Tag: Deseret News

Public vs Private Companies

Post author By David
Post date March 26, 2014
No Comments on Public vs Private Companies

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Photo by Paul Riismandel

Coverage of the Hobby Lobby case seems to be consistent in saying that the U.S. Supreme Court is essentially deciding the question of whether not-specifically-religious corporations can exercise religious rights. The issue in this case is requiring insurance coverage for federally determined forms of contraception but if the decision is based on the ability of companies to exercise religious rights then it could also extend to whether companies can choose under what circumstances they will offer their services.

It struck me this morning that the question isn’t really whether corporations can exercise religious rights. The real question is: at what point in the pursuit of profit do individuals diminish or forego their right to religious expression? Those siding with the government in this case are afraid that companies will be able to use the guise of religious belief to get around the expense of some legal mandates. After all, if the Green family (Hobby Lobby) can claim religious belief avoid paying for some expensive forms of birth control for their employees why can’t the Walton family (Walmart) do the same?

Tags Deseret News, religion, Supreme Court

National pictures

Confusing the Point

Image by: DonkeyHotey

This may be the most obtuse argument I’ve read regarding Edward Snowden. I don’t want to be too hard on Jay Evensen but the logic he uses here is terrible. A conspiracy theorist could come up with many sinister motives for such a poor argument against Snowden but I’m sure it’s something much more mundane like trying to meet a publishing deadline.

Let’s break it down.

First we have an attempt to discredit Snowden based on his connection with Russia.

{Snowden} chose exile {in Russia} because he faces charges of espionage in the United States for revealing things he felt were so egregious he no longer could keep quiet about them. And yet neither he nor his friend, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, seem concerned enough about the blatant abuses in Russia or other countries to dig deeper and expose more.
…
But it’s no longer convincing, or even noble, to claim a sort of relativistic neutrality while hiding in Russia.

There are two parts to this. The first is that Snowden had a choice of where he took exile. This argument requires that we ignore the fact that while Snowden chose exile because of the charges of espionage in the U.S. he was unable to fly to any of the other locations that offered him exile. Russia was functionally his only option. The second is that Snowden should be exposing Russian digital espionage. This argument relies on ignoring the fact that Snowden’s revelations about the NSA are not based on some super hacker skill on Snowden’s part. Snowden’s information was based on him holding a position of privileged access within the NSA which he would never have within Russian intelligence.

Then we have an effort to defend the NSA by saying it does necessary work.

The U.S. government spies on people. We get it. The NSA is a huge agency with the resources to build a profile on just about anybody it chooses. We get that, too.

But why does the NSA do it? Could there be noble reasons, even if the methods aren’t the best?

Does Snowden care at all about the security of the nation he fled? Does he think the NSA should stop spying altogether, or can he imagine a reason why a spy agency might be important in a dangerous world? What would he consider proper spying?

Again this comes in two parts. The questions for Snowden can’t be asked sincerely unless you have only listened to the non-Snowden side of the story. He has been very clear that he recognizes the necessity of espionage activities and that the reasons behind his actions were the systemic abuses whereby the agency overstepped their constitutional authority (which someone might argue is occasionally necessary) and hid their actions not only from the American public at large (which is certainly necessary to some degree where espionage is concerned) but also from the very congressional committees with oversight over their actions (which is a red flag of the first order in all cases).

Using “Could there be noble reasons, even if the methods aren’t the best?” as an argument here would be like saying of the John Swallow case that raising money is necessary to run a campaign so even if he got money from payday lenders it really shouldn’t be a big deal. That argument completely misses the point of the outrage which isn’t that Swallow got money from payday lenders and that the NSA was spying. The reason for people to be upset in both cases is the way John Swallow and the NSA both went to great lengths to hide their activities from the very people they were supposed to be working for and the organizations that were authorized to provide oversight for their operations.

It occurred to me as I reviewed the article that the point Mr. Evensen wanted to make was that Russia was a greater threat to liberty than the NSA. If so, this was not the way to try making that argument.

Tags Deseret News, Edward Snowden, Jay Evensen, NSA, public service, Russia

State

Do the Utah Lake Bridge Right

Post author By David
Post date November 19, 2009
No Comments on Do the Utah Lake Bridge Right

I agree with the sentiment in this Deseret News article that the environmental impacts of proposed Utah Lake bridge should be discussed.

{Sam} Rushforth has been studying at {Utah Lake} for 35 years and said there needs to be an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) conducted while the bridge over the lake is being considered.

Those who have read here long enough know that I am in favor of building a bridge over the lake and even if I weren’t I think it is inevitable in the long run. The argument that a bridge over the lake will bring more growth to Utah county is laughable – the growth is coming either way. One comment on the article says that a bridge is not necessary with the arrival of the new roads under construction through Lehi on the north end of the lake. Having lived in Lehi and worked on Main Street there I am absolutely convinced that no matter how much road they build there it will be congested very quickly with the ever increasing demand of the growing populations in the area – a bridge will make a significant impact on commute time.

Having said all of that, my support of building a bridge does not interfere with my belief that doing an EIS is absolutely imperative in order to do it right. I would consider such a study to be the very least in the way of due diligence on the part of those who want to build a bridge.

Since I no longer live in Utah County, I no longer have a vested interest in the outcome of this debate like I once did. I consider myself to be a relatively informed and now more objective observer and long term I am certain that the bridge, if it is done right, will be a benefit to Utah County residents and possibly to the lake itself. I urge all those who are actively discussing this issue to not rush their decisions – simply throwing up some steel girders and a wide slab of concrete would be a travesty but doing nothing or putting off bridge planning until it becomes truly critical would be foolhardy.

Start now.Take your time. Do it right.

Tags Deseret News, issues, thoughts, Utah County, Utah Lake

State

You Must Answer These Questions

Post author By David
Post date November 10, 2009
6 Comments on You Must Answer These Questions

Jim Matheson voted against the health care bills – that’s old news already. Some Democrats have, with varying degrees of seriousness, questioned whether they should run or nominate someone else for his seat – that’s not really fresh news either. The news that I am following is that along with the ruminations regarding a new nominee there are some important questions being asked among some 2nd district Democrats:

Do you really think you’ll be better off if you take him down in the convention or a primary?

. . .

Is it more important to have the seat in your camp or feel good about pushing out anyone who doesn’t push the party line?

1) Is there anything that I’m currently getting with Jim Matheson as my “representative” that I couldn’t get with a Republican in his seat?

2) Is there anything Democrats living in the 1st and 3rd Congressional Districts get with Matheson in office that they otherwise wouldn’t get.

While these are specifically being asked about Matheson by these people right now, they are the same questions that the members of any party must ask when they are unhappy with the incumbent of a seat they currently hold. It should be noted that there is no universal right answer. Sometimes it’s more important to keep a Matheson and other times it’s more important to toss a Cannon. (I chose both of those examples because they are choices that have been made in the past – I do not intend to either endorse or refute those actions nor am I trying to suggest that the actions of the past must determine the actions of the future.)

These are the same questions that Republicans all over the nation are trying to answer on a large scale as well as in individual races (just notice that the number of Republican challengers for Bennetts’ seat changes regularly). Sometimes (such as with Bennett) tossing the incumbent does not do much to endanger the chances that the party will continue to hold the seat while other times (such as with Matheson) it could seriously endanger those chances. Regardless of how it alters the outlook for the party those questions can go either way.

The choice of who to support hinges not only on how well you like the incumbent, but also on answering those questions.

Tags civic participation, connections, Deseret News, parties, questions

National

Our National Emergency

I was surprised when I learned that Obama declared swine flu a national emergency late on Friday. My first thought was that I had not heard anything to suggest that things were any worse than they had been previously. Looking closer at the announcement the article states that “Swine flu is more widespread now than it’s ever been and has resulted in more than 1,000 U.S. deaths so far.”

While we don’t like the idea of 1000 deaths it’s important to put that into context by noting that the seasonal flu results in 36,000 U.S. deaths each year – that’s an average of 3,000 deaths per month year round. During the flu season that amounts to more than 1000 deaths per week. To really put that into context it should be noted that the seasonal flu produces that many deaths despite the fact that a vaccine is widely available while the swine flu vaccine is barely coming into circulation now.

That is enough information that there are many people who will shout that this is not an emergency – some will even say that this is a scare tactic or power grab by the administration. Going back to the actual declaration I have concluded that there really is a national problem.

The White House on Saturday said Obama signed a proclamation that would allow medical officials to bypass certain federal requirements.

The very real problem that this declaration of emergency addresses is a problem of over-regulation. The government should never regulate something to the point of interfering with the benefits of whatever they are regulating – as they have done with the medical system. (I would call this an emergency except that “emergency” suggests serious immediate consequences if we do not take immediate action whereas a lack of immediate action does not have particularly immediate consequences.)

Tags Deseret News, media, Obama, reactions

National State

Two Good Ideas in One Bad Bill

Post author By David
Post date October 19, 2009
No Comments on Two Good Ideas in One Bad Bill

It’s back – the bill that just won’t die. Let’s first explain why this is such a bad bill that I never pass up an opportunity to oppose it. First, it’s unconstitutional and both sides are compromising the integrity of their ideals in order to produce this bad bill. Second, this is an example of governing by exception which is a long-term recipe for disaster. Having only states be represented in Congress is good, except that we want to treat D.C. more like a state. The current census apportionment process is good, except that Utah felt bad about not getting an extra seat on a technical sliver. Long-term the only people who come out ahead when governing by exception are the exploiters who prefer to live in loopholes rather than being ensnared by the system that they are taking advantage of. These are the same people who rarely if ever actually contribute anything to the society in return for playing the leeches role.

There are two very good ideas in this bill which should be pursued without compromise. The first is giving D.C. a voting representative in the House. Any citizen who is subject to the same federal tax laws as the citizens of the states should have a voting representative in Congress – as far as I know that is only D.C. but that rule would apply to any citizen who did not live in a state whether we started taxing American Samoa or Puerto Rico the same as we do for the 50 states. The privilege of representation in the House should be based on the responsibility to pay taxes because taxation is the primary responsibility of the House. Representation in the Senate should be a privilege limited to full statehood.

The second good idea in the bill is the expansion of the House. This should be much more than two seats. In fact what we need is a bill (probably an amendment) that defines the size of the House as a function of population by setting the maximum number of citizens that a Representative in the House may represent. While I would argue that the size of the house should be multiples of its current size even setting such a ration to such an unmanageable number as 500,000 citizens per representative would be an improvement over this static “435 seats in the House” that we have currently. (That would add somewhere near 100 new representatives – as opposed to the paltry 2 being proposed in this bill.)

While I am not a fan of legislative manipulation tactics (such as the NRA killing the bill previously by attaching an amendment that would curtail the gun laws in D.C.) I have to say that it is better to prevent a law from passing using such tactics than it is to enact a law using such tactics (such as slipping the bill into a “must pass” defense appropriations bill as they are talking about trying now).

The fact that the people pushing this bill have not even proposed an amendment to give D.C. the voting representative they deserve demonstrates that they are more interested int he power grab than they are in actually helping the people of D.C. If they were serious about the issue they would at least be making that kind of proposal even if they also pursued this unconstitutional path.

Tags Deseret News, fourth seat, issues, legislation, unconstitutional, voting

National State

Second Amendment Victory

My appreciation for the second amendment just went up another notch. Opponents of gun ownership rights like to argue that guns kill people (for that matter so do hands, cars, T-bone steaks, and many other things) but they never mentioned that gun rights could also kill an illegal house seat for D.C.:

Fights over gun control in Washington, D.C., may have killed for the year a bill that would give Utah a fourth U.S. House seat and give D.C. a House seat with full voting rights.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., delivered that message in his weekly briefing for reporters on Tuesday

Apparently leaders in D.C. would rather keep very strict gun control laws than gain an unconstitutional voting seat in the House. If they want to now pursue a path to full House representation that does not sidestep the Constitution I’ll sign the petition at the first opportunity. Residents of D.C. deserve voting congressional representation as much as anyone else, but that does not justify ignoring the fundamental law of the land.

I still can’t believe that 80% of Utah’s congressional delegation fell for this Washington parlor trick. If the bill comes up again in 2010 I hope they will be smart enough to reject it since Utah would only have 1 possible year of representation before we would get another seat anyway (regardless of what Orrin Hatch would tell you about possibly missing it again).

Tags Bill of Rights, Deseret News, fourth seat, Orrin Hatch, unconstitutional, Utah

State

Too Little Too Late

I was not sure whether to gag or chuckle when I heard the news that Senator Bennett wants to prevent the use of TARP money for the auto industry. To me that just sounds like he’s shutting the barn doors after the cows have escaped while insisting that there’s nothing wrong with leaving the stalls open.

Bennett said he also adding wording that would ban using Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) bailout money to help bankrupt car makers.

“The TARP money was sold to the Congress as acquiring assets, not as acquiring stock positions in various companies, particularly not in acquiring stock position in a bankrupt manufacturing company,” Bennett said.

“When we approved TARP the first time around, we did it with the understanding that it was dealing with the credit crisis,” he said. “Instead, the TARP money has gone into these bankrupt companies.”

It’s clear to see that Bennett is doing everything he can to show his opposition to federal overspending and government overreaching in the economy while maintaining his position that the original bailout was necessary. I don’t see any reason to even begin to pay attention until he has come out and directly stated that his vote on TARP was absolutely wrong from the beginning. Even if he does, he is wrong if he things that his TARP vote is the only thing dragging on his chances for re-election.

Tags 2010, bailout, Bob Bennett, Deseret News, legislation, senate

State

Hoping History Holds

Nobody with a political pulse in Utah could be surprised at the news that Sens. Bennett and Hatch plan to run again, especially considering that they both have their campaign websites up and running already (yes, even Hatch for 2012). I have often been discouraged by the assertions of a trusted friend that Hatch is unbeatable for as long as he chooses to run after being in the Senate for over 30 years. My hope that he is wrong got a boost from that Deseret News article.

Holly provides a good rundown against the "seniority is everything" argument of our two senators and we have the next 3 years to disprove Hatch’s assertion that "Sen. Bennett and I work as hard every day for Utahns as the first day we set foot in the U.S. Senate." (They undoubtedly work hard, but the more I look at their records the less I am convinced that either of them work for Utahns anymore like they did the first day they set foot in the Senate.) I would like to provide a proactive argument for why both of our senators should be replaced now even if you believe the seniority argument.

First of all, neither of our Senators is getting any younger so they will have to be replaced sooner than they would like to admit. While they would both like to be compared to the LDS apostles since few people among their voters would care to think of the apostles in a negative light, the fact is that there is a vast difference between the temporary election of a political officeholder and the permanent appointment of an ecclesiastical leader. We know going in that the apostles are there for life, not so with the senators.

Secondly, the Republican party is out of power right now (especially with Arlen Specter switching parties so that the Democrats will have the 60 vote margin to end any attempted filibuster) which diminishes the value of any seniority they have amassed in their decades in office. The Democrats may maintain the 60 seat majority in 2010, but even if they don’t they are virtually assured of maintaining control of the senate. That means that now is the time to elect some new senators so that they can start building their seniority in advance of 2014 (the earliest that Republicans have any real shot at regaining control) rather than waiting until 2016, 2018, or whenever one of our senators fails his immortality test.

Tags 2010, 2012, Arlen Specter, Bob Bennett, connections, Deseret News, Orrin Hatch, Pennsylvania, senate, seniority, Utah

State

Newspaper Survival Tactics

Post author By David
Post date March 31, 2009
6 Comments on Newspaper Survival Tactics

Some people who read what I have written about news media might think that I would like to see the demise of newspapers – they would be wrong. I do think that news organizations generally need to make some adjustments to better serve their purpose (am am assuming a purpose of informing their audience). As I read a story in the Deseret News about their growth I saw two happy bits of information that illustrate the kinds of changes that can help the industry to survive. (I take no position on the Deseret News specifically, it is just the example at hand.)

The first is that it is possible for multiple publications to compete and survive.

Joe Cannon, now in his third year as editor, set out to make the newspaper and its Web site more appealing to Mormon readers. The effort already has made the paper’s Web site unusually active for a news organization its size, with 17 million page views a month. Visitors tend to linger, and half of them are from outside Utah, affirming Cannon’s strategy even as online advertising revenues remain marginal.

His aim is to reach out to "a very large Mormon diaspora across the country" that "puts us into a much larger pond," said Cannon, who was on the board of the Deseret News for a decade before taking over as editor. . .

Cannon said by making news coverage "more Mormon" he means appealing to a market niche larger than Utah instead of just a circulation territory.

This shift in focus at the Deseret News suggests a possible approach that would allows competing papers to coexist within the same market. In some ways it is not the same market because The Tribune is catering to the geographic region while the Deseret News is catering to the dominant culture of the region – even outside the immediate vicinity of the paper. The evidence of this is in the statement that "[t]he Salt Lake Tribune still is profitable, and together with the Deseret News is expected to remain on the short list of two-newspaper towns."

The second piece of good news is that "[s]mall newspapers are generally holding their own because of unique demographics." This seems to validate things I have read suggesting that the quality of papers were falling as they tried to put more emphasis on non-local coverage. To me this would suggest, for example, that the Provo Daily Herald should have it’s "your town" coverage of outlying cities such as Lehi and Eagle Mountain replaced by local papers – possibly with a joint operating agreement between the various Utah County papers. I’ll bet that the Herald and the new local paper(s) would be better able to serve the population of Utah County than the current setup. (Similar to my previous disclaimer -this is nota complaint against the Herald, but it should offer hope to any areas that feel underserved by it that there is an alternative path available.)

Tags Daily Herald, Deseret News, media, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake Tribune, Utah County