Utah Republican Party Chairman James Evans owns Checkline, a payday lending company. Keep that in mind when you watch this segment from John Oliver's Last Week Tonight:
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Monday, June 23, 2014
Chris Stout for Salt Lake County Auditor
This year's June 24 primary elections seem somewhat unsexy. And the least sexy of the races is the race for Salt Lake County Auditor.
But enough about the candidate's looks. This isn't a Presidential election.
The race is against Jeff Hatch, who held the seat for one term before losing in 2010 to the now-incumbent (who lost in the Republican Convention), and Christopher Stout, who has previously run for US Senate and State Treasurer. My vote is for Christopher Stout, and here's why:
I first met Chris in 2010 when he was running for US Senate. He got into the race because he didn't see evidence of any other candidate running, despite the fact that Sam Granato had announced he was running six month prior (but hadn't yet done much of anything in his campaign). I found a candidate who stood on principles of doing the right thing and having the utmost integrity. Running as the underdog, with the Party Machine behind his opponent, he never stood a chance at Convention, but this didn't stop him from putting forth a great effort.
I want an auditor who will find places where the government is not spending my tax dollars efficiently. I want an auditor who doesn't feel indebted to other county officeholders for their endorsement. I want Chris Stout for County Auditor.
Further, look at just about any overpass and canal fence line in the county, and you will see a Jeff Hatch sign. Guess what? All I see is a waste of campaign dollars, and someone with a disregard of local and federal laws. That is not who I want for an Auditor. Look at Jeff Hatch's campaign disclosure. He had to file an amended disclosure. That raises a red flag for someone who wants to handle the accounting for the county. The amended parts of the return account for 76% of the contributions received and 66% of the expenditures for the period since April 1. Do you want an auditor that can't get a simple financial disclosure completed correctly on time? I don't.
-Bob Aagard
For more unsexy races, check out this list of 10 races to watch from Utah Politico Hub
But enough about the candidate's looks. This isn't a Presidential election.
The race is against Jeff Hatch, who held the seat for one term before losing in 2010 to the now-incumbent (who lost in the Republican Convention), and Christopher Stout, who has previously run for US Senate and State Treasurer. My vote is for Christopher Stout, and here's why:
I first met Chris in 2010 when he was running for US Senate. He got into the race because he didn't see evidence of any other candidate running, despite the fact that Sam Granato had announced he was running six month prior (but hadn't yet done much of anything in his campaign). I found a candidate who stood on principles of doing the right thing and having the utmost integrity. Running as the underdog, with the Party Machine behind his opponent, he never stood a chance at Convention, but this didn't stop him from putting forth a great effort.
I want an auditor who will find places where the government is not spending my tax dollars efficiently. I want an auditor who doesn't feel indebted to other county officeholders for their endorsement. I want Chris Stout for County Auditor.
Further, look at just about any overpass and canal fence line in the county, and you will see a Jeff Hatch sign. Guess what? All I see is a waste of campaign dollars, and someone with a disregard of local and federal laws. That is not who I want for an Auditor. Look at Jeff Hatch's campaign disclosure. He had to file an amended disclosure. That raises a red flag for someone who wants to handle the accounting for the county. The amended parts of the return account for 76% of the contributions received and 66% of the expenditures for the period since April 1. Do you want an auditor that can't get a simple financial disclosure completed correctly on time? I don't.
-Bob Aagard
For more unsexy races, check out this list of 10 races to watch from Utah Politico Hub
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
It's Time To Talk About Guns, Violence
Every time a mass shooting happens in America, we talk about how we need to have a discussion about gun violence, and how to prevent it. But, we say we'll have the discussion "later," when the emotions from the latest shooting die down.
I still get emotional when I think of the fact that my best friend's family left Trolley Square at 6:30 PM on February 12, 2007. They parked near where a young man with a gun had parked. Had they spent 15 more minutes enjoying their dinner, they may have been victims of the shooting. Two days later, instead of getting married, he could have been preparing for a funeral. Or, the funeral could have been his own.
I still get emotional when I think about turning on the TV after picking up my nephew from Kindergarten on December 14, 2012 to see that someone killed 20 Kindergartners. Even though it happened on the other side of the country, it still hits as close to home as Trolley Square.
And, about the time we start to forget about one mass shooting, another appears on our TV screens. Let's face it, the emotions are never going to die down.
After two people set off bombs made by pressure cookers at the 2013 Boston Marathon, we set about changing policies to make sure that this type of thing never happens again. But, when it comes to gun violence, it's never that time.
There are several things that we need to look at, the first is gun regulation. I'm not talking about taking away your right to own a gun. However, the four most overlooked words in the US Constitution come from the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia...." Our militias are far from well-regulated.
Next, we need to stop glorifying the terrorists. Googling "timeline of gun deaths" brought me to a handy interactive timeline from the LA Times that went from a shooting at a McDonald's in 1984 to the latest shootings in California last week. I'd link to it, but it highlights one of the problems we have in reporting gun violence: it shows the faces of the perpetrators. We know everything about the people who committed the crimes, but nothing about the victims. Do the names Daniel Rohrbough, William David Sanders, or John Tomlin sound familiar? Probably not, but they are linked to two more familiar names: Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, perpetrators of the shootings at Columbine High School. We've seen a lot about the ranting and writings of the guy in California last week than we'll ever hear about what kind of people he killed.
We also need to look at the violence that is so often accepted as a cultural norm. There was a play produced at Pioneer Theater that generated some controversy recently. You see, Pioneer Theatre publishes "content advisories" for all of the plays they produce so that you can have a pretty good idea if there is going to be anything "objectionable" in the play. In this particular play, two men kiss right before the end of the first act. This generated some complaints, especially since it was not included in the "content advisory." It was not included because this particular scene is a major plot twist, As until this point, the only two male characters we've met (and there are only three men and two women in the entire play) are an older playwright and a former student of his. What nobody complained about was what happens before the kiss: We believe we see the playwright viciously murder his student, only to discover that it is part of a plot to kill the playwright's wife so that he and his student can live together happily ever after. In other words, killing your wife, that's OK. Kissing another man: Horrible. And, it ignores the fact that they gay couple are the bad guys. Look at the box office charts for nearly any weekend. Over half of the movies are rated PG13 or R for violence. And the MPAA will tolerate much more violence than it will sex or language.
Lastly, we need to have an honest, open, adult debate about this. For far too long we've allowed the fringes of our society to dictate the political debate. Taking away everyone's gun won't make us any safer than arming everyone will. But somewhere in between is a solution.
What that solution is, I don't know. But it's a discussion worth having.
I still get emotional when I think of the fact that my best friend's family left Trolley Square at 6:30 PM on February 12, 2007. They parked near where a young man with a gun had parked. Had they spent 15 more minutes enjoying their dinner, they may have been victims of the shooting. Two days later, instead of getting married, he could have been preparing for a funeral. Or, the funeral could have been his own.
I still get emotional when I think about turning on the TV after picking up my nephew from Kindergarten on December 14, 2012 to see that someone killed 20 Kindergartners. Even though it happened on the other side of the country, it still hits as close to home as Trolley Square.
And, about the time we start to forget about one mass shooting, another appears on our TV screens. Let's face it, the emotions are never going to die down.
After two people set off bombs made by pressure cookers at the 2013 Boston Marathon, we set about changing policies to make sure that this type of thing never happens again. But, when it comes to gun violence, it's never that time.
There are several things that we need to look at, the first is gun regulation. I'm not talking about taking away your right to own a gun. However, the four most overlooked words in the US Constitution come from the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia...." Our militias are far from well-regulated.
Next, we need to stop glorifying the terrorists. Googling "timeline of gun deaths" brought me to a handy interactive timeline from the LA Times that went from a shooting at a McDonald's in 1984 to the latest shootings in California last week. I'd link to it, but it highlights one of the problems we have in reporting gun violence: it shows the faces of the perpetrators. We know everything about the people who committed the crimes, but nothing about the victims. Do the names Daniel Rohrbough, William David Sanders, or John Tomlin sound familiar? Probably not, but they are linked to two more familiar names: Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, perpetrators of the shootings at Columbine High School. We've seen a lot about the ranting and writings of the guy in California last week than we'll ever hear about what kind of people he killed.
We also need to look at the violence that is so often accepted as a cultural norm. There was a play produced at Pioneer Theater that generated some controversy recently. You see, Pioneer Theatre publishes "content advisories" for all of the plays they produce so that you can have a pretty good idea if there is going to be anything "objectionable" in the play. In this particular play, two men kiss right before the end of the first act. This generated some complaints, especially since it was not included in the "content advisory." It was not included because this particular scene is a major plot twist, As until this point, the only two male characters we've met (and there are only three men and two women in the entire play) are an older playwright and a former student of his. What nobody complained about was what happens before the kiss: We believe we see the playwright viciously murder his student, only to discover that it is part of a plot to kill the playwright's wife so that he and his student can live together happily ever after. In other words, killing your wife, that's OK. Kissing another man: Horrible. And, it ignores the fact that they gay couple are the bad guys. Look at the box office charts for nearly any weekend. Over half of the movies are rated PG13 or R for violence. And the MPAA will tolerate much more violence than it will sex or language.
Lastly, we need to have an honest, open, adult debate about this. For far too long we've allowed the fringes of our society to dictate the political debate. Taking away everyone's gun won't make us any safer than arming everyone will. But somewhere in between is a solution.
What that solution is, I don't know. But it's a discussion worth having.
Saturday, April 26, 2014
Endorsement: None of the above for Chair
This began as a post on Facebook. It started to get a little long, so I moved it here:
A 29 county plan sounds nice, but ignores the reality that 4 counties have fewer than 2,000 voters. That would be like Howard Dean's 40 state plan if seven of the states were the size of Wyoming or smaller. Regional Headquarters makes more sense, but I'd like more details. Corroon's campaign seems to be half-assed. It's like he's daring us to vote for Richard Davis. Raising a ton of money doesn't do you a bit of good without the ability to put together a good message. Peter Corroon's expensive flier is a perfect example of how we do a good job at fundraising, but a horrible job of spending that money.
Yes, it's been a short campaign. However, it's a campaign that I had thought about jumping into myself. I had a pretty comprehensive platform from the start, especially compared to the lack of anything coming from either candidate.
I didn't undertake the race for a variety of reasons. One was money. I just didn't have the personal resources to start up the campaign, especially in such a short time. Another was the fact that my personal life and career are at turning points right now, and I didn't need to risk them.
If it was only those reasons, I would deeply regret my decision not to run. I could have at least made the race interesting. I would have at least forced the other candidates to actually mount good campaigns.
However, last night at the Taylor/Mayne Celebration, I realized a big reason not to run: Todd Taylor. I have been not been taking care of my health like I should. I know that Todd's weight and the stress of running the party were two major factors that lead to his young death. I seriously need to spend some time working on bringing my weight down.
However, I am reminded of a conversation I had with Todd one of the last times I was at the old party HQ. He told me that we are a party of good ideas, and that I am a person of good ideas. Rather than simply complain about how thing should be, I should use my voice to share those ideas. And so, with that in mind, here are some of the things I would have focused on as part of my run for chair:
-We desperately need to engage with voters, especially young voter, where they are. That means significantly increasing our profile online. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Having a Dynamic Web Site, and more. We don't have to rely on traditional media to get our message out anymore, so why are we?
-We need to focus our attention on areas that should be voting Democratic, but aren't. West Valley and Ogden should be as deep blue as Salt Lake. We need to recapture the labor presence in coal country. We need to bring an environmental message to South Eastern Utah.
-We need to let Utah Democrats know that they are not alone. We need to showcase our diverse body. We need to point out that we have very conservative members of our party, but we need to also embrace our progressive side as well.
-We need to change our messaging on abortion. While abortion is not a major issue to many, it is a major sticking point to many of my friends and neighbors who would consider voting for a democrat, if not for that one thing. We need to tell Utah voters that abortion is ultimately a medical decision between a woman and her doctor, and the last people that should be making those decisions are our Utah Legistalture.
-We need to tell people that while there are many natural factors involved in our inversions, there is a lot that we can do to help make our air healthier for us and our children to breathe.
-We need to concentrate on helping the "least of these." We have a real poverty problem here in Utah, and it is only getting worse.
This is just a small list, typed together in less than an hour. Unless either candidate can show me that they have focused on the issues at hand for longer than that, I plan on voting for neither candidate.
-Bob
A 29 county plan sounds nice, but ignores the reality that 4 counties have fewer than 2,000 voters. That would be like Howard Dean's 40 state plan if seven of the states were the size of Wyoming or smaller. Regional Headquarters makes more sense, but I'd like more details. Corroon's campaign seems to be half-assed. It's like he's daring us to vote for Richard Davis. Raising a ton of money doesn't do you a bit of good without the ability to put together a good message. Peter Corroon's expensive flier is a perfect example of how we do a good job at fundraising, but a horrible job of spending that money.
Yes, it's been a short campaign. However, it's a campaign that I had thought about jumping into myself. I had a pretty comprehensive platform from the start, especially compared to the lack of anything coming from either candidate.
I didn't undertake the race for a variety of reasons. One was money. I just didn't have the personal resources to start up the campaign, especially in such a short time. Another was the fact that my personal life and career are at turning points right now, and I didn't need to risk them.
If it was only those reasons, I would deeply regret my decision not to run. I could have at least made the race interesting. I would have at least forced the other candidates to actually mount good campaigns.
However, last night at the Taylor/Mayne Celebration, I realized a big reason not to run: Todd Taylor. I have been not been taking care of my health like I should. I know that Todd's weight and the stress of running the party were two major factors that lead to his young death. I seriously need to spend some time working on bringing my weight down.
However, I am reminded of a conversation I had with Todd one of the last times I was at the old party HQ. He told me that we are a party of good ideas, and that I am a person of good ideas. Rather than simply complain about how thing should be, I should use my voice to share those ideas. And so, with that in mind, here are some of the things I would have focused on as part of my run for chair:
-We desperately need to engage with voters, especially young voter, where they are. That means significantly increasing our profile online. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Having a Dynamic Web Site, and more. We don't have to rely on traditional media to get our message out anymore, so why are we?
-We need to focus our attention on areas that should be voting Democratic, but aren't. West Valley and Ogden should be as deep blue as Salt Lake. We need to recapture the labor presence in coal country. We need to bring an environmental message to South Eastern Utah.
-We need to let Utah Democrats know that they are not alone. We need to showcase our diverse body. We need to point out that we have very conservative members of our party, but we need to also embrace our progressive side as well.
-We need to change our messaging on abortion. While abortion is not a major issue to many, it is a major sticking point to many of my friends and neighbors who would consider voting for a democrat, if not for that one thing. We need to tell Utah voters that abortion is ultimately a medical decision between a woman and her doctor, and the last people that should be making those decisions are our Utah Legistalture.
-We need to tell people that while there are many natural factors involved in our inversions, there is a lot that we can do to help make our air healthier for us and our children to breathe.
-We need to concentrate on helping the "least of these." We have a real poverty problem here in Utah, and it is only getting worse.
This is just a small list, typed together in less than an hour. Unless either candidate can show me that they have focused on the issues at hand for longer than that, I plan on voting for neither candidate.
-Bob
Tuesday, February 04, 2014
Senate President: The Best Deliberation Is No Deliberation
We're on week two of Utah's nearly 7-week Legislative Session, and we may already have the quote of the session. And, it comes from Senate President Wayne Niederhauser.
First, some background:
SB100 is the current bill number for a bill that has been floating around the Utah Legislature for 6 years. It is currently sponsored by St George Republican Senator Steve Urquhart. It adds sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of things that you can't be discriminated for in the state of Utah. The list currently protects people from getting fired (among other things) on the basis of race, religion, sex, and family status.
It's similar to laws passed by several cities in the past several years, including one in Salt lake City that was supported by the LDS Church.
Oh, and it's an issue that a recent Salt Lake Tribune poll says that 60% of Utahns support. The Deseret News has the number at 72%.
However, Urquhart can't get his bill heard.
On Friday, he held a press conference encouraging Utahns to let their Senators know they want the bill to be heard. He encouraged people to come to the Capitol and post "blue notes" on the Senate Door.And, people came.And by the time the Senate reconvened on Monday, the door and doorway were covered in blue notes.
And, what did that mean to Niederhauser? Well, it was further proof that the bill SHOULDN'T be heard.That's right. If you want a bill heard by the Utah Senate, don't tell anyone. Especially the Utah Senate.
From the Tribune:
Wait, what court process is he talking about? Oh yeah, the gay marriage lawsuit.
You see, Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes told the Legislature that they shouldn't take up any bills relating to gay people because they don't want the state to show any animosity towards gay people, since the whole basis of the case hinges on "'The Utah Government is being mean to gay people.' 'No, we're not!'"Well, that's what it sounds like, at least.
And, what better way to prove that the state doesn't not like gay people than by keep the Legislature from talking about gay people.
Yeah. That will work.
However, the killer quote from President Neiderhauser comes at the end of the Tribune article:
It may just be me, but I would think that allowing the bill to be discussed over the remaining 37 days of the session would be a great way to deliberate it.
Especially a bill that's been around for 6 years. How much deliberation will be enough?
First, some background:
SB100 is the current bill number for a bill that has been floating around the Utah Legislature for 6 years. It is currently sponsored by St George Republican Senator Steve Urquhart. It adds sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of things that you can't be discriminated for in the state of Utah. The list currently protects people from getting fired (among other things) on the basis of race, religion, sex, and family status.
It's similar to laws passed by several cities in the past several years, including one in Salt lake City that was supported by the LDS Church.
Oh, and it's an issue that a recent Salt Lake Tribune poll says that 60% of Utahns support. The Deseret News has the number at 72%.
However, Urquhart can't get his bill heard.
On Friday, he held a press conference encouraging Utahns to let their Senators know they want the bill to be heard. He encouraged people to come to the Capitol and post "blue notes" on the Senate Door.And, people came.And by the time the Senate reconvened on Monday, the door and doorway were covered in blue notes.
And, what did that mean to Niederhauser? Well, it was further proof that the bill SHOULDN'T be heard.That's right. If you want a bill heard by the Utah Senate, don't tell anyone. Especially the Utah Senate.
From the Tribune:
Senate President Wayne Niederhauser, R-Sandy, said Monday the notes are proof "there is a lot of emotion out there" over same-sex marriage and related issues.
But, he added, the Legislature should stick with plans to let the issue cool down and not deal with more changes until the courts consider Utah’s appeal to a federal ruling that struck down its ban on same-sex marriage.
"This is an emotional time," Niederhauser said. "Let’s stop and pull our faculties together and address other issues this session and wait for the process [in court] … to take place and we’ll come back at another time to address religious liberties and other types of discrimination."Because the Utah Legislature never, ever acts based on emotion.
Wait, what court process is he talking about? Oh yeah, the gay marriage lawsuit.
You see, Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes told the Legislature that they shouldn't take up any bills relating to gay people because they don't want the state to show any animosity towards gay people, since the whole basis of the case hinges on "'The Utah Government is being mean to gay people.' 'No, we're not!'"Well, that's what it sounds like, at least.
And, what better way to prove that the state doesn't not like gay people than by keep the Legislature from talking about gay people.
Yeah. That will work.
However, the killer quote from President Neiderhauser comes at the end of the Tribune article:
"It is most important for us right now to take some time," Niederhauser said. "Let’s not get too anxious. The best kind of policy is the policy that takes some time and has had a lot of deliberation."Did you catch that? We need to deliberate the bill, so we're not going to deliberate it.
It may just be me, but I would think that allowing the bill to be discussed over the remaining 37 days of the session would be a great way to deliberate it.
Especially a bill that's been around for 6 years. How much deliberation will be enough?
Thursday, January 30, 2014
A Former Unicorn on Uintah's Unpaid Lunches
How do I know this? Well, from Kindergarten through the sixth grade, I was a Unicorn. I have fond memories of my time at Uintah. As soon as I read the article from the Tribune about kids having their lunches stolen from them, it transported me back to second grade, when my Garfield lunch box was stolen. As I read the account of kids having their lunch taken, I pictured it happening.
Well, in my mind, it happened in the Uintah Elementary Cafeteria of my day, located somewhere near where Uintah's southern soccer goal is now. I've never been in the "new" school they bult 2 decades ago, but I imagine the cafeteria being the same.
The story wasn't about a bully stealing some kid's lunch, it was about a bully stealing 40 kids' lunches.
In case you or or kids haven't been in a school for a few years, I'll tell you how the system works: You put money into an account for your kid, the kid gets a PIN number, and at some point when he's getting school lunch, he enters the PIN number on a pad like you do when you use your debit card. This system is great, because none of the kids knows who is paying full price and who gets reduced or free lunch.
I remember making fun of the kids in Jr High that had the red or blue lunch tickets because their families were poor. I feel bad about that. It's nice to know that kids today don't have that stigma reigning over their heads.
Unless, of course, they run out of money in their accounts. Then, if it's a system like they have at Uintah where kids pick up their lunch and then enter their number, if you are out of funds, they take the lunch and throw it in the trash.
The school district claims that they give notice to families that the funds are low or empty. I know that in some cases, those notices don't get to the parents. Sending messages home with kids isn't exactly Western Union.However, if you have 40 kids (nearly one-and-a-half classes worth) that have accounts below $0, maybe you should look at how the communication is sent to the parents.
For instance, whenever there was something my parents really needed to see, they had to sign it. This let the school know that the message got there.
Also, if a school has a higher-than-average rate of students running out of money, maybe you should have the payment pad at the front of the line. It's much less traumatizing.
The last thing you should be doing is taking food directly out of kids' hands. Ya big bullies.
Sunday, January 05, 2014
Gay Marriage: Mark Shurtleff Said This Would Happen
Last week, my dad reminded me of something that I had forgotten about Amendment 3:
Mark Shurtleff, who was the Attorney General in 2004 when the Amendment passed, was against the amendment.
I looked it up, and dad was right.
Deseret News, August 7, 2004:
All three candidates for Utah attorney general oppose a state constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage because of its potential negative effects on heterosexual marriage.
In a joint statement released Friday by the Don't Amend Alliance, Republican Mark Shurtleff, Democrat Greg Skordas and Libertarian Andrew McCullough announced their opposition to Amendment 3, on which residents will vote Nov. 2.
All of the candidates agreed that the second part of the proposed amendment, which forbids granting "the same or substantially equivalent legal effect" as marriage to other relationships, could also prevent heterosexual common law couples from having basic rights, such as inheritance, hospital visits or powers of attorney.
"This amendment goes too far," Shurtleff said in a statement. "It could forever deny to a group of citizens the right to approach its legislature to seek benefits and protections. This is a bad law and should be rejected."
Shurtleff did make clear that he opposes gay marriages, and supports the current state law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. His concerns center primarily around the second part of the amendment, and he urged voters to oppose the amendment so that he can work with legislators to draft a better one.
"Amend, yes; but not this amendment," he said.
And this, from Deseret News, September 17, 2004:
Shurtleff said the arguments over the amendment ultimately won't matter.
"It will end up in the U.S. Supreme Court," he said. "The only amendment that's going to matter is the U.S. Constitution."
So, there you have it -- Mark Shurtleff knew that the amendment was a bad idea that would go all the way to the Supreme Court, and he was right.
Friday, January 03, 2014
2013: A Year of Change
2013 was a year of big changes for me. The highlights:
In January, I took a leap and applied for a job in the hotel industry. I got the job, and I loved it! It's the first job I've had in quite a while that I can say that I truly enjoyed. Well, the first job that I can say that about that I've gotten paid decently.
In March, I bought a car. I car that I picked out and financed all by myself. I feel so grown up.
In April, I finally moved out of my parents' house, thus ending the stereotype of a blogger living in his mom's basement.
In May, my parents, who had planned on dying in the house we lived in since 1990, were offered a large sum of money for their house.It was significantly more than the house was worth, and they took it. They fell in love with another house, bought it, and moved in the space of two months from the initial offer. It was hard to sort through 23 years' worth of stuff, but we did it. As we were moving, more and more things started breaking in the house, and we were glad that my parents made the move. The new owners tore down the house in the fall.
In November, I got a call from a friend offering me a job at another hotel. This was similar to the job I already had, but with a few differences: less work, better job title, better pay. I took it, and am even happier than I was before.
And, in December, my Grandfather went to meet his maker after a 3 year battle with cancer. He was someone who I looked up to greatly, and even though we knew his passing was coming, it has still left a big hole in my life.
So, on to 2014. When I started a blog clear back in 2001, I wanted it to be full of more personal posts like this one. Over the years, as politics became a bigger part of my life, this blog became all politics, but I had no outlet for other, non-political, things. Then, as Facebook and, to a lesser extent Twitter, came in, I found myself using this as less and less of an outlet. I decided a few months ago that I wanted that outlet again. After talking with some folks, I've decided that I will go back to blogging, and use two blogs -- this one will be more political, and another one (that has had a few incarnations in the past) will become my journal of life. Stay tuned, as this will involve some restructuring of things on both blogs.
And, moreover, thanks for reading.
In January, I took a leap and applied for a job in the hotel industry. I got the job, and I loved it! It's the first job I've had in quite a while that I can say that I truly enjoyed. Well, the first job that I can say that about that I've gotten paid decently.
In March, I bought a car. I car that I picked out and financed all by myself. I feel so grown up.
In April, I finally moved out of my parents' house, thus ending the stereotype of a blogger living in his mom's basement.
In May, my parents, who had planned on dying in the house we lived in since 1990, were offered a large sum of money for their house.It was significantly more than the house was worth, and they took it. They fell in love with another house, bought it, and moved in the space of two months from the initial offer. It was hard to sort through 23 years' worth of stuff, but we did it. As we were moving, more and more things started breaking in the house, and we were glad that my parents made the move. The new owners tore down the house in the fall.
In November, I got a call from a friend offering me a job at another hotel. This was similar to the job I already had, but with a few differences: less work, better job title, better pay. I took it, and am even happier than I was before.
And, in December, my Grandfather went to meet his maker after a 3 year battle with cancer. He was someone who I looked up to greatly, and even though we knew his passing was coming, it has still left a big hole in my life.
So, on to 2014. When I started a blog clear back in 2001, I wanted it to be full of more personal posts like this one. Over the years, as politics became a bigger part of my life, this blog became all politics, but I had no outlet for other, non-political, things. Then, as Facebook and, to a lesser extent Twitter, came in, I found myself using this as less and less of an outlet. I decided a few months ago that I wanted that outlet again. After talking with some folks, I've decided that I will go back to blogging, and use two blogs -- this one will be more political, and another one (that has had a few incarnations in the past) will become my journal of life. Stay tuned, as this will involve some restructuring of things on both blogs.
And, moreover, thanks for reading.
Friday, December 27, 2013
The AG's Office Needs Help to do Their Job?
Imagine my shock when I read this from the Tribune:
Outside help. Which means one of two things:
1) There are no attorneys in the office that are willing to go pursue the case further. I doubt it.
2) The AG's office is out of ideas. Given their arguments to date, and how resoundingly they have been shot down already by lower courts, I find this highly likely.
Which makes you wonder: isn't part of the AG's job to defend the state in lawsuits? I realize that Sean Reyes has only been on the job since Monday, but shouldn't he have hit the ground running?
In other words, the state of Utah is saying "This is such an emergency, we needed a few days to think this over. But could you grant us the stay, anyway?"
-Bob
The state of Utah has turned to outside counsel for help with its efforts to stop same-sex marriages, a move the office said Thursday would temporarily delay its application for a stay to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Outside help. Which means one of two things:
1) There are no attorneys in the office that are willing to go pursue the case further. I doubt it.
2) The AG's office is out of ideas. Given their arguments to date, and how resoundingly they have been shot down already by lower courts, I find this highly likely.
Which makes you wonder: isn't part of the AG's job to defend the state in lawsuits? I realize that Sean Reyes has only been on the job since Monday, but shouldn't he have hit the ground running?
The Attorney General’s Office planned to file a stay request Thursday but said the application would be made on Friday or Monday as it coordinates with the outside firm, which it has not yet identified.
In other words, the state of Utah is saying "This is such an emergency, we needed a few days to think this over. But could you grant us the stay, anyway?"
The AG’s office also hasn't provided any information about how much it will spend or from where it is drawing the funds to pay the outside counsel.But, I can guarantee that once we know who the outside counsel is, good government watchdogs, including myself, are going to be pouring over the Herbert Swallow and Reyes campaign donations.
-Bob
Monday, December 23, 2013
Utah's Gay Marriage HAS affected my marriage
Since Friday's ruling, I've written several versions of a post about the fact that people can get married in Utah whether they are gay or straight.
None have been quite right.
Most;y it was a rehash of this post from 18 months ago about my position on marriage. Since then, I've learned that my Great Great Grandfather Aagard was also a polygamist. That's him down front in black. He was thrown in jail for practicing a "non-traditional" form of marriage.
However, I don't want to get into the past. I want to look to the future.
I'm a straight single Mormon. I'm also nearing my 35th Birthday, which puts me at least a decade into "menace to society" status. While finding a nice woman and getting married has been a desire of mine, it's hasn't been a top priority. That all changed last night with this picture from the Tribune of people camping out at the Salt Lake County Government Center:
That's right. People were camping out to be the first in line to get a marriage license. Have you ever seen anything like that? It was 30 degrees and precipitating most of the night last night, and these people were so excited about getting married that they camped out like they were waiting for concert tickets or a really good Black Friday deal.
That's commitment to marriage. I don't know too many heterosexual couples that would do that to get their license. At one point, the line was reported to be 1000 COUPLES long. Amazing.
People who didn't think they could ever get married 72 hours before are waiting overnight in the cold and standing in long lines just for the privilege, and I can't ever muster up the ability to get a date? Things need to change for me.
So, a big thank you to the Gay Marriage Pioneers who got married last Friday and today. You made me more committed to getting married. Because if it's that important to you, it should really be more important to me. And maybe I'll be headed down to the Clerk's office soon to get my own marriage license. in the meantime, I'm really going to enjoy your wedding reception at the City and County Building tonight.
None have been quite right.
Most;y it was a rehash of this post from 18 months ago about my position on marriage. Since then, I've learned that my Great Great Grandfather Aagard was also a polygamist. That's him down front in black. He was thrown in jail for practicing a "non-traditional" form of marriage.
However, I don't want to get into the past. I want to look to the future.
I'm a straight single Mormon. I'm also nearing my 35th Birthday, which puts me at least a decade into "menace to society" status. While finding a nice woman and getting married has been a desire of mine, it's hasn't been a top priority. That all changed last night with this picture from the Tribune of people camping out at the Salt Lake County Government Center:
That's right. People were camping out to be the first in line to get a marriage license. Have you ever seen anything like that? It was 30 degrees and precipitating most of the night last night, and these people were so excited about getting married that they camped out like they were waiting for concert tickets or a really good Black Friday deal.
That's commitment to marriage. I don't know too many heterosexual couples that would do that to get their license. At one point, the line was reported to be 1000 COUPLES long. Amazing.
People who didn't think they could ever get married 72 hours before are waiting overnight in the cold and standing in long lines just for the privilege, and I can't ever muster up the ability to get a date? Things need to change for me.
So, a big thank you to the Gay Marriage Pioneers who got married last Friday and today. You made me more committed to getting married. Because if it's that important to you, it should really be more important to me. And maybe I'll be headed down to the Clerk's office soon to get my own marriage license. in the meantime, I'm really going to enjoy your wedding reception at the City and County Building tonight.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Utah Democrats Need Better Vision
Anyone else notice something wrong with the invite they got to this year's Utah Democratic Party Legislative Gala?
Well, for one thing, The subject line on the email said that the Gala was on January 25, not the 26th. For another, January 26 is a Sunday, not a Saturday as the picture suggests.
Maybe if I pay the $300 entry (plus a $17.49 processing fee), they'll tell me which day it's on.
Not a good way to kick off the 2014 campaign.
Well, for one thing, The subject line on the email said that the Gala was on January 25, not the 26th. For another, January 26 is a Sunday, not a Saturday as the picture suggests.
Maybe if I pay the $300 entry (plus a $17.49 processing fee), they'll tell me which day it's on.
Not a good way to kick off the 2014 campaign.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Cory Booker -- Friendly to Mormons
Every day, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), best known for being a real life superhero as Mayor of Newark, posts an inspirational quote of some sort on his wall. Monday's post was as follows:
Post by Cory Booker.
A friend of mine sent me the link and asked if it was Thomas S Monson, and asked if Senator Booker is Mormon
Turns out, this was a quote from Mormon Church President Thomas S Monson, from the June 2010 edition of the Ensign magazine. However, quoting a Mormon President does not mean that you are Mormon any more than my quoting the Pope makes me Catholic. However, I did find that Senator Booker has more of a connection to Mormonism than I expected -- one of his good friends from Oxford is the Grandson of former church President Ezra Taft Benson. Senator Booker and Michael Benson were teammates on the Oxford Basketball team, and have remained close. In a CNN article from 2012 about their friendship with a rabbi, there is this fun bit:
Turns out, this was a quote from Mormon Church President Thomas S Monson, from the June 2010 edition of the Ensign magazine. However, quoting a Mormon President does not mean that you are Mormon any more than my quoting the Pope makes me Catholic. However, I did find that Senator Booker has more of a connection to Mormonism than I expected -- one of his good friends from Oxford is the Grandson of former church President Ezra Taft Benson. Senator Booker and Michael Benson were teammates on the Oxford Basketball team, and have remained close. In a CNN article from 2012 about their friendship with a rabbi, there is this fun bit:
The rabbi and Mormon say the mayor's humanity and heart inspire them. Booker says these two faithful men taught him to love and respect different religions, while helping him deepen his own beliefs and sense of awe. Likewise, both the mayor and Boteach say Benson changed how they and hundreds of others view Mormons.So, is Cory Booker a Mormon? No. But his coolness extends to Mormons, too.
Booker has been known to have his driver pull over when he spots young Mormon missionaries walking in pairs. He understands they’re often financially strapped, so he gives them some money for food and thanks them for being in his city.
“That’s something I never would have done if I hadn’t met Mike,” the mayor says.
Thursday, December 05, 2013
Get the latest news from KSL.com
I don't mind a good human-interest story every once in a while. It helps break up the monotony of real, hard hitting news.
Well, what they try to pass off as hard hitting news these days.
Today, KSL gave us this great story about some kids who built a roller coaster in their back yard for $50.
Must have been a witch to do it in the snow, right?
Oh, they did it before the snow? OK. Sounds like a fun way to spend Thanksgiving weekend.
They did it in August?! Oh. Do they know it's December?
Must have been a slow news day over there at Triad.
I can't wait for tomorrow's story on the latest back-to-school fashions.
-Bob
Well, what they try to pass off as hard hitting news these days.
Today, KSL gave us this great story about some kids who built a roller coaster in their back yard for $50.
Must have been a witch to do it in the snow, right?
Oh, they did it before the snow? OK. Sounds like a fun way to spend Thanksgiving weekend.
They did it in August?! Oh. Do they know it's December?
Must have been a slow news day over there at Triad.
I can't wait for tomorrow's story on the latest back-to-school fashions.
-Bob
Thursday, October 03, 2013
"Mike Lee Did Not Just Say What Mike Lee Just Said"
Years ago, the Utah Jazz had a player named Carlos Boozer. When Boozer was signed as a free agent, he was touted as the next Karl Malone.
For those who aren't familiar, Malone was a two-time NBA Most Valuable player, two-time Olympic Gold Medalist, multiple-time All Star, and was enshrined into the Basketball Hall of Fame. A statue of him currently sits outside the Jazz's arena.
Boozer fell far short of those expectations. Unlike Malone, who missed very few games during his time in Utah, Boozer was oft0injured, and usually missed large chunks of the season while injured. When he did play, his play was lackluster at best, especially on the defensive end.He was already disliked among the Utah fan base by the time he gave this comment to a Miami radio station:
"I'm going to get paid, no matter what." He also ensued the he would get a significant pay raise the next time he signed a contract. Talking about getting paid for doing a bad job, or not even doing your job, seems like a bad idea.
Fast forward to 2013. Utah's Senator Mike Lee, whose insistence on stopping ObamaCare by any means necessary has led to many government agencies being shut down, with their employees being out of work. Many "essential" employees are working, but not getting paychecks. Imagine how they felt when they read this:
"I'm working, I'll continue to get paid." Wow. So, even though you caused thousands to go without paychecks, caused millions more to cancel or significantly alter travel plans, at great cost to the Utah and National economy, not to mention those who rely on government services to eat to do without, you refuse to give up even a few days' pay?
Than again, we all know Mike Lee didn't know he'd be taking a pay cut to go from Lobbyist to Senator.
But, Mike Lee's office said that Mike Lee intended to give his missed salary to charity (a nice gesture, but he gets a tax write-off for that, anyway). They also said that Mike Lee didn't really say that he'd be getting paid.
So, KUTV posted the entire raw interview to prove that he did, in fact, say what he said.
Mike Lee didn't like getting filmed during the campaign. I'm sure it was because he might say something he didn't really say.
Maybe Mike Lee needs to stop talking.
-Bob
For those who aren't familiar, Malone was a two-time NBA Most Valuable player, two-time Olympic Gold Medalist, multiple-time All Star, and was enshrined into the Basketball Hall of Fame. A statue of him currently sits outside the Jazz's arena.
Boozer fell far short of those expectations. Unlike Malone, who missed very few games during his time in Utah, Boozer was oft0injured, and usually missed large chunks of the season while injured. When he did play, his play was lackluster at best, especially on the defensive end.He was already disliked among the Utah fan base by the time he gave this comment to a Miami radio station:
"I'm going to get paid, no matter what." He also ensued the he would get a significant pay raise the next time he signed a contract. Talking about getting paid for doing a bad job, or not even doing your job, seems like a bad idea.
Fast forward to 2013. Utah's Senator Mike Lee, whose insistence on stopping ObamaCare by any means necessary has led to many government agencies being shut down, with their employees being out of work. Many "essential" employees are working, but not getting paychecks. Imagine how they felt when they read this:
KUTV's Chris Jones asked the senator if he would give up his pay during the shutdown, Lee responded, "Uh. I don't." Jones continued, "you will continue to be paid, right?" The senator responded, "I'm working, I'll continue to be paid."
"I'm working, I'll continue to get paid." Wow. So, even though you caused thousands to go without paychecks, caused millions more to cancel or significantly alter travel plans, at great cost to the Utah and National economy, not to mention those who rely on government services to eat to do without, you refuse to give up even a few days' pay?
Than again, we all know Mike Lee didn't know he'd be taking a pay cut to go from Lobbyist to Senator.
But, Mike Lee's office said that Mike Lee intended to give his missed salary to charity (a nice gesture, but he gets a tax write-off for that, anyway). They also said that Mike Lee didn't really say that he'd be getting paid.
So, KUTV posted the entire raw interview to prove that he did, in fact, say what he said.
Mike Lee didn't like getting filmed during the campaign. I'm sure it was because he might say something he didn't really say.
Maybe Mike Lee needs to stop talking.
-Bob
Monday, September 30, 2013
Jim Matheson: Congressman of the year
Jim Matheson has voted with the Republicans just about each and every time they have voted on a bill dealing with ObamaCare the last several years, especially the last several months/weeks/days.
Then, he has the nerve to go and blames Republicans for the government shutdown coming tonight.
You know, the same Republicans he keeps voting with.
To Jim Matheson, that's called being a "moderate."
In reality, if Jim Matheson were a "moderate," he would use some of influence and seniority to work on a compromise. Or at least propose a compromise. After all, he has more seniority than 73% of Congress.
But that would mean the Congressman would have to work. And if you measure congressmen by their avoidance of work, Matheson would be Congressman of the year.
This is a man who votes with the same special interests that have tried for a decade to beat him. He won't hold a town hall meeting to meet with actual constituents.
So, Jim, I'm asking you again: Please, please stand up and propose a fix to this nation's problem. I might even throw in a campaign contribution. Heaven knows you need the money, since I've only gotten five emails this week asking for a donation to your campaign.
Of course, one of those five came from your mom, and two more were just "I hope you saw the email from Mom" resendings of the same email.
Hell, even your campaign is too lazy to write new material, just resending the same email a few times.
Maybe you are the Congressman of the Year,
Then, he has the nerve to go and blames Republicans for the government shutdown coming tonight.
You know, the same Republicans he keeps voting with.
To Jim Matheson, that's called being a "moderate."
In reality, if Jim Matheson were a "moderate," he would use some of influence and seniority to work on a compromise. Or at least propose a compromise. After all, he has more seniority than 73% of Congress.
But that would mean the Congressman would have to work. And if you measure congressmen by their avoidance of work, Matheson would be Congressman of the year.
This is a man who votes with the same special interests that have tried for a decade to beat him. He won't hold a town hall meeting to meet with actual constituents.
So, Jim, I'm asking you again: Please, please stand up and propose a fix to this nation's problem. I might even throw in a campaign contribution. Heaven knows you need the money, since I've only gotten five emails this week asking for a donation to your campaign.
Of course, one of those five came from your mom, and two more were just "I hope you saw the email from Mom" resendings of the same email.
Hell, even your campaign is too lazy to write new material, just resending the same email a few times.
Maybe you are the Congressman of the Year,
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
The Lessons From the Past 12 Years
Today marks the 12th anniversary of That Day.
The day we are told to "Never Forget."
As if we could forget the images burned into our brains.
But, as we look back on that day I want us to remember a lesson that we learned from that day:
"The enemy of our enemy is not our friend."
You see, the perpetrators of that attack became what they became with the help of the United States Government, because they were fighting against our enemy, the Soviets.
So, because of the attacks, we were in a long, drawn out war against an army using mostly the same weapons we gave them. The war would have been much shorter, except our military's attention was drawn into another conflict. This time, against another former "enemy of our enemy," Iraq. In 2003, we thought that Iraq probably had weapons of mass destruction, other than those we sold it when they were fighting against another one of our enemies: Iran. So, we also spent a long, long time fighting a war, only to discover that they didn't have the weapons we said they had. oops.
Now, we stand on the brink of another war. We are told that this one would be quick. Yet, that's what we've been told before.
We've not yet been told how not engaging puts our lives in danger.
What we have now in Syria is a civil war -- a civil war with no clear-cut good guys, only bad guys. On one hand, you have the long-time dictator, who may or may not have gassed some of his own people, including children. Forget all the civilians, including children, who have died in this war so far -- these kids were gassed! So, we're going to help the rebels. They are aligned with Al Qaeda.
You know, that group that attacked us 12 years ago.
Because the enemy of our enemy is obviously our friend. Or not.
I don't see any scenario where engaging in this conflict makes us any safer. Nor do I see where staying out of this conflict makes us less safe. But, I can see were our involvement will make the world a much, much more dangerous place.
And that is why I am opposed to choosing sides in Syria -- because I can never forget those images burned into my brain from 12 years ago.
The day we are told to "Never Forget."
As if we could forget the images burned into our brains.
But, as we look back on that day I want us to remember a lesson that we learned from that day:
"The enemy of our enemy is not our friend."
You see, the perpetrators of that attack became what they became with the help of the United States Government, because they were fighting against our enemy, the Soviets.
So, because of the attacks, we were in a long, drawn out war against an army using mostly the same weapons we gave them. The war would have been much shorter, except our military's attention was drawn into another conflict. This time, against another former "enemy of our enemy," Iraq. In 2003, we thought that Iraq probably had weapons of mass destruction, other than those we sold it when they were fighting against another one of our enemies: Iran. So, we also spent a long, long time fighting a war, only to discover that they didn't have the weapons we said they had. oops.
Now, we stand on the brink of another war. We are told that this one would be quick. Yet, that's what we've been told before.
We've not yet been told how not engaging puts our lives in danger.
What we have now in Syria is a civil war -- a civil war with no clear-cut good guys, only bad guys. On one hand, you have the long-time dictator, who may or may not have gassed some of his own people, including children. Forget all the civilians, including children, who have died in this war so far -- these kids were gassed! So, we're going to help the rebels. They are aligned with Al Qaeda.
You know, that group that attacked us 12 years ago.
Because the enemy of our enemy is obviously our friend. Or not.
I don't see any scenario where engaging in this conflict makes us any safer. Nor do I see where staying out of this conflict makes us less safe. But, I can see were our involvement will make the world a much, much more dangerous place.
And that is why I am opposed to choosing sides in Syria -- because I can never forget those images burned into my brain from 12 years ago.
Friday, June 21, 2013
My view on caucus/primary change
Much has been made about the proposed changes to the Caucus/Primary system in Utah's Democratic Party. These changes will be voted on by delegates at Saturday's convention.
From my understanding their are two options: leave the current system of requiring 60% of the vote at convention in order to avoid a primary, or ditch the caucus/convention system and go to a direct primary.
Like the Jim Matheson plan for Health Care Reform (where repealing or keeping ObamaCare seem like the only two possible options), the election reform plan is a false choice.
You see, there is more than one option available.
First, I dislike the way the system is now. Delegates are elected by their neighbors who are available on a Tuesday night and feel like doing something political in March, which isn't very many people. Furthermore, 60% seems too low a threshold and too arbitrary a number for a candidate to reach to get completely out of running a primary, especially in a two-person race. Also, when there is more than two candidates in a race, and nobody gets 60% on the ballot, there is a second ballot for the top two candidates, and there is a provision where there could be a third. Most delegates don't like sitting around for a second or third ballot that may or may not happen, so they leave. While I don't mind the food options that are an attempt to keep delegates in the building, I really think that this is foolish, and puts too much power in the hands of the super-involved.
Disbanding the caucus/convention system is a no-brainer then, right? Not really.
You see, those delegates are elected on a two-year cycle. Having the delegate system in place allows for less-engaged Democrats to have more engagement in the electoral process. If you don't get those people out to their caucus meetings, they won't ever come to a convention. I was amazed at how many delegates I spoke with at last year's convention were first-time convention goers. There were shocked to see a room full of Democrats. For some of them, it gave them the desire to help candidates. None of that would have happened if they didn't have any reason to go to the caucus meetings.
Also, delegates elect party leadership. If we do away with this system, will we have delegates to elect our leaders? If we do, will it be only the super-engaged people that become delegates? If we scrap delegates altogether, and just say "show up to convention and you'll be able to vote," won't it allow for bringing in unknowns to vote for a candidate like we've seen in past Young Democrats of Utah elections?
So, scrapping the system is not good, and keeping the system in place is not good, so what do we do?
Well, there is another way. This is a simple version that is meant to provide a path to real reform.
1) Make the threshold a two-thirds majority. 2/3 is a number that is used a lot in the legislative process, and is a great place to start. It's higher than the 60%, but not by much.
2) One ballot, and one ballot only. With only one ballot, it would be less confusing for newcomers to the process. Also, you cut down on the cost of food trying to keep delegates at the convention site. Plus, it's much easier to get people to your convention on a Saturday if you say "we'll be done at approximately this time" versus "We'll be done after the third vote that may or may not happen, so you'll be out at 1, or maybe 6, just plan on spending the whole day with us, doing nothing while we count the ballots."
3) This is really more a #2b, but we'll make it it's own line item: Instant Runoff Voting. Basically, instead of voting for only one candidate, you could rank your preferences. For instance, if there were 5 candidates, and you liked 4 of them, you could say "Bob's my number 1, Emily #2, Stacy #3, and Valerie #4, but I don't want to ever vote for Jeff." When the ballots are counted, the top line still alive gets the vote for that ballot. If nobody gets to the 67% threshold, the person with the least amount of votes is eliminated. The ballots that had that person as their #1 then get resorted by the next available candidate. This goes on until someone either hits 67% or there are two candidates left, at which point they go to primary. So, let's run an election scenario using the ballot above. There are 100 delegates in this district, so 67 is the threshold needed. The results, after round 1:
Stacy 30
Jeff 25
Valerie 20
Bob 13
Emily 12
Your ballot counted for Bob in this round, since Emily was the lowest vote total, she gets eliminated, and all of her votes go to those delegate's second choices. Round two results:
Valerie 31
Stacy 30
Jeff 25
Bob 13
none of the above 1
Your ballot again counted for Bob in this round, since he was your first choice. Of the people who had Emily at the top of the ballot, 11 voted for Valerie, putting her on top. One person decided that Emily was the only candidate they could support, so their vote goes into the "none of the above" category. These votes still count towards the total, meaning the threshold is still 67. Because Bob was the low vote total, he is eliminated. Round three results:
Valerie 34
Stacy 33
Jeff 30
none of the above 3
Since Bob was eliminated in round 2, and Emily was eliminated in round 1, your ballot counted for Stacy in this round. Since nobody can get to 67 votes, and Jeff would be eliminated, we wouldn't need to count the votes; Valerie and Stacy move to a primary.
From my understanding their are two options: leave the current system of requiring 60% of the vote at convention in order to avoid a primary, or ditch the caucus/convention system and go to a direct primary.
Like the Jim Matheson plan for Health Care Reform (where repealing or keeping ObamaCare seem like the only two possible options), the election reform plan is a false choice.
You see, there is more than one option available.
First, I dislike the way the system is now. Delegates are elected by their neighbors who are available on a Tuesday night and feel like doing something political in March, which isn't very many people. Furthermore, 60% seems too low a threshold and too arbitrary a number for a candidate to reach to get completely out of running a primary, especially in a two-person race. Also, when there is more than two candidates in a race, and nobody gets 60% on the ballot, there is a second ballot for the top two candidates, and there is a provision where there could be a third. Most delegates don't like sitting around for a second or third ballot that may or may not happen, so they leave. While I don't mind the food options that are an attempt to keep delegates in the building, I really think that this is foolish, and puts too much power in the hands of the super-involved.
Disbanding the caucus/convention system is a no-brainer then, right? Not really.
You see, those delegates are elected on a two-year cycle. Having the delegate system in place allows for less-engaged Democrats to have more engagement in the electoral process. If you don't get those people out to their caucus meetings, they won't ever come to a convention. I was amazed at how many delegates I spoke with at last year's convention were first-time convention goers. There were shocked to see a room full of Democrats. For some of them, it gave them the desire to help candidates. None of that would have happened if they didn't have any reason to go to the caucus meetings.
Also, delegates elect party leadership. If we do away with this system, will we have delegates to elect our leaders? If we do, will it be only the super-engaged people that become delegates? If we scrap delegates altogether, and just say "show up to convention and you'll be able to vote," won't it allow for bringing in unknowns to vote for a candidate like we've seen in past Young Democrats of Utah elections?
So, scrapping the system is not good, and keeping the system in place is not good, so what do we do?
Well, there is another way. This is a simple version that is meant to provide a path to real reform.
1) Make the threshold a two-thirds majority. 2/3 is a number that is used a lot in the legislative process, and is a great place to start. It's higher than the 60%, but not by much.
2) One ballot, and one ballot only. With only one ballot, it would be less confusing for newcomers to the process. Also, you cut down on the cost of food trying to keep delegates at the convention site. Plus, it's much easier to get people to your convention on a Saturday if you say "we'll be done at approximately this time" versus "We'll be done after the third vote that may or may not happen, so you'll be out at 1, or maybe 6, just plan on spending the whole day with us, doing nothing while we count the ballots."
3) This is really more a #2b, but we'll make it it's own line item: Instant Runoff Voting. Basically, instead of voting for only one candidate, you could rank your preferences. For instance, if there were 5 candidates, and you liked 4 of them, you could say "Bob's my number 1, Emily #2, Stacy #3, and Valerie #4, but I don't want to ever vote for Jeff." When the ballots are counted, the top line still alive gets the vote for that ballot. If nobody gets to the 67% threshold, the person with the least amount of votes is eliminated. The ballots that had that person as their #1 then get resorted by the next available candidate. This goes on until someone either hits 67% or there are two candidates left, at which point they go to primary. So, let's run an election scenario using the ballot above. There are 100 delegates in this district, so 67 is the threshold needed. The results, after round 1:
Stacy 30
Jeff 25
Valerie 20
Bob 13
Emily 12
Your ballot counted for Bob in this round, since Emily was the lowest vote total, she gets eliminated, and all of her votes go to those delegate's second choices. Round two results:
Valerie 31
Stacy 30
Jeff 25
Bob 13
none of the above 1
Your ballot again counted for Bob in this round, since he was your first choice. Of the people who had Emily at the top of the ballot, 11 voted for Valerie, putting her on top. One person decided that Emily was the only candidate they could support, so their vote goes into the "none of the above" category. These votes still count towards the total, meaning the threshold is still 67. Because Bob was the low vote total, he is eliminated. Round three results:
Valerie 34
Stacy 33
Jeff 30
none of the above 3
Since Bob was eliminated in round 2, and Emily was eliminated in round 1, your ballot counted for Stacy in this round. Since nobody can get to 67 votes, and Jeff would be eliminated, we wouldn't need to count the votes; Valerie and Stacy move to a primary.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Three stories about being financially prudent
Story #1:
So, I read that not only did Mike Lee sell his million dollar house after he was elected because he suddenly realized he would have to live on a Senator's salary for the next six years (you think that would be a consideration when deciding to run), but now it turns out that he is renting a house in the same neighborhood from the guy who bought his house.
No, you would think that if his family couldn't afford the mortgage, they might consider renting in a cheaper part of town. Or maybe buying a new house in a cheaper part of town. After all, Mike Lee is bringing home $174,000 a year. Surely he could afford a home. Seems like the financially prudent thing to do. Then again, like I said earlier, it seems like making sure you can live on only $174,000 is something to consider BEFORE running for office. THAT seems like the financially prudent thing to do.
Story #2
Senator Mike Lee, an expert in living financially prudently, wants to make sure we cut government programs to fund relief efforts in Oklahoma.
You know, cut programs that help people to pay for helping other people.
Heaven forbid we make companies pay their fair share of taxes. Or the rich. Or, end subsidies for corporations making record profits.
But, that's another story, I guess.
Story #3
Well, really, the story is about how West Valley City Mayor Mike Winder is not seeking re-election. So, it's like he's turning in his two-weeks notice seven months early.
Mayor Winder says he is leaving not because of all the problems happening in his city, but because he needs a job that pays better.
Mind you, this is a part-time job that pays $35,000 a year. He also works as a freelance consultant and has written some books.
Oh, it's a part time job that pays $35,000 a year and likely has great health care and other benefits as well.
All facts that he knew before he ran for the office. Or should have known. Or at least considered. But, I digress.
It's like having a full-time job that pays $16.83 an hour, or double minimum wage.
I work two jobs -- one full time and one part time, and will probably make $30,000 this year, but with no benefits whatsoever.
Maybe I should be Mayor of West Valley. Too bad I don't live there.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Jim Matheson: It's Official(ly over)
I received your email today asking me to donate to your campaign, since Mia Love just announced she is going to run against you again next year.
With all due respect, Congressman, I'm starting to think that maybe having Mia be our congresswoman wouldn't be so bad, because on my number one issue, you and Mia have the exact same opinion.
On Thursday, you sent me an email saying that you once again voted for the repeal of ObamaCare. In fact, you said that you have always voted for the repeal of ObamaCare. You said that ObamaCare is a flawed bill.
On that, I agree. However, ObamaCare is an improvement over what we would have if the numerous attempts to repeal the bill were successful.
Furthermore, YOU have the ability to fix ObamaCare. So far, I have seen exactly ZERO proposals from you to fix ObamaCare. Well, other than just repeal.
Yes, you are only one of 435 Congressmen. However, one of the glories of Congress is that ANY Congressman can propose a bill.
Yet, you don't.
You have seniority. You've been in Congress since 2001. That's longer than any other current Representative from Utah. In fact, only 119 Congresspeople have been there longer than you. That means you have more seniority than 73% of Congress.
So, where's your proposal? How are you going to fix the problem?
Congressman Matheson, I want to like you. I'm a moderate Democrat. I voted for you in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010. In fact, in 2010, I voted for you 3 times -- at convention, in a primary, and in the general election. In 2012, I was redistricted out of your district, but I told every friend I could that lived in your district why they should vote for you instead of Mia Love. My voting for you predates my being a Democrat. I've thrown money your way several times. I've defended you. I've overlooked some of your other votes. I've overlooked your refusal to hold real town halls and talk to your constituents.
But, that's over. Until you step up, show some leadership, and propose a solution, we're officially over. No money, no volunteering, no defending you to my more liberal (or conservative) friends.
In fact, when friends in the Fourth District ask me if they should vote for in next year's congressional race, my answer will be simple:
It doesn't really matter, because my health and well being doesn't really matter to either candidate.
-Bob
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Republicans Led By Loan Shark, I hope he makes winning every race "Number 1" Priority
Sltrib.com, today:
All I can say is "Yay!" Not only will it bring the payday loan industry back into the limelight (watch for some pro-payday loan stories in the upcoming session, I guarantee it), but there is another reason. In 2007, as he won reelection as Chair, Mr Evans said that his "Number 1" priority was to defeat Peter Corroon in 2008. Corroon went on to recieve over 65% of the vote. In 2006, Chairman Evans said his top priority was defeating County Clerk Sherrie Swenson. Swenson won 57% of the vote. He also personally help the Republican incumbent Sheriff (Presumably more than a chairman usually personally helps a candidate) in 2006. Challenger Jim Winder walked away with only 63.75% of the vote.
If this is the record he ran on, I'm beginning to wonder if Democrats hacked the GOP voting system today.
Because really, in politics, it's all about winning. And Democrats need all the help they can get. And James Evans is a gift from the heavens.
-Bob
Former Salt Lake County Republican Party Chairman James Evans won a convincing victory Saturday as the new Utah Republican Party Chairman, capturing nearly 60 percent of the vote in the three-way race.
Evans becomes the first African-American chairman of the state party.
Evans owns Checkline, a chain of payday lending stores.
He served as Salt Lake County Chairman from 2005 to 2009, and touted that experience and record as grounds for electing him.
All I can say is "Yay!" Not only will it bring the payday loan industry back into the limelight (watch for some pro-payday loan stories in the upcoming session, I guarantee it), but there is another reason. In 2007, as he won reelection as Chair, Mr Evans said that his "Number 1" priority was to defeat Peter Corroon in 2008. Corroon went on to recieve over 65% of the vote. In 2006, Chairman Evans said his top priority was defeating County Clerk Sherrie Swenson. Swenson won 57% of the vote. He also personally help the Republican incumbent Sheriff (Presumably more than a chairman usually personally helps a candidate) in 2006. Challenger Jim Winder walked away with only 63.75% of the vote.
If this is the record he ran on, I'm beginning to wonder if Democrats hacked the GOP voting system today.
Because really, in politics, it's all about winning. And Democrats need all the help they can get. And James Evans is a gift from the heavens.
-Bob
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)