Over the past few weeks I have had the occasion to talk with two youth from Denmark, each at different times and apart from the other by a number of weeks. Clearly they had formed opinions about America based upon news brought to them overseas by sources consistently touting Americans as greedy, thoughtlessly rich, wealth-mongers who couldn’t care any less about the poor on their own, who wanted no part in making life equally painless for all citizens and apparently thirsting for “stuff” more than caring for their own, all the while meddling in the affairs of others the world over.
In the first case, the young man, an exchange student who was on a multi-state tour ending a year of “studies” that did not count toward his official education, said he had learned a lot about Americans by being here. He said he had realized that Americans were not what he had always believed them to be: Spoiled rotten brats who didn’t know how to work, let alone work hard, that had everything at their fingertips, so to speak. His opinion now is quite the contrary: we are hare working, ambitious, caring people that do much good on the planet. How refreshing and “whew” are we ever saved by the bell! But it is too bad that he had to live here before realizing that we aren’t all a bunch of spoiled jerks only out for our own good, not caring about any one or anything other than ourselves. Where did such a grossly distorted and blatantly bias opinion ever become so inflated?
A few weeks later, a friend’s niece arrived, also from Denmark, for a multi-week visit. While we sat visiting and I was pouring over Face book requests, she noticed one particular request asking for support to get rid of liberal Democrats including Pelosi, and of course, President Obama. When my friend’s niece saw that I clicked on the button to become a member she was aghast and stunned! Questioning my clarity of mind, she asked why in the world I would ever want to get rid of a hero such as Obama who is saving America from itself. I was curious to say the least.
She couldn’t see how anyone would want to get rid of Obama over McCain especially with all the good Obama wanted to accomplish. He is doing do much good, she said. So much good, I wondered? I wondered where she was hearing this. In school, from her teacher, for one, she told me. She was shocked that so many of her classmates didn’t know anything about what Obama was doing. I admit I was wondering the same thing about her teacher. I was equally wondering the same thing about her. How could she possibly not know what menacing acts Obama was doing here in America? How could she not know, or even see, or detect that he is a Fascist Marxist? It occurred to me that she probably didn’t know what that was and I realized that much education needed to be taking place.
This is not the forum to report the entire discussion. Nor would it serve the right purpose, as we discussed many facets of politics, including socialized medicine, school choice, and Cap and Trade. The latter will be used as an example of how to solve the conundrum Americans have in remedying our complex and confusing perception problem by other countries in this blog entry.
What is the Problem with our Perception by Other Countries?
This is still the nation that out-performs all other nations in giving—not just government spending to give, but in personal donations to charitable causes. This is still the nation that donates and contributes to the rebuilding of other nations at our expense. This is the nation that ships, via government programs and private charitable organizations massive amounts of cargo and supplies to refugees, displaced, and homeless countrymen around the globe. And this is the nation that invests more into global programs and organizations that tout peace but later prove helplessly wasteful and defunct; yet we pick up the tab without complaint. With all this we still seem to have a serious PR problem with other countries, despite our attempts. How is that?
If one follows the news, it is hard to miss a number of weird and interesting public relation plays by Obama that leave most Americans scratching their heads, at the least. When the President of the United States goes overseas and apologizes for our behavior like we are the Universal Outlaws of the new century, one has to wonder. But if we look back over time at what might have caused this plight, we cannot blame Obama for it—only point to him as an opportunist seizing the timeliness of our bad publicity and even contributing to it by feeding the hungry dragon it has become. The real culprit is, as it should be, us. I mean US.
Yes, the US, is us. We the people are always the answer and the solution to any problem or triumph. The brilliance of our system of government makes it so. We ARE the government. When we, the citizens forget that we run the government, as we have done, trouble blossoms and festers. Unlike other countries, ours cannot function, nor perform as designed without citizen contribution. “We the People” really does mean something. Them’s not just words here in America—or at least it shouldn’t be. The simple truth is that when we acquiesce to elected leaders to do what we should be doing—and should have been doing all along—we have failed, not our leaders.
So, to solve the problem of our horrible perception, we must return to caring for the government. In other words, we must return to caring for our country. We run it. If we run it, Obama cannot sign into law with the sweep of his pen actions he claims are “Executive Orders” that several generations ago would have marked him as a traitor and had him guilty of treason, and high crimes against the citizens of America for the dangerous position he has put us in. Running the government is simply a matter of attending local meetings, writing our elected officials, banding together to join forces on particular issues and making use of ALL possible avenues to speak our minds opening and bluntly and holding our officials accountable to report to us what they are doing and WHY they are doing it.
Through the discussions with my friend’s niece, I shared a couple of strange acts Obama displayed. He is for the so-called, “Cap and Trade”, which some less than affectionately refer to as “Cap and Tax” legislation. As I explained to her, this legislation will require utility companies—uh—er, force them, to develop a percentage of their production from alternative energy sources, I.E.: wind turbines, solar panels, etc. in combination with their current traditional sources of energy. I, personally am all for alternative sources of energy, as a designer of homes that specialize in alternative sources, I support that creativity. But FORCE is NEVER the answer in free markets. Never.
This legislation is a perfect example of what happens when the government forces action: The “Cap and Trade” causes is huge increased expense to the consumer of an approximate average cost per capita per annum of $2000!! The town I live in has its own power generators. They have for over 100 years. The projected cost for those who use Provo City Utilities is projected to be any where upwards to $5000! Thank you Obama! Way to be a hero to the poor as those across the sea believe you are! The painful reality that our foreign friends must see is that we are not only crippling our economy, but sticking it to the poor and creating a huge reservoir of greater poor among us to those overseas believe Obama has come to save. Sadly his policies and actions are causing grave damage to us and we could use the support of all our foreign friends in getting him out!
When I explained this legislation, plus Obama’s “moratorium” on production of gas drilling in Utah—with one of the largest deposits in the nation—which will only tighten the supply and drive up the costs of fuel, her face became serious and forlorn. I thought she was going to cry. No longer did she look as though she would emphatically support Obama. Indeed she acknowledged that she could see actions in Obama that were inconsistent with his words.
The moral of the story is that most of us are not going to have the opportunity to discuss politics with foreigners. We won’t have the chance to share the truth with them about what is really going on in America, or what our legislators, to say nothing about our President, are doing verses what they say they are doing. The truth and reality is that our closest link to them is in controlling our elected officials.
Who’s the boss? We the People. We must rise up, speak up, get involved in saying what is right and what is certainly wrong and doing something to stop the latter and promote the former. It is in the power of the will of the people that others across the globe will get the truth. But only if we care enough to deliver it to them rather than ignoring what is going on until our reputation is sorted and tainted. Believe it or not, that latter takes more work than just getting involved in the first place. The old adage, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”, applies profoundly in American politics. Our involvement in our system of government is the answer to our PR problem. If we don’t take action we cannot blame Obama for his.
Banding together in organizations that speak for us with power to represent our thoughts and beliefs as well as give us updates on information to keep our elected officials informed about our opinions is key. Here are the links to the Utah County Republican Women, one of the most influential groups in Utah and a superb information portal as well as an avenue to take that information into action.
Timpanogos Republican Women, a new upstart organization taking after the model of UCRW and located on the Northern side of Utah County facilitates particularly those women who need to meet in the evening. It’s young and vibrant leadership and small, fast growing membership welcomes new members as well. Their information can be found below and on the UCRW website.
http://www.ucrw.org/
President: Elaine Bonham: mailto:elainebonham@aol.com
Membership Chair: Suzanne Merrill: merrillsuzanne@gmail.com
Blog general info: Sheryl Devereaux: sherphd@gmail.com
(TRW President Debi Ring: http://sn116w.snt116.mail.live.com/mail/EditMessageLight.aspx?MailTo=%22Debi%20Ring%22%20%3cdebi%40sixrings.org%3e&n=1770413546)
801-910-5600 phone; or text message
801-995-8672; phone; text message; Skype IM
Monday, July 27, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Universal Healthcare: Evidence of a Desperate Nation or Impulsive Leadership? The solution is in restoration of key virtues & sound principles
A recent poll on Facebook asks whether the member is for or against the Universal Healthcare Plan supported by President Obama. In response: Let me use the wise words of my youngest daughter (a young adult): "heck no, techno!"
In words that Obama and his administration can understand--and any legislators who may think we are backed into a corner: We are not a desperate nation. We do not need to resort to this manipulation to "solve" our problems today to make them worse in the future.
Patience, a virtue needing as much restoration as the Constitution itself, is the answer: We don't need impulsive pen scribbles on legislation that will cripple our nation.
We need private policies to flourish. Specifically, eliminating the (HMO) middle man, a basic economics principle, in reducing costs to consumers will allow doctors to negotiate with patients a sliding scale fee like the old days where patients paid as they went and catastrophic insurance was the only "health insurance" available.
Current FDA criteria is two-fold. A drug must be tested for a period of time in double blind testing for safety, usually on rats or other "spare" animals. Once that testing passes standards of safety, clinical trials for effectiveness begin, requiring many years of study and documentation and funding. Reducing the FDA criteria for testing Rx's, allowing doctors to prescribe directly to patients drugs without trials for effectiveness, allows years off the arduous and expensive clinical trials required. In reality, docs already use this method of "testing" meds with patients--and have been for years--prescribing a drug for something other than what it was originally intended. For instance, Rogaine was originally a heart medication in pill form. But dermatologists, knowing of its potency for hair restoration would grind the pill into powder, and mix it in an alcohol base to prescribe it to patients as a topical treatment for baldness. Why not extend this practice to drugs not jet on the market, that have been tested for safety, (the one trial FDA should continue) but allow doctors to test effectiveness among their patients who want to try the drug. Who would, and should a patient trust more, their doctor or the FDA? This bureaucratic policy change would literally shave millions, perhaps billions, off the expense of medications--an ever increasing drain for most American households.
A medical co-op plan put together by the private sector may be the viable solution for many who need the "bulk rate" of many pooled together for their personal risks to go down. Unlike the scams of insurance, which, by the way, is the# 1 primary market for investments, (meaning they are a financial entity, not a service, as most of us believe) a co-op is a direct shared expense for only health costs with little to no overhead and no hidden agenda. (Imagine that.)
Universal Healthcare? Absolutely not.
Universal anything? Never: the very definition is totally un-American.
In words that Obama and his administration can understand--and any legislators who may think we are backed into a corner: We are not a desperate nation. We do not need to resort to this manipulation to "solve" our problems today to make them worse in the future.
Patience, a virtue needing as much restoration as the Constitution itself, is the answer: We don't need impulsive pen scribbles on legislation that will cripple our nation.
We need private policies to flourish. Specifically, eliminating the (HMO) middle man, a basic economics principle, in reducing costs to consumers will allow doctors to negotiate with patients a sliding scale fee like the old days where patients paid as they went and catastrophic insurance was the only "health insurance" available.
Current FDA criteria is two-fold. A drug must be tested for a period of time in double blind testing for safety, usually on rats or other "spare" animals. Once that testing passes standards of safety, clinical trials for effectiveness begin, requiring many years of study and documentation and funding. Reducing the FDA criteria for testing Rx's, allowing doctors to prescribe directly to patients drugs without trials for effectiveness, allows years off the arduous and expensive clinical trials required. In reality, docs already use this method of "testing" meds with patients--and have been for years--prescribing a drug for something other than what it was originally intended. For instance, Rogaine was originally a heart medication in pill form. But dermatologists, knowing of its potency for hair restoration would grind the pill into powder, and mix it in an alcohol base to prescribe it to patients as a topical treatment for baldness. Why not extend this practice to drugs not jet on the market, that have been tested for safety, (the one trial FDA should continue) but allow doctors to test effectiveness among their patients who want to try the drug. Who would, and should a patient trust more, their doctor or the FDA? This bureaucratic policy change would literally shave millions, perhaps billions, off the expense of medications--an ever increasing drain for most American households.
A medical co-op plan put together by the private sector may be the viable solution for many who need the "bulk rate" of many pooled together for their personal risks to go down. Unlike the scams of insurance, which, by the way, is the# 1 primary market for investments, (meaning they are a financial entity, not a service, as most of us believe) a co-op is a direct shared expense for only health costs with little to no overhead and no hidden agenda. (Imagine that.)
Universal Healthcare? Absolutely not.
Universal anything? Never: the very definition is totally un-American.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
EDUCATION THEN ACTION
One of the most exacerbating problems with public policy is that most of us suffer from information overload. We live in a world anxious to pour an overwhelming amount of so-called "facts" on all of us to the point that we suffer from inebriation of "knowledge". The problem isn't that we don't want the facts, but that the media are so happy to help us become informed that we cannot process what in the world to do with the information once we have it. Generally speaking we either have two much information to know what to do with what we think we know, or we wonder if the information we are getting is accurate in the first place. How do we know anymore that what we are hearing is verifiable? Virtually everyone has been the victim of spreading what they thought was accurate information only to find out later that it was anything but that. And, again, what do we do with the plethora of information once we have it? It is enough to cause a society to shut down from what I term "information anxiety". Indeed we have.
There is hope. There are people and organizations, seeing the need for a support system and a cohesive way to deliver accurate information that is verifiable, that have set up networks, and memberships to help the population cope. The Utah County Republican Women and the Timpanogos Republican Women are ranked among those powerful groups that have taken the initiative to make a difference in disseminating information then taking action--correct action--powerful action--to utilize that information.
If you are absolutely sick of too much information that you cannot process--if you don't know where to turn to take that information, and get better information to make a difference in your world, then become a member of one, or even both of these organizations. If you are disturbed by the increasing, and even exponential decay of our form of government and our society, then become a member of either the Utah County Republican Women or the Timpanogos Republican Women. The UCRW is one of the oldest in the state of Utah. TRW was just newly formed, and is meeting in Saratoga Springs. The latter takes in the northern part of Utah Valley, whereas, UCRW, traditionally took in any part of Utah County. Both have individual charters and are designed to take on growth and help assist other Charters to form.
For more information about either organization, please call 801-910-5600; or visit www.ucrw.org; or visit the group Utah County Republican Women on Face book.
There is hope. There are people and organizations, seeing the need for a support system and a cohesive way to deliver accurate information that is verifiable, that have set up networks, and memberships to help the population cope. The Utah County Republican Women and the Timpanogos Republican Women are ranked among those powerful groups that have taken the initiative to make a difference in disseminating information then taking action--correct action--powerful action--to utilize that information.
If you are absolutely sick of too much information that you cannot process--if you don't know where to turn to take that information, and get better information to make a difference in your world, then become a member of one, or even both of these organizations. If you are disturbed by the increasing, and even exponential decay of our form of government and our society, then become a member of either the Utah County Republican Women or the Timpanogos Republican Women. The UCRW is one of the oldest in the state of Utah. TRW was just newly formed, and is meeting in Saratoga Springs. The latter takes in the northern part of Utah Valley, whereas, UCRW, traditionally took in any part of Utah County. Both have individual charters and are designed to take on growth and help assist other Charters to form.
For more information about either organization, please call 801-910-5600; or visit www.ucrw.org; or visit the group Utah County Republican Women on Face book.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Part Two: Government Oversight of Waste Management
Part Two:
What has this to do with the legal theory of Equity in the Law and Family Law in Utah? Everything.
About a year ago I approached my then very green legislator about correcting the problem of imbalance in the equity between two parties in family law--the very same issue as previously mentioned in part I of this series. To my chagrin, and dismay--and my Legislator's bill--not even formally written up yet--was dead on arrival! It had no chance from the beginning because another legislator who happened to serve on the health and human services committee said changing one line in the ORC's ledger affected by the bill would cost upwards of $250,000! What is worse is that the department was locked into this program for about 6 years!
What is wrong with this picture? Any businessman in his right mind would NEVER lock himself into a program for that many years, for one. IT changes nearly overnight. To lock into a program for that long guarantees your competitor the edge when times are tough and every penny on a dollar counts toward a profit. Secondly, to lock into a program with a line change costing $250,000 is ludicrous--unless you are the programmer. Then you are a genius.
The bureaucratic mess penalizes the least to afford such a blunder. Imagine what could be had for the sake of the least fortunate in the State of Utah with $250,000. A recent cut in benefits just eliminated services that include eye care, physical and occupational therapy and specific mental health services. These are key services for the hopeful advancement into society of what would otherwise be termed "fringe" members of society. Those on the outside edges of society. Conservative politicians would argue that charitable services should not be given: Citizens must do for themselves: Private entities must do for others: Arguably, charity has no place in Government they say.
But while one my argue the virtues of governmental charity, mismanagement definitely does not belong in government. Period. This is the people's money. $250,000 will go a long way to pay for glasses so the less fortunate can see to fill out an application at an interview. $250,000 will go even further to assist the depressed from lack of work to get on their feet again and get out in the workplace. Taking away vital health services and mismanagement of funds penalizes those who may otherwise assist the Utah economy more than any other single entity. One, they get off the "dole". and, two, they become productive citizens, even by piecemeal if need be.
Health and Human Services exists to provide for the least able to do for themselves without any other resources from which to draw. I consider myself one of the most conservative people. But common sense is still common sense! As one friend of mine put it though, it's unfortunately true that "common sense isn't that common!" So when two seemingly unattractive sections of government, one a theory in Law and the other a practice in bureaucratic business management get together, you have to know something needs correction.
What has this to do with the legal theory of Equity in the Law and Family Law in Utah? Everything.
About a year ago I approached my then very green legislator about correcting the problem of imbalance in the equity between two parties in family law--the very same issue as previously mentioned in part I of this series. To my chagrin, and dismay--and my Legislator's bill--not even formally written up yet--was dead on arrival! It had no chance from the beginning because another legislator who happened to serve on the health and human services committee said changing one line in the ORC's ledger affected by the bill would cost upwards of $250,000! What is worse is that the department was locked into this program for about 6 years!
What is wrong with this picture? Any businessman in his right mind would NEVER lock himself into a program for that many years, for one. IT changes nearly overnight. To lock into a program for that long guarantees your competitor the edge when times are tough and every penny on a dollar counts toward a profit. Secondly, to lock into a program with a line change costing $250,000 is ludicrous--unless you are the programmer. Then you are a genius.
The bureaucratic mess penalizes the least to afford such a blunder. Imagine what could be had for the sake of the least fortunate in the State of Utah with $250,000. A recent cut in benefits just eliminated services that include eye care, physical and occupational therapy and specific mental health services. These are key services for the hopeful advancement into society of what would otherwise be termed "fringe" members of society. Those on the outside edges of society. Conservative politicians would argue that charitable services should not be given: Citizens must do for themselves: Private entities must do for others: Arguably, charity has no place in Government they say.
But while one my argue the virtues of governmental charity, mismanagement definitely does not belong in government. Period. This is the people's money. $250,000 will go a long way to pay for glasses so the less fortunate can see to fill out an application at an interview. $250,000 will go even further to assist the depressed from lack of work to get on their feet again and get out in the workplace. Taking away vital health services and mismanagement of funds penalizes those who may otherwise assist the Utah economy more than any other single entity. One, they get off the "dole". and, two, they become productive citizens, even by piecemeal if need be.
Health and Human Services exists to provide for the least able to do for themselves without any other resources from which to draw. I consider myself one of the most conservative people. But common sense is still common sense! As one friend of mine put it though, it's unfortunately true that "common sense isn't that common!" So when two seemingly unattractive sections of government, one a theory in Law and the other a practice in bureaucratic business management get together, you have to know something needs correction.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Equity in the Law and Government Oversight of Waste Management
This is an 2-part article written in preparation for the upcoming legislative session for Utah. As an FYI: Since I chair the Legislative/ Mobilization Committee for the Utah Federation of Republican Women (UFRW), this particular blog post is written from that perspective. Responsible participation through this blog or on Facebook under the Group, "Friends of the Utah Federation of Republican Women" is invited.
Equity in the Law and
Government Oversight of Waste Management
Part One: Equity in the Law
First, let me lay a foundation by saying that the UFRW lobbies on behalf of its members across all areas of legislation. But we are particularly interested in family welfare, human dignity, etc. Broad in scope these can entail about any kind of legislation if one really wanted to push it. Now looking at the title for this blog entry, one would truly wonder exactly how "equity in the law" and "waste management" could be tied together. If anyone knows about the one, they are not likely to know about the other, as they are about as opposite as two topics could be. Or so it would seem.
For now, let's consider the welfare of those effected by split families for a minute. In law, there is the theory called "equity in the law", meaning that whenever two parties (or more) are involved in an action where the welfare of all need to be considered, those needs are balanced against the availability to provide for them, not the number of available resources to the number of those parties. In other words, what is fair is not split down the middle, but is split according to need. In family law, the party with the most pressing need and the smallest available resources to offset those needs gets the lion's share of combined assets. Catch my drift?
So child support, meant to provide for the least likely able to provide for themselves is calculated by a formula. This formula, if you are not familiar with it, (and pardon this dialog if you are), adds both rational incomes of the parties, and then divides the larger into the smaller to get the percentage of one most liable for expending resources. This is fair and balanced according to the law of equity. But in Utah medical expenses--also a type of child support, obviously--is split ignoring the law of equity, right down the middle--using a completely different rule--that of number of resources to number of parties. This is nonsense. It is a simple breach of the algebraic equation: What you do to one side, you must do to the other side. Otherwise you mess up you outcome and your equation doesn't make any sense! And clearly this doesn't.
What this does is force the person with the least resources, usually the one with custody, and the woman, (but not always) to either ignore medical needs until they become critical, or ignore them altogether, or to go on chips. Now, when the other person's income has already been proven to be able to bear the burden of responsibility, why would we allow the state to become the bearer of responsibility? This becomes just another waste of public assets!
Other states use the correct formula consistently across the full measure of child support--both the financial contributions and medical/in kind contributions. What is the matter with Utah? This should be fixed a.s.a.p. So then why isn't it?
Part Two will discuss the reason why.
Equity in the Law and
Government Oversight of Waste Management
Part One: Equity in the Law
First, let me lay a foundation by saying that the UFRW lobbies on behalf of its members across all areas of legislation. But we are particularly interested in family welfare, human dignity, etc. Broad in scope these can entail about any kind of legislation if one really wanted to push it. Now looking at the title for this blog entry, one would truly wonder exactly how "equity in the law" and "waste management" could be tied together. If anyone knows about the one, they are not likely to know about the other, as they are about as opposite as two topics could be. Or so it would seem.
For now, let's consider the welfare of those effected by split families for a minute. In law, there is the theory called "equity in the law", meaning that whenever two parties (or more) are involved in an action where the welfare of all need to be considered, those needs are balanced against the availability to provide for them, not the number of available resources to the number of those parties. In other words, what is fair is not split down the middle, but is split according to need. In family law, the party with the most pressing need and the smallest available resources to offset those needs gets the lion's share of combined assets. Catch my drift?
So child support, meant to provide for the least likely able to provide for themselves is calculated by a formula. This formula, if you are not familiar with it, (and pardon this dialog if you are), adds both rational incomes of the parties, and then divides the larger into the smaller to get the percentage of one most liable for expending resources. This is fair and balanced according to the law of equity. But in Utah medical expenses--also a type of child support, obviously--is split ignoring the law of equity, right down the middle--using a completely different rule--that of number of resources to number of parties. This is nonsense. It is a simple breach of the algebraic equation: What you do to one side, you must do to the other side. Otherwise you mess up you outcome and your equation doesn't make any sense! And clearly this doesn't.
What this does is force the person with the least resources, usually the one with custody, and the woman, (but not always) to either ignore medical needs until they become critical, or ignore them altogether, or to go on chips. Now, when the other person's income has already been proven to be able to bear the burden of responsibility, why would we allow the state to become the bearer of responsibility? This becomes just another waste of public assets!
Other states use the correct formula consistently across the full measure of child support--both the financial contributions and medical/in kind contributions. What is the matter with Utah? This should be fixed a.s.a.p. So then why isn't it?
Part Two will discuss the reason why.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Adaptation & Unification: Keys to Political Survival
With every election the final outcome is not the election itself, but the reaction to it. The winner proves his/her grace as easily as speaking kindly and eliminating boastful "I told you so's" and rubbing remarks. Too often not done, and too often ignored by constituents ready to break down their opponents "goal post" rather than pass along a gentle "well done--a battle well fought! I'm glad that's over, aren't you?!" condolences. Or better yet, congratulations for stepping into the ring in the first place are left absent as opponents walk, backs turned away, as if people never counted in the first place.
To the looser, grace is shown in how tactfully a congratulations and admission that the better person may have won is done. Or at least, to admit that the better person won even if the looser doesn't really believe it. It is far better for this contender to prove his/her chivalry and poise under pressure than that he or she has been wronged. A giant task indeed--one of which only the best of candidates has proven to triumph over these days! Increasingly, we see an embattled candidate lay blame for campaign miscalculations, downright error, or frankly, personal inadequacies compared to the opponent, by bringing up all kinds of travesties heaped upon them by their opponent or his/her supporters, the media, circumstances, even God. Though there are plenty of elections filled with lies, misinformation, and downright slander against an opponent, when the battle is over, the loser must show him/herself to be above the fray.
The simple truth is this: Great leaders are good losers. They are not prone to whining but pick themselves up and learn from the experience. They take that new-found knowledge with them to their next election adventure. It is what separates the poor, average and the truly great among us.
To complicate feelings about elections and their results, are the outcomes of elections won by newcomers defeating incumbents--even incumbents with strong, loyal supporters. Such was the case with the race between Chris Cannon and Jason Chaffetz for US House of Representatives for the 3rd District of Utah. The fact that Chris lost is history to Cannon. He has gone on to develop projects for which he as a Congressman saw a need and longed to do, but could not for lack of time and commitment. His opportunities have skyrocketed.
To the constituency, however, the rubble remains. Chaffetz has yet to gain real support and trust among vast majorities of the population of his district. Why? Consider that the primary election is in June. A weird, off beat and frankly ridiculous month to consider a vote from the populous. History is showing that this choice is beneficial to the offbeat election, the odd referendum and bond issues, that might otherwise not be passed, or conversely should be passed. Consider the race again between Cannon and Chaffetz: Chaffetz did indeed receive 60% of the vote in that June Primary election. An enormous, lopsided win. But it was 60% of 8% of registered, eligible voters! This is hardly a mandate. The fact is, those who took for granted the outcome didn't come out to vote. Many were elsewhere--Disneyland! We do not know what the real vote would be because those voters never showed up.
But the reaction to the outcome of an election is telling. In a recent local election for a women's group within the 3rd District, one of the candidates running for President of the group was very vocal about her involvement with the Chaffetz campaign, and her continued support for him. It was in her literature as well as her speeches. She lost by about a 20% margin to the other candidate, despite heavily recruiting her own supporters. Direct feedback, of which yours truly witnessed, was, bluntly put, that she was a Chaffetz supporter.
But the constituency also has a responsibility to the final outcome of an election as well as those directly involved in the candidacies. Our reaction can either destroy our communities with crippling poison that warps our perception and keeps us from being productive, or it can produce growth in adversity--sunshine after a storm you might say. Even heavy manure will yield a hardy and abundant bouquet in the garden, if one is willing to look for what might be cultivated. The trick is to not over fertilize with manure, right? Doing that will burn what might otherwise have grown. In that scenario, only starting anew will due.
Perhaps that might be where many feel the 3rd District of Utah is. The field was so badly burned that only starting over will due. If so, then start anew we must. The fact is, the outcome of the election resulted in Chaffetz becoming the next Congressman. Starting anew means those who opposed Chaffetz must accept him as their Congressman. Those that supported him must get off their high-horse and work with those who have concerns. To do otherwise will result in our own 3rd District crippling.
I choose not to make matters worse. While I disagreed with many statements Chaffetz made during his campaign--that I verified as incorrect via the LOC, and which he has yet to retract, I don't have to make matter worse, now that he is my Congressman. I can start anew. Starting with him as my Congressman--not a candidate--I can expect him to rise to the occasion. I can and will use my him as my voice--because he is. Likewise it would be prudent wisdom for all constituents--whether they cared for Chaffetz as a candidate or not to do the same.
Are we willing to sabotage our district's well-being to see Chaffetz flounder? To ignore our conduit to the Federal Government because we believe him not to be the best choice will not serve us, and is tantamount to the candidate who pitches a fit after loosing an election by claiming forever he/she is the victim. Those in the 3rd District who felt victimized by a poor election must rise anew. We cannot be self appointed victims for the next two years. If we do our part as an active citizenry and constituency, Chaffetz's failure, should that happen, will be solely his own. Then, and only then can our adaptation to the political situation in which we find ourselves work to our benefit.
Unification does not mean agreeing upon any particular thought, necessarily. It does mean that we must have the same end goal: Success is the same as survival in politics. The 3rd District is in continual need of Federal dollars for infrastructure; Protection against oppressive legislation is a constant need. Utah's oil shale, school trust lands, wilderness, family values are all in need of constant support and vigilance. We, as a constituency, MUST be united in our efforts to improve and protect Utah. We must raise our voices and submit our own contributions.
Then what ever failings Chaffetz has will be his alone. But whatever we as a District choose to work as a united team to enhance will be ours together--as a District.
And of course, the great leader would be prudent to acknowledge the hand of all those who worked toward success. For great leaders are good losers and gracious winners.
To the looser, grace is shown in how tactfully a congratulations and admission that the better person may have won is done. Or at least, to admit that the better person won even if the looser doesn't really believe it. It is far better for this contender to prove his/her chivalry and poise under pressure than that he or she has been wronged. A giant task indeed--one of which only the best of candidates has proven to triumph over these days! Increasingly, we see an embattled candidate lay blame for campaign miscalculations, downright error, or frankly, personal inadequacies compared to the opponent, by bringing up all kinds of travesties heaped upon them by their opponent or his/her supporters, the media, circumstances, even God. Though there are plenty of elections filled with lies, misinformation, and downright slander against an opponent, when the battle is over, the loser must show him/herself to be above the fray.
The simple truth is this: Great leaders are good losers. They are not prone to whining but pick themselves up and learn from the experience. They take that new-found knowledge with them to their next election adventure. It is what separates the poor, average and the truly great among us.
To complicate feelings about elections and their results, are the outcomes of elections won by newcomers defeating incumbents--even incumbents with strong, loyal supporters. Such was the case with the race between Chris Cannon and Jason Chaffetz for US House of Representatives for the 3rd District of Utah. The fact that Chris lost is history to Cannon. He has gone on to develop projects for which he as a Congressman saw a need and longed to do, but could not for lack of time and commitment. His opportunities have skyrocketed.
To the constituency, however, the rubble remains. Chaffetz has yet to gain real support and trust among vast majorities of the population of his district. Why? Consider that the primary election is in June. A weird, off beat and frankly ridiculous month to consider a vote from the populous. History is showing that this choice is beneficial to the offbeat election, the odd referendum and bond issues, that might otherwise not be passed, or conversely should be passed. Consider the race again between Cannon and Chaffetz: Chaffetz did indeed receive 60% of the vote in that June Primary election. An enormous, lopsided win. But it was 60% of 8% of registered, eligible voters! This is hardly a mandate. The fact is, those who took for granted the outcome didn't come out to vote. Many were elsewhere--Disneyland! We do not know what the real vote would be because those voters never showed up.
But the reaction to the outcome of an election is telling. In a recent local election for a women's group within the 3rd District, one of the candidates running for President of the group was very vocal about her involvement with the Chaffetz campaign, and her continued support for him. It was in her literature as well as her speeches. She lost by about a 20% margin to the other candidate, despite heavily recruiting her own supporters. Direct feedback, of which yours truly witnessed, was, bluntly put, that she was a Chaffetz supporter.
But the constituency also has a responsibility to the final outcome of an election as well as those directly involved in the candidacies. Our reaction can either destroy our communities with crippling poison that warps our perception and keeps us from being productive, or it can produce growth in adversity--sunshine after a storm you might say. Even heavy manure will yield a hardy and abundant bouquet in the garden, if one is willing to look for what might be cultivated. The trick is to not over fertilize with manure, right? Doing that will burn what might otherwise have grown. In that scenario, only starting anew will due.
Perhaps that might be where many feel the 3rd District of Utah is. The field was so badly burned that only starting over will due. If so, then start anew we must. The fact is, the outcome of the election resulted in Chaffetz becoming the next Congressman. Starting anew means those who opposed Chaffetz must accept him as their Congressman. Those that supported him must get off their high-horse and work with those who have concerns. To do otherwise will result in our own 3rd District crippling.
I choose not to make matters worse. While I disagreed with many statements Chaffetz made during his campaign--that I verified as incorrect via the LOC, and which he has yet to retract, I don't have to make matter worse, now that he is my Congressman. I can start anew. Starting with him as my Congressman--not a candidate--I can expect him to rise to the occasion. I can and will use my him as my voice--because he is. Likewise it would be prudent wisdom for all constituents--whether they cared for Chaffetz as a candidate or not to do the same.
Are we willing to sabotage our district's well-being to see Chaffetz flounder? To ignore our conduit to the Federal Government because we believe him not to be the best choice will not serve us, and is tantamount to the candidate who pitches a fit after loosing an election by claiming forever he/she is the victim. Those in the 3rd District who felt victimized by a poor election must rise anew. We cannot be self appointed victims for the next two years. If we do our part as an active citizenry and constituency, Chaffetz's failure, should that happen, will be solely his own. Then, and only then can our adaptation to the political situation in which we find ourselves work to our benefit.
Unification does not mean agreeing upon any particular thought, necessarily. It does mean that we must have the same end goal: Success is the same as survival in politics. The 3rd District is in continual need of Federal dollars for infrastructure; Protection against oppressive legislation is a constant need. Utah's oil shale, school trust lands, wilderness, family values are all in need of constant support and vigilance. We, as a constituency, MUST be united in our efforts to improve and protect Utah. We must raise our voices and submit our own contributions.
Then what ever failings Chaffetz has will be his alone. But whatever we as a District choose to work as a united team to enhance will be ours together--as a District.
And of course, the great leader would be prudent to acknowledge the hand of all those who worked toward success. For great leaders are good losers and gracious winners.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
SOVEREIGNTY IS AS REAL AS "LIP-SYNCING": Prop. 8 Proves It
When the Founding Fathers spent their time trying to convince the states to ratify the Constitution it was due to the reluctance of the states to unify as a stronger band even though the confederate band under which they were already supposedly united was failing miserably and embarrassingly. But the task was to convince the states that they would be able to preserve their individual character, culture and laws, in other words, their sovereignty. In the end the Constitution of the United States of America created a Democratic Republic where each state would indeed reserve their individual rights. Hence, the purpose of Senators. Oh, you didn't know that? Yes, originally the House of Representative were the representatives of a designated portion of population. 'Its the reason their numbers grow proportional to the population of a state. But Senators are to represent the state. There are only two for each state. Period. No state gets more weight than another. Originally, they were not elected via open election as they are now, but through the Governor of the State for which they served. Their service was distinctly to be for the Republic from whence they hailed. It added weight to the sovereignty of the republics.
Thanks to the 17Th Amendment the original intent of the Founding Fathers for balance of sovereignty of the Republics versus the vote of the people for their Representative was dissolved. The amendment left little left of the sovereignty of states. In fact the reality is that by Judaical Fiat, States are now required to accept another state's laws as its own. Sovereignty has become as effective as a live concert done by lip-syncing. One mistake and the reality is inevitable: There is no live concert after all. It is a fraud.
For this reason it becomes critical that when one state enacts law, other surrounding states must watch carefully and weigh the consequences for it's own sake. We have many such circumstances arising today. One of the most critically watched with incredible impact to change the nature, character, culture and laws of neighboring states is the behavior of California. With the condoning of Gay marriage and exploitation by taking children on field trips to view such events, comes the raised eyebrows and preventative posturing by neighboring states and organizations throughout the Nation in defense. Now, with California's Proposition 8 on the ballot, these same states, and watchful organizations are rallying together to protect their own positions by supporting California's Proposition. Sovereignty no more, the Nation will band and must band or fail.
With that, the following News Release--one of many from literally hundreds of supporting organizations--is published here for and on behalf of the Utah Federation of Republican Women with a challenge to all other neighboring Federations to take the same stand.
NEWS RELEASE:
Utah Federation of Republican Women Endorses Calif. Prop. 8--Encourages Support
In an aggressive move to swiftly show support to its neighbors to the West, Utah's Federation of Republican Women Board of Directors voted electronically as to whether they supported California's Proposition 8, a referendum on the ballot for the November election that would state the official and legal stand of the State is that marriage is between a man and a woman legally married.
The Federation took action while the State's contingency of delegates, including its own President, Darcy Kruitbosch, was at the National Republican Nominating Convention.
First Vice President, and Legislative/Mobilization Chair, Sheryl Devereaux, received information from another Republican Woman working on promoting the Proposition, Cherilyn Bacon Eagar, Professional Republican Women of Salt Lake City (PRW), and issued the motion for a vote in support of the Proposition.
The UFRW's basic reason for involvement in California's proposition is due to of the enormous "tsunami-like" effects on the State of Utah, as Devereaux described it. "What goes on in California will ultimately affect us as well," she said. "We cannot expect to ignore the rippling effect of cultural and moral changes there and ignorantly believe that pretending that our lack of involvement in that cause will result in anything less than the same crippling changes pounding at our doorsteps here as well."
PRW's Communications Chairwoman Cherilyn Bacon Eagar added, "Without our help, this Proposition will go down and Utah's culture, religious liberties and families will be seriously affected. The California law allows same gender marriages not only for Californians, but also for those who reside in other states and it will surely bring costly court challenges to Utah.
"Every child deserves a society that promotes the optimal environment for their growth and development," Eagar continued. "That environment is one in which there is both a mother and a father. Same gender marriage denies children that healthy environment. Religious liberties are also at stake. The outcome of this Proposition will affect all of us."
In addition to Ms. Eagar, Suzanne Merrill, President of Utah County Republican Women, is also distributing information and instructions to the public as well as Republican Women club members for active involvement. In a recent memo to all members she stated,
"To do your part in supporting Prop 8, all people need to do is email:
Joan Erzer Behrens (Utah Representative from California) at joan.behrens@cox.net requesting faxed lists of California Republican registered voters, with the instructions. It is very simple and people can now do it from their homes if they prefer, or one person can invite several to bring their cell phones (with nation-wide free calling) to their homes and they can do it together and have one person turn in all their lists, which will be reported back weekly. This information will be included in instructions.
For Utah Information and possible suggestions: "Some are organizing their precincts and neighbors. We cannot organize by wards and stakes -only communities and zip codes, however in CA every ward is to have 10 people with one person coordinating."
According to PRW's website: You can access the Q&A and Myths & Facts at www.ProtectMarriage.org by clicking on the “resources” tab.
Information about membership in a Republican Women Club can be found contacting President Kruitbosch at 801-731-0654, or http://www.myufrw.org./
-30-
Thanks to the 17Th Amendment the original intent of the Founding Fathers for balance of sovereignty of the Republics versus the vote of the people for their Representative was dissolved. The amendment left little left of the sovereignty of states. In fact the reality is that by Judaical Fiat, States are now required to accept another state's laws as its own. Sovereignty has become as effective as a live concert done by lip-syncing. One mistake and the reality is inevitable: There is no live concert after all. It is a fraud.
For this reason it becomes critical that when one state enacts law, other surrounding states must watch carefully and weigh the consequences for it's own sake. We have many such circumstances arising today. One of the most critically watched with incredible impact to change the nature, character, culture and laws of neighboring states is the behavior of California. With the condoning of Gay marriage and exploitation by taking children on field trips to view such events, comes the raised eyebrows and preventative posturing by neighboring states and organizations throughout the Nation in defense. Now, with California's Proposition 8 on the ballot, these same states, and watchful organizations are rallying together to protect their own positions by supporting California's Proposition. Sovereignty no more, the Nation will band and must band or fail.
With that, the following News Release--one of many from literally hundreds of supporting organizations--is published here for and on behalf of the Utah Federation of Republican Women with a challenge to all other neighboring Federations to take the same stand.
NEWS RELEASE:
Utah Federation of Republican Women Endorses Calif. Prop. 8--Encourages Support
In an aggressive move to swiftly show support to its neighbors to the West, Utah's Federation of Republican Women Board of Directors voted electronically as to whether they supported California's Proposition 8, a referendum on the ballot for the November election that would state the official and legal stand of the State is that marriage is between a man and a woman legally married.
The Federation took action while the State's contingency of delegates, including its own President, Darcy Kruitbosch, was at the National Republican Nominating Convention.
First Vice President, and Legislative/Mobilization Chair, Sheryl Devereaux, received information from another Republican Woman working on promoting the Proposition, Cherilyn Bacon Eagar, Professional Republican Women of Salt Lake City (PRW), and issued the motion for a vote in support of the Proposition.
The UFRW's basic reason for involvement in California's proposition is due to of the enormous "tsunami-like" effects on the State of Utah, as Devereaux described it. "What goes on in California will ultimately affect us as well," she said. "We cannot expect to ignore the rippling effect of cultural and moral changes there and ignorantly believe that pretending that our lack of involvement in that cause will result in anything less than the same crippling changes pounding at our doorsteps here as well."
PRW's Communications Chairwoman Cherilyn Bacon Eagar added, "Without our help, this Proposition will go down and Utah's culture, religious liberties and families will be seriously affected. The California law allows same gender marriages not only for Californians, but also for those who reside in other states and it will surely bring costly court challenges to Utah.
"Every child deserves a society that promotes the optimal environment for their growth and development," Eagar continued. "That environment is one in which there is both a mother and a father. Same gender marriage denies children that healthy environment. Religious liberties are also at stake. The outcome of this Proposition will affect all of us."
In addition to Ms. Eagar, Suzanne Merrill, President of Utah County Republican Women, is also distributing information and instructions to the public as well as Republican Women club members for active involvement. In a recent memo to all members she stated,
"To do your part in supporting Prop 8, all people need to do is email:
Joan Erzer Behrens (Utah Representative from California) at joan.behrens@cox.net requesting faxed lists of California Republican registered voters, with the instructions. It is very simple and people can now do it from their homes if they prefer, or one person can invite several to bring their cell phones (with nation-wide free calling) to their homes and they can do it together and have one person turn in all their lists, which will be reported back weekly. This information will be included in instructions.
For Utah Information and possible suggestions: "Some are organizing their precincts and neighbors. We cannot organize by wards and stakes -only communities and zip codes, however in CA every ward is to have 10 people with one person coordinating."
According to PRW's website: You can access the Q&A and Myths & Facts at www.ProtectMarriage.org by clicking on the “resources” tab.
Information about membership in a Republican Women Club can be found contacting President Kruitbosch at 801-731-0654, or http://www.myufrw.org./
-30-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
