Bruce Schneier is my hero.
If you set up the false dichotomy, of course people will choose security over privacy — especially if you scare them first. But it’s still a false dichotomy. There is no security without privacy. And liberty requires both security and privacy. The famous quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin reads: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” It’s also true that those who would give up privacy for security are likely to end up with neither.
H/T Agitator
Many others have written excellent farewells.
I’ve decided to write about the one time I stood near President Hinckley and locked eyes with him.
I had the opportunity to sing in the choir at the dedication of the Bountiful Temple soon after I returned home from my mission. President Hinckley was presiding over the session of the dedication I was attending. It was very close quarters in the celestial room where the service was being held and I ended up standing right behind President Hinckley who was the first councilor in the first presidency at the time. As we filed into the room to sing each musical number he watched us squeeze into the space behind the row he was sitting on. He always smiled at the choir as we came into the room.
As it came time to do the Hosanna Shout and then sing the Hosanna Anthem at the closing of the service I joined everyone else in the temple in waving my handkerchief while speaking the words of the shout. As the shout commenced I accidently hit President Hinckley in the head with my handkerchief. He wasn’t visibly distracted at all (I didn’t whip him very hard) and after the shout he turned around and smiled at me. It was kind of cool. As we sang the “Hosanna Anthem” he turned around and watched us for a few moments. It was cool to see someone who has likely had to listen to that song so many hundreds of times (there were 16 sessions of the Bountiful Temple dedication) clearly enjoy the spirit and the music at that dedication ceremony. I’ll always remember his blue/grey eyes and the smile he had when he looked at me.
Its kind of dumb I know…the one second’s worth of attention I received from President Hinckley came because I whipped him in the head with a handkerchief but I’ll always remember that and it will always be meaningful to me. I didn’t really know President Hinckley but I believe he was a great man and the world is poorer for his absence.
Daniel posted this story from the telegraph which discusses a poll of doctors in Britain who believe medical procedures in their National Healthcare System should be withheld from the old or obese. I’ve stated before that I believe single payer healthcare solutions create a situation where government takes more responsibility than ever for engineering “acceptable” behavior. This story supports my concerns.
From the Telegraph:
Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.
Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.
Fertility treatment and “social” abortions are also on the list of procedures that many doctors say should not be funded by the state.
Admittedly most doctors in Britain aren’t saying things like this but a sizeable percentage are. I think a system like the British one garantees that in the long run government has a much greater stake in its citizens lives than it should. We don’t need something like that in the U.S.
Pete Ashdown and XMission will be forced to shut down the free wi-fi system XMission has basically donated to downtown SLC if Rep Daw’s HB139 is passed. HB139 introduces civil penalties if a minor is able to access any pronogrphy over public wireless internet.
We need fewer efforts on the part of legislators like Rep. Daw to protect us from pornography and more action aimed at making sure families have the tools to ensure their families can safely use the internet. XMission has done an awesome job at this. Check out Pete Ashdown’s statement in response to Rep. Daw’s lack of foresight.
I’ve griped about it and I’ve read other people griping about it too but I’ve recently come to the conclusion that arguments against Utah’s current campaign finance system are often more flawed than the system itself. Calls for banning lobbyist gifts or limiting campaign contributions will only result in money being pushed to candidates through different channels. What we need is a system that maximizes freedom of speech (and no matter what anyone says money in politics equals speech) and that allows citizens to have a full and complete knowledge of who is bankrolling the candidates.
Some may complain that my favored policy approach won’t change the way people vote and they may be right but that doesn’t mean that we need to implement many of the restrictions some have called for. They just won’t make any real difference in preventing money from going to candidates and there is a good chance that Utahns will know even less about who politicians are beholden to under a more restrictive system.
In the end it doesn’t matter. Until Utahns realize how damaging it is to keep voting for “the good guys” foisted on them by the Republican Party crazies caucus participants no change in the campaign finance system is going to make any real difference.
Early voting started today and according to the poll workers I was the first Democrat to vote at the Court House. I’m just going to assume I’m the first in the whole county. Go Obama 2008!
If you think about it my vote was probably the first one cast in Davis County that actually matters. Romney will run away with Utah’s Republican primary so there isn’t really a contest on that side. Yay me!
Sen. Greg Bell is asing for comment on SB16, a bill he has proposed that will provide monetary compensation for innocents who were wrongly convicted but later proven to be innocent (not the jokers who get out on a technicality).
This seems like a good idea. My only concern is that the law would only compensate victims at a rate equal to the average yearly wage in Utah for each year the innocent was confined up to 15 years. It seems to me that when we’ve screwed up this badly that we owe these people a lot more than that.
It is too bad we can’t take the money needed to pay for this out of the salary or pension of the prosecutors who wrongly put these people in jail.
Some of the usual sources are whining about successful efforts by legislators to eliminate a proposal to garantee healthcare for all Utahns. Their complaints about this proposal being killed behind closed doors resonate with me but I’m glad this wrongheaded idea was whacked. We need to provide help to those in our society who need it but universal healthcare is just an obviously stupid idea.
Why did the conservatives in our legislature feel like they needed to do this in such a sneaky manner? The arguments against this idea aren’t that hard and the positives of creating a program focused on helping our poorest residents should be pretty easy to explain.
If sweetened beers really do “represent nothing less than an insidious ploy to introduce our kids into the liquor industry and their products” then Sen. Buttars is probably right. They should be sold in liquor stores instead of in grocery stores. I’d be willing to bet that “alcopops” aren’t nearly the problem that my church leaders/legislators (sometimes it is a bit hard to tell the difference between these groups) think they are but if these beverages are really a problem then getting them off the shelves represents good government policy.
I think we should use the empty shelf space at the grocery store for a safer alcoholic product that won’t appeal nearly as much to our impressionable youth. Wine. Thats right…wine. It ticks me off that I can’t buy decent wine to cook with at the grocery store. Having to make a special trip to the liquor store just so I can get actual marsala stinks.
So here is my message to Utah’s legislature. Lets save the children by moving the scary sugary alcohol off of store shelves while at the same time making it easier to cook a delicious meal by letting Utah’s adults, Mormon and non-Mormon, have easier access to good wine…strictly for cooking of course…
UPDATE: 1/18/08 6:42AM
Dan and For The People have posts up that discuss this issue. I think both of them are right in pointing out that the LDS church’s press release is a more a result of anti-alcohol policy than any data that points to these drinks being especially harmful to young people. The word of wisdom is pretty clear and I’m willing to obey it. I just don’t get why my church needs to lobby our government so much to prevent alcohol use by people who don’t share our beliefs.
Of course ONN has the only useful discussion of this years electioneering in both primaries. Thank you ONN!
Is it surprising that Utah’s Republican politicians won’t pass any real ethics reform? Not really.
Politicians shouldn’t be reaping such huge financial rewards from entities subject to their legislative efforts. That should be basic common sense.
UPDATE: 01/15/2008 3:08PM
Tom at For The People did an excellent job summing up most of the commentary on this issue.
