Obama Implictly Defends President Bush's Faith

President Bush has taken a lot of heat in some quarters for his comments that he continually prayed that he would be doing God's will. Ranters complained that Bush was trying to lead a theocracy.

Candidate Obama gave an interview to Newsweek where he discussed his faith. When asked what he prays for, he said, "Forgiveness for my sins and flaws, which are many, the protection of my family, and that I'm carrying out God's will, and not in a grandiose way, but simply that there is an alignment between my actions and what he would want. And then I find myself sometimes praying for people who need a lift, need a hand."

Presumably, a man who believes that God will guide the actions of his personal life also believes that guidance would carry over into every facet of existence. If my presumption is accurate, then Obama would probably also defend President Bush from the spiteful remarks about his faith.

I hope we'll see more of this side of Senator Obama. Odds are that he's going to be our next president and I think our nation needs leaders who will honestly seek to do the right thing under the inspiration of heaven. The humility to ask for help is a great sign.

Vitriolic Partisanship Forbidden for Obama Supporters

It occurred to me today that Obama supporters are in a unique situation. They are supporting a candidate who promises to change the tone in Washington. He promises to bridge the partisan divide. Presumably, they support him because of this view, rather than in spite of it.

If he and his followers are to accomplish this goal of increased civility (which I heartily support) they'll have to prove they don't hate people that disagree with them on policy matters. After all, hating someone isn't a great way to build bridges. Some of Obama's most vocal supporters in the blogosphere are going to have a hard time convincing me they've jumped that hurdle.

It was a good reminder for me that I can't get so blinded by Obama's poor choices and policy positions that I start to consider him "the enemy." If he wins the election, I'll support him as the president. I hope that those on the left will extend the same courtesy to Senator McCain.

Poll Giddy

I always feel so cool when I get called to participate in an opinion poll. There is something so satisfying about a total stranger calling you and asking you about things that you're actually conversant with; as opposed to people asking me sports questions which leave me clueless.

I was asked about the Cannon v. Chaffetz race. I'm currently leaning towards Cannon. I'm not aware of any votes he's taken on major issues that I disagree with. He seems to have a reasonable and thoughtful position on immigration issues.

I don't have anything against Chaffetz, but I don't have any reason to throw Cannon out since I feel he's doing well.

The Gore Effect

I noticed the weather report for early tomorrow morning, June 12:

A frost advisory remains in effect from 3 am to 8 am MDT Thursday. This advisory is for the Cache Valley... southern Wasatch front... western Uinta Basin... west central and southwest Utah... and the Sanpete and Sevier valleys...
(from NOAA via wunderground)

I wonder if Al Gore is visiting Utah.

Chris Cannon and NOPEC

NOPEC (H.R. 6074), a bill passed by the US House on May 21, 2008, is essentially an attempt to sue OPEC for operating a cartel or monopoly. (Official summary: To amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal and for other purposes.) It passed 324 to 84 (with 26 no-votes).

My feelings about this bill can be summarized by quoting Rep. Nick Lampson (D-Tx): "Americans are facing real economic hardships that cannot be overcome with symbolic legislation. This bill would do little more than create another layer of bureaucracy at the taxpayer's expense."

The Republican leadership (Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) specifically) defended the more than 100 Republicans who voted for this bill by saying the bill was "meaningless" and "They [the "yea" voters] don't want to explain why they didn't." That particular sentiment ticked me off a little. Please treat me like an adult, Congress, and try explaining things to me. There have been a few too many times lately when Republican House members have done things that I disagree with, and occasionally I feel like voting ALL of the "bums" out would maybe send the right message.

Right now we are in a heated primary race (3rd District) between Chris Cannon and Jason Chaffetz, and my research has shown very little different between the two, policy-wise. (I haven't yet decided how I'm voting in the late-June primary.) I'm trying to balance "throw the bums out" with Cannon's seniority in D.C., what little differences the two candidates have, and how they are conducting their campaigns.

So I researched how Chris Cannon voted in the NOPEC bill. Imagine my (pleased) surprise when I discovered that he is one of the 84 who voted "Nay" (scroll down for Utah). Good for you, Rep. Cannon. Thanks for sticking to principles and not treating your constituents as too stupid to understand world energy issues. I still haven't decided whom I'm voting for, but that is a definite point in the Cannon column.

(For other Utah districts, Rob Bishop (1st District) voted "Nay" as well, and Jim Matheson (2nd District) did not cast a vote.)

Using 9/11 (Erronously) to Denote Disaster

On NPR's All Things Considered broadcast on May 19th, Robert Siegel and Melissa Block report on the one-week anniversary of the 7.9 magnitude earthquake that hit Sichuan province in China. With alarms and sirens to mark the time, China is starting three days of mourning of the tragic loss of life (although the death toll will probably continue to rise, right now CNN.com pegs it at over 40,000). The loss of life is truly mind-boggling, and the amount of rebuilding and resettling will occupy China for years.

In the first 30 seconds of the NPR broadcast linked above, Melissa Block states that "5/12 is now China's 9/11". This is not an unusual comparison, as it has been used numerous times before to denote a nation-altering disaster--usually terrorism related, such as Spain's 3/11 and London's 7/5 bombings. Those events, for those countries, are comparable to 9/11 for the United States. But large natural disasters, however huge the loss of life, aren't necessarily nation-altering. They also don't necessarily sear themselves into the psyche of those who didn't immediately experience them.

An event like the 2004 tsunami was a nation-altering--perhaps in some ways a world-altering--event. It was huge, unexpected, and unusual--something that hasn't happened in generations. An earthquake in the United States that killed over 40,000 people would be a huge, unusual event.

Unfortunately, in China, earthquakes with massive loss of life aren't unusual events. In fact, within living memory, an magnitude 7.5 earthquake in northeastern China had a death toll of over 240,000 people (which is actually a little higher than the official death toll for the tsunami). In 1974, a Chinese earthquake killed 20,000. Farther back, but still less than 100 years ago, an earthquake in 1927 killed more than 40,900 Chinese; an earthquake in 1920 killed more than 200,000 Chinese.

The tragedy of 9/11 was not the loss of life alone--although that was heartrending and horrifying. Rather, it was the fact that the United States had been attacked on our mainland, by an enemy almost completely unknown to the general public, out of a clear blue sky. It radically changed our society, our foreign policy, and our political landscape. We have declared war against terrorism, which is a generational battle if there ever was one. Comparing it to huge natural disasters is like comparing apples and lima beans.

This does not lessen the tragedy of the May 12, 2008 earthquake. But I don't foresee huge changes in Chinese politics or society based on it, if past earthquakes are any indication. Maybe I'm wrong--maybe the global connected age will make a bigger difference in this event than in previous ones. Only time will tell.

Rep. Chris Cannon, Jason Chaffetz, and Fiscal Responsibility

In my previous post, I mentioned my desire for a more fiscally responsible federal government. Yesterday I was contacted by representatives from Rep. Cannon's and Mr. Chaffetz's organizations. Here are their responses (posted with permission):

From Fred Piccolo, Rep. Cannon's communications director:

I read your post on Hot Blava in regards to the upcoming 3rd District primary. As a fellow fiscal conservative, I wanted to get you some information on Congressman Cannon to counter some of the more disingenuous things that have been said about his record. I only wish we had 434 other members of Congress who voted to protect our money like Chris Cannon does. I hope this helps you make your decision in this year's election and please feel free to contact me if you have any other questions.

- Scored a 96% pork-free/taxpayer-friendly voting record according to the Club for Growth. The HIGHEST of any member of Congress from Utah and 67% better than Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

- According to the National Journal - Conservative on Economic Policy calculations, in 2006 Representative Cannon voted more conservative on economic policy issues than 96 percent of the House
- Citizens Against Government Waste, an organization that tracks votes on efforts to cut pork in spending bills gave Congressman Cannon the highest score in the entire Utah delegation, scoring a 77 percent fiscally conservative record
- National Journal, a non-partisan publication, ranked Congressman Cannon as the 17th (out of 435) most conservative member of the House on spending and taxes

- The National Taxpayers Union gave Congressman Cannon an "A" Rating and he was the 2006 Winner of the "Friend of the Taxpayer" award.
- Americans for Tax Reform made Congressman Cannon the only "Hero of the Taxpayer" award winner in the entire Utah delegation for his consistent votes against raising taxes

Some of Chris' latest votes:

- Sponsored the Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution

- For the Internet Tax Moratorium, preventing taxes on internet access. He was the lead Republican on the moratorium legislation and President Bush invited him to the White House for the signing of his moratorium bill

- For a Constitutional amendment requiring 2/3 majorities of both Houses of Congress to pass any tax increase (H Res. 89)

- For dismantling the IRS (HR 3097)

- For the Bush Tax cuts. Over $1.35 trillion in tax cuts for American families. (HR 1836)
- Against SCHIP expansion

- Against socialized or government-run health care every time it came before Congress
- For giving the President a line-item veto (HR 4890)
- For eliminating the death tax (HR 8)
- For eliminating the Marriage Penalty
- For increasing the Child Tax Credit
- For Welfare Reform

From Deidre Henderson, Utah County Chair for Jason Chaffetz's campaign:

The issue of fiscal discipline is very important to me. Over the last decade I have watched our national debt and national budget double. This has been very dismaying, as the Republicans were in control of both houses of Congress and the White House for the majority of that time period. By the way, the doubled budget only takes into account a tiny fraction of the cost of the War on Terror. The residual cost of the War is maintained through separate appropriations not even included in the annual budget. Even more dismaying is the fact that this burgeoning budget has developed while our own Chris Cannon has been in office.

This is one of the many reasons I am supporting Jason Chaffetz.

A key element in Jason's campaign is Fiscal Responsibility - I know those words seem embedded in every candidate's campaign, but watch the walk and you'll see who practices what is preached.

Jason is dedicated to maintaining a budget for his campaign - and he sticks to it! His philosophy is watch how a candidate runs his campaign, and get a preview of how they will be in office. If a candidate continually runs his campaign in great debt or spends exorbitant amounts of money on staff, meals, cars, offices, and expensive mailers, then that is what you will get in Washington - a lot of your hard earned money spent in meaningless and extravagant ways.

In addition to this important fundamental principle of fiscal discipline are some other critical issues that Jason is concerned about; accountability (both for individuals and those serving in public office), limited government, and national security. I encourage you to call Jason with any questions you may have. Attend a cottage meeting and hear him directly. Get to know the other candidates and compare the substantive areas of debate. I think you will find that Jason is by far the best candidate for our congressional district!

Fiscal responsibility is a dull, dry topic that nonetheless is very important to me. I worry about the tax burden on everyone--even if you don't pay income tax, you (probably) still pay payroll taxes, food taxes, property taxes, etc. (I'm not against taxes, I'm against BIG taxes.) I also worry about the demonization of corporations, "Big" business, and rich people. (I'm not a rich person, but I wouldn't mind being one someday!) I want our Congress to cut back on unnecessary spending (pork barrel projects and bridges to nowhere come to mind), streamline (and cut back) our current programs, and let us keep more of our own money.

All three major candidates for UT-3 agree with me. So what to do? Details help, as from Cannon's and Chaffetz's campaigns. Actions help, as with Rep. Cannon's past actions and Mr. Chaffetz's campaign pledges. Keeping things polite and friendly (I don't mind contrasting positions, but not personalities, please) helps a ton, at least for this voter. Other than that, I'm not sure how I'll decide. Other factors do come into play, as support of the Iraq war, the war on terror, illegal immigration, etc, etc, etc.

Politics--local and VERY local

As Tuesday, March 25th is the date for precinct caucuses here in Utah, I've been reading up on some of our local races. We've actually got quite a bit going on this year, with primary challengers in our house district race (66), our senate district race (13), and our federal congressional race (Utah's Third Congressional District).

It's not a surprise that Chris Cannon has an intra-party challenge again--people haven't been particularly pleased with Congress as a whole, and Rep. Cannon doesn't have the highest approval ratings in the world. This year there are two gentleman running against him for the Republican "nomination"--David Leavitt (our former governor's brother) and Jason Chaffetz (a former Chief of Staff for our current governor).

I believe that all three of these gentlemen are patriots, wishing to serve the country as best they can. I believe that all three want to protect our country from trouble within and without. I believe all three are honorable, upstanding citizens. So in this case, I'll be making my choice based on another criteria--fiscal responsibility. I personally haven't been pleased with Congress in that regard in the past several years, and I am considering voting against Chris Cannon for that reason--message-sending and all that. However, I won't just blindly vote for "anyone-but". According to both the challengers' websites, they are against the type of spending we have seen recently. Specifically, Chaffetz supports presidential line-item veto power over "pork barrel" earmarks. More research and information must be gathered before I am willing to commit to any of the three.

More locally, Senator Mark B. Madsen (senate district 13) has a challenger, J. Lane Henderson. I haven't been able to find much information about Mr. Henderson, but possibly he is (or was) mayor of Salem. I like Senator Madsen, though, and agree with many of his stances (as well as a voter-identification law he sponsored this session), so for now I don't see myself switching away from him.

Even more locally, Rep. Mike Morley (house district 66) has a challenger, Chance Williams. I can find no information about Mr. Williams beyond this quote in the Deseret News:

"I got tired of reading all the articles about (Rep.) Mike Morley (supporting a bill) that would benefit his construction company," said Chance Williams, a Republican candidate in District 66 running against the Republican Morley. "I want to see people working for legislation that would sincerely benefit the people."

I'm not familiar with this objection, and a quick search of the Deseret News archives (search terms Mike Morley and construction) leads to two articles--one which only mentions Rep. Morley in the comments (a forum I'm not inclined to put great trust) and one which discusses possible conflicts of interest and praises Rep. Morley for his "thorough" disclosure form. So, unless I discover more about this situation, I'm pretty comfortable supporting Rep. Morley.

I'm hoping to be a county delegate again this year--I had such a great time doing it for the last two years. Maybe even a state delegate--that would be an amazing experience. We'll see. Even if I don't get that opportunity, I'm really looking forward to the caucus Tuesday.

[Update: Be sure to read the comments--there is a lot of good information there]

Rules Are Rules

The Democrats are in a quandary this year. Back in 2000 during the Florida recount debacle, they were arguing that rules weren't really that important. Republicans argued that the rules for vote counting had been set and that it wouldn't be fair to change the rules after the election and institute new counting standards for votes. Democrats believed there was a higher principle at stake and spurned the value rules. They were just too brittle!

Returning to 2008, it seems the Democrats have discovered the good old time religion of rules after all! Each of the leading candidates has their own "rules" argument.

Let's start with Clinton. She argues that we must count the votes in Florida. (Echoes of 2000 there.) A lot of people turned out to vote, and it isn't right to just ignore them. Sure, they broke the party rules, but it was really the nasty Republicans that moved the primary anyway, and the Democratic primary voters have a right to be heard notwithstanding the rules.

For Clinton, it doesn't matter that Obama, the lesser known candidate at the time, didn't get the opportunity to campaign in the state. Tough luck. "I've been on the national stage longer and I deserve the points for my win in this name-recognition competition." That seems to be her argument.

Just like in 2000, Clinton wants to disregard the rules that were set in place before the competition and pick a different outcome that suits her better. Obama is left to argue that "rules are rules." Just like Republicans back in 2000.

On a different front, Obama argues, generally via surrogates, that the "super delegates" must respect (i.e. rubber stamp) the results of the pledged delegate race. After all, if Obama wins more states, gets more total votes, and pledged delegates, he deserves the nomination. The super delegates shouldn't be going against the "will of the people."

The Clinton camp has a ready rebuttal to this line of reasoning: "rules are rules." There isn't any point in having super delegates if they can't make up their own minds. If pledged delegates had to carry the day, then we'd only have pledged delegates. But we don't. We have two types of delegates, each able to vote within different parameters. Those are the rules and they exist for a reason. Furthermore, the popular vote totals are irrelevant. Team Clinton can argue that they would have run a different race if they'd been trying to win over a majority of voters rather than a majority of delegates. You can't change the rules after the game has begun! That argument again sounds a lot like the Republicans back in 2000.

To each candidate, I'd say: rules are rules. If you don't like the rules, work to get them changed within the proper process. Quit trying to change the rules midstream. We need the predictability of a system of rules and laws if we're to have a fair and functioning republic. Let's all agree to play nice and play fair.

Krugman's Dismal View on Racial Intent

The biggest changes in society always seem to take a generation. We sometimes have to wait for the old generation to die off--or at least wane in influence--so that new ideas can get hold. I'm sure you've heard your grandparents say something utterly cringeworthy without a second thought. It doesn't occur to them that they might have said something inappropriate.

Racial relations in America seem to be at such a juncture. With the rise of Obama, older people (and commentators) seem to be fixated on the miracle of a black man rising in prominence. Younger people are simply transfixed by a message that they find inspiring; race is largely irrelevant for them.

I get so annoyed when people focus on race instead of substance. I care what you think and how you act, not what color you are. I think that the mainstream of American thought is with me on this.

I felt that familiar annoyance again as I listened to Paul Krugman, economist and columnist for the NY Times, giving a lecture. He was trying to make a case that conservatives use codewords like "welfare" to exploit the racist leanings of their audiences. Huh? Would it be so implausible to believe that people actually mean what they say? I'm including the video that sparked this post so that you can judge for yourself the quality of Krugman's argument about race in politics. See particularly chapter 8 around 22:33.

If I say I'm concerned about welfare, or families, or taxes, or illegal immigration and identity theft, the chances are that I mean exactly that. I'm not trying to secretly push a racist or an ethnic agenda. There are simply issues that resonate with me and that I think are important. I'm not driven by the political battles of a past age that are largely settled.

We're in the clean-up stages of our country's battle against racism. I don't deny the reality of it in the past, and I don't deny that it still occurs today. But we are structurally past it and blatantly racist sentiments are commonly reviled. I'm fully on board with the sentiment expressed so eloquently by the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. which is paraphrased to say that we judge people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

I plead with the older generation to move past the race debates of bygone days. Though there is still work to do and progress to be made, that debate is won.

The Amazing Wheelchair Tricks of Aaron Fotheringham (my cousin!)

My 16-year-old cousin Aaron Fotheringham has finally found his niche in life--in a skate park, doing wild and crazy (not to mention dangerous) stunts. This is not unusual for a teenager, but Aaron’s situation is a little different. Born with spina bifida, he is paralyzed from the waist down, and confined to a wheelchair. For the last four years, he has been going to the concrete skate parks and trying all the tricks he can think of--he practices with skateboarders and dirt-bikers. He loves it, and it shows in his attitude toward life.

In July 2006, Aaron made “wheelchair history” by landing the first airborne backflip in a wheelchair. This may even be Guinness Book of World Records stuff! This type of wheelchair-skateboarding (Aaron calls it “hard-core sitting”) is starting to catch on, and, who knows, it may even become an event in the Para-Olympics.

Aaron’s crazy tricks have been featured in many places--he's been on "tour" in Germany, attended exhibitions in Florida, and been invited (but had to turn down) a trip to Asia. The wheelchair company Colours Wheelchair (one of Aaron's earliest sponsors) has a short video of Aaron, including his amazing backflip. (Click on Aaron Fotheringham in the "what's hot" section of the homepage.)

On February 7, 2008, he was on SportsCenter on ESPN. You can watch the feature here. They did an excellent job in capturing the essence of Aaron. Watch out, though. You might find yourself a bit damp-eyed by the end. That's just how awesome Aaron and his family are!

(If you want to read a little more about Aaron, I wrote about him here two summers ago, right after we found out that our baby son also has spina bifida.)

If This Guy Can Find A Job...

I scoffed at this story when I read it, but I'm oddly supportive of this fellow. I'm not thrilled about the direction his entrepreneurial spirit has taken him, but I really like the spark of creativity it shows on top of an incredibly mundane idea. His goal was to hand write the numbers up to a million.

Wilson, 49, began his quest about four years ago, when he decided he wanted to do something that had never been done. He was fascinated by the number 1 million, which he believes holds a special significance in the American psyche....

The quest ended last month as Wilson put the final numbers in his book. The result is four three-ring binders, each containing 250,000 consecutive numbers. Wilson's binders contain a total of 768 pages, with the numbers written in 10 columns on each side.

So, how will he capitalize on his accomplishment?

People can buy certificates with their lucky number for a few bucks. Each bears the image of Wilson's face on a $1 million bill. They are numbered, signed and certified by "Mr. Million" himself.

And the kicker?

Since he started, Wilson has sold about 500 certificates, he said.

McCain-Huckabee Ticket

There has been some speculation about a McCain-Huckabee ticket for this year's presidential election. I practically thought that McCain was going to throw caution and process to the wind and announce Huckabee as his running mate on the spot during his Super Tuesday victory speech, so fawning was he of his opponent. The question naturally arises as to whether that ticket could carry Utah against a Democratic opponent.

I was only mildly surprised to hear (on RadioWest about halfway through the program) that Huckabee loses a theoretical general election race in Utah against Obama. People like to joke that we're the reddest of the red states, but apparently even we have our limits. In the same polling data*, McCain just barely won over Obama (55-45). So, if the McCain-Huckabee ticket should materialize and we're forced to average those poll results somehow, could McCain still carry Utah?

Ultimately, it doesn't matter. I don't think McCain can win in the general election against either Clinton or Obama. But suppose that it was a cliffhanger: would Utah be in play? I know, it sounds absurd, but suppose it were to actually happen.

Would we, ironically, owe that statewide prominence to Mike Huckabee?

* Quin Monson was citing the survey that was done by his group. He didn't provide the percentage for all the matchups they polled, but here are the results he mentioned. Huckabee beats Clinton 59-41, Obama beats Huckabee, McCain beats Obama 55-45, Romney beats Obama 70ish, McCain beats Hillary 70ish

Parking Lot Owners Should Pay

I heard the story on the news about a the car windows that were smashed during a Jazz game in Salt Lake City.

Audrey Martinez says she was lulled into a false sense of security by a sign claiming 24-7 patrols, but she says she later noticed there were no cameras.

"The attendant that I paid the five dollars to that was supposed to be there during the entire game and after people leave he was not there, nobody was around to help," says Martinez.

Though it isn't in the printed text of the article I linked, the radio report indicated that the parking lot owners reprimanded the attendant who took off early, but are taking no responsibility for the broken windows. They claimed that you "park at your own risk."

I can buy that argument when it comes to door dings or car scratches. But when bandits run through your (un)attended parking lot and smash windows, you're accountable. There really shouldn't be any question here. That's the sort of thing people expect from an attended lot. I hope some of the victims take the lot owners to small claims court and get compensated if the actual perpetrators can't be found.

Iowa Irony

Caucuses don't work the same for Democrats and Republicans in Iowa. The Republicans count the votes of each person at their caucus meeting and those votes get aggregated state-wide. Very democratic: one person, one vote.

The Democrats give each precinct a number of delegates, no matter how many people actually show up to caucus. This is a representative system: many people, one vote.

I thought it was funny that the party names seemed exactly opposite for the Iowa caucuses.

I learned this from David Freddoso on the Corner where he summarized it this way:

Republicans around the state are meeting tonight to have a large, statewide straw poll, just like a primary. You could think of it as one big caucus. The importance of each precinct, as in normal elections, will be determined by how many people turn out overall. Although the Republican vote on candidates is totally non-binding, it is the result we'll all be talking about tonight — for practical purposes, it is all that matters (unless we go to a brokered convention, and then it's hopelessly complicated anyway).

On the Democratic side, it is different. Each precinct awards a preset number of candidate delegates proportionally. It doesn't matter whether 100 or 1,000 people show up from your precinct — all that matters is the proportional vote in each individual precinct. The party reports the estimated delegate count to the media — not the number of votes. Each Democratic precinct, then, is a separate battle tonight, with no real relation to the others. If six people show up to a precinct that selects ten delegates, then those six voters have the same power as 600 voters who show up in a precinct of similar population.