Month: March 2009

Predictable Responses

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

As newspaper Editorial Boards begin to write about SB 208 their positions mirror what I called the tip of the iceberg and what we expected on the day that SB 208 was announced. In fact, one might almost wonder in passing if the editorial in the Standard Examiner was written by the same person who wrote the editorial in the Deseret News. Both dismiss the idea that they oppose this because it cuts into the revenue they get from publishing legal notices and both suggest that a state run website would not treat all legal notices equally. Also, neither editorial mentioned that this website would help city governments and citizens to save money on all the legal notices that they are required to publish. Essentially all their objections boil down to scare tactics as shown by this response to the Standard Examiner editorial.

As I read the Deseret News version I had a thought about an amendment to the bill that would expose the sincerity of the newspapers in their "public service" claim for opposing this. If the bill were amended to stipulate that the legal notices website allow bulk uploads of legal notices from entities such as newspapers (at bulk rates), and also allow a feed or other source for newspapers to print or otherwise republish the notices from that site (if they so choose) then I can see no reason for newspapers to object – besides the revenue competition. If the papers really are not afraid of the competition – if they honestly believe they are opposing this on public service grounds – they should simply offer to post on the state website any legal notices they receive so that their service complies with the new law (assuming it passes).

The Deseret News also provided two claims that need to be debunked.

In addition, as any Web surfer can attest, Web sites are not dependable. They are subject to technical issues, and they don’t make a reliable and enduring archivable record the way newspapers do.

As a long-time web developer I can say that whatever temporary glitches a website may have does not change the fact that web sites can produce reliable and enduring archivable records. In fact, the most reliable archivable records of newspapers are digital. For proof of that simply go look at archive.org. I can pull up old websites of mine that I know no longer exist on any computer where I ever published them. Even if a government site went down it is not likely that it would be lost.

The bill claims it would cost the state nothing. However, Web sites require considerable maintenance and personnel. Even if this new site were to fall under existing state government Web services, it still would cost taxpayers. Newspapers, on the other hand, store and archive data for nothing other than the cost of a legal notice.

This statement completely ignores what was actually said when SB 208 was first unveiled. The site would not cost taxpayers anything not because Sen. Urquhart is ignoring the cost of running a site, but because the site would charge a nominal fee to cover the costs of the website.

I have nothing against the newspapers – sometimes they have useful information – but they have yet to show a solid reason why they deserve a captive market for legal notices. To prove that, I would encourage a removal of the cap on what they can charge for legal notices (this would be even more broad than what they are pushing for in SB 161) if SB 208 is passed.

Tags connections, Deseret News, laws, legislation, legislature, media, Steve Urquhart, Utah

National

D.C. Voting – House vs Senate

Post author By David
Post date March 4, 2009
2 Comments on D.C. Voting – House vs Senate

Apparently the Senate cloture vote is more newsworthy than the House rules vote on a bill. We have heard on many bills that the cloture vote is the bottleneck or the hurdle that can trip up a bill. In the House the rules vote is the procedural hurdle that must precede the actual vote and can be used to kill or hamper a bill. This is taking place right now with the D.C. Voting Rights Act. I am not particularly a fan of using technicalities, but considering my position on this bill I’m happy to see any delay.

I figure that each passing day makes the bill less enticing for Utah as we draw ever closer to getting our extra seat anyway. In fact, if this bill had still not passed by 2013 and Hatch were still in office I would love to see him reverse position on the bill once Utah were no longer next in line to get the "balancing" extra seat. (I would doubly expect this if the state next in line for a seat leaned Democratic.)

Having studied the issues surrounding this bill there is no doubt that the residents of D.C. have a complaint worth addressing – the only problem is that it must be addressed within the constraints of the law. The only issues that are truly clear cut here are the tax related arguments. The proper resolution for those arguments is not a simple bill but a constitutional amendment to the effect that "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states and all territories subject to the same federal taxes as the several states."

I don’t claim that the threshold for an amendment is an easy one to climb, but I think that a majority of fair minded people could be brought to support such an amendment along with the requisite supermajorities of both houses of Congress. Problem solved, constitutional objections averted.

Tags Constitution, fourth seat, government, house, voting

National

Envision the GOP to Come

In the current discussions regarding the future direction of the GOP as the Republican party seeks to find ways back to leading the nation there are many ideas being suggested. Some of those ideas deserve no consideration, such as abdicating our conservative roots and embracing an expanding government. Other ideas merit serious consideration, such as how we talk about and react to evidence of climate change. Finally there are some ideas which I believe should be embraced by the party quickly to help us build a party culture that will attract the support of reasonable people from across the political landscape. Two such ideas come to mind instantly. One is the need for smaller government. With Democrats in power proposing expansive programs we have already seen out elected Republicans paying lip service to the ideas of smaller government. Some of them might even actually believe what they are saying right now. The second idea that we should embrace without delay is to promote a Humbler Foreign Policy.

This might seem to contradict the longstanding party talking point of having a strong military, but if we stop to look at foreign policy separate from military strength it is easy to see that there is a vast difference between having a big stick and using it excessively.

What, after all, was conservative about George W. Bush’s post-9/11 pledges to "rid the world of evil" and "end tyranny in our world?" Conservatives used to believe that there were limits to the federal government’s capabilities. And yet, today, many of the same people who ridicule "midnight basketball" programs at home support ambitious nation-building projects abroad.

Do we really need new aircraft carriers, fighter planes, and a bigger army to fight men who live in caves, and attack us with box cutters? Why, in an era of trillion-dollar deficits, do we spend more on "defense" than the next 12 nations combined, maintain an empire of over 700 bases in 144 countries, and provide defense welfare for South Korea, Western Europe, and Japan, who are perfectly capable of defending themselves?

Conservatives seem to have forgotten the wisdom of one of their intellectual founders, Russell Kirk, who resisted empire and militarism, and maintained that war had to be a last resort, because it might "make the American president a virtual dictator, diminish the constitutional powers of Congress, contract civil liberties, [and] distort the economy."

(emphasis added)

I would not be one to argue that our military should be reduced in strength or that we should not continually seek to improve our capabilities to match advances in military reality. I would argue that carrying the big stick has led to abuses of our military might and a presidency that has grown alarmingly close to dictatorial in its power. We need to learn the difference between carrying a big stick and owning a big stick. We may have to endure inaccurate accusations of being isolationist but it’s better to be an isolationist than a bully if you must err on one side or the other.

Tags connections, foreign policy, military, parties, Republican

General

Federalist No. 54

Federalist No. 54 is not particularly applicable to any of our current political issues, but it is very instructive of the process of political compromise. I also found it to be a very interesting example of the logical somersaults that a person can be brought to accept when they believe in the morality of something as immoral as slavery. The statement below captured a great logical pretzel.

we must deny the fact, that slaves are considered merely as property, and in no respect whatever as persons. The true state of the case is, that they partake of both these qualities: being considered by our laws, in some respects, as persons, and in other respects as property. In being compelled to labor, not for himself, but for a master; in being vendible by one master to another master; and in being subject at all times to be restrained in his liberty and chastised in his body, by the capricious will of another, the slave may appear to be degraded from the human rank, and classed with those irrational animals which fall under the legal denomination of property. In being protected, on the other hand, in his life and in his limbs, against the violence of all others, even the master of his labor and his liberty; and in being punishable himself for all violence committed against others, the slave is no less evidently regarded by the law as a member of the society, not as a part of the irrational creation; as a moral person, not as a mere article of property.

Tags documents, federalist, history