Wayne Root is an idealist. If he were president he would try to remake the face of our nation and our government. many of his ideas have their place, but if he were to be elected his single term would be marked by radical inaction and broken promises as everything he talked about failed to materialize. Admittedly this would not likely be cause by a lack of effort on his part.
I can’t endorse a candidate who is doomed to disappoint even himself.
Learning about Alan Augustson turned out to be much less pedestrian than I had expected. I anticipated that I owuld find a candidate like so many other unknowns. I found instead a person who has some very good ideas that are not being shared as widely as they should. I found myself debating about whether he should be endorsed. In the end I realized that, while his ideas deserve a wider audience because our political discussion of issues is often too narrow to be useful, he would not be able to lead the country.
We need a broader discussion that would come from some more obscure candidates getting more public attention, so this is almost an endorsement, but we also need a President who can get things done, and the current political climate would not allow Alan to do that even if he were elected.
Update 7/3/2007: Alan has decided to abandon his presidential bid in favor of running for the Fifth Congressional District of Illinois.
I did not have high expectations when I began investigating Governor Huckabee. I knew he had been a governor, but before I started actively looking at him as a candidate I had the impression that he was just another aspiring politician who lacked the media advantage of the more well known candidates. I was totally surprised by what I found. After more than a decade as governor I could expect him to have sufficient political experience to be President, what I could not anticipate would be the way that he presents himself. He comes across as approachable, knowledgeable, and willing to serve the country.
Because he lacks the media appeal of other candidates I am confident in predicting that the media will, unfortunately, not give his candidacy the attention that he deserves. I endorse Mike Huckabee for President.
It’s that time again when I review my current status on candidate endorsements. In the last month I manage to finish the whole list of candidates plus one who was not on the list a month ago. Despite all my work, the list this month is as long as the list last month:
The sad thing is that once you consider that two of the candidates on the list last month should not have been on the list (one was not running for president and I forgot that I had already covered the other one) you find that the list is actually longer at the end of the month than it was at the beginning. I have quickly glanced at all the candidates on the current list to make sure that they are all supposed to be on the list. Based on that quick review I am hoping that I can cover a large number of these candidates in a short period of time.
I’d like to get done with this soon so that I can review the endorsements and give some clarification on my positions with regard to the candidates. Not all my endorsements are equal and I want to get through all the candidates before I try to explain who I think are the best candidates and not just who is qualified enough to deserve votes.
The current voucher mess illustrates a sad low point in public discourse. The course of events reads like the script of a soap opera. Our legislature passed two laws to implement a voucher system with the expressed intent of giving citizens a choice in educating our children. One of the two bills is now up for a ballot referendum in November which casts a cloud on the whole situation. The second bill stipulates that the State Board of Education should implement vouchers this summer but the chairman of the Board of Education, an outspoken critic of vouchers, has refused even after the Attorney General has told the board to comply with the law as written. Of course the whole thing has gone to the courts for “clarification” but no matter what the courts say we will still have dedicated people on both sides of the debate who will push their respective agendas. Now we have the Attorney General revoking the status as “special assistant to the Attorney General” of two attorneys working for the Board of Education.
It boils down to the fact that the Board of Education is refusing to comply with the law when they are not elected either to make law or to interpret it. On the other hand, the legislature managed to pass two bills that are largely redundant and forcefully opposed. They have done this in such a way that neither the ruling of the courts nor the ballot referendum will necessarily settle the issue. This sounds more like the work of a handful of powerful partisans than the result of honest efforts by 104 people (the combined size of the House and Senate) trying to represent their constituencies and bring about the best resolution to a high-profile issue.
People on both sides of the issue have called for a special session as the means of clearing up the two existing bills and paving the way for the issue to be resolved. Those who advocate for this approach are likely the most intent on finding a solution rather than just pushing an agenda.
Whatever the outcome of the whole thing, I fear that the final effect on education will be to provide a striking example of how our system of government can be manipulated and hobbled by any minority that is determined enough about what they are trying to accomplish or prevent.
UPDATE: The state Supreme Court ruled that if the citizens voted against vouchers on the referendum in November it would be binding on both bills.
Thanks to Joshua for pointing to this quote from Douglas Adams (author of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy).
Of course you can’t ‘trust’ what people tell you on the web anymore than you can ‘trust’ what people tell you on megaphones, postcards or in restaurants. Working out the social politics of who you can trust and why is, quite literally, what a very large part of our brain has evolved to do. For some batty reason we turn off this natural skepticism when we see things in any medium which require a lot of work or resources to work in, or in which we can’t easily answer back – like newspapers, television or granite. Hence ‘carved in stone.’ What should concern us is not that we can’t take what we read on the internet on trust – of course you can’t, it’s just people talking – but that we ever got into the dangerous habit of believing what we read in the newspapers or saw on the TV – a mistake that no one who has met an actual journalist would ever make.
This goes hand in hand with an argument that some people have heard me make about our “information society” as we call it. In a society so full of information sources the great challenge and skill is to be able to identify which sources are accurate or trustworthy. That is the skill that we need to have and that we need to pass on to our children. If Adams was right about humans being naturally hard-wired for this then we should do just fine.
The whole piece was published in 1999 which has given us 8 years to prove that he was right on target. Go read it.
If becoming President were like getting a job – getting the right previous experience and hoping that it is a better fit than any other potential hire – as some of his campaign ads humorously depict, Bill Richardson would easily have the most impressive resume among the candidates. Wanting to go beyond the resume I took the time to seek input about Governor Richardson from current residents of New Mexico. Even considering the other intangibles which affect the worthiness of a candidate it is easy for me to endorse Bill Richardson for President.
I discoverd David Koch I immediately went to look at his campaign sight because I was curious about this unknown candidate from my home state. One way that he has set himself apart from other candidates is that he has already chosen a vice-presidential candidate. I like the way that he made his choice – he selected someone he knew and trusted who had a very different political outlook than he did. This is only functional because they know that they can work together, but I think this has the potential to add depth to a campaign.
In spite of this, David Koch suffers from the same problem that many unknown candidates from outside the mainstream of politics suffer. Like it or not, we have a system in place which we must work with. If our goal is to reform the system, we still need a certain amount of leverage to do that. This leverage is not to be found in David Koch.
My preferred perspective about Memorial Day is that it is not simply a day to remember those who have given “the last full measure of devotion” but also a day to reflect on what it is they were protecting. To do that we must look to the foundation of our country. In that mindset I have been reviewing the Constitution.
Our federal government is comprised of three branches. First, the Legislative branch which is composed of a Senate, with representation by state, and the House of Representatives with representation by population. The legislative branch is where laws are made. Second, the Executive branch which is responsible for commanding the military and, with the consent of the Senate, making treaties and appointing other officers of government as necessary. This power is wielded by the President. Third, the Judicial branch which consists of the Supreme Court and other courts as designated by Congress. The courts officiate in law suits, criminal and civil. The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction in all cases and original jurisdiction where federal official or a state is a party to the suit.
Each state is required to accept “the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” In addition, the United States is to guarantee that each state has a republican form of government. Two thirds of each house of congress, or two thirds of the state legislatures are required to propose amendments. Three fourths of the state legislatures are required to ratify an amendment. Nine of thirteen (virtually three fourths) of states were required to ratify the constitution to make it effective.
The first amendment prohibits congress from making laws to establish religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion. This applies to our attempts to prohibit the exercise of religious belief by Iraqis in establishing their government. We should not prohibit their free exercise. This also applies to the Church of Secular Purity. This amendment also protects our rights to peaceably assemble and say/write what we think.
The second amendment rules that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, but it does not specify that they may own any kind of arms without limitation, or that they can take those arms any place without restriction. There is a fair amount of discretion still available there. Connected to that, the third amendment states that citizens cannot be forced to house soldiers in times of peace. The fourth amendment declares that citizens and their property shall be protected from unreasonable search or seizure.
The fifth amendment provides that we may be spared repeated trials for a single crime and that we need not witness against ourselves. It also provides that citizens shall be compensated when private property is taken for public purpose. The sixth amendment guarantees that we have access in criminal cases to a public trial by an impartial jury in the place where we are accused of committing a crime. It also stipulates that the accused must be allowed counsel and the opportunity “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” The seventh amendment stipulates that in civil cases involving more than $20 the right to trial by jury stands. The eighth amendment prohibits cruel or unusual punishments.
The ninth amendment specifies that just because a right is not listed in the constitution is not sufficient proof that such right does not exist. The tenth amendment specifies that any power not specified as the jurisdiction of the federal government shall be reserved to the state governments. (I wonder why that seems not to have been applied.)
The eleventh amendment prevents a citizen from suing a state in federal court.
The twelfth amendment separates the presidential and vice-presidential votes rather than awarding the vice-presidency to the second highest vote-getter among presidential candidates. The twentieth amendment specifies the time for changes of president. The twenty-second amendment specifies a limit of two terms per president. (Some kind of term limits should be placed on Senators and Representatives as well.) The twenty-third amendment grants an electoral vote to the District of Columbia. The twenty-fifth amendment specifies that the vice-president becomes president if a president dies in office.
The thirteenth amendment abolished slavery. The fourteenth amendment alters apportionment and other issues left from the abolishment of slavery.
The fifteenth amendment specifies that race cannot be used to discriminate in a citizen’s right to vote. The nineteenth amendment later gave voting rights without regard to gender. The twenty-fourth amendment would later clarify that defaulting on taxes could not be used as an excuse to deny voting rights to a citizen. The twenty-sixth amendment lowered the age for voting from 21 to 18.
The sixteenth amendment allows for income tax.
The seventeenth amendment changes the way senators are chosen from being chosen by state legislatures to being chosen by direct, popular vote.
The eighteenth amendment makes it illegal to produce or distribute liquor. The twenty-first amendment repealed this almost fifteen years later.
The twenty-seventh amendment specifies that congressional pay increases do not go into effect until after a new congressional election. (This would be more useful if we had term limits or pay increases were only active for the successors of those who voted for the increase.)
If we understand our foundation we might recognize the limits of the society that we can build. We can also know how and when to alter the foundation if we do not like the society that it is producing.
I attended another rally sponsored by C.O.S.T. to talk about the Mountain View Corridor (MVC). Any regular reader here will know that I am very much in favor of the positions advocated by C.O.S.T. and that I have very defined positions about the correct course of action where the MVC project is concerned.
As a known sympathizer with C.O.S.T., I am sorry to report that the rally tonight was probably not helpful to what they are trying to accomplish. The problem was that the tone and language of the rally were too negative. I could see the reactions of many of the people in attendance who went from interested to apathetic.
Interestingly, I had read earlier about how words can spin an argument one way or another. C.O.S.T. stands for Citizens Organized for Smarter Transportation. This sends a positive, issue oriented message. The rally was billed as a “protest rally” which has a negative spin. Unfortunately the rally had a negative orientation as well and the positive message about better alternatives was lost.
The positive side of their argument, which has attracted me, is that there are better alternatives to fix the traffic problem than what UDOT is proposing. These alternatives can alleviate traffic more effectively than the UDOT proposals. They are in favor of a transit system and commercial development that would reduce the need for commuting by providing good jobs closer to home.
The attitude that should be taken is, “let’s work with UDOT to help them see the error of their plans.” Unfortunately the tone of the meeting was, “fight UDOT – they’re trying to destroy our city.”
There are real problems to be addressed with the current UDOT proposals, but instead os spending time showing pictures of dead animals while talking about trash and roadkill, the meeting should have spent more time talking about more substantive concerns such as the possibility that the 2100 North freeway would further impede North/South traffic through Lehi when the city is already divided by I-15 cutting through it. Instead of talking about the height of the proposed freeway there should have been more emphasis on the traffic mess that will result where the Mountain View Corridor reconnects with I-15 just like the connection between I-215 and I-15. During the heavy traffic periods those interchanges come to a standstill – so much for the benefit of another freeway.
I want to see more talking about changing our city to reduce the need to commute. We should be talking about improving the city for the future so that we don’t have to spend our time sounding like poor, picked-on little citizens in this forgotten hamlet being ignored by the big, bad, bureaucratic government agency.
