Define “Change”

Posted on 2009-02-06 by David

I have come to the conclusion that I should not listen to national news – it just gets me agitated.

I was driving home listening to NPR and was treated to actual soundbites from the rallying speech that President Obama gave to the Democratic caucus meeting. I had head about that, but hearing these gems really showed that many people must mistake the fact that Obama is articulate by assuming that everything he says must therefore be intelligent and accurate.

The audio clips I heard had the president emphasizing that the people elected him (and the rest of Congress)  to change the direction of the country and were not seeking "more of the same." What really got to me was this well phrased analogy:

"I don’t care whether you are driving an SUV or a hybrid, if you are headed toward a cliff you have to change direction."

He’s absolutely right. My reaction was that instead of changing direction when faced with an economic cliff, the president and Congress are accelerating and hoping to grow wings by the time they reach the edge. Let’s examine the "change" that he is promoting.

The president calls inaction irresponsible – it seems to me that inaction is not something that the Bush administration can ever be accused of. In other words inaction would probably be the clearest for of change. Last year the administration got a $150 Billion dollar stimulus bill and later received another $700 Billion to unfreeze the credit markets. That’s $850 Billion in spending last year of money that we don’t have and the result is that we are still in a recession with no end in sight. The change that Obama is promoting is something on the order of $800 Billion in new spending of money that we don’t have. I’m beginning to think the politicians really don’t know the difference between legal tender and monopoly money (too bad the IRS knows the difference all too well).

President Bush and his Republican Congress raised deficit spending to an art form. When Bush got a Democratic Congress there was no change in habits. Now President Obama and his Democratic Congress are trying to build an art acadamy around Bush’s art form – that’s not the change I was looking for.

I understand that the argument Obama is trying to make is that the country is sick and honestly needs surgury. That is an argument that I can accept. The problem is that we have already tried surgury by hatchet – it doesn’t work very well. Our Republican senators are trying to insist on using a scalpel for the surgery. Their profligate economic past opens them up to accusations of hypocrisy – and many of them might very well be acting in full hypocrisy. Regarless of how hypocritical they are being the fact is that surgury with a scalpel is safer and more likely to not kill the patient. This leads to another inconvenient truth. Assuming that the patient survives surgury (whether by hatchet or by scalpel) to get a liver transplant we need to recognize that the disease was not a bad liver, it was alcoholism. Just because you have had a transplant does not mean that it’s safe to go back to the bar.

Posted in National | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How Do They Do It?

Posted on 2009-02-06 by David

Most of the our elected leaders in the state government come from the ranks of retirees, homemakers, business owners, lawyers, and other similar professionals who have a high degree of control over their own schedules. There are a few exceptions however such as Kory Holdaway who is an educator.

As I gain more information and perspective on the word that our legislators do during the session I wonder how an educator could possibly serve in the legislature considering that the session takes 6 out of the 9 months that school is actually in session. Admittedly I don’t know if Rep. Holdaway is a classroom teacher or an administrator and I could see an administrator being able to pull this off, but I wonder how anyone who is not self-employed or has an extremely flexible profession can ever hold such an elective office – are they simply limited to offices such as city council which can be filled largely during evening hours?

Posted in State | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

D-TV Switch

Posted on 2009-02-04 by David

That would be D as in "Delay " not D as in digital.

I have had the opportunity to drive to work for the last couple of days and have been listening to the radio as they discussed this issue. I used to wonder why television stations should be forced to switch to digital signals. Now I recognize that Congress has been holding them back from switching to digital signals exclusively. That leaves me with the question of why it is so important that everybody be able to receive a television signal.

I know I’m odd in the fact that I never watch television (since the middle of 2000), but  I really don’t understand why television stations should be forced to serve people through analog. Some will argue that television is an important news source. I argue that the "news" that comes on television is somewhere between uninformative and misinformative most of the time. Some will argue that the entertainment is important. Though I find little television entertainment worth watching (yes, I still do have a vague idea of what’s offered), none of it is necessary and why should Congress be involved in mandating our entertainment options? (I can’t seem to find that section in my pocket Constitution.) Next thing you know, Uncle Sam will be giving away 5 free movie tickets per person per year – like they do in New Zealand (I may be wrong on the exact quantity).

Considering what I heard about how much cheaper it is for stations to broadcast in digital I would bet that, if left to themselves, the television broadcasters would figure out a way to offer the financial incentive necessary to get their customers to switch to digital. But that would be a free market and <sarcasm>we wouldn’t want to try that – free market’s aren’t stable.</sarcasm>

Posted in culture, National, technology | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Disturbing Trend

Posted on 2009-02-03 by David

I want to be supportive of our President. I just want to make that clear because I don’t expect this post will convey that feeling.

I’m sure part of it is the spirit of partisanship, and part of it is the media propensity to focus on the scandalous, but I don’t think that any other President has had as pervasive a problem as President Obama is having in getting appointees who have not made very basic financial mistakes.

I’m not sure if it’s comforting or disturbing to think that this may have much less to do with poor picks by the president and more to do with the culture of  "anything you can get away with is fine" in Washington.

Posted in culture, National | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Public Journalism

Posted on 2009-02-02 by David

After an entire book showing the disappointing aspects of what effects we are seeing in our society from journalism it was bittsweet to read about the push toward a more constructive approach to journalism called public journalism. (The bitter being that this was written in the mid 1990’s and things seem no better – if not worse – now than they were then.) The essence of public journalism is encapsulated in the idea that the media organizations embrace the reality that they are not imply observers and reporters in society, but also participants. It is the admission that what they do matters and makes a difference. The controversy come through differing views on what it means to participate positively. Those who misunderstand the idea of public journalism might easily interpret that proactive stance as meddling by the media. On the other hand, defenders of the idea view this approach as the best form of journalism because the approach is no longer apathetic about the effects that come from the reporting that they do.

Personally I can see the objections to the idea of active meddling but I feel that objection is misplaced. Even the best reporters and news organizations will have biases in what they cover and how they cover things. Most observers can see this easily, but anyone who is serious about using the news will be better able to compensate for those biases when those biases are not hidden by an exaggerated guise of objectivity. The best in journalism would acknowledge the perspective that the reporter or organization subscribes to but would also report facts that disagree with their perspective. Not only that, but they would seek to develop their perspectives in accordance with the facts that they are able to find. If they are actively seeking to make a positive impact in their community they would find it beneficial to go beyond the easy reporting and dig into the facts that are not so easily obtained.

I found the description of the efforts of various papers around the country to actively engage citizens in the process of developing public policy and exploring social issues in their areas to be encouraging. Sadly I see no evidence that those efforts have continued to develop inthe years since this was written. Perhaps that is a result of where I am, or perhaps the movement has lost its momentum. I hope it is only the first option.

Posted in culture | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Meeting the Mayor

Posted on 2009-01-30 by David

I was invited to a blogger breakfast this morning with Mayor Becker. After digesting the surprise and wondering how they decided who to invite (there were only 7 bloggers there) I was excited to see what it would be like. Early on the question was asked if anyone present took a conservative perspective on their blog – I felt a bit lonely but I sure enjoyed meeting some of the bloggers that I have been interacting with for quite a while.

Three things really stuck out to me during the course of the morning. First (and least importantly), it’s nice to have someone else paying for breakfast. Second, I sat next to Glen Warchol and because of my recent interest in journalism and the interaction between reporters and politics, it was fascinating to watch as Glen fired off a number of questions and followups to the mayor to start things off. My respect for the art and skill of the information gathering side of reporting increased noticeably (nothing this morning really touched on the synthesizing and word-crafting side of reporting, but my blogging has already built up my appreciation for that aspect of the process). And the third thing that really stuck out to me? That’s what this is really all about . . .

One of the major topics this morning was the issue of transparency. I really think that this blogger breakfast is a part of the mayor’s transparency initiative – it’s another way for him to try to engage people and get them invoved and connected wtih their city government. Towards the end of the meeting Glen asked all of the bloggers if any of us had sought press credentials at the capital. It occurs to me that part of transparency is making sure that we make use of the options to get information that are already available to us.  None of us had sought press credentials at the capital and Glen said we should give it a try. A few of us decided to look into it.

I called Ric Cantrel this afternoon to inquire and was told that the capital was pretty open to anyone who cared to visit, the meetings were generally open to the public and the elected officials wanted to get information out in any way that they could, and finally that they don’t have a policy one way or another on giving press credentials to bloggers. Ric expressed an interest in figuring out a manageable and reasonable policy on granting credentials to bloggers and suggested that it might be useful to meet with a group of bloggers to start hammering out such a policy. I trust that Ric is genuinely interested because he has been a significant force behind The Senate Site blog which is a good source for information – especially during the legislative session.

If anyone else is interested in taking part in the discussion let me know – I’ll keep you updated as I try to set things up.

Posted in life, State | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Legislative Guide

Posted on 2009-01-29 by David

I just picked up a copy of The Utah State Legislative Guide for 2009. It has a bunch of information that most people never think about (like the seating assignments for the house and senate) and then some information that could prove very valuable despite the fact that many people never think about it – such as committee assignments for each legislator.

I have never before seen such a guide (perhaps they existed in previous years, but I don’t know) so I will see if it proves useful for me. I just wondered if anyone else had ideas of how to make use of the guide during the legislative session.

I’m discovering that it’s almost aggravating to work this close to the state capitol during the legislative session without actually being there. I may have to take a day off and go up on the hill.

Posted in State | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Lippmann vs Dewey

Posted on 2009-01-28 by David

In his final chapter, James Fallows introduces the argument between Walter Lippmann and John Dewey that took place through their writings in the 1920’s regarding what constituted the most desirable form of representative government. I would like to read more of their original writing, but for now let me react to what Fallows has covered.

Lippmann argued that the world was too large and complex to allow for an expectation that the common citizen could be sufficiently informed to make wise decisions on many policy issues. Government, with it’s ability to draw upon the knowledge of experts should therefore have a relatively free hand in creating the policies that would best serve the nation. The extension to this attitude was that the journalist was expected to play the role of expert in explaining the expert government actions to the people.

Dewey argued that without a healthy democratic process no government could be expected to consistently make wise choices for the nation, no matter how much expert information they had available to them. The implications of this would be that the journalist should play the role of examiner and fact finder (as should the elected official), but that the decision should generally play out in the court of public opinion.

The arguments of Lippmann certainly are accurate in describing the complexity of the world – a world that is even more complex when it is not tempered by the moderating influence of broad democratic participation based on broadly disseminated information. However, my own biases have me leaning in favor of the perspective of Dewey that the very process of public democracy has benefits which we cannot afford to set aside.

Journalists have a special role in society in that they have the opportunity to study an issue and dig beneath the surface to examine the realities that escape the surface understanding of that issue. I believe the real problem lies in cases where a journalist, acting as an expert, not only tells their readers what they believe, but fails to report facts contrary to their own beliefs thus preventing the consumers from making an informed choice.

Does anyone else know more about Dewey or Lippmann?

Posted in culture | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Daily Updates from Rep. Edwards

Posted on 2009-01-27 by David

What an exciting promise from my state representative, Becky Edwards, she intends to blog every day of the session.

We certainly have a lot of work ahead of us and I’ll be blogging each day of the session and sending out an official legislative update each Friday of the session.

(emphasis added)

Because she is new to blogging I won’t fault her if she misses a day but I look forward to regular updates. How many people can hope for that much communication from their representative? (At least 20,000 here in her district if they will take advantageof it.)

Posted in State | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Orrin at the Bully Pulpit

Posted on 2009-01-27 by David

As soon as I read the title, D.C. voting act is best way to ensure that Utah gets its 4th seat, I knew we were in for more misinformation. To then go to the article and find that it was written by Senator Hatch was a pleasant surprise – I had been afraid that it was another editorial board capitulating to his "expertise."

Most of the article reiterates the arguments that got me writing last time but there are a few new twists that should be corrected. Many, like me, argue that due to our high growth Utah is assured of another seat after the 2010 census. Orrin answers that "Utah is the fastest-growing state since 2007, but not since the last census." That is damning to the very bill he’s peddling. Look at the language of the bill – it adds an extra seat for D.C. and for "the state next in line for a seat." That was Utah in 2000, but since we are not the fastest growing state since 2000 maybe it’s not Utah in 2010 – we could immediately lose our extra seat after the census if Utah really was not growing as fast as we thought.

America’s founders did what the bill would do today. Virginia and Maryland ceded land for the District in 1788. Until the District was formally established in 1800, Congress treated Americans living on that land as if they still lived in a state so they could be represented in Congress.

We should clarify that between 1788 and 1800 the founders treated Americans living in those ceded lands as if they still lived in the state which had ceded the land – not as an independent political entity – so they could be represented in Congress. That’s more like the idea being promoted by Rep. Chaffetz.

Apparently Orrin thinks that Congress has authority over the Constitution:

. . . the courts have ruled that Congress can use its legislative authority over the District "in all cases whatsoever" to accomplish there what the Constitution accomplishes for states.

It is true that Congress has legislative authority over the District "in all cases whatsoever" but Congress does not have authority to redefine the Constitution simply because it involves the District. The Constitution talks about apportioning tazes among the citizens of the states, but it does not prohibit Congress from taxing the district over which they have exclusive legislative authority. It does not allow Congress, however, to stipulate the nature of Congress – that requires a Constitutional Amendment. That’s what we need, an amendment removing the cap on the size of Congress and stipulating a maximum size (in population) for a Congressional District. At the same time this amendment could grant voting representation to the citizens of any territory which pays federal taxes (or any other generic designation that would encompass D.C.).

Posted in National | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments