportion to the preferences of the people. There is a site dedicated to the principle at fairvote.org.
I've written about Instant Runoff Voting before on this blog. For a succinct and convincing explanation of how IRV can eliminate the "spoiler effect" in elections and give a greater voice to third parties, check out this short animation from the folks at FairVote.org.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
My Contribution to "Blog for Choice"
Let's take a small glimpse into an alternate universe.
In this place, the struggle for a balance of power between the sexes has been ongoing for a great many years. Women, who are naturally much stronger than men, have been traditionally dominant in this society--though men have historically benefited greatly from laws protecting them. However, a couple of decades ago, the balance of power shifted. A court ruled that a woman could kill her husband if he proved to be incapable of repairing large appliances.
The court ruling ignited a firestorm. The women explained what a burden it was for them to live in a home without a working refrigerator. Sure, they could try to keep their food fresh by placing it in on a coat hanger in a shady spot in the back yard or in a dark alley, but the steady stream of food poisonings was ample evidence that this strategy just wasn't working. The only solution, they passionately exclaimed, was to continue to allow them to kill their non-handy husbands, freeing them to find a better one.
Many of the men, and not a few women, argued that divorce would be a much more humane option. Wouldn't it be okay to just borrow some space in a neighbor's fridge until you could get yours repaired? Yes, it would be terribly inconvenient, but certainly preferable to killing a person, right?
Oh no, persist the women. Don't lecture us or tell us to just "bear it." You don't know what it is like. You can't judge us. This is our choice and our homes and our appliances and our husbands. Don't you know what a painful decision it is for a woman to kill her husband? Don't lecture me about pain until you've had to stay up at nights in a cold sweat thinking about the husband you had to extinguish. You have to respect our choice.
The men respond that their lives ought to count for something in this equation. Sure, if your husband is threatening your life, you could kill in self defense, they say. We don't question that. But it's barbaric to kill him just because he has become inconvenient.
A militant woman becomes bitter that anyone should question the choice she makes to kill her husband. "It wasn't an easy choice!" she screams, shouting down her opposition. "It's about trusting women."
In this place, the struggle for a balance of power between the sexes has been ongoing for a great many years. Women, who are naturally much stronger than men, have been traditionally dominant in this society--though men have historically benefited greatly from laws protecting them. However, a couple of decades ago, the balance of power shifted. A court ruled that a woman could kill her husband if he proved to be incapable of repairing large appliances.
The court ruling ignited a firestorm. The women explained what a burden it was for them to live in a home without a working refrigerator. Sure, they could try to keep their food fresh by placing it in on a coat hanger in a shady spot in the back yard or in a dark alley, but the steady stream of food poisonings was ample evidence that this strategy just wasn't working. The only solution, they passionately exclaimed, was to continue to allow them to kill their non-handy husbands, freeing them to find a better one.
Many of the men, and not a few women, argued that divorce would be a much more humane option. Wouldn't it be okay to just borrow some space in a neighbor's fridge until you could get yours repaired? Yes, it would be terribly inconvenient, but certainly preferable to killing a person, right?
Oh no, persist the women. Don't lecture us or tell us to just "bear it." You don't know what it is like. You can't judge us. This is our choice and our homes and our appliances and our husbands. Don't you know what a painful decision it is for a woman to kill her husband? Don't lecture me about pain until you've had to stay up at nights in a cold sweat thinking about the husband you had to extinguish. You have to respect our choice.
The men respond that their lives ought to count for something in this equation. Sure, if your husband is threatening your life, you could kill in self defense, they say. We don't question that. But it's barbaric to kill him just because he has become inconvenient.
A militant woman becomes bitter that anyone should question the choice she makes to kill her husband. "It wasn't an easy choice!" she screams, shouting down her opposition. "It's about trusting women."
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
How is this different than Jim Crow?
The Politico has an article titled "Black Caucus: Whites Not Allowed". An excerpt:
It's not clear to me how this is different than a "Whites Only" drinking fountain. Rep. Cohen is barred from joining this group solely on the basis of his skin color.
What is the point of the Congressional Black Caucus? To advance the causes of black people. Do you have to be black to be interested in this goal?
Apparently.
As a white liberal running in a majority African American district, Tennessee Democrat Stephen I. Cohen made a novel pledge on the campaign trail last year: If elected, he would seek to become the first white member of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Now that he's a freshman in Congress, Cohen has changed his plans. He said he has dropped his bid after several current and former caucus members made it clear to him that whites need not apply.
(snip)
Cohen said he became convinced that joining the caucus would be "a social faux pas" after seeing news reports that former Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., D-Mo., a co-founder of the caucus, had circulated a memo telling members it was "critical" that the group remain "exclusively African-American."
Other members, including the new chairwoman, Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich., and Clay's son, Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., agreed.
"Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. ... It's time to move on," the younger Clay said. "It's an unwritten rule. It's understood. It's clear."
The bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for membership...
It's not clear to me how this is different than a "Whites Only" drinking fountain. Rep. Cohen is barred from joining this group solely on the basis of his skin color.
What is the point of the Congressional Black Caucus? To advance the causes of black people. Do you have to be black to be interested in this goal?
Apparently.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
The Bloghive is Born
The word has started leaking out already, so it is time for my official announcement of the Utah Bloghive. I've been beta testing the site for a while and I think it is ready for prime time.
I'm hoping the site can become a hub for the Utah political blogging community. A place where we keep track of the things our friends our writing about and where we discover new voices. A place to keep tabs on the political issues that matter to Utahns.
You can read more about the effort on the site itself. I hope you'll find the site as useful as I already have. It is so cool to instantly see how many bloggers are talking about the State of the State address. As hot topics come up in the legislative session, I'm sure we'll see lots of headlines there too.
Perhaps one of the coolest things about the site is the Google search on the top right corner of the page. It will search only the sites that are listed in the bloghive. It makes it so much easier to find a post you read last month that you want to link in a comment or a post! Hopefully you will find it to be a great tool.
What are you waiting for? Head over to http://utahbloghive.org and start reading!
I'm hoping the site can become a hub for the Utah political blogging community. A place where we keep track of the things our friends our writing about and where we discover new voices. A place to keep tabs on the political issues that matter to Utahns.
You can read more about the effort on the site itself. I hope you'll find the site as useful as I already have. It is so cool to instantly see how many bloggers are talking about the State of the State address. As hot topics come up in the legislative session, I'm sure we'll see lots of headlines there too.
Perhaps one of the coolest things about the site is the Google search on the top right corner of the page. It will search only the sites that are listed in the bloghive. It makes it so much easier to find a post you read last month that you want to link in a comment or a post! Hopefully you will find it to be a great tool.
What are you waiting for? Head over to http://utahbloghive.org and start reading!
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Gingrich Defends the Clinton Impeachment
Whatever you think about Newt Gingrich, you have to admit he is a powerful orator. I wish I had the ability to speak so powerfully and concisely. In his appearance on Meet the Press last week, I was impressed and persuaded by his defense of how he pursued the impeachment of Bill Clinton. You can see the full video of the program or watch the small clip below. Also included is the transcript of the question and answer.
MR. RUSSERT: But do you, do you regret pressing the impeachment of President Clinton so hard?It is interesting to note that in this same interview, Gingrich also talks about how the the time for super-partisanship (regardless of whether it was ever right in the past) is behind us. The country faces serious problems and we need to get together and tackle them. His call to candidates is to share a positive message rather than simply maligning your opponent.FMR. REP. GINGRICH: President—you know, I’m—I’ve been divorced twice.
Both times I’ve been deposed. Both times I was told, “Perjury is a felony. You should tell the truth under deposition.” President Clinton lied under oath as a lawyer in front of a sitting federal judge in a civil rights case. This was not about his personal behavior in the Oval Office. That’s a matter of judgment, and people can render judgment. The question is, do you want to go down the road of Nigeria and corruption and have a country in which, as long as he’s popular, he can break the law? And if Clinton gets to commit perjury on this topic, then what does the next president get to commit perjury on, and then what does the next president get to commit perjury on? This was entirely about something I knew personally. We have an obligation as citizens to tell the truth to a federal judge under oath. The president failed that.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
NPR Mentions Utah Buses
While driving today, I heard a bit of a story about the ways cities are trying to get people, particularly business people, to ride the bus. They mentioned Utah and the current experiment with putting wi-fi internet access on some routes up north. You can listen to the story from this page.
I try to take the bus to work most days and it works great for me. I use it as time to read something that I normally don't get a chance to read. Not driving myself doesn't save me time, but it has definite advantages.
I try to take the bus to work most days and it works great for me. I use it as time to read something that I normally don't get a chance to read. Not driving myself doesn't save me time, but it has definite advantages.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
More Data in Support of UTOPIA
The New York Times has a report about the squabbles between equipment installers for phone and cable companies. They seem to be perpetually damaging each other's equipment as they switch customers from one service to the other.
One of the strongest arguments for a municipal broadband infrastructure is avoiding the waste and hassles of maintaining several infrastructures. Would we want UPS and FedEx to maintain separate road systems for their package delivery? A shared road system is the only viable option. And a shared community fiber optic network also makes a lot of sense.
One poster over on Slashdot has already commented about UTOPIA. He writes, "Now, instead of getting crazy plans with no upload and bad ping times, I have my choice of four different providers for data, three (soon to be four) for voice, and three for video. All running on the same set of community fiber."
Maybe someday Spanish Fork, where I live, will jump on the UTOPIA bandwagon.
One of the strongest arguments for a municipal broadband infrastructure is avoiding the waste and hassles of maintaining several infrastructures. Would we want UPS and FedEx to maintain separate road systems for their package delivery? A shared road system is the only viable option. And a shared community fiber optic network also makes a lot of sense.
...Qwest said that since 2004 its technicians had been dispatched more than 7,900 times to fix equipment damaged by Cox, repairs that cost nearly half a million dollars.
...Verizon had made thousands of cuts in Comcast’s cables, generating $1.4 million in damages.
In fact, a city might take this argument one step further and refuse to grant any new rights-of-way for utility lines and decline to renew any previous right-of-ways for communications cabling. Perhaps that is a bit too extreme...The telephone boxes he visited had a few exposed wires, small unsealed holes and what Mr. Pappas said was improper grounding of Cox electrical wires to Qwest equipment.
... In San Antonio, for instance, AT&T says it found instances where Time Warner Cable installers cut phone company wires when trying to install their own voice service.
One poster over on Slashdot has already commented about UTOPIA. He writes, "Now, instead of getting crazy plans with no upload and bad ping times, I have my choice of four different providers for data, three (soon to be four) for voice, and three for video. All running on the same set of community fiber."
Maybe someday Spanish Fork, where I live, will jump on the UTOPIA bandwagon.
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Understanding the Argument for Compassionate Conservatism
Michael Gerson, a former speechwriter for President Bush, gives a great summary of what it was Bush was selling on the campaign stump 6 years ago.
Some don't feel we've done very well on that score, but the theory still sounds really solid to me. I'm surprised this idea and rhetoric hasn't gained more traction in political philosophy.
Aren't we seeing that Bush is very close to the ideals of the Democratic party? He wants many of the same social safety nets that Democrats advocate. He just doesn't think they should all be run by the government. Why did liberals hate Bush so much right from the get-go? I have always found it puzzling. We have many conservatives who are frustrated by Bush these days because he does so many things that are more in line with the Democrats' agenda. But then he doesn't get any love from the left. Strange.
In Mr. Gerson's view, "compassionate conservatism is the theory that the government should encourage the effective provision of social services without providing the service itself." It was, in effect, a conservative twofer: limiting the scope of government and empowering faith-based institutions by entrusting to the latter services that had traditionally been performed by the former.
Some don't feel we've done very well on that score, but the theory still sounds really solid to me. I'm surprised this idea and rhetoric hasn't gained more traction in political philosophy.
Aren't we seeing that Bush is very close to the ideals of the Democratic party? He wants many of the same social safety nets that Democrats advocate. He just doesn't think they should all be run by the government. Why did liberals hate Bush so much right from the get-go? I have always found it puzzling. We have many conservatives who are frustrated by Bush these days because he does so many things that are more in line with the Democrats' agenda. But then he doesn't get any love from the left. Strange.
Friday, November 24, 2006
Sowell's Call for Civility
Thomas Sowell has it exactly right. There is a viciousness in politics that is destroying our ability to move forward in a constructive way. Some people in Utah and many conservatives around the country smeared Orrin Hatch for befriending Ted Kennedy. As if to say that because people disagree they must be personal enemies. Here is a bit from Sowell.
Kathryn Jean Lopez passed along a quote from Rick Santorum after his defeat.
Those who have left comments on this blog have been very civil for the most part. For that, I thank you. Even if you disagree with us, your opinion is valuable. It is very easy to get mentally lazy when we never hear opposing points of view.
When British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain died early in the Second World War that his own blunders brought on and nearly lost, Winston Churchill delivered the eulogy — even though Churchill had more reason than anyone else to be bitter at Chamberlain, who had turned a deaf ear to all Churchill’s warnings for years.I'm very sad that Rick Santorum lost his Senate race. Not only because I happen to agree with him politically, but because he seems to be one of the most sincere politicians I've ever seen. (I only say "seems" because the ability to judge a person's heart is beyond my abilities.)
“Neville Chamberlain acted with perfect sincerity,” Churchill said. How many people would say that today about a political opponent on an issue as explosive as war and peace?
Churchill said more, that “we are so often mocked by the failure of our hopes and the upsetting of our calculations,” but that “however the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honor” when we have done our best.
Kathryn Jean Lopez passed along a quote from Rick Santorum after his defeat.
In a farewell letter to his supporters, Santorum said, “People have asked me why I talked about unpopular things like the war ... in this campaign. They asked, why didn’t you just talk about the projects you delivered or the things that you accomplished? ... My answer is that those are the things in the past, and what leaders are supposed to do is to talk about things that our country confronts in the future ... And I did, and I’m very proud of that. I do not rescind a word because those words are words that this country was not receptive to hear. ... They are going to continue to hear those words from me.”One of the reasons that I voted for Pete Ashdown in his race against Orrin Hatch for the US Senate was because I get a similar feeling of sincerity from him.
Those who have left comments on this blog have been very civil for the most part. For that, I thank you. Even if you disagree with us, your opinion is valuable. It is very easy to get mentally lazy when we never hear opposing points of view.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Racially based scholarships
This article on abcnews.com got me a trifle perturbed: "Whites Only Scholarship Creates Outrage". In summary, the Boston University College Republicans are offering a $250 scholarship--to apply you have to have a certain GPA, write a couple of essays, and be at least one-quarter Caucasian. The president of the BU College Republicans freely admits he wants to start a dialogue about racial preference. Of course this has created a mini-firestorm in the PC universe. Here's my reaction to a few paragraphs from the story: "It's a poor way to talk about affirmative action," said David Coreas, the 21-year-old senior who is president of the Latino fraternity Phi Iota Alpha at BU. Maybe it is a poor way to talk about affirmative action, but notice the speaker's position: he is the president of the Latino fraternity. Do you really think a fraternity that labeled itself "the Caucasian fraternity of such-and-thus" would even survive in today's culture? Why is it okay for Latinos and not Caucasians?"We have to look at the situation honestly," he [Coreas] said. "Caucasians tend to have a higher per capita income than Latinos and other minorities. We have to have scholarships to survive."OH! So it has to do with poverty, not race! Okay, then, I have no argument with the idea of helping lower-income families send their children to college--let's base the formally racial scholarships on need rather than race. But if that's the best argument he's got for having racially-based scholarships...
Our society has laws against racial discrimination--we obviously need them, as we are pretty bad at policing ourselves sometimes. But either the laws apply to everyone or the laws should apply to no-one. If someone can offer a scholarship to only those with Latino roots (or African-American roots, or Asian roots, or whatever), then it should be entirely unexceptional that someone else could offer a scholarship only to those with Caucasian roots.
Our society has laws against racial discrimination--we obviously need them, as we are pretty bad at policing ourselves sometimes. But either the laws apply to everyone or the laws should apply to no-one. If someone can offer a scholarship to only those with Latino roots (or African-American roots, or Asian roots, or whatever), then it should be entirely unexceptional that someone else could offer a scholarship only to those with Caucasian roots.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Timeshare: Buyer Beware
Keryn and I had our own experience with the timeshare sales industry. We had been married for less than a year. We responded to a phone call promising a free weekend in Las Vegas. We thought that might be a fun way to visit Keryn's parents in Vegas, so we agreed to attend the sales pitch from Trendwest.
I must say the that the presentation was very persuasive. The presenters showed what good financial condition their company was in and how nice the properties were. They explained how a timeshare was a valuable asset that you could pass along to your children and would encourage you to go different places with your family on vacations.
It sounded really cool. And really expensive. But not to worry, they offer financing!
We were very hesitant. We'd agreed before we went that we would not purchase anything that day, but we also felt that we needed be be honest in hearing about the deal and give it a fair chance.
The salesman sat down with us and reviewed many of the great things we'd heard in the presentation. He explained an elaborate system of points and programs which we could take advantage of... but only if we made the purchase decision before we left the room.
This high pressure sales tactic left me cold, but I was very wrapped up in the possibility of a high value "investment" that could provide a lot of fun for my family. We agreed to spend about $500 for a week stay at one of several resorts. By making the purchase, we got to keep the option to get the "great deal." (This option was only made available to us after we told them we weren't going to buy.)
We felt that it was a good price for a week in a fancy place and so we made a honeymoon trip of it. We stayed for a week in a hotel near St. George. It was a lot of fun and a very nice place.
We ultimately decided not to pursue the offer any further. And we never did take that Vegas weekend. And with only a tiny amount of hindsight, I'm very grateful that we didn't.
The Deseret News is running a three day series on the timeshare sales business. So far, that portrait isn't very flattering. It turns out that people are paying 5 or 10 times the actual market value for a timeshare and doing so with exorbitant interest rates. If you're considering purchasing a timeshare, the advice is to do so in the open market rather than directly from one of the companies that builds the resorts. Buyer beware.
If you read the piece from the Deseret News, this link is to the main story. Check out the left sidebar for all the related stories with the actual meat of the investigation.
I must say the that the presentation was very persuasive. The presenters showed what good financial condition their company was in and how nice the properties were. They explained how a timeshare was a valuable asset that you could pass along to your children and would encourage you to go different places with your family on vacations.
It sounded really cool. And really expensive. But not to worry, they offer financing!
We were very hesitant. We'd agreed before we went that we would not purchase anything that day, but we also felt that we needed be be honest in hearing about the deal and give it a fair chance.
The salesman sat down with us and reviewed many of the great things we'd heard in the presentation. He explained an elaborate system of points and programs which we could take advantage of... but only if we made the purchase decision before we left the room.
This high pressure sales tactic left me cold, but I was very wrapped up in the possibility of a high value "investment" that could provide a lot of fun for my family. We agreed to spend about $500 for a week stay at one of several resorts. By making the purchase, we got to keep the option to get the "great deal." (This option was only made available to us after we told them we weren't going to buy.)
We felt that it was a good price for a week in a fancy place and so we made a honeymoon trip of it. We stayed for a week in a hotel near St. George. It was a lot of fun and a very nice place.
We ultimately decided not to pursue the offer any further. And we never did take that Vegas weekend. And with only a tiny amount of hindsight, I'm very grateful that we didn't.
The Deseret News is running a three day series on the timeshare sales business. So far, that portrait isn't very flattering. It turns out that people are paying 5 or 10 times the actual market value for a timeshare and doing so with exorbitant interest rates. If you're considering purchasing a timeshare, the advice is to do so in the open market rather than directly from one of the companies that builds the resorts. Buyer beware.
If you read the piece from the Deseret News, this link is to the main story. Check out the left sidebar for all the related stories with the actual meat of the investigation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)