- Utah’s bridge to nowhere.
- Still no such thing as an “independent” voter.
- Dozens of House reps under investigation.
- The CO2 Club.
- Chaffetz vs… Eager?
- Is Superstition in your DNA?
- Barnes and Noble takes on The Kindle.
- What did the financial crises of 1873, 1907, 1929, 1987, and 2008 all have in common?
- (For Tim and Rich) Here’s why MSNBC isn’t the exact equivalent of Fox News.
- Why are Democrats unhappy with the Democrat controlled Congress (Part One)? (Part Two here)
Tonight we’ll discuss nuclear energy prospects here in Utah, in light of the SL Trib report that a public hearing over designating water rights for just such an endeavor has been announced.
We’ll also be visited by Olympic gold medalist and amateur wrestler Rulon Gardner, who is opening a new fitness training facility in Logan.
Finally, we’ll discuss new technology that allows parents to track their children via GPS. Good idea, or just creepy?
Your calls are welcome.
NEW YORK — Top-level Republican feuding is transforming an obscure congressional election next week into a referendum on the beleaguered party’s direction ahead of the 2012 White House battle.
The November 3 election will fill a vacated congressional seat in upstate New York, but the focus is not so much on the Democratic-Republican rivalry as on fighting between Republicans themselves.
Party chiefs — including potential candidates for the 2012 presidential election — are at loggerheads over whether to support the local Republican candidate or an insurgent backed by the little-known Conservative Party.
The result in New York’s 23rd District is a tight, three-way race pitting Democrat Bill Owens against the official Republican choice, Dede Scozzafava, and the rapidly gaining conservative champion Douglas Hoffman.
This election means nothing to the balance of power in the House, and reveals nothing about the overall direction of 2010, despite what eager uber-conservatives are touting. But it does stand as a perfect example of the internal battle for the “soul” of the GOP taking place.
In one corner, you have Scozzofava, a moderate Republican who opposes Obama’s health care reforms and restrictions on gun ownership, yet supports legal abortion and gay-marriage. She’s been endorsed by Susan Collins and Newt Gingrich, who — many speculate — is gearing up for a presidential run, and state RNC leaders.
In the other corner, you have Hoffman, the “Tea party” candidate, endorsed by other presidential hopefuls Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty, as well as Fred Thompson, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachman, Steve Forbes, Gary Bauer, and Freedomworks’ Dick Armey.
Sarah Palin referred to Hoffman as “the real Republican,” while Gingrich warned: “This idea that we’re going suddenly to establish litmus tests, and all across the country we’re going to purge the party of anybody who doesn’t agree with us 100 percent — that guarantees Obama’s reelection.”
The quotes reminded me of a conversation I took minor part in @ Pursuit of Liberty recently that’s also worth a read.
It’s dangerous to read too much meaning into one single election (especially one so low-key). The results will only concretely reflect the district, not what will or won’t for for Republicans in 2010 and 2012. But I think the Republican in-fight in NY-23 provides a perfect snapshot of the fight over direction and message taking shape within the minority party itself.
The results of the election could send a message to party leadership as to what will or will not bring the GOP out of the woods, and who gains the favor of party leaders or grassroots activists in the lead up to the 2012 presidential race.
UPDATE: Looks like a similar fight is brewin’ in the Texas GOP. Palin vs. Cheney in governor candidate endorsements.
- Energy efficient street lights go high tech.
- Interesting perspective on Barack Obama’s numbers.
- The “other” health care reform, signed into law.
- Utah’s budget problem: Where’s the money going to come from?
- Praise and criticism of Congress’ online town halls.
- Society, not psychology, producing serial killers?
- EFF’s internet censorship “Hall of Fame.”
- Newt Gingrich, the moderate?
- Salt Lake County’s SOCIALIST! garden plan begins.
Tonight Sutherland President Paul Mero will wax conservative on health care reform in the Mero Moment. Is it a privilege or a right? Jon, Tyler, and I will discuss after listening.
I expect to disagree with him vehemently. Or maybe not, he often surprises me.
This and more tonight, 4pm to 6pm.
Your calls are welcome.
Tonight: What’s happened to the art and tradition of Trick or Treating, and how can we save it (and the future of the human race)?
We’ll also discuss the upcoming municipal elections, and what real issues Logan faces (read: something other than park strips and landlord licensing).
Tune in, or log in, tonight from 4 to 6.
Your calls are welcome.
- MacGyver-style cleaning tips.
- Does Utah have a teacher/student intimacy problem?
- Freemasons are just cool.
- Beef industry vs. a California school.
- Toxic gas as a medical solution?
- Mendon City receives stimulus money for “Pathway Project.”
- Moby-Dick, rewritten with emoticons.
- US News: Hatch, Kennedy two of Americas best leaders.
Audio from today’s show.
Stephen F. Hayward, of the American Enterprise Institute, and author of The Age of Reagan, joined us with USU Law and Constitutional Studies Professor Tony Peacock for the full two hours today to discuss the Constitution, and Reagan’s Legacy.
Those who missed it can listen or download here:
I’m not big on government (surprise!), but I can admit that it has its place. To me, it’s a matter of the division of labor – I no more want to harvest all of my own food than I want to manage every aspect of, say, national defense. It seems like the standard opinion, however, is that the government is responsible for granting anyone and everyone (excluding illegal immigrants of course) the perfect happy life. People seem to think that if only there was enough governmental oversight, nobody would ever die or suffer injustice or, heaven forbid, make too much money.
I see the appeal – who wouldn’t wish for everyone to live a perfect life? – but there’s a very big problem with this way of thinking and it’s causing us to set up the causation of our own bleak future. I’m not referring to the unattainability of such a perfect dream; perfection is something to be strived for even if it cannot be truly achieved. I’m not referring to the futility of the expectation that we could somehow grant power only to those who would never abuse it; I’d only draw cries of “it could work if they were all Democrats/Republicans!”. No, I refer to a deeper conflict, one at the very core of the Mother Government way of thinking. I’m referring to the plain and simple truth that none of us would ever be able to agree on what the “perfect life” would be.
For some, it would mean never having to feel discomfort. For some, never having to experience prejudices. For others, it would mean that none of us would ever have to miss another Catholic mass – can I get an amen? All of them idealistic, all of them perfect in their own right, none of them perfect for everyone. So, I would ask the ideologues, which definition do we choose? On this long, hard road to forced perfection, which road map do we follow?
We all know the answer. Invariably, the ideologues reply “which definition do we use? Well… Mine.”
So the dilemma persists. Not that that in itself is bad – far from it. I believe it’s healthy to discuss the nature of the world and to compare notes on how we think it aught to be. Trouble is, you can go your whole life trying to convince people that you’re right and never come close to seeing a change in your world – and that’s totally depressing. Naturally it isn’t long before the ideologues stumble upon the answer: if we can’t get them to do it on their own, we’ll just have to make them do it. If they don’t want to believe in my church, we’ll just turn our tenets into law. If they don’t want to pay for all of us to have health care, we’ll bring the whole weight of the federal government down on them. If they don’t like our way of life, we’ll bomb their nation to cinders.
But these aren’t monsters we’re talking about – these are well-intentioned people, out to do right by the world. After all, it’s perfection we’re after, so how far is too far? Those poor deluded saps that don’t see the vision now will be thanking us when all is said and done; from their cell, their cage, their grave. All we need is enough control, at whatever the cost, and all will be right with the world.
That future is bleak. There’s no hope there, no change for the better, only conflict upon conflict upon conflict. But I’m not all sour grapes – I offer an alternative: what if we could create a place where people were safe to interact with each other as they chose, free to do as they pleased so long as they caused no definite harm to anyone else, and free from the danger that those ideologues who did not agree with them might someday leverage the power of law against them. There’s no sacrifice to be made – those who wanted to live a certain lifestyle could do it unimpeded. Those who wanted universal health care could band together and have it. Those who didn’t could be free to pay for themselves and, if they wanted, no one else. Those who preferred a certain cultural method could freely congregate and preach their message, but they could never assume authority over those of us who might disagree.
My point is, give up your need to force the people around you to live their lives how you want them to and just start being empathetic. Try to remember that, no matter how much they may disagree, other people are your equals and not your inferiors. If your perfection is really perfection, it’s worth convincing people to join you. If you can’t, no big deal.
Tonight we’ll be joined by two special guests, author Steven F. Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute (think Sutherland Institute’s “big brother”) and Constitutional Law Professor Tony Peacock.
Both are in town for a lecture today at USU, and will be stopping by the studio at 4pm to continue the discussion.
More details from CVDaily.com:
Best-selling author Steven Hayward said Ronald Reagan realized the national issues he was forced to deal with during his presidency were impossible to defeat alone.
Hayward will address students Thursday, Oct. 22, at noon in the TSC Auditorium as one of three speakers in the political science department’s project on “Liberty and American Constitutionalism” directed by public law professor Anthony Peacock.
The project has been designed to “explore the meaning of liberty in the American constitutional system, with specific emphasis on the Founders’ commitment to limited and responsible government that promotes individual liberty, free markets and a strong national defense,” according to its description found at www.liberty.usu.edu.
Hayward’s book, “The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counterrevolution: 1980-1989,” was published in August and is the second novel written by Hayward on Reagan’s presidency. He has also written books covering the lives and attributes of Winston Churchill and Jimmy Carter. Hayward has also had multiple articles published in The Wall Street Journal.
Tune in, or log in, tonight from 4 to 6.
Your calls are welcome.
Indecision Blog headline:
(link):
If they added in a question about whether or not Barack Obama breathes oxygen like the rest of humanity, I wonder what percentage of Republicans would answer that he probably didn’t.
I know one thing. It wouldn’t be zero.
Made me laugh. The GOP’s anti-Obama campaign has gone from party opposition to “making the people at Comedy Central and The Onion’s jobs very easy” in just 10 months. And Barack Obama (how dare he!) is calling Fox News what it is: faux news. People like to complain about this type of stuff, while sounding the warning cries of partisanship, and the warm fuzzies of bipartisanship.
Bull.
Everyone loves a good partisan kerfuffle. The more partisan, the better. We just don’t like it when our team is losing, and we have a tendency to be whiny about that.
Complaints about partisanship more often come from the underdogs, or the most recently trampled in the most recent election. Extreme partisanship is how minority parties rally the troops, and begin to rebuild (cough cough Utah Democrats!). No one lets go of partisanship until the general election is in full swing, and even then it’s just for show.
I don’t judge the GOP for the attacks. I think it’s hypocritical to do so. (I do judge them for not being better fact checkers though… how long do you want this minority party thing to go on?) Partisanship is part of the process, as long as we have parties to choose from.
The greatest moments of progress in our country’s history were the direct result of some of the most heated partisan battles.
Just a reminder.
From CacheValleyDaily.com:
A Meet the Candidate Night for municipal candidates in Hyde Park will be held on Thursday, October 22nd. The forum will start at 7 p.m. at the Hyde Park City Office and all residents are invited to attend.A nominating convention on September 13 narrowed the field of candidates. Candidates for mayor are Tom Price and Bryan Cox. Municipal council candidates are Marvin Biggs, Mark Hurd, Carol Johnson and Sam Balls
.
Today we’ll speak with ASUSU’s Spencer Lee on Civic Awareness Week, which begins next week at USU.
In hour two, we’ll continue the FTP/CVDaily.com candidate series with Logan mayoral candidate Mike Morrill, who will be taking your calls. A little from Morrill, in his own words:
One example of a decision made by city leaders with which I strongly disagree, is the attempt to solve our community park strip issues with a blanket law that ignores prior use parking and access rights. I fundamentally disagree with the current approach and will fight to remedy this with an appropriate grandfather clause protecting property owners.
All the cool kids, still doin’ it.
Tim Carter, in the comments, reminded me of this:
Hey Jason! Net neutrality vote tomorrow. You've got to post the pros on cons of this issue, and how they affect internet users. http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/should-the-government-regulate-net-neutrality Don't let Beck turd polish this one. A lot of disinformation out there, as always. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091020184214AAPaXAw http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/09/net-neutrality-announcement/ Gotta keep Comcast and other ISPs from running the show: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/01/fcc-to-investigate-comcast-bittorrent-blocking.ars And Verizon Wireless: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/16/AR2008011600995.html
Good info from Tim. And one link I would ad: comments in a letter to the FCC from Vint Cert, one of the original architects of what we know as “the internet” today, via Google’s Public Policy blog.
The issue is nondiscrimination against applications and against consumer choice. That should be clear by the letter from my colleagues, and by others, that the fundamental concern is that the provider of broadband service not be able to take advantage of that to act in an anticompetitive fashion against others that are trying to provide competitive applications using the same broadband facilities.
Savetheinternet.com has more. And The Seattle Times has a great explanation of tomorrow’s vote: It’s about future proofing the internet. Also, two great videos I found a while ago that explain the reasons for supporting a neutral net very simply (and with humor).
Via The Senate Site.
Sen. Hillyard after the Executive Appropriations meeting yesterday, on the current state budget situation.
- Sarah Palin wants a job. Any job. C’mon, just somebody hire her!
- Slate’s Political Gabfest. Subscribe.
- Which political organizations are the tech-savviest?
- Iran nuke threat, over-hyped.
- Utah’s Ponzi King: Rick Koerber profile @ The Trib.
- GOP fundraising still trails, but seeing gains.
- Build your own wood-fired pizza oven, cheap.
- Can Web Surfing Make You Smarter? (h/t @elforesto)
- Crazy. Secret Service working OT on death threats.
Today we’ll hear the latest Mero Moment from Sutherland President Paul Mero, and speak to UT Democratic candidate for US Senate Sam Granato, who recently had some stern words for Bob Bennett and the census “citizenship check” bill he sponsored. Sam will be taking your calls in the 5 o’clock hour.
All the cool kids are doin’ it.
Utah County Democrats: Why We Need an Ethics Initiative, case in point.
During the early summer of 2007, the Utah County Republican Party was in need of a float for the parade season coming up. Senators John Valentine and Curt Bramble asked Mountainlands Applied Technology School administrators if the school could build a float for the Republicans. This conversation took place in the middle of a meeting discussing the school’s funding. That funding is determined by the state legislature and, at that time, Valentine and Bramble served, respectively, as Senate president and majority leader.
Not surprisingly, the president of the school, Robert Brems, recruited the school’s instructors to work full time on building a float for the Republican party. After it was finished, Representative Becky Lockhart picked up the float.
When word of this breach of legislative ethics and improper use of taxpayer resources leaked out, the chair of the board of trustees for the school quickly paid for the float out of his own funds. An internal investigation by the Utah Board of Regents found that Brems had acted improperly. He resigned under pressure in the wake of the float controversy and other improprieties. Even though three state legislators were involved in the improper use of state funds, including two of whom actually initiated the request, only the school’s president was punished.
I know, it’s a parade float, so who cares, right? But this, to me, is the most important example of the challenges to ethical behavior in the Utah legislature. An internal investigation was conducted by the Utah Board of Regents. From the legislature? Huh? What impropriety?! Hey look over there! A liberal!
It’s an unsexy issue without far reaching or very damaging consequences, but it was inappropriate and “only the school’s president was punished.” At several public meetings and in person I’ve heard state legislators out campaigning against the UEG initiative saying (basically): “We don’t need an ethics commission… if we’re unethical, vote us out!”
Quaint. And a valuable argument, to a point. But it also greatly oversimplifies the situation. Using this example provided by Utah County Democrats, I still ask the legislators in opposition to an independent commission, what if voters never find out? What if the legislature actively ensures that voters never find out?
The legislature’s response to the example provided (i.e. nothing) proves that voters often don’t. So the “just vote us out” becomes almost an insult to voters, not a defense of maintaining a status quo.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I[/youtube]
In this 2007 20/20 special, John Stossel explores the far-reaching and diverse problems with our and other medical systems from insurance to long lines. The full video comes in six 7-10 minute segments, but it’s definitely worth the time.
The best part is in the final segment where Stossel explores the reasonable, just, and genuinely viable free-market solutions that will utimately be the only way to ensure Americans the best possible treatment.
Today in the 5 o’clock hour we’ll kick off our Logan mayor and municipal council candidate interview series with candidate and incumbent Logan City Mayor Randy Watts. Tune in, or log in.
We don’t have profile answers for Watts from the CVD Candidate Profile series, but some previous audio of Watts on Crosstalk can be found here.
In hour two, we’ll speak with frequent FTP reader/commenter Tom Miller, who will make his case for what he believes is an agenda against men from domestic violence groups in Utah.
The Podcast
.
