The Delegate Debate in My Inbox: Margaret Dayton vs Parley Hellewell

Today, I was conscripted as an observer to a debate between delegates endorsing Parley Hellewell and Margaret Dayton…in my inbox!

This morning when I awoke, I discovered the following email in my inbox:

Subject: Parley Hellewell
From: Lindy Taylor

Hello all,

My name is Lindy Taylor, and I am writing you to encourage you to please support and vote for Parley Hellewell as the State Senator for our area. (His opponents are Margaret Dayton and Jeremy Friedbaum .)

I support Parley Hellewell for three reasons:

1) He has lobbied for and passed a resolution to recognize the right to participate in religious expressions in public schools (as of February 2006). It actually passed unanimously amongst Democrats and Republicans for the state of Utah. Can you believe this? Who else has been fighting for our freedoms with this much success? This means we may actually be hearing Christmas songs again for the Christmas programs! Maybe we can even read the constitution and pre-amble where it mentions Divine Providence! Maybe we can even sing our patriotic songs in our schools that mention God! I don’t know about you, but this is absolutely one of the most important privileges that we must defend and fight for, or soon we will not lose just our right to have it in public schools, but on all public property. We will soon be eliminating God from everything public altogether.

There may be those that are not as concerned about being taking back these freedoms. My husband, Paul Taylor, wrote a letter awhile back, of which this is a segment:

“Sure, we have 16 hours a day to teach our children religion, and that’s enough for me; I’m not asking that religion be taught in public school. But what message will our children glean from the fact that religious faith disappears in their public life, that none of their teachers will even acknowledge their faith? They will glean what is increasingly the truth; religious faith is not publicly acceptable, and must be hidden outside the home. Perhaps they will learn that faith and education don’t mix; perhaps, if our teachers do an exceptionally good job of hiding their faith, our children will learn that educated people don’t have faith. Is that worth fearing? … There is more to religious thought than coercing others into it; there is just plain living, without fear of reprisal for being who one is.” (emphasis added)

To me, passing this Resolution alone makes Parley a great asset to our government.

2) Parley is extremely accessible. I wrote a letter a few months ago, sending it to many representatives. I received a few responses, but his was the only personal one, even inviting me to call him and discuss the issue further. He didn’t know me from Eve! That was impressive.

3) I think Parley seeks to restore our freedoms at a pragmatic pace that will make progress possible. He is both an idealist and a realist. His record shows that he is flexible in his approach without being wishy washy in his principles. He is capable of making wise decisions, and has shown already he is able to gather support for his ideas.

To read the exact wording of the bill, you can go here—Resolution Recognizing Right to Participate in Religious Expressions in Public Schools. You can also read more about Parley Hellewell at his website at Parley2006.com .

I am an unpaid, not on the campaign, not on the payroll, supporter. I just believe in what he is trying to do for us.

Sincerely,
Lindy Taylor

Then at 4:06 pm I received the following email response to Mrs. Taylor:

Subject: Thoughts about Parley & Margaret
From: Greg Soter

I applaud Lindy Taylor’s involvement in the process of discussing candidates, and enjoyed her e-mail this morning. Thanks, Lindy.

The resolution (it wasn’t a bill, resolutions do nothing) that Parley Hellewell lobbied for is nothing more than a re-statement of existing law. It makes no change, has no impact except to say again what has already been expressed by law. It’s a little like a resounding comment of, “I think so, too!” The newspaper gave Parley a Buffalo Chip for wasting the legislature’s time and our schools’ money on this.

Utah’s 45-day legislative sessions are always packed with more “stuff” than the two chambers can deal with. I’m wondering if the time devoted to Parley’s resolution—given that it was nothing more than a pleasant expression of the obvious—might have been better spent on business that really deserved attention, but didn’t get it, before the session ended? (By the way, I’m a huge proponent of Utah’s brief 45-day legislative session. It’s a good way to automatically limit the “amount of damage” the legislature can do.)

Let me share my two cents worth about Margaret Dayton.

Margaret is an extremely bright, energetic and effective legislator. She has substance, and puts her focus on things that matter and will make a difference.

Just one case in point: Two years ago, Margaret was the first legislator (in the nation, not just in Utah) who seemed to see the folly in the federal government’s well-intended—but completely irrational and illegal—“No Child Left Behind” law. She undertook a one-woman fight to politely tell the federal government “No thanks to No Child.” A lot of people at first thought she was out of her mind. Margaret has now risen to the point of pretty much leading the nation in the issue; 49 other states have followed
Utah’s lead in objecting strongly to NCLB.

Do a Google search on Margaret Dayton No Child Left Behind, and you’ll get about 266,000 newspaper articles, broadcast features, etc. She is an exceptional leader and enormously effective legislator. (By the way, take a look at www.margaretdayton.com and click through some of the links. It’s most revealing.) Perhaps it’s a rough measure of substance and effectiveness to note that a Google search on Parley Hellewell will yield fewer than 1/10th the number of hits.

As do Lindy and her husband, I care passionately about prayer, Christmas hymns, and other expressions of religion. I also care about making sure the people I hire as legislators are spending their time (my money) in an effective, worthwhile manner. While Parley Hellewell was futzing around re-stating the obvious, Margaret Dayton has been quietly accomplishing things of significance.

While Parley is a very nice person, I believe Margaret is the better choice as state senator.

After work I ran over to the university for my Spanish class, and after class I check my email. Now I had an email from Mr. Taylor offered as a rebuttle to Mr. Soter’s counter endorsement:

Subject: More on Margaret and Parley
From: Paul Taylor

I’m glad to see (and now participate in) an active email discussion of the candidates for state senator. I appreciate Greg’s comments and interest in the race.

Normally I would share Greg’s low opinion of resolutions. In this case I believe a resolution was a perfect vehicle. Although religious expression in public schools is legal, in reality it is suppressed by both school policy and practice. This is a result of misunderstanding the law, and fear of lawsuits and public censure. New law wasn’t called for, and would have been a true waste of legislative effort and time. A resolution that communicates the truth to the right people stands a chance of reversing the chilling effect.

Although Margaret does not represent my house district, I have no reason to dispute Greg’s comments about her character or her convictions. I’m glad we have had both Margaret and Parley representing Utah County in the legislature.

Continuing Greg’s comparison of their legislative track records, a review of the 2006 session shows that Margaret (http://www.le.utah.gov/asp/billsintro/RepResults.asp?Listbox3=DAYTOM) introduced four bills. Two of these were defeated, one vetoed. The one that passed was… a resolution, H.C.R. 2, “Resolution Promoting Utah’s Legislators Back to School Program.”

Parley’s track record for the 2006 session (http://www.le.utah.gov/asp/billsintro/SenResults.asp?Listbox2=HELLEPG) shows, of the 15 bills he introduced, seven were signed by the governor into law, his resolution passed unanimously, five bills were defeated and two had no final action before the close of session.

I don’t intend to compare Parley and Margaret by these summaries, as they served in two different legislative bodies, and both of their contributions go far beyond the bills they introduced. I merely wish to point out that Margaret submits resolutions, too, and that Greg’s description of Parley “futzing around” doesn’t paint a complete picture of his accomplishments.

A word, as well, about Greg’s Google argument. While his search on Margaret Dayton No Child Left Behind does return the 266,000 hits he claimed, most of them have to do with other Margarets, other lefts and other children. To get a more pertinent result set, put the words that go together in quotes, like this: “Margaret Dayton” “No Child Left Behind”. This returns 776 results, most of which are about the right Margaret, which is a lot of hits for one legislator on one topic. Putting Greg’s search of Parley Hellewell in quotes, “Parley Hellewell”, returns 10,500 results. This is still comparing apples and oranges, but that’s all you get to do with Google search counts, which is why I recommend voting on other factors.

As county delegates we definitely face a difficult choice for this senate district. I’m grateful to have two proven, conservative legislators to choose from. On the basis of his principles, performance, accessibility, his position on school choice and my gratitude for his resolution, I will be supporting Parley Hellewell at the convention.

Paul Taylor
County Delegate, OR-16

I knew that when I became a delegate and I gave them my email address I would be receiving email from the candidates. I didn’t expect to be getting email from other delegates (where was I when they passed out the delegate email lists?). Not that I mind too much, it is always great to hear the differing view points. However, since they clearly have delegate email addresses and I do not, any response from me would be basically private, while theirs are broadcast to all of us. If this is a “discussion” it isn’t a fair one. So I sent the following response/proposal to Mr. and Mrs. Taylor and to Mr. Soter:

Subject: Re: More on Margaret and Parley
From: J. Max Wilson

Dear Mrs. Taylor, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Soter,

While I have found both of your endorsements very interesting and helpful, I feel that this is hardly a fair situation when both of you appear have access to a good number of delegate email addresses, while I, lamentably, only have access to your individual emails. In other words, you have the power to broadcast your thoughts to apparently all of us, while we can only respond to each of you in private, as it were. That’s hardly a fair “discussion.” And while I am very interested in following your continued repartee, I’m not sure everyone else wants to be involuntarily subject to your debate in their email inboxes.

So here is my proposal, I will post the text of both of your emails on my blog (https://www.sixteensmallstones.org ) and I will temporarily change my blog comment settings to be a little less restrictive so that comments don’t have to be approved before appearing. At that point you, with your delegate email lists that I am not privy to, can each send out one more email to the rest of us, forwarding a copy of this response and inviting any of the delegates who might be interested to continue the discussion in the comments of my blog post.

I think that my proposal demonstrates common courtesy to the delegates while at the same time providing an easy way for everyone to participate equally and in one common public location.

I plan to post the text of your emails, as well as this reply, on my blog in any case. Perhaps it will be picked up by UtahPolicy.com, as were a couple of my posts last week. I hope you accept my proposal.

Jonathan Max Wilson
County Delegate – OR30
https://www.sixteensmallstones.org

Perhaps we can successfully move this conversation (Spam Debate?) out of our inboxes, where only those privileged to have email lists reign, to here where everyone can have a real discussion.

12 Comments
Category: politics
Tagged: , ,

Articles on Illegal Immigration

Of all of the articles I have read concerning illegal immigration, there are a few that I consider exceptional. As a delegate to the County Convention for Utah County, I wanted to post links to these articles. Hopefully they can help provide an amplified context and wider pool of facts for candidates and delegates as well as other citizens.

The most informative and comprehensive of the articles appeared in the website of City-Journal magazine in Winter of 2004:

Continue reading

1 Comment
Category: politics
Tagged: , , ,

Utah Driver Privilege Cards for Illegal Immigrants

Illegal Immigration was already a hot issue in this year’s election, and the recent protests by illegal immigrants nation wide have only acted as a billow on the already hot forge.

On April 2nd, a staff writer at the Denver Post named Michael Riley published an interesting article entitled Utah’s embrace: no documents, no problem. In it he says that despite being the most Republican state in the union, Utah “may be the closest thing these days to an immigrant paradise.” (You should go read it before it goes into the archives and ceases to be freely available)

To refresh your memory, in my previous post about my conversations with State Representative Jim Ferrin and his opponent Steve Sandstrom… Ferrin defended the Driver Privilege Cards Utah grants to illegals by saying that they require illegal immigrants to learn our traffic laws and take a driving test, and that they permit them to buy Auto Insurance (a point he re-emphasized in a letter to delegates this week). Sandstrom countered that he does not believe that illegals actually buy insurance, even if they can, and that the cards only legitimize their presence in the state. I told him that some statistics that show that illegals with cards don’t actually buy auto insurance would help his case.

Well, the article cited above has this interesting fact:

A legislative audit performed this year showed that 75 percent of the 25,000 people holding driver’s privilege cards in Utah had insurance, a rate only 6 percent below the average for all drivers.

So it looks like Sandstrom’s point doesn’t hold.

However, Jim Ferrin emphasized that the Driver Privilege Cards can only be used to drive and obtain auto insurance. Yet the article says that:

The result is an atmosphere in which illegal immigrants say they both have access to key services and feel welcome. The driver’s cards allow them to get auto insurance and are widely accepted by local banks for loans and mortgages.

Zions Bank, one of the state’s largest, has begun opening immigrant-oriented branches called Su Banco.

So, contrary to Ferrin’s assertion, according to the article, Utah banks often accept the cards for account and loan application, as well as for mortgages. That is certainly granting a significant benefit beyond mere driving and auto insurance!

This also seems to support Steve Sandstrom’s point about legitimizing illegal presence in the state.

I intend to email Jim and ask him about the cards and banking.

The article also cites unnamed “experts” who claim that Utah’s permissiveness toward illegal immigrants is rooted in LDS belief that ties the immigrants to the lamanites in the Book of Mormon, and thus to God’s chosen people. In all my time discussing illegal immigration with people here in Utah, I have only heard this mentioned once, and it was by a state politician in the last few weeks. If republican politicians in Utah do often use LDS views to justify looking the other way when it comes to illegals, I do not think that it is representative of the majority of their constituents, since I have never heard it expressed by anyone else before.

Do you think that the common LDS view of Mexicans as Lamanites makes Latter-day Saints more willing to tolerate illegal immigration? Please post your comments.

How do you feel about the Driver Privilege Cards? Are they a necessary evil until the national government can get its act together? Or do they simply exacerbate the problem?

UPDATE: Representative Ferrin has kindly, and promptly responded to my email:

Hi Jonathan – thanks for the email. The statute specifies that the DPC is not “valid for identification” and further expressly prohibits government entities (state, cities, hospitals, colleges, etc…) from accepting it as proof of personal identification. While it is not “valid for ID”, the statute does not expressly forbid private businesses from accepting it for their purposes. And, I understand that private organizations will choose to accept whatever form of ID they wish as they choose to transact business with whomever they wish. Without the Driver Privilege Card, these same organizations may choose (as many have
in the past) to accept a Mexican ID card (I think it is called a
“cedula” but I am uncertain of its name.) In any case, the Mexican card was shown us at the legislature as a form of ID that should be accepted for obtaining a drivers license. That idea was rejected because, of course, we have no control over that ID card. In any case, our Driver Privilege Card is not an offical state ID.

The DPC will not assure that the holder learns our laws or buys auto insurance anymore than a drivers license assures compliance. However, removing the driver license and the DPC would assure that any illegal driving in Utah is driving without auto insurance and without any minimum testing standard. This is a major problem for me. I think it would be a major problem for most Utahns. Some businesses may choose to accept the DPC as sufficient ID for them. However, these same businesses, lacking a DPC might just as easily choose to accept the “cedula”. I still believe that the negative of illegals driving around uninsured is greater than the possible negative of illegals using it as an unofficial ID at some businesses, especially when other alternatives are available.

Now, the question of specifically denying private business by statute the use of the DPC as ID is an interesting one – one that I would be willing to entertain. Or, even the question of being a bit more proscriptive as to what private businesses could not accept – like denying the “cedula” or a foreign passport, etc… Maybe even a prescriptive formula might serve – such as only a valid U.S. or Utah driver license is acceptable ID for transacting business. But, I can imagine a host of arguments on both sides of those ideas. Still, they are ideas that I would be willing to consider next year.

Sure, you can put this on your blog if you wish. You have probably noticed that I have been willing to flesh out my thoughts in some detail on every issue. I know someone will disagree with me on just about everything – whether it is immigration or school choice. That’s OK with me. I am still going to be very clear about where I stand on these matters. And, I welcome your input as well.

Thanks for your interest. – Jim

1 Comment
Category: politics
Tagged: , , ,

LDS General Conference MP3s

If you missed one or more of the sessions of the General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints this weekend, each session is available for download in mp3 format for free from KSL . The mp3s for a session usually become available within a half an hour after the session ends. So if you weren’t able to listen during the broadcast, you can still listen to the whole thing at your own convenience.

I will update this post to link directly to the mp3 files as they become available:

Saturday Morning Session, First Hour
Saturday Morning Session, Second Hour

Saturday Afternoon Session, First Hour
Saturday Afternoon Session, Second Hour

Sunday Morning Session, First Hour
Sunday Morning Session, Second Hour

Sunday Afternoon Session, First Hour
Sunday Afternoon Session, Second Hour

Continue reading

Comments Off on LDS General Conference MP3s
Category: lds
Tagged: , ,

The Great Seal of the United States

Conspiracy theories have been and will continue to be a staple of politics. I suspect that the allure of conspiracy theories is tied very closely to the part of human nature that is drawn toward gossip. And like gossip, some conspiracy theories may even be true, or at least an exaggerated version of the truth. However, often such theories trick people into boxing with shadows when they could be expending their energy on other, real problems.

One persistent conspiracy meme that is prevalent among conservatives is the idea that the portions of the Great Seal of the United States, as seen on the reverse side of the dollar bill, contain elements that represent a Free-Mason or Illuminati conspiracy.

This is an unfortunate concept because it keeps conservatives from recognizing that, in the on-going conflict between conservatives and liberals over the appropriate role of Religion in Government, The Great Seal of the United States provides one of the best evidences of the conservative position.

What follows is a review of the history of the Great Seal, what it means, and why conservatives should embrace it as did the founders.

Continue reading

2 Comments
Category: politics
Tagged: , , ,