Election Day is here but can't vote yet...

This morning at showed up at my polling place, Farrer Elementary in Provo, at 7:00. The poll workers were there and ready for me and the two others also there to vote. We received our voting cards after they were programmed for our precincts, but all three of us received the same error, "Ballot not found for this voter, please insert supervisor card." After trying to erase the cards and recode them, the same errors came up and the supervisor called for assistance. After a while on the phone she said that they didn't know yet what was going on and they are having the same problem throughout Provo. I'm curious as to how wide spread the problem is. I felt bad for the poll workers whose hands are tied. Some have been through the trainings multiple times on the Diebold machines that we're using, but they couldn't do anything to fix the problem. I've have to go back later in the day to vote.

I'm curious also on why the polls are open only from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Is it to give the voters a 13 hour window to vote, or is is to have the polls only open for that specific time. It may be time to revisit voting hours. I certainly don't have a 13 hour block in which I could vote today.

UT Republican State Convention 2006

Just a few thoughts on the convention that I attended as a state delegate Saturday. First, my votes (so that my constituents can see):

• Orrin Hatch for Senate: (won with 78%)
  
• Chris Cannon for Congress (District 3): (1st Ballot 42% Cannon, 36% Jacob, 22% Cook; second ballot 48%, John Jacob 52%)
  
• No on Ammendment 1: results weren't available b/c we ended up doing a written vote that was hand counted but very close to the 50% needed to pass.
  
• There was no vote held on 2 and 3 b/c there was not a quorum when it came time to vote, (quorum = 50% of credentialed delegates are present for the vote) - meaning that not even 50% of delegates that came to the convention cared enough about the business at the end to stay to conduct it.
  

This was my first state convention, (my first county convention was two years ago). I came to the state convention much more informed than I had the County convention in 04. I did not look into the party constitution/bylaws ammendments much and I disagreed with the resolutions presented, which were not voted on.

On Energy:

I met with Philip Carlson (Chair of Senate District 7 in SLC) and spent the morning talking with him about energy policy. We have been corresponding on the issue since mid-Apr. I have invited him to post on my Provo/Orem Energy Source blog. We discussed our perspectives and got better acquainted. I look forward to working with him and others more as I strive to educate myself and others on energy issues. I invite anyone who is interested to contact me by email at mewhiting@gmail.com.

From Hatch's candidate speach: He had a line about working on reducing the price of gas which received polite applause, but followed that line with a line about our nation's dependence on foreign oil, (can't remember if he used the word addicted or not). This line got at least twice the applause the gas price line did. That gives me hope that the delegates see that the long-term issue of at least foreign oil is the important issue and that the short-term issue high gas prices is not (The idea of a $100 help check from the fed has been much commented on, but nobody seems to be seeing like I do - as a handout to oil companies as it would make the current prices less of a market message to curb demand).

From John Jacob's candiate speach: He spent a short time on energy, which Chris and Merrill did not, (at least that I noticed). Again, I'm grateful to John for bringing this issue into the race and talking about it.

Comments on Chris Cannon's race:

I waffled back and forth between John and Chris. At the precint caucus meeting I was leaning toward John Jacob who I had met with in Feb. My knowledge about both candidates was very limited at that point. I had spoken with Chris a couple brief times in the past and felt he was too harsh on immigration. His personal (not family) connection to Geneva Steel also bothered me quite a bit, (we discussed how poorly run Geneva was in my management classes at BYU and I beleive the board IS responsible for the management of a company). Chris really got my attention when we talked at length on energy issues, I felt like he knew well the energy supply side of the equation, (neither candidate has ideas to deal with the demand side - yet). John gained my confidence when he listed energy as the top four concerns of the district. I felt like he brought energy into the discussion, when Chris would not have (except for land use issues). I'm grateful to John for this and not at all sad that he got more votes than Chris, because I think that will keep energy more in the race. I am not deluded as to why John got 52%. My guess is that almost all of those who voted for Merrill Cook moved their support
to John. Merrill lost my vote the minute he started talking about immigration but his response to my questions on energy sealed that thought for me. John was viewed as stronger on immigration than Chris, (I agree with that assesment), so he got the votes. I think the only people that could swallow voting for Cook, had to agree with his stance on immigration. My suprise was that Cook got 22% of the first round votes. I thought his militant stance on immigration would result in under 10%. John's gift to delegates of a showing of Mission Impossible III on Friday night before the convention bothered me. His last mailing which had a paragraph on energy that I felt needed clarification and made me worry he was going to be another Rep. foot soldier in the supposed rep. war on science. I emailed John Wed. night carboning Chris. Chris responded the next day with a very thoughtful response, (not all that I agreed with, but thoughtful). Based on the movie gift and lack of response to my email, I decided against John, then I got his email response Sat. morning before I left for the convention - short, but an acknowledgement. At that point I was still teetering and I really still am. When it comes down to it, I will vote for whomever I beleive will be most open to spending effort on energy policy and is open to creative demand-side as well as supply-side solutions.

Comments on Ammendment 1

I voted no based on not really seeing the difference between the change proposed and the current. I also came to this feeling that quibbles over the party rules were a waste of time and a distraction from looking at the issues that really mattered to me. I was shocked at the rancor of party members that this part of the convention business showed. I will look into these issues much more closely in the future. At debate was essentially an arguement that delegates can be appointed by county party leadership in such a way to influence the the outcome of the races being voted on in the coming conventions; instead of being voted on in the precint caucuses. With all the traffic in opinion on the subject in the UtahGOP yahoo group, I got tired of the issue. However, after the experience at the convention I want to look into this further. For instance, being new to the process, I did not know that I could have resigned my position as a county delegate, kept my state delagate position, and appointed a person in my precinct as a county delegate because I could not attend the county convention. Better yet, had I known, we could have separated the positions in the caucus meeting and the precinct could have voted on a county delegate. Unfortunely our precinct was incredibly disorganized with high resident turnover including our chair and vice chair having moved over a year ago. I spoke with the woman who ran against Curt Bramble in my UT Senate District 2 years ago that I'm pretty sure I voted for. She had a bit of a chip on her shoulder about the race as she felt like the county party had stacked the delegates against her through appointment so the nomination would go to Curt Bramble, (facilitated by Susan Bramble (wife of Curt) the county party secretary). As I had been emailing Susan back and forth about a week prior to this year's county convention I was paying attention. This is an email from Susan I received on Apr 25, 2006 in response to asking how to appoint a delegate in my stead to the county convention:

Matthew,
The deadline for replacing delegates was April 17th. The only way any delegate can be replace now is if there is a life threatening emergency. Our by-laws do not allow for a substitute delegate. You would have to resign and give her your delegate position. If you can't go there is no provision for substitutes.
Sorry,
Susan Bramble

The county convention was on the 29th, 12 days from the deadline for replacements. The accusation by Curt's challenger in 2004 (wish I could remember her name) was that the delegates were appointed by the county up to a day before the convention. I will look into this further. Ammendment 1, in my opinon boiled down to the some people's view that the state party needed to keep the county parties honest, instead of leaving it to the county to keep the county honest. I don't want to give the impression that I beleive the accusations at face value, nor that I think poorly of Susan Bramble, (she has been very helpful to me and prompt in getting me that help). I doubt I will actually find the truth of the accusations, but I do want to know if the county party rules have changed in the last two years regarding this. If I can not appoint a replacement county delegate for myself 4 days before the convention but the party leadership can, I think that is wrong and the rules should be changed. I will post on an explaination of the counties rules after I've gone through them more thoroughly and sought clarification where needed.

Comments on Orrin Hatch's race

Mainly, this was not a race that Hatch's challengers wanted to win. I hardly received any information from them until the last minute. The arguements presented by the challengers were mainly that Hatch was not Republican enough. Hatch is plenty Rep. for me.

Financial Lessons from Immigrants

In reading an an article in The Salt Lake Tribune I came across an interesting opinon.

Take Darrell Mensel, a Salt Lake City resident, who recently submitted a letter to the editor, saying: "I started in the construction business 25 years ago, with an equivalent wage of more than $25 an hour. Immigrants are working for a third of that, making it impossible for American laborers to compete in that economic sector and still feed a family."

Utah boom: Owed to immigrants? By Matt Canham

Out of curiousity, if an immigrant and their family can survive on a $8.30/hr (third of $25) than why can't we? Maybe we need to take a financial management lesson from these immigrants. I doubt that immigrants make up any sizable portion of those declaring bankruptcy in the state, particulary if they are illegal. I'm not saying that I want to live on $8.30, but Mr. Mensel implies that there are doing so. How? Maybe the rest of us should pay attention to that answer.

Energy at Lunch with Orrin Hatch

On Friday (Apr. 14) I attended a campaign lunch with Sen. Orrin Hatch at the Brick Oven in Provo. I was suprised and impressed that his openning comments were almost exclusively on energy. I was disappointed that no one asked any energy questions. The closest question was about increasing funding for the National Science Foundation, (which I was grateful to have asked and answered affirmatively). See the questioner's blog for more details.

Here are some of the things Hatch addressed with energy:

• UT, CO, WY have enormous energy resources: high quality coal, conventional oil, and oil shale
  
• Most of those resources are on federal land: spoke some about openning them up.
  
• Spoke about UT being shielded some from gas price shockes because we have some oil refineries: talked about building more as the other oil resources grow
  
• Mentioned developing geothermal resources
  
• Mentioned research at universities and also a company in Provo that is working on batteries for hybrids/electric vehs
  
• Also plead for letters to the BLM about the Skull Valley nuclear waste dump
  

Utah Policy Daily had a link to a Salt Lake Tribune article:Refinery to blame for grime and illness over the years, residents say

I've heard one of the reasons no oil refineries have been built in the U.S. for so long is the environmental regulations.

There will certainly be trade offs if we want to build more refineries in UT. I just hope we don't scrap the regulations because we are desparate for the oil.

On Nationalism, Immigration and Identities

While reading Peace is the Way back in December of last year, Deepak Chopra introduced an idea that struck a cord with me. He argued that one of the stumbling blocks to peace is nationalism. This was a radical idea to me but reading his articulation of the idea and thinking about it since then has allowed me see many issues differently.

From the time I was little I was taught that I was a child of God. I was also taught that all people throughout the world are children of God; part of the family of God - my family. I think even as a teenager I had a grasp of what that truth meant at some level, but I continue to have insights into my relationships with others as I experience life, meeting and interacting with others. I don't pretend that I live up to that truth every day, but I try. I've found that my greatest treasures in life are the relationships I have with others. I've had opportunities to meet and speak with people from almost every nation on earth when I was in Toronto serving as a missionary for the LDS church. I've learned over and over that I am first a child of God, part of his family, and all other identities are secondary to that. Such secondary identities to me include such titles as Mormon, Christian, certainly American - even Father and Husband are not as meaningful if I forget that first identity.

How is it that we let the arbitary lines of national borders determine so much of what we see overselves and others as? I'm American, you're Mexican, you're Russian, your Iraqi, you're Chinese! Should we really care more about those of our nation than those who are not of our nation? Although it may be so contrary to the way we view so many issues, how do you think God feels about those on either side of a national border?

I am grateful to be part of a nation, having a place and a people to call home. I am grateful for the freedoms I have because I am an American. I think that gratitude is a healthy manifestation of nationalism. You can surely come up with many examples of negitive manifestations.

---

This weekend was the General Conference of the LDS church. In the priesthood session, President Hinkley spoke briefly but forcefully against discrimination and condemning the use of racial slurs. Elder Oaks spoke at length about all being alike unto God. With immigration issues on my mind I could not help but make connections. I dearly hope others did also.

As I approach immigration issues, I am trying to do so without compromising my first identity.

I certainly can't speak for the LDS church, but I think there is a lot to learn from how the church is dealing with immigration. In the 1800's the church had a fund called the Perpetual Emigration Fund. Below are excepts from a speach given by LDS Church President Gordon B Hinckley in April of 2001.

What was known as the Perpetual Emigration Fund was established. Under this plan, funded by the Church, notwithstanding its serious poverty at that time, money was loaned to those members who had little or nothing. Loans were made with the understanding that when the converts arrived here, they would find employment, and as they were able to do so, they would pay off the loan. The money repaid would then be loaned to others to make it possible for them to emigrate. It was a revolving resource.
...
When the Perpetual Emigration Fund was no longer needed, it was dissolved. I believe that many within the sound of my voice are descendants of those who were blessed by reason of this fund. You are today prosperous and secure because of what was done for your forebears.

Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Perpetual Education Fund,” Ensign, May 2001, 51

The church now encourages its members to stay where they are, to build up the church where they are at and better the communities in which they live. The church no longer encourages immigration, (and hasn't for quite some time). In the same speach I quoted from earlier, President Hinckley introduced the Perpetual Education Fund, a fund to educate people in their home countries.

I was in an immigration discussion this evening in which someone pointed out that problems in other countries make immigration to the U.S. a solution, which in turn creates problems for us. As we look at immigration "solutions" we should consider what effect that will have on other countries. If it creates more problems in other countries, our efforts may backfire, creating more incentive for people to immigrate here (and likely illegally). While I agree that we can't solve the world's problems, we can certainly look at how American policy and business effect the rest of the world.

This is getting a bit long, so I better cut it here. This is my first written attempt at expressing most of these ideas and I hope those who read this will take that into consideration when commenting.

Oil linked to nearly everything in the ecomomy

I felt that CJ who had commented on my energy comments from "Today's Luncheon with Merrill Cook" was getting a raw treatment for his comment, "Oil and electricity are inextricable, given that a fair amount of our electricity is provided by oil-fired power plants." I felt I needed to argue the point more strongly of how electricity production is linked to oil. In fact nearly everything in our economy is linked to oil.

Power plants are build using desiel machinery. Coal is mined with desiel machinery. Natural Gas pipelines, build and maintained with desiel/gas machinery. How about maintenance on the power lines, substations, mining of copper and aluminum for wiring, etc - they're not using battery powered equipment. The plastics used for insulation on wiring are made from oil, you could go on and on.

We eat oil, drink oil and sleep oil!

Take a look at what you had for meals the last couple days. It's likely that the ingredients were shipped a long distance, (I've heard the avg peice of food in the US is shipped 1500 miles - not sure I can back that up, but when the bag of flour I last bought at the store says it was milled in Hungary, I don't doubt the figure). How about how it was grown, deisel tractors, fertilizers made from natural gas, etc.

Same analysis could be done for what we drink and what we sleep on, (and under).

Even some of our clothing is made from synthetic fibers which really means we're wearing oil too.

Supply/Demand for Oil and Suggestions For More Info

I've been meaning to write a short explaination of why gas prices go up so much when supply is cut minimally. I found an article that does a good job of explaining it. See Oil and economics: Cutting through the spin. I was impressed with the facsnet.org site and recommend it for primers on energy issues.

Also found the following site which I haven't gotten through much of yet but it also is packed with great information: www.gravmag.com.

It should be noted that most of the figures talking about oil resources are talking about conventional oil resources. For instance, Dispelling ‘Urban myths’ about the oil market says "the earth has about 2.5 trillion barrels of oil." This does not take into account oil found in other forms like shale oil (2.7 tillion) and tar sands(? not sure). With that said, the cost of getting oil from non-conventional sources is much more expensive.
EIA estimates $9.18 per barrel cost for 2002-2004. Compare that to the $30 per barrel Shell estimates it will cost to recover the shale oil with their newest processes. If I understand it right, tar sands are more expensive to recover.

Today's Luncheon with Merrill Cook

I attended a luncheon put on by Merrill Cook today in Orem. This was my first exposure to Congressman Cook (two term Congressman for UT 2nd District) and I was not able to do any research ahead of time to see where has was on issues of interest to me.

Immigration

He spoke for a long time about illegal immigration. The impression I got was he wanted no mercy for anyone here now illegally unless the went home first and any measure to bring them into legality was amnesty and therefore horrible. He talked about removing magnets that attract them here illegally, (in-state tuition, healthcare, drivers licenses, etc). I was disappointed that even when given the opportunity by two comments (one from a naturalized citizen and another from myself) to talk about legal immigration he spent only a few sentences on it. He didn't seem interested in making it easier to immigrate here legally, which is my mind would be the best way to start on the problem.

From my perspective, massive amounts of people wanting to immigrate to the U.S. is a sign of our success. I think that thought gets lost in the debate about our "illegal immigration problems."

He did say at one point that he would really like us to wait on changing immigration laws and start to enforce the ones we have. If he hadn't lost me at that point on this issue, he did there.

This was discussed for a long time, so I'm not doing the conversation justice here by any means.

Energy

After a large portion of the crowd had left, I got a chance to change the subject to energy. Previous to my questions, Cook said he has a mining business on the west side of Utah lake and that he had been on the Transportation Committee when he was previously in the House. I was hoping that he had thought more about energy issues than his responses led me to believe. I prefaced my comments letting him know I ride a scooter which gets 85 MPG. I brought up the 10 mil. barrels/day from Shale Oil estimate, the $30 per barrel cost that Shell estimated to get it, U.S. current use of 20 Mil. barrels/day and world consumption of 83 bil./day. His first response was that he voted for drilling in ANWR, and then talked very briefly about about the price of gas and how much of that was tax, to which I responded that I think it would be great if gas went to $5.00 a gallon as that might get people to act on the issue.
I also said that last summer the supply of gas dropped 5% and the price of gas went up by 50%, why? Because we as individuals don't change our behavour in relation to the price. (Inelastic demand) (It's more complicated than that of couse but that's a large reason in my mind.) I ranted a bit about how much the government subsidizes our Interstates, roads, etc which probably was not productive in that setting but so many comments had been made about getting the government out of various areas I could help but point out this one as well.

I was glad he actually used the word conservation a couple times, but he continued to give feel-good points about increasing the supply. I finnaly cut him off, to say that I think we need to address this from the demand side also and asked him if he would support an increase in the CAFE standards (car fuel efficiency) and he responded he would not. He then talked about supporting legislation that helped bring us more efficient appliances and a couple other things. Saving electricity is good, but we were talking about oil/gas not electricity, (I'm sure he didn't intentionally change the topic, but he did none the less). He expressed confidence in the ingenuity of people to find solutions and then a bit about hydrogen powered cars and fuel cells.

Hybrid cars were asked about by someone else, but I didn't follow exactly what the question was aimed at or Cook's response.

Needless to say I was disappointed on Cook's responses, but hopefully it got a few people thinking about it who were still there.