Utah Open Source Planet

On Thursday, 17 July, I had the fortunate opportunity to be one of thousands who attended a special movie theater live screening of Glenn Beck's summer stage concert "Glenn Beck '08: Unelectable"

This was a first for Glenn Beck and, to my knowledge, the first of its kind. Glenn gave the performance to a sold out live stage theater in Dallas, TX. The performance was captured by about seven high definition video cameras, directed, and streamed to a satellite where it then went to 350 movie theaters.

I bought five tickets to the performance the first day they were available for Glenn Beck Insiders (about 4-5 days before they were available to the general public) to see the HD simulcast at the Jordan Landing Cinemark theaters in West Jordan, UT.

I don't know how big the other movie theaters were, but there were two sold-out theaters at the Jordan Landing Cinemark and they each probably seated 2-300 people. I' sure there were other theaters that were much larger.

I showed up a little more than two hours before the show was to start because the tickets were all general admission. I wanted to make sure our group had good seats and that we would be able to sit all together. There was one other person who had shown up before me, but she was in line for the other theater. So, I was the first person in line for theater #1. It wasn't long, however, before a handful of other people were in line behind me. Then, with over 90 minutes to go before Glenn went on stage, a young man came, told us we could begin seating, and showed us to the theater. I thought that was super nice because there was a pregnant woman in line behind me and I felt bad for her if she was going to have to stand in line for over an hour. Instead, she could relax in a theater seat.

I made some observations before the show. First of all, there were a lot of pretty attractive women there for the Glenn Beck performance, about half of which were pregnant. Also, the people were very friendly and very talkative, even with people they didn't know.

About 70 minutes before the show started, the projector came on and the dozen or so of us that were in the theater by that point were treated to a Windows "Active Desktop Recovery" dialog... in HD. It didn't inspire my confidence that the show was going to go without any snags.

After a couple minutes, however, the Windows message disappeared and was replaced with a young, pretty round-faced blonde with loop earrings holding a small seemingly homemade clapper board and she was opening and closing it in front of a pair of microphones about once every two seconds.

She was then replaced by a goofy-looking guy in need of a little orthodontic work (or maybe he was just had perma-grin from the excitement of being involved in something so... momentous) who did the same thing, but a little differently. His method of clapping the clapper board was just a little more... goofy. After a while, he was replaced by an older gentleman who had less muscle tone in his arms. It seemed harder for him to keep closing the clapper board and before long, he was replaced by a tall, intimidating fellow who repeatedly closed the clapper with great determination.

It was fascinating.

Twenty five minutes before 6:00, the Glenn Beck preshow began. This was just a slideshow presentation of funny trivia facts, pictures, and silly quotes. I didn't catch much of it because I was running in and out of the theater to meet the others in my group to get them their tickets.

Five minutes before six, a countdown timer appeared on the screen counting down the minutes and seconds "to Glenn." And then, there was a snow-filled screen and static noise.

On the screen appeared a man in an orange vest and an orange hat, like a construction worker or something, fist-bumping with three or four other people in a dark area. After a few moments of watching this, it became apparent we were seeing Glenn Beck backstage. He carried a plastic green toy assault rifle and walked out on stage as we followed, viewing him through the lens of a camera carried by a Steadicam operator.

The theater Glenn performed in was beautiful. It was smaller than I expected and looked more like a large stand-up comedy club than an opera house, an arena, or an auditorium (which I've seen Glenn perform in the last three times I've seen him live.)

Glenn started by introducing two "special" people in the audience. The first was Texas governor Rick Perry (who had perfect hair) and had to have been at least a little uncomfortable being an elected official at a show that was all about slamming "the weasels" in elected positions. The second was soldier/author/all around great guy Marcus Lutrell. Gov. Perry got some applause, but Marcus Lutrell got a standing ovation that went on for several moments. It was clear the audience loved this guy... and for good reason!

Once that was out of the way, Glenn jumped right into the comedy- talking about politicians that come out (as he had) wearing their "huntin' outfit" and carrying their gun that was given to them by a dear family member (never purchased, of course). Glenn said he thought people who don such ridiculous costumes to show the press they're in favor of the second ammendment make him sick and he took off the orange vest, orange hat, and the flannel shirt under the vest. Underneath was a light grey T-shirt with large black letters: "NRA." Hee hee.

The comedy went on for the next hour about politics, about Glenn's city government making ridiculous demands and imposing outrageous restrictions on what Glenn and his family can and can not build in their yard, about Glenn's experience traveling with a firearm through a New York area airport, and about stupid laws (Chico, CA will collect a $500 fine from anyone caught detonating a nuclear weapon within city limits.)

There was a short 15-minute intermission and Glenn came back on in a blue politician's suit and red tie and stood behind a podium with a "Beck '08" placard attached to the front of it.

The second part of the comedy show centered around what Americans (or at least Glenn-minded Americans) want to hear from their presidential candidates: the truth.

(The above picture was taken at a previous performance by another Glenn Beck Insider, but the gist is the same.)

The camera work was great. The timing was awesome. The comedy was the best I've seen of Glenn. My wife was a little... well, okay, very, disturbed by the number of times Glenn joked about wanting to kill someone with a gun.

The message in between the comedy was one about realizing the power in our country is not in Washington, not in your state capitol, not in your City Hall. It's in you! And it comes from God. Glenn encouraged the audience to read history, learn more about the founding fathers, learn more about the history of our great country, and never forget it is a great country worth fighting for, worth dying for, and worth saving from peril.

The message Glenn gave at the Freedom Festival Patriotic Service at Brigham Young University last month is essentially the same message, only without all the comedy mixed in.

So, all in all, I think it was a tremendous success and I congratulate Glenn and Company for a job spectacularly well done. They should be very proud of themselves. I'm certainly proud I could have participated in this special moment in history as an audience member at the first-ever Glenn Beck HD simulcast.

With the high price of gasoline, lots of people are looking for ways to save money on gas. The simplest method is simply to slow down. The drag on a vehicle goes up with the fourth power of the speed. That implies a very crisp knee in the curve.

Of course, the standard answer would be "lower the speed limit to 55MPH." But that would really be a bummer for people on long trips. We have better technology than in the 70's. Most people cruising down the highway at 75 don't know that they could slow down 10 or 20 MPH and save real money. Let's give them data. Here's my proposal.

Why don't cars come with a meter that shows how much you're spending right now on gas. Turn instantaneous mileage into instantaneous dollars and you'll see real behavior change. That leaves people free to choose and most will choose saving money when there's no compelling reason not to while leaving people the freedom to spend money to get where they need to be.

One step further: create an online game where people can compete for best performance over a given route.

I'm looking for an iPhone app that does this for starters.

Tags: politics gas

I don't think I've ever mentioned anything about Tony Snow on the Fozzolog before. I can't say that I was a "fan" of his, not that I didn't like him or anything. Today, however, I learned he has ultimately succumbed to the cancer he has battled for years.

My first exposure to Tony Snow was when he would occasionally fill in for Rush Limbaugh on the Rush Limbaugh radio program in the late 1990s and early 2000s. This was at a time when I really enjoyed listening to Rush (before I switched to Glenn Beck for my primary talk-radio fix). It was always a disappointment when Rush had a fill-in host, but of the fill-in hosts, Tony Snow was one of my favorite if not the favorite. He knew how to keep momentum on the radio, something that even the most seasoned broadcasters struggle with. 

Before Snow accepted the invitation to join the Bush administration as Press Secretary, he was an anchor and host on the Fox News cable channel. He also had his own radio program which was available in Utah shortly before he joined the Bush administration.

Unlike most people in the middle of the political news arena, Snow always seemed to me like a genuinely good guy. I would cringe at the prospect of, say, being at a barbeque with the likes of Sean Hannity, Chris Matthews, Keith Oberman, or radio hosts Michael Medved or Michael Savage. If Tony Snow was going to be there, I'd be delighted to go and mingle. He always seemed like an easy-going, down to earth dude.

Doc Searls must have spent some of his convalescence deep in thought. His recent essay Saving the Net III: Understanding its Frames is a great piece on how we understand and don't understand the Net. This is a long essay. You'll actually have to do some reading if you want to get the meat of Doc's argument. But it's worth the time.

Tags: internet politics regulation open+source

One of my friends sent me the following email:

Tomorrow, our Senate will vote on H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which the House of Representatives recently approved. You can read Ron Paul’s observations about this bill here. Please urge Senators Hatch and Bennett to vote against it…

If our “limited government” Republican leadership passes this, they deserve to get kicked out of office.  That said, I shutter to think of the alternative.

Have you contacted your senators yet?

I was eating breakfast at Gondolfo’s when I noticed that Fox News was covering this hard-hitting story from the Associate Press.  Apparently a recent poll shows that pet-owners prefer McCain.

Wow. It’s a good thing there are no important issues that could be covered right now.  Of course, by important issues I mainly mean dead bombshells whose children’s potential fathers are squabbling over custody of the money, former baseball stars who may have used steroids (thank you congress for overseeing that), or even the transcendently wise tips on wearing sunscreen since (this just in) the sun is still hot.

The blogosphere is rife with discussion on gay marriage and the LDS Church’s involvement in California. I would like to do my part in the battle for family. I pray this post will have positive effect in that battle, however modest it might be.

First of all, I’ve already said how I feel about group rights. Gays don’t have rights. Human beings have rights. Gays happen to be human beings. Good, we’re on the same page.

That said, this isn’t really about gay rights as much as it is about gay marriage, but it brings me to my first point.

Marriage is not a right.

For all the talk about gay rights you can mostly chalk it up to human rights that need to transcend prejudice. In other words, instead of clamoring for “gay rights” they should instead be insisting that they be afforded the already existing human rights. Gay marriage, on the other hand, is a prime example of a group inventing new rights so they can feel the same as everyone else regardless of their decisions. It’s like a people with dreadlocks inventing a right to lay their heads on your table simply because you don’t mind another person without dreadlocks doing it.

Marriage is fundamental to society.

This is entirely incident to marriage not being a right, but is yet a powerful argument against the thought that marriage should be a right. Marriage is the very institution by which children have parents, both mother and father. It is the core of the fundamental unit of society—family.

Marriage involves more than the couple.

Intimate relations are not just about consenting adults having a good time. There is ever present the possibility of new life. This new life has rights just the same. It has needs, physical, emotional, spiritual.

Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God [etc.]

Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.

—The Family: A Proclamation to the World

It is because of this sticky situation that marriage is instituted. The very purpose of marriage is to give children stable homes, to assure where possible that when children are created they have a mother and a father. Once you realize this, you realize that gay marriage isn’t the only thing you ought to be worried about. Fornication, adultery and divorce come to mind. Alas, this post is about gay marriage. Indeed, homosexual relations cannot result in offspring, so the very reasons for instituting marriage don’t even apply to the deviants. Yet they insist they have a right to marry. Again I propose it’s merely about them feeling the same as everyone else, regardless of their personal choices. It’s validation, nothing more.

Government should be involved in marriage.

Many of my libertarian friends throw around the idea that government should step out of marriage completely, leaving it a private and religious matter concerning only those involved. This is one of few places where I diverge from the libertarian camp (though not necessarily libertarian ideals). As stated previously, marriage inherently involves more than the parties involved. It involves family and new life; it involves society as a whole. It is in the interests of everyone involved (and everyone is involved, who among us was not born of a mother and a father?) and we should take every opportunity to encourage marriage over promiscuity and counseling over divorce. We should take every opportunity to afford children the privilege of being born into the marriage relation, and where that’s not possible to be adopted into such (no, I’m not saying single parents should give up their children, though they shouldn’t be discouraged to do so). The government is the vehicle by which the people are governed. Whereas the people deem it in society’s interest to afford children the opportunity to develop under the guidance of bonded mother and father, encouraged to stay together, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, thus is born the state sanctioned institution of marriage.

David Eaves posted a piece overlaying the Firefox 3 Pledge Map and Thomas Barnett's map that divides the world into the "the functioning core" and the "non-integrated gap."

As you might expect, there's a high correlation. People in the gap aren't connected, so they have less access to computers, use the 'Net less, and participate in open source projects less. There are some exceptions--like Scandinavia on one side and Columbia and Turkey on the other.

David makes this comment:

Non-Integrated Gap countries with the most pledges are Iran, Turkey, Venezuela, Peru, and Indonesia -- interesting list. Seems to suggest that many of the countries the US tries to isolate are actually the most connected.

I too find this ironic. I think that the Bush administration has made a huge mistake in not pushing these countries to integrate more fully. Forget their governments, their citizens want to be connected and once they are, the policies of their governments will follow them into the functioning core. They have to.

As Tom points out, terrorism is "what's left" after the cold war and I see it as a reaction to connectivity. Terrorists, while exploiting the connectivity of the 'Net, would deny that connectivity to people because it leads them away from the fundamentalist societies that the terrorists promote.

David's analysis is just one more data point in the argument that some of the world's seemingly most dangerous countries have citizens who are ready to connect. The world (i.e. functioning core) needs to take advantage of that.

As an aside, I just pre-ordered Tom's new book 'Great Powers: America and the World After Bush' from Amazon. I'll schedule another IT Conversations interview with him after the book comes out. I had a great conversation with him a few years back.

Tags: open+source politics itconversations

I had the opportunity to see the Cannon, Leavitt, and Chaffetz campaign speeches at both the Utah County and Utah State Republican Conventions.  When it became clear through successive rounds of voting at the state convention that David Leavitt wasn’t going to win and that even Cannon would probably lose outright to Chaffetz at convention, all sorts of funny business started happening. It was like watching a large wounded animal give its last throws of life before submitting to defeat.

So what did Cannon do?  He colluded with Leavitt to get the votes of Leavitt delegates, which by itself is fine; but in order to get the message to Leavitt supporters, Cannon and Leavitt broke party rules against signage in the conference center twice: the first time by having Leavitt volunteers march right through the convention holding giant Cannon signs, and second by hanging a large handwritten sign that said “Leavitt supports Cannon” at the top of the stadium.  Both acts received tremendous booing from the audience and calls from the Chairman to maintain order and cease the disruptive behavior.

It struck me to see how unprincipled and disparate the two losing major republican candidates really were.  But in the end they got their message across.  The final vote after Leavitt was eliminated was 59% for Chaffetz and 41% for Cannon, with Chaffetz lacking only 9 votes from the 60% required to win the republican nomination outright.

And so, the vote went to primaries, where money and name recognition generally give a major boost to incumbents.  Those primaries are today, and polling suggests that the nomination could go either way.  I’m going to vote for Chaffetz, and if you’re a registered Republican in Utah Congressional District 3, I hope you do too.

Although I didn’t agree with the whole thing, here are some gems from the Chaffetz speech (video):

I believe the best hope for our people, for our families, is to return to those core conservative principles of fiscal discipline, limited government, accountability, and a strong national defense.  We’ve abandoned those principles…  Republicans had the house, the senate, and the presidency, and quite frankly, we blew it.  We did not do the heavy lifting on the issues that matter most.

When Mr. Cannon took office, the budget was $1.5 trillion.  Today it’s $2.9 trillion.  That’s unacceptable, and we cannot sustain that.  We have a $9.3 trillion debt.  Last year alone we paid $429 billion of interest on that debt.  That cannot stand.

Mr. Cannon voted in favor of No Child Left Behind.  I want to repeal No Child Left Behind; there should be no Department of Education.

Here’s my favorite misleading statement from the Cannon campaign video:

[Chris Cannon]  has told the Federal Government to stay out of our schools.

Well, Cannon may have told the Federal Government to stay out of our schools, but that’s certainly not how he voted.  No Child Left Behind meddles with our schools in unprecedented ways.

If you want to do a last minute check on the issues, here is the Chaffetz platform.

Incidentally, you are also allowed to vote between Mark Walker and Richard Ellis for as the Republican nomination for State Treasurer.  See their campaign speeches here and here.

Get out and vote!

Yesterday, a leftist pig friend of mine asked what I’ve been doing lately besides right-wing blogging.  Rather than answer his question here (because I answered it elsewhere), I’ll return his jest and just ask: can’t we all just get along?

Here’s a letter from an organization my “leftest pig” friend no doubt admires.  It’s a letter with which I agree 100%.  In fact, this letter is so important that I’ll “waste my time” blogging about it just to make sure that you read it. Are you ready?  I’ve temporarily obfuscated the names of the (sometimes) innocent to keep my “right-wing nut” readers from jumping to conclusions and discrediting the content based solely on the author. Here goes:

Dear XXXX Supporter,

Despite the outrage coming from a broad coalition of concerned citizens, by tomorrow night the House of Representatives will vote on whether or not to gut the Constitution and give immunity to phone companies who broke the law and spied on Americans.

We have to act now. Even if you’ve emailed, called or visited your members of Congress about FISA, we need you to contact them again today.

Congress is moving so fast and so secretively that we only got a copy of this bill this morning. I can tell you it’s horrible. It contains vacuum cleaner style surveillance that sweeps up the phone calls and emails of Americans. And it’s blatantly unconstitutional.

The bottom line is that this is legislation that benefits a few of our country’s largest corporations while taking away basic rights from the rest of us. And it is unacceptable.

I’m going to spend the rest of the day on the phone calling Capitol Hill trying to stop this bill. I hope you will spend whatever time you can to make the voice of freedom heard in Congress — make calls, ask your friends and family to call — please do whatever you can.

Put Congress on notice that the American people don’t want a “compromise” that sells out our rights. Act now. We’re hearing the vote is tomorrow, so we could have less than 24 hours.

Believe me, no matter what happens, the XXXX will continue fighting this — if necessary, in the courts.

Thank you for all you have done through this fight. Your dedication has truly inspired me and all of us at the XXXX. Now, let’s hit the phones!

Thank you,
Caroline Fredrickson, Director
XXXX Washington Legislative Office

What is the name of the “leftist pig” organization with which this “right-wing nut” blogger nut so readily agrees?  Why it’s none other that the ACLU of course; and even though they refuse to defend my constitutional right to bear arms, the ACLU is dead right on this issue –and they’ve been dead right on a number of other issues as well.

So what’s my point?  Too often we turn our brains off when hearing an important message just because it’s delivered by someone we’ve already labeled as a leftist pig or a right-wing nut job.  “Liberals” do this to Bush all of the time.  “Conservatives” do it to the ACLU just as often.  It’s like we’ve been programmed to judge a message solely by the messenger, discrediting the content altogether; and no amount of good logic can compensate for our need to aways agree (or always disagree) with so-and-so.

If conservatives are are always pushing for limited government, why in the world do they want to give big government unlimited access to American citizens’ phone records?  And how is it that the supposed “big government” democrats are the ones fighting against this?  Seriously, think about it.  I think our desire to identify with and support our constituents while disagreeing with and thwarting our political rivals often times inhibits our ability to just use our noodle –and we’re all worse off for it.  (No, I don’t think my good friend is guilty of this sheepery; I just draw on his toungue-in-cheek question to prove a point.)

Anyway, this letter demonstrates an issue that both parties should be able to rally behind.  Government should not be allowed to spy on citizens willy-nilly.  If they suspect a citizen of terrorism and want to tap the wires, they should get a warrant.  These measures are there to protect citizens against a government that, if left unchecked, would in due time become tyranical.

In questions of power then let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

     –Thomas Jefferson (via Quoty)

Please do as the letter suggests and contact your representatives in congress. We don’t need big government to get any bigger.  Because the FISA bill would jeopardize our liberty, both sides of the aisle need to come together and oppose it.

I’ve blogged before about why I think America is in trouble.  A Ron Paul presidency would have gone along way toward fixing some of those problem (or at least prevent them from worsening), so I was sad to see that he clearly wasn’t going to win.  I’m amazed, however, how his candidacy brought these important issues to the forefront, and I was pleased to see loads of passionate people mobilize around his message of liberty.

As Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign officially came to a close, I was enthused to see his longer-term Campaign for Liberty initiative replace it.  It had upwards of 50,000 people sign up over the weekend, but membership growth has slowed somewhat since then.  Regardless, I’m glad to see a this more permanent fixture of liberty come into place; and I hope that it will be effective in promoting the principles of liberty, sound money, limited government, free markets, and non-interventionalism for years to come.

I think we have a long way to go, but I’m relieved to see people still rallying around this excellent cause.  I hope you’ll join us to help make America a safer place for liberty, prosperity, and peace.

Today we spent the morning at the Utah Scottish Festival, celebrating my Scottish heritage by listening to bagpipes, watching people by various weapons, wearing a kilt, and eating haggis.  It was a great day, one which I really enjoyed.  

At noon they had the Gathering of the Clans, when the Clan representatives march in a parade, proudly hefting their banners and showing their unity in Scottish culture.  It’s a grand sight, makes one’s Celtic blood heat up in pride.  

But it got me thinking:  Scotland was rarely that unified in it’s focus.  In fact, they were often fragmented against each other regarding alliances to England, cattle lands, etc.  They fought more against each other than against England.  So where did this idea of “Scotland” come from?

First, it came from the idea of Independence.  Not independence from England, though that was a major concern for centuries, but rather independent in their lifestyle.  They loved being responsible for themselves, and would always rebel against any perceived slight to that independence.  

So what is independence?  It’s being able to be completely self-determinate.  You don’t depend on another entity to run your life, or augment your life.  Sadly, this concept is often overlooked when we go about our daily lives.  Are you really independent?  Are you able to take care of your needs, or do you need to rely on external support?

For instance, financial independence is one that we all strive for.  Living without credit cards, bank loans, etc. is perhaps the greatest “American Dream”, though I’m sure all people everywhere would like this same independence.  The quest for financial independence is often troubled by the need for conveniences.  Traveling quickly and freely, being connected through communication in various forms, and bringing in external amusement and entertainment often make us dependent on one service or another.  

Consumptive dependence has become rampant since the creation of the Super Market.  We rely on specialized growers that produce one product, package it, process it, and ship it to us from all over the world.  We don’t see the origins of the product, we don’t know the grower.  We just know that the product is ready for consumption.  

But if something goes wrong, what recourse do we have?  For instance, the nation is currently experiencing a tomato shortage because of a salmonella outbreak.  It’s been weeks, and the FDA only knows that it should be from the crops on the East coast, not the West.  That’s how dependent and disconnected we are from our food production. 

Of course, there is also National Independence, or rather a lack of dependence of the Nation on other nations.  The original Independence Day, July 4th, marks our political independence from England.  We could then decide what was best for our nation without another nation showing influence.  Since then we have become dependent on a global economy, particularly in energy, and as such that dependence highly influences our internal politics.  All I hear now regarding the 3rd District Congressional race here in Utah is focus on “Foreign Oil Dependency”, high gas prices, and illegal immigration.  

Now, I’m not arguing any specific political position.  Lots of people have strong feelings on both sides of any of these issues.  But rather I was focusing on the concept of independence.  At what level can you call yourself independent, whether at a personal, familial, communal, or national level?  What does it mean to be independent, to you?  

It’s a weekend thought, but one by which I have been troubled.  You tell me:  What do you consider independence?  How would you define an Independent nation?  Perhaps it’s something we should think about as we approach the Independence Day holiday on July 4th.  

Doug Kaye has turned the resources of the Conversations Network on the 2008 election with '08 Conversations. The idea is to team with the Public Radio Exchange to publish stories about the election you might not otherwise here.

Joel Tscherne, who has been a great help to me as th Series Producer for the Technometria podcast, the Executive Producer for '08 Conversations. Right now the shows are coming out about once per week. As the election approaches that rate will increase. Here's a few shows that have been on 08Conversations recently:

• McCain's Train Wreck
• Jules Witcover - The Longest Campaign
• John Edwards - The Final Rose
• Ron Paul - The Loneliest Republican
• America and the Global Economy

If these interest you, you might consider just subscribing to the '08 Conversations feed so you don't miss any of them. Give it a listen!

Tags: itconversations politics

I purchased a copy of "John Adams" by David McCullough at a local grocery store a couple months ago and finally finished it this last week. The book was first released in 2001 but, since then, the HBO television network has produced an award-winning mini-series based on the book and a repackaged reissue of the book was released..

I was very intrigued by John Adams after reading about him in the Joseph Ellis history narrative "Founding Brothers." What intrigued me most was his steadfast relationship with his wife Abigail and his on-again, off-again friendship with Thomas Jefferson.

"John Adams" peels away another layer and reveals an incredible amount of detail about the man and his roles in the early years of our country.

What impressed me most in the book was how relatively "solid" Adams was in his beliefs and his philosophies. Around the time he was elected the second president of the United States, there was a great amount of fervor within those involved in politics them to rally around political parties. Adams' political philosophy probably made him more of a federalist than a republican, but he refused to affiliate with either of the predominant movements at that time. This made him both popular and unpopular with both parties, but gave him a tremendous amount of freedom as president to do what he felt was right. Reading about this demonstrated to me just how counterproductive a two-party system can be, especially for executive-branch candidates.

So much of Adams' political beliefs are needed today. He was a frugal, sensible man who didn't see politics and public service as a life of celebrity or extravagance. He never felt he was above anyone else as was demonstrated by his pitching in to help fight fires when they broke out while he was in office. It's amazing to me to imagine the president of the United States standing in a chain line passing buckets of water down so that a burning building could be extinguished. Today it would be called a "publicity event" or some such nonsense.

When I finished the last chapter of the book, which covered Adams' death and the services and recognition paid to him afterward, I couldn't help but cry for a couple of minutes. After reading the book, which contains hundreds of excerpts of letters and speeches from Adams, I felt I had made some progress toward knowing the man. While I knew from the beginning he had died almost 200 years ago, reaching that part of the book and realizing everything he had done, said, and influenced in the 89 years of his life hit me like a pile of bricks. We owe a large debt of gratitude to this man.

In related news, the HBO miniseries (which I have not seen) is coming out on DVD this Tuesday, June 10, 2008. You can get it from Amazon.com.

The city council voted tonight to sell iProvo to Broadweave. The vote was 4-3 in favor, with members Stewart, Richards, Dayton and Johnson in favor, and members Turley, Clark and Hall-Everett opposed.

The final sale doesn't close until the 30th, but at this point it looks like pretty much a done deal.

My dad sent me a link to the American Solutions website. I checked it out and was impressed enough to sign up for an account on it. If you are interested discussing and affecting the direction of future policy in America, particularly with regard to energy policy, this site may be of interest to you. It appears to be fairly non-partisan so don't assume it's conservative, liberal, environmentalist, or anything else.

American Solutions does seem to be somewhat weighted toward people who want to get rid of some of the current restrictions that keep oil companies from drilling in various areas of the US. Doing this would boost our domestic production, but unlike some of the people on this site, I don't think that will significantly affect crude oil prices much. We need to get busy investing in all kinds of alternative energy production as well as drill for more domestic oil. 

It looks like the iProvo resolutions are on the agenda for next Tuesday's City Council meeting. There's a special note at the top of the agenda indicating that the meeting begins at 5:30 PM, rather than the more common 7:00. That's not surprising — it's a very full agenda, and the last meeting with only the iProvo resolutions ran for some 5 1/2 hours.

Accordig to The Register a man was indicted on fraud charges for opening thousands of accounts with ETrade and Charles Schwab. He had them send micro-payments, just a few cents each, and then collected the booty. Interesting story and may he rot in jail. But what I find particularly interesting is that his "undoing came as a result of the USA Patriot Act, which requires financial businesses to verify the identity of their customers". Wait, wait, wait. I thought the Patriot Act was to catch terrorists. Surely that isn't what they're claiming.

Make no bones about it, all these new laws to fight the "war on terror" have ulterior motives. Sure, they may help find terrorists but there is no doubt that LEAs have received a carte blanche for laws they've always wanted. They've learned well from Microsoft, it appears, and have passed around so much fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) that our lawmakers have given them pretty much whatever they want. What we really need is to settle down and quite acting out of instinct and fear, and instead use a little of that logic stuff.

read more

Do all Provo City Council meetings go past midnight, or is it just that I always pick the ones that are going to run long?

The Council isn't ready to vote on the iProvo sale proposal yet. Some of the documentation isn't finished, and they want to see that first. (If they receive the remaining documents by tomorrow noon, then the discussion will continue at next Tuesday's regular Council meeting; otherwise, it will be postponed.) It appears that some of the council members are also skeptical about the proposal, as well as the process that led up to it, and from where I sit that skepticism can only be a Good Thing.

Broadweave knows how to put together a good looking Powerpoint presentation. I'm still unconvinced that they can handle the kind of growth they're trying to take on, though, and I'm skeptical about their ability to run a network the size of iProvo. More than that, though, I don't like the idea that they would close the network and act as the sole provider. We've all seen single provider networks before; some are financially viable (Comcast, for instance), and some are not (HomeNet, anyone?). The natural tendency for any single provider system, though, is to provide customer service that is mediocre at best, and truly bad at worst. Remember Lily Tomlin's "Ernestine the operator" character from early Saturday Night Live? "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company." That's the attitude that single provider systems naturally gravitate toward (although, admittedly, some take longer to get there than others).

Finally, as several people (including a representative from Mstar) pointed out at the hearing, the language of the original RFP really doesn't suggest that Provo City might sell the network. The RFP asks for "Proposals for Partnership Opportunities with Telecommunication Service Providers on the iProvo Network", and purports to "provide the citizens of Provo a full range of competitive choices for telecommunications services and applications." This deal doesn't do that at all.

I'm aware of other providers that were in negotiation with the city to join the iProvo network, and I know they're not pleased with this proposal either. Some of them have said as much publicly, and others commented at the hearing last night. I hope those concerns are also weighed as the Council considers this proposal.

There's an agenda up on the Provo City Council web site for a public hearing tonight about the proposed sale of iProvo to Broadweave. The hearing is in the council chambers at 7 PM.

A number of people — particularly Jesse Harris of FreeUTOPIA.org — have opined that this sale looks a lot like HomeNet part 2. I think they're being overly optimistic (which, if you remember the original HomeNet debacle, is really saying something.)

Do you remember when you were in elementary school and you learned that plants had some mysterious process that involved a substance called chlorophyll and energy from sunlight and it made them grow? Do you remember learning that plants emit oxygen and take in carbon dioxide, which is opposite of animal life like humans (we emit carbon dioxide and take in oxygen)?

If carbon dioxide is fuel for plants, having an increase of it in the ecosystem could result in more plant growth, you might think. I'd never heard anything reported about that until a couple days ago. I was listening to Glenn Beck's radio show and was talking to a scientist named Arthur Robinson who said, yes, several studies have shown a correlation between increased carbon dioxide and increased plant growth.

In addition, the conversation between Beck and Robinson touched on the Oregon Petition, another thing I had never heard of. The Oregon Petition is a petition signed by over 30,000 scientists, 9,000 or so of which hold doctorate degrees, which says, in a nutshell, "Global warming is a myth, a fraud, a lie, etc. and should not be the basis for government policy."

Considering that all of the three frontrunning candidates for the US presidency are in favor of sweeping policy changes in the name of global warming, it would appear to be up to us, as citizens, to raise awareness of these issues. "Cap and trade" policy is nothing more than hefty taxes on businesses which do nothing but funnel money into the government. On a global scale, these policies will seriously stifle technological development in less-developed countries and could result in widespread preventable loss of life!

Ever since I can remember, the argument for environmentalists have been to move to Solar and Wind power as the only way to save the planet.  Their position is from a green point of view:  that is, if it isn’t natural, it isn’t an option.  This is fine, and there are a lot of merits to these methods of generating energy, but right now it just isn’t enough.  We need something else to bolster our energy needs until these more green technologies can be made more efficient.  And the best move that can be made right now is energy recycling. 

What’s Energy Recycling?  It’s the process of using the excess heat created by a process to boil water, create steam, and move a generator.  One excellent example of wasted energy this way would be many cooling towers in Atomic plants.  

But that isn’t all!  Many factories, refineries, and smelters are major sources of excess heat, and as such could be producing electricity.  Just place a boiler on top of the plant, capture the heat, boil water, create steam, use that steam to move a generator and you are all set!  

Now, you may ask where I got this idea in the first place.  Well, I’m guilty of perpetuating an idea of others.  It seems that Europe and Japan has been doing this practice for years, bolstering their grids with additional energy from their factories, refineries, etc.  Heat is not wasted if it’s sufficient enough to boil water.  This was reported this morning on my way to work on NPR, by the way.  

So why don’t we do the same thing?  It’s such a simple idea, why haven’t the US thought of this before?  Because there are currently State and Civil laws that protect power companies from having to pay retail prices for the power that gets pumped back into the grid from an non-system source.  That, and most older facilities would be subject to new EPA regulations if they made any modifications to their facility.  

Now, the other day, I was listening to Sean Hannity on the radio.  Now, this isn’t a regular thing for me, as I don’t like to get just one side of the story (I find NPR the least biased news source).  But he had an interesting argument for the Republican Party:  Rebuild yourself.  He pointed out 10 items the Republicans could do in order to rebuild the party.  Number 4 was Energy Independence.  What could be more independent than using recycled energy?

So, my challenge to Government, both parties actually, is to challenge the protection laws currently in place for energy companies to allow energy recycling.  We could generate almost twice the energy we have now, if we follow Denmark’s model (half their energy comes from recycled energy projects), and lower our energy growth needs.  That’s the kicker: the need for foreign oil could be lowered as far as overall energy production, and allow more oil to be diverted to transportation (at least for now).  

Now, I don’t expect it will magically solve our nation’s energy needs overnight.  But wouldn’t it be nice to not have to worry about rolling blackouts?  More energy means cheaper electric manufacturing costs, and cheaper overall bills on the consumer.  Also, those factories that produce a lot of heat in order to produce their product can save even more money as they generate that excess heat into energy savings, or potentially a secondary revenue line.  

Those are the benefits, at any case.  Now the hard part needs to be hammered out:  negotiating with power companies and potential power generating sources a fair and sustainable model.  Perhaps they can offer to buy the recycled energy at wholesale costs..  Anyway, that’s a fight that will be well worth the effort.  

It often surprises me when Politicians are able to make vague historical references, say they won’t make the same mistakes, and the people just eat it up like candy.  I’m also surprised with the failure of the Media to provide adequate background information for candidates that run for office.  Is it that they just don’t want to look at the past, or perhaps they feel the American people don’t have the attention span for a history lesson?

What prompted this statement, you might ask?  Last night I was watching the American Experience on PBS in an attempt to get my son to sleep.  He’s not feeling well in the heat wave that hit Salt Lake this week, and was restless.  This night, it was a special on George H.W. Bush.  It covered his rise to politics from his father’s involvement in the Eisenhower Administration to his eventual election to President.

Now, I wasn’t a big fan of George Bush Sr. while he was in office.  Granted, I was just a kid in Jr. High at the time, but with some politically minded friends, I was kept in the loop.  He provided little in the way of what I expected, because I loved Reagan.  Why did I love Reagan?  Because he made Americans feel good about being Americans.  George didn’t do that.  He wasn’t the showman that Reagan was, nor was he the actor.

But he was a Statesman, and if I had known what a Statesman did at the time, I would have applauded his efforts.  George H.W. Bush was first and foremost an Ambassador.  From his few years of working at the UN, he managed to build a huge relationship with all nations and use it to his advantage while both Vice President under Reagan, and while working with the Soviet Union during the fall of the Berlin Wall.

He was willing to let the Germans be Germans, instead of puppets of the US, and thereby fueling the anti-American block in the Kremlin that would have taken any excuse to tighten their hold on the Eastern Block.  He made Eisenhower-esque moves and decisions that allowed other people and nations to shine, all the while keeping the US economy strong.

But even further back, George H.W. Bush built the current idea of Republican Conservatism that pervades in politics today.  He did so in the 60’s by welcoming those Democrats into the Republican party that were a little angered by President Kennedy and Johnson.  And this was in Texas, where at the time you couldn’t find a Republican.

His foray into politics in the 60’s represents a clean shift in the ideals of the Republican party, and forced the Democrats to shift to their current position.  It’s interesting that now, 50 years later, his son instigated a shift in the Democratic party in the same way Kennedy and Johnson forced the Republicans to shift.  Now the Republicans are shifting again, back to the Eisenhower days.

So why am I writing about President George H.W. Bush?  Because it’s information I would have liked 15 years ago!  And I keep asking myself, where is the analysis on the current candidates?  Quick snapshots don’t help, nor do sound-bytes.  In order to make a truly informed decision on a candidate, you have to know where they come from, where they have gone, and what they have been willing to do to get there.  That is a full measure of a candidate, because now you can predict with relative certainty what they will do in office.

Now, the American Experience is gearing up for the Election, preparing for it by providing profiles of the past Presidents.  I’m sure, once the Democratic candidate has been chosen, we will see well documented profiles of that person as well as John McCain.  But until then, I would urge anyone to watch the American Experience series on the Presidents.  Learn about what past presidents have done, both right and wrong.  For now, President George H.W. Bush has risen to one of my favorite presidents, right up there with President Ford, President Eisenhower, and President James K. Polk.

Allan Young plugged my last post in a piece he wrote about the potential of arson as a scapegoat of housing-bubble hardships.

His post reminds me of a similar report of arson, this time related to government rent control.  In Thomas Sowell’s excellent book, Basic Economics - A Citizen’s Guide to the Economy, he explains that in places where the government puts price ceilings on rent to make housing more affordable, rental properties often suffer major losses, and many owners end up torching their own properties to avoid suffer ongoing losses.  This trend is well-documented, by the way.  Introduce rent control in a city, and you can bet the level of arson in that city will increase.

So a socialistic program intended to make housing more available will actually make it less available; and because artificially low rents ensure that existing housing is filled while reducing profit incentive to build more housing, renters who might have a place to live under a free market system are forced to flee to another city without rent control, or become homeless.

Yes, it’s just another example of the way the perverse incentives of socialism love to backfire.

Anyway, the arson connection is interesting.  The Government should look at the real-world incentives of policies it creates, which often trigger results exactly opposite of those it intends.  The incentives leading to crash of the housing market demonstrate the exact same principle, but I’ll cover that tomorrow.

 I wish more people understood the substance of this recent article from Ron Paul:

Big Government Responsible for Housing Bubble

The House passed two bills attempting to rehabilitate the housing and mortgage market this week.  There doesn’t seem to be any shortage of criticism and blame for the bad decisions, and rightly so.  Lenders and banks do share much of the blame for the overheated market.  Lending standards were relaxed, or even abandoned altogether, creating an exaggerated pool of homebuyers that led to ballooning home prices that many, especially real estate investors, expected to continue forever.  Now that the bubble has burst, the losses are staggering.

However, many in Washington fail to realize it was government intervention that brought on the current economic malaise in the first place.  The Federal Reserve’s artificially low interest rates created the loose, easy credit that ignited a voracious appetite in the banks for borrowers.  People made these lending and buying decisions based on market conditions that were wildly manipulated by government.  But part of sound financial management should be recognizing untenable or falsified economic conditions and adjusting risk accordingly.  Many banks failed to do that and are now looking to taxpayers to pick up the pieces.  This is wrong-headed and unfair, but Congress is attempting to do it anyway.

These housing bills address the crisis in exactly the wrong way, by seeking to hide the problem with more disastrous government bail-outs and interventions.  One measure, HR 5830 the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Housing Stabilization and Homeowner Retention Act would allow the FHA to guarantee as much as $300 billion worth of refinanced home loans for those facing threat of foreclosure.  HR 5818 the Neighborhood Stabilization Act, would provide $15 billion in loans and grants to localities to purchase and renovate foreclosed homes with the object of then selling or renting out those homes.  Thankfully, President Bush has vowed to veto both of these bills.  It is neither morally right nor fiscally wise to socialize private losses in this way.

The solution is for government to stop micromanaging the economy and let the market adjust, as painful as that will be for some.  We should not force taxpayers, including renters and more frugal homeowners, to switch places with the speculators and take on those same risks that bankrupted them.  It is a terrible idea to spread the financial crisis any wider or deeper than it already is, and to prolong the agony years into the future.  Socializing the losses now will only create more unintended consequences that will give new excuses for further government interventions in the future. This is how government grows - by claiming to correct the mistakes it earlier created, all the while constantly shaking down the taxpayer.  The market needs a chance to correct itself, and Congress needs to avoid making the situation worse by pretending to ride to the rescue.

The only change I would make is to note that, despite its intentionally misleading name, the Federal Reserve is not a government entity; it’s a privately owned bank.

By the way, if everybody wants “change”, and everybody is worried about the economy, why does the Utah GOP (and the GOP in general) go out of their way to ensure that the only presidential candidate that is talking about meaningful change at the very root of our financial problems gets no serious consideration from the mainstream.  Ron Paul has been talking about sound monetary policy for years; and even thought the bubble has burst (making the validity of his tenets even more painfully obvious), he still gets no love from the powers that be at the Utah Republican Party Convention.

Be sure to follow Ron Paul’s weekly columns. They really are excellent.

Greg Curtis and John Valentine, House Speaker and Senate President (click to enlarge)

I'm at the Utah State Party Convention this morning. There are literally thousands of people here. Traffic was backed up off the exit ramp near UVU (where the convention is being held). The convention just opened at 10am, but even at 8am, the parking lots were full. People come early to pick up their credentials and wander the candidate booths.

I enjoyed wandering around and talking to a bunch of folks who I normally don't get to see. Lots of old friends and acquaintances here.

Chris Cannon running for Congress in the Third District (click to enlarge)

We start with prayer, the flag ceremony, the pledge of allegiance, and the national anthem. Carmen Rasmusen Herbert sang the national anthem and it was very nice. She's married to Gary Herbert's (Lt Gov) son Bradley, for what it's worth.

The Utah Republican party has a set of banners up and buttons playing on the "i can" in "republican." "I can provide students an excellent education," "I can give my family a great life," and so on. Very clever and emphasizes the Republican ideal of self sufficiency.

Opening ceremony at the convention (click to enlarge)

After the opening, we had a credentials report and adopted the rules and agenda for the convention. As usual, there was drama around Mike Ridgeway. Apparently Salt Lake county refused to seat him has a delegate and there was a motion to allow him to be seated at the State convention. It failed. I'm sure there will be more.

We've now moved to the district breakouts. District 3 stayed in the main hall, so I just sat still. The candidates I consider serious contenders in District 3 are Chris Cannon, the incumbent, David Leavitt, and Jason Chaffetz. There's also Joe Fergeson and Stone Fonua who haven't raised much money and haven't been heard from by delegates. They'll get their seven minutes of fame this morning. Fergeson is campaigning against the North American Union and Fonua is campaigning for something called "the Peacemaker."

Jason Chaffetz has raised around $70,000. David Leavitt raised twice that many and Chris Cannon has doubled Leavitt. Not surprising since Chris is the incumbent.

I'm torn between these three. I believe them all to be good men with Utah's best interest at heart. They aren't that far apart politically. I know Chris and Jason well. I've spoken to them several times over the course of the campaign. I don't know David Leavitt, but have tremendous respect for his brother Mike (current Secretary of HHS).

When I ran in my caucus meeting, I told the people there I'd base my vote for congressman on the basis of their support for Larry Lessig's Change Congress. I've had the opportunity to speak to both Chris and Jason about this and they were both supportive of two of the four pledges. Chris didn't think eliminating PAC money was practical, but was in favor of limiting all contributions to less than $300.

Why didn't I speak to David Leavitt about Change Congress? It's partly my fault: I went to only one event where he spoke. But it's partly his fault as well. He's been largely unavailable. Several attempts to get a message to him about Change Congress through his staff failed to elicit any response.

In fact, one of the things that's turned me off about Leavitt's campaign is that it's been much more impersonal than campaigns I'm used to. Lots of events to hear him speak and lots of literature, but not much personal contact. This morning for example, Chris and Jason were both at their booths (and I've got photos to prove it). Where was Leavitt? I don't know. I wandered around the entire center and didn't see him once.

I wasn't overly impressed with David Leavitt's speech. Some shouting at inopportune times. Jason gave a great speech, but his calling global warming a farce turned me off. Of course, I'm not sure Cannon or Leavitt feel much different. Both Cannon and Leavitt started their speeches with videos. Cannons was probably the best, but I liked that Chaffetz didn't have one. Cannon's speech was good: he talked about his background and how he got where he is.

Cannon is a supporter of eVerify, which I think is a big mistake. Of course, you can't find anyone who you agree with on everything--unless you're the candidate. That might not work either. I've known some candidates who I'm sure argued with themselves.

Time to vote!

I voted for Chris Cannon. I know some people will disagree with that vote so let me say why:

• Chris was willing to support important aspects of the Change Congress pledges, including big support for transparency. He even took the time to meet personally with me on the pledge and talk about it.
• Chris has been a good friend to technology. Many technologists in the state who I know and trust are firm supporters of Chris Cannon. I've talked to Chris several times about technology issues and he's well informed and thinks carefully about them.

Now we're listening to speeches for statewide office. The only interesting race is for Treasurer. Go figure.

Ballot boxes (click to enlarge)

Gov. Huntsman spoke about his accomplishments. He made it clear he only intends to serve one more term (if he's elected, of course). Chuck Smith, running against Huntsman, gave a good speech and seems to have some good ideas, but he's not going to win. There's been no campaign to speak of.

Mark Walker is a former legislator with little experience in financial management. Richard Ellis is currently the Deputy Treasurer and a former directory of the Governors Office for Planning and Budget. But Ellis has been roundly criticized by the legislature and has little support there. I think it's more than Walker being "one of our own" with the legislature. I think Ellis has seriously made many of them mad with things he's said and done. Of course, I know how that feels. :-)

The Utah County Treasurer nominated Richard Ellis and said Ed Alter (current Treasurer had planned to do it, but was unavailable.) The nomination focused on Ellis' experience. Gordon Snow (Majority Whip) seconded the nomination. Ellis spoke about what he's done in the Treasurer's office: financial and technical innovation. Ellis gave a good speech.

Balloons waiting to fall above my head (click to enlarge)

David Clark, Majority Leader, nominated Walker. He noted Walker's integrity. John Valentine (Senate President) seconded. Mark Shurtleff and Ron Bishop (1st District Congressman) also spoke for Walker. He emphasized more investment of public funds for larger returns. It's interesting that our conservative legislature supports a less conservative financial manager for treasurer. He emphasizes his private sector experience--although he doesn't get specific since he has no financial experience that I've heard about. He seems to be running largely on his Republican credentials.

Results: Merrill Cook, Bill Dew, and Brian Jenkins advanced to the run off ballot for District 2. In District three, David Leavitt received 220 votes, Jason Chaffetz received 469 votes, and Chris Cannon received 338 votes. They'll all go to the second ballot. The other two received almost no support, so unless people change their vote, I'd expect to see Jason and Chris go to a third ballot. We could be here all day...

The conventional wisdom is that a vote for Leavitt or Chaffetz is a vote against Cannon. But that's not the case. In fact, I saw Leavitt and Cannon talking in the hall and the word going around the floor is that Leavitt is asking his delegates to vote for Cannon. Of course, that won't keep the final outcome from going to a primary vote in June. In fact, it would take a huge swing either way to avoid that. Greg Curtis, Speaker of the House, predicted 55% Chaffetz, 45% Cannon. I think it might be closer than that.

I snagged a seat at the press table: power and a table to put my computer on. Sweet!

While we were waiting for the second ballot to be counted, Senators Hatch and Bennett spoke. Basically cheerleading for Republicans. That's OK--this is the right crowd for it to be sure. Hatch says: "I was a Mitt Romney supporter, but that's over. If you can't get behind McCain, you might as well turn the election over to Barack Obama. That would be a catastrophe for the judiciary." Hatch says McCain will appoint the right kind of judges and that alone is a good enough reason to support John McCain. Hatch gets a standing ovation. No doubt that the man is popular with this crowd.

Along with all of these are the usual controversies surrounding voting and credentialing procedures. Some older and disabled delegates had a tough time getting to the ballot boxes apparently.

A row of Macs at the press table (click to enlarge)

Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and State Auditor Auston Johnson were elected by acclamation since they're running unopposed. We watched a McCain video. Mark Shurtleff spoke after showing us a video. I presume it's been prepared for the general election. Shurtleff gave a god talk and got a standing ovation. Balloons dropped. Basically anything to fill the time while they count votes.

The bags filled with balloons were hung above the press table, so they all fell on the floor around the press and not on the delegates.

Argh. Now we're doing party constitution changes. What fun. In the middle of the second amendment, someone went down and there was a call for a medic. There was a division called on the second amendment to replace winner take all with proportional representation in future presidential primaries. The amendment failed.

There will be a third ballot for the 2nd and 3rd Districts. In the 3rd District, Leavitt got 161 votes, Chaffetz got 529 votes, and Cannon got 356 votes in the second round. That gives Chaffetz over 50%, but he needs 60% to avoid a runoff. That's 630 votes it everyone stuck around and will vote on the third ballot. He needs 100 of Leavitt's votes to win outright.

People in Leavitt shirts are walking through the hall carrying Cannon signs. They're getting boo'd and the Rules Chairman is asking them to leave since campaigns are not allowed to campaign in the convention hall itself.

I'm going to go get ready to vote. They're not going to open the ballot boxes until we've heard the Bylaw changes because they're afraid people might leave. Ya think!?!

Jason Chaffetz running for Congress in the Third District (click to enlarge)

The first bylaw amendment is to allow the delegates that are bound to Mitt Romney to vote for McCain. People cheered wildly after the speech against the change. People here still love Romney. Someone made a motion to postpone he amendment indefinitely. Everyone really just wants to vote and go home, I think.

In the end, for the 3rd District, Jason Chaffetz came within 9 votes of being the nominee and not having have a primary with Chris Cannon on June 24th. The final tally was Chaffetz 59%, Cannon 41%. What a finish. I'll bet there's some Chaffetz supporters who went home early and are kicking themselves right now.

Tags: utah politics republican

I’m hoping to attend this series by Stephen Pratt, who wrote the forward to “The 5000 Year Leap”.

Are you familiar with the revolutionary ideas that produced the miracle of America? Do you understand the principles of liberty embodied in the Declaration and in the Constitution? Can you defend that “glorious standard?” Well, you are in for a real treat!

You are cordially invited to attend (no charge) a four-part lecture series entitled “Know Your Liberty,” taught by Stephen Pratt of Fillmore, Utah. He will present these classes in Orem, Utah. Here is the location:

Liahona Academy
280 South 400 East
(across from Orem High)
Orem, Utah

Please mark these dates and times on your calendar (notice that three of the lectures begin at 7:00 PM, and one begins at 9:30 AM):

#1, Friday, May 2, 7:00 PM - 9:30 PM
#2, Saturday, May 3, 9:30 AM - 12:30 PM
#3, Friday, May 9, 7:00 PM - 9:30 PM
#4, Saturday, May 10, 7:00 PM - 9:30 PM

Here are the lecture titles:

#1, The Standard: How to Measure a Candidate or Issue
#2, The Empire Has No Clothes & Becoming a Citizen-Statesman
#3, Government by Judiciary & Empire of Debt
#4, The Three Foundings of America

Stephen Pratt is a warm and engaging speaker who never seems to have enough time to cover the vast amount of material he has at his fingertips to share. He studied with W. Cleon Skousen for years, and worked for the National Center for Constitutional Studies. His experience in presenting this information spans decades and many states. You will love his wit and his delightful personality! Please join us for these marvelous opportunities. The content is geared toward adult thinking but it may be understandable for youth of about 14 years and older.

See http://www.turntotheconstitution. com/pratt_mar_apr_may.html and http://www.libertyandlearning. com/ for more information.

Please share this invitation with your liberty-loving friends and acquaintances.

– Source: Mailer from Lowell Nelson

I hope to see you there.

I enjoy the News Gang, The Gang, the Gillmor Gang, or whatever it's called. Actually, I think Steve's starting to call it all the Gillmor Gang again and that's good. That's the right name and brand for Steve's podcasts. I usually listen to the Gang, as I can, while I'm driving.

There's quite a flow and I can't listen to them all (after all, I have all the IT Conversations stuff to listen to). So, I usually just pull up the latest. Today that was Friday's show.

I found myself laughing out loud as it devolved from a discussion of Shel Israel and his puppet alter ego to a liberal fantasy where Cheney and Rumsfeld are tried for war crimes by President Obama. That wasn't enough, in this flight of fancy, Hillary is the veep, Bill is the Secretary of State and both Kerry and Dukakis (yeah, him) are given cabinet posts. Not sure how Mondale fell out of favor, but he didn't get a mention that I heard.

What really cracked me up however was someone's comment that this would be awesome. Hillary could do health care, Bill could do foreign policy and Obama could do....then there was a long pause. The speaker couldn't find a role for Obama. I guess he can make speeches, exhorting them all to have hope and work for change.

The Democrats always seem to find ways to lose elections. This conversation was an indication why. Do they really not understand why the nation rejected people like Dukakis and Kerry? Are they so blind to that that they would seriously consider them part of the dream team? Yes. They are.

Between Obama and McCain, I'm actually split. I'm sure I wouldn't like many of Obama's policies, but I relate to him more generationally and sometimes that makes a bigger difference than politics. But if I had any inkling that any one of the people mentioned in the "dream team" were going to be part of the cabinet, he'd never get my vote and I think that's true of many. Hillary, even as veep, is poison to the Democratic ticket. Don't walk--run!

Tags: podcasting politics

If anyone else out there is stunned that yesterday’s ISO approval of Microsoft’s OOXML document format was not an April Fool’s joke, James Hogarth has an excellent recap of the entire saga entitled How to buy a standard in 10 days. Unfuckingbelievable. Here’s hoping countries raise formal protests; if not, office document formats will remain incompatible [...]

I just got back from my precinct caucus meeting (Republican) where I was elected by my friends and neighbors as precinct Vice Chair for the coming two years. I was conducting the meeting as Chair.

I love caucus meetings. This is true grassroots politics. Everyone asking question, voting for delegates to the state and county conventions, paper ballots. There's some good discussion and great participation.

I'm always shocked at how few people, relatively speaking, attend. We had a better turn out than I ever remember, but there were still only around 50 people there out of around 2000 in our precinct. Just showing up gives you a huge voice.

As for me, I ran on a platform of making my vote for congressional representative in Utah's Third district contingent on the degree to which the candidate was willing to take the Change Congress pledge. I explained the four points of the pledge, why I thought they were important, and how while I don't believe that there's general corruption problem in Congress, that I do believe money changes things and we need to find ways to reduce its influence. I felt like there was overwhelming support for that stance.

Tags: politics utah

Utah will hold caucus meetings tonight for the purpose of selecting delegates to the county and state conventions. Your voice is amplified many times over by being part of the process that decides who's on the ballot rather than just selecting from a few candidates in November.

The caucus meeting with be with people in your neighborhood--probably people you know. You can find out what precinct you live in by clicking here. Then you can visit the Republican or Democratic Web sites to determine where you should go. (If you're a member of a party other than these two, find your party Web site for caucus locations.)

Once you know where to go, just show up. Both the Republicans and Democrats are meetings at 7pm. You'll find it's a pretty friendly atmosphere. If you want to run as a delegate, it helps to take some friends with you who will vote for you. Being a delegate does take time and involve some meetings (not to mention the conventions themselves) but is a great way to further amplify your voice.

Personally, I'm planning to talk about Lessig's Change Congress movement (I wrote about it while I was at ETech) and my commitment to preferentially vote for candidates willing to take at least part of the Change Congress pledge. If enough delegates did this, we could at least change the part of Congress we're responsible for in Utah.

Tags: utah