http://community.fox13now.com/service/getFeed.kickAction?quantity=25 New blogs from Joseph on Fox 13 Now Community Sat, 25 Jul 2009 07:40:32 GMT Sat, 25 Jul 2009 07:40:32 GMT webmaster@fox13now.com (KSTU) webmaster@fox13now.com (KSTU) KickApps Feed Builder 2009-07-25T07:40:32Z 32 http://community.fox13now.com/service/searchEverything.kickAction?as=96363&sortType=recent 0 http://community.fox13now.com/_Letter-to-the-Editor-JasonWatchorg/BLOG/477112/96363.html Dear Editor, I’ve been closely following Jason Chaffetz’ as Congressman for District 3. I admired his choice to sleep in his office when in D.C. I liked that he kept in touch with his constituents through YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. I’m impressed with his commitment to fiscal discipline. At first he seemed like a good guy to have in office. Then I got a fear mongering e-mail from him about a “Cap-and-Trade Tax.” I did some research and found out it was full of lies, distortions and insinuations. I watched his videos. Some are informative but others are just as much political hot air as we ever got from Chris Cannon. I started to fact-check the things that he sends out to his constituents and I was very uncomfortable with the amount of disinformation he was spreading, much of it he gets directly from his party leadership. He also isn’t very forthcoming when it comes to providing sources for some of the things he says. I’ve managed to find these sources on my own only to discover that information has been taken out of context or lifted from outdated or even discredited documents. Of course much of his “research” is done for him by the Republican party, which is just as disappointing because instead of getting information for himself, he just passes the buck. Most people don’t go to these lengths to make sure that their Congressmen is being straight with them and that’s too bad. There are many people in District 3 who take Chaffetz at his word and have no idea that sometimes he’s misleading him. Not being one to sit idly by when someone tries to pull a fast one on me, I took it upon myself to start a web site to keep track of Chaffetz’ actions and statements as Congressman: www.JasonWatch.org. Out of fairness, I offer him both praise for the good things that he does do and criticism for when he falls short. So far, the good outnumbers the bad and I hope it stays that way. I’ve also included a message board on the site that’s open to the public so they can share their praise and criticism of their Congressman as well. I follow Mr. Chaffetz’ twitter feed, subscribe to his videos and, until recently, he and I were “friends” on Facebook. When I first watched his videos on YouTube, I left comments on them. Usually to point out a fact he might not have considered or to give him some friendly critique. His response was to disable the comments feature on his channel. This disappointed me. A Congressman needs to be open to criticism and the views of those he is elected to represent. I thought he made up for this on his Facebook page where people are free to post topics and discuss them. Chaffetz decided to remove me from that forum because of the “frequency” of my comments. Frankly, I just don’t think he liked what I had to say. -Joe Puente Sanpete, Utah Dear Editor, I’ve been closely following Jason Chaffetz’ as Congressman for District 3. I admired his choice to sleep in his office when in D.C. I liked that he kept in touch with his constituents through YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. I’m impressed with his commitment to fiscal discipline. At first he seemed like a good guy to have in office. Then I got a fear mongering e-mail from him about a “Cap-and-Trade Tax.” I did some research and found out it was full of lies, distortions and insinuations. I watched his videos. Some are informative but others are just as much political hot air as we ever got from Chris Cannon. I started to fact-check the things that he sends out to his constituents and I was very uncomfortable with the amount of disinformation he was spreading, much of it he gets directly from his party leadership. He also isn’t very forthcoming when it comes to providing sources for some of the things he says. I’ve managed to find these sources on my own only to discover that information has been taken out of context or lifted from outdated or even discredited documents. Of course much of his “research” is done for him by the Republican party, which is just as disappointing because instead of getting information for himself, he just passes the buck. Most people don’t go to these lengths to make sure that their Congressmen is being straight with them and that’s too bad. There are many people in District 3 who take Chaffetz at his word and have no idea that sometimes he’s misleading him. Not being one to sit idly by when someone tries to pull a fast one on me, I took it upon myself to start a web site to keep track of Chaffetz’ actions and statements as Congressman: www.JasonWatch.org. Out of fairness, I offer him both praise for the good things that he does do and criticism for when he falls short. So far, the good outnumbers the bad and I hope it stays that way. I’ve also included a message board on the site that’s open to the public so they can share their praise and criticism of their Congressman as well. I follow Mr. Chaffetz’ twitter feed, subscribe to his videos and, until recently, he and I were “friends” on Facebook. When I first watched his videos on YouTube, I left comments on them. Usually to point out a fact he might not have considered or to give him some friendly critique. His response was to disable the comments feature on his channel. This disappointed me. A Congressman needs to be open to criticism and the views of those he is elected to represent. I thought he made up for this on his Facebook page where people are free to post topics and discuss them. Chaffetz decided to remove me from that forum because of the “frequency” of my comments. Frankly, I just don’t think he liked what I had to say. -Joe Puente Sanpete, Utah Sat, 25 Jul 2009 07:40:32 GMT http://community.fox13now.com/_Letter-to-the-Editor-JasonWatchorg/BLOG/477112/96363.html Joseph 2009-07-25T07:40:32Z Fox 13 Now Community Dear Editor, I’ve been closely following Jason Chaffetz’ as Congressman for District 3. I admired his choice to sleep in his office when in D.C. I liked that he kept in touch with his constituents through YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. I’m impressed with his commitment to fiscal discipline. At first he seemed like a good guy to have in office. Then I got a fear mongering e-mail from him about a “Cap-and-Trade Tax.” I did some research and found out it was full of lies, distortions and insinuations. I watched his videos. Some are informative but others are just as much political hot air as we ever got from Chris Cannon. I started to fact-check the things that he sends out to his constituents and I was very uncomfortable with the amount of disinformation he was spreading, much of it he gets directly from his party leadership. He also isn’t very forthcoming when it comes to providing sources for some of the things he says. I’ve managed to find these sources on my own only to discover that information has been taken out of context or lifted from outdated or even discredited documents. Of course much of his “research” is done for him by the Republican party, which is just as disappointing because instead of getting information for himself, he just passes the buck. Most people don’t go to these lengths to make sure that their Congressmen is being straight with them and that’s too bad. There are many people in District 3 who take Chaffetz at his word and have no idea that sometimes he’s misleading him. Not being one to sit idly by when someone tries to pull a fast one on me, I took it upon myself to start a web site to keep track of Chaffetz’ actions and statements as Congressman: www.JasonWatch.org. Out of fairness, I offer him both praise for the good things that he does do and criticism for when he falls short. So far, the good outnumbers the bad and I hope it stays that way. I’ve also included a message board on the site that’s open to the public so they can share their praise and criticism of their Congressman as well. I follow Mr. Chaffetz’ twitter feed, subscribe to his videos and, until recently, he and I were “friends” on Facebook. When I first watched his videos on YouTube, I left comments on them. Usually to point out a fact he might not have considered or to give him some friendly critique. His response was to disable the comments feature on his channel. This disappointed me. A Congressman needs to be open to criticism and the views of those he is elected to represent. I thought he made up for this on his Facebook page where people are free to post topics and discuss them. Chaffetz decided to remove me from that forum because of the “frequency” of my comments. Frankly, I just don’t think he liked what I had to say. -Joe Puente Sanpete, Utah chaffetz, facebook, gop, jason, republicans, sycophant nonadult false Letter to the Editor - JasonWatch.org text blog chaffetz,facebook,gop,jason,republicans,sycophant 236 0 0.0 http://community.fox13now.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=7566648&as=96363 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/96363/photos/PHOTO_3755476_96363_7566648_ap_160X120.jpg false 0 0 477112 7566648 Member 0 http://community.fox13now.com/_The-Angl-On-Facebook-and-Jason-Chaffetz/BLOG/476991/96363.html Sat, 25 Jul 2009 03:21:35 GMT http://community.fox13now.com/_The-Angl-On-Facebook-and-Jason-Chaffetz/BLOG/476991/96363.html Joseph 2009-07-25T03:21:35Z Fox 13 Now Community chaffetz, facebook, gop, jason, republicans, sycophant nonadult false The Anglə "On Facebook" (and Jason Chaffetz) text blog chaffetz,facebook,gop,jason,republicans,sycophant 228 0 0.0 http://community.fox13now.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=7566648&as=96363 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/96363/photos/PHOTO_3755476_96363_7566648_ap_160X120.jpg false 0 0 476991 7566648 Member 0 http://community.fox13now.com/_Headzup-Triple-Play-Sarah-Palin/BLOG/402109/96363.html Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:04:32 GMT http://community.fox13now.com/_Headzup-Triple-Play-Sarah-Palin/BLOG/402109/96363.html Joseph 2009-06-22T17:04:32Z Fox 13 Now Community nonadult false Headzup Triple Play: Sarah Palin text blog 437 0 0.0 http://community.fox13now.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=7566648&as=96363 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/96363/photos/PHOTO_3755476_96363_7566648_ap_160X120.jpg false 8 0 402109 7566648 Member 0 http://community.fox13now.com/_JasonWatchorg-Video/BLOG/400531/96363.html Visit http://www.jasonwatch.orgYour online destination for kudos and critique of Congressman Jason ChaffetzThere was a time when politicians could be taken at their word. At least we used to think they could. As a matter of fact, we really had no choice. This meant that our Congressmen, Senators and Presidents could tell us anything they wanted, even outright lies, and pretty much get away with it.Thankfully, those days are long gone. With the advent of the internet, the 24-hour news cycle and myriad online resources with which we can fact-check the rhetoric that spews forth from the mouths of our elected officials, it's become much easier to catch them in a lie, fib or distortion of the truth.  Visit http://www.jasonwatch.orgYour online destination for kudos and critique of Congressman Jason ChaffetzThere was a time when politicians could be taken at their word. At least we used to think they could. As a matter of fact, we really had no choice. This meant that our Congressmen, Senators and Presidents could tell us anything they wanted, even outright lies, and pretty much get away with it.Thankfully, those days are long gone. With the advent of the internet, the 24-hour news cycle and myriad online resources with which we can fact-check the rhetoric that spews forth from the mouths of our elected officials, it's become much easier to catch them in a lie, fib or distortion of the truth.  Sun, 21 Jun 2009 03:53:49 GMT http://community.fox13now.com/_JasonWatchorg-Video/BLOG/400531/96363.html Joseph 2009-06-21T03:53:49Z Fox 13 Now Community Visit http://www.jasonwatch.orgYour online destination for kudos and critique of Congressman Jason ChaffetzThere was a time when politicians could be taken at their word. At least we used to think they could. As a matter of fact, we really had no choice. This meant that our Congressmen, Senators and Presidents could tell us anything they wanted, even outright lies, and pretty much get away with it.Thankfully, those days are long gone. With the advent of the internet, the 24-hour news cycle and myriad online resources with which we can fact-check the rhetoric that spews forth from the mouths of our elected officials, it's become much easier to catch them in a lie, fib or distortion of the truth.  3rd, chaffetz, conference, congress, district, jason, republican, utah nonadult false JasonWatch.org Video text blog 3rd,chaffetz,conference,congress,district,jason,republican,utah 292 0 0.0 http://community.fox13now.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=7566648&as=96363 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/96363/photos/PHOTO_3755476_96363_7566648_ap_160X120.jpg false 0 0 400531 7566648 Member 0 http://community.fox13now.com/_JasonWatchorg/BLOG/341216/96363.html Well, I did it. I've launched JasonWatch.org. Check it out at http://www.jasonwatch.org/. Your online destination for kudos and critique of Congressman Jason Chaffetz Because somebody has to do it! Well, I did it. I've launched JasonWatch.org. Check it out at http://www.jasonwatch.org/. Your online destination for kudos and critique of Congressman Jason Chaffetz Because somebody has to do it! Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:57:50 GMT http://community.fox13now.com/_JasonWatchorg/BLOG/341216/96363.html Joseph 2009-06-09T18:57:50Z Fox 13 Now Community Well, I did it. I've launched JasonWatch.org. Check it out at http://www.jasonwatch.org/. Your online destination for kudos and critique of Congressman Jason Chaffetz Because somebody has to do it! nonadult false JasonWatch.org text blog 506 0 0.0 http://community.fox13now.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=7566648&as=96363 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/96363/photos/PHOTO_3755476_96363_7566648_ap_160X120.jpg false 8 0 341216 7566648 Member 0 http://community.fox13now.com/_Chaffetz-Continues-to-Mislead-his-Constituents/BLOG/337765/96363.html   Cross-posted on "Puente's Perspective."   Well, Jason’s at it again. He has sent out a letter in which he criticizes the stimulus package for being both too big and ineffective. He also claims that “The President projected that his stimulus package would prevent the unemployment rate from exceeding 8%.” (emphasis added)   Oh, did he? Actually, no, he didn’t. At least I haven’t been able to find a direct quote from the President or anyone on his staff to that effect. Just third party hearsay from the blogosphere (by the way, blogs are not usually credible sources of information as they are largely used to express opinion that may or may not be based on actual facts). If any readers can find me a direct quote from a credible and verifiable source, I’d really appreciate it. Now, what did the President say?   Well, before the President even took the oath of office his transition team acknowledged that unemployment was expected to exceed 8% in 2009. Chaffetz also refers to the President’s banchmarks, offering only a link to a bitmap image on his own web site--really, Jason? A bitmap? What do you think this is, the ‘80s?--instead of the charts that are readily available from the Office of Management and Budget which rather optimistically predicted a 2009 unemployment rate of 8.1%. It should also be noted that these estimates were made back in January prior to the economic outlook getting more and more pessimistic in subsequent months, which the President's economic staff has acknowledged all along. Now one tenth of a percent may not seem like that big of a deal but in an age where accurate information is only a few mouse-clicks away, no one, especially a U.S. Congressman, can afford to distort information by even the smallest of margins.   Chaffetz goes on to say of his bitmap, "the following graph shows that the President was claiming that the impact of the stimulus package would be immediate."    First of all, I'm pretty sure that the President never claimed, in words or graphics, that the impact of the stimulus bill would be immediate. Second, where did Jason get this graph (which he also refers to as "the report") anyway? There is nothing in the image to indicate its source and the document itself is only named "stimulus graph.bmp" which tells us even less. Now, I'm sure that Jason is counting on his constituents to just take him at his word and not question his statements, numbers or motives but what he didn't count on was the fact that I live in his district, subscribe to his e-mail list and don't trust anyone. So, as usual, I did a little homework.   It turns out that the graph is from a report titled "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" (emphasis added) released on January 10 and prepared in part by Christina Romer, Chair Nominee Designate, at the time, of the then President-elect's Council of Economic Advisors. Not only does this report, and the graphic contained in it, predate the Obama administration by at least 10 days, it was written over a month before anyone even knew what the final details of the stimulus package would be. And the statistics used in it were most likely based on economic forecasts from the last quarter of 2008, when we were only just realizing that we were even in a recession. During the following month the language and fiscal details of the stimulus bill went through so many changes and adjustments that the data and the graph presented in that January 10 report were rendered completely inapplicable to the final legislation.   It's like blaming an author because the movie based on his best-selling novel has a different ending from the book. Most novelists are left out of the production loop once their work has been optioned by a movie studio. The same thing happens when the President proposes legislation to Congress. He has little if any control over how the final legislation is going to turn out even if the Legislative Branch is dominated by the same party.   As for Chaffetz' insistence that the stimulus package is both too big and ineffective, there are some reputable economists, including former Labor Secretary Robert Reich,  who think that the stimulus package is too small to be effective. As I have said in a previous post on "The Anglə,"(4:39) this is because the authors of the stimulus legislation kept making compromises at the request of Republican members of Congress in the interest of bipartisanship and GOP support of the stimulus when it came time for the final vote. After all that compromise, most Republicans, including Chaffetz, voted against it anyway.   Ya know, one of these days all of his lying and political bullshit is going to come back and bite Chaffetz right in his Republican ass and I plan on being there when it happens.       Cross-posted on "Puente's Perspective."   Well, Jason’s at it again. He has sent out a letter in which he criticizes the stimulus package for being both too big and ineffective. He also claims that “The President projected that his stimulus package would prevent the unemployment rate from exceeding 8%.” (emphasis added)   Oh, did he? Actually, no, he didn’t. At least I haven’t been able to find a direct quote from the President or anyone on his staff to that effect. Just third party hearsay from the blogosphere (by the way, blogs are not usually credible sources of information as they are largely used to express opinion that may or may not be based on actual facts). If any readers can find me a direct quote from a credible and verifiable source, I’d really appreciate it. Now, what did the President say?   Well, before the President even took the oath of office his transition team acknowledged that unemployment was expected to exceed 8% in 2009. Chaffetz also refers to the President’s banchmarks, offering only a link to a bitmap image on his own web site--really, Jason? A bitmap? What do you think this is, the ‘80s?--instead of the charts that are readily available from the Office of Management and Budget which rather optimistically predicted a 2009 unemployment rate of 8.1%. It should also be noted that these estimates were made back in January prior to the economic outlook getting more and more pessimistic in subsequent months, which the President's economic staff has acknowledged all along. Now one tenth of a percent may not seem like that big of a deal but in an age where accurate information is only a few mouse-clicks away, no one, especially a U.S. Congressman, can afford to distort information by even the smallest of margins.   Chaffetz goes on to say of his bitmap, "the following graph shows that the President was claiming that the impact of the stimulus package would be immediate."    First of all, I'm pretty sure that the President never claimed, in words or graphics, that the impact of the stimulus bill would be immediate. Second, where did Jason get this graph (which he also refers to as "the report") anyway? There is nothing in the image to indicate its source and the document itself is only named "stimulus graph.bmp" which tells us even less. Now, I'm sure that Jason is counting on his constituents to just take him at his word and not question his statements, numbers or motives but what he didn't count on was the fact that I live in his district, subscribe to his e-mail list and don't trust anyone. So, as usual, I did a little homework.   It turns out that the graph is from a report titled "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" (emphasis added) released on January 10 and prepared in part by Christina Romer, Chair Nominee Designate, at the time, of the then President-elect's Council of Economic Advisors. Not only does this report, and the graphic contained in it, predate the Obama administration by at least 10 days, it was written over a month before anyone even knew what the final details of the stimulus package would be. And the statistics used in it were most likely based on economic forecasts from the last quarter of 2008, when we were only just realizing that we were even in a recession. During the following month the language and fiscal details of the stimulus bill went through so many changes and adjustments that the data and the graph presented in that January 10 report were rendered completely inapplicable to the final legislation.   It's like blaming an author because the movie based on his best-selling novel has a different ending from the book. Most novelists are left out of the production loop once their work has been optioned by a movie studio. The same thing happens when the President proposes legislation to Congress. He has little if any control over how the final legislation is going to turn out even if the Legislative Branch is dominated by the same party.   As for Chaffetz' insistence that the stimulus package is both too big and ineffective, there are some reputable economists, including former Labor Secretary Robert Reich,  who think that the stimulus package is too small to be effective. As I have said in a previous post on "The Anglə,"(4:39) this is because the authors of the stimulus legislation kept making compromises at the request of Republican members of Congress in the interest of bipartisanship and GOP support of the stimulus when it came time for the final vote. After all that compromise, most Republicans, including Chaffetz, voted against it anyway.   Ya know, one of these days all of his lying and political bullshit is going to come back and bite Chaffetz right in his Republican ass and I plan on being there when it happens.     Sat, 06 Jun 2009 20:19:59 GMT http://community.fox13now.com/_Chaffetz-Continues-to-Mislead-his-Constituents/BLOG/337765/96363.html Joseph 2009-06-06T20:19:59Z Fox 13 Now Community   Cross-posted on "Puente's Perspective."   Well, Jason’s at it again. He has sent out a letter in which he criticizes the stimulus package for being both too big and ineffective. He also claims that “The President projected that his stimulus package would prevent the unemployment rate from exceeding 8%.” (emphasis added)   Oh, did he? Actually, no, he didn’t. At least I haven’t been able to find a direct quote from the President or anyone on his staff to that effect. Just third party hearsay from the blogosphere (by the way, blogs are not usually credible sources of information as they are largely used to express opinion that may or may not be based on actual facts). If any readers can find me a direct quote from a credible and verifiable source, I’d really appreciate it. Now, what did the President say?   Well, before the President even took the oath of office his transition team acknowledged that unemployment was expected to exceed 8% in 2009. Chaffetz also refers to the President’s banchmarks, offering only a link to a bitmap image on his own web site--really, Jason? A bitmap? What do you think this is, the ‘80s?--instead of the charts that are readily available from the Office of Management and Budget which rather optimistically predicted a 2009 unemployment rate of 8.1%. It should also be noted that these estimates were made back in January prior to the economic outlook getting more and more pessimistic in subsequent months, which the President's economic staff has acknowledged all along. Now one tenth of a percent may not seem like that big of a deal but in an age where accurate information is only a few mouse-clicks away, no one, especially a U.S. Congressman, can afford to distort information by even the smallest of margins.   Chaffetz goes on to say of his bitmap, "the following graph shows that the President was claiming that the impact of the stimulus package would be immediate."    First of all, I'm pretty sure that the President never claimed, in words or graphics, that the impact of the stimulus bill would be immediate. Second, where did Jason get this graph (which he also refers to as "the report") anyway? There is nothing in the image to indicate its source and the document itself is only named "stimulus graph.bmp" which tells us even less. Now, I'm sure that Jason is counting on his constituents to just take him at his word and not question his statements, numbers or motives but what he didn't count on was the fact that I live in his district, subscribe to his e-mail list and don't trust anyone. So, as usual, I did a little homework.   It turns out that the graph is from a report titled "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" (emphasis added) released on January 10 and prepared in part by Christina Romer, Chair Nominee Designate, at the time, of the then President-elect's Council of Economic Advisors. Not only does this report, and the graphic contained in it, predate the Obama administration by at least 10 days, it was written over a month before anyone even knew what the final details of the stimulus package would be. And the statistics used in it were most likely based on economic forecasts from the last quarter of 2008, when we were only just realizing that we were even in a recession. During the following month the language and fiscal details of the stimulus bill went through so many changes and adjustments that the data and the graph presented in that January 10 report were rendered completely inapplicable to the final legislation.   It's like blaming an author because the movie based on his best-selling novel has a different ending from the book. Most novelists are left out of the production loop once their work has been optioned by a movie studio. The same thing happens when the President proposes legislation to Congress. He has little if any control over how the final legislation is going to turn out even if the Legislative Branch is dominated by the same party.   As for Chaffetz' insistence that the stimulus package is both too big and ineffective, there are some reputable economists, including former Labor Secretary Robert Reich,  who think that the stimulus package is too small to be effective. As I have said in a previous post on "The Anglə,"(4:39) this is because the authors of the stimulus legislation kept making compromises at the request of Republican members of Congress in the interest of bipartisanship and GOP support of the stimulus when it came time for the final vote. After all that compromise, most Republicans, including Chaffetz, voted against it anyway.   Ya know, one of these days all of his lying and political bullshit is going to come back and bite Chaffetz right in his Republican ass and I plan on being there when it happens.     chaffetz, graph, jason, mislead, obama, stimulus, unemployment nonadult false Chaffetz Continues to Mislead his Constituents text blog chaffetz,graph,jason,mislead,obama,stimulus,unemployment 336 0 0.0 http://community.fox13now.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=7566648&as=96363 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/96363/photos/PHOTO_3755476_96363_7566648_ap_160X120.jpg false 3 0 337765 7566648 Member 0 http://community.fox13now.com/_More-Rhetoric-and-an-Admission/BLOG/336377/96363.html   Jason Chaffetz posted another "Cot-Side-Lecture" on his YouTube Channel on June 4 in which he attempts to explain why he's against Cap and Trade. Here's the breakdown: 1) He thinks Cap and Trade is the "wrong direction" for America. Does he suggest what the right direction might be? No. 2) He's still claiming that Cap and Trade is a tax--and using the same discreditednumbers--which I have clearly shown is NOT the case. This is Republican rhetoric to it's core. Of course, Jason is claiming that any statements to the contrary are rhetoric. I wonder if he knows what the word rhetoric actually means? We already know that he can't properly define the word "Tax." 3) He says that "there are alternatives and better ways to move this forward" and that he wants to leave the environment better than how he found it. Does he offer an alternative to Cap and Trade? I've asked him before and he still has yet to cough up an alternative solution. 4) He talks about the need to put pressure on developing countries like China, India and Indonesia to raise their environmental standards. Here's the one good idea that he's offered among the rest of the BS in his little "chat." 5) He talks about being proactive and adding incentives so we can move toward green technologies but "those technologies have not yet been fully developed." What the hell does he think Cap and Trade is? It's a market based solution offering monetary incentives to advance the development of cleaner energy! 6) He says he doesn't want to hamper our ability to be productive and penalize Americans (GOP Rhetoric: penalize=tax). How would cap and trade hamper productivity? He doesn't say. 7) Jason refers his viewers to HR 2300, the American Energy Innovation Act, put forth by the GOP as an energy bill that "does not tax Americans" (neither does Cap and Trade). HR 2300 does not put a cap on carbon emissions but claims to reward clean energy solutions. I gotta give props to the GOP for actually proposing an alternative instead of just bitching about Democratic proposals. But I'll leave it to more learned individuals than myself to determine just how effective HR2300 could be. Any volunteers among the readers? Like most congressional legislation it's a difficult read. 8) Jason refers to his bill HR2353 requiring energy companies to itemize cap and trade costs (which he calls a "tax increase," of course) in customer bills (again claiming the increase will be in the hundreds of dollars). I've said before that I support this measure in the interest of transparency. Whether this would make anyone's power bill easier to understand than the their phone bill with all of their fine print, we have yet to see. 9) Jason says this is not the right time to do cap and trade. When would be the right time? He doesn't say. 10) Jason admits that he does not believe in "global warming" and that he thinks it's "a farce." It's easy to understand why someone doesn't believe in the tooth fairy. The idea of a winged pixie flying from house to house buying teeth from children just doesn't hold up to common sense. But I'm puzzled by anyone who says that they don't "believe" in global warming or climate change. These are scientific concepts, not fairy tales. To say "I don't believe in global warming" isn't so much a declaration of one's cherished beliefs as it is political posturing. And I have serious concerns with anyone who would politicize a scientific matter for the sake of their own ideology. The fact of the matter is that the majority of the scientific community acknowledges climate change as real and that it can be affected by man for good or for ill. Those scientists who claim that they don't "believe" in climate change  are largely on the fringe of the scientific community and are not usually taken seriously... except by other people who don't "believe" in climate change and can't get a credible scientist to back them up. I'd like to recommend that Jason and anyone else reading this take ten minutes to watch this very interesting video produced by a public school science teacher about climate change, beliefs and the fact that we are all in the same test tube while this climate change experiment is being conducted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg 11) Jason speaks of climate change as simply a natural phenomenon--which also happens to be the default position of the Republican party. Go figure--and that we just have to learn how "to deal with it." He then pays lip service to the need for conservation "and those other things." Could he be more indifferent to these legitimate concerns about the environment? I want to give the man credit for the few things he says that make sense but he's so adamant about banging the GOP drum and jumping whenever John Boehner tells him to that I just can't take him seriously.     Jason Chaffetz posted another "Cot-Side-Lecture" on his YouTube Channel on June 4 in which he attempts to explain why he's against Cap and Trade. Here's the breakdown: 1) He thinks Cap and Trade is the "wrong direction" for America. Does he suggest what the right direction might be? No. 2) He's still claiming that Cap and Trade is a tax--and using the same discreditednumbers--which I have clearly shown is NOT the case. This is Republican rhetoric to it's core. Of course, Jason is claiming that any statements to the contrary are rhetoric. I wonder if he knows what the word rhetoric actually means? We already know that he can't properly define the word "Tax." 3) He says that "there are alternatives and better ways to move this forward" and that he wants to leave the environment better than how he found it. Does he offer an alternative to Cap and Trade? I've asked him before and he still has yet to cough up an alternative solution. 4) He talks about the need to put pressure on developing countries like China, India and Indonesia to raise their environmental standards. Here's the one good idea that he's offered among the rest of the BS in his little "chat." 5) He talks about being proactive and adding incentives so we can move toward green technologies but "those technologies have not yet been fully developed." What the hell does he think Cap and Trade is? It's a market based solution offering monetary incentives to advance the development of cleaner energy! 6) He says he doesn't want to hamper our ability to be productive and penalize Americans (GOP Rhetoric: penalize=tax). How would cap and trade hamper productivity? He doesn't say. 7) Jason refers his viewers to HR 2300, the American Energy Innovation Act, put forth by the GOP as an energy bill that "does not tax Americans" (neither does Cap and Trade). HR 2300 does not put a cap on carbon emissions but claims to reward clean energy solutions. I gotta give props to the GOP for actually proposing an alternative instead of just bitching about Democratic proposals. But I'll leave it to more learned individuals than myself to determine just how effective HR2300 could be. Any volunteers among the readers? Like most congressional legislation it's a difficult read. 8) Jason refers to his bill HR2353 requiring energy companies to itemize cap and trade costs (which he calls a "tax increase," of course) in customer bills (again claiming the increase will be in the hundreds of dollars). I've said before that I support this measure in the interest of transparency. Whether this would make anyone's power bill easier to understand than the their phone bill with all of their fine print, we have yet to see. 9) Jason says this is not the right time to do cap and trade. When would be the right time? He doesn't say. 10) Jason admits that he does not believe in "global warming" and that he thinks it's "a farce." It's easy to understand why someone doesn't believe in the tooth fairy. The idea of a winged pixie flying from house to house buying teeth from children just doesn't hold up to common sense. But I'm puzzled by anyone who says that they don't "believe" in global warming or climate change. These are scientific concepts, not fairy tales. To say "I don't believe in global warming" isn't so much a declaration of one's cherished beliefs as it is political posturing. And I have serious concerns with anyone who would politicize a scientific matter for the sake of their own ideology. The fact of the matter is that the majority of the scientific community acknowledges climate change as real and that it can be affected by man for good or for ill. Those scientists who claim that they don't "believe" in climate change  are largely on the fringe of the scientific community and are not usually taken seriously... except by other people who don't "believe" in climate change and can't get a credible scientist to back them up. I'd like to recommend that Jason and anyone else reading this take ten minutes to watch this very interesting video produced by a public school science teacher about climate change, beliefs and the fact that we are all in the same test tube while this climate change experiment is being conducted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg 11) Jason speaks of climate change as simply a natural phenomenon--which also happens to be the default position of the Republican party. Go figure--and that we just have to learn how "to deal with it." He then pays lip service to the need for conservation "and those other things." Could he be more indifferent to these legitimate concerns about the environment? I want to give the man credit for the few things he says that make sense but he's so adamant about banging the GOP drum and jumping whenever John Boehner tells him to that I just can't take him seriously.   Fri, 05 Jun 2009 17:04:55 GMT http://community.fox13now.com/_More-Rhetoric-and-an-Admission/BLOG/336377/96363.html Joseph 2009-06-05T17:04:55Z Fox 13 Now Community   Jason Chaffetz posted another "Cot-Side-Lecture" on his YouTube Channel on June 4 in which he attempts to explain why he's against Cap and Trade. Here's the breakdown: 1) He thinks Cap and Trade is the "wrong direction" for America. Does he suggest what the right direction might be? No. 2) He's still claiming that Cap and Trade is a tax--and using the same discreditednumbers--which I have clearly shown is NOT the case. This is Republican rhetoric to it's core. Of course, Jason is claiming that any statements to the contrary are rhetoric. I wonder if he knows what the word rhetoric actually means? We already know that he can't properly define the word "Tax." 3) He says that "there are alternatives and better ways to move this forward" and that he wants to leave the environment better than how he found it. Does he offer an alternative to Cap and Trade? I've asked him before and he still has yet to cough up an alternative solution. 4) He talks about the need to put pressure on developing countries like China, India and Indonesia to raise their environmental standards. Here's the one good idea that he's offered among the rest of the BS in his little "chat." 5) He talks about being proactive and adding incentives so we can move toward green technologies but "those technologies have not yet been fully developed." What the hell does he think Cap and Trade is? It's a market based solution offering monetary incentives to advance the development of cleaner energy! 6) He says he doesn't want to hamper our ability to be productive and penalize Americans (GOP Rhetoric: penalize=tax). How would cap and trade hamper productivity? He doesn't say. 7) Jason refers his viewers to HR 2300, the American Energy Innovation Act, put forth by the GOP as an energy bill that "does not tax Americans" (neither does Cap and Trade). HR 2300 does not put a cap on carbon emissions but claims to reward clean energy solutions. I gotta give props to the GOP for actually proposing an alternative instead of just bitching about Democratic proposals. But I'll leave it to more learned individuals than myself to determine just how effective HR2300 could be. Any volunteers among the readers? Like most congressional legislation it's a difficult read. 8) Jason refers to his bill HR2353 requiring energy companies to itemize cap and trade costs (which he calls a "tax increase," of course) in customer bills (again claiming the increase will be in the hundreds of dollars). I've said before that I support this measure in the interest of transparency. Whether this would make anyone's power bill easier to understand than the their phone bill with all of their fine print, we have yet to see. 9) Jason says this is not the right time to do cap and trade. When would be the right time? He doesn't say. 10) Jason admits that he does not believe in "global warming" and that he thinks it's "a farce." It's easy to understand why someone doesn't believe in the tooth fairy. The idea of a winged pixie flying from house to house buying teeth from children just doesn't hold up to common sense. But I'm puzzled by anyone who says that they don't "believe" in global warming or climate change. These are scientific concepts, not fairy tales. To say "I don't believe in global warming" isn't so much a declaration of one's cherished beliefs as it is political posturing. And I have serious concerns with anyone who would politicize a scientific matter for the sake of their own ideology. The fact of the matter is that the majority of the scientific community acknowledges climate change as real and that it can be affected by man for good or for ill. Those scientists who claim that they don't "believe" in climate change  are largely on the fringe of the scientific community and are not usually taken seriously... except by other people who don't "believe" in climate change and can't get a credible scientist to back them up. I'd like to recommend that Jason and anyone else reading this take ten minutes to watch this very interesting video produced by a public school science teacher about climate change, beliefs and the fact that we are all in the same test tube while this climate change experiment is being conducted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg 11) Jason speaks of climate change as simply a natural phenomenon--which also happens to be the default position of the Republican party. Go figure--and that we just have to learn how "to deal with it." He then pays lip service to the need for conservation "and those other things." Could he be more indifferent to these legitimate concerns about the environment? I want to give the man credit for the few things he says that make sense but he's so adamant about banging the GOP drum and jumping whenever John Boehner tells him to that I just can't take him seriously.   and, bill, boehner, cap, chaffetz, change, climate, clobal, congress, jason, trade, warming nonadult false More Rhetoric and an Admission text blog and,bill,boehner,cap,chaffetz,change,climate,clobal,congress,jason,trade,warming 438 0 0.0 http://community.fox13now.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=7566648&as=96363 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/96363/photos/PHOTO_3755476_96363_7566648_ap_160X120.jpg false 11 0 336377 7566648 Member 0 http://community.fox13now.com/_Kudos-and-Critique-for-the-Gentleman-from-District-3/BLOG/335590/96363.html I'd like to start this post by congratulating Congressman Jason Chaffetz on the passage of his legislation to limit the use of Whole Body Imaging technology by the TSA. I've been in full support of Jason's efforts on his matter from the get-go. I'm also grateful because I managed to turn the topic into a humorous episode of "The Anglə" that garnered over 37,000 views on CNN's iReport.com. That being said, I want to discuss a few links that Mr. Chaffetz shared with his Twitter followers. The first was an interesting article about Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's remarks to the House Budget Committee. Basically he said that the government needs to start working toward balancing the budget but he offered no solutions. Chaffetz' next tweet consisted of "http://gopleader.gov/ This website offers some good information." I beg to differ. John Boehner, the House Minority Leader has been churning out misleading rhetoric probably more than any other member of the GOP currently in office. Unfortunately, Chaffetz has been quick regurgitate that same political BS to his constituents. It looks like now he's realized that it's just easier to send his followers right to the source of his disinformation. Chaffetz' followed that with "http://bit.ly/FQiN4 We cannot sustain this." The link takes you to an article about the rapid increase in benefit spending including extensions of unemployment benefits, food stamps and Social Security with a sudden increase in early retirement claims, all largely due to the recession. My concern about this last tweet is about how Jason is always quick to recognize the problem but slow to offer a solution...oh, wait a minute, he hasn't offered any solutions. And my motto is that if you're going to point out a problem you should be prepared to offer a solution. As for balancing the budget, since no one in Congress has the balls to cut spending, the only practical solution is to increase revenue. That usually means raising taxes but I doubt Chaffetz would even consider something like that, just like his fellow Republicans. And people wonder why the GOP is relatively impotent when it comes to solving problems. I'd like to start this post by congratulating Congressman Jason Chaffetz on the passage of his legislation to limit the use of Whole Body Imaging technology by the TSA. I've been in full support of Jason's efforts on his matter from the get-go. I'm also grateful because I managed to turn the topic into a humorous episode of "The Anglə" that garnered over 37,000 views on CNN's iReport.com. That being said, I want to discuss a few links that Mr. Chaffetz shared with his Twitter followers. The first was an interesting article about Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's remarks to the House Budget Committee. Basically he said that the government needs to start working toward balancing the budget but he offered no solutions. Chaffetz' next tweet consisted of "http://gopleader.gov/ This website offers some good information." I beg to differ. John Boehner, the House Minority Leader has been churning out misleading rhetoric probably more than any other member of the GOP currently in office. Unfortunately, Chaffetz has been quick regurgitate that same political BS to his constituents. It looks like now he's realized that it's just easier to send his followers right to the source of his disinformation. Chaffetz' followed that with "http://bit.ly/FQiN4 We cannot sustain this." The link takes you to an article about the rapid increase in benefit spending including extensions of unemployment benefits, food stamps and Social Security with a sudden increase in early retirement claims, all largely due to the recession. My concern about this last tweet is about how Jason is always quick to recognize the problem but slow to offer a solution...oh, wait a minute, he hasn't offered any solutions. And my motto is that if you're going to point out a problem you should be prepared to offer a solution. As for balancing the budget, since no one in Congress has the balls to cut spending, the only practical solution is to increase revenue. That usually means raising taxes but I doubt Chaffetz would even consider something like that, just like his fellow Republicans. And people wonder why the GOP is relatively impotent when it comes to solving problems. Fri, 05 Jun 2009 01:10:51 GMT http://community.fox13now.com/_Kudos-and-Critique-for-the-Gentleman-from-District-3/BLOG/335590/96363.html Joseph 2009-06-05T01:10:51Z Fox 13 Now Community I'd like to start this post by congratulating Congressman Jason Chaffetz on the passage of his legislation to limit the use of Whole Body Imaging technology by the TSA. I've been in full support of Jason's efforts on his matter from the get-go. I'm also grateful because I managed to turn the topic into a humorous episode of "The Anglə" that garnered over 37,000 views on CNN's iReport.com. That being said, I want to discuss a few links that Mr. Chaffetz shared with his Twitter followers. The first was an interesting article about Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's remarks to the House Budget Committee. Basically he said that the government needs to start working toward balancing the budget but he offered no solutions. Chaffetz' next tweet consisted of "http://gopleader.gov/ This website offers some good information." I beg to differ. John Boehner, the House Minority Leader has been churning out misleading rhetoric probably more than any other member of the GOP currently in office. Unfortunately, Chaffetz has been quick regurgitate that same political BS to his constituents. It looks like now he's realized that it's just easier to send his followers right to the source of his disinformation. Chaffetz' followed that with "http://bit.ly/FQiN4 We cannot sustain this." The link takes you to an article about the rapid increase in benefit spending including extensions of unemployment benefits, food stamps and Social Security with a sudden increase in early retirement claims, all largely due to the recession. My concern about this last tweet is about how Jason is always quick to recognize the problem but slow to offer a solution...oh, wait a minute, he hasn't offered any solutions. And my motto is that if you're going to point out a problem you should be prepared to offer a solution. As for balancing the budget, since no one in Congress has the balls to cut spending, the only practical solution is to increase revenue. That usually means raising taxes but I doubt Chaffetz would even consider something like that, just like his fellow Republicans. And people wonder why the GOP is relatively impotent when it comes to solving problems. nonadult false Kudos and Critique for the Gentleman from District 3 text blog 233 0 0.0 http://community.fox13now.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=7566648&as=96363 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/96363/photos/PHOTO_3755476_96363_7566648_ap_160X120.jpg false 0 0 335590 7566648 Member 0 http://community.fox13now.com/_Matheson-Thinks-Chaffetz-Follows/BLOG/294761/96363.html Both Jim Matheson (D District 2) and Jason Chaffetz (R District 3) voted against pending cap and trade legislation in committee. But there's a major difference in the reasoning behind their votes. Namely, Jim Matheson actually uses reason to come to a decision while Jason Chaffetz simply does as he's told by the party leadership, among others. Both Jim Matheson (D District 2) and Jason Chaffetz (R District 3) voted against pending cap and trade legislation in committee. But there's a major difference in the reasoning behind their votes. Namely, Jim Matheson actually uses reason to come to a decision while Jason Chaffetz simply does as he's told by the party leadership, among others. Sat, 30 May 2009 18:41:51 GMT http://community.fox13now.com/_Matheson-Thinks-Chaffetz-Follows/BLOG/294761/96363.html Joseph 2009-05-30T18:41:51Z Fox 13 Now Community Both Jim Matheson (D District 2) and Jason Chaffetz (R District 3) voted against pending cap and trade legislation in committee. But there's a major difference in the reasoning behind their votes. Namely, Jim Matheson actually uses reason to come to a decision while Jason Chaffetz simply does as he's told by the party leadership, among others. cap and trade, climate change, congress, jason chaffetz, jim matheson, legislation nonadult false Matheson Thinks, Chaffetz Follows text blog cap and trade,climate change,congress,jason chaffetz,jim matheson,legislation 412 0 0.0 http://community.fox13now.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=7566648&as=96363 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/96363/photos/PHOTO_3755476_96363_7566648_ap_160X120.jpg false 3 0 294761 7566648 Member 0 http://community.fox13now.com/_Can-Liberals-and-Conservatives-be-Fairly-Compared-to-Socialists-and-Fascists/BLOG/288376/96363.html Cross-posted with "Puente's Perspective" on Blogger and iReport. I read a blog post about "Liberalism" recently that erupted into a short thread of name-calling and insults along the lines of "Which is better? Liberalism or Conservatism?" The definitions offered of each were as broad as they were biased. I've been thinking about this dichotomy in political thought for a while and was motivated by this exchange to finally put my observations and thoughts in writing. So, here goes. First of all, American-Conservatism and American-Liberalism are not the same as conservatism and liberalism as it's known and practiced in other parts of the world. Most notably Europe. Also, the political spectrum is much more complex than the idea of a line segment with a center and right & left ends. We like to think of Conservatives and Liberals as coming together in the middle on principles that they both embrace. The blog & related thread mentioned above had each side accusing the other of not respecting cherished American principles. The fact is, bothAmerican-Conservatism and American-Liberalism stand for Constitutional Law, Civil Rights, personal liberty, equal opportunity, etc. Those are American values and neither the "left" nor the "right" can claim them as solely their own. What we need to understand is that the primary differences between Liberal and Conservative ideas of freedom, equality and opportunity can't be fairly represented by that left/right line segment because a distinction has to be made betweenPersonal freedom and Economic freedom. If we give each of those aspects their own left/right spectrum then we get a clearer representation of where Conservatives and Liberals stand on those two different yet connected measurements. David Nolan, who founded the Libertarian Party in 1971, placed these two scales not parallel to each other but perpendicular to each other creating a political plane as apposed to a political spectrum. There are also a number ofpolitical compasses floating around. Nolan's model, however, is basic and apropos to my thesis. If you try and cram economic and personal liberty on the same scale you don't just get conflicts between the Conservative and Liberal schools of thought, you get inconsistencies and ideological paradoxes within each of those schools. On a political plane which Nolan put forth in a diagram that's now called "The Nolan Chart" it's easier to see where Conservatives and Liberals are alike and where they differ. On the Personal freedom axis of the Nolan Chart, both American-Liberalism and American-Conservatism are on the side of greater freedom. On the Economic freedom axis, American-Conservatism leans toward more economic freedom and American-Liberalism leans toward less economic freedom. Where a great deal of the confusion in American politics comes from is the misguided notion that one's philosophy regarding economics is directly aligned with their philosophy on personal liberty. This is not always the case. That's why we're seeing Republicans trying to label Democrats as Socialists because, unfortunately, a lot of Americans will confuse Socialism with Communism--a philosophy based on taking away both personal and economic freedom. Modern Socialism and Civil Liberties are not necessarily mutually exclusive. During the Bush Administration ('01-'09), it was popular amongst liberals to associate Republicans and other conservatives with Nazis and fascism. This had more to do with a blurring of the line between patriotism and nationalism in Republican rhetoric, concerns about undermining civil rights through legislation such as the USA PATRIOT ACT as well as the prosecution of a perpetual "War on Terrorism" than any relationship between American-Conservative values and those of the Nazi party. The GOP's willingness to become a rubber stamp for the Bush Administration, out of party loyalty, certainly didn't help to curtail that image. While it can be argued that American-Liberalism, vis-à-vis its economic philosophy, when taken to an extreme would lead to socialism (which, in reality, probably wouldn't happen under theU.S. Constitution), its a bit more of a semantic stretch to say that American-Conservatism, taken to its extreme, would lead toFascism. On the personal freedom axis, Fascism--by its very definition--is hostile toward the very concept of individual liberty. It also rejects capitalism in favor of "Corporatism" which essentially creates government mandated monopolies to exert control over the economy. It's not quite economic socialism but it certainly flies in the face of what any self-respecting American Conservative would call their core values. By the way, while history clearly says otherwise, the Nazis did not consider themselves fascists.  Even Nolan was guilty of oversimplifying American political theory arguing that American-Liberalism advocated onlypersonal freedom and American-Conservatism advocated onlyeconomic freedom while claiming that Libertarianism was the only political philosophy that advocated both. In that respect, Libertarianism--at least on a superficial level--has more in common with traditional conservatism than it might care to admit. Practically speaking, Liberalism and Conservatism in the United States do not occupy opposite ends of the economic axis. If anything, they both find themselves on the side of economic freedom with one (Liberalism) leaning more toward the center than the other in that traditionally the "Left" advocates government regulation and the "Right" prefers to loosen government oversight. But both Liberals and Conservatives can't deny the generally successful model of free-market Capitalism and its social benefits. The United States government presently finds itself reevaluating the role that it plays in the economy with a possible shift toward more regulation in the finance sector as well as exploring options that it can take to try and fix problems with the healthcare system. Even the infusion of public capital into the finance and automotive industries can, at best, be called "Lemon Socialism" and are not intended to be permanent situations. But even if sweeping legislation is put into place to address all of those issues, the result would not be "American Socialism." The U.S. economy will continue to operate under the rules of Capitalism. Innovation and the entrepreneurial spirit aren't going to fizzle and die; we just may find ourselves with a more regulated economy. This may slow economic growth but simultaneously reduce the risk of market collapses and prevent artificial bubbles from getting a foothold, let alone growing out of control, and subsequently bursting. These measures will also soften the blow of future recessions--which are inevitable as they are simply part of the free market economic cycle--and hopefully keep us from experiencing deep recessions like the one we're experiencing now--or mini depression as some are calling it. All of this will also result in a major cultural shift for many Americans. I think we're going to come out of this a more pragmatic culture. There'll be less "Keeping up with the Joneses" and more consideration for what's practical and needed over what's ostentatious and simply wanted. This will also affect American political culture where concerns about the "Extremes" of political philosophies may wind up being purely academic. Of course, in the words of Dennis Miller, "That's just my opinion. I could be wrong." Sources: n.b. when dealing with specific facts and figures, I try my best to turn to official sources such as major news outlets, government web sites and published articles in reputable periodicals and journals. When it comes to broader topics like political philosophies or complex issues that draw on numerous sources (like the USA PATRIOT Act), I'll refer the reader to a relevant and vetted Wikipedia article. Cross-posted with "Puente's Perspective" on Blogger and iReport. I read a blog post about "Liberalism" recently that erupted into a short thread of name-calling and insults along the lines of "Which is better? Liberalism or Conservatism?" The definitions offered of each were as broad as they were biased. I've been thinking about this dichotomy in political thought for a while and was motivated by this exchange to finally put my observations and thoughts in writing. So, here goes. First of all, American-Conservatism and American-Liberalism are not the same as conservatism and liberalism as it's known and practiced in other parts of the world. Most notably Europe. Also, the political spectrum is much more complex than the idea of a line segment with a center and right & left ends. We like to think of Conservatives and Liberals as coming together in the middle on principles that they both embrace. The blog & related thread mentioned above had each side accusing the other of not respecting cherished American principles. The fact is, bothAmerican-Conservatism and American-Liberalism stand for Constitutional Law, Civil Rights, personal liberty, equal opportunity, etc. Those are American values and neither the "left" nor the "right" can claim them as solely their own. What we need to understand is that the primary differences between Liberal and Conservative ideas of freedom, equality and opportunity can't be fairly represented by that left/right line segment because a distinction has to be made betweenPersonal freedom and Economic freedom. If we give each of those aspects their own left/right spectrum then we get a clearer representation of where Conservatives and Liberals stand on those two different yet connected measurements. David Nolan, who founded the Libertarian Party in 1971, placed these two scales not parallel to each other but perpendicular to each other creating a political plane as apposed to a political spectrum. There are also a number ofpolitical compasses floating around. Nolan's model, however, is basic and apropos to my thesis. If you try and cram economic and personal liberty on the same scale you don't just get conflicts between the Conservative and Liberal schools of thought, you get inconsistencies and ideological paradoxes within each of those schools. On a political plane which Nolan put forth in a diagram that's now called "The Nolan Chart" it's easier to see where Conservatives and Liberals are alike and where they differ. On the Personal freedom axis of the Nolan Chart, both American-Liberalism and American-Conservatism are on the side of greater freedom. On the Economic freedom axis, American-Conservatism leans toward more economic freedom and American-Liberalism leans toward less economic freedom. Where a great deal of the confusion in American politics comes from is the misguided notion that one's philosophy regarding economics is directly aligned with their philosophy on personal liberty. This is not always the case. That's why we're seeing Republicans trying to label Democrats as Socialists because, unfortunately, a lot of Americans will confuse Socialism with Communism--a philosophy based on taking away both personal and economic freedom. Modern Socialism and Civil Liberties are not necessarily mutually exclusive. During the Bush Administration ('01-'09), it was popular amongst liberals to associate Republicans and other conservatives with Nazis and fascism. This had more to do with a blurring of the line between patriotism and nationalism in Republican rhetoric, concerns about undermining civil rights through legislation such as the USA PATRIOT ACT as well as the prosecution of a perpetual "War on Terrorism" than any relationship between American-Conservative values and those of the Nazi party. The GOP's willingness to become a rubber stamp for the Bush Administration, out of party loyalty, certainly didn't help to curtail that image. While it can be argued that American-Liberalism, vis-à-vis its economic philosophy, when taken to an extreme would lead to socialism (which, in reality, probably wouldn't happen under theU.S. Constitution), its a bit more of a semantic stretch to say that American-Conservatism, taken to its extreme, would lead toFascism. On the personal freedom axis, Fascism--by its very definition--is hostile toward the very concept of individual liberty. It also rejects capitalism in favor of "Corporatism" which essentially creates government mandated monopolies to exert control over the economy. It's not quite economic socialism but it certainly flies in the face of what any self-respecting American Conservative would call their core values. By the way, while history clearly says otherwise, the Nazis did not consider themselves fascists.  Even Nolan was guilty of oversimplifying American political theory arguing that American-Liberalism advocated onlypersonal freedom and American-Conservatism advocated onlyeconomic freedom while claiming that Libertarianism was the only political philosophy that advocated both. In that respect, Libertarianism--at least on a superficial level--has more in common with traditional conservatism than it might care to admit. Practically speaking, Liberalism and Conservatism in the United States do not occupy opposite ends of the economic axis. If anything, they both find themselves on the side of economic freedom with one (Liberalism) leaning more toward the center than the other in that traditionally the "Left" advocates government regulation and the "Right" prefers to loosen government oversight. But both Liberals and Conservatives can't deny the generally successful model of free-market Capitalism and its social benefits. The United States government presently finds itself reevaluating the role that it plays in the economy with a possible shift toward more regulation in the finance sector as well as exploring options that it can take to try and fix problems with the healthcare system. Even the infusion of public capital into the finance and automotive industries can, at best, be called "Lemon Socialism" and are not intended to be permanent situations. But even if sweeping legislation is put into place to address all of those issues, the result would not be "American Socialism." The U.S. economy will continue to operate under the rules of Capitalism. Innovation and the entrepreneurial spirit aren't going to fizzle and die; we just may find ourselves with a more regulated economy. This may slow economic growth but simultaneously reduce the risk of market collapses and prevent artificial bubbles from getting a foothold, let alone growing out of control, and subsequently bursting. These measures will also soften the blow of future recessions--which are inevitable as they are simply part of the free market economic cycle--and hopefully keep us from experiencing deep recessions like the one we're experiencing now--or mini depression as some are calling it. All of this will also result in a major cultural shift for many Americans. I think we're going to come out of this a more pragmatic culture. There'll be less "Keeping up with the Joneses" and more consideration for what's practical and needed over what's ostentatious and simply wanted. This will also affect American political culture where concerns about the "Extremes" of political philosophies may wind up being purely academic. Of course, in the words of Dennis Miller, "That's just my opinion. I could be wrong." Sources: n.b. when dealing with specific facts and figures, I try my best to turn to official sources such as major news outlets, government web sites and published articles in reputable periodicals and journals. When it comes to broader topics like political philosophies or complex issues that draw on numerous sources (like the USA PATRIOT Act), I'll refer the reader to a relevant and vetted Wikipedia article. Mon, 25 May 2009 07:41:19 GMT http://community.fox13now.com/_Can-Liberals-and-Conservatives-be-Fairly-Compared-to-Socialists-and-Fascists/BLOG/288376/96363.html Joseph 2009-05-25T07:41:19Z Fox 13 Now Community Cross-posted with "Puente's Perspective" on Blogger and iReport. I read a blog post about "Liberalism" recently that erupted into a short thread of name-calling and insults along the lines of "Which is better? Liberalism or Conservatism?" The definitions offered of each were as broad as they were biased. I've been thinking about this dichotomy in political thought for a while and was motivated by this exchange to finally put my observations and thoughts in writing. So, here goes. First of all, American-Conservatism and American-Liberalism are not the same as conservatism and liberalism as it's known and practiced in other parts of the world. Most notably Europe. Also, the political spectrum is much more complex than the idea of a line segment with a center and right & left ends. We like to think of Conservatives and Liberals as coming together in the middle on principles that they both embrace. The blog & related thread mentioned above had each side accusing the other of not respecting cherished American principles. The fact is, bothAmerican-Conservatism and American-Liberalism stand for Constitutional Law, Civil Rights, personal liberty, equal opportunity, etc. Those are American values and neither the "left" nor the "right" can claim them as solely their own. What we need to understand is that the primary differences between Liberal and Conservative ideas of freedom, equality and opportunity can't be fairly represented by that left/right line segment because a distinction has to be made betweenPersonal freedom and Economic freedom. If we give each of those aspects their own left/right spectrum then we get a clearer representation of where Conservatives and Liberals stand on those two different yet connected measurements. David Nolan, who founded the Libertarian Party in 1971, placed these two scales not parallel to each other but perpendicular to each other creating a political plane as apposed to a political spectrum. There are also a number ofpolitical compasses floating around. Nolan's model, however, is basic and apropos to my thesis. If you try and cram economic and personal liberty on the same scale you don't just get conflicts between the Conservative and Liberal schools of thought, you get inconsistencies and ideological paradoxes within each of those schools. On a political plane which Nolan put forth in a diagram that's now called "The Nolan Chart" it's easier to see where Conservatives and Liberals are alike and where they differ. On the Personal freedom axis of the Nolan Chart, both American-Liberalism and American-Conservatism are on the side of greater freedom. On the Economic freedom axis, American-Conservatism leans toward more economic freedom and American-Liberalism leans toward less economic freedom. Where a great deal of the confusion in American politics comes from is the misguided notion that one's philosophy regarding economics is directly aligned with their philosophy on personal liberty. This is not always the case. That's why we're seeing Republicans trying to label Democrats as Socialists because, unfortunately, a lot of Americans will confuse Socialism with Communism--a philosophy based on taking away both personal and economic freedom. Modern Socialism and Civil Liberties are not necessarily mutually exclusive. During the Bush Administration ('01-'09), it was popular amongst liberals to associate Republicans and other conservatives with Nazis and fascism. This had more to do with a blurring of the line between patriotism and nationalism in Republican rhetoric, concerns about undermining civil rights through legislation such as the USA PATRIOT ACT as well as the prosecution of a perpetual "War on Terrorism" than any relationship between American-Conservative values and those of the Nazi party. The GOP's willingness to become a rubber stamp for the Bush Administration, out of party loyalty, certainly didn't help to curtail that image. While it can be argued that American-Liberalism, vis-à-vis its economic philosophy, when taken to an extreme would lead to socialism (which, in reality, probably wouldn't happen under theU.S. Constitution), its a bit more of a semantic stretch to say that American-Conservatism, taken to its extreme, would lead toFascism. On the personal freedom axis, Fascism--by its very definition--is hostile toward the very concept of individual liberty. It also rejects capitalism in favor of "Corporatism" which essentially creates government mandated monopolies to exert control over the economy. It's not quite economic socialism but it certainly flies in the face of what any self-respecting American Conservative would call their core values. By the way, while history clearly says otherwise, the Nazis did not consider themselves fascists.  Even Nolan was guilty of oversimplifying American political theory arguing that American-Liberalism advocated onlypersonal freedom and American-Conservatism advocated onlyeconomic freedom while claiming that Libertarianism was the only political philosophy that advocated both. In that respect, Libertarianism--at least on a superficial level--has more in common with traditional conservatism than it might care to admit. Practically speaking, Liberalism and Conservatism in the United States do not occupy opposite ends of the economic axis. If anything, they both find themselves on the side of economic freedom with one (Liberalism) leaning more toward the center than the other in that traditionally the "Left" advocates government regulation and the "Right" prefers to loosen government oversight. But both Liberals and Conservatives can't deny the generally successful model of free-market Capitalism and its social benefits. The United States government presently finds itself reevaluating the role that it plays in the economy with a possible shift toward more regulation in the finance sector as well as exploring options that it can take to try and fix problems with the healthcare system. Even the infusion of public capital into the finance and automotive industries can, at best, be called "Lemon Socialism" and are not intended to be permanent situations. But even if sweeping legislation is put into place to address all of those issues, the result would not be "American Socialism." The U.S. economy will continue to operate under the rules of Capitalism. Innovation and the entrepreneurial spirit aren't going to fizzle and die; we just may find ourselves with a more regulated economy. This may slow economic growth but simultaneously reduce the risk of market collapses and prevent artificial bubbles from getting a foothold, let alone growing out of control, and subsequently bursting. These measures will also soften the blow of future recessions--which are inevitable as they are simply part of the free market economic cycle--and hopefully keep us from experiencing deep recessions like the one we're experiencing now--or mini depression as some are calling it. All of this will also result in a major cultural shift for many Americans. I think we're going to come out of this a more pragmatic culture. There'll be less "Keeping up with the Joneses" and more consideration for what's practical and needed over what's ostentatious and simply wanted. This will also affect American political culture where concerns about the "Extremes" of political philosophies may wind up being purely academic. Of course, in the words of Dennis Miller, "That's just my opinion. I could be wrong." Sources: n.b. when dealing with specific facts and figures, I try my best to turn to official sources such as major news outlets, government web sites and published articles in reputable periodicals and journals. When it comes to broader topics like political philosophies or complex issues that draw on numerous sources (like the USA PATRIOT Act), I'll refer the reader to a relevant and vetted Wikipedia article. nonadult false Can Liberals and Conservatives be Fairly Compared to Socialists and Fascists? text blog 328 0 0.0 http://community.fox13now.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=7566648&as=96363 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/96363/photos/PHOTO_3755476_96363_7566648_ap_160X120.jpg false 1 0 288376 7566648 Member 0 http://community.fox13now.com/_Kudos-to-Chaffetz-for-Taking-the-High-Road/BLOG/287491/96363.html Congressman Chaffetz spoke out against the actions of his own party recently when the GOP comissioned and disseminated a video comparing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to James Bond bad girl Pussy Galore. My favorite quote from Mr. Chaffetz on this topic: "If we're going to regain the credibility of the American people, we're going to have to stop with silly antics like that. It may get a snide chuckle inside the Beltway, but it offends most people. We have to get away from the politics of personal destruction." Thank you, Jason. You are absolutely right on this. Congressman Chaffetz spoke out against the actions of his own party recently when the GOP comissioned and disseminated a video comparing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to James Bond bad girl Pussy Galore. My favorite quote from Mr. Chaffetz on this topic: "If we're going to regain the credibility of the American people, we're going to have to stop with silly antics like that. It may get a snide chuckle inside the Beltway, but it offends most people. We have to get away from the politics of personal destruction." Thank you, Jason. You are absolutely right on this. Sat, 23 May 2009 22:34:35 GMT http://community.fox13now.com/_Kudos-to-Chaffetz-for-Taking-the-High-Road/BLOG/287491/96363.html Joseph 2009-05-23T22:34:35Z Fox 13 Now Community Congressman Chaffetz spoke out against the actions of his own party recently when the GOP comissioned and disseminated a video comparing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to James Bond bad girl Pussy Galore. My favorite quote from Mr. Chaffetz on this topic: "If we're going to regain the credibility of the American people, we're going to have to stop with silly antics like that. It may get a snide chuckle inside the Beltway, but it offends most people. We have to get away from the politics of personal destruction." Thank you, Jason. You are absolutely right on this. chaffetz, congress, ethics, gop, honesty, house, jason, media, nancy, party, pelosi, politics, republican, rnc, speaker, truth nonadult false Kudos to Chaffetz for Taking the High Road text blog chaffetz,congress,ethics,gop,honesty,house,jason,media,nancy,party,pelosi,politics,republican,rnc,speaker,truth 271 0 0.0 http://community.fox13now.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=7566648&as=96363 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/96363/photos/PHOTO_3755476_96363_7566648_ap_160X120.jpg false 4 0 287491 7566648 Member 0 http://community.fox13now.com/_The-Angl-On-Jasons-Climate-Tax-Pledge/BLOG/283928/96363.html Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/joepuente   Follow Jason Chaffetz' on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jasoninthehouse   Jason's Signed "Climate Tax" pledge: http://chaffetz.house.gov/no%20climate%20tax%20pledge.pdf   Americans for Prosperity: http://www.americansforprosperity.org/   Obama reverses course on alleged prison abuse photos: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/12/prisoner.photos/index.html   Obama Administration wants to monetize carbon credits: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Gaggle-by-White-House-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-aboard-Air-Force-One-4/22/2009/   2009 Stimulus Package: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009   Read my lips...: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_my_lips:_No_new_taxes   Citizen's Guide to the Federal Budget: Fiscal Year 2001 http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy01/guide04.html   Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) is asked for a GOP alternative for healthcare... and fails to give an actual answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubBfxpzMHHs Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/joepuente   Follow Jason Chaffetz' on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jasoninthehouse   Jason's Signed "Climate Tax" pledge: http://chaffetz.house.gov/no%20climate%20tax%20pledge.pdf   Americans for Prosperity: http://www.americansforprosperity.org/   Obama reverses course on alleged prison abuse photos: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/12/prisoner.photos/index.html   Obama Administration wants to monetize carbon credits: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Gaggle-by-White-House-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-aboard-Air-Force-One-4/22/2009/   2009 Stimulus Package: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009   Read my lips...: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_my_lips:_No_new_taxes   Citizen's Guide to the Federal Budget: Fiscal Year 2001 http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy01/guide04.html   Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) is asked for a GOP alternative for healthcare... and fails to give an actual answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubBfxpzMHHs Wed, 20 May 2009 18:00:30 GMT http://community.fox13now.com/_The-Angl-On-Jasons-Climate-Tax-Pledge/BLOG/283928/96363.html Joseph 2009-05-20T18:00:30Z Fox 13 Now Community Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/joepuente   Follow Jason Chaffetz' on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jasoninthehouse   Jason's Signed "Climate Tax" pledge: http://chaffetz.house.gov/no%20climate%20tax%20pledge.pdf   Americans for Prosperity: http://www.americansforprosperity.org/   Obama reverses course on alleged prison abuse photos: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/12/prisoner.photos/index.html   Obama Administration wants to monetize carbon credits: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Gaggle-by-White-House-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-aboard-Air-Force-One-4/22/2009/   2009 Stimulus Package: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009   Read my lips...: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_my_lips:_No_new_taxes   Citizen's Guide to the Federal Budget: Fiscal Year 2001 http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy01/guide04.html   Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) is asked for a GOP alternative for healthcare... and fails to give an actual answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubBfxpzMHHs americans, and, cap, chaffetz, change, climate, comment, for, gop, jason, legislation, opinion, package, prosperity, republicans, stimulus, trade nonadult false The Anglə "On Jason's 'Climate Tax' Pledge" text blog americans,and,cap,chaffetz,change,climate,comment,for,gop,jason,legislation,opinion,package,prosperity,republicans,stimulus,trade 200 0 0.0 http://community.fox13now.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=7566648&as=96363 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/96363/photos/PHOTO_3755476_96363_7566648_ap_160X120.jpg false 1 0 283928 7566648 Member 0 http://community.fox13now.com/_So-Much-for-Fiscal-Restraint-and-Not-Using-Federal-Money-for-Pet-Projects/BLOG/281953/96363.html Jason Chaffetz is sponsoring a bill that would bring $12 million in federal money to Utah to help purify contaminated water in Magna. He's very careful in pointing out that this is a bill and not an earmark. Chaffetz spoke out against a number of "egregious" earmarks that were attached to the Omnibus spending bill earlier this year. But this Magna project really isn't that much different than a lot of other earmarks put into place by congressmen from across the country. Of course, one Congressman's pork is another Congressman's vital public program. I personally have no problem with Chaffetz's efforts to help the community of Magna clean up their water but considering its similarity to many earmarks, Chaffetz would be wise to tone down the rhetoric in that regard. In general I'm not concerned about most earmarks and so called "Pork barrel" appropriations. Why? Because they represent only about 1% of federal spending. Even if we got rid of all of them it wouldn't put much of a dent in the federal deficit. In fact, I found an unexpected champion of earmarks in Texas Representative Ron Paul: Jason Chaffetz is sponsoring a bill that would bring $12 million in federal money to Utah to help purify contaminated water in Magna. He's very careful in pointing out that this is a bill and not an earmark. Chaffetz spoke out against a number of "egregious" earmarks that were attached to the Omnibus spending bill earlier this year. But this Magna project really isn't that much different than a lot of other earmarks put into place by congressmen from across the country. Of course, one Congressman's pork is another Congressman's vital public program. I personally have no problem with Chaffetz's efforts to help the community of Magna clean up their water but considering its similarity to many earmarks, Chaffetz would be wise to tone down the rhetoric in that regard. In general I'm not concerned about most earmarks and so called "Pork barrel" appropriations. Why? Because they represent only about 1% of federal spending. Even if we got rid of all of them it wouldn't put much of a dent in the federal deficit. In fact, I found an unexpected champion of earmarks in Texas Representative Ron Paul: Tue, 19 May 2009 02:02:31 GMT http://community.fox13now.com/_So-Much-for-Fiscal-Restraint-and-Not-Using-Federal-Money-for-Pet-Projects/BLOG/281953/96363.html Joseph 2009-05-19T02:02:31Z Fox 13 Now Community Jason Chaffetz is sponsoring a bill that would bring $12 million in federal money to Utah to help purify contaminated water in Magna. He's very careful in pointing out that this is a bill and not an earmark. Chaffetz spoke out against a number of "egregious" earmarks that were attached to the Omnibus spending bill earlier this year. But this Magna project really isn't that much different than a lot of other earmarks put into place by congressmen from across the country. Of course, one Congressman's pork is another Congressman's vital public program. I personally have no problem with Chaffetz's efforts to help the community of Magna clean up their water but considering its similarity to many earmarks, Chaffetz would be wise to tone down the rhetoric in that regard. In general I'm not concerned about most earmarks and so called "Pork barrel" appropriations. Why? Because they represent only about 1% of federal spending. Even if we got rid of all of them it wouldn't put much of a dent in the federal deficit. In fact, I found an unexpected champion of earmarks in Texas Representative Ron Paul: barrel, chaffetz, congress, earmarks, ethics, honesty, in, jason, media, politics, pork, spending, truth nonadult false So Much for Fiscal Restraint and Not Using Federal Money for Pet Projects text blog barrel,chaffetz,congress,earmarks,ethics,honesty,in,jason,media,politics,pork,spending,truth 277 0 0.0 http://community.fox13now.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=7566648&as=96363 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/96363/photos/PHOTO_3755476_96363_7566648_ap_160X120.jpg false 8 0 281953 7566648 Member 0 http://community.fox13now.com/_The-Angl-On-Financial-Literacy/BLOG/279959/96363.html Congressman Jason Chaffetz takes a moral stand on FInancial Literacy in the face of ballooning deficits. But was he this concerned when deficits were running amuck under a Republican controlled government?   Sources: Chaffetz on Financial Literacy: http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12254700 Pay As You Go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO OBRA '90: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c101:4:./temp/~c1012YhHwG:: Homeland Security Act of 2002: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hr_5005_enr.pdf MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG, IMPROVEMENT, AND MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2003 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ173.108 U.S. Federal Budget Over Time: http://www.supportingevidence.com/Government/fed_budget_over_time.html Total outlays in budget submissions since 1962: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/HistoricalMar09.xls Congressman Jason Chaffetz takes a moral stand on FInancial Literacy in the face of ballooning deficits. But was he this concerned when deficits were running amuck under a Republican controlled government?   Sources: Chaffetz on Financial Literacy: http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12254700 Pay As You Go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO OBRA '90: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c101:4:./temp/~c1012YhHwG:: Homeland Security Act of 2002: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hr_5005_enr.pdf MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG, IMPROVEMENT, AND MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2003 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ173.108 U.S. Federal Budget Over Time: http://www.supportingevidence.com/Government/fed_budget_over_time.html Total outlays in budget submissions since 1962: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/HistoricalMar09.xls Sun, 17 May 2009 01:20:32 GMT http://community.fox13now.com/_The-Angl-On-Financial-Literacy/BLOG/279959/96363.html Joseph 2009-05-17T01:20:32Z Fox 13 Now Community Congressman Jason Chaffetz takes a moral stand on FInancial Literacy in the face of ballooning deficits. But was he this concerned when deficits were running amuck under a Republican controlled government?   Sources: Chaffetz on Financial Literacy: http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12254700 Pay As You Go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO OBRA '90: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c101:4:./temp/~c1012YhHwG:: Homeland Security Act of 2002: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hr_5005_enr.pdf MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG, IMPROVEMENT, AND MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2003 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ173.108 U.S. Federal Budget Over Time: http://www.supportingevidence.com/Government/fed_budget_over_time.html Total outlays in budget submissions since 1962: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/HistoricalMar09.xls budget, chaffetz, comment, congress, deficit, democrats, financial, gop, jason, literacy, opinion nonadult false The Anglə "On Financial Literacy" text blog budget,chaffetz,comment,congress,deficit,democrats,financial,gop,jason,literacy,opinion 358 0 0.0 http://community.fox13now.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=7566648&as=96363 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/96363/photos/PHOTO_3755476_96363_7566648_ap_160X120.jpg false 6 0 279959 7566648 Member 0 http://community.fox13now.com/_Hatch-Talks-Healthcare-Reform/BLOG/279953/96363.html http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/17/keep-us-competitive/ Orrin Hatch wrote an interesting Op-Ed in the Washington Times about healthcare reform and the importance of business involvement in the process. He also made a veiled reference to the Employee Free Choice Act implying that "stripping workers of a private ballot in unionization decisions" would devestate the business community. The Employee Free Choice Act does NOT strip workers of the right to a secret-ballot vote for unionization. What it does is takes the right to choose a secret-ballot vote from the employer and gives it to the employees. n.b. I try to avoid linking to Wikipedia as a resource for issues as complicated as unionization but the research on this article appears to be pretty extensive. I would implore the reader to do their own research on this and other matters. http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/17/keep-us-competitive/ Orrin Hatch wrote an interesting Op-Ed in the Washington Times about healthcare reform and the importance of business involvement in the process. He also made a veiled reference to the Employee Free Choice Act implying that "stripping workers of a private ballot in unionization decisions" would devestate the business community. The Employee Free Choice Act does NOT strip workers of the right to a secret-ballot vote for unionization. What it does is takes the right to choose a secret-ballot vote from the employer and gives it to the employees. n.b. I try to avoid linking to Wikipedia as a resource for issues as complicated as unionization but the research on this article appears to be pretty extensive. I would implore the reader to do their own research on this and other matters. Sun, 17 May 2009 01:06:44 GMT http://community.fox13now.com/_Hatch-Talks-Healthcare-Reform/BLOG/279953/96363.html Joseph 2009-05-17T01:06:44Z Fox 13 Now Community http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/17/keep-us-competitive/ Orrin Hatch wrote an interesting Op-Ed in the Washington Times about healthcare reform and the importance of business involvement in the process. He also made a veiled reference to the Employee Free Choice Act implying that "stripping workers of a private ballot in unionization decisions" would devestate the business community. The Employee Free Choice Act does NOT strip workers of the right to a secret-ballot vote for unionization. What it does is takes the right to choose a secret-ballot vote from the employer and gives it to the employees. n.b. I try to avoid linking to Wikipedia as a resource for issues as complicated as unionization but the research on this article appears to be pretty extensive. I would implore the reader to do their own research on this and other matters. nonadult false Hatch Talks Healthcare Reform text blog 91 0 0.0 http://community.fox13now.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=7566648&as=96363 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/96363/photos/PHOTO_3755476_96363_7566648_ap_160X120.jpg false 0 0 279953 7566648 Member 0 http://community.fox13now.com/_The-Angl-/BLOG/279104/96363.html Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/joepuente   Here's a similar post from fellow iReporter PunjabiPower: http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-201513   Executive Order to close Gitmo Detention Facility: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/closureofguantanamodetentionfacilities/     Chaffetz: Utah won't be Gitmo North: http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12310388   Joe's Overnight Stay at Sanpete County Jail: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QC9iAwihWeE   How Joe Got Screwed by "The Man": http://www.joepuente.org/cvmc/   Supreme Court: Guantanamo Detainees Have Rights in Court: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/SCOTUS/story?id=5048935   FBI Archives 1993 World Trade Center Bombing: http://www.fbi.gov/page2/feb08/tradebom_022608.html   BBC "On This Day" 26 February: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/26/newsid_2516000/2516469.stm     U.S. May Revive Guantánamo Military Courts: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02gitmo.html Orwell's "Two Minutes Hate": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Minutes_Hate       The GOP's "One-&-a-half Minutes Hate!": http://www.gop.gov/detainees/video/safer   I'm citing Fair Use for inclusion of the GOP video but since its being dissemination through a government web site it might just be in the public domain by default. Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/joepuente   Here's a similar post from fellow iReporter PunjabiPower: http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-201513   Executive Order to close Gitmo Detention Facility: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/closureofguantanamodetentionfacilities/     Chaffetz: Utah won't be Gitmo North: http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12310388   Joe's Overnight Stay at Sanpete County Jail: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QC9iAwihWeE   How Joe Got Screwed by "The Man": http://www.joepuente.org/cvmc/   Supreme Court: Guantanamo Detainees Have Rights in Court: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/SCOTUS/story?id=5048935   FBI Archives 1993 World Trade Center Bombing: http://www.fbi.gov/page2/feb08/tradebom_022608.html   BBC "On This Day" 26 February: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/26/newsid_2516000/2516469.stm     U.S. May Revive Guantánamo Military Courts: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02gitmo.html Orwell's "Two Minutes Hate": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Minutes_Hate       The GOP's "One-&-a-half Minutes Hate!": http://www.gop.gov/detainees/video/safer   I'm citing Fair Use for inclusion of the GOP video but since its being dissemination through a government web site it might just be in the public domain by default. Fri, 15 May 2009 20:44:53 GMT http://community.fox13now.com/_The-Angl-/BLOG/279104/96363.html Joseph 2009-05-15T20:44:53Z Fox 13 Now Community Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/joepuente   Here's a similar post from fellow iReporter PunjabiPower: http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-201513   Executive Order to close Gitmo Detention Facility: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/closureofguantanamodetentionfacilities/     Chaffetz: Utah won't be Gitmo North: http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12310388   Joe's Overnight Stay at Sanpete County Jail: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QC9iAwihWeE   How Joe Got Screwed by "The Man": http://www.joepuente.org/cvmc/   Supreme Court: Guantanamo Detainees Have Rights in Court: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/SCOTUS/story?id=5048935   FBI Archives 1993 World Trade Center Bombing: http://www.fbi.gov/page2/feb08/tradebom_022608.html   BBC "On This Day" 26 February: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/26/newsid_2516000/2516469.stm     U.S. May Revive Guantánamo Military Courts: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02gitmo.html Orwell's "Two Minutes Hate": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Minutes_Hate       The GOP's "One-&-a-half Minutes Hate!": http://www.gop.gov/detainees/video/safer   I'm citing Fair Use for inclusion of the GOP video but since its being dissemination through a government web site it might just be in the public domain by default. bay, camps, chaffetz, detention, gitmo, gop, guantanamo, obama, orwell, republican nonadult false The Anglə text blog bay,camps,chaffetz,detention,gitmo,gop,guantanamo,obama,orwell,republican 356 0 0.0 http://community.fox13now.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=7566648&as=96363 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/96363/photos/PHOTO_3755476_96363_7566648_ap_160X120.jpg false 11 0 279104 7566648 Member 0 http://community.fox13now.com/_It-Started-Out-Making-Sense/BLOG/276227/96363.html http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705303062,00.html Here's another article about Chaffetz' Sunlight bill and similar efforts by Matheson. Chaffetz let out the ol' Cap and Trade is a tax" bullet point. I twittered him: "joepuente@jasoninthehouse Once again: Cap & Trade is NOT a tax. Taxes are levied. Purchasing Carbon Credits is voluntary." As of this post he hasn't responded to my last Tweet however I did get a response about his sunlight bill. He said that it isn't posted online yet but it's HR2353 so we now know what to keep our eyes open for. I sent him another Tweet thanking him for info and telling him that I only keep up the pressure because I care. :-) Interestingly enough, that tweet isn't showing up in my sent direct messages outbox. Could that mean I'm being blocked? Or am I just being paranoid?   http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705303062,00.html Here's another article about Chaffetz' Sunlight bill and similar efforts by Matheson. Chaffetz let out the ol' Cap and Trade is a tax" bullet point. I twittered him: "joepuente@jasoninthehouse Once again: Cap & Trade is NOT a tax. Taxes are levied. Purchasing Carbon Credits is voluntary." As of this post he hasn't responded to my last Tweet however I did get a response about his sunlight bill. He said that it isn't posted online yet but it's HR2353 so we now know what to keep our eyes open for. I sent him another Tweet thanking him for info and telling him that I only keep up the pressure because I care. :-) Interestingly enough, that tweet isn't showing up in my sent direct messages outbox. Could that mean I'm being blocked? Or am I just being paranoid?   Wed, 13 May 2009 05:03:10 GMT http://community.fox13now.com/_It-Started-Out-Making-Sense/BLOG/276227/96363.html Joseph 2009-05-13T05:03:10Z Fox 13 Now Community http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705303062,00.html Here's another article about Chaffetz' Sunlight bill and similar efforts by Matheson. Chaffetz let out the ol' Cap and Trade is a tax" bullet point. I twittered him: "joepuente@jasoninthehouse Once again: Cap & Trade is NOT a tax. Taxes are levied. Purchasing Carbon Credits is voluntary." As of this post he hasn't responded to my last Tweet however I did get a response about his sunlight bill. He said that it isn't posted online yet but it's HR2353 so we now know what to keep our eyes open for. I sent him another Tweet thanking him for info and telling him that I only keep up the pressure because I care. :-) Interestingly enough, that tweet isn't showing up in my sent direct messages outbox. Could that mean I'm being blocked? Or am I just being paranoid?   cap and trade, carbon, chaffetz, change, climate, emissions, gop, jason, republican nonadult false It Started Out Making Sense... text blog cap and trade,carbon,chaffetz,change,climate,emissions,gop,jason,republican 347 0 0.0 http://community.fox13now.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=7566648&as=96363 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/96363/photos/PHOTO_3755476_96363_7566648_ap_160X120.jpg false 3 0 276227 7566648 Member 0 http://community.fox13now.com/_Hatch-and-Bennett-fight-to-save-Raptor/BLOG/276030/96363.html http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_12308557 It just goes to show you that no matter how many budgeted programs are targeted by the Obama administration for cutting, a genuine but ultimately futile effort on their part, there is an advocate in Congress for every dollar spent. http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_12308557 It just goes to show you that no matter how many budgeted programs are targeted by the Obama administration for cutting, a genuine but ultimately futile effort on their part, there is an advocate in Congress for every dollar spent. Wed, 13 May 2009 01:06:36 GMT http://community.fox13now.com/_Hatch-and-Bennett-fight-to-save-Raptor/BLOG/276030/96363.html Joseph 2009-05-13T01:06:36Z Fox 13 Now Community http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_12308557 It just goes to show you that no matter how many budgeted programs are targeted by the Obama administration for cutting, a genuine but ultimately futile effort on their part, there is an advocate in Congress for every dollar spent. bennett, bob, delegation, f-22, f-35, gop, hatch, orrin, party, raptor, republican, senate, utah nonadult false Hatch and Bennett fight to save Raptor text blog bennett,bob,delegation,f-22,f-35,gop,hatch,orrin,party,raptor,republican,senate,utah 199 0 0.0 http://community.fox13now.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=7566648&as=96363 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/96363/photos/PHOTO_3755476_96363_7566648_ap_160X120.jpg false 3 0 276030 7566648 Member 0 http://community.fox13now.com/_Chaffetz-Sunlight-Bill-did-I-use-the-possessive-apostrophe-correctly-there/BLOG/275950/96363.html http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12352090 How refreshing! A reference to Cap and Trade from Jason Chaffetz that doesn't misuse the word "Tax!" ;-) It soudns to me like a pretty common sense piece legislation. Our phone bills already break down all the little fees, it might as well work with our power bills. I haven't read the text of the bill yet (as of 5/12/09 5:49 MST it hasn't been posted to his congressional web site) so I'm left wondering if the details in our power bills will relate only to costs or include estimates on the effectiveness of cap and trade on carbon emissions. If it's not there, that might make for a worthy amendment. Speaking of amendments, couldn't Chaffetz bill simply be an amendment to the cap and trade legislation? I asked him this on Twitter. So far, no reply. http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12352090 How refreshing! A reference to Cap and Trade from Jason Chaffetz that doesn't misuse the word "Tax!" ;-) It soudns to me like a pretty common sense piece legislation. Our phone bills already break down all the little fees, it might as well work with our power bills. I haven't read the text of the bill yet (as of 5/12/09 5:49 MST it hasn't been posted to his congressional web site) so I'm left wondering if the details in our power bills will relate only to costs or include estimates on the effectiveness of cap and trade on carbon emissions. If it's not there, that might make for a worthy amendment. Speaking of amendments, couldn't Chaffetz bill simply be an amendment to the cap and trade legislation? I asked him this on Twitter. So far, no reply. Tue, 12 May 2009 23:52:36 GMT http://community.fox13now.com/_Chaffetz-Sunlight-Bill-did-I-use-the-possessive-apostrophe-correctly-there/BLOG/275950/96363.html Joseph 2009-05-12T23:52:36Z Fox 13 Now Community http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12352090 How refreshing! A reference to Cap and Trade from Jason Chaffetz that doesn't misuse the word "Tax!" ;-) It soudns to me like a pretty common sense piece legislation. Our phone bills already break down all the little fees, it might as well work with our power bills. I haven't read the text of the bill yet (as of 5/12/09 5:49 MST it hasn't been posted to his congressional web site) so I'm left wondering if the details in our power bills will relate only to costs or include estimates on the effectiveness of cap and trade on carbon emissions. If it's not there, that might make for a worthy amendment. Speaking of amendments, couldn't Chaffetz bill simply be an amendment to the cap and trade legislation? I asked him this on Twitter. So far, no reply. nonadult false Chaffetz' Sunlight Bill (did I use the possessive apostrophe correctly there?) text blog 225 0 0.0 http://community.fox13now.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=7566648&as=96363 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/96363/photos/PHOTO_3755476_96363_7566648_ap_160X120.jpg false 0 0 275950 7566648 Member 0 http://community.fox13now.com/_Bennett-Playing-Hardball-Over-Oil-Leases/BLOG/275504/96363.html I'm a little torn over Bob Bennett's decision to hold up some key Interior Department nominations over some oil drilling leases near some national parks in Utah. http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=6336471 I'm all for expanding domestic oil production and the responsible use of public lands for same (can't we drill for oil AND take precautions to protect the land's natural beauty?). I know there's been some excitement in my neck of the woods (Sanpete and Seviere Counties) over the discovery of oil deposits that could be an economic coup for our troubled economies. Even in the best of times nationally, these communities struggle on the brink of a perpetual recession. DOI and the Obama Administration have been arguing that there are already several leases that are already issued that oil companies can start drilling with TODAY. A friend of mine said to me, "There isn't any oil there." But that doesn't make sense. Why buy a lease to drill for oil on land where there isn't any oil. Wouldn't evidence of oil be the motivating factor behind buying the lease to begin with? Regardless of whether or not energy companies decide drill for oil with existing leases or focus their energy on renewable resoures like wind and solar (both in abundance in the high desert that is Utah), Bennett's posturing over these DOI nominations is doing him no political favors, let alone anything to improve the tarnished image of his party. I'm a little torn over Bob Bennett's decision to hold up some key Interior Department nominations over some oil drilling leases near some national parks in Utah. http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=6336471 I'm all for expanding domestic oil production and the responsible use of public lands for same (can't we drill for oil AND take precautions to protect the land's natural beauty?). I know there's been some excitement in my neck of the woods (Sanpete and Seviere Counties) over the discovery of oil deposits that could be an economic coup for our troubled economies. Even in the best of times nationally, these communities struggle on the brink of a perpetual recession. DOI and the Obama Administration have been arguing that there are already several leases that are already issued that oil companies can start drilling with TODAY. A friend of mine said to me, "There isn't any oil there." But that doesn't make sense. Why buy a lease to drill for oil on land where there isn't any oil. Wouldn't evidence of oil be the motivating factor behind buying the lease to begin with? Regardless of whether or not energy companies decide drill for oil with existing leases or focus their energy on renewable resoures like wind and solar (both in abundance in the high desert that is Utah), Bennett's posturing over these DOI nominations is doing him no political favors, let alone anything to improve the tarnished image of his party. Tue, 12 May 2009 17:09:17 GMT http://community.fox13now.com/_Bennett-Playing-Hardball-Over-Oil-Leases/BLOG/275504/96363.html Joseph 2009-05-12T17:09:17Z Fox 13 Now Community I'm a little torn over Bob Bennett's decision to hold up some key Interior Department nominations over some oil drilling leases near some national parks in Utah. http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=6336471 I'm all for expanding domestic oil production and the responsible use of public lands for same (can't we drill for oil AND take precautions to protect the land's natural beauty?). I know there's been some excitement in my neck of the woods (Sanpete and Seviere Counties) over the discovery of oil deposits that could be an economic coup for our troubled economies. Even in the best of times nationally, these communities struggle on the brink of a perpetual recession. DOI and the Obama Administration have been arguing that there are already several leases that are already issued that oil companies can start drilling with TODAY. A friend of mine said to me, "There isn't any oil there." But that doesn't make sense. Why buy a lease to drill for oil on land where there isn't any oil. Wouldn't evidence of oil be the motivating factor behind buying the lease to begin with? Regardless of whether or not energy companies decide drill for oil with existing leases or focus their energy on renewable resoures like wind and solar (both in abundance in the high desert that is Utah), Bennett's posturing over these DOI nominations is doing him no political favors, let alone anything to improve the tarnished image of his party. bennett, bob, delegation, department of the interior, gop, oil leases, party, republican, senate, utah nonadult false Bennett Playing Hardball Over Oil Leases text blog bennett,bob,delegation,department of the interior,gop,oil leases,party,republican,senate,utah 281 0 0.0 http://community.fox13now.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=7566648&as=96363 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/96363/photos/PHOTO_3755476_96363_7566648_ap_160X120.jpg false 1 0 275504 7566648 Member 0 http://community.fox13now.com/_Chaffetz-Still-Banging-the-Cap-and-Trade-is-a-Tax-Drum/BLOG/275085/96363.html This time in the form of an Op-Ed printed in the Washington Times: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/12/expose-cap-and-trade-costs/ Elements of which are reused from an Op-Ed he wrote for the Provo Herald on April 15 (Tax Day!): http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/305889/58/ I will again refer the reader to my exposé "On Keeping Them Honest" which illustrates how the GOP is trying to misrepresent Cap-and-Trade as a tax in order to fabricate a reason to call the President a liar. Chaffetz also claims that President Obama "proposes a net tax increase on businesses of $327 billion over 10 years" but offers no details as to when or where the President made such a proposal. I tried Googling the phrase in order to figure out what exactly Chaffetz was talking about and all I could find were links to Chaffetz' own vague accusations in other media outlets and a reference in the April Newsletter for the Utah Taxpayers Association that speaks of the President's "massive tax increases on businesses in general" (emphasis added). That "in general" monicer raised a red-flag for me. My guess is that Chaffetz and other conservatives are taking this figure of "$327 billion" from some official source (that I haven't been able to find myself) and, like cap-and-trade, are arbitrarily calling it a tax (which begs the question, where are they getting this number from?) And, of course, these stooges are getting away with it because most of the people who pay any attention to what they have to say, rarely--if ever--bother to fact-check them and just accept what they have to say as gospel truth. Whenever I included facts and statistics in my writing or video presentations, I make it a point to include the sources for my information so that my readers and viewers can see the data for themselves within its original context so that they know that I'm not misleading them. Too bad Chaffetz doesn't have that kind of integrity. "On Keeping Them Honest" as posted to CNN's iReport.com: This time in the form of an Op-Ed printed in the Washington Times: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/12/expose-cap-and-trade-costs/ Elements of which are reused from an Op-Ed he wrote for the Provo Herald on April 15 (Tax Day!): http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/305889/58/ I will again refer the reader to my exposé "On Keeping Them Honest" which illustrates how the GOP is trying to misrepresent Cap-and-Trade as a tax in order to fabricate a reason to call the President a liar. Chaffetz also claims that President Obama "proposes a net tax increase on businesses of $327 billion over 10 years" but offers no details as to when or where the President made such a proposal. I tried Googling the phrase in order to figure out what exactly Chaffetz was talking about and all I could find were links to Chaffetz' own vague accusations in other media outlets and a reference in the April Newsletter for the Utah Taxpayers Association that speaks of the President's "massive tax increases on businesses in general" (emphasis added). That "in general" monicer raised a red-flag for me. My guess is that Chaffetz and other conservatives are taking this figure of "$327 billion" from some official source (that I haven't been able to find myself) and, like cap-and-trade, are arbitrarily calling it a tax (which begs the question, where are they getting this number from?) And, of course, these stooges are getting away with it because most of the people who pay any attention to what they have to say, rarely--if ever--bother to fact-check them and just accept what they have to say as gospel truth. Whenever I included facts and statistics in my writing or video presentations, I make it a point to include the sources for my information so that my readers and viewers can see the data for themselves within its original context so that they know that I'm not misleading them. Too bad Chaffetz doesn't have that kind of integrity. "On Keeping Them Honest" as posted to CNN's iReport.com: Tue, 12 May 2009 07:02:30 GMT http://community.fox13now.com/_Chaffetz-Still-Banging-the-Cap-and-Trade-is-a-Tax-Drum/BLOG/275085/96363.html Joseph 2009-05-12T07:02:30Z Fox 13 Now Community This time in the form of an Op-Ed printed in the Washington Times: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/12/expose-cap-and-trade-costs/ Elements of which are reused from an Op-Ed he wrote for the Provo Herald on April 15 (Tax Day!): http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/305889/58/ I will again refer the reader to my exposé "On Keeping Them Honest" which illustrates how the GOP is trying to misrepresent Cap-and-Trade as a tax in order to fabricate a reason to call the President a liar. Chaffetz also claims that President Obama "proposes a net tax increase on businesses of $327 billion over 10 years" but offers no details as to when or where the President made such a proposal. I tried Googling the phrase in order to figure out what exactly Chaffetz was talking about and all I could find were links to Chaffetz' own vague accusations in other media outlets and a reference in the April Newsletter for the Utah Taxpayers Association that speaks of the President's "massive tax increases on businesses in general" (emphasis added). That "in general" monicer raised a red-flag for me. My guess is that Chaffetz and other conservatives are taking this figure of "$327 billion" from some official source (that I haven't been able to find myself) and, like cap-and-trade, are arbitrarily calling it a tax (which begs the question, where are they getting this number from?) And, of course, these stooges are getting away with it because most of the people who pay any attention to what they have to say, rarely--if ever--bother to fact-check them and just accept what they have to say as gospel truth. Whenever I included facts and statistics in my writing or video presentations, I make it a point to include the sources for my information so that my readers and viewers can see the data for themselves within its original context so that they know that I'm not misleading them. Too bad Chaffetz doesn't have that kind of integrity. "On Keeping Them Honest" as posted to CNN's iReport.com: cap and trade, carbon, chaffetz, change, climate, emissions, gop, jason, republican nonadult false Chaffetz Still Banging the "Cap and Trade is a Tax" Drum text blog cap and trade,carbon,chaffetz,change,climate,emissions,gop,jason,republican 315 0 0.0 http://community.fox13now.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=7566648&as=96363 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/96363/photos/PHOTO_3755476_96363_7566648_ap_160X120.jpg false 0 0 275085 7566648 Member 0 http://community.fox13now.com/_Heubener-and-Utah-Politics/BLOG/274376/96363.html This was originally written in February: I recently watched Thomas F. Rogers’ play “Heubener,” the story of a young Mormon Elder in wartime Germany whose Branch President tries desperately to reconcile his faith with his citizenship citing the 12th Article of Faith of the LDS Church, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” However, he also tries to reconcile his beliefs with the dogma of the ruling Nazi party. This attempt at reconciliation, in Rogers’ own words, “serves as the philosophical crux of the play,” which struck close to home for me in that I’ve seen in our own community, and by extension Utah politics in general, attempts by faithful Mormons to reconcile doctrine with political rhetoric. This attitude even has Mormons questioning each other’s morality and worthiness based on their political leanings despite statements issued by the Church that “Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties.” It’s my hope, since we are currently between elections, that these observations will not be arbitrarily dismissed like so much political hot air. It seems that in our two party system––no matter how much the parties claim to be open to differing views––when it comes time to vote, all members of a party are expected to tow the line in accordance with the views of the party leadership (often representing the most extreme ends of the political spectrum). Such attitudes make the efforts of moderates futile. When any one party is in control of government for an extended period of time, I’m reminded of Lord Acton’s caveat that “Power... corrupt[s] and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” In our federal government we can recall major shifts of power in Congress to check the Executive branch mid-term; most notably 1994 and 2006. But what of Utah’s political climate in which, despite a state constitution that was modeled on the Federal one, has effectively become a one-party system over the last generation largely by appealing to Mormons by implying that their party is more righteous than others? How many Utah candidates include their LDS Missions on their resumes? All this flies in the face of established Doctrine: “We do not believe it just to MINGLE religious influence with civil government...” (D&C 134:9) (emphasis added) While the Church encourages its members to participate in all aspects of government from voting to running for office, even participation in political parties, it still places a great deal of emphasis on members thinking for themselves when casting their votes. “...vote for and actively support those YOU believe will most nearly carry out YOUR ideas of good government.” (emphasis added) I think Mormons would be better served by not allying themselves with any political party. An unaffiliated voter, either in the voting booth or on the floor of a legislative body, is freer to vote their conscience and would not feel politically pressured to “tow the line.” This was originally written in February: I recently watched Thomas F. Rogers’ play “Heubener,” the story of a young Mormon Elder in wartime Germany whose Branch President tries desperately to reconcile his faith with his citizenship citing the 12th Article of Faith of the LDS Church, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” However, he also tries to reconcile his beliefs with the dogma of the ruling Nazi party. This attempt at reconciliation, in Rogers’ own words, “serves as the philosophical crux of the play,” which struck close to home for me in that I’ve seen in our own community, and by extension Utah politics in general, attempts by faithful Mormons to reconcile doctrine with political rhetoric. This attitude even has Mormons questioning each other’s morality and worthiness based on their political leanings despite statements issued by the Church that “Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties.” It’s my hope, since we are currently between elections, that these observations will not be arbitrarily dismissed like so much political hot air. It seems that in our two party system––no matter how much the parties claim to be open to differing views––when it comes time to vote, all members of a party are expected to tow the line in accordance with the views of the party leadership (often representing the most extreme ends of the political spectrum). Such attitudes make the efforts of moderates futile. When any one party is in control of government for an extended period of time, I’m reminded of Lord Acton’s caveat that “Power... corrupt[s] and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” In our federal government we can recall major shifts of power in Congress to check the Executive branch mid-term; most notably 1994 and 2006. But what of Utah’s political climate in which, despite a state constitution that was modeled on the Federal one, has effectively become a one-party system over the last generation largely by appealing to Mormons by implying that their party is more righteous than others? How many Utah candidates include their LDS Missions on their resumes? All this flies in the face of established Doctrine: “We do not believe it just to MINGLE religious influence with civil government...” (D&C 134:9) (emphasis added) While the Church encourages its members to participate in all aspects of government from voting to running for office, even participation in political parties, it still places a great deal of emphasis on members thinking for themselves when casting their votes. “...vote for and actively support those YOU believe will most nearly carry out YOUR ideas of good government.” (emphasis added) I think Mormons would be better served by not allying themselves with any political party. An unaffiliated voter, either in the voting booth or on the floor of a legislative body, is freer to vote their conscience and would not feel politically pressured to “tow the line.” Mon, 11 May 2009 19:42:14 GMT http://community.fox13now.com/_Heubener-and-Utah-Politics/BLOG/274376/96363.html Joseph 2009-05-11T19:42:14Z Fox 13 Now Community This was originally written in February: I recently watched Thomas F. Rogers’ play “Heubener,” the story of a young Mormon Elder in wartime Germany whose Branch President tries desperately to reconcile his faith with his citizenship citing the 12th Article of Faith of the LDS Church, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” However, he also tries to reconcile his beliefs with the dogma of the ruling Nazi party. This attempt at reconciliation, in Rogers’ own words, “serves as the philosophical crux of the play,” which struck close to home for me in that I’ve seen in our own community, and by extension Utah politics in general, attempts by faithful Mormons to reconcile doctrine with political rhetoric. This attitude even has Mormons questioning each other’s morality and worthiness based on their political leanings despite statements issued by the Church that “Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties.” It’s my hope, since we are currently between elections, that these observations will not be arbitrarily dismissed like so much political hot air. It seems that in our two party system––no matter how much the parties claim to be open to differing views––when it comes time to vote, all members of a party are expected to tow the line in accordance with the views of the party leadership (often representing the most extreme ends of the political spectrum). Such attitudes make the efforts of moderates futile. When any one party is in control of government for an extended period of time, I’m reminded of Lord Acton’s caveat that “Power... corrupt[s] and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” In our federal government we can recall major shifts of power in Congress to check the Executive branch mid-term; most notably 1994 and 2006. But what of Utah’s political climate in which, despite a state constitution that was modeled on the Federal one, has effectively become a one-party system over the last generation largely by appealing to Mormons by implying that their party is more righteous than others? How many Utah candidates include their LDS Missions on their resumes? All this flies in the face of established Doctrine: “We do not believe it just to MINGLE religious influence with civil government...” (D&C 134:9) (emphasis added) While the Church encourages its members to participate in all aspects of government from voting to running for office, even participation in political parties, it still places a great deal of emphasis on members thinking for themselves when casting their votes. “...vote for and actively support those YOU believe will most nearly carry out YOUR ideas of good government.” (emphasis added) I think Mormons would be better served by not allying themselves with any political party. An unaffiliated voter, either in the voting booth or on the floor of a legislative body, is freer to vote their conscience and would not feel politically pressured to “tow the line.” church, heubener, lds, mormon, politics, thomas f. rogers, utah nonadult false "Heubener" and Utah Politics text blog church,heubener,lds,mormon,politics,thomas f. rogers,utah 343 0 0.0 http://community.fox13now.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=7566648&as=96363 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/96363/photos/PHOTO_3755476_96363_7566648_ap_160X120.jpg false 2 0 274376 7566648 Member 0 http://community.fox13now.com/_Thanks-for-the-warm-welcome/BLOG/274309/96363.html I'd just like to thank everybody who's sent me messages and left comments welcoming me to this community. I really appreciate it. Even the obnoxious comments left by chadevb. ;-) I'd just like to thank everybody who's sent me messages and left comments welcoming me to this community. I really appreciate it. Even the obnoxious comments left by chadevb. ;-) Mon, 11 May 2009 19:01:57 GMT http://community.fox13now.com/_Thanks-for-the-warm-welcome/BLOG/274309/96363.html Joseph 2009-05-11T19:01:57Z Fox 13 Now Community I'd just like to thank everybody who's sent me messages and left comments welcoming me to this community. I really appreciate it. Even the obnoxious comments left by chadevb. ;-) nonadult false Thanks for the warm welcome text blog 117 0 0.0 http://community.fox13now.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=7566648&as=96363 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/96363/photos/PHOTO_3755476_96363_7566648_ap_160X120.jpg false 5 0 274309 7566648 Member 0 http://community.fox13now.com/_Bennett-Should-Bow-Out-in-2010/BLOG/274260/96363.html I voted for Bob Bennett in 1992 because he struck me as a pretty even handed guy and also because he spoke out against career politicians promising to serve no more than two terms in the Senate. To paraphrase a comment he made in '92, "Get in, do your job, then get out." Now, here we are almost three terms later and he's already planning a fourth run in 2010 only instead of maintaining the role he's played in Washington as a relatively moderate member of the GOP we're anticipating a major shift to the far right all so he can keep his senate seat. In my book, Bennett lost his credibility when he decided to run for his third term and he's already abandoned his bipartisan principles to shore up the G-No-P's obstructionist role in the Legislative Branch. I think I'd rather see a genuine conservative take his seat in 2010 than watch a man that i once admired fold to political pressure as his party rearranges the deck chairs on the sinking ship that is the Republican Party. http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_12329154 I voted for Bob Bennett in 1992 because he struck me as a pretty even handed guy and also because he spoke out against career politicians promising to serve no more than two terms in the Senate. To paraphrase a comment he made in '92, "Get in, do your job, then get out." Now, here we are almost three terms later and he's already planning a fourth run in 2010 only instead of maintaining the role he's played in Washington as a relatively moderate member of the GOP we're anticipating a major shift to the far right all so he can keep his senate seat. In my book, Bennett lost his credibility when he decided to run for his third term and he's already abandoned his bipartisan principles to shore up the G-No-P's obstructionist role in the Legislative Branch. I think I'd rather see a genuine conservative take his seat in 2010 than watch a man that i once admired fold to political pressure as his party rearranges the deck chairs on the sinking ship that is the Republican Party. http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_12329154 Mon, 11 May 2009 18:21:53 GMT http://community.fox13now.com/_Bennett-Should-Bow-Out-in-2010/BLOG/274260/96363.html Joseph 2009-05-11T18:21:53Z Fox 13 Now Community I voted for Bob Bennett in 1992 because he struck me as a pretty even handed guy and also because he spoke out against career politicians promising to serve no more than two terms in the Senate. To paraphrase a comment he made in '92, "Get in, do your job, then get out." Now, here we are almost three terms later and he's already planning a fourth run in 2010 only instead of maintaining the role he's played in Washington as a relatively moderate member of the GOP we're anticipating a major shift to the far right all so he can keep his senate seat. In my book, Bennett lost his credibility when he decided to run for his third term and he's already abandoned his bipartisan principles to shore up the G-No-P's obstructionist role in the Legislative Branch. I think I'd rather see a genuine conservative take his seat in 2010 than watch a man that i once admired fold to political pressure as his party rearranges the deck chairs on the sinking ship that is the Republican Party. http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_12329154 bennett, bob, delegation, gop, party, republican, senate, utah nonadult false Bennett Should Bow Out in 2010 text blog bennett,bob,delegation,gop,party,republican,senate,utah 137 0 0.0 http://community.fox13now.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=7566648&as=96363 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/96363/photos/PHOTO_3755476_96363_7566648_ap_160X120.jpg false 5 0 274260 7566648 Member 0 http://community.fox13now.com/_News-Information-or-Propaganda-Spin/BLOG/274235/96363.html http://www.thespectrum.com/article/20090510/OPINION/905100302 The Spectrum claims to be Southern Utah's #1 source for news and information. I can't say this article is entirely objective. http://www.thespectrum.com/article/20090510/OPINION/905100302 The Spectrum claims to be Southern Utah's #1 source for news and information. I can't say this article is entirely objective. Mon, 11 May 2009 18:07:34 GMT http://community.fox13now.com/_News-Information-or-Propaganda-Spin/BLOG/274235/96363.html Joseph 2009-05-11T18:07:34Z Fox 13 Now Community http://www.thespectrum.com/article/20090510/OPINION/905100302 The Spectrum claims to be Southern Utah's #1 source for news and information. I can't say this article is entirely objective. chaffetz, congress, ethics, honesty, in, jason, media, politics, truth nonadult false News & Information or Propaganda & Spin? text blog chaffetz,congress,ethics,honesty,in,jason,media,politics,truth 222 0 0.0 http://community.fox13now.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=7566648&as=96363 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/96363/photos/PHOTO_3755476_96363_7566648_ap_160X120.jpg false 1 0 274235 7566648 Member 0