May 22, 2013

Utah Democrats raffling off LDS Conference tickets.

Utah Democratic Chair Jim Dabakis is raffling off the chance to sit with him at the LDS Church’s biannual General Conference.  Does that amount to selling political favors or missionary work? And who is getting worked? Last I heard, Dabakis was not a Mormon–so is this some strange way of getting him to listen to two hours of high level Mormon testimony?

Recently (as in, Monday of this week), the Utah Democratic Party announced a new initiative: the “LDS Dems.” In Utah, the large majority of voters are two things–Republican and/or Mormon. Whether or not those things are part and partial is up for debate, but there is often a feeling that if you are Mormon, you should be Republican, too.

This, despite very public and notorious examples of Mormons who aren’t Republican. For example, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, arguably one of the most powerful Mormons in elected office.

Senator Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader

Image via Wikipedia

In Utah, though, the vast majority of members of the LDS Church tend to vote Republican. And Democrats, facing redistricting and the likely losses to their elected ranks that will come with it, have decided to make it cool to be both Mormon and Democratic, too.

I think they have an uphill battle. While there are many LDS members who are also Democrats, I hardly think that creating an Dem brand around them is going to expand the base. Too much of what

Democrats believe is rooted in principles that people who already self-identify as Republicans believe is wrong. Adding “LDS” to that is not going make failed policies look any more attractive.

Putting lipstick on a donkey isn’t going to change the fact that it’s a donkey.

And raffling away tickets to LDS General Conference, held biannually and broadcast worldwide (read: an important weekend for LDS faithful), is not a great way to start off the effort, though it might be good for Dabakis, and who ever he takes, to spend a couple hours listening to talk about self-sufficiency, protection of life before birth, the traditional family, and other such things the LDS Church teaches (and that happen to also be found in the Republican platform).

To be fair, I’m glad the Utah Democrats are reaching out. There has been some concern (I have heard) that there is a divide between Democrats and the LDS Church. If this is how they want to reach out, then kudos. [blackbirdpie url="http://twitter.com/#!/BenMcAdams/status/119906363064320000"]

(But seriously–a raffle? For tickets that are given away for free, anyway? I guess that’s just how they roll…no pun intended.)

Enhanced by Zemanta

The top news in Utah politics this week…as far as Twitter sees it.

It’s Friday, and you know what that means: time to look back at the week in news.

Sort of. This week, we’re going to look back at what’s being discussed in the myopic world of Utah politics on Twitter, specifically with the hashtag #utpol.

Yeah. Really. I’m that scientific about it (and in case you are sarcasm impaired, the following really were among  the “top” items according to Twitter over the last week. Don’t believe me? Click here. Second, it’s not actually intended to be scientific…)

First off: Redistricting.

This year, not only are we redrawing the lines, but we’re adding a congressional district to the mix, too. State Sen. Ben McAdams has been one of the more articulate voices on the left side of the aisle.

[blackbirdpie url="http://twitter.com/#!/BenMcAdams/status/119483174307889152"]

His reference, of course, is to Rep. Ken Sumsion’s map which was adopted by the committee for forwarding to the legislature next week. The feeling among Democrats is that the map (here) tends to favor Republicans.

[blackbirdpie url="http://twitter.com/#!/heydebhenry/status/118745534294007808"]

The feel among Republicans seems to be that Democrats are crazy to think that the Republican dominated legislature is going to draw maps that protect Democrats from the effects of being a minority.

[blackbirdpie url="http://twitter.com/#!/CarlDowning/status/118743716876918786"]

Meanwhile, Rep. Carl Wimmer is already campaigning for whatever district he ends up in.

[blackbirdpie url="http://twitter.com/#!/CarlWimmer/status/119470800356126720"]

I think that’s a safe position to take…especially since its more likely that Congressman Matheson is going to be running for something else, anyway. There’s no way he, of all the left leaning politicians in Utah, will be getting a pass from Republicans.

Meanwhile, someone held out a branch of hope that the Governor would be a voice of reason and throw a bone to the Democrats. Robert Gehrke followed up on that one, and quickly broke that branch, burned it, and tossed the ashes in the trash can.

[blackbirdpie url="http://twitter.com/#!/RobertGehrke/status/119461131755597824"]

And that provides the summation of what is perhaps the strangest part of the redistricting process, and also the most recent: one Republican attacking another over Jim Matheson‘s seat. It seems that no one wants to face the five-term Congressman in a competitively drawn district or in a statewide race.

[blackbirdpie url="http://twitter.com/#!/politicalhound/status/119841732929138689"]

The last Republican to run against Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, is attacking GOP Gov. Gary Herbert for what he says is behind-the-scenes pressure on lawmakers to draw a friendlier U.S. House district for Matheson so he will seek reelection to Congress and stay out of the governor’s race against Herbert.

“The Matheson threat is of greater concern to Utah’s governor than fairness and due process,” said Morgan Philpot, who lost to Matheson last year by a 50.5 to 46.1 percent margin. Philpot says he hopes to challenge Matheson again next year, but also is not ruling out a run for governor.

Lest we be confused, this is all based on hearsay.

Philpot said in an interview that he has “heard from a lot of people” that Herbert is pushing for changes that might convince Matheson to stay in the congressional race. “Honestly, I don’t think it’s a secret. Pretty much anyone involved in this process knows that the governor has been worried about this.”

No so, says the Governor’s office.

Allyson Isom, Herbert’s spokeswoman, said such inferences are incorrect, and that Herbert simply wants a plan that is fair for all — and says he never threatened a veto as some news media reports said. She adds that Philpot never personally met with Herbert to discuss what may have happened or his motives.

To sum it up: lawyers representing Democrats suing the state are already calculating the billables they can milk out of this…at tax payer expense.

________________________________________________________________

In other news, Chris Christie is not running for President.  But that doesn’t mean he’s not in the news.

[blackbirdpie url="http://twitter.com/#!/UtahPolicy/status/119135310692106241"]

On Tuesday, arch-enemy of Utah open lands advocates Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar stopped by.

[blackbirdpie url="http://twitter.com/#!/OrrinHatch/status/118803347640811522"]

I gotta be honest–I just can’t really hear Sen. Hatch saying these words…and the picture seems about a decade out of date. Salazar was in town for the reopening of the Dinosaur National Monument Visitors Center. I hope we gave him a warm Utah welcome.

Given the federal government owns about three-fifths of Utah, is there another figure in anywhere in the United States as important to Utah land-use issues as the interior secretary?

________________________________________________________________

Next up: Democrats who are also Mormons. They might be as rare as a Utah Ute fan who lives outside of Salt Lake Valley, but apparently the Utah Democratic Party’s new push to grow is to force the outing of all these rare Democrat Mormons.

[blackbirdpie url="http://twitter.com/#!/BenMcAdams/status/118406462144917504"]

________________________________________________________________

So what do you think? Did Twitter get it right? Was this really the top news this week?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Vladimir Putin: the “most interesting man in the world,” or the beginning of a personality cult?

Vladimir Putin: the man, the myth, the … next president of Russia? In the post-Clinton age, if there’s one person who appears on the Drudge Report more than Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, it’s Mr. Putin. If it’s not in relationship to international affairs and Russia, he appears there in some daring, manly activity, occasionally bare chested and buff, unsmiling and tough.

He is, by some accounts, Putin, the “action man.”  It isn’t enough to sit on top of the world’s second largest arsenal of  nuclear weapons (or is it the largest?); apparently Vlad must be able to show his ability to best anyone in mortal combat, as well.

Martial arts? He’ll take you on. Riding on horses? In cold weather or summer heat?  Hockey? He’ll score. Hunting? Shirtless.

And he’s strong, too. Arm wrestling or pan bending, he’s game.

Or maybe you want to go to Monte Carlo and race? Watch out, Tony Stark: Ivan Vanko isn’t the only Russian you should watch for there.

But Putin isn’t all kill, thrill and speed. He’s also a combination of tough and tender. For example, take the time when he visited and examined a tiger with the Russian academy of science. He’s a conservationist with a taste for dangerous animals, too. Or assisted in Arctic Circle climate change research.

As if that wasn’t enough, Putin is also an amateur archaeologist, discovering submerged ancient pottery while scuba diving near Greece.

[simple_slideshow transition_speed="100"]

In short, he is the most interesting man in the world–a concert pianist, a motorcyclist, outdoorsman, hunter, climatologist, martial artist (and maybe a ninja?), dog lover, horse whisperer, pilot (of jets, tanks, and firefighting planes, too), and submariner. I wouldn’t be surprised if he drinks Dos Equis, too, though vodka would seem more stereotypical of this man of men.

Indeed. From spy hunter in the KGB’s counter-intelligence arm, Putin has risen to become one of the most powerful men in Russia, if not the world. In the last week he has been nominated for a third term as President of Russia, and he looks likely to take  the job. Dmitry Medvedev was only ever a place holder, and now will step down to take the place of Prime Minister (a job he had while Putin was President three years ago).

As speculated by one journalist, though, we are only mid-way through Putin’s political career. There are feats of strength for him to accomplish yet :

The year is 2024[...]

Only one leader has defied the iron law that all politicians eventually leave office. His name? Vladimir Putin. Now 71, Putin has served two more terms as Russia‘s president – bringing the tally of his stints in the Kremlin up to a remarkable four – the final two lasting a total of 12 years. He is fitter and more vigorous than ever: Russian first state TV channel has recently shown him wrestling heroically with a python after it “escaped” from a Moscow zoo.

In theory, this is the moment when Putin should finally step down after a quarter of century at the apex of Russian power. He has already outlasted Leonid Brezhnev (18 years) and is closing in fast on comrade Stalin (a whopping 31).

If that last comparison seems strange in this day decades after the fall of communist Russia, take a moment to examine Putin–if you, or anyone, knows much about his politics, it is irrelevant. What matters is that he is creating an image that is not unlike the cults of popularity that surrounded the megalomaniacs and dictators of the last century.

It’s a bleak prospect. Liberals in Moscow and St Petersburg were yesterday posting a photo of Putin mocked up to look like Leonid Brezhnev – complete with military uniform, patriotic Soviet medals and a hammer and sickle. Putin even got Brezhnevian eyebrows.

Actually, the comparisons with the Brezhnev era are spot-on. Brezhnev presided over another era of political and economic stagnation, the 1970s, sustained by a commodities boom and high oil prices. He also had a war – he sent the Red Army to invade Afghanistan. In 2008 Putin did the same thing. He sent Russian tanks into Georgia, promising to hang Georgia’s pro-western leader Mikheil Saakashvili “by the balls”. It was a brutal lesson in neighbourhood geopolitics.

Like Brezhnev, Putin will have his Olympics, too, in 2014 when the Winter Olympics go to Sochni. With a former KGB officer at the head of the Russian state, is it hard to believe that little has changed in Russia? Further, is it hard to predict that the United States might expect trouble from a resurgent Russia under a “strong” man Putin?

With the geopolitical macho Putin returning to a more internationally prominent role (and Medvedev shunted to the diminished prime ministry, essentially, an economic management slot), Mr. Obama and other Western leaders will have to deal with the longest-serving leader among theG-8. Putin will command the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world. And he will have Russia’s massive economic resources, including a $400 billion cash cushion, oil and gas reserves, and a cornucopia of raw materials, at his beck and call.

Most importantly, Putin simply doesn’t trust the United States, calling it a “parasite” on the world economic body. He accuses it of bringing about the Arab Spring and “velvet revolutions” by expanding hard-to-control social media. He resents the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency. And he alleges that US foreign policy disregards international law.

If the past is any predictor of the future, than  the future where we find Vladimir Putin is one where Russia sees itself as a rival to US power and influence, a state that looks as much to its tsarist past for guidance as to the west for technological theft, and where leaders rule by personality cults and competition-less elections. He may bill himself as the most interesting man in the world, but Putin is an Emperor who, clothes or not, is no friend of democracy, transparency, or the rights of the people.

[Atlantic Monthly] [The Guardian] [Christian Science Monitor]

Enhanced by Zemanta

Este Pizzeria. New York style pizza in Salt Lake City.

With a couple of chairs and small tables outside and a flat glass window, you don’t know what you’re getting when you walk up to Este Pizzeria. What you get is faux urban, pop culture decorated, and all deliciousness.
I ordered a half-half split pizza–half all cheese for my friend, toppings of sausage, some onions, olives, and pepperoni on mine. The crust was thin and crusty, but with enough elasticity that I could fold the cheesy pizza in half and bite into it.In other words, it’s a great place with some crispy, cheesy, New York-y pizza.

I finished my half, and almost dug into the other. Restraint and an expanding waistline kept me from finishing it off for him.

In addition to great pizza, Este has a fun, hip atmosphere. The music is hopping, loud enough to give each table privacy, but not too loud that you need to shout. The walls are covered with graphic art posters and prints in frames, and it lends well to the New York feel.

My only complaint was the service, but even that is with a caveat. I waited a good two minutes in front of the counter before anyone even acknowledged me, and then got attitude from the girl there when I asked if she could wipe off the crumbs from the table. She did, however, apologize, citing a busy and stressful day.

Will I go back? No doubt about it. I love pizza, and  Este Pizzeria makes me love it more.

Service: 6.5/10
Atmosphere: 8/10
Food: 18/20
Parking: 6/10
Eat-ability Quotient (an average of scores):  7.7/10

Check out my other restaurant reviews here. If you have a restaurant you’d like me to try, please contact me by sending an email to SLCWeekendReviews@gmail.com.

Este Pizzeria on Urbanspoon

Facebook changes: To complain or not to complain.

Unless you have been hiding under a rock, you have noticed that your Facebook experience just got worse. Also, you probably just found out that Geico can save you  money on car insurance, but that is another subject for another time.

Facebook has come out with some major changes to the behemoth social networking site. The change has been met with the wrath and disgruntlement of thousands, as well as validating the surging Google+.

But mostly, I’ve just heard people say they don’t like it.  Common complaints I’ve heard are 1) People don’t like the new layout. 2) Many dislike the distracting and over-sharey “ticker.” 3)Most users aren’t too happy with how Facebook determines the “top stories”, and 4) Most seem to think the new feature which makes it so you can see when someone de-friends you takes “Facebook stalking” to a whole new level.

Customer satisfaction? The only thing in my my news feed are more complaints:

  • “Really disliking the new Facebook…”
  • “Why fix something if it’s not broken? I hate the new Facebook ”
  • “Trying to get used to this new layout. I wish Facebook would stop changing things.”
  • “What the #$^@ is up with that ticker in the upper right? Do I really need to know THAT much about everyone?”

Invariably, new Facebook groups are formed–like the cleverly named“I hate the new Facebook” group, which currently has close to 20,000 members.

This is all followed by people debating whether users should or shouldn’t  complain about changes like these, spawning posts like “if you don’t like it, just delete your profile. It’s free, no one is making you use it.”

And this is the question: Do people have a right to complain when something is free? (Or do people have the right to complain about other people complaining? But that discussion might mess with the space-time continuum.)

After all, Facebook is free, right? Is it in poor taste to complain when something is offered to you gratis?  The internet delivers content and services free of charge, which has revolutionized our lives and how we communicate–but it has also created a culture of “keyboard courage,” entitlement, and trolling. People expect things to be free and are irritated when they get anything short of the convenient user-experience we expect. (I’m guilty of this, as banner ads and auto-play videos on news sites frequently annoy me.)

Knowing full well that there are far more important issues to discuss, I am instead going to provide two sides to the argument–the “anti-complain” argument, which says that  you shouldn’t complain about new features of a free site, and the “pro-complain” camp–which argues that you have every right to complain.

Anti-Complain

Quit your belly aching!

If it is so bad, delete your account and go to Google+. Tell everyone you know who isn’t on Facebook how terrible Facebook is (if you know anyone who isn’t on Facebook, because let’s be honest–if they aren’t, do they really exist?).

Besides, it is free. How would you feel if you decided to host a party for your neighborhood, invited everyone over, gave them refreshments, provided entertainment, only to hear endless complaints about the food and music?

And if you are bugged by the increasingly complicated privacy settings, and how frequently you have to update them, what were you expecting? Facebook is a massive corporation, with database full of extremely valuable consumer preferences. Did you really expect them not to do anything to profit from it?

Pro-Complain

Sure, Facebook users aren’t paying for Facebook usage. At least not monetarily (and won’t ever, contrary to the countless recent posts of Facebook’s rumored secret plot to start charging for membership–see their own fan page, where they address this rumor).

But that doesn’t mean we aren’t paying. We are paying Facebook by freely giving up our key demographic information,  our “likes” and “dislikes,” our time, our networks, and our opinions. Facebook profits by selling advertising space to companies who  market to people who have precisely those “likes” and “dislikes” and that exact demographic information. So we have every right to express our complaints as paying customers.

Besides, if I go into a restaurant or clothing store, and leave because I’m treated rudely, don’t I  have a right to complain–because I wasn’t treated right? Of course.  I have “the right” to complain. Just because I didn’t spend money, I was still a patron.

In conclusion, Facebook has caused fascinating cultural and societal changes. Human interactions involving relationship building, marketing, communication, or the simple act of getting to know someone have all been dramatically changed by Facebook.  People are addicted to Facebook and spend more time there than any other site–so it’s only natural that they would cling to something  that they are comfortable with.

As for my opinion, I am leaning far more towards the “if you don’t like it, delete your account and go to Google+” camp.  Then again, this isn’t the first change, and it won’t be the last. Perhaps whining is just perpetually part of the experience.


_______________________________________________________________________________________
Craig Christensen is a guest writer on Publius Online. For more of Craig’s thoughts on culture, politics, sports, and nonsense, follow him on Twitter: @CraigDChris

Book Preview: “Grand Strategies” by Charles Hill

Let’s speak frankly for a minute: if you don’t read fiction–or worse, if you read bad fiction–you are short-changing yourself.

You could be missing revelations into human nature, behavior, and nuance that you might not otherwise be able to observe.

Further, you might be limiting your ability to empathize, to understand, and shift your perspective. If the only perspective you ever know is that of your own, and those immediately around you, how can you ever hope to “care” about people who are more distantly removed?

Citing us to recent examples, Charles Hill argues, in his 2011 book “Grand Strategies,” that literature has always, at least until the late mid-twentieth century, played a role in the lives of powerful men (and women) as they have grappled with the events and issues that defined, inspired and guided their lives and decisions. To mention just a few:

And so on. Literature was, to them, a source of insight. As Hill writes:

Statesmen have looked at literature not only as another source of strategic insight but as a unique endeavor. Of all the arts and sciences, only literature is substantially and methodologically unbounded. Literature’s freedom to explore endless or exquisite details, portray the thoughts of imaginary characters, and dramatize large themes through intricate plots brings it closest to the reality of “how the world really works.” This dimension of fiction is indispensable to the strategist who cannot, by nature of the craft , know all of the facts, considerations, and potential consequences of a situation at the time a decision must be made, ready or not. Literature lives in the realm grand strategy requires, beyond the rational calculation, in acts of the imagination.

Indeed, one might question that person who says that he does not read fiction at all, whether they have the flexibility or imagination necessary in moments when decisions are difficult or inarticulately gray. Will they find themselves unable  to shift as needs, facts, and issues change, to rigid and brittle at the decisive moment?

I’m not sure. I can only speak for myself: I read fiction for two reasons–first, and foremost, I enjoy it. Second, and perhaps more important, I read fiction to understand the world and to expand my mind. Human experience is too vast and diverse for me to experience and understand, at least not in one lifetime.
But I want to. I want to understand the life of the pauper and the President, the wife and the widow, the long dead and as yet unborn. Reading, especially great fiction, enables me to expand the scope of my views, experience lives I might not otherwise, and grow my imagination.

“Grand Strategies” by Charles Hill, focused on the literature and statecraft looks like a fascinating and interesting look into the ages, into history, and I look forward to reading, and rereading Dante, Twain, Defoe, Shakespeare, and “Publius” (Hamilton, Madison, and Jay) with that perspective.