Thursday, June 22, 2017

Republicans and Democrats set the Rules for their Competition

   Would we let GM and Ford set the rules for the creation of new automobile companies? Then, why do we allow the Republicans and Democrats to set the rules for the creation of new political parties? If what was happening was happening in the corporate world, we would call it an unfair business practice.
   I understand the Elections Office has ruled the United Utah Party does not qualify to be on the ballot for electing Jason Chaffetz's successor because, by law, new parties must organize about 11 months before an election.
    Such a burdensome rule. It clearly puts a dampener on creation of new parties. The supposed reasoning behind the law might be that it prevents a candidate from organizing a party just to get his name on the ballot.
   I would ask, what is so wrong if he or she does do that?
   Yes, I can see that if a candidate lost the nomination in convention, and he was free to form a new party and run on it, he might choose to do just that.
    But, I'm afraid I just don't see the wrong of it all. Yes, I can see that there just might be some high-profile deflections from the two parties and perhaps a proliferation of new parties. That wouldn't be good for the Republicans and Democrats, of course, but I don't see how it would harm the electorate or the public.
   Laws should serve the electorate and public, not the Republicans and Democrats. If monopolies are not always good in business, they are never good in politics.

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Let Parties form Right up to the Moment the Ballot is Printed

   I'm told Utah law says a new political party must be formed all but a year before it fields candidates in an election. I have not seen this in the media, and it seems a large omission.
   If it is true, then the United Utah Party has no rightful claim to placing a candidate on the ballot in the upcoming election to replace Jason Chaffetz in the House of Representatives.
   Such a law seems a burden to justice, at least. Parties should be allowed to form much closer to the election. If the purpose of such a law is to prevent candidates from forming parties just to gain easy entrance on the ballot, it is a poor way to handle that situation. Most parties are not going to form just for that purpose. So, such a law unfairly burdens the great proportion of parties that might like to form.
   Why we must make parties jump through hoops and climb high ladders just to form is beyond me. I would say let them form right up to the moment the ballot is physically created. And, what then of the candidate who might form a party just to get his name on the ballot? Off top, I'd say, let him. If he can gather the 2,000 signatures needed to get his party registered, let him. It would be an avenue to the ballot available to all. So, no one would have an advantage because of this.
 

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Reopen the Watergate Investigation

   It doesn't need to be a long investigation, but reopen the Watergate investigation. We still don't know why the five or so burglars broke into the Democratic Party offices. Some of them are still alive. Call in as many of those involved from Watergate as are still alive, and ask them to come clean.
   It needn't be a long investigation. But, call them into a congressional hearing, and plea in the name of patriotism for them to come clean. Once they've all died, their secrets may well be lost. What is the saying, Dead men don't talk? The living years are when secrets can be revealed. We should call the participants in before they are all lost to their graves.
 


Monday, June 19, 2017

Do the Muscles of the Child and of the Elderly differ in this?

  I turned to Tom on the elliptical next to me. Maybe the muscle knows three conditions: contracted, expanded and relaxed, I said.
  I think of my grandson, he replied. He knows run, run, run and carry me.
  As I left the workout, I wondered if maybe Tom's answer didn't contain the reason as to why stiffness and lack of muscle use is associated with growing old. Run, run, run equates with expanded muscles and carry me is the equivalent of relaxed muscles. That leaves out contracted muscles. Does the child not have contracted muscles? Are contracted muscles the result of stress and pressure and wear,  things the child has yet to know?
   And, I wondered whether the old have relaxed muscles. If we picked one up while they slept, how fast would their limbs bend? Would their knees bend immediately and fully when we lifted them? Or, would there be some stiffness that would keep their legs from bending so quickly and completely?
  Does the child know contracted muscles at all? Does the elderly person know relaxed muscles? How often does an older person have expanded muscles?
  I wondered but what expanded muscles are not what we should seek, if we were searching for some fountain of youth extending our lives. Are expanded muscles, with them perhaps relaxing when we sleep or at other periods, to be associated with long life? I do not mean the expanded muscles of a weightlifter. Rather, I mean just muscles that have a little ballooning effect, just enough to make them productive.


Saturday, June 17, 2017

This is a Little Bit of a Scandal

Note: It is Monday, two days after I wrote this. Today, I learned the other side of the story. I must be going to bed right now, but will post in the next couple days. What I am learning alters my thoughts. At this point, I am thinking there is not the scandal I perceived. I need to look into it more, just the same, though. In a nutshell, the 30-day period might have nothing to do with it, but rather a law that says all new parties must register a year in advance of the election.

Blog wrote on Saturday:

   There's a little bit of a scandal here. The Elections Office should be facilitating the United Utah Party, not standing in its way. When Jim Bennett and the party have done all required to create a party and get on the ballot, and the Elections Office refuses to process the filings in good time, that is wrong. It is obstructing the very government process you were appointed to accommodate. If the officials are refusing to certify the party and Bennett's candidacy because it runs against the interests of the Republican Party, that makes it even worse. You don't use your public office to forward your own personal interests, or the interest of your party, at the expense of what you were appointed to do, and at the expense of what is best for the public. The Elections Office should do its job, and that is to certify all parties and candidates that qualify. The Elections Office is taking 30 days to certify the party simply because the law gives it 30 days, and election officials have chosen to use the full 30 days because they know that puts Bennett beyond the deadline for getting on the ballot. They could have looked at the paperwork presented the first day, saw that it was in order, and certified it. Wrong is wrong. What they are doing is wrong, and there should be an outcry demanding Bennett be placed on the ballot (as he qualified to be). Yes, what is happening qualifies as a little bit of a scandal.

Friday, June 16, 2017

The Party that Allows You to Think on Your Own

   Many are moderates because all their views don't fit in one box. They think each issue through, on its merits, instead of signing on just because it's the party's position. So, almost by definition, a moderate party shouldn't dictate too many political stands. Moderates aren't locked into opinions fed them by others.
  I have often thought it strange that everyone in one group should align on issue after issue, the same people believing in climate change also believing in abortion. Climate change and abortion are not related. If you are thinking each issue through, you might agree with climate change but disagree with abortion. It is strange, indeed, then, that one group of people should agree on issue after issue after issue, and the other group take the opposite stand on issue after issue after issue. If people are thinking each issue through, they simply are not going to agree on everything.
   Forgive, but I think this proof that people aren't thinking each issue through on its merits. I think it is evidence enough that we generally have closed minds. We believe what someone else -- the party -- tells us, instead of coming to an opinion on our own. It gives cause to wonder, when you think of the term "sheeple," if most of us are not sheeple. We blindly follow the party line. I would like to think the new United Utah party will not be this way. I would like to think it will become not the party of the closed mind, but the party of the open mind.
   I would even suggest that as a possible slogan: "Not the party of the closed mind, but of the open mind."
   Politicians often get in trouble for changing their opinions, flip-floppers, we call them. This shouldn't be so. An intellectually honest person will change his or her opinion when evidence surfaces warranting the change. So, even when you come to an opinion, you should be open to change. The honest politician is not the one who refuses to "waffle," but the one who has the courage to do so. There is honesty and integrity in admitting you are wrong. We should not assign shame to it. It has been said, it takes a big man to admit he is wrong. If this is true, there are few big men in politics.
   So, if the United Utah wants to set itself apart from the other parties, I would suggest it can do so by being the party that thinks things through, rather than just answering to dogma.
   This, too, could be a possible motto: "Not the party of dogma, but of thinking."
   The United Utah Party? Let it be the party that allows you to have your own opinion, instead of telling you what to think.
 
 

Thursday, June 15, 2017

Who is Parroting Who?

   "Turn a globe and point your finger anywhere, you will find American interest and interference there." -- Vladimir Putin, in discussing the accusation that Russia interfered in the U.S. election.
  I cannot help notice this argument has been forwarded by Trump supporters in the U.S.  Who is parroting who? Is Putin parroting the comments he has read from those in the U.S.? Or did the argument originate in Russia, from propaganda specialists there?
  I wonder if some talking points we here over here might have originated with the Russians, being fed to us by propaganda specialists who participate in letters to talk shows, etc. When the Intel report on Russian interference in our election said the influence was largely achieved by propaganda an disinformation, we wondered which news stories might be examples. Well, lately, listening to Putin, I have wondered if I haven't seen more than one example.