This past weekend I received a phone call to my Google Voice phone number. Since we were involved with a family wedding at the time, I let it go to voice mail. The Google Voice service attempts to use voice recognition technology to automatically transcribe voice mail messages and then email the text to you, often with humorous consequences. Here is the transcribed voice mail message I received:
Hi. This is Regina work. Sort of. I’m calling to set the record straight about my friend Mike Lee. The truth is the bikes the key part of all the clear waste out of Utah we work together. I’ve got her husband’s Council. He stopped it from being transferred across our highways ad for big story, it does West desert. You may not know but my ex father. Rex week passed away from cancer related to be there with her. So, if you might expect. Mike, please record his commitment to keeping you talk to say from high level nuclear waste a second not anybody who tells you otherwise. If it’s a resort. It’s a last minute mislead attack ads for the role personal game. That’s the truth. Again, I’m not sure of the calling to set the record straight, and I encourage you to join me support likely the upcoming primary election. Thank you. Goodbye just calling to pay for. I found it and I agree.
That’s right, the primary elections are here in Utah once again! Tuesday June 22 is election day so make sure you take the time to vote. If you are registered to vote, you can find out the location where you should vote at the Utah State website. The site will also tell you what party you are currently registered with and let you see samples of both the Ballot for your party and the non-partisan elections for your area. Also check out Abigail Adams Project – UTAH for information about the candidates.
If the erroneously transcribed voice mail above was complete nonsense to you, then don’t worry, a lot of the information that has been published during this campaign has been just as messed up even when properly transcribed.
I sent the following letter to the delegates from my precinct to the Utah State Republican Nominating Convention which will be held on May 8th, 2010. If any of the candidates get’s 60% of the delegate votes at the convention, the candidate will become the Republican Party nominee without a primary election. I am posting it here as an open letter to all delegates to the state convention.
———————————-
Dear delegates,
Thanks for reaching out to ask for my opinion and for all your work to represent us at the state convention.
You might remember me from our neighborhood caucus meeting. I also ran to be a state delegate with the intention of replacing Mr.Bennett. I realize that in our precinct, most of you expressed support for Mr.Bennett, and that professor Frederickson, in particular, is a personal friend for his (though she did emphasize, to her credit, that just because she is a friend does not mean that she agrees with him). I hope you realize that I do not think he is a bad person. He has done what he thinks is right, and that is admirable. I do think, however, that what Mr. Bennett thinks is right and what I think is right are no longer aligned.
Read more »
Since the passage of the health care law on Sunday, a lot of us have challenged its constitutionality. Even before it was passed we suggested that it would violate the constitution. But since it’s passage I have seen a lot of friends and family who support the law say they don’t understand why we think it is unconstitutional. They often cite the “general welfare clause” of the constitution and laws that require automobile insurance to justify the law under the constitution.
Up front let me say, as I have before, that the current health care system is the pits, unsustainable, and that insurance companies are corrupt. That insurance coverage is intertwined with your specific employer, that it is so much more expensive for individuals, that people are denied coverage because of preexisting conditions, and that we pay for routine care through insurance claims (which is like paying for gas for your car through auto insurance claims), are all terrible, illogical aspects of what we currently have. It needs to be overhauled.
The Obama Administration has updated the White House website to include visitors logs. This is a wonderful development and even though I don’t generally agree with many of the things that the administration is doing, this kind of transparency should be applauded. We need more transparency.
However, I thought it was super funny that the service that they have chosen to use to publish the visitor log data on the web, Socrata, has a button right at the top of the display that says “Socialize This.” Almost every other service in the world uses the word “Share” on their links and buttons for posting information to social networks like twitter or facebook.
It’s a Freudian slip from the collective administration subconscious.
I have a significant number of friends who are in favor of a national government run health care insurance program. They have touted its benefits. Here are some questions I would like them to answer for me. If you think they are leading questions with false or unfair premises, say so, but please try to answer them.
You think that state run insurance is a good idea. You’ve seen in work well a fistful of countries. You want to see it happen in the U.S.. Please consider and provide answers to the following questions:
1. The countries that you cite (France, Germany, Australia, Canada) as examples of successful state run health insurance have at most a population 1/4 the size of the United States. What makes you think that their systems can scale to the population of the U.S.? Might there be cultural or governmental structure differences between the U.S. and these countries that would prevent their systems from translating correctly to a U.S. system? Why or why not?
In this post I intend to draw a controversial analogy between the subprime mortgage and credit crisis and the resulting economic upheaval and the potential societal upheaval that could result from the redefinition of marriage.
To set things up, let me share my personal experience with the economic crisis.
President Bush announced today that because Congress failed to authorize a bailout of the U.S. auto industry, by executive order the National Government will be bailing out automobile companies using funds from the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) , which was established earlier this year by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to bail out failing financial institutions.
This is a unbelievably devastating blow to our constitutional government.
Lately I have seen a lot of activity in blog comments and social websites where people who are promoting California’s Proposition 8, which will amend the state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, are being called bigots, homophobes, and fools, and their arguments dismissed as irrational, ignorant, and unfounded.
While there are certain to be fools and bigots among the opponents of same-sex marriage, just as there are among its proponents, opposition to same-sex marriage is not irrational. It is not ignorant or uninformed.
Just as those in favor of same-sex marriage have legitimate concerns and rational arguments for their stance on the subject, so do those of us who oppose it. Going around trolling the blogs and facebook walls of those who support the traditional definition of marriage and describing their position as irrational and ignorant certainly isn’t going to win you many converts.
So rather than shut down constructive conversation by treating those with whom you disagree as idiots, why not acknowledge that at least some of their points are valid concerns; that you can see how they would be concerned, even if you think that other considerations should overrule that concern.
Same-sex marriage advocates certainly have some strong arguments in their favor. So do opponents. That fact should be acknowledged.
The State of Utah’s website is terrible for people trying to find information about the 2008 election. Why isn’t there an obvious link to voter information right on the front page in big, bold type? And even once you have found the “Election and Voting” link in the “Government” drop-down menu, you still have to crawl through a bunch of hard-to-navigate links and sift through a ton information, some of it out-dated, to figure out where you are supposed to vote, who are the candidates for your particular area, etc.
Well, part of the reason is that the official Utah voter website isn’t on utah.gov. No, that would make too much sense. It is at www.LeaveYourPrint.com . Which doesn’t make any sense at all, because finger prints are not required to vote in Utah.
The Leave Your Print website IS the official government voter portal. So why isn’t there a big announcement for it right on the homepage of utah.gov? 21 Days left before the election and there isn’t a single link to LeaveYourprint.com anywhere from the official state website?
I watched the Vice-Presidential Debate last night. I think both candidates did quite well.
If you missed it you can watch it online at:
One issue that stuck out to me that hasn’t received much commentary in LDS circles that I have seen is the exchange concerning same-sex marriage and rights policies of the respective candidates (probably because everyone is sick of the topic in general).
In his first response to the issue, Biden clearly stated, “We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.” (emphasis mine)
So Biden, either on purpose, or by Freudian slip, refers to “committed couples in a same-sex marriage” as if it were a given. Perhaps he meant “same-sex relationship” but he said “same-sex marriage.”
Then, after Palin had clearly stated that she supports rights for same-sex couples, but not if it means changing the definition of marriage to anything other than between one man and one woman, the moderator asked Biden for a non-nuanced clarification. “Do you support gay marriage?”
Biden responded, “No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.”
It seems clear to me that, despite the moderator’s exhortation to avoid nuance, Biden’s words were very calculated to be nuanced. Either that or garbled and self-contradictory. On the one hand he says that they do not support redefining marriage from a civil side, but then he continues on to say that the decision of what to call it should be left up to individual faiths. So which is it? Do they think that it should it be defined by the civil government or should it be left up to individual faiths?
If Obama and Biden do not support redefining civil marriage, then how is that not a contradiction of the letter sent from Obama to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club in July, previously discussed on this blog, in which he not only opposes Proposition 8 in California, which would specifically define civil marriage as between one man and one woman, but that he wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which is what protects individual states from having to recognize same-sex marriage contracted in other states.
So which is it? Is the Obama campaign for or against redefining civil marriage to include same-sex couples or not? On a state level or a federal level?
The Issues section of the Obama website is woefully vague. Which section should I read to find his same-sex marriage position? Civil Rights? Nope. Nothing there. Family? Nope. Nada there either.
Let’s try site google to search the site for gay . Results: A number of blog posts, some of which seem to say he is against redefining marriage, a PDF Flyer that discusses his support for “Full Civil Unions” and against a federal marriage amendment, but no definitive, official statements about same-sex marriage.
Let’s try googling the site for marriage . Results: The same PDF Flyer, plus a different one with essentially the same content, more of the same blog posts. No definitive, official statement on same-sex marriage policy.
Why doesn’t Obama have a clear statement on same-sex marriage in an easy to find location on his website? If, as Joe Biden claimed in the debate, they are both against changing the civil definition of marriage, then why isn’t there a clear, easy to find statement?
Their lack of a clear position reinforces the view that McCain and Palin have both tried to pin on Obama by contrast: that he tells different groups contradictory things depending on what they want to hear. He wants the gay and lesbian vote, and he wants to attract moderate Christians, who don’t want to redefine marriage but are attracted to his other policies. So he lets them both believe that he is on their side on the issue of homosexual marriage.
I want a definitive statement. And I think that LDS Members who are concerned about the redefinition of marriage in California and elsewhere should demand a statement before they decide to vote for Obama.
To be fair, it isn’t obvious from the main Issues section of the McCain website where to find a statement on same-sex marriage, but if you poke around a little, there it is under Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life
McCain’s statement is basically that traditional marriage is the ideal and to leave it up to the states to enact constitutional amendments defining marriage according to the will of their own people and not up to the courts.
I would have liked something a bit stronger, but at least it is clear and relatively accessible on the website.
Here is the full transcript of the pertinent portion of the debate:
IFILL: The next round of—pardon me, the next round of questions starts with you, Senator Biden. Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples?BIDEN: Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.
The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted—same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That’s only fair.
It’s what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.
IFILL: Governor, would you support expanding that beyond Alaska to the rest of the nation?
PALIN: Well, not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. And unfortunately that’s sometimes where those steps lead.
But I also want to clarify, if there’s any kind of suggestion at all from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves, you know, I am tolerant and I have a very diverse family and group of friends and even within that group you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue, some very dear friends who don’t agree with me on this issue.
But in that tolerance also, no one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties.
But I will tell Americans straight up that I don’t support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman, and I think through nuances we can go round and round about what that actually means.
But I’m being as straight up with Americans as I can in my non- support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage.
IFILL: Let’s try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?
BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.
The bottom line though is, and I’m glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that’s the case, we really don’t have a difference.
IFILL: Is that what your said?
PALIN: Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.
IFILL: Wonderful. You agree. On that note, let’s move to foreign policy.
Since the California Supreme Court struck down the state’s ban on same sex marriage yesterday, I have seen a number of people make an argument that has been accumulating disciples during the last few years. A growing number argue that marriage should be left to religion, and that the government should “get out of the marriage business.”
While this view may sound reasonable and is a seductive sounding solution, I believe it is overly simplified, contrary to history and good government, and ultimately a pernicious proposal.
Sorry that my blog has been so silent lately…I have been up to my ears in more important responsibilities.
But since today are the Utah State Neighborhood Caucuses, I wanted to encourage all of you to attend your Precinct meeting tonight.
I have been involved with my local precincts for a number of years now.
Did you know that unless you participate in the Caucuses tonight it is very likely that some of your elected representatives will be put into office without you having a say in it? For some elections the winner is decided only by those delegates you elect in your caucuses, so that there is never a primary or general election vote.
A friend of mine spent the time to quickly write a Beginner’s Guide to the Utah Neighborhood Caucuses, which I am posting here for those of you who want to understand what the caucus is for and why it is important that you attend.
