Tag: media

Real Life Choose Your Own Adventure

Post author By David
Post date October 28, 2007
7 Comments on Real Life Choose Your Own Adventure

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 surprised by the news that JK Rowling announced that Dumbledore was gay. At first I was annoyed that she would take the time to insert something into the story that was never apparent in any of the books. It sounded like she was going back and writing an alternate ending after everyone had already purchased the book. If she were going to write more books I would be more open to such amove, but with the series over it seemed rather tactless.

As my annoyance festered I looked closer into the news and found that the story is not quite what the headlines made it out to be. Rowling always thought of Dumbledore as being gay – that’s fine, she’s the author and is entitled to think of her characters as she chooses. It was not enough of an issue as she wrote the books to make her write that into the stories so it should not be made an issue after they are done. I suspect that it would not have become an issue if she had not encountered questions related to Dumbledore. Apparently there was reference in some of the screen writing for the movies that have not yet been made in the series to a female romantic interest in Dumbledore’s past. That was not in the book anymore than his being gay and she is perfectly welcome to make sure that it is not inserted into the movies. The fact that it almost was put in the movie proves that his being gay really was not in the books.

She revealed her inner view of Dumbledore in response to a question from the audience where she was speaking. I have no problems with whatever her personal view was on Dumbledore but I hope that they don’t make it more of an issue in the movies than she did in the books.

Tags media, reactions

culture

Doing the Impossible

I thought it interesting to learn about the blog post from Bobby Calvan – the blog no longer exists – which proves that nothing is impossible. (Hat tip Steve Urquhart) For those who are interested the entire post – and the 197 comments that were generated in just over 3 hours – has been preserved by Doc Weasle.

A brief summary would go like this – Bobby, a reporter, is in a hurry in Baghdad and is delayed by an American soldier because of insufficient identification at a checkpoint. He feels superior to the soldier because this particular soldier has not heard of Knight Ridder (and pronounces the name wrong to boot). He then takes to time to blog about the incident as evidence that the American soldiers, “are the absolute worst.”

In feeling so intellectually superior to this soldier he demonstrates that one bit of trivia is not proof of a great body of knowledge. Apparently he is unaware that Knight Ridder is not a household name (like the Associated Press, or ever Reuters might be) because they don’t publish anything with their name. In other words, they are exactly one step further up the money chain than most readers ever dig into their news sources.

The post proves that even in Baghdad Bobby Calvan felt safe enough to cop an attitude with a soldier and that it doesn’t take long to have almost 200 people tell him off for it.

I’m not sure which is harder – uniting the internet (like Bobby Calvan did) or enforcing democracy as an outsider (like the soldier in Baghdad is trying to do). Hopefully the soldiers will eventually be as successful as Mr. Calvan has been.

Tags connections, media, reactions

culture

Speak Up

I loved seeing How to Get Involved in Political Process at KSL. It talks about how to go beyond voting and pontificating to actually making a difference politically. There are many ways to be involved between the voting and serving in an elected capacity. If you really want to make things happen you can look into being a delegate or a lobbyist. (I know – lobbyists have a bad reputation among some groups.)

Other than primary elections, political analysts say it’s one of the simplest ways to effect politics on the ground level, where anyone can help determine who gets a party’s nomination for president.”Anybody can file to become a delegate,” said Craig Axford, Democratic National Committee party organization director for Utah.

. . . To become a delegate that goes to the national convention, first you have be chosen as a county delegate at party caucus meetings or neighborhood precincts, then get elected as a state delegate. . .

Both parties will hold their caucus meetings March 25. The only difference between the two parties is the Republicans will pick county and state delegates at the same time.

If a particular bill is more important to you than a specific candidate, then maybe becoming a lobbyist is more for you.

I also learned a lot from a presentation at the American Solutions conference by Stephen Goldsmith titled Citizenship and Local Government: You Can (and Must) Make a Difference. (download his presentation and the transcript of the Q&A portion of the session.)

The overall lesson from these seems to be that we have to speak up to affect change. Anyone who tells you to pipe down does not trust democracy. Just remember that speaking up does not mean shouting down those who disagree with you. People should express their diverse opinions. If you think the prevailing message is not accurate then track down the facts and learn how to make yourself heard. If after you do that people vote differently than you, they are only exercising the very freedom that made this country great.

Tags citizenship, community, media

State

Arguments Against Vouchers

Post author By David
Post date October 8, 2007
No Comments on Arguments Against Vouchers

I enjoyed reading Dixie Huefner’s opinion in the Salt Lake tribune recently. It was one of the more well-considered arguments against vouchers. Despite avoiding the emotionally charged shouting-match feeling that seem to dominate divisive issues like this, she still managed to skew the data to fit her position rather than presenting more accurate facts along with her legitimate personal opinion. (Yes, my support for vouchers does not cause me to think that everyone who opposes vouchers is a mindless zombie big-government liberal.) So here are some thoughts to temper her arguments.

Siphoning off tax dollars to support private school enrollment . . . also siphons off support for the public schools by parents who obviously care deeply about their children’s education.

This is perhaps one of the strongest legitimate arguments against vouchers. What is not mentioned is that the availability of vouchers gives parents who care deeply about their children’s education a lever to demand more accountability from public schools when the schools are not serving their children well.

The subsidy, from $ 500 to $ 3,000, mostly helps families who can afford to pay a significant portion of the private school tuition. Many of the best private schools cost between $ 10,000-15,000 a year. If vouchers are meant to help those who cannot afford private schools, they significantly limit the private school choices available to low- and many middle-income families.

Many of the best private schools – this ignores the fact that the $ 10,000 to $ 15,000 private schools make up a tiny fraction of the private schools in the state. There are many others which cost significantly less (some even less than $ 3000) and still offer a greater range of choices to parents than public schools do. The vouchers are not limited to being spent at the “best” (read “most expensive”) private schools. I would bet that 50% of private schools charge less than $5000 and if vouchers are implemented new charter schools are likely to spring up catering to this within-reach-of-the-vouchers price range. For those who argue that $ 5000 is still a lot of money I argue that:

- A $2000 voucher brings the cost to $ 250 a month which is a good chunk, but if you are serious about your child’s education you’re likely to find a way (start by ditching your $ 60 cable bill).
- Voucher opponents do not suggest raising the level of vouchers – they prefer to limit parental choice to the rich.

The provision allocating money to public schools to partially offset the loss of tax dollars for children receiving education vouchers expires after five years.

Why should public schools be perpetually paid for students that they never educate? This argument directly conflicts with the argument that vouchers cost too much. If the public schools were paid for more than five years the vouchers would cost more. Besides, the provision itself does not expire after five years, the offset money expires for individual students who remain outside the public school system for more than 5 years. In other words, the schools quit receiving money after parents have determined that their student really is doing better outside the public school system.

Other parents may determine that their child’s instructional needs have not been met by the school. They may have a child who is harassed or bullied by other children, or they may prefer smaller class sizes.

Certainly, private schools have a role in educating children who are not well-served by their public school. But the selection of another public school is also an option for parents who are seeking a more effective school environment for a particular child.

Students are allowed to move between schools within their districts. Their choice of schools are limited to other schools that are directed by the same people who are directing the schools they are trying to get away from. That sounds like Henry Ford telling people that they could have their car in any color they chose – so long as it was black.

Another concern about the voucher legislation is that it will encourage private schools that lack a track record and will not be as instructionally effective as the public schools. Public schools are accountable to the public and must report such matters as drop-out and attendance rates and achievement scores.

The voucher legislation will not provide vouchers for schools that do not have a track record. The track record in private schools is that if they do not meet the demands of parents they lose their students and have to close. Public schools are insulated from that kind of accountability – they just have to report their numbers but there is no risk to their bottom line.

[Public schools] must comply with due process protections and equal protection mandates of the U.S. and state constitutions.

This is a nice scare tactic, but what “due process protections and equal protection mandates” are private schools going to violate?

If all the energy in time and money spent on supporting private school vouchers went to promoting ongoing professional development of educators; [etc.] . . . we might have an education system that better meets the needs of all our children.

If all the energy in time and money spent on oppopsing private school vouchers (that’s much more than has been spent supporting them) we might have an education system that was better, but one size still does not meet the needs of all our children.

As I have said before, there are valid arguments against vouchers. Most of them are based on personal beliefs about the way our children should be educated and what is in the best interest of society. Let’s quit pretending that this is a fight between good an evil. It’s largely a matter of personal preference and social vision. “What do you think is best?” That’s the real question behind this legislative fight.

Tags issues, media, position, State, vouchers

culture life State

Prosecuting Religious Beliefs

Post author By David
Post date September 16, 2007
6 Comments on Prosecuting Religious Beliefs

On Friday I saw the news from the first day of the Warren Jeffs trial. Connected to the particular story that I read was audio of Jeffs teaching youth classes in his polygamous community. I was curious to hear the words and voice of a man as twisted as Jeffs has been portrayed in the media. I was surprised to find a man whose voice and tone were so mild an unpretentious. I had expected someone more commanding and authoritative, but I found someone who was earnest and soft-spoken. (This should not be taken as an endorsement for any of the doctrines of his church.)

As I learned more of the details of the case being prosecuted I was surprised to learn that polygamy was not even an issue in this case. The bride was 14 at the time she married her 19 year old cousin as his first wife. One of my brothers is almost that much older than his wife, so the age difference is of little concern. Nor have I seen any indications that the husband took a second wife at any point. I started to wonder if the prosecution is wasting time on a case that they expect to lose.

This realization got me thinking about the slippery slope we get on the moment that we start legislating against belief and not actions. I am convinced that Warren Jeffs honestly believes in the doctrines of his church – after all, he grew up with that belief system. I think of Alma 1: 17-18

. . . now the law could have no power on any man because of his belief. And they durst not steal for fear of the law, for such were punished; neither durst they rob, nor murder, for he that murdered was punished unto death.

We can’t try to stamp out a belief in the practice of polygamy. We can enforce the laws against the practice of polygamy, but this trial is set up as an attempt to dampen the beliefs of those who engage in polygamy – that is not something that the law is equipped to do, nor is it something that the law should attempt to do.

Tags belief, government, media

culture

A New Generation?

I had not planned to write anything particularly focused on the anniversary of 9/11. Certainly I am not surprised by the number of people who are writing about that. When I read The September 11 Generation Doesn’t Forget it got me wondering how much of the attitudes in that article were real and how much they were based on perceptions from a partisan standpoint. I also wondered if we had really gained a new distinct generation. If anyone has read The Fourth Turning they would recognize the significance of that.

I was disappointed to see that the inappropriate attitudes among liberals that were portrayed in the article were not merely the fancy of a conservative writer. I saw some clearly inappropriate posts on a “progressive” blog here in Utah. I won’t link to the post because any coverage that post gets is more than it deserves. In fairness, that same blog later posted a much more appropriate dissenting opinion. (I won’t link to that either because it leads so easily to the other post.) I’m not ignorant that there is plenty to criticize in our current administration, but some kinds of dissent are more destructive and less acceptable than others.

For an example of what I consider to be the best kind of commemoration for this date see SLCSpin. Like others have said – get out and vote today. Exercising that American privilege is the best commemoration of any important event in American history. For anyone in Lehi, you can learn about the candidates (if you have not already) from Utah-Candidates.com.

Tags citizenship, connections, discourse, generations, Lehi, media

National

Power Struggle

This is nothing new in politics (power struggles in general or this one in particular) but it is starting to get more press coverage – the question is, “Who controls the nomination process – the states, or the parties?” The struggle is most public among the Democrats as their candidates have now promised to honor the Party primary calendar. The Republicans are dealing with the very same issue but without the same level of publicity. The struggle between the parties and the states seems to be a direct result of a struggle among the states to gain influence in the candidate selection process. I am left to wonder how the traditional set of early states was initially established? Was that set by the parties, or by the respective states? (Can anyone enlighten me on that?)

In my mind the parties should not control the process. On the other hand, they are choosing representatives for their respective parties so they should have control of how those representatives are chosen. I believe that experience had led the parties to value a process where they largely mimic each other through the primary cycle. (I’m not sure exactly why that is although I have a few guesses) While I believe that states should be able to choose how and when they participate in the primary selection process I’m not convinced that voters win when the primary season is pushed so far in advance of the general election. Imagine if the candidates for the election of 2000 were chosen in mid 1997 and then had 9/11 occur in mid 1998. We could find that the candidates we had chosen were ill suited to our new reality. (I know that’s an extreme example – almost too ridiculous to comprehend, but you can’t miss my point) There’s always a certain amount of risk that changes will occur between the primary selection and the final vote, but the earlier we push the primaries the greater that risk becomes.

What do other people think? Who should control the primary schedule? What would the ideal schedule look like (in general terms)? Is the current reshuffling power-struggle good, bad, or neutral for voters and the country?

Tags candidates, democracy, elections, media, reactions

culture

Good Question

I saw a video clip (I believe this was from an “Ask Mitt anything” session) in which someone asked Mitt Romney how he would go about changing the culture of Washington D.C. I thought the answer was good and the question is more important than we might guessed based on the amount of coverage it gets in the media.

P.S. This is also an excuse to test the embed tag in one of my blog posts.

Tags citizenship, media, national candidates, Romney

culture

Ahead of the Curve

Yeasterday I wrote about my apprehension with Mitt Romney’s approach to health care reform in Massachusetts and the social direction of this country that our current health care reform discussion implies. Today I was surprised to find articles on both topics. Lessons from Massachusetts highlights the kinds of reasons to be uneasy with Mitt’s Massachusetts approach. E Pluribus Unum goes into more depth on where this country is headed and why it’s not as good as advertised.

I look forward to the details of the proposal that Mitt is supposed to make today on health care, because it is supposed to be different than his Massachusetts approach. Maybe it will be better. I also hope that we can become aware of the dangers we face if we do not turn our cities and states around and get the country back on the path of greatness. Don’t get me wrong, we live in a great country, but being in a country built on great principles does not guarantee that the choices we are making now will lead to future greatness. We still have to be careful.

Tags government, heal, media, Romney

life Local

Misleading Headline

It’s frustrating to read articles such as the Daily Herald’s “Lehi residents talk about east-west freeway” because the title suggests that there might be a Lehi viewpoint to the article. It looks more like a UDOT viewpoint.

The results of their informal survey – asking whether people prefer the UDOT plan for a 2100 North freeway or the Lehi plan for a 4800 North freeway – are that six people chose the UDOT plan, one chose the Lehi plan, and one person said “whichever gets my mom home from Salt Lake the fastest.”

There are two things that really disturb me about this. First, of these 8 “Lehi residents” there are 4 residents of Eagle Mountain, 1 from American Fork, 1 from Alpine (really not connected to this issue), and only 2 from Lehi. Lehi did not even have the highest individual representation, let alone a simple majority. Second, the single question does not provide enough background to make any kind of informed choice between the options.

Of the two residents from Lehi, one chose the Lehi plan for 4800 north and one chose the UDOT plan for 2100 North. I accept that there are residents of Lehi that would choose 2100 North, but the reasoning behind that particular answer seems to confirm what I suspected – that the people being questioned were not generally informed on the issue. The reason given by that Lehi resident was that 2100 North would “harm less people putting it there because they wouldn’t have to remove as much.” That is true only when the 2100 North option is compared to the other UDOT options but not true when compared to the 4800 North freeway that UDOT has not yet considered. 4800 North would not remove any residents while 2100 North does. It is probably safe to say that respondents were also not aware that the UDOT plan is for 2100 North and nothing else while the Lehi plan is for 4800 North plus boulevards at 2100 North and 1000 South in addition to making Main Street wider west of the city where traffic is heaviest.

Next time I see an article about “Lehi residents” I hope they are actually residents of Lehi. I also hope that we can circulate more complete information on this important project.

Tags community, media, transportation