Davis Didjeridu

Thank Goodness: Bishop's Opponent

2008-03-10T16:47:00.003-06:00

Last week I met with Rob Miller and Wayne Holland at the Utah Democrats HQ in Salt Lake City to discuss my run for the United States Congress District 1. After much discussion with friends, family, and numerous community members, I have decided to run for congress. I feel, along with some of my closest advisors that this year has the potential of making a perfect storm for change in House District 1. Some of the elements contributing to this storm are:

1. Utah Republicans are feeling abandoned by their party and flat out discriminated against by the religious right.

2. Our current congressman and the administration have ballooned the National Debt to almost $9.5 Trillion enslaving every man, woman, and child to the amount of $31,000.00 each.

3. This lack of fiscal responsibility and mis-management has led to a major economic crisis in the housing market and a tight squeeze due to inflation especially in light of $3.00 plus per gallon fuel prices.

For too many years the Republicans have taken the issues of family values, fiscal responsibility, and National security away from us. My opponent, Rob Bishop, has failed on all of these fronts while minding the store.

I intend to run an aggressive, spirited, and professional campaign designed for victory in November. I will focus on issues and the need for a major shift in direction for this Nation. My key themes will be:

Traditional Family Values

Energy Independence

Eliminating the National Debt

All three of these will resonate with Northern Utah voters this year.

This victory will not come easy however. I need your help to do two critical things. First, we need to raise an army of volunteers.

Second, we need to raise money in the six figures locally before June 1 to get the interest of National fund raising . I am working with a national fund raiser and his take is that we must be seen as a serious contender to get serious funding.

I would like to speak with you in the near future by email or phone at your convenience. I need to have lists of caucus chairs and their contact information so I can send fliers and my introductory dvd to them for the caucus. Also, if you could have them be ready with a tv and dvd player for the night of the caucus. I am preparing a 6 minute dvd for that purpose.

Will you help me with this great opportunity to create this "Perfect Storm" for real change?

I hope to speak with and meet you soon.

Morgan Bowen

Candidate for Congress Utah's 1st District

P.S. Feel free to forward this email to anyone who could help.

Morgan Bowen for Congress

Phone: 435-760-4814

BowenforCongress@comcast.net

About Morgan: Morgan Bowen is a forth generation descendant of Utah Pioneers. His father moved the family to the farming community of Merced, California where Morgan grew up. He has worked in the private, public, and religious sectors. For fifteen years he was CEO of an international agricultural consulting firm specializing in helping farmers reduce and eliminate toxic pesticides. Also, he was very active in political circles working to reform government. Morgan returned to his Utah roots to become a religious educator teaching at the Richmond Seminary. He holds a Associates Degree from Merced College where he served as the youngest student body president ever elected. He also has a BA in History from CSU Stanislaus, and a MS in American Studies from Utah State University. Morgan married his wife, the former Kristen Matheson, in 1988. They reside in the Cache Valley community of Hyde Park with their six children.

Your Republican Majority

2008-02-27T16:38:00.002-07:00

The Senate Site: Condoning Arrogance, Discrimination, Incompetence, and Graft since September 30, 2005.

The Utah Republican Majority: Corrupt, Arrogant, Discriminatory, and Incompetent since 1962.

Curt Oda: Davis County's Buttars

2008-02-14T23:54:00.004-07:00

Your* 2008 Legislator of the Year: Curt Oda
"Sorry, but you obviously have no idea what you're talking about."
"You obviously expect the government to protect your friends from themselves."
"The government is not your keeper."

*By "Your", I refer to those who do not have a brain and are hypocrites.

I don't agree with the kids on the issue, but I think Oda is a douchebag for this among all the other stupid things he does.

UPDATE from top story in SL Trib Close Up Davis County Section: I guess they can guarantee they can be reached, but Oda reminds us that they don't always try to reach back.

Why Mitt Romney Lost the Nomination: Religion

2008-02-07T12:02:00.001-07:00

I hoped that I would not ever have to write this blog, but I always knew that it would happen. Mitt Romney’s campaign for the presidency ended today after he could not overcome two things: first, the reason most Republicans nationally say why they did not support him, his inconsistency on important issues; and second, his religion was anathema to those who could not overcome the first reason.

It started going downhill last Spring, when the first videos and articles from 1994 and beyond came out, showing his incredible flip-flop. It got worse in December when Romney himself injected his religion into the debate when he could have just kept his mouth shut about it. But the final blow came when Governor Mike Huckabee knowingly and intentionally inserted his little question in the Times magazine interview. That’s what broke the camel’s back in Iowa, and Romney couldn’t recover in South Carolina, Florida, or nearly anywhere else. Too many Republicans would say they would not like his inconsistency, but it served as a genteel covering for religious intolerance.

I knew when Romney started this quest that I would have to tell everyone I knew that the current makeup of the Republican party would not accept a Mormon as their presidential nominee; it is true that he was a flawed, unprincipled Republican, but he was still a Mormon. I hope this teaches Mormon Republicans a lesson: for the past 30 or so years, the national Republican party used Mormons for their votes, didn’t give them much in return, and wouldn’t let a Mormon lead their party.

I hope that Utah Republicans and Republican-leaning unaffiliateds will realize this betrayal and start thinking about voting for Democrats, both nationally and locally. Some of this could have started happening by the relatively large turnout in the Democratic primary on Tuesday. However, I am not putting any money down on that hope.

A Good Case Story About Recycling

2007-12-05T12:55:00.000-07:00

Given the current discussion about recycling in Woods Cross and Bountiful, I was happy to hear this story on NPR's Day to Day today. It makes some very good points about how recycling does work (a lot of people do it in her area), why it does not work (people don't always understand what is recyclable), and why it makes sense (despite what others may believe). Let's work to ensure Bountiful follows the Woods Cross City Council's lead in approving curbside recycling next year.

Another example of Urq's Idiocy

2007-11-28T09:12:00.000-07:00

WTF? Global storming?
Another example of the stupidity in our legislature. Let the rest of the world burn as long as I am right and I get another few grand from realtors, road builders, and petroleum companies.
And yes, I do agree with the first anonymous commenter on Urquhart's blog. Urquhart and others are using global warming skepticism, in spite of overwhelming evidence in favor of reality, to justify inaction on any sort of real energy and transportation reform, Utah and nationally. While the first commenter was too blind to his own cowardice in commenting anonymously, his point is valid. I agree "we will continue to be dependent on middle east oil and foreign energy in general because we have gutless cowards for politicians" and would add that many more brave American servicemen and women will die in wars, along with the rest of us who will suffer and die from pollution-related disease, because of their cowardice.
I believe most Utahns, and most Americans, would like to see America stop using foreign oil, stop paying for gasoline when renewable resources are available, and get all of our energy from renewable sources (not including NON-renewable nuclear fission, which I am also sure Urq will be in favor of given his contribution history). However, Utahns need to wake up and elect leaders to act with courage.

What People Should Think About When They Say the Phrase "Liberal Unions"

2007-11-25T20:42:00.000-07:00

Thanks Ed.

What I've Been Saying All Along

2007-08-31T11:07:00.000-06:00

Eric Jacobson gives more PROOF to what I have been writing about since January: vouchers have not been proven to do anything. Of course, peer-reviewed, repeatedly proven, intelligently written, multiple and uniform methodologies, statistically-significant studies mean nothing when economic ideology is at risk.
h/t Education in Utah (thanks Natalie!)

Vouchers Will NOT Equal Mormon Private Schools

2007-08-30T22:59:00.000-06:00

For anyone laboring under the delusion that if Utah adopts school vouchers, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will institute a Catholic-like system of private schools, I offer the following evidence.

Mormons admit closure of Church College [of New Zealand] will be a loss

“The only Mormon school in New Zealand is closing because leaders say the church's resources could be better used elsewhere…

“United States-based Elder Paul Johnson told the Herald it was decided to close the school because New Zealand's education system was "one of the strongest in the world".

“Church resources would be better directed into teaching programmes in other regions, such as Africa and developing Europe.

“Elder Johnson and Elder Rolfe Kerr are visiting New Zealand this week, and last night broke the news to parents, staff and pupils.

“It is Mormon policy to close schools in areas where there is quality local education, Elder Kerr said.”

If the Church is closing their private schools in New Zealand, why would they take tithing to build expensive private schools in Utah?

SHOCKING!!! or Vouchers: When You Have No Proof, Just Lie

2007-08-17T13:32:00.000-06:00

I have written before about how voucher supporters, through their officially organized PAC, Parent for Choice in Education, used polling techniques verging on push polling to make the false case that Utahns wanted their tax dollars going to private schools. If I was at home at the time I am writing this, I would post the poll they posted on their website earlier this year that accompanied this press release; I will try and post it tomorrow. I thought that was a biased poll then.
Now, to my complete surprise and shock (sadly blogging doesn't convey sarcasm easily), we hear of PCE admitting to push polling. I guess when have no proof that vouchers work, the majority of Utahns don't want them, and you have enough money, you can lie, gay-bait, liberal-bait, etc. in the hope that you can dupe (and dupe is the word) into voting for vouchers. I have learned in politics to avoid superlatives, but I hope that the tide is changing and Utahns are rejecting homophobes and liars in politics.

Here's Accountability, Adam, Bob, Oldenberg, Derek, and Jeremy's takes on the dirty tricks. A quick Google Blogsearch couldn't turn up anybody defending this despicable tactic; that's even more shocking.

Davis County Tax Cut: You Get What You Vote For

2007-08-15T09:17:00.000-06:00

Reading this editorial in the Standard Examiner (h/t Davis County Watch), I cannot help but grimace. As a Democrat in Davis County, I have watched the populace get all worked up over the delusion that a County Commission totally composed of Republicans would not blink at raising taxes, raising fees, and otherwise screwing the public. I have watched the populace get all worked up over a county full of Republican legislators enacting unfunded mandates upon school districts while whining about unfunded mandates from the Federal government (which the Republicans at the Federal level all voted for, also). I have also watched the majority of this same populace labor under the totally unfounded delusion that simply replacing one Republican at convention will change things. So far this public is 0-3 commissioners, and definitely down in the count when it comes to legislators.
What makes me upset is the fact that Democratic candidates have been the ones who have pledged to not raise county taxes, have wanted to have commission meetings during the evening instead of one fruitless sounding board hearing (I would include a link to Chris Martinez' statement about this, but it must have been in his brochure and not on his website), and who have opposed unfunded mandates on the state and federal level. I will keep fighting to change those attitudes, to get people to wake up from this hallucination, and get some diversity of opinion in county government. Until then, county voters have no one to blame but themselves.

Another reason to oppose vouchers, if I have left any out

2007-08-03T15:49:00.000-06:00

Blue in Red Zion

Bridge Safety and Vouchers

ClipperWatch: No Real News for You!

2007-08-03T15:33:00.000-06:00

Long break from blogging, but I needed to write about a recent news item. It was this front page, above the fold, banner headline story in the most recent Davis County Clipper:

It was rather disgusting to read this story, but I could not pull away. Forget deeper investigations on the county's tax hike! Bountiful is considering adopting a recycling program, you say? Let's give them a little blurb. But one self-righteous douchebag gets uppity about ONE band practice on ONE Sunday when HE chose to live near a junior high with a large, open practice field! And that band wore swimsuits when it was only 97 degrees outside! Why should they make any attempt to stay cool! What nerve! What an outrage! The public must know every idiotic detail!

Is anyone else completely sickened by the complete joke the entire Clipper has become? It seems like they don't even try to get real news. My home has received two readership survey phone calls from the Clipper, but of course nothing changes. I am looking for any reason to keep subscribing; if anyone has one, let me know.

Local Blogger Does Good

2007-07-23T15:10:00.000-06:00

I am going to have to get my Tivo ready, because I have two blogger friends on major media. In addition to Jeff's gig on Nightside tonight, apparently Steve Petersen is going to be one of the YouTube questioners at tonight's CNN Democratic debate. Though he has stopped blogging since he moved from Dammeron Valley to Washington, DC, Obiter Dicta was one of the better, smarter blogs in Utah of the past couple years. Steve has also been on the BBC, KCSG, KCPW several times, and now CNN. I am going to have to find out how he self-promotes so well. Wish it was easy to find his video on YouTube, though.

BYU Grad Part of Tonight's YouTube Debate

Doing anything my radio advised....

2007-07-23T13:49:00.000-06:00

Keep Calm and Carry On

2007-06-20T22:47:00.000-06:00

Monday, the idiocy and insanity spouted from people like Sen. Lieberman and neo-conservative think tanks seeped into Utah's bloghive. Mark Towner, long known for his foolishness, repeated the ill-informed idea that we MUST attack/invade Iran.

When I first heard about the American move to war in Iraq in 2002, I was shocked. As a missionary at the time, even I knew that Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaeda terrorism or 9/11, and that they posed no threat to the US. When I asked people to confirm this, I usually asked them if they were confusing Iran, which did support terrorism, that does not like the US, and was right next to Afghanistan and would have been a tactically better choice to attack.

Since then, I have learned more about how badly we have screwed up in Iran, mostly thanks to our involvement in Iraq. Those mistakes will certainly not be undone by attacking Iran; for many reasons, it will exacerbate them.

First, is the double standard. As referenced on tonight's Daily Show, Saudi Arabia has been funding the Sunni insurgents in Iraq for most of the war, but we don't hear much about that, strangely enough.

Second is the belief we cannot solve problems diplomatically. I believe the only official meeting between US and Iranian governments since 1979 was earlier this month on this issue. We have not had official relations with Iran since the hostage crisis. I can sympathize with the boycott and the three main reasons for it: they did not respect the sovereignty of our embassy; they do sponsor terror; and they have not abandoned nuclear weapons research. However, the latter two are directly because Iran fears of American attack. If we would consider talking and negotiating with Iran (probably not on Iranian soil), perhaps we would find that we could easily work some things out.

Also, Mr. Towner mistakenly believes that an attack can only help our situation in the region. In fact, it will make in interminably worse. First, we would vindicate the Iranian leadership, who for 30 years have told their people to fear the US because an attack could be just around the corner. Thankfully, a good deal of Iranians, most of them too young to remember the Revolution, are starting to disbelieve most things their leadership says. That all changes with one US bullet or bomb; like the Iraqis who were not ready to change the regime, Iranians would support their theocratic government before letting Americans attack.

Finally, Mr. Towner dramatically underestimates the fighting spirit of the Iranians. His memory does not serve him well about Iranian tactics/mindset during the Iran-Iraq war. While the Iraqis did use chemical weapons, the Iranians used boys on bicycles as minesweeping martyrs when they ran out of military men and resources. They had a fountain of blood in Tehran dedicated to the memory of martyrs.

My message is that no one should think it is easy to wage war against Iran, and that no one should believe we cannot engage in diplomacy to solve our problems.

As a side note to Mark: please don't misuse the words of Kipling's Recessional. They were meant as a warning against the kind of jingoism you wish upon us, which can only lead to destruction. If you had visited the monuments that use this phrase, such as Melbourne's Shrine of Remembrance, perhaps you would use the words more carefully.

Hat-tips: The Sidetrack, Boing-Boing

Utah Media: Mitt Romney IS the only Presidential Candidate

2007-06-18T16:54:00.000-06:00

Back in February, I noted how the Utah media was being fairly balanced in their coverage of the Presidential race. It now appears KSL, though, has been taken over by LaVarr Webb. It seems like they cover Romney more than anyone else. I wanted to test this theory, so I searched KSL.com for all the candidates and was not surprised by the results.

Candidate	Hits
John McCain	347
Mitt Romney	238
Hillary Clinton	173
Barack Obama	165
John Edwards	128
Tommy Thompson	114
Bill Richardson	98
Mike Huckabee	67
Rudy Giuliani	57
Duncan Hunter	43
Dennis Kucinich	31
Fred Thompson	26
Chris Dodd	17
Joe Biden	2
Mike Gravel	2
Sam Brownback	2
Jim Gilmore	1
Others	0

Predictably, the front-runners got the highest number of hits. I was initially surprised by the number of McCain hits, but given his vociferousness on the two biggest issues in the past few months (Iraq and immigration), I can accept it. However, it appears that Romney is getting inordinate coverage. This was confirmed when I looked at the other six news sources and their search engines (KSTU has a crappy search engine).
Deseret Morning News

Candidate	Archive Hits
Mitt Romney	395
John McCain	368
John Edwards	320
Hillary Clinton	296
Barack Obama	264
Rudy Giuliani	218
Ron Paul	114
Bill Richardson	88
Fred Thompson	49
Sam Brownback	47
Mike Huckabee	39
Joe Biden	39
Chris Dodd	38
Duncan Hunter	32
Dennis Kucinich	29
Tommy Thompson	28
Tom Tancredo	17
Mike Gravel	14
Jim Gilmore	13

Tribune

Candidate	Archive Hits
Mitt Romney	1266
John McCain	538
Hillary Clinton	351
Rudy Giuliani	281
John Edwards	168
Barack Obama	126
Bill Richardson	120
Tommy Thompson	77
Fred Thompson	65
Jim Gilmore	45
Sam Brownback	39
Joe Biden	28
Dennis Kucinich	27
Tom Tancredo	27
Mike Huckabee	26
Duncan Hunter	22
Ron Paul	16
Chris Dodd	16
Mike Gravel	3

KUTV

Candidate	"Local News Hits"
Mitt Romney	30
John McCain	13
Rudy Giuliani	9
John Edwards	4
Hillary Clinton	3
Barack Obama	3
Ron Paul	2
Duncan Hunter	2
Tommy Thompson	1
Sam Brownback	1
Mike Huckabee	1
Jim Gilmore	1
Bill Richardson	1
Others	0

KTVX

Candidate	Hits
Mitt Romney	24
John McCain	14
Hillary Clinton	14
Barack Obama	10
John Edwards	9
Fred Thompson	8
Duncan Hunter	6
Bill Richardson	4
Mike Gravel	4
Sam Brownback	4
Ron Paul	3
Dennis Kucinich	3
Joe Biden	3
Mike Huckabee	2
Rudy Giuliani	1
Tom Tancredo	1
Others	0

KCPW

Candidate	Archive Hits
Mitt Romney	17
John McCain	16
John Edwards	2
Hillary Clinton	2
Rudy Giuliani	2
Barack Obama	1
Bill Richardson	1
Others	0

All of these news sources seem to have fallen into the fallacy that Utahns only care about their Mitt. They may defend their over-exposure of Romney by saying that Utahns want stories about how Mitt Romney is doing because of his connections to Mormonism and the Olympics. That may explain a few stories, but not when they reach into the hundreds. That excuse also does not excuse the fact that national news sources are also able to cover those issues, as NBC Nightly News did as I was writing this post. Similarly, the fact that they have overcovered Romney compared to the other candidates that have visited or will visit Utah is very disconcerting. Note that many (the Tribune and DNews only as far as I can tell, and in short, inside stories) have not covered the fact that we have TWO Democratic presidential candidates coming to Utah, perhaps for the first time ever. Sad to see this kind of bias in Utah's news, but not entirely unexpected.

The Endgame: No Public Schools

2007-06-13T12:46:00.000-06:00

No one should delude themselves: LA Times columnist Jonah Goldberg tells us the end game for voucher supporters. His column, entitled “Do away with public schools,” also has the subtitle: “Government is inept at running schools.” I ask those in favor of vouchers: is that true in Utah? If you say yes, then you are doing two things. First, you accept that over three decades of Republican dominance in Utah government has run our schools into the ground. Second, you also deny the numerous accolades that Utah’s public schools have achieved. From today’s headlines about high graduation rates, to West High’s continual rankings in Newsweek’s best High schools ratings (despite mainly serving what Goldberg calls “needy students”), Utah schools appear to be fairly well run and produce students ready to work or study at a higher level. Furthermore, while I believe they could do a better job if they were given more funding, and I believe that would be easier with more Democrats in office, it appears the Utah public education system has allowed some Republicans to learn the value of wisely investing in thus public good.

The rest Goldberg’s column is the same old, tired, fallacious arguments against public education and for vouchers that have no basis in fact. It also ignores that all 50 states have, in their constitutions, some sort of requirement for free, public education available to every child in their state. It is obvious that some accept his arguments if not his conclusions, such as Tyler at Davis County Watch, and Ethan at SLC Spin. I initially wanted to reply to Tyler’s latest post on the subject on his blog, but I had little more to say and wanted to say it better than my original comment.

I must start with an angry, loud, all-caps statement. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT THERE IS NO PROOF THAT PRIVATE SCHOOLS OR VOUCHERS ACTUALLY IMPROVE EDUCATION! Please provide one source, one study, one report that backs up your claim. I have repeatedly noted studies from the US Dept. of Education, the General Accounting Office, and other peer-reviewed studies showing there is NO proof that private schools work or that vouchers help. Why? Because there is no way to compare private schools that don't teach the same things, don't give the same tests, and don't take the same students that public schools are required to do.

Now I am not saying that private schools do not work at all or for some children or that they should be abolished either. I believe in school choice, and that parents should choose where their children go to school. However, when that choice is not financially viable, parents should be able to depend on the public system to provide for their children’s education. If it is not, we should consider changing who runs our schools through the electoral process, becoming more engaged in their children’s education, or consider applying for a private school scholarship (which is privately-funded). That is why I believe in words living up to their definitions. I abhor the “Clear Skies Initiative” because it pollutes our air more. I opposed vouchers because private schools should remain private and not become another tier of our government, subject to increasing government regulation until they are eventually absorbed entirely.

Also, it is false that it costs less per pupil to educate a child with a voucher. The per pupil number that groups such as the Utah Taxpayers Association give includes bonded, capital expenditures that are not included when the legislature appropriates funds for public education. In fact, it costs less to educate a child in public school than private, especially if you consider that the voucher only covers tuition, not the costs public education does cover, like transportation and food. The voucher does not cover these costs if they are included in tuition.

Finally, you are deluding yourself if you believe two things: that the voucher $ will always come from the general fund and not from the education fund; and that elimination of public education is not the ultimate goal of the major voucher proponents (not everyone, just the ones that give millions of dollars annually to influence elections and government for their favor, which is their right). Ask your legislator, whether they voted yes or no on the issue, if they expect to see the day that voucher funding will come from the education fund. It will happen, just like when they pushed higher ed funding from the education fund, and changed the constitution to change which taxes go into which fund. The big voucher supporters are not going to stop with Utah, but will try to achieve the same results nationally, until public ed does not exist.

Hat-tip: Crooks and Liars, Davis County Watch

Time for Candidates to Step Up

2007-06-07T16:12:00.000-06:00

(Cross posted to Daily Kos Diary--please recommend; maybe they will pay attention to Utah one day.)

As noted below, Utah's Attorney-General, Mark Shurtleff, has demoted two State Office of Education lawyers because they did not follow lock-step with his support for vouchers no matter what the people of Utah want.

With today's purge, the time has come for candidates to step up to the plate and challenge Governor Huntsman and Attorney-General Shurtleff. Governor Huntsman has shown the incompetence, weakness, cowardice, and waffling which I knew would happen since 2004. He silently allowed an unproven and unwanted voucher program to go into law. He then tried to have it both ways when the referendum petition drive started, saying he would respect the voice of the people. Then he backed off; then he felt a blowback and reversed himself again. He threw out trial balloons on special sessions, but decided again to submit to the legislature and be a weak, cowardly governor who believes he has no power. It is now time for a candidate, at least a Democrat but maybe a Republican, who will have the courage to stand up for what he or she believes in and stays consistent. We need candidates who will fight this plague of gubernatorial shallowness and lead our state the way most Utahns want.

As for Shurtleff, his actions today demonstrate he has no judicial intelligence, tolerance for legal diversity, or even plain ethics to extricate himself from a situation where his interests are dangerously and clearly conflicted. The Utah Attorney General's office used to be a place where legal reasoning and diversity were welcomed and political feelings were put aside in the name of justice. Today, it is clear Shurtleff's office is only for political hacks, and he is emulating his federal superior. There must be some candidates out there who have the fortitude and anger to run. Democrats should obviously have some one out there, and there has got to a Republican lawyer who is angry at him for any number of issues (his pro-amnesty immigration stance, Parker Jensen nanny state ideas, faux polygamy enforcement, anyone?)

It is obvious that the road is hard for both of these opposition candidates. KSL has apparently dropped its contract with SurveyUSA, so they don't even give us monthly Governor approval ratings anymore. I haven't seen a local poll (Dan Jones, Valley Research, etc) on either Huntsman or Shurtleff in months either. It appears the media has given in to the Republican inevitability syndrome, not even caring to report on how people feel about their current office holders. Mind you, Democrats have done little considering we don't have any candidates already.

However, now we must have people stand up and start fighting against these juggernauts. I would suggest they stay low-key until after the referendum and let the Governor and AG continue to not act and act dictatorially, respectively. They should stand up immediately after the referendum, which I hope they support, and push for political action at the next general election.

SLCSpin: Exclusive: Carol Lear Letter Of Termination

Exclusive: Jean Hill Letter Of Termination

Salt Lake Tribune: Shurtleff revokes 'special assistant AG' status of attorneys advising state education office

Deseret Morning News: Shurtleff tells state education office attorneys to halt legal advice

KSL: Shurtleff Terminates Status of Two Attorneys Over School Voucher Issue

Third Avenue: Shurtleff fires special DAGs for disagreeing

The Utah Amicus: News Release: Democratic lawmakers reach across the aisle to resolve voucher mess

Utah State Democratic Party: Arrogance and Abuse of Power

JM Bell: SLCspin Broke it first! - A.G. Mark “First Amendment should be conditional” Shurtleff fires Carol Lear and Jean Hill

Mormon on Politics: aka Moron Outside Reality

2007-05-31T23:56:00.000-06:00

I have on my Sage reader a bookmark for a blog called Mormon on Politics. I don't know why I ever knew about him. I guess he somehow remarked about the US Senate race in 2006 and I found him in a blog search. In any event, he has to be the worst blogger in the Utah blogosphere. I challenge anyone to read his blog and wonder what kind of reality he lives in. Take his recent post for example, which compared Nancy Pelosi and the DNC to Venezuela and Chavez' decision to clampdown on opposition media. He cites a press release from the Venezuelan Embassy as evidence that Pelosi agrees with Chavez. However, if he would have actually read Speaker Pelosi's actual press release on the issue, he would have found that she does not.
If you wish to know what idiocy truly is, read a few of his posts that I have commented on. Then perhaps read his complete flip-flop on Mitt Romney (after condemning Romney for flip-flopping).
After a night of thinking about this, I have to say my feelings have not changed. I don't really like to call out bloggers for no reason, and I have made mistakes. However, I think it is clear that MOP is operating in talking-points land, relying on zero factual evidence, and sometimes lies. Not good for someone who labels himself as a Mormon. I am not all that good, either, but for other reasons.

Urquhart’s Crazy, Illegal Ideas

2007-05-29T21:12:00.000-06:00

Rep. Urquhart made a feeble attempt to appear democratic in his latest post on the voucher saga. It seemed fairly disingenuous. My response follows:

Unfortunately, that cannot happen. You should read Title 20A, Chapter 7 of the code before writing about this; it is pretty clear. HB 148 essentially does not exist until the people vote that it does. The Legislature cannot touch it.

Secondly, if the legislature did this it would not be a referendum; it would be constitutional amendment ratification. The legislature does not submit issues to the voters in any other way. The people can submit laws to the legislature, but the legislature cannot submit simple laws to the people, only constitutional amendments.

Here are some basic ideas:

Follow Huntsman’s lead and repeal HB 174 in special OR regular session if HB 148 is repealed.
Stop bugging the School Board to do anything until HB 148 is approved by voters, if that happens.
Stop participating in lawsuits to stop the democratic process (like the one you are party to now).

I just wondered: if voucher proponents cared so much about parents being able to afford private schools, maybe they should spend more money on private scholarships instead of political action. I am not saying they do not have a right to such opinion and political action, but it would seem more genuine.

One of My Reasons Against Vouchers, From the Book of Mormon

2007-05-21T22:22:00.000-06:00

3 Nephi 6

12 And the people began to be distinguished by ranks, according to their ^ariches and their chances for learning; yea, some were ^bignorant because of their poverty, and others did receive great ^clearning because of their riches.
13 Some were lifted up in pride, and others were exceedingly humble; some did return railing for railing, while others would receive railing and ^apersecution and all manner of ^bafflictions, and would not turn and ^crevile again, but were humble and penitent before God.
14 And thus there became a great inequality in all the land, insomuch that the church began to be broken up; yea, insomuch that in the *thirtieth year the church was broken up in all the land save it were among a few of the Lamanites who were converted unto the true faith; and ^athey would not depart from it, for they were firm, and steadfast, and immovable, willing with all ^bdiligence to keep the commandments of the Lord.

This is one of those times where it just comes together nicely. My opposition to vouchers is based almost entirely on the previously outlined on this blog: the fact they have not been proven to work; the fact that public schools are proven to work; the fact that school choice exists, etc. This scripture just reiterates some of the reasoning behind not setting up a two-tier system. For a better argument, read what someone smarter and more experienced than I wrote.

Why I Think Game 1 Wasn't That Bad

2007-05-21T21:58:00.000-06:00

I think the Jazz learned a lot of lessons in Game 1, and could do better in Game 2 onward. That doesn't mean I think they will win the series; my prediction is that the Spurs win 4-1, 4-2 at best. The Spurs are a fairly complete team, with every player complementing each other and stepping up where others sometimes fail. You can't just cover Duncan because that leaves Parker open; when Ginobli comes off the bench, problems increase several fold. Even down the bench to Jacque Vaughn, Oberto, and others can step it up.
The Jazz are almost there, but they are all less inexperienced, and a few players are fairly useless. I am hopeful based on just one surprising performance yesterday: Araujo. I thought he performed fairly well against Duncan, and only made the stupid blocking foul against Ginobli. If the Jazz prepare him better for Tuesday's game, he could be the difference-maker that Boozer, Okur, Collins, and others cannot be. Now the Jazz just need better match-ups against everyone else on the Spurs.

Carter: One of the Best Ex-Presidents

2007-05-21T18:16:00.000-06:00

In response to this nonsensical post on KVNU’s blog For the People, I provided this rebuttal.

Craig, who was right in 1976? Carter, who promoted alternative energies like solar, wind, nuclear, etc and proposed an energy independence plan? Or people like Orrin Hatch who opposed him? I think around 3200 dead soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors would rather we had followed Carter’s plans instead of 30 more years of dependence on foreign oil. That doesn’t count the millions around the world that are dead because we (the US) failed to take the lead to get off non-renewable energy and now suffer under tons of pollution (without a doubt about that) and global warming (you can argue amongst yourself about that, but you are part of a shrinking minority). We had a choice during the Carter presidency; and we chose to not allow our nation to move forward in research, development, and implementation of renewable energy. Now we are paying for it, in $3 gas, in American health, in potentially more prosperity, and the lives of our military.

I will admit that Carter made mistakes. It is obvious he failed to heed his own advice in helping the corrupt Shah, and that led to the Islamic revolution and hostage crisis in Iran. However, you make claims in your article about the Carter Center’s work, but most of them are logically flawed. You submit simply because Carter negotiated the 1994 North Korean deal, that it was doomed to fail. When in fact that led to a softening of relations among North Korea, its neighbors, and the US (remember the unified Korean Olympic team in 2000? Madeline Albright’s visit? the South Korean President getting the Nobel Peace Prize because of their peace-making efforts). Also, one of the reasons the Agreed Framework broke down is the Republican Congress refused to fund essential portions of it. Finally, it was the Bush Administration inexplicably putting NK in the “axis of evil” that put the final nails in the coffin and scared the paranoid NK regime out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It should be noted that Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democratic presidential candidate, is who both the US and NK turn to now to get things done.

As to the Carter Center’s work, can you hold out the possibility that perhaps they know what they are doing and the Venezuelan people actually dislike American influence so much that they would vote for Chavez? But hey, it’s not like we could have less an obtrusive influence there if we had stopped being so concerned with their oil, like if we had stopped around 1977 or so?

For Cuba, all I can say is at least he is trying where a 40 year embargo has clearly failed.

I have not read his book, but I would expect such a response given the power of the American-Israeli lobby. Perhaps if we had gotten off foreign oil, say in 1977 or even now, we would care less about what happens in the Middle East.

Finally, I think you have intentionally taken the quote out of context. If you read the entire quote, you would be hard pressed to find any nation on earth that likes Bush, and therefore has a lesser opinion of the nation that elected and re-elected him. If you could provide a nation that thinks well of Bush, in terms of public opinion polling, please provide evidence of that.

I would say that Bush is the worst president, for the simple reason he has ignored every lesson of history about wars won and lost in the 20th Century (Spanish-American, WWI, WWII, Korean, Vietnam), hence we are stuck in the Iraq quagmire.

Leaving the main part of my comment about energy untouched, he focused instead on specious arguments about Carter’s post-presidential work. He alleged Carter’s work in North Korea was “freelance;” President Carter disputes this claim. He then alleges that “whenever Carter monitors an election, the dictator wins.” Looking over a list of elections the Carter Center has observed or certified (which are two different things), you can see that Craig’s statement is flatly false. Probably the best example was in 1999 in East Timor, when the dictatorial Indonesian regime lost to the East Timorese people’s wishes for independence. How about the election of Vicente Fox in Mexico in 2000? Was he a dictator? What about the Cherokee nation’s elections in 1999? Did they elect a dictator? Do you think that would even be possible?

He dismisses worldwide public opinion polls, including the BBC-University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes polls, showing the US is increasingly looked upon as a negative influence on the world. For example, you can see in the 2007 edition of their detailed study that we are reaching a new low in terms of world opinion of the US. Craig cites close relations with leaders of some nations as evidence of world support. As one who has actually lived in Australia, I can tell you that their increasingly flagging support of John Howard has nothing to do with his relationship with Bush. They have little or no tolerance for him Down Under. Australia, as with the UK, Hungary, Russia, Turkey, and the other nations in the BBC-PIPA poll, thinks, almost always in strong majorities: the US is having a mainly negative influence in the world; disapproves how the US has handled the situations in Iraq; Iran; Israel/Lebanon/Hezbollah; North Korea; the treatment of detainees in Guantanamo; global warming; and that the US military presences in the Middle East provokes more conflicts than it prevents. Japan was not polled in this study, but I suspect they are just fine with America as long as we keep buying their cars and ignore their high protectionist tariffs. He then makes the increasingly strained comparison between Bush and Reagan, saying the world hated Reagan. I would like to see some citation of that fact; I know many around the world, in the US, and even in Utah (including the LDS Church) were alarmed by Reagan’s affinity for nuclear weapons and the theory of limited nuclear war, a.k.a. nuclear utilization theory, a.k.a. NUTs. The main difference is that Reagan softened his rhetoric toward the USSR in his second term (as Gorbachev reciprocated), and that allowed the peace process to bloom and the Cold War to end.

He then dismisses the American Israeli lobby’s influence on US politics, alleging Carter “accepts millions of dollars from the Saudis.” Again, I have not read the book, but just looking at their official lobbying arm, AIPAC, you can see they have a lot of power on both sides of the aisle. I would also like Craig to cite the Saudi’s payments, because I have not found such a connection. However, I doubt he reaches the point of anti-semitism, though it is clear a lot of people are upset about his book. This leads me to wonder: Craig, have you read his book? Or are you just judging it by its cover?

David James alleges that there have been great advances in alternative energy over the past 30 years, almost entirely in the private sector. That was my exact point; in the absence of any governmental leadership in the energy arena, the private sector was left to its own devices. Imagine where we would be today if, instead of one building at the U of U devoted to coal gasification, a nuclear reactor, and other energy research, we could have ten? What if Dr. Farrell Edwards at USU had funding from the Department of Energy and not Homeland Security to work on his fusion research? I would like Mr. James to cite how much money we “threw away” and what “no results” means, especially considering the horrible situation we are in today. I am not arguing for the evil “government intervention” that he warns about, but the kind of research, development, and implementation that could have truly opened up the world energy market beyond just oil. Instead, we are still stuck using fossil fuels for 85% of our total US energy consumption in 2005, with petroleum increasing as the main US energy consumption source since the 70s but other forms of energy have barely risen.

I have neglected to reject the response that Carter has been a bad ex-president, but compared to the recent history of past presidents, he has probably done the best job, frankly. Truman, Eisenhower, LBJ, and Reagan barely did anything (or had the capability to do anything) after their presidencies, beyond politics; Nixon wrote books and tried to defend himself; Ford did well to help his wife’s causes and other activities; GHW Bush and Clinton have worked on charitable projects, but both have been concerned with their dynasties. Only Carter has dedicated himself almost wholeheartedly to humanitarian and peace-making projects (though he has definitely remained politically active).

Finally, in response to Tom Grover’s remarks, which I concede are cogent. Carter did not use the traditional chief-of-staff model of organization; it seems his desire to be in-the-know more than his scandal-tainted predecessors overwhelmed him. Furthermore, his speeches reached for how Lincoln connected morals and policy, but obviously failed. Finally, his Congressional relations were very bad, but some would say he was better than Bush is now. Those poor relations, especially with those in his own party, cost him and led to the failure of his energy package.

Finally, I would not say at all that Carter was the greatest President ever; I would rank him in the mid-range of 20^th Century presidents. He was better than McKinley, Taft, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover; a toss up among Wilson, Truman, Ford, GHW Bush, Clinton; but worse than TR, Wilson, FDR, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, and Reagan. The reason I think GWB is so bad, is because he has the blessing of learning from American history, but has spurned those blessings and that has cost our nation dearly.

I have vented enough and will hopefully not engage in a flame war on this, but I just wanted to get this off my chest.

Why I Don't Care About Rocky v. Hannity

2007-05-05T13:12:00.000-06:00

I did not watch or listen to the “debate” last night. Everything about the whole event seemed contrived and pointless. Instead I chose to watch an old movie that pretty much summarized/prophesied what modern politics has turned into, though I had never seen the movie before. In John Ford's The Last Hurrah, Spencer Tracy's character makes a prescient statement, asking his sports columnist nephew a question:

Now tell me this. What would you consider the greatest spectator sport in the country today? Would you say it was baseball, basketball, football?... It’s politics. That’s right, politics. Millions and millions of people following it every day in the newspapers, over the TV and the radio. Now mind you, they wouldn’t get mixed up in this themselves for all the tea in China, but they know the names and numbers of all the players. And what they can’t tell the coaches about strategy. Oh, you should see some of the letters I get.

That is what I was afraid of last night: a spectator sport, not a political dialogue. I suspect there were more cogent arguments at last night's Blaze game; however, I bet attendance was higher at the debate than at the Delta Center.

While some see the Internet as a hope for greater political involvement, where individuals can make the kind impact not seen in earlier generations, I am pessimistic. I feel that until people stop seeing politics as that spectator sport and more as something they can participate in (i.e. run for office themselves), we won't evolve beyond Rocky v. Hannity. I have a friend who worked on the Ashdown campaign who is running for SLC mayor, but is so low in the polls and campaign funds now that no one pays attention to him. At least he is jumping out of the stands and on to the playing field, though.

The Mormons Part II--but about Part I

2007-05-03T21:28:00.000-06:00

I finally saw the first half of The Mormons and it pretty much sucked. I could not believe how badly it portrayed the history of the Church while doing so well with the present-day aspects. Inaccuracies plagued the two hours, for example: during the extremely brief synopsis of the contents of the Book of Mormon, it made the statement that Christ visited the Americas during the three days between his crucifixion and resurrection. This is not Church doctrine; it is true that Christ's voice was heard in the darkness that covered the New World immediately after the death of Christ. Some time passed; in Jesus the Christ, Elder James E. Talmage wrote that it was “[a]bout six weeks or more” after the darkness cleared.

Then there was the dreary music and horrid paintings that at times scared me. It is not that the paintings were bad, but poorly used. I am thinking particularly of the triple portrait of Joseph Smith, and the reddish Christ. I concur with Holly Mullen's bewilderment of using mostly Southern Utah scenery shots for the pioneer era; my ancestors were sent to Davis County, Idaho, Montana, and other places without red rocks, but still just as picturesque. Furthermore, I found the whole historical presentation poor; the talking head historians were just not interesting. Ms. Whitney's historical storytelling style was boring compared to the documentaries of Stephen Ives, Ken Burns, Ric Burns, Ken Verdoia, and others. Another problem was the disjointed presentation through “acts,” where each topic required throwbacks to previous events, interrupting the flow. I would have preferred a clean chronology where we could see how each event and person contributed to the development of the Church as it related to each other. It was wrong to try and cut away the sense of persecution from the Mountain Meadows; impossible to separate polygamy from discussions about doctrinal development and revelation.

Then I was greatly disappointed that nearly an entire hour was spent on the Mountain Meadows Massacre and polygamy. I really do not see why they needed to spend time on Mountain Meadows at all in this documentary. Unlike polygamy, I was never asked about Mountain Meadows when I was a missionary in Australia; and it is a relatively little known event in Western history. I was interested to see how the event would be covered, but I was disappointed at how tersely it was covered, without the drama that other presentations conveyed (namely Stephen Ives' treatment in his documentary The West).

As to polygamy, I just feel too much was dedicated to the modern-day polygamist culture while giving relatively short shrift to the officially-sanctioned practice in the past. If I was not a member of Church and was watching it, I would wonder whether the polygamous families were still members of the Church, despite the video clips from President Hinckley. I found the portrayals of the Short Creek raids not as sympathetic as perhaps they were intended to be, and found myself wondering if the kind of abuses present in enclosed polygamist today were under the rug then.

In the final analysis, I would only recommend the second half of the program to people who would like to know more about the Church and its people. If someone wanted an accurate and balanced historical account of the Church, I would recommend they watch a few different programs: Lee Groberg's American Prophet, Trail of Hope, Sacred Stone, and Sweetwater Rescue; Stephen Ives The West, Ken Verdoia's Utah: the Struggle for Statehood, Brigham Young, and A Matter of Principle: Polygamy in the Mountain West.

The Mormons: Good Show, Bad Website

2007-05-02T00:08:00.000-06:00

It has been a somewhat busy month since I last posted here, and I feel really stupid about not writing. I have wanted to write on many issues, but felt I did not make the time to write substantively on the issues I care about. However, I wanted to get out something that I want to express. Perhaps I will write more about this and other things in the future.

Tonight I watched the second half of The Mormons on PBS. I have not yet seen the first part because my tivo was split between 24, Heroes, the Daily Show, and the Colbert Report and had to wait until later tonight to even record the first half. I will probably get to that tomorrow. I was impressed by the second half; it was about what I expected in terms of non-Mormon/dissident feelings, official Church line, and scholarly discussion. I was greatly surprised, though, by the dramatic telling of the stories. I felt the juxtaposition of that generally sterile discussion with personal interviews of individuals who have been impacted by the operation of the Church was incredibly powerful. While I could easily identify with the member families and individuals, I also could sympathize with the experiences of Margaret Toscano and Trevor Southey (Tal Bachman, not so much; he is always annoying). I also liked how the program started and ended with sunset panoramas of the Bountiful temple. I strongly contend both that Bountiful sunsets are the best on earth and that the Bountiful temple is the best one yet built.

I was excited to see the program's website because PBS usually has great web resources. I have often depended on Frontline or American Experience websites for research. However, I was greatly disappointed by the dearth of further resources now there. Specifically, the fact that only 13 interviews from the series online, and even then they are excerpted and not complete interview transcripts. I would have liked to have seen more from other interviewees like Sen. Bennett (I kind of would like to see how he screwed up) or Harold Bloom. I would also like to read or watch more from Betty Stevenson, Bryan Horn, and others whose personal experiences I liked so much. I hope they improve the website, as it is relatively easy to do, compared with adding new sections to the documentary itself.

Best Day of the Year

2007-04-01T21:06:00.000-06:00

My World Series Hope (Not Necessarily a Prediction)

Pro-Petition Response Part II: HB 174 Cannot Be Challenged by Referendum

2007-03-14T22:30:00.000-06:00

First of all, I apologize for the formatting problems with the previous post. I hope that it is still readable.

My next response is to the idea that the petition referendum is wrong-headed because it did not challenge both HB 148 and HB 174. Surely the answer to this question is: if they could have, they would have, but legally they cannot.

There are many major legal provisions that proponents of this view are not aware of (most likely), are willfully ignorant about, or are intentionally deceitful (least likely).

The first is in the Utah Constitution, Article VI, Section 1, which states:

“(2) (a) (i) The legal voters of the State of Utah, in the numbers, under the conditions, in the manner, and within the time provided by statute, may:…

“ (B) require any law passed by the Legislature, except those laws passed by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to each house of the Legislature, to be submitted to the voters of the State, as provided by statute, before the law may take effect.”

The second is in Utah Code 20A-7-102:

“By following the procedures and requirements of this chapter, Utah voters may, subject to the restrictions of Article VI, Sec. 1, Utah Constitution and this chapter:…

“(2) require any law passed by the Legislature, except those laws passed by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to each house of the Legislature, to be referred to the voters for their approval or rejection before the law takes effect;…”

HB 174 was passed by votes of 54-11 in the House (72%) and 23-5-1 in the Senate (73%). That clearly makes it ineligible for referral to the voters.

Utahns for Public Schools has also claimed that they could not challenge HB 174 because it was not signed by the Governor until March 6, six calendar days after the session ended. Utah Code 20A-7-302 clearly states:

(1) Persons wishing to circulate a referendum petition shall file an application with the lieutenant governor within five calendar days after the end of the legislative session at which the law passed.

To understand the importance of this, let us see the definition of what a law is, according to Utah law. Article VII, Section 8 of the Utah Constitution declares the duties of the governor, detailing:

“(1) Each bill passed by the Legislature, before it becomes a law, shall be presented to the governor. If the bill is approved, the governor shall sign it, and thereupon it shall become a law.”

So therefore, HB 174 was not a law before Governor Huntsman signed it on March 6, and was not eligible for challenge on that basis either.

Does this mean HB 174 is bullet-proof? Absolutely not! Without the major provisions contained in HB 148, especially the religious neutrality provision, it is even more likely to be struck down by the courts if some state agency attempts to implement it.

Pro-petition Response Part I: A dead (or static) HB 148 could kill vouchers.

2007-03-13T23:50:00.000-06:00

There has been plenty of discussion on vouchers on a lot of Utah blogs, some of whom I have listed below. While there has been plenty hyberbole on the pro-petition side, there has been a lot of disinformation on the anti-petition side. I respect everyone’s views and have no reason to believe any blogger is writing out of any ulterior motive. However, that does not mean that some are wrong.

For those of you who want to see what I think about vouchers in general, I urge you to read my series of blog posts in January and February about vouchers:

School Choices: Questions About State Educational Policy in America--Part I

School Choices: Questions About State Educational Policy in America: Part II

School Choices: Part III Problems

School Choices: Part IV Problems for Government

School Choices: Part V A Preferred Policy Solution: School Choice?

School Choices VI: A Brief History of Choice

School Choices VII: Implementation and Outcomes

No on HB 148, No to Vouchers: An Unproven Risky Scheme

No on HB 148, No to Vouchers: Constitutional Issues

No on HB 148, No to Vouchers: Unrealistic Finances

No on HB 148, No to Vouchers: The Wholesale Purchase of the Legislation by Purchase of the Legislators

No on HB 148, No to Vouchers: Conclusion

I want to address this issue in several posts, and will start with the differences between HB 148 and HB 174. In doing so, I recognize that I am not a lawyer, but I am simply making some reasoned arguments in comparing the two bills.

174 does not have any amendments to six of 148’s sections. I believe the following could be implicated based on the absence of the following sections, should the petitions qualify for ballot access and 148 not be enforced until a referendum:

53A-1a-801, Utah Code Annotated 1953—I will leave it up to a lawyer to decide whether a code section without a title means anything. I don’t know.
53A-1a-802, Utah Code Annotated 1953—There are major problems with the program without the findings. Perhaps most importantly, and Rep. Urquhart made pains to state this in his committee testimonies, the religious neutrality clause is stripped away.
53A-1a-803, Utah Code Annotated 1953—Without definitions, there are major problems enforcing a law. Especially when there is no specific agency assigned to enforce it.
53A-1a-807, Utah Code Annotated 1953—Mitigation monies were some of the major justifications for passage, and many legislators cited it as a reason for voting for this bill instead of previous attempts. Without these monies, public schools will be punished. Because each school will have no idea who will receive a voucher or not, schools and districts will not be able to carefully plan budgets for submission to auditors.
53A-1a-809, Utah Code Annotated 1953—HB 148 was already short on accountability provisions; without enforcement power, whatever agency in charge of administering the program will effectively be giving tax dollars away without any way of stopping. If the agency chooses to stop funding a scholarship, the recipient school could sue that their due process rights were abridged, because there is no due process written in the code to terminate funding.
53A-1a-810, Utah Code Annotated 1953—In an alternate line of reasoning, without the prohibition against regulation, Rep. Aagard’s fear that a voucher program could unnecessarily regulate private enterprise could come true. (I am not certain it was Aagard that said this during floor debate, but it was one of the no votes from Northern Davis County).

Also missing from 174: a fiscal note for funding the scholarships, meaning if spending for the voucher program does not jive with the overall budget, it could cause major problems for fiscal analysts and down the line (to the taxpayer who may be over-taxed).

The two bills have exactly the same text in the other five sections, with five exceptions which I have bolded:

In 53A-1a-804. “Scholarship program created -- Qualifications – Application,” adds

“(4)(b) Upon acceptance of the scholarship, the parent assumes full financial responsibility for the education of the scholarship student for the period in which the student receives the scholarship, including costs associated with transportation.”

In section 53A-1a-805. “Eligible private schools,” adds

“(1)(g) employ or contract with teachers who have completed a criminal background check that complies with the requirements of Section 53A-3-410 and:…”

“(3) The following are not eligible to enroll scholarship students:…

(c) a school that encourages illegal conduct; or…”

Adds another $100,000 for the School Board to administer the program next fiscal year (2007-08)

Also adds: “Section 7. Coordinating H.B. 174 with H.B. 148 -- Substantively superseding amendments.

“If this H.B. 174 and H.B. 148, Education Vouchers, both pass, it is the intent of the Legislature that the amendments to the sections in this bill supersede the amendments to the same numbered sections in H.B. 148 when the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel prepares the Utah Code database for publication.”

What are the implications of these changes for our purposes? Well, it could mean that vouchers could be instituted, but with major legal problems evident. Therefore, it would be up to the courts to determine if, either between ballot access and referendum and/or the referendum is successful, HB 174 amendments would be legal without a code to amend them to.

As I said, this is a series and I will address further arguments in further posts. But if you have a question on this analysis, feel free to ask.

Blogs for voucher petition:

Utah Amicus

Jeremy’s Jeremiad

Utah State Democratic Party

The World According to Me, Bob

Centerville Citizen

Third Avenue

Democracy for Utah

Utah Senate Democrats

Education in Utah

Blogs against voucher petition:

“…it seemed to be a good idea at the time.”

2007-03-10T16:52:00.000-07:00

I will admit, when I wrote this post last week, I was thinking not much would come of it. I was wrong. I have no ill will against the artist as a person or in the quality of his art. As I said in my updated post, I simply disagree with his premise that the UN has been ineffective has at combating terrorism. As I wrote there, this is because the US has made the UN ineffective; blame the current administration if you don't like how the UN is fighting terrorism.

I will give Mr. Perkins praise for this week’s cartoon in the Clipper (I cannot find a link; hopefully he will post it on his blog and I will update this). It effectively addressed an issue in Davis County: the near wholesale ignorance of the UTA towards Davis County residents. I have long been upset at the poor state of “public” transportation in Davis County, and I don’t think the proposed changes will help out much. I have no problem with the cartoonist mocking UTA leadership for their deafness. However, this is another post altogether.

I do not really want a “flame war,” and that was not my intent in my post. I simply hoped that Mr. Perkins would take the time to look at an alternative point of view. I am saddened that he did not, but I am glad he did not engage in name-calling, either.

I am taking this opportunity to address some of Mr. Perkins concerns. First, he is right that a didjeridu is a wind instrument (see illustration), used by certain tribes of the Aboriginal people of Australia. Next, he mistakenly assumes I do not believe that there is bias in other news sources. Bias obviously exists; my opinion is that most of the Utah (and national) news sources have a conservative bias most of the time. This is because most of them are owned by massive conglomerates (including public broadcasting’s conglomerate, the Federal government bureaucracy) who find little need to address news and opinions beyond those of their bread and butter: elected officials, businesses who advertise, and foundations that contribute. That is not to say that they sometimes have the dreaded “liberal” bias in some stories, but I do not see that often. I suggest anyone wishing to understand this issue read two great books on the subject by prominent academics of the subject: Lance Bennett’s News: The Politics of Illusion, especially chapter 4 “How Journalists Report the News;” and Calvin Exoo’s Democracy Upside Down, chapter 2 “’And That’s the Way It Is’: The Bias of the News.”

However, my post was intended not to criticize the other media sources, but confine it (mostly) to the Clipper. Its bias was proven in his very post. Mr. Koecher’s February 22, 2007 editorial column was virtually copied-and-pasted from a chain email, which Snopes describes with the following disclaimer:

…context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."

Suffice it to say I believe that Mr. Koecher was unprofessional and biased in not researching these quotes, finding their context, elucidating their meaning, and reporting the speaker’s intents’ at the time they were made. I usually feel that words taken out of context are some of the worst lies, because they attempt to veil falsehood in truth. I believe Mr. Koecher should be ashamed.

While I am glad that the Clipper allows the two party chairs to express their views, they also publish two columnists whose views do not officially represent those of either party. In fact, there have been many times when I have seriously disagreed with Ms. Brandvold and am frustrated because the caption makes it seem like she is representing the party’s viewpoint, which she is not. I have also found it annoying that, while they allow each chair to write a column, they give substantially more coverage to county Republican party activities than Democratic party outings. Two examples illustrate this. In 2004, Davis County Democrats were represented by elected delegates at the Democratic National Convention in Boston; however, there was only one story about the national conventions that year, and it was about how Dannie McConkie and others went to the Republican National Convention. Second, there was this Thursday’s misprinted back page, where the Republican Women of Davis County’s event was printed for a second time, but there was only one section on the Davis County Democrats Monthly breakfast held this morning.

I apologize for not being clear with my comment about Bagley and the Tribune editorial cartoons. I should have just said that because I feel the repeated conservative slant of his cartoons render them unfunny to me. Others may feel different, but usually I have found them offensive because they mischaracterize the facts or engage in ad hominem attacks based on false stereotypes. I also feel he misses opportunities to equally skewer both sides of a political issue, with one exception. For example, this cartoon could have pointed out that it was the lame duck Republican Congress that didn’t give Utah a 4^th seat, or that all the County Commissioners in this post are Republicans, and remain so, and they are the ones who are raising taxes. I probably would not care as much if it wasn’t so one-sided. I also would not mind it so much if it was just on his blog instead of in the Clipper.

As to our disagreement about the UN, he simply has a different view about how the UN works. He apparently sees it as a strictly majoritarian institution, where the US is just one country among another nearly 200 other states with competing interests and/or jealousy. I don’t doubt there is some element of that in the body. However, as I have repeatedly said in my posts, I do believe that the UN is an extension of the foreign policy objectives of the individual states, especially the most powerful one: the USA. I feel that when the UN fails, it is usually because the US is unwilling (not unable) to exercise influence in the body to prevent or correct those failures. From the Oil-for-Food corruption to the allegations of rape in the Congo to the inaction in East Timor and now Darfur, I feel most of the blame falls on the US government’s (of both parties) unwillingness to take a more active role in the body.

I do have to take one exception with one of his statements: “Inaction against terrorism, is, effectively, surrendering to it.” Mr. Perkins seemingly equates inaction with unwillingness to go to war, which I believe was the false choice in the Iraq war debate. I believe, and the facts bear it out, that continued and intensified diplomatic pressure (like we are trying with Iran and North Korea) can achieve security goals. If that was allowed in Iraq, we may have come to know the truth that there were no more WMDs in Iraq. Do I think that diplomatic pressure would have resulted in regime change in Iraq? Probably not, but I do not think the US has to or should use its power to change the governments of sovereign nations without clear evidence of threat. Also, even before the war, when I was in a relative news blackout, I was never convinced that the Hussein regime in Iraq had anything to do with al Qaeda, which the facts have borne out to be true.

As to my statement against Señor Dangriga, I hope that his comment was a joke. His Blogger profile makes no mention that he is in the Air Force, working military intelligence. Even so, that makes his comment worse, not better, as he should know better. Again, I challenge Dangriga or Perkins to find one statement where a member of the Democratic National Committee wishes to surrender to terrorism. I suspect they will make another false equation, claiming that redeployment from Iraq to Afghanistan and other bases is tantamount to surrender. I cannot adequately express how that is not the case, I will leave that to others like: Reps. Murtha, Murphy, Sestak; Sens. Webb, Inouye, Kerry; Gens. Clark, Batiste, Eaton; among others. Google their official statements at your leisure.

While I do relish the opportunity to express myself, I fear such a back-and-forth conflict between Mr. Perkins and I on this issue alone would bore me eventually, probably driving me from blogging. For that reason, I am going to move on to other issues after this post. Anyone is free to comment, but hopefully I will restrain myself from further “war.” I am trying to make my blog a place of intelligent discourse, but not get bogged down in one single issue. I want to move on to write about things like the voucher referendum, the UTA’s deficiencies, veterans care, my thoughts on spring training, how much American Idol sucks, etc.

P.S.—5 points on the board to whoever can recognize the quote from the post title.

Sunday Talk Show Highlights: Break Up the Vanocur Group

2007-03-04T13:46:00.000-07:00

As with most things at KTVX these days, the Vanocur Group is in a poor state. Today’s episode was merely the (opposite of) icing on the cake. Nobody disagreed with each other except on lobbying; even then, there was no real insight offered as to why things happened at the legislature or how people should interpret the events.

I have long been upset at the content on the Vanocur Group. For most of last year, they seemed overly focused on the national electoral scene and wholly unwilling to discuss any of the state or local races. By doing so, they looked like a single A minor league team trying to figure out how the major leaguers play, and it made them look bad. I was hoping things would get better when Kirk Jowers, Director of the Hinckley Institute of Politics, was added, but he seemed excluded from the conversations and has not been on the show recently.

I am going to sound selfish in saying this, but the Vanocur group does not speak to my demographic of young people who are involved in politics. I want to have vibrant discussion, but I want it from individuals I can respect, trust, and count on for thoughtful local news commentary. While some members of the Vanocur group can fit one of those criteria, none of them currently embody all of them. Utah Now is working toward that, Take Two (if it still exists) is another joke, and On the Record is dying a slow, painful death.

Congratulations to Ethan and Emily

2007-03-03T13:41:00.000-07:00

Orrin Buttars Millard does sound good.

Romney and Coulter Endorse Each Other

2007-03-02T21:50:00.000-07:00

I was disgusted to find today that Gov. Romney sold his soul to the Conservative base by endorsing Ann Coulter today, saying it is "a good thing" to hear from her--"Oh Yeah!"

Any google search will find that Ms. Coulter claims to be act in the name of polemicism, but she is not. Her activities do not drive forward an ethical debate; she has no ethics so she debates solely on prejudice and pure hate.

The fact that Governor Romney endorsed her, and then she subsequently endorsed him, has transformed my opinion of him. Previously, I have had a mild disdain and annoyance; now I feel utter contempt. I will now be actively campaigning against him at every opportunity. I do not believe our President should be a bigot or knowingly endorse the rhetoric of acknowledged bigots.

I am even more upset because I believe Governor Romney has now betrayed his faith. As a Latter-day Saint, I am commanded to love one another, including my enemies. Romney has admitted that he believes that it is a good thing to expose yourself to someone who hates her enemies. That is not Christlike, in my opinion. I do not claim to be Christlike in all my actions, but I will never commit the sin of endorsing hatred and bigotry.

Blog-a-palooza: Should have known it would be a DC

2007-03-02T20:34:00.000-07:00

So the Fox 13 Blog-a-palooza was a complete joke. It was mostly Fox's web team, a few reporters, and their families. Much of the discussion was how cool myfoxutah.com was compared to the previous site. I admit that it is a vast improvement over their previous crapfest of a website, but it's nothing revolutionary. It appears every Fox station across the nation has a myfox_____ website, and therefore lacks the personal feel that KSL's website has captured.

To me, our market's websites rank:

KSL--Without the horrible commenters, it would still be a good site because of the speed of posting and easy video access. Its great archives make it useful for research also.
KUED--The sheer volume of free video, transcripts, and other features make it worthwhile.
KSTU--It's good that they're trying.
KUTV--Takes too long to load anything and they have very little of their previous stories online.
KBYU--A good website if you want to find devotional talks.
KTVX--As with everything else, they are just treading water until a new owner shows up.

The problem with tonight's event was that it was horribly publicized. Nobody in Utah's blogging community knew about it. A quick Technorati and Google Blogsearch found my post, another myspace post from a girl in Magna, and (here's a shocker) a bunch of posts from Milwaukee and St. Louis about their Fox affiliate events. It seems like those two affiliates somewhat tried to get actual bloggers on board with the events. Here it seems all they did was announce it on their blog on Feb. 16, but didn't try to announce it on any others. My opinion: they overestimated the number of people who watched or blogged on their website.

I believe in having events like these, but they should be well done, well publicized, and appealing to the broad blogging community.

Blog-a-palooza for SarahBellum!?

2007-03-02T11:16:00.001-07:00

I just heard about this on the news and thought we could use it to generate broader media support for Sarah’s struggle. Fox 13 is hosting a “Blog-a-palooza” tonight at the Raw Bean Coffee House in downtown SLC. Now normally I would avoid this event for two reasons: first, it has “palooza” attached to it and I have long since grown tired of that suffix; and two it is done by Fox 13, whose news coverage I have not been too happy about since they fired Nick Clooney 15 years ago (among other disagreements).

However, this provides us an opportunity to bring this issue to further light immediately, and meet other bloggers to build our network. Last week, Tyler organized a relatively successful Davis County Bloggers meeting; last summer, Ryan Money’s Utah Bloggers Conference was a great success. If you have the time, let’s use this opportunity to bring some blogger’s issues to the media’s attention. At the same time, we can get to know each other better and grow our netroots community in Salt Lake.

More Evidence of Bias at the Clipper: The Editorial Cartoons

2007-03-01T14:06:00.000-07:00

As I noted before, I believe that there is a bias at the Davis County Clipper. This issue was discussed at the recent Davis County bloggers meeting, where we agreed that the bias was mostly toward elected officials. Because Davis County is currently represented exclusively by Republicans, it is a Republican bias. Sometimes that bias manifests itself against Republican challengers in primary races, such as during the District 19 or Sherriff’s primaries in 2006, where there was a quantitative and qualitative difference in the coverage.

However, another bias exhibits itself in the editorial cartoons by Nick Perkins at the Clipper. Before I go on, I recognize that the job of the editorial cartoonists differs from paper to paper and also that such cartoons rarely reflect the actual opinions of the editorial board or the coverage done by reporters. I also recognize my own bias in this matter. I usually find Pat Bagley’s cartoons in the Tribune funny, mostly because they are such ridiculous representation of the facts. I know that Bagley is drawing from a particular viewpoint that is designed to mock the prevailing political, social, religious, economic, and/entertainment culture.

However, because the cartoons in the Clipper do the exact opposite of this, I do not find them funny in the slightest. The artist usually just copies the same old conservative stereotypes, doesn’t take of the issues in Davis County usually, and is just not funny. Many times he simply ignores the facts if they do not support his particular view of the world. Even when he takes on things that I would agree with, he doesn’t recognize the true causes of the problem and it’s usually not all that funny.

The artist blogs, posting his editorial cartoons and another comic series. Last week’s cartoon was particularly ~~stupid~~ poor, again because it is not true. When I saw this, I nearly yelled: “When has the UN advocated surrender to terror?” I challenge the cartoonist to find a single UN resolution which has advocated surrendering to terrorism. You certainly won’t find it in the 12 September 2001 Security Council Resolution 1368, which stated that the UN was: “Determined to combat by all means threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts” (emphasis added). You won’t find it in General Assembly Resolution 56/1, which:

“Also urgently calls for international cooperation to prevent and eradicate acts of terrorism, and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of such acts will be held accountable.”

You won’t find it in the 20 September 2006 United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy; for example it resolves:

“To consistently, unequivocally and strongly condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes, as it constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security”

and “To take urgent action to prevent and combat terrorism in all its forms and manifestations…”

You also won’t find it in the UN’s brand new Counter-Terrorism Online Handbook. There isn’t a theme, entity, or keyword devoted to surrender. In fact it is just the opposite, with specific plans to combat terrorism worldwide based on cooperation and preventative measures, with strict response procedures.

The blog post also claims the UN is ineffective. This has long been the clarion call of the misinformed and/or willfully ignorant. The UN is only as effective or ineffective as its member states allow it to be. For the first forty years of its existence, it was effective at being the arbiter of Cold War disputes, but not effective at solving major problems like Vietnam because the US and USSR didn’t want it to. For the past 20 years, it has been ineffective in places like Rwanda because the US, under the Clinton administration, was too cowardly to stop the genocide; it was also hamstrung by low funding and few defensive resources, which member states again lacked the courage to help.

Another reason I believe the UN works is because of Iraq. The sheer fact that the UN was able to contain Iraq, prevent the spread of WMDs, and had the right idea on continued sanctions instead of an ill-planned war is unquestionable. I fully admit that the Oil-for-Food programme was criminally corrupt and those responsible should be held accountable. However, again, it is up to the individual member states to accomplish true accountability. That means the US, must use the UN to accomplish its foreign policy objectives and not just ignore the organization by acting unilaterally or not paying dues.

I became convinced of the UN’s promise during my time as a Model UN delegate, when I actually went to UN HQ in New York. I went into the General Assembly Hall and saw how all the nations of the world could sit together in peace and harmony. I understand its weaknesses, biases, problems, and bureaucracies, more than most people. That doesn’t mean I can’t still believe in the words of President Roosevelt:

“The structure of world peace cannot be the work of one man, or one party, or one nation. It must be a peace which rests on the cooperative effort of the whole world.”

P.S. As to the Señor Dangriga’s aspersions in El Cartoonista's comments, they as so incredibly stupid they do not merit a response.

UPDATE 3/6--I have been noticed by the artist. I look forward to his response, but I never called him insane. I simply disagree with his premise that the UN has been ineffective has at combating terrorism. As I wrote above, this is because the US has made the UN ineffective; blame the current administration if you don't like how the UN is fighting terrorism.

TV Review: 1/2 Hour News Hour is 1/2 Hour Too Long

2007-02-25T23:07:00.000-07:00

One of the things I try to do with both TV shows and political statements is actually taking the time to find out what is going on. For example, I did read, several times, HB 148 and still found it a horrible bill with major problems which will actually hurt children in Utah.

Tonight I put this ethic to work by watching Fox News Channel's 1/2 Hour News Hour. I can honestly say the last time I was this disgusted was when I saw the Zapruder film. It was absolutely disgusting, not funny, insulting, and stupid.

In case you didn't know, the show is supposedly the conservative response to The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. It is produced by Joel Surnow, one of the men behind 24, which I have been a huge fan of, despite it's potentially conservative political philosophy. That's for another post.

The whole format of the show reminds me of the current two-host format of Saturday Night Live's "Weekend Update" in that the actors (they are not hosts) try to sell the stories too hard and it is just not funny.

Another constant annoyance was the laugh track. I firmly believe I heard the same "yeah!" six times during the broadcast.

My main problem with the show, though, is that it is unnecessary. TDS and TCR are not conservative by any means, but I don't think they are all that liberal either. Watching Jon Stewart interview Tom Vilsack, Joe Biden, or John Edwards, I feel he is just as tough on them as on Bill Kristol, Dan Barlett, or Bill O'Reilly. Colbert is just as tough on the Republican Representatives on "Better Know a District" as the Democrats. After all, it was Barney Frank who was mad after his segment, and Nancy Pelosi who was actively discouraging the caucus from appearing.

In summary, the 1/2 Hour News Hour sucks and I will not waste my time watching this crap. Not while TDS and Colbert are nos. 1 and 2 on my Tivo's season pass. Thank goodness I still had Tim and Eric Awesome Show Great Job on my Now Playing List tonight.

Daily Kos GOP Cattle Call—Anti-Mormon Bias?

2007-02-24T20:19:00.000-07:00

As has been noted before, I don’t really care for the Presidential campaign of former Governor Romney. However, Saturday night’s “GOP Cattle Call 2008” on dailykos.com left me disturbed as to why seemingly intelligent people think individuals must abandon personal faith to obtain political office.

Unfortunately, unless he sheds his Mormonism along with his gay-loving, pro-choice social views, I can't see him going anywhere.

Why does he have to abandon Mormonism to get the Republican nomination? I was surprised to see a GOP cattle call on dailykos at all, let alone on the front page. However, I feel this post illustrates one of two things, perhaps both: Democratic political operatives are real novices at understanding Republican political feeling; and/or this poster has no idea about the beliefs or practices of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Trapperjohn is not really different from the hundreds of other ignorant, willfully or not, individuals who want to write off Romney simply because of his faith. I am perfectly fine with writing him off because of his flip-flop, flim-flam political principles, but not just because of his religion.

How Biased Is The Davis County Clipper?

2007-02-21T23:13:00.000-07:00

During the Ashdown campaign, I worked with many news organizations, attempting to get the campaign’s message out. Many of them at least gave us the time of day. One in particular was unwilling to give us more than a few short stories; on the other hand, they ran two three-part interviews with Sen. Hatch in 2006, without even bothering to contact us. This despite the facts that Pete was born and raised in Bountiful, that we ran an ad in their paper, that we wrote letters-to-the-editor pointing out their bias, among other less obvious attempts to get their attention.

Nothing. No chance to respond to the frivolous claims in Hatch’s interviews, which have all been disproved. I would link to the articles, if the Clipper’s archives actually worked. However, you can enter in Orrin and Ashdown in their search engine and compare the number of articles each got. Most of Orrin’s were almost verbatim press releases, and some of Pete’s were also our releases.

Imagine my shock when I saw Clipper editor-in-chief Rolf Koecher attempt to claim how unbiased his paper has been, especially compared with the big, bad national media, or even the two Utah dailies. In doing so, though, Mr. Koecher makes it clear that his paper is biased. He bases his claim on this AP story detailing the testimony of Vice President Cheney’s former top press assistant before the Scooter Libby trial. He makes several points as to why that story is biased. I will try to correct him of those errors.

First, he claims that the whole Libby/Wilson scandal is misguided because “because Plame was not fully a covert officer.” This is false. If Mr. Koecher had actually bothered to read Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald’s press conference announcing the indictment of Mr. Libby, he would have found this quote at the start of the event in October 2005 (emphasis mine):

Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.

The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.

Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003.

Points 2-6 are repetitions of the “everyone else is doing it” defense, and sounding very similar to a six-year-old who got caught eating paste. He claims that it was not wrong for the Vice President’s office to try to blame the CIA and its director, George Tenet, for the Wilson-Niger-State of the Union mess. I would agree that it is common practice for politicians to create a fall guy in case something goes wrong. Nonetheless, I personally find the practice disgusting, and this particular instance is particularly revolting. Mr. Koecher seems to gloss over the implications of Ms. Martin’s testimony: that the Vice President of the United States (or at least his Chief of Staff) worked to deflect the responsibility for faulty intelligence away from themselves and onto the CIA, which, according to some reports (the best one being this Frontline expose) was actually trying to put caveats into the public case for war. Mr. Koecher believes we should be satisfied with politicians destroying the hard work of dedicated (but flawed) public agencies and servants merely to save themselves some public scrutiny.

He points out that the VP’s office specifically chose to go on Meet the Press because they found it a friendlier venue. I don’t think this is out of the ordinary, but it does illustrate the cowardice of the VP’s office, being unwilling to answer tough questions from other organizations.

Fourth, everybody in Washington leaks and we shouldn’t get too upset about this, according to Koecher. As I noted above, this story is about the criminal perjury and obstruction of justice trial of the Vice President of the United States’ Chief of Staff. It was begun, and may continue, as an investigation into how a CI Agent’s classified cover was blown, in retribution against someone trying to disprove a case for war. There are few accusations greater than these, and they deserve our attention.

Fifth, the Clipper editor misses the point that Mr. Novak’s op-ed blew the classified cover of a CI agent! This wasn’t a defense of education policy, but an attack on Mr. Wilson by outing his wife. The VP’s office had the authority to know that Ms. Wilson was an agent, and was able to confirm that if Mr. Novak, or anyone else, asked. They had the responsibility to keep that information classified; they apparently failed.

Mr. Koecher’s final point, that bad news should be dumped on Fridays when no one reads/watches the news, was popularized by a West Wing episode. Let’s be thankful that our government values our judgment enough to intentionally hold vital information from us for fear we may actually pay attention.

The summation of the editorial is that we should not be so hard on the Clipper because they aren’t biased. As I have noted, Mr. Koecher is biased; he has already made up his mind about the Wilson/Libby case. He does this in spite of obvious factual and logical errors; even though he “understand[s] that [his] duty is first and foremost to provide accurate information for our readers,” he gives inaccurate information in his column.

Mr. Koecher needs to realize that he is not the vanguard of quality media in the USA, he is in the backwater. While I value the Clipper as a news source, I do so because it is the only news source for South Davis County. They have a monopoly on the news, currently; I hope that will change with the emergence of more bloggers in Davis County, and perhaps other news media. Until then, we are stuck with a paper that is biased, challenged by their lack of ethics, professionalism, design, and quality staff.

I do not claim that the other levels of media are without bias; that is obviously false. This is true in Utah, where three news stations chose to carry Hatch’s fundraiser with President Bush without providing the Ashdown campaign with any chance to respond to the half-hour free commercial. This is one example of conservative bias; I am sure there are liberal biases also. My point is that before pointing out other people’s biases, we should recognize them in ourselves. I make clear my bias on the top of my page. The Clipper should do so or work to become less politically by asking for both sides of an issue, instead of publishing just the elected official’s political position. It is fear of offending their news source which prevents the Clipper from challenging the opinion's of elected officials, but fear is no excuse for unprofessional and unethical media behavior.

Will Utah Media Cover Every Presidential Candidate’s Visit?

2007-02-19T22:55:00.000-07:00

Today, many Utah media outlets have reported about Gov. Romney’s imminent visit to Salt Lake City. They have also discussed yesterday’s incident at the religious broadcasters convention in Florida. Both of these are newsworthy events, and I commend the media for combining both events in a single, larger story.

I have also been pleasantly impressed with much of the local media’s coverage of presidential announcements. They have covered almost all of the major party candidate announcements. However, I remain worried that when/if other candidates visit Utah, they will not receive the same amount of local coverage. This goes for all candidates from both parties; I hope John McCain gets the same coverage as Bill Richardson, Mitt Romney, Dennis Kucinich, Sam Brownback, or others. I know I will be watching; I hope others join me.

KSTU: 'Smooth Talker' Romney To Seek Utah Support

KSL: Bridging the Gap Between Different Faiths

KUTV: Mitt Romney Headed Back to Utah…for Money

Trailer Prejudice: Simpsons Movie

2007-02-19T21:12:00.000-07:00

Last night was the first funny Simpsons episode this season. I am guessing that most of the humor was due to Eric Idle's involvement/mere presence. The prevailing assumption, which I subscribed to until last night, is that this season's episodes are sub par because the writers are focused on the movie. However, last night's trailer, posted above, is not promising.

This leaves me thinking the trailer's producers have never actually watched the show. This and the previous trailer have not even reached the level of the TV promos, which usually (not always) give an effective tease. I feel like they are overselling the plot, which, according to the trailer, does not look that great. I remain excited for the film and will probably see it, but I hope that these previews are merely deceiving us and that they in no way resemble the actual film. If I was the Fox marketing department, I would stick with the original short trailer. KISS, piffy & succinct, "Simplify, Simplify," whatever anecdote you want to use, that's my advertising philosophy.

DC Travel, Romney Review, etc

2007-02-18T13:45:00.000-07:00

It has been nearly 10 days since my last post, and I feel badly about that. Last week went by so quickly, I barely had time to breathe, let alone post. So, today I have a bit of time, and I hope to have more time tomorrow to do more posts on Presidents’ Day, the bias in the Davis County Clipper, and other issues.

First, an explanation: I went to a job fair in DC last week; it took nearly a full day to get from SLC airport, through JFK airport in NYC, and then finally getting on several trains to get to the hotel. I had a good time, and may be moving to get a new job, either in DC, Nevada, or other places. I can only say that I count my blessings that things were not worse at JFK and that I have returned home safely.

I am now watching Mitt Romney’s interview on This Week today. I realized again why I do not like Mitt Romney as a politician and would be very concerned if he became President of the United States. This interview reminded me that he is no different from any other Utah Mormon Republican politician who tries to use his religion politically, trying to have it both ways: benefit from the “values image” of the faith, without wanting to defend his faith for fear of political damage. He also carries the personality of a typical national politician (this group includes all the Presidential candidates, all the Congressional leaders including Harry Reid) who make their positions based on political considerations instead on what is right, what is proven, or what is best for the country. That is why I am not supporting him for President. I don’t believe Romney has the political courage to stand up for his true convictions. That may be his undoing, or his key to success.

Does that mean he should be discriminated against because of his religion? No. Does that mean he could not win the Presidency? I think it has been proven that my power to affect the political scene is minimal. However, I feel compelled to state that he is the wrong choice for America. I still have not made up my mind as to the right choice, but it is becoming clearer (and earlier than I thought) who are the wrong ones.

Live Blogging the HB 148 Senate Floor Debate and Vote

2007-02-09T15:16:00.000-07:00

2:00 PM—Arrive, but banished to the overflow room.

2:08 PM—What an unexpected surprise! US Rep. Bishop gives a speech on earmarks, blaming Democrats for all the ills in the world. However, seeing him in a bad sweater reminds me why I don’t vote for him or trust him in general.

2:21 PM—Begin debate; Sen. Bramble notes that there are several amendments. Surprising.

2:24 PM—Sen. Griener wants to amend to require background checks for teachers; also concerned about “one school district in Washington County” (i.e. the Hildale schools) that could take advantage of the vouchers.

2:26 PM—Amendment fails on voice vote; when roll call starts, Bramble gets up and states from code that private schools “may” require background checks already. Roll call fails.

2:29 PM—Sen. Jones speaks, gets numbers from fiscal analyst saying the costs of educating voucher students from k-12 would be $327 million; Bramble thinks that amount is a wonderful amount of money. My prediction: in less than 5 years, sponsors will fight to move voucher funding away from the general fund and take it from Uniform School Fund. They’ll say the budget is tight and we need to put all education spending in one fund.

2:33 PM—Sen. McCoy asks whether students could move into the state and qualify for a voucher; Bramble says yes, great, wonderful.

2:35 PM—McCoy amendment tries to get voucher $ back if child comes back to public school. Of course it fails.

2:38 PM—Sen. Bell does not appreciate the “disingenuous attitude of the advocates against this bill” and this bill tries to “buy off the public education establishment.” Asks for “modest voucher program.” Rep. Allen must be either laughing or crying. “A myth to say that this will be exploited…After a few years, we’ll know that vouchers works.” How we will know that, they really have no idea.

2:43 PM—Sen. Davis is on his A game; makes it clear this is not about the children, but about giving taxpayer dollars and giving it to private industry. Just an amazing speech about how we fund this instead of full dental and vision for Medicaid, how some of these private ventures will fail and will cost taxpayers, will take a chance.

2:47 PM—Sen. Niederhauser claims this will bring more $ into the public education system. How? Both Bell and Niederhauser state they wouldn’t want mitigation $ if they were drafting it. Another prediction: Sponsors will repeal mitigation $ in 2 years.

2:49 PM—Sen. Mayne finally makes Bramble admit there are no attendance (day/time) requirements for the schools, private schools cannot discriminate against any applicant…

2:51 PM—Pres. Valentine notes that Sen. Buttars’ statements have no point.

2:52 PM—Mayne gets Bramble to admit that private schools can teach any manner of sexual positions and ideas.

2:57 PM—Mayne and Bramble get into it about how the bill has been railroaded through the Senate without any opportunity for real study.

2:59 PM—Mayne brings up a good point (which Bramble really misses) that there are no requirements for private schools to make building provisions consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act, or similar state laws.

3:01 PM—Mayne amendment to streamline administrative review procedures. It fails also.

3:05 PM—Overflow room starts to really fill up after Sen. Romero’s motion to circle fails. A Committee meeting is scheduled in overflow room now; they are always late, but it makes me wonder when they will turn off the TV and tell us to leave.

3:07 PM—Now we have to move. Into next door room; it’s getting ready for a committee meeting, but a Senate committee.

3:11 PM—We get in the room just in time for the suspension of rules to start voting.

3:12 PM—My Senator, Dan Eastman, votes yea, even though he stated he wanted a small test program during the town hall meeting earlier this year.

3:14 PM—Sen. McCoy expresses “solidarity” with Sen. Stephenson’s anger at suspension of the rules for the Divine Strake resolution.

3:15 PM—Sen. Stephenson votes yea, will make majority; argues this is an appropriate use of suspension. Again using the false and disingenuous argument that because the nation’s schools are failing, we should automatically conclude that Utah’s schools are failing. It is apparently the responsibility of the legislature to fulfill the dreams of Milton Friedman, and not the needs of their constituents.

3:21 PM—Valentine closes vote; recites same old arguments: helps schools, no $ for religion, blah, blah.

3:24 PM—Passed 19-10. We will live to regret this day.

Live Blogging Senate Ed Committee Hearing HB 148

2007-02-07T15:00:00.000-07:00

2:40 PM—Arrive, room not nearly as full as during House Ed Com Hearing.

2:55 PM—In response to Sen. Stephenson’s questions about how the program will be awarded by lottery, Urquhart isuses his first condescendingly arrogant remark, saying: “What other ways could we award it? Good looks?”

3:04 PM—Stephenson asserts the fastest growing school districts should be supporting this bill. Pained laughter from some, especially Granite EA reps.

3:09 PM—Sen. Jones challenges Urquhart to support the hypothesis that class sizes will be reduced by HB 148’s impact.

3:10 PM—Sen. Bramble softballed Urquhart with question about reducing class sizes should be the primary goal of public education.

3:15 PM--3:42 PM—Public Comment; I stood in line and was able to contribute some of the thoughts I have recently published here. Some comments were valid, some were very off topic, including one parent of a Carson Smith Scholar who didn’t really make much of argument for a new voucher program, in my opinion. Though there were a few left to speak on the topic, Sen. Dayton cut off public comment; in my opinion, I think she saw more people were ready to speak against it this time.

3:43 PM—Bramble moves to pass. Jones, Romero speak against.

3:47 PM—Stephenson: “Freedom works every time it is tried.” Just not for pregnant women. It has also worked so well in Iraq.

3:51 PM—Vote 7-2 favorably out of committee. Only Jones and Romero voted nay.

Utah Policy Mitt Daily: Options are Available

2007-02-05T13:55:00.000-07:00

I am conflicted about Utah Policy Daily’s Mitt Romney Watch. On the one hand, I realized long ago that UPD has a clear monopoly on the market of political information websites, and the fact that no other site exists to match it is a measure of its quality. I also understand I that if I am so concerned about bias in the coverage, I am perfectly free to either find political information on my own or make my own portal to complete with UPD. While other cities (Denver, for example) has created similar portals for news clippings and information based on variety of viewpoints, I would find beginning such an operation beyond my meager resources.

On the other hand, I find UPD’s coverage of Mitt Romney incredibly annoying. It is biased; there is no other way to say it. They cover the Romney campaign to the exclusion of every other presidential candidate, regardless of party. The fact that UPD’s influence has leeched into other local media sources, such as this weekend’s Tribune article on the Romney campaign, to believe that they have to cover the Romney campaign to the exclusion of other candidates is disturbing. While polls have indicated an early (our primary is a year out people!) lead for Romney among Utah voters, I believe most Utah politicos (the primary readership of UPD) would like information on other political candidates. I also believe the Romney supporters would somewhat care about what other candidates are doing, so they can mount responses.

That leaves us with a few options.

Stop reading UPD, perhaps boycotting until it makes serious changes to remove bias.
Start our own political information portal.
Start searching for our own political information on the web.
UPD should cover the actions of more potential presidential candidates.

UPD should stop covering news about potential presidential candidates unless it specifically relates to operations IN Utah or about the Utah presidential primary, with the exception of locally-produced articles in Utah news sources. This means ending the Mitt Romney Watch, and ending blogwatch coverage of non-Utah Romney blogging.

I would personally hope for the final option. It does put the onus on UPD producers to make serious changes, but I believe it also lessens the workload on them, as opposed to the fourth one, which would drastically increase it. The second and third options put the onus on me and like-minded readers (as few there may be) to replace it or its purpose. The first seems like a last resort, I hope it does not come to that level of disgust.

Today’s note on UPD was disturbing, and it crystallized my longstanding apprehension about the direction of UPD’s coverage. However, readers must realize that they have options, obviously not limited to the ones listed above, but limited as long we submit quietly to its bias.

The esteemed representative from Parents for Choice deigned to comment on this blog.

2007-02-03T20:47:00.000-07:00

The esteemed representative from Parents for Choice deigned to comment on this blog. Here is my response.

Steve, your attempt to dismiss my criticisms, if it was that, was incompetent and/or arrogant, typical of how you have framed this debate. First of all, you ignored all the statistical evidence I presented that vouchers have not been proven to work. Second, you ignored the accountability issues within your own bill. Third, you ignore that I do not disagree that any lawsuit may have trouble getting by on its merits, but you again ignore that a lawsuit in and of itself costs a lot of money. Finally, you ignore the fiscal flaws in your bill's appropriation for only $100k for your program's administration.

As to your constituent's approval, I challenge you to produce a poll on that issue, and not the push polls PCE used to bully your colleagues in the House. I would suggest that even in St. George, the majority do not stand in favor of vouchers as you have proposed them. Ask them: "Do you favor or oppose the legislature allowing parents to take taxpayer dollars to send their children to private schools?" Don't ask them do they favor choice, because they have that; don't ask them if they believe parents are the best decision-makers on their children's education, because they usually are. Furthermore, don't ask them whether the legislature should take money from public education to fund a voucher program, because I know that is not what you have proposed. You could ask them if they favor the legislature taking money from fixing roads in St. George, or maintenance of Snow Canyon, or providing full vision and dental for Medicaid recipients, or even a tax cut, to fund a taxpayer-supported voucher program. That is the choice you have made, and you will have to live with the consequences.

A Storm Hit This Week; No One Was Spared

2007-02-02T17:47:00.000-07:00

Two weeks ago, on the KUED program Utah Now, KSL TV reporter Richard Piatt was asked about the generally happy and nice mood at the Capitol during the opening week of the Utah Legislature. He responded with an old adage: it was the warm before the storm.
Well, this week the storm hit, and very few of our most important institutions, rights, and people escaped unscathed. I was at the Capitol this morning for the HB 148 vote, trying to reason with my legislator about the problems with the bill. It appears that others tried as well through other means, but were blocked in their attempts. The “Representative” from my district, Paul Neuenschwander, was one of those 38 legislators who put personal gain and/or political survival above the public good. I will not, in this post at least, give some of arguments that Neuenschwander used for the bill, but suffice it to say they were disgusting. My fear is that when the campaign finance reports come out, we will see who really had the principles to vote for this bill, and who were bought. It obviously will happen after the session, but it will happen. I was very disappointed in Neuenschwander, but I was also disappointed in Rep. Last. He voted against the bill in committee, apparently without actually reading the bill or taking the time to ask the sponsor questions in an open format. A sudden and sad change of something came this morning; perhaps it was his heart, his wallet/campaign coffers, or mind. I am biased, but I found the arguments for the bill bland rhetoric, devoid of all but one study quote (Rep. Last’s flimsy statement). The arguments against it were rhetorical, but were also all backed up by evidence: statistics on Utah’s educational achievements despite abysmal funding; the unproven assumptions contained within voucher programs as they have been implemented in other areas; the amount of money being spent on this bill in the election and during the session in advocacy.

This week we saw a big storm of (mostly, though not entirely) Republican political terrorism, in the words of Utah PTA leader Carmen Snow. Whether it was vouchers, politicizing the school board elections, outlawing abortion, killing booster seat laws, the preferred drug list emasculation, RSL stadium blowback against SL County, deputizing police to be immigration agents, or many others, this week was a blizzard.

Next week will probably be worse, but I suspect things will clear out for me, and our state, in the end.

Want to buy a legislator? Urq was only $3k last year

2007-02-01T23:07:00.000-07:00

It is one of the more shameful aspects of our political system, that government officials can be literally boughton the local, state, and national level. There is no better example this year then that of Steve Urquhart. He has whored (and I use that term meaningfully) himself out to Parents for Choice in Education. My frustration with the whole debate on HB 148 that he is completely unwilling to accept any amendment, accept that any opposing arguments have merit, etc. On Tuesday, during questioning by Representative Kory Holdaway in the Education Committee, Urquhart dismissed his colleague's legitimate concerns as "silly." Similar rhetoric was uttered on tonight's KSL newscast.
I am grateful, though, that some legislators cannot be bought, no matter what the amount. These legislators made the choice, early on in their careers, that their votes and their positions were not for sale. Unfortunately, it appears that Urquhart, Curtis, Greg Hughes, and others have not yet made that decision and are willing to sacrifice their values on the altar of political expediency and personal enrichment.

No on HB 148, No to Vouchers: Conclusion

2007-02-01T23:05:00.000-07:00

Legislators must stand above special interests and make decisions based on research and proven methods. Personal stories of the successes of private schools are compelling, but they do not represent the results of peer-reviewed studies, which again are not conclusive. I ask the Legislature drop this bill, drop this concept, and adopt stronger public education standards, higher public education funding, and create greater opportunities for school choice without putting tax dollars into private education.

No on HB 148, No to Vouchers: The Wholesale Purchase of the Legislation by Purchase of the Legislators

2007-02-01T22:54:00.000-07:00

Parents for Choice in Education spent around a half of a million dollars in campaign contributions during the 2006 election cycle. It is unknown how much money has been spent so far by issue advocacy groups on push polls and other questionable statistics in order to bully legislators into voting for such legislation.

No on HB 148, No to Vouchers: Unrealistic Finances

2007-02-01T22:47:00.001-07:00

The Bill specifically appropriates $100,000 in ongoing funds to the State School Board to administer the program. This amount seems unrealistic in the light that such a staff member to administer the program would cost more than that amount to pay, equip, and benefit. According the Utah State Office of Education’s FY 2008 Issue Brief - PED - USOE Staffing Statewide Programs and Functions (http://www.le.state.ut.us/interim/2007/pdf/00000369.pdf), the Legislative Fiscal Analyst recommended $112,000 for the Carson Smith Tuition Tax Credit Program, with just 26 eligible schools, just 137 receiving a scholarship in 2005-06 (http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2006/20060601/28736.htm), and one staff member to oversee the whole program. If all 81 private schools currently in operation in Utah applied, and all 13,836 students applied for vouchers, $100,000 seems like an unrealistic amount to fund such an operation. In addition to the lack of student achievement accountability noted above, this creates a dangerous precedent.

No on HB 148, No to Vouchers: Constitutional Issues

2007-02-01T22:46:00.000-07:00

Article X, Section 1. [Free nonsectarian schools.] The Legislature shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of the state's education systems including: (a) a public education system, which shall be open to all children of the state; and (b) a higher education system. Both systems shall be free from sectarian control.

It is almost certain that the program will be challenged in court, regardless of the merit of any such claims upon the above Utah Constitutional section or others. This bill makes no funding for legal defense, forcing it to be paid out of the general fund.

No on 148, No to Vouchers: Accountability

2007-02-01T15:03:00.000-07:00

The Bill’s major accountability problems lie in the sponsor’s unwillingness to allow:

Curriculum standards, so extreme religious or political viewpoints may be freely disseminated. The bill makes no exemptions as to what a school may teach, including pro-racism, pro-polygamy,
Rigorous testing standards, allowing only “a norm-referenced test scored by an independent party that provides a comparison of the student's performance to other students on a national basis.” This leaves the state and districts unable to make strict comparisons between the achievement of publicly- and privately-educated pupils. Another example of how proponents do not wish to allow a definite comparison between public and private education.
Attendance standards for school days and time; one grade could be completed in a month, week, or even hours under this model.
Regular audits to be released to the public or disciplinary actions in the face of financial impropriety.

No on HB 148, No to Vouchers: An Unproven Risky Scheme

2007-02-01T12:21:00.000-07:00

I am rolling out what I hope will be a blogswarm about this issue, today and probably tomorrow. Here is the first of several parts.

An Unproven, Risky Scheme

Most analyses of other voucher programs, and private education in general, have made conclusions that are at best, inconclusive.

The best example of this was the July 2006 Department of Education National Assessment of Educational Progress’ study which included the major section entitled “Cautions in Interpretations.” The inherent differences in schools prevented the study’s authors from coming to any decisive conclusions. (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard//pubs/studies/2006461.asp) Subsequent analyses of that study have found similarly unsettled results when they did attempt to apply different models. (http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/pepg/research.htm)
One report issued by the General Accounting Office in August of 2001 reviewed Cleveland and Milwaukee's voucher programs. It found that "the contracted evaluations of voucher students' academic achievement in Cleveland and Milwaukee found little or no difference in voucher and public school students' performance..." but warned that "none of the findings can be considered definitive..." because of methodological differences in different studies. They did warn that funding for evaluations was dangerously low, noting: "For example, Wisconsin has not funded voucher student academic achievement evaluations since 1995, thereby losing data on program performance during the years when the program had grown the most." (http://www.gao.gov/docdblite/summary.php?rptno=GAO-01-914&accno=A01676)
HB 148 continues this trend by the sponsor’s unwillingness to fund achievement evaluations at all and avoid auditing until 2014.
The sponsor has not included any major incentives to target this program to the very few failing schools in Utah, or areas underserved by existing private infrastructure (rural areas, high density urban areas).
Numerous groups representing various segments of Utah society oppose this bill, for example: the Utah State School Board, Utah Education Association, the Utah Parent Teachers Association, the Utah School Employees Assocation, the Salt Lake Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and many more.

Vouchers Blog Note

2007-01-31T23:48:00.000-07:00

As you may have seen, I have published a lot today on school choices. The events of this week have forced me to move faster on my publishing than I had originally planned. Tomorrow, (Thursday) is the day of decision for vouchers in Utah. The House will vote on the measure at 10:45 AM tomorrow. A group of concerned citizens, including myself, will be holding a press conference tomorrow morning to talk about the mistake that vouchers would be for Utahns. The details of the event are below.

Tomorrow, I will also blog about this with my opinion more evident, and hopefully convince some people to change their minds on this important issue.

Who: Citizens of Utah
What: Press Conference on voucher legislation
When: 9:00am - Thursday, February 1, 2007
Where: State Capitol
West Building
House Chamber Lobby

School Choices VII: Implementation and Outcomes

2007-01-31T23:47:00.000-07:00

One report issued by the General Accounting Office in August of 2001 reviewed Cleveland and Milwaukee's voucher programs. It found that "the contracted evaluations of voucher students' academic achievement in Cleveland and Milwaukee found little or no difference in voucher and public school students' performance..." but warned that "none of the findings can be considered definitive..." because of methodological differences in different studies. They did warn that funding for evaluations was dangerously low, noting: "For example, Wisconsin has not funded voucher student academic achievement evaluations since 1995, thereby losing data on program performance during the years when the program had grown the most."

This study built upon the work of previous research, such as that undertaken by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, which found that Minnesota students who exercised their "choice" improved from the 30th to 34th percentile in reading tests but fell from 33rd to 30th in mathematical examinations. It also noted that enhanced student attainment in choice programs was affected more by experimental programs funded lavishly by federal tax dollars, which many schools did not receive. (Harlow G., "School Choice," Encyclopedia of American Education, Second Edition, Vol. 3, page 935.)

One of the conflicting budgetary issues that often complicate education is whether to spend more money on reducing class sizes or provide for school choice and vouchers. Alex Molnar's 1999 study sheds light on which issue should take precedence. He detailed the positive effects of smaller class sizes and then noted some serious difficulties in evaluating small-scale voucher programs:

The problem with research on small-scale voucher experiments, however, is not only the lack of clear performance effects. More fundamentally, the problem is that such small-scale programs—no matter how crystal clear their achievement consequences—can tell us little about larger-scale programs. Voucher evaluations are less informative than class-size research because "vouchers" do not represent a specific educational reform. If a voucher program generates positive effects, the research does not generally look inside the schools to ask what explains the success. It simply assumes that private is better.

A second reason that voucher research tells education policymakers little relates to the issue of scale. As research on private schools shows, some private schools appear to raise achievement through "peer effects"—by placing low-income students with other students from more privileged families who place a high priority on education. (Elite private schools also tend to spend large amounts of money per student and to have smaller classes.) But in a large-scale voucher program, peer effects could be quite different than in a small-scale program. This may help explain why new schools that enroll voucher students in Cleveland perform less well than public schools while established private schools perform better than public schools.

For these reasons, the only way to find out the impact of a large-scale voucher program is to implement one. However, there is no strong evidence that this would improve achievement. In addition, such a large-scale program would likely raise spending on students who already attend private schools and reduce educational spending on children currently in public school.'' (Download paper from Keystone Research Center with free registration required.)

School Choices VI: A Brief History of Choice

2007-01-31T20:18:00.000-07:00

With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, school choice was made a part of federal law, available to every child in every state. According to the Department of Education's NCLB website, school choice helps everyone:

…parents with children in schools that fail to meet state standards for at least two consecutive years may transfer their children to a better-performing public school, including a public charter school, within their district. If they do so, the district must provide transportation, using Title I funds if necessary. Students from low-income families in schools that fail to meet state standards for at least three years are eligible to receive supplemental educational services-including tutoring, after-school services, and summer school. In addition, the NCLB Act provides increased support to parents, educators, and communities to create new charter schools. The act also provides students the choice to attend a safe school within their district if they attend persistently dangerous schools or are the victim of a violent crime while in their school.

However, the school choice revolution did not begin in Washington, but in several experimental programs nationwide. Minnesota was the first state to introduce inter-district open enrollment, which, among other things, provided for families to claim up to $1000 in school expenses, including private school tuition. Massachusetts introduced a controlled choice plan in the 1980s, though that effort was less concerned with educational quality than it was about racial and ethnic diversity. The Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP), the nation's first pilot voucher choice plan, was a limited intersectional voucher plan for the Milwaukee School District. Implemented in 1990, MPCP permits selected students to receive public monies to go to any nonsectarian private school of their selection. The plan is expressly intended to allow low-income families admission to private or alternative educational opportunities. The cash worth of the voucher is typically equivalent to the state per pupil expenditure on public schooling. It has since been expanded to include sectarian private schools. (in Peter W., Jr. Cookson, Sonali M. Shroff, “Recent Experience with Urban School Choice Plans,” ERIC/CUE Digest Number 127, October 1997)

According to the Heritage Foundation, an unambiguously pro-school choice organization, 15 states have either inter- or intra-district choice programs approved. Only 6 states have tuition tax credits and 7 have publicly funded voucher programs statewide or in selected areas.

However, not all school choice and voucher proposals have succeeded in becoming policy. According to the National Education Association, a decidedly anti-voucher organization, no ballot measure has passed the approval of voters for the past thirty years. Voters in Maryland, Michigan (twice), Colorado, California (twice), and Washington have all rejected, with the exception of Maryland, by super-majorities attempts to pass voucher proposals.

School Choices: Part V A Preferred Policy Solution: School Choice?

2007-01-31T19:31:00.000-07:00

In 1962, Milton Friedman, later winning a Nobel Prize in Economics, proposed the idea of education vouchers as an alternative to failing public schools. Since then, several organizations have justified the propositions of such a program with varied support. Some have argued that vouchers fit into a Rawlsian theory of justice, giving students their greatest opportunity to achieve equality. (William G. Powell and Paul E. Peterson, The Education Gap, pages 1-2. Also Brighouse, Harry, "Egalitarian Liberals and School Choice," Politics & Society, vol. 24 (December 1996), pages 457-86.)

There have been three major types of school choice: intra-district, inter-district, and extra-system or parochial/private school choice. Intra-district school choice allows parents to transfer students anywhere within a public school district, with transportation costs subsidized. Inter-district choice allows students to attend any public school, within the state, though perhaps without transit subsidies. Extra-system expands the range of choices by allowing parents to send their children to private schools with their tuition credited or vouched from that pupil's public school spending budget. (See Unger, Harlow G,, "School Choice," Encyclopedia of American Education, Second Edition, Vol. 3, page 934.)

School Choices: Part IV Problems for Government

2007-01-31T19:24:00.000-07:00

The difficulty confronting state governments is the constitutional and statutory requirements causing friction with government spending objectives, especially in lean budget years as many state governments are now facing. As the Harvard Law Review wrote:

Although seventeen state courts have upheld their states' education systems, high courts in thirteen states have found their education systems to violate state constitutional requirements. ("The Limits of Choice: School Choice Reform and State Constitutional Guarantees of Educational Quality," Harvard Law Review, June 1996, Vol. 109, Issue 8, page 2010.)

States have constitutionally undertaken the task of providing quality education, now they must keep the promise. Several proposals have been proffered to assuage the government's burdens. Some involve building better schools with more computers; paying teachers more; increasing per pupil spending; school uniforms; and testing, testing, testing. All of these have required an increase in spending, though, something that governments usually find difficult to do, especially during recessions.

School Choices: Part III Problems

2007-01-31T19:12:00.000-07:00

The problem is a perception among the populace that public schools that are not preparing students enough for life, giving them the skills they need to prosper in life and work.

This sentiment is expressed by recent public opinion polls:

According to a TIME Magazine/Oprah Winfrey Show poll in March 2006: “If the public were grading U.S. public schools, 61% said they would give them a grade of a C or worse: 44% would give the schools a C, while 10% gave them a D and 7% an F. Another 31% would give schools a grade of B, while only 5% would award a straight A.
“According to the poll, 64% of Americans think we are spending too little money on public schools; 22% think we are spending about the right amount; and 10% say too much. More than half — 59% — would be willing to pay higher taxes to improve public schools, while 38% would not be willing.”
“Although a majority of Americans would give US public schools only a fair grade at best, those who currently have children in public school (grade K through 12) rate their schools more favorably:
“Almost 7-in-10 (69%) would give their own child's public school a grade of "B" (46%) or a straight "A" (23%). A little more than one-in-five (21%) give their child’s school a "C" grade; 10% would give a "D" (7%) or "F" (3%).
A little more than 3-in-5 (62%) believe that their child in public school is being adequately prepared for college. About one-third (33%) disagree.
A poll sponsored by Phi Kappa Delta and conducted by Gallup in June-July 2006 found similar results.

These opinions are supported, somewhat by data collected nationally and internationally, according to the NCES:

Again, these are not the only statistics available for public opinion and information regarding the issue of public education. However, these paint a sufficient picture.

School Choices: Questions About State Educational Policy in America: Part II

2007-01-30T13:35:00.000-07:00

For most of the past fifty years, education has been compulsory for all children in United States. The following figures from the US Department of Education's National Center for Educational Statistics illustrate the enormity of the situation involving education:

Over 61 million minors were enrolled in Fall 2005 at elementary and secondary schools, with around 88 percent attending public schools . These numbers represent over 61 million potential voters, Social Security recipients, soldiers, teachers, doctors, and lawyers, as well as potentially including criminals, poor drivers, welfare recipients, unemployed, and underemployed.
As of 2001, the latest year of available statistics, these students are taught in 123,385 schools; 94,112 public and 29,273 private, across the country.
3.447 million teachers teach them.
$526.6 million (in real dollars) were expended by elementary and secondary educational institutions in 2004.

In Utah, as of 2005:

503,607 students attend 930 public schools, taught by 22,287 teachers.
6,237 students attend 27 charter schools, who the State Office of Education includes in public school enrollment statistics.
$3,035,678,486 was spent in 2003-04 on Elementary and Secondary Education.
According to the State Office of Education, as of October 1, 2004, 13,836 students were enrolled in 81 private schools in Utah.

83% were enrolled in private schools in Weber, Davis, Salt Lake and Utah counties, compared with 69% enrolled in public schools in those counties.

These numbers represent only a fraction of the data available to exemplify the present Utah and American didactic predicament. The numbers alone do not show the entire situation, as many problems exist with schools.

School Choices: Questions About State Educational Policy in America--Part I

2007-01-29T23:29:00.000-07:00

Education has been canonized as an essential part of life in the United States. Stipulations for education have been placed in the constitutions of every state.* Among Thomas Jefferson's three greatest achievements, as listed in his personally-approved epitaph, was founding the University of Virginia. However, education issues have become a hot political topic in recent years, with questions surrounding government's responsibilities and policies.

* "The Limits of Choice: School Choice Reform and State Constitutional Guarantees of Educational Quality," Harvard Law Review, June 1996, Vol. 109, Issue 8, page 2010.

Aspiring to Something You are Not

2007-01-29T23:28:00.001-07:00

I was having dinner last night with my family, and the discussion turned to how the new City Creek Center was going to have a Dillard’s department store, but not something higher-end, like a Neiman Marcus, Lord & Taylor, Bloomingdales, etc. The answer given was that Salt Lake does not have the economic strength to sustain stores that cater to a customer base that would routinely spend $2000+ for a pair of shoes (either sex). The fact is I agree with them.

With this morning’s news, I realized that is probably the major mistake that Dave Checketts made when creating his business plan. He believed Salt Lake City is something that it is not. Beyond the arguments of soccer’s viability in the market, the secondary supports of his stadium plan were based on unrealistic projections of what the Salt Lake Valley market can sustain. As has been made abundantly clear, we have difficulty selling out even the most popular touring acts at the largest venues. The use of an outdoor stadium for a summer sport is limited, as long as Utah does not become even more of a desert.

When RSL came, I was hopeful; I still hope it works. However, the deeper problem is our state’s education status. It has been long established that, for the most part, earning power is determined by education level; subsequently, businesses choose certain ventures based on money but also on where that money comes from. In Utah, it comes from a relatively few elite citizens, too few for businesses like Crate & Barrel and the Cheesecake Factory, according to published reports. These citizens are the ones with college degrees, all 28 percent of Utahns, as of last year. I suspect that is why we aren’t getting a Saks Fifth Ave or Brooks Brothers either. It is also why the RSL stadium plan was so shoddy in the first place. I suppose that Checketts was unable to attract enough private financial support because of this (and other factors) and he leaned too heavily on public financing. I do not say that he was wrong to ask for public support; while in a perfect world, tax money would go to arts and cultural life before sports stadia, but we are living in a real world where public financing is almost a certainty.

That is why I feel it will such a huge mistake for Utah to miss this opportunity to strongly invest in Utah’s public education system at all levels, and not waste time and money on an unproven scheme like vouchers. Over the next week or so, I will be publishing an updated analysis I produced three years ago for a college course on state and local government (not politics). The topic was school choice, and the results were surprising, even to me. I got a 98/100, and I hope the updates will be up to that muster.

Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Television

2007-01-26T22:15:00.000-07:00

Compare.

Davis Didjeridu Tuesday January 23, 2007 10:13 PM:

"I was even more grateful when I realized I would miss both of what I consider the greatest threats to civilization: the President and (what I join City Weekly columnist Bill Frost in referring to it as) That Gawdawful Fox Karaoke Show Which Shall Not Be Named Here."

Bill Frost's True TV The Only TV Column That Matters January 24, 2007 4:01 PM:

"The greatest threats to the hemisphere, American Idol and President Dubya, have knocked the return of Fox's Bones back a week, to Jan. 31. Swell."

I am not so arrogant to believe that Mr. Frost took the time to find this blog, as new and lowly as it is, and copy me. But I don't really care either way. Great to know some of my thoughts are shared by others. However, I didn't care about Bones; I just couldn't catch on to the show after watching the first couple episodes.

September Dawn: Hollywood History Fails Us Again

2007-01-26T19:40:00.000-07:00

I usually have little confidence in movies based on historical events or people. Most of the time, actual human drama, comedy, love, and sadness is sacrificed on the altar of “artistic license.” How that “art” is defined is usually in the mind of an avaricious producer or talentless screenwriter, who slaps the labels of “inspired by true events” or “based upon on true story” in the hope of drawing in audiences who yearn, consciously or not, for understanding of how their world has been shaped by past events. Rarely do we see what actually happened, or gain that comprehension.

It appears that this Hollywood version of history will fail us again. What could have been an analysis of the morality of Western expansion, a study of theocracies, or even how lack of communication can create disasters will become “A love story set during a tense encounter between a wagon train of settlers faces off against a renegade Mormon group.” What is so upsetting is that the real history, whatever we have of it, is compelling. Disappointingly, what we will probably see is a one-sided portrayal that will leave the taste in many viewers mouths that Mormons are, as they were, quietly violent. This is in spite of historical truth or present-day acceptance and attempts at reconciliation on the part of all parties.

Perhaps that is why I find documentaries compelling. They try to answer questions about history, though I admit they are driven by the documentarian’s version of “compelling history.” I still yearn to watch films like The Queen and The Last King of Scotland, though I recognize that they have been fictionalized as well.

State of the Union or Spice Assignment?

2007-01-23T22:13:00.000-07:00

Tonight, I did not watch the State of the Union address. I agree with many of the reasons Steve wrote about, but thankfully I was actually able to do something good. On Sunday, I finally worked up the courage to do some Priesthood service and signed up to work at the Centerville dry-pack cannery for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For those not familiar, dry goods for the Church’s welfare programs are canned/bottled there.

When I signed up, I didn’t even realize that I was going to miss the State of the Union tonight. I was aware that the speech was happening, but the two events did not connect in my mind. I finally put two and two together this morning, and I felt relieved.

I group State of X speeches with national political convention speeches and others that attempt to satisfy both the audience physically present in the hall and TV viewers. I first was annoyed by this during Clinton’s 1994 SOTU when I realized how short the speech would be if he would just cut out the applause lines and/or the audience would just applause once at the end. So, I was glad I missed the speech itself. I will take the time to watch the highlights and read analyses, but I can do without the actual joke of a speech.

I was even more grateful when I realized I would miss both of what I consider the greatest threats to civilization: the President and (what I join City Weekly columnist Bill Frost in referring to it as) That Gawdawful Fox Karaoke Show Which Shall Not Be Named Here.

After two hours and 3840 ounces of cinnamon bottled, the kind Elder supervising us thanked us and told us there would be great blessings in store for our work. I have faith in that, but I have gratitude for tonight’s blessings.

However, I must disagree with Steve on one of his points. I was able to listen to the Democratic response by Sen. Webb, and I was pleasantly surprised by the piffy and succinct manner his speech effectively responded to Bush’s rhetoric.

Huntsman State of the State Post-Mortem

2007-01-17T17:56:00.000-07:00

My main feelings about Governor Huntsman remain unchanged after last night’s address. He remains a terrible governor. Why? As I outlined before and as was reiterated tonight: he is too committed to the photo-op; too uncommitted to fighting for real change in government; and still ignored by legislative leaders who, according to their responses, will not take his recommendations seriously. Richard Piatt made the point immediately before last night’s broadcast on KSL that this is one of the few times citizens see the governor in a substantive role. The fact that we see him in so many un-substantive roles reinforces my negative opinion of him. The policies expressed in the address were mostly agreeable to me, many Democrats, and the majority of the public. Though, I do take exception to the abhorrent dual tax system that will not help the majority of Utahns but just make the rich richer. It has not been proven to work yet and until then I think we should hold off until we see the tax returns until we expand it. Absent of a strong response from the legislature to deliver real funding for education, health care, and other major issues instead of just tax cuts, and absent of Huntsman actually using his executive power and PR machine to push for his policies, I will remain a committed Democrat this year on the state level.

During the speech, Huntsman asked families of those serving in the military to stand. This led my father to joke about how many serving in the legislature or administration could have had stood up; he guessed no one, but I think it would be interesting to find out.

A hearty round of applause to the Democratic response, especially Rep. Riesen; when you watch it, you’ll see he hasn’t lost his touch, despite what several local TV stations may believe, and Democratic legislative leaders would be smart to keep his visibility high.

Finally, thanks to Also a round of shameful scorns at KUTV and KTVX, who again showed bias in their coverage by failing to cover both sides of a political issue. One of the things I was frustrated about during the Senate campaign I worked on was when President Bush held his fundraiser for Orrin Hatch. KUTV and KTVX (and KSTU) all carried this half-hour free commercial without allowing any response from our campaign. This time they failed to air the Democratic response. I expected little from KTVX; their station has been a joke for years now and even more so after seeing they actually believed people would rather watch America’s Most Boring and Stupid Home Videos instead of the Democratic response. KUTV I expect somewhat more of, despite the fact that they are the biggest info-taint-ment provider in Utah, with little real news staff left. Bravo to KSL and others who chose to be more fair to the issue.

Utah Blogosphere Activity

2007-01-15T16:50:00.000-07:00

Tyler Farrer at Davis County Watch made an interesting post on the status of the local blogosphere in Utah. He made some salient points, but I disagree with some of his conclusions. I appreciate those who do confine their blogging to local issues, because there are a depth of issues on the local level that many people, citing voting turnout during local elections, don’t seem feel are worth concern. I hope to have posts soon on the Davis County tax increase and the Bountiful skate park issue soon. Despite my political differences with Mr. Farrer, I expect we would most likely agree on many local political issues, though we may disagree on specific candidates in local politics.

I agree that many Utah bloggers have very little influence on national political issues. I also agree that some Utah bloggers spend too much time talking about national issues. The difference between my blog and others, I hope, will be that I will attempt to localize the national issues. I hope to point out when our local political leaders make statements of national importance or discuss national or international issues they have no business discussing. Greg Hughes’ talking on Take Two on Iraq yesterday is an example.

I do hope for the same camaraderie on local issues that Mr. Farrer writes about in his post. I do not believe that we need to engage in flame-wars and ad-hominem attacks with local bloggers in the same way that perhaps other states have let their political blogosphere devolve into. I believe more activities like Ryan Money’s Utah Bloggers Conference are important to ensure we see more than just the words of bloggers, but their faces, families, and friendliness.

Sunday Talk Show Highlights: Augmentation is Cosmetic Surgery

2007-01-15T13:45:00.000-07:00

I oppose the surge in troops in Iraq for many reasons. Perhaps the best explanation I have heard so far was on yesterday’s broadcast of the McLaughlin Group. The host made the point (and I will put up the transcript when it is online) that Secretary of State Rice’s description of the escalation as an “augmentation” is illuminating. Augmentation is a word frequently used in the context of plastic surgery, used to hide flaws and create the illusion of beauty, at least temporarily. McLaughlin, I believe, correctly made the point that this augmentation is merely cosmetic in the strictest sense.

It may create the illusion of security and success for a few months, say the next 14 months, wherein Bush is able to pass the problem off to the next administration or least to make it a big enough issue for the presidential election. There will be no lasting security or political solution based on this “augmentation.”

Also on the program, UPI editor Martin Frost made the point that the surge will not work because it hasn’t worked in the past and in other areas of the nation. When we surged in Fallujah, the insurgency moved to Ramadi; when we moved into Ramadi, it moved to Mosul; when we surged in Mosul, it moved to Basra. I may be off on the chronology, and will correct it based on the transcript, but the point is valid. The surge is a cosmetic option that is useless against a faster-moving insurgency. You can bring reinforcements against a standing army in an area, but not against a group who holds no value in any particular piece of land, but in creating instability in the government and fear in the hearts and minds of the public.

We need to accept the reality, as Senator Obama noted on Face the Nation yesterday:

One of the things that I strongly disagree with Senator McCain, though, is this notion that we have future catastrophe to look forward to if we start phasing down troops. We are in the catastrophe that Senator McCain described right now. We've got bloodletting taking place, we see great influence of Iran in the region as a consequence as--of us moving forward.

Some people, notably the Administration, and add to that Rep. Greg Hughes of Draper, don’t understand that it can’t get much worse unless we add more troops. Yesterday’s broadcast of Take Two for some reason had Rep. Hughes, who was also on On the Record, talking about Iraq with Marshall Thompson, someone who has actually been there. Hughes is quickly approaching Paul Ray as the new media whore of the Legislature. Hughes had absolutely no idea what he was talking about on Take Two, spouting off the same old (and now rejected) Administration talking points on Iraq. We should take Take Two to task (too many stupid puns, I’m sorry) for not asking someone who has actually been to Iraq to make the case for the surge. I personally know of several veterans who would be more than happy to support the surge publicly. I may disagree with them, but they are still my friends because I value their service.

In conclusion, I feel we need to recognize that the Bush plan is nothing more than a boob job, designed to destroy life and create the illusion of beauty and success. I doubt it will succeed, because I believe the majority of Americans, and Utahns soon, will understand that the future of Iraq is now, and we need to leave.

Governor Huntsman Pre-Session Question: Photo-op vs. Political Courage

2007-01-15T12:30:00.000-07:00

Watching the news Saturday night, it was reiterated to me what a terrible governor we have in Utah. Many Utahns obviously disagree with that position. My concern is not that Governor Huntsman is a bad person, or that his stated policies are all that bad. I think he has some great ideas about education, immigration, and health care. However, my main concern with Governor Huntsman, and the main reason I most likely not be voting for him next year, is that he lacks the political courage to truly stand up for his beliefs. The main reasons for this are: his penchant for photo-op politics; his unwillingness to take on the legislature; and his fear of an ultra-right wing backlash at the Republican caucus/convention/primary next year.

First, Governor Huntsman is too concerned with his public visual image than with how his policies are implemented. The litany of fluffy images (and all-too complicit media stories) is almost endless. Among the more recent and prominent stories: opening car shows; riding in a moto-cross race; playing keyboard with REO Speedwagon (that at least should earn most Utahns disdain) and Brent Brown; and perhaps most ignominiously, adopting children from Third World nations as if he was in Hollywood. My anger with the coverage of these events is the total lack of questions as to what else the Governor of Utah could be focusing on during these times. There have been proposals that Americans should create a government executive whose sole duty is ceremony, like the monarch in Britain or President in India or Israel, thus freeing up time for another person (a prime minister, usually) to concern themselves solely with the operation of governing. Governor Huntsman makes me long for such a system.

However, the better solution would be for Huntsman to stand up to the legislature. There are inherent problems with this solution, though. Utah has, at least for my lifetime, had a very strong legislature and a very weak executive. The legislature routinely spends hours working at cross-purposes with the governor, even when they are the same party. Whether the issue is roads, education, tax reform, etc, they also find ways to disagree vehemently. Usually, the governor is unable to exercise more than a few weak vetoes on a couple message bills, but rarely any spending legislation. Governor Huntsman has upheld this shameful tradition, in place since at least the end of the Matheson administration, during his term. Governor Huntsman’s budget proposal this year is a very progressive document, one that deserves attention, but I am skeptical about its implementation or even discussion due to pre-session comments by legislative leaders, especially with Rep. Greg Hughes blowing it off during almost every interview I have heard. Part of Huntsman’s problem is institutional, with the state constitution giving a lot of power to the state legislature and appropriating comparatively few functions to the Governor. This situation works at cross-purposes with the public’s expectation of executive power. Especially at a time when the President has appropriated unprecedented power to the executive, Utahns have an unrealistic expectation of what the Governor can do. However, I believe, with all of his PR prowess, Huntsman could easily make the case for a more powerful executive branch in Utah, on any issue he wishes to have greater influence.

Huntsman’s unwillingness to fight for his plans, though, is based in the fear of the far right of the Utah Republican party. This wing is controlled by a few very powerful legislators and fund raisers, which could, either publicly or discreetly, put up a candidate against him in the Republican nomination process. The electability of such a candidate is not important, because such challenges in the past have been enough to push incumbent governors running for re-election far enough to the right to satiate the ultra-cons. Again, the past three incumbent governors have had to deal with such challenges, two of three have failed (Huntsman is the exception against Walker), but powerful enough in the convention to remind the incumbent where his or her loyalties lie.

This legislative session will be the crucible for Huntsman. As I mentioned earlier, the 2004 election was a basic difference of opinion. Matheson Jr. based his campaign on the idea that we need to invest in education first, so that economic growth can follow. Huntsman Jr. based his campaign on the opposite, that we must stimulate economic growth so that funds for education can be reliably accrued. Huntsman won; the state economy has produced strong tax revenues and a strong budget surplus for the past two years. I will admit that the first part of Huntsman’s platform has worked to the degree that there is a budget surplus. However, the test of this legislative session is whether he will exercise enough political courage to fight the prevailing legislative opinion of tax cuts before education spending, which the public obviously opposes.

If Huntsman fails in this session, I hope that we can find a strong Democratic alternative to him. Such a candidate must combine the photo-op with political courage and bring the new Western tradition of fiscally-responsible, popular Democratic governors. He must also have the support, financial and political, of a broad base of Utahns in order to win.

Link of the Day: Best mash-ups of '06

2007-01-11T16:51:00.000-07:00

While I am not a huge fan of every mash-ups, I think some of them are pretty good and inventive combinations of artist who would never collaborate in real life. I extend this link, which has already been boing-boinged, to a list of what some are releasing as the best mash-ups of 2006. An interesting addition was that of Arty Fufkin; I don't know if it is the same as the DJ on X96, but I doubt it could be anyone else, since he is an actual mixing DJ.

Some of the songs I don't care for because either one artist or both are bad and the combination of the two promises hell. Who I am avoiding and why:

Lady Sovereign—British rap? No one can beat Mark Morrison, so don’t try. Still waiting for the Mack to return. Anybody else?

Madonna—Not worth my time to explain.

Justin Timberlake—Not even Siouxsie & the Banshees can help.

Fergie vs. Cake—I want to seem them fight in a real-life celebrity death-match, not a mash-up.

Bon Jovi vs. George Michael—I had an idea of what to say here, but it looked too homophobic for my tastes. I’ll just say they should both go away.

*A warning that the lyrics on some songs are mature, so read who you are downloading.

Democratic National Convention to Denver

2007-01-11T16:21:00.000-07:00

I was extremely relieved to see the DNC award the 2008 convention Denver. It is about time that either party decided to have a convention in the Mountain West. Colorado's transition to a bluer state has been no accident; it was an investment of money, time, and people into reforming the media structure, recruiting good candidates, a strong field operation, and long-term (more than one election) planning for victory. Utah Democrats (and obviously Republicans) have something to learn from this model, and we should be working hard to export it. However, it will take Utah’s donor community to finally stand up and make some substantial investments into the same sort of operations with which Colorado’s progressive community successfully experimented.

I am going to seriously think about how I can get to be a delegate.

DNC—The 2008 Democratic National Convention: Denver, CO

Divine Strake Info Session: Questions of Trust

2007-01-11T15:10:00.000-07:00

I think my last two posts were way too long, so I will try to be more piffy & succinct from now on.

I attended the Divine Strake information session last night, held at the Grand America Hotel’s Imperial Ballroom. The change of venue initially concerned me; I thought many people would feel less comfortable just walking into Utah’s only 5-star hotel. My concerns were unfounded, though, as the place was packed when I got there at 6:30 and was still buzzing after 8 when I left.

The presenters from the National Nuclear Security Agency and Defense Threat Reduction Agency were well prepared and extremely patient. I was very impressed with this aspect of our Federal Government. I tried to keep my questions to the technical issues of the test; I wanted to allow them the courtesy of listening to their viewpoint.
However, the majority of the other participants could not get beyond the fundamental questions of how they could trust these government officials when so many lies have been told in the past. In the gaggles I participated in, the ratio of questions on the project itself versus questions of the integrity of the government was probably 1:4. This does not bode well for reactions to the test, which I came away with the impression that it was inevitable. I felt while this session was helpful, it was wholly insufficient to assuage the trust issues that persist in Utah regarding testing at the Nevada Test Site. I could not help but sympathize with the presenters at last night’s meeting, because many of them expressed that they were not the policymakers, but were the instruments of that policy. It does not appear that policymakers from the NNSA, DTRA, Departments of Defense or Energy will be subjected to the brunt of personal commentary many of last night’s attendees were eager but unable to express. At least legally, in the case of one man there.

I was also left completely frustrated at the conflicted trust issues posed by last night’s event compared to the results of the election in Utah. Despite press releases to the contrary, it is obvious that Hatch, Bishop, Matheson, Cannon (and Bennett, but he wasn’t on the ballot) all have staff that were if not aware of this test in it’s initial stages, were at least aware before we knew. One of the statements that stood out last night was when one of the NTS personnel describing the environmental assessment bluntly asserted that none of Utah’s Federal representatives had looked over the EA we all had in our hands. With the incredible public distrust on this issue, why were we unable to gain traction on the issue? Why were people willing to vote for representatives whose only actions before the Election (and since) appeared to be only press releases and staff visits? Why did they not vote for the candidates who pledged to fight tooth and nail against it? Why are Utahns filled with a level of distrust of the Federal government but unwilling to express that distrust at the ballot machine against those candidates who failed to exercise oversight? These are basic questions I have no answers for, beyond the understanding that perhaps we in the campaigns did not do enough to publicize that issue and connect it to other major issues of government scandal and distrust.

Links:
Tribune: Divine Strake visitors frustrated
D News: Divine Strake session criticized

Legistlative Town Hall Meeting Wrap-Up: Waffle Waffle, "Hillary Care," Unintentional Feminism

2007-01-09T23:09:00.000-07:00

I just returned this evening from a Town Meeting with my legislators. It was an interesting exchange, one which I am sure will be repeated across our state. When I got there, the first four people to talk were relatives of the panelists, which was puzzling. It finally got real interesting when Kim Burningham, State School Board Member, started talking about the governor’s proposed budget and how great it was for education. That was followed by some cautionary discussion by Rep. Sheryl Allen (R-19), who, in deference to Sen. Eastman (R-23), said that the current state of the budget was a “potential surplus.” Odd prudence, beacuse Eastman stood strongly in favor of another tax cut, because the surplus is so large; however, he did temper that with the good idea of paying off some of the bonds in order to keep the AAA rating.

There were some pretty good questions, but some were weird. Here were the highlights, and lowlights:

Ø The legislators were stumped when they were asked about altering and increasing the deduction for medical expenses on the Utah state tax form. A very well-informed individual on the subject let them know that once, the deduction would apply to those few individuals whose expenses over the past year were equal to 7% of their gross income. Today, though, many people, even those on Medicare Part D plans, regularly see health-related expenses reach that 7% threshold. The legislators asked for a tax accountant, but were met with crickets. More importantly though, Eastman and Allen deflected the question into a general discussion on the flat tax, in which Allen admitted that the number of people eligible for the higher tier of the dual track system would drop from 10% of Utahns in 2006 to 5% in 2007. The man called them out on that stupidity, but they moved on to the next question.

Ø One of my former teachers, Brian Ferguson, now a librarian at South Davis Junior High, made an impassioned defense of public schools against private schools. He noted one of the major problems with tuition tax credits: the lack of accountability for how our tax dollars are spent for private education. He answered his own questions for the most part, pointing out how most proposals have no requirements for what a school is, teacher certification, testing requirements, graduation ethics, time and days in school, etc. When he was finished, they moved on to the next question, without taking up his concerns.

Ø I had the opportunity to ask a couple of questions. I phrased my questions in the context of the 2004 election; as we should recall, Huntsman campaigned on a platform of economic growth providing the state resources for education funding increases. Now that we have strong economic growth (for the state budget at least), I asked whether they would fulfill the promise of Governor Huntsman by acting on his proposals concerning increased education funding, which Mr. Burningham outlined in his earlier remarked. I asked for a yea or nay from each one. Then I asked them to answer the questions of Mr. Ferguson about accountability for public dollars going to private schools. Responses varied, to say the least.

o Rep. Allen said she would strongly support the Governor’s proposals, as they are now. Drawing on the surveys she has done (not always scientific) and finding most constituents opposed to the idea, she vowed to oppose any tuition tax credit bill or voucher legislation.

o Rep. Neuenschwander (R-20), who was quiet for most of the meeting, waffled around both issues. He said the House Republican caucus wanted greater increases to the WPU, but he failed to say how he would vote on the proposal as is. Then he really waffled back and forth on the voucher issue, not taking any real stand, asking for more input. Why did the UEA support this guy? I predict arm-twisting will push him into voting for vouchers.

o Sen. Eastman made it clear that it was just a budget proposal and was not binding on the legislature to take any action. Then he said more money should go to tax cuts. Then he gave a defense of charter schools as the middle of the road for the voucher debate. Then he said he would support a voucher bill if would come out of committee this year. Following all that, he waffled on how he would enforce accountability for such things, drifting off into how PUBLIC schools needed more oversight and accountability for how funding is spent in each district. It took three questions from three different people, including myself, to remind him that I was asking about accountability for private schools using taxpayer dollars. He eventually admitted his ideal was a pilot program whereby 1500 vouchers would be distributed via lottery to any student to use and then they would be “evaluated” in rather vague terms.

Ø One lady was very upset at the lack of public transit available in Bountiful, wishing that Trax was extended into Bountiful. She justified this on the growing population of senior citizens in Southern Davis County. Eastman expressed his displeasure with UTA, claiming that it had reneged on earlier plans to expand Trax into Southern Davis, start Express routes through the county, and how they had actually reduced stops in the county. They seemed rather impotent when it was pointed out that they had no power over the operations of UTA due to their “quasi-governmental” status. This brought an incredulous reaction from the crowd, whereby Eastman expressed his desire that UTA be rebuilt with a stronger state government component.

Ø The second to last speaker went off on a diatribe against public education. Noting that God holds parents accountable for the education of children, not bureaucrats, he argued against “socialized education.” Under the logic that 90% of the attendees would be against “Hillary Care,” we should be against schools being socialized, because socialism has destroyed every nation and civilization in which it has been attempted. He was scared that children were being taught more about sex than God, our schools were overrun by gangs, and that they were being taught socialist values. The solution to this problem is to allow parents to be accountable for their children’s education. Picking up on a previous commenter’s concern that polygamists could set up their own private school and get voucher money, he said he had no problem with that because they were getting God in their school (I would argue that, in a polygamist school, sex and God would become one). What he meant by all this I don’t know; I can only assume he favored vouchers. Rep. Allen made it clear the abstinence-only policy of sex-ed in Utah, and Mr. Burningham was very defensive of the schools, to the point of upsetting this gentleman again. So many problems with his ideas, so little space.

Ø The final speaker was a mother who complained about her value in Utah’s tax system. She was appalled that, apparently, mothers who stay at home for the first year of their child’s life receive only a $100 deduction. Noting her advanced degree, she said she would contribute a lot to the economy by working, but chose to contribute to society by raising her five children in her home. Her argument was essentially based on feminist economic theory, though she would probably be appalled by that description. It was interesting to end the meeting on that note.

My conclusions:

I expect little or nothing from Rep. Neuenschwander; tonight’s meeting left the impression in my mind that he is typical Republican follower, a back-bencher who will continue to uphold the failed legislative traditions of Ann Hardy and Richard Siddoway. I liked those two personally but both proved legislative failures. (Stopping school sports recruitment, emasculating GRAMA, etc).

Dan Eastman is exactly the same as he was six years ago; he is a conservative car dealer who is also a follower, but I believe he is player behind the scenes in getting Republicans in line. However, he expressed very little individual thought and again leaves Southern Davis County without real legislative clout in the Senate. While Lane Beattie wasn’t my ideal State Senator, at least he was effective.

Rep. Allen is a true moderate, but I question her willingness to stand up for her beliefs in the face of strong conservative opposition in her district. Marc Jacobs, similar to John Jacob, self-destructed near the end of the primary; however, I believe her moderate convictions do represent almost all of her constituents, expect the few who are willing to fund a primary opponent (most of which were outside her district anyway). I hold hopes she will demonstrate political courage by making a strong stand for education this session, become the Republican moderate leader the Legislature desperately needs. However, I am skeptical; but I don’t vote for her anyway.

Kim Burningham is an invaluable asset on the School Board. Articulate, calm, but he was tough when challenged tonight; he didn’t back down when he took on the second to last speaker. It’s a shame he’s not in the legislature anymore.

I believe Democrats must have in their message this year a challenge for the Huntsman administration. If he does not live up to his 2004 election promises to spend excess money gained from pro-growth economics, we need to call him out on that. His budget proposes some great ideas, but we need to point out his impotence if he cannot get it past the legislature. If only we had a candidate to challenge him.

How?

2007-01-09T23:06:00.000-07:00

When contemplating starting this project, I asked several people about how I should do this. I am choosing blogger now because it is fairly easy to learn, now, and I want to get the hang of blogging before I switch to something more complicated. I envision when I get the hang of things, I will probably switch to wordpress and get my own address. Any help with starting is always welcome.

Who are you?

2007-01-09T22:24:00.000-07:00

This is probably one of the biggest problems I have with starting a blog. I have already sacrificed some anonymity in starting and in the first two posts, but I feel I should let you know a little about me, but not everything.
I have lived in Bountiful for almost all of my life. Exceptions include: a year studying at Southern Utah University; a two year, full-time mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Melbourne, Australia; and a semester internship in Washington, DC. I have a Bachelor's of Science in Political Science from the University of Utah, with a Certificate in International Relations. I recently finished working on the campaign for the Democratic US Senate candidate in Utah. In lieu of finding a real job (yet), I have returned to the U to take classes for the Campaign Management Minor.
As I said before, one of my biggest interests is politics. I have been interested in it since I witnessed Ronald Reagan interrupt cartoons on TV one day, shocked at the power one man could have to stop cartoons. However, my political philosophy does not have great appreciation for Reagan. I consider there are three main influences on my political outlook: my family, my education, and my mission. My father is a Vietnam veteran, now retired from a defense contractor, and has evolved in his own political ideas from a strong Republican from Nixon through Dole to voting for Nader in 2000, now berating the "fascists masquerading as Republicans." My mother is a kindergarten teacher, and her struggles with that profession have greatly influenced my positions on government. Though she considers herself an independent, as a result of her early activism in education labor politics brought me into contact with more Democrats, and I have eventually sympathized with the party's other positions, for the most part.
My education involves schooling, but also the books I have read and the documentaries I have watched. Understanding the historical ideas of the political parties and their leaders has shaped how I feel about each party's philosophies. My schooling has forced me to evaluate the policies on a mostly objective basis. Such study has led me to believe that Democrats have salient morals, values, and ideas, as well as effective policies that address real problems. My favorite quote comes from the PBS American Experience documentary on LBJ, and illustrates what I think government should have its clearest focus: “People programs. People. I'm talking about people. I mean, p-e-e-p-u-l. I'm talking folks!"

My mission was a very important experience because it really made me a Democrat. I entered the MTC on September 12, 2001. On September 10, because I was so politically interested, I worried that I would constantly be distracted by politics, even in Australia. On the 12^th, I had confidence that I could ignore politics and the news and give my full effort to the work. I figured that Bush would assume a FDR-like mantle, rallying the nations of the world together to fight a common enemy and no one would disagree with him because it was so obvious the reasons that we had to fight and other nations, including Australians, would be glad to help. For the first few months, it was good. Most Aussies were kind and understanding when they found out my companion and I were Americans. That started to change after the first missile strike on Afghanistan, and slid further downhill as Bush became more and more obsessed with Iraq. I distinctly recall one door where the woman would not talk to us “because your President wants to go to war.” I had no idea at the time (around October 2002) what was going on, but it soon became apparent. (As a sidenote, I doubt the woman would have listened to us anyway.) I realized how stupid things were when, on the day the invasion started, we went to fill up our car at the 7-11 next door to the mission office where I worked. The attendant, in a rather frightened tone, asked if many Americans were around the office; I surmised he was afraid of terrorists attacking the mission office, which would probably have a negative effect on the petrol station. When I came home, I realized how crappy things were in Iraq, and the rest of the state, county, and country.

That sums up my political history, somewhat. I am taking a class on political philosophy this semester, so that may become more detailed.

This blog will not be all politics all the time. I intend to write about sports, especially my teams: the Utes, Jazz, Yankees, Nationals, 49ers, and Real. I will also talk about music; my tastes tend to favor anything but pop, and I may have some Pandora stuff on here. I hesitate to put movie reviews on here, because I have no real expertise, but I will probably make some comments. Anything else you want to talk about, feel free to let me know.

What are you writing about?

2007-01-08T22:43:00.000-07:00

This blog will focus mainly on political activities. As the title indicates, it will come from the perspective of a lifelong resident of Davis County, Utah. However, I do intend to write about more than just local, Davis County politics. I envision posts on issues covering the globe, the political spectrum, and reflections based on history.
But I have more interests than just politics. I will give my opinions about sports, music, TV, movies, religion, and anything else I can think of and/or about which I lack the tact to shut up.
What I will not discuss (hopefully) are personal interactions that will comeback to bite me later. While my life is too boring to be a Washingtonienne-type, I hope I will not offend friends and family here.

Post Number One: Why

2007-01-08T22:37:00.000-07:00

Why am I blogging? Well, during and after the election season, I felt I constantly had some things to say, but no real outlet. I had been admiring blogs and working with bloggers, but have been hesitant until now to get into the game, but I am going to give it a shot. I have a lot of things to say, most of them are my opinions and my opinions alone. I do not claim to have the best opinion, but I hope that this blog will contain writing based on facts. If not, I hope whoever reads this will comment. I am moderating comments, but only as a spam filter.