Raising Political Awareness in Our Communities

Drum Roll Please...

2010-05-19T11:13:00.002-06:00

Here is the official message for Summer of Service Utah.

YOU changing the world: One day, One week, ONE SUMMER at a time.

Summer of Service is a statewide campaign in partnership with the Utah Commission on Volunteers and the Volunteer Center Association of Utah to celebrate and mobilize people of all ages to make a difference in their communities by volunteering over
the summer. Simply sign up to participate, volunteer your time, log your hours online, and win a Presidential Service Award signed by the President of the United States. The individual in each age group that logs the most hours of service from June 1 through August 31, 2010 will win lunch with Utah’s Lieutenant Governor Greg Bell.

The mission of the Utah Commission on Volunteers, an offi ce of the Lieutenant Governor, is to improve communities through service and volunteering. Visit the website at WWW.VOLUNTEERS.UTAH.GOV

WHO: Anyone!
.KIDS ages 5-14: 50 hours minimum
.YOUNG ADULTS ages 15-25: 100 hours minimum
.ADULTS ages 26 and up: 100 hours minimum

WHEN: June 1 – August 31, 2010

WHERE: Anywhere that needs a helping hand
.Nonprofit Organizations
.Faith Based Institutions
.Community events
.Government Agencies & Schools
.Individuals

WHY: To make a difference in your community and win an award
.Make a difference in the lives of others
.Learn new skills and build your resume
.Keep active, stay busy and avoid boredom
.Earn a Presidential Service Award
.Earn a chance to win lunch with Utah’s LieutenantGovernor
.Have fun and make new friends

HOW: Log onto www.volunteers.utah.gov and click on
the Summer of Service box. It will provide you with all
the details you need to register and log your hours.

HELP: For help finding volunteer opportunities please visit www.volunteers.utah.gov, call 888.755.8824 or contact your local volunteer center.

SERVE...
Your community by volunteering over the summer

LOG...
50-100
hours of service(depending on age)

WIN...
A Presidential Service Award and a chance to win lunch with the Lt. Governor

A Cool State Program

2010-05-15T10:37:00.002-06:00

We're lucky that Utah state has something called the Child Protection Registry. The registry protects email addresses from spam solicitation from alcohol, tobacco, and pornography sources. All you have to do is go to the online site and enter your email address--this will automatically filter the solicitations before they get to your account.

You can click on this link to put in your address:

https://DoNotContact.Utah.gov/MissUtah/MissSpringvilleMapleton

Political Rhetoric

2010-05-10T16:36:00.002-06:00

When is political talk just political talk?

Gorgias, a text by Plato, makes a distinction between two types of language persuasion: dialectic and rhetoric. Dialectic is conversation. It subtly reveals truth in a natural progression. Socrates, the main character of Gorgias, teaches philosophy in this manner. Gorgias, the opposing player in the dialogue, represents the form of rhetoric. Rhetoric is a one-sided speech, a monologue. Accordingly, rhetoric is proud and may not lead to ends of truth. Gorgias is a sophist. Charismatic, but empty. Dialectic is knowledge persuasion. Rhetoric is conviction persuasion.

Political speeches are often rhetorical. And this means that some must be corrupt or sophist in nature. How can we tell the difference between truth and sophistry in political rhetoric?

Can you think of some recent examples of corrupt versus non-corrupt rhetoric?

Some Updates

2010-04-26T12:08:00.002-06:00

Sorry for the delay--our meeting on the official message for Summer of Service has been rescheduled few times. But here is something close to the official message:

The state's Commission on Volunteers is pleased to announced the 2nd annual Summer of Service for the state of Utah. Kids and adults alike are encourage to log as many hours as they can on the Presidential Service Award website (I'll post this link asap...). The youth who log the most hours of service will get to eat lunch with the Lieutenant Governor in September. There may also be other prizes offered to those who log a certain amount of hours. However, all participants who log a certain amount of hours will receive the Presidential Service Award. (Cool, huh?)

Here's our Facebook event. Please join!

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=717165601&ref=profile#!/event.php?eid=112926748727437&ref=ts

Service Opportunities this Summer

2010-03-29T09:32:00.002-06:00

I'm currently working as a youth appointee to the Utah Commission on Volunteers, a federally funded group that promotes state and community volunteerism. Our biggest project is the Summer of Service, which will kick off in June. I'll be posting details on that soon--let's just say that it involves earning prizes for doing service. It will be a fun and useful thing to keep you busy this summer!

Alternative to State Welfare

2010-03-16T22:23:00.002-06:00

The welfare system has been an object of reform almost from the day of its inception. However, during the turn of the century, there was a grassroots movement toward a different kind of social welfare system. It was called the "settlement movement"--I've written a little about it:

The settlement movement was a Progressive Era attempt to create democratic communities that fostered social and political equality. Jane Addams was a leading figure in the movement; Hull-House may be the greatest example of the original settlement idea. Elshtain claims that Addams’ ideas adequately express the movement’s intentions: “Addams thought of those who came and went at Hull-House as citizens, or citizens-in-the making, not as clients or receivers of services” (xxi). Unlike modern state-run welfare programs, settlements were social communities that valued its members as human beings. The movement sought to spread democracy through citizens, not institutions. To do so, settlements addressed those social sectors with the least democratic freedoms—immigrants. Hull-House was a half-way-type house that provided mostly temporary assistance to struggling Russians, Italians, and Jews among others. Addams’ house provided education classes, recreational activities, bathroom facilities, and basic food and shelter. Her aim, like other settlement workers, was to raise the immigrant living standards to better assimilate them into American society. In “The Subjective Necessity for Social Settlements”, Addams describes this process as an “effort to add the social function to democracy” (Elshtain 14). According to settlement claims, Americans could not realize full democracy until both social and political realms became democratic for every member of humanity. Addams adds her personal testimony to this idea, concluding, “I hope you forgive me for reminding you that the best speculative philosophy sets forth the solidarity of the human race” (28).

Would this kind of movement be realistic in the modern political climate?

Is there another source of viable welfare besides the state?

Is Property a Natural Right?

2010-03-13T10:58:00.003-07:00

We hear about property rights in the news everyday--intellectual property, public property, government property, private property... Pink Floyd was just backed by a judge on his intellectual property lawsuit concerning internet downloads.

So, with all this in mind, let's consider a question: is property a natural right?

I wrote a little bit about this for a political philosophy class. Maybe my thoughts will be of some value:

Locke defends property as a natural right by arguing that humans derive property from the God-given rights they were born with. He first points to the common rights of man, observing that all men are born with bodies and into a world with resources. Locke then states, “God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life and convenience” (Clayton and Williams 21). As a result of the capabilities of their bodies, all men are given the opportunity to use the world and its resources. However, what makes both their bodies and their resources their own is personal effort. A man can claim his body because he has the ability to use it—he controls the movement of his fingers, and thus, his fingers belong to him. Similarly, when a man labors in a field, he possesses claim to it. Locke writes, “He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. Nobody can deny but the nourishment is his” (22). The labor of picking the acorn or apple is what entitles him solely to the nourishment of the fruits. Nevertheless, the right to property is naturally bounded. Locke argues that the excessive or wasteful use of resources extends beyond what man is entitled to. Unlike the primary natural rights of life or liberty, property is a secondary natural right. There is no divine right to land—the British monarchical tradition of land inheritance is not divinely appointed. Man derives the right to property by utilizing (through labor) the divine rights to life.

Should we agree with Locke?

Is there anything flawed with his argument?

A Different Way of Helping Haiti

2010-02-21T20:09:00.000-07:00

I think this is a really unique and fun way to contribute:
http://www.cfda.com/fashion-for-haiti/

When Pageants Meet Politics

2010-02-13T12:23:00.001-07:00

Some recent political happenings that have affected Miss Provo...

http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comments/700007525/Miss-Provo-pageant-support-dropped.html

Philosophy of Healthcare

2010-02-08T22:04:00.004-07:00

I had to write a paper on justice and healthcare for a class on social justice. I feel like it is particularly applicable at the moment. This is my opinion, though, and may not be right or wrong. This paper does not address the issue comprehensively, and is basically theoretical. It isn't about policy. But please leave some feedback!

Three Characteristics of a Just Healthcare System

This essay will not address whether or not health itself is an aspect of justice. Rather, we will assume that the right to health is indeed encompassed by the umbrella of justice, supported by the liberal tradition of rights to life and happiness. The argument now becomes not why health is an aspect of justice, but what constitutes the most just form of healthcare. The ideas of John Rawls, Harry Brighouse, and Michael Barry help outline three fundamental aspects of a just system: (1) its source, (2) its distribution of liberty, and (3) its distribution of equality.

Who Should Provide Healthcare?

Assuming that universal healthcare coverage is the manifestation of the fundamental right to health, we must first address the particulars of where that care should originate. It would be unrealistic to propose that a purely private system would be a viable option for this level of coverage. Based on the current shortcomings of the American system, we see that a capitalist healthcare “market” neglects those who do not participate in the market itself—the unemployed. However, the other extreme of a purely public option has its own shortcomings. An egalitarian system can be bogged down by what Richard Cookson and Paul Dolan call “maximizing principles” in an article on healthcare rationing (326). According to these researchers, the public option tends to rely on principles of utilitarianism when distributing coverage. It is more efficient to offer a package that maximizes the health of the population by an impersonal method of cost/benefit analysis. Cookson and Dolan argue that this kind of system cannot account for differences of preference, leaving citizens generally unsatisfied (326). A more moderate approach may be the answer: a plan that balances the preference advantages of private coverage with the overall accessibility of the public option. We can use John Rawls’ “difference principle” to explain a more complete approach to the dilemma.
In “Justice as Fairness,” Rawls explains the basic need for social equality. However, Rawls qualifies his claim with a principle that distinguishes his approach from the utilitarian leanings of egalitarianism. He argues that inequality may be permissible in a just system, but only “if there is reason to believe that the practice with the inequality, or resulting in it, will work for the advantage of every party engaging in it” (167). For example, income inequalities may be considered just if the higher income bracket is helping to support the lower income bracket—there are still differences between brackets, but all are at a satisfactory level. Thus, a certain level of inequality can provide the satisfaction that an egalitarian system cannot. Applying the difference principle to healthcare, we can combine the private and public plans to establish a system that is both equal and satisfying.
A combined healthcare system would be fair, and therefore just, according to Rawls. A public option would address the issue of coverage, providing adequate plans to those who are unable to access private care. However, to ensure overall satisfaction, private options would still be available to those who could afford more extensive or customized plans. The public option would be undeniably simpler, but sufficient nonetheless. Because both parties sacrifice (either money or quality of care), there is a “balance of power and a similarity of circumstances” that is indicative of a just system (Rawls 174).

How Should Healthcare be Distributed to Ensure Liberty?

Applying the difference principle to healthcare brings up another consideration—how much difference is just? When does difference infringe on liberty? Perhaps an unemployed single mother relies on the public option. But if the public option is substandard, are her children resigned to a life of substandard health? Even if they are relatively healthy, is it fair that they may never achieve the level of health that wealthier kids may? Despite their mother’s severely limited access to healthcare options, the children have no liberty at all in the matter. In this case, the differences in children’s healthcare distribution may foster injustice. Harry Brighouse analyzes Rawls’ first principle of liberty to reconcile this issue of distribution associated with the difference principle.
Brighouse specifically use the lower-class children example to illustrate the potential shortcomings of differences in healthcare. However, he maintains the justness of the difference principle on the grounds of “a particularly strong form of priority” (56). If the priorities of any system remain untouched by differences between parties, than that system does not violate liberty. He writes, “The state should ensure that the quality of healthcare a child receives is not influenced by his or her parents’ income, either by making private healthcare unavailable to children, or by providing such a high quality of healthcare publicly that no advantage is gained by ‘going private’” (57). For Brighouse, the priority is the children. Children have the least liberty when it comes to health, having less control of their environment and lifestyle choices. Providing all children with equal healthcare ensures liberty in the midst of healthcare differences, upholding justice.
In a combined private/public healthcare system, certain priorities must be maintained to claim just distribution of liberty. Brighouse’s example asserts the importance of children as a priority. Moreover, this can also be applied to those groups who have limited control over personal health. Senior citizens and disabled persons should also be a priority in the public health care system. High quality care for these individuals will maintain liberty in the face of differences between the public and private options. The resulting distribution of coverage would be the most just, satisfying both of Rawls’ principles: advantageous differences in coverage among those with more liberty and equally good coverage among those with less liberty.

How Should Healthcare be Distributed to Ensure Equality?

Equality is different that the egalitarianism discussed by Rawls, but just as necessary to justice as liberty. We have established that the application of the difference principle does not necessarily decrease equality in the broad sense. However, we have not established what equalities are necessary in the first place. Perhaps the best way to address this is to address the inequalities that are common to healthcare. Richard Hofrichter, author of Health and Social Justice, states, “Eliminating health inequalities is important as a matter of social justice because health is an asset and a resource critical to human development.” But which inequalities must be eliminated? Brian Barry highlights the rampant inequalities of social class associated with health care.
Barry asserts that the unequal health levels across social strata cannot be explained solely by lifestyle. Lifestyle may be a primary factor influencing health, but the factors that influence lifestyle may not be controllable. Barry affirms that “lack of knowledge, articulacy and pushiness […] have origins in the class structure.” It becomes the duty of the state to tailor healthcare to the differing levels of “knowledge, articulacy and pushiness.” Barry concludes, “All that is needed (all!) is the political will to commit the necessary resources” (75).
Perhaps it is not as simple as Barry claims, but he makes a fair point. A just system would actively attack those inequalities associated with social class by committing resources specific to each class. The public option could accomplish this by including educational opportunities, offering courses in nutrition or exercise as part of the coverage. This kind of resource investment would be unique to the public sphere, tailoring its care plan to those groups which are most likely to utilize the public option. Thus, the public option would be responsible for the aspect of distribution of equality.

Conclusion

Relying on the claims of Rawls, Brighouse, and Barry, we can effectively outline three aspects of a just healthcare system. First, healthcare should be provided both publicly and privately to balance preference with accessibility according to the difference principle. Second, healthcare should be distributed to ensure liberty by providing quality public coverage to those with least liberty: children, seniors, and disabled persons. Third, healthcare should be distributed to ensure equality by tailoring the public option to the needs of the lower classes—the social strata most reliant on this option. These three characteristics may not constitute a comprehensively just system, but they would undoubtedly promote the principles that constitute justice itself.

An Official Bipartisan Effort

2010-02-06T10:29:00.002-07:00

Hmmmm... how official:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/05/obamas-white-house-super_n_451793.html

Political vs. Cultural Boundaries

2010-02-03T17:22:00.003-07:00

My sister is currently in the nursing school at BYU. Today we were discussing a movie/documentary she watched about an ongoing cultural dilemma. In a certain cultural setting, many women are malnourished, and consequently, incontinent. These women have very little bladder control and constantly "leak". In their community, they are considered "dirty" and consequently, they're shunned.

This may not seem just on any account (whether culturally, socially, politically, etc.), but how could this be approached by government action? Would it be effective for a local government agency to step in and prevent these shunnings?

My sister mentioned that because the practice is so culturally engrained, political policy action might be crossing lines. Furthermore, it could be completely ineffective. Or maybe, the policy could backfire--a people that feels that their culture has been attacked might further abuse or find new ways to abuse these women.

We concluded that the most effective strategy would be to fix the malnourishment/medical issues in the first place. Perhaps government-provided food or health care would prevent problems that are merely a characteristic of culture belief.

Helping Haiti

2010-01-25T14:45:00.002-07:00

I was shopping when I heard the following comment: "Our government shouldn't be wasting it's money on a crumbling island when we have so many of our own problems!"

So... is it fair for the US government to send foreign aid when we could be using the money on ourselves? Is it a question of what's right versus what's fair? Is being fair necessarily the right thing?

What kind of moral obligations does our government maintain toward Haiti? Is it our responsibility to help? If so, then why?

Would it be wiser to stop helping the people of Haiti?

Comments, please!

Liberty vs. Security

2010-01-10T11:13:00.002-07:00

The recent December terrorist attempt has sparked some interesting thoughts for me. (The following is basically my own opinion. Feel free to disagree.)

Many national security agents are clamoring for more security (!!!). If a terrorist can still bypass security, then something must be wrong. However, maybe these agents are forgetting something--the attack was unsuccessful. Security measures ended up working after a human misjudgment. But is there anything that can prevent this kind of error? It was not necessarily the inadequacy of the security equipment, but the failure of a security guard to interpret the equipments' output. Would adding more security prevent that kind of problem?

Every time more security is added, some kind of liberty is infringed: privacy, expression, commerce, etc. Ben Franklin once commented that those who are willing to give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither.

So how far should we go for security?

What kind of securities are necessary?

What kind of liberties are okay to give up?

Female Vote Entry Explained

2010-01-10T11:05:00.002-07:00

After a request to put a previous entry into less scholarly terms, here is a better explanation of what I found out about female voter turnout:

According to the data I collected and analyzed, percent female vote turnout by state had an indirect relationship with percent Democratic vote in the 2008 presidential race. This means that states that had larger amounts of female participation corresponded with lower rates of Democratic support. I originally theorized that higher female participation would mean more Democratic support--many theories and journal articles show that women are generally more liberal than men. My research did not prove that. However, there was a strong positive relationship between working married women that voted and Democratic vote share. The more working wives that voted, the higher levels of support for Barack Obama in that state. While this study cannot show that women are generally more liberal, it may support that theory that working married women are clearly so.

There you go!

Opinions on AP Classes

2009-12-21T11:48:00.002-07:00

Eduction is politics. (My justification for posting this.) I just read an interesting op-ed in the NY Times on high school AP Classes. My opinion: go academic overacheivers. But see what you think:

"Advanced Placement classes, once open to only a very small number of top high school students around the country, have grown enormously in the past decade. The number of students taking these courses rose by nearly 50 percent to 1.6 million from 2004 to 2009. Yet in a survey of A.P. teachers released this year, more than half said that “too many students overestimate their abilities and are in over their heads.” Some 60 percent said that “parents push their children into A.P. classes when they really don’t belong there.”

Does the growth in Advanced Placement courses serve students or schools well? Are there downsides to pushing many more students into taking these rigorous courses?"

Read seven different opinions at http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/the-advanced-placement-juggernaut/

How Does Female Voting Participation Affect Democratic Vote Share?

2009-12-08T14:29:00.005-07:00

The regression output from a recent study I conducted does little to suggest a relationship between female voter turnout and percent Democratic vote share. In my best model, the main independent variable achieved only limited statistical significance. However, the results indicated several interesting relationships. When controlling for a variety of demographic factors, the overall female voter turnout had a negative effect on Democratic vote share. This contradicted my original theory that increased female voting would correspond with increased Democratic support. Yet, the interactive variable of working married women who voted maintained a comparatively significant positive effect. While women in general may produce a negative effect, working women still produce a positive effect.

Using this detail of the regression, we may be able to fit the modern theories of female political behavior to this study (the theories that women tend to lean left). Although limited in significance, the results showed that working married women who voted has a separate effect on Democratic vote share. Perhaps the left-ward trend of female political participation is directly related to the increase of married women in the workplace. It would then be appropriate to conclude that married women who work have more liberal tendencies. Accordingly, we can also conclude that higher levels of political participation by this group will result in higher levels of Democratic support in US presidential elections.

Thoughts on Totalitarianism

2009-11-28T12:39:00.003-07:00

I believe that an important aspect of political awareness is learning about the principles and mechanisms of other political ideologies. Currently, I am in a class on totalitarianism--think Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and Communist China. Below is an article review on key practices of totalitarianism. Let me know what you think.

Totalitarianism: Absurdity Manifest by Terror of the Individual

In “The Hidden Violence of Totalitarianism: The Loss of the Groundwork of the World,” Anne-Marie Roviello discusses the totalitarian use of systematized terror. She cites the work of Hannah Arendt, highlighting the complete arbitrariness and formidable efficiency of totalitarian methods. She states that in such a regime “the real world no longer obeys its own elementary laws” and individuals “cut themselves off from elementary common sense.” These regimes represent the ultimate absurdity, the loss of all rational groundwork achieved by the Western world. Roviello then proposes that the use of internal terror may be the greatest manifestation of this absurdity. Unlike a traditional dictatorship, a totalitarian system prizes internal terror of the individual over external terror of the enemy. Furthermore, internal terror is a unique terror of the mind, employing the use of alienation and forced loyalty. Ultimately, this psychological terror effectively creates a separate reality in which the individual is completely destroyed.

A primary objective of totalitarian terror is “to pervert human plurality into a mass of fragmented individuals.” To the outside world, the alienated individuals appear to be a cohesive unit of support. But in reality, the citizens have no connection to each other, and thus, no mechanism by which they can revolt. Roviello proposes that “the natural bonds of solidarity and communication are broken” and that they are “replaced by distrust and informing.” Seen in the Nazi Germany example, methods of “distrust and informing” were among the primary tools of terror used by the Gestapo. Citizens were alienated by their civic duty to cooperate with the secret police, which often involved turning in neighbors or coworkers. In such a society, the complete mistrust becomes a unique feeling of “alarming uncanniness”—an experience to which the author assigns the German term “unheimlichkeit.” She continues on to explain the true terror of this feeling. The complete separation of an individual with his peers destroys a fundamental element of the individual himself. An individual with no connection to humanity cannot maintain any loyalty to that humanity. At this point, Roviello argues, the individual is the most susceptible to another fundamental tool of totalitarian terror: “violence done by oneself against oneself” as an expression of loyalty to the regime.

Roviello cites an example from Arendt’s Origins of Totalitarianism, describing the famous Moscow criminal trials in which defendants made no attempts to resist false accusations against them, ultimately supporting their own death sentences. Indeed, the Soviet masses publicly supported even the most corrupt political decisions with military-like vigor. Although alienated from each other, the totalitarian citizens maintain active, close relationships with the regime. Roviello describes this as a “kind of perversion, to the extent that it forces individuals to participate actively on the frontline.” Like the method of alienation, the method of forced participation ensures a strong foundation for the regime. Yet surprisingly, Roviello notes, the citizens of these regimes participate with genuine enthusiasm. Perhaps the real terror of forced loyalty is the psychological effectiveness of the totalitarian techniques. It is not just the public humiliation or self-contradiction that defines the terror, but the citizens’ attitude of enthusiastic self-destruction, of willing self-sacrifice. Roviello states, “Unselfishness to the point of self-sacrifice is the radicalized expression of the radical loss of contact of the self with the self.” Clearly, the terror of alienation alone is not sufficient to destroy the individual. Destruction is only complete when the individual submits his autonomy to the regime. When this requirement is satisfied, “the ground of the real gives way and with it the ability to judge and act in an autonomous manner.” The goal of internal terror is achieved: reality becomes relative.

Roviello quotes Arendt to summarize the totalitarian reality, stating that it is a “’factual lie’ that ‘rests precisely on the elimination of that reality which either unmasks the liar or forces him to live up to his pretense.’” In other words, the totalitarian reality is not a false reality, but an alternate reality. The terrors of alienation and forced loyalty create a separate world, devoid of human freedom. The author claims that such a world is also devoid of a future. In a world without freedom, there can be no anticipation of unpredictable events. The author maintains that the regime substitutes “the unpredictability of events with the unpredictability of absolute arbitrariness.” It follows that the citizens learn to live in a world without a real future, knowing only a future of inevitable terror. Now, not only do the individuals lack a sense of self, they lack a sense of self over time. Natural personality is replaced by a Party-mindset and daily life is replaced by a series of meaningless gestures. Roviello illustrates a scenario in which a father buys a child’s ball bearing a swastika—to buy the other swastika-less ball would be a gesture of treason. She goes on to cite a current example in Ahmadinedjad’s Iran. Running in the streets is forbidden as it causes “suggestive” movement of the buttocks. In Ahmadinedjad’s reality, “it is no longer just a question of self-censorship, but of imposing a permanent self-control on the smallest gestures.” Roviello argues that this cannot be a natural world, that it is an absurd world of oppression and harassment.

A traditional dictatorship utilizes oppression and harassment to achieve its political goals, but a totalitarian regime creates a separate world in which oppression and harassment are its political goals. Roviello proposes that this distinct totalitarian reality not only causes, but is dependent on the destruction of the individual. By alienating the individual so he cannot revolt and forcing his loyalties so he will not revolt, a new reality emerges as the final stage of totalitarian violence. It is a reality in which “individuals become unreliable, alarming, unheimlich to themselves."

Some Interesting Opinions

2009-11-10T16:21:00.002-07:00

As I'm sure you all know, I do not typically publish opinions--especially my own. However, I thought it would be a nice change to share what some in the country are thinking about the Blue Dog Democrat/Healthcare issue.

An opinion from NPR sources:

[Blue Dog] Democrats will talk about fiscal responsibility and cost containment and preserving the free market, but let's get real — their votes had nothing to do with ideological concerns. After all, the legislation was severely watered down to please people like Mike Ross, who voted against the bill anyway. It was all politics, even though 22 of these Democrats won their districts by double-digits. Ross led the way, defeating his practically nonexistent GOP opponent by 72 points! He's hardly an endangered species.

An opinion from Fox sources:

As the Democrats were working inside to finalize the government takeover, Republican lawmakers proposed their own health care bill, which would lower health care premiums and end junk lawsuits.Now, it would also do so without letting the government make decisions for you and your family and without adding billions to our national debt.

[...]

But I've got to wonder if some of the Blue Dog Democrats are looking at this a little bit differently than, say, the leadership in Congress.

So which one represents yours best?

Do either make any good points?

What is your opinion on the work of the Blue Dog Democrats?

And lastly, can you tell whose voices are featured above? :) If not, go ahead and click on the links to find out.

Provo General Election Results

2009-11-06T15:14:00.002-07:00

Provo.org reports:

The results of the November 3 Municipal General Election are in. Mayor-Elect John Curtis, and Council members-Elect Laura Cabanilla, Sterling Beck and Rick Healey will take office on January 5, 2010. City-wide voter turnout was 18%.

To view results by precinct, click here:

http://electionmap.provo.org/

Trimming the Deficit

2009-10-31T12:30:00.002-06:00

According the the New York Times, the deficit could soon become a political liability for the democratic administration. However, if a successful health reform plan is passed, it may be the most important step towards reducing the 1.7 trillion dollar debt. The Times reports:

Concerns about the deficit are building even as the White House and Congress continue to add to it with tax cuts and spending to stimulate a still-fragile economy. Yet those one-time costs do not trouble most economists and market analysts.

The main driver of long-term deficits is the chasm between the benefit programs Medicare and Medicaid, which are growing faster than the economy, and federal tax collections, which are at one of their lowest levels in many decades relative to the size of the economy.

Mr. Obama’s budget director, Peter R. Orszag, now at work on the president’s next budget, due in February for the 2011 fiscal year, declined to comment about a bipartisan commission and instead promised that the coming budget would propose additional ways to reduce the deficit beyond next year, when the economy has fully recovered.

“As the recovery strengthens and the economy begins to deliver job growth, we will have to take the tough steps necessary to return our nation to a fiscally disciplined and sustainable path,” Mr. Orszag said. “Even with a fiscally responsible health insurance reform that will help to reduce long-term deficits, we recognize that more is needed to put the budget back on a sustainable path.”

The administration continues to argue that Mr. Obama’s proposed health care overhaul is “the most significant act we could take to tackle the deficit,” as Christina D. Romer, the chairman of his Council of Economic Advisers, said in a speech last week. But it remains unclear how much the legislation working its way through Congress would slow the growth of Medicare and Medicaid.

The administration has not signaled what specific proposals it might make, but Mr. Orszag’s challenges are formidable: the chief sources of significant deficit reductions — savings in government health programs and tax increases on the rich — will have been tapped to offset the cost of a health care bill if it is enacted.

Recycling in Springville

2009-10-26T11:16:00.004-06:00

Why we should recycle: (from recycling-revolution.com)
Well-run recycling programs cost less to operate than waste collection, landfilling, and incineration.

The more people recycle, the cheaper it gets.

Two years after calling recycling a $40 million drain on the city, New York City leaders realized that a redesigned, efficient recycling system could actually save the city $20 million and they have now signed a 20-year recycling contract.

Recycling helps families save money, especially in communities with pay-as-you-throw programs.

Well-designed programs save money. Communities have many options available to make their programs more cost-effective, including maximizing their recycling rates, implementing pay-as-you-throw programs, and including incentives in waste management contracts that encourage disposal companies to recycle more and dispose of less.

Recycling creates 1.1 million U.S. jobs, $236 billion in gross annual sales and $37 billion in annual payrolls.

Public sector investment in local recycling programs pays great dividends by creating private sector jobs. For every job collecting recyclables, there are 26 jobs in processing the materials and manufacturing them into new products.

Recycling creates four jobs for every one job created in the waste management and disposal industries.

Thousands of U.S. companies have saved millions of dollars through their voluntary recycling programs. They wouldn't recycle if it didn't make economic sense.

So how do we recycle in Springville? (from springville.org)
The cost of the container will be $5.41 per month billed semi-annual or $5.09 per month billed annually.

Each subscriber will receive a gray, 95-gallon roll-out recycling container along with a collection schedule calendar and list of recycling guidelines.

Recyclables are picked up bi-monthly (every other week).

There is no pick-up of recyclables on Thanksgiving, Christmas, or New Years. Pick-up will be one day later for the remainder of the week.

Place the container in the street with the wheels against the curb or within 2 feet of the blacktop, and the front of the container facing the street, by 7:00 a.m. on the scheduled collection day.

The container must also be placed 4 feet apart from other containers and 8 feet from mailboxes, poles, fences, trees, or parked vehicles for easy access.

The container must be used for only acceptable recyclable materials that include certain paper, cardboard, plastic, and metal items.

Recyclables can be commingled or mixed together in the one container.
The container must remain in your property and properly cared for.

Subscribers will be responsible for any loss or damage to the recycling container resulting from negligence or abuse, except for normal wear and tear.

Price: Anticipated price will be $5.10 per month. (Subject to change)

Seems easy enough... for questions or comments, call 229-1577 or send an e-mail to recycle@springville.org

What's Next for Healthcare?

2009-10-15T21:27:00.002-06:00

As of this morning, five healthcare bills are circulating the Senate. The Finance Committee just approved a non-public option bill, and the White House is behind a compromise bill known as the "Snowe plan" (after Maine Senator Olympia Snowe, R). However, the New York Times reports that the biggest hurdle for this plan is the public option factor--perhaps the key aspect of it. The Times states:

Of the many difficult decisions remaining — including how to pay for an overhaul and how many people will be left uninsured — few carry as much political weight for the president as the public option. The plan, which would be for people who do not get health care through their employers, has become a proxy for a larger debate over where Mr. Obama is taking the country.

“What’s going on here is not simply health care and the public option,” said Kenneth M. Duberstein, a chief of staff in the Reagan White House. “In light of the auto bailout, the bank bailout, the stimulus package, the public option fight is a surrogate for how much government is too much.”

With Democrats split, an array of compromises are being floated — including the nonprofit cooperatives in the Finance Committee bill and the latest idea to capture some Democrats’ fancy, leaving the public option to the states. But economists say few would fulfill Mr. Obama’s stated goal of injecting “choice and competition” into the marketplace.

Rational Thinking in Soviet Russia

2009-09-28T21:50:00.002-06:00

Many of us may not realize the extent of which we act and think in rational ways. The US government is certainly a rational body. In fact, modern democracy is defined by its rationalism.

So then what about a non-democracy? I recently read an article on rationality in the USSR. I thought I'd share my critical analysis of this article:

Critical Review of “The Bolshevik Attitude Toward Science”

Raymond Bauer highlights the distinction between totalitarian and Western scientific thought in his article, “The Bolshevik Attitude Toward Science.”1 With its institution of an independent intellectual community, Western rationalism in science is a leading threat to the authority of the totalitarian state. Accordingly, the Bolshevik attitude toward science reflects contempt for the intellectual. However, while exposing its anti-intellectual elements, Bauer asserts the presence and importance of rationalism in Soviet Russia. He argues that scientific intervention is a rational method of preventing intellectualism—the key to maintaining rational order while oppressing the creation of rival ideologies. The paradox of anti-intellectual science becomes an essential component of effective Soviet rule.

From a traditional Western perspective, the practice of “totality” in the sciences appears unscientific. Placing strict guidelines on scientific research limits the work of discovery: an approach that seems neither pragmatic nor progressive. Indeed, Bauer acknowledges that “Bolshevik theorists regard pragmatism as heresy.”2 He claims that pragmatism in the sciences creates a separate scientific community that maintains unique norms and values. This community constructs its own “criteria for awarding prestige and status” that may then hinder the totalitarian state.3 For example, scientists may create “inefficiency” when their goals differ from those of the Party. Furthermore, their goals may generate competitive and dangerous ideologies. Bauer argues that the state must intervene in the scientific process to prevent these problems.4

Ironically, Bauer claims that the intervention is justified by its appeal to pragmatism. The Soviet method of scientific intervention is intrinsically linked to the “Leninist theory of reflection” or “partinost”. The theory of “partinost”, translated as “Partyness”, promotes the “ability to act with practical effectiveness” to further the interests of the Party. 5 By virtue of their ideology, Bolsheviks can deny the practicality of scientific discoveries deemed as contrary to the interests of the Communist Party. By Western standards, this emphasis on reason and efficiency is clearly “full-blown pragmatism.”6 To illustrate this, Bauer directs attention to the doctrine of “unity of theory and practice”. Bolshevist thinkers claim that “a theory must be […] fashioned for the practical problems with which it is intended to deal.” 7 In other words, the “best” way to develop useful theory is to develop it from practical application.

At this point, however, the author exposes the anti-intellectual element in the Soviet method. Under the auspices of political goals, the development of scientific theory is necessarily altered—it is developed to promote Party ideology rather than scientific progress. The analyst, the researcher, and the economist work to further political projects rather than to uncover useful truths. Bauer writes:

[Soviet mathematicians] have had to defend their use of mathematical logic […] on the grounds that it was essential for the construction of calculating machines required in the development of atomic weapons. And refugee scientists testify that, before the war, nuclear physicists themselves had difficulty persuading Party officials that their field of study merited the investment of scarce resources in expensive equipment.8

If the described conditions are accurate, we cannot deny the oppressive nature of the Soviet method. In their attempts to prevent hindrance to the Party, the Bolsheviks hinder the potential of the academic.

Yet, Bauer asserts that rationalism is preserved. Or rather, a separate brand of rationalism, distinct from its Western counterpart. He states that, although unfounded scientifically, the intervention methods may still “facilitate fruitful scientific work.”9 Moreover, the methods are “unfounded” due merely to their lack of empiricism or sensory data. But Bauer reminds us of the rationalist philosopher, Descartes. Descartes gleaned rational data from his intuition rather than his senses.10 If “partinost” can be considered a form of “intuition”, rationalism is maintained in a unique form. The goals of the Bolshevik attitude may be unscientific, but the methods of achieving the goals remain scientific.

The author concludes that consistency of ideology constitutes the essence of “totality”. Intervention in the sciences ensures this consistency, regardless of its oppression of scientific theory.11 Moreover, Bolshevist science remains scientific despite the strict bounds in which it can operate. The paradox of anti-intellectual science necessarily becomes the tool through which Soviet totalitarianism maintains principles of practicality while preventing the “heresy “of pragmatism.

Buzz Word: Early Learning

2009-09-19T18:51:00.004-06:00

Last week, the House passed an initiative focused on implementing and funding the education of preschoolers and toddlers. The Early Learning Challenge Fund bill intends to raise the quality of pre-education. Professor Kagan of Teachers College asserts that a strongly structured early childhood can lay the groundwork for success. The Obama Administration has endorsed the aims of this legislation, with plans to sign the bill by December.

According the the New York Times:

Experts describe the current array of programs serving young children and their families nationwide as a hodgepodge of efforts with little coordination or coherence. Financing comes from a shifting mix of private, local, state and federal money. Programs are run out of storefronts and churches, homes and Head Start centers, public schools and other facilities. Quality is uneven, with some offering stimulating activities, play and instruction but others providing little more than a room and a television.

The idea of "early learning" is generally popular with the working parent. However, the theories of toddler and infant education are widely upheld by institutes like ERIC--Education Resources Information Center. In a 1994 article, ERIC scholar Christopher Ball "demonstrates the importance of early learning as a preparation for effective education to promote social welfare and social order, and to develop a world-class workforce."

What is your opinion on early learning? Is it worth the billions of federal funds that will feed it?

Obama Addresses the Kids

2009-09-11T19:58:00.004-06:00

I was surprised to see the amount of controversy generated by the President's recent address to US school kids. There was no short supply of Republican outcry against this speech--some parents went so far as to check their children out of school during the scheduled time of the speech. Accusations of "partisan indoctrination" rung throughout conservative states.

For those who witnessed Mr. Obama's speech:

1. Did you feel that his speech was partisan?
2. Was this effort inspired or calculated?

In response to the clamor, VP Biden stated that he was shocked that any citizen would consider an address to children as partisan. Conservative reps, however, point out the timing of the President's outreach during a period of particularly heated Congressional debate.

One more question:

3. It may be true that Mr. President's address was timed just so... but is this a negative or positive thing?

And now, some quotable material courtesy of www.whitehouse.gov:

I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself. Every single one of you has something that you're good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That's the opportunity an education can provide.

Maybe you could be a great writer -- maybe even good enough to write a book or articles in a newspaper -- but you might not know it until you write that English paper -- that English class paper that's assigned to you. Maybe you could be an innovator or an inventor -- maybe even good enough to come up with the next iPhone or the new medicine or vaccine -- but you might not know it until you do your project for your science class. Maybe you could be a mayor or a senator or a Supreme Court justice -- but you might not know that until you join student government or the debate team.

[...]

But at the end of the day, the circumstances of your life -- what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have, what you've got going on at home -- none of that is an excuse for neglecting your homework or having a bad attitude in school. That's no excuse for talking back to your teacher, or cutting class, or dropping out of school. There is no excuse for not trying.

Where you are right now doesn't have to determine where you'll end up. No one's written your destiny for you, because here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future.

That's what young people like you are doing every day, all across America.

Springville Municipal Elections

2009-08-23T23:41:00.003-06:00

On September 15, Springville City will hold its municipal elections for Mayor and Council Members. As of mid-July, the following candidates have been approved for ballot:

MAYOR (4-year term)
Wilford W. Clyde

COUNCIL MEMBER (4-year term)
Darren A. Hardy
Colleen Hatfield
Ben Jolley
Joyce Nolte
Mark W. Packard
Christine M. Tolman

I will be voting. It will be my first local vote.

Generally speaking, municipal elections garner the least number of votes. Timing and promotion of these elections affect the low turnout, but lack of interest is the most common cause.

So... why? Why have so many of us never participated at the local level? It seems that the local level should be what interests us the most. We are probably more directly and immediately affected by local policy makers than by many other levels of our democracy.

A few questions:

1--Why have most of you (myself included) never voted in a municipal election?

2--What incentive would motivate you to?

I would love to hear some responses.

"Folksy" Diplomacy

2009-08-15T21:39:00.002-06:00

I recently read a fascinating article in the New York Times about the diplomacy style of Hillary Clinton. As a student of all things diplomatic, I thought I'd copy and paste my favorite parts of the article. Below is a link to the full story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/weekinreview/16gettleman.html?_r=1&hp

More than anything, the African safari she finished last week was about her and her emerging style as secretary of state. She stuffed her days with what felt like a dozen events, a blur of high-level meetings, roundtable discussions and “townterviews” (more on that later). She seemed engaged throughout it all, scribbling in her notebooks like a dutiful student during meetings, keeping a straight, earnest face even when one Nigerian religious leader told her he was “constipated with ideas.”

“Condi would never do this,” whispered one of Mrs. Clinton’s aides during yet another sweaty town hall meeting. Neither, probably, would Colin Powell. Or Madeleine Albright. Or Henry Kissinger. Or just about any other secretary of state, a job that in the past seemed to go to people who didn’t like to smile much.

But Mrs. Clinton is different. She’s a recovering politician, with First Lady tendencies. And a celebrity in her own right. She can’t resist the rope line even when it’s in a South African housing project teaming with glassy-eyed men and her secret service agents are practically shouting into their cufflinks. Her style is to go heavy on the politics, heavy on the policy, but mix in some real people as well.

(...)

In Liberia, though, she missed a great opportunity: Her motorcade drove right past a muddy soccer field where all the players were on crutches and had one leg. It was an amputee soccer game, a spirited match between war-injured men who refused to give up. Bill would have definitely jumped out and charged across the field to commune. Had Mrs. Clinton, that might have been the enduring image of her Africa trip, not the irritated response in Congo.

But the convoy moved on, through the lashing Liberian rain. It’s strange to be in Africa in a bubble. I live in Kenya. I know how it can take two hours to get from the American embassy in Nairobi to the airport. But when the Kenyan government shuts down the main highway for Mrs. Clinton’s motorcade, voila!, it takes only 16 minutes. That day, as we raced to the airport in our air-conditioned vans, we passed thousands of Kenyans lining the road. These people weren’t waiting to wave goodbye. They were stuck in traffic. We looked at them and they looked at us, separated by glass and speed and unable to share even a word. In a way, it was like being in Africa without any Africans. Even most of the big-time hotels we stayed at had windows that didn’t open, denying us that distinctive African pleasure that might have jolted us back to reality: catching a whiff of woodsmoke.

A Bit of Healthcare Reform

2009-08-04T13:56:00.008-06:00

By popular demand, I'm going to post a brief summary of federal healthcare goings-on: the problems, the partisan outlook, and potential solutions.

Problems with US Healthcare: Why many feel that reform is necessary

Edwin Park, of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, puts this nicely. He states, "The U.S. healthcare system suffers from a number of serious problems. According to the latest Census data, 45.7 million individuals were without health insurance in 2007, an increase of 5.9 million people since 2001. Employer-based coverage, the primary source of health insurance across the nation, continues to erode (...) In addition, healthcare costs continue to rise relentlessly and are the primary factor responsible for the bleak long-term fiscal outlook the federal government faces. Finally, while the United States spends more on healthcare per resident than any other country, it falls short on a variety of quality of care measures compared to other western industrialized nations."

Whew. So 1) health insurance coverage is decreasing at a significant rate; 2) employer-based (private) healthcare is becoming less available; 3) healthcare is becoming more expensive while the government is simultaneously losing wealth; 4) the federal gurus spend phenomenal amounts on healthcare, and yet offer less coverage than many of their developed counterparts.

The Conservatives: "Slow down"

While both parties agree that reform should take place, they differ on the role and timing of the federal government. Republican representatives seem preoccupied with blocking Obama's push to adopt a large reform in a time-crunched setting. Many, including senior senator Orrin Hatch, are ultimately pushing towards a package that involves "a membership-run co-op insurance plan" to focus on lowering costs in the private sector (The Hill). But, in the words of Republican Representative Nathan Deal of Georgia, "Health care in this country deserves at least as much time and deliberation as it would take to select a puppy to live in the White House" (CNN). (Incidentally, the puppy selection took six months.)

To read Hatch's list of objections to some Democratic ideas, click here: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/hatch-dem-healthcare-plan-out-of-this-world-2009-08-02.html

Democrats: "Expanded coverage now"

According to the Economist, health reform is THE domestic priority of the Obama administration. Noting the dire situation of US health care at the moment, Democrats assert the urgency of this. Indeed, a table presented by the Council of Economic Advisors projects that if certain healthcare measures are passed now, they could reduce the budget deficit by nearly six percent of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in about 30 years. (This may sound small, but based on the current GDP, is roughly 840 billion dollars.) Alongside ultimate budget reduction, Dems continue to promote the ideal of universal coverage. They, along with the President, affirm healthcare as a basic human right. In effort to expand this "human right", many liberals have pursued a public health plan--a competitive government program funded by corporate taxes. The plan would not obliterate private health care, but rather, provide another (and ideally, more accessible) option. All employers would likely be required to provide health plans, as well.

Democrats assert that Republican opposition is merely political. See Obama's opinion on this here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBF87ga-Zdk

Solutions?

In Economist article, "What now for Obamacare?", the writer includes a section entitled "The right ideas, at last."

These ideas highlight:

1. Ending tax advantages offered to those with employer-provided health coverage--this could raise up to 250 billion a year, which could then be used to fuel continued reform. This idea currently has been deemed "viable" by the Senate Finance Committee.

2. Taxing the costliest health plans--this is "meant to discourage only extravagant plans that prompt overuse of health care."

3. Creating an Independent Medicare Advisory Council (IMAC)--non-partisan health experts would independently review Medicare inefficiencies and propose ongoing reform packages. According to the article, "If Congress did not reject the package(s) within 30 days, the proposals would come into force." Currently, this idea appears popular with the Gang of Six (a bipartisan core Senate group under Max Baucus).

4. Promoting "Healthy Americans"--Influential senator Ron Wyden confirms that ideas from an earlier bill entitled the Healthy Americans Act will likely be incorporated into the IMAC plan. (Why has this idea been stuck until now? For a good, unbiased review of the previous Wyden-Bennett bill, go here: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=674 )

Conclusion

The "Obamacare" plan will likely need more time: Republican opposition is organized, with fiscally-conservative Dems on their side. However, the Gang of Six has apparently made strides with the until-now immovable Senate Finance Committee. Sen. Grassley (R) of the Gang is "confident that the Senate version [of Obamacare] will prevail" (The Economist).

(Now breathe. Go do something completely unpolitical.)

Some Cap and Trade Basics

2009-07-29T11:53:00.010-06:00

I made a great discovery today--and when I say great discovery, I mean a fantastic resource for the current ongoings of Utah public policy: http://utahpolicy.com/

I just read an interesting article on cap and trade. For anyone who may think "cap and trade" is slang Major League baseball terminology, let's run through the basics of this policy.

Cap and Trade

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), cap and trade "is an environmental policy tool that delivers results with a mandatory cap on emissions while providing sources flexibility in how they comply. Successful cap and trade programs reward innovation, efficiency, and early action and provide strict environmental accountability without inhibiting economic growth." In other words, all industrial corporations are given a limit on the pollution they can emit; however, the individual limits are negotiable. While there is an overarching limit, corporations may "purchase" a larger limit for a higher price. This then creates a "pollution market" with incentives, competition, etc. The EPA confirms the success of cap and trade in "the nationwide Acid Rain Program and the regional NOx Budget Trading Program in the Northeast."

Cap and trade is a favorite among economically-minded politicians. Many conservatives, however, have spoken out against the cost of regulating such a program, asserting the negativity of federal government expansion and ultimate net job loss. Some liberals, too, have spoken out against the plan, fearing a flawed ethic behind "selling" pollution. Nonetheless, the Obama administration has recently touted an expansive cap and trade program, citing the hard economics behind the plan. On the other hand, many still feel that cap and trade is not worth the investment. In his Washington Post op-ed, Martin Feldstein claims that the theory behind the program is "all cost, no benefit." (Read the whole story at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/31/AR2009053102077.html
.)

Utah and Cap and Trade

According to the article at utahpolicy.com, there is a Western Congressional Delegation meeting being held tomorrow to discuss the environmental plan. The meeting will host politicians and corporate executives alike, all discussing the viability of the Obama proposal. The meeting will include Senators Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett, as well as Congressman Jason Chaffetz.

Utah and Climate Change

2009-07-22T21:04:00.003-06:00

It appears that Utah, under our new Governor Herbert, is steering away from the issue of climate change. In a Deseret News article posted last month, Gary Herber "challenges the reality of global climate change":

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705310718/Herbert-challenges-global-warming.html.

It is a fairly significant shift in opinion, compared to former Gov. Huntsman's climate change agenda. According to Huntsman's Governor's website:

"Utah will need all of its energy resources, new Renewable Energy Sources and Clean Fossil Fuel production, to meet its energy needs. The Governor has also recognized the need for transmission to bring these new resources to markets.

The Governor's Blue Ribbon Advisory Council on Climate Change (BRAC) provided the roadmap for new renewable energy, as well as recommendations for clean fossil fuel resources.

The Phase I of the Utah Renewable Energy Zones (UREZ) report has identified concentrations of wind, solar and geothermal resources for development exploration and development. Phase II will evaluate transmission needs.

At the Regional level, Western Governors have completed the first phase of the Western Renewable Energy Zones (WREZ) report, also identifying resources in preparation for defining potential large-scale transmission to bring resources to the grid.

Through the USTAR program (see Governor's Office of Economic Development), carbon capture and sequestration technologies have been identified and will be tested to reduce the impacts of coal and fossil fuel energy production."

Herbert confirms that he will maintain Huntsman's currently instated programs, but will not likely pursue any similar programs of his own.

I am curious:

Is this a good move for Utah? Less environmentalism, more capitalism?

How long will Herbert maintain Huntsman's programs? Should he be supporting them in the first place? Should he continue to support them?

How will Utahns react to this shift in policy?

Please post your opinions!

Russia: A Conclusion (?)

2009-07-13T16:44:00.003-06:00

I came home from Mother Russia, but Russia keeps creeping back into my political musings.

As many of you may know, Mr. Obama recently visited Moscow. (The title of this post links directly with the Economist headliner.) But why? What is the goal?

It is always safe to negotiate the nuclear. Indeed, Obama has done so. To paraphrase the Economist article, discussing its nuclear arsenals flatters the former Soviet world terror. However, it seems that arms talks would be overkill. It would be juvenile to assume that the US truly fears a Russian nuclear attack.

In another Economist briefing, the writer asserts that the US is in search of closure, of detente. Currently, the US maintains an awkward alliance with a changing Russia. Russia is more Putin-esque than ever--reminiscing about the good old days of Sovietism, while promoting the shallow benefits of capitalism. What can be done to establish equilibrium with this new wave of anti-Westernism? Perhaps Obama wishes to make a show of American importance. He is reminding Medvedev (which really is to say Putin...) that there is a new, influential American administration.

In reality, there is much that Russia and the US could work together on. For example, it would be advantageous for both to discourage nuclear armament in the Middle East. But can these countries create a more stable relationship than now exists?

Culture and Politics

2009-07-03T18:08:00.003-06:00

After visiting Russia, I am curious as to my readers' perceptions of how culture affects political opinion. The Russian culture is one so different than ours that it does not surprise me to see the difference in our political systems. But is the corruption a reflection of culture, as well?

Some questions:

1. When democracy struggles against corruption (as in the case of Russia), what cultural factors affect this?

2. What is the basis of a culture of Nationalism or Patriotism? (For instance, many European countries would not consider themselves a "patriotic" as Americans.)

3. What are some differences between the Western and Eastern political cultures? How did these come to be?

Please share your opinions!

Russian Politics, Anyone?

2009-06-19T23:26:00.006-06:00

As I am going to Russia (in two days!), I thought I'd do a little research on the recent political happenings in the former Red State.

Let's start with some fast facts. (Thank you, CIA World Factbook.)

President (Chief of State): Dmitriy Anatolyevich Medvedev*
Premier (Head of Government): Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin*
Government type: Federation
Capital: Moscow
Currency: Ruble

*Who wins in the power struggle between Medvedev and Putin? Check out these definitions of Chief of State and Head of Government.

And now for some interesting news...

On Medvedev:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=a8strJTaN6Hs
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gkvp2gTebCRRCoYzdf_gjaTb5UDwD98T80H80
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-06/19/content_11568699.htm

On Putin:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-06/20/content_11570567.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/8564894
http://www.isria.com/pages/18_June_2009_36.htm

On US Relations:

http://www.columbian.com/article/20090618/NEWS02/706189953/Diplomat+says+Russia++U.S.+working+to+find+common+ground
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20090609a3.html

The Case of Sotomayor

2009-06-15T22:24:00.002-06:00

Subject:

Sonia Sotomayor

Context:

Sotomayor is the Obama Administration's first Supreme Court nominee. She will soon undergo Senate confirmation hearings.

Background:

Sotomayor is a native New Yorker of Puerto Rican descent. She is an Ivy League graduate with a work history in the New York Federal and Circuit Courts. According to the New York Times, Sotomayor "has issued no major decisions concerning abortion, the death penalty, gay rights or national security. In cases involving criminal defendants, employment discrimination and free speech, her rulings are more liberal than not." If confirmed, Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic justice and the third female justice on the Court.

Current Issues:

-Senate Republicans claim that they have been "blind-sided" by the upcoming hearing date of July 13. Some assert that this date inhibits the review process with its pressing time limit.

-According to Times analytical writer Adam Liptak, Sotomayor's written judicial opinions are unique in their "diligence, depth and unflashy competence." Likewise, Tom Goldstein of Harvard Law School maintains that her case record indicates a significant level of fairness and consistency.

-Critics of Sotomayor often cite the case of Ricci v. DeStefano as evidence of racial bias. On the otherhand, Goldstein offers an Op-Ed defending Sotomayor's judicial history.

Questions to Think About:

-Does Sotomayor's personal story represent Obama's ideal of the attainable American Dream? How did this play into Sotomayor's selection?

-Will the significant Democratic Senate majority be able to overcome the active Republican opposition in the upcoming hearings?

-Which of Sotomayor's past court decisions will draw the most fire from her critics? How will this affect the hearings?

Announcing the Miss Springville 2009 Blog

2009-06-14T23:15:00.003-06:00

Welcome to my new blog!

Before I begin discussing political issues, let me outline the purpose and some goals for this blog.

1. This blog is to raise political awareness in an easy-to-read and accessible format.
2. While writing for this blog, I will try my best to work around my personal biases.
3. I hope that this blog will reach many Utah citizens, especially those of my hometown, Springville.
4. I welcome (and encourage!) comments on, questions about, and objections to any of my posts.

Thanks for reading! Spread the word.

Catherine

Miss Springville 2009