Categories
General life

A Currency All My Own


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

I really enjoyed Scott’s introduction to different currency types.  It’s a great introduction to the differences between fiat currency, commodity currency, and representative currency. Coincidentally we have implemented a new representative currency in our household in an effort to teach our children about money and work. Personally I think that the commodity backing our currency is the safest commodity around except for it’s non-transferable nature and often short shelf-life. Our currency is backed by goodwill – although there is an exchange rate from U.S. dollars.

As for real world crisis scenarios, my personal philosophy is to do my best to maximize my production ability, build up my stores, minimize my vulnerability, and do what I can to maximize social stability by building up a strong and prepared community around me.

Categories
National

Internal Dissent/Debate


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

I can’t decide whether it was beyond the scope of what Cameron wanted to write or whether he thinks that the discussion and dissent among the Democratic base really are less prevalent among Republicans. Regardless of which of those options is more accurate, as I read his post I was struck with how I see the exact same kinds of dissent among rank-and-file Republicans that he was describing among Democrats. I see it at the local and national levels and I have seen it in various forms for years.

While I don’t think that I could specify the line between healthy debate and destructive agitation I am confident that a lack of debate is anything but healthy in all or nearly all circumstances. I hope that over time the Republican party coalesces around those positions that I think are the most conducive to good government and good society, but I do not hope that the debate should ever die. I think that when people silence their honest differenced of opinion they open the door for destructive dictatorial types to have undue influence within the political process within the party and within the actual government.

Categories
National

Revolving Doors


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

This year the state legislature tried to close a revolving door. In 2007 Congress tried to close their version of that door. I’m not sure how well either of them will work over time, but if it’s important to close revolving doors, maybe we should try closing another revolving door – the one from one federal elective office to the Presidency.

Admittedly, few sitting legislators have been elected as President, but you have to go back to 1900 to find a presidential election where a Senator did not seek the presidency (there were generally members of the house seeking it as well). Maybe if we placed a two year restriction after leaving a federal legislative office before a person could seek the presidency we might have fewer members of Congress trying to use their offices as stepping stones to the Oval Office.

Of course that would simply guarantee two year presidential campaigns, but at least those campaigns would not include a guaranteed fallback of a seat in the Senate for sitting senators.

Categories
General Local

Loving America


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

It’s been a long time since I stumbled across something that belongs in my personal perspectives series, but I could not pass this up when someone I’ve long interacted with describes his love for America (which love I share):

I too love America. I love her for the ideals and principles of liberty upon which she was founded. I love her natural and man-made beauties. I love her for the great amount of good she has accomplished and which ordinary free Americans achieve on their own. Perhaps more than anything else, I love her for the hope she inspires in individuals domestically and throughout the world.

The United States of America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth today. It is a grand place, but it is not a perfect place. While it seems vogue in some circles to see only America’s faults, problems, and failures to live up to her stated ideals, I believe America is wonderful and beautiful even when all of these are considered.

And I do believe that it is very wise to consider America’s flaws. But I also feel that it is wrong to make them the central feature of our individual view of America. To do so is to ignore the greater grandeur of the whole picture.

To me, a true American is one that loves this country with his eyes wide open. A true American feels rapture when the U.S. Flag is raised and when he sings the National Anthem, regardless of which political faction is in control at the moment. A true American stands proudly by America when she is in the right and lovingly works to correct her when she strays.

(emphasis added)

I don’t see how any citizen who has taken the time to learn about our nation, whatever their political leanings, can feel differently about our nation – warts and all.

Categories
State technology

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.

Categories
National

Envision the GOP to Come


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

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.

Categories
General

Two Forms of Government


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

I really appreciated the video that Scott shared yesterday. (You can see the full video below.) It reminded me that there are only two distinct forms of government. One is transient as it depends on the life of the ruler(s) while the other is stable because it is based on a foundation of written law. Of course we can make changes to that foundation, but the core is rarely changed, if ever.

Our nation was founded upon the rule of law. That was the whole purpose of most of our founding documents (Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact, Articles of Confederation, Constitution, Bill of Rights). The scariest thing in our modern political system is not the goals and ideals of any of the political parties, it is the almost universal attitude within every party that their ideals supercede the law of the land. A perfect example of that attitude was posted as a comment last month stating:

principles . . . must transcend and over-ride individual provisions of the Constitution

Good government depends on that statement being universally rejected. As I responded then:

principles . . . must not transcend or over-ride individual provisions of the Constitution . . . instead those bedrock principles must be used to guide the amendment of the Constitution

Categories
National

Senators Seeing the Future (Clearly)


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

There are obviously a few things that I don’t understand about the Senate. Yesterday I reported that according to Senator Bennett the most important (he said it was most important, it was not simply the first thing on his list) part of the job of a senator is to try to see the future clearly. Little did I know that later in the day I would find an example of that prescience in action. Becky Edwards shares from the State Legislature:

There was discussion and explanation of the federal stimulus package and how it will affect Utah. We will receive $1,536,834,051 of stimulus funds. This is one time money only. Of that $86M is to be used at the Governor’s discretion. Much of this money is targeted, cannot be moved around, has strings attached (we’re still waiting to find out what they are), some cannot be spent for 1 or 2 years . . .

(emphasis added)

Apparently our representatives at the federal level (Not Utah’s delegation specifically) can already see the future clearly enough to know that the economy will need continued stimulus next year and the year after that. And here I thought that the stimulus bill was intended to get the economy back on its own two feet sooner rather than later. If I wanted it to take 3 years (it’s already been more than 1) we could have achieved that by sitting back and watching. Now we run the risk of nursing it along for years to come.

Categories
State technology

Legal Notice – SB 208


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

I was going to post a summary of the meeting, but many other people have already done a good job of that (Holly, JM Bell, Jason, Bob, Joe). So far, it appears that only JM Bell and BenJoe have taken the time to create something more than a back-of-the-napkin post of quotes and initial reactions.  (That’s not a criticism of the other posts, by the way.) From the meeting itself I only want to post one little gem from Sen. Urquhart:

It’s not government’s job to prop up an industry.

I wish someone would tell that to Congress.

Now, my initial thoughts were that I can’t wait to see how the media reacts to this. The very tip of the iceberg comes in the form of a comment that has been posted on a couple of the blogs that wrote initial reactions.

The claim is that the newspapers are already developing a website that would serve a similar purpose of providing more access and wider distribution of legal notices. Personally, I won’t hold my breath. Even if their site is close to production I would have to see it before deciding if it really serves the public. There is no reason that citizens should be mandated to publish through the newspapers – just as there would be no justification for mandating that they could not publish through the newspapers.

If newspapers are pushing to raise the cap on what they can charge for legal notices I have a hard time imagining that they are planning to offer the services of their new website for free or even at a low cost.

I think the heart of the comment is in this paragraph:

As has been the case for centuries, public notice is best served by a third-party, independent source. There should be a be check and balance on government power. In other words, should the fox be watching the henhouse when it comes to legal notices? Also, should the government be in the business of creating its own communications bureaucracy?

I think we need to define who the parties are to this system. The government has nothing to gain by not publishing some legal notice that has been submitted so I’m not sure that you could claim that they are any less independent than the newspapers. I don’t believe that publishing legal notices gives any power to the press. The whole statement sounds like a breathless rush to throw out something that might make people reject this proposal without any real argument against it.

A more thoughtful question was posed during the briefing (I believe by Ethan Millard):

Why should government take over a market that has been a private transaction?

My answer has two parts. First – is it really a private transaction when government has already mandated that the transaction take place? Second – I would not argue that government should take over such transactions, only that there is very little reason why government should avoid making the legal requirement that drives those transactions as painless as possible. If there were already some low-cost way for people to meet the requirements of providing legal notice that provided the requisite distribution of the notice then there would be no reason for this bill.

The fact is that government should not be mandating a captive market, as the legal notice requirement currently does. Newspapers have become dependent on their captive market – that’s not healthy for them and they need to fix it even if SB 208 were not being proposed. Let’s free people to allow publishing of  legal notice outside the newspapers and then eliminate the cap on what newspapers can charge for the notice when people choose to publish through the papers.

Categories
State technology

A Blogger Press Corps – of Sorts


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

I was just talking to Ric Cantrell about the Bloggerpresser that is taking place this afternoon at 4:00 in the senate building (it’s an open invitation – see his post for details on attending live or virtually). I want to share a couple of interesting thoughts from our conversation.

Ric mentioned as he has tried to organize this event that bloggers are not like the traditional press corps. (Not that he expected they would be.) With a standard press conference he can simply email the reporters who cover politics at the various news organizations and know that the conference will be covered. With bloggers there is no definitive list of who is interested or available. He can send an email to those whose emails addresses he has, but that does not guarantee that everyone who would like to come has been informed. There is no central place where anyone can be assured that all the appropriate bloggers will get the information.

That makes me wonder – what would be the best way to deal with this issue? Is it something where political bloggers who wish to cover state legislative issues should be expected to follow senatesite.com to get announcements when they do blogger oriented events? Would it be better to have a Utah Bloggers Pseudo Press Corps email list that interested bloggers could subscribe to for such announcements? (I made that name up as I typed it, don’t hold me to that name if you favor the email list idea.)

Another question I have is – who is interested in the idea of press credentials for bloggers? Who is interested in a non-credentialed Blogger Press Corps? Please let me know if you have interest in this area so that we can expand the group of people who are discussing the possibilities.