The Zion Chronicle View RSS

Pre-Super Tuesday Revisions 2 Mar 2020 6:20 PM (5 years ago)

Who knew that after posting on Friday I would need to update all three of my recent posts before we arrived at Super Tuesday.

On my candidate ranking my top two candidates have dropped out. Additionally, while I had Michael Bloomberg ahead of Joe Biden I am considering that I might prefer Biden over Bloomberg because while I might come a little closer to Bloomberg’s political leanings, I worry about him having unexpected liabilities since he hasn’t been through the degree of vetting that the other candidates have already.

On my thoughts on who can win: the paths to victory for Buttigieg and Klobuchar are obviously closed. Warren doesn’t have a path after the results of South Carolina. Biden got exactly the kind of South Carolina win that he needed and the only way his path narrows is if he gets trounced tomorrow.

And thanks to the last 24 hours, our youngest presidential candidate is now 70 years old. I’m not thrilled about that.

An Age Problem 29 Feb 2020 8:48 PM (5 years ago)

I’ve mentioned that I have a problem with the ages of most of the presidential candidates. Today a thought struck me that I think would put that problem in perspective. I realized that Elizabeth Warren – the third youngest legitimate candidate still in the race is only three years younger than Bill Clinton – who was our president 28 years ago. If I were to rank the candidates in age order relative to Bill Clinton it would look roughly like this:

• Bernie Sanders (5 years older than Clinton)
• Michael Bloomberg
• Joe Biden
• Donald Trump (3 years older than Clinton)
• Bill Clinton (for reference)
• Elizabeth Warren (3 years younger than Clinton)
• Amy Klobuchar (14 years younger than Clinton)
• Pete Buttigieg (35 years younger than Clinton)

Why is it that we are stuck choosing mainly between candidates who are older than a president we had almost 3 decades ago?

Who can win? 27 Feb 2020 6:04 PM (5 years ago)

For the sake of fairness I will cover the candidates in alphabetical order by last name. I will offer my take on what they would need to win the nomination and my opinion on what they should do based on what happens on Super Tuesday.

Joe Biden

So far Joe Biden has underperformed his expectations. Prior to Nevada I was ready to write him off as no longer a contender but with his recent performance in the debate and his strong showing in the South Carolina polls I conclude that he still likely has a path to the nomination (not a particularly easy one). If Biden does very well in South Carolina he once again becomes a viable candidate but if that isn’t followed up with a strong Super Tuesday (top two or top three) his candidacy should be suspended.

Michael Bloomberg

Normally at this point I would write off a candidate who has not yet received any delegates but Michael Bloomberg isn’t a traditional candidate. He has not participated in any of the primaries before now so getting delegates hasn’t been an option. On the other hand he has functionally unlimited resources and has shown the willingness to use his money for this atypical campaign tactic. The result has been a substantial showing in the national polls. This may not translate into a real chance of winning but we won’t know until we see how he fares on Super Tuesday. If he doesn’t win significant delegates in many of the Super Tuesday states it will be time that he should shudder his campaign and perhaps even endorse another candidate.

Pete Buttigieg

Pete Buttigieg has performed better than would have been expected earlier in the race. He has done very well in the first two states and must be considered a real contender. We are still waiting to see if he can build a national organization and perform at scale. I suspect he will hold his own but if Super Tuesday finds him worse than fourth place it will be time to pull the plug and stop splitting the votes among the more moderate candidates.

Amy Klobuchar

Amy Klobuchar has, like Pete Buttigieg, performed above expectations so far. While I believe she is the best choice in the race I have to be honest that her chance at the nomination is small and requires that she do well on Super Tuesday – top five in results and the results close enough that there isn’t clarity in the race. (If she finishes in the top five but one candidate comes out with an overwhelming lead that won’t be enough.) If the race is still relatively open long enough her path is to stay competitive and get to a brokered convention where she might convince delegates that she is the best option for November. To win without a brokered convention would require that at least two of the B-boys (Biden, Bloomberg, Buttigieg) drop out early enough for moderate voters to consolidate behind her.

Bernie Sanders

Bernie is the current front-runner and his path to the nomination is clear – simply convince voters of his inevitability and build a strong coalition from those who were previously unsure of his candidacy. I don’t think he is inevitable, nor do I think he is a good choice for the country but that is the path for him to win the nomination. If he gets to a brokered convention he has no guarantees.

Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren has underperformed so far based on the years of expectation that she would run and the large organization that she had in place early. Winning no delegates since Iowa she would need a real surprise showing on Super Tuesday to remain a viable candidate. She probably needs a top two or top three showing on Super Tuesday to have a real path to the nomination. If she doesn’t then her best role for the party would be to keep Bernie from clinching either by siphoning liberal votes/delegates from him or by getting out and endorsing someone else (Amy I would hope).

2020 Candidates Ranked 27 Feb 2020 6:06 AM (5 years ago)

I’ve been meaning to share my take on the 2020 candidates for some time now. It would be a waste not to do so before Super Tuesday so I’ve put it off as long as possible already.

At this point in the cycle there are only 6 Democrats and one Republican with even a remote possibility of getting their party’s nomination – those 7 are the only candidates being ranked here. My rankings are not a reflection of who has the best chances of winning the presidency (or even their party nomination) but rather, who I think would prove most beneficial to our nation long term if they were elected.

By way of context, I have been a lifelong Republican but I have always considered that party affiliation is much less important than genuine ability or basic decency so I was dismayed in 2016 when Donald Trump got the nomination for the GOP. Long before either field had narrowed I argued that he was the worst candidate running out of either party. I have to admit that since that time he has grown on me and I have concluded that he wasn’t the worst candidate running that cycle. With that background, on to my candidate ranking.

1. Amy Klobuchar – there are several candidates running as moderate Democrats in this race – which is raising our chances of getting a decent alternative to Trump in November – but Amy is the best option among them. She has plenty of experience in working with people to get things done so while my priorities often don’t align with the priorities of Democrats I believe that what she would accomplish would be tackling those issues where there is the most consensus across the social/political spectrum right now and I think that is what our country needs. She also has the advantage of not being in her seventies. In my opinion, we have to really lack for any decent options before I would want to select a septuagenarian for a first term as president – no matter how healthy they are, that is an age when things can start to go downhill fast with little warning.
2. Pete Buttigieg – while Pete seems to be a pretty relatable guy (which would be good for us) he seems like he would be a little more ideological than Amy. Besides that, I worry about the wisdom of anyone who hasn’t made it to their mid-forties at least (just like I worry about the wisdom of many who have made it to their mid-forties or beyond). I could be okay voting for Pete but he’s not our best option.
3. Michael Bloomberg – being a New York billionaire septuagenarian isn’t a reason to select someone as president but unlike the current New York billionaire septuagenarian we have as president, Mike has a track record of getting things done besides enriching himself at the expense of anyone around him. While I wouldn’t be excited to vote for him I prefer the Republican-turned-Democrat over the Democrat-turned-Republican.
4. Joe Biden – for all his faults, including age, Joe would restore a measure of decency in the White House. That being said he doesn’t have much else to offer the country.
5. Elizabeth Warren – Elizabeth has all the same pluses and minuses as Joe but she is more stridently liberal so that somewhat offsets any upgrade in decency she could bring to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
6. Donald Trump – Donald is too old, too divisive, lacks any real core principles outside of seeking his own benefit and I honestly worry about his mental capacity now as well as the possibility of having it deteriorate in the next few years. That being said, I almost placed him ahead of Elizabeth because a guarantee of four more years of Trump might not be worse for the country than the possibility of eight years of an equally aged Warren.
7. Bernie Sanders – Bernie’s economic policies would be disastrous if he could get them implemented and he wouldn’t even manage to noticeably upgrade the level of decency in the White House. On top of that I am even more concerned about Bernie’s health than I am Donald’s. Four more years under Trump would likely be no worse for the country than four years under Sanders so the possibility of a second term for Bernie makes Donald the better choice in 2020.

Saffron and Elli…ot 24 Feb 2018 9:59 PM (7 years ago)

Not long after Savannah left this morning for the Utah Classic ballroom competition Mariah called me into their room.

“Dad come look, you’ve got to see this.”

While we purchased two female dwarf hamsters it turns out that Ellie is actually Elliot.

I’m hopeful that first-time-mother Saffron doesn’t get too worried to care for her babies. Two is an awfully small litter so I’m a bit concerned that things might not be alright but I’m hopeful that it will all work out – and then we’ll have to decide how to handle mixed genders.

After #MeToo 30 Nov 2017 6:15 AM (7 years ago)

I read an article arguing that we should have a zero-tolerance attitude toward sexual predators and felt compelled to write an argument for a more realistic approach. I realize now that part of my feeling was a visceral reaction to the zero-tolerance concept which has frequently resulted in outrageously unreasonable consequences over things less serious than sexual predators in places such as elementary schools.

Like all pushes for zero-tolerance – regardless of the subject – the basic idea was rooted in good intentions and certainly deserves thoughtful consideration (as opposed to a visceral reaction). I loved the open callout against partisanship – demanding that Democrats go no softer on Sen. Franken or Rep. Conyers than they do on Roy Moore just as Republicans should go not one ounce softer on Roy Moore than they do on Sen. Franken or Rep. Conyers. (Hint, hint, Mr. President) That part I wholeheartedly agree on.

Where I get off the zero-tolerance train is when things veer into:

It does not matter that Minnesota Sen. Al Franken was only joking…

It does not matter that Louis C.K. apologized.

It does not matter that Kevin Spacey is seeking help.

Actually, it does matter. I’m not going to argue that some or all of those circumstances (joking, apology, getting help) make things at all right – they don’t. But those circumstances as well as many others matter a great deal in how we seek to address the issue so that the perpetrator in question becomes no longer a threat for future intolerable actions.

We don’t (and we shouldn’t) treat the kid who got behind the wheel while intoxicated and killed someone with his car the same as we treat the enraged husband who murdered his wife or the serial killer who shot people in Washington DC. They all killed someone thanks to choices they made but their culpability and risk profiles are very different and need to be treated differently. Likewise, while date rape is just as unacceptable as serial sexual predation, the (ex)boyfriend who wouldn’t take no for an answer has a very different risk profile than a drunk stranger or a Harvey Weinstein and thus our responses and remedies must be tailored toward those disparate risk profiles.

If punishment is your goal then zero tolerance is your solution but if the goal is to remove the threat and remedy the problem then the solution requires the much more complex task of assessing and addressing various risk profiles.

I consider myself lucky that I discovered a rape survivor and her attacker who demonstrate this need for nuance. Together they prove powerfully that redemption can be possible under the right conditions and that not all perpetrators are equal. They readily acknowledge that their path to healing (for both of them) is not necessarily prescriptive for others and I would be foolish to argue against them. On the other hand, I believe that their story illustrates some universal principles for both victims and perpetrators of sexual aggression.

For survivors, the parts that I take as universal are the need to divest yourself of the guilt, shame, and self blame that victims often feel and to learn that you are more than a victim, that your life need not be consumed by this wound. (The self blame helps to keep the present and future captive by that past.) These lessons are also apparent in the Elizabeth Smart story which helps give me confidence that they are generally applicable.

For sexual aggressors past and present, the points that I take as universal are the need to fully accept the responsibility for your actions without trying to pass along any part of the culpability to others – especially the victim(s) – and to be willing to meet the victim on their path to healing in whatever way they determine. That means not rubbing the past in their face if they are not yet ready to process it just as much as it means owning up to it without evasion when they are ready to deal with it. It means giving them their space if they want it as well as giving up your own comfort of distance if they request a more direct setting or interaction for dealing with the wounds you have inflicted.

There is a certain symmetry here in the proper response of the aggressor. Just as the victim should divest themselves of blame the perpetrator must willingly shoulder the blame for their actions (and conditions – no hiding behind “I was drunk so I wasn’t fully culpable”). Similarly, in committing their particular act(s) of aggression the aggressor took the initiative away from their victim. Recompense demands that they subject themselves to the initiative of their former victim when it comes to the healing process of their former victim – ie. “I took away your choice in our prior, hurtful interaction(s) and now I will subject myself to your approach to healing from the wounds I inflicted.”

This is the more nuanced approach that will serve better than a feel-good no-tolerance approach to sexual aggressors. Recognize that not all the situations or perpetrators are the same and that punishment is not the same as progress. Punishment is part of the equation of progress but the focus must be on supporting and healing for victims along with mitigating the risks that do or did drive the aggressors.

We’ve come to a point where victims are more likely to feel safe saying #MeToo than they used to be. We need to make sure that this shift produces more understanding and dialog about the keys to healing. We will also need to come to the point where perpetrators  can learn to say #IDidIt and I’m committed to changing myself and helping the victims – especially mine – to heal. Aggressors being able to openly acknowledge their culpability is a prerequisite to building a dialog and wider understanding about the path to changing whatever brought them to be aggressors in the first place.

Nobody wants more health insurance 1 Aug 2017 9:16 PM (8 years ago)

Inevitably when lawmakers start talking about health care reform they end up dealing with health insurance reform. The funny thing is that if we think about it we realize that health insurance reform isn’t (or shouldn’t be) the real goal.
Go talk to people and see if you can find anyone who wants health insurance that will challenge their every medical decision and deny a significant chunk of their claims plus almost inevitably delay payment on the claims they don’t deny.
People are interested in some assurance that health care won’t bankrupt them. Insurance is the most common vehicle for that today, but that’s not because they inherently want insurance – just see those young and healthy people who would rather not get insurance because their brain assures them they don’t need it.
I’m not trying to vilify insurers here. It isn’t because they don’t care that they seek to keep payouts down. Even when we feel the pinch and see their actions as unwise, unwarranted, intrusive, or even counterproductive we needed not active sinister motives to the insurance industry.
The fact is that the insurance industry has the motivation and the potential to minimize abuse of the health care system and this they have a very important voice to be included in our efforts to improve that system. The key for policymakers and the public is to keep sight of the true goal, which isn’t to get insurance for everyone but to improve the system so that everyone has the assurance that good care is available when they need it. If we seek that end it doesn’t actually matter what role insurance ultimately plays in a functional solution.

Rescuing political conservatives 8 Nov 2016 6:34 PM (8 years ago)

November 9th needs to see a conference of political conservatives convene to decide how to raise a rational, coherent political movement out of the ashes of the GOP. This needs to happen regardless of the outcome of the election. The convention needs be attended only by political conservatives who retained their integrity throughout this disaster of a Donald Trump campaign. (Even if he were to win the campaign is a disaster and he has done catastrophic damage to the idea of rational conservatism.) This could certainly include Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse, Glenn Beck, Jim DeMint, Erick Erikson, George Will, Jenn Rubin, Amanda Carpenter, John Kasich, Mike Lee, and Evan McMullin to name a few. I’m not sure where to draw the line – should we include good people who felt that they had to endorse trump but were clearly never comfortable with him (like Paul Ryan or Scott Walker)? I don’t think it could initially include those who could have stood against Trump but caved to him anyway like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. What I do know is that it could never include anyone who tried to justify or defend Trump – like Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity, and Reince Priebus. Those in that last group would have to demonstrate a massive change of heart and true humility – acknowledging how completely backwards their support of Trump was – before they could be accepted by any group serious about good, conservative, constitutional government.

One of the first things that this convention would have to figure out would be whether the best course of action is reviving the GOP brand under new leadership – like restructuring to emerge from the obvious moral bankruptcy of the current party, or whether it would be to form a new political movement that either forms a new party or takes over the machinations of one of the smaller parties that has as yet failed to get national traction (the Constitution party for example), or if the best course is to form an intellectual movement – a think tank of sorts – to discuss issues, principles, problems (even candidates), but not have a focus on “winning” battles or campaigns.

Choosing a Third Party Candidate 12 Oct 2016 6:11 PM (9 years ago)

With news that Donald Trump has fallen into a tie with Hillary Clinton in Utah, and considering how historically unpopular both major party candidates are, it is suddenly a very real possibility that a third candidate could win our state. There have been discussions about which third party candidate(s) deserve any support at the ballot box. Let me explore the only two who have any traction here and how I make my choice. Those two candidates are Gary Johnson with the Libertarian Party and Evan McMullin who is running as an independent.

First off, neither of them has any chance of capturing 270 electoral votes (although both are on enough ballots to make getting 270 technically possible) so they both have the same path to the presidency (have no candidate reach that number). Therefore, functionally there isn’t an inherent advantage for one of the two over the other.

When choosing which candidate to give your protest vote to I would argue that you should pick the candidate who most represents what kind of person should lead or nation. On that score, I look at Gary Johnson and he has shown over the last few months that, while he isn’t completely morally bankrupt like Trump, he is like Trump in that he is clearly unprepared to be taken seriously as a president and comport himself in a presidential way.

When Evan McMullin announced his candidacy I wondered how prepared this unknown latecomer could possibly be. As I have reviewed his history and his positions I have been impressed with his solid background and his considered policy ideas.
I find it easy to choose Evan because he seems capable of handling the challenges of the office without looking like a juvenile pretender.

A Time for Contrition 11 Oct 2016 5:42 AM (9 years ago)

{Billy} Bush apologized for his language and behavior in the tape on Friday, saying he was “embarrassed and ashamed.” “It’s no excuse, but this happened eleven years ago — I was younger, less mature, and acted foolishly in playing along. I’m very sorry,” he added. (via USA Today)

“Embarrassed and ashamed” – that’s exactly what Billy Bush should be and saying so suggests the possibility that he has matured in the 11 years since this recording took place. It’s exactly what Mr. Trump should both feel and say. At (then) 59 he should have matured past that point long before the video happened but I can allow someone to be a late bloomer morally. Unfortunately for the nation, Mr. Trump seems incapable of maturing or feeling remorse. The best he can manage is to be “not proud of it.” (via Washington Post) In offering a perfunctory apology he simply dismisses it as “locker room talk.”

Of course it’s locker room talk – in all too many locker rooms* (and apparently buses) – but that doesn’t mean it should be accepted even in those venues. If an adult finds that the hormonal teenagers in their locker room are engaging in any talk like that the response should be to teach those youth to elevate themselves and become better – not to tell them it’s okay to say such things as long as they keep it within the locker room.

While he assures us (in response to the repeated inquiries by Anderson Cooper) that he has never engaged in the kinds of actions that he talked about, he failed to offer even a hint of recognition that such talk is degrading to the person speaking and to any person being spoken of, and that acceptance of such talk – even under the guise that it is limited to locker room situations – is degrading to our society as a whole.

This man who claims that he has never asked God for forgiveness has just given the nation further evidence that he was telling the truth on that score. Anyone who has ever engaged in such talk, not matter how young or hormonal they were, should be embarrassed, ashamed, and contrite whenever the subject is brought up and should, in unequivocal terms denounce their past behavior. Doing any less than that is to become guilty again – no matter if more than a decade has passed. To knowingly elevate such a man to the nations highest office is hardly better than trying to repeal the Nineteenth Amendment and openly relegate women to a second class status.

* In fairness to all those who regularly frequent locker rooms – especially professional and collegiate athletes – “too many locker rooms” should not be taken to mean “most locker rooms” and there have been many athletes stepping forward to point out that none of the locker rooms in their experience have included such vile talk.