On choosing a Presidential candidate

I am an Obama man. Have been since January when Edwards dropped out. I guess I'm too much of a peacenik to be gung-ho for Hillary; it was the only issue I really disagreed with in her voting record and her rhetoric.

Having said that I'm an Obama man, I suppose I need to have some reasons. First, I like the fact that Obama did not have a famous spouse, rich or infulential parents, or any other thing that got him to where he is. He was smart, worked hard, and used the opportunity that America affords to everyone. Not that everyone can be a senator - if I am dumb as a rock (a hot topic of debate around the dinner table) then I don't want to be a senator or President. And I shouldn't be. But I like the fact that Obama earned his place on the stage through talent and hard work.

Secondly, I agree with his politics most of the time. More than specific policies, I like the tone of his policies. I like where he comes from and how he approaches issues. I see a lot of my own viewpoints in how he explains himself. Does that make me a narcissist? Or have I just fallen under the spell? I don't know. I may disagree with what he chooses to do, but I can usually understand the reason he does it.

Thirdly, he is by all accounts a great organizer. His campaign does not have constant leaks, defections, shakeups. His grassroots organizations are the best we've see in a long time. He continues to control the narrative by being in charge - his European trip followed immediately by an economics summit with a whole bunch of busy businesspeople shows organizational ability. We sorely need that as we try to get an out-of-control federal government back to accountability.

Fourthly, given that it's time for the conventions, he's by far the better candidate.

Obama's negatives? He's got a skimpy resume. He voted for FISA. He's got a LOT of hope and seems missing some wonkish rhetoric.

I am not for McCain. If I had been able to vote for him in 2000, I would have. I liked his energy on the trail, moderate positions, and wanted a break from the Clinton scandals. I guessed that Al might have brought too many hangers-on with him. John is not the same guy he was then.

Someone asked McCain why he was campaigning so hard for Bush in 2004 after the way Bush treated him in 2000. Where was the straight talker? McCain's answer was that the straight talker lost. That theme, more than any, illuminates McCain's campaign in this election. In one location, he's for immigration reform "first priority". In the next location the next day, he's about "national security, first priority". I don't see these as diametrically opposed, but his audiences do.

I also find it very hard to be "for" someone who seems to only be "against" everything his opponent is "for". McCain does not have a realistic positive vision for America that I have seen. I need that in the leader of the free world.

As Easy as Riding a Bike

Last Tuesday, I got home late after work and running a long errand. The family had already eaten, and as I walked in the door, my 6 year-old son caught me on my way into the kitchen. "Dad, can I ride my bike in front?" We don't let him ride his bike alone out there yet. We live in a quiet residential cul-de-sac, but there's still a few cars and...the kid is 6.

At my house, learning something new is a big deal. The kids are all smart, so we often have lots of good stuff to celebrate. The kids are all (except our youngest) a little afraid to try new things. Whether it's a cheese-filled hot dog or new pair of shoes, doing something new is very uncomfortable for them, and it's something we've learned we can't push. We can only make it easier for them to make the decision. This was to be a week of such breakthroughs.

I evaluated my options, and decided to grab my dinner and sit on the front lawn while he rode his new (larger) bike. I saw him ride across the cul-de-sac a few times and noticed that his training wheels only touched the ground when he was stopping or starting. I told him that. He went back out to ride. A few minutes later, he came to me, and asked that I take off his training wheels.

We got my socket set out, I loosened the nut, and he finished it. He was scared at first. I held him at his waist until he got going, and walked across as he stopped and turned around. We did that a couple times. He wanted to go around, but was afraid he couldn't do a curve.
"I can't do it."
"Of course not now, but you can learn."
"No, I can't. I already tried two times and I couldn't do it."
"Are you going to be 50 years old and not do a curve?"
"No."
"Are you going to be 25 and not do a curve?"
A smile. "No."

The next time across the cul-de-sac, he made the curve. The next time across, he made a 90-degree turn from the neighbor's driveway onto the sidewalk. And he crashed at the juniper bush that hangs over. But he landed on his feet, and was fine.

A few minutes later, he went inside and got his big sister out to ride with him. She was busy showing off and slipped in the pine needles and scraped her elbow. Buddy didn't get hurt all night. We went to a family reunion in Washington over the weekend, and he was afraid that he couldn't keep the bike straight in the skinny one-way road that rings the campground.

"I tried two times but I couldn't do it!"
"Let's try again."
"No! I can't!"
"If you don't try, you're right. You can't."

30 seconds later, he was going. By the end of the weekend, he had mastered riding on the grass, gravel, transitioning to the pavement, and jumping curbs back at home.

I enjoy getting out of my comfort zone. I'll try something very unusual for me and see how it works out. I never get the thing I know I'll like on the menu. I get the thing that sounds different and interesting. When I see something at work that needs attention from upper management (I'm still in the lower echelon here), I'll mention it. I'll audition for a semi-pro choir, or sign up for the 100-mile bike ride, or teach myself guitar, or write a blog.

I think I developed this as a teenager, by the simple virtue of my parents never telling me that I was incapable of doing something. I wonder if that will work with my kids. I'm hoping it does - zest for life and finding one's limits largely defines who I am and allows me to dream the big dreams and get to work on making them come true.

Why I Love Conservatives

Why, as a liberal, would I love conservatives? Don't they stand against everything I'm for? Well, no, actually, they don't.

For one, I have many friends and family members who consider themselves conservatives. For another, I agree with many conservative positions.

Fiscal responsibility? Check.
Foreign policy restraint? Check.
Freedom to act as my conscious dictates? Check.
Rule of law and ethical behavior? Check, check.
Economy is currently problematic? Check.
Kids are growing up differently now than they used to, and that presents new problems? Check.
Limited government size? Check.
There are too many abortions done in the US? Check.

"Wait, wait. But you said you're a liberal." Yep. I'm also for universal health care, higher taxes on higher incomes (yes, I'm for raising my own taxes) to help the poor, subsidized higher education, regulation in financial markets, and freedom from surveillance by my own government. I disagree with conservatives on these points.

I can't demonize people I love who share many of the same positions I do. What I recognize is that we agree on a large set of problems. We even agree on a large subset of possible solutions to those problems. In my experience, conservatives are not hateful, selfish, bad people. Some liberals will say those things - they don't speak for me.

In my experience, conservatives are idealists: in an ideal world, everyone would work hard. The rich would help those who could not help themselves. Corporations would care as much for the water quality around their chemical plant as they did about their bottom line. Young men would not impregnate young women and then skip town. Jail time would be a sufficient deterrent to stop violent crime.

I am, instead, a pragmatist. Some peope don't work hard. Some rich people do not do much to help those around them who are less fortunate. There are a lot of young people who make foolish decisions about how they use their procreative powers. Given this state of affairs - that we're all human and make mistakes - what remedies make sense? Should a young woman who has a child at 16 years old be punished by society for the rest of her life? Or should [the collective] we help her to get back on her feet? What can [the collective] we do to assist the rich to assist the poor?

My inclination is to seek ways to assist. Too often, it seems that the conservative political movement wants to find ways to stop assisting, to stop being proactive. That's not what I'm about. We have problems to face, and we have to face them together, as long as we're all alive.

Who doesn't love little kids?

The Mormon church is a church of laity - not even the bishop is paid a dime for his service. And almost everyone who comes regularly has a calling - Mormon jargon for a service that the congregational member does. In the past, I've been a Cub Scout leader, teenage Sunday School teacher, music leader for the Primary (kid church), and a missionary.

Nowadays, my calling is to serve in the nursery, which is the Primary for kids aged 18 months to 3 years old. We get the kids for 2 hours each week while their parents go to Sunday school and other meetings. We sing songs, dance around, talk about our families, being thankful, get snack, play with toys, and do crafts. I love it. My kids are the oldest bunch, all of them turn 3 during 2008. They're learning to express themselves, to share, to throw balls, color, count, potty train, drink out of cups, and all that other fun stuff. My prep for each session is pretty minimal - a few hours during the week will get any crafts I need to prepare ready and any lesson materials I need.

The kids are a blast - full of happy energy, and they never mean to hurt anyone else. They want to be tickled, play ball with you, blow bubbles, and tell you how much they love their mommies. I walk out of there each week physically drained and mentally charged. I absolutely love it.

So I was REALLY surprised when I was talking with someone from the Primary leadership yesterday. I was asking her about filling the teacher spot for the middle class (we have 3 classes), and she said that they haven't been able to find anyone both willing and able to do it.

WHAT??? I can understand not asking a mom with little kids to serve. And I can totally understand her turning it down if asked. But what dad would turn down the chance? How could a person not want to get hugged by little arms, comfort a crying child, give a few more goldfish when they hear "Can I have more fishies pweese?" The children are full of love; they have more than enough to give. Some attention and love back is all they ask. It's such an easy exchange. I really just don't get it. Can anyone else explain that to me?

Position Paper: Immigration

[Note: this position paper, as all position papers, is a work in progress. I expect to put some more links and facts in here, and - who knows? - maybe I'll flip-flop somewhere along the line.]



With the exception of 100% pure Native Americans, every person who lives in America has immigrants in their background. I have some from the 1600s, and a Japanese sister-in-law. This is the norm for Americans - we live with immigration and immigrants as part of our lives and part of our economy.

Immigration is complicated - Americans enjoy relatively cheap prices for many products and services that require cheap labor. Aliens, both legal and illegal, provide much of the labor for this part of the economy. While many Americans have been smugly monolingual their whole lives, learning a second language is becoming increasingly important in the job market. Deporting fathers and mothers and putting their citizen children into foster care doesn't feel right, but is what the law prescribes. Immigrants have lower than average income, and thus are net recipients of federal assistance instead of net contributors.

My stance comes from 3 main beliefs:
1) America does not deport its citizens
2) All children born on US soil are US citizens
3) It is morally reprehensible to break up a loving family for any reason

The Federal Fiscal Case

US law accords citizens with a certain set of rights and responsibilities. It also accords all people on US soil legally with a certain set of rights and responsibilities. I'm not a lawyer, and have some more study to do before I add a bunch of links to this post. Among some of these rights and responsibilities are to abide by US law, pay taxes, primary and secondary education, police and fire protection, protection from discrimination based on certain demographic facts, receive Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and voting.

There is an argument that illegal aliens receive far more from the government than they put in. The Center for Immigration Studies says that it's fiscally worse to grant such aliens citizenship than it is to keep them as non-citizens. That is, most households headed by illegal aliens consume more federal dollars than they pay in taxes, to the tune of $2700 per household per year. But households headed by citizens in the same income bracket consume far more: $7500 per household per year. (The CIS is nominally non-partisan but is headed by Mark Krikorian, who often writes for right-leaning organizations.)

Most of this money, reports CIS, goes to providing services for US-born citizen children of illegal aliens. Which means that even in households headed by illegal aliens, the bulk of services are provided o US citizens. CIS also reports that because illegal aliens do not consume Social Security but do pay in to the system, that they provide a net benefit to the social welfare net in the US.

Arrest and deportation are lengthy and expensive processes (need link). But in the long-term, it is likely cheaper to arrest and deport than grant amnesty. The fiscal case is fairly clear.

The Cultural Shift Case

There is undoubtedly a shift in culture. That's what cultures do, and have been doing for centuries. The broader question is simpler: is American culture changing in a good way? I would argue that there is no good answer to the broad, simple question. There are pieces of the changing landscape that I love - the rise of bilingual education, Spanish and Chinese TV channels, cartoons on PBS that feature non-whites as leading characters. There are pieces I don't love - the sexualization of children (bikinis and high heels for toddlers????), increasing acceptance of pornography, a focus on differences instead of commonalities.

I am far less concerned with immigrants' negative influences on American culture than I am with Americans' negative influence on American culture. Bring on the Espanol - and make sure my kids learn it, too.

The Social Welfare Case

When did it become acceptable to break up a family just because they are of different nationality? One can argue that when a parent breaks the law, they go to jail. Got that, it's complicated, but okay. That's the law-and-order argument, and I understand it.

I disagree with it completely, however, because it is myopic. For one, if my crime is to drive into Canada, get a job, and raise my kids there, it's not reason enough for Canada to raise my Canadian-citizen kids without me and put me in jail or deport me to Peoria. For another, our tax structure and economy depends on population growth.

Industrial nations have, on average, a steady population. Russia, Germany, France, and Japan all have declining populations. This decline is balanced by US population growth. The largest driver for US population growth is immigrants and their children. If we are interested in our taxes and social welfare benefits being similar to what current retirees enjoy, we need immigrants. And we should be grateful that we don't have to resort to the same kinds of incentives that Russia and Germany have done (which don't work).

My position

It is too late to deport the 12 million people here illegally. So what do we do in the near term?

America needs to welcome immigrants. Many of those immigrants' children are citizens. So what do we do to welcome these citizens' parents and help them contribute to the country's welfare? For one, we need to grant green cards to parents of citizens. If those parents commit crimes other than entering or living in the US illegally, they go to jail just like any other criminal. A green card means lots of things: driver's license, marriage (and divorce), Social Security (if you have worked more than 10 years before retiring), voting in local elections, and a host of other things. It also means you have to tell the government every time you move, have to carry ID with you at all times, may never be able to live outside of the US again, and have to deal with the possibility that the US government can pull your permanent status any time you leave the country (see Extended Stay section in previous link).

In the long term, America needs to realistically assess its appetite. Do we really want that cheap produce, cleaning service, construction labor, or taxi driver? If so, we already have an incentive for them to come. We need to make an incentive for them to come legally. I'm not sure what that is, but it would likely look like a guest worker program, somewhere between nothing and a green card.

Will this solve our problems? Of course not. It resolves a quandary about citizen children and illegal alien parents, and puts the money on the table where we can see it instead of being hidden in a shadow economy. It costs more in the short run as these newly permanent residents use government services, but is a great benefit in the long run as the US economy maintains enough young workers to keep the economy going and sustains the tax base so old people like me (in their 30s) can realistically think about retiring someday.

Disappointment with Obama

When this year's election race started a loooong time ago, I was a John Edwards supporter. I thought his candidness about a mistaken vote to authorize force in Iraq, his focus on narrowing the income gap in America, and his position on universal healthcare were all spot-on. I was angry when he dropped out in January.

But given that he was no longer an option, I became an Obama supporter. I was against the Iraq war from the start, and wrote to both of my senators at the time to ask that they vote against the resolution. Hillary's unwavering defense of her position and support for other hawkish measures (declaring Iran's Republican Guard a terrorist organization for one) led me to distrust her judgment on matters of war and peace. I also considered Bill a millstone-sized weight to a Hillary presidency and a constant risk for scandal, which I was not interested in. If Hillary was really about feminism, her deference to his infidelity would have given way before now.

So Obama was my guy. Still is. But I am troubled by his recent pandering. His biggest early strength - his honesty - is now in question. First he reversed course on the FISA bill, a terrible bill that gave the President everything he wanted and trampled over 4th ammendment protections against warrantless searches. Then, just yesterday, he claimed to have never doubted that the 2007 surge in Iraq would decrease violence. His rhetoric at the time was exactly the opposite.

Barak, who are you? An agent of change? Or is the biggest change you bring a hope that becomes despair? This is not the solid footing for a good Presidential administration that we hoped for, nor does it sow the seeds for doing things differently in Washington.

While we have seen violence reduced since the surge (now 18 months into 6-month plan), it is a mistake to take correlation for causation. At the same time as the surge, the US military started to enlist the help of Iraqi groups to quell violence. It seems that this is what worked. Obama needs to give the military credit where credit is due - the surge is a red herring, and should be ignored, while enlisting the help of Iraqis to contain the violence works.

Why I'm a Liberal

I'm a devout Mormon. Bush won Utah 76/26 in 2004 (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/UT/P/00/index.html) and 67/26 in 2000 (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/UT/P/00/index.html). Utah is hugely Republican and hugely Mormon. In Sunday school one week, the teacher talked about my favorite talk radio station and people who listen to it as "enemies". I'm rather out of the mold here. Why?

Firstly, I'm not perfect. I fully expect that some of my opinions are either empirically wrong or are not a panacea to a specific problem. I also expect that other people are in the same boat.

Secondly, my personal religious beliefs are more in line with the New Testament than the Old Testament. Jesus taught about forgiveness, famously discouraged stoning, and wanted people to give to the poor. Conservative politics these days are more about guilt, punishment, and self-reliance. While each of these Conservative political positions are useful and beneficial in certain cases, they are too often distorted into cruel policies that do not align with the principles of mercy and love that I try to live by.

Thirdly, when I look at governmental fiscal behavior and think of my children, it is obvious to me that liberals are better with the pursestrings, and have been since before I started reading Newsweek at age 12. That was 1986.

That sums it up. Whether the issue is war, immigration, social security, healthcare, religiously themed public displays, taxes, or anything else, these core principles inform my position.