Saturday, November 08, 2008
Monday, December 03, 2007
Sunday, July 01, 2007
My decision started sometime around March, and gradually grew until I knew for sure it was time. I wish the club the best, and I hope that they do well. I'll see you all around campus!
Friday, May 11, 2007
Billy G. asserted that I was a flip-flopper. I am. I am a flip-flopper. I've stated it in other posts, I'll state it again. If I am presented with compelling evidence, I am completely open to be convinced and persuaded to change my mind.
With that flip-flopping, I'm also accustomed to saying that I'm probably wrong about a lot of things. I really don't have any qualms with admitting things when I'm wrong and then immediately moving forward to make things right.
So, that's that. But, that still doesn't answer the question of why I openly support Mitt Romney, especially considering that I'm a Democrat.
I support Mitt in the context of: If I were voting in the Republican presidential primary (which I am not), I would vote for Mitt. So here are the reasons, in no particular order:
1. I know people who know Mitt personally. The personal stories they have told me about him have engendered me to him.
2. Religious bias. I'm a Mormon, as far as I know, Mitt is a Mormon in good-standing, I think he is a positive role model for my faith.
3. He's flexible. Mitt Romney has shown throughout his professional and educational career that he is keen, innovative and amiable. He's a very smart guy and Republicans should be proud to have such a strong candidate. His universal health care plan in Massachusetts is one great example of his ability to innovate and compromise.
So, that's that for now.
BTW, does anyone know who the new BYU-I College Dems Prez is? I'm in Portland and I would be back in the Burg till August.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
It's a study by Indiana University about Bill O'Reilly: "BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- Bill O'Reilly may proclaim at the beginning of his program that viewers are entering the 'No Spin Zone,' but a new study by Indiana University media researchers found that the Fox News personality consistently paints certain people and groups as villains and others as victims to present the world, as he sees it, through political rhetoric.
The IU researchers found that O'Reilly called a person or a group a derogatory name once every 6.8 seconds, on average, or nearly nine times every minute during the editorials that open his program each night."
Saturday, April 28, 2007
I think the following quote from the article expresses an important sentiment: "BYU is not — nor should it ever become — an LDS seminary experience. BYU is a facility for higher learning and the receiving of a genuine liberal education. Many Mormons who are pro-Cheney would prefer that no Democrats ever be allowed to speak at BYU. They have largely had their way when one reviews the disproportionate number of conservatives who have dominated campuswide speeches over the decades."
Former CIA director George J. Tenet is about to publish a book that claims the Bush administration was looking for a fight in Iraq. Here's the story.
Why do I bring this up? Because I am suspicious as to whether the Executive Branch, the sole provider of pre-Iraq war intelligence, purposefully pushed to convince Congress to go to war.
Here is a site I found that has interesting information. While I fully acknowledge that the site is biased, the information provided can easily be corroborated with reliable, and less biased sources.
So, the question is: Does Mr. Tenet's word mean anything? If so, what will be the impact, if any? If not, why not?
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
I think it's important that media of all brands, even partisan media, show restraint in reporting and making comments regarding ongoing investigations. Most of us are aware of the potential impact media can have on criminal investigations.
Here is a story about the special investigations on Karl Rove and the current White House Administration.
I think this investigation is great! It will either exonerate Rove and the administration, or it will clearly show that the current White House has engaged in dishonorable political practices.
If it's the latter, as I suspect, I wonder how many will admit that they had misplaced their trust. It's really not important to me to hear those confessions, that would be prideful, but I would hope that it serves to create a more humble political atmosphere.
Monday, April 16, 2007
I would like to encourage all members of the College Democrats, as well as all visitors to this website, to keep those involved in the
Friday, April 13, 2007
Here's an update on the story.
For those unfamiliar with the context of this story visit this link which gives a brief summary on the controversy revolving around the firing of 8 republican U.S. attorneys.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House "screwed up" by not requiring e-mails from Republican Party and campaign accounts to be saved and is trying to recover any documents that may have been deleted, a spokeswoman said Thursday.
The admission came after the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee accused the White House of trying to hide messages related to the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, which has stirred up a hornet's nest on Capitol Hill.
Congressional investigators have questioned whether White House aides used e-mail accounts from the Republican Party and President Bush's re-election campaign for official government business to avoid scrutiny of those dealings.
"You can't erase e-mails, not today," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont. "They've gone through too many servers. They can't say they've been lost. That's like saying, 'The dog ate my homework.' " (Watch Leahy compare e-mails to Nixon tapes )
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters that the e-mails from those accounts should have been saved, but said policy has not kept pace with technology. She said computer experts were trying to retrieve any records that have been deleted.
"We screwed up, and we're trying to fix it," she told reporters.
I mention this issue as one example to contradict the occasions I've had to speak with those who believe the Bush administration to be a strong moral authority. While these conversations have been primarily with Latter-day Saints, there is a continuing propaganda republicans to appear to be on a high moral ground.
Luckily, six years of republican governance has disproved this pseudo-moral authority to nearly all except the 90% of LDS who voted to re-elect President Bush.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
The article is a puff piece about Matthew Dowd who, in 2004, was the President's chief campaign strategist. Who he is, and how he feels about issues is not the reason I reference him and the article. I bring him up because of his thoughts about "a level of gentleness" in American politics.
Anyone who has met me knows that I am always available for a good debate. There's certainly nothing wrong about being passionate about issues that affect the nation and society. However, time after time, I find that it's all too easy to become victim to the sin of pride, hubris. And, when this hubris is combined with politics we all suddenly seem to become less saintly.
Case in point, I think Jessica's most recent post to this blog was not taken in the spirit in which it was given. To me, the post seemed clear: She, like many of us, fell accustomed to the habit of stereotyping, and her post indicated a change of heart.
I also couldn't help but nod my head in agreement with JamesP's reply to Jessica's post about labeling. Enemies of the Church us the moniker "Mormon" to deride it. On the other hand many, including myself, wear that name with pride. But, regardless of the usage, that name cannot explain the deeply intricate details of a person's testimony.
Yes, I am a liberal, but I am much more. Blake is conservative, but he is much more.
Labels, as useful as they are, are probably best left to differentiate canned goods and food storage.
Lastly, thanks to everyone who maintains a gentle tone of voice on this blogsite. To those who continue to spread inane and hateful rhetoric: I'LL GET YOU! AND YOU'RE LITTLE DOG TOO!
Thoughts? Comments? Share.
I would like to take this opportunity to say that I have had a complete ideological change of heart. Having examined the issues and candidates running in the 2008 Presidential election, I have come to the realization that there is only one choice in who will lead our country next.
I feel that the only rational choice for President would be Senator Hillary Clinton. Some may say that she is power hungry, verbally abusive to friends, family, and security details, and a southern carpet bagger who’s only interest in
Bringing the compassion that only a mother knows, she can lead our country through these difficult times of partisan division. Remember, anyone can care, but not everyone can Hillarycare.
Eight more years in '08!