Join the Voucher Discussion!

I’ve posted a video and transcript of my voucher debate with Utah PTA President Carmen Snow on Politicopia. If nothing else, I think people might appreciate the civil tone of the exchange. It was a lot of fun.

We’ve made good headway in revamping Politicopia, and the site should be about ready to host some good discussion. We’ve done some things on Politicopia (and are in the process of doing some other things) to hopefully promote positive discussion – because, heaven knows, we need more substance, and not just more volume, in our political discussions.

Calvanization

To prove to posterity that I first coined the term, I am posting this at 11:25 (MST).

“Calvanize” means to post something so amazing that all the Internets are unanimous in their reaction.

Used in a sentence: Fifteen years after Rodney King’s invitation, Bobby Calvan proved that, indeed, we can all get along, as he calvanized the Internet with his post about throwing a hissy fit at a Baghdad security check point.

UPDATE: Aw, man. Bobby scrubbed the good stuff. I'll find an archived version and link to it. I can only imagine how the wake up call from the boss must have gone. From the look of the explanation for the scrubbing, I'd guess his boss must have given him 30 seconds to take it down. As I'm sure that too will be scrubbed, here are Bobby's muddled words: "Yes, I’m obviously new to blogging. Somtimes I share too much. The blogosphere has reacted and pointed out my folly. Yes, I can be pushy. I can also be wrong. I’v'e edited this post — and have shut down the comment feature."

And I'm off to write for the Gotebo Gazette.

Now, this really will be a fascinating moment in the history of the Internet and its relationship to big media. Calvan, a reporter for McClatchy stationed in Baghdad, wrote a post about a nothing encounter he had with an American soldier at a Baghdad check point. Clearly the intent of the post was to show that Calvan was a stud and had expertly put a dumb soldier in his place. But, the post clearly showed that Calvan was out of line, arrogant, and disrespectful of the American forces keeping him alive and, also, that the soldier was very professional to simply ignore the guy.

As the comments to the post and as posts on other blogs show, Calvan's post itself rapidly became a big story -- about journalism and the attitudes and biases of journalists. In just 3 1/2 hours, the post generated 197 comments, unanimously negative toward Calvan and his representation of big media's sense of entitlement, superiority and disdain for the military. So, once big media became the story, what did the representative of big media do?

He scrubbed the post, erased the tapes, and Bergered the documents.

UPDATE: Yep, Bobby and his bosses took down the entire blog. I guess it never happened.

Fungible Cat

My daughter brought home a book called Old Cat, New Cat.

It reads, "Today, we kissed Old Cat good-bye. The vet said it was time."

It continues, "Today, New Cat cried for her food. She ate it fast, like a hog. Dad said New Cat was now the Old Cat."

Well, why not? Out with the old; in with the new.

I can hardly wait for the sequel: Old Dad, New Dad.

"Today, we kissed Old Dad good-bye. Sick of his callus attitude, Mommy he said it was time. Today New Dad cried for his food. He ate it fast, like a hog. Mom said New Dad was now the Old Dad."

Voucher Facts

Tomorrow I will debate Utah PTA President Carmen Snow on vouchers. (Dixie State College, Gardner Center, 10/23, at 5:30 p.m.). I admire Carmen and am pleased to share the podium with her.

The PTA sent flyers home with just about every student. It was a very neutral invitation to come hear some discussion. Props to the Washington County PTA!

After the debate, I will post a video and, hopefully, a transcript. I am assuming the debate will have good substance and will be a good resource for voters still deciding.

I believe that the pro-voucher side is behind right now. But I get the very clear sense that we're making up ground as people dig into the details. This one will come down to the wire.

Correction: The rebuttal in the voter information pamphlet asks, “Why is there such a fuss over 0.0025% of the education budget?” The “%” sign should not have been included; in other words, the cost of vouchers – before any savings are factored in – represents less than ¼ of 1% of education spending in the State. I confirmed with the Legislative Fiscal Analyst today (as had been discussed below) that the voucher program begins to realize net savings for public education right around the point that an additional 1% of the school-eligible population takes advantage of vouchers and switches to private schools. Anything beyond that point is pure savings to the system at the rate of $5,500 per student.

The Gang That Can't Shoot Straight

As I mentioned below, 3 of the candidates for St. George City Council have banded together to promise everything to everyone who’s ever wanted anything – no matter what it might be. One of their main points is illegal immigration. A worthwhile point. But, to show that they REALLY mean it, they crow that they signed some guy’s pledge on illegal immigration. (To BYU law school grads from the mid-90s, any guesses on who it is?)

Now, a pledge on illegal immigration could be a good thing – as long as it’s not head-spinning stupid. As Rep. Clark and I pointed out in an op-ed, one initial problem with that pledge is that it was signed in response to a promise of money. I’m not sure that’s legal. Another problem is that the pledge itself is ridiculous. By signing it, the Black Helicopter 3 have pledged that, if elected, they will resign on day 1 . . . if, of course, the pledge means what it says.

It says that the signers will promptly resign, if they provide any city services to an illegal alien. I just hope that, if I am drowning in the City pool or running down the street on fire, I have my proof of citizenship on me, so the lifeguards can save me and the fire department can spray me down. (As you might guess, the pledge has provided the community much entertainment coming up with some of its loony applications.) A law school exam question for you: if a police officer were to encounter someone in cardiac arrest who had “do no resuscitate” documents but no proof of citizenship, would he have to resuscitate? (That’s mine, in case you want to try and top it).

Because the fun is spreading, the author of the pledge sent a clarifying email yesterday. The pledge, in fact, does not mean what it says. I quote: “The fourth item in the Pledge has been the most controversial and misunderstood. The Pledge promises to deny all services to illegal aliens, but implementation of this promise was always intended to be rational and reasonable. We have clarified to each candidate who has expressed concern that this provision does not include emergency services, such as police and fire services. The bottom line here is that cities should deny business licenses, grants, contracts, utilities, housing assistance, recreation services, and other non-emergency services to illegal aliens.”

Okay, then. No recreation services. If I go to a city park or the rec center on a Saturday, but forget my citizenship papers, will I be admitted? Will my children have to carry around their citizenship papers to take a dip in the pool? What if an illegal alien somehow does manage to recreate in a city park – would someone have to resign?

I don’t mean to joke about the issue of illegal immigration. I just mean to point out that the pledge in question is an opportunistic joke. The problem of illegal immigration is serious. And, it requires thoughtful actions. I am optimistic that this will be the year for the legislature to take the issue more seriously. But, as this pledge illustrates, ideas and actions have to make sense. Otherwise, we only go backwards.

What are your ideas?

Immigration and City Council

A few months ago, on Neil Cavuto’s show, I predicted that states would be forced to fill the void created by Congressional inaction (abdication and abject failure) on illegal immigration. While I understand that immigration is a specifically-enumerated federal power, I also understand that representative forms of government, at times, do manage to be somewhat representative. And people are clamoring for action – as well they should in a post-9/11 world.

To highlight the fervor, all 6 candidates for St. George City Council have taken prominent and strong positions on illegal immigration. “What does that have to do with municipal governance?” you ask. Simple. Without question, the citizens are demanding it. Don’t bother to tell them what the feds should be doing. They want to know what each and every elected official is doing.

That’s all fine and well. The key, though, is in what will be done and how it will be done. Not all actions are equal, and not all actions are effective. In my view, 3 of the candidates (Almquist, Pike, and Shakespeare) are taking a tack that could be effective (working with other levels of government to secure increased ICE agents, better identity verification, and enforcement). The other 3 seem to be pandering to the loudest, most unhinged voices, and are proposing actions that would involve the City in silly, losing lawsuits that would do nothing to further any meaningful agenda (think of LaVerkin’s United Nations-free zone or Virgin’s mandatory gun ownership laws)

Yes, I understand that some people feel in their bones that LaVerkin and Virgin were absolutely right to make such strong statements, and that St. George should, too, no matter what the consequences. Question: by not pursuing their concerns in a better-reasoned manner, did those towns advance anything – other than the agendas of those they sought to oppose? Standing for something is noble. Belly flopping is not. (Unless, of course, you’re talking about a beautiful belly flop like THIS).

Nobel Laureate Mario Capecchi

That looks very good in print. Way to go, Dr. Capecchi!

Vouchers Q & A

My local PTA sent a piece home with the kiddies today on vouchers. Overall I liked it. It made a clear nod toward neutrality -- which is nice in light of the increasingly silly rhetoric that is flying around on the issue. Thank you, local PTA.

For one point of reference, the flyer referred people with questions about the bill to this site. So, go ahead, fire away. (I have a dozen trials scheduled in October, but I'll do my best to keep up). To help myself out a bit, I'll refer you to some robust online debates we had during the session -- here, here, here, and here.

The PTA flyer also referred people HERE for the bill's text (which also should include Rep. Last's clean-up bill), HERE for pro-voucher arguments, HERE for anti-voucher arguments, and HERE for voter registration info.

As the flyer concludes, "Do your part, be informed and get out and vote!" And, for the record, I don't know how Brigham would vote on the issue -- but I'm going to be very suspicious, if he does vote.