Recently I was sent this PSA from our good friends in Hollywood, urging me to get registered and vote. Now I may be a little biased because these Hollywood types really get to me, but after watching this video, I sure felt like I was being belittled. In fact, after watching Leo, Toby, Courtney Cox, Ashton Kutcher, Usher, and that guy from Superbad sarcastically describe my pathetic life, I almost decided not to vote (but hey, maybe that is giving them what they actually want, eh).

Does this seem a little condescending to anyone else? I mean, the message itself is good, but it sure made me feel demeaned.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhDRVKDcXQo[/youtube]

Well, afterwards, I found another video in response to the celeb one and felt that it did an excellent job of voicing my feelings!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AM0C5wPoL94[/youtube]

To give the celebs some credit, it’s good to see them getting more young people involved politically… but their approach just rubs me the wrong way.

How do you feel about the original? How about the response?

- Marc

I wanted to put up a last post for the day wishing all the loyal listerners, readers and rabble-rousers a Happy Halloween, but I couldn’t find a scary enough pic for the post.  Until my Inbox updated, that is.

Scares me every time.

Happy Halloween.

- Jason

The Utah High School football playoffs start today, but if you’re not at the games in person you probably won’t ever get a chance to see what happens.

KJZZ 14 in Salt Lake City apparently has been granted the exclusive rights to the playoffs from the Utah High School Athletics Association. In years past, KJZZ has held the rights but has looked the other way when local television stations like Park City TV and The Valley Channel broadcast games that KJZZ hadn’t planned on broadcasting. Today, local broadcasters planned to show televise the Logan/Desert Hills and Mountain Crest/Cyprus games, because KJZZ wasn’t showing them.

Local stations, however, reportedly received notice from KJZZ in the past 48 hours that if they are caught broadcasting any games, legal action will be taken. This measure is being taken to protect the KJZZ brand, one source tells me.

Also, KJZZ is not negotiating with local TV stations for the rights. Apparently some of the smaller outlets have offered to purchase the rights for single games, but KJZZ won’t budge. I’m told that on Thursday night, Park City TV had agreed to purchase the rights to a game for $500, and KJZZ agreed, but that agreement was later broken, with KJZZ saying that if they grant rights to one outlet, they’d have to grant them to all.

This is odd, however, as I’m told that Comcast has been allowed to broadcast two games separate from what KJZZ is showing. So did money change hands there? It’d be very interesting to know.

The end result of this, at face value, is that a government institution (UHSAA) has given exclusive, monopolistic broadcast rights to KJZZ, and now the majority of high school football fans in the state will not have an outlet to see their team’s games. This is when in years past they had a chance to see those games.

Also, if KJZZ has these exclusive rights and you’re going to say “it’s just business,” then where is the high school’s cut of the money?

I smell a rat.

-Tyler (Posted at both USUAggies.com and KVNUFTP.com)

So part of the bailout ($125 Billion, to be exact), was designated for nine of the country’s largest banks in order to “re-capitalize” the banking system; the intention here was to give the banks money so that they could, in turn, return to making loans.
Well, there has been little publicity over what these banks are really doing with the money (which has been enraging), but finally, today I spotted a WaPo article expressing the outrage over what these banks are doing with our money (well, to be honest, China’s money).

Instead of making invidivdual loans and attempting to bring opportunity back into the system, these banks (PREDICTABLY), are using most of the money to pay salaries, maintain trading, and worst of all, stash it away; some have accused the intention behind this “stashing away” of our money to be in case another large bank fails- then these “bailed out” institutions will then be “too big to fail.”

Where is the outrage!?! Most of us saw this coming, and now that it is happening, where is the accountability? When you throw money at a problem without adequate discussion and planning beforehand, this what you get! More heads need to roll on Wall Street, and a lot of politicians need to be sent packing!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/30/AR2008103004380.html?hpid=topnews

Oh, and here is the Bush Administration defending itself… (funny that a Republican would end up making such sweeping decisions to inject more government control over our economy…disgusting)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/30/AR2008103002487.html?sub=AR

- Marc

People have been forwarding me these Eagle Forum emails warning of terrorist attack if Chris Buttars is not elected (I’m exaggerating their message of course… but not as much as you would think).  They’re ridiculous, and even more ridiculous is that they may be working.

According to the Tribune, though, Gayle Ruzika and her minions are firing up the email and phone trees with a message for voters not grounded so much in reality so much as crazy.  In an email asserting that Buttars is “vital” to the “things we can accomplish,” the Eagle Forum makes an amazing leap of logic.

“We have learned that the earlier published [KSL-Deseret News] Dan Jones poll incorrectly elevated the senator’s lead against [Democratic opponent John] Rendell. We are speculating this may have been intentionally done to lull his constituents and supporters into a feeling of safety, expecting we wouldn’t work as hard in getting out the truth and representing our values,” it warned.

Conspiracy!  Liberal Media!  I knew it!

I’m not going to be surprised when Buttars wins re-election, and I’m surprised less that an organization like Eagle Forum, hoping to retain relevancy as well as at least one public official sympathetic to “what they can achieve” in Utah, is campaigning for him so aggressively.  What surprises me every time is the unwillingness, or perhaps inability of so many political activists in this state to be honest with voters in the arguments they make in support of or against a candidate or cause.

Are we really this gullible?

If Gayle considers Joe Cannon’s Rag a part of the imaginary “liberal media” working against Buttars, I can’t – and don’t want to – imagine what she considers conservative media.

- Jason

The following is a “final word” on Cache County Proposition 1, the Critical Lands bond. This view is presented from David James and is in opposition to the bond. Laraine Swenson’s “final word” in support of the bond is posted below.

Vote NO on Proposition One

I love open space.  This bond gives us no open space and is not good for the valley, the citizens or future generations.

Unbelievable as it may seem, after we have spent $10 million in taxes (and paid at least $6 million more in interest) there will be no more open space.  For every acre that is preserved, a different acre will be developed.  One vista saved, another one blocked.  With this bond you will see a beautiful farm on the left and homes and businesses on the right, without the bond a beautiful farm on the right and homes and businesses on the left.  $10 million, no more open space!

There is a desperate effort to make it appear that we are at a juncture where if we don’t act now, we face impending disaster.  According to the county assessor’s office, less than 7% of the land in Cache County is developed.  With well over 90% of the valley open, I struggle to see the disaster that waits.  There have been numbers thrown out about how many acres we are ‘losing’-a strange notion-that I cannot verify.  The best I can figure out is those are peak numbers that fall well beyond any longer term averages.

There are promises the ‘critical’ land will be saved.  But what determines critical?  Is it corridor preservation?  Corridor land is so expensive that the entire bond can be spent and a very small patch would be ‘preserved’.  Is it agriculture protection?  The last easement granted for agriculture protection is on a road that is so infrequently traveled that the county has a hard time justifying needed maintenance.  Add in wildlife preservation, community ‘belting’, etc and it becomes clear that all of the images can’t be developed.  At best this is a lottery, at worst it will evolve into a political transfer of wealth to the well connected.

Who will win this lottery?  For your image to win, it must include all the landowners in your picture putting up their land.  There is no instance of this occurring.  Then the governmental agencies involved must designate all these parcels as winners.  There have been lots of promises made all over the valley.  There will be winners but there will be lots of losers as well.  Your chances of winning this lottery are about as good as winning one of those out of state lotteries.  Don’t believe the slick images painted by organizations that, oh, by the way, are out of state (Boston and San Francisco).

Finally, please don’t vote without looking at the unintended consequences of this bond

1. The property tax hits everyone and most will pay more than the claimed averages.  Business and low income individuals who rent pay a disproportionate share.
2. This money goes to some very well to do individuals.  Checks are generally for hundreds of thousands if not millions to people who have significant assets.  And again, this is born disproportionately by low income individuals and small businesses.
3. Outside organizations are working to ‘preserve’ Cache County.  The Conservation Campaign is located in Boston.  They are the ones listed on all those nice flyers I have been getting.  The Trust for Public Lands is located in San Francisco.  They have been invited in, I am told.  I assume that is because local organizations fear they would fail at getting this bond passed and decided to bring in the big guns.  The Trust is a $240 million dollar a year organization that stands to add nicely to its revenues from this bond.
4. This falls completely outside any community planning efforts.  There are no linkages to even the county planner and one of the biggest complaints around municipalities is the lack of communication between county and cities.
5. Conserving land near cities will encourage sprawl.  The development shift will occur and it will occur outward if this is the approach.  Pollution will increase as commutes increase and people will pay a double tax of money and time.
6. This limits other county services from expanding.  If there are $10 million burning the holes of the citizens of Cache County, can we honestly say that schools, roads and public safety has all the money they need and its time to play Acreage Shuffle?
7. We abandon our heritage.  The notion of preserving a farming heritage of is overridden by the fact that Utah was settled out of a drive for freedom, not free land.  Significant land holdings were forfeited by our pioneer forefathers when they came here.  Now we want to indenture ourselves in the name of preserving land.

My vote is not only no but Hell No.  (Sorry for the farmer language.)  I hope all will consider all the issues before voting.

The following is a “final word” on Cache County Proposition 1, the Critical Lands bond. This view is from Laraine Swenson and is in support of the bond. For the “final word” in opposition to the bond from David James, see the post above.

The number one challenge facing Cache Valley is growth.  In dealing with this growth, Cache County has a Master Plan that calls for preservation of critical lands.  While every planning tool will have to be utilized, this bond would give Cache County the most powerful and crucial planning tool – a tool that can really make a difference in preserving our heritage and our agriculturally based economy.

How it Works:

The conservation easement program is completely voluntary and projects can only be brought forward by the landowner.  In the process the property will be appraised and the easement value is the difference between the development value of the property and the agricultural value, because the land will still have agricultural value.  The land owner then typically ‘donates’ 20-25% of the value of the easement, meaning that the amount they receive for the easement will be 20-25% less than its value.  Partners with an interest typically fund the remaining 75-80%.  Based on their specific interest in the land, federal, state and private partners such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Department of Wildlife and Natural Resources, the Nature Conservancy, the LeRay McAlister Fund, various sportmen’s groups and others along with Cache County would be partners.  Partners that have participated in easements in Cache Valley in the past are becoming disenchanted with working in a location where the local population support the easement in writing (Lynn Lemon wrote letters of support for all the easement requests last year), but are unwilling to put any funding into the process.  Several Counties and cities in the state have bonded for monies to support these type of projects and the likelihood of getting partnering funds greatly increases if the local government is willing to step up to the plate and make some kind of a contribution toward a project that will benefit their community.  A 10 million dollar bond can be leveredged to 40 to 50 million dollars in purchasing value with the help of these partners. *(see example below)

Scoring Critical Lands:

Projects can be ranked based on a scoring system that will be devised by the county, based upon other systems used throughout the country.  Things to be considered might be agricultural value, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, public access, partner and landowner contributions, threat of development, corridor protection, etc.  Those factors can be defined and rated by the committee who would then score applications.  Many more applications will be received than can be acted upon, so only those properties bringing the highest good to the population of Cache Valley would be sponsored.  Most high-ranking projects will have multiple benefits to the community.

Timing:

This is the optimal time to bond and start purchasing easements, because property in some locations, such as Wasatch and Salt Lake County have land prices that are so escalated that making a significant difference is difficult.  Our land values are still at a reasonable level and with the drop in the economy, our easements will be appraised for less than they have in the past, allowing us to do even more.  We will be able to help purchase agricultural buffers between cities, help preserve corridors and save the lands that are most important to us.

Capacity and Relative Cost:

The county has the capacity to bond for 90 million in general obligation bonds.  As a fiscal conservative, I wouldn’t recommend coming anywhere close to that potential, but with 0 dollars of G.O. bonds, we can  handle a 10m bond with no threat to future bonds should the need arise.  This is a small price (16.50 on the average home) to pay.  To put this in perspective, Logan City residents pay three times that amount annually for the aquatic center (and a few other recreational projects.)  The Aquatic Center is a nice amenity, but preserving critical lands seems to me to be a much more impactful issue that could be addressed at 1/3 the price.

Support:

This is a time to support Critical Lands funding.  Most projects can wait – this can’t.  Proposition 1 is supported by the local Farm Bureau, the Chamber of Commerce, and high ranking Republican and Democratic leaders, and virtually every planner in the county.  This issue has garnered bi-partisan, across the board support.  Please vote for Proposition 1 on Nov 4.

*Sample Easement purchase – Cache County pays 250,000 for the easement on a 1.25 million dollar property

Appraised property value                    1,250,000

Agricultural value                               – 250,000

Easement value                                   1,000,000

Landowner donation                             250,000

County donation                                    250,000

Dept of agriculture donation                 250,000

LeRay McAlister donation                 250,000

Easement Purchase                             1,000,000

The Easement would be held by either Cache County of the Department of Agriculture

Salt Lake Tribune has put together a searchable database tracking Utah Donations to the presidential candidates, with some surprising results.  The Trib’s Dan Harrie writes:

[...] according to the records from the Federal Election Commission, BYU employees donated more to Barack Obama than to John McCain. (And the biggest McCain donation came from Laura Bridgewater, wife of McCain’s chairman here, Tim Bridgewater.)

The same is true with other big universities in the state — Utah, Utah State. Definitely a pro-Obama crowd of donors.

Not too many donations from folks who list the LDS Church (one of the state’s top employers) as their boss. A few hundred dollars from only three people — all going to McCain.

Workers at Hill Air Force Base, another of Utah’s big bosses, favor Obama in their donations. (Maybe that has more to do with the fact McCain’s a Navy guy rather than his politics.)

Utah state government is a mixed bag — with a pretty good mix of donations for McCain and Obama.

Intermountain Health Care employees, though, I couldn’t find a single donation for McCain.

- Jason

Tonight from 4 to 5 on KVNU’s For the People, we will have a debate on the critical lands bond that is on the Nov. 4 ballot. Dave Rayfield of the Critical Lands Task Force and Laraine Swenson of the Logan Municipal Council will argue the PRO side of the issue and Cache GOP Chairman David James and County Executive Lynn Lemon will argue to CON side.

You are welcome to call in with your questions or comments at 752-5141, 753-5868 or 1-800-369-KVNU. You can also vote here to give us an idea how the community is feeling on the issue:

 Loading ...

Don’t tell Bill O’Reilly, who’s built a career as a “Culture Warrior,” but considering that statements from MN Rep. Michele Bachmann and stump comments by Sarah Palin using the “Pro-American/Anti-American” sentimentality – once a sure thing for Republican candidates – are actually driving voters away, it’s possible voters are finally moving past attraction to divisive politics and “Us vs. Them” campaigning.

CQ Politics, Will the “Real America” Please Stand Up?:

To Republican strategists, the big mistake of the “real America” and “anti-America” statements is that they turn the focus away from a contest of ideas and divide the country into good and bad people, a message that inevitably drives a significant chunk of the candidates’ intended audience away from what they have to say.

“When you label somebody as anti-America or you call them liberals, those are tag lines that are more about what’s wrong with them as people than what’s wrong with their policies,” said Kevin Madden, a veteran of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. And because such statements are immediately circulated through e-mail, blogs and YouTube, “the speed with which these things are echoed and magnified is so much greater,” he said.

Trent Duffy, a former White House spokesman under President Bush, noted that candidates from both parties have always talked about the virtues of people who work hard and play by the rules, but suggesting that they all live in one area “pits one part of the country against another.” And when a candidate uses terms like “anti-America,” he said, “you bring up memories of McCarthyism. Those are fighting words.”

Still, it was only six years ago that President Bush provoked an angry outburst by then-Majority Leader Tom Daschle by claiming that the Senate, under Democratic control, was “not interested in the security of the American people.” Republicans didn’t suffer at the polls in the 2002 elections, and, in fact, they regained control of the Senate.

According to the article, analysts from both parties are pinning this on dynamics specific to this election.  Some say such divisive rhetoric simply doesn’t work coming from the perceived underdog.  Others are saying that the Republican brand is tarnished, so instead of seeming credible, the attacks seem petty.

I think it’s more broad than that.  I think we have learned a lesson, and the country at large has re-discovered the importance of the exchange of various ideas, rather than the shut out of ideas through polarizing rhetoric.  We’ve grown up, after a two decade return to political adolescence.

Perhaps I’m being too idealist?

- Jason

According to Politico, the McCain camp has decided on making Sarah Palin the scapegoat in case McCain loses the election.

In recent days, a McCain ‘adviser’ told Dana Bash of CNN: ‘She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone.’

Also, a ‘top McCain adviser’ told Mike Allen of Politico that Palin is ‘a whack job.’

I have to agree with Politico, McCain asked for it. Sarah Palin, despite whatever Rush might say, has become more than just a liability… she is taking her running mate down… I remember when everyone would say, “Man, if McCain didn’t have Palin, what ever would he do?” And now, “Man, maybe McCain could win, but he has Palin.”

Palin torpedoed McCain’s campaign… she will and deserves to be the scapegoat.

- Marc

Thanks to Morris Thurston for sending this along. It’s a statement from several Constitutional law professors at California universities. The full statement, as well as a list of the professors endorsing the statement, can be read by clicking here.

Proposition 8, on the ballot this November, proposes a constitutional amendment that would eliminate the right to marry that same-sex couples in California currently possess. We recognize that people of integrity can differ in their views of the meaning of marriage. But people who want to take the right to marry away from same-sex couples should not rely on misleading claims about the current state of the law or about what Proposition 8 will do. As professors who teach and write about constitutional law, family law, and related subjects, we emphasize the following basic points.

Morris Thurston, you’ll remember from last week, is the Harvard-educated LDS attorney in California who penned a response to the popular “Six Consequences if Prop 8 Fails” memo that has been circulating the Internets. Thurston joined us on For the People last week, and tells us that he’s been chastised by many for his views.

When he sent a copy of this statement to me, he included the following comment:

I may be a heretic, but apparently I’m not an idiot.

Spot on, Mr. Thurston.

-Tyler

Last night, the Obama campaign launched a 30-minute television ad, something which has been described as “unprecedented.” The main focus of the ad to me, is American families coping with the current economic conditions; and it will surely resonate with most Americans, for it really gets to the “heart” of this crisis. Not to mention, the imagery, music, and the stories are truly compelling.

While most are praising the ad, inevitably there are some critics, particularly the McCain campaign. In response to the ad, McCain has lashed out against Obama for the ad’s timing (right before the World Series game), and among other things, Obama’s decision to reject public financing.

While I am not an Obama supporter, I am amazed by his excellent campaigning, especially by communicating on television and the internet. I think that McCain is seriously missing the mark here… the public doesn’t care much for Barack’s waffle over the public financing controversy. Like the Bill Ayers issue, McCain is attacking the wrong point… he should reexamine his own methods of communicating his campaign to voters, even though I fear that it is too late.

Obama’s ads have been compared to those by Reagan decades ago which found a receptive audience in the electorate. Obama has been brilliant so far in connecting to voters in unconventional ways; I am disappointed that McCain hasn’t been able to catch on quite so well.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT_sD5RJdjE[/youtube]

Short notice, but available via webstream and a re-airing on CSPAN.  McClatchy:

The debate, sponsored by the City Club of Cleveland, will be from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. EDT.

Independent Ralph Nader and Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr are confirmed to attend, and Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin also may participate.

An earlier debate, scheduled for Oct. 19 at Columbia University in New York, was canceled after none of the minor party candidates, including Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney, would agree to participate.

There was a last-minute debate between Nader and Baldwin in Washington on Oct. 21, but the inclusion of Barr in Cleveland makes the event noteworthy.

Nader and Barr are on the ballot in 45 states, and the Constitution Party is on 37 state ballots.

C-Span will tape the event, and it can be seen live at www.votenader.org/live.

There also will be a debate by the third-party vice-presidential candidates Sunday in Las Vegas.

Where it’s availbe for unlimited replay via webstream, I’m going to skip the live blog, but for those looking for an alternative to The Big Two, it’s an opportunity to see how they hold up against each other.

- Jason

American foreign policy and international relations are passions of mine, and I believe it to be incredibly important for our next president to have a number of FP objectives to accomplish over the next four years.

Here are ten FP objectives that I would like to see our next president address during his term:

1) Terrorism: I agree with Sec. Robert Gates that terrorism should be a No. 1 priority. Our next president should have a confident understanding of both terrorism and defense issues and be willing to combat terrorism both at home and abroad (domestic terrorism and FTOs); this is not limited to Al Qaeda, but includes groups like Hizballah, JEM, the Shining Path, FARC, etc. This effort should become more international in nature, and not only should the next president engage other world powers in order to combat terrorism, but gov. agencies should be urged to work together, as in the case of the DEA and the FBI working to combat Hizballah.

Like Robert Gallucci of Georgetown University stated about the next president: “If he successfully ended the conflict in Iraq, checked Iran, brokered an Israeli-Palestinian peace, cut carbon emissions, stabilized Pakistan, and artfully managed relations with China and Russia- but lost a million citizens in a nuclear attack, the nation would not be grateful.”

2) Afghanistan: Afghanistan should be a major priority for the next US president. It must be understood that this region is significantly different than Iraq, and should be dealt with cautiously- military superiority is not necessarily a deciding factor, either. Soft-power must be utilized in this part of the world, and Pakistan must be confronted directly in order to protect Afghanistan’s borders and keep corruption and secret support of the Taliban from leaking out of Pakistan. Afghanistan fell off of the radar after the Soviets left, we cannot allow this region to return to the extremism which has come to characterize it.

3) Iraq: Iraq needs to continue to be an important objective for the next president. If troops are to begin coming home at a more rapid rate, the priority should be the stability of the Iraqi government. And soft power needs to become more and more of a tool for the transformation of Iraq. There is still a lot of corruption and dishonesty within the Iraqi government, and the United States should use soft power to instruct Iraqi police forces and at the same time, fight corruption. Peace in Iraq is paramount, for peace will bring economic engagement for the country. Iraq has a great potential to become a major regional player and an ally of the United States. The next president cannot forget about Iraq no matter how ugly the war has been so far.

4) NAFTA and Free Trade: I think that the next president of the United States of American should promote a truly free-market agenda abroad, which means holding onto NAFTA and reforming aspects of the agreement that are protectionist and unfair to the other parties involved. NAFTA has suffered greatly under the presidency of George W. Bush, and Mexico specifically should be reengaged in discussions over reforming NAFTA. The next president should understand the importance of NAFTA to our markets as well as the role it plays in the development of both Mexico and Canada. Yet the president should have enough courage to reevaluate where the USA has played a hypocritical role in NAFTA and other trade policies by recognizing that the US demands open-markets abroad, but at the same time, practices a degree of protectionism which hampers development abroad.

The next president should reaffirm his support of the WTO and work arduously to improve the effectiveness of this international organization in order to facilitate free trade and engage all willing nations. And like NAFTA, the US should be willing to let go of some of its protected industries (textiles), in order to improve diplomatic relations with the lesser developed world and maintain growth in those areas.

The best way to bring peace and prosperity to our own country and to our economic allies is to engage them in free trade policies. Such policies have major benefits for all players and can work to bring other nations out of abject poverty.

5) Reemphasize Old Alliances: Europe has become a pinata for the Bush Administration (ahem, Rumfeld!), and for many Americans, whereas the EU is a major economic ally of the United States, not to mention, we have invested a great deal in NATO. Europe and the United States have a strong cultural identity which facilitates trade and diplomacy. The War in Iraq has isolated some of our old allies in Europe and other locations in the world (Japan, for example). The next president should reengage such allies- this will ultimately improve both trade and security abroad. The next president should imitate the diplomacy of Pres. George H.W. Bush, and take a more multilateral approach to international crises.

4) China: It is important that the next president realize the strength of our economic ties to China. China should not be viewed as a possible enemy or military foe. Instead, China should continue to be a major trading partner to the United States and should continue to be engaged by the rest of the world. China’s environmental standards and human rights abuses can only be influenced by the USA if we continue to meet China on the economic playing field. We cannot allow ourselves to fear China, they need to be engaged.

5) Iran: I agree with Henry Kissinger that Iran needs to be engaged in negotiations. The next president should keep an eye on Iran and take a multilateral approach in checking Iran. Preemptive strikes should be a last resort, and not performed without international support. If Iran attacks Israel, which I doubt, the USA needs to make it clear that such an action cannot be tolerated.

6) Latin America: Latin America has become a sad part of the saga of US foreign policy. The USA has a terrible record in Latin America, and should redeem itself through fair regional trade agreements with this part of the world. As mentioned previously, the US needs to be willing to let some of our industries compete in a free market; protectionism is rarely worth it, anyway (textiles!!). Latin America has a lot to offer the United States, not only economically, but politically as well. Brazil, for example, is an emerging economic powerhouse in the region and can offer the US oil, manufactured goods, textiles, agricultural products, not to mention sugarcane-based ethanol. By lower trade barriers with Brazil, we will improve our diplomatic ties to that country, which could become a major consumer of some American goods. By not engaging Brazil directly, we are losing to the EU and Asian countries. Better relations with Latin America could benefit us tremendously economically, and would prove to benefit us with their cooperation in international issues like the War on Drugs and the War on Terror.

7) The State Department: I think that the next president needs to allow for some cuts in defense spending in order to reenergize the State Department, Peace Corps., and other soft-power agencies/groups. The current budget is truly pathetic indeed, and it shows that the US doesn’t have much of a priority for preventing conflicts, just resolving them with military force. Students should be given incentives for service, and more opportunities should be made available for work in the State Department. American diplomacy has been a real failure in many cases, and the State Department is a tool which is often not utilized enough.

International student programs, study abroad, student ambassadorships, and other such programs should be a top concern for American education and diplomacy. This is a simple way to foster better relations abroad.

Immigration: I think that immigration is an issue which ranks lower on my list because of the way in which I perceive immigration compared to other international issues. It is my hope that the next US president will not cave into the fears coming from much of America concerning immigration and illegal immigration. Immigration should be reexamined and reformed so that a more comprehensive, fair, and effective policy can keep immigrants documented and accounted for, with an easier route to citizenship, while efficiently monitoring our borders; illegals should be dealt with pragmatically, and amnesty shouldn’t be such a dirty word. I hope the next US president can see immigration for what it is: a benefit for our country economically and culturally.

9) The Environment: The next president should be willing to negotiate international environmental standards. Such negotiations are needed not only for the safety and health of Americans and other global citizens, but they foster good relations with other parts of the world, especially our old allies.

10) Russia: The next US president should seek to check Russia through already existent international ties such as NATO. Europe is Russia’s most effective counter, and the US should remain firm and steadfast in the face of possibly Russian aggression. But at the same time, the US should be willing to contribute economic aid to help Russia, despite our antipathy towards her.

- Marc

Food for thought, from Utah blogger A Liberal Mormon:

Recently, my wife received one of those political email chain-letters which are often passed around in LDS circles. This one encouraged everyone to be active in promoting California Proposition 8. It contained a video created by the Family Research Council, talking about the insidious effects of normalizing homosexual marriage. The case was centered on a situation in Massachusetts. As part of diversity education, the video points out that elementary school children were presented stories revolving around married homosexuals or those courting to marry. The parents interviewed were aghast that elementary school children would be exposed to such ideas, and that this forced them to have conversations for which they did not feel the adolescents were prepared. [...]

I don’t think it is necessary nor inevitable for schools to teach about homosexual families. But so what if they do? As I experienced with my niece, children are frequently exposed to ideas which run counter to the moral beliefs of their family. Many LDS familys uphold moral prohibitions on drinking coffee, tea, or alcohol, using tobacco, engaging in commercial or other everyday pursuits on the Sabbath, watching r-rated movies, Monday night activities, clothing styles, tattoos, etc; all of which are presented as acceptable by significant elements within society. At some point, we will be required explain to our children why we choose to believe or act differently than others in society. To expect everything about our communities and our schools to conform to our particular beliefs would be unreasonable. Do we have so little faith in the moral compass of our children?  Despite several teachers in jr. high and high school (not to mention a grandfather) who treated coffee as perfectly acceptable, I’ve never touched the stuff. If I am doing my job as a parent, teaching my children to reason, to make righteous judgments, and to listen to the spirit, it doesn’t matter what the schools teach on important moral issues. And if I am not being an effective parent, no amount of prohibition, indoctrination, or censorship in the schools will keep them pure.

That final sentence is worth contemplating.

- Jason

The ACORN controversy and allegations of voter registration fraud have been played out ad nauseum by the “liberal media” and especially the likes of Rush Limbaugh. You can’t go 20 minutes without hearing how the Democrat-backed ACORN is looking to destroy America.

But let’s face it. Both sides are playing dirty tricks both this election and in every election. Take this flier that’s being distributed in Virginia, for example. Democrats are being told that there’s a special election day for Democrats, and it’s on November 5. Now, only a moron would believe this, but unfortunately, there are a lot of morons out there.

At Drexel University, students were being told that police would travel through polling places using license plate readers to collect on unpaid parking tickets or other violations. This, apparently, meant to scare students away from the polls.

There are other reports of college students being told that if they vote where they go to school and not in their home district, they’ll lose their federal scholarship dollars, student health benefits and even potentially raise their parents’ taxes. All of these things are blatantly false.

Given that young people are overwhelmingly more likely to vote for Obama, and given that the flyer in Virginia targeted Democrats, it’d seem these are either dirty tricks emplolyed by some Republicans to even the field, or someone has waaaaay too much time on their hands. Regardless, both sides are guilty of hijinks, it just so happens that if you only get your news by listening to Rush, you’re not aware that both sides are guilty.

-Tyler

Distinguishing between election year scrambling for talking points and actual policy suggestions can be tough sometimes.  Some clarification from The Guardian UK:

Reading op-ed pages and blogs, or listening to some of the conservative talkers, you would think the fairness doctrine was at the top of the Democratic party platform. But no serious policy advocate in Washington is pushing to restore it. No bill to bring it back is moving through the current Democratic Congress. And Barack Obama has stated unequivocally that he “does not support re-imposing the fairness doctrine on broadcasters”.

But why let reality get in the way of good direct mail pitch?

Some progressives, too, cling to the notion that restoring the fairness doctrine would restrain right-wing talk radio. They should see that the doctrine is just a manufactured controversy that emboldens their opponents.

If you want more balance and variety on the airwaves, the fairness doctrine won’t do it. It’s a poorly designed, constitutionally dubious policy – one that failed to meet its arguably well-intentioned purpose the first time around. The old fairness doctrine was infrequently enforced and easy to avoid. Only a miniscule number of complaints filed were ever taken up by the federal communications commission.

And despite the heated rhetoric in the conservative press, progressives should remember that a new fairness doctrine would cut both ways. For every complaint about some noxious shock jock’s rant, there’s sure to be a coordinated attack on “liberal advocacy journalism”.

The government simply shouldn’t be in the speech-regulating business. Instead of bureaucrats deciding what constitutes balance, we need policies that encourage the expression of diverse points of view. As the US supreme court stated its landmark 1945 antitrust ruling against the Associated Press: “The widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public.”

Not news to anyone who’s been following closely, but just in case, I’m throwing this out.

The Fairness Doctrine was a well intentioned horrible idea, and it should stay as dead as it is.  And despite the rise of mention and reference in the past few months, there is not a serious effort within the Democratic Party, or elsewhere, to revive it.

Which is good news.

- Jason

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122523804578478175.html

This economic meltdown sure has a controversial history, which is constantly debated and reinterpreted by both sides. Nevertheless, Democrats have been especially adamant about laying the blame on the shoulders of “deregulation” and the “free market” (which, no longer is so free, anyway). Therefore, the real culprits for many on the left are the greedy Wall Street CEOs, speculators, the deregulation crowd, Phil Gramm, and capitalism itself. While many of these targets deserve the heat, I haven’t been hearing much of a clamor from the left concerning the role that government played in the crisis. No, in fact Democrats are making themselves out to be the unofficial saviors of the economy, afterall, didn’t Barack Obama write a letter to Chairman of the Federal Reserve urging him to “deal with” the Fannie and Freddie situation and reconsider their traditional financial practices? He sure did, and if we all listened to Barack, we wouldn’t have this problem now, right?! Forget the attempts at reform made by McCain or Bush, Barack Obama was right on with this mortgage mess. <insert overwhelming sarcasm here>

Barack and his Democrats have masterfully twisted this issue and have found a way to lay it all at the feet of Republicans and Bush (sounds a lot like the blame-game over the past eight years, now doesn’t it): by blaming it all on the credit default swaps (CDS), Phil Gramm’s Commodities Future Modernization Act, and other “Republican” deregulation policies. Yet at the same time, while using the housing mess in their little narrative, they undervalue it’s real importance by claiming that Fannie and Freddie really weren’t that big afterall.

Well, most Americans are rather confused by the recent economic downturn, and such arguments may seem plausible, but they aren’t adequate and really ignore a major part of the picture. Fannie and Freddie were just the tip-of-the-iceberg, and they epitomized the problems within the housing market, while they didn’t account for more than a quarter of mortgages in this country, they definately demonstrated the problems within the market and helped to take down a number of other firms/corporations when they fell.

So here it is, Wall Street has been held accountable, but where is the accountability from Congress and our ever-vigilant lawmakers? If Barack and other “distinguished” Democratic senators had seen the writing on the wall so early, why not try to do more than just write a letter? Why foil attempts to reform Fannie and Freddie? Why not at least try something to “regulate” the market? Afterall, you guys had a clear majority in the House and a narrower but effective one in the Senate. Why not do something about your government-approved credit-rating agencies? These questions remain unanswered because Washington is too busy finding ways to implicate Bush, Gramm, and other Republican enemies; it all fits the narrative, afterall.

Well, “Barack Wrote a Letter,” which means that he did all he could do.

- Marc

I need your help!

I have decided to vote Third Party this year, but I have yet to settle on a choice.

Obviously, I won’t be voting for Barack Obama.  Aside from being ridiculously unqualified for the Presidency, Obama is a flaming socialist by American standards.  I fear to what extent the government is going to be getting into our business to “spread the wealth” over the next four years.

I like John McCain- the one that ran in 2000.  Since then, he’s been a bit of a sell-out and a panderer to the religious right.  The deal breaker with McCain is Sarah Palin.  Somehow John McCain managed to pick a running mate that is the only politician in America less qualified for the Presidency than Barack Obama.

Sarah Palin was not picked for her qualifications. John McCain needed to get in on the “historic” nature of the election drummed up by Barack and Hillary.  So he had to pick a woman (or a minority).  McCain also needed to shore up support with the ultra conservative religious right wing of the Republican Party, so he needed a political evangelical Christian.  That’s how we ended up with Sarah Palin.   Her abilities and qualifications were really an afterthought, which is now blowing up in McCains face.

So I am a voter without a candidate.  Neither party has nominated a qualified advocate of limited government.  What I want is a small government 1994 Republican.

I could stay home, but that sends no message.

I know that a lot of you are thinking- “Don’t vote third party! That’s THROWING YOUR VOTE AWAY!”

If I vote for a third party, that’s a vote cast and denied to the Republican Party, which is in apostasy an in need of a return to the principles of 1994.  If I vote for McCain, my vote enables the abuse of power and abandonment of limited government principles.   The Republican Party needs to know they are the means, not the ends.  They are a means to limited government, lower taxes and states rights when they aren’t drunk on their own power.    So as the GOP sobers up, they should know that not even their base should be taken for granted.

So, in short, my vote for a third party is really a vote denied the Republican Party.

But that still leaves the question of who I should vote for?

Suggestions?

(Bob Barr is out-  I don’t like him at all).

-Tom