RSS

Category Archives: Politics

Utah’s Caucus System

Utah is a caucus state and I have to admit that I both like and dislike it.

Pros: It’s local. I enjoy going to my caucus and seeing people from my neighborhood. We get to sit down and talk about the issues that matter to our neighborhood. It truly is the most grassroots that you can get in the American political system.  It’s exclusive, meaning that you have to be affiliated with the party to attend its caucus meetings and be involved in the primary process.

Cons: It’s exclusive, meaning that you have to be affiliated with the party to attend its caucus meetings and be involved in the primary process.

In Utah, something like 12.5% of voters are registered Democrats, while 34% of voters are registered Republicans.  That leaves 53.5% of voters unaffiliated/independent.  As caucus attendance numbers dwindle, elected candidates come more from the fringe of each party, alienating a large portion of general election voters. How do you think Utah elected Mike Lee?! Mike Lee won the Republican nomination in a hotly contested Republican Primary 51%-49% (the final count was around 2,000 votes). He was carried by one ULTRA conservative county. When it came to the general election, Lee (R) defeated Granato (D) by almost a 2-1 margin. Many of Utah’s independents are Republican-leaning, and 7 times out of 10 candidate (R) is going to win in a national election.

In my discussions with many former-Republican-now-unaffiliated Utahn’s, they say that they left the party because of the caucus system. They feel that only “extreme” voices were “allowed” or “heard” and that anybody who questioned the “official party position” was ostracized. Because of the neighborhood affiliation of the caucus system, this created strain between neighbors and rather than potentially lose close friendships or create negative feelings within the neighborhood, they simply left the party (or no longer attend caucus meetings if they’re still affiliated).

So what’s the answer? Part of the answer is for more people to get involved in their caucus to make it truly more “representative” than it currently is. Of course, this means that people will have to care enough to get involved and to take the risk of arguing with neighbors. Until then, the more “extreme” elements of each party will continue to dominate Utah politics and we’ll continue electing jackasses like Mike Lee.

So please, if you live in Utah and you’re not affiliated with a party, get affiliated.  If you are affiliated, attend your local caucus meetings.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 7, 2012 in Local, Politics

 

Other Reasons

Sebastian mentions two reasons, in addition to the economy, why this President has to go in the 2012 elections.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 20, 2011 in Freedom - Loss Of, Politics

 

Media, What Bias?

What is the media’s responsibility with neutral, objective reporting? There seems to be an unwritten belief that media must be unbiased and objective. But where does this idea come from? Is it better to have a news outlet like Fox News which claims to be “fair and balanced” yet is center-right, or to have a news outlet like MSNBC which makes neither claim to neutrality nor bias, yet is center-left? It can be safely said that media bias is likely a reflection of consumer bias.

Media Objectivity

At some point in our cultural history, the idea of objective news reporting was created. Whether this idea was created as a way to further democracy in the Western world, or as a way to manufacture consent and control the masses (Herman & Chomsky, 1988), will probably be debated for centuries. Conventional wisdom in America is that Fox News has a center-right, or conservative, bias and that its “Fair and Balanced” tag line is more of a marketing tool than an ethical guideline. This same wisdom claims that major media outlets such as ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC and “the paper of record,” The New York Times have a center-left, or liberal, bias.

Yet, despite the claims of liberal media bias, research does not fall in line with popular belief.

“Whether the news media have a liberal bias has interested politicians, journalists, scholars, and the public. Many seem to believe that a political bias exists. According to a … survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2002), 47% of those who answered a question on media bias believed news organizations in general are politically biased in their reporting. In comparison, 35% of respondents disagreed” (Lee, 2005, p. 43).

Whether news media contains more liberal or conservative bias is indiscernible and a topic of debate among scholars (Lee, 2005).

What does this all mean? Meaning is in the ear of the beholder, literally. “…[P]eople‘s perceptions of trust in media and bias in news are related to their political predispositions” (Vraga, Tulley, & Rojas, 2009, p. 71). Thus, there is not a whole lot that journalists can do to reduce perceived bias by consumers. However, this does not mean that perceived media bias has to remain forever. Media literacy education may be the answer.

Media literacy education is designed to help consumers understand how media is constructed and consumed. It does this by teaching people “how to decode contextual media messages in film, music, television, corporate advertising and communications technology to understand better the range of influence and impact the media have on their lives” (Vraga, Tulley, & Rojas, 2009, p. 71). Does media literacy education really work?

“[The] findings lend partial support to the idea that news media literacy can affect perceptions of the media. While exposure to a news media literacy presentation decreased perceptions of bias in the subsequent news story, it did not appear to increase trust…. The analysis of the very liberal and conservative clarifies these results: these groups reported different levels of bias and trust based on their political predispositions. When dealing with the media and political issues, political ideology plays a central role in how individuals respond to a media message, as well as to a presentation about the media” (Vraga, Tulley, & Rojas, 2009, p. 77).

Clearly, the claim of objectivity, or lack thereof, matters little to news media consumers. Does news media have to be neutral and objective? I think not. What is important, however, is that consumers are knowledgeable regarding what they are consuming and how to best interpret and understand it.

Works Cited

Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing Consent. New York: Pantheon Books.

Lee, T.-T. (2005). The Liberal Media Myth Revisited: An Examination of Factors Influencing Perceptions of Media Bias. Journal of Boradcasting and Electronic Media , 43-64.

Vraga, E. K., Tulley, M., & Rojas, H. (2009). Media Literacy Training Reduces Perception of Bias. Newspaper Research Journal , 68-81.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on September 23, 2011 in Language, Media - What Bias?, People, Politics

 

Any One…

wanna go see this movie?  I’m not in any way endorsing Rick Perry, but this is one heck of a political ad!  And did you catch how he’s putting a light twist on Obama’s “change” tactic from ‘08?

 
1 Comment

Posted by on September 23, 2011 in Movies, Politics

 

Why Originalism Is Important

Welcome to another round of “let’s understand the US Constitution.”  There has been some discussion in the media lately about President Obama “invoking the 14th Amendment” to the US Constitution as a way to increase the debt ceiling with out going through Congress.  The specific article in question is this:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Most of the news stories that I’ve read read this way, “The validity of the public debt… shall not be questioned.”  Others do a bit more thorough job, “The validity of the public debt…, including debts incurred for payment of pensions…, shall not be questioned.”  Both of these short cuts are misleading. 

This is why originialism is so important.  The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution is one of three amendments ratified shortly after the end of the American Civil War and the article clearly pertains to the debt incurred by the United States during the war and the debt incurred by the Confederate States during the war. 

Later when congress created the debt ceiling in 1941, it established a way to systematically authorize (and increase) debt by law.  Debt authorized by law remains valid and meets the requirements of the 14th Amendment.  Can the president just go around it?  I would argue that if he did, the debt he extended would not be viable because it was not authorized by law.  Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution clearly gives CONGRESS, not the president, authority “to borrow money on the credit of the United States.” The 14th Amendment does not take that authority from congress and give it to the president.

Is the debt ceiling constitutional?  That’s not the question here and could be discussed another time.  The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, as will all other articles and amendments to the constitution, must be read from an orignialist perspective, meaning how the average person would have understood it at the time of its ratification.  If the US Constitution is a “living document” as many on the left proclaim, and the meanings of the words there contained change with time, what is the point of having a writing constitution?

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 28, 2011 in History, Language, Politics

 

A Note to the Left and the Right

Something has touched a nerve today, I’m not quite sure why.  I was sitting her surfing the interwebz when I, again, became annoyed with the political establishment in this country.  For several generations now we, the citizenry, have sat back and allowed our government to become extremely top heavy on the Federal end.  In some cases, an extremely vocal minority have called for this increase.  In most cases, an extremely apathetic majority simply sat back and did nothing. 

We have lost something that the founders had enjoyed and come to love.  I do not say founders in meaning the Big Boys of American History, but rather the citizens who supported the Big Boys.  The citizens of the original 13 Colonies had spent almost 170 official historical years governing themselves.  Lifted from the source of all truth and knowledge, Wikipedia – “Each colony developed its own system of self government. The[y]… voted for their local and provincial government.” 

Yes, the early years of American history are not the golden age that many on the right try to paint them.  They are not, however, the historical arm pit that many on the left try to paint them.  It was imperfect, what with indentured servitude and slavery and what not, but it was 17th and 18th Century America.  The one thing they truly got right was local government and a citizenry active in that government. 

The British government started poking their nose in where the American Colonials felt it didn’t belong.  The Americans rebelled, declaring

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The War was fought, the Americans won (with the help of the French who wanted to spite England), and The United States of America was quickly recognized as a nation by Morocco.  The people then set out to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity….”  On September 13, 1788 the United States Constitution was confirmed ratified and the country was set on its historical course. 

The US citizenry then fought another war about slavery and about independence in government.  For the better, the Union won the War of Northern Aggression and the United States stayed intact, to some extent.

So, what am I rambling on about?  “Federalism,” the great American experiment, has changed many, many times over the last 235 years (see the source of all truth and knowledge).  The authors of the Declaration of Independence were correct when they said, “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”  In modern speak, Common sense (because “common sense” has replaced prudence) tells us that when a government has been around for a long time it shouldn’t be changed on a whim.  History also shows us that the people will mumble under their breath against government overreaching rather than giving up the entitlements granted while their rights are being trampled.” 

Sound familiar?  It should, because we are living it!  The Federal Government has gotten too large and overstepped its constitutionally set limitations.  Several factors are involved, not the least of which is the ever expanding authority of the Executive Branch, the weakness of the Legislative Branch and its relinquishment of authority to the Executive, and the failure of the citizenry to remember that the Judicial Branch exists outside of the Supreme Court (apart from viewing the Judicial as a tool to circumvent the Legislative).  I’m not saying that the Federal Department of Education can’t exist, but I am saying that it shouldn’t under our current Federal Constitution.  Do you want a Federal Department of Education?  Then convince your state legislature, or your Senator or Representative, to make a push for a Constitutional Convention or Constitutional Amendment so that the Federal Department of Education can be instituted properly. 

Your role as a citizen is to read and understand the United States Constitution and your State Constitution.  If you haven’t read them then you can’t know when your governments are overstepping their bounds and what their constitutional limitations are.  When you know these things then you can become active in your community and allow the private sector to do what the government has no authority to do. 

Governments are not all powerful.  If you think they should be, please remove yourself to Europe.  They favor that type of thinking over there.  The United States of America was founded on principles of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.  To members of the Right and the Left who have special interests, you are partially at fault for the current state of American politics.  The apathetic also hold responsibility, as do the political weasels who have found “public service” to be a career and not service. 

There, my rant is over.  Return to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

Hypocrisy and a Short Memory

The Left has both.

 

This Will Be Interesting

Ron Paul Appointed Chairman of Domestic Monetary Policy Subcommittee

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 11, 2010 in Economy, Politics, Really Excited, Ron Paul

 

“I’d love to be President…

… but I have a social engagement that I can’t miss.”  This seems to be a common theme with President Obama.  Whether it’s going out of town and leaving Vice President Biden to lay the wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier or what have you.  Now, he’s leaving press conferences and letting Bill Clinton try and explain why he, Barack Obama, is doing a President.

Go here, read and watch video, then return.

Okay, you’re back.  ”I’ve been keeping the First Lady waiting for about half an hour, so I’m gonna take off.”  What?  WHAT?!!!  You’re the President of the United States of America.  You just worked a deal with your Lex Luthors and you won’t even explain yourself at the press conference?  You’re base, which is quickly unraveling and seeing what conservatives were screaming about in 2008, deserve an explanation.  Oh, and Barack, Michelle and the Christmas party can wait.  You’re the President and I don’t think they’ll be angry if you show up late.

If you’re a first time reader to this blog, welcome.  If you’ve been reading me for a while then you know that I didn’t vote for Obama.  He will be a one term President and he knows it.  It’s interesting that Obama filled his cabinet with old Clinton appointees, now he’s letting Bill clean up his political messes.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on December 11, 2010 in Crazy Left, Politics

 

Quote of the Day

We do not elect Kings, nor appoint prime ministers. We elect executive officers. If Kerrey or anyone else, including Obama, thinks that the task of chief executive of the United States is too messy, too difficult, or too hard for Obama, he should never have run or been supported for the job.

This is what differentiates the European Model from the American Model.  Obama doesn’t need a COO, America needs a President!

 
1 Comment

Posted by on November 8, 2010 in Crazy Left, Freedom - Loss Of, Politics, WTF?

 

The Root of The Vote

Sebastian talks about the root of the voter populous and how politics work.

What politics really comes down to is a very small number of activists struggling against another very small number of activists, using the vast and ignorant voter rolls as pawns on a chessboard.

Go read the rest.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 23, 2010 in People, Politics

 

Calvin Coolidge

When thinking about the past Presidents of the United States, Calvin Coolidge is one of the last that come to mind for many.  This is truly unfortunate, especially for conservatives.  Here is actual video and audio from a small speech delivered by Coolidge in 1924, the first ever recorded for a President.  It gets really good around 2 minutes.

86 years ago, Calvin Coolidge told to the American people that their taxes were too high and that their liberties were were being trampled upon.  I ask you, does the current administration think about the individual when it proposes raising taxes or when it forces socialized medicine upon the people?  The answer, simply, is No.

Thank you,  President Coolidge, for giving conservatives another point in history with which to reference the intent of our Founders.

h/t – Dennis Prager

 
1 Comment

Posted by on October 18, 2010 in Economy, Freedom - Loss Of, History, Money, Politics

 

Obama at the Bat

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 9, 2010 in Politics

 

Why I Read Day by Day

And why you should too – http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2010/07/18/

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 18, 2010 in Humor, Politics

 

Why Elections Matter

Sebastian talks about Justice Kennedy staying on the bench through the 2012 presidential election.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 10, 2010 in People, Politics

 
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.