These are classic discussions published back in February 2007
This Needs To Be Included, Unless, Of Course, You Try to Include It
Brad Last ran a bill solely to address arguments raised against the voucher bill.
The bill (1) requires that teachers at voucher-eligible schools have criminal background checks, (2) doubles the amount of money the State School Board gets to administer the program, and (3) deals with arguments that voucher schools might teach unlawful activities. Only 5 Democrats voted for the bill.
Why do you think that is? Is it just that the word “vouchers” was in the title?
I don’t believe the vote means that Democrats are in favor of felonious teachers, that Democrats are against providing more administration money, or that Democrats favor Jihad schools. Nor do I believe their negative votes were bought by generous Union contributions. Nor do I believe that Rep. Becker twisted their arms to vote against the bill.
And, I surely don’t believe the media will ever ask why today’s votes are so seemingly at odds with earlier stated positions that such... (read more)
Trolley Square
Holly Mullen has written a beautiful piece about the Trolley Square tragedy. I’ve tried repeatedly to put down a few thoughts. But they make no sense. The event makes no sense.
Before I even entered the Capitol building on Tuesday, another legislator asked me, “You know what that shooting shows?” I didn’t. And neither did he. Neither did the other dozen people who shared various opinions on what the shooting shows.
We’re humans. We try to make sense of things and learn lessons from them. No doubt, we can and should learn lessons from this. But before we start appropriating this tragedy for our pet political concerns, let’s show that we respect the right of all victims of this tragedy to be left alone, so that they can grieve without too much interference. To the broader community, the tragedy is unreal. To the families, it is all too real.
Let the Sun Shine In!!
The Sunlight Foundation announced the public launch of The Open House Project. The Open House Project will publicly advise the U.S. House of Representatives on ways in which it can use the Internet to open government to the people. I’ve been part of the beta working group, and it’s been killing me to not blog about this.
Speaker Pelosi needs to be commended for entertaining a dialogue on how the people can better participate in their government. This is a good development.
The quickened pace toward open government might herald a few changes:
1. Stakeholders will outwork and outperform puppets. The party that does a better job of bringing people into the political process will win — for a while. (see point 4).
2. Transparency will remedy much of the disconnect between campaigning and governing. Because job performance will be more visible, an official’s job performance will be a greater part of the campaign, as opposed to today’s unrivaled currency... (read more)
Vouchers — Democracy in Action
The Tribune ran my op ed on the passage of vouchers. I greatly appreciate the Trib’s willingness to use its space to run a piece that criticizes the role of intermediaries (including the media) in filtering political information in order to achieve certain outcomes. What better acquittal could it give itself than to run the piece? Thanks, Trib, for pushing the dialogue along.
In the op ed, I opine that the voucher bill passed this year, when it had failed in previous years, because the Internet is allowing citizens to obtain more unfiltered information. Though the UEA never abandoned false arguments regarding the fiscal impact of vouchers, other more responsible intermediaries did — but only after the arguments were broadly discussed on this site, Politicopia, and many other great sites that took up the issue.
UPDATE (2/12/07): Eugene Volokh and Pete Ashdown share their thoughts.
Proposed Amendment to Abortion Bill
Based on many conversations I’ve had, I am planning to run a substitute to Rep. Ray’s abortion bill. The bill most likely will pass in some form, so the issue becomes the form in which it will pass.
Before I lock in language on my proposed substitute to Rep. Paul Ray’s abortion bill, I’d like to get public input. My proposed substitute can be found at Politicopia. It is proposed to insert a trigger, thus making the provisions effective when Roe v. Wade is overturned or the Constitution is changed.
In 1991, Utah footed the court bill to challenge Roe v. Wade. It is now another state’s turn. Instead of spending the money on lawyers, my proposed substitution would spend the money on the Utah birth defects network and on early intevention.
Your thoughts?
Hillary Clinton and Politicopia
Politico, a collaborative on-line and off-line political journal, was launched a few weeks ago by big-time journalists and big-time thinkers. Today, Politico highlighted Politicopia as an illustration of what Hillary’s one-sided conversation with the people fails to attempt.
Politicopia also was mentioned by the National Council of State Legislatures:
Now, Representative Steve Urquhart of Utah—one of the most prolific state-legislator bloggers—has created Politicopia—a wiki designed to present and gather different views on issues under consideration in the legislature.
and by Ross Mayfield:
I personally haven’t been a supporter of school vouchers, but have learned a lot from watching this debate. I also vote Democrat, but am a toolmaker that believes that even if Socialtext is used by the other side — not only do both sides win, but the constituents they serve.
Citizens are finding more tools to shape their government. I have no doubt they’ll create something wonderful.
Abortion Law – Suggestions Wanted
A sizeable majority of Utahns favor very restrictive abortion laws. Of course, people are free to argue whether that is good or bad, but the sentiment is a strong reality.
Rep. Paul Ray originally purported to run legislation that would have restricted abortions to cases of rape, incest or very serious risk to the mother’s health; those provisions would have kicked in only in the event Roe v. Wade were to be overturned. However, Rep. Stephen Sandstrom substituted a bill that would enact those provisions right away – forcing Utah into a court battle, with the apparent intent of attempting to take the matter all the way to the Supreme Court in order to overturn Roe v. Wade.
As a point of information, Utah challenged Roe v. Wade in 1991, and lost.
The bill likely will be heard by the House on Friday, 2/9/07. I would like some input. Therefore, I have cross-posted this entry at Politicopia, which provides a much better format... (read more)
Thank You, Taxpayers