State Convention - Governor's race

Sadly, the Utah GOP has grown far more extreme than even after the Tea Party election in 2010. The candidates that behave like statesmen are being driven out one by one. One of the last offices in the state of Utah that can maintain an old school common sense Republican is in the governor's mansion.

Governor Cox has, to a great extent, been walking the middle of the road. With his "disagree better" initiative he has been appealing to many moderate conservatives and moderate liberals (both terms seem to encompass anyone that is not on the most extreme poles of either ideology). However, the current far-right conservatives (that control the Utah GOP) find all of Governor Cox's congeniality to be a sign of RINO treachery. If SB54 was not in play, I am pretty certain he would face a losing battle in the convention next week. For that I am grateful for SB54. Losing Senator Bennett without a primary to Mike Lee in 2010 was a bitter pill that grows more and more bitter as Mike continues to audition for a potential AG spot under Donald Trump. Where are those term limits Senator?

There are two challengers that are worth discussing. One a Trump sycophant with the political debt of a presidential pardon on his back, and the other a tough talking rancher. The former appears to be the likely winner in convention, while the latter is a man I could support wholeheartedly. 

To be clear, I would prefer Governor Cox. However, Cox seems to have forgotten Mr. Miyagi's adage about walking the middle of the road. "Walk right side, safe. Walk left side, safe. Walk middle, squish just like grape." The attacks are coming from both sides. At times he shows a great deal of empathy for LGBT people using pronouns with transgender individuals, but than at other times he is willing to sign some onerous bills from the legislature. He can talk of being helpful to refugees while sending UTNG members to the Texas border to participate in Governor Abbott's virtue signaling military misadventures. I can see how his actions can be viewed as walking across all the political lanes of traffic.

First, the sycophant. 

Phil Lyman was arrested on a protest ATV ride, and convicted of criminal trespassing. The sentence appears to have been probation. His brush with the law cannot really be considered a major character flaw, it was a silly protest that changed nothing, but it is not like it demonstrates him to be dishonest. After the 2020 impeachment of Donald Trump, he was one who introduced legislation designed to punish Mitt Romney for his solitary guilty vote in the first trial. For this act of loyalty, Trump pardoned him from his conviction at the end of the Trump era. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Lyman (I know it's wikipedia, but the pardon document is there).

Lyman is the heaviest Twitter user of all the GOP gubernatorial candidates. He tries to make Cox look like a leftist on account of Cox's willingness to use pronouns out of respect for transgendered individuals, or a spendthrift on account of additional spending in the Utah State budget, and (least convincingly) that Cox is responsible for higher taxes (despite two straight years of income tax cuts) while offering no plans to lower taxes more than Cox has already done. Inflation based tax revenue increases are not the same as being a tax and spend liberal, it is a consequence of economic conditions. 

Lyman has also shown a willingness to engage in culture war / rage politics. Most recent example being the walkout by 7th and 8th graders on account of allegations that there are "furries" (people who identify with animals?) that get away with aggression as opposed to normal kids who are punished for their aggression. Despite school district and teacher assertions that no kids are dressing up in full animal mascot type costumes in school and that the "furries" students are generally picked on, he has pursued the walk-out students side of the story. Lyman also tweeted, but later apologized, for blaming the Baltimore bridge collapse on some African-American public employees as DEI (diversity, equality, and inclusion) candidates who were not actually qualified for the positions they held.

As you can see, I am not a fan.

While not my first choice, I do find Carson Jorgenson to be the best alternative to Cox. He gave a rousing speech to the Washington County GOP convention, and he seems to be honest and upright. Most importantly, I do not believe he would operate as a sycophant to Trump. He comes from a ranching family in central Utah, he works the ranch, and is a craftsman of horse bridles. Politically, he led the Utah GOP as chairman. In his tenure, he brought the Utah GOP out of debt. I kind of love the idea of an honest rancher as governor. Land issues and agriculture should be one of the most important issues on all Utah minds. Farm land is disappearing as farming and ranching continues to show diminishing returns, and selling out to developers seems more profitable. If nothing else, he doesn't jump into inane rage political tweets before all of the facts are ascertained. He has the temperament to be a good governor, while Lyman has the temperment of a first term congressman desperate for time on the Fox News microphone.  If you don't know about him, see here: https://www.carsonjorgensen.com/bio.html 

The problems of unbelief and faith exploitation in politics

American incivility and polarization has a myriad of causes. The causes that concern me the most are our lack of a shared understanding of objective truth, the marginalization and exploitation of faith, and our isolation from our neighbors and fellow citizens. I have already written on the loss of objective truth. Right now I want to write on the marginalization and, conversely, the exploitation of faith.

In a conservative communities like Utah affords, you can hear the lamentation of how the freedom of religion is under attack and this concern is not unfounded. 

In the later half of the 20th century, the nation started to embrace the idea of separation of church and state. In many facets, this was a good thing. For example, schools could not refuse to discuss the ideas of evolution and other non-biblical theories about how the world was created and some state laws and local ordinances that tried to enshrine forms of Christianity as a official faith were overturned.

However, as with any movement, moderation did not apply and the pendulum likely swung too far. Whether the inflection point was losing prayer in public or some other step away from religion, I do not know and I have not done enough research to define that point. Regardless, the point we have reached is one where more and more Americans do not affiliate with religion at all.

On the other side, reading twitter provides a host of people who either are having their faith exploited by people seeking power or people who are trying to exploit the faith of others to obtain power. In some cases, people of seemingly genuine faith are duped into believing that leaders and celebrities are baby eating lizard people or that the leader being pushed on faith leaders is an incarnation of the Lord. There are the pushers as well, those who make outlandish claims that everything is a conspiracy gains Christians and votes are stolen and changed in massively and well orchestrated frauds...

Sidebar: If the Democrats and the Federal government were well organized enough to steal 7+ million votes over multiple states while not making the elections of rank and file Republican congressmen, senators, and state leaders null in the same elections, you would think they would be well enough organized to succeed in trying at least one of the 91 criminal cases that have been charges against the anointed party leader. I digress.

Admittedly, I am not a good enough writer to get this thought fully formed and fleshed out. However, the most important points are 1.) Shared moral standard that Americans once shared because of shared communions and congregations no longer exist. 2.) Power structures that once existed by virtue of shared moral standards have crumbled. 3.) People who reject faith rhetorically attack the need of faith in the public sphere, and 4.) people of faith are ready to physically fight for a return of the moral standards that once ruled out country.

If we are no longer forming communities around local churches or faiths, we need to find ways to build communities around something else.This maybe one of the most difficult problems we face. Social causes and political party activity can only form partisan communities, and from such partisan communities can only spring forth contention - first rhetorical (we have this now) and then actual contention. 

The problem of truth

 I'll admit that I am a social media junky. That is not saying that I do anything reckless on social media, I am saying that I enjoy the exchanges that can occur. I am a 46 year old man who has worked almost exclusively from home for the past 14 years, and so exchanges with other adults (even if virtually) is a mental and emotional need that finds some relief in online spheres. My only other real source of adult conversation is my wife and my barely adult daughters.

There are many problems with social media. From trolls to hackers, and from political incivility to religious (and anti-religious) bigotry, all of these problems will greet you in the online spheres. While all of these problems are frustrating and painful, these may be but symptoms of greater problems. The root problems I see are 1.) that we no longer have a shared belief of objective truth 2.) sources of religious or moral development have been marginalized by nonbelievers and exploited for power consolidation by some purported believers 3.) most Americans live in isolation (even if they are in the center of civilizations) and we no longer look at our neighbors as friend but rather as strangers (I am fully guilty of this). The problem that has been on my mind this week has been the problem of truth.

Twitter was originally, my least favorite form of social media. The idea of dumbing down public discourse to 140 characters or less seemed insulting to the idea of thoughtful conversation. I started my experience in social media through the blogosphere of the early 2000s (this blog having started back then). The blogosphere was full of often thoughtful analysis of public issues, civic problems, and social debates. Even though the comment pages could be harsh, the comment were almost always well thought out (because if the logic was not thought out, you would be humiliated LOL)

However, Facebook killed the blogosphere with Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest, and blog comments dried up soon after followed by regular blog postings. As Facebook became insufferable with advertising, Twitter became a diverse sphere where opposing voices could argue. The commentary stayed comparably sane if often uncivil until Musk decided to buy Twitter a few years ago.

I still visit X on a semi daily basis, but the thing that is most glaringly apparent is that there is a massive gulf in defined objective truth that is making American political polarization almost impossible to correct. The average visitor that defines themself as conservative on X or Twitter appears to believe that the United States is run by a cabal who is out to destroy people in their tribe, they believe in massive conspiracies, and that Donald Trump has always been an honest and successful businessman whose only crime has been to expose the cabal (often the cabal seems to me to simply be anyone who disagrees or criticizes Trump). They seem to sincerely believe that there is definitive and irrefutable evidence for this worldview. I'll be frank in that I may be narrating this view incorrectly because it seems to be in such opposition to my objective truth.

My understanding of the truth about the world in this regard is so diametrically opposed to the apparent "conservative" view that I don't even try to converse with them about it. It is depressing and frightening. 

Depressing because defining the truth in current events should not be difficult. These are happening right now, or they happening the recent past - something we all experienced together. I watched January 6th unfold live in anger and (I still feel) righteous indignation. The idea that this was an offense against the constitution that I believe in seems completely obvious to me. The election was run just like every election before it, the vote count was more skewed in one direction than it was when Romney lost to Obama, and all of the alleged evidence has always failed Occam's razor (the simplest explanation is usually the true explanation) and the whole conduct of Donald Trump and the GOP officials that supported his actions were in direct opposition to almost all post presidential conduct for 200+ years.

Frightening because such large segments of society cannot agree on current (what should be objective) fact or truth. Voltaire allegedly said "If you can make people believe the absurd, you can make them commit atrocities". Given the wide chasm between the object truth about our current state of affairs in US government, one clear truth is that one side must currently believe absurdities. If this is true, how far away are we from seeing atrocities committed? The German's accepted the absurdities of Nazism and committed the atrocities of the Holocaust, the absurdities of communism led to countless atrocities. Currently, Putin has used this to great affect. He and his machine has done all they could to make the Russian people (and shockingly to me many "conservative" Americans) believe absurdities about their Ukrainian neighbors, and they are committing atrocities right now. Some member of Congress and the Senate are committing similar the atrocities of withholding aid to Ukraine right now.

What can be done?

I hate to say it, but the time may have come for tighter control on ethical journalism. I don't say that I think this network or that is full of liars, I mean there may need to be some form of truth auditing for legitimate journalistic organizations (this is seriously just spit balling). Annual reviews of stories written along with retractions and apologies to determine whether a journalistic organization can be relied upon. Maybe something like the CPA audit opinion of a corporations financial statements. This may help increase public confidence in the journalistic organizations that have and do try and maintain integrity. The narrative that the "mainstream media is corrupt" has decimated the sources of agreed upon ethical truth in America. Liberal Americans only believe news reported on CNN, MSNBC, WaPo and the New York Times and maybe their local news, and conservative Americans what they agree with on Fox News, and the stuff reported on the news outlets like OAN and Newmax and sometimes their local news. Since conservative Americans are the least likely to trust traditional media, they are far more prone to believe heavily biased blog-type articles that often fail to adequately research and vet the stories they tell. This seeking truth from obscure sources has had a devastating effect.

The other thing we need is a new emphasis in education and in public on epistemology. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of knowledge, justification, and rationality. This will help give American's the function machine that will help them decide in an effective manner whether information should be believed or disbelieved. The remainder is admittedly from Chat GPT, but I think it highlights how to develop a good epistemology.

Good epistemology involves articulating a framework for how knowledge is acquired, justified, and evaluated. Here's a simplified explanation:

Reliability and Rationality: A good epistemology should prioritize methods that are reliable and rational. This means relying on processes that consistently lead to accurate beliefs and conclusions.

Empirical Evidence: An effective epistemology places a strong emphasis on empirical evidence. This involves using observation, experimentation, and sensory experience to gather data about the world. Empirical evidence helps to ensure that beliefs are grounded in reality rather than speculation.

Logical Reasoning: Logical reasoning is another essential component of a good epistemology. This involves using principles of logic and deduction to analyze evidence, draw conclusions, and identify inconsistencies in arguments. Logical coherence helps to ensure that beliefs are internally consistent and free from contradictions.

Open-mindedness and Critical Thinking: A good epistemology encourages open-mindedness and critical thinking. This means being willing to consider alternative viewpoints, subjecting beliefs to rigorous scrutiny, and revising beliefs in light of new evidence or arguments.

Skepticism: Healthy skepticism is integral to a good epistemology. It involves maintaining a cautious attitude towards accepting claims or beliefs without sufficient evidence. Skepticism helps to guard against credulity and encourages careful evaluation of sources and claims.

Peer Review and Verification: A good epistemology values peer review and verification. This involves subjecting claims and research findings to scrutiny by other experts in the field. Peer review helps to identify errors, biases, and weaknesses in arguments or evidence, leading to more reliable knowledge.

Consistency with Well-Established Knowledge: A good epistemology ensures that beliefs are consistent with well-established knowledge and principles. This involves building upon existing understanding and avoiding beliefs that contradict firmly established facts or theories without compelling evidence to support them.

Overall, a good epistemology is characterized by a commitment to rationality, empirical evidence, critical thinking, skepticism, and the continual refinement of knowledge through rigorous inquiry and evaluation.

Divorce and Taxes - Form 8332

It is still mind blowing how often men in divorces are led to believe they can simply claim their children as dependents simply because the divorce decree says they can.

If you are divorcing, the other spouse will have custody (meaning the child sleeps at their house) for more than 183 days of the year, and you negotiate trading off claiming the child, you MUST have the other spouse sign one Form 8332 that indicates what years you can claim the child. 

If you do not get a signed Form 8332, your ex-spouse has all power as far as the IRS is concerned to claim the children every year. You may be able to sue in family court proceedings for breaching the decree, but the ex-spouse will win the point with the IRS everytime.

Divorce attorneys please get this form signed everytime and keep it on file.

2024 Impending Presidential Election

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! The fact that Republicans are consistently polling for Trump over any of the GOP primary challengers is beyond me. The reasons why Trump should have never been considered a fit candidate are myriad and they were obvious to 2015 Utah Republicans. Today? I don't know where the 2015 Republicans have gone.

I just finished the book Overreach by Owen Matthews. In the book, it discusses the Kremlin's metamorphosis from communism to liberal democracy to pseudo-conservative authoritarianism in regards to how the Ukrainian war started. 

The book it mentions a Russian conservative organization that has the goal of creating a conservative version of "The International" the communist organization that tried to coordinate the communist revolution throughout Europe. It has an eerie plausibility to its existence and (in debatable degrees) success. 

Russian conservatism today values the Russian Orthodox church, Russian greatness and imperialism, neo-czarism, violent rejection of western liberal ideals, highly accepting of conspiracy theories and highly suspicious of traditional journalism, encouragement of nationalistic clubs and organizations that are sometimes violent against opposition, and traditional family values (which apparently includes the right to beat a spouse without facing repercussions). Putin is unassailable in political rhetoric.

American conservatism is leaning towards authoritarian-leaning leadership that appears to be almost unassailable inside party political conversation, highly accepting of conspiracy theories (Q), growth of clubs like Proud Boys, III percenters, and other nationalistic organizations that do seem willing to pursue violence against opposition, almost entirely unaccepting of narratives presented by traditional journalism outlets. 

Last but not least, conservatism seems to be backing Putin's invasion of a smaller weaker neighbor. Not even 30 years ago, George HW Bush heroically stood against Iraq doing the same thing against Kuwait.

The GOP of today is more reminiscent of Russia's All- Russia Peoples Front or the United Russia Political party than the GOP of 2016 or even the GOP of 1984-1988 when Reagan was president. If there is a conservative version of the old "Commonturn", they appear to have been successful in Hungary, the UK with Brexit, and in the US with the GOP.

Thank you Senator Romney - Term Limits

I watched the impeachment trial. The only real reason was that I was bored at work for the past few weeks, late tax laws have pushed the start of tax season back for a lot of people and I just needed something to occupy my mind. 

One thing that I think is apparent is that Congress needs term limits. Out of 53 US GOP senators, only 2 of them dared to vote for simply hearing witnesses in an impeachment trial of a man whose morals (the lack thereof) can be best illustrated by the transcript of a deposition he gave prior to his election regarding his net worth (a figure that does have some actual importance in finance):

Trump: My net worth fluctuates, and it goes up and down with the markets and with attitudes and with feelings, even my own feelings, but I try.
Attorney Ceresney: Let me just understand that a little. You said your net worth goes up and down based upon your own feelings?
Trump: Yes, even my own feelings, as to where the world is, where the world is going, and that can change rapidly from day to day ...
Attorney Ceresney: When you publicly state a net worth number, what do you base that number on?
Trump: I would say it's my general attitude at the time that the question may be asked. And as I say, it varies.

Trump's lack of honesty and morals is nothing that can be dismissed as "fake news". From his well known extramarital affairs to his off-color comments to Billy Bush about grabbing a lady's nether regions, he is clearly a debauched lecher. From his well documented history of corporate bankruptcies to the many documented allegations of defaulting on contractual obligations both personally and in business, we know that he is a charlatan and a mountebank. In the words of Shakespeare, "he's an infinite and endless liar, an hourly promise-breaker".

There would have been nothing lost in hearing witnesses. In fact, the majority of American's were in favor of hearing witnesses. The accepted history of Donald Trump's past conduct would have provided enough circumstantial evidence to warrant subpoenas in a criminal or civil proceeding, and it should have been enough for the US Senate. 

The GOP of my youth would have rejected such a man as unworthy to be considered for public office. Indeed, the GOP of 2015 and 2016 tried to keep themselves distant from the man in the hopes that his candidacy would come to naught. However, the GOP learned to play mental gymnastics and to turn a blind eye to the man's utterly corruptible nature. 

While writing this, I can hear Trump-licans already keying the epithet "liberal" in this essay's comment feed. Ironically, with the exception of the xenophobic GOP view of undocumented aliens (which helped elect Trump) I am in lock-step with most conservative policies. If you want me to narrow it down, I am fine with gay marriage - the fact that men can marry men and women can marry women doesn't diminish the value of my marriage in the least. However, the fact that I cannot ignore the rank odor than permeates Donald Trump's character, has now made me an irredeemable liberal in the eyes of a vast majority of the current GOP. Indeed the zeal of some Trump supporters has echos from followers of another world leader from 80+ years ago.

The recent vote on witnesses in the impeachment trial illustrate how Mitt Romney and Mike Lee provide a good case study that supports the need for term limits. 

Most senators on both sides of the isle try and follow the Orrin Hatch career path. They get elected, the pay and benefits far exceed their pay in the private sector, the develop notoriety, and in the end most of them will make connections that will guarantee a great deal of wealth once they are either voted out of office or when they decide to retire from politics. This is their career, if the majority leader says vote this way - you do it. 

In Mitt Romney, I believe we find the antithesis of this career path.

He is worth a trustworthy 250 million dollars that can in fact be verified with numbers (not the wind that blows between his ears).  He doesn't need his Senate seat to support his family or secure a fortune - his has already been earned. He would like to serve another term, but it he is voted out of office (which is likely with Utah's rabid GOP) he can go back to his fortune without any real problems. Mitt Romney in the Senate has the ability to step back and vote according to his conscience (and to see Trump as he is). I would argue there is a de facto term limit in the case of Mitt Romney.

Counter that with the younger senior senator from Utah Mike Lee. As of 2015 (the most recent numbers I found) his net worth was 218k. He short sold a home when he decided to run for the senate 9+ years ago. Compared to Mitt Romney, he needs his career in Washington. He depends on the high pay that a career senator receives and he is counting on the astronomical income he can make as a lobbyist when he retires. There is no political oxygen for a senator like this to cross the Senate majority leader or a President that uses Twitter with the efficiency of a middle school mean girl. He is left to squirm about how Trump's Billy Bush comments made him uncomfortable as a father, while doing everything he can to stay in the President's good graces. He has no choice. 

The only way to bring Congress back is to enact limit terms. This will provide representatives and Senators the political oxygen in their careers (at least for one term) that will allow them to vote for what is right even when party leadership insists that they are wrong. Members of Congress with political oxygen would have the ability to bring reasoned debates and compromise back to our countries decision making processes - if only in my dreams.

Utah HB0215 - Education Opportunites

 It looks like the UT legislature is trying a new approach to school vouchers. Remember back in 2007 HB 148 passed the legislature but was then taken to a ballot referendum which was rejected fairly soundly by voters see Ballotopedia here.

This new bill takes a carrot and stick approach, by offering an 8,400 dollar raise to teachers if the bill is passed which will also create an 8,000 dollar scholarship which parents could use for private or home schooling. If the bill is not passed, the teacher raise will be half that amount.

I will need to do more reading of this bill to see where the "scholarship" money comes from and some of the criteria for schools that get the money. For now, I am left to consider the bill on principles.

1.) Everyone has school choice. You can choose to keep your kids home, and you can choose to spend between 10k and 12.5k on private school tuition. 

2.) Article XIII of the constitution of the state of Utah requires that all tax on intangible property and all income tax dollars should be spent public schools, and 5% of the proceeds from the sales of US public land in the state. In Article X, Utah's public schools are defined as having to be free of cost and nonsectarian, and nonpartisan. 

We're American. We love having choices and freedom. I get it. The existence of public schools that are funded in a constitutional manner doesn't remove that choice. If I am fearful that ideas which I oppose are being taught in the free public school offering, I can decide to educate my kids at home or budget my money so that I can send my kids to a school that shares my ideals. That is the choice.

I think we should be leary of diluting the money set aside for public schools for many reasons. 

First, the state constitution has set out the parameters of school funding and how public schools qualify for that funding. Funnelling tax and public money to individuals and private organizations with less oversight is not ideal.

Second, we have ceased to have the ability to agree on objective truth as a society. 

From politics to sexuality and race to the environment and medical science - the perception of objective truth is nonexistent. Half the country believe's Joe Biden is a criminal in league with China, there can be no toleration of transgenderism or historical narratives that highlight racism in American history, we should continue burning fossil fuels with reckless abandon, and that vaccines are a conspiracy to reduce the surplus population. While the other half believes Donald Trump is a criminal, we should have broad support of all non-traditional sexual preferences and identities and white people should pay reparations for the slavery perpetrated by their ancestors, all fossil fuel options need to be stopped now regardless of the cost and you should take every vaccine offered without question. 

I am leery of public funds being used to fund home and private schools that are indoctrinating children in any manner.