Some of you may be familiar with the New York comedy troupe, The Whitest Kids U’ Know.

Well, they’re at it again with a recent video satirizing political candidates and their bogus campaign ads. Basically, “Clint Webb for Senate,” is the best mockery of American politics since the Jib-Jab’s “This Land,” video from 2004.

Remind you of any Utah politicians? I can think of a few that fit the bill.

WATCH THE VIDEO HERE.

Read the original article at My Daily Roast.

Being a state delegate for Utah’s Republican convention is more exciting now than ever before. In fact, the political climate was entirely different only a few years ago.

In 2008, Vanessa and I were selected to be delegates to the convention from our tiny precinct in Logan. Back then, our precinct was only able to produce three people at the local caucus: Vanessa (my wife), Tom Grover, and me. Before the caucus, I remember listening to Tom Grover on “For the People” (a program I followed while doing deliveries for a local pharmacy), chastising college students for their lack of involvement in local/state politics. To be honest, I hadn’t planned on attending the caucus. Despite my interest in politics, I’d never really taken much interest in local affairs. After listening to an impassioned monologue from Tom Grover, however, I immediately decided that instead of heading home after work, I would quickly pick-up my wife and we would both go to the local caucus at Mt. Logan Middle School. When we arrived at our precinct’s meeting place, I was pleasantly surprised to find that Tom Grover was a member of my precinct. As it turned out, the three of us were the only residents of our precinct to show up, and as a result, Vanessa and I were automatically drafted to be delegates.

That year, I don’t remember ever being contacted by my neighbors, polling agencies, or even the candidates themselves. Aside from the actual conventions, there wasn’t much local attention devoted to the local/state elections. I remember wishing lived in a “battle-ground state,” or at least a place where elections were a little more competitive. In such a place I would most certainly have the opportunity to participate in polls and experience the ferocity of a close political campaign. Notwithstanding, I was a resident of a homogeneous community and a member of the dominate political party; no such luck.

This year is another story. Almost immediately after becoming a delegate, I was inundated by phone calls from political campaigns, polling agencies, and even some members of my local precinct. Each and everyday, I have some group asking me which candidate I will support at the state convention. My mailbox is always full of campaign ads, brochures, and political foldouts, all soliciting my support for various Senate candidates. And on the radio, in newspapers, and across the blogosphere, I have found myself in the center of a heated discussion of local politics. Finally, in the most appropriate culmination of my political experience, I was just recently pushed-polled by Club For Growth.

For anyone who is confused, the NCPP explains what a “push-poll” is:

A “Push Poll” is a telemarketing technique in which telephone calls are used to canvass vast numbers of potential voters, feeding them false and damaging “information” about a candidate under the guise of taking a poll to see how this “information” effects voter preferences. In fact, the intent is to “push” the voters away from one candidate and toward the opposing candidate. This is clearly political telemarketing, using innuendo and, in many cases, clearly false information to influence voters; there is no intent to conduct research.

As mentioned earlier, I have been contacted by polling agencies more than I can count, and so when I was called by Club for Growth, I assumed it was just another state delegate poll. But immediately after asking me the standard question about who I plan on voting for, I was asked whether or not I was familiar with Senator Bennett’s voting record. I said I was, and without a moment’s pause, the voice on the other line preceded to educate me about Senator Bennett’s support of TARP, Obamacare, and other controversial policies. And Bennett’s platform was compared to President Obama’s. After the brief lesson about Senator Bennett, I was asked if I would support the Senator after learning about his “unconstitutional” policies. Despite my own reservations about the Senator, I said I probably would (mainly because I didn’t want to provide any honest responses to Club for Growth). The call ended, and I triumphantly declared to my wife, “Honey, I have been push-polled!”

While I am certain that some of Senator Bennett’s opponent’s wouldn’t condone the push poll, they are sure to benefit from it. This is a classic, dirty political trick which is utilized all-too-often in this country. The sad thing is, if it didn’t work, push-polling wouldn’t exist; “dirty” political tricks are effective.

Despite the possible effectiveness of the push poll, however, I finished the phone call with a bad taste in my mouth for Club for Growth. It’s no secret that this organization has been laboring diligently to oust Senator Bennett. To be honest, I do sympathize with many of their “complaints” against the Senator. Notwithstanding, no matter how much I may agree with an organization, such behavior immediately turns me off.

In a way, that phone call made me think of the current debate over Senator Bennett’s future. While Bennett has made some decision which have frustrated me as a voter, he does represent a calm, professional, experienced politician with an admirable self-composure. On the other hand, some of his opponents and detractors have demonstrated a lack of poise which reveals their amateurism and shallowness. Therefore, when it comes time for me to choose between Senator Bennett and an opponent, I’ll not only be influenced by the candidate’s platform, but also by their character and composure.

I don’t feel that I am alone in this, either.

READ MORE AT MYDAILYROAST.COM

I was excited to hear that FTP would be discussing Obama’s decision to approve a troop increase to Afghanistan. Counterinsurgency happens to be my area of study, and this pivotal moment greatly interested me.  Therefore, I’d like to share a few thoughts and hear some feedback.

First, I think we should recognize a few realities. This decision had to be a very difficult one for the President to make, and will most certainly define his presidency. Committing troops to Afghanistan symbolizes a presidential sanction of our efforts in that region. And as much as I hate agreeing with Michael Moore, sending more troops will make Obama the “new war president,” meaning, he will own this war. Honestly, I believe that the President painted himself into a corner. On the campaign trail, Obama made sure to draw a moral distinction between the invasion of Iraq and the invasion of Afghanistan. President Obama joined many by declaring Afghanistan to be the “good war,” opposed to the country’s misguided efforts in Iraq. Nevertheless, while public opinion is entitled to shift without any real accountability demanded, politicians are held to their words. Obama approved of the war in Afghanistan on the campaign trail, and naturally, as the President of the United States of America, Obama was compelled to reaffirm that approval despite the rapid deterioration of support from his most ardent constituents.

With this in mind, we should ask ourselves if the President’s commitment to the war in Afghanistan is truly sincere. And with no disrespect to the Commander-in-Chief, I am forced to determine that the answer is ‘no.’ Along with the 30,000 troop increase comes a measure to begin scaling back our forces after 18 months. To anyone with a shred of understanding, such a timetable seems incredibly narrow, especially when considering the objectives which we are attempting to accomplish there.

And that leads me to acknowledge some grim realities about our involvement in Afghanistan. What exactly do we hope to achieve? We are trying to prove the exception to a long tradition of failures. It is also important to remember that we are finding ourselves more isolated in Afghanistan, as support from our NATO allies is at an all-time low. Despite the previous president’s past condemnation of nation-building, nation-building is exactly what we have chained ourselves to in Afghanistan. By attempting to instill the rule-of-law to a traditionally lawless country, by promoting democratic values and establishing liberal institutions, and through our unyielding support of a centralized government, we are in fact nation-building. And while the President claims to have only one objective in Afghanistan: disrupting and dismantling Al Qaeda, nation-building is going to continue, regardless. As much as we would like to see ourselves respecting the local culture and ethnic identities of Afghans, we are deliberately seeking to inject a new culture into Afghanistan, and construct a new narrative for Afghans to refer to, one in which the United States is central.

As Stephen Tanner points out in his fabulous military history of Afghanistan (Afghanistan: A Military History from Alexander the Great to the War Against the Taliban):

In the end, battles for Afghanistan are not about politics or economics, but about culture.

We need to determine what our priorities in the region are, and furthermore, decide to either commit to or refrain from an active counterinsurgency effort. Sure enough, we have a reason to be in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda still has a presence in the AfPak region, and continues to operate through insurgent groups such as the Taliban. Not to mention, the idea of a neighboring failed state (Pakistan) with caches of nuclear weapons should remain a serious concern for the United States as well as the rest of the free world. Nevertheless, we need to either decisively secure the countryside gradually through engagement of local mullahs and tribal leaders, conduct special operations against terrorist threats, and mount a well-organized counterinsurgency effort to fend off the Taliban- a decision which will most certainly keep us in the region for decades to come- or we should more or less, abandon Afghanistan and rely upon our counter-terrorist capabilities to check Al Qaeda the best we can. From my vantage point, there really isn’t much of an “in-between.”

President Obama’s meager commitment of 30,000 troops with an 18 month timetable doesn’t mean much without a clearly defined plan of action and a reassessment of our objectives. After all, Obama has revealed that most of the 30,000 troops will secure “key population centers,” which really doesn’t make much sense at all. More than twenty years ago, the Soviets felt that they had succeeded in Afghanistan by controlling larger cities and roads. Yet much to their chagrin, the real threat came not from the cities (which have always been easily conquered), but from the volatile countryside, where currently, the Taliban has great influence. While I have faith that the President and his generals can achieve success in the region, I have my doubts that the current initiative will yield the kind of results we are all hoping for. From a counterinsurgency perspective, a troop increase doesn’t necessarily lead to overall success. A truly successful effort will require a lot of time, plenty of local engagement, and “soft-power” strength.

Bottom-line: We need to either decide to stay and mount a substantive counterinsurgency effort, replete with more troops, government reforms, and lots of “soft-power,” or we need to simply abandon the region entirely and resort to counter-terrorism efforts. Either way, I have a feeling that President Obama has a tiger by the tail, and unless he can truly commit himself to a distinct direction in Afghanistan, he will suffer greatly because of it.

- Marc Neilsen

I know it’s been a long time since I last posted on the FTP blog. Yet after reading this article in Daily Telegraph, I couldn’t resist returning to the blog to make a contribution.

I don’t think I’m alone in suspecting that the Climate Change movement is more like a religious revival than an advance of scientific understanding. Indeed, it seems that in today’s polarized political atmosphere, merely being skeptical of the apocalyptic conclusions of the Global Warming prophets welcomes a kind of ostracism that can only be motivated by dogma. By expressing any doubt, no matter how thought-provoking, automatically brands the skeptic as a violator of reason- an apostate to “pure science!”

Well, maybe it’s not that dramatic. Nevertheless, the Climate Change movement often gets a little hysterical, especially when politics are infused into the debate… and the product often resembles a kind of radicalism more often associated with religious extremism.

So is Climate Change some kind of religion? No matter how absurd the question may seem, it appears that it is formally being recognized in this way.

From the Daily Telegraph:

In a landmark ruling, Mr Justice Michael Burton said that “a belief in man-made climate change … is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations”.

The ruling could open the door for employees to sue their companies for failing to account for their green lifestyles, such as providing recycling facilities or offering low-carbon travel.

The decision regards Tim Nicholson, former head of sustainability at property firm Grainger plc, who claims he was made redundant in July 2008 due to his “philosophical belief about climate change and the environment”.

In March, employment judge David Heath gave Mr Nicholson permission to take the firm to tribunal over his treatment.

But Grainger challenged the ruling on the grounds that green views were political and based on science, as opposed to religious or philosophical in nature.

John Bowers QC, representing Grainger, had argued that adherence to climate change theory was “a scientific view rather than a philosophical one”, because “philosophy deals with matters that are not capable of scientific proof.”

That argument has now been dismissed by Mr Justice Burton, who last year ruled that the environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore was political and partisan.

The decision allows the tribunal to go ahead, but more importantly sets a precedent for how environmental beliefs are regarded in English law.

Mr Nicholson, 42, from Oxford, told a previous hearing that his views were so strong that he refused to travel by air and had renovated his house to be environmentally-friendly.

But his beliefs led to frequent clashes with Grainger’s other managers, while he said that Rupert Dickinson, the firm’s chief executive, treated his concerns with “contempt”.

Once Mr Dickinson flew a member of staff to Ireland to deliver his Blackberry mobile phone after leaving it in London, Mr Nicholson claimed.

Mr Nicholson hailed the Employment Appeals Tribunal ruling as “a victory for common sense” but stressed climate change was “not a new religion”.

He said: “I believe man-made climate change is the most important issue of our time and nothing should stand in the way of diverting this catastrophe.

“This philosophical belief that is based on scientific evidence has now been given the same protection in law as faith-based religious belief.

“Belief in man-made climate change is not a new religion, it is a philosophical belief that reflects my moral and ethical values and is underlined by the overwhelming scientific evidence.”

His lawyer Shah Qureshi, head of employment law at Bindmans LLP, argued that if the ruling had gone against them, “the end result would be that the more evidence there is to support your views, the less likely it would be for you to enjoy protection against discrimination”.

Grainger now plans to contest Mr Nicholson’s claim of unfair dismissal at tribunal.

Dave Butler, its corporate affairs director, said: “This decision merely confirms that views on the importance of environmental protection are capable of amounting to a philosophical belief.

“We are looking forward to addressing the issues at tribunal level and demonstrating that there was no causal link between Mr Nicholson’s beliefs and his redundancy.”

The grounds for Mr Nicholson’s case stem from changes to employment law made by Baroness Scotland, the Attorney General, in the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003.

The regulations effectively broaden the protection to cover not just religious beliefs or those “similar” to religious beliefs, but philosophical beliefs as well.

Hmmm. What do you think?

- Marc

Sen. Bennett, who is the Ranking Member on the Senate Rules Committee, is proposing a bill which would reform the US Census by focusing on citizenship.

From CacheValleyDaily.com:

Senator Bob Bennett, R-UT, last week introduced a bill that adds an additional question to the Census which would ask if the individual is a citizen or lawful resident of the United States.

Sen. Bennett says he is proud of the Census Department and its efforts to produce what hopefully will be an accurate census, but he says the reality is that the current system is broken and unfair. He says it does not make sense for congressional seats and the Electoral College to be determined by a process that unfairly provides the advantage to those communities with high illegal populations.

Sen. Bennett says by requiring individuals to confirm their citizenship his bill would allow the Census to report the population of lawful residents rather than including illegal residents to determine representation.

Bennett’s bill is called the “Fairness in Representation Act,” and is being co-sponsored by a handful of other Senate Republicans.

What do you think? Is it reasonable to assume that this will make a substantial difference? Is this reform necessary?

- Marc

While the site’s good looks and overall effectiveness may seem “old hat” to most of us Utahns, Oh My Gov! can’t stop praising the State’s website. The way they describe Utah.gov? It sizzles!

From Oh My Gov!:

In June, the State of Utah launched a refurbished version of its award-winning website at Utah.gov and so far it looks like a huge success. The state began developing ideas for the new portal in 2007, and under the direction of Chief Information Officer Steven Fletcher, finally brought it to life this summer. OhMyGov! took a look at the new site to see how it stacks up against other government websites.

The first thing that you notice when you pull up Utah.gov is that it is visually brilliant. Using Flash graphics the site displays a range of gorgeous photographs of the state along with an array of familiar navigational icons. We agree with Paul Taylor of govtechblogs.com who said the “graphics grab your attention on first visit, coupled with a carousel of icons (with a distinctive Mac-like look and feel) that add a dynamic feel to navigation.”

You won’t find those kind of attention grabbing visuals on most federal agency websites. Despite all of the improvements being made they seem stuck in a bureaucratic format meant to inform but never delight. Utah.gov demonstrates that it is possible to do both.

Among its best features is the easy window into all that the site has to offer. By presenting enticing icons that scream “click me”, as well as a list of recent popular searches, it transforms the idea of visiting a government website from a chore to something fun. As a test of the site’s user friendliness from an outsider’s perspective, I set out to see what kind of travel information was available. A click on the airplane icon (naturally) took me to Utah.travel where a full suite of travel planning resources were artfully presented.

Just because something is attractive and user-friendly doesn’t mean it is smart – just look at … well, we don’t need to name names. Utah.gov is absolutely stuffed full of data that is easily accessible. They have created a data portal on the site that allows you to access information ranging from the number of gall bladders removed to the average wage in Utah.

The website also has some cool features like the award-winning Utah Public Meeting Notice. If you click on this icon you will be sent to a page where you can search for local public meetings, sign up for notification of meetings, or, for true public meeting diehards, a huge list of them from all over the state to choose from. Federal agencies could use this kind of application on their sites to notify citizens of federal events in order to encourage participation.

Utah.gov has also utilized the all important popular social media tools. You can sign up for e-mail or Twitter updates on everything from new data being released to a public meeting notification and that just scratches the surface. They also have an iPhone app, widgets, blogs, and they are Flickring, Facebooking, and YouTubeing. The site won the 2009 Best of the Web award for state portal from the Center for Digital Government.

Reinventing Utah.gov was a success because the state brought leading minds to the table and embraced the Web 2.0 tools that are familiar to its citizens. Developers said they took inspiration from the ideas of Tim O’Reilly, impresario of the Web 2.0 and Gov 2.0 conferences, and partnered with Google on ways to increase access to government data.

Kudos to Utah.gov for its effectiveness and appeal. Government transparency has never looked so good!

- Marc

Senator Bennett is worth $45 million dollars!

From the Deseret News:

Call it the $45 million question, the question of what exactly is the net worth of Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah.

Personal financial-disclosure forms that he filed with the Senate — after earlier requesting an automatic 90-day extension — show it is between a minus $24.2 million and a positive $20.9 million, a laughably large range of $45 million.

“It is nowhere near either of those extremes, I can assure you,” Bennett told the Deseret News.

“But frankly, I’m almost as much at sea as you are (about the real net worth), because there are real estate assets in there that, at today’s market, who knows what the real estate assets are worth,” he said. So he declined to try to narrow the range beyond what was required on forms.

Members of Congress report their assets, income and liabilities by checking boxes on categories that have wide ranges of values. Their precise net worth is not revealed, and instead, only a broad range is given.

- Marc

I came across a really interesting op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this morning about government investment in Michigan and how it has failed to generate job growth. As we all know, Michigan is a state which has been facing serious economic decline for years now and has the highest unemployment rate in the United States.

From the Wall Street Journal:

A central belief in Washington and most state capitals nowadays is that government should “invest” in certain businesses—”clean tech,” say, or manufacturing—to drive job creation. We hope it all turns out better than it has in Michigan.

For the past 14 years, Lansing politicians have offered $3.3 billion in tax credits through the Michigan Economic Development Corporation and spent another $1.6 billion in outlays to create and retain jobs. The subsidies have ranged from tax breaks for Hollywood, to money for new industrial plants, to millions for TV ads starring Jeff Daniels and Tim Allen talking about business and tourism in the state.

It’s one of the largest experiments in smokestack chasing in American history, but one thing it hasn’t done is create jobs. An exhaustive new 100-page study by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a Michigan think tank, has reviewed where all the money has gone and what came of it. The study finds that for every 100 jobs that were promised with these tax credits over 14 years, only 29 arrived. Dare we call this cash for clunkers?

Economist Michael Hicks, a business school professor at Ball State, calculated the rate of return on the corporate tax credits. He found that for every $1 million in tax credits awarded, there were 95 lost manufacturing jobs in the counties where the companies were located—a result that is “strongly statistically significant.” There was no gain in personal income in these counties. Perhaps more jobs would have been lost without the credits, but what is undeniably clear is that the businesses that got the government loot were not magnets for other employers.

The statistics intrigued me, and so I decided to look further into the Mackinac Center’s findings. It appears that the “study” mentioned in the article was an analysis of the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) and to an extent, the Michigan Economic Growth Authority (MEGA), and how they have failed to encourage job creation through their economic programs.

Here are a couple of gems from the review…

“Are [politicians] really trying to attract new business development or are they engaging in maneuvers designed to please current state business interests and voters? The need for such questioning becomes even more acute when we find that, while these policies are often introduced to the chorus line of ‘jobs, jobs, jobs,’ there is little evidence to show that these direct financial incentives actually have any impact on state employment levels.”

[Michael Mintrom & Lucinda Ramsey, MSU]

Mackinac then reports a few statistics indicative of the overall failure of MEDC…

Michigan was ranked 16th among the 50 states in per-capita state GDP in 1999, the year the MEDC was formed. The state has since tumbled to 41st.

From 1999 through 2008, Michigan was the only state in the union with a negative state GDP growth rate.

Michigan’s per-capita personal income ranking has tumbled from 16th to 34th since 1999 and is now 11.2 percent below the national average, the lowest point it has reached since the start of the Great Depression, when such record-keeping began.

If government spending is the solution to a state or nation’s economic woes, then why isn’t Michigan finding relief?

Michigan is a model for the future, and should serve as a warning to not only other states, but the federal government. For one, Michigan’s example is time-tested. The state has been working to spend itself out of an economic recession for more than a decade and has tried just about everything to combat rising unemployment. Second, in Michigan politics most often block true economic growth; Michigan’s progressive politics circumvent the economic policies of MEDC, for example.
Instead of looking at central planning in grandiose terms, all of us should be willing to dissect the economic realities in specific locations. While government spending can directly effect economic growth, there are countless factors which can hedge the way to growth, and much of the “growth” achieved is illusionary. As Hayek states, such policies force a country to continue trying for growth through “artificial means,” meaning that the growth is not reliable long-term.

Perhaps the United States itself should learn from Michigan.

- Marc

Despite the overwhelming attention given to healthcare right now, there is another issue which is gaining notoriety, particularly on the web.

From CNET News:

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They’re not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

“I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness,” said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. “It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill.”

Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller’s aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.

In an earlier post I discussed the potential hazards of cybersecurity threats from abroad, namely from North Korea, China, and Russia. According to proponents of this bill, it is the responsibility of the government to insure the stability of the web in a time of crisis.

Yet as we have learned over the years, the government is incredibly incompetent in responding to cybersecurity threats; in fact, the DHS recently scored an ‘F’ in an “annual computer security report card.” What makes members of Congress suppose that the government can adequately regulate and secure the web in a time of crisis when it continuously proves to be incapable of doing so normally?

Michael Masnick, founder of Techdirt, sums up this criticism in a recent blog post:

But the bigger issue is why the government should be taking control over private networks. This is the same gov’t that doesn’t let people in the State Department use Firefox and which thinks that RealPlayer is the state of the art in online video streaming. Even if there were a “cybersecurity emergency,” I would think the last people I’d want to take charge would be the federal government.

Aside from the federal government’s overall ineptitude, the most important question concerns the President’s “emergency powers.” Presidential prerogative has always been a controversial issue, and this debate is no exception. When dealing with limits of power, it is best to be clear and concise in explaining the boundaries. Yet S 773 fails to provide the information clearly. Instead, it remains incredibly vague and subject to a great deal of interpretation. This makes “emergency powers” of the President that much more alarming.

From Bruce Henderson at CBS:

S773 makes no attempt to outline and describe what form of emergency would trigger the use of these broad new powers to limit communication, nor any means by which it could be reviewed by anyone outside the executive branch. The bill also proscribes that the executive branch will perform periodic mapping” of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies “shall share” requested information with the federal government.

Translation: the U.S. government bureaucracy will be spending your tax dollars to figure out private networks, find choke points and places where they can control the flow of communication. Furthermore, companies (such as your ISP) are going to be required, by law, to supply the federal bureaucrats with whatever network, account, usage and history information they deem appropriate. All in the name of cyber safety, you see.

There are plenty of other controversial parts of this bill which should be discussed, particularly the government certification of “security professionals,” which greatly restricts the private sector and adds a whole new level of bureaucracy to the equation.

It’s strange to see the federal government attempt to reign in an already successful private sector in an arena where the government has repeatedly failed in the past. The internet is a “place” where few real regulations exist (compared to the “real world”) and has proven time and time again, to be able to effectively regulate itself through principles of liberalism (the classical kind).

Bottom Line: First, it is unwise for the feds to attempt to over-regulate the private sector in this way, mainly because it will only prove to be costly and ineffective. Second, this bill gives too much power to the President; power which isn’t clearly defined and would be easily abused.

- Marc

READ ENTIRE BILL HERE

Ambassador Huntsman is making some headlines as he travels to China.
From USA Today:

The new U.S. ambassador to China slipped in a pitch for Chicago to host the 2016 Summer Olympics while presenting his credentials to the Chinese president on Friday.

Jon Huntsman presented President Hu Jintao with a commemorative book on Chicago, “in support of the city’s bid to host the 2016 Olympic Games,” the U.S. Embassy in Beijing said in a statement.

China’s support could be crucial because Beijing hosted the Olympics last year and commands considerable influence within the International Olympic Committee, which meets on Oct. 2 in Copenhagen to select the 2016 host.

Chicago is a strong contender to bring the Summer Games back to the United States for the first time since the 1996 Atlanta Olympics.

However, Rio de Janeiro also has appeal as it seeks to bring the Olympics to South America for the first time, and is considered the main threat to Chicago. Tokyo and Madrid are also bidding to host the games.

- Marc

Recently Mexico relaxed a series of drug laws in hopes of easing the tension between the drug cartels and the government. Well, that move made a significant impact on the remainder of Latin America, and it appears that Argentina is following Mexico’s example with countries such as Brazil and Ecuador considering similar legislation.

From the Buenos Aires Herald:

In an eight-page writ unveiled today, the Supreme Court said it is unconstitutional to punish marijuana consumers, if that action does not harm third parties. The decision would put an end to a long-term debate, in which users had claimed that the incumbent drug law violated privacy rights.

However, the ruling of the Court would not mean a complete decriminalization of marijuana consumption as liberalizationists had expected, as the statement reached by an unanimous vote, specifies that only adults would be allowed to use marijuana as long as they do it in a private environment, and without affecting third parties.

The ruling also urged “all the state powers to implement a policies against the drug illegal trafficking and to adopt preventive health measures.” Congress is thus expected to introduce amendments to current drug laws, following the new guidelines set by the Court.

The government has backed  the initiative to decriminalize drug consumers, as it would allow the government to focus its policies on drug trafficking networks instead of users. Cabinet Chief Aníbal Fernández said the decriminalization would allow users “to be treated as addicts instead of criminals.”

A good decision? Would similar laws be successful here in the United States?

- Marc

Haven’t we all grown tired of the frequent accusations coming from the White House that all of these town hall protests are simply “manufactured anger” and the product of “astroturf.” (Ironically enough, astroturfing is a tactic perfected by none other than David Axelrod)

Let’s just get to the point here. Democrats are infuriated that the majority of Americans aren’t too keen on their little healthcare proposal. So instead of validating their constituents’ concerns and dispelling misinformation, Democrats have decided to brush-off all opposition, dismissing their critics as nothing more than pawns for special interest groups.

Irony is something which constantly enriches American politics, and these allegations are no exception. While the White House is busy dismissing protesters as products of “astroturf,” the President has been engineering his own “astroturf” army.

From the LA Times:

It seems that, despite all the media attention lavished on e-mail appeals to his supporters, not everyone pushing for President Obama’s embattled healthcare reform plan these warm August days is an idealistic volunteer in it for the sake of helping move the country forward and gaining medical attention for millions of uninsured Americans.

The website’s large-type headline announces: “Work to Pass Obama’s Healthcare Plan and Get Paid to Do it! $10-15 hr!”

It’s a web ad on Craigslist: “You can work for change. Join motivated staff around the country working to make change happen. You can make great friends and money along the way. Earn $400-$600 a week.”

So both sides appear to have paid lobbyists in this colossal summertime struggle for public opinion and control of the multi-billions flowing into the nation’s burdened healthcare system.

The ad links to the Boston-based Fund for the Public Interest, an umbrella organization that rounds up people to round up support, money and signatures for all kinds of campaigns, including healthcare reform and the environment.

It’s hiring and assigning canvassers to work in at least 28 states, including California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Oregon, Massachusetts, Minnesota and New Jersey.

I guess astroturfing is just a Republican thing. For Democrats, it’s fifteen-dollars-an-hour “activism.”

- Marc

For some time now, I have wanted to comment on the raucous series of townhalls which have taken place across the nation. And instead of focusing on the issue itself, I would rather approach the phenomenon from a more political angle.

Many Democrats seem to be completely taken aback by the protester’s passion and anger, which is not always centered around the issue of healthcare. And while media personalities, pundits, Members of Congress, and even the President himself, attempt to discount much of populist backlash against the healthcare bill, the fact of the matter is, there is fierce opposition to this proposal and a building consensus against much of the President’s economic agenda.

The claim that these protests are simply, “astroturfing” (a term being employed now, ad nauseum) by special interest groups is hardly realistic (DO YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT CRAIG MILLER WAS PAID OFF?), considering the sheer numbers and diversity of protesters. Surely there are plenty of individuals defending their own “special-interests,” but even so, isn’t that why we all get involved in politics? Furthermore, considering the credentials of our current president as a community organizer, you would think that there would be a little more consideration towards a clearly disenfranchized body of American citizens (no, I won’t call them a “mob“).

The response from the Left to these episodes has been constant and arrogant, and as with the TEA-party demonstrations, these self-proclaimed elitists have had a hayday revealing how unsophisticated and “irrational” these Americans are. What Democrats don’t realize is, by insensitively categorizing these citizens as “rabid right-wing extremists“, “un-American“, and likening them to “nazis“, they are alienating a vast cross-section of society. And worse yet, they are completely dismissing serious concerns from their most politically active constituents.

Democrats are doing their cause a great disservice by refusing to acknowledge the legitimate points poised by millions of Americans, and instead, branding all opponents as racists, reactionaries, and lobbyists. Protesting is not “un-American,” in fact, it is an integral part of being an American. And no matter how unsophisticated many of these protesters are, they have serious fears over the direction in which this administration is trying to lead the country on the issue of healthcare. The burden of proof is not the responsibility of average citizens, these politicians are obligated to sell this plan to the American people. And so far the President has done a poor job of doing so. While pundits and politicians continue to criticize and demean these objectors, millions of Americans will continue to have serious doubts about whether or not this “healthcare reform” is the right thing for them. Democrats will LOSE on this issue, not because of special-interests, not because of a mobilized group of neo-nazi conservatives… it will be because Democrats are failing to connect with millions of concerned Americans, it will be because Democrats refuse to even acknowledge the serious issues themselves.

Because of this inability to focus on the legitimate objections of millions of American citizens, Democrats are going to pay for it come election time, not to mention, they will risk the very passage of the legislation itself. Not all opponents to these bills are extremists, in fact, most are not.

All elected officials, yes even Democrats, should represent their constituents to the best of their ability. They should appreciate the impact of populist movements and address the true fears and concerns from their constituents. Failure to do so may be costly come election time.

- Marc

UPDATE: You know a political party is in trouble when they would rather demonize the opposition instead of engaging on “the issues.” Democrats are unleashing a campaign to brand all protesters at these town halls as “racists.” But even some Dems are calling this tactic out for what it is: a dishonest political cheap shot. I mean, come on! When pundits start asking if the word “socialist” is a new “code word” equivalent to the “N-word,” you know that their cause is no longer on the offensive, it is on the defensive.

Prior to reading this article in the Washington Post, I didn’t know that there was a long-standing ban on tracking cookies on government web sites. Apparently, this ban has been on the books for nearly nine years, and was enacted after a firestorm of concern from privacy groups.

Well, now the Obama Administration wants to remove the nine-year ban, much to the chagrin of a multitude of privacy-advocacy organizations.

From WaPo:

The Obama administration is proposing to scale back a long-standing ban on tracking how people use government Internet sites with “cookies” and other technologies, raising alarms among privacy groups.

A two-week public comment period ended Monday on a proposal by the White House Office of Management and Budget to end a ban on federal Internet sites using such technologies and replace it with other privacy safeguards. The current prohibition, in place since 2000, can be waived if an agency head cites a “compelling need.”

Supporters of a change say social networking and similar services, which often take advantage of the tracking technologies, have transformed how people communicate over the Internet, and Obama’s aides say those services can make government more transparent and increase public involvement.

Some privacy groups say the proposal amounts to a “massive” and unexplained shift in government policy. In a statement Monday, American Civil Liberties Union spokesman Michael Macleod-Ball said the move could “allow the mass collection of personal information of every user of a federal government website.”

Even groups that support updating the policy question whether the administration is seeking changes at the request of private companies, such as online search giant Google, as the industry’s economic clout and influence in Washington have grown rapidly.

Two prominent technology policy advocacy groups, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and Electronic Frontier Foundation, cited the terms of a Feb. 19 contract with Google, in which a unnamed federal agency explicitly carved out an exemption from the ban so that the agency could use Google’s YouTube video player.

While I think it’s always good to scrutinize any action by the government to interfere with the privacy of private citizens, I don’t think that this particular issue qualifies.

All Americans with the slightest degree of computer-savvy can handle their own internet privacy; all citizens have the ability to control their own cookies.

Should we be alarmed about the government tracking us through internet cookies? Or, instead, should we take it upon ourselves to control our own privacy?

Are you worried? I’m not.

- Marc

So what if China were to invade Taiwan, and in response, the US decided to engage in an air war against the country… who would win? Well, in 2000, RAND predicted that the US would have a greater chance of success in such circumstances. Nevertheless, nine years later, the same group predicts an opposite outcome.

From Wired:

In 2000, the influential think thank RAND Corporation crunched some numbers regarding a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan, and concluded that “any near-term Chinese attempt to invade Taiwan would likely be a very bloody affair with a significant probability of failure” — especially if the U.S. raced to the island nation’s defense. But nine years later, a new, much-updated edition of the RAND study found that China’s improved air and missile forces “represent clear and impending dangers to the defense of Taiwan,” whether or not the U.S. is involved.

“A credible case can be made that the air war for Taiwan could essentially be over before much of the Blue [American and allied] air force has even fired a shot,” the monograph notes.

It’s a potentially controversial assertion — and one that might have fueled the (now-resolved) debate over whether the U.S. Air Force should buy more F-22s. RAND found that F-22s flying from the relative safety of Guam could be surprisingly effective in blunting a Chinese air assault.

Still, with or without F-22s, the Chinese air and missile force “dramatically outnumbers [U.S. and Taiwanese] forces and wins the war of attrition,” according to Steve Trimble’s summary of the RAND study. The Chinese lose 241 jets on the first day of fighting, while the U.S. and Taiwan together lose 147, but this lopsided kill ratio doesn’t matter, when China has hundreds more planes to put into the air. Moreover, most of the U.S. and Taiwanese planes lost, are destroyed on the ground by barrages of Chinese ballistic missiles. (It’s not for no reason that the U.S. Air Force is working hard to win new friends, each with juicy new bases, all over the Pacific.)

Hmm.

- Marc

Many educators are concerned about the state of Utah education after reading the latest report from the US census.

From UPI:

New York, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., spent the highest amount per pupil in 2007, while Utah, Idaho and Tennessee spent the least, census figures indicate.

New York spent $15,981 per pupil in 2007, followed by New Jersey ($15,691) and the District of Columbia ($14,324); while Utah, at $5,683 per student, Idaho ($6,625) and Tennessee ($7,113) were at the other end of the spending scale, the U.S. Census Bureau reported Monday.

The average amount of state spending was $9,666 per pupil in 2007, a 5.8 percent increase over 2006. State governments contributed 47.6 percent of that amount, followed by local sources, which contributed 44.1 percent, and federal sources, which made up the remaining 8.3 percent, census officials said.

But before we all start wringing our hands, let’s consider a few things first. Does more money necessarily equate better education? And if so, why do so many well-funded schools fail to achieve satisfactory results? After all, some of the “worst” schools in the nation are located in large cities which typically receive a great deal of state and federal funds.

After analyzing the evidence, it seems that good results are dependent on a good education (yeah, brilliant, I know), not simply more money. Even if a school is well-funded, it doesn’t necessarily equate better results; and conversely, even poverty isn’t a determining factor for failure. What should alarm most Americans is that even though we are spending more on education than ever before, the country continues to fall behind foreign competitors when it comes to education.

According to John Hood of Reason, the United States is not “underinvesting” in education at all, if anything we are spending more and getting worse results:

There has never been a time in recent U.S. history when government (federal, state, and local) has stopped “investing” in education. From the 1929-30 school year, the first on which comprehensive data are available, to the 1986-87 school year, total real expenditures per pupil in American public schools rose by 500 percent.(2) More recently, total real expenditures shot up from $2,229 per pupil in 1965-66 to $4,206 per pupil 20 years later, an 89 percent hike. Keep in mind that this increase was after inflation, meaning that actual buying power available to schools almost doubled during that period. Real spending in the 1980s, during all the Reagan-era cuts we hear so much about, actually grew at a faster rate–21 percent between 1981-82 and 1986-87–than in the previous decade, when it increased by “only” 16 percent.

Naturally, the reform chorus tries to downplay the fact that spending is up, has always gone up, and given current trends, will continue to go up. Some of the more unscrupulous choristers use measures, such as year-to-year changes expressed as gross dollar amounts, to show that spending increases have been less than steady.(3) That practice, of course, ignores the effect of the baby boom–there were significantly fewer students in the 1980s than there were in the 1960s. Adjusting for expenditure per pupil is the only way to relate spending to the number of students enrolled.

Try as they may, researchers have not been able to prove the common assumption that the richer schools are, the better taught are their students. More precisely, while it is obvious that a school that spends $4 per pupil a year will probably do a poorer job than one that spends $4,000 per pupil, it’s not so clear that a school that spends $2,500 per pupil is less capable of providing a good education than one that spends $4,000. That magnitude of difference does not appear to be a significant predictor of educational success.

Certainly the historical trends fly in the face of the spending-equals-learning thesis. As noted above, total real spending on education grew by 89 percent from 1965-66 to 1985-86. Yet during the same period, average Scholastic Achievement Test scores of college-bound high school seniors fell 16 points on the mathematics test and 30 points on the verbal test;(16) the percentage of 17-year-olds who graduated from high school fell;(17) and other measures of educational achievement also showed a downward trend.

The Washington, D.C., area is a perfect case in point. In 1987 D.C. public schools spent over $5,700 per pupil– compared with the national average of about $4,000.(18) In the same year Maryland spent $4,400 per pupil and Virginia spent $3,800. But are D.C. students that much more educated than their peers in Maryland and Virginia? Quite the contrary: D.C.’s graduation rate was 55 percent, Maryland’s was 75 percent, and Virginia’s was 74 percent (the U.S. average was 71 percent). D.C. students had, on average, lower scores on the SAT and achievement tests as well. There is obviously a better prescription for educational success than government spending.

We should always be concerned about the state of education in Utah, but maybe we should accept that more money isn’t a silver-bullet.

- Marc

What do you think about the gun “buy-back program” endorsed by many US cities including Las Angeles? Basically, residents are allowed to hand their own illegal firearms over to law enforcement and in turn, receive a “gift card.”

From the L.A. Times:

Back in March, an LAPD gun-buyback program that traded gift cards for firearms netted nearly 1,700 weapons, including 40 assault-style weapons and a rifle with a grenade launcher.

The grenade launcher AR-15 rifle, which did not have a grenade in it, was delivered to the Los Angeles Police Department’s Topanga station over the weekend as officers across the city distributed gift cards in exchange for handguns, rifles and shotguns. The anonymous drop-off program netted AR-15s, Uzis and AK-47s.

The President and a large portion of his divided party are intent on passing their “health care reform” bill, despite the strong public opposition to the plan.

As more and more information about the thousand-page bill comes forth, the majority of Americans are deciding that the reforms aren’t for them, and for a myriad of reasons.

Not long ago, Gallup found that more Americans disapprove than approve of the President on the issue of healthcare. And while most Americans believe that reforms should take place, they “vary on urgency.”  Even more recently, Gallup reported that 2/3rds of Americans believe that Congress do not have a good understanding of the healthcare issue itself.

Along with Gallup, Rasmussen has discovered similar trends. For example, today’s headline from the polling company reads: “Just 23% Believe Healthcare Costs Will Go Down If Reform Passes Congress.” This revelation, coupled with a recent Rasmussen poll finding that most Americans feel that healthcare is the least important one of Obama’s four budget priorities, is telling of a national mood.

Considering the mounting opposition to the proposed healthcare reform, it is strange to see the President continue to flail himself against detractors, and to no avail. In doing so, he is descending to new levels and alienating members of his party and entire segments of society. Just today, for example, the President has formulated a new talking-point by telling the public that the economic recovery of the entire country depends on the passage of healthcare reform (beware of the spin on that one!). Not to mention, President Obama is busy lambasting “greedy” insurance companies and even doctors for their shameful influence on the US healthcare industry.

The high school-level drama continues and is no more apparent than within the Democratic party itself as Democrats find new enemies within their own ranks, “villians” who dare to oppose party leadership. If anything, these events display something outrageously ironic. This party is losing control of the healthcare debate, and the more that the President and his Democrats try to regain lost ground, the further the country retreats.

Aside from sheer stubborness, it also demostrates the President’s unyielding arrogance. For a man who claims to represent all Americans and has promised to lead the country in a “new direction,” this president has revealed himself as anything but. When it is obvious that most of your constituents (and the constituency happens to be the entire country in this case), oppose your shoddy policy, it should send you a message that change, ironically enough, is needed on YOUR end. Or else you risk showing your true colors: a clearly partisan president who is more interested in his agenda than the will of the country.

But hey, with only 31% of Americans believing that the country is on the “right track,” what do you have to lose?

- Marc

Earlier this week, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), speaking on Obama’s health care plans, said: “If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.” Naturally, Sen. DeMint’s comments have unleashed a small backlash among Democrats, and according to the President, have rallied sympathizers to the cause. Sen. DeMint and many of his fellow Republicans are now engaged in a war-of-words with the President and his supporters, when in fact, “Obama’s Waterloo” was actually coined by Dick Morris more than a month ago.

As much as Democrats would like to point and scoff at DeMint’s very partisan analysis of the health care debacle (and let’s be honest, considering the history of universal healthcare in the US and the divides within the Democratic party over the issue itself, it is looking more and more like a debacle), they must realize that if any issue is going to “break” this president’s political capital, it will be healthcare.

Already, more Americans disapprove than approve of Obama on the issue of healthcare (50% to 44%); and when “independents” were polled on the issue, 55% disapproved and only 40% were found in approval. This is an important divide, expecially when considering how favorable Obama is on other issues (his strongest being international). And what’s more, according to Rasmussen, only 20% of US voters believe healthcare reform to be the most important priority of Obama’s four budget proposals; with the same poll finding that now more than ever, Democrats are divided on the issue itself. Could the 63% of Americans who believe the US is heading down the wrong track be influenced by the President’s healthcare proposals? The data seems to indicate that it does have an impact, especially when considering how the percent of Americans opposed to the President’s reforms is rising week-by-week.

As I indicated in an earlier post, this issue may just stoke another conservative backlash, similar to the one we saw in 1994 when Republicans took the House of Representatives. Healthcare reform is a hotly contentious issue, and can in deed cripple someone’s political capital… just ask Hillary Clinton.

Of course, I am deeply opposed to Obama’s healthcare plan, and for a variety of reasons which I cannot include entirely here. More interestingly, I think that this issue will test Obama politically and personally. If the President can emerge from this victorious, I think that there is a very good chance that he will prove himself an amazing communicator and an effective President. Nevertheless, I suspect that healthcare reform will turn out to be a serious blunder for this President, and because it is a losing issue, it will become a thorn-in-his-side for years to come. In the end, this may just be the kind of issue which can make Republicans relevant again… Morris and DeMint are correct, this could be Obama’s Waterloo.

- Marc

Our community was recently rocked by the Michael Starks case, a young fraternity pledge who died in an alcohol-poisoning case. Were those individuals involved in his death guilty of hazing? And if so, to what extent should hazing be criminalized?

As it turns out, as much as we would like to see justice served, it appears that the hazing charges against those involved may not stick.

From the Salt Lake Tribune:

Six months after Cache County filed hazing charges against 12 Utah State University students and their Greek-letter societies, no one stands convicted of hazing in connection with the November alcohol poisoning of fraternity pledge Michael Starks.

First District Judge Thomas Willmore has meted out punishment, including four jail sentences, but for offenses other than hazing — the crime of encouraging or inducing someone to engage in humiliating or dangerous behavior as a condition for membership in an organization.

Willmore is fielding motions to dismiss by the four remaining defendants, raising the possibility that the state’s first major hazing prosecution will result in no hazing convictions. But prosecutors are not dismayed.

“I would like to see some of these hazing charges stick. I am grateful Judge Willmore sees this case for what it is,” said Starks’ brother George, a Salt Lake City coffeehouse owner and book publisher. “You can’t get any clearer case than Michael’s that’s a hazing. The statute needs to be clarified.”

“Our goal has been to bring focus on the issue of underage binge drinking and the prosecution has been successful in doing that,” said Tony Baird, Cache County‘s chief criminal prosecutor. “We successfully prosecuted the person who had bought the bottle [of vodka], who brought the bottle, who had the bottle and then threw the bottle away.”

Still, the Starks case illustrates how hard it can be to stretch context-based criminal laws, such as the hazing statute, to fit the facts of a real-life situation.

- Marc